Is a unified Westeros bad for the Night’s Watch?

[Chaircat Meow]

But it is the Lords (and kings) responsibility to promote the great honor of volunteering for the Black Knights of the Wall.

Fine, but it quite plainly isn't the same as 'sending' or even 'maintaining' men, more just making the king and lords responsible for a recruiting drive through persuasion and example.

[Chaircat Meow]

I think the idea that it declined rapidly after the Conquest is a worthy theory.

If I were to guess at reasons or factors:

First, that the Watch takes no part. This is something that makes more sense when you have different kingdoms at war more or less constantly. None of them can demand the loyalty of the Watch. First of all, because relative to their own size, the Watch was more powerful. Even to the Kings in the North, the Watch was no small matter, though they got on well most of the time, it was not always the case. The "castles" of the Wall have no walls to protect them from the south, because of past events in history where the Watch was taken over by more nefarious sorts of leaders and sought power. The Kings in the North probably demanded this measure after that, to insure the Watch could never be a strategic threat again.

But after the Conquest, the relationship changes - the Crown now increasingly demands the loyalty of the Watch and tends to refuse the idea that the Watch has its own sort of separate neutrality & sovereignty. In the past, someone in the Watch was beyond a crown's power, but no longer, because the crown views nothing as being beyond its power. The realm the Watch guards (Westeros) is viewed by the crown as all its own, so they tend to see the Watch as just an extension of their own forces. Truthfully, it's not and never was, but it should be clear why the Crown tends to see the Watch as just another military unit, and its Lord Commanders as just another vassal begging for the Crown's resources and personnel. So, because the Watch is the least politically involved, least contentious, and least likely to press its demands by force, it gets neglected by the Crown. Basically, the mentality is very different when there is one power ruling all of Westeros.

Second, the introduction of the Seven as the "state religion" meant that the concerns of the Watch - which let's face it, is tied very much to the Old Gods - get dismissed as myths. "Grumkins and Snarks", they call it, not believing in direwolves, giants, greenseers, wargs, CotF, and The Others. This is a medieval society, where seeing (not reading about) is believing, and even the literate and well-educated tend to dismiss such things as superstition. How do people like that actually relate to the beliefs of the Wildlings, if they live somewhere where the Old Gods have no sway, and the Weirwoods have all been cut down or burned centuries or millennia ago? In the North, they still keep the Old Gods, so they are more likely going to believe it when the Watch brings them its concerns or tries to get them to understand their situation. And yet, even in the North, the supernatural factors are so remote and ancient, people have trouble believing any of it until it happens to them (yes even Starks). So, add all this up, and you get a Watch which seems to lack a spiritual justification for existing anymore.

If you want a comparison, think about the Catholic Church's orders which perform exorcisms and hunt witches - to most people today, it sounds ridiculous to have an order of priests which stands ready to combat the dangers of black magic or demonic possession. Yet if lived in a time you knew such things did exist to endanger the world, you would not think it a waste of effort or call the practicioners of it charlatans or mad fanatics.

So, the Night's Watch suffers again from basic lack of belief in their mission. The religion of the Seven believes in the threat much less to begin with, and that religious outlook dominates the Realm. Really only the Northmen might believe in it truly, or the occasional mad priest of Rhillor - and these are regarded as nutty superstitions in most of Westeros. Therefore, this is why Westeros by the time of ASOIAF sends only the disgraced and the dregs to the Wall - it is a gulag where you send unwanted people to spend their lives doing nothing of great importance. If they knew The Others existed and were rising, you think they'd leave the realm in the hands of a tiny force of misfits ?

Where is the evidence for this? I've never been clear that the NW was ever a separate sovereign state.

I've always thought of the idea of the NW as a sovereign state absurd. It could just as easily be seen as a privileged corporation, and its men bound by the oaths of their order, like the septons and the maesters, to only interact with lords and kings on a certain basis, determined by law and custom. I think the military orders in the holy land, during the crusades, are probably a good model. There is, likewise, no sign the NW ever pressed its demands by force.

[ab aeterno]

Where is the evidence for this? I've never been clear that the NW was ever a separate sovereign state.

I've always thought of the idea of the NW as a sovereign state absurd. It could just as easily be seen as a privileged corporation, and its men bound by the oaths of their order, like the septons and the maesters, to only interact with lords and kings on a certain basis, determined by law and custom. I think the military orders in the holy land, during the crusades, are probably a good model. There is, likewise, no sign the NW ever pressed its demands by force.

