Bowen Marsh is an idiot (Spoilers)

[zandru]

12 hours ago, bent branch said:

To understand why Bowen Marsh did what he did,

Thanks! This is really excellent. To your background, I'd add Bowen Marsh's fastidious criticism of Jon Snow's friends the wildlings.

[kissdbyfire]

On 28/04/2017 at 9:49 AM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

It's not as simple as you think.

I'd say the black brothers left behind at Castle Black are all pretty much in line with Marsh's thinking. Jon sent most of his loyal followers to other forts along the wall, as you said. On the one hand, it's smart because it means the men at the other forts will most likely stay loyal, but it also means that Jon is left with the men he has to keep a closer eye on.

I don't think so... my best guess is that the nightswatchmen at CB by the end of Dance are more or less evenly split between those loyal to Marsh and Jon, if not a clear majority support for Jon. But The deciding factor will be the wildlings, and I agree with the OP: the vast majority of wildlings will be supporting Jon. CB has roughly 400 men in the beginning of the book, but by the end they have even less. The wildlings already there plus the ones that might be arriving in the immediate aftermath, like Morna, then add the men loyal to Jon who might also be arriving at the same time, like Iron Emmett, and it really doesn't look like Marsh's got a long future ahead of him. 

On 28/04/2017 at 9:49 AM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Also Jon just declared that he's going to send men of the Nights Watch to save wildlings at Hardhome, and they're to be commanded by Tormund Giantsbane of all people. Not only that, he's going to leave Castle Black and avenge King Stannis by marching on Winterfell. That's a violation of his vows in the worst way possible.

Debatable. Imo, there are plenty of much worse things that are perfectly 'legal'.  

On 28/04/2017 at 9:49 AM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

That will alienate pretty much all of the Night's Watch from him. Sure, they're outnumbered by the wildlings by far, but it's still going to be a fierce battle raging inside Castle Black. Stannis' men will be too busy keeping Selyse and Shireen safe, never mind them taking part in a battle like that. I'm sure we'll pretty much see the Nights' Watch at Castle Black exterminated by vengeful wildlings, and then utter chaos will spread elsewhere until the Others arrive to a Wall that is completely in disarray.

Dunno... I've always thought the fact that the Wall will have more 'pure' FM blood than it has had in a few thousand years will be very important.   

[WSmith84]

Personally, if I'd have been Marsh, I would have played it differently. Let Jon leave with his Wildling army and send a raven to Winterfell informing Ramsey of Jon's coming. Inform him that Jon is a traitor and talk of how he murdered Lord Janos Slynt, a man loyal to the true King and Lord Tywin, for daring to object to his plans.  Send the Royal party on a ship to Essos as quickly as possible. That way, if Ramsey emerges victorious, he might leave the Watch alone. If Jon wins, he might not cut off Marsh's head. Either way, the Watch will probably emerge in better shape.

The problem with Marsh's 'kill Jon' plan is that it's almost certain to cause a miniature civil war at the Wall, with Marsh's supporters on one side vs Jon's supporters, the Wildlings and the Royal party on the other. It's going to be messy.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with Jon's decision (with his execution, yes) at that particular moment. He's unable to meet Ramsey's demands (he doesn't have Reek, or fArya) and if he handed over the Royal party he'd be breaking guest right and setting a very bad precedent to those considering helping the Watch (help us and we hand you over to your enemies, who will flay you to death!). His prior decision to release Mance is (perhaps) the big decision that sets the Boltons against him. Of course, if this letter is genuinely from Ramsey, it might have arrived whether or not Jon allowed Mance to leave - harbouring the family of the pretender Stannis might have gotten the Watch into trouble and left them with the same dilemma, regardless. Again, it's more Jon's execution that bothers me, not so much the decision.

[zandru]

50 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Let Jon leave with his Wildling army and send a raven to Winterfell informing Ramsey of Jon's coming.

I never got the impression that the old pomegranate was much for intrigue and elaborate plans, much less this level of truly dishonorable and despicable treachery. What a letter to Ramsey would have done would be to sacrifice Jon's men, in addition to Jon, and would provide a pretext for the Boltons to declare that the Night's Watch had taken sides, and was thus the enemy of the north (aka the Boltons), and an imminent danger to the whole realm. Because, you know, the Night's Watch's Lord Commander marched on them.

