Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

ance was a deserter but he also tried to save thousands of people from the Others. He spent years among the wildlings and became their military and political leader. When Jon meets him, he sees him not primarily as a deserter but as the leader of the enemy force, someone to fight against but also someone who could be negotiated with when it came to peace talks and even someone who could be a potential ally against the common enemy, which could be useful for the Watch and the realm. A true leader cannot be narrow-minded, and if you must judge a man, you should consider both the negative and the positive qualities. 

Mance is no longer the leader of anything and Jon did not decide to spare him for a higher purpose other than he may be the key to Arya's salvation. Mance, half-heartily broke his oaths, and led an invasion that killed many of the men who'd he'd called his brothers. Yes he tried to save thousands. But, the way he actually went about it was mostly due to his zeal to keep the anarchal way of life of the wildlings he'd become intoxicated by. Jon may have grown to respect Mance, as a person but it is Jon's duty, to insure the man is executed for his actions, not simply let him go to save the sister he swore he owed no alligence to out of some familial affection. He's not acting like a true leader, as much as he's acting like a good big brother. Janos Slynt though he disobeyed an order, and repeatedly and mocked any attempt by Jon to give him a chance to repent and to avoid punishment did only that; disobey an order. For this Jon, chose the chopping block as punishment, not exactly because he thought it was the most fair option of disipline or the only one such a sin could call for, but the most practical given the risk Slynt posed to Jon's regime of Lord commandeder. Mance literally led a war against the watch and is responsible for the deaths of plenty of the men Jon would call brother.  

Yet to save Arya he'd let the man go. That is not the act of a true leader. A true leader works with the goals and interests of the group as a whole, not use his authority merely as means to deal with personal grievances. 

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Jon gave up his family voluntarily in order to serve the realm at a time when giving up his family meant sacrifice on his part but he could be sure that his family members would do fine without him, as the Starks were a powerful and prosperous family. When Jon gave up his family to join the Night's Watch he intended to sacrifice himself for the realm (a noble sacrifice), not to sacrifice his family (a not so noble sacrifice).  

He pledged to divorce any loyalty he has for his family or any other entity for the watch. The Starks now being in jepordary, matter no more in regards to his duties to follow his oath, than if they were perfectly fine. No one is asking him to cut the Starks throats in front of a weretree to please the gods; but to simply do what we'd do for the Starks if they were perfectly fine; nothing. Do not try to save them from their fate if they face dire threats, do not try to condemn them, their general wellfare is not Jon's preoagative

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

hen his family was gradually destroyed. Jon eventually accepted that fighting for the whole realm was more important than avenging the death of his father - he couldn't bring him back anyway. He also accepted that Robb had others to rely on, even Bran and Rickon had people to look after them and protect them (until they were "killed", at least), and Sansa was out of his reach, and as "Lady Lannister" perhaps not requiring much help. But then suddenly he is informed that his little sister, alone, in mortal danger, with no one alive to protect her any more, possibly starving in a cold, wild and very dangerous place (on a dying horse), is fleeing to him, as her only surviving family member, for help. Giving up protecting this little sister in this desperate situation was never the sacrifice Jon meant to make when he gave up his family for the Watch.

Yes, he didn't really think, the Starks would fall to such dire straits(though honestly he should have thought of that possibility given not 2 decades past his family faced annialation in Robert's rebellion),  before he took his oaths, and now he's the opportunity to save one of them. That does not mean he's in no way abusing his authority when he allows Mance to escape justice without there being some sort of practical value towards the watch(for instance keeping the wildlings in check already at the wall in check and urging the rest of the people to seek amnesty rather than war), for personal grievances.  

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I didn't suggest that NW members should enjoy the same privileges as KG members. Of course, that would be impossible. Still, there is a lot of room between the benefits KG members enjoy and what the black brothers receive. If they want more recruits (and not only criminals and old men) in the NW, then they should make the status of NW members (at least of those who do not come straight from prison) less punitive and more attractive. Whether it should be land or a retirement scheme or the possibilty to have a family or glory and recognition or a more comfortable life while in service should probably depend on what sort of recruits they want to attract most of all and on what is possible to offer. Jon, for example, when he wanted to recruit wildlings, offered terms that were designed to be attractive to the wildlings. If you want to attract, for example, knights, you will need to offer something that will be attractive to them. If you want to invite peasant boys most of all, it's worth tailoring the rules according to that. If you want warriors from all walks of life, you have to design conditions that can attract lots of different people. If you can't give anything more than what the NW can offer at the moment, then at least try to take away less from the recruits.   

Jon just offered the wildling recruits greater shares of food for joining, he didn't try altering the Watch's desighn in order to cater to this new potential revenue of recruits. Men will fight over land. Most of the Watch's high command in particular will put all their efforts towards that will fight over who'd get the greater share of land. And, what land could they give to which would be appealing in the first place? Who could  provide it?  

Peasant boys, the desparate(wildlings)are the only ones whose needs the watch are able cater to, it'd be impossible to broadly appeal to any other group especially Knights.

8 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I didn't suggest that NW members should enjoy the same privileges as KG members. Of course, that would be impossible. Still, there is a lot of room between the benefits KG members enjoy and what the black brothers receive. If they want more recruits (and not only criminals and old men) in the NW, then they should make the status of NW members (at least of those who do not come straight from prison) less punitive and more attractive. Whether it should be land or a retirement scheme or the possibilty to have a family or glory and recognition or a more comfortable life while in service should probably depend on what sort of recruits they want to attract most of all and on what is possible to offer. Jon, for example, when he wanted to recruit wildlings, offered terms that were designed to be attractive to the wildlings. If you want to attract, for example, knights, you will need to offer something that will be attractive to them. If you want to invite peasant boys most of all, it's worth tailoring the rules according to that. If you want warriors from all walks of life, you have to design conditions that can attract lots of different people. If you can't give anything more than what the NW can offer at the moment, then at least try to take away less from the recruits.   

