Barbrey Dustin

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

487 posts in this topic

On 6/30/2017 at 1:18 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

Another generic Jon/Stark hate thread? 

Jeez, maybe instead of focusing on the stagnation of Westeros we should realize that what Jon is doing (thinking and acting honorably) is actually a step in the right direction. 

I love Jon and the Starks but denying he broke his oath is just intentionally blinding yourself to a character's faults,

flaws, and mistakes. 

On 6/30/2017 at 6:10 PM, King Ned Stark said:

Wanting to kill Jon for wanting to save a teenage girl who was kidnapped, tortured, and raped?  And for wanting to depose a man (Ramsay) who kidnaps, tortures, and rapes women?

I understand the thinking that a character is boring, cliche, etc.  But saying Jon Snow deserves to die?

Did he technically break the law?  I think so, maybe.  But I agree completely.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, it is his duty to do so.

1
"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."
―The Night's Watch oath
 
I am the shield that guards the realms of men, guarding the realms of men is about defending all people no matter how crappy they are. Jon Snow regardless of how he felt has to defend Cersei Lannister and Joffrey, even Ramsay and Roose Bolton for they are a part of the realms of men.you can't just pick and choose who you defend and who you don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Here GRRM clearly tells that even in a fantasy world remaining blatantly ignorant towards open threats will have dire consequences.   

Bowen Marsh tries to protect an already worn out status quo to cover his own ass. He has done what he had done not for the good of realm i think we all agree on that. Bowen and Co. are so deeply in denial they can't even see what is happening around them. There are ice demons coming to the kill all of them and the Kingdom is not the same Kingdom before of the WoT5K.

Jon simply sees that and acts accordingly. Does he has no fault or every action he takes is perfect? By all means no but claiming that Bowen was right to murder his LC is bs. And even title of this thread is wrong as if Bowen and Co. presented Jon with some papers and told him he was no longer LC. Jon wasn't removed from office he was murdered.

Edited by Wolf of The Wall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wolf of The Wall said:

...that Bowen was right to murder his LC is bs. And even title of this thread is wrong as if Bowen and Co. presented Jon with some papers and told him he was no longer LC. Jon wasn't removed from office he was murdered.

exactly.

personally I really like Jon and I appreciate his moral compass in a world that seems devoid of men who follow one.

- did he betray the watch by letting the wildlings in? Nope. he had every right to make that decision.

- is he an oathbreaker for giving aid to Stannis? nope, he was basically occupied by a stronger force.

- did he involve the watch in Westorosi politics by giving asylum to the Karstack girl? no. he gave guest right, as the watch does to everyone not attacking them.

- did he break his vows by convincing a small army of volunteers to attack Winterfell? I don't think so. not yet at least. he might be able to make the argument that the watch is being threatened. but if that's the argument he's making it is undercut by his asking for volunteers. he should be commanding his men. if he decides to treat this as a "personal matter", then I'd say that he's probably breaking his vows.if not by the action of leaving to do it, then probably by the way he supplies himself. if he uses watch resources without recompense then he's betraying the watch by reducing their supplies for his own personal gain.

If March and Co. thought he had broken his vows then he should have followed whatever sort of institutional process exists for removing an LC. the watch has had nearly a thousand LCs. they much have some sort of official procedure Section 12(C)(2)(c)(iv): "In the instance of the Lord Commander betraying the Watch lure him outdoors and stab him until dead."

Edited by myhalfgroat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

I love Jon and the Starks but denying he broke his oath is just intentionally blinding yourself to a character's faults,

flaws, and mistakes. 

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."
―The Night's Watch oath
 
I am the shield that guards the realms of men, guarding the realms of men is about defending all people no matter how crappy they are. Jon Snow regardless of how he felt has to defend Cersei Lannister and Joffrey, even Ramsay and Roose Bolton for they are a part of the realms of men.you can't just pick and choose who you defend and who you don't. 

Yeah, and until Ramsay threatened to destroy the Watch, Jon was content to do that. It was only after he received the Pink Letter that Jon decided to take direct action against the Bolton's. Was that breaking his oath? Yes, but there is literally no other option here. Ramsay demands things Jon can't give so the only way of making sure the watch remains standing is to defeat Ramsay. Not only that, but from a moral standpoint he's in the right as well. Holding to your oath 100% is not always the morally right thing to do, as Jaime showed when he killed Aerys.

