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

[MillerEP]

What exactly happened that was so disastrous that was due to Mance's presence? And I'm not sure you can make any kind of argument that Mance and the spearwives' status as wildlings had anything to do with their "failure".

As for reactions of the northerners to wildlings, I'm pretty sure that the Hill Tribes, Mormonts, etc would be hella-pleased to have a few hundred Wildling warriors (plus a giant!) out for Bolton Blood on their side.

As far as Jon knows, he knows that Mance is captured and hanging in a crow cell, his 6 spearwives are know flayed, and that they failed. I never argued that Mance and the spearwives failed because they were wildlings, I was simply making a point that aside from Stannis, the wildlings, and the NW nobody else had any clue (as far as we know) that Jon was leading thousands of wildlings onto their lands. I was also pointing out that with the extreme mistrust and hatred the NW bears the wildlings it would not go over well to send a whole host of them down on their own to start raiding the castles and keeps of Westeros. They weren't supposed to enter into the affairs of the realm, but that doesn't mean that they don't still harbor some feelings towards the concept of fealty to the crown/crowns.

I don't see the support for this.

For The Watch? No. If Jon had ignored the letter, Ramsey would have ignored him. I am sure this is what LC Mormont would have done, and what Maester Aemon would have advised. Further, Jon undermines the very existence of The Watch by getting involved as Lord Commander. He should at the very least have stepped down as LC before deserting.

For The Realm? Up until now, he firmly believes the way to save the realm is to ready The Watch for the greater conflict. For this, he needs peace and stability in The North. He might prefer Stannis, but he should be willing to accept Roose/Ramsey if that's the quickest road to peace.

For Honor? Only if you define honor as a quest for personal vengeance. Because that's what really motivated Jon here, not practical considerations for the safety of the realm. That, and protecting his family (Arya).

This entire thread was bringing about support for the reasons that Jon made, I know there are a couple staunch Jon and/or Stark haters out there, but there are just as many if not more people out there posting threads to SUPPORT the choice that Jon made as being for honor. I highly highly doubt that it was simply for a family member. I also don't think Ramsay would have avoided Jon f he ignored the letter. The letter was VERY specific to Jon and held him solely responsible, even going as far as to sign it as the "Trueborn heir to Winterfell" just to spite Jon.

Jon didn't step down from LC of the NW because he can't, as you said he needs a stable North and ultimately a stable realm in order to combat the Others in the N. He threw his lot in with Stannis already and even went so far as to take up his own personal debt outside of the Realm entirely by getting loans from another country, because he can't rely on the crown. Ramsay is a direct threat to him. The fact that Arya was there and escaped is only secondary.

[The Lost Lord]

The suggestion here is clear. Jon can't go himself just to save his sister and he can't send his NW men either. But his oaths don't require him to prevent a third party from taking part in the affairs of the realm... In fact, preventing Melisandre from going through with her scheme might even be seen as taking part himself, i.e. oathbreaking if one were to hold that not taking part is part of the oath in the first place.

But that is Mel's POV and her words. Jon later seems to think it was his own initiative: "A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north... It seemed like madness now... somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters.

Uh, no, Arya's life was never in question. She escaped, you see. It's even in the letter. And Ramsay just wants her back, he doesn't want her dead. It was between his vows and vengeance. Personal dislike. Personal matters.

This is silly. I did speak imprecisely -- okay it wasn't "to save Arya's life," it was to prevent Arya from being flayed / tortured / raped by a monster for the rest of her life when she is inevitably recaptured by Ramsay. The final sentences before Jon makes his decision are: "He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell... I want my bride back... I want my bride back... I want my bride back..." Love for Arya, disgust at Ramsay's evil, and fear for what Ramsay may do to Arya are all clearly there -- not just vengeance.

[alguien]

I think its pretty clear what happened.

Personally, I thought up until the last chapter, Jon had done an excellent job as Lord Commander, though I thought the planned over-land trip to Hardhome was extremely ill-advised, the rest: peace with wildlings--with hostages to resolve practical issues, manning the deserted forts, figuring out a way to keep the Watch fed, was all very well done--with the possible exception of using Mance Rayder to free his "sister," which to me is sort of a gray area.

Jon makes a potentially fatal error in allowing Ramsay Bolton's letter to goad him. I'm not sure if this is a realistic turn for him or not. I get the sense that throughout the whole book there was a pressure building within Jon and this letter, threatening "Arya," demanding his other guests, etc., finally breaks him.

Whether or not one feels that Jon was about to break his oath (because, technically, he never actually DID leave--he was prevented, only in much more severe fashion than in AGoT) HE clearly feels that what he's about to do is oath-breaking.

We also don't know what Jon's plans were after he would have rode out with the wildlings, so it doesn't make sense to criticize that aspect until we learn more. We know that he and Tormund planned for two hours before he tried to rally volunteers.

For Brutus Bowen and Co., I'm not sure how I feel about their actions. I can certainly understand their antipathy for some of Jon's decisions. It would be hard to welcome as an ally sworn enemies who'd killed your brothers, though I'm quite positive making peace with the wildlings was the best decision both morally and practically

But I'm also not sure what precedent there is for un-seating a LC if you feel he's breaking his oath. Is assassination the only option?

I sort of wonder if there was a great conspiracy afoot. Was it just Bowen and his stewards trying to assassinate Jon? Or were more of the Watch in on it? Were they perhaps preparing a Red Wedding style massacre for the wildlings?

As to what will happen... I'm predicting bad things--lots of bloodshed. This might even be what causes the Wall to break down. I'm sort of expecting Jon to wake up in Melisandre's care, and finding out that Castle Black is a desolate charnel house filled with the bodies of slain brothers and wildlings--which will, in turn, reanimate and allow the Others through the Gates.

