Jump to content

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.


Barbrey Dustin

Recommended Posts

The thread is long, almost at 400 posts and will probably be closed soon. The thread contains much interesting discussion. The title is “Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.” No, I don’t think Marsh was right. I do think that Marsh thought that participating in the attempted assassination of his LC was right.

I think it is safe to say that the assassination attempt on LC Snow and whether or not a group of men of the NW committed an act of mutiny will continue to be debated for many moons to come.

Jon receives a letter that says the lords have been summoned to Barrowton for a couple of reasons. One reason is to affirm loyalty to the Iron Throne. The other is to celebrate a wedding.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon VI     Ramsay Bolton, Lord of the Hornwood, it read, in a huge, spiky hand. The brown ink came away in flakes when Jon brushed it with his thumb. Beneath Bolton's signature, Lord Dustin, Lady Cerwyn, and four Ryswells had appended their own marks and seals. A cruder hand had drawn the giant of House Umber. "Might we know what it says, my lord?" asked Iron Emmett.

Jon saw no reason not to tell him. "Moat Cailin is taken. The flayed corpses of the ironmen have been nailed to posts along the kingsroad. Roose Bolton summons all leal lords to Barrowton, to affirm their loyalty to the Iron Throne and celebrate his son's wedding to …" His heart seemed to stop for a moment. No, that is not possible. She died in King's Landing, with Father.

Notice in the above quote ^ Jon had believed that Arya died in KL. Was LC Snow being sent this letter out of courtesy to keep the NW up to date on the happenings that were transpiring in Westeros?

After the lords congregate at Barrowton the Warden of the North, Roose, changes his mind. Everyone is to travel to WF for the wedding. Ramsey was not pleased.

A Dance with Dragons - Reek III      That prospect did not appear to please Lord Ramsay. "I laid waste to Winterfell, or had you forgotten?" "You will plant a son in her," Roose Bolton said, "but not here. I've decided you shall wed the girl at Winterfell."

When Mel talked to the glamoured Mance she says WE must win the LC’s trust. I find the WE verra interesting.

A Dance with Dragons - Melisandre I      "The girl," she said. "A girl in grey on a dying horse. Jon Snow's sister." Who else could it be? She was racing to him for protection, that much Melisandre had seen clearly. "I have seen her in my flames, but only once. We must win the lord commander's trust, and the only way to do that is to save her."

I find out later that it is the Karstark girl fleeing a marriage. When Jon loosed Mance & the women they were supposed to intercept the girl somewhere near Long Lake.

A Dance with Dragons - Melisandre I     "I saw water. Deep and blue and still, with a thin coat of ice just forming on it. It seemed to go on and on forever."     "Long Lake. What else did you see around this girl?"     "Hills. Fields. Trees. A deer, once. Stones. She is staying well away from villages. When she can she rides along the bed of little streams, to throw hunters off her trail.

Some posters say Mance while traveling received intel that the wedding was going to take place at Barrowton and he and the women traveled to Barrowton. I don’t agree with that because Theon says Mance showed up at the gates of WF.

A Dance with Dragons - The Prince of Winterfell       Lord Manderly had brought musicians from White Harbor, but none were singers, so when Abel turned up at the gates with a lute and six women, he had been made welcome. "Two sisters, two daughters, one wife, and my old mother," the singer claimed, though not one looked like him. "Some dance, some sing, one plays the pipe and one the drums. Good washerwomen too."

The pink/bastard letter arrives at the Wall. Some posters, me included, think that the letter was tampered with. LC Snow reads the letter to the groups of men gathered in the Shieldhall. After the LC reads the letter the Shieldhall goes mad. Shite! Mance is alive and Stannis is dead according to that letter.

What LC Snow says is --- he is going to WF and will not ask NW brethren to foreswear their vows. Damning evidence, but I can rationalize it iffin' I want to.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII     "The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

The pink/bastard letter not only threatened the LC of the NW it threatened the NW.

LC Snow does not mention his sister. LC Snow says in the above quote, “This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out.”

Bolton’s flay.  What was the line in the pink/bastard letter ---- “Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard heart and eat it." Has Martin ever described Ramsey doing such a thing? From what I remember Ramsey likes slow torture.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII     I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

The bigger problem for me is the letter says Stannis is dead and that Mance is a captive. SURPRISE! Mance is alive. Up until that time Mance was believed to be dead. SHOCK & AWE.  Marsh has reason to turn his cloak and throw In with the mutineers. Marsh who was injured and not quite right. Marsh who was fearful of the change that was transpiring and rightly concerned about the food stores.

IMO Marsh seemed to believe what he was doing was the correct thing to do. Marsh, like me the reader doesn't know wtf is going on.

I happen to like LC Snowflake. My opinion is that when Mel presented LC Snow with Mance LC Snow should have taken Mance into custody. Except in Martin’s world it didn’t work that way. Instead I get Jon sending Mance & some women to intercept a girl near a lake fleeing from a marriage and Mance ending up at WF with his female companions.

I have to keep in mind that the author shuffled chapters around and that there is a preview Theon chapter that reveals more to the situation.

