Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, Slynt and Thorne only tried to have him executed but were prevented by Aemon, who sent ravens to Pyke and Mallister declaring Jon had joined the Wildlings on Qhorin's orders to uncover their plans.  So they sent him out to "parley" with Mance but in reality intended him to die "For the Watch".

"For the Watch" needs a bit of questioning in certain people's mouths.

The conspiracy to assassinate Jon is not a spontaneous event, it's a coterie of stewards led by Marsh.  Ghost tried to bite one of them well before Jon's Shieldhall speech, the warning signal that Robb got at The Twins (and ignored) when Grey Wind lunged at the Freys who came to meet him.  Jon blames Borroq's boar for putting Ghost on edge and ignores it too.  As readers we know what it means.  All the Shieldhall speech did was require the plot to be brought forward before Jon can leave.

But it was large and long enough to seat two hundred, and half again that many if they crowded close. When Jon and Tormund entered, a sound went through the hall, like wasps stirring in a nest. The wildlings outnumbered the crows by five to one, judging by how little black he saw. Fewer than a dozen shields remained, sad grey things with faded paint and long cracks in the wood.

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.

If Jon's counting is correct, there are about 30-40 men of the Night's Watch in attendance. Not one of them stood for Jon. Either it just happened to be thst every non conspirator was on guard duty that day or they do actually see this as oathbreaking. Maybe Marsh had no just cause to be ready to betray Jon till that day but he did wait till that day and what happened makes it's own case for it. If how Marsh feels about the wildlings and Jon is all that matters rather what had actually done till Jon read the Pink Letter tthen Jon is condemned by the same judgement, as he makes clear above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

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.

If Jon's counting is correct, there are about 30-40 men of the Night's Watch in attendance. Not one of them stood for Jon.

I'm not really getting your argument.  We know Marsh and Yarwyck are opposed to Jon and that they lead a faction within the NW.  We know that Jon has sent those most loyal to him, like Dolorous Ed or Sam away and that officers like Mallister or Pyke who agreed to stand down their own campaigns and support Jon's candidacy are away from Castle Black (by contrast Marsh aligned himself with Slynt).  Jon has isolated himself and the plot is afoot before the scene you reference - which is why I referenced Ghost's lunge at one of the stewards, the order that Marsh of course heads. 

My argument is that Marsh does not speak "For the Watch" but for a close-minded and reactionary group within it.  The attempted assassination occurs when Jon is on his own, while a distraction is occurring with Wun Wun and Stannis's knights and is carried out by about half a dozen Stewards led by Marsh.  I don't see anything in this to make Marsh either in the majority or the right.

16 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

If how Marsh feels about the wildlings and Jon is all that matters rather what had actually done till Jon read the Pink Letter tthen Jon is condemned by the same judgement, as he makes clear above.

I don't follow.  What is Jon condemned for in your eyes before the pink letter / Shieldhall speech?  I thought that was what you see as warranting his assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm not really getting your argument.  We know Marsh and Yarwyck are opposed to Jon and that they lead a faction within the NW.  We know that Jon has sent those most loyal to him, like Dolorous Ed or Sam away and that officers like Mallister or Pyke who agreed to stand down their own campaigns and support Jon's candidacy are away from Castle Black (by contrast Marsh aligned himself with Slynt).  Jon has isolated himself and the plot is afoot before the scene you reference - which is why I referenced Ghost's lunge at one of the stewards, the order that Marsh of course heads. 

My argument is that Marsh does not speak "For the Watch" but for a close-minded and reactionary group within it.  The attempted assassination occurs when Jon is on his own, while a distraction is occurring with Wun Wun and Stannis's knights and is carried out by about half a dozen Stewards led by Marsh.  I don't see anything in this to make Marsh either in the majority or the right.

We really do not know that they lead a faction within the NW in so many words. Jon feels a bit isolated because sent his closest friends away. That does not equal he has purposefully handpicked every person in Castle Black, the NW headquarters as an enemy of his, which in an otherwise vast minority among it's personel. That's is an utter extreme reading of the situation.

Quote

I don't follow.  What is Jon condemned for in your eyes before the pink letter / Shieldhall speech?  I thought that was what you see as warranting his assassination.

Jon thinks to himself he doesn't want these people (the Night's Watch members) anymore, he is happy with his wildlings. He should be free to think these things, and even say as much in private conversation. But the same should true of Marsh, he should be free to think and say stuff in private company, as long as he does his job.

But if what he does is always judged by his conversations with Thorne and Slynt and his feelings towards wildlings alone, irrespective of how many things Jon subsequently throws in his face to prove every accusation of oathbreaking under the sun, then Jon shouldn't be free to have negative opinions. He left for Winterfell, Mance Rayder and his little sister because he's done with NW, the Pink Letter doesn't get to matter for only one of them.

Whether or not Marsh was waiting for just cause to act, he waited, and new evidence did present itself. His actions should be judged with that new evidence in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

We really do not know that they lead a faction within the NW in so many words.

We do.  Slynt, Thorne and Marsh work together.  Marsh is Head Steward and, though likely Thorne is the brains they co-operate.

A Storm of Swords - Jon XII

The sound of voices echoing off the vaulted ceiling brought him back to Castle Black. "I don't know," a man was saying, in a voice thick with doubts. "Maybe if I knew the man better .... Lord Stannis didn't have much good to say of him, I'll tell you that."
"When has Stannis Baratheon ever had much good to say of anyone?" Ser Alliser's flinty voice was unmistakable. "If we let Stannis choose our Lord Commander, we become his bannermen in all but name. Tywin Lannister is not like to forget that, and you know it will be Lord Tywin who wins in the end. He's already beaten Stannis once, on the Blackwater."
"Lord Tywin favors Slynt," said Bowen Marsh, in a fretful, anxious voice. "I can show you his letter, Othell. 'Our faithful friend and servant,' he called him."
 
That's Thorne and Marsh working on Yarwyck to persuade him to support Slynt for LC.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon II

Jon found Slynt breaking his fast in the common room. Ser Alliser Thorne was with him, and several of their cronies. They were laughing about something when Jon came down the steps with Iron Emmett and Dolorous Edd, and behind them Mully, Horse, Red Jack Crabb, Rusty Flowers, and Owen the Oaf. Three-Finger Hobb was ladling out porridge from his kettle. Queen's men, king's men, and black brothers sat at their separate tables, some bent over bowls of porridge, others filling their bellies with fried bread and bacon. Jon saw Pyp and Grenn at one table, Bowen Marsh at another.
 
Marsh is not explicitly linked with Slynt the way Thorne is at the start of this scene but as we go along:
 
"—and hang him," Jon finished.
Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt.
 
"I will not hang him," said Jon. "Bring him here."
"Oh, Seven save us," he heard Bowen Marsh cry out.
The smile that Lord Janos Slynt smiled then had all the sweetness of rancid butter. Until Jon said, "Edd, fetch me a block," and unsheathed Longclaw.
 
Slynt, Thorne and Marsh are linked once more.  Given Slynt is grossly insubordinate, defies orders directly to Jon's face and is committing mutiny it's worth asking why.  The answer is simple: he doesn't like either Jon, given his political calculations proven in the election, and he doesn't like Jon's policies of working with the wildlings, his personal prejudice that blinkers him to how useful, even essential, they are.
 
3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

That does not equal he has purposefully handpicked every person in Castle Black, the NW headquarters as an enemy of his, which in an otherwise vast minority among it's personel. That's is an utter extreme reading of the situation.

