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

[The Fattest Leech]

I am curious what happened the the op, @Damsel in Distress She started this thread seven days ago and has not been back with any follow up comments. Has the forum lost another poster?

[Megorova]

I have a question, it's about Jon's different treatment of Slynt and Mance, and whether Slynt's death could be seen as unjust, if we will include all circumstances, of what was happening then.

Mance Rayder was member of Night's Watch. He deserted. And punishment for that is execution. As Lord Commander of Night's Watch, Jon should have executed Mance. And he did executed him. Jon ordered Ulmer to kill Mance with an arrow. Mance died, and his remnants were burned by Melisandre's fire. That's an official version, known to all members of NW, including Lord Commander Jon Snow.

Now about Slynt - he was executed for disobedience, and for publicly refusing several times (in a very rude form) to carry out Lord Commander's order. 

Let's not forget, that Lord Commander Jon Snow didn't knew, that Rattleshirt was actually Mance, when he allowed him to come to Castle Black, together with other wildlings. Also Jon didn't knew, that the one, who was burned on Melisandre's fire, wasn't actually Mance. So it's not Jon's fault, that Mance wasn't executed. Jon DID ordered to execute Mance - by killing him with an arrow.

Later Jon did found out about Rattleshirt actually being Mance.

Now about entering into NW under false identity - does the oath, given to NW, still counts, if whoever gave it, is not who he seems/claims to be? Or it doesn't matter, who the person really is, the only thing, that does matter, is that he, whoever he is, gave an oath?

If the real identity does matter, then Jon isn't actually obliged to execute Mance, because Jon is NOT member of Night's Watch

Though, if what matters is the "outer identity", then Mance Rayder has died on Melisandre's fire, and what counts, is that Rattleshirt is who he seems to be, not who he really is.

Jon has joined Night's Watch under identity of Jon Snow, the Bastard of Winterfell, and illegitimate son of Ned Stark. But he is neither of those. Actually he is Aegon VII Targaryen, legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, and his second wife, Lyanna Stark.

The Faith of the Seven doesn't allow dual marriages. But the Seven are fake gods, they have no power, they are fictional man-made idols. The Old Gods are real, and they don't forbid to have several wives. The fire god Rh'llor, creator of dragons, and thus deity of Valyrians, doesn't forbid dual marriages. Thus by laws of real Gods, Gods of Ice and Fire, Lyanna is Rhaegar's rightful wife, and her son with Rhaegar, is their legitimate child. And thus Jon is not a Snow, and not a bastard. So his oath, given to Night's Watch, is VOID.

So Jon is not obliged to conform to Night's Watch rules, because he is not a Watcher. So him, not executing Mance Rayder, and him, trying to leave Night's Watch, is not a crime.

Though it also means, that execution of Janos Slynt, was indeed personal, but at the same time, it was justice.

If Jon was not a member of NW, then he also wasn't their Lord Commander, and thus he had no right to execute Janos, for desobeying his orders. Though Janos and other Watchers didn't knew, that Jon is not their Lord Commander, so Janos was disobeying orders, in presence of entire garrison of Castle Black. And thru his rebellious behaviour, he has shown to everyone, that the rules of NW doesn't apply to him, that he isn't going to obey, that he is refusing to serve. And thus he publicly denied, being part of Night's Watch. If he is not a member of Night's Watch, then he isn't protected anymore, by their "invisibility cloak", under cover of which, all of his past crimes were forgiven. All past crimes are indeed forgiven, but only within NW, and by people of NW. For example, if Janos Slynt took part in demise and execution of Ned Stark, then Jon Snow, who is not part of Night's Watch, isn't obliged to forgive Janos.   

So neither of those two are members of Night's Watch. Jon, because he entered NW under false identity, and Janos, because he refused to be part of Night's Watch. Being part of Night's Watch, means obeying to its rules, and the main one of those rules, is to obey Lord Commander. And it doesn't even matter, that Jon wasn't actually LC, what matters, is that Janos, as one of NW's seniour officers, by publicly refusing to serve, created a legal precedent of breaking core rules of discipline in a military-based organisation, and gave a bad example to other Watchers. His behaviour was unacceptable. By refusing to obey to established rules, he excluded himself from NW, and thus stopped being protected by their rule "all previous crimes are forgiven". 

Thus we have Jon and Janos, and neither of them are members of Night's Watch. Janos took part in death of Jon's foster-father, and he has lost his "diplomatic immunity". Ned was innocent, so his execution was not merely unjust, it was MURDER. Janos took part in murdering of an innocent person. So as a pay back for that, Ned's foster-son, Jon, has killed Janos. And Janos was guilty, so his death was JUST. Laws of 7K does allow to kill people, under certain circumstances. For example, punishing criminals. Janos took part in murder of an innocent man, so he was a criminal, and deserved to be punished, in the same manner, of what was done to his victim - Ned Stark.

So wasn't Slynt's death actually an execution of rightful justice?

[Varysblackfyre321]

On July 19, 2018 at 2:34 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

On July 18, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

I'd actually say so, too, but the fact is that the Greatjon had already decided he was to support Stark over Crown. If he'd obey, just not behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns, he's already put Robb's authority first. That's why I named it a crime. They're all treasonous criminals as far as the Crown is concerned, anyway. I can see both sides, but surely vows to the higher authority come first.

