Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[Princess Daenerys]

On 9/26/2017 at 5:11 PM, Adam Yozza said:

It certainly won't end fine for Marsh and Yarwyck and their supporters, but Jon's loyalists at other castle's (Edd at Long Barrow, Grenn and Pyp at Shadow Tower IIRC and the others who's recruit class he was in) should be fine. Satin is in more danger because's he'll almost certainly side with Tormund and Leathers against Marsh and he could die in the fighting, but the NW as a whole will survive; probably. Really depends on how many side with Marsh, how many side with Jon (or his memory) and who stays neutral (Probably Pyke and Mallister)

I don't expect many will side with Jon when they learn what he was up to.  I would doubt even a friend like Sam could support what Jon was up to and even if Sam might shy away from joining Marsh in the stabbings he would condemn Jon's behavior to attack the warden of the north.

[Lord Varys]

I have a feeling that Jon's power base among the Watch is basically not really existing. Bowen Marsh isn't exactly the bravest and most determined of men. If he is leading the assassination of a lord commander then the morale among the common brothers must be pretty low. If he did not have the feeling he and his goons were doing the right thing - and could get away with it - he most likely wouldn't have done what he did.

You have to keep in mind that Jon wasn't elected by people who liked him or felt a particular strong loyalty to him. Sam and Aemon manipulated Mallister and Pyke into supporting him, and their men - who did not know or care about Jon Snow - followed the lead of their commanders. The people at Castle Black were heavily leaning towards Janos Slynt before the Mallister/Pyke coup, Yarwyck refusing to back Slynt, and the raven miracle swayed everyone to back Jon. But he was still just a surprise candidate. The men never really believed in him, and there is no reason to believe that his subsequent actions really convinced a lot of his brothers that he was a great Lord Commander. He did nothing to win the love and respect of the men of the Night's Watch. For all we know Pyp and Green hate him now for splitting them up and sending them away.

Jon's support should be strongest among the rangers, especially those who were part of the ranging to the Fist of the First Men. But very few of those men survived and returned to NW. And those who did were sent away by Jon to man and command the other castles. In addition, the most bad blood should be between the wildlings and the rangers considering that the rangers are the ones who go out into the forest to face the wildlings there. The idea that those men are mostly in favor of Jon's politics does not convince me. Especially not the rangers at Eastwatch and whatever rangers remain in the Shadow Tower. But even if this was the case the 80-90% of the rangers should have died at the Fist or during the later march back, especially those from the Shadow Tower and Castle Black. The majority of the black brothers still alive should be stewards and builders and we don't know whether Jon has any support among those people. Those fighting with him at Castle Black against Styr and Mance certainly would have looked favorably on him back then - but when he suddenly became a wildling lover their attitudes might have changed.

Now, it is quite clear the wildlings at Castle Black outnumber the watchmen there right now, but Marsh and his people know what's happening and they don't. And when push comes to shove the Watch will unanimously stand with Marsh against the wildlings. The black brothers won't kill each other to defend the wildlings.

Also keep in mind that Tormund's people are there with their families - their women, children, old ones, etc. A fraction of them are fighters, but all the men of the Night's Watch are trained at arms. And they all have castle-forged steel weapons, unlike the wildlings. If Marsh acts first, and secures the hostages Jon has taken as one would expect him to do at the same time as he is killing Jon he should quickly have Tormund by the balls. Especially since he most certainly doesn't want to waste the strength of the Watch in a pointless battle against the wildlings. He wanted to prevent Jon's mad march to Winterfell. And that he did. He most likely should be able to convince Tormund to not go there now that Jon is dead.

But even if Marsh was as mad as trying to slaughter all the wildlings he has a good chances to do that, too. They are stuck in the Shieldhall right now. A hundred determined men could slaughter them in there. Just remember how successfully Roose and Walder dealt with Robb's host.

And once Marsh is in control of Castle Black he can put down all the defenseless wildlings in the other castles, working with Mallister's and Pyke's men by controlling the truth. He could tell the tale that Jon Snow was assassinated by treasonous wildlings rather than him and his men. Under those circumstances the black brothers are likely to turn all against the wildlings.

[Only 89 selfies today]

Quote

 

Good job on this terrific discussion of a very important topic in the plot.  The most liberal men of the watch would have issues with Jon soon after they know what he had been up to.  Jon's decisions can't be justified and no one will be motivated to defend him except a wildling.  To ignite a fight with Ramsay served the best interests of the Others because it weakened the chances of getting Bolton cooperation, however small that chance might be there is zero now.  Bowen is a responsible officer who took the only option open for him to take. Attacking the Boltons with a wildling party is disaster for the watch and the people of Westeros.  Jon was about to take away half the defensive forces at the wall to fight his personal battle.  Many of those men will die and in the process they will kill many Bolton men.  Which results in a big reduction of manpower available to fight the others.  Arya is not worth all of that.  Any competent leader in Jon's position should know that but he took the selfish road and placed his own interests over that of his sacred duty and sworn oaths.  Jon was already ineffective and he was no loss to the watch when Bowen killed him.  No one in the watch except Sam will mourn his loss.

