Bowen Marsh is an idiot (Spoilers)

[Jasta11]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This all assumes that Marsh planned his coup way ahead. Given the hurried circumstances in which they happen, I think that's doubtful at best. It is not indicated that Marsh-loyal men control the hostages, and indeed if Jon has a minimum of judgment (which he has even if he does make mistakes) the guys in charge of this are loyal to him in fact.

One also has to remember that Jon still enjoyed the loyalty of a fair portion of the Watchmen, who will be most displeased when their Lord Commander gets shanked regardless of whenever he deserved it or not. I suspect a lot of that is because there were other survivors from the Fist of the First Men, they have seen the Wights and know the Others are the real enemy. 

Preventing news from spreading about a giant commotion at Castle Black and the Lord Commander getting shanked? On top of all the troubles that will ensue afterwards? Also seems like a pretty monumental task for a group of people who are currently in a big, potentially hostile crowd which includes a pissed off giant.

An agreement with Tormund also seems pretty much impossible to me. Jon was the one Crow he had a measure of respect for, and Marsh stabbed the fuck outta him. I'd count Bowen lucky if Tormund doesn't attempt to rip his head off with his bare (bear?) hands as soon as he can. 

Selyse will also at best stay neutral in this affair, and at worst for Marsh her knights will side against the guy who needs to ship her off to the Boltons in order to placate them. They will surely defend her if Marsh presses the issue.

I see little ways for Marsh and his conspirators to survive this, unless the coup is very well planned and he enjoys a very significant support among the Watchmen, both of which are unlikely to me.

[Amris]

 

[Lord Varys]

51 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 

@Lord Varys, stating that Marsh or someone loyal to him controls the wildlings' hostages is a huge assumption.

I don't think. It will be Watchmen, and most of the rank-and-file Watchmen present at CB should be Marsh's men or inclined to support his policies. They would certainly not be wildling lovers and have no problem in handing them over to Marsh.

Quote

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. 

If you throw the first stone you might deal a mortal blow if you hit hard enough. How many Freys and Boltons butchered the Northmen and Riverlanders at the Red Wedding? How much very they outnumbered by men loyal to Robb? It didn't matter, or did it?

If Marsh actually has a plan he could very well end on top of things. And even if he doesn't he could still kill a lot of wildlings before he and his men are killed. Marsh knew what he was doing in advance.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

This all assumes that Marsh planned his coup way ahead. Given the hurried circumstances in which they happen, I think that's doubtful at best. It is not indicated that Marsh-loyal men control the hostages, and indeed if Jon has a minimum of judgment (which he has even if he does make mistakes) the guys in charge of this are loyal to him in fact.

There are hints that Marsh was sowing dissent as early as Melisandre's chapter. Mance tells us that Marsh got angry when he saw he talking with some people in the common hall. Jon deciding no longer to eat with his men ended up biting in the ass.

Who do you think is still loyal to Jon, truly? He sent all his good men away. Emmett, Edd, Pyp and Grenn (who certainly wouldn't have helped kill him), etc. I'm not saying Jon gave Marsh's goons charge of the hostages, but Marsh could easily enough have ensured that his men ended up guarding them anyway. Or he might have sent out men to ensure that his men secure them while he was preparing to gut Jon. When he left the Shieldhall.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

One also has to remember that Jon still enjoyed the loyalty of a fair portion of the Watchmen, who will be most displeased when their Lord Commander gets shanked regardless of whenever he deserved it or not. I suspect a lot of that is because there were other survivors from the Fist of the First Men, they have seen the Wights and know the Others are the real enemy. 

Who would that be? And are those men truly all wildling lovers like Jon is? I don't think so. The Watchmen are mostly old men set in their ways, and former criminals besides. They are not idealistic people. Some of them are pretty decent lads but even those are not likely approve of Jon's march to Winterfell. No Watchman should, in fact.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Preventing news from spreading about a giant commotion at Castle Black and the Lord Commander getting shanked? On top of all the troubles that will ensue afterwards? Also seems like a pretty monumental task for a group of people who are currently in a big, potentially hostile crowd which includes a pissed off giant.

We don't even know whether Wun Wun is in the shape or the right state of mind to care about Jon's death. The commotion caused by him could be used to spin the tale in a different way. Perhaps the giant killed the Lord Commander?

We don't know what kind of trouble ensues. And even if there is some trouble, Marsh is likely to control the rookery, and if he sends word to Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower for reinforcements they will come.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

An agreement with Tormund also seems pretty much impossible to me. Jon was the one Crow he had a measure of respect for, and Marsh stabbed the fuck outta him. I'd count Bowen lucky if Tormund doesn't attempt to rip his head off with his bare (bear?) hands as soon as he can. 

