Was Jon wrong to kill Janos Slynt?

[Julia H.]

25 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

There should not be parties and certainly there's nothing formal like I kinda alluded too with the Anti Snow Slynt Party, but there are cliques. Mallister and Pyke being the most powerful but even small Chett like cliques can topple an Old Bear, nevermind that head conspirator Chett was dead when his nemesis was murdered (insert foreshadowing  music here)

There are cliques but if you take Mallister and Pyke, they may hate each other as much as they want, yet, they both must obey the Lord Commander. What Chett did was definitely criminal.

27 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Do they not?

They resorted to a different plan, for sure, but if Slynt had succeeded, Jon would have ceased to be the Commander immediately. I don't think they have been doing as they wanted so far, but they have surely been plotting secretly. Not to avenge Janos though. 

[Hugorfonics]

7 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

There are cliques but if you take Mallister and Pyke, they may hate each other as much as they want, yet, they both must obey the Lord Commander.

Word. It'll be interesting what happens now though, if Marsh takes control of CB he should receive them for an election, but that's more like an invitation to get assassinated. Or gods forbid the other dude wins. I think it'll be safer for them to stay in their own castle with their own men, which goes way beyond party politics. 

15 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

What Chett did was definitely criminal.

Definitely. What his conspirators did was even more so. Like Marsh, and the ancient crows before then who murdered their nights king.

20 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

They resorted to a different plan, for sure, but if Slynt had succeeded, Jon would have ceased to be the Commander immediately

Perhaps. It's hard to tell because we know so little of Slynt and his plotting. (Tyrion sent a squad with Janos from KL, do we even know their names?) But after Jon gave Janos his 24hrs he found him in the cafeteria, not exactly battle positions

24 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't think they have been doing as they wanted so far, but they have surely been plotting secretly. Not to avenge Janos though. 

Bowen does what he's told, or did. Thorne however is probably not ranging on behalf of Lord Snow, even though he said he would.

I don't think anybody misses Janos, but the message that he was pandering is now highlighted and administrated by component people

[Julia H.]

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word. It'll be interesting what happens now though, if Marsh takes control of CB he should receive them for an election, but that's more like an invitation to get assassinated. Or gods forbid the other dude wins. I think it'll be safer for them to stay in their own castle with their own men, which goes way beyond party politics. 

Off topic, but I'm not sure Marsh will make it alive long enough to be an election candidate. Already enraged Wun Wun is there for a reason. As for Pyke and Mallister, I don't know, preventing one another from winning an election while staying within the rules is one thing, being ready to kill a fellow officer is quite another.

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Definitely. What his conspirators did was even more so. Like Marsh, and the ancient crows before then who murdered their nights king.

Yes, Marsh and Co also acted in a criminal way. (The Night's King though wasn't murdered by his crows, but, apparently, he was brought down by the joint forces of the King of Winter and the King-Beyond-the-Wall for being in league with the Others.)

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Perhaps. It's hard to tell because we know so little of Slynt and his plotting. (Tyrion sent a squad with Janos from KL, do we even know their names?) But after Jon gave Janos his 24hrs he found him in the cafeteria, not exactly battle positions

Slynt had no business being in that cafeteria when he should have been on his way to another castle.

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Bowen does what he's told, or did. Thorne however is probably not ranging on behalf of Lord Snow, even though he said he would.

Oh, I agree that Thorne is probably not ranging. I think he is the brains behind Marsh's plot. To me, it indicates that the mistake may have been sending Thorne out of Jon's view (not Slynt's execution).

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I don't think anybody misses Janos, but the message that he was pandering is now highlighted and administrated by component people

Well, Slynt acted pretty openly to  start with. To me it seems that everyone present would have registered if Jon had not been in full command, as everyone present registered that he was.

[Willam Stark]

Yes, he did the right thing, every lord would have done it, Janos included.

Stannis approved his decision, end of story.

We've talked about long enough, let the haters hate and be done with it.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Off topic, but I'm not sure Marsh will make it alive long enough to be an election candidate.

