Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snormund

Can we talk about Jon?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, falcotron said:

To be fair, that's the kind of thing that the rest of the country makes fun of states like North Carolina for. But it's also legal in places like California and New York, too, which don't fit the hillbilly stereotype.

Yeah and thats how we get people who think Trump would make a good president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, falcotron said:

The show is not condoning incest. The show is just using a definition of incest that only counts siblings and children, because that's the world GRRM created, based on medieval Europe.

Nobody in-universe thinks Jaime and Cersei are acceptable except Cersei. The Targs have had to continually fight with the Faith and with public perception to continue to get away with marrying siblings. People make the same kinds of disparaging remarks and crude jokes that they'd make in our world.

Really, the only difference is that you consider first cousins to be incest, and Westerosi don't. There are similar differences between cultures even today, and there's no actual good reason for where each culture chooses to draw the line. If someone else thought you were disgusting for drawing a line between first cousins and first cousins once removed, you'd think they were being silly, and you'd be right. Your line is arbitrary, but so is theirs.

What I would wish is that the Westeros stops excusing incest even for the targs. I know it would be unrealistic for a medieval society to suddenly think ill of incest, especially when bloodlines have a lot of importance for people. But this is something I'd like to see happening personally. Westeros isn't exactly medieval Europe, so anything's possible.

As for Jon and Dany, I can see how their relationship probably will not be considered 'illegal' in Westeros, but I would like to see at least some ramifications of it, and not just 'its ok, they are targs'. I would also like the Westerosi universe to realise that marrying close relations (cousins, aunts, uncles etc) can have bad consequences. Again, that's something I would personally like to see happen, no matter how anachronistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

What I would wish is that the Westeros stops excusing incest even for the targs.

I think the story doesn't excuse Targ incest, and even in-story most people don't, they just accept it against their will because they've been forced to by a series of strong Kings. And I don't see any problem with that. 

16 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

What I would wish is that the Westeros stops excusing incest even for the targs. I know it would be unrealistic for a medieval society to suddenly think ill of incest, especially when bloodlines have a lot of importance for people. But this is something I'd like to see happening personally. Westeros isn't exactly medieval Europe, so anything's possible.

But again, they do think ill of incest, they just have a slightly different definition than you do. And I don't see why that's a problem. Is a broader definition of incest really automatically better?

In very late medieval Europe, the Catholic Church actually did make a change like this, deciding that anything up to six degrees is incest. Lots of people were suddenly guilty of incest. Would you consider it disgusting or sinful if you found out that your wife was your second cousin three times removed from a branch of your family you'd never heard of? I doubt it. But people back then were encouraged to, at least if you were rich or powerful enough for someone to want to blackmail you or destroy you. And then they were allowed to buy the equivalent of indulgences to make it ok with the Church. Which is one of the things that led to Protestants rejecting the Roman Church. Meanwhile, the numbers of first cousin marriages among upper nobility actually went up drastically, because if almost everything is incest, why try to avoid it, just pay the fine.

I'm not saying that widening the taboo automatically weakens it, just that it isn't automatically an improvement.

Meanwhile, our current taboos come from late-19th century health fads. At first it was calculations about things like marrying first-cousins is fine as long as your family does it less than 50% of the time, but it quickly led to people selling snake-oil cures that would prevent birth defects as long as you bought the right one for your specific family relationship. And the theory that eugenics would be unnecessary and we wouldn't have any accidental race mixing if only people would be scientific about marrying second cousins but avoiding first cousins  And so on. I don't think that was any healthier or more moral than what preceded it.

16 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

As for Jon and Dany, I can see how their relationship probably will not be considered 'illegal' in Westeros, but I would like to see at least some ramifications of it, and not just 'its ok, they are targs'. I would also like the Westerosi universe to realise that marrying close relations (cousins, aunts, uncles etc) can have bad consequences. Again, that's something I would personally like to see happen, no matter how anachronistic. 

