Is Jon to blame? #NotMyKing

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Well it's sort of unclear to what Jon is referring to and to what Mance's actual plans are past getting south of the Wall.  I think unquestionably if Stannis didn't show up Mance wins the Battle of the Wall and can get his people south of it.  But beyond that?  Yeah tough to say.  He'd have no chance against a united North but that is obviously not what is going on in ASOS/AD

No Jon is clearly referring to what he sees as Mance leading an invasion force in the northern province of the seven Kingdoms -the same province to which will lack plenty males and military commanders because of a civil war that took them south. With all those factored in mind, Jon still sees Mance to be leading the Wildlings to their deaths.

[Mordred]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:05 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Is Jon to blame by us or the Watch for allowing the Wildlings and sworn enemy to pass? When the decision comes from "King" Stannis. Does this conflict with their vows and staying out of southern affairs?

 

The Night's Watch takes no part in the affairs of the South, but what happens when a king or a queen comes to the Wall? What happens when they order the Wildlings through the wall and settled in the gift?

Well, what happens when a queen comes North and orders land handed over to the Watch as the New Gift? Or orders the Night's Watched closed and a new castle built? Or orders the Lords and Nights Watch to end first Night? What would have happened if Alysanne had ordered the Wildlings through the Wall and settled in the gift? 
 

Would the Lord Commander fight said King or Queen? Resist? To what end? What if violence is threatened against the Watch? Does the Lord Commander have the right? His castles don't defend against the southern lords. 

Should Jon defy Stannis and refuse? What then? Would Stannis give Jon to the flames? Would there be war? Is it in Jon's power to obey the King, and or defy the King? How so, when you cannot defend your self against any king inflicting his will?

 

Edit- Im personally greatly interested in how Benjen and Eddard planned to settle the gift

Edit, Edit- This post in no way is questioning the reason's Jon was stabbed, which were for leading a group to Winterfell to rescue his sister. 

Jon could have resisted Stannis more but he did not because they had a mutual interests in fighting the Boltons.  Which is really stupid because fighting the warden of the north will end up killing thousands of men that could be used to fight the white walkers.  Stannis should have offered to take the black in exchange for Roose sending trusted observers to the wall to witness for themselves the army of the dead.  And I am working on the assumption that the armies of the dead are intent on attacking the wall.  Which they may not be.  That could be the biggest red herring in the series.  A perceived threat from afar that led Mormont to take the force of the watch into enemy territory.  

Bowen Marsh should send Jon's remains to Winterfell to repledge the watch into neutral status.  Lay the blame on Jon and Stannis instead.  The watch should never have been involved in the feud between Ramsay and Jon.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Why?  Again Jon is explicitly thinking to himself that he doesn't want their support, why would he look for it then?  Why would the brothers cheer this scenario, which is like the worst possible thing that could happen to the NW?  There's a reason why Clydas is terrified by the Pink Letter.  Jon can have widespread support for most of his actions but not have it for something like this, which even Jon himself realizes is beyond the pale.

Cheer may be a leap-but an expression of some approval to Jon’s decision not to roll over for Ramsey I think could be expected. But the severity of the situation can damper their mood, and even if they all were super fans of his they could all recognize it as folly. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

I wonder if the PL was meant to get Jon away from the Wall and in a place to where he could help no one or cause massive infighting. Like it’s a very real possibility Jon stages an ambush well beyond where he’d see Stannis’ army is intact given he’d wouldn’t head directly towards Wintfel because doing so would have just resulted in the wildlings freezing and starving to death outside its walls.

[Mordred]

12 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

I mostly agree with everything Jon did in ADWD, but would argue that if you're a stickler for neutrality above all else, he clearly broke it. 

The initial decision to let the wildlings into the realm was made by Stannis, but Jon was clearly in favour of it and did everything he could to support it (like rewriting the agreement with Tormund in the wildlings' favour) without regard for how the Bolton or Lannister regimes would see it. It didn't stop there, either. He gave Stannis a castle, arms and armour, strategic advice, guides to reach the clansmen, warned him about the Karstark betrayal and helped him establish a loan with the Iron Bank. He hitched his wagon to Stannis in many ways, not just in terms of letting the wildlings through, because Stannis would be of greatest benefit to the Watch and the war against the Others (and, probably, because he wanted some vengeance against the Boltons). I would blame him for none of that, but a more diplomatic Lord Commander wouldn't be contorting himself to help one pretender over another. 

