Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Hrulj said:

wrong. Jon makes selfish decisions over and over again. If he wanted what’s best for the wall he’d accept Stannis offer or surrender himself. He’s a selfish teen who only looks out for things he cares for. 

Going from head prisoner at the penal colony to lord of Winterfell because it was easier would have been the ultimate selfish act of betrayal. Eschewing Winterfell (everything he dreamed of growing up) in favour of his vows and responsibilities was a selfless act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He will ally himself with the wildlings (Tormund and Val) as soon as he is resurrected, and after executing Bowen Mars and all the traitors who betrayed him, will march on Winterfell with his army.

More or less what happened on the Show. I honestly don't think Martin has anything else on his mind. Stannis won't win the battle against the Boltons.

There's chances for a romance between Jon Snow and Val

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

He will ally himself with the wildlings (Tormund and Val) as soon as he is resurrected, and after executing Bowen Mars and all the traitors who betrayed him, will march on Winterfell with his army.

More or less what happened on the Show. I honestly don't think Martin has anything else on his mind. Stannis won't win the battle against the Boltons.

There's chances for a romance between Jon Snow and Val

Honestly I think the show gave Jon, Stannis victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Jon can't really do that though because all his authority comes from that system. If he tries to make radical changes I don't think it would work.

Whatever authority the system gave Jon wasn't enough. Melisandre told Jon how he can get more authority, Varys told Tyrion too. It's longclaw. 

Jon made a few radical changes, eventually it stopped working. But I think he's gonna get up and try again and I hope he tears more of the system down.

It's a flawed system that even if perfected it screws over the entire populace past the wall. Plus, it's evil. The regulations imposed on the life of a crow isn't human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sifth said:

Honestly I think the show gave Jon, Stannis victory.

It may be, but something tells me Stannis won't be alive halfway into Winds of Winter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

But it leaves the Watch blind. It is an action rooted in fear of the wildlings, so I think it can be interpreted as a sign of cowardice. Marsh fears to face them.

Um, given the numbers disparity only a fool would want to face them again. Yes, he is prejudiced, yes he considers the wildlings to be as much a threat as the Others, but a more imminent one, yes he probably even wants revenge for black brothers killed in the fight against  Weeper's followers on the Bridge of Skulls.

And yes, he short-sightedly believes that filling up the gates would bottle both of these dangers up north forever. But he does take risks with his personal safety when he feels that he has to.

 

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

It is but I still think it can be seen as cowardly - he fears retribution from Tywin, fearing for his own life seems to be what motivates his actions.

Tywin didn't threaten the lives of the officers at the Wall - he merely stated that they would receive no further  support from the crown if they didn't elect Slynt. Marsh, as the chief accountant is more aware of how disastrous it would be for NW than anybody else.

 

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

 Even when other options are available that keep him safe he always chooses the ones that completely isolate him from danger at that moment to the point where other advantages are lost, and his proposed solutions to avoid facing these problems would cause issues later on.

Jon's solutions also would cause issues later on and might even result in some immediately. And some of what Marsh wanted, like opposing Stannis's demands more, wouldn't have been safer in the moment. He is a conservative, who wants to hang on to how things have always been, which is yes, largely wrong in this unprecedented situation. But it doesn't mean that Jon is right either. 

 

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

 

Marsh's actions can also be interpreted as prudent but I think we are supposed to see him as cowardly. Or at least a hypocrite. The way he attacks Jon is cowardly too.

 

How was, attacking Jon in front of his fired-up wildling followers cowardly? It was likely suicide. I don't understand your insistence on something that isn't supported by the text.

 

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

King Stannis does not save the realm just for the sake of saving the realm, he wants to be recognized as the one true king. So the help he gives the NW is essentially a mercenary one. Yet, Jon has to realize that no other king or lord isgoing to offer a better deal to help the Watch.

