Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Bowen 747]

It's a classic case of an abuse of power.  Jon abused his power to murder Eddard's political enemy.  Jon was corrupt because he was still a Stark at heart instead of a man of the watch.  Jon was fighting the Starks' battle and using misusing his authority to do so. 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

Of all the things Jon did as lord commander of the Night's Watch executing Janos Slynt was probably the least wrong he has ever done. Plus he gave Slynt more han enough time to reconsider and obey his orders despite his open insurbordination and insults, and it was Slynt's chance to prove that he had at least some worth despite his arrogance, cowardice and corrupt ways and he blew that chance up. 

[Lord Lannister]

This is a classic case of a predetermined conclusion(I don't like Jon/Starks) and cherry picking facts to support that conclusion. Hence the spin of Janos Slynt, the oppressed innocent victim. 

Politicians do this in real life all the time. 

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

Plus if Jon was really acting on just his dislike of Janos Slynt, who played a part in his father's death, had him imprisonned and tried to execute and later have him killed by ordering him to assassinate Mance Rayder, he would have executed Slynt as soon as he became lord commander.

And despite his understandable dislike of Slynt and Slynt's very glaring flaws (arrogance, corruption, slimeness, cowardice) he still gave him a chance to do something for the NW and prove that he had at least some competence, only for him to openly refuse to obey and insult him and refuse to obey after one day that Jon gave him to reconsider his attitude. 

Janos Slynt completely brought this on himself. 

[Rondo]

This generation of Starks are a vengeful lot.  They don't deserve to have power over anybody.  Jon used his to execute a man who he did not like.  

[Lady_Qohor]

I don't think this is a clear cut question of right and wrong, good and evil. Jon shouldn't have killed Slynt but Slynt was no innocent and this all happened in a very grey, muddled moral context.

[Julia H.]

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Those aren't examples of Stannis privately agreeing to something he publicly refuses (and of course Jon wouldn't know about the private sides of them). Letting Mance go (for a purpose chosen by Jon rather than Stannis, of all things) is not something he can lie to himself about and only have subconscious awareness "deep down". Melisandre does not share Stannis' priorities, she regards the political struggle as insignificant compared to the larger struggle against the Great Other. She's not there to uphold the law, she's not even a Westerosi who's been raised from birth to regard NW oaths as sacred. Not that she regards any oaths not made under R'hllor to be!

Those are examples of Stannis bending this or that. Melisandre's wording in that particular exchange is ambiguous, but being secretly on board with Melisandre on that issue (as on several other unusual issues) is not out of character for Stannis at all. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That's a weird phrasing. People are native to a place rather than another person. You might phrase it in terms of his birth family vs his adoptive family.

I might but I was thinking in terms of "nations" or "peoples" rather than just families. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

How so?

He was born to be a wildling but was raised to be an NW member as a child captive. His "adoptive family" had  probably killed his real family. As a child or young teenager, he was trained to fight his own people. He might have to fight against his own brothers or cousins. Having divided loyalties in this situation does not mean that the person is naturally evil or disloyal, it is just not possible to be loyal to two opposing parties at the same time. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The "spirit" of the NW "vocation" has nothing to do with getting involved in conflicts south of the Wall.

Perhaps not. But I wouldn't rule it out in some situations.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It was an imaginary situation because nobody else was actually attempting to use the NW to interfere with events south of the Wall.

Interfering with the NW's own business and hoping that the wildlings would cause as much truble as possible mean disrespect of their supposed neutrality as well as of their vocation to protect the realm. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Even "very special" military orders don't permit their members to take individualized oaths.

Today. But 8000 years ago in Westeros?

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Marching at the head of an army against Ramsay doesn't really fit the NW paradigm.

Nor does Ramsay fit with the 8000-year dynamics between the NW and the Stark in Winterfell.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Nicholas Ostler wrote "Empires of the Word" on how certain languages spread. GRRM's Planetos (and Westeros specifically) does not resemble that. There are an enormous number of languages in Papua New Guinea, as the actual tendency of people is to shift their language AWAY from neighbors to differentiate themselves. And the barriers between neighboring tribes there aren't comparable to the Wall!