[Markus]

No, they are broken, beaten, starving, freezing and would no longer have a king to fight for. They could either bend the knee to the Iron Throne and accept their new liege lord, be become traitor and help the NW. Nothing good could come from them helping Jon.

Helping Jon could feed them when Jon has supplies. It could also avenge their lost friends, Stannis and Robb. It can help free "Ned's girl" from a monster. It can turn them from "broken, beaten, starving, freezing" men who "would no longer have a king to fight for" into men who have something to eat, who have hope, and who have something worthwhile to fight for while being led by Ned Stark's son. That's a powerful allure, all considered.

That's not to say that all would join Jon. That would be unrealistic. But it would be more unrealistic to assume none would join Jon. We've other examples of men defeated in battle being picked up in the field to fight again. Jaime's defeated host at Oxcross, Connington's host being picked up by the Kingsguard to fight at the Trident, the survivors of Rodrik's host joining Stannis, etc

[Markus]

But that is Mel's POV and her words. Jon later seems to think it was his own initiative: "A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north... It seemed like madness now... somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters.

Where does Jon think it was his initiative? He may well think he had "loosed Mance" but the initiative was clearly Melisandre's as we saw. He had allowed it, sure, but Mance wasn't under his command. So stopping him would've been interfering in the schemes of Melisandre, would perhaps have been taking part in the affairs of the realm. I mean, just as Ramsay has an interest in keeping "Arya" so has Stannis an interest in getting his hands on her to loosen the support the Boltons have in the North. And by what right does Jon actively sabotage Stannis' attempt to win the north?

[Whatever]

Personally, I thought up until the last chapter, Jon had done an excellent job as Lord Commander, though I thought the planned over-land trip to Hardhome was extremely ill-advised, the rest: peace with wildlings--with hostages to resolve practical issues, manning the deserted forts, figuring out a way to keep the Watch fed, was all very well done--with the possible exception of using Mance Rayder to free his "sister," which to me is sort of a gray area.

....We also don't know what Jon's plans were after he would have rode out with the wildlings, so it doesn't make sense to criticize that aspect until we learn more. We know that he and Tormund planned for two hours before he tried to rally volunteers.

this

As to what will happen... I'm predicting bad things--lots of bloodshed. This might even be what causes the Wall to break down. I'm sort of expecting Jon to wake up in Melisandre's care, and finding out that Castle Black is a desolate charnel house filled with the bodies of slain brothers and wildlings--which will, in turn, reanimate and allow the Others through the Gates.

lol, this sound like a horror movie. I like it, but i don't think the body could be reanimated if they are on the "right" side of the wall...

Jon makes a potentially fatal error in allowing Ramsay Bolton's letter to goad him. I'm not sure if this is a realistic turn for him or not.

i don't think it is. Really, it feels SO weird.

IMO, GRRM needed for that to happen at the end of the book, because it feels like he "forced" the character somehow.

I can't figure it out.. xD

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).

i think you didn't get my point :) i was just answering to your observation, but i don't think the issue of the north rallying around somebody did influence jon's decision (because it didn't) and i don't think the matter will be important in the immediate future.

Back on topic: I totally agree with fassreiter.

I'd also add that i don't see any other possible outcome. Yes, we know that Ramsay was probably lying about the stannis part, but jon didn't. From his prospective, the only choice he had was to consign to ramsay two ostages he didn't have, plus a three women and a baby, defended by more men that he had. And, of course, taking hostages violates that "the NW takes no part" custom, so he was going to break the tradition anyway. I think Jon made his big mistake when he didn't talk to the NW first, that "i don't want to make other people break their oaths" looks pretty weak to me. The problem is, we can't fully judge / understand Jon's decision because we miss parts of the story and the whole chapter is incredibly OOC (*) and oddly written - reading it felt like a dream to me. You know, that weird dreams you have when you're sick :D It seems to me that Martin had something to make happen and less pages than he expected to do so, expcially when i compare cersei's (or ned's or robb's) well-written "self made" downfall to jon's hasty last chapter

(*)IMO the reasons can be

a )GRRM wanted to show how jon could keep going like that anymore. He needed to *do* something, after years of waiting and rotting on that sad, lonely wall.

b )GRRM's editor cut the number of pages in ADWD.

I don't know why, but i think the second reason is the right one ;)

only time will tell

[The Lost Lord]

Where does Jon think it was his initiative? He may well think he had "loosed Mance" but the initiative was clearly Melisandre's as we saw. He had allowed it, sure, but Mance wasn't under his command. So stopping him would've been interfering in the schemes of Melisandre, would perhaps have been taking part in the affairs of the realm. I mean, just as Ramsay has an interest in keeping "Arya" so has Stannis an interest in getting his hands on her to loosen the support the Boltons have in the North. And by what right does Jon actively sabotage Stannis' attempt to win the north?

Your textual analysis of the first passage was very good, but now you're departing from the text and relying only on your own elaborate scenarios about what vow-breaking means. The passage I quoted is quite clear.

"A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north... It seemed like madness now... somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters.

"He had loosed," that's an action phrase, something Jon did. He did it "on the strength of those words" about Arya -- not because of some theory about non-interference that you have concocted. Why did he do it? "All to save my sister." But, hm, he suddenly thinks, "But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters" -- family vs. vows.

[Markus]

Your textual analysis of the first passage was very good, but now you're departing from the text and relying only on your own elaborate scenarios about what vow-breaking means. The passage I quoted is quite clear.

I'm all for paying close attention to what is actually said in the text. Here, I think Melisandre's POV makes a very strong case that Jon wasn't breaking his oath when he allowed Mance to go. It's what is explicitly stated in the text after all. And while we don't have Jon's POV when Melisandre explains the limits and freedoms of Jon's oath, her arguments seem plausible and aren't contradicted by either Jon or Mance.

