Jon's Decision to Go South

[butterbumps!]

breaking form the Watch = desertion = he can't go back

Many NW members have broken some parts of the oath, but breaking from the watch completely, even temporarily would not leave him an option to go back.

And you weren't just talking about how they could condemn him if he fails, you wrote:

Jon thought the way he presented the plan would inspire the Watch to condemn him

Did you mean they would be only inspired aterwards not at the moment? *confused* They definitely were inspided at the moment.

Jon's plans in regards to his future in NW are beyond the scope of discussion? I could not disagree with you more. The situation at the Wall, Jon's choice to leave and the manner in which he leaves are the only parts worth discussing, because those are the only parts of this we know anything about.

(We don't know Jon's strategies for meeting Ramsay and likely the PL was fake and not from Ramsay at all. So any discussion of 'what would have happened in south if Jon rode south' is quite fruitless)

1. There is considerable difference between permanently resigning from your position versus giving your organization reason to fire you.

I have been saying that Jon is presenting this in such a way that the ball is in their court whether they choose to accept him in the future if the mission is successful. For now, I'm suggesting that he's operating beyond the institution as a rogue as a stop-gap in the event he fails with Ramsay in order to prevent it's being targeted as an extension of his own actions. I'm saying that his intentions as to how he's foreseeing his future role with the Watch is open-ended. A fairly immediate break is evident; complete rejection is not a necessary conclusion. A lot will depend on A. if he's successful and B. how the Watchmen will ultimately come to see him C. whether new complications will arise such that he deems continuing outside of the Watch will be most effective to dealing with them.

2. Because this requires speculation beyond the already speculative points we've been discussing, I've been trying to tell you to put this particular issue on hold for now, because it's adding further complications to an already messy debate full of misunderstandings. His ultimate goal in this seems fluid right now, and dependent on a number of variables that are themselves speculative in nature. Since we can't even seem to agree on the variables yet, it seems decidedly fruitless to open up yet a new channel right now.

1. Jon's motivation to go south is one of the following, or combination of them:

-Remove Boltons from the ruling position, and ensure that the following rulers are favorable to NW cause and/or worthier rulers of the North

-Prevent attack on CB by Boltons

-Help Arya

-Revenge

-Protecting the world from a monster like Ramsay

2. Because Jon has put considerable amount of effort to ensure the NW collaborates with the wildlings, and I believe he would not risk the alliance. Thus he must not realize (possibly, but not necessarily, because of his emotional state) the ramifications of the Shieldhall speech, including all the following, but not limited to them:

-Jon might be seen as a deserter by many, and thus might loose control of the NW

-Taking wildlings south breaks the agreed terms between NW and wildlings, and this risks the alliance

-The NW is not going to follow Tormund

1. Where exactly do you disagree with me then? If this is what you believe, why have you been disagreeing with all of my arguments? Posters were rejecting the idea that motivation to save the Watch had anything to do with this. I was speaking against the position that all he was motivated by was revenge and family. My arguments don't preclude anything you say you believe here. So why are you disagreeing so strongly, if you believe saving the Watch, and by extension, the realm, is among the motivations Jon has?

2. It looks like your major concern is the Watch-wildling alliance, and that the Bolton issue is secondary for you. Is that correct? I think Jon sees the Boltons as a foremost concern, as do I.

In terms of the fragility of Watch-wildling alliance, we do not know how many wildlings he's planning to take south with him. For all we know, he's planning to remove any wildlings who don't want to stay at the Wall and relocate them farther south. And I'm talking about even non-fighters. They're supposed to be relocated to the Gifts; that was always the plan. I've already brought this up, but to reiterate, the fact he's going South means he's going to be talking to clans and other Northmen whose lands he's planning on bringing wildlings through. We know this, because this was a huge part of the advice he gives to Stannis 9 chapters before. It stands to reason that forging a wildling-North alliance once south, allowing wildlings to settle close to and in clan/ Northern lands, is a side benefit of the march southward.

All I'm trying to say is that going south might actually entail removing most, if not all, of the wildlings from under the Watch. I just wouldn't assume that going south precludes Jon from dealing with the tinderbox of Watch-wildling relations. It could potentially solve that issue.

On Tormund's leading the ranging. I'm not sure if the rangers will follow him or not, but I'd point out that the mission is not merely to save thousands of wildlings, but that there's also a few dozen-a hundred Watchmen stuck there who need relief. The fact that there's Watchmen who need rescue might be enough of an incentive to get at least some portion of the mission accomplished, even if Tormund is assassinated or something in the process. I do agree that Hardhome is tenuous, but the issue of Hardhome really didn't have much of anything to do with my overall argument.

Which, in a nutshell, is showing how going south has strategic advantage to the realm via advantage to the Watch, and arguing that Jon's breaking from the Watch is at least partially motivated by his realization that operating outside of it is the only way to preserve its ability to perform its function, which in term saves everyone behind the Wall.

Can you write out your basic position on this the way I just did in italics? Because I'm still unclear what the overall "main idea" you're arguing is, and why you're disagreeing about a lot of things, given the first point you outlined, which isn't in contradiction to what I believe.

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

1. Where exactly do you disagree with me then? If this is what you believe, why have you been disagreeing with all of my arguments? Posters were rejecting the idea that motivation to save the Watch had anything to do with this. I was speaking against the position that all he was motivated by was revenge and family. My arguments don't preclude anything you say you believe here. So why are you disagreeing so strongly, if you believe saving the Watch, and by extension, the realm, is among the motivations Jon has?

Did you somehow miss the one of them or combination of them part of my response? I bolded the words, they should not be difficult to spot. Unlike you I don't claim to know which of the possible motivations is the correct one. I was not objecting to your speculation that his desire to protect the watch might be among his primary motivations. We don't know. I have been infuriated by your strawman arguments, such as:

if [Jon] truly has abandoned all rationality and is planning to attack Ramsay as anything other than in defense of the Watch (i.e. not caring about whether Others or Boltons slaughter them)

which suggest that if Jon has any other motivations than the one you think he has, he must also not care if Others take the Watch!!! By the same logic, if Jon is planning to ride south as anything other than to rescue Arya, that must mean he doesn't care if Others take her!!! Does that sound like a good argument?

I'm not disagreeing with the possibility that protecting the Watch might be among his motivation, maybe even as a significant one. I'm disagreeing with your method of arguing that naturally it is his driving motivation because he is not indifferent about it.

2. It looks like your major concern is the Watch-wildling alliance, and that the Bolton issue is secondary for you. Is that correct? I think Jon sees the Boltons as a foremost concern, as do I.

Absolutely correct.

Honestly, if you believe that the Boltons are the bigger threat, I can't but violently disagree with you.

It stands to reason that forging a wildling-North alliance once south, allowing wildlings to settle close to and in clan/ Northern lands, is a side benefit of the march southward.

Why did he not discuss it with the northmen at the Wall before the Shieldhall speech then? It does not look like the clans are readily willing to allow wildlings in their lands:

"Lord Snow," said The Norrey, "where do you mean to put these wild-lings o' yours? Not on my lands, I hope."

"Aye," declared Old Flint. "You want them in the Gift, that's your folly, but see they don't wander off or I'll send you back their heads. Winter is nigh, I want no more mouths to feed."

"The wildlings will remain upon the Wall," Jon assured them. Jon XI ADWD

All I'm trying to say is that going south might actually entail removing most, if not all, of the wildlings from under the Watch. I just wouldn't assume that going south precludes Jon from dealing with the tinderbox of Watch-wildling relations. It could potentially solve that issue

This could be if the lack of food was the only problem the Watch has with the wildlings. The problem is, the NW is also worried that the wildlings are not trustworthy and that they have plans beyond helping to defend the Wall, and when the promise that they stay in the Gift is broken, the trust is completely broken.