I don't follow.  Jon has sent those he trusts most away.  He sends his friends away to "kill the boy and let the man be born".  He sends supporters he trusts like Iron Emmett and Dolorous Edd to command at the castles he is seeking to re-establish.  Senior officers who do not have an animus against him like Mallister and Pyke return to their commands.  Slynt is executed for mutiny and Thorne is sent on rangings north of The Wall.  That leaves Marsh as the Head Steward resident at Castle Black as the focus of opposition to Jon.

My argument throughout has been that Marsh does not speak "For The Watch" but leads a reactionary faction that launches a coup, the first part of which is the assassination of Jon.  Nowhere do I say that Jon has handpicked everyone at Castle Black and deliberately chosen his enemies for some indecipherable reason.  My point is that they are a minority not the majority but that they are plotting and are opportunistic in the timing of the execution of the plot.

3 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon thinks to himself he doesn't want these people (the Night's Watch members) anymore, he is happy with his wildlings. He should be free to think these things, and even say as much in private conversation. But the same should true of Marsh, he should be free to think and say stuff in private company, as long as he does his job.

I don't read Jon's thoughts or intentions as abandoning the NW or saying he is done with them.  He has deliberately distanced himself from the NW only in the matter of facing the challenge that Ramsay Bolton has thrown down with The Pink Letter and he is attempting to keep the NW out of the struggle by appealing to The Wildlings.  There is an element of frustration in his thoughts regarding Marsh, and to a lesser extent Yarwyck, who have been very much an old guard resistant to the reforms of their new commander so he neither wants the NW to fight Ramsay, nor to have to manage Marsh and Yarwyck's resistance and foot-dragging and he is relieved that he can avoid both things be taking the wildlings.

Thoughts are internal and conversations are not.  As readers we can weigh the information the author gives us by whatever method he chooses but a subordinate needs to be careful with voicing objections or questioning orders, cf. Janos Slynt. 

I'm still not really understanding your point.  Marsh has done nothing obviously wrong until he begins to plot to assassinate Jon.  We only get hints of that with Ghost and the behaviour of some stewards and it only becomes clear with the actual  assassination attempt.  His links with Thorne and Slynt aren't crimes, unless they had earlier plots that we don't know about, it's just information for the reader to understand his character and motivations.

4 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

But if what he does is always judged by his conversations with Thorne and Slynt and his feelings towards wildlings alone

As readers we get to assess all the information we are given.  If we reach different conclusions then fair enough.

4 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

He left for Winterfell, Mance Rayder and his little sister because he's done with NW, the Pink Letter doesn't get to matter for only one of them.

He's not done with the NW.  He's leading wildlings - rather than the NW who he is keeping out of it - to face a military threat from a dangerous psychopath to the south.  Once dealt with he would have been back at Castle Black leading The Watch continuing to work with Stannis, the Northmen (Boltons aside) and the wildlings to face the threat of The Others.  It's certainly true that he was motivated to save "Arya" but not that he deserted.

If you see him as a deserter I think this is why we interpret it so differently - Marsh becomes the noble hero called to duty rather than the narrow-minded political realist whose plot was already in the works.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 12:16 PM, Denam_Pavel said:

 Jon really just went "I've been oathbreaking, I've been aiding and abedding the oathbreaking of others, let me read to you a letter detailing what oathbreaking we've been doing and how it has negatively effected all of you, now I gotta do some more oathbreaking to make up for it, whose with me?" The practical reality of killing him notwithstanding, on legal grounds I don't see how Jon left himself any ground to stand on.

Oh, and while he was confessing to all that oathbreaking, Jon was also ordering the NW on a suicide mission that would have consumed a big chunk of their already scarce food supplies. Let's not forget how hypocritical it made Jon look - not only did he assume that after publicly admitting his transgressions he still had the authority to command the black brothers, but after all his arguments for how they needed more men to hold the Wall, he was completely denuding it of defenders - taking the wildling warriors south and sending the NW north. So that in the end the Wall would have been far less protected than if they had never recruited any wildlings at all!

Which is why I don't really see Mallister supporting Jon on any of this, or condemning Marsh BTW, not that the question is likely to ever come up. Pyke, of course, is out of the picture and probably permanently since Jon sent him on a doomed expedition to Hardhome. And Ser Glendon, who is now in charge of Eastwatch, was all for Jon's execution for desertion and treason back in ASoS.

 

On 8/10/2022 at 9:41 PM, the trees have eyes said:

The conspiracy to assassinate Jon is not a spontaneous event, it's a coterie of stewards led by Marsh.  Ghost tried to bite one of them well before Jon's Shieldhall speech, the warning signal that Robb got at The Twins (and ignored) when Grey Wind lunged at the Freys who came to meet him.  Jon blames Borroq's boar for putting Ghost on edge and ignores it too.  As readers we know what it means.  All the Shieldhall speech did was require the plot to be brought forward before Jon can leave.

Yet Ghost didn't as much as growl at Marsh personally during his several on-screen meetings with Jon, so if we are trusting his wolf-dar, it actually acquits the Lord Steward of any long-standing assassination plots B)

Generally, I feel that Jon being completely in the right would be implausible and not in the spirit of ASoIaF. It is already too convenient that he had such a perfect justification for avenging Ned by executing Slynt, and of course Ramsey being completely beyond the pale provides him with a perfect excuse for not even trying to cooperate with Boltons in the name of protecting the realms against the Others and supporting Stannis instead. Basically, what he demands from NW - working with the enemies who hurt them personally, the narrative makes sure that he doesn't have to do himself.

Now I don't know what GRRM has in mind - in hindsight there are a lot of other plotholes in the series and Jon's opponents among the NW do come across as cartoonishly incompetent and blinkered. They keep going on about their prejudices instead of hammering on the good arguments against letting all the wildlings through - such as very limited food and the fact that once it runs out - in a matter of months, they are going to  attack the northeners rather than starve, hostages here or there. That the Weeper is considered untrustworthy and brutal even by the wildlings themselves. That sending wagons through a snowy wilderness to Hardhome is insane and would never work, etc.

But as far as I am concerned, the way it is written suggests some serious mistakes on Jon's part and not just that sending people most loyal to him away made him physically vulnerable. It also stripped him of advisers who may have disagreed with him and stood up to him in a constructive way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more curious of what the immediate consequences will be for the Watch's betrayal of Jon. 

It was mutiny, and Jon was just elected by a majority of the watch. So, the conspirators are out numbered by Loyalists who like Jon ( Just like this thread  :) ) . That is not even accounting for the Wildings or Clans at the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maia said:

Yet Ghost didn't as much as growl at Marsh personally during his several on-screen meetings with Jon, so if we are trusting his wolf-dar, it actually acquits the Lord Steward of any long-standing assassination plots B).

So you are saying the steward that Ghost tried to bite was the instigator of the plot? :D

It would be a little obvious if Ghost tried to rip Marsh's throat out, I think.  The benefit the reader has over the characters in story is realising afterwards what clues the author had dropped in advance - and not being stabbed in the back of course.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

Generally, I feel that Jon being completely in the right would be implausible and not in the spirit of ASoIaF.

Of course.  But "For The Watch" goes the other way and makes a virtue of Marsh's prejudices and reactionary views which  result in an attempted assassination.

