The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Tucu]

6 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Janos Slynt on the importance of adressing someone with their proper title. 

You will address Ser Alliser as ser, and myself as m'lord. I am Janos Slynt, Lord of Harrenhal and commander here at Castle Black until such time as Bowen Marsh returns with his garrison. You will grant us our courtesies, yes I will not suffer to hear an anointed knight like the good Ser Alliser mocked by a traitor's bastard. - Janos Slynt

Also important to note that Janos Slynt is the first brother ever to be Lord of Harrenhal and commander at Castle Black simultaneously.
 

At that point Harrenhal belonged to House Baelish.

[Julia H.]

23 minutes ago, Tucu said:

At that point Harrenhal belonged to House Baelish.

And Castle Black belonged to Ser Wynton Stout. 

[Tucu]

8 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

And Castle Black belonged to Ser Wynton Stout. 

So what we really have is the first NW's brother ever to usurp the titles of Lord of Harrenhal and commander at Castle Black simultaneously.

[Unacosamedarisa]

5 minutes ago, Tucu said:

So what we really have is the first NW's brother ever to usurp the titles of Lord of Harrenhal and commander at Castle Black simultaneously

But he, graciously, declined the Lordship of Greyguard when offered, because he's not a greedy is Janos Slynt. 

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Regarding the bolded: If it is so, it only confirms the idea that a harsh punishment is totally within the traditions of the NW. But I don't understand how you can argue that on the one hand, Mormont was going to make Jon unhappy for the remainder of his life and, on the other hand, that he was afraid to punish Jon because he was afraid of the Starks. Either this or that, no? 

We are not only talking about the Thorne attack, but also the midnight ride. Mormont knew Jon was a deserter because he knew what he did do. Mormont usually tolerates midnight rides to Mole's Town but would any other brother have gotten this kind of special treatment as Jon when he actually deserted?

I don't think so.

And in the Thorne incident we don't know what would have happened - I was just pointing out that Ghost being there doesn't have to be a sign he was looking with all that much favor on Jon.

He may have intended to let him off the hook again, but it may have been much harder this time - until the wights gave him the pretext.

Quote

Thorne was used as a master-at-arms because he was good with the sword and perhaps Mormont didn't consider him good ranger material. He may not have been good cook material either.  That doesn't mean Mormont had a good opinion of Thorne as a person (we actually know he didn't think highly of him). Thorne could be used by the Watch, so he was used, end of story.

The master-at-arms is a very important office in any castle, even more so at CB where the recruits of the Watch are trained. If Mormont didn't like Thorne he had an odd way of showing that. But he did show he was a poor judge of character naming a man master-at-arms who simply isn't a good tutor, nor does he strive to be one.

Being some ranger is a less important by comparison - and actually one where Thorne could have been of more use.

Quote

Jon didn't disobey any command here. He reacted, while trying to cope with shock and grief, to a deliberate, malevolent provocation by a fellow brother who should have been supporting him in this situation out of basic solidarity towards a so-called "brother". Thorne's specific position in the NW would have allowed him to become a mentor figure for young NW members, which of course he neither wanted nor was able to become, but provoking this young man (into doing something rush and punishable) was totally uncalled for and evil. 

I was alluding to the history of Thorne/Jon which is full of Jon defying the man's command and of doing things a dutiful recruit of the Watch. He presumes way too much. Jon deliberately undermines Thorne's authority. He shows that he, Jon, could be a much better master-at-arms, yet that's not what a recruit should be doing. There is a reason why Thorne loathes Jon.

And Thorne is not wrong - Jon is a traitor's bastard. Ned confessed his treason and was duly executed by the king, and Jon has no proof that he wasn't guilty. All he has is the belief of son - and a mistaken belief at that. After all, he thinks Ned would not crack when his children are threatened - which is what he does as soon as the threat is made.

And from Thorne's view as a Targaryen loyalist Ned was even a traitor long before he betrayed King Robert and King Joffrey.

Jon has said his words and Eddard Stark should no longer be his father in his mind, nor should the Starks be his half-siblings.

Quote

I don't know how he could do that while he was locked up, but whatever. In the end, Mormont does seem to know what happened, it doesn't really matter how he found it out.

