Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[Makk]

54 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I get the point.      A regular guy with a regular occupation can do as he/she pleases but a person in the position of LC of the Watch doesn't have that luxury.  It's not a 9-5 job where you clock in and out.  Complete dedication to the watch is required and Jon admits that to himself.  He would not tolerate any of his brothers putting family ahead of their duties.   The author really set it up to make Jon wrong.

I wouldn't say he set it up to make Jon wrong, I think the author set it up to make it morally ambiguous. He was constantly testing Jon's resolve to stick to his vows against his hero's instinct and doing what was actually right.

There is certainly a hypocrisy associated with Jon's words and actions. He tells the nightswatch they have to make peace with the wildlings, including those like the Weeper, while he not only never tries to make peace with the Boltons, he actively moves against them by assisting Stanis by providing him with knowledge of troops and treachery.

But ultimately it is the right thing to do. The Boltons and Cersei will never be able to protect the realm against the Others, and they will never unite it. The nightswatch does not require complete dedication to their own ancient and archaic ways. Doing so and the realm will get overrun. It requires a united and supportive front of humanity, a completely different approach to the way they have been going.

You could argue that Bowan Marsh does adhere to the rules of the Nightswatch more than Jon inspite of assassinating his lord commander. From his perspective and the laws it is somewhat justified. But it isn't the right action. His path would lead to the realm being overrun by their true enemy.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

2 hours ago, E.S. Dinah said:

How would Ser Alliser react to Jon's intent to attack Winterfell?

He'd probably be of two minds. He'd be fine with Jon going off, having brought this on himself to a degree, and thus saving the rest of the men at Castle Black from the crazy Bolton kid who has a bone to pick and doesn't care much who he picks it with. He'd also probably relish the thought of getting rid of Jon permanently. But he'd be angry about some arrogant lordling have the gall to threaten the Lord Commander, even one he doesn't like.

He would not likely be all right with murdering the LC under any circumstances. There is no historical precedent for it. The only LsC whose removal from office we know was violent were Night's King (not taken out by his own men, maybe not even killed) and Mormont (killed via mutiny). One of those is without any similar instance in the history of the organization and the other is just straight-up wrong. Thorne is a jerk but he's a jerk who follows the rules.  

[HallowedMarcus]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb and the people following him were traitors against the Iron Throne

   Robb might have been a traitor to King Stannis Baratheon that by law was Robert's legitimate heir. Catelyn Stark was told by Jaime Lannister himself that he flung Brandon from the window, Robb, therefore, knew that Joffrey was illegitimate and could not by right rule from the Iron Throne. By his point of view Cersei, Jaime and the children of theirs were the traitors.

   Don't forget the war, all the killings, all the suffering and all devastation in Westeros that started after the war began happened for one reason, to wit, Cersei Lannister opened her legs to her brother and not to her husband!  She aborted Robert's child! I believe that many people forget that. Do not forget the truth, if Cersei did her duty as wife and Queen there would be no war.

   Now you believe that a person, now Lord of Winterfell, knowing his brother was crippled for discovering the incestuous state of the two Lannisters, that his father was arrested because he did not want a filthy incestuous teen bastards (Joffrey) to take over, illegitimately, the Iron Throne should bow to 'King Joffrey' ? This is madness.

   Jon Snow knew that tens of thousands of wildlings would join the Others dead army. He knew the Lords would not believe about the Others return, that the war would make it even more difficult to get new people for the watch, so he accepted the Wildlings to increase its defense. 

   Bowen Marsh indeed had the right to get rid of Jon as Lord Commander after he decided to take Wildlings and people of the Night's Watch to fight against the Boltons. He cannot interfere in Westeros affairs! When Jon did that he indeed unquestionable broke his vow. 

[cpg2016]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not just speaking about resources like food and clothing the Watch actually receives as gifts from the lords and people of the Realm (we know they do get this stuff, especially from the Northmen) but also about the men that are sent to the Watch. The lords are under no obligation to send men to the Watch, to allow the wandering crows to recruit men, or to do anything to support the Watch. If they wanted it gone they could kill it in a generation simply by making it illegal for a man to volunteer as a black brother. Or by ending the practice that a criminal had the right to join the NW.

