Bowen Marsh

[Davros Seaworth]

Hmm, interesting topic, but I don't see how anyone other than someone who hates the character Jon could come to the conclusion that Marsh was 100% justified in his actions. Yes, there is a justifiable element in terms of breaking his vows to attack the Boltons, but it terms of the situation as a whole, with all the factors, including breaking guest right, Ramsay threatening Watch, Jon attempting to defend the realm, it is clear that Marsh made the wrong decision, even not factoring in the fact that Marsh is likely to have cemented the Watch's doom

[dariopatke]

Hmm, interesting topic, but I don't see how anyone other than someone who hates the character Jon could come to the conclusion that Marsh was 100% justified in his actions. Yes, there is a justifiable element in terms of breaking his vows to attack the Boltons, but it terms of the situation as a whole, with all the factors, including breaking guest right, Ramsay threatening Watch, Jon attempting to defend the realm, it is clear that Marsh made the wrong decision, even not factoring in the fact that Marsh is likely to have cemented the Watch's doom

Well I really like Jon, but from a POV of some average intelligent guy I would do that, too. I u derstand why he did what he did from his POV. Now if I am what I am I would certanly let Jon go and try some diplomacy and try to both show Ramsay that I have no ill will towards him or house Bolton and in the same time kinda subtly intimidate him with 10k or 15k wildlings on the Wall and also assure him that I do not have his bride nor his Reek.

He could do much better but I dont think he is the sharpest guy in Westeros.

I also understand partialy position of Roose after Jaime and RW, I just dont like his role there, it could have been more hidden so other lords doesnt despise him, maybe he could fight Freys, get stabbed once but not deadly and "escape" while some of his men are disguised in Frey uniforms.

[Veloknight]

On 1/22/2016 at 11:08 AM, Good Guy Garlan said:

Yes there is, "defend the realms of men" is highly ambiguous as it is. What good is there in keeping the Others away while serving "men" like Ramsay? What does it matter to you keep your vows if you serve a king who's going to blow up a city? I mean, of course they're not supposed to meddle with politics and all that, Bowen had the law on his side. But laws aside, I think Jon's was the morally right decision. 

(Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm defending Jon of all people)

Yeah, I thought one of the whole points of Jaime's POV and redemptive arc was showing the limitations of vows, and the inherently conflicting nature of them. I don't think that makes vows meaningless, but I think it means we should cut Jon a little slack, as he was acting as pretty much the only man with actual creativity about the biggest challenge of their time.

On 1/22/2016 at 2:15 PM, Ser Hyle said:

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.

Also, his hand was notably stiff and unable to pull his sword free - I've seen arguments that it may have been tampered with, as he explicitly mentioned practicing to make sure the hand did not grow stiff.

On 1/24/2016 at 9:53 PM, Maxxine said:

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.

 The execution of the attack, as well as some of those odd details, makes me think he planned it all along. We know Tywin's reputation for victory, and we know the Cersei had planned plots against Jon before ever having a good reason - it's reasonable to assume efforts were made.

On 1/24/2016 at 9:53 PM, Maxxine said:

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?

I definitely think that's the case. Stark-haters might still give him crap for it, but I think the general attitude would be warmer.

On 1/24/2016 at 7:19 AM, 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.

I have a more positive image of the Watch than that, but it definitely was a low moment for the Watch for me. What stands out to me is that I'm unsure if Marsh really represents the majority of Watchmen - Jon certainly has quite a following in the newest corps of officers, and with the recent attrition in the Watch, I'd think Jon's administration already has changed the Watch.

 

The thing that really seals the deal for me is: if Marsh A.) believed it really was suicide to oppose the Boltons and B.) was motivated by the Pink Letter, why not let Jon sally forth? After he's gone (with the Wildling host that is obviously loyal to him and him alone, and which outnumbers the Watch), you can orchestrate your coup much more effectively. You can send letters to the Boltons, detailing not just his plans, but his numbers, the quality of his troops, how many provisions he took, etc., which obviously makes you much more valuable. You can set yourself up so that the Watch (sans anyone who joins Jon) profits from the betrayal, and you have a chance to actually pull the thing off at all. Anyone willing to consider murder and betrayal would certainly have considered these angles - but he didn't take them. As I see it, he chose to create a situation at the wall in which four parties are in open conflict:

1.) the Queen's Men

2.) the Wildlings + the Lord Snow's Men within the Watch

3.) Bowen Marsh + the conspirators and their allies

4.) unaligned Watchmen.

