Barbrey Dustin

Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

241 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Let me ask you this.  Mance Rayder asked for women to accompany him when Jon sent him on the mission.  Jon even sent his own man, a man of the Watch, to find the girls from Mole's Town and bring them to Mance.  They were planning to infiltrate Winterfell.  Was Jon planning to rescue Arya and soon after return her to Ramsay?  I don't think so.  Jon was willing to do what it takes to get Arya away from the Boltons even if it meant sacrificing the security of the wall.  

Some of what you are saying are indeed questions readers have. Like, why did Mance request that many spearwives and no fighting men? I can only say to these smaller details that are Mance focused, we will have to wait until TWOW. But the bigger picture from Jon's POV doesn't change that much.

Earlier in Dance Jon thinks of Arya marrying Ramsay and pretty much resigns that it is what it is. It is not until later when Melisandre tells him that she is lost in the cold near Long Lake does Jon send anyone to find her. And after that, it is only when Ramsay (or whoever) threatens the Watch to turn over people they do not have to turn over that Jon has the foresight to attack first... because knowing Jon has no one to turn over means Ramsay and his men will attack them, the same people who are protecting the realm, the only people that know the Others and wights are a real, actual threat and not a children's tale like the measter's taught. And again, look to the vows at the Black Gate. Those are the vows that matter. Mormont tells the reader (twice, I believe) that the Watch has forgotten its true purpose, and those basic vows are the true purpose.

  • "Lord Snow?" Clydas peered at him closely with his dim pink eyes. "Are you … unwell? You seem …"
"He's to marry Arya Stark. My little sister." Jon could almost see her in that moment, long-faced and gawky, all knobby knees and sharp elbows, with her dirty face and tangled hair. They would wash the one and comb the other, he did not doubt, but he could not imagine Arya in a wedding gown, nor Ramsay Bolton's bed. No matter how afraid she is, she will not show it. If he tries to lay a hand on her, she'll fight him.
~~~
Jon felt as stiff as a man of sixty years. Dark dreams, he thought, and guilt. His thoughts kept returning to Arya. There is no way I can help her. I put all kin aside when I said my words. If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his. Once a man had said the words his blood was black. Black as a bastard's heart. He'd had Mikken make a sword for Arya once, a bravo's blade, made small to fit her hand. Needle. He wondered if she still had it. Stick them with the pointy end, he'd told her, but if she tried to stick the Bastard, it could mean her life.
 
 
11 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Why do you think Ramsay threatened the lord commander?  Because that same lord commander sent his operatives inside Winterfell, murdered Bolton servants, and took away a Bolton bride.  That is an act of war.

Show me where Jon sent anyone to Winterfell to sneak anyone out.

Having "magical charlatans" is a rather large theme in any of George's books that have "magic" in them. Melisandre is an absolute token case of his favorite type. She is causing just as much shit as people are blaming Jon for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, Intel XEON said:

Jon admitted it.  He admitted letting Mance live and making him rescue his sister.

Do you have a quote for it? I don't recall this at all. This is the relevant shield hall dialogue

"And where will you be, crow?" Borroq thundered. "Hiding here in Castle Black with your white dog?"

"No. I ride south." Then Jon read them the letter Ramsay Snow had written.

The Shieldhall went mad.

Every man began to shout at once. They leapt to their feet, shaking fists. So much for the calming power of comfortable benches. Swords were brandished, axes smashed against shields. Jon Snow looked to Tormund. The Giantsbane sounded his horn once more, twice as long and twice as loud as the first time.

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

"The Night's Watch will make for Hardhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless …" Jon paused. "… is there any man here who will come stand with me?"

The roar was all he could have hoped for, the tumult so loud that the two old shields tumbled from the walls. Soren Shieldbreaker was on his feet, the Wanderer as well. Toregg the Tall, Brogg, Harle the Huntsman and Harle the Handsome both, Ygon Oldfather, Blind Doss, even the Great Walrus. I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that's how it's done. We'll make a wildling o' you yet, boy. Har!"
 

Edited by Makk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon Snow had no right whatsoever to offer 'Arya Stark' protection at Castle Black. She is Ramsay Bolton's wife. He decides where she lives, not the Night's Watch. A wife in Westeros doesn't have the right leave her lord husband without his consent or permission.

   Strange that you speak of legality here. To start the Boltons betrayed House Stark who rules the North in the Twins. Second Roose Bolton is the Warden of nothing. An incestuous person cannot inherit anything and therefore Tommen cannot be King of Westeros. Jon, like Stannis, believes (correctly) that Cersei’s children are Jaime’s not Robert’s children. With the Targaryen as an exception incestuous people cannot even take over a hold, a piece of land, a house, a tavern, nothing at all! They cannot even marry other people. The Faith does not allow them to. No Septon would marry that person. Therefore Tommen’s betrothal not even exists.

   Being that the case Tommen is no prince, no King and cannot legally give the Warden of the North to anyone. Therefore Roose Bolton is not, legally and by the Faith, Warden of anything. Jon couldn`t care less that an incestuous person gave him the North and therefore properly did not recognize the Bolton’s rights at Winterfell.

   Jon Snow therefore has all the right to protect any person against an imbecile vile traitor’s bastard son, to wit, Ramsey Snow. Yes a Snow for an incestuous person (Tommen) cannot legalize anyone or even himself.

Yes John is responsible for Mance actions. I do agree with that. However he is not breaking and hospitality tradition considering Winterfell belongs to the Starks, not to the Bolton or a false legalized Snow.  All people there know about it. The Northern people know what Tommen is and what the Boltons are (incestuous garbage and traitor) and even so they are there. All of them could have been executed. If the real Araya Stark was there she would be the Ruler of Winterfell and her husband just a consort.

   Yes, Jon Snow has the right to protect the Lady of the North Araya Stark (he believes is her) from anyone. Tommen is an incestuous baloney, Ramsey is a Snow and ‘Arya’ the righteous ruler of Winterfell.

   If you are using legality, then use it for all, not against one and not against the others!

   That said I do agree with you on the people of the Night Watch trying to kill Jon Snow. Bowen Marsh acted after Jon had decided to group up Windlings and Night Watchers and go to Winterfell to fight against the Boltons after  Stannis supposed death. This act broke his vows directly. As faz as I remmember Bowen Marsh was crying when he stabed Jon. He did it not with happiness or hatred, but because he believed it was his duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See my post above. They are also making it clear that they need Jon's permission for all that. 'Rattleshirt' is Jon's man, per King Stannis' orders, and he decides where he goes, not Melisandre. Not to mention that it is obvious that they want Jon to be in on the plot. The entire point of this thing is to gain Jon's trust by saving his sister. But they don't want to surprise him. They want to inform him of Mel's visions first, to stress the enormity of her powers, and then have Mance go to save Arya.

