Jump to content
Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Instead of telling us why Jon was wrong to discipline his subordinates as he saw fit, can anyone tell us why Janos Slynt was justified in refusing a (very reasonable) direct order, twice, and in insulting his commanding officer in the medieval penal battalion known for its harsh punishments at the best of times, an organisation that is already Slynt's second chance at life (Tyrion sent him to the Wall, instead of having him killed), in the middle of a war, against mythical Ice Demons and their reanimated corpse army, for the literal survival of humanity? What was Slynt's justification?

Also, the order was the best thing possible for Slynt, Jon was offering him a truce/peace, asking him to work with Jon, giving him an important command. Why was Slynt justified in refusing the order? What rational, objective reasons did Slynt have to refuse the order and offer of working with Jon, twice, and to then insult Jon publicly, questioning Jon's authority?

Could it be that, perhaps, Slynt made it personal before Jon did? 

Edited by Unacosamedarisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? How many chances would have been enough, in your opinion? Seven? Nineteen? Or, because a person's life will always be at stake where the death penalty is concerned, maybe it should be renamed to "the threat of death" penalty. :rolleyes:

It's not the penalty that needs a new name, it's the story.

#BizarroIceAndFire

You have to know it's name. 

ETA:  Damn, it's so bizarre I misspelled it at first. 

Edited by Lady Fevre Dream

Share this post


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

Could it be that, perhaps, Slynt made it personal before Jon did? 

Nah, refusing to obey "a traitor's bastard" just screams "objective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 5:09 AM, 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.  

 

Nope.

Janos assisting in Ned's execution and arrest was personal though. The gains he had for being part of both were very personal.

Janos refused his rightfully chosen LC not once but twice and also insulted him and did so in the witness of other brothers, trying to undermine his authority.

Whatever his intentions were, Jon never deserted, he never left the NW lands.

Jon gave Slynt same "second chance" LC Mormont gave to him, more so in fact since he never deserted.

Finally, LC Mormont gives all the brothers plenty of chances. Many of the brothers dig for treasure despite their vows and as I'm sure you know the very reason some of these are even in the watch to begin with is to avoid castration.

Rapist joining the watch to avoid castration and yet breaking their vows of celibacy shows how lax Mormont's command was in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/13/2018 at 10:09 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

 

Jon is the true enemy of justice because he's capricious, bias, moody, and emotional.  I do not think George Martin will ever put Jon in the position of lord, king, hand of the king, warden of anything because Jon is terrible at it.  

The problem comes down to the lack of established process to remove a leader like Jon from power.  Other than killing them.  Jon should have been removed from his job on the morning he killed Janos Slynt.  He was no longer acting like the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch because he was acting like the Stark avenging spirit.  

Edited by Here's Looking At You, Kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Nope.

Janos assisting in Ned's execution and arrest was personal though. The gains he had for being part of both were very personal.

What Slynt did during his life before taking the black is not important.  He was forgiven for all of that.  

Janos refused his rightfully chosen LC not once but twice and also insulted him and did so in the witness of other brothers, trying to undermine his authority.

It was disrespectful but it's very minor stuff when you place in comparison to Mance Rayder's crimes against the watch and westeros.  Mance Rayder got off.  That's improper handling of punishment and justice on Jon's part.  Slynt is a boy's scout compared to Mance Rayder.

Whatever his intentions were, Jon never deserted, he never left the NW lands.

He did desert.  It was his classmates who dragged his butt back to the wall.

Jon gave Slynt same "second chance" LC Mormont gave to him, more so in fact since he never deserted.

Sure he gave Slynt a second chance.  Slynt took it and told Jon he would go.  Slynt even begged.  

Finally, LC Mormont gives all the brothers plenty of chances. Many of the brothers dig for treasure despite their vows and as I'm sure you know the very reason some of these are even in the watch to begin with is to avoid castration.

Rapist joining the watch to avoid castration and yet breaking their vows of celibacy shows how lax Mormont's command was in general.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon's "midnight ride" and Slynt's public insubordination are 2 completely different things. 

Jon's authority as LC was being challenged, his hold on the Night's Watch was already tenuous considering his decisions were being questioned and he had as many enemies as friends, therefore he could not allow Slynt to get away with this. 

