The rulership mistakes of Jon Snow

[TheLastWolf]

37 minutes ago, Ewan McGregor said:

You people are hilarious with the multiple accounts.  You've done it so much in the last weeks

Feeble 

Synonyms Pathetic and Miserable 

Attempt at evading the accusations 

37 minutes ago, Ewan McGregor said:

I'm beginning to think you're the ones with multiple accounts

Proof enough for me and hopefully us. The classic retort. Not me, you!

[Tagganaro]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd also say that Marsh's suggestion to freeze the tunnels shut was no bad idea. They should do this with most tunnels because we actually don't know if the magic of the Wall can prevent the Others and their wights from walking through those tunnels. Somehow I think they might be able to do this (the Watch also could carry through the dormant wights back in AGoT).

It's debatable.  There is obviously a difference of opinion in the Watch between the Rangers and the Stewards/Builders, and it's tough to say which side has the right of it.  Overall, I'm far more inclined to side with the Rangers since they are the experts.  Either way, I still think Marsh's overall "plan" is ridiculous, as you need men to defend the Wall the way he wants to and the Watch simply doesn't have those men.  To me, the only legitimate way to get those men is Jon's way, the wildlings.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis is a broken horse. On the short run, it looks smart to back him, but he is not going to win the throne. He will fail, even if he were to defeat the Boltons. He cannot hope to conquer Westeros with a couple of thousand ragged Northmen - and whatever wildlings might end up in his army. And there is just no chance that Stannis with his foreign god and difficult personality will ever motivate anyone south of the Neck to declare for him. They would suck up to Euron first before they go with Stannis.

Anyone truly wanting to defeat the Others has to convince all the Seven Kingdoms to take this threat seriously. Anything else will at best prolong the inevitable.

Sending Mance to Winterfell is a direct move against the Boltons. It can be construed as a direct attack. It is not a big thing, but the ugly truth that Ramsay as 'Arya's husband' is right in the Pink Letter. He has a right to demand satisfaction for what Jon's agents did.

I agree, Stannis has no chance although PERHAPS his deal with the Iron Bank really changes that calculus.  We know Cersei is screwing things up big-time, and that's before Aegon makes his real move, so those 2 sides could weaken each other and if Stannis wins the North he's at least got a chance.

You're right, it's a direct attack but what I meant to say is it wasn't done with the direct, express purpose of destroying the Boltons.  Jon's motive is purely to save his sister.

And keep in mind that Jon really has no clue how Jeyne was treated by Ramsay.

Quote

 

Well, the point I made was that I think Jon made a mistake in not trying to convince the mentioned parties. I never said he would have had success. But not trying is a mistake in my opinion. It also extends to Stannis.

I mean, can you tell me why Stannis and Roose are at war, exactly? I guess it is because Roose has command by Tommen's administration to bring Stannis down, but they never even exchange ultimatums and stuff, nor is an attempt made to prevent a war. That is odd. But I guess that's more a problem of the general writing of ADwD than specific written flaws of the characters involved. Basically, George failed to portray how the war in the North continued/resumed.

 

At this point just agree to disagree but I can't say it's a mistake when there is absolutely no chance of success on that front.

I disagree on the purpose/motives of the War.  It's explained pretty well that Stannis has nowhere else to go at this point, he can't return to Dragonstone and his future was set once he decided to show up at the Wall.  He has to conquer the North in hopes of gaining the support of the Northmen in order to get the Throne.  Even if Stannis wanted to (which he doesn't at all), I doubt he could even hope to make peace and surrender peacefully at this point.  

Quote

 

I guess a first step would have been to write a letter to Winterfell informing Roose about what took place beyond the Wall. Another would be announce that he would send envoys/guests to Ramsay's wedding at Winterfell. He could have even gone himself - as Lord Commander of Winterfell the Northmen's view of the NW would have prevented Roose from arresting or attacking Jon.

And shouldn't the story about the Others still have more credibility in the North where the Watch is still valued? And Jon could take a dozen or so witnesses of events at the Fist of the First Men, say.

Also, he could send wildling envoys to various castle - people who saw lots of Others and wights beyond the Wall.

I mean, I get that it is part of the plot that the people down south don't know what's going on, but George doesn't do this very well. Possibly because he knew he couldn't come up with a good explanation why such information campaigns would fail - and that's why he doesn't have any characters make any attempts.

But this still makes looks the characters who know about the Others morons ... and their silences are still mistakes on their part.

Tyrion is a southerner and he was informed by a guy he didn't trust, in a scenario where he feared he was being mocked.

Sure, but before the story is over, whoever survives the fall of the Wall will band together to defeat the Others, no? And not all people teaming up might have seen some wights/Others at that time. They will believe what their fellow Westerosi tell them.

 

I mean, again, I just don't see what any of this accomplishes.  Jon sends a letter to Roose/Ramsay who are already inclined to hate him, he sends envoys/shows up himself you think Roose is willing to listen to him at all?  If not outright murder him?  Roose doesn't, and Ramsay certainly doesn't, care about social norms and niceties and proper procedure.  They see Jon as a threat and they are right to see him that way.

I don't believe the Watch is near as valued by the Northmen, or anyone else for that matter, as you seem to think.  The whole point that Benjen tries to make to Jon is that the Watch is not what he romantically thinks it is, it has become a haven for criminals and unwanted children, and since nobody believes in the Others anymore and the Watch has spent 1000 years just fighting wildings, nobody cares for it that much.  Ned is an exception as he is an honor-bound tradtiionalist and he views it as his duty to support the Watch.  I don't believe many of the other Northern lords would feel the same, and I certainly don't believe that Roose and Wyman Manderley (probably the 2 most powerful lords left in the North) would remotely feel the same way as Ned.  