You can debate that.  What is beyond doubt is the inappropriateness of his actions with regards to:

The execution of Janos Slynt.  Clearly it was revenge against his father's enemy.  Forgiving Mance Rayder's crimes against the Night's Watch.  Because he wanted to use the wild man to get his sister for him.  A breach of ethics because he placed his personal wants ahead of his sworn duties.  Intentions to attack the Warden Of The North.  This is the biggest crime from a commander since the Night's King.  At least the N/K wasn't going to lead an attack against a noble.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

I mostly agree with everything Jon did in ADWD, but would argue that if you're a stickler for neutrality above all else, he clearly broke it. 

The initial decision to let the wildlings into the realm was made by Stannis, but Jon was clearly in favour of it and did everything he could to support it (like rewriting the agreement with Tormund in the wildlings' favour) without regard for how the Bolton or Lannister regimes would see it. It didn't stop there, either. He gave Stannis a castle, arms and armour, strategic advice, guides to reach the clansmen, warned him about the Karstark betrayal and helped him establish a loan with the Iron Bank. He hitched his wagon to Stannis in many ways, not just in terms of letting the wildlings through, because Stannis would be of greatest benefit to the Watch and the war against the Others (and, probably, because he wanted some vengeance against the Boltons). I would blame him for none of that, but a more diplomatic Lord Commander wouldn't be contorting himself to help one pretender over another. 

Meh, playing  neutral isn’t always practical. Trying to have an appearance of neutrality tends to be.  Most of Jon’s aid to Stannis I find no problem  most of the aid that’s public knowledge  could be said to have been compelled, and any of  his advice to Stannis, I see as totally fine to have shared given if Stannis and his cronies die no one is going to bring it up because all the people who heard it would be dead. Don’t even have a problem with him allowing Mance and the spear-wives to go get Arya-so long as Jon makes it absolutely clear that Mance and crew should deliver her to Stannis to give Stannis another edge on his opponents. The way Jon aided Stannis through the whole Karstark affair however sloppily done however. Jon should have had Cregan killed or had some of the queens man be the one to confront Cregan and lock him in the ice cells and have one of them appear as the one truly in charge at Castle black-making the story of Jon being compelled to service Stannis that much easier to sell if Stannis were to lose and Jon was called onto explain himself-but the way he played it out makes it so that, if Stannis loses he is probably fucked-he literally was found to have assaulted and held prisoner an ally(although a secret one) of the Boltons and Creagan would be all to happy to tell of how Jon was willfully  complicit in Stannis’ “treason” and cannot be allowed to remain as lord commander.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

We have Mormont's own thoughts on the matter after the Battle at the Fist of the First Men.  Mormont himself thinks the Wall wasn't built to keep the wildlings out and explicitly connects wildings to the realms of men the Night's Watch is supposed to protect (the same exact epiphany Jon comes to in ADWD before enacting his plan to let Tormund through).  Of course Jon does not know this as Mormont never makes it back.  

Oh no I completely understand Jeor comes across the understanding of the original purpose of the wall to keep out ice-zombies -however that doesn’t mean he'd for sure be in favor of literally allowing tens of thousands of wildlings through the wall.  The point is that even Jon doesn’t agree with this idea of every brother whoever fought against the wights/others to agree with policies to be true true(and I imagine he’d really like to do so). Hell plenty of the wildlings who’ve lost people firsthand to wights and have been fighting them for years don’t apparently see unity as the best way to survival since there’s a real chance of the majority of them going over to the Weeper-I don’t see why the scum that makes up the brotherhood would be for sure be more “enlightened” and think working together is needed. 

Oh and I apologize for the little nitpick on you using others in reference to wights. I understood what you meant but I do feel that in discussion of the others and wights.

[bemused]

I hardly know where to start. I feel that a lot of what is being discussed here (pro and con) has it's foundation in some basic differences of opinion of what is going on in the big picture. I'll try to be succinct.

On 10/17/2018 at 4:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ramsey should be alerted to the fact Jon just left the wall with some wildling-like hasn’t really made his little venture to recruit Tormund a that big of a secret, the umbers could easily send message to house Bolton letting them know their movements in land. But even if the Umbers(being the opportunistic bastards they are), didn’t spill the beans  ....<snip>.....They will fight like they usually fight-not really disciplined, and concerned with their own glory.

The Umbers were fiercely loyal to Robb and Ned before him and presumably Rickard, and so on, going back for a long stretch, so I don't know why we should see them as opportunistic bastards... Furthermore, the whole north knows that Roose had to have a hand in the RW, or he wouldn't have come away as Warden of the North, with his own forces (miraculously) relatively intact when all the other houses have been depleted (while under his orders).

... And this brings us to one of those fundamental differences I mentioned. I don't know whether you think so, or not ... but I do believe that there is a GNC, or what I sometimes call the Resistance (to distinguish my own thoughts from some of the GNC versions I differ with). There are many different fine-tuned versions that various readers subscribe to, but (differing details aside) all see the whole north working against the Boltons to restore WF to the Starks.

