Bowen Marsh

[Maxxine]

I haven't made up my mind about this topic yet, but I do have 3 questions that may help me make up my mind. So hopefully someone will answer them.

1) When did Marsh decide to attack Jon? Before or after Jon announced his intentions to go to WF? This makes a big difference between whether or not it was justified bc before that point Jon had not broken his vows.

2) How much of the pink letter's contents did Marsh know? I don't remember how much Jon divulged about the letter or if Marsh actually read it himself.

3) I've seen a lot of people on this thread not cut Jon any slack for going to rescue "sister." So if we as readers didn't know that this is (f)Arya would we cut him more slack. For instance, if we didn't have Arya chapters and numerous people say she was fake throughout the book and it was completely unknown to us as well would we be more understanding?

[nORTHERN11]

50 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

don't remember how much Jon divulged about the letter or if Marsh actually read it himself.

3) I've seen a lot of people on this thread not cut Jon any slack for going to rescue

Jon read the pink letter at the shield hall

[Yet Another ASOIAF Fan]

Quote

I want my bride back.  I want the false king's queen.  I want his daughter and his red witch.  I want his wildling princess.  I want his little prince, the wildling babe.  And I want my Reek.  Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.  Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

While I understand why Marsh tried to assassinate Jon, as fear is very good motivator, I can not condemn what Jon did.  Given Jon's circumstances that lead to the increasing political polarization of the Wall that lead to the Pink Letter, most were the better of horrible choices.  I am not talking about events related to Karstark as that was not referenced in to Pink Letter, and I am assuming that the assassination was in reference to the Pink Letter.  Also as Jon apparently believes Ramsay to have sent the letter, for the sake of argument I will assume likewise.

Choice 1)  After the Battle of Castle Black, Jon had two main choices to make.  He could either refuse Stannis aid or give it to him.  Given that Stannis had the larger force, refusal would have lead Stannis to take supplies by force leading to a massacre of Night's Watch.

Choice 2)  Jon chose to allow Melisandre to sent Mance in an a attempt to retrieve (f)Arya instead of revealing Mance.  While Melisandre tells Jon that the reason for this is to gain his favor, rescue of (f)Arya would be equally beneficial to Stannis for political reasons. While this is not raised in Dance until Stannis meets the mountain clans, it would be logical for Melisandre to consider this when she sent Mance.  While the number of Stannis's men at Castle Black is reduced, Melisandre is the de facto leader of the 'Queen's Men' and could force Jon to allow Mance.

Choice 3)  The final choice would be whether or not Jon would give in to Ramsay's demands.  As Jon had no idea that a blizzard near Winterfell would make it difficult for Ramsay to make good on his threat, the threat of Boltons attacking Castle Black appears serious to Jon.  Even if Jon did send Ramsay the desired people that were at Castle Black, there are two problems.  The first is that the wildlings and the Queen's Men would most likely start a three way war to prevent the deaths of these desired people.  The second is that Jon does not have Reek or (f)Arya, and Ramsay demands all of them.  Even Jon sacrificing himself, this would not work as letter suggests that Ramsay would kill all of the Night's Watch including Jon if not given the desired people.  The best choice Jon has is to abandon the Night's Watch and take the fight to Ramsay using wildlings and Night's Watch betrayers, as Castle Black is undefended from the south.  This has the added contingency plan that if Jon loses, Ramsay does not have legal authority to retaliate and attack the Night's Watch, as Jon abandoned the Night's Watch.

Jon has made mistakes that ultimately lead to the assassination attempt, like waving off "daggers in the dark", not traveling with guards, locking up Ghost, and ignoring opposition when making huge changes to the Night's Watch.  However I still can not condemn Jon for his actions as for the most part he did the best with what he had.

[Protagoras]

What Marsh did is highly problematic since he didn´t do it with any due process (a minimum should be to inform/council with Mallister and Pyke and make up a common strategy) as well as the fact that Joer was recently killed as well by his own troops, thereby supporting the existing culture in the Watch that murder is the right way to deal with superior officers (which is not a good thing).

The problem is, in Marsh defense, that Jon is asking for it.

