Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Julia H.]

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Well he can do basic arithmetic, which is more then Sansa can say (lol)

LOL, he can. That does not make him a strategic thinker or a leader though.

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea I think there's a good chance Alliser is behind it. I used to think he was the third knife but since the show I'm fairly convinced it's Satin

In the Shieldhall:

Quote

Bowen had Wick Whittlestick, Left Hand Lew, and Alf of Runnymudd beside him

I have considered it kind of granted that these four were doing the assassination. We know Bowen and Wick were there. Left Hand Lew is another steward, which can actually give him an innocent reason to sit or stand next to Marsh in the Shieldhall, while Alf is a builder, so he is more suspicious in this respect. Alf was earlier devastated when his friend Garth was killed by the Weeper on a ranging where Jon had sent him (and some others). He may hold Jon responsible for Garth's death. In any case, I guess these four have more than enough knives between them to account for the third one. I don't think Alliser will be directly involved in the assassination while there are others to do it. (I don't see Satin involved in this either, but that's just my opinion.)

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Either Janos was compotant enough to know he was gambling with his life or he was too incompetent to realize his breakfast attitude was sorley miscalculated. It can't be both.

Well, he did miscalculate it, didn't he? He was definitely competent enough to know what he was doing - he was deliberately making Jon look ridiculous - and he should have known what risk he was taking but he was blinded by his false sense of security ("friends" in King's Landing) and his contempt of the bastard. 

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Well he did come up with Jon assassinating Mance ( which did lead to the capture of some wildling princesses, whatever that means) 

Yes, he did that much. (Though not necessarily on his own.) But even that plan was more likely to get Jon killed than to get Mance killed. (When Jon attempts to assassinate Mance, he may or may not succeed, but in either case, someone will surely kill him.)

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But for sure, I'm not a fan. Alliser and Marsh however were, along with a large portion of CB 

I have no issue with any of these. In fact I approve. I however am not Bowen. Looking through the lens of an avid anti Wildling I understand his issues

Oh, I do, too. I just don't think he was looking at the right issues. I think Bowen had a very comfortable life in Castle Black (doing all the Maths), and he saw it all change in a very unpleasant way, which made him bitter. Instead of facing the problem of the Others gathering beyond the Wall, he was in denial about the real problem and the need to change strategies, and he blamed all uncomfortable changes in his life on Jon. Understandable but still mistaken.

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon helping Stannis is kinda criminal

Why? It had always been the custom that the Night's Watch received help form the Lords of the realm, or at least from the King-in-the-North / Lord of Winterfell. In the present situation Stannis was the only one to help them. Plus, Stannis was also ready to liberate the North from the Ironborn (which would remove one of the many obstacles from the way of preparing the North for the approaching Long Night). Basically, once Stannis was on NW grounds and fighting the NW fight, Jon had only to options: Either to antagonize Stannis (who had a larger army right there than the whole NW) and acquire one more enemy for the Watch or accept the alliance, which naturally meant that the Watch also had to contribute to the alliance, as Stannis made absolutely clear.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

As @Julia H. superbly states 

 

Thanks, but the credit belongs to @bemused, who (to my knowledge) first came up with the idea of the need to modify the plan, and I find it very convincing.

 

[Julia H.]

Regarding Slynt and Mance and justice...

Quote

There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man. 

Mance may have been a deserter, but his current goal is to save the wildings from the Others, which is a noble goal. In addition, he has some value as an ally against the Others due to his experience, something which the Watch may not afford to just discard right now. (I have seen readers criticize Eddard for following the letters of the law and executing Gared for desertion and thus losing an opportunity to learn about what's going on beyond the Wall.) Mance has also influence over the wildlings. Finally, Mance offered to make himself useful (by intercepting Arya, who was reported to be on her way to Castle Black). Slynt's goal was to simply destroy Jon and grab power for himself. No larger vision there. He repeatedly refused to be useful when he was given a task that was totally honorable and within his area of expertise as well as within his (supposed or real) abilities. Slynt's usefulness value is summed up nicely by this sentence: 

Quote

"Can I have his boots?" asked Owen the Oaf

 

On the topic of mercy: It does not usually happen that offenders begging for mercy after being convicted suddenly get pardoned. They may still choose the option of the Wall - unless they are already there. Slynt had plenty of opportunity to change his mind. He didn't. And then, after the sentence has been pronounced, he makes another unfortunate mistake:

Quote

"If the boy thinks that he can frighten me, he is mistaken," they heard Lord Janos said. "He would not dare to hang me. Janos Slynt has friends, important friends, you'll see …" 

He keeps insulting Jon and threatening, saying he does not dare to hang Janos. This is pretty clear indication of what would have happened if Jon (moved by his subsequent begging) had pardoned him. Slynt (and also Thorne) would have told everyone that the "boy" did not dare to hurt him. He was literally goading Jon into carrying out the execution, deluded by a false sense of immunity. His repentance in the last moment is no real repentance but fear, and he would surely hate Jon all the more for it if he lived on. 

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

Jon made a bad decision.  That is what I think. 

1. Consistency is important to have justice. Jon was inconsistent.  He should have executed Mance Rayder. 
2. Jon was partial. 
3. It is not justice to execute somebody for what you think they might do in the future. 

Jon lost the respect of many crows.  He was corrupt in their eyes.  They are not wrong.