Can you write out your basic position on this the way I just did in italics?

Keeping the peace between NW and the wildlings is essential to the survival of the NW. The manner in which Jon plans to leave the Wall is disastrous to the alliance between wildlings and Watch (and I believe Jon is unaware of that). Unless he would find a way to leave the Wall in a manner which doesn't risk the wildling-NW alliance, riding to meat Ramsay is not worth the risk regardless of what the possible benefits would be against the Boltons.

[butterbumps!]

Did you somehow miss the one of them or combination of them part of my response? I bolded the words, they should not be difficult to spot. Unlike you I don't claim to know which of the possible motivations is the correct one. I was not objecting to your speculation that his desire to protect the watch might be among his primary motivations. We don't know. I have been infuriated by your strawman arguments, such as:

if [Jon] truly has abandoned all rationality and is planning to attack Ramsay as anything other than in defense of the Watch (i.e. not caring about whether Others or Boltons slaughter them)

which suggest that if Jon has any other motivations than the one you think he has, he must also not care if Others take the Watch!!! By the same logic, if Jon is planning to ride south as anything other than to rescue Arya, that must mean he doesn't care if Others take her!!! Does that sound like a good argument?

Go and look at the edit on that post that I wrote before you wrote this last post (I went back to see where confusion might have stemmed, and spotted that poor phrasing on my part). Of the 15 posts I made in this thread, many of which stated very explicitly that i thought there was a combination of motives, that line is the only one that could imply I thought there was only one motive. While I didn't represent my argument well in that particular line, it strikes me as petty and ridiculous to assume that despite my other posts that clearly stated I believed there are comorbid motivations, that you cling to this one to justify why you've been disagreeing so strongly, especially when that line occurred well into this debate, after you began disagreeing with nearly everything. It was clearly an error in phrasing given that my other posts consistently contradicted the implication that I'm looking at an exclusive motive.

Since that mis-statement on my part was stated a number of posts into our exchange, I still struggle to understand why you initially disagreed with everything I wrote so vehemently. I'm not particularly interested in dissecting our previous exchange with each other, and I;ve been trying to move forward for multiple posts now. Just for the record, though, it really does make it seem like you're more interested in "proving someone wrong" than actually discussing this when you point to one line far along into the disagreement that should stand out as a clear mistake on my part given that it was directly contradicted by a number of other lines I wrote stating the opposite.

ETA: I have no idea on what grounds you're calling that a strawman though. I see an error in that the phrasing implied I thought there was an exclusive motive, but I didn't accuse you of having said what you're taking issue. You began your disagreement with me over the issue of my speculating that he was thinking of the Watch in his decision to go South. Logically, it follows that you disagreed that Jon could be motivated at least in part by the Watch. It seems you might have initially assumed I was arguing it was his only motivation, but that still doesn't explain why you argued against my advocating this as a motive at all. In fact, you even pointed to omission of such as a directly stated motive in the text as reason why it wasn't present in Jon's calculus. If it helps us move forward, please know I'm not trying to undermine you or anything. It looks like everything that came before is just a misunderstanding on top of misunderstandings. Can we just go forward with this?

Honestly, if you believe that the Boltons are the bigger threat, I can't but violently disagree with you.

Thank you for writing out the overall main idea you're coming from. Since you think the wildling-Watch issue is a foremost concern over the Bolton one, it might be helpful to nail down why. We'll never agree about anything else if we're not seeing this core issue on common ground, so could you explain that further?

For what it's worth, the clansmen might feel considerably different about allying with wildlings if the fighting force of wildlings was helping to fight their war, as well as amenable to sharing resources with the promise of Jon's bank loan (i.e. where it may need to cover more people than initially, which would extend to some Northmen, but that may be a small price to pay for co-existence and alliance).

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

Go and look at the edit on that post that I wrote before you wrote this last post (I went back to see where confusion might have stemmed, and spotted that poor phrasing on my part).

Sorry, I did not notice that you edited the post (I copied the line for my latest post from older post by me, where I had quoted your original response). In your later posts, until now, it actually had not become evident to me that you did not feel this way. If it was just bad wording, we can drop this particular topic.

Just for the record, though, it really does make it seem like you're more interested in "proving someone wrong" than actually discussing this when you point to one line far along into the disagreement that should stand out as a clear mistake on my part given that it was directly contradicted by a number of other lines I wrote stating the opposite.

No, I have no interest in picking on possible mistakes you have made. When I have brought forward old lines from you it has usually been because I still thought you were arguing for them and you directly asked me what part I'm disagreeing with, because I thought bringing up the direct lines you wrote (and I disagreed with) would clarify things.

I have very much tried to see things from your angle in fact, and tried to understand your interpretation of Jon's goals.

Thank you for writing out the overall main idea you're coming from. Since you think the wildling-Watch issue is a foremost concern over the Bolton one, it might be helpful to nail down why. We'll never agree about anything else if we're not seeing this core issue on common ground. Could you explain that further?

1. One reason is the basic relations between wildlings and the NW, and between northmen and the NW.

The wildlings have a long history of hating and mistrusting all crows, and hating the very existance of NW. If it came to battle between NW and wildlings, I could see the wildlings more than willing to destroy the existance of the NW organization, especially if that brought them back their freedom. They are not happy being 'slaves' to the crows and kneeling to lords. They might still decide to reside in the Gift, but in this scenario the NW could be completely destroyed and the NW members killed.

The northmen have a long history of respecting NW members and relying on NW to man the Wall, and even now the problem is a personal one with Jon. I don't believe the Boltons and especially other northmen would ever be willing to completely end the existance of the NW. Even if Ramsay wanted to massacre the black brothers, I don't think he would be able to persuade other northern lords to this cause, and likely would not even get the approval of his father the Warden of the North. I'd say seizing control over the NW, executing the tresonous leader and supervising their next LC election is the furthest the Boltons would go.

So in one scenario the existance of NW and the lives of all NW members is in danger, in the other not.

2. Another reason is that the willingness of the wildlings to engage in battle at all with NW is also very different than the willingness of Ramsay.

The letter tries to invite Jon to leave the Wall and ride to Winterfell, showing that Ramsay would rather confront Jon somewhere else. The letter makes no specific threats on what time scale Ramsay might consider attacking if the terms are not met, which could be a method of hiding the fact that the threat to attack NW is only a bluff. It definitely gives the clues that Ramsay is not eager to ride to CB.

The wildlings on the other hand didn't even consider other options than attacking the NW to achieve their goal (even when Jon suggested), up until they were defeated and the NW was reinforced with Stannis's troops. All the efforts to solve things in some other manner have come from NW (namely Jon). Even now several wildlings are choosing other routes (Hardhome, another attack on Bridge of Skulls) than peace with crows. I think the wildlings that were forced to kneel are about as happy with their situation than Osha serving Theon and Arya travelling with the Hound. They are taking the priviliges they get for good behaviour, but keep their knives sharp. Let me quote Val again:

"Free folk do not kneel," Val told her. "Then they must be knelt," the queen declared. "Do that, Your Grace, and we will rise again at the first chance," Val promised. "Rise with blades in hand." Jon XI ADWD

So, I believe that Ramsay and especially other northmen would avoid a battle at the Wall if they possibly can, and solve the issues in any other way possible. And the wildlings would prefer a battle with NW if they think they have a chance to win, and even without knowing for sure might try their chance if 'kneeling' would become insuffarable.

ETA: And of course you could also share with me reasons why you consider the Boltons a bigger threat!

[Palladinho]

Wounded. Not dead.

