Onion Hound

So, who was the oathebreaker?

28 posts in this topic

In the season 6 episode "Oathebreaker "? This is still bugging me. I made a thread on here last year stating my theory on why it was Arthur Dayne....no one seems to like that theory. In the episode, if I remember correctly, all that happens is Ned vs Athur at the Toj, Dany gets taken by the Dothraki, and Jon leaves the Nights watch after punishing his killers? So who is it? Is it just a badly titled episode? If it's not Arthur Dayne  (for breaking his kings guard oathe and having a child), what am I missing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was Dany because she was supposed to go join the Dosh Khaleen instead of going out into the world after Khal Drogo died?  I dunno, kind of reaching.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it could be a reference to both Jon and his assassins ... they all broke their oaths. But mainly to Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cridefea said:

I think it could be a reference to both Jon and his assassins ... they all broke their oaths. But mainly to Jon.

Yeah it makes perfect sense to be jon since hes the one breaking his oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with it being Jon is that no one has accused him of breaking his oath before or since. He stated his watch has ended, and everyone seemed to go along with it. I guess Dany and A Bong's reasoning would make more sense than Jon, to me. But still think it's less of an "oath", a promise to the dothraki...which I'm not sure she knew she was making, unlike Jon, Arthur, and Ned. I don't think Ned broke any oath either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/1/2017 at 1:57 AM, Onion Hound said:

My problem with it being Jon is that no one has accused him of breaking his oath before or since. He stated his watch has ended, and everyone seemed to go along with it.

Yeah I know, you're right. but I still think it's the biggest thing of the episode. Anyway Got usually uses the title for multiple meanings, oathbreaker could be Jon, olly, Thorne, Dany etc or all of them. There is also Umber who breaks his oath to Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cridefea said:

Yeah I know, you're right. but I still think it's the biggest thing of the episode. Anyway Got usually uses the title for multiple meanings, oathbreaker could be Jon, olly, Thorne, Dany etc or all of them. There is also Umber who breaks his oath to Stark.

Was that umber's first episode? If so, I didn't think about that. Good call! I guess it could just be the "tie in" to a lot of what's going on in the episode, like you said....but I just remember how anticipated that TOJ scene was, and thought it to be important enough to get the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Onion Hound said:

I just remember how anticipated that TOJ scene was, and thought it to be important enough to get the title.

Yeah ToJ it's important. It could be Jaime, too. They talk about Mad king's death.

23 hours ago, Onion Hound said:

Was that umber's first episode?

Yes, he gives Rickon and Osha to Ramsey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically Jon did not break his oath, he was released from it when the other Night's Watch members killed him. I think they will address that down the track.

Dany did and she did not depending on how you want to look at it. She is a princess after all which places her on the same level as a Khal. There is no way a princess was going back to serve the other khal's and they should have known this but because they are so ignorant and backward I guess not. Also in the event that her brother was murdered it made her the rightful ruler of a Kingdom apart from Jon which they do not know about.

Lord umber yes definitely, no two ways about it. Traitor!

I guess they are all traitors depending on your point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This show seems full of oathbrakers and Kinslayers.  This show has seemingly eliminated the characters respect and fear of braking their own religous rules/doctrine and general practices. The sparrows on the show were obsessed with one thing branched in two, anti-gay sex and sex out of wedlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon did not break his oath. His assassins broke his oath and theirs.

In the gift there were six gifts given. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Twenty of House Good men. Didn't you find it weird that he was nowhere to be seen after Roose Bolton was poisoned by his enemies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the oathbreaker (or the primarily one) was meant to be Jon Snow in this episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was meant to be Jon primarily. "My watch is ended." Given the oath was "for all nights to come" I don't think there's much room for debate. I find the argument of "screw these guys they tried to kill me" much more persuasive than splitting hairs over the wording of the vow.

Though with Game of Thrones, the titles often can be layered. Alliser Thorne and Olly could be candidates obviously, The Harpy woman confessing to Varys, Sam putting Gilly ahead of his vows, Dany failing to join the Dosh Khallen, and Smalljon Umber betraying the Starks would work as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25. 1. 2017 at 3:42 AM, hallam said:

Jon did not break his oath. His assassins broke his oath and theirs.

In the gift there were six gifts given. 

The thing is, does this count as fullfiled oath or not? Because Jon is alive and thus oath still applies to him in a way but people will be debating subject. Ramsay called him deserter and somehow ignored this subject when it comes to kitn title and Northern lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

The thing is, does this count as fullfiled oath or not? Because Jon is alive and thus oath still applies to him in a way but people will be debating subject. Ramsay called him deserter and somehow ignored this subject when it comes to kitn title and Northern lords.

I do not think Ramsay knew of Jon's resurrection and neither does it seem that the Northern 
(including Lyanna Mormont and Glover) and Vale lords do either, otherwise Jon would have showed them and the show would have referrenced it. Sansa knows, Davos, Mel and the Wildings know. So does the Night's watch at Castle Black and probably now the shadow Tower and East Watch by the bay. Jon I think broke no OATH, he fulfilled it. So, Maybe the episode namer of the production team should have come up with a different title for the episode?

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to see a ton of useless exposition where Jon explains how he died and came back. We SAW it - we don't need to hear about it. It's not that difficult to fill in the blanks i.e. the Northern Lords got their exposition offscreen and they don't care about technicalities because Ice Zombies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They do not know, otherwise Ramsay himself would have taunted him about it. No, we ourselves do not need another explanation but Jon did look like a deserter, so that seems to have been brushed over and should be a serious question, giving that Sansa, if Jon had never died and was a deserter,would have been the obvious choice for ruler of the North. Also, surprising LIttlefinger never brought up the subject in his Weirwood speech to Sansa because I do not think he knows about Jon's resurrection either.

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

I do not think Ramsay knew of Jon's resurrection and neither does it seem that the Northern 
(including Lyanna Mormont and Glover) and Vale lords do either, otherwise Jon would have showed them and the show would have referrenced it. Sansa knows, Davos, Mel and the Wildings know. So does the Night's watch at Castle Black and probably now the shadow Tower and East Watch by the bay. Jon I think broke no OATH, he fulfilled it. So, Maybe the episode namer of the production team should have come up with a different title for the episode?

To be honest not all people would believe such a story without witnessing it but then his scars.

To many people it was cheap way of getting him from Nights' Watch. Oath still counts for him as he's alive as there is no word on resurrection in his oath. But resurrection and this it was weak from them. George wasn't happy either with this solution, as Weiss and Benoff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it was enough to obsolve him of his vows but it is/was significant enough to be spreading like wildfire across Westeros. He should be famous all over Nd the northern lords should have flocked to him, if,if he told them and showed them his wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now