Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[Rickon Stark The Aulë]

40 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Proof- Barbrey Dustin also 'knows' that Ramsay killed Domeric and wants him dead for it.

I would hardly call that the "whole" North. 

 

41 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Ramsay, though; what part of the text gives the indication that Ramsay cares about what the people think of him or that he considers long term consequences?

Ramsay despite being a psychopath is not a idiot. The battle of Winterfell shows that. Also Ramsay does care about what people think about him, he hates being called snow and constantly goes about repeating his titles like Lord of Hornwood or True Scion of House bolton as if he has to prove something. 

 

"Never call him that! Ramsay Bolton, not Ramsay Snow, never Snow, never, you have to remember his name, or he will hurt you." 

-Theon Greyjoy

 

48 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

It's possible to kill the LC without destroying the watch, yes. Nonetheless, attacking Castle Black to kill the LC is still an attack on the watch whether you destroy the whole organization or not. Would Ramsay do that though? No, he would kill everyone in CB and burn it to the ground. He might leave Shadow Tower and Eastwatch alone but that probably depends on his mood at the time.

 

49 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yes Jon broke some of his vows. He didn't kill Mance when he discovered he was alive; that's breaking his oath, though with Mance's skills and abilities it would be a waste to do so. Giving Stannis advice to take down the Bolton's is also a violation, and so is preparing to march south to fight Ramsay though in the case of the latter it was absolutely justified. Letting the wildlings through the wall, though, is not breaking his vows. Nor is allowing Stannis to reside there for a period of time. If 'Arya' (Jeyne) had been the girl on the dying horse then allowing her to shelter at CB is also perfectly fine.

And in the cases were Jon did break part of his oath, his actions were still right on a moral level.

I disagree with some of the things you say but for the most part I agree. How about we agree to disagree? 

 

 

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

We're not talking the North, we're talking, specifically, Ramsay Bolton. And the Pink Letter doesn't exactly reek of that alleged respect to the Night's Watch.

You might have missed it, it seems that you did, but Ramsay Bolton is not Ned Stark. I'll go even further: Ramsay Bolton is quite different from Ned Stark. Do not quote Ned Stark as proof how Ramsay Bolton would act.

I'd go one further... Is there even evidence that the Boltons have had anyone of their house volunteer to join the NW? Absolutely none. The number of known Boltons joining the NW for the past 15 years is 0. We know of two Starks voluntarily joining the NW though, and a Mormont. Any other Northerners in the NW?

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

The battle of Winterfell shows that.

You mean betraying people who believe you're a friend? Actually that doesn't make Ramsay smart. It's one of the easiest things to do - defeating someone who trusts you. Not even Roose thinks that makes Ramsay smart. It's a trick that works only one time and it costs big time afterward, because nobody who knows of it will trust you afterwards. 

[Rickon Stark The Aulë]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually that doesn't make Ramsay smart.

It makes Ramsay cunning though, him sacking Winterfell was a massive loss for Robb.  Besides Roose did the same thing with the red wedding, does that make him smart? No, but does that make him a cunning and conniving ass you want to tear to shreds? Of course.  

 

 

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

It makes Ramsay cunning though, him sacking Winterfell was a massive loss for Robb.  Besides Roose did the same thing with the red wedding, does that make him smart? No, but does that make him a cunning and conniving ass you want to tear to shreds? Of course. 

WF was already lost to Robb. It was Theon's capture of WF that was the massive embarrassment to Robb, and the Ironborn taking Moat Cailin. Ramsay had nothing to do with that.

It's a low form cunning. And once used and known the gig is up. The same warning goes for Roose - the gig is up. There's one difference between Ramsay and Roose. Roose is actually aware of this fact. He knows that he is without actual allies and that those who are with him in WF are more like to pay him back in betrayal. Ramsay underestimates the enemies that are very close.

[Rickon Stark The Aulë]

9 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

WF was already lost to Robb. It was Theon's capture of WF that was the massive embarrassment to Robb, and the Ironborn taking Moat Cailin.

