true motivation of jon snows assassination ( counter to the claims I have seen made)

[Ser Hedge]

On 3/31/2019 at 9:45 PM, The Transporter said:

  The watch does not attack the people. 

Agree its purpose is not to attack people south of the wall, maybe it wasn't meant to attack people north of the wall either, but let's leave that for now. We don't know what the exact terms of engagement are if it's the watch itself that's threatened by 'people'.

We probably all agree that its true purpose is to guard the realms of men. Legend tells of a particular kind of supernatural enemy. 

A supernatural enemy matching the description of the one from legend has now re-appeared and actually wiped out the majority of the watch's fighting men. This enemy grows stronger if allowed to kill any humans still left north of the wall. The logical thing to do is bring these humans south, so you can keep your oath.

Now for another point: Long before there were seven kingdoms there were a hundred, the exact number varied as kings rose and fell and some kingdoms conquered and annexed others. The watch seems to have received enough support from these multiple kings to sustain itself until the current usurper dynasty in place for the last couple of decades starved it of quality recruits. There was no central authority like the Iron Throne for most of the watch's 5000+ years of existence. The only constant in the time of the watch's existence have been the Starks in Winterfell whose help has been sought from time to time, and who according to legend had to cast down one LC of the watch who forgot his oaths.

However, what is different in the timeline where the current story is taking place is that there are multiple claimants for one throne, rather than multiple kings in adjourning kingdoms as was the case before Aegon's conquest. That means there is no central authority the watch answers to. Jon did not seek out Stannis, Stannis answered the call for help while the regency of Tommen did not. It's not for the watch to say if Stannis or Tommen or fAegon or Daenerys has the better claim, but it's to be noted that Jofferey and Tommen's claims were widely opposed by the land, including by two successive Starks of Winterfell, the North, the River lands, most of the Stormlands and the Reach (i.e everybody who declared for either Stannis or Renly or Robb). The Baratheon-Lannisters of King's Landing were able to secure their throne only after getting their allies to break guest rights, considered a huge sin.

Even then Jon has not provided Stannis with any soldiers to fight the illegitimate heir of an usurper, whose regime needed to break guest rights and unleash Qohori sellswords and other sadistic rabble on the civilians of the riverlands to stay in power.

No, he was threatened by one of the guest-right breakers to in turn break guest rights again, asking Jon to give up women and children under his protection. There is also a serious threat that this psychopathic self-proclaimed flayer of women is going to come riding to the wall, with a chance he harms the Free Folk now helping to guard the wall from the true enemy.

Sure, Jon had some personal motives mixed in this as well, but that does not change any of the above reasoning.

By being seen as defending Stannis' heir, Jon has put himself in a position where you can argue he has allowed himself to take sides in politics, but it can also be argued that he is merely protecting his guests from a deranged homicidal maniac. So, technically, there is a chance he might have been about to break his oath, but it was not for the dim-witted execution squad to make that call. By precedent, it should be the Stark of Winterfell who has dealt with oath-breaking LCs. And there is no Stark in Winterfell at the moment.

Since I'm sure this is going to come up as well: The warden of the North is a recent (in the context of the watch's history) term introduced by the Targaryens. So, Roose Bolton is Tommen's 'warden', great, but as long as there are multiple claimants to a central throne, it does not follow that he has some kind of authority over the watch. What was he and his son doing when the watch needed swords?

It's quite laughable if Bowen Marsh and co thought they had some kind of legal authority to act. They were doing it purely out of a sense of what they thought was self-preservation (by currying favour with the Lannisters) but being a set of prize nincompoops, they are not really ending up preserving their sorry little selves either - and are likely going to end up being torn limb from limb by Wun Wun/Free Folk/Queen's Knights who finally had the time to put 2 and 2 together. 

Nominate them for the Westeros equivalent of the Darwin awards :-D

[Chris Mormont]

Bowen Marsh is another puppet of the throne and was convinced that he needed to carry out Jon's assassination for the good of the Watch.  He was just waiting for the right time and circumstances.  He uses similar logic that Walder Frey did to carry out the Red Wedding, all will be forgiven and things will be better if you murder for the throne.