Jon believes as a Lord Commander that he has the authority to decide who is evil/a threath and then tries to "protect" the realm from it. It sounds very much as a personal ambition in spite of the original message and only possible as I see it by some creative rulebending. It goes very much against the spirit of the institution, because let´s face it - rulebreaking or not, if you don´t stay out of westerosi conflicts you risk that the entire organisation will be removed (and that is entirely the fault of a radical LC and not the Iron Throne). 

See this from Marsh´s perspective - the LC are doing very radical reforms, there are talks about wildling sympathies, the last guy (which was an asshole, but still) who spoke officially against him got executed and his support base is in general not in Castle back (since he did win the election because of Cotter Pyke and Denys Mallister). In addition, Jon has sent away his friends and support elsewhere in a rather stupid attempt to seclude himself, yet still can´t keep his emotions in check and slowly starts to do things he is not allowed to do as a lord commander in the first place. Yet, the Lord Commander is a supreme leader and there is no way to remove him. What to do? What do you do when everything points that your boss (which you can´t legally stop in any way) have gone bonkers? What would you have done if you were Marsh and shared his perspective? Well, grudgingly work along and try to do your best with the new system, which Marsh did at first. 

Then Jon decides to read the pink letter in public and confirms that all the talk about loyalties elsewhere is true. That he has made zero effort in at least trying to work with the Boltons, that he has made an attack against Ramseys bride (Note - it doesn't matter that Ramsay and the Boltons are scum, IT IS NOT JONS JOB TO STAND UP AGAINST THEM AND BY STILL DOING SO HE RISKS THE WATCH´S EXISTENCE) and that he will lead wildling south as well as continuing with the suicide mission to Hardhome by foot in order to defend this policy further. In fact, the existance of the watch is at stake - isn´t saving the watch from the Lord commander something that should supercede the dictatorial will of their leader (remember that the post is elective and not absolute, like the Iron Throne and that the entire system works on popularity). 

In the end, all this combined is simply too much. A lord commander has the authority to do changes, but this is basically madness. Some of Jon´s changes should be made over a longer period of time and some (like leading wildlings south and declaring war on a westerosi house) should never be made at all. Marsh´s act was desperate, pretty unplanned move, which certainly will resolve in chaos, death and suffering for everyone. That does not necessary make it the wrong choice. 

[Lord Lannister]

Eh, Marsh pretty much sealed my opinion that the Night's Watch is an irredeemable group of thugs. They're an organization so corrupt that's murdered their last two Lord Commanders after all(or at least tried to). Hopefully if Jon somehow survives/revives this he'll realize that his oath to such a basely vile group is meaningless and diminishes him.

[Protagoras]

12 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Eh, Marsh pretty much sealed my opinion that the Night's Watch is an irredeemable group of thugs. They're an organization so corrupt that's murdered their last two Lord Commanders after all(or at least tried to). Hopefully if Jon somehow survives/revives this he'll realize that his oath to such a basely vile group is meaningless and diminishes him.

Then Jon will be at war with the entire Westeros. He chose willingly to join this group of thugs in their glorified prison in the first place, they exist solely to deal with a larger threat and have been given this role by the westerosi society. Jon needs to work with the material he has and if he is unable to do so, then he is the problem. 

[Lord Lannister]

1 minute ago, Protagoras said:

Then Jon will be at war with the entire Westeros. He chose willingly to join this group of thugs in their glorified prison in the first place, they exist solely to deal with a larger threat and have been given this role by the westerosi society. Jon needs to work with the material he has and if he is unable to do so, then he is the problem. 

Jon's the problem with the Night's Watch? Yeah, no, that's a classic case of victim blaming right there. He joined willingly sure, but that was with a childhood filled with lies about how noble and righteous the order is. The fault there lies in Ned and Benjen for not setting him straight before he joined and with Catelyn for insisting he hit the road. It was Tyrion of all people that had to tell him what the Night's Watch really was.

[Protagoras]

On 2016-01-24 at 1:40 PM, Lord Lannister said:

Jon's the problem with the Night's Watch? Yeah, no, that's a classic case of victim blaming right there. He joined willingly sure, but that was with a childhood filled with lies about how noble and righteous the order is. The fault there lies in Ned and Benjen for not setting him straight before he joined and with Catelyn for insisting he hit the road. It was Tyrion of all people that had to tell him what the Night's Watch really was.

