[ADwD Spoilers] A Different Look at Jon's Decision

[Sean T. Collins]

Upon rereading the whole Pink Letter/Ides of Marsh passage, I think the key is to contrast Jon's thoughts about this decision with his thoughts about deserting the wall to avenge Ned at the end of A Game of Thrones.

Here, he thinks “If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.” That’s a pretty big “if”!

Compare it with his midnight ride back in Volume One: When he fled the Wall to help his brother and avenge his dad, there were no ifs, ands, or buts about it — he was absolutely certain that what he was forswearing his oath. “He was who he was; Jon Snow, bastard and oathbreaker, motherless, friendless, and damned.” That's just one example from a chapter that drove this point home time and time again.

I think his personal feelings about Arya (and Stannis and Mance and their families) entered into his decision, yes. I think he was getting into some iffy territory with regards to potential violation of the Night's Watch's rules regarding involvement in the affairs of the realm, yes. But I think the safety of the Wall and the future of the Watch and their long-term odds against the Others should Ramsay attack from the famously and purposefully indefensible south was his paramount concern.

[Errant Bard]

I tend to think that Jon in fact believes what he does is oathbreaking, but that he may well realize that others would be less rigid and more flexible in interpreting what is still defensible under his oath and what isn't. We've to remember that Jon tends to be rather more harsh about his oaths than others. See caring about Ygritte or his attempt to desert in AGoT.

Going to war south, with wildlings? And getting stabbed for it? If it's others "being more flexible", I don't want to know what's being inflexible is.

2)I think the Northen lords are tired of the boltons. It repeatedly showed that they actually care about their starks. IMO, the only reason why they stopped the fight is that there was no stark to rally around. Once manderly will admit that rickon is alive, the north will pretty much unificate itself. And, anyway, WoW will be the book in which the others start doing something, so the "rag band of wildlings" (i LOVE your definition!) will be easily accepted, IMO.

Of course Jon does not know that. Even if it was true. What he knows is that he's going against the people who crushed Stannis.

Manderly doesn't produce Rickon because he doesn't have him, but also because the Boltons will not bend the knee meekly. The North will not unify itself alone. This is just stupid, even the Watch doesn't unify itself cleanly under an initially unanimously chosen Stark. But you do well to mention Rickon: how does Manderly knowing Rickon is alive support the idea of the whole North rallying against oathbreaker Jon? It does not. If anything, the Manderlys are more likely to reject an ambitious Jon now. (especially after the deal with Davos).

Tiring of Boltons? Maybe you can call anger at Boltons' power grab being tired. But it's one thing to be tired, and another to get rid of the guy who has the armies, the hostages, and the southern friends. Beyond that, I don't get where you see anyone "getting tired": the lords act like they always have. Coming for feasts, refusing Stannis, weathering winter, and plotting. We know Manderlys, Glovers, and Mormonts at least are plotting.

[Markus]

Going to war south, with wildlings? And getting stabbed for it? If it's others "being more flexible", I don't want to know what's being inflexible is.

When you follow the discussions on this board about whether Jon was breaking his oath or if breaking an aspect of his oath was justified to fulfill a more important one you will see that there are plenty of wildly different opinions. Why should the people of the NW be any different?

[chewietobbacca]

It's a wonderful passage and it directly contrasts Jon's thoughts of his vows and "What you propose is nothing less than treason" with his "dead" siblings, dead Ygritte, living Arya, and finally the evil of Ramsay Bolton and what he will do when he gets his bride back. It's stream of consciousness, but the contrast is clear.

There is absolutely nothing about the realm and the Others in this crucially important paragraph. The realm and the Others do not appear in Jon's thoughts afterward either. Instead what appears in Jon's thoughts is, "I have my swords… and we are coming for you, Bastard." That's passion, anger, and disgust at Ramsay's evil -- not the greater good.

Additionally, why would Martin omit such a crucial revelation of Jon's true motivation? Do you think that in GhostJon's first chapter in the next book, he'll think "Oh man, I had a super-secret plan the whole time, sucks for me"? If this was Jon's true motivation, wouldn't it have been even more effective and tragic for Martin to depict how he was true to his vows all along before he gets stabbed from a misunderstanding?

I like the OP's topic but I have to say I take this as Jon being an immature young man prone to passion and boldness. We know he's acted very well for his age and responsibility, but in the end he succumbed to his underlying feelings for family and honor. Maester Aemon tried to teach and warn him (thru his own example) and I believe he tried his best; but just like an addict trying to quit you sometimes fall off the wagon.