The Wall will need to fall and the Others will have to take over some cities/Winterfell before people start believing in them.  Otherwise there is nowhere for the story to go as far as the Others being a threat.  

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, Ewan McGregor said:

He threatened their lives into voting for Jon

When???

 

Quote

We see it in many instances, like how the fire burns him in AGOT.  He will be another prop up used by Sansa against Dany

So, fire burning him turns him into a mummer's dragon? is the Hound a mummer's dragon? is Davos's son one too?

 

Quote

You people are hilarious with the multiple accounts.  You've done it so much in the last weeks, I'm beginning to think you're the ones with multiple accounts

It's honestly the first time I write about it, since you (nor the other accounts) never argued against it, I thought it was true and you didn't care about it. You have to admit that it's weird how you and the others have a similar language, similar use of spacing and similar views.

It's also weird that you said "In the last weeks" but you joined four days ago.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

It's also weird that you said "In the last weeks" but you joined four days ago.

Screw Varys talking about Elia's "babe", this is the best Freudian Slip so far

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

It's debatable.  There is obviously a difference of opinion in the Watch between the Rangers and the Stewards/Builders, and it's tough to say which side has the right of it.  Overall, I'm far more inclined to side with the Rangers since they are the experts.  Either way, I still think Marsh's overall "plan" is ridiculous, as you need men to defend the Wall the way he wants to and the Watch simply doesn't have those men.  To me, the only legitimate way to get those men is Jon's way, the wildlings.

I'd say there is a pretty strong sign that the tunnels cut through the Wall are already crucial mistakes. Remember the Nightfort and the Black Gate. It is magically protected and thus safe from the Others and their minions whereas a mundane tunnel cut through the ice might have created a corridor where the magic no longer works.

The weakest spots of the Wall are the tunnels. Of course, there is value in being able to get beyond the Wall to gather information and stuff, but in the end the Wall has to hold, and that means there should be as few weak spots as possible.

The rangers might be experts on all things wildlings ... but they have no clue about the true enemy.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I agree, Stannis has no chance although PERHAPS his deal with the Iron Bank really changes that calculus.  We know Cersei is screwing things up big-time, and that's before Aegon makes his real move, so those 2 sides could weaken each other and if Stannis wins the North he's at least got a chance.

The Iron Bank could be a game changer, but that's nothing people even expected might happen back at the end of ASoS. Back then backing Stannis and looking as if you were making common cause with Stannis was stupid and dangerous for the NW as an institution.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

You're right, it's a direct attack but what I meant to say is it wasn't done with the direct, express purpose of destroying the Boltons.  Jon's motive is purely to save his sister.

And keep in mind that Jon really has no clue how Jeyne was treated by Ramsay.

Yes, I mentioned the latter, too. And that is part of the problem. There is no way Jon could save Arya and not antagonize the Boltons and give them ammunition to move against him. Ramsay and 'Arya' are legally married, and Jon simply has no right to interfere in that marriage. He didn't really have that right before he took the black, but after he did that he no longer has any right to interfere with the affairs of the Realm - especially not at the (potential) expense of the Watch.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I disagree on the purpose/motives of the War.  It's explained pretty well that Stannis has nowhere else to go at this point, he can't return to Dragonstone and his future was set once he decided to show up at the Wall.  He has to conquer the North in hopes of gaining the support of the Northmen in order to get the Throne.  Even if Stannis wanted to (which he doesn't at all), I doubt he could even hope to make peace and surrender peacefully at this point.  

From what we know of Stannis' goal then his plan is now to win the throne by defend the realms of men against the Others. His campaign at the Wall didn't end with him defeating Mance. His plan is to winter at the Wall, defeat the Others, and then use that as propaganda to convince the people of Westeros that he is their rightful king ... like Davos urged him to do.

But again - keep in mind that Stannis and Roose never clashed in battle, and that Stannis saved all the Northmen from a gigantic army of wildling raiders by defeating Mance. The entire North should be thankful for that. Yet neither does anybody acknowledge what he did for them, nor does Stannis himself try to use this fact to his advantage.

There is a clear basis there for them to not kill each other in battle ... especially after Tywin's death freed Roose's hands in the North. He basically can do whatever the hell he wants after that. He no longer has to fear Tywin would come for him eventually if he were to make common cause with Stannis.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I mean, again, I just don't see what any of this accomplishes.  Jon sends a letter to Roose/Ramsay who are already inclined to hate him, he sends envoys/shows up himself you think Roose is willing to listen to him at all?  If not outright murder him?  Roose doesn't, and Ramsay certainly doesn't, care about social norms and niceties and proper procedure.  They see Jon as a threat and they are right to see him that way.

Roose doesn't hate anybody. He is a very cold, detached person. He has ambitions and desires, but he acts very rationally. He didn't even kill Robb because he hated him ... but because he realized Robb would never make peace with the Lannisters and thus drag all his lords down with him.