What Jon later thinks doesn't contradict Melisandre's conclusions either. Whatever you feel Jon meant by "loosening Mance" he clearly hadn't sent Mance but had allowed him to go. If anything it shows that Jon is willing to take responsibility for what others do.

And when Jon thinks he allowed Mance to go on account of Melisandre's vision of Arya and to save his sister then this doesn't mean in the slightest that Melisandre's rationale wasn't correct. It merely shows that what Jon motivated primarily was his sister.

Specifically, Jon doesn't actually frame his decision to allow Mance to go as a choice between his family and breaking his oath. He contrasts it as a conflict between an unsure hope of saving a sister whom he shouldn't have anymore vs. whatever mischief Mance and the spearwives might be up to in the North. But while Mance causing mischief might have been prevented by Jon acting against him, this doesn't mean that his oath obligated him to do this. That's the crucial point.

Nowhere does Jon think that his oath meant he had to stop Mance from going. Mance wasn't his to command or punish anymore because it was Stannis who had captured him and who had apparently pardoned him, which was within his rights. Challenging this right would've meant challenging Stannis right to the throne, which clearly would've been taking part.

Moreover, paying close attention to the text shouldn't preclude readers from drawing their own conclusions, from extrapolating when eventual conclusions can be supported by the text. My "elaborate scenario" of why stopping Mance might actually be considered taking part in the affairs of the realm would fall under this category. Though I don't quite think it's all that elaborate. It's quite simple, actually.

If Jon were to kill Mance, a servant of Stannis and Melisandre, thereby preventing him from carrying out an important mission which would weaken the Boltons in the North, then Jon can be said to have taken the Boltons' side against Stannis, i.e. having taken part in the affairs of the realm. This isn't explicitly stated in the text, true. But it seems quite arguable to me based on what we learn taking part can mean.

[Lord Jon Connington]

Nowhere does Jon think that his oath meant he had to stop Mance from going. Mance wasn't his to command or punish anymore because it was Stannis who had captured him and who had apparently pardoned him, which was within his rights. Challenging this right would've meant challenging Stannis right to the throne, which clearly would've been taking part.

If Jon were to kill Mance, a servant of Stannis and Melisandre, thereby preventing him from carrying out an important mission which would weaken the Boltons in the North, then Jon can be said to have taken the Bolton's side against Stannis, i.e. having taken part in the affairs of the realm. This isn't explicitly stated in the text, true. But it seems quite arguable to me based on what we learn taking part can mean.

That's not technically true though. Stannis "gives" Rattleshirt/Mance to Jon.

Pg.222

"As you wish. I have a gift for you, Lord Snow." The king waved a hand at Rattleshirt. "Him."

Lady Melissandre smiled. "You did say you wanted men, Lord Snow. I believe our Lord of Bones still qualifies."

[Markus]

That's not technically true though. Stannis "gives" Rattleshirt/Mance to Jon.

He was lend to Jon but Jon rejected him: “Your Grace, this man cannot be trusted. If I keep him here, someone will slit his throat for him. If I send him ranging, he’ll just go back over to the wildlings.”

Moreover, it's clear that Mance was essentially working for Melisandre, and not Jon. Look at what she says: "So long as he wears the gem he is bound to me, blood and soul," And it was Melisandre's plan to send Mance to fetch Arya and her power over him which compels Mance to do as she says. Be it serving Jon as a fighter at the Wall or fetching Jon's sister on her orders.

[The Lost Lord]

What Jon later thinks doesn't contradict Melisandre's conclusions either. Whatever you feel Jon meant by "loosening Mance" he clearly hadn't sent Mance but had allowed him to go.

Here's a few sentences I ellipsed: "On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. 'Young ones, and pretty,' Mance had said. The unburnt king supplied some names, and Dolorous Edd had done the rest, smuggling them from Mole's Town. It seemed like madness now." So Jon and Edd had an active part in planning the mission. Jon thinks he loosed Mance, I agree with him.

Here, I think Melisandre's POV makes a very strong case that Jon wasn't breaking his oath when he allowed Mance to go. It's what is explicitly stated in the text after all... And when Jon thinks he allowed Mance to go on account of Melisandre's vision of Arya and to save his sister then this doesn't mean in the slightest that Melisandre's rationale wasn't correct. It merely shows that what Jon motivated primarily was his sister.

I view this as Mel whispering sweet nothings into Jon's ear about how he can have it both ways. I think her rationale is bogus and that we're meant to view it as such -- that she is tempting Jon. Also, re: your description of Mance as an agent of Stannis -- my impression was that Stannis had no idea Mel saved Mance, and that this is purely a Mel/Jon operation.

Specifically, Jon doesn't actually frame his decision to allow Mance to go as a choice between his family and breaking his oath.

You suggest that Jon's oath compelled him not to interfere. That would imply the choice was clear, but Jon seems to be uncertain about the decision. "All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters" points out the tension here. The next paragraph (the final one of the chapter) discusses how Jon dreamed of conquering like King Dareon -- "Now he was a man grown and the Wall was his, yet all he had were doubts. He could not even seem to conquer those." My interpretation is that he's far from sure he made the right decision.