Marsh seems a more straightforward sort, and big at counting up costs. Sacrifice hundreds of fighters to (he hopes) have Jon Snow killed in battle - but what if he lives? it'll be fortnights before it's all done and they find out how it all came out - or just get rid of Jon Snow directly and immediately. It all adds up to a quick assassination.

I'm assuming here that Marsh would consider it less decent and honorable to kill a man himself, with his own hands, than sending him off in the hope that another would do it for him. That's what I would think myself - and probably you, too!

[WSmith84]

33 minutes ago, zandru said:

I never got the impression that the old pomegranate was much for intrigue and elaborate plans, much less this level of truly dishonorable and despicable treachery. What a letter to Ramsey would have done would be to sacrifice Jon's men, in addition to Jon, and would provide a pretext for the Boltons to declare that the Night's Watch had taken sides, and was thus the enemy of the north (aka the Boltons), and an imminent danger to the whole realm. Because, you know, the Night's Watch's Lord Commander marched on them.

Marsh seems a more straightforward sort, and big at counting up costs. Sacrifice hundreds of fighters to (he hopes) have Jon Snow killed in battle - but what if he lives? it'll be fortnights before it's all done and they find out how it all came out - or just get rid of Jon Snow directly and immediately. It all adds up to a quick assassination.

I'm assuming here that Marsh would consider it less decent and honorable to kill a man himself, with his own hands, than sending him off in the hope that another would do it for him. That's what I would think myself - and probably you, too!

Marsh's actions are bound to cause a mess. At best, he and his co-assassins will die. At worst, a civil war will occur between Marsh's supporters and Jon's, leaving a lot of people dead and less people to fight Ramsey. Even if the best-case happens, it still leaves the question behind of: what now? The Watch still has to acquiesce to Ramsey's demands (or not). The Royal Party is not just going to allow itself to be handed over to Ramsey; that means a bloody fight with the Watch. If the Watch doesn't hand them over, Ramsey's going to come there anyway. That's the real issue. Hence why I suggested letting Jon leave the Wildlings and informing Ramsey that he's coming while sending the Royal Party to Braavos.. That way, Marsh can claim that Jon is a traitor acting on his own (setting himself up as King of the Wildlings, maybe) and get the Royal family away in the meantime (he can claim Jon did that when he was LC). That way, Ramsey doesn't have a reason to head to the Wall unless he really, really feels like marching to the Wall in the snow just to cut off a few heads (which he might; Ramsey is Ramsey, after all). Basically, I'm just not sure that killing Jon solves any more problems than it creates at that point.

[Roswell]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:34 PM, Bowen Marsh said:

This is an outrage, Canon Claude.  Your words are scandalous and untrue, sir.  I am most offended.

I, sir, am a loyal man of the watch.  I have served faithfully for many years.  What I did, I did to protect the Night's Watch from our mad lord commander, Jon Snow.  That boy's crimes are unforgivable.  He had to be stopped for the good of the realm.

