Is The Concept Of The Night's Watch Obsolete?

[Julia H.]

On 2018. 03. 02. at 3:01 AM, kissdbyfire said:

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'. 

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. 

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.

I wholeheartedly agree.  Well said.

On 2018. 03. 02. at 9:05 AM, Kandrax said:

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

You can't defend Castle Black against an attack from the South. It is emphasized several times in the novel. The NW would be in a death trap if Ramsay's army reached Castle Black. If an army is coming from the South, the best thing you can do is to intercept them on their way.  

On 2018. 03. 02. at 0:11 PM, kissdbyfire said:

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

Exactly. Jon spent two hours making plans with Tormund. We know nothing about what they agreed on.

We know Jon announced his intention to attack Winterfell loud enough for all and sundry to hear. This is in itself suspicious, especially that he has reason to be wary of potential enemies around him. 

We know the Pink Letter made it clear that Arya was not in Winterfell. At the same time, Ramsay was threatening to attack Castle Black.

We also know that Jon had earlier done his best to dissuade Stannis from attacking a strong castle with wildlings. 

Then we have Jon's thoughts on what would be their best chance in case of an attack from the South as early as in ASoS:   

Quote

The thing to do would be to take the attack to them, he thought. With fifty rangers well mounted, we could cut them apart on the road. 

Then we have - as a possible analogue - the story of Catelyn's little trick when she captures Tyrion:

Quote

 

"You said we were riding for Winterfell!"

Catelyn Stark favored him with the faintest of smiles. "Often and loudly," she agreed. "No doubt your friends will ride that way when they come after us. I wish them good speed."

 

 All this makes it likely that Jon's real plan is not what he publicly announced - to ride on Winterfell - but to meet Ramsay's army on their way to Castle Black.

On 2018. 03. 02. at 0:41 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

Agreed.

23 hours 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.

Yes.

I do think the reforms Jon is trying to introduce may point exactly in the direction of the original Watch, with its original purpose and structure. "The North remembers", and Jon is the embodiment of the North and its values.

Mormont says that the Watch has to remember. 

Quote

"We ought to have known. We ought to have remembered. The Long Night has come before. Oh, eight thousand years is a good while, to be sure … yet if the Night's Watch does not remember, who will?"

"Who will," chimed the talkative raven. "Who will."

Jon is the North and the Watch. He is trying to remember. 

On 2018. 03. 02. at 1:10 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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.

Impossible, while the NW is a prison camp, so to attract qualified and dedicated warriors, fundamental changes are necessary. You either want a prison camp on your Northern border (and in this case you don't have to do anything, it's already there) or you want a strong, reliable army that can defend the kingdom even against a very powerful enemy. You cannot base that army on the prison camp. I think the first step is to remove the punitive character of the organization with all the impossible prohibitions. At the very least, grant the warriors true respect in the realm and make it possible for them to relate to what they are fighting for. 

Incidentally, Jon did more than simply offer the wildlings more food. He allowed them to join without requiring them to take the black (no lifelong service) or to say the vow (no giving up their fundamental rights to a family etc.), they only had to obey orders (and that was really important). Jon also allowed a unit of spearwives (female soldiers). Those decisions in themselves could start significant structural changes in the Watch. 

23 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

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.

 

Besides, killing the LC didn't improve their chances against Ramsay (if he is indeed coming to Castle Black with an army). Just because he finds Jon dead, Ramsay won't give up the chance to kill and torture just for the fun of it, especially if his demands are not satisfied (and for the moment, the Watch can't give him back his Reek and his "wife").

23 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

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.  

I absolutely agree. 

Everything that Ramsay has ever done is unlawful and completely immoral. I don't understand how can anyone defend his "right" to torture and rape. 

20 hours ago, talvikorppi said:

Bowen Marsh, the Old Pomegranate, is a cowardly conservative.

He is also very shortsighted and not exactly clever. I think the Watch he loves is the Watch that gave him a comfortable life among his accounts, and he blames Jon for the changes that put an end to it. 

Quote

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

Yes. That's my suspicion as well.

[Roswell]

38 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Exactly. Jon spent two hours making plans with Tormund. We know nothing about what they agreed on.

We know Jon announced his intention to attack Winterfell loud enough for all and sundry to hear. This is in itself suspicious, especially that he has reason to be wary of potential enemies around him. 

We know the Pink Letter made it clear that Arya was not in Winterfell. At the same time, Ramsay was threatening to attack Castle Black.

We also know that Jon had earlier done his best to dissuade Stannis from attacking a strong castle with wildlings. 

Then we have Jon's thoughts on what would be their best chance in case of an attack from the South as early as in ASoS:   

Whatever Jon and Tormund talked about doesn't matter.  What matters is Jon got caught with his pants down.  The pink letter exposed his clandestine and illegal activities to steal his sister away from her husband.  This in turn provoked Ramsay to threaten Jon.  Which is justified because Jon was interfering with the Bolton family.  Any house will see what Jon did as an attack on them.  Arya was in Winterfell before the pink letter.  Mance and his goons murdered Bolton servants, which in itself violated the spirit of guest rights.  Jon already committed his treason even before the arrival of the pink letter, hell even before the pink letter was written.  His treason started the second he ordered Mance to fetch his sister.  Jon had intentions of hiding Arya from her husband.  That puts Jon in the wrong. 

 

[Julia H.]

1 minute ago, The Transporter said:

Whatever Jon and Tormund talked about doesn't matter.  What matters is Jon got caught with his pants down.  The pink letter exposed his clandestine and illegal activities to steal his sister away from her husband.  This in turn provoked Ramsay to threaten Jon.  Which is justified because Jon was interfering with the Bolton family.  Any house will see what Jon did as an attack on them.  Arya was in Winterfell before the pink letter.  Mance and his goons murdered Bolton servants, which in itself violated the spirit of guest rights.  Jon already committed his treason even before the arrival of the pink letter, hell even before the pink letter was written.  His treason started the second he ordered Mance to fetch his sister.  Jon had intentions of hiding Arya from her husband.  That puts Jon in the wrong. 

