Jump to content

Archived

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

Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Widow's Watch said:

I haven't read the whole thread because these usually turn into a Jon bashing session,

Yup. The wheels on the bus go round and round...

Quote

but the damage in King's Landing was already done.

No doubt. I'd say the demise started way before the current rule. This is about 300 years in the making. To mess up a quote by another crafty Raven, this is a long strip tease GRRM is showing we readers. This Jon situation at the wall is not something that can be reasonably shown in a single thread by using a few book quotes because it is bigger than that.

Quote

Tywin did not want to help the NW in ASOS because whatever was happening in the north was the northmen and the ironborn's problem. And Slynt wrote to King's Landing to tell them that Stannis was trying to make common cause with the wildlings (Cersei IV, AFFC 17). Jon's command is already undermined. The letter Maester Aemon wrote and that was sent was meaningless after that.

Yeah, I believe that is the same AFFC/Cersei IV chapter is the same where this "cryptic" letter about "foes" idea is coming from. But all of these ideas you and others have shared so far have all been used tirelessly to explain the long strip tease in these recurring character bashing threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

Not at all, but I can see how a Slynt fan would have trouble with something like respecting he chain of command.

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

:lol: :lmao::rofl: :laugh:

Share this post


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

These threads don't turn into a .jon bashing session, but rather that's their sole purpose of being.

Let's see... we already have the Bowen Marsh Fan Club, the Ramsay Bolton Apprecition Society, and  now we get the Janos Slynt Most Honourabe Man of the 7K Award! 

And the list of folks who are not gonna be happy w/ Winds grows ever larger! :D

Actual Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 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.  

 

Jon was wrong for killing Janos Slynt.  I mean, Slynt was not a nice guy but Mance Rayder is the one who deserved to get his head taken off.  Jon killed Slynt as revenge for Ned Stark.  

Jon's thoughts betray his intentions.  

Quote

It's death and destruction I want to bring down upon House Lannister, not scorn

Quote

Jon slide 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.  

Jon knew it was wrong while he was carrying out the execution.  Yeah it was personal.  Jon was a poor leader.  Jon was supposed to be the lord commander but he was actually fighting on behalf of and to avenge the Starks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Jon was wrong for killing Janos Slynt.  I mean, Slynt was not a nice guy but Mance Rayder is the one who deserved to get his head taken off.  Jon killed Slynt as revenge for Ned Stark.  

Jon's thoughts betray his intentions.  

Jon knew it was wrong while he was carrying out the execution.  Yeah it was personal.  Jon was a poor leader.  Jon was supposed to be the lord commander but he was actually fighting on behalf of and to avenge the Starks. 

Sure, anything can be skewed when one only gives 1.5 sentences worth of text within a world built on more than a million words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

If anything a better argument could be made that Slynt was sent to the Wall for an unjust reason, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question "What is justice?" is one of the central themes of the books, isn't it? Particularly with regard to the death penalty.

In the first prologue, we meet Gared, who seems dedicated to his work for the Night's Watch and, next thing we know, Ned is beheading him. Ned says the King's Justice requires it but do we all really agree 100% that Gared deserved to die? Do we even know for sure that he deserted? Bran says there is some talking before the execution, but we don't know what was said. Going by the rules, Gared almost certainly should have gone back to report to the commander after Waymar and Will died. But we also learn that Jeor Mormont would not have killed Gared for going to Winterfell, whatever Gared's reason might have been; Mormont simply couldn't afford to lose a seasoned ranger when he was already short of men.

So that was the first example of an honorable man executing what appears to be another honorable man. In some of the other examples, the lines are blurry: we like the victim but not the executioner (Ned / Joffrey), or vice versa (Karstark / Robb). Isn't GRRM's point to show us the irony? To make us question whether we are really being fair when we see one execution as justified and another as wrong?

13 hours ago, EloImFizzy said:

It reminds me alot of Robb's beheading of Rickard Karstark in some ways. 

 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I'm seeing a nice parallel to Joffrey's execution of Ned.