He is the kind of person who would not just choose to believe that a number of corroborating reports about the Others are just nonsense. He would consider them and weigh his options. And if people like Jon Snow and Stannis were willing to enter into a truce because of this ... then this would actually strengthen his position because he would not have to risk everything in an battle/war.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I don't believe the Watch is near as valued by the Northmen, or anyone else for that matter, as you seem to think.  The whole point that Benjen tries to make to Jon is that the Watch is not what he romantically thinks it is, it has become a haven for criminals and unwanted children, and since nobody believes in the Others anymore and the Watch has spent 1000 years just fighting wildings, nobody cares for it that much.  Ned is an exception as he is an honor-bound tradtiionalist and he views it as his duty to support the Watch.  I don't believe many of the other Northern lords would feel the same, and I certainly don't believe that Roose and Wyman Manderley (probably the 2 most powerful lords left in the North) would remotely feel the same way as Ned.  

But they still support the Watch, send them food and supplies, etc. ... and they do have a vital interest that the Watch continues to protect their northern flank.

I mean, seriously, the Watch are their immediate neighbors. They could go up there any day and do their own investigation if they didn't believe the stories the envoys I mentioned would spread. The Wall isn't the end of the world for the Umbers and Karstarks and clansmen. And also not for all the lords at the coasts who do trade by ship with Eastwatch.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

The Wall will need to fall and the Others will have to take over some cities/Winterfell before people start believing in them.  Otherwise there is nowhere for the story to go as far as the Others being a threat.  

Sure, they are going to come down, but belief in them doesn't mean people know how to defeat them. They could already believe in them right now ... it wouldn't mean they could do anything about them.

[SeanF]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say there is a pretty strong sign that the tunnels cut through the Wall are already crucial mistakes. Remember the Nightfort and the Black Gate. It is magically protected and thus safe from the Others and their minions whereas a mundane tunnel cut through the ice might have created a corridor where the magic no longer works.

The weakest spots of the Wall are the tunnels. Of course, there is value in being able to get beyond the Wall to gather information and stuff, but in the end the Wall has to hold, and that means there should be as few weak spots as possible.

The rangers might be experts on all things wildlings ... but they have no clue about the true enemy.

The Iron Bank could be a game changer, but that's nothing people even expected might happen back at the end of ASoS. Back then backing Stannis and looking as if you were making common cause with Stannis was stupid and dangerous for the NW as an institution.

Yes, I mentioned the latter, too. And that is part of the problem. There is no way Jon could save Arya and not antagonize the Boltons and give them ammunition to move against him. Ramsay and 'Arya' are legally married, and Jon simply has no right to interfere in that marriage. He didn't really have that right before he took the black, but after he did that he no longer has any right to interfere with the affairs of the Realm - especially not at the (potential) expense of the Watch.

From what we know of Stannis' goal then his plan is now to win the throne by defend the realms of men against the Others. His campaign at the Wall didn't end with him defeating Mance. His plan is to winter at the Wall, defeat the Others, and then use that as propaganda to convince the people of Westeros that he is their rightful king ... like Davos urged him to do.

But again - keep in mind that Stannis and Roose never clashed in battle, and that Stannis saved all the Northmen from a gigantic army of wildling raiders by defeating Mance. The entire North should be thankful for that. Yet neither does anybody acknowledge what he did for them, nor does Stannis himself try to use this fact to his advantage.

There is a clear basis there for them to not kill each other in battle ... especially after Tywin's death freed Roose's hands in the North. He basically can do whatever the hell he wants after that. He no longer has to fear Tywin would come for him eventually if he were to make common cause with Stannis.

Roose doesn't hate anybody. He is a very cold, detached person. He has ambitions and desires, but he acts very rationally. He didn't even kill Robb because he hated him ... but because he realized Robb would never make peace with the Lannisters and thus drag all his lords down with him.

He is the kind of person who would not just choose to believe that a number of corroborating reports about the Others are just nonsense. He would consider them and weigh his options. And if people like Jon Snow and Stannis were willing to enter into a truce because of this ... then this would actually strengthen his position because he would not have to risk everything in an battle/war.

But they still support the Watch, send them food and supplies, etc. ... and they do have a vital interest that the Watch continues to protect their northern flank.

I mean, seriously, the Watch are their immediate neighbors. They could go up there any day and do their own investigation if they didn't believe the stories the envoys I mentioned would spread. The Wall isn't the end of the world for the Umbers and Karstarks and clansmen. And also not for all the lords at the coasts who do trade by ship with Eastwatch.

Sure, they are going to come down, but belief in them doesn't mean people know how to defeat them. They could already believe in them right now ... it wouldn't mean they could do anything about them.

Nights Watch neutrality was a ship that sailed, the moment that Stannis came to the Wall.  Once they provisioned Stannis, Kings Landing was entitled to view them as enemies, and they were entitled to view Kings Landing as enemies.  Stannis is the only horse to back.  Roose is Kings Landing’s representative in the North.  If anything, Jon should have been even more committed to Stannis.

Unknown to Jon, of course, a lot of people are moving against Roose, making it all the more fortuitous that he does not back him.   

And, Ramsay is just an animal who would be a total liability in any fight for survival.  

[Tagganaro]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nights Watch neutrality was a ship that sailed, the moment that Stannis came to the Wall.  Once they provisioned Stannis, Kings Landing was entitled to view them as enemies, and they were entitled to view Kings Landing as enemies.  Stannis is the only horse to back.  Roose is Kings Landing’s representative in the North.  If anything, Jon should have been even more committed to Stannis.

Unknown to Jon, of course, a lot of people are moving against Roose, making it all the more fortuitous that he does not back him.   

And, Ramsay is just an animal who would be a total liability in any fight for survival.  

agreed.  The idea of political neutrality is a bit farfetched to begin with, and there's a reason there's nothing about neutrality in the Night's Watch's oath- it wasn't even considered a thing when the Iron Throne (and the Starks and the rest of the Lords) actually did their job and supported the Watch.  The confluence of events in TWO5K changed all that and led to Stannis being the only one who actually did his job.  