[Jaenara Belarys]

23 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon's mental gymnastics to come up with reasons to justify what he wanted to do was plain to see.  A leader who does something cruel and stupid to avoid laughter is a weak leader indeed.

In this case, it is not stupid. He's just been elected the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (not a low post, to be sure). He needs to maintain respect and a certain amount of fear in order for people to follow his orders. 

You people who complain about Jon's execution of Janos Slynt obviously don't know anything about how severe insubordination is in an army, and for actual history I'm sure someone with a brain and Google could come up with a billion examples of punishments and incidents for those people. This is how a medieval world is supposed to work. 

On 12/30/2021 at 12:30 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon didn't win allies with that execution.  Slynt's supporters and even most of the neutrals didn't like it.  They knew their history.  They knew it was personal. 

That is simply untrue. From what I remember, no one much mentions Slynt's execution past that chapter. You're making things up to try to justify your (irrational) POV. 

[Aline de Gavrillac]

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?  The correct answer is "yes, Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt."

Jon gave up any rights to revenge on the moment he took his vows. 

[Hugorfonics]

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

LOL, he can. That does not make him a strategic thinker or a leader though.

It makes him able to count. The castles flooded with wildlings and queens men, daunting enough for a weak willed pencil pusher like Bowen, unless he's got sufficient back up. 

Bowens not strategic like say Tyrion, but his whole job is planning for the future so there's an essence of cause and effect thinking 

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I have considered it kind of granted that these four were doing the assassination. We know Bowen and Wick were there. Left Hand Lew is another steward, which can actually give him an innocent reason to sit or stand next to Marsh in the Shieldhall, while Alf is a builder, so he is more suspicious in this respect. Alf was earlier devastated when his friend Garth was killed by the Weeper on a ranging where Jon had sent him (and some others). He may hold Jon responsible for Garth's death. In any case, I guess these four have more than enough knives between them to account for the third one. I don't think Alliser will be directly involved in the assassination while there are others to do it. (I don't see Satin involved in this either, but that's just my opinion.)

Word

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Well, he did miscalculate it, didn't he? He was definitely competent enough to know what he was doing - he was deliberately making Jon look ridiculous - and he should have known what risk he was taking but he was blinded by his false sense of security ("friends" in King's Landing) and his contempt of the bastard. 

Idk. Bastards are black of heart, born to betray and all that jazz. Expect the worst, right? Plus his whole shtick is that Jon's like his dad and his dad killed mad people!

But it's clear he was surprised so I think he thought he was going to the ice cells or something. Better to be a prisoner at court then not at court. 

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, he did that much. (Though not necessarily on his own.) But even that plan was more likely to get Jon killed than to get Mance killed. (When Jon attempts to assassinate Mance, he may or may not succeed, but in either case, someone will surely kill him.)

They never got off on the right foot, did they?

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Oh, I do, too. I just don't think he was looking at the right issues. I think Bowen had a very comfortable life in Castle Black (doing all the Maths), and he saw it all change in a very unpleasant way, which made him bitter. Instead of facing the problem of the Others gathering beyond the Wall, he was in denial about the real problem and the need to change strategies, and he blamed all uncomfortable changes in his life on Jon. Understandable but still mistaken.

He's the status quo for sure. Radishes and calculators good, wildlings and grumkins bad. Jon is anything but the status quo with radical thinking of protect both peoples on both sides of the wall or actually physically protecting both sides of the wall

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Why? It had always been the custom that the Night's Watch received help form the Lords of the realm, or at least from the King-in-the-North / Lord of Winterfell. In the present situation Stannis was the only one to help them. Plus, Stannis was also ready to liberate the North from the Ironborn (which would remove one of the many obstacles from the way of preparing the North for the approaching Long Night). Basically, once Stannis was on NW grounds and fighting the NW fight, Jon had only to options: Either to antagonize Stannis (who had a larger army right there than the whole NW) and acquire one more enemy for the Watch or accept the alliance, which naturally meant that the Watch also had to contribute to the alliance, as Stannis made absolutely clear.

So like allowing Stannis to save him, yea, fine. I'll allow it. Giving him castles (which he totally did, they're garrisoned by mostly Florents), arms, food, lodging, whatever, all cool. King rules and realm serves. 

But this business of liberation against the ironborn or the advice to march on Winterfell and not Dreadfort is straight 7 kingdom politics.

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Thanks, but the credit belongs to @bemused, who (to my knowledge) first came up with the idea of the need to modify the plan, and I find it very convincing

Ahh, then good work @bemused. I always thought the murder plot started when Janos was given a day to pack but this is the first I've seen of a boar hunt like escapade, which Im totally on board with

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Regarding Slynt and Mance and justice...

Mance may have been a deserter, but his current goal is to save the wildings from the Others, which is a noble goal. In addition, he has some value as an ally against the Others due to his experience, something which the Watch may not afford to just discard right now. (I have seen readers criticize Eddard for following the letters of the law and executing Gared for desertion and thus losing an opportunity to learn about what's going on beyond the Wall.) 

(Because he deserves criticism. Gared was like the third this week!) 

Completely agree. Now Mance is suuuuuper dangerous. He's got pull with the wildlings unseen in centuries, is a proven oathbraker, (name an oath he didn't break) liar, a pawn of the red witch and even a bard. But he is more then that.