I don't think it's out of the realm of impossibility that this was careful planning (and I wish it were!) but I've got to say that it is a weakness and failing of a young man over come by emotion and passion. I'd have made the same mistake at his age...

I agree that it almost certainly was Jon being a boy, and not some grand scheme. In fact, think about what gets mentioned repeatedly:

Kill the boy and let the man be born

Reading Jon's parts and his interactions with Melisandre, and how Melisandre hints at what's going to happen (daggers in the dark, seeing his face when she's searching for Stannis, etc.)

He knows neither. Arya could be anywhere -- how many times have we seen someone plan to go somewhere in this series and not make it there? (With Mance and the spearwives captured, how would Arya find her way there?) And the idea that "some Reek guy is with her" is hardly the most comforting thought. "My beloved sister escaped from a brutal monster who flays women and desperately wants her back, but no worries -- some Reek guy is with her, so she's probably fine."

That's also why I don't think the story is over yet w/ Stannis et al. Reek and 'Arya' meet Asha w/ the Braavosi banker and that's the last we see of that POV. If Stannis host was actually smashed, they would have probably recovered them - and if they fled, how likely do they survive the storm, especially in the condition Reek is in?

[tipopellet]

I remember Jon successfully defending the Wall with a few dozen cripples, boys and old men. It's one of the reasons why Jon is chosen to become Lord Commander.

In Winterfell it would be the other way around. Ramsey would be safely behind the walls and Jon out there in the snow with people who are not familiar with sieges. Besides where woud he get food and normal arms for them? They seemed to be not armed properly more often than not - stone and bone weapons against Ramsey steel would work all that well I'm afraid.

Jon's insights and decisions also show his grasp of various military matters, including tactics, logistics, training, and reconnaissance. His military advice to Stannis showed that he has an excellent understanding of northern geography and politics. All of this isn't really surprising when you consider that Ned taught him and that his fellow pupil Robb would go on to win an excellent reputation as a military commander.

I agree, he didn't seem so utterly ignorant or reckless ever before but in that last chapter. Still in that chapter he did. You can IMAGINE anything of the plans he could have had but from his thoughts we didn't learn about any. Not even once he thinks "I have a plan!" or something :) Just "I'll get you, Ramsey, you, bastard... Hmm... where is he, I wonder? Must go ask Mel". It looks like he's at the very beginning of making that plan but by then he really shouldn't be all thing considered.

As for not knowing where exactly Ramsay was, so what? It wasn't necessary for Jon to know this to begin making plans. Any plans can be adapted to where Ramsay is after all. Winning the wildlings and rallying Stannis' defeated forces could be done whether Ramsay was still in Winterfell or somewhere else. And I doubt that Jon expected to go alone even if he were prepared to do it. That was the reason why he asked the wildlings to join him after all. Or do you suppose he expected them not to go with him?

I think he couldn't be sure about it by any means. Why would they go with him, who's Ramsey or Arya for them? Why would NW accept it? Why would NW accept HIM going?

And how it doesn't matter where Ramsey is and what's he's up to? It's winter! You can't afford wandering around in the snow with your army. And the whole thing is about getting to him! If where he is doesn't matter what does?! Any sensible commander first made sure to check the situation - what's true, what's not, what non-military options are available, where is anb enemy and how strong. Rallying the whildings can wait. They're not going anywhere. Jon doesn't behave like sensible commander in this situation. Not to mention he completely forgets his duties as LC in the process.

I begin to see why you were so dismissive of Jon's chances. The report Jon received wasn't of a lopsided rout of Stannis' forces with insignificant losses for the Boltons. Ramsay wrote of "seven days of battle". This lends itself to the reading of two balanced forces who would each have suffered great losses before one broke and was defeated. IOW, Jon could expect that the Boltons would be greatly weakened even in victory.

If he expects them to be so weakened, their threat should not worry him all that much. No need to go anywhere. Write a polite answer and get back to your own problems.

His wildings are weakened too, they suffered defeat and were running from Others. They are not always properly armed, they don't have their own resources (food) and there is nothing personal for them in this fight (how can he be sure they won't just use it as a chance to get south?) - their motivation is suspect, at least in the long run and when things start to get tough. Don't think they would be a match even for weakened Boltons behind the Winterfell walls. Or even worse - behind the walls of some castle that isn't in ruins.