It's unrealistic that the North speaks the same language as the Andals (really it's unrealistic that the Andals haven't linguistically diverged over time). Modern English is a language that formed after Britain was invaded by a volkwanderung of Angles, Saxons & Jutes, subject to Viking raids that took over some portions, and then they were all conquered by the Normans. France was also conquered by a Germanic tribe (the Franks) after the Romans, but they speak more of a Romance language. Per the history we get, the Andals weren't able to conquer north of the Neck. The North already had literate maesters, so it's not like even just the literate classes would all be adopting Common.

I have studied linguistics, and particularly language history, for years. I am not arguing that language history and the linguistic situation in Westeros is realistic. Regardless, it still reflects a bond between the wildlings and Northerners. Not only do the wildlings somehow speak the Andal language, but it is also made clear that the Old Tongue, which is also spoken north of the Wall, was the language of all First Men, who were the ancestors of both wildlings and Northerners. GRRM obviously did not attempt to create a linguistically realistic situation, but he has made sure that the Northerners and the wildlings have a common origin, which (realistic or not) is still very easy to recognize. The wildlings somehow acquiring the Andal language (realistic or not) signals ongoing connections between the different groups, in addition to the common origin. Apparently, realistic language development was not the purpose. Making sure that the wildlings are historically and culturally closely related to the Northerners apparently was.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The point of "true Scotsman" logic is that you can prove any arbitrary thing you want that way. There is no one enforcing any norm on Craster, who certainly isn't inclined to "kneel" to any such norms. We're told that every wildling regards himself as his own king, and that fits him.

Yet, the wildlings have customs, traditions and norms. Ygritte condemns Craster's ways as alien to the wildling ways. She calls him cursed, although she does not call every wildling who is "his own king" cursed. When most wildlings flee from the Others, Craster does not think he needs to. This all indicates that sacrificing to the Others is not what wildlings normally do, and that Craster is pretty isolated with this.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

People can make sacrifices to them whether or not they exist or are around.

The corpse queen, for one, was certainly around. Some dark magic, affecting the Watch, was certainly around. My point is that Northerners and wildlings fought together against someone representing the Others, and that point stands regardless of the Night's King having real or imaginary contacts with the Others. Actually, my point stands even if the story of the Night's King never happened in reality, because even as a fictional story, it highlights the fact that the Others are enemies of both wildlings and kneelers and that the North and the wildlings can and must unite their forces against the enemy of mankind. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

There weren't just Seven Kingdoms when the NW was formed. The NW has been around for thousands of years, remaining the same even as the political landscape of Westeros has changed. The vow applies to ALL the kingdoms south of them.

"Is" and "entity" are singular, "realms" is plural. Of course there's no singular proper noun whose name is the same as that summary of a plural category!

All the kingdoms of human beings. Again, no geographical conditions are mentioned: the realms of men. All men, all humanity belong to those realms. 

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

No, the NW is a collective political creation of people south of the Wall to defend their lands from everything north of the Wall. For the thousands of years that the NW has existed that is the role they have served, fighting against the wildlings (who attack rather than contribute to the NW) rather than protecting them.

And nowadays they are realizing that they have long forgotten their original purpose. These are LC Mormont's words, and he does not agree with you:

Quote

We never knew! But we must have known once. The Night's Watch has forgotten its true purpose, Tarly. You don't build a wall seven hundred feet high to keep savages in skins from stealing women. The Wall was made to guard the realms of men . . . and not against other men, which is all the wildlings are when you come right down to it. Too many years, Tarly, too many hundreds and thousands of years. We lost sight of the true enemy. And now he's here, but we don't know how to fight him. 

And this is what Jon realizes in the weirwood grove:

Quote

The shield that guards the realms of men. Ghost nuzzled up against his shoulder, and Jon draped an arm around him. He could smell Horse's unwashed breeches, the sweet scent Satin combed into his beard, the rank sharp smell of fear, the giant's overpowering musk. He could hear the beating of his own heart. When he looked across the grove at the woman with her child, the two greybeards, the Hornfoot man with his maimed feet, all he saw was men.

The wildlings are men and they deserve to be shielded against the Others - they are part of the realms of men.

[Chancho]

Since there was a mutiny in recent memory, with a lord commander being killed... i think is good to show some strengh.

but i'm one of those who hold janos slynt in high regard, because i red the epic thread

janos slynt victim of westerosi elitism and prejudice.

Hope karma bites jon back.

[Mordred]

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 deserted, left his post, and Mormont gave him a break.  It didn't make Mormont look weak.  Jon disrespected Aliser Thorne.  Mormont didn't kill Jon for it.  It's false to think mercy is weak.  Janos Slynt was a humbled man at the end.  It was unjust to kill him.  Jon did it because he wanted revenge for his father.  It's wrong. 