On February 26, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And giving that tidbit of information? 

Telling Ned that Cat had taken Tyrion prisoner? I don't see what is wrong with that. Yoren had direct information about a member of Ned's family, informaton that Ned would probablly want to know. Yoren had an audience with the Hand, who offered help to the Night's Watch and showed genuine respect towards the organization Yoren represented as well as towards the envoy himself. So Yoren had the opportunity to share this information with him. I guess if it had been Cersei, not Ned, to treat Yoren in that kind and respectful way, it would have been Cersei to hear that bit of information from Yoren, as it also concerned a family member of hers. 

This information wasn't some strategic military secret that Yoren would have found out specifically in order to serve the Starks. Yoren just happened to be the first to inform Ned. In addition, at this point Ned wasn't taking part in any war against any family. Cat had arrested Tyrion in the Riverlands with the help of her father's bannermen, while emphasizing what they owed to her father and to her Tully family. The conflict could have been between the Tullys and the Lannisters or just between two people (Catelyn and Tyrion). For all Yoren knew, Ned might have been able to prevent the conflict from accelerating and stop the war before it started.    

The purpose of the neutrality of the Night's Watch is to prevent the Wach from supporting one of the warring factions in an internal conflict with its military power or from starting an internal conflict using the NW's (former) military might. It doesn't mean that specific NW members are prohibited from talking to anyone who might be or become (in the future) involved in an internal conflict, even war, or that they have to break all ties and communication with a long-time supporter of the Watch just because the lord in question has a quarrel with another lord. The NW must not go to war on behalf of one lord against the other, but they do not promise to become deaf, blind and mute. 

Already said fair point to someone else.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He's not acting like a true leader, as much as he's acting like a good big brother. Janos Slynt though he disobeyed an order, and repeatedly and mocked any attempt by Jon to give him a chance to repent and to avoid punishment did only that; disobey an order. For this Jon, chose the chopping block as punishment, not exactly because he thought it was the most fair option of disipline or the only one such a sin could call for, but the most practical given the risk Slynt posed to Jon's regime of Lord commandeder.

That's exactly right.

Jon doesn't execute Janos because of his transgressions, but because he is a cancer that needs removing. Again - good leadership. He recognises that Slynt is a threat to his regime, and puts the man in a position where he either has to get in line or get crushed. Jon knows the distinction between men who don't like him but are worth working on, and a man like Slynt, who needs to be taken care of immediately and without mercy. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's exactly right.

Jon doesn't execute Janos because of his transgressions, but because he is a cancer that needs removing. Again - good leadership. He recognises that Slynt is a threat to his regime, and puts the man in a position where he either has to get in line or get crushed. Jon knows the distinction between men who don't like him but are worth working on, and a man like Slynt, who needs to be taken care of immediately and without mercy. 

And he goes on to allow a man who'd murdered swaths of his brothers go, due to a personal grievance.  Not good leadership. There was room for what Jon to prescribe the death penalty for Slyn and not take other options; for the crimes of desertion(attempted or successful) as well as the murder of brothers calls for one punishment; death. If Mance was some how critical to any sort of plan to Jon's plans to prepare the watch for the coming ice-zombies, that'd be one thing, but instead  he's ignoring his duty as lord commandeder and brother in favor of famial affections to a girl he'd sworn to foresake.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mance is no longer the leader of anything and Jon did not decide to spare him for a higher purpose other than he may be the key to Arya's salvation. Mance, half-heartily broke his oaths, and led an invasion that killed many of the men who'd he'd called his brothers. Yes he tried to save thousands. But, the way he actually went about it was mostly due to his zeal to keep the anarchal way of life of the wildlings he'd become intoxicated by. Jon may have grown to respect Mance, as a person but it is Jon's duty, to insure the man is executed for his actions, not simply let him go to save the sister he swore he owed no alligence to out of some familial affection.

But this is factually wrong. It was Stannis who condemned Mance, and Mel who saved him w/ the glamor. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He's not acting like a true leader, as much as he's acting like a good big brother. Janos Slynt though he disobeyed an order, and repeatedly and mocked any attempt by Jon to give him a chance to repent and to avoid punishment did only that; disobey an order. For this Jon, chose the chopping block as punishment, not exactly because he thought it was the most fair option of disipline or the only one such a sin could call for, but the most practical given the risk Slynt posed to Jon's regime of Lord commandeder. Mance literally led a war against the watch and is responsible for the deaths of plenty of the men Jon would call brother.  

I couldn't possibly disagree more, Jon is acting exactly like a good leader should. It's a testament to Martin's talent, really... How different people will take vastly different things from the text. 

Give me a leader who will do what is right over one who will blindly follow some rule book... Give me a leader who is committed to trying to save as many people as he possibly can, no matter what, over one who will be more concerned w/ saving his own arse and the arses of a 'selected few'. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yet to save Arya he'd let the man go. That is not the act of a true leader. A true leader works with the goals and interests of the group as a whole, not use his authority merely as means to deal with personal grievances. 

