Jon Snow, the Coldheart

[Craving Peaches]

As others have said, it was addressed to the rest of the Watch as well. Even if it wasn't, an attack on Jon is an implied attack on the Watch as Jon is Lord Commander of the Watch. If I threaten to attack the Prime Minister it will likely be seen as a threat to attack the UK Government.

44 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

2. No he doesn't. Bowen never suggests attacking Stannis or trying to help the Boltons defeat their enemies. He did want to make Slynt Lord Commander as a signal to Lord Tywin that the watch wasn't siding with Stannis (a terrible plan, btw) but that's all. No one in text ever claims that amounts to 'taking part' as Lord Commanders are partly chosen for their ability to deal with other lords and the king. 

Bowen wants to acquiesce to Tywin's demands. At that point the Watch is siding with Tywin so is no longer neural. Being neutral means not aligning the Watch with anyone.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SeanF]

This is the Nights Watch vow;

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come".

There is nothing in that vow that pledges a Watchman to neutrality.  Neutrality is a tradition that has become so firmly established that a lot of people view it in the same light as an oath, similar to the way that a lot of traditional religious practices  are actually nowhere to be found in that religion's founding texts.

Neutrality is no longer an option.  It ceased to be an option when Kings Landing turned its back on their plea for aid, and only Stannis answered.  Once they hosted Stannis, fed him, and let him occupy some castles, they ceased to be neutral.  

And at this stage, attempting to cling to neutrality would be an abdication of responsibility.  It would mean subjecting the North to the rule of a family of Caligulas.

[Craving Peaches]

56 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In any case, the penalty for desertion is death not imprisonment - as Ned Stark and Jon Snow would tell you.

Jon hadn't deserted at this point. And Bowen wasn't lawfully executing Jon anyway, he stabbed him in the back while he was distracted.

 

[SeanF]

I have a similar criticism to Jon as I do to Dany.

He chose half measures when he should have gone all the way.  Jon should have thrown in his lot entirely with Stannis, just as Dany ought to have been far more ruthless towards the Slavers.

[Chaircat Meow]

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Neutrality is no longer an option.  It ceased to be an option when Kings Landing turned its back on their plea for aid, and only Stannis answered.  Once they hosted Stannis, fed him, and let him occupy some castles, they ceased to be neutral.  

Not even the Lannisters or the Boltons have this extreme interpretation. They've tried to strong arm the watch but neither ultimately supposed hosting Stannis per se made the NW enemies/rebels. 

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

They've tried to strong arm the watch but neither ultimately supposed hosting Stannis per se made the NW enemies/rebels. 

The Lannisters were going to assassinate Jon, as merely by electing him the Watch no longer complied with their demands.

[Chaircat Meow]

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Lannisters were going to assassinate Jon, as merely by electing him the Watch no longer complied with their demands.

They didn't claim the Night's Watch was in rebellion or even that Jon was a rebel. Cersei tried to have other people she didn't like/felt threatened by killed too even when they were on her side. Assassination by its nature is underhanded and you often do it precisely when you don't want to be seen as publicly opposed.

Think of Tywin's 'Castamere' threat which he made, for example, against Lord Manderly but not against the Night's Watch. There's a big difference there. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Chaircat Meow

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Jon hadn't deserted at this point. And Bowen wasn't lawfully executing Jon anyway, he stabbed him in the back while he was distracted.

 

I think even if he had marched out to meet Ramsay it wouldn’t have been desertion. Quite the opposite, in fact, he would be doing his duty in a manner hat is much more in tune w/ the true purpose of the Watch then if he just sat and waited for Ramsay. 

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

They didn't claim the Night's Watch was in rebellion or even that Jon was a rebel. Cersei tried to have other people she didn't like/felt threatened by killed too. Assassination by its nature is underhanded and you often do it precisely when you don't want to be seen as publicly opposed.

Think of Tywin's 'Castamere' threat which he made, for example, against Lord Manderly but not against the Night's Watch. There's a big difference there. 

Cersei is Regent, and in her eyes, the very act of electing Jon Snow justifies the use of lethal violence.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

This is the Nights Watch vow;

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come".

