Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/22/2022 at 8:57 PM, Bowen 747 said:

The wildlings will not be placated if Bowen Marsh becomes Lord Commander but they will not hang around to do anything about it.  The wildlings will leave the wall.  Bowen will call for an immediate election and he will be voted to replace Jon Snow.  

Or Thorne.  Thorne would make for a good commander.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, sifth said:

The Lord of the North who is a psychopath who enjoys rapping people and skinning others alive. What a true hero of the people Bown Marsh is. Whatever would The Watch do, without such a paragon of good. 

To be fair, I might prefer being skinned alive to listening to Roose Bolton rapping. 

Edited by Lord Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/6/2022 at 3:08 AM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

 Jon was the traitor.  Bowen Marsh executed a traitor. Bowen will be the next lord commander and the vote will be heavily in his favor.  Jon broke the law and betrayed the watch. Every reasonable person on the wall will see that. 

Bowen will feed R’hllor’s fires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jonno is dead he's coming back one way or another. Bowen Marsh isn't.

Bowen Marsh is a stubborn fool who could not get over his petty prejudices and see the bigger picture. Through his cowardly and illegal assault on the Lord Commander he has come far closer to dooming the Night's Watch than Jon Snow ever has. Claiming his actions were 'for the watch' is a pathetic attempt to make himself feel less guilty about being a murderer. He will be lucky to last five seconds after his idiocy before he is put down by loyal men of the watch. Calling that incompetent traitor a pomegranate is an insult to all pomegranates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Jonno is dead he's coming back one way or another. Bowen Marsh isn't.

Bowen Marsh is a stubborn fool who could not get over his petty prejudices and see the bigger picture. Through his cowardly and illegal assault on the Lord Commander he has come far closer to dooming the Night's Watch than Jon Snow ever has. Claiming his actions were 'for the watch' is a pathetic attempt to make himself feel less guilty about being a murderer. He will be lucky to last five seconds after his idiocy before he is put down by loyal men of the watch. Calling that incompetent traitor a pomegranate is an insult to all pomegranates.

I can agree with almost all of it but it really wasn't illegal. The Night's Watch is expected to police it's own on the matter of oathbreaking and Jon did just stand in front of them, explained how he set free Mance Rayder (a known and admitted oathbreaker who had been condemned) south of the Wall, for the sake of saving the family he left behind when he took his oath. 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.

Edited by Denam_Pavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

I can agree with almost all of it but it really wasn't illegal. The Night's Watch is expected to police it's own on the matter of oathbreaking and Jon did just stand in front of them, explained how he set free Mance Rayder (a known and admitted oathbreaker who had been condemned) south of the Wall, for the sake of saving the family he left behind when he took his oath. 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.

I understand that Jon's actions can be considered oathbreaking, but I still think that legally Bowen Marsh had no right to assassinate Jon. A mutiny is not legal. Jon was the elected and rightful leader of the watch. One can consider Marsh's actions justified (I don't) but I really can't see how him stabbing Jon was not illegal. He might think he's executing Jon as an oathbreaker, as Ned did with Gared. But it's not the same because he doesn't have the authority. Also, Jon doesn't have the opportunity to say any last words as Gared did.

To clarify, I'm not saying Jon's actions were legal so Bowen Marsh couldn't kill him. I'm saying that regardless of whether Jon broke the law or not, Bowen Marsh assassinating him was illegal. It was an assassination, not the legal execution of an oathbreaker, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I understand that Jon's actions can be considered oathbreaking, but I still think that legally Bowen Marsh had no right to assassinate Jon. A mutiny is not legal. Jon was the elected and rightful leader of the watch. One can consider Marsh's actions justified (I don't) but I really can't see how him stabbing Jon was not illegal. He might think he's executing Jon as an oathbreaker, as Ned did with Gared. But it's not the same because he doesn't have the authority. Also, Jon doesn't have the opportunity to say any last words as Gared did.

To clarify, I'm not saying Jon's actions were legal so Bowen Marsh couldn't kill him. I'm saying that regardless of whether Jon broke the law or not, Bowen Marsh assassinating him was illegal. It was an assassination, not the legal execution of an oathbreaker, in my opinion.

I doubt the Night's King (a rightful and elected Lord-Commander as well) was given last words either. And while that comparison is extreme, Jon did have an army of non Night's Watch personel at the Wall with him. Two if you consider the Queen's Men. That Bowen's men couldn't stand on ceremony when it comes to this was true enough, and if they waited any longer, more oathbreaking would be committed. Heck, If Jon's own actions don't matter, then he was never Lord-Commander, nor was Mormont, it's always been Bloodraven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

I doubt the Night's King (a rightful and elected Lord-Commander as well) was given last words either. And while that comparison is extreme, Jon did have an army of non Night's Watch personel at the Wall with him. Two if you consider the Queen's Men. That Bowen's men couldn't stand on ceremony when it comes to this was true enough, and if they waited any longer, more oathbreaking would be committed. Heck, If Jon's own actions don't matter, then he was never Lord-Commander, nor was Mormont, it's always been Bloodraven.

