Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

The bolded is exactly what's going on in Jon-hate threads such as this one. They are based on a superficial reading of the text and posters bias towards, most often than not, Dany rather than a proper understanding of the text. It's like you said Jon has to be brought down for Dany to be the central hero.

It's actually more like the other way around with Jon fans hating dany because they're afraid she might be Azor Ahai or being jealous of her because she is more powerful than Jon and has a more powerful pet, a dragon rather than a mere direwolf. They keep making theories about how dany is going to die in childbirth or this and that, they simply cannot fathom or believe that Dany could end up playing a bigger role (bigger than Jon's) in the fight against the others since she actually has dragons, a powerful army, and comes with an old, powerful and prestigious name in comparison to Jon's direwolf, his command of the small and dilapidated NW and his bastard name.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Jon was not fighting the Boltons over Arya. Sometimes I'm amazed at what people understand in the text. Jon agreed with Mel's decision (and it was her decision) to rescue Arya who he believed was already half-way to the Watch. He knew Arya was married to Ramsay but he did not bestir himself up until Mel told him she saw Arya fleeing in her fires and that she was going to send Mance to rescue her. No fighting the Boltons here. When Jon does decide to go out and meet Ramsay, he is doing so because Ramsay made a direct threat to his person and the NW not because of Arya. 

As to the bolded, how is waiting for a madman to attack you and your men from the defenseless south of your castle help in the fight against the WW? Or are you saying that Jon could meet Ramsay's demands?

Ramsay made a direct threat because Jon attempted to steal his lawful wife, he attacked Ramsay first, he foolishly and selfishly sent Mance to kidnap the wife of the Lord of winterfell because of his own selfish desires, your point about Jon attacking Ramsay because he threatened the watch is a direct result of Jon's actions in attempting to kidnap Ramsay's wife. So in effect he is doing it because of Arya because that's what started the whole mess in the first place.

[SFDanny]

On 7/8/2017 at 6:35 AM, Lord Varys said:

There is no primary duty defined in the vow of the Night's Watch. The part about wearing no crowns and winning no glory is pretty straightforward.

The words of the Night's Watch's vow does not mention the Others by name, but it describes the foe.

Quote

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove."Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness, I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor in the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come." (AGoT 435-436) bold emphasis added.

These are not the characteristics that define a never ending battle against a normal foe. These are not men who pledge their lives to fight the ragtag threats of wildling raiders. These are men who pledge their lives to fight a foe who brings the darkness. Who is the reason for the existence of the Wall, Who are a living fire against the cold of the Others, and brings the dawn against the day when no dawn will come for men. They pledge their lives to wake those who can sleep against the threat of human extermination. They guard the realms of men, not against other men, but against the Others. That is the the simple and obvious meaning of the oath they take.

This view of the meaning of the oath is seen in the account the Citadel teaches of the ancient times when the Night's Watch was formed.

Quote

Thanks to the children, the first men of the Night's Watch banded together and were able to fight - and win - the Battle for the Dawn; the last battle that broke  the endless winter and sent the Others fleeing to the icy north. Now, six thousand years later (or eight thousand as True History puts forward) the Wall made to defend the realms of men is still manned by the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch, and neither the Others nor the children have been seen in many centuries. (TWoI&F 12)

And

Quote

Unique in the Seven Kingdoms is the Night's Watch, the sworn brotherhood that has defended the Wall over centuries and millennia, born in the aftermath of the Long Night, the generation long winter that brought the Others down on the realms of men and nearly put and end to them. (TWoI&F 145)

This then is the context in which the Night's Watch's oath must be read. To divorce it from this history is to fail to understand the oath itself, and to read the oath and say it says nothing about a primary duty is to ignore all of the text from the first prologue chapter onward.

 What is it that Mormont says to Jon?

Quote

"Gods save us, boy, you're not blind and you're not stupid. When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne? (AGoT 654)

More later tomorrow night. Traveling out of town.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, The Transporter said:

Fighting the Boltons over Arya serve no one's best interests except Jon's.  Even if the Boltons refused to cooperate initially the best way to handle them is to leave them alone.  The Boltons will figure it out very quickly when the first wight comes knocking on the gates to Winterfell.  This stupid business of sending your man and his female accomplices to take Arya away from Ramsay is just that, stupid.  It does nothing to strengthen the people's ability to stop the wights and the white walkers.  What Jon was going to do, lead the wildlings to attack Ramsay, would have been detrimental to the people's ability to protect against the white walkers. 

The Pink Letter makes it clear that Arya (Jeyne Poole) is missing from the Bolton's control and likely on the way to Castle Black. What Jon does has nothing to do with winning Arya's freedom - she is already free as far as Jon knows. Nor does Jon send Mance and the spear wives to Winterfell. As far as he knows they are looking for her riding north along the waters of Long Lake. He doesn't consent to Mance and his companions going to Winterfell. This is not about Arya. It is about whether Jon can unite the people of the North through helping to defeat the Bolton's hold over some of them.

[teej6]

45 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It's actually more like the other way around with Jon fans hating dany because they're afraid she might be Azor Ahai or being jealous of her because she is more powerful than Jon and has a more powerful pet, a dragon rather than a mere direwolf. They keep making theories about how dany is going to die in childbirth or this and that, they simply cannot fathom or believe that Dany could end up playing a bigger role (bigger than Jon's) in the fight against the others since she actually has dragons, a powerful army, and comes with an old, powerful and prestigious name in comparison to Jon's direwolf, his command of the small and dilapidated NW and his bastard name.

Ramsay made a direct threat because Jon attempted to steal his lawful wife, he attacked Ramsay first, he foolishly and selfishly sent Mance to kidnap the wife of the Lord of winterfell because of his own selfish desires, your point about Jon attacking Ramsay because he threatened the watch is a direct result of Jon's actions in attempting to kidnap Ramsay's wife. So in effect he is doing it because of Arya because that's what started the whole mess in the first place.