Sorry, no. As I've said above, Jon wants to try to save as many as he can, because he is defending humanity. Marsh and the others are nothing but a bunch of prejudiced cowards; all they care to save is themselves. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He pledged to divorce any loyalty he has for his family or any other entity for the watch. The Starks now being in jepordary, matter no more in regards to his duties to follow his oath, than if they were perfectly fine. No one is asking him to cut the Starks throats in front of a weretree to please the gods; but to simply do what we'd do for the Starks if they were perfectly fine; nothing. Do not try to save them from their fate if they face dire threats, do not try to condemn them, their general wellfare is not Jon's preoagative

Yes, he didn't really think, the Starks would fall to such dire straits(though honestly he should have thought of that possibility given not 2 decades past his family faced annialation in Robert's rebellion),  before he took his oaths, and now he's the opportunity to save one of them. That does not mean he's in no way abusing his authority when he allows Mance to escape justice without there being some sort of practical value towards the watch(for instance keeping the wildlings in check already at the wall in check and urging the rest of the people to seek amnesty rather than war), for personal grievances.  

Again, disagree wholeheartedly. I have no doubt Jon wanted to save Arya. And he got the chance to do it because Martin is clever Ramsay is stupid. Because he gave Jon the perfect excuse when he made threats against both the Watch and Jon personally. The whole 'the Watch takes no part' goes to hell in a handbasket the second someone threatens it and its LC. The Watch can't take part in conflicts happening south of the Wall, that's one thing. But it can't just be threatened and do nothing, and the idea that it should just 'take it' is a silly one.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

But this is factually wrong. It was Stannis who condemned Mance, and Mel who saved him w/ the glamor. 

Mance was condemned to death by a king for his crimes and Melisandre saved him true. Their trick does not absolve Mance for his crimes nor make it totally acceptable for Jon to use this turncoat and murderer of brothers as his lap dog to save a family member Jon had sworn to owe no alligence to. The most appropriate course of action for Lord commandeder Jon would have been alert Stannis of how he was tricked into murderering a man he'd pardoned, instead of allowing a Mance to simply walk away never having to pay or doing anything to atone for his offenses against the watch just because he's doing Jon a solid. Instead he went with what Big brother Jon should do when that side of him should be dead

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I couldn't possibly disagree more, Jon is acting exactly like a good leader should. It's a testament to Martin's talent, really... How different people will take vastly different things from the text. 

Give me a leader who will do what is right over one who will blindly follow some rule book... Give me a leader who is committed to trying to save as many people as he possibly can, no matter what, over one who will be more concerned w/ saving his own arse and the arses of a 'selected few'. 

No he's acting like a good brother. He's not letting Mance go for the brotherhood or its goals; he's letting the man who murdered plenty of his brothers and waged war on the realm to escape justice to save Arya from her lawful husband (and ship her away to Braavos regardles of the fact should Stannis lose the watch is going to be looked at and Arya's appearance would be noted), not for some furtherance of the Watch's interest. It actually put it serious jepordary and he should know it would for he should know if caught, this could spell the end for the brotherhood, the deaths of the thousands of refugees Jon let in and possibly the destruction of the realms of men itself. One girl is simply not worth it by virtue of being Jon's sister. 

I didn't mention Marsh and co. Yes he is prejudiced(as if the majority of Northmen in the watch are going to be that progressive as Jon-hell Jon even admitts the old bear wouldn't be on board for his plans to all the wildlings in threat from the others or no) but I wouldn't chalk up their coup as purely means of saving themselves as of yet until we see them give their case in WOW. for the watch after all and I could fanthom them thinking Jon needed to die for the watch to survive and pursue its mission; people are generally not so black and white as purely evil and purely good. 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Again, disagree wholeheartedly. I have no doubt Jon wanted to save Arya. And he got the chance to do it because Martin is clever Ramsay is stupid. Because he gave Jon the perfect excuse when he made threats against both the Watch and Jon personally. The whole 'the Watch takes no part' goes to hell in a handbasket the second someone threatens it and its LC. The Watch can't take part in conflicts happening south of the Wall, that's one thing. But it can't just be threatened and do nothing, and the idea that it should just 'take it' is a silly one.

 The lord commandeder was just found to have to stolen the Lord Paramount's daughter in law from her lawful husband the lord Paramount's son and lord of Winterfell by using the mass murderer, turncoat and wildling lover Mance Rayder(he's pointing to Jon, so yes people are going to conclude he specifically asked for Mance to do this regardles if you feel he didn't) and in the process murdered 4 innocent(legally), men and a child of 9 to attain her. No one could actually say the Boltons would be wrong in exacting justice upon the worst renegade lord commander since the nights' king. Ramsey if he did write the pink letter(doubtful for he'd know Jon would recognize his sister), means the Boltons have won, they are the de-facto power in the north now and the other houses even if they wanted to(they likely wouldn't), to help they're not going to be inclined to stick their neck out for the guy flooding the realm for savages and known to marry off nobleman's daughters to his warlords(Alys-Thenn marriage). It would not be hard for the IT to frame Jon as the unequivocal bad guy in the situation and sever chastisement for any brother who stands in their way is what I'm getting at. Ramsey would not be dumb having wrote the letter demanding Jon heed the demands of the govenoring family of the north. What Jon wanted to do in response to the pink letter was basically a glorified group-suicide and would have destroyed the watch if the PL was true. Tormund and his  band have no experience in siege warfare, nor the tools to launch one, after their 600+ mile ride from the watch to winterfel in Winter. Jon Snow,the lord commander, would pose no more threat to the Boltons anymore than a mouse to a lion. 

