“The Watch Takes No Part:” Analyzing Jon’s “Oathbreaking”

[ARYa_Nym]

This has been argued before, but Stannis is a foreigner. Jon is a son of Eddard Stark- He is uniquely positioned to serve as a "bridge" of sorts between the Northmen and the wildlings, since they both respect his status as a son of Eddard Stark.

He's a bastard who Ned wanted to stay at the Wall.

[Tagganaro]

I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Roose would be unable to defend the wall. He doesn't want dead people running all over his lands. At present he is trying to secure his hold over the north, just like Stannis. Granted Roose did not go to the aid of the wall like Stannis did, but why assume he won't when the magnitude of the threat is revealed to him? He would also have the support of the Iron Throne which Stannis would lack.

Oops meant to respond to this too. Even without Jon's interference, 75% of the North or more is just waiting for an opportunity to stab Roose and the Boltons and Freys in the back. He cannot lead the North at all, this much is obvious imo. Only a Stark can lead them- I believe George has said as much although I could be wrong.

[The guy from the Vale]

He's a bastard who Ned wanted to stay at the Wall.

He's a probably legitimized bastard and possibly the heir of Robb as King in the North.

Also, Jon went to the Wall at his own will, not because Ned forced him to be there.

[ARYa_Nym]

He's a probably legitimized bastard and possibly the heir of Robb as King in the North.

Also, Jon went to the Wall at his own will, not because Ned forced him to be there.

Which would be oathbreaking.

EDIT: Ned wanted him to go after speaking to Luwin. A bastard can rise high at the Wall. He didn't want him to go South and didn't bother to make other sufficient plans. It's convenient to eliminate a possible Targaryen threat. He may think it keeps Jon safe and the Baratheons more secure.

[butterbumps!]

I'm confused as to why everyone thinks Roose would be unable to defend the wall. He doesn't want dead people running all over his lands. At present he is trying to secure his hold over the north, just like Stannis. Granted Roose did not go to the aid of the wall like Stannis did, but why assume he won't when the magnitude of the threat is revealed to him? He would also have the support of the Iron Throne which Stannis would lack.

This is a good point. My understanding is not that Roose would necessarily be unable, but unwilling to aid the NW. Roose has already violated the very sacred guest right in his RW stunt, which to me suggests that he is not one for upholding sacred duties. Additionally, I believe that there is ample reason to suspect that Roose would not cooperate with the Wall so long as Jon is LC/ alive there. Even with vows and bastard status, Roose sees Jon as a competitor to his hold on Winterfell; to boot, Jon is the one who will know Arya- the only claim they have to Winterfell- is a fake. It's in Roose's best interest to avoid/ defeat Jon to let this farce continue. I think there's enough reason to believe that Roose would be unwilling to aid the Watch.

ETA: Jon doesn't need to hold a title other than LC of the Watch to rally the North. He doesn't necessarily have to violate the actual parameters of that vow in order to gather support. Plus- he resisted legitimization and Winterfell when it was offered to him; thus far, he has not actually taken a title, so I don't understand the accusations of violation to that end on something that hasn't actually happened yet.

[The guy from the Vale]

Which would be oathbreaking.

If he accepts, which is not a given. He's legitimized anyway, probably even born legitimate; either way, he's a respectable figure in the North: Lord Commander of the Watch, son of Eddard Stark, trusted by King Robb, enough to name him heir. Even if he refuses Robb's offer, I don't see how the Northmen turn against him.

[Chaircat Meow]

Oops meant to respond to this too. Even without Jon's interference, 75% of the North or more is just waiting for an opportunity to stab Roose and the Boltons and Freys in the back. He cannot lead the North at all, this much is obvious imo. Only a Stark can lead them- I believe George has said as much although I could be wrong.

Maybe, but does Jon know this? Is he aware of the extent of the discontent? I actually didn't think he was myself. So this can't explain his actions. And things might settle down if Bolton had the time.

Also, in backing Stannis Jon isn't necessarily in accord with the wishes of Manderly (who may have been pulling Davos' leg) or other northern lords.

[ARYa_Nym]

If he accepts, which is not a given. He's legitimized anyway, probably even born legitimate; either way, he's a respectable figure in the North: Lord Commander of the Watch, son of Eddard Stark, trusted by King Robb, enough to name him heir. Even if he refuses Robb's offer, I don't see how the Northmen turn against him.

Bringing a wildling army onto their lands. He was stabbed so they may never know. Jon himself told Stannis to leave the wildlings behind for this very reason.

[The guy from the Vale]

Maybe, but does Jon know this? Is he aware of the extent of the discontent? I actually didn't think he was myself. So this can't explain his actions. And things might settle down if Bolton had the time.

Also, in backing Stannis Jon isn't necessarily in accord with the wishes of Manderly (who may have been pulling Davos' leg) or other northern lords.

While I seriously doubt the Northmen are particularly loyal to Stannis per se, they will most probably prefer working with him instead of the Boltons. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that stuff.

ETA:

Bringing a wildling army onto their lands. He was stabbed so they may never know. Jon himself told Stannis to leave the wildlings behind for this very reason.

But that's the point of Tagganaro's post: Stannis is inherently a stranger to the North; if he leads an army of Wildlings (i.e. strangers), he's a purely foreign invader. Jon has lived in the North his entire life, and served for it; if he leads strangers south, his mere presence will make their attack more palatable.

[Brony Stark]

Yes. Only Ramsay is a problem. But a ruthless cunning person could be good. Granted he's no Tywin but he could be a good asset.

