The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jon went nuclear and it was not based on Slynt's insubordination that morning, it was based on who Slynt was, the crimes he committed before he took the Black and the fact that he was a rival who had the support of hundreds of others in the election. 

You have just posted Jon's thoughts yourself where he assesses the future outcomes if he lets Slynt live, so how can you claim what you do?

Quote

Ha it been Sam who refused his offer, like he actually repeatedly did when told to go to the Citadel Jon choose to explain the reasons why he was sending him, had it been Green who said what Slynt said he certainly would not have executed him, he may have punished him, but Grenn would have lived. Jon getting rid of a political rival over this is pure Stalin. 

Are you seriously comparing a private conversation in which Sam pleads and expresses his fear of Randyll, with a public statement "shove it up your bastard ass"? 

If Grenn was plotting against Jon and couldn't be trusted to do his job, he would have died, as well. Just like Jon reasons in that quote above that you completely ignored. But such Grenn would never become Jon's friend.

[Bernie Mac]

25 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Also, Slynt has previously shown his own hatred of Jon, and that he was trying to get Jon killed, when he sent him on the suicide mission to kill Mance. Slynt was going to be a problem for Jon

Jon murdered Qhorin Halfhand on the agreement that he would get himself in a position to kill Mance and end the wildling threat, all the men of the watch knew is that Jon killed the Halfhand and was the only person in a position to actually get close to Mance. 

Quote

but, more importanltly, for the Watch as a whole... Slynt had no intention of doing what was right for the Watch, but would do what was best for him, undoubtedly undermining and threatening Jon, the Lord Commander.

come on, this is pure speculative BS.  there is zero reason that the two are mutually exclusive

 

15 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I didn't express myself correcly. I meant that in (pseudo)medieval times, you were way more likely to face death penalty, for offences that we consider minor these days.

We don't hear of any one being executed on the Wall for insubordination and the fact that there was shock over Jon's decision  makes it more than clear that this was not expected. 

Quote

Based on what we have been shown about Slynt's character, I believe Jon was 100% right in his assessment of Slynt's future actions if he were allowed to live.

Sure, but you are missing the point of the discussion, it is not whether Slynt was a good or bad person, but that Jon ignored the vows of the Watch and killed a man for what he did in his previous life and not the new one as a brother. 

The Lord Commander of the Nights Watch would have carte blache to execute the majority of the recruits if he could base it on their characters and how they have lived their lives before they took the black. 

Quote

 

The man had no principles and served only himself.

yeah, that is going to be pretty common at a place that the realm sends its criminals to. 

 

Quote

 

Letting him openly challenge Jon's authority and get away without serious repercussions would terribly weaken Jon's not particularly strong position. Slynt had to be dealt with quickly, decisively and in a manner that would deter the others.

 he did not have to execute him and all it did is make people scared to disagree with him for fear of their lives. 

 

5 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

You have just posted Jon's thoughts yourself where he assesses the future outcomes if he lets Slynt live, so how can you claim what you do?

exactly, he is murdering him not because he was insubordinate but because he was a strong contendor to win the election of the nights watch before Sam fixed the result. 

Murdering your rivals on trumped up charges is the action of a despt. 

5 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Are you seriously comparing a private conversation in which Sam pleads and expresses his fear of Randyll, with a public statement "shove it up your bastard ass"? 

yes, Jon wants Sam to do something that he does not want to do and he chooses to have a private conversation, Slynt's offer is much worse and he does so infront of a crowded room. 

It is blatently obvious to everyone in that hall that Jon was trying to get rid of Slynt, he was getting rid of  rival and came down hard when he refused. 

Do you seriously not see there is a huge gulf in how he Jon treats the two? 

5 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

If Grenn was plotting against Jon and couldn't be trusted to do his job, he would have died, as well.

no, he would not. Jon's thoughts specifically consider that Slynt had his own followers. 

Grenn would never have been killed for what Slynt did. And you know it. 

5 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

 

Just like Jon reasons in that quote above that you completely ignored. But such Grenn would never become Jon's friend.

Jon is the commander, killing people who are not your friends is not justice. 

