Jump to content
Travis

Jon Snow and Julius Caesar

Recommended Posts

On 8/18/2019 at 1:43 PM, Travis said:

So I was thinking (and this is no way based on the text, and is largely fanciful), what if somehow Sansa (as the Lady of the Vale of Arryn and last living Stark) marries Aegon Targaryen after he takes the throne from Tommen/Cercei, producing a Targaryen heir that is named after Jon, Sansa's "bastard" brother/"cousin" and possibly brother/half-brother to Aegon Targaryen?

I know this really falls apart if you think about it too much, but what do you all think?

While that would make for an interesting twist/curveball I have a hard time truly seeing anything close to this happening. Sansa's whole story has been about her getting back to Winterfell after her childhood fantasy of becoming queen was dashed, just like Aegon's head (allegedly). She wanted so badly to go south for her fantasy and now her story is about her odyssey north. Considering she is the eldest true Stark left I believe that she is the Stark that must stay in WF, and after everything that has happened to her I doubt she would ever really want to go south again.

fAegon (or so I believe) has no real interest in Stark's. If he wants to succeed his alliances are best made in the south at SE, the Reach, Dorne, and perhaps Dany, eventually. Plus, his marriage/alliance options are pretty well laid out already in those very regions. Sansa could possibly end up staying in the Vale if she can out smart LF, but I don't think she will. She will march whoever will follow to the North at some point in WoW.

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

His "job" as a member of a military order is to obey his commanding officers, not betray and stab them because he didn't like them or their orders. :rolleyes:

Totally! IMHO the NW has two main options going forward: fall apart and disappear due to the chaos caused by these betrayals (first Mormont and now Jon) or rally behind a leader; be it Stannis, a resurrected Jon, or maybe Tormund (now that the FF outnumber the crows at CB iirc). Personally, I don't see the NW just disbanding so to me it seems that someone will be back to set things straight and bring back order to the watch. If I was a betting man I'd put a gold dragon on Lord Snow given all foreshadowing and the crew currently assembled at CB.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think there's a lot of inspiration drawn from Roman history as well as the book of Revelations in ASOIAF, particularly with regards to the Wall, Jon, and Winterfell in ASOIAF. I've been posting about this very topic on Heresy the last couple days.

The the apostle John (how appropriate that we too have a Jon!) wrote Revelations from Patmos as a coded letter to the various Christian congregations to inform them that they were all witnessing the fulfillment of a prophecy (and not about some far-off future as many Christians would have us believe today. You might even say Jon received a coded letter from Ramsay) The Christians living in the Roman Empire at that time were suffering intense persecution, so letters written to the various congregations were often written in code lest they were intercepted. John was convinced that Jesus's prophecies were coming true. When Jesus was brought before Pilate he foretold that the kingdom of God was coming soon, but that terrible suffering must come first. Earthquakes, famine, war, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Great Temple.  He said, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down."

When John fled the war in Judea a generation after Jesus was crucified, he witnessed the events that lead to an outbreak of a war in Jerusalem in 66 CE when militant Jews attacked Roman soldiers. After four years of fighting, Rome sent 60,000 troops to siege the city and starve its inhabitants. After they defeated the Jews they burned the Great Temple to the ground and left the inner city in ruins. John was shocked and convinced that the prophecy was unfolding. Added to that was another part of the prophecy that had also came true. A great mountain that burned with fire was thrown into the sea: Mount Vesuvius in Italy had erupted just ten years before, which added to John's convictions. John's letter was meant to inspire hope in Christians that their persecution was soon coming to an end and that God would take vengeance against the Romans.

Revelations was originally written in Greek, which if you are at least a little bit familiar with the Greek alphabet you would know that the first three letters are alpha, beta, and gamma. The Jews often used numbers to encrypt names based on the placement of the Greek letters so alpha would be one, beta is two, gamma is three, and so on. If you translate the number 666 it spells out "Neron Kasar" or Nero Caesar in Hebrew and identifies him as the great beast 666 in Revelations. Nero is famous for "fiddling" while Rome burned. After his suicide in 68, the four horsemen signaling the apocalypse would arrive. Two years after he committed suicide, four Roman emperors were in turn, crowned and assassinated in relatively short order - in a single year in fact - Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. These historic events convinced John that Jesus was soon to return and so he was spreading this good news to the congregations in his coded letter called Revelations.

If you're interested in learning more about the symbolism in John's Revelations, you can pickup Elaine Pagels book, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the book of Revelation.