As LC he knows he will have to order men to do very dangerous things, i.e. go beyond the wall, defend the tunnel, etc.) if a man's punishment is imprisonment, Jon will never be able to get these men to do those things because prison is better than death.  Slynt disobeyed a direct order which was essentially deserting, and thus he had to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Instead of telling us why Jon was wrong to discipline his subordinates as he saw fit, can anyone tell us why Janos Slynt was justified in refusing a (very reasonable) direct order, twice, and in insulting his commanding officer in the medieval penal battalion known for its harsh punishments at the best of times, an organisation that is already Slynt's second chance at life (Tyrion sent him to the Wall, instead of having him killed), in the middle of a war, against mythical Ice Demons and their reanimated corpse army, for the literal survival of humanity? What was Slynt's justification?

Also, the order was the best thing possible for Slynt, Jon was offering him a truce/peace, asking him to work with Jon, giving him an important command. Why was Slynt justified in refusing the order? What rational, objective reasons did Slynt have to refuse the order and offer of working with Jon, twice, and to then insult Jon publicly, questioning Jon's authority?

Could it be that, perhaps, Slynt made it personal before Jon did? 

oh hey, another Jon trolling thread :D.  Thanks for you reasonable response summing everything up, it will now be ignored by a bunch of pissed-off Jon haters.  Anyway, great post, couldn't have said it better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read several posts on this thread suggesting that Jon killed Janos Slynt because of his role in killing his father and parading Ned's head to the masses after Ilyn Payne separated it from his body and since all of the Night's Watch have had their past crimes forgiven Jon is not justified in killing him for refusing to follow orders.  Maybe it is possible to treat the killer of your own father impartially but I would find that a difficult thing to do.  But Tywin Lannister was trying to manipulate the situation on the Wall and sent letters to Bowen Marsh to try to get Janos made Lord Commander and thus give the Lannister-run Iron Throne some influence up there.  When Janos' ship arrives at Eastwatch-by-the-sea his first action is to go directly to Castle Black and imprison Jon Snow with the intent to hang him.  When Maester Aemon blocks Janos' intent to execute Jon he and Alliser Thorne cook up the idea to send Jon to treat with Mance Rayder thinking that Rayder will kill Jon. 

How fair and impartial should Jon be when dealing with someone who has been nothing but hostile towards him literally tried to kill him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 6:05 PM, Rosetta Stone said:

What Jon did was worse than what the horny boys who took a break with the intention of returning did.  Jon had no intention to return.  He was leaving.  Jon knew from the first chapter of the series how serious the vows are when he saw Ned executed Gared.  Jon still broke his vows and intended to leave the wall.  The other boys who went to get sex took a break from their job, they didn't intend to leave the watch.  Jon intended to leave the watch.  Jon was brought back.  He didn't decide to return.  Mormont kept it secret but we, the reader know better.  Jon broke his vows.  

And yet Mormont says, "You have not deserted—yet. Here you stand. If we beheaded every boy who rode to Mole's Town in the night, only ghosts would guard the Wall." (AGOT Jon IX) which makes it clear that those who think of, or even attempt to desert are not that rare and are habitually treated leniently if they return.  I'm going to go with Mormont on this one as he is in a position to know and to have dealt with plenty of boys like Jon before.  His friends brought him back and he gets the standard homily for boys who were tempted to desert.

On 7/14/2018 at 6:21 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Omg-no one is saying Slynt is a good guy-some are just saying that his execution was mistake.

Which meh. I don't know about that honestly. But no ione s saying the baby killer is nice. 

I do think it's apparent Slynt was underutilized by Jon given his credtionals, and given his relationship with House Lanister. 

He was given command of Greyguard and unless you mean to suggest Jon demote Cotter Pyke / Denys Mallister or give Slynt command of Castle Black or even the NW, this is is as good as he can hope for.  His credentials with House Lannister should be used how exactly?  The Lannisters care nothing for the NW, all they want from Slynt is that he kill Jon :dunno: 

On 7/14/2018 at 8:13 PM, Bernie Mac said:

I have zero problem with a character acting like an actual human being, him getting revenge against the man who murdered his father is normal, the vast majority of people in his shoes would have done the same, look for an excuse to finish him off. 

Another watch member would not have faced that same punishment had they done the same as Slynt the man who would happily order the murder of a baby if it was in his best interests.  No one is claiming that Slynt was a good person or that Jon's actions make him evil, just that his decision was an emotional one and not a practical one or fair given the vows of the nights watch. Slynt was killed for what he did before he said his vows, not something he did after. 