Tormund isn't that strong. But who do you think Tormund cares more for? A dead crow, or his family and children. The choice shouldn't that hard. Winter has come, after all.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Selyse will also at best stay neutral in this affair, and at worst for Marsh her knights will side against the guy who needs to ship her off to the Boltons in order to placate them. They will surely defend her if Marsh presses the issue.

Selyse doesn't have any men left. There are a handful of servants and men-at-arms for Melisandre (the men Stannis left behind) and whatever retinue Selyse brought with her from Eastwatch. Those could perhaps be a few dozen, not more. Marsh could effectively ignore the entire group or seize them to prevent them from running away. He is likely going to intend to hand them over to Ramsay, as the Pink Letter demanded.

But trying to seize Melisandre could very well mean that he dies a horrible death, that's clear.

18 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

I see little ways for Marsh and his conspirators to survive this, unless the coup is very well planned and he enjoys a very significant support among the Watchmen, both of which are unlikely to me.

On what would you base the idea that Marsh isn't going to enjoy a lot of support after the fact? The man actually knows the men at Castle Black. He lived there for decades. People don't have to like the assassination in principle to approve of Marsh's new policies.

[Praetor Xyn]

Marsh did what he did for political reasons. He's a coward in fear of the Iron Throne and the Boltons, not a hero trying to save the Night's Watch. He's an idiot because he actually believes either of those entities will do anything to help the watch or protect it or his conspirators simply because he did what they wanted. 

[Jasta11]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think. It will be Watchmen, and most of the rank-and-file Watchmen present at CB should be Marsh's men or inclined to support his policies. They would certainly not be wildling lovers and have no problem in handing them over to Marsh.

If you throw the first stone you might deal a mortal blow if you hit hard enough. How many Freys and Boltons butchered the Northmen and Riverlanders at the Red Wedding? How much very they outnumbered by men loyal to Robb? It didn't matter, or did it?

If Marsh actually has a plan he could very well end on top of things. And even if he doesn't he could still kill a lot of wildlings before he and his men are killed. Marsh knew what he was doing in advance.

There are hints that Marsh was sowing dissent as early as Melisandre's chapter. Mance tells us that Marsh got angry when he saw he talking with some people in the common hall. Jon deciding no longer to eat with his men ended up biting in the ass.

Who do you think is still loyal to Jon, truly? He sent all his good men away. Emmett, Edd, Pyp and Grenn (who certainly wouldn't have helped kill him), etc. I'm not saying Jon gave Marsh's goons charge of the hostages, but Marsh could easily enough have ensured that his men ended up guarding them anyway. Or he might have sent out men to ensure that his men secure them while he was preparing to gut Jon. When he left the Shieldhall.

Who would that be? And are those men truly all wildling lovers like Jon is? I don't think so. The Watchmen are mostly old men set in their ways, and former criminals besides. They are not idealistic people. Some of them are pretty decent lads but even those are not likely approve of Jon's march to Winterfell. No Watchman should, in fact.

We don't even know whether Wun Wun is in the shape or the right state of mind to care about Jon's death. The commotion caused by him could be used to spin the tale in a different way. Perhaps the giant killed the Lord Commander?

We don't know what kind of trouble ensues. And even if there is some trouble, Marsh is likely to control the rookery, and if he sends word to Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower for reinforcements they will come.

Tormund isn't that strong. But who do you think Tormund cares more for? A dead crow, or his family and children. The choice shouldn't that hard. Winter has come, after all.

Selyse doesn't have any men left. There are a handful of servants and men-at-arms for Melisandre (the men Stannis left behind) and whatever retinue Selyse brought with her from Eastwatch. Those could perhaps be a few dozen, not more. Marsh could effectively ignore the entire group or seize them to prevent them from running away. He is likely going to intend to hand them over to Ramsay, as the Pink Letter demanded.

But trying to seize Melisandre could very well mean that he dies a horrible death, that's clear.

On what would you base the idea that Marsh isn't going to enjoy a lot of support after the fact? The man actually knows the men at Castle Black. He lived there for decades. People don't have to like the assassination in principle to approve of Marsh's new policies.

A lot of your positions hinge on the fact that the Watch will support the guy who just shanked the Lord Commander, which I can't see happening regardless of Jon's faults. Maybe he wasn't very popular, but he wasn't so unpopular that there was open dissent within the rank and file that I remember. If Marsh enjoyed such broad support, why didn't he confront and remove Jon from power (avoiding much potential chaos in the process) rather than go through the highly risky plan of having him and a few friends shank the guy in a crowd next to a raging giant? This image doesn't reconcile with the idea that this was a highly organized coup to me. Marsh is not Littlefinger, he's a glorified copper counter who hastily decided to take matters into his own hands, not a master planner who has everything figured out before he unleashes his coup de grace.