 

Of course, I don't agree with your conclusion (that's probably obvious from my earlier posts), but what really surprises me is why you are saying the above as a reply to a post of mine which dealt with a different aspect of the story. What Jon and Tormund talked about may well matter, even if you are not interested in it. 

[Leo of House Cartel]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Besides, killing the LC didn't improve their chances against Ramsay (if he is indeed coming to Castle Black with an army). Just because he finds Jon dead, Ramsay won't give up the chance to kill and torture just for the fun of it, especially if his demands are not satisfied (and for the moment, the Watch can't give him back his Reek and his "wife").

Indeed, given Ramsay's treatment of Lady Hornwood - which is public knowledge - it's crazy to think that Bowen believes Bolton wouldn't kill every one at the Wall anyway, regardless of a dead Jon Snow.

Although Marsh and his cronies might not know it, we the readers - through Theon and Moat Cailin - know all to well how Ramsay treats those who submit to him. 

 

 

[Nowy Tends]

41 minutes ago, The Transporter said:

  That puts Jon in the wrong. 

While your cherished Ramsay is in his right on every point.

Arya is a fake, a sexual slave married by force whom he tortures to the point her screams can be heard all over Winterfell; and with his band of morons he slaughters a free rider who said something about Stannis…

Ramsay is a cancer, any attempt to remove him is desirable, justified and legal.

[Leo of House Cartel]

1 hour ago, The Transporter said:

Whatever Jon and Tormund talked about doesn't matter.  What matters is Jon got caught with his pants down.  The pink letter exposed his clandestine and illegal activities to steal his sister away from her husband.  This in turn provoked Ramsay to threaten Jon.  Which is justified because Jon was interfering with the Bolton family.  Any house will see what Jon did as an attack on them.  Arya was in Winterfell before the pink letter.  Mance and his goons murdered Bolton servants, which in itself violated the spirit of guest rights.  Jon already committed his treason even before the arrival of the pink letter, hell even before the pink letter was written.  His treason started the second he ordered Mance to fetch his sister.  Jon had intentions of hiding Arya from her husband.  That puts Jon in the wrong. 

 

Sometimes, affairs of the heart must come before affairs of the rule book. 

[Tagganaro]

21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And? Jon doesn't know anything that has led him to believe this endeavor is being done with Stannis's blessing all he does know is that Stannis had condemned Mance Rayder and instead executed someone else. 

Jon not informing the brotherhood and Stannis of his discovery ultimately was grossly irresponsible given his position of lord commander.

Why?  You're the one arguing Jon needs to tell Stannis right away about Mance for....reasons?  I don't know why Jon needs to inform Stannis of anything about this, let alone that Stannis is miles away marching to a life or death battle against the Boltons.  And yeah, Jon doesn't know anything that has led him to believe Stannis knows about Mance except for the fact that Stannis specifically made a show of gifting "Rattleshirt" to Jon and that Melisandre, Stannis's confidant and "true queen" is telling Jon that Jon saved Mance's life by arguing to Stannis.  

Quote

 

Far as Jon knows, Arya has wed(said the oaths) Ramsey in front of witnesses and bedded her. That all it  would make her his wife-Jon doesn't know about the sceme as far as he and really most of anyone could know Arya Stark is the wife of Ramsey Bolton. 

No one could prove otherwise, even if they had suspicions(which they'd obviously will) about the validity of this girl's identity, so the Boltons  could very well  use the pretext of Jon having sent the mass murderer to fetch Ramsey's bride as reason enough to simply execute the man and all the wildling refugees. 

 

Why is any of this relevant to "legality" and why does "legality" only seem to apply to Jon Snow and not Ramsay Bolton?

Quote

 

Jeor agreed the ice-zombies were the true enemy of the Watch; Jon himself, does not think Jeor would be in support of letting in 10,000s wildling refugees in however.  

 

Jon has no idea that Mormont came to the same conclusion as him.  We as readers know better however.  I don't recall Jon ever thinking that Mormont wouldn't approve, in fact Jon at one point thinks that it should be Mormont treating with Tormund and not Jon.  And again, we have Mormont's thinking from A Storm of Swords.  He explicitly says that the Wall was designed to guard the realms of men, and the wildlings were men...you can draw your own conclusions about what that means but I'd think it's pretty obvious what he's saying there.  

Quote

Ramsey is bad mmk. Now having said that, feeling hate/fear/disgust towards Ramsey does not mean the north in general are going to be as keen to defend or avenge Jon should Ramsey come down to execute this "renegade lord commander" whose allowing the people he's supposed to be keeping out in, especially he seems to have made the first provocation against house Bolton. Arya is a lady of theirs now; almost  no ones going to risk their family being flayed (assuming of course the  Boltons had beaten Stannis) for the fact Jon(who again isn't doing his job in many of their eyes

If you want to talk about the North's "feelings" for Jon Snow vs Ramsay Bolton, that's entirely another topic.  I think it's pretty clear that 99% of the North hates the Boltons in general and 99.9% of the North hate Ramsay Bolton in particular, so in the battle of Ned Stark's bastard who looks like Ned and has a direwolf vs Roose Bolton's bastard who has committted all forms of atrocities against fellow Northmen and women...I think the majority of support would go for Jon.  

[Bowen 747]

1 hour ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Indeed, given Ramsay's treatment of Lady Hornwood - which is public knowledge - it's crazy to think that Bowen believes Bolton wouldn't kill every one at the Wall anyway, regardless of a dead Jon Snow.

Although Marsh and his cronies might not know it, we the readers - through Theon and Moat Cailin - know all to well how Ramsay treats those who submit to him. 