If he's dead that's some shitty writing right there. Too much for him to do.

[butterbumps!]

Sorry, I did not notice that you edited the post (I copied the line for my latest post from older post by me, where I had quoted your original response). In your later posts, until now, it actually had not become evident to me that you did not feel this way. If it was just bad wording, we can drop this particular topic.

No, I have no interest in picking on possible mistakes you have made. When I have brought forward old lines from you it has always been because I still thought you were arguing for them, or when you have directly asked me what part I'm disagreeing with, because I thought bringing up the direct lines you wrote (and I disagreed with) would clarify things.

I have very much tried to see things from your angle in fact, and tried to understand your interpretation of Jon's goals.

Ok, understood. I, too, have been trying to see where you're coming from with this. It started to become especially clear in these more recent posts that we're approaching this from either incompatible premises and/ or the arguments are getting muddied. That's why I kept asking for overall clarification-- I wasn't trying to be insufferable or anything. It just seemed like we wouldn't agree on anything unless we cleared this all up.

1. One reason is the basic relations between wildlings and the NW, and between northmen and the NW.

The wildlings have a long history of hating and mistrusting all crows, and hating the very existance of NW. If it came to battle between NW and wildlings, I could see the wildlings more than willing to destroy the existance of the NW organization, especially if that brought them back their freedom. They are not happy being 'slaves' to the crows and kneeling to lords. They might still decide to reside in the Gift, but in this scenario the NW could be completely destroyed and the NW members killed.

The northmen have a long history of respecting NW members and relying on NW to man the Wall, and even now the problem is a personal one with Jon. I don't believe the Boltons and especially other northmen would ever be willing to completely end the existance of the NW. Even if Ramsay wanted to massacre the black brothers, I don't think he would be able to persuade other northern lords to this cause, and likely would not even get the approval of his father the Warden of the North. I'd say seizing control over the NW, executing the tresonous leader and supervising their next LC election is the furthest the Boltons would go.

So in one scenario the existance of NW and the lives of all NW members is in danger, in the other not.

2. Another reason is that the willingness of the wildlings to engage in battle at all with NW is also very different than the willingness of Ramsay.

The letter tries to invite Jon to leave the Wall and ride to Winterfell, showing that Ramsay would rather confront Jon somewhere else. The letter makes no specific threats on what time scale Ramsay might consider attacking if the terms are not met, which could be a method of hiding the fact that the threat to attack NW is only a bluff. It definitely gives the clues that Ramsay is not eager to ride to CB.

The wildlings on the other hand didn't even consider other options than attacking the NW to achieve their goal (even when Jon suggested), up until they were defeated and the NW was reinforced with Stannis's troops. All the efforts to solve things in some other manner have come from NW (namely Jon). Even now several wildlings are choosing other routes (Hardhome, another attack on Bridge of Skulls) than peace with crows. I think the wildlings that were forced to kneel are about as happy with their situation than Osha serving Theon and Arya travelling with the Hound. They are taking the priviliges they get for good behaviour, but keep their knives sharp. Let me quote Val again:

"Free folk do not kneel," Val told her. "Then they must be knelt," the queen declared. "Do that, Your Grace, and we will rise again at the first chance," Val promised. "Rise with blades in hand." Jon XI ADWD

So, I believe that Ramsay and especially other northmen would avoid a battle at the Wall if they possibly can, and solve the issues in any other way possible. And the wildlings would prefer a battle with NW, if they just thought they had a chance to win.

1. Ok, so I see this oppositely. I think the situation at the Wall is more malleable than the one with the Boltons.

Jon would agree with you that the culture clash between the Watch and wildlings is a spark waiting to go off (he says as much). Another big problem is that there's also some degree of tension between Northmen and wildlings, which has required Jon to keep them on Watch territory. But if some type of accord were to be struck between, say, the clansmen and the wildlings, that eases the pressure off the Watch. I tend to agree that without Jon at the Wall, there could be total chaos between the remaining factions. But if he engineered it such that the wildlings were far removed from the Watch, settled more closely to the southern border of the Gift, if not in Northern territory itself, then it somewhat removes them from the equation and leaves the Watch to focus on itself.

There's also the issue of the hostages. While I think the way Jon rallied the wildlings in the last chapter is such that if Watchmen tried to stop them they could overtake the Watch and potentially secure their children, I think that without the bulk of the wildling fighters there, the hostages would serve to keep any remaining wildlings in line. So I'm saying that the conditions at the time of the Shieldhall produced a critical mass in Jon and the wildlings' favor, such that the hostages may not have been a deterrent, but that with Jon's men removed the hostages would hold more weight for those who remain.

Conversely, I see Ramsay's threat as far less malleable. Ramsay has a pretty solid unit of men behind him. He doesn't need the other Northmen to side with him; he could likely take the Watch if he were to show up at CB to fight with just his own men. Without a leader, I have a hard time seeing much resistance (let alone, effective resistance) from the Northmen whose territory he'd be plowing through.

Further, I strongly disagree with the idea that if Ramsay were to show up at the Wall, that he'd be satisfied with only Jon's head at that point. He crucified the 63 Ironborn who surrendered at Moat Cailin, for heaven's sake. I think the brothers have a better chance surviving Ramsay's rage if Jon weren't with them, that is, if they couldn't be accused of "harboring" Jon there. Yes, to Ramsay, Jon was the transgressor because of Arya, not the Watch. But if Ramsay's inconvenienced by having to come all the way to CB to make Jon answer for not turning over hostages he doesn't even have, it's that point I think the Watch is guaranteed to become a casualty.

You appealed to the idea that Ramsay would just execute Jon and leave the Watch somewhat alone, but also made an appeal to how Jon is the only thing holding the Watch together at this point in terms of internal issues. Doesn't Ramsay's showing up, even in the event he only takes it out on Jon (something I think has a small probability) undermine your concerns about his holding the Watch together? If no Jon = Watch destruction, then by your own arguments, isn't the external threat of Ramsay more egregious than the internal one, as the latter is ultimately dependent on the first?

2. I'm not fully sure I follow this argument. You're suggesting that Ramsay is less of a threat simply because Jon should know that Ramsay, like anyone else in the realm, would be amenable to sorting this out with something other than force? And/ or that Ramsay doesn't seem inclined to ride out toward CB, and is hoping to draw Jon close to Winterfell?

I guess, first, I don't think the "invitation" to Winterfell means Ramsay intends to stay behind Winterfell. I think it was meant to antagonize Jon, like much else in that letter. Ramsay threatens to attack Jon and the Watch if he doesn't comply with the hostages thing.

Even if we want to consider that there's a 50/50 chance Ramsay will actually leave Winterfell with his men to attack CB for non-compliance, should Ramsay make it to the Wall with his army, then the Wall falls. The risk is quite total, whether in terms of the rest of the Watch becoming Ramsay's "amusements" for harboring Jon in the "worst case" scenario, or even according to your earlier argument stating that Jon needs to be at the Wall, alive and holding things together.

I think the most prudent thing to do is to bring men south, ally with Northmen in the Northern territories, and lie in wait for Ramsay in the event he actually does ride out with an army. While, yes, this would be a battle of sorts, it would also function as a military barrier preventing Ramsay from showing up at the Watch. I think there's a better chance of defeating Ramsay this way, away from CB because it would involve the element of surprise, and would be in a format that plays to the strength of the men with Jon who'd be less trained and equipped than Ramsay's men. That's to say I think this format changes the advantage in Jon's favor.

So I think the risk of having Ramsay actually show up at the Wall would be so massive that it's better to plan for his actually doing this and wage an ambush in advantageous territory, thereby preventing such an attack.

