Regarding Bowen Marsh Stabbing thingie

[Hippocras]

I was rather under the impression that LF took Jeyne and made her a whore, and that the Lannisters and the Boltons came up with the fArya plan, and recalled that northern girl whom LF took posession of, requested Jeyne back and sent her off to Roose.

In which case LF knows Arya is Jeyne, but it was less a deal struck between himself and Roose/Ramsey and more a deal Tywin struck and LF provided the girl. If Jeyen had been killed in KL instead of given over to LF there would be no fArya. I doubt her had any idea just how useful Jeyne would become in the moment that he decided to acquire her for his whore house.

And if the Lannisters had had any idea of Jeyne's future usefullness she would not have been given over to LF for that purpose but sent to CR and schooled in the art of deception and becoming Arya.

There fore it was a happy solution thought up by Tywin and LF provided Jeyne. He could hardly refuse Tywin the girl could he. At best to prevent the plan he might have her killed and say she dies months earlier. But maybe Tywin is well aware that Jeyne is alive and well because, Oh you know he likes to visit the odd whore house himself.

Except that LF was the one who suggested the idea of a fake Arya to Tywin, and he did this because he knew he had a convenient Northern girl in his "possession".

Tywin did not dream up the idea of a fake Arya and ask LF, it was the other way around.

LF always does his work by pretending to be an ally offering helpful suggestions. He always appears to be benign and never puts himself in the line of fire.

Question - it was noted several times that Littlefinger was taking a very long time setting things up in the South negotiating with the Tyrells. Does everyone take it at face value that he was actually in the South with the Tyrells the whole time, or does anyone think he met someone a bit closer to Harrenhal, then under Tywin, before heading South? If you think that, how is it that Tywin arranged so perfectly to join forces with the Tyrells to "save" King's Landing - just luck, or did he have a go-between who was then rewarded by being granted Harrenhal?

If you agree LF was probably involved with coordinating that, then it puts LF in the vicinity of Harrenhal, in the period immediately before the Red Wedding. And yet you think he was not at all involved, even though he has the very clear goal throughout the books of sowing conflict in order to eventually benefit. But sure, in that case he was not involved. Right.

[Lummel]

...Also the mistakes Jon makes build up to the PL, the PL isn't the only reason for the mutiny, it is the straw which beaks the camel's back. Thinks which seem like really good decisions on the first read, like the marriage of Alys Karstark, are terrible on the re-read. “Your father is a castellan, not a lord. And a castellan has no right to make marriage pacts.” and what right's does the Lord commander of the NW have to make marriage pacts? Probably none. GRRM basically spells it out that Jon is acting as Lord of Winterfell rather than his actual position. Then there is the Hardhome expedition which is just madness, stupider than anything Dany does, based purely on emotion. The excuse that they might turn into wights doesn't wash now that they know how to deal with wights and can kill them easily (or at least could have when there was order at the wall).

The thing about the Pink Letter is that it brings news that Stannis has lost. That is the point. Because Stannis has lost the Watch is vulnerable, if a letter had arrived bringing word of a victory for Stannis there would have been no attempt on Jon's life.

The moment to remove Jon from power because of fears of the consequences of his decision is before he lets all those wildlings through - not after.

Those decisions that Jon makes only (potentially) become terrible if the Boltons win, and then only terrible because of the risk of retribution from the Boltons. Although without a doubt I agree that Jon is acting like, or as, the Stark in Winterfell or the true King. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, the roots of that way of behaving are there already in AGOT so at least there is consistency! And when it comes down to it GRRM establishes that the Watcha re associated with Stannis from when he turns up at the Wall in ASOS. From that moment on the Watch is at risk of retribution from the Lannisters or Boltons because they take Stannis in, give him food and hospitality, which is why Jon sends his paper shield, he is already desperate to not seem bound to Stannis in Jon I ADWD.

