Bowen Marsh is an idiot (Spoilers)

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Snip...

LV, as always your posts are too long and tedious to read and filled with your various assumptions. You can ramble away about all the bad NW commanders all you want and no one (not I certainly) said anything to the contrary. The point I made was that what individual people did or felt still does not change the fact that the Watch is not "subservient" to the Crown and if you feel that way we just have to agree to disagree, which is nothing new since that is how I feel about most of your posts. Tyrion may have spoken in a threatening tone to Thorne and Thorne may or may not have felt threatened, still that doesn't make the Watch subservient to the crown. Please quote me the part in the text where it states that there were two LCs of the NW that went to war against each other as that was what the earlier poster stated and I refuted. I could be wrong and may have missed that in the text. As for Alysanne, she was considered a friend to the Watch and her policy benefitted the NW rather than harm it and in no way did she threaten its existence, which was the point of the discussion. 

I'm not having a discussion on the morality of Jon's actions with you as I well know that you are incapable of having an unbiased and honest discussion about Jon. 

[teej6]

48 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 it just keeps flowing. 

LOL. Yes, it does.

[Lord Varys]

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

LV, as always your posts are too long and tedious to read and filled with your various assumptions.

Well, I thought you were actually intellectually capable to follow a discussion. Am I wrong?

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

You can ramble away about all the bad NW commanders all you want and no one (not I certainly) said anything to the contrary. The point I made was that what individual people did or felt still does not change the fact that the Watch is not "subservient" to the Crown and if you feel that way we just have to agree to disagree, which is nothing new since that is how I feel about most of your posts.

This isn't a matter of opinion. The NW is subject to the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms. It is an institution they made and that exists at their leisure. That is obvious in the story. If you can't see that you are blind. The Watch consists of subjects to the Iron Throne, and it is fed, clothed, supported, financed and protected by the Seven Kingdoms.

The idea that there are not subservient to the Iron Throne just doesn't make any sense. If the king gives an order to the NW, both to the Lord Commander or collectively to the institution they are bound to obey.

It might have been different, once, when there were many petty kingdoms. Back then the Watch would have been much more powerful in relation to the various petty kings and it would have rightfully said that they have no issue interfering themselves in the matters of the realms of men. But if the Warden of the North now commands that the NW assist him in crushing a rebellion on Skagos or in the North they better go along with them, else they themselves are likely to feel the wrath of the Iron Throne.

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Tyrion may have spoken in a threatening tone to Thorne and Thorne may or may not have felt threatened, still that doesn't make the Watch subservient to the crown. Please quote me the part in the text where it states that there were two LCs of the NW that went to war against each other as that was what the earlier poster stated and I refuted.

It wasn't two Lord Commanders (there is only one), it were two commanders of two castles of the NW, namely the commanders of Snowgate and the Nightfort (sort of weird in light of the fact that the Lord Commander should have ruled at the Nightfort at that time).

Here is the entire quote in question, from ASoS:

Quote

The first time he had seen Castle Black with his own eyes, Jon had wondered why anyone would be so foolish as to build a castle without walls. How could it be defended?
“It can’t,” his uncle [Benjen Stark] told him. “That is the point. The Night’s Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm. Yet over the centuries certain Lords Commander, more proud than wise, forgot their vows and near destroyed us all with their ambitions. Lord Commander Runcel Hightower tried to bequeathe the Watch to his bastard son. Lord Commander Rodrik Flint thought to make himself King-beyond-the-Wall. Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, Robin Hill . . . did you know that six hundred years ago, the commanders at Snowgate and the Nightfort went to war against each other? And when the Lord Commander tried to stop them, they joined forces to murder him? The Stark in Winterfell had to take a hand . . . and both their heads. Which he did easily, because their strongholds were not defensible. The Night’s Watch had nine hundred and ninety-six Lords Commander before Jeor Mormont, most of them men of courage and honor . . . but we have had cowards and fools as well, our tyrants and our madmen. We survive because the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms know that we pose no threat to them, no matter who should lead us. Our only foes are to the north, and to the north we have the Wall.”

And that even confirms what I've said above. The lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms have taken a hand in setting things to right in the Watch on a number of occasions, especially the Starks of Winterfell (for obvious reasons). That makes it as crystal clear as snow that the Watch is subservient to the lords and kings its serves and protects. Just as any border garrison is subject to the rulers of the country which borders it protects.

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I could be wrong and may have missed that in the text. As for Alysanne, she was considered a friend to the Watch and her policy benefitted the NW rather than harm it and in no way did she threaten its existence, which was the point of the discussion. 

But she and Jaehaerys I could have done what they wanted with the NW. They were the rulers of the Realm.

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I'm not having a discussion on the morality of Jon's actions with you as I well know that you are incapable of having an unbiased and honest discussion about Jon. 

Oh, come on, what's that supposed to mean?

I would have acted the same way as Jon Snow if I had been in his situation. Of course my sister would be more important to me than some criminals who are 'my brothers' now, just as love and family (may) mean more to me than some words I spoke when I felt like it. And I sure as hell would want to see people like Roose (who happened to have been involved in the murder of my brother) and Ramsay die a slow and painful death.

But I'm not as blind or biased to not understand that such actions can (and should) have (mortal) consequences. You win or you die, that's not only true in the game of thrones at court but also in the politicking at the Night's Watch.

Jon is not some innocent in here. He struck the first blow against the Boltons when he allowed Mance to go. And since Jon is the Lord Commander of the NW (and not just some black brother) the Boltons are now more than entitled to strike back.

It is you who is incapable of having an unbiased or honest discussion about Jon.

[teej6]

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I thought you were actually intellectually capable to follow a discussion. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. But a long, rambling, and assumptive post becomes tedious to read even for an intellectually capable person 

And thanks for your quote which references two commanders of two NW castles and not two LCs, which is what the earlier poster stated and that I pointed to be factually incorrect. Please go back to the earlier pages and see the orginal poster's quote before you go into another one of your lengthy arguments. 

[Protagoras]

37 minutes ago, teej6 said:

No, you are not wrong. But a long, rambling, and assumptive post becomes tedious to read even for an intellectually capable person 

And thanks for your quote which references two commanders of two NW castles and not two LCs, which is what the earlier poster stated and that I pointed to be factually incorrect. Please go back to the earlier pages and see the orginal poster's quote before you go into another one of your lengthy arguments. 

So, basically the only real argument you have against is nitpicks on terms and/or words. All those other things I stated, like the relation between the NW and the Crown, which were things you called "factually incorrect statements" seems to be things you really have no case behind. Because when Lord Varys backs up me on this, then  you back into your safe space of "agree to disagree". If you have factual truths there won´t be any need for agree to disagree, but you don´t.

I agree with his statements and especially the part "It is you who is incapable of having an unbiased or honest discussion about Jon". In general, when one side is presenting arguments and one is just avoiding, claiming objective truth without clear evidence, one side clearly looks better.

I should have known better when I decided to discuss this topic with people who has clear bias. Maybe Lord Varys have more time and especially patience to respond to intellectual dishonesty but I am out of here. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

No, you are not wrong. But a long, rambling, and assumptive post becomes tedious to read even for an intellectually capable person 

And thanks for your quote which references two commanders of two NW castles and not two LCs, which is what the earlier poster stated and that I pointed to be factually incorrect. Please go back to the earlier pages and see the orginal poster's quote before you go into another one of your lengthy arguments. 

I actually read that, you know. But I thought you would recognize and not really care about an insignificant mistake like somebody confusing the commanders of the castles with the Lord Commander. That wasn't the point of the argument.