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XI

Jon's anger flared. "No, my lord, I mean to set them to sewing lacy smallclothes. Of course they shall be trained at arms. They shall also churn butter, hew firewood, muck stables, empty chamber pots, and run messages … and in between they will be drilled with spear and sword and longbow."
Marsh flushed a deeper shade of red. "The lord commander must pardon my bluntness, but I have no softer way to say this. What you propose is nothing less than treason. For eight thousand years the men of the Night's Watch have stood upon the Wall and fought these wildlings. Now you mean to let them pass, to shelter them in our castles, to feed them and clothe them and teach them how to fight. Lord Snow, must I remind you? You swore an oath."
"I know what I swore." Jon said the words. "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. Were those the same words you said when you took your vows?"
 
This is just one of Marsh's many objections to Jon's policies but it noteworthy he accuses Jon of proposing treason.  You can claim Marsh is purely reacting to the Shieldhall speech but the real reason for his opposition is laid bare and the clues are there that the plot has been in the works for a while.
 
5 hours ago, Maia said:

They keep going on about their prejudices instead of hammering on the good arguments against letting all the wildlings through - such as very limited food and the fact that once it runs out - in a matter of months, they are going to  attack the northeners rather than starve, hostages here or there. That the Weeper is considered untrustworthy and brutal even by the wildlings themselves. That sending wagons through a snowy wilderness to Hardhome is insane and would never work, etc.

Bowen...is that you?  I would rather have Wun Wun on my side that a blue-eyed corpse with black hands.

Of course Jon makes mistakes, it's part of the reality of command and decision making.  Hardhome looks to be a disaster.  Leaving all those people to die adn become wights is a problematic decision in its own right, though.  I hope you're not trying to suggest that Jon should be removed (by coup or knife) for attempting to bring the Wildlings into a coalition against The Others.  That really is the Marsh argument - that they should be left to die and are as much an enemy as The Others.

Ygritte, Tormund, Val, we're given very real examples that The Wildlings are just another people though with different traditions.  And The Weeper is no more, possibly less disagreeable than Ramsay Bolton.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 8:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:

So you are saying the steward that Ghost tried to bite was the instigator of the plot? :D

I am sayng that we can't use Ghost attacking a different person, while not as much as growling at Marsh himself as proof of Marsh's murderous intentions towards Jon before the Shieldhall speech;). Grey Wind was certainly hostile to Spicer and Frey, who were both involved in the plot, not to some random soldiers. Maybe the steward had already decided that Jon needed to die, while Bowen was still vascillating and considering less violent alternatives for removing Jon from office.

Is letting the wildlings through a betrayal of NW vows? Per se, no, if they don't make the NW's own mission harder. It is a bit of a betrayal of the northeners who have supported the Watch for all this time and who are going to suffer unless all wildlings can somehow be kept in the Gifts, or would  be willing to integrate - which even Mance Rayder said in ASoS would be impossible. 10x during an early and severe Winter.  And Marsh, ironically, is one of the few northeners among the NW officers.

 

On 8/12/2022 at 8:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:

   You can claim Marsh is purely reacting to the Shieldhall speech but the real reason for his opposition is laid bare and the clues are there that the plot has been in the works for a while.

The Shieldhall speech is really beyond the pale, though, since it confirms all of Marsh's worst suspicions and also reveals Jon as a hypocrite and a liar who is A-OK with leaving the Wall completely undefended against the Others in order to chase after Ramsey and make a doomed attempt to rescue some wildlings. Oh, and he also not only spared that notorious oathbreaker and killer Mance Rayder, but he sent him to abduct his own blood sister, when he was supposed to have abjured all blood ties. Which is the whole reason why they currently have a problem with Boltons in the first place, and if Stannis is really dead, then anybody associated with the Wall fighting them is futile and can only make things worse. I can easily imagine that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Marsh had planned an assassination for a long time, it would have made more sense to kill Jon before he let Tormund in.

 

On 8/12/2022 at 8:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:
 I would rather have Wun Wun on my side that a blue-eyed corpse with black hands
 
 Hardhome looks to be a disaster.  Leaving all those people to die adn become wights is a problematic decision in its own right, though.

 

 

OK, so one of the strengths of ASoIaF and what distinguished it from other fantasy of it's time used to be that it was honest about good intentions not being enough. That politics was the art of the possible.

After Stannis left, we had this scene with Jon and Marsh in the storerooms of Castle Black, where Jon was informed that they had enough food for 3 years of Winter on reduced rations for the current contingent of the Night's Watch, which was about 700. Since then Jon let in 3K of Tormund's people. Do your maths for how long they can live on this food. Then Jon also wanted to bring in the Hardhome people, which were also supposed to be about 5K. And worse, to send a big chunk of their limited food with the expedition, on wagons through snowy wilderness. Even if somehow this insanity proved to be successful, what would happen in a few months when the food runs out?

When he was questioned about this Jon could only say: "well, we'll figure something out". But the northmen have been unable to do so for millenia, so people who have lived through some Winters would be rightfully skeptical. In fact, nothing demonstrates how much of a summer boy Jon is than his trying to convince his officers that they need to save the old and the infirm at Hardhome, when the text repeatedly mentions that old northeners routinely have to kill themselves during hard Winters, so that their families might survive. That in fact many older men joined Stannis for that very reason.

I think that GRRM was somewhat aware that Jon's position was untenable, because he wholly unexpectedly threw an implausible Iron Bank loan into his lap. Mind, we know nothing about the extent of this loan, nor did Jon mention it to anybody. But again, there should be a long way  between a promissory note and actually getting provisions, unless we are talking the show-level jet-packing. 

Now, maybe Jon is just so special that in his case good intentions without any material basis for believably realizing them are enough and everything would have somehow worked out. I mean, GRRM planned/still plans? to make Bran king of Westeros, even though he was at best 10 in ADwD, but probably still 9, paralyzed from the waist down, separated by frozen wilderness full of ice demons from civilization and also doesn't have any claim to the throne.

But if the same rules that apply to everybody else are supposed to apply to Jon, well, there should be some aknowledgement that he intends to sacrifice thousands of northeners living closest to the Wall to save the wildlings. That's the only way that bringing in the Hardhome and Weeper's folks  after the Winter already began can play out. You can have an apple or you can have an onion, there is not enough to get both. You can feed Wun-Wun or you can feed 2-3 humans. 

 

On 8/12/2022 at 8:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:

 That really is the Marsh argument - that they should be left to die and are as much an enemy as The Others.

I have already mentioned that Marsh et al. aren't allowed to make rational arguments or suggest practical alternatives. They are a bit of straw opponents to Jon, who are mainly allowed to spout repetitive  prejudice rather than highlight real problems with Jon's plans. And of course the wildlings aren't as much an enemy as the Others... but have been an enemy for a long time and the narrative shouldn't pretend that there isn't a high cost attached to letting all of them in. Cost measured in lives of  northeners. 

 

On 8/12/2022 at 8:12 PM, the trees have eyes said:

Ygritte, Tormund, Val, we're given very real examples that The Wildlings are just another people though with different traditions.  And The Weeper is no more, possibly less disagreeable than Ramsay Bolton.

Tormund and Val are those most willing to cooperate and it was a good idea to ally with them. Though I'll point out that exclusive information about the Others that they dangled before Jon as one of the strongest incentives for the alliance still failed to materialize even after they have all safely crossed the Wall and settled down. Ygritte was quite gung-ho re: killing and pillaging, so I am not sure that she would have abided by Jon's restrictions. The Weeper is as bad as Ramsey, with whom Jon didn't even attempt to work with, and rightly, but had been about it for longer. 

