Lee-Sensei Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Bowen Marsh did the right thing. If Jon didn't want to get stabbed, he shouldn't have been breaking his oaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Bowen Marsh did the right thing. If Jon didn't want to get stabbed, he shouldn't have been breaking his oaths. It's just a pity no one thought to stab Bowen when he was arguing for an LC that would make the Lannisters happy. Said it before, I'll say it again: The sheer volume of Marsh apologists on here will never cease to be hilarious. This is the guy who walked into an obvious wildling trap, made every attempt to make a Lannister toadie the LC and would let the Watch get overrun with wights out of spite, just so he wouldn't have to live with wildlings. If I were seriously defending him, I'd be taking a good long look at my life choices, is all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicer Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 There’s no question that Bowen Marsh is a bigot who could not look past his hate of the wildling. He’s an older conservative guy and it can be hard for them to let go of ingrained ideas and views. Understandable to a certain degree due to how the watch as an institution focused on keeping the wildlings out instead of it’s true purpose: The Others. Bowen has spent his life fighting the wildlings and losing many of his fellow brothers to wildlings. Imagine how he would feel when Jon proposes taking these very same wildlings south of the wall? His sole purpose till then has been to keep them out and now this inexperienced boy commander is destroying all that by changing everything. So Bowen’s stance is also understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It's just a pity no one thought to stab Bowen when he was arguing for an LC that would make the Lannisters happy. Said it before, I'll say it again: The sheer volume of Marsh apologists on here will never cease to be hilarious. This is the guy who walked into an obvious wildling trap, made every attempt to make a Lannister toadie the LC and would let the Watch get overrun with wights out of spite, just so he wouldn't have to live with wildlings. If I were seriously defending him, I'd be taking a good long look at my life choices, is all I'm saying. Don't you think you're being a bit unfair. It's not Bowen Marsh's fault. Jon forced his hand. He had no other choice, but to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 There’s no question that Bowen Marsh is a bigot who could not look past his hate of the wildling. He’s an older conservative guy and it can be hard for them to let go of ingrained ideas and views.Understandable to a certain degree due to how the watch as an institution focused on keeping the wildlings out instead of it’s true purpose: The Others.Bowen has spent his life fighting the wildlings and losing many of his fellow brothers to wildlings. Imagine how he would feel when Jon proposes taking these very same wildlings south of the wall? His sole purpose till then has been to keep them out and now this inexperienced boy commander is destroying all that by changing everything.So Bowen’s stance is also understandable. I understand why he feels the way he does. My question is why some people think Jon should cater to his bigotry and treat him with kid gloves instead of dragging him, kicking and screaming, into the modern era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Don't you think you're being a bit unfair. It's not Bowen Marsh's fault. Jon forced his hand. He had no other choice, but to take action. Does shanking the lord commander when everyone's focused on something else strike you as an act that has the full force of the law behind it? Why not take Jon into custody, publicly put him on trial and then execute him? They had to do a cowardly, half-assed stabbing attempt because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to pull it off. Bowen could also have let Jon go fight the Boltons, taking a ton of unwanted wildlings with him and let the Boltons kill him, then made nice with the Boltons later by, say, forking over the hostages. Why you act like that piss-poor assassination attempt was the best or even only option on the table is baffling. Again, if you get to the point where Bowen Marsh is the victim here, you took a wrong turn somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 You may be right, but what's the alternative at that point? Ignoring Ramsay's letter brings an attack on the Watch, as far as they know. An attack from the south that they can't defend against. Giving into the demands and sending Selyse, Shireen, Val, the baby and Melisandre to Ramsay is just as political an act, only in the opposite direction. Turning Stannis and Selyse away invites a retaliatory attack that, again, they can't defend against. If Jon lets Stannis march to the Dreadfort with just his dick in his hand, Stannis gets slaughtered and Ramsay probably comes for the Watch next with Stannis's skin waving in the breeze behind him. That's what I mean when I say that Jon was fucked no matter what he did.Jon should have ignored Ramsey, seriously there is a winter blizzard raging and Jon's solution is to ride through it losing many man. All he had to do was let Ramsey come to him and the few men that make it to the wall he could imprison for trespassing or whatever he did to Karstark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reek Da Villain Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Who decided that his death was justifiable? I recall