What bad consequences? Do you see any evidence of genetic defects caused by inbreeding among the Starks? If not, what are you trying to cure by changing their incest taboos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I think the story doesn't excuse Targ incest, and even in-story most people don't, they just accept it against their will because they've been forced to by a series of strong Kings. And I don't see any problem with that. 

But again, they do think ill of incest, they just have a slightly different definition than you do. And I don't see why that's a problem. Is a broader definition of incest really automatically better?

In very late medieval Europe, the Catholic Church actually did make a change like this, deciding that anything up to six degrees is incest. Lots of people were suddenly guilty of incest. Would you consider it disgusting or sinful if you found out that your wife was your second cousin three times removed from a branch of your family you'd never heard of? I doubt it. But people back then were encouraged to, at least if you were rich or powerful enough for someone to want to blackmail you or destroy you. And then they were allowed to buy the equivalent of indulgences to make it ok with the Church. Which is one of the things that led to Protestants rejecting the Roman Church. Meanwhile, the numbers of first cousin marriages among upper nobility actually went up drastically, because if almost everything is incest, why try to avoid it, just pay the fine.

I'm not saying that widening the taboo automatically weakens it, just that it isn't automatically an improvement.

Meanwhile, our current taboos come from late-19th century health fads. At first it was calculations about things like marrying first-cousins is fine as long as your family does it less than 50% of the time, but it quickly led to people selling snake-oil cures that would prevent birth defects as long as you bought the right one for your specific family relationship. And the theory that eugenics would be unnecessary and we wouldn't have any accidental race mixing if only people would be scientific about marrying second cousins but avoiding first cousins  And so on. I don't think that was any healthier or more moral than what preceded it.

What bad consequences? Do you see any evidence of genetic defects caused by inbreeding among the Starks? If not, what are you trying to cure by changing their incest taboos?

Birth defects were seen with the Targaryens. And as for the Starks, their incestuous marriages were few and far between, which is probably why they didn't see any signs of genetic defects.

I personally would not judge anybody marrying anybody so long as they do it by their own free will. Whether I would do the same is a different matter, and again, that's my personal opinion.

What I would like to see in the Westeros the realization that there is no consensus about how much incest is acceptable, and hence people starting to give the practice a wide berth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Birth defects were seen with the Targaryens. And as for the Starks, their incestuous marriages were few and far between, which is probably why they didn't see any signs of genetic defects.

There's no evidence that cousin marriages among the Starks are any rarer than in any other noble family. I don't know why people just really, really want to believe that the Starks would never do anything like that, even after being told that Ned's own parents did. (In fact, I suspect the reason GRRM decided to make Ned's parents cousins was specifically to shut down this line of thinking, but if so, it obviously didn't work.)

Meanwhile, the Targaryens violate Westeros's incest taboos by regularly marrying brother to sister. And the Targaryens have lots of birth defects (and concentrate presumably recessive traits like pyromania, too), but nobody else in Westeros does. That's an argument for getting the Targs to start thinking and acting like everyone else in Westeros, not an argument for changing the way everyone else in Westeros thinks.

I honestly can't see any reason why people want to change Westeros's taboos except "They're not identical to my own", which is not a rational reason. If you have a better reason, I'd love to be proven wrong.

ETA: One last thing: There is evidence that marrying people at the level of second cousin or first cousin once removed 40-50% of the time actually leads to fewer birth defects than never marrying anyone that closely related. Does that change your views on incest? Do you think we should start encouraging America to have more second-cousin marriages? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, falcotron said:

There's no evidence that cousin marriages among the Starks are any rarer than in any other noble family. I don't know why people just really, really want to believe that the Starks would never do anything like that, even after being told that Ned's own parents did. (In fact, I suspect the reason GRRM decided to make Ned's parents cousins was specifically to shut down this line of thinking, but if so, it obviously didn't work.)