Northern leaders are aware of Bran and Rickon's survival, and may well be aware of Robb's wishes for his succession.

I wouldn't be expecting the Umbers to be forwarding any genuine information to Roose. Their whole pretense of splitting their loyalties came in response to Stannis deciding to move when he did , Thus complicating the plans that the Resistance already had in motion. That meant that it was necessary to have men with Stannis (Umbers, clans, Aly Mormont, etc.) as well as with Roose - in a bid to prevent either one from controlling WF (or "Arya") when the dust settled. ... (Should we think that Flint and Norrey came to CB for the wedding, or to deliver wet nurses? No. They're there to determine whether Jon has actually become Stannis' man, since he sent Stannis to appeal to them. They're staying a bit to judge how Jon handles command (especially if they're in the know about Robb's wishes or other important information). ..They were also present for Jon's reasoning that every wildling left north of the wall will swell the enemy's ranks. ETA: This was hard to refute, even for Bowen.

Jon wasn't being secretive about it (that would be hopeless) but there really hasn't been time for the north at large to learn about Tormund's people. The North can know about those that Stannis let through, but that boiled down to only 300 fighting men.

Quote

They will fight like they usually fight-not really disciplined, and concerned with their own glory.

These ideas were floated early on to Jon, before Mance comes into the story and they don't fully take into account the progress Mance made by uniting them, giving them one leader - a king - to follow. Whatever was said to Jon , how can we ignore the evidence that we see later ?

1. - We see the free folk follow Mance's orders over their own inclinations. We see Styr hold to his mission. Mance had to best him 3 times before he would accept Mance's leadership, but after that, he obeys,... We see the Weeper (of all people) and his men stay true to their mission - "attacking", then running away - drawing foolish Bowen away from CB for miles and miles, without turning to indulge the impulse to seek individual battle and personal glory, until he was too far away to be any help to CB.

2.- We see mounted spearmen training.  We see evidence of Mance incorporating the use of formations (e,g, wedge) ... and Mance's first attack at CB was far from undisciplined. 

On 10/17/2018 at 4:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The displined soldiers(to which the boltons have a monopoly of), would immediate crumble in the face of Tormund and his men coming out screaming-like guerila warfare typically relies quick attacks on small groups and quick retreats to some place safe-Tormund and Jon have no such refuge, they can’t  do guerrila warfare, they’re many to simply disappear, and the army they group they’re attacking is too big, for them to use such hit and run and tactics to be effective. 

Not all guerilla tactics are hit and run, that's just one tactic. What I'm referring to is sending out scouts to discover which way the enemy is approaching, and lying in wait. (ambush)

I don't know how many men you think Ramsay will have, but it won't be the majority of Bolton men. Roose would not be wanting to wait in WF, outnumbered by men whose leaders doesn't trust ....  It won't include men from the other houses, also because they're not really trusted by Roose . ... Ramsay  would know better than to be taking a very large force to try to overtake a small group (Theon, Jeyne and escort) who can move relatively quickly as compared to a large army.

Battlefield soldiers are not what Jon wants in this case. He does want men who will follow his orders and strategy.. but he wants men who can adapt to the landscape and are well used to deep snow conditions.

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And everyone did not despise Janos-this is projecting the general sentiment felt by the fandom onto the character. Again Jon and his friends thought him the most likely candidate to actually win the position of LC before Sam fear-mongered to Mallister and Pyke. They do in fact despise Alliser. 

I think this is a bit dishonest ..They didn't like Slynt. They didn't know him. It must have been obvious to anyone that he was a blowhard (even without knowing his history) ... Mallister and Pyke had their men's proxys and Thorne and Bowen were convincing other contenders to drop out and scaring them by saying Tywin favored Slynt... Hinting that there would be repercussions from KL if Slynt was not elected.. So thank goodness for Sam (and Bloodraven), I say.

Re: Mormont women - I don't recall whether any of them mentioned being raided by wildlings, who have only small skin boats. It's one thing to cross the bay of seals (and not all of them make it) but surely something else again to try to raid Bear Island . I thought it was primarily Ironborn they were defending against.

Re: The Weeper - What's the panic? He may or may not try the Shadow Tower (if he does, maybe he'll survive, or not).... Jon is not planning to just open the door and let him in.... He'll be offered the same terms that Jon made in Mole's Town and to Tormund. If he takes them and reneges he'll be dealt with... maybe even by some of his own followers if he's spoiling their chance for refuge. 

Don't you think Jon has the possibilities figured?

Anyway that's it for me.. I'm working on a thread of my own ATM and this has been a distraction (I'm a sucker for the northern storyline).