And I am saying that legally speaking, this isn't true.  First off, the Starks or any other Northern lord cannot "make it illegal" for a man to join the Watch as long tradition holds that is their right (the same as it is only longstanding tradition and not part of their oaths that prevents the NW from intervening to the South).  And in a feudal society, those kinds of rights and privileges often assume the force of law.  Secondly, they cannot stop men from other lands from joining the NW.  Again, I ask you to point out where it is illegal for the NW to go south; it isn't.  They aren't supposed to, because the NW was designed for other purposes, but if their mission drives them south (to defend the realms of men) that is technically within their legal purview.

But in theory, at least, the NW is a self-sustaining institution due to the Gift and New Gift.  This hasn't occurred in practice, but from a legal standpoint, the NW is completely independent from the lords of the Seven Kingdoms and always has been

Quote

All we know for sure is that Marsh was talking to people. 

In other words, fomenting a conspiracy.  Talking to people about what a bad job your commander is doing, and how he needs to be removed from power, is not "talking to people".  It's plotting a treasonous mutiny, plain and simple.  It just isn't logical to believe that in the 15 minutes between Jon's speech and his murder, Bowen Marsh just happened to stumble upon a half dozen or so people willing to assassinate their Lord Commander.

Quote

We don't know that. We still don't know why exactly they killed him then and there. We can only speculate. I'd say the reason was not that he let the wildlings through the Wall but that he intended to lead a wildling army against Winterfell.

We can make a very educated assumption based on the text.  I would argue that Bowen Marsh is conspiring to remove Jon from power, almost certainly by killing him, from the moment he allows the wildlings through the wall.  I'll admit, this likely would have been him taking the time to oust him in some other way, hold a trial, and then execute him, rather than outright assassination.  But still, that was almost certainly his plan and almost certainly his motivation, because I believe he is genuinely acting out of what he believes is the best interest of the Watch, even if he only thinks so because he's a small minded bigot.  He moves against Jon because Jon is about to leave his clutches in the company of a ton of wildling warriors, essentially rendering his plot meaningless; he needs to be able to expel the wildlings post-coup if it's to matter.  This is a direct parallel to the assassination of Julius Caesar, mind you, in both motivation (undermining the traditions of an institution) and timing (prior to a major military campaign).

Quote

Perhaps they intended to just hope Jon would die on the Hardhome mission or they intended to stage a coup in his absence and bar the Wall against him? That would have been much easier and much less risky.

Perhaps.  But remember, Bowen Marsh has to have Jon tried and attainted, since he is the legal Lord Commander.  And Jon has enough loyalists south of the Wall that it isn't feasible to keep him out indefinitely; he needs everyone to agree Jon was legally deposed in order to keep the already weakened NW from fatally shattering.

Quote

 

We don't know how much support Jon actually has. Most of the rangers are dead. And Bowen has been the Lord Steward for a very long time. He led the men against the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls and lost many good men there to the wildlings. He should have most, if not all of the stewards in Castle Black, and quite a few builders as well. And combined those orders should make up 80-90% of the black brothers at Castle Black.

Jon doesn't have a real power base of his own. And he does indeed send most of the men he can trust, men who are also pretty popular and influential among the brothers away to the castles he reopens. That leaves him very vulnerable.

 

Uh, we sort of do.  Much more so than Mr. Marsh.  Aside from the half dozen or so named brothers (about as many as we know support Bowen Marsh), we know there are hundreds of wildling warriors whose kids' lives are forfeit, in addition to their own, if Jon is ousted.  That is why I suspect Marsh has been in touch with Qyburn (with no evidence, mind you); he's been waiting for those 100 men Cersei is sending so he has the muscle to make his coup stick.  That, plus his support in the Watch, plus latent prejudice against the wildlings should give him enough men to make his mutiny a success.

Quote

There is some truth to that, and Bowen Marsh even accepts that, grudgingly. But he is right to fear what the wildlings will do. Jon's decision to allow the Weeper to pass through the Wall is insane, and the idea to trust the wildlings is at least very risky. Many of the men and women might be willing to uphold the deal but most likely not all of them. And those who do not might simply decide to leave the Wall and go look for some place warm. That was what Mance promised them to get them on the road in the first place. There is a reason why he sang his son about the Dornishman's wife the entire time.

