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

[Chaircat Meow]

If you choose to persist with this, then it's a disingenuous strawman, because I didn't say that complete eradication was the only consequence. I've been pointing out that the worst case scenario is Rams showing up and destroying the Watch. Even if there's a small possibility for that outcome, it's extreme enough that it needs to be mitigated. In general, Rams' showing up at the Watch will be bad news for the Watch. And on that point, you seem to keep disagreeing for some reason.

Didn't you say if Ramsay showed up there was a 90% chance of eradication?

Anyway, if mitigating against an outlier of a scenario means you make the scenario you are trying to prevent nearly certain, the plan is clearly a bad one.

And since Jon is going to lose his war, and will implicate the nw in it, he'll make certain of what was once only improbable (if possible).

[Chaircat Meow]

I made a thread about the military aspects of Jon's plan if anyone is interested.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/118931-the-bolton-snow-war-hypothetical/

I don't think this has ever been much discussed in its own right.

[Mal Malenkirk]

2. That the Arya mission endangered the Watch, but that apparently, the letter that was sent to Jon in response to that mission doesn't threaten the Watch (this position makes no sense, and really comes across like you're just talking out of both sides to support your view that Jon has no logic at the end)

Personnally I do believe the (f)Arya mission, while well intentioned, carried inherently a disastrous risk and that in this case the Murphy's Law came in full effect. Double that with the Alys Karstark interference as it was also going to get a response from the Boltons.

After that, well, the Pink letter is just a direct consequence and at that point the jar is broken and there's spilt milk all over the place. What should he have done? Was his secret plan brillant or moronic? I don't know, but there was no good options left anymore unless one could build a time machine and go back in time

The watch takes no part in the Game of Thrones for a good reason and this sequence of events was a demonstration of why. Jon getting stabbed in the back at the end instead of going further down that path is sorta fitting from a narrative POV because the point had been made. Continuing would have involved Jon the Lord Commander of the Night Watch irrevocably in the Game of Thrones and I assume that was not the author's intent.

If Jon survives, and assuming he gets again some loophole opportunity to leave the watch, he'll have to decide once and for all whether he's a Stark or a Watchmen. He can't be both. The Stark should bring down the Boltons, rescue his kid sister and avenge his brother and father, it's his duty. But the Watchman has to untangle himself from all tie to the rest of the realm and focus all his energy on the Wall. That's his duty.

[butterbumps!]

Didn't you say if Ramsay showed up there was a 90% chance of eradication?

Look what I said:

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.

In other words, if the worst case scenario is that Rams shows up to destroy 90% of the Watch, that needs to be mitigated. And that even if Rams' doesn't kill every last Watchman, that the result of Rams' showing up there will be extremely devastating to the Watch.

So, no. Basically, you tried arguing that there was no threat of an attack, I pointed out that you couldn't maintain that position and also condemn Jon for the Arya mission, so now you're trying to make it about my allegedly making extreme statements, like destruction of every Watchman as the "only" outcome or something.

Only in your mind.

What is wrong with thinking a certain act endangers somebody without believing that it entails a specific extreme consequence. If I shove you near a cliff edge you might fall, or you might cling onto something, or I might not have shoved you hard enough to send you over the edge. Shoving you is still an act that endangers you though, even if we can't foretell specific consequences with exactitude.

Tbh, I don't know why I bothered responding. This post still stands;

We weren't arguing whether the destruction of every last Watchman was the only result though.

[DragonDreamer]

Personnally I do believe the (f)Arya mission, while well intentioned, carried inherently a disastrous risk and that in this case the Murphy's Law came in full effect. Double that with the Alys Karstark interference was also going to get a response from the Boltons.

After that, well, the Pink letter is just a direct consequence and at that point the jar is broken and there's spilt milk all over the place. What should he have done at that point? Was his secret plan brillant or moronic? I don't know, but there was no good options left anymore unless one could build a time machine and go back in time

The watch takes no part in the Game of Thrones for a good reason and this sequence of event was a demonstration of why. Jon getting stabbed in the back at the end of the sequence of events instead of going firther down that path is sorta fitting from a narrative POV because the point had been made. Continuing would have involved Jon the Lord Commander of the Night Watch irrevocably in the Game of Thrones and I assume that was not the author's intent.

If Jon survives, and assuming he gets again some loophole opportunity to leave the watch, he'll have to decide once and for all whether he's a Stark or a Watchmen. He can't be both. The Stark should bring the Boltons, rescue his kid sister and avenge his brother and father. But the Watchman has to untangle himself from all tie to the rest of the realm.