 

On 1/14/2021 at 6:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

The rangers might be experts on all things wildlings ... but they have no clue about the true enemy.

  Agreed, nobody really does besides for a select few but I'd pick the Rangers over Bowen Marsh and the Stewards as far as knowledge goes..

Quote

Yes, I mentioned the latter, too. And that is part of the problem. There is no way Jon could save Arya and not antagonize the Boltons and give them ammunition to move against him. Ramsay and 'Arya' are legally married, and Jon simply has no right to interfere in that marriage. He didn't really have that right before he took the black, but after he did that he no longer has any right to interfere with the affairs of the Realm - especially not at the (potential) expense of the Watch.

Ideally there is a way for Jon to save Arya and not antagonize the Boltons.  That was what Jon was hoping for by sending Mance on a stealth mission to rescue her.  I don't think capture/torture/interrogation of the spearwives was really part of the plan, but as we know plans don't always or ever work to perfection.  As far as Jon's "rights" go, I'm gonna say he is and should always be perfectly within is rights to prevent his sister from being abused and mistreated.  I get what you're saying legally, but I'm gonna side with Jon on this one.

Quote

 

From what we know of Stannis' goal then his plan is now to win the throne by defend the realms of men against the Others. His campaign at the Wall didn't end with him defeating Mance. His plan is to winter at the Wall, defeat the Others, and then use that as propaganda to convince the people of Westeros that he is their rightful king ... like Davos urged him to do.

But again - keep in mind that Stannis and Roose never clashed in battle, and that Stannis saved all the Northmen from a gigantic army of wildling raiders by defeating Mance. The entire North should be thankful for that. Yet neither does anybody acknowledge what he did for them, nor does Stannis himself try to use this fact to his advantage.

There is a clear basis there for them to not kill each other in battle ... especially after Tywin's death freed Roose's hands in the North. He basically can do whatever the hell he wants after that. He no longer has to fear Tywin would come for him eventually if he were to make common cause with Stannis.

Roose doesn't hate anybody. He is a very cold, detached person. He has ambitions and desires, but he acts very rationally. He didn't even kill Robb because he hated him ... but because he realized Robb would never make peace with the Lannisters and thus drag all his lords down with him.

 

I thought Stannis's plan was to win the North, then have the North support his bid for the Iron Throne, THEN turn North against the Others with a united 7 kingdoms behind him.  I could be wrong though.  I don't have a clear memory of that to be fair but I had thought that's what he said at some point.  The North was not in a position to "be thankful" considering all the hostages the Boltons/Freys held.  It's only once Wyman's son is returned that he's able to more openly move against the Boltons/Freys.  

I think the fact that Roose is a cold, detached person would lend itself towards him viewing Jon as a threat.  He should view Jon as threat considering the presence of the direwolf and the Stark looks which influence support among the Northmen.  

Quote

 

He is the kind of person who would not just choose to believe that a number of corroborating reports about the Others are just nonsense. He would consider them and weigh his options. And if people like Jon Snow and Stannis were willing to enter into a truce because of this ... then this would actually strengthen his position because he would not have to risk everything in an battle/war.

But they still support the Watch, send them food and supplies, etc. ... and they do have a vital interest that the Watch continues to protect their northern flank.

 

There are no "corroborating reports", it would simply be Jon's word or one of Jon's subordinates words.  Of course Jon and Stannis would enter into a truce considering Stannis saved Jon, the Watch's, and the North from a wildling invasion.  

Quote

 

I mean, seriously, the Watch are their immediate neighbors. They could go up there any day and do their own investigation if they didn't believe the stories the envoys I mentioned would spread. The Wall isn't the end of the world for the Umbers and Karstarks and clansmen. And also not for all the lords at the coasts who do trade by ship with Eastwatch.

Sure, they are going to come down, but belief in them doesn't mean people know how to defeat them. They could already believe in them right now ... it wouldn't mean they could do anything about them.

 

They would have to do an "investigation" North of the Wall, where at this point in Winter it doesn't seem like people are really going anymore.  So either way it's pointless then? Beyond the fact that Jon could never convince Roose of the existence of the Others, even if Jon somehow could, it wouldn't matter then?  You can see why Jon sees no reason to even attempt to tell Roose of something he'd never even believe in in the first place.  

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nights Watch neutrality was a ship that sailed, the moment that Stannis came to the Wall.  Once they provisioned Stannis, Kings Landing was entitled to view them as enemies, and they were entitled to view Kings Landing as enemies.  Stannis is the only horse to back.  Roose is Kings Landing’s representative in the North.  If anything, Jon should have been even more committed to Stannis.

Yes and no. The Iron Throne can view them harboring Stannis as treason, but the Watch can also try to demonstrate that they had no other choice. Stannis did come to their aid and the Iron Throne did not. The Crown would have to acknowledge that fact (if they are not completely self-involved nutcases) just as the Watch could do anything in their power to inform the Iron Throne what Stannis is up to, etc.

There is a way to maintain a semblance of neutrality there.

And it would be in their best interest because - again - Stannis is obviously a doomed pretender. Making common cause with him and antagonizing the majority of the lords of Westeros could bite the Watch in their asses long before the Others knock at their door ... but it could also result in them not getting any support when the Others make their move. Because they are viewed as traitors who deserve whatever fate they get because they turned their backs on the rightful king, etc.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Unknown to Jon, of course, a lot of people are moving against Roose, making it all the more fortuitous that he does not back him.   

