The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on vol 2

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is kind of strange to doubt this whole thing.

No, it's not. But it is kind of strange being dead certain of things we have literally zero in the text pointing to. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Eddard Stark is a man who executes men with his own hands. Mutilation was far more common a crime in medieval societies than execution. If Ned executes in a world where mutilation is also a thing, we don't have to stress things very far.

I assume you mean punishment, not crime, right? Anyways, can you in any way, shape or form back up your claim about mutilation being far more common than execution in Westeros? 

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It might clash with the image certain people have of Ned Stark but that has nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of a lord in Westeros. This people are not just nice fathers and loving husbands. And I mean, even the execution of Gared is pretty cruel. We know the man didn't deserve to die.

This has nothing to do w/ the image certain people have of Ned Stark. This whole tangent is about people taking as a certainty that Ned did use mutilation as a form of punishment, and that is simply incorrect. 

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because it can be interpreted by onlookers as being partly motivated by Jon's loyalty to house Stark. This is one of the times handing the blade over to someone else or allowing someone else to do the execution seems appropriate.

Still don't see the problem here - at this point, the fArya crisis hasn't happened yet and House Stark is perceived as practically done for, there is no-one left to whom he might be considered as loyal to or whose cause he might support.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Where does it say taking fingers is "custom"? And more specifically, where does it say it's a custom in the North?

Yeah, I'd like to see that quote, as well. It is certainly possible but I don't recall seeing a sentence passed anywhere up North.

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

So, yeah, we can say w/ certainty Ned sent men to the Wall. 

Did Ned really send them? I thought he merely allowed Yoren to take those who were willing.

43 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Given Briene(who is as noble as they come), doesn't actually seem to buckle at the claim seems to be pretty clear cutting off fingers for thieves is to be expected.

Perhaps. And her reaction shows how she feels about it:

43 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Watching him, Brienne could not help think of Ser Jaime, and the way he'd screamed when Zollo's arakh came flashing down.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And yet we are told things are different in the North, and that customs vary sometimes greatly.

Customs might differ. Laws do not. Not for over two hundred years. And one assumes that punishments and offenses are part of the legal sphere, not the custom sphere - that's for tourneys, weddings, and the like.

Quote

Hanging guts from heart trees is as savage as it comes, and no one is denying the old KoW/KitN did that, so I don't know what you're on about here.

It means that it makes little sense to assume a change in custom would imply the North being gentler to convicts. They would be more likely crueler. Especially to thieves considering the scarcity of food in the North in winter.

Quote

I agree, it is indeed very telling. It tells us that Robb, even as green as he was, was capable of assessing a situation and making a decision based on said situation rather than acting like a moronic robot following a rule book. 

But what would have happened there if not for Greywind? Would Jon Umber have actually attacked Robb Stark? Would the Greatjon have given the pup a good beating, marching out of his hall and taking all his levies home? Would Robb's guardsmen/retainers have reacted before Robb could do anything, killing the man?

All that would have had severe consequences - and, frankly, the attack there should have, too. The Greatjon went way too far there - which is evident in his later total Robb fanboyism - and he should have actually been punished for this thing. If there hadn't been a direwolf to come save him he would have been forced to either chastise/execute the Greatjon or risk becoming the laughingstock Cat feared he would become if she had sent him back.

Quote

Robb's and Mormont's decisions weren't necessarily mercy. As I said above, they evaluated the situation and made a decision. 

Sure it was mercy. The people involved all committed a crime and the people judging them pretended there was no crime or blatantly ignored it. That's how people play at favoritism in this world (and in ours, actually).

Quote

Why on Planetos would Jon find an excuse to not execute Slynt? 

Because killing Slynt was not necessarily a good idea from a political standpoint. It was sending bad messages to both Slynt's supporters in the Watch as well as people outside the Watch the Watch is dependent on.

Quote

Sure. And Tarly is an arsehole, a despicable human being, a douchebag. He had the warlocks lashed b/c they were unable to torture into Sam the type of behaviour he wanted. Also, IMO he likes to demean others, hence, in part, why he uses the punishments he does.

Randyll Tarly stands in very high regard in Westeros, though. Pretty much nobody there shares your assessment of the man. And while the man treats his son like shit that's not the way to assess the capability of a lord or ruler - Tywin is also an asshole but he was still a very effective Hand and lord.

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, it's not. But it is kind of strange being dead certain of things we have literally zero in the text pointing to.