It works both ways. I won't deny that Jon fans can sometimes be less than objective about Dany's actions but the degree to which they succumb to dismiss Dany's arc is far less than the opposing side. As to Dany's powerful pets, let's wait to pass judgement on how uselful these pets will be in the fight against the Others. And her powerful army is comprised of a bunch of foreigners (enuchs, sellswords, and the Dothraki) and soon enough will have the universally hated Ironborn as well. I don't see anything there to gloat about. There's a reason for Aegon's (who'll probably be supported by some of the high houses of Westeros) existence in the books. All hints indicate a conflict between Aegon and Dany in the books. We'll see how Westeros sees Dany and her foreign army after that. 

Jon did not attempt to steal Ramsay's wife, he tried to rescue his fleeing sister. There's a very distinct difference there. And it's pointless debating someone who cannot make that distinction. Now I've heard people make the rediculous argument that Jon was supposed to know that Mance would go to Winterfell to abduct FArya. That's just BS. And btw Ramsay is not Lord of Winterfell yet as we still have no evidence that Roose is dead apart from the pink letter  

[giant snake]

foolishly selfish fool lmao

Not going to repeat myself just because the hilarious Bowen Marsh apologists do it.  I see a different way to say the same thing over and over again.  This thread is retarded.  

[Denam_Pavel]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Jon is not risking everything as you claim. But I agree that he is taking a risk. The thing is, it is a calculated risk. He knows Mance, and he trusts him. Is it possible he will regrets having trusted Mance? Sure. Is it likely, though? I don't think so. But it is impossible to know for sure either way at the moment. We will have to wait and see how it all plays out. 

No, you are wrong. Again. It's not the NW who "executes" Mance, it's  Stannis. Jon simply gives the order for his men to shoot Rattleshirt/Mance to take him out of his agony, after all, being immolated is not all that much fun. 

There's more... there is no textual evidence that Mance wants to remain a king, that's fan fiction. The facts are: Mance is a deserter of the NW, and as such he's to be executed. He is also a very valuable ally in the upcoming fight for the dawn, even Stannis sees this. Jon has to weigh in the pros and cons, and make a decision. Which is what he does. But truth be told, at the moment this is an issue for the readers, not the characters since they are not aware that it was Rattleshirt who burned. That is, in CB no one knows apart from Jon and Mel. Só, yeah, it is a gamble in a way, but as I said above, it's a calculated risk. And not only because Jon knows Mance and has seen and talked enough with him to have a very good idea about what type of man Mance is. He has LC Jeor Mormont's take on Mance:

ACoK, Jon III

I knew Mance Rayder, Jon. He is an oathbreaker, yes ... but he has eyes to see, and no man has ever dared to name him faintheart.

He also has the Halfhand's opinion:

ACoK, Jon VIII

He was the best of us, and the worst as well.

ADwD, Jon I

“Lord Too-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse.” The letter that Lord Wyman Manderly had sent back from White Harbor had spoken of his age and infirmity, and little more. Stannis had commanded Jon not to speak of that one either.
“Perhaps his lordship would fancy a wildling wife,” said Lady Melisandre. “Is this fat man married, Lord Snow?”
“His lady wife is long dead. Lord Wyman has two grown sons, and grandchildren by the elder. And he is too fat to sit a horse, thirty stone at least. Val would never have him.”
“Just once you might try to give me an answer that would please me, Lord Snow,” the king grumbled.
“I would hope the truth would please you, Sire. Your men call Val a princess, but to the free folk she is only the sister of their king’s dead wife. If you force her to marry a man she does not want, she is like to slit his throat on their wedding night. Even if she accepts her husband, that does not mean the wildlings will follow him, or you. The only man who can bind them to your cause is Mance Rayder.”
“I know that,” Stannis said, unhappily. “I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I’ll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder’s life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms.”
“The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance.”
“I mean to. I’ll burn him, and the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors. I have other men to lead the wildlings. And I have Rayder’s son, do not forget. Once the father dies, his whelp will be the King-Beyond-the-Wall.”

 

The bold: I don't understand what you mean. 

The rest...

I don't remember Tyrion ever thinking or talking about wildlings living north of the Wall because they "got stuck there", like, they built this ginormous Wall overnight, and people who were north of it simply woke up trapped on the wrong side. Forever. It's ludicrous. And if Tyrion thinks or says anything along those lines, it means nothing. Tyrion also makes fun of the grumkins and snarks. In other words, Tyrion doesn't know what he's talking about. 

Wut. Where did I say anything even remotely similar to the Age of Heroes being this perfect little paradise? It seems to me you are misunderstanding the story being told and you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. 

I simply explained to you that it took centuries to build the Wall, and thousands for it to reach its current height. I think I just quoted myself verbatim there, colour me impressed w/ mylsef.

And I only explained that because you had said previously that Brandon the Builder, who crowned himself King in the North, had built the Wall to use it as his back garden fence. And that is just plain silly. But never did I say that the Age of Heroes was Shangri-la. 

Yes, the NW has forgotten its purpose. It's a penal colony now, and it's completely unprepared to face the challenges it will face soon when the WWs and the army of the dead come knocking. And that's where things get really interesting...

A Dance with Dragons - Bran I 

The ranger made no move to obey.

"He's dead." Bran could taste the bile in his throat. "Meera, he's some dead thing. The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say. He came to meet us at the Wall, but he could not pass. He sent Sam instead, with that wildling girl."

The men are no longer true, because they don't know who the real enemy is anymore. And all that talk about the NW oath yadda yadda yadda circles back to this point. The NW now thinks their purpose is to defend the 7K from the wildlings when, in truth, it is to defend humankind against the WWs and wights. 

