Was Bowen Marsh justified with his assassination?

[Sage of Westeros]

I like Jon Snow and agree with most of his ADWD choices. He was justified with most if not all things. Yet I have to agree with Marsh and what he did. Jon was breaking his vows by marching south and he even admits to it. It was desertion and according to the laws, he would have been hung or beheaded. So Marsh only did his duty as a member of the Nights Watch by killing a deserter. True he could have done it in a more legal way, but Jon had a small army of Free Folk and was leaving Castle Black to basically declare war on the Boltons. He did what he did "For the Watch" and to prevent a Night's Watch/Bolton War.

[Lord Ravenstark]

He was. Jon had good intentions? Yes, but it was wrong. Had he marched south, it also would have meant NW taking business in Southern politics, giving a reason for someone to attack and destroy it. I know people love Jon and all, but you can't simply make reformations that fast and hope everyone will understand it.

[King Ned Stark]

This, to me, is a difficult question to answer. On the surface, the legality of Bowen's actions would be sanctioned by the Iron Throne. So in short, yes. However, had Jon capitulated with Ramsey's demands, then in effect he is involving the Watch with the affairs of the realm, by handing over nobles and free citizens. Granted, these people are considered rebels by the current regime, but that regime has not upheld their end of the bargain between the king and his vassals. Either way he is essentially breaking his oath. That leaves the third option of doing nothing, which potentially opens up the Watch to be attacked by Ramsey.

Jon made the best of a bad situation; he can confront Bolton about the threats made while not involving the Watch. Had he been deemed an oathbreaker upon his return, I feel he would have accepted his punishment.

The oath should go both ways, any lord with a grievance against a brother of the Watch should have no power to take him. This was Yoren's argument with the Lannister men in CoK. Otherwise a military organization that guards against foreign invasion can be abused at will for any arbitrary offense.

From an ethical standpoint, oathbreaking is a serious offense, and rightfully should be, but as Jaime more or less pointed out that sticking to an oath no matter what can lead to immoral choices and even instutionalized evil; "I was just doing my job". Ned Stark had great honor, and great morals, but more importantly he had a kind and merciful heart. By law, he could have seized and executed Cersei and her children but did not. Ned did not takes his oaths lightly, but would lie or break them for a greater good.

So, was Marsh justified? I guess so.

Did Jon make the right choice given his options? I believe so.

[unitron]

I don't know if I'd use the word "justified", exactly, especially if one means legally justified, and I don't think Marsh, et al, cared about the technicality of whether Jon was breaking any vows*.

 

They were thinking more along the lines of the political and physical survival of The Watch.

 

They'd just heard that Stannis was dead.

 

They needed, to their way of thinking, to start sucking up to the Lannisters and the Iron Throne and the sole monarchy in Westeros.

 

They needed to get shed of anyone associated with Stannis.

 

I don't know if they thought quickly enough to take advantage of the situation with Wun Wun, or if they actually engineered it (at that point they would have considered Ser Patrek, as one of Selyse's men, expendable, since they needed her and all her people gone anyway).

 

 

 

 

 

*That's a separate discussion

[spoon89]

He was. Jon had good intentions? Yes, but it was wrong. Had he marched south, it also would have meant NW taking business in Southern politics, giving a reason for someone to attack and destroy it. I know people love Jon and all, but you can't simply make reformations that fast and hope everyone will understand it.

 

Not only was he going to march south, he was going to be leading a Wildling army into the south to attack crown appointed lords.

 

He was also essentially abandoning his duty and breaking his oaths to the Watch when doing so.

 

After all his previous actions which kept edging the watch more and more into political involvement, his announcement was just the tipping point. 

[Bran the Bringer]

It was clearly justified but not clearly just.

 

There are Lannister reasons for doing so.

There are xenophobic reasons for doing so.

There are oathbreaking reasons to do so.

There may even be personal political reasons for doing so.

 

Whatever the ultimate reason it was definitely an execution by passion, not well thought out or well planned. Jon's no genius (cue Ygritte) but without him they are gonna be in a world of hurt. Not much of the Watch left have seen what they are gonna be up against and none of them had even Jon's limited understanding.

 

There aren't enough of them to stop any vengeance on the part of the wildlings, they might be able to stop or kick out the Queen's men, but that would cost them. Unless someone arrives to help them in the first "Wall" related pov they will be well and truly fallen by the time any agent of Winter gets close to the Wall.