               

[Tagganaro]

@Varysblackfyre321 I Enjoy discussing things with you as always, but can you try to put all the quotes in 1 post- just easier to respond to for me. 

22 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There really is; the wildlings who Jon would allow in were trying  just a few months ago trying to murder them and have been murdering them  (as well as torturing them), for centuries.  That is reason alone for most to  to  not approve  any arrangement to which allows them across the wall. The wounds are still fresh.Also  Marsh has been made clear the core of his support comes from the builders and stewards-people who make up the clear majority of the brotherhood seeing as Marsh’s viewed are very isolationist one can conclude that his views on how to deal with the wildlings is the predominant one. Mallister and Pyke make clear when Jon actually sends them wildlings males(although not in the best condition admitably), that their views are similar to Marsh in terms of the wildlings; They both make readily apparent they do not see the wildlings being warranted any monicum of trust, Pyke went as far as to declare them totally worthless (they weren’t there were plenty of tasks that could do), other than the fact he could perhaps hang them(which I could imagine him doing), just to send a message to the wildlings. Jon’s radical policies are not presented as though they are popular. 

I don't doubt the wounds are fresh nor that some people share Marsh's views- I doubt that everyone or even a vast majority agree with Marsh.  And I also say with confidence that we as readers are supposed to agree with Jon- Marsh is a racist idiot and despite Jon's efforts, which at times were not enough, the fact of the matter is he could never convince Marsh he was right.  Mallister and Pyke refusing the workers shows little to nothing about their views of Jon's policies- as Jon himself would admit and does think, the wildlings tend to be undisciplined and have trouble taking orders.  It would be weirder still for them not to complain about getting the wildlings, but as Jon notes and as we know, that's all the manpower that can really be spared.  That's a major reason why Jon allows Tormund through in the first place.

Quote

Can you list the instances where we see Jon getting praised for his radical policies concerning the wildlings  by his brothers?    I do not mean point to instances to where they follow his ordered with no complaint.

Can you list the non-Bowen Marsh instances where we see Jon getting criticized for his "radical policies?"  Marsh is a known racist idiot who supports genocide over common decency.  Jon continually makes him look like an idiot when Marsh speaks up about his racist views and Marsh has no response.  He flat out accuses Jon of treason atop the Wall and Jon makes him look like such an idiot he comically turns red and gulps and shuts his mouth.  

Quote

Yeah the reason is, Pyke and Mallister were being childish pricks. Each hated the prospect the other being lord Commander so much that would when Sam said Stannis would pick the other they threw their support behind Jon as a way to avoid such a (in their eyes) horrifying outcome. They do not do throw their lot(and by extension the men under their command at their castles) with Jon because they like Jon as a person or  his ideas or even because they they think Jon has done anything in his career as a black brother or his life to actually  earn the position. They throw their lot in with Jon to spite each other. Mallister may also  have been slightly also influenced to say yes to the idea of voting for Jon by his thoughts of only nobles having any business to be of the position of lord commander-I’m sure if it was up to him he’d literally have it so that blood and upbringing are things that make one even  eligible to try for the position. Jon though a bastard did grow apart of the higher caste and was sired by a respectable noble man(Ned) near the highest rank.  Sam makes perfectly clear Slynt was the only one who was the only one to gain votes as time passed, and one of the first things he did when arrived at the wall was arrest Jon and promise to see Jon executed. 

Actually, they do throw their lot in with Jon because of what he has done.  To say Jon didn't win based on his own merits is ridiculous- otherwise literally any other NW member would have been LC and there wouldn't have been a speech about all Jon's accomplishments, which are numerous.  Yes, Sam plays Pyke and Mallister against each other, but that is it.  Otherwise Slynt would be LC.

Quote

The small group Ulmer spoke were not noted to show approval or disapproval at Jon decision-drawings conclusions of support for Jon seems wrong. The rangers who are in the clear minority obey Jon and dislike Marsh; where it’s really show they are in favor of what Jon is doing in terms of letting all  the wildlings in? Even scum such as the weeper?And a ton of friends? This is a stretch. He has at best been to be shown to haven gotten the obedience/friendship  of most the recruits he signed up with; most are dead and Pyp and Grenn have lost much of their adulation for Jon since he has become lord commander; in their eyes he’s showing no appreciation for having kept his neck out of the noose by helping to insure Jon got elected instead of Slynt.

If GRRM wanted to show disapproval, he would have shown disapproval.  Obedience = approval in this world.  They support Jon's decision because they support Jon- they picked him as LC for a  reason.  Please cite to me in the text where Pyp and Green lost respect for Jon?  This simply doesn't happen.  They want him to eat with them one time but he doesn't.

21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Where are you getting the majority of them look up to Jon? 

I didn't say majority, I said many, which speaks for itself when they go to the Weirwood grove with him.