 

He also has to realize that Stannis came because, among other things, Melisandre made him believe that there was a real danger behind the Wall, while the NW has done shamefully little to try to convince other lords of the same. That fool Thorne didn't even bother to show the wight hand around while Tyrion was snubbing him.  And that while Stannis certainly would try to help the Watch if he wins... they would be completely SOL if he loses. That's the danger of tying oneself too closely to one side in a war  and what  neutrality was intended to prevent.

Now, I know that many on the board and particularly in this thread believe that there would be enough time for Jon himself to go unify the North should Stannis fail, while the Others politely wait with their invasion until he is good and ready and nothing goes wrong among the disparate groups on the Wall in his absence... but IMHO it would be just bad writing, like it was on the show.

 

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Obviously it's because Castle Black has no defences that Jon intends to meet him on ground he can have some advantage on.

Jon announced that he was going to attack Winterfell with about 200-250 wildling who were present in the Shieldhall, rather than meet Ramsay somewhere on the Night Watch lands, though. Which sounds pretty insane and also more damning re: oathbreaking. It would also break the promises he gave to the mountain clan chiefs and go against the advice he gave Stannis about not taking wildlings to the lands claimed by northern lords.

Yes, there are theories that he in reality planned something else, but if so making this announcement was bloody stupid.

Particularly after Jon repeatedly thought to himself in his PoVs that many in NW didn't approve of him and of what he was doing, after he himself questioned if letting the wildlings in wasn't a betrayal and a horrible mistake on the eve of welcoming Tormund's group  and after even that latter warned him that many crows would disagree with it. This speech was just a capstone that confirmed the worst for all who already suspected him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maia said:

He also has to realize that Stannis came because, among other things, Melisandre made him believe that there was a real danger behind the Wall, while the NW has done shamefully little to try to convince other lords of the same.

I think Davos brought Aemon's letter to him.  That combined with what Stannis sees in Mel's flames sways him.  The NW do write to everyone.  Only Stannis comes.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

That fool Thorne didn't even bother to show the wight hand around while Tyrion was snubbing him.

I'm pretty sure the hand disintegrated on the voyage so there is no eerie twitching evidence to display.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Jon announced that he was going to attack Winterfell with about 200-250 wildling who were present in the Shieldhall, rather than meet Ramsay somewhere on the Night Watch lands, though.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII

Horse and Rory fell in beside Jon as he left the Shieldhall. I should talk with Melisandre after I see the queen, he thought. If she could see a raven in a storm, she can find Ramsay Snow for me.

I know he says he will go to Winterfell alone if need be, but it doesn't seem like he's marching on Winterfell, he needs Mel to find Ramsay not the Kingsroad.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Particularly after Jon repeatedly thought to himself in his PoVs that many in NW didn't approve of him and of what he was doing, after he himself questioned if letting the wildlings in wasn't a betrayal and a horrible mistake on the eve of welcoming Tormund's group  and after even that latter warned him that many crows would disagree with it.

GRRM is all about how difficult leadership is.  If all the decisions were easy there would be no problems.  He goes a bit too far for me as all his leaders fail and usually quite spectacularly because they face impossible quandaries or betrayal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maia said:

How was, attacking Jon in front of his fired-up wildling followers cowardly? It was likely suicide. I don't understand your insistence on something that isn't supported by the text.

Because he doesn't. He waits for them all to be distracted by Wun Wun and Ser Patrek before he strikes. And he waits until no one is near Jon. It wasn't a secretive as I previously thought, as I said earlier, but it wasn't just in front of everyone either. 

5 hours ago, Maia said:

Jon's solutions also would cause issues later on and might even result in some immediately. And some of what Marsh wanted, like opposing Stannis's demands more, wouldn't have been safer in the moment. He is a conservative, who wants to hang on to how things have always been, which is yes, largely wrong in this unprecedented situation. But it doesn't mean that Jon is right either. 

