Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, as the book proves. Yandel's words:

That means the Starks were mainly pissed because they had to give away land.

That's the sidebar:

This makes it clear that it is merely speculation that the Starks may have feared their former lands (now property of the Night's Watch) would decline under the aegis of the Watch. It may be true that those were part of the reasons they did not want to part with the land. But perhaps they also just wanted to keep land they had ruled for a very long time. The only thing we know for sure is that they opposed to give away their lands. Everything else is clearly marked as speculation in the text.

Good. You actually used book quotes. But as you sorta backtracked on, you can see that giving away the lands had a negative affect on the Noght's Watch duties. And as Jojen tells Bran (the readers) when they pass through Queenscrown, the land there is very fertile, and there are not wildling camps there, so there must be another reason why everyone left the area. The author tells us and shows us in the text how this is not quite as it seems. Just like the symbolism of the gold on Queenscrown wearing away.

I know you want this series to be a super rigid text book of actual measurable history, but it is not. It is a story written by a peace loving author that has gone on to say in real life how things like the wall in America is creating more problems than it is trying to fix, and that there is not such thing as my land and yours. Seriously, it is on his blog and linked to in my Nymeria thread if you want to go have a read.

The raiding of the wildlings are greatly exaggerated in the current story on purpose. Does some of it happen? Sure. Is it as often and bad as people claim. Nope. Even Ned back in Game when he executes Gared blames Gared's fear on the wildlings- not the Others, and we know that is incorrect. It is to build it up to expose it as a great exaggerated myth. Myth, that is how George describes the real world ideals about people "not being able" to coexist. Again, he wrote about this in his blog.

[BalerionTheCat]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just a shortsighted view. The Watch was always neutral and completely focused on the their sacred duty because of the vows they swore (and the punishment that awaited any oathbreaker). How often do you think a Stark served aside a Bolton who had skinned some of his family members at the Wall? How often did a Lannister and a Gardener who were mortal enemies before they took the black save each other's lives there? The Watch surviving as long as it did is a testament how important and wise those vows were. It wouldn't have worked otherwise.

It could work if there was justice. Like it could work if you serve an honorable man or cause. Not here. Not now.

The Free Folk are not kneelers. They would man the Wall because it is their defense against the Others. Not for anyone else glory. And if they disagree, even with the food quality, they leave. They leave when they think they have served enough time.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

It could work if there was justice. Like it could work if you serve an honorable man or cause. Not here. Not now.

It is Jon's duty to make it work. The Lord Commander's duty. He must ensure that he and the Watch both are neutral. Else everything goes to hell. And that's what's happening right now.

Quote

The Free Folk are not kneelers. They would man the Wall because it is their defense against the Others. Not for anyone else glory. And if they disagree, even with the food quality, they leave. They leave when they think they have served enough time.

They might leave right now. The man they promised to help is dead. They won't feel loyalty to anyone else. They will leave, just as the Dothraki left Dany back in AGoT.

Tormund and some of his family and closest buddies might stay but the bulk of them will go, especially if they can free the hostages they handed over.

16 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Good. You actually used book quotes. But as you sorta backtracked on, you can see that giving away the lands had a negative affect on the Noght's Watch duties. And as Jojen tells Bran (the readers) when they pass through Queenscrown, the land there is very fertile, and there are not wildling camps there, so there must be another reason why everyone left the area. The author tells us and shows us in the text how this is not quite as it seems. Just like the symbolism of the gold on Queenscrown wearing away.

I know you want this series to be a super rigid text book of actual measurable history, but it is not. It is a story written by a peace loving author that has gone on to say in real life how things like the wall in America is creating more problems than it is trying to fix, and that there is not such thing as my land and yours. Seriously, it is on his blog and linked to in my Nymeria thread if you want to go have a read.

The raiding of the wildlings are greatly exaggerated in the current story on purpose. Does some of it happen? Sure. Is it as often and bad as people claim. Nope. Even Ned back in Game when he executes Gared blames Gared's fear on the wildlings- not the Others, and we know that is incorrect. It is to build it up to expose it as a great exaggerated myth. Myth, that is how George describes the real world ideals about people "not being able" to coexist. Again, he wrote about this in his blog.

This has nothing to do with what you claimed above. You said that Queen Alysanne forcing the Starks to cede the New Gift to the Watch led to the latter's decline. And that is simply wrong. Even the claim that the Starks feared it might lead to the decline of the New Gift is wrong. It is speculation that this might have been part of their opposition. But it is not confirmed or backed by any sources.

The only reason we are given as to why the Gifts depopulated are wildling raids. If you oppose that you fight against the text and George, not me. And I honestly don't care about that private battle of yours. There is no big mystery to this. The wildling raids are the cause. Just as they are the cause that the Umbers, clansmen, and other Northmen hate and despise the wildlings.

But I'm curious - if the wildlings are not to blame for the depopulation of the Gifts - who is? There aren't any other enemies, are there?

[The Fattest Leech]

 

Quote

The only reason we are given as to why the Gifts depopulated are wildling raids. If you oppose that you fight against the text and George, not me. And I honestly don't care about that private battle of yours. There is no big mystery to this. The wildling raids are the cause. Just as they are the cause that the Umbers, clansmen, and other Northmen hate and despise the wildlings.

But I'm curious - if the wildlings are not to blame for the depopulation of the Gifts - who is? There aren't any other enemies, are there?

Nope. The new gift was given away and that was bad for both sides of the arrangement. That is why George is using both the tactic of telling the reader and showing the reader. He does not spoon feed any information.

George cares about the private battles, especially since he lives very near where this is happening and it has actual experience with the results based on that actual experience, as Jon does by following Qhorin's command and intermingling with the wildlings. Jon found them to be just like everyone else. Women, children, mother's, eager boys, fighting men, old people, some bad, most good. He makes his decisions based on actual experience, not rumors and exaggerations. Westeros has a right to fear the incoming Dothraki invasion way the hell more than a few thousand free folk that just want to live... not raid and invade. And before you say it, yes, Jon does say in the books that he does not require people to kneel but he does require them to obey... which means consequences if they misbehave. Jon has already stated this.

Just adding: I am out running errands for a while or I would respond more fully with more details. The phone is not ideal for this type of discussion.

Also adding because I have a quick second: Lord Varys, you know as well as I do that George has said the Wall in the story is based on Hadrians wall of real life history. We have had this same discussion for 18 months now. In my Nymeria thread I broke down the Hadrians wall comparisons and gave the George quotes if you want to take a look. Still out and on my phone so I can't really quote it easily. 