Meanwhile, the Targaryens violate Westeros's incest taboos by regularly marrying brother to sister. And the Targaryens have lots of birth defects (and concentrate presumably recessive traits like pyromania, too), but nobody else in Westeros does. That's an argument for getting the Targs to start thinking and acting like everyone else in Westeros, not an argument for changing the way everyone else in Westeros thinks.

I honestly can't see any reason why people want to change Westeros's taboos except "They're not identical to my own", which is not a rational reason. If you have a better reason, I'd love to be proven wrong.

I'm not defending the Starks, nor saying that they are any better or worse than the rest of the lords. 

What I am saying is that there isn't any proven benefit to inbreeding, and the disadvantages have enough evidence to back them. So it's just not that the custom doesn't match my opinions. Why not give it a wide berth?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I'm not defending the Starks, nor saying that they are any better or worse than the rest of the lords. 

What I am saying is that there isn't any proven benefit to inbreeding, and the disadvantages have enough evidence to back them. So it's just not that the custom doesn't match my opinions. Why not give it a wide berth?

But there are proven benefits to, for example, marrying your daughter to someone at her own social level and in their own region. (You get a powerful nearby ally; she gets the lifestyle she grew up accustomed to.) And similarly for your heir, and for your second sons. And to unifying potentially contentious split claims (so there's no succession crisis/war a few decades down the line). And so on.

So, there are benefits. And what are the costs? Nothing at all in-universe, practically or theologically, just the fact that if someone from a completely different culture happens to be reading a book about you somehow they won't be offended that you're different from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Even avunculate marriages are legal in some countries today.
Australia, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands to name a few "western" countries.

In mine (Argentina) they are perfectly legal. Legal marriage is forbidden only between relatives of the same line (parents-sons, grandparents-grandsons), full siblings and half siblings.  Not that an uncle wedding a niece or an aunt a nephew is a common thing, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, falcotron said:

But there are proven benefits to, for example, marrying your daughter to someone at her own social level and in their own region. (You get a powerful nearby ally; she gets the lifestyle she grew up accustomed to.) And similarly for your heir, and for your second sons. And to unifying potentially contentious split claims (so there's no succession crisis/war a few decades down the line). And so on.

So, there are benefits. And what are the costs? Nothing at all in-universe, practically or theologically, just the fact that if someone from a completely different culture happens to be reading a book about you somehow they won't be offended that you're different from them.

If you are referring to social benefits, yes, there definitely are. But that does not erase the potential genetic defects that might arise. And in universe, there is no evidence that the genetic defects are not manifested. They are probably not linked to inbreeding.

And cultural practices do not need to be continued just because they are cultural. I'm not passing judgement on any particular culture, but not all cultural practices pass practical/scientific muster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People hate their pairing. Incest is one of the reasons. The second reason is that both are hot headed and makes stupid mistakes. Now it's double trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:21 PM, Snormund said:

Melisandre is the reason Jon's alive. 

No. Actually the reason why Jon is still alive is Lord of Light. He's the one whose power resurrected Jon. Melisandre is just a tool. She was there when she was needed, only because Lord of Light protected her after Stannis' death, and safely delivered her back to Castle Black. Any woman riding alone in the north, isn't safe, unless she's someone like Arya or Brienne, or Dany riding on dragonback ^_^

On 28.08.2017 at 8:30 PM, Snormund said:

Does it not bother anyone else the way Jon bent the knee to Daenerys after making a big deal out of his loyalty and duty to keeping the North independent?

First of all, to stay independent, North needs to stay alive. As Brienne said - f*ck loyalty, it's about survival. Jon listened to what Tormund told him. His pride is less important than survival of his people, and without Dany's help, they have no chance.

Quote

Especially considering she treated him rather shabbily all season, to say the least.

She treated him like that because in her eyes he was an usurper. He proclaimed himself The King in the North, and just like that took away one of her kingdoms.

She arrived to Westeros to fight against Cersei, and to seize back all Seven Kingdoms, not to fight multiple wars with anyone who will decide to go independent. She can't allow random people just like that to tear apart what she thinks is rightfully hers.