I think these examples are going in the right direction. We can also examine Theon shooting Todric after the slaughter of the Wild Hares. Todric breaks the rules about drinking and fighting over plunder. Theon intends to shoot him in the hand but Todric moves and the arrow hits him in the gut. So Theon pretends that he wanted the guy dead for disobeying orders, even though that wasn't his original intent. Stannis ordering the deaths of Alester Florent, the four men from House Peasebury and Mance / Rattleshirt might also be examined in this context.

I think Jon's execution of Slynt is similar to the examples of Joffrey, Robb and Theon because each man ordering or doing the killing is a young leader trying to establish himself as an authority. Their motives vary somewhat and some give the condemned men a chance for redemption before delivering the coup de gras. In general, though, they are making examples out of the condemned men in order to scare other people who might be considering challenging their rules.

Tywin counsels Joffrey that it is important to show mercy, to allow a foe to take the knee and then to stand again. We know Tywin doesn't always live by that advice, however, and the young leaders apparently opt for punishment instead of mercy in the examples cited.

One of the things that makes a difference in some of these death penalty situations is family name or connections. Maybe Jeor didn't execute Jon Snow for his attack on Thorne because House Stark is too important to the Night's Watch and Mormont couldn't afford to alienate Ned Stark by killing his son. When Jon returns from his attempted desertion, Mormont tells him he wants Jon's blood and his wolf beyond the Wall -- although this may have less to do with being highborn per se and more to do with some unique magical quality Jon doesn't know that he carries.

Perhaps similarly, Aerys spares Dontos Hollard because Ser Barristan requests it and Tywin spares Podrick Payne while hanging Ser Lorimer for stealing a ham.

Another thing to examine with Slynt is the butcher symbolism. Arya's friend Mycah was also a butcher's son. He seems completely innocent -- not to mention, he is a child -- but The Hound runs him down and kills him with a massive cut from his sword. King Cleon of Astapor was a butcher before he came to power through underhanded and violent tactics, including castrating the sons of the previous rulers in order to create a new army of Unsullied warriors. Tyrion sent Slynt to the Wall for slaughtering the bastard children of Robert Baratheon. So there is a link between these butcher characters and causing harm to children, but it's not a straight line that works the same way in each case. Could GRRM's point be that it is never o.k. to punish someone by killing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I feel Jon wasted an opportunity with Slynt primarely because of his personal issues with the man and his issuess with house lanister.

Slynt could have been used a liaison to House lanister , if there is anyone at the wall who can actually convince  them that there are ice-zombies coming it's Janos Slynt. It at the very least would have gotten the man away long enough to not be a nuisance.

Hell, Jon should have had him pen the letter(something not at all needlessly cryptic-like the one he actually sent) to the crown-they'd be more likely to at least not simply shrugg it off.

But then again Jon thought there was no chance of aid; which is a sentiment  again is seemingly motivated to them having devastated his family; his claim that they only sent Janos Slynt in response to their pleads for help is false; prisoners were sent over in response Allister's visit; and even if Jon doesn't like Slynt, he's not actually a bad offering. Remember Slynt was the son of a butcher, who was elevated to the position of the commander of the city's watch in Kingslanding-the watch is always looking to claim such men of Janos's credentials.  

Jon was already prejudiced against Janos Slynt.  Jon doesn't think with his head.  He doesn't have much upstairs anyway.  His bias against the Lannisters and Janos Slynt blinded him to the opportunities he could have had.  What really turned me off during my reading was Jon letting Mance Rayder go after what he did to Janos Slynt.  I don't really care much for Slynt, nor Jon for that matter, but I can see that it was unjust.  Mance got to walk because Jon liked him and needed him to get his sister from Ramsay.  

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.  

 

Agree.  It was an act of revenge on the part of Jon Snow.  

Share this post


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

The question "What is justice?" is one of the central themes of the books, isn't it? Particularly with regard to the death penalty.

In the first prologue, we meet Gared, who seems dedicated to his work for the Night's Watch and, next thing we know, Ned is beheading him. Ned says the King's Justice requires it but do we all really agree 100% that Gared deserved to die? Do we even know for sure that he deserted? Bran says there is some talking before the execution, but we don't know what was said. Going by the rules, Gared almost certainly should have gone back to report to the commander after Waymar and Will died. But we also learn that Jeor Mormont would not have killed Gared for going to Winterfell, whatever Gared's reason might have been; Mormont simply couldn't afford to lose a seasoned ranger when he was already short of men.