I think he will. He may be an asshole and a general bigot but he's not stupid, and taking out the chief without planning for your safety is just stupid.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Already enraged Wun Wun is there for a reason.

So he can kill Patrick and turn his Lone Star into G-men red  or as we know it, 

Quote

"Born amidst salt and smoke, beneath a bleeding star. I know the prophecy."

 

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

As for Pyke and Mallister, I don't know, preventing one another from winning an election while staying within the rules is one thing, being ready to kill a fellow officer is quite another.

Word, double for their "subjects". Still, the other castillian can't be trusted and CB must not be trusted.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, Marsh and Co also acted in a criminal way. (The Night's King though wasn't murdered by his crows, but, apparently, he was brought down by the joint forces of the King of Winter and the King-Beyond-the-Wall for being in league with the Others.)

Huh. So he was... Word, ty.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Slynt had no business being in that cafeteria when he should have been on his way to another castle.

He should have been suiting up no doubt, for something. That's what a competent enemy would do, instead of breakfast. (For all the boo hoo rags to riches story of Janos, he was at the time, riches. Alliser and Marsh may have a better birth but Janos was socially elite to them, thus the natural leader. Even if the NW supposedly gives that away)

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Oh, I agree that Thorne is probably not ranging. I think he is the brains behind Marsh's plot. To me, it indicates that the mistake may have been sending Thorne out of Jon's view (not Slynt's execution).

Probably. The thing about Alliser though is although he's dangerous as hell, so is the Weeper and his comrades. Also getting your enemies out of CB is kinda obvious

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Well, Slynt acted pretty openly to  start with. To me it seems that everyone present would have registered if Jon had not been in full command, as everyone present registered that he was.

They acknowledge he won (even if Sam "stole" the election) it's just that Janos was the standard of "justice" against the "monstrosity" of snow. (Let wildlings in, arrested a Karstark, gave advice to Stannis, and lastly marching south).

If Janos was still in that cafeteria when Jon mouthed off about Ramsay and stuff, he once again, wouldn't do shit

[Julia H.]

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think he will. He may be an asshole and a general bigot but he's not stupid, and taking out the chief without planning for your safety is just stupid.

Nor is he the sharpest knife in the drawer... I think the planning was most likely done by Thorne, so Thorne's own safety would be the top priority. I also happen to think that the original plan was to kill Jon in a different way (probably beyond the Wall during the Hardhome mission, so it could be attributed to wildlings), and Jon's sudden plan to ride away with an all-wildling escort meant they needed to come up with a hasty new plan. 

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

So he can kill Patrick and turn his Lone Star into G-men red  or as we know it, 

Maybe. Still, Wun Wun is right there and he is bound to notice what is happening to the man who saved his life. But Marsh can get off if Wun Wun gets too preoccupied with dismantling one of the other two. I guess he deserves a chance to deal with the aftermath. Like fight breaking out between factions while the Others are coming. (Or at least Ramsay coming to demand his wife and his Reek.) 

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

He should have been suiting up no doubt, for something. That's what a competent enemy would do, instead of breakfast. (For all the boo hoo rags to riches story of Janos, he was at the time, riches. Alliser and Marsh may have a better birth but Janos was socially elite to them, thus the natural leader. Even if the NW supposedly gives that away)

No, the plan was to make Jon look absolutely ridiculous and show that he cannot hold his own against his own man. That would make all the Watch distrust him (including the ones who voted for him), it would make Stannis lose respect for him, and, consequently, for the Watch. Any other plan would come into operation only after Jon has been discredited. Slynt's easy attitude during breakfast was a totally calculated pose.

As for Slynt's competence, well, he was competent enough to know that you obey your commander or suffer the consequences. (What do you think he himself would have done in Jon's place?) But I don't know about "natural leader". We don't know how well he led the Gold Cloaks, but we know that he has had very little experience on the Wall yet, and the purposes as well as the circumstances of the Night's Watch are very different from those of the Gold Cloaks. Another thing that we do know is that during a siege situation, his greatest purpose was to have a fellow soldier killed (one who had bravely defended the castle by the accounts of all those who had been there and seen him) instead of trying to come up with some solution to actually defend the Wall and protect the realm. Not exactly the man you would trust in a huge national crisis.