Jon's biggest fault is that he tries to rule alone.  He does not seem to do a good job convincing his "commanders" that his actions are not only in the Watch's best interests, but the best interest to the realm, no matter who is king.  Instead he works with Tormund on his plan, and then springs it on a room full of people who he can rally around his cause, so it does appear to be self motivating.

He did try to explain his rational for letting the wildings through the wall, but obviously not well enough. 

As for helping Stannis, this is a catch 22.  The Watch is supposed to stay neutral in the wars between the kingdoms, but if they reject Stannis then they are no longer neutral.  Feeding and sheltering the king who saved you is the only thing he could do. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

29 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Sure, Jon had some personal motives mixed in this as well, but that does not change any of the above reasoning.

 

I agree, it doesn’t change anything. In fact, it only makes Jon’s decisions even more right and righteous imo. Any half-decent human being is not going to sit on their arse knowing a beloved family member is the plaything of someone like Ramsay Bolton. And hiding behind vows and oaths is despicable, just as it was/is in many rw scenarios, “I didn’t do anything, I was just following orders!”. It’s one's actions that matter, not fucking words. No wonder we have so many “words are wind” in Dance. To the point that one of Martin’s editors suggested cutting some and he said no. Blimey, it’s like the author is really, really trying to get the message across, innit. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

Jon is stabbed because Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are moral cowards. 

[Tagganaro]

1 hour ago, Chris Mormont said:

Bowen Marsh is another puppet of the throne and was convinced that he needed to carry out Jon's assassination for the good of the Watch.  He was just waiting for the right time and circumstances.  He uses similar logic that Walder Frey did to carry out the Red Wedding, all will be forgiven and things will be better if you murder for the throne.

Jon's biggest fault is that he tries to rule alone.  He does not seem to do a good job convincing his "commanders" that his actions are not only in the Watch's best interests, but the best interest to the realm, no matter who is king.  Instead he works with Tormund on his plan, and then springs it on a room full of people who he can rally around his cause, so it does appear to be self motivating.

He did try to explain his rational for letting the wildings through the wall, but obviously not well enough. 

As for helping Stannis, this is a catch 22.  The Watch is supposed to stay neutral in the wars between the kingdoms, but if they reject Stannis then they are no longer neutral.  Feeding and sheltering the king who saved you is the only thing he could do. 

 

I get this, but Jon also isn't dealing with rational and competent people in Bowen Marsh, Othell Yarwyck and co.  These people are representative of the decline in the NW, and from the beginning of the story they are made fun of by Mormont, Tyrion, even Mance.  Jon truly does try to convince these guys he is right and he attempts to reason with them.  They just simply aren't reasonable and Jon finally gives up on them right before they attempt to kill him.  That last meeting you see Jon think to himself he knows exactly what they are gonna say before they say it and how it won't be remotely helpful.

[Shi Qiang]

7 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Jon is stabbed because Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are moral cowards. 

Jon got stabbed because he is guilty of treason, injustice, and hiding the truth about Mance Rayder.  Jon executed a man who disrespected him but then he lets the biggest offender of the night's watch get away without punishment.  Jon is required to execute Mance Rayder just as Ned Stark was required to execute Gared.  The difference is Jon hated Slynt but he liked Mance.  Jon also had a personal use for Mance.  Jon's lack of ethics compromised the way these two men were judged.  He sends Mance Rayder to get Arya.  If it's illegal for Jon to do this himself and it is, then it is absolutely also illegal for Mance.  They are both sworn to the night's watch.  There is no escaping those vows.  By ordering Mance to do something illegal Jon committed an act of treason.  Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are not cowards.  They were brave to take a stand against a lord commander who has lost his mind.  

[Shi Qiang]

8 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Agree its purpose is not to attack people south of the wall, maybe it wasn't meant to attack people north of the wall either, but let's leave that for now. We don't know what the exact terms of engagement are if it's the watch itself that's threatened by 'people'.

Ramsay threatened the watch because Jon sent Mance to take his wife.  Any nobleman would be pissed off at what Jon did.  Jon started this fight.  Blame him.  

[Nowy Tends]

5 hours ago, Allardyce said:

  Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are not cowards.  They were brave to

Are you serious or trolling? Marsh's fear literally drips from the pages of the book…

[Ser Hedge]

3 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Ramsay threatened the watch because Jon sent Mance to take his wife.  Any nobleman would be pissed off at what Jon did.  Jon started this fight.  Blame him.  

