How Long Does Bowen Marsh have Left to Live?

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

Better the sword on the neck than the flaying knife on the fingers. 

[Aldarion]

34 minutes ago, Wisconsin said:

You're not giving Bowen Marsh a chance.  Read those chapters again.  Jon was in the act of leading his troops to assault a subject of Westeros.  The NW and its sworn members are not allowed by law to do that.  Jon broke the law.  The lord steward was left with no choice.  You might reassess your opinion of him because he looks like a hero from where I'm standing. 

We are talking about a letter sent by Ramsay Bolton here, who threatened to kill everybody. I don't think he would have given Night's Watch any chance. OTOH, it might still have been a better option to just fortify castles against an attack from the south than to call for an offensive action.

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 hour ago, Wisconsin said:

You're not giving Bowen Marsh a chance.  Read those chapters again.  Jon was in the act of leading his troops to assault a subject of Westeros.  The NW and its sworn members are not allowed by law to do that.  Jon broke the law.  The lord steward was left with no choice.  You might reassess your opinion of him because he looks like a hero from where I'm standing. 

No, we're not giving him a chance because only idiots with no social knowledge would do that. Why should we give a traitorous, incompetent, whiny, childish idiot who proposed letting women and children die and thus be added to the Other's numbers just because he didn't want the status quo to change a chance?

You might reassess your opinion of him because he looks like a dumba** traitor from where I'm standing. 

 

[Craving Peaches]

10 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

No, we're not giving him a chance because only idiots with no social knowledge would do that. Why should we give a traitorous, incompetent, whiny, childish idiot who proposed letting women and children die and thus be added to the Other's numbers just because he didn't want the status quo to change a chance?

It's not even like he was a smart but bigoted person who did some sort of Machiavellian power play to bump off Jon so he could be next Lord Commander or something. He was stupid and the decision to assassinate Jon in that manner was stupid. What does he think is going to happen now that Jon's dead? What did he think would happen if they just left all those Wildings to die and join the Others?

[James West]

The danger to Bowen will come from a revived and wighted Jon Snow.  Jon even when he was alive was not the poster boy for good temper and sound judgement.  Jon the Wight will be on Stoneheart mode.  He will two agendas.  Find Arya and kill everybody in Castle Black.  Neither of which serves any moral principles.  The Brotherhood will understand why the men killed Jon.  They have witnesses to prove Jon was guilty of treason.  Any person who heard Jon in the Shield Hall can testify to the madness of the Arya rescue operation.  Wunwun's disposition presents a lot of problems for the Crows if the giant calms on his own.  He killed an anointed knight in a fit of rage.  He is a dead giant unless he can prove his innocence.  He will need somebody to speak for him because his language skills is not up to that task.  There is sadly nobody who can command respect who will step up for WW.  Bowen is a fair man though and might at least agree to ask a Wildling to interpret for WW to gather the facts.  

[Nathan Stark]

Even when we account for the Rangers who are Jon loyalists, most of them aren't at Castle Black. Grenn, Pip, Giant etc, are dispersed at other castles along the Wall, not surrounding Jon to protect him. This was among the crucial mistakes Jon made as Lord Commander; sending his supporters away. I get why he sent men he could trust to accomplish his goals, but he left only people like Bowen Marsh and a bunch of surly Builders and Steward who mostly hate him. Even if most Watchmen either support Jon, or at least oppose killing him, those men mostly aren't at Castle Black. Bowen is probably safe for now from that quarter. 

Would the Queen's men want to get involved in a power dispute at the Wall? Doubtful. Their presense there was one of the controversies driving Bowen to assassinate Jon. Plus, there probably aren't enough of them at Castle Black to support Jon, even if that was what Sylese wanted to do. They'd just alienate themselves if they got involved in Watch politics at this point, and they aren't popular enough with anybody at the Wall.

The Wildlings have numbers, but not discipline. Suppose Bowen's people set fire to the Sheild Hall, where a large number of Wildling leaders are currently still residing as far as we know? Taking out the leaders of the mostly undisciplined group of barbarians would go a long way towards mitigating them as a threat. 

