Jump to content

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.


Barbrey Dustin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Once Ramsay was defeated, Mance would go back to  leading the Wildlings that Jon delivered onto him. Because Mance is alive somehow, thanks to to Jon. And Jon doesn't even try to sell the Watch on the laughable pipedream that they'd march all  the way back through the blizzards to help them at that point. As for right's and procedure, Jon is Lord Commander through a abandonment of procedure forced upon the Watch by Stannis who said enough is enough with these elections, the Watch didn't get a change to rethink their idea of making Jon LC that Sam tricked them into. And then Jon tore down everything the Watch had stood for for thousands for years. (arguably since the beginning, despite Jon's words Brandon the Builder declared himself King of the North, the Wall obviously serving as his northern border and the people on the other side of it unwelcome due to an unwillingness to kneel, he had his own goals and interests beyond killing undead, no different from Bowen and Jon and completely unlike what Jon aspires to be like).

The thing is, you can't know that Mance, if alive and in a position to do what he wants, will not return to the Wall. Neither can I, but I'm not making statements that he will do this or that. 

As to Brandon the Builder, you're wrong. He was never King in the North, which is a "modern" title. Back in the old days, thousands of years ago, the Starks were Kings of Winter. Not only that, but they weren't the supreme rulers of all the North, since we are told time and again that in the Dawn Age and the Age of Heroes, there were hundreds of petty kingdoms. 

You are also wrong when you say Brandon the Builder used the Wall as his border, to help keep the wildlings north of it. The Wall was built over centuries, and it took thousands of years for it to reach its current height. So, at the time of Brandon the Builder, if he indeed built the Wall, it would have been little more than a regular wall, and therefore people on either side would have been able to come and go whenever they wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon Snow is the kind of steward that carries Valyrian steel swords on their backs and goes on rangings anyway. Jon recanted that worthy men that the Watch lost that the likes of Bowen can't measure up to, with the exception of Aemon they were all fighting men. Jon watched Tyrion become more popular then Thorne at Castle Black in days, hours even but when set next to some who the Watch liked and knew (unlike Jon)  but not wasn't much for valor to Jon Thorne seemed the more dangerous. If Jon was playing the political game against Thorne he'd be laughing all the way to bank. Bowen is the guy that had to stand up and tell people to vote for Slynt the outsider instead of him. Much like Jon needed Malister and Pyke. And unlike those two, Bowen actually meant it. But Jon didn't see this as a strength or a threat. Cause Bowen is a coward when it comes to martial matters. He didn't learn what Aemon taught him at all.

Jon went on one ranging because he was the Lord Commander's steward, and one of his duties is to squire for the LC. 

You keep making statements that you either can't prove or are simply wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2017 at 0:48 PM, cpg2016 said:

No.  Not at all.  His brothers were planning to kill him before the Pink Letter.  Again, it requires a suspension of disbelief so huge as to be stupid to think that Bowen Marsh walks out of the Shield Hall, randomly runs into the half dozen or so people he thinks will agree with him, and they all agree to kill Jon.  It's obviously been planned for quite some time, as Marsh has had opportunity to sound out other conspirators.  Wick is directly under his purview.  The way the mutiny came together makes it clear that this is about the wildlings being both saved at risk to the Watch, and being put in positions of authority.  So whatever you think of his motivations, Jon was acting both ethically and legally up until the Pink Letter.  Marsh wants to assassinate him because he's a bigot who can't see the forest for the trees, that is all.

And again, legally speaking, Jon is 100% right to intervene against the Boltons.  Their actions are helping the Others.

The men of the watch only decided to kill Jon after the Pink Letter forced him to disclose his illegal activities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The men of the watch only decided to kill Jon after the Pink Letter forced him to disclose his illegal activities.

Euhm how does the PL "force" him to disclose anythgin. That was Jon's own free choice. He could have burned the PL if he wished to.

And he did nothing illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The men of the watch only decided to kill Jon after the Pink Letter forced him to disclose his illegal activities.  