There is nothing in that vow that pledges a Watchman to neutrality.  Neutrality is a tradition that has become so firmly established that a lot of people view it in the same light as an oath, similar to the way that a lot of traditional religious practices  are actually nowhere to be found in that religion's founding texts.

Neutrality is no longer an option.  It ceased to be an option when Kings Landing turned its back on their plea for aid, and only Stannis answered.  Once they hosted Stannis, fed him, and let him occupy some castles, they ceased to be neutral.  

And at this stage, attempting to cling to neutrality would be an abdication of responsibility.  It would mean subjecting the North to the rule of a family of Caligulas.

The NW really had no way to force the issue. If they tried to oust Stannis he would destroy them.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

As others have said, it was addressed to the rest of the Watch as well. Even if it wasn't, an attack on Jon is an implied attack on the Watch as Jon is Lord Commander of the Watch. If I threaten to attack the Prime Minister it will likely be seen as a threat to attack the UK Government.

The letter and the threat were addressed to Jon. Whatever other people have said those are the facts here. 

If you think an attack on the NW was implied in the letter that's great but we have no evidence Jon did and if he did think this he made no effort to communicate this point to anyone. Your original claim was this it clear from Bowen and co's POV that Ramsay was going to attack the whole NW.

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Bowen wants to acquiesce to Tywin's demands. At that point the Watch is siding with Tywin so is no longer neural.

Tywin made one demand: appoint Slynt. How does appointing him equate to aligning with Tywin ? The NW are allowed to pick their own LC - if they voted for him how is that breaching neutrality?. What were they going to do to Stannis with Slynt as LC? Unless the plan actually was to help Tywin defeat Stannis by fighting him (which I really doubt and this is never said - not even by Tywin) I don't think this gets you to oathbreaking/breach of neutrality.

At best I think Tywin would have expected Slynt to do a reverse Jon - inform Roose of any plans he heard about in the way Jon helped Stannis win Deepwood by giving advice and helped with the Karstarks. Which is on the edge of course but it is not like going to war with him. 

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Being neutral means not aligning the Watch with anyone.

This is even vaguer than the 'take no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms' which is how it is usually described. Why not just use the book phrasing? Because it doesn't help you ...

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Tywin made one demand: appoint Slynt. How does appointing him equate to aligning with Tywin ?

Because Slynt would be a Tywin puppet who would do anything Tywin told him to do. Can anyone picture brave Janos Slynt saying ‘no’ to anything Tywin required of him? Slynt couldn’t bring himself to go against Tyrion’s orders, and he despised Tyrion. 
 

[Craving Peaches]

24 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The letter and the threat were addressed to Jon. Whatever other people have said those are the facts here. 

The facts are, if you want to get really particular about it, that the letter is not even addressed to anyone, it doesn't have an address at the start and just goes on to the main body calling the reader 'bastard', then proceeding to threaten 'bastard' and the Watch. It is clear the Watch is included in the scope of the letter.

Quote

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

The demands on the letter are impossible to fulfil so the Watch will be attacked as well.

25 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Tywin made one demand: appoint Slynt. How does appointing him equate to aligning with Tywin ? The NW are allowed to pick their own LC - if they voted for him how is that breaching neutrality?

Because they would be voting for him because Tywin said so, not because they actually wanted to vote for him or thought he was a good choice. Bowen's argument is that they should vote for him because that's what Tywin said to do. He is essentially advocating for following Tywin's orders. That's not really neutral.

29 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This is even vaguer than the 'take no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms' which is how it is usually described. Why not just use the book phrasing? Because it doesn't help you ...

I don't understand what is so unclear about it to you. Being neutral means you aren't aligned with anyone. You don't take a side.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The demands on the letter are impossible to fulfil so the Watch will be attacked as well.

Proof?

Ramsay actually says what he will do in the event of none compliance. It has just been quoted. 

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Proof?