The wildlings are more motivated to rescue their king.  More so than taking revenge over the death of Jon.  They will leave the castle and set out for Winterfell instead of fighting the men of the watch.  The ones who make it through the snows will not find a warm welcome when they get to the castle.  It was all a waste.  The mission to hard home was a waste too. 

[Maia]

16 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

I could put together another long explanation about why that is so, but it would be completely lost on you as you would just fall back on 'he broke his oath', completely ignoring the fact that one of the recurring themes of the series is that 'words are wind'. Martin doesn't want us to see these oaths as absolutes that should always be followed regardless of the morality of the situation.

You can't have it both ways - i.e. that oaths given to the Starks/Jon should be kept at all costs and it is terrible to break them, but Jon is free to break his oaths at his convenience. Why is it moral and right for Jon to divert NW resources into helping his family (and yes, he did. He supplied Mance from NW stores and intended to pay for Arya's journey to and stay at Braavos from NW funds), but wrong of other NW brothers to do the same? And disperse as a result?

Why should the wildlings abide by their promises to Jon, instead of slaughtering the northmen and taking over their foodstores and dwellings? Isn't it better for their families than starving? Which is going to happen in a few months (and would have happened in weeks if Jon had been successful with the Hardhome rescue mission and let the Weeper's people in as well, as he wanted), since Jon couldn't be bothered to organize a food supply for them and steadily ignored Marsh on the subject of imminent food shortages. Yes, he has a letter of credit, which nobody knows about, BTW, but they can't eat that.

For that matter, if "words are wind", why was it wrong for Frey and Bolton to get rid of Robb, who was determined to continue fighting a losing war and wasting lives and resources?  Etc., etc.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Maia said:

You can't have it both ways - i.e. that oaths given to the Starks/Jon should be kept at all costs and it is terrible to break them, but Jon is free to break his oaths at his convenience. Why is it moral and right for Jon to divert NW resources into helping his family (and yes, he did. He supplied Mance from NW stores and intended to pay for Arya's journey to and stay at Braavos from NW funds), but wrong of other NW brothers to do the same? And disperse as a result?

Why should the wildlings abide by their promises to Jon, instead of slaughtering the northmen and taking over their foodstores and dwellings? Isn't it better for their families than starving? Which is going to happen in a few months (and would have happened in weeks if Jon had been successful with the Hardhome rescue mission and let the Weeper's people in as well, as he wanted), since Jon couldn't be bothered to organize a food supply for them and steadily ignored Marsh on the subject of imminent food shortages. Yes, he has a letter of credit, which nobody knows about, BTW, but they can't eat that.

For that matter, if "words are wind", why was it wrong for Frey and Bolton to get rid of Robb, who was determined to continue fighting a losing war and wasting lives and resources?  Etc., etc.

People seem to be forgetting that Mance and his people actually attacked the Wall. They were fleeing the Others, true, but they did not come as refugees or people offering an alliance in exchange for the protection of the Wall. Mance sent his men across the Wall to slaughter the defenseless black brothers at Castle Black. He sent out the Weeper to lure Marsh to the Bridge of Skulls, etc. He did not send a party of envoys to Mormont to discuss the common enemy and ask for help.

In light of all that the idea that all the wildlings are going to behave as nicely as Jon thinks they should is a very hard pill to swallow. The Watch never declared war on the wildlings. They were always the ones attacking the Wall and the people south of the Wall, people who feed and clothe the Watch, people who actually join the NW itself.

The idea that deals and agreements Jon is making with the wildlings are going to more than wind is a pretty big stretch, especially if push comes to shove. Sure, the Others are the common enemy, but the wildlings are already beaten in a sense. They left their homes and fled their lands. How likely is it that they keep their word, man the Wall, and stand with the NW and against the Others and wights when they finally come? Why shouldn't they flee again? Why shouldn't they betray them?

If they do they would have eaten a lot of the provisions of the Watch in the meantime while abandoning them in the time of greatest need.

Jon's policies are pretty good in principle but when you fail to convince your own people that you are making the right choices you are actually making the wrong choices. His actions helped the destabilize the situation at the Wall and that only helps the Others. And that's ignoring the whole Arya thing.

If Jon can make a deal with the wildlings he should also have been willing to try to make a deal with the Boltons, Freys, and Lannisters. But he sure as hell is not willing to even contemplate that. He puts his own petty needs of vengeance as well as his own family loyalty to Arya above the needs of his own brothers at the Wall as well as above the common good. He must have been aware of the fact that provoking Roose and Ramsay the way he did could very well mean the end of the NW and thus also the end of mankind, right? But he didn't care about that.