On July 18, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True. Honestly I feel Greatjon is exceptionally treacherous however. Lords often don't support who they're supposed to due to obligations to their own house-I mean if supporting the "rightful" party in a dispute looks to be inevitably fail and garner them sever repercussions most lords are going to either stay out of it or perhaps side with the rightful party's enemies. But most would not try to kill the son of their liege lord(particularly liege lord whose served his tenure treating all his vassals with respect and courtesy), over something as petty as not getting the battle position he wanted. With Ned's and the daughters of house Stark at stake, I find the action that much more disgusting. And this the same man who escalated a simple rebellion to displace a monarch whose gone to far to a full on secession out of talk of house the south doesn't have proper northern values, and how their ultimate loyalty should be house stark.

On July 19, 2018 at 2:34 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Nor did Slynt. That particular offense is on Allar Deem, not Janos Slynt. In that televised rubbish, it's Slynt who kills Barra, but not in the books. He orders it, but he's also ordered to order it, by either Cersei or Joffrey. So who's really at fault, here? Deem for going through with it, Slynt for ordering him to do so, or Cersei or Joffrey for wanting it done in the first place? All of them, I suppose, but surely Slynt's role is actually the least egregious, considering he's just a mouthpiece for Cersei or Joffrey in this situation

Cersi likely. Slynt would kill children with his bare hands if it furthered his ambitions to be sure but it seems weird to decry him over this so much this given the only thing he could actually do is I guess resign out of protest to the orders. But he would not actually be able to stop the eradication of Robert's bastards. Likewise with Ned. Betraying him wasn't purely out of duty to the Ironthrone(I think it's pretty safe to assume he'd slit the throats of all members of the Royal family if he thought it was in his personal interest), but honestly Ned for all Slynt knows is a traitor whose simply trying usurp the throne of his best friend; the twincest story is hard to swallow and I imagine even honorble men would have did the same thing as Slynt, up to turning upon Ned when Ned goes to arrest the royal family. Slynt does seem to genuinely think Ned was a traitor.

On July 19, 2018 at 2:34 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yeah, I've racked my brain, and I honestly can't come up with any way that Slynt could continue to conspire, after a punishment and going to Greyguard, in any way that matters. I've asked, in this monstrously large post, so hopefully I'll get an answer.

Even just Slynt himself deserting where could Jon think Slynt could actually go and how exactly could he be expected to survive-he'd have cross house Umber's land, and the Karstarks(who for all Jon knows is loyal to Stannis) to even get to Lanister allied territory-the dreadfort to be precise given he just deserted  he can have no more practical use for them anymore, so likely even if he manages to do the impossible and evade of all Stannis' allies, he'd still end up dead. There is a contradiction. Either Jon thinks sending Slynt to greyguard would prevent plotting between Alliser and Slynt or he doesn't. It can not be both. 

On July 19, 2018 at 2:34 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Leading the garrison would be a bit hard, though, seeing as how nobody would be able to figure out his orders, if they're all illiterate. Could be good for a laugh, I suppose, seeing him trying to mime out some orders to his men, but ideally Greyguard would be run well.

True. But he doesn't have to lead the grey guard to be made of use alive.

 

[Only 89 selfies today]

3 hours ago, Megorova said:

I have a question, it's about Jon's different treatment of Slynt and Mance, and whether Slynt's death could be seen as unjust, if we will include all circumstances, of what was happening then.

Mance Rayder was member of Night's Watch. He deserted. And punishment for that is execution. As Lord Commander of Night's Watch, Jon should have executed Mance. And he did executed him. Jon ordered Ulmer to kill Mance with an arrow. Mance died, and his remnants were burned by Melisandre's fire. That's an official version, known to all members of NW, including Lord Commander Jon Snow.

Now about Slynt - he was executed for disobedience, and for publicly refusing several times (in a very rude form) to carry out Lord Commander's order. 

Let's not forget, that Lord Commander Jon Snow didn't knew, that Rattleshirt was actually Mance, when he allowed him to come to Castle Black, together with other wildlings. Also Jon didn't knew, that the one, who was burned on Melisandre's fire, wasn't actually Mance. So it's not Jon's fault, that Mance wasn't executed. Jon DID ordered to execute Mance - by killing him with an arrow.

Later Jon did found out about Rattleshirt actually being Mance.

Now about entering into NW under false identity - does the oath, given to NW, still counts, if whoever gave it, is not who he seems/claims to be? Or it doesn't matter, who the person really is, the only thing, that does matter, is that he, whoever he is, gave an oath?

If the real identity does matter, then Jon isn't actually obliged to execute Mance, because Jon is NOT member of Night's Watch

Though, if what matters is the "outer identity", then Mance Rayder has died on Melisandre's fire, and what counts, is that Rattleshirt is who he seems to be, not who he really is.

Jon has joined Night's Watch under identity of Jon Snow, the Bastard of Winterfell, and illegitimate son of Ned Stark. But he is neither of those. Actually he is Aegon VII Targaryen, legitimate son of Rhaegar Targaryen, and his second wife, Lyanna Stark.

The Faith of the Seven doesn't allow dual marriages. But the Seven are fake gods, they have no power, they are fictional man-made idols. The Old Gods are real, and they don't forbid to have several wives. The fire god Rh'llor, creator of dragons, and thus deity of Valyrians, doesn't forbid dual marriages. Thus by laws of real Gods, Gods of Ice and Fire, Lyanna is Rhaegar's rightful wife, and her son with Rhaegar, is their legitimate child. And thus Jon is not a Snow, and not a bastard. So his oath, given to Night's Watch, is VOID.

