Jump to content

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?


Odej

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Ramsay caught them in Winterfell, after they'd already killed some of his bannermen. He's certainly not reacting to some prophecy Melisandre imparted to people other than Ramsay. And after Jon's agents were caught in Winterfell and Ramsay sends that ultimatum, Jon's response is not to clarify that he never told Mance to do any of that stuff but instead to march against Ramsay.

Do you think if Jon had tried to clarify what had happened, it would have worked with Ramsay? Ramsay??? Did Ramsay demand explanation from Jon in his letter? No.

Imagine this: The Lord of Winterfell catches some wildlings doing mischief in his castle. So he asks them, "Who are you and how did you get here?" Answer: "I am Mance Rayder, formerly King-beyond-the-Wall, more recently the captive of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. Well, he sent me here to steal your wife."

Now, in a normal situation, a Lord of Winterfell who does not have anything to fear from Jon Snow and who has any brains would wonder if the wildling was intentionally trying to turn him and the Night's Watch against each other as part of some wildling scheme. He would ask Jon Snow to explain, of course, and would actually give him a chance to clarify the situation. But not Ramsay. He knows Jon Snow's mere existence is a danger to him because Jon is a Stark and because Jon could easily identify "Arya".

What does he do? In his letter (supposing the letter was written by him) he does not demand explanation, he demands hostages in return for leaving the NW alone. He demands four women who are currently guests in Castle Black, but does not fail to boast with how he flays women. Handing over those women to such a person 1) is not what a "true knight" type of man would do, 2) would be a breaking of guest right partly because you do not hand your guests over to their enemies and partly because some men would want to protect those ladies, so there wold be actual bloodshed between the Night's Watch and the visitors in Castle Black. Ramsay also demands a baby - handing over a baby (Mance's or anyone else's) to a person like Ramsay would be both cruel and cowardly, it ties into one of the main themes of the series. Finally, Ramsay demands two persons Jon does not actually have (his wife and his Reek), so Jon could not hand them over even if he wanted to. Therefore, as per Ramsay's letter, there is no way to appease him. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I don't think you can generalize to that extent. Yoren wasn't being interfered with until he ran into Amory (who is not "everybody", thus the set excluding him is not "nobody"), and since then the only military force that has gotten involved with the NW are the wildlings & Stannis' army.

First they encounter the Gold Cloaks who demand that Yoren hand over Gendry on Cersei's order. Yoren points out that Gendry now belongs to the NW and the law protects him and does not hand him over. The gold cloaks threaten to come back. Cersei is queen and at that point the regent, who blatantly disregards the supposed neutrality of the Watch simply because respecting it does not suit her purposes (which is really what other players do, too).

I think we are meant to generalize. Since this is a novel, we are not presented with random facts, but with information the author deems to be relevant for the story. If he chooses to show us episodes where specific people fail to respect the neutrality of the Watch, it is because he wants us to see that as relevant information and, yes, to generalize from it.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The watch was hosting Stannis Baratheon when Bowen said that, and Bowen was afraid that this would put them in the crosshairs of Tywin (who'd already beaten Stannis at the Blackwater). Tywin's letter praising Slynt is small beans in comparison to that (and indeed the Watch didn't pick the guy Stannis hated, which the Iron Throne can't really do much about).

The Watch would also host Tywin if Tywin had bothered to come to their aid in war.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Is going to war with Ramsay "for the sake of the realm"?

It could be. I think Jon wants to go to war with Ramsay to protect the Watch. He tells his watchmen basically not to interfere. He rides forth with a wildling army to stop Ramsay, to keep him away from the Watch and to keep the Watch out of this conflict by taking sole responsibility for the action. He might die, but the Night's Watch could survive and continue to protect the realm.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What LC of the NW ever previously sent a squad south of the Wall to retrieve the wife of some noble? What LC of the NW previously marched against any nobles south of the Wall?

In 8000 years, it may easily have happened before, especially if we just say "any nobleman". It may be less likely against the Lord / King in Winterfell himself (though we have no idea what happened in 8000 years), but then we can also suppose that no Ramsay has ever called himself the boss in the North and got away with it.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's a central concept in basically every society, though that is more the case in an aristocratic society than one based on meritocracy/bureaucracy.

The position of most Westerosi involves being primarily concerned with the good of their own family.

But that's my point. It is normal for people to live in families, to care for their families, and most function better if they have families. The Watch is certainly not thriving in the present conditions. They lack men, and the main reason is all the prohibitions with very little to compensate for them. (I mean... not even "glory". Really?) Not surprisingly, young men will not join in huge numbers unless they are forced to, which makes the Watch a penal colony, which, in turn, dissuades even more young people from joining voluntarily. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I make no claims that it did not disturb him. He had to choose between his loyalty to his family and his vows, and like the previous times his vows were tested he stuck by them. If he'd been married and had children, that might have worked out quite differently.

