Why I think Jon didn't break his vows at the end of ADwD.

[butterbumps!]

That's all I'm saying.

Ramsay has no intentions of taking on the Night's Watch so this preemptive strike idea is bunk. Ramsay doesn't say, "I'm bringing the Watch down starting with you, Jon!" His letter is addressed to the "bastard". Coming for Jon affects the Watch (obviously) but this is between Ramsay and Jon -- anyone who gets in the way will suffer. Ramsay is only threatening Jon because Jon got involved.

In the end, Jon wanted revenge ("I'm coming for you, bastard") because a plan he was part of (a plan that also goes against his vows) failed. Jon was playing a very dangerous game by offering Stannis castles and council. We knew that. He knew that. And now his hand in all of Stannis' operations has been revealed.

As I said before, just because someone sends you a letter saying, "I killed everyone and now I'm gonna kill you too lulz" doesn't mean you need to hold a conference and openly declare war. Jon could have continued to act in secret, gathering intel so he could be sure the letter was true. He decided to march because he thought all hope was lost. Also: Arya.

Do you honestly believe that Jon, who has been giving us endless military strategy musings for 4 books, is truly marching to Winterfell with a ragtag band of wildlings to engage the Boltons in war for vengeance they aren't suited for, especially when he knows, as per what's clearly stated in the letter, that Arya isn't at Winterfell?

How are you reading the last part of the chapter? Are you taking the fact that Jon tries to create distance between himself and the Watch as testament to Jon's saying "fuck it, vengeance," or do you see how separating his actions from the Watch shields them from his past and future interventions? Doing this helps ensure they won't suffer consequences for the Arya mission or any future failing on his part.

Further, the letter gives Jon a pretty good reason to believe Rams might show up-- it tells Jon that there's no further buffers between him and Bolton anger, so if Jon doesn't comply, there will be consequences. The result of having Rams show up at the Wall to attack is too great. There's a chance Rams won't come, but if he does, the Watch is destroyed, which means the realms of men will suffer. So moving to reduce that threat is pretty critical.

[RoamingRonin]

1) Threat to the Night's Watch and it's Lord Commander:

Jon was complicit in a crime to steal Ramsay's bride away. This is why he's being threatened. Attack the Lord Commander and that might cause some trouble for the crows... This is a Ramsay vs. Jon thing (I explained it better in my post above).

There's no mention of refusing help and not accommodating guests at the Wall. Stannis understands about their common enemy: the White Walkers. When the Long Night comes, the Night's Watch will need as many men as it can get.

It's not in the vows. Exactly. Stannis requested castle to station his men for the planned war against the Others but he's not marching north of the Wall, he's marching south.

Just because he knows about the Others doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants as long as he offers support against the Others.

3) You do know that Castle Black has no defense from the South. Ramsay could march an army up the Kingsroad and wipe out the Night's Watch. Jon choosing to ride out against this threat is the only reasonable choice at this point. It's for the good of the Night's Watch and in the big picture, for the good of the realm. And why would Jon want to get revenge for Stannis's death?

Castle Black isn't the Night's Watch. Castle Black is one castle of the Night's Watch. Killing Jon is his goal, not eliminating every black brother there is.

I don't think he wants revenge for Stannis' death. He was revenge for Ramsay's crimes against House Stark.

[sj4iy]

Ugh, circular argument. No matter how you interpret the vows or oaths of the Night's Watch, in the end, Jon didn't break his vows because he never left Castle Black.

[kimim]

No, he wasn't complicit. He was aware, but he took no part and had no authority on allowing or denying a mission conceived and enacted by an advisor of Stannis. And no, even if Jon WAS complicit, the letter does NOT suggest he was complicit. It suggests only that Ramsey believes Reek and fArya went to the wall and that he'll 'trouble' the crows to get them back.

Jon's one of my favorite characters, but he is complicit. Mel shows him Mance, he hears the plan, and he doesn't say "no." Mel could go ahead, anyway, but it would then be truly without Jon's knowledge.

If only the Lords and ladies of Westeros were that reasonable.

Ultimately, I don't think Ramsey wrote the letter BUT technically as LC he should obey The Lord of WF and the Warden of the North and do as he's bid. They were appointed by the King so their orders are suppose to be followed.

