“For the watch”

[Blackwater Revenant]

7 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

Excellent point. Just another case of the double standard put forth by irrational Jon haters. Apparently Jon is a treasonous traitor for not executing Mance - which he is not obligated to do so, and as Lord Commander has the authority to pardon him - but you never see the same people persecuting him for not executing sworn brothers who are committing treason and plotting against him.

---

@Edgar Allen Poemont

Great posts! I've really enjoyed reading your take on this matter. Very intelligent and well thought out comments.

 

[Tagganaro]

7 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

I don't agree with you.  The brothers of the NW pledge their lives to the Watch, not the lord commander.  Bowen Marsh and every sworn brother have a duty to the Watch and if their lord commander is foolish enough to endanger the organization they have a duty to remove him from office.  And that is just what they did with Jon Snow.

That's how military organizations work- you pledge your loyalty to the country/institution, but there has to be a chain of command or otherwise the institution becomes weak and useless.  Hence you get "good" NW brothers like Qhorin and Stonesnake and Squire Dalbridge who happily sacrifice their lives for the betterment of the NW at the command of the LC.  As others have pointed out, the NW is governed mainly by tradition, not some codified rule of law or anything like that.  As far as we know, there is no instance EVER of NW brothers removing their elected dictator/absolute monarch/army general without some outside help like the King in the North/Stark in Winterfell.  And make no mistake, despite being democratically elected the LC of the NW acts in exactly the way any totalitarian dictator or army general would act- he has absolute power of his subordinates lives.

7 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

Yeah, you do see Jon grapple with his personal animosity towards Slynt leading up to "Fetch me a block."  Jon wants to be a fair leader and doesn't want to be governed by his own personal grudges.  We see from his POV that he wants to be gracious to his "enemies", and in turn a more loyal NW brother like Marsh returns that graciousness- he approaches Jon right after he is elected and offers his services as Lord Steward if Jon still wants him to serve in that role.

I really like the bolded point because I think of neutrality as 2-sided.  The 7 Kingdoms for the most part (99% of the time save for the Night's King) allow the NW to operate essentially as a sovereign kingdom, and in return the NW stays the hell out of the political affairs of the 7 Kingdoms.  However you want to look at it, the 7 Kingdoms/IT led by Tywin and the Lannisters has been consistently breaching their neutrality since the beginning of the books.  Attempting to sway the election by installing Slynt as LC seems to me to be a obvious and incredible breach of the NW's independence.

And by the way, none of this even begins to touch on the other obligations of the 7 Kingdoms to support the NW with man power when they can, and not just clearing out their prisons of the worst scum and infecting the NW with those kind of men.  And this certainly doesn't even begin to touch on responding to the NW's dire calls for help when their very existence is threatened by a wildling invasion.

On 12/11/2017 at 9:34 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Re Treason - the NW vows

Jon himself wonders if what he is doing is treason.  But in what sense?  Treason because he is still in some sense a subject of the IT and in moving from offering Stannis advice to marching to fight Ramsay he is in open rebellion against a higher authority to which he is subject? 

Or treason agasint his vows as a member of the NW to defend the Wall and guard the realms of men?  We know he's not deserting or abandoning the NW so it's hard for me to see this as what exercises his mind so much.  Is he concerned about betraying the NW, treason against the NW if you like, or treason against the IT?  I think the latter and the reaction that might provoke and the consequences for the NW. 

I don't think any of what he does - letting the wildlings through the wall (in return for hostages for good behaviour), advising Stannis while attempting to use his men as aliied forces against the Others, or meeting Ramsay's threat with a wildling strike force (caveated for the truth of the pink letter and his plans with Tormund) is treason against the NW, it's all intended to further the purpose of building up the NW and keeping it strong.  It is of course possible to see advising Stannis as treason agasinst the IT but that brings us to the nub of the matter: which is Jon or any NW member's primary concern: loyalty to the IT or the defence of the realms of men agasint the others?  I think the answer is pretty obvious but to be clear, Jon should choose a course of action that benefits the NW's purpose whether or not it puts him at odds with the IT.  Westeros is at civil war, the one king who answered his pleas for help is Stannis and the NW's and Jon's course of action is driven by those facts.  Marsh and co differ but this is simply and sadly a civil war in miniature within the NW itself.
 

I am in agreement with 99% of your posts here, but I do think Jon conceives of marching against Ramsay pretty clearly as a possible treason against his vows of the NW.  He even says during his speech that he will not ask his other brothers to forswear their vows.  And I don't think there's really much of a comparison between letting the wildlings through the Wall (something that I've said before I believe the Old Bear would have done as well had he returned to the Wall after the Fist of the First Men) and advising Stannis as compared to Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter.  Jon's reaction to the PL largely seems to be motivated by emotion (at this point at least).  Unfortunately, we are not made privy to Jon's long planning session with Tormund in Jon's final chapter, and if I'm being honest I find Jon's whole final chapter to be sort of weirdly under-developed, like it just seems like the chapter was rushed so Jon's motivations here are a bit hazy.  

As @kissdbyfire pointed out above, Jon's thoughts upon receiving and reading the PL are about the "Night's Watch taking no part" and "what you propose is nothing less than treason."  He immediately goes into thoughts of his entire Stark family, ending with him thinking about Arya and then repeating in his mind "I want my bride back" three different times.  That to me is clearly his major concern at the moment- saving Arya from this "creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women" that has also sworn to cut out Jon's heart.  I don't think Jon ever really has a second of concern about betraying the IT- he could care less about Cersei and the goings-on in King's Landing.  

[Wild Bill]

19 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

First of all I want to say thank you to those who took the time to read my post the other day and then the time to respond. I had to contend with my own hard choices between love and duty myself this weekend. My love being immersed in ASoIaF, but my duty to my family this holiday season had to take preference. I'll start here and say that I think there is support in the text, although it isn't a literal declaration of an equivalent sovereignty, there is quite a bit of support given to allow us to draw that conclusion and I think GRRM purposefully leaves explicit legal definitions vague for a reason. He wants us, the readers, to ponder the questions of right and wrong and who decides which is which, in the same way his characters do.