Which amounts to saying that he didn't love his actual relatives as much as he would have loved a wife and kids of his own. Which perhaps doesn't make his sacrifice such a hard choice. (I'm glad nobody has suggested yet that the men joining the NW need to kill their parents first, because they might love them a bit more than they love distant relatives.) Anyway, these are Maester Aemon's own words to Jon:

Quote

I will not tell you stay or go. You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days. As I have." His voice fell to a whisper. "As I have …"

This is not the proud certainty of a man who is sure he did the right thing. And he never mentions any relatives who were actually riding to him to seek refuge.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Bowen is a steward, so counting turnips is exactly the sort of thing he's supposed to be doing. But he was also wounded when he defeated the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls, so he doesn't just do the "comfortable" thing.

He just doesn't see the larger picture. Yes, he went on that one ranging, and he remembers it when Jon is getting ready to open the gates, like this:

Quote

Marsh said, "We bled to stop the wildlings at the Gorge. Good men were slain there, friends and brothers. For what?"

He is hopelessly centred on himself. There were many others who fought against the wildlings, but that one battle he took part in overrides the consideration that making peace with the wildlings is necessary, that now "the realms of men" need to be protected, as the vows say, and so on. The main reason why it is wrong for the Watch to ally with the wildlings is that one battle Bowen took part in, and that was against the Weeper, whose band is not with Tormund now.  

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Going to war with Ramsay isn't really protecting "humanity". Instead it's more like Robb warring against Joffrey or Ned warring against Aerys. Both understandable as a Stark sticking up for their wronged kin, but Jon's perspective isn't supposed to be that parochial anymore.

Protecting the Watch is right now protecting humanity, and it is the duty of a Lord Commander. (Ramsay is not fit to rule the North in this hour - or ever - any more than Aerys was fit to rule the Seven Kingdoms.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 3:08 PM, Bowen Marsh said:

Worry no more.  I assassinated Jon.  This abuse use of power is behind us now.  I shall bury both of them in the same grave hole.  Two a-holes in one hole.  After all, they are Brothers.  :D

Jon abused his power in order to murder a man who he does not like. 

Chop off his manhood and feed it to a goat! 

No one's bothered to feed the damn goat, after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul Serone said:

It was an embarassment to justice. Jon Snow hated Janos Slynt and used the moment to kill him. 

 

Jon gave that cretin Janos Slynt a chance to redeem himself, and Slynt threw it back in his face.

 

Furthermorr, Janos losing his head was poetic justice, for Janos Slynt's corruption led to  good man losing his head!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

@Julia H. @Hugorfonics.......is this all about if Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt? 

"This is so," Illyrio agreed, "but the world is one great web, and a man dare not touch a single strand lest all the others tremble.

.

It's not that I choose to go out of my way to derail threads and I do try fitting the op into my general conversation (but only if it's natural), but I don't try that hard. 

Illyrio is correct too, it's all connected. And frankly, 90% of the posts here are either insulting the op saying this issue has no credence or are short curt sentences like "Jon Snow's mean. Abused powers". So I don't really feel bad about derailing this, where I might if the thread had genuine conversations.

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Ramsay should try harder. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) :P

He's so fucking weird. (After Tyrion, GRRMs greatest creation. But honestly, I don't even think the Imp touches him. Huge fan of his Theon and Sansa too)

So I'd say Ramsays potentially loving three sets of people. In his Ramsay way. (Potentially, I'm not sold, he is after all Ramsay. And obviously, this post is kinda graphic, disgusting, and not about Janos Slynt)

Quote

"Taking him? Where? He's mine. You cannot have him."

Roose seemed amused by that. "All you have I gave you. You would do well to remember that, bastard. As for this … Reek … if you have not ruined him beyond redemption, he may yet be of some use to us. Get the keys and remove those chains from him, before you make me rue the day I raped your mother."

Reek saw the way Ramsay's mouth twisted, the spittle glistening between his lips. He feared he might leap the table with his dagger in his hand. Instead he flushed red, turned his pale eyes from his father's paler ones, and went to find the keys. But as he knelt to unlock the fetters around Reek's wrists and ankles, he leaned close and whispered, "Tell him nothing and remember every word he says. I'll have you back, no matter what that Dustin bitch may tell you. Who are you?"

So, Mama. We don't know much about her, but we know she kinda raised him and I mean, who doesn't love their mother?

Ight, next on the line is Reek. (Reeks) The way I read that quote is Rams is bugging over Reek, not the casual rueing of raping ones mom. Reek has been with Ramsay for pretty much his whole life, Roose isn't sure who the influence was so to me that seems they influenced themselves. (Like some platonic S&M shit. Real weird) Losing him must have been hard, and life goes downhill for Rams then. (He doesn't enjoy being Reek, he tells Theon how happy he was now that he's reborn (under the red star) and before that he showered the first chance he got). Then he created another Reek. Thats so strange, and loving is a really weird description, maybe like possessive is better? Whatever it is, is freaking Ramsay out and Reek being reborn (we'll find him another red star) as Theon will cause him to go ballistic.

Lastly, his bitches. Now in life these girls face a fate unseen, maybe ever (GRRMs so fucking weird), there's nothing resembling love. But in death they follow Ramsay around, like Ghost or Summer they do their master's bidding. Again this is really possessive, not like any love we could understand, but Bolton's are not us. We don't have a flayed man on our flag, our ancestors aren't considered heroes for their, frankly evilness. (Chett had mental problems, Bolton's evil) 

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But Lady Hornwood and her suitors did bring up the problem in Winterfell. If Ned had been there, I'm pretty sure he would have settled the matter. Bran didn't feel it was his place to do it, which is understandable, but it ended badly

Fellas died in war, so Ned, if alive, woulda been fighting too. 