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do but Westerossi protocol seems to be very rigid and inflexible. I was surprised with just how easily JS walked back into the NW considering how ruthlessly disciplined they are suppose to be.

NW has no duty to "obey" any lord. They are there to guard the realms of men. Jon's not duty bound to hand Ramsey people under NW's protection. Another example of where Jon won't obey a lord, and the lord agrees: Stannis wants his soldiers to man the empty forts. Jon refuses. Stannis accepts, because this is within Jon's rights.

That's all I'm saying.

Ramsay has no intentions of taking on the Night's Watch so this preemptive strike idea is bunk. Ramsay doesn't say, "I'm bringing the Watch down starting with you, Jon!" His letter is addressed to the "bastard". Coming for Jon affects the Watch (obviously) but this is between Ramsay and Jon -- anyone who gets in the way will suffer. Ramsay is only threatening Jon because Jon got involved.

In the end, Jon wanted revenge ("I'm coming for you, bastard") because a plan he was part of (a plan that also goes against his vows) failed. Jon was playing a very dangerous game by offering Stannis castles and council. We knew that. He knew that. And now his hand in all of Stannis' operations has been revealed.

As I said before, just because someone sends you a letter saying, "I killed everyone and now I'm gonna kill you too lulz" doesn't mean you need to hold a conference and openly declare war. Jon could have continued to act in secret, gathering intel so he could be sure the letter was true. He decided to march because he thought all hope was lost. Also: Arya.

Ramsey writes that if Jon doesn't hand over Shireen, Val, the baby, etc., he'll kill Jon, destroy the crows. imo he means it. Jon would be negligent not to protect his people at that point, and he can't protect them by sitting still; CB can't be defended from the south.

[Julia H.]

That's all I'm saying.

Ramsay has no intentions of taking on the Night's Watch so this preemptive strike idea is bunk. Ramsay doesn't say, "I'm bringing the Watch down starting with you, Jon!" His letter is addressed to the "bastard". Coming for Jon affects the Watch (obviously) but this is between Ramsay and Jon -- anyone who gets in the way will suffer. Ramsay is only threatening Jon because Jon got involved.

In the end, Jon wanted revenge ("I'm coming for you, bastard") because a plan he was part of (a plan that also goes against his vows) failed. Jon was playing a very dangerous game by offering Stannis castles and council. We knew that. He knew that. And now his hand in all of Stannis' operations has been revealed.

As I said before, just because someone sends you a letter saying, "I killed everyone and now I'm gonna kill you too lulz" doesn't mean you need to hold a conference and openly declare war. Jon could have continued to act in secret, gathering intel so he could be sure the letter was true. He decided to march because he thought all hope was lost. Also: Arya.

Jon was not playing any games. Stannis was at the Wall with an army much stronger than the NW (incidentally, an army that had just given the NW vital, decisive military help), Stannis had been there before Jon became LC, and Jon had to deal with him, to negotiate with him. Jon was skating on thin ice every time he refused his demands. Stannis made several threats, and it was only because of Jon's negotiation skills that he was contented with what he got from the Watch when originally he had wanted much more.

It is easy to say the Night's Watch takes no part while the Night's Watch is forgotten by everyone else, but how do you stay neutral when you are basically occupied by an army? Also, given what Stannis was planning to do, not helping him would have meant helping the Boltons or the Ironborn, which would have been neutrality in name only. In reality, it would have meant taking the opposite side.

Jon was complicit in a crime to steal Ramsay's bride away. This is why he's being threatened. Attack the Lord Commander and that might cause some trouble for the crows... This is a Ramsay vs. Jon thing (I explained it better in my post above).

It's not in the vows. Exactly. Stannis requested castle to station his men for the planned war against the Others but he's not marching north of the Wall, he's marching south.

Just because he knows about the Others doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants as long as he offers support against the Others.

Castle Black isn't the Night's Watch. Castle Black is one castle of the Night's Watch. Killing Jon is his goal, not eliminating every black brother there is.

I don't think he wants revenge for Stannis' death. He was revenge for Ramsay's crimes against House Stark.