Quote

She has done nothing to earn his undying love and devotion besides being beautiful.

  • She let him mine dragonglass. Even without him bending the knee. And without dragonglass they won't be able to defeat the Undead Army. Fire is good, but it does nothing to White Walkers. And they don't have enough Valyrian steel. So to have dragonglass is their biggest advantage. Without Dany's consent, no one was getting near those caves, unless they wanted to be roasted by dragon.
  • She saved them all beyond The Wall, even sacrifised one of her dragons/children for their sake. She didn't knew that it will turn out like that, but she doesn't regret going there, because it was necessary.
  • She agread to postpone her Big Battle against Cersei, and to help Jon to fight against Night's King. She has chosen as her priority to help people of Westeros, and first of all northeners (because they will be the first to die when NK will pass The Wall).

And you think that all of that is NOTHING? Seriously?

Quote

He seemingly has forgotten about Ghost too. 

The man has to deal with imminent danger aimed against entire humankind, he has no time to think about pets.

Also Ghost is well kept and fed at wherever he is, either at Castle Black or at Winterfell. Out of all Starks' direwolfs he's living the best life. Oh, wait! He's still LIVING. While all others are already dead (except Nymeria). Sansa, Robb, Rickon, Bran - they all failed their pets, and caused their death. So Jon is the best master out of all Starks.

Quote

Jon's treatment of Theon (who betrayed his family and killed Ser Rodrik) compared to Mel (who resurrected  him and killed someone he never met, admittedly an innocent child. Theon killed innocent kids too tho) hypocritical and unfair.

Theon saved Sansa. Also Jon didn't tell Theon that he's forgiving him everything, he said that it's not his place to forgive what was done. Add to that that Theon regretted what he did, while Melisandre wasn't repenting on what she did. Davos wanted her dead, but Jon let her go, in gratitude for her help.

He sent her away and thus saved her from Davos' wrath. He didn't forgive Theon, didn't offer him his help, and adviced him to go and save Yara, which is a suicide mission.

  • Jon saved Melisandre's life

(because she resurected him, and let her go, even though she killed Shireen, caused her mother to commit suicide, her delusions made Stannis and many others to die),

  • and sent Theon to die

(because he killed Ser Rodrik, and indirectly was involved in Robb's doom, and killed two peasant boys).

What's unfair?

Seems to me, that you're biased towards Jon and Dany, at least partially, because you're a fan of Mel, and both of them didn't treated her with as much gratitude, as she deserves in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

If you are referring to social benefits, yes, there definitely are. But that does not erase the potential genetic defects that might arise. And in universe, there is no evidence that the genetic defects are not manifested. They are probably not linked to inbreeding.

I honestly can't tell what you're arguing here. There are probably no genetic defects linked to inbreeding, and therefore there might be genetic problems?

In the real world, cultures that marry cousins about as often as Westeros don't have any problems. (It does become a problem if you marry first cousins most of the time, but it seems to be every 2-4 generations or so, based on the family trees, not most of the time.) There's no indication in-story that the Westerosi nobles have aey problems. So, why are you insisting that they change their system?

And meanwhile, go back to my hypothetical: If a study showed that we'd have slightly fewer genetic defects if we married second cousins a lot more often, would you think we should change our culture to encourage more second cousin marriages? I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't be out there campaigning for it. So why are you campaigning for a change in the other direction? Because your reactions to incest are much less a result of logical thinking about public health issues than a visceral reaction to the taboo you were born with, as with every other human being.

53 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

And cultural practices do not need to be continued just because they are cultural. I'm not passing judgement on any particular culture, but not all cultural practices pass practical/scientific muster.

Sure, but cultural practices shouldn't be changed just for the hell of it. If there are social benefits to their current system, and no costs to it, why do you want them to change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, falcotron said:

I honestly can't tell what you're arguing here. There are probably no genetic defects linked to inbreeding, and therefore there might be genetic problems?