Lots more. There's simply no one like him, he's like a northern Jaime. Who has fought the most against the enemy? Who has the most knowledge of the geography, north or south of the wall? Who is the greatest swordsman? (Seriously, dude wiped the floor with Jon)

To chop up Mance is to chop up your own arm. Just, nevermind the smell and hope the gangrene doesn't spread

[Rondo]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

Jon tried to kill his commanding officer in public.  Mormont didn't chop off his elongated head.  Jon should have given Janos Slynt the same mercy.  Jon violated his oaths and left to help Robb.  He was given a break.  Jon killed Slynt to get even for what the Lannisters did to Ned.  Jon is an idiot.  Illyn Payne killed Ned because he was ordered by Joffrey.  

[Julia H.]

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It makes him able to count. The castles flooded with wildlings and queens men, daunting enough for a weak willed pencil pusher like Bowen, unless he's got sufficient back up. 

Bowens not strategic like say Tyrion, but his whole job is planning for the future so there's an essence of cause and effect thinking 

Too bad he totally missed one easy Maths exercise: 

number of wights beyond the Wall + number of wildlings stuck beyond the Wall = total number of wights expected to serve the Others and attack the Night's Watch

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But it's clear he was surprised so I think he thought he was going to the ice cells or something. Better to be a prisoner at court then not at court. 

I doubt Slynt thought he was volunteering for the ice cells. It looks like he simply expected the Lord Commander to stop giving him orders to avoid further embarrassment.

16 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But this business of liberation against the ironborn or the advice to march on Winterfell and not Dreadfort is straight 7 kingdom politics.

It is. However, it is not a crime but political necessity. The NW neutrality no longer exists. There is a reason why it is not in the vows: Taking no part depends on the consensus of all parties, not just the Night's Watch. Look at Yoren for a good example. How many times did he say "the Watch takes no part" while travelling across the Riverlands? That did not prevent the soldiers from killing him and some of his recruits. Another nice example of NW neutrality is the plea for help to "all five kings". What could be more neutral than that? Yet, apparently none of the kings appreciated it. 

It is understandable to have this desire in a normally functioning kingdom that the NW should not become a mercenary company selling their swords to lords settling their private affairs but should permanently occupy themselves with protecting the whole realm. That, however, means obligations for everyone, not just the NW. The Wall is not the Switzerland of Westeros, fighting the wildlings (or the Others) in itself does not bring profit. The Night's Watch must get their resources somehow even if they are not supposed to sell their swords. The Watchmen can hunt and fish but I don't think we see them grow crops or work in mines. Nor do they have a tax-paying population in their territory that is big enough to keep the organization going. They have game, but where do they get their corn and ale? They have people who can forge weapons and sew clothes, but where do they get the metal and the textile? Obviously, the realm (or at least the North) has to regularly supply them with resources, otherwise the NW can hardly be expected not to start their own commercial activities to survive. I suspect they have received precious little payment since the chaos began.

Neutrality is only possible as long as it is respected by everyone. It obviously means refraining from directly attacking the NW (Yoren again!), but that is far from being all. It means that the contract on which this neutrality is based is kept by all parties - thus the party staying out of the conflicts of others will not be penalized as a result. Warring parties attacking watchmen who travel peacefully, not giving the Night's Watch the necessary and customary help against the wildlings when they need it, threatening the organization, failing to give them resources, interfering with their election, giving the necessary help on condition of making them involved in internal conflicts are actions that violate the contract and make neutrality impossible. The NW still needs to function, and the present security situation is graver than it has been for a long time. If they need to find allies in the usual mercenary / political way of the other players, so be it. Neutrality is not in the vows, protecting the realms of men is in the vows. That should be enough indication regarding which is more important when you have to choose and which one is the full, unconditional responsibility of the Watch.

But the above is not all. Like it or not, the present situation in the realm is rather anarchic. There is no political leader who has both the will and the strength to organize the defence of the realm or even just the North. Yet, there are decisions that need to be made, actions that need to be carried out. Jon as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, in effect, takes over the responsibilities of the Lord of Winterfell / King of Winter due to the vacuum created by the situation and to the necessity that cannot wait. He is reshaping the North by letting the wildlings in, by making peace and a new alliance with the former enemy, he has created a new noble house, arranged a marriage, punished an offender (Karstark), decided on what action needs to be taken by advising Stannis on what to do in the North. Because, despite the abundance of players, there is no one else to do what needs to be done. Look at these quotes. First Davos, who can be trusted to hit the nail on the head:

Quote

 

"I know that a king protects his people, or he is no king at all."

 

Where is that king now that Northerners look to for protection? Look at this scene:

Quote

"Marriages and inheritance are matters for the king, my lady. I will write to Stannis on your behalf, but—"

Alys Karstark laughed, but it was the laughter of despair. "Write, but do not look for a reply. Stannis will be dead before he gets your message. My uncle will see to that."

"What do you mean?"

"Arnolf is rushing to Winterfell, 'tis true, but only so he might put his dagger in your king's back. He cast his lot with Roose Bolton long ago … for gold, the promise of a pardon, and poor Harry's head. Lord Stannis is marching to a slaughter. So he cannot help me, and would not even if he could." Alys knelt before him, clutching the black cloak. "You are my only hope, Lord Snow. In your father's name, I beg you. Protect me."