So Castle Black is just one of the castles of the Night's Watch... Does that mean it is all right to let it be attacked in a way that it would be left indefensible? Oh, yes, all Ramsay would have done was come to Castle Black, kill Jon and say goodbye to the rest of the black brothers with a friendly handshake. And why exactly should Jon allow Ramsay to kill him? Because he had thought his little sister was fleeing from this man, alone in a not-so-safe area, on a dying horse, and he had sent out a search party to find her?

Jon describes Ramsay as "This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women..." (Isn't flaying a crime, by any chance?) There is a sadistic murderer out there and Jon is fundamentally a protector figure. He has a number of reasons to feel outraged.

In my opinion, the LC cannot be subject to the authority of any other lord. Otherwise the very idea of NW neutrality would be totally ridiculous from the start. Besides, Ramsay is not even an official authority figure in the North. He is the Lord of Winterfell, but not the Warden of the North. That office is held by Roose Bolton, and the son of the Warden is not the Warden. The "Lord of Winterfell" is technically just one of the many lords in the North. We never see the LC take an oath of fealty to anyone, and as I said, it would not make much sense if he did. But it is definitely the duty of the LC (and that of any army commander) to protect the army and the fortresses under his command so they can continue to defend the realm.

[Chaircat Meow]

Do you honestly believe that Jon, who has been giving us endless military strategy musings for 4 books, is truly marching to Winterfell with a ragtag band of wildlings to engage the Boltons in war for vengeance they aren't suited for, especially when he knows, as per what's clearly stated in the letter, that Arya isn't at Winterfell?

Did anyone say he was going to recover Arya? It's about revenge.

I think Jon decided to attack Ramsay before he knew what strategy he'd actually have to adopt. Remember he rouses the wildlings and only then thinks, 'I'll ask Mel where Ramsay is.' I expect Jon hopes he's on the way and can be met near CB but he doesn't seem to be depending on that.

How are you reading the last part of the chapter? Are you taking the fact that Jon tries to create distance between himself and the Watch as testament to Jon's saying "fuck it, vengeance," or do you see how separating his actions from the Watch shields them from his past and future interventions? Doing this helps ensure they won't suffer consequences for the Arya mission or any future failing on his part.

I'd disagree Jon necessarily puts space between the watch and himself, given he's bound the watch up the wildlings he's using to attack the Boltons. I think he did partly act in the way he did out of respect for the vow, and also because he recognizes the watch ought not to get involved. On the other hand, if he had tried to rouse the nw as well as the wildlings, he'd certainly have had a civil war on his hands, and he'd have had to explain himself much more carefully. So, in a sense, he couldn't use the nw.

Further, the letter gives Jon a pretty good reason to believe Rams might show up-- it tells Jon that there's no further buffers between him and Bolton anger, so if Jon doesn't comply, there will be consequences. The result of having Rams show up at the Wall to attack is too great. There's a chance Rams won't come, but if he does, the Watch is destroyed, which means the realms of men will suffer. So moving to reduce that threat is pretty critical.

Why do you keep assuming the nw is destroyed if Ramsay shows up? Ramsay didn't directly threaten any nwmen apart from Jon and he gave his reasons. Do you think Roose Bolton would allow the Lord of Winterfell, and the son of the Warden of the North to exterminate the nw? Just how destructive are you saying Bolton PR is?

[sj4iy]

Did anyone say he was going to recover Arya? It's about revenge.

I think Jon decided to attack Ramsay before he knew what strategy he'd actually have to adopt. Remember he rouses the wildlings and only then thinks, 'I'll ask Mel where Ramsay is.' I expect Jon hopes he's on the way and can be met near CB but he doesn't seem to be depending on that.

“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.

They talked for the best part of two hours.

He talks with Tormund for two hours to come up with a new plan. He had a plan.

I'd disagree Jon necessarily puts space between the watch and himself, given he's bound the watch up the wildlings he's using to attack the Boltons. I think he did partly act in the way he did out of respect for the vow, and also because he recognizes the watch ought not to get involved. On the other hand, if he had tried to rouse the nw as well as the wildlings, he'd certainly have had a civil war on his hands, and he'd have had to explain himself much more carefully. So, in a sense, he couldn't use the nw.