...

I think the bold bits will do nicely to my question up-thread. It is all grey and fuzzy and readers will come to their conclusions depending on this, that, and everything - but no proper resolution can occur (as your posted details indicate) as there is no significant definition that allows the LC, Jon, to "free-lance" other than...

There is the protecting the "Realms of Man" bit which could be interpreted as needed by any LC. This notion is part of the vow. The only defined death sentence is for desertion. I find it reasonable that a LC could take extraordinary acts to protect the realms of man, and not face a death sentence.

But, this is akin to Ceaser crossing the Rubicon... Like the US impeachment powers in the congress where "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the congress wants (he/she cheats at cards, has extra-marital relations, murders someone in cold-blood, or generally behaves boorishly).

The legally defined power structure in the NW has not, historically, been a problem. But is now...

@Edgar Allen Poemont  

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

22 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

Watch doesn't have enough experienced men to train widlings. Marsh, Thorne and others are not enough but it is what Jon has and Jon uses them. 

[The Commentator]

On 12/11/2017 at 9:14 AM, divica said:

There is something you are forgeting. Ramsay threatened to kill everybody in the NW if they don t meet his demands. As Jon doesn t have his bride or reek he can t do as ramsay asks and therefore has to take action against him. If jon as LC thinks the best way to defend the watch is to attack winterfell he is within his rights! The one who is violating the laws is ramsay by wanting to attack the NW!

Also, even if jon had arya in castle black he couldn t simply deliver her back. He has no authority over arya! However he also couldn t fight ramsay in order to keep him away from her. Basically, if when ramsay got there legally jon should let him get inside castle black to get arya. But ramsay is going there to kill everybody because jon doesn t have arya! That gives Jon the right to do things witch would normally be oathbreaking!

 

In regards to mance. He isn t a member of the NW and as LC jon should have the authority to deal with na enemy from the north of the wal as he wishes... And sending him to winterfell to rescue arya is not very differently from feeding stannis men and giving him advice... Basically I would say as long as Jon doesn t directly interfer it isn t oathbreaking... there is a certain flexibility about how much the NW can interact with westeros.

 

Ramsay made a conditional threat to the NW because Jon sent his wildlings to take Arya away from him.  That is an act of war.  Jon practically declared war on the Boltons.  All of this is Jon's fault.  Jon picked/started that fight.  

Mance is a NW deserter.  He should have been executed.  He deserved to get executed.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Ramsay made a conditional threat to the NW because Jon sent his wildlings to take Arya away from him.  That is an act of war.  Jon practically declared war on the Boltons.  All of this is Jon's fault.  Jon picked/started that fight.  

Mance is a NW deserter.  He should have been executed.  He deserved to get executed.  

Again, as has been stated time & time again Mance was sent to rescue a fleeing Arya. If you take issue with that, that's fine but in order to be taken seriously or to have a discussion on the matter you will have to attribute things to Jon that he actually did. 

It was a conditional threat but the conditions could not be met by the NW so what do you think would be the correct response to said threats?

It's an act of war according to who? Other than the Jon-haters there is no law or rule in place that says allowing someone to rescue a woman fleeing from an abusive marriage is an act of war. That is more of your trumped up charges against Jon. 

Mance should have been executed according to who? It is true the punishment for desertion is death, however, it is well within the authority of the LC to decide this particular desertion does not deserve death. Whether or not you agree or disagree with Lord Commander Jon Snow's decision is irrelevant as you are not Lord Commander. There is one person with the authority and duty to decide what is best for the watch & it isn't you or Bowen Marsh. It is the Lord Commander. The same as decisions were made by Lord Commander Mormont before him. When LC Mormont gave an order or decision Jon didn't like he did it anyway because that is his duty as a man of the NW. On what grounds does Bowen Marsh not have to do the same thing? Because his feelings were hurt? Because he disagreed more with Jon's decisions than Jon did with Mormont's? Nope. None of that holds any water. Bowen not only failed to do his duty but he also mutinied against his LC. 

[Tagganaro]

6 hours ago, RedGrace that was promised said:

Watch doesn't have enough experienced men to train widlings. Marsh, Thorne and others are not enough but it is what Jon has and Jon uses them. 

The Watch doesn't have enough men period.  That is the crux of the issue between Jon and Bowen Marsh.  Marsh is concerned with the Watch's dwindling food stores, a problem which is being exacerbated by the influx of wildlings.  Of course, this issue is doubly problematic because of Marsh being consumed by his hatred of wildlings, a hatred which has gotten worse since Marsh's failure at the Bridge of Skulls and the serious wound he sustained at the hands of the Weeper.  Marsh's "plan", if you can call it that, is to seal up the Wall, stop sending out rangers entirely, leave the wildlings to die at the hands of the Others (and be turned into wights to further help the Others numbers superiority), and hope for the best.  I don't think anybody would call his plan reasonable.

Jon actually has a legitimate plan to bring the wildlings in, try to man all the forts on the Wall, and he even works out an agreement with the Iron Bank to alleviate the Watch's food storage issue.  Curiously, he never seems to share the terms of this agreement with Marsh...that is a major failing on his part but is also a product of how toxic his relationship with Marsh has become.  I think there are other major mistakes and failings Jon makes in his dealings with Marsh...just throw the dude a bone and don't name Satin as your steward for example.  But make no mistake, at the end of day Jon is dealing with eminently unreasonable, unimaginative, and incompetent "leadership" between Marsh and Othell "Pig Army" Yarwyck (yes, never forget that Yarwyck had a major issue with Jon allowing Borroq near the woods which were full of boars because he was afraid Borroq could amass an army of pigs to threaten the NW.)