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

They acknowledge he won (even if Sam "stole" the election) it's just that Janos was the standard of "justice" against the "monstrosity" of snow. (Let wildlings in, arrested a Karstark, gave advice to Stannis, and lastly marching south).

Karstark was not exactly an innocent lamb when he was arrested, and the arrest happened in Night's Watch territory, where the Lord Commander is in charge. Letting the wildlings in and giving Stannis advice were political decisions, not criminal actions. Marching south was ever only an announced intent in response to a direct threat to the Watch. But we don't know (nor did Marsh) if it was Jon's real plan (a military officer does not necessarily make his real battle plan public), if he really would have ridden to Winterfell with a wilding army or, instead, would have waited for Ramsay's army in open field (because CB cannot be protected from the South), taking the whole responsibility of the confrontation on himself alone, with the intention of saving the Watch from the blame. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

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 was wrong to kill Janos Slynt. Slynt begged for mercy and agreed to do. There was no reason to kill him. Jon was just thirsting for blood and he used the occasion as an excuse to kill his father’s enemy. What Jon did was an insult to justice. 

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

15 hours ago, Julia H. said:

In a military organization there are no parties. The men of the Night's Watch get to choose their Lord Commander, but once he has been chosen, there is no legitimate opposition party. Everybody is supposed to obey the one higher in rank and especially the Lord Commander, regardless of who they voted for during the election. In a war situation especially, you are not free to have your own agenda within a military organization. Slynt, with his military background, knew this well. The way I see it, he didn't have an "opposition party", but, moron as he was (and trusting "his friends in King's Landing"), he was probably used by Thorne to test how Jon would react to open defiance. If Slynt had been successful, it would have undermined Jon's authority, and would have been a clear sign that Thorne and Marsh could also do as they pleased. 

Thanks.  I didn't see any value in this thread whatsoever - this discussion gets rehashed monthly and as @Nathan Starksaid it's generally a bad faith argument made by someone with an agenda.  The suggestion that Thorne may have prompted Slynt's 'rebellion' in order to gauge Jon's reaction and perhaps plot his own course forward is interesting though. Thorne's a jerk sure, but 'Machiavellian' is a dimension to his personality that we haven't seen.  It could make him a little more interesting.

[Quoth the raven,]

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. 

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. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

34 minutes ago, 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. 

If you speak of the first book's situation, then he came right back (whether by his choice or otherwise). The second book he was ordered by a superior officer to feign desertion. 

Second, on your other point about petty revenge, Jon even runs through his head multiple options and none work. Only snicking Slynt's head off is going to work. 

[Quoth the raven,]

2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

If you speak of the first book's situation, then he came right back (whether by his choice or otherwise). The second book he was ordered by a superior officer to feign desertion. 

Second, on your other point about petty revenge, Jon even runs through his head multiple options and none work. Only snicking Slynt's head off is going to work. 

See, that is false justification.  Jon was just foaming at the mouth to kill Slynt.  He was making up, inventing really, reasons for why it was justified.  Jon had no way of knowing how Slynt would behave after that day.  He had already humiliated and broken Slynt.  Killing the man was not needed.  It happened because Jon is a vengeful man who was still more loyal to the Starks than he was to the Night's Watch. 

[Jaenara Belarys]

27 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

See, that is false justification.  Jon was just foaming at the mouth to kill Slynt.  He was making up, inventing really, reasons for why it was justified.  Jon had no way of knowing how Slynt would behave after that day.

He has one sentence imagining about what it would be like to chop off Slynt's head, which is entirely different from the  "foaming at the mouth"/rabies Jon you present. 

While, yes, he's known Slynt a fairly short time, I'd say he's got a fair grasp on Slynt's character (since Janos just leaves it out like a open bank vault). 

30 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

 Killing the man was not needed.  It happened because Jon is a vengeful man who was still more loyal to the Starks than he was to the Night's Watch. 

