Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Rondo said:

You are not describing Jon Snow because he is a traitor to the watch.  Your traits partially describe Bowen Marsh. Bowen Marsh may not be a merciful guy at all times, but then he could not show any mercy to Jon.  It was necessary to stop Jon.  It gave Bowen no joy to have to do it.  Bowen is heroic in a way.  He did what needed doing and it may cost his own life.  

I was talking on a general level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rondo said:

from Jon.

He did that. Which is exactly the problem.

Now we need a hero to save the NW from Bowen Marsh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Ned executed Gared because Gared had broken the law and was found in Northern territory and Ned was responsible for guarding law and order in the North.

Directly contradicting the aims of the NW

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

That does not mean the Watch has no say in their own affairs.

Certainly not, just that Westerosi do

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

(And I think had Gared been caught in NW territory and taken to Mormont, the LC would have had the final word about him even if Ned had just happened to be visiting in Castle Black.)  

I think so too. But the final word would probably not be execution. It's one thing to desert like Daeron another like a moment of insanity like Gared.  When Jon had his moment of weakness Mormont related it to moments of hormones, ones excused.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

is not obliged to remain neutral to the point of idiocy.

The Westerosi lords disagree, the ones with fire and steel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Directly contradicting the aims of the NW

How?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Certainly not, just that Westerosi do

Sure, there will be interactions, influences, even disagreements. But that's true of relationships between any two (or more) realms. 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think so too. But the final word would probably not be execution. It's one thing to desert like Daeron another like a moment of insanity like Gared.  When Jon had his moment of weakness Mormont related it to moments of hormones, ones excused.

I agree that Mormont would have spared Gared's life. He would have made a different decision than Ned. But then again, if Gared had been found in NW territory, the desertion would not have been so blantantly obvious. Jon was pardoned precisely because he had returned (and had not gone beyond the designated limit), not because of the hormons. Also, Mormont would have recognized that Gared had changed and that something extraordinary must have happened to him beyond the Wall and would have wanted to know what it was. At the time, he was already picking up the suspicious signs about the Others. Ned, however, found an obvious deserter and lawbreaker in the land which he ruled, saw no mitigating circumstances and acted within his rights and duties and in accordance with the law (desertion is a crime) recognized by the NW as well. 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

The Westerosi lords disagree, the ones with fire and steel

They may disagree but that does not mean they are right. Of course, those with fire and steel will bend and interpret every law to suit them best, which is exactly why laws don't work in this world. But readers at least can see the absurdity of demanding neutrality when one is surrounded by enemies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

How?

NW fights armageddon, Gareds knowledge would be invaluable 

41 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Sure, there will be interactions, influences, even disagreements. But that's true of relationships between any two (or more) realms. 

But the wall is not an independent realm, they're subjects of the king like everyone else

42 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Jon was pardoned precisely because he had returned (and had not gone beyond the designated limit), not because of the hormons.

(I meant hormones as in the countless crows that are excused for going to moles town for the night)

That's not clear to me. The Old Bear knew Jon would desert and sent men to stop him on the way, I don't think execution was ever in Mormonts mind as Jon is too valuable for the undermanned NW.

45 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Ned, however, found an obvious deserter and lawbreaker in the land which he ruled, saw no mitigating circumstances and acted within his rights and duties and in accordance with the law (desertion is a crime) recognized by the NW as well. 

Which hurts the NW. And Gared wasn't near the first. Mormonts neutrality allows the world to continue to spin without pissing off Ned or whomever, but this isn't good for the watch. It's in fact really bad, allowing the others to grow strong.

48 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

But readers at least can see the absurdity of demanding neutrality when one is surrounded by enemies. 

It's all absurd. The shield that guards the realms of men is subject to seven kingdoms worth of swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rondo said:

Bowen assassinated a dangerous traitor and stopped that traitor from doing more harm than he has already done

I wasn't aware that Jon saving tens of thousands of wildlings from being added to the army of the Others and saving poor Jeyne from abuse at the hands of Ramsay was harmful. Not to mention saving Alys from a forced marriage to her uncle. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word.