no juror or jury. If it was justifiable it would have been carried out differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The oath is a small part of it. If he wanted to help Arya then he should have left the Watch and not done it as the LC. As LC his actions reflect the watch as a whole (and everyone in it) since he was their chosen lord commander. The neutrality of the Watch was already being questioned under Jon's command and now he goes and pulls this stunt. He simply wasnt thinking of his brothers and how this could effect them. This thread isnt about Tywin, or Cersei, or Bowen other than his act of killing Jon and no, I said on the first page of this thread that the thing with the Wildlings made it so killing Jon was a dumb move. I was just saying that some of Jon's actions did give Marsh and co.. solid reason for doing it, if you ignore the fact that the wildling tension is going to now blow up on them.The neutrality of the Night's Watch ended with Ned's execution. Yoren then had the choice of handing Arya over to the Lannisters (taking sides) or rescuing her (taking sides). He chose the morally correct course of action. He was then pursued by the Lannisters, and was given the choice of handing over Gendry (taking sides) or hiding him (taking sides). Ser Amory then attacked and murdered him.From that point on "the Night's Watch takes no part" mantra is like Monty Python's dead parrot. Dead, deceased, gorn, no longer in the land of the living. Tywin and Cersei view them as enemies, especially after Stannis comes to the Wall, and Jon is elected. They have to pick a side. Jon picks Stannis, Bowen picks the Lannisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The neutrality of the Night's Watch ended with Ned's execution. Yoren then had the choice of handing Arya over to the Lannisters (taking sides) or rescuing her (taking sides). He chose the morally correct course of action. He was then pursued by the Lannisters, and was given the choice of handing over Gendry (taking sides) or hiding him (taking sides). Ser Amory then attacked and murdered him.From that point on "the Night's Watch takes no part" mantra is like Monty Python's dead parrot. Dead, deceased, gorn, no longer in the land of the living. Tywin and Cersei view them as enemies, especially after Stannis comes to the Wall, and Jon is elected. They have to pick a side. Jon picks Stannis, Bowen picks the Lannisters.It doesn't mean that the Night Watches neutrality ended. It means that he broke his oath too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It doesn't mean that the Night Watches neutrality ended. It means that he broke his oath too.It does. Switzwerland is neutral, but if someone attacks Switzerland, its neutrality ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The neutrality of the Night's Watch ended with Ned's execution. Yoren then had the choice of handing Arya over to the Lannisters (taking sides) or rescuing her (taking sides). He chose the morally correct course of action. He was then pursued by the Lannisters, and was given the choice of handing over Gendry (taking sides) or hiding him (taking sides). Ser Amory then attacked and murdered him.From that point on "the Night's Watch takes no part" mantra is like Monty Python's dead parrot. Dead, deceased, gorn, no longer in the land of the living. Tywin and Cersei view them as enemies, especially after Stannis comes to the Wall, and Jon is elected. They have to pick a side. Jon picks Stannis, Bowen picks the Lannisters.Nobody knows about anything Yoren did, so that doesn't make much sense for it being dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It does. Switzwerland is neutral, but if someone attacks Switzerland, its neutrality ends. Yoren was attacked because he got involved. He had already broken his oath. They didn't march North and attack Castle Black. And what MyLittleFinger said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Yoren was attacked because he got involved. He had already broken his oath. They didn't march North and attack Castle Black. And what MyLittleFinger said.Washing your hands, turning a blind eye, ignoring crimes that one could prevent is "getting involved" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Nobody knows about anything Yoren did, so that doesn't make much sense for it being dead...Cersei does. She sent Gold Cloaks to pursue Yoren. And, Cersei was planning Jon's assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyaStoned Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 If it were legal, presumably it would have been carried out by some other means than assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLittleFinger Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Cersei does. She sent Gold Cloaks to pursue Yoren. And, Cersei was planning Jon's assassination. Ya but she's not a part of the Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reek Da Villain Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Season 4's episode 2 made it seem as if the Bolton's would be responsible for eliminating the threat of Jon Snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Washing your hands, turning a blind eye, ignoring crimes that one could prevent is "getting involved" as well. No. That's the exact opposite of getting involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Ya but she's not a part of the Watch.It makes no difference. Bowen Marsh accepts that the Watch must pick a side. He favours the Lannister/Bolton side. Jon favours Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.