Killing the man was needed. Jon gave him the choice twice, and Janos chose to throw his offer into his face, both time's insulting him. The second was in front of a good amount of the NW, and if he shows weakness, then no one will respect him. Take what Stannis said in the show for example: "Show too much kindness, people won't fear you. If they don't fear you, they don't follow you."

Same applies here, especially with a man such as the Mannis on the site. Laughter cannot be abided if Jon wants to accomplish anything. 

[Quoth the raven,]

1 hour ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

He has one sentence imagining about what it would be like to chop off Slynt's head, which is entirely different from the  "foaming at the mouth"/rabies Jon you present. 

While, yes, he's known Slynt a fairly short time, I'd say he's got a fair grasp on Slynt's character (since Janos just leaves it out like a open bank vault). 

Killing the man was needed. Jon gave him the choice twice, and Janos chose to throw his offer into his face, both time's insulting him. The second was in front of a good amount of the NW, and if he shows weakness, then no one will respect him. Take what Stannis said in the show for example: "Show too much kindness, people won't fear you. If they don't fear you, they don't follow you."

Same applies here, especially with a man such as the Mannis on the site. Laughter cannot be abided if Jon wants to accomplish anything. 

Jon's mental gymnastics to come up with reasons to justify what he wanted to do was plain to see.  A leader who does something cruel and stupid to avoid laughter is a weak leader indeed.  Stannis is not a good measure of leadership.  This is the man who burned his own soldiers.  A deed which will bite his rump later.  Jon didn't win allies with that execution.  Slynt's supporters and even most of the neutrals didn't like it.  They knew their history.  They knew it was personal. 

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

 Baelor Breakspear said that "clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents". 

I think that this is pretty sound logic and if anyone here saying that Jon was wrong to kill Slynt could demonstrate that Slynt was an 'honorable foe' or that Jon had reason to believe that Slynt could have become loyal with incentives that Jon was able to grant then maybe there's an argument to be made that Jon was wrong.

Lacking honor, Bloodraven's assertion  "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." bears out every time.

Quotes pinched from a post by @King17

[Hugorfonics]

5 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Nor is he the sharpest knife in the drawer...

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

5 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I think the planning was most likely done by Thorne, so Thorne's own safety would be the top priority

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

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I also happen to think that the original plan was to kill Jon in a different way (probably beyond the Wall during the Hardhome mission, so it could be attributed to wildlings), and Jon's sudden plan to ride away with an all-wildling escort meant they needed to come up with a hasty new plan. 

Huh. Interesting. I like it. Good work

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Maybe. Still, Wun Wun is right there and he is bound to notice what is happening to the man who saved his life. But Marsh can get off if Wun Wun gets too preoccupied with dismantling one of the other two. I guess he deserves a chance to deal with the aftermath. Like fight breaking out between factions while the Others are coming. (Or at least Ramsay coming to demand his wife and his Reek.) 

I'm very interested in what Leathers decides, because he's got pull with the watch and the wildlings, and obviously Wun Wun. Selyse and Meli too. Also Grenn and Pyp.

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

No, the plan was to make Jon look absolutely ridiculous and show that he cannot hold his own against his own man. That would make all the Watch distrust him (including the ones who voted for him), it would make Stannis lose respect for him, and, consequently, for the Watch. Any other plan would come into operation only after Jon has been discredited. Slynt's easy attitude during breakfast was a totally calculated pose.

As for Slynt's competence, well, he was competent enough to know that you obey your commander or suffer the consequences. (What do you think he himself would have done in Jon's place?)

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

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But I don't know about "natural leader". We don't know how well he led the Gold Cloaks, but we know that he has had very little experience on the Wall yet, and the purposes as well as the circumstances of the Night's Watch are very different from those of the Gold Cloaks. Another thing that we do know is that during a siege situation, his greatest purpose was to have a fellow soldier killed (one who had bravely defended the castle by the accounts of all those who had been there and seen him) instead of trying to come up with some solution to actually defend the Wall and protect the realm. Not exactly the man you would trust in a huge national crisis.