Yeah, see, this is where the small minded traditionalist bigots get sorted from good people.

The Others are omnicidal (as in, kill everything and everyone) ice demons who turn the things they kill into malevolent zombies.  By definition, even the Weeper is a massive improvement on them.  So far, the wildlings have repayed Jon's trust far more than his sworn brothers, because they understand the stakes.  And this isn't an issue of us a s readers having access to info the characters don't; Bowen Marsh knows this, and doesn't care.  He's staring at the face of the end of the world, and instead of preparing for it, he's burying his head in the sand and asking to go back to the good old days when he could safely demonize and slaughter some wildlings.  It should also be remembered that he isn't a ranger.  He doesn't have to put his life on the line beyond the Wall, and he knows nothing of wildling culture.  Without defending Jon's actions re: the Pink Letter, Bowen Marsh is a prime example of everything that is wrong with human bigotry, prejudice, and small mindedness.

Quote

He cannot interfere in Westeros affairs! When Jon did that he indeed unquestionable broke his vow.

Ahem... please quote me the part of his vow he broke.

[HallowedMarcus]

30 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Ahem... please quote me the part of his vow he broke.

   Upon making their vow for the Night's Watch they say  I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.

   He would have gone south of the Wall into North of Westeros to remove the Boltons from power in Winterfell. He has to die at his post. He cannot take any side on any Westeros war.

   Aemon Targaryen was Maester of the Night Watch. When Robert Baratheon defied the Mad King, Aerys II he did not leave the Night's Watch to join his family against him. When Prince Rhaegar was killed by Robert he stayed on the Watch. When Aerys II  and 2 of Rhaegar's sons were murdered and the rest Targaryens were exiled he did not leave the Night's Watch because they seek no glory wear no crowns; defend no crown, even when the King holding the Crown is his family (Aemon's case), they die on their post.

   Jon Snow broke his vow when he wanted to leave his post as Lord Commander and use the Night's Watch to fight for his family against the Boltons.

[The Fattest Leech]

10 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Upon making their vow for the Night's Watch they say  I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.

   He would have gone south of the Wall into North of Westeros to remove the Boltons from power in Winterfell. He has to die at his post. He cannot take any side on any Westeros war.

   Aemon Targaryen was Maester of the Night Watch. When Robert Baratheon defied the Mad King, Aerys II he did not leave the Night's Watch to join his family against him. When Prince Rhaegar was killed by Robert he stayed on the Watch. When Aerys II  and 2 of Rhaegar's sons were murdered and the rest Targaryens were exiled he did not leave the Night's Watch because they seek no glory wear no crowns defend no crown, even when the King holding the Crown is his family (Aemon's case), they die on their post.

   Jon Snow broke his vow when he wanted to leave his post as Lord Commander and use the Night's Watch to fight for his family against the Boltons.

Aemon is first a maester. He has a double duty with both the Citadel and the NW as their maester. He is the same, but one apart, so to speak, from the others at the wall. I don't know if he is a strong enough comparison. 

And he was like 85 and blind when that happened. What could he have done? 

[Ser Kinslayer]

Does anyone else think the ensuing mutiny at Castle Black will result in a huge skirmish between wildlings and Marsh & Co.? I suppose it's impossible that nobody saw what happened to Jon, but all of the confusion might lead to some misunderstandings? I personally can't see Bowen Marsh alive at the beginning of Winds. @Lord Varys I don't believe there was mention of an extra 100 soldiers entering Castle Black at the end of the book. It would seem a bit far-fetched for these soldiers to appear in the next book without any mention in aDwD. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

And I am saying that legally speaking, this isn't true.  First off, the Starks or any other Northern lord cannot "make it illegal" for a man to join the Watch as long tradition holds that is their right (the same as it is only longstanding tradition and not part of their oaths that prevents the NW from intervening to the South).  And in a feudal society, those kinds of rights and privileges often assume the force of law.  Secondly, they cannot stop men from other lands from joining the NW.  Again, I ask you to point out where it is illegal for the NW to go south; it isn't.  They aren't supposed to, because the NW was designed for other purposes, but if their mission drives them south (to defend the realms of men) that is technically within their legal purview.