[Mordred]

17 hours ago, Lady_Qohor said:

I don't think this is a clear cut question of right and wrong, good and evil. Jon shouldn't have killed Slynt but Slynt was no innocent and this all happened in a very grey, muddled moral context.

The killing of Slynt was grey but it became black when Jon gives Mance Rayder a break.  Jon should have killed Mance Rayder.  If he had, then his act of revenge on Slynt looks a little bit less immoral.  Jon is not capable of being fair.  He needed to be removed from power.  Which is what the crows did. 

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/23/2022 at 7:25 AM, SeanF said:

In a medieval army, facing a fight?  Death would be the penalty for such defiance.

The NW is a medieval-esque military order, but they were not "facing a fight" when Janos was executed. His orders were not even to fight, but instead to make improvements to a tower.

On 1/23/2022 at 9:06 AM, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

he gave Slynt more han enough time to reconsider and obey his orders despite his open insurbordination and insults, and it was Slynt's chance to prove that he had at least some worth despite his arrogance, cowardice and corrupt ways and he blew that chance up. 

Right, even if the penalty was rather severe for the offense, Slynt was acting in a way that pushed his commander to have no mercy.

On 1/23/2022 at 9:11 AM, Lord Lannister said:

Janos Slynt, the oppressed innocent victim.

I don't think Janos is innocent of insubordination & disobedience (or being an awful person before he was even sent to the NW).

On 1/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

he would have executed Slynt as soon as he became lord commander.

On what basis?

On 1/23/2022 at 5:51 PM, Julia H. said:

Those are examples of Stannis bending this or that.

How is Stannis "knowing" something or "letting" something happen an example of him "bending"? I suppose you could argue that by sleeping with Melisandre he was bending his commitment to be faithful to his wife.

Quote

being secretly on board with Melisandre on that issue (as on several other unusual issues) is not out of character for Stannis at all.

Why would Jon think he himself has any ability to determine what is "secretly" in character for Stannis?

Quote

I might but I was thinking in terms of "nations" or "peoples" rather than just families.

Which would work better if GRRM had let the wildlings realistically speak a different language, follow a different religion, etc.

Quote

Perhaps not. But I wouldn't rule it out in some situations.

How can intervening in political conflicts south of the Wall be reconciled with the NW oath?

Quote

hoping that the wildlings would cause as much truble as possible mean disrespect of their supposed neutrality

"Hoping" is not interfering.

Quote

Today. But 8000 years ago in Westeros?

Why would a military order 8000 years ago not act like a military order?

Quote

Nor does Ramsay fit with the 8000-year dynamics between the NW and the Stark in Winterfell.

The North was not unified when the NW was founded. The Bolton "Red Kings" were rivals to the Starks for a long time in the North, and the NW was not to take part in any disputes between them.

Quote

The wildlings somehow acquiring the Andal language (realistic or not) signals ongoing connections between the different groups

It signals a writer who didn't want to bother with linguistic complexity. There is no Doylist explanation for it.

Quote

Yet, the wildlings have customs, traditions and norms.

Certainly. And different ones for different wildlings.

Quote

All the kingdoms of human beings.

Which doesn't cover places outside of any kingdoms.

Quote

Again, no geographical conditions are mentioned

The Wall itself demarcates them. And, handily enough, GRRM has located all the non-kingdom republican governments on another continent.

Quote

All men, all humanity belong to those realms.

No they don't. The wilderness does not belong to any realm, and the Wall/NW don't even defend Essos.

Quote

These are LC Mormont's words, and he does not agree with you

No, Mormont never said the wildlings were on the same side as the NW. Rather, he was trying to attack Mance Rayder's army right before he himself was attacked on the Fist. Mormont is saying the Others are the threat powerful enough to require the creation of something superlative as the Wall. He still characterizes the wildlings as "savages in skins stealing women" (which it would be logical to defend against), but just thinks that real threat is a much smaller one than the Others, which the NW is no longer prepared to face.

Quote

The wildlings are men and they deserve to be shielded against the Others - they are part of the realms of men.