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

6 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Ramsay made a conditional threat to the NW because Jon sent his wildlings to take Arya away from him.  That is an act of war.  Jon practically declared war on the Boltons.  All of this is Jon's fault.  Jon picked/started that fight.  

Mance is a NW deserter.  He should have been executed.  He deserved to get executed.  

I'm taking the time during work to respond to this because it reminds of an interesting experience from my childhood that I think has great relevance to this argument. When I was 12 years old I got a G.I. Joe action figure for Christmas. One day I was in our family room putting some wood in our wood stove and saw my little brother who was 8 years old playing with my action figure. I had expressly forbidden him from doing that with my property and considered his actions outright thievery and bordering on a declaration of war. I took back my action figure and pressed his face into the coals of the fire in retaliation. Now my dad heard his shrieks of agony and came in to see what was going on. I told him that my brother started it when he took my toy and that it was all his fault. Now my dad was a little mad at me because I had assumed some of his authority in my decision and he probably would have just chopped off his hand and shipped him off to serve a life sentence in Northern Alaska but because I'm his heir he praised me for my initiative and pragmatic use of the stove. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

I'm taking the time during work to respond to this because it reminds of an interesting experience from my childhood that I think has great relevance to this argument. When I was 12 years old I got a G.I. Joe action figure for Christmas. One day I was in our family room putting some wood in our wood stove and saw my little brother who was 8 years old playing with my action figure. I had expressly forbidden him from doing that with my property and considered his actions outright thievery and bordering on a declaration of war. I took back my action figure and pressed his face into the coals of the fire in retaliation. Now my dad heard his shrieks of agony and came in to see what was going on. I told him that my brother started it when he took my toy and that it was all his fault. Now my dad was a little mad at me because I had assumed some of his authority in my decision and he probably would have just chopped off his hand and shipped him off to serve a life sentence in Northern Alaska but because I'm his heir he praised me for my initiative and pragmatic use of the stove. 

Yes. 

[the trees have eyes]

On 12/12/2017 at 0:50 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

To execute Marsh et al would have been a bit of a stretch even for Tywin I feel!

We know that the NW choose their LC but there is no precedent for saying that any brother who takes a hint from any outside agency or power, whether it's the IT, the Lord of Winterfell or The High Septon as to who they would like to see elected, is guilty of treason to the NW and should be dealt with harshly.  In fact given the parlous condition of the NW and the unification of the 7K for over 300 years it strikes me as odd that the NW don't habitually choose someone who would be likely to receive support from the IT.  Jeor Mormont was surely a fine choice as far as the Starks were concerned and maintaining good relations with the Throne that sends them manpower is logical enough.

The only NW brothers who Jon has any grounds to feel aggrieved about are Slynt and Thorne for the obvious reason they tried to get him killed.  But as Jon himself said "the trap had teeth" as they dresed it up as a sacrifice for the good of the Watch and to execute them would be seen by his brothers as carrying out a personal vendetta and to act as a tyrant rather than a LC legitimately enforcing discipline.  Once Slynt commits insubordination, refuses to carry out orders and is openly and repeatedly contemptuous and threatening to his superior officer he is in effect committing mutiny and can be dealt with within the scope of a military organisation's rules.

What should he have done about Marsh?  It's hard to say without the benefit of hindsight.  The man seemed harmless enough and Jon wanted him to manage logistics nothing more.  Jon is the boy commander, Marsh and Yarwyck have decades of experience so with Aemon gone I can see why he would not want to remove them and leave himself open to accusations of dismissing all men of experience around him.

On 12/12/2017 at 8:54 PM, Tagganaro said:

And by the way, none of this even begins to touch on the other obligations of the 7 Kingdoms to support the NW with man power when they can, and not just clearing out their prisons of the worst scum and infecting the NW with those kind of men.  And this certainly doesn't even begin to touch on responding to the NW's dire calls for help when their very existence is threatened by a wildling invasion.

Indeed.  The NW has pretty much been allowed to fall into ruin and there is no real sense outside the North of the value of maintaining it (and even they see it's purpose as keeping back wildling raiders).  The problem is there has been no way for the NW to reciprocate over the thousands of years it has existed, except by chasing off said wildling raiders, so it's stock is at an all-time low and is treated as a dumping ground for criminals to allow it to keep functioning as a cheap border force.

On 12/12/2017 at 8:54 PM, Tagganaro said:

I am in agreement with 99% of your posts here, but I do think Jon conceives of marching against Ramsay pretty clearly as a possible treason against his vows of the NW.  He even says during his speech that he will not ask his other brothers to forswear their vows.  And I don't think there's really much of a comparison between letting the wildlings through the Wall (something that I've said before I believe the Old Bear would have done as well had he returned to the Wall after the Fist of the First Men) and advising Stannis as compared to Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter.  Jon's reaction to the PL largely seems to be motivated by emotion (at this point at least).  Unfortunately, we are not made privy to Jon's long planning session with Tormund in Jon's final chapter, and if I'm being honest I find Jon's whole final chapter to be sort of weirdly under-developed, like it just seems like the chapter was rushed so Jon's motivations here are a bit hazy.  

As @kissdbyfire pointed out above, Jon's thoughts upon receiving and reading the PL are about the "Night's Watch taking no part" and "what you propose is nothing less than treason."  He immediately goes into thoughts of his entire Stark family, ending with him thinking about Arya and then repeating in his mind "I want my bride back" three different times.  That to me is clearly his major concern at the moment- saving Arya from this "creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women" that has also sworn to cut out Jon's heart.  I don't think Jon ever really has a second of concern about betraying the IT- he could care less about Cersei and the goings-on in King's Landing.  