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that Lord Commanders can range beyond the Wall, although there are officers objecting to Mormont going because this kind of thing is actually the duty of the First Ranger. But we know Bloodraven also ranged and then disappeared beyond the Wall, so that is certainly possible. But it is quite clear that Watch cannot range or check on the things down in the South.

Well we agree about Lord Commanders ranging north of the Wall. However, your assertion about all things south of the Wall is clearly wrong. The Gift and the New Gift are south of the Wall and they are within the control of the the Lord Commander. He can travel in them as freely as he wants. What is not clear is what happens when a Lord Commander shows up in territory controlled by the various lords of the lands south of the  Wall. I would expect there could be some friction, especially if the Lord Commander is not on a friendly visit and comes with a force of the Night's Watch or allied troops at his back. I think we can both agree it might be more than a little friction and actually come to violence..

But that is not the point, is it? The question is whether or not Jon, or any Lord Commander, would be in violation of his vows and his mission if he did so under any conditions? Here I think we can come to some agreement that under some conditions that would clearly not be the case, and it would be true under others.

For instance, if the Others breach the Wall and Jon leads forces in a retreat, let's say to Winterfell, then this would not be in violation of his oath, correct? I think that is clear.

Let's look at another scenario where it may not be so clear. Let's assume only facts in evidence. Jon knows of the caves Ygrain and he visited and he knows both of her stories of secret ways under the Wall and her tale of Bael the Bard and his hiding out in the secret ways beneath Winterfell. Let us suppose Jon receives intelligence from his ranging parties that the Others are massing near the cave entrances in what looks like an attempt to circumvent the Wall. Would Jon be in violation of his Oath if he showed up at Winterfell in force to fight an incursion into the realms of men through the caverns beneath the castle? I don't think so. Although, if the Boltons still control Winterfell there would likely be a fight with Roose's men.

You see my point is that it isn't always so cut and dried about the what constitutes violations of the Night's Watch's oath, or what circumstances might well be reason for the Lord Commander to lead forces south of the Wall. I get that you disagree with Jon's decision to do so following the arrival of the Pink Letter. I think this is precisely what he should do. So we shall have to disagree.

Pardon me, I have to run. I'll get to the rest later. A good day to all.

 

[HallowedMarcus]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis is not the best option to protect the realms of men, no. The man is pretty much doomed

   Why everyone believes the Pink letter. It has lies and truth on it; it can't be all true.

  

Spoiler

The Pink Letter says King Stannis is dead which can't be true because Theon sees him - Released GRRM Theon WoW chapter

 

   For example, Ramsey Bolton calls himself Lord of Winterfell, but isn't his father the Lord/Warden of the North?

   In the long run, yes Stannis is doomed, but I don't believe that he is already dead. 

[Nevets]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You know, I sure as hell would have done exactly the same things as Jon in ADwD. Aside from, perhaps, not ignoring my wolf or sending away most of my closest friends. I'd not care about words I spoke when the lives of beloved family members were at stake. I'd also have named my replaced the old guard with my own men. My own Lord Steward and sure as hell my own caretaker of the ravens.

But I can be of this opinion and still agree that the people killing Jon were perfectly right from their point of view. Jon broke his vows, and those who do that are punished very harshly in this world.

Wow, this comes as a bit of surprise.  You say you would have done the same, yet you are relentless in your criticism of Jon's every action.  What gives?   I agree with both your statements here.  I think Jon made the right decisions, but I can certainly see why Bowen Marsh would disagree, and would even think that his actions put the Watch in existential jeopardy.

I think Marsh's motive is that he believes that Jon's decision to allow a large influx of wildlings in, supporting Stannis, and now, essentially declaring war on a main ally of the Crown will ultimate result in destroying the Watch.  I cannot say he is wrong in this.  The influx will certainly create supply problems, and may cause friction with the Northerners.  And the situation with Stannis and the Boltons will likely cause problems with the rulers of Westeros.

I tend to disagree with this assessment, and think Jon is right to do what he does, and is making the best of a bad situation, and given that he is one of the few people to take the Others really seriously, the fight against them will be set back with his (apparent?) assassination.  There seems to be a widespread impression that he is deliberately provoking a confrontation with the Boltons.  It appears, though, that he was hoping to effect the rescue secretly, with nobody the wiser.  Obviously, that idea collapsed, and I can certainly understand why he would be unwilling to turn over people like Val, Shireen, and Selyse to a madman who boasts of making a cloak of human skin.  Not to mention he doesn't even have "Arya" or Theon ("Reek"), and I doubt Ramsay will accept that "they aren't here" as an acceptable answer 

With regard to desertion, outlawry and such:  While it may be true that anybody can slay an outlaw, somebody has to make the determination that that person is an outlaw.  And remember, when the people at the holdfast caught Gared, they didn't kill him out of hand; they sent for Ned Stark.  And nothing in the chapter indicates that this was in any way unusual or out of the ordinary procedure.

Another point:  I don't think Ramsay is too worried about Jon exposing FArya as a fake.  Given the tension between him and Jon, and would be relatively to claim that Jon was simply lying, either to help his sister, or to cause trouble with Ramsay.  I think his main worry is that he has lost his hostage, and his best hope of controlling the Northern lords.

[giant snake]

Still waiting on the justification from anyone why The Night's Watch has to be constrained by laws that aren't clear (or even written) when one of the Lords (or many of them, going back to ACoK in the story) provokes them and openly subverts their order.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Why everyone believes the Pink letter. It has lies and truth on it; it can't be all true.

  

  Hide contents

The Pink Letter says King Stannis is dead which can't be true because Theon sees him - Released GRRM Theon WoW chapter

 

   For example, Ramsey Bolton calls himself Lord of Winterfell, but isn't his father the Lord/Warden of the North?

   In the long run, yes Stannis is doomed, but I don't believe that he is already dead. 

Well, the thing is, 

Spoiler

Ramsay may well believe Stannis is dead, and that might just be a trick.

 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Nope. The new gift was given away and that was bad for both sides of the arrangement. That is why George is using both the tactic of telling the reader and showing the reader. He does not spoon feed any information.

How was it bad for the Watch? Seriously, they got more land. That was good. It didn't stop the decline later on but that was a process. The Night's Watch profited from the New Gift. Perhaps the people living there didn't because the Watch couldn't protect them from those wildling raids you say didn't happen - and which were the reason why they eventually left the New Gift - but one wonders whether whoever lord ruled those lands in the name of the Starks earlier could have protected the peasants there from the wildlings. After all, we know that the clansmen and the Umbers who live south of the New Gift also suffer from wildling raids. Apparently they can't protect their peasants, either.