In the real world, cultures that marry cousins about as often as Westeros don't have any problems. (It does become a problem if you marry first cousins most of the time, but it seems to be every 2-4 generations or so, based on the family trees, not most of the time.) There's no indication in-story that the Westerosi nobles have aey problems. So, why are you insisting that they change their system?

 

I'm arguing that THERE ARE genetic defects linked to inbreeding. If you see problems some of the time, and you can avoid them, why not take steps to avoid them? 

The reason I am suggesting the westerosi change their is system is their system may or may not lead to problems. Again, medieval society didn't have the best diagnostics, no just because the society didn't realize inbreeding was causing problems does not exclude the existence of genetic problems. And there is a way that genetic problems can be avoided FOR SURE. 

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

And meanwhile, go back to my hypothetical: If a study showed that we'd have slightly fewer genetic defects if we married second cousins a lot more often, would you think we should change our culture to encourage more second cousin marriages? I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't be out there campaigning for it. So why are you campaigning for a change in the other direction? 

Fewer as compared to what? Fewer as compared to non-inbreed marriages? Sure, I'd be advocating second cousin marriages. 

Fewer as compared to first cousin marriages? No, because again, you have the option of choosing NONE.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Because your reactions to incest are much less a result of logical thinking about public health issues than a visceral reaction to the taboo you were born with, as with every other human being.

You say this based on what?

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Sure, but cultural practices shouldn't be changed just for the hell of it. If there are social benefits to their current system, and no costs to it, why do you want them to change it?

In my opinion, genetics defects is too high a price to pay for social benefits. Genetics follow rules that are much more rigid that social rules. Its not impossible to keep social benefits whilst not endangering the health of your successors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:03 PM, Snormund said:

Dany saved him after refusing to believe him

And why should she believe in his stories? First of all she doesn't know him. And second - those stories are unbelievable. Jon himself acknowledged in his conversation with Tyrion (when they had their first private conversation on Dragonstone), that if someone came to him, and told him about White Walkers, then he wouldn't have believed them. To ousiders it all sounds like bullsh*t.

Quote

or fly to the wall herself to see what was up in the first place.

And again - why should she?

Some strainger came to her, told her bunch of fairy stories, thus she needs to drop all her activities, and go beyond The Wall on a wild hunt, just in case that he told her truth? Also she had to deal with outcome of Olena's death, Yara's imprisonment, Casterly Rock's fiasco, and so on. She had no time for that, from the moment she set her foot on Dragonstone, to the moment when Jon was already beyond the Wall.

Quote

So she shouldn't have even put him in that situation tbqh. 

That situation wasn't result of her shortsightning, more like it was Jon's own mistake. He's telling people unbelievable things, and doesn't show them any proof of his words. He himself put him in that situation. He was naive when he thought that everyone will believe him without any proof.

Also Dany wasn't the one who he was aiming to convince by presenting captured wight. He did it to convince Cersei. He failed in that. But at least Jaime is now on their side.

On 28.08.2017 at 9:10 PM, greensleeves said:

*And* they gave the Night King a way to destroy the wall.

He already had means to cross to this side of the Wall, even before he got the dragon. Viewers are either too stupid, or too unobservant to notice it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Megorova said:

Also Dany wasn't the one who he was aiming to convince by presenting captured wight. He did it to convince Cersei. He failed in that. But at least Jaime is now on their side.

Jaime agrees on severity of the dead army threat with them but at the moment he's in the middle, I think. Can either side trust him at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Deminelle said:

Jaime agrees on severity of the dead army threat with them but at the moment he's in the middle, I think. Can either side trust him at the moment?

It's not about trust. He will fight against Undead Army, that's what matters. There are still Lannister's soldiers at Twins and Riverrun, he will probably use them. Whether he will be fighting alongside Jon and Dany, or separately on his own, doesn't matter. What matters is that he will be decreasing number of wights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isso ta parecendo discussão de hater do Jon Snow. É conversa de doido só pra criticar o Jon.