It is understandable that he wants to save his sister. But it is not a decision we should praise him for. A man in his position should really see the big picture. But Jon doesn't.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

7 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon's decisions can't be justified and no one will be motivated to defend him except a wildling.  To ignite a fight with Ramsay served the best interests of the Others because it weakened the chances of getting Bolton cooperation, however small that chance might be there is zero now.

Jon didn't ignite the fight with Ramsay though. Ramsay ignited the fight by being a sadistic bastard & sending the PL right? 

Bolton cooperation in regards to what? The fight against the Others? Or the fight for WF? Either way Ramsay & the Boltons don't even know Jon & the wildlings planned on marching on WF. Ramsay knows Jon had his hand in sending Mance to rescue fArya but that will have no bearing on the Boltons decision to help in the fight against the Others. The Boltons will choose the winning side regardless. Just the same as they did with the Starks & Lannisters. If an army of undead comes marching the attack Westeros & the Others can be talked to & negotiated with that is the route the Boltons will choose until a better option presents itself. If the Others cannot be negotiated with &/or are just hell bent on destroying all humans the Boltons will defend themselves. Roose isn't  going to say "Nah, I'm not helping kill the Others because Jon Snow helped plot to steal fArya from Ramsay" 

7 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Attacking the Boltons with a wildling party is disaster for the watch and the people of Westeros.  Jon was about to take away half the defensive forces at the wall to fight his personal battle.  Many of those men will die and in the process they will kill many Bolton men.  Which results in a big reduction of manpower available to fight the others.  Arya is not worth all of that.  Any competent leader in Jon's position should know that but he took the selfish road and placed his own interests over that of his sacred duty and sworn oaths. 

Half the forces that is half the reason Bowen was pissed at Jon to begin with. He can't have it both ways. The Wildlings are not men of the NW. I agree the end result does leave the realm less men that could be used to fight against the Others though. 

To Jon Arya is worth that though. I think thats the point. He has to make a very hard decision & he makes one that is bad for the NW but good for Arya. I could argue he is defending the NW as well because Ramsay threatened to attack them also. She is Jon's sister. I'm thinking of my own sister & what I would think & feel knowing she was being held captive by this monster. Right or wrong I would do anything at my disposal to save her. It doesn't make him an incompetent leader in general, just not a good leader of the NW. If he were King or Warden of the North his actions would be completely acceptable and expected. If Ramsay had the Kings sister there would most definetely be a battle. 

He never puts his own interests above that of his sworn duty & sacred oaths. He repeatedly refuses Stannis' offer to be legitimized & become Lord of WF. He puts other people's interests over his duty. Namely Arya's. That in it's self makes a very good leader IMO. 

I don't see that he didn't do his duty or he broke his oath. What oath did he break? 

7 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Jon was already ineffective and he was no loss to the watch when Bowen killed him.  No one in the watch except Sam will mourn his loss.

Again we can't have it both ways. If Jon was no loss & the wildlings are not men of the NW to begin with then Bowen's decision to assassinate him was unwarranted & unnecessary. He should have just let him go no? 

[Adam Yozza]

2 hours ago, Maia said:

You can't have it both ways - i.e. that oaths given to the Starks/Jon should be kept at all costs and it is terrible to break them, but Jon is free to break his oaths at his convenience. Why is it moral and right for Jon to divert NW resources into helping his family (and yes, he did. He supplied Mance from NW stores and intended to pay for Arya's journey to and stay at Braavos from NW funds), but wrong of other NW brothers to do the same? And disperse as a result?

Why should the wildlings abide by their promises to Jon, instead of slaughtering the northmen and taking over their foodstores and dwellings? Isn't it better for their families than starving? Which is going to happen in a few months (and would have happened in weeks if Jon had been successful with the Hardhome rescue mission and let the Weeper's people in as well, as he wanted), since Jon couldn't be bothered to organize a food supply for them and steadily ignored Marsh on the subject of imminent food shortages. Yes, he has a letter of credit, which nobody knows about, BTW, but they can't eat that.

For that matter, if "words are wind", why was it wrong for Frey and Bolton to get rid of Robb, who was determined to continue fighting a losing war and wasting lives and resources?  Etc., etc.

Point me to where I claimed that the oaths to the Starks/Jon should be kept at all costs. I also didn't claim that oaths should be broken at convenience. I said that when faced with a choice between keeping to ones oaths and doing the right thing, one should choose to do what is right. Rescuing Arya was right because she was being mentally, physically and sexually abused by Ramsay. Doing nothing would have been wrong. The fact that it's his sister affects Jon's judgement, but does not change the morality of the action.