I don't think that all the decisions Jon made were the best either, I just think they're better than Bowen's suggestions because Jon is thinking of the bigger picture, long term consequences etc. more than Bowen is. As you say it was an unprecedented situation so it would follow that the watch needs to adapt and use new ideas which they haven't done before. And one could argue that Marsh's conservative attitude is based in fear of change.

5 hours ago, Maia said:

Um, given the numbers disparity only a fool would want to face them again.

But ultimately sealing the gates would mean that they can no longer communicate effectively with the wildlings as they can't leave the wall and so this option ultimately removes nearly any sort of diplomacy and almost guarantees that they will have to face the wildlings again. Since Marsh doesn't have any alternatives rather than letting the wildlings die and leaving them to the mercy of the Others, which means they would just continue to attack the wall as the only other option is certain death. So by doing this he makes it much more likely that he will have to fight the Wildlings again.

The point is that unless they want a huge bolster to the army of wights, sooner or later they need to resolve the Wildling situation, something that Marsh seems unwilling to do - he is willing to give up the ability to do any scouting beyond the wall, leaving them almost completely in the dark about what is going on there, including anything about the Others. It's almost like he wants to pretend they don't exist.

5 hours ago, Maia said:

Tywin didn't threaten the lives of the officers at the Wall - he merely stated that they would receive no further  support from the crown if they didn't elect Slynt.

Yes, that was what Tywin said, but Tywin also has a reputation for being ruthless. So Marsh may have been fearing more than just a lack of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I'll take it 

Ask Cersei what the difference is, she won't have an answer (neither would her father, son, husband or moonboy for all I know)

Aren't they an ignorant bunch? :D We, however, know that orders can be against the law.

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(I do take issue that Ned is not a paid executioner like Illyn. True he has a tongue, which is why he opens asoiaf with Ice in front of the protagonist spewing "In the name of Robert of House Bara..." like the switch flicking executioner he is, who didn't get the pardon call from the governor despite staring at the phone.

It's the eyes that get me. Jon didn't kill Ygritte because his father said before you flick the switch look in their souls. Jon did, Robb did. Even the 6 year old did. Gods know what Ned saw, like it matters. We all saw him hiding behind Roberts name. Lol ok, invertance over.)

To me it seems that Ned takes his own decisions and realizes that he is responsible for them. Actually, I think that's one of the major themes of the character. But I also wish he spared Gared. And who knows what was in Gared's eyes... The Others may have done something to the mind or the soul, and Ned is not a psychologist.

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

But Jon doesn't know this, for all we know Ramsay doesn't know either. (Of course he does) At the least he publicly says that's Arya. 

But we were comparing Ramsay and Ned. Gared's death is unfortunate but Ned does act in good faith, whereas Ramsay ... anything but.

To address what Jon knows, since you mentioned it... He does not know that Ramsay's marriage is not legal though he has an idea of what "Arya" may suffer- and it's definitely not normal for a wife to be tortured by a husband even in Westeros. (It may happen and nobody may stop it, but I don't think it is regarded as normal.) But the information Jon acts on is that "Arya" has already left Winterfell and is riding towards Castle Black - dying horse, hunger, dangers of the road etc. Surely, in the case of a normal marriage, what lord would object to his brother-in-law wanting to save his wife's life? Jon may not act in the knowledge that Ramsay's supposed wife is not a real wife in any sense of the word, but he does act in the (albeit mistaken) knowledge that she is already out of her husband's "protection" (or whatever we want to call it) and is in immediate danger. 

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Oh, them. Rams is a wild one. He pushes boundaries.

Which is one of the reasons why his actions cannot be compared to Ned's.

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Exactly. Stannis is the best that's coming, so why is he playing the facade of a lawyer and bickering over fish? He should just end the watch because the system is flawed and broken. (I mean, so is Stannis')

Because he still believes in his duty as a black brother and a Lord Commander. But I guess he will give up on the Watch when he sees it as a necessary step towards organizing the protection of the realm. I think Jon may reach the point where, ironically, he will be ready to give up the vows and all the rules that go with it in order to better fulfil his vocation and to protect the realms of men.   