 

 

Bowen made a logical choice.  Jon started the problem when he tried to take Arya away from her husband.  Bowen is assuring the watch will mind its own business from now on by executing the lord commander who perpetrated the mess to start with.  He's sending a message saying the watch has dealt with its internal problems and rid themselves of a mad lord commander. 

 

[Nowy Tends]

18 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Jon started the problem when he tried to take Arya away from her husband. 

You obviously have a problem of comprehension, or you don't even read the posts you quote, or both. The marriage is a trickery.

As for "getting rid" of their commander, Bowen and his mignons could very well arrest him, put him in a cell, etc. But since they're a bunch of cowards overwhelmed by the situation, they chose the easy path: the miserable stabbing by surprise. Bleh…

[Leo of House Cartel]

25 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Bowen made a logical choice.  Jon started the problem when he tried to take Arya away from her husband.  Bowen is assuring the watch will mind its own business from now on by executing the lord commander who perpetrated the mess to start with.  He's sending a message saying the watch has dealt with its internal problems and rid themselves of a mad lord commander. 

Be that as it may, it's foolish for Bowen to think the Ramsay problem will go away just because they have killed Jon. 

The letter clearly indicates that the Watch will be in trouble if Ramsay doesn't get his bride and his Reek back.

Quote

 Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

Come now, if Ramsay arrives at Castle Black with Jon dead then he would most probably believe any hope of "getting his possessions back" was lost. Do Bowen and co - who must have heard about Lady Hornwood - really believe Ramsay would go easy on them if they are responsible for Jon's death? Considering the letter indicates that Bolton believes Jon knows Arya and Reek's whereabouts?

As others have said up thread, what was Jon supposed to do after reading the Pink Letter? Put all of his fellow brothers at more risk by doing nothing and adhering to the laws of the HR department?

Consider the threat of the White Walkers too (something I've noticed that "for the watch" supporters always seem to avoid"). The entire Watch is preparing for an attack from the beyond the Wall, while the Pink Letter hints at an attack from the South. In my view, defending the Brotherhood comes before following laws - if Jon were to allow Ramsay to wipe the Crows out, who will defend the realms of men?

Also, openly betraying and killing an LC who was popular with many other people along the Wall (including the likes of Tormund, Denys Mallister and Val) is a foolish move for anyone to personally make. Good luck to Bowen and his pals, they had better watch their backs.

[The Fattest Leech]

Boy, oh boy. This thread about the functions of the Night's Watch sure didn't waste any time turning in to the typical bog dwelling Jon/Stark hate thread.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

-George Bernard Shaw
 

[Morgana Lannister]

Very interesting question with no easy answers IMHO.

When I first came across this Order in the first book I immediately thought of the Knight Templars although the analogy is not really that good thinking about it and, in fact, the Templars are probably closer to the Faith Militant although on a pretty loose sense as well.  However, the brothers of the Night Watch are in a sense similar to monks (despite having freedom of religion) in terms of the vows the take (chastity, austerity etc) and even the use of the term "brothers" but of course they have a military purpose.  Still all of the Orders in the world of ASOIAF seem to have similar requirements.  Still, as it has been pointed out the Kings Guard and the Maesters seems to have more comfortable lives and nowadays more recognition.

In terms of recognition my impression is that things have gone down hill over the years as nobody believes any longer in the necessity to protect against the Others and in fact the purpose of the NW when Jon encounters it seems to be to keep the Wildlings out, which to me has a resonance of an strong anti-immigration policy.  I understand that the Wildlings refuse to abide but the feudal laws but still there seems to be a hint of "fear of the people who are different" who can be reminiscent of what we today call xenophobia.  Still, yet again, although we don't know why Benjen joined he presents the NW to Jon as something to be proud of, a noble and ancient Order that, if not glory, can bring one pride and prestige and it appears to be egalitarian, as anyone can theoretically raise high despite their humble birth, which is one of the things I personally think attracted Jon (who was lost for purpose anyway) to join.

The reality he encounters is however somewhat different with most of the recruits being criminals who chose the Wall against a worse fate.  Than and either retired or "out of favour" nobility who are very much still the elite in the NW when Jon first joins.  So even the meritocracy idea is not what it would appear, although okay Jon did manage to make it a reality (although he had help).  I personally think that this decline has happened over hundreds and hundreds of years in the same vein that nobody believes Old Nana's tales any more and they are now children's stories.  Once upon a time the previous Long Night would have been fresh in people's memories which was past onto their descendants.  I expect that many second sons of the nobility would have been keen to join, whereas nowadays it seems that they just marry lesser houses instead of taking vows, hence Tywin's dismay at Jaime joining the King's Guard and even Randyl when Sam expressed his desire to become a maester.  So I guess this is not the only Order that the nobility frowns upon but yes it is the less desirable one.  Again, in terms of sons other than the heir in the prologue of the first book we have that Royce guy but then again we don't know the exact circumstances.

I don't however disagree with the idea of wiping up previous "sins" and offering convicts the option to join and having a purpose, some direction (which discipline can provide) and being useful to society.  One of the problems is that the NW seems to have lost his original purpose and I think this is the main reason for its decline.

Now of course recruitment has become a huge issue, especially recruiting people with the necessary skills and talent, hence Aemon told Tyrion that they could make use of the likes of him with his brains as this seems to be very hard to come by in the Watch these days.  Most able bodied youths are probably capable of training at arms however.  The thing is, prior to the mass sightings of WWs all they had to do is fight Wildlings and the Wall protected them a great deal from them so basically they had little to do in comparison to say the King's guard or the Citadel.  They are basically seen as largely unnecessary and the Lords of the realm are not keen on spending their resources on them other than to rid themselves of wrongdoers.  In essence, in their eyes they have lost most of their pragmatic purpose especially as far as Southern Lords are concerned.