The Queen's Men and the Wildlings are fighting, but I think Melisandre will probably stop that, as they share common enemies: the Boltons and their new allies, Bowen Marsh. If the situation doesn't immediately boil over, then there's a huge bloc of armed men at the Wall aligned against Marsh. Unlike the conspirators who killed Caesar, there seems to be very little chance that even a fully "liberated" NW could survive. If Melisandre et al can calm things to that extent - and the depths of their problem becomes clear - Lord Snow's men will have plenty of cover to join their bloc, which will undoubtedly help a few of the unaligned men to join the immediately winning faction. Marsh is left with his conspirators and the rump of the Watch he can sway to his side.

Also, all of this would have been obvious from the beginning. Did Marsh think the Wildlings would magically go away without bloodshed, or that Melisandre would allow the Royal Family to be taken? With that kind of opposition, did Marsh think that Jon Snow's friends and admirers would still risk their lives to support the men who murdered him? All of this suggests to me that he had a plot already in motion, and realizing his window of opportunity was closing, panicked. If he wasn't already in touch with the Lannisters / Boltons, he could prove his loyalty more definitively and personally by writing them. If they already expected him to kill Snow, and he rode off to war and all they got from him was "So he's coming after you and here is where he is and how many men/supplies he has", they might ask why he didn't kill him before he left. Marsh was rotten well before the Pink Letter.

[RainGhost]

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

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).

You mean they can't unelect him because it hasn't been done before. There's a first time for everything. Murdering your Lord Commanders when you're not happy with them is not the way to go. Bowen Marsh could have improved the Watch by setting a precedent. As I said, Jon was elected, he wasn't a king or Lord chosen by God, so there's no reason why this couldn't work. Even if it doesn't succeed in unelecting Jon, it would at least make him realise that he can't continue to do whatever he wants to do. 

I get what you say about mutiny but if Marsh had enough men supporting him then Jon is powerless to act. He can't just keep killing people who disagree with him, he would have to listen.

[Veloknight]

6 hours ago, RainGhost said:

 

I get what you say about mutiny but if Marsh had enough men supporting him then Jon is powerless to act. He can't just keep killing people who disagree with him, he would have to listen.

And if Marsh didn't have enough men behind him, than his strategy as is now doesn't make any sense - he'd need the overwhelming majority of the Watch to back him to have even a chance of surviving the Wildlings and Queen's Men at the Wall. Since a safer, but similarly effective course would be to wait until Jon and his core support leave to fight the Boltons, and then send letters selling Jon out, one can assume that either A.) Marsh does have the men, and is just choosing to gamble it all, or B.) Marsh already had a murder plot underway on behalf of the Iron Throne, and is scared that Jon's leaving alive would make him look disloyal.

[Bran the Shipper]

I think Bowen's actions were born from desperation, and that he didn't care about the consequences.  It seemed likely that he and his conspirators had toyed with the idea of assassinating Jon before this point but decided against it since Jon had trapped them.  Make a move against Jon and the Wildlings would overthrow the Wall.  But the revelation of how far Jon's machinations extended, meant that he couldn't just sit by and let Jon's corruption go unanswered and thus had to act in the only way that existed for him. 

To understand Bowen's actions you have to look at how the people responded to Jon's actions.  Most of them opposed his every decision.  The attack on Hardhome was something no one but Jon supported.  Yes save thousands from becoming wights is a good plan, but it no longer is a good plan when you realize how many men and supplies would be lost in the attempt. 

Also I'm not sure Bowen would move against the Queen and her men, since they are necessary in protecting the Wall from the Wildlings, who will likely turn against the Night's Watch.  I think he hopes Jon's head will be enough to save the Wall, and rely on the North, who have always supported the Night's Watch, to help keep the Bolton's in check after that. 

[StarkofWinterfell]

On January 22, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Heavy D said:

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.

 

 

 

 

I'll entertain this post even though it seems you're being contrarian. 

Jon was just elected to LC and needed to have absolute control over his men by gaining their respect or instilling fear in them.  He also needed to send malcontents and potential enemies away. He gave Slynt an order to command Greyguard, which has a degree of responsibility, but Slynt by "refusing the cooperate" is committing treason and mutiny. Let's not forget he threatened Jon on top of it all.