:agree:

[Dolorous22]

Oh, I never said they would. Kings tend to think everyone owes them fealty. I'm just saying that the NW, by tradition, honors all kings and no kings. The problem with King Tommen dragging Jon before him and accusing him of treason is that the seven kingdoms wouldn't look kindly on that, as they know what the NW is for and how they are traditionally run...especially if Jon claims that the Others have returned. That's why Qyburn suggests a more discreet way of getting rid of Jon to Cersei, because it would look really bad for the crown. People may not care about the NW anymore, but they do care about traditions.

You're not wrong. But if the person informing on Jon had all of Jon's deeds recorded, it doesn't look good. He basically educated Stannis on how to rally the North to his cause. Allowed wildlings to settle on the gift. Hosted a sacrifice to Rhllor. Publicly beheaded Slynt. Wed Alys Karstark to the Magnar of Thenn. That's going far beyond his duties as LC and would look suspicious. Fair enough, take in the uncle of the King and his family. Directly involving himself in a Northern dispute is incredibly incriminating and without proof that this was all for the benefit of Westeros itt looks grim. Just like this forum, the 7K argue about most things lol. It's a variable. And a hell of a topic.

[butterbumps!]

Personnally I do believe the (f)Arya mission, while well intentioned, carried inherently a disastrous risk and that in this case the Murphy's Law came in full effect. Double that with the Alys Karstark interference was also going to get a response from the Boltons.

After that, well, the Pink letter is just a direct consequence and at that point the jar is broken and there's spilt milk all over the place. What should he have done at that point? Was his secret plan brillant or moronic? I don't know, but there was no good options left anymore unless one could build a time machine and go back in time

The watch takes no part in the Game of Thrones for a good reason and this sequence of event was a demonstration of why. Jon getting stabbed in the back at the end of the sequence of events instead of going firther down that path is sorta fitting from a narrative POV because the point had been made. Continuing would have involved Jon the Lord Commander of the Night Watch irrevocably in the Game of Thrones and I assume that was not the author's intent.

If Jon survives, and assuming he gets again some loophole opportunity to leave the watch, he'll have to decide once and for all whether he's a Stark or a Watchmen. He can't be both. The Stark should brings the Bolton down, the Watchman had to untangle himself from all tie to the rest of the realm.

Yea, I think the Arya mission put a target on the Watch. The Pink Letter threatens the Watch as a result of this.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But Hear Me Meow was trying to argue that the Pink Letter contained no threat to the Watch. So I pointed out that if one wants to argue that the Pink Letter contains no threat to the Watch, then they can't simultaneously condemn the Arya mission.

[sj4iy]

You're not wrong. But if the person informing on Jon had all of Jon's deeds recorded, it doesn't look good. He basically educated Stannis on how to rally the North to his cause. Allowed wildlings to settle on the gift. Hosted a sacrifice to Rhllor. Publicly beheaded Slynt. Wed Alys Karstark to the Magnar of Thenn. That's going far beyond his duties as LC and would look suspicious. Fair enough, take in the uncle of the King and his family. Directly involving himself in a Northern dispute is incredibly incriminating and without proof that this was all for the benefit of Westeros itt looks grim. Just like this forum, the 7K argue about most things lol. It's a variable. And a hell of a topic.

It may not look good, but it's not as if Jon had a choice. Stannis would have just taken what he wanted if Jon had refused, as Jon had no way to stop him (and he knew it). By negotiating, he came out better on the deal, as he got the men he needed and without giving up too much for them. Of course, had the IT taken the NW seriously when Thorne came to them asking for help, Stannis would have never been able to put the NW in that position in the first place.

Basically, as I see it, the NW is drowning, and Jon is doing everything he can to help it stay afloat. It won't earn him any accolades, obviously...it does earn him a stabbing by his own men, though. But I don't think Jon made the wrong decision, even with that outcome. Everything he did makes sense, even if it bends or breaks the rules. I would rather have a rulebreaker who gets things done than a rule follower who doesn't. You are right that it looks bad...but then again, Ned looked bad for saying Jon was his bastard. Jon looked bad for pretending to be a turncloak. Jaime looked bad for slaying Aerys. Yet they all did what was right over what was honorable and what was safe...in order to save the lives of others.