It only works if Jon is in on the plan. And he himself confirms that he was.

But quite honestly - how on earth did you think pointing out that Mel and Mance were making plans before they informed Jon about them contributes anything to this debate? The important thing is that he did know and approved of the plan. He made the decision. Mance and Mel just made suggestions.

Jon is guilty in this entire thing. He threw the first stone.

Mel, Stannis, and Jon certainly forced Mance into doing their bidding. Mel herself stresses that they hold his child in her chapter. Nothing indicates that Jon corrected that error.

There are hints that Mance wants to work with Mel, Stannis, and Jon but we don't know his thoughts. He may still hold quite a few grudges against them. But the fact that his son is a hostage clearly would influence his actions as long as we assume he cares about the child.

As I have said before, I was replying to the claim that Jon twisted Mance's arm into accepting the mission by threatening his son. And that is simply not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Strange that you speak of legality here. To start the Boltons betrayed House Stark who rules the North in the Twins.

Roose Boltons (and all the men that went with him to the Green Fork, I might add) were not there at Riverrun when Robb Stark was declared. He never did him homage as his king, nor did he approve of this mad idea. Sure, Roose switched his allegiance from House Stark to House Baratheon but that is actually his right. He did not betray his king, he decided to abandon the cause of a rebel and traitor to the Iron Throne.

The Red Wedding was a despicable crime, but Roose actually switching kings and choosing the winning side isn't that big a crime. That happens all the time. Robb didn't punish the Westerlings for coming to his side, or did they? They did technically betray their rightful liege lord just as Roose betrayed Robb.

3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Second Roose Bolton is the Warden of nothing. An incestuous person cannot inherit anything and therefore Tommen cannot be King of Westeros. Jon, like Stannis, believes (correctly) that Cersei’s children are Jaime’s not Robert’s children.

That is not the case. Stannis and Jon don't have any proof that this is the case. Roose, Ramsay, the Tyrells, and all the lords of the Realm are under no moral obligation to believe the story Stannis spread. It could be a lie. King Robert named Joffrey his heir and died believing that Cersei's children are all his. Ned Stark is to fault for the fact that his king never learned the truth. He could have told Robert, and Robert could have disinherited his children by Cersei in favor of Stannis or Renly. Then Ned wouldn't have been forced to forge Robert's last will which was, you know, treason. Not as worse as what Cersei did but a crime, too.

If the dying King Robert had made his will known in his castle and city Ned could have taken Cersei and the children into custody and Cersei's counter plot may have failed. Then Joffrey Baratheon may have never been crowned and there wouldn't have been a War of the Five Kings.

3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

With the Targaryen as an exception incestuous people cannot even take over a hold, a piece of land, a house, a tavern, nothing at all! They cannot even marry other people. The Faith does not allow them to. No Septon would marry that person. Therefore Tommen’s betrothal not even exists.

As long as there is no proof that Tommen is Cersei's son by Jaime this is irrelevant. The law and the institutions of the Realm care about the facts as they are known, not necessarily as they are or might be. And those facts are that Cersei Lannister's children are the seed of King Robert Baratheon. He acknowledged them all his children. Some people telling tales does not change the fact just as I spreading tales about your (hypothetical) wife and children doesn't make those tales true.

This might change if Cersei were to lose her trial-by-combat since they included Stannis' claims in that as well. But if she wins the Seven themselves would have confirmed that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are the trueborn and legitimate children of King Robert Baratheon.

3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Being that the case Tommen is no prince, no King and cannot legally give the Warden of the North to anyone. Therefore Roose Bolton is not, legally and by the Faith, Warden of anything. Jon couldn`t care less that an incestuous person gave him the North and therefore properly did not recognize the Bolton’s rights at Winterfell.

See above. This is crap. Roose is free to acknowledge Joffrey and Tommen as his king. He could even do that if he believed the incest story. Olenna believes it but she doesn't care. It is in the interest of House Tyrell to believe that Joffrey and Tommen are Robert Baratheon's sons. And so they believe it.

3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Jon Snow therefore has all the right to protect any person against an imbecile vile traitor’s bastard son, to wit, Ramsey Snow. Yes a Snow for an incestuous person (Tommen) cannot legalize anyone or even himself.

That is nonsense.

3 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Yes John is responsible for Mance actions. I do agree with that. However he is not breaking and hospitality tradition considering Winterfell belongs to the Starks, not to the Bolton or a false legalized Snow.  All people there know about it. The Northern people know what Tommen is and what the Boltons are (incestuous garbage and traitor) and even so they are there. All of them could have been executed. If the real Araya Stark was there she would be the Ruler of Winterfell and her husband just a consort.

Arya is still a child and her husband would rule in her name. A lord husband has the right to rule over and chastise his wife in this society. Even if Jeyne was the real Arya Stark Ramsay and Roose would still speak and act in her name. Especially after she agreed to marry Ramsay. You don't save a woman from a bad husband in this world. That goes against custom. You can, perhaps, kill such a man but you can't steal his wife. She belongs to him.

In addition, you completely ignore the fact that the Night's Watch as an institution is supposed to take no part. Even if Jon believes the story about Cersei's children he has to act as if he does not. He isn't allowed to take part. His own biases and wishes are not supposed to interfere with his actions. He admits he wants bring death and destruction on House Lannister but this has nothing to do with the twincest, it has everything to do with the death of his father, half-brothers, and - yes, I think - also stepmother.

Jon would want to save 'Arya' even if Ned had indeed be nothing but an ambitious traitor who really intended to murder Robert's trueborn children to make Stannis king (as the Lannisters claim and Ned himself admitted before the High Septon). He doesn't care about the truth. He wants to fight for his family. He wants to avenge the dead and save those who still live.

And where Jon not a black brother he would have a right to do all that. But he doesn't. Harren the Black's brother had more than enough men to try to take his revenge for the burning of Harrenhal. But he didn't. He kept his vows. Maester Aemon certainly had the skills and means to put some poison into the wine of Benjen Stark, Jeor Mormont, or Jon Snow to punish them or their houses for the part they played in the downfall of House Targaryen and the murder of innocent women and children. Yet he did not. He kept his vows.