• He was capably advised not to let the Wildlings through.  He didn't listen.  Our food stores will no longer last as long as we had planned with those extra mouths to feed.  We had to, he says, because they will turn into wights and attack the wall.  I say bull's ass, sir.  We have no proof that the White Walkers are interested in attacking the Wall. None.  Only the words of a former brother turned traitor.  Have the WW shown any interest in attacking the wall?  No. 
• He was capably advised not to waste men by sending them to Hardhome.  He didn't listen. 
• He executed our sworn brother, Janos Slynt for refusing to obey orders, at first.  I thought it harsh but let it go.  As long as punishment is handed out fairly there is justice. 
• The Pink Letter arrived and Jon Snow's illegal activities are brought to the light.  He allowed the biggest and the worst criminal that the North had ever seen escape justice just because the man was needed to save his sister from a legal marriage.  So Jon executes Slynt for his crimes and then allows the worst criminal at the Wall to live.  Why?  Because of personal reasons.  That's a perversion of justice. 
• Jon and Mance planned the attack on the Boltons.  Stealing the wife of a nobleman is an act of war, sir.  Mance asked for six women to accompany him.  It is clear the men knew they would have to infiltrate Winterfell. 
• Jon's agent, Mance, presented himself as the traveling bard, Abel and the six female armed warriors as his women.   The Boltons took them in as guests and they sheltered under his protection.  They ate from his table and ate of his food.  Those wildlings murdered the men of their hosts.  That, sir, is an extreme violation of the laws of guest rights.
• Jon starts making appointments and gives positions of rank to unwashed Wildlings, while men who served and bled for the watch were passed over.  Men who have never known soap and clean water now outrank many good and loyal men of the watch.  Wildling savages who have never wiped their rectal regions after doing the #2 now command men who have taken their vows decades ago.
• We got called to the Shield Hall and the truth of the matter was brought to the light.  Jon proceeds to put together an attack party of Wildlings for the purpose of attacking Winterfell.  Lord Bolton makes a conditional threat.  Comply, and he will trouble us no more, even forgive Jon's preemptive attack on House Bolton.  Instead of promising to comply, his hands now caught between his butt cheeks, Jon proceeds to outline his intentions to ride out and attack the Boltons.  These are the very people we have sworn to protect.  The bastard boy was about to make the problem that he created much, much worse. 
• What good are those Wildlings that we allowed through if they leave the Wall to fight Jon's personal battle with Lord Bolton?  Nothing.  Better not to have brought them through the Wall at all.  Even if we are blessed they suffer 100% casualty including Jon, we are still stuck with the wildling women and children. 
• I had no other way to stop our bat-shit crazy lord commander.  He surrounded himself with Wildlings.  He was crazy in love with his little sister and no words from me or anybody was going to change his mind.  He had to be stopped and the only way was to execute him.  Jon Snow was the worst lord commander that the NW has ever had.  Worse than his ancestor, the Night's King. 
• Now, if we can only find his wolf and kill him too to prevent that skin changing betrayer from finding refuge. 

For the watch,

Bowen Marsh

Great self-defense.  Very nice work.  It's actually Jon who is the idiot at the wall.  Jon's actions were criminal and he was about to perpetrate the most heinous atrocity in N/W history. Jon was the aggressor in this situation when he sent the wildlings to help his sister.  Bowen had no choice.  He had to act fast before Jon and his barbarians leave the gates.  Reasoning with Jon has been proven ineffective.  Jon is the idiot and Bowen is the hero. 

The assassination was not a conspiracy.  It was a desperate reaction to stop a mad man from doing something that would start a war with the Boltons at the worst possible time.  Jon created that situation and left his brothers no other choice.

It's not a certainty that Bowen will die.  The wildlings will be upset but they will be more concerned with Mance.  I believe the wildlings will just ride out on their own to attack Winterfell.   The dumb ass plan to go to hardhome will be forgotten.

 

[Roswell]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

The problem with Marsh's 'kill Jon' plan is that it's almost certain to cause a miniature civil war at the Wall, with Marsh's supporters on one side vs Jon's supporters, the Wildlings and the Royal party on the other. It's going to be messy.

I do not foresee this happening.  What Jon was doing and what he was about to do make the Nightsking look like a boy scout.  None of the crows at the wall will take Jon's side.  Even a friend like Samwell would see how wrong Jon was and admit he deserved to die.

[snow is the man]

I think bowen marsh was tired of not being listened too when it came to hating the wildlings. But it was a rushed act and done horribly and will do nothing to help the nights watch. It will likely destroy it completly in fact. Also how did he expect jon to go against stannis. Stannis not only helped them when noone else did but he had them outnumbered until the end when he attacks the boltons. Bowen marsh made a dumb decision without thinking it through.

[the snow dragon]

3 hours ago, The Transporter said:

Great self-defense.  Very nice work.  It's actually Jon who is the idiot at the wall.  Jon's actions were criminal and he was about to perpetrate the most heinous atrocity in N/W history. Jon was the aggressor in this situation when he sent the wildlings to help his sister.  Bowen had no choice.  He had to act fast before Jon and his barbarians leave the gates.  Reasoning with Jon has been proven ineffective.  Jon is the idiot and Bowen is the hero. 