Jon is a teenager who doesn't understand the nature of a "realm". The Shield that Guards was maintained by men south of the Wall. When Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia sent troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia, he might have thought that NATO would support him against Russia. He was wrong, because Georgia is not actually a member of NATO and so the member states had no obligation to do so, even though Georgia was on good terms with those countries (and had aspired to join NATO) and NATO was formed to oppose the Russian (then Soviet) military. The wildlings were NOT on good terms with the NW and the kingdoms south of them, rather they had just assaulted the Wall (after it was already weakened from conflict with the undead) and sought the Horn of Joramun with the power to bring it down.

[Julia H.]

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

How is Stannis "knowing" something or "letting" something happen an example of him "bending"? I suppose you could argue that by sleeping with Melisandre he was bending his commitment to be faithful to his wife.

Bending the truth here, bending the rules there.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why would Jon think he himself has any ability to determine what is "secretly" in character for Stannis?

Jon? I have that ability.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Which would work better if GRRM had let the wildlings realistically speak a different language, follow a different religion, etc.

No, it wouldn't. The wildings and the Northerners do have a common origin and a shared history, hence the shared language, religion and other aspects of culture. Nevertheless, nowadays they are two different ethnic groups (whether you want to call them nations or not, doesn't really matter) and in conflict with each other. This is not a unrealistic situation, real history gives us real life examples where historically and in many ways culturally related ethnic groups have had divergent recent histories and have even been in conflict with each other. I was talking about Mance's divided loyalties, and divided loyalties are possible towards just two different families or two different persons even, not only in the case of nations, but any groups.

If you don't think the wildlings and the Northerners are two different nations, so be it. "Nation" is not a medieval concept. We can call them ethnic groups or whatever you want to. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

How can intervening in political conflicts south of the Wall be reconciled with the NW oath?

For example, the NW may need strong backing from the country in order to defend the realm, and may need to make sure that the powers that be in the North are their allies. Perhaps it is not enough to guard the Wall, but larger scale defence arrangements are needed.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

"Hoping" is not interfering.

It is disrespect of the neutrality and the NW goals. GRRM has shown us what the various powers think about the neutrality of the NW (nothing much). Saying that it all doesn't matter until they attack the NW is like saying you won't believe the Others are dangerous until they kill all humans in the world, regardless of the examples of the danger already in the books.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Why would a military order 8000 years ago not act like a military order?

Because it was not formed for ordinary military purposes, nor did it recruit soldiers who wanted to gain material goods through this vocation. At the time, the threat by the Others and the Long Night was fresh on everyone's memory, and future peace was probably sealed by magic as well as a political-military arrangement. In this sense, the early "black knights of the Wall" were te Grail Knights of this world, and I think joining was based on both an informed decision and sincere, voluntary self-sacrifice. (I find interesting parallels between Wagner's Parsifal and the story of Jon Snow.)

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The North was not unified when the NW was founded. The Bolton "Red Kings" were rivals to the Starks for a long time in the North, and the NW was not to take part in any disputes between them.

And from all the history we know, we can learn that it was the Stark of Winterfell who supported and fought in alliance with the NW, not the Boltons. Now Winterfell has been taken over by the Boltons, and nobody in charge pays attention to the needs of the NW, and by extension, those of the realm. 

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It signals a writer who didn't want to bother with linguistic complexity. There is no Doylist explanation for it.

It can be perfectly well explained with in-world history though.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Which doesn't cover places outside of any kingdoms.

I don't agree, but in any case, the wildlings are a sort of kingdom, since they have a king.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The Wall itself demarcates them. 

The Wall demarcates the geographical area which belongs to non-human, magical, humanoid races. It does not define who is human, who is not.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

No they don't. The wilderness does not belong to any realm, and the Wall/NW don't even defend Essos.

The wildlings, however, certainly belong to the human race.

As for not defending Essos, that is not necessarily true. We know from history that the last Long Night occurred in Essos as well. It is in everyone's interest to keep the Others in the Far North. We may just learn that it is not only for Stannis that Tycho Nestoris, the representative of the Iron Bank of Bravoos, appeared in Castle Black. The Wall defends the North first and foremost, but beyond the North, it defends the rest of the realm, and beyond the realm, it defends the whole world, all the "realms of men", regardless of local political structures.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

No, Mormont never said the wildlings were on the same side as the NW. Rather, he was trying to attack Mance Rayder's army right before he himself was attacked on the Fist. Mormont is saying the Others are the threat powerful enough to require the creation of something superlative as the Wall. He still characterizes the wildlings as "savages in skins stealing women" (which it would be logical to defend against), but just thinks that real threat is a much smaller one than the Others, which the NW is no longer prepared to face.