And just to put things into perspective here - one doesn't have to hate or be biased against Caesar to think Brutus did the right thing by killing the guy. It is the same with Jon, aside from the fact that Brutus and Caesar actually existed and were real people while Jon and Bowen are fucking fictional characters. We don't owe them anything.

Thinking about the whole thing a little bit more Jon might have been better advised to actually denounce King Tommen and declare for King Stannis after the battle. That would have been more honest and could have enabled him to rid the Watch of any Lannister and Tyrell toadies. And there would even be sort of a pretext for all this. King Stannis came to the help of the Night's Watch when they were in dire need. You can argue that a king who doesn't protect his people, etc. is unworthy of fealty and homage, etc. but Jon actually didn't do that.

He sent a paper shield to King Tommen which he himself didn't take seriously when he ended up actually assisting Stannis in his Northern campaign in various ways, and intervening with the marriage of the son of new Warden of the North. Jon's fake neutrality is not really honest and honorable behavior if you look at in detail.

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually read that, you know. But I thought you would recognize and not really care about an insignificant mistake like somebody confusing the commanders of the castles with the Lord Commander. That wasn't the point of the argument.

For the umpteenth time, I did not dispute the fact that there were bad LCs of the NW that had to be put down with the help of the Lords of WF, or that there were issues at the NW that were resolved with outside help (mostly WF). I also do not dispute that the NW is dependent on the rest of the realm (including KL) for resources. Further, I do not dispute that people like Tyrion, Tywin, Cersei and others may think that they can coerce or threathen the NW members in the expectation that they will act in a manner that benefits them. Now read this part carefully -- what I did dispute was the claim that the NW was "subservient" to the Crown. None of the arguments you provided so far changes my opinion on this matter, which was at the heart of the debate. If the NW was subservient to the crown Yoren would have released Gendry to the Gold Cloaks and would not have rejected a direct command from the Queen Regent. So to reiterate, IMO, the NW is not subservient to the Crown, however, how individuals such as Cersei or Tywin perceive things is a whole different matter.

As to the statement that two NW LCs went to war, I don't care whether the mistake was insignificant, it was factually incorrect and that is why I remarked on it to which you asked me to do a reread of the books and went into one of your usual long-winded arguments about how there were several corrupt/bad LCs in the past, which was not the point of contention to begin with.

[Lord Varys]

23 minutes ago, teej6 said:

If the NW was subservient to the crown Yoren would have released Gendry to the Gold Cloaks and would not have rejected a direct command from the Queen Regent. So to reiterate, IMO, the NW is not subservient to the Crown, however, how individuals such as Cersei or Tywin perceive things is a whole different matter.

Yoren was siding with the Starks there, to be sure. He hid Arya Stark among his men and he took Gendry in. The fact that he did that doesn't mean he also had a right to do that. In fact, it is quite clear that he was committing treason there or at least where ignoring the whole 'the NW is neutral' stance. Neutrality would have meant that he doesn't get involved - but he was very much involved there.

Gendry was not a man of the Night's Watch, he had not sworn an oath, and thus Yoren had no right to claim jurisdiction over him. And even if he was a man of the Night's Watch - the king certainly can execute or otherwise punish a man who has joined the NW (just as kings actually executed members of the Watch in the past). A criminal can hope that the lord or king sitting in judgment over him allows him to join the Watch but he is sure as hell is not compelled to do something like that. Gendry could ask Cersei whether she allows him to join the Watch, but if she refuses he cannot insist that he has a right to go there.

And if Cersei found out that he was at the Wall she sure as hell could send men up there to fetch him back, and the NW could do nothing to stop him.

[teej6]

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yoren was siding with the Starks there, to be sure. He hid Arya Stark among his men and he took Gendry in. The fact that he did that doesn't mean he also had a right to do that. In fact, it is quite clear that he was committing treason there or at least where ignoring the whole 'the NW is neutral' stance. Neutrality would have meant that he doesn't get involved - but he was very much involved there.

Gendry was not a man of the Night's Watch, he had not sworn an oath, and thus Yoren had no right to claim jurisdiction over him. And even if he was a man of the Night's Watch - the king certainly can execute or otherwise punish a man who has joined the NW (just as kings actually executed members of the Watch in the past). A criminal can hope that the lord or king sitting in judgment over him allows him to join the Watch but he is sure as hell is not compelled to do something like that. Gendry could ask Cersei whether she allows him to join the Watch, but if she refuses he cannot insist that he has a right to go there.

And if Cersei found out that he was at the Wall she sure as hell could send men up there to fetch him back, and the NW could do nothing to stop him.

In the case of Arya, Yoren may have been breaking the law, but with regards to Gendry, Yoren seems to believe that the NW has jurisdiction over him and doesn't give a flying fig about Cersei's orders. Also, I highly doubt had Gendry reached Castle Black and professed an interest to join the NW, Mormont would have just handed him over to Cersei to be killed. Since it didn't play out that way we can only speculate.

Again, neither you nor I are going to convince each other on this matter. In my opinion, the spirit of the order of the NW is that it is an independent brotherhood that is not "subservient" to the Crown or any other House/Lord but is dependent on said Houses for resources and men, and through its history it has been known to take the occasional military assistance from the Starks (who were more than happy to oblige). It can be argued that there is a strong connection between the Starks and the NW that makes the Starks natural benefactors to the NW, but the Starks are still not in a position to threaten the independence of the institution. There is a symbiotic relationship between the realm and the NW, but that does not make one subservient to the other. 

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

The question of if the NW is 'subservient' to the crown is actually quite interesting. In theory, the NW was created to exist as an entity outside of the 7 kingdoms so, as pointed out, it would've had more autonomy since there were many different kings and none had jurisdiction over them. Once there was only one kingdom, the NW being an autonomous entity didn't change in theory, but it would have in practice. 

For me, the NW can be seen as something akin as a small country right on the borders of a significantly larger and stronger one. It has no defences to stop the larger country from invading. It relies on trade with the larger country to give it enough food to sustain itself, and warriors to defend itself from the North. The constitution (or what have you) of the small country will declare it independent and give it all its own legal rights - like the right to decide who rules, how people are punished, etc. However, considering how reliant the small country is on maintaining a good relation with the large country, this independence is really only on paper. 

If under the rule of one of the Targs, they had decided to take land from the NW instead of giving it to them, the NW would have been fairly powerless to stop them, though I suppose they could have attempted to rally support from Lord Paramounts, but who knows how successful that might've been (especially under the Targs that had dragons). The NW was allowed to govern itself because, as Benjen says, it wasn't a threat. It also wouldn't have been useful for the crown to disband it when it served an important purpose, whether the leaders in question saw that as protecting the realm from Others or wildlings, placing excess sons so that there weren't any inheritance wars, or simply as a good way of punishing Lords without killing them and starting a war with their families (looking at you Joffrey ). So basically, it's unlikely that the crown tried to meddle in the affairs of the NW too much because, there was really no reason to care too much, but there's likely a very good reason that the NW leaders (LCs and First Rangers) typically seem to be from noble houses, and I suspect is goes beyond the nobility arriving better trained. 

So is the NW subservient to the crown? Technically, it isn't, since on paper it exists outside the rule of the crowns, but, because it is reliant on the crown for its continued existence, it is often in its best interest to act in ways that are subservient. 

Twin's letter to the NW shows this to an extent. 'Legally,' he knows that they can't just write and command the NW to make Janos Slynt LC - if the NW was truly subservient, then this is what he would've done. But, he knows that the NW is depending on their aid, and it is therefore in their best interest to act in subservience, so he only very thinly veils what he wants done - Slynt elected to LC.