I think ADwD has made it clear what people in the north think of Bolton being Warden of the North. Not much. Just as it was made clear that losing Arya would've further weakened the tenuous northern support Bolton had. You give way too much significance to an empty title more like to rile up northmen than to support Bolton and to Ramsay marrying Arya. Not to mention that Ramsay had lost Arya.

They still were supporting him whoever unwillingly even before that wedding. Now that the wedding is done, him claim isn't recitable. Plus how would they know she's gone? It's not like he was parading her after the wedding.

As for the wildling numbers, we know that Stannis had captured 300 male fighters plus some spearwives, lets say 25-50. Later Jon recruited between 500-1000 wildling raiders. So there were 825-1350 wildling fighters at the Wall. While Jon didn't plan to take them all I can well see that he could easily have taken 500 if not more. When you further consider that they had given Jon their word, that the NW had hostages and that Jon planned to free Mance Rayder I can see why most of them could well have stayed loyal.

If anything NW having hostages goes against Jon. Why do you think NW would be OK with this whole idea? Jon is clearly not doing his LC duties anymore, they will not listen to his orders and would hardly be inclined to assist him in any way including using hostages to urge wildings to go south - something they fought against for centuries! Rather they'd use hostages to prevent all this.

Of all he wildings that came through the gate he had to send some to other castles, he had to send some with Tornmund and some had to stay at Castle Black to fight against Others. At best he'd have 500. At best!

I wouldn't give much meaning to this. We know that Jon made plans with Tormund for two hours. Surely you agree that Jon wouldn't have needed two hours to come up with what we were explicitly told in the chapter. Nor do I see the necessity to explain the details of his plans in his prep speech to the wildlings. Note also that there was no mention of any supplies, even for Jon and the wildlings, and we know that Jon wanted to recruit them.

Honestly, I'm not sure that I don't. He had to have some doubts about going. Actually he had to have some very serious doubts about that. Even for regular crow it's forsaking his vows, but for LC - there is no question about it. Especially in the current situation - with wildings through the wall with NW being less than happy, with queen without a king whose fate is yet to be determined and Others about to attack. Two hours isn't too much time to ponder on this. Plus this meeting was planned, so they obviously had other things to discuss, two hours isn't that unusually long time for planning ranging opeation they were supposed to plan. Who's to say they were planning Jon's going all this time and not Tormunds going alone? Because Jon would definitely need NW council to plan HIS going properly, not Tormund, who goes elsewhere, knows nothing of south, Ramsey or NW politics to give advice or take orders. And NW were not present at all.

One may well suggest or debate if Jon should've been more cautious, if he should've undertaken more reconnaissance before he came to his decision and announced it, or if he should've explained himself to his brothers before, sure. I don't necessarily disagree with all of this. On the other hand, he may have felt that he didn't have time to waste for Arya's sake and that moving fast while the Boltons were still recuperating might play in his favor in the end. He could also have thought that he still could undertake some of your suggestions after he had announced his intentions and/or after he began to move south.

He would still need to do lots of explaining to the NW at least. There would need to be a new LC, he'd need their permission to use their resources and to get wildings. And there is no way he could expect them all go smoothly - so no way he would be able to leave soon, with wildings or without them. At least not in a peaceful organized manner.

In any case, one may reasonably discuss and/or criticize how Jon went about coming to his decision and how he announced it. This doesn't change that his chances to succeed shouldn't be claimed to be "nonexistent" when we don't even know his plans and when some favorable circumstances may well have allowed him to have a plausible chance with a good plan.

I'm prepared to change my mind about his chances as soon as I know about him having any sensible plan and about those favourable curcumstances. As it stands - we know of neither and his chances are non-existent.

That's not the way I read it. In the meantime Ramsay has written his letter, in which he showed himself to be a monster who makes cloaks from the skins of women, who has taken out the people who could've saved Arya for Jon -- Mance and Stannis -- and who had threatened Jon and indirectly the NW. So clearly the situation is vastly different from before.

Ramsey was the one who let his previous wife eat her own fingers before she died from hunger. How is it a news that he wouldn't make a good husband? Anyone would know that Arya won't live too long after she's married. Maybe till the war is over or till she gave him a son but that's it. And all this time her life would be miserable. All this was known to Jon before and he stayed put. And it woudn't be any different if Arya's recaptured. She's still a valuable commodity at the moment and won't be flayed on the spot.