Quote

They don’t really don’t show support of Jon. After his announcement they may be open to the idea of Jon having  some semblance of competence but they don’t pretend the issue of the wildlings renegading on their agreement is no longer a major thing to worry about.  They’d be fools to take complete comfort in that Jon has hostages from the wildlings. Especially when Jon plans on bring that psychopath Weeper over.  The Norrey cpoints to how the moutain clans had rebelled against WF after hostages were given and asks Jon(who he has the gaul to call boy), if he’d really execute the hostages when it came down to it-it’s clear he wasn’t won over to Jon’s idea being good or thought it likely to succeed with now having the knowledge of the hostages.

Except that's exactly what they do- they take comfort in the fact Jon has hostages.  One of them literally muses in an impressed manner "You got Tormund to agree to this?" and says "aye, why not".  The other questions whether Jon has the stones to kill them and Jon has the best comeback ever.  We do not hear any disapproval from them anymore- Jon even thinks right afterwards "yet even that did not appease Marsh" meaning he thinks the other 2 were appeased.  Then of course Jon exposes Marsh for being a fool.

Quote

It’s not just some bitter racists everyone hates that against Jon’s policies-again it’s likely the majority that are against Jon’s radical policies concerning the wildlingss, Mallister and Pyke show they are in alighnment with Marsh’s view bringing so many wildlings to be a bad idea-again Pyke seems to genuinely want to straight up execute the wildlings Jon sent over and Marsh has been noted as having the group that make up the majority of the watch as his core base, whenever Marsh is talked by a arrange Jon notes anger coming from the builders and stewards-his political views clearly are not rarity amongst the brotherhood. And everyone did not despise Janos-this is projecting the general sentiment felt by the fandom onto the character. Again Jon and his friends thought him the most likely candidate to actually win the position of LC before Sam fear-mongered to Mallister and Pyke. They do in fact despise Alliser. 

Again you keep saying it's not just some bitter racists but it is- the only people we see speak up against Jon are Marsh and Yarwyck, who have both been discredited by literally every single other character (hell, even Mormont speaks lowly of them in the first book).  You are reading a lot into Pyke and Mallister's complaints about Jon sending wildling workers over to him that simply isn't there- again if they had an issue they could have spoke up but we have no evidence they did.  Marsh certainly doesn't have a problem speaking up.

Everyone who knows Janos thinks lowly of him.  He's gaining votes because of the impasse between Mallister and Pyke who everyone knows can't win without the other's support.  They are turning to Janos based on the fact that he rose to head of the Gold Cloaks- the same thing Jon thinks to himself before trying to send Janos to Greyguard ("he can't possibly be as stupid as he seems"- but no Janos really is as stupid as he seems). The more people get to know him, the more they react like Othell Yarwyck or Stannis.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No Jon is clearly referring to what he sees as Mance leading an invasion force in the northern province of the seven Kingdoms -the same province to which will lack plenty males and military commanders because of a civil war that took them south. With all those factored in mind, Jon still sees Mance to be leading the Wildlings to their deaths.

I disagree- We still don't actually know what Mance's real plan was.  Jon is responding to Ygritte's boast that Mance will show the kneelers that they don't own the land- that is clear but what is also clear is that Mance doesn't actually intend to lead an invasion.  He is literally fleeing for his life.  Jon is comparing what Mance is doing to previous Kings Beyond the Wall here as if Mance is truly trying to invade the 7 Kingdoms- but Mance is not trying to do that at all, a thing he laments about when he says he's not like the other Kings, he's just running past the Wall with his tail tucked.

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh no I completely understand Jeor comes across the understanding of the original purpose of the wall to keep out ice-zombies -however that doesn’t mean he'd for sure be in favor of literally allowing tens of thousands of wildlings through the wall.  The point is that even Jon doesn’t agree with this idea of every brother whoever fought against the wights/others to agree with policies to be true true(and I imagine he’d really like to do so). Hell plenty of the wildlings who’ve lost people firsthand to wights and have been fighting them for years don’t apparently see unity as the best way to survival since there’s a real chance of the majority of them going over to the Weeper-I don’t see why the scum that makes up the brotherhood would be for sure be more “enlightened” and think working together is needed. 

Oh and I apologize for the little nitpick on you using others in reference to wights. I understood what you meant but I do feel that in discussion of the others and wights.

We can agree to disagree on this one, but I think the fact that Mormont has the same exact ephiphany as Jon is meant to convey he would support that idea.  He thinks to himself about the specific line in the NW oath about protecting the realms of men.  Then he says the Wall's true purpose was not to keep the wildlings out.  This is the exact same thought Jon had before sending Val out to treat with Tormund.  It is certainly highly suggestive of the fact that had Mormont made it back, at the very least he would pursue peace talks with Mance.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Cheer may be a leap-but an expression of some approval to Jon’s decision not to roll over for Ramsey I think could be expected. But the severity of the situation can damper their mood, and even if they all were super fans of his they could all recognize it as folly. 