The assassination was not a conspiracy.  It was a desperate reaction to stop a mad man from doing something that would start a war with the Boltons at the worst possible time.  Jon created that situation and left his brothers no other choice.

It's not a certainty that Bowen will die.  The wildlings will be upset but they will be more concerned with Mance.  I believe the wildlings will just ride out on their own to attack Winterfell.   The dumb ass plan to go to hardhome will be forgotten.

 

Please explain the criminal actions and the most heinous atrocities done or planned by jon snow.                                                 Bowen marsh is a narrow minded person with low level of intelligence. His judgment is coloured by his hate for wildings and the fear of tywin.he opposed every action of jon snow but never provides alternative solutions.                                          jon did send mance to help his sister. But he send him to long lake, not to Winterfell. Mance went to Winterfell on his own volition or to execute some plane of malisandre.                       nobody will be concerned about mance. He is dead in the eyes of wildings and nights watch.

[WSmith84]

15 hours ago, The Transporter said:

I do not foresee this happening.  What Jon was doing and what he was about to do make the Nightsking look like a boy scout.  None of the crows at the wall will take Jon's side.  Even a friend like Samwell would see how wrong Jon was and admit he deserved to die.

Even if no NW member agreed with Jon, there are still the Wildlings and the Royal party. Selyse is not going to allow herself and her daughter to be handed over to Ramsey without a fight, and the Wildlings seemed pretty down with Jon's plan. They're going to want revenge and once a Wildling kills a Crow (or vice versa) I suspect that calm will not prevail.

[snow is the man]

2 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Even if no NW member agreed with Jon, there are still the Wildlings and the Royal party. Selyse is not going to allow herself and her daughter to be handed over to Ramsey without a fight, and the Wildlings seemed pretty down with Jon's plan. They're going to want revenge and once a Wildling kills a Crow (or vice versa) I suspect that calm will not prevail.

Yes this was an extremly dumb plain. It's the same reason that jon couldn't really tell stannis to leave. He was outnumbered and if they tried to fight him all of the nights watch would be slaughtered or in stannis's case made to let him stay anyways. Not saying jon would have made him leave otherwise but just pointing it out.

[Protagoras]

On 30/04/2017 at 4:43 PM, the snow dragon said:

Please explain the criminal actions and the most heinous atrocities done or planned by jon snow.                                                 Bowen marsh is a narrow minded person with low level of intelligence. His judgment is coloured by his hate for wildings and the fear of tywin.he opposed every action of jon snow but never provides alternative solutions.                                          jon did send mance to help his sister. But he send him to long lake, not to Winterfell. Mance went to Winterfell on his own volition or to execute some plane of malisandre.                       nobody will be concerned about mance. He is dead in the eyes of wildings and nights watch.

[content deleted]

You yourself say that Jon did send Mance to help his sister. Well, said sister is also the wife of the lord paramount´s son. And Jon has no right to send any "help" unless the Boltons want to (Again, they rule the North atm). This IS a criminal action, wherether you like it or not. You also seem to forget that Jon has not acted trustworthy so far (conspiring with Tormund to take the Watch on a suicide mission) and is also in another clear breach of the protocol using said document as fuel to lead the wildlings south of the wall (another criminal action, you know not leave the wall and certainly not when leading wildlings. Actually 2 criminal counts - since he is not allowed to leave himself either). If Jon want to denounce the letter as fake then he certainly can´t use it to rally support against the Boltons. He has to pick one way or another.

Also - Jon Snow are the Lord Commander of the Night´s Watch and the Night´s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat. There is a working relation here. The watch is subservient to the throne and also slightly subservient to Winterfell/The lord paramount of the North. So, Ramsay (as the son to said paramount) have a much larger right to threaten and put demands on the watch than the watch have a right to take action against him. Unfair? Sure, but one group is existing solely on the goodwill of another. In short, these restrictions exist for a reason - Make it work or get destroyed. So, Ramsay is doing no legal errors by threatening, since the Watch has already interferred. If you get beatened up because you attacked someone before, you are hardly an innocent victim. Jon have no legal high ground.