Jon awards him Greyguard.  Not one of the emotionally charged accusations against Jon acknowledges that he was prepared and attempted to use Slynt in a position of command.  Slynt burned his bridges and then pissed all over the ruins because he thought he was untouchable due to his Court connections.  It was a spectacular miscalculation.  As to the first bolded part: this is conjecture on your part.  What we can say is that no one else was so grossly stupid to do what Slynt did (see Thorne reining himself in) and boast about how untouchable he was in declaring his contempt for and denial of the authority of his Lord Commander.  I would hazzard that no one else would have done the same as Slynt.

As to the idea that his execution was not a "practical" one (whatever that means), nor a fair one, and that he was killed for what he did before joining the NW that is demonstrably false.  Had he gone to Greyguard as ordered and refrained from openly despising his Lord Commander and making public his refusal to obey his orders he would be alive and well.  This is never addressed adequately and I'm tired of saying it.

On 7/15/2018 at 1:49 AM, Ralphis Baratheon said:

No one forced Slynt to refuse a direct order from his Lord Commander and superior, twice. He practically forced Jon to act against him or Jon Snow would have come off as weak. What would Tywin, Stannis or any other Lord do if one their men publicly refused to follow their orders? The fact that Slynt had been trying to get Jon killed ever since he came to the Wall was besides the point, Once Jon became LC Slynt could have fallen in line like Thorne instead of acting out. 

Exactly.  Once Jon is LC Slynt is bound to obey.  If he tells him to go on a lone suicide mission beyond the wall he might be justly accused of a thinly veiled attempt to murder him.  This is of course what Thorne and Slynt do to Jon, but Jon does not reciprocate!  He gives Slynt command of Greyguard and Slynt spectacularly refuses to accept his authority.  This is not the 20th century western world.  Acting as he does is a death sentence

On 7/15/2018 at 4:20 AM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Jon abused his authority to carry out his revenge. 

Jon gave him command of Greyguard.  That Slynt decided to act like he was not part of the NW (or that Jon was not the Lord Commander of it) was moronic and lead to an inevitable end.  When Stannis gives Jon a nod of approval do you think he is approving of Jon "avenging Ned" or dealing with a mutinous subordinate defying and challenging his command?

On 7/15/2018 at 12:01 PM, Bernie Mac said:

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

No one forced Jon to execute Slynt, at the start of the day he was fantasizing about killing Slynt and was thinking of other punishments before he blurted out execution

"As you will." Jon nodded to Iron Emmett. "Please take Lord Janos to the Wall - "

 -  and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

-  and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

" - and hang him," Jon finished.

 Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought. Longclaw was slung across his back. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

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. 

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. 

You even quote Jon's reasoning as he considers what punishment to mete out so you must clearly understand that it is Slynt's open defiance of and inevitable future plotting against his command that triggers the sentence.  So that invalidates your very next assertion that is not in fact based on his reasoning but on your stock list of "reasons to overlook Janos's actions entirely".

Had Sam refused his offer?  It's not an offer!  It's a command.  Can we lose the 21st century notion that Slynt is an employee being offered a new position that he doesn't want.  He is a subordinate in a feudal society and military organisation being given a command and it is his duty to obey it.  Refusal to is insubordination and tantamount to treason.  When Robb is leading the Northern host to free Ned the GreatJon doesn't like his position in the order of march and says he won't come, to which Robb tells him he will hang him for a traitor!  This is the world the characters live in, do not underestimate or downplay the significance of Slynt's deliberate, open and repeated refusal to obey Jon's commands.

Sam would never have disobeyed in the manner that Slynt did.  The whole point of the scenario is to show Jon being met publicly with open contempt and refusal to recognise his right to give Slynt commands: "Stick it up your bastard arse".  As if Sam or Grenn would do so, please be serious....

Pure Stalin?!! Don't be melodramatic.  It's hopelessly inapt as a comparison.  Every one of Stalin's takedowns was a show trial of pure fabrication: this has substance and far more than the banal attempt to reduce Slynt's mutiny down to some minor commonplace occurrence that "over this" suggests.  He is entirely guilty and the punishment fits the crime.

On 7/15/2018 at 1:05 PM, Bowen Marsh said:

The execution of Janos Slynt was a cold-blooded revenge, pure and simple.  It was not justice.  