Do you honestly see Ramsay having no problem when Jon refuses to hand over Arya and when he claims that he doesn't know where she is either? A reasonable guy would've a big problem with that. A psycho like Ramsay would go berserk. When Jon doesn't hand over Arya Ramsay would surely have believed that Jon is hiding her and would therefore have attacked Jon and the Watch, possibly destroying it. He would've stopped only when he became convinced that Arya isn't at the Wall. And when he learned that he would also have learned where she was sent. Which may have been out of his reach. But could easily have enraged him to the point that he would have destroyed the NW for good in retaliation for stealing Arya and his claim to Winterfell from him.

It doesn't add up. One moment Jon supposed to think Ramsey seriously weakened with northern lords losing their loyality to him because of Arya and because he's crazy asshole and next moment Jon supposed to fear the same Ramsey's army attacking him at the Wall. He can't believe him being strong and week at the same time. He can't believe he'll win over him with 500 wildings but lose with 1000+NW and sitting in the castle.

No way in hell northern lords would fight with NW for Ramsey to get his bride back. Especially if Jon would bother to officially and politely inform anyone that she isn't there. Sure, Ramsey would be angry and would hate Jon all the more, but the direct attack with army is extremely unlikely if Jon is polite and firm in his denial. There is still an issue of Stannis queen but it's clear that she would need to move elsewere as soon as possible if Stannis is dead anyway.

The direct attack with army is extremely unlikely if Jon is polite and firm in his denial.

I'm reasonably convinced that Jon would very soon have sent out scouts to find Arya. First he had to win his scouts and make some plans however.

He wouldn't need to win his scouts, he's LC, he can just send his crows. Tell them it's too appease Ramsey if the need be. Besides wilding woudn't make good scouts south of the wall anyway. Not to mention that your being convinced has nothing to with text. You just BELIEVE that he would. Or hope. Because otherwise he looks like an idiot :)

It's not luck that the wildlings follow Jon. It's that he has received their loyalty for saving them. It's that they see him as man who is worthy of being followed on account of understanding them a good deal and being what he is: a competent commander and fighter, things which wildlings respect in a man. He also offers them a chance to save Mance and to do what they like to do: fight and raid.

Lots of people metioned that before but why ain't they surprised to find Mance is alive? Why would they believe he is when he was publicly burned?

I agree that Stannis' army won't have stayed near Winterfell. That's one of the reasons why Jon may've needed the wildlings. To have sufficient men to seek out and contact them.

Again wildings won't make good scouts south of the wall, and after a few days defeated army would be all around the place, gathering them would take lots of time and effort. Jon could hardly expect them to be part of his fast and furious attack on Ramsey.

So Ramsay has more men who are in better condition. It's a clear advantage. The question is if this is enough to necessarily win against Jon. Jon may have advantages of his own after all. Foremost that he is probably a pretty good military leader taught by Ned himself whereas Ramsay's education was apparently pretty lacking. Or that Jon knows more about Winterfell and the lands surrounding it than Ramsay. Or that Ramsay may not expect an attack from Jon and wouldn't know how many men Jon has.

Ramsey is nothing but extremely cunning, he demostrated that more than once. He's just managed to win over Stannis who isn't by any means deficient. If he choosed to not stay in Winterfell and wait for Jon - Jon loses the only advantage he has. And I'm not even sure it isn't negated by Ramsey being INSIDE the Winterfell.

When Jon's chances to defeat Ramsay are "nonexistent" even after Jon had recruited nearly a thousand wildlings whom Ramsay knows nothing about then perhaps you should argue that Ramsay would never expect Jon to attack him. If one believes that Ramsay wasn't really truthful about the extent of his success against Mance, Stannis and their allies then the letter may well have been meant to intimidate Jon and not to provoke him to come south and become another problem for the Boltons. In this case, I don't think Ramsay expects an attack from Jon. He expects to receive hostages to use against his enemies.

Again, Ramsey's cunning. He knows Jon has some shady relationships with wildings because he send Mance, The-King-Behind-the-Wall, to resque Arya. He can't be sure NW won't support Jon. He can't be sure the remnants of Stannis army won't join Jon (you seeem to be pretty sure they would, why do you think Ramsey wouldn't think of that?). He'd be an idiot not to expect a violent reaction to such a letter, if anything he seems to be trying to provoke Jon to do exactly that as his letter isn't even trying to be "official".

