Bowen Marsh

[The Wolves]

20 minutes ago, A Song of Ass and Fire said:

I do.  If the Warden of the North shows up and slaughters every last member of the Night's Watch, as he would be quite capable of doing, then it's over for humanity when the Others come.  By killing Jon, he is creating a chaotic situation, but there's a better chance of some semblance of the Watch surviving the chaos than if a Bolton eager for revenge shows up with an army several times the size of the Watch.

How would Roose be able to slaughter every last member of the NW with a dangerous blizzard, Stannis and his army ready to kill him, hundreds of miles to cross to do it and thousands of soldiers whose loyalties are questionable? 

[the trees have eyes]

Nah, it's the last play of the ultras before the new order - NW, Wildlings & northmen - rallies the Defence.  Jon is three steps ahead of the "hur, hur, we were formed as an organisation to fight wildlings and we can't handle the truth that the enemy is quite different" brigade.

Marsh / Thorne et al are firmly in the Lannister / Bolton camp and even before Cersei sent Kettleblack to murder Jon Tywin was finding willing accomplices to follow his orders.  So much for neutrality.  Marsh HATES wildlings, he's like the Grand Wizard of the Klan in that regard, so, given Jon's pro-wildling approach, he embraces the simplest of realpolitik dictums, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and sees Ramsey as his best chance of securing HIS VERSION OF THE NW.

Except we already know his version is wrong.  Marsh will do what in the aftermath of Jon's (attempted) assassination?  Go to war with the wildlings south of the Wall?  Try and force them back north of it to be more footsoldiers in the Others' army?  Abandon the wildlings at Hardhome to be more wights to fight?  Strip any of the wildling garrisons that Jon had put at castles along the wall and fight them / force them north of the Wall?  Fight the Queen's Men and hand over Stannis' family to the Boltons?  With how many casualties on both sides? So much loss and waste and he doesn't get that he is fighting the wrong enemy.  Jon was strengthening the Watch after it's long decay and calamitous losses at the Fist of the First Men.  Marsh just undid all that in one myopic act.

[Thuckey]

Is killing somebody EVER the right/smart thing to do?

[Sandcat]

3 hours ago, Ser Hyle said:

The mutiny was planned before Jon announced he was heading to Winterfell; he was stabbed almost immediately after he left the Shield Hall after making that announcement.

It happened during the chaos after Wun Wun killed Ser Patrek. And even if they did plan it, I think that this was what pushed Marsh over the edge.

[Queen Alienor]

Well, he had some understandable problems with some of Jon's policies, but... well, murdering the Lord Commander in the middle of a crisis is never the smart thing to do, especially when said LC is basically the only thing keeping the various fractions at the Wall from killing each other

[Ser Hyle]

15 minutes ago, Sandcat said:

It happened during the chaos after Wun Wun killed Ser Patrek. And even if they did plan it, I think that this was what pushed Marsh over the edge.

Right - he leaves the Shield Hall and runs over to the tower because Wun Wun's ripping Ser Patrek to pieces. Wick pulls out a knife, tries to slash the LC's throat and then Bowen sticks a dagger in his belly and then he was stabbed by 3 more knives (presumably from 3 more conspirators).

I find it hard to believe Bowen gathered his four accomplices - between the time Jon left the Shield Hall and arrived at the tower - and they decided they were going to assassinate the LC right away because he was going to march on Winterfell. It's much more likely the conspirators planned this attack before they knew about marching on Winterfell, and then when chaos started they decided it would be the right time to carry it out. Therefore, they didn't plan this conspiracy as a result of Jon involving himself in the wars and politics of the South (going to rescue his sister from the Warden of the North). They plotted to kill him, mainly, because of his alliance with the people north of the Wall.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Quote

 

Bravo ! Bowen Marsh mutiny was not justified  , well planned as if he had sent the pink letter .

[Lord Fauntleroy]

What do you think about him and whole For the Watch thing? Did he do the right thing? Is it justified?

he's dedicated to the watch, no and yes, in that order.

[dariopatke]

Under condition that Ramsay sent letter, what would be the best thing to do? Let him go and send Ramsay letter where it is said that Jon had left with 20 good men and the Watch knows nothing about Reek, Mance and spearwives, about other affairs is indifferent and begs him not to take any actions on Wall and they cant send him women because they are bound by guest rights and probably write down that Watch might be executed for that action by 15k wildlings (increase number and intimidate him if he wishes to come)?

Throw Jon in ice cell, send his head to Ramsay? Kill Jon and deliver women to Ramsay(that wont end gloriously though)?

[aryagonnakill#2]

On a practical level his action was incredibly stupid.  The watch is outnumbered by the wildlings, and there is no way they will just take this lying down, they basically accepted him as their king.  If Bowen had simply let Jon leave with the wildlings someone else would have become the defacto LC at least for a while, and if Jon died in battle then they can give up Selyse and co and be rid of the wildlings.  By stabbing Jon while at the wall right after a bunch of drunk men swore themselves to him he has insured the NW's destruction imo.