At the beginning of this quote, the author reminds us that what is being asked of Jon Snow is the responsibility of a king. Then, at the end of the quote, Alys kneels in front of him, clutches his cloak (symbolizing protection, but also his NW duties), and asks for protection in the name of Eddard Stark, the last real ruler of the North, as her only hope. What could be clearer than this? Robb made one wise decision at least, but it is not his will that makes Jon King-in-the-North but sheer necessity. 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

Also Jon was giving Janos Slynt a chance to prove that he wasn't just an arrogant, cowardly and incompetent weasel and to actually do something useful for the Night's Watch and he blew it off. 

 

[Hugorfonics]

37 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Too bad he totally missed one easy Maths exercise: 

number of wights beyond the Wall + number of wildlings stuck beyond the Wall = total number of wights expected to serve the Others and attack the Night's Watch

For sure, it was his (everyone not named Jon) bigotry that made him question letting the wildlings in, but now that they're in they're in. I doubt Bowen wants to send em out, he does still have their kids after all.

I think Bowen, and Alliser, know the enemy (how could they not, plus Thorne seemed on board in acok) They just also don't like Jon

42 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I doubt Slynt thought he was volunteering for the ice cells. It looks like he simply expected the Lord Commander to stop giving him orders to avoid further embarrassment

I can't get behind that. Jon has a controversial resume, but no where in it does it resemble soft. When Janos first met Jon, he was choking out Alliser like Darth Vader on an ambassador ship. He calls him a warg and a beast. Beasts don't get embarrassed.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Neutrality is not in the vows, protecting the realms of men is in the vows.

That's a valid argument, so I'll totally concede that Jon can still, like open the black gate or whatever, but there are other laws, right?

The king rules from Dorne to the wall, they're all the kings subjects and must follow the kings laws (by not helping the king lol) (ok, I don't have a scroll of laws, but it's like a mantra for these guys so I assume Jahersys or some ancient kings made "nw take no sides a thing)

59 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

However, it is not a crime but political necessity. The NW neutrality no longer exists. There is a reason why it is not in the vows: Taking no part depends on the consensus of all parties, not just the Night's Watch. Look at Yoren for a good example. How many times did he say "the Watch takes no part" while travelling across the Riverlands? That did not prevent the soldiers from killing him and some of his recruits. Another nice example of NW neutrality is the plea for help to "all five kings". What could be more neutral than that? Yet, apparently none of the kings appreciated it. 

The life of a crow is not a good one, to me they're more similar to the unsullied or the wights then they're Sunset neighbors. And just like their lives, their very institution is enslaved.

There's no other way for it to function. But if the master wants to kill a slave, there nothing legally stopping them.  (Really 5 kings should be appreciated? Lol, just write 5 different letters! I mean, it's not even a real war, Renly and Balon never shared a crown! Lol good old Aemon, the man who never wanted to be a politician)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

It is understandable to have this desire in a normally functioning kingdom that the NW should not become a mercenary company selling their swords to lords settling their private affairs but should permanently occupy themselves with protecting the whole realm. That, however, means obligations for everyone, not just the NW. The Wall is not the Switzerland of Westeros, fighting the wildlings (or the Others) in itself does not bring profit. The Night's Watch must get their resources somehow even if they are not supposed to sell their swords. The Watchmen can hunt and fish but I don't think we see them grow crops or work in mines. Nor do they have a tax-paying population in their territory that is big enough to keep the organization going. They have game, but where do they get their corn and ale? They have people who can forge weapons and sew clothes, but where do they get the metal and the textile? Obviously, the realm (or at least the North) has to regularly supply them with resources, otherwise the NW can hardly be expected not to start their own commercial activities to survive. I suspect they have received precious little payment since the chaos began.

The entire 7k supplies the NW, not just the North. Theres no indication that the north supplies more then their peers, which is why neutrality is such a must. The only recruits and tools l can think of came from Tyrion.

They own the gift, they tax em. They tax moles town. Honestly they must even pay their brothers cuz (despite my ramblings) slavery is illegal and how do these guys afford moles town? There's an economy of radishes and such so someone sows. Enough to allegedly piss off the Bravossi banker.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Neutrality is only possible as long as it is respected by everyone. It obviously means refraining from directly attacking the NW (Yoren again!), but that is far from being all. It means that the contract on which this neutrality is based is kept by all parties - thus the party staying out of the conflicts of others will not be penalized as a result. Warring parties attacking watchmen who travel peacefully, not giving the Night's Watch the necessary and customary help against the wildlings when they need it, threatening the organization, failing to give them resources, interfering with their election, giving the necessary help on condition of making them involved in internal conflicts are actions that violate the contract and make neutrality impossible. The NW still needs to function, and the present security situation is graver than it has been for a long time. If they need to find allies in the usual mercenary / political way of the other players, so be it. Neutrality is not in the vows, protecting the realms of men is in the vows. That should be enough indication regarding which is more important when you have to choose and which one is the full, unconditional responsibility of the Watch.

So yea, only Tyrion. That's like Janos and seven shovels. No wonder Bowens freaking out, but just because times are hectic is no reason to ditch the core foundation of the NW. It's one thing to change the status quo of the NW but what Jon's doing here is changing the status quo of Westeros which is, criminal.