The changes Jon is trying to impose are the correct ones. I will never understand some of the arguments being made here. People keep repeating that "that's how it is on Planetos", or "its ruthless and unfair and cruel, but that's the reality of the setting. Bla bla bla. So fucking what? And that's the whole point, that things need to change, but that is not easily done. Still, needs to be done, and it takes great moral integrity and courage to do the right thing when it's unpopular and difficult and dangerous.

. 

 

Not entirely correct but I'll take it. And your point is?

I don't understand what you mean. 

No, it doesn't make sense. Marsh & co  were conspiring for a while. The idea that he walks out of the Shieldhall, bumps into 3 or 4 or 17 men who are in on the plan and just happened to be around or Marsh simply convinces them to take part in an assassination attempt at the drop of a hat is ridiculous, not a coincidence. 

You are talking as if you had just invented the wheel. Spoiler alert: you didn't. 

What you just said is literally spelled out in the text.

“Might be all a skin o’ lies.” Tormund scratched under his beard. “If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o’ maester’s ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn’t make it so.”
“He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number.” He knows about Mance Rayder. “No. There is truth in there.”
“I won’t say you’re wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?”
Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I 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 my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

 

No, that was mutiny. And cowardice, bigotry and stupidity. 

Erhm... ok?

The fortresses at the Wall are designed to not be able to defend themselves from attacks from the south. After Jon leaves the hope is that his much smaller and less trained wildling army can defeat the Bolton army and then that wildling army, back under the old management will return pacefully instead of being the enemies they have been for thousands of years. The Wall will keep being host to their women and children. They will be back. It's dim hope to people that don't know what Jon knows. Same goes for the rest of your post, what Stannis, two dead people and Jon know about Mance Rayder does not inform Bowen Marsh's decision. He does not read the books. And his failing in this regard is not bigotry. All he knows is that Mance Rayder is an oathbreaker, made war on the Wall for years, was captured, killed by them but was seemingly rescued and set loose to save Jon's sister as per Jon's own words.

The bold:  My point is that Tyrion and Ygritte's views are an example of what the groups Jon thinks to unite in a day have believed for thousands for years. If what you sare saying is true then the real spirit in which the original wall was constructed is forgotten, even by the people that keep records of the old days like the measters. It takes more then Jon mansplaining things for everyone to give up their beliefs. 

And again, he didn't have to walk out of the Shieldhall and just bump into people for that. Bowen wasn't the only one inside Shieldhall listening to Jon relate to him how he has rescued the most dangerous oathbreaker the Watch has ever seen, set him loose south of the wall to save his own family, has now not only supported one side in the war for the North but has personally made an enemy of the other (victorious) side to boot, and instead of negotiating or accepting some of the demands is gonna arm a wildling army and personally march them south to conquer Winterfell, that place he conveniently once wanted to be lord of. I don't know why it is difficult to believe that Marsh was the only one that felt this was really, really, really bad for them. And bad for the Watch, no matter what purpose the Watch ought to serve and Jon was letting his personal feelings get in the way.

And I don't doubt that Jon's killers have had talks before, there had been plenty of controversial decisions and actions by Stannis, Jon and Sam to be discussed already. That doesn't prove conspiracy to murder, treason, desertion.

[Yucef Menaerys]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

It works both ways. I won't deny that Jon fans can sometimes be less than objective about Dany's actions but the degree to which they succumb to dismiss Dany's arc is far less than the opposing side. As to Dany's powerful pets, let's wait to pass judgement on how uselful these pets will be in the fight against the Others. And her powerful army is comprised of a bunch of foreigners (enuchs, sellswords, and the Dothraki) and soon enough will have the universally hated Ironborn as well. I don't see anything there to gloat about. There's a reason for Aegon's (who'll probably be supported by some of the high houses of Westeros) existence in the books. All hints indicate a conflict between Aegon and Dany in the books. We'll see how Westeros sees Dany and her foreign army after that. 

Jon did not attempt to steal Ramsay's wife, he tried to rescue his fleeing sister. There's a very distinct difference there. And it's pointless debating someone who cannot make that distinction. Now I've heard people make the rediculous argument that Jon was supposed to know that Mance would go to Winterfell to abduct FArya. That's just BS. And btw Ramsay is not Lord of Winterfell yet as we still have no evidence that Roose is dead apart from the pink letter  

That is purely your own opinion, a dany fan could say thesame thing as well. You'll be sure her pets would be effective against the others, they are fire made flesh and nothing destroys the others more than fire and dragonglass. I don't care one bit that Dany's army is foreign, who else was she supposed to bring along? She was in Essos and had to make do with whatever soldiers she could find, and I don't think the perception of the people of Westeros should matter as well, as long as she defeats her enemies and reclaims her birthright, as Tywin Lannister said "A lion does not concern himself with the opinion of the sheep" well in this case it's a dragon who is already percepted as being above common men and being closer to gods

 

Yes he did, he tried to steal and kidnap the lawful wife of the Lord of winterfell, it doesn't matter that she's his half-sister, he has no right whatsoever to rescue her, this is Westeros and forced marriages happen all the time, I'm sure there are many brides in Westeros who would also like to run away from their husbands but their families don't always go around 'rescuing' them do they? There's no difference, it doesn't matter whether she was fleeing or not he has no rights to kidnap her. And indeed Ramsay is the Lord of winterfell, Roose is lord paramount and warden of the north as well as lord of the dreadfort while Ramsay is the Lord of winterfell and head of house Bolton of winterfell. Here are some quotes from the book

Quote

She belongs to Ramsay now. She said the words. By this marriage Ramsay would be Lord of Winterfell. 