[bent branch]

On 02/05/2017 at 6:36 AM, Protagoras said:

[now-deleted content removed]

You yourself say that Jon did send Mance to help his sister. Well, said sister is also the wife of the lord paramount´s son. And Jon has no right to send any "help" unless the Boltons want to (Again, they rule the North atm). This IS a criminal action, wherether you like it or not. You also seem to forget that Jon has not acted trustworthy so far (conspiring with Tormund to take the Watch on a suicide mission) and is also in another clear breach of the protocol using said document as fuel to lead the wildlings south of the wall (another criminal action, you know not leave the wall and certainly not when leading wildlings. Actually 2 criminal counts - since he is not allowed to leave himself either). If Jon want to denounce the letter as fake then he certainly can´t use it to rally support against the Boltons. He has to pick one way or another.

Also - Jon Snow are the Lord Commander of the Night´s Watch and the Night´s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat. There is a working relation here. The watch is subservient to the throne and also slightly subservient to Winterfell/The lord paramount of the North. So, Ramsay (as the son to said paramount) have a much larger right to threaten and put demands on the watch than the watch have a right to take action against him. Unfair? Sure, but one group is existing solely on the goodwill of another. In short, these restrictions exist for a reason - Make it work or get destroyed. So, Ramsay is doing no legal errors by threatening, since the Watch has already interferred. If you get beatened up because you attacked someone before, you are hardly an innocent victim. Jon have no legal high ground.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Night's Watch is independent of all other institutions. When the Night's Watch was founded there was no Iron Throne, instead there was a lot of independent kingdoms. Because of this the Night's Watch was given complete authority over itself. It was also traditional that the Night's Watch would take no side, but that was occasionally violated. It was the Night's Watch itself that decided on what punishment was suitable, since no other institution had the authority to impose punishment (unless any particular king wanted to go up and teach the Night's Watch a lesson himself or refuse to send supplies to the Wall).

When Tywin got his knickers in a twist over Marsh sending letters to all the kings, it was Tywin whining about the long standing neutrality of the Night's Watch. That's why when Tywin said that Joffrey was the only king (or Tommen, I don't remember who was king at that point), Pycelle said the Wall would be glad to hear it. When Aemon had Marsh send letters to all the kings, it was the Watch maintaining neutrality. Tywin was in the wrong, but Tywin knew that and he knew he was trying to subvert the institution by sending a vaguely threatening letter to a low ranking officer. The letter that Tywin and Pycelle were discussing is the same letter that Stannis responded to by heading north.

Anyhow, as Jon pointed out, he wasn't breaking neutrality. The watch was incapable of kicking Stannis out and he never gave Stannis anything more than what was required by guest right. Also, any advice that Jon gave to Stannis was given to give Jon an advantage. i.e. sending Stannis to the mountain clans. When Jon gave Stannis this advice, he got to keep the Wildlings to help him on the Wall and Stannis had to convince the mountain clans to join him himself. Jon was actually quite brilliant in navigating a politically touchy situation.

Turning our attention to the wildlings coming through the Wall, there are different circumstances for each of the two groups. The first group of wildlings was let through the Wall by Stannis. Jon did want to let the wildlings through the Wall, but he had no say in Stannis letting them through. Jon tried to express doubt about Stannis' plan to let them through, but was rebuffed. When Stannis let his group through the Wall, he had them burn a weirwood twig to show that they were leaving their old ways behind and would be good subjects of Westeros. When Stannis let them through he placed no more requirements on them than what was expected of any Westerosi. When Jon let his group through, he required they give over their valuables to help pay for their keep and he also made them provide hostages. Jon was much less naïve about the wildlings than Stannis.

And Jon had every right to allow people to settle the Gift. The Gift belongs to the Night's Watch. True, it was generally expected that the Gift would be for settlers from south of the Wall, but I don't know of any restriction that the Night's Watch couldn't let wildlings settle there, as long as the wildlings agreed to either (1) not leave the Gift or (2) follow Westerosi law.

