Why Sansa was wrong to withold info from Jon Snow

[LordBloodraven]

It all turned out well for the Starks but that was thanks to luck/plot armour or whatever you call it.

The battle of Winterfell was setup since EP 0604 with the Pink letter, and preparations from the Stark side soon followed. Sansa made the case of the necessity for the capture of Winterfell to Jon before that letter;  the threat to Rickon's life was even more incentive to go and get the Bolton.

Now the Starks have potential allies in the wildlings and the smaller houses of the North. Later, they know via Sansa/LF that the Blackfish Tullys has retaken Riverrun. Immediately, Sansa sees a potential ally in her maternal family and asks for help. It's unlikely that the Blackfish would be of much help with the Freys and the Lannisters around, but you never know.

What doesn't make sense is Sansa hiding the matter of the Vale army to Jon Snow, while they were scrapping for troops among the Northern houses.

Why would she hide it?

At the beginning, we can conclude that it was enthusiasm (her convo with Davos where she says that "Northerners will shed blood for House Stark from Moat Cailin to WF"). Given Littlefinger's passé, she wanted to do without him. And it makes sense.

But when they realize that the North does not really remember and that their army would not be substantially increased (despite House Mormont's 62 good men), she still does not utter a word about the matter. But she thinks that they should wait and look for more men. As Jon says, they needed more men but they had to fight with the army that they had. +2000 men, poorly supplied in hostile environments can easily melt away. And it makes sense that Jon wants a quick decisive battle against the Boltons.

I was even more annoyed before the battle when she criticized Jon for not considering her opinion at the war council. I mean, she was there and while Jon, Davos, and Tormund were brainstorming, she was sulking. When Jon asks her later, where they could find more men, she says "I don't know". 

How do you explain this?

Even if she thought LF might not come, she should have told Jon. And I think, their options would have increased without Ramsay knowing anything about it. You plan differently when you have 4000 more troops coming, instead of a ragtag poorly supplied army.

I think Jon was very patient and considerate. I mean, she was bossing around Davos Seaworth and Tormund, deriding them despite their efforts with what they had. She behaved like a petulant child, which does not make sense.

The argument that she wasn't sure about LF's arrival makes even less sense when you consider how she stood next to him during the charge of the Knights of the Vale. She obviously knew that they were coming and coordinated with LF. 

Sansa told Jon to wait for more troops, when to Jon, there were no more troops to levy. She did not really make a good case there.

This could be a matter of bad writing by D&D, as was Arya's behavior in EP07.

But if Sansa is playing a long game here (which I think very unlikely), then she is really not getting it. If Jon croaks, she will be in a very dire situation, the wildlings are loyal to Jon Snow. And that could be said of many of the Northern Lords, who fought on the Stark side. 

Her situation is very different from Yara and Daenerys.

 

[Ser Yorick Ampersand]

I just hope in the next episode Melisandre decides to burn Sansa in a fire. To thank Rhllor for winning the battle.

[xjlxking]

From the looks of it, she wanted to teach Jon a lesson. He wouldn't listen to her; he would call her in the tend to discuss a battle plan; nor did he ask for her advice. We see that in the next episode (preview) that Jon is telling Sansa that they shouldn't fight each other.

In her defense, had Jon listen to her and accept that Rickon was dead, he would not have lost that battle so quickly or badly. Instead, he thought he can save Rickon, he put himself in a bad position, and lost before she can help,.

[Rumy Stark]

The most satisfying explanation I've heard is that she didn't want Jon to enter into an agreement with LF because she doesn't want LF to have any power in The North. So she knew if Jon didn't know about the army he would owe the Vale a life debt, basically, but nothing politically since he not only didn't ask them to be there but didn't know they would be. Sansa might technically owe something to LF but if she isn't in a position of actual power that doesn't matter, overall, and The North wouldn't have to do anything about it.

Unfortunately I think it was really just to create drama and suspense, though. 

[LordBloodraven]

1 hour ago, xjlxking said:

From the looks of it, she wanted to teach Jon a lesson. He wouldn't listen to her; he would call her in the tend to discuss a battle plan; nor did he ask for her advice. We see that in the next episode (preview) that Jon is telling Sansa that they shouldn't fight each other.

