Was Jeor Mormont right to give Longclaw to Jon Snow?

[Veltigar]

Page 239 TWOIAF:

Though many houses have their heirloom swords, they mostly pass the blades down from lord to lord. Some, such as the Corbrays have done, may lend the blade to a son or brother for his lifetime, only to have it return to the Lord. But that is not the way of House Dayne. The wielder of Dawn is always given the title of Sword of the Morning, and only a knight of House Dayne who is deemed worthy can carry it.

Three different ways to treat heirloom VS swords. One to pass it down the line of succession, one is a special office (only one house) and finally there is lending the sword to a brother or son for his lifetime. Which of these is the case with Jon and Jeor hey?

Jeor isn't the Lord of House Mormont, nor is Jon related to him. Being the wielder of LC isn't an office, so that explantion falls true. The only thing that makes sense with this sword is that it is tied to Ser Jorah's life. As long as he's still amongst the living, the sword serves the NW in his stead. Sadly, we never get this kind of explanation in the books, making Jon acquering LC a pretty unexplained plotboon.

[Mithras]

Jeor isn't the Lord of House Mormont, nor is Jon related to him. Being the wielder of LC isn't an office, so that explantion falls true. The only thing that makes sense with this sword is that it is tied to Ser Jorah's life. As long as he's still amongst the living, the sword serves the NW in his stead. Sadly, we never get this kind of explanation in the books, making Jon acquering LC a pretty unexplained plotboon.

Jeor said that Jorah at least had the honor to leave the LC behind when he fled. His dying wish was Jorah taking black. I don't think we can get further explanation than this in the books.

[Mikkel]

making Jon acquering LC a pretty unexplained plotboon.

That argument would hold a lot more weight if possessing Longclaw had actually made any real difference for Jon, but as far as I can tell it hasn't, not yet anyway. He beat Qhorin, sure, but he was losing on purpose and I don't believe Jon has had any significant swordfights since.

If anything, it has probably made him more of a target, in-story and out.

[Julia H.]

Page 239 TWOIAF:

Three different ways to treat heirloom VS swords. One to pass it down the line of succession, one is a special office (only one house) and finally there is lending the sword to a brother or son for his lifetime. Which of these is the case with Jon and Jeor hey?

Jeor isn't the Lord of House Mormont, nor is Jon related to him. Being the wielder of LC isn't an office, so that explantion falls true. The only thing that makes sense with this sword is that it is tied to Ser Jorah's life. As long as he's still amongst the living, the sword serves the NW in his stead. Sadly, we never get this kind of explanation in the books, making Jon acquering LC a pretty unexplained plotboon.

If there are three ways to pass down heirloom swords, why couldn't there be a fourth one? The TWOIAF page is about the typical traditions. There could be non-typical cases - and why not? House Mormont is in many ways atypical anyway; and there may always be individual situations where the tradition does not apply, because the situation itself (like Jorah's) is contrary to the tradition.

Jeor stresses that Longclaw has been passed down from father to son, He does not say from lord to lord, though it may normally be the same, yet, apparently, what Jeor considers important is the father to son aspect of the inheritance and that is why the gift has a significance that it would not have if Jeor just gave Jon an ordinary NW sword.

If Jeor had thought the sword was still tied to Jorah, he would have insisted on a bear pommel. The wolf-pommel makes the sword pretty much a personal gift for Jon Snow, a son of Winterfell and owner of a direwolf named Ghost.

[Veltigar]

If there are three ways to pass down heirloom swords, why couldn't there be a fourth one? The TWOIAF page is about the typical traditions. There could be non-typical cases - and why not? House Mormont is in many ways atypical anyway; and there may always be individual situations where the tradition does not apply, because the situation itself (like Jorah's) is contrary to the tradition.

... One of the three ways is only practiced by one House. If there was any other way, it would be mentioned. It just doesn't compute that Jeor and Maeger are the only ones in the entirety of Westeros to ever make a decision that has such crippling effects on their family. For a poor House of relatively low prestige and steeped in tradition giving away a priceless artifact like LC forever is contradictory to any form of logic or practice set up in GRRM's own universe.