And, Ramsay is just an animal who would be a total liability in any fight for survival.  

Again, Jon has no good picture of Ramsay at all. He doesn't know the guy, and he doesn't even know Roose. He has no idea what they are capable of.

But I never said the Watch should team up with them - I said Jon should have tried to not fight them, come to an understanding with them the same way he does with the wildlings. After all, he doesn't make a perpetual peace with Tormund and company, either. It is limited alliance based on their interest to fight the true enemy.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

agreed.  The idea of political neutrality is a bit farfetched to begin with, and there's a reason there's nothing about neutrality in the Night's Watch's oath- it wasn't even considered a thing when the Iron Throne (and the Starks and the rest of the Lords) actually did their job and supported the Watch.  The confluence of events in TWO5K changed all that and led to Stannis being the only one who actually did his job.  

Well, there is something about neutrality in there, of course. The Watch guards the realms of men. It does not attack those said realms. And those realms are the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros (and previously the Hundred Kingdoms of Westeros). The Watch defends them all, the Watch is joined from men from all those kingdoms. That why they don't attack them. And if they defend them all, they also do not pick one petty kingdom/lordship over another. They are neutral.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Ideally there is a way for Jon to save Arya and not antagonize the Boltons.  That was what Jon was hoping for by sending Mance on a stealth mission to rescue her.  I don't think capture/torture/interrogation of the spearwives was really part of the plan, but as we know plans don't always or ever work to perfection.  As far as Jon's "rights" go, I'm gonna say he is and should always be perfectly within is rights to prevent his sister from being abused and mistreated.  I get what you're saying legally, but I'm gonna side with Jon on this one.

His unmarried sister, of course. A wedded woman? Definitely not. I mean, do you hear anything about Donella Hornwood's marriage being invalid because she was abducted, raped, and forced to marry Ramsay? No, we don't hear anything about that. Instead we hear that the castellan of Winterfell declares that Roose Bolton won't let this matter go even after Ramsay is apparently dead.

Marital rape/abuse clearly is no crime in Westeros. Or rather ... there is a lot of leeway there. 'Arya' being visibly unhappy is a thing for the Northmen at Winterfell, but 'Arya' having to do her marital duty in the marriage bed isn't.

In that sense we really cannot imagine Westeros as a world where a half-brother can come between a woman and her lord husband. I mean, you do recall that Rhaegar meddling with Robert's marriage caused massive strife or that Sansa being married to Tyrion didn't cause Robb and his people to come up with ways how to save Sansa but rather how to cut 'Lady Lannister' out of the succession.

And in Jon's case everything gets much worse because he really has no longer a right to envoke family ties with Arya. He took the black. And now is even Lord Commander, the guy who should enforce discipline and the values of the Watch, not pervert them.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I thought Stannis's plan was to win the North, then have the North support his bid for the Iron Throne, THEN turn North against the Others with a united 7 kingdoms behind him.  I could be wrong though.  I don't have a clear memory of that to be fair but I had thought that's what he said at some point.  The North was not in a position to "be thankful" considering all the hostages the Boltons/Freys held.  It's only once Wyman's son is returned that he's able to more openly move against the Boltons/Freys.

It is not completely clear, but it seems Stannis wants his sellswords to man the Wall, not invade the Seven Kingdoms further down south. If he wanted to continue the war he wouldn't drag them to the Wall but use them to open multiple fronts. March down south with whatever men he has and use the sellswords to attack KL by ship - or at least unite with them at the mouth of the Trident or some other southern place.

Also, it is quite clear that Stannis just intends to pacify the North when he leaves Jon. He doesn't talk about defeating Roose and then pressing on to KL.

He also wants to take his seat at the Nightfort and intends to man the other castles like Jon later does, too. He knows that his war is in the far north now, not down south.

They could be thankful and explain that the hostage issue doesn't allow them to actually support Stannis. And it is not that every house in Westeros is in a hostage situation ... or that there are no ways around that. The Umbers joined both Roose and Stannis and yet this didn't lead to the execution of the Greatjon as far as we know.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I think the fact that Roose is a cold, detached person would lend itself towards him viewing Jon as a threat.  He should view Jon as threat considering the presence of the direwolf and the Stark looks which influence support among the Northmen.  

Jon took the black.

I mean, if you think about it - Jon could have crushed the Boltons easily enough simply by attending Ramsay's wedding. He would have identified Jeyne Poole and ended this entire charade. And then the Bolton hold on the North would have crumbled.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

There are no "corroborating reports", it would simply be Jon's word or one of Jon's subordinates words.  Of course Jon and Stannis would enter into a truce considering Stannis saved Jon, the Watch's, and the North from a wildling invasion.  

Oh, come on - if a dozen or more people would tell their stories about the Fist and the other encounters they had with the Others then no sane person would claim they were all making this up because Jon said so. Especially since he would have nothing to gain from telling such a story. He doesn't want to be king in Roose's or Stannis' place, after all.

And he cannot even try as a man of the Night's Watch.

21 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

They would have to do an "investigation" North of the Wall, where at this point in Winter it doesn't seem like people are really going anymore.  So either way it's pointless then? Beyond the fact that Jon could never convince Roose of the existence of the Others, even if Jon somehow could, it wouldn't matter then?  You can see why Jon sees no reason to even attempt to tell Roose of something he'd never even believe in in the first place.  

