Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[Maia]

18 hours ago, Morte said:

And while Jaime broke his oath for the greater good in this moment, not thinking about his family and his own honour (not talking about his reasons, not even to his LC, who would have at least understood him), Jon's oath breaking is the exact opposite: Jon's is breaking his oath for his family and his own feelings.

Though, to be fair, Jaime almost immediately sacrificed most of the moral credit for saving KL on the altar of his pride, when he refused to explain the wildfire plot to his fathers' men / Ned. Because he may have saved KL from being torched intentionally, but at the same time left it sitting under Damocles' sword of going up at any time due to an accidental fire. All because he couldn't bear to be seen trying to offer what might have looked like excuses for his act. Killing all the top pyromancers involved in the plot only ensured that the caches couldn't be found.

And, of course, Jaime had been unwilling to pay the price for his actions either - which, honorably, should have been removing himself from KG, preferrably taking the black. But that pales in comparison to his willfully leaving inhabitants of KL in hideous danger for decade and a half just because he was in a snit for people "judging" him. They have been very, very lucky not to get immolated by chance so far, but they aren't wholly out of danger, because some hidden caches can still be around and getting more potent and flammable all the time.

I love Jaime's character, but even when he is trying to do good/ be honorable, he is prone to being self-centered and dangerously blinkered. See also his cruel and unnecessary disclosure to Tyrion about Tysha, which has destroyed his little brother - hopefully, temporarily. 

But, yea, completely different motivation for oath-breaking than Jon's and arguably a morally superior one.

 

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 So now it's Jon's fault the rest of the realm is at war? Stannis was going to fight the Boltons any which way it went. 

Jon was all for Stannis continuing the war against Boltons and lords currently allied with them, one way or another, instead of making even an attempt to find common ground with them against an enemy who apparently wants to exterminate humanity.  Yet, curiously, it is the people opposed to alliance with the Weeper (who is as bad as Boltons or worse) and Mance (who is a faithless oathbreaker who had been an enemy of NW and the North for a decade or so), that are called prejudiced and biased. Pot, kettle?

Re: Jon not knowing whether the Others can be negotiated with - I was just pointing out that trying to do so is not, necessarily, wrong and something that only Boltons would/should try, because they are evil. 

But Jon certainly failed to find out anything new about them - one of his arguments in favor of alliance with wildlings had been that the wildlings have privileged knowledge about the Others. So far, they have told him zip and he has been too distracted by extranious stuff to ask. And  if he truly wanted to study wights or to convince the northern lords of the danger/ justify his alliance with wildlings to them, he should have demanded that Tormund's people bring a couple of wights to the Wall as a part of agreement to let them through. A moving wight limb wouldn't rot in winter and would be much more convincing to the northmen than letters, which are bound to  sound unbelievably fantastical.

 

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think it's a little dramatic to say Jon has unleashed the enemy on the North. This is hardly what has happened. 

? Like most other wildling leaders, Mance is a notorious raider. He had killed and robbed enough northeners and NW brothers to establish a reputation that allowed him to make a bid for the "king-beyond the -Wall" title. He intended to attack the North. He is also demonstrably faithless to non-wildlings.

Frankly, Jon's advocacy for the man always seemed insane to me. It is like he is hypnotised. I mean, here is a man, who has already demonstrated that his word is worth nothing, who has turned on the "kneelers" who have taken him in once, killed a number of them and got away with it.

What a great example for the other wildlings re: keeping their promises to NW  and such an incentive for the crows and the northeners to trust their new wildling brothers and allies!

It is one thing to ally with somebody who has been a honest enemy, like Tormund. Mance is quite another matter and his going off the script and doing his own thing should have been entirely expected.

 

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The Wildlings don't have to stay at the wall to be fed though. There is a whole realm of places they can go to feed themselves.

Is this an euphemism for them killing and robbing the northeners for their foodstores? Because, it is winter and we know and Jon knows that there isn't even enough laid aside and not enough sources of food persisting through the season for the northeners themselves. Both the clan chiefs and Alys Karstark told him as much. They expect a lot of deaths due to starvation.

Wildlings came with nothing. They counted on plundering what they needed. They probaly could have peacefully settled in the North and fed themselves if they had years of summer and autumn to prepare - though the best places for settlement are likely already taken. But it is too late.

 

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Bodies in & of itself are not dangerous but because we know that those bodies turn into wights & start killing people that makes them a substantial amount more dangerous than letting living, breathing, humans on this side of the wall - especially when that is more people to fight for you instead of against you. 

On the contrary. Wights on the other side of an adequatly defended magical Wall are far less dangerous than lack of defenders of the same due to starvation and in-fighting. A soldier atop a normal wall is worth 20 or so at the foot of it. Multiply that for a huge magical Wall and very flammable wights.

Yes, this is a cold equation, so to speak, but then survival in the North in winter generally is, even without supernatural enemies. And one of Jon's flaws as LC is that, as somebody who has  only lived through some very short and mild winters in early childhood and then an almost 10-year-long summer, he just doesn't understand true winter and stark choices that it imposes on his people.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

 The Oaths, I see them more akin to slavery.