But yes, the wildlings are just another people, rather than saints. They aren't going to sit on the Wall and starve, when they could kill some northeners and take their stored food instead. Some of them might not be willing to put up with reduced rations either, or to fight the Others, when they can just go south and make holding the Wall somebody else's problem. Their leadership structure is pretty loose, so taking hostages is only going to help so far. I do think that Jon could have made it work with Tormund's lot, even though he'd need a lucky break to feed them. But more than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

This is just one of Marsh's many objections to Jon's policies but it noteworthy he accuses Jon of proposing treason.  You can claim Marsh is purely reacting to the Shieldhall speech but the real reason for his opposition is laid bare and the clues are there that the plot has been in the works for a while.

 

Exactly. Some time before the arrival of the Pink Letter, Jon is sitting with Yarwyck and Marsh, asking their counsel on the Hardhome mission. 

Quote

Satin poured whilst Jon told them of his audience with the queen. Marsh listened attentively, ignoring the mulled wine, whilst Yarwyck drank one cup and then another. But no sooner had Jon finished than the Lord Steward said, "Her Grace is wise. Let them die." (Jon XIII)

Since Satin is pouring the wine, Jon probably counts as host (he has invited them to the Lord Commander's quarters). Marsh ignores the offered wine, while Yarwyck is happy to drink. This small circumstance is suspicious enough, given the context of guest right. While Marsh couldn't just refuse to obey the Lord Commander's summons, and he may even have wanted to hear what Jon had to say, he could leave the wine untouched, thus subtly making sure that he is not the Lord Commander's guest. And we know very well the significance of entering into a guest-host relationship. I think this can very well be a hint that Marsh at this point is already planning to kill Jon or is arranging his assassination, while Yarwyck may not have made up his mind or is not (yet?) involved in the plot.

This is not even the first time the author has pointed out this behaviour. Already in Jon VIII:

Quote

 

Hungry was not the word Jon would have used. Septon Cellador appeared confused and groggy and in dire need of some scales from the dragon that had flamed him, whilst First Builder Othell Yarwyck looked as if he had swallowed something he could not quite digest. Bowen Marsh was angry. Jon could see it in his eyes, the tightness around his mouth, the flush to those round cheeks. That red is not from cold. "Please sit," he said. "May I offer you food or drink?"

"We broke our fast in the commons," said Marsh.

"I could do with more." Yarwyck eased himself down onto a chair. "Good of you to offer."

 

So Marsh has had a tendency to refuse Jon's food and drink at least for a while (apparently, since about the time when he realized Jon was planning to let Tormund and his wildlings through the gate). 

Then (again in Jon XIII), when Jon asks their opinion on which men to send to Hardhome, Marsh gives this reply:

Quote

"Send women, then. Send giants. Send suckling babes. Is that what my lord wishes to hear?" Bowen Marsh rubbed at the scar he had won at the Bridge of Skulls. "Send them all. The more we lose, the fewer mouths we'll have to feed."

The tone of this reply is something new. It is not the way anyone in a military organization is supposed to talk to his commander. It is as though Marsh didn't think Jon was going to be commander for long. In the context of his refusal to eat and drink with Jon, this sort of answer strongly indicates that the plotting against Jon had started well before the arrival of the Pink Letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Maia said:

When he was questioned about this Jon could only say: "well, we'll figure something out". But the northmen have been unable to do so for millenia, so people who have lived through some Winters would be rightfully skeptical. In fact, nothing demonstrates how much of a summer boy Jon is than his trying to convince his officers that they need to save the old and the infirm at Hardhome, when the text repeatedly mentions that old northeners routinely have to kill themselves during hard Winters, so that their families might survive. That in fact many older men joined Stannis for that very reason.

I think at this precise moment Jon was more worried of having more wights, since even a infirm or old person would be a capable wight (at least as capable as the other) so bringing them South of the Wall means they at least be burnt and not become yet more ennemy's that are quite hard to kill, and they're is also women and children at Hardhome, and if they want to come back after winter they will need replacement for all the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2022 at 4:50 PM, Chista said:

I'm sorry to break it to you but Jon was the only one

Jon was not the only traitor.  Mance was the first traitor.  Jon's lofty command position made his betrayal the worst since the Nights King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 1:25 PM, Northern Sword said:

I'm more curious of what the immediate consequences will be for the Watch's betrayal of Jon. 

It was mutiny, and Jon was just elected by a majority of the watch. So, the conspirators are out numbered by Loyalists who like Jon ( Just like this thread  :) ) . That is not even accounting for the Wildings or Clans at the wall. 

The Wildlings do not count.  The sworn brothers of the watch will be unanimous in their support of Bowen Marsh.  A staunch friend of Jon, Samwell, would have turned his back on Jon after what he revealed in the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rondo said:

The Wildlings do not count

I'd like to see Bowen say that with a freefolk spear through his belly or a wildling axe in his skull or an arrow in his back

6 hours ago, Rondo said:

The sworn brothers of the watch will be unanimous in their support of Bowen Marsh.  A staunch friend of Jon, Samwell, would have turned his back on Jon after what he revealed in the meeting.

:rofl:

u ppl never fail to amuse and entertain, this made my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon was not the only traitor.  Mance was the first traitor.  Jon's lofty command position made his betrayal the worst since the Nights King.

i obviously meant the only sensible person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 7:23 PM, Maia said:

I am sayng that we can't use Ghost attacking a different person, while not as much as growling at Marsh himself as proof of Marsh's murderous intentions towards Jon before the Shieldhall speech;). Grey Wind was certainly hostile to Spicer and Frey, who were both involved in the plot, not to some random soldiers. Maybe the steward had already decided that Jon needed to die, while Bowen was still vascillating and considering less violent alternatives for removing Jon from office.

We can completely ignore a person's pattern of behaviour and the objections they constantly raise. We can ignore them accusing their Lord Commander of treason for working with the wildlings and we can ignore their leadership position and the clear role the author gives them in opposing the man they later assassinate - and blame it all on their subordinates. We can do this but why would we?  It's simply not credible.  The author doesn't want to show his hand too clearly in advance, any more than with LF's betrayal of Ned or the Red Wedding but the clues are there and, particularly with hindsight, they're not too hard to follow.  Simply focusing on the Pink Letter and Shieldhall speech is far too narrow a lens to see the whole picture.

On 8/13/2022 at 7:23 PM, Maia said:

Is letting the wildlings through a betrayal of NW vows? Per se, no, if they don't make the NW's own mission harder. It is a bit of a betrayal of the northeners who have supported the Watch for all this time and who are going to suffer unless all wildlings can somehow be kept in the Gifts, or would  be willing to integrate - which even Mance Rayder said in ASoS would be impossible. 10x during an early and severe Winter.  And Marsh, ironically, is one of the few northeners among the NW officers.

This is bizarre.  The NW forgot it's true purpose until it rediscovered it on The Fist of The First Men.  If Marsh can't see the value of and the need to work with The Wildlings then he is simply unfit for even a minor command.  I wouldn't want The Weeper roaming around or the cannibal clans of The Ice River settling in next door so there are major difficulties ahead with the worst of the raiders but Marsh considers it treason to let any of them through The Wall and wants to leave them all to die.  We know this because he tells us so very clearly. 

It very obviously is neither a betrayal of the letter of NW vows, nor, considering Jon wants The Wildlings to assist The Watch, it's spirit either.  The NW is a few hundred men after The Fist, with most of their fighting strength lost beyond The Wall.  Stannis and The Wildlings are obvious and necessary allies.  As for a betrayal of the northerners, Jon is a son of Eddard Stark of Winterfell!!!  And you might ask Alys Karstark about that betrayal, given she married Sigorn, the new Magnar of Thenn.

Maybe I misunderstand but it really feels like you agree with Marsh's reasoning.  