Jon Snow repeatedly broke his and got away with that. First when Mormont let him off the hook in AGoT after he attacked Thorne and then later after his midnight flight (he broke his vow when he fled, he regretted that action later but he still broke it). Second when he fell in love with Ygritte and honestly wanted to stay with her all his life. Back in the cave he would have never betrayed her which means he did, at that time, betray his vow in both words and deeds. The fact that he got off the hook as easy as he did after his return is another mistake. It encouraged him to believe that he could get away with anything, especially after he became Lord Commander.

That meant that in the end there was no other way to stop this mad dog than putting him down. He was no longer willing to listen to reason.

The double standard really is there if you compare Jon to men like Gared or Dareon. Killing them prevented them from actually regretting their actions. Gared could have been helped to regain his senses (if he truly lost them and was not just declared 'mad' because he told what he witnesses) and Dareon may have gotten around to understand what his duty was. Jon was helped with that, too. Perhaps another talk with Samwell would have helped? Or he may have heard the story about the dragons and realized that he wanted to see those, accompanying the gang to Oldtown after all?

Yet very few people agree that the killings of Gared and Dareon were unjust. But if Ned and Arya were right then we should assume that they would have killed Jon Snow, too, if they had met him on the road or seen him with Ygritte. And that reflects very badly on him, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Stab Jon vs. Warn Ramsay

This is an oft debated question.  What are the risks of letting Jon go and then sending a warning to the Boltons?  The biggest risk to me is the message may not get there in time or not at all.  You have to hope the Jon army never make it back or you end up like Slynt.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 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.

But that's not what the Night's Watch stands for. That's not their purpose at all.

Quote

We never knew! But we must have known once. The Night's Watch has forgotten its true purpose, Tarly. You don't build a wall seven hundred feet high to keep savages in skins from stealing women. The Wall was made to guard the realms of men … and not against other men, which is all the wildlings are when you come right down to it. Too many years, Tarly, too many hundreds and thousands of years. We lost sight of the true enemy. And now he's here, but we don't know how to fight him.

Jeor Mormont to Samwell Tarly, A Storm of Swords, Ch 33

Bowen Marsh believes in what he thinks the Night's Watch stands for. Unfortunately, he is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel offered Jon a way to rescue his sister.  But the decision was Jon's.  He knew it was wrong but his love for Arya was the death of his honor, the death of duty, and thankfully his own death.  

An excellent point was made.  Jon would not return Arya to Ramsay no matter the cost to the realm.  Foolish.  Jon is unfit for leadership and he is even more unfit to rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Red Man Racey said:

But that's not what the Night's Watch stands for. That's not their purpose at all.

Jeor Mormont to Samwell Tarly, A Storm of Swords, Ch 33

Bowen Marsh believes in what he thinks the Night's Watch stands for. Unfortunately, he is wrong.

The protection against the Others and wights is its ultimate purpose. But they also protect the Realm against Mance and his army. Even after Mormont realized what their ultimate purpose was.

The people in the Seven Kingdoms still don't really believe in the threat of the Others. And especially the Northmen want the Watch to protect the Wall against the wildlings. If they no longer do that they are done. That is a fact of reality. Pointing out their original and true purpose does not change that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Roose Boltons (and all the men that went with him to the Green Fork, I might add) were not there at Riverrun when Robb Stark was declared

The Starks are the Northeners Liege Lord and therefore also the Bolton's Liege. The on did not switch only alliances they betrayed the Starks and participate in the killing of many of their vassals( Robb) in the red wedding. He did not switch openly against his Liege and started siding with the Lannisters in the battlefield but concealed his pledge to Joffrey and pretended he was still his loyal bannerman and killed him in a wedding. It makes it even worse because Roose Bolton believed that Cersei's children were not Robert's. Jaime Lannister himself got the message when he left Harrenhal and Roose Bolton said his nephew in a way that he knew (believed) it was actually his son. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I could never understand when someone is given a military order (I believe it was from Qhorin) for infiltrating the enemy lines in order to act as a spy can be branded as a known deserter when taking a direct order from a superior officer of the watch. Was there any prejudice from Thorne and Slynt in conspiring against a member of the Night's Watch? Isn't that punishable by death? If we are talking about the leniency that late Lord Commander showed to Jon when left the watch to ride at his brother's side, the late Lord Commander Mormont explained through his Res Judicata that the Watch wouldn't have no men if someone had different thoughts and by his own free will and volition returned back. In fact Mormont and other Lord Commanders would have had to station a garrison of Black Brothers at the entry of Mole's Town for arresting and beheading any man of the Watch who was randy with the ladies over there. Even providing Stannis shelter that does not make Jon an oathbreaker because it is not his affair to intervene with the politics of the Seven Kingdoms, ex officio. It would be nice here to remember that Bowen Marsh sent a letter to the Five Kings at War asking for men to protect the Wall, I bet the letter was also addressed to Stannis as well, who indeed made camp and assisted the watch in its time of need.

2. As to Hardhome, Jon could use the part of his oath which clearly stipulates about the "Realms of Men". It is interesting to see the broadness of the aforesaid part of the oath, it is not an allegory, but an intentional, in my opinion, broad statement of oath. The very purpose of the Night's Watch is guarding the Realms of Men. I am pretty sure that numbers of Kings of the Seven Kingdoms could have taken a learned advice from their Maesters and Decree a change of the original oath from "Realms of Men" to "Realms of Westeros" or even better to "Realms of Men South of The Wall", therefore this line serves a wide mission in my opinion, and a great defence for Jon. Even if it is taken as a failed act, Jon did the correct thing of providing humanitarian aid and guarding the Realms of Men, North of the Wall of course, where Men also held Supreme until the coming of the Others.

3. Janos Slynt did not arrive at the wall with the 3,000 strong of the City's Watch in order to take the black, he arrived after the shenanigans against Tyrion Lannister. Janos, if I recall, was informing, not openly the Court, about the doings of Lord Stannis, which in itself is treason, albeit unknown to Lord Snow, it was still treason. Janos had the guilty mind (to inform the Court at King's Landing) and also embarked on committing the guilty act (writing the letter to the Court at King's Landing - I purposefully did not mention his act of actually sending the letter and I underline that the guilty act was writing the letter). Janos appears of not being honest and true to his words/vows. Janos was clearly conspiring against the Watch. In addition Janos was given leniency when ordered to relocate as a Commander of the Greyguard. Jon understood that the man was a pain in the buttocks, but, he chose the prudent path, that shows the virtues of an enlightened Lord Commander, and ordered him to assume command of the abandoned Greyguard, away from his fellow-schemer Ser Thorne. He refused an order in the sight of others (stupidly enough instead of seeking a private audience with the Lord Commander), and simply as that Lord Snow passed the sentence and swang the sword. Lord Snow showed tonnes of mercy to Slynt by ordering him to assume command of Castle Greyguard. If I remember Mance Rayder had with him the infamous Horn of Joramun, and he threatened to use it against the Wall. When someone makes a claim like that, whoever you are you try to negotiate in order to keep the wall up. Can one take chances against magic (even it is a bluff)? I, personally, wouldn't have taken this risk. Let us not forget that Melisandre burned it, just in case.

