Why did Jon Snow give advice to Stannis about how to use mountain clans against Roose...

[Texas Hold Em]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:56 PM, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

...instead of staying neutral?

 

On 8/9/2018 at 2:59 PM, kleevedge said:

because Jon Snow is biased since Roose betrayed Robb and captured his home. He should of stayed out of it, that's part of the reason he's dead.

YES

[Texas Hold Em]

On 8/12/2018 at 1:20 AM, Dorian Martell's son said:

He is a flawed character that cannot let go of his blood and ties. 

Yes, this is basically the answer.  Cleavage also made a good point.  

My opinion, Jon would rather the North go to the wildlings than have it remain with the Boltons.  Jon was not in camp neutral.  He wants to bring down the Boltons.

[Davjos]

Opposing Stannis is also not staying neutral. The moment he arrived it was impossible to stay neutral for the watch. He has two choices: oppose Stannis or aid Stannis. Neither of these options allow him to stay neutral. None of this matters when our dead boy saves the living. 

[Starkz]

Having Stannis claim the North is the better option than letting the Bolton’s rule. It’s not like Jon has any love for the Bolton’s. Plus Stannis did save the NW from the Wildlings and when the dead and Winter come if Stannis wins he will be a huge ally to the NW.

[Slowpoke Martin]

Hahaha, I swear some of the people that post on this forum are probably reading heavily biased fan fiction versions of the books. Do people ever try to read without their personal bias glasses on?

Staying politically neutral has nothing to do with the Nights Watch oath, it is more of a practice so they don't get on anyone's bad side so they can continue to receive aid.

Stannis saved the Nights Watch from destruction, this is not an opinion, it is a fact. The northern lords did not help the Watch, the Lannisters didn't help the Watch, nobody helped the Watch except Stannis. The Nights Watch, not just Jon, owe everything to Stannis. Jon is doing the same thing Mormont would have done, the same thing every other Lord Commander would have done, he is helping the only ally the Nights Watch has left.

[Lion of the West]

8 hours ago, Slowpoke Martin said:

Hahaha, I swear some of the people that post on this forum are probably reading heavily biased fan fiction versions of the books. Do people ever try to read without their personal bias glasses on?

Staying politically neutral has nothing to do with the Nights Watch oath, it is more of a practice so they don't get on anyone's bad side so they can continue to receive aid.

Stannis saved the Nights Watch from destruction, this is not an opinion, it is a fact. The northern lords did not help the Watch, the Lannisters didn't help the Watch, nobody helped the Watch except Stannis. The Nights Watch, not just Jon, owe everything to Stannis. Jon is doing the same thing Mormont would have done, the same thing every other Lord Commander would have done, he is helping the only ally the Nights Watch has left.

This is some good stuff.

First you accuse people of reading fanfiction above the actual books, and then you kind of cut out one of the major elements of the Night's Watch by the "its not technically in the oath" stunt. By that freaking logic we can say that Jon has no authority to be a Lord Commander since no Lord Commander is mentioned in the oath, and thus no Black Brother has a duty to care for what any "Lord Commander" wants, nor does it say that they can't take extended leaves from the Wall at will etc.

[Bowen 747]

15 hours ago, Starkz said:

Having Stannis claim the North is the better option than letting the Bolton’s rule. It’s not like Jon has any love for the Bolton’s. Plus Stannis did save the NW from the Wildlings and when the dead and Winter come if Stannis wins he will be a huge ally to the NW.

That puts Jon in the wrong.  His job is to remain neutral.  Jon should have put the Stark family behind him and it should no longer matter to him who holds the north.  

[Starkz]

4 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

That puts Jon in the wrong.  His job is to remain neutral.  Jon should have put the Stark family behind him and it should no longer matter to him who holds the north.  

It should definitely matter to him who holds the North, it’s one of the most important things for the NW. When the NW says the dead are coming or ask for help, they need to know that the North will come to their aid and that they won’t be left out to dry. The Bolton’s could care less about the NW and if Jon asks for help from them when Winter comes do you really think they would? Stannis is the only one concerned about what is happening at the Wall and beyond. Either way Jon is forced to pick a side by helping Stannis or by helping the Bolton’s. By helping Stannis he also helps the NW and the Wall.