One would assume when Mormont was talking to him - either in his cell or before they put him there.

Quote

No, mitigating circumstances always matter. It matters whether the black brother in question attacked only an officer who was knowingly and cruelly goading him in the worst possible emotional crisis or if he went about attacking just about anybody for no reason. I say it matters because in the former case the black brother can still be a perfectly useful NW member (there is no need to bully anybody), while in the latter, he is obviously a harmful presence in the NW.

But there is no evidence that things like that make attempted murder go away. Even in our modern world it is ridiculous to say 'He mocked me to my face and said bad things about my father, I had to try to kill him'. Emotional states and the like can go into a sentence, but if we are talking about serious crimes then the felony is the important thing, not why it was committed.

And that's even more true in a military environment where the crucial thing is that discipline in maintained, not that the individual is treated most fairly.

Quote

I can't see the mitigating circumstances in the case of Slynt though. Jon was certainly not goading him, he was giving him a perfectly reasonable command, even a rank. The command was in accordance with Slynt's military experience. As for Slynt not knowing what he was getting himself into, well, Slynt wasn't a green boy, but a middle-aged man with experience in the military, as a commander. He even had a whole day to reconsider his position, so if his first reaction was out of impulse, he had time to calm down and think.  Can you imagine he didn't know he had to obey orders? Of course, we know he knew. He also had to know what sort of harm he was doing, but he didn't care. 

He should have known in what situation he could find himself in, but he clearly did not. Else he wouldn't have reacted the way he did when he thought he was about to die. If you know you could be executed for what you are doing there, you would not act the way Slynt did. That is obvious.

A great way to make use of Slynt, by the way, would have been to send him as an envoy to KL. If he had such a high standing with the Lannisters as he claimed he did, he could have actually convinced them that the Others were a real threat. Killing him was another way of showing that Lord Commander Snow was Stannis' man and not exactly willing to work with the King on the Iron Throne.

The thing just is - you only execute people if you want to. Nobody forces you to do this.

Quote

Slynt is not especially smart, but if you want to argue that he died because his IQ was waaaay below average, then someone, please, explain to me how he had landed in the position of goldcloak LC and how he had survived on a daily basis in the viper's nest called King's Landing for years. 

How do I know? Slynt doesn't come off as a coherently written character. He is pretty much as stupid during his interaction with Jon as he is when he talks to Tyrion before he is shipped off to the Wall (sure, he is drunk there, but he is also a moron).

It might be George is of the opinion you don't have to be smart to rise high in the City Watch. All you need to do is to ingratiate with the right people (Littlefinger) and suck up to those in power.

Quote

He actually considered different options and chose the one he deemed best on a rational basis. 

That doesn't mean his decision was right, though. It actually seems he was prepared for the execution considering he brought men with him who would go through with it without questioning his decision - just as Slynt himself was a man not questioning the command of his king when he helped to execute Eddard Stark.

I'm with you that Slynt might have gotten a milder punishment if he hadn't said what he said in public to Jon. But the point of this execution is, in part, to send a message to the Watch and the world. Jon really sends the message 'I'm not to be trifled with' and 'If you piss me off, you'll die' and, of course, also 'I remain/see myself as a Stark' - that's what can be derived from his choice to personally behead Slynt.

Quote

The heroic rescue actually indicates that Jon is still a very useful member of the NW - not only because he wanted to save his LC but also because he actually succeeded in overcoming the wight.

Oh, come on, that was an accident. Did Jon know the wight would burn? No. If it had been a fire-proof zombie he would have been dead.

Quote

Mormont does not want to officially rebuke Thorne because he does not want to create more tension in the NW, but everyone has noticed how he not only pardoned Jon but rewarded him. That already indicates that Thorne's complaint is not taken seriously any more, an official rebuke isn't necessary.

It isn't 'Thorne's complaint', it is an attempted murder in public.

Quote

Thorne has no right to goad and provoke a fellow black brother in distress or to cause tension among his brothers - it is not just "not nice", but outright harmful behaviour for the whole organization, where teamwork and solidarity can be essential for survival. Thorne started the conflict, Jon only reacted to it. Besides, being a senior member and an officer of the NW entails a degree of responsibility that is higher than the responsibility of common soldiers. All that makes Thorne's behaviour worse than Jon's.