On 8/13/2022 at 7:23 PM, Maia said:

The Shieldhall speech is really beyond the pale, though, since it confirms all of Marsh's worst suspicions and also reveals Jon as a hypocrite and a liar who is A-OK with leaving the Wall completely undefended against the Others in order to chase after Ramsey and make a doomed attempt to rescue some wildlings. Oh, and he also not only spared that notorious oathbreaker and killer Mance Rayder, but he sent him to abduct his own blood sister, when he was supposed to have abjured all blood ties. Which is the whole reason why they currently have a problem with Boltons in the first place, and if Stannis is really dead, then anybody associated with the Wall fighting them is futile and can only make things worse. I can easily imagine that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Marsh had planned an assassination for a long time, it would have made more sense to kill Jon before he let Tormund in.

Jon takes none of The NW against Ramsay so you can scarcely say he leaves The Wall completely undefended.  He's established new garrisons at previously abandoned castles.  The only men he plans to take are some of the wildlings at Castle Black.  And the reason he goes is in answer to Ramsay threatening to kill him and everyone else if he doesn't comply with his demands, which Jon can't as he doesn't have half the people demanded anyway.

Mance was Mel's prisoner hidden as Rattleshirt by a glamour.  He was sent to rescue a grey girl on a dying horse making her way towards The Wall.  Mission creep has severely magnified the problem but it's naïve to think The Pink Letter is all about Arya - it's about Bolton's enemies, which is why it demands Mel, Selyse and Shireen as well as (F)Arya, Reek and Jon('s head).

And there is absolutely no way Marsh would have tried to assassinate Jon while Stannis and his knights were at The Wall, or the Northern clans who left with him, or Jon's supporters who he sent off to garrison other castles.  Once he's isolated the opportunity arises.

On 8/13/2022 at 7:23 PM, Maia said:

OK, so one of the strengths of ASoIaF and what distinguished it from other fantasy of it's time used to be that it was honest about good intentions not being enough. That politics was the art of the possible.

After Stannis left, we had this scene with Jon and Marsh in the storerooms of Castle Black, where Jon was informed that they had enough food for 3 years of Winter on reduced rations for the current contingent of the Night's Watch, which was about 700. Since then Jon let in 3K of Tormund's people. Do your maths for how long they can live on this food. Then Jon also wanted to bring in the Hardhome people, which were also supposed to be about 5K. And worse, to send a big chunk of their limited food with the expedition, on wagons through snowy wilderness. Even if somehow this insanity proved to be successful, what would happen in a few months when the food runs out?

< SNIP >

But if the same rules that apply to everybody else are supposed to apply to Jon, well, there should be some aknowledgement that he intends to sacrifice thousands of northeners living closest to the Wall to save the wildlings. That's the only way that bringing in the Hardhome and Weeper's folks  after the Winter already began can play out. You can have an apple or you can have an onion, there is not enough to get both. You can feed Wun-Wun or you can feed 2-3 humans. 

Fascinating.  This is one of Marsh's arguments (without the bile and prejudice).  Dead people = more wights, though.  That's the piece that's missing here even if humanitarian grounds don't make much impression.  Who to save and who to condemn?  That's as easy one for Marsh but I think letting the wildlings through The Wall was the right decision.  Hardhome is a trickier one because it was always a long shot and risks scarce resources and more lives but that's the reality of command - not all your decisions will turn out to be right.

I would be careful about pushing this argument too strongly though - it's logical conclusion was that Jon needed to be killed in order that the Wildings be ejected or killed so the NW can keep themselves alive.  Who's next?  Stannis's party obviously take up valuable supplies and lodging so they can go.  And if self-preservation is a reason for offing Jon, then Marsh's mind is made up long before the Shieldhall speech, don't you think?

On 8/13/2022 at 7:23 PM, Maia said:

I have already mentioned that Marsh et al. aren't allowed to make rational arguments or suggest practical alternatives. They are a bit of straw opponents to Jon, who are mainly allowed to spout repetitive  prejudice rather than highlight real problems with Jon's plans.

But they are allowed to make those arguments and they do as you have just recapitulated.  They offer no practical alternatives and I suggest you will struggle to as well.  The problem of food, the general "wildness" of The Wildlings, the unpleasantness of the worst of the raiders, the difficulty of reaching Hardhome and rescuing thousands trapped there.  These are all known and addressed as best they can be.  What are the practical alternatives?  The only thing I hear is "let them die".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

We can completely ignore a person's pattern of behaviour and the objections they constantly raise.

Sure. I was merely pointing out that you can't use Ghost's wolf-dar as an argument for Marsh's culpability, when Ghost didn't single him out in any way, despite several opportunities to do so. His nervousness was a general warning of something bad coming, but it wasn't in any way specific. Was the steward he attacked even one of the assassins?

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

  Simply focusing on the Pink Letter and Shieldhall speech is far too narrow a lens to see the whole picture.

It did change the situation drastically, though - prior to that, Jon intended to lead  expedition to Hardhome himself and take mainly wildlings with him - I am certain that Marsh and Co. hoped that it would have been his death because it was a suicide mission and even intended to ensure it somehow. 

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

The NW forgot it's true purpose until it rediscovered it on The Fist of The First Men.  If Marsh can't see the value of and the need to work with The Wildlings then he is simply unfit for even a minor command.

 

The wildlings forgot the purpose of NW and the Wall too and did what they could to impede both. It seems very unfair that after doing as much harm as they did they are being welcomed with open arms and get to share scarce resources of NW, even more so that when those run out, they are inevitably going to kill and pillage the northeners, who have supported and provided for the Watch and the Wall this whole time.

And yes, Marsh is unable to see beyond this, but it is hard. Jon, OTOH, is just refusing to think about the eventual consequences of his actions, concentrating solely on the present.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

  I wouldn't want The Weeper roaming around or the cannibal clans of The Ice River settling in next door so there are major difficulties ahead with the worst of the raiders but Marsh considers it treason to let any of them through The Wall and wants to leave them all to die.

The tragedy is that they don't even need to be "the worst". They just need to be a lot of normal people used to violence in order to move south, taking what they need or want, once they are through the Wall. If it was Summer or even Autumn, letting them settle in the Gifts would have been a real possibility. Even so, given their culture, there would have been violent clashes between them and  neighboring northeners. But they won't be able to support themselves in Winter without food stores. And they aren't going to sit there and starve.

Really, I would have liked how Jon was written more if he had been able to admit this hard truth, if only in his own  thoughts. What irritates me is this fairy tale stance of "we will make it all work out! Somehow...".  Even though historically nobody ever could and Jon didn't have any revolutionary ideas on how to feed additional tens of thousands mouths after Winter had already begun.

And there is even an argument to be made for the wildlings to be let through anyway, if they could be trusted not to fall on NW itself, which under Weeper's leadership they can't. Namely, that it is NW's duty to defend Westeros from the  Others and they can't waste their strength on fighting  wildlings. Northeners had their chance when the NW pleaded  with them for help, but they chose to do nothing. So, sadly, now the NW can do nothing for them and  they have to deal with it.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

 Stannis and The Wildlings are obvious and necessary allies 

As for a betrayal of the northerners, Jon is a son of Eddard Stark of Winterfell!!!  And you might ask Alys Karstark about that betrayal, given she married Sigorn, the new Magnar of Thenn.

There was little any LC in this position could have done against Stannis in any case. Advising and warning him crossed the line, but as so often with Jon, he is written to not have any real alternatives, given Ramsey's awfulness.