[kissdbyfire]

50 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mance was condemned to death by a king for his crimes and Melisandre saved him true. Their trick does not absolve Mance for his crimes nor make it totally acceptable for Jon to use this turncoat and murderer of brothers as his lap dog to save a family member Jon had sworn to owe no alligence to. The most appropriate course of action for Lord commandeder Jon would have been alert Stannis of how he was tricked into murderering a man he'd pardoned, instead of allowing a Mance to simply walk away never having to pay or doing anything to atone for his offenses against the watch just because he's doing Jon a solid. Instead he went with what Big brother Jon should do when that side of him should be dead

Sorry but this has been covered. First, Jon had nothing to do w/ condemning or executing Mance. And what you and others propose is that Jon, upon learning that Mance is alive (ADwD, Melisandre), should have revealed Mance's identity and executed him. And I think that, even though it hasn't been stated, that's probably what he should have done as per the NW rules/laws. That said, Jon knows what's coming - Winter! - and knows Mance is someone who can effectively help. So he goes along w/ the ManceShirt switcheroo.

And that is precisely what a good leader should do. 

 

Quote

No he's acting like a good brother. He's not letting Mance go for the brotherhood or its goals; he's letting the man who murdered plenty of his brothers and waged war on the realm to escape justice to save Arya from her lawful husband (and ship her away to Braavos regardles of the fact should Stannis lose the watch is going to be looked at and Arya's appearance would be noted), not for some furtherance of the Watch's interest. It actually put it serious jepordary and he should know it would for he should know if caught, this could spell the end for the brotherhood. 

Sigh. No. Please, you are making claims that you can't prove. In fact, you are making claims that are downright wrong. Jon never told Mance to go to Winterfell. He agreed w/ Mel's idea of sending Mance to retrieve a fleeing girl in grey/grey on a dying horse. Is he accountable for Mance's actions? I think so, but to a degree only. 

The lord commandeder was just found to have trying to steal the Lord Paramount's daughter from her lawful husband, by using the mass murderer, turncoat and wildling lover Mance Rayder(he's pointing to Jon, so yes people are going to conclude he specifically asked for Mance to do this regardles if you feel he didn't) and in the process murdered 4 innocent(legally), men and a child of 9 to attain her

---

How on earth Westeros  can you say that? According to the Pink Letter, Mance has confessed to... being Mance. We don't know what he said, and you are just assuming he said Jon sent him there to steal Arya. Maybe Mance said that, and then again, maybe he didn't. 

 

Quote

No one could actually say the Boltons would be wrong in exacting justice upon the worst renegade lord commander since the nights' king.

That's hilarious!

Every single person in the North can, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will. And the Jon/NK comparison is kinda cute too. C+ for effort. 

 

Quote

Ramsey if he did write the pink letter(doubtful), means the Boltons have won, they are the de-facto power in the north now and the other houses even if they wanted to(they likely wouldn't), to help they're not going to be inclined to stick their neck out for the guy flooding the realm for savages and known to marry off nobleman's daughters to his warlords(Alys-Thenn marriage). It would not be hard for the IT to frame Jon as the unequivocal bad guy in the situation and sever chastisement for any brother who stands in their way is what I'm getting at. Ramsey would not be dumb having wrote the letter demanding Jon heed the demands of the govenoring family of the north. What Jon wanted to do in response to the pink letter was basically a glorified group-suicide and would have destroyed the watch if the PL was true. Tormund and his  band have no experience in siege warfare, nor the tools to launch one, after their 600+ mile ride from the watch to winterfel in Winter. Jon Snow,the lord commander, would pose no more threat to the Boltons anymore than a mouse to a lion. 

I am sorry, but this is rubbish, top to bottom. The Boltons haven't won anything, even though Ramsay may think they have for a while. The vast majority of northern houses and clans will most definitely turn on the Boltons. They won't like the flood of wildlings, but they will move past that to focus on more important matters. Two have already spoken in person to Jon, and even attended Alys and Signor's wedding (at least one did, can't remember if they arrived together). And Wull, Norrey, Flint, etc have already joined Stannis against the Boltons. 

And the IT will have plenty to worry about w/o giving the North, and the Boltons and Freys a second thought. 

Amd you forget things like, there are other groups surrounding Winterfell. Or that the wildlings are the ones who will struggle the least in harsh winter climate. 

I could go on and on, but won't.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

ut this has been covered. First, Jon had nothing to do w/ condemning or executing Mance. And what you and others propose is that Jon, upon learning that Mance is alive (ADwD, Melisandre), should have revealed Mance's identity and executed him. And I think that, even though it hasn't been stated, that's probably what he should have done as per the NW rules/laws. That said, Jon knows what's coming - Winter! - and knows Mance is someone who can effectively help. So he goes along w/ the ManceShirt switcheroo.

And that is precisely what a good leader should do. 

I freely admitted it was ultimately Stannis to have condemned Mance to death. Mance Rayder as he is useless to Jon's plan to prepare the wall for Winter. He could not  urge any of the wildling chieftains  to seek refuge rather than war(if they'd listen) reason for he'd be exposed, and executed, the followers who want refuge not war will come already having seen many of Mance's inner circle being welcomed with really no difficulty any way. He doesn't know anything more about the others, he can impart upon anyone. The only real value he has to Jon is that he could save Arya. 

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sigh. No. Please, you are making claims that you can't prove. In fact, you are making claims that are downright wrong. Jon never told Mance to go to Winterfell. He agreed w/ Mel's idea of sending Mance to retrieve a fleeing girl in grey/grey on a dying horse. Is he accountable for Mance's actions? I think so, but to a degree only.