Now neutrality is definitely necessary as it should be for the Citadel also.  I guess the King's Guard is different in that they are sworn to the King just as Lords have their bannermen.  I can see the huge issues if they were all meddling in the politics of the Realm and trying to further their own houses and/or liege Lords.  Still as @Julia H. pointed out the NW brothers are human like everyone else.  My opinion is that failing extreme conviction almost akin to fanaticism this level of losing one's identity is hard to achieve.  Okay, Arya is perhaps not the best example re FM as she is highly spirited but the struggles she faces come home very well.  I honestly don't morally blame Jon for having strong ties and feelings for his family and even for falling in love.  He won't be the first and he won't be the last, as they say.  So maybe the system should be a little more flexible.  Taking as an example, say a Catholic priest who may fall in love, he is allowed to leave the priesthood and marry but cannot continue being a Catholic priest.  This could be an option here.  I appreciate that then most people would leave, however in many societies there is a certain level of stigma attached to having left sacred vows, so I wouldn't make it overly easy.

But this brings me to yes the family political conflicts have to be set aside because the consequences could be chaos.  However, is it really that essential that they take no wives and father no children?  I could see an issue especially with noble brothers wanting their children to inherit lands etc.  Should these children even been excluded from inheritance, say from an uncle or grandfather?  After all, the children would not have sworn anything or even be old enough to do that...  In our today society, the military are able to marry of course and they are yet to prove less effective for that.  Equally some liberal branches of Christianity and Judaism, off the top of my head, they may be others allow female ordination and marriage and this doesn't seem to cause issues with their congregations as far as I can tell in general.  I understand the idea of concentration 100% in one's job without a life outside of it but this is harsh and hinders the recruitment process.  

An argument I am sure will be made is where would the wives live?  Would they be at huge risk of being raped etc?  I also think that, although there are exceptions of course, celibacy makes these men all the more desperate and I would certainly turn a blind eye, as they seem to do in the NW these days, to them visiting Mole Town.  After a few generations of having wives around, people would behave like in any other village.  There would be the odd rape, of course, but that happens anywhere but the percentage I feel would be small.  I would be in favour of letting women join too, some might be fighters some could help with cleaning, cooking, researching or whatever.  Now what would happen with children of brothers and sisters of the NW?  I think they should have a choice of joining or going into the outside world after been given some education.  Not all need to be academics or fighters but maybe have crafts such as stonemasons, dressmakers etc...  I could see this attracting a lot of people especially the poorest in exchange for some prospects.

Now as for the future this confrontation with the Others is going to bring back very suddenly the huge importance of the Night Watch and its prestige.  If there is a truce with the Others and they "agree" somehow to "go back to sleep" (maybe in exchange for no more dragons or something) or whether they are defeated it is likely that the threat may resurface in many years to come.  The people's memory will be fresh with this horrific confrontation and being in the Night Watch may be tantamount to being a hero, whether the Wall falls or not.  Some further defences may be needed.  I think the NW will prevail but will be very changed.

As for the wives and families, whatever happens the casualties in the whole of the Realm are going to be enormous, not just due to the Others but also the famine that will come with Winter.  It is a known fact in history that after every huge conflict there is a baby boom which is encouraged by governments as absolutely necessary.  There is little hope of Spring without offspring so whoever is left standing would not be discouraged from having babies I don't think.

Just my two cents...

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Technically Mance's wasn't the Night's Watch's captive. He had been captured by the Stannis army, and Stannis claimed him (as well as Val) as his own prisoner. Rightfully or not, on the Wall, Stannis played the King, and had the army to match his claim (as far as the Watch was concerned). He had also literally saved the Watch and consequently the realm from a major wildling invasion. The only thing Jon as LC could do about Mance is to advise Stannis on what to with the man, and he tried to persuade Stannis to spare Mance because of his potential usefulness long before saving Arya occurred to

Did I say otherwise?

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

ether Jon should have told Stannis: When Jon found out that Mance was alive, Stannis was far away, and for all Jon knew, Stannis might have known it all along. Melisandre actually implied that Stannis knew. It may have been a lie, but this was what she told Jon:

Detaining mance, and sending a brother Jon trusts over to ask Stannis if this is what he wants is a possibility. Hell just say do nothing until word gets back. Jon does not trust Melisandre and her comments could very well mean she simply means she recognizes that there are certain times where Stannis is wrong and has to come in and try to rectify the mistakes. 

For all Jon knows this witch, who he's distrustful of and possibly slightly scared of, is acting completely autonomously. 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Why would Melisandre mention Stannis here if not to imply that he had agreed? In addition, Stannis had given"Rattleshirt" to Jon as a "gift" before leaving the Wall, which, in my opinion, also indicates he probably knew who "Rattleshirt" was. Stannis was aware of what Jon thought of the real Rattleshirt and also of what Jon thought of Mance. In light of that, giving Mance to Jon as a gift makes sense, giving the real Rattleshirt to him does not. 

At this point, Mance is certainly not King-beyond-the-Wall any more, but he still has the knowledge about the Others as a (former) leader who has faced them, which can mean vital information for the Watch if he can be persuaded to share it. In addition, yes, he may find Arya for Jon, so that Jon could keep his vow and remain on the Wall without involving any actual brothers in the search. 

Rattleshirt is still a leader of the free folk. Not one to which other leaders, and most wildlings would get behind such as Mance but it's quite possible Stannis thought that would at least help the situation of keeping the wildlings in line.

Yeah, Jon from his interactions with Mance after finding him to be glamoured doesn't really press Mance for more information before his departure to fetch Arya so it's clear Jon thinks the deposit for what Mance knows is empty; and there are plenty of wildlings who've fought the others, and leaders as well Jon could talk, Val, Strogen ect.

Jon can't know Stannis's plan and given he planned to ship Arya away to Braavos, if he did doesnt care either way given Stannis needs the girl though his lack of worry of retaliation from Stannis point to he doesn't think Stannis knows.