I don't see that being Ned's son precludes Jon from betraying the northeners. He is only thinking about and empathising with the wildlings in his PoV, while never wasting a thought on how his decisions would impact the northeners and how they might react to them. He has given up on convincing them of the threat, even though it really shouldn't be hard to find another wight and parade it or it's twitching extremities before the northern lords. Etc.

As to Alys's situation, ironically it supports my argument rather than yours. Why does she need and has room for these wildlings? Because she intends to kill people loyal to her usurping great-uncle and cousins. That's the reason why there will be resources available to the Thenns in Karhold. It is a zero-sum game - for wildlings to live, northeners have to die. It is also super-convenient that Thenns are most like the northeners in culture and also don't seem to have any dependents, aka "useless mouths".

But the mountain clan lords, for instance, unmistakeably told Jon that they don't have any room for extra people. Their men who joined Stannis already did so to save food for those who remain and they are going to kill any wildling who crosses their borders. But once provisions run out and maybe even sooner, that's going to happen and there will be bloodshed.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

  The only men he plans to take are some of the wildlings at Castle Black.  And the reason he goes is in answer to Ramsay threatening to kill him and everyone else if he doesn't comply with his demands, which Jon can't as he doesn't have half the people demanded anyway.

Not true, he summoned a lot of wildling warriors from the castles he established, _and_ he was also ordering the NW remaining at Castle Black to Hardhome. Who would have been left to hold the Wall? Not to mention that together with the fiasco of the ship expedition, that would have eliminated most of the surviving NW members, which was bound to look quite damning to a suspicious mind.

As to Mance - I know all the excuses. Jon is 100% responsible. He knew Mance's track record, he knew that he was an oathbreaker whose word couldn't be trusted and who was liable to disregard orders. He should have never tried to convince Stannis to spare him and should have executed the traitor himself the moment Mel revealed her deception. Mance is 100x guiltier than Slynt and more, letting him off the hook demonstrates to the wildlings that you can betray the NW in worst possible ways and get away with it. And Ramsey was making these demands in response to Mance's shenangians, performed ostensibly on Jon's command.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

 And there is absolutely no way Marsh would have tried to assassinate Jon while Stannis and his knights were at The Wall, or the Northern clans who left with him, or Jon's supporters who he sent off to garrison other castles.  Once he's isolated the opportunity arises.

Stannis was already gone when Tormund's people crossed, mountain lords had small retinues and their position was somewhat unclear. As to the opportunity to get rid of LC, Jon leading the Hardhome expedition was supposed to be it.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

  Dead people = more wights, though.  That's the piece that's missing here even if humanitarian grounds don't make much impression.  Who to save and who to condemn?  That's as easy one for Marsh but I think letting the wildlings through The Wall was the right decision.  Hardhome is a trickier one because it was always a long shot and risks scarce resources and more lives but that's the reality of command - not all your decisions will turn out to be right.

Yes, but honestly at this point it would be a drop in the bucket re: number of wights, particularly since non-human ones are equally or more dangerous.

I have repeatedly said that letting in Tormund's people was the right decision and even sending ships to Hardhome, to gather information and save who could be saved. Sending all available ships was a mistake - a couple should have been held back and immediately used to trade wildling treasures, such as they were, for food.

Cutting one's losses is also a neccessary part of leadership - wasting precious resources and lives on overland expedition to Hardhome had no rational upside.  

From the PoV of Marsh and Co., if Stannis is really dead, then anybody associated with NW resisting Boltons can only make the situation worse. Nor does it make any sense to protect Stannis's family from them. Why would Boltons listen to any babble about the Others from the people actively fighting them? Jon's sophistry would have convinced nobody.

 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

But they are allowed to make those arguments and they do as you have just recapitulated.  They offer no practical alternatives and I suggest you will struggle to as well.  The problem of food, the general "wildness" of The Wildlings, the unpleasantness of the worst of the raiders, the difficulty of reaching Hardhome and rescuing thousands trapped there.  These are all known and addressed as best they can be.  What are the practical alternatives?  The only thing I hear is "let them die".

The author doesn't allow Jon's opponents to make their arguments in rational and convincing ways, they just spout bigotry and then  try to block him.

Food - this argument should have been made repeatedly, with Marsh informing Jon for how long they'd have it after he let in Tormund, then adjusting for how Hardhome expedition would deplete the stores. Instead of scoffing at wildling treasures, he should have tried to trade them for food.  He should have told Jon how slowly the wagons would move through snowy wilderness and how much of the load would have to be feed for horses, horses that would be eventually  lost. He should have asked how Jon proposed to keep Hardhome expedition safe from the Others, when they made such short work of Jeor Mormont and all his rangers, as well as the ship mission.

  Marsh should have asked what crucial knowledge about the Others Tormund and Val could offer - I was quite annoyed how it never materialized and Jon seemingly "just forgot" about it being one of the more compelling reasons for this alliance. He should have suggested hunting the Gifts bare once Tormund's folk were in and while the weather wasn't yet prohibitively severe. And also, hunting beyond the Wall, while still possible. They were sending out rangers, right? No reason why hunting parties of wildlings couldn't go out to scramble some more provisions.

If Jon continued to deflect the food situation with his nebulous "we'll figure something out", Marsh should have disseminated his concerns among the rank-and-file.

Likewise, he should have asked Jon what he proposed to do if Stannis was defeated. Etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 6:31 PM, the trees have eyes said:

It very obviously is neither a betrayal of the letter of NW vows, nor, considering Jon wants The Wildlings to assist The Watch, it's spirit either.  The NW is a few hundred men after The Fist, with most of their fighting strength lost beyond The Wall.  Stannis and The Wildlings are obvious and necessary allies.  As for a betrayal of the northerners, Jon is a son of Eddard Stark of Winterfell!!!  And you might ask Alys Karstark about that betrayal, given she married Sigorn, the new Magnar of Thenn.

 

What Jon would like to happen is no bearing on what he does and the expected outcome of that decision.

Those oaths say some specific things about guarding the Wall in general. Placing the Weeper south of the Wall with a few hundred thousand under his command to the NW's few hundred jeopardizes the continued existence of the NW. 

The expected response of the Northern lords to hundreds of thousands of wildlings be continually let through the Wall to freely pillage their lands likewise jeopardizes the NW and the Wall being left guarded by anyone.   

Quote

Jon takes none of The NW against Ramsay so you can scarcely say he leaves The Wall completely undefended.  He's established new garrisons at previously abandoned castles.  The only men he plans to take are some of the wildlings at Castle Black.  And the reason he goes is in answer to Ramsay threatening to kill him and everyone else if he doesn't comply with his demands, which Jon can't as he doesn't have half the people demanded anyway.

Mance was Mel's prisoner hidden as Rattleshirt by a glamour.  He was sent to rescue a grey girl on a dying horse making her way towards The Wall.  Mission creep has severely magnified the problem but it's naïve to think The Pink Letter is all about Arya - it's about Bolton's enemies, which is why it demands Mel, Selyse and Shireen as well as (F)Arya, Reek and Jon('s head).