Idk how different it'd be though, Ramsay wanted to create something for himself and Mandrely didn't heed Rodridks orders to cease fighting. Unless Winterfell physically sent troops to Hornwood I think the issue would be bloody

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Alys Karstark also went to the only available "king" to ask for help instead of wanting to settle the problem with her relatives on her own. It's one thing when all involved parties want to settle a dispute among themselves. When at least one of them requires the overlord's help / sense of justice, it's a different situation.

Alys is totally different because she's a maiden in distress and has no loyal bannermen of her own.

Also if she pulled up a couple weeks before she woulda ran into a different king

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I mean he doesn't know of his Targaryen ancestry, he knows very little of his skinchanging abilities, and he has no idea of what's going on with Bran (or that Bran is even alive).

Yes, those are all possibilities and points to consider. Jon has made it clear before that he does not want to usurp his siblings' rights. To what extent he rules, it comes and will come from necessity.

Word

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Jon gave sound advice to Maester Aemon because Sam was much more suitable to be an apprentice maester than Chett was. (It would have been a waste to let Alliser and some bullies kill Sam on the pretext of "training".)

Do you really think Alliser would have killed Sam? We never hear of recruits dying. Maybe your right, Jon and Sam certainly thought so.

Allisers undoubtedly an ass, but Jon forces Sam to train in archery and Sam hates it and gets blisters but Jon, rightly, still orders him to train.

And honesty, Sam had one job. Let the ravens out, one job. Didn't do it.

17 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Maester Aemon as Chett's immediate boss could have figured out something to make Chett less unhappy. That he did not think of it, instead (apparently) just threw Chett out of the office and straight into the kennels suggests that Aemon may not have been very happy with Chett in the first place, and that he was, in fact, very happy to get rid of him as soon as a more suitable person for the job was recommended to him. Knowing Chett, it is not very surprising, and it's likely that he wouldn't have been kept on forever by Maester Aemon.

Therefore, it is also very likely that Chett eventually would have made trouble anyway. Keeping incompetent people in positions they are not suited for just to stop them from causing trouble (murdering people) is hardly the kind of advice good leaders would follow

Possibly. Imo though your assuming too much on Aemons behalf, as we never hear him complain about Chett

17 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Ghost was also "Jon". ;) There was only one person (Rast) who needed to be convinced by Ghost, and in this case the other recruits were glad to help. No problem resulted from it, except that Ser Alliser hated Jon even more, but he had hated him before that anyway. 

Word. True.

17 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Better than Daeron, for sure, but then he was a knight and an officer of the Watch, not some misguided singer. Also, Daeron was outside the Seven Kingdoms when he deserted and in a position to earn money for himself in a way he enjoyed, so he must have thought it was the chance of his life; whereas Alliser would have had to desert before leaving the Seven Kingdoms, which would have seemed more risky. Much as he hated the Watch, he probably did not cherish the idea of becoming an outlaw and getting caught / killed before leaving the realm, and then there was no comfortable home to wait for him in Essos. He could only have been a sellsword somewhere, which is really not that great an alternative to being a master-at-arms in the NW

That's true, harder to dip. Still it isnt impossible, Alliser could pretend to take the same route as Sam and transfer at Braavos, or not transfer.

I also think your assuming alot here with Alliser because I think being a sellsword in Essos, or a shit shoveler in Essos, is way better then being a crow. But Alliser doesn't, apparently.

17 hours ago, Julia H. said:

As for the Others - though we don't see him do any ranging before Jon sends him on a ranging expedition in ADwD, he is probably a ranger. Experienced rangers apparently know about the Others already at the beginning of the series, although are reluctant to speak about them. Alliser may have heard stories from those who had been beyond the Wall, and, as an officer, he may have heard about Mormont's worries as well.  

Possibly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

"This is so," Illyrio agreed, "but the world is one great web, and a man dare not touch a single strand lest all the others tremble.

:cheers: :D

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk how different it'd be though, Ramsay wanted to create something for himself and Mandrely didn't heed Rodridks orders to cease fighting. Unless Winterfell physically sent troops to Hornwood I think the issue would be bloody

I just think that successfully settling a succession crisis need not inolve the violent death of a widow / wife. 

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Alys is totally different because she's a maiden in distress and has no loyal bannermen of her own.

Also if she pulled up a couple weeks before she woulda ran into a different king

Yes, but for some reason she thinks Stannis would not help her even if he could. What her basis is for that, I don't know, but it means Stannis is not naturally trusted by the Northerners as a proper king for them. (I happen to think that the Northern clans joined Stannis at least partly because they were made to understand that Stannis turned to them on Jon Snow's advice, so from their viewpoint ;) it could be like "here is this Southron king sent to us by the Stark Lord Commander so we can together save the Ned's little girl". Stannis would not realize if it were so, would he?) 

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Do you really think Alliser would have killed Sam? We never hear of recruits dying. Maybe your right, Jon and Sam certainly thought so.