So, all those Stark vassals should just free themselves, yes? Why should they endanger or sacrifice themselves for Stark interests?  Isn't it slavery, enforced by threat of violence?

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Who but slaves dies at their post, are beheaded if they leave?

Better to behead them as soon as they are sentenced, justly or no, right?

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I see no honor in tricking unaware children to serve for life.

Better for them to starve or become criminals (and get executed or mutilated when caught)? And it isn't like they don't see how things are at the Wall or can't leave before comitting themselves, if they haven't been sentenced. The perspective of regular meals, housing and clothing doesn't look that bad to Hot Pies and Lommy Greenhands of that world.

 

17 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I see no honor in sentencing people for life for minor crimes, like stealing food for their children.

Nobody is  purposefully sentencing people to provide the manpower to NW. It is just that those who are sentenced have an alternative to execution/mutilation, a chance to lead a productive life, to be fed and clothed.

And don't forget how an option to send a defeated and captured enemy to the Wall helped to avoid unnecessary slaughter and blood feuds.

Basically, removing NW would only lead to more deaths and mutilations instead. You may consider that to be an improvement, but I am more in favor of second chances, even limited ones. But for these second chances to exist, oaths have to be kept.

 

16 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

How so?  How is it wrong to try and protect an innocent girl from being raped and enslaved by Ramsay?

What about the Weeper, who is as bad or worse? Jon seems to be OK with leaving his victims in his clutches, in the name of a very dubious chance of unifying against the Others.

 

16 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

 

Why is "taking sides" in northern politics such a bad thing, when everyone else is doing it and the Watch is suffering either way?

Because it is liable to distract NW from their purpose and divert their manpower from the Wall at a crucial time? As exemplified by Jon's debacle.

 

12 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Jon belongs in the same category as Ramsay and Cersei.  Bad ruling potential.  He would be equally as bad in ruling as those two if they were all in a position to rule. 

Ok, no. I may be critical of Jon, but IMHO he has makings of a good ruler - _if_ he learns the right lessons from his mistakes. His intentions are good and he has some good, unorthdox ideas, but he needs to learn to think things through, to look at situations from several angles, to truly listen to his critics (even a stopped clock is right occasionally!) and to cut his losses when necessary.

I very much think that Jon and Dany's storylines were intended as mirroring  failure-states of leadership  by promising, but immature rulers - too little compromise with local establishement versus too much.

And while it is true that GRRM portrayed Jon's thought processes and internal justifications in more  analytical detail and more compellingly (he tends to do it better with male characters than female ones, I have noticed), and that the setting that he is placed in and many people that he interacts with are more vividly depicted, not to mention very thoroughly established as characters from the earliest volumes of the saga, still his opponents have been quite strawmanish, so I can see how he looks more competent and sympathetic to some.

But, IMHO, it was not the author's intention to depict Jon as infallible and as having reached the pinnacle of his potential as a leader, but to show his growing pains, flaws and the difficulty of command / rule in general.

YMMV.

[Leo of House Cartel]

Bowen may have been right to remove Jon from a technical/jobsworth standpoint, but c'mon, the whole deal was highly dishonourable and left the Watch in worse shape than it was with Jon and his atempts to head south.

Had Bowen been a bit more crafty, he would have let Jon and the Wildlings head to Winterfell - It would rid the Wall of several Wildlings and Jon may have died anyway, achieving the same result as "for the watch". Should Snow manage to rescue Stannis and co then there would be more numbers to help Marsh and his pals fight the dead. Instead we get a cack handed assasination attempt which dragged the whole of Castle Black into a potential power vacum it really could do without.

Bowen and co should have had more thought for the overall safety of their men, as well as the eleven ships full of Black Brothers apparently engaged in the mouth of hell at the moment up in Hardhome. By screwing Jon, the conspirators and everyone else at Catle Black risk a toxic situation with the Free Folk, regarless of Jon's body potentially being hidden from Tormund's crew. Another battle at the Wall, before the Others arrive, is the last thing the Watch needs!

How will the Tall Talker's planned mission to Hard Home go now Jon is dead? I can't imagine the wildlings wanting to head off on some bullshit rescue mission to save some Crows when their main liason has been killed/vanished. That's some great foresight and loyalty from Bowen Marsh to his "brothers".

In regards to Jon bringing the Wildlings through the Wall, should he not be viewed in a similiar manner to Jaehaerys I? He brokered a peace between two rival sides who had been warring for many moons. If not for the bigotry displayed by certain brothers and wildlings, Lord Snow could, and rightfully should, be nicknamed "Jon, The Concilliator".

As to Jon's "treasonous" call to attack Winterfell; as rash as his speech in the Shieldhall may have been, the pink letter made clear threats to the Watch's overall safety, at a time when the dead are creeping closer. The letter also mentioned how Snow's little sister was being persued by a madman who threatens to make skin cloaks from Mance's crew.