I don't think it was a embarrassment for Robb because Winterfell's garrison was entirely non-existent, it was off trying to save one of Robb's bannermen. I think that earned a lot of respect from the Northern lords, to put his own capital at risk to take back a vassal's castle is just showing that the Starks care about the people who serve them. Robb though losing his garrison outside of Winterfell's wall and his capital getting sacked was the massive embarrassment and a huge blow in his war cause. 

You have to keep in mind that Robb lost nearly 2-3,000 men in a single battle outside of his capital. THAT IS HUGE. 

I don't think any of the Northmen fault Robb for losing Winterfell to save one of his bannermen but losing Winterfell with his very garrison/army outside of it? Huge implications of incompetency especially since he lost some senior commanders and important noblemen. 

 

I do agree with the gig is up, it is only a matter of time till the Northern Lords rebel. Roose knows he is running on limited time, maybe that is why he doesn't care about Ramsay killing his newborn sons. 

[sweetsunray]

9 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

I don't think it was a embarrassment for Robb because Winterfell's garrison was entirely non-existent, it was off trying to save one of Robb's bannermen.

Karstark and Tywin and others refer to Robb as the King who lost the North, not to Boltons but to the Ironborn and Theon and Balon Greyjoy get all the credit for it. The events listed for this are Theon capturing WF and murdering Robb's 2 brothers, Victarion taking Moat Cailin and thereby locking Robb and his army out. It isn't the ones who killed WF's reserves, who by the way is not known by Karstark nor Tywon to be Ramsay, but Theon. Same thing for the sacking of WF. That too is credited to Theon. Burning WF down after taking it weeks before is nothing but a symbolical loss in the eyes of many. It's the fact that it was taken in the first place that was embarrasing. 

And my whole point was that when Ramsay does try to take credit for his "cunningness" of slaughtering the garisson outside of WF and burning WF down to his father, Roose immediately sets him straight: that it doesn't make him genial for catching people who trust you unawares.

 

[Rickon Stark The Aulë]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Karstark and Tywin and others refer to Robb as the King who lost the North

It's supposed to be a insult that gets under the skin. It certainly doesn't mean that it has any actual merit among Northerners. 

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

It's supposed to be a insult that gets under the skin. It certainly doesn't mean that it has any actual merit among Northerners. 

Euhm, please choose what you're arguing at present. First you're arguing how this or that is an embarrassment to Robb, and the next moment you say it's just somthing said to get under Robb's skin and it doesn't have any merit among Northeners. Whatever ...

[Clegane'sPup]

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Good Morning Clegane's Pup, Happy 4th of July if you're in the states. 

Thank you. Yes, strange isn’t it that Americans who have such a short history are the descendants of Europe & the British Isles and many other nations who forced the native people from their homes celebrate independence.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

I don't have a soft spot for Jon.  I dislike him.  But I will be fair.

Jon did not send Mance and the spear wives to WF.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

He was not planning on taking Arya and then sending her back to Ramsay, was he? 

Because I am of the opinion that Jon did not send Mance & company to WF I would agree that if Mance had intercepted the girl near the lake Jon would not return the girl to Ramsey.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Jon sent the wildlings to get Arya from Ramsay.  He was not planning on taking Arya and then sending her back to Ramsay, was he?  Jon would be less wrong if he was planning to return Arya to Ramsay.  You know he was not.  He was planning to take Arya away.  Does it matter where they find Arya?  Not really.  Jon was willing to do anything to get his sister. 

I have to take into consideration the wedding invitation. I also have to take into consideration Mel and her tricks and misunderstood visions.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

He knew perfectly well that Mance should be executed. 

Not sure what you are referring to.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

He knew perfectly well that sending anybody to take Arya from Ramsay is treason and he knew better than anybody that it's the equivalent of declaring war with House Bolton. 

The dilemma is with LC Snow learning of the Mance Rattleshirt switch LC Snow  should have taken Mance into custody. I will repeat myself again. LC Snow did not send anyone to take Arya out of WF.

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Please consider this.  Jon had a chance to consider before saying the words and taking his vows.  He said his vows.  He took the oath.  He could have refused the position of LC.  He didn't.  Jon should respect the limitations and the boundaries of the organization that he joined.  If a rule needed to be changed, then change it first, amend it, and make it formal before you take any action that exceeds the limits of that rule.  In other words, change the rule and then act.  That's not Jon's way, unfortunately.  At least not when he's all emotional about his family. 

