Jon’s only failure as Lord Commander

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Meaning they're regarded as savages who are murderers, thieves and rapists?  Of course that would have nothing to do with any history of actually murdering people, stealing stuff, and kidnapping women and girls, subsequently raping them, now would it?

There may be some excessive prejudice, but their history isn't the kind of thing that inspires mutual trust.

Indeed.  

Of course, plenty of noble knights and lords are savages, who murder, steal, and rape, though no doubt Bowen views them differently.

[LongRider]

7 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Well, they have 3-4 thousand fighting men with Tormund and can prepare defenses.

No, and it's interesting how the number of Tormund's fighting men at the Wall keeps rising.  After all had passed through the gate Bown Marsh reported;  A Dance with Dragons - Jon XII.. "Bowen Marsh was waiting for him south of the Wall, with a tablet full of numbers. "Three thousand one hundred and nineteen wildlings passed through the gate today," the Lord Steward told him.' 

Noted by Jon earlier   "A Dance with Dragons - Jon XII....On and on and on the wildlings came. Some were moving faster now, hastening across the battleground. Others—the old, the young, the feeble—could scarce move at all. 

The number of fighting men is unknown, as is the number of men that might volunteer to go with Jon.  Plus, we don't know how many Jon had in mind to take with him.

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

Jon going after Ramsay was him going after the man who threatened him.   He wouldn't have an army with him, just a few volunteers.  He does not have the recourses to feed an army. 

8 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Would the Weeper actually join Jon or make a truce with him? No, I don't think so, but Jon is an idealist and he believes he has to try.

Jon does float the idea of the Weeper crossing the Wall and his idea does not fly.  

 

7 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Why would he mention the Weeper on the Shieldhall meeting? 

He doesn't.  

 

[Nevets]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Indeed.  

Of course, plenty of noble knights and lords are savages, who murder, steal, and rape, though no doubt Bowen views them differently.

We've seen this occur during the war.  I'm not aware of it happening much in peacetime.  Certainly not openly.  Gregor in the Riverlands was an aberration that Ned was happy to squash.  And there were plenty of others even angrier.

Also, remember the good farmland in the Gift that Bran told the Reeds was abandoned due to constant raids.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Nevets

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Nevets said:

We've seen this occur during the war.  I'm not aware of it happening much in peacetime.  Certainly not openly.  Gregor in the Riverlands was an aberration that Ned was happy to squash.  And there were plenty of others even angrier.

Roose Bolton is a serial rapist who thinks the Umbers do much the same.  Tywin has his guards rape Tysha.  Mycah is casually murdered, and only Arya is bothered by it.  If a highborn man takes a fancy to a lowborn woman, she doesn’t have much option but to spread ‘em and take it.

The lowborn aren’t totally without remedies.  There is self-help;  an abusive lord might be murdered by outraged fathers and brothers. The other is if the lowborn have a highborn patron.  Hurt a man who wears a lord’s livery, or raid his tenants, and you’ll have a powerful enemy.

[LongRider]

38 minutes ago, LongRider said:

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned.

The quote if from the Shieldhall speech, it is however, inaccurate.  Jon and the NW are taking part in the W5K by housing Stannis and his armies at the various castles Stannis and army were at, plus, Stannis is now using Castle Black as his base. Stannis did come the Wall before Jon was elected Lord Commander. Stannis at the Wall  is known in Kings Landing.  To claim the NW doesn't take part in the kingdom's wars, is nice, but not accurate. 

[csuszka1948]

12 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The quote if from the Shieldhall speech, it is however, inaccurate.  Jon and the NW are taking part in the W5K by housing Stannis and his armies at the various castles Stannis and army were at, plus, Stannis is now using Castle Black as his base. Stannis did come the Wall before Jon was elected Lord Commander. Stannis at the Wall  is known in Kings Landing.  To claim the NW doesn't take part in the kingdom's wars, is nice, but not accurate. 

 

That's what Jon says. He doesn't even attempt to convince the members of the NW that his actions don't constitute oathbreaking.

[Nevets]

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Roose Bolton is a serial rapist who thinks the Umbers do much the same.  Tywin has his guards rape Tysha.  Mycah is casually murdered, and only Arya is bothered by it.  If a highborn man takes a fancy to a lowborn woman, she doesn’t have much option but to spread ‘em and take it.

The lowborn aren’t totally without remedies.  There is self-help;  an abusive lord might be murdered by outraged fathers and brothers. The other is if the lowborn have a highborn patron.  Hurt a man who wears a lord’s livery, or raid his tenants, and you’ll have a powerful enemy.

Roose had to hide his activities for fear of what Rickard, and probably Ned later, would do to him.

Tysha appears to have been a one-off directly related to the marriage with Tyrion.  And Mycah was killed because his killer was falsely told he had attacked Joffrey.

So, one lord who acts in secret, and is still regarded as savage and looked down on, and two victims who were targeted for their specific actions, albeit unfairly or excessively.  I'm not seeing a pattern of widespread misbehavior here.

In any event, claiming that this type of thing regularly happens down south, even if true, which I doubt, hardly justifies its occurrence in the North.  Bowen does have legitimate worries, even if they are a bit overwrought.

[LongRider]

32 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's what Jon says. He doesn't even attempt to convince the members of the NW that his actions don't constitute oathbreaking.

My comment about Stannis and him being at the Wall were meant to be general to the fact that the NW selectively keeps or breaks their oaths and always most likely have. 
Bowen Marsh has broken his vows as well, and yet his egregious crimes are not even mentioned by those who claim Marsh’s actions to be justified.  I argue, for no, they were not.