The events at the Wall are very complex and Jon was definitely pushing the envelope of what was allowed, but he didn't actually violate any laws until he said he was going to leave the Wall to attack Ramsay. And this action was in an ambiguous area. Since the Night's Watch is an independent institution, it may have been allowable for them to protect themselves from an attack from the south.

You claim that Jon was flagrantly violating laws is simply wrong. If it were true, something would have been done about Jon much sooner. As I said up thread, the reason Marsh took the action he took at that time was because he thought Stannis was dead and he didn't want the Night's Watch to be on the losing side. He was afraid of the implied threat from the Iron Throne (as represented by Tywin). By killing Jon and turning over the hostages they had, Marsh hoped to avoid any potential retaliation by the "winners".

[Protagoras]

9 hours ago, bent branch said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Night's Watch is independent of all other institutions. When the Night's Watch was founded there was no Iron Throne, instead there was a lot of independent kingdoms. Because of this the Night's Watch was given complete authority over itself. It was also traditional that the Night's Watch would take no side, but that was occasionally violated. It was the Night's Watch itself that decided on what punishment was suitable, since no other institution had the authority to impose punishment (unless any particular king wanted to go up and teach the Night's Watch a lesson himself or refuse to send supplies to the Wall).

When Tywin got his knickers in a twist over Marsh sending letters to all the kings, it was Tywin whining about the long standing neutrality of the Night's Watch. That's why when Tywin said that Joffrey was the only king (or Tommen, I don't remember who was king at that point), Pycelle said the Wall would be glad to hear it. When Aemon had Marsh send letters to all the kings, it was the Watch maintaining neutrality. Tywin was in the wrong, but Tywin knew that and he knew he was trying to subvert the institution by sending a vaguely threatening letter to a low ranking officer. The letter that Tywin and Pycelle were discussing is the same letter that Stannis responded to by heading north.

Anyhow, as Jon pointed out, he wasn't breaking neutrality. The watch was incapable of kicking Stannis out and he never gave Stannis anything more than what was required by guest right. Also, any advice that Jon gave to Stannis was given to give Jon an advantage. i.e. sending Stannis to the mountain clans. When Jon gave Stannis this advice, he got to keep the Wildlings to help him on the Wall and Stannis had to convince the mountain clans to join him himself. Jon was actually quite brilliant in navigating a politically touchy situation.

Turning our attention to the wildlings coming through the Wall, there are different circumstances for each of the two groups. The first group of wildlings was let through the Wall by Stannis. Jon did want to let the wildlings through the Wall, but he had no say in Stannis letting them through. Jon tried to express doubt about Stannis' plan to let them through, but was rebuffed. When Stannis let his group through the Wall, he had them burn a weirwood twig to show that they were leaving their old ways behind and would be good subjects of Westeros. When Stannis let them through he placed no more requirements on them than what was expected of any Westerosi. When Jon let his group through, he required they give over their valuables to help pay for their keep and he also made them provide hostages. Jon was much less naïve about the wildlings than Stannis.

And Jon had every right to allow people to settle the Gift. The Gift belongs to the Night's Watch. True, it was generally expected that the Gift would be for settlers from south of the Wall, but I don't know of any restriction that the Night's Watch couldn't let wildlings settle there, as long as the wildlings agreed to either (1) not leave the Gift or (2) follow Westerosi law.

The events at the Wall are very complex and Jon was definitely pushing the envelope of what was allowed, but he didn't actually violate any laws until he said he was going to leave the Wall to attack Ramsay. And this action was in an ambiguous area. Since the Night's Watch is an independent institution, it may have been allowable for them to protect themselves from an attack from the south.

You claim that Jon was flagrantly violating laws is simply wrong. If it were true, something would have been done about Jon much sooner. As I said up thread, the reason Marsh took the action he took at that time was because he thought Stannis was dead and he didn't want the Night's Watch to be on the losing side. He was afraid of the implied threat from the Iron Throne (as represented by Tywin). By killing Jon and turning over the hostages they had, Marsh hoped to avoid any potential retaliation by the "winners".

The only one who is wrong is you.

The Watch is certainly responsible to the throne, even if they want to or not. Again - Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat. And a united realm make it more so. So, no, the Watch is NOT independent, for obvious reasons.  A particular King WILL go up and dismantle the Watch if they are a bother. This is why that letter Jon sent against his will is a paper shield. A shield that protects the watch from their boss(es). 

