Why did Jon want to let the Weeper through the Wall?

[Kandrax]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But his followers likely might not be so blasie about their sons and daughters and father's being butchered.

You are right.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

The reality is, the NW doesn't have the resources to take in 10 people at the moment, let alone thousands. But it doesn't matter, because not only they have to man the Wall and defend the realms of men, it is the right thing to do. To leave all those people north of the Wall under the current circumstances is wrong, immoral, and cowardly.

Also, the argument that the NW would still be unable to feed and clothe everyone is a fallacy. We don't know how much Jon borrowed, we are not privy to the details. Jon thinks about how much this loan will cost the NW:

“A long hard winter will leave the Watch so deep in debt that we will never climb out, Jon reminded himself, but when the choice is debt or death, best borrow.”

Note that he thinks the longer winter lasts, the more indebted the Watch will be. So, it's not like he borrowed a fixed sum, but rather a sort of line of credit w/ the IB, and that should mean that they will have the resources they need. 

Or it's possible he thinks it'll just stave off stave off the starvation? If he thought the IB's agreement with the Watch would make worries of lack of resources not justified why not bring it up with the Queen when she's laying out how they can't handle anymore refugees?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

The reality is, the NW doesn't have the resources to take in 10 people at the moment, let alone thousands. But it doesn't matter, because not only they have to man the Wall and defend the realms of men, it is the right thing to do. To leave all those people north of the Wall under the current circumstances is wrong, immoral, and cowardly.

Also, the argument that the NW would still be unable to feed and clothe everyone is a fallacy. We don't know how much Jon borrowed, we are not privy to the details. Jon thinks about how much this loan will cost the NW:

“A long hard winter will leave the Watch so deep in debt that we will never climb out, Jon reminded himself, but when the choice is debt or death, best borrow.”

Note that he thinks the longer winter lasts, the more indebted the Watch will be. So, it's not like he borrowed a fixed sum, but rather a sort of line of credit w/ the IB, and that should mean that they will have the resources they need. 

Or it's possible he thinks it'll just stave off stave off the starvation? If he thought the IB's agreement with the Watch would make worries of lack of resources not justified why not bring it up with the Queen when she's laying out how they can't handle anymore refugees?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

The reality is, the NW doesn't have the resources to take in 10 people at the moment, let alone thousands. But it doesn't matter, because not only they have to man the Wall and defend the realms of men, it is the right thing to do. To leave all those people north of the Wall under the current circumstances is wrong, immoral, and cowardly.

Also, the argument that the NW would still be unable to feed and clothe everyone is a fallacy. We don't know how much Jon borrowed, we are not privy to the details. Jon thinks about how much this loan will cost the NW:

“A long hard winter will leave the Watch so deep in debt that we will never climb out, Jon reminded himself, but when the choice is debt or death, best borrow.”

Note that he thinks the longer winter lasts, the more indebted the Watch will be. So, it's not like he borrowed a fixed sum, but rather a sort of line of credit w/ the IB, and that should mean that they will have the resources they need. 

Or it's possible he thinks it'll just stave off stave off the starvation? If he thought the IB's agreement with the Watch would make worries of lack of resources not justified why not bring it up with the Queen when she's laying out how they can't handle anymore refugees? Sorry about the multiple posts that are the same don't know why that happened.

[divica]

26 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or it's possible he thinks it'll just stave off stave off the starvation? If he thought the IB's agreement with the Watch would make worries of lack of resources not justified why not bring it up with the Queen when she's laying out how they can't handle anymore refugees? Sorry about the multiple posts that are the same don't know why that happened.

I don t think the queen complains about that. It is bowen marsh that does it.

And jon prefers to say that the wildlings gold will pay for the food instead of saying that the NW will be in debt to the IB to feed wildlings... It would be another thing for bowen and co to nag him about...

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

9 hours ago, Brannis the Mannis said:

This is just a completely stupid decision on his part. The Weeper is shown to have recently killed several of the rangers Jon sent beyond the Wall, and openly mocked their deaths by planting their heads in plain view. Letting in Tormund was smart, because he was willing to have peace and work with Jon.  No way is he ever going to work together with the NW, and even if he did agree to it, nobody would feel safe with him around. Not one of Jon's smarter moments. 