Jon could use the NW, because there would certainly be men who would be more than happy to help him. He doesn't want to, though, because he wants to make sure they don't get accused of breaking their vows. He's not sure if he's oathbreaking, but it's a grey area, and Jon doesn't want to risk his men.

Why do you keep assuming the nw is destroyed if Ramsay shows up? Ramsay didn't directly threaten any nwmen apart from Jon and he gave his reasons. Do you think Roose Bolton would allow the Lord of Winterfell, and the son of the Warden in the North to exterminate the nw? Just how destructive are you saying Bolton PR is?

I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

Pretty straight-forward threat to the NW. It's not as if Ramsay is going to be able to just 'kill' the LC without dealing with the rest of the NW, in any case. Do you honestly think that he would arrive, say "Hey, give me your leader so I can kill him!" and they would oblige? Uh, no. A threat to the LC is a threat to all...and Ramsay even puts in 'your black crows'. It's really, really, really obvious.

[Chaircat Meow]

“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.

They talked for the best part of two hours.

He talks with Tormund for two hours to come up with a new plan. He had a plan.

The plan in that case refers to the relief expedition to Hardhome though, as that's the plan they were working on. Jon might have shared his strategy for an attack on Ramsay with Tormund, or he might just have asked 'how do I get your men on board with me.'

Jon could use the NW, because there would certainly be men who would be more than happy to help him. He doesn't want to, though, because he wants to make sure they don't get accused of breaking their vows. He's not sure if he's oathbreaking, but it's a grey area, and Jon doesn't want to risk his men.

I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

Pretty straight-forward threat to the NW. It's not as if Ramsay is going to be able to just 'kill' the LC without dealing with the rest of the NW, in any case. Do you honestly think that he would arrive, say "Hey, give me your leader so I can kill him!" and they would oblige? Uh, no. A threat to the LC is a threat to all...and Ramsay even puts in 'your black crows'. It's really, really, really obvious.

So, basically, what you are saying is that the Boltons will let the nw off for doing nothing to stop Jon attacking them with wildlings while going to ferry more wildlings over the wall, but that they will kill every single nwman, despite the immense damage that will do to their already fragile reputation, for daring to even be at CB when they show up. If that makes sense to you be my guest: it makes no sense to me.

On that quote, you cut before the relevant line; Ramsay only threatens Jon personally with the heart cutting, not the nw. Obviously, turning up demanding Jon's head will trouble his men, I have no doubt, but Ramsay did not threaten, in the letter, to kill them as well.

[butterbumps!]

Did anyone say he was going to recover Arya? It's about revenge.

I think Jon decided to attack Ramsay before he knew what strategy he'd actually have to adopt. Remember he rouses the wildlings and only then thinks, 'I'll ask Mel where Ramsay is.' I expect Jon hopes he's on the way and can be met near CB but he doesn't seem to be depending on that.

I'd disagree Jon necessarily puts space between the watch and himself, given he's bound the watch up the wildlings he's using to attack the Boltons. I think he did partly act in the way he did out of respect for the vow, and also because he recognizes the watch ought not to get involved. On the other hand, if he had tried to rouse the nw as well as the wildlings, he'd certainly have had a civil war on his hands, and he'd have had to explain himself much more carefully. So, in a sense, he couldn't use the nw.

Why do you keep assuming the nw is destroyed if Ramsay shows up? Ramsay didn't directly threaten any nwmen apart from Jon and he gave his reasons. Do you think Roose Bolton would allow the Lord of Winterfell, and the son of the Warden of the North to exterminate the nw? Just how destructive are you saying Bolton PR is?

I'm not sure why you assume that Jon, who's actually shown himself to be a pretty good strategist, and has been aware of possible retaliation for the Arya mission for 7 chapters, is truly operating out of some slapped together nonsense no plan for vengeance. Especially when you were insisting that Bowen, who's never been presented as making a strategy in his life, totally had a strategy in mind wrt the wildlings as per our little debate a few weeks ago. It's very curious to me why you reject Jon's previous characterization to assume he's plum lost all sense here, but insisted that I should give Bowen the benefit of the doubt in thinking he had a plan despite previous characterization that would go against such a position.