I'm tired of saying it but if Slynt goes to Greyguard as ordered he can have a position of command in the NW.  Jon swallows his desire for revenge until Slynt in effect mutinies.

On 7/15/2018 at 2:01 PM, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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

 

This is plain wrong.  Slynt is killed precisely for what he does in refusing Jon's orders.  It is he who ignores his vows, not Jon :dunno:.  If it was an ex-judicial murder with no basis do you not think it would have been commented on.  Why would no one protest or try to talk some sense into Jon?  Why does no one say a word at all?  It's clear that Slynt has talked and transgressed himself into a cul-de-sac but he believes his connections make him untouchable.  He was wrong.

Also, once Jon is LC, Slynt is not a political rival.  This is not party politics or the court surrounding a king.  Jon is to all intents and purposes that King and Slynt is a subject not a rival which is why he can be commanded to take over at Greyguard.  Slynt misunderstood his position and it seems you do too.  He was ordered to take command of a castle, he told his Lord Commander to "stick it up your bastard arse", he told all of Castle Black that "Janos Slynt does not take orders from the likes of these".  This is why he dies, plain and simple.

On 7/15/2018 at 2:44 PM, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

Do you think members of the NW routinely disobey their LC?  Do you think it's run by committee meeting with objections noted and that members refuse their LC or talk to their LC the way Slynt did to Jon with no consequences?  It's not the 21st century in Westeros.  Robb threatened to hang the GreatJon for disobeying, why is Slynt's open disobedience and contempt for his Lord Commander treated like it's something that can be brushed over.  Understand the values of the world the characters live in.  Slynt's reaction to Jon calling for a rope is not "you have no right" but "you would not dare"

On 7/15/2018 at 3:25 PM, MostlyMoody said:

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. 

When Tywin tries to rig the NW election in Slynt's favour Tyrion regrets that he didn't have Slynt thrown overboard with Aleem Dar.

On 7/15/2018 at 4:31 PM, Buell 2K said:

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.  

Sigh.  If Janos had gone to Greyguard as ordered "fairness and justice for Janos" would have taken place.  But he broke his vows and paid the price. 

Jon is Lord Commander of the NW giving a subordinate a perfectly reasonable order: how much "disagreement" should be tolerated in the (totally imaginary) newly democratized NW where everyone does only what they feel like doing and says whatever they like?

You should make a bumper sticker out of "fairness and justice for Janos" if it bothers you so much.

On 7/15/2018 at 4:34 PM, Buell 2K said:

Sure he was feared.  Hell, he just murdered a fellow sworn brother for talking back.  Jon became a tyrant that day. 

I'm going to assume you have some idea of what was happening and that this was not about "talking back".  Jesus, the "arguments" some of you people come up with....

23 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The fucking hilarity of this thread is awesome. :lmao:

Mind. Officially. Blown.

20 hours ago, The Transporter said:

Correct.  It was revenge for the execution of Ned Stark at the hands of the Lannisters.  Slynt supported the Lannisters and that made him the enemy in Jon's prejudiced heart.  There was no justice done in that execution.  Slynt was set up.  You could tell Jon wanted to kill him.  

How was it a set up?  What about Greyguard was a trap? 

17 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I don't hate Jon, I don't even have a problem with how he dealt with Slynt, life is not fair and Jon had very good reasons for ridding himself of Slynt, but none of them had to do with him being insubordinate. He had him killed for the actions Slynt did before he took the black and for what he may have done in the future. Jon abused his power to murder a rival. 

That applies to the majority of the people who are sent to to the Wall, the point of becoming a brother is that this is a chance of redemption and the sins of the past are no longer held against you. Jon, who clearly points out he could never think of Slynt as a brother, ignores that. 

Greyguard, Greyguard, Greyguard.  Why overlook the obvious fact that Jon decided to and attempted to use Slynt in a position of command.

Why overlook that Janos's repeated and openly contemptuous disobedience was a capital offence.  If he had done no such thing and Jon had executed him, then it would be murder.  Sadly for your assertion that is not remotely what happens.  Slynt is really only used by GRRM here to give us the impression that Jon has overcome the challenge to his rule from while the less obviously dangerous Marsh slips under the radar.

16 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He clearly did not think that execution was on the cards for an offense that did not warrant it.