And certainly, when the throne is contested - it is easier for the Watch to act as they wish (The reason why the Watch can ignore Tywins command about Janos Slynt) and why they were more independent when there was several kingdoms, but even that have limits. As Lord Commander there are some leeway, of course. Jon as well as other LC´s has the authority to make hard choices, even some changes in policy to adapt to a current situation (you could argue that the deal with the wildlings were in this realm due to the great need, you could also argue that the protection of Alys broke no rules since she came to their turf, their land and willingly sought shelter. And yes - even Jons deal with Stannis can be defended as you explain). However, it is not within those right to decide who is evil/who is a threat and then tries to "protect" the realm from it. The LC and the Watch are supposed to guard the realms of men from other sources than inside Westeros- just like CIA, they have no authority over domestic threats. Nor can he change the orginial purpose - his borders are clearly defined. Hence, it sounds very much as Jons personal ambition is in spite of the original message and only possible as I see it by some creative rulebending. It also (gain) 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 organization will be removed (and that is entirely the fault of a radical LC and not the Iron Throne). Also, the Watch is a gloryfied prison. One main intent is certainly that no one will never, ever leave. So no, the Watch are certainly not allowed to protect themselves from an attack from the south. Otherwise they would have had, you know, wall to defend in that direction. They don´t. And that is for a reason. 

The NW serves the Realm of Men. It is irrelevant of how many kingdoms there are or who sits the IT. In orden days, The King in the North had every right to intervene when various LC’s went to war against each other and put the primary mission of the NW into danger. And Artios Stark had no problem ORDERING the watch to bury the dead. Just as the Boltons have every right to intervene when a newly elected LC interferres with their business and kidnap Ramsay´s wife putting the primary mission of the NW into danger and sending Mance, the wildling "king" for said kidnap. If you don´t understand that Jon is violating laws when he send Mance to kidnap the lord paramount´s sons wife, then you are either obtuse or stupid. 

You claim that the Watch is independent. But nothing point to this. They are very much within the realm, only they owe a different obligation than as a feudal lord. Their pool of recruits come from the realm. Their food is transported to them from the realm. They are certainly dependent on the realm. They are free from tax and military service save to guard the Wall and against Wildling raids certainly but the law of Westeros ends at the Wall, not the New Gift. There are certainly privileges attached to being such an old and venerable institution. Customs. Traditions that are generally respected. That doesn't mean the kings word have no value. And Aegon did conquer Westeros, which changed the rules. The realm of men they are defending is no longer made up of several, or indeed "a hundred kingdoms", but just one Kingdom, ruled by one king from the Iron Throne, and so it would be quite natural to start seeing the Watch as an extension of that kingdom, and therefore subject to the king. Because (again) unless they bend, they will be removed. 

And no, something wouldn´t have been done to Jon sooner. The reason was that Bowen Marsh was willing to give Jon a chance. He pretty much acted when he had clear proofs that there was no chance this was going to end well, not before. As you say, many other acts Jon do can be defended, but after the shieldhall speech, Jon has passed the point of no return. 

[Lord Varys]

The Watchmen see themselves as subjects to the Iron Throne. That much is clear. They do Stannis homage as king, Waymar Royce challenges the Other in the name of King Robert, Tyrion being Robert's brother-in-law is a huge deal, and so on.

As to the general question, I'd say Marsh definitely saved the Watch (or what will be left of it) by assassinating Jon. We can safely say that the Hardhome mission would have become a catastrophic failure. The Others most likely want to draw out the NW again, and they would not only have made the wildlings at Hardhome their wights but also the entire contingent of men Jon intended to send to Hardhome - and that, in turn, would have weakened the men protecting the Wall even further. Everything would have played right into the hands of the Others.

The march to Winterfell - if it had taken place - could easily enough have driven a wedge between the Northmen and the Watch. The Northmen don't want wildlings in their lands, and Jon leading an army of unwashed savages down to Winterfell, living off their lands, could easily enough have united the North under Bolton rule (assuming Stannis did already win at Winterfell).