What exactly would everyone in this thread have done in Jon's situation? "Oh, I'll just let my faviroute sibling, aswell as one of my main military resources and my family home rot in the pits, all because of the details of my employment contract?" I can't speak for anyone else but something tells me such a responce wouldn't fly.

Jon Snow didn't have an Arya or a Reek to give Ramsay back, so surley Ramsay would come North for blood anyway?

At the end of the day it's Jon's call as Lord Commander to do as he sees fit to guard the relms of men. Winterfell and Catle Black meet the quota. By the letters contents, Castle Black risked a full scale assault from the rear, whilst also waiting for the Others to attack the Wall. If the Watch is wiped out then who defends the realms of men?

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

44 minutes ago, Maia said:

Jon was all for Stannis continuing the war against Boltons and lords currently allied with them, one way or another, instead of making even an attempt to find common ground with them against an enemy who apparently wants to exterminate humanity.  Yet, curiously, it is the people opposed to alliance with the Weeper (who is as bad as Boltons or worse) and Mance (who is a faithless oathbreaker who had been an enemy of NW and the North for a decade or so), that are called prejudiced and biased. Pot, kettle?

Re: Jon not knowing whether the Others can be negotiated with - I was just pointing out that trying to do so is not, necessarily, wrong and something that only Boltons would/should try, because they are evil. 

But Jon certainly failed to find out anything new about them - one of his arguments in favor of alliance with wildlings had been that the wildlings have privileged knowledge about the Others. So far, they have told him zip and he has been too distracted by extranious stuff to ask. And  if he truly wanted to study wights or to convince the northern lords of the danger/ justify his alliance with wildlings to them, he should have demanded that Tormund's people bring a couple of wights to the Wall as a part of agreement to let them through. A moving wight limb wouldn't rot in winter and would be much more convincing to the northmen than letters, which are bound to  sound unbelievably fantastical.

It doesn't matter that Jon was all for it. The blame for that cannot be laid at his feet. He didn't start that fight & it was going to happen whether Jon wanted it to or not. It's not his responsibility to negotiate a truce between Stannis & the Boltons - that would be taking part in the matters of the realm.

He could have & probably should have tried to steer Stannis toward the real enemy. Stannis is right there with him & Jon has ample opportunity to speak with him & get him to see the truth. The same can't be said of Ramsay. Secondly, he did send ravens asking for help, Stannis is the only one that answers. 

I agree the Boltons aren't evil for hypothetically trying to negotiate with the others, I was just pointing out that Jon pissing off Ramsay isn't going to change how the Boltons react to an invasion by the others. 

I completely agree Jon could have done much & more to learn more about the Others. 

54 minutes ago, Maia said:

Like most other wildling leaders, Mance is a notorious raider. He had killed and robbed enough northeners and NW brothers to establish a reputation that allowed him to make a bid for the "king-beyond the -Wall" title. He intended to attack the North. He is also demonstrably faithless to non-wildlings.

Frankly, Jon's advocacy for the man always seemed insane to me. It is like he is hypnotised. I mean, here is a man, who has already demonstrated that his word is worth nothing, who has turned on the "kneelers" who have taken him in once, killed a number of them and got away with it.

What a great example for the other wildlings re: keeping their promises to NW  and such an incentive for the crows and the northeners to trust their new wildling brothers and allies!

It is one thing to ally with somebody who has been a honest enemy, like Tormund. Mance is quite another matter and his going off the script and doing his own thing should have been entirely expected.

I thought you were referring to releasing The Others on the North. Sorry for misunderstanding. 

I guess I see it as calling a truce to fight against a common enemy. Jon only has a few choices where the wildlings are concerned: Either leave them North of the wall to starve & then turn into wights to attack the wall again or let them in & try to negotiate with them. I feel he made the right choice here. 

Mance may have agreed to infiltrate WF for his own reasons BUT he did do what he was sent to do. 

58 minutes ago, Maia said:

s this an euphemism for them killing and robbing the northeners for their foodstores? Because, it is winter and we know and Jon knows that there isn't even enough laid aside and not enough sources of food persisting through the season for the northeners themselves. Both the clan chiefs and Alys Karstark told him as much. They expect a lot of deaths due to starvation.

Wildlings came with nothing. They counted on plundering what they needed. They probaly could have peacefully settled in the North and fed themselves if they had years of summer and autumn to prepare - though the best places for settlement are likely already taken. But it is too late.

 

Agreed & undoubtedly many of them will do just that. But no I was suggesting something more along the lines of the wildlings integrating themselves into the population of the whole realm. Traveling somewhere the food is more plentiful. 

Again he was left with a hard choice & considering the repercussions of both he made the right decision IMO. 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

On the contrary. Wights on the other side of an adequatly defended magical Wall are far less dangerous than lack of defenders of the same due to starvation and in-fighting. A soldier atop a normal wall is worth 20 or so at the foot of it. Multiply that for a huge magical Wall and very flammable wights.

Yes, this is a cold equation, so to speak, but then survival in the North in winter generally is, even without supernatural enemies. And one of Jon's flaws as LC is that, as somebody who has  only lived through some very short and mild winters in early childhood and then an almost 10-year-long summer, he just doesn't understand true winter and stark choices that it imposes on his people.