Quote

"Lady Arya's sobs do us more harm than all of Lord Stannis's swords and spears. If the Bastard means to remain Lord of Winterfell, he had best teach his wife to laugh."

 

[Lord Freypie]

My impression is people project a lot on Bowen Marsh because he's undoubtely bigoted, but I don't think GRRM is writing a story about Social Justice Jon vs Donald J. Marsh where all one do is good and all the other do wrong, but about the conflicts in Jon's heart (the excellent essay on the Mereenese Blot, by a blogger GRRM himself praised for understanding him, being the best analysis I've ever read of his arc)  and the difficulties to be an efficient ruler, being an efficient ruler requiring some sense of compromise if you don't want to end with a civil war or being assassinated (or if you don't have some sense of compromise, you need to be ready to be completely ruthless ; anyway one way or the other you have to deal with the opposition, and instead Jon is just ignoring it).

Jon is offered dozen of chances to listen to his advisors and accept their advice on some little points (say exclude some war criminals like the wheeper from his peace with Wildlings, send some more pledges of neutrality to the IT and Boltons, take some nobleman pleasing the bigot party as squire instead of Satin) to make them accept other parts of his politic, and just refuse because he doesn't seem to understand the need of compromise at all. Jon should have been a bridge between night watch old guard, wildlings and Stannis and other rulers of the realms of men, but fails to maintain the balance and ends on wildlings and/or Stannis side on just every topic.

Also far before the pink letter incident he openly involves himself in the affairs of the realm with the Alys - Thenn wedding, going as far as making a northern noble prisoner after using a technicality to deny him guest rights, so trying to argue he hasn't breached his vows looks a bit ridiculous for me.

It doesn't mean Jon wasn't morally right in most of his actions, but being morally right is useless if you fail at the game of thrones (a lesson the guy he sees as his father illustrated before him). To win at that game inside of the watch he basically had two options, act as a ruthless revolutionnary and preventively destroy the bigot party denying any power to Marsh and other detractors of his rule, eventually executing them all, or act as a reformist progressive listening to the (sometimes not unreasonable) advices of conservatives on some topics to preserve other parts of his agenda. But Jon is so bad a politician he doesn't even realise these are his only options. He's warned several times he's losing support from the bigot party (by Marsh himself), and even told he's under risk of assassination (by Melissandre) but just ignore these warnings.

It's globally the same choices Daenerys had in Mereen where she's also fighting a thousands year old tradition, the main difference being she is conscious of her options, having representants of two parties around her, some advocating being ruthless with the grandmasters and some the path of compromise she finally chose (eventually going too far and trigerring an assassination attempt from the hard liners of her own revolutionnary party, if the Shavepate poisoned the locusts like it's likely).  But the difference before their assassinations is Dany politics is preventing wars (civil and external) while Jon's is leading to them (at least an external one between the Watch and the Boltons/IT, and one the watch is likely to lose).

Back to thread topic, while what finally happens to Jon was completely earned by Jon in my mind, the question remains "does it means Marsh was right ?".

Marsh action can certainly be justified by several breachs in one of the main principles of the night watch (like I said Jon having deeply involved himself in internal affairs of the 7 kingdoms with all his stannism and the Karstark wedding/abduction) but is certainly not right if you consider the consequences for the Night Watch. Crows being largely outnumbered by wildlings even only counting those south of the wall, Marsh action does nothing to save the Watch, it only endangers it more, killing the guy they had a personnal loyalty to, who was the only one able to make them remain peaceful. 

Speaking about a bad undecisive politician, Bowen is probably even worse than Jon, assassinating and replacing Jon before he opened the gate to Tormund was a defendable policy (if you consider like Bowen and his cronies that wildings don't desserve being saved), Bowen would have blocked the gates, and bet on the Wall to protect the Watch against all enemies (even if the Others would have zombified more people, these wights would still have had to climb it, and it's possible the old spells protecting the wall would have made this extra number of opponents unimportant). Not having the wildlings to feed the Watch would have had enough supplies for several years of winter, and not having a "son of the traitor Eddard Stark" as commander the Watch may have got more support (or at least less hostility) from the IT / the Boltons rulers of the North if Stannis (like it ever was extremely probable) was defeated.

But all that required to act before Tormund's army was allowed south of the wall, when the Watch still outnumbered wildlings. Even considering Marsh plan may have been a good one, killing Jon is just suicidal for the Watch at the time Bowen does it (not only with Tormund south of the wall but with wildlings outnumbering the crows at Castle Black itself as they were summoned for the Shieldhall speech).

So my final answer would be, Jon was morally right but made mistakes as a leader failing to understand the need of compromises, Marsh was technicaly right (could justify executing Jon for vows breaching) but made even worse mistakes failing to understand that once it's too late it's too late (or understanding the situation but ignoring it), I'd suggest to put both of them in an ice cell with a cyvasse board for some months before allowing them to play more complex games.

ps : the essay I was speaking about https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/other-wars-part-i-jons-noble-heart-and-greater-duty/

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

The fortresses at the Wall are designed to not be able to defend themselves from attacks from the south.

Actually, you don't build a fortress that can't be defended, so they were not designed to not defend themselves from the south. But after the Night's King, the North enforced it ont he NW that they could not build defense walls against threats from the south. The NIght's King occurred after the Wall was finished, and it has been pointed out how long the building the of Wall would have taken.

 

3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

If what you sare saying is true then the real spirit in which the original wall was constructed is forgotten, even by the people that keep records of the old days like the measters.

The maesters want people and their own maesters to forget: they have an anti magic, anti legend agenda

 

3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

And I don't doubt that Jon's killers have had talks before, there had been plenty of controversial decisions and actions by Stannis, Jon and Sam to be discussed already. That doesn't prove conspiracy to murder, treason, desertion.