Yes, until Jon took the vows he was free to leave the NW without repercussion because Jon was a volunteer not a criminal. 

17 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

I think he knew that what he was about to do would never pass.  He would have had a rebellion on his hands if he told the brothers he will let Mance walk and send him to steal his sister from her husband.  But he should have tried.  That is the proper way to do things.  Going off like a he did and hellbent on getting his sister was completely wrong.

Martin has written a story. Me, my interpretation, is that Marsh was not the brains behind the assassination (do you have any idea how much I dislike trying to spell that ass word) attempt of LC Snow. The mutiny plans started with Slynt and Thorne.

I gotta give it up for @Lord Varys kudos and bow downs ----- I gotta tell ya this means of communication is difficult to say the least. Hope I did not make to many typos.

[sgtpimenta]

5 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

I would hardly call that the "whole" North.

Please... Roose won't shut up about:

Quote

Ramsay killed him. A sickness of the bowels, Maester Uthor says, but I say poison. In the Vale , Domeric had enjoyed the company of Redfort's sons. He wanted a brother by his side, so he rode up the Weeping Water to seek my bastard out. I forbade it, but Domeric was a man grown and thought that he knew better than his father. Now his bones lie beneath the Dreadfort with the bones of his brothers, who died still in the cradle, and I am left with Ramsay. Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?

 

5 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Ramsay despite being a psychopath is not a idiot. The battle of Winterfell shows that. Also Ramsay does care about what people think about him, he hates being called snow and constantly goes about repeating his titles like Lord of Hornwood or True Scion of House bolton as if he has to prove something. 

That line of argument actually works against your point, that "Ramsay would never..." Never tell him he wouldn't kill some random innocents. He would hunt them, toy with them and piss in their burning flayed corpses just to prove you wrong.

More to the point, what keeps him from pulling the same trick with Castle Black? He could kill everyone, capture any civilian and burn the castle down. You know, like he did with Winterfell

[kissdbyfire]

16 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

The same thing applies to your entire argument. 

It doesn't, actually. What you don't seem to get is that I'm not denying that many of Jon's actions will be (and indeed are) viewed as treason and oathbreaking. What happens is, I do not care one fig. And in my opinion, oathbreaker and traitorous bastard as he may be, he made the right decisions. 

16 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Have I ever denied that? 

Yes, you have.

16 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

But what is the greater good? Is gathering men to fight in a war that isn't a war against the others for the greater good? What Jon was proposing was letting  men which are in short supply pretty much everywhere off to fight in a war in the middle of winter to slaughter more able-bodied men that could fight against the others. How is that in the "greater good"?  

You can be fine with Jon breaking his oath but don't go hating on Bowen for betraying the Lord Commander. 

The war for the Dawn hasn't started yet. And when it does, Jon can't be worrying about Ramsay Bolton coming to attack the NW from south of the Wall. 

And I don't hate Marsh, he's a coward, a bigot, and too small a human being to be worthy of anything but contempt.

16 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

I wasn't talking to you. 

 

I know, I just couldn't resist. 

[Quoth the raven,]

57 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The war for the Dawn hasn't started yet. And when it does, Jon can't be worrying about Ramsay Bolton coming to attack the NW from south of the Wall. 

And I don't hate Marsh, he's a coward, a bigot, and too small a human being to be worthy of anything but contempt.

Jon should have sent a polite letter that promised to send Arya and Reek back.  Invite the Boltons to come to the wall and take the people that they want to arrest.  Promise not to interfere and admit he was wrong for sticking his long chin into Ramsay's affairs.  

Roose is far from stupid.  I don't think he would allow the white walkers to destroy his newly  won castles and his lands.  One of Jon's many mistakes is his tunnel vision when it comes to the Boltons.  The Boltons will have no choice but to fight the white walkers.  He should have been willing to sacrifice Arya's happiness (and even her life) in order to avoid starting a feud with Ramsay. 

Bowen Marsh is no coward.  What you wrote, kissdbyfire, is really unfair to Bowen.  He is a very loyal and very dedicated man of the watch. 