And seriously, the letter plainly states that the Watch will be left alone only in the circumstance that the hostages are given over. I'm getting pretty sick of debating this point. The letter says that he'll leave the crows alone if Jon complies.

And I guess I need to point out again that the letter makes it pretty clear that there's really no one around to present much of a challenge to the Boltons, so the question of "what would the other Northmen say if Rams attacked the Watch due to Jon's trying to steal his bride" really doesn't matter, since they're not going to be saying much of anything according to the letter.

[SeanF]

I don't think there's much left to discuss.

Technically speaking, there's nothing in the Night's Watch's Oath that requires them to remain neutral. That's just a tradition that's grown up over time.

But, in any case, neutrality only works if everyone respects it. The regime in Kings Landing views the Night's Watch as enemies as soon as Stannis arrives at the Wall, and as soon as Jon is elected Lord Commander. At that point, neutrality ceased to be a viable option.

As to the Pink Letter, why should Jon be expected to hand over people to Ramsay Bolton? How would that be consistent with his Oath?

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm not sure why you assume that Jon, who's actually shown himself to be a pretty good strategist, and has been aware of possible retaliation for the Arya mission for 7 chapters, is truly operating out of some slapped together nonsense no plan for vengeance. Especially when you were insisting that Bowen, who's never been presented as making a strategy in his life, totally had a strategy in mind wrt the wildlings as per our little debate a few weeks ago. It's very curious to me why you reject Jon's previous characterization to assume he's plum lost all sense here, but insisted that Bowen had a plan despite previous characterization that would go against such a position.

I never said Bowen was a good strategist; you seem to think he would be if what I said was true. However, Jon's actions aren't incompatible with him having good military sense; everyone is capable of doing things that seem rash/crazy when they are backed into a corner, are emotional and have no other options.

And seriously, the letter plainly states that the Watch will be left alone only in the circumstance that the hostages are given over. I'm getting pretty sick of debating this point. The letter says that he'll leave the crows alone if Jon complies.

It does not threaten to murder them all though, just Jon, and that's in the context of having something on him (the Mance business).

And I guess I need to point out again that the letter makes it pretty clear that there's really no one around to present much of a challenge to the Boltons, so the question of "what would the other Northmen say if Rams attacked the Watch due to Jon's trying to steal his bride" really doesn't matter, since they're not going to be saying much of anything according to the letter.

So all Roose's bannermen who presumably helped him win against Stannis have just vanished? Roose and Ramsay hope to rule the north for a while, Roose isn't thick enough to think he can do that while messing with every sacred tradition under the sun.

[sj4iy]

I don't think there's much left to discuss.

Technically speaking, there's nothing in the Night's Watch's Oath that requires them to remain neutral. That's just a tradition that's grown up over time.

But, in any case, neutrality only works if everyone respects it. The regime in Kings Landing views the Night's Watch as enemies as soon as Stannis arrives at the Wall, and as soon as Jon is elected Lord Commander. At that point, neutrality ceased to be a viable option.

As to the Pink Letter, why should Jon be expected to hand over people to Ramsay Bolton? How would that be consistent with his Oath?

^This. All of this.

[butterbumps!]

I never said Bowen was a good strategist; you seem to think he would be if what I said was true. However, Jon's actions aren't incompatible with him having good military sense; everyone is capable of doing things that seem rash/crazy when they are backed into a corner, are emotional and have no other options.

It does not threaten to murder them all though, just Jon, and that's in the context of having something on him (the Mance business).

So all Roose's bannermen who presumably helped him win against Stannis have just vanished? Roose and Ramsay hope to rule the north for a while, Roose isn't thick enough to think he can do that while messing with every sacred tradition under the sun.

No, you insisted that Bowen had a strategy/ plan in mind at all in that debate as an argument against my assertion that he's just a negative nancy who criticizes what people come up with without ever coming up with anything on his own. Despite how we never see or hear of Bowen ever articulating anything that resembles in a plan in 5 books.

Jon is actually not emotional or worked up in the last part of that chapter. So the idea that he's a good strategist who just plum lost all sense in a fit of vengeful rage doesn't look like the most likely explanation of the situation from my angle. Nor does the way he went about that speech sound like anything other than "phase 1" of a plan to deal with retaliation by the Boltons.