Now, if Tywin were still alive, considering the whole "Reynes of Castamere" thing, it's very likely that, having failed to do what he wanted, Tywin would not only have stopped sending men/supplies to the Wall, but would have worked to have the NW disbanded. Were things peaceful, and the Lannister's power cemented, he could even have succeeded. I'm not sure how many of the houses care enough about the wall to fight him on it, with the exception of the Starks, who've vanished anyway. ---> How easy/successful this would be isn't necessarily my point though, only that it would've been understandable for some of the NW to be fearful.

Some of the NW, like Bowen Marsh. Marsh, obviously, isn't caught up in the ideal of the NW, where they get to democratically elect their leader, but recognises their precarious position and the fact that subservience to the crown is sometimes required, even if it shouldn't be. Hence, his fears about Jon make complete sense from his perspective - the man killed Slynt and is now going to attack the Boltons (Lannister's allies), plus he's taken in so many additional people that they're now in even more dire need of supplies to survive winter. Should the Lannisters win (as Marsh thinks they will), Jon and all his decisions will have doomed the watch.

Of course, Bowen Marsh is still an idiot. I can understand why he thinks Jon needs to be taken care of, but he definitely goes about it in a very short sighted way. Other posters have already given way better suggestions as to what Bowen could have done, but he seems to just go out with his little posse and stab Jon. Out in the open.

To be honest, comparing it to things like the RW and Caesar's death (I'm assuming we're talking about how it goes down in the Shakespeare play?) just make it more obvious to me how poorly thought out Marsh's plan is. The RW was carefully orchestrated so that the smaller group of Freys and Boltons were the only ones with weapons, where as the larger army was completely defenceless. And the conspirators in Julius Caesar don't just stab him out in the middle of the street, or when there's anyone around who's loyal to him. Its just him and them. (Now I don't have my copy of Caesar on me, so that is from memory. I know Mark Antony shows up later and pretends to be cool with it, but he isn't there the whole time, I don't think, though by all means correct me if I'm wrong).

Marsh stabs Jon while surrounded by an army of wildlings, who should be loyal to Jon, one of whom is a giant and is also right there. Even if he has got all/almost all of the NW to side with him, or gets them to, what he's done should cause enough commotion that it potentially puts everything at risk. Some of the people not loyal to him might hear that a group of crows killed the LC and ride off to tell the other castles, and there's plenty of people loyal to Jon at those.   

ETA: Wow! I apologize for how long this is. I did not realise how much I wrote. (also, sorry for adding this to make it even longer)

[teej6]

26 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Snip

 

I agree with most of your post. IMO the NW, in spirit at least, is an independent institution that is 8000 years old and not even Tywin would want to seem to interfere with the independence of it. He may meddle in its affairs but had he lived, would not have been stupid enough to march on it. I liked the analogy you gave about a small independent kingdom surrounded by a larger more powerful one. The NW is definitely dependent on KL and the other larger houses for sustenance and its existence but I wouldn't define that relationship as subservient. 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

In the case of Arya, Yoren may have been breaking the law, but with regards to Gendry, Yoren seems to believe that the NW has jurisdiction over him and doesn't give a flying fig about Cersei's orders.

Yoren thinks he can do what he wants because he wears black, but he is not neutral in any of this. He went straight to Ned Stark after Cat captured Tyrion because his brother Benjen was also Ned's brother. That is not taking no part.

I'm not saying Yoren didn't try to do the right thing by protecting both Arya and Gendry but he was acting against his own rules there. If the Queen Regent tells you that you have no right to a boy then you hand him over. Especially if you are running around in the Crownlands.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Also, I highly doubt had Gendry reached Castle Black and professed an interest to join the NW, Mormont would have just handed him over to Cersei to be killed. Since it didn't play out that way we can only speculate.

We can be reasonably sure that Mormont would have had no choice but to comply. He would have been in the weaker position. The Iron Throne doesn't need the Watch, and the Watch cannot defend itself against the Iron Throne.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Again, neither you nor I are going to convince each other on this matter.

How do you know? If you present me with good arguments I will change my mind. I've done so before. And I expect you to be open to be convinced by good arguments, too. Else you should not participate in a discussion.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

In my opinion, the spirit of the order of the NW is that it is an independent brotherhood that is not "subservient" to the Crown or any other House/Lord but is dependent on said Houses for resources and men, and through its history it has been known to take the occasional military assistance from the Starks (who were more than happy to oblige). 

Aside from you not citing any textual evidence to convince us of this idea your view also seems to be incoherent. I'd say that any legal entity which is 'dependent on said [h]ouses for resources and men' would also be subservient to those houses in a very real manner. The people paying for your food, weapons, clothes, and houses are also the people who own you. That is true in a feudal society as Westeros as much as it is our real world. There is a reason why the employer who owns the company makes the rules of his company, and the employee follows said rules.

In addition, I'm pretty sure the Starks were not 'more than happy to oblige' when they had to fight Raymun Redbeard at Long Lake or had to put down various mad and evil Lord Commanders or execute traitors and turncloaks. They had a kingdom of their own to rule. The NW was an institution that was supposed to protect them, not the other way around. It is not the duty of the Starks (or any other royal or lordly house of the Seven Kingdoms) to maintain order in the Watch.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

It can be argued that there is a strong connection between the Starks and the NW that makes the Starks natural benefactors to the NW, but the Starks are still not in a position to threaten the independence of the institution. There is a symbiotic relationship between the realm and the NW, but that does not make one subservient to the other. 

That just isn't nowhere stated. The NW is the rubbish heap the lords and kings use to get rid of their scum. That is a fact by the time the series begins.

I see how the NW is profiting from the Realm - it gets men, food, weapons, money, etc. from the lords and kings - but I don't see what the Watch does in return to enable to describe the relationship as 'symbiotic'. The realms south of the Neck don't care about some wildlings raiding lands in the North and subsequently they don't profit if men they send to the Wall prevent some wildlings from stealing some sheep from some Umbers or clansmen.

And the Starks - well, if there was no NW they sure as hell could have manned the Wall with their own men, creating new lords to rule over the various castles up there just as the Gardeners created the lords of the Shield Islands to protect the mouth of the Mander.

The Night's Watch once a proud institution but it was in decline for centuries, perhaps even millennia. When Nymeria conquered Dorne she sent six kings to the Wall, meaning that even back then, a thousand years ago, the rulers used the Watch to get rid of their enemies.

And by the time of AGoT nobody, including the Starks, believes in the Others anymore. And if there are no Others then there is also no reason to maintain a NW. They still do it but it has become an empty gesture, an old tradition you stick to because you have always done so.

You also might remember that Robb Stark intended to actually get Jon Snow out of the Night's Watch when he was contemplating (or deciding) to name him his new heir in place of his sister Sansa. That means Robb sure as hell believed he could dictate terms to the leadership of the Night's Watch. He would have decided whether Jon's vow was valid enough, not Jon or Mormont, or the old gods. That shows how much the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms respect the ways of the NW.

Historically things may have been different millennia ago when there were still a lot of petty kings. They all worked together, from Dorne to the Wall, to maintain and support the NW, and the mission of the black brothers to defend the realms of men against the Others, the true enemy of everyone, was a truly noble calling and greatly respected by all. But that is a thing of the past.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

The question of if the NW is 'subservient' to the crown is actually quite interesting. In theory, the NW was created to exist as an entity outside of the 7 kingdoms so, as pointed out, it would've had more autonomy since there were many different kings and none had jurisdiction over them. Once there was only one kingdom, the NW being an autonomous entity didn't change in theory, but it would have in practice. 