[Brav]

Honestly, I think far too much is made of Jon's having sent men away. I really don't think this is a "mistake." What's more important: having 2 men he trusts to lead at the castle where he sends all of the women and girls whom he knows will not take advantage of them, or keeping these men at his side in order to spitball ideas and putting the drunken septon in charge instead?

To say Jon shouldn't have sent away men he trusts is to say he shouldn't have opened new castles to defend broader swaths of the Wall. You send the competent, well-meaning men who understand and obey your leadership decisions and overall strategy, not the ones you know are plotting against you. The opposite would lead to chaos fairly easily: a bad commander who tries to undermine your decisions might inspire his men to overthrow him, or worse, a leader who manages to convince his garrison to attack you or other castles garrisoned by your men (there are precedents of Watch castles turning against each other, incidentally).

On the bolded, yea, it really doesn't look like Bowen had managed to gather all that much support for his discontent, and he decided to attack anyway.

The point is that objectively, generally there were good arguments for sending key people away if you are only considering what's best for the NW but it meant that Jon left himself isolated without support at a very difficult time. Any good, honest manager/leader knows that you need good deputies. He solved problems for the NW on the one hand by sending people away but created problems for himself on the other. GRRM puts his characters in situations where decisions are difficult. Is it really wise to surround yourself with those who want to undermine you while removing yourself from the protection of competent allies? How can it not have been a mistake in the end for Jon personally when he has left himself vulnerable to a physical attack?

[butterbumps!]

The point is that objectively, generally there were good arguments for sending key people away if you are only considering what's best for the NW but it meant that Jon left himself isolated without support at a very difficult time. Any good, honest manager/leader knows that you need good deputies. He solved problems for the NW on the one hand by sending people away but created problems for himself on the other. GRRM puts his characters in situations where decisions are difficult. Is it really wise to surround yourself with those who want to undermine you while removing yourself from the protection of competent allies? How can it not have been a mistake in the end for Jon personally when he has left himself vulnerable to a physical attack?

Well, you know what's kind of funny about the fact that those loyal to him and competent are in places other than CB? In the event Ramsay actually does make it to CB, and he doesn't realize the rangers are off on a mission and that the other castles are garrisoned, then he ends up attacking Jon's enemies, because those are the ones left there if the Hardhome mission departs. I don't think this was purposefully engineered that way or anything (he was sending people off well before the Arya mission). I just think there's a dark humor to that particular facet.

More soberly, I'm really curious about whether he was intending to tell any of his commanders at other castles about going south at all, and if so, whether he'd tell them a more Watch-oriented version than he did at the Shiedlhall. And in general, removing them from the drama at CB, whether in terms of the friction caused by the Bowens or Ramsay, would seem to ensure that when this is all said and done, there will be a contingent of men who might not see him as an oathbreaking turncloak. I kind of think sending these men away could become an advantage in terms of even "Jon-the-person" in the long-term arguably. If Jon survives, and especially if chaos does break out at CB in the aftermath, it might result in annihilation of Jon's Watch enemies.

[The Fourth Head]

butterbumps! I'm really struggling to swallow this argument that Jon was deliberately trying to alienate the Night's Watch.

If it's a practical solution, designed to appeal to the wildlings, and not the Nights Watch, then why doesn't he, as LC, simply order the Watchmen not to come with him? This seems to be the primary explanation you give for why Jon would say:

"I ride to Winterfell alone...unless..."

that it was poorly thought out and designed to alienate the watch.

Now this is an in-book quote. It is backed up with his thoughts that he is coming for Ramsey. To argue that it is inconceivable that he was really intending to march on Winterfell- to seek and destroy Ramsey wherever he was, and instead, he was simply planning to set up a trap in the south is hard to swallow, because it directly contradicts what he says and thinks, so I think I need that one running past me again- why would "I ride to Winterfell" be a barefaced lie?

Now I quite like the idea that he was giving the NW an out, and that he was nobly separating the wildlings and himself from the watch, should he lose, but why deliberately go out of your way to alienate your own men? Why not simply order them to stay? Would Ramsey really care whether the NW "felt a bit put out" by Jon going south?

The only way it makes sense that Jon is trying to cover the NW backs by deliberately alienating them is if the NW actually elect a new commander before Jon dies in battle with Ramsey as a clear vote of no confidence. If that was Jon's plan- then from the moment he gives his speech, he is a deserter and a threat to the NW in terms of Bolton-NW relations and he simply doesn't think about it this way, and is surprised when they try and kill him. He would have arranged guards for himself, and discussed the succession with his watchmen, not leave them to fester and arrange some sort of contingency. any such succession plan would have been doomed to failure because he was the chief supporter of the wildling / watch alliance, and no watchman would have been strong enough to maintain order at the wall. Nor do I think he was deliberately trying to "slightly pique" the NW- what difference does it make to the wall and Ramsey?

My position on this (as a reminder), is that Jon should have attempted to keep the NW on side. Why didn't he give a speech explaining that Ramsey's terms were impossible? That he didn't have Theon and Jeyne. That if Ramsey threatened the wall, they were justified in defending themselves? That noone was oathbraking- Why didn't he write to Ramsey explaining that he had no part in the Mance deception, he has no authority to break guest right and give up prisoners, and basically making as much eloquence as others have done on this topic? This would have:

a) forced Ramsey to leave Winterfell to make good his promise

b) maintained as much support as possible amongst his watchmen

Once the letter is sent, he could have sent out scouts to establish Ramsey's position upon Ramsey leaving Winterfell, and used Ramsey's march to cement his support and lay a trap for Ramsey on the road.

I agree Jon is not thinking properly- why would he say "I ride to winterfell" then seek out Melisandre to establish Ramsey's position, when the letter heavily implies that Ramsey is in Winterfell and waiting for returned hostages? He is assuming Ramsey is perhaps lying and marching on the wall already, which is at best, highly speculative, and at worst, a highly paranoid, flawed, and high risk assumption.

And this is why I think he isn't thinking clearly- he is torn and consumed by feelings of fear, self defence, guilt at being "found out", self-righteousness, and love- and that is a heady cocktail in which to maintain clear and rational thought with regards to strategy and politics.

I accept that Jon is a good strategist. He is clever. But clever men can do dumb things when all these feelings come together. The assumption that clever people cannot do dumb things, and that old habits will never resurface once a lesson is learned and that nice smooth bildungsroman arcs of learning leading to a model of flawless perfection is a fundamental flaw of reasoning I see applied to Jon, in part, because Jon himself believes himself to be so utterly right all the time. Its even got a word- it's called recidivism. So that is my counter to the argument that Jon cannot be so dumb as to try and march on Winterfell. Yes he can- but his reasoning is normally better and he has the ability- when clear headed- to devise better strategy.

In AGOT, Jon was intelligent enough to perceive the deserters fear, had the ability to empathise with Sam and see his merits, the intelligence to play Maester Aemon into protecting Sam, the imagination to save the Direwolves- then he went and did something really dumb by attacking Thorne at swordpoint- condemning himself to defend Ned's honour. Where was the planning there? It was impulse. Yet he wasn't an idiot boy prior to that. He was a clever young man. Then, at the end of TGOT, Jon decides to ride south to help his family, despite having witnessed a deserter being executed first hand, and knowing it would be Robb's duty to do the same. Where was the planning? Not only do I disagree with the idea that every lesson he learns is one in the bank- like a computer being upgraded, but the point here was, the lesson never was learned. He never learned to prioritise the Watch and his vows over and above saving his family. Saving his family and defending his or his family' honour always lead to rash decisions, and I ask at what point Jon really learns this lesson, and in addition, why he can't break this lesson under intense provocation?