Sure, as an anology: Chett and Lark and all the others weren't conspiring to murder, treason and desertion either... it was just talk, because Jeor took such controversial decisions to take the majority leftover of the NW ranging and planned to attack an overwhelming wildling force in the pass. Those controversial decisions had to be discussed. Soldiers have a right to discuss the stupidity and folly of their miitary commander, and fantasise how they're gonna kill him. It doesn't prove conspiracy to murder, treason, desertion.

Wrong, it is the very defition of the conspiring to murder, treason and desertion.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Lord Freypie said:

the excellent essay on the Mereenese Blot, by a blogger GRRM himself praised for understanding him, being the best analysis I've ever read of his arc

GRRM praised the essay on Dany's arc for aDwD not the whole blog, because he mentioned it in the context of his Mereenese Knot (Dany).

To extrapolate from this that GRRM praised the Jon essay as the best analysis he ever read is absurd or deliberately disingenious. GRRM most definitely did not mention that essay. And I don't see why he should, because while the essay on Dany's peace actually having been achieved is great, the essays on Jon are contrived, using a certain angle, and basically polite anti-Jon essays. 

Hence the blogger of the Mereenese Blot shows a personal bias that is pro-Dany and anti-Jon, and that's not what GRRM wrote or feels per his personal words about Jon.

Quote

Jon is offered dozen of chances to listen to his advisors and accept their advice on some little points (say exclude some war criminals like the wheeper from his peace with Wildlings, send some more pledges of neutrality to the IT and Boltons, take some nobleman pleasing the bigot party as squire instead of Satin) to make them accept other parts of his politic, and just refuse because he doesn't seem to understand the need of compromise at all. Jon should have been a bridge between night watch old guard, wildlings and Stannis and other rulers of the realms of men, but fails to maintain the balance and ends on wildlings and/or Stannis side on just every topic.

This argument assumes that the LC's role is to be ruled by his advizors in order to avoid being stabbed by them. WRONG! The LC is the one who rules and makes the decisions, and he must make decisions according to his vows, not to cater to prejudiced men. If Jon wished it, he could have demoted them and replaced them with others. Instead he reasoned with them, tried to educate them. And despite the fact that they could not give one reasonable argument in those discussions, and had to admit he spoke reason, they still clung to their bigotry.

The point is that stupid prejudiced people will remain stupid prejudiced people and that they will cling to their belief no matter what. You can't change the mind of a close-minded person. To conclude and argue from this that Jon should have given in, "compromize" with such close-minded persons who are wrong, just to save his own skin is a subversive conclusion. To conclude that "give in to bigots just so they don't pull a knife on you" is what George meant for Jon to learn in aDwD is beyond stupid... especially in light of the essay of Dany's peace... Dany got her peace by compromizing everything she believed in to be right, so much that it hurt, and it still would have gotten her killed by poisoned locusts if she had eaten them. Dany concluded "Enough! This is wrong. No more compromize." What was the Yunkai threat? A mummer's army that was more a carnival parade than an actual threat.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

6 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

While there aren't any directly, the mentions of climbing the wall frequently (ASOS is packed up right now or I'd provide the direct quotes), and the plethora of infamous raiders suggests that it is a fairly common occurrence.  

[ETA: There's at least 13 recent raids]

Hey JS4P. It's been a long time. I'll take a minute to respond to you cuz I like ya. 

The point the books are making is that the free folk of all clans are the same as those people south of the wall. The idea that the wildlings are the ones to fight is new compared to the history of the wall and with the Others not being seen in thousands of years. 

George is a hippy and in his eyes the wall creates division, the opposite of unity. Berlin, Mexican border, Hadrians. He talks about them and what those on one side thought of the other. Especially Hadrian's where he says in interviews that the English thought the Scots to be some bog dwelling monsters... but they were just people. 

As far as Jarl, how many babies were eaten in his raids? As far as women, there is one Umber girl I can think of (and she probably went willingly and is with Mance when he snuck on his own side mission to Winterfell) 

The free folk know what they are. They don't hide it. But are they worse than people like Tywin, Lord Tarly, or half the Targaryens and the bow or burn motto? No. 

And it is also ironic that the wall, the shield that defends the realms of men, including the king, is now defended by actual tapers, murderers, and thieves since the Wall is now a not-so-glorified prison. 

So Marsh, if not magicked by Mel, self fulfilled his own fears and brought down the wall because it no longer stood strong. 

 

-Val had reminded him of that, on his last visit with her. "Free folk and kneelers are more alike than not, Jon Snow. Men are men and women women, no matter which side of the Wall we were born on. Good men and bad, heroes and villains, men of honor, liars, cravens, brutes … we have plenty, as do you." 

She was not wrong. The trick was telling one from the other, parting the sheep from the goats.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

2 hours ago, Lord Freypie said:

ps : the essay I was speaking about https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/other-wars-part-i-jons-noble-heart-and-greater-duty/

George did NOT praise the Jon essays in this blog. He praised the Meereen arc specifically. The Jon essays on this blog are just as biased as the Jon haters on this forum, and that author used to be part of this forum, so there is nothing new in any of those essays you can't find here on an average day. 

[Lord Freypie]

21 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

GRRM praised the essay on Dany's arc for aDwD not the whole blog, because he mentioned it in the context of his Mereenese Knot (Dany).

To extrapolate from this that GRRM praised the Jon essay as the best analysis he ever read is absurd or deliberately disingenious. GRRM most definitely did not mention that essay. And I don't see why he should, because while the essay on Dany's peace actually having been achieved is great, the essays on Jon are contrived, using a certain angle, and basically polite anti-Jon essays. 

Hence the blogger of the Mereenese Blot shows a personal bias that is pro-Dany and anti-Jon, and that's not what GRRM wrote or feels per his personal words about Jon.