In her defense, had Jon listen to her and accept that Rickon was dead, he would not have lost that battle so quickly or badly. Instead, he thought he can save Rickon, he put himself in a bad position, and lost before she can help,.

 

Jon was stupid to fall to Ramsey's trap, but that's very human. Although the stakes were very high.

If she wanted to teach Jon a lesson, oh well, it wasn't the right moment. Their lives were on the balance

40 minutes ago, Rumy Stark said:

The most satisfying explanation I've heard is that she didn't want Jon to enter into an agreement with LF because she doesn't want LF to have any power in The North. So she knew if Jon didn't know about the army he would owe the Vale a life debt, basically, but nothing politically since he not only didn't ask them to be there but didn't know they would be. Sansa might technically owe something to LF but if she isn't in a position of actual power that doesn't matter, overall, and The North wouldn't have to do anything about it.

Unfortunately I think it was really just to create drama and suspense, though. 

 

I could get used to this explanation. But if she tells Jon the truth about LF, I don't think he'd think he's indebted to him

[NutBurz]

I don´t question her being wrong. She was wrong, obviously, if anything because the knowledge that the cavalry could eventually come should lead Jon to decide to fight three days later or something.

One thing she might have considered or not is the fact that the Vale army, being clearly present, would force Ramsey to wait for the siege. In order to maintain the appearance of their inferiority, she would have to stash that amount of soldiers in Winterfell´s "backyard" for a considerable time. While LF could have been killing/emprisioning messengers/scouts/travellers in order to maintain his march north a secret, it would be hard to hide the campfires.

As a political move, it would actually not be so smart for her to count on LF saving them instead of being in the war council, because that gives him every leverage when negotiating his recompense, instead of part of the responsibility for the results of the battle.

 

More than anything for me, she didn´t tell him because her character wouldn´t. She´s proud and hurt. If she has any strategical conscience, she would have realized by the time they failed to get armies that she should have dissed LF after taking Winterfell, setting a tone or the kind "well, thank you, but this is just to make up for selling me to my enemies, now get out of my sight", in a position of power inside Winterfell.

 

3 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

Why would she hide it?

Because she made a mistake by telling LF she didn´t need him, and she doesn´t know Jon Snow the way we do to consider that he might be extremely forgiving. Because she would be telling him that the battle could already be half-won if not for her. That´s not something easy to admit, and it´s not something that gets easier and easier to admit as time goes on.

3 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

But when they realize that the North does not really remember and that their army would not be substantially increased (despite House Mormont's 62 good men), she still does not utter a word about the matter.

Because a long time has passed, and unless LF ignored her, his army should be heading back to the Vale. She doesn´t think that´s a possibility anymore, and it would still be a reminder of her failure.

3 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

When Jon asks her later, where they could find more men, she says "I don't know". 

How do you explain this?

Even if she thought LF might not come, she should have told Jon.

Again, she would be saying "there was this possibility that I already screwed up. We could try to beg forgiveness for me saying the truth, but he still might take a long while to get here".

There is no reason to say anything.

4 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

She behaved like a petulant child, which does not make sense.

Like she always has. Remember when she lied against Arya and got her own wolf killed? She´s growing, she´s changing, but she´s still the same person. Of course it makes sense for her to act like a spoiled princess when she gets frustrated.

4 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

The argument that she wasn't sure about LF's arrival makes even less sense when you consider how she stood next to him during the charge of the Knights of the Vale. She obviously knew that they were coming and coordinated with LF. 

What?

Ramsey didn´t know about the knights of the vale, why should Sansa?

Couldn´t LF have sent a scout ahead to their camp to warn her? It solves everything without any coordination.

4 hours ago, LordBloodraven said:

But if Sansa is playing a long game here (which I think very unlikely), then she is really not getting it. If Jon croaks, she will be in a very dire situation, the wildlings are loyal to Jon Snow. And that could be said of many of the Northern Lords, who fought on the Stark side.

What long game, exactly?

If she wanted the Starks inside Winterfell, she got it.

But she clearly isn´t any evil genius because now she´s singlehandedly put Winterfell in LF´s palm.

If you try to forget this notion that the show is trying to empower women, you´ll see them for the individuals they are.

[LordBloodraven]

8 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

I don´t question her being wrong. She was wrong, obviously, if anything because the knowledge that the cavalry could eventually come should lead Jon to decide to fight three days later or something.