A 'wife' given away by the man believed to have killed two of her brothers and betrayed her older brother, hastening her family's downfall after losing their ancestral seat. The fact that the Boltons could not find anyone else to give her away just emphasizes what a shot gun wedding that was.

GRRM set the scenario up to be as provocative as possible. FWIW, Jon did nothing after receiving the wedding invitation, but admittedly does not stop Mel after she predicts a fleeing bride on a dying horse and sends Mance and the SWs down to meet her.

But let's leave that aside, we don't even need the moral argument, the Watch takes no part etc, this is a hard world, tough luck, this is how marriages are made etc

To get back to Bowen, how does he know any of what is in the PL is true?  In the private meeting with Tormund, Jon does not confirm on page that Mance is still alive. It does not appear he does it in his Shield hall speech either. All he says is that he means to make this creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women and threatened to cut Jon's heart out answer for his words. Jon also makes clear he's not giving an order to any brother to break their oath.

Is that enough for the steward of the Night's Watch to assasinate the LC? Because the LC said he would ride south to confront a bastard recently legitimized by one of the rival claimants to the throne who demands Jon break guest rights or would otherwise kill him? Based on some claims in a letter? No, Bowen went off the reservation.

Even if Bowen truly believed Tommen was the true king and had authority over the NW (which can be disputed), and had half  a brain he would have let Jon and the Wildlings ride out of CB and sent ravens to WF and King's Landing that the watch had no part in this and he and his brothers would deal with Jon if he ever attempted to return. Presumably the senior leadership of the watch should have then met if and when Cotter Pyke returned and held another election.

It's like you are in the army and your superior officer says he is going AWOL, but you have clear information there is no danger to anyone for several weeks from his actions. He's not giving anyone in the unit any orders that would conflict with their standing orders/duties.

Do you:

1. Try to speak to him quickly to dissuade him and if it fails, radio your superiors and the MPs that he's gone AWOL heading south, likely destination WF, in that weather going to be stuck in snow for weeks anyway, taking over the unit to carry on with the mission.

(This is even assuming the Iron Throne and the Boltons have authority over the watch, which is disputable)

2. Try to shoot him without warning, starting a firefight that might actually wipe out your unit, achieving nothing.

Clearly Bowen is dumb as a doormat and daft as a brush, so he goes with option 2.

[bent branch]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:14 PM, Allardyce said:

I might also mention that NW Brother Mance Rayder murdered Roose Bolton's service people while on this mission from Jon.

??????????? If you are talking about the men who died, then the only one they "confessed" to was Yellow Dick (at least I think that was his name). The other deaths, besides Little Walder, were probably accidents.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

8 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Ramsay threatened the watch because Jon sent Mance to take his wife.  Any nobleman would be pissed off at what Jon did.  Jon started this fight.  Blame him.  

Yes, take the 13 year old who was being raped, beaten, and who might have had to be fucked by dogs had she stayed around Ramsay, or lose skin and body parts in the same way Theon did. 

How dare anyone try to save that girl from her sadist false husband? 

8 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Jon got stabbed because he is guilty of treason, injustice, and hiding the truth about Mance Rayder.  Jon executed a man who disrespected him but then he lets the biggest offender of the night's watch get away without punishment.  Jon is required to execute Mance Rayder just as Ned Stark was required to execute Gared.  The difference is Jon hated Slynt but he liked Mance.  Jon also had a personal use for Mance.  Jon's lack of ethics compromised the way these two men were judged.  He sends Mance Rayder to get Arya.  If it's illegal for Jon to do this himself and it is, then it is absolutely also illegal for Mance.  They are both sworn to the night's watch.  There is no escaping those vows.  By ordering Mance to do something illegal Jon committed an act of treason.  Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are not cowards.  They were brave to take a stand against a lord commander who has lost his mind.  

I don't know what the injustice you're talking about is. If there's injustice and treason in wanting to save the wildlings from the Others, then bring on the injustice. It's so unfair that Jon has decided that he would take as many wildlings as he possibly could away from the Others.