It isn't outside of the Seven or Hundred Kingdoms. It sits on the fence. It is a garrison protecting the border of 'the realms of men'. But it certainly would have been much more powerful as an institution back in its earlier years while there were various petty kings all over Westeros. There would have been men joining the NW from all those petty kingdoms but those kings themselves would never have been able to marshal an army strong enough to challenge or threaten the power of the Lord Commander at the Nightfort.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

For me, the NW can be seen as something akin as a small country right on the borders of a significantly larger and stronger one. It has no defences to stop the larger country from invading. It relies on trade with the larger country to give it enough food to sustain itself, and warriors to defend itself from the North. The constitution (or what have you) of the small country will declare it independent and give it all its own legal rights - like the right to decide who rules, how people are punished, etc. However, considering how reliant the small country is on maintaining a good relation with the large country, this independence is really only on paper. 

But there is no evidence that such a constitution/independence even exist. The very way Stannis and Selyse are treated by the Watch (as their monarchs) and the way people there refer to Robert and the other kings is more than enough evidence that the people at the Wall see them as much as subjects of the Iron Throne as anybody else. You don't leave the Wall when you join the NW just as you are not entering into another country or realm when you enter the Gifts.

Before the Conquest the NW would have given similar honors as they give to Stannis and Selyse (and Jaehaerys I and Alysanne) to any (petty) king visiting the Watch. They were all their superiors. After all, they are protecting the realms of men from the Others. The people ruling the realms of men are their superiors. That is also the reason why the guy commanding the Watch is just a Lord Commander and not an elected king. He does not rule a country, he commands a military order which also happens to own some land to maintain itself.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

If under the rule of one of the Targs, they had decided to take land from the NW instead of giving it to them, the NW would have been fairly powerless to stop them, though I suppose they could have attempted to rally support from Lord Paramounts, but who knows how successful that might've been (especially under the Targs that had dragons).

The NW has about as much 'right' to its lands as any other noble or royal houses has to theirs. The Watch owned Brandon's Gift for a long time but the Gardeners also ruled the Reach for a long time. Things change. The fact that the Watchmen still can elect their own commander doesn't mean that commander is a sovereign lord or monarch.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

The NW was allowed to govern itself because, as Benjen says, it wasn't a threat. It also wouldn't have been useful for the crown to disband it when it served an important purpose, whether the leaders in question saw that as protecting the realm from Others or wildlings, placing excess sons so that there weren't any inheritance wars, or simply as a good way of punishing Lords without killing them and starting a war with their families (looking at you Joffrey ). So basically, it's unlikely that the crown tried to meddle in the affairs of the NW too much because, there was really no reason to care too much, but there's likely a very good reason that the NW leaders (LCs and First Rangers) typically seem to be from noble houses, and I suspect is goes beyond the nobility arriving better trained. 

Using the word 'govern' is to much there. A petty lord also does not govern a state. He oversees his domains in the name of his liege. That is more or less what the Lord Commander of the NW does, too.

And the Watch no longer does serve any purpose for the lords of the Realm as a whole. Only very few traitors and criminals of rank actually end up there. Many more are actually executed. The idea that is a good idea to put weapons in the hands of criminals is actually pretty bad. It is true that you usually don't get back from the Wall to start a new life of your own but you can try. And the people who try (like the turncloaks among the wildlings who nearly kill Bran in AGoT or the traitors who murder Craster and the Old Bear) usually kill quite a few people before they, in turn, are put down. Assuming they remain in Westeros and are caught.

And essentially nobody volunteers for the Watch. Jon did because he didn't know better (if he had known he wouldn't have gone to the Wall), and Sam was forced to do it. Waymar Royce seems to have been a huge exception, but we don't even know whether he wanted to do it or whether his father more or less nudged him in that direction.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

So is the NW subservient to the crown? Technically, it isn't, since on paper it exists outside the rule of the crowns, but, because it is reliant on the crown for its continued existence, it is often in its best interest to act in ways that are subservient. 

Again, it is not outside the jurisdiction of the Realm. If it was there would be textual evidence for this fact.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Twin's letter to the NW shows this to an extent. 'Legally,' he knows that they can't just write and command the NW to make Janos Slynt LC - if the NW was truly subservient, then this is what he would've done. But, he knows that the NW is depending on their aid, and it is therefore in their best interest to act in subservience, so he only very thinly veils what he wants done - Slynt elected to LC.

It is the right of the Watch to elect its own leader. But this doesn't mean the Watch has the right to resist an order given to them by the king. And the king sure as hell could take that privilege from them. Stannis threatened to do that if they would not elect a new Lord Commander pretty soon.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Some of the NW, like Bowen Marsh. Marsh, obviously, isn't caught up in the ideal of the NW, where they get to democratically elect their leader, but recognises their precarious position and the fact that subservience to the crown is sometimes required, even if it shouldn't be. Hence, his fears about Jon make complete sense from his perspective - the man killed Slynt and is now going to attack the Boltons (Lannister's allies), plus he's taken in so many additional people that they're now in even more dire need of supplies to survive winter. Should the Lannisters win (as Marsh thinks they will), Jon and all his decisions will have doomed the watch.

It is not just that, it is also the fact that Jon has very much betrayed the NW by declaring he is going to abandon his post, breaking his vow in the process. Pragmatism aside, Jon has to die for honor's sake. Deserters are not allowed to live. Marsh also cleansed the honor of the NW was an institution with Jon's blood. That was pretty much an honor killing as it was an attempt to prevent the end of the NW.

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Of course, Bowen Marsh is still an idiot. I can understand why he thinks Jon needs to be taken care of, but he definitely goes about it in a very short sighted way. Other posters have already given way better suggestions as to what Bowen could have done, but he seems to just go out with his little posse and stab Jon. Out in the open.

Whether Marsh is doomed/an idiot where the political aspects are concerned remains to be seen. But Jon sure as hell was the greater fool because he allowed himself to be provoked by Ramsay without actually having good information what actually transpired. Perhaps there is no reason to avenge Stannis at all? Perhaps his sister never was at Winterfell? Perhaps 'Arya' has successfully fled and is already on her way to Castle Black?

34 minutes ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

To be honest, comparing it to things like the RW and Caesar's death (I'm assuming we're talking about how it goes down in the Shakespeare play?) just make it more obvious to me how poorly thought out Marsh's plan is. The RW was carefully orchestrated so that the smaller group of Freys and Boltons were the only ones with weapons, where as the larger army was completely defenceless. And the conspirators in Julius Caesar don't just stab him out in the middle of the street, or when there's anyone around who's loyal to him. Its just him and them. (Now I don't have my copy of Caesar on me, so that is from memory. I know Mark Antony shows up later and pretends to be cool with it, but he isn't there the whole time, I don't think, though by all means correct me if I'm wrong).

Jon isn't surrounded by an army of men loyal to him. We don't know how those men feel. The idea that all the wildlings Jon fans isn't very likely, actually. Tormund and some others like him well enough but even they are not really his friends. They are allies who get along reasonably well. But if push came to shove Tormund would always stick with his people and family, not Jon. And this should be even more true for the others, the wildlings who never knew Jon at all.

For many of them it might be a welcome opportunity that the crow lord is dead. That could enable them to do what they want - go some place south and let the Wall defend itself. They are now south of the Wall, after all. 

I'm not saying Marsh must have a great and detailed plan but I think the chances are pretty good that he only acted when he was pretty sure that nearly all men at Castle Black would stand with him should the Lord Commander be removed. Marsh is not the kind of guy to act on some rash impulse.