By that logic why be worried about the Others at all? They are on the other side of the wall so the realm is safe?

I do agree Jon Snow know's nothing of the ways of winter. He is a sweet summer child. 

[The Fattest Leech]

Jon Snow hate threads are thirsty, thirsty places. 

[Morte]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

a lot of important and interesting things about Jaime and Jon, respectively

I agree with you here. I don't want to argue that Jaime was right to break his oath, as sure it would have been other and better ways to stop the king's plan and care for the rest of the royal family, preventing the massacre.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

Though, to be fair, Jaime almost immediately sacrificed most of the moral credit for saving KL on the altar of his pride, when he refused to explain the wildfire plot to his fathers' men / Ned. Because he may have saved KL from being torched intentionally, but at the same time left it sitting under Damocles' sword of going up at any time due to an accidental fire. All because he couldn't bear to be seen trying to offer what might have looked like excuses for his act. Killing all the top pyromancers involved in the plot only ensured that the caches couldn't be found.

And, of course, Jaime had been unwilling to pay the price for his actions either - which, honorably, should have been removing himself from KG, preferrably taking the black. But that pales in comparison to his willfully leaving inhabitants of KL in hideous danger for decade and a half just because he was in a snit for people "judging" him. They have been very, very lucky not to get immolated by chance so far, but they aren't wholly out of danger, because some hidden caches can still be around and getting more potent and flammable all the time.

I love Jaime's character, but even when he is trying to do good/ be honorable, he is prone to being self-centered and dangerously blinkered.

True. He is arrogant and self-righteous, the last thing gets better since the beginning of his redemption arc and his contact with Brienne. While he still had his sword hand Jaime was the master of self delusion and will-full non-thinking, he had to loose his hand to even his Überich to reach him.

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Something I found interesting as I have also suggested setting up defenses south of the Wall would have been the better route. From the wiki:

 

"After the defeat of the Night's King, the rule was enforced that the castles of the Night's Watch along the Wall should never be fortified against approach from the south, so that they cannot oppose the lands south of the Wall which they are meant to defend. The downfall of the Night's King also resulted in the strict enforcement of the rule that the Night's Watch is meant to be politically neutral, as guardians who do not "rule" the Wall but who serve the realms of men."

So really he would have been breaking the rules to do that also. 

True. But I do think that it would have been much easier to make the NW accept building defences, then to march on WF with Wildlings.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

19 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Jon belongs in the same category as Ramsay and Cersei.  Bad ruling potential.  He would be equally as bad in ruling as those two if they were all in a position to rule. 

Ok, no. I may be critical of Jon, but IMHO he has makings of a good ruler - _if_ he learns the right lessons from his mistakes. His intentions are good and he has some good, unorthdox ideas, but he needs to learn to think things through, to look at situations from several angles, to truly listen to his critics (even a stopped clock is right occasionally!) and to cut his losses when necessary.

I very much think that Jon and Dany's storylines were intended as mirroring  failure-states of leadership  by promising, but immature rulers - too little compromise with local establishement versus too much.

And while it is true that GRRM portrayed Jon's thought processes and internal justifications in more  analytical detail and more compellingly (he tends to do it better with male characters than female ones, I have noticed), and that the setting that he is placed in and many people that he interacts with are more vividly depicted, not to mention very thoroughly established as characters from the earliest volumes of the saga, still his opponents have been quite strawmanish, so I can see how he looks more competent and sympathetic to some.

But, IMHO, it was not the author's intention to depict Jon as infallible and as having reached the pinnacle of his potential as a leader, but to show his growing pains, flaws and the difficulty of command / rule in general.

 

Agree.

Criticising a character for the things we should see as mistakes/failures is not hate. Both Dany and Jon will learn from their mistakes in ADwD, hopefully already in TWoW (if it will ever be published ).

[And yes, Dany's plot is heavily suffering from never-been-intended-to-be-written; Jon's not so much, as characters and setting are a lot more fleshed out, being introduced earlier and also plot-relevant until the very end of the series.]

[BalerionTheCat]

4 hours ago, Maia said:

So, all those Stark vassals should just free themselves, yes? Why should they endanger or sacrifice themselves for Stark interests?  Isn't it slavery, enforced by threat of violence?

IMO, the Stark vassals are free to leave any time they want. They would just become the prey of their ambitious neighbors. The oaths gave them the right to rule and do justice in the Starks' name. They marry who they want. It has nothing to do with the personal oaths forced most of the time on the NW men.

You know, not every man at the Wall was a criminal deserving death. Hot Pie would not have found his desire there.

[Clegane'sPup]

The Night’s Watch sent out ravens asking for help against the Wildlings. No one answered their plea except for Stannis. Stannis did not do so until Davos who was taught to read by Maester Pylos brought a letter before Stannis and said  ---- paraphrasing ---- Stannis could win the realm if Stannis helped save the realm.