I dunno about his motivations really.  He doesn't have Arya and he doesn't know where she is so the extent to which he thinks of her puzzles me.  If she was in sanctuary at Castle Black his reaction would make sense -  a clear desire to defend his sister agasint Ramsay - and so would the accusations that he was engaging in a personal conflict with Ramsay which is what the Marshans (Martians? ) are always telling us.

But he doesn't have Arya, any more than he has Reek, not that he even knows who Reek is, so can it be about her, or at least her alone?  To hand over Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, The Monster & Val represents the total ruin of his strategy to build an alliance to defend the Wall.  Now maybe he simply can't accept that and so decides to meet Ramsay head on, defeat him and then build up what remains of his Stannis survivors / Wildling / Northmen / NW coalition in furtherance of his objective of defending the Wall.  In stepping beyond assisting Stannis to fighting Ramsay he is moving from shaky ground that skirts the line but stays within the boundary of neutrality and staying out of the the affairs of the kingdom to the dangerous ground of outright miltary involvement in the Civil War.  Clearly this exercises his mind and he considers, rightly, that such unprecedented action will be seen by the IT / Boltons as "treason" to the Throne though I'm not sure that is the right word (it's a hostile military act by a quasi-dependent whatever we make of that!).  But in meeting Ramsay's threats is he really betraying the purpose of his vows to the NW or dealing with the unprecedented situation where the Lord of Winterfell has decided to send him unmeetable demands and threaten to cut his heart out precisely at the time the ancient enemy is on the warpath?   It's a grey area and one that he thinks on a lot and chooses to use the wildings for the obvious reason they will fight for Mance and not the NW (all 100 of them at CB) who would surely baulk at a pitched battle with a Northern Army.  In the normal course of events we would have a stand-off with a call for arbitration or enforcement of the law by the Crown (although in this case Ramsay is as hotheaded as Brandon responding to Lyanna's abduction by Rhaegar or Jaime to Tyrion's abduction by Catelyn) but circumstances don't allow for that. 

So why does he think of Arya so much?  Maybe he knows something we don't about Stannis and Reek and (F)Arya but it's hard to conjecture anything plausible out of the pink letter and the chaos it creates. I find myself left with him sticking with the political strategy he has tied himself to and the threat from Ramsay to undo all of that, perhaps having already undone a lot of it, drives him to decide action is necessary.  Arya is the spur he uses to galvanise himself to action agasint Ramsay rather than the principal driving force behind his decision to act.  But I am far from convinced I know what GRRM is up to here!

Does he give a damn about Cersei and the politics of KL?  Nope (but in ordinary times he probably should!).  He understands well enough that moving into open conflict with Ramsay turns the Crown into an enemy rather than a negligent and disinterested quasi-benefactor and that has potentially huge ramifications for the future and for the independence, even existence, of the NW and is not a step to be taken lightly.

[Wild Bill]

Well, we can all agree that Jon is a frigging idiot (OK, not Jon lovers).

This situation with Stannis, snow-bound. Wildlings beyond the wall. Shenanigans in Winterfell. And then there is the Pink Letter, and Jon's response, and apparent death...

What's going on? It seems to be a pivotal plot moment. No unity from the fandom, that is for sure.  

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

Great post the trees have eyes. I apologize to Widowmaker 811 too, as I think my earlier post from today was a little snide, but I chose that scenario because I think most readers find out what happened to Sandor and are immediately aghast at the brutality of it and then immediately outraged at the injustice of Gregor going on to attain lands, a keep and knighthood, which incidentally comes with a set of vows too. It's an easy call to see how wrong Gregor's actions are in almost everything he does. I think, GRRM starts us out with the easy ones to gear us up for the tougher ones coming down the pike. I hope you at least realize that an argument that begins and ends with; it's all his fault because he started it is the argument of a child and usually I find your arguments vociferous but better thought out than that one. I actually am curious if you or any of the other posters who believe Jon should have executed Mance have any thoughts on what the ramifications or repercussions of that decision would have been. I think, given that Mance is a prisoner of Stannis and under the care of Melisandre, who in many ways is acting as a sort of castellan to Stannis' forces at the Wall, Jon attempting to execute him would most likely have set off a conflict between the Flaming Hearts, the Wildlings and the Watch. That "trap has teeth" too. Jon's situation at the Wall is complex, as is his entire character arc. I urge all to immerse themselves in it and feel it's icy grip. The more you look, the more you find.

Meanwhile, back on the Wall... from Samwell 1 in AFfC, I think we have another scene that illustrates a number of things and also, I think, another textual nod to Jon's status as a ruler on the same level as a king within the boundaries of the Wall. Jon and Sam are discussing the letter Jon is loath to send out for support from the Iron Crown.
 

Quote

 

A Feast for Crows - Samwell I

 

"The Old Bear begged the Iron Throne for help a hundred times. They sent him Janos Slynt. No letter will make the Lannisters love us better. Not once they hear that we've been helping Stannis."

"Only to defend the Wall, not in his rebellion." Sam read the letter quickly once again. "That's what it says here."

"The distinction may escape Lord Tywin." Jon took the letter back. "Why would he help us now? He never did before."

"Well," said Sam, "he will not want it said that Stannis rode to the defense of the realm whilst King Tommen was playing with his toys. That would bring scorn down upon House Lannister."

"It's death and destruction I want to bring down upon House Lannister, not scorn." Jon lifted up the letter. "The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," he read. "Our oaths are sworn to the realm, and the realm now stands in dire peril. Stannis Baratheon aids us against our foes from beyond the Wall, though we are not his men . . ."

"Well," said Sam, squirming, "we're not. Are we?"

"I gave Stannis food, shelter, and the Nightfort, plus leave to settle some free folk in the Gift. That's all."

"Lord Tywin will say it was too much."

"Stannis says it's not enough. The more you give a king the more he wants. We are walking on a bridge of ice with an abyss on either side. Pleasing one king is difficult enough. Pleasing two is hardly possible."