There is a lot we don't know about Ned Stark's day-to-day life as Lord of Winterfell. But we still assume he did, more or less, the same as any other (great) lord in Westeros.

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I assume you mean punishment, not crime, right? Anyways, can you in any way, shape or form back up your claim about mutilation being far more common than execution in Westeros? 

Yes ;-). Just count the men noses, hands, fingers, tongues, cocks, etc. that show up during the books. There are quite a few, despite the fact that the books do focus on common criminals who are mutilated by their lordly betters.

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This has nothing to do w/ the image certain people have of Ned Stark. This whole tangent is about people taking as a certainty that Ned did use mutilation as a form of punishment, and that is simply incorrect. 

It is an assumption I can live with - but even if he was to weak-willed to bring himself to do this thing - this doesn't change the fact that mutilation of any kind is a milder punishment than execution and thus one that was open as a possibility for Jon Snow when he punished Janos Slynt. That's what this is about - that Jon decided to kill the man when he was not forced to do that. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Quote

 

This has nothing to do w/ the image certain people have of Ned Stark. This whole tangent is about people taking as a certainty that Ned did use mutilation as a form of punishment, and that is simply incorrect. 

He did. Beheading can be classified as mutilation by definition.  We are introduced to and immediately shown him beheading someone. Like I covered this in  in the previous page. Here's the definition again;: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : an animal or person;

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/mutilate

 

[kissdbyfire]

16 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Did Ned really send them? I thought he merely allowed Yoren to take those who were willing.

I think so. I mean, Yoren went to him, and he gave Yoren the pick of the dungeons, so yeah. And actually, the whole thing makes me think that, in all likelihood, crimes for which the death penalty would have been excessive were punished by sending the offender to the Wall. I'm talking about the Ned specifically here. After all, few would understand the NW's needs as well as Ned. 

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Davos sold Stannis food. His reasons for saving Stannis for purely unadulterated personal profit, and the only dedt Stannis could be expected to have to man for his onions and fish was the amount of coin Davos demanded for his wares. 

You make it sound as if smuggling food into besieged fortresses was a daily business and people could do that whenever they wished. Makes one wonder why Davos was the only one who attempted and succeeded, and why he bothered in the first place.

 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think this moment was supposed to be one where the reader is disgusted with Stannis quite frankly overly generous punishment for a career crimnal-Davos deeds deserve death, Davos in exchange for this really mild punishment all things considered, gets a life most law-abiding peasants would give a full-hand for. 

Yeah? Well, I was disgusted. A smuggler who could have just minded his business and let the whole castle starve to death, took a great risk to deliver them food. I don't see a problem with him expecting a payment, he was not a charity organisation and hardly possessed so much money that he could give away a shipload for free.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Hell beheading itself is actually a form of mutilation by its definition and we see Ned do this  in the first scene we see him. To cut off or damage a limb or other important part of (a person or animal)https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/mutilate

Sorry but I've never heard that a beheaded person would be described as mutilated. They are usually described as dead. 

Besides, if you think that execution is just a form of mutilation, then you really shouldn't complain about Jon mutilating Slynt.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hell we see see Robb have Greatjon mutilatated through having his direwolf eat two fingers of the Greatjon to pacify him. 

I don't recall Robb ordering Greywing to bite off Greatjon's fingers, though, that's what normally happend when a big beast of prey bites at a hand.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jon has the option of simply relegating the man to minial tasks 

 

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

one less man to help defend against the wights.

Aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? If Slynt is relegated to menial tasks, then he is not defending against the wights, and is simply not needed.

[kissdbyfire]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Customs might differ. Laws do not. Not for over two hundred years. And one assumes that punishments and offenses are part of the legal sphere, not the custom sphere - that's for tourneys, weddings, and the like.

I very much doubt the law is too specific about form of punishment. It's not like they'll have murder 1/2, vol/invol manslaughter, assault, aggravated assault and so on. 

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It means that it makes little sense to assume a change in custom would imply the North being gentler to convicts. They would be more likely crueler. Especially to thieves considering the scarcity of food in the North in winter.

Wait. Custom or law? 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But what would have happened there if not for Greywind? Would Jon Umber have actually attacked Robb Stark? Would the Greatjon have given the pup a good beating, marching out of his hall and taking all his levies home? Would Robb's guardsmen/retainers have reacted before Robb could do anything, killing the man?

All that would have had severe consequences - and, frankly, the attack there should have, too. The Greatjon went way too far there - which is evident in his later total Robb fanboyism - and he should have actually been punished for this thing. If there hadn't been a direwolf to come save him he would have been forced to either chastise/execute the Greatjon or risk becoming the laughingstock Cat feared he would become if she had sent him back.