Traditions, customs, and laws can change. Once there were two Faith Militant orders in the united realm, and men had the right to volunteer to join their ranks. Until the Targaryens decided to end that. Once the First Night was a thing, now it isn't.

The idea that things have to remain always the same is clearly wrong.

And, no, the fact the NW can't intervene and takes sides in the south is part of their vow. They are supposed to 'the shield that guards the realms of men'. They are not people ruling or interfering with the realms of men. They also swear 'to live and die at their posts' and those posts are at the Wall, not down in the south.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

But in theory, at least, the NW is a self-sustaining institution due to the Gift and New Gift.  This hasn't occurred in practice, but from a legal standpoint, the NW is completely independent from the lords of the Seven Kingdoms and always has been.

Nope, that is wrong, too. The Night's Watch is subject to the rule of the Iron Throne now, and was subject to the collective rule of the kings of the Seven Kingdoms before that. The brothers do homage to the king(s), they fear and respect the power of the king, etc. They even have a King's Tower set aside for the monarch(s) should they ever show up. That is the kind of thing subjects do, not independent legal entities. The NW certainly has certain privileges and rights on their own lands - they elect their own leaders, are technically inviolable when they are traveling the Realm on official business, etc. - but they are not independent.

Although they might be more independent than the average lord or landed knight in the Seven Kingdoms proper. I doubt that they pay taxes, for instance.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

In other words, fomenting a conspiracy.  Talking to people about what a bad job your commander is doing, and how he needs to be removed from power, is not "talking to people". It's plotting a treasonous mutiny, plain and simple. It just isn't logical to believe that in the 15 minutes between Jon's speech and his murder, Bowen Marsh just happened to stumble upon a half dozen or so people willing to assassinate their Lord Commander.

It isn't anything of that sort if you are right and your Lord Commander is favoring one king or noble house - say King Stannis and House Stark - over the other kings and noble houses in the Realm. That is what Jon Snow is doing. It begins gradually but he is Stannis' man in the end, whether he wants it or not. Part of his campaign is even to avenge King Stannis.

But there is also no hint whatsoever in the books that you can't talk about the politics of your lord commander and whether you think they are good or not. Words are wind, are they not? You have to obey when an order is given but nobody ever said you have no right to complain and have to like and declare that you like every order you are given.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

We can make a very educated assumption based on the text.  I would argue that Bowen Marsh is conspiring to remove Jon from power, almost certainly by killing him, from the moment he allows the wildlings through the wall.  I'll admit, this likely would have been him taking the time to oust him in some other way, hold a trial, and then execute him, rather than outright assassination.  But still, that was almost certainly his plan and almost certainly his motivation, because I believe he is genuinely acting out of what he believes is the best interest of the Watch, even if he only thinks so because he's a small minded bigot.  He moves against Jon because Jon is about to leave his clutches in the company of a ton of wildling warriors, essentially rendering his plot meaningless; he needs to be able to expel the wildlings post-coup if it's to matter.  This is a direct parallel to the assassination of Julius Caesar, mind you, in both motivation (undermining the traditions of an institution) and timing (prior to a major military campaign).

That may be the case or not. We just don't know as of yet.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

Perhaps.  But remember, Bowen Marsh has to have Jon tried and attainted, since he is the legal Lord Commander.  And Jon has enough loyalists south of the Wall that it isn't feasible to keep him out indefinitely; he needs everyone to agree Jon was legally deposed in order to keep the already weakened NW from fatally shattering.

That is your opinion. We don't know how many black brothers are in camp Marsh. And we also don't know whether a treasonous Lord Commander deserves a fair trial or something of that sort. Dareon and Gared didn't get anything of that sort, and the Night's King and Runcel Hightower, and all the other treasonous Lord Commanders neither.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

Uh, we sort of do.  Much more so than Mr. Marsh.  Aside from the half dozen or so named brothers (about as many as we know support Bowen Marsh), we know there are hundreds of wildling warriors whose kids' lives are forfeit, in addition to their own, if Jon is ousted.  That is why I suspect Marsh has been in touch with Qyburn (with no evidence, mind you); he's been waiting for those 100 men Cersei is sending so he has the muscle to make his coup stick.  That, plus his support in the Watch, plus latent prejudice against the wildlings should give him enough men to make his mutiny a success.