The letter says that Rams will leave Jon and his crows alone if the demands are complied with. It ends with a more direct, violent threat to Jon personally. That there's a more direct, violent threat to Jon does not somehow negate the fact that Rams also threatened the Watch right before it. Rams is clearly incandescently angry with Jon, but ties the fate of the Watch to the hostage outcome as well. This is pretty factual.

Are you trying to say that Jon should understand that Roose Bolton most likely also had a hand in that letter, and that cautious Roose Bolton would never dare piss off the bannermen (that aren't even mentioned in said letter) by attacking the Watch for Jon's clear transgression of "getting involved" and sending "enemy of the state Mance Rayder" to invade Winterfell? If you're honestly trying to argue that the "crimes" Jon's accused of in that letter are not legitimate enough for retaliation against the Watch, then you can't maintain the argument that sending Mance was at all problematic, and in fact, you should argue that the move was actually a brilliant checkmate on Jon's part since apparently he'd know the Boltons could never do anything about it.

[Chaircat Meow]

No, you insisted that Bowen had a strategy/ plan in mind at all in that debate as an argument against my assertion that he's just a negative nancy who criticizes what people come up with without ever coming up with anything on his own. Despite how we never see or hear of Bowen ever articulating anything that resembles in a plan in 5 books.

Why do you think Bowen wanted to seal the gate then? There must be some reason/thought behind that, as people don't want to do things for utterly random reasons in my experience, especially when their safety is at stake.

Jon is actually not emotional or worked up in the last part of that chapter. So the idea that he's a good strategist who just plum lost all sense in a fit of vengeful rage doesn't look like the most likely explanation of the situation from my angle. Nor does the way he went about that speech sound like anything other than "phase 1" of a plan to deal with retaliation by the Boltons.

He clearly is. The memories of Winterfell he has before coming to a decision speak to it. He'd composed himself by the time he made the speech.

The letter says that Rams will leave Jon and his crows alone if the demands are complied with. It ends with a more direct, violent threat to Jon personally. That there's a more direct, violent threat to Jon does not somehow negate the fact that Rams also threatened the Watch right before it. Rams is clearly incandescently angry with Jon, but ties the fate of the Watch to the hostage outcome as well. This is pretty factual.

There was no threat made against the life of anyone in the nw aside from Jon; the violent threat started and ended with Jon himself.

Are you trying to say that Jon should understand that Roose Bolton most likely also had a hand in that letter, and that cautious Roose Bolton would never dare piss off the bannermen (that aren't even mentioned in said letter) by attacking the Watch for Jon's clear transgression of "getting involved" and sending "enemy of the state Mance Rayder" to invade Winterfell? If you're honestly trying to argue that the "crimes" Jon's accused of in that letter are not legitimate enough for retaliation against the Watch, then you can't maintain the argument that sending Mance was at all problematic, and in fact, you should argue that the move was actually a brilliant checkmate on Jon's part since apparently he'd know the Boltons could never do anything about it.

The Boltons are not going to attack without some form of cover, which they had in the form of the Mance business, although they seem to be associating that with Jon. They could have blamed the whole watch for it I suppose. But in reality, aside from a refusal to comply with their demands, the nw does not look to be in danger. The whole idea that Jon had to do what he did because CB was going to be destroyed doesn't wash.

[SeanF]

Why do you think Bowen wanted to seal the gate then? There must be some reason/thought behind that, as people don't want to do things for utterly random reasons in my experience, especially when their safety is at stake.He clearly is. The memories of Winterfell he has before coming to a decision speak to it. He'd composed himself by the time he made the speech. There was no threat made against the life of anyone in the nw aside from Jon; the violent threat started and ended with Jon himself. The Boltons are not going to attack without some form of cover, which they had in the form of the Mance business, although they seem to be associating that with Jon. They could have blamed the whole watch for it I suppose. But in reality, aside from a refusal to comply with their demands, the nw does not look to be in danger. The whole idea that Jon had to do what he did because CB was going to be destroyed doesn't wash.