1 hour ago, Rondo said:

In a way, Bowen is heroic because it may cost him his life.

It's not heroic, it's idiotic.

1 hour ago, Rondo said:

He did it to save the watch and Westeros from Jon.

Jon was trying to save both of those things before Bowen killed him. Bowen clearly doesn't care about saving Westeros or he wouldn't want to leave tens of thousands of wildlings to die and be added to the wight army, thereby strengthening the greatest threat Westeros has ever faced. Or maybe Bowen is just really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

NW fights armageddon, Gareds knowledge would be invaluable 

But Ned doesn't know this. Surely, you don't think that he wanted to hinder the NW's fight against Armageddon on purpose. Ned believes that the Others either are dead or never existed. He has no idea that Gared has some invaluable secret knowledge. 

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

But the wall is not an independent realm, they're subjects of the king like everyone else

Subjects of the king also have political and leagal and trade etc. relationships with each other, with which they have an influence over each other. 

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

(I meant hormones as in the countless crows that are excused for going to moles town for the night)

That's not clear to me. The Old Bear knew Jon would desert and sent men to stop him on the way, I don't think execution was ever in Mormonts mind as Jon is too valuable for the undermanned NW.

Yes, the hormons count in the sense that they designate the boundaries of the youngsters' nightly excursions and Mormont allowed the same distance to Jon as to veryone else even though he was riding away for a different reasons. Fair enough, I think. In addition, I guess there is also a requirement that the boys must return in time to report for duty, which Jon also did.

Of course, we can only guess what Mormont would have done if Jon had been caught south of Moles Town (I think opinions differ). We do know that he would have been in danger south of the NW territory even if Mormont's men had let him go. However, Jon did return in time.  

Gared may be too valuable for Mormont to kill, Jon may be too valuable for Mormont to kill, and it is also possible that Mormont is generally lenient because he thinks of his own son's crime. But that's only guesswork.

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Which hurts the NW. And Gared wasn't near the first. Mormonts neutrality allows the world to continue to spin without pissing off Ned or whomever, but this isn't good for the watch. It's in fact really bad, allowing the others to grow strong.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. In any case, Ned was acting within his rights and within the law and with no knowledge that his action would hurt the NW. (Even we cannot be sure of that - it is totally possible that Gared would never have been able to give meaningful information about the Others.) Legally, the offender here is the deserter. I think the way it works is that black brothers are "dead to the world" and under the jurisdiction of the LC only, but when they desert, they leave behind both their duties and the protection that goes with being a black brother, and they are under the jurisdiction of the lord of the area where they happen to be. This works in the opposite direction as well: Any many who is being punished for a crime anywhere in Westeros can volunteer to join the NW and from that moment on, his crimes are pardoned and the punishment is cancelled, because he belongs to the NW.   

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

It's all absurd. The shield that guards the realms of men is subject to seven kingdoms worth of swords.

You know, the way I imagine the neutrality principle to have worked is this: There is a strong army with border guard duties against a dangerous foe. This army must not take part in any fights of the realm and must not represent a danger to the realm but must always guard the realm against the enemy fromt he North. In exchange, nobody will attack this army from the realm and nobody will try to involve them in internal conflicts, what is more, they can count on support from the various lords in their fight against the common foe. This works because it is in the interest of the whole realm that the border should be defended and everyone is aware of that. Therefore the men in the NW are willing to give up even their personal loyalties because the protection of the realm is all important, and they know it.

There was probably a time when it worked like this. But not any longer. The realm is at war, the current NW is a tiny group of soldiers in comparison with the armies of the lords, and very few people in the realm recognize the importance of their duty or respect them for their sacrifice. Yet, the danger to the realm is very real but they are not strong enough and do not get any disinterested support any longer. In this context, neutrality is the last of their concerns - knowing the impending danger, the LC will ally with the wildlings and with anyone else willing to help to protect the realm, and it is not the LC's fault that the help does not come free. In this context, that the LC is willing to fight anyone who threatens the NW from whichever direction is only fair and reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rondo said:

Bowen assassinated a dangerous traitor and stopped that traitor from doing more harm than he has already done.  In a way, Bowen is heroic because it may cost him his life.  He did it to save the watch and Westeros from Jon.