That ruthless cunning person curently believes your

A. Helping a traitor instead of holding your oaths

B. Settling savages that their parents said 'steal women and slaughter babies' on your door step.

He's going to flay your ass if he got a hold of you, not be an asset

[Lady Aislinn]

Yes. Only Ramsay is a problem. But a ruthless cunning person could be good. Granted he's no Tywin but he could be a good asset.

Please explain. Are you saying that he can be a good asset in fighting the Others?

[ARYa_Nym]

That ruthless cunning person curently believes your

A. Helping a traitor instead of holding your oaths

B. Settling savages that their parents said 'steal women and slaughter babies' on your door step.

He's going to flay your ass if he got a hold of you, not be an asset

Not initially but when shit hits the fan these types are needed. He needs a good Randyll or Tywin type. Roose isn't trustworthy but he can be good in an apocalypse. He would just need to be disposed of afterwards.

[butterbumps!]

Also- I just want to point out. Jon Snow said the words. Jon Targaryen did not.

[Chaircat Meow]

This is a good point. My understanding is not that Roose would necessarily be unable, but unwilling to aid the NW. Roose has already violated the very sacred guest right in his RW stunt, which to me suggests that he is not one for upholding sacred duties. Additionally, I believe that there is ample reason to suspect that Roose would not cooperate with the Wall so long as Jon is LC/ alive there. Even with vows and bastard status, Roose sees Jon as a competitor to his hold on Winterfell; to boot, Jon is the one who will know Arya- the only claim they have to Winterfell- is a fake. It's in Roose's best interest to avoid/ defeat Jon to let this farce continue. I think there's enough reason to believe that Roose would be unwilling to aid the Watch.

Yea, I ought to have said unwilling, not unable. Roose has as much reason to be afraid of the Others and the wights as anyone, so I think it likely he would support the NW.

Also, I wasn't aware Roose had a sacred duty to support the wall, it would just be in his best interests, so the violation of guest right isn't pertinent to the point. I actually thought it was only the Freys who were guilty of this anyway.

Lastly, you hint at the idea that really poor old Jon is actually part of the problem. If him being the LC is the reason the watch won't get support then that means he's a bad appointment. I like Jon but I'm unsure throwing his hat in the ring to preserve his position as LC, when the grounds are that the Boltons would not allow him to remain LC, can be viewed unequivocally as Jon 'seeing the bigger picture.'

[The guy from the Vale]

Also- I just want to point out. Jon Snow said the words. Jon Targaryen did not.

I know this is pretty crackpot, but not only did Jon Snow say the words, but as we all know, the service for the Watch ends with the Watchman's death...

[ARYa_Nym]

But that's the point of Tagganaro's post: Stannis is inherently a stranger to the North; if he leads an army of Wildlings (i.e. strangers), he's a purely foreign invader. Jon has lived in the North his entire life, and served for it; if he leads strangers south, his mere presence will make their attack more palatable.

I thought the idea showed how much of a stranger Stannis was. He thought that it was a good idea. It's not. Jon was just being desperate and not thinking clearly.

[Winterfellian]

Interesting observations about the oath. Personally I believe Jon does incurs in some sort of oath breaking. However with maybe only the exception of Ygritter he's are not selfish reasons. I believe some vows are meant to be questioned otherwise by adhering to the literal interpretation of the oath a person may violate the most important part-the essence of said oath; just look at Aery's kingsguard. The essence of Jon's oath as a black brother is to protect the realms of men. No more. The rest is just empty trimmings in comparison with his true duty.

Besides, Jaime Lannister said it best-no matter what you do you will always incur in oathbreaking (paraphrasing here). For me the important part is the reasons behind it and Jon's reasons are correct ones- I am the sword in the darkness and in the end that must mean more than any oath.

[Chaircat Meow]

While I seriously doubt the Northmen are particularly loyal to Stannis per se, they will most probably prefer working with him instead of the Boltons. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that stuff.

Maybe. I never read Jon as being inclined to Stannis because he felt a north under the Boltons was unstable though. That maybe be something a reader deduces from the Theon chapters (and a few other places) but not something Jon knows too much about. So I don't think it likely it can justify his actions.

[The guy from the Vale]

It's still a worse idea for Stannis Baratheon than it is for Jon Snow (or Stark?)

[butterbumps!]

Yea, I ought to have said unwilling, not unable. Roose has as much reason to be afraid of the Others and the wights as anyone, so I think it likely he would support the NW.

Also, I wasn't aware Roose had a sacred duty to support the wall, it would just be in his best interests, so the violation of guest right isn't pertinent to the point. I actually thought it was only the Freys who were guilty of this anyway.

Lastly, you hint at the idea that really poor old Jon is actually part of the problem. If him being the LC is the reason the watch won't get support then that means he's a bad appointment. I like Jon but I'm unsure throwing his hat in the ring to preserve his position as LC, when the grounds are that the Boltons would not allow him to remain LC, can be viewed unequivocally as Jon 'seeing the bigger picture.'

Jon's a "problem" for VERY wrong reasons. Jon is a problem only so far as his mere existence is something of a personal threat to the Bolton's hold on Winterfell. I sincerely disagree that Jon should be exterminated/ fired just to appease Roose Bolton.

What indications have we seen that suggest the Boltons actually care about fulfilling responsibility? To my mind, they want the title to Winterfell, not the duties that come with it. And tbh, I half think the Boltons would get sick thrills from dead people roaming on their lands.

I know this is pretty crackpot, but not only did Jon Snow say the words, but as we all know, the service for the Watch ends with the Watchman's death...

Yea, I hate the thought of Jon Targaryen personally, but it does present a loophole in the event that kingship comes up. *sigh*