 

Harren the black (probably) supplied the NW throughout his long and impressive reign, Harren who wears the black did nothing while his king and nephews burned because crows don't play thrones. 

What'll happen if things go one of the ways I said a few posts back, civil war on the wall and Lord Pyke takes CB, maybe Eurons cool with that and decides now is the time to supply the NW, if they spill the beans on Stannis' location and plans. (Or replace Pyke with Mallister and Sansa or Thorne and Cersei {Janos has many friends, Quyburn sent men}) It's a dicey dicey game my friend, one that can not stopped being played. Because when you play agot ya win or 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

But the above is not all. Like it or not, the present situation in the realm is rather anarchic. There is no political leader who has both the will and the strength to organize the defence of the realm or even just the North. Yet, there are decisions that need to be made, actions that need to be carried out. Jon as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, in effect, takes over the responsibilities of the Lord of Winterfell / King of Winter due to the vacuum created by the situation and to the necessity that cannot wait. He is reshaping the North by letting the wildlings in, by making peace and a new alliance with the former enemy, he has created a new noble house, arranged a marriage, punished an offender (Karstark), decided on what action needs to be taken by advising Stannis on what to do in the North. Because, despite the abundance of players, there is no one else to do what needs to be done. Look at these quotes. First Davos, who can be trusted to hit the nail on the head:

Where is that king now that Northerners look to for protection? Look at this scene:

At the beginning of this quote, the author reminds us that what is being asked of Jon Snow is the responsibility of a king. Then, at the end of the quote, Alys kneels in front of him, clutches his cloak (symbolizing protection, but also his NW duties), and asks for protection in the name of Eddard Stark, the last real ruler of the North, as her only hope. What could be clearer than this? Robb made one wise decision at least, but it is not his will that makes Jon King-in-the-North but sheer necessity. 

(Great fucking post!)

Word. This is criminal. He might as well have sex with a blue eyed corpse. We've never seen Mance don a crown but if it looks like a duck, it's a king of winter.

Like I'm totally on board with everything here, more then I've been, because really great post, but the status quo isn't even a conversation anymore. Theres been one check and balance in the Sunset since Brandon the Builder plugged in his first snow plow, and Jon is pulling a Tyrion Lannister and pissing on it

[Son of Man]

On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said:

Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers.

 What do you guys think of Jon's decision?

I think Jon was wrong to do it.  Janos was disrespectful at first but he finally agreed to do as asked.  He should have been sent to confinement for a brief period at the worst.  Killing him was over the top.  We know why.  Jon was using his authority to take revenge on the people who fought against the Starks.  It is further proof of why Jon is not fit for ruling and commanding.

[Son of Man]

20 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?  The correct answer is "yes, Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt."

Jon gave up any rights to revenge on the moment he took his vows. 

Not only that, but every offense to anybody ever done by Janos Slynt in his past life was forgiven when he joined the watch.  Jon should not have had a grudge against Janos Slynt.

[Julia H.]

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I can't get behind that. Jon has a controversial resume, but no where in it does it resemble soft. When Janos first met Jon, he was choking out Alliser like Darth Vader on an ambassador ship. He calls him a warg and a beast. Beasts don't get embarrassed.

Well, then he must have been plain suicidal. So, he got what he wanted in the end. 

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's a valid argument, so I'll totally concede that Jon can still, like open the black gate or whatever, but there are other laws, right?

The king rules from Dorne to the wall, they're all the kings subjects and must follow the kings laws (by not helping the king lol) (ok, I don't have a scroll of laws, but it's like a mantra for these guys so I assume Jahersys or some ancient kings made "nw take no sides a thing)

The king should be thinking of the number one danger threatening Westeros, but there is no king available for that particular task. Not even a Lord of Winterfell to trust with the job of preparing the North in sight. Yet, you can't tell the Others, "wait until someone has the time to deal with you and give the NW their orders". 

It does not matter who made the "take no part" thing. It is a totally reasonable idea, but it has recently been killed and not by Jon. 

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The life of a crow is not a good one, to me they're more similar to the unsullied or the wights then they're Sunset neighbors. And just like their lives, their very institution is enslaved.

There's no other way for it to function. But if the master wants to kill a slave, there nothing legally stopping them.  (Really 5 kings should be appreciated? Lol, just write 5 different letters! I mean, it's not even a real war, Renly and Balon never shared a crown! Lol good old Aemon, the man who never wanted to be a politician)

The NW is not an enslaved institution - or it was not meant to be one. There are strict restrictions but they also have their responsibility and decision-making competence in a way that slaves do not have. The king has no more right to kill them off on a whim than he has the right to kill any of his subjects, lords included. And of course, if we did regard them as slaves, perhaps we would be ready to give them the ethical right of revolt, no?

Actually, the NW vows make it clear that they are sworn to the realms of men, not to the king. There is nothing about kings in the vows. If the king decided to help the Others, the NW should still protect the people against the Others. Of course, the NW used to be a very different kind of military order when it was founded.

Going out of your way to remain in the good graces of the powers that be is also politics, it also means playing the game. When Marsh supported the election candidate that was recommended by the Lannisters, he was playing the game, and, sadly, maybe unknowingly, he was not advancing the purposes of the Night's Watch, only the purposes of Tywin, who simply wanted a puppet to rule the Night's Watch (the bigger the chaos in the North, the better!) instead of the best possible person to protect the realms of men.  

