Jon's Decision to Go South

[butterbumps!]

On the wisdom of that final chapter in general, others have already mentioned some of this, but I think there's a few critical pieces that should be considered:

1. We really have no good idea exactly what Jon's thinking-- how he's seeing this in terms of the Watch, as well as what his plan for Ramsay actually is. Or when he's planning to enact it, for that matter, and whether he plans to talk to some of the officers about it beforehand.

2. The Shieldhall speech is very much designed to keep Watchmen from coming with him, while inspiring the wildlings to follow. This might not be an oversight but quite purposeful on his part. As in, he really might be planning to shield the Watch from whatever follows from this unspecified plan.

3. During Styr's attack on the Watch, Jon outlines thoughts on how to best defend from the South. He reflects that in the case of Styr, he'd prefer to send a garrison South to meet them in the field (this would fall in the Gift, based on locations). Donal doesn't do it this way simply because there aren't enough men to form said garrison. Granted, this is how he'd deal with unhorsed wildlings in the Gift (meeting a horsed garrison in the field is a good strategy against wildlings because they don't fight battles this way), but I think it might be fair to extend this logic on this situation.

That is, I think Jon wants to avoid fighting any battle at any castle. Given Jon's previous good judgment when it comes to accounting for methods of attack, anticipating how armies will react, and reluctance to wage sieges, I'd bet Jon's not planning to attack Ramsay under any and all circumstances.

For example, if Ramsay stays behind the walls of Winterfell, then there's no issue! If they're staying there, then they aren't attacking the Watch. Arya is away from him, they aren't attacking people or abusing that list of hostages, and Jon has no reason to launch an attack. However, if Ramsay does choose to leave and attack, well, that's probably what Jon's trying to get out ahead of.

Given how he has a good grasp on the fighting strengths and weaknesses of various factions and can anticipate their movements, I'd hazard the guess he's hoping to use the wildlings to wage a guerilla ambush on Ramsay's men in the wolfswood/ clan areas. I would be amazed if the unstated plan Jon's intending is something other than rallying whatever remains of the clans and Northmen who were with Stannis, and creating a guerilla war zone as a buffer between Winterfell and the Watch in the event Ramsay attacks.

This is speculative because it's unsaid, but given what came before, I think this is the way Jon thinks. Given the way he thought of Styr's attack, I suspect he's planning to go on the "offensive" as a defensive measure. The issue is that Winterfell might attack the Watch from the South. Doing something to prevent that attack is what's needed. Doing this with fighters who excel as guerillas is the sort of advantage I think he'd take.

[Fire Eater]

1) There is a big difference between writing a letter and acting on it. At the very least a "f*** you" letter should have gone back to call Ramsey's bluff. Reason being, Ramsey would have needed to leave the safety of Winterfell to make good on his promise, and summoned the support of Northern Lords to march on Ned Starks' son. By acting first, Ramsey would be the one taking the risk of not having the support he hoped for, or being betrayed . Instead, Jon was the one taking the risk by acting first- calling his oath into question, and resulting in getting betrayed himself. Secondly, the march is perilous. Conditions are hard- as Stannis proved. There is a high risk of getting snowed in, so it makes no sense being the one to make the march. If Ramsey did leave Winterfell, Jon could have positioned scouts and been ready to fight Ramsey on his own terms- with a threatened and united NW and with no oaths being called into question. Ramsey marches on the Wall- the NW is justified in defending itself. Jon marches on Winterfell- his oath is called into question, and Ramsey can sit tight behind Winterfells walls and watch Jon defeat himself. Yes there are all manner of counter arguments : a united North being vital, Ramsey had already declared war etc etc, but from a practical POV, it covers a few more bases for Jon doesn't it by waiting for Ramsey to actually make good his promise and commence a march? Considering many NW-men firmly believe in the staying at your post and watching on the wall aspect of the oath. Whilst Jon would still have been exposed to betrayal by cowards, the risk would have been somewhat mitigated.

I sort of agree. Jon would be best to ambush Ramsay on his way to the Wall, and I think we will see him do that in TWoW. The wildlings grew up in this kind of weather compared Stannis's army who are from south of the Neck.

By acting first- he broke his oath of meddling in the realm's affairs in the eyes of his men- which is what matters. I don't subscribe to the "CB can't be defended from the South"- it can, as reflected by the successful defence from the south from Styr. it just wasn't designed to be defended from the South, but with a few weeks preparation, a few traps etc, and a wall to retreat to, it's the best terrain Jon can hope for- either that, or a surprise trap elsewhere on the road as Ramsey marches- but the key is to get Ramsey to actually march and make good his promise. The worst thing he can possibly do is attack Ramsey in Winterfell.

Styr was leading a group of poorly armed and trained wildlings on foot while the Boltons woul;d be a leading a larger, bnetter-equipped army with heavy horse.

4) Just as Jamie would not have had the authority to arrest the Mad King, so Bowen Marsh had, IMO, no legal authority to arrest his Lord Commander. It's mutiny- it's desperate and necessarily so.

I agree with you that Jon was in an impossible scenario. By simply having to deal with Stannis, and with Melsandre's games and tricks, whoever was LC would have appeared compromised to the IT and the Boltons. That said, from BM's perspective, Jon no longer represented the future of the NW. Without the North or the IT willing to supply the wall, the NW was doomed, and Jon was stopping that from happening. A Mallister type stands a far better chance.