This is a military organization. Officers do not fraternize with common men, nor do they work 'in teams'. They command, and the men obey. Jon isn't Thorne's peer, he is just a recruit who recently took his vows. Thorne is a knight and the master-at-arms. And he didn't say anything to him that was factually wrong from his point of view.

It also is irrelevant who started a struggle when the reaction is you want murder someone putting knife through their eyes. Any judge - in a military or civil setting - would laugh you out of court if you presumed to say 'But he insulted me. He started it.' To an insult you don't react with attempted murder.

That doesn't mean Thorne should have taunted Jon, but a taunt simply isn't even remotely in the same league. There is no defense for men who think physical attacks are a proper reaction to insults.

Quote

(I have seen a very similar story in real life, where "Thorne" verbally provoked "Jon" into a momentary rush reaction, then did everything that was possible to destroy him. Everyone who knew them had the opinion that "Jon" was a much better person than "Thorne", who was a total snake in the grass. The destruction attempt was eventually unsuccessful, and "Thorne" became widely despised in the community, but it was still a rather "dark" story in a way.)  

People who cannot control their temper should get help learning how to it. It is insidious to use somebody character flaws against them - but it is not their fault that you cannot control yourself.

Quote

I don't know how you can reconcile the idea that Ser Old Senile is the legal commander in Castle Black (while Noye and Jon are usurpers) with the idea that Cotter Pyke can send another "legal" commander there. As long as the legal commander is alive, every other commander must be a usurper, regardless of whether they arrive on Cotter Pyke's order or not.

I don't have the books with me right now, but presumably Aemon send letters both to the Shadow Tower and Eastwatch when they realized that the Weeper's attack was a ruse and Styr and company were coming, no?

They were asking for more men, and when they came they came to take command in CB. After all, if they had no right to do that, why didn't none of the CB men prevent that Jon was thrown in a cell? Why didn't they prevent Slynt from sending him out to kill Mance? There were a couple of dozen men still alive with Jon at the end, no?

One assumes that the other commanders of the Watch do have the right to restore order and take command in a castle that is in disarray.

Quote

However, that's a moot point because Cotter Pyke has no authority in Castle Black. He is commander in Eastwatch, that's his position, and Eastwatch does not command Castle Black. So no, Cotter Pyke has no more right to send a "commander" to Castle Black than the Head of the History Department has to send one of his colleagues to the English Department to see to the duties of the Head of the English Department while he is absent. Pyke merely sends a small group of men (including Slynt) to help the defenders - and he probably sends the ones he most wants to get rid of. Thorne, of course, has to go to CB anyway because he belongs there. It is much more likely that Thorne and Slynt plan their little coup together, and it's only successful because Thorne (an actual CB officer) supports Slynt, because the black brothers remaining in CB are not used to challenging orders and because Jon is taken by surprise. All that doesn't give Slynt any legal authority, which is why Maester Aemon can prevent him from executing Jon. 

That is a weird way of arguing, and would be completely impractical if it was actually done this way.

Quote

"That old maester says I cannot hang you," Slynt declared. "He has written Cotter Pyke, and even had the bloody gall to show me the letter. He says you are no turncloak."

As I said, Cotter Pyke has no authority in Castle Black, so why would Slynt mind Master Aemon writing to him if Slynt is legally an acting Lord Commander in CB? It is because Cotter Pyke has authority over Slynt (he sent Slynt to CB), and he isn't on board with what Slynt is doing there. Imagine how frustrating it would be if Cotter Pyke ordered Slynt back to Eastwatch after receiving Aemon's letter!

Slyint isn't the Lord Commander, but he and Thorne are apparently interrim commanders of CB until such a time as a new Lord Commander is chosen. Pyke clearly has jurisdiction at CB via his letter, or else he couldn't have forbidden Slynt to hang Jon, no?

Quote

Regarding the "right" to heroically defend the Wall, I think it was more like duty. They had to do absolutely everything for the defence of the realm, there was no more important rule than that. Official authority or not, in a battle someone needs to give orders, but not everyone is able to do that.