He also characterizes them as "men". Mormont wanted (in the past) to attack Mance Rayder, but instead, he was attacked by the Others, and that fact led to the realization and quote that I mentioned, in which he clearly says that fighting against the wildlings made the Watch forget its true purpose.

2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon is a teenager who doesn't understand the nature of a "realm". 

Jon is a young man who, through his experience, his perceptive nature and sense of duty, has come to understand that a radically new approach is necessary if humanity is to survive. Centuries of battles, even recent battles notwithstanding, now is the moment to reconcile the people from both sides of the Wall and offer the wildlings the chance to rejoin the North and help to defend it against the common enemy. Do you really think that GRRM put Jon through experiences that made him see the enemy ethnic group as fellow humans just in order to show how wrong it is to make peace with each other and work towards the common good? Jon's vision is radically new in the context of the status-quo of his world, and it does not set an easy goal to reach, which is why it has to face opposition, but, ironically, it is probably not "only" a novel approach but also an approach that reaches right back to the long-forgotten foundations of the Night's Watch. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

On 1/23/2022 at 7:11 AM, Lord Lannister said:

This is a classic case of a predetermined conclusion(I don't like Jon/Starks) and cherry picking facts to support that conclusion. Hence the spin of Janos Slynt, the oppressed innocent victim. 

Politicians do this in real life all the time. 

Maybe they're practicing for their run for presidency, or Congress. 

 

P.S. On an unrelated note, you know you're a real nerd when somebody hands you a Trivial Pursuit for LotR, and you're over the moon because it has a (probably) cheap replica of the One Ring, which you then decide to wear......

[Lord Lannister]

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

P.S. On an unrelated note, you know you're a real nerd when somebody hands you a Trivial Pursuit for LotR, and you're over the moon because it has a (probably) cheap replica of the One Ring, which you then decide to wear......

I'd totally beat you there, the Ring shall be mine!

[Jaenara Belarys]

8 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

I'd totally beat you there, the Ring shall be mine!

"And on the troll thread they fought for the freedom of the Forum of Ice and Fire. Victory for the Lannisters was near, but the power of the Ring could not be resisted. It was in this moment that all hope faded because Jaenera whacked Lord Lannister with a metal stick, thus winning the War of the Trivia Ring."

[Darth Sidious]

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?

He was wrong to murder another brother of the watch for such a petty offense. Jon was guilty of much more serious offenses.  

[FictionIsntReal]

On 1/25/2022 at 5:44 PM, Julia H. said:

Bending the truth here, bending the rules there.

How is he bending the truth or rules via passivity?

Quote

Jon? I have that ability.

We're talking about Jon's decision to collude with Melisandre in sending a disguised Mance out of CB after he has been sentenced to die (and supposedly executed), even after Stannis heard all of Jon's opposing arguments.

Quote

No, it wouldn't.

A "people", "nation" or "ethnic group" is most often defined by its language. The next most important cultural factor is generally religion.

Quote

The wildings and the Northerners do have a common origin and a shared history, hence the shared language

That language would be the Andal tongue, of an entirely different origin.

Quote

nowadays they are [...] in conflict with each other.

Not just nowadays, it has been that way for a very long time.

Quote

For example, the NW may need strong backing from the country in order to defend the realm, and may need to make sure that the powers that be in the North are their allies.

The NW choosing allies in order to ensure support is precisely what the oath is supposed to block. Every house is supposed to regard the NW as neutral and worthy of support because it WON'T ever side with a rival house.

Quote

It is disrespect

A verbal "diss" is disrespect, and hostility to Ned Stark's son as LC similarly expresses a cynical view of the NW not actually adhering to its avowed neutrality. Cynical & accurate!

Quote

Saying that it all doesn't matter until they attack the NW

"Until"? Who says Tywin was ever going to attack.

Quote

won't believe the Others are dangerous until they kill all humans in the world, regardless of the examples of the danger already in the books.

The Others attacked the NW repeatedly in-series. Tywin Lannister never did. He just didn't help them (during the War of the Five Kings, he did send men after the sack of KL), and the act-omission distinction is relevant to most people even if consequentialists say it shouldn't be.

Quote

Because it was not formed for ordinary military purposes

Is defending a wall not an ordinary military purpose?