It's better to have the enemy on the other side of the wall.  I don't think the weeper can be trusted. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 minutes ago, divica said:

I don t think the queen complains about that. It is bowen marsh that does it.

And jon prefers to say that the wildlings gold will pay for the food instead of saying that the NW will be in debt to the IB to feed wildlings... It would be another thing for bowen and co to nag him about...

Yeah, she did flat out declare they can't do any more refugees. And still the agreement if it could overt overpopulation (to which a lot of people  fear)why not bring this up?

[divica]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, she did flat out declare they can't do any more refugees. And still the agreement if it could overt overpopulation (to which a lot of people  fear)why not bring this up?

Because he wants them to think that the wildling's gold will pay for the food. At least for the moment jon wants them to think that. It is better than saying they will be in debt because of the wildlings...

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 minutes ago, divica said:

Because he wants them to think that the wildling's gold will pay for the food. At least for the moment jon wants them to think that. It is better than saying they will be in debt because of the wildlings...

Why would that bother them? If the Watch passes the bill on Stannis, well he's already in dedt to the IB , and the throne he seeks to win would place him in their dedt forever. A little more honestly wouldn't hurt. At least any more than chastizing them as petulant children would. If the watch alone would have to deal with the financial costs well still wouldn't it best to alert people of this agreement so they know how to respond? 

[Curled Finger]

There are 19 castles along the Wall.  If each place can hold a few thousand and provide defense every Wildling refugee or criminal in the 7 kingdoms should be there.    The Weeper may or may not be anything more than Bowen Marsh, a scared hypocrite and biggot.   The Weeper may only hate the NW and who knows why?   The Weeper may come into close contact with those wights or Others and high tail it to Jon on his hands and knees begging to join forces. There are thousands of years of conflict and prejudice between all the Wildlings and each other and the Nights Watch, not to mention all those kneelers south of the Wall.  Jon is a rare sort who can actually see the greater good in what he's done.  He was raised on Old Nan's stories about Wildlings as well as real reports of raids.  He chose to see beyond Wildling culture to simple humanity.   As far as we know the Weeper is a human.  Truly the Thenns were drawn to be the big scary gang and that seemed to work out just fine for everyone--probably better than they hoped.   It was by no means a poor decision for Jon to offer refuge to the Weeper.  

[Lady Dacey]

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

He was raised on Old Nan's stories about Wildlings as well as real reports of raids.  He chose to see beyond Wildling culture to simple humanity.   As far as we know the Weeper is a human. 

I don't know which of these emoticons to choose from to express how I feel about these statements:  or 

Your amazing, Curled Finger. We should share a toast to cultural relativism as all things human. 

[Back door hodor]

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The reality is, the NW doesn't have the resources to take in 10 people at the moment, let alone thousands. But it doesn't matter, because not only they have to man the Wall and defend the realms of men, it is the right thing to do. To leave all those people north of the Wall under the current circumstances is wrong, immoral, and cowardly.

Also, the argument that the NW would still be unable to feed and clothe everyone is a fallacy. We don't know how much Jon borrowed, we are not privy to the details. Jon thinks about how much this loan will cost the NW:

“A long hard winter will leave the Watch so deep in debt that we will never climb out, Jon reminded himself, but when the choice is debt or death, best borrow.”

Note that he thinks the longer winter lasts, the more indebted the Watch will be. So, it's not like he borrowed a fixed sum, but rather a sort of line of credit w/ the IB, and that should mean that they will have the resources they need. 

Maybe. If his sole purpose was to man the Wall. But Jon is doing his job, he is defending the realms of men. To be honest, I find the idea of a selective cherry-picking amnesty rather  repulsive. 

I don't disagree....it would be the right thing to do.

Sometimes leaders can not simply always do the right thing, both in westeros and the real world.

I also think you are right about the ib loan being a line of credit, But a line of credit does not equate to infinate funds, there is a real risk, even after Jon manages to secure these funds, that if the watch takes in too many it could end up being very bad

500 men on the wall are better than 2000 that starved to death before the white walkers showed up.

And just to clarify, I don't think Jon should have refused him out of hand, but he could afford to dictate terms, and refuse passage yo anyone who refused said terms.

[Curled Finger]

23 minutes ago, Lady Dacey said:

I don't know which of these emoticons to choose from to express how I feel about these statements:  or 

Your amazing, Curled Finger. We should share a toast to cultural relativism as all things human. 