It is clear that somebody had to take command considering how ill-suited Stout was to do it. Yet that doesn't mean they had any official command, or that they had the right to resist official officers once they finally returned to take command.

Just because people chose to follow Jon's or Noye's lead doesn't mean they are officially in command, no?

Quote

Jon never left his position without leave. He went where he had been sent and returned to CB with important information, his words and actions were consistent. It's not like they had never had a spy before in 8000 years. Who was there to accuse Jon of desertion? A wildling captive, who obviously hated Jon and who was interested in creating enmity between NW members. 

Rattleshirt, yes, but also the fact that Jon was seen with the wildlings from the Wall. What Jon's motivations were only Jon knows - we, too, to a point, but the others cannot be sure he is telling the truth. And that's a pretty big issue.

Quote

In fact, Eddard tried to interrogate Gared and we don't know what exactly Gared said, only that he was very confused and afraid - even if not coherent, he might have given a confession of desertion. We simply don't know, so that's not a good example.

We don't know what he said, but we also do know he did not deserve to be beheaded. Instead he should have been cared for, helped to regain his sanity (if he was truly half-mad and not just telling them about the Others - claims Ned may have dismissed as nonsense) and then be used as a source of information about the Others.

Gared had a very good reason to desert, in any case. A much better one than Jon had during his midnight ride.

Quote

Noye and Aemon believed Jon, and those who voted for him (including Pyke and Mallister) can't have believed him to be a turncloak. It just doesn't make any sense. The fact is Jon's actions and character before and after the alleged "desertion" are consistent with what he says. Slynt and Thorne, however, are not interested in the (altogether not so unbelievable) truth, they act entirely on their hatred and selfish, personal interests. 

The point is not that most of the Watch thought that Jon was a turncloak when they elected him - they likely did not. The point is that Jon had never been formally acquitted and thus Slynt, Thorne, and others still have a very good reason to think he may not be ideally suited to command the Watch. Which is why there might be mitigating circumstances for Slynt.

Just because the men of the Watch follow their commander like sheep - like they did with the Night's King and Runcel Hightower, presumably - doesn't mean said commanders did the right things, were true to their vows, etc.

Quote

Not that they were likely to get any help from the Seven Kingdoms anyway. As for your predictions, we'll see. Hopefully. 

This isn't an excuse for them to not try. The Seven Kingdoms are 'the realms of men', in a much stronger sense than the wildlings who live on the wrong side of the Wall. Jon does nothing to convince the realms of men of the danger they are all in. He sends envoys to no one, he writes letters about the Others to no one, he doesn't even ask anyone for men.

Making common cause with the traditional enemy of the Seven Kingdoms (and especially the North) isn't exactly going to win him any sympathy. Even if the King on the Iron Throne was somebody else entirely this would have been reason for misunderstandings and irritation.

[Unacosamedarisa]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont knew Jon was a deserter

Sigh.... this again? He didn't desert. He came back. As Mormont says to him the next day...

Quote

"Do you think they chose me Lord Commander of the Night's Watch because I'm dumb as a stump, Snow? Aemon told me you'd go. I told him you'd be back." 

And look, Jon came back. He didn't desert. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Sigh.... this again? He didn't desert. He came back. As Mormont says to him the next day...

And look, Jon came back. He didn't desert. 

Mormont chose to ignore what Jon actually did. For a night he was a deserter, and he should have died for that night. The penalty for desertion is death, regardless whether you are a deserter for five minutes or a fifty years.

If you open it so that men can 'come back' then everybody can come back, no?

[Unacosamedarisa]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont chose to ignore what Jon actually did.

No. Mormont understood that Jon would leave, and that he would come back. That he wouldn't actually follow through on the desertion. He had men ready to take Jon if he did actually desert... if Jon had gone far enough and had been taken, then that would have been desertion. But he didn't go that far. Mormont literally says to him... 

Quote

"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."

It's there, in the text. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

No. Mormont understood that Jon would leave, and that he would come back. That he wouldn't actually follow through on the desertion. He had men ready to take Jon if he did actually desert... if Jon had gone far enough and had been taken, then that would have been desertion. But he didn't go that far. Mormont literally says to him... 