Given that we have no hints that Marsh's men are in control of the hostages, it's also hard for me to assume the Wildlings will just stand down. Them behaving is a combination of the hostage and good will towards Jon. Marsh literally stabbed that goodwill to death, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wildings use the chaos to take back their hostage by force, or at least try. And if that happens, they can very easily overwhelm Castle Black with their superior numbers. 

There aren't many named characters loyal to Jon, but that doesn't mean the rank-and-file are disloyal or will side with Marsh immediately. They dislike the Wildlings for sure, but again some will be survivors of the Fist and know there's bigger threats out there, that's partly why they voted for Jon in the first place. They may not be the realm's best and brightest, but there's clearly some respect for authority left in the Watch. Shanking the Lord Commander will trigger a response, and possibly a mini civil war within the Watch as outlying outposts inevitably hear the news.

And from a Doylist viewpoint, there's very little chances that Marsh's plan succeeds. For the purposes of the story, Jon is the main character at the Wall. He's not going to stay dead, if only because leaving only Mel as a point of view at the crucial location of the Wall is not going to happen for a very long time. At best Marsh gets some very shaky control over Castle Black, then Jon gets rezzed and all hell breaks loose for him. But I doubt the conspirators even survive that long.

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

A lot of your positions hinge on the fact that the Watch will support the guy who just shanked the Lord Commander, which I can't see happening regardless of Jon's faults. Maybe he wasn't very popular, but he wasn't so unpopular that there was open dissent within the rank and file that I remember. 

Jon certainly was pretty popular when he was elected Lord Commander. But it was far from a complete victory. He had enemies, and those did not go away thereafter. When Jon executed Slynt open hostilities nearly broke out, and it is completely unclear whether Jon could have counted on a lot of support in that scenario. From Stannis, perhaps, but not from the Watch.

But afterwards Jon changed the policy to a wildling-friendly approach. And the overwhelming majority of the Watch simply isn't on board with that kind of thing. It is not just Marsh and the other officers. They represent a thinking in the NW, especially among the veterans who saw the wildlings kill a lot of their brothers, especially quite recently at the Bridge of Skulls (but also in CB when the Thenns attacked).

Just because a lot of Watchmen understand the dangers the Others pose doesn't mean they also have to believe that the wildlings are their friends.

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

If Marsh enjoyed such broad support, why didn't he confront and remove Jon from power (avoiding much potential chaos in the process) rather than go through the highly risky plan of having him and a few friends shank the guy in a crowd next to a raging giant?

Why did Brutus and the Roman Senate not openly confront Caesar? Because that was risky business. Besides, nothing indicates that the NW has a right to remove or depose a Lord Commander. That guy is elected for life as far as we know.

And we don't know how many men gutted Jon. Could have been just a handful. Could also be a dozen or more.

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

This image doesn't reconcile with the idea that this was a highly organized coup to me. Marsh is not Littlefinger, he's a glorified copper counter who hastily decided to take matters into his own hands, not a master planner who has everything figured out before he unleashes his coup de grace.

Marsh isn't the kind of guy who would hastily murder his Lord Commander. He isn't the king of guy who acts rashly precisely because he isn't exactly a very brave or bold man.

If Marsh hadn't have a plan he wouldn't have killed Jon after the Shieldhall. He would have been dumbstruck by the whole thing and only have come up with something when Jon was halfway down to Winterfell with his army. The idea that Marsh just followed Jon and then decided to try to kill him with a few goons when an opportunity presented itself isn't all that likely, especially not in light of Ghost's behavior earlier on. The wolf felt something, and since he most likely cannot see the future he must have sensed some evil intentions.

I'm also not sure Marsh actually dislikes Jon all that much. He doesn't like his policies, but is he the man who actually loathes Jon and his policies the most or is he just the guy who ended up in charge of this anti-Jon movement who eventually agreed that he had to go if would cross a final line (like unleashing the wildlings on the Realm, or actually leading them to war in the North)? We don't know, as of yet. The fact that he is weeping when he kills Jon strongly suggests that he didn't want to do it.

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Given that we have no hints that Marsh's men are in control of the hostages, it's also hard for me to assume the Wildlings will just stand down. Them behaving is a combination of the hostage and good will towards Jon. Marsh literally stabbed that goodwill to death, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wildings use the chaos to take back their hostage by force, or at least try. And if that happens, they can very easily overwhelm Castle Black with their superior numbers. 

They can also just take their stuff and leave. That's what I would do. Fuck the Night's Watch. Fuck them all. Jon is dead, so they are not bound to anyone anymore, and can go down to someplace warm and let the Wall defend itself.

I'm pretty sure a large portion of them is just that. Tormund most likely not, but Tormund fancies himself to be bigger and more important than he actually is.