In GRRM's ASOIAF, Jon was the 998th Lord Commander. We're waiting to find out who will be the 999th. @LynnS brought to my attention that 666 is 999 upside down. Not only is 666 the "mark of the beast", Patchface said the north is upside down and under water! As I've shared earlier, 666 numerically translates to “Nero" in Greek, and it's important to note that this "monster" was simply a human. So back to the 999 Lord Commander...will he be a monster? Being that 999 is just an upside down 666 and points to a beast, I think this might be confirmation that Coldhands - the "Monster" - was the famous Nights King of old, and it seems implied that the 999th Lord Commander will be a monster too. 

There are additional implications if GRRM has drawn inspiration from Roman history. Kings Landing may end up with a fate similar to Jerusalem. The Faith Militant could be a parallel to the militant Jews, and the 60,000 Roman soldiers that laid siege to the city might be realized as a collective force mustered from the various Houses of the realm,  or maybe even materialize as an army of the dead that descends all the way down from the north, killing all human life in Kings Landing, and burn the great “temple” which could be the Red Keep, Iron Throne, the Sept of Baelor, or all three. And don't forget - our world is upside down so expect the opposite. The messianic savior (Daenerys) from the east may not be coming. “Mount Vesuvius” (the Wall) will rain burning ice and destroy “Pompeii” (Winterfell) I wonder who the four horsemen are? Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella, and Cersei? Will Caesar, I mean, Cersei “fiddle” while Rome (Kings Landing) burns? Then the militant “Jews” will defeat the “Romans”, and “salvation” will come from the second coming of the beast.

Lastly, Pompeii was completely covered in ash when Mount Vesuvius erupted. Winterfell is currently being blanketed by snow - the Wall is deteriorating. How much snow could a 700 foot wall of ice create? Will Winterfell be completely buried?

Edited by Feather Crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 11:12 PM, Aline de Gavrillac said:

   Sansa is the least deserving of the primary characters and the least able to wear a queen's crown.  

I agree, but that's exactly why she'll end up getting a crown. Now that I know that in his initial draft Sansa was supposed to betray the Starks again - with eyes wide open, none of that "oh, she was just a naive little girl, how could she side against her future husband" bull -, makes it even harder to swallow her character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 4:05 AM, kissdbyfire said:

His "job" as a member of a military order is to obey his commanding officers, not betray and stab them because he didn't like them or their orders. :rolleyes:

Jon's "job" is not to betray his oath and wage war on the realms of men because he doesn't like the new Warden of the North.  If Jeor had decided to march on Winterfell to take out Ned after he went to execute Jorah I am willing to bet Benjen would have put a stop to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon's "job" is not to betray his oath and wage war on the realms of men because he doesn't like the new Warden of the North.

That's hardly what happened. Not even close. 

5 minutes ago, Minsc said:

If Jeor had decided to march on Winterfell to take out Ned after he went to execute Jorah I am willing to bet Benjen would have put a stop to that.

Benjen may have tried to council Jeor but he ultimately has no say over what Jeor does. I cannot see Benjen gathering a group of the NW to stab Jeor either. Also this is not close to a good comparison to what Jon did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That's hardly what happened. Not even close. 

Benjen may have tried to council Jeor but he ultimately has no say over what Jeor does. I cannot see Benjen gathering a group of the NW to stab Jeor either. Also this is not close to a good comparison to what Jon did. 

Jon had been offering Stannis military advice to use against the Boltons.  Jon had agreed to send a Wildling down to steal a Bolton bride.  Jon had just declared his intention to march down to wage war on the Boltons.

 

If Jeor refused and was going to continue his efforts to march to war against the Starks I am betting Benjen would stand up with force to stop him.  Moreover, Jeor had established the precedent that NW brothers can attempt to stab superiors if they are angry with them and only be punished by being sent to their rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon had been offering Stannis military advice to use against the Boltons.  Jon had agreed to send a Wildling down to steal a Bolton bride.  Jon had just declared his intention to march down to wage war on the Boltons.

There is nothing illegal about giving Stannis military advice. Jon did not send a wilding down to steal a Bolton bride. Jon responded to Ramsay's threats on the NW in kind. 

 

11 minutes ago, Minsc said:

If Jeor refused and was going to continue his efforts to march to war against the Starks I am betting Benjen would stand up with force to stop him

Agreed. But there are ways to stand up with force & stop him without murdering your Lord commander. 

 

12 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Moreover, Jeor had established the precedent that NW brothers can attempt to stab superiors if they are angry with them and only be punished by being sent to their rooms

So what happens when you actually do stab your superior? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

There is nothing illegal about giving Stannis military advice. Jon did not send a wilding down to steal a Bolton bride. Jon responded to Ramsay's threats on the NW in kind.

Jon was skirting his oaths to not get involved in the affairs of the realms to the South.  Jon agreed to allow Mance to go down and retrieve "Arya" a charge mentioned in the Pink Letter and not denied by Jon.  Threats only that are only given to the NW after Jon had repeatedly interfered with the Bolton's business.