Ramsay not bothering 'bastard' or the Black crows is conditional upon the following people being returned to Ramsay by them:

Quote

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

They cannot return Jeyne because she is not there. They cannot return Theon because he is not there. They cannot return the Mance's child because he is not there. If the demands are not fulfilled,

Quote

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

So not only will 'bastard' be attacked, by by extension the black crows will be troubled, because them not being troubled is conditional upon the above people being returned and they are physically unable to do this.

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

Ramsay not bothering 'bastard' or the Black crows is conditional upon the following people being returned to Ramsay by them:

They cannot return Jeyne because she is not there. They cannot return Theon because he is not there. They cannot return the Mance's child because he is not there. If the demands are not fulfilled,

So not only will 'bastard' be attacked, by by extension the black crows will be troubled, because them not being troubled is conditional upon the above people being returned and they are physically unable to do this.

Yep that was all quoted and discussed above.

Nowhere does it say 'the Watch will be attacked as well' or anything of the sort. In fact Ramsay had the opportunity to include such a threat but he did not. He told Jon he would cut his heart out and eat it and left it there. After that it doesn't say 'and I will make a pie full of all your crows too and eat it with mustard.'

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Proof?

Ramsay actually says what he will do in the event of none compliance. It has just been quoted. 

The proof that neither Jon personally nor the Watch in general can fulfill the demands made in the letter is the fact that Theon and fArya aren’t there. And even irt the guests who are there, what would turning guests over to someone making demands mean other than Jon and the Watch don’t observe guest right. It would be like Jon Arryn sending the heads to Ned and Robert to Aerys b/c the latter had demanded their heads. 
Yes, Ramsay says what he will do, cut out Jon’s heart and eat it.
There’s also what he implies when he tells Jon that if he meet his demands, he [Ramsay] will leave Jon and the black crows alone. Not all threats must be spelled out in detail; if I say, ‘do this and I won’t to that’, I’m obviously making a threat. 

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The proof that neither Jon personally nor the Watch in general can fulfill the demands made in the letter is the fact that Theon and fArya aren’t there. And even irt the guests who are there, what would turning guests over to someone making demands mean other than Jon and the Watch don’t observe guest right. It would be like Jon Arryn sending the heads to Ned and Robert to Aerys b/c the latter had demanded their heads. 
 

I wasn't asking for proof the demands couldn't be fulfilled. I asked for proof Ramsay would attack the whole watch when the demands weren't fulfilled.

The original claim was that it should have been obvious, from Bown's POV, that Jon was defending the watch when he made his shieldhall speech and I disagreed.  

As an aside I think guest rite doesn't enter into this. Breaking guest rite means attacking your host or your guest. I don't think it means you can't turn them over the king or his warden. Jon Arryn raised his banners because he didn't want to see Robert/Ned murdered not because guest rite left him no choice in the matter. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Chaircat Meow

[Groo]

13 hours ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Marsh was not an ambitious man.

Sure, that's why he tried to get elected Lord Commander, because he has no ambitions.

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I wasn't asking for proof the demands couldn't be fulfilled. I asked for proof Ramsay would attack the whole watch when the demands weren't fulfilled.

Gotcha.

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The original claim was that it should have been obvious, from Bown's POV, that Jon was defending the watch when he made his shieldhall speech and I don't think it would have been obvious. 
 

I think it should have been obvious to most, because Jon read the letter in front of everyone. That said, I can see how Bowen wouldn’t see it… not b/c it’s not there, but b/c he’s a coward who is interested in saving his own arse above all else. 

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

As an aside I think guest rite doesn't enter into this. Breaking guest rite means attacking your host or your guest. I don't think it means you can't turn them over the king or his warden. Jon Arryn raised his banners because he didn't want to see Robert/Ned murdered not because guest rite left him no choice in the matter. 

Yeah, that’s a good point. I’m now curious about this… I would definitely see this type of thing as a huge no-no for obvious reasons, but I’m not sure it falls within the official ‘rule’ of guest right.

To be clear, I didn’t mean the Arryn/Ned-Robert scenario was necessarily about guest right, just comparing someone in a position of authority demanding someone else’s be turned over/murdered.