The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[The Fattest Leech]

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Jon definitely did get south. Not far south, but he did go south.

Yeah, but Jon never left Night's Watch lands.

Not-so-Good Queen Alysanne made sure of that

 

[Julia H.]

19 hours ago, Trefayne said:

I think we can assume a loyal man would have tried to warn Jon if he had heard something disturbing. So, it was either tightly kept or no one cared to intervene.

 

I do think it was tightly kept, similarly to the conspiration of Chett and others against Mormont. There was no loyal man to inform Mormont of this conspiracy, but it doesn't mean he had no loyal men at all. The conspirators were careful, which is not really surprising, as they were doing something illegal and very dangerous. But they were only a small group. Nothing suggests that Marsh had more than a couple of stewards involved in his conspiracy. 

BTW, has anyone analysed the tyrannical and irrational tendencies of Lord Commander Jeor Mormont, which eventually got him killed by his own men?

[Julia H.]

40 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Yeah, but Jon never left Night's Watch lands.

Not-so-Good Queen Alysanne made sure of that

Mormont:

Quote

Aemon told me you'd go. I told him you'd be back. I know my men … and my boys too. 

Quote

"If truth be told, we expected you to do just as you did." Mormont tried a plum, spit out the pit. "I ordered a watch kept over you. You were seen leaving. If your brothers had not fetched you back, you would have been taken along the way, and not by friends."

So Mormont knew what Jon would be doing, Mormont knew what Jon was doing as Jon rode out, and instead of stopping him, he decided that Jon could go up to a certain point or time as long as he returned until a certain time (or something similar).

Technically, as per Mormont's own words, Jon rode about as far as Mole's Town with the prior knowledge and permission of his Lord Commander (staying within NW territory, of course).

Benjen went to Winterfell with the prior knowledge and permission of his Lord Commander.

Yoren went as far as King's Landing with the prior knowledge and permission of his Lord Commander.

Sam went as far as Essos with the prior knowledge and permission of his Lord Commander. 

Travelling to specific places with the prior knowledge and permission of your Lord Commander does not count as desertion.

Yet, people pick on Jon. 

Seriously, is there any justice system which would punish somebody who thought he was committing a crime but in fact he wasn't?

 

[U. B. Cool]

On 7/21/2018 at 6:37 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

I agree.

Janos Slynt showed insubordination and deserved what he got. You don't speak to the Lord Commander that way. Jon Snow showed a true leadership. 

Jon Snow showed his immaturity.  Killing a brother of the watch over an insult was foolish.  It made many of the men dislike him even more.  On the other hand, showing mercy and proving he can be fair could have earned him the respect of some of those men.  But of course, Jon is not a fair man.  So there you have it.  

[kissdbyfire]

I was gonna reply but just remembered I need new socks. 

 

[U. B. Cool]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Prior to his desertion Jon tried to murder a superior over having his feelings hurt. After Mormont decided to be lenient and not execute the guy for that dire offense(to which the only justice would be death),Jon deserted, and only came back because he could bring himself to seriously harm his friends to leave. Janos Slynt refused an order and insulted the LC. Jon's offenses are greater than Slynt's(what with that being attempted murder, desertion), and his punishment was basically nothing really. Slynt's first and only punishment for the crime of insubordination was death. Jon so far as I call didn't even have to apologize for Alliser about having tried to end his life. 

I can agree.  Jon received mercy from his lord commander for offenses that should have resulted in his execution.  Jon should have extended the same mercy to a man who was guilty of a less serious offense than he is.  That is the bottom line.  

[Clegane'sPup]

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I was gonna reply but just remembered I need new socks. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

BTW, has anyone analysed the tyrannical and irrational tendencies of Lord Commander Jeor Mormont, which eventually got him killed by his own men?

Julia, always, always refer to the text! You forgot "vindictive"!

 

[Ygrain]

28 minutes ago, Italian Tune Up said:

Jon Snow showed his immaturity.  Killing a brother of the watch over an insult was foolish.  It made many of the men dislike him even more.  On the other hand, showing mercy and proving he can be fair could have earned him the respect of some of those men.  But of course, Jon is not a fair man.  So there you have it.  