I don't have a huge amount to add except that I second this interpretation. I think the Red Cross might be a good modern comparison, even though their aims are somewhat divergent. Or like the Knights of St John/Knights Hospitaller.

[Pod The Impaler]

Where is the evidence for this? I've never been clear that the NW was ever a separate sovereign state.

Not a sovereign state, no, but also an order not bound by the laws of any ruler or kingdom in Westeros.

Kingdoms (and kings) live and die, and the Watch endures beyond all of them. The Kings cannot rule over the Watch; the Watch is independent. Just as the Watch cannot take part in the wars or successions of the realm (whether one kingdom or several), it also works the other way - the Kings cannot demand fealty or tribute or side-taking from the Watch.

So, in its own way, the Watch has a sort of sovereignty. Not statehood, but functional autonomy. It does not - it cannot - bend the knee to anyone.

And yes, this means Stannis is actually the one crossing the line, and essentially breaking an ancient law which predates the Iron Throne's existence. As I said, the problem for the Watch, with only one ruler for Westeros, is that they increasingly fail to recognize this.

[Chaircat Meow]

Not a sovereign state, no, but also an order not bound by the laws of any ruler or kingdom in Westeros.

Well, it appears its possession of both 'gifts' is guaranteed by law and also that deserters are punishable by death according to the law, so it looks like the NW is in the westerosi legal framework.

Kingdoms (and kings) live and die, and the Watch endures beyond all of them. The Kings cannot rule over the Watch; the Watch is independent. Just as the Watch cannot take part in the wars or successions of the realm (whether one kingdom or several), it also works the other way - the Kings cannot demand fealty or tribute or side-taking from the Watch.

So, in its own way, the Watch has a sort of sovereignty. Not statehood, but functional autonomy. It does not - it cannot - bend the knee to anyone.

Actually, I don't see why that has to be true at all. It just can't bend the knee when that would involve taking a side and if there is no civil war, what's the problem? And Jon does take a knee all the time and doesn't complain about jurisdiction when Stannis assumes certain powers in CB (executing Mance for example). Ok, maybe Jon can't stand on all his rights because Stannis has more men than he does, but it's still just supposition to say that is so.

To illustrate, if the king or his warden orders the NW to do something relating to defending the north from wildlings or Others I expect they have to jump to it. If he asks them to attack another lord, they must refuse. That does mean they don't take a side, or become the king's men, like his other retainers, but it also doesn't mean they are not under his authority, providing he only uses them for their sworn purpose.

And yes, this means Stannis is actually the one crossing the line, and essentially breaking an ancient law which predates the Iron Throne's existence. As I said, the problem for the Watch, with only one ruler for Westeros, is that they increasingly fail to recognize this.

When did Stannis do that? And we do hear that the Lord of Winterfell ordered the NW to bury the corpses after the defeat of Redbeard, thus shaming them, and implying he is at least their senior when it comes to defending the north.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

True. but the correlation between Conquest and the decline of the Watch is pretty ominous.

The lack of a threat to the realm by The Others, is what caused the NW's decline. Period.

[danm_999]

The lack of a threat to the realm by The Others, is what caused the NW's decline. Period.

An unconvincingly explanation, as the Watch was very strong and well manned except in the last 100 or so years. During Aegon's Conquest all castles were open, and the Watch had over ten times it's current numbers.

So if the last appearance of the Others was 8,000 years ago, then why didn't this decline happen thousands of years sooner? Why didn't the Andals, who weren't in Westeros during the Long Night and appeared thousands of years later, erode the Watch because they'd never seen the Others?

The erosion of threat from the Others does not explain why the last hundred or so years, as opposed to the preceding 7,900 years, would be so terrible for the Watch. The Conquest does.

[Zupoleon]

An unconvincingly explanation, as the Watch was very strong and well manned except in the last 100 or so years. During Aegon's Conquest all castles were open, and the Watch had over ten times it's current numbers.

So if the last appearance of the Others was 8,000 years ago, then why didn't this decline happen thousands of years sooner? Why didn't the Andals, who weren't in Westeros during the Long Night and appeared thousands of years later, erode the Watch because they'd never seen the Others?

The erosion of threat from the Others does not explain why the last hundred or so years, as opposed to the preceding 7,900 years, would be so terrible for the Watch. The Conquest does.

But the conquest was 400 yrs ago, why only an erosion in the last 100? I agree that the unification had a negative effect on the Night's Watch, so was it just complacency in a unified kingdom?