There's lots of hints in the text pointing to Marsh plotting against Jon for a good while before the PL arrives and before Jon announces he's going to Winterfell to make Ramsay answer for his threats - "“and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it". Just because you wilfully choose to ignore these clues doesn't mean they're not there. You're also ignoring the logistics here; as has been pointed out by several posters, it makes zero sense that Marsh would walk out of the Shieldhall and immediately find a few brothers willing to join in on the plan just like that, And to keep stating that no, the conspirators only decided to off Jon after the PL without providing any type of evidence  doesn't really help your claim at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

There's lots of hints in the text pointing to Marsh plotting against Jon for a good while before the PL arrives and before Jon announces he's going to Winterfell to make Ramsay answer for his threats - "“and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it". Just because you wilfully choose to ignore these clues doesn't mean they're not there. You're also ignoring the logistics here; as has been pointed out by several posters, it makes zero sense that Marsh would walk out of the Shieldhall and immediately find a few brothers willing to join in on the plan just like that, And to keep stating that no, the conspirators only decided to off Jon after the PL without providing any type of evidence  doesn't really help your claim at all. 

This doesn't change anything as I've pointed out repeatedly in the last thread on that topic. If I plan to murder you - which I don't - and you give me a pretext to kill you without committing a murder (like, say, by trying to kill me or a family member of mine) then I will not have murdered you despite the fact that I actually wanted to do that. You are not punished for thoughts or intentions you have which you don't actually realize. And killing a Lord Commander who has actually declared war on the realms of men (in the sense that he intended to lead a wildling army against the Lord of Winterfell) and declared to leave his post (which means he is not going to live and die there, as the vow commands) is the proper thing to do in such a case. Such people deserve no other fate than Gared or Dareon.

Whatever Marsh and the others planned prior to the Shieldhall meeting is irrelevant. Jon broke his vow and deserted the Night's Watch during that meeting. That means everyone can kill him, just as anyone has a right to kill an outlaw. And that's what Marsh and the others did.

And there is a strong hint, by the way, that Marsh read the Pink Letter before Clydas delivered it to Jon. That's what the smear of pink wax is all about. Clydas got the letter, was terribly afraid, and either took it to Marsh or asked him to come to him. Then they opened the letter, read it, and closed it again. Subsequently Marsh and his circle made their plans. And their plan obviously was to kill the Lord Commander should he commit open treason. Which he then did in the Shieldhall. By that time they were prepared.

The idea that these men were as stupid as to not actually know or correctly predict what Jon would do after he read the Pink Letter is not very likely. It is not that difficult to predict.

But they had the grace to wait until after his speech. And that means Marsh's tears were sincere. He did not want to kill Jon but the man didn't leave him any other choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This doesn't change anything as I've pointed out repeatedly in the last thread on that topic. If I plan to murder you - which I don't - and you give me a pretext to kill you without committing a murder (like, say, by trying to kill me or a family member of mine) then I will not have murdered you despite the fact that I actually wanted to do that. You are not punished for thoughts or intentions you have which you don't actually realize. And killing a Lord Commander who has actually declared war on the realms of men (in the sense that he intended to lead a wildling army against the Lord of Winterfell) and declared to leave his post (which means he is not going to live and die there, as the vow commands) is the proper thing to do in such a case. Such people deserve no other fate than Gared or Dareon.

Whatever Marsh and the others planned prior to the Shieldhall meeting is irrelevant. Jon broke his vow and deserted the Night's Watch during that meeting. That means everyone can kill him, just as anyone has a right to kill an outlaw. And that's what Marsh and the others did.

And there is a strong hint, by the way, that Marsh read the Pink Letter before Clydas delivered it to Jon. That's what the smear of pink wax is all about. Clydas got the letter, was terribly afraid, and either took it to Marsh or asked him to come to him. Then they opened the letter, read it, and closed it again. Subsequently Marsh and his circle made their plans. And their plan obviously was to kill the Lord Commander should he commit open treason. Which he then did in the Shieldhall. By that time they were prepared.

The idea that these men were as stupid as to not actually know or correctly predict what Jon would do after he read the Pink Letter is not very likely. It is not that difficult to predict.