Actually Marsh could have tried to arrest him acting on the authority of the NW, or the king. The laws of the king decree that deserters be executed, and Marsh could call on that authority.

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

For example, if Ramsay stays behind the walls of Winterfell, then there's no issue! If they're staying there, then they aren't attacking the Watch. Arya is away from him, they aren't attacking people or abusing that list of hostages, and Jon has no reason to launch an attack. However, if Ramsay does choose to leave and attack, well, that's probably what Jon's trying to get out ahead of.

Unless this is later otherwise confirmed, there is nothing in the text to support that Jon was only going to prepare to defend. Jon's actual words and thoughts hint that he was going seek Ramsay and go for an attack:

This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words... but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

"The Night's Watch will make for Hadrhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless..."

.....

I have my sords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.

.....

I should talk with Melisandre after I see the queen, he thought. If she could see a raven in a storm, she can find Ramsay Snow for me.

If Jon's plans consisted on preparing defenses between Winterfell and the Wall, why would he not tell that in his speech? Why say he is riding to Winterfell? Sending men south, even south of the Gift, to prepare for a possible attack would be much more acceptable for the NW members than Jon's announcement to go confront Ramsay in Winterfell.

Styr was leading a group of poorly armed and trained wildlings on foot while the Boltons woul;d be a leading a larger, bnetter-equipped army with heavy horse.

The Boltons would be marching in worse weather conditions than Thenns did and NW would have more time to prepare defenses and traps this time.

During the attack of over a hundred Thenns there were only dozens of men defending Castle Black, and Jon was the only fighter who was both able-bodied and skilled. Now there are a few thousand wildlings at Castle Black and hundreds of them are warriors, and there are hundreds of NW men. Jon would have time to call for reinforcements from Eastwatch and other castles, and have mammoths and giants if he wants. The Boltons only have some thousands of men.

I don't think the odds would be worse than when fighting the Thenns.

[butterbumps!]

Unless this is later otherwise confirmed, there is nothing in the text to support that Jon was only going to prepare to defend. Jon's actual words and thoughts hint that he was going seek Ramsay and go for an attack:

If Jon's plans consisted on preparing defenses between Winterfell and the Wall, why would he not tell that in his speech? Why say he is riding to Winterfell? Sending men south, even south of the Gift, to prepare for a possible attack would be much more acceptable for the NW members than Jon's announcement to go confront Ramsay in Winterfell.

I'm operating from the premise that we're really not getting the whole story here. I know what Jon says in the Shieldhall, and I know that even within his thoughts it's set up as a choice between Watch and family, but we actually get nothing in terms of the typical cost-benefit analysis that's present in the 41 preceding Jon chapters. It's like Jon's thoughts are completely omitted.

I know how it looks. Without Jon's inner dialogue telling us what he's really thinking, or if he's got something further up his sleeve, we can go off all of this at face value, and conclude that he's abandoned all signs of reason, is operating out of sheer desire for vengeance and family, and literally plans to march on Ramsay at all costs for his actions, including waging a siege on Winterfell. (I want to point out, however, that even if we assume it's very close to what's said on page, it still doesn't give us the parameters of the mission he's intending.)

I think that interpretation goes beyond reasonable "character development." If this is truly all there is to Jon's plan, and he's blind to all sense reason out of shock, let's say, and it's exactly how it looks and what Bowen assumes, then the last 7 pages of this chapter are a complete departure from Jon's character.

So the premise I'm working from here is that a lot of information is missing. What appears on page is incomplete and even nonsensical. Taking what we're actually given-- especially the Shieldhall presentation-- at face value, and assuming it's supposed to play out the way it appears Bowen does looks like a mind-numbingly stupid plan.

Which, given everything we know of the way Jon thinks, how he understands military operations, and his sense of responsibility, it's highly unlikely to be the case, in my view. There are blanks to fill in here. The question is how we should go about filling them in. I think there's a compelling case to be made by looking back on how Jon thinks and applying that here.

Jon's definitely given up on the "Watch" as an institution-- I mean, he's rejecting the bureaucracy, decorum, customs, rules, etc. He's going rogue. But it would be a complete 180 for him to all of a sudden abandon the "Watch" as a group of men he's made his life with to certain death. He thinks some of the men are flawed, but not that they deserve death by Others or Boltons. I find the idea of leaving them high and dry, even to save his sister, really unlikely. Not least of which is because he believe the Boltons are turning on the Watch because of his own actions. He's not a maniac. I'm also not so certain that he's abandoned the Watch's mission. The overall purpose of the Watch as an organization to fight Others doesn't appear in his thoughts this chapter, but I think it's a major assumption to believe this omission means it's now non-existent.

I'm looking at it this way:

1. Jon knows that Arya is no longer in Bolton clutches; that problem's solved. This can't be about saving Arya, because she's already gone.

2. But that mission brought Bolton wrath onto Jon and the Watch. Stannis is defeated and Ramsay is threatening to kill him

3. Unless he delivers hostages, 2 of whom he doesn't have

4. CB can't be defended from the South, which means that unless he delivers hostages, 2 of whom he doesn't have, they will be attacked. And he thinks this attack is because of his actions, so he feels responsible

5. Meanwhile, most of the wildlings are now behind the Wall. This is causing major tension with some of the Watchmen, and food stores are lessening.