"Yes, but . . . if the Lannisters should prevail and Lord Tywin decides that we betrayed the king by aiding Stannis, it could mean the end of the Night's Watch. He has the Tyrells behind him, with all the strength of Highgarden. And he did defeat Lord Stannis on the Blackwater." The sight of blood might make Sam faint, but he knew how wars were won. His own father had seen to that.

"The Blackwater was one battle. Robb won all his battles and still lost his head. If Stannis can raise the north . . ."

He's trying to convince himself, Sam realized, but he can't. The ravens had gone forth from Castle Black in a storm of black wings, summoning the lords of the north to declare for Stannis Baratheon and join their strength to his. Sam had sent out most of them himself. Thusfar only one bird had returned, the one they'd sent to Karhold. Elsewise the silence had been thunderous.

 

A couple things stand out from this passage. Jon's dilemma is clear, his situation is "walking on a bridge of ice with an abyss on either side" or as I like to see it, caught between The Rock and A Hard Man. His preference is also pretty clear but he's well aware of the dangers of that preference. He puts his personal feelings aside for the benefit of the Watch and sends the letter. The forces are in play regardless of personal feelings but he has to choose, so he does to hopefully better the Watch. Later we find out how Cersei chooses to respond, but I don't want to dwell to much on the political quagmire because buried in all that tension are two lines that I think are more important for this discussion. The first is "leave to settle some free folk in the Gift." We know kings give leave to settle lands to lords within their realm and lords in turn give lesser lords leave to settle lands, but do lords give leave to kings? It's such a subtle phrase but personally I think it speaks volumes. I firmly believe Jon is a king in all but name within the boundaries of the Wall and I don't think he knows it or would agree with me if I told him he was, but he is learning to be. That leads me to the second phrase and the rabbit hole I intend to plunge into next, which is "Our oaths are sworn to the realm, and the realm now stands in dire peril." I believe they are interwoven in a really interesting way. Who do the NW swear their oaths to and why is it so important?

In one of my previous posts I quoted the scene before the boys are given their posts and swear their vows making them official Sworn Brothers. Mormont gives the great speech about outlaws and poachers, rich and poor, friendless, without honor etc., the detritus of Westerosi, who have all come together and are promised forgiveness for crimes and debts, provided and I believe to a certain extant that they can, release the old grudges, wrongs, loves etc. "Here you begin anew."

Quote

 

"A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know.

"You have learned the words of the vow. Think carefully before you say them, for once you have taken the black, there is no turning back. The penalty for desertion is death." The Old Bear paused for a moment before he said, "Are there any among you who wish to leave our company? If so, go now, and no one shall think the less of you."

 

 Notice again how Mormont says "for the realm" not in service to the realm, king, lord etc. but never mentions to whom they are swearing but the ceremony is taking place in the sept.

 

Quote

 

"Well and good," said Mormont. "You may take your vows here at evenfall, before Septon Celladar and the first of your order. Do any of you keep to the old gods?"

Jon stood. "I do, my lord."

 

Now, the wording is "take your vows"  and in my mind this suggests either a wedding or an ordainment and much less a social or political promise and I thought it was interesting that much like the vows of knighthood, it's sworn in a sept in front of a Septon. So I looked into the terms a little and I think the following summation of the difference in meaning adds a lot of insight into what I think GRRM is up to with all the "So many vows... they make you swear and swear."(ACoK) There are differences and they may be subtle but he uses them like a master. I found the summation on a website called StackExchange about English language usage.

 

Quote

These discussions suggest that though oath, vow, and pledge are all promises, they have different focuses. An oath is a swearing in the presence of God with regard to a commitment one is making to one or more other people (as to tell the truth as a witness in court, or to uphold the dignity of one's office). A vow is a promise to God (or to something philosophically analogous) to accept and discharge faithfully some specified spiritual or material obligation. A pledge is a promise on one's honor or sense of duty to take some action in fulfillment of a contract with other human beings.

 

I think when a man takes the black and says the vows, he's doing all three things. He's swearing an oath to his brothers and to the realms of men, a pledge to do the things that experience has told them helps best to keep that oath and most importantly, I think, a vow to "accept and discharge faithfully some specified spiritual obligation." The part of the vows that are the most mystifying.

Quote

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.

And with whom did he say them and which of them was the witness to it's sacred nature?

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Jon VI

Perhaps it was all in the knowing. They had ridden past the end of the world; somehow that changed everything. Every shadow seemed darker, every sound more ominous. The trees pressed close and shut out the light of the setting sun. A thin crust of snow cracked beneath the hooves of their horses, with a sound like breaking bones. When the wind set the leaves to rustling, it was like a chilly finger tracing a path up Jon's spine. The Wall was at their backs, and only the gods knew what lay ahead.

The sun was sinking below the trees when they reached their destination, a small clearing in the deep of the wood where nine weirwoods grew in a rough circle. Jon drew in a breath, and he saw Sam Tarly staring. Even in the wolfswood, you never found more than two or three of the white trees growing together; a grove of nine was unheard of. The forest floor was carpeted with fallen leaves, bloodred on top, black rot beneath. The wide smooth trunks were bone pale, and nine faces stared inward. The dried sap that crusted in the eyes was red and hard as ruby. Bowen Marsh commanded them to leave their horses outside the circle. "This is a sacred place, we will not defile it."

When they entered the grove, Samwell Tarly turned slowly looking at each face in turn. No two were quite alike. "They're watching us," he whispered. "The old gods."

 

Quote

 

They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "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 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. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

The woods fell silent. "You knelt as boys," Bowen Marsh intoned solemnly. "Rise now as men of the Night's Watch."