[Geddus]

On 8/18/2018 at 6:03 PM, John Suburbs said:

Well, I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion. Jon refused Stannis' request for the other castles and Stannis did not take them by force, so I don't see any reason why he would have done the same if Jon refused him the Nightfort. Stannis just got his ass kicked by Tywin on the Blackwater, and his only friends at the moment are the NW and the Karstarks, so the last thing he would want to do is make an enemy of the NW.

Stannis only has about 1500 men, so if he took all the castles by force, he would have to distribute them over 16 castles, none of which have any defenses against an attack from the south. If he takes just the NF, he could probably hold it, but then he will have to leave a garrison behind (which, again, would be vulnerable from the south) while he goes off warring against the Boltons.

Could Stannis take these castles by force? Of course. Would it be wise to do so? Not by a long shot.

So in the end, Jon did Stannis a courtesy by giving him the NF, basically as a thank-you for aiding the NW in its time of need. But Jon was in no way forced into doing this.

I think you answered better than I could: Jon gave Stannis the castle he could have easily taken by force anyway and refused him the others.

I mean, what was he to do? "Thanks for saving us, now get out of here" would not have ended well for Jon and the NW.

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Geddus said:

I think you answered better than I could: Jon gave Stannis the castle he could have easily taken by force anyway and refused him the others.

I mean, what was he to do? "Thanks for saving us, now get out of here" would not have ended well for Jon and the NW.

Well, let's game this out:

Stannis says to Jon "I want the Nightfort."

Jon says "No."

Stannis says, "OK, I'll take it by force" and then slays every black brother at Castle Black and marches his 1500 men to the empty castle.

Now what is Stannis supposed to do? He has just made the NW his enemy, which means he now has no chance of gaining the support of any northern house or clan. So he can either stay at the NF and wait for Bolton to lead the entire north to his seat that has absolutely no defense against an attack from the south, or he can march his pitiful army to the Dreadfort leaving, what, 50, 100 men? to guard his ruin while Roose gathers the strength of the north to battle this king who has just turned his cloak on their ancient, trusted ally, the NW. Either way, Stannis loses.

So as I said, yes, Stannis could easily take the NF by force, but in so doing he sacrifices his larger goal of sitting the Iron Throne. So why on earth would he trade the entire 7K for a dilapidated old ruin that doesn't even have a modest curtain wall for defense?

So if Jon said "No, you cannot have the Nightfort," no harm would have come to Jon or the NW. Stannis would do exactly what he did when Jon refused him the other castles: grumble and accept it.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

Jon's loyalties to House Stark is the root cause of his problems at the Wall.  Funny, because it is the two outcast, Arya and Jon, who are most loyal to the Starks.  They have the Stark look, and the violent tempers of the wolves too.

[Tagganaro]

2 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Jon's loyalties to House Stark is the root cause of his problems at the Wall.  Funny, because it is the two outcast, Arya and Jon, who are most loyal to the Starks.  They have the Stark look, and the violent tempers of the wolves too.

I'd say the "root cause" of Jon's problems at the Wall has nothing to do with Jon- it has to do with the decrepit and decaying nature of the Night's Watch and the officers who are a part of it (we get complaints from Mormont in book one right off the bat about Thorne, Marsh, etc.) and one of the biggest themes throughout Jon's arc is how the NW has decayed due to a lack of care by the 7 kingdoms and is now overrun by old men and criminals.  This problem has become exacerbated due to Mormont and what happened at the Fist of the First Men.  There simply (1) aren't enough men and (2) aren't enough "good" men serving the Watch at the point Jon inherits, which leads to his issues integrating the wildlings and navigating the tough political situation.

On 8/19/2018 at 11:14 AM, Bowen 747 said:

That puts Jon in the wrong.  His job is to remain neutral.  Jon should have put the Stark family behind him and it should no longer matter to him who holds the north.  

Since when is it his job to remain neutral?  His job is to protect the realm, and at least as it pertains to giving Stannis friendly advice that conferred what Jon saw as a benefit on the Watch (getting the 300 men the Watch so desperately needed) I don't even see how it's possible to debate this.  Why wouldn't Jon give Stannis, the man who saved the Watch and the only person who has shown an understanding of the importance of the NW and the war against the Others, any help he could at no cost to the Watch.