The problem there is that the author doesn't give us such thoughts. Jon doesn't even think about trying to convince the Boltons, Freys, Lannisters, etc. about what's going on - not them, not the other Northmen, not the neutral lords of the Vale or the Dornishmen or the Reach lords they have direct quarrel with.

I mean, this guy sends Aemon and Sam to Oldtown but doesn't give them a letter for Lord Leyton Hightower telling him what's going on. That is just utter stupidity if you think about it for two seconds. That is even more stupid in light of the fact that Sam Tarly is kin to the Florents and thus to Lady Hightower. He should have privileged access to the High Tower very few other novices of the Citadel could claim.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes and no. The Iron Throne can view them harboring Stannis as treason, but the Watch can also try to demonstrate that they had no other choice. Stannis did come to their aid and the Iron Throne did not. The Crown would have to acknowledge that fact (if they are not completely self-involved nutcases) just as the Watch could do anything in their power to inform the Iron Throne what Stannis is up to, etc.

There is a way to maintain a semblance of neutrality there.

And it would be in their best interest because - again - Stannis is obviously a doomed pretender. Making common cause with him and antagonizing the majority of the lords of Westeros could bite the Watch in their asses long before the Others knock at their door ... but it could also result in them not getting any support when the Others make their move. Because they are viewed as traitors who deserve whatever fate they get because they turned their backs on the rightful king, etc.

Again, Jon has no good picture of Ramsay at all. He doesn't know the guy, and he doesn't even know Roose. He has no idea what they are capable of.

But I never said the Watch should team up with them - I said Jon should have tried to not fight them, come to an understanding with them the same way he does with the wildlings. After all, he doesn't make a perpetual peace with Tormund and company, either. It is limited alliance based on their interest to fight the true enemy.

Well, there is something about neutrality in there, of course. The Watch guards the realms of men. It does not attack those said realms. And those realms are the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros (and previously the Hundred Kingdoms of Westeros). The Watch defends them all, the Watch is joined from men from all those kingdoms. That why they don't attack them. And if they defend them all, they also do not pick one petty kingdom/lordship over another. They are neutral.

His unmarried sister, of course. A wedded woman? Definitely not. I mean, do you hear anything about Donella Hornwood's marriage being invalid because she was abducted, raped, and forced to marry Ramsay? No, we don't hear anything about that. Instead we hear that the castellan of Winterfell declares that Roose Bolton won't let this matter go even after Ramsay is apparently dead.

Marital rape/abuse clearly is no crime in Westeros. Or rather ... there is a lot of leeway there. 'Arya' being visibly unhappy is a thing for the Northmen at Winterfell, but 'Arya' having to do her marital duty in the marriage bed isn't.

In that sense we really cannot imagine Westeros as a world where a half-brother can come between a woman and her lord husband. I mean, you do recall that Rhaegar meddling with Robert's marriage caused massive strife or that Sansa being married to Tyrion didn't cause Robb and his people to come up with ways how to save Sansa but rather how to cut 'Lady Lannister' out of the succession.

And in Jon's case everything gets much worse because he really has no longer a right to envoke family ties with Arya. He took the black. And now is even Lord Commander, the guy who should enforce discipline and the values of the Watch, not pervert them.

It is not completely clear, but it seems Stannis wants his sellswords to man the Wall, not invade the Seven Kingdoms further down south. If he wanted to continue the war he wouldn't drag them to the Wall but use them to open multiple fronts. March down south with whatever men he has and use the sellswords to attack KL by ship - or at least unite with them at the mouth of the Trident or some other southern place.

Also, it is quite clear that Stannis just intends to pacify the North when he leaves Jon. He doesn't talk about defeating Roose and then pressing on to KL.

He also wants to take his seat at the Nightfort and intends to man the other castles like Jon later does, too. He knows that his war is in the far north now, not down south.

They could be thankful and explain that the hostage issue doesn't allow them to actually support Stannis. And it is not that every house in Westeros is in a hostage situation ... or that there are no ways around that. The Umbers joined both Roose and Stannis and yet this didn't lead to the execution of the Greatjon as far as we know.

Jon took the black.

I mean, if you think about it - Jon could have crushed the Boltons easily enough simply by attending Ramsay's wedding. He would have identified Jeyne Poole and ended this entire charade. And then the Bolton hold on the North would have crumbled.

Oh, come on - if a dozen or more people would tell their stories about the Fist and the other encounters they had with the Others then no sane person would claim they were all making this up because Jon said so. Especially since he would have nothing to gain from telling such a story. He doesn't want to be king in Roose's or Stannis' place, after all.

And he cannot even try as a man of the Night's Watch.

The problem there is that the author doesn't give us such thoughts. Jon doesn't even think about trying to convince the Boltons, Freys, Lannisters, etc. about what's going on - not them, not the other Northmen, not the neutral lords of the Vale or the Dornishmen or the Reach lords they have direct quarrel with.

I mean, this guy sends Aemon and Sam to Oldtown but doesn't give them a letter for Lord Leyton Hightower telling him what's going on. That is just utter stupidity if you think about it for two seconds. That is even more stupid in light of the fact that Sam Tarly is kin to the Florents and thus to Lady Hightower. He should have privileged access to the High Tower very few other novices of the Citadel could claim.

Ramsay being a wild beast does appear to be well-known in the North.  As to Lady Hornwood, wasn’t he executed for this (even though it turned out they got the wrong Ramsay)?

They may have no concept of marital rape, but there’s no way that Ramsay’s behaviour is considered normative.