 

I'd love to keep going on this because I've had bells going off in my brain for days now, but it's late and the night is filled with terror when I don't get my beauty rest as my profile picture will attest. Thanks to any and all for reading. Tomorrow I will try to tie this into what I think happened at the Ides of Marsh or as I'm beginning think of it, The Garden of Gethsemarsh and  look forward to reading any feedback.

[Wild Bill]

9 minutes ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

...

I'd love to keep going on this because I've had bells going off in my brain for days now, but it's late and the night is filled with terror when I don't get my beauty rest as my profile picture will attest. Thanks to any and all for reading. Tomorrow I will try to tie this into what I think happened at the Ides of Marsh or as I'm beginning think of it, The Garden of Gethsemarsh and  look forward to reading any feedback.

Betrayal...

Always a good theme, and particularly relevant. I look forward to your next post...  

[The Sunland Lord]

7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

To execute Marsh et al would have been a bit of a stretch even for Tywin I feel!

We know that the NW choose their LC but there is no precedent for saying that any brother who takes a hint from any outside agency or power, whether it's the IT, the Lord of Winterfell or The High Septon as to who they would like to see elected, is guilty of treason to the NW and should be dealt with harshly.  In fact given the parlous condition of the NW and the unification of the 7K for over 300 years it strikes me as odd that the NW don't habitually choose someone who would be likely to receive support from the IT.  Jeor Mormont was surely a fine choice as far as the Starks were concerned and maintaining good relations with the Throne that sends them manpower is logical enough.

The only NW brothers who Jon has any grounds to feel aggrieved about are Slynt and Thorne for the obvious reason they tried to get him killed.  But as Jon himself said "the trap had teeth" as they dresed it up as a sacrifice for the good of the Watch and to execute them would be seen by his brothers as carrying out a personal vendetta and to act as a tyrant rather than a LC legitimately enforcing discipline.  Once Slynt commits insubordination, refuses to carry out orders and is openly and repeatedly contemptuous and threatening to his superior officer he is in effect committing mutiny and can be dealt with within the scope of a military organisation's rules.

What should he have done about Marsh?  It's hard to say without the benefit of hindsight.  The man seemed harmless enough and Jon wanted him to manage logistics nothing more.  Jon is the boy commander, Marsh and Yarwyck have decades of experience so with Aemon gone I can see why he would not want to remove them and leave himself open to accusations of dismissing all men of experience around him.

There is no written law for many concerns that are sacred in the 7K.

For example, even Stannis, who saved the NW (to be fair, he did ask something else in return), didn't dare to choose or vouch for some candidate for the positions. Mind you, he actually helped them (unlike Tywin Lannister, for example), was there at the very CB, but clinged his teeth and dared not to say his opinion on the matter. Now that's how you don't cross the line. 

The problem is, Lannister regime has no limits whatsoever. We're used to their continuous breaking all the established rules, so we think that when they do it, it's not a big deal. Slynt, Marsh, Thorne are a bunch that was in cahoots with this regime, and served as their installations in the NW. I will note again that Marsh probably saw an opportunity to get in good terms with the Boltons (who even don't have any limits whatsoever to care enough not to cross), so he decided that even stabbing your own Lord Commander is acceptable. As we can see, another person with no limits.

People with no regard for rules in charge of the Seven Kingdoms, decided they might find friends with no regard for rules in the Night's Watch. Plain and simple.

 

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

15 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

and incompetent "leadership" between Marsh and Othell "Pig Army" Yarwyck (yes, never forget that Yarwyck had a major issue with Jon allowing Borroq near the woods which were full of boars because he was afraid Borroq could amass an army of pigs to threaten the NW.)

Is that really so unreasonable? A boar killed the Demon of the Trident. Wild boars are very dangerous and vicious animals. According to some they can be just as dangerous as some breeds of bears. They have very shape tusks(as Bobby B could attest to) and can grow to enormous sizes. I sure the heck would not want to face dozens of massive boars coming after me.

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

There is no written law for many concerns that are sacred in the 7K.

For example, even Stannis, who saved the NW (to be fair, he did ask something else in return), didn't dare to choose or vouch for some candidate for the positions. Mind you, he actually helped them (unlike Tywin Lannister, for example), was there at the very CB, but clinged his teeth and dared not to say his opinion on the matter. Now that's how you don't cross the line. 

The problem is, Lannister regime has no limits whatsoever. We're used to their continuous breaking all the established rules, so we think that when they do it, it's not a big deal. Slynt, Marsh, Thorne are a bunch that was in cahoots with this regime, and served as their installations in the NW. I will note again that Marsh probably saw an opportunity to get in good terms with the Boltons (who even don't have any limits whatsoever to care enough not to cross), so he decided that even stabbing your own Lord Commander is acceptable. As we can see, another person with no limits.

People with no regard for rules in charge of the Seven Kingdoms, decided they might find friends with no regard for rules in the Night's Watch. Plain and simple.

I still don't see how this would justify Jon executing Thorne, Marsh or Yarwyck, or any other brother who put any weight in Tywin's letter.  There is nothing to say they have broken some requirement of their vows or have committed treason to the NW.  If they had Jon would have used that against Thorne who bears him personal enmity and who he believes will cause him problems down the line. That he doesn't would indicate he has no grounds to use this a a thin pretext to act agasint his political enemies.

And at this point he wants to win over Marsh and Yarwyck or at the very least manage their objections while relying on their experience.

Imagine if the first act of the boy commander was to start lopping off the heads of those who dared to back candidates other than himself.  What reaction then from the stewards and builders (who presumably look up to their leaders) when this boy who killed Qhorin Halfhand and rode with Mance Raydar executes their leaders because they did not trust him or want him in power.  It's a disaster in the making.

4 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Is that really so unreasonable? A boar killed the Demon of the Trident. Wild boars are very dangerous and vicious animals. According to some they can be just as dangerous as some breeds of bears. They have very shape tusks(as Bobby B could attest to) and can grow to enormous sizes. I sure the heck would not want to face dozens of massive boars coming after me.