In addition, this open treason would certainly be reach the Iron Throne, possibly resulting in the Iron Throne declaring the entire Watch traitors, effectively disbanding it. Sure, King Tommen doesn't have a lot of power in the North right now but the Iron Throne deciding not to send any support in food and men to the Wall should have devastating effects in winter, even without the Others.

The Tyrells stand still with Tommen and if the Vale remains in the fold, too, then the Wall can essentially not expect get any support from the Seven Kingdoms. That would mean that all the men at the Wall will slowly starve to death, basically, most likely long before the Others even attack. 

If Jon had had the sense to wait and see what confirmation he can get that the Pink Letter is actually true he wouldn't have been assassinated. And things had turned out reasonably well, perhaps. Although I still think the men going to Hardhome would have been all killed. This is a long march, and if the Others can control or influence the weather things would go very bad for them.

[Jasta11]

On 4/29/2017 at 5:26 AM, bent branch said:

To understand why Bowen Marsh did what he did, it is necessary to look back at several previous scenes in the story. The beginning of events leading up to Bowen Marsh stabbing Jon starts in Chapter 32 - ASOS:

 

-snipped for brevity's sake-

That is the heart of the issue. Marsh didn't stab Jon out of some principle of what the Watch should do or not or because he disapproved of his mission on moral grounds. It was politics. Bowen believes the Watch must have the support of the ruling authorities, first the IT and now the Boltons. Jon threatens this first by being chosen instead of the IT's patsy, and second by openly defying the Boltons. Marsh then acts so that the Watch stays with the winning side. He doesn't give a fuck about the Watch's neutrality, which is impossible to maintain at this point anyway. He chooses to side with the IT rather than with Jon and the Wildlings.

I'm not sure how he and his conspirators expect to survive. Perhaps they simply don't. The Wildlings are numerous enough to be able to kill everyone else in Castle Black now that the one dude that champions their cause gets cowardly stabbed, assuming Wun Wun doesn't turn the conspirators into paste first.

I think Marsh acted in panic, which is why his plan isn't very well thought out. But to him, it's the last resort, so it makes sense that his ideas weren't very elaborate.

[Lord Varys]

As to the question of the survival of the conspirators:

This is a tough call. Keep in mind that the Watch controls the wildling hostages. If Marsh is smart then men of his are in charge of them right now, prepared to butcher them all should the wildlings at Castle Black make trouble.

In addition, Jon already has sent some of them away to the other castles. If Marsh also can prevent the news from spreading he can first deal with the men at Castle Black and then any of Jon's buddies in the other castles. And he could twist the story to his end, spreading a tale that the wildlings betrayed and murdered Jon, ensuring that Jon's friends actually end up supporting him.

It is also not clear what Marsh is intending to do with the wildlings. Will he try to butcher them all? I don't think so. He might intend to reach some sort of agreement with Tormund. Keep in mind that the wildlings are mostly starving refugees while the Watch are all men who are trained and expected to fight. We can be pretty sure that most of the men at Castle Black will stand with Marsh, and if they act quickly they could certainly keep the upper hand. They would control the weaponry, and it is not all that likely that the wildlings were allowed to keep all their weapons while they are in CB.

I think Marsh will stay in charge as long as people continue to believe that Stannis is dead. Once real good news from Winterfell arrive things will change, they is likely to be another coup of some sort and the Watch will remove Marsh to ensure that a victorious Stannis does not butcher them all.

[The Fattest Leech]

Wow. Such personal fan fiction disguised as fact in this thread.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wow. Such personal fan fiction disguised as fact in this thread.

Right? 

@bent branch, great post!

@Lord Varys, stating that Marsh or someone loyal to him controls the wildlings' hostages is a huge assumption. But even if it turns out to be true, and even if all nightswatchmen at CB are loyal to Marsh, that doesn't mean much. After all, it's less than 400 men against +1,000 wildlings. 

 

[The Commentator]

The wildlings at the wall aren't interested in revenge.  They're interested in saving Mance Rayder from Ramsay.  Bowen should be fine as long as he doesn't stand at the gate to block them.  I say let them ride out.