If a Night's watchman is allowed to kill anyone they deem an oathbreaker with no due process, then why didn't Allister Thorne kill Jon earlier when he came back from his mission with the Halfhand? The way Jon was killed was clearly not sanctioned by the rest of the watch. He was stabbed like Caesar. If this is just watchmen carrying out their duty of executing an oathbreaker, why didn't Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators act as soon as Jon declared his oathbreaking intent? Surely they would not have faced opposition if they were supported by the law. Why do they wait until Jon is almost alone, giving him more time to follow through with his oathbreaking? I can understand wanting to avoid the wildlings, but if such actions are allowed within the system of the Watch, they should have been able to gather far more support. They wouldn't have to wait until Jon was alone. They wouldn't have to stab him in the dark. They would have been able to challenge Jon openly with the backing of the law. That they could do none of these things leads me to believe that their actions were illegal.

I'm not trying to say that Jon's actions don't matter. Clearly not everyone agreed with him. I just don't think Bowen Marsh's actions in response to Jon's were legal, regardless of whether Jon's actions were legal or illegal.

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as soon enough the people at the wall will have bigger things to worry about than whether Jon's killing was justfied and legal or not. Though I suspect Bowen Marsh is not long for that world, as I said before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

If a Night's watchman is allowed to kill anyone they deem an oathbreaker with no due process, then why didn't Allister Thorne kill Jon earlier when he came back from his mission with the Halfhand? The way Jon was killed was clearly not sanctioned by the rest of the watch. He was stabbed like Caesar. If this is just watchmen carrying out their duty of executing an oathbreaker, why didn't Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators act as soon as Jon declared his oathbreaking intent? Surely they would not have faced opposition if they were supported by the law. Why do they wait until Jon is almost alone, giving him more time to follow through with his oathbreaking? I can understand wanting to avoid the wildlings, but if such actions are allowed within the system of the Watch, they should have been able to gather far more support. They wouldn't have to wait until Jon was alone. They wouldn't have to stab him in the dark. They would have been able to challenge Jon openly with the backing of the law. That they could do none of these things leads me to believe that their actions were illegal.

I'm not trying to say that Jon's actions don't matter. Clearly not everyone agreed with him. I just don't think Bowen Marsh's actions in response to Jon's were legal, regardless of whether Jon's actions were legal or illegal.

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as soon enough the people at the wall will have bigger things to worry about than whether Jon's killing was justfied and legal or not. Though I suspect Bowen Marsh is not long for that world, as I said before.

They were vastly outnumbered by wildlings that are ignorant of any said laws in the room in question. Given that Ramsay declared his intention to come for Shireen and Selyse, the Queen's men would have quite a lot to say about intervening with this mission. That they would not face opposition if they were supported by the law isn't belief anyone in this world has, not Ned, not Stannis, not anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Denam_Pavel said:

They were vastly outnumbered by wildlings that are ignorant of any said laws in the room in question. Given that Ramsay declared his intention to come for Shireen and Selyse, the Queen's men would have quite a lot to say about intervening with this mission. That they would not face opposition if they were supported by the law isn't belief anyone in this world has, not Ned, not Stannis, not anyone.

 I don't think they would have faced no opposition just because they had the law on their side. I'm saying they would have had more support to start with because of that and so wouldn't need to be so secretive about it. When they attack Jon, it is dark, he is unguarded and distracted, few other watchmen are around to witness it. Bowen Marsh only has a few co-conspirators. His actions, for me, indicate that he himself did not believe the law was on his side.

It is completely fine if you believe otherwise. I don't think it will be very important in later books anyway, aside from Jon feeling betrayed, because from his point of view, he was just trying to do what was best for the Watch. Bowen Marsh's aides may well feel the same way, we could even hear them try to use it as a defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

They were vastly outnumbered by wildlings that are ignorant of any said laws in the room in question. Given that Ramsay declared his intention to come for Shireen and Selyse, the Queen's men would have quite a lot to say about intervening with this mission. That they would not face opposition if they were supported by the law isn't belief anyone in this world has, not Ned, not Stannis, not anyone.

The big problem with the "For The Watch" argument is that Marsh et al do not speak for The Watch, they are a reactionary cabal who oppose Jon's policies and wish to remove him.  They are only able to (maybe, maybe not) assassinate him because Jon has sent those loyal to him away to places like Greyguard and other officers like Cotter Pyke and Denis Mallister are away from Castle Black at their respective posts.