So Jon is not obliged to conform to Night's Watch rules, because he is not a Watcher. So him, not executing Mance Rayder, and him, trying to leave Night's Watch, is not a crime.

Though it also means, that execution of Janos Slynt, was indeed personal, but at the same time, it was justice.

If Jon was not a member of NW, then he also wasn't their Lord Commander, and thus he had no right to execute Janos, for desobeying his orders. Though Janos and other Watchers didn't knew, that Jon is not their Lord Commander, so Janos was disobeying orders, in presence of entire garrison of Castle Black. And thru his rebellious behaviour, he has shown to everyone, that the rules of NW doesn't apply to him, that he isn't going to obey, that he is refusing to serve. And thus he publicly denied, being part of Night's Watch. If he is not a member of Night's Watch, then he isn't protected anymore, by their "invisibility cloak", under cover of which, all of his past crimes were forgiven. All past crimes are indeed forgiven, but only within NW, and by people of NW. For example, if Janos Slynt took part in demise and execution of Ned Stark, then Jon Snow, who is not part of Night's Watch, isn't obliged to forgive Janos.   

So neither of those two are members of Night's Watch. Jon, because he entered NW under false identity, and Janos, because he refused to be part of Night's Watch. Being part of Night's Watch, means obeying to its rules, and the main one of those rules, is to obey Lord Commander. And it doesn't even matter, that Jon wasn't actually LC, what matters, is that Janos, as one of NW's seniour officers, by publicly refusing to serve, created a legal precedent of breaking core rules of discipline in a military-based organisation, and gave a bad example to other Watchers. His behaviour was unacceptable. By refusing to obey to established rules, he excluded himself from NW, and thus stopped being protected by their rule "all previous crimes are forgiven". 

Thus we have Jon and Janos, and neither of them are members of Night's Watch. Janos took part in death of Jon's foster-father, and he has lost his "diplomatic immunity". Ned was innocent, so his execution was not merely unjust, it was MURDER. Janos took part in murdering of an innocent person. So as a pay back for that, Ned's foster-son, Jon, has killed Janos. And Janos was guilty, so his death was JUST. Laws of 7K does allow to kill people, under certain circumstances. For example, punishing criminals. Janos took part in murder of an innocent man, so he was a criminal, and deserved to be punished, in the same manner, of what was done to his victim - Ned Stark.

So wasn't Slynt's death actually an execution of rightful justice?

Jon is not Aegon 7.  And it wouldn't matter if he was.  He joined the watch and took an oath.  Jon, Mance, and Janos are all brothers in the Night's Watch.  

Simple insubordination does not free a person from his oath.  Otherwise every man who wants to leave will display his attitude to his commander and earn himself a passport out of the Night's Watch.  Thus, Janos being disrespectful does not free him from his oath.  Mance choosing to disobey his commander and deserting the watch did not earn him a passport  out of the watch.   Jon's birth status does not remove his oath.  Bastards, trueborn, lowborn, and highborn are all accepted at the wall and held to their oaths.  

[Ygrain]

8 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon treated Slynt and Mance differently.  That is fact.  It is also fact that Mance is guilty of worse offenses than Slynt.  I am not attacking.  I'm just saying there is no "supposedly" to it.  Jon used what many critics already said he did, double standards.

What double standards? They are different men, different offences, different situations. Circumstances matter, which is why people get different sentences for the same crime even today.

Besides, Mance was officially executed, and Jon found out only later it had been a sham. What was he supposed to do? Reveal the truth, with all the shitstorm that would follow? Chop off "Rattleshirt's" head seemingly without a reason?

Not the least of all, Mance is a very different man than Slynt. A man willing to fight for a cause, not just himself, and as I suspect we are going to see, willing to die for it and thus atone.

[Julia H.]

On 7/18/2018 at 11:53 PM, kissdbyfire said:

And by the by, where in seven hells is @Julia H.? I think she'd have a thing or two to say here...:)

 

I’m here.  I’ve been reading this thread for a while and I’m not sure I can add to the arguments already listed and wonderfully supported here by other posters. Still, here’s my two pence…

Regarding Jon’s personal feelings about Slynt: It is perfectly natural and human not to be able to easily forget that someone had a hand in killing your father. It is also quite predictable that simply meeting the son of a man you helped kill as your new “brother” will not make you trust that person easily. Not even the NW can demand that the two of you should become instant best friends in this situation. The NW, as an organization with a higher purpose, will demand, however, that you should be willing and able to work together for the goals of the organization, setting aside your (still existing) personal feelings. This requirement applies to all the black brothers, including Jon Snow and Janos Slynt.  

Now let’s see how Slynt behaves. When he arrives in Castle Black, the very first thing he does is having Jon Snow arrested and locked up. He calls him “a traitor’s bastard”, thus directly referring to an obvious reason for enmity between them, while Jon doesn’t even know who the man is. Soon enough, he reiterates: “Your father died a traitor.” This is rather unethical in an organization where recruits are supposed to leave behind their families as well as their past lives. Besides, all that happens in the middle of a siege, where Slynt’s (as everyone’s) priority should be the defence of the castle. Yet, he is being conspicuously wasteful here with the meagre Night’s Watch human resource when he removes from the fight and threatens to hang the black brother who is described by a senior member of the Night’s Watch as:

“My lords, when Donal Noye was slain, it was this young man Jon Snow who took the Wall and held it, against all the fury of the north. He has proved himself valiant, loyal, and resourceful. Were it not for him, you would have found Mance Rayder sitting here when you arrived, Lord Slynt.”