On the other hand, as you clearly stated 'I am the shield that guards the realms of men' means you have to defend all people. One of the main reason's Bowen and his lackey's are opposed to Jon about is his stance on the wildlings. Yet according to that line of the oath, they have to protect the wildlings. In fact the entire NW has been in violation of that particular oath for as long as they've been fighting wildlings for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I am entirely sick of seeing threads like this at the top of the page.  Thank you @SFDanny, @Fire Eater, and @kissdbyfire for bringing reason into this iteration.  Bottom line:  Jon did what he thought was right - and was fairly accurate in doing so.  Moreover, the author makes clear Jon is wrestling with ethics midway through ADWD (Jon VIII, 515):

I'm glad Jon comes into his own and embraces leadership by the end of ADWD, even if it results in assassination.  Same way I'm glad Dany seems to embrace her own capacity and reject her semi-forced marriage.  Same way I'm glad Tyrion seems to embrace his Machiavellian abilities to support the "right" side by the end of ADWD, even if it's self interest.  And same way for Sansa and Arya too:

  Hide contents

In terms of Sansa playing the game with Harry the Heir and LF, and with Arya reclaiming her identity.

I'm glad about all of that because these are, quite clearly, the characters the author has emphasized we should root for (there are others of course).  Are they flawed?  Yeah, that's the point.  May they come in conflict with one another?  I sure hope so - what would be the fun if they didn't?  But, I honestly don't understand all of the digital ink that's been spilled making the case for why one is better than the other.  I root for all of them, and look forward to their future exploits.  What I look forward to in particular is when they all realize they have a common enemy and should focus on that.  And that's exactly what the narrative has been pushing towards since the very first word. 

Amen to that. And anyone who can't see this painting on the "Wall" (hehe) should start re-reading all the books, again and again, until it becomes clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah, and until Ramsay threatened to destroy the Watch, Jon was content to do that. It was only after he received the Pink Letter that Jon decided to take direct action against the Bolton's. Was that breaking his oath? Yes, but there is literally no other option here. Ramsay demands things Jon can't give so the only way of making sure the watch remains standing is to defeat Ramsay. Not only that, but from a moral standpoint he's in the right as well. Holding to your oath 100% is not always the morally right thing to do, as Jaime showed when he killed Aerys.

On the other hand, as you clearly stated 'I am the shield that guards the realms of men' means you have to defend all people. One of the main reason's Bowen and his lackey's are opposed to Jon about is his stance on the wildlings. Yet according to that line of the oath, they have to protect the wildlings. In fact the entire NW has been in violation of that particular oath for as long as they've been fighting wildlings for.

Ramsay didn't threaten to destroy the watch. For any Northmen to threaten the Night's Watch is Insane. 

 

The letter states:

"Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.
Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.
I will have my bride back. 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. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.
I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe.[1] And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.
Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.
Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell."
 
 
 
Nowhere in this letter does he say that he will destroy the Night's watch. According to this letter, Jon Snow colluded with Wildings to infiltrate the North and get involved in the politics of the North(which he did) Since Jon's duty to "GUARD THE REALMS MEN" he allowing wildings to steal a stark princess is a direct action against his duty. He essentially committed Treason, since the Wall is in the North that makes Justice fall to the ruling Lord Paramount or Lord of Winterfell which would be a Bolton. That would make Ramsay well within his rights to kill the Lord Commander for Treason. 
 
 
Also, It is made abundantly clear that wildlings aren't a part of the realms of men. Hence why they are called Wildings or Free Folk because they don't want to be a part of the realms of men. Meaning that it is now the Nights watch job to make sure they don't get past the wall. Jon allowed them past the wall. 
Edited by Rickon Stark The Aulë

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Ramsay didn't threaten to destroy the watch. For any Northmen to threaten the Night's Watch is Insane. 

 

The letter states:

"Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.
Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.
I will have my bride back. 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. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.
I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe.[1] And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.
Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.
Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell."
 
 
 
Nowhere in this letter does he say that he will destroy the Night's watch. According to this letter, Jon Snow colluded with Wildings to infiltrate the North and get involved in the politics of the North(which he did) Since Jon's duty to "GUARD THE REALMS MEN" he allowing wildings to steal a stark princess is a direct action against his duty. He essentially committed Treason, since the Wall is in the North that makes Justice fall to the ruling Lord Paramount or Lord of Winterfell which would be a Bolton. That would make Ramsay well within his rights to kill the Lord Commander for Treason. 
 