We don't know what plans Marsh has for the wildlings. I have tossed around the idea that Marsh could, in fact, have ensured that men of his choosing guard the hostages Jon collected before he killed Jon. Then he should have Tormund and the remaining wildlings by the balls, so the speak. He could also have men in place to attack and slaughter the drinking and perhaps already quite drunk wildlings in the Shieldhall.

Also keep in mind that the black brothers are all expected to fight. And Bowen should know where the weapons are. Most of the wildlings are women, children, and old men. The majority of them are not fighters. It is far from certain how this thing is going to play out.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

Yeah, see, this is where the small minded traditionalist bigots get sorted from good people.

The Others are omnicidal (as in, kill everything and everyone) ice demons who turn the things they kill into malevolent zombies.  By definition, even the Weeper is a massive improvement on them.  So far, the wildlings have repayed Jon's trust far more than his sworn brothers, because they understand the stakes.  And this isn't an issue of us a s readers having access to info the characters don't; Bowen Marsh knows this, and doesn't care.  He's staring at the face of the end of the world, and instead of preparing for it, he's burying his head in the sand and asking to go back to the good old days when he could safely demonize and slaughter some wildlings.  It should also be remembered that he isn't a ranger.  He doesn't have to put his life on the line beyond the Wall, and he knows nothing of wildling culture.  Without defending Jon's actions re: the Pink Letter, Bowen Marsh is a prime example of everything that is wrong with human bigotry, prejudice, and small mindedness.

You can say exactly the same thing in regards to Jon's favoritism towards his little sister and Stannis. His duty is to the realms of men, not his sister or the king who happened to help him. What is the difference between a man like the Weeper and Roose or Ramsay? I tell you - there is none. Yet Jon makes no attempt to win the Boltons over to support him in his fight against the Others. If he can't do that why on earth should Bowen have be willing or eager to accept the help of a man like the Weeper, who actually slew dozens or even hundreds of good watchmen, his sworn brothers?

Even Mance makes it clear what a piece of shit the Weeper is.

@The Dew

If you think my choice of words was inappropriate I apologize. My intention was to mark that your conclusions were not exactly all that well-researched nor did they agree with how things are actually described by the text. It was not my intention to insult you.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Ser Kinslayer said:

Does anyone else think the ensuing mutiny at Castle Black will result in a huge skirmish between wildlings and Marsh & Co.? I suppose it's impossible that nobody saw what happened to Jon, but all of the confusion might lead to some misunderstandings? I personally can't see Bowen Marsh alive at the beginning of Winds. @Lord Varys I don't believe there was mention of an extra 100 soldiers entering Castle Black at the end of the book. It would seem a bit far-fetched for these soldiers to appear in the next book without any mention in aDwD. 

I don't think you actually mean me. I agree. Those hundred men did not arrive. In fact, they were only supposed to arrive when Ser Osney Kettleblack went to the Wall after Margaery's conviction. Which never happened. There is also little to no chance that Cersei or anybody in her inner circle exchanged letters with Bowen Marsh aside from Pycelle. They had much better things to do throughout AFfC.

[Ser Kinslayer]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think you actually mean me. I agree. Those hundred men did not arrive. In fact, they were only supposed to arrive when Ser Osney Kettleblack went to the Wall after Margaery's conviction. Which never happened. There is also little to no chance that Cersei or anybody in her inner circle exchanged letters with Bowen Marsh aside from Pycelle. They had much better things to do throughout AFfC.

My bad, that was another poster. The post was quite long so I assumed it was one of yours. 

[The Dew]

@Ser Kinslayer thank you very much; I cannot confirm it though. Can I invite you to tear apart my reasoning on the 6 points I posted earlier? The Original Poster did a great job in mentally provoking us and that is why I provided my truly subjective reply.