[Chaircat Meow]

Look what I said:

In other words, if the worst case scenario is that Rams shows up to destroy 90% of the Watch, that needs to be mitigated. And that even if Rams' doesn't kill every last Watchman, that the result of Rams' showing up there will be extremely devastating to the Watch.

Hang every watchman isn't something to get fixated on. I'm saying if Ramsay turns up at the wall it is unlikely that he'll butcher most, or any of the nw (saving Jon and his stooges). If you really agree with that but feel you've been strawmanned (which was not my intention) then you can have an apology but it doesn't really change the point.

You did also say this which is basically the view I've been arguing against;

I think the Arya mission and the Mance business generally put a Bolton target on the Watch that they'd have to answer for. I think what will result in "extermination of the Watch" (or devastation very close to that) is non compliance with the terms Rams gave.

So, no. Basically, you tried arguing that there was no threat of an attack, I pointed out that you couldn't maintain that position and also condemn Jon for the Arya mission, so now you're trying to make it about my allegedly making extreme statements, like destruction of every Watchman as the "only" outcome or something.

I do think it is unlikely that the Boltons would ravage the nw in retaliation for Jon's actions unless they suspected a lot of complicity there, but I don't rule it out. I was mainly pointing out there was no threat to that effect in the letter, and that the assumption the Boltons will slaughter the watch if they show up, even if Jon tries to defuse the situation, is false.

We weren't arguing whether the destruction of every last Watchman was the only result though.

Given Jon is embarking on a war he clearly can't win, and which will implicate the watch even further, the threat from the Boltons to the whole watch needs to be enormous and obvious. Otherwise the risk Jon takes outweighs, by a substantial margin, the one which would be accrued from trying to negotiate. In other words, Jon put the watch at risk, and then put it at risk even more.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yea, I think the Arya mission put a target on the Watch. The Pink Letter threatens the Watch as a result of this.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But Hear Me Meow was trying to argue that the Pink Letter contained no threat to the Watch. So I pointed out that if one wants to argue that the Pink Letter contains no threat to the Watch, then they can't simultaneously condemn the Arya mission.

2 Points;

The letter doesn't contain a threat to the watch. Ramsay doesn't say he'll kill any watchman, saving Jon, for non-compliance. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact.

And I thought you were always saying the LC was a member of the watch, and an attack on him was an attack on all. So, even if the Mance mission only put Jon at risk, he was still irresponsibly plunging the watch into the realm's affairs and placing the watch at risk of being further sucked in if they tried to defend him, or keep him as leader while he faced retribution.

[Lointain]

Second invasion of the Others in progress.

Thousands of wights, with their other masters marching to the Wall.

What did the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch do?

After some menaces, decides to abandon the Wall (during the time of greates peril to mankind in thousands of years), because someone, that isn't even the king, nor the lord paramount or the warden of the North wrote a menacing letter, weakening the garrison of the Wall in a great number of men.

Maybe this isn't breaking the vows. Maybe is Jon being (incredibly) stupid.

[butterbumps!]

Hang every watchman isn't something to get fixated on. I'm saying if Ramsay turns up at the wall it is unlikely that he'll butcher most, or any of the nw (saving Jon and his stooges). If you really agree with that but feel you've been strawmanned (which was not my intention) then you can have an apology but it doesn't really change the point.

You did also say this which is basically the view I've been arguing against;

I do think it is unlikely that the Boltons would ravage the nw in retaliation for Jon's actions unless they suspected a lot of complicity there, but I don't rule it out. I was mainly pointing out there was no threat to that effect in the letter, and that the assumption the Boltons will slaughter the watch if they show up, even if Jon tries to defuse the situation, is false.

Given Jon is embarking on a war he clearly can't win, and which will implicate the watch even further, the threat from the Boltons to the whole watch needs to be enormous and obvious. Otherwise the risk Jon takes outweighs, by a substantial margin, the one which would be accrued from trying to negotiate. In other words, Jon put the watch at risk, and then put it at risk even more.

You really don't believe that Rams' showing up at the Watch will be devastating for the Watch? And if so, would you still hold that position if you hadn't read the Reek chapters, but going on what the letter says?

The letter threatens the Watch. This seems pretty factual to me. The letter threatens the Watch because Jon got involved in Bolton business while part of the Watch organization. People, such as both you and I, argue that the Arya mission turns the Watch-- not just Jon-- into a target. It creates a threat to the Watch because it invites Bolton retaliation on the whole organization. The letter states that there is a threat to the Watch as a result of Jon's actions.

If you insist that there's no threat to the Watch involved in the letter, then you have to abandon your position that the Arya mission created a threat to the Watch.