I had a few formatting problems and after I hit the submit reply button I may have to edit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Morte said:

And the story is quite understandable, isn't it? You don't have to know which part of history, which battle, which sack of a city, what myth and troupe* and historic persons Martin is using as blueprints in his work, you can still enjoy the story.

Martin’s ASOIAF story is only understood after and in hindsight. Starting at book one and following through to book five.

I agree I do not have to know which part of history, which sack of a city, what myth and troupe and historic persons Martin is using.

Can you predict where Martin’s multiple cliffhangers in DwD are going to end with certainty by using the obscure historical European references that posters use to justify their points?

Fiction. I read Steve Berry novels. At the end of his novels he gives a writer’s note separating fiction from supposed historical fact. References, which Martin does not use. Why? Because, Martin’s work is purely fictional.

Martin has supposedly made a remark somewhere that his inspiration is from the War of Roses. Cool.

The author on the other hand was born in 1948 and is 69 years of age. His studies and his life experience influence his work. He is telling a fictional story with a made up history. Cool.

When a person on the internet tries to validate their speculation and opinion about what transpires in Martin’s made up fictional story by using obscure historical references  ---  it drives me to :bs::bang::lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Can you predict where Martin’s multiple cliffhangers in DwD are going to end with certainty by using the obscure historical European references that posters use to justify their points?

I can make prediction, as do a lot of people in fandom. But with Martin being a really great gardener, we can all be wrong, no matter if we base our predictions only on the things in the books, the things in our own minds or on historical events Martin said he is using.

8 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Martin has supposedly made a remark somewhere that his inspiration is from the War of Roses. Cool.

Yes, and the 100 Years War, and even more things, he did or did not state explicitly. That's one of the points why, for people interested in history, looking for the blueprints is such a interesting thing to do.

8 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

When a person on the internet tries to validate their speculation and opinion about what transpires in Martin’s made up fictional story by using obscure historical references  ---  it drives me to :bs::bang::lmao:

 

 

Well, I have seen more bogus theories about what will happen and what to make of what has happened made without historical references, but based on wishful thinking and favouritism toward the one or other character.

The blueprints behind different events and institutions however are recognizable, granted: not everything has a historical blueprint behind it, nor are the references always simple and straightforward, a lot is mixed. Martin has long left the War of the Roses as his sole inspiration behind.

However: It is this historical inspiration which makes AsoIaF such a great read, and the world so believable, simply because history writes the best stories and has the best written characters. Using this as blueprints (of course altering them and fitting them into his fantasy world) greatly helps to build a logical world and plot.

 

On your analysis of the Iden of March:

Good one.

My own notion is that Jon and Dany are mirroring each other with their failures in ADwD: Dany is making way to many concessions toward the people opposing her (the slavers), while Jon does not make enough to the NW-brothers who are worrying and fearful about the sudden changes happening, he does not explain enough. Both ways do not work.

And he is already bending the vows and traditions of the NW, they complained, but followed his orders - and now he says he wants to march on Winterfell, or maybe not... or. As you say: March is just "wtf is happening? Have we been tricked? Is the LC in league with the Red Witch? Does he want to sell us out? What is the roll of the Wildling in this?" etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2017 at 3:38 AM, Morte said:

On your analysis of the Iden of March:

Good one.

Thanks.

On 9/22/2017 at 3:38 AM, Morte said:

My own notion is that Jon and Dany are mirroring each other with their failures in ADwD: Dany is making way to many concessions toward the people opposing her (the slavers), while Jon does not make enough to the NW-brothers who are worrying and fearful about the sudden changes happening, he does not explain enough. Both ways do not work.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Dany is actively seeking the Throne. Jon Snow did not actively seek to be LC of the NW. It was thrust upon him. Maester Aemon was an instigator.

A Storm of Swords - Samwell V      "The choosing . . . Maester, isn't there something you could do? What the king said of Lord Janos . . ."    "I recall," Maester Aemon said, "but Sam, I am a maester, chained and sworn. My duty is to counsel the Lord Commander, whoever he might be. It would not be proper for me to be seen to favor one contender over another."      "I'm not a maester," said Sam. "Could I do something?"      Aemon turned his blind white eyes toward Sam's face, and smiled softy. "Why, I don't know, Samwell. Could you?"

Then Sam sets about the business of politicking with other NW members. Martin wants Jon Snow to be elected LC and Jon does indeed become LC.

Maester Aemon is a bit of a puzzle tied to Bloodraven. Aemon went to the Wall with Bryden Rivers aka Bloodraven. Aemon was there when Bryden Rivers replaced Musgood and Qorgyle replaced Rivers and Mormont replaced Qorgyle.

If a person has not read the short stories a person does not know that when Bran arrives at the CotF cave in DwD (due to references made in the short stories) that LC Bryden Rivers aka Bloodraven is Bran's three eyed crow.. I’m thinking that in the five novels there are 3-4 small references made about that character.

Martin supposedly knows where his story is going and it grows in the telling. I have no idea where the story is going until he ends it.

Dany is not an interest of mine. Her trials, struggles and exploits bore me. I assume she will eventually arrive at Westeros. Personally I wouldn’t mind if she set up shop at Essos and stayed there.