[Ser Joe the Unknighted]

A lot of people wonder what Jon's plans were and how he could abandon his vows. He planned to go down to Winterfell with a host of wildlings and volunteers and challenge Ramsay to single combat for his sister. It would be easy to get him to come out all he would need to do was to call him a bastard. I don't think Jon saw it as breaking his vows, Ramsay threatened to destroy the watch if Jon didn't surrender himself, his sister, and his guests. His choices were to wait to give up himself and his guests, Jon would never do that, to sit at the wall and wait for Ramsay to come up to him with an army to destroy the watch and Jon knows that the watch can't be defended from the south(He doesn't know that he's probably under siege, there's no way Stannis is dead or else why would he have asked for the sword, Reek, and Arya), or to march down and meet them at Winterfell and challenge Ramsay. To him his only real choice to rotect the watch was to march down and meet them at Winterfell. Marsh decided to kill him not because Jon was breaking his vows, but because he conszidered Stannis' cause as lost and thought that the only way to avoid the wrath of the Lannisters would be to kill Jon and give up Milisandre, Selyse, and the rest of Stannis' party. The two hour meeting was simply JOn and Tormund working out stategy, and my impression was that Jon was sending the watch north and the wildlings south.

[Markus]

So Jon and Edd had an active part in planning the mission. Jon thinks he loosed Mance, I agree with him.

Okay, so Jon wasn't entirely passive in all of this. Doesn't mean it was his idea or that he ordered Mance to go. Or that his assistance was even necessary for Mance to go. Mel could have used somebody else to fetch the women after all.

I view this as Mel whispering sweet nothings into Jon's ear about how he can have it both ways. I think her rationale is bogus and that we're meant to view it as such -- that she is tempting Jon. Also, re: your description of Mance as an agent of Stannis -- my impression was that Stannis had no idea Mel saved Mance, and that this is purely a Mel/Jon operation.

This is stated to Mance before Jon joins them:

“He is not you. He made his vows and means to live by them. The Night’s Watch takes no part. But you are not Night’s Watch. You can do what he cannot.”

I think this clearly lends itself to Mel actually believing what she says about Jon's vows later to Jon, and not to your interpretation of it. I certainly don't think her rationale is bogus. Neither did Mance, apparently. Nor Jon as far as we know.

As for Mance being an agent of Stannis, this is what Melisandre says:

"And he owes you his very life.” “Me?” Snow sounded startled. “Who else, my lord? Only his life’s blood could pay for his crimes, your laws said, and Stannis Baratheon is not a man to go against the law … but as you said so sagely, the laws of men end at the Wall.

If Jon's words to Stannis saved Mance's life then it stands to reason that Stannis came around to Jon's point of view in the end, and so saw no more legal obligation to kill Mance. If Stannis has no idea that Mance is alive Jon's counsel would surely have been meaningless because Melisandre is surely not terribly beholden to the laws of the NW.

Melisandre mightn't tell the truth, but she seems to suggest that Stannis knows that Mance is alive and approves of it.

You suggest that Jon's oath compelled him not to interfere. That would imply the choice was clear, but Jon seems to be uncertain about the decision. "All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters" points out the tension here. The next paragraph (the final one of the chapter) discusses how Jon dreamed of conquering like King Dareon -- "Now he was a man grown and the Wall was his, yet all he had were doubts. He could not even seem to conquer those." My interpretation is that he's far from sure he made the right decision.

I say the oath didn't obligate Jon to stop Mance, and that Jon saw this the same. When I said that the oath could also be said to compel him to non-interference I didn't mean that Jon necessarily saw this the same way though. There is no clear evidence for this after all whereas there is evidence for the first statement.

As for the tension and the doubts Jon has, well, of course he feels tension and has doubts. He is unsure if Melisandre's vision can be believed, if there is a real chance to save Arya and if Melisandre can be trusted. He is also unsure about what Mance will actually do in the North.

A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. ... the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre. Yet somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them.

The tension and the doubts aren't derived from Jon thinking he has broken his oath though. He merely wonders what will come of his decision and if he has made the right one. Jon can fear to have made a wrong decision without to fear having broken his oath. And caring for his sister or even letting his decisions be influenced by this caring isn't breaking his oath when the decision itself isn't oathbreaking.

The NW isn't supposed to love because this can lead to oathbreaking. But nobody can realistically have expected that the men of the NW wouldn't love their families. Only that they choose their duty over their love for their family when it comes to a conflict between their oaths and this love. Here, there was no such conflict between Jon's oath and not stoppping Mance. There was nothing in his oath which obligated Jon to stop Mance, exactly as Melisandre explained to Mance and Jon and us.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

A lot of people wonder what Jon's plans were and how he could abandon his vows. He planned to go down to Winterfell with a host of wildlings and volunteers and challenge Ramsay to single combat for his sister. It would be easy to get him to come out all he would need to do was to call him a bastard. I don't think Jon saw it as breaking his vows, Ramsay threatened to destroy the watch if Jon didn't surrender himself, his sister, and his guests.

Jon said himself that he was breaking his vows, as would be anyone who joined him.

His choices were to wait to give up himself and his guests, Jon would never do that, to sit at the wall and wait for Ramsay to come up to him with an army to destroy the watch and Jon knows that the watch can't be defended from the south(He doesn't know that he's probably under siege, there's no way Stannis is dead or else why would he have asked for the sword, Reek, and Arya), or to march down and meet them at Winterfell and challenge Ramsay. To him his only real choice to rotect the watch was to march down and meet them at Winterfell.

If Jon really believes these are the only options, he is a fool. And he's not a fool. He's shown in this book previously to be quite intelligent actually. Almost unbelievably so (e.g. knowing strategy better than the seasoned commander Stannis.)

1. Jon would have known that even if Ramsey had won a complete and total victory, the march to the Wall would be a long and cold one, and after being besieged for so long, Ramsey would simply not have the supplies neccessary.

2. Even if he could make the march north, Jon and co would have a much better chance of defending The Wall (even from the south) as a cohesive unit rather than a weak force attempting to assult a strong keep! How exactly do you believe that Jon and a few hundred wildlings would be able to storm a well-defended keep?

3. Ramsey's letter was too obviously goading. What could Ramsey possibly want to get out of Jon with such a letter besides a rash attack? I suppose that Jon is young, so I could believe it made him angry. But come On.