Please note that I'm not arguing that the threat to the Watch can only be that all Watchmen will be destroyed. I contend the result will be devastating, but I'm not arguing for any specific outcome. I gave the worst case scenario, which honestly, from Jon's angle, looks like a real possibility.

I'm not sure why you're so certain that Jon can't adequately defend the Watch thusly. I know the numbers. But if Rams is taken in what Jon seems to believe is the first wave of attack, then this surely erodes Bolton strength. Jon would be aware of the fact that afterwards, the Boltons can only toss out so many men at once due to the Winterfell situation. Roose could send out the remaining Freys to deal with Jon, but they'd be at a disadvantage in the conditions (they aren't northerners and hated by everyone).

If Jon believes that Roose is still alive (which is actually a really salient question in this, since the letter's being written by Rams might lead one to think otherwise), then he'd know Roose would be too cautious to leave the castle with too few of his men. But Jon might honestly think Roose is dead and that Rams is the end of Bolton power, and therefore, that defeating him would be the end of Bolton strength.

[sj4iy]

2 Points;

The letter doesn't contain a threat to the watch. Ramsay doesn't say he'll kill any watchman, saving Jon, for non-compliance. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact.

"Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows."

If that doesn't contain a threat to the NW, then I don't know what does. Because that's as clear as clear can be.

If I wrote a letter saying "Pay up and I won't trouble you or your family", are you seriously going to argue that there's no threat against your family? Because that's EXACTLY what Ramsay is saying. There's a clear, undeniable, unmistakeable threat to the NW. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact.

[Chaircat Meow]

You really don't believe that Rams' showing up at the Watch will be devastating for the Watch?

I don't know and nor does anyone else. But I don't presume it would be necessarily no, as long as the watch didn't look complicit in what Jon was doing. And there is good reason to think most of the watch didn't know about Mance. If they fail to prevent a wildling attack on Ramsay and keep following Jon's orders after his apostasy their support for him is incontrovertibly public.

The letter threatens the Watch. This seems pretty factual to me. The letter threatens the Watch because Jon got involved in Bolton business while part of the Watch organization. People, such as both you and I, argue that the Arya mission turns the Watch-- not just Jon-- into a target. It creates a threat to the Watch because it invites Bolton retaliation on the whole organization. The letter states that there is a threat to the Watch as a result of Jon's actions.

If you insist that there's no threat to the Watch involved in the letter, then you have to abandon your position that the Arya mission created a threat to the Watch.

Depends what you mean by threat. Does the letter suggest the watch is going to be put in a situation where things could get nasty for it: yes. Does it directly threaten the watch with massacre or anything else if they don't comply: no. You presumably know this, but I am tired of people claiming Ramsay threatened to destroy the watch, when he didn't.

I'm not sure why you're so certain that Jon can't adequately defend the Watch thusly. I know the numbers. But if Rams is taken in what Jon seems to believe is the first wave of attack, then this surely erodes Bolton strength. Jon would be aware of the fact that afterwards, the Boltons can only toss out so many men at once due to the Winterfell situation. Roose could send out the remaining Freys to deal with Jon, but they'd be at a disadvantage in the conditions (they aren't northerners and hated by everyone).

If Jon believes that Roose is still alive (which is actually a really salient question in this, since the letter's being written by Rams might lead one to think otherwise), then he'd know Roose would be too cautious to leave the castle with too few of his men. But Jon might honestly think Roose is dead and that Rams is the end of Bolton power, and therefore, that defeating him would be the end of Bolton strength.

So the Boltons, despite being totally victorious, and outnumbering Jon something like 14:1 (on one way of slicing the numbers) and having superior troops, will be stood off by 500-700 wildlings? Honestly, if this makes sense to you as something more than a bit of Jon stanning fine. It's ridiculous though: those are impossible odds. And why is Roose going to be stuck in the castle forever? He was there because of Stannis and the storm. Stannis is supposedly dead and unless the storm lasts forever Roose is eventually going to leave. His lords can be dismissed if they are troublesome, although his forces outnumber theirs and he'll just have cemented his rule for a little bit with a big win. Roose could pump out some thousands, and ought to, given crushing Jon and wildlings will enforce his rule even more.

[butterbumps!]

I don't know and nor does anyone else. But I don't presume it would be necessarily no, as long as the watch didn't look complicit in what Jon was doing. And there is good reason to think most of the watch didn't know about Mance. If they fail to prevent a wildling attack on Ramsay and keep following Jon's orders after his apostasy their support for him is incontrovertibly public.