6. There's also the nasty business of Hardhome to deal with to eliminate the strength of the wight army

It actually makes sense to solve these problems by going south, but not to Winterfell. Have the Watch continue Watch business-- Hardhome and so forth. Keep all Watchmen at the Wall doing their jobs. Take a massive part of the wildlings south of the Wall (mitigating the Watch's food shortage, and keeping the fighters away from the Bowens, I hasten to add). I'm going to speculate that Jon plans to go south of the Gift, into clan and Umber territory. To station wildlings there, he must treat with the Northmen-- that's why it's critical he goes, and not anyone else, wilding or Kingsman included. The Watch can go on without him; stopping the Boltons from invading the Watch cannot, though.

I honestly think he's trying to insulate the Watch from retaliation, and in order to be effective, he can't have any Watchmen with him (and I think he's sick of Watch rules anyway). The speech in the Shieldhall is exactly the sort of thing you'd say to get Watchmen to refuse to come, while inspiring wildlings to follow you. It hits all of the chords that wildlings would care about, and it purposely alienates all of the Watchmen.

The Watch needs a buffer; I think that's where this was supposed to be going. The wildlings and clansmen would be especially adept at this. Looking back over all of Jon's reflections of military action, he's never been wrong. He's opposed to being on the wrong side of a siege, especially in winter. I think it's more likely that his logic is being omitted, and he's just marketing the Ramsay attack to the wildlings than the idea that Jon's just completely lost his wits and forgotten all his training.

[Fire Eater]

The Boltons would be marching in worse weather conditions than Thenns did and NW would have more time to prepare defenses and traps this time.

During the attack of over a hundred Thenns there were only dozens of men defending Castle Black, and Jon was the only fighter who was both able-bodied and skilled. Now there are a few thousand wildlings at Castle Black and hundreds of them are warriors, and there are hundreds of NW men. Jon would have time to call for reinforcements from Eastwatch and other castles, and have mammoths and giants if he wants. The Boltons only have some thousands of men.

I don't think the odds would be worse than when fighting the Thenns.

That would have to be a pretty long snow storm. The Boltons would likely wait for it to pass. It would be a bad strategic decision to let the Boltons come full strength to CB instead of going out to face them at an area of one's choosing before they reach CB. Don't wait for death.

Connington captured SE, yet he isn't waiting for the 20,000 strong Tyrell army to come to SE, but he is going out to meet them. He will be victorious in that aspect, and I think Jon will do something similar in TWoW.

[Brav]

I suppose the problem with the idea that he's got this rationally, strategically worked out but we don't know it all is that he hadn't told Selyse and Mel about Stannis.

[butterbumps!]

I suppose the problem with the idea that he's got this rationally, strategically worked out but we don't know it all is that he hadn't told Selyse and Mel about Stannis.

Well, he excuses himself from the Shieldhall to go talk to Selyse and then Mel. He specifically thinks that he'll get intel on Ramsay's whereabouts from her. Then everything's interrupted. I'm not sure if I think he's worked everything out completely or anything. I mean, he's intending to get further intel on the matter when he gets stabbed.

It's quite possible the plan really is as half-baked and misdirected as it appears. Maybe Jon's in such complete shock that he's lost all sense and reason, and it really is this incomplete thing it appears. I mean, on paper, without speculations either way, it's:

• A speech that rouses wildlings, deters the Watchmen from joining, followed by his confirmation that this is how he wanted it. So either he's so incandescently angry with Ramsay that this speech and stated rationale comes from the heart and he's completely substituted sense for emotion. Or, there's a more strategic reason behind it. I think the latter is more compelling, given that he's spent 2 hours being non-incandescent with Tormund.

Arya's already gone. She's not with the Boltons, as per that Letter. So this can't be about taking her from Ramsay

Jon announces that Ramsay is going to attack the Watch. He seems to be operating from the premise that Ramsay plans to ride out.

He announces that he plans to meet Ramsay in battle and make him answer. He doesn't say where, when he'd be leaving, or anything further.

We know he plans to talk to Selyse privately, and to meet immediately afterward to talk to Mel for intel

Especially when you consider Jon's habitual reluctance to deal with sieges, the type of "goat track" advice he gives Stannis in Jon IV, and his thoughts about how to deal with an army from the South, I think Jon's looking at this as a buffer opportunity, even if the precise details aren't hammered out. Even if Jon's suddenly turned into an asshole who doesn't care if all his brothers are attacked by Boltons and Others, and even if he's just so angry that he really is just riding out for family vengeance, I have a hard time believing that he's suddenly also become so incredibly stupid that he'd charge into a siege, or even a field condition where he wouldn't have the advantage, completely unaware of details.

[league of blooDraven]

Once the Wights attacked the Fist all bets were off. Jon correctly brought the Free Folk aboard. Marsh hates them and planed to kill Jon at that point. Jon should have removed Marsh as soon as he began arguing orders. His biggest mistake was moving his allies away from his base of power. Marsh having not gone on the ranging with Mormont has no idea the seriousness of the situation. He will soon find out. Marsh has doomed the watch not Jon.

Edit to add: I have a crackpot theory that Marsh is related to the Marsh King that the Starks removed and has had a hard on for House Stark forever.

Lol... The phrase "have a hard on for" implies it's something you really like. For example "I have a hard on for Jennifer Lawrence." Or you could say "man all Tom does is play Xbox" "yea he really has a hard-on for call of duty."