 

[Faera]

I really can’t see any argument for why Janos Slynt could have been left alive after he openly refused an order repeatedly and told the LC where to stick it. That is flat out insubordination essentially at a time of war. Janos should have known better. He could have told Jon that he didn’t like the order and knew it was a ploy to get him out of the way or set him up to fail — but if he had just obeyed the order anyway, Jon wouldn’t have had any excuse to kill him. Alliser knew Jon would not hesitate to do the same the moment he ordered Janos’s execution. So, Alliser showed sense - he wouldn’t disobey Jon no matter how much he hated him and thus by the end of ADwD when he sends him off on a ranging, he thinks to himself that despite everything they are “brothers”. Alliser was someone who could be relied on to do his job, Janos was not. 

Yes, there was a personal vendetta that went both ways but what happened to Janos was ultimately his own fault. 

[Bernie Mac]

23 minutes ago, Faera said:

So, Alliser showed sense - he wouldn’t disobey Jon no matter how much he hated him and thus by the end of ADwD when he sends him off on a ranging, he thinks to himself that despite everything they are “brothers”. Alliser was someone who could be relied on to do his job, Janos was not. 

Alliser obeys because Jon had killed someone for not obeying. As far as we know no other Lord Commander of the Nights Watch had done that. Jon got to kill two birds with one stone, he got to murder someone he hated and he got everyone to obey for fear of their life over questioning his orders. As a result Bowen has no other choice but to Kill Jon when he believes his decision is against the Watch's best interests as Bowen is well aware of what insubordination will mean for him. 

[MostlyMoody]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I didn't express myself correcly. I meant that in (pseudo)medieval times, you were way more likely to face death penalty, for offences that we consider minor these days.

True, and I suppose even Lords down south exercise their power freely most of the time, seeing as how a Lord has absolute power in his lands. But as the law would differ from lord to lord based on their character so would the punishments.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I am thinking about the less civilized times and places of our world, and I think that in quite a few, Slynt would die as well. I'll do some search when I have the time.

I think the most obvious example you are looking for is Janos Slynt himself, albeit earlier. He is sent to Night's Watch by Tyrion for his crimes (far greater than insubordination) and because he can't be trusted. Difference between Tyrion and Jon is that one of them has a very personal stake in Slynts fate. 

Anyway, I doubt we will agree on this.

[Faera]

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Alliser obeys because Jon had killed someone for not obeying. 

Yep, and that was the whole point. Insubordination = Death a lot of the time until very, very recently in history, Especially when the Watch is still technically negotiating peace with the Free Folk and are essentially still at war.

Quote

As far as we know no other Lord Commander of the Nights Watch had done that. 

I know we don't know either way but I would argue that it would be naive of us to presume that is true.

Quote

Jon got to kill two birds with one stone, he got to murder someone he hated and he got everyone to obey for fear of their life over questioning his orders. 

Again, that was the point. He refused to obey Jon's orders and was executed for it. One could argue that Jon could have just locked him up but given the situation the Watch was currently in... no. In times of peace, maybe, but they are in dire times. If more people acted like Slynt, the Watch would fall into disarray, which it inevitably will following Bowen's assassination attempt on Jon.

Ultimately, for me, there really, truly was no better way to deal with Janos Slynt than to make an example of him and a lesson for others. Machiavellian it might be but Jon being respected and feared is what was needed during that time of uncertainty. To argue otherwise would be to pick over a personal dislike of how Jon handled the situation (which, I get - I wouldn't have had to stomach to execute someone no matter how much I hated them) rather than a practical look at the bigger picture.

Quote

As a result Bowen has no other choice but to Kill Jon when he believes his decision is against the Watch's best interests as Bowen is well aware of what insubordination will mean for him.

I've never seen it as just that myself. The reason why Bowen trying to kill Jon was so effective to me is because both men have a point depending on which way you look at it. Bowen is acting on what he perceives as preservation but is naive to think that Ramsay won't just come and kill them all anyway, especially since they don't have "Arya" or "Reek", and a flatout moron for creating a power vacuum when the wildlings and half the Watch are still loyal to Jon and will probably lead to a mini civil war. You might want to call his actions selfless but they were no less misguided than Jon's. Meanwhile, Jon perceives the danger of fighting a war on two fronts and wishes to put a stop to Ramsay, a danger to the North as much as the Watch, despite the fact that he and the wildlings are outnumbered, as well as the question of breaking the Watch vows by not staying neutral. It opens up an interesting: "who shot first" question - Ramsay by threatening to attack the NW or Jon by choosing to leave the Wall and neutralise. I see no point in arguing that point because there is no "correct" answer as far as I am concerned. I get where Bowen is coming from, I get where Jon is coming from - the one you prefer is a matter of opinion as far as I'm concerned. It's why I was so intrigued by what happened.