I know that Euron has sent Vic to get Dany.  There are numerous preview chapters floating around with information pertaining to that part of the story.

The ASOIAF story has many moving parts. I am not going to know if FfC & DwD make sense until WoW is released.

The Marsh character, imo, thinks he is doing the right thing when he participates in the assassination attempt of his LC.

I don’t really care who wins or loses the game. That’s does not mean that I don’t have opinions and speculations about the story and the characters. I merely want an ending; that is why I now rarely get my boxers, panties or swimming sock bunched up. There are too many unknowns flapping around in this ASOIAF story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2017 at 3:38 AM, Morte said:

My own notion is that Jon and Dany are mirroring each other with their failures in ADwD: Dany is making way to many concessions toward the people opposing her (the slavers), while Jon does not make enough to the NW-brothers who are worrying and fearful about the sudden changes happening, he does not explain enough. Both ways do not work.

Dany is much better at ruling than Jon.  Yes, she made many concessions to try and give peace a chance.  But you know, the slavers have too much at stake and they're the worst of humanity.  They are not going to give up slaving.  It represents wealth, status, privilege, etc.  Stronger measures will have to be taken to permanently put a stop to the business of slavery.  I blame that on the slavers since it is they who wants to continue enslaving people. 

Dany is starting to understand that ruling is a public service and I think she will become as close to the ideal ruler as possible in George's novel.  Jon, on the other hand, showed somewhat good leadership early but he really screwed up many times. He already broke his vows when he left his post to join Robb's war campaign.  He can never understand that ruling is a public service because he puts his personal interests (Stark interests, to be more precise) ahead of the greater good.  That's why Bowen terminated Jon.  Jon was worse than a bad, incompetent ruler by then.  He had become a liability to the realm and to the people they were suppose to be protecting.  So yes, I will say Bowen Marsh was right to fire Jon from his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "remove from office" a euphemism for "stab in the belly" now?  Even if you don't like the Jon Snow character you must realize that what Marsh and his accomplices did was (attempted?) murder and amounts to vigilante justice. 

Sorry if this point has already been made.  The thread is long and it starts out sounding like Jon hate so I didn't read beyond the first page or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Dany is not an interest of mine. Her trials, struggles and exploits bore me. I assume she will eventually arrive at Westeros. Personally I wouldn’t mind if she set up shop at Essos and stayed there.

I on the other hand am interested in all the characters and their stories. Granted, I too have some I like more then others, but I care about all their stories ending in a logical and fitting way.

19 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I don’t really care who wins or loses the game. That’s does not mean that I don’t have opinions and speculations about the story and the characters. I merely want an ending; that is why I now rarely get my boxers, panties or swimming sock bunched up. There are too many unknowns flapping around in this ASOIAF story.

Well, I'm with you in this. But I would be disappointed by an illogical ending (even if it would be good ending for characters I like). I would still be happy seeing the books finished, but frustrated if Martin doesn't deliver something consistent.

14 hours ago, Allardyce said:

Dany is much better at ruling than Jon.  Yes, she made many concessions to try and give peace a chance.  But you know, the slavers have too much at stake and they're the worst of humanity.  They are not going to give up slaving.  It represents wealth, status, privilege, etc.  Stronger measures will have to be taken to permanently put a stop to the business of slavery.  I blame that on the slavers since it is they who wants to continue enslaving people. 

Dany is starting to understand that ruling is a public service and I think she will become as close to the ideal ruler as possible in George's novel.  Jon, on the other hand, showed somewhat good leadership early but he really screwed up many times. He already broke his vows when he left his post to join Robb's war campaign.  He can never understand that ruling is a public service because he puts his personal interests (Stark interests, to be more precise) ahead of the greater good.  That's why Bowen terminated Jon.  Jon was worse than a bad, incompetent ruler by then.  He had become a liability to the realm and to the people they were suppose to be protecting.  So yes, I will say Bowen Marsh was right to fire Jon from his job.

Yes, we see Dany's learning more clearly then Jon's, but Jon is not only making mistakes (integrating the Wildlings is actually a good thing) - however: he is really not very good at communicating things.

But as you pointed out, his main flaw lies in his too strong ties to his family, making him break/bend his oath. However, as Martin pointed out that Jon is a Byronic Hero, we should not be surprised by his behaviour. This of course can change after his near-death/death experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Yes, we see Dany's learning more clearly then Jon's, but Jon is not only making mistakes (integrating the Wildlings is actually a good thing) - however: he is really not very good at communicating things.

But as you pointed out, his main flaw lies in his too strong ties to his family, making him break/bend his oath. However, as Martin pointed out that Jon is a Byronic Hero, we should not be surprised by his behaviour. This of course can change after his near-death/death experience.

They're both learning on the fly- it's funny but I'd say the opposite and Jon is learning more than Dany and more clearly, but as was you correctly said above their failures are mirroring each other.  It's interesting to think about but Dany's potential assassination is thwarted by her magical pet dragon who flies in out of nowhere (or senses Dany in danger?) and saves her.  Jon has no such luck as he stupidly has Ghost locked up (and it's clear Ghost senses what's about to happen beforehand).