Jon went south out of love of his family and his sister. He hoped to save his sister, get vengeance for his brothers' deaths, and restore Winterfell to Sansa and Arya. And what he did was not in the interest of either the realm or the watch even in the unlikely case that Jon was fool enough to believe everything that Ramsey wrote.

Marsh decided to kill him not because Jon was breaking his vows, but because he conszidered Stannis' cause as lost and thought that the only way to avoid the wrath of the Lannisters would be to kill Jon and give up Milisandre, Selyse, and the rest of Stannis' party. The two hour meeting was simply JOn and Tormund working out stategy, and my impression was that Jon was sending the watch north and the wildlings south.

Yes. In short, Marsh knew that Jon's "plan" to march south was incompatable with the purpose of the watch. Which is to protect the realm from The Others and to stay out of southern politics. Jon's actions would put both of these in jeopardy.

[Morn of Swording]

It was probably necessary for Jon's fate to be stabbed to death before breaking his vows. Perhaps his destiny redirected him to the right track by killing him before he could muff up the future of Westeros (assuming he is a prophesied prince or hero).

[The Lost Lord]

Here, there was no such conflict between Jon's oath and not stoppping Mance. There was nothing in his oath which obligated Jon to stop Mance, exactly as Melisandre explained to Mance and Jon and us… [earlier]... Okay, so Jon wasn't entirely passive in all of this. Doesn't mean it was his idea or that he ordered Mance to go. Or that his assistance was even necessary…

You realize you've moved from "Jon's fine because he didn't help" to "sure, Jon helped, but it doesn't matter," right?

The proof is in the pudding here. The success of Mance's mission provoked the enraged response from Ramsay. Whoever Ramsay tortured obviously said the mission was ordered by Jon or carried out with Jon's consent. So at the very least, Jon aided and abetted a mission to steal the Lord of Winterfell's bride, and the mission quite predictably ended with a furious Ramsay threatening to kill Jon. Again, I'm not criticizing the decision itself, but the vow-consistent response would've been for Jon to say "I will have no part in this" and leave the room. Then Mel/Mance can do whatever but they'll know they don't have Jon's consent, tacit or otherwise, and the participants in the mission won't be in a position to compromise Jon or the Watch. But Jon obviously did not do that. Instead he at the very least winked at them and said good luck and helped arrange the logistics, and at most he said "let's do it." I lean toward the latter.

she seems to suggest that Stannis knows that Mance is alive and approves of it.

I very much doubt this. A fraudulent burning of Mance seems very un-Stannis-like. Additionally, Mance seems to think Stannis was gonna go through with it until Mel intervened: "Mance Rayder chuckled. 'I had my doubts as well, Snow, but why not let her try? It was that, or let Stannis roast me.'"

[Yeade]

Holy mackerel! You fellows write fast!

It seems to me that you are the one with a black-and-white view -- "Marsh is wrong, Jon is right" -- and you incorrectly perceive that we have the view that "Marsh is right, Jon is wrong." My view is: (1) Marsh is a moron who has just provoked a bloodbath at the Wall that will have grave consequences when the Others arrive, (2) Jon's wildling reform policies were visionary, farsighted, and consistent with his vows, (3) Jon clearly violated his vows throughout the course of the book because he wanted Stannis to win in the North and he wanted to save Arya.

Well, my previous post's in response to comments that Marsh's assassination of Jon is justified because Jon's an oathbreaker, if idiotic in how he chooses to do the deed.

The only part of his actual vows Jon's arguably broken is "I shall wear no crowns and win no glory," IMO, and what folks are really pissed at him for is overturning centuries of tradition in less than a year. What's more, my re-read of Jon's chapters suggests the plot to kill him may date as far back as Jon XI, wherein Marsh calls Jon's decision to allow Tormund past the Wall treason and Jon makes it quite clear he won't be moved on the issue of the wildlings. That Marsh and his co-conspirators are ready to act within minutes of Jon's speech, not to mention Ghost's behavior at the start of the chapter, seems to support the notion that Jon's already marked for death or at least arrest and trial before the news of Ramsay's letter breaks.

So, I freely admit your opinion that I believe Marsh is wrong, not only in how and when he decides to kill Jon but in his main reasons for doing so, is correct. Marsh's reaction to Jon's policies may be understandable given the NW's history of warfare with the wildlings and his personal experiences fighting the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls in ASOS, but such prejudices are not enough in my mind to excuse what Marsh does since there's no reasonable outcome from his actions except the destruction of the NW and the failure of Westeros's only defense against the Others.

Jon's more right than wrong in my view. More to the point, I don't see why the fact that Jon would prefer Stannis to win the North and for Arya to be safe is necessarily a violation of his oath, even if these feelings are among his primary motivations for acting, so long as what he does ultimately serves the NW's purpose of guarding the realms of men.

Here's an instructive analogy from one of the other threads on this topic: Let's say Margaery is in danger. If Loras's overriding desire in protecting her is because she's his sister, has he broken his Kingsguard vows? I'd argue no. What if a hypothetical assassin is after Tommen, and Loras enters the fray due to the threat to Margaery? Perhaps less defensible, but still no Kingsguard oath broken, IMO.

Far from imagining Jon a robot dedicated solely to the greater good, I figure unavoidable emotion is not conclusive proof his NW vows have been violated. For that, I'd require a successful argument that Jon's decisions, regardless of whether these are driven by personal desires, would inevitably lead to dire consequences for the NW that he should be able to foresee.