But they had the grace to wait until after his speech. And that means Marsh's tears were sincere. He did not want to kill Jon but the man didn't leave him any other choice.

Except by your own argument you contradict yourself. "You are not punished for thoughts or intentions you have you don't actually realize" Jon might have declared that he was intending and planning to march south but he had not yet done so. If Marsh and his plotters can't be punished or blamed for plotting to kill Jon before the Pink Letter ever arrived, then Jon also can't be punished for intending to leave before he actually does so, even if it was in violation of his vows. However, as many have posted previously, Jon is not actually breaking any oaths in taking the fight to the Boltons. His only mission is to fight the Others. By threatening to attack the watch, Ramsay is inadvertently threatening the chances of that mission being a success. Moreover, there isn't actually anything in the Watch's oaths that say they can't be involved with events in the south. That's a tradition, but not a rule. Just like how fighting the Free Folk is a tradition, not a rule. The only oath Jon broke was not arresting and executing Mance when he discovered he was still alive.

Anyway, it's a moot point. Jon was in the right morally, which supersedes oaths anyway. If you say that Bowen was right to kill Jon because he broke an oath, you'd also have to say that Jaime was wrong to kill the Mad King and Dunk was wrong to strike Prince Aerion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Except by your own argument you contradict yourself. "You are not punished for thoughts or intentions you have you don't actually realize" Jon might have declared that he was intending and planning to march south but he had not yet done so. If Marsh and his plotters can't be punished or blamed for plotting to kill Jon before the Pink Letter ever arrived, then Jon also can't be punished for intending to leave before he actually does so, even if it was in violation of his vows. However, as many have posted previously, Jon is not actually breaking any oaths in taking the fight to the Boltons. His only mission is to fight the Others. By threatening to attack the watch, Ramsay is inadvertently threatening the chances of that mission being a success. Moreover, there isn't actually anything in the Watch's oaths that say they can't be involved with events in the south. That's a tradition, but not a rule. Just like how fighting the Free Folk is a tradition, not a rule. The only oath Jon broke was not arresting and executing Mance when he discovered he was still alive.

The vow states that 'I live and die at my post'. Jon's post is at the Wall or, perhaps, beyond the Wall leading a ranging. He has no right to invade the realms of men with a foreign army. And that's what the wildlings are, they are a foreign army from beyond the Wall.

Desertion and treason are crimes you can commit by words alone (unlike murder). If I declare my desertion - as Jon did when he said he would be going down to Winterfell to deal with Ramsay - I am a deserter, just as Janos Slynt disobeyed an order of his Lord Commander when he told him to his face he would not be going to that castle. It doesn't matter that he was later willing to go when he realized he would lose his life over this issue.

And no, as I laid out elsewhere the vow of the Night's Watch does not mention the Others in the vow. We only know that the Watch defends the Wall against unspecified enemies. Saying that's only the Others and not Others and wildlings is just an interpretation, just as it is an interpretation that the Others are meant.

Jon has also no right to insist that his institution is necessary to defend the realms of men against the Others. If the rulers of the Seven Kingdoms want to disband the Watch (with deadly force or simply by starving them) they can do so. The Watch has about as much right to insist they continue to exist as the orders of the Faith Militant did. In fact, the rulers of the Seven Kingdoms could even come to an agreement with either the Others or the wildlings or they could decide to conquer lands beyond the Wall. Then the Wall would become an obstacle and the NW even more of a joke.

Jon certainly has a right to want to live and to fight the Others but he has no right to demand that his interpretation of the threat is the only relevant or correct one, especially not in light of the fact that he basically committed treason by not informing Roose, Ramsay, Tommen, and all the other lords of the Seven Kingdoms in a proper way about the danger they felt themselves in. If you know a terrible truth it is your duty to do anything in your power to inform others who might be affected by that danger, especially if you need their help to fight against that. Jon does nothing in that respect, just as Stannis does nothing to inform his royal brother about the treason and adultery of his beloved wife.

