opinions on bowen marsh?

[Chaircat Meow]

And I believe you are absolutely incorrect about what his 'job' is. His job isn't to make his subordinates happy...his job is to protect the realms of men from an undead army by making sure the Wall is guarded. If his subordinates are trying to stop him from doing that, then they are the ones not doing THEIR jobs, not Jon. Jon explains his motivations every time he talks with them. It's not Jon's fault they are too narrow-minded and stuck in their ways to see what Jon is doing.

That's the sort of 'my way or the high way' attitude that lands you with mutiny/insurrection.

[butterbumps!]

I suppose it depends how much you're prepared to read into people's statements about strategy. I thought, given the context in which Bowen is talking, some of the stuff I said is basically implicit and Jon would have got that. People often don't lay out their plans in detail in the books, as it would be boring.

My criticism of Jon's poor communication is that he's asking the watch to fly in the face of tradition, and adopt very unorthodox solutions, as a young and untried LC. It is his job to bring everyone around to his point of view, and he's not great at it.

I don't assume that's the sum total of his thought process though, so I see things differently. I'm sure 'life experience' is behind people's differing reactions to characters, but I'm not thinking of Bowen in terms of someone I'd work with in a group project.

I don't buy the idea that Bowen had strategized all these facets of a plan in light of how he-- literally-- never even attempts to engage in the core of Jon's plans, nor even tentatively suggest any such thing. These things aren't even "implicit." They are never even touched upon by Bowen. And if we're going to be making charitable assumptions about people's strategies in-story, I guess there's no reason why we shouldn't believe that Jon's Shieldhall plan is actually a really brilliant strategic move that involves no oathbreaking of any sort, or the idea that he held daily wildling affirmations to get people on board with this. Why does Bowen benefit from so much of your benefit of the doubt, but you don't extend that sort of charitable reading of Jon?

Jon's communication isn't really the crux of the issue here. He did actually implement something akin to "adjusting to living with wildlings bootcamp" on top of this (making Leathers the trainer). I'm honestly kind of amazed that Jon gets shit for apparently not going even further with selling his plans to get everyone on board, yet it's not on Bowen at all that, as Jon's top advisor, he actually fueled the disapproval of Jon's policies?

I asked if you've ever worked with a Bowen because I think it might change your perspective on how maddening a Bowen is.

[sj4iy]

That's the sort of 'my way or the high way' attitude that lands you with mutiny/insurrection.

No, it isn't. It's the attitude of a man preparing for a war. It's not as if his subordinates aren't aware of the threat coming their way...they are just choosing to ignore its importance. Jon cannot afford to do that. He has to man the Wall in the only way he knows how. If the people of the seven kingdoms still cared about the Wall and the Night's Watch, do you think Jon would be manning the castles with Wildlings? Of course not. But he has no choice. And his 'advisors' aren't helping him. He asks for their advice and they stubbornly refuse to see the big picture. And you can't say that he never listens to their advice or refuses to take it, because we see him take Marsh's advice about cutting back food rations. But the only way Jon is going to make them 'happy' is by letting thousands of Wildlings die beyond the Wall and by refusing the help of Stannis' forces...which is absolutely stupid advice to take. The NW can't 'refuse' Stannis because his forces could wipe them out and take what they wanted. He can't let the Wildlings die beyond the Wall because they will rise again and come to the Wall anyway. And Jon straight up tells them why he's doing what he's doing. He tells them that if they die, they will only add to the Others' armies. He tells them that their vows tell them to protect the realms of men, and says nothing of Wildlings. Jon understand the purpose of the NW, and he tries to explain that purpose to them, but they absolutely stubbornly refuse to see it. So, what is Jon supposed to have done? Let them destroy the NW simply because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that the NW is in trouble? He can't afford to do that, because it could mean the end of Westeros (and beyond)...and that's not hyperbole.

[jentario]

Jon placed the Night's Watch under threat by trying to steal away Ramsay Bolton's wife. Ramsay Bolton announced that if Jon doesn't do a set number of things (most of which Jon can't deliver on), he will destroy the Night's Watch. Killing Jon and pleading the Boltons to back down is the only sure fire way for the Night's Watch to survive and stand when the Others come (Jon is the main reason for the sudden Bolton animosity towards the Watch).

And it's more than likely that the attempt will cost Marsh and the others their lives, so I do think they were sacrificing themselves and Jon "For the Watch". The fact that they were willing to potentially die (and that they were crying throughout) is proof that they are doing it for the good of the Watch and not because of any potential gain or vendettas.