4. The attack on the other Noble House of the North is staged by Lady Melisandre, therefore Jon Snow is not the one to blame. To his knowledge Mance was burnt at the stake and it was later revealed to Jon that rattleshirt was under glamour. Point 4 assists in Point 3 as shown above due to the fact that, at that time Jon did punish Mance but Jon was deceived. Therefore we can only talk about Melisandre's Agents from this point forward. Jon only took hostages, as he did before in order to ensure that everyone's promises made to the Watch are kept and fulfilled. If the position on vows and oaths and guest rights tries to prevail then Melisandre can easily claim, the her King, Stannis had every right to act against the usurper and traitor Lord Bolton.

5. In the pink letter, allegedly written by Ramsay Bolton, self-proclaimed Trueborn Lord of Winterfell , Lord Ramsay Bolton however remains the Warden of the North, and under his aforementioned capacity he did not initiate any correspondence with Lord Commander Snow. How can a simple bannerman such as Lord Ramsey Bolton (nee Snow), can openly threaten the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch? How did he embark on such threats against the elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch? Can a threat against the Lord Commander and his  black crows be construed as a threat against the Night's Watch, who are guarding the Realms of Men, of which the Seven Kingdoms are a part of these Realms? Did Ramsay, if he wrote the letter, attack against the Seven Kingdoms by openly threatening the Lord Commander and members of the Night's Watch? He did in his letter. Is there anyone who can claim that the Lord Commander did not have a legitimate reason to be the first to attack Lord Ramsay Bolton, because Castle Black and all the other castles are not fortified? What happens when a Lord Commander takes on a preemptive strike for fear of escalating violence? This is a legitimate strike. Should the Night's Watch wait until the Others are immediately North of the Wall's Gates, while Lord Ramsay Bolton of Winterfell marches against the Wall in search of his wife? Are there any rights of self-defence in the Seven Kingdom's? Of course there are, we have seen them being exhibited in various ways, with the invocation of a champion in a trial by combat, otherwise we would have only witnessed lawless executions. He did not march against the Boltons, he marched against the Lord of Winterfell, and not against the Warden of the North. Why didn't Lord Ramsay ask for Lord Bolton's assistance on his grievance so that the Warden could act in the name of King/Regent? This is very suspicious and it does not appear to be a legitimate affair.

6. Where is the precedent on the alleged rightful actions of Bowen Marsh? I really want enlightenment as to why the Warden of the North, Lord Roose Bolton was not informed in order to take action against Lord Commander Snow. A black brother could have rode to Winterfell and carry a letter informing Lord Roose Bolton on the alleged machinations of Lord Snow, then the Crown could have all the legitimacy in the world to order Lord Roose to take action against Lord Snow and answer to his alleged crimes, but that did not happen, did it? Lord Ramsay Bolton allegedly threatened Lord Commander Snow and his men. Was Lord Commander Snow entitled to claim self-defence in the name of the Watch for fear of escalating violence against himself and his men? With what we know so far, no letter or other type of correspondence verbal or in writing appeared to us the readers, that was clearly ordering Bowen Marsh to take action against the legitimate commander of the NW, by apprehending him. The Black Brothers for not supporting their Lord Commander in the defence of the Watch and of their lives they showed little courage and understanding of the notion of self-defence, despite the clear threat against them in the pink letter.

I really enjoyed this post as there was plenty to think, and I thank the OP along with other commenters and commentators for their arguments and input whether I agree or not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The protection against the Others and wights is its ultimate purpose. But they also protect the Realm against Mance and his army. Even after Mormont realized what their ultimate purpose was.

The people in the Seven Kingdoms still don't really believe in the threat of the Others. And especially the Northmen want the Watch to protect the Wall against the wildlings. If they no longer do that they are done. That is a fact of reality. Pointing out their original and true purpose does not change that at all.

 

The mission statement of the NW has nothing to do with the wildlings, full stop.  They have experienced mission creep over the millenia and focused on keeping the wildlings from raiding the North, but legally and technically speaking, they have absolutely no responsibility to do so.  That is why the Starks are Wardens of the North, to resist incursions from wildling raiders.  That the Starks want to sub this work out to the Nights Watch is totally understandable; it's cheaper and easier for the Watch to maintain a constant garrison on a massive wall than for the Starks or Umbers or whoever to mobilize every time there is a raid.  And effectively, it has made sense for the Watch to do this; they're already involved in patrolling the border, and most of their survival is due to the North sending food and men to the Wall, which is doubtless in no small part because they know it will help cut back on wildling attacks.  But again... the Watch has no real obligation to do so.

Quote

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

No, it isn't.  Bowen Marsh & Co were plotting to kill Jon well before the Pink Letter.  It's why the members of that conspiracy all snuck out of the Hall as he was reading it.  They were forced to act before they were ready, for much the same reason Julius Caesar was assassinated when he was; because Jon (and Caesar) were about to embark on a military campaign where they'd be surrounded by loyal soldiers, and hard to get to.

So yeah, what Jon is doing re: the Pink Letter is certainly against the credo of the Night's Watch, in terms of taking no part in the affairs of the realm.  But that doesn't mean that what Bowen Marsh is doing isn't unjustified treason; he clearly had been plotting this for some time, before he had any "legal" or ethical reason to do so.  He may very well believe what he's doing is for the NW, but he's doing it because he thinks letting the wildlings through is wrong, not because of the Pink Letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HallowedMarcus said:

The Starks are the Northeners Liege Lord and therefore also the Bolton's Liege. The on did not switch only alliances they betrayed the Starks and participate in the killing of many of their vassals( Robb) in the red wedding. He did not switch openly against his Liege and started siding with the Lannisters in the battlefield but concealed his pledge to Joffrey and pretended he was still his loyal bannerman and killed him in a wedding. It makes it even worse because Roose Bolton believed that Cersei's children were not Robert's. Jaime Lannister himself got the message when he left Harrenhal and Roose Bolton said his nephew in a way that he knew (believed) it was actually his son. 