I'm not sure that I agree Jon is not good at communicating things.  I'd argue that, like with Dany, Jon is dealing with opposition that has inherently different world views and there is not much compromising or reasoning to be done.  IIRC at some point Mormont laments that the Night's Watch has lost its true purpose and is too concerned about fighting with wildlings.  There is a narrative that emerges from the first book onwards that guys like Marsh personify this decline in the NW.  I seem to recall Jon multiple times explaining exactly where he's coming from- the wildlings are not the true enemy, the true enemy is the Others, and by leaving wildlings to die beyond the Wall the situation is just getting worse as their numbers swell the numbers of the army of the dead.

Marsh...is obviously not interested in hearing that.  He's described numerous times as mainly a counter, and he makes a good steward because he's good at counting supplies.  He's interested in the food stores secondly but first and foremost I'd say he's haunted by his failure when he was given command after Mormont leaves to go on his ranging.  He is tricked by Mance's forces and wounded by the Weeper (the worst of the wildlings).  I think he has lost his nerve after this and just wants to hide behind the Wall.  I don't put much stock in his opinions about what Jon and the NW should do- I find the idea of sealing up the Wall and hoping for the best to be a losing strategy.  And I don't think there is any reasoning that Jon can do or any amount of communication that changes Marsh's mind about things.

It's important to note that Marsh does not kill Jon when he outright accuses Jon of treason when Jon decides to let the wildlings through.  He only acts once Jon decides to march on the Bolton (and I'd say more importantly Lannister ally as Marsh supported Slynt's election).  This is an extremely short-sighted action that we need more clarification on in TWOW- Marsh and the NW is surrounded by and outnumbered by wildlings who support Jon Snow.  I can't imagine this is going to end well for the NW.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Marsh and the NW is surrounded by and outnumbered by wildlings who support Jon Snow.  I can't imagine this is going to end well for the NW.  

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

It's interesting to think about but Dany's potential assassination is thwarted by her magical pet dragon who flies in out of nowhere (or senses Dany in danger?) and saves her.  Jon has no such luck as he stupidly has Ghost locked up (and it's clear Ghost senses what's about to happen beforehand).

This is a good one. Concerning the locking-up of "magical pets", it always bothered me, if Drogon even really did harm the girl, as we know from the stories about the wild dragons on Dragonstone, that they indeed did not bother humans who didn't bothered them first. And also in Meereen, after they are set free, Viserion and Rhaegon don't hunt humans, the only humans hurt are the stupid dragon hunters and the one trying to keep their pyramid.

We see similarities with the wolfs, they too are mostly protective, and locking them up/losing them is not healthy for their human counterparts.

35 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm not sure that I agree Jon is not good at communicating things.  I'd argue that, like with Dany, Jon is dealing with opposition that has inherently different world views and there is not much compromising or reasoning to be done.  IIRC at some point Mormont laments that the Night's Watch has lost its true purpose and is too concerned about fighting with wildlings.  There is a narrative that emerges from the first book onwards that guys like Marsh personify this decline in the NW.  I seem to recall Jon multiple times explaining exactly where he's coming from- the wildlings are not the true enemy, the true enemy is the Others, and by leaving wildlings to die beyond the Wall the situation is just getting worse as their numbers swell the numbers of the army of the dead.

Marsh...is obviously not interested in hearing that.  He's described numerous times as mainly a counter, and he makes a good steward because he's good at counting supplies.  He's interested in the food stores secondly but first and foremost I'd say he's haunted by his failure when he was given command after Mormont leaves to go on his ranging.  He is tricked by Mance's forces and wounded by the Weeper (the worst of the wildlings).  I think he has lost his nerve after this and just wants to hide behind the Wall.  I don't put much stock in his opinions about what Jon and the NW should do- I find the idea of sealing up the Wall and hoping for the best to be a losing strategy.  And I don't think there is any reasoning that Jon can do or any amount of communication that changes Marsh's mind about things.

Well, Marsh is an idiot and a rassist then it comes to Wildlings, and you may be right, that deep down he is simply a coward and terribly afraid of what is soon to happen, maybe even projecting this fears on the Wildling, making his hate for them even deeper.

But, as you say here:

37 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

It's important to note that Marsh does not kill Jon when he outright accuses Jon of treason when Jon decides to let the wildlings through.  He only acts once Jon decides to march on the Bolton (and I'd say more importantly Lannister ally as Marsh supported Slynt's election).  This is an extremely short-sighted action that we need more clarification on in TWOW- Marsh and the NW is surrounded by and outnumbered by wildlings who support Jon Snow.  I can't imagine this is going to end well for the NW.  

 

While a great lot of the NW might not like the Wildlings, they seem to understand/tolerate that it is the only solution. That's why it takes the breaking of the neutrality of the Watch (or at least the neutrality of its LC) for the mutiny to start. They were all grinding teeth, just like Alliser, but like Alliser (who isn't present, wonder if he would go with the mutiny) they follow orders.