No, he quite clearly states that Jon would not dare touch him as he has friends in high places.  You know perfectly well that he is rejecting his Lord Commander's authority in it's entirety and thus is not just protesting a decision he feels justified in disagreeing with but openly denying Jon's authority as Lord Commander.  See the bolded below.  You don't tell your king / liege lord / military commander you are sworn to that they can't give you commands.  This is not rocket science.

14 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Then perhaps he should have never disobeyed the order(twice) in the first place if he wasn't sure of the punishment. 

But Slynt does not only refuse the order, he outright threatens his Lord Commander after refusing the order.

 No. I will not go meekly off to freeze and die. No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! I am not without friends, I warn you. Here, and in King's Landing too. I was the Lord of Harrenhal! Give your ruin to one of the blind fools who cast a stone for you, I will not have it. Do you hear me, boy? I will not have it!

Thanks for quoting.  The minimising of Slynt's open disobedience and challenge to Jon's authority into some kind of minor workplace dispute over precedent where Janos's fate is a total  bolt from the blue is puzzling to me.  In Westerosi terms he has gone way beyond the point of no return: we're not talking about moonlit rides down the Kingsroad we're talking about outright disobedience in person and public and a sweeping refusal to acknowledge the authority of someone he is required to obey.

12 hours ago, Annalee said:

:agree:

This is the damning evidence against Jon Snow.   He was looking for an excuse to murder Slynt.  I might understand why a nobody like Arya can entertain thoughts of revenge but this is unacceptable from an officer of the NW who has a duty to unite the brotherhood. 

Bernie Mac.  Thank you for quoting this passage.

What of Janos "no traitor's bastard gives me orders" Slynt's duty to obey his Lord Commander's orders?  Greyguard was a genuine offer but Slynt thought he was untouchable due to his friends and simply refused to obey.  That sealed his fate.

9 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Jon is fallible as anyone, and executing Slynt was both a good move and a personal revenge. The two are not mutually exclusive; leaving Janos alive was faaaaaar worse than leaving him dead as an example. Jon makes plenty of mistakes, as does anyone who makes enough choices. It's not possible to be right all of the time, and for a kid under 18 does pretty damn well. Jon tells the reader that he needs to treat him like a brother, and forgive his former deeds if possible, it doesn't at all say that he can't forgive it or won't. You're misquoting there.

Jon's experience / knowledge of Janos Slynt is : 1) the man played a part in his father's death; 2) he quickly formed an alliance with Thorne, an enemy of Jon's, on arriving at the Wall; 3) despite Jon holding the Wall after Donal Noye's death Slynt would have had him executed on returning from The Shadow Tower and only Aemon's intercession spared him - instead he was confined in an ice cell; 4) Slynt sent him on a suicide mission to kill Mance Raydar.

Quite obviously he hates the man but he rises above that and offers him a chance to serve as a member of the NW commensurate with his skills and experience by giving him command of Greyguard.  He cannot know that Slynt will refuse and openly challenge his authority in such a direct and dramatic way.  Of course he gets a personal satisfaction from killing Slynt but this is as much due to how Slynt has behaved towards him - trying to have him killed while at the Wall and openly and contemptuously disobeying and disrespecting him as Lord Commander - as his role in his father's death.  And the salient point is despite his loathing for Slynt he was prepared to give him a position of command and use him, just as he was prepared to accept even a man like the Weeper (should he accept) in shoring up the defense of the realms of men.

8 hours ago, Bullrout said:

Hi Leonardo.  I love that name if not your opinion.  :)  It's more than a mistake.   That was murder.   The appropriate punishment was not execution.  Jon made an exception because of how he felt about the man.  What Jon basically did was kill a man he did not like for a misdemeanor while choosing not to punish another man who had committed many felonies because he needed said man to fetch his sister for him.  That's not justice.  That is Jon serving his own interests and placed it above the welfare of the Night's Watch.   A Lord Commander should be better than that.  

Slynt had many supporters and maybe Jon was paranoid.  So he killed Slynt.  But you know that is what dictators do and not something an elected leader of a brotherhood should do.  It was wrong for so many reasons.

What was the appropriate punishment for denying your Lord Commander's right to give you orders?  What happens when a subject tells his King or Liegelord "I don't accept orders from the like of you"?  It's Chop, chop, pronto.

How was Jon paranoid?  Slynt's refusal was public, scornful and lengthy.  It's crystal clear.