You must really hate Jon or are simply playing devils advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

But Ned doesn't know this. Surely, you don't think that he wanted to hinder the NW's fight against Armageddon on purpose. Ned believes that the Others either are dead or never existed. He has no idea that Gared has some invaluable secret knowledge

Word, don't mean to bash Ned. Or not trying to, sometimes it comes out inadvertently.

Just trying to point out the flawed, and in this case dooming, relationship between kingdoms and wall.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Subjects of the king also have political and leagal and trade etc. relationships with each other, with which they have an influence over each other. 

But the king gets his way. Ned says we're broke and can't host a tourney king says fix it. Alchemists say they can't brew that much wildfire the hand of the king says fix it.

Robert and Tyrion sometimes colored outside the box when it comes to honorable negotiations but Stannis consistently dumps his absolutist can of paint all over the canvas.

And yet I do agree, he has to tread with the LC. Jon is definitely a shrewd politician which helps they dynamic but there is some type of legal limbo that they both navigate together in their dealings, which was always fascinating.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, the hormons count in the sense that they designate the boundaries of the youngsters' nightly excursions and Mormont allowed the same distance to Jon as to veryone else even though he was riding away for a different reasons. Fair enough, I think.

Wait, that's also not what I meant lol. I think Mormont using the "he was only gone for 20 min getting some tail" is like an ambiguous statement. For instance when Benjin comes over for the family bbq without signing out I don't think he's going to arrive back to the chopping block. I'd even venture to say (though totally out of Mormonts scope) if Brynden Rivers comes back he wouldn't execute him for being a deserter because he's back. 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Of course, we can only guess what Mormont would have done if Jon had been caught south of Moles Town (I think opinions differ). We do know that he would have been in danger south of the NW territory even if Mormont's men had let him go. However, Jon did return in time. 

Mormonts men would have never let him go though, they were there (where, idk, probably not Moles Town but maybe, I mean why not...) waiting to ambush Jon and presumably put him back in that cell him and Ghost have grown to love until Mormont can get him to chill out

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Gared may be too valuable for Mormont to kill, Jon may be too valuable for Mormont to kill, and it is also possible that Mormont is generally lenient because he thinks of his own son's crime. But that's only guesswork.

It's like Mance Rayder, too valuable to kill. I'm beginning to see another problem lol.

It's not even that Gareds skills at, whatever, is so valuable but he's seen shit that needs reporting. 

I also think Mormont realizes a decision made that can be unmade later isn't worth him making an irreversible decision. Like Sam wasn't planning on going Arya on Daeron, only smacking him up and getting him to chill out. 

(I can't see the Jorah correlation)

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. In any case, Ned was acting within his rights and within the law and with no knowledge that his action would hurt the NW

(Basically the rest of the seven kingdoms is bad for business)

He was. So was Amory Lorch and so is Ramsay.

They do know they're hurting the NW, they're just awful people too who have their own agenda that has nothing to do with what they perceive to be defenders against grumkins and snarks

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

. I think the way it works is that black brothers are "dead to the world" and under the jurisdiction of the LC only, but when they desert, they leave behind both their duties and the protection that goes with being a black brother, and they are under the jurisdiction of the lord of the area where they happen to be. This works in the opposite direction as well: Any many who is being punished for a crime anywhere in Westeros can volunteer to join the NW and from that moment on, his crimes are pardoned and the punishment is cancelled, because he belongs to the NW.

Looks kinda right, idk, they sware loyalty to the order not the commander. It should work the opposite way but the wall always gets the short end, Ned publicly wanted to join the NW and nobody seemed to care.