Indeed, with the Halfhand, he learned that actually, oaths can be broken so long as it serves the NW in the long run. He takes that lateral thinking- gets pardoned for killing the Halfhand and sleeping with Ygritte- gets elected despite this- and takes further liberties by changing the culture of the watch to embracing men they have just been fighting to the death against. So I think it is entirely in keeping that Jon is so convinced of his own rightness in lateral thinking to believe that he can get away with taking liberties with his vows and this opens up a loophole for him to belive he is right to save Arya- regardless of the NW's feelings- feelings and vows the Halfhand's lesson allowed him to ignore and still feel morally justified.

Going south to kill Ramsey in Winterfell and free the wall from the threat of the Boltons is akin to deserting the wall alone in AGOT or attacking Thorne- saving family and defending other's honour is his blind spot as it was for the rest of the Starks. His self righteousness was ingrained.

Another reason why I don't think he was deliberately trying to alienate the watch was his plan for Tormond to lead the NW to Hardhome- another example of assuming the NW will simply accept his decision making. If he was planning to alienate the watch there too, deliberatly, that how did he think that could possibly have played out favourably? With Tormonds head on a stick? With outright war between the wildlings, the NW, and Tormond? I think he was simply blinded by his self righteousness, his contempt for the watch, his superior lateral thinking, his desire to act to defend his sister, and his own honour, and to save Hardhome regardless of the impracticality of Tormond leading the NW. That final detail was overlooked, just as Jon overlooked the NW's feelings.

In Jon's head, he isn't condemning the wall to death. He is locked into the idea of killing Ramsey and saving the wall. Feasibility be damned.

And regarding his 2 hour conversation with Tormond- I don't think someone having a hot head after 2 hours is a stretch of the imagination- remember, he still has to come out and face the music, and that is a stressful proposition considering the letter undermines his position in the watch. I would imagine a lot of that meeting would have been spend convincing Tormond he has nothing to do with the Mance deception, that he hadn't been tricking Tormond by concealing his kings' identity, that he could still be trusted to lead Tormond's men, and convincing Tormond to lead the NW to Hardhome rather than lead his own men, and whether the Wildlings would even follow Jon. Then there is the truth and the lies of the letter to wade through and second guessing it. I don't think a lot of time and depth would have been given to the exact plan on Tormond and Jons respective missions- ie, lay a trap, march on Wimterfell etc, and even so, as I have established and as seems clear in the style of writing- Jon is not thinkling clearly, and Tormond is not the best consultant when it comes to planning how to fight Southern mounted soliders.

[The Fourth Head]

A further example that Jon was not entirely on top of the situation and knew exactly what he was doing was the fact that he has a history of being blind-sighted to the risk of betrayal. He heard the mutineers muttering on TFOTFM, decided to say nothing to Mormont, Jeor then relied on their utter obedience at Crasters, and died. Talk of mutiny is not punishable- but the LC should have been informed. Jon simply doesn't expect them to act, because he couldn't imagine doing so himself and because it's shortsighted- but they act anyway.

Then he is told the men are muttering at CB. He is told he is committing treason. Further, he is told by Melisandre that she has seen him killed. And what does he do? He sends his guards away and, "deliberately" alienates the NW with a speech that hints strongly at oathbreaking and waging war on a much bigger enemy. I don't want to be hyper-critical because I too did not think it possible until it happened, and there I share sympathy, but with hindsight, it seems clear the book has established that betrayal is a blind spot in Jon's rationale and he assumes absolute loyalty despite misgivings- as Marsh's behaviour up until then strongly indicated. Whilst I was naive too, and I too judged how the story would play out by my own standards, (they can't possibly kill him!) I can recognise that Jon- and therefore I - was wrong to assume unswerving loyalty with hindsight.

A further question that has probably been discussed before, is why did Jon choose, personally, to head the attack south? Why switch leaders, so Jon heads the wildlings and Tormond heads the NW? That comes with it some major drawbacks in terms of loyalty that again- I think Jon was blind to. Wasn't that another example of Jon wanting to personally be involved? You could argue that Jon knows the north better, Tormond knows North of the wall better, and that Tormond would have better joy gaining trust with the Hardhomers, but that seems unnecessary. Why not bring at least one wildlng spokesperson with the NW north of the wall, headed by Jon? Then Jon's oath is not in question, the Hardhomers have a wildling to trust, and the unity of the mission is not challenged? And Tormond can go with a Northern lord who knows the terrain to lay a trap for Ramsey?

If anything else would have absorbed these two hours of discussion, it was this highly ambitious switch which involves Jon getting to personally lead a mission riding south to kill the bastard- he had been trying to ride south the whole series, now, he found a loophole- and he paid the price.

[butterbumps!]

snip

I think you're arguing against 2 issues primarily: 1. whether Jon himself was trying to alienate the Watch as a purposely strategic move, and 2. whether alienating the Watch can be considered a strategic move at all. Let me know if I missed the mark on that.

Let's start off by looking at a really controversial line:

No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

Typically, the controversy surrounds whether this implies that Jon thinks he's oathbreaking versus what the Watch would say about it. It's WAY more ambiguous than that, though, and this next angle seems to be never discussed.

Who is the referent here? The men of the Watch? OR, any man who'd have reason to take issue with Jon, and by extension, the Watch, for what he's about to do? I don't think that line refers to the Bowens, at least not exclusively. It's incredibly ambiguous, and simply by questioning who the referent is, the meaning changes entirely. If you question the referent, this line would suggest that he thinks he's covering the Watch's ass by alienating them in this way. So not only would it mean that he's thinking he kept men from oathbreaking in terms of what other Watchmen would say, but also that anyone external to the Watch would see it this way as well-- that this really is his crime, and his alone. I think that when you read this line with considering of this broader referent, all of his other lines start falling in line as something likely purposeful.

2. Given that Ramsay's letter included a threat on Jon, and by extension, the Watch, in the event they didn't turn over hostages, two of which they didn't even have, the Watch actually would be completely justified in dealing with him. I think part of the point you were making is that this mission ostensibly falls under the Watch's concern since it's an outright threat, so stopping Ramsay in some capacity would be completely justified from the Watch POV, which makes it seem a bit weird that he'd purposely not play up that angle to get Watchmen on board with it.

Well, foremost, it seems like the only reason Ramsay's making these threats is due to Jon's involvement in the Arya mission. The violence of the threat is a consequence of Jon's own actions, done entirely separate from the Watch. He's expressed feelings of responsibly for having "loosed Mance on the North" in previous chapters, and I think part of Jon's reluctance to have the Watch beside him in this is an unwillingness to allow others to pay for his actions. But in terms of a practical argument, the Watch still has a really major purpose, so anything that would distract these men from that duty, or worse, allow them to be wiped out by an external threat, must be mitigated.

Additionally, he's known since Jon IX that something's wrong with the mission (because the vision is fulfilled by Alys' arrival, but Mance is nowhere to be found, meaning that Jon deduces there's something else he's doing). So for 3-4 chapters he knows something's not according to plan, and retaliation could be a consequence of the mission. Which tells us that he's had time to think of a way of dealing with this possibility (though we don't see it on page), and that he's at the very least been aware that this isn't panning out the way it was supposed to. I suspect that since the end of Jon IX, he was aware that he needed to consider damage control-- that's why I don't think he's surprised by the letter. Reading his reaction, the fact he was threatened doesn't seem to come as a surprise, and I think it's reasonable to contemplate whether the approximate scenario in Jon XIII was something he'd already thought about, and perhaps even started cobbling together a plan for, well before the letter arrived.

3. Ok, so why not sell it to the Watchmen as a Watch-cornerned mission and simply order them to stay?

• Would enough of the Watchmen truly believe this LC, who is a "warg, half a wildling, an oathbreaker and a turncloak" truly intends to ride south with an army of wildlings in order to defend the Watch?