And when Mance left the Wall, no one knew Roose was going to change the place of the wedding from Barrowton to Winterfell. So we don't know what happened there.

Jeyne Poole (who should have been left to cower in the corner of the bedroom) and Theon are not at the Wall when the letter arrives. Bowen Marsh knows that and he thinks like everyone who was there that Mance is dead. But the letter demands that Jon hands over Melisandre, Shireen, Val, Selyse and a small baby, and this is something Jon is not going to do. 

With Jon out of the way, it wouldn't be socking if the first thing brave and strong and wonderful Bowen who is all about saving the realm does is round up women and children and hand them over to Ramsay. And that would make him even worse than a coward.

The next book will suck for you when Bowen Marsh and his ilk are dealt with and Jon comes out of hibernation.

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

With Jon out of the way, it wouldn't be socking if the first thing brave and strong and wonderful Bowen who is all about saving the realm does is round up women and children and hand them over to Ramsay. And that would make him even worse than a coward.

I think that's exactly what Bowen the Brave would like to do. Good thing we have Tormund Giantsbane & co there, ready to deal w/ the cowardly xenophobic bigots. It's gonna be a bloodbath. 

9 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

The next book will suck for you when Bowen Marsh and his ilk are dealt with and Jon comes out of hibernation.

Yup. Been saying it for a while now, there's a group of readers that will hate Winds.

 

[The Commentator]

11 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Jon got stabbed because he is guilty of treason, injustice, and hiding the truth about Mance Rayder.  Jon executed a man who disrespected him but then he lets the biggest offender of the night's watch get away without punishment.  Jon is required to execute Mance Rayder just as Ned Stark was required to execute Gared.  The difference is Jon hated Slynt but he liked Mance.  Jon also had a personal use for Mance.  Jon's lack of ethics compromised the way these two men were judged.  He sends Mance Rayder to get Arya.  If it's illegal for Jon to do this himself and it is, then it is absolutely also illegal for Mance.  They are both sworn to the night's watch.  There is no escaping those vows.  By ordering Mance to do something illegal Jon committed an act of treason.  Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are not cowards.  They were brave to take a stand against a lord commander who has lost his mind.  

 

6 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Are you serious or trolling? Marsh's fear literally drips from the pages of the book…

There's nothing wrong with fear.  It's how you handle it and how it affects your decision that matter.  Jon allowed his fear for what might happen to "Arya" drive him to betray the Night's Watch.  I am reminded of Anakin's fear for his mother and what it drove him to do.  

[Ser Hedge]

The OP itself actually sums it all up very well.

On 3/30/2019 at 1:54 AM, silverwolf22 said:

Marsh’s concern-trolling about neutrality vis-à-vis Stannis is transparently hypocritical. But, to be fair, he is far from the only character on the Wall who misleads the reader with delusions about the political position of the Watch. We hear from NW members who desperately want to believe they have some small amount of control over how they are perceived, who are baselessly convinced that if only they play by The Rules they will be rewarded and saved. The harsh truth is that public perception of the NW’s neutrality was shot to hell the moment Stannis showed up.

“The father would have handed the realm to Stannis. The son has given him lands and castles.” 

“The Night’s Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Pycelle reminded them. “For thousands of years the black brothers have upheld that tradition.” 

“Until now,” said Cersei. “The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night’s Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men.” 

“An outrage,” declared Lord Merryweather. “We cannot allow the Night’s Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis.” 

 “We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel,” agreed Ser Harys Swyft. “The black brothers must remove him.” 

 Grand Maester Pycelle nodded ponderously. “I propose that we inform Castle Black that no more men will be sent to them until such time as Snow is gone.” 

 (Cersei, AFFC)

“More” men. They haven’t even sent criminals since Tyrion was Hand of the King. The farce of neutrality was shot throughout the year before, when the Watch sent out dozens of ravens begging for help with the situation, and the only response they got was Tywin Lannister’s attempt to blackmail them. The realm – and specifically Roose Bolton, who committed a wretched breach of his duty as Warden of the North when he failed to respond to the wildling attack on the Wall – broke faith with the Watch long before the Pink Letter.

This.