[Son of Man]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:09 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

Mormont cut Jon some slack for his desertion of the watch and for breaking his vows.   Jon could have shown the same mercy to Janos Slynt, whose offense was a lot less than his own.  His execution of Janos Slynt was personal and made a mockery of justice when he later allowed the most insubordinate Night's Watch brother of them all in Mance Rayder walk away unpunished.   That is not proper conduct for a leader and a disgrace for a lord commander.  The appropriate punishment and wisest decision would have been to lock Slynt in one of the cells.  Jon was thinking of Ned when he killed Slynt.  It was personal.  Jon was not objective when he passed judgment on Janos Slynt.  Whatever Slynt may have done during his life before the took the black is no longer important.  Any brother who takes the black get their past crimes forgiven.  

 

The similarity between Jon and Arya is proven once again.  They both obsess over revenge.  Jon killed Slynt out of revenge.  That was not justice.  Mormont should have taken Jon's head when the wolf boy got caught for leaving the wall.  Slynt asked for mercy near the end and Jon's lust for revenge overrode his sense.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

The thing with the Lannisters is that they have a history of eliminating people without blinking an eye. The Tarbecks/Reynes were erased. Rhaenys, Aegon and Elia were murdered during the Sack of King's Landing. Ned was beheaded and Sansa was kept as a hostage, Jon thinks that Arya was killed there. Jon doesn't know that Ned's death has someone else's paw prints on it, but history is not on the side of the Lannisters in this. 

Sansa being kept as a hostage only reasonable given her family is in open rebellion. At the point of Feast Arya has been announced to be alive and to wed Ramsey showing total annialation of their enemies isn't a given-hell, to be clear, they also spared all the the rebel houses who came to bend the knee after Robb was killed, they didn't even execute Edmure, and negotiated with Alester to pardon him for his part in aiding Stannis. House Lanister had shown it can be worked with and show mercy for all Jon can know of it. 

And again during the war it sent over prisoners and the former commander of the goldcloaks over to the brotherhood. Jon is mistaken to say the watch was not given adequate aid in response to Jeor's  pleads.  And besides Slynt is a good offering,the watch is always in need of a man with Slynt's credtionals-especially at a time when the watch was facing a wildling invasion. 

2 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

If I were walking in his shoes, I would not think I can trust the people ruling the realm either.

 What would have happened if Maester Aemon had written a letter saying that the Others are a real thing and that they are killing beyond the Wall and raising dead people?

Jon is not really in a position to which he can be picky-if Stannis fails it it's likely going to fall into Jon's family's tormentors to actually save the day. If Jon only sent a letter saying the dead were rising probably nothing would happen-it'd be coming from the bastard(who are notoriously deceitful-not really but it is a bastard prejudice),  son of a man House lanister will be seen as responsible for. 

He'd have every reason to lie. 

2 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

Thorne went to King's Landing and his pleas fell on deaf ears, and it makes it worse that it was Tyrion who was taking the petition. Yes, Tyrion hates Thorne and it was a complete miscalculation on Mormont's part to send him. But Tyrion knew of Mormont's concerns. 

Which is why the messaganger is key. If any other brother came to the Redkeep with the message in hand Tyrion would likely not blown the guy off long as he did Thorne as a petty act of spite(seriously, if westeroes falls to the others, Tyrion  much more to blame than Cersi),  and actually see the hand moving.

Slynt has been shown to be faithful to house lanister so if came in, they'd more likely listen to what he'd have to say than anyone at the wall; at the very least one can reasonably hope they might send someone else to confirm Slynt's statements. 

2 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

When Varys brought up the talk of dragons in the east during a small council meeting, Tywin interrupted him and moved on to something else. When Aurane Waters brought up the talk of dragons during a small council meeting, Cersei dismissed it. When Qyburn told Cersei about dragons in Meereen, she said, no, it's harpies they have there.

Of course-rumors coming from some sailors of long dead relics aren't going to be taken that seriously by themselves. 