Why should the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch hand over hostages to Ramsay Bolton? If I were in Jon's position, I'd treat the letter as a declaration of war and act accordingly.

[Chaircat Meow]

Why should the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch hand over hostages to Ramsay Bolton? If I were in Jon's position, I'd treat the letter as a declaration of war and act accordingly.

Are you in favour of pointless counterproductive actions in real life political affairs as well?

[butterbumps!]

Why do you think Bowen wanted to seal the gate then? There must be some reason/thought behind that, as people don't want to do things for utterly random reasons in my experience, especially when their safety is at stake.

He clearly is. The memories of Winterfell he has before coming to a decision speak to it. He'd composed himself by the time he made the speech.

There was no threat made against the life of anyone in the nw aside from Jon; the violent threat started and ended with Jon himself.

The Boltons are not going to attack without some form of cover, which they had in the form of the Mance business, although they seem to be associating that with Jon. They could have blamed the whole watch for it I suppose. But in reality, aside from a refusal to comply with their demands, the nw does not look to be in danger. The whole idea that Jon had to do what he did because CB was going to be destroyed doesn't wash.

Yea, see what I mean? When it comes to Bowen Marsh, defender of the holy count, there must be some sort of rationale beyond "I hate wildlings" informing his actions, but not for the guy who actually has a history of thinking through plans.

Reflecting on memories of own's family does not mean you are filled with rage and dead set on vengeance. Compare that to the wineseller passage of Dany's, as an example.

When someone says "I'll leave you and your pals alone if you do what I say. But I'll fucking kill you if you don't comply," the person is clearly most angry with you, but the threat to your pals is also there.

In reality, no, I don't think the Watch is actually in danger of a Rams attack. But from Jon's POV, it looks possible, even if not entirely probable. The real issue is that the devastation that would result if Rams attacked isn't worth the risk of taking for granted that it won't happen. If Rams actually came, the possibility that the Watch would be destroyed is rather high. That's really the issue that needs to be mitigated.

But, honestly, if you want to argue that there's no risk to the Watch as a result of the Arya mission, then you can't also argue that the Arya mission was a problem to begin with. If the Watch isn't threatened, then Jon did absolutely nothing wrong in his handling of the Arya mission. It can't work both ways. Either Jon put the Watch in jeopardy with the Arya mission and that's what he's reacting to, or there's no threat from the Bolton's and Jon's a fool for thinking so at the end. Which also would mean that the Arya mission was an act of inadvertent political brilliance on his part, since apparently, it couldn't come back on the Watch.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yea, see what I mean? When it comes to Bowen Marsh, defender of the holy count, there must be some sort of rationale beyond "I hate wildlings" informing his actions, but not for the guy who actually has a history of thinking through plans.

No I don't. I'm not proposing Bowen has a good rationale, just that he has one. He even spells it out early in DwD. You refuse to extrapolate from that, or think about it. That's up to you.

Reflecting on memories of own's family does not mean you are filled with rage and dead set on vengeance. Compare that to the wineseller passage of Dany's, as an example.

It's a very strong passage full of family reflection before one of the most important decisions of Jon's career. I think we are supposed to think it determined, to a large extent, Jon's choice. And it's not about the most logical way to defend the realms of men.

When someone says "I'll leave you and your pals alone if you do what I say. But I'll fucking kill you if you don't comply," the person is clearly most angry with you, but the threat to your pals is also there.

You might believe there's a threat to kill and destroy the nw in the letter. It does not change the fact no such threat was ever made.

In reality, no, I don't think the Watch is actually in danger of a Rams attack. But from Jon's POV, it looks possible, even if not probable. The real issue is that the devastation that would result if Rams attacked isn't worth the risk of taking for granted that it won't happen. If Rams actually came, the possibility that the Watch would be destroyed is rather high. That's really the issue that needs to be mitigated.

The odds of successfully beating Ramsay with 500 wildlings are very very small, so if you wanted to save your command the best chance would be to play it the diplomatic route.

But, honestly, if you want to argue that there's no risk to the Watch as a result of the Arya mission, then you can't also argue that the Arya mission was a problem to begin with. If the Watch isn't threatened, then Jon did absolutely nothing wrong in his handling of the Arya mission. It can't work both ways. Either Jon put the Watch in jeopardy with the Arya mission and that's what he's reacting to, or there's no threat from the Bolton's and Jon's a fool for thinking so at the end.

