Jon was right in executing Janos Slynt

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

17 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So I know there are a lot of people peddling the "Jon was wrong in executing poor loyal Janos" thing. But think about it, whichever way you take it, Jon was 100% in the right

- From a legalism standpoint Jon was 100% right, Janos was committing insubordination and openly questioning Jon's authority. Jon was in his right to execute him.

- From a moral point of view, do I even need to argue this, given everything from Janos screwing over Ned to him actively trying to get Jon killed on several occasions.

- From a pragmatic point of view he was snuffing out resistance. Janos had been his main opponent int he elections and was putting himself up as a loud mouth counter to Jon. He was a living focal point of anti Jon potential conspiracies. Executing him removed one of the 2 most dangerous men for Jon and proved a point that Jon was not messing around.

So it was a good decision on Jon's behalf. It was pragmatic, removing an active threat and he was in the right, morally as Janos had been and probably was seeking Jon's death as well as legally as Jon was completely in the right to execute him for refusing to obey his orders several times in a row. All military orders including the army had death as a potential punishment for insubordination.

That was the wrong move any way you look at it.  Jon silenced input from the men of the watch by killing Slynt.  That's not a healthy way to lead.  If he had kept Slynt alive, somebody might have at least tried to talk sense into that thick head of his that leading an army of wildlings against the Warden of the North is not a good idea.  It should never have actually gone that far.  Jon should not have stuck his nose into Ramsay Bolton's business from the start.  But that's another topic. 

Harsh can be just.  But my main issue with Jon's handling of this matter is that he practiced double-standards.  Like so many of us have been saying for years.  Jon had a duty to those men to judge them fairly.  He didn't do that.  He let Mance Rayder go free. 

I guess you can break any rule you want, be guilty of the deaths of the men of the watch, and insubordination and get away with it if Jon likes you.  Step out of line for something minor and he takes your head, if he doesn't like you.  That's double-standards and it is wrong.  Jon was in the wrong. 

[SeanF]

43 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

That was the wrong move any way you look at it.  Jon silenced input from the men of the watch by killing Slynt.  That's not a healthy way to lead.  If he had kept Slynt alive, somebody might have at least tried to talk sense into that thick head of his that leading an army of wildlings against the Warden of the North is not a good idea.  It should never have actually gone that far.  Jon should not have stuck his nose into Ramsay Bolton's business from the start.  But that's another topic. 

Harsh can be just.  But my main issue with Jon's handling of this matter is that he practiced double-standards.  Like so many of us have been saying for years.  Jon had a duty to those men to judge them fairly.  He didn't do that.  He let Mance Rayder go free. 

I guess you can break any rule you want, be guilty of the deaths of the men of the watch, and insubordination and get away with it if Jon likes you.  Step out of line for something minor and he takes your head, if he doesn't like you.  That's double-standards and it is wrong.  Jon was in the wrong. 

Slynt was judged fairly.

In the case of Mance, he was a deserter from the Nights Watch, but he was not Jon's prisoner.  He was Stannis and Melisandre's.  Melisandre is responsible to Stannis for Mance.  There is also the practical issue that Mance can be put to good use by Melisandre  and Jon.  Slynt could not be.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

49 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

He let Mance Rayder go free. 

I guess you can break any rule you want, be guilty of the deaths of the men of the watch, and insubordination and get away with it if Jon likes you.  Step out of line for something minor and he takes your head, if he doesn't like you.  That's double-standards and it is wrong.  Jon was in the wrong. 

Well ti wasn't that Jon liked him is that he needed him, but that's another matter altogether. You can criticize Jon for letting Mance live all you want, but killing Janos was entirely right on his behalf. He wasn't doing something minor, he was openly rebellious and insubordinate something that brought a death penalty in most historical armies

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He was Stannis and Melisandre's.  Melisandre is responsible to Stannis for Mance.  There is also the practical issue that Mance can be put to good use by Melisandre  and Jon.  Slynt could not be.

Actually not really. Remember Stannis gave "Rattleshirt" to Jon so he was under Jon's jurisdiction and deserved the death penalty under any circumstances. I do agree on the useful part however. Mance could be made useful. Janos could only incite further treason or open rebellion.

[GoldenGail3]

I wonder how Cersei in King's Landing will respond when she hears of Lord Janos's death at Jon's hand...

[argonak]

2 minutes ago, GoldenGail3 said:

I wonder how Cersei in King's Landing will respond when she hears of Lord Janos's death at Jon's hand...