 

2 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

 So yes, I think the people in King's Landing were a lost cause. There's no way they believe talk of the Others or wights. Dragons have been gone for more than 100 years and any sort of talk of them is being dismissed in King's Landing. I imagine that everyone would laugh their asses off if Jon wrote them about the Others. No one is even sure these things existed. 

Jon can not presume they will and thus elect not to try-again if Stannis and the watch fail it'll be up to them to actually do something-at the very least send out relevant information on how exactly to kill the things should they come face to face with them. 

Jon personally sending a letter(a non-cryptic one at that) just screaming zombies sure, it won't be enough to get everyone to drop everything to help the watch-that doesn't mean it's wise to give up before actually putting in effort.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No he  didn't, I am so tired of some on here excusing characters actions as being 'forced into it'

45 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

As a result Bowen has no other choice but to Kill Jon

I guess it's fine when you do it?

1 hour ago, Faera said:

I really can’t see any arguement for why Janos Slynt could have been left alive after he openly refused an order repeatedly and told the LC where to stick it.

The Watch is woefully undermanned as it is? There's a serious lack of men who can read at the Wall? In Mormont's words:

Apart from the men at my table tonight, I have perhaps twenty who can read, and even fewer who can think, or plan, or lead.

Or this lovely treat, straight from Jon's mouth, trying to convince Maester Aemon to take on Sam:

The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? Make use of him instead.

It's a good point.

10 minutes ago, Faera said:

Machiavellian it might be but Jon being respected and feared is what was needed during that time of uncertainty.

But Jon wasn't particularly respected, anyway. Feared, perhaps, but that's one of the reasons he was killed. Feared and vulnerable is a dangerous combination. Jon deliberately avoided showing off his power, to his detriment, as Melisandre noted:

Perhaps he did not think himself worthy of the King's Tower, or perhaps he did not care. That was his mistake, the false humility of youth that is itself a sort of pride. It was never wise for a ruler to eschew the trappings of power, for power itself flows in no small measure from such trappings.

She would have no need of them today, but Melisandre made it a point to keep a pair of guards about her everywhere she went. It sent a certain message. The trappings of power.

The second quote is quite telling, as of course if Jon had guards with him at all times, he wouldn't have been quite so vulnerable during Marsh's coup. If Jon had wanted to be feared and respected, however, he would have taken the King's Tower, and he would have had guards with him. As he made a point of not doing so, I see no reason to believe that fear and respect were his reasons for executing Slynt. Incentive, perhaps, but not the primary motivator.

[Son of Man]

1 hour ago, Faera said:

I really can’t see any arguement for why Janos Slynt could have been left alive after he openly refused an order repeatedly and told the LC where to stick it. That is flat out insubordination essentially at a time of war. Janos should have known better. He could have told Jon that he didn’t like the order and knew it was a ploy to get him out of the way or set him up to fail — but if he had just obeyed the order anyway, Jon wouldn’t have had any excuse to kill him. Alliser knew Jon would not hesitate to do the same the moment he ordered Janos’s execution. So, Alliser showed sense - he wouldn’t disobey Jon no matter how much he hated him and thus by the end of ADwD when he sends him off on a ranging, he thinks to himself that despite everything they are “brothers”. Alliser was someone who could be relied on to do his job, Janos was not. 

Yes, there was a personal vendetta that went both ways but what happened to Janos was ultimately his own fault. 

There is really no excuse to let Mance Rayder live after everything he has done.  Slynt's temporary insubordination doesn't hold a candle to Mance Rayder's insubordination.  Jon killed one man for a very minor offense while allowing another man who committed the most major of offenses in the history of the night watch walk free.  This goes back to Jon's loyalties to House Stark.  There is no excuse for Jon's conduct.  What Jon did was very unethical and improper for a Lord Commander to do.  I do not blame Bowen Marsh for poking holes in Jon Snow.  

[Darth Sidious]

You bet the execution of Janos was unjust.  I agree with the O/P. 

Jon started the day fantasizing about killing Janos.  Any chance of fairness and justice for Janos was gone when Jon woke up that morning.  

Jon became a tyrant that day.  He won't tolerate any disagreement.  Almost as if he was baiting Alliser to draw his sword.  

[Darth Sidious]

30 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I guess it's fine when you do it?