I think Bowen Marsh did what an honorable man couldn't do in order to save the Night's Watch, and I admire him for it (even though he's an uninspiring and even occasionally stupid character in the rest of his scenes).

[Chaircat Meow]

I don't buy the idea that Bowen had strategized all these facets of a plan in light of how he-- literally-- never even attempts to engage in the core of Jon's plans, nor even tentatively suggest any such thing. These things aren't even "implicit." They are never even touched upon by Bowen. And if we're going to be making charitable assumptions about people's strategies in-story, I guess there's no reason why we shouldn't believe that Jon's Shieldhall plan is actually a really brilliant strategic move that involves no oathbreaking of any sort, or the idea that he held daily wildling affirmations to get people on board with this. Why does Bowen benefit from so much of your benefit of the doubt, but you don't extend that sort of charitable reading of Jon?

I don't see things this way. We know Bowen and half of CB thought sealing the gate was a sensible strategy. No one spells out in detail why they think this, but it is surely unreasonable to conclude Bowen and half the castle think the gates should be sealed because the gates should be sealed. Their lives are on the line there. A sensible reader looks at the context (in this case the Magnar's raid in SoS) and the few things Bowen says and puts together roughly what the idea must have been behind trying to seal the gate. To me that's just obvious.

It isn't about being charitable. It is not about assuming someone has the best strategy, or a good plan, just because they don't say what it is.

Jon's communication isn't really the crux of the issue here. He did actually implement something akin to "adjusting to living with wildlings bootcamp" on top of this (making Leathers the trainer). I'm honestly kind of amazed that Jon gets shit for apparently not going even further with selling his plans to get everyone on board, yet it's not on Bowen at all that, as Jon's top advisor, he actually fueled the disapproval of Jon's policies?

If you are trying to shake everything up you need to go out of your way to get people on board. He didn't bother that much.

[Poppa Chase]

He is a man who believes in false vows. He's loyal to the watch for all the wrong reasons. And he got himself in over his head.

He will look better as a WunWun pancake than he ever did in life.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

It isn't about being charitable. It is not about assuming someone has the best strategy, or a good plan, just because they don't say what it is.

If you are trying to shake everything up you need to go out of your way to get people on board. He didn't bother that much.

After removing what you've quoted we can clearly see here that you're condemning Jon for not trying hard enough to get people on board, but this standard(in your opinion) does not apply to Marsh in the slightest since Marsh never bothered to even bring up a plan of his own. So what I'm seeing is that Marsh is the good guy for having a secret(or no plan) while Jon is to blame for telling people his plan(and having one).

[Minsc]

I don't see things this way. We know Bowen and half of CB thought sealing the gate was a sensible strategy. No one spells out in detail why they think this, but it is surely unreasonable to conclude Bowen and half the castle think the gates should be sealed because the gates should be sealed. Their lives are on the line there. A sensible reader looks at the context (in this case the Magnar's raid in SoS) and the few things Bowen says and puts together roughly what the idea must have been behind trying to seal the gate. To me that's just obvious..

I don't want to get to deep into this conversation, but I wonder how much the rejection of sealing the gates by readers is strongly informed by the fact that is the position the main audience surrogate at the Wall (Jon) takes. As when the show switched the arguments around so that Jon wanted them sealed and Thorne wanted them opened my show only fans immediately rejected Thorne's reasoning to side with Jon. Even after I mentioned all of Jon's arguments for keeping them open in the books (without mentioning they were Jon's arguments).

[Chaircat Meow]

I don't want to get to deep into this conversation, but I wonder how much the rejection of sealing the gates by readers is strongly informed by the fact that is the position the main audience surrogate at the Wall (Jon) takes. As when the show switched the arguments around so that Jon wanted them sealed and Thorne wanted them opened by show only fans immediately rejected Thorne's reasoning to side with Jon. Even after I mentioned all of Jon's arguments for keeping them open in the books (without mentioning they were Jon's arguments).

I think you're right there. Jon's popularity with book readers tends to ensure that the good logic behind his actions is recognized while people aren't interested in doing the imaginative foot work to get in the heads of his antagonists.

[dread pirate davos]

Now it's brought up can some one tell me the pro's and cons of closing the gates Tec. Because if it's for recon haven't no rangers came back?

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

I think you're right there. Jon's popularity with book readers tends to ensure that the good logic behind his actions is recognized while people aren't interested in doing the imaginative foot work to get in the heads of his antagonists.

I think you're both wrong. In the case of the show there are many facts omitted that rule out sealing the gate as a bad option. The book on the other hand makes it quite clear that raiding parties and even entire armies have crossed the wall many times in history only to be stopped by the Kings of Winter and that all of the castles are designed to be weak to attack.