Jon didn't ignore Marsh on the issue of food. As you said he had a letter of credit and was making plans to have food imported to the Watch from the Free Cities, which is just about the only thing he could do. He couldn't leave the Wildlings out north of the Wall, not least because doing so would just give the Others more bodies to throw at them.

It was wrong for Bolton and Frey to kill Robb because of the manner they did it. Not because they broke an oath. If Frey had barred his gates and not allowed Robb to pass in Storm, and allowed Tarly and Gregor to attack them from behind, and Bolton changed sides mid battle, then the Frey's would not be nearly so reviled.

[Wolf's Bane]

3 hours ago, Maia said:

For that matter, if "words are wind", why was it wrong for Frey and Bolton to get rid of Robb, who was determined to continue fighting a losing war and wasting lives and resources?  Etc., etc.

Thank you for bringing this to the discussion.  Jon's and Stark's supporters seem to want to hold guest rights sacred and at the same time they downplay the importance of oaths. 

Jon is still wrong even if there were no oaths involved.  For many, many reasons.  (1) he let Mance Rayder go free instead of giving him a well-deserved appointment with the chopping block, (2) he sent his agents to take Arya away from her husband, (3) #2 is taking sides with northern politics, (4) #2 is also an act of war, (5) he was about to cause more problems if he rode out with the wildlings to turn a feud into all out war. 

Robb was as much on the wrong as the other participants of the Wot5k.  To call your banners and bring death and destruction to save the life of a man who confessed to treason?  That was irresponsible.  I put some of the blame on Cat because she put justice for her son ahead of her people's safety.  I can really sympathize with the lords or the river land.  They felt the pain for what Cat did.  And for what?  For one little boy that got crippled.  I can understand Walder Frey's dismay at the Tullys and the Starks because they made Tywin Lannister mad and he took it out on them.  Robb was a good battle field general but he would have made for a shitty ruler.  I can say Jon has some good qualities as a leader in some specific cases, but he would have made for an even shittier ruler than Robb.

[Maia]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 If an army of undead comes marching the attack Westeros & the Others can be talked to & negotiated with that is the route the Boltons will choose until a better option presents itself.

 

If they can be negotiated with, it would be a good idea to try no matter who you are. But then, it should be Jon's job to look into it before they enter the North, as LC of NW.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If the Others cannot be negotiated with &/or are just hell bent on destroying all humans the Boltons will defend themselves.

 

Not if they don't know what they are dealing with in time. Which, thanks to Jon's biases, they don't. Not to mention that precious manpower and supplies are being currently destroyed in a war between men, so neither Stannis nor the Boltons, whoever wins, is going to have the capability to hold the Others back.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Half the forces that is half the reason Bowen was pissed at Jon to begin with. He can't have it both ways.

 

Jon revealed himself as a liar. His justification for bringing the wildlings across and sharing NW resources with them was that they would help man the Wall. He gave his word to the clan chiefs that the wildlings would remain in the Gifts.

Now he is taking them, as his private army, to fight and kill the very northmen who have supported NW over the years. Not only that, but he is also sending the few remaining black brothers to Hardhome, with even more of NW's dwindling supplies - i.e. conveniently baring the Wall for invasion by the Weeper, the Others or both. And also pitting the NW against the allegedly victorious Boltons in the bargain. Or so it must look to Marsh. Jon forgot to consider such things, but he was leaving the Wall weaker defended than  before he started recruiting wildlings in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To Jon Arya is worth that though. I think thats the point. He has to make a very hard decision & he makes one that is bad for the NW but good for Arya.

 

Funny how people crucify Cat for her selfishness for trying to rescue her daughters from deadly dangerous and abusive situation when, if successful, it would have actually helped Robb and the North, even though Robb was too thick politically to see it at the time.

But it is A-OK when Jon prioritizes Arya over survival of humanity and  unleashes an extremely dangerous enemy of the North in the process.

.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 If he were King or Warden of the North his actions would be completely acceptable and expected.

Robb claimed otherwise, even though I thought that he was largely wrong before the fall of Winterfell and completely wrong after. So no, it would not be "expected". But a king can do as he likes, if he can get away with it, so in this sense it would be "acceptable", I guess. If Cat didn't surrender her regency or  were a ruling queen people would still find a way to blame her for such a decision, I bet.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If Jon was no loss & the wildlings are not men of the NW to begin with then Bowen's decision to assassinate him was unwarranted & unnecessary. He should have just let him go no? 

Jon is an oathbreaker who calls himself LC of the NW. As such he falsely represents NW's position to the North, if they let him leave. It is their duty to deal with him before he can cause even more harm.

 

16 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I said that when faced with a choice between keeping to ones oaths and doing the right thing, one should choose to do what is right.

 

"What is right" is different for different individuals. Was it right to spark off even more civil war in the North and leave the Wall at it's weakest before the imminent danger of the Others? Not IMHO. Marsh was also doing what he thought was right.