Worse, would many of them simply hear "going south," write it off variously as "taking part/ choosing the losing side" and not see the sense in it, no matter how Jon sold it? Bear in mind that as of even this chapter, Bowen still thought letting wildlings through to augment anti-Other forces was treason. I'm really skeptical on whether enough of the Watch would accept an out-of-the-box solution like this.

It's easier to convince them that he really is an oathbreaking wildling than to explain the nuances of the wisdom of going South.

By taking on the role of oathbreaking wildling and making this mission seem indefensible from the Watch's POV, Jon might actually have been predicting that the Bowens would respond to Ramsay's letter with a letter of their own, condemning Jon's mission as personal and unconnected to the Watch, letting Ramsay know that Jon's planning to attack him in a reckless fit of passion, and offering the hostages they have in exchange for a pardon.

As in, I'm positing that Jon might suspect or even want the Bowens to betray him to Ramsay, making Ramsay think he'll be attacked at Winterfell by a ragtag tribe of wildlings, while simultaneously inviting Ramsay to come to the Watch to pick up said hostages. Meaning, a move like this would give the Watch a paper shield of sorts as a form of insurance in the event Jon fails, as well as plant false or mischaracterized details about what Jon is actually planning to do that might either encourage Ramsay to stay behind the walls of Winterfell, or sorely underestimate Jon in riding forth to meet him.

So if Jon does have a plan set up, then by not explaining it to the rest of the Watch he's preventing them from selling out his true plans to Ramsay (and even if he did truly try to sell this in earnest as a Watch mission, all it would take is one disloyal man to send Ramsay a letter of betrayal). Whether Jon thinks that they'll replace him or not, I think he's thinking that there's at least parties at the Wall who'd sell him out thusly if he tried explaining his true intentions. This would be in addition to the other advantages I listed, including discouraging any hero Watchmen to stand against the Boltons if Jon fails in this mission.

ETA: I just saw your other post. On the issue of why Jon would be the one to lead the Southern mission, I think he'd be the only one who could do it, given that it will require an alliance and cooperation between wildlings and Northmen, something I think only Jon could engineer.

[Mourneblade]

1. Jon should not have tried to leave CB

The problem with that is if the Pink Letter was true, then eventually the Boltons would come to CB and pose a threat to everyone there. Even if he sent Selyse and her party away, CB would still be visited by the Boltons eventually.

This is really the crux of the issue. He spent a couple hours with Tormund before making the speech, so it was not exactly a hasty decision. We do not really know if John , as LC, has a right to march south or if the warden of the north has a right to demand anything from the Night's Watch. We can speculate I lean towards John making the lesser of two evils choice personally.

2. Jon should have given in Bolton's demands for the greater good of the NW

Ramsay offered Jon mercy, but that was the same offer he gave to the Ironmen at Moat Cailin whose flayed corpses he nailed to posts along the kingsroad. That was also the same offer Roose made to squatters at WF whom he hanged after they practically rebuilt the castle. We have no reason to believe that the Boltons would have spared Jon even if he cooperated with them, and who knows how many members of the NW and wildlings they would have killed with him.

Jon would also be violating guest right by handing over the people Ramsay demanded in the letter. While there is a chance Selyse and her party might have been sent to KL, Val would likely be used for Ramsay's sport.

Again we do not know if the son of the Warden of the North is within his right to make demands on the Nights Watch. I personally do not believe so. It is a neutral order that does not bend to the wills of lords of the realm. Jon was well within his right to consider it a threat. Yoren made the same decision, and no one calls him a deserter.

3. Jon shouldn't have meddled in affairs of the realm

"Because," his father said, in a tone that suggested Tyrion was quite the simpleton, "If they [NW] do not vote as they are told, their Wall will melt before it sees another man."

Except what about the realm meddling with the NW? Tywin tried to influence who was going to be LC, saying if they didn't elect Slynt, they wouldn't get anymore prisoners sent to the Wall. Cersei refused to send any men to Jon, and was plotting to have him murdered. Stannis came to the Wall, and so did Alys Karstark.

As for Jon and Stannis, Stannis came to the Wall out of his own free will, and he aided them in the Battle of the Wall. Did anyone expect Jon to say "Thanks for saving our asses back there, now get lost"? Besides, Stannis had thrice the fighting men Jon had, and could make the NW accept his demands by force.

As for Mance and the spearwives, Jon didn't send them to WF.

Could his sister truly have escaped such captors? How would she do that? Arya was always quick and clever, but in the end she's just a little girl.

I consider the Night's Watch to be based off an order of monks, sanctuary is given to those who ask. What happens while they are protected is the business of The Watch IMHO and not that of the realm.

As to ordering Mance to get "Arya" everyone seems to forget that, based on Mel's vision, her location was inside the gift. That makes it the business of the Night's Watch, and Jon is well within his right to secure her and offer her guest rights. Again I believe the realm has no right to make demands here.

4. Bowen Marsh did the right thing by executing Jon

This one baffles me the most. What Marsh did doesn't qualify as execution, and it doesn't fit any legal definition of execution. Ned had to tell Garrett what he was charged with before the execution and Ned was acting as judge with the authority of the king. Marsh didn't bother to arrest Jon, or go through a legal process to convict him. What Marsh did was extra-judicial murder. Jon was still at CB so he technically hadn't deserted, and he wasn't leaving the NW order, he never said that in his speech. Besides, it wasn't Marsh spontaneously killing Jon leaving CB, but he had been planning Jon's death

This was an assassination coup de tat style. Marsh has zero right to pass judgement on Jon in this fashion and he will die for it.

Conclusion

Jon had hardly any options atm in his last POV as he couldn't simply stay at CB. He was defending the Wall from a threat to the south, as the life of the LC was threatened and the Boltons had effectively declared war on the NW. He basically saw going south to deal with the Boltons as his only option, sacrificing himself.

I agree with most of your points. Marsh acted out of selfish fear. The realm IMHO has no rights to make demands on the Watch. Jon as the LC has a lot of latitude to protect the order, and those within the lands of the Watch. I just do not know if that means attacking a lord of the realm even if that lord has made a threat.

[E-Ro]

I have been watching this thread happen for a bit, and I think its past time I deigned to respond before things get too out of hand. Im not going to get too involved here I just really think people should know this, in case the Lemoncake somehow miraculously changed your mind on the topic. She told me when Jon has his wildling oath-breaker turn-cloak let it Go moment, its like the song Elsa sings in frozen when she accepts herself as a monster. Thats right. She compared an intense moment in asoiaf to Frozen. Disneys Frozen.

Just let that sink in for a second.

[Lady Woodland]

I have been watching this thread happen for a bit, and I think its past time I deigned to respond before things get too out of hand. Im not going to get too involved here I just really think people should know this, in case the Lemoncake somehow miraculously changed your mind on the topic. She told me when Jon has his wildling oath-breaker turn-cloak let it Go moment, its like the song Elsa sings in frozen when she accepts herself as a monster. Thats right. She compared an intense moment in asoiaf to Frozen. Disneys Frozen.

Just let that sink in for a second.

I'm interested in the topic itself but the back & forth between two major combatants lost my interest some time ago so I opted out, I just wondered what you mean in this post, who is Lemoncake? is that a poster I have missed? if it has some meaningful content would you be kind enough to link it please? I hate wading through pages of endless tit for tat. sorry I know it's lazy.