A Storm of Swords - Davos V           Davos flattened down the little square of crinkled parchment and squinted at the tiny crabbed letters. Reading was hard on the eyes, that much he had learned early. Sometimes he wondered if the Citadel offered a champion's purse to the maester who wrote the smallest hand. Pylos had laughed at the notion, but . . .      "To the . . . five kings," read Davos, hesitating briefly over five, which he did not often see written out. "The king . . . be . . . the king . . . beware?"         "Beyond," the maester corrected.      Davos grimaced. "The King beyond the Wall comes . . . comes south. He leads a . . . a . . . fast . . ."    "Vast."    ". . . a vast host of wil . . . wild . . . wildlings. Lord M . . . Mmmor . . . Mormont sent a . . . raven from the . . . ha . . . ha . . ."      "Haunted. The haunted forest." Pylos underlined the words with the point of his finger.     ". . . the haunted forest. He is . . . under a . . . attack?"

I can't merely pick an instance/situation and debate it to death. Martin has written a looooooooooooog story that eventually needs to make sense. Jon Snow was not LC at the time Davos brought the letter to Stannis.  The choosing of LC came later.  Stannis decides to go north. Having arrived at East Watch he and his troops arrive outside Castle Black and brake Mance and the wildlings.

In story the only help the NW received was from Stannis.  Stannis wants to liberate WF so that the North will ally with his cause.

It is a long frekking story. I know Bolton conspired with Lannister & Frey to kill the King of the North (which is another story). I know that the seat of power of Westeros is based in KL under Lannister rule under the guise that Robert’s children are his true born children.

Story wise the newly elected LC Snow, Stannis and the wildlings know who their enemy is. The rest of Westeros does not think that the Other’s & their wights exist.

The purpose of Stannis winning WF is to recruit the North to his cause. He has claimed the Night Fort as his seat at the Wall (a contradiction in of itself) and he plans on returning there to fight the Others after the WF situation is dealt with (which is another story). 

Why do people insist that Jon broke his vows for Arya? The pink/bastard letter clearly states that Ramsey does not have her.  “I want my bride back.”

 

[Quoth the raven,]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As I've said earlier in this threat, the Jaime thing is a very bad example. The man killed his king because he could do it and (hoped to) get away with it, not because it was a thing he had to do it. If he had truly cared about his vows he would have tried to keep both by only killing Rossart and distracting, arresting, or knocking out Aerys II until such time as the Lannister forces had arrived in the throne room - they were only minutes or seconds away, anyway, when Jaime decided to murder the man. We know that because Tywin's men caught Jaime red-handed in front of the royal corpse. We know he intended to quietly sneak out of the throne room to make the death of that king as much a mystery as the death of Maegor had been.

But if you look at the facts Jaime didn't have to kill Aerys II to save KL. His actions and demeanor indicate he wanted to kill the man to punish him for his real and attempted crimes - something that's understandable, considering Jaime's youth and Aerys' madness, but it is not something we should praise him for. It shows the very obvious tendency in Jaime Lannister that no one but he himself can judge his actions and motivations. He is the lion who is not judged by the lesser animals. And that's the reason why he never explained his actions to anyone later on, because nobody can or deserves to understand what's going on in Jaime Lannister's heart.

In regards to Jon, the boy actually goes to the Wall out of petty ambition and a wish to prove himself worthy of being a Stark. He suffers from being raised as a bastard, and considers the Watch as a way out of the miserable life of Jon Snow who is never going to be able to get a spot in the sun at Winterfell. That is his main motivation to take the black and the root of his sorrow when he realizes what the Watch actually is.

Sure, he eventually comes around to see the true purpose of the Watch as something important, just as he also recognizes the face of the true enemy. But he is not an idealist like Waymar Royce or Qhorin Halfhand. He did not take the black because he believed in the Others or the sacred mission of the black knights of the Wall. Nor was he ever able to really commit himself to the mission the same way most of his brothers did.

A big, strapping lad like Jaime could easily over power the frail King Aerys and take him to safety.  He chose instead to kill him.  Jaime held a lot of resentment because Aerys kept him out of the Harrenhal tourney.  Jaime was loyal to his family more so than he was loyal to his king.  And that highlights one of the main issues talked about on this forum.  Family loyalties and attachments compromise a person's dedication to his duties. 

Jaime hated his king and had no problem killing him.  It was personal.  If it had been his father, Tyrion, or Cersei ordering the burning of the city,  I don't think Jaime would have killed them. 

[Quoth the raven,]

4 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Why do people insist that Jon broke his vows for Arya? The pink/bastard letter clearly states that Ramsey does not have her.  “I want my bride back.”

Because Jon broke his vows for Arya.  The pink letter just exposed his betrayal of the night watch to the public.  He was already guilty of many treasons.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

5 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The Night’s Watch sent out ravens asking for help against the Wildlings. No one answered their plea except for Stannis. Stannis did not do so until Davos who was taught to read by Maester Pylos brought a letter before Stannis and said  ---- paraphrasing ---- Stannis could win the realm if Stannis helped save the realm.