One thing she might have considered or not is the fact that the Vale army, being clearly present, would force Ramsey to wait for the siege. In order to maintain the appearance of their inferiority, she would have to stash that amount of soldiers in Winterfell´s "backyard" for a considerable time. While LF could have been killing/emprisioning messengers/scouts/travellers in order to maintain his march north a secret, it would be hard to hide the campfires.

As a political move, it would actually not be so smart for her to count on LF saving them instead of being in the war council, because that gives him every leverage when negotiating his recompense, instead of part of the responsibility for the results of the battle.

 

More than anything for me, she didn´t tell him because her character wouldn´t. She´s proud and hurt. If she has any strategical conscience, she would have realized by the time they failed to get armies that she should have dissed LF after taking Winterfell, setting a tone or the kind "well, thank you, but this is just to make up for selling me to my enemies, now get out of my sight", in a position of power inside Winterfell.

 

Because she made a mistake by telling LF she didn´t need him, and she doesn´t know Jon Snow the way we do to consider that he might be extremely forgiving. Because she would be telling him that the battle could already be half-won if not for her. That´s not something easy to admit, and it´s not something that gets easier and easier to admit as time goes on.

Because a long time has passed, and unless LF ignored her, his army should be heading back to the Vale. She doesn´t think that´s a possibility anymore, and it would still be a reminder of her failure.

Again, she would be saying "there was this possibility that I already screwed up. We could try to beg forgiveness for me saying the truth, but he still might take a long while to get here".

There is no reason to say anything.

Like she always has. Remember when she lied against Arya and got her own wolf killed? She´s growing, she´s changing, but she´s still the same person. Of course it makes sense for her to act like a spoiled princess when she gets frustrated.

What?

Ramsey didn´t know about the knights of the vale, why should Sansa?

Couldn´t LF have sent a scout ahead to their camp to warn her? It solves everything without any coordination.

What long game, exactly?

If she wanted the Starks inside Winterfell, she got it.

But she clearly isn´t any evil genius because now she´s singlehandedly put Winterfell in LF´s palm.

If you try to forget this notion that the show is trying to empower women, you´ll see them for the individuals they are.

3

I am not good at dissecting posts, so I will answer just after your points

[The Greenseer]

4 hours ago, Rumy Stark said:

So she knew if Jon didn't know about the army he would owe the Vale a life debt, basically, but nothing politically since he not only didn't ask them to be there but didn't know they would be. 

The problem is the Vale saved Jon's ass and everyone knows it, so I'd say he's in debt to LF/the Vale regardless.

 

[Battle Kitten]

I don't think she was wrong at all.  She had no idea if LF would show up. But I'm not looking for a reason to hate Sansa either.

[tinka10]

14 minutes ago, Battle Kitten said:

I don't think she was wrong at all.  She had no idea if LF would show up. But I'm not looking for a reason to hate Sansa either.

Yeah, it's unclear whether she knew or not, but there are a couple of things that makes me believe she did. 

1. She sent the message in episode 7. If people can teleport around from one side of Westeros to the other within the span of an episode, it seems like more than enough time for a few ravens to have passed between them in two.

2. During the parlay she seemed very confident that Ramsey would die 'tomorrow', even though she made it clear Jon didn't have enough men on several occasions.

3. Little Finger arrived with Sansa at his side. Sansa would have stayed at camp while the battle was raging, not strolling around the country side at the risk of being caught. And Little Finger arrived from a completely different direction. Meaning, Sansa received notice where to meet him.

This could all mean nothing, of course, but they were just little things that brought me to that conclusion. Whether she was wrong or not will come down to how she explains her actions, and the motivations behind them. 

[tinka10]

1 hour ago, The Greenseer said:

The problem is the Vale saved Jon's ass and everyone knows it, so I'd say he's in debt to LF/the Vale regardless.

I agree, it's more a matter of whose arses are saved, which doesn't just limit the debt to Sansa alone, but also to Jon, his army, Winterfell, and The North.

[El Diego]

3 hours ago, The Greenseer said:

The problem is the Vale saved Jon's ass and everyone knows it, so I'd say he's in debt to LF/the Vale regardless.

 

Why, is LF seriously going to take over the North militarily if Jon/Sansa don't give him what he wants?