Quote

nor did it recruit soldiers who wanted to gain material goods through this vocation.

Conscripts don't normally gain much materially, or they wouldn't have to be conscripted. Sellswords fight for gain, and we agree that's not the NW.

Quote

a political-military arrangement.

A "political-military arrangement" among the kingdoms south of the Wall.

Quote

Now Winterfell has been taken over by the Boltons, and nobody in charge pays attention to the needs of the NW, and by extension, those of the realm.

Winterfell was not actually doing much for the NW under Robb/Bran either. Robb wanted to remove Jon from the NW to prevent Tyrion from claiming Winterfell via his marriage to Sansa.

Quote

It can be perfectly well explained with in-world history though.

What "in-world history" explains the Andal language becoming the most common one spoken by the wildings despite the Andals themselves failing to penetrate north of the Neck?

Quote

I don't agree, but in any case, the wildlings are a sort of kingdom, since they have a king.

What are the borders of that kingdom? Does that kingdom support the NW or oppose it?

Quote

The Wall demarcates the geographical area which belongs to non-human, magical, humanoid races.

And the NW is not supposed to defend that area.

Quote

It does not define who is human, who is not.

Certainly rangers do not transform into another species when they go ranging. But unless they desert, they remain subjects of Westerosi political authority which acts to ensure the defense of the Wall.

Quote

The wildlings, however, certainly belong to the human race.

They belong to the human race, but not to any realm. Craster is defended by nobody, and obeys no authority.

Quote

We know from history that the last Long Night occurred in Essos as well.

Essos has its Five Forts (though as far as we know they are just the creation of the Yi-Ti empire rather than Essos as a whole) defending an entirely different area. World War 2 involved both Germany & Japan as allied countries, but the RAF fighting the former in the Battle of Britain was not thereby defending China against the latter.

Quote

We may just learn that it is not only for Stannis that Tycho Nestoris, the representative of the Iron Bank of Bravoos, appeared in Castle Black.

We haven't actually learned that. The explanation we have heard from Tycho is that they are just motivated by Cersei not paying them what is owed.

Quote

and beyond the realm

That I'm not buying. If any threat emerges from the wastes beyond the Five Forts, the NW isn't doing anything about that.

Quote

He also characterizes them as "men".

True, and less meaningful than you think. The relevance is that the Wall could have been much shorter just to deal with them; its height implies a more formidable threat.

Quote

he clearly says that fighting against the wildlings made the Watch forget its true purpose.

Not so much the presence of one kind of enemy as the absence of another. The abundance of something he blames is "years".

Quote

offer the wildlings the chance to rejoin the North

"Rejoin"? They never lived south of the Wall.

Quote

Do you really think that GRRM put Jon through experiences that made him see the enemy ethnic group as fellow humans just in order to show how wrong it is to make peace with each other and work towards the common good?

No, I don't think that's the point of what he wrote. Jon is a tragic hero, and not a clear villain like many of his other characters (such as ones I'm arguing about in a different thread). Jon is a person whose priorities are NOT the same as the institution of the NW, and this gives rise to conflict. Not only conflict within himself, but also with people who have been in the NW longer than him and don't share his other experiences & priorities. He's a more sympathetic version of Jaime. Jaime joined the KG with some idealistic notions about it (although he never had any intention of abiding by the oath of celibacy), was eventually forced to choose between his family and violating the most defining oath of the KG (for a very good reason), and came to decide that all oaths were worthless and that he would act purely on behalf of his family regardless of how many laws of gods or men he broke. Jon intended to be an honorable member of the NW, but has found himself torn and ultimately decides to leave his post to fight his family's enemy, only to then be assassinated by his own men for doing so.

Quote

it is probably not "only" a novel approach but also an approach that reaches right back to the long-forgotten foundations of the Night's Watch. 

Then why are the wildlings north of the Wall and why have they never sent any of their men to join the NW like the kingdoms south of said Wall have? If they'd been supporting the NW this whole time, the NW would not have "forgotten" which side they were on.

[Moiraine Sedai]

By the way, Bowen Marsh obediently tolerated Jon’s crap because he is a dedicated man of the watch. He only took decisive action against Jon to prevent the Wildlings from attacking Roose Bolton. Murdering Slynt no doubt contributed to Jon’s unpopularity because it was not fair.  Justice it was not.

[Julia H.]

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

How is he bending the truth or rules via passivity?