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

You know, the way I imagine the neutrality principle to have worked is this: There is a strong army with border guard duties against a dangerous foe. This army must not take part in any fights of the realm and must not represent a danger to the realm but must always guard the realm against the enemy fromt he North. In exchange, nobody will attack this army from the realm and nobody will try to involve them in internal conflicts, what is more, they can count on support from the various lords in their fight against the common foe.

The trouble is the army needs the realm to live, it's people are it's blood and they're often filled with rapists murderers and other hardcore criminals, which doesn't bode well for the living conditions, let alone the respect the realm has for it's army.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Therefore the men in the NW are willing to give up even their personal loyalties

They give up more then that. Wife, children, the clothes off their back, that one tiny red fucking strip in the cloak that reminds of human kindness.

It's too much. The Wall may be built out of ice but the NW was built with dynamite. Perhaps the builder (or last hero or azor ahai, take your pick. It was probably none of them) never wanted the NW to be an indefinite thing, or perhaps he just wasn't that wise. Maybe he was even a jerk, but probably not

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The realm is at war, the current NW is a tiny group of soldiers in comparison with the armies of the lords, and very few people in the realm recognize the importance of their duty or respect them for their sacrifice. Yet, the danger to the realm is very real but they are not strong enough and do not get any disinterested support any longer. In this context, neutrality is the last of their concerns - knowing the impending danger, the LC will ally with the wildlings and with anyone else willing to help to protect the realm, and it is not the LC's fault that the help does not come free. In this context, that the LC is willing to fight anyone who threatens the NW from whichever direction is only fair and reasonable.

Don't have to justify Jon for me, he could kill Arya and I'll still love him (well... How about Dany?), especially if it's because he's breaking traditions implemented by like the nights king probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I get the sense that the NW policies worked really well in the past which is why they maintain them even though it's clear that the institution has declined over the relatively recent years.

Indeed.  If it ain't broke don't fix it seems an apt summary here.  By the time Mormont began to get uneasy about what was happening north of The Wall and attempted to convey it to Tyrion it was already far too late.  People simply don't believe or consider it too remote for them to care about and the NW is far too hollowed out to be effective.  Stannis and Stannis alone finally answers the call so the decision is between "neutrality" and The NW's purpose, not really a hard call to make.

14 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Ned executed Gared because Gared had broken the law and was found in Northern territory and Ned was responsible for guarding law and order in the North. That does not mean the Watch has no say in their own affairs.

I quite agree.  Any Lord Paramount has the duty to maintain law and order and as Ned explains to Bran about "justice": 

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

His lord father smiled. "Old Nan has been telling you stories again. In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night's Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. But you mistake me. The question was not why the man had to die".
 
Or, as Chett surmises, what every NW member knows is that the penalty for desertion is execution by the relevant local authority:

A Storm of Swords - Prologue

"I'm going to make for the coast," Lark the Sisterman confided. "Me and my cousins. We'll build us a boat, sail back home to the Sisters."
And at home they'll know you for deserters and lop off your fool heads, thought Chett. There was no leaving the Night's Watch, once you said your words. Anywhere in the Seven Kingdoms, they'd take you and kill you.
 
This has nothing to do with limiting the NW's say over it's own affairs and everything to do with protecting the realm from the dangerous criminals sent to The Wall.  It's hard to see how anyone would interpret it any other way.
 
11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not heroic, it's idiotic.

I think we are meant to see Marsh as narrow-minded, short-sighted, prejudiced and fundamentally flawed in his thinking and decision-making.  He also appears to be a drunk. 

There seems to be a school of thought that celebrates his attempt to deal with his limitations and "do the right thing" as he sees it, whatever the cost to himself, as heroic.  Being prepared to sacrifice yourself, or at least put yourself at risk for something you believe in, is generally considered heroic or noble but we have to be able to divorce the action from the goal to reach that conclusion and things look very different from opposing sides of the fence (e.g. a suicide bomber, considered a martyr or terrorist / mass murderer depending on your pov, or a coup leader claiming to save the nation from whatever threat becomes a national saviour to some or self-serving autocrat to others).