The alleged reason is a deed (killing Qhorin and “abandoning” the NW) that Jon Snow has sufficiently explained.       

By the way, it is a good question who or what gave Janos Slynt authority in Castle Black. He is obviously a self-appointed “acting Lord Commander” here, and this whole thing is only possible because the NW has been greatly weakened recently due to the siege, to the attack by the Others beyond the Wall, and because part of the fighting force has been removed from CB by Bowen Marsh. Those who are still there are exhausted by the siege and are not used to challenging orders, moreover, Slynt is backed by a known officer, Thorne. Aemon’s protestation is enough to stop Slynt from directly executing Jon, precisely because he knows he has no legal authority in Castle Black, but it doesn’t stop him from trying to have Jon killed off in an indirect way.

Another question I find interesting is how Jon finds out what part Slynt played in his father's death. The man's name doesn't seem to ring a bell to him when Slynt first appears in CB. The most likely explanation is that Slynt and his friends boast about it - another instance of totally unprofessional behaviour in an organization where you are not supposed to antagonize your brothers using differences you or your families had outside the organization, because you must not undermine the teamwork, so to speak.   

To sum up, Slynt makes it blatantly obvious that he is strongly prejudiced towards Jon Snow because of whose son Jon is, and he does not mind wasting good fighting force during a siege where the NW is already vastly outnumbered by the enemy. This is a man who wants to become Lord Commander in this organization.

Now, let’s see Jon Snow.  Here, we should have an easy task, as GRRM gives us his POV, so we know exactly what he thinks. Lord Commander Jon Snow sends for Slynt.

Half the morning passed before Lord Janos reported as commanded. Jon was cleaning Longclaw. Some men would have given that task to a steward or a squire, but Lord Eddard had taught his sons to care for their own weapons. When Kegs and Dolorous Edd arrived with Slynt, Jon thanked them and bid Lord Janos sit.

The sword is a symbol here. Not one intended by Jon Snow, as he probably wasn’t cleaning Longclaw all morning and he couldn’t now when Slynt would eventually turn up, but one probably intended by the author. We know from an AGoT chapter what it means to wait for someone with naked steel: this is how Robb receives Tyrion, who is on his way back from the Wall. Jon Snow has a naked steel in hand here – not because he wants to threaten Slynt (once again, he couldn’t know when Slynt would arrive) but because he is cleaning the sword. Now what is next?

That he did, albeit with poor grace, crossing his arms, scowling, and ignoring the naked steel in his lord commander's hands. Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

Notice the author’s wording here: Slynt ignores the naked steel in his Lord Commander’s hand. That’s symbolic of the mistake he is going to make here – he considers himself immune. The author here refers to Jon Snow as Slynt’s Lord Commander. He could have written that Slynt ignored the naked steel in Jon Snow’s hand or Jon’s hand, but he used the expression “his Lord Commander”, giving us a warning that this is the Lord Commander Slynt faces and he should respect him accordingly. Yet, we also have Jon’s thought here, referring to his father and how difficult it is for him to think of Janos Slynt as a brother.

Just for the sheer beauty of the contrast, let me briefly recall here Sam’s words in AGoT:

His friends rallied to him. "We asked the septon to light a candle for your father," Matthar told him. "It's a lie, we all know it's a lie, even Grenn knows it's a lie," Pyp chimed in. Grenn nodded, and Sam clasped Jon's hand, "You're my brother now, so he's my father too," the fat boy said. "If you want to go out to the weirwoods and pray to the old gods, I'll go with you."

So it’s difficult to think of Slynt as a brother and they have a history of enmity between them. So what does Jon do next?

"Lord Janos." Jon sheathed his sword. "I am giving you command of Greyguard." 

The sheathing of the sword is just as symbolic as having a naked steel in hand. While Jon cannot forget what Slynt has done to him and his family (totally human and understandable), he decides not to act on his personal feelings but to treat Slynt as a fellow member of the NW and make use of whatever abilities he has. Therefore, he sheathes his sword and gives Slynt command of a castle, a clear order and a meaningful job, where Slynt could prove his skill and his loyalty.

If Slynt rode to Greyguard now and did as he was told, there would be no execution.

There is no need to repeat everything, we all know the story: Slynt refuses the command, repeatedly, and proceeds to humiliate the Lord Commander in front of the whole castle. Jon Snow goes out of his way to give him chances, but Slynt keeps ignoring the Lord Commander’s authority, until Jon Snow has no choice but to deal with him.

Now, in a modern, democratic justice system, one could not be a judge (or even a jury member) if he had a personal beef with the culprit, but we should all realize that Jon Snow cannot delegate this task to anyone else. It is his authority that is challenged, and no one else can answer this challenge for him. His brothers have chosen him, now it is up to him to maintain the authority given to him in the NW. This is not a personal need: it is in the interest of the whole organization, which Slynt is trying to undermine for totally personal reasons.  