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

George cares about the private battles, especially since he lives very near where this is happening and it has actual experience with the results based on that actual experience, as Jon does by following Qhorin's command and intermingling with the wildlings. Jon found them to be just like everyone else. Women, children, mother's, eager boys, fighting men, old people, some bad, most good. He makes his decisions based on actual experience, not rumors and exaggerations. Westeros has a right to fear the incoming Dothraki invasion way the hell more than a few thousand free folk that just want to live... not raid and invade. And before you say it, yes, Jon does say in the books that he does not require people to kneel but he does require them to obey... which means consequences if they misbehave. Jon has already stated this.

I know the wildlings are people, too. Nobody ever doubted that besides naive children like Bran. But that doesn't justify or excuse their raids in the Gift or the North. Those raids do happen, and there are very strong grievances based on actual crimes committed by the wildlings. 

Your downplaying of the raids on the basis of there not being so many wildlings fails to notice the fact that those raiding wildlings are trained and experienced warriors and killers. If a man like the Weeper comes into your village with a dozen men he can put down three times or four times that number without much problems, simply because he knows his business. The average peasant is neither an experienced fighter nor an experienced killer.

In that sense the wildling raiders are very much like the Ironborn of old. They know their trade, and they show up unexpectedly and quickly retreat with their prices before the people living in those thinly populated regions of the North can mount a counter attack.

4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Also adding because I have a quick second: Lord Varys, you know as well as I do that George has said the Wall in the story is based on Hadrians wall of real life history. We have had this same discussion for 18 months now. In my Nymeria thread I broke down the Hadrians wall comparisons and gave the George quotes if you want to take a look. Still out and on my phone so I can't really quote it easily. 

You can give me the link and I'll read that but I'm not sure what Hadrian's Wall has to do with the discussion at hand.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Well we agree about Lord Commanders ranging north of the Wall. However, your assertion about all things south of the Wall is clearly wrong. The Gift and the New Gift are south of the Wall and they are within the control of the the Lord Commander. He can travel in them as freely as he wants.

Well, I was referring to the lands controlled by the Night's Watch, of course. The Gifts belong to them. But that doesn't mean you can leave your post and go visit some village in the Gifts when you want to. The Lord Commander certainly can. But the average brother can't. That's why going to Mole's Town without permission from your superiors could be seen as desertion.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What is not clear is what happens when a Lord Commander shows up in territory controlled by the various lords of the lands south of the  Wall. I would expect there could be some friction, especially if the Lord Commander is not on a friendly visit and comes with a force of the Night's Watch or allied troops at his back. I think we can both agree it might be more than a little friction and actually come to violence.

I guess a Lord Commander could even make an announced visit with a small party of brothers. He could even go to court, one assumes, for a coronation or another major event. But he has no right to interfere with the inner workings of the various lords or the king. And he sure as hell has no right to make demands or lead an army on another man's land, living off said man's crops, stealing goods from said man's peasants, etc.

We learn in ASoS that even a Prince of Dorne technically needs the permission of Lord Tyrell should he want to pass through his lands to visit court.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

For instance, if the Others breach the Wall and Jon leads forces in a retreat, let's say to Winterfell, then this would not be in violation of his oath, correct? I think that is clear.

Sure, we could even go farther and say that the NW as the institution we know would no longer exist if the Wall was breached or taken, and the NW (survivors) forced to abandon it. But whoever holds Winterfell at this time would be under no moral obligation to take the NW survivors and the Lord Commander in nor would the Lord Commander a right to lay claim to Winterfell.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Let's look at another scenario where it may not be so clear. Let's assume only facts in evidence. Jon knows of the caves Ygrain and he visited and he knows both of her stories of secret ways under the Wall and her tale of Bael the Bard and his hiding out in the secret ways beneath Winterfell. Let us suppose Jon receives intelligence from his ranging parties that the Others are massing near the cave entrances in what looks like an attempt to circumvent the Wall. Would Jon be in violation of his Oath if he showed up at Winterfell in force to fight an incursion into the realms of men through the caverns beneath the castle? I don't think so. Although, if the Boltons still control Winterfell there would likely be a fight with Roose's men.

Well, Jon certainly had a moral obligation to warn the Boltons what's coming their way and he sure as hell should offer them his help against the common enemy. But he would have no right to actually butcher to Boltons so that he's able to kill the Others. That would be the same as shooting a bunch of people who are standing in the way so you can also shoot at some murderer.

If the Night's Watch were somehow the ruling body of the Seven Kingdoms you might have a point here. Then the affairs of the Realm would be the affairs of the Night's Watch. But this isn't the case. As things stand the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms could easily reach their own agreement with the Others without so much as consulting the NW. It is very unlikely that something of that sort happens, of course.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You see my point is that it isn't always so cut and dried about the what constitutes violations of the Night's Watch's oath, or what circumstances might well be reason for the Lord Commander to lead forces south of the Wall. I get that you disagree with Jon's decision to do so following the arrival of the Pink Letter. I think this is precisely what he should do. So we shall have to disagree.

But do you actually think Jon would have stood a chance to defeat the Boltons with Tormund's men if the Pink Letter was actually true? A few hundreds Bolton men should be enough to deal with Jon and his wildling allies, even more so if they just remain inside Winterfell and let Tormund and Jon starve outside. The wildlings are not exactly trained or experience in besieging a castle, never mind storm it.

The smart thing would have been to think and actually find out whether this letter is true. You know, perhaps Ramsay lied and Stannis is alive and actually won that battle. Then there is no need to antagonize the North and the Watch by leading a wildling army against Winterfell.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Wow, this comes as a bit of surprise.  You say you would have done the same, yet you are relentless in your criticism of Jon's every action.  

Well, I have a realistic picture of myself, I guess. I care more for my friends and family than other people. Like most people in the real world.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

What gives?   I agree with both your statements here.  I think Jon made the right decisions, but I can certainly see why Bowen Marsh would disagree, and would even think that his actions put the Watch in existential jeopardy.

I think I'd have reacted differently to the letter. I usually don't buy shit, so I'd never have taken that at face value, and I'm sure I'd have had enough brains to only openly break my vows when I knew I had to. Which means when I knew for a certainty that Stannis is dead and his cause lost. I wouldn't have endangered the Watch while this wasn't confirmed. And once it was confirmed I wouldn't have publicly admitted to the whole Mance thing but rather would have only have read portions of the Pink Letter to draw as many Watchmen on my side as I possibly could. I would have thrown the first stone but nobody has to know that. And Ramsay does insult and threaten both the Lord Commander and his crows in the letter. That can be used to convince others to break their vows along with me. And that kind of manipulation is necessary to ensure that I'm not betrayed or back-stabbed.