Didnt say winterfell-I said to save Arya from her lawful husband. Arya could be at Winterfell or on her way to the Thats not the point, the point Jon is risking the Watch to save Arya for Arya's sake. Seriously, it would be noted there's a preteen girl who looks like Jon, having shown up and odds are good someone is going to see him and Arya together. The risk of being caught is good; the mission and the group Jon has sworn to would then be in jeopardy.

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

earth Westeros  can you say that? According to the Pink Letter, Mance has confessed to... being Mance. We don't know what he said, and you are just assuming he said Jon sent him there to steal Arya. Maybe Mance said that, and then again, maybe he

Because Ramsey(if he wrote it) has sent the pink letter directly to Jon thinking obviously Jon is responsible? Would you really expect him to do is Mance hadn't implicated Jon?  Because "who sent you" is going to be one  the first question Ramsey asks after the torture begins? Mance would squeal and going to point to Jon for the reasons he's at winterfell. 

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

ingle person in the North can, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will. And the Jon/NK comparison is kinda cute too. C+ for effort. 

No. A lot would probably have mixed feelings, conflict but it'd be far from universal condemnation and open outcry over the Bolton's executing a wildling lover who'd let thousands of these savages in at the dawn of winter and who was supposedly caught using the turncoat, mass murderer Mance Rayder to steal the new lady Bolton. He's no longer guarding  the realm even in their eyes, for he is letting in the savages who'd been terrorizing them for thousands of years. Tell me, you honestly think Jon's progressive policies concerning the free folk wouldn't get a lot of people worried that this be a repeat of lord commander having lost his way? That stories of him marrying off nobleman's daughters to their chieftains will disgust a lot of the nobility?  That a lot of people wouldn't buy the tale of hes partnered with the enemies of civilization and wants to become a King? It's happened before.  

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

am sorry, but this is rubbish, top to bottom. The Boltons haven't won anything, even though Ramsay may think they have for a while. The vast majority of northern houses and clans will most definitely turn on the Boltons. They won't like the flood of wildlings, but they will move past that to focus on more important matters. Two have already spoken in person to Jon, and even attended Alys and Signor's wedding (at least one did, can't remember if they arrived together). And Wull, Norrey, Flint, etc have already joined Stannis against the Boltons. 

Stannis is southern. He's civilized. He's ultimately one of the realm and he's promising vengeance  for many of the northern lords whose kin was murdered and the chance to win some glory. Lords could follow him for those reasons.  If Stannis is dead then there's no longer a central figure to which houses who would want to rebel to rally behind; those who were confident to ultimate rebel openly were supposedly crushed. The majority of northern lords aren't paragons, the watch is a respected institution by them,but they will not going to risk their family being flayed for some renegade commander who has let the savages in; what other point for the watch could there be other than that(not knowing ice-zombies are coming of course)? And whose actually to be seen to have wronged the Boltons. They didn't stay united after King Robbwas murdered under guest rights doubtful the vast majority would suddenly put aside thousands of years of prejudices, disputes with each other, and their egos and risk their house's safety to enact vegence for the watch, because the Boltons put down a lord commander whose not even doing his job and who could be seen to have wronged them. Two northern mountain clan lords backing Stannis did attend Alsys' wedding to the thenns . Brandon Norrey and Torghen Flint. Neither are really fans of Jon. They both make perfectly clear they are not in favor of Jon's open door policy to all wildlings, , given how they've largely been the brunt of their savagery, I don't imagine Flint would rushing to avenge the man who wanted to offer a pardon to the monster, the monster. who raped/murdered/stolen 3 of female family members of his. 

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

IT will have plenty to worry about w/o giving the North, and the Boltons and Freys a second thought. 

If worse comes to worse the IT would expected to send aid..

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

md you forget things like, there are other groups surrounding Winterfell. Or that the wildlings are the ones who will struggle the least in harsh winter climate. 

You honestly believe Jon's plan was reasonable given his information? What groups specifically are you referring that Jon specifically counted on to give him enough aid in order to win winterfell? The Wildlings are still men man, after a 600+ mile ride to winterfell on what would have to be low provisions of food in winter they're going to be tired by the time they actually get to it and likely hungry as well and hungrier given they would hard pressed to find a food supply. Even if theyre used to cold climates more than others doesn't mean they're suddenly anymore equipped to launching a siege, or really taking a displined well-stocked army with better weaponary in general.

[Kandrax]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The Watch can't take part in conflicts happening south of the Wall, that's one thing. But it can't just be threatened and do nothing, and the idea that it should just 'take it' is a silly one

Jon could said his men to preaper for defense against Ramsay's forces.

[Kandrax]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

child of 9

Little Walder was either killed by his cousin or Ramsay.

[Varysblackfyre321]

54 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

Little Walder was either killed by his cousin or Ramsay.

Ramsey unlikely. Little Walder was his favorite protege. Big Walder perhaps did kill Little Walder; but how many people would think such a thing possible much less  believe that over the idea Mance and the savage women he's brought to Winterfel, and who has been killing people killed Little Walder? It's much easier to believe the latter. That a man bereft of honor like Mance could do such a thing, not a child. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I freely admitted it was ultimately Stannis to have condemned Mance to death. Mance Rayder as he is useless to Jon's plan to prepare the wall for Winter. He could not  urge any of the wildling chieftains  to seek refuge rather than war(if they'd listen) reason for he'd be exposed, and executed, the followers who want refuge not war will come already having seen many of Mance's inner circle being welcomed with really no difficulty any way. He doesn't know anything more about the others, he can impart upon anyone. The only real value he has to Jon is that he could save Arya. 

Well, both Jon and Stannis beg to differ.

ADwD, Jon I

“I know that,” Stannis said, unhappily. “I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I’ll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder’s life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms.”