Until Jon wants to march on the Boltons. And I think it is more about fear, then about affection toward Slynt, as breaking the neutrality of the Watch does make the decimated NW prey to any lord who ever wanted a reason to go after them. So it even fits into your picture of Marsh - he and many more men are afraid about the outcome, and a lot are most likely insulted by this open oath breaking (fighting for your own family, the one you should no longer care about). I don't think there would have been a mutiny if Jon wouldn't have talked about breaking the neutrality and his oaths.

I however agree with you that Marsh couldn't be "turned", but Jon should not have his feelings driven him toward blatant oath breaking and could well have convinced more sceptical members of the Watch, if he had explained his goals more often and clearly.

And I don't think Marsh would have found supporters for a mutiny if Jon would have been true to his oaths (but doing something objectively stupid for emotional reasons is very much in character for a Byronic Hero).

But as I said, they (Jon and Dany) are both learning, I do hope we will see them actually getting better at "leading". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I can't imagine this is going to end well for the NW.  

Great points throughout. And the above? I wouldn't say it won't end well for the NW but rather that it will end very badly indeed for the mutineers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2017 at 10:45 PM, Allardyce said:

Dany is much better at ruling than Jon.  Yes, she made many concessions to try and give peace a chance.  But you know, the slavers have too much at stake and they're the worst of humanity.  They are not going to give up slaving.  It represents wealth, status, privilege, etc.  Stronger measures will have to be taken to permanently put a stop to the business of slavery.  I blame that on the slavers since it is they who wants to continue enslaving people. 

Dany is starting to understand that ruling is a public service and I think she will become as close to the ideal ruler as possible in George's novel.  Jon, on the other hand, showed somewhat good leadership early but he really screwed up many times. He already broke his vows when he left his post to join Robb's war campaign.  He can never understand that ruling is a public service because he puts his personal interests (Stark interests, to be more precise) ahead of the greater good.  That's why Bowen terminated Jon.  Jon was worse than a bad, incompetent ruler by then.  He had become a liability to the realm and to the people they were suppose to be protecting.  So yes, I will say Bowen Marsh was right to fire Jon from his job.

:agree:

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

But as I said, they (Jon and Dany) are both learning, I do hope we will see them actually getting better at "leading".

I want Jon to simply stay dead.  

 

On 9/26/2017 at 4:15 PM, Tagganaro said:

 

 

Of course it's not going to end well for the NW and the blame goes on Jon.  He should never have been chosen to lead in the first place.  The first hints that he's not really dedicated to the watch came early as mentioned above when he left the wall with intent to fight for the Starks during Robb's rebellion.  He's too  compromised to make for a good, impartial ruler.  I don't think Jon will rule (in the books) even if he comes back to life.  He's not fit to rule.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2017 at 5:30 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Great points throughout. And the above? I wouldn't say it won't end well for the NW but rather that it will end very badly indeed for the mutineers. 

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

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

Yes, agreed with both these points.  Although I should say I'm expecting some kind of civil war to break out amongst the NW with Jon's supporters on one side and Marsh and Yarwycks on the other.  I seem to recall at one point it being mentioned that Jon has the majority of the NW rangers behind him (which makes sense as they are by their nature more adventurous and courageous) and Marsh and Yarwyck having the majority of the stewards and builders behind them respectively.

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

While a great lot of the NW might not like the Wildlings, they seem to understand/tolerate that it is the only solution. That's why it takes the breaking of the neutrality of the Watch (or at least the neutrality of its LC) for the mutiny to start. They were all grinding teeth, just like Alliser, but like Alliser (who isn't present, wonder if he would go with the mutiny) they follow orders.

Agreed.

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

Until Jon wants to march on the Boltons. And I think it is more about fear, then about affection toward Slynt, as breaking the neutrality of the Watch does make the decimated NW prey to any lord who ever wanted a reason to go after them. So it even fits into your picture of Marsh - he and many more men are afraid about the outcome, and a lot are most likely insulted by this open oath breaking (fighting for your own family, the one you should no longer care about). I don't think there would have been a mutiny if Jon wouldn't have talked about breaking the neutrality and his oaths.

I however agree with you that Marsh couldn't be "turned", but Jon should not have his feelings driven him toward blatant oath breaking and could well have convinced more sceptical members of the Watch, if he had explained his goals more often and clearly.

And I don't think Marsh would have found supporters for a mutiny if Jon would have been true to his oaths (but doing something objectively stupid for emotional reasons is very much in character for a Byronic Hero).

But as I said, they (Jon and Dany) are both learning, I do hope we will see them actually getting better at "leading". ;)

Yes, I agree.  The reaction is entirely about fear, as I said above it is an entirely irrational reaction as Marsh and co. are surrounded by wildlings loyal to Jon.

I'd note that even though Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter is entirely emotional and family-based, there is a way to view it as keeping in line with his oath and being NW-centric (putting aside that Jon bears at least some, if not most of the responsibility leading to the Pink Letter as he's the one who allowed Mance to leave the Wall, despite not signing off on Mance going to Winterfell).  As we've been told many times, the Wall is entirely indefensible from the Southern side (on purpose of course).  And Jon has just read a letter from a Lord known to be ruthless and who bragged about skinning people alive in that very same letter.  Ramsay is threatening Jon and the entire NW with coming over and killing them all, demanding that Jon return hostages that he does not have ("Arya", Theon/Reek) and on the other hand demanding Jon break neutrality either way by giving him Selyse, Shireen, Val, etc.

