dariopatke Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 What do you think about him and whole For the Watch thing? Did he do the right thing? Is it justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Hyle Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 No, assuming he did what he did because the LC let the wildlings settle in the gift and man empty castles. He knows who/what the true enemy and the reason for the wall is. Bowen done fucked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Flies Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I can see why he felt it was necessary, especially when you consider the danger bad Lord Commanders have posed to the night's Watch in the past. That said, killing the LC because you think his policies are bad (less than a year after a mutiny killed the last one) sets a terrible precedent, and could ignite a powder keg with huge number of wildlings already behind the Wall. And that's without factoring the need to fight the Others into the equation. So no, he did not do the right thing. He did a dumb thing that will blow up in his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I can understand that he was afraid of going against the Warden of the North (who also had the backing of the Iron Throne), but murdering his LC was the wrong move in so many levels, especially because there's no way it ends well for him with the wildlings on his side of the Wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJugular Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 His grievances were understandable, but murdering his lord commander was stupid, impulsive, and will probably get them all killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 29 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said: I can understand that he was afraid of going against the Warden of the North (who also had the backing of the Iron Throne), but murdering his LC was the wrong move in so many levels, especially because there's no way it ends well for him with the wildlings on his side of the Wall. Bowen had nothing to fear from the Boltons nor the throne. Meh had a good reason for what he did but it was stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, The Wolves said: Bowen had nothing to fear from the Boltons nor the throne. Meh had a good reason for what he did but it was stupid. I think he did. I mean, Ramsay threatened the Watch directly, and it's not like the IT is going to interfere on their behalf when everyone knows Jon was helping a rebel and killing "friends" of the Lannisters like Slynt. As far as Marsh knew, Stannis was dead, his cause finished, so they had to cater to the victors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philokles Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 No justification. I can understand why he may disagree with Jon regarding the wildlings, but that is not the way you settle differences with a superior officer. Being unhappy at Jon for being involved in politics is ridiculous, almost every action any LC takes is inherently political, let alone in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE INDIGO Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It was messy, for me to say that it was justify or that he had is reasons is b.s. He has an excuse for why he did his "ides of winter", however killing Jon will cause a lot of panic and chaos, the timing was to sensitive and with out a leader they are all f@#$%d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 He had no other way. There is simply no way Jon is going to listen to him and he needed to stop him. He does not want to lose his head like Slynt by talking against him. So he did what he could stop an erratic LC who could destroy the Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nORTHERN11 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 another question I have is was this whole thing planned? Did Bowen do it impulsively after Jon declared his intentions to march on winterfell? Personal Bowen and his co-conspirators already were toying with the idea and after the Wun Wun situation and Jon's little speach they lost their cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 4 hours ago, The Mountain That Flies said: That said, killing the LC because you think his policies are bad (less than a year after a mutiny killed the last one) sets a terrible precedent,. Meh, Jeor already set that precedent when he made it clear that attacking a superior officer with a knife over a minor insult isn't something worthy of punishment over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khal drogon Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 4 hours ago, The Mountain That Flies said: I can see why he felt it was necessary, especially when you consider the danger bad Lord Commanders have posed to the night's Watch in the past. That said, killing the LC because you think his policies are bad (less than a year after a mutiny killed the last one) sets a terrible precedent, and could ignite a powder keg with huge number of wildlings already behind the Wall. And that's without factoring the need to fight the Others into the equation. So no, he did not do the right thing. He did a dumb thing that will blow up in his face. His LC was setting even more dangerous precedent. So he didn't have much of a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Flies Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 55 minutes ago, khal drogon said: His LC was setting even more dangerous precedent. So he didn't have much of a choice. His LC was not naming himself King-Beyond-the-Wall, trying to name his son the next LC, or openly warring against other castles of the Watch's. There have been more dangerous precedents set by the behavior of LC's. 1 hour ago, Minsc said: Meh, Jeor already set that precedent when he made it clear that attacking a superior officer with a knife over a minor insult isn't