 
Also, It is made abundantly clear that wildlings aren't a part of the realms of men. Hence why they are called Wildings or Free Folk because they don't want to be a part of the realms of men. Meaning that it is now the Nights watch job to make sure they don't get past the wall. Jon allowed them past the wall. 

Threatening the life of the Lord Commander is threatening the NW. Unless you think Jon can survive having his heart cut out. 

As to the bold, sorry, but that is bollocks. It's crunch time now, and whatever laws or customs or whatever may or may not make of what constitutes the realms of men don't  matter. What matter is that they're all human beings, "men".

“Marsh flushed a deeper shade of red. “The lord commander must pardon my bluntness, but I have no softer way to say this. What you propose is nothing less than treason. For eight thousand years the men of the Night’s Watch have stood upon the Wall and fought these wildlings. Now you mean to let them pass, to shelter them in our castles, to feed them and clothe them and teach them how to fight. Lord Snow, must I remind you? You swore an oath.”
I know what I swore.” Jon said the words. “I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. Were those the same words you said when you took your vows?”
“They were. As the lord commander knows.”
Are you certain that I have not forgotten some? The ones about the king and his laws, and how we must defend every foot of his land and cling to each ruined castle? How does that part go?” Jon waited for an answer. None came. “I am the shield that guards the realms of men. Those are the words. So tell me, my lord—what are these wildlings, if not men?”
Bowen Marsh opened his mouth. No words came out. A flush crept up his neck.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Threatening the life of the Lord Commander is threatening the NW.

 

Not even close. Let's take the example of something in real life, let's say a Congressmen commits treason. This congressman is a representative of Texas, now let's say this Congressmen gets arrested for Treason against his country and is set to be executed as is to be expected since there is the death penalty in Texas. That Congressmen getting threatened with a death penalty for Treason is not the same thing as threatening the entirety of Congress and the very concept of Congress to death. 

You are making a false equivalence. 

Jon is not the Nights Watch therefore if he is threatened with a penalty of death for Treason doesn't mean the entire Nights watch is getting sentenced to death. If what you are saying is true then the Night's watch would have been destroyed because the "Night's King" committed Treason. 

 

Also, the oath clearly says THE REALMS OF MEN. The Wildings don't want to be a part of the realms of men nor do they like the realms of men. The oath wasn't referring to MEN alone, it was referring the realms of men and every man in it. North of the Wall isn't a part of the realms of men otherwise the wall would be further North of the wildings. 

What Jon was pointing out was false. That also contradicts the fact that Ramsay is just as much apart of the Realms of men as Stannis Baratheon. You bringing up that quote not only shows that Jon doesn't understand his oath but also contradicted his own thinking by trying to raise an army to fight Ramsay not counting the actual treason of leaving your post and allowing a wilding to steal a Northern Noble. 

 

As Ygritte so wonderfully put it... Jon Snow knows absolutely nothing. 

Edited by Rickon Stark The Aulë

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Ramsay didn't threaten to destroy the watch. For any Northmen to threaten the Night's Watch is Insane. 

Snip,.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe.[1] And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.
Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.
Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell."
 
 

BS. Ramsay directly threatens the Nights Watch or what do you think "and I will not trouble you or your black crows" means? Suing them. Writing more letters? From the context of the lettter it is clear, that this can only mean "attacking the Nights Watch". And when you see what happened to the people in Winterfell, when Ramsay took it, or the Ironborn at Moat Cailin, the most likely outcom is the destruction of the Watch and the killing of its members. And there is nothing to prevent the attack, because Jon can't commit to Ramsay's demands, because he doesn't have Ramsay's bride or Reek and the other person are under guest right. And even if he could it would be the morally  wrong thing to do. So the only prudent thing to do for Jon is to choose the battleground. And this is what he tried to do. And he also tried to desengage the Watch and only try to take the Wildlings with him, so the Watch members could try to claim deniability and have more time for preparation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rickon Stark The Aulë, No, let's not use a real world example of a congressman in Texas because that's just totally irrelevant here.

As to what constitutes "the realms of men", we're clearly never going to see eye to eye on this. You probably think that everyone should stick to their vows and oaths at all times, regardless of the situation. So let's just wait for TWoW and see where Martin is going with all this, shall we?

ETA: well said, @Wylla Manderly! :cheers:

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Also, the oath clearly says THE REALMS OF MEN. The Wildings don't want to be a part of the realms of men nor do they like the realms of men. The oath wasn't referring to MEN alone, it was referring the realms of men and every man in it. North of the Wall isn't a part of the realms of men otherwise the wall would be further North of the wildings.