Robb and the people following him were traitors against the Iron Throne. Roose and the Freys just had the brains to realize that Robb's cause was lost. They joined the winning side and reaped the rewards. That's how you behave in war if you want to survive.

But the Night's Watch has no right to interfere with any of that which is why this has little to do with the topic at hand. The NW has to treat all people in the Seven Kingdoms equally. That is why Aemon sent letters asking for help to many lords and all five kings, not just to some of them.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

1. I could never understand when someone is given a military order (I believe it was from Qhorin) for infiltrating the enemy lines in order to act as a spy can be branded as a known deserter when taking a direct order from a superior officer of the watch.

There is no proof that Jon actually received such an order. He claims he did but can he prove it? No, he can't. Thorne, Slynt, Marsh and even Aemon are not forced to believe. Aemon believed him. The others may have not, either because of personal grudges against Jon or because they considered his story implausible. We don't know.

The idea that you can force your judge to see things your way is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

Was there any prejudice from Thorne and Slynt in conspiring against a member of the Night's Watch? Isn't that punishable by death? If we are talking about the leniency that late Lord Commander showed to Jon when left the watch to ride at his brother's side, the late Lord Commander Mormont explained through his Res Judicata that the Watch wouldn't have no men if someone had different thoughts and by his own free will and volition returned back. In fact Mormont and other Lord Commanders would have had to station a garrison of Black Brothers at the entry of Mole's Town for arresting and beheading any man of the Watch who was randy with the ladies over there.

The problem here is that Jon didn't just ride to Mole's Town for a fuck. He rode south as a deserter. He came back as a repenting deserter but he was still a deserter. And he should have been killed for that just as Dareon and Gared were. Any deserter that's captured most likely is going to make promises that he is never going to desert again, that he will now go back to the Wall to serve faithfully and never break his vow again. I can hear the voice of Lord Ryswell's son right now, pleading with his stern father for his very life. But Lord Ryswell was no soft fanboy, he was a Northman who knew the concept of honor and understand what taking the vow of the Night's Watch meant. And that's why he killed his own son. Just as quite a few people in this series should have killed Jon. Or at least should have intended to kill Jon.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

Even providing Stannis shelter that does not make Jon an oathbreaker because it is not his affair to intervene with the politics of the Seven Kingdoms, ex officio. It would be nice here to remember that Bowen Marsh sent a letter to the Five Kings at War asking for men to protect the Wall, I bet the letter was also addressed to Stannis as well, who indeed made camp and assisted the watch in its time of need.

Harboring Stannis, accepting his help against the wildlings, and providing him with the means to survive at the Wall wasn't treason.

Giving Stannis a single bit of advice how to outmaneuver the Boltons and win the war in the North was.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

2. As to Hardhome, Jon could use the part of his oath which clearly stipulates about the "Realms of Men". It is interesting to see the broadness of the aforesaid part of the oath, it is not an allegory, but an intentional, in my opinion, broad statement of oath. The very purpose of the Night's Watch is guarding the Realms of Men. I am pretty sure that numbers of Kings of the Seven Kingdoms could have taken a learned advice from their Maesters and Decree a change of the original oath from "Realms of Men" to "Realms of Westeros" or even better to "Realms of Men South of The Wall", therefore this line serves a wide mission in my opinion, and a great defence for Jon. Even if it is taken as a failed act, Jon did the correct thing of providing humanitarian aid and guarding the Realms of Men, North of the Wall of course, where Men also held Supreme until the coming of the Others.

The phrase 'realms of men' may have once also included the realms of men beyond the Wall. But this is by no means clear. We have to ask ourselves how on earth the NW would have been supposed to protect the men north of the Wall if they were essentially protecting the Wall. If some wights attack a village of people in the Vale of Thenn the NW can't protect them there, or can they?

It is actually more likely that 'realms of men' refers to the original petty kingdoms of the First Men south of the Wall. Those who originally made the pledge to actually support the NW by sending men to serve there, and feed and clothe those men.

The wildlings apparently never sent men to serve at the Wall alongside the black brothers coming from the lands south of the Wall. The only joint venture between the wildlings and the First Men of the south we know of was the affair of the Night's King and that was very early in the history of the NW.

The sad fact seems to be the wildlings went or remained north of the Wall because they wanted to live their lives their way, not the way the other First Men did. I assume originally they were given the option to come down south behind the protection of the Wall should the Others ever come back but throughout the centuries the wildlings forgot that. And once they began considering this Wall as a wall that was built to keep them, began to raid beyond the Wall in the realms of men down there and killing black brothers they became as much enemies of the NW as the Others and wights. Just as they are still the hated enemies of the Northmen.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

3. Janos Slynt did not arrive at the wall with the 3,000 strong of the City's Watch in order to take the black, he arrived after the shenanigans against Tyrion Lannister. Janos, if I recall, was informing, not openly the Court, about the doings of Lord Stannis, which in itself is treason, albeit unknown to Lord Snow, it was still treason. Janos had the guilty mind (to inform the Court at King's Landing) and also embarked on committing the guilty act (writing the letter to the Court at King's Landing - I purposefully did not mention his act of actually sending the letter and I underline that the guilty act was writing the letter). Janos appears of not being honest and true to his words/vows. Janos was clearly conspiring against the Watch.

Janos was, perhaps, betraying Stannis in this. But not Jon Snow. As far as we know no black brother is forbidden from writing a letter to KL addressed to the King on the Iron Throne or the members of his Small Council. Conspiring to kill the Lord Commander is treason, as would be slandering or plotting against an innocent brother. But not believing Jon's story that he is not a turncloak is neither treason nor inherently problematic.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

In addition Janos was given leniency when ordered to relocate as a Commander of the Greyguard. Jon understood that the man was a pain in the buttocks, but, he chose the prudent path, that shows the virtues of an enlightened Lord Commander, and ordered him to assume command of the abandoned Greyguard, away from his fellow-schemer Ser Thorne. He refused an order in the sight of others (stupidly enough instead of seeking a private audience with the Lord Commander), and simply as that Lord Snow passed the sentence and swang the sword. Lord Snow showed tonnes of mercy to Slynt by ordering him to assume command of Castle Greyguard.