 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Didnt say winterfell-I said to save Arya from her lawful husband. Arya could be at Winterfell or on her way to the Thats not the point, the point Jon is risking the Watch to save Arya for Arya's sake. Seriously, it would be noted there's a preteen girl who looks like Jon, having shown up and odds are good someone is going to see him and Arya together. The risk of being caught is good; the mission and the group Jon has sworn to would then be in jeopardy.

Yes, because Jeyne Poole is Jon's spitting image.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because Ramsey(if he wrote it) has sent the pink letter directly to Jon thinking obviously Jon is responsible? Would you really expect him to do is Mance hadn't implicated Jon?  Because "who sent you" is going to be one  the first question Ramsey asks after the torture begins? Mance would squeal and going to point to Jon for the reasons he's at winterfell. 

 Jeyne/fArya and Theon escaped, and the Wall is one of a few places she might try to reach. But it doesn't even matter. The point is, we don't know. The only "information" we get comes from the PL, and at this point there's nothing to back up anything in it. 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No. A lot would probably have mixed feelings, conflict but it'd be far from universal condemnation and open outcry over the Bolton's executing a wildling lover who'd let thousands of these savages in at the dawn of winter and who was supposedly caught using the turncoat, mass murderer Mance Rayder to steal the new lady Bolton. He's no longer guarding  the realm even in their eyes, for he is letting in the savages who'd been terrorizing them for thousands of years. Tell me, you honestly think Jon's progressive policies concerning the free folk wouldn't get a lot of people worried that this be a repeat of lord commander having lost his way? That stories of him marrying off nobleman's daughters to their chieftains will disgust a lot of the nobility?  That a lot of people wouldn't buy the tale of hes partnered with the enemies of civilization and wants to become a King? It's happened before.  

We've been over this. Of course the northern lords and clan chiefs will worry. But much like the Norrey and Flint, they will get past it because it's [almost] crunch time. 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Stannis is southern. He's civilized. He's ultimately one of the realm and he's promising vengeance  for many of the northern lords whose kin was murdered and the chance to win some glory. Lords could follow him for those reasons.  If Stannis is dead then there's no longer a central figure to which houses who would want to rebel to rally behind; those who were confident to ultimate rebel openly were supposedly crushed. The majority of northern lords aren't paragons, the watch is a respected institution by them,but they will not going to risk their family being flayed for some renegade commander who has let the savages in; what other point for the watch could there be other than that(not knowing ice-zombies are coming of course)? And whose actually to be seen to have wronged the Boltons. They didn't stay united after King Robbwas murdered under guest rights doubtful the vast majority would suddenly put aside thousands of years of prejudices, disputes with each other, and their egos and risk their house's safety to enact vegence for the watch, because the Boltons put down a lord commander whose not even doing his job and who could be seen to have wronged them. Two northern mountain clan lords backing Stannis did attend Alsys' wedding to the thenns . Brandon Norrey and Torghen Flint. Neither are really fans of Jon. They both make perfectly clear they are not in favor of Jon's open door policy to all wildlings, , given how they've largely been the brunt of their savagery, I don't imagine Flint would rushing to avenge the man who wanted to offer a pardon to the monster, the monster. who raped/murdered/stolen 3 of female family members of his. 

Again, you're basing a lot of your claims on things we simply don't know. For instance, I very much doubt Stannis is dead. 

And why do you say the northerners "didn't stay united" after Robb's murder? Where are you getting this from? Maege Mormont and Glover are somewhere, working behind the scene. Manderly will turn on the Boltons; in fact, he already turned. All clan chiefs want the Boltons dead. And on and on it goes. 

ADwD, The King's Prize

“Winter is almost upon us, boy. And winter is death. I would sooner my men die fighting for the Ned’s little girl than alone and hungry in the snow, weeping tears that freeze upon their cheeks. No one sings songs of men who die like that. As for me, I am old. This will be my last winter. Let me bathe in Bolton blood before I die. I want to feel it spatter across my face when my axe bites deep into a Bolton skull. I want to lick it off my lips and die with the taste of it on my tongue.”

 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If worse comes to worse the IT would expected to send aid..

Sure, like all the other times the crown sent help.

 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You honestly believe Jon's plan was reasonable given his information? What groups specifically are you referring that Jon specifically counted on to give him enough aid in order to win winterfell? The Wildlings are still men man, after a 600+ mile ride to winterfell on what would have to be low provisions of food in winter they're going to be tired by the time they actually get to it and likely hungry as well and hungrier given they would hard pressed to find a food supply. Even if theyre used to cold climates more than others doesn't mean they're suddenly anymore equipped to launching a siege, or really taking a displined well-stocked army with better weaponary in general.

Well, I don't know what Jon's plan is. And neither do you. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And he goes on to allow a man who'd murdered swaths of his brothers go, due to a personal grievance.  Not good leadership. There was room for what Jon to prescribe the death penalty for Slyn and not take other options; for the crimes of desertion(attempted or successful) as well as the murder of brothers calls for one punishment; death. If Mance was some how critical to any sort of plan to Jon's plans to prepare the watch for the coming ice-zombies, that'd be one thing, but instead  he's ignoring his duty as lord commandeder and brother in favor of famial affections to a girl he'd sworn to foresake.

By the letter of the law, Mance should have died. However, the realities of the situation meant that Mance was still immensely useful.

The whole point of the books when they are discussing the wielding of power, is that it's never clear cut. Jon made plenty of mistakes as Lord Commander, but he faced hard choices and did his best to do the right thing, which is all can be asked of anyone in my view. You can pick apart his decisions, but they weren't made out of self-interest or cynicism, but instead they were the product of an earnest young man trying to do the right thing, and sometimes failing.