Which is why laws and oaths are important for the functioning of society and should be broken only for a very good reason.

 

16 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

Jon didn't ignore Marsh on the issue of food. As you said he had a letter of credit and was making plans to have food imported to the Watch from the Free Cities, which is just about the only thing he could do.

Jon very much did ignore Marsh on the issue of food until the completely unexpected windfall of the Iron Bank emissary fell into his lap. He made plans to let the wildlings in, even knowing that he could only feed them for a few months. In effect, he was trading the lives of northmen and watchmen for the lives of wildlings, because wildlings would have no choice but to fight northmen for their already scant food stores, once the NW reserves ran out. Jon didn't think about it, but that's what he was, in effect, doing. Sacrificing people who have always supported NW and provided it's manpower for the people who have only ever tried to kill, rape and rob them and fought the NW. 

  And even afterwards - nobody knows what the loan he got looks like. Not to mention that buying and transporting the food will take many months, given the devastation in the Riverlands and the Crownlands and ongoing low-burn war in other places. If Jon had sent somebody to organize supply immediately and only had Tormund's people to feed, then there would have been enough time to bring supplies in, barring very bad luck. With Jon failing to even start the process, Hardhome expedition and the talk of letting Weeper's people in, they were sure to run out long before that.

 

16 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

He couldn't leave the Wildlings out north of the Wall, not least because doing so would just give the Others more bodies to throw at them.

 

Letting the wildlings in without the ability to feed them, would have ensured that there was nobody to guard the Wall at all, because everybody would be dead from starvation or from fighting for the dwindling resources. Bodies on the other side of the Wall are not nearly as dangerous as that. 

 

16 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

It was wrong for Bolton and Frey to kill Robb because of the manner they did it.

Guest right is also an oath, which, according to you, is wind and can be disregarded whenever somebody deems it "right". Bolton and Frey thought it right to put an end to a losing, destructive war.

[Morte]

Thanks for the great contribution and explanation here, @Lord Varys, @Maia, @Only 89 selfies today, @Wolf's Bane and all the others, for pointing out what events and good reasons lead to the Iden of Marsh.

Almost nothing to add left, beside:

22 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

So no, Bowen was in no way correct to do what he did. I could put together another long explanation about why that is so, but it would be completely lost on you as you would just fall back on 'he broke his oath', completely ignoring the fact that one of the recurring themes of the series is that 'words are wind'. Martin doesn't want us to see these oaths as absolutes that should always be followed regardless of the morality of the situation. Jaime killed the Mad King to save the city and even though he broke his oath to do so it was still very clearly the right thing to do. Jon; who by the way actually hasn't broken the oath since becoming Lord Commander because nowhere in the oath does it state that the NW has to be neutral (that's tradition not oath) nor does it say they can't ally with the wildlings; absolutely does the morally right thing when he sends Mance to rescue Arya at Long Lake.

As Maia pointed out, when you would have to be okay with every oath breaking in the game, which not only the reader, but clearly also the writer is not.

Because "word are wind" is not so much a theme of the series, for being okay and the right thing to do, but for being the true in the sense that too much people are breaking their promises for their private benefits or the benefits of people close to them - without looking at the consequences. And every time this happens the overall situation is getting worse, more people - mostly the one innocent in regard of the whole struggle of the feudal "elite" - are dying and suffering. So no: Breaking oaths is not something Martin wants us to root for.

And even if an oath is broken for the greater good, as it is in Jaime's case, there is a prize to pay: Shame and guild. Because Jaime feels guilty, deeply guilty for breaking his oath - not so much for killing the king (and even here, he knows that it wasn't right, knew it even then, else he wouldn't have had changed his armour), but for being so absorbed by this and his own ego, that he forgot his duty toward Rhaegar's family.

And while Jaime broke his oath for the greater good in this moment, not thinking about his family and his own honour (not talking about his reasons, not even to his LC, who would have at least understood him), Jon's oath breaking is the exact opposite: Jon's is breaking his oath for his family and his own feelings.

So please, leave Jaime out of this.

And this theme of the series would better be described as "Everything you do has a prize attached to it, deal with it! Everybody around you has to, too".

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Maia said:

If they can be negotiated with, it would be a good idea to try no matter who you are. But then, it should be Jon's job to look into it before they enter the North, as LC of NW

Yes and? So far Jon has only seen the mindless wights with no capacity to negotate. 

 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Not if they don't know what they are dealing with in time. Which, thanks to Jon's biases, they don't. Not to mention that precious manpower and supplies are being currently destroyed in a war between men, so neither Stannis nor the Boltons, whoever wins, is going to have the capability to hold the Others back.

 So now it's Jon's fault the rest of the realm is at war? Stannis was going to fight the Boltons any which way it went. 

 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Funny how people crucify Cat for her selfishness for trying to rescue her daughters from deadly dangerous and abusive situation when, if successful, it would have actually helped Robb and the North, even though Robb was too thick politically to see it at the time.