18 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Anyway, it's a moot point. Jon was in the right morally, which supersedes oaths anyway. If you say that Bowen was right to kill Jon because he broke an oath, you'd also have to say that Jaime was wrong to kill the Mad King and Dunk was wrong to strike Prince Aerion.

Jaime was wrong to kill King Aerys. He had sworn a vow to protect that man, after all, knowing fully well that this king was a cruel and sadistic madman. I have no pity for people who actually pledge to serve and protect such people knowing exactly who they are pledging themselves to. That is as if you were volunteering to help Gilles de Rais in his exploits, knowing fully well who and what that man is.

And keep in mind that Jaime actually killed Aerys because he wanted to. He could have arrested or distracted the man to prevent him from burning KL. Jaime killed Rossart first, preventing the wildfire plot. Only then did he return to the throne room and deliberately told Aerys what he had done to see his fear and terror before he butchered the defenseless guy. That is the modus operandi of a man who enjoys to kill. And we also know that Tywin's men were practically in front of the throne room already. If they hadn't been there Jaime would never have been identified as the Kingslayer. He would have slipped out of throne room, making Aerys II's death as much a mystery as King Maegor's. We know that was his plan. But his father's men caught him red-handed over the king's body.

Now, it is likely that being Aerys' Kingsguard made Jaime into such a man (prior to that he wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, after all) but it is nonetheless clear that Jaime did not kill Aerys to save other people, he did it because he could and because he wanted to. Most likely because he sick of that man forcing him to watch people burn alive and rape and claw his sister-wife. But it isn't even that or the wildfire plan that broke Jaime. It is Aerys' command to go and kill his own father that breaks the camel's back. That's when Jaime goes and out decides to kill Rossart.

Dunk did not really think when he struck Aerion. Had he thought he wouldn't have done it. He would have been too afraid of the consequences. Whether this was right or not is a very complex question. One could say that the death of Baelor Breakspear was too high a price. But one could also say that manhandling mad/cruel princes shouldn't be a crime under all circumstances. But then, perhaps Westeros shouldn't be a feudal society with stupid medieval laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The thing is, you can't know that Mance, if alive and in a position to do what he wants, will not return to the Wall. Neither can I, but I'm not making statements that he will do this or that. 

As to Brandon the Builder, you're wrong. He was never King in the North, which is a "modern" title. Back in the old days, thousands of years ago, the Starks were Kings of Winter. Not only that, but they weren't the supreme rulers of all the North, since we are told time and again that in the Dawn Age and the Age of Heroes, there were hundreds of petty kingdoms. 

You are also wrong when you say Brandon the Builder used the Wall as his border, to help keep the wildlings north of it. The Wall was built over centuries, and it took thousands of years for it to reach its current height. So, at the time of Brandon the Builder, if he indeed built the Wall, it would have been little more than a regular wall, and therefore people on either side would have been able to come and go whenever they wanted. 

I can't prove what Mance will or won't do but neither can Jon and he's risking everything to find out. Given that the Night's Watch sentenced him to death, attempted to carry out this sentence and he escaped it is reasonable conclusion he's not keen on going back but still wants to be King. That very logical consequence to a success  (which in itself isn't particularly likely) in the mission Jon is about to embark on is one the Night's Watch SHOULD feel compelled to prevent.

Hundreds of petty kingdoms, Brandon the builder of the wall being one of them and the wildling, such as Ygritte has been led to understand doesn't want any part of them. Hence the "kneelers and Free Folk" distinction. On the other side of the Wall you got guys like Tyrion who only see wildlings as the people that got stuck on the wrong side of the wall. Maybe you are right and they are all wrong and the Age of Heroes saw a idyllic society in the North where no one made any problems about coming across the Wall but that's not it is remembered in universe, not for thousands of years. The Free Folk and Night's Watch have been locked in vendetta that makes the strife between the Brackens and Blackwoods, the association between Valyrians and dragons or the dominance of slavery in Essos seem like a recent thing by comparison. We don't expect those things to just suddenly end. It should not be understated how cataclysmic the changing of times Jon was forcing down Westeros' throat here actually was. 

17 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jon went on one ranging because he was the Lord Commander's steward, and one of his duties is to squire for the LC. 