And I think you misunderstand the NW.  The LC is as much an autocrat as any King or Lord Paramount, it's simply that his position is elective not hereditary, but his powers and the requirement for obedience is the same.

2 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Instead of telling us why Jon was wrong to discipline his subordinates as he saw fit, can anyone tell us why Janos Slynt was justified in refusing a (very reasonable) direct order, twice, and in insulting his commanding officer in the medieval penal battalion known for its harsh punishments at the best of times, an organisation that is already Slynt's second chance at life (Tyrion sent him to the Wall, instead of having him killed), in the middle of a war, against mythical Ice Demons and their reanimated corpse army, for the literal survival of humanity? What was Slynt's justification?

Also, the order was the best thing possible for Slynt, Jon was offering him a truce/peace, asking him to work with Jon, giving him an important command. Why was Slynt justified in refusing the order? What rational, objective reasons did Slynt have to refuse the order and offer of working with Jon, twice, and to then insult Jon publicly, questioning Jon's authority?

Could it be that, perhaps, Slynt made it personal before Jon did? 

:agree:Thank you so much for pointing out the obvious issue with this thread's premise so clearly and succinctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, White Ravens said:

I've read several posts on this thread suggesting that Jon killed Janos Slynt because of his role in killing his father and parading Ned's head to the masses after Ilyn Payne separated it from his body and since all of the Night's Watch have had their past crimes forgiven Jon is not justified in killing him for refusing to follow orders.  Maybe it is possible to treat the killer of your own father impartially but I would find that a difficult thing to do.  But Tywin Lannister was trying to manipulate the situation on the Wall and sent letters to Bowen Marsh to try to get Janos made Lord Commander and thus give the Lannister-run Iron Throne some influence up there.  When Janos' ship arrives at Eastwatch-by-the-sea his first action is to go directly to Castle Black and imprison Jon Snow with the intent to hang him.  When Maester Aemon blocks Janos' intent to execute Jon he and Alliser Thorne cook up the idea to send Jon to treat with Mance Rayder thinking that Rayder will kill Jon. 

How fair and impartial should Jon be when dealing with someone who has been nothing but hostile towards him literally tried to kill him?

Just caught this as leaving the thread.  The hilarious thing is that we have Jon's own thoughts and POV on Janos as this is happening.  Jon really thinks he is extending an olive branch here and treating Janos impartially, that is his subjective intent.  Now it's possible Jon is internally biased and we are witnessing that, but look at this objectively.  Despite every attempt by Janos to be insubordinate to his LC which is a no-no, Jon is offering him his own command of a separate fortress...Jon does not do this to his enemies, indeed he puts his friends in charge of other fortresses on the Wall which makes perfect sense since he needs to be able to trust his "blind-side" so to speak.  

And again, we have Jon's own thoughts on this.  He specifically disavows a personal motive here, and thinks that Janos must have some skills in command and leadership as he rose to head of the Gold Cloaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Chris Mormont said:

Jon's "midnight ride" and Slynt's public insubordination are 2 completely different things. 

Jon's authority as LC was being challenged, his hold on the Night's Watch was already tenuous considering his decisions were being questioned and he had as many enemies as friends, therefore he could not allow Slynt to get away with this. 

As LC he knows he will have to order men to do very dangerous things, i.e. go beyond the wall, defend the tunnel, etc.) if a man's punishment is imprisonment, Jon will never be able to get these men to do those things because prison is better than death.  Slynt disobeyed a direct order which was essentially deserting, and thus he had to die.

They are completely different things.  Jon's desertion is punishable by death.  That fact was established when Ned took off Gared's head.  Insubordination like Slynt's is not necessarily punishable by death.  Jon acted very inappropriately because he treated Slynt and Rayder differently.  The second man was a far bigger criminal than the first and yet Jon allowed Rayder to get out of punishment because of his personal feelings for him and because he needed him to run an illegal errand.  Jon is corrupt because he can't be impartial.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are completely different things.  Jon's desertion is punishable by death.  That fact was established when Ned took off Gared's head.  Insubordination like Slynt's is not necessarily punishable by death.  Jon acted very inappropriately because he treated Slynt and Rayder differently.  The second man was a far bigger criminal than the first and yet Jon allowed Rayder to get out of punishment because of his personal feelings for him and because he needed him to run an illegal errand.  Jon is corrupt because he can't be impartial.  