Moereover, even if Ramsay expects an attack, would he expect Jon to have any significant numbers? Ramsay didn't know about Jon recruiting a lot of wildlings after all. Nor would he necessarily expect Jon to be able to rally Stannis' host to him.

Why not? Jon is LC of the Watch. He could expect him being able to command all the NW forces. Plus queen's men. And why wouldn't he expect Jon rally Stannis host? He gave Jon all the ammunition he needed for that by demanding Stannis wife and child to be given to him. Not to mention he thinks they're allies anyway already. Ramsey would definitely not be sitting all unaware and unprepared after sending such an offending letter and not recieving any answer.

You don't know which preparations Jon was still going to make before he engaged in actual battle. And while you're certainly free to assume that Jon wouldn't make any more sensible preparations -- a few of which you've suggested -- you can't really expect others to agree with you when Jon has been shown to be quite able otherwise.

Neither do you. It'not shown and not even hinted at. And what we DO know suggest he doesn't have any sensible plan at the time of his final chapter. It's just that you BELIEVE he would. Your prerogative of course, but I'm talking about what's in the book.

As for the NW avoiding retaliation, I don't think it would've been necessary for the NW to formally distance themselves from Jon before Jon came to Winterfell. When he would've come there without any other black brothers the message would be clear enough. Their absence would clearly show that Jon was acting without their support. And if Jon is defeated they certainly can still distance themselves from him with absolute believability. That's why Jon didn't want any of his brothers with him. So that nobody can say the NW broke their vows and took part in the politics of the realm but for him personally.

Do you think Ramsey absolutely won't believe Jon's word and authority on the matters of Arya but would that easily accept NW being no part of its LC doings? After all they are not some random wildings, they are wildings that now are sort of part of the Watch, since they're officially living there.

And what if some crows supported him? He was rallying everyone present, not just wildings. Didn't seem to care about this issue at all while doing his speach. Although he's releaved afterwards that other crows did not support him but he didn't FORBID them coming, did he?

[Markus]

tipopellet:

I think I've shown that it's pretty evident that Jon's chances to succeed were surely not "nonexistent" and probably realistic. These posts have already gotten rather long, and I don't see much point in addressing all your concerns and questions point for point to evaluate how good Jon's chances would've been exactly. In particular when we don't know his exact plans. You will just insist that when it's not explicitly stated we can't assume Jon planned for it and I will say that two hours of planning will surely have resulted in more than reading a letter and then asking the wildlings -- and explicitly not the NW -- to join him.

If you've any particularly compelling point which you believe needs to be addressed I will try to do this, of course.

[Darth Dragonstone]

That, basically is the key to the whole thing. Jon is not breaking his oath but cutting to the absolute essence of it as he explained to Bowen Marsh. It is his duty (and will still be even if he is technically dead come the next book) to defend the realms of men and he can't do that with Ramsay Bolton in his rear.

Yes. Jon is acting on prudent military principles. Ramsay's letter made it clear that he was hostile to Jon and the Night's Watch. Bolton, having declared Jon an enemy and either not caring or not appreciating the gravity of what's massing north of the Wall, could reasonably be expected, at minimum, to deprive Jon of any assistance at all from the south (to include raising troops & provisions from the North itself) and allow the Others to overwhelm Jon and the Night's Watch at the Wall, depriving Stannis of what Bolton believed to be an ally.

From Bolton's perspective, it's a case of an enemy (Others) of my enemy (Jon/Night's Watch/Stannis) is my friend.

Lost Lord correctly noted that we are well beyond the specifics of the text with all this. However, this is all obvious within military context and will no doubt be laid out in coming chapters.

[Darth Dragonstone]

That, basically is the key to the whole thing. Jon is not breaking his oath but cutting to the absolute essence of it as he explained to Bowen Marsh. It is his duty (and will still be even if he is technically dead come the next book) to defend the realms of men and he can't do that with Ramsay Bolton in his rear.

Yes. Jon is acting on prudent military principles. Ramsay's letter made it clear that he was hostile to Jon and the Night's Watch. Bolton, having declared Jon an enemy and either not caring or not appreciating the gravity of what's massing north of the Wall, could reasonably be expected, at minimum, to deprive Jon of any assistance at all from the south (to include raising troops & provisions from the North itself) and allow the Others to overwhelm Jon and the Night's Watch at the Wall, depriving Stannis of what Bolton believed to be an ally.