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

How do you know? If you present me with good arguments I will change my mind. I've done so before. And I expect you to be open to be convinced by good arguments, too. Else you should not participate in a discussion.

Let me first address the bolded part. Please do not pressume to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I can choose not to discuss or debate with you on a topic because as I said I have always found your arguments biased, subjective, and long-winded. What I do is my prerogative. 

As for textual evidence supporting my claim that the NW is not subservient to the crown, the fact that no king in all the 8000 years of the NW's existence attacked it until and unless it was for the express purpose of coming to the aid of the NW should tell you that it was not as easy as you claim, and the NW was not a vassal of kings or lords. Tywin/Cersei, as you seem to claim, could not just call on their good friends the Tyrells and march on the NW simply because the NW elected a LC they disliked. If as you say, the NW was commanded by KL, I wonder why both Tywin and Cersei were trying to meddle in the affairs of the NW secretly rather than openly commanding the NW to do what they want, which is get rid of Jon. It's strange that they sent men to assasinate Jon in the cover of darkness rather than just command the NW to execute him. I call your arguments BS. And all the textual evidence you provided so far just proves that the realm came to the aid of the NW when necessary and you proved nothing else. 

Stannis, a character who does not like being refused or who takes it as a slight if his command is not obeyed, does not kill or fire Jon for flatly refusing to obey his command to hand over the abandoned castles, instead what does he do? He grinds his teeth and makes empty threats inspite of having an entire army camped at CB. As to the way Stannis and Selyse are treated, they are simply being given the respect and honor that is due them. Jon, the LC of the NW, disobeys Stannis and Selyse orders at every turn. Yes, you have convinced me with your textual evidence (insert sarcasm font).

It's also strange that Robb, the King in the North, does not command the NW to release Jon instead he takes a placative and negotiative approach in stating he'll send a 100 men in place of Jon. Now I wonder why he does that. By your reasoning, Robb should just command the NW to release Jon. But he doesn't, does he? 

Yoren maybe a Stark sympathizer but in his dealings with Gendry, it does not appear to me that Yoren believes he is doing a treasonous or illegal act. This is Yoren's exact words "Thing is, the boy’s in the Night’s Watch now. What he done back in the city don’t mean piss-all" after hearing the Queen wants Gendry, which to me tells that in Yoren's mind he does not thing the Crown has any jurisdiction on Gendry or any of the NW recruits.

So, try harder and please lose the air of superiority.

[kissdbyfire]

@Lord Varys, not surprisingly we do not see eye to eye on this issue. I just wanted to comment on something. Comparing the Ides to the RW is like comparing apples and... a colander? 

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It isn't outside of the Seven or Hundred Kingdoms. It sits on the fence. It is a garrison protecting the border of 'the realms of men'. But it certainly would have been much more powerful as an institution back in its earlier years while there were various petty kings all over Westeros. There would have been men joining the NW from all those petty kingdoms but those kings themselves would never have been able to marshal an army strong enough to challenge or threaten the power of the Lord Commander at the Nightfort.

 

I know it's literally inside of the Seven Kingdoms, as in its on the same side of the wall and its completely populated by people who are, you know, from the 7K, but wasn't under the rule of any of the Kings, when there were lots of kingdoms, and it isn't under the rule of any of the LPs now. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is no evidence that such a constitution/independence even exist. The very way Stannis and Selyse are treated by the Watch (as their monarchs) and the way people there refer to Robert and the other kings is more than enough evidence that the people at the Wall see them as much as subjects of the Iron Throne as anybody else. You don't leave the Wall when you join the NW just as you are not entering into another country or realm when you enter the Gifts.

Before the Conquest the NW would have given similar honors as they give to Stannis and Selyse (and Jaehaerys I and Alysanne) to any (petty) king visiting the Watch. They were all their superiors. After all, they are protecting the realms of men from the Others. The people ruling the realms of men are their superiors. That is also the reason why the guy commanding the Watch is just a Lord Commander and not an elected king. He does not rule a country, he commands a military order which also happens to own some land to maintain itself.

I'm not saying that there's a literal constitution. I was making a comparison between the relationship of the NW and the 7K to that between a small country and a significantly larger one, which share borders. The two obviously aren't exactly the same seeing as the men of the NW are themselves from the 7K, and as you say, it's not seen as a country but as a military group. However, I don't think that means the comparison isn't valid. 

I think @teej6 provided a lot of textual examples that suggest that such an independence (written or not) does exist. Mainly, the fact that none of the 'Kings' ever actually order the NW to do anything, except maybe Stannis, but they don't necessarily listen. Another point that I believe adds to this (though I might be mistaken) - the NW doesn't pay taxes to the crown. 

As for the treatment of royalty when they stay at the Wall, I think that ties in to my comparison fairly well. It's not dissimilar to how a small country would react if the reigning prime minister/queen/king/president/tzar/whathaveyou came on a diplomatic visit. As someone who lives in a 'smaller' country, trust me lol, we would likely treat them even better than we treat our own politicians. But technically they wouldn't be in charge all of a sudden.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The NW has about as much 'right' to its lands as any other noble or royal houses has to theirs. The Watch owned Brandon's Gift for a long time but the Gardeners also ruled the Reach for a long time. Things change. The fact that the Watchmen still can elect their own commander doesn't mean that commander is a sovereign lord or monarch.

Yes? I don't think we disagree on this point. I was saying, had the crown ever wanted to, it probably could've easily taken away lands/castles from the NW. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Using the word 'govern' is to much there. A petty lord also does not govern a state. He oversees his domains in the name of his liege. That is more or less what the Lord Commander of the NW does, too.

And the Watch no longer does serve any purpose for the lords of the Realm as a whole. Only very few traitors and criminals of rank actually end up there. Many more are actually executed. The idea that is a good idea to put weapons in the hands of criminals is actually pretty bad. It is true that you usually don't get back from the Wall to start a new life of your own but you can try. And the people who try (like the turncloaks among the wildlings who nearly kill Bran in AGoT or the traitors who murder Craster and the Old Bear) usually kill quite a few people before they, in turn, are put down. Assuming they remain in Westeros and are caught.

And essentially nobody volunteers for the Watch. Jon did because he didn't know better (if he had known he wouldn't have gone to the Wall), and Sam was forced to do it. Waymar Royce seems to have been a huge exception, but we don't even know whether he wanted to do it or whether his father more or less nudged him in that direction.

Govern - conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organisation or people) (according to Google) --> The NW elects its own leader, who in turn assigns men to positions, decides the best course of action to take, etc. so I think the LC definitely governs the NW.

I agree that the NW is definitely in decline and significantly less respected than it was previously, and also seen as significantly less useful. That said, the fact that, had Joffrey sent Ned to the Wall, instead of killing him, he might've stopped the North from rebelling suggests it can still be of some use. (Well... to be honest, the North would likely just have sided with Stannis, but if Stannis and Renly hadn't rebelled then it would've been a smarter course of action). Certainly, Aerys might still have been on the throne if instead of killing Brandon and Rickard, he'd had them sent to the wall. Randyl Tarly also used it so that he wouldn't have to become a kinslayer. 

I'm not arguing that the Wall is a good idea, just that it still provides some limited benefits, with no real draw backs (to people in the South) so there hasn't been any reason for the crown to try and exert too much influence on it previously. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, it is not outside the jurisdiction of the Realm. If it was there would be textual evidence for this fact.

It is the right of the Watch to elect its own leader. But this doesn't mean the Watch has the right to resist an order given to them by the king. And the king sure as hell could take that privilege from them. Stannis threatened to do that if they would not elect a new Lord Commander pretty soon.