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

There aren't many named characters loyal to Jon, but that doesn't mean the rank-and-file are disloyal or will side with Marsh immediately. They dislike the Wildlings for sure, but again some will be survivors of the Fist and know there's bigger threats out there, that's partly why they voted for Jon in the first place. They may not be the realm's best and brightest, but there's clearly some respect for authority left in the Watch. Shanking the Lord Commander will trigger a response, and possibly a mini civil war within the Watch as outlying outposts inevitably hear the news.

Keep in mind that Jon had the support of both Mallister and Pyke back during the election. They are not here right now, and neither are the men from those castles. Only very few men from the Fist returned alive, and while people believe in those stories they must not necessarily believe the wildlings are helping them in the fight against the Others. Marsh's stewards knew everything about their winter provisions and the idea that the scum the Watchmen basically are is approving of them sharing their food with the wildlings is very unlikely. This is a matter of life and death for these people.

I'm not saying there won't be any violence, but the idea that the wildlings are able to mount a united coordinated response or that everybody will know what happened just because we do isn't very likely. It goes against the way this story is written. Controlling of information and the spreading of rumors is a crucial element of warfare (as Ramsay proved with the Pink Letter), and that is also going to figure into the aftermath of Jon's murder.

The idea that he will return before this thing is settled also makes little sense to me. Melisandre and Borroq will have better things to do to spend time with a corpse or search for/hang out with Ghost. Jon's resurrection is only going to take place after Marsh and his people are dealt with, perhaps only after Stannis' return to the Wall (assuming he comes back).

33 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

And from a Doylist viewpoint, there's very little chances that Marsh's plan succeeds. For the purposes of the story, Jon is the main character at the Wall. He's not going to stay dead, if only because leaving only Mel as a point of view at the crucial location of the Wall is not going to happen for a very long time. At best Marsh gets some very shaky control over Castle Black, then Jon gets rezzed and all hell breaks loose for him. But I doubt the conspirators even survive that long.

We have Cersei as the only POV in KL right now, also not exactly a great way to tell the story of Mace Tyrell being in charge or what's happening in the Great Sept. But that's how it is. Melisandre will do just fine, and might cover much more interesting scenes than Jon ever could.

Quite frankly, Jon's chapters in ADwD were boring as hell. That is a tendency for the ruler POVs in the books, though. Cersei and Dany also have little insight what went on at their respective courts.

I'm also not sure that Jon has to come back with a thirst for vengeance. It might even be that he understands that he has made a mistake. He took Ramsay's bait and if it turns out that the whole thing was a lie and Stannis actually won he might even realize that Marsh saved his live (and the Watch/Wall) by killing him.

[BricksAndSparrows]

I'm going to get hell for this.. But near the end, Jon's reaction to his senior officer's started to remind me of Cersei.

 

[Victor Newman]

4 hours ago, Praetor Xyn said:

Marsh did what he did for political reasons. He's a coward in fear of the Iron Throne and the Boltons, not a hero trying to save the Night's Watch. He's an idiot because he actually believes either of those entities will do anything to help the watch or protect it or his conspirators simply because he did what they wanted. 

It's plain to me that Marsh didn't want to execute his lord commander.  He did it because he had no choice.  Jon gave him no choice.  What Jon did and what he was about to do is a gross violation of the purpose of the Watch.  Marsh was bound by duty, honor, law, and decency to stop Jon any way he can.  Any man of the nightwatch would have tried to stop Jon.  Even loyal men like his friends would have tried to stop him from carrying out the Arya Rescue Mission.  It was not only a gross violation of the nightwatch oaths but a travesty to justice.  Your commander pardons the most famous NW traitor that ever lived so he can rescue his sister from her husband.  That's Jon putting his personal concerns ahead of the needs of the nightwatch and Westeros.  Bowen may die for doing the right thing but it's a price he was willing to pay.  I would go so far as to say Jon's friends, even Edd Tollett would have done the same.  How do you think Quorin Halfhand would respond after the Shield Hall revelations?  Quorin would do what Bowen did.  Mormont would do what Bowen did.  That's how wrong Jon was.  He had no excuse he saw in the first chapter of the first book what happened to those break their oaths to the watch.  Poor Gared lost his head and he wasn't even a ranking officer of the watch.  Jon executes Janos for breaking rules.  Jon then revealed in public that he was breaking more rules than Janos.  You bet any man of the watch would gut him.  It's not about Bowen Marsh.  Any man would have done the same.  It's not Marsh playing politics.  It's Marsh doing what he can to stop a more powerful person from compounding the wrongs he did.

[Victor Newman]

1 hour ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

I'm going to get hell for this.. But near the end, Jon's reaction to his senior officer's started to remind me of Cersei.

 

Sure.  He treated them with complete disregard.  He didn't value their advice and it showed. 