We don't know b/c Martin wrote a different story. This is a topic for [yet] another "what if" thread.

And I disagree anyway. The Greatjon tested Robb, Robb passed the test. And more importantly, Robb understood it was a test. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure it was mercy. The people involved all committed a crime and the people judging them pretended there was no crime or blatantly ignored it. That's how people play at favoritism in this world (and in ours, actually).

Just because there was no personal dislike between these people, and even affection (Mormont/Jon) it doesn't mean that their decisions were based on those feelings. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because killing Slynt was not necessarily a good idea from a political standpoint. It was sending bad messages to both Slynt's supporters in the Watch as well as people outside the Watch the Watch is dependent on.

It was exactly the perfect spot on decision, politically speaking. I guess we should agree to disagree.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Randyll Tarly stands in very high regard in Westeros, though. Pretty much nobody there shares your assessment of the man. And while the man treats his son like shit that's not the way to assess the capability of a lord or ruler - Tywin is also an asshole but he was still a very effective Hand and lord.

There is a huge difference between characters' perceptions - of one another, of situations, etc - and the readers'. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a lot we don't know about Ned Stark's day-to-day life as Lord of Winterfell. But we still assume he did, more or less, the same as any other (great) lord in Westeros.

Maybe, but not necessarily in the same way.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes ;-). Just count the men noses, hands, fingers, tongues, cocks, etc. that show up during the books. There are quite a few, despite the fact that the books do focus on common criminals who are mutilated by their lordly betters.

Not a very convincing argument since I don't recall all that many tbh. Maybe the fault is in my memory. Then again, maybe not. 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is an assumption I can live with - but even if he was to weak-willed to bring himself to do this thing - this doesn't change the fact that mutilation of any kind is a milder punishment than execution and thus one that was open as a possibility for Jon Snow when he punished Janos Slynt. That's what this is about - that Jon decided to kill the man when he was not forced to do that. 

Too weak-willed?

No, Jon was not forced. As Robb, Mormont, etc, he made a decision and acted on it. A decision, I might add, that was 100% his to make. 

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He did. Beheading can be classified as mutilation by definition.  We are introduced to and immediately shown him beheading someone. Like I covered this in  in the previous page. Here's the definition again;: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : an animal or person;

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/mutilate

 

Are you really and seriously going to resort to semantics now? 

A -John Doe was punished today. 

B - You don't say! What was the punishment?

A - Mutilation.

B - Oh! What did they chop off?

A - His head.

B - 

 

[Eli Cross]

On the second repost!  Amazing.  

Slynt's Insubordination versus Jon's attack on Alliser Thorne

I believe the watch is lenient and tolerant.  The Order is made up of men.  Testosterone is in the air.  Outbursts are tolerated or leniently punished because it's men blowing off steam.  Jon's attempted killing of Ser Alliser is an extreme outbursts but it was leniently dealt with and nobody seemed very surprised.  This is a place for men where such things happen between men.  Janos' insubordination is less offensive compared to what Jon did.  Did anybody respect Ser Alliser less because Jon tried to kill him?  I don't think so.  It's just plain silly assumption from the readers to think Jon will be less respected if he showed mercy to Janos.  He might actually win some of Janos' supporters by showing he can be fair.  

Jon is an emotional time bomb with a short fuse.

Jon has a dangerous and violent temper.  He's like a pressurized container of anger and rage.  We first saw this during Robert's visit to Winterfell during the chapter scene in the dining halls.  He is way more volatile than his Uncle Brandon Stark.  At least Brandon can control his urge to finish off Petyr.  

Jon is an emotional wreck.  Which can lead support for R+L=J because a few male Targaryens have had very volatile tempers.  Jon would fit right in with the dragon males who showed emotional instability.  He knows something is wrong in his mind.  The mental wheel starts turning and he starts making all kinds of stupid justifications for why he should instead scratch his itch to do what he knows is wrong.  We witnessed this emotional issue here at Janos execution.  We see it again in the mission to find Arya.  Jon doesn't want to get Arya because it's a violation of his vows.  He sends Mance though because the wildling man doesn't bother with vows.  Jon's hand gets caught and he chooses wildlings to escort him to attack Roose Bolton.  He says in his mind "at least no one can accuse me of making my brothers betray their oaths".  Which is bull because he sent brother Mance to get Arya.  Mance is still a brother of the watch. He is as much crow as anybody who took the black.   Jon corrupted Ed Tollett when he involved the brother to carry the spear wives from Mole's Town and made him part of his illegal mission.  