The moment Stannis showed up to answer the call, the NW in the perception of the wobbly regime clinging on to power in KL had already 'chosen' sides. There is no point in trying to please the now-defunct Iron Throne. Even when Tywin was around, there was no help coming and at the time of the PL, you have Tywin stinking in his grave and the Lannisters, the Tyrells and the faith in a 3-way tussle. A minor in the throne, Queen Mother (and until recently the Queen) in jail, a Tyrell army effectively besieging the faith - it's utter chaos. You are not getting any help from them ever. They only care you helped Stannis to the extent they can bring themselves to focus on anything other than destroying each other.

The next point that somebody will make is that Roose is the rightful appointee of this rightful central authority blah blah, so the watch is answerable to him. Well he's the nearby appointee of a far away regime on its last legs Vs a nearby claimant to the far away throne. With the latter camped on your doorstep, you were never going to engage with the former.

If Bowen was such a virtuous soul and the Iron Throne is this rightful authority of the land, why didn't he ride out to Roose as soon as Stannis showed up at CB. "My Lord, you are the rightful Warden of the rightful king, His Grace Tommen, <add all the bloody titles here>. The watch has been taken under the control of the usurper Stannis. I can't abide it, I have come to you". No, Bowen waits until he hears Stannis is dead as the OP astutely points out before making his move. Hardly very virtuous, more like covering your arse. And because he is an inept moron, he will not have done that properly either :-D 

 

[Chris Mormont]

On 4/1/2019 at 4:12 PM, Tagganaro said:

They just simply aren't reasonable and Jon finally gives up on them right before they attempt to kill him.  That last meeting you see Jon think to himself he knows exactly what they are gonna say before they say it and how it won't be remotely helpful.

This is what I was referring to.  How much effort do you put into trying to convince someone if you have already concluded how they will respond.  Jon needed to either act diplomatically and accept the advice of his commanders or act like the Lord Commander and just order them to do what he wants.  

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

This is what I was referring to.  How much effort do you put into trying to convince someone if you have already concluded how they will respond. 

You put some effort into it, as Jon did, but at some point you have to give up. 

5 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

Jon needed to either act diplomatically and accept the advice of his commanders or act like the Lord Commander and just order them to do what he wants.  

Exactly. And let's not forget that this is not your regular dispute over some meaningless minor issue. The threat [to humanity] is real, Jon knows this, regardless of Bowen & co believing in or not. So, you try, then you try again, and you try a third time... but at some point you just have to give up and either "act diplomatically" or just move on. Jon moved on, and that was the right call. Bowen's prejudices, biases, narrow-mindedness, bigotry and xenophobia weren't going to change any time soon. So you put your foot down and move on. The mountain clan chiefs weren't too happy, but accepted Jon's explanations and reasoning. So, it's not like Jon's ideas were that outrageous given the circumstances. But Bowen is a bean-counter who lacks intelligence and is not open-minded, so he went back to the plan of getting rid of Jon in an attempt to ingratiate himself w/ the IT. And now he's as good as dead, and good riddance. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 3:29 AM, Allardyce said:

Jon got stabbed because he is guilty of treason, injustice, and hiding the truth about Mance Rayder. 

He didn't actually - no-one who stabbed him knew about Mance. They obviously stabbed him because they felt his decisions were going to bring the Watch to ruin. A debatable point, but it had nothing to do with him hiding the truth about Mance.

I’ve said this a hundred times, but I’m constantly shocked at how people who are avid fans of these books consistently overlook one of its central themes, and make sweeping and strident moral judgments. One of the main points these books consistently make is that it's never black and white. There are shades of grey. Sometimes bad decisions are made for good reasons, and sometimes there is no clear and obvious "good" decision. You can, of course, make the case that Jon shouldn’t have made the decisions he did; but the idea that there is some sort of clear-cut answer to the complex issues he was facing is ridiculous.

 Jon’s primary consideration, one that he has consistently grappled with throughout the books, is how to remain true to his vows while also fulfilling the obligations the vows are designed for. He needs to ensure, to the best of his ability, that the 7K are defended against the Others.

 The difficulties arise when keeping the letter of those vows comes into conflict with that overriding obligation. Preserving the 7K required him to ride with the Wildlings and sleep with Ygritte. Should he have stood by the letter of his vows, refused to do so, and got killed by the Wildlings?