Jon was elected LC by the Nights Watch.  Admittedly with a bit of manipulation by Sam but both Mallister and Pyke agree to step aside to allow Jon to take the position.  Marsh attempts a coup.  I'm constantly surprised by how many people accept Marsh's arguments that he and his coterie speak "For The Watch" and are it's core and it's moral backbone, the loyal, dedicated, noble knights in black.  The last LC, Mormont, thought and said otherwise very clearly. They're embittered, narrow-minded and limited men, lacking in vision and completely out of their depth.

All they've done is plunge Castle Black into chaos and start a revolt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The big problem with the "For The Watch" argument is that Marsh et al do not speak for The Watch, they are a reactionary cabal who oppose Jon's policies and wish to remove him.  They are only able to (maybe, maybe not) assassinate him because Jon has sent those loyal to him away to places like Greyguard and other officers like Cotter Pyke and Denis Mallister are away from Castle Black at their respective posts.

Jon was elected LC by the Nights Watch.  Admittedly with a bit of manipulation by Sam but both Mallister and Pyke agree to step aside to allow Jon to take the position.  Marsh attempts a coup.  I'm constantly surprised by how many people accept Marsh's arguments that he and his coterie speak "For The Watch" and are it's core and it's moral backbone, the loyal, dedicated, noble knights in black.  The last LC, Mormont, thought and said otherwise very clearly. They're embittered, narrow-minded and limited men, lacking in vision and completely out of their depth.

All they've done is plunge Castle Black into chaos and start a revolt.

We do not know that. These are the Night's Watch members that are in the room when Jon reads his letter, and take action before he and his wildling army leave for the south. Whatever conspiring they have or have not done up till that point, getting Cotter Pyke and Denis Mallister involved and build a greater consensus against Jon is not an option on the table. It was either led Jon go or do things to nip this expedition in bud right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

We do not know that. These are the Night's Watch members that are in the room when Jon reads his letter, and take action before he and his wildling army leave for the south. Whatever conspiring they have or have not done up till that point, getting Cotter Pyke and Denis Mallister involved and build a greater consensus against Jon is not an option on the table. It was either led Jon go or do things to nip this expedition in bud right now.

"We do not know that".  We do actually, it's a theme throughout the series.  Slynt, Thorne, Marsh are part of a faction within the Watch who are in dialogue with the Iron Throne.  The arrival of Stannis and Jon's uneasy arrangements with him are as anathema to these guys as letting wildlings through The Wall.  The Pink Letter makes demands that cannot be met and Jon publicly declares he will not take NW members to face Ramsay.

I'll meet you halfway and say maybe Marsh does what he believes is right but in that he speaks for himself and his co-conspirators only, not "for The Watch".

It's a rather sterile debate in any case.  The big issue is The Others and the threat they pose, not the impossible political neutrality the NW can no longer retain once Stannis arrives to help.  Marsh & co see Stannis as the enemy as much as Jon, which only shows how small minded GRRM wants to paint them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

"We do not know that".  We do actually, it's a theme throughout the series.  Slynt, Thorne, Marsh are part of a faction within the Watch who are in dialogue with the Iron Throne.  The arrival of Stannis and Jon's uneasy arrangements with him are as anathema to these guys as letting wildlings through The Wall.  The Pink Letter makes demands that cannot be met and Jon publicly declares he will not take NW members to face Ramsay.

I'll meet you halfway and say maybe Marsh does what he believes is right but in that he speaks for himself and his co-conspirators only, not "for The Watch".

It's a rather sterile debate in any case.  The big issue is The Others and the threat they pose, not the impossible political neutrality the NW can no longer retain once Stannis arrives to help.  Marsh & co see Stannis as the enemy as much as Jon, which only shows how small minded GRRM wants to paint them to be.

There is absolutely no way that Thorne or Slynt could have possibly been consulted on this, we'd be a day later before Thorne or Slynt could have learnt about the Pink Letter, another day or so before their reply could have reached Castle Black, unless it turns out they've abandoned the posts Jon assigned them too, and were lurking in some secret room in Castle Black to give Marsh his instruction, that would indeed change quite a bit.

But as it stands, Whatever conspiracy meeting we imagine they've been a part of beforehand, this is a reaction to the Pink Letter by present members of the Night's Watch alone, just that, which was incredibly damning for Jon, along with his declared intention to march a force of wildlings on Winterfell itself.

Edited by Denam_Pavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

There is absolutely no way that Thorne or Slynt could have possibly been consulted on this,

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...