Slynt is a future threat to Jon's authority???

I do not think so.  Not after Slynt cowered in public.  Jon might actually have won over some of these men if he had stopped right there.  But he made more enemies by killing Slynt.  The silent kind.  Which is more dangerous.  It was politically stupid to kill Slynt.  

 

[Eli Cross]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The laws of the Realm have been unified two centuries ago. And the North wasn't exactly known for its mild rulers before that. Tarly wouldn't use milder punishments than the Starks would.

There is also no reason to believe the Starks have the right to use 'special' or different sorts of punishments than the other lords of the Seven Kingdoms.

And if they did - they would be more savage than the southern kingdoms considering what we know about them still practicing the First Night.

The incident with the Greatjon is actually very telling here - the man got away with drawing steel and threatening the son of his liege lord in his own hall. The proper punishment would have been execution (and possibly an attainder on the entire house).

Instead Robb reinterprets a threat on his life as 'the Greatjon just wanting to cut his meat for him' - just as Jeor Mormonts reinterprets attempted murder/desertion as 'offenses that are not punishable at all if Jon Snow commits them'.

Why on earth couldn't Jon have shown the same kind of mercy to Slynt? Or rather: found an excuse not to execute the guy.

Lashing is also an established form of punishment. And it can be lethal but doesn't have to be. Tarly lashed the warlocks who tried to make a man out of Sam.

Because Jon was too busy looking for reasons to convince himself why he should kill Slynt instead of sending him to the holding cells.  Jon made it an act of revenge against an enemy of the Starks.

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

Because Jon was too busy looking for reasons to convince himself why he should kill Slynt instead of sending him to the holding cells.  Jon made it an act of revenge against an enemy of the Starks.

And on what do you base your opinion? Because we have had hundreds of quotes by now showing the exact opposite. So, I'm very curious to learn where did you read anything that supoorts what you're saying. 

[Eli Cross]

On 8/5/2018 at 3:09 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

This was the beginning of Jon's downwards slide.  His judgment started to get worse from this point forward.  He followed the execution with the mission to get Arya to his intent to lead the Wildlings against the Bolton's.  The execution, the mission to get Arya, and the intent to attack the Bolton's are all caused by Jon's inability to make sound, objective decisions whenever a Stark was involved.  

Which ended with Jon getting stabbed by Bowen and the other men.   They had no other way to stop him from dragging the N-W into his quarrel with the Boltons.   

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I very much doubt the law is too specific about form of punishment. It's not like they'll have murder 1/2, vol/invol manslaughter, assault, aggravated assault and so on. 

Sure, it would be broader guidelines and such, but it is not that murder is no crime in the North and a serious crime in the West, say, or that people get a slap on the wrist for this crime in that region and are executed for it in another.

If that was the case then the laws wouldn't have been unified, no?

Quote

Wait. Custom or law? 

Both, depending on what time you speak about. One can certainly assume that flaying people alive was a more common form of execution/punishment prior to the Conquest and subsequent unification of the laws, don't you think? 

Quote

We don't know b/c Martin wrote a different story. This is a topic for [yet] another "what if" thread.

You can just tell you don't want to think about the matter you know ;-).

Quote

And I disagree anyway. The Greatjon tested Robb, Robb passed the test. And more importantly, Robb understood it was a test. 

Did he? Robb later confesses to Bran that he feared the Greatjon wanted to kill him there. He shivered visibly. He was afraid. If not for the magical direwolf this situation would have gotten out of hand. Greywind gave Robb the chance to reinterpret this situation - without Greywind that wouldn't have worked.

And do you actually think it is a good thing for a (future) vassal to presume to test his lord as if he has a right to choose his liege? Or to go as far as the Greatjon did in this test? What do you think would have happened if Robb had failed that test?

Quote

Just because there was no personal dislike between these people, and even affection (Mormont/Jon) it doesn't mean that their decisions were based on those feelings.

Favoritism doesn't have to be based on feelings or affection. Take Waymar Royce as an example - the boy got a command before he was ready only because he was of (pretty) high birth. I never said Jon and Mormont are buddies (they actually aren't, at least not while Jon has not yet saved the man's life). I just recognize favoritism when I see it.