[The Commentator]

13 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

He'd probably be of two minds. He'd be fine with Jon going off, having brought this on himself to a degree, and thus saving the rest of the men at Castle Black from the crazy Bolton kid who has a bone to pick and doesn't care much who he picks it with. He'd also probably relish the thought of getting rid of Jon permanently. But he'd be angry about some arrogant lordling have the gall to threaten the Lord Commander, even one he doesn't like.

He would not likely be all right with murdering the LC under any circumstances. There is no historical precedent for it. The only LsC whose removal from office we know was violent were Night's King (not taken out by his own men, maybe not even killed) and Mormont (killed via mutiny). One of those is without any similar instance in the history of the organization and the other is just straight-up wrong. Thorne is a jerk but he's a jerk who follows the rules.  

I have to disagree with you, Lady Blizzardborn.  No responsible brother of the Night's Watch would be okay with that fool's intentions to ride out and attack the Boltons.  Keep in mind that it was Jon's sticking his nose into the Bolton's business and his operatives (Mance and the spearkwives) murdering people in the Winterfell that brought the Bolton's wrath down on him.  Jon has no right to mess with the Boltons in the first place.  And now he put together an army of wildlings and they're about to attack a noble house of the north.  No responsible member of the watch would agree with that.  I would bet you that if Samwell was at Castle Black he would do everything in his power, including give up his life, to stop his fool of a lord commander from committing more treason than he already has.  

Aliser Thorne will try to arrest Jon, fire him, and then execute him.  But the wildlings that sided with Jon made that impossible.  Thorne would have to cut through the wildlings to arrest Jon.   Given that situation, that Jon created and brought down upon himself, even an honorable man like Aliser Thorne would have no choice but to kill Jon the way Bowen and the other men did.  That was the only way to stop Jon from leading the wildlings on a raid against the Warden of the North.  Let's be honest.  What Jon did and what he was about to do was the worst treason in NW history.  

 

[The Commentator]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Aemon is first a maester. He has a double duty with both the Citadel and the NW as their maester. He is the same, but one apart, so to speak, from the others at the wall. I don't know if he is a strong enough comparison. 

And he was like 85 and blind when that happened. What could he have done? 

There are many brothers on that wall with families they cared about just as much as Jon cared about Arya.  The war between the five kings put those families in danger.  Some went to battle and fought for their side.  How many of these brothers, lowborn and highborn, deserted their post to run back to their families?  

The sacrifice that Jon was asked to make is not unique to him.  He's not the only man who left behind a person they cared about.  Jon is weak.  I will echo what his critics have written, "Jon is unfit for command" and Bowen Marsh had a duty to stop him.  Any brother of the watch had a duty to stop him.  

 

[The Fattest Leech]

On 6/15/2017 at 0:10 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

There are many brothers on that wall with families they cared about just as much as Jon cared about Arya.  The war between the five kings put those families in danger.  Some went to battle and fought for their side.  How many of these brothers, lowborn and highborn, deserted their post to run back to their families?  

Probably more than we hear about in the readers late arrival to the history of the wall. Doesn't Mormont give some some detail to this to Jon when Jon comes back? 

Also, this is character development. We start with a young guy and his struggles for identity throughout the series, as we do with Arya, Dany, Sansa, Jaime, Samwell and all of the other mains. It's a literary device to tell a story. 

But really, I was responding to Aemon might not be the best example and why. 

Quote

The sacrifice that Jon was asked to make is not unique to him.  He's not the only man who left behind a person they cared about.  Jon is weak.  I will echo what his critics have written, "Jon is unfit for command" and Bowen Marsh had a duty to stop him.  Any brother of the watch had a duty to stop him.  

 

Marsh and friends were planning on killing Jon and plotting against the LC election before this event happened. And honestly, I think it is a combo event of Marsh acting out a previous plan hastily because he thought his co-conspirators would still back him up. Thorne is gone, Yarwyck is MIA after shieldhall, and Slynt is gone. Those were the four original conspirators, but only the one with the betrayal symbolism is left to do the "job", and he did a rush job at that. This started because of the wildlings- which Mormont would have taken through, but these new Kings Landing cronies are scared of the unknown and they believe rumors.  Slynt asks for people to think for him. 