Could Jon Snow decide on some other punishment? Yes, he could. We know he has the options in his mind. He thinks them over and refuses the other options for practical reasons. You may argue that Jon Snow’s assessment of the situation was wrong and his conclusions on what Slynt would do if lived were all wrong and that Slynt could still have become a valuable member of the NW in time, though GRRM gives us no indication that it could be so - after all it is impossible to prove that something would not have been possible. (I guess King Robert could have become an excellent husband to Cersei if given a few more years to try.) However, it is definitely a fact that we know Jon Snow’s genuine, true opinion from his own thoughts, as written by the author, and we know he does not think of his father when he makes the decision to execute Slynt. He only thinks of what the consequences of the alternative ways of punishment would be, while at this moment he never thinks of his father’s death. We know it directly from the letters on page. What is more, at first, he gives the order that Slynt must be hanged. He does not think of doing it personally or that Slynt should die the way his father died (which could indicate revenge). It is only moments later that he remembers the rule that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword, only after making the decision. It could not be more clearly indicated that the decision is not based on feelings of revenge but on the consideration of future consequences.

All in all, the author goes out of his way to show that, when Jon Snow thinks of his father’s death and has feelings of revenge, he deliberately acts against those feelings; and that he does not think of his father, only of the NW, when he finally decides that Slynt must be executed. With Slynt, he also shows what it is like when someone acts on personal motivation and hatred. With reference to the title of the topic, Jon's decision was not based on personal feelings but on practical necessity, and it was in accordance with the relevant justice system and culture.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

13 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Clegane'sPup, here it is, and it's a good one besides being quite pertinent to the discussion here. Note what Slynt says about being a soldier, and how a solider is most comfortable obeying orders. Also how he brown noses Stannis is quite pathetic, but still a good look into his character.  

ASoS, Samwell V (apologies, the quoted messes the italics up)

“The king was angry. Sam saw that at once.
As the black brothers entered one by one and knelt before him, Stannis shoved away his breakfast of hardbread, salt beef, and boiled eggs, and eyed them coldly. Beside him, the red woman Melisandre looked as if she found the scene amusing.
I have no place here, Sam thought anxiously, when her red eyes fell upon him. Someone had to help Maester Aemon up the steps. Don’t look at me, I’m just the maester’s steward. The others were contenders for the Old Bear’s command, all but Bowen Marsh, who had withdrawn from the contest but remained castellan and Lord Steward. Sam did not understand why Melisandre should seem so interested in him.”

“King Stannis kept the black brothers on their knees for an extraordinarily long time. “Rise,” he said at last. Sam gave Maester Aemon his shoulder to help him back up.
The sound of Lord Janos Slynt clearing his throat broke the strained silence. “Your Grace, let me say how pleased we are to be summoned here. When I saw your banners from the Wall, I knew the realm was saved. ‘There comes a man who neer forgets his duty,’ I said to good Ser Alliser. ‘A strong man, and a true king.’ May I congratulate you on your victory over the savages? The singers will make much of it, I know—”
“The singers may do as they like,” Stannis snapped. “Spare me your fawning, Janos, it will not serve you.” He rose to his feet and frowned at them all. “Lady Melisandre tells me that you have not yet chosen a Lord Commander. I am displeased. How much longer must this folly last?”

“Sire,” said Bowen Marsh in a defensive tone, “no one has achieved two-thirds of the vote yet. It has only been ten days.”
“Nine days too long. I have captives to dispose of, a realm to order, a war to fight. Choices must be made, decisions that involve the Wall and the Night’s Watch. By rights your Lord Commander should have a voice in those decisions.”
“He should, yes,” said Janos Slynt. “But it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And Your Grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from your royal guidance, it seems to me. For the good of the realm. To help them choose wisely.”q

“The suggestion outraged some of the others. “Do you want the king to wipe our arses for us too?” said Cotter Pyke angrily. “The choice of a Lord Commander belongs to the Sworn Brothers, and to them alone,” insisted Ser Denys Mallister. “If they choose wisely they won’t be choosing me,” moaned Dolorous Edd. Maester Aemon, calm as always, said, “Your Grace, the Night’s Watch has been choosing its own leader since Brandon the Builder raised the Wall. Through Jeor Mormont we have had nine hundred and ninety-seven Lords Commander in unbroken succession, each chosen by the men he would lead, a tradition many thousands of years old.”
Stannis ground his teeth. “It is not my wish to tamper with your rights and traditions. As to royal guidance, Janos, if you mean that I ought to tell your brothers to choose you, have the courage to say so.”

“That took Lord Janos aback. He smiled uncertainly and began to sweat, but Bowen Marsh beside him said, “Who better to command the black cloaks than a man who once commanded the gold, sire?”
“Any of you, I would think. Even the cook.” The look the king gave Slynt was cold. “Janos was hardly the first gold cloak ever to take a bribe, I grant you, but he may have been the first commander to fatten his purse by selling places and promotions. By the end he must have had half the officers in the City Watch paying him part of their wages. Isn’t that so, Janos?”
Slynt’s neck was purpling. “Lies, all lies! A strong man makes enemies, Your Grace knows that, they whisper lies behind your back. Naught was ever proven, not a man came forward . . . ”

“Two men who were prepared to come forward died suddenly on their rounds.” Stannis narrowed his eyes. “Do not trifle with me, my lord. I saw the proof Jon Arryn laid before the small council. If I had been king you would have lost more than your office, I promise you, but Robert shrugged away your little lapses. ‘They all steal,’ I recall him saying. ‘Better a thief we know than one we don’t, the next man might be worse.’ Lord Petyr’s words in my brother’s mouth, I’ll warrant. Littlefinger had a nose for gold, and I’m certain he arranged matters so the crown profited as much from your corruption as you did yourself.”
Lord Slynt’s jowls were quivering, but before he could frame a further protest Maester Aemon said, “Your Grace, by law a man’s past crimes and transgressions are wiped clean when he says his words and becomes a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch.”