You can laugh at Aemon, but his letter was a shining example of the neutral attitude (hilarious, I agree). It is also an example of how controversial (and hilarious) even the meaning of neutrality can become. Everyone who regards himself as the rightful king will think neutrality means supporting him. But I don't see anywhere in the definition of political neutrality that you support the faction with the best claim.  

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The entire 7k supplies the NW, not just the North. Theres no indication that the north supplies more then their peers, which is why neutrality is such a must. The only recruits and tools l can think of came from Tyrion.

Yes, that's how I think it should be by rights, so let's hope. The North though has the best reason to actually honour this obligation. (Jon Arryn probably also honoured this obligation, and we can only hope that the supplies didn't go through Petyr's hands.)

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They own the gift, they tax em. They tax moles town. Honestly they must even pay their brothers cuz (despite my ramblings) slavery is illegal and how do these guys afford moles town? There's an economy of radishes and such so someone sows. Enough to allegedly piss off the Bravossi banker.

I know they have the Gift, but the problem is that it has recently become depopulated, so I doubt that so much tax is coming out of it currently. Obviously, something is coming out, but we are not only talking about the mere feeding of the soldiers, we are also talking about keeping them equipped and able to fight, which requires more than just food and drink. Sure, they must also get some coin. All this requires more resources than what comes out of the Gift.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

So yea, only Tyrion. That's like Janos and seven shovels. No wonder Bowens freaking out, but just because times are hectic is no reason to ditch the core foundation of the NW. It's one thing to change the status quo of the NW but what Jon's doing here is changing the status quo of Westeros which is, criminal.

Not criminal but necessary. The status quo sometimes changes in the history of every country. The NW neutrality is not the core foundation of the NW, it is something based on consensus within the realm and can only be maintained when everyone decides to uphold it. What must be done must be done. When the house is on fire, everyone has the right to help put out the fire the best they can while the official firefighters are engaged elsewhere. The core foundation is that they need to protect the people sparing neither their lives nor their honours if necessary.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Harren the black (probably) supplied the NW throughout his long and impressive reign, Harren who wears the black did nothing while his king and nephews burned because crows don't play thrones. 

Honestly, knowing what we know of Harren the Black, I sometimes think Lord Commander Hoare took the black on the Wall in order to be at a safe distance from his bro. Perhaps he preferred the black of the Night's Watch to his own black brother. But seriously, what exactly could he have done about his brother's defeat and death? The dragons made short work of Harren, and by the time the news reached the Wall, what was there to do at all that he could have done? Volunteer to be roasted?

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

What'll happen if things go one of the ways I said a few posts back, civil war on the wall and Lord Pyke takes CB, maybe Eurons cool with that and decides now is the time to supply the NW, if they spill the beans on Stannis' location and plans. (Or replace Pyke with Mallister and Sansa or Thorne and Cersei {Janos has many friends, Quyburn sent men}) It's a dicey dicey game my friend, one that can not stopped being played. Because when you play agot ya win or 

Sure, and in some situations you play or die.

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(Great fucking post!)

Word. This is criminal. He might as well have sex with a blue eyed corpse. We've never seen Mance don a crown but if it looks like a duck, it's a king of winter.

Like I'm totally on board with everything here, more then I've been, because really great post, but the status quo isn't even a conversation anymore. Theres been one check and balance in the Sunset since Brandon the Builder plugged in his first snow plow, and Jon is pulling a Tyrion Lannister and pissing on it

I think that 8000 years of history has brought its ups and downs all right. We cannot say that the NW has not changed over these years. It sure was not founded as a penal colony. The whole of Westeros has changed, the North included. Now it is changing again, and the NW needs to adapt and real quick. Some of the things that Jon does may even tie back to the original role and status of the NW. The North remembers, the NW should remember.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 12/30/2021 at 10:43 PM, Hugorfonics said:

How do you know?

He was sent ranging with Dywen "and another seasoned ranger". Do you think Dywen was conspiring to keep Thorne's presence at CB a secret? And that Thorne managed to hide there all this time right until the surprise announcement of Jon marching south?

Quote

From Jon giving his speech to walking up to a giant and getting shanked is less then 5 minutes. There's no way steward Marsh found his calling in 180 seconds.

What's so impossible about a guy who already opposed Jon thinking it's now-or-never right then? The plan you quote involves assassinating Jon at a DIFFERENT place, meaning Thorne couldn't be ready as an assassin right there.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:52 AM, Willam Stark said:

Yes, he was, for the reasons mentioned above. Stop with the bad faith.

It's not "bad faith", the word "rebel" just doesn't fit a disobedient subordinate who's not actually engaging in any violence or seizing power.

On 12/31/2021 at 9:39 AM, Julia H. said:

Why? It had always been the custom that the Night's Watch received help form the Lords of the realm, or at least from the King-in-the-North / Lord of Winterfell.

Not to host a Lord of the Realm as he prepared to attack another Lord of the Realm (whether they be Ironborn or Northman), rather than wildlings. A rival lord to wanted to attack the lord being hosted would then have to attack the NW (as Ramsay eventually threatens to do), bringing them into the inter-lord conflict they're supposed to be separate from. I agree this is a very tight spot for Jon as LC to be in, but hosting Stannis while he contends for the throne is far from NW "custom".

