balefired-ed Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Just a question that popped into my head. I realize it would be politically impossible, but wonder if it would technically be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floki of the Ironborn Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 No. The Lord Commander cannot leave the Wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Its be really daft he cant sit down and speak to the other small council about day to dsy issues needing attention urgently and the council cant be travelling back and forward to the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingStoneheart Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 I’d say legally no as well as politically and strategically silly. The NW swear to take no part in any wars or quarrels south of the wall so the LC would really not be able to give any guidance or force any actions. Someone said above that they cannot leave the Wall, I don’t know if that is true but they do obviously send envoys south. I’m sure if the NW was really heavily garrisoned and the LC could trust his right hand to “hold” the Wall, he could leave to meet with the Lord of Winterfell or King of Westeros but that’s it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Truth be told, I find it strange that Lord Commanders are allowed to leave The Wall, as a whole. For example Mormont leaving on the Great Ranging, feels like it would completely screw up command of the Wall as a whole; which basically did happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 6 minutes ago, sifth said: Truth be told, I find it strange that Lord Commanders are allowed to leave The Wall, as a whole. For example Mormont leaving on the Great Ranging, feels like it would completely screw up command of the Wall as a whole; which basically did happen. I don't have a problem with the LC leaving his desk for an urgent appointment, but legally, politically, technically etc no, he couldn't be Hand of the King - it would contradict his NW vows. Note that as LC, Jon feels a bit queasy giving political/military advice to Stannis, and that's with him physically being at The Wall. Edited March 22 by House Cambodia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 5 minutes ago, House Cambodia said: I don't have a problem with the LC leaving his desk for an urgent appointment, but legally, politically, technically etc no, he couldn't be Hand of the King - it would contradict his NW vows. Note that as LC, Jon feels a bit queasy giving political/military advice to Stannis, and that's with him physically being at The Wall. There's a differences from the LC leaving his desk to go for a walk, heck even going to a nearby castle when a lord summons him. The Lord Commander leading a ranging into the Haunted Forest, is another matter though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 13 minutes ago, sifth said: There's a differences from the LC leaving his desk to go for a walk, heck even going to a nearby castle when a lord summons him. The Lord Commander leading a ranging into the Haunted Forest, is another matter though. Disagree - he's the commander of the rangers, and it wasn't by any means a routine ranging - they'd all proved failures, and he needed to literally take command. Obviously, in hindsight you could criticise the decision. Ser Arthurs Dawn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 8 hours ago, House Cambodia said: Disagree - he's the commander of the rangers, and it wasn't by any means a routine ranging - they'd all proved failures, and he needed to literally take command. Obviously, in hindsight you could criticise the decision. Agreed. Normally someone like the First Ranger leading a ranging this large would be fine. We see a comparable scenario where Marsh leads 100 brothers to fight the Weeper. But he's gone along with Sir Waymar, so going in force to find the Wildlings and / or the missing rangers is a solid idea, if not amazingly executed (too many men, bad personnel decisions). There are few people he trusts to lead -- he said as much to Tyrion and Jon -- and he's perfectly qualified to do so. Everything was fine until he decided to fortify the Fist instead of march back to the wall, which is much easier to defend and doesn't risk losing 30%-50% of the NW fighting men*. * Based on how the Wildlings assaulted the actual Wall, the fist of the first men would have fallen rather quickly and the watch would have been slaughtered / captured to a man. Ser Arthurs Dawn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aejohn the Conqueroo Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Why not? I'm sure it would be impractical, but that would only constrain a certain sort of monarch. The only precedent that I've seen in Westerosi legal history is that a king isn't bound by precedent unless he choses to hide behind it, so essentially he can do as he wishes, as long as he's ready to deal with whatever rebels pop up because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Absent a situation like Jon and Stannis I cannot see any reason why a king would want to make the Lord Commander his hand however for that exact reason I doubt there is a law specifically