[winterfellsedai]

Bowen Marsh sux

[VersusAllOdds]

He and his brothers have been killing the wildlings for generations, and wildlings have been killing them. Their hatred for each other has been maintained for hundreds of years...

 

Now, the NW decides to give some kid a chance. They invest a lot of trust in that kid. Day after day, that kid disappointed them with decisions they considered blasphemous, unthinkable. Trust is a finite resource. Jon failed in his primary duty as a commander: looking after his own, or so they thought that way. Makes no difference.

 

I believe many here, on these very forums, would support Bowen Marsh if they were in NW shoes. Of course, it's easy to judge him from a reader's perspective. You should remember that the book is set in a medieval-like society, where bigotry is alive, well and nurtured. 

[Nymeria's pack]

It was clearly justified but not clearly just.

 

There are Lannister reasons for doing so.

There are xenophobic reasons for doing so.

There are oathbreaking reasons to do so.

There may even be personal political reasons for doing so.

 

Whatever the ultimate reason it was definitely an execution by passion, not well thought out or well planned. Jon's no genius (cue Ygritte) but without him they are gonna be in a world of hurt. Not much of the Watch left have seen what they are gonna be up against and none of them had even Jon's limited understanding.

 

There aren't enough of them to stop any vengeance on the part of the wildlings, they might be able to stop or kick out the Queen's men, but that would cost them. Unless someone arrives to help them in the first "Wall" related pov they will be well and truly fallen by the time any agent of Winter gets close to the Wall.

:agree: I think you summed it up there

[Tannim]

Also consider Marsh and the Brutus Squad had their entire worldview challenged by events, then overturned by a boy LC.  They've lived a certain way, believing certain things, as had their predecessors, for a long time.  Bowen is hidebound and fixed in his ways, along with others, mostly Stewards and Builders whom don't get out much.  Their orderly world has been upset, they're uncertain about their own future, and the only home they've known for years upon years is threatened by Jon's decisions.  They focus that fear on Jon, and maybe panic thinking through fear, grasp at idea of killing Jon to save their way of life.  Far from rational, yet makes a certain kind of sense, form their point of view.

[Lateral]

of course he was. if the roles had been reversed (Marsh LC and Jon the person that kills) everybody would agree that Marsh was a corrupted oathbreaker and Jon the hero that brought justice.

 

Did Jon make the right choice given his options? I believe so.

please elaborate. for me, it was an awful decision. the Others are the obvious threat, not Ramsay. and if Jon had brought wildlings to Winterfell he would have the whole seven kingdoms against him and the NW.

[Selena]

please elaborate. for me, it was an awful decision. the Others are the obvious threat, not Ramsay. and if Jon had brought wildlings to Winterfell he would have the whole seven southron kingdoms against him and the NW.

 

fixed that for you 

 

The North would call him a hero for killing the Boltons and rally to Ned's "son", legit or not

[Azor Azai]

Justice is somewhat relative, I'm sure in his own mind he was absolutely in the right.  l think he was wrong, but I have the advantage of a lot more knowledge about what's going on in the rest of Westeros than Lord Pomegranate. 

 

I have to think he has Lannister backing, via Alliser Thorne perhaps.  

 

 I also have to think, as I'm sure many others do as well, that in the immediate moments following his assassination there is going to be a big problem.  The Queen and her men, are now a lot less viable politically, if we take the Pink Letter at face value (Stannis is Dead), Tormund is close, with a bunch of Wildlings, and the NW is now in the midst of a coup.  

[King Ned Stark]

Lateral

I guess what I meant is that Jon has only bad options, and his sister is in the mix. Again, he can acquiese to Ramsey, and in doing so give up his sister, and try to arrest and turn over Stannis's people; or he can do nothing and still risk the wrath of the "lords".

Given bad choices a leader can only do what's right; he did not bring the Watch into his fight, but sometimes a leader needs the room to maneuver. Like Ned or Robb

[sifth]

Lateral

I guess what I meant is that Jon has only bad options, and his sister is in the mix. Again, he can acquiese to Ramsey, and in doing so give up his sister, and try to arrest and turn over Stannis's people; or he can do nothing and still risk the wrath of the "lords".

Given bad choices a leader can only do what's right; he did not bring the Watch into his fight, but sometimes a leader needs the room to maneuver. Like Ned or Robb

 

Jon sent Mance to save "Arya". That very much brought The Watch into this fight.

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't have done something similar in Jon's place, but Jon did pick a fight with the Bolton's by doing that.

[Philpenn]

Jon did plan to return to Castle Black post successfully dealing with Ramsay no? So he's not a deserter right?