I said he praised the blogger for understanding him ("what he was trying to do" in fact), not this essay in particular.

But I think if the author was right about what GRRM was trying to do with Dany he also have all chances to have understood well what he was trying in Jon's extremely parallel story.

In the two cases it's about rulers trying to implement a revolutionnary policy breaking with thousand years old traditions, and having to either make compromises either establish a hard rule to be allowed to do so (avoid things like a civil war or an assassination attempt). Add to that the way their own desires, be them selfish or altruistic, make things even harder for them.

In the end the two end facing an assassination attempt, so it can't be said Dany was far more efficient than Jon. But imo she was at least more conscious of the problems and her options to deal with them (the need to make compromises even with people she despised as much as the masters - if she wasn't wanting to become a butcher queen). Jon tends to believe there's a third path where he can just ignore his opposition, being deaf to their warnings, and ends paying a higher price.

 

[sweetsunray]

26 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

But I think if the author was right about what GRRM was trying to do with Dany he also have all chances to have understood well what he was trying in Jon's extremely parallel story.

Actually that's a faulty assumption, because nobody is always "right". Einstein had gotten some stuff right, and he also got stuff wrong.

The parallel is that both Jon and Dany have to deal with poeple who don't want to change a thing. Jon does not give an inch into their stupidity nor makes a sacrifice on what he knows to be right and gets stabbed. Dany gives in on everything that an army on stilts demands so that slaves are being sold right outside the city's walls and slaves perform a deadly mummery in order to be eaten in her own city to have peace (a peace that she achieved), and still gets presented poisoned locusts, because there always be someone who doesn't want peace.

It doesn't matter whether you compromize so much until everything becomes totally warped or you do not: there always will be people who will disagree with you and are willing to kill you for it.

Quote

But imo she was at least more conscious of the problems and her options to deal with it (need to make compromises even with people she despised as much as the masters).

Jon was most conscious how Marsh and others were bigoted and wouldn't change their mind. He was simply naive to count on their honor, despite having overheard evidence to the contrary far earlier... exactly as when he overheard Chett plot against Jeor at the Fist, but dismissed it as "just talk". He wrongly assumed that his title as LC, his position of authority was protection enough, just as Jeor assumed it. Turns out that an LC needs an LC-guard.

Dany is conscious of the problems but over estimates the problem that Yunkai poses. The Tyrion and Quentyn chapters expose the Yunkai to be nothing more than a ludicrous carnival. George couldn't have written a more absurd and laughable army ever to be described in literature: slaves on stilts, slow slaves in chains you can hear them miles away, and a sexy army trained by a girl of 16 who doesn't know a thing (sure Dany doesn't know much more, but she doesn't presume to "train" and "teach" soliders) and rotating generals who give opposing orders. That's the "threat" Dany made all the compromizes for, so much, that it sickened her. The Yunkai army folds together like a house of cards with one outbreak by Selmy, the Unsullied and the Mother's Men.

[The Fattest Leech]

16 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

I said he praised the blogger for understanding him ("what he was trying to do" in fact), not this essay in particular.

No, George mentioned the Meereen plot in particular. Nothing about the Jon arc at all. Even the Blot author agrees that it was the "general idea" that George was agreeing with. 

 

https://amp.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/3b75fu/spoilers_all_grrm_on_the_meereenese_knot/csjg95r

[The Lord of the Crossing]

6 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

It's actually more like the other way around with Jon fans hating dany because they're afraid she might be Azor Ahai or being jealous of her because she is more powerful than Jon and has a more powerful pet, a dragon rather than a mere direwolf. They keep making theories about how dany is going to die in childbirth or this and that, they simply cannot fathom or believe that Dany could end up playing a bigger role (bigger than Jon's) in the fight against the others since she actually has dragons, a powerful army, and comes with an old, powerful and prestigious name in comparison to Jon's direwolf, his command of the small and dilapidated NW and his bastard name.

Ramsay made a direct threat because Jon attempted to steal his lawful wife, he attacked Ramsay first, he foolishly and selfishly sent Mance to kidnap the wife of the Lord of winterfell because of his own selfish desires, your point about Jon attacking Ramsay because he threatened the watch is a direct result of Jon's actions in attempting to kidnap Ramsay's wife. So in effect he is doing it because of Arya because that's what started the whole mess in the first place.

You are right. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

7 hours ago, teej6 said:

 

Jon did not attempt to steal Ramsay's wife, he tried to rescue his fleeing sister. There's a very distinct difference there. And it's pointless debating someone who cannot make that distinction. Now I've heard people make the rediculous argument that Jon was supposed to know that Mance would go to Winterfell to abduct FArya. That's just BS. And btw Ramsay is not Lord of Winterfell yet as we still have no evidence that Roose is dead apart from the pink letter  

 

There is no excuse for Jon's conduct.  Jon was not  trying to "rescue" his sister.  He was trying to steal his sister from Ramsay to take her away from him forever.  That is not a "rescue".  That is stealing.  There is a distinction but it does not reflect positively on Jon.  To rescue Arya is to escort her back to Ramsay.  Would you at least agree that Jon had no intentions of giving Arya back to Ramsay?  That makes Jon guilty of starting a war with Ramsay.  Jon had no business and no right to take Arya from the Boltons.  

Jon broke all kinds of laws to even get to the point of stealing his sister.  He effectively gave Mance Rayder a free pass to get away with all of the awful crimes the turncloak was guilty of over the years when he had a responsibility to carry out justice and execute the man.  He ignored justice for the sake of his sister.  That's selfish and that's being a hypocrite.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

Then of course there's @Lord Varys who has a thorough and in-depth understanding of the text but cannot be relied on for an objective view or rendering of the text in matters relating to Jon. I've come to view his arguments on Jon's arc as the subjective interpretations of a Dany fan.  