But I think I'd have sent Mance, just as Jon did. But I also hope I'd have had the brains to try to reach a peaceful solution to all that before I even heard about the Arya thing. That is my biggest issue with both Stannis and Jon. That they actually think continuing the war in the North is helping in the fight against the Others. That is just insanity.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I think Marsh's motive is that he believes that Jon's decision to allow a large influx of wildlings in, supporting Stannis, and now, essentially declaring war on a main ally of the Crown will ultimate result in destroying the Watch.  I cannot say he is wrong in this.  The influx will certainly create supply problems, and may cause friction with the Northerners.  And the situation with Stannis and the Boltons will likely cause problems with the rulers of Westeros.

Exactly. If things go as Marsh and the others have reasons to believe it goes then Stannis will eventually lose. And depending who rules in KL at this time this might result either in the execution of all the Watchmen or at least the leading officers as traitors or at least in the Iron Throne continuing to ignore all their pleas for help. Which could result in an even worse death at the hands of the Others.

Stannis did help the Watch. But he was the wrong king to come. He creates as many problems as he helped to solve.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I tend to disagree with this assessment, and think Jon is right to do what he does, and is making the best of a bad situation, and given that he is one of the few people to take the Others really seriously, the fight against them will be set back with his (apparent?) assassination.  There seems to be a widespread impression that he is deliberately provoking a confrontation with the Boltons.  It appears, though, that he was hoping to effect the rescue secretly, with nobody the wiser.  Obviously, that idea collapsed, and I can certainly understand why he would be unwilling to turn over people like Val, Shireen, and Selyse to a madman who boasts of making a cloak of human skin.  Not to mention he doesn't even have "Arya" or Theon ("Reek"), and I doubt Ramsay will accept that "they aren't here" as an acceptable answer.

That is too much speculation. Jon didn't even double-check whether the Pink Letter is actually true. And he doesn't know Ramsay. He has heard some stories about him, that's it. He has no clear picture of the man. He still has the option to ship Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, and Val off to the safety of Essos, but that's it. He cannot harbor them at the Wall. But if he did that he would most likely have to pay with his head for that. The idea that he could take Winterfell with a wildling army is insane, especially with Stannis and his men being dead. If that were true the North would belong to the Boltons. They would all bend the knee. And they would all fight continuously against those wildlings on their soil.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

With regard to desertion, outlawry and such:  While it may be true that anybody can slay an outlaw, somebody has to make the determination that that person is an outlaw.  And remember, when the people at the holdfast caught Gared, they didn't kill him out of hand; they sent for Ned Stark.  And nothing in the chapter indicates that this was in any way unusual or out of the ordinary procedure.

That is because Gared was captured on Stark land, and the Lord of Winterfell executes people with his own hands. The people taking Gared certainly could have killed him on the spot but they chose not to do so. 

If the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch breaks his vows things are somewhat different, of course. His officers and men will have to determine that, and it is pretty obvious in Jon's case that he did break them. He had to be killed not just to wash away the dishonor on the Night's Watch with blood but also to prevent him from actually leading those wildlings against Winterfell. That would have been an act of war and would inevitably have had dire consequences for the Watch. Either once the Boltons have dealt with Jon and his men, or after the Iron Throne has dealt with both Stannis and Jon.

53 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Another point:  I don't think Ramsay is too worried about Jon exposing FArya as a fake.  Given the tension between him and Jon, and would be relatively to claim that Jon was simply lying, either to help his sister, or to cause trouble with Ramsay.  I think his main worry is that he has lost his hostage, and his best hope of controlling the Northern lords.

Sure, that's most likely the very reason why he wrote that letter in the first place. As soon as he and Roose figured out that Jon was behind the rescue attempt they would have realized that they had to strike back at him. The letter could very well have been written before a Bolton army even encountered Stannis in battle (depending how long it took them to break either one of the spearwives or Mance himself). I'm pretty sure the disappearance of 'Lady Arya' is going to cause massive problems in Winterfell.

2 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Why everyone believes the Pink letter. It has lies and truth on it; it can't be all true.

  

  Reveal hidden contents

The Pink Letter says King Stannis is dead which can't be true because Theon sees him - Released GRRM Theon WoW chapter

 

   For example, Ramsey Bolton calls himself Lord of Winterfell, but isn't his father the Lord/Warden of the North?

   In the long run, yes Stannis is doomed, but I don't believe that he is already dead. 

Sure, I don't believe for a second Stannis is dead. But it is quite clear that his cause is doomed. Hopefully he goes down with a good fight, preferably against the Others or wights. But he cannot hope to defeat Aegon, Euron, or Daenerys. 

[The Fattest Leech]

Ok. This will be my last post in the assassin "kill Jon aarrrgh!" thread because to continue here is the definition of insanity. Just call me Susan Powter.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I know the wildlings are people, too. Nobody ever doubted that besides naive children like Bran. But that doesn't justify or excuse their raids in the Gift or the North. Those raids do happen, and there are very strong grievances based on actual crimes committed by the wildlings. 

Please provide a list of recent raids. I know one northern lord makes this claim, but one lord having this issue in recent times compared to what Tywin does with the Mountain??? Who is the bigger enemy in this story? We know the Ironborn do this, and yet they are part of the seven kingdoms and they still do things like serve in the Night's Watch.

Um, no:

• He remembered the hearth tales Old Nan told them. The wildlings were cruel men, she said, slavers and slayers and thieves. They consorted with giants and ghouls, stole girl children in the dead of night, and drank blood from polished horns. And their women lay with the Others in the Long Night to sire terrible half-human children. >>> So Old Nan, who cares for a teaches the children on some level, is starting the fear in the children at a very young age. And she has done this for a few generations now.

• "He was the fourth this year," Ned said grimly. "The poor man was half-mad. Something had put a fear in him so deep that my words could not reach him." He sighed. "Ben writes that the strength of the Night's Watch is down below a thousand. It's not only desertions. They are losing men on rangings as well."

"Is it the wildlings?" she asked.

"Who else?" Ned lifted Ice, looked down the cool steel length of it. >>> yup, a lord in the north is perpetuating the abnormal fear of wildlings and putting blame on them for a crime that was never theirs.