[mediterraneo]

Bowen Marsh is a coward, getting to betrayal before accepting that the little old world of its kitchen was shatterred by history, not by Jon Snow.
 

Bowen Marsh is a liar, when he says "for the Watch". He only does that for the alleged safety of his routines.

 

The neutrality of the Watch is part of a modern tradition, not of the vow. An instrument to an end. You mantain the Watch out of politics because in this way everybody will respect the Watch, and let you do your sworn job. THe sworn job is the key.

 

The vow binds the Watchmen to defend the realms of men. You cannot do so by closing the gaps and waiting in the kitchen.
If the pink letter was sent by Bolton, it was a direct menace to the Watch and to the person of his commander, which even in that hour thought to the duty of the Watch to defend the Wall and found both an army to prevent the menace to the Watch and an escape way in case the thing went bad, thinking to the survival of the Watch even after his own possible demise.

 

Bowen Marsh has thus deserted in front of the enemy, and is to be put to death.

 

No other consideration is relevant.

The Lord Commander doesn't answer to the watchmen about his policies, he answers only to his vow. Bringing the Free People under the Wall's protection is not a decision the Lord Commander has to explain to anybody under his military command.
Taking loans is not a decision that the Lord Commander has to explain to anybody under his military command.
Choosing the posts at witch the "watchers on the wallS" will "live and die at my post" is the Lord Commander's duty, not to be challenged by anybody under his military command.
EXPECIALLY in time of war, and when the Watch is explicitely, directly, openly challenged and threatened.
 

Bowen Marsh is a coward, a traitor, a deserter in front of the enemy.

 

And Bowen marsh should be killed on the spot.

[Bran the Bringer]

Bowen Marsh is a coward, getting to betrayal before accepting that the little old world of its kitchen was shatterred by history, not by Jon Snow.
 

Bowen Marsh is a liar, when he says "for the Watch". He only does that for the alleged safety of his routines.

 

The neutrality of the Watch is part of a modern tradition, not of the vow. An instrument to an end. You mantain the Watch out of politics because in this way everybody will respect the Watch, and let you do your sworn job. THe sworn job is the key.

 

The vow binds the Watchmen to defend the realms of men. You cannot do so by closing the gaps and waiting in the kitchen.
If the pink letter was sent by Bolton, it was a direct menace to the Watch and to the person of his commander, which even in that hour thought to the duty of the Watch to defend the Wall and found both an army to prevent the menace to the Watch and an escape way in case the thing went bad, thinking to the survival of the Watch even after his own possible demise.

 

Bowen Marsh has thus deserted in front of the enemy, and is to be put to death.

 

No other consideration is relevant.

The Lord Commander doesn't answer to the watchmen about his policies, he answers only to his vow. Bringing the Free People under the Wall's protection is not a decision the Lord Commander has to explain to anybody under his military command.
Taking loans is not a decision that the Lord Commander has to explain to anybody under his military command.
Choosing the posts at witch the "watchers on the wallS" will "live and die at my post" is the Lord Commander's duty, not to be challenged by anybody under his military command.
EXPECIALLY in time of war, and when the Watch is explicitely, directly, openly challenged and threatened.
 

Bowen Marsh is a coward, a traitor, a deserter in front of the enemy.

 

And Bowen marsh should be killed on the spot.

 

Inability to accept a changing world does not make one a coward, nor does killing people who you believe have changed it incorrectly. It may mean the decisions you made were wrong but it does not make one a coward. Acting on what you believe in is in many ways the inverse of behaving in a cowardly manner.

 

To Bowen Marsh protecting the south of the Wall from wildlings who had been wreaking much havok the last 8000 years is "for the watch" so no lie there. No one watching the wall had even seen an White Walker until rather recently. For most of it's history the Watch has been protecting the realm from wildlings not the "Others", so that doesn't quite wash for me.

 

While it is the modern interpretation of the vow that interpretation is the only version of the vow Bowen Marsh or anyone, except possibly Sam and Aemon, even knows of. He can not be held liable for a vow that hasn't been spoken in years. For them by keeping the wildlings from raiding they are protecting the realms of men.

 

Taking charge of what you see as oathbreaking and bad leadership on the wall is hardly sitting in the kitchens. Your mischaracterization has no merit.

 

I don't quite get where you are going with the Pink Letter sentence.