Jon Snow ta trazendo para o Norte a salvação para q os nortistas não sejam dizimados e riscados do Mapa e tem gente falando q ele traiu o Norte? Oi? Que traição é essa de um cara q ta salvando os nortistas de serem dizimados? Isso não é traição é salvação. Se Jon não trouxesse a Daenerys não ia sobrar um pra questiona-lo e dizer q não concorda com o q Jon snow fez ou q ele traiu o Norte, não ia sobrar uma alma viva o Rei da noite e seus Zumbis ia matar todos. Tinha q se ajoelhar e agradecer Jon pelo resto da vida por ele ter conseguido trazer a salvação para o Norte e não deixar q os nortistas fossem dizimados pra sempre.
A Daenerys deixou de lutar pelos 7 Reinos perdeu um dragão, ta trazendo todos seus soldados só pra vim salvar os Nortistas de morrerem e virarem Zumbis e por isso pode perder pra sempre a chance de ser Rainha. A Daenerys poderia ter invadido e conquistado o Reino facilmente e ter deposto a Cersei e depois com seus dragões e seus exércitos esperar os mortos vivos arrasar com o norte e depois dizima-lo os mortos vivos, mas não ela, graças ao Jon Snow, ela desistiu pra ir salvar o Norte.
Nem a Sansa tem q reclamar de nada, pq se a Daenerys não ajudar o Norte ela vai virar a Senhora Zumbi de Winterfell e não vai sobrar um pra reclamar do trono no Norte.
kkk

Sobre Jon Snow e a patrulha. Se Jon Snow tivesse quebrado os votos da patrulha antes ele teria sido condenado, ele foi condenado por ter quebrado os votos antes dele morrer? A resposta é "NÃO"! Não é o comentarista do forum ou haters do Jon Snow q decide se ele quebrou ou não os votos da patrulha e sim a patrulha da noite e a patrulha da noite (leiam GRRM e D&D) não o condenou, tanto nos livros como no show ele não foi condenado. Portanto ele não quebrou os votos antes de morrer.
Agora sobre ele ter deixado a Patrulha da noite. Uma pergunta: como se sai da patrulha da Noite, como se livra do Juramento? Uma das respostas é a Morte. Jon Snow Morreu? Resposta: Sim ele morreu. GRRM disse no livro q ele morreu e D&D disse no Show q ele morreu. Então não tem o q contestar, ele Morreu portanto acabou seu juramento ele não deve mais nada pra patrulha. Morreu Portanto a partir do momento q ele morreu o seu juramento foi desfeito. Simples e Direto. Os membros da patrulha q são os caras q devia julga-lo e condena-lo entenderam q ele ta livre do Juramento q ele pode deixar a patrulha. Para quem assisti e não é acéfalo ou hater do Jon entendeu isso, claro e cristalino. Vcs queriam q num show de televisão tudo fosse explicado nos mínimos detalhes? O show deixou subentendido q o Jon ta livre do juramento. Acho q D&D acredita q quem assiste o show tem um mínimo de inteligência e não precisa explicar tudo, muitas coisas podem ficar subentendidas. D&D ja tao correndo com o Show e tem gente q quer q eles expliquem tudo nos mínimos detalhes. Haja paciência! Usem o cérebro pra poder entender algumas coisas como o q Jon não deve mais nada pra patrulha, não queiram q D&D explique tudo pra vcs. Usem o cérebro também pra poder entender o q ta sendo passado. Ou vcs querem tudo mastigado?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:18 PM, Snormund said:

it also was really stupid to banish someone who can make sure he doesn't stay dead. 

Whether she will be able to revive him again or not, depends on the Lord of Light. As Melisandre herself said, she has no power to raise the dead.