against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aebram Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said: * Based on how the Wildlings assaulted the actual Wall, the fist of the first men would have fallen rather quickly and the watch would have been slaughtered / captured to a man. I don't know about that. They were attacked by undead zombies, and some of them still managed to escape. But back to the original question: by the Night's Watch vows, a black brother promises to hold no lands, wear no crowns, and win no glory. So they can't be a king or a lord; but there's no explicit promise not to serve in other positions. We know that the brothers do sometimes leave the Wall, such as Yoren roaming Westeros in search of recruits. It seems highly irregular that a Lord Commander would leave Castle Black for King's Landing, and stay for any length of time. It would probably make more sense for the commander to retire, and let the brothers choose a new one. But there doesn't seem to be any specific prohibition, A long absence might be considered a violation of the promise to "live and die at my post," unless he was somehow still serving the Watch by becoming Hand. Edited March 23 by Aebram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 I could envisage it if, say, the country was at war, the king was a boy, and the LC were the most experienced soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 On 3/22/2024 at 7:34 PM, Universal Sword Donor said: * Based on how the Wildlings assaulted the actual Wall, the fist of the first men would have fallen rather quickly and the watch would have been slaughtered / captured to a man. If I remember rightly, Mance himself acknowledged that Mormont could have held the Fist against him, had he been foolish enough to attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 15 hours ago, SeanF said: I could envisage it if, say, the country was at war, the king was a boy, and the LC were the most experienced soldier. Even then it would be foolish unless the war was being fought at the wall or in the north Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 minute ago, Alden Rothack said: Even then it would be foolish unless the war was being fought at the wall or in the north That was what I meant. It would be a dereliction of duty to leave the Wall for non-Wall related business (i.e. ranging north and recruiting south are Wall-business). And by definition, a Hand can't do his job without getting involved in the politics the LC's post has vowed to reject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, House Cambodia said: That was what I meant. It would be a dereliction of duty to leave the Wall for non-Wall related business (i.e. ranging north and recruiting south are Wall-business). And by definition, a Hand can't do his job without getting involved in the politics the LC's post has vowed to reject. Yes though even then it would only happen IMO if the Warden of the North was judged to be incapable of leading the war effort. Which could happen, for example given a choice between Jon, Sansa and Rickon the smart money is on Jon to lead the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Cambodia Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said: Yes though even then it would only happen IMO if the Warden of the North was judged to be incapable of leading the war effort. Which could happen, for example given a choice between Jon, Sansa and Rickon the smart money is on Jon to lead the war. In the narrative yes, because, as in the TV Show, he's dead and thus released from his NW vows. But as a LC of the NW, his role would still be incompatible with Warden of the North or any other office that is partial towards one part of the realm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alden Rothack Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 13 minutes ago, House Cambodia said: In the narrative yes, because, as in the TV Show, he's dead and thus released from his NW vows. But as a LC of the NW, his role would still be incompatible with Warden of the North or any other office that is partial towards one part of the realm. I'm specifically not suggesting that Jon be Warden of the North, I suggesting that Jon as Lord Commander could be chosen as Hand because the candidates for Warden are unsuitable to fight the war they are being presented with. IMO your base assumption is also incorrect, the Warden of the North is the one case where a Lord Commanders vows would not clash with the duties of the position since in most cases both duties require him to fight threats from beyond the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 3 hours ago, Alden Rothack said: Even then it would be foolish unless the war was being fought at the wall or in the north I would only envisage it for the duration of the war, and the immediate aftermath. But, leading a war against an external enemy would keep to the spirit of the vows. Or, perhaps a successful warrior king, who abdicates in favour of his son when he comes of age, like Murad II, and takes the Black, to keep out of his way. Then, quite suddenly, the Realm faces a deadly threat and his son tells him: ”If you are king, return and lead your army. If I am king, I command you to lead my army.” Edited March 24 by SeanF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.