I don't think there's no threat from the Boltons. I'm saying that the Boltons ideally don't want to massacre the nw if they can help it. Therefore the claim Jon had no options but to act as he did because Ramsay was coming to strangle the last ranger with the guts of the last steward no matter what is wrong.

[sj4iy]

The plan in that case refers to the relief expedition to Hardhome though, as that's the plan they were working on. Jon might have shared his strategy for an attack on Ramsay with Tormund, or he might just have asked 'how do I get your men on board with me.'

This is a case of seeing what you want to see. The text makes it very, very clear that he's 'changing the plan' in response to this letter. He has a plan to ride to Winterfell- alone. It's ridiculous to state otherwise. We simply don't know what it is because we are not privy to their conversation.

So, basically, what you are saying is that the Boltons will let the nw off for doing nothing to stop Jon attacking them with wildlings while going to ferry more wildlings over the wall, but that they will kill every single nwman, despite the immense damage that will do to their already fragile reputation, for daring to even be at CB when they show up. If that makes sense to you be my guest: it makes no sense to me.

On that quote, you cut before the relevant line; Ramsay only threatens Jon personally with the heart cutting, not the nw. Obviously, turning up demanding Jon's head will trouble his men, I have no doubt, but Ramsay did not threaten, in the letter, to kill them as well.

I didn't 'conveniently' cut out anything. I highlighted the part where he says, and I quote: "you or your black crows". Again, this is another case of "let's twist the context and pretend I didn't see that in order to argue something that directly contradicts the text". He definitely threatens Jon- but you absolutely cannot deny that he threatens the NW, because he says it. It's right there. No ambiguity. "Your black crows". Unless you want to take this to mean actual birds, there's no other interpretation that can be made. Ramsay threatens the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and his men if they don't accede to his demands.

[butterbumps!]

No I don't. I'm not proposing Bowen has a good rationale, just that he has one. He even spells it out early in DwD. You refuse to extrapolate from that, or think about it. That's up to you.

It's a very strong passage full of family reflection before one of the most important decisions of Jon's career. I think we are supposed to think it determined, to a large extent, Jon's choice. And it's not about the most logical way to defend the realms of men.

You might believe there's a threat to kill and destroy the nw in the letter. It does not change the fact no such threat was ever made.

The odds of successfully beating Ramsay with 500 wildlings are very very small, so if you wanted to save your command the best chance would be to play it the diplomatic route.

I don't think there's no threat from the Boltons. I'm saying that the Boltons ideally don't want to massacre the nw if they can help it. Therefore the claim Jon had no options but to act as he did because Ramsay was coming to strangle the last ranger with the guts of the last steward no matter what is wrong.

Yea, I "refuse" to extrapolate out Bowen's apparent "plan" that he must have, despite his not ever articulating a plan about anything. But I'm also wrong for looking at Jon's pattern of rational thinking and plan making to believe there's something more prepared going on here outside of "Rage is making me forget everything I know about common sense. Vengeance!!!!" Great.

I don't actually think Jon's planning to fight Rams in the way you're suggesting. Given what we know of Jon's strategies, he'd work it so that he'd level the playing field to disadvantage Rams and play to the wildlings' strength.

If you really want to play the angle that there's no threat to the Watch in all this (despite the clear threat the letter states to the Watch, but ok), then I guess the Mance operation is totally, 100%, not an issue. Either the letter leads one to believe that the Arya mission created a Bolton threat to the Watch and that reacting to it makes absolute sense, or it didn't. Which is it?

I didn't state that Jon had no options to act as he did "because Rams was coming to strangle the last ranger with the guts of the last steward no matter what." I said very explicitly that even if Rams' arrival to attack the Watch was improbable, that in the event Rams actually showed up there, it would be utterly devastating to the Watch. A 20% chance of Rams' showing up to destroy 90% of the Watch needs to be prevented. Better to mitigate the chance of his actually showing up there then to play the odds it simply won't happen, since it would be extremely devastating.