But it is A-OK when Jon prioritizes Arya over survival of humanity and  unleashes an extremely dangerous enemy of the North in the process.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Not only did I not mention Cat & her decision at all but I have never crucified her for that decision. 

I think it's a little dramatic to say Jon has unleashed the enemy on the North. This is hardly what has happened. 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Jon is an oathbreaker who calls himself LC of the NW. As such he falsely represents NW's position to the North, if they let him leave. It is their duty to deal with him before he can cause even more harm.

I was responding to another post about Jon being "no loss" to the NW but, again, I don't see what oath he has broken. Made an impulsive, bad for the NW, decision yes, but no oath was broken. 

 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Robb claimed otherwise, even though I thought that he was largely wrong before the fall of Winterfell and completely wrong after. So no, it would not be "expected". But a king can do as he likes, if he can get away with it, so in this sense it would be "acceptable", I guess. If Cat didn't surrender her regency or  were a ruling queen people would still find a way to blame her for such a decision, I bet

Robb was at rebelling against the crown. It's not the same situation. Do you think if Ramsay had Cersei's daughter there wouldn't be a battle to get her back? Or if Robb was King (not King in the North but King of the 7 kingdoms) & Ramsay had his sisters he wouldn't have an army lay waste to them to retrieve them? 

 

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Letting the wildlings in without the ability to feed them, would have ensured that there was nobody to guard the Wall at all, because everybody would be dead from starvation or from fighting for the dwindling resources. Bodies on the other side of the Wall are not nearly as dangerous as that. 

The Wildlings don't have to stay at the wall to be fed though. There is a whole realm of places they can go to feed themselves. Bodies in & of itself are not dangerous but because we know that those bodies turn into wights & start killing people that makes them a substantial amount more dangerous than letting living, breathing, humans on this side of the wall - especially when that is more people to fight for you instead of against you. 

[BalerionTheCat]

3 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Thank you for bringing this to the discussion.  Jon's and Stark's supporters seem to want to hold guest rights sacred and at the same time they downplay the importance of oaths.

I understand "guest rights" as something important. You agree to a temporary truce or to welcome someone in your house. You should not betray it. The Oaths, I see them more akin to slavery. Who but slaves dies at their post, are beheaded if they leave? I see no honor in tricking unaware children to serve for life. I see no honor in sentencing people for life for minor crimes, like stealing food for their children. The NW has become a shame. And it would become an accomplice of Ramsey's crimes if it complied with any of his demands.

[Tagganaro]

2 hours ago, Morte said:

And while Jaime broke his oath for the greater good in this moment, not thinking about his family and his own honour (not talking about his reasons, not even to his LC, who would have at least understood him), Jon's oath breaking is the exact opposite: Jon's is breaking his oath for his family and his own feelings.

So please, leave Jaime out of this.

And this theme of the series would better be described as "Everything you do has a prize attached to it, deal with it! Everybody around you has to, too".

You can't say Jaime broke his oath for the greater good but Jon did not.  Even granting you that Jon's motivations are not pure (which is wrong, but whatever I'll grant it), Jon's actions are still for the greater good.  Does anyone think the North is better off with Ramsay ruling it?  Does anyone think it's for the greater good to leave Jeyne Poole to be viciously raped and hurt every night?  Does anyone think it's for the greater good for Jon to hand over Selyse, Shireen, Val to a monster like Ramsay?

4 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Thank you for bringing this to the discussion.  Jon's and Stark's supporters seem to want to hold guest rights sacred and at the same time they downplay the importance of oaths. 

Jon is still wrong even if there were no oaths involved.  For many, many reasons.  (1) he let Mance Rayder go free instead of giving him a well-deserved appointment with the chopping block, (2) he sent his agents to take Arya away from her husband, (3) #2 is taking sides with northern politics, (4) #2 is also an act of war, (5) he was about to cause more problems if he rode out with the wildlings to turn a feud into all out war. 

How so?  How is it wrong to try and protect an innocent girl from being raped and enslaved by Ramsay?  Why is "taking sides" in northern politics such a bad thing, when everyone else is doing it and the Watch is suffering either way?

[Texas Hold Em]

5 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Robb was at rebelling against the crown. It's not the same situation. Do you think if Ramsay had Cersei's daughter there wouldn't be a battle to get her back? Or if Robb was King (not King in the North but King of the 7 kingdoms) & Ramsay had his sisters he wouldn't have an army lay waste to them to retrieve them? 

Jon belongs in the same category as Ramsay and Cersei.  Bad ruling potential.  He would be equally as bad in ruling as those two if they were all in a position to rule.  Putting one family member's well being ahead of what's good for a whole continent is the kind of decision that an unfit leader would make.  Jon is unfit to lead and even less fit to rule.  Bowen Marsh and the other officers of the watch were respectful and obeyed his orders (even the obviously bad decisions like Hard home) right up until he admitted his treason and announced that he was going to do something so bad that it will make what the Nights King did look like mild misdemeanor.