 

• Sam blinked at the sudden glare and looked around apprehensively. "The Wildlings … they wouldn't … they'd never dare come this close to the Wall. Would they?" >>>even Sam is afeared of wildlings because of exaggerated rumors.
• When they were alone, Lord Tywin glanced at Tyrion. "Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like—goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest."
  "Telling Shagga and Timett how to pillage is like telling a rooster how to crow," Tyrion commented, "but I should prefer to keep them with me." Uncouth and unruly they might be, yet the wildlings were his, and he trusted them more than any of his father's men. He was not about to hand them over.   >>>Thank you Tywin for pointing out that the Southron lords are just as bad, if not worse, than the regular ol'wildlings. Not one side is better than the other.This helps spread those rumors about wildlings/mountain men/first men. 
• So this is a wildling. Jon remembered Old Nan's tales of the savage folk who drank blood from human skulls. Craster seemed to be drinking a thin yellow beer from a chipped stone cup. Perhaps he had not heard the stories.   >>> Thank you Jon for pointing out the obvious.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Your downplaying of the raids on the basis of there not being so many wildlings fails to notice the fact that those raiding wildlings are trained and experienced warriors and killers. If a man like the Weeper comes into your village with a dozen men he can put down three times or four times that number without much problems, simply because he knows his business. The average peasant is neither an experienced fighter nor an experienced killer.

It's ok. Jon has already said that he requires obedience or there will be consequences.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They know their trade, and they show up unexpectedly and quickly retreat with their prices before the people living in those thinly populated regions of the North can mount a counter attack.

Source?

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can give me the link and I'll read that but I'm not sure what Hadrian's Wall has to do with the discussion at hand.

Sure. I will paste here what I wrote in my other thread because it has some links in it already.

It has to do with the discussion at hand because Marsh stabbed Jon, as we readers are led to believe, because he let the wildlings through and this particular issue with Marsh is built up over the last three books.

Also, you claim some odd things about the service of the wall and understanding Hadrian's wall will help the reader understand the ASOIAF wall as the author intended. I edited out the other stuff that is specific to the other thread. It starts below:

(cut)

(cut)

Here is an excellent article from a historian that actually does Wall to Wall comparison  http://history-behind-game-of-thrones.com/ancienthistory/the-wall

1. We know that the Wall, and therefore much of the Brothers of the NW, are based on Hadrian's Wall, more historically named Vallum Aelium. We know this because George said so in the ancient days of the year 2000. The map of Hadrian's Wall looks suspiciously like the ASIOAF Wall as well. Vallum in Latin is the English word for Wall. Hadrian's Wall was built to keep the "wildlings" ("barbarians" of our day) of the time out of the "civilized" (dragon conquered) realm.

• No sources survive to confirm what the wall was called in antiquity, and no historical literary source gives it a name. This sounds super familiar, doesn't it? How often do we readers talk about, or read about, how the in-world history is shady, not consistent, and indistinguishable from myth? Answer: Every damn day!
• However, the discovery of the Staffordshire Moorlands Pan in Staffordshire in 2003 has provided a clue. This small enamelled bronze Roman trulla (ladle), dating to the 2nd century AD, is inscribed with a series of names of Roman forts along the western sector of the wall, together with a personal name and phrase: MAIS COGGABATA VXELODVNVM CAMBOGLANNA RIGORE VALI AELI DRACONIS. (cut) Many of these names when translated mimic the other wall castle names in the story.
• (cut) We know by now how Jon is tied to the stars, including the ice dragon himself. I pointed out in the main OP that after Jon is chosen as LC, he says repeatedly that the wall is his.
• Part of Hadrian's Wall defenses was a vallum ditch that was dug into the ground and used as a trap. Well, in TWOW, Theon 1, we learn this:
  •   Reveal hidden contents

     

1. It was Hadrian's wish to keep "intact the empire", which had been imposed on him via "divine instruction" (sourced from this book). It is concluded by most that Hadrian made a stop somewhere in the northern frontier to inspect the building of the wall. This sounds exactly like "Good" Queen Alysanne and King Jaehaerys making their not-so-peaceful voyage north that resulted in lands being taken away from the Starks and crucial parts of the Night's Watch being closed off to magic, the northern culture and northern inhabitants of the land.  Remember, George has said many times that the Targaryens think of themselves as "above the gods", and therefore men as well.
2. Hadrian's Wall was even built like the ASOIAF Wall. Wider at the base than the top, and the inner base is made of stone, and it has passage tunnels from one side to the other.
3. There were also garrison's along the wall which ended up being places of political influence rather than the military influence it was supposed to be. It was the political influence that brought Hadrian's wall down. See linked article. We see this exact issue (noted in the OP) with Marsh, Yarwyck and Thorne when Jon first catches them scheming while they are in the bathhouse, and then again a few times as when Thorne tries to convince Jon to join Tywin for political reasons.
4. There is a commanding headquarters there with the name Stanwix. Stanwix... as in King Stannis??? Ya don't say.
5. Stanwix was set up with a special communication system between that location and the next castle called...York... which we know is where George got the inspiration for the Starks. Ya don't say.
6. Hadrian's Wall and the Roman conquest did fail, and the wall was dismantled over time. I wonder if this has any bearing on the ASOIAF story as well???

(cut a bunch)

Ok, Now Lord Varys, you owe me a huge favor for doing your homework for you. I will cash in on that favor one day.

[HallowedMarcus]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that he could take Winterfell with a wildling army is insane, especially with Stannis and his men being dead. If that were true the North would belong to the Boltons. They would all bend the knee. And they would all fight continuously against those wildlings on their soil.

   Stannis is not dead, not yet, not be the time the Pink letter is written. And also you say that it would be insane to get the Wildlings and fight the Boltons. Sincerely speaking if GRRM does resurrects Jon what you believe he will do? He will fight the Boltons with the Wildlings aid. Other Houses might join him or not but I do guarantee you that the remaining Stannis people in the Watch (Stannis/Queens's men) will be willing to join Jon against the Boltons, especially if the Red Priestess backs him up as a kind of hero/savior. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But it is quite clear that his cause is doomed. Hopefully he goes down with a good fight, preferably against the Others or wights. But he cannot hope to defeat Aegon, Euron, or Daenerys. 

   I do hope he stands alive time enough to allow Jon (a lá Beric D.) with 'his' Wildlings to come to his aid and Lord Wyman Manderly to turn in his favor with the arrival of the Onion Knight with Rickon Stark. After the Bolton forces and main allies are defeated or severely weakened he may die in piece.

   Also, GRRM has hinted that there will be a great thing/moment happening in the Winds of Winter book and I believe it to be related to the war in the North. We need to wait and see.