If Slynt deserved death over that Jon sure as hell also deserved death over his attack on Thorne and his midnight flight.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

4. The attack on the other Noble House of the North is staged by Lady Melisandre, therefore Jon Snow is not the one to blame. To his knowledge Mance was burnt at the stake and it was later revealed to Jon that rattleshirt was under glamour. Point 4 assists in Point 3 as shown above due to the fact that, at that time Jon did punish Mance but Jon was deceived. Therefore we can only talk about Melisandre's Agents from this point forward. Jon only took hostages, as he did before in order to ensure that everyone's promises made to the Watch are kept and fulfilled. If the position on vows and oaths and guest rights tries to prevail then Melisandre can easily claim, the her King, Stannis had every right to act against the usurper and traitor Lord Bolton.

This doesn't make any sense. Stannis makes it repeatedly clear in the text that Mance is now Jon's man. He is responsible for his actions. And Jon sent Mance to save his sister. As such he is responsible for Mance's deeds in Winterfell. Just as Ned is responsible for Cat's actions when she abducts Tyrion on the road. And Ned doesn't hesitate a second when he is confronted over this. He accepts the responsibility and makes Cat's deed his own, stating that she acted on his command.

That's what an honorable nobleman does in this setting. Such people are not cowards. And Jon fits in the same category. That is why he wants to carry the way to Ramsay. He knows he has thrown the first stone.

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

5. In the pink letter, allegedly written by Ramsay Bolton, self-proclaimed Trueborn Lord of Winterfell , Lord Ramsay Bolton however remains the Warden of the North, and under his aforementioned capacity he did not initiate any correspondence with Lord Commander Snow. How can a simple bannerman such as Lord Ramsey Bolton (nee Snow), can openly threaten the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch? How did he embark on such threats against the elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch? Can a threat against the Lord Commander and his  black crows be construed as a threat against the Night's Watch, who are guarding the Realms of Men, of which the Seven Kingdoms are a part of these Realms? Did Ramsay, if he wrote the letter, attack against the Seven Kingdoms by openly threatening the Lord Commander and members of the Night's Watch? He did in his letter. Is there anyone who can claim that the Lord Commander did not have a legitimate reason to be the first to attack Lord Ramsay Bolton, because Castle Black and all the other castles are not fortified? What happens when a Lord Commander takes on a preemptive strike for fear of escalating violence? This is a legitimate strike. Should the Night's Watch wait until the Others are immediately North of the Wall's Gates, while Lord Ramsay Bolton of Winterfell marches against the Wall in search of his wife? Are there any rights of self-defence in the Seven Kingdom's? Of course there are, we have seen them being exhibited in various ways, with the invocation of a champion in a trial by combat, otherwise we would have only witnessed lawless executions. He did not march against the Boltons, he marched against the Lord of Winterfell, and not against the Warden of the North. Why didn't Lord Ramsay ask for Lord Bolton's assistance on his grievance so that the Warden could act in the name of King/Regent? This is very suspicious and it does not appear to be a legitimate affair.

This is just nonsense. The Night's Watch serves at the leisure and pleasures of the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms. They have all the power and control, and the Night's Watch serves them as they please. This is the situation. The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch has no right whatsoever to defend himself against a threat - justified or unjustified - coming from a lord or king of the Seven Kingdoms. Else the NW would have the right to raise actual castles with walls. But they do not. 

1 hour ago, The Dew said:

6. Where is the precedent on the alleged rightful actions of Bowen Marsh?

We know the lords and kings of the Realm have repeatedly interfered with the inner working of the Watch. Bad Lord Commanders have been put down by outsiders and perhaps even by men among the Watch who stayed true to their vows.

59 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The mission statement of the NW has nothing to do with the wildlings, full stop.  They have experienced mission creep over the millenia and focused on keeping the wildlings from raiding the North, but legally and technically speaking, they have absolutely no responsibility to do so.  That is why the Starks are Wardens of the North, to resist incursions from wildling raiders.  That the Starks want to sub this work out to the Nights Watch is totally understandable; it's cheaper and easier for the Watch to maintain a constant garrison on a massive wall than for the Starks or Umbers or whoever to mobilize every time there is a raid.  And effectively, it has made sense for the Watch to do this; they're already involved in patrolling the border, and most of their survival is due to the North sending food and men to the Wall, which is doubtless in no small part because they know it will help cut back on wildling attacks.  But again... the Watch has no real obligation to do so.

That is not how the history and tradition of the people of Westeros, the NW, and the Northmen see it. Artos Stark especially would disagree with you. Dare you to disagree with Artos Stark? I would not suggest that. He is not called Artos the Implacable for fun.

The Watch is totally dependent on the people of the Seven Kingdoms. They decide what their duty is. The Night's Watch has neither the right nor the means to complain about that. And they actually agree that the wildlings are their enemies. They hate them, and for good reason.

59 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

No, it isn't.  Bowen Marsh & Co were plotting to kill Jon well before the Pink Letter.  It's why the members of that conspiracy all snuck out of the Hall as he was reading it.  They were forced to act before they were ready, for much the same reason Julius Caesar was assassinated when he was; because Jon (and Caesar) were about to embark on a military campaign where they'd be surrounded by loyal soldiers, and hard to get to.

That is a theory. We don't know the details of the assassination plot as of yet. I'd agree that Bowen was involved in a real conspiracy for quite some time - even since before Mance left - but whether that was a conspiracy to kill Jon or merely to change his policies if possible is completely unclear. And it doesn't matter for the question at hand. Jon did break his vows during his speech in the Shieldhall.

A black brother swears 'to live and die at his post'. By declaring that he was abandoning his post as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to march down to Winterfell - alone, if he had to - to fight the Boltons he was effectively deserting. The man who left the Shieldhall was no longer the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch but a deserter. And that's why his men put him down. It is what their honor and sense of duty demanded of them. And it is quite clear that this was no easy task for Bowen. He wept when he gutted Jon, after all.

59 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

So yeah, what Jon is doing re: the Pink Letter is certainly against the credo of the Night's Watch, in terms of taking no part in the affairs of the realm.  But that doesn't mean that what Bowen Marsh is doing isn't unjustified treason; he clearly had been plotting this for some time, before he had any "legal" or ethical reason to do so.  He may very well believe what he's doing is for the NW, but he's doing it because he thinks letting the wildlings through is wrong, not because of the Pink Letter.

That is just your assumption. If there were textual evidence stating that Bowen Marsh intended to kill Jon even if the Pink Letter had never arrived and Jon had never given the speech he gave you would be right. But there is no such evidence.