[Praetor Xyn]

25 minutes ago, Take Me 2 Your Leader said:

It's plain to me that Marsh didn't want to execute his lord commander.  He did it because he had no choice.  Jon gave him no choice.  What Jon did and what he was about to do is a gross violation of the purpose of the Watch.  Marsh was bound by duty, honor, law, and decency to stop Jon any way he can.  Any man of the nightwatch would have tried to stop Jon.  Even loyal men like his friends would have tried to stop him from carrying out the Arya Rescue Mission.  It was not only a gross violation of the nightwatch oaths but a travesty to justice.  Your commander pardons the most famous NW traitor that ever lived so he can rescue his sister from her husband.  That's Jon putting his personal concerns ahead of the needs of the nightwatch and Westeros.  Bowen may die for doing the right thing but it's a price he was willing to pay.  I would go so far as to say Jon's friends, even Edd Tollett would have done the same.  How do you think Quorin Halfhand would respond after the Shield Hall revelations?  Quorin would do what Bowen did.  Mormont would do what Bowen did.  That's how wrong Jon was.  He had no excuse he saw in the first chapter of the first book what happened to those break their oaths to the watch.  Poor Gared lost his head and he wasn't even a ranking officer of the watch.  Jon executes Janos for breaking rules.  Jon then revealed in public that he was breaking more rules than Janos.  You bet any man of the watch would gut him.  It's not about Bowen Marsh.  Any man would have done the same.  It's not Marsh playing politics.  It's Marsh doing what he can to stop a more powerful person from compounding the wrongs he did.

See the textual evidence in the post by @bent branch on the first page. This was in motion long before Jon did anything you are describing.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

I'm going to get hell for this.. But near the end, Jon's reaction to his senior officer's started to remind me of Cersei.

You mean the 'now I no longer need them' part?

I never thought about that, but the parallel is sort of there. Cersei thinks about her council in the same way.

But Jon certainly isn't as self-involved as Cersei. However, both would have been well-advised to actually name men they could trust, real allies, to high office. They both paid a price for that mistake. 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

3 hours ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

I'm going to get hell for this.. But near the end, Jon's reaction to his senior officer's started to remind me of Cersei.

 

1

He kinda does, but the real comparison here is with Dany. Dany gave up to the Meereenese in order to protect her people and she ended up very discontent with the result. She also failed at achieving what she wanted and ended up lost in the desert.

Jon, OTOH, is doing things on his own but he also failed and ended up semi-dead.

I guess the point here is that Martin wants to prove that there is not a right way to rule and you will fail if you aren't truthful to your own ideals.

 

[teej6]

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.

To assume that someone should be convinced by the limited and rudimentary arguments (including yours) on this thread on the morality of Jon’s actions is downright ludicrous. The poster (Snow is the Man) you were responding to, IMO, made valid arguments by pointing that Marsh was a short-sighted, narrow minded individual who constantly sang the same song. And Marsh was not motivated in his actions by altruism, or the greater good, or even in the interests of the Watch. Instead, he was motivated by self-preservation, and his narrow world views and limited understanding. He was betting on the Crown and the Boltons winning against Stannis and thought he was picking the winning side. This was a man who supported someone like Janos Slynt for LC all because he thought Tywin backed Slynt. Such a man’s judgment and intelligence is far from sound, and it most certainly is not for the greater good of the Watch.

As to Jon being a criminal, it’s your views that appear to be biased and more fan fiction than based on sound reading of the text. Jon made the mistake of sending men he could rely on trust for good counsel away and expected the likes of Marsh, Othell and Septon Cellador to understand his decisions. Jon’s decision to send Mance after FArya was based on incomplete information – he was not sending Mance to Winterfell but to intercept FArya who Mel said was already half way to the Wall. Also, after the Pink Letter, Jon’s options were limited. If he stayed and waited for Ramsay to show up, he and his men were sitting ducks. If you’ve read the books, you’ll know that the Watch is indefensible from the South. Further, he did not have FArya or Reek to hand to Ramsay and GRRM didn’t write the character of Jon as someone who would simply hand over and innocent woman and her child to the hands of a madman. So since you seem to be so certain of Jon’s actions being criminal, please enlighten us on what were Jon’s many options after he received the pink letter.  

“The watch is subservient to the throne and also slightly subservient to Winterfell/The lord paramount of the North.” This statement of yours is complete BS. Neither is the Watch subservient to the Crown or Winterfell. If you stated that the Watch depended on resources from the Crown and WF, you may have had an argument. The independence of the Watch is central to it’s existence.  You can argue that Jon (who btw really had no choice), by giving his tacit support to Stannis, was contravening the spirit of his NW’s vows, but to state that “the Watch is subservient to the throne” is factually incorrect. 

[teej6]

17 hours ago, Protagoras said:

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. 