You keep making statements that you either can't prove or are simply wrong. 

A ranging that ended up lasting most of his story until he became LC. Much unlike the LC he was squiring for. And even after he returned before becoming LC he got involved in the defense of Castle Black in a very crucial capacity. Bowen Marsh is the very embodiment of the bean counter that Jon didn't want to become when they told him he was to be steward, he inadvertently or not did indeed avoid being that kind of steward and when he had to identify his enemies he decided against settling on said bean counter. It would now appear that this was an error Jon made. I would submit that is not a coincidence.

 

Nor is it just a coincidence that Bowen had just gotten ready to enact a years old conspiracy to kill Jon Snow just minutes after Jon announced to the Watch he was breaking some of his vows. Or that it is a coincidence that he was marching south on a mission that, far having nothing to do with anything other then protecting the interests of the Night's Watch, would involve liberating his childhood home and saving the sister he grew up with from the son of the man that killed the brother he grew up with that serves a family that killed his father. None of it is a coincidence and it makes for a very compelling case that Jon is breaking his vows to act on his own interests, the punishment for which is exactly the one Bowen exacted. And yes, they didn't wait until he left the castle with an army at his back. Because then he'd no longer be at Castle Black, where they were, and would have an army at his back. Some basic practicality entered into it, they weren't Ned Starks about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Night's Watch didn't sentence him for anything.  That's what is so fucky about this whole pro-Bowen Marsh narrative:  you are trying to argue the letter of the law to accuse Jon and to thereby justify his murder.  So breaking the law is okay if you are using it to carry out summary justice;  As long as you believe that someone made a technical error in fulfilling an oath they made...right.  I'm going to continue to view this as a simple matter of betrayal by a rat and people just being apologetic for the lulz and mental gymnastics of it all.

 

And then member Lord Varys you say that the laws are dumb anyway.  So which one is it?  They don't matter, might is right, and Marsh is justified because he was able to lie well enough and betray Jon's trust...or that the other officers should have had a trial.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, giant snake said:

The Night's Watch didn't sentence him for anything.  That's what is so fucky about this whole pro-Bowen Marsh narrative:  you are trying to argue the letter of the law to accuse Jon and to thereby justify his murder.  So breaking the law is okay if you are using it to carry out summary justice;  As long as you believe that someone made a technical error in fulfilling an oath they made...right.  I'm going to continue to view this as a simple matter of betrayal by a rat and people just being apologetic for the lulz and mental gymnastics of it all.

 

And then member Lord Varys you say that the laws are dumb anyway.  So which one is it?  They don't matter, might is right, and Marsh is justified because he was able to lie well enough and betray Jon's trust...or that the other officers should have had a trial.  

They weren't right. They WERE however, taking the only sane and rational option Jon had left them with. To do nothing for another day mean they have two hostile armies south of the Wall, from which they can't defend themselves instead of one and the only thing saving them was the hope that Jon would continue to be on their side. Instead of the side that puts Jon Snow next his buddy Stannis, his wildlings friends, back with his sister Arya, back in his ancestral home and finally free to fight the people that destroyed his family. That's not enough. Jon's actions were right, but some thought must be made as to how it looks to those around him. It doesn't look good at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Marsh did more then lie. He's the only one with the know how when it comes the Wall's stores of food to even begin to assess what it would take to settle wildlings in the Gift. If Marsh decided to start sucking at his job the moment Jon made LC, that would've been enough to sink Jon's plans. He didn't, he helped out of loyalty to a guy that did everything he was against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defer to my earlier point: Sperging about the wildlings or niggling over details in the oath...that is not seeing the forest of the trees.  Hell it's not seeing the forest for ONE tree you won't stop looking at.