Othell...?  Is that you?

Calm down, my good man, it was just a bad dream!

[The Sunland Lord]

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

I still don't see how this would justify Jon executing Thorne, Marsh or Yarwyck, or any other brother who put any weight in Tywin's letter.  There is nothing to say they have broken some requirement of their vows or have committed treason to the NW.  If they had Jon would have used that against Thorne who bears him personal enmity and who he believes will cause him problems down the line. That he doesn't would indicate he has no grounds to use this a a thin pretext to act agasint his political enemies.

And at this point he wants to win over Marsh and Yarwyck or at the very least manage their objections while relying on their experience.

Imagine if the first act of the boy commander was to start lopping off the heads of those who dared to back candidates other than himself.  What reaction then from the stewards and builders (who presumably look up to their leaders) when this boy who killed Qhorin Halfhand and rode with Mance Raydar executes their leaders because they did not trust him or want him in power.  It's a disaster in the making.

Othell...?  Is that you?

Calm down, my good man, it was just a bad dream!

It justifies it. 

If for the Night's Watch is forbidden (or, at least, it's not a tradition) to cahoot with other factions and noble Houses from the Seven Kingdoms about such matters as their own elections, than it's clear that Thorne, Marsh, etc. did so and Jon overheard them after taking a bath.

The Lord Commander can claim that he heard them conspire with an outside party, Tywin Lannister, to install a LC of his choosing, in order to follow his orders and interests. That way, his faction would run the Night's Watch via these conspirators, against the interests of the NW. And, that being said, it would be totally true, knowing that Jon did overheard them, and knowing what Tywin's disciples do.

If he spiced it up with the constant life threats towards him from Thorne (especially) and Slynt, he could've added that on the list too.

So, if Jon could mixed up their conspiracy with an outside party to choose a Lord Commander, along with the fact that some of these were the exact ones that threatened his life in a casual fashion (there are plenty of witnesses), I can see them being executed quite reasonably. 

Marsh would've been guilty on the first count, Slynt on the second, and Thorne on both counts.

 

[Tagganaro]

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I dunno about his motivations really.  He doesn't have Arya and he doesn't know where she is so the extent to which he thinks of her puzzles me.  If she was in sanctuary at Castle Black his reaction would make sense -  a clear desire to defend his sister agasint Ramsay - and so would the accusations that he was engaging in a personal conflict with Ramsay which is what the Marshans (Martians? ) are always telling us.

This precisely.  Part of what I was getting at was my disappointment with Jon's final chapter as it is written.  It seems incredibly rushed and lacks important details.  Perhaps GRRM is saving a lot of those details for TWOW but I can't help but feel like that chapter, along with many others, got the stuffing edited out of them and made them really fail to stand up to closer inspection.  I am as puzzled with the focus on Arya as you are- it is clear GRRM wants us to focus on Arya since that line of the PL is repeated 3 times for emphasis (I want my bride back) but there is never any mind paid to the obvious flaw with that...as you mention Ramsay would have no need to ask for Arya back if he still has her.  I guess maybe from Jon's perspective since he knows Arya hasn't reached safety at the Wall he's worried Ramsay will get her back, and that's where Ramsay being a monster who makes cloaks out of human skin comes into his analysis?  Again, it's all so very unclear what exactly is motivating Jon here.

Quote

But he doesn't have Arya, any more than he has Reek, not that he even knows who Reek is, so can it be about her, or at least her alone?  To hand over Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, The Monster & Val represents the total ruin of his strategy to build an alliance to defend the Wall.  Now maybe he simply can't accept that and so decides to meet Ramsay head on, defeat him and then build up what remains of his Stannis survivors / Wildling / Northmen / NW coalition in furtherance of his objective of defending the Wall.  In stepping beyond assisting Stannis to fighting Ramsay he is moving from shaky ground that skirts the line but stays within the boundary of neutrality and staying out of the the affairs of the kingdom to the dangerous ground of outright miltary involvement in the Civil War.  Clearly this exercises his mind and he considers, rightly, that such unprecedented action will be seen by the IT / Boltons as "treason" to the Throne though I'm not sure that is the right word (it's a hostile military act by a quasi-dependent whatever we make of that!).  But in meeting Ramsay's threats is he really betraying the purpose of his vows to the NW or dealing with the unprecedented situation where the Lord of Winterfell has decided to send him unmeetable demands and threaten to cut his heart out precisely at the time the ancient enemy is on the warpath?   It's a grey area and one that he thinks on a lot and chooses to use the wildings for the obvious reason they will fight for Mance and not the NW (all 100 of them at CB) who would surely baulk at a pitched battle with a Northern Army.  In the normal course of events we would have a stand-off with a call for arbitration or enforcement of the law by the Crown (although in this case Ramsay is as hotheaded as Brandon responding to Lyanna's abduction by Rhaegar or Jaime to Tyrion's abduction by Catelyn) but circumstances don't allow for that. 

Yes, particularly to the bolded.  In the previous controversial actions Jon has taken such as allowing the wildlings through the Wall and even assisting Stannis, Jon could take comfort in there being a clear objective that comports with his oath to the NW.  He really hones in specifically on being the shield that guards the realm of men, and couches those actions as being in accordance with that objective.  I don't think there's really any way for Jon to justify his hasty response to the Pink Letter in those terms.  Like you said, I think a more proper response would be to seek some sort of arbitration or at the very least respond back to Ramsay saying I don't have Arya/Reek so I can't give them to you, etc.  Open up some kind of dialogue, as fruitless as it may be, rather than just rashly marching on a superior military force that is also in an extremely well defended fortress that is Winterfell.  I guess again all this comes back to the rushed nature of Jon's final chapter- we get almost no indication of what Jon actually intends to do once he gets to Winterfell, no inkling of a plan.  