Just as one sees people taking up Tywin and Stannis' aristocratic narrative, whipping Janos Slynt for his common birth. Yes, the man is a moron and ambitious, but he was loyal to his masters to the end. And he was sent to the Wall for this loyalty. The man deserved better.

Quote

It was exactly the perfect spot on decision, politically speaking. I guess we should agree to disagree.

How did it help Jon's cause to show King Tommen that Janos Slynt got immediately executed after Jon Snow became Lord Commander there? How did that help the Watch in any way?

Quote

There is a huge difference between characters' perceptions - of one another, of situations, etc - and the readers'. 

But we are not talking about readers' favorite characters here. We are talking about the characters in-universe. There nobody but Sam and perhaps Jon see Randyll Tarly as an ass - and even that would have no impact on their assessment of the Lord Randyll Tarly.

Quote

Maybe, but not necessarily in the same way.

Well, then give us an picture of your Eddard Stark. Do you think the man did not mutilate people when this punishment was due (theft, rape, etc.) and if so: why do you think that? Can you give us reasons or is this just an assumption of yours?

I don't like to picture Ned cutting of some noses, either, but that's irrelevant to the question whether the man might have done that or not.

I also don't like to picture Ned cutting of Theon's head with Ice and sending it back to Pyke. But it is quite clear that the people in Westeros do not doubt that he would have done just that if 'he had been forced to do it'.

Quote

Not a very convincing argument since I don't recall all that many tbh. Maybe the fault is in my memory. Then again, maybe not. 

Just now I recall Rorge, Payne, Ollo Lophand, the tongueless Velaryons, the handless Stormlanders (including Orys Onehand himself), the rapists Stannis castrates, the guys Tarly mutilates at Maidenpool.

Quote

Too weak-willed?

What else would be the reason why Ned doesn't maim or mutilate people? He is a lord, he has the power. And he does behead people with his own hands. He would have no issues with cutting off noses, hands, feet, balls, etc. - because all that are, in this world, actually minor punishments. The people still live afterwards. They are not dead.

Quote

No, Jon was not forced. As Robb, Mormont, etc, he made a decision and acted on it. A decision, I might add, that was 100% his to make.

That doesn't makes it a just decision.

And on Jon's temper:

He does show outbursts that are very unusual for the Starks. They are usually more cold and calculating, even when they kill (think of Arya). Whereas Jon might not have the hair but some of the temper of his paternal grandfather - or other prominent members of the dragon family tree. The Targaryens all do have a temper.

[Eli Cross]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

And on what do you base your opinion? Because we have had hundreds of quotes by now showing the exact opposite. So, I'm very curious to learn where did you read anything that supoorts what you're saying. 

Quote

--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 deserts, then.  And how many others will he take with him.

The bolded part is Jon realizing what should be the fitting consequences for what Janos Slynt did.  The italicized is Jon convincing himself and basically creating reasons in his own mind for an excuse to murder Janos Slynt.  

You have had many people posting here and giving perfectly good explanations and quotes to support the accusation made against Jon, that he talked himself into unjustly killing Janos Slynt.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You make it sound as if smuggling food into besieged fortresses was a daily business and people could do that whenever they wished. Makes one wonder why Davos was the only one who attempted and succeeded, and why he bothered in the first place.

He was greedy and daring enough to take the chance. Like Davos risked his life constantly through his illegal activities. Every venture of his as a smuggler is one where he could end up losing his head due to his chosen career path; I don't see smuggling food to Stannis for any other reason other he'd be able to strip an entire castle of its valubels for some onions and fish. Like Martin makes very clear Davos' reasoning was purely profit, there are plenty of poor starving people in Westeroes to which Davos could give his fish and onions to -not a lot of rich starving people, to which Stannis is.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

was disgusted. A smuggler who could have just minded his business and let the whole castle starve to death, took a great risk to deliver them food. I don't see a problem with him expecting a payment, he was not a charity organisation and hardly possessed so much money that he could give away a shipload for free.

Quote

Davos did this for money. Only for money. He deserves nothing more than the payment Tyrion gives to Bronn for having saved his ass. The dedt Stannis would be expected to have for Davos would be paid.  

This instance of punishment, is supposed to show Stannis' rightousness. 