[Kandrax]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ramsey unlikely. Little Walder was his favorite protege. Big Walder perhaps did kill Little Walder; but how many people would think such a thing possible much less  believe that over the idea Mance and the savage women he's brought to Winterfel, and who has been killing people killed Little Walder? It's much easier to believe the latter. That a man bereft of honor like Mance could do such a thing, not a child. 

Rowan said that they didn't kill LW in  front of the weirwood tree, and followers of old gods would never lie in front of it.

[talvikorppi]

Sorry to butt in without reading most of the argy-bargy but one point in my disappeared post from a few days ago was about the NW vow and how it seems to come in two parts. The stuff about not taking wives, no lands etc. seems different from the poetic core of the vow. "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."

This was the part Sam had to recite to pass the Black Gate. It prpbably is the original, Long Night -era oath. No references to not holding lands or having families etc. 

Just a thought.

We don't know what the Night's Watch originally was like, not even when or how it was instituted. I think we all can agree it has become a sorry shadow of what it once was, not fit for purpose. It's difficult to reconcile the ancient NW with modern times etc.

[talvikorppi]

Oh, and one more point.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that Jon Snow sent Mance to Winterfell.

Jon Snow sent Mance to Long Lake or north of it to retrieve and bring to Castle Black the young girl fleeing from an unwanted marriage in Melisandre's vision. Jon thought it was Arya. It turned out to be Alys Karstark. 

Jon never sent Mance to Winterfell, that was all Mance's own doing. So Ramsay Snow/Bolton is wrong in blaming Jon for Mance's rogue actions... OK, so maybe Jon should've had Mance killed to prevent this, but most of all, Jon never sent anybody to Winterfell.

The end effect is the same, though. Our favourites get tangled in these unfair moral tangles all the time, haha!

[Leo of House Cartel]

16 minutes ago, talvikorppi said:

Sorry to butt in without reading most of the argy-bargy but one point in my disappeared post from a few days ago was about the NW vow and how it seems to come in two parts. The stuff about not taking wives, no lands etc. seems different from the poetic core of the vow. "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."

This was the part Sam had to recite to pass the Black Gate. It prpbably is the original, Long Night -era oath. No references to not holding lands or having families etc. 

Just a thought.

We don't know what the Night's Watch originally was like, not even when or how it was instituted. I think we all can agree it has become a sorry shadow of what it once was, not fit for purpose. It's difficult to reconcile the ancient NW with modern times etc.

That's an awesome point about Sam and the Black Gate.

As you say, the Watch has fallen into a sad state.

When the ancient demons and their army of reanimated corpses - who apparently necessitated the building of the Wall in the first place - have been confirmed to be moving south, the likes of Bowen Marsh shouldn't be concerning themselves with stuffy rules and regulations. 

Having just betrayed and murdered the rightfully elected LC - with the previous LC suffering a similar fate - how exactly do they plan on inspiring confidence from the troops? How do they plan on dealing with all the Wildlings in the shieldhall, and the ones manning the castles along the Wall, now that they have publicly betrayed Jon? What if the Others decide to make their move whilst the Watch is dealing with the fallout of Bowen and company's backstabbing? The murder of Jon Snow was frankly, irresponsible.

Jon should be known as "Jon, The Conciliator" for ceasing hostilities between the NW and Free Folk (as fragile as the peace may be). Say what you will about Jon breaking the rules, at the end of the day, he's part dragon, part wolf. 

[Tagganaro]

21 minutes ago, talvikorppi said:

Sorry to butt in without reading most of the argy-bargy but one point in my disappeared post from a few days ago was about the NW vow and how it seems to come in two parts. The stuff about not taking wives, no lands etc. seems different from the poetic core of the vow. "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."

This was the part Sam had to recite to pass the Black Gate. It prpbably is the original, Long Night -era oath. No references to not holding lands or having families etc. 

Just a thought.

We don't know what the Night's Watch originally was like, not even when or how it was instituted. I think we all can agree it has become a sorry shadow of what it once was, not fit for purpose. It's difficult to reconcile the ancient NW with modern times etc.

This is a good point.  As I posted earlier, I find it interesting that both Jon and Mormont come to the same conclusion about the wildlings when they recite "the shield that guards the realms of men" portion of the vows.  At the end of the day, it would make sense that the quote "original" portion of the vows would focus on the true duties at the heart of being in the Night's Watch, while the quote "added-on" portion of "not holding lands" etc. would be more practical additions to help reinforce the duties of guarding the realms of men.

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Mance was condemned to death by a king for his crimes and Melisandre saved him true. Their trick does not absolve Mance for his crimes nor make it totally acceptable for Jon to use this turncoat and murderer of brothers as his lap dog to save a family member Jon had sworn to owe no alligence to. The most appropriate course of action for Lord commandeder Jon would have been alert Stannis of how he was tricked into murderering a man he'd pardoned, instead of allowing a Mance to simply walk away never having to pay or doing anything to atone for his offenses against the watch just because he's doing Jon a solid. Instead he went with what Big brother Jon should do when that side of him should be dead

There is a ton of debate over whether Stannis knows about Melisandre's trick or not.  While I agree I don't think Stannis knows, there is plenty of evidence in ADWD from which it could be inferred that Stannis knows exactly what Melisandre did and that it was ultimately his decision.