Important decisions for Jon are emotional, that is not unusual for him, if something is personal and important to him then the emotions are there and stronger than the reasoning side of his brain.

Not sure were the idea is that wights are easy for the Watch to deal with. As far as I can recall they have only managed to destroy three, the one that Sam kills in ASOS and the two that are destroyed in AGOT. The watch was completely overwhelmed by wights on the Fist of the First Men even though they used fire arrows

[butterbumps!]

There is not a conspiracy behind everything, no. What we have in these books though is two characters who do their work via conspiracies. manipulation and conspiracy is all they have to work with and they are damned good at it. They are central characters of the books and the entire reason for that is they have competing conspiracies which we are seeing deeper and deeper inside, but we still don't have the full picture of either one.

It is laughable how blind people are to this.

LF pretends to be people's best friend, particularly ambitious people with no morals, promises to help them achieve their ambitions, uses them to sow chaos, then in the end screws them over. He very much likes to murder people and frame other people for it who he wants to get rid of. He very much likes to keep his hands clean, leaving others to do the dirty work. Ergo he definitely uses agents. Martin simply has not revealed who they are yet.

Varys uses deflection and mummers tricks usually. However the effect is the same. People believe he is being helpful, though they trust him less, he keeps his own goals well guarded, and he also works through agents "little birds".

There are at least two proven conspiracies under way. From there it is not so hard to work outward to see which events may be important to those conspiracies, and which characters will be considered to be in the way by the conspirators.

What's bizarre is that Martin provided an answer to Bowen's motive that's clear as an unmuddied lake, and you're looking to say that LF is actually behind Bowen's doing this, for nebulous motives and non-established connections. What makes it more bizarre is that an SSM was quoted in which Martin states that the text made the reason pretty explicit, which implies that in Martin's view, the idea that LF is secretly controlling 007-Marsh behind the scenes is missing the reality of the situation.

You know, if you're into conspiracies, I think the author of the Pink Letter is a more fertile road for this. No matter who wrote that letter, it's a goddam conspiracy (yes, even if it's Ramsay). This is where a conspiracy exists, and I don't think anyone would argue against the idea of this.

No one is doubting that LF and Varys are deep into conspiracies. But they don't have a monopoly on them, nor is every scenario the result of a direct conspiracy. LF might very well have spies up at the Wall. But to suggest that he's behind Jon's stabbing-- especially given that Jon could actually be an asset to whatever he's planning-- is a bit mystifying, even more so given that the explanation Bowen himself gives leaves no unanswered questions that could only make sense if someone else was pulling strings.

[Hippocras]

What's bizarre is that Martin provided an answer to Bowen's motive that's clear as an unmuddied lake, and you're looking to say that LF is actually behind Bowen's doing this, for nebulous motives and non-established connections. What makes it more bizarre is that an SSM was quoted in which Martin states that the text made the reason pretty explicit, which implies that in Martin's view, the idea that LF is secretly controlling 007-Marsh behind the scenes is missing the reality of the situation.

You know, if you're into conspiracies, I think the author of the Pink Letter is a more fertile road for this. No matter who wrote that letter, it's a goddam conspiracy (yes, even if it's Ramsay). This is where a conspiracy exists, and I don't think anyone would argue against the idea of this.

No one is doubting that LF and Varys are deep into conspiracies. But they don't have a monopoly on them, nor is every scenario the result of a direct conspiracy. LF might very well have spies up at the Wall. But to suggest that he's behind Jon's stabbing-- especially given that Jon could actually be an asset to whatever he's planning-- is a bit mystifying, even more so given that the explanation Bowen himself gives leaves no unanswered questions that could only make sense if someone else was pulling strings.