A Storm of Swords - Davos V           Davos flattened down the little square of crinkled parchment and squinted at the tiny crabbed letters. Reading was hard on the eyes, that much he had learned early. Sometimes he wondered if the Citadel offered a champion's purse to the maester who wrote the smallest hand. Pylos had laughed at the notion, but . . .      "To the . . . five kings," read Davos, hesitating briefly over five, which he did not often see written out. "The king . . . be . . . the king . . . beware?"         "Beyond," the maester corrected.      Davos grimaced. "The King beyond the Wall comes . . . comes south. He leads a . . . a . . . fast . . ."    "Vast."    ". . . a vast host of wil . . . wild . . . wildlings. Lord M . . . Mmmor . . . Mormont sent a . . . raven from the . . . ha . . . ha . . ."      "Haunted. The haunted forest." Pylos underlined the words with the point of his finger.     ". . . the haunted forest. He is . . . under a . . . attack?"

I can't merely pick an instance/situation and debate it to death. Martin has written a looooooooooooog story that eventually needs to make sense. Jon Snow was not LC at the time Davos brought the letter to Stannis.  The choosing of LC came later.  Stannis decides to go north. Having arrived at East Watch he and his troops arrive outside Castle Black and brake Mance and the wildlings.

In story the only help the NW received was from Stannis.  Stannis wants to liberate WF so that the North will ally with his cause.

It is a long frekking story. I know Bolton conspired with Lannister & Frey to kill the King of the North (which is another story). I know that the seat of power of Westeros is based in KL under Lannister rule under the guise that Robert’s children are his true born children.

Story wise the newly elected LC Snow, Stannis and the wildlings know who their enemy is. The rest of Westeros does not think that the Other’s & their wights exist.

The purpose of Stannis winning WF is to recruit the North to his cause. He has claimed the Night Fort as his seat at the Wall (a contradiction in of itself) and he plans on returning there to fight the Others after the WF situation is dealt with (which is another story). 

Why do people insist that Jon broke his vows for Arya? The pink/bastard letter clearly states that Ramsey does not have her.  “I want my bride back.”

 

 

Exactly!! 

I couldn't agree more & it would have done Jon absolutely no good to beg the realm for help against the Others - Something most of them will never believe even exist when they didn't come to help against the wildlings - Something they know exists. 

1 hour ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Because Jon broke his vows for Arya.  The pink letter just exposed his betrayal of the night watch to the public.  He was already guilty of many treasons.

This is hardly an answer. "Why do people insist Jon broke his vows for Arya? " "Because Jon broke his vows for Arya." ????

As Clegane'spup said it can't be for Arya because the PL very clearly states Ramsay doesn't have her. 

What betrayal did the PL expose to the NW? 

He was literally not guilty of one single treason at that point. (I don't think he is guilty of treason even after this but understand that some people see what he planned to do as treason) 

[The Fattest Leech]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Exactly!! 

I couldn't agree more & it would have done Jon absolutely no good to beg the realm for help against the Others - Something most of them will never believe even exist when they didn't come to help against the wildlings - Something they know exists. 

This is hardly an answer. "Why do people insist Jon broke his vows for Arya? " "Because Jon broke his vows for Arya." ????

As Clegane'spup said it can't be for Arya because the PL very clearly states Ramsay doesn't have her. 

What betrayal did the PL expose to the NW? 

He was literally not guilty of one single treason at that point. (I don't think he is guilty of treason even after this but understand that some people see what he planned to do as treason) 

Agreed.

Not only that, but earlier in ADWD Jon VI gets the wedding invite from Ramsay and Jon is surprised to hear #1 that Arya is alive, and #2 that she is close at Winterfell. Jon had thought all this time that Arya was dead. So Jon gets the invite from Ramsay, a known psycho in the North thanks to the events of Lady Hornwood to say the least, and to replay the history of the Stark/Bolton feud, but makes no move to get Arya from Ramsay then when he is most surprised to hear about her being alive. Jon even thinks of the life lesson he told to Arya to "stick them with the pointy end", and thinks Arya will stick Ramsay but it will mean her life. Nope. He does not even go running then.

Jon was going to Winterfell to preemptively stop Ramsay from attacking the wall... as Ramsay makes clear he will do.

Mance was to go to Long Lake to save Arya, a noble girl out in the snow dying as the LC of the NW knows the Others are close to pressing in. Sure it was his sister, but he would have saved anyone out there as he saved the thousands of free folk. That is why the author called Jon the "truest" character in the series with a "sense of realism".

I feel like all of this should be written down somewhere in an organized, yet pleasing to read manner. Someone should tell someone to write all of this down in maybe a book fashion, or something.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I feel like all of this should be written down somewhere in an organized, yet pleasing to read manner. Someone should tell someone to write all of this down in maybe a book fashion, or something.

That would be ever so helpful! Lol

[desire]

For a man who didn't believe in the old gods the man who passed the sentence should swing the sword good for him

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, desire said:

For a man who didn't believe in the old gods the man who passed the sentence should swing the sword good for him

Are you referring to Bowen? Except he had no authority to pass any sentence AND he didn't swing the sword. He gathered up mutineers & they jumped him. I don't think that's quite what Ned was referring to when he said that. 