Aw shucks.  As usual I'm just expanding on @kissdbyfire's lead.  

It's easy to forget the Wildlings are 1st Men.  The North seems to have forgotten, but the Free Folk have not.  

[Brannis the Mannis]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The Old Pomegranate touched his scar. He had gotten it defending the Bridge of Skulls the last time the Weeping Man had tried to cut his way across the Gorge.

I'd like to point this out, because it explains why Marsh is so opposed to letting the Weeper through. The man tried to kill him just a few weeks/months ago. How many others in the NW do you think feel this way about the Weeper and his wildlings, and the Weeper hasn't done much to placate those fears considering what he did to the rangers. 

Quote

If the Weeper doesn't want to compromise, he can stay north of the Wall.  And if he comes south and doesn't stick to the agreement he's a dead man.

No, if he comes south and doesn't stick to the agreement, he, and dozens of both wildlings and NW brothers will be dead men. 

[Brannis the Mannis]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

To be honest, I find the idea of a selective cherry-picking amnesty rather  repulsive. 

Why should all wildlings be treated the same? There is a difference between women and children and the people who very recently killed several rangers and stuck their heads on spikes in plain view of the Wall. 

[Back door hodor]

3 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

There are 19 castles along the Wall.  If each place can hold a few thousand and provide defense every Wildling refugee or criminal in the 7 kingdoms should be there.    The Weeper may or may not be anything more than Bowen Marsh, a scared hypocrite and biggot.   The Weeper may only hate the NW and who knows why?   The Weeper may come into close contact with those wights or Others and high tail it to Jon on his hands and knees begging to join forces. There are thousands of years of conflict and prejudice between all the Wildlings and each other and the Nights Watch, not to mention all those kneelers south of the Wall.  Jon is a rare sort who can actually see the greater good in what he's done.  He was raised on Old Nan's stories about Wildlings as well as real reports of raids.  He chose to see beyond Wildling culture to simple humanity.   As far as we know the Weeper is a human.  Truly the Thenns were drawn to be the big scary gang and that seemed to work out just fine for everyone--probably better than they hoped.   It was by no means a poor decision for Jon to offer refuge to the Weeper.  

Hi again, I want to say that I am particular intrigued by your comparison of the weaper and the pomegranate, and I think it's very possible that you are correct and the weaper is no more evil a man than a steelshanks Walton or a Jacelyn  Bywater.( who are off the top of my head, two good men in service to the "bad guys". ) This doesn't mean, to me, that Jon should just open the gates and unilaterally let every wildling through, he won the battle at the wall after all, he should dictate terms.

[Julia H.]

Actully, I think Jon would probably dictate certain terms aimed at stopping the Weeper and his gang from continuing raiding. As for hostages, we cannot be sure that the Weeper has no one to care about. But anyway, even if the Weeper himself is completely evil and beyond redemption, he has thousands of followers, and who can say that all those people are equally evil? Some of them may have ended up with him by chance only or through family relationships, because being alone beyond the Wall must seem to be especially dangerous these days. For all we know, the Weeper may have died since we last heard of him and the leader may be someone else. All we know is that there can be any number of humans with the Weeper's gang right now who are worth saving. 

Besides, while in other circumstances it would be safer to leave some wildlings beyond the Wall, right now it may well be better to bring even the worst of them over and kill them south of the Wall if they break the rules. In this way, they will not feed the army of the Others at least. Yes, it may result in some additional fight and bloodshed south of the Wall, but the Weeper and his gang as wights (and maybe even before they get wightified, if they attack again) would presumably also kill people on the Wall, so there would be good men lost both ways. Jon knows the wildling culture well enough to know how to negotiate with them. If they reach an agreement and Jon appears to be a stronger leader than the Weeper, there is a good chance that many of the Weeper's current followers will actually prefer to follow Jon from that point on. If they are all pardoned, at least some of the gang will probably honour the agreement either out of gratitude or because of the hostages, so at the end of the day there will be fewer of them wanting to kill black brothers and more of them wanting to fight on the side of the Watch than if they are all left north of the Wall, where the danger they represent would not even end with their deaths.  