Hell, Jon himself isn't the slightest bit disturbed or disgusted with Stannis having gelded three or so men for rape-he actually gives praise for being able to keep his men so well in hand.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I don't recall Robb ordering Greywing to bite off Greatjon's fingers, though, that's what normally happend when a big beast of prey bites at a hand

Fair point he probably didn't explicitly command the wolf devour two finger. I kinda took Robb's whispering into the wolf's ear as him giving orders to attack; 

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjonby his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters," he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker." Cursing, the Greatjonflung a flagon of ale into the fire and bellowed that Robb was so green he must piss grass. When Hallis Mollen moved to restrain him, he knocked him to the floor, kicked over a table, and unsheathed the biggest, ugliest greatsword that Bran had ever seen. All along the benches, his sons and brothers and sworn swords leapt to their feet, grabbing for their steel.

Yet Robb only said a quiet word, and in a snarl and the blink of an eye Lord Umber was on his back, his sword spinning on the floor three feet away and his hand dripping blood where Grey Wind had bitten off two fingers.

 

And he opts to allow the mutilation of having lost 2 fingers to be the only punishment for Greatjon having threatened to desert, assaulted a man, and threatening the life of liege lord; yet Robb was able to keep his dignity intact.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sorry but I've never heard that a beheaded person would be described as mutilated. They are usually described as dead. 

 Besides, if you think that execution is just a form of mutilation, then you really shouldn't complain about Jon mutilating Slynt.

No I point to  beheading as a form of mutilation. And no-I can say mutilating Slynt through decapation was less wise than gelding or taking the the tongue of Slynt.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

ntradicting yourself a bit? If Slynt is relegated to menial tasks, then he is not defending against the wights, and is simpl

Yeah no. Slynt-the steward,  day to day chores would include all menial tasks of a typical steward would have (butchering, hunting, plowing, brick laying etc). When the wights actually come he'll be expected to be shooting arrows with the rest of the watch. All brothers are expected to help defend against the wights when they come. Again my point is  Slynt does not have to be officer-at all. If he and a band of brothers and start raiding they would be hunted and  hung. If Slynt is not the commander he would find it a miracle if he would be able to convince one person to join . 

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Just because there was no personal dislike between these people, and even affection (Mormont/Jon) it doesn't mean that their decisions were based on those feelings. 

I cannot really see a peasant recruit trying dig his dagger in the eyes of his superior over said superior mocking the recruit's father and having the luxury of Mormont having to think on anything and not just getting the rope ready for a hanging.   Mormont would be a fool to not try to coming up with a punishments that won't infuriate House Stark.   The fact Jeor opted for no real punishment (hell he didn't even demand Jon apologize to Thorne fof having the audacity for lunging at Thorne's face with a dagger trying his earnest to stab at it), isn't particularly good but better than incurring the fury of winterfel through executing Jon.

I cannot see Robb allowing a vassal of his who is not important to his war-effort to publicly threaten his life through drawing his sword, after repeatedly mocking him and attacking another of his servents; test or no. 

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

nd I disagree anyway. The Greatjon tested Robb, Robb passed the test. And more importantly, Robb understood it was a test. 

Quote

I don't think Robb thought he wasn't in danger from the Greatjon; he later was clearly shaken when recounting what he did to Bran, and it doesn't give the impression that he thought the Greatjon wasn't serious about his threat,  Nor really does that lessen the severity of Greatjon's crime, if Robb didn't have Greywind with him, Robb would have to order the man be executed-something to which Robb could not go back on.   It could  have been a test or it's just Greatjon is a treacherous glory hound. I lean towards the later.

[teej6]

33 minutes ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

The bolded part is Jon realizing what should be the fitting consequences for what Janos Slynt did.  The italicized is Jon convincing himself and basically creating reasons in his own mind for an excuse to murder Janos Slynt.  

And in the passage you quoted, does Jon think that this man killed my father so he must die? No he doesn’t. In fact, the passage you quoted contradicts your argument that “Jon made it an an act of revenge against an enemy of the Starks” because in the very passage we have Jon’s private thoughts and reasoning for executing Slynt and revenge is not one of them. The only thing the passage you quoted shows is that Jon considered alternative punishments but decided against them because he came to the conclusion (and rightly so) that if he kept Slynt alive, the man would continue to undermine Jon’s authority as LC and negativity affect the morale of the men at the NW. 

As @kissdbyfire rightly pointed out there is no text that indicates Jon executed Slynt out of vengeance. In fact, there’s text to show that inspite of the reservations and dislike Jon had for Slynt, he decided to give the man a chance. His offer to Slynt of command of Greyguard was genuine. He asked Slynt in private and when Slynt rejected his command, Jon hoped a good night’s sleep would change his mind. When that did not happen he asked him again not once but twice. It was after Slynt rejected Jon’s command the thrird time and insulted and questioned Jon’s authority in front of all the men that Jon decided to execute Slynt. There is no indication in the text as these events occur that Jon was motivated by revenge. 