[BalerionTheCat]

Jon did what was right. Both for the wildlings men and women, who have as much right to live as anyone, provided they agree with Jon's terms. And for those south of the Wall, who will be better with thousands more defenders and thousands less zombies.

Stupidity and short sight do not excuse Marsh.

[Darth Sidious]

On 1/21/2016 at 4:21 PM, dariopatke said:

What do you think about him and whole For the Watch thing? Did he do the right thing? Is it justified?

I don't have a problem with Bowen Marsh.  He did what needed to be done.  I place the blame on Jon for what happened at the wall.  He should not have even tried to help Arya in the first place.  Jon Snow created this problem and it just snowballed from there until it got so big that he could no longer keep it secret.  Bowen and his crows made the right call to tenderize Jon with their daggers.

[Darth Sidious]

20 hours ago, A Song of Ass and Fire said:

There have to be some limitations to the protections of guest right or else maintaining law and order would be impossible.

Let's say a deserter from the Watch went to a lords castle and was offered bread and salt by the local ruler without him knowing he was a deserter.  Then the Warden of the North shows up and says "You are harboring a deserter who has been sentenced to death, give him to me.". Would that lord be obligated by Guest Right to resist the Warden and try to keep him from taking his "guest"?  What if he did not want him in his castle now that he knew that he was an oathbreaker and criminal?  Is one obligated to allow any guest to stay as long as they want, or is it permissible to tell a guest they must leave?  I think it stands to reason that there must be a way to tell unwanted guests to leave, even if leaving endangers them.

In the hypothetical scenario described above, I think it would be breaking guest right to attack the deserter you shared food and salt with, throw him in chains, and deliver him to the Warden, but I feel it would be acceptable to tell them "I accepted you as my guest under false pretenses, and you must leave now.  You are no longer my guest.". If the deserter then refused to leave, he is no longer a guest, he is a trespasser, and one could forcibly remove them.  If this was not the case, who would EVER risk offering food to a traveler?  It would be extremely dangerous as you might find yourself forced to defend them indefinitely against your very own liege lord of they turned out to be a criminal or traitor.

I think Marsh would have been well within his rights to tell his guests that they are no longer welcome and must leave.  If they refused, he could have removed them himself or permitted Ramsay to come in and seize them himself.

Guest right could not function as unlimited sanctuary and protection for anyone allowed to enter another's home.  It means you can't invite someone into your home and then harm them while they still think they are your guest, not that you can't tell a guest to leave.

Guest rights have an expiration limit.  Selyse and Co. exceeded that limit.  They were no longer guests but freeloaders. 

[bemused]

On 1/22/2016 at 9:26 PM, aryagonnakill#2 said:

This is unusual for me, but I haven't read all the posts in this thread.  The one thing I have to point out about this because I am sure most point have been said, is that Jon did not tell his officers about the loan from the IB.  I cannot figure out why, and I do believe it was a mistake.  That is not to say that everything he did was a mistake, but he could have potentially held his officers loyalty better.

I haven't read all the posts yet, either, but this stood out to me..aryagonnakill, I don't think they needed to be told.. If Bowen didn't know, he'd be even more stupid than I thought.

Jon asks for a moment of Tycho's time ,before he leaves, and Tycho suggests they get down to business right away. This happens out in the open, when plenty of people must be around to see the new arrivals (Bowen was) and Bowen could easily have still been within earshot.. Then Jon and Tycho shut themselves away in Jon's quarters for 2 hrs. 

They emerge on amicable enough terms that Jon escorts him to the dining hall and orders a meal for them both... Jon's copy of their agreement is left lying on the table in his quarters. The guards outside his door are allowed to enter the armoury if they are cold. We don't know if any of them are literate (e.g., Mully) but even the fact that Jon and Tycho's meeting produced a document, ought to tell them something.

Bowen himself said that the best solution to the food problem would be to bring food in ... if they had the coin. So I think he ought to have had an idea that this was what Jon was trying to do.

The question of why Jon didn't tell them used to bother me as well, but then.. Jon and Tycho reached an agreement , but the document had to reach Braavos before anything concrete could be done.. In the meantime, Jon has received nothing but opposition from Bowen & Co. - and if Jon has concerns about repaying the debt, just imagine the extent to which Bowen could have twisted that into another complaint. I think  Bowen had intended to do just that, when he asked Jon about it in front of Flint and Norrey.

Jon refuses to give him amunititon.

I don't think Bowen or Thorne ever were loyal. Whatever Jon did or said, they would always oppose it, find a way to cast it in a negative light in hopes of turning more men against him. Othell Yarwick is a horse of a different colour. He's very superstitious and can be led - but only up to a certain point, as we see in his behaviour at the Choosing. I think it will turn out that he and his builders are not involved in the assassination attempt.