It says the Realms of Men, not the realms of the Seven Kingdoms. Or is no one anywhere else in the world a human being? And based on his reaction to Jon's calling him out, I would argue that Bowen Marsh agrees that the Free Folk are in fact part of the figurative group "Realms of Men." That's why he gets red in the face -- he's embarrassed because he knows that Jon is correct and he can't dispute it but he's still unwilling to give up his bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Jon. He's a good dude. Stuck in between a hundred loyalties, oaths, honors, families, and vows. What's a man to do?

 

Regardless of the love/hate thing going on here, and in the previous thread, I believe that the brothers who wanted him gone, had every reason to want him gone. While Jon's actions may have been the right things for him to do, they were not the right things for the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to do. I don't condone his murder. I don't appreciate or like his killers and their conspirators. I love Jon. I want him to do well, and end up on top at the end of these novels. But, the case against him as the LC is pretty strong.

 

  1. Taking part in the realm's concerns (20 times over): from fArya, to Stannis, to the Boltons
  2. Allowing a Red Witch to do her Red things, in her Red manners, which is an affront to all of the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch.
  3. Not killing Mance, after taking Janos's head (which I applaud, by the way. Stupid frog man Lannister lickspittle).
  4. Letting the Wildlings through. Which morally was the right thing to do. But, as LCotNW? 
  5. Arming wildlings (Even women) and allowing them to fight with the Brothers (a different thing entirely if they take the black).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

It says the Realms of Men, not the realms of the Seven Kingdoms. Or is no one anywhere else in the world a human being? And based on his reaction to Jon's calling him out, I would argue that Bowen Marsh agrees that the Free Folk are in fact part of the figurative group "Realms of Men." That's why he gets red in the face -- he's embarrassed because he knows that Jon is correct and he can't dispute it but he's still unwilling to give up his bigotry.

Oh, so in your definition, he's also sworn to protect New Ghis, Lys, Mereen? That's a good stretch of purple prose interpretation right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

Oh, so in your definition, he's also sworn to protect New Ghis, Lys, Mereen?

Err, yes, why not? When/where in the books is it stated that "the realms of Men" means "the men living in the Seven Kingsdom"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

I love Jon and the Starks but denying he broke his oath is just intentionally blinding yourself to a character's faults,

flaws, and mistakes. 

And by definition that makes him an intesting, dimensional character.

I have a long day of book critiques ahead of me, so I will have to reply in full later... but I see some other posters have already stated much of the obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Err, yes, why not? When/where in the books is it stated that "the realms of Men" means "the men living in the Seven Kingsdom"?

It's not. You are right. But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. 

 

Let's say you're right. It means all (wo)men. Generic. Why build a wall? And if it was meant only to defend against the undead menace north of the wall, then why didn't all previous Lord Commanders allow any/all wildlings to pass south? Wouldn't wildlings have always been welcome? Wouldn't there have been a precedent for that, somewhere, somehow? And if it had been meant to save Essos as well as Westeros, wouldn't there be some lineage, some evidence, some precedent, some proof of that, as well? 

 

Look, I agree. The white walkers and their ilk are the true menace. And I agree, wildlings are just (wo)men. However, the wall, the Night's Watch, and everything that goes with them, were built by, and funded by, and manned by, men from the 7 kingdoms. I haven't heard of any Myrish black brothers. And maybe a wildling or two has taken the black in the past, but if so, it's few and far between. And, the fact that, what is it, 5 "kings beyond the wall" have made it their goal to take the North (as in the realm of the Starks) by force, upending and unsettling the northmen who live(d) there, I believe makes it perfectly justifiable for the last 997 Lord Commanders to consider wildlings, in general, their foes, not friends. 

It makes perfect sense. When the wights are active, wildlings and men of the "realm" band together to fight a common cause. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were. But when that threat is dormant, an enemy is just an enemy. And a giant group of people (people though they are) who proclaim "I WILL NOT BEND MY KNEE" have no place in a medieval feudal society, and therefore belong north of the wall. I have no doubt that if some wildlings had escaped over the wall, in the millennia between the previous era of white walker activity and this current one, and had come to the current Stark in Winterfell, saying "I'll bend the knee, I just want a home and some land to farm", that Lord would've said "by all means, go grow me some potatoes, friend". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

BS. Ramsay directly threatens the Nights Watch or what do you think "and I will not trouble you or your black crows" means? Suing them. Writing more letters?