They thought so. Obviously, Alliser would not have touched Sam, he was only egging on the recruits, and not necessarily with the purpose of actually having Sam killed. Yet, Sam was singularly unsuited to protect himself, and the constant beating up would not have increased his courage or his self-confidence. (Beating things into people is not the best way to teach them anything. I'm saying that as a teacher.) So Sam would have remained forever a beaten-up and humiliated trainee, and, yes, he could have died either by accident or by suicide or because some dissatisfied recruit would have vented his anger and frustration on him.

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Allisers undoubtedly an ass, but Jon forces Sam to train in archery and Sam hates it and gets blisters but Jon, rightly, still orders him to train.

Blisters are one thing, getting beaten up is quite another. Also, Jon is a "trainer" with a supportive attitude, so Sam can trust him, whereas Alliser is anything but.

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

And honesty, Sam had one job. Let the ravens out, one job. Didn't do it.

He was also employed in the library, he probably wrote and read letters and other documents (because Aemon was blind), he probably helped Maester Aemon getting around the place and observed things for him. Sam apparently also started to study NW history.

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Possibly. Imo though your assuming too much on Aemons behalf, as we never hear him complain about Chett

No, but Chett was assigned into the kennels as soon as Aemon had heard about Sam. It should indicate something. After all, Aemon had just agreed with Jon that everybody should be used for what they were good for (Sam was a good scholar, so it would have been a waste to try to beat him into a warrior). Why would Aemon have wanted to waste another black brother (one he knew and had worked with) right as he was saving Sam? Yet, to the kennels Chett went.

4 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's true, harder to dip. Still it isnt impossible, Alliser could pretend to take the same route as Sam and transfer at Braavos, or not transfer.

I also think your assuming alot here with Alliser because I think being a sellsword in Essos, or a shit shoveler in Essos, is way better then being a crow. But Alliser doesn't, apparently.

At this time Alliser is already an officer in the Night's Watch, not just a common crow. Probably not the way he had imagined his life, but in the NW, he has his meal cooked for him, probably his clothes washed for him, and he does not even have to fight or range much because his job is to shout at the new recruits and say when they are ready to take the oath. In a sellsword company in Essos, he would be a newbie and he could start his way up the ladder from the bottom, and he probably wouldn't get his pay unless he actually fought. Not exactly the chance to die for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The maesters also predate the Andal invasion, and they're also celibate monastics. I don't think the worldbuilding there makes much sense (everyone in Westeros speaks the same Andal tongue, despite how huge it is and how long many places have been settled), but that's just how it is. Celibate orders just seems to be a recurring thing for GRRM in this series.

Nah, again, the Andal religion of The Seven is where the celibate monasticism comes from as the religion of The Old Gods in no way, shape or form falls within celibate thought. The Andals are basically the Anglo-Saxons while the First Men are basically an admixture of Celto-Britonic peoples (realizing the Britons were Romanized Celts).

Removing that aspect of The Night's Watch would make it a far more effective and efficient organization (assuming The Wall remains in place and The Others come to a settlement with The 7 Kingdoms instead of being wiped out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there another example of someone in the books refusing a command and threatening someone? I can’t remember. I just recall the mutiny at crasters. Any other chapter characters?
 

 

I always assumed Tyrion sent him to the wall for Jon to kill like a gold black dead thing. I don’t know if Tyrion did so to help/harm Jon. I thought the two of them got along at the wall. After the bloody root and bloody snow.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2022 at 3:40 AM, 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. 

Have you even read the books? Seeing the bolded it makes me think you haven’t. Or perhaps you skipped the Jon chapters? Slynt was not killed as an act of vengeance but for insubordination, which is a capital crime in a medieval military setting which was exactly what the NW is meant to represent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2021 at 12:29 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

It was wrong to kill Slynt.  A Lord Commander is required to carry out discipline in a fair and equitable manner on the men of the watch.  The thing which offended me most about Jon's decisions is the way in which he handled Slynt and Mance.  By every laws of Westeros and the Nightswatch, Mance Rayder was the one who deserved to die.  Jon let him go because of his liking for Mance and because he needed Mance to fetch his sister.  it's corruption on the part of Jon Snow.  Jon was motivated by revenge.  A Lord Commander should be above petty revenge.  Jon is obviously not. 

:agree:

Mance Rayder was under Jon's command just as Janos Slynt was.  Mance was the worst offender.  It was wrong to kill one and then forgive the other. 

On 12/30/2021 at 12:29 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

Samwell was stupid for getting Jon elected.  All the signs were there that Jon was emotionally unstable.  Damn, the young man already broke is vows and deserted his post earlier. 

:agree:

Samwell should have used his one vote and left it at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 7:36 PM, Julia H. said:

Do you think if Jon had tried to clarify what had happened, it would have worked with Ramsay? Ramsay??? Did Ramsay demand explanation from Jon in his letter?

If any random nobleman had their people killed, and their wife abducted, and a captured perpetrator said they were sent by somebody hosting an army at war with said nobleman, their reaction would not be to request an explanation. It would be to assume hostility.

Quote

Now, in a normal situation, a Lord of Winterfell who does not have anything to fear from Jon Snow and who has any brains would wonder if the wildling was intentionally trying to turn him and the Night's Watch against each other as part of some wildling scheme.