Maybe there was an expression of some approval- again we're in Jon's head and we know he is not looking for that nor does he want it.  He wants and needs the wildling reaction which is what he gets and what he looks for.

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Quote

 

Actually, they do throw their lot in with Jon because of what he has done.  To say Jon didn't win based on his own merits is ridiculous- otherwise literally any other NW member would have been LC and there wouldn't have been a speech about all Jon's accomplishments, which are numerous.  Yes, Sam plays Pyke and Mallister against each other, but that is it.  Otherwise Slynt would be LC

Please point to an action of Jon  or something Jon has said that Malister and Pyke  each cite  as a reason for why they chose Jon.  Not just any one could be picked.  To even get Malister to even think of supporting you would have to be part of the nobility that governs which in disqualifies 99% of the watch altogether from being on the list. Jon is one of the few men of proper blood left in the brotherhood who hasn’t capitulated to Slynt. His line of thinking isn’t extrodinary; in the watch those with noble lineage get the best positions; it’s why the watch even had 10 year old as lord commander because the boy was a Stark. And if Mallister and Pyke legitimately think Stannis would interfere in the election there is no way they think he’s going to actually abide a Lannister lackey like Slynt as their Lord commander.

 

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Except that's exactly what they do- they take comfort in the fact Jon has hostages.  One of them literally muses in an impressed manner "You got Tormund to agree to this?" and says "aye, why not".  The other questions whether Jon has the stones to kill them and Jon has the best comeback ever.  We do not hear any disapproval from them anymore- Jon even thinks right afterwards "yet even that did not appease Marsh" meaning he thinks the other 2 were appeased.  Then of course Jon exposes Marsh for being a fool.

If they were confident that the hostages were a foolproof plan Noorey would not bring up how moutain clans themselves have broken such an arrangement. They clearly have massive reservation on the the actual possibility of this plan to succeed. 

And rightfully so; there will be families to which would sell one of their children for the slaughter to save the rest from starvation if the weeper promised them food,  and those willing to do it in order to avoid committing sacrilege(hell Val herself makes very clear she will fight if the alternative is having to give up the old gods for peace), so even the potential backlash against the Weeper for having broken the peace can’t be sure counted on as being enough to make  him rebelling not a thing to worry about.  And there’s the fact for all they know the wildlings will face starvation-and the lands of the moutain clans would be all the more tempting to try to raid them, Jon’s only rebut on how he would deal with feeding the wildlings is sell their valuebles-to which he is immediately mocked because they have none. Bad call on his part not to be transparent with having secured s line of credit from the ironbank.

It is still a risk. A worthwhile one in Jon’s eyes since it deprives the others of potential subjects  but still. 

Seriously, Daenerys tried the exact same thing Jon apparently wants to do with Weeper and crew-it did not stop the rebellions in Meereen by the slavers. Hostages do not mean there will never be a uprising-they just (hopefully), help lessen an outcome such as that happening conserably.

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Quote

 

Can you list the non-Bowen Marsh instances where we see Jon getting criticized for his "radical policies?"  Marsh is a known racist idiot who supports genocide over common decency.  Jon continually makes him look like an idiot when Marsh speaks up about his racist views and Marsh has no response.  He flat out accuses Jon of treason atop the Wall and Jon makes him look like such an idiot he comically turns red and gulps and shuts his mouth

Marsh is shown to have the core backing comes from the groups that that make up a clear majority of the watch. If his views were only appealing an insignificant minority he would not be framed as having their support. So, what exactly are pointing to show there’s broad support for Jon’s radical policies other than Marsh is usually around(given he actually is in a position of authority using him as a spokesman to express general sentiment ), to actually criticize Jon’s policies to Jon’s face? It’s not likely the common steward is going to bitch directly to Jon on how he thinks he’s ruining the watch. You say a ton of brothers have been supportive of Jon; where are you getting that they like his policies? Why the quatation around  “radical policies”

 The definition for the radical seems to perfectly fit to describe Robb’s policies;

: very different from the usual or traditional : EXTREMEb: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutionsc: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

Its not even saying they’re all bad-but the watch could really have benefitted from radical changes long ago.

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Again you keep saying it's not just some bitter racists but it is- the only people we see speak up against Jon are Marsh and Yarwyck, who have both been discredited by literally every single other character (hell, even Mormont speaks lowly of them in the first book).  You are reading a lot into Pyke and Mallister's complaints about Jon sending wildling workers over to him that simply isn't there- again if they had an issue they could have spoke up but we have no evidence they did.  Marsh certainly doesn't have a problem speaking up.