Right now the free folk at the wall outnumber the watch five to one, according to the books, and Jon was followed from Shieldhall by some in his support, so Marsh has signed his own warrant by acting out like this... which is also why it seems Mel is playing a part in this stabbing. Her magics and powers and powders weren't hyped up and literally put on the front page for nothing. Mance isn't wearing his ruby at Winterfell, so this must be for something bigger. If I'm wrong, the next round is on me. 

[Lady bonehead]

I was with Jon until the mission to Hardhome, which seemed like an inexcusably risky allocation of scarce resources.

The parallel with Jaime and Aerys is apropos because although Jon is no Aerys, he is unmistakably acting like a Targaryen.  There is an irresistable parallel between Jon's insistence on rescuing ALL the Wildlings and Dany's insistence on rescuing ALL the slaves of Slaver's Bay.  Targs don't do things by halves.

[The Commentator]

2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Probably more than we hear about in the readers late arrival to the history of the wall. Doesn't Mormont give some smdetail to this to Jon when Jon comes back? 

Also, this is character development. We start with a young guy and his struggles for identity throughout the series, as we do with Arya, Dany, Sansa, Jaime, Samwell and all of the other mains. It's a literary device to tell a story. 

But really, I was responding to Aemon might not be the best example and why. 

Marsh and friends were planning on killing Jon and plotting against the LC election before this event happened. And honestly, I think it is a combo event of Marsh acting out a previous plan hastily because he thought his co-conspirators would still back him up. Thorne is gone, Yarwyck is gone, and Slynt is gone. Those were the four original conspirators, but only the one with the betrayal symbolism is left to do the "job", and he did a rush job at that. This started because of the wildlings- which Mormont would have taken through, but these new Kings Landing cronies are scared of the unknown and they believe rumors.  Slynt asks for people to think for him. 

Right now the free folk at the wall outnumber the watch five to one, according to the books, and Jon was followed from Shieldhall by some in his support, so Marsh has signed his own warrant by acting out like this... which is also why it seems Mel is playing a part in this stabbing. Her magics and piers and powders weren't hyped up and literally put on the front page for nothing. Mance isn't wearing his ruby at Winterfell, so this must be for something bigger. If I'm wrong, the next round is on me. 

I can see Slynt maybe thinking of something like that.  Aliser and Bowen seem like honorable men to me.  

[The Fattest Leech]

8 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I can see Slynt maybe thinking of something like that.  Aliser and Bowen seem like honorable men to me.  

The funny thing is, I think Aliser isn't as bad as he thinks he is  and that could be why George sent him out ranging before the stabbing actually happens. He is pissed at having to be at the wall, he hated the Starks because of the rebellion, and he supported the Targs. Now, how ironic would it be if when he came back (he promised Jon he would come back!) and Jon being a Targ was revealed to him??? 

Bowen Marsh has been set up from the beginning as a duplicitous traitor to be, and that is just his lot in the story. Kinda one note, yes, but so is Ramsay. They have a literary purpose to keep someone else's plot line going. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 6/14/2017 at 7:49 AM, Lord Varys said:

Because Bowen Marsh and his men actually believe in what the Night's Watch stands for? That they protect the Seven Kingdoms against hordes of unwashed savages raiding the lands of the Northmen (House Marsh is from the North), stealing the food they planted and desperately need in the coming winter? Men who also are prone to rape and abduct their sisters and daughters?

The Night's Watch would never survive as an institution if a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch led an army of wildlings to Winterfell.

The very idea of that is insane. Even if Jon won the battle ensuing from that - which is actually unlikely if Ramsay did indeed defeat Stannis and his allies - the Northmen wouldn't accept this kind of thing.

It would mean the end of the NW. That is why they killed Jon. They did it 'for the Watch', just as Bowen says.

Jon himself actually must know this. But he doesn't care in his madness. He himself advises Stannis against the idea of using the wildlings as soldiers in his original plan to march with them against the Dreadfort. The Northmen would universally see this as a wildling attack. There is no reason why they should not have exactly the same view if Jon was at the head of a wildling army.