If you want to do an objective assessment of Daenerys as a ruler I can take her apart, too. I'm not irrationally favored towards her. In fact, many things she does are stupid. She got her assassination coming, too, in ADwD. It is just a lucky accident that she doesn't end up like Jon. I didn't want Jon to die, and I don't want Dany to die, but I acknowledge that both got their deaths coming in ADwD because of their own stupidity and weakness.

However, Jon got repeated warnings from a seer that the people closest to him are going to take him out. And he did ... nothing to prevent that. In that sense he is even more stupid that Robb and Catelyn when they go to the Twins, and more stupid than Daenerys when she trusts the likes of Hizdahr, Galazza, and Reznak.

I just find it fun that people are so, well, biased that they actually want to excuse Jon even for the Mance thing for which he actually takes responsibility, or that they try to shift the blame to 'the evil vow' rather than to the person breaking it. This is a society where vows and promises actually means something. You break them at your own peril.

This doesn't mean that Jon didn't have a good reason to break his vows. He did have. But if you do that you can't complain if you are killed by the people who think such oathbreakers should die. Just as Jaime had no right to complain had Eddard Stark or Robert Baratheon hanged him as an oathbreaker and kingslayer after he was caught killing his king. Actions have consequences, you know. That means you should surround yourself with loyal guards, employ a food taster, etc. to ensure you are not killed. Jon does nothing of that sort. He even fails to do the basic thing his father did - ensure you know the minds and hearts or your men, and make them trust and love you. Instead he refuses to eat with his men, distances himself from them, and even sends most of his most loyal friends away.

George has said it repeatedly that his characters usually die when they make fatal mistakes, not because they deserve to die. You can see this with Viserys, Robert, Ned, Robb and Cat, Lysa, Tywin, Oberyn, you name it. 

But I'm pretty sure Daenerys is not 'the secret antagonist' of the story, and she is the promised princess, too, considering that she already fulfilled most (if not all) parts of the prophecy. But I don't think there is just one savior - the dragon has three heads, after all - so Jon clearly can play a huge and important in the grand finale and the events leading up to it.

I just don't think he'll have the means or the strength to really stop the Others until Dany, her vast armies, and the dragons show up. Then they will have to work together. But he still is very likely to slow them down, figure out important stuff about them, etc.

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

To me, GRRM does show the progression of events that lead to the final act of treachery and Jon's stabbing rather well and may even imply that Jon's lack of foresight or guile in being able to see Marsh and company for what they are is partly to blame for Jon getting stabbed. But I don't believe for a second that GRRM wants the readers to see Jon's decisions such as helping the wildlings or trying to rescue his fleeing sister as bad decisions. These are the right decisions made by a progressive leader who is trying to change the minds of bigoted prejudiced men but fails at it and ultimately pays for his lack of understanding of the depravity of these said men. 

But Jon isn't killed because of his progressive wildling politics. Even if they were the roots of the murder plot - which we don't know as of yet - he broke his vows openly in the Shieldhall and declared war on Winterfell and the North (which is a part of 'the realms of men'). He tries to do the same stupid thing as Robb did back in AGoT. Weakening himself and his forces in a petty struggle against some people who should be his allies because they all have a common enemy. As the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch he simply cannot do that. It is an understandable emotional reaction but it is clearly wrong. Just as Tyrion's murders of Shae and Tywin are emotionally understandable but clearly wrong.

If both the Hardhome mission (under Tormund) and the march to Winterfell under Jon would have taken place both the Watch and the wildlings would be finished (assuming the Pink Letters is true or going to turn out to be true by the time Jon arrives at Winterfell). The Northmen would turn against a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch leading a wildling army through their lands to conquer them. Even if won his fight against the Boltons, the Northmen would not love him for that. They would hate him, and refuse to (or only very reluctantly) support him. Both because he is an oathbreaker and turncloak and because he has brought men to their lands that don't belong there. Men that are their ancestral enemies.

It is quite clear that even the clansmen chieftains at Castle Black with whom Jon discusses his plan to settle wildlings in the Gifts won't suffer any of those men on their lands. They announce that they will hang them if they migrate to their lands.

And Jon is clearly applying a double standard if he intends to extend his invitation to a man like the Weeper, too, but refuses to even talk to and inform the Boltons about the danger they are all in. A man who likes to cut out the eyes of crows and then behead them. A man who is right now marshaling his strength to attack the Bridge of Skulls again, most likely succeeding this time. He has no incentive whatsoever to accept Jon's offer because he has the strength to take what he wants without making compromises. 

Mance tells us as early as Melisandre's chapter that the Weeper means business and that him securing the support of many of Mance's surviving wildlings means trouble for them. The Shadow Tower was weakened very much by the loss of Qhorin's men and the first battle at the Skull Bridge, so now it should be essentially be little more than an exercise for the Weeper to actually force his way across the bridge, destroy the Shadow Tower, and march down into the North.

And that should be the end of those pipe dreams of the wildlings and the North working together against the Others because the Northmen won't care to differentiate between good wildlings and bad wildlings. Especially not while a sizable army of bad wildlings is going raid and plunder their lands. Stannis taking so many clansmen to Winterfell leaves their mountains open and vulnerable.

[Denam_Pavel]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually, you don't build a fortress that can't be defended, so they were not designed to not defend themselves from the south. But after the Night's King, the North enforced it ont he NW that they could not build defense walls against threats from the south. The NIght's King occurred after the Wall was finished, and it has been pointed out how long the building the of Wall would have taken.

All the same. Mance Rayder with a wildling army or Ramsay Bolton with a Northern army is a threat they are incredibly ill-equipped to deal with. Jon created both threats. 