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

 

Slynt had been sent to the Wall as punishment, an an alternative to execution for his crimes. He knew that, so it was his duty to obey and be happy to be alive. He had already had a military career, so he knew what the job of a soldier involved. Refusing a command of his superior was in essence refusing to serve, which practically means he chose the other punishment. 

Mance, on the other hand, was a wildling child who was either saved or kidnapped by watchmen and brought up on the Wall to be one of them. He hadn't been sentenced for any crimes, yet, no alternatives were offered to him. As it happened, he simply was not cut out for the kind of discipline demanded by a regular army, so he quit in the only way that was possible for him: He returned to his own people, the wildlings. While in the NW, he was literally expected to kill his own people. I guess the wildling woman who saved his life and mended his cloak made him realize where he had originally belonged, and that was part of the reason why the cloak was so important to him.

Selyse Florent posits a rumor she heard of Mance being the bastard of a Wildling woman and a crow father. Mance cannot claim ignorance of the brotherhood while if had grew up in surrounded by the Nightswatchmen at the wall, and yes he had as much alternatives as any non-highborn in westeroes to what to do; he could leave the watch, forge his own path, work at a bar, or go be a whore at mole's town oor in a sell-sword company(I imagine he'd been given some of the basic training at the wall at a young-), or try tack on as household guard for a minor house. Those choices didn't appeal to him but they were there. He has no excuse other than when he saw a chance for a life that seemed more appealing he lept  The tale he gave Jon for why he deserted was romantic but hardly justifying for his desertion. He's entirely guilty for having broken his oaths. He has an awesome life for adrenaline junkie now, I'll give you that, but for his reasons for his shameful conduct as a brother I find it the weakest excuse for desertion we've seen as of yet. 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

With reference to the main question of this thread, I think it is wrong to ask and even to allow very young boys to commit for life and make very serious sacrifices for life before they have a chance to truly understand both what they are choosing and what they are giving up forever. I'm totally with Benjen Stark on thi

If they're old enough to make such a decision can't really fault the watch for asking. 

Jon, Sam, Pyp, they're boys in the same sense in the same sense 18 year olds are seen as boys. Just about Adults that can be expected to make decisions for their own life and be expected to bear the consequences for their decision. 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

And I think we, the readers, are meant to question whether this, in fact, is possible, whether you can sign away your individual conscience, your individual responsibility, whether refusing to save someone you can save here and now, someone you alone can save, in the name of the "greater good" is really the right thing to do. Charity begins at home. If you are unwilling to save the one who is closest to you and is in direct mortal danger, with no one else to rely on but you, you are probably not the right person to save all humanity, no matter how closely you are able to follow the rules. 

If you can't put the ahead the lives of thousands, for one loved one of yours, you can't bring yourself to bear doing nothing because to do anything to help her may compromise the lives of a lot of people, you're not acting like the ideal person to which saving the world should hope for. Jon was never lied to at the wall. He knew this was a lifetime commitment, knew what sighing on entailed and given his family's recent history of being under dire threats, he has no excuse of claiming he couldn't have known the Stark would face that again.  If he wants to renege on his promises, fine, but he cannot(and does not pretend), the Starks being now in dire straights some how absolves him from the responsibility of having broken his promises, that he's not working under an ideal situation for him.

 

[The Sunland Lord]

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Boy, oh boy. This thread about the functions of the Night's Watch sure didn't waste any time turning in to the typical bog dwelling Jon/Stark hate thread.

All a thread needs is the slightest push to turn into such.

 

2 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Just my two cents...

Much appreciated. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Why?  You're the one arguing Jon needs to tell Stannis right away about Mance for....reasons?  I don't know why Jon needs to inform Stannis of anything about this, let alone that Stannis is miles away marching to a life or death battle against the Boltons.  And yeah, Jon doesn't know anything that has led him to believe Stannis knows about Mance except for the fact that Stannis specifically made a show of gifting "Rattleshirt" to Jon and that Melisandre, Stannis's confidant and "true queen" is telling Jon that Jon saved Mance's life by arguing to Stannis.  

Quote

Because Mance is still guilty of the deaths of dozens of his brothers and waging the war on realm so it'd might be pertinent to see if this is something Stannis planned first at least before giving Mance the very tools he needs to help accomplish Melisandre's plan and perhaps (as lord commander), say he can't offer aid in it because the watch can't play any part. Because, this is something that if is discovered, may spell the doom for the watch as a whole and it if Jon thinks this is being done in Stannis's name, compromising the watch's integrity completely and utterly?

6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Why is any of this relevant to "legality" and why does "legality" only seem to apply to Jon Snow and not Ramsay Bolton?

Jon thinks the marriage is legal-well he has every reason to think so at least. If Ramsey were to lay asunder Castle Black to get to Jon(let's also say whose doing what people think is his job-keeping those murdering and thieving rapists wildIings out)for no reason, he'd be seen in the clear, some houses would, there'd be universal outcry, condemnation for what Ramsey did-but if Jon is seen having struck first, he got involved in matters to which he as lord commander of the NW has no real business, (to take away the lady using Mance Rayder of all people) of the Boltons, there'd franklly not as much bad PR since now the Boltons can say they are the wronged party.

No one is going to weep tears, but people would be hard pressed to give reason for why there actions were completely uncalled for in this incident.

6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

on has no idea that Mormont came to the same conclusion as him.  We as readers know better however.  I don't recall Jon ever thinking that Mormont wouldn't approve, in fact Jon at one point thinks that it should be Mormont treating with Tormund and not Jon.  And again, we have Mormont's thinking from A Storm of Swords.  He explicitly says that the Wall was designed to guard the realms of men, and the wildlings were men...you can draw your own conclusions about what that means but I'd think it's pretty obvious what he's saying there.  