Seriously? Where in Jon's PoV do you see this as the reason why Slynt had to die? Because, the book says otherwise:

“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.

Not a single word about feeling insulted.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Pyke and Mallister are proxies for the men in their garrison who are not present at Castle Black. Considering they were the top two contenders in the last ballot and were most likely swayed by Sam, I think it’s safe to assume that they would have favored Jon even without Mormont’s raven. Besides we know neither of them like Slynt. 

*shrug*

And Bowen Marsh came up to Jon after the vote and humbled himself, then later stabbed Jon in the gut. We don't know what anyone was thinking. We just know what they said and did. People don't usually put their neck on the line unless they think they can get away with it, so it would seem that the mutineers think that they could/will survive this. Marsh at least seems to grasp the gravity of what he is doing as he is crying at the time. If it really only is four men (the number of stabs recorded before Jon is out of it) and they didn't get "approval" they are in a world of hurt. It will be interesting to see if their "For the Watch" defense holds up.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Trefayne said:

and they didn't get "approval" they are in a world of hurt. It will be interesting to see if their "For the Watch" defense holds up.

Who would have approved it? Who would be in a position to approve it? 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Who would have approved it? Who would be in a position to approve it? 

Umm, enough men so they could get away with it and live? All a mutiny needs is a preponderance of men to switch sides, whether they actively participate or not. The only guarantee you need is that no one, or very few, will move against you once you've seized control.

[teej6]

6 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

*shrug*

And Bowen Marsh came up to Jon after the vote and humbled himself, then later stabbed Jon in the gut. We don't know what anyone was thinking. We just know what they said and did. People don't usually put their neck on the line unless they think they can get away with it, so it would seem that the mutineers think that they could/will survive this. Marsh at least seems to grasp the gravity of what he is doing as he is crying at the time. If it really only is four men (the number of stabs recorded before Jon is out of it) and they didn't get "approval" they are in a world of hurt. It will be interesting to see if their "For the Watch" defense holds up.

What does this have to do with Jon having been chosen LC by a landslide. Your argument was based on the erroneous premise that Jon “barely” won the choosing, which is factually incorrect. When this was pointed to you, you then latched on to another fallacious argument that Jon won because of the raven jumping out of the kettle. The raven may have played a part but it’s fair to conclude that Jon had the votes of Pyke and Mallister and their garrisons even without the raven.

What does it matter if Marsh came up to Jon after the choosing or not. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that Jon only had marginal support among the men at the choosing, which has been refuted and disproven based on the text.  Using the choosing as evidence to argue that Jon lacked support among the men has put you in a bind. I am willing to consider the possibility that Marsh may have gathered more men to his cause after Jon let the Wildlings through but to state that Jon lacked the support of the men at the choosing is factually incorrect.

[Clegane'sPup]

24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Who would have approved it? Who would be in a position to approve it? 

Let it go. In my opinion you aren't dealing with ASOIAF books fans now.  You are dealing with Slynt"s.

[teej6]

12 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Umm, enough men so they could get away with it and live? All a mutiny needs is a preponderance of men to switch sides, whether they actively participate or not. The only guarantee you need is that no one, or very few, will move against you once you've seized control.

The mutineers could have been four men, they could have been fifty. The point is nobody knows. All mutinies don’t need “a preponderance of men to switch sides” as you say.  Mutinies can be planned or can happen at the spur of the moment. Do you think the mutiny against Mormont was planned?

You are mixing your assumptions with the facts. Marsh may have been able to convince more men to his cause, we just don’t know. We know that Yarwyck and his builders left the Sheildhall early just like Marsh and his men. We know that Yarwyck disapproved of the Wildlings at the Watch. What we don’t know is that Yarwyck supported Marsh’s mutiny and assasination of the LC.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

42 minutes ago, teej6 said:

What does this have to do with Jon having been chosen LC by a landslide. Your argument was based on the erroneous premise that Jon “barely” won the choosing, which is factually incorrect. When this was pointed to you, you then latched on to another fallacious argument that Jon won because of the raven jumping out of the kettle. The raven may have played a part but it’s fair to conclude that Jon had the votes of Pyke and Mallister and their garrisons even without the raven.