Let's see. Where to start? 

The point is that the punishment for whatever crime or offence will be decided by the LC. So, you think Jon should have been executed b/c of his attempt at desertion. Only LC Mormont disagrees w/ you, and since he is the LC, the decision is his. The very same goes for Jon and Slynt. You may disagree w/ both, but the fact remains that no two LCs will make the exact same decisions every time. Another fact that remains is that's basically what it's all about: people making decisions and owning up to them and their consequences. 

As to the rest, wrong again. It's crunch time, Winter is coming and all that jazz. The difference between Mance and Slynt is that Jon knows Mance can be a useful ally just as well as he knows Slynt will always be untrustworthy at best. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are completely different things.  Jon's desertion is punishable by death.  That fact was established when Ned took off Gared's head.  Insubordination like Slynt's is not necessarily punishable by death.  Jon acted very inappropriately because he treated Slynt and Rayder differently.  The second man was a far bigger criminal than the first and yet Jon allowed Rayder to get out of punishment because of his personal feelings for him and because he needed him to run an illegal errand.  Jon is corrupt because he can't be impartial.  

Maybe Jon simply interacted with the two men and realized that Janos is nasty and corrupt whereas he spends time with Mance and learns that he intentions are in some ways noble.  He understands the need for Mance to get his people south of the Wall where they will be safer from the threat of the Others and that any Free Folk left north of the Wall will become wights.  Also, Stannis and Melisandre were a big part of how Mance was handled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are completely different things.  Jon's desertion is punishable by death.  That fact was established when Ned took off Gared's head.  Insubordination like Slynt's is not necessarily punishable by death.  Jon acted very inappropriately because he treated Slynt and Rayder differently.  The second man was a far bigger criminal than the first and yet Jon allowed Rayder to get out of punishment because of his personal feelings for him and because he needed him to run an illegal errand.  Jon is corrupt because he can't be impartial.  

It would really help if you take a step back and think rather than just repeating yourself in a knee jerk reaction.

This is what Mormont says of Jon's night time ride:

A Game of Thrones - Jon IX

Jon stood tall. He told himself that he would die well; that much he could do, at the least. "I know the penalty for desertion, my lord. I'm not afraid to die."
"Die!" the raven cried.
"Nor live, I hope," Mormont said, cutting his ham with a dagger and feeding a bite to the bird. "You have not deserted—yet. Here you stand. If we beheaded every boy who rode to Mole's Town in the night, only ghosts would guard the Wall. Yet maybe you mean to flee again on the morrow, or a fortnight from now. Is that it? Is that your hope, boy?"
Jon kept silent.

How clear can it be that Jon's midnight ride is a common occurrence that the LC is used to dealing with and defusing (it is after all the news of his father's death that prompts his actions and a good bit of man management reins him in).  In contrast Slynt's open and contemptuous denial of the very basis of the Lord Commander's authority "No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt!" is far more serious as it threatens the breakdown of discipline and the entire system of command.

It's a fairly bemusing comparison to make, but to argue that Jon's transgression is more serious is frankly daft.  The one happens often, the latter is an unprecedented challenge to the entire system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

He was given command of Greyguard and unless you mean to suggest Jon demote Cotter Pyke / Denys Mallister or give Slynt command of Castle Black or even the NW, this is is as good as he can hope for.  His credentials with House Lannister should be used how exactly?  The Lannisters care nothing for the NW, all they want from Slynt is that he kill Jon 

His credentials should be his near two decade long tenure of the redcoats. He(unlike nearly everyone in the brotherhood), actually has experience policing and keeping order amongst a populace of thousands of civilians . His experience in such matters would be better served at the Castle black where the lands to which surrounds it are becoming overpopulated with the refugees than rebuilding and garrisoning a castle

Cersi did not nor did any lanister plan to have Slynt kill Jon. 

Slynt is still considered a pawn of theirs; him saying the dead are walking could be reasonably expected to weigh far more than Jon's. Killing Jon at this point would eliminate the chance of Slynt(a pawn of theirs), succeeding Jon should he be caught.