Whether their reasons were legit or an excuse (and others have made a good case already why Marsh is full of shit and full of bias), they are literally facing an apocalyptic army.  They are the only men in the world actually fighting for humanity's sake as a whole, and it's not e time for procedural arguing.  Even ignoring the wildlings, in that case, they are justified in anything they can do and that would include compelling the realms to their south to cooperate.  Seriously why does no one put the onus on the Kingdoms and the openly hostile (to the watch) Lannister alliance?  It isn't speculation: they deny them the respect they are due as the shield of the Kingdoms and actively interfere with them, breaking all traditions and (I'm sure) both the Crown's Laws and the laws of the Watch.  I mean shit - there is a lot of subtlety in the books but not everything is a gray area.  Sometimes people are just doing wrong.

The case is against Boomer Marsh and the others long before Jon even considers riding south.  Ramsay is colluding with people within the watch who are already traitors who Jon decided to show clemency to.  He openly provoked the Night's Watch and interferred first.  When else has that happen?  What does the law of the Night's Watch say about that, and what precedent is there for it?  Jon is literally surrouned by enemies with an important foe to fight with a greater duty to the whole world.  I think it's completely absurd that traitors would have apologists in this situatioon.  And of course there are traitors who are obviously acting for pure self preservation and who are assuming that the Others are an afterthought because they think politics as usual will return in time...and as the reader we know that this is objectively wrong and not their reality, so giving them our justification is just silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Also, Marsh did more then lie. He's the only one with the know how when it comes the Wall's stores of food to even begin to assess what it would take to settle wildlings in the Gift. If Marsh decided to start sucking at his job the moment Jon made LC, that would've been enough to sink Jon's plans. He didn't, he helped out of loyalty to a guy that did everything he was against.

Wow. It is rather boggling that you missed so many details in the story, yet you attempt to make such definitive claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, giant snake said:

I defer to my earlier point: Sperging about the wildlings or niggling over details in the oath...that is not seeing the forest of the trees.  Hell it's not seeing the forest for ONE tree you won't stop looking at.

Whether their reasons were legit or an excuse (and others have made a good case already why Marsh is full of shit and full of bias), they are literally facing an apocalyptic army.  They are the only men in the world actually fighting for humanity's sake as a whole, and it's not e time for procedural arguing.  Even ignoring the wildlings, in that case, they are justified in anything they can do and that would include compelling the realms to their south to cooperate.

The case is against Boomer Marsh and the others long before Jon even considers riding aouth.  Ramsay is colluding with people within the watch who are already traitors who Jon decided to show clemency to.  He openly provoked the Night's Watch and interferred first.  When else has that happen?  What does the law of the Night's Watch say about that, and what precedent is there for it?  Jon is literally surrouned by enemies with an important foe to fight with a greater duty to the whole world.  I think it's completely absurd that traitors would have apologists in this situatioon.  And of course there are traitors who are obviously acting for pure self preservation and who are assuming that the Others are an afterthought because they think politics as usual will return in time...and as the reader we know that this is objectively wrong and not their reality, so giving them our justification is just silly.

The Pink Letter was a response to Jon sending Mance to save his own sister as far as anyone other then Jon and Mel knows. Jon seemingly picked that fight, not Ramsay and rather then preserve the Watch's neutrality and thus their mission of fighting the apocalyptic army at the expense of their guests, is gonna leave to fight it. And where is the idea that Ramsay is somehow in contact with rogue elements within the Night's Watch coming from? Where would they even get the ravens for that to go unnoticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wow. It is rather boggling that you missed so many details in the story, yet you attempt to make such definitive claims. 

Literally every single mention tof Bowen Marsh in Winds of Winter and Storm of Swords makes note of how singular meticulous he is about keeping count of the Night's Watch supplies. Even the people that don't respect him at all give him that. When they had to reassess what they needed to make it through the winter given how many new mouths to feed they had, this quality was crucial to Jon (who himself had never been through a winter before). I don't know why this is such a hard thing for people to accept. Yes, Jon needed help to get started, he's not perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Denam_Pavel said:

Literally every single mention tof Bowen Marsh in Winds of Winter makes note of how singular meticulous he is about keeping count of the Night's Watch supplies. Even the people that don't respect him at all give him that. When they had to reassess what they needed to make it through the winter given how many new mouths to feed they had, this quality was crucial to Jon. I don't know why this is such a hard thing for people to accept. Yes, Jon needed help to get started, he's not perfect.