I think his covert support of Stannis is cleared on the above grounds. Stannis, the only contender in the game of thrones who's aware of and responsive to the NW's plight, is infinitely preferable to the Boltons or the Lannisters behind them. If Jon's advice can secure for Stannis the North, the Wall reaps the benefits of a united kingdom under a king who sees it as his destined duty to defeat the Others. If Stannis loses his war with the Boltons, the Wall's no better off than it was at the end of ASOS. Which is to say, in real danger of falling to the next attack by wildlings or the Others. Except likely short yet another Lord Commander (or do you believe the Boltons and Lannisters would stand for Ned Stark's bastard in any position of power?) and possibly taken to task for housing Stannis in the first place. Conflict could arise over Melisandre, Selyse, and Shireen still being on the Wall with fifty men-at-arms, as well. Again, this is all aside from Jon's feelings on the matter.

As for the issue of Arya...

And your "for the greater good" interpretation of vows doesn't really explain why Jon sent Mance on a secret mission to steal Ramsay Bolton's bride. That wasn't for the realm, it was because Jon wanted to save his sister. An admirable action motivated out of love for his family, but one that directly provoked the threat from Ramsay at the end of the book and put the Watch at risk, and one that clearly goes against everything Maester Aemon has ever said about the vows.

For starters, I must reiterate that I do not deny Jon's first thought in approving Mance Rayder's sekrit mission is his little sister's safety. I also feel this decision's far more questionable than the one to give Stannis counsel.

However, I'd like to note that, when Jon agrees to help Mance Rayder by providing six spearwives and horses, he's under the impression that Melisandre's vision of his sister riding to the Wall is true. That is, she's already escaped Ramsay on her own and is in the vicinity of Long Lake about halfway between Winterfell and Castle Black. So, why not send men to fetch her?

Ah, you say, but Jon has little trust in Melisandre's sorcery! Recall that, earlier in the same chapter, she proves accurate in her prediction that three of the nine rangers Jon sends out will return dead and eyeless (courtesy of the Weeper). Not to mention she dramatically reveals Mance Rayder still lives and claims he's beholden to Jon.

Removing Arya from the custody of the Boltons is not without political results favorable to the NW either. Leaving aside the fact that the real Arya's in Braavos, losing her would undermine the legitimacy of Bolton rule in the North. Which helps Stannis's cause and in turn helps the NW.

That said, of all Jon's decisions in ADWD, I consider loosing Mance Rayder on the North with six spearwives the worst. He can rightly be accused of setting in motion a risky espionage operation using untrustworthy agents and without clarifying possible objectives. I'm not sure Jon even knows Abel and his washerwomen go to Winterfell until he receives the Pink Letter. His love for Arya is obviously to blame for this oversight. And Jon himself realizes this, regretting that he lets the whole thing go forward. Which, IMO, would make it even stranger if Jon truly abandons reason as many suggest for Arya's sake when the troubles caused by his first mistake on her behalf fly back to roost on the Wall.

Finally, I think Aemon's lesson to Jon in AGOT is not that he should always put his duty to the NW before his love of family: "I will not tell you to stay or go. You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days. As I have." He tells Jon how others, including himself, have chosen but ends by stating Jon can only look to his own choice. The moral of Aemon's story? You must decide. Then bear the consequences. Which Jon is prepared to do. In AGOT, ADWD, and every novel in between.

A deserter's life is forfeit south of the Wall. Marsh is doing is duty, and he is convinced that it's for the good of the Watch it's even what he says when he stabs Jon.

Except Jon hasn't actually deserted yet. Okay, that's a pretty weak argument, lol, given that Marsh probably perceives Jon's speech as a statement of his intent to desert. OTOH, as I write to The Lost Lord, I don't feel any of the events surrounding the Pink Letter is the root cause of Marsh's decision to kill Jon and, considering the potentially disastrous fallout of shanking Jon so openly, the least the assassins could do is ask for Jon to meet with them privately, possibly to better explain his plans and motives. This is not just any common deserter but the Lord Commander.

My speculation's that convening his ranking NW officers is next on Jon's to-do list right under seeing Melisandre and Selyse. He hasn't ironed out the details of either Operation Hardhome or Operation Kick Bolton Ass, and I'd like to believe Jon's proved himself an astute enough military commander to know no army goes anywhere without logistics. Actually, I kind of resent the implication that Jon's striking out with no plan whatsoever beyond ending Ramsay when us readers are deliberately kept in the dark about his strategy session with Tormund and the timetables for both actions.

As for the viability of leading a wildling host against Ramsay and, incidentally, the rescue mission to Hardhome, can I just refer you to several other posts I've made on the subjects? You've maybe already seen these, but I suppose it can't hurt to copy and paste again. I grow lazier every time this same discussion crops up, lol.

To add to my already lengthy argument:

Logistically, I figure the wildlings consume as much of the Wall's food supply while sitting at Castle Black as on the march south. With the latter, Marsh can at least hope for some to die, lol. Moreover, isn't one of the points of Asha's chapters that northern winters are death to southern troops but only a bloody inconvenience to northmen on a mission? I imagine the NW and wildlings are even better adapted to winter, as can be seen on a small scale with two NW scouts escorting Tycho Nestoris plus six ironborn to Stannis out of a snowstorm and Mance Rayder et al. arriving in Winterfell none the worse for the wear. Jon quite probably has under his command the best winter army in Westeros, raiders and foragers all. I mean, at least there are no wights along the kingsroad or in the wolfswood. That's a big improvement!

Politically, I don't think Jon sees himself in contention for Winterfell. After all, there's always the reasoning that Ramsay threatens the NW. Once this danger is dealt with, why should Jon care who takes power in the North? Sure, a living Stannis would be nice but, so long as the new Lord of Winterfell leaves the NW well alone, Jon has no cause to protest. Though, naturally, help would be appreciated. Hell, Jon might even be willing to treat with Roose Bolton, who most assume would never have let Ramsay send such an inflammatory message. Rather ironically, Marsh may have been charged with the Wall or at least Castle Black, stripped of wildlings, in Jon's absence. The wildlings are loyal enough to Jon personally to see through one campaign, IMO. He accepts what amounts to oaths of fealty from Tormund's chiefs as they pass the Wall. Really, Jon's king of the free folk in all but name, and he's just promised them heroic deaths in glorious battle against a despicable villain who preys on defenseless women and children. That's exactly the kind of heady stuff that appeals to the wildlings.