And Queen Selye(I cannot believe I forgot her-weird). She agrees with Marsh on Jon needing to stop the migration.  Now she herself is gross. I don’t mean physically, she’s a religious zealot and shown to be quite mean. But she doesn’t hate the wildlings. She certainly views them as inferior but seems to agree with the idea that they can be made “proper”, and assimilated into their feudal society. Her reasons for why Jon should not allow anymore is simply she doesn’t think he can actually feed them. If Marsh views were in the minority’s he would not have the expressed approval  of the builders and stewards; they would not angry when he is mocked by the rangers in public, he would if he was at present so unpopular would not have the groups who are the majority as his his support base. Mallister and Pyke clearly from their letters do not thinking trying unite with the wildlings will work. They see no use for them. They do not trust them to do as something as meager as clean a chamber pot. Pyke express just wanting to straight up kill the ones Jon sends. They are at their respective castles they started there way there long before Jon started allowing Wildlings to freely pass-do you expect them to travel all the way to Castle black just to reiterate that they find the idea of working with the wildlings stupid? To write letters every with the same exact message of trusting the wildlings to be useless endeavor?

Seriously you say “We get a pretty good sense that the NW is pretty divided with rangers supporting Jon and stewards and builders not“ yet you contend it’s only some bitter racists who aren’t supporting Jon-which is it? Is an extreme minority despised by the majority of the watch who don’t support Jon or not? 

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Jon himself would admit and does think, the wildlings tend to be undisciplined and have trouble taking orders.  It would be weirder still for them not to complain about getting the wildlings, but as Jon notes and as we know, that's all the manpower that can really be spared.

Oh please, you’re sugar-coating it; these men are as prejudiced against wildlings as Marsh. They do not trust them. They see no use for the wildlings. And they are unwilling to even try after these wildlings show they are willing to cooperate and take orders by even coming to the castles in the first place.

A lot of the readers agree with Jon’s decisions; that doesn’t the majority characters in-universe must. You’re position of we are readers are supposed agree with Jon even if true(I make no claim against   its validity), that does mean most characters in-universe must. Plenty novels feature protagonist in a societices to which most people who make up that society disagree completely with said protagonist on things that the protagonist is framed as being in the right in.

Truth be told I find the idea of the idea it being that the vast majority of the watch having not gone through Jon’s experiences, have not seen much less fought a wight, arrived at Jon’s conclusion that the wildlings(the people who’ve been torturing and murdering their brothers since as far back as they can remember),  have to be let through the wall and there should be attempts at teamwork   ridiculous. 

And quite frankly it would lessen the total import of Jon’s experiences with the Wights; his interaction with these monsters codified his understanding whatever the risk in bringing the wildlings it is better than leaving them out to turn; it cheapens it if he or the average brother would have arrived at such conclusion without these experiences. 

 

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

 

 Everyone 

 Please, if you want to argue a significant portion of the watch dislikes or even distrusts Slynt, fine, but it isn’t portrayed as if he is universally despised by everyone in the watch.

 

13 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

If GRRM wanted to show disapproval, he would have shown disapproval.  Obedience = approval in this world.  They support Jon's decision because they support Jon- they picked him as LC for a  reason.  Please cite to me in the text where Pyp and Green lost respect for Jon?  This simply doesn't happen.  They want him to eat with them one time but he doesn't.

Obedience=/approval. Stannis did not approve of Robert bankrupting the country by virtue of not refusing to follow his orders. Marsh obeyed Jon for the majority of ADWD-he was outspoken in his dissatisfaction with Jon’s policies. Hell Tywin obeyed Aerys well after he went straight up bonkers and started to make dumb decisions. Just because one obeys ordes does not mean they approve of them.

If GRRM wanted to show disapproval of Jon’s policies he could have shown the workers and Stewards, were supporting a man apart of the watch’s hierarchy who is outspoken in his opposition of Jon’s policies.  He did. 

Can you actually cite times to which brothers have actually said they approved of Jon’s policies concerning the wildlings? You say they’ve been shown to be supportive; what are you looking at that gives you the impression they actually agree with Jon in regards to it’d be a good a idea to let in and work with the wildlings? 

Malister and Pyke picked Jon because his name was put forth and Mallister and Pyke were childish who hated each other so much they would rather have Jon as LC if it meant the other wouldn’t be. If you don’t think the root cause of their decision is their hatred of each other please point to some action by Jon they give for a reason for why he should be Lord commander.  Truly,what valiant deeds has Jon done to which they say make him the right person for the job? 