It's tough to say whether it was even possible that Jon could maintain neutrality and stay true to the oaths in such an enviroment.  Even assuming Jon did not allow Mance to leave and Mance did not end up in Winterfell to help free "Arya" and Theon, are we really sure that Jon doesn't get the exact same Pink Letter from Ramsay upon his "defeat" of Stannis?  We know that Ramsay and the Lannisters already have half a mind to assassinate Jon just because of the appearance of Stannis being at the Wall as breaking neutrality- I think assuming that Ramsay defeats Stannis things break a very similar way regardless and Jon is not long for the world as the Lord Commander of the NW.

One last thing:  I think the situation with the Pink Letter is reminiscent of earlier in the book with Alys and Cregan Karstark.  Jon is essentially put in an impossible situation as far as maintaining neutrality goes by that as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I'd note that even though Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter is entirely emotional and family-based, there is a way to view it as keeping in line with his oath and being NW-centric (putting aside that Jon bears at least some, if not most of the responsibility leading to the Pink Letter as he's the one who allowed Mance to leave the Wall, despite not signing off on Mance going to Winterfell).  As we've been told many times, the Wall is entirely indefensible from the Southern side (on purpose of course).  And Jon has just read a letter from a Lord known to be ruthless and who bragged about skinning people alive in that very same letter.  Ramsay is threatening Jon and the entire NW with coming over and killing them all, demanding that Jon return hostages that he does not have ("Arya", Theon/Reek) and on the other hand demanding Jon break neutrality either way by giving him Selyse, Shireen, Val, etc.

Exactly. The NW doesn't take sides but when someone is directly threatening the NW surely it is not treason to defend it. What happens if the same letter is sent to Jeor? He makes a plan. Either to attack or to defend. He is older, probably wiser, & probably would be more likely to sit & stew on it but he would do something. Maybe not the same thing Jon did but something. 

 

4 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

It's tough to say whether it was even possible that Jon could maintain neutrality and stay true to the oaths in such an enviroment.  Even assuming Jon did not allow Mance to leave and Mance did not end up in Winterfell to help free "Arya" and Theon, are we really sure that Jon doesn't get the exact same Pink Letter from Ramsay upon his "defeat" of Stannis?  We know that Ramsay and the Lannisters already have half a mind to assassinate Jon just because of the appearance of Stannis being at the Wall as breaking neutrality- I think assuming that Ramsay defeats Stannis things break a very similar way regardless and Jon is not long for the world as the Lord Commander of the NW.

Agreed. I think the Pink Letter happens no matter what. 

As to the title of the thread here's the thing: Bowen & his mutineers didn't only remove Jon from office; they assassinated him. Even if Jon did break oath so did Bowen. How would one go about "impeaching" the LC of the NW I wonder? Surely through all the LC's someone was accused of some sort of treason or breaking oath. I suppose if tradition is gathering a group of mutineers to conspire with you to assassinate the Lord Commander when he has possibly committed some sort of treason then yes Bowen was right. If not then no he isnt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Exactly. The NW doesn't take sides but when someone is directly threatening the NW surely it is not treason to defend it. What happens if the same letter is sent to Jeor? He makes a plan. Either to attack or to defend. He is older, probably wiser, & probably would be more likely to sit & stew on it but he would do something. Maybe not the same thing Jon did but something. 

It's so interesting to really think about the history of Westeros and the NW's place in it.  Are Lords and the regular people who live in Westeros obligated to send people to the NW?  How does that work?  Is there some sort of contract in place that has already been breached over the years?  Like it's simple to see how the NW would become weaker and more decrepit if Lords only send criminals to the Wall.  And furthermore on neutrality has it even been breached so blatantly in the past as it is being with the Lannisters and Boltons (and you can even include Stannis in that I'd say).  Yeah, I think it's fair to say that Jeor would not have taken an army of wildlings south of the Wall to attack the Lord Paramount in the North :lol: had he received the Pink Letter.  But it is an interesting hypothetical.  How would he react to this?

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As to the title of the thread here's the thing: Bowen & his mutineers didn't only remove Jon from office; they assassinated him. Even if Jon did break oath so did Bowen. How would one go about "impeaching" the LC of the NW I wonder? Surely through all the LC's someone was accused of some sort of treason or breaking oath. I suppose if tradition is gathering a group of mutineers to conspire with you to assassinate the Lord Commander when he has possibly committed some sort of treason then yes Bowen was right. If not then no he isnt. 

This is a great question.  Is there an impeachment process?  Off the top of my head the only historical example we have of a Lord Commander "misbehaving" is the Night's King and obviously that's a bit of a crazy case with him being in thrall to a White Walker.  I'd imagine there is no real impeachment process since the LC, even though elected democratically, rules more like a totalitarian dictator as is necessary in a military institution.  Maybe the impeachment process must involve the Starks of Winterfell as Lords/Kings in the North?  What do you do if there is no Stark in Winterfell which hasn't happened forever?  Is that where there must always be a Stark in Winterfell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I'd note that even though Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter is entirely emotional and family-based, there is a way to view it as keeping in line with his oath and being NW-centric (putting aside that Jon bears at least some, if not most of the responsibility leading to the Pink Letter as he's the one who allowed Mance to leave the Wall, despite not signing off on Mance going to Winterfell). 