She already ordered assassins against Jon anyway.  I guess she could send more?  Cersei doesn't care about Janos (or anyone else really) at all though.  She'd probably laugh at a loose end tied up.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 minutes ago, GoldenGail3 said:

I wonder how Cersei in King's Landing will respond when she hears of Lord Janos's death at Jon's hand...

She's crazy, I don't think it would matter

[GoldenGail3]

2 minutes ago, argonak said:

She already ordered assassins against Jon anyway.  I guess she could send more?  Cersei doesn't care about Janos (or anyone else really) at all though.  She'd probably laugh at a loose end tied up.

But didn't she want Janos to be Lord Commander though? Like he was of use to her, considering her own lord father wanted him to be LC at any rate.

[GoldenGail3]

Just now, Alyn Oakenfist said:

She's crazy, I don't think it would matter

indeed but she's a powerful crazy woman 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, GoldenGail3 said:

she's a powerful crazy woman 

And there is no way to see how she will take it. As for her power, well let's just say that Aegon will be coming and there are quite a lot of things that could go wrong at her trial, such as the revelation that her champion is undead

[argonak]

7 minutes ago, GoldenGail3 said:

indeed but she's a powerful crazy woman 

At the end of Dance, isn't she still under house arrest and the Tyrells control the government?  

[SeanF]

All things considered, Janos Slynt was fortunate that Jon didn't flay him.  He got a clean death.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

All things considered, Janos Slynt was fortunate that Jon didn't flay him.  He got a clean death.

Yup, flaying would be a more fitting end for a child killer. Alas, he was very lucky to have been executed for insubordination only. 

[Azarial]

4 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Actually not really. Remember Stannis gave "Rattleshirt" to Jon so he was under Jon's jurisdiction and deserved the death penalty under any circumstances. I do agree on the useful part however. Mance could be made useful. Janos could only incite further treason or open rebellion.

The catch being that he gave him to Jon to use him, it's not clear if he's Jons forever, but since he's not viewed as a member of the Nights watch as Rattleshirt I don't see how he could be, and he was bound by magic to Mel, making him Mels to command more than anyone elses. It's a grey area at best. And if Stannis pardoned him for desertion or absolved him of his vows and the watch view Kings right to do this as valid, and it is implied that this could be the case, then Jon may have not had authority to do anything. If Mance was Stannis's prisoner, and he gave Jon whom he believed to be Rattleshirt, then he didn't give Jon Mance. GRRM made it unclear what Stannis knew, and this uncertainty meant Jon had to be careful. Jon also knew that publicly outing Mance and killing him would have caused the Free Folk to turn on him. This would have been the stupidest thing he could have done given how tenuous the peace was, and how much they outnumber the men of the watch. Dogmatically following the rules of an organization in a way that would result in the destruction of the organizations is stupid. But it's what many on here think he should have done. Follow the letter of the law and doom them all, yeah brilliant plan...

Plus Mance was still following the intent of the vows, saving people from the Others, and he even makes sure to point out that he doesn't wear a crown. His crime was not wanting to be a slave, to be able to dress as he wanted and be allowed to love a woman. Is marrying her and getting her pregnant, for love something that should be punishable by death? Is it that different than the guys going to Moles Town? And Mance was taken as a child and forced to say his vows. It wasn't a choice, and the laws end at the wall. So as long as he does what he's told when south of the wall, he hasn't broken his vows. That's the thing Mel used to allow him to live. Slynt was part of a faction that was causing dissent in the ranks, endangering the watches ability to function. Mance speaks to Jon about how he understands the real danger, and the importance of the wall. He just didn't want to be a slave. And the men of the watch are slaves.

But despite that he still acted to save the greatest number of innocent lives, protecting the realms (plural) of men is their main vow , even when doing so placed him personally in danger of being executed. Mance didn't break this vow, and risked execution in order to fulfill this vow. Slynt did break this vow, by refusing to go to his post, and not to go round up 100k people to save them or because he felt freedom was a basic right that he and others deserved to have, he just sat in the great hall drinking and told jokes, and made it clear he didn't consider the Free Folk to be human and worth saving. Not protecting all realms of men and being fully loyal to only one realm, and one king is a violation of the vows. These men and the vows they broke and why aren't the same. Mance even went to Winterfell under guest right to try and size up Benjen. This implies that he may have wanted to discuss a peaceful resolution. Perhaps meeting with Mance was their mission when they went missing, perhaps that is why they became viewed as such a threat by Mormont when rangers started to go missing. Things are almost never what they appear on the surface.