From Bolton's perspective, it's a case of an enemy (Others) of my enemy (Jon/Night's Watch/Stannis) is my friend.

Lost Lord correctly noted that we are well beyond the specifics of the text with all this. However, this is all obvious within military context and will no doubt be laid out in coming chapters.

[fassreiter]

But unfortunately Ramsey has more than his army to threaten Jon. Twice in his letter he talks about exposing Jon's lies about Mance to the world and I think that is the part which leads to Jon's final decision. Nobody apart from Mel knew that Mance was still alive. I guess that Stannis was very public about the execution, after all it's great propaganda for him. If Jon does not comply, Ramsey does not even have to march to the Wall, he just has to send out ravens to every castle in the realm, making Jon's betrayal public and thus ruining the NW's reputation completely. The NW will be seen as a bunch of criminals let by a turncloak who makes common cause with the enemy. Admittedly they might be perceived like that already but the Mance switch would be the ultimate proof. After this gets out, there is no chance that the NW will receive any more supplies for the winter from the rest of the realm, let alone support against the Others.

Thank you, this is a point that almost never comes up when discussing the letter and Jon's reaction. In fact, the 'lies' were the only real threat the letter contained. Again I think it's important to notice that Ramsay thought, while writing the letter, that Jon knew about his own 'lies' - he thought 'Arya' had reached the Wall by now (if not, he wouldn't demand her back from him, but go look for her in secret, before Jon can send scouts), and he can assume Jon would know what his sister looked like. So maybe there is, in between all the psychopath-talk, some message: You don't talk about my fake bride, so I won't go showing your very alive King-beyond-the-Wall to your Northern lords. Which is obviously something Jon wouldn't understand, because 'Arya' never reached the Wall.

So this threat to destroy Jon's (and Stannis) authority might be the reason Jon acted as we saw him in his chapter. Sadly, he never mentions that either. Yet I don't know why he would go on a rescue-mission. Arya would have much better chances of being found if he would send small search parties instead of a freaking wildling army. And there is no reason why he would give up his commandership and risk the stability of the NW just for Mance Rayder's life (I would, though. I hope someone does. If that part of the letter is even true), he quite regularly ponders killing Mance himself. As for a wildling leader as ally, he already has Tormund, who might be even easier to handle.

There are still holes in the text, for example why the wildlings didn't ask details about the fake burning and the two hours of talking. So there might well be something going on we have no way of knowing. I think he didn't read the original letter, by the way. But as far as we can know, this 'propaganda'-move of Ramsay is a valid reason for his actions, nothing besides makes any sense. Would he truly expect Ramsay to march for the Wall? Then again, he fell for the dead-Stannis-part, so who knows. Or it might just be bad writing after all.

[Guest]

I have a few random points that don't really fit into a cohesive statement or anyone else's discussion so I'm just going to list them off.

1. Oathbreaking, Then and Now

Compare it with his midnight ride back in Volume One: When he fled the Wall to help his brother and avenge his dad, there were no ifs, ands, or buts about it — he was absolutely certain that what he was forswearing his oath. “He was who he was; Jon Snow, bastard and oathbreaker, motherless, friendless, and damned.” That's just one example from a chapter that drove this point home time and time again.

I'm glad you brought that up because his midnight ride was nothing like his decision in this book. In AGOT he was urgently rushing, as if to escape execution; in ADWD he seems coolly methodical about it. There is no indication that Jon was leaving for Ramsay *right this second.* He's also cognizant of how his actions will be perceived (he won't ask his brothers to forswear their vows), which suggests that he's not completely tone-deaf.