No, what I have been saying all along is this:

Bowen had his own motives - he hates wildlings, distrusts Jon because he joined the wildlings for a while, because he is a bastard, and because he is pretty much the youngest LC ever and Marsh thinks he is smarter than Jon because he is older. Certainly Marsh has his own resentments. HOWEVER Marsh is not a bold man. He would NEVER have done what he did without guarantees that it would pay off in some way. Those guarantees could only have come from OUTSIDE the Watch because the Watch itself has nothing to offer him. He was AFRAID of the wrath of the Lannisters and Boltons, and thinks the Watch should be loyal to them because they sit on the Thone.

So, when word came via East Watch, probably passed on by Qyburn that the Lannisters wanted Jon dead, he acted, knowing the current occupants of the Throne would reward him for it, not see it as a mutiny.

[butterbumps!]

No, what I have been saying all along is this:

Bowen had his own motives - he hates wildlings, distrusts Jon because he joined the wildlings for a while, because he is a bastard, and because he is pretty much the youngest LC ever and Marsh thinks he is smarter than Jon because he is older. Certainly Marsh has his own resentments. HOWEVER Marsh is not a bold man. He would NEVER have done what he did without guarantees that it would pay off in some way. Those guarantees could only have come from OUTSIDE the Watch because the Watch itself has nothing to offer him. He was AFRAID of the wrath of the Lannisters and Boltons, and thinks the Watch should be loyal to them because they sit on the Thone.

So, when word came via East Watch, probably passed on by Qyburn that the Lannisters wanted Jon dead, he acted, knowing the current occupants of the Throne would reward him for it, not see it as a mutiny.

no, this is an opposite predicament the Freys were in. The don't need a "guarentee" of safety. The issue here is that the Watch-Stannis cooperation marked them as enemy targets by those with power, and Stannis lost decisively (according to the letter). Which means that the Boltons/ Lannisters are in charge. Which means that further provocation by the Watch against Lannister/ Bolton parties will result in the Watch's being destroyed.

Robb hadn't lost by the time Frey turned; Frey's investment was about chastening Robb. To go against his Northmen allies meant that he needed other allies to insulate him. The equivalent would be for Bowen to have allied with the Boltons and double-crossed Stannis and Jon. See why this isn't the same?

[Hippocras]

no, this is an opposite predicament the Freys were in. The don't need a "guarentee" of safety. The issue here is that the Watch-Stannis cooperation marked them as enemy targets by those with power, and Stannis lost decisively (according to the letter). Which means that the Boltons/ Lannisters are in charge. Which means that further provocation by the Watch against Lannister/ Bolton parties will result in the Watch's being destroyed.

Robb hadn't lost by the time Frey turned; Frey's investment was about chastening Robb. To go against his Northmen allies meant that he needed other allies to insulate him. The equivalent would be for Bowen to have allied with the Boltons and double-crossed Stannis and Jon. See why this isn't the same?

Huh? What you quoted there had nothing to do with the Freys.

However, since we are back to the Freys and the Red Wedding - the Freys turned because the Freys are unreliable allies and they were snubbed. Nevertheless, their pride would not have been enough. They needed assurances also to do what they did - assurances that they would keep their lands, titles, and even gain some in return for their betrayal. These assurances were provided by Tywin, yes. However the negotiation was with several parties and took some time, and Tywin would not have left the Riverlands for King's Landing without some confidence that the situation would turn his way there - meaning there was already a great deal of secretive negotiation between him and the Boltons and Frey taking place. So the question is really, how was that negotiation carried out and by whom, since it had to be highly secretive and could not have been trusted to ravens and maesters?

[Hippocras]

I have started a new thread which will probably be a series, to put down in more depth my thoughts on Littlefinger and what he is up to.

The first thread is strictly for what is known about who he is and how he operates. I hope people will add to it. It is already up.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/106486-littlefingers-game-1-what-we-know/

The second thread will be about listing what we know he has done or said that is important. Also what has been said about him. This thread will take me quite a while if I have no help so if anyone has quote research capacity I would appreciate their help.