[Minsc]

Doesn't Jon think to himself after ordering Slynt's hanging that he hopes Throne pushes back so he would have the leeway to do the same to him? If Jon was only concerned about maintaining discipline then why would he hope for another officer to oppose his orders just so he could also execute him?  Rather it appears Jon was being influenced by his own personal grudges in his thoughts. Remember Throne is a superior officer that Jon committed the same crime as Slynt against (leading his fellow recruits to ignore Thorne's commands and publicly mocking) and worse (twice attacking him.)  Yet, here is Jon itching to execute him once he has authority over him. 

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He was greedy and daring enough to take the chance. Like Davos risked his life constantly through his illegal activities. Every venture of his as a smuggler is one where he could end up losing his head due to his chosen career path; I don't see smuggling food to Stannis for any other reason other he'd be able to strip an entire castle of its valubels for some onions and fish. Like Martin makes very clear Davos' reasoning was purely profit, there are plenty of poor starving people in Westeroes to which Davos could give his fish and onions to -not a lot of rich starving people, to which Stannis is.

So? Was Davos the only smuggler in Westeros? If smuggling food to SE was so profitable and no more risky than normal smuggling, then why was Stannis so starved out? 

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Davos did this for money. Only for money. He deserves nothing more than the payment Tyrion gives to Bronn for having saved his ass. The dedt Stannis would be expected to have for Davos would be paid.  

Does his motivation somehow change the outcome? If not for his supplies, Stannis would have had to surrender or starve to death.

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This instance of punishment, is supposed to show Stannis' rightousness. 

And harshness.

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hell, Jon himself isn't the slightest bit disturbed or disgusted with Stannis having gelded three or so men for rape-he actually gives praise for being able to keep his men so well in hand.

Can you find me the quote for Jon's reaction? A search with "rape" or "geld" gives me only this in Melisandre's PoV:

Three of her guard were geldings that Stannis had castrated for raping wildling women. She had two drunkards and a craven too. The last should have been hanged, as the king himself admitted, but he came from a noble family, and his father and brothers had been stalwart from the first.

- BTW, the last part shows that even Stannis sometimes holds double standards

 

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Fair point he probably didn't explicitly command the wolf devour two finger. I kinda took Robb's whispering into the wolf's ear as him giving orders to attack; 

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjonby his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so. "And when we are done with the Lannisters," he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, "we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker." Cursing, the Greatjonflung a flagon of ale into the fire and bellowed that Robb was so green he must piss grass. When Hallis Mollen moved to restrain him, he knocked him to the floor, kicked over a table, and unsheathed the biggest, ugliest greatsword that Bran had ever seen. All along the benches, his sons and brothers and sworn swords leapt to their feet, grabbing for their steel.

Yet Robb only said a quiet word, and in a snarl and the blink of an eye Lord Umber was on his back, his sword spinning on the floor three feet away and his hand dripping blood where Grey Wind had bitten off two fingers.

 

And he opts to allow the mutilation of having lost 2 fingers to be the only punishment for Greatjon having threatened to desert, assaulted a man, and threatening the life of liege lord; yet Robb was able to keep his dignity intact.

 

 

 

No I point to  beheading as a form of mutilation. And no-I can say mutilating Slynt through decapation was less wise than gelding or taking the the tongue of Slynt.

Yeah no. Slynt-the steward,  day to day chores would include all menial tasks of a typical steward would have (butchering, hunting, plowing, brick laying etc). When the wights actually come he'll be expected to be shooting arrows with the rest of the watch. All brothers are expected to help defend against the wights when they come. Again my point is  Slynt does not have to be officer-at all. If he and a band of brothers and start raiding they would be hunted and  hung. If Slynt is not the commander he would find it a miracle if he would be able to convince one person to join . 

I cannot really see a peasant recruit trying dig his dagger in the eyes of his superior over said superior mocking the recruit's father and having the luxury of Mormont having to think on anything and not just getting the rope ready for a hanging.   Mormont would be a fool to not try to coming up with a punishments that won't infuriate House Stark.   The fact Jeor opted for no real punishment (hell he didn't even demand Jon apologize to Thorne fof having the audacity for lunging at Thorne's face with a dagger trying his earnest to stab at it), isn't particularly good but better than incurring the fury of winterfel through executing Jon.