It's known that Stannis Baratheon did in fact defeat the wildlings at the Wall and that Jon Snow hosted Stannis' forces there. Janos Slynt himself had reported that Stannis was seeking to recruit wildlings to his cause. It wouldn't seem like Mance was just making stuff up, because he's not.

Quote

He demands four women who are currently guests in Castle Black

I don't think "guest" is quite the right idea. Castle Black doesn't ordinarily host women at all. Stannis has an army which won a battle and then occupied the castle. You're right that bloodshed would result if Jon actually tried to hand over Stannis' women to Ramsay. To the extent that Jon actually controls CB rather than Stannis, he could end his hosting of such "guests" and send them on their way, washing his hands of them thereafter. If he cannot do that, then CB is effectively a castle controlled by Ramsay's enemy and not the neutral NW.

Quote

Finally, Ramsay demands two persons Jon does not actually have (his wife and his Reek), so Jon could not hand them over even if he wanted to.

That's a a point where an explanation would be useful, seeing as how Ramsay actually does want to retrieve them, but since Jon intended to keep "Arya" at CB should she actually reach there, he's not going to bother acting otherwise.

Quote

I think we are meant to generalize.

You can generalize about Amory specifically. Per Tywin, he doesn't have the wits the gods gave a turnip. We hear of him attacking loyalists because he can't be bothered to ensure he's got the right target (his reasoning with Yoren was that he couldn't be sure it was actually the NW).

Quote

He rides forth with a wildling army to stop Ramsay, to keep him away from the Watch and to keep the Watch out of this conflict by taking sole responsibility for the action.

The LC of the NW riding with an army against a northern house is not "keep[ing] the Watch out of" a conflict. When you join the NW, you're supposed to give up your other attachments and just be a brother. Leaving at all is basically desertion, and Jon was stopped from doing that when it was Robb he wanted to help.

Quote

He might die, but the Night's Watch could survive and continue to protect the realm.

Can the NW survive if he DOESN'T die?

Quote

In 8000 years, it may easily have happened before, especially if we just say "any nobleman". It may be less likely against the Lord / King in Winterfell himself (though we have no idea what happened in 8000 years), but then we can also suppose that no Ramsay has ever called himself the boss in the North and got away with it.

Why would that have ever happened? What we get of their past is Pycelle responding to recent events by noting that for thousands of years the NW has kept out of the wars of the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote

But that's my point. It is normal for people to live in families, to care for their families, and most function better if they have families.

The NW is not supposed to be "normal". It's supposed to consist of men who are all willing to die on behalf of all the lands south of the Wall, and to not take part in any conflicts there. The reason why taking the black has been an acceptable alternative to execution all throughout the kingdoms, even prior to Aegon's conquest, is because it's so unusual. Similarly, the various noble houses could not rely on maesters for loyal service if they hadn't inculcated the ethos that they were not to be loyal to their family of birth but instead to the castle where they serve.

Quote

The Watch is certainly not thriving in the present conditions.

The NW was able to persist for thousands of years, and the prohibition on families is not recent.

Quote

Which amounts to saying that he didn't love his actual relatives as much as he would have loved a wife and kids of his own.

Quote

Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms [...] The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

Yes, he is saying that having a wife & kid would place too much of a demand for divided loyalty on the NW, which is why they are sworn off.

Quote

Which perhaps doesn't make his sacrifice such a hard choice.

Realistically, what made loyalty to the NW less of a hard choice for Aemon was that he was so old by that point he couldn't do much. But we know his vows were tested twice earlier, with presumably one of those instances where he was offered the crown despite being a maester and insisted on joining the NW instead to firmly remove himself from the politics of the kingdoms.

Quote

This is not the proud certainty of a man who is sure he did the right thing.

I didn't mention "proud certainty" either. But if Jon had fled then, he would undoubtedly be considered a deserter who had forfeited his life.

Quote

"the realms of men" need to be protected, as the vows say

The vows have never extended to "protecting" north of the Wall, because north of the Wall is not ruled by any kingdom and thus not part of any "realm". The wildlings have never respected any "southron" authority, nor have they maintained the tradition of sending men to the Wall to ensure its upkeep. Rather, the NW have long been their enemies preventing them from raiding the "realms of men". If the NW were supposed to protect lands further north, the Wall would have been built further north. The whole point of building a wall is to separate areas and to make some of that more easily defensible, keeping out anything outside the wall.

Quote

He is hopelessly centred on himself. There were many others who fought against the wildlings

He does say "we", because he's not just talking about himself, but he is speaking from personal experience.

Quote

The main reason why it is wrong for the Watch to ally with the wildlings is that one battle Bowen took part in

Him recounting his personal experience does not indicate he thinks that's more important than the thousands of years in which wildlings have attempted to breach the Wall, sometimes succeeding and always raiding the lands the Watch is supposed to be protecting when they do so.

Quote

Protecting the Watch is right now protecting humanity, and it is the duty of a Lord Commander. (Ramsay is not fit to rule the North in this hour - or ever - any more than Aerys was fit to rule the Seven Kingdoms.)

Sending Mance & the spearwives wasn't protecting the Watch/humanity, nor is marching against Ramsay now. Ramsay's unfitness is not any business of the LC.

On 1/8/2022 at 7:06 AM, Darryk said:

Jon gave that cretin Janos Slynt a chance to redeem himself, and Slynt threw it back in his face.