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon should have sent a polite letter that promised to send Arya and Reek back.  Invite the Boltons to come to the wall and take the people that they want to arrest.  Promise not to interfere and admit he was wrong for sticking his long chin into Ramsay's affairs.  

Roose is far from stupid.  I don't think he would allow the white walkers to destroy his newly  won castles and his lands.  One of Jon's many mistakes is his tunnel vision when it comes to the Boltons.  The Boltons will have no choice but to fight the white walkers.  He should have been willing to sacrifice Arya's happiness (and even her life) in order to avoid starting a feud with Ramsay. 

Bowen Marsh is no coward.  What you wrote, kissdbyfire, is really unfair to Bowen.  He is a very loyal and very dedicated man of the watch. 

I couldn't possibly disagree more... but to each their own, and here's to Winds  coming out sooner rather than later, and then we'll see where Martin is taking the story.

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon should have sent a polite letter that promised to send Arya and Reek back.  Invite the Boltons to come to the wall and take the people that they want to arrest.  Promise not to interfere and admit he was wrong for sticking his long chin into Ramsay's affairs.  

Roose is far from stupid.  I don't think he would allow the white walkers to destroy his newly  won castles and his lands.  One of Jon's many mistakes is his tunnel vision when it comes to the Boltons.  The Boltons will have no choice but to fight the white walkers.  He should have been willing to sacrifice Arya's happiness (and even her life) in order to avoid starting a feud with Ramsay. 

Bowen Marsh is no coward.  What you wrote, kissdbyfire, is really unfair to Bowen.  He is a very loyal and very dedicated man of the watch. 

Impossible. You know why? Because Jon doesn't bloody have the people Ramsay wants. Not all of them at any rate. And as it just so happens, the ones he doesn't have (Theon and Jeyne) are the ones Ramsay would most suspect him to try and hide. So even if Jon were to politely turn over Shireen, Selyse and Melisandre to a fate worse than death; disregarding the absolute moral wrongness of such an action and assuming the NW were even able to overpower the Queen's Men at the Wall; he and likely most of the NW at CB would still end up dead/tortured because Ramsay is in no way reasonable and would never believe Jon when he claimed not to have them. Hell, that psycho would probably kill Jon anyway, just because he could.

Roose is a different story, but it's Ramsay who wrote the letter and he's not exactly the most obedient nor rational person around. And while from an objective standpoint it could be argued that on a logical level it would be better to leave Arya, on a moral level such an action (or inaction, as the case may be) is 100% wrong. Not to mention that nobody, and I mean nobody, except for psychopath's (Joff and Ramsay) or the most cold hearted person on the planet (Blackfish, Tywin) would be able to be that objective in that situation. I'd like to see how Bowen Slimeball would react if it was his sister married, raped and tortured by a monster in human flesh.

Bowen is a coward. Being dedicated and loyal doesn't change that. The way he took out Jon was cowardly. He's shown time and time again that he's an absolute slimeball who'll suck up to the biggest bully in the yard; he wanted to elect Slynt as LC because the IT suggested it, and the real reason he opposed a lot of Jon's decisions (regardless of the reason he gives) is because he was scared of the repercussions from the Bolton's and Lannister's. 

Edit: Also, loyal? Bowen Marsh? Who mutinied and murdered his Lord Commander and had been plotting to do so almost from the start? He's only marginally more loyal than Dirk and Rast and the others at Craster's. Maybe even less. 

[HallowedMarcus]

On 02/07/2017 at 8:45 PM, Allardyce said:

It's Jon who will be remembered as the traitor who betrayed his brothers.  Jon will be remembered as the Night's King 2.0.

 

   No, he might be also remembered as such if he dies and stays dead. Then you might be right. Don't forget that Jon also might be remembered as the LC that stopped the Others from having many thousands of undead at their disposal because he did not let the Wildlings die out North of the Wall. 