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

I'm operating from the premise that we're really not getting the whole story here. I know what Jon says in the Shieldhall, and I know that even within his thoughts it's set up as a choice between Watch and family, but we actually get nothing in terms of the typical cost-benefit analysis that's present in the 41 preceding Jon chapters. It's like Jon's thoughts are completely omitted.

I'm sure we are not getting the whole plan Jon has in this chapter, and there is nothing wrong with speculating what he might have done. It is likely that he already has some plan other than attacking Winterfell. But your bet that 'Jon's not planning to attack Ramsay under any and all circumstances' is a rather daring one, and one I can't really believe. Jon thinks "I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard". That's from his own thoughts, no need for lies. And it doesn't sound like he is only planning to defend the Wall.

If we are to assume that he has a good plan, or Martin intentionally gave him very misleading thoughts and he is planning to merely defend, the situation certainly raises the questions: Why does he want his plan to sound reckless and stupid in the speech? Why does he not mention that he is only planning to defend? Why does he want to present his motivations as something personal, instead of something in the interests of NW? I can't come up with any good reasons.

Making his plans sound worse than they are could only be useful if he is intentionally trying to make the NW turn on him. This definitely is not supported in the text; after the speech he is not taking any precautions against possible resistance and seems genuinely surprised when he is attacked. And there are several setbacks for him if he loses the NW support. If this would happen he would have little to no power to send the people Ramsay wanted to safety, he would have no control over whether ranging to Hardhome takes place and who knows what will break out between NW, wildlings and queen's men. Making the NW turn on him serves no purpose.

Jon's definitely given up on the "Watch" as an institution-- I mean, he's rejecting the bureaucracy, decorum, customs, rules, etc. He's going rogue. But it would be a complete 180 for him to all of a sudden abandon the "Watch" as a group of men he's made his life with to certain death. He thinks some of the men are flawed, but not that they deserve death by Others or Boltons. I find the idea of leaving them high and dry, even to save his sister, really unlikely. Not least of which is because he believe the Boltons are turning on the Watch because of his own actions. He's not a maniac. I'm also not so certain that he's abandoned the Watch's mission. The overall purpose of the Watch as an organization to fight Others doesn't appear in his thoughts this chapter, but I think it's a major assumption to believe this omission means it's now non-existent.

For the bolded part: What??!?!! How has this got to do with anything I said? When have I ever said Jon wants bad things for the NW? Clearly he has already put the NW in danger at this point, but I haven't even discussed any decisions he made before the arrival of the Pink Letter.

For the rest: Clearly in this chapter he still wants the NW to continue the Hardhome mission, so he does not want them to abandon the 'NW's mission' as Jon understands it. But just because Jon wants the NW to continue operating does not mean his reasons to ride south would be only for the sake of the NW. We can't see him have a single thought on the danger the Boltons pose on the NW, but of course this could just be an omission. But why would he think his actions might be oathbreakingt if he is only doing what needs to be done to defend the Wall? And why would he not tell his true goals at least to the NW officers? Why make things look worse than they are?

The Watch can go on without him; stopping the Boltons from invading the Watch cannot, though.

But can the NW survive in the state Jon is leaving it in? The peace between wildlings and the NW is fragile; both sides mistrust each other, and the wildlings made their oaths to Jon Snow not the NW. Jon is appointing wildling Tormund to lead the Hardhome mission, and to take as many men as he likes. This means that the Hardhome mission is not lead by NW anymore, its lead by a wildling and the NW is attending. He is not naming any NW members who would be in charge of their brothers, not on the way to Hardhome or at the Wall. Looks like a recipe for chaos for me.

I honestly think he's trying to insulate the Watch from retaliation, and in order to be effective, he can't have any Watchmen with him (and I think he's sick of Watch rules anyway). The speech in the Shieldhall is exactly the sort of thing you'd say to get Watchmen to refuse to come, while inspiring wildlings to follow you. It hits all of the chords that wildlings would care about, and it purposely alienates all of the Watchmen.

If you have power over your men, you can order them not to come with you on your mission, and to stay and continue any mission you give them.

If you take the situation to a point where your men object to your decision so much that they refuse to come with you, you have lost your power over them. How can you expect them to follow according to your orders when you leave them, or expect them to even let you continue the mission they object to? I don't see any merits in this approach.

Jon is the LC of the Night's Watch, he can decide who comes and who stays. He doesn't need to make his mission look stupid and reckless to stop men from coming.

The Watch needs a buffer; I think that's where this was supposed to be going. The wildlings and clansmen would be especially adept at this. Looking back over all of Jon's reflections of military action, he's never been wrong. He's opposed to being on the wrong side of a siege, especially in winter. I think it's more likely that his logic is being omitted, and he's just marketing the Ramsay attack to the wildlings than the idea that Jon's just completely lost his wits and forgotten all his training.

If the speech was only supposed to attract the wildlings, why does Jon not inform the NW of the real plan and his real motives in advance? Even if the speech was aimed at the wildlings only, Jon should still have considered what it sounds like to the NW members.

[league of blooDraven]

Well, he excuses himself from the Shieldhall to go talk to Selyse and then Mel. He specifically thinks that he'll get intel on Ramsay's whereabouts from her. Then everything's interrupted. I'm not sure if I think he's worked everything out completely or anything. I mean, he's intending to get further intel on the matter when he gets stabbed.