The fact that he threatens but doesn't is sort of proof in itself to me. Likewise the fact that the Lannisters don't just write and say - we command you to elect Janos Slynt. 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not just that, it is also the fact that Jon has very much betrayed the NW by declaring he is going to abandon his post, breaking his vow in the process. Pragmatism aside, Jon has to die for honor's sake. Deserters are not allowed to live. Marsh also cleansed the honor of the NW was an institution with Jon's blood. That was pretty much an honor killing as it was an attempt to prevent the end of the NW.

Whether Marsh is doomed/an idiot where the political aspects are concerned remains to be seen. But Jon sure as hell was the greater fool because he allowed himself to be provoked by Ramsay without actually having good information what actually transpired. Perhaps there is no reason to avenge Stannis at all? Perhaps his sister never was at Winterfell? Perhaps 'Arya' has successfully fled and is already on her way to Castle Black?

To be honest, I don't really see that going to fight Ramsay means forswearing his vows. Obviously Jon himself sees it that way, since he specifically says he won't make the NW come with him and 'foreswear their vows,' but I would think that it would be pretty important to make sure if someone is threatening to attack them from the South, they defend themselves, so that they can then come back and you know defend the realms of men, which, should they let themselves be slaughtered, wouldn't work so well. 

I've read your previous point that it's technically Jon's fault that Ramsay is coming after him (he sent Mance there), and I can understand that point, but rest of the NW/wildlings shouldn't know that. They saw Mance Rayder burn to death. If anything, that should be proof to them that this Lord is making up lies as an excuse to attack their LC, and endanger the NW as a whole. 

Does Marsh act because he thinks Jon has dishonoured the watch or because he's fearful that the NW isn't supporting the 'winning' side? I think the text points to the latter, but it could be a mixture. 

I'm not really arguing who was more foolish between Jon and Marsh. I think both had valid reasons to act how they did, but both were being rash. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon isn't surrounded by an army of men loyal to him. We don't know how those men feel. The idea that all the wildlings Jon fans isn't very likely, actually. Tormund and some others like him well enough but even they are not really his friends. They are allies who get along reasonably well. But if push came to shove Tormund would always stick with his people and family, not Jon. And this should be even more true for the others, the wildlings who never knew Jon at all.

For many of them it might be a welcome opportunity that the crow lord is dead. That could enable them to do what they want - go some place south and let the Wall defend itself. They are now south of the Wall, after all. 

I'm not saying Marsh must have a great and detailed plan but I think the chances are pretty good that he only acted when he was pretty sure that nearly all men at Castle Black would stand with him should the Lord Commander be removed. Marsh is not the kind of guy to act on some rash impulse.

Doing a quick re-read of the ADWD chapter, it definitely gives the impression of a decent amount of men being loyal to Jon. When he asks if anyone will ride to Winterfell with him "the roar was all he could have hoped for..." Even if we assume that this is mostly wildlings, that suggests a certain amount of loyalty to me. Likewise, when Yarth and Bowen leave "their men" follow. I feel like Jon would've noted if "their men" was all the NW, or even a large number of them. Of course, it's entirely possible that men stayed who were loyal to them, but there's nothing really to suggest that either. 

I get the impression that Bowen and Yarth had been planning to get rid of Jon somehow, but decided that they needed to act faster before he rode against a Lannister ally and incurred the wrath of the crown. They followed him when he left, and stabbed him in the commotion of Wun Wun killing Ser Patreck (I imagine that without the commotion they would have waited till he was more alone). But there's a lot of people around during the stabbing, I'm pretty sure someone is going to notice some crows stabbing their LC. 

Even if no one notices, and the wildlings turn out not to care that Jon's been killed, and the wildlings and NW just go their separate ways peacefully, there is no way for Bowen Marsh to predict this. IMO the stabbing is spur of the moment and an incredibly risky move. 

 

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

I agree with most of your post. IMO the NW, in spirit at least, is an independent institution that is 8000 years old and not even Tywin would want to seem to interfere with the independence of it. He may meddle in its affairs but had he lived, would not have been stupid enough to march on it. I liked the analogy you gave about a small independent kingdom surrounded by a larger more powerful one. The NW is definitely dependent on KL and the other larger houses for sustenance and its existence but I wouldn't define that relationship as subservient. 

 

Thank you 

 If Tywin would have marched on it or not is obviously speculation. I think it could be possible that he would've risked trying to disband it, given his own sensitivity to people dismissing him/his authority (though I agree that the NW didn't actually do this) and the fact that the NW isn't nearly as well respected as it once was, so he might not meet too much resistance. But whether or not he would've isn't actually important. What matters is whether or not Bowen thinks Tywin/Lannisters would have threatened the NW, and I believe the text definitely shows that he was afraid of their response. 

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Thank you 

 If Tywin would have marched on it or not is obviously speculation. I think it could be possible that he would've risked trying to disband it, given his own sensitivity to people dismissing him/his authority (though I agree that the NW didn't actually do this) and the fact that the NW isn't nearly as well respected as it once was, so he might not meet too much resistance. But whether or not he would've isn't actually important. What matters is whether or not Bowen thinks Tywin/Lannisters would have threatened the NW, and I believe the text definitely shows that he was afraid of their response. 

Yes, I agree that Marsh did believe that by choosing Stannis, Jon was choosing the loosing side, which he even openly stated to Jon to which Jon responded that he did not mean to choose any side. And early into ADWD, Marsh is aware of Tywin's death. Marsh and even earlier Sam feel that the NW may end up in trouble if Stannis is defeated by the Lannisters. But just because they feel/think so, it does not mean that Tywin (had he lived) or Cersei will be able to convince other Westerosi Lords to march on the NW. Someone as crazy as Ramsay may do that but would Roose do it? Somehow I doubt he would. Jon in answering Ramsay's threat, however, may have given Roose the provocation and justification he needed to attack but we still do not have the complete picture or the circumstances of the Pink Letter or whether the Northern Lords will back Ramsay in attacking the NW and Ned's son. 

[the snow dragon]

@Lord Varys .Your argument is that because iron throne can eradicate watch forcefully it must be subservient to thron.the truth is watch wasn't founded by iron throne or any Kingdom before them. It follows the rules laid down at its conception. They choose their own commander which in turn goveren the watch independently.throne or any other lord dosent have any legal right over watch.if it had then tywen would have directly ordered the watch to choose janos slynt as commander not make veiled threats.hel he could have commanded the watch to attack starks from behind.similarly as other posters have pointed out both king rob and stannis dosent order the watch. Stannis make demands but many of them are refused by jon snow.this is enough evidance to show that watch is technically independent.it is other thing that placating kings and lords is beneficial to watch. Kings and lords can make watch to do something by force or threat but that is not same thing as doing it because its their duty  or they have any obligation by law.think it, watch was established thousands of years ago when there were hundreds of petty kingdoms.it could not have served its purpose if it was subservient to any kingdome.so they made a instituion that was independent in its working.time changed and hundreds of kingdomes become seven and then one.but watch is still governed by the laws laid down at its inception. No king has changed it officially till date.so on paper watch is not subservient to throne or lords.hope you understand my reasoning. 

              

[Prof. Cecily]

I liked the comparison of the NW to a penal colony.

Or perhaps an even better comparison, to the Foreign Legion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion

Or one of the militant monastic orders?

 

What IS clear is that the NW is in total decadence. Except for Lord Mormont's raven.

I saw Stannis' intervention as that of a well-intentioned man who manages to be misunderstood every single step of the way.