something worthy of punishment over. I personally have a hard time believing Jeor was never going to address that if they had gotten back to the Wall. He was just trying to diffuse the immediate danger. And I'm not sure that indivudal detail of the mutiny made into the general story the rest of the Watch was told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melisandre's White Pubes Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Jon was about to break his vows in the most potentially damaging way to the Watch. There are very good reasons the Watch is not supposed to get involved in the affairs of men, and Jon was about to attack the Warden of the North after already being caught trying to steal his sons bride for personal reasons, allying himself with a traitor trying to overthrow the Iron Throne, and making arrangements to marry his allies into the family of a great lord while he was thousands of miles away. Jon's actions could well have caused the utter destruction of the Watch at the worst possible time. Marsh was extremely justified and probably felt it was his only chance. He didn't seem to be happy about having to do it, but he did what had to be done, knowing fully well it could easily result in his own death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 minute ago, A Song of Ass and Fire said: Jon was about to break his vows in the midst potentially damaging way to the Watch. There are very good reasons the Watch is not supposed to get involved in the affairs of men, and Jon was about to attack the Warden of the North after already being caught trying to steal his sons bride for personal reasons, applying himself with a traitor trying to overthrow the Iron Throne, and making arrangements to marry his allies into the family of a great lords while her was captive thousands of miles away. Jon's actions could well have caused the utter destruction of the Watch at the worst possible time. Marsh was extremely justified and probably felt it was his only chance. He didn't seem to be happy about having to do it, but he did what had to be done, knowing fully well it could easily result in his own death. That's all true, but there's a problem: Selyse, Mel, Shireen and Val were guests of the NW (though the case for Val is iffy as she could count as a prisoner/hostage, but whatever) and were therefore under the protection of guest right, so Marsh has no business throwing them out or delivering them to Ramsay to get raped and/or flayed, and I'm sure Marsh meant to do just that to comply with Ramsay's demands so he'd spare the NW. (As a sidenote, I just love the irony of Selyse being protected by guest right just as Wun Wun was protected when she asked Jon to kick him out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 57 minutes ago, The Mountain That Flies said: His LC was not naming himself King-Beyond-the-Wall, trying to name his son the next LC, or openly warring against other castles of the Watch's. There have been more dangerous precedents set by the behavior of LC's. I personally have a hard time believing Jeor was never going to address that if they had gotten back to the Wall. He was just trying to diffuse the immediate danger. And I'm not sure that indivudal detail of the mutiny made into the general story the rest of the Watch was told. Jon might not have named him King-Beyond-the-Wall, but he was sure acting in that role along with the role of the Lord of Winterfell while announcing that he is about to wage war against the Warden of the North. I was referencing how Jeor basically only gave Jon a slap on the wrist after Jon attempted to attack Thorne with a knife for calling him a traitor's bastard. Seriously, that is more deserving of execution than Slynt's "crimes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeves Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 hours ago, khal drogon said: He had no other way. There is simply no way Jon is going to listen to him and he needed to stop him. He does not want to lose his head like Slynt by talking against him. So he did what he could stop an erratic LC who could destroy the Watch. Exactly. Jon started that fight with the Boltons. All he needed to do was just let fArya fend for herself and leave the Boltons alone. GRRM himself went on to say that the reader should understand from the text why the brothers did what they did. Jon himself understood that he was committing treason while he was doing it. Bowen had no choice. Jon has demonstrated that he is not willing to listen. Hardhome was a terrible idea. Jon executed a brother for refusing to cooperate. Jon backed his brothers into a corner. He needed to be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeves Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, A Song of Ass and Fire said: Jon was about to break his vows in the most potentially damaging way to the Watch. There are very good reasons the Watch is not supposed to get involved in the affairs of men, and Jon was about to attack the Warden of the North after already being caught trying to steal his sons bride for personal reasons, allying himself with a traitor trying to overthrow the Iron Throne, and making arrangements to marry his allies into the family of a great lord while he was thousands of miles away. Jon's actions could well have caused the utter destruction of the Watch at the worst possible time. Marsh was extremely justified and probably felt it was his only chance. He didn't seem to be happy about having to do it, but he did what had to be done, knowing fully well it could easily result in his own death. Yes. Bowen and men like Q. Halfhand sacrificed their lives to do their jobs and serve the Watch. Bowen did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiemal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 He killed his LC out of fear. That is human. It may be forgivable, but not justifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.