[Tagganaro]

On 10/1/2017 at 8:31 AM, Maia said:

? Like most other wildling leaders, Mance is a notorious raider. He had killed and robbed enough northeners and NW brothers to establish a reputation that allowed him to make a bid for the "king-beyond the -Wall" title. He intended to attack the North. He is also demonstrably faithless to non-wildlings.

Frankly, Jon's advocacy for the man always seemed insane to me. It is like he is hypnotised. I mean, here is a man, who has already demonstrated that his word is worth nothing, who has turned on the "kneelers" who have taken him in once, killed a number of them and got away with it.

What a great example for the other wildlings re: keeping their promises to NW  and such an incentive for the crows and the northeners to trust their new wildling brothers and allies!

It is one thing to ally with somebody who has been a honest enemy, like Tormund. Mance is quite another matter and his going off the script and doing his own thing should have been entirely expected.

First of all, there is no hypnosis and Jon's "advocacy" for the man is not insane, indeed it's explicitly the opposite and stated as pragmatic.  Jon knows that Mance controls the wildlings and believes that the NW needs the wildlings and their numbers to defeat the Others.  I do think there's a healthy respect that Jon has for Mance which is only rational- Jon basically "grew up" watching Mance beyond the Wall over the course of ASOIAF and sees similarities between their low birth statuses.  What does "demonstrably faithless to non-wildlings" mean?  

On 10/1/2017 at 8:31 AM, Maia said:

What about the Weeper, who is as bad or worse? Jon seems to be OK with leaving his victims in his clutches, in the name of a very dubious chance of unifying against the Others.

You seem to be fixated on the Weeper, which is odd to me because the issues involving him are hypothetical.  Jon is of course willing to provide clemency to the Weeper in exchange for him serving the NW (which the NW has been doing since its inception anyway- providing clemency to criminals in exchange for service), but that has not happened yet nor do we know if it will happen.  In any case, I fail to see what Jon's views regarding the Weeper have to do with the situation with Ramsay- they are entirely different scenarios and have almost nothing in common save for both Ramsay and the Weeper being evil brutes.  Again, Jon takes a very pragmatic approach to the wildlings vs the Others- he is willing to "ally" with people he hates in order to defeat the Others.

Quote

Because it is liable to distract NW from their purpose and divert their manpower from the Wall at a crucial time? As exemplified by Jon's debacle.

The NW is being distracted from their purpose and having their manpower diverted or stifled to begin with by Marsh, Ramsay, Stannis, everyone in Westeros, etc.  The question is how you view the NW and their mission- I would argue that the books make it very clear that the NW has lost sight of its mission and purpose through centuries of incompetence, mismanagement, and mistreatment by Westerosi Lords.  I would further argue that the books make it very clear Jon is right about the wildlings vs the Others- it is a fight of the living vs the dead and the NW as currently constituted cannot afford to sit back and hide behind the Wall with depleted numbers while the Others continue to grow the Army of the Dead with the wildlings stuck beyond the Wall.

Quote

 

And while it is true that GRRM portrayed Jon's thought processes and internal justifications in more  analytical detail and more compellingly (he tends to do it better with male characters than female ones, I have noticed), and that the setting that he is placed in and many people that he interacts with are more vividly depicted, not to mention very thoroughly established as characters from the earliest volumes of the saga, still his opponents have been quite strawmanish, so I can see how he looks more competent and sympathetic to some.

But, IMHO, it was not the author's intention to depict Jon as infallible and as having reached the pinnacle of his potential as a leader, but to show his growing pains, flaws and the difficulty of command / rule in general.

 

Of course- nobody is arguing that Jon is infallible nor 100% correct in his reaction to the Pink Letter and his rule as LC in general.  That would be boring writing and a boring read.  But you said it yourself- Bowen marsh is a strawman caricature and it amazes me to see so many people sympathetic to him and his worldview.  

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

First of all, there is no hypnosis and Jon's "advocacy" for the man is not insane, indeed it's explicitly the opposite and stated as pragmatic.  Jon knows that Mance controls the wildlings and believes that the NW needs the wildlings and their numbers to defeat the Others.  I do think there's a healthy respect that Jon has for Mance which is only rational- Jon basically "grew up" watching Mance beyond the Wall over the course of ASOIAF and sees similarities between their low birth statuses.  What does "demonstrably faithless to non-wildlings" mean?  

You should reread the books some more. Mance is a traitor the Watch. He abandoned his brothers and then began actively hunting and killing them alongside his new 'people' after a disagreement over a piece of cloth. I really like Mance as a character, his story is one of the most compelling back stories in the series, but he is a mortal enemy of the NW, and he deserves to die for his crimes.

Not so much for deserting but for actively turning against and fighting the Watch, culminating in his mad war against the NW.