Gifting the sword to the NW for the entirety of Jorah's life makes some sort of sense, because that would fit with the Mormont's honour, but to part with it forever is ludicrous from any way you look at it. Especially given the use Jeor Mormont actually makes of it... which is none, he just puts it away in a cupboard. If the NW owned it, selling it would solve all their financial troubles at once.

[Mithras]

While Yandel was writing his book, he surely didnot hear about Othor and how Jon killed him and how Mormont gave the sword to Jon.

[Julia H.]

... One of the three ways is only practiced by one House. If there was any other way, it would be mentioned. It just doesn't compute that Jeor and Maeger are the only ones in the entirety of Westeros to ever make a decision that has such crippling effects on their family. For a poor House of relatively low prestige and steeped in tradition giving away a priceless artifact like LC forever is contradictory to any form of logic or practice set up in GRRM's own universe.

The passage you quoted focuses specifically on House Dayne and even more specifically on Dawn. The typical traditions are mentioned to highlight how unusual the practice of this particular house is, so it is not surprising that this one-house tradition is mentioned - it is the main topic of the subchapter, after all. It does not follow that all other unusual ways of passing down a family sword should necessarily be mentioned as well.

In-universe, Yandel does not know of everything (especially considering the traditions in the far North), nor can we suppose that what he writes down is everything he knows. Out-of-universe, Martin is clearly selective, too, he does not repeat information he gives in the other books. We can hardly deny that Longclaw has been passed down in an unusual way - that's a fact, regardless of whether Yandel mentions it or not. This is what Mormont says:

"It was my father's sword, and his father's before him. The Mormonts have carried it for five centuries. I wielded it in my day and passed it on to my son when I took the black."

What can we make of that quote?

On the one hand, one possible interpretation is that it is father to son inheritance that counts in House Mormont, and given Maege's decision, it is even possible that the sword is supposed to go back to the father if the son wielding it "dies" (literally or symbolically) without a son of his own, so the father can make a decision about it again. Is there such a rule explained in the book? No. However, considering the actions of all the Mormonts in question (Jorah leaving behind the sword, Maege sending it to Jeor and Jeor giving it to a symbolical son, and no Mormont we know of contesting any of these decisions), as well as the quote above, I find the existence of such a tradition possible. The fact that Yandel does not mention it does not mean that it's impossible.

On the other hand, it is also entirely possible that the sword has been passed down from lord to lord in House Mormont as well. Perhaps no one has ever wielded it unless he was a lord. So what? There is an unusual situation, and the Mormonts deal with it as they think best - or as they can. I'm pretty sure that Maege had a reason for sending the sword to Jeor, even if we can only guess what it is, and Jeor also had a reason to give it to Jon Snow, as we know.

Perhaps nothing similar has ever happened before. Or perhaps it is perfectly in accordance with the general values and traditions of House Mormont. We don't know. It may be unusual in Westeros in general, but who says that no one has ever done anything unusual in that huge country?

Think of Alysane Mormont and her children, then imagine what would have happened if Lysa Tully, instead of marrying the Lord of the Vale, had announced she had a child fathered by a trout. Yet, Alysane Mormont says something very similar:

"You are wed."

"No. My children were fathered by a bear."

While the part about the bear is obviously a joke, the unwed part is probably true. We know she wears her maiden name. She is also a warrior. No one seems to be bothered by all this, even though women of other houses would never be allowed to behave in a remotely similar way.

I don't think an unusual gift of a sword in the given circumstances is more difficult to understand than that.

1. Gifting the sword to the NW for the entirety of Jorah's life makes some sort of sense, because that would fit with the Mormont's honour, but to part with it forever is 2. ludicrous from any way you look at it. Especially given the use Jeor Mormont actually makes of it... which is none, he just puts it away in a cupboard. If the NW owned it, 3. selling it would solve all their financial troubles at once.