On 28.08.2017 at 9:19 PM, Ashes Of Westeros said:

I tried my best but I can't understand why Jon is considered a good leader, when he screws up all the task given to him. He had good intentions, true, but all his decisions are impulsive.

According to show logic, Jon should be stabbed again, this time by the Northern lords, b/c/ of his decisions.

Who cares about few lost battles, if he will win The Big War.

Also even though he supposedly lost before, he did saved Castle Black from wildlings, he saved Winterfell from Bolton, he united the North under one ruler again.

People complain that Jon lost in The Battle of Bastards, and that it was Sansa and knights of The Vale that defeated Bolton. But that's wrong. Without Jon there, Ramsay wouldn't even fight with them. He wanted to defeat Jon, because Jon was The Bastard of Winterfell, and Ramsay was bastard of Roose Bolton. He woudn't have answeared to Sansa's challenge, or Vale's challenge.

If Sansa went to Vale and convinced them to help her fight against Ramsey, he will just stay behind Winterfell's double walls, sent raven to Cersei, and wait for reinforcements from her (because he's the heir of the rightful Warden of the North, appointed by King Tomen). And when Cersei will learn that it's Sansa who siegeing Winterfell, she will send all her forces to aid Ramsay.

Let's imagine the outcome of those two battles without Jon in the picture.

During siege of Castle Black, the guy that was commanding Night's Watch on top of the Wall, got scared and escaped to hide with Gilly and Little Sam. Giants broke the gate, and all wildlings got thru to this side of the Wall, all 100,000 of them. They killed all brothers of the Night's Watch and went further south. Eventually they will reach Winterfell, one of the giants will breake the gate (as it happened in the end of Battle of Bastards), and Winterfell also will be seized by wildlings. R.I.P. Sansa. In best case scenario she will be Tormund's b*tch, cause he likes redheads.

Stannis Baratheon and his cavalry arrived too late. Either wildlings will keep them behind the Wall, and they will eventually starve or freeze to death. Or they will go back to the Eastwatch. Either way, if there was no Jon, the battle between Ramsay and Stannis wouldn't have ever happend. If Stannis went back to Eastwatch, he won't be able to walk all the way from coast to Winterfell, in winter conditions. R.I.P. Stannis.

Now to Battle for Winterfell. Sansa escaped from Ramsay. Where could she go, if Jon isn't there at Castle Black, and not a Lord Commander of Night's Watch? Three possible options: 1. Castle Black, 2. The Vale, 3. Riverrun.

1. Castle Black is closest to Winterfell. Considering that it's already winter by the time Sansa escaped with Theon, it wouldn't be wise to travel far. Eventually they will be killed either by brothers of the Night's Watch (because Jon woudn't be there to protect them), or Cersei will send a raven to Castle Black with demand to execute Sansa, or to bring her to King's Landing (to be executed there), or they will be killed by wildlings. Thus Castle Black is not an option.

2. The Vale. Sansa went there. And eventually Robin Arryn will force her to get married, or she will fly thru the Moon door. Cersei will send raven to Vale, and demand Sansa to be killed or given to Lannisters. Most likely Robin will give her away, because he doesn't have strong attachment towards her. Or he will decline Cersei's demands, and eventually his castle will be taken into siege by Lannister forces. So they will give Sansa away, or everyone will die from hunger (including Sansa), or even before dying from starvation Robin will became completely insane and will let Sansa fly thru the Moon door. Either way for Sansa to go to Vale = Moon door, or Cersei.

The outcome of option in which Sansa will manage to convince knights of the Vale to go and challenge Ramsay, I already described above. Wihtout Jon's giant, they will be unable to breake the gate, and will be stuck under Winterfell's walls in a long siege. Where all of them will eventually be ambushed by Cersei's reinforcements.