Then Jon should have added to his reading of the Pink Letter that he was absolutely powerless to stop Melisandre's will being done then, cause Mance Rayder has abandoned his post, fathered children, taken a wife, crowned himself king, and ruled over lands beyond the wall, and led and commanded attacks against the NW since then. He was an oathbreaker and condemned as such by Jon himself. To then somehow spare him and set him free south of the Wall is clearly aiding in oathbreaking, an accusation that Jon chooses to relate to his men and does nothing to fight. To take steps to reunite Mance with his forces far south of the Wall, which again, no matter what Jon himself wants as a result of his actions, is what he doing, is more oathbreaking

And the oaths are NOT the only rules the NW is expected to live by, they are stated to leave their families behind, they aren't allowed to build defenses south of Castle Black because they are not allowed to pose a threat the realms of men, they are not allowed to pick and choose which realms of men they defend or take part in their wars. Mance and Jon undergoing operations to free Arya Stark from Ramsay is doing exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maia said:

Sure. I was merely pointing out that you can't use Ghost's wolf-dar as an argument for Marsh's culpability, when Ghost didn't single him out in any way, despite several opportunities to do so. His nervousness was a general warning of something bad coming, but it wasn't in any way specific. Was the steward he attacked even one of the assassins?

I don't buy any of this.  Grey Wind never attacks Roose Bolton either.  This doesn't exonerate him from being one of the key figures in The Red Wedding and the author uses an identical technique to show us a plot is afoot against Jon without pointing a blazing arrow at the chief culprits.  We're supposed to be able to join the dots.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

It did change the situation drastically, though - prior to that, Jon intended to lead  expedition to Hardhome himself and take mainly wildlings with him - I am certain that Marsh and Co. hoped that it would have been his death because it was a suicide mission and even intended to ensure it somehow.

Doubtful.  If Marsh is so determined to preserve the Watch then Jon's assassination would be best conducted before he went north of The Wall and in your and his eyes doomed more of the band of brothers to death and wightification.  The only thing that changes was the direction Jon was heading in and the immediacy of his departure.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

The wildlings forgot the purpose of NW and the Wall too and did what they could to impede both.

Absolutely true but Mance is leading the Wildlings south not to conquer but to survive.  Since the re-emergence of The Others the centuries/millennia long status quo ante has changed utterly.  The question is whether the Wildlings should be seen as human beings who belong to "The Realms of Men" and should be protected from The Others or if the only good wildling is a dead wildling.  Marsh has an answer to that and I hope you don't share it.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

It seems very unfair that after doing as much harm as they did they are being welcomed with open arms and get to share scarce resources of NW, even more so that when those run out

Unfair?  Yes, but what is the alternative other than "let them all die"?  If you're prepared to let them all die then it's a very simple situation to deal with.  If you're not then there are a host of problems to deal with.  Best case scenario is that some wildlings will be reliable and fight while others desert and roam loose. 

About the same as you would expect for Northerners or the NW itself, they are human too and the series begins with Gared's desertion, leads on to the wildling party who nearly kidnap Bran while he is out riding containing two deserters and continues with Chett and his conspirators plan to murder Mormont and all the NW senior officers at the Fist, a plan interrupted and delayed until Mormont's murder at Craster's.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

And yes, Marsh is unable to see beyond this, but it is hard. Jon, OTOH, is just refusing to think about the eventual consequences of his actions, concentrating solely on the present.

The thing about life and death situations is the immediacy of the need for action.  That doesn't mean Jon ignores the problems that are coming later down the line.  He takes hostages to ensure good behaviour, he tells Stannis that he could make good use of Mance because he knows the wildlings will be more disciplined and less quarrelsome if Mance is in charge of them, he attempts to secure a loan from Braavos to secure food supplies.  It's certainly true that all these efforts could prove futile but the question is whether pessimism should preclude the attempt and the wildlings should be left or shunted north of The Wall.  For me, the answer is no.

I understand your points but I don't really see you offering any practical alternatives, just criticisms of Jon's decisions and a tendency to lean towards going full Marsh.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

There was little any LC in this position could have done against Stannis in any case. Advising and warning him crossed the line, but as so often with Jon, he is written to not have any real alternatives, given Ramsey's awfulness.

Crossed what line?  Stannis showed up to help, is there not some obligation on Jon / the NW to recognise that in some way.  It is surely better to have support than to alienate the one man who helped - or see him get killed.  Political neutrality is the operating condition of the NW because otherwise it risks becoming a private army beholden to no one but itself or a mercenary force "for hire".  Once The Others emerge and everyone is asked but no one but Stannis shows up to help the reality is the militarily depleted NW need to work with Stannis.  This is a no-brainer. And there is no putting the genie back in the bottle regarding neutrality though I think Jon does a good job of not allowing Stannis to basically take over and garrison the castles as he threatens.  It's worth pointing out that although The NW see it as their duty to guard The Wall everyone, Stannis included have an interest in doing so and Stannis has zero intention of leaving a few hundred rapists, murderers, thieves, orphans, rebels and political exiles to safeguard The World.  Of course this brings politics into The Watch and there is a faction who see Stannis as a lost cause and want no part of him, despite the help he brought them.  This strikes me as realistic.

Ramsay is really no worse than Vargo Hoat, Gregor Clegane, Qyburn or Euron Greyjoy.  You can fault GRRM for writing the antagonists as creepy villains if you want to but that's the story.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

I don't see that being Ned's son precludes Jon from betraying the northeners. He is only thinking about and empathising with the wildlings in his PoV, while never wasting a thought on how his decisions would impact the northeners and how they might react to them. He has given up on convincing them of the threat, even though it really shouldn't be hard to find another wight and parade it or it's twitching extremities before the northern lords. Etc.

So letting Wildlings through The Wall is "betraying the northerners"?  It's not even spitting distance from saying that to saying all wildlings must remain north of The Wall and die in order to avoid the betrayal of depleting Northern food supplies and all the carnage that will ensue if that were to happen.

There's a few mountain clans at The Wall.  They have eyes and ears and the NW and Wildlings have tongues so it's beyond belief that they haven't heard what happened on The Fist and why The Wildlings were trying to cross and were allowed to cross over, or that the story has spread, being pretty important news to folks in The North.  GRRM obviously wants the Boltons & Freys to clash with Stannis and the Northerners he rallies around him (don't forget he offered to release Jon from his vows and name him Lord of Winterfell) so he focuses the story on that, the build up to "The Battle of Ice" with the crisis at The Wall kept curiously separate.  It's an authorial decision for story flow and dramatic effect, not any negligence on Jon's part.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

As to Alys's situation, ironically it supports my argument rather than yours. Why does she need and has room for these wildlings? Because she intends to kill people loyal to her usurping great-uncle and cousins. That's the reason why there will be resources available to the Thenns in Karhold. It is a zero-sum game - for wildlings to live, northeners have to die. It is also super-convenient that Thenns are most like the northeners in culture and also don't seem to have any dependents, aka "useless mouths".

That depends what your argument is.  Alys Karstark does not consider letting Wildlings through The Wall a betrayal, she finds them useful allies.  Given Northern losses in TWOT5K an infusion of new blood might be helpful to more Houses than just Karstark.  Again, though, the choice seems clear: let them through with hostages for good behaviour / offer them incentives to bind them into the realm - or leave them to die.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

As to Mance - I know all the excuses. Jon is 100% responsible. He knew Mance's track record, he knew that he was an oathbreaker whose word couldn't be trusted and who was liable to disregard orders. He should have never tried to convince Stannis to spare him and should have executed the traitor himself the moment Mel revealed her deception. Mance is 100x guiltier than Slynt and more, letting him off the hook demonstrates to the wildlings that you can betray the NW in worst possible ways and get away with it. And Ramsey was making these demands in response to Mance's shenangians, performed ostensibly on Jon's command.