So that was the first example of an honorable man executing what appears to be another honorable man. In some of the other examples, the lines are blurry: we like the victim but not the executioner (Ned / Joffrey), or vice versa (Karstark / Robb). Isn't GRRM's point to show us the irony? To make us question whether we are really being fair when we see one execution as justified and another as wrong?

 

I think these examples are going in the right direction. We can also examine Theon shooting Todric after the slaughter of the Wild Hares. Todric breaks the rules about drinking and fighting over plunder. Theon intends to shoot him in the hand but Todric moves and the arrow hits him in the gut. So Theon pretends that he wanted the guy dead for disobeying orders, even though that wasn't his original intent. Stannis ordering the deaths of Alester Florent, the four men from House Peasebury and Mance / Rattleshirt might also be examined in this context.

I think Jon's execution of Slynt is similar to the examples of Joffrey, Robb and Theon because each man ordering or doing the killing is a young leader trying to establish himself as an authority. Their motives vary somewhat and some give the condemned men a chance for redemption before delivering the coup de gras. In general, though, they are making examples out of the condemned men in order to scare other people who might be considering challenging their rules.

Tywin counsels Joffrey that it is important to show mercy, to allow a foe to take the knee and then to stand again. We know Tywin doesn't always live by that advice, however, and the young leaders apparently opt for punishment instead of mercy in the examples cited.

One of the things that makes a difference in some of these death penalty situations is family name or connections. Maybe Jeor didn't execute Jon Snow for his attack on Thorne because House Stark is too important to the Night's Watch and Mormont couldn't afford to alienate Ned Stark by killing his son. When Jon returns from his attempted desertion, Mormont tells him he wants Jon's blood and his wolf beyond the Wall -- although this may have less to do with being highborn per se and more to do with some unique magical quality Jon doesn't know that he carries.

Perhaps similarly, Aerys spares Dontos Hollard because Ser Barristan requests it and Tywin spares Podrick Payne while hanging Ser Lorimer for stealing a ham.

Another thing to examine with Slynt is the butcher symbolism. Arya's friend Mycah was also a butcher's son. He seems completely innocent -- not to mention, he is a child -- but The Hound runs him down and kills him with a massive cut from his sword. King Cleon of Astapor was a butcher before he came to power through underhanded and violent tactics, including castrating the sons of the previous rulers in order to create a new army of Unsullied warriors. Tyrion sent Slynt to the Wall for slaughtering the bastard children of Robert Baratheon. So there is a link between these butcher characters and causing harm to children, but it's not a straight line that works the same way in each case. Could GRRM's point be that it is never o.k. to punish someone by killing them?

Perhaps George does not support the death penalty, which I understand is practiced in some of the states in the US.  I believe Texas is one such.  Whatever the case in America may be, the problem in this matter of Jon vs. Janos is the circumstances.  Specifically, Jon was already salivating to kill Janos Slynt to avenge Ned Stark.  We all know, it was Joffrey who killed Ned Stark, not Janos Slynt.  Ned was guilty of treason as far as Slynt knew and it was Payne who beheaded Ned.  Slynt was not at fault for thinking Ned is a criminal guilty of treason. 

Unlucky Janos gets sent to the wall where Ned's son happened to be.  It became a cold feud between Jon and Janos.  Jon abused his authority to carry out his revenge.  What he would really like to do is behead the Lannisters, but Slynt was the only one he could murder so that was what he did.  

The execution of Janos Slynt.  The double standards for letting Mance Rayder walk.  And sending the wildlings to get Arya so he can smuggle her away from her husband.  All of those are examples of Jon abusing his power and his authority.  He joined the small group of corrupt lord commanders, which began with the Night's King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

I believe Texas is one such.