Jon however did not use him to tell the lanisters  the dead are walking-from what Jon has seen of the lanisters treatment towards the wall during the war he's very little reason to discount them so quickly given they did send men and the former commander of their city's watch to the brotherhood.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

His credentials should be his near two decade long tenure of the redcoats. He(unlike nearly everyone in the brotherhood), actually has experience policing and keeping order amongst a populace of thousands of civilians . His experience in such matters would be better served at the Castle black where the lands to which surrounds it are becoming overpopulated with the refugees than rebuilding and garrisoning a castle

Everyone knows his credentials- yet they vote against him to become LC.  Jon knows his credentials- it's specifically why he chose him to command at Greyguard.  Jon could have decided to keep him at Castle Black- although I'd question what exactly you think Jon should have had him doing there (he's not suited to being a steward or builder and doesn't really seem like much of a ranger either).  I'd argue that assuming Slynt's "experience policing and keeping order" is valuable and, you know actually existent, then Jon is doing the right thing utilizing those skills by putting him in command of Greyguard where he can actually exercise those skills, unlike at Castle Black.

Quote

Cersi did not nor did any lanister plan to have Slynt kill Jon. 

True..she planned on Kettleblack to do that.

Quote

Slynt is still considered a pawn of theirs; him saying the dead are walking could be reasonably expected to weigh far more than Jon's. Killing Jon at this point would eliminate the chance of Slynt(a pawn of theirs), succeeding Jon should he be caught.

This would be great if a) Slynt would actually tell the Lannisters to send troops to help and b) the Lannisters would actually comply with this request.  We are given little reason to believe either one of these things could ever happen, assuming things as they are that Jon won the LC vote and Slynt didn't.

Quote

Jon however did not use him to tell the lanisters  the dead are walking-from what Jon has seen of the lanisters treatment towards the wall during the war he's very little reason to discount them so quickly given they did send men and the former commander of their city's watch to the brotherhood.

Fair but again, this assumes that both Slynt and the Lannisters would be cooperative with Jon post-Jon's election, which does not seem very possible based on what the books give us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

His credentials should be his near two decade long tenure of the redcoats. He(unlike nearly everyone in the brotherhood), actually has experience policing and keeping order amongst a populace of thousands of civilians . His experience in such matters would be better served at the Castle black where the lands to which surrounds it are becoming overpopulated with the refugees than rebuilding and garrisoning a castle

Cersi did not nor did any lanister plan to have Slynt kill Jon. 

Slynt is still considered a pawn of theirs; him saying the dead are walking could be reasonably expected to weigh far more than Jon's. Killing Jon at this point would eliminate the chance of Slynt(a pawn of theirs), succeeding Jon should he be caught.

Jon however did not use him to tell the lanisters  the dead are walking-from what Jon has seen of the lanisters treatment towards the wall during the war he's very little reason to discount them so quickly given they did send men and the former commander of their city's watch to the brotherhood.

His leadership of the Goldcloaks is why he gets a castle to command.  The fact that it's a ruin means it needs a bit more effort than simply garrisoning a functional one but the point is he is one of the few people with experience of command of a large body of men and presumably of some administration so he is better suited to it than a mere ranger or builder.  I'm not quite sure what role you are imagining for him at Castle Black but the LC typically commands at CB and his two deputies at Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower so one of the new castles is the best position on offer.  The idea of putting him in control at CB seems one only the most naive would act upon.

As for using Slynt to act as the solution to all the NW problems with the IT's negligence: that seems a bit of wishful thinking.  The Lannisters are far more interested in chaos in the North to damp down any pro-Stark rallying and to bleed a potential enemy than they are in shoring up the North's long border with the wildlings.  Snarks and Grumkins will be dismissed until people see them for themselves: there is no news footage and terrible tales of them will be dismissed as readily as karakens, dragons or unicorns.

Granted it was Kettleblack who was to kill Jon but this was only after he was elected LC instead of their man, Janos.  I don't doubt he would have offed Jon for them given the chance as LC, with or without any direction from the IT.  All that makes it fairly unlikely Jon would want to encourage or authorise him to have close communication with the IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Janos was directly and repeatedly insolant, and was clearly trying to incite rebellion. Jon did the right thing. 

Pretty unrelated, but I found Janos' family tree on the wiki quite funny

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a butcher
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Janos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Morros
 
Jothos
 
Danos
 
Unknown daughter
 
Edited by mankytoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

It is an execution but it was brought on by Jon's feelings towards Janos Slynt.  The death penalty was not how it should have been handled.  Putting Janos Slynt in the cells is the right punishment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×