Alden Rothack Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, SeanF said: 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. Well we do have Cregan Stark is an example of a 'get it done then get gone' type hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 3/23/2024 at 7:38 PM, Alester Florent said: If I remember rightly, Mance himself acknowledged that Mormont could have held the Fist against him, had he been foolish enough to attack. He says he'd lose 5 men for every crow if he were dumb enough to attack it. There's no water up top so just holding the brook against the ranging party would likely get them to surrender or die forcing their way out. Holing up there instead of marching back to the Wall was a bad idea. Mance even says as much in the same conversation: “That old man?” Harma’s tone said she did not believe it. “He came himself? Then who commands at Castle Black?” “Bowen Marsh.” This time Jon answered at once. You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Mance laughed. “If so, our war is won. Bowen knows a deal more about counting swords than he’s ever known about using them.” [...] “My Lord of Bones, keep the column moving at all costs. If we reach the Wall before Mormont, we’ve won.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moiraine Sedai Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 On 3/21/2024 at 12:03 PM, balefired-ed said: Just a question that popped into my head. I realize it would be politically impossible, but wonder if it would technically be legal. Illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Bolt Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 13 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said: Illegal. Actually it is king who decides what is legal or not and it is also he who hires HotK. So in theory it would be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 hours ago, Loose Bolt said: Actually it is king who decides what is legal or not and it is also he who hires HotK. So in theory it would be legal. If the Realm faced a major threat, and the LC was the best general, I think it would be entirely legal (and sensible), for the King to appoint him. Defence of the Realm is entirely in accord with the Night’s Watch vows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 5 hours ago, SeanF said: If the Realm faced a major threat, and the LC was the best general, I think it would be entirely legal (and sensible), for the King to appoint him. Defence of the Realm is entirely in accord with the Night’s Watch vows. Then you have the Jaime Lannister conundrum of vows: They are bound not to interfere in the politics of the south but they are bound to defend the realm of men. So if it were an external threat, say the Triarchy or Braavos invading, then it would well make sense to appoint him Hand and general of the realm's armies. If it's not external, both history of the NW and their vow would prevent them from interfering. Hoare's brother didn't march south when HH was burned. Qorgyle didn't chevauchee in the north when Dorne sent men to the trident. Aemon remained at the wall while his family fell apart and lost RR. Ser Arthurs Dawn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 30 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said: Then you have the Jaime Lannister conundrum of vows: They are bound not to interfere in the politics of the south but they are bound to defend the realm of men. So if it were an external threat, say the Triarchy or Braavos invading, then it would well make sense to appoint him Hand and general of the realm's armies. If it's not external, both history of the NW and their vow would prevent them from interfering. Hoare's brother didn't march south when HH was burned. Qorgyle didn't chevauchee in the north when Dorne sent men to the trident. Aemon remained at the wall while his family fell apart and lost RR. If it's an external enemy, then there is no issue. If say, the King faced an uprising from a section of the nobility, and he summoned the LC to take command as Hand, then it's a grey area, I think. One can argue it's taking a side, or one can argue that defending the King is defending the Realm. The doctrine of neutrality generally, becomes an even greyer area if central authority essentially collapses, as we see in ADWD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said: Then you have the Jaime Lannister conundrum of vows: They are bound not to interfere in the politics of the south but they are bound to defend the realm of men. So if it were an external threat, say the Triarchy or Braavos invading, then it would well make sense to appoint him Hand and general of the realm's armies. If it's not external, both history of the NW and their vow would prevent them from interfering. Hoare's brother didn't march south when HH was burned. Qorgyle didn't chevauchee in the north when Dorne sent men to the trident. Aemon remained at the wall while his family fell apart and lost RR. The Night's Watch are bound to defend the realms of men, not just Westeros. They shouldn't be siding with the Iron Throne against the Triarchy or Braavos, if we take their "take no part in politics" vow seriously. Of course, their vow doesn't actually say that. What they actually promise to do is "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." The duties of the Night's Watch have been traditionally interpreted more restrictively than that: to take no part in southron politics; complete chastity, not just celibacy (by a strict interpretation of those terms). But we're also seeing that those traditional interpretations of the vows are starting to break down. The Watch has for centuries seen its duty as containing the wildlings but the Watch is now beginning to realise that that's not what they're for at all: the real enemy is something else, and if the wildlings somehow present a threat "to the realms of men" then they should be repelled, but so long as the wildlings are part of the realms of men (as those who have passed through the Wall have become) then the Watch owes a duty to protect them just as it does anyone else. This opens the door to a more critical examination of the vows overall, which I think would pretty quickly establish that Jon didn't break any vow with Ygritte, and he didn't break any vow by hosting Stannis, sending Mance to rescue Arya, etc. He was given the chance to break his vows - to take a wife, to hold lands, and wear a crown, and he turned it down, choosing instead to live (and indeed possibly die, depending on the outcome of the coup attempt) at his post. He hasn't broken his vows yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moiraine Sedai Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 On 3/27/2024 at 12:58 AM, Loose Bolt said: Actually it is king who decides what is legal or not and it is also he who hires HotK. So in theory it would be legal. I disagree. The Lord Commander’s job is a neutral office bound to the Night’s Watch. Assuming the monarch is willing to do something extremely unpopular and proceeds anyway. I think the monarch and the lord commander will be facing a lot of resistance. Bloodraven in his time had loyal political followers but even his appointment would face a lot of resistance. A Targaryen monarch would be advised not to do it. A stained lord commander like Jon would make it much more difficult. 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.