This is true. Janos acted to doom himself, even if Jon's response doesn't entirely fit the ideal of impersonal justice.

19 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Nah, again, the Andal religion of The Seven is where the celibate monasticism comes from as the religion of The Old Gods in no way, shape or form falls within celibate thought.

The maesters and the NW both predate the Andal invasion and practice celibacy. The members of both cutting themselves off from their familial bonds is what makes it acceptable for enemies defeated in battle to be sent to the former without fear they'll try to fight you again, and for the latter to be trusted by entirely unrelated lords taking them into their castles. It's not like the Northmen have non-celibate clergy either, they just don't have clergy at all. Aeron Greyjoy is a non-Andal clergyman, and he seems to have given up women after he got religious. Thoros of Myr was a skirt-chaser, but he comments on that having been a marker of him being a bad priest prior to Beric's revival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I don't think "guest" is quite the right idea. Castle Black doesn't ordinarily host women at all.

But there are knights at Castle Black, no? Do knights foreswear their knighly vows when they take the vows of the Night's Watch? I would hope not. In fact, those knightly vows should serve to strengthen the vows they take when they "take the Black."

Am I wrong? I'm not trying to pick an argument here, and will glady accept if what I say is wrong. But show me.

 

And this gives the conversation between Jaime and Catlyn, and Maester Aemon's advice to Jon all the more weight. And I think Jaime's statement to Cat applies to Jon, just as Maester Aemon's comments to Jon applies to Jaime.

Isn't this the dilemma of the whole ASOIAF saga?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

It was a dangerous, suicide mission.  Slynt was resistant at first but was willing to comply soon after.  Jon had a duty to give him another chance. 

WTF? In no way was Slynt being sent on a suicide mission. He was being given command of a fort which needed rebuilding and re-manning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

It was a dangerous, suicide mission.  Slynt was resistant at first but was willing to comply soon after.  Jon had a duty to give him another chance.  

 

How the hell is it a suicide mission? Is building something a suicide mission? Maybe I should tell my dad that when he's working around the house. 

If a brick came down on Janos' head and killed him, you'd claim Jon knocked it off to kill him, even if he wasn't within miles of him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 don't agree with Jon's decision and I feel that it was unjust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

If any random nobleman had their people killed, and their wife abducted, and a captured perpetrator said they were sent by somebody hosting an army at war with said nobleman, their reaction would not be to request an explanation. It would be to assume hostility.

Well, it was you who complained that Jon wasn't trying to explain what had happened. Maybe the above is the reason why.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's known that Stannis Baratheon did in fact defeat the wildlings at the Wall and that Jon Snow hosted Stannis' forces there. Janos Slynt himself had reported that Stannis was seeking to recruit wildlings to his cause. It wouldn't seem like Mance was just making stuff up, because he's not.

Precisely because it was known that the wildlings had been defeated and it was known or at least likely that the wildling king had indeed been captured, one could wonder if these wildlings were not escaped prisoners wanting revenge on the NW and / or stirring up trouble in the North. Moreover, normally, the Lord of Winterfell would also wonder why on earth the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would want to steal his wife, and even more so when said wife is the Lord Commander's sister. The reason why Ramsay did not wonder any of this was that he knew himself to be guilty of foul play in the first place. He had good reason not to want his wife to meet the Lord Commander and this reason was not his worries about the moral state of the Watch.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I don't think "guest" is quite the right idea. Castle Black doesn't ordinarily host women at all. 

This is certainly not the first time a woman has visited the Wall. It is a complicated relationship between Stannis and the Watch, of which Jon is well aware (see below), but he confirmed their guest status and guest right several times, long before the Pink Letter arrived.

Quote

Stannis Baratheon was proving to be a prickly guest, and a restless one. 

Quote

"What would they have me do, take up swords against Stannis and the wildlings both? His Grace has thrice the fighting men we do, and is our guest besides. The laws of hospitality protect him. And we owe him and his a debt."

Jon regards them as guests enough to be protected by guest right. The debt the NW owes Stannis is another reason why he cannot hand the Baratheon women over to Ramsay. 

Quote

The queen turned her frown on Jon. "Lord Snow, what is this bestial creature doing on our side of the Wall?"

"Wun Wun is a guest of the Night's Watch, as you are."

Jon confirms it in front of Selyse that he considers them guests, and he also asserts his rights as the host.

Quote

"Ser Patrek of King's Mountain, if it please my lord."

"I do not know how you observe guest right on your mountain, ser. In the north we hold it sacred. Wun Wun is a guest here."

So Jon here asserts that guest right is held sacred in the North. There is no way the NW can betray their guests and put them in mortal danger. It is probably not by accident that the author has Jon Snow think and speak of guest rights so many times, specifically in connection with the Baratheon family (Jon talks about guest right in other contexts as well).

As for sending the guests on their way and washing his hands of them, well, that would hardly satisfy Ramsay.

I think we are meant to notice a comparison here. It is often said that Walder Frey arranged the Red Wedding and broke the guest right in that hideous way because he was protecting his family by proving his loyalty to the Lannisters. Yet, it is quite clear that it was a morally despicable act. Jon, however, is not the person who saves his skin by sacrificing women who are guests under his roof. If he did that, he would be not better than the Freys. 