What did this man do after he realized that the Others were a thing and that he and his people could not stand against them? Did he send envoys to Castle Black to make a deal? Did he try to contact King Robert in distant King's Landing to try to make an alliance against this common enemy?

No. He gathered his men, assembled an army, and intended to crush the NW and conquer the lands south of the Wall so that his people would be safe. He didn't give shit about fighting the NW together.

Jon spent a couple of days with Mance. Mallister knew the man much longer. And Mance still betrayed him. How likely is it that such a man is going to be true to his word now? Perhaps he'll abandon Jon for another piece of cloth? Or some other stupid reason.

And this is just Mance. The other wildlings hate the Watch even more.

35 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

You seem to be fixated on the Weeper, which is odd to me because the issues involving him are hypothetical.  Jon is of course willing to provide clemency to the Weeper in exchange for him serving the NW (which the NW has been doing since its inception anyway- providing clemency to criminals in exchange for service), but that has not happened yet nor do we know if it will happen.  In any case, I fail to see what Jon's views regarding the Weeper have to do with the situation with Ramsay- they are entirely different scenarios and have almost nothing in common save for both Ramsay and the Weeper being evil brutes.  Again, Jon takes a very pragmatic approach to the wildlings vs the Others- he is willing to "ally" with people he hates in order to defeat the Others.

The Weeper was used by Mance as a tool to crush the Watch at the Bridge of Skulls. By Mance's own words he is one of the most powerful wildling chieftains and the one who effectively succeeded Mance as King-beyond-the-Wall. He is the one who is going to attack the Wall again, and soon. And he might succeed where Mance failed.

The connection to Ramsay is pretty obvious. The Weeper gets a free pass from Jon because Jon doesn't care about the men the Weeper and his men slew at the Bridge of Skulls. He can forgive or ignore that. But Jon does care about what Roose and Ramsay did to his family. And he cannot forgive or forget that. And that's why he does what he does instead of offering Roose or Ramsay the same kind of deal he intended to offer to the Weeper. Or why he doesn't send any envoys to King Tommen.

35 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

The NW is being distracted from their purpose and having their manpower diverted or stifled to begin with by Marsh, Ramsay, Stannis, everyone in Westeros, etc.  The question is how you view the NW and their mission- I would argue that the books make it very clear that the NW has lost sight of its mission and purpose through centuries of incompetence, mismanagement, and mistreatment by Westerosi Lords.  I would further argue that the books make it very clear Jon is right about the wildlings vs the Others- it is a fight of the living vs the dead and the NW as currently constituted cannot afford to sit back and hide behind the Wall with depleted numbers while the Others continue to grow the Army of the Dead with the wildlings stuck beyond the Wall.

So what? The wildlings are not that many, actually. If Jon could convince all of Westeros to join him they most likely would not need the wildlings, or would they? There are tens of millions of people in Westeros but the wildlings are only about 100,000 or so.

Saving the wildlings from the Others is the compassionate and nice thing to do but it is not the smart thing from a military point of view, especially on the longterm. The wildlings are hated in the North and thus taking them in might permanently sever the bond between the Watch and the North/the Seven Kingdoms. And then the Watch would be finished.

[Clegane'sPup]

19 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What betrayal did the PL expose to the NW? 

The pink/bastard letter in my opinion is the biggest mind fuck of the series coming in at a close second with Eddard’s bastard son’s mother and rivaling the Manderly Davos Wex BS.

The pink/bastard letter insinuates that Jon was in on the Rattleshirt Mance swithcharoo.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII      If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies.

16 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I feel like all of this should be written down somewhere in an organized, yet pleasing to read manner. Someone should tell someone to write all of this down in maybe a book fashion, or something.

That would be a full time job. Trying to make sense of Martin's story is going back two chapters and forward one chapter to try to figure out what is happening in the chapter that I am reading and then circling around to a previous book and rereading the chapter I started with.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The pink/bastard letter in my opinion is the biggest mind fuck of the series coming in at a close second with Eddard’s bastard son’s mother and rivaling the Manderly Davos Wex BS.

The pink/bastard letter insinuates that Jon was in on the Rattleshirt Mance swithcharoo.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII      If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies.

I agree fully about the PL. 

I don't see it as exposing any betrayal of Jon's to the NW though. He wasn't in on the switcharoo & only found out about it later. I get that is what the PL is insulting but we the readers know it isn't true so I was confused as to why Quoth the raven said it exposed Jon's betrayal. 

[Clegane'sPup]

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't see it as exposing any betrayal of Jon's to the NW though. He wasn't in on the switcharoo & only found out about it later.

I agree that LC Snow was not in on switch and found about it later.

The pink/bastard letter however insinuates that Jon was involved.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII      If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies.

22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Exactly!! 

Also I want to thank you for agreeing with me a few posts back.

31 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I was confused as to why Quoth the raven said it exposed Jon's betrayal. 

I guess we will have to wait until @Quoth the raven, replies.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The pink/bastard letter however insinuates that Jon was involved.

Oh yeah for sure. 

 

14 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Also I want to thank you for agreeing with me a few posts back.