 

[Geddus]

11 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

So if Jon said "No, you cannot have the Nightfort," no harm would have come to Jon or the NW. Stannis would do exactly what he did when Jon refused him the other castles: grumble and accept it.

And what, get back on his ships and sail to Dragonstone? Come on.

Also, he wouldn't have needed to kill everyone at Castle Black, all he had to do was imprison Jon and threaten the others.

[Julia H.]

On 8/9/2018 at 8:56 PM, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

...instead of staying neutral?

Because neutrality has become a completely unrealistic expectation in the given political situation. Times change and it is not always possible to follow the same policy that worked hundreds or thousands of years ago. The LC's first duty is to protect the realm, and NW policy must serve that goal. At this point, insisting on neutrality would hinder this purpose rather than help it. Not to mention that not giving Stannis basic military information about the North would help the Boltons, so it wouldn't be "neutral" - it would only give advantage to the party that has not done anything to help the NW in dire need and, by extension, the realm.  

Neutrality only works when it is respected by the different parties involved. I find it deeply ironic how the NW's completely neutral plea for help was received by Tywin:

"It is not," Pycelle admitted, "but none of Mormont's men have returned as yet. Marsh fears the wildlings have killed them, and that the Wall itself may be attacked next." He fumbled in his robe and found the paper. "Here is his letter, my lord, a plea to all five kings. He wants men, as many men as we can send him."

"Five kings?" His father was annoyed. "There is one king in Westeros. Those fools in black might try and remember that if they wish His Grace to heed them. When you reply, tell him that Renly is dead and the others are traitors and pretenders."

Remember how much help they got from Tywin? LOL.

Stannis, on the other hand, showed that he is ready to honour a king's duty towards the realm. 

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

I understand that Stannis would get the NW castles anyway if he wanted. BUT Stannis never wanted/forced Jon to be his political advisor (kind of). Jon would stay neutral at some point if he wanted.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

I think people underestimate just how impossible Jon’s situation is. It’s all well and good to take no sides when the civil war is being thrashed out to the south, but what do you do when one of the claimants literally turns up at your doorstep, helps defend the Wall, then starts making demands of you?

Add to that that he’s the weakest claimant, and the strongest claimants all had a hand in killing various members of your family. Any aid given to Stannis is going to be perceived as treachery. All it took was for Cersei to hear that Stannis was at the Wall, and she was prepared to send Osney Kettleback with some kind of Seal Team 6 squad to murder Jon.

The only thing Jon could do was what he did up until the Pink Letter, which is help in minor ways but insist on the independence of the Watch, and refuse to directly intervene. Yes, it’s a fine line, which arguably he overstepped once or twice, but there really is no other option.

Jon’s chief concern is guarding against the Others. Stannis is promising his help to do that.

Is there an underlying sympathy for Stannis as opposed to the Boltons, Lannisters or Greyjoys? It would be strange if there were not, given that those three families killed off his entire family (as far as he knows), but he clearly recognises that and tries not to let that influence him too much. Whether he succeeds in that is I suppose the central debate here.

The Lord Commander has to treat with kings and navigate the politics of the North and the realm, while maintaining the Nights Watch’s independence. That’s easy enough when the realm is at peace, but when it’s riven by civil war and the Others and Wildlings are coming south, it’s much harder. Whether Jon likes it or not, as soon as he became Lord Commander he became part of the game.

[The Commentator]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:59 PM, Brightstar_ said:

...Because he's still a Stark and totally wants the Boltons to lose. I believe it's even mentioned in the books that he thinks it's probably not wise to support Stannis as much as he does because it does indeed imply that he's not completely neutral, as the NW should be, he just wants to subtly help Stannis overthrow the guys who murdered Robb and co.

Something a brother of the Watch should not do.  Jon is easily the worst commander since the Night’s King.  He’s more interested in fighting for the Starks than he is at doing his job.  He should convince Stannis to join the watch and make peace with the Bolton’s.  