No, it is you who is wrong and making factually incorrect statements. In your previous post you said that the Watch is "subservient" to the Crown and now you state that the Watch is "responsible" to the Crown. The two words aren't synonyms you know. As for the rest of your post, it's very confusing to understand. In some places you state that the Watch should not take part in the affairs of the realm and in other places you state that they have to be "responsible" to the Crown. Which is it? And what do you mean by "when various LC’s went to war against each other"? Unless you are reading something other than ASOIAF, to my knowledge none of the LCs of the NW went to war against each other. As for Artos Stark, he was the brother of the Lord of WF, William Stark, who went to war against the King-beyond-the-Wall and not the Watch. Artos Stark had the NW men bury the dead after the battle as they arrived late after the battle was over. His action says nothing about the Watch being "subservient" to WF. 

As to the Lannister rule in KL, Tywin and Cersei after him, are the ones taking matters into their own hands and interfering with the Watch's governance. Aemon and Sam had Jon sign the letter to Tommen because the Lannisters (who started meddling in the Watch's affairs as never done or seen before) were sitting the IT and Jon had provided Stannis' sanctuary, which went against the NW's vows and stated purpose.  IIRC, it is never stated that any of the Targ kings, and most certainly not Robert Baratheon, interfered in the Watch's affairs. As you may know a man's past is wiped clean and he's beyond the reach of Westerosi justice (which even includes the Crown) once he's taken his NW vows. By extension, this means that the Crown or any other Lord paramount has no jurisdiction over the Watch and its governance.

[teej6]

On 5/2/2017 at 0:09 AM, 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".

Couldn't have stated it better.  

[teej6]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

With regards to the bolded part, what individual NW men feel or believe does not change the fact that the NW is not "subservient" or "responsible" to the Crown as another poster argued. C'mmn LV, you can't support that argument. You pointed to the Tyrion example. LC Mormont in trying to influence Tyrion is trying to convince Tyrion to talk Robert into sending more men and resources to the NW, nothing else beyond that is implied.

As for the rest of your argument, I agree that the Hardhome mission might have turned into a complete failure. But the rest of Jon's actions, in light of all the facts we know, cannot be judged morally incorrect or even to be against the spirit of his NW vows.  True, Jon acted impulsively after he received the pink letter, but I'd say we do not have the full picture or facts to decide what the full outcome of his action will be. Also, considering the chaos in KL, the Tyrells are not going to give a fig about the NW. They have bigger issues to deal with. And why would the Vale care about any dispute between KL and the Watch -- the same Vale that stayed out of the war all this time. And besides, now we have Sansa playing at being mistress in the Vale, who even knows that Jon is LC of the NW.  No one in KL, not Tommen or Cersei (if she takes back the reign that is) is in a position to threaten the Watch. The best they can do is keep resources from the Watch. But considering the impending doom to Westeros, which is the big picture according to the writer himself, I doubt that Cersei being angry at the Watch is going to amount to much in the overall scheme of things. 

[teej6]

15 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

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.

Completely agree with the bolded part. Marsh is a toady who likes taking orders from the likes of Slynt and Thorne. And you are absolutely right in stating that Marsh and company acted in haste and panicked afterwards. Marsh and his cronies may have discussed their dislike for Jon before amongst themselves but the act of stabbing Jon was rushed and not thought out, which is implied in Wick's reaction. 

[teej6]

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

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

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

With regards to the bolded part, what individual NW men feel or believe does not change the fact that the NW is not "subservient" or "responsible" to the Crown as another poster argued. C'mmn LV, you can't support that argument. You pointed to the Tyrion example. LC Mormont in trying to influence Tyrion is trying to convince Tyrion to talk Robert into sending more men and resources to the NW, nothing else beyond that is implied.

There is also a King's Tower at Castle Black, any king (or queen) visiting the Watch get what they want just as they do any other place in their Realm, regardless whether the Watch is all that keen to have them hang around there. There is no difference between Ser Raymun Darry - who had to welcome the hated Baratheon king in his castle - and the Watch in this regard. Or do you think Stannis and Selyse could behave the way they do if they were to visit Braavos, Volantis, or the Summer Islands? Don't kid yourself.

The law of the Realm ends at that Wall. The lands beyond the Wall are not subject to the Iron Throne. But the Watchmen live and breathe on the southern side of the Wall. They are subject to the Iron Throne like anybody else. And they know and accept that.

They have privileges others don't have and they have duties others do not have, but they are not an independent state. They are special kind of subjects - like lords and landed knights are different from peasants - but they are not independent.

As to Tyrion, there is a lot of other stuff implied, actually. Tyrion points out that he is the queen's brother when he is intimidating Ser Alliser Thorne, for instance. Cersei and Robert are thousands of leagues away and mentioning them should not impress Thorne at all if the Watch was truly a legal body of its own, independent of the Iron Throne. Thorne quite correctly thinks that if the brother of the queen demanded that he be made a servant forced to clean the stables or privies the Lord Commander might very well comply. Even more so if a letter of the queen or king arrived demanding such a thing.