[kissdbyfire]

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

I can't prove what Mance will or won't do but neither can Jon and he's risking everything to find out.

Jon is not risking everything as you claim. But I agree that he is taking a risk. The thing is, it is a calculated risk. He knows Mance, and he trusts him. Is it possible he will regrets having trusted Mance? Sure. Is it likely, though? I don't think so. But it is impossible to know for sure either way at the moment. We will have to wait and see how it all plays out. 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

Given that the Night's Watch sentenced him to death, attempted to carry out this sentence and he escaped it is reasonable conclusion he's not keen on going back but still wants to be King. That very logical consequence to a success  (which in itself isn't particularly likely) in the mission Jon is about to embark on is one the Night's Watch SHOULD feel compelled to prevent.

No, you are wrong. Again. It's not the NW who "executes" Mance, it's  Stannis. Jon simply gives the order for his men to shoot Rattleshirt/Mance to take him out of his agony, after all, being immolated is not all that much fun. 

There's more... there is no textual evidence that Mance wants to remain a king, that's fan fiction. The facts are: Mance is a deserter of the NW, and as such he's to be executed. He is also a very valuable ally in the upcoming fight for the dawn, even Stannis sees this. Jon has to weigh in the pros and cons, and make a decision. Which is what he does. But truth be told, at the moment this is an issue for the readers, not the characters since they are not aware that it was Rattleshirt who burned. That is, in CB no one knows apart from Jon and Mel. Só, yeah, it is a gamble in a way, but as I said above, it's a calculated risk. And not only because Jon knows Mance and has seen and talked enough with him to have a very good idea about what type of man Mance is. He has LC Jeor Mormont's take on Mance:

ACoK, Jon III

I knew Mance Rayder, Jon. He is an oathbreaker, yes ... but he has eyes to see, and no man has ever dared to name him faintheart.

He also has the Halfhand's opinion:

ACoK, Jon VIII

He was the best of us, and the worst as well.

ADwD, Jon I

“Lord Too-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse.” The letter that Lord Wyman Manderly had sent back from White Harbor had spoken of his age and infirmity, and little more. Stannis had commanded Jon not to speak of that one either.
“Perhaps his lordship would fancy a wildling wife,” said Lady Melisandre. “Is this fat man married, Lord Snow?”
“His lady wife is long dead. Lord Wyman has two grown sons, and grandchildren by the elder. And he is too fat to sit a horse, thirty stone at least. Val would never have him.”
“Just once you might try to give me an answer that would please me, Lord Snow,” the king grumbled.
“I would hope the truth would please you, Sire. Your men call Val a princess, but to the free folk she is only the sister of their king’s dead wife. If you force her to marry a man she does not want, she is like to slit his throat on their wedding night. Even if she accepts her husband, that does not mean the wildlings will follow him, or you. The only man who can bind them to your cause is Mance Rayder.”
“I know that,” Stannis said, unhappily. “I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I’ll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder’s life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms.”
“The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance.”
“I mean to. I’ll burn him, and the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors. I have other men to lead the wildlings. And I have Rayder’s son, do not forget. Once the father dies, his whelp will be the King-Beyond-the-Wall.”

 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

Hundreds of petty kingdoms, Brandon the builder of the wall being one of them and the wildling, such as Ygritte has been led to understand doesn't want any part of them. Hence the "kneelers and Free Folk" distinction. On the other side of the Wall you got guys like Tyrion who only see wildlings as the people that got stuck on the wrong side of the wall. Maybe you are right and they are all wrong and the Age of Heroes saw a idyllic society in the North where no one made any problems about coming across the Wall but that's not it is remembered in universe, not for thousands of years. The Free Folk and Night's Watch have been locked in vendetta that makes the strife between the Brackens and Blackwoods, the association between Valyrians and dragons or the dominance of slavery in Essos seem like a recent thing by comparison. We don't expect those things to just suddenly end. It should not be understated how cataclysmic the changing of times Jon was forcing down Westeros' throat here actually was. 

The bold: I don't understand what you mean. 

The rest...

I don't remember Tyrion ever thinking or talking about wildlings living north of the Wall because they "got stuck there", like, they built this ginormous Wall overnight, and people who were north of it simply woke up trapped on the wrong side. Forever. It's ludicrous. And if Tyrion thinks or says anything along those lines, it means nothing. Tyrion also makes fun of the grumkins and snarks. In other words, Tyrion doesn't know what he's talking about. 

Wut. Where did I say anything even remotely similar to the Age of Heroes being this perfect little paradise? It seems to me you are misunderstanding the story being told and you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. 

I simply explained to you that it took centuries to build the Wall, and thousands for it to reach its current height. I think I just quoted myself verbatim there, colour me impressed w/ mylsef.

And I only explained that because you had said previously that Brandon the Builder, who crowned himself King in the North, had built the Wall to use it as his back garden fence. And that is just plain silly. But never did I say that the Age of Heroes was Shangri-la. 

Yes, the NW has forgotten its purpose. It's a penal colony now, and it's completely unprepared to face the challenges it will face soon when the WWs and the army of the dead come knocking. And that's where things get really interesting...

A Dance with Dragons - Bran I 

The ranger made no move to obey.

"He's dead." Bran could taste the bile in his throat. "Meera, he's some dead thing. The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say. He came to meet us at the Wall, but he could not pass. He sent Sam instead, with that wildling girl."

The men are no longer true, because they don't know who the real enemy is anymore. And all that talk about the NW oath yadda yadda yadda circles back to this point. The NW now thinks their purpose is to defend the 7K from the wildlings when, in truth, it is to defend humankind against the WWs and wights. 

The changes Jon is trying to impose are the correct ones. I will never understand some of the arguments being made here. People keep repeating that "that's how it is on Planetos", or "its ruthless and unfair and cruel, but that's the reality of the setting. Bla bla bla. So fucking what? And that's the whole point, that things need to change, but that is not easily done. Still, needs to be done, and it takes great moral integrity and courage to do the right thing when it's unpopular and difficult and dangerous.

. 

 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

A ranging that ended up lasting most of his story until he became LC. Much unlike the LC he was squiring for.

Not entirely correct but I'll take it. And your point is?

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

And even after he returned before becoming LC he got involved in the defense of Castle Black in a very crucial capacity. Bowen Marsh is the very embodiment of the bean counter that Jon didn't want to become when they told him he was to be steward, he inadvertently or not did indeed avoid being that kind of steward and when he had to identify his enemies he decided against settling on said bean counter. It would now appear that this was an error Jon made. I would submit that is not a coincidence.