We don't know how big Bowen's conspiracy was, but we do know that most of the Watchmen at Castle Black were Stewards and Builders, two groups that mostly hated Jon and supported Bowen. They might be divided over whether assassinating the Lord Commander was the right thing to do, but Bowen's bigotry towards the Wildlings is widely shared in the Watch. That alone might be enough for him to take control of the situation at Castle Black, at least for the short term. We may not like Bowen, but we shouldn't dismiss him as a threat either. I doubt he's going to go down without a fight.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 11/11/2022 at 1:35 PM, Canon Claude said:

Bowen will likely die a gruesome death at the hands of the wildlings once they find out about Jon. I give him three chapters at the most.

One chapter , two at the most . As he will attempt to expel the Free folk .

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

We may not like Bowen, but we shouldn't dismiss him as a threat either. I doubt he's going to go down without a fight.

I don't think he had no plan but I do believe he was forced to rush the assassination. I think he probably wanted to off Jon somewhere quieter. How the rushed assassination affects the rest of the plan remains to be seen.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Nathan Stark said:

They might be divided over whether assassinating the Lord Commander was the right thing to do,

I would hope so, it wasn't that long ago that LC Mormont was assassinated.  I'm not sure Bowen has as much support as you assume.  Not liking the LC doesn't always end in murder.  Bowen's plan was weak and executed poorly and at a bad time.  He's toast.

[Darth Sidious]

On 11/12/2022 at 5:30 PM, LongRider said:

I would hope so, it wasn't that long ago that LC Mormont was assassinated.  I'm not sure Bowen has as much support as you assume.  Not liking the LC doesn't always end in murder.  Bowen's plan was weak and executed poorly and at a bad time.  He's toast.

Bowen was not plotting to kill Jon until the shield hall admission. Jon was the person who was at fault. He dragged the NW into a conflict with the Boltons.  He sent a known criminal, an oathbreaker, to get Arya and bring her to the wall. Bowen and any honorable man of the watch would assassinate Jon. Jon’ was crap as a leader. They had to get rid of Jon. Every honorable man would side with Bowen. 

[Kierria]

Bowen Marsh has nothing to worry about from the other men of the Night's Watch.  They all know the rules.  Jon broke the rules when he plotted and carried out the plot to take his sister away from Ramsay Bolton.  It was an act of aggression from the commander of the watch which has remained neutral for a long time.  The men will quickly elect Bowen Marsh to lead them.  The Wildlings liked Jon but they are not stupid enough to fight the men in black for him. 

[SeanF]

How mean of Jon, to fight the Boltons, who only wish to be left in peace to flay and rape the Northern population!

Bowen Marsh will last as long as long as it takes for Melisandre to build a pyre, and then to set it alight, with him on top of it.

[Craving Peaches]

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Bowen and any honorable man of the watch would assassinate Jon.

Does not compute.

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Jon’ was crap as a leader.

Debatable.

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

They had to get rid of Jon.

No one was forced to kill Jon.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

How mean of Jon, to fight the Boltons, who only wish to be left in peace to flay and rape the Northern population!

Absolutely disgusting behaviour! Next you'll be telling me he wanted to treat the lower classes like actual human beings. Disgraceful I say!

[Aldarion]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

How mean of Jon, to fight the Boltons, who only wish to be left in peace to flay and rape the Northern population!

Bowen Marsh will last as long as long as it takes for Melisandre to build a pyre, and then to set it alight, with him on top of it.

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Absolutely disgusting behaviour! Next you'll be telling me he wanted to treat the lower classes like actual human beings. Disgraceful I say!

Night's Watch takes an oath not to participate in the wars of the kingdom. Jon was about to break that oath - and literally all other oaths he had taken upon joining the Night's Watch.