2. Kill the boy...

Does anyone else think that Maester Aemon gave Jon bad advice? It reminds me of parents rigidly shoving their young sons into the "

,"--the oppressive structure that controls men's behavior and mentality so that they can't even cry or emote when a loved one dies. I think Aemon could have served him much better by continuing the family/duty discussion, or hell, even tell him what that "man" is supposed to do once he kills the boy. Jon misinterprets the advice to mean that all warmth has to flee from him (like in Bran's dream). He even thinks this means "A lord commander has no friends." So Jon took that advice too literally by going on two suicidal missions to "kill the boy." And you know what? I can't really blame him! He doesn't have any other male role models right now to give him a variety of perspectives on Lord Commandership. And he sent the last role model away in a decision that has been hailed as a step toward "killing the boy." Creating this clear-cut dividing line between "manhood" and "boyhood" is unrealistic and actually causes more damage than it helps. It only turns people into artificial men, aping what they "think" masculinity should be--but it's all a misinterpretation. Being a "man" is so easily confused with dominance and abuse (of oneself and others) that all coming of age stories in ASOIAF are going to follow a completely fucked up path to adulthood. "Kill the boy" seems like a great way to create men who act like idiots.

3. "I want my bride back"

As for the "family factor" of the decision, another aspect of the phrase "I want my bride back" just occurred to me: Jon is probably isn't shocked that Arya escaped. He's probably more torn up by the fact that she wanted to escape. That she fled from her ancestral home of Winterfell conjures up all kinds of horrors in Jon's imagination: what was so atrocious about that marriage that caused her to run away from Winterfell--a place she should want to stay?

[Narea]

1. NW vows

Throughout ADWD we see that Jon is expanding now widely accepted meaning of his vow to defend the realms of Men. First, he expands it to mean not just people south of the Wall, but also the Wildlings to the north of it as they are Men too. Is it too much of a stretch for him to expand them again to mean that he should defend Men south of the Wall from evils south of the Wall ? I find it particularly interesting that Jon calls Ramsay creature during his speech. Also, after he receives the letter, he calls Ramsay bastard in his mind and uses his name only when talking about him to clarify who sent the letter. I think this shows that in his own mind Jon is dehumanizing Ramsay, he actually says he doesn't consider him a human and thus making it his duty as a member of NW to protect the realm from his evil. He doesn't see this as oathbreaking and that's why he says "if this is oathbreaking...".

2. "I want my bride back..."

I'd like to point out something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. We can see in northeners attitudes on the wedding and after it, that they are not happy with Arya getting married to Ramsay and it's not just in a "I or my son would have been better suited" way either. The northeners are concerned for her safety and so is Jon as her brother. I think Boltons aren't using Arya just as their way "legitimize" their hold on the North but they are mainly using her as a hostage. Remember that Wyman Manderly did not as much as really speak with Davos before his son got back to him. I think Jon is thinking that because Boltons no longer have Arya, they cannot use her against the lords or against him. I would call this exactly the time to attack them. And that is even without considering the seven days of battle Bolton's army just went through.

3. Jon is a Stark of Winterfell

Remember that Winterfell is a castle and Jon was raised there along with the rightfull heir Robb as Ned's son by Ned and that this is set in medieval times. Castles in those times were built with secret passages, just look at the Red Keep. Now, what is possibility of such passages existing in Winterfell ? I think it's pretty high. And if this passages existed I think Ned would have shown them to Robb and Jon maybe even Sansa, but not Arya, Bran or Rickon simply because they are still too much of children at time of Ned's departure to keep it secret. Even Theon could capture Winterfell with only handfull of men because he knew it. I think it stands to reason that Jon knows it better (because there are things you do not show your hostage) and thus doesn't need very many men to capture Winterfell if he can get them behind the walls undetected.

All in all, I don't think Jon made a rash decision. He proved himself to be good at thinking on his feet and this is another instance of showing it.

[chrisdaw]

The letter from Ramsay is essentially a declaration of war on a Jon lead NW. Jon will never give Arya up to Ramsay, whether by passively sitting by and allowing Ramsay to find her or by finding her himself and handing her over, and anything short of that is going to bring them to blows. He has not been taught to sit about and wait for his enemies, Ned didn't, Robb didn't, Mormont didn't and so Jon was not about to, it's not the way of the North. Further more the the deficiencies in the wall's defenses from the South are well known and sitting at the wall drags his brothers directly into the conflict and makes them all oath breakers. The decision appears perfectly in character to me.

[tarantella]

If Ramsay's letter is interpreted as a direct threat against the Night's Watch then what Jon proposed to do was pretty clearly not oathbreaking, but heading off a threat it couldn't possibly defend itself against (from the south) if it kept all its force at the Wall. It was the best decision, Jon's personal feelings aside.