Quote

The maesters want people and their own maesters to forget: they have an anti magic, anti legend agenda

And the maesters do indeed educate the Westerosi lords. It's these people that the Night's Watch mine their people from. Has been this way for thousands for years. The Free Folk and the Night's Watch have build their lives around fighting each other. 

Quote

Sure, as an anology: Chett and Lark and all the others weren't conspiring to murder, treason and desertion either... it was just talk, because Jeor took such controversial decisions to take the majority leftover of the NW ranging and planned to attack an overwhelming wildling force in the pass. Those controversial decisions had to be discussed. Soldiers have a right to discuss the stupidity and folly of their miitary commander, and fantasise how they're gonna kill him. It doesn't prove conspiracy to murder, treason, desertion.

Wrong, it is the very defition of the conspiring to murder, treason and desertion.

The analogy you came up with is indeed wrong. Chett and Lark DID conspire and then subsequently kill Mormont for those controversial decisions. Unlike Jon and Marsh, where Jon did stuff Marsh disagreed with but helped make happen nonetheless, then Jon announced plans to do stuff that Marsh can be considered to have far more cause to disagree with then anything before, and only afterwards was any action undertaken. The idea that the conspiracy was set in stone before the Pink Letter ever arrived would hugely detract from Jon's part in the growing conflict between Night's Watch and their Lord Commander which is why it's so  attractive. We all like Jon and we all think Marsh is lame so let's go with the narrative where maximum amount of responsibility for the dissent is with Marsh. GRRM doesn't write stories that are that cut and dry.

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

The fortresses at the Wall are designed to not be able to defend themselves from attacks from the south.

I see you didn't address any of the points I made in my previous reply to you. But ok, I'll play.

That's only after the Night's King "reign" at the Wall, as @sweetsunray already pointed out. 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

After Jon leaves the hope is that his much smaller and less trained wildling army can defeat the Bolton army and then that wildling army, back under the old management will return pacefully instead of being the enemies they have been for thousands of years. The Wall will keep being host to their women and children. They will be back. It's dim hope to people that don't know what Jon knows.

That's speculation, since Jon hasn't left. And on top of that, what is the point you're trying to make here? 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Same goes for the rest of your post, what Stannis, two dead people and Jon know about Mance Rayder does not inform Bowen Marsh's decision. He does not read the books. And his failing in this regard is not bigotry. All he knows is that Mance Rayder is an oathbreaker, made war on the Wall for years, was captured, killed by them but was seemingly rescued and set loose to save Jon's sister as per Jon's own words.

This is getting very tiring... 

1. The Watch DID NOT EXECUTE MANCE/RATTLESHIRT, THAT WAS STANNIS.

2. MARSH DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MANCE/RATTLESHIRT SWITCH. Presently at CB, Jon and Mel are the only ones who know. So, Marsh's decision to off Jon has fuck all to do with it. I will no longer address the same point. 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

The bold:  My point is that Tyrion and Ygritte's views are an example of what the groups Jon thinks to unite in a day have believed for thousands for years. If what you sare saying is true then the real spirit in which the original wall was constructed is forgotten, even by the people that keep records of the old days like the measters. It takes more then Jon mansplaining things for everyone to give up their beliefs. 

Of course the real purpose of the Wall has been forgotten over the last thousands of years. Otherwise there wouldn't be a story, would there? If everyone and their dogs were fully aware of  the threat of WWs and the army of the dead, they'd be preparing and the Wall wouldn't have 16 abandoned castles, nor would it have become a penal colony. 

And I'm not sure what you mean by "if what I am saying is true". If you are talking about the Wall being built over centuries and only reaching its current height over thousands of years, you don't have to take my word for it. Now, would George R. R. Martin's word be good enough for you? 

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Wall/

Yes, the Wall was much smaller when first raised. It took hundreds of years to complete and thousands to reach it's present height.

 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

And again, he didn't have to walk out of the Shieldhall and just bump into people for that. Bowen wasn't the only one inside Shieldhall listening to Jon relate to him how he has rescued the most dangerous oathbreaker the Watch has ever seen, set him loose south of the wall to save his own family, has now not only supported one side in the war for the North but has personally made an enemy of the other (victorious) side to boot, and instead of negotiating or accepting some of the demands is gonna arm a wildling army and personally march them south to conquer Winterfell, that place he conveniently once wanted to be lord of.

When Jon reads the PL to Tormund, Tormund immediately says it might all be lies, everyone saw Mance burn and die. Jon never tells him about the glamour. All the wildlings and crows alike can know is that "Rattleshirt" went on some mission w/ a few separwives and/or that "Rattleshirt" and the spearwives were captured by the Boltons somehow, and that the Boltons think, for some reason, that they have Mance Rayder. But as I've said before, in their minds that can't be right - and it doesn't matter - because they all saw Mance burn.  

So, the argument that the assassination attempt has anything to do w/ Mance being alive is simply not true. End of story. This is another point I won't be addressing again.

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

I don't know why it is difficult to believe that Marsh was the only one that felt this was really, really, really bad for them.

Huh? It's not difficult at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. After all, we know without a shadow of a doubt that there were at least four black brothers actively involved in the stabbing. 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

And bad for the Watch, no matter what purpose the Watch ought to serve and Jon was letting his personal feelings get in the way.

No, it's not bad for the Watch. But this is a matter of opinion, and we are both entitled to have one. 

5 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

And I don't doubt that Jon's killers have had talks before, there had been plenty of controversial decisions and actions by Stannis, Jon and Sam to be discussed already. That doesn't prove conspiracy to murder, treason, desertion.

Debatable. I think Marsh's attitudes have been pointing to this for quite some time. But there is no way of knowing for sure how it evolved or when exactly it started with the info we have at present.