Depends what you mean by threat. Does the letter suggest the watch is going to be put in a situation where things could get nasty for it: yes. Does it directly threaten the watch with massacre or anything else if they don't comply: no. You presumably know this, but I am tired of people claiming Ramsay threatened to destroy the watch, when he didn't.

So the Boltons, despite being totally victorious, and outnumbering Jon something like 14:1 (on one way of slicing the numbers) and having superior troops, will be stood off by 500-700 wildlings? Honestly, if this makes sense to you as something more than a bit of Jon stanning fine. It's ridiculous though: those are impossible odds. And why is Roose going to be stuck in the castle forever? He was there because of Stannis and the storm. Stannis is supposedly dead and unless the storm lasts forever Roose is eventually going to leave. His lords can be dismissed if they are troublesome, although his forces outnumber theirs and he'll just have cemented his rule for a little bit with a big win. Roose could pump out some thousands, and ought to, given crushing Jon and wildlings will enforce his rule even more.

I'm not insisting that Rams threatened to specifically destroy the Watch in the letter. It contains an unspecified threat to the Watch, and a very specific one to Jon. I've definitely never claimed that the threat made to Jon about his heart cut out would be applied to the entire Watch or anything ridiculous like that. But the Arya mission did put the entire Watch in danger, and I think a Bolton showing up there would be devastating to the Watch no matter what the specifics we might imagine would be. That said, destruction of the Watch is a worst-case outcome given the tone of the letter and knowledge of Rams' proclivities, so I think it's a real possibility though not the only possible outcome. And I think the devastation that would cause is enough-- no matter how implausible-- to do something to thwart it.

Ok. so the Boltons will not be sending all of their men out at once to deal with Jon. This seems obvious. I don't think Jon would think that Roose would risk more than half his men total, so we're probably looking at a figure closer to 3k from the Bolton side. And I doubt that Roose would send anything close to that number out at once.

But before getting into this, I think you need to seriously consider that Jon might be under the impression that Roose is dead. The letter, coming from Rams, without mention of Roose or anything, looks a little suspicious. If Rams is claiming to be trueborn lord of Winterfell (as per his signature), and announcing that he'll march out in an incandescent rage, it means he's going to keep a bunch of troops at Winterfell to protect his asset, and lead a portion of the force up North. Depending on whether Jon thinks Roose is alive, Jon might very well think defeating Rams is the end of all this.

But assuming he's alive, why would Roose necessarily leave Winterfell during winter to march on Jon? Are you thinking he'll leave Winterfell open for the taking? And if Roose is dismissing lords, then wouldn't those dismissed lords contribute to Jon's strength?

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm not insisting that Rams threatened to specifically destroy the Watch in the letter. It contains an unspecified threat to the Watch, and a very specific one to Jon. I've definitely never claimed that the threat made to Jon about his heart cut out would be applied to the entire Watch or anything ridiculous like that. But the Arya mission did put the entire Watch in danger, and I think a Bolton showing up there would be devastating to the Watch no matter what the specifics we might imagine would be. That said, destruction of the Watch is a worst-case outcome given the tone of the letter and knowledge of Rams' proclivities, so I think it's a real possibility though not the only possible outcome. And I think the devastation that would cause is enough-- no matter how implausible-- to do something to thwart it.

Ok. so the Boltons will not be sending all of their men out at once to deal with Jon. This seems obvious. I don't think Jon would think that Roose would risk more than half his men total, so we're probably looking at a figure closer to 3k from the Bolton side. And I doubt that Roose would send anything close to that number out at once.

But before getting into this, I think you need to seriously consider that Jon might be under the impression that Roose is dead. The letter, coming from Rams, without mention of Roose or anything, looks a little suspicious. If Rams is claiming to be trueborn lord of Winterfell (as per his signature), and announcing that he'll march out in an incandescent rage, it means he's going to keep a bunch of troops at Winterfell to protect his asset, and lead a portion of the force up North. Depending on whether Jon thinks Roose is alive, Jon might very well think defeating Rams is the end of all this.

But assuming he's alive, why would Roose necessarily leave Winterfell during winter to march on Jon? Are you thinking he'll leave Winterfell open for the taking? And if Roose is dismissing lords, then wouldn't those dismissed lords contribute to Jon's strength?

Just a thought, maybe post your ideas about the military angle on my Jon vs Ramsay thread.