That said, I understand why Bowen Marsh and co. did what they did. Jon had been amassing what amounts to a wildling army for a while, presumably to man the other castles at the Wall and step up surveillance. Then he suddenly receives a threatening letter from Ramsay Snow and hey, he conveniently has an army to lead against him, and take back Winterfell for his father's line while he's at it. It's not unreasonable to believe that the letter was a forgery meant as a pretext for a march on Winterfell against the Boltons. We know it wasn't because we've got Jon's POV, but Bowen Marsh doesn't. So I think he and the others were at least acting out of noble intentions, if they really did feel betrayed by Jon.

[chrisdaw]

It's oathbreaking because the letter is only a declaration of war if Jon is unwilling to meet Ramsay's demands. His demands aren't unreasonable for his position.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

He doesn't see this as oathbreaking and that's why he says "if this is oathbreaking...".

I don't believe Jon actually says that, though. That's in his thoughts, but what he says is a good deal less ambiguous. "I will not ask my brothers to foreswear their vows, but.... His Brothers can only judge him on what he actually says, not on his internal thoughts.

[Markus]

I don't believe Jon actually says that, though. That's in his thoughts, but what he says is a good deal less ambiguous. "I will not ask my brothers to foreswear their vows, but.... His Brothers can only judge him on what he actually says, not on his internal thoughts.

What Jon says is that:

“The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. 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 Hardhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless …” Jon paused. “… is there any man here who will come stand with me?”

I think this lends itself to Jon asking the wildlings to come with him but not the men of the NW. Which is what he intended as we learn from his thoughts:

He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

[The Lost Lord]

I think this lends itself to Jon asking the wildlings to come with him but not the men of the NW.

Which of course supports the interpretation that Jon himself thought he was breaking his vows and that he didn't want to ask his brothers to.

[Markus]

Which of course supports the interpretation that Jon himself thought he was breaking his vows and that he didn't want to ask his brothers to.

Agreed, with the qualification that Jon allowed some uncertainty about the matter. When he uses "If" this can be read to mean that while Jon thinks he breaks his oath he realizes that there are extenuating circumstances which might lead others to think it wasn't oathbreaking. We've to remember that Jon is probably more strict about interpreting oaths than more flexible people would be and that Jon may well realize this.

[Rydis]

You know, aruging over whether "Jon" thought he was oathbreaking or not is moot. We know a few people want him gone as LC (and some seasoned long timers on the NW). Do you think, regardless of what the result of Jon's actions in Winterfell accomplish, that men like bowen marsh are going to care?

They haven't support much of his plans for the NW even though we know they are for the best. They will spin it as Jon being a deserter, breaking vows and involving himself in matters on the kingdom. Lannisters control the iron throne, and I doubt they will have any qualms agreeing against the bastard of Ned..and his army of wildlings!

Regardless of anything Jon had thought of/planned, whether he went with wildlings or NW, or alone, victorious or in defeat..this action only left us with him having certain death.

as for picking up the remnants of Stannis army..really? You think these peole who just lost a battle are so eager to join another host and march against them again..

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Agreed, with the qualification that Jon allowed some uncertainty about the matter. When he uses "If" this can be read to mean that while Jon thinks he breaks his oath he realizes that there are extenuating circumstances which might lead others to think it wasn't oathbreaking. We've to remember that Jon is probably much more strict about interpreting oaths than more flexible people would be and that Jon may well realize this.

But that qualification only exists among the readers and Jon himself. Though I think even he knows it is a pretty weak qualification. But as the Lost Lord pointed out, the plain meaning of the words he actually speaks, in terms of not asking his men to foreswear their vows and saying he will go it alone, is that his action is Oathbreaking.

As you've pointed out, there is a potential argument that could be made that Jon's action really is consistent with the mission of Night's Watch. But we have nothing to support that view but our own speculation as to what argument could be crafted based on the underlying facts. We don't even have Jon himself, even internally, explaining/justifying this mission on that basis. If anything, his internal thoughts support personal motives rather than NW related motives. It's as if we're searching for an excuse for Jon rather than simply taking the facts as presented on their face.

He hasn't publicly ascribed any Nights Watch-related justification for his actions, nor provided any explanation at all other than what he said in that speech. In those circumstances, it makes complete sense for the people listening to his speech to assume it reflects his thoughts, and to take him at his word. And if they do that, it's very clearly Oathbreaking, because there's not a shred of anything in that speech even hinting at a Night's Watch related purpose or justification for that mission, and because Jon himself said it would be Oathbreaking for Brothers to follow him.