Oh in his meeting with mance just before Stannis showed up: Jon pg 1020" The old Bear might at least have listened, though he would have balked at the notion of letting loose thirty or forty thousands wildlings losose on the Seven kingdoms" 

Jeor agreed the others were the prime enemy, the one to which the watch and wall was meant to combat-that's not the same thing as "open borders for all" Hell Jon having grown to respect Jeor as a wise man, did not think his encounter with ice-zombies, even with the information has of the threat would have convinced Jeor of the validity of Jon's plans; imagine what the most of the lords of the north would say having no idea about the others?

6 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Quote

 

If you want to talk about the North's "feelings" for Jon Snow vs Ramsay Bolton, that's entirely another topic.  I think it's pretty clear that 99% of the North hates the Boltons in general and 99.9% of the North hate Ramsay Bolton in particular, so in the battle of Ned Stark's bastard who looks like Ned and has a direwolf vs Roose Bolton's bastard who has committted all forms of atrocities against fellow Northmen and women...I think the majority of support would go for Jon.  

Oh no, the north cares very little for the Boltons, to say the least-but the majority of them won't show any particular love for Eddard Starks' bastard whose letting in an entire people of thieves, rapists and murderers who've been plaguing the north for thousands of years and rumored to marry off noble girls to savage war-Chiefs. I think the a lot of them would say fuck them both and hope both the bastards die, a lot of them too preoccupied with preparing for winter to care, but no a lot of people left who will, weep tears if Jon were to die-at least then, the watch could get back to buisness.

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

You can't defend Castle Black against an attack from the South. It is emphasized several times in the novel. The NW would be in a death trap if Ramsay's army reached Castle Black. If an army is coming from the South, the best thing you can do is to intercept them on their way.  

Precisely.

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Exactly. Jon spent two hours making plans with Tormund. We know nothing about what they agreed on.

We know Jon announced his intention to attack Winterfell loud enough for all and sundry to hear. This is in itself suspicious, especially that he has reason to be wary of potential enemies around him. 

We know the Pink Letter made it clear that Arya was not in Winterfell. At the same time, Ramsay was threatening to attack Castle Black.

We also know that Jon had earlier done his best to dissuade Stannis from attacking a strong castle with wildlings. 

Then we have Jon's thoughts on what would be their best chance in case of an attack from the South as early as in ASoS:   

Then we have - as a possible analogue - the story of Catelyn's little trick when she captures Tyrion:

 All this makes it likely that Jon's real plan is not what he publicly announced - to ride on Winterfell - but to meet Ramsay's army on their way to Castle Black.

Absolutely. And this small detail is overlooked all the time. Martin made a point of letting us know Jon and the Thunderfist spent two hours 'changing their plans' after Jon receives the PL. I wonder why... 

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

<snip>

I do think the reforms Jon is trying to introduce may point exactly in the direction of the original Watch, with its original purpose and structure. "The North remembers", and Jon is the embodiment of the North and its values.

Mormont says that the Watch has to remember. 

Jon is the North and the Watch. He is trying to remember. 

Couldn't possibly agree more. The other thing that fits into this, especially the bold, is that now CB will be manned mostly by FM. As it was way back when it was first formed. 

I also agree w/ the post by @talvikorppi that you quoted talking about the vows, and how it seems like some things are relatively new(er) additions. Maybe post-Andal?

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Impossible, while the NW is a prison camp, so to attract qualified and dedicated warriors, fundamental changes are necessary. You either want a prison camp on your Northern border (and in this case you don't have to do anything, it's already there) or you want a strong, reliable army that can defend the kingdom even against a very powerful enemy. You cannot base that army on the prison camp. I think the first step is to remove the punitive character of the organization with all the impossible prohibitions. At the very least, grant the warriors true respect in the realm and make it possible for them to relate to what they are fighting for. 

 

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Incidentally, Jon did more than simply offer the wildlings more food. He allowed them to join without requiring them to take the black (no lifelong service) or to say the vow (no giving up their fundamental rights to a family etc.), they only had to obey orders (and that was really important). Jon also allowed a unit of spearwives (female soldiers). Those decisions in themselves could start significant structural changes in the Watch. 

Indeed. He also allowed for young girls to join, same rules as the young boys.

“I will take any boy above the age of twelve who knows how to hold a spear or string a bow. I will take your old men, your wounded, and your cripples, even those who can no longer fight. There are other tasks they may be able to perform. Fletching arrows, milking goats, gathering firewood, mucking out our stables … the work is endless. And yes, I will take your women too. I have no need of blushing maidens looking to be protected, but I will take as many spearwives as will come.”
“And girls?” a girl asked. She looked as young as Arya had, the last time Jon had seen her.
“Sixteen and older.”
“You’re taking boys as young as twelve.”
Down in the Seven Kingdoms boys of twelve were often pages or squires; many had been training at arms for years. Girls of twelve were children. These are wildlings, though. “As you will. Boys and girls as young as twelve. But only those who know how to obey an order. That goes for all of you. I will never ask you to kneel to me, but I will set captains over you, and serjeants who will tell you when to rise and when to sleep, where to eat, when to drink, what to wear, when to draw your swords and loose your arrows. The men of the Night’s Watch serve for life. I will not ask that of you, but so long as you are on the Wall you will be under my command. Disobey an order, and I’ll have your head off. Ask my brothers if I won’t. They’ve seen me do it.”
“Off,” screamed the Old Bear’s raven. “Off, off, off.”
“The choice is yours,” Jon Snow told them. “Those who want to help us hold the Wall, return to Castle Black with me and I’ll see you armed and fed. The rest of you, get your turnips and your onions and crawl back inside your holes.”
The girl was the first to come forward. “I can fight. My mother was a spearwife.” Jon nodded. She may not even be twelve, he thought, as she squirmed between a pair of old men, but he was not about to turn away his only recruit.”

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Besides, killing the LC didn't improve their chances against Ramsay (if he is indeed coming to Castle Black with an army). Just because he finds Jon dead, Ramsay won't give up the chance to kill and torture just for the fun of it, especially if his demands are not satisfied (and for the moment, the Watch can't give him back his Reek and his "wife").