 

I agree. I like how Martin shows us [again] how stupid Ramsay is. Jon is probably dying to march on the Boltons for all the "wrong" reasons: love and family. Not that these reasons are wrong but many, both characters and readers, will see them as wrong and evil. And then Ramsay opens the door for Jon by threatening CB, Jon personally, and everyone else. 

ETA: there's more we are supposed to think about here, not just whether Jon committed treason and/or broke his vows. We should be questioning the actual vows. I'm fairly certain Martin isn't making a statement in support of blind obedience. Words are wind, in the end what matters is what you do, not what you said. 

Quote

As we've been told many times, the Wall is entirely indefensible from the Southern side (on purpose of course).  And Jon has just read a letter from a Lord known to be ruthless and who bragged about skinning people alive in that very same letter.  Ramsay is threatening Jon and the entire NW with coming over and killing them all, demanding that Jon return hostages that he does not have ("Arya", Theon/Reek) and on the other hand demanding Jon break neutrality either way by giving him Selyse, Shireen, Val, etc.

Exactly.

Quote

It's tough to say whether it was even possible that Jon could maintain neutrality and stay true to the oaths in such an enviroment.  Even assuming Jon did not allow Mance to leave and Mance did not end up in Winterfell to help free "Arya" and Theon, are we really sure that Jon doesn't get the exact same Pink Letter from Ramsay upon his "defeat" of Stannis?  We know that Ramsay and the Lannisters already have half a mind to assassinate Jon just because of the appearance of Stannis being at the Wall as breaking neutrality- I think assuming that Ramsay defeats Stannis things break a very similar way regardless and Jon is not long for the world as the Lord Commander of the NW.

1 - Agree completely.

2 - Exit LC Jon Snow, enter Jon Snow, King of Winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

It's so interesting to really think about the history of Westeros and the NW's place in it.  Are Lords and the regular people who live in Westeros obligated to send people to the NW?  How does that work?  Is there some sort of contract in place that has already been breached over the years?  Like it's simple to see how the NW would become weaker and more decrepit if Lords only send criminals to the Wall.  And furthermore on neutrality has it even been breached so blatantly in the past as it is being with the Lannisters and Boltons (and you can even include Stannis in that I'd say).  Yeah, I think it's fair to say that Jeor would not have taken an army of wildlings south of the Wall to attack the Lord Paramount in the North :lol: had he received the Pink Letter.  But it is an interesting hypothetical.  How would he react to this?

It is. If there was never any rule in place for Lords to send people to the wall - and I would doubt there was only because it would probably still have been full of criminals - what happened to make serving in the NW's change from being seen as an honorable choice to the alternative to a death sentence or dismemberment? Of course it's possible that choice was always given to criminals but it couldn't have been all criminals, or mostly all, as it is now or there wouldn't have been the decrease in members. Do we know how long ago the NW's was fully manned? Possibly when people were actually volunteering to go to the wall it was because the threat was closer in their minds? For instance if you, yourself witnessed the wights first hand you would be more likely to join the NW's & the people around you would thank you for your service & see your choice as brave & honorable knowing you were protecting the realm from a very real threat. Maybe you heard the story from a first hand witness, like your father. Again you would be inclined to believe it. But eventually no one has seen the real threat in a long, long time. You hear the story from your great-grandmother who heard it from her grand father, who heard it from his brothers wife's friend - it's story telling at that point & the Wall is protecting the realm from snarks & grumpkins. 

Absolutely Jeor would not have taken an army of wildlings to WF lol :lol: if I had to guess I would say he would probably tried to set up some sort of defense to south. Only acting if Ramsay actually attacked. 

35 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

It's so interesting to really think about the history of Westeros and the NW's place in it.  Are Lords and the regular people who live in Westeros obligated to send people to the NW?  How does that work?  Is there some sort of contract in place that has already been breached over the years?  Like it's simple to see how the NW would become weaker and more decrepit if Lords only send criminals to the Wall.  And furthermore on neutrality has it even been breached so blatantly in the past as it is being with the Lannisters and Boltons (and you can even include Stannis in that I'd say).  Yeah, I think it's fair to say that Jeor would not have taken an army of wildlings south of the Wall to attack the Lord Paramount in the North :lol: had he received the Pink Letter.  But it is an interesting hypothetical.  How would he react to this?

58 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As to the title of the thread here's the thing: Bowen & his mutineers didn't only remove Jon from office; they assassinated him. Even if Jon did break oath so did Bowen. How would one go about "impeaching" the LC of the NW I wonder? Surely through all the LC's someone was accused of some sort of treason or breaking oath. I suppose if tradition is gathering a group of mutineers to conspire with you to assassinate the Lord Commander when he has possibly committed some sort of treason then yes Bowen was right. If not then no he isnt. 