This isn't the Boy Scouts. The penalty for Slynt's small personal rebellion was death. It also set an example and showed Jon was not some greenhorn still wet behind the ears.

[Sydney Mae]

On 2/2/2016 at 3:42 PM, StarkofWinterfell said:

I'll entertain this post even though it seems you're being contrarian. 

Jon was just elected to LC and needed to have absolute control over his men by gaining their respect or instilling fear in them.  He also needed to send malcontents and potential enemies away. He gave Slynt an order to command Greyguard, which has a degree of responsibility, but Slynt by "refusing the cooperate" is committing treason and mutiny. Let's not forget he threatened Jon on top of it all.

This isn't the Boy Scouts. The penalty for Slynt's small personal rebellion was death. It also set an example and showed Jon was not some greenhorn still wet behind the ears.

This isn't the Boy Scouts.  When you commit treason, you get assassinated.  In my opinion, Slynt got what he deserved for refusal to obey.  At the same time, Jon deserved to get assassinated for committing crimes even more serious than Slynt.  So yeah, Bowen did the right thing.  Jon was unfit for command at that point and needed to be removed.

[dariopatke]

This isn't the Boy Scouts.  When you commit treason, you get assassinated.  In my opinion, Slynt got what he deserved for refusal to obey.  At the same time, Jon deserved to get assassinated for committing crimes even more serious than Slynt.  So yeah, Bowen did the right thing.  Jon was unfit for command at that point and needed to be removed.

But they need to have some sort of impeachment. 2 LCs died in two years by hands of their brothers. They just cant pull a Prince of Pentos all the time.

[Damsel in Distress]

Impeachment by knives.  That's how it's done, Westeros style.  Jeor Mormont didn't break any rules to call for his impeachment.  Jon, yes, he obviously violated their sacred laws and the laws of the seven kingdoms. 

[dariopatke]

Impeachment by knives.  That's how it's done, Westeros style.  Jeor Mormont didn't break any rules to call for his impeachment.  Jon, yes, he obviously violated their sacred laws and the laws of the seven kingdoms. 

But they arent any better in honouring their sacred wows when they stabbed their brother who appears to be LC.

On the other hand, he was kind of a deserter, but I think there should be a trial in that case.

[Damsel in Distress]

7 hours ago, dariopatke said:

But they arent any better in honouring their sacred wows when they stabbed their brother who appears to be LC.

On the other hand, he was kind of a deserter, but I think there should be a trial in that case.

Maybe.  You know, even if you are a Jon fan, at least you admit, the boy was a deserter.  That's alright with me  !  You're much more reasonable than Jon's typical defenders  !

 

He was actually much worse.  He was an oathbreaker (the most dangerous kinds of criminals, iirc, according to Ned).  He meddled in Ramsay Bolton's business when he was not supposed to. 

[Sullen]

8 hours ago, dariopatke said:

But they arent any better in honouring their sacred wows when they stabbed their brother who appears to be LC.

On the other hand, he was kind of a deserter, but I think there should be a trial in that case.

There was no time, or no manpower, to force Jon into a trial.

They acted the only way they could to impeach him and stop his antagonizing of the Boltons.

[dariopatke]

Maybe.  You know, even if you are a Jon fan, at least you admit, the boy was a deserter.  That's alright with me  [emoji4] !  You're much more reasonable than Jon's typical defenders  [emoji4] !

 

He was actually much worse.  He was an oathbreaker (the most dangerous kinds of criminals, iirc, according to Ned).  He meddled in Ramsay Bolton's business when he was not supposed to. 

Yes, it was oathbreaking act and Ned would take his head if he caught him, but I still think people could put some sense in his head instead of stabbing him.

Janos had support of Tywin, which means he musnt be a candidate but he almost won. He would be just as bad as Jon and even worse because Jon cares about other people and has some honor which isn't the fact with Janos.

I am not actually a Jon fan, but I like him and like any other character I judge him based on his deed, good or bad, except only Stannis and Theon, I am a little more subjective towards them because I find myself in their characters, but I dont justify killing of millers boys and I certanly would not justify eventual burning of Shireen.

Anyway, NW has a bad reputation and they are low on men, why would they kill LC? They have one man less who is not a bad leader in that terrible times for the Watch. He could be thrown into Ice cell or something. His friends could be summoned to explain him stuff like they did in aGoT.