I can see how Marsh taking this risk could be considered in this light but his goal and the muddled, limited and reactionary thinking he displays leads me pretty firmly towards idiotic.  He reminds me more of the communist die-hards who launched a failed coup to oust Gorbachev and roll back his glasnost and perestroika reforms than of a "hero".

11 hours ago, Julia H. said:

You know, the way I imagine the neutrality principle to have worked is this: There is a strong army with border guard duties against a dangerous foe. This army must not take part in any fights of the realm and must not represent a danger to the realm but must always guard the realm against the enemy fromt he North. In exchange, nobody will attack this army from the realm and nobody will try to involve them in internal conflicts, what is more, they can count on support from the various lords in their fight against the common foe. This works because it is in the interest of the whole realm that the border should be defended and everyone is aware of that. Therefore the men in the NW are willing to give up even their personal loyalties because the protection of the realm is all important, and they know it.

There was probably a time when it worked like this. But not any longer. The realm is at war, the current NW is a tiny group of soldiers in comparison with the armies of the lords, and very few people in the realm recognize the importance of their duty or respect them for their sacrifice. Yet, the danger to the realm is very real but they are not strong enough and do not get any disinterested support any longer. In this context, neutrality is the last of their concerns - knowing the impending danger, the LC will ally with the wildlings and with anyone else willing to help to protect the realm, and it is not the LC's fault that the help does not come free. In this context, that the LC is willing to fight anyone who threatens the NW from whichever direction is only fair and reasonable.

This sums it up perfectly for me.  We're really in new territory and the status quo ante no longer works.  How quickly and effectively The NW can adapt will determine whether it can meet its goals.  Jon sees that, Marsh wants everything to continue as before.  Perhaps if he had been a survivor of The Fist rather than fighting Wildlings at The Shadow Tower he might have been able to adapt but he is very much still Marsh v1.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

So do you agree that when Daenerys invades she will be interfering in the affairs of the realm?

Jon didn't break the NW neutrality, by the time he goes to fight the Boltons, who arguably started the fight in the first place, the Watch's neutrality was already broken by Stannis.

She’s not sworn a sacred oath to stay out of affairs of the realm. 
 

People coming to aid the watch is not the same as watch acting on its own to interfere in the realm. Apples and oranges. Everyone was called to aid. 

22 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Break neutrality =/= Betray the NW.  Otherwise, accepting Stannis's aid (which is given long before Jon is LC and it's not like anyone was in a position to do so anyway) is betraying the NW.  When Stannis's knights turned up to defeat Mance they came from Eastwatch-by-the-Sea with the NW garrison in tow.  No one complains that Stannis is a rebel and accepting his aid or sheltering him is a betrayal.  "Neutrality" is not some aim in itself or some shibboleth to be upheld regardless of how that cripples the NW's purpose.

Apples and oranges. People coming to aid the watch is not the same as watch raising arms and attacking warden of the North. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

She’s not sworn a sacred oath to stay out of affairs of the realm. 

Doesn't change the fact that she's interfering in the affairs of the realm when she invades though.

22 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

People coming to aid the watch is not the same as watch acting on its own to interfere in the realm. Apples and oranges. Everyone was called to aid. 

In Stannis' case it is, although he gave aid he also interfered in the affairs of the watch by forcing them to choose a LC within a time limit and garrisoning their castles, at any rate Jon could not refuse their help or stop them interfering.

And the Watch as a whole was not interfering, only Jon was (and that's arguable) and Jon's justification for interefering is the same as Daenerys' justification when she attacked the slavers - Ramsay/the Slavers were hurting innocents so Jon/Daenerys were morally justified to take action against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

Apples and oranges. People coming to aid the watch is not the same as watch raising arms and attacking warden of the North. 

So we agree neutrality is unfeasible and undesirable in certain circumstances?

Jon didn't.  Ramsay threatened him personally, the NW generally and Stannis's family and adherents specifically.  A lot of that refers to apples and oranges without any discrimination. 