Most of your other objections I address in my linked posts. Feel free to bring these points up here or in the other threads. I'll know what you're talking about. ^_^

For those of you who can stomach another few rounds of my verbosity, here are links to my chapter-by-chapter analysis: Jon I-V, Jon VI-VIII, Melisandre, Jon IX-X, Jon XI-XII. Jon's final chapter is forthcoming. (The Meereen POVs are a bit of a slog for me though.) Constructive criticism wanted!

edit: BBCode formatting

[Black Amethyst]

You can argue this the other way, too: let's list what Jon needs for his move to have no ill effects towards the war against Others:

• 
  
• He needs to destroy the Boltons and all sympathising houses. Raynes style.
  
• He needs to not antagonize the North, and actually convince people that North is the real danger, and not by wildlings
  
• He needs someone capable leading the Watch (he sure is NOT returning to LC after his stint), also one who will use the wildlings.
  
• He needs food, he needs equipment
  
• He needs Ramsay's outriders to be incompetent
  
• He needs control over his wildling band. He got them by stressing the existence of a common enemy, the Others. Now they go against the realms of men. South. To die.
  
• He needs political recognition.
  

Fail any of these and the Wall is doomed. All are likely to fail for anyone but a resident reality-bender mary sue. It's Theon-grade stupidity. In fact, it's exactly similar to Theon's stunt, only in a way worse situation to start with.

But let's allow that the Watch finds a competent LC, that Jon manages to slog through the snowy, food-less wastes between the Wall and Winterfell, manages to ambush Ramsay at WF, destroy his army with his wildling band better than Walder Frey did for Robb's, then rushes to the Dreadfort and razes it to the ground, in less time that it would take for the Others to crush the under-defended wall. Now what? You think Manderlys would support him? Glovers? Mormonts? Davos? When they know Rickon is alive, and that Jon is a bastard oathbreaker taking Winterfell, like in the songs? This is were the will ex machina comes, erasing Jon's sins a posteriori and everyone kiss his ass while shunning Rickon and their own ambitions, I suppose.

[*]He needs a snow plough. And a serious salt machine.

Wasn't it explained over and over that the snow is so high now that you can barely find Winterfell under all of it?

I agree with all of this. I don't like the way Jon is being written anymore. It would make complete sense (if he survives) that he is no longer LC, but it's like this kid can do no wrong and bounces back from EVERYTHING. It's not realistic. I wouldn't be surprised if the senior members of the watch would want to kill him if he doesn't flee/hide. He already came back with accusations of turncloak and oathbreaker, and then he totally screwed up again. You would think that they just don't trust him.

Maybe the biggest reason it all seems so stupid to me is that as the reader, I already know that it isn't even Arya at Winterfell, that Ramsay is full of shit, etc. The plot seems stupid anymore. Everything seems too convenient with him. He'll probably get some magical message from Melisandre that "Oh btw, it isn't really Arya at Winterfell" and he'll cut Bowen Marsh's head off and all will be forgotten. Because he HAS to be the HERO.

[Errant Bard]

Here's an instructive analogy from one of the other threads on this topic: Let's say Margaery is in danger. If Loras's overriding desire in protecting her is because she's his sister, has he broken his Kingsguard vows? I'd argue no. What if a hypothetical assassin is after Tommen, and Loras enters the fray due to the threat to Margaery? Perhaps less defensible, but still no Kingsguard oath broken, IMO.

This analogy is actually useless in that there is no conflict between Loras' vows and his desire to protect his sister. It's also not working in that Jon is not going to war to protect her sister from direct danger, but to kill a man who does not have her anymore.

If anything, tell you what, the most apt comparison would with Jaime. So Jaime had sworn to defend the weak and women and whatever, he also had sworn to defend the king. Now comes the time he has to protect his father (in the same nebulous way Jon attacking Ramsay is "protecting" Arya) and do something defying the letter of his oath for the greater good (or so it can be argued, as it is in Jon's case.) Now, then, does killing Aerys and Rossart constitute oathbreaking? It was for the greater good, but yes, it was oathbreaking.

Except Jon hasn't actually deserted yet. Okay, that's a pretty weak argument, lol, given that Marsh probably perceives Jon's speech as a statement of his intent to desert. OTOH, as I write to The Lost Lord, I don't feel any of the events surrounding the Pink Letter is the root cause of Marsh's decision to kill Jon and, considering the potentially disastrous fallout of shanking Jon so openly, the least the assassins could do is ask for Jon to meet with them privately, possibly to better explain his plans and motives. This is not just any common deserter but the Lord Commander.

Yeah, that's weak. Marsh met Jon and a day to day basis, he knows the guy. And I don't see why the upjumped Lord Commander should be given preferential treatment; he was elected, and elected through trickery and coercion. There is no ambiguity: he marches south, with wildlings and he doesn't take men of the Watch with him, because that would be breaking their vows.

Politically, I don't think Jon sees himself in contention for Winterfell. After all, there's always the reasoning that Ramsay threatens the NW. Once this danger is dealt with, why should Jon care who takes power in the North?

For the same reasons he does care now: Some hostile guy threatening him. And more: because he would not be in the Watch anymore, he would need something to do, and in essence, he would have taken Winterfell, anyway.