It's quite possible the plan really is as half-baked and misdirected as it appears. Maybe Jon's in such complete shock that he's lost all sense and reason, and it really is this incomplete thing it appears. I mean, on paper, without speculations either way, it's:

• A speech that rouses wildlings, deters the Watchmen from joining, followed by his confirmation that this is how he wanted it. So either he's so incandescently angry with Ramsay that this speech and stated rationale comes from the heart and he's completely substituted sense for emotion. Or, there's a more strategic reason behind it. I think the latter is more compelling, given that he's spent 2 hours being non-incandescent with Tormund.
• Arya's already gone. She's not with the Boltons, as per that Letter. So this can't be about taking her from Ramsay
• Jon announces that Ramsay is going to attack the Watch. He seems to be operating from the premise that Ramsay plans to ride out.
• He announces that he plans to meet Ramsay in battle and make him answer. He doesn't say where, when he'd be leaving, or anything further.
• We know he plans to talk to Selyse privately, and to meet immediately afterward to talk to Mel for intel

Especially when you consider Jon's habitual reluctance to deal with sieges, the type of "goat track" advice he gives Stannis in Jon IV, and his thoughts about how to deal with an army from the South, I think Jon's looking at this as a buffer opportunity, even if the precise details aren't hammered out. Even if Jon's suddenly turned into an asshole who doesn't care if all his brothers are attacked by Boltons and Others, and even if he's just so angry that he really is just riding out for family vengeance, I have a hard time believing that he's suddenly also become so incredibly stupid that he'd charge into a siege, or even a field condition where he wouldn't have the advantage, completely unaware of details.

I agree with your posts, you seem to be spot on with your analysis of Jon's situation IMO. One thing to add though, IIRC there are several precedents to meddle in the affairs of the realm.

A few times we've heard of the NW turning south to attack wildling armies with the help of the Starks. A truly neutral party would just let the Starks deal with it and then continue to defend the wall and new wildling conquerors from White Walkers.

Also, sending men after Bael the Bard to find lord Starks daughter was definitely meddling in the affairs of the realm as this was a purely man to man crime, no supernatural ice demons involved.

So basically my point is to all the Jon haters is that the Nights Watch, and it's LC by extension is expected to protect the realms of men at any costs. If this means breaking your neutrality to kill wildlings and ensure a Stark always remains in Winterfell then so be it. If this means finding a man and beheading him (Bael) to ensure the ruler of the north keeps supplying you with good and men then so be it.

[butterbumps!]

I'm sure we are not getting the whole plan Jon has in this chapter, and there is nothing wrong with speculating what he might have done. It is likely that he already has some plan other than attacking Winterfell. But your bet that 'Jon's not planning to attack Ramsay under any and all circumstances' is a rather daring one, and one I can't really believe. Jon thinks "I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard". That's from his own thoughts, no need for lies. And it doesn't sound like he is only planning to defend the Wall.

If we are to assume that he has a good plan, or Martin intentionally gave him very misleading thoughts and he is planning to merely defend, the situation certainly raises the questions: Why does he want his plan to sound reckless and stupid in the speech? Why does he not mention that he is only planning to defend? Why does he want to present his motivations as something personal, instead of something in the interests of NW? I can't come up with any reasons.

Making his plans sound worse than they are could only be useful if he is intentionally trying to make the NW turn on him. This definitely is not supported in the text; he is not taking any precautions after the speech against possible resistance and seems genuinely surprised when he is attacked. And there are several setbacks for him when he loses the NW support. If this would happen he would have little to no power to send the people Ramsay wanted to safety, he would have no control over whether ranging to Hardhome takes place and who knows what will break out between NW, wildlings and queen's men. Making the NW turn on him serves no purpose.

Have you got any possible answers for the bolded questions?

Jon's thought "I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard" doesn't sound to me like he's planning to attack Ramsay under any and all conditions. It sounds to me like he thinks Ramsay is going to ride out toward the Watch and that Jon's intending to defeat him somewhere between the Wall and Winterfell. I don't see "I will come for you even if you remain behind Winterfell walls" is the logical conclusion.

And yes, I think the answers to the bolded can be easily explained. He's making his plan sound appealing to wildlings. Wildlings who put stock in personal causes, avenging wrongful deaths, and might be pissed off especially that Mance is apparently in a cage wearing skins of wildling women (though, I'm not sure how much sense that part even makes to them considering Mance was allegedly burned). At any rate, Jon's making this sound personal, and making Ramsay sound deranged and reckless.

But the other half of this would be to set this up so that no Watchmen are involved. Presenting this as personal and appealing to a wildling sense of outrage is exactly the sort of thing to keep Watchmen from participating. If Jon feels that he's personal responsible for the Watch's being threatened, and he believes he's the only one who can set this to rights, and he believes the way to stave off this assault on the Watch is to go against the Watchmen's understanding of the vow, then it makes absolute sense for Jon to alienate them. By making this his own, he keeps the other Watchmen out of this; Ramsay wants Jon, so if no other Watchmen are involved, then Ramsay doesn't retaliate on the Watch in the event Jon fails. Additionally, the Watchmen would not be pulled away from their duty of defending the Wall to correct Jon's mistake. Thirdly, by not bringing men who have sworn vows, he's free to operate as a rogue, unencumbered by their adherence to their vows.