[Angel Eyes]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Ramsay being a wild beast does appear to be well-known in the North.  As to Lady Hornwood, wasn’t he executed for this (even though it turned out they got the wrong Ramsay)?

They may have no concept of marital rape, but there’s no way that Ramsay’s behaviour is considered normative.

And somehow Rodrik didn’t find it suspicious that an army from the Dreadfort was coming, despite the fact that Rodrik supposedly killed the man who would be leading it. 

Dumb as a box of rocks.

[Tagganaro]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Marital rape/abuse clearly is no crime in Westeros. Or rather ... there is a lot of leeway there. 'Arya' being visibly unhappy is a thing for the Northmen at Winterfell, but 'Arya' having to do her marital duty in the marriage bed isn't.

In that sense we really cannot imagine Westeros as a world where a half-brother can come between a woman and her lord husband. I mean, you do recall that Rhaegar meddling with Robert's marriage caused massive strife or that Sansa being married to Tyrion didn't cause Robb and his people to come up with ways how to save Sansa but rather how to cut 'Lady Lannister' out of the succession.

Yes it's not a crime but it's still something that a loved one would hate to have happen.  Just as Cersei was afraid to tell Jaime of her abuse by Robert for fear that Jaime would kill Robert, Jon or any loved one of "Arya" would still be horrified and angered by news of her mistreatment.  This is doubly so in this case since no Stark or actual kin of Arya's agreed to the marriage in the first place.

Quote

And in Jon's case everything gets much worse because he really has no longer a right to envoke family ties with Arya. He took the black. And now is even Lord Commander, the guy who should enforce discipline and the values of the Watch, not pervert them.

I hardly think Jon is "perverting" the values of the Night's Watch by trying to rescue a damsel in distress.  Seems pretty much in line with a knight's code of honor to do that.

Quote

 

It is not completely clear, but it seems Stannis wants his sellswords to man the Wall, not invade the Seven Kingdoms further down south. If he wanted to continue the war he wouldn't drag them to the Wall but use them to open multiple fronts. March down south with whatever men he has and use the sellswords to attack KL by ship - or at least unite with them at the mouth of the Trident or some other southern place.

Also, it is quite clear that Stannis just intends to pacify the North when he leaves Jon. He doesn't talk about defeating Roose and then pressing on to KL.

He also wants to take his seat at the Nightfort and intends to man the other castles like Jon later does, too. He knows that his war is in the far north now, not down south.

 

Perhaps you're right on this.  Agreed that it's a bit unclear.  Either way you see why Stannis needs to pursue war and victory against Roose and there is no room for negotiation.

Quote

They could be thankful and explain that the hostage issue doesn't allow them to actually support Stannis. And it is not that every house in Westeros is in a hostage situation ... or that there are no ways around that. The Umbers joined both Roose and Stannis and yet this didn't lead to the execution of the Greatjon as far as we know.

The Umbers are only divided like this in order to prevent the execution of the Greatjon.  This is their plan.  Crowfood joins Stannis on the condition that Whoresbane (who is with Ramsay) gets pardoned, while Whoresbane supports Roose and Ramsay on the condition they don't execute the Greatjon.  There is no way around the hostage situation unless you want the hostages to be killed like in the case Arnolf Karstark who wants Harrrion dead so pretends to support Stannis.  

Quote

I mean, if you think about it - Jon could have crushed the Boltons easily enough simply by attending Ramsay's wedding. He would have identified Jeyne Poole and ended this entire charade. And then the Bolton hold on the North would have crumbled.

or the Boltons could just murder Jon before he could do that, which I have no doubt they would if he tried to show up in Winterfell.  

Quote

 

Oh, come on - if a dozen or more people would tell their stories about the Fist and the other encounters they had with the Others then no sane person would claim they were all making this up because Jon said so. Especially since he would have nothing to gain from telling such a story. He doesn't want to be king in Roose's or Stannis' place, after all.

And he cannot even try as a man of the Night's Watch.

The problem there is that the author doesn't give us such thoughts. Jon doesn't even think about trying to convince the Boltons, Freys, Lannisters, etc. about what's going on - not them, not the other Northmen, not the neutral lords of the Vale or the Dornishmen or the Reach lords they have direct quarrel with.

I mean, this guy sends Aemon and Sam to Oldtown but doesn't give them a letter for Lord Leyton Hightower telling him what's going on. That is just utter stupidity if you think about it for two seconds. That is even more stupid in light of the fact that Sam Tarly is kin to the Florents and thus to Lady Hightower. He should have privileged access to the High Tower very few other novices of the Citadel could claim.

 

Again, I just don't think it's worth trying since 1) there's no certainty they could even convince other Lords of the truth of it and 2) even if they did, it's unlikely these other Lords could or would help them.  Do you really think, for example, had Jon sent 10 different people together to Winterfell to tell Roose about the Fist and the Others, that Roose would both believe them AND act on that belief?  I don't think for a second he would.  And why would he even believe them?  The Others are a total myth at this point.  If I heard in today's world that 10 different people in Antarctica said there were a bunch of zombies there I would not believe them.  

I'm a bit unclear on Sam's family dynamics with the Hightowers, but if they are at all close to Randyll they 1) don't even want to see Sam and 2) they won't give a damn or believe what 'cowardly' Sam would have to say.  And again, even if they love Sam it is unlikely they will believe him about the existence of zombies, and even if they did believe him it's unlikely they could do much to help at the current moment.  

[Rose of Red Lake]

15 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Dumb as a box of rocks.