On 12/31/2021 at 10:22 AM, Julia H. said:

Finally, Mance offered to make himself useful (by intercepting Arya, who was reported to be on her way to Castle Black).

Jon can't accept such an offer openly, not only because he is supposed to have executed Mance, but also because his NW oath prohibits him from attempting to steal Ramsay's wife, even if that wife is his sister. Joining the NW is supposed to override any loyalty to your family.

Quote

He keeps insulting Jon and threatening, saying he does not dare to hang Janos.

I agree here that Janos is a complete idiot digging himself into an early grave. Jon could have ordered him thrown into a cell, perhaps noting that the next such instance of disobedience will result in death, but Janos acted to deny himself any next time.

On 12/31/2021 at 2:35 PM, Jaenara Belarys said:

You people who complain about Jon's execution of Janos Slynt obviously don't know anything about how severe insubordination is in an army

Does it usually result in execution rather than being thrown in the brig, demoted, dishonorably discharged, lashed against a post, etc?

On 12/31/2021 at 5:48 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Jon's like his dad and his dad killed mad people!

Janos didn't accuse Ned of "kill[ing] mad people". He accuses him of being a traitor, which Ned confessed to, but not murder.

8 hours ago, Julia H. said:

number of wights beyond the Wall + number of wildlings stuck beyond the Wall = total number of wights expected to serve the Others and attack the Night's Watch

Castle Black is built to be defensible against an attack from the north, not the south. A potential enemy south of the wall is one the NW can't easily defend against, and thus does not count anything like one north of the wall. It's not even clear from his POV whether wights are any threat at all to the realm absent the NW themselves bringing their corpses south of the wall and into the castle (which Jon aims for when he orders some corpses into ice cells for study).

Quote

I doubt Slynt thought he was volunteering for the ice cells. It looks like he simply expected the Lord Commander to stop giving him orders to avoid further embarrassment.

That's my take as well. A rather foolish expectation.

Quote

However, it is not a crime but political necessity

Can't it be both? They make you swear so many oaths... Recall that ALL of Maegor's surviving KG were exiled to the Wall, whether they remained loyal to him or not (which seemed dumb to me, but emphasizes there are no-win situations in Westeros).

[Lord Lannister]

The funny thing is, I suspect the same people that think Jon is an idiot and executed an innocent man would still be critical of Jon if he spared Slynt and Slynt went on to cause trouble. They'd be saying Jon was a weak leader who didn't have the ability to lead and wasn't qualified. Almost like they're cherry picking facts to support a predetermined conclusion. 

[Julia H.]

31 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Not to host a Lord of the Realm as he prepared to attack another Lord of the Realm (whether they be Ironborn or Northman), rather than wildlings. A rival lord to wanted to attack the lord being hosted would then have to attack the NW (as Ramsay eventually threatens to do), bringing them into the inter-lord conflict they're supposed to be separate from. I agree this is a very tight spot for Jon as LC to be in, but hosting Stannis while he contends for the throne is far from NW "custom".

Obviously not to host anybody but to have something to live on and fight with.

It is a tight spot and an unusual situation, but Stannis arrived to answer the call for help that the NW had sent out to all the lords calling themselves "king", and Stannis ultimately saved the NW and (for the moment) the realm by this. Hosting Stannis is far from NW custom, but a lot of other things right now are very much out of the ordinary in the whole realm, and the Night's Watch will need to adapt if they want to be able to continue their fight. They need allies and their choice is rather limited. It's not a good thing to be dragged into the internal conflict, Jon doesn't like it, but all major players want something from the Watch, while the Watch needs men and resources to hold the Wall. There is simply no way to stay out of the conflict unless they just lie down and wait for events to unfold.

31 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon can't accept such an offer openly, not only because he is supposed to have executed Mance, but also because his NW oath prohibits him from attempting to steal Ramsay's wife, even if that wife is his sister. Joining the NW is supposed to override any loyalty to your family.

Jon's information was that his sister was riding towards Castle Black somewhere. Mance was supposed to find her on the way. That's a far cry from stealing. There is nothing wrong with protecting a helpless girl, regardless of who she is.

It wasn't Jon who had supposedly executed Mance, but Stannis. Jon, if I remember correctly, had pleaded with Stannis for Mance's life because Mance had knowledge and skills that could be crucial in the fight against the Others. He had good reason for wanting the man to be alive.

31 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I agree here that Janos is a complete idiot digging himself into an early grave. Jon could have ordered him thrown into a cell, perhaps noting that the next such instance of disobedience will result in death, but Janos acted to deny himself any next time.

Does it usually result in execution rather than being thrown in the brig, demoted, dishonorably discharged, lashed against a post, etc?

Well, does it? Slynt cannot be dishonorably discharged because that's not how it works on the Wall. As for the ice cell or the lashing (do they ever do the latter?), I think we are given enough reason why it wouldn't work. It would probably be different if it was a green boy who had no idea of what he was doing and needed to be taught to obey. (I don't believe in blind rules, circumstances matter.) The fact that it is a man with years of military experience, leadership experience and someone who wants to be Lord Commander himself makes the offence more than just insolence, it is a deliberate, malignant attempt to undermine the Lord Commander's authority and general discipline on the Wall. There are only so many chances you can give him. There are guys here who only obey a strong leader, and they are not about to perform a military parade. It is still a war situation on the Wall currently. One battle was won, but more can be expected; so discipline, order and a strong leadership are part of the most basic strategic necessities. 