Frankly, considering importance of oaths in the medieval world, murdering him was a sort of mercy. If Westeros is in any way, shape or form like real medieval world (well, I know it isn't, but still), then Jon was about to doom his soul to eternal torment by going off to fight the Boltons. Death was better.

Of course, considering the fact that according to the letter Ramsay was about to come North and attack the Night's Watch, Jon Snow's decision can be excused on grounds of self-defense. But I do not think rebels stood and thought for long enough to reach that conclusion.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

29 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Night's Watch takes an oath not to participate in the wars of the kingdom. Jon was about to break that oath - and literally all other oaths he had taken upon joining the Night's Watch.

Frankly, considering importance of oaths in the medieval world, murdering him was a sort of mercy. If Westeros is in any way, shape or form like real medieval world (well, I know it isn't, but still), then Jon was about to doom his soul to eternal torment by going off to fight the Boltons. Death was better.

Of course, considering the fact that according to the letter Ramsay was about to come North and attack the Night's Watch, Jon Snow's decision can be excused on grounds of self-defense. But I do not think rebels stood and thought for long enough to reach that conclusion.

The fact that a rabid dog with a reputation like Ramsay threatened to attack the Watch is 100% a reason for self defense. If they agreed to send Stannis’ family and supporters then they would be interfering in Westerosi politics. That threat put the Watch in obvious danger. Jon was 100% justified in preemptively Marching. on Ramsay with what he had. Jon himself may have had selfish reasons for it but it was also justified in the other context 

[Craving Peaches]

35 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Jon was about to break that oath - and literally all other oaths he had taken upon joining the Night's Watch.

I think the situation is ambiguous. Jon was going to attack Ramsay - after Ramsay threatened the whole of the watch. There was no way for Jon to meet Ramsay's demands so he either attacks or sits there waiting to be attacked. One could argue that Jon started the whole thing but he himself admits he can't do anything for 'Arya' while she is under Bolton control. So...

[SeanF]

38 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Night's Watch takes an oath not to participate in the wars of the kingdom. Jon was about to break that oath - and literally all other oaths he had taken upon joining the Night's Watch.

Frankly, considering importance of oaths in the medieval world, murdering him was a sort of mercy. If Westeros is in any way, shape or form like real medieval world (well, I know it isn't, but still), then Jon was about to doom his soul to eternal torment by going off to fight the Boltons. Death was better.

Of course, considering the fact that according to the letter Ramsay was about to come North and attack the Night's Watch, Jon Snow's decision can be excused on grounds of self-defense. But I do not think rebels stood and thought for long enough to reach that conclusion.

Nights Watch neutrality is a tradition, not something that is actually the subject of any oath.

In any case, once Stannis came to the Wall, that was an end to Nights Watch neutrality.  At that point, the government in Kings Landing had denied any obligation to help defend the Wall.

[Wisconsin]

On 11/12/2022 at 2:27 PM, Aldarion said:

We are talking about a letter sent by Ramsay Bolton here, who threatened to kill everybody. I don't think he would have given Night's Watch any chance. OTOH, it might still have been a better option to just fortify castles against an attack from the south than to call for an offensive action.

Jon Snow made Ramsay mad because he sent one of his crows to take Arya away.  Arya's marriage is not the business of a lord commander.  

[The Red Prince]

I mean, i see a lot of people saying that Jon's actions are justified because Ramsay attacked the watch and thus bowen is the dumb dumb traitor here and not jon. But, even though i prefer Jon to Bowen Marsh, if we look closely at the events that culminated on the bolton ultimatum to Jon, it was a surprise the Boltons didn't attack him sooner.

Look at it like this, first you have Stannis, sworn enemy of the crown that the Boltons serve coming to the North, and John allows him and his enteurage to stay in Castle Black and later to take a portion of the wall, specially the nightfort, as his own. Feeding, housing and giving land to a faction of the war of the five kings is clearly a violation of the oath of no interference, i think no one will dispute that, but alas... the boltons didn't do anything, neither Ramsay nor Roose sent a letter north demanding the actions to cease nor the head of all the night's watch members, despite the night's watch clearly colaborating with Stannis.