[Damsel in Distress]

2 minutes ago, dariopatke said:

Yes, it was oathbreaking act and Ned would take his head if he caught him, but I still think people could put some sense in his head instead of stabbing him.

Janos had support of Tywin, which means he musnt be a candidate but he almost won. He would be just as bad as Jon and even worse because Jon cares about other people and has some honor which isn't the fact with Janos.

I am not actually a Jon fan, but I like him and like any other character I judge him based on his deed, good or bad, except only Stannis and Theon, I am a little more subjective towards them because I find myself in their characters, but I dont justify killing of millers boys and I certanly would not justify eventual burning of Shireen.

Anyway, NW has a bad reputation and they are low on men, why would they kill LC? They have one man less who is not a bad leader in that terrible times for the Watch. He could be thrown into Ice cell or something. His friends could be summoned to explain him stuff like they did in aGoT.

Janos would have been awful as LC.  However, if Tywin had lived and actually cared, resources might make its way to the wall from Janos' friends back in King's Landing.  Aliser is a better choice than Janos, imho.

[dariopatke]

Janos would have been awful as LC.  However, if Tywin had lived and actually cared, resources might make its way to the wall from Janos' friends back in King's Landing.  Aliser is a better choice than Janos, imho.

If Tywin lived he wouldnt give a damn about Watch, he would need him to kick out Stannis as soon as possible amd as a reward he migh get 20 good men and that is it. People in KL, especially people like Tywin don't care about the Wall, even Greatjon said it.

There was no time, or no manpower, to force Jon into a trial.

They acted the only way they could to impeach him and stop his antagonizing of the Boltons.

And yet it was ehough time and men to kill him. They could do something like that about Benjen from the show to make him forget about Longclaw and sieze him.

[Sullen]

1 minute ago, dariopatke said:

If Tywin lived he wouldnt give a damn about Watch, he would need him to kick out Stannis as soon as possible amd as a reward he migh get 20 good men and that is it. People in KL, especially people like Tywin don't care about the Wall, even Greatjon said it.

The Greatjon is not exactly the most unbiased source around.

If the Bolton-held North was threatened, I think Tywin would have reacted.

[dariopatke]

The Greatjon is not exactly the most unbiased source around.

If the Bolton-held North was threatened, I think Tywin would have reacted.

I was joking about Greatjon, but he kinda got the point.

Tywin would do exactly what Jaime planned to do at Riverrun, first he would let Boltons to kill Stannis, they arent the most loyal allies and it wouldn't be a damage to have him out of the picture, Ramsay wont be a problem later at least. If Stannis wins, Tywin would let Walder with Riverlords to deal with him, if he wins again Tywin will be ready at Golden Tooth with West army, much stronger and not exausted like Stannis' and Tyrells can be at KL and at Highgarden, each army 30k strong. Also LF could summon lords of the Vale tp wait him at High road just in case.

There is 90 percent chance that Roose or Walder will take Stannis and he wont lose a single man. Why would he send men in the North if winter is coming and it has extremly hostile population.

[WSmith84]

Even if you think Bowen was in the right morally, you have to admit that his method was pretty damn stupid. Murdering Jon after he just got the very vocal support of the wildlings that outnumber the Night's Watch men? During a tense moment with an angry, violent giant? Stupid. He should have just let Jon leave, written to Ramsey that Jon and the wildlings were coming and declared Jon a traitor. Then, he should have shipped the Royal party to Eastwatch and then to Braavos as quickly as possible, to avoid the sticky issue of breaking guest right by handing them over to Ramsey. If Ramsey defeats Jon, maybe he'll leave the Watch alone. If Jon defeats Ramsey, Bowen can claim that he was merely trying to avoid the extinction of the Night's Watch in case of a Bolton victory. Bowen might lose his head to Jon, or Ramsey might pursue the NW anyway, but it's a better plan than starting a civil war at the Wall.

[OldGimletEye]

Seems to me that Bowen was making a strategic calculation. And the calculation was: By eliminating Jon, you keep the Boltons happy. By keeping the Boltons happy you keep the Lannister and their Tyrells happy. By doing that, you'll have their support, when they are needed.
Too bad for Bowen, that isn't going to pan out. When the Others come, the North, Wildlings and the NW are going to be on their own for awhile. And the one person that probably could have held that together was Jon.
Also, I think saying that Jon's spat with the Boltons was solely over Arya is a bit of nonsense. It seems that Jon's relationship with Stannis might have pissed the Boltons off too.