Killing Mance causes the alliance with the Free Folk to fall apart and would destroy the watch leaving no one to guard against the Others unless Stannis wins and mans the wall, and that is far from a sure thing. Letting Slynt live allows him to continue to sow discord and destabilizes the watch as a whole at a time when they are surrounded by external threats. It also would make Jon appear weak, for allowing a subordinate to disrespect him publicly. Something Slynt did on purpose because he believed that Jon was weak and wouldn't kill him, because he didn't kill Mance. He never understood that Jon was pausing to gather intel, and to talk to him instead of blindly doing something that could have been detrimental to the watch because of both turning Mance into a Martyr and the new found possibility of the horn of winter coming into play, a dangerous prospect without Mance to stop them from using it, if it were real, and Jon can't know for sure if it is or not. It was a mistake on Slynts part, because Jon didn't let Mance live out of weakness, Slynt knowingly gambled with his life and lost in an attempt to undermine Jon and seize power. These aren't the same thing. I agree that the punishment needs to be what is best for the watch as a whole, and that is why Jon weighed multiple options, and felt that needing to kill anyone, even Slynt, when they were so undermanned was a waste.

BTW I'm not saying you personally think this way, I just wanted to clarify that one point and didn't want to do multiple posts, so only the part about Mance not clearly being under Jons authority was directed at you.

[RedDragon]

On 9/24/2020 at 2:31 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I've read countless people saying that Jon had no right to execute him that he was no longer guilty of all his past transgressions and that Jon was setting him up all of which somehow justifies Janos being openly seditious

I think what people miss when they make that argument is that Jons written legal reason to do that is not “he was a bad man and killed my dad” 

it was his insubordination in fallowing his lord commanders orders. 

It does not matter at all if it’s believed Jon was elected properly. Like literally not at all 

not only that but Jon gave him plenty of opportunities to fallow his order, which where also mind you completely reasonable within the duties of the nights watch.

 

Jon gave him 3 warnings to fallow his command, Janos ignored him. And instead of sending him there where he would become a deserter so he executed him. Jons reasonings were very sound and accurate 

[Roswell]

On 9/24/2020 at 6:02 PM, Nathan Stark said:

Yeah, it's pretty hard to see how Jon had any other choice in the matter. He gave Slynt a direct order, then the next day, after Slynt disobeyed Jon, he gave Slynt a second chance, and was openly disrespected. It was the most logical solution to an unsavory situation.

@Nathan Stark Mance is the most insubordinate, most disrespectful man to ever wear the black.  Jon gave him a pass after he killed Slynt for a lesser crime.  Jon had a choice and he chose poorly.  Jon was far from respectful towards his training officers and he was not executed for it.  The execution of Janos Slynt was wrong.  It happened because Jon was not a good commander.  Jon's judgement was affected by his feelings for the men who he was supposed to judge fairly.  

[Roswell]

12 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

That was the wrong move any way you look at it.  Jon silenced input from the men of the watch by killing Slynt.  That's not a healthy way to lead.  If he had kept Slynt alive, somebody might have at least tried to talk sense into that thick head of his that leading an army of wildlings against the Warden of the North is not a good idea.  It should never have actually gone that far.  Jon should not have stuck his nose into Ramsay Bolton's business from the start.  But that's another topic. 

Harsh can be just.  But my main issue with Jon's handling of this matter is that he practiced double-standards.  Like so many of us have been saying for years.  Jon had a duty to those men to judge them fairly.  He didn't do that.  He let Mance Rayder go free. 

I guess you can break any rule you want, be guilty of the deaths of the men of the watch, and insubordination and get away with it if Jon likes you.  Step out of line for something minor and he takes your head, if he doesn't like you.  That's double-standards and it is wrong.  Jon was in the wrong. 

 

Harsh is not necessarily the best way.  There is the right level of punishment to fit the crime.  Stannis went overboard when he burned his own soldiers.  Walder Frey would not be hated by many of the fans if he had killed only Robb Stark for the disgrace the wolfboy inflicted on his family.  I agree with everything else.  I agree 100% with the highlighted items.

[kissdbyfire]

“If you build it, he they will come.”

[TedBear]

Jon was wrong, he should have killed Slynt before. I was hoping he would kill Thorne too 

[SeanF]

One of the most obvious distinctions between Slynt and Mance was that the latter was not trying to undermine Jon's authority.

Any military commander in this tale would have acted as Jon did.