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, Morte said:

As Maia pointed out, when you would have to be okay with every oath breaking in the game, which not only the reader, but clearly also the writer is not.

How do you reckon?

7 hours ago, Morte said:

Because "word are wind" is not so much a theme of the series, for being okay and the right thing to do, but for being the true in the sense that too much people are breaking their promises for their private benefits or the benefits of people close to them - without looking at the consequences. And every time this happens the overall situation is getting worse, more people - mostly the one innocent in regard of the whole struggle of the feudal "elite" - are dying and suffering. So no: Breaking oaths is not something Martin wants us to root for.

1. 

Well, we do know is that Martin uses "words are wind" repeatedly, and that one of his editors wanted to take some out and he didn't let her. And we have very clear examples where Martin goes through the trouble of basically spelling it out for the readers. 

ASoS, Jaime VIII 

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me."

In other words,  use your head and some common sense instead of blindly following orders and later hiding behind words.

2.

It's not just "break any oath whenever". It's about making difficult choices and accepting you're going to get some right and some wrong. But to do nothing because "vows" is bollocks, and it's the coward's easy way out: "I was just following orders/obeying my vows!". 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", thats it in a nutshell. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

44 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Jon belongs in the same category as Ramsay and Cersei.  Bad ruling potential.  He would be equally as bad in ruling as those two if they were all in a position to rule.  Putting one family member's well being ahead of what's good for a whole continent is the kind of decision that an unfit leader would make.  Jon is unfit to lead and even less fit to rule.  Bowen Marsh and the other officers of the watch were respectful and obeyed his orders (even the obviously bad decisions like Hard home) right up until he admitted his treason and announced that he was going to do something so bad that it will make what the Nights King did look like mild misdemeanor.

What I said is being taken out of context. I never once said Jon made great decisions or was a good ruler. I was saying just because he made a bad NW LC doesn't mean he isn't fit to rule. If he were ruling in almost any other setting what he did would be acceptable. 

What was so bad it made what the NK did look like a misdemeanor? 

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Jon belongs in the same category as Ramsay and Cersei.  Bad ruling potential.  He would be equally as bad in ruling as those two if they were all in a position to rule.  Putting one family member's well being ahead of what's good for a whole continent is the kind of decision that an unfit leader would make.  Jon is unfit to lead and even less fit to rule.  Bowen Marsh and the other officers of the watch were respectful and obeyed his orders (even the obviously bad decisions like Hard home) right up until he admitted his treason

Defending the wall is his duty, not treason.

Quote

 

and announced that he was going to do something so bad that it will make what the Nights King did look like mild misdemeanor.

Again, defending the wall is his duty, not treason. Maybe you need to reread the pink letter again because it clearly states that Ramsay was going to attack the Night's Watch if Jon did not do the literal impossible and hand over people he did not have. What do you think would happen if Jon did not fulfill the PL requests? Do you think that Ramsay would sit idle and twiddle his thumbs waiting for fArya... whom every lord at Winterfell knows is fake? The author pulled this all together against the Boltons for a reason, and it isn't so they are the 'winners'.

Ramsay made the threat and move to battle first.

And if you are alluding to Jon went to Winterfell to save Arya, well we know that is stated in the books as not true because it was Mance who told Melisandre where this "girl in grey" was and Melisandre went along with that idea because Melisandre is desperate to get Jon to trust her... because even after Mel used her magics to trick Ghost in to "liking" her, Jon is still smart enough to see through Mel's glamours. You should reread the ADWD Melisandre chapter again to see this on page.

[Morte]

14 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

You can't say Jaime broke his oath for the greater good but Jon did not.  Even granting you that Jon's motivations are not pure (which is wrong, but whatever I'll grant it), Jon's actions are still for the greater good.  Does anyone think the North is better off with Ramsay ruling it?  Does anyone think it's for the greater good to leave Jeyne Poole to be viciously raped and hurt every night?  Does anyone think it's for the greater good for Jon to hand over Selyse, Shireen, Val to a monster like Ramsay?

1. I will not repeat all the point collected in the last ten or so postings, why the idea of marching against Winterfell is not for the greater good, but in fact a bad idea weakening and endangering the good cause.

2. Last time I looked Roose Bolton was still alive, and while this one may be a sociopath, he clearly is not a psycho. Beside: We readers tend to view the situation based on our knowledge - a knowledge Jon & Co. don't have, they have rumours and gossip, not knowing what and how much of it is true.

3. It's not a rescue mission for Jeyne Poole or any other girl, it's a rescue mission for "Arya". It's doubtable that Jon would have reacted that way would he know the girl in suffering is not Arya. Hell, I'm not even sure he would have reacted the same emotional way for Sansa.