What does it matter if Marsh came up to Jon after the choosing or not. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that Jon only had marginal support among the men at the choosing, which has been refuted and disproven based on the text.  Using the choosing as evidence to argue that Jon lacked support among the men has put you in a bind. I am willing to consider the possibility that Marsh may have gathered more men to his cause after Jon let the Wildlings through but to state that Jon lacked the support of the men at the choosing is factually incorrect.

Well, if you are going to discount my entire line of discussion because I don't spend all of my free time over analyzing a work of fiction, then ya got me bro!

I admitted the error of detail and spent the time to reread the chapter in order to find out where I got my impressions. I found nothing in there to change my opinion. For all we know they just wanted to get it over with just so they could eat. The raven played it's part for whomever placed it in the kettle. Between that and Yarwyck dropping out, enough votes were swayed to make the decision big. That doesn't imply unwavering support for everything Jon does.

The original line of discussion was whether Slynt's execution was justified or just revenge. That is where my line of discussion started and still is. To me the vote is irrelevant because people, even fictional people, can change their minds. The question for me is did Jon's subsequent actions help or hurt him with the men or contribute to the betrayal.

Since we won't know the total scope of the conspiracy until we get more material, the discussion continues...

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 minute ago, teej6 said:

The mutineers could have been four men, they could have been fifty. The point is nobody knows. All mutinies don’t need “a preponderance of men to switch sides” as you say.  Mutinies can be planned or can happen at the spur of the moment. Do you think the mutiny against Mormont was planned?

You are mixing your assumptions with the facts. Marsh may have been able to convince more men to his cause, we just don’t know. We know that Yarwyck and his builders left the Sheildhall early just like Marsh and his men. We know that Yarwyck disapproved of the Wildlings at the Watch. What we don’t know is that Yarwyck supported Marsh’s mutiny and assasination of the LC.

That wasn't mutiny, that was murder. They had no intention of seizing control of the NW. They just wanted out. They were murdering deserters.

And I'm not making assumptions. I'm analyzing the story and giving my impressions of character motivations, just like everyone here. There are no "facts" in a fiction except the one's the author gives you.

I thought I was on the Ice and Fire forums, not talking to the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.

 

[teej6]

21 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

That wasn't mutiny, that was murder. They had no intention of seizing control of the NW. They just wanted out. They were murdering deserters.

And I'm not making assumptions. I'm analyzing the story and giving my impressions of character motivations, just like everyone here. There are no "facts" in a fiction except the one's the author gives you.

I thought I was on the Ice and Fire forums, not talking to the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.

 

That’s rich. You know very well what I mean by facts. If you want to have a proper discussion of the books and analyse the story, you need to base your arguments on what the author has privided in the text. If not, expect posters to refute/disprove your arguments. 

And btw, a mutiny does not have to entail a take over of an organization, an open rebellion against the existing authority (which Mormont was) is sufficient. 

[Clegane'sPup]

31 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

That wasn't mutiny, that was murder. They had no intention of seizing control of the NW. They just wanted out. They were murdering deserters

I agree the men soon to become murderers and deserters had no intent to seek control of the MW. Except the men did mutiny against their LC.

35 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

And I'm not making assumptions. I'm analyzing the story and giving my impressions of character motivations, just like everyone here. There are no "facts" in a fiction except the one's the author gives you.

Again I agree. and you are caught in the spin. There is actual information in the book of Mormont's thoughts. That information has been poo pooed and ignored.

36 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

I thought I was on the Ice and Fire forums, not talking to the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.

 

Yeah, deary this a forum of Ice and Fire books. Welcome to the crowd. Beware that you will meet many who talk in circles.

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And btw, a mutiny does not have to entail a take over of an organization, an open rebellion against the existing authority (which Mormont was) is sufficient. 

Exactly. If I were a crow in this universe and decided to join a mutiny-in-the-making it would never ever be to take over watch. I'd mutiny just to go to Majorca Dorne and get warm!