1. It may make sense, but apparently, that is not what happened.

2. I guess it depends on who looks at it.

3. Upthread, I gave a number of possible reasons why Mormont would not sell it. As for the NW's financial troubles, in Jeor's time they were provided for by the realm. They did not have financial problems, they had staffing problems, which could not be solved by money. They needed more men (by which they understood "sworn brothers"), but who would join the NW for money?

[Mikkel]

who would join the NW for money?

I agree with just about everything else you say, though the last bit there is only true as far as it goes. Come winter and the expected widespread starvation, there'll probably be a decent number of men willing to join in return for regular meals, relative safety and a roof over their head. The problem will be getting there, which might well be impossible in winter.

Of course that all goes out the window if there's going to be an invasion of Others, but still.

[Wavey Sauce]

When someones life is saved I think you can justify anything that they want to give away as a gift, unless that gift is another person to be who evers slave or wife etc

[Julia H.]

I agree with just about everything else you say, though the last bit there is only true as far as it goes. Come winter and the expected widespread starvation, there'll probably be a decent number of men willing to join in return for regular meals, relative safety and a roof over their head. The problem will be getting there, which might well be impossible in winter.

Of course that all goes out the window if there's going to be an invasion of Others, but still.

I agree that it's absolutely possible. What I meant was that at the time when Jeor was the LC, they had enough food, clothes and weapons to provide for anyone who wanted to join. (The food problems started only when they had the wildlings and the army of Stannis to feed while the war and the coming winter had probably stopped further donations.) Desperate people may join for more food as some of the wildlings did in Jon's time (although they were not required to take the vow). But money itself (such as what they could have got for selling a VS sword) could hardly be used to actually hire more men. At the time, the men serving in the NW had to be sworn brothers rather than sellswords, but money would hardly motivate people to take a vow and join (forever) an organization which basically prevented them from getting any richer. Sellswords will serve lords or organizations so they can enjoy some material benefits and perhaps relative freedom but taking the black precludes just that. Starving smallfolk may join simply for food and shelter, but the NW did have food and shelter to provide at the time when Jeor was the LC even without selling the sword, besides, starvation was not a large-scale problem in those days. The reason for the staffing problems was that hardly anybody wanted to join any more, not that they had to turn down prospective black brothers for lack of funds.

[Mikkel]

I agree that it's absolutely possible. What I meant was that at the time when Jeor was the LC, they had enough food, clothes and weapons to provide for anyone who wanted to join. (The food problems started only when they had the wildlings and the army of Stannis to feed while the war and the coming winter had probably stopped further donations.) Desperate people may join for more food as some of the wildlings did in Jon's time (although they were not required to take the vow). But money itself (such as what they could have got for selling a VS sword) could hardly be used to actually hire more men. At the time, the men serving in the NW had to be sworn brothers rather than sellswords, but money would hardly motivate people to take a vow and join (forever) an organization which basically prevented them from getting any richer. Sellswords will serve lords or organizations so they can enjoy some material benefits and perhaps relative freedom but taking the black precludes just that. Starving smallfolk may join simply for food and shelter, but the NW did have food and shelter to provide at the time when Jeor was the LC even without selling the sword, besides, starvation was not a large-scale problem in those days. The reason for the staffing problems was that hardly anybody wanted to join any more, not that they had to turn down prospective black brothers for lack of funds.

Yep, money in and of itself is fairly useless for recruitment - though a monetary reward given to the recruit's family could be just the thing. The men themselves have relatively little use for money, except for extra-curricular activities such as going to Mole's Town - or better equipment, I suppose, but I get the feeling that only really applies to Nobles like Waymar Royce, anyway.

That said, I still think that maintaining the best possible relations with the Northmen in general and House Stark in particular is a perfectly good reason for Jeor, not to mention the fact that he was probably just the tiniest bit grateful to Jon, which in turn means that the decision doesn't actually have to be entirely rational. Even if entirely rational reasons can be had (and they can), they're not really needed.