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That's a a point where an explanation would be useful, seeing as how Ramsay actually does want to retrieve them, but since Jon intended to keep "Arya" at CB should she actually reach there, he's not going to bother acting otherwise.

"Sorry, I haven't seen your wife. Perhaps you could look elsewhere."  That's another thing that wouldn't satisfy Ramsay. If Jon could be certain that Ramsay is sitting in Winterfell waiting for his answer, it would be one thing. But Ramsay could actually be on his way to Castle Black right now, so sending out futile answers would only mean losing valuable time.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You can generalize about Amory specifically. Per Tywin, he doesn't have the wits the gods gave a turnip.

But I gave you other examples. The Gold Cloaks. Cersei. Tywin. The supposed leaders of the realm do not respect NW neutrality. Amory is one more person. (And we never see his soldiers stop and wonder, "Is this right?") This is more than enough to generalize. I mean how much more space should the writer dedicate to this detail?  

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The LC of the NW riding with an army against a northern house is not "keep[ing] the Watch out of" a conflict. When you join the NW, you're supposed to give up your other attachments and just be a brother. Leaving at all is basically desertion, and Jon was stopped from doing that when it was Robb he wanted to help.

When it was Robb that Jon wanted to help, he was not the Lord Commander, and he was acting on his own behalf, not with the interest of the Watch in mind. Now, it is different. If the LC thinks it is in the interest of the Watch to ride against a self-declared enemy, it is not desertion. "Leaving at all" is clearly not desertion, otherwise Yoren, Benjen, Ser Alliser and Sam would all be deserters.

Jon does his best to keep the Watch out of the conflict by not taking them against Ramsay. But something must be done, otherwise Ramsay could destroy the Watch. Ramsay is not the person who is appeased by submission, especially when he does not get what he wants.

Jon himself wants to go against Ramsay because he takes personal responsibility for this decision and also for what Mance did. As it is made clear in the book, Jon did not send Mance to Winterfell, only told him to find Arya already on her way somewhere towards the Wall. Nevertheless, he takes responsibility for everything that Mance did. It is quite similar to what Eddard did - when he learned that Catelyn had captured Tyrion, he, as head of the family, immediately claimed responsibility for this action, even though he had had no idea about it before (and actually he had told Catelyn to go straight to Winterfell). Jon, as the LC of the Night's Watch, does not wash his hands of Mance and the wildling women, he does not wash his hands of Selyse, he does not wash his hands of Slynt, he knows he has blood on his hands, and he takes responsibility for everything, as a leader should.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Can the NW survive if he DOESN'T die?

Can the NW survive anyway?

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why would that have ever happened? 

Why wouldn't it have happened? Sending a "squad" (a few people, non-members) southwards to escort the LC's sister to the Wall is hardly the same as joining the wars of the realm.

It is never included in the vows that the black brothers have to sever all ties with their family members (Benjen regularly visited his brother, Aemon corresponded with Rhaegar). The Lady of Winterfell is certainly not prohibited from visiting a family member on the Wall or from just making a visit to the Wall.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The NW is not supposed to be "normal". It's supposed to consist of men who are all willing to die on behalf of all the lands south of the Wall, and to not take part in any conflicts there. The reason why taking the black has been an acceptable alternative to execution all throughout the kingdoms, even prior to Aegon's conquest, is because it's so unusual. Similarly, the various noble houses could not rely on maesters for loyal service if they hadn't inculcated the ethos that they were not to be loyal to their family of birth but instead to the castle where they serve.

The NW was able to persist for thousands of years, and the prohibition on families is not recent.

The NW at its present state is clearly not what it was originally meant to be. It was established for men who would take the vows voluntarily. The prohibitions are not necessarily as old as the organization. It is quite possible that the prohibitions were introduced after the NW started to be used for punitive purposes, and it is very likely that turning the NW into a prison played an important role in its decline. Now it persists as hardly better than a prison camp and needs to rediscover what its real purpose is. I'm not sure the founders would even agree that the organization they founded has really "persisted".

Regarding the maesters' loyal service, an honest maester will honestly serve his lord. A dishonest maester can betray his lord for money just as well as for love. Of course, just because someone does not get married, there may still be people they love. But a maester is not prohibited from becoming a quasi family member in his lord's family and can get rewarded for his loyal service and be made interested in being faithful. If not, then betrayal can happen for various reasons. 

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Yes, he is saying that having a wife & kid would place too much of a demand for divided loyalty on the NW, which is why they are sworn off.

Realistically, what made loyalty to the NW less of a hard choice for Aemon was that he was so old by that point he couldn't do much. But we know his vows were tested twice earlier, with presumably one of those instances where he was offered the crown despite being a maester and insisted on joining the NW instead to firmly remove himself from the politics of the kingdoms.

IIRC, Aemon wanted to remove himself from politics because he didn't want to be used against his brother in any way. (Obviously, he had no political ambitions himself.) So, in a way, he joined the NW for the good of a family member. Interesting. It would also be interesting to know what the third (or first?) occasion was.

In any case, what we do know is that once he was offered the crown, which he probably did not want, and he was not the last member of his family who could take it. So while the crown itself is understandably a sort of temptation, it was not the temptation of love or family (but of power). That shows that there may be all sorts of temptations out there (as I said above).