Lol

25 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Perhaps George does not support the death penalty, which I understand is practiced in some of the states in the US.  I believe Texas is one such.  Whatever the case in America may be, the problem in this matter of Jon vs. Janos is the circumstances.  Specifically, Jon was already salivating to kill Janos Slynt to avenge Ned Stark.  We all know, it was Joffrey who killed Ned Stark, not Janos Slynt.  Ned was guilty of treason as far as Slynt knew and it was Payne who beheaded Ned.  Slynt was not at fault for thinking Ned is a criminal guilty of treason. 

Unlucky Janos gets sent to the wall where Ned's son happened to be.  It became a cold feud between Jon and Janos.  Jon abused his authority to carry out his revenge.  What he would really like to do is behead the Lannisters, but Slynt was the only one he could murder so that was what he did.  

The execution of Janos Slynt.  The double standards for letting Mance Rayder walk.  And sending the wildlings to get Arya so he can smuggle her away from her husband.  All of those are examples of Jon abusing his power and his authority.  He joined the small group of corrupt lord commanders, which began with the Night's King.

I dont think it was Neds death that did in Janos. It was their relationship. Janos, as you said, thinks Ned was guilty, so he assumed his son would also be a traitor. He looked the part. After Sam rigged the election Janos was clearly Jons enemy number one. 

Jon never seemed to realize that his murder was afoot, but killing Janos probably delayed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Widow's Watch said:

Tywin did not want to help the NW in ASOS because whatever was happening in the north was the northmen and the ironborn's problem.

Yeah Jon can't know this. So far the power at Redkeep has given the most at a reasonble amount that could possibly be expected, during a civil war, in response to pleads more aid and warnings(with no proof),  of the dead walking. It was simply too presumive for Jon to have discounted them as a lost cause before he tries-and perhaps go about it in a way that's more than sending a cryptic letter from the bastard son of Ned Stark and a paper-shield. The guy is too resigned to the notion of his family's tormentors, having no possibility of seeing the light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MostlyMoody said:

Death is an extreme punishment for back-talk and insubordination.

At present day and place, it is. In Westeros? 

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

8 hours ago, MostlyMoody said:

Instead, Jon acted like a human being with emotions and executed him with the primary motivation being vengeance. All the reasons he lists in his mind, why he can't keep Slynt alive are justifications and rationalizations to himself.

So you think that the reasons Jon lists are not valid? That Slynt would indeed fall in line and stop conspiring and undermining Jon's authority?

 

 

5 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Jon's thoughts betray his intentions.  

How about you quote his thoughts when the shit was actually happening? 

5 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

 Jon was a poor leader.  Jon was supposed to be the lord commander but he was actually fighting on behalf of and to avenge the Starks. 

How exactly does letting the Wildlings in and using every possible resource to man and defend the Wall fight for and avenge the Starks?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 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.

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. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Perhaps George does not support the death penalty, which I understand is practiced in some of the states in the US.  I believe Texas is one such.  Whatever the case in America may be, the problem in this matter of Jon vs. Janos is the circumstances.  Specifically, Jon was already salivating to kill Janos Slynt to avenge Ned Stark.  We all know, it was Joffrey who killed Ned Stark, not Janos Slynt.  Ned was guilty of treason as far as Slynt knew and it was Payne who beheaded Ned.  Slynt was not at fault for thinking Ned is a criminal guilty of treason. 

Unlucky Janos gets sent to the wall where Ned's son happened to be.  It became a cold feud between Jon and Janos.  Jon abused his authority to carry out his revenge.  What he would really like to do is behead the Lannisters, but Slynt was the only one he could murder so that was what he did.  

The execution of Janos Slynt.  The double standards for letting Mance Rayder walk.  And sending the wildlings to get Arya so he can smuggle her away from her husband.  All of those are examples of Jon abusing his power and his authority.  He joined the small group of corrupt lord commanders, which began with the Night's King.

That is really what happened.  Jon abused his authority to kill the man who was an enemy of the Stark family.  

11 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Jon was wrong for killing Janos Slynt.  I mean, Slynt was not a nice guy but Mance Rayder is the one who deserved to get his head taken off.  Jon killed Slynt as revenge for Ned Stark.  