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

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

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Karstark was not exactly an innocent lamb when he was arrested, and the arrest happened in Night's Watch territory, where the Lord Commander is in charge. Letting the wildlings in and giving Stannis advice were political decisions, not criminal actions. Marching south was ever only an announced intent in response to a direct threat to the Watch

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

 

Jon helping Stannis is kinda criminal

[James West]

1 hour ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

 Baelor Breakspear said that "clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents". 

I think that this is pretty sound logic and if anyone here saying that Jon was wrong to kill Slynt could demonstrate that Slynt was an 'honorable foe' or that Jon had reason to believe that Slynt could have become loyal with incentives that Jon was able to grant then maybe there's an argument to be made that Jon was wrong.

Lacking honor, Bloodraven's assertion  "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." bears out every time.

Quotes pinched from a post by @King17

Jon and Janos were not foes.  They are Brothers of the Night's Watch.  Both men were stubborn for holding onto the past.  But the greater burden is on Jon to make the relationship work because he is the Lord Commander.  He should have been thinking about what was best for the N W and the realm instead of what he feels for Janos.  There is no way to give Jon a pass.  He was wrong.  Factor in his refusal to punish Mance Rayder and an injustice really took place.  

Janos was not a rebel.  That bitter label hits closer to Jon.  Jon has broken more N W rules.  It wasn't Janos who was breaking rules right and left.  Which Jon has been doing since he got to the wall.  

 

[James West]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:47 PM, Trigger Warning said:

No in that it’s the duty of his office but maybe if he wouldn’t be as quick to take the same hardline against others under his command. 

It's the duty of his office to execute Mance Rayder.  Jon was using double-standards and that never ends in justice.  There is no way to excuse Jon.  He was a crap lord commander.  

[FictionIsntReal]

5 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

I think that this is pretty sound logic and if anyone here saying that Jon was wrong to kill Slynt could demonstrate that Slynt was an 'honorable foe'

He wasn't a "foe" in Breakspear's sense at all, because they hadn't actually combatted each other. He was a disobedient subordinate, which is another matter. And an argument that he was a "foe" for contesting election for LC would imply that everyone with their hat tossed in was risking execution.

Quote

 Lacking honor, Bloodraven's assertion  "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." bears out every time.

He was not a "rebel" either.

 

5 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

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

That stabbed Jon? He wasn't even at Castle Black then. And since the assassination was an unplanned response to his announcements that he was leading wildlings against Ramsay, he couldn't have planned to be right there at that time.

[Hugorfonics]

51 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

That stabbed Jon? He wasn't even at Castle Black then.

How do you know?

51 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

And since the assassination was an unplanned response to his announcements that he was leading wildlings against Ramsay, he couldn't have planned to be right there at that time.

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

As @Julia H. superbly states 

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I also happen to think that the original plan was to kill Jon in a different way (probably beyond the Wall during the Hardhome mission, so it could be attributed to wildlings), and Jon's sudden plan to ride away with an all-wildling escort meant they needed to come up with a hasty new plan. 

 

[Willam Stark]

10 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon's mental gymnastics to come up with reasons to justify what he wanted to do was plain to see.  A leader who does something cruel and stupid to avoid laughter is a weak leader indeed.  Stannis is not a good measure of leadership.  This is the man who burned his own soldiers.  A deed which will bite his rump later.  Jon didn't win allies with that execution.  Slynt's supporters and even most of the neutrals didn't like it.  They knew their history.  They knew it was personal. 

Cut the crap ! As @Jaenara Belarys said, Jon gave him the choice twice, and Janos chose to throw his offer into his face, both time's insulting him. This is a crime punishable by death in their society, he only did his duty as Lord Commander, he cannot tolerate disobedience. Stannis only burned those who have commited, not innocent soldiers. You don't like Jon, fine, but stop with the bad faith, it makes the discussion toxic.

7 hours ago, James West said:

Janos was not a rebel.

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

You would have approved it, if Dany was in Jon's shoes.

Thanks again, for making every discussion about Starks toxic.