It’s not just about the dinner-they feel Jon no longer appreciates them since they got him elected: Sam AFFC I”Ohhh. The Great Lord Snow. To be sure. Why do you want to see him? He can't even wiggle his ears." Pyp wiggled his, to show he could. They were large ears, and red from cold. "He's Lord Snow for true now, too bloody highborn for the likes of us."Jon has duties," Sam said in his defense. "The Wall is his, and all that goes with it." A man has duties to his friends as well. If not for us, Janos Slynt might be our lord commander. Lord Janos would have sent Snow ranging naked on a mule. 'Scamper on up to Craster's Keep,' he would have said, 'and fetch me back the Old Bear's cloak and boots.' We saved him from that, but now he has too many duties to drink a cup of mulled wine by the fire?"

Grenn agreed. "His duties don't keep him from the yard. More days than not, he's out there fighting someone."

That was true, Sam had to admit. 

Its' not merely a matter of simp;y coming to eat with them one time, they have a sense of Jon having abandoned them after his asension as lord commander.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I didn't say majority, I said many, which speaks for itself when they go to the Weirwood grove with him.

Jon tagged along with them, they did not decide to go take their vows in the weir woods because they thought he personally would like it. My mistake. You did say many. But the example you given doesn’t really back up your claim-what are you pointing to which show they  look up to him?

 

4 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I disagree- We still don't actually know what Mance's real plan was.  Jon is responding to Ygritte's boast that Mance will show the kneelers that they don't own the land- that is clear but what is also clear is that Mance doesn't actually intend to lead an invasion.  He is literally fleeing for his life.  Jon is comparing what Mance is doing to previous Kings Beyond the Wall here as if Mance is truly trying to invade the 7 Kingdoms- but Mance is not trying to do that at all, a thing he laments about when he says he's not like the other Kings, he's just running past the Wall with his tail tucked.

We don’t really need to know what Mance’s plan was; we have Jon’s own thinking on what he thinks he’s trying to do(war with the feudal society of the north), and its clear he sees such a thing as doomed to fail.

Apologies for the multiple quotes. Seriously, my bad there.

[Annalee]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:05 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

The Night's Watch takes no part in the affairs of the South, but what happens when a king or a queen comes to the Wall? What happens when they order the Wildlings through the wall and settled in the gift?

Well, what happens when a queen comes North and orders land handed over to the Watch as the New Gift? Or orders the Night's Watched closed and a new castle built? Or orders the Lords and Nights Watch to end first Night? What would have happened if Alysanne had ordered the Wildlings through the Wall and settled in the gift? 
 

Would the Lord Commander fight said King or Queen? Resist? To what end? What if violence is threatened against the Watch? Does the Lord Commander have the right? His castles don't defend against the southern lords. 

Should Jon defy Stannis and refuse? What then? Would Stannis give Jon to the flames? Would there be war? Is it in Jon's power to obey the King, and or defy the King? How so, when you cannot defend your self against any king inflicting his will?

 

Edit- Im personally greatly interested in how Benjen and Eddard planned to settle the gift

Edit, Edit- This post in no way is questioning the reason's Jon was stabbed, which were for leading a group to Winterfell to rescue his sister. 

The king technically has the right to grant all of the Wildling tribes entry into the kingdom.   The fact that no ruler had done it for 10 thousand years should say it's not going to be a popular decision.  That king who let the Wildling tribes in the kingdom won't be ruling for long.  Aegon 4 was not that foolish to try this idea.  

The lands that became the gift were unprotected from attack.  The Starks could not protect the farmers from the wildlings.  Maybe Alaric thought it was a good idea to give up this land to the Night's Watch.  It would serve as the buffer between his people and the wildlings.  The Night's Watch assumes the responsibility for protecting its tenant farmers from the wildling raiders.  The north is sparsely populated.  It's not as if land was in short supply.  

Allysane had the right and the might to take the land and give it to the Night's Watch.  The Targaryens ruled and they had dragons.  They had the right to give a piece of their land to the watch.  The Targaryens formed the kingdom and therefore, the land belonged to them.  They could dispense with it as they please.  The tricky question is, can they take it back from the watch after it's been given?  I believe the answer is no.  Do you have the right to take back something after you gave it to your friend?  I think not.  The Night's Watch is not a subject of the monarch.  The Gift became the property of the Watch after the queen deeded the land over to them.  The kingdom gave up any rights it had to that land.  

Stannis does not have the authority to feed Jon to his flames.  That's all there is to that.  A constructionists might even say Stannis would violate guest rights if he were to harm the crows.  

The lord commander and his officers will have to agree first of all to hand it over to the monarch of Westeros.  Eddard and Benjen do not have the authority to take back the gift.  Eddard would exceed his authority if he tried this on his own.