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

An unconvincingly explanation, as the Watch was very strong and well manned except in the last 100 or so years. During Aegon's Conquest all castles were open, and the Watch had over ten times it's current numbers.

So if the last appearance of the Others was 8,000 years ago, then why didn't this decline happen thousands of years sooner? Why didn't the Andals, who weren't in Westeros during the Long Night and appeared thousands of years later, erode the Watch because they'd never seen the Others?

The erosion of threat from the Others does not explain why the last hundred or so years, as opposed to the preceding 7,900 years, would be so terrible for the Watch. The Conquest does.

From the wiki, which is the same logical conclusion that I came to from reading the story.

But other than the corrupting of the thirteenth Lord Commander named the "Night's King," attacks by the Others never came. Instead, the most frequent attacks came from the wildlings, sometimes led by their kings, and their constant attempts at raiding in the North. Little by little, the Night's Watch began to forget that its main mission was not the fight against the wildlings, but against the Others. As the years came and went, the purpose of the Watch became less and less obvious, and its manpower decreased more and more, with most of the Seven Kingdoms neglecting the Wall. Only the North, particularly the Starks, have the memory of the old days, but even they believe the Others are no more than vague figures in stories told to frighten children.

[danm_999]

But the conquest was 400 yrs ago, why only an erosion in the last 100?

The Conquest was 300 years ago actually, and the big change came to the way the Wall was managed (the closure of castles) came when Queen Alysanne visited the Wall, which was less than 300 years ago.

I agree that the unification had a negative effect on the Night's Watch, so was it just complacency in a unified kingdom?

As I suggested in an earlier post, the centralization of the justice system of Westeros under the Targaryens when their power became institutionalised in the centuries following Aegon's landing caused a higher number of prisoners to be sent to the Wall. During the days of Seven Kingdoms, if you committed a crime in say, the Reach, you could likely easy escape the local justice system by running to a neighbouring nation. Not so when the King's justice touches everywhere. In addition, the improved infrastructure and protection of key routes like the Kingsroad under a single authority would make it easier for folks like Yoren to waltz around and pick up prisoners.

But more criminals that went to the Wall meant fewer knights and honest men would want to voluntarily join such an organization, meaning you have twin trends of low voluntarism and high rates of incarcertated brothers. Mormont comments that it used to be the Watch's honest volunteers far outnumbered it's scoundrels. I also think Tze's idea earlier on has a lot of merit, that the Targaryens as a dynasty simply weren't that interested in helping the Watch because they didn't understand it's function like the First Men and even the Andals did, and because it kept the Northerners busy with a border to their North from which Wildlings could raid.

[danm_999]

From the wiki, which is the same logical conclusion that I came to from reading the story.

But other than the corrupting of the thirteenth Lord Commander named the "Night's King," attacks by the Others never came. Instead, the most frequent attacks came from the wildlings, sometimes led by their kings, and their constant attempts at raiding in the North. Little by little, the Night's Watch began to forget that its main mission was not the fight against the wildlings, but against the Others. As the years came and went, the purpose of the Watch became less and less obvious, and its manpower decreased more and more, with most of the Seven Kingdoms neglecting the Wall. Only the North, particularly the Starks, have the memory of the old days, but even they believe the Others are no more than vague figures in stories told to frighten children.

The wiki is written by users, not Martin.

But as I said, I'm not denying people have forgotten the original purpose of the Night's Watch in the South, only that this has had minimal effect on recruitment for the vast majority of the Watch's history, which suggests the cause of decline is another factor.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

From the wiki, which is the same logical conclusion that I came to from reading the story.

But other than the corrupting of the thirteenth Lord Commander named the "Night's King," attacks by the Others never came. Instead, the most frequent attacks came from the wildlings, sometimes led by their kings, and their constant attempts at raiding in the North. Little by little, the Night's Watch began to forget that its main mission was not the fight against the wildlings, but against the Others. As the years came and went, the purpose of the Watch became less and less obvious, and its manpower decreased more and more, with most of the Seven Kingdoms neglecting the Wall. Only the North, particularly the Starks, have the memory of the old days, but even they believe the Others are no more than vague figures in stories told to frighten children.

The wiki is ofttimes full of shit and personal opinions. And this particular article is backed up by nothing. Lack of evidence for attacks by Others isn't evidence for lack of attacks. Especially as there are some convincing arguments that there have been attacks.

Like I said above, it's pretty likely that the Andals regularly experienced Other attacks on a small scale, but they stopped sometime before the Conquest.