“I am aware of that. If it happens that Lord Janos here is the best the Night’s Watch can offer, I shall grit my teeth and choke him down. It is naught to me which man of you is chosen, so long as you make a choice. We have a war to fight.”

<snip>

“When King Stannis sheathed the shining sword, the room seemed to grow very dark, despite the sunlight streaming through the window. “Very well, you’ve seen it. You may return to your duties now. And remember what I said. Your brothers will chose a Lord Commander tonight, or I shall make them wish they had.”

 

 

 

LOL  All of this Stannis dialogue is hysterical.  I may be counted as one who finds Stannis quite funny, especially once he's at The Wall.  I've always imagined that Stannis enjoys his turn of phrase, knows he's funny sometimes, and wonders............why he has such a dour reputation.  And that wondering makes him even more miserable, LOL, and of course, even more funny.  Just my two cents, and thanks for the dialogue. 

[Only 89 selfies today]

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

What double standards? They are different men, different offences, different situations. Circumstances matter, which is why people get different sentences for the same crime even today.

Besides, Mance was officially executed, and Jon found out only later it had been a sham. What was he supposed to do? Reveal the truth, with all the shitstorm that would follow? Chop off "Rattleshirt's" head seemingly without a reason?

Not the least of all, Mance is a very different man than Slynt. A man willing to fight for a cause, not just himself, and as I suspect we are going to see, willing to die for it and thus atone.

Willing to fight for a cause does not make a person right nor does it make what he did legal by night watch rules.   The offenses Mance is guilty of is far more serious than Slynt's.  

The people at the wall were fooled into thinking Mance was executed.  It was a sham.  Any officer of the watch participating and supporting such a miscarriage of justice is corrupt.  Jon should have immediately taken his head when he found out.  

Mance and Slynt are different men who committed the same crimes.  Insubordination.  Mance took it further and deserted.  Mance should get the more extreme punishment, which is execution.  

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Willing to fight for a cause does not make a person right nor does it make what he did legal by night watch rules.   The offenses Mance is guilty of is far more serious than Slynt's.  

Even if the cause is survival? If Mance doesn’t bring the wildlings over the Wall, there’s 100,000 more wights. 100,000 more murderous zombies who attack anyone they see.

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

LOL  All of this Stannis dialogue is hysterical.  I may be counted as one who finds Stannis quite funny, especially once he's at The Wall.  I've always imagined that Stannis enjoys his turn of phrase, knows he's funny sometimes, and wonders............why he has such a dour reputation.  And that wondering makes him even more miserable, LOL, and of course, even more funny.  Just my two cents, and thanks for the dialogue. 

Yes, Stannis’ character, to me, becomes exponentially more appealing once he reaches the wall. His wry sense of humor and honesty are thoroughly enjoyable to read. In his conversations with Jon (who he is trying to recruit to his cause) he refers to Ned’s character with the caveat “he was no friend of mine” or something to that effect. The man is incapable of lying even by omission. 

[Rufus Snow]

5 hours ago, Julia H. said:

"Lord Janos." Jon sheathed his sword. "I am giving you command of Greyguard." 

The sheathing of the sword is just as symbolic as having a naked steel in hand. While Jon cannot forget what Slynt has done to him and his family (totally human and understandable), he decides not to act on his personal feelings but to treat Slynt as a fellow member of the NW and make use of whatever abilities he has. Therefore, he sheathes his sword and gives Slynt command of a castle, a clear order and a meaningful job, where Slynt could prove his skill and his loyalty.

If Slynt rode to Greyguard now and did as he was told, there would be no execution.

Absolutely! That one phrase - 'Jon sheathed his sword' - gives the lie to the entire 'it was personal' meme. GRRM is here expressly saying (with symbolism, of course) that Jon knows Slynt is the most craven, venal, corrupt, devious, disloyal, worthless apology for a pile of shite that ever drew breath in the 7K, and yet HE STILL SHEATHES HIS SWORD. He is true to the tradition that a man's past is wiped away by the black cloak.

Jon finds it 'hard' to accept Slynt as a brother - but accept him he does, or else GRRM would have written 'impossible'. If he had been a king instead of LC, Slynt's mutiny would be called treason, and even Slynt would know that, and the consequences.

Jon Snow might have had personal reasons for killing Slynt. But it was the Lord Commander who executed him, and for impeccable reasons.

[teej6]

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Another question I find interesting is how Jon finds out what part Slynt played in his father's death. The man's name doesn't seem to ring a bell to him when Slynt first appears in CB. The most likely explanation is that Slynt and his friends boast about it - another instance of totally unprofessional behaviour in an organization where you are not supposed to antagonize your brothers using differences you or your families had outside the organization, because you must not undermine the teamwork, so to speak.   

This was something I was wondering as well. How did Jon or anyone else in the NW know what part Slynt played in Ned's death? The only way Jon could have found out about it is from Slynt's own mouth. 