[The Fourth Head]

Great post butterbumps! So by stating he is riding to Winterfell, implying he is oathbreaking, and therefore deliberately alienating the watch, he is getting them to perhaps conspire behind his back and send information of this (perhaps deliberately misleading and provocative act of retaliation) to Ramsey at Winterfell, thus nobly saving the watch in the event of his possible defeat, and that instead, had Jon tried to defend his position to the watchmen, justify himself, and still expect unswerving loyalty from the Watchmen when faced with Ramsey, he was likely to be undermined or sold out. The NW and Wildlings could never have maintained unity in the face of a larger army, and after the Mance reveal, he felt he no longer had the ability to make demands of the Watch and expect their continued support.

I'm willing to entertain that.

I also think that the line "I ride to Winterfell alone...unless" sounds mainly geared to play on the wildlings heart-strings- ie, he is so brave he would ride out to attack a castle alone- which sounds a lot more hopelessly brave and romantic than "I ride out to set a trap somewhere, probably within my juristiction" which he may well have ended up doing.

I also, in entertaining this idea, consider that riding to Winterfell now he suspects Ramsey has lost Arya is a calculated gamble. Ok- so he heads an army of Wildlings which wont help garner support, but if the Northmen around Ramsey are faced with a heroic Stark marching on Winterfell after Ramsey has lost Arya, and are basically presented with a choice- Jon or Ramsey, there is a fair chance a betrayal from within could be provoked by such a bold act, and that regardless, the pink letter meant his position as LC was probably finished anyway, so why not take the gamble?

but still- if that was the plan- to push away the NW and insight double-dealing- then he was blind to the risk of immediate assassination- ie, nip the treason in the bud, just as he was blind to the idea that the NW men would actually kill Jeor through short-sighted fear and desperation. This is where his assumption that people act out of calm sensible long-term planning and not shock and desperation seems to have fallen down, because now, the wildlings and Nights Watch are set to destroy one another.

Another example of a blind spot in Jon's plan is the Tormond aspect. If he was simply trying to provoke a disgruntled NW, before leaving and the NW undermining him with information to Ramsey, how are they supposed to swallow Jon's idea of Tormond picking men of the watch to go to Hardhome? If that was designed to antagonise them further- it worked- but by failing to appeal to the Nights Watch, he has basically sold that mission down the river.

[butterbumps!]

Great post butterbumps! So by stating he is riding to Winterfell, implying he is oathbreaking, and therefore deliberately alienating the watch, he is getting them to perhaps conspire behind his back and send information of this (perhaps deliberately misleading and provocative act of retaliation) to Ramsey at Winterfell, thus nobly saving the watch in the event of his possible defeat, and that instead, had Jon tried to defend his position to the watchmen, justify himself, and still expect unswerving loyalty from the Watchmen when faced with Ramsey, he was likely to be undermined or sold out. The NW and Wildlings could never have maintained unity in the face of a larger army, and after the Mance reveal, he felt he no longer had the ability to make demands of the Watch and expect their continued support.

I'm willing to entertain that.

I also think that the line "I ride to Winterfell alone...unless" sounds mainly geared to play on the wildlings heart-strings- ie, he is so brave he would ride out to attack a castle alone- which sounds a lot more hopelessly brave and romantic than "I ride out to set a trap somewhere, probably within my juristiction" which he may well have ended up doing.

I also, in entertaining this idea, consider that riding to Winterfell now he suspects Ramsey has lost Arya is a calculated gamble. Ok- so he heads an army of Wildlings which wont help garner support, but if the Northmen around Ramsey are faced with a heroic Stark marching on Winterfell after Ramsey has lost Arya, and are basically presented with a choice- Jon or Ramsey, there is a fair chance a betrayal from within could be provoked by such a bold act, and that regardless, the pink letter meant his position as LC was probably finished anyway, so why not take the gamble?

Thanks! I don't blame your caution in accepting that this is what Jon's thinking. Honestly, I think what we see on page is going to turn out to be either the stupidest or brilliant strategy to date, and it depends on how deliberate Jon's being here.

What you summarized is basically the gist of putting on an act in the Shieldhall. Going about it this way solves a number of issues that a more earnest account (if my suspicions are correct) wouldn't. Namely, making sure Watchmen stay at their posts and don't suffer for an act he feels responsible for, the fact the Watch would be more easily convinced he's an oathbreaking wildling than true Watchman in terms of marching south with a wildling army, that he expects at least a couple Watchmen will make an appeal to Ramsay behind his back no matter what, and it wins him a significant army of wildlings to form a critical mass while still at the Wall that would deter disapproving Watchmen from trying to stop him.

Here's an interesting piece of this, though. A few chapters before this one, Jon considers that Ramsay might not even have Arya at all. So I'm not even sure that Jon is 100% convinced that Ramsay actually had Arya. It gets even weirder for him when Alys fulfills Mel's vision of a grey girl fleeing a marriage coming to Jon. And now Ramsay informs him that Arya is gone from him, i.e. roaming the North apparently heading for Jon. How many grey girls fleeing a marriage riding North can there be? So, basically, Jon's considered that Ramsay's previous claim to having Arya might be a trap of sorts, and by extension, I'm not sure that Jon fully believes Arya was ever with Ramsay, or that she's currently wandering the north. Which would mean that there's a chance the girl Ramsay demands doesn't even exist, and that Ramsay's demand for her is nothing short of a pretense to kill Jon. My best guess is that Jon isn't even sure what he thinks, but the idea that Ramsay's been laying a trap via a bluffed Arya marriage is a thought that had crossed his mind.

And yea, Jon would definitely attempt to conjure support from the clans and Umbers or anyone else's territory he plans to bring his army to; this was such a specific part of his advice to Stannis that I honestly can't imagine Jon would suddenly abandon good sense to that end. I think the wildling army (and potential wildling refugees, if a more complete peace is forged) might be a hard sell to them, but Jon also knows that his identity as Ned's son will hold a lot of weight-- he'd reflected that Stannis would have gotten more support if the letters were signed by "Jon Stark of Winterfell," Alys shows up and beseeches him to perform as a king would, he knows about Lyanna Mormont's "no king but a Stark" letter, and sells the need to stand together to the clansmen who arrived at the Wall. Not to mention, he has Karhold in the bag now (Alys + Sigorn). This is really the root of why I think it has to be Jon going south-- I don't think anyone else has a chance to forge that alliance.

And all Jon needs is to set up an extended ambush beyond Winterfell. I don't think the point is to defeat Winterfell (and sieges are something Jon is opposed to anyway). I think the more strategic move is to contain Ramsay. The danger is what Ramsay might do if he rides out. If he's within the walls of Winterfell and claims to not have Arya, then how much damage is he really doing to the Watch and the North? An ambush preventing him from leaving Winterfell to attack the Watch and collect hostages is what one needs to prevent.

As a side note, though Jon doesn't know this, we have insight into the situation at Winterfell, and know that the best way to defeat the Boltons is to allow the discord within to reach a boiling point. And Ramsay inside Winterfell promises to do that. For this reason, I think Roose wants Ramsay to ride out, but that's a bit of speculation on my part.

but still- if that was the plan- to push away the NW and insight double-dealing- then he was blind to the risk of immediate assassination- ie, nip the treason in the bud, just as he was blind to the idea that the NW men would actually kill Jeor through short-sighted fear and desperation. This is where his assumption that people act out of calm sensible long-term planning and not shock and desperation seems to have fallen down, because now, the wildlings and Nights Watch are set to destroy one another.

Another example of a blind spot in Jon's plan is the Tormond aspect. If he was simply trying to provoke a disgruntled NW, before leaving and the NW undermining him with information to Ramsey, how are they supposed to swallow Jon's idea of Tormond picking men of the watch to go to Hardhome? If that was designed to antagonise them further- it worked- but by failing to appeal to the Nights Watch, he has basically sold that mission down the river.