The gate is only convenient to bring in wagons, and medium size animals. Raiders have been climbing the wall and carrying off women and livestock from the south and bringing it back across the wall for thousands of years. They don't need a bloody gate, they never have needed one.

[Minsc]

I think you're both wrong. In the case of the show there are many facts omitted that rule out sealing the gate as a bad option. The book on the other hand makes it quite clear that raiding parties and even entire armies have crossed the wall many times in history only to be stopped by the Kings of Winter and that all of the castles are designed to be weak to attack.

The gate is only convenient to bring in wagons, and medium size animals. Raiders have been climbing the wall and carrying off women and livestock from the south and bringing it back across the wall for thousands of years. They don't need a bloody gate, they never have needed one.

As I mentioned I made reference to all of Jon's book argument for keeping the gates open to my friend only without mentioning they were Jon's arguments.

Only for the friend to still strongly reject them all

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

As I mentioned I made reference to all of Jon's book argument for keeping the gates open to my friend only without mentioning they were Jon's arguments.

Only for the friend to still strongly reject them all

Jon's book argument was that the gate had to be available for rangers to gather intelligence. All the reasons I suggested were common sense if you know the history,

Strongly reject them all? His answer was no or did he explain why? He seems to share more in common with Marsh than just the seal the gates plan.

[Minsc]

Jon's book argument was that the gate had to be available for rangers to gather intelligence. All the reasons I suggested were common sense if you know the history,

Strongly reject them all? His answer was no or did he explain why? He seems to share more in common with Marsh than just the seal the gates plan.

He explained his argument in the same sense Jon does on the show

[sj4iy]

He explained his argument in the same sense Jon does on the show

Bowen Marsh's suggestion to close the tunnel is not at all the same as Jon's suggestion in the show.

Jon suggests sealing the tunnel BEFORE Mance attacks. Marsh is doing so AFTER the attack is over with and done. Jon knows that the Wildlings have 100k men and will be throwing their entire forces at them while the NW has no hope of back-up. Marsh knows that most of the Wildlings are scattered and won't be able to regroup without Mance. There's no strategic reason for Marsh to want to seal the tunnel except to keep Stannis and Jon from allowing the Wildlings through. Jon's suggestion in the show is very strategic, as it's the only way a force as small as the NW can defend the seven kingdoms from a Wildling army with over 100k people in it.

So no, the arguments are the same at all.

[Minsc]

Bowen Marsh's suggestion to close the tunnel is not at all the same as Jon's suggestion in the show.

Jon suggests sealing the tunnel BEFORE Mance attacks. Marsh is doing so AFTER the attack is over with and done. Jon knows that the Wildlings have 100k men and will be throwing their entire forces at them while the NW has no hope of back-up. Marsh knows that most of the Wildlings are scattered and won't be able to regroup without Mance. There's no strategic reason for Marsh to want to seal the tunnel except to keep Stannis and Jon from allowing the Wildlings through. Jon's suggestion in the show is very strategic, as it's the only way a force as small as the NW can defend the seven kingdoms from a Wildling army with over 100k people in it.

So no, the arguments are the same at all.

All I see is bias depending on who is making the argument

[Chaircat Meow]

Come on. You can't fault Marsh's argument in the books but profess to find Jonshow's the height of good strategy.

[sj4iy]

All I see is bias depending on who is making the argument

...and all I see is someone refusing to see the difference in the situations. If Marsh had suggested sealing the tunnel BEFORE the attack, I would have absolutely agreed with him. The only reason to seal it afterwards is to leave thousands of Wildlings to die so that the NW won't have to feed them. Which is what Marsh himself says, not me.

[Chaircat Meow]

Now it's brought up can some one tell me the pro's and cons of closing the gates Tec. Because if it's for recon haven't no rangers came back?

Con

You can't send out rangers to do recon (or not very easily). So you will not know where the big wildling forces are massed.

You might need to repair cracks in the wall from the north side.

The wildlings won't be able to come through (saving by sea).

Pro

The gate is the most vulnerable part of the wall's defences. The raid the Magner nearly pulled in SoS won't be able to happen. There would be no way for a big wildling migration to get through.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

The gate is the most vulnerable part of the wall's defences. The raid the Magner nearly pulled in SoS won't be able to happen. There would be no way for a big wildling migration to get through.

Absolutely false. As Raymun Redbeard proved, a gate is not needed. This is why the 'seal the gate' plan is useless.