Of course Ramsay and the Boltons are threatened by (F)Arya reaching Jon.  He'll refute her identity and loyalty to "Ned's little girl" is all that is keeping the Boltons on their precarious and murderously-gained perch.  Mance's actions are obviously a provocation but as Stannis provides an alternative source of legitimacy and power to the Boltons the apples or oranges would both point them against The NW anyway. 

Unless they had a man on the inside, or just a useful idiot, to take care of things for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

 We are shown that Bowen Marsh is cowardly when he wants to seal the gates of the wall,

Well, it was one way to prevent enemies from punching through, as they have already tried to do.

 

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

when he tries to convince Jon to have new recruits take vows only in the Sept instead of the Haunted Forest,

How so? He wasn't going himself, he was, ironically, worried for Jon.

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

and when he wants to back Janos Slynt just to appease the Lannisters who are thousands of miles away.

It is normally prudent to have a good relationship with the throne, as support from the South is crucial for longterm survival of the NW. Of course, Slynt is such an incompetent blowhard that it is completely unbelievable that he was the first commoner who managed to rise to the command of the City Watch and would have been an utter disaster as LC. But it has never been a good idea to alienate Tywin Lannister, so Marsh not wanting to do so is understandable, IMHO.

 

22 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I understand that everyone can have their own interpretation of the characters, but ascribing Ramsay rationality and Bowen bravery

Sadly, Ramsay is completely beyond the pale - which weakens the narrative, IMHO, because it excuses Jon's failure to even try to build bridges with the Boltons, in the name of protecting the North against the Others. It would have been far more interesting if Jon had to work with people who have hurt him personally instead of just demanding it from others. But Marsh can't know how irrational BoB is.

Bowen fought bravely against the Weeper's people on the Bridge of Skulls and was badly wounded there. He also stabbed Jon in front of his wildling allies. He was also never afraid to speak his mind to Jon. He may not be a great warrior or leader, but he is no coward.

Anyway, I re-read Jon's chapters in ADwD and intended to write a long post about it with quotes, etc., but I have to run.

So, instead I'd just like to quickly throw in a few things about the actual topic of the thread:

I think that the weightiest outcomes have been already set in motion before the attack on Jon, namely:

The Weeper is going to punch through at the Shadow Tower, using the same tactics that Mance tried at Castle Black.

200 giants, 80 mammoths and Ser Glendon Hewett who is in charge at Eastwatch and who is the closest thing that Thorne has to a friend are an explosive combination that is bound to go wrong.

The Wall is not so very like the Maginot line by accident - the Others are going to sneak around somehow. Maybe on the ships sent to Hardhome, that might drift in like Dracula's ship, maybe the Weeper's people will carry them through, etc. The wights in CB back in AGoT were a test of the Others powers south of the Wall and they work. They just need to somehow get through the latitude of the Wall. I say latitude because it wouldn't make sense if the Others had been able to just walk around it west of the Shadow Tower or around Eastwatch on ice when the coast waters freeze. The Wall must generate a "magic field" that prevents them from actively moving south of it... but it can circumvented.

In fact, if GRRM doesn't want the Long Night plot-line to land like a damp squib, there should be oblique evidence of a few of them aready being discreetly active in the North. I always thought that the Battle of Ice would end with something like that. All those drowned  knights rising from an icy lake once the living leave...

Marsh is toast, but Thorne might swoop in. OTOH, Clydas likely sent ravens to the Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower so that they'd be ready to execute the hostages, which might hold back the wildlings, if somebody yells about it quickly enough. I also noticed in my re-read that there were only between 2 and 3 hundreds of wildling warriors in the Shield Hall, so the numbers are pretty even, rather than overwhelming.

Concerning Jon himself, much would depend on whether he is mortally wounded or dead. In the first case, I expect Melisandre to cure him the same way that Drogo was, only without the brain-frying. He'd be fully alive then and the process would take a day or so, IIRC.

In the second, he is going to be a fire wight and he could be raised pretty much instantly.