A Westerosi Pentheus, if you will.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, the snow dragon said:

@Lord Varys .Your argument is that because iron throne can eradicate watch forcefully it must be subservient to thron.the truth is watch wasn't founded by iron throne or any Kingdom before them. It follows the rules laid down at its conception. They choose their own commander which in turn goveren the watch independently.throne or any other lord dosent have any legal right over watch.if it had then tywen would have directly ordered the watch to choose janos slynt as commander not make veiled threats.hel he could have commanded the watch to attack starks from behind.similarly as other posters have pointed out both king rob and stannis dosent order the watch. Stannis make demands but many of them are refused by jon snow.this is enough evidance to show that watch is technically independent.it is other thing that placating kings and lords is beneficial to watch. Kings and lords can make watch to do something by force or threat but that is not same thing as doing it because its their duty  or they have any obligation by law.think it, watch was established thousands of years ago when there were hundreds of petty kingdoms.it could not have served its purpose if it was subservient to any kingdome.so they made a instituion that was independent in its working.time changed and hundreds of kingdomes become seven and then one.but watch is still governed by the laws laid down at its inception. No king has changed it officially till date.so on paper watch is not subservient to throne or lords.hope you understand my reasoning.        

The Faith itself is also thousands of years old and was once independent, too, with its justice system and military. Both was taken away from them. The fact that the Night's Watch is older than the united Targaryen Realm or the Seven Kingdoms that preceded it means nothing in that regard, actually. The Watch was their institution, and they financed and supported it just as the Targaryens did later. It was the border army of the realms of men. As such it certainly isn't an independent state. It is a military order and as such it has certain rules and traditions it has a right to uphold. But those are conditional upon its function as a military order to guard the realms of men. The king(s) in the South have a right to intervene when the men up there no longer do their job properly. And they also have a right to disband it should they come to conclusion that the NW is no longer needed. This is not independence. This is very much dependence.

Only as long as the king(s) saw a purpose in that army did it have any right to exist. If the Starks or the Targaryens had decided to conquer some lands beyond the Wall and add those to their domains the Night's Watch most likely would have been disbanded in the process. There would have been no need for a border in the middle of a larger kingdom, right?

The scenarios you describe - like Tywin and others giving direct orders to the NW to do what they want - are somewhat extreme and unrealistic. The Iron Throne is very far away from the Wall and exactly the top priority at court. In addition, the people there know that the Watch is essentially dying and not exactly capable of doing all that much (meaning there would be no point to command them to attack the North). Distance allows you to more or less ignore a letter from court even if it contains an order they are not likely to want to do. And that is not only true for the Watch but also for a lord living at the end of the world. However, if a king wanted the Watch to do a particular thing and was not occupied with a lot of other things the Watch most likely would comply even if the command went completely against their tradition. Because if they did not comply there might be very severe repercussions, beginning by no longer getting support from the Seven Kingdoms to the king sending a navy and army up there to execute the leadership of the Wall or disband the entire order.

As to Stannis' demands - as I've said, he could have taken everything he wanted (and essentially he did - he took all the food, clothes, weapons, and horses he needed) but he came there to save the NW, not to destroy it. The king is the guy in charge but it is quite clear that a king cannot really go into a lord's castle and demand that the man had over his private valuables and gold to pay for the debts of the Crown. He has to have a better reason or pretext to do that than simply 'I need money'. It is similar with the NW, the Lord Commander is the elected head of a military order that collectively holds land in the name of the king. As such both lords and the NW hold certain rights.

Being the king means that you are in charge but it doesn't mean you can get what you want under any circumstances or can take what you want without going through the proper legal procedures. 

However, a pretext to disband the NW, interfere with them, take lands from them, etc. should be easily enough found. Just as it should not be that hard to find a reason to burn a great lord as a traitor, Aerys II proved that. But even if you have them you have to actually enact the changes you want to implement. You have to send an army up there just as Garlan Tyrell and Emmon Frey need armies to actually take possession of their seats Brightwater and Riverrun.

As to the neutrality thing, that is actually interesting. During the petty kingdoms and the Seven Kingdoms period keeping neutral was both very important as well as rather easily to do. After all there were many kingdoms who warred constantly against each other, and the larger ones were actually pretty stable with many royal houses eventually becoming lords under the rule of the great houses.

However, with a united kingdom there is just the king and rebels/pretenders, and it is quite difficult for the Watch to say a pretender/traitor/outlaw is actually a person deserving equal respect than the anointed king. If there is only one king there is only one side, and the NW has to be on his side just as everybody else has. That is a problem for the 'the NW takes no part' policy.

And if you think about, the NW taking no part is a heartless and essentially evil attitude. Yoren and Tyrion got along splendidly yet the neutrality thing demanded that Yoren actually do nothing should Tyrion be seized or murdered on the street they are traveling on. It would also mean that he do nothing when a robber knight or outlaw rapes, tortures, and kills an woman in front of his eyes. Not to mention that he just let things happen that are committed during a war, even if he could technically prevent them.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I know it's literally inside of the Seven Kingdoms, as in its on the same side of the wall and its completely populated by people who are, you know, from the 7K, but wasn't under the rule of any of the Kings, when there were lots of kingdoms, and it isn't under the rule of any of the LPs now.

It is now as much under the rule of the Iron Throne as any other domain in the Seven Kingdoms. The Targaryens do not exactly rule their realm through royal officials, they have their lords rule their lands in their name. And the same is true for the Watch. The King on the Iron Throne is the king of the men of the Watch. There is ample evidence for that.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I'm not saying that there's a literal constitution. I was making a comparison between the relationship of the NW and the 7K to that between a small country and a significantly larger one, which share borders. The two obviously aren't exactly the same seeing as the men of the NW are themselves from the 7K, and as you say, it's not seen as a country but as a military group. However, I don't think that means the comparison isn't valid.

You could make a comparison between the Knights Templar and the NW. The NW should also resemble the Faith Militant orders in that regard. Those would be more accurate comparisons. But unlike the Faith Militant or the Knights Templar the NW just sits on a tract of land at the end of the world, guarding its border, and has no right to own land (or even permanently hang out) in the realm(s) of men. They are basically a border garrison.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I think @teej6 provided a lot of textual examples that suggest that such an independence (written or not) does exist. Mainly, the fact that none of the 'Kings' ever actually order the NW to do anything, except maybe Stannis, but they don't necessarily listen. Another point that I believe adds to this (though I might be mistaken) - the NW doesn't pay taxes to the crown.

We don't know if they pay taxes but even if they did that doesn't prove anything. The Faith was also exempt from taxation and had its own military and justice system during the reign of the Conqueror and they were still all his subjects anyway. People can hold privileges and still be not independent. Some people are more equal than others, even today in our world.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

As for the treatment of royalty when they stay at the Wall, I think that ties in to my comparison fairly well. It's not dissimilar to how a small country would react if the reigning prime minister/queen/king/president/tzar/whathaveyou came on a diplomatic visit. As someone who lives in a 'smaller' country, trust me lol, we would likely treat them even better than we treat our own politicians. But technically they wouldn't be in charge all of a sudden.

Well, I guess your people would not consider a foreign head of state as your own head of state, just as you would not treat his wife as your queen. But the men of the Watch treat Stannis and Selyse in this fashion. Sure, the Sealord of Braavos would also be a guest of honor at the Wall, but they would not treat him exactly like they would their own king and queen.