31 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Can't it be both? They make you swear so many oaths... Recall that ALL of Maegor's surviving KG were exiled to the Wall, whether they remained loyal to him or not (which seemed dumb to me, but emphasizes there are no-win situations in Westeros).

A political necessity and still a crime? It depends on how we define the word. Look, we can say that freeing the slaves in Slaver's Bay and turning them against their former masters is a crime because I'm sure it is a crime according to local law. Yet, it feels to be an ethical goal in the name of something larger and more important than the laws of those cities. Man-made laws change from time to time as societies also change. Westeros is currently going through a period of change. Everyone has something at stake, so everyone must play.

[Jaenara Belarys]

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Does it usually result in execution rather than being thrown in the brig, demoted, dishonorably discharged, lashed against a post, etc?

On 12/31/2021 at 3:48 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Medieval times, most likely. Modern, probably not. 

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

Jon is a compromised person because he can't leave the Starks behind.  He never would have made a good commander but Samwell was blinded by friendship when he helped to elect Jon.  Jon doesn't have the aptitude to govern. 

Jon himself was disrespectful towards Bowen Marsh when he was assigned to the stewards.  Samwell had to knock some sense into his thick skull.  Jon owed it to the Watch to give Slynt another chance. 

[Hugorfonics]

On 1/1/2022 at 2:12 PM, Julia H. said:

I think that 8000 years of history has brought its ups and downs all right. We cannot say that the NW has not changed over these years. It sure was not founded as a penal colony. The whole of Westeros has changed, the North included. Now it is changing again, and the NW needs to adapt and real quick. Some of the things that Jon does may even tie back to the original role and status of the NW. The North remembers, the NW should remember.

The 8000 years has seen lots, sure. Like forgetting the Black Gate, or how half the oath being in English the other half being near gibberish seems to me like the phrase got extended. But the biggest change gotta be Aegon right? (Or really when Stark annexed the North, but whatever) The NW now doesn't rely on hundreds of warring kingdoms anymore but 7 (still kinda warring) kingdoms under KL. It's gotta be more simple now, right?

So if cb was one of a thousand independent castles for thousands of years without fucking up neutrality then I don't see how Jon's gotta do it 1 month into the job, unless of course neutrality wasn't a thing for thousands of years and only became recently (relatively). 

Hmm... Ok whether it was with good intentions or not, the Sunsets granted the crows neutrality in exchange for moneys and bodies, the trappings of power in exchange for it's control. Somewhere along the line the Lord Commander became a slave to it's subjects, it's duty replaced by grumkins and snarks. I wouldn't be surprised if around this time the oath became extended and coherent and instead of fathering children the crows are now fully at the mercy of the Sunset kingdoms. 

The NW may remember, Winter is Coming, the star has bled and Jon Snow will open his blue eyes. Lol Jesus, I thought the twist was Danys the bad guy.

On 1/1/2022 at 2:12 PM, Julia H. said:

Honestly, knowing what we know of Harren the Black, I sometimes think Lord Commander Hoare took the black on the Wall in order to be at a safe distance from his bro. Perhaps he preferred the black of the Night's Watch to his own black brother

That's not bad. Cuz who has the power to arrest the brother of the greatest king in history? (until he was burned and replaced by the next greatest king in history) Only the king, and whats considered a crime for Ironborn? *Shudder* I hope your right.

On 1/1/2022 at 2:12 PM, Julia H. said:

But seriously, what exactly could he have done about his brother's defeat and death? The dragons made short work of Harren, and by the time the news reached the Wall, what was there to do at all that he could have done? Volunteer to be roasted?

Please, Aegon made it out of his war by the skin of his teeth. (Balerions teeth) 

His entire army consisted of two sisters, one half brother a sad excuse for a navy and 3 animals. The rest were waiting for the first chance of weakness (that took 300 years lol), we see Aegon travel a few hundred miles to Dorne before realizing he made a Gob Bluth level of a mistake. Dude got lucky.

As for what could Harren who wears the black do, well what would any LC with aspirations of playing the game of thrones do? Let the wildlings in of course

[Nevets]

The Night's Watch is a military organization, and in a conflict zone to boot.  Insubordination, especially as Slynt did it, is going to be treated as a serious matter.  Even today, if Slynt did what he did, especially in a combat zone, he might consider himself lucky to merely see his career come to a screeching halt.  No commander, ever, is going to tolerate it.  Confinement, either to quarters or the brig, loss of rank, loss of pay, and/or unfavorable separation would be distinct possibilities.  And that's in a modern military.  Historically, I'm quiet sure men have been executed for disobeying even illegal orders, which this clearly wasn't. 

By the way, Slynt gave Jon an illegal order, and a likely fatal one at that: to kill Mance Rayder during a parley.  I'm assuming killing during a parley is about as acceptable as killing under guest right.  Slynt would have executed Jon had he refused.  Slynt really has nothing to complain about. 

Also, as others have pointed out, it's essentially a promotion.  A sensible officer would regard it as a plum; a chance to shine and possibly gain further advancement.  Not Slynt, though.

He gave Jon no real choice.  R.I.P. Janos Slynt.