That's perfectly possible, especially given that Stannis is the boss. And he was certainly active when he fathered the shadow assassin that killed his brother.

20 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

We're talking about Jon's decision to collude with Melisandre in sending a disguised Mance out of CB after he has been sentenced to die (and supposedly executed), even after Stannis heard all of Jon's opposing arguments.

All right then.

Melisandre implies that Stannis agreed to the decision to keep Mance alive. Otherwise she does not need to mention Stannis at all. She could say she was convinced by Jon, but no. She says Stannis does not go against the law, but guess what, the law ends at the Wall. Logically, the latter argument is only needed when someone does not want to go against the law. Now, this is said by someone that Jon knows is the number one advisor to Stannis. Jon also knows that Stannis himself is aware of how much Mance knows of the true enemy. 

Let's look at the conversation between Stannis and Jon:

Quote

"I know that," Stannis said, unhappily. "I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I'll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder's life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms."

"The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance."

"I mean to. I'll burn him, and the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors. I have other men to lead the wildlings. And I have Rayder's son, do not forget. Once the father dies, his whelp will be the King-Beyond-the-Wall."

In this exchange, Stannis is unhappy about the conundrum of having to kill - in order to uphold the law - such a useful source of information. He knows that going against the law may backfire (others may be encouraged to desert) - and this is where Jon mentions that curious argument about the law ending at the Wall. Stannis also indicates though that he has two further practical reasons to burn Mance (Stannis is a pragmatic person):

On the one hand, he wants to make an example of him for the North to see. Note that he does not say he wants to warn the NW but that "the north will see" how he deals with traitors and turncloaks - he is obviously thinking of his war to win Westeros rather than the rules of the NW. On the other hand, he says burning Mance will make Mance's son king, and we know what the plan is with the baby at this point.

The goal of making an example of Mance is perfectly achieved by burning the fake Mance. At the same time, the law is upheld to all appearances - so would-be deserters are warned. The kingsblood goal has obviously ceased to be a goal since Melisandre is absolutely on board with letting Mance live. For some reason, she has apparently changed her mind about Mance's value as kingsblood; and since she is the red witch, Stannis probably does not argue with her on matters of magic. Therefore, burning the fake Mance has become enough to satisfy the practical goal, while keeping Mance alive means his knowledge of the Others can still be obtained - another practical consideration. Stannis knows there is going to be another war, and he clearly is ready to deploy almost any weapon and use any resources to secure victory.

One more curious detail that may suggest (to me as well as to Jon Snow) that Mance knows who "Rattleshirt" is: 

Quote

"I have a gift for you, Lord Snow." The king waved a hand at Rattleshirt. "Him."

Lady Melisandre smiled. "You did say you wanted men, Lord Snow. I believe our Lord of Bones still qualifies."

Jon is disgusted with this "gift", and the idea of giving Jon Rattleshirt out of all the wildlings when he has asked for "men" sounds very much like blatantly mocking him. After all, he has told Stannis before what he thinks of Rattleshirt: 

Quote

"Treacherous and blood-thirsty. If there's honor in him, he hides it down beneath his suit of bones."

Why would Stannis mock Jon by giving him such a worthless gift? It is rather puzzling (Jon is certainly perplexed), but Stannis knowing that "Rattleshirt" is really Mance explains it all, after all Jon did plead with Stannis for Mance's life, so the real "gift" in this case is granting Jon his wish and giving the man himself into Jon's service. This is very much like the Stannis who both punished and rewarded the Onion Knight at the same time. He gives Jon, as a gift, something Jon has asked for, a kind of double-edged sword to deal with, which is both a reward and a punishment - reward for giving Stannis sage and sincere advice but punishment for supporting the cause of a deserter, and Stannis even tells Jon to be content with this gift.

To sum up, there are several reasons to suggest (both to Jon and the reader) that Stannis was on board with replacing Mance with Rattleshirt at the stake. 

It is also quite likely that the order was that the man's true identity was not to be revealed to Jon while Stannis was still in Castle Black. In this way, Stannis publicly upheld the law, made an example of "Mance", warned his enemies, and then gifted the surviving, real Mance, all his skills and knowledge as well as all future responsibility for him to Jon Snow.  

[The Lord of the Crossing]

Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt? 

Jon should have put Janos in the ice cells.  Jon was wrong to kill Janos.  The insult did not deserve an execution.