That had been a relevant case in the GoT, but we are way, way past that. Jon made his choice to stick with the order despite its faults and now, 4 books later he is their LC (So the "thugs" decided that they wanted his leadership) and his struggles are not of that nature anymore but rather if his noble heart will make it impossible for him to do his duty as their leader. We know that now as a big YES.

The struggles of his selfish actions (stay/leave, Ygritte) vs the oath/Westeros was the conflict in the earlier books, but thankfully GRRM decided to make the choices far harder and far more interesting. 

And btw - Jon is not a victim. He has made his own choices during the entire series (and before ADWD suffered far to few consquences from them). 

[bemused]

On 1/23/2016 at 2:13 PM, aryagonnakill#2 said:

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.

I wanted to come back on this earlier, but I was busy putting up my (lengthy) thread on Tycho in the TWoW section. In the process, some thoughts relevant to Bowen and to Jon's IB deal came up. I still think Bowen had every opportunity to know and wouldn't have passed up the chance. I don't recall Jon telling him or anyone at CB, directly, about the ships ...but the fact would not be hidden.. The thing is, we're told that he had impressed other ships as well and we see no lengthy negotiations or documents regarding those.. What makes sense to me is :

The more I think about it , the more I think that there must be some form of non-disclosure clause in their agreement, at least until Jon had his forts manned, had saved as many wildlings as he could, and a certain amount of supply had reached him. This would echo Braavos' (The City of Secrets) own historic MO. They didn't reveal their location until they were certain their city was as secure as they could make it, beforehand. 

It wouldn't do to allow Jon's agreement to be commonly known before it was even off the ground. That could doom it to failure. .. King's Landing would think Jon was about to go to war with them, and could make things difficult for Braavosi ships at Westerosi ports. .. Stannis might see Jon as a potential rival, instead of an ally of sorts... Suppliers might suddenly jack up their prices, knowing the wealth of the IB was behind it .. Pirates (always a danger) would have advance warning and be lying in wait for supply ships, and so on. Keeping the agreement secret for as long as possible would be turning to tried and true methods for Braavos and is the simplest answer to why Jon wouldn't mention the agreement at the meeting on the wall.

Jon can't mention it yet , and Bowen can't let on that he knows without revealing that he's been spying on Jon, snooping in his private papers. That would make it obvious that he is actively working against Jon, not just being uncooperative.
 

[The Wolves]

On January 24, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Protagoras said:

Then Jon will be at war with the entire Westeros. He chose willingly to join this group of thugs in their glorified prison in the first place, they exist solely to deal with a larger threat and have been given this role by the westerosi society. Jon needs to work with the material he has and if he is unable to do so, then he is the problem. 

Blaming Jon for being unable to work with what he got is not fair. The Night Watch is at its worst, Jon is undermanned, he has no help from the nobles of the realm, the Stark's can't help him like they've done for 8000 years, they know next to nothing about the Others and the Wildlings and NW men who make up Jon's fighting men are hostile towards each other. 

What material Jon has is little and that's not his fault at all. 

[Protagoras]

10 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Blaming Jon for being unable to work with what he got is not fair. The Night Watch is at its worst, Jon is undermanned, he has no help from the nobles of the realm, the Stark's can't help him like they've done for 8000 years, they know next to nothing about the Others and the Wildlings and NW men who make up Jon's fighting men are hostile towards each other. 

What material Jon has is little and that's not his fault at all. 

Since this was a response to another post I need to point out that despite all this, Jon made that oath. The poster I responded to argued that Jon had somehow the right to break his oath because of this and I find such a thinking childish.

Jon needs to man up, realize his limitations and work with the material. It is not his fault that he has little material in the first place, but it is his fault for sure if he is unable or unwilling to work with what he got. He was elected LC and accepted that responsibility so its too late now to whine about the hardship of ruling and just as Daenerys he gets to play the leadership-game on a tough difficulty. If he was deciding to throw in the towel and somehow make up his mind that "Those people are scum, I don´t need to hold my oath to scum, I am free - Wohooo!" then I want him executed immediately. It does not matter if the organization is corrupt nor if Jon think the oath diminish him - the oath have no less weight regardless. You DO need to hold your oath to scum, bad people & monsters (If I have promised to help a serial killer to hold his victims while he/she carves them up and refuse to do so, then I am an oathbreaker. My oathbreaking is not less because of the vile task I agreed to perform).