100% responsible?  That would imply you consider him solely responsible.  I guess he tried really hard to persuade Mel to help then!!  :rolleyes:

But it's this dogmatic insistence of the sacredness of the NW vows that seems the hardest thing to cut through.  The issue is how to protect The Realms of Men or, with application to The Wlidlings, how to save as many as can be saved.  Mance is unquestionably a deserter and it is likely he will have fought and killed members of The NW.  But if he can bring The Wildlings with him, and the reaction to the Shieldhall speech shows he can, then absolutely he should be spared.  Executing him on point of principle is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

Yes, but honestly at this point it would be a drop in the bucket re: number of wights, particularly since non-human ones are equally or more dangerous.

What's a few thousand lives here or there, hey?  And those wightified babes and infants couldn't be that hard to "unkill" if they were still crawling, unless they all turned into Chucky.  There was a bear on The Fist but no giants are mentioned so either GRRM is keeping his powder dry or we should assume mostly (formerly) human wights.  A drop in the bucket?  How many do you think there are, millions?!

10 hours ago, Maia said:

I have repeatedly said that letting in Tormund's people was the right decision and even sending ships to Hardhome, to gather information and save who could be saved.

You have argued repeatedly and at length that there is no food for them and that letting wildlings through The Wall is a betrayal of both Northerners and NW as it will consume their scarce resources and that the Wildlings will inevitably turn on them when this happens.  You can't have it both ways.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

Cutting one's losses is also a neccessary part of leadership - wasting precious resources and lives on overland expedition to Hardhome had no rational upside.  

Only if you phrase it that way.  The rational upside would be the mission's success.  Unless you are Marsh, in which case the mission's success is worse than it's failure.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

Why would Boltons listen to any babble about the Others from the people actively fighting them? Jon's sophistry would have convinced nobody.

A little earlier in this thread you were accusing Jon of not doing enough to convince the Northern Lords of the threat of The Others, saying "He has given up on convincing them of the threat, even though it really shouldn't be hard to find another wight and parade it or it's twitching extremities before the northern lords. Etc".  Now you provide the simple answer that they wouldn't listen to his "babble" because it would be regarded as "sophistry".  You really can't have it both ways.

10 hours ago, Maia said:

The author doesn't allow Jon's opponents to make their arguments in rational and convincing ways, they just spout bigotry and then  try to block him.

Food - this argument should have been made repeatedly, with Marsh informing Jon for how long they'd have it after he let in Tormund, then adjusting for how Hardhome expedition would deplete the stores. Instead of scoffing at wildling treasures, he should have tried to trade them for food.  He should have told Jon how slowly the wagons would move through snowy wilderness and how much of the load would have to be feed for horses, horses that would be eventually  lost. He should have asked how Jon proposed to keep Hardhome expedition safe from the Others, when they made such short work of Jeor Mormont and all his rangers, as well as the ship mission.

  Marsh should have asked what crucial knowledge about the Others Tormund and Val could offer - I was quite annoyed how it never materialized and Jon seemingly "just forgot" about it being one of the more compelling reasons for this alliance. He should have suggested hunting the Gifts bare once Tormund's folk were in and while the weather wasn't yet prohibitively severe. And also, hunting beyond the Wall, while still possible. They were sending out rangers, right? No reason why hunting parties of wildlings couldn't go out to scramble some more provisions.

If Jon continued to deflect the food situation with his nebulous "we'll figure something out", Marsh should have disseminated his concerns among the rank-and-file.

Likewise, he should have asked Jon what he proposed to do if Stannis was defeated. Etc, etc.

I found Marsh's information in the store room quite rationally presented though of course it was tinged with bigotry.  If it had contained no bigotry, what would have been different though?

You raise objections and concerns, as Marsh and I think Yarwyck, to a lesser extent, do.  But as I said in my last post I think you will struggle to find practical alternatives to Jon's policies and I see nothing here that offers an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

What Jon would like to happen is no bearing on what he does and the expected outcome of that decision.

Those oaths say some specific things about guarding the Wall in general.

Let's not pretend that he doesn't take hostages for good behaviour and send wildlings to garrison the deserted castles.  There is a plan of action and it's aim is that the wildlings give assurances of good conduct and/or assist the NW.

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Placing the Weeper south of the Wall with a few hundred thousand under his command to the NW's few hundred jeopardizes the continued existence of the NW.

The Weeper has not agreed to Jon's terms and been let through The Wall.  His response was to send back the eyes of the rangers sent to offer the terms.

I assume that's a typo on the numbers in his raiding party but the raiders don't lead armies they lead bands of several hundred.  Harma Dogshead and Rattleshirt are both dead, The Weeper north of The Wall.  I can't think of any other raider or any south of The Wall.

You're right on the paltry number the NW now musters.  It's why Jon is keen to work with Stannis and to secure Tormund / Mance for leadership of The Wildings so their numbers are boosted.

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

The expected response of the Northern lords to hundreds of thousands of wildlings be continually let through the Wall to freely pillage their lands likewise jeopardizes the NW and the Wall being left guarded by anyone.

Maybe it wasn't a typo after all.  How many Wildlings do you think there are?  The raiders were never very many in number and the vast majority of wildlings are just simple folk managing a subsistence living by whatever means they can. They are the free folk not an army of orcs.  It might help to consider the situation a refugee crisis rather than analogous to tens of thousands of Dothraki screamers scorching the earth throughout the North.  Just look at how easily Stannis defeated Mance's "army" with a couple of thousand, or how Mormont intended to face them with 300 rangers.

They are nowhere near as many as you make out and are mostly non-combatants.

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Then Jon should have added to his reading of the Pink Letter that he was absolutely powerless to stop Melisandre's will being done then, cause Mance Rayder has abandoned his post, fathered children, taken a wife, crowned himself king, and ruled over lands beyond the wall, and led and commanded attacks against the NW since then. He was an oathbreaker and condemned as such by Jon himself. To then somehow spare him and set him free south of the Wall is clearly aiding in oathbreaking, an accusation that Jon chooses to relate to his men and does nothing to fight. To take steps to reunite Mance with his forces far south of the Wall, which again, no matter what Jon himself wants as a result of his actions, is what he doing, is more oathbreaking

Mance is absolutely a deserter and oathbreaker.  He is also The King beyond The Wall and the one person who can bind The Wildlings together and, to an extent, enforce discipline and a common purpose.  Stannis may say that laws should be made of iron not of pudding but if ever there was a reason for a stay of execution / grant of clemency / presidential pardon if the guilty man agrees to co-operate then this is it.

You'll note I deliberately reference real world systems of justice where the sentence or verdict written in law can be set aside if the circumstances are deemed to warrant it. It's my view that this is clearly the case here. 

Executing Mance, rejecting Stannis, leaving the wildlings north of The Wall to die: these are all small-minded, rigid decisions that miss the bigger picture and the adaptability needed to surmount this crisis.  Hold your nose if you want but "needs must".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowen Marsh isn't some Lannister lackey or evil schemer.

He played a role behind the scenes during the last choosing, but the reason why he was in favor of the Slynt candidacy was because he thought that the Lannisters must prevail eventually and that it would be good if the Watch were led by a man with good connections to court. That was no bad assessment of the political situation at that point in light of what he knew.

Electing Jon was utter stupidity because it clearly sends the wrong message to the Iron Throne, decreasing the chances that they will get men and support from down there which they desperately need.

It is clear that Marsh has problems with Jon's wildling policy ... but it is equally clear that he only decided to move against him once it became clear he had broken his vows and intended to break them some more.

If the wildlings had been the big issue, Jon would have been gutted before he could allow Tormund and company through the Wall.

It is Jon's own fault that he is gutted since he failed to do what a good leader must ... convince his men to support his policies or take measures to get rid of them or at least properly protect his own person. A smart guy would have believed Melisandre's warnings.

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...