Jon's thoughts betray his intentions.  

Jon knew it was wrong while he was carrying out the execution.  Yeah it was personal.  Jon was a poor leader.  Jon was supposed to be the lord commander but he was actually fighting on behalf of and to avenge the Starks. 

Yes.  Jon's friends brought him back to the wall after sneaking out but he fought for the Starks in his own way and used the power of the office of the lord commander to murder a man who was a past enemy of the Starks.  The execution of Janos Slynt was a cold-blooded revenge, pure and simple.  It was not justice.  

Share this post


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

At present day and place, it is. In Westeros? 

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

Yes. Death is the most extreme punishment. In any society and time period. Short of Ramsay-esque torture festivals.

 

5 hours ago, Ygrain said:

So you think that the reasons Jon lists are not valid? That Slynt would indeed fall in line and stop conspiring and undermining Jon's authority?

 

They are valid, but as I said they are justifications, but I guess we will never know that, since he is dead huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 4:05 AM, Ygrain said:

I must have missed the part where Jon defied an order and publically insulted Lord Commander... 

Did Jon wish to off Slynt? Absolutely. Would Mormont, or any other commander, have Slynt executed for defying and insulting him like that? Absolutely. Jon's personal beef had nothing to do with the fact that he had to put stop to such insubordination and insolence, and do it in a manner that sent a clear message.

The execution of Janos Slynt was a travesty to justice when it was carried out.  It became an extreme travesty to justice and an abuse of power when Jon let Mance Rayder go unpunished.  Mance Rayder's crimes are so much worse than what Janos Slynt ever did in his past life.  So yeah, Jon is wrong for what he did.  Jon abused the office of the lord commander.  Jon was an unfit leader and deserved to die for the things he did.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was both.

Slynt refused to follow orders, showed insubordination, and publicly insulted his LC. Even in a modern military organisation, that's going to get you in serious trouble. In a medieval penal army, it's going to get you shortened by a head. Executing Slynt was justified... someone who refuses to follow orders is a danger to his Brothers, and to the Watch as a whole. That alone would be enough to justify the beheading. Slynt refused twice, and openly defied his LC, and was likely plotting behind his back with Thorne and his other cronies. Also, Slynt has previously shown his own hatred of Jon, and that he was trying to get Jon killed, when he sent him on the suicide mission to kill Mance. Slynt was going to be a problem for Jon but, more importanltly, for the Watch as a whole... Slynt had no intention of doing what was right for the Watch, but would do what was best for him, undoubtedly undermining and threatening Jon, the Lord Commander. That's not what you need when there's an army of Ice Demons heading your way. 

Also, fortuitously for Jon, Slynt was one of the men involved in his father's betrayal and death. Perhaps this influenced the severity and swiftness of the punishment Jon meted out... perhaps if it had been someone else they may have been given a 3rd chance, or a day or 2 to cool off in the ice cells before a punishment was decided. But Slynt had clearly shown he had no intention of turning his attitude around and supporting his commanding officer, and had clearly shown his nature in his attempts to kill Jon previously. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah Jon can't know this. So far the power at Redkeep has given the most at a reasonble amount that could possibly be expected, during a civil war, in response to pleads more aid and warnings(with no proof),  of the dead walking. It was simply too presumive for Jon to have discounted them as a lost cause before he tries-and perhaps go about it in a way that's more than sending a cryptic letter from the bastard son of Ned Stark and a paper-shield. The guy is too resigned to the notion of his family's tormentors, having no possibility of seeing the light. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

Yes. Death is the most extreme punishment. In any society and time period. Short of Ramsay-esque torture festivals.

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

10 minutes ago, MostlyMoody said:

They are valid, but as I said they are justifications, but I guess we will never know that, since he is dead huh?

Based on what we have been shown about Slynt's character, I believe Jon was 100% right in his assessment of Slynt's future actions if he were allowed to live. The man had no principles and served only himself. Letting him openly challenge Jon's authority and get away without serious repercussions would terribly weaken Jon's not particularly strong position. Slynt had to be dealt with quickly, decisively and in a manner that would deter the others.

Share this post


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

×