 

[Dolorous22]

No, I don't think it was justified and I don't think it was the right thing.

It was desperate, Marsh was desperate and desperate men are dangerous men. Jon Snow - the LC of the NW received a threat and responded accordingly. The only recourse Jon had was to retaliate or wait until a Bolton host came to attack CB from it's weaker side. 

Bowen should of let him do exactly that - all things considered. It wasn't going to make Marsh look any more complicit than he already was and may of created a new opportunity. Jon wasn't likely to succeed anyway and he would of led a whole bunch of wildlings with him. Away from the wall. 

Point is, Jon and the wildlings would be gone and at the very least would of prevented a Bolton host reaching the wall which means the defenders could concentrate on the 'others'. Instead, Marsh has turned the situation into a nightmare. We now have various factions who were sharing an uneasy alliance and the one man who tied them together has been murdered. Let's not forget, there's an overwhelming amount of people in the North who hold Ned's children in very high regard. Killing a Stark is a great way of turning a huge proportion of individuals and houses against you. Not to mention Stannis.... 

Let's suppose Stannis is alive and returns to the wall. I don't think pleading ignorance will help. It's Stannis ffs: Bowen dies.

The wildlings categorically will not serve anyone. They identify with Jon and Jon alone. They were about to follow him to war. They will not abide the man who killed him especially considering it was done in a cowardly fashion. The wildlings are a hardy and superstitious bunch. These tactics will condemn you in their eyes.

The black brothers will be split, at first, I suppose. Until the wildlings turn, which they will if the likes of Bowen are in-charge. 

His supposed motive was fear of a Bolton reprisal. But anyone who knows anything about either the father or the son must understand that these men see mercy and forgiveness as a weakness. I fully expect either Bolton to flail Marsh because he was there when it went down. Bolton executed people who helped rebuild WF, they flailed IB who agreed to a truce and Ramsey mutilated two small boys to prove he wasn't screwing around. I expect Boltons recourse to be a complete annihilation of the NW.
It's their MO. Bowen picked the wrong side, that's his MO.  

[The Wolves]

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Since this was a response to another post I need to point out that despite all this, Jon made that oath. The poster I responded to argued that Jon had somehow the right to break his oath because of this and I find such a thinking childish.

Jon needs to man up, realize his limitations and work with the material. It is not his fault that he has little material in the first place, but it is his fault for sure if he is unable or unwilling to work with what he got. He was elected LC and accepted that responsibility so its too late now to whine about the hardship of ruling and just as Daenerys he gets to play the leadership-game on a tough difficulty. If he was deciding to throw in the towel and somehow make up his mind that "Those people are scum, I don´t need to hold my oath to scum, I am free - Wohooo!" then I want him executed immediately. It does not matter if the organization is corrupt nor if Jon think the oath diminish him - the oath have no less weight regardless. You DO need to hold your oath to scum, bad people & monsters (If I have promised to help a serial killer to hold his victims while he/she carves them up and refuse to do so, then I am an oathbreaker. My oathbreaking is not less because of the vile task I agreed to perform).

 

I'm not arguing that Jon needs to stick to his oaths and he did choose to be a man of the Watch and be LC now he does need to take responsibility for his actions. 

But I disagree that it would be his fault if he is unable and unwilling to work with what he got. First he ain't got much and what he does have is not going to be of much help and I'm ok with him trying to get more than what he has. 

[RainGhost]

Murder is never justified and I can't believe people are trying to justify it. The Night's Watch is a democratic organisation; Jon is not a lord or a king chosen by god, he is a commander elected by the men of the Night's Watch. They can unelect him. If they truly believe that he is working against the Night's Watch's principles, they would be justified in arresting him and calling for a trial/new election involving all of the Night's Watch. If they believe he broke his oath, then they would also be justified in executing him in the proper fashion (after the trial/new election with majority Watch approval). What they did was murder, which is not right on any count, nor is it in the Watch's benefit.