If a Targaryen king or Robert had issued a decree disbanding the Night's Watch and seizing the Gifts in the name of the Iron Throne, granting those lands to newly ennobled knights and lords this would have happened. Just as a similar thing could have happened if a King in the North had done a similar thing before the Conquest (although I think this could have meant war with some of the other kingdoms who still believed that the Watch was important)-

6 hours ago, teej6 said:

No, it is you who is wrong and making factually incorrect statements. In your previous post you said that the Watch is "subservient" to the Crown and now you state that the Watch is "responsible" to the Crown. The two words aren't synonyms you know. As for the rest of your post, it's very confusing to understand. In some places you state that the Watch should not take part in the affairs of the realm and in other places you state that they have to be "responsible" to the Crown. Which is it? And what do you mean by "when various LC’s went to war against each other"? 

I suggest you reread AFfC. There is talk there about those corrupt and bad Lord Commanders who did stuff they were not supposed to. There were two commanders of castles at the Watch who went to war with each other, and they had to be stopped by other people. Just as the Night's King had, or Runcel Hightower, etc. 

The NW is an institution that was created by the realms of men to protect the realms of men. It is their united warrior-monk military force, if you will. And whoever rules the realms of men - now the united Realm the Targaryens created - also rules the Night's Watch. Its members are all subjects to the Iron Throne and it is the king's law that permits people (criminals included) to actually volunteer for the NW. 

In that sense it is also nonsense that the realms of men actually include the wildlings. That would only be the case if the wildlings also supported the NW - which they don't. I assume that some/many of them might also have sent men to serve there back shortly after the Wall was raised (just as giants apparently helped with raising the Wall) but today that's a thing of the past.

The idea that men protecting a wall which separates the realms of men from the lands from which the Others might one day come also have to protect men who are living in those lands of the Others is pretty far-fetched and weird if you ask me. One could say they should let refugees pass the Wall, but even Mance - who clearly intended to lead his people to safety - did not show up as a man seeking refuge. He came as a refugee disguised as a conqueror.

Quote

As to the Lannister rule in KL, Tywin and Cersei after him, are the ones taking matters into their own hands and interfering with the Watch's governance. Aemon and Sam had Jon sign the letter to Tommen because the Lannisters (who started meddling in the Watch's affairs as never done or seen before) were sitting the IT and Jon had provided Stannis' sanctuary, which went against the NW's vows and stated purpose.  IIRC, it is never stated that any of the Targ kings, and most certainly not Robert Baratheon, interfered in the Watch's affairs. As you may know a man's past is wiped clean and he's beyond the reach of Westerosi justice (which even includes the Crown) once he's taken his NW vows. By extension, this means that the Crown or any other Lord paramount has no jurisdiction over the Watch and its governance.

The Targaryens interfered a lot with the Watch. Alysanne convinced the NW to abandon the Nightfort and helped them build a new castle to replace it, Deep Lake. They also added the New Gift to their lands.

The kings and even the lords of the Realm also have sure as hell a right to interfere with the Watch if they do stuff they don't like. If the NW desert, they are beheaded (or killed in even crueler fashions), especially by the Northmen. If they forget their duties, and allow wildlings to pass or establish some sort of terror regime they are put back into place by their southerly neighbors.

There is a reason why the Watch has no defense on their southernly side. They are neutral, and should they break their neutrality they have ensured that the people of the Realm can attack and punish them for their crimes because they are supposed to fulfill a very specific duty and not interfere with the Realm.

Quote

As for the rest of your argument, I agree that the Hardhome mission might have turned into a complete failure. But the rest of Jon's actions, in light of all the facts we know, cannot be judged morally incorrect or even to be against the spirit of his NW vows.

Sometimes the moral thing to do is still not the right thing to do. If I'm the general of some military order made up mostly of former criminals and take in a lot of beggars and refugees and feed them from my own winter provisions, the food that was set aside to ensure that my men get through winter, then I do that at my own peril.

Quote

True, Jon acted impulsively after he received the pink letter, but I'd say we do not have the full picture or facts to decide what the full outcome of his action will be. 

Sure, but we can say that he was killed with exactly the same right - or actually with a better moral right - than Ned killed poor Gared. That man went insane over seeing the Others, and he may very well have tried to warn the Lord of Winterfell (who didn't believe him). Jon did break his vow when he declared he was leaving the NW and marching down to Winterfell against Ramsay. A Watchman has to live and die at his post. Jon abandoned his post and was subsequently killed. One could even say that he died a traitor and turncloak, not the Lord Commander. A man like Gared could also not say 'Well, I just went on a walk, I intended to go back to my post eventually'.