[aryagonnakill#2]

3 hours ago, bemused said:

I haven't read all the posts yet, either, but this stood out to me..aryagonnakill, I don't think they needed to be told.. If Bowen didn't know, he'd be even more stupid than I thought.

Jon asks for a moment of Tycho's time ,before he leaves, and Tycho suggests they get down to business right away. This happens out in the open, when plenty of people must be around to see the new arrivals (Bowen was) and Bowen could easily have still been within earshot.. Then Jon and Tycho shut themselves away in Jon's quarters for 2 hrs. 

They emerge on amicable enough terms that Jon escorts him to the dining hall and orders a meal for them both... Jon's copy of their agreement is left lying on the table in his quarters. The guards outside his door are allowed to enter the armoury if they are cold. We don't know if any of them are literate (e.g., Mully) but even the fact that Jon and Tycho's meeting produced a document, ought to tell them something.

Bowen himself said that the best solution to the food problem would be to bring food in ... if they had the coin. So I think he ought to have had an idea that this was what Jon was trying to do.

The question of why Jon didn't tell them used to bother me as well, but then.. Jon and Tycho reached an agreement , but the document had to reach Braavos before anything concrete could be done.. In the meantime, Jon has received nothing but opposition from Bowen & Co. - and if Jon has concerns about repaying the debt, just imagine the extent to which Bowen could have twisted that into another complaint. I think  Bowen had intended to do just that, when he asked Jon about it in front of Flint and Norrey.

Jon refuses to give him amunititon.

I don't think Bowen or Thorne ever were loyal. Whatever Jon did or said, they would always oppose it, find a way to cast it in a negative light in hopes of turning more men against him. Othell Yarwick is a horse of a different colour. He's very superstitious and can be led - but only up to a certain point, as we see in his behaviour at the Choosing. I think it will turn out that he and his builders are not involved in the assassination attempt.

It could be that Bowen knows, however Jon did tell them about a deal he made with the Bravosi, using his ships for the rescue mission at Hardhome.  It would be easy to think that was it.  I also find it hard to believe anyone would hold the loan against him, eat now and be in debt or die of starvation isn't much of a choice.  Even if Slynt and Bowen always being against him, if they knew the men wouldn't support them they wouldn't do it, they must have some support they are counting on.

[The Wolves]

21 hours ago, Lord High Papal said:

Guest rights have an expiration limit.  Selyse and Co. exceeded that limit.  They were no longer guests but freeloaders. 

Where do you get that idea that Guest Right has an expiration limit people are a guest until they decide to leave or if the host(which is the Lord Commander AKA Jon Snow)throws them out? 

Selyse and her entourage are guest until Jon says otherwise. 

[Pancakes1800]

It was brave, but it was the stupidest thing any character has done so far.  As far as Jon and Marsh knew, Stannis had roughly 5,000 men and still lost to the Boltons yet Jon was going to take 1,000 wildlings and win?  Marsh had no reason to kill him, if he was so afraid of backlash, all he had to do was send a letter to the Boltons and to KL selling out Jon and everything would be fine.  

I think a lot of people still doesn't understand Jon's ADWD arc or the political situation Jon was in both at the beginning and end of ADWD.  The whole "NW neutrality" thing doesn't exist.  Jon is breaking "neutrality" regardless of what he does.  Jon was trying to protect the NW at the end of ADWD and Marsh might have doomed it.  

[OldGimletEye]

Marsh basically believes that proper strategy for the NW is stay neutral or stay friendly with the Boltons because, in his mind, it's not worth incurring the the wrath of the Lannisters and their Tyrell allies. He also seemingly believes that the NW just needs to hold the fort down until the Lannisters with their Tyrell allies, in tow, come North.

Marsh, as we know, is wrong about this. The Lannisters and Tyrells will never come to the wall. Only maybe the Boltons would, if the NW had stayed completely neutral, and that assumes of course that was even possible with Stanni's arrival. 
And of course, the Boltons, by themselves, have only a tenuous hold on the North.

I think Marsh is doing what he believes is correct. But, I think Marsh doesn't understand everything as well as he thinks he does.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

If Jon does rise as a wight, the wildlings might quickly rethink their allegiance even if initially they are opposed to Marsh.  "See, he is one of the Others, that is why we had to try and kill him,"

[Raisin' Bran]

50 minutes ago, A Song of Ass and Fire said:

If Jon does Roose as a wight, the wildlings might quickly rethink their allegiance even if initially they are opposed to Marsh.  "See, he is one of the Others, that is why we had to try and kill him,"

Do you mean to day that if Jon is reanimated as a wight and he kills Roose, then the wildings will reevaluate who should be in charge and in the end support Marsh's actions?

After the attack on LC Snow, Marsh is still amongst numerous inebriated freefolk. My money would be bet on the scenario that Marsh's demise will not be a long ways off, perhaps a few minutes.