Personally, I am inclined to the first option, because I think that the attack was supposed to prevent Jon from futilely chasing after Ramsay because of a lie, among other things.

Edited by Maia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Doesn't change the fact that she's interfering in the affairs of the realm when she invades though.

In Stannis' case it is, although he gave aid he also interfered in the affairs of the watch by forcing them to choose a LC within a time limit and garrisoning their castles, at any rate Jon could not refuse their help or stop them interfering.

And the Watch as a whole was not interfering, only Jon was (and that's arguable) and Jon's justification for interefering is the same as Daenerys' justification when she attacked the slavers - Ramsay/the Slavers were hurting innocents so Jon/Daenerys were morally justified to take action against them.

Yup. And if she loses she’ll die. Watch has a duty to the wall. Watch can’t afford to be abolished or destroyed. Dany is a claimant and watch isn’t. Watch has survived for 8000 Years due to neutrality. Who’ll be sent to the watch or go there if it means your enemies could raise arms against you from there. 
 

That’s not on the watch. He didn’t tell them who to pick and they didn’t ask him to appoint someone or picked his choice. Not comparable to raising arms. 
 

Find a better argument. I hate Daenarys and her abolishment of slavery. Jon is sworn to the watch. To leave it means he’s a deserter and has to be murdered. If watch doesn’t do it then they will their duty and watch falls apart. You can’t just leave it. 
 

 

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

So we agree neutrality is unfeasible and undesirable in certain circumstances?

Jon didn't.  Ramsay threatened him personally, the NW generally and Stannis's family and adherents specifically.  A lot of that refers to apples and oranges without any discrimination. 

Of course Ramsay and the Boltons are threatened by (F)Arya reaching Jon.  He'll refute her identity and loyalty to "Ned's little girl" is all that is keeping the Boltons on their precarious and murderously-gained perch.  Mance's actions are obviously a provocation but as Stannis provides an alternative source of legitimacy and power to the Boltons the apples or oranges would both point them against The NW anyway. 

Unless they had a man on the inside, or just a useful idiot, to take care of things for them.

It has to be maintained by some nonetheless. Doesn’t matter. Jon should wait until Ramsay attacks and defend himself. He has no right to raise arms and attacks or defend off the wall. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

It has to be maintained by some nonetheless. Doesn’t matter. Jon should wait until Ramsay attacks and defend himself. He has no right to raise arms and attacks or defend off the wall. 

It works both ways.  If Ramsay threatens The NW they can make tactically sound decisions.  Castle Black has no defences to the south so waiting for Ramsay to attack would be suicide.  And Jon of course takes no member of the NW to meet Ramsay (or at least that was the plan). He's attempting to meet Ramsay's challenge without involving the NW, that much is clear:

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII

The roar was all he could have hoped for, the tumult so loud that the two old shields tumbled from the walls. Soren Shieldbreaker was on his feet, the Wanderer as well. Toregg the Tall, Brogg, Harle the Huntsman and Harle the Handsome both, Ygon Oldfather, Blind Doss, even the Great Walrus. I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.
Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 12:48 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Shh, don't name names, a long time ago (a year mostly) I got ticked off for 'personal' attacks.

Oh hey they're welcome to their interpretations of the tale and I hope none are offended. If anything my intention was to identify with them not call anyone out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hrulj said:

Jon should wait until Ramsay attacks and defend himself. He has no right to raise arms and attacks or defend off the wall. 

If Ramsay's attack would leave the wall undefended (and it would - even the loss of 5 men at this point would be crucial) then how can Jon in good conscience sit and wait for it to happen? That would be akin to abandoning his post. 

Jon is not in an ivory tower he's in the real world and his actions have to be in line with achieving his goal of defending the Wall against the Others, not filtered through some esoteric interpretation of what his vows really mean and whether or not any little transgression of them is treason. Every decision that Jon has made including answering Ramsay's threats has been towards the end of ensuring the Wall will be as strong as he can make it when the Others come. Judge him on their efficacy sure, but asserting that he should have sat there and waited in an indefensible position for slaughter by a rogue 'lord' like Ramsay is ludicrous. 