This might be one of those cases where he knows that anything short of giving Ramsay those hostages will be taken as "oathbreaking" by the Watchmen, and they won't see even a mission to defend the Watch this way as conforming. And they wouldn't. Bowen's been calling simply letting wildlings through to help fight the common enemy "treason" for 13 chapters. There's no way the Watchmen would ever see the utility in a plan to buffer the Watch remotely like this, because too many of them take the vows really literally (and when they don't, including Bowen, they'd find the plan too bold given that Stannis has already been defeated).

He may have been planning to fill in a few select members of the Watch on his plan, if indeed my suspicion is correct. But the less he tells the Watch of his plan, the safer they are in the event he fails to stop Ramsay-- if it's presented as a personal rogue mission, then the Watch can detach itself from it if Ramsay comes calling. They wouldn't know anything, or that it was being done with attention to the Watch.

For the bolded part: What??!?!! How has this got to do with anything I said? When have I ever said Jon wants bad things for the NW? Clearly he has already put the NW in danger at this point, but I haven't even discussed any decisions he made before the arrival of the Pink Letter.

For the rest: Clearly in this chapter he still wants the NW to continue the Hardhome mission, so he does not want them to abandon the 'NW's mission' as Jon understands it. But just because Jon wants the NW to continue operating does not mean his reasons to ride south would be only for the sake of the NW. He doesn't spare a single thought on the danger the Boltons pose on the NW, but of course this could of course just be an omission. But why would he think his actions might be oathbreakingt if he is only doing what needs to be done to defend the Wall? And why would he not tell his true goals at least to the NW officers? Why make things look worse than they are?

But can the NW survive in the state Jon is leaving it in? The peace between wildlings and the NW is fragile; both sides mistrust each other, and the wildlings made their oaths to Jon Snow not the NW. Jon is appointing wildling Tormund to lead the Hardhome mission, and to take as many men as he likes. This means that the Hardhome mission is not lead by NW anymore, its lead by a wildling and the NW is attending. He is not naming any NW members who would be in charge of their brothers, not on the way to Hardhome or at the Wall. Looks like a recipe for chaos for me.

If you have power over your men, you can order them not to come with you on your mission, and to stay at the wall and continue the mission you give them.

If you take the situation to a point where your men object to your decision so much that they refuse to come with you, you have lost your power over them. How can you expect them to follow according to your orders when you leave them, or expect them to even continue the mission they object to? I don't see any merits in this approach.

Jon is the LC of the Night's Watch, he can decide who comes and who stays. He doesn't need to make his mission look stupid and reckless to stop men from coming.

If the speech was only supposed to attract the wildlings, why does Jon not inform the NW of the real plan and his real motives in advance? Even if the speech was aimed at the wildlings only, Jon should still have considered what it sounds like to the NW members.

I was trying to expand on why I think accepting this exactly as we see goes counters to Jon's character. I don't think you said Jon would willingly let his brothers be slaughtered. I was trying to unpack how I was understanding the way Jon might be looking at the Watch from 3 different angles (institution, brotherhood and mission).

We don't know if he plans to tell anyone in the Watch if he's intending to embark on a guerilla war zone to create a buffer. If he doesn't, I'd posit that it's because he knows convincing them of the virtue of this will be futile, and/ or the less they know, the better in the event Ramsay defeats him.

Jon doesn't say that he thinks his actions are oathbreaking (in terms of marching South). He thinks that others would call it oathbreaking. I think that might give us a clue that there's something more behind it.

I don't know if the Watch is doomed if Jon leaves. But the Watch is doomed so long as Ramsay doesn't get those hostages, 2 of which Jon doesn't have. Perhaps more specifically, Jon is the one here who's doomed to that end. I think the letter is very personally targeting Jon foremost, and the Watch as a secondary concern. There's tension between Watch and wildlings, but by leaving, Jon's taking a massive portion of those wildlings with him. He's leaving it in condition that, at the very least, they won't have enemies from the South-- it looks like Ramsay wants Jon, so by going at this alone, detached from the Watch, he can try to intercept him and defeat him. If not, then Ramasy has what he truly wants: Jon.

I'm not really speaking to the Hardhome mission. But, for what it's worth, the rangers are repeatedly noted to be on Jon's side in this, see the sense in going out, and are ok with working with the wildlings (more or less; it's the stewards and builders that have been questioning him).

Again, if Jon's trying to create a buffer between the Boltons and the Watch so that the Watch can continue as best it can, then keeping his men in dark might have strategic advantage so that this mission looks like Jon's alone and that it won't blow back on them. I think the snippets we're given are adding up to a sacrifice of sorts (in the event he's not successful at intercepting Ramsay).

[Brute of Bracken]

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.

Excuse me if this has already been addressed before, but isn't defending easier than attacking, especially with winter approaching? Jon should have just left the Boltons come to him - he would have a much better chance of winning.

[Fire Eater]

Jon's thought "I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard" doesn't sound to me like he's planning to attack Ramsay under any and all conditions. It sounds to me like he thinks Ramsay is going to ride out toward the Watch and that Jon's intending to defeat him somewhere between the Wall and Winterfell. I don't see "I will come for you even if you remain behind Winterfell walls" is the logical conclusion.

The thing to do would be to attack them, he thought. With fifty rangers well mounted, we could cut them apart along the road.

These are Jon's thoughts regarding the wildlings coming upon CB from the south. He wouldn't want to wait for them to come to CB, but go out to meet them.