And still you are willfully ignoring or just not knowing of what the other four books have said about Marsh and his conspirators. And Jon's character development compared to the other "magical" ones like Bran and Dany. And you are not considering Mel in this mutiny, which is a huge mistake. You are looking at the story through a tiny pinhole perspective when it is much bigger than that. The story is a massive web of tales, and you can't remove one strand and expect it to hold up. 

What Marsh did was the same paranoia wishfullfilment that we see Cersei do with Melara. If Marsh acted alone with Mel's intervention, then Marsh was responsible for bringing down the wall, because as we are told in the books that wall is only as strong as the men who hold it, and Marsh made the red star bleed. Jon is the "sun" in this story, and the sun is a red star in George's world, so Marsh "killed" the day and brought on the night by making the red star bleed. The wall fell because of Marsh. Marsh made it happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denam: You keep talking about everything from the character's perspective and what facts they know and don't know - I think that's a tacit admission that you know that they are in the wrong.  After the Lannisters win the first war (or first phase of the war) we see them openly plotting to subvert the Watch.  We see Slynt's betrayal firsthand.  We see Ramsay for what he is and we know all of the backstory - irrelevant.  No technicality justifies murdering your commander.  I am sure you are right that Marsh is autistic AF and able to remember details, but that isn't everything required of a soldier, and a soldier is what he is:  So you disagree with your commander and you kill him?  Basically you are advocating that somehow an abstract notion of law (because the Law itself is not personified without a Lord Commander) should just keep everyone in line, but as long as you don't disobey certain parts of your oath you can do whatever the hell you want?  That's not how a Military order works.  It's just so fuckin absurd: the fact at the end of the day is that Marsh murdered his Lord without bringing him to trial.  No amount of excuse making can make up for it.  Hell even if he was correct and Jon was wrong, he should still be executed for his actions.

 

Jon could have easily have lied or even rationalized his actions differently - everyone in the North probably knows what Ramsay is like, and how he is treacherous.  The problem is that Marsh, like all rats, shouldn't have been trusted in the first place.  They call them rats because a rat will do anything to survive.  This is overall a story of plots and betrayal - I think that we all understand the situation and if we were in their world with the knowledge we have, we would divert all of the strength of Westeros to fighting the Others.  Whether they are prescient to the facts or not, at the end of the day there are factions which think they are fighting for their own ends but who are fighting against Humanity's interests - they are on the side of the literal devil, or what passes for the devil in the world of Ice and Fire.  The Night's Watch are the ones who actually know all of this to be true.  Bowen Marsh has no excuse - he isn't a common criminal sent to the wall because nowhere else will have him.  He can't feign ignorance about the Others because, to use your logic here: They all KNOW it as a fact that they not only exist in the present but that they are on the warpath against the Wall and the lands of men.  That supersedes any technicality he wants to fixate on to justify his actions - he is literally breaking the oath of the Watch directly (to protect the realms of men) so any horseshit about Jon not doing things in proper form can be dismissed outright.  

More than that, he's a rat who cares more about preserving his pathetic existence for as long as possible and will throw the entire world under just to have it.  Loathsome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, giant snake said:

So you disagree with your commander and you kill him?  Basically you are advocating that somehow an abstract notion of law (because the Law itself is not personified without a Lord Commander) should just keep everyone in line, but as long as you don't disobey certain parts of your oath you can do whatever the hell you want?  That's not how a Military order works.  It's just so fuckin absurd: the fact at the end of the day is that Marsh murdered his Lord without bringing him to trial.  No amount of excuse making can make up for it.  Hell even if he was correct and Jon was wrong, he should still be executed for his actions.

Marsh didn't just disagreed with the LC and then killed him, he killed a traitor that cared more about his sister than with the threat beyond the wall.

Even Jon himself admit that what he was doing was oath breaking, and as we know it's punished by death.

We've seen what Jon did with people that refused to follow his orders(Slynt). In no way he would allow a trial, even if there were a precedent for it.

Quote

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that's how it's done. We'll make a wildling o' you yet, boy. Har!"

 

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...