4. As others have stated above, he does not need to hand over Selyse, Shireen or Val. In fact, handing over the guests of the NW would also be against the neutrality of the Watch. So building some defences to the south, sending scouting missions to get a picture of what is going on, and sending Crows (maybe with one or two Wildling) to the different lords of the North to tell the story of what is happening beyond the Wall and why the Wildling came south, would be the way to go. Yes, it is hard to not react if you see your family threatened, Maester Aemon told him so.

 

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's not just "break any oath whenever". It's about making difficult choices and accepting you're going to get some right and some wrong. But to do nothing because "vows" is bollocks, and it's the coward's easy way out: "I was just following orders/obeying my vows!".

Agreed. Just what I said:

16 hours ago, Morte said:

And this theme of the series would better be described as "Everything you do has a prize attached to it, deal with it! Everybody around you has to, too".

Breaking you oath and killing the king before he can kill all the people of KL: Good choice (with good intentions, but still bad side effects like the death of Elia and the children) - deal with the consequences!

Breaking you oath, preparing to march on WF to rescue your sister: Bad choice (albeit with good, but particular intentions and bad side effects) - deal with the consequences!

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", thats it in a nutshell. 

Yes. But in this situation a cool and rational decision would be necessary, because with this move Jon is - and would be, even without the mutiny - weakening the position of "good":

a) winter

b ) provisions

c) Wildlings fighting Northerners and how it looks in the eyes of the people and lords of the North

d) Wildlings outside of the Gift, maybe/most likely even "provisioning themselves out of the land" (they are not as disciplined as even the almost-non-disciplined feudal armies, how did Jon imaging to stop them from plundering? "Fetch me a block?" They are not a military organisation, they would simply leave.)

So what could he have done?

a) build defences, because the threat in the letter is there (check: most likely no complains from the Crows)

b ) send scouts to get a picture of the situation (check: grinding teeth, but most likely no action against Jon from the Crows)

c) send envoys to the lords of the North, telling the situation, warning them about the threat from beyond the Wall and in this way get more intel on the Bolton-Stark-situation and their views on it (check: most likely no complains from the Crows)

[Lord Varys]

As I've said earlier in this thread, the Jaime thing is a very bad example. The man killed his king because he could do it and (hoped to) get away with it, not because it was a thing he had to do it. If he had truly cared about his vows he would have tried to keep both by only killing Rossart and distracting, arresting, or knocking out Aerys II until such time as the Lannister forces had arrived in the throne room - they were only minutes or seconds away, anyway, when Jaime decided to murder the man. We know that because Tywin's men caught Jaime red-handed in front of the royal corpse. We know he intended to quietly sneak out of the throne room to make the death of that king as much a mystery as the death of Maegor had been.

But if you look at the facts Jaime didn't have to kill Aerys II to save KL. His actions and demeanor indicate he wanted to kill the man to punish him for his real and attempted crimes - something that's understandable, considering Jaime's youth and Aerys' madness, but it is not something we should praise him for. It shows the very obvious tendency in Jaime Lannister that no one but he himself can judge his actions and motivations. He is the lion who is not judged by the lesser animals. And that's the reason why he never explained his actions to anyone later on, because nobody can or deserves to understand what's going on in Jaime Lannister's heart.

In regards to Jon, the boy actually goes to the Wall out of petty ambition and a wish to prove himself worthy of being a Stark. He suffers from being raised as a bastard, and considers the Watch as a way out of the miserable life of Jon Snow who is never going to be able to get a spot in the sun at Winterfell. That is his main motivation to take the black and the root of his sorrow when he realizes what the Watch actually is.

Sure, he eventually comes around to see the true purpose of the Watch as something important, just as he also recognizes the face of the true enemy. But he is not an idealist like Waymar Royce or Qhorin Halfhand. He did not take the black because he believed in the Others or the sacred mission of the black knights of the Wall. Nor was he ever able to really commit himself to the mission the same way most of his brothers did.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

 

3 hours ago, Morte said:

So building some defences to the south, sending scouting missions to get a picture of what is going on, and sending Crows (maybe with one or two Wildling) to the different lords of the North to tell the story of what is happening beyond the Wall and why the Wildling came south, would be the way to go.

 

Something I found interesting as I have also suggested setting up defenses south of the Wall would have been the better route. From the wiki:

 

"After the defeat of the Night's King, the rule was enforced that the castles of the Night's Watch along the Wall should never be fortified against approach from the south, so that they cannot oppose the lands south of the Wall which they are meant to defend. The downfall of the Night's King also resulted in the strict enforcement of the rule that the Night's Watch is meant to be politically neutral, as guardians who do not "rule" the Wall but who serve the realms of men."

So really he would have been breaking the rules to do that also.