But the other half of this would be to set this up so that no Watchmen are involved. Presenting this as personal and appealing to a wildling sense of outrage is exactly the sort of thing to keep Watchmen from participating. If Jon feels that he's personal responsible for the Watch's being threatened, and he believes he's the only one who can set this to rights, and he believes the way to stave off this assault on the Watch is to go against the Watchmen's understanding of the vow, then it makes absolute sense for Jon to alienate them. By making this his own, he keeps the other Watchmen out of this; Ramsay wants Jon, so if no other Watchmen are involved, then Ramsay doesn't retaliate on the Watch in the event Jon fails. Additionally, the Watchmen would not be pulled away from their duty of defending the Wall to correct Jon's mistake. Thirdly, by not bringing men who have sworn vows, he's free to operate as a rogue, unencumbered by their adherence to their vows.

He may have been planning to fill in a few select members of the Watch on his plan, if indeed my suspicion is correct. But the less he tells the Watch of his plan, the safer they are in the event he fails to stop Ramsay-- if it's presented as a personal rogue mission, then the Watch can detach itself from it if Ramsay comes calling. They wouldn't know anything, or that it was being done with attention to the Watch.

That is what I was thinking as well. If he keeps the rest of the NW out of it, they can simply say Jon had gone rogue, and they had nothing to do with his decision. Roose would be more lenient if Jon was killed in battle, and he would want a NW that is allied with him.

Excuse me if this has already been addressed before, but isn't defending easier than attacking, especially with winter approaching? Jon should have just left the Boltons come to him - he would have a much better chance of winning.

Except CB has no defenses for against the south. It would be smarter to go out to meet them at a distance far from CB, and ambush them.

[Brute of Bracken]

Except CB has no defenses for against the south. It would be smarter to go out to meet them at a distance far from CB, and ambush them.

At a time when half the force is sent north of the Wall? Jon would be outnumbered in the cold.

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

Jon's thought "I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard" doesn't sound to me like he's planning to attack Ramsay under any and all conditions. It sounds to me like he thinks Ramsay is going to ride out toward the Watch and that Jon's intending to defeat him somewhere between the Wall and Winterfell. I don't see "I will come for you even if you remain behind Winterfell walls" is the logical conclusion.

I'm not claiming that hints he plans to confront Ramsay in Winterfell. But that looks like he plans to confront Ramsay somewhere not just prepare defenses for a possible attack.

And yes, I think the answers to the bolded can be easily explained. He's making his plan sound appealing to wildlings. Wildlings who put stock in personal causes, avenging wrongful deaths, and might be pissed off especially that Mance is apparently in a cage wearing skins of wildling women (though, I'm not sure how much sense that part even makes to them considering Mance was allegedly burned). At any rate, Jon's making this sound personal, and making Ramsay sound deranged and reckless.

This part seems reasonable.

But the other half of this would be to set this up so that no Watchmen are involved. Presenting this as personal and appealing to a wildling sense of outrage is exactly the sort of thing to keep Watchmen from participating. If Jon feels that he's personal responsible for the Watch's being threatened, and he believes he's the only one who can set this to rights, and he believes the way to stave off this assault on the Watch is to go against the Watchmen's understanding of the vow, 1.then it makes absolute sense for Jon to alienate them. By making this his own, 2.he keeps the other Watchmen out of this; Ramsay wants Jon, so if no other Watchmen are involved, then Ramsay doesn't retaliate on the Watch in the event Jon fails. 3.Additionally, the Watchmen would not be pulled away from their duty of defending the Wall to correct Jon's mistake. Thirdly, by not bringing men who have sworn vows, he's free to operate as a rogue, unencumbered by their adherence to their vows.

4. This might be one of those cases where he knows that anything short of giving Ramsay those hostages will be taken as "oathbreaking" by the Watchmen, and they won't see even a mission to defend the Watch this way as conforming. And they wouldn't. 5.Bowen's been calling simply letting wildlings through to help fight the common enemy "treason" for 13 chapters. There's no way the Watchmen would ever see the utility in a plan to buffer the Watch remotely like this, because too many of them take the vows really literally (and when they don't, including Bowen, they'd find the plan too bold given that Stannis has already been defeated).

6.He may have been planning to fill in a few select members of the Watch on his plan, if indeed my suspicion is correct. But the less he tells the Watch of his plan, the safer they are in the event he fails to stop Ramsay-- if it's presented as a personal rogue mission, then the Watch can detach itself from it if Ramsay comes calling. 7. They wouldn't know anything, or that it was being done with attention to the Watch.

And this is the part that is ridiculous.

1. No, it really really really doesn't. If he is intentionally alienating them, how can he still expect them to follow him afterwards? How can he expect the Hardhome mission to continue? Why would the NW follow Tormund when Jon is gone? Are they going to tolerate the wildlings, or keep the gates open? Who will they choose as the new leader? Marsh, Yarwick? And it does not look like he wanted to alienate them. He still expects them to take orders from him and is not prepared for any resistance.

2. But they are not completely staying 'out of it' if they let their LC ride south with a wildling troop without even trying to stop him. If Jon was ready to do this without expecting the approval of NW, he should have been prepared to ride south after the speech before anyone can protest. He could have even arranged things with the wildlings and not informed the NW at all if he wanted the NW to be left out completely. Now he is letting the wildlings to have drinks and plans on talking to Melisandre and Selyse after the speech, and if the NW doesn't interfere during this time, they are condoning Jon's plan in the eyes of everyone.