I don't understand what you mean. 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

Nor is it just a coincidence that Bowen had just gotten ready to enact a years old conspiracy to kill Jon Snow just minutes after Jon announced to the Watch he was breaking some of his vows.

No, it doesn't make sense. Marsh & co  were conspiring for a while. The idea that he walks out of the Shieldhall, bumps into 3 or 4 or 17 men who are in on the plan and just happened to be around or Marsh simply convinces them to take part in an assassination attempt at the drop of a hat is ridiculous, not a coincidence. 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

Or that it is a coincidence that he was marching south on a mission that, far having nothing to do with anything other then protecting the interests of the Night's Watch, would involve liberating his childhood home and saving the sister he grew up with from the son of the man that killed the brother he grew up with that serves a family that killed his father.

You are talking as if you had just invented the wheel. Spoiler alert: you didn't. 

What you just said is literally spelled out in the text.

“Might be all a skin o’ lies.” Tormund scratched under his beard. “If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o’ maester’s ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn’t make it so.”
“He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number.” He knows about Mance Rayder. “No. There is truth in there.”
“I won’t say you’re wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?”
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.”

 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

None of it is a coincidence and it makes for a very compelling case that Jon is breaking his vows to act on his own interests, the punishment for which is exactly the one Bowen exacted.

No, that was mutiny. And cowardice, bigotry and stupidity. 

On 07/07/2017 at 0:50 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

And yes, they didn't wait until he left the castle with an army at his back. Because then he'd no longer be at Castle Black, where they were, and would have an army at his back. Some basic practicality entered into it, they weren't Ned Starks about it.

Erhm... ok?

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Stannis is not dead, not yet, not be the time the Pink letter is written. And also you say that it would be insane to get the Wildlings and fight the Boltons. Sincerely speaking if GRRM does resurrects Jon what you believe he will do? He will fight the Boltons with the Wildlings aid. Other Houses might join him or not but I do guarantee you that the remaining Stannis people in the Watch (Stannis/Queens's men) will be willing to join Jon against the Boltons, especially if the Red Priestess backs him up as a king of hero/savior. 

I doubt Jon will be able to pursue the march against Winterfell idea after his resurrection. He will have other things on his plate - like putting himself back together and dealing with the aftermath of his resurrection. That is, if Jon comes back quickly after his death. Which is not a given at all.

And there is a pretty good chance that Stannis will sent his own letter to the Wall once he has dealt with the Boltons. The idea that we'll get two Bolton campaigns - Stannis' and Jon's - in TWoW is very unlikely. That would be pretty boring. I could see Roose and/or Ramsay survive to come back later, but I think Stannis will settle who runs the North, not Jon.

Jon might essentially become Stannis' heir, in a sense. He will take up the pieces when Stannis goes down. Or perhaps there is even going to be some sort of split before that. I'm pretty sure Jon's resurrection is going to be the beginning of some new story arc for him, not a continuation of the old arc. We won't get either that Winterfell campaign nor that Hardhome expedition.

[giant snake]

It still isn't "pretty obvious" that Jon broke his vows as Lord Commander.  If it was so obvious then why did Marsh have to plot in the shadows?  Why not accuse him openly?  Did he fear that the majority of the watchmen would not be willing to go along?  Again does it really matter?  Once you elect your commander you obey your commander.  It is really that simple.  If you could kill him whenever he broke the rules, by your estimation, then you would have absolute chaos.  Even regardless of whether Jon was in the right or not, that is the way it works.

Again I ask, why it makes any difference what people believe in the "Pink Letter" or what people's perceptions are?  We aren't burdened by those perceptions, and what kind of system of justice sanctions murder just because the accused believed that he did it for the right reason, didn't have all the facts, or some other excuse like that?  I mean you are actually sanctioning murder if you think that the person believed he was in the right.  I'm sure almost every murderer thinks that he has just cause.  The whole point of having a law is because taking someone's life isn't your decision to make, especially if you are his subordinate!  idk maybe Klingon Law allows it, I would have to check...but not a military order like the Night's Watch.

You make an analogy to Dorne not being able to march his forces through Tyrell lands.  I don't see the analogy here or how that is supposed to restrain the Night's Watch when they are facing, for the first time, an open threat to their south.  Put it in context:  all of the Seven Kingdoms, while subordinate to the Laws of the Crown, are also Kingdoms in their own right.  It stands to reason (and we already know) that they have unique laws from their own traditions.  That includes laws which the Crown imposed to prevent two old rivals from fighting each other.

The Watch doesn't involve itself in the disputes of the Seven Kingdoms because even Aegon the Conqueror didn't interfere in the affairs of the Night's Watch.  The whole reason that the series takes place during this period is because it is a chain of unprecedented events.  Lannister allies are subverting the Watch, competing Lords Paramount are fighting over a throne that had only ever been under a unified dynasty, foes are poised to attack Westeros from every direction (Others, the Iron Bank's mercenaries, and Daenarys' empire), and an ancient mythical threat is seen for the first time in thousands of years (the Others, again).  What you're saying is the same old doubletalk that only the Night's Watch has to abide by rules no matter what comes at them.  It's some suicidal straightjacket thinking and it relies on us believing that only one side has to abide by a set of rules in a conflict.

[Roswell]

On 7/7/2017 at 8:30 PM, SFDanny said:

It doesn't depend if you are a member of the Free Folk who are being kept out of safety behind the Wall, and it shouldn't depend for a Lord Commander whose mission it is to protect them from the Others. Clearly in both cases, it matters if thousands upon thousands of people are callously left to become zombies. This is not a simple tactical calculation. It is, and should be, a moral imperative. Jon gets this. Marsh doesn't.

We don't know if Jon's plan will work. What we do know is that Marsh's plan won't work if by work it includes the goal of saving the lives of the Free Folk, or of bringing them into an army that can both guard the Wall and fight the Others. Marsh's plan would have the few men who make up the Night's Watch man the Wall by themselves while they seal the gates of all the castles of the Watch except three. That his what he advocates and it would be a disaster.

We do know Jon's plan not only is to save wildlings beyond the Wall, but it is to use them to augment the Watch in the Wall's defense. It is to continue to plea with all the contending forces in Westeros to send aid to the Wall, but to take action even if they don't. It is to win the people of the North to his cause and bring them together with the wildlings to fight as one. In that regard, the immediate dangers include getting the Free Folk to fight under his leadership and to eliminate the Bolton's leadership of the North who refuse to  consider anything but the submission of all other people to their rule. A rule that has nothing to do with fighting the threat of the Others. His plan to march on Winterfell with a army of Free Folk stands a better chance of accomplishing those last two aims than sitting back and submitting to Ramsay's threats.