The third thread will be about deducing, based on the first two, what is PROBABLE or POSSIBLE. The Bowen Marsh stuff we have been discussing here falls in this category, however it is based on the character assessment of the first two and is not, as some here are pretending, a baseless conspiracy theory. There is no proof because GRRM is leaving most details of LF's plots for later. When he is ready to prove things he will and then we will know.

[Pod The Impaler]

Bowen does not seem to say that Stannis will lose, he actually does say it:

"Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help...but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we'll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side." p142 Jon III ADWD

He does not contend against Stannis because he can't. Even if he wanted to Jon points out that Stannis has three times as many men as the Night's Watch has and Stannis has guest right too.

On the question of why Bowen Marsh and a few others (not Others) stab Jon I share Butterbumps! opinion that this is simply because Bowen fears the. consequences of being on the loosing side of the civil war. Jon becomes a scapegoat for the Watch, presumably the idea would have been to offer up Jon's head to propitiate the Boltons and the Lannisters who the Pink Letter tells have won the war.

Sure Bowen disagrees with Jon on questions of policy all the way through ADWD but Bowen never has any answer to Jon's explanations, nor does he ever refuse to obey. He serves at the Lord Commander's pleasure as he says in Jon XII ASOS. It is tempting to see policy disagreement at the root of the stabbing but that requires us to see Bowen as completely stupid (ie if you really don't want to let the wildlings through the time to remove Jon is before they come through the Wall, not afterwards) as opposed to simply desperate. The Pink Letter tells them that Stannis has lost, the only thing preventing Bowen and the Watch from becoming part of Ramsey's new Winterwear Collection is the hope that the Boltons will be satisfied with Jon's head.

Well, what I mean is that Marsh is on the side of the Iron Throne, but where Jon shows the willingness to contend with Stannis, Selyse and the Kings / Queens men, Bowen Marsh - for all his objections - seems wedded to the idea he cannot question such people. One gets the impression that marsh feels that Jon - a bastard, even if he is a bastard Stark - should better know his place. Jon Snow learned (ironically, considering how events turned out) that the Watch is somewhat more like the wildlings than most admit - they follow strength, not titles or sigils or bloodlines. Bowen Marsh follows chain of command up to a point, but in his view, "the Watch takes no part" means, the Watch does as it's told. Jon's considered by Marsh adopted the ways of the Free Folk, even through the traditions of the Watch with regard to a person's worth have much more in common with the Free Folk than they do with any southron court. The fact that Jon as a young bastard, presuming to defy highborn folk & "trueborn" kings & throne contenders, is probably just as vexing to Marsh as the issue which side it seems to benefit. It is an affront to the narrow traditionalist system Marsh is devoted to.

In this way, Marsh reminds me of people like Reznak Mo Reznak - a person who's inherently servile, even remaining so during acts of treachery.

[Luddagain]

My biggest problem with the March as an actor for Lannisters or LF is that he is a Crannogman (by his house), ie loyal to the Starks and not therefore a likely candidate for the KL intrigue.

My problem with the Bowen "simply was fed up by the pink letter" idea is the time line. To have organized 4 assailants in the space of time between Jon receiving and reading the letter seems unlikely, therefore he must have already planned the attack. It was also a remarkably BRAVE thing to do. Bowen must realize that the wildings are on his side of the wall and by killing Jon he is very much risking his own death and that of the entire NW.

[Luddagain]

Why do we assume that Bowen Marsh or indeed anyone at the wall is "on the side of the IT." they were mostly sent to the wall as PUNISHMENT by lords loyal to the IT.

Only Aemon had loyalty to the Targs. The Northmen and the odd Royce had loyalty to the wall and the Starks.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

My biggest problem with the March as an actor for Lannisters or LF is that he is a Crannogman (by his house), ie loyal to the Starks and not therefore a likely candidate for the KL intrigue.

Marsh may have a crannogmen name, but he wasn't raised in crannogmen (Northern) culture. In my opinion, he grew up serving the Freys, inheriting his name from granddaddy's granddad from the Neck.