We might learn more about Bowen's motives in the next book but I really doubt Marsh had the intention to kill Jon. If he had wanted to do that one should assume he would have done so before the wildlings came through the Wall.

The deciding factor that triggered the assassination-execution seems to be both Jon's declared desertion, Stannis' alleged death (which means the Boltons are victorious, making it very likely that Stannis is not going to come back to punish Jon's killers), and Jon's intention to lead a wildling army against Winterfell. That isn't 'defending the realms of men', either, is it?

Even if we say the wildlings are people, too (which they are), this doesn't mean the NW is allowed to fuel, instigate, or participate in a war between 'the realms of men'. Which is what Jon intended to do. On the very soil of the Seven Kingdoms itself. That is unthinkable for any true sworn brother of the Night's Watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2017 at 8:42 PM, Barbrey Dustin said:

I feel like that the termination of Jon Snow by Bowen Marsh was appropriate.  The Lord Commander served for life so the only way to remove a crazy leader like Jon from power is to kill him.  That is their way of firing an unfit, incompetent,  treasonous commander.  It's been said before but I will repeat it here.  

Ramsay Bolton gave Jon the Pink Letter.  Bowen Marsh gave Jon the Pink Slip.  

  1. Jon was already a known deserter.
  2. He started making foolish decisions near the end.  The Hardhome mission was dumb and only wastes resources.
  3. The execution of Janos Slynt became unjust when Jon spared Mance Rayder, a man who has committed more crimes against the Watch and against the kingdom than Slynt has done.  Mormont showed mercy to Jon for desertion.  Jon could have shown mercy to Janos Slynt's initial insubordination.
  4. Sending Mance and the spearwives to rescue his sister, or what he thought was his sister, is an attack on a noble house of the realm.  Jon's agents murdered Bolton servants while enjoying Bolton hospitality and shelter.  This is little different from what the crows did to Craster and his family.
  5. Jon's announced plans to attack the Boltons is the last straw for any honest man of the Watch.  It violated the oaths of the watch and Jon knew it.  Instead of helping unite the north, Jon's actions made unity less likely to happen.

To sum up, I support Bowen Marsh and his decision to end Jon's appointment.  

Bowen did it out of duty.  Jon hurt the watch and possibly all of mankind.  Bowen is a dedicated man and obeyed rules.  Jon just went over the edge and he had to be stopped.  I don't think there was any hate on Bowen's part.  He was just a loyal man doing what needed to be done.  Bowen did the right thing under the circumstances.

The comparison between Bowen and Jaime is actually a very good one.  Both men were put in similar situations.  The difference being Jaime felt no guilt over killing the king he was sworn to protect.  Bowen obviously felt bad because he had to take down the man he was supposed to respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

That is not how the history and tradition of the people of Westeros, the NW, and the Northmen see it. Artos Stark especially would disagree with you. Dare you to disagree with Artos Stark? I would not suggest that. He is not called Artos the Implacable for fun.

The Watch is totally dependent on the people of the Seven Kingdoms. They decide what their duty is. The Night's Watch has neither the right nor the means to complain about that. And they actually agree that the wildlings are their enemies. They hate them, and for good reason.

 

The Watch is not dependent on the people of the Seven Kingdoms, in theory, and it is specifically because they don't want the various Kings deciding what their mission is that they have the Gift, and now New Gift.  The Night's Watch is considered a sovereign entity not bound by the existing feudal structure; this is explicit in the text.  They have come to see the wildlings as their enemy, but this is literally refuted as a primary mission, which not even the conspirators can deny.  They merely with to keep things as they were instead of innovating.

Quote

That is a theory. We don't know the details of the assassination plot as of yet. I'd agree that Bowen was involved in a real conspiracy for quite some time - even since before Mance left - but whether that was a conspiracy to kill Jon or merely to change his policies if possible is completely unclear. And it doesn't matter for the question at hand. Jon did break his vows during his speech in the Shieldhall.

We know that there was a plot.  That plot must be definition involve Jon's illegal detention or death, since prior to the Pink Letter he hadn't actually violated any laws or any of his prerogatives as Lord Commander.  The conspiracy to mutiny was wrong and unjustified, no matter that it was validated post-facto.  If you plot a violent coup, you aren't retroactively pardoned by the reveal that the government you wanted to overthrow broke the law too.

Quote

The man who left the Shieldhall was no longer the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch but a deserter. 

The strong implication is that EVERY brother attempts desertion at least once.  But either way it is immaterial.  Marsh and his cronies aren't planning to kill Jon because of his desertion, but because of his letting the wildlings through.  That is the ONLY fact that matters vis a vis their conspiracy.  Which makes them both traitors and rebels, and negates any argument to be made that they can pass judgement on anyone.

Quote

And that's why his men put him down. It is what their honor and sense of duty demanded of them. And it is quite clear that this was no easy task for Bowen. He wept when he gutted Jon, after all.

Oh I agree, I think Bowen Marsh was doing this out of a misguided sense of righteousness.  But again, the Pink Letter is emphatically not what triggers the mutiny against Jon; it is him showing mercy to the wildlings and letting them through.  We cannot and should not judge Bowen Marsh because of his reaction to the Pink Letter, because he was going to kill Jon no matter what happened.  That was the point of the conspiracy.  Agreed that Jon is acting like a moron and betraying his vow by reacting the way he did to the Pink Letter, but that in no way exculpates Bowen Marsh.  He is a traitor, pure and simple, and a shortsighted one to boot.

Quote

We might learn more about Bowen's motives in the next book but I really doubt Marsh had the intention to kill Jon. If he had wanted to do that one should assume he would have done so before the wildlings came through the Wall.

We're given a good reason, and I've read one good theory.  Stannis supports Jon, so Bowen Marsh will have no luck with an assassination plot while he's at the Wall, and there are other wildlings there that Jon kept with him when Stannis leaves as additional support.  Moreover, Jon spends ADWD sending his key supporters away to garrison other castles with wildling warriors.  In other words, Bowen Marsh takes one of the few opportunities he has, as Jon is too well protected otherwise.  I've read a theory that he's waiting for the 100 men Cersei and Qyburn are supposed to be sending, so he has backup and muscle for his coup attempt; otherwise, what's the point?  He kills Jon and then is slaughtered in turn by wildlings, or by Jon's supporters, and he gets nothing?  With 100 stout men he can actually take control of the Watch and implement his reactionary policies.  He and the conspirators act when they do because it's literally their last chance.

Quote

That isn't 'defending the realms of men', either, is it?