Boy, oh boy, makes me almost wish for it to happen. Just to see Marsh & co get a taste of a flaying knife... 

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

<snip>

Everything that Ramsay has ever done is unlawful and completely immoral. I don't understand how can anyone defend his "right" to torture and rape. 

Right? But then we look around our real world and see what's going on everywhere, and it almost makes sense. 

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

He is also very shortsighted and not exactly clever. I think the Watch he loves is the Watch that gave him a comfortable life among his accounts, and he blames Jon for the changes that put an end to it. 

<snip>

And kissing the crown's ass is, in his opinion, the shortest, surest way of going back to the good 'ol times. 

I almost pity Marsh. Key word being 'almost'. 

 

5 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Indeed, given Ramsay's treatment of Lady Hornwood - which is public knowledge - it's crazy to think that Bowen believes Bolton wouldn't kill every one at the Wall anyway, regardless of a dead Jon Snow.

Although Marsh and his cronies might not know it, we the readers - through Theon and Moat Cailin - know all to well how Ramsay treats those who submit to him. 

I agree. Everyone in the North knows about Ramsay, and it's just silly to pretend otherwise. And yet it happens a lot.

For instance, Luwin warns Bran & co about the Bastard of Bolton before he dies. The Liddle Bran and the gang meet also talks about the bastard's boys.

Robb, too, in Storm:

“No,” said Lame Lothar. “The women and children hid, my nephews Walder and Walder among them. With Winterfell in ruins, the survivors were carried back to the Dreadfort by this son of Lord Bolton’s.”
“Boltogn’s son?” Robb’s voice was strained.
Walder Rivers spoke up. “A bastard son, I believe.”
“Not Ramsay Snow? Does Lord Roose have another bastard?” Robb scowled. “This Ramsay was a monster and a murderer, and he died a coward. Or so I was told.”

In Dance we have both Wylla Manderly...

“He won’t ever be my lord! He made Lady Hornwood marry him, then shut her in a dungeon and made her eat her fingers.”
A murmur of assent swept the Merman’s Court. “The maid tells it true,” declared a stocky man in white and purple, whose cloak was fastened with a pair of crossed bronze keys. “Roose Bolton’s cold and cunning, aye, but a man can deal with Roose. We’ve all known worse. But this bastard son of his … they say he’s mad and cruel, a monster.”

and gramps Wyman, w/ even more detail.

“Davos thought back on the tales they’d heard. “Winterfell was captured by Theon Greyjoy, who had once been Lord Stark’s ward. He had Stark’s two young sons put to death and mounted their heads above the castle walls. When the northmen came to oust him, he put the entire castle to sword, down to the last child, before he himself was slain by Lord Bolton’s bastard.”
“Not slain,” said Glover. “Captured, and carried back to the Dreadfort. The Bastard has been flaying him.”
Lord Wyman nodded. “The tale you tell is one we all have heard, as full of lies as a pudding’s full of raisins. It was the Bastard of Bolton who put Winterfell to the sword … Ramsay Snow, he was called then, before the boy king made him a Bolton. Snow did not kill them all. He spared the women, roped them together, and marched them to the Dreadfort for his sport.”
“His sport?”                                                                                                                             “He is a great hunter,” said Wyman Manderly, “and women are his favorite prey. He strips them naked and sets them loose in the woods. They have a half day’s start before he sets out after them with hounds and horns. From time to time some wench escapes and lives to tell the tale. Most are less fortunate. When Ramsay catches them he rapes them, flays them, feeds their corpses to his dogs, and brings their skins back to the Dreadfort as trophies. If they have given him good sport, he slits their throats before he skins them. Elsewise, t’other way around.”
Davos paled. “Gods be good. How could any man—”
“The evil is in his blood,” said Robett Glover. “He is a bastard born of rape. A Snow, no matter what the boy king says.”
“Was ever snow so black?” asked Lord Wyman. “Ramsay took Lord Hornwood’s lands by forcibly wedding his widow, then locked her in a tower and forgot her. It is said she ate her own fingers in her extremity … and the Lannister notion of king’s justice is to reward her killer with Ned Stark’s little girl.”
“The Boltons have always been as cruel as they were cunning, but this one seems a beast in human skin,” said Glover.”

 

I'm always a bit surprised by how many fans Ramsay has, but there you go. I'm all for variety being the spice of life and all that, but I admit there are some spices I care nothing for. They offend my taste buds!

5 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

While your cherished Ramsay is in his right on every point.

Arya is a fake, a sexual slave married by force whom he tortures to the point her screams can be heard all over Winterfell; and with his band of morons he slaughters a free rider who said something about Stannis…

Ramsay is a cancer, any attempt to remove him is desirable, justified and legal.

Amen. Getting the world rid of Ramsay is gonna be a good action, like planting a [weirwood] tree. 

4 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Sometimes, affairs of the heart must come before affairs of the rule book. 

Indeed, and always when it truly matters. Jon receives the PL, and chooses love. Simply put. It's perfect.

“It was signed,
Ramsay Bolton,
Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.
“Snow?” said Tormund Giantsbane. “Youu look like your father’s bloody head just rolled out o’ that paper.”

<snip>

“Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

3 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

<snip>

If you want to talk about the North's "feelings" for Jon Snow vs Ramsay Bolton, that's entirely another topic.  I think it's pretty clear that 99% of the North hates the Boltons in general and 99.9% of the North hate Ramsay Bolton in particular, so in the battle of Ned Stark's bastard who looks like Ned and has a direwolf vs Roose Bolton's bastard who has committted all forms of atrocities against fellow Northmen and women...I think the majority of support would go for Jon.  

Beautifully put, agree 100%.

2 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

You obviously have a problem of comprehension, or you don't even read the posts you quote, or both. The marriage is a trickery.