Quote

No he's acting like a good brother. He's not letting Mance go for the brotherhood or its goals; he's letting the man who murdered plenty of his brothers and waged war on the realm to escape justice to save Arya from her lawful husband (and ship her away to Braavos regardles of the fact should Stannis lose the watch is going to be looked at and Arya's appearance would be noted), not for some furtherance of the Watch's interest. It actually put it serious jepordary and he should know it would for he should know if caught, this could spell the end for the brotherhood, the deaths of the thousands of refugees Jon let in and possibly the destruction of the realms of men itself. One girl is simply not worth it by virtue of being Jon's sister. 

What part about Ramsay's marriage with a fake "Arya" is lawful?  The whole marriage is an unlawful sham.

Quote

I didn't mention Marsh and co. Yes he is prejudiced(as if the majority of Northmen in the watch are going to be that progressive as Jon-hell Jon even admitts the old bear wouldn't be on board for his plans to all the wildlings in threat from the others or no) but I wouldn't chalk up their coup as purely means of saving themselves as of yet until we see them give their case in WOW. for the watch after all and I could fanthom them thinking Jon needed to die for the watch to survive and pursue its mission; people are generally not so black and white as purely evil and purely good. 

Except as I just said above and I reproduced the exact quote earlier in this thread, the Old Bear came to the exact same conclusion Jon did independently of Jon.  I don't think it is remotely out of the question that had the Old Bear survived the trip back to Castle Black, he may have attempted some kind of peace negotiations with Mance and the wildlings.  Second, are Flint and Norrey not of the North?  They are probably some of the oldest of the old-school Northmen who hate the wildlings and live geographically the closest to them, and even they are impressed with Jon when he reveals to them that he got Tormund to agree to give him hostages.

Quote

 The lord commandeder was just found to have to stolen the Lord Paramount's daughter in law from her lawful husband the lord Paramount's son and lord of Winterfell by using the mass murderer, turncoat and wildling lover Mance Rayder(he's pointing to Jon, so yes people are going to conclude he specifically asked for Mance to do this regardles if you feel he didn't) and in the process murdered 4 innocent(legally), men and a child of 9 to attain her. No one could actually say the Boltons would be wrong in exacting justice upon the worst renegade lord commander since the nights' king. Ramsey if he did write the pink letter(doubtful for he'd know Jon would recognize his sister), means the Boltons have won, they are the de-facto power in the north now and the other houses even if they wanted to(they likely wouldn't), to help they're not going to be inclined to stick their neck out for the guy flooding the realm for savages and known to marry off nobleman's daughters to his warlords(Alys-Thenn marriage). It would not be hard for the IT to frame Jon as the unequivocal bad guy in the situation and sever chastisement for any brother who stands in their way is what I'm getting at. Ramsey would not be dumb having wrote the letter demanding Jon heed the demands of the govenoring family of the north. What Jon wanted to do in response to the pink letter was basically a glorified group-suicide and would have destroyed the watch if the PL was true. Tormund and his  band have no experience in siege warfare, nor the tools to launch one, after their 600+ mile ride from the watch to winterfel in Winter. Jon Snow,the lord commander, would pose no more threat to the Boltons anymore than a mouse to a lion. 

Again, define "lawful" and why any of that term would apply to Ramsay and anything to do with the Boltons in general, and more specifically Ramsay's sham marriage to "Arya"?  What part of any of this is "lawful?"  Was breaking all "laws" of hospitality to murder Robb Stark "lawful?"  How about being "legitimized" by a bastard child with no legal claim to the Iron Throne?  Was that "lawful"?  Has any of Ramsay's behavior over the course of the series been "lawful"?  You want to focus on the "renegade lord commander" but not the worst monsters in the series ?  Ok.  

[Nowy Tends]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

What part about Ramsay's marriage with a fake "Arya" is lawful?  The whole marriage is an unlawful sham

Not only "fake" Arya, the poor girl was enslaved after her family was slaughtered; talking about "lawful husband" in this situation is sociopathic…

[talvikorppi]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

This is a good point.  As I posted earlier, I find it interesting that both Jon and Mormont come to the same conclusion about the wildlings when they recite "the shield that guards the realms of men" portion of the vows.  At the end of the day, it would make sense that the quote "original" portion of the vows would focus on the true duties at the heart of being in the Night's Watch, while the quote "added-on" portion of "not holding lands" etc. would be more practical additions to help reinforce the duties of guarding the realms of men.

 

1 hour ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

That's an awesome point about Sam and the Black Gate.

As you say, the Watch has fallen into a sad state.

When the ancient demons and their army of reanimated corpses - who apparently necessitated the building of the Wall in the first place - have been confirmed to be moving south, the likes of Bowen Marsh shouldn't be concerning themselves with stuffy rules and regulations. 

 

Uurgh, I'm not very good at quoting multiple posts, but I hope you both, Tagganaro and Leo of House Cartel see I've quoted the relevant bits I quite agree with. You each raise points I'm interested in.

Bowen Marsh, the Old Pomegranate, is a cowardly conservative. Also , House Marsh is sworn to House Frey. Tells you something.

Firstly, LC Jeor Mormont came to believe the old horror stories were true. He also was one of Jon's most important mentors and father figures. Poor dead Ned never knew what was important but at least he sent Jon to the Wall, whence he will fulfill his destiny, or something. The wonderful Starks have been nearly as clueless as any other Northern or southron houses.

Only the Stark bastard knows what's what at the Wall and the North. Ironically he doesn't know who he is. We'll have a book or two of mega frustration before somebody - maybe somebody with dragons - finally "uncovers" him and helps him. I dunno. It just seems probable that main protagonists might work together, haha!

One thing I'm quite sure of is that the end game will not be a full Targaryean restoration. Times have a-changed.