Quote

Also, considering the chaos in KL, the Tyrells are not going to give a fig about the NW. They have bigger issues to deal with. 

Sure, but the NW knows nothing about that. But since they are backing King Tommen now who has named Roose Bolton Warden of the North it is pretty likely that they would not look kindly on the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch conducting a war against said Warden of the North. That would be treason, and whoever remains loyal to King Tommen would be not exactly very inclined to support the NW in any way in the months and years to come.

The fact that a lot of people might defect from Tommen to Aegon or Euron in the weeks and months to come is irrelevant in this matter because neither Jon nor the people who killed had any way of knowing that.

Quote

And why would the Vale care about any dispute between KL and the Watch -- the same Vale that stayed out of the war all this time.

Sure they did. But supporting a man with food (and possibly other things) who is warring against the Warden of the North could be seen as treason, right? Men from the Watch trying to reach out to Littlefinger and Lord Robert might actually be seized and executed on sight. Even if they aren't - as long as King Tommen rules any such envoys should have a hard time in the Vale. Some lords might sell them stuff, but most likely at a much higher price to compensate them for the high risk they would be taking.

Quote

And besides, now we have Sansa playing at being mistress in the Vale, who even knows that Jon is LC of the NW. 

Nobody at the Watch knows that. Just as nobody in the Vale knows (officially) that Alayne Stone is Sansa Stark. From the point of view of a sane person knowing the stuff the people at the Watch know (pretty little) Jon's actions effectively condemn the Watch to death.

The Watch has to remain neutral. Even if the Lannister-Tyrell regime and their allies were to fall whoever ended up in charge of the Realm after them might decide to disband the Watch because of their treason. Eddard Stark wanted to execute Jaime because he broke his holy vow. Jon did the same thing when he left his post, threatening the realms of men with war. A good and honorable ruler - a Stark - would take his head for that even if he or she profited from his actions. Just as, you very well know, Robb would have been obliged to take Jon's head had he actually fled from his post at the end of AGoT, and reached him later on (just as Robb felt compelled to take Karstark's head). He had spoken the words, and the Northmen know no mercy if you break that vow.

Quote

No one in KL, not Tommen or Cersei (if she takes back the reign that is) is in a position to threaten the Watch. The best they can do is keep resources from the Watch. But considering the impending doom to Westeros, which is the big picture according to the writer himself, I doubt that Cersei being angry at the Watch is going to amount to much in the overall scheme of things. 

It doesn't matter that things aren't going to turn out that way. The Iron Throne is clearly not going to get around to disband the Watch. But if we assume the Others are not going to attack soon and if we ignore Aegon and Daenerys (about whom the people at the Wall know nothing at all) then it is quite reasonable to assume that the Lannister-Tyrell regime will eventually take control of the entire Realm, most likely even during the winter that has now come. And if they do that then the Watch would be done. And with it the realms of men because the Others are actually out there. Marsh knows that as well as Jon Snow.

Jon is acting like a egoistic boy and a madman, not like a man who has actually understood the duties that come with his position and office. He cares about things he should care no longer - about his sister, his Stark family, revenge against the Boltons, Freys, and Lannisters, even about Stannis and his family. Those people should all be nothing to him.

And this ridiculous excuse that he didn't send Mance to Winterfell is just nonsense. Mance himself tells us that he needs some women for the ruse is going to try. He already intends to sneak into Winterfell itself when he sets out. Note that Melisandre's visions actually are prone to depict THE FUTURE. The girl on the horse could very well be Arya after Mance and company helped her escape.

Even if Jon didn't actually give Mance specific commands what to do (which would be very hard to believe) he is still responsible for all Mance did because he sent the man on his way. Just as Tywin was responsible for the murder of Elia and her children because said murder was committed by his sworn men. A lord or ruler is responsible for the actions of his men. Jon can't wiggle out of that whole thing. He is accountable for Mance's actions, and Ramsay is actually in the right in the Pink Letter. Thus are the laws and customs of the feudal society of Westeros.

Edit: You can read the names about the treasonous commanders in the wiki. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint tried to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Lords Commander Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, and Robin Hill nearly destroyed the Watch when their forgot their vows in favor of pride and ambition. And Runcel Hightower tried to make the position of Lord Commander hereditary.

More often than not the realms of men actually had to deal with such men, putting the NW back to rights.

And the travesty of Lord Commander Osric Stark, a ten-year-old boy when he was 'elected' clearly shows the hand of the King of the North in the entire thing. Or do you think the brothers of the Watch all agreed on their own that a child of ten was the best leader the Watch had to offer? A boy that age shouldn't even have the right to join the NW because he would be too young to properly understand the vow he is speaking.

[The Fattest Leech]

 it just keeps flowing.