It's there, in the text. 

It is in the text, but it is a lie, and Mormont knows it. Jon didn't go for a midnight ride to Mole's Town. He never intended to come back when he left. That is desertion, Jon knew it, you know it, I know it, and Mormont knew it. And Jon did not come back because he wanted to come back. He came back because he did not want that his friends die with him. He planned to make another attempt even while they were riding back - and even after he was back at the Wall.

Mormont didn't send Jon's friends after him. Hadn't they gone, he wouldn't have come back. Mormont even admits that when he says that it wasn't his honor who brought him back.

It is all special treatment for the Bastard of Winterfell. Any other black brother would have lost his head. The Lord Commander usually doesn't spend time to ponder the heart of the likes of Rast and Chett and Green and Pyp and Dareon, no?

[The Fattest Leech]

9 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

No. Mormont understood that Jon would leave, and that he would come back. That he wouldn't actually follow through on the desertion. He had men ready to take Jon if he did actually desert... if Jon had gone far enough and had been taken, then that would have been desertion. But he didn't go that far. Mormont literally says to him... 

It's there, in the text. 

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Text?!?! What is this text you speak of? I thought we were all going off head canon fueled by biased character hate? 

Damn, I’ve been doing it wrong the entire time 

[Rufus Snow]

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's even more true in a military environment where the crucial thing is that discipline in maintained, not that the individual is treated most fairly.

... so Slynt had to die.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

... so Slynt had to die.

If you insist, then Jon had to die, too. Three times over.

[Unacosamedarisa]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is in the text, but it is a lie, and Mormont knows it.

No... it's Mormont's opinion. In Mormont's opinion, Jon did not desert. And do you know whose opinion counts here? That's right, it's Mormont's opinion that counts.

[Dorian Martell's son]

14 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Text?!?! What is this text you speak of? I thought we were all going off head canon fueled by biased character hate? 

Damn, I’ve been doing it wrong the entire time 

Seriously, when have the books ever been part of the discussion here?  

[Lion of the West]

Its rather clear that Lord Varys has it spot on here. So I don't know what more really needs to be said.

I see alot of ridiculing so I'll assume that Lord Varys has thrashed most, if not all, arguments against him and that only the lowest form of wit remains to use against him.

[The Fattest Leech]

12 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its rather clear that Lord Varys has it spot on here. So I don't know what more really needs to be said.

I see alot of ridiculing so I'll assume that Lord Varys has thrashed most, if not all, arguments against him and that only the lowest form of wit remains to use against him.

Rolling over and showing your belly to another doesn’t mean that other was correct. Just like being the loudest does not make one more correct. 

You know what does matter, and is not to just be assumed, the text and author intent. Period. 

[Lion of the West]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Rolling over and showing your belly to another doesn’t mean that other was correct. Just like being the loudest does not make one more correct. 

You know what does matter, and is not to just be assumed, the text and author intent. Period. 

I agree entirely.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

No... it's Mormont's opinion. In Mormont's opinion, Jon did not desert. And do you know whose opinion counts here? That's right, it's Mormont's opinion that counts.

We are not sitting here in judgment over people. Of course, in-universe Mormont had to make the decision in all those case (aside from Jon #3 when he was already dead).

But that doesn't change the fact that Jon is much more equal when people sit in judgment over his crimes than others - both in-universe (with the former Stark vassal Mormont being his LC) and, strangely, also out of the universe (where we can also take a more neutral point of view).

Insofar was we understand the legal rules of this world we can question the legal decisions the people who make them.

I mean, nobody here runs around claiming 'It was Aerys II's call to execute Rickard and Brandon' - of course it was his call, but that doesn't (necessarily) make his decision right, no?

[Starkz]

Janos Slynt disrespected Jon, the Lord Commander, in front of his brothers and men. People have died for far less in both the books and real life. Jon had every right to kill him and in doing so solidified himself as the leader of the NW showing he won’t tolerate any insubordination. Could he have thrown him in the cells? Sure. But killing him sent a stronger message to his men that he wasn’t to be messed with and that he was in charge.

[Ser Leftwich]

Should we adhere to the letter of the unwritten law OR spirit of the unwritten law? The world may never know.