3. I'm not questioning his decision to leave the Wall manned. I'm asking why he could not do that by giving the men an order to stay there.

4. We don't know if this would be how they feel. And if Jon believes this he should have sent the wanted hostages to safety before reading the letter and alienating the NW. Now he has no control on what will be done with them. What is going to stop the NW from sending the hostages now?

5. For 13 chapters he has hated the idea of using the wildlings to defend. But all he has done has been bitch and whine. Then Jon decides to lie and say he is going to attack with the wildlings not just defend. And he gets stabbed. So why is it a good idea to make things look worse than they are?

We don't know how the NW would have felt about defending themselves from the Boltons with the help of wildlings. The part I'm failing to see is why make Jon's plans look worse than they are, if he is only going to defend?

6. If he intended to give a speech with wrong information, he really should have informed several members of NW of his true intentions and plans before the speech.

7. And this is the problem. If they believe that Jon is acting for wrong purposes they will understandably try to stop him. When Jon expects the NW not to interfere he expects them to condone. When you tell someone lies you need to expect them to act according to them. The NW can't claim they knew nothing of their LC's plans to ride south with a troop of wildlings, when before leaving he gave a public speech where he revealed he intends to do just that. If he truly wants the NW to have clean hands, he should not told them about the real plans or the fictional plans which are even worse.

I see where you are in general going with this, but if this is what Jon intended he is not acting logical. He either has the NW support or he doesn't. If he loses the NW support (and if this is what he intends), then he should have realized they are not going to follow the orders he leaves them and that they are not going to see him as their LC anymore. If he makes his decisions look completely unacceptable, they are going to stop him. It does not look like he expected any of this.

I was trying to expand on why I think accepting this exactly as we see goes counters to Jon's character. I don't think you said Jon would willingly let his brothers be slaughtered. I was trying to unpack how I was understanding the way Jon might be looking at the Watch from 3 different angles (institution, brotherhood and mission).

I still don't understand your steps of logic here. Honestly, your statement looked like an ugly strawman.

There's tension between Watch and wildlings, but by leaving, Jon's taking a massive portion of those wildlings with him.

He isn't. Only about 500 of the over 3000 wildlings that came with Tormund were warriors. Stannis had a thousand prisoners, I don't know how many were warriors. The wildlings are spread in several castles, does Jon intend to wait for them to come and join him? From those at CB only warriors are even potentially going with Jon, and the wildlings are likely to want to leave warriors at the Wall as well to look after their women, childrean and elderly. Whenever Tormund has talked about sending wildlings to Hardhome the number was always less than a hundred.

Again, if Jon's trying to create a buffer between the Boltons and the Watch so that the Watch can continue as best it can, then keeping his men in dark might have strategic advantage so that this mission looks like Jon's alone and that it won't blow back on them.

Except it's not a strategic advantage if your plan looks so bad, that your men will actively try to stop you. Does it look like Jon had prepared for any sort of resistance from the NW in the last chapter? When you can't reveal your real plan because your men would object, you need to make the fake plan look better not worse than the real plan.

[Fire Eater]

At a time when half the force is sent north of the Wall? Jon would be outnumbered in the cold.

Except wildlings would be joining him, and surprise and location can make up for numbers as Hannibal proved.

[Muggle]

I didn't know this thread existed. I guess i should of posted this here instead of a thread by its self.

The biggest point I wanted to make was Jon calling the NW Crows instead of brothers.

But I agree Jon didn't have a choice to ride south. But I think he rode south for Family. Not for the watch.

[Brute of Bracken]

Except wildlings would be joining him, and surprise and location can make up for numbers as Hannibal proved.

If indeed Jon believes he is going to take down the Boltons in the open, shouldn't he at least have committed with a full force? And how big is Jon's force anyway - about 1000 rangers and 2000 fighting wildlings right? Given Stannis with his ~5000 men couldn't kill the Boltons (as per Jon), what chance does Jon have? Jon doesn't even know the Boltons are riding out - what if they were just holing up at Winterfell?

Jon should have kept his whole force together, and used scouts to find the position of the boltons. Once he knows they are indeed attacking, he should plan to defend/ambush them.

[Asha's Suckling Babe]

If indeed Jon believes he is going to take down the Boltons in the open, shouldn't he at least have committed with a full force? And how big is Jon's force anyway - about 1000 rangers and 2000 fighting wildlings right? Given Stannis with his ~5000 men couldn't kill the Boltons (as per Jon), what chance does Jon have? Jon doesn't even know the Boltons are riding out - what if they were just holing up at Winterfell?

Jon should have kept his whole force together, and used scouts to find the position of the boltons. Once he knows they are indeed attacking, he should plan to defend/ambush them.

Not even nearly. There is not even 1000 NW members alltogether, I don't know how many are rangers. Tormund had at most a thousand warriors with him according to Jon, but Jon approximated 500. Stannis took 1000 wildling prisoners initially, I don't know how many were warriors.

[Defeatarion]

I didn't know this thread existed. I guess i should of posted this here instead of a thread by its self.

The biggest point I wanted to make was Jon calling the NW Crows instead of brothers.

But I agree Jon didn't have a choice to ride south. But I think he rode south for Family. Not for the watch.

Yeah he does all of this crazy shit and tries to get his BroCrows to accept them. Claiming protecting the wall is VITAL. Then goes...Yenno what? How about we march on the Boltons taking strength off the wall....it's stupid.