[WSmith84]

I just reread the chapter, and my God do the assassins look stupid. They assassinate Jon right after he gets the very vocal, very enthusiastic support of the wildlings who outnumber the Night's Watch. Just wait for him to leave with them, write Ramsey a letter stating that your Lord Commander has gone mad, get the Royal family to sail away from the Wall as quickly as possible and hope that Ramsey finishes Jon off for you. Doing what Marsh did will create chaos at the Wall, maybe even a civil war, leaving the Wall vulnerable from the south and north.

[Jeeves]

On 1/24/2016 at 7:36 AM, Protagoras said:

Then Jon will be at war with the entire Westeros. He chose willingly to join this group of thugs in their glorified prison in the first place, they exist solely to deal with a larger threat and have been given this role by the westerosi society. Jon needs to work with the material he has and if he is unable to do so, then he is the problem. 

Thank you.  You are correct.  No matter what's happening to the south, the Watch is obligated to keep its eyes on the bigger threat ahead.  Jon fucked it up when he chose to sacrifice the wall for his sister.  Jon made a very stupid, very selfish decision.  He should have been able to put Arya out of his mind as expected of guys who joined the Watch and said their vows.  Jon was not the only one who left loved ones behind and yet the other boys didn't go off to leave their posts just to help a former family member in need.  Jon deserved what he got from his brothers. 

[Angus Thermopyle]

We don't know that Bowen and co. weren't acting on the plot of getting rid of Jon that was hatched in Kingslanding. I think that more likely than stabbing him for betraying the NW.

[Lord Ravenstark]

He had his heart right. Despite Jon's best intentions, the wildlings are… wild… at the very best. Just because they are victims of prejudice from people South of the Wall doesn't make them innocent little critters, when they pretty much act according to the very accusations.

People are supposed to be biased towards Jon, after all it is his POV. But things don't work out the way Jon wants them to work. If someone gets mad when they find out a person whose name is in the sex offender registry moves to their neighborhood, imagine how they would be when a whole nation with a significant number of these (being raider among the wildlings is a way of life) moves to their doorstep.

[BalerionTheCat]

Most of what Jon did was right. Particularly concerning the Wildlings. But going in person to the help of his sister was an error, given the current situation at the Wall. That said Marsh was totally wrong to kill his LC. It could only end with the NW annihilation.

But from my personal view, Jon was right. I cannot fault him for what he wanted to do. Myself, I can't stand the NW vows. And I will be happy if Jon is finally rid of them. A man should keep the right to protect his family. The Boltons are a disease, stinking beasts, and only deserve elimination.

In fact, I'm not even sure the Vows were preventing Jon to do what he was doing. The vows speak of watching and guarding the realms of men. Not of chasing criminals. The "the Watch takes no side" is not in the vows. Anyway Marsh is taking one side. He always did.

[Protagoras]

On 2016-01-29 at 10:11 PM, RainGhost said:

Murder is never justified and I can't believe people are trying to justify it. The Night's Watch is a democratic organisation; Jon is not a lord or a king chosen by god, he is a commander elected by the men of the Night's Watch. They can unelect him. If they truly believe that he is working against the Night's Watch's principles, they would be justified in arresting him and calling for a trial/new election involving all of the Night's Watch. If they believe he broke his oath, then they would also be justified in executing him in the proper fashion (after the trial/new election with majority Watch approval). What they did was murder, which is not right on any count, nor is it in the Watch's benefit.

But that is the problem - they can´t unelect him. There are as far as I am aware no possibilities for reelections nor trials (please give me a qoute on the opposite if you can find it). Do you honestly believe that if Bowen Marsh have had such an option that he wouldnt have used it earlier and informed Jon about it eg "Your choice to let the wildlings in is highly unpopular. I have here signatures from 55% of the Watch members. Therefore, by the strictures, I force a reelection within a month"? Yet this doesn´t happen nor is even mentioned as viable solution.

Its very hypocritical to say that murder never is justified when there are no other legal methods of removals possible. Sure, they could reach a consensus and vote unofficially for an arrest on Jon, but even such an arrest (and most likely even the vote itself) would be a crime (mutiny). Of course - according to the principle of "an eye for an eye" Jon or a relative of his is allowed according to me to murder Marsh and Co back (Just as Daenerys is allowed to oust/murder Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon back).