Edited by Aejohn the Conqueroo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word, don't mean to bash Ned. Or not trying to, sometimes it comes out inadvertently.

Just trying to point out the flawed, and in this case dooming, relationship between kingdoms and wall.

All right, I see. I just don't think that Ned performing this act of justice in the land that he rules is a good example. 

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But the king gets his way. Ned says we're broke and can't host a tourney king says fix it. Alchemists say they can't brew that much wildfire the hand of the king says fix it.

Well, that's the way of kings in connection with everyone. 

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Robert and Tyrion sometimes colored outside the box when it comes to honorable negotiations but Stannis consistently dumps his absolutist can of paint all over the canvas.

And yet I do agree, he has to tread with the LC. Jon is definitely a shrewd politician which helps they dynamic but there is some type of legal limbo that they both navigate together in their dealings, which was always fascinating.

Makes for a very good read.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Wait, that's also not what I meant lol. I think Mormont using the "he was only gone for 20 min getting some tail" is like an ambiguous statement. For instance when Benjin comes over for the family bbq without signing out I don't think he's going to arrive back to the chopping block. I'd even venture to say (though totally out of Mormonts scope) if Brynden Rivers comes back he wouldn't execute him for being a deserter because he's back. 

Maybe, but I don't really think Benjen goes to Winterfell without signing out. He has duties in CB and he cannot just disappear without letting the LC know or without leaving someone in charge of the rangers. I imagine it's not too difficult for him to get a permission to visit the family though. The Starks have had special relations with the Watch for thousands of years, and he probably uses his influence with Ned to promote the interests of the Watch.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Mormonts men would have never let him go though, they were there (where, idk, probably not Moles Town but maybe, I mean why not...) waiting to ambush Jon and presumably put him back in that cell him and Ghost have grown to love until Mormont can get him to chill out

That's a possibility.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It's like Mance Rayder, too valuable to kill. I'm beginning to see another problem lol.

It's not even that Gareds skills at, whatever, is so valuable but he's seen shit that needs reporting. 

I also think Mormont realizes a decision made that can be unmade later isn't worth him making an irreversible decision. Like Sam wasn't planning on going Arya on Daeron, only smacking him up and getting him to chill out. 

If you are arguing against the death penalty, I totally agree. But no one in ASOIAF, not even Mormont, is enlightened enough to start a campaign to abolish it.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(I can't see the Jorah correlation)

Maybe there isn't. But Mormont dies thinking of his son, I can't believe he does not think of him every day while he lives. "The poor boy committed a crime, but it wasn't really his fault, was it? So who am I, in charge of these poor youngsters not to pardon their transgressions?" Something like this. Or not. 

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(Basically the rest of the seven kingdoms is bad for business)

He was. So was Amory Lorch and so is Ramsay.

They do know they're hurting the NW, they're just awful people too who have their own agenda that has nothing to do with what they perceive to be defenders against grumkins and snarks

There is absolutely no correlation between Ned and Lorch or Ramsay. Ned executed a deserter, someone who had already removed himself from the NW and happened to be captured in Northern territory. Lorch attacked a group of watchmen who were on their way to the Wall in totally legal business. Ramsay is threatening the Watch.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Looks kinda right, idk, they sware loyalty to the order not the commander. It should work the opposite way but the wall always gets the short end, Ned publicly wanted to join the NW and nobody seemed to care.

It was Joffrey who didn't care, and with this, he broke the law and started a conflict that neither Cersei nor Tywin had intended.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The trouble is the army needs the realm to live, it's people are it's blood and they're often filled with rapists murderers and other hardcore criminals, which doesn't bode well for the living conditions, let alone the respect the realm has for it's army.

The original idea must have been that both needed the other one.

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Don't have to justify Jon for me, he could kill Arya and I'll still love him (well... How about Dany?), especially if it's because he's breaking traditions implemented by like the nights king probably.

:cheers:

Edited by Julia H.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...