Quote

 

So why does he think of Arya so much?  Maybe he knows something we don't about Stannis and Reek and (F)Arya but it's hard to conjecture anything plausible out of the pink letter and the chaos it creates. I find myself left with him sticking with the political strategy he has tied himself to and the threat from Ramsay to undo all of that, perhaps having already undone a lot of it, drives him to decide action is necessary.  Arya is the spur he uses to galvanise himself to action agasint Ramsay rather than the principal driving force behind his decision to act.  But I am far from convinced I know what GRRM is up to here!

Does he give a damn about Cersei and the politics of KL?  Nope (but in ordinary times he probably should!).  He understands well enough that moving into open conflict with Ramsay turns the Crown into an enemy rather than a negligent and disinterested quasi-benefactor and that has potentially huge ramifications for the future and for the independence, even existence, of the NW and is not a step to be taken lightly.

 

I definitely think there's a feeling on Jon's part that the PL exposes a lot of what Jon sees as failings on his part from a political perspective.  Particularly, we know that Jon regrets allowing Mance to leave the Wall and views it as a mistake in hindsight.  I think a lot of the PL responds directly to concerns Jon has about his actions- also the PL asks for Shireen and Selyse and that probably brings to mind for Jon the political tightrope he was already walking with helping out Stannis.  In that way, the PL almost functions as a "chicken comes home to roost" kind of reckoning for Jon.

6 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Is that really so unreasonable? A boar killed the Demon of the Trident. Wild boars are very dangerous and vicious animals. According to some they can be just as dangerous as some breeds of bears. They have very shape tusks(as Bobby B could attest to) and can grow to enormous sizes. I sure the heck would not want to face dozens of massive boars coming after me.

Yes, it's incredibly unreasonable.  At the very least, it betrays a complete misunderstanding of how skin-changing works and what kind of power skinchangers possess.  The idea that one man could threaten hundreds with an army of boars is beyond unreasonable.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 12/13/2017 at 11:43 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Again, as has been stated time & time again Mance was sent to rescue a fleeing Arya. If you take issue with that, that's fine but in order to be taken seriously or to have a discussion on the matter you will have to attribute things to Jon that he actually did. 

It was a conditional threat but the conditions could not be met by the NW so what do you think would be the correct response to said threats?

It's an act of war according to who? Other than the Jon-haters there is no law or rule in place that says allowing someone to rescue a woman fleeing from an abusive marriage is an act of war. That is more of your trumped up charges against Jon. 

Mance should have been executed according to who? It is true the punishment for desertion is death, however, it is well within the authority of the LC to decide this particular desertion does not deserve death. Whether or not you agree or disagree with Lord Commander Jon Snow's decision is irrelevant as you are not Lord Commander. There is one person with the authority and duty to decide what is best for the watch & it isn't you or Bowen Marsh. It is the Lord Commander. The same as decisions were made by Lord Commander Mormont before him. When LC Mormont gave an order or decision Jon didn't like he did it anyway because that is his duty as a man of the NW. On what grounds does Bowen Marsh not have to do the same thing? Because his feelings were hurt? Because he disagreed more with Jon's decisions than Jon did with Mormont's? Nope. None of that holds any water. Bowen not only failed to do his duty but he also mutinied against his LC. 

And as many of the reasonable people here have written more than a few times.  Jon sent Mance Rayder to fetch his sister and Jon's plan was to take Arya away from Ramsay.  Mance didn't go through the trouble of disguises just so he could pick up Arya from the road.  Jon and Mance both knew that the spearwives and the deception were needed because they may need to go to the Boltons to get Arya.  Mance risked his lives and the lives of the women because Jon told him to get Arya.  Jon has to take the blame for everything Mance and the women did because they were acting on his behalf.  Widowmaker is right in holding Jon responsible for this illegal mission.   

[the trees have eyes]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

It justifies it. 

If for the Night's Watch is forbidden (or, at least, it's not a tradition) to cahoot with other factions and noble Houses from the Seven Kingdoms about such matters as their own elections, than it's clear that Thorne, Marsh, etc. did so and Jon overheard them after taking a bath.

The Lord Commander can claim that he heard them conspire with an outside party, Tywin Lannister, to install a LC of his choosing, in order to follow his orders and interests. That way, his faction would run the Night's Watch via these conspirators, against the interests of the NW. And, that being said, it would be totally true, knowing that Jon did overheard them, and knowing what Tywin's disciples do.

If he spiced it up with the constant life threats towards him from Thorne (especially) and Slynt, he could've added that on the list too.

So, if Jon could mixed up their conspiracy with an outside party to choose a Lord Commander, along with the fact that some of these were the exact ones that threatened his life in a casual fashion (there are plenty of witnesses), I can see them being executed quite reasonably. 

Marsh would've been guilty on the first count, Slynt on the second, and Thorne on both counts.

Except there is no evidence for any such law and therefore no reason to think that Jon could justify executing sworn brothers of the NW for exercising their right to choose their LC however they saw fit.

It would also put Jon in a position of beginning his tenure by executing men who had decades of experience at the Wall and considerable support from among his brothers while he, despite Sam's electioneering, has practically none.  It is a recipe for disaster.

In any case Jon does not want to get rid of Marsh or Yarwyck, so it would make no sense to do so to get at Thorne and stir up a shitstorm over it.  If he spared Marsh and Yarwyck but executed Thorne it would look like the settling of a personal vendetta and to be an act of tyranny not justice.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing but only Slynt earns his execution.

Beyond all that it strikes me as immoral to execute these men for this act without any clear understanding that this sort of thing would be a capital offence.  If it were a capital offence they would have killed Jon when he uncovererd their plotting in case he informed on them and since he has become LC they would be living in fear of what he might lawfully do.  They don't do any of this so the logical conclusion is that their plotting may have been frowned upon but was not breaking some taboo that they had reason to fear might cost them their lives.