22 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Maia said:

He also has to realize that Stannis came because, among other things, Melisandre made him believe that there was a real danger behind the Wall, while the NW has done shamefully little to try to convince other lords of the same. That fool Thorne didn't even bother to show the wight hand around while Tyrion was snubbing him.  And that while Stannis certainly would try to help the Watch if he wins... they would be completely SOL if he loses. That's the danger of tying oneself too closely to one side in a war  and what  neutrality was intended to prevent.

No, Stannis came because Davos had shown him Maester Aemon's letter and convinced him that a true king would save the realm. Davos saw the magnitude of the problem as soon as he read Aemon's letter, therefore other politicians could have seen it, too. But they were simply too busy. Davos, however,  gave Stannis an alternative, more meaningful agenda,which replaced the plan of burning Edric Storm for kingsblood, and the chance to start again after a defeat.

As for the danger of tying oneself too closely to one side in a war ... isn't that the problem in so many real-life historical situations where a group or a country must choose since neutrality is impossible? There is no safe option that would guarantee the survival of the NW in all possible scenarios.

7 hours ago, Maia said:

Now, I know that many on the board and particularly in this thread believe that there would be enough time for Jon himself to go unify the North should Stannis fail, while the Others politely wait with their invasion until he is good and ready and nothing goes wrong among the disparate groups on the Wall in his absence... but IMHO it would be just bad writing, like it was on the show.

I don't know what you mean here, I certainly haven't speculated on anything like that, nor did I even watch the show.

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

22 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Aren't they an ignorant bunch? :D 

But arent they just terrific?

22 hours ago, Julia H. said:

We, however, know that orders can be against the law.

Idk that. I mean, maybe with Kettleblack and getting arrested looks like some law was broken... But for the most part Id say kings (Cerseis also no king) cant give illegal orders, like Aerys ordering JonA to hand over the fellas was cruel and stupid but Jon was the one who broke the law.

22 hours ago, Julia H. said:

To me it seems that Ned takes his own decisions and realizes that he is responsible for them. Actually, I think that's one of the major themes of the character.

I completely disagree, Id say his major theme is his failure to take his (or any) responsibility. I see Eddard as he sees himself, not brother Brandon. I think his shirking of responsibility is most predominant when he dramatically throws his chain in front of Robert. Targaryens have always been an issue, dragonspawn, Ned ran away then seeing the murderers go free now he runs thinking Danys already as dead her nephew/niece. (even that didnt last) From putting a troublesome warlord on a dragons perch and being surprised of its monstrosity to knowing what Joffrey and his mother are while pushing Sansa further into their den, Eddards consistently riding the waves of misery, and the realm often follows. 

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But I also wish he spared Gared.

Eh. Wouldnt be much of a story then

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

And who knows what was in Gared's eyes... The Others may have done something to the mind or the soul, and Ned is not a psychologist.

He acts like he is, or at least telling Jon to be one. I really respect Neds words to his children, (or at least the two that look like him lol) I just wish he practiced his teachings. 
Oh yea, guy was toats mcgoats.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

But we were comparing Ramsay and Ned. Gared's death is unfortunate but Ned does act in good faith, whereas Ramsay ... anything but.

Mmm, ok. I guess. I find it difficult to complement Ned, especially here lol. Its definitely his perceived duty as lord of the north though. 
Ramsay, as lord of the north (2nd in command, but come on, how long can that last?) isnt interested in the same stuff as Ned (deserters of the wall running rampant in the north probably wont bug him as much as Ned) but he still has to show the North whos in command. Realpolitik is a thing, and the local politics of the NW isnt even on their radar.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

To address what Jon knows, since you mentioned it... He does not know that Ramsay's marriage is not legal though he has an idea of what "Arya" may suffer- and it's definitely not normal for a wife to be tortured by a husband even in Westeros. (It may happen and nobody may stop it, but I don't think it is regarded as normal.) But the information Jon acts on is that "Arya" has already left Winterfell and is riding towards Castle Black - dying horse, hunger, dangers of the road etc. Surely, in the case of a normal marriage, what lord would object to his brother-in-law wanting to save his wife's life? Jon may not act in the knowledge that Ramsay's supposed wife is not a real wife in any sense of the word, but he does act in the (albeit mistaken) knowledge that she is already out of her husband's "protection" (or whatever we want to call it) and is in immediate danger. 