Why did they never think of making the black brothers very rich so they would never need to sell their allegiance to anybody for gold? Why did no one ever realize that longing in vain for a woman's love or for a family could be extremely disturbing for some, or that frustrated, dissatisfied men might not be able to concentrate on the greater purpose so well? How about the men who joined as they were getting older and already had children (fathered long before their NW service began)? Isn't it a terrible risk to let them join? Why are future children more dangerous for the men's loyalty than already existing ones? All this shows that trying to (hopelessly) remove the one "weakness" that makes people human - love - while comfortably leaving room for all sorts of other weaknesses is rather ridiculous.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I didn't mention "proud certainty" either. But if Jon had fled then, he would undoubtedly be considered a deserter who had forfeited his life.

Yes, and yet, Maester Aemon told him he had to choose, that everybody had to choose when the time for choosing came (not necessarily the time when they take the vows). That's a very intriguing quote. After taking the vow, legally, the black brothers cannot choose any longer. They cannot legally change their minds, and Maester Aemon knows that. (It is interesting that this legal situation does not seem to be regarded as absolutely unalterable everywhere in the realm. Both Robb and Stannis think that Jon could leave the NW for a good enough political reason.)

So what does Maester Aemon mean by having to choose and live with that choice? He can only mean that the moral choice is still there. Vow or not vow, any black brother (even though they take no wives!) may face a situation where another obligation competes with the vow, where the black brother has to decide what is the right thing to do. That also means that there can be specific situations where the morally better thing to choose may involve breaking the vow or breaking the usual rules - or deserting even. If it weren't so, Aemon would simply tell Jon that keeping the vows is his only moral concern now. But Aemon is too wise for that. You do not put down your moral responsibility forever when you take the black. In a moral sense, a black brother still has his free will and (preferably) his own moral compass, therefore every time when he is faced with a choice, it is his responsibility to choose and then he has to live with his choice (or die for it). 

Let's see the choices Jon has to face. First, it is to desert the NW to take revenge for his father and help his brother's fight. But revenge does not bring back his father and Robb has many soldiers to fight for him, so he may not need Jon. Then Jon is offered the title of the Lord of Winterfell and a chance to rebuild his family's home. Granted, it could only come true if the castle is successfully taken back first, but the alternative that Jon faces is remaining a black brother in an organization possibly led by Janos Slynt. This latter circumstance could give him a huge reason to desert, yet, he stays.

Finally there is the moral choice of saving his little sister fleeing to him or abandoning her. The choice does not involve desertion as his previous choices did, so is it really the morally better option to turn away from a family member, a child who (unlike Robb previously) has no other hope but Jon Snow? Jon is again contrasted with another character here: Axell Florent, who stood by idly while his brother was being burned alive, and Jon considers him the next thing to a kinslayer. We also know what a despicable person Axell is in general. So what sort of a moral coward would be a man who could abandon his little, orphan, abused sister in this life-threatening situation? Certainly not the kind of man who could safely be trusted with the loyal protection of the whole realm.

It is worth noting how Jon's choices relate to the two divine laws of Westeros, guest right and the kinslaying taboo, and how he chooses to obey the divine laws even if he needs to break the man-made ones.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The vows have never extended to "protecting" north of the Wall, because north of the Wall is not ruled by any kingdom and thus not part of any "realm". The wildlings have never respected any "southron" authority, nor have they maintained the tradition of sending men to the Wall to ensure its upkeep. Rather, the NW have long been their enemies preventing them from raiding the "realms of men". If the NW were supposed to protect lands further north, the Wall would have been built further north. The whole point of building a wall is to separate areas and to make some of that more easily defensible, keeping out anything outside the wall.

The vows refer to the realms of men. Not the realms of kings (as Jon points out to Marsh). The purpose of the Wall is to keep out the Others, not "anything" that is up there. The wildlings are humans, thus they belong to the realms of men, and the true purpose of the Watch is to protect humans - all humans - against the Others. This is the realization that Jon makes in the weirwood grove in ADwD.

Of course, protecting the lands north of the Wall is not the issue here, nor has anyone suggested it. That is the reason why the wildlings must be allowed to return to the North. Despite the differences, culturally the wildlings and the Northerners have a lot in common, they have a shared origin, so these peoples are simply being reunited now. It is better to have more people to defend the Wall with than more wights serving the Others, but the true spirit of the vows also demands alliance with the wildlings in this dire situation.

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Him recounting his personal experience does not indicate he thinks that's more important than the thousands of years in which wildlings have attempted to breach the Wall, sometimes succeeding and always raiding the lands the Watch is supposed to be protecting when they do so.

I'm afraid it does indicate just that. Not consciously, but subconsciously perhaps. These are not randomly occurring words but the ones the author chose to give Marsh. Bowen uses the memory of a personal grievance to oppose a plan that concerns the future of the realms of men in general. That's why I say he is unable to see the larger picture, he cannot move beyond what concerns him personally. Therefore he cannot be persuaded by a man who has a larger vision.  

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Ramsay's unfitness is not any business of the LC.

It is the business of the LC as soon as the sadistic madman threatens the NW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...