As for "getting rid" of their commander, Bowen and his mignons could very well arrest him, put him in a cell, etc. But since they're a bunch of cowards overwhelmed by the situation, they chose the easy path: the miserable stabbing by surprise. Bleh…

It ain't gonna be that easy when the Thunderfist and all the free folk fall on Marsh & co, but I can't wait to read it. In as much detail as possible.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Impossible, while the NW is a prison camp, so to attract qualified and dedicated warriors, fundamental changes are necessary. You either want a prison camp on your Northern border (and in this case you don't have to do anything, it's already there) or you want a strong, reliable army that can defend the kingdom even against a very powerful enemy. You cannot base that army on the prison camp. I think the first step is to remove the punitive character of the organization with all the impossible prohibitions. At the very least, grant the warriors true respect in the realm and make it possible for them to relate to what they are fighting for. 

Impossible given the things that would entice other groups; land, glory ect, aren't really things the Watch could give without descending into infighting, they don't need good warriors as much as soldiers-the only enemy to which the watch had to deal with were the wildlings. 

Likely, after the conflict is over(and they survive) the wildlings will steadily go back to that over time and be much easier to contend with  and given the immense popularity the watch would be able to ride on the momentum for thousands of years; though that could only happen if the wall stays up and if it came down that kinda renders the Nightswatchmen mute any way? What's the possibility of getting another one? 

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Incidentally, Jon did more than simply offer the wildlings more food. He allowed them to join without requiring them to take the black (no lifelong service) or to say the vow (no giving up their fundamental rights to a family etc.), they only had to obey orders (and that was really important). Jon also allowed a unit of spearwives (female soldiers). Those decisions in themselves could start significant structural changes in the Watch. 

But what mostly drawled them in was the offer of more food, to which the Watch is their sole for it for the time being; likely the majority would have done so without the exemption the of being celibate, holding lands and wives because they'd know once the threat is over, they can just leave-they're status of brotherhood is nominal basiclly and everyone probably knows it. A lord commander does not have the ability to offer land for every recruit, the ability to showcase their abilities to the realm most non-peasant males would mostly require those to be seduced in to enlisting on to such a cold and dreary to serve such as the wall-especially if it's seen primarily as as one province's problem. 

A lot of Females will not come looking to join the order, or fight with the brotherhood; such things would be seen as things for men, not women and the vast majority of peasant women probably aren't going to go against there societal gender roles-the free folk are a lot more progressive(on some areas), involving sex and gender.

The arrangement can likely only be temporary,  I don't see it working as a permanent solution; the wildlings will leave, the fervor for the watch(if it survives as well as the wall), defeating  the others will die down(if this isn't an isolated) , overtime and likely the watch will go back to a few hundred odd men out of the dregs of society; and given they've no ability to conscript new recruits likely still they're going to need the whole for lifetime  thing.

Peasant boys are the only group to which the NW could hope to forever entice for the watch.

[Morgana Lannister]

5 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

All a thread needs is the slightest push to turn into such.

 

Much appreciated. 

Okay, not being funny here; on the contrary, but were you backing my thoughts or arguing with them, totally unsure here...

[The Lord of the Crossing]

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Technically Mance wasn't the Night's Watch's captive. He had been captured by the Stannis army, and Stannis claimed him (as well as Val) as his own prisoner. Rightfully or not, on the Wall, Stannis played the King, and had the army to match his claim (as far as the Watch was concerned). He had also literally saved the Watch and consequently the realm from a major wildling invasion. The only thing Jon as LC could do about Mance is to advise Stannis on what to with the man, and he tried to persuade Stannis to spare Mance because of his potential usefulness long before saving Arya occurred to Jon.

As for whether Jon should have told Stannis: When Jon found out that Mance was alive, Stannis was far away, and for all Jon knew, Stannis might have known it all along. Melisandre actually implied that Stannis knew. It may have been a lie, but this was what she told Jon:

Jon sent Mance to get his sister. Jon is the mission commander because Mance is following his orders.   No offense, but you're going around in circles trying to find an excuse for Jon when there are none.  Jon cannot pick and choose whose prisoner Mance is based on his own convenience.  He sent Mance to get his sister from the Boltons.  He even ordered Edd Tollett to fetch the group of wildling women to help Mance.  Jon and Mellisandre tricked Mance and let the man believe they have his son to ensure his cooperation. 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Mance knows much more about the Others and about the Far North than anyone in the Seven Kingdoms. Jon wants to unite all men who can fight against the Others, and Mance is deeply invested in that problem. Besides, Mance has already shown good leadership qualities - he managed to unite all the different wildling groups for one purpose. Even if Mance is not a leader right now, he still has those skills and that knowledge. Killing him would be wasting all those resources. 

If Mance is all of that and if he's so valuable then it was fundamentally stupid to risk his life by sending him to get Arya.  That was a risky operation.  So if this how Jon sees Mance and then he sends him to rescue his sister anyway, that makes Jon a big idiot.  Which he sort of is anyway.  The real reason why Jon spared Mance Rayder is obvious.  Mance told him he disguised himself and entered Winterfell during Robert's visit.  Pretty damn impressive and very ballsy.  Jon realized the man could help his sister.  All of this was done for Arya.  Jon was willing to let everything go to hell for Arya.  Jon was making idiotic decisions all because he wanted to take his sister away from the Boltons.  I'm not saying Jon doesn't have a liking for Mance.  He does.  But he is also aware that Mance Rayder is a criminal who should be executed.  Jon's compromised judgment and his subsequent decision to let Mance go unpunished is because he cared more about his sister than he did about the NW, his job, the kingdom, his oath, and the rules. 

[Nowy Tends]

4 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

  Jon's compromised judgment and his subsequent decision to let Mance go unpunished is because he cared more about his sister than he did about the NW, his job, the kingdom, his oath, and the rules. 

Blah blah blah. You deliberately omit a very important point: the 2 hours discussion with Tormund. But of course you know better, suffice to see your sig tag to understand how impartial you are. I bet the dartboard in your basement is covered with a Jon picture…