This is a great question.  Is there an impeachment process?  Off the top of my head the only historical example we have of a Lord Commander "misbehaving" is the Night's King and obviously that's a bit of a crazy case with him being in thrall to a White Walker.  I'd imagine there is no real impeachment process since the LC, even though elected democratically, rules more like a totalitarian dictator as is necessary in a military institution.  Maybe the impeachment process must involve the Starks of Winterfell as Lords/Kings in the North?  What do you do if there is no Stark in Winterfell which hasn't happened forever?  Is that where there must always be a Stark in Winterfell

I love that idea! There must be some process in place for removing the LC? :dunno: I would expect some sort of voting process but whatever the process it must've been lost at some point. If Bowen knew he could get a group of people together to suggest impeachment & then vote Jon out I would think he would have tried that option first 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As to the title of the thread here's the thing: Bowen & his mutineers didn't only remove Jon from office; they assassinated him. Even if Jon did break oath so did Bowen. How would one go about "impeaching" the LC of the NW I wonder? Surely through all the LC's someone was accused of some sort of treason or breaking oath. I suppose if tradition is gathering a group of mutineers to conspire with you to assassinate the Lord Commander when he has possibly committed some sort of treason then yes Bowen was right. If not then no he isnt. 

Jon made it difficult to impeach him.  He gathered an army of wildlings for the purposes of attacking the Boltons and saving Arya.  And Mance.  Bowen Marsh does not have the man power to stop his mad lord commander from escalating the conflict with Ramsay.  A conflict that Jon started.  Given the options that he had and Jon's determination to rescue his sister regardless of the consequences, yes, Bowen Marsh was correct to do what he did.

Yes, there was a lord commander who also committed treason in the past.  The Night's King.  He was eventually taken down and not by impeachment.  By force of arms.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon made it difficult to impeach him.  He gathered an army of wildlings for the purposes of attacking the Boltons and saving Arya.  And Mance.  Bowen Marsh does not have the man power to stop his mad lord commander from escalating the conflict with Ramsay.  A conflict that Jon started.  Given the options that he had and Jon's determination to rescue his sister regardless of the consequences, yes, Bowen Marsh was correct to do what he did.

Yes, there was a lord commander who also committed treason in the past.  The Night's King.  He was eventually taken down and not by impeachment.  By force of arms.  

The Night's King sided with the Others, thus outright betraying the mission of the watch. Jon did not. That's one difference.

Difference two: despite what you may believe, Jon did not start the conflict with the Bolton's. The Night's King, on the other hand, was the instigator.

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

Note: Jon did not send Mance to Winterfell. He went there of his own accord and as such Jon is not responsible for it. Furthermore, even if he was and he did outright send Mance to break into Winterfell it would still be the right thing to do. And your own morality becomes quite questionable if you retort that leaving 'Arya' with Ramsay is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 28.9.2017 at 7:45 PM, Tagganaro said:

I'd note that even though Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter is entirely emotional and family-based, there is a way to view it as keeping in line with his oath and being NW-centric (putting aside that Jon bears at least some, if not most of the responsibility leading to the Pink Letter as he's the one who allowed Mance to leave the Wall, despite not signing off on Mance going to Winterfell).  As we've been told many times, the Wall is entirely indefensible from the Southern side (on purpose of course).  And Jon has just read a letter from a Lord known to be ruthless and who bragged about skinning people alive in that very same letter.  Ramsay is threatening Jon and the entire NW with coming over and killing them all, demanding that Jon return hostages that he does not have ("Arya", Theon/Reek) and on the other hand demanding Jon break neutrality either way by giving him Selyse, Shireen, Val, etc.

And here we have a problem in communication: Jon should have pointed out, that the NW has a problem, that an attack from the south is possible and surrendering their guest is as much breaking of neutrality as is marching on Winterfell. Had he slept over it and were he not acting emotionally and based on priorities he shouldn't have anymore, short: had he reacted as @Lyanna<3Rhaegar as suggested about Jeor:

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Absolutely Jeor would not have taken an army of wildlings to WF lol :lol: if I had to guess I would say he would probably tried to set up some sort of defense to south. Only acting if Ramsay actually attacked. 

Maybe even explained that the conflict is very much likely to escalate, thus he is thinking about a scouting mission (because: wtf is going on down there anyway?), while building some defences.

I'm sure we wouldn't have seen a mutiny, had he acted that way.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I love that idea! There must be some process in place for removing the LC? :dunno: I would expect some sort of voting process but whatever the process it must've been lost at some point. If Bowen knew he could get a group of people together to suggest impeachment & then vote Jon out I would think he would have tried that option first 

Agreed. Marsh would have taken any lighter route available for him. At the very least because he is surrounded by Wildlings, so the mutiny is very much an act of despair and hopelessness.

 

 

Sidenote:

On 28.9.2017 at 6:34 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

I want Jon to simply stay dead.  

As I too am tired of zombies, I would like him to simply survive with very serious wounds, having to recuperate for a longer period.

But, if I have to choose between zombification and death... Well, it would be refreshing if he would stay dead then. But he will most likely come back. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...