As to Selyse-Jon, Stannis left Jon in charge of the Wall when he left. But as Selyse so forebodingly mentions he will have to answer for his decisions when Stannis returns.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Govern - conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organisation or people) (according to Google) --> The NW elects its own leader, who in turn assigns men to positions, decides the best course of action to take, etc. so I think the LC definitely governs the NW.

But not in the same way as a king does. The dictionary definition doesn't help. A parent can also govern his family or household. But that isn't the same as governing a state. It is not what's meant here. A (petty) lord also chooses his own master of horse or steward. That is equivalent to a Lord Commander of the NW choosing his own First Ranger or Lord Steward.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I'm not arguing that the Wall is a good idea, just that it still provides some limited benefits, with no real draw backs (to people in the South) so there hasn't been any reason for the crown to try and exert too much influence on it previously.

It has, as you can see with the whole New Gift thing. If the Targaryens could grant the Watch new lands they could also have taken lands from them or disbanded them. The Watch is not still alive because people think it still has a purpose. It is still alive because it has always been there and is a sort of ancient tradition you drag along, not to mention that it has become so insignificant that pretty much nobody thinks about it all that much. But it is dying as an institution, and quite honestly not even the Northmen think it has any real purpose left. Even the Starks no longer believe in the Others.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

The fact that he threatens but doesn't is sort of proof in itself to me. Likewise the fact that the Lannisters don't just write and say - we command you to elect Janos Slynt. 

Well, they essentially did that. But commanding people to elect somebody in an election that is supposed to be free doesn't make a lot of sense if you are not there to ensure that the people comply with your order.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

To be honest, I don't really see that going to fight Ramsay means forswearing his vows. Obviously Jon himself sees it that way, since he specifically says he won't make the NW come with him and 'foreswear their vows,' but I would think that it would be pretty important to make sure if someone is threatening to attack them from the South, they defend themselves, so that they can then come back and you know defend the realms of men, which, should they let themselves be slaughtered, wouldn't work so well. 

I guess any Lord Commander creating a reign of terror at the Wall or following his own pride and ambition would have argued the same way as you did. I mean, Jon could go down to Winterfell and kill Ramsay and then return to his post, right? But would that be the right thing to do, acting in accordance with the traditions of the Watch and the vow of the NW? Especially the part of 'I will live and die at my post'? I don't think so. Jon could die at Winterfell if he marched there. Or the Others could attack the Wall in his absence.

The point of the 'we take no part' routine is that we desperately try to not involve ourselves into the affairs of the realms of men and then they also have no reason to threaten or attack us. Because we have ensured that if they attack us we have no (good) means of defense. Which means we, the Watch, will always be at their mercy. We are weak and they are strong. We serve (them as border garrison) and they rule (in splendor) while we freeze to death and eat shit. 

It is perhaps not as bad if go against the neutrality thing in small gestures - like ensuring Ned gets a message first, or seeing that children are not harmed. But is still a breaking of the neutrality. Yoren should basically have done nothing.

But what Jon does in ADwD goes way beyond anything the NW ever did. He sent a man to abduct Ramsay's legal wife and he helped a pretender in his rebellion. Neutrality would have meant that Jon just give Stannis the things he has to. Things the man basically takes at sword point. He should not have given him advice or warning the man never asked for.

But then, we are all aware that the Lannisters (especially Cersei) are not likely to believe Jon remained neutral even if he did, so he is a very shitty position in any case. But still, the Mance thing clearly was too much. It was a direct interference in the affairs of a great house representing the Iron Throne in the North.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I've read your previous point that it's technically Jon's fault that Ramsay is coming after him (he sent Mance there), and I can understand that point, but rest of the NW/wildlings shouldn't know that. They saw Mance Rayder burn to death. If anything, that should be proof to them that this Lord is making up lies as an excuse to attack their LC, and endanger the NW as a whole.

Well, Jon read the Pink Letter to the men in the hall. Presumably he also explained what it meant that Mance was mentioned in there. Else those men would have been pretty confused.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Does Marsh act because he thinks Jon has dishonoured the watch or because he's fearful that the NW isn't supporting the 'winning' side? I think the text points to the latter, but it could be a mixture. 

He certainly still thinks the Lannister side is going to win. The Pink Letter states that Stannis is dead, so the Boltons have won in the North, and he has no knowledge about Dany or Aegon or Euron or the situation at KL. They don't even know that Faith Militant has been restored and that Cersei and Margaery have been arrested.

But Marsh is also a Northman himself. And the Northmen really don't suffer deserters from the NW to live. The story about Lord Ryswell and his son as well as Arya's treatment of Dareon are proof of that. So I imagine this might have figured into that as well. I mean, just as Sleepy Jack ruined the reputation of the Watch during his day any Watchmen serving under Turncloak Jon would have to live with the fact that they served a Lord Commander who led a wildling army against Winterfell. It cannot be much worse than that. 

The idea that the Watch could survive such a thing is pretty mad, actually. The only purpose the Watch still has in the eyes of the people of the realm is that it guards the North against the wildlings. If the Watch instead makes common cause with the wildlings to interfere in the inner affairs of the Realm it has lost any right to exist.

Even if Jon won his battle at Winterfell people would remember that and the Watch would lose all credibility it had left and die an even quicker death.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Doing a quick re-read of the ADWD chapter, it definitely gives the impression of a decent amount of men being loyal to Jon. When he asks if anyone will ride to Winterfell with him "the roar was all he could have hoped for..." Even if we assume that this is mostly wildlings, that suggests a certain amount of loyalty to me.

The wildlings outnumbered the crows five to one in the Shieldhall. The roar could have been come only from the wildlings. And even if some of the watchmen also roared, they could just have been paying lip service. If you are in crowd you don't want it to take against you.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

Likewise, when Yarth and Bowen leave "their men" follow. I feel like Jon would've noted if "their men" was all the NW, or even a large number of them. Of course, it's entirely possible that men stayed who were loyal to them, but there's nothing really to suggest that either. 

Jon also didn't notice when Melisandre and Selyse's men left the hall. They went, too. Also note that he did not decide that Horse and Rory would be his guards this evening. He just notes that they have replaced Mully and Fulk. If Marsh has a had in the duty roster of the guardsmen both might actually be involved in the stabbing. Jon has no idea who stabs him between the shoulder blades. If Horse and Rory were Marsh's men then the assassination was carefully planned.

And all the individuals who jumped on their feet to cheer Jon after he declared his intentions were wildlings. There was no a single watchman among them. If George wanted to give the impression Jon still had friends in the Watch at Castle Black he failed at that.

9 hours ago, Edd Tollett's One Vote said:

I get the impression that Bowen and Yarth had been planning to get rid of Jon somehow, but decided that they needed to act faster before he rode against a Lannister ally and incurred the wrath of the crown. They followed him when he left, and stabbed him in the commotion of Wun Wun killing Ser Patreck (I imagine that without the commotion they would have waited till he was more alone). But there's a lot of people around during the stabbing, I'm pretty sure someone is going to notice some crows stabbing their LC.

Some people might see it. But then, the giant is making a lot of noise, and all the eyes were on the wedding cake when (most likely) Garlan Tyrell slipped the Strangler into the royal chalice. If people are staring at Ser Patrek's corpse and the roaring giant and Marsh's men have surrounded the dying Lord Commander the deed can easily enough be obscured.

But I don't think Marsh will be able to control things completely. Some people will have seen what has transpired, but if you go back to the murders of Craster and the Old Bear people did not turn against the murderers. Chaos broke out and the men run all away.

Marsh will make it clear why he did it when things are secured, and I'm pretty sure he won't try to butcher all the wildlings. That would be very difficult to pull off. If he has the hostages he can force Tormund and the others to talk.