Fighting the Boltons over Arya serve no one's best interests except Jon's.  Even if the Boltons refused to cooperate initially the best way to handle them is to leave them alone.  The Boltons will figure it out very quickly when the first wight comes knocking on the gates to Winterfell.  This stupid business of sending your man and his female accomplices to take Arya away from Ramsay is just that, stupid.  It does nothing to strengthen the people's ability to stop the wights and the white walkers.  What Jon was going to do, lead the wildlings to attack Ramsay, would have been detrimental to the people's ability to protect against the white walkers. 

[teej6]

On 7/1/2017 at 8:27 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Agree again on Martin's strength at character development. As to the bold, I think that applies to some but my feeling is that for many it's something a lot sillier... it's like there's two camps: you're either a Dany fan, or you're a Jon fan. Like, these are mutually exclusive things, and if you're n one camp, you must bring readers who are on the other down, no matter what, and anything goes to "achieve" this. Even making pathetic arguments in defence of things like Ramsay Bolton's "rights", or how honourable and brave Bowen Marsh is. Go figure.

ETA: I brought this up with friends just a few days ago, but this thread and its previous iteration made me want to re-read the old "learning to lead" threads. 

The bolded is exactly what's going on in Jon-hate threads such as this one. They are based on a superficial reading of the text and posters bias towards, most often than not, Dany rather than a proper understanding of the text. It's like you said Jon has to be brought down for Dany to be the central hero.

Then of course there's @Lord Varys who has a thorough and in-depth understanding of the text but cannot be relied on for an objective view or rendering of the text in matters relating to Jon. I've come to view his arguments on Jon's arc as the subjective interpretations of a Dany fan.  

To me, GRRM does show the progression of events that lead to the final act of treachery and Jon's stabbing rather well and may even imply that Jon's lack of foresight or guile in being able to see Marsh and company for what they are is partly to blame for Jon getting stabbed. But I don't believe for a second that GRRM wants the readers to see Jon's decisions such as helping the wildlings or trying to rescue his fleeing sister as bad decisions. These are the right decisions made by a progressive leader who is trying to change the minds of bigoted prejudiced men but fails at it and ultimately pays for his lack of understanding of the depravity of these said men. 

Anyway, it's always amazing to see the sheer lack of rational arguments that the Jon haters put forward in these threads. 

Yes, I too miss the "learning to lead" threads and the objective views of posters such as Lummel and Butterbumps. 

[teej6]

1 hour ago, The Transporter said:

Fighting the Boltons over Arya serve no one's best interests except Jon's.  Even if the Boltons refused to cooperate initially the best way to handle them is to leave them alone.  The Boltons will figure it out very quickly when the first wight comes knocking on the gates to Winterfell.  This stupid business of sending your man and his female accomplices to take Arya away from Ramsay is just that, stupid.  It does nothing to strengthen the people's ability to stop the wights and the white walkers.  What Jon was going to do, lead the wildlings to attack Ramsay, would have been detrimental to the people's ability to protect against the white walkers. 

Jon was not fighting the Boltons over Arya. Sometimes I'm amazed at what people understand in the text. Jon agreed with Mel's decision (and it was her decision) to rescue Arya who he believed was already half-way to the Watch. He knew Arya was married to Ramsay but he did not bestir himself up until Mel told him she saw Arya fleeing in her fires and that she was going to send Mance to rescue her. No fighting the Boltons here. When Jon does decide to go out and meet Ramsay, he is doing so because Ramsay made a direct threat to his person and the NW not because of Arya. 

As to the bolded, how is waiting for a madman to attack you and your men from the defenseless south of your castle help in the fight against the WW? Or are you saying that Jon could meet Ramsay's demands?

ETA: Anyway I can't believe the arguments against Jon in some of these posts are possible if one has done a proper reading of the books. 

[JonSnow4President]

On 7/1/2017 at 9:18 AM, kissdbyfire said:

Interesting, I hadn't thought about that angle! 

And yes, Marsh is not concerned w/ anything other than himself. Anyone who can defend the idea of letting innocents die w/o even an attempt at saving them being made is a huge arsehole in my book. 

Know I'm way late to the party, but catching up after a long week.  I can't agree with the first part.  Marsh's last act in the books was to engage in an almost guaranteed suicidal assassination to allow the Watch to continue to operate.  That is not a move a man solely concerned with his own skin makes.  Is he a bigot and coward?  Yes, but that doesn't mean he's purely self motivated. Now, all of this doesn't mean I believe Jon deserved to die.  But there is a very clear, legal/traditional reasoning for Marsh & Co to think Jon deserved to die. 

6 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Ok. This will be my last post in the assassin "kill Jon aarrrgh!" thread because to continue here is the definition of insanity. Just call me Susan Powter.

Please provide a list of recent raids. I know one northern lord makes this claim, but one lord having this issue in recent times compared to what Tywin does with the Mountain??? Who is the bigger enemy in this story? We know the Ironborn do this, and yet they are part of the seven kingdoms and they still do things like serve in the Night's Watch.

While there aren't any directly, the mentions of climbing the wall frequently (ASOS is packed up right now or I'd provide the direct quotes), and the plethora of infamous raiders suggests that it is a fairly common occurrence.  

Quote

Though he could not have been older than twenty, Jarl had been raiding for eight years, and had gone over the Wall a dozen times with the likes of Alfyn Crowkiller and the Weeper, and more recently with his own band.

[ETA: There's at least 13 recent raids]

[teej6]

9 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Know I'm way late to the party, but catching up after a long week.  I can't agree with the first part.  Marsh's last act in the books was to engage in an almost guaranteed suicidal assassination to allow the Watch to continue to operate.  That is not a move a man solely concerned with his own skin makes.  Is he a bigot and coward?  Yes, but that doesn't mean he's purely self motivated. 

There's no way to know if Marsh fully thought through the consequences of his actions to his person or the NW. Marsh is an idiot who probably assumed that his plan to assasinate Jon would slip away if he and his ilk didn't act at that very moment. If his act was truly selfless and for the NW, and if he had half a brain in his head, he would have figured out that by killing the only man who kept the peace in a tinderbox full of opposing forces, he would unleash chaos and perhaps the death of himself and his co-conspirators. Marsh's actions may have been motivated by a sense of self preservation but I doubt they were purely selfless. If Marsh was such a selfless creature he would not have supported a man like Slynt, knowing full well that Slynt was a thief and not fit to be LC.