 One strict interpretation of his vows would have meant his refusal to cooperate with Stannis at all. Stannis would have simply had him killed, and either wiped out the NW entirely, or replaced Jon with someone who would have done what he required. Would that have been a better outcome?

 Throughout ADWD, we see Jon try to navigate a difficult situation, where he tries to preserve the NW’s independence, fulfil its central obligations, while not blindly leading it to ruin.

 As to the issue with the Pink Letter. Yes, there’s a clear case to be made that he crossed a line there by deciding to go into armed conflict with the Boltons But I fail to see how that could have been avoided anyway, if he didn’t march on them, they would march on him. The letter said they would. What alternative actions do people suggest?

 On the decision to send Mance south – he did so on the assumption Arya was already riding North. As others have said, he never sent Mance to steal her from Winterfell. Furthermore, would anyone really do any differently? Not just if it were their own sister, but any child under threat of rape and torture? Even if you would (or would like to pretend you would for weird argumentative reasons), do you really so stridently condemn others who wouldn’t? Frankly, I find that a bit creepy.  

[Ygrain]

On 4/2/2019 at 4:29 AM, Allardyce said:

Jon got stabbed because he is guilty of treason, injustice, and hiding the truth about Mance Rayder.  Jon executed a man who disrespected him but then he lets the biggest offender of the night's watch get away without punishment.  Jon is required to execute Mance Rayder just as Ned Stark was required to execute Gared.  The difference is Jon hated Slynt but he liked Mance.  Jon also had a personal use for Mance.  Jon's lack of ethics compromised the way these two men were judged.  He sends Mance Rayder to get Arya.  If it's illegal for Jon to do this himself and it is, then it is absolutely also illegal for Mance.  They are both sworn to the night's watch.  There is no escaping those vows.  By ordering Mance to do something illegal Jon committed an act of treason.  Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators are not cowards.  They were brave to take a stand against a lord commander who has lost his mind.  

Slynt was a detriment to the Watch's ability to stand against the Others by constantly undermining its Commander, Mance was not (and since he knew the threat was real, he would be an asset working to support the Watch in this). Exposing Mel's farce which allowed Mance live would damage the Watch's alliance with the single person who was willing to support it in the fight against the Others. If no such circumstances existed, Mance would most likely got the block. Unfortunately, the Watch was under the circumstances when sticking to the letter of the law would be a wrong decision; it was the spirit that mattered and the word... well, the words are wind. If breaking the word to keep the spirit is what it takes, then this is what needs to be done. Just like when Jon had to kill Qhorin and sleep with Ygritte. 

On 4/2/2019 at 4:31 AM, Allardyce said:

Ramsay threatened the watch because Jon sent Mance to take his wife.  Any nobleman would be pissed off at what Jon did.  Jon started this fight.  Blame him.  

Any noblemen who wasn't making his wife have sex with dogs and who wasn't flaying people alive would be perfectly justified to be pissed off.

9 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 On the decision to send Mance south – he did so on the assumption Arya was already riding North. As others have said, he never sent Mance to steal her from Winterfell.

100% true. But curiously, it keeps getting ignored.

9 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Furthermore, would anyone really do any differently? Not just if it were their own sister, but any child under threat of rape and torture? Even if you would (or would like to pretend you would for weird argumentative reasons), do you really so stridently condemn others who wouldn’t? Frankly, I find that a bit creepy.  

Only a bit? 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Only a bit?

I try not to be too insistent for the sake of peace in the forum ;-)

[CAllDSmith]

On 4/1/2019 at 10:31 PM, Allardyce said:

Ramsay threatened the watch because Jon sent Mance to take his wife.  Any nobleman would be pissed off at what Jon did.  Jon started this fight.  Blame him.  

So quoting this, but also wanting to comment on your double post. He executed Slynt because Slynt disobeyed an order, not because Slynt insulted him. Summary execution for disobedience is something that has existed for thousands of years.There were men executed for less at D-Day. 

As was mentioned above, Ramsay SNOW loss his right to have a grievance at some point between kidnapping, raping, and murdering Lady Hornwood and forcing a fourteen year old girl to have sex with dogs. He was never pardoned for the first crime, mind you.