   However, if he does not die or especially if he dies and returns from the dead, a lá Beric Dondarrion, then you are certainly wrong. Being back he might leave that Watch, considering death sets him free from his vows - he died and so his watch has ended - and he will be free to fight the Boltons; and I doubt that GRRM will have him resurrected (if he does so) only to have him be killed by the Boltons. So if Jon returns he will undoubtedly fight and defeat the Boltons. Even if he dies during battle Jon will be remembered to have been reborn and reinstated the Starks on the North - don't know how Bran/Rickon/Sansa/Aray will exactly fit there -.They will say that the Old Gods of First Man resurrected him to make justice for the Stark family. If he dies during battle. 

   Finally, if he is resurrected, defeat the Boltons and it is discovered that R + L is indeed J then he will be the son of Ice (Lyanna Stark) and Fire (Rhaegar) and I don't ned to tell you that by what he will be remembered, right?  

[HallowedMarcus]

On 03/07/2017 at 8:09 AM, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

ot even close. Let's take the example of something in real life, let's say a Congressmen commits treason. This congressman is a representative of Texas, now let's say this Congressmen gets arrested for Treason against his country and is set to be executed as is to be expected since there is the death penalty in Texas.

   Please, what an absurd comparison! How can you compare on to the other in our time? ASOIAF is based on a hypothetical medieval feudal system with some magic added. In the Riverrun the Tullys do justice, the Tully Lord of Riverrun is their Liege Lord and with laws and tradition does what he thinks is best for his land and his vassals. If he sees one of his vassals breaking the law or tradition it is up to him to do justice, do nothing or something else - unless the Iron Throne is involved.

   In Night Watch has a liege Lord called Lord Commander who rules them. LC Mormont forgave when Jon tried to leave the Watch. He might have him executed. It was his judgment. Period. the LC is the Liege Lord of the Watch. Even Regent Cersei Lannister, after finding out that Jon Snow was LC, schemed in having 200 Lannister men to pretend to join the Wall and have him killed because the Iron Throne has no power to veto or depose an LC of the Watch. 

   Attacking the Prince of Dorne is an attack on Dorne, attacking the Ruler of House Arryn is attacking the Vale, attacking or threatening the NW's LC is an attack/threat to the Watch. We are speaking of feudal medieval times. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Bowen Marsh was wrong to remove Jon  by assassination , but right trying to remove Jon Snow. Marsh should have done it the right way , find a legal reason to arrest him , then after the appointment of a new lord commander , then try him  . The  way Marsh did it , now he and every future lord commander must expect an assassin in his future .

What reason could he give to have Jon removed ? Taking sides in the war of the five kings .

[Rickon Stark The Aulë]

3 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Please... Roose won't shut up about:

 

That line of argument actually works against your point, that "Ramsay would never..." Never tell him he wouldn't kill some random innocents. He would hunt them, toy with them and piss in their burning flayed corpses just to prove you wrong.

More to the point, what keeps him from pulling the same trick with Castle Black? He could kill everyone, capture any civilian and burn the castle down. You know, like he did with Winterfell

You don't have any evidence for that. 

 

We aren't talking about some random innocents, I have already gone over why he can't exterminate the Nights Watch. Go read my other comments, I am tired of repeating myself. 

 

 

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It doesn't, actually. What you don't seem to get is that I'm not denying that many of Jon's actions will be (and indeed are) viewed as treason and oathbreaking. What happens is, I do not care one fig. And in my opinion, oathbreaker and traitorous bastard as he may be, he made the right decisions. 

Yes, you have.

The war for the Dawn hasn't started yet. And when it does, Jon can't be worrying about Ramsay Bolton coming to attack the NW from south of the Wall. 

And I don't hate Marsh, he's a coward, a bigot, and too small a human being to be worthy of anything but contempt.

I know, I just couldn't resist. 

Ok so don't hate on Bowen Marsh when he kills Jon, Bowen was clearly in the right. END OF STORY. 

 

Thank you for ending this argument. 

[Adam Yozza]

1 minute ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

You don't have any evidence for that. 

 

We aren't talking about some random innocents, I have already gone over why he can't exterminate the Nights Watch. Go read my other comments, I am tired of repeating myself. 

 

 

Ok so don't hate on Bowen Marsh when he kills Jon, Bowen was clearly in the right. END OF STORY. 

 

Thank you for ending this argument. 

No he wasn't and that wasn't what kissdbyfire said at all.