 

Bowen Marsh did no deserting, but Jon was about to. It may be your interperatation, using ideas and opinions that do not stem from characters in the books, that Jon was not an oathbreaker but its pretty clear he broke the vow he swore. Maybe he did not swear the right vow, but he did break the one he swore to. So how you get Bowen being a deserter I do not quite ken.

 

Lots of other considerations are relevant but thanks for trying to close off reasonable people's worldviews.

 

Incorrect. Perhaps in a perfect world everyone always follows their leaders no matter how bad the decisions they make are, but this is not a perfect world. Also it is not stated anywhere that the LC would not need to run it by either the Watch or the rulers of the lands he would settle the wildlings in or that the LC doesn't need advise and consent from the Heads of the 3 branches. In fact a good LC would have made sure everyone understood why he was doing as he was doing but we have no examples of him urging on the Night's Watch to accept his policies. Only a fool thinks underlings will not question him or act on their perceptions.

 

Taking a loan out certainly should be done after getting advice from the Stewards who have a better handle on matters economic than he does. Taking out a loan you can not repay, especially from the Iron Bank, is a form of oathbreaking as well. If the Iron Bank calls in it's loan what happens to the collateral property?

 

It is not only the LC's job. The commanders of various garrisoned castles along the wall also have that authority. I am not entirely certain what you were getting at here but the proposition itself, as you have stated it, is incorrect.

 

As far as Bowen and the rest of the conspirators go Jon is responsible for most of the explicit challenges so removing him makes the watch healthier in their eyes. If you believe the person in charge is giving detrimental orders it is incumbent on you to challenge that leader. Maybe not kill him but certainly question and challenge him.

 

You have yet to build a case that he was a coward, a deserter or a traitor so we can accept neither this sentence of yours or the next as in any way true.

 

You seem to be looking at this through your own personal filters as opposed to the morals and customs of the time, place and character's worldviews contained in the text of the stories.

[The Holy Goat]

Jon Snow picked what was the best of several very bad options IMO, even though he was skirting very close to oathbreaking while doing so. His options were essentially:

 

1, Do as Ramsay commands, and give him the people he desires... except Ramsay wants Arya, Theon, Shireen, Selyse, Melisandre, Val and the little monster. Problem is, Jon does not have Arya nor Theon, Shireen, Selyse and Melisandre are guarded by a score of queens men, and Tormund and the Free Folk are sure to take offense at giving Val and Mance Rayder's son to a monster. The blood would flow if Jon was to attempt to give away the people he has, and even if he were to succeed  Jon and the Watch would be breaking the sacred laws of guest right. There's alos the fact that they don't know if what the Pink Letter says is true, or if the well-known monster Ramsay will uphold his part of the bargain... especially if he doesn't get his Reek or his wife. It's a shitty choice overall.

 

2, Do nothing. Don't lift a finger until Ramsay comes to explain himself... only for his superior forces to kill the Lord Commander and mayhaps the rest of the people there as well, as punishment for not giving him what he wants. The Watch would be destroyed, the Wall would fall.

 

3, March south and confront Ramsay. Jon cannot give the Bastard of Bolton what he wants, so let's give him death instead. This is essentially the choice Jon picked. If he succeeds the Watch is saved. If he doesn't the Watch is doomed. At least in the short-term. High risk, high reward, but as we see it has it's own problems, what with going against NIght's Watch traditon and dragging the order further into the troubles off the realm (which they were already involved in since before). Still, I consider this choice the best, and as such supports Jon's decision.

 

That said, I cannot fault Bowen Marsh for his reaction. As far as he knew, the Lord Commander was endangering the entire Watch and breaking his oath (though I'd argue it was more a breaking of traditons and customs than oaths) at the same time. ANd so, he choose option 1 and tried to enforce it by removing the Lord COmmander, presumaby so someone more acceptable could take his place. Wether this would've saved the Watch from Ramsay's wrath is unknown (even dubious), but to Bowen it probably seemed like the best choice... except the Free Folk would surely take amiss to his actions, and many of the Black Brothers as well.

Marsh is not a bad person it seems to me, just misguided and to deeply set in his ways. The reason he was crying was likely because he not only knew his days were number after the stabbing, but maybe also because he knew his own stabbing of the Lord Commander was a rather horrible thing to do and could constitue as a form of oathbreaking as well (even if his intentions were good). It's complex shit GRRM has served up to the Night's Watch.

[Bran the Bringer]

Yeah, you got that right THG, he has packed The Wall and nearly every scene on the Wall full of both so much symbolism and so much drama that I can think of no other fantasy trope that has inspired more thinking on my part. Complex shit indeed! :)