The Watch is woefully undermanned as it is? There's a serious lack of men who can read at the Wall? In Mormont's words:

Apart from the men at my table tonight, I have perhaps twenty who can read, and even fewer who can think, or plan, or lead.

Or this lovely treat, straight from Jon's mouth, trying to convince Maester Aemon to take on Sam:

The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? Make use of him instead.

It's a good point.

But Jon wasn't particularly respected, anyway. Feared, perhaps, but that's one of the reasons he was killed. Feared and vulnerable is a dangerous combination. Jon deliberately avoided showing off his power, to his detriment, as Melisandre noted:

Perhaps he did not think himself worthy of the King's Tower, or perhaps he did not care. That was his mistake, the false humility of youth that is itself a sort of pride. It was never wise for a ruler to eschew the trappings of power, for power itself flows in no small measure from such trappings.

She would have no need of them today, but Melisandre made it a point to keep a pair of guards about her everywhere she went. It sent a certain message. The trappings of power.

The second quote is quite telling, as of course if Jon had guards with him at all times, he wouldn't have been quite so vulnerable during Marsh's coup. If Jon had wanted to be feared and respected, however, he would have taken the King's Tower, and he would have had guards with him. As he made a point of not doing so, I see no reason to believe that fear and respect were his reasons for executing Slynt. Incentive, perhaps, but not the primary motivator.

Sure he was feared.  Hell, he just murdered a fellow sworn brother for talking back.  Jon became a tyrant that day.  Oh, by the way, there was no coup by Marsh.  At least not yet.  The next book may go in that direction but we cannot say Marsh has intentions of taking over.  Marsh did what he needed to do to remove an erratic tyrant of a lord commander from power.  Sad to say Marsh may pay for it with his life but he did what needed to be done. 

 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

7 minutes ago, Buell 2K said:

Oh, by the way, there was no coup by Marsh.  At least not yet.  The next book may go in that direction but we cannot say Marsh has intentions of taking over. 

Whether or not Marsh takes power himself, it's still a coup. The intent was to remove Jon from power.

coup

NOUN

1. A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Certainly fits that definition. But it's just semantics, really.

12 minutes ago, Buell 2K said:

Sad to say Marsh may pay for it with his life but he did what needed to be done. 

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[Son of Man]

1 hour ago, Buell 2K said:

Sure he was feared.  Hell, he just murdered a fellow sworn brother for talking back.  Jon became a tyrant that day.  Oh, by the way, there was no coup by Marsh.  At least not yet.  The next book may go in that direction but we cannot say Marsh has intentions of taking over.  Marsh did what he needed to do to remove an erratic tyrant of a lord commander from power.  Sad to say Marsh may pay for it with his life but he did what needed to be done. 

 

The savage wildlings could attack Bowen and the watch in retaliation.  It will make matters worse but these are wildlings after all.  Bowen can pound Jon to minced meat and claim it was the giant that did it.  I somehow don't think Bowen would do that.  He has shown himself a more honorable man than the commander he assassinated for treason.  I side with Bowen but his future doesn't look good because the wildlings have the numbers against the black brothers.

[kissdbyfire]

The fucking hilarity of this thread is awesome.

[Ygrain]

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The fucking hilarity of this thread is awesome.

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

[The Fattest Leech]

#FreyFamilyValues

or just #ffv for those who can't bother to read the whole thing.

[Bernie Mac]

18 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

They don't, I''d be surprised if a single person who likes Janos Slynt as a character, I know I certainly don't, but the idea that we can only discuss characters we are fans of is ridiculous. 

 

[Faera]

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The fucking hilarity of this thread is awesome.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

#WalderFreyDidNothingWrong... I guess.

In all seriousness though, characters can be awful people and still not deserved what happened to them, (Joffrey was the ultimate prick but his death was arguably a needlessly cruel thing to happen to a thirteen-year-old boy); I just don't think that was ultimately is the case with Slynt. He dug his own grave. He could have been a half-decent person and I still would be shaking my head and thinking, "How the hell did you think publically disobeying the LC and insulting him to his face was going to end?" That's sort of where it ends for me. We can make it a debate of whether this makes Jon a tyrant or a horrible person but that's not what I took away from it myself.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

For some reason, Janos has fans in-universe as well. Tyrion caught flak for sending him to the Wall because he was "too honest" for Tyrion, and Jon lost quite a bit of support for his execution of Slynt.