And that's not the whole of it even, we know Jon advises Stannis on more than one occasion on how to conduct himself on the North, helping him draft his plan to enlist the mountain clans and then the retaking of deepwood motte, also before the pink letter, another interference on the bloody war. 

Then there's the whole "arya" rescue debacle which supposedly ignited the whole war, "Arya" was, legally, a married lady under the custody of House Bolton and a valuable asset on the war, once again interference. 

If you want to move it a step further, when the Wildlings are allowed by Jon to cross the wall and join Stannis, Jon is breaking both the vows of the watch to defend the realm from wildlings and the vows of not interfering with the war since he's allowing stannis to enlist enemies of the realm as his soldiers, which boosts his fighting strenght. 

Now, are all these actions morally wrong? Nope, i think jon did an excelent job in helping stannis the mannis the one true king of all the world, and any action against the boltons is justified, but are these actions treason and more than enough reason for both the Bolton letter and the Bowen reaction? Yeah they are. 

Personally i don't even think Ramsay wrote the pink letter, and i think using it as a justification for the treason isn't necessary when Jon's treasonous behavior began waaaay before the letter arrived. 

So, in conclusion, Jon is a noble guy who did what was right, but he failed to take into consideration the effects of his actions and disregarded his oaths to do it, Bowen Marsh was, legally under the laws under customs of the watch, completely justified in his plot to kill him. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, The Red Prince said:

I mean, i see a lot of people saying that Jon's actions are justified because Ramsay attacked the watch and thus bowen is the dumb dumb traitor here and not jon. But, even though i prefer Jon to Bowen Marsh, if we look closely at the events that culminated on the bolton ultimatum to Jon, it was a surprise the Boltons didn't attack him sooner.

Look at it like this, first you have Stannis, sworn enemy of the crown that the Boltons serve coming to the North, and John allows him and his enteurage to stay in Castle Black and later to take a portion of the wall, specially the nightfort, as his own. Feeding, housing and giving land to a faction of the war of the five kings is clearly a violation of the oath of no interference, i think no one will dispute that, but alas... the boltons didn't do anything, neither Ramsay nor Roose sent a letter north demanding the actions to cease nor the head of all the night's watch members, despite the night's watch clearly colaborating with Stannis.

And that's not the whole of it even, we know Jon advises Stannis on more than one occasion on how to conduct himself on the North, helping him draft his plan to enlist the mountain clans and then the retaking of deepwood motte, also before the pink letter, another interference on the bloody war. 

Then there's the whole "arya" rescue debacle which supposedly ignited the whole war, "Arya" was, legally, a married lady under the custody of House Bolton and a valuable asset on the war, once again interference. 

If you want to move it a step further, when the Wildlings are allowed by Jon to cross the wall and join Stannis, Jon is breaking both the vows of the watch to defend the realm from wildlings and the vows of not interfering with the war since he's allowing stannis to enlist enemies of the realm as his soldiers, which boosts his fighting strenght. 

Now, are all these actions morally wrong? Nope, i think jon did an excelent job in helping stannis the mannis the one true king of all the world, and any action against the boltons is justified, but are these actions treason and more than enough reason for both the Bolton letter and the Bowen reaction? Yeah they are. 

Personally i don't even think Ramsay wrote the pink letter, and i think using it as a justification for the treason isn't necessary when Jon's treasonous behavior began waaaay before the letter arrived. 

So, in conclusion, Jon is a noble guy who did what was right, but he failed to take into consideration the effects of his actions and disregarded his oaths to do it, Bowen Marsh was, legally under the laws under customs of the watch, completely justified in his plot to kill him. 

The vow is to defend the realms of men.

I should think a Lord Commander has considerable leeway in how he interprets that.  He can judge that leaving the wildlings to be claimed by the Others, is against that vow.  He can judge that Stannis has the legal right, and is more competent than the Boltons, to defend the realms of men.