One of the main arguments is that his involvement with Bolton is necessary for the good of the Watch. The implication is that total victory is mandatory. Essentially, it is that he must control the North so there is only people sympathetic to him left. Must I remind you of how removing one dictator from a country, with a foreign force, works in reality?

Most of your other objections I address in my linked posts. Feel free to bring these points up here or in the other threads. I'll know what you're talking about. ^_^

It'll be repetition by now. And your response seems to be that miracles will happen for Jon, that he is a superman, that Ramsay and everyone else on his side is incompetent, and that other Lords will decide to help him against the very flow of the story so far. And that his reactions being explainable means they are good. Meh.

[Markus]

You realize you've moved from "Jon's fine because he didn't help" to "sure, Jon helped, but it doesn't matter," right?

I realize that Jon didn't send Mance nor that he provided any essential help. That's what matters, here. It's just not true that Mance was part of the NW which would've made him exclusively Jon's to command. Mance was clearly an agent of Melisandre who was following Melisandre's orders.

The proof is in the pudding here.

You're free to use your personal insights to improve your interpretation of the actual text. It can be a quality. Preferably not only when it suits some point you're trying to make though.

Again, I'm not criticizing the decision itself, but the vow-consistent response would've been for Jon to say "I will have no part in this" and leave the room. Then Mel/Mance can do whatever but they'll know they don't have Jon's consent, tacit or otherwise, and the participants in the mission won't be in a position to compromise Jon or the Watch. But Jon obviously did not do that. Instead he at the very least winked at them and said good luck and helped arrange the logistics, and at most he said "let's do it." I lean toward the latter.

It's unrealistic to assume that Ramsay wouldn't have blamed Jon for Mance in any case. What Mance is doing is what Jon wants, it's intended to please Jon. Bringing "Arya" to the Wall where Jon is would be seen as taking part by someone like Ramsay regardless if Jon gave his consent or not. And giving his consent, tacit or otherwise, isn't oathbreaking. There is nothing in his oath which requires Jon not to give consent to the schemes of other parties.

I will agree that the case would be even less unambiguous no oathbreaking if Jon would've said what you suggest. If he wouldn't have lend Melisandre the use of Edd to fetch the spearwives. This was no essential help however. His oath doesn't prohibit him from giving assistance to his guests in the form of lending them the use of a steward to run an errand. This isn't yet taking part in the affairs of the realm. Delivering a message to women under the command of his guests and assisting in their departure isn't oathbreaking any more than dozens of other things the NW did for Stannis while he was on the Wall.

In the end we've the text:

"If his sister needs saving, he’ll send his crows. I would.” “He is not you. He made his vows and means to live by them. The Night’s Watch takes no part. But you are not Night’s Watch. You can do what he cannot.

and

"You wanted a way to save your little sister and still hold fast to the honor that means so much to you, to the vows you swore before your wooden god.” She pointed with a pale finger. “There he stands, Lord Snow. Arya’s deliverance. A gift from the Lord of Light … and me.”

One wonders how GRRM could've made it much clearer that Jon allowing Mance to save his sister for him because his oaths prevented him from doing or ordering it himself wasn't yet considered as oathbreaking. It was a way in which Jon could save Arya and still stay true to his vows. That's what Melisandre's scheme to recruit Mance's help for Arya is all about.

And when this scheme and Stannis' campaign apparently failed, when there was no other plausible way to save Arya without to break his vows eventually Jon finally chose to save her himself, chose his family over at least the letter of his oath. That's what makes the progression and the end of his story so dramatic. That he did his best not to break his vows throughout the novel but finally did it anyway.

I very much doubt this. A fraudulent burning of Mance seems very un-Stannis-like. Additionally, Mance seems to think Stannis was gonna go through with it until Mel intervened: "Mance Rayder chuckled. 'I had my doubts as well, Snow, but why not let her try? It was that, or let Stannis roast me.'"

You're free to draw your own conclusions. However, it's clear that Melisandre insinuates that Stannis had changed his opinion following Jon's counsel to let Mance live. When Mance thinks that Stannis was going to burn him until he let Melisandre try her sorcery this doesn't contradict Melisandre's story. This is explained by what Mance said earlier:

“He burned the man he had to burn, for all the world to see. We all do what we have to do, Snow. Even kings.”

Stannis didn't want to be seen letting an oathbreaker and outlaw like Mance live, so he burned somebody "for all the world to see".

So either Melisandre is lying, which is possible, or Stannis isn't as inflexible as some like to claim. Note that Stannis has occasionally made decisions and employed means which support him having more flexible views than is commonly assumed. Using Melisandre to kill Renly and Penrose. Considering sacrificing Edric. Pardoning various rebels.

Using Mance's knowledge and skills instead of killing him when he is shown a way in which this can be justified wouldn't be all that different. Note what Stannis says:

“I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I’ll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert ... Mance Rayder’s life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms.”

Clearly Stannis sees the value in Mance. He wants to use him but he fears that if he allows him to be seen to live others will also desert. So he wants to follow the laws of the realm.

Then Jon counsels: “The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance” whereupon Stannis says: “I mean to. I’ll burn him, and the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors".

Note what is most important for Stannis: "the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors". That's where Melisandre's scheme comes into play. Where Jon has shown Stannis a way in which Stannis wouldn't go against the law when he lets Mance live, Melisandre's glamour will allow Stannis to be seen as unforgiving to prevent other desertions.

Interestingly, this managing of public opinion isn't without some precedent. Consider the public creation of Lightbringer. Lightbringer clearly wasn't created by burning the Seven in a public ceremony. The sword which was used in the ceremony was destroyed by wildfire. Lightbringer was actually created in private by Melisandre using a glamour. The public ritual was a show to impress the masses and Stannis is very likely aware of this as he actually handled the wildfire-burnt sword.