Yea, I think that's fair for the most part. I think Jon thought that his strongest critics would remain in the realm of complainers, not doers. I think getting the wildling army on his side at the outset was meant to intimidate and deter any sort of formal challenge to his announcement. The idea of Bowen and Wick growing a pair and stabbing him like that would be kind of laughable prior to the last pages of this (like, Wick is this elderly inventory guy, and Bowen is a "round" steward, neither of whom train or anything). I think, too, Bowen was always so cautious about blowback and self-preservation, it didn't seem plausible that he'd do something that would lead to his immediate death.

I think that "adding a drunken giant to the mix" threw him off his game, so to speak. Thing is, he didn't think the idea of "daggers in the dark" was BS or anything; he knew men were conspiring against him. I think he knew there was personal risk (though perhaps not from Bowen or Wick). The Wun Wun distraction is what enabled the assassination to occur; it's what put Jon at a disadvantage. But I do tend to agree that he probably didn't expect that Bowen and Wick would carry out an assassination like that.

I'm less decided on Hardhome than the march south, honestly. The rangers have been depicted as being in Jon's camp for the most part (his detractors were mainly from the stewards and some builders). I'm not sure if Jon's speech would be enough to get the rangers against him. I'm also unclear as to whether Jon would have held another meeting with Tormund and the rangers prior to going, to really explain why Tormund has to lead it, and to reinforce the need to do the mission (Tormund has to lead it, otherwise the wildlings wouldn't trust Watchmen attempting to rescue them; the mission is "necessary" because dead wildlings = wight army, and to rescue the couple of dozen to 100 Watchmen who are stuck there-- I'm not sure of the actual number, so that's an estimate). I think, though, that without knowing whether Jon was planning to hold a more intimate meeting with the rangers, it's hard to assess his blindness about this. I tend to agree that without giving the rangers more information and explanation, this wouldn't be good management, and they could be uninspired to actually perform the mission, if the Shieldhall was the best they got.

[E-Ro]

I'm interested in the topic itself but the back & forth between two major combatants lost my interest some time ago so I opted out, I just wondered what you mean in this post, who is Lemoncake? is that a poster I have missed? if it has some meaningful content would you be kind enough to link it please? I hate wading through pages of endless tit for tat. sorry I know it's lazy.

Oh she's the poster with the stupid butterball Kirby av. Don't worry though, you didn't miss anything meaningful or important. If you want meaningful, important posts with razor sharp insights just look to me and my posts.

Great post butterbumps!

Oh you done fucked up now.

[The Fourth Head]

It's rare for me to change my viewpoint, but you have successfully won me round, BB.

Good work!

The biggest mental hurdle for me was accepting and realising that Jon's position as LC was no longer possible after the Pink Letter. He was basically winning himself an army of wildlings and cutting ties with the NW because his time as Lord Commander was already finished based on the details within the letter. He was already flying dangerously close to the wire, and the pink letter, IMO was the point of no return- what seemed rash was probably instead a bold gamble from a pretty doomed position. He was an oathbreaker in their eyes, but rather than try and battle on with the NW, and he was now winning himself an army of wildlings, in part to prevent the NW from arresting him, in part to make some attempt to save Shireen and Selyse from being handed over, and in part to use the pink letter as the catalyst for him to "cross the rubicon" abandon the Nights Watch and make a move on Ramsey. afterall, if the North backed him, he could crown himself King in the North and legitimise his own desertion.

I accept the Tormond rationale.

Regarding his assassination, there are clues that Marsh had this plan brewing some time before the Shieldhall speech. Marsh couldn't have known that during the course of the speech, Jon would win himself over an army of devotees, and his failing was perhaps his inability to adapt to the changing circumstances and the growing risk that his plan could result in outright wildling / night watch conflict.

[Lady Woodland]

Oh she's the poster with the stupid butterball Kirby av. Don't worry though, you didn't miss anything meaningful or important. If you want meaningful, important posts with razor sharp insights just look to me and my posts.

(snipped)

(SORRY OFF TOPIC:)

Ok I'm bored shitless, what have you got for me?, I live for meaningful content & razor sharp insights, If you throw in a dash of wit & a modicum of sarcasm I'm hooked.

[butterbumps!]

It's rare for me to change my viewpoint, but you have successfully won me round, BB.

Good work!

The biggest mental hurdle for me was accepting and realising that Jon's position as LC was no longer possible after the Pink Letter. He was basically winning himself an army of wildlings and cutting ties with the NW because his time as Lord Commander was already finished based on the details within the letter. He was already flying dangerously close to the wire, and the pink letter, IMO was the point of no return- what seemed rash was probably instead a bold gamble from a pretty doomed position. He was an oathbreaker in their eyes, but rather than try and battle on with the NW, and he was now winning himself an army of wildlings, in part to prevent the NW from arresting him, in part to make some attempt to save Shireen and Selyse from being handed over, and in part to use the pink letter as the catalyst for him to "cross the rubicon" abandon the Nights Watch and make a move on Ramsey. afterall, if the North backed him, he could crown himself King in the North and legitimise his own desertion.

I accept the Tormond rationale.

Regarding his assassination, there are clues that Marsh had this plan brewing some time before the Shieldhall speech. Marsh couldn't have known that during the course of the speech, Jon would win himself over an army of devotees, and his failing was perhaps his inability to adapt to the changing circumstances and the growing risk that his plan could result in outright wildling / night watch conflict.

lol, awesome! I mean, I really am being honest in saying I think it's either going to turn out as the dumbest plan ever, or one of the most brilliant ones depending on intentionality.

But I think whether Jon is ever able to return to the Watch will depend on what Jon chooses do, and if returning to the Watch is something he wants, then the question is whether those within the Watch will accept him. But even if he's permanently severed with the Watch as a "brother," I'm not sure if that would necessarily preclude him from continuing the Watch's mission, or even working loosely with the Watch in the future. It is a point of no return in the sense that I don't think his return to the Watch would ever be the same, but I think his affinity with the Watch, at least in terms of mission, isn't ended. I'm reminded a lot of Mance to this end. I mean, Mance basically left the Watch, became king, and then pretty much performed Watch business, at least to the extent that he originally intended to fight the Others himself, and then failing that, bring his people to safety.

I do tend to think Bowen was conspiring about this long before it occurred, at least in terms of complaining (Mance walks in on one such occasion while glamoured as Rattleshirt). I wonder if he and his stewards thought this up as a contingency plan in the event anything went sour, and after the letter arrives, they put it in action. Notably, when Jon meets with Bowen and others in his chambers earlier in the day, Ghost is actually calm around Bowen; I think it might be a clue the assassination wasn't set to happen, as Ghost didn't pick up on the danger. It really strikes me as a bit of a contingency that went forward because of the Shieldhall, thinking it might be their last chance. (though, there's lots of other areas to speculate about this, such as whether someone else at the Wall may have given the go-ahead and the like).

I have been watching this thread happen for a bit, and I think its past time I deigned to respond before things get too out of hand. Im not going to get too involved here I just really think people should know this, in case the Lemoncake somehow miraculously changed your mind on the topic. She told me when Jon has his wildling oath-breaker turn-cloak let it Go moment, its like the song Elsa sings in frozen when she accepts herself as a monster. Thats right. She compared an intense moment in asoiaf to Frozen. Disneys Frozen.

Just let that sink in for a second.

Yea, I'll own up to this one. I did try to explain this to E Ro privately as Jon's "let it go" musical number in terms of owning his oathbreaking-wildling-warg-turncloak identity. I just thought putting it into Disney terms would make this matter easier for him to understand. He hasn't seen Frozen though. But yea, he's not lying about this.