The "realms of men" is very clearly a euphemism for humanity in general.  Jon's challenge to his advisors about the phrase and the oath in general make it quite clear that "the wildlings aren't part of a kingdom" isn't what the oath has in mind as a strong rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The Watch is not dependent on the people of the Seven Kingdoms, in theory, and it is specifically because they don't want the various Kings deciding what their mission is that they have the Gift, and now New Gift.  The Night's Watch is considered a sovereign entity not bound by the existing feudal structure; this is explicit in the text.  They have come to see the wildlings as their enemy, but this is literally refuted as a primary mission, which not even the conspirators can deny.  They merely with to keep things as they were instead of innovating.

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.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We know that there was a plot.  That plot must be definition involve Jon's illegal detention or death, since prior to the Pink Letter he hadn't actually violated any laws or any of his prerogatives as Lord Commander.  The conspiracy to mutiny was wrong and unjustified, no matter that it was validated post-facto.  If you plot a violent coup, you aren't retroactively pardoned by the reveal that the government you wanted to overthrow broke the law too.

All we know for sure is that Marsh was talking to people. That's what Mance overhears back in the Mel chapter. And there were plots during the election. But there are no hints whatsoever that Bowen Marsh ever intended to kill Jon Snow before he did. Others may have such plans, but it is really hard to say with the little information we have. And we have no idea who is on the plan and who approves of it. Wishing Jon Snow gone and a change of politics isn't the same as actually killing or deposing him.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The strong implication is that EVERY brother attempts desertion at least once.  But either way it is immaterial.  Marsh and his cronies aren't planning to kill Jon because of his desertion, but because of his letting the wildlings through.  That is the ONLY fact that matters vis a vis their conspiracy.  Which makes them both traitors and rebels, and negates any argument to be made that they can pass judgement on anyone.

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.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Oh I agree, I think Bowen Marsh was doing this out of a misguided sense of righteousness.  But again, the Pink Letter is emphatically not what triggers the mutiny against Jon; it is him showing mercy to the wildlings and letting them through.  We cannot and should not judge Bowen Marsh because of his reaction to the Pink Letter, because he was going to kill Jon no matter what happened.  That was the point of the conspiracy.  Agreed that Jon is acting like a moron and betraying his vow by reacting the way he did to the Pink Letter, but that in no way exculpates Bowen Marsh.  He is a traitor, pure and simple, and a shortsighted one to boot.

The Shieldhall speech is what seemed to have been the last straw. 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.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We're given a good reason, and I've read one good theory.  Stannis supports Jon, so Bowen Marsh will have no luck with an assassination plot while he's at the Wall, and there are other wildlings there that Jon kept with him when Stannis leaves as additional support.  Moreover, Jon spends ADWD sending his key supporters away to garrison other castles with wildling warriors.  In other words, Bowen Marsh takes one of the few opportunities he has, as Jon is too well protected otherwise.  I've read a theory that he's waiting for the 100 men Cersei and Qyburn are supposed to be sending, so he has backup and muscle for his coup attempt; otherwise, what's the point?  He kills Jon and then is slaughtered in turn by wildlings, or by Jon's supporters, and he gets nothing?  With 100 stout men he can actually take control of the Watch and implement his reactionary policies.  He and the conspirators act when they do because it's literally their last chance.

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.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The "realms of men" is very clearly a euphemism for humanity in general.  Jon's challenge to his advisors about the phrase and the oath in general make it quite clear that "the wildlings aren't part of a kingdom" isn't what the oath has in mind as a strong rebuttal.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/13/2017 at 11:11 AM, Coolbeard the Exile said:

It might objectivly be a bad decision but heck man the cruelest and vilest man in the world was having his way with his sister you cant blame him bro.

I think I, Allardyce, can blame him.  Put it this way.  If Jon was a merchant and he decided to leave his goods at the side of the road to rescue his sister.  I say fine.  He can do that.  He has the freedom to to that.  A private merchant can place his sister over the value of his goods.  However, a sworn brother of the Night's Watch cannot do that.  A man of the watch carries more responsibility for the welfare of the many than for his old family, of which he no longer has any responsibility.  Jon chose badly and paid for it with his life.  I just hope he does pay for it by staying dead.

It should not surprise us that Jon would do something selfish like trying to rescue Arya.  He deserted the watch to help Robb!  He didn't come back because he changed his mind to do the right thing.  Samwell and his friends made him go back.  I really fault Samwell for his poor judgment when he helped to get Jon elected.  He's a friend but Samwell should have been objective enough to realize that Jon cannot be trusted to do his duty if the time ever came that a Stark needed his help.  After all that speech and advice from Maester Aemon about duty and after watching Qorin Halfhand sacrifice his own life in service to the NW.  Even with those two role models to learn from, Jon couldn't learn how to have honor and do his duty.  Everyone does their duty when there is no personal cost.  The true test comes when there is a personal cost and Jon Snow failed that test.  He flunked and got fired.

 

Edited by Allardyce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allardyce said:

I think I, Allardyce, can blame him.  Put it this way.  If Jon was a merchant and he decided to leave his goods at the side of the road to rescue his sister.  I say fine.  He can do that.  He has the freedom to to that.  A private merchant can place his sister over the value of his goods.  However, a sworn brother of the Night's Watch cannot do that.  A man of the watch carries more responsibility for the welfare of the many than for his old family, of which he no longer has any responsibility.  Jon chose badly and paid for it with his life.  I just hope he does pay for it by staying dead.

It should not surprise us that Jon would do something selfish like trying to rescue Arya.  He deserted the watch to help Robb!  He didn't come back because he changed his mind to do the right thing.  Samwell and his friends made him go back.  I really fault Samwell for his poor judgment when he helped to get Jon elected.  He's a friend but Samwell should have been objective enough to realize that Jon cannot be trusted to do his duty if the time ever came that a Stark needed his help.  After all that speech and advice from Maester Aemon about duty and after watching Qorin Halfhand sacrifice his own life in service to the NW.  Even with those two role models to learn from, Jon couldn't learn how to have honor and do his duty.  Everyone does their duty when there is no personal cost.  The true test comes when there is a personal cost and Jon Snow failed that test.  He flunked and got fired.

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allardyce do you really hope Jon stays dead. Jon Snow one of the only people who knows what is coming and is activly trying to stop it. A good competent man with his heart in the right place. Jon Snow was leaving to save his little sister that he grew up with his entire life and loves and you think he deserves to die because of that?  Jesus christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now