I cannot see Robb allowing a vassal of his who is not important to his war-effort to publicly threaten his life through drawing his sword, after repeatedly mocking him and attacking another of his servents; test or no. 

I don't think Robb thought he wasn't in danger from the Greatjon; he later was clearly shaken when recounting what he did to Bran, and it doesn't give the impression that he thought the Greatjon wasn't serious about his threat,  Nor really does that lessen the severity of Greatjon's crime, if Robb didn't have Greywind with him, Robb would have to order the man be executed-something to which Robb could not go back on.   It could  have been a test or it's just Greatjon is a treacherous glory hound. I lean towards the later.

 

44 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Doesn't Jon think to himself after ordering Slynt's hanging that he hopes Throne pushes back so he would have the leeway to do the same to him?

He hopes that Thorne would draw his sword so that he could do the same, i.e. draw the sword. I don't think hanging was what he had in mind.

Quote

If Jon was only concerned about maintaining discipline then why would he hope for another officer to oppose his orders just so he could also execute him?  Rather it appears Jon was being influenced by his own personal grudges in his thoughts.

Yes and no. Thorne losing his cool and attacking his LC would be like Christmas come early for Jon, no doubt. However, this doesn't mean that the death sentence for Thorne wouldn't be perfectly appropriate, anyone drawing a sword on their LC would be sentenced to death, as well. Just like anyone in the position of influence in the Watch telling the LC publically to shove his orders up his bastard arse needed to be made an example of.

Quote

Remember Throne is a superior officer that Jon committed the same crime as Slynt against (leading his fellow recruits to ignore Thorne's commands and publicly mocking) and worse (twice attacking him.) 

Are you seriously comparing a secret agreement not to hurt a fellow recruit with publically rejecting the LC's authority and insulting him on top of that?

[Minsc]

1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

 

He hopes that Thorne would draw his sword so that he could do the same, i.e. draw the sword. I don't think hanging was what he had in mind.

Yes and no. Thorne losing his cool and attacking his LC would be like Christmas come early for Jon, no doubt. However, this doesn't mean that the death sentence for Thorne wouldn't be perfectly appropriate, anyone drawing a sword on their LC would be sentenced to death, as well. Just like anyone in the position of influence in the Watch telling the LC publically to shove his orders up his bastard arse needed to be made an example of.

Are you seriously comparing a secret agreement not to hurt a fellow recruit with publically rejecting the LC's authority and insulting him on top of that?

Jon is hoping Thorne draws his sword so he can have Thorne executed. That isn't the thoughts of Commander primarily about ensuring discipline. It is the thoughts of a boy hoping to settle a grudge. 

Jon's actions might be more moral in our eyes, but within discipline sense Jon's actions is just as problematic as Slynt's. If Jon had a problem with Thorne's orders than he should have gone to Jeor or whoever is Thorne's immediate superior. Jon had no problem insulting Thorne when he was still Jon's superior. 

Jon is frankly lucky that Jeor is such a poor leader that he is allowed to get away violation after violation with no punishment. 

[Ygrain]

6 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon is hoping Thorne draws his sword so he can have Thorne executed. That isn't the thoughts of Commander primarily about ensuring discipline. It is the thoughts of a boy hoping to settle a grudge. 

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.

This sounds more like wanting to engage Thorne himself, rather than order his execution.

And sorry but offing Thorne would ensure discipline because no Thorne, no plotting and undermining discipline.

6 minutes ago, Minsc said:

If Jon had a problem with Thorne's orders than he should have gone to Jeor or whoever is Thorne's immediate superior.

He could have. Do you think that showing Thorne as incompetent would shame him less than being cheeky to him?

6 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon had no problem insulting Thorne when he was still Jon's superior. 

You must show me the part where Jon tells him to shove something up his arse. Also, I am not sure which insult you mean - the part where he told him he would love to see him teach Ghost juggle,, or whatever it was?

6 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon is frankly lucky that Jeor is such a poor leader that he is allowed to get away violation after violation with no punishment. 

So now we're into demeaning Mormont?

He let Jon go off the hook for attacking Thorne because Jon had saved his life. Had the wights not attacked, Jon would have been punished somehow for the severe breach of discipline.

Other than that, there was nothing to punish.

 

[The Sunland Lord]

For the fifth time:

Davos/Stannis, cutting thieves' hands for theft, gelding, cutting fingers for theft (Randyll Tarly): Are NOT matching comparison for the Jon/Slynt matters.

Different crimes, different circumstances.