I think it is a difficult decision involving some inevitable risks, but ultimately Jon chose the morally right thing and one that can pay off in the long run. However, if the Weeper turns up to negotiate, the NW will have to secure the necessary guarantees that the wildlings will keep their side of the agreement, and those who break their promises will have to be punished. 

[Curled Finger]

8 hours ago, Back door hodor said:

Hi again, I want to say that I am particular intrigued by your comparison of the weaper and the pomegranate, and I think it's very possible that you are correct and the weaper is no more evil a man than a steelshanks Walton or a Jacelyn  Bywater.( who are off the top of my head, two good men in service to the "bad guys". ) This doesn't mean, to me, that Jon should just open the gates and unilaterally let every wildling through, he won the battle at the wall after all, he should dictate terms.

Hi again yourself!   I think you're spot on here.   Any person can be corrupted by the ideals of a leader.   Duty is a powerful motivator.   We have the benefit of hindsight on the dark ages.   We know their form of government--indeed, life in general--didn't work to sustain healthy communities.  

Jon did win the battle with the Wildlings, but only because of Stannis' great timing.  Jon understands what all 3 sides (Free Folk, Stannis, Nights Watch) want and need, which is to fight the great threat beyond the Wall.  Had Stannis not shown up when he did, the Wildlings would be well on their way to crossing the Wall without peace which would likely entail the death of every person at Castle Black and Jon himself.  Going back to your own insights about good men and the men they serve, look at the men Jon has served.   Jeor Mormont and Mance Rayder.  Both these men understood the threat of the Others.   

[Lord Varys]

Considering to make an offer to the Weeper and of itself isn't a completely bad idea. It is a naive idea, though. The Weeper doesn't need such an offer, and he is not likely to take it. He has the numbers to take what he wants by force, and it is pretty clear that he is in no mood to even listen what the Watch has to offer.

And why should he? Mance had 100,000 people. The Weeper is the strongest surviving general of Mance, he might have thousands or tens of thousands of wildlings in his army. They don't need Jon's pity or help. They can just take the Bridge of Skulls, destroy the Shadow Tower, and march into the Seven Kingdoms the way Mance wanted to.

Tormund and his pitiful band couldn't do that. That's why they negotiated and agreed to give up hostages.

The Weeper and his people would not even laugh at such a ridiculous offer. They would just cut out the eyes of the people delivering such 'terms', and continue with their plans.

In that sense this whole idea is pretty stupid because by insisting to allow such a man through the Wall - before even investigating whether this guy had any interest in agreeing to his terms - clearly antagonized the men of the Night's Watch to a very high degree.

And next comes the question whether hostages could really help resolve this issue. I mean. When the number of hostages begins to outnumber the men in the Watch by a very high degree those people no longer are 'hostages' in a meaningful sense. And then the power those people might give Jon over the Weeper and his people is pretty much non-existent.

And, quite frankly, people must die very often up beyond the Wall, in winter, in blood feuds, raidings, etc. Many of the men giving up sons as hostages might already consider them dead meat, not allowing themselves to be threatened or influenced by the fact that this crow fellow might execute them.

If the wildlings break their promises killing dozens/scores of hostages won't protect the Northmen from the hundreds and thousands of raiders pouring into their lands. Jon would have unleashed an army of invaders lacking the power to stop them - bearing the blame for any woman and child being killed by those people.

That is why this whole idea is very dangerous and inherently counter-productive.

Vice versa, there is no reason to believe that a few thousand more wights north of the Wall are that much of a threat for the people south of the Wall. As long as the Wall stands they can be dealt with. And nobody in the story imagines that the Wall could actually be breached or destroyed. That's out of the question.

And if the Wall is breached or destroyed then the wildlings at the Wall - the ones who are supposed to help hold it against the Others - might all become wights, anyway. Getting them south of the Wall doesn't necessarily save them. It might only prolong their misery - and causing food shortages and other problems for the Watch and the Northmen.

[kissdbyfire]

@Lord Varys, you are making an awful lot of assumptions. Nothing new there, I'm afraid. For instance, you are assuming the Weeper has more people w/ him than Tormund. You claim the Weeper has everything he needs to take what he wants, which makes little sense. 

You are also contradicting yourself... you start by saying it's not a bad idea and then you say the idea is pretty stupid. Again, this is something you tend to do quite often.