(i dont think we want to call it protection lol)
So Jon suspects all this, but he also suspects it happened already with Alys he also suspects Mel is a liar liar whos pants are undoubtably, on fire. But regardless, when it comes down to it, I dont think a wife can ever legally escape her protection. (She was dying? Horse was grey, cool story, Honeymooner Ramsays back now)
Jorahs wife successfully bounced, but that was already while living outside the law, Tysha too, but thats complicated, for the most part I think its death do you part.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Which is one of the reasons why his actions cannot be compared to Ned's.

I dont really wanna go through the entire list, but basically its an infamous' traitors family and party and possibly valuable wildling hostages too. All legal and all tropheys for his realpolitik.
And Reek. His greatest strength and weakness.

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Because he still believes in his duty as a black brother and a Lord Commander. But I guess he will give up on the Watch when he sees it as a necessary step towards organizing the protection of the realm. I think Jon may reach the point where, ironically, he will be ready to give up the vows and all the rules that go with it in order to better fulfil his vocation and to protect the realms of men. 

I think so. I bet itll be hard for him though because the NW and his false defection in asos did a number on his mind

23 hours ago, Julia H. said:

LOL.

I kept thinking that line, so I was like screw it, Ima post it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/30/2022 at 11:51 AM, Ingelheim said:

It may be, but something tells me Stannis won't be alive halfway into Winds of Winter. 

Stannis will live long enough to meet Daenerys Targaryen.  He is the first of the deceptions that must be "slain" for Daenerys to fulfill her destiny.  Mel is presenting Stannis as Azor Ahai.  Daenerys' existence prove that to be false.  Mel is trying to take away Daenerys' identity, Azor Ahai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rondo said:

Lord Commander Jon Snow betrayed the NW and dragged the ancient Brotherhood into conflict with Roose Bolton.  The immediate consequence is chaos within Castle Black.  This unrest will spread to the other forts on the wall and will lead to a divided Brotherhood.  While most will agree with Bowen Marsh, there will undoubtedly be some who will disagree with the assassination of their lord commander.  Regardless of how erratic and incompetent Jon was, he was their elected lord commander.  What will happen shortly after Jon takes his last breath:

  1. Wun the Giant will be killed but not without trouble.
  2. Bowen Marsh will take over as the interim Lord Commander.  He will organize Castle Black but the wildlings will not be placated.
  3. I do not think Bowen and the Brother will be able to stop the wildlings from leaving the castle to attack the Boltons.
  4. The Weeper and his people will come calling just when the castle is in disorder.

What else?

Ser Aliser Thorne will be recalled to take the leadership at the wall.  It's a plot device to bring all of Jon's political enemies together so he can murder them when he gets resurrected.  Further causing problems at the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Commander Snow sent the much abused Aliser Thorne on a mission in which he is not likely to survive.  Another move by Jon prompted by his distaste for the man.  I think Thorne will survive and continue to be the opposition to Jon.  He will survive Jon's purge of the watch.  He gets to tell the story of the last lord commander before the watch was corrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Lord Commander Snow sent the much abused Aliser Thorne

Poor Thorne. He's so very likeable and it's not like he was trying to help Janos stir up dissent amongst the ranks right when everything is in a horrible position. 

Such a tragedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

According to some on this forum he's even worse than Hitler.

 

27 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Godwin's Law

I needn't have invoked the law, it eventually fulfills itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...