They clearly need some of that good old southern guile to defeat him. Jon and Ned would have been capable of it... but they have to try harder. Mance is too, but think about it....  if a 15 year old could trick him wouldn't Ramsay fucking Snow be able to as well? I think he's in that cage.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Yes it's not a crime but it's still something that a loved one would hate to have happen.  Just as Cersei was afraid to tell Jaime of her abuse by Robert for fear that Jaime would kill Robert, Jon or any loved one of "Arya" would still be horrified and angered by news of her mistreatment.  This is doubly so in this case since no Stark or actual kin of Arya's agreed to the marriage in the first place.

There is something to that, like there is with Olenna's fear that Loras might kill Joffrey if he were to mistreat Margaery.

But the difference there is that Jaime/Loras are Kingsguard, i.e. part of the king's court and household. They are kin to the wife in a high position at court. That is not a given. If you sell your sister or daughter to another lord - or he claims and weds her against your will - then she belongs to him afterwards. You cannot get her back without violence, meaning breaking the normal laws and customs. And if you do that, then the other side has every right to retaliate.

And keep in mind that Robb Stark is an attainted traitor and pretender. His sisters were made wards of the Crown and King Tommen had every right to marry her to a man of his (government's) choosing. Just as Joffrey did earlier with Sansa.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I hardly think Jon is "perverting" the values of the Night's Watch by trying to rescue a damsel in distress.  Seems pretty much in line with a knight's code of honor to do that.

Jon isn't a knight and never aspired to be one. Also, he has taken on a leadership role. His first responsibility should be his black brothers and their safety, and the order he serves and protects, followed by the duties this order is fulfilling. Putting one family member before all that is wrong, especially if it leads to war.

And you see this with, for instance, Doran Martell's and Ellaria Sand's views in AFfC/ADwD. They can see beyond their own desires for vengeance and justice (to a point). Doran doesn't endanger Dorne recklessly ... but Jon does endanger the Watch with his behavior.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Perhaps you're right on this.  Agreed that it's a bit unclear.  Either way you see why Stannis needs to pursue war and victory against Roose and there is no room for negotiation.

But we don't actually see that - we never learn exactly why they want to destroy each other. In the novel this is weird on the part of the characters, and on the meta-level George dropped the ball by having Stannis-Roose not exchange any letters/envoys. I mean, they don't even know whether the other party might yield under certain conditions. This isn't a war of annihilation, after all.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

The Umbers are only divided like this in order to prevent the execution of the Greatjon.  This is their plan.  Crowfood joins Stannis on the condition that Whoresbane (who is with Ramsay) gets pardoned, while Whoresbane supports Roose and Ramsay on the condition they don't execute the Greatjon.  There is no way around the hostage situation unless you want the hostages to be killed like in the case Arnolf Karstark who wants Harrrion dead so pretends to support Stannis.  

I know, the point I was trying to make that the Greatjon could not prevent that half of the Umber strength joined Stannis. Other Northmen obviously could have done the same thing, especially those who don't have any hostages imprisoned at the Twins.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

or the Boltons could just murder Jon before he could do that, which I have no doubt they would if he tried to show up in Winterfell.  

That is pretty much impossible. Jon Snow is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. Roose Bolton cannot just murder him. What would be his crime? How would the Northmen view him if he did move against the NW in this manner?

I could see him, perhaps, try to poison Jon or arrange some accident, but a blatant, open murder is completely out of the question. And there would be steps possible to prevent that - if Jon came with a larger entourage of, say, a hundred men or so.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Again, I just don't think it's worth trying since 1) there's no certainty they could even convince other Lords of the truth of it and 2) even if they did, it's unlikely these other Lords could or would help them.  Do you really think, for example, had Jon sent 10 different people together to Winterfell to tell Roose about the Fist and the Others, that Roose would both believe them AND act on that belief?  I don't think for a second he would.  And why would he even believe them?  The Others are a total myth at this point.  If I heard in today's world that 10 different people in Antarctica said there were a bunch of zombies there I would not believe them.  

They are no longer a myth since they showed up again. People have seen them and people can talk about them. Do you think Sam the Slayer talking about the Others will have literally no effect? Most definitely not.

And of course the possibility of a truce is on the table. Again, the wildlings and the Watch made peace, too, after a fashion. If the Bolton realized that ice demons are about to invade their domains they would want to prevent that, too. In fact, if Jon and Stannis actually communicated the wildling situation accurately that, too, could also have a big impact on the Northmen. Because them being on the move with or without Mance means they will eventually invade the North in winter and raid their lands. Something they would want to prevent considering how the war already weakened and ravaged the North.

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm a bit unclear on Sam's family dynamics with the Hightowers, but if they are at all close to Randyll they 1) don't even want to see Sam and 2) they won't give a damn or believe what 'cowardly' Sam would have to say.  And again, even if they love Sam it is unlikely they will believe him about the existence of zombies, and even if they did believe him it's unlikely they could do much to help at the current moment.  

Rhea Florent Hightower is Lord Leyton's wife and the sister of Sam's mother, Melessa Florent Tarly, and both are daughters of the later Lord Alester Florent.

The Hightowers have no direct ties to the Tarlys that we know of and we might even consider them not being on the same page exactly considering that Randyll put Florent men to death at Bitterbridge while Leyton and Rhea are right now harboring Alester Florent's heir (and Sam's uncle) Alekyne Florent at the Hightower.

What they know about Samwell is irrelevant - he is related to them and he will get access to them on that account. Leyton Hightower is even Sam's uncle-by-marriage.