[John Suburbs]

11 hours ago, Geddus said:

And what, get back on his ships and sail to Dragonstone? Come on.

Also, he wouldn't have needed to kill everyone at Castle Black, all he had to do was imprison Jon and threaten the others.

No, he would do exactly what he ended up doing: launch his campaign to win the north directly from Castle Black. How on earth do you think he would win one northern house or clan to his side if he imprisons the Lord Commander of the NW and threatens the black brothers with the same? The NW has been a loyal ally for the north for thousands of years and Stannis is a completely unknown southron king wannabe.

Sorry, but I fail to see your confusion. If Jon had no choice but to give Stannis the Nightfort due to Stannis' military superiority, then why did he have a choice when it came to the rest of the castles? Isn't Stannis' military superiority still intact at this point? What has changed?

[purrl1]

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the neutrality of the watch.

 

When the Night's Watch was founded, there was no realm called the Seven Kingdoms, nor was Westeros unified under a single ruler. It was many warring kingdoms and tribes. The men sent to the Watch were not poachers, thieves, and rapers. They were political prisoners, the losers in the intertribal conflicts. These Black Brothers were kings and lords and their heirs who had lost their kingdoms, and were spared to join the Watch. That is where the custom of neutrality came from--none of them were to take part in the wars among the kingdoms, nor take a side.

As the kingdoms became unified, and there were fewer of them, the kings and lords manned the Watch by sending their younger sons to serve, thus cutting down on the numbers of discontented young lordlings seeking lands for themselves and their heirs. This practice was continued by Northern houses and other First Men houses like House Royce.

The idea of the Wall as a last-chance prison for the dregs of society is a late development. I strongly suspect this practice became widespread after the Conquest, which ended much of the need for sending conquered kinglets and their sons to a neutral place. Fewer wars, fewer deposed rulers.

If the Targaryens had continued the original practices, then the Second Blackfyre Rebellion couldn't have occured, as the Blackfyres would have been serving in the Watch, sworn to heirlessness, landlessness, and crownlessness.

You'll notice that even at present, there are vestiges of this practice, like the Riverland lords Jaime sends to the Wall.

 

None of this history prepares Jon Snow for remaining neutral in the face of one king coming to aid the Watch in the fight against the Others, while another regime plots to destroy both him and the Watch. Yes, Tywin tried to have his choice elected as LC, Cersei wanted Jon assassinated, and Roose has issued threats on Jon and the Watch. I really don't see how neutrality is possible, not in the original sense of taking the part of one kinglet over another in the intertribal wars that preceded the Conquest, as the war has been brought to the Watch's doorstep!

[teej6]

11 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Because neutrality has become a completely unrealistic expectation in the given political situation. Times change and it is not always possible to follow the same policy that worked hundreds or thousands of years ago. The LC's first duty is to protect the realm, and NW policy must serve that goal. At this point, insisting on neutrality would hinder this purpose rather than help it. Not to mention that not giving Stannis basic military information about the North would help the Boltons, so it wouldn't be "neutral" - it would only give advantage to the party that has not done anything to help the NW in dire need and, by extension, the realm.  

Neutrality only works when it is respected by the different parties involved. I find it deeply ironic how the NW's completely neutral plea for help was received by Tywin:

"It is not," Pycelle admitted, "but none of Mormont's men have returned as yet. Marsh fears the wildlings have killed them, and that the Wall itself may be attacked next." He fumbled in his robe and found the paper. "Here is his letter, my lord, a plea to all five kings. He wants men, as many men as we can send him."

"Five kings?" His father was annoyed. "There is one king in Westeros. Those fools in black might try and remember that if they wish His Grace to heed them. When you reply, tell him that Renly is dead and the others are traitors and pretenders."

Remember how much help they got from Tywin? LOL.

Stannis, on the other hand, showed that he is ready to honour a king's duty towards the realm. 

There’s also this from Tywin:

“...wildlings will flood the north”, his father finished, “and the Starks and Greyjoys will have another enemy to contend with. They no longer wish to be subject to the Iron Throne, it would seem, so by what right do they look to the Iron Throne for aid? King Robb and King Balin both claim the north. Let them defend it, if they can. And if not, this Mance Rayder might even prove an useful ally.”