[Megorova]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

In his conversations with Jon (who he is trying to recruit to his cause) he refers to Ned’s character with the caveat “he was no friend of mine” or something to that effect. The man is incapable of lying even by omission.  

And some readers speculate, that it was him, who actually wrote Pink letter

[the trees have eyes]

19 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon treated Slynt and Mance differently.  That is fact.  It is also fact that Mance is guilty of worse offenses than Slynt.  I am not attacking.  I'm just saying there is no "supposedly" to it.  Jon used what many critics already said he did, double standards.

Politically?  Mance had no further use (other than his impressive master of disguise ability) because the wildlings are already at the wall.  They're a beaten people with their tails hanging low.  Letting Mance live is actually a danger because he can rally the wildlings to attack the Watch and take control at the Wall.  This person has a track record of gross insubordination, desertion, violence against the Watch.  Slynt has influential friends who can potentially help the Watch.  Slynt is a sane man and he will change his song when he sees enough White Walkers with his own eyes.  Slynt is better PR than the illegitimate son of a man who died for treason.  Jon could have tried to bridge their differences and made use of him.  

You can only really accuse Jon of a double standard if two people in the exact same circumstances are treated differently, say if Slynt had had a co-mutineer who received a lighter sentence. 

Mance is clearly in breach of his vows and that is punishable by death and, absent a looming apocalypse, I think Jon would have executed him but as Jon tells Stannis "you could make good use of Mance".  Remember that the wildlings have splintered into factions and only a few are through the Wall.  Mance could bring them all together and he retains a powerful hold on their loyalties as evidenced by the reaction to Jon reading the Pink Letter and stating he meant to free Mance: the wildlings in the shield hall can't wait to be about it.

Ironically although this would strengthen the forces at the Wall considerably Marsh still can't shift his mindset about the wildlings being the enemy and I think he wold see rescuing Mance as a negative rather than a positive as you sum up succinctly.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a dictum you have to follow when ice demons come knocking: the Martians can't.

The IT is not interested in safeguarding the rebellious North's long land border and will dismiss tales of ice demons the way reports of dragons are dismissed in KL.  You can't really blame them for that, I think I would be a doubting Thomas too.  In any case trouble in the North is trouble for Stark bannermen and they think the rest of the Kingdom too far away for it to be relevant.  Slynt doesn't really have friends in KL, he was and is a useful pawn for the Lannisters but no one is going to change policy on his word or bail him out if he says the danger is real and he needs help.  Maybe they would clear the dungeons out again but they wold leave the North as the first line of defense.

17 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Who gave Slynt authority to override Marsh, Noye, Jon?

Yeah, with Pyke and Mallister remaining with their garrisons and Marsh injured at Eastwatch (I forget where Yarwyck is) the chain of command is broken.  The best you could make of it is that Marsh either delegated to Slynt after his injury or the rank and file looked to a former Goldcloak commander and Lord as the logical choice of leader.  You could then argue that as all the able-bodied or fighting men went with Marsh with only the builders, stewards and raw recruits / old timers (Spare Boot, Old Henly) remaining at Castle Black that the battlefield promotion for Slynt (real or assumed) took precedent over the makeshift command structure among the leftovers at CB.  I wouldn't be surprised if Slynt had tried to replace Noye but he might have found that went very differently.

Either way, seems the NW need a few more junior officers and NCOs to me. 

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True. Honestly I feel Greatjon is exceptionally treacherous however. Lords often don't support who they're supposed to due to obligations to their own house

I think the point is there are competing oaths (something Jaime talks of) and if your direct overlord rebels then either you break your oath to him or you break your allegiance to the Crown.  I don't say oath because I think precious few second tier lords actually meet or give oaths in person to the king though of course their allegiance is considered a given.  We can argue the merits either way but in the Robellion and Wot5K most bannermen follow their direct overlord rather than their king.  By no means all but most of them. 

Either way, it's not anything that applies to Slynt.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Yes, Stannis’ character, to me, becomes exponentially more appealing once he reaches the wall. His wry sense of humor and honesty are thoroughly enjoyable to read. In his conversations with Jon (who he is trying to recruit to his cause) he refers to Ned’s character with the caveat “he was no friend of mine” or something to that effect. The man is incapable of lying even by omission. 

 Stannis v1 is concerned with pushing his claim to the IT and when we see him on Dragonstone and at Storm's End is very dour, self-interested, brooding over every wrong - real or imagined - and unappealing.  I never cared for him.  Stannis v2 at The Wall is on the ball, witty, with a biting humour so sharp that it could cut and sets about the tasks at hand with energy, clarity of vision and purpose.  There is one spectacular rant about Robert which shows the chip on his shoulder is still there (maybe a Winds preview chapter?) but he's quite entertaining and his demolition of Slynt's attempt to curry favour was hilarious.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

The thing that I'm finding utterly mind-boggling in this thread is the number of people who have argued that what Janos Slynt did was not all that big a deal, that it was some minor infraction that was punished way too harshly.

For heaven's sake, he publicly refused to follow the orders of his commanding officer! Not only his commanding officer, but the Lord Commander of the entire organization! On top of that, he also publicly disparaged and insulted said Lord Commander while denigrating his authority! It's hardly even possible for a member of the military to do anything worse or more damaging than what Janos Slynt did.