True.  Very true.  The policy of the NW keeping out of kingdom politics enabled to survive and do their jobs unmolested because they are not a threat.  Jon broke ten thousand years of company rules for Arya.  I find it tragic.

 

 

 

[Moiraine Sedai]

5 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I can see Slynt maybe thinking of something like that.  Aliser and Bowen seem like honorable men to me.  

You have to remember.  Bowen and friends were not punishing Jon.  It had gone past that point.  They were stopping a maniac about to raid the north.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

6 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I have to disagree with you, Lady Blizzardborn.  No responsible brother of the Night's Watch would be okay with that fool's intentions to ride out and attack the Boltons.  Keep in mind that it was Jon's sticking his nose into the Bolton's business and his operatives (Mance and the spearkwives) murdering people in the Winterfell that brought the Bolton's wrath down on him.  Jon has no right to mess with the Boltons in the first place.  And now he put together an army of wildlings and they're about to attack a noble house of the north.  No responsible member of the watch would agree with that.  I would bet you that if Samwell was at Castle Black he would do everything in his power, including give up his life, to stop his fool of a lord commander from committing more treason than he already has.  

Aliser Thorne will try to arrest Jon, fire him, and then execute him.  But the wildlings that sided with Jon made that impossible.  Thorne would have to cut through the wildlings to arrest Jon.   Given that situation, that Jon created and brought down upon himself, even an honorable man like Aliser Thorne would have no choice but to kill Jon the way Bowen and the other men did.  That was the only way to stop Jon from leading the wildlings on a raid against the Warden of the North.  Let's be honest.  What Jon did and what he was about to do was the worst treason in NW history.  

 

Jon did not order anyone to murder anyone else.

Jon did not "put together an army of wildlings." 

Sam would not go against Jon in this. Sam would be hard-pressed to go against Jon ever. Maybe by the end of the series he'd have grown enough to do it, but not at this point. 

You have an odd definition of the word treason. Mistakes, sure. Things he maybe shouldn't have done, absolutely. But he has not committed treason. His plan to meet Ramsay before he could get to CB to attack is the ONLY sensible thing to do at this point. As LC of the NW, and having made this mess, it is his duty to protect the Watch from it. The only way to do that is to get to Ramsay before Ramsay comes north. His past actions cannot be changed so in this he made the only decision possible.

If you want to keep shouting "treason" then show me the exact laws of the NW that say the LC cannot allow someone not under his control, and who has a powerful king in her pocket, to do what she wants. Yeah, yeah, Stannis "gave" "Rattleshirt" to Jon but he's really Mel's pet and we all know it. Mel is the one who saved his life. Jon let "Mance" burn with no major qualms, other than shortening the agony. Bowen didn't care about the Ramsay thing. He was upset about the Wildlings. There's no way in the space between Jon's announcing the problem and when the stabbing took place that a weenie like Bowen had the time to round up three like-minded fools and convince them to stab their LC, especially considering that they didn't know in advance that Ser Patrek was going to get Wun-Wun'd. Anyone with a brain can see that they assassination was in the works prior and they were just waiting for an opportune moment. So stop pretending it was some honorable thing. It was murder, plain and simple and even Bowen knew it. 

Here's where you're wrong: an honorable man would never kill someone the way Bowen and company planned to kill Jon. Honorable men do not commit murder when there are other options. It's only cowards like Bowen who act like Bowen. Thorne would not have had any problem arresting Jon, if such a thing can be done, in front of his Wilding supporters and telling them to butt out. I think your assessment of him is that he's a weak man who would buckle under pressure, which is entirely at odds with everything we know about him. You seem to be confusing Ser Alliser with Janos Slynt. Now there was a born coward.

Alliser's history with arrogant lordling bastards who are sons of those he considers turncloaks suggests he wouldn't have a problem with anyone responding to a threat from such against the Watch as a whole. Not to mention the fact that "Arya" and "Reek" clearly are not at Castle Black, which rather puts a different spin on things as it allows for doubt as to the entire letter. Then of course there's the fact that Jon might not come back alive, which would be fine by Thorne. 

But hey, if you only want to look at things from one perspective, and not allow for differences of temperament, history, and personality, you go right ahead.