Hardly, clearly as Lord Commander some of the men in the Nights watch will follow him but when he says I won't trouble your black crows, he clearly doesn't mean the entire Nights Watch but just Jon's "lackeys" so to speak. 

 

3 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

t happened to the people in Winterfell, when Ramsay took it, or the Ironborn at Moat Cailin, the most likely outcom is the destruction of the Watch and the killing of its members.

Ramsay can't destroy the Nights watch, he could get away with Winterfell because anybody who survived is either beyond the Wall(bran) on a far-away island with a bunch of cannibals(Rickon)(Osha) or is a bunch of poor Northerner farm boys in Stannis's army.  Moat Cailin was taken by the Iron-born I don't see any problem with it unless you believe that the Iron-Born are rightful claimants of the towers and should have the right to stay in it? 

 

Also no it isn't the most likely outcome, it's the one you can come up with to somehow justify Jon breaking his oath. 

 

3 hours ago, Wylla Manderly said:

because Jon can't commit to Ramsay's demands, because he doesn't have Ramsay's bride or Reek and the other person are under guest right.

It doesn't matter, he already committed Treason and broke his oaths when he let Mance Rayder kidnap Arya Stark. By all intents and purposes Jon is a dead man either way. 

 

You think Ned Stark when he stopped the deserters decided to listen to their side of the story and what sort of reasoning and thinking he used to decide to desert? No Ned Stark knew he was a deserter and was to be punished with death. He then beheaded him, no hesitation, no consideration of ulterior motives or interpretation of a letter. He was told what he did and was killed. Ramsay was doing something similar but instead offered a option instead of outright executed Jon which he would have been in the right for. 

 

I like Jon just as much as the next guy but attempting to pretend he didn't break his oath is sorta ridiculous. Do I fault Jon for the choice he made? No but by the law he is to be punished by death, whether by the Lord of Winterfell or by some of his sworn brothers, it makes no matter. 

 

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, let's not use a real world example of a congressman in Texas because that's just totally irrelevant here.

How is it irrelevant? I am showing a example of how a democratically elected leader can be punished and killed and not the organization go through the same fate. 

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

It's not. You are right. But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. 

 

Let's say you're right. It means all (wo)men. Generic. Why build a wall? And if it was meant only to defend against the undead menace north of the wall, then why didn't all previous Lord Commanders allow any/all wildlings to pass south? Wouldn't wildlings have always been welcome? Wouldn't there have been a precedent for that, somewhere, somehow? And if it had been meant to save Essos as well as Westeros, wouldn't there be some lineage, some evidence, some precedent, some proof of that, as well? 

 

Look, I agree. The white walkers and their ilk are the true menace. And I agree, wildlings are just (wo)men. However, the wall, the Night's Watch, and everything that goes with them, were built by, and funded by, and manned by, men from the 7 kingdoms. I haven't heard of any Myrish black brothers. And maybe a wildling or two has taken the black in the past, but if so, it's few and far between. And, the fact that, what is it, 5 "kings beyond the wall" have made it their goal to take the North (as in the realm of the Starks) by force, upending and unsettling the northmen who live(d) there, I believe makes it perfectly justifiable for the last 997 Lord Commanders to consider wildlings, in general, their foes, not friends. 

It makes perfect sense. When the wights are active, wildlings and men of the "realm" band together to fight a common cause. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were. But when that threat is dormant, an enemy is just an enemy. And a giant group of people (people though they are) who proclaim "I WILL NOT BEND MY KNEE" have no place in a medieval feudal society, and therefore belong north of the wall. I have no doubt that if some wildlings had escaped over the wall, in the millennia between the previous era of white walker activity and this current one, and had come to the current Stark in Winterfell, saying "I'll bend the knee, I just want a home and some land to farm", that Lord would've said "by all means, go grow me some potatoes, friend". 

 

 

Thank you. 

Edited by Rickon Stark The Aulë

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

It's not. You are right. But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. 

 

Let's say you're right. It means all (wo)men. Generic. Why build a wall? And if it was meant only to defend against the undead menace north of the wall, then why didn't all previous Lord Commanders allow any/all wildlings to pass south? Wouldn't wildlings have always been welcome? Wouldn't there have been a precedent for that, somewhere, somehow? And if it had been meant to save Essos as well as Westeros, wouldn't there be some lineage, some evidence, some precedent, some proof of that, as well? 