What military organization in the entire history of the world has ever allowed that kind of behavior to go unpunished or punished lightly? I'll answer for you: none, not a single one. It it literally not possible for a military organization to function unless the orders of a superior are instantly, unquestioningly obeyed by their juniors. The superior officers are required to order their subordinates to not only kill other people, but literally to go to their own deaths if necessary. The only way such a thing is possible is if unquestioning obedience is instilled into every member - and infractions must be punished extremely harshly or the entire edifice falls apart completely.

If a writer of fiction tried to portray a military organization as one where junior officers can flout the orders of their superior officers with impunity, it would be monumentally ridiculous and bad writing because it would completely unrealistic and wrong.

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

 

If a writer of fiction tried to portray a military organization as one where junior officers can flout the orders of their superior officers with impunity, it would be monumentally ridiculous and bad writing because it would completely unrealistic and wrong.

Or it's one where morale is terrible and esprit de corps is shattered (as when Bywater is killed by his own men, or more saliently the Old Bear by his own). It happens in history. But that's not really the situation here, anyways, so yeah, I agree. Letting Janos off lightly would be bizzare. He went way too far in public.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

The thing that I'm finding utterly mind-boggling in this thread is the number of people who have argued that what Janos Slynt did was not all that big a deal, that it was some minor infraction that was punished way too harshly.

For heaven's sake, he publicly refused to follow the orders of his commanding officer! Not only his commanding officer, but the Lord Commander of the entire organization! On top of that, he also publicly disparaged and insulted said Lord Commander while denigrating his authority! It's hardly even possible for a member of the military to do anything worse or more damaging than what Janos Slynt did.

What military organization in the entire history of the world has ever allowed that kind of behavior to go unpunished or punished lightly? I'll answer for you: none, not a single one. It it literally not possible for a military organization to function unless the orders of a superior are instantly, unquestioningly obeyed by their juniors. The superior officers are required to order their subordinates to not only kill other people, but literally to go to their own deaths if necessary. The only way such a thing is possible is if unquestioning obedience is instilled into every member - and infractions must be punished extremely harshly or the entire edifice falls apart completely.

If a writer of fiction tried to portray a military organization as one where junior officers can flout the orders of their superior officers with impunity, it would be monumentally ridiculous and bad writing because it would completely unrealistic and wrong.

Been unable to get this message across in twenty pages, but perhaps you'll be luckier.

6 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Willing to fight for a cause does not make a person right nor does it make what he did legal by night watch rules. 

 So you think it's all the same if a murder was committed by a raging psychopath or by a good man forced by circumstances? Personality matters, and so does the ability for redemption.

 

6 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

 The offenses Mance is guilty of is far more serious than Slynt's.  

BS. One man deserting is certainly bad for the morale but no way as bad as one man completely undermining the Commander and thus crippling the whole Watch.

6 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The people at the wall were fooled into thinking Mance was executed.  It was a sham.  Any officer of the watch participating and supporting such a miscarriage of justice is corrupt. 

BS again. No officer of the watch knew about it until ex post and didn't participate for personal gain, so the talk of corruption has no place here.

6 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon should have immediately taken his head when he found out.  

At the cost of driving a wedge between the Watch, Stannis and Melisandre? That would be totally crazy.

6 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Mance and Slynt are different men who committed the same crimes.  Insubordination.  Mance took it further and deserted.  Mance should get the more extreme punishment, which is execution.  

First, desertion, insubordination and mutiny are different things. Second, the severity of their crime differs in the way it affects the Watch as a whole and its ability to function against the threat of the Others. Mance's desertion long time ago doesn't affect this, whereas Slynt's mutinous disrespect had the potential of making the Watch unable to act upon the threat. That's why Slynt was more dangerous than any individual deserter, he was putting at risk everyone and everything.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Or it's one where morale is terrible and esprit de corps is shattered (as when Bywater is killed by his own men, or more saliently the Old Bear by his own). It happens in history. But that's not really the situation here, anyways, so yeah, I agree. Letting Janos off lightly would be bizzare. He went way too far in public.

I didn't express it clearly enough, but I meant that obedience to superior officers is a major organizing principle of any and all functional military organizations (I would argue that it is the major organizing principle and takes precedence over all other military norms). Of course, you are right that dysfunction does sometimes occur, which causes the organization to become chaotic and untenable. And likely destroys the organization as well.

But the argument that what Slynt did is relatively minor asserts that that very dysfunction ought to be standard operating procedure in a military order like the Night's Watch. This is not just baffling as an idea but bizarre as well, as you say.

[Hugorfonics]

29 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I didn't express it clearly enough, but I meant that obedience to superior officers is a major organizing principle of any and all functional military organizations (I would argue that it is the major organizing principle and takes precedence over all other military norms). Of course, you are right that dysfunction does sometimes occur, which causes the organization to become chaotic and untenable. And likely destroys the organization as well.

But the argument that what Slynt did is relatively minor asserts that that very dysfunction ought to be standard operating procedure in a military order like the Night's Watch. This is not just baffling as an idea but bizarre as well, as you say.

Theon and Dagmer disobeyed Balon. Cat disobeyed Robb and Edmure. Davos diobeyed Stannis. Sandor disobeyed Tyrion. It happens and its not always met with the block

[Ygrain]

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Theon and Dagmer disobeyed Balon. Cat disobeyed Robb and Edmure. Davos diobeyed Stannis. Sandor disobeyed Tyrion. It happens and its not always met with the block

Dunno about your copy of ASOIAF, but in mine, none of the people you mention told their superior in public to shove their order up their arse.