3. Riverrun. Sansa went to her great-uncle Blackfish Brynden Tully. And Brienna is also with her. Then, when her uncle Edmure went thru the gates, and demanded castle to be given to Lannisters and Freys, either Blackfish himself will kill Sansa (because in his opinion she will be better off dead, than given back to Lannisters), or she will die as a casualty during castle storming. Even though Jaime promissed to Catelyn that he will save her daughters, he will be unable to save Sansa. He ordered his people to catch Blackfish alive, but they were unable to defeat one old man. And Sansa is a goodlooking young girl, even Brienna will be unable to save her, if she will be seen by those soldiers. If by some miracle she will manage to escape from that castle, then WHAT? Where could she go? She's out of options.

Though there's still a very small possibility that Jaime will retrive Sansa alive and unharmed, and then he will take her with him, and will keep her safe, in secret from Cersei <- do you believe that? I don't. Cersei will know, and she will kill Sansa. Because, how he already know, Cersei doesn't care about Jaime's oaths, so she won't respect his oath given to Catelyn.   

So, either way, without Jon - R.I.P. Sansa.

She thought, that she's the one who won Battle of Bastards? Yeah, right :rolleyes: No Winterfell for you, Sansa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:24 PM, Sir Dingleberry said:

But again, it doesn't make sense that after Stanis saved his bacon he was high and mighty and didn't kneel in order to take back WF and reunite the North.

At that point in time he was still Brother of Night's Watch, and in their oath there's this part - "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory."

As a person he wanted to help his sister and free Winterfell, but as a Brother of Night's Watch he had no right to do so. Black brothers have no right to participate in any battle aside from those that are part of their watch. So they can fight either against wildlings, or against White Walkers. They are forbidden to participate in any outside battles, that can benefit them personally, or involve them personally. After they joined NW, they have to forget their previous lives, and let go everything that mattered to them. Their sole purpose in life is to serve Night's Watch.

Shortly after Jon pledged himself to NW, he tried to escape from Castle Black, to join Robb, when he learned that Lannisters executed Ned. He temporarely violated his oath, because at that point he was emotionally unstable. But then other Brothers brought him back, and reminded him about his oath. Also later he had conversation with maester Aemon, and he realised that he can't go back to his previous life, that's not him anymore. So even though Stanis's offer was very tempting, he had to decline, because Jon Snow, Brother of Night's Watch, has no right to fight for Winterfell, and has no right to be legitimised as Jon Stark.

But after that he was killed. He died. His watch is ended. He isn't bound by oath anymore, he can do what he wants, and go where he wants, and bend the knee for whoever he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:34 PM, iprayiam said:

It's not popular opinion, but I feel Jon's character was ruined when he walked away from the Watch. Killing him was dumb, bringing him back was even dumber, but leaving the Watch ruined him.

He didn't walked away from the Watch. He DIED, and thus was freed from his oath.

How come people don't get it???????????

Quote

Jon begins as a guy very obsessed with who he is, and eager to be someone great. At the wall he learns humility and the importance of putting responsibility before  self-satisfaction in a series of increasing tests. What is important is how he lives. This development dead ends when he is (narratively) prematurely made Lord Commander. That should have been the destination of his character development, instead it was a dead end.

Becoming Lord Commander was a justly deserved reward. He was chosen as their Commander by 50% + 1 member of Night's Watch. But even though becoming leader of NW was an important part of Jon's development, it wasn't his final destination. He's a prince that was promised, his fate goes way further than being stuck on the Wall forever. Maybe eventually he will return there, but not before he will defeat Night's King. And if he haven't left the Watch, he wouldn't ever meet Night's King. Because NK went thru Eastwatch and further south, while Jon would be unable to leave the Wall and chase after him.

On 28.08.2017 at 9:44 PM, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Jon's death and abandoning the NW were never fully explained.

What's there to explain? His death was used as a way out of Night's Watch, without him breaking his oath. He's free from Night's Watch, but he's not an oath breaker. He swore to serve until he will die. And he died. He's watch is ended.

His life ended, but Lord of Light gave him new life. In this new life he didn't pledged to Night's Watch, so he has no obligations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×