 

Look, I agree. The white walkers and their ilk are the true menace. And I agree, wildlings are just (wo)men. However, the wall, the Night's Watch, and everything that goes with them, were built by, and funded by, and manned by, men from the 7 kingdoms. I haven't heard of any Myrish black brothers. And maybe a wildling or two has taken the black in the past, but if so, it's few and far between. And, the fact that, what is it, 5 "kings beyond the wall" have made it their goal to take the North (as in the realm of the Starks) by force, upending and unsettling the northmen who live(d) there, I believe makes it perfectly justifiable for the last 997 Lord Commanders to consider wildlings, in general, their foes, not friends. 

It makes perfect sense. When the wights are active, wildlings and men of the "realm" band together to fight a common cause. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were. But when that threat is dormant, an enemy is just an enemy. And a giant group of people (people though they are) who proclaim "I WILL NOT BEND MY KNEE" have no place in a medieval feudal society, and therefore belong north of the wall. I have no doubt that if some wildlings had escaped over the wall, in the millennia between the previous era of white walker activity and this current one, and had come to the current Stark in Winterfell, saying "I'll bend the knee, I just want a home and some land to farm", that Lord would've said "by all means, go grow me some potatoes, friend". 

 

 

I never said that the previous 997 Lord Commander's considered the Wildlings friends, though I find it highly unlikely that the first couple of LC's though that way. In the time between the Long Night and the present events in the series both the NW, the Seven Kingdoms and the Wildlings had all forgotten the true purpose of the wall and they all came to believe that it was there for to defend against wildlings. They were wrong though, because the wall was originally built to protect all men against the Others.

It might have been funded and built by the Westerosi but that's only because that's where the Long Night took place. Even if you consider the phrase 'realms of men' to only mean the Westerosi, the Wildlings are still part of the realms of men.

As to your point about there being no evidence that the Wall wasn't meant to protect Essos as well; there is also no evidence to say it wasn't, nor is there any evidence to say that there have been 998 Lord Commanders, or that the Stark's, Martell's, Lannister's etc have ruled for 8000 years. In this series, history is deliberately incomplete and inaccurate. What can't be disputed is that the Nights Watch vow says they are to 'guard the realms of men'. Not 'guard the realms of men, but only those who swear fealty to one king or another'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HaeSuse said:

I like Jon. He's a good dude. Stuck in between a hundred loyalties, oaths, honors, families, and vows. What's a man to do?

 

Regardless of the love/hate thing going on here, and in the previous thread, I believe that the brothers who wanted him gone, had every reason to want him gone. While Jon's actions may have been the right things for him to do, they were not the right things for the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to do. I don't condone his murder. I don't appreciate or like his killers and their conspirators. I love Jon. I want him to do well, and end up on top at the end of these novels. But, the case against him as the LC is pretty strong.

 

  1. Taking part in the realm's concerns (20 times over): from fArya, to Stannis, to the Boltons
  2. Allowing a Red Witch to do her Red things, in her Red manners, which is an affront to all of the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch.
  3. Not killing Mance, after taking Janos's head (which I applaud, by the way. Stupid frog man Lannister lickspittle).
  4. Letting the Wildlings through. Which morally was the right thing to do. But, as LCotNW? 
  5. Arming wildlings (Even women) and allowing them to fight with the Brothers (a different thing entirely if they take the black).

1. Lord Commanders are allowed to host guests, especially those that save them. Giving Stannis advice is stretching his oath about and warning him about Karstark is a violation of the oath. Morally right, but still a violation. Responding to a threat made by Ramsay isn't a violation unless there is another way out. Which there isn't. Jon didn't send Mance to Winterfell. He allowed Mel to send him to Long Lake to intercept the fleeing girl betrothed to Ramsay (he thought) but Mance went to Winterfell on his own initiative.

2. Not really. She didn't burn any septs or godswoods or any of the brothers did she.

3. Yeah, that's true.

4. Yes, letting them through was right both morally and as LC. Even if it was against his oath, I would support it anyway, as would any smart or any way reasonable people.

5. No. The Stark's and their bannermen have fought alongside the NW before, without taking the black. In the coming novels a lot of people not in the NW will fight alongside them. So that shouldn't be an issue. What's wrong with women fighting? It's perfectly acceptable in wildling culture and while there is a stigma attached to it, it's not illegal or unheard of south of the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a ten of stuff I want to reply to, but no time at the mo, so I'll get back to it all later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.