 

Quote

Agreed. But there are ways to stand up with force & stop him without murdering your Lord commander. 

None that would be able to stop Jon.  Jon had shown repeatedly he doesn't listen to Marsh's advice.

 

Quote

So what happens when you actually do stab your superior?

You don't get to bring your pet to the room with you.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Jon was skirting his oaths to not get involved in the affairs of the realms to the South.  Jon agreed to allow Mance to go down and retrieve "Arya" a charge mentioned in the Pink Letter and not denied by Jon.  Threats only that are only given to the NW after Jon had repeatedly interfered with the Bolton's business

He hadn't repeatedly interfered with Bolton business & Mance wasn't his prisoner to not allow him to go. What Jon did not stop Mance & Mel from doing was to go meet a fleeing fArya. There is nothing oath breaking about not stopping Mance or Melisandre from going to help his fake sister. 

Threats are given & ultimatums made for things Jon can not provide. Not providing these things will result in death according to Ramsay. Jon has every right to defend himself, even against westerosi Lord's as strategically as he knows how. 

29 minutes ago, Minsc said:

None that would be able to stop Jon.  Jon had shown repeatedly he doesn't listen to Marsh's advice.

Jon is under no obligation to listen to Bowen's advice. If it's a matter of oath breaking there should have been a trial or vote of some sort held. If it's not a matter of oath breaking, Jon is LC & Bowen has to do what he says regardless of what he thinks of it. 

30 minutes ago, Minsc said:

You don't get to bring your pet to the room with you.:P

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Minsc said:

Jon's "job" is not to betray his oath and wage war on the realms of men because he doesn't like the new Warden of the North. 

Well, defending the realms of men is part of Jon's vows, and I would argue it's the main and primary part of the vows. In fact, it is entirely possible that the vows changed and had more added to them as time went by. For instance, the part about taking no wives, holding no lands, fathering no children, wearing no crowns and winning no glory may have been added later, say, when these actions became an actual issue. And taking no part in the affairs of the 7K is not an actual part of the vow, although I do agree it aligns w/ the spirit of the vows - or at least the spirit of a part of the vow that may have been added later. 

Jon is defending the realms of men, more than anyone else, and is determined to save as many lives as he can. I can't agree w/ the notion that he shouldn't be doing that just so he can strictly adhere to his vows. Seems to me that instances where sticking to one's vows are not the right thing to do is very much a "human heart in conflict w/ itself" scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remembered something connected to the comparison.

Right before the assassination of Caesar, he pissed off the Senate, among other things, with him granting Roman citizenships to the Gauls. 

Kind of resembles Jon Snow's effort to integrate the Wildlings into the realm and Bowen's, but also other people's aversion towards the wildlings and one of the reasons for murdering Jon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, defending the realms of men is part of Jon's vows, and I would argue it's the main and primary part of the vows. In fact, it is entirely possible that the vows changed and had more added to them as time went by. For instance, the part about taking no wives, holding no lands, fathering no children, wearing no crowns and winning no glory may have been added later, say, when these actions became an actual issue. And taking no part in the affairs of the 7K is not an actual part of the vow, although I do agree it aligns w/ the spirit of the vows - or at least the spirit of a part of the vow that may have been added later. 

Jon is defending the realms of men, more than anyone else, and is determined to save as many lives as he can. I can't agree w/ the notion that he shouldn't be doing that just so he can strictly adhere to his vows. Seems to me that instances where sticking to one's vows are not the right thing to do is very much a "human heart in conflict w/ itself" scenario. 

While we might morally agree with Jon in part because of how we know how horrible Ramsay and Roose really are that isn't a judgment Jon should actually be making if he wishes to defend the realms of men.  The Boltons at the time when Jon was advising Stannis or allowing Mance to go South weren't waging war on the realms of men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Minsc said:

Jon's "job" is not to betray his oath and wage war on the realms of men because he doesn't like the new Warden of the North.  If Jeor had decided to march on Winterfell to take out Ned after he went to execute Jorah I am willing to bet Benjen would have put a stop to that.

:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bible is popular today.  :)  If Jon is comparable to anyone in the bible it is John the Baptiste.  Salome (Ramsay) asked for his sister.  Jon will disobey and Bowen Marsh delivers his head to Salome.

Tywin is Julius.  The war commander who defeats all of his enemies only to be killed in the privy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dany's Red Comet said:

So the bible is popular today.  :)  If Jon is comparable to anyone in the bible it is John the Baptiste.  Salome (Ramsay) asked for his sister.  Jon will disobey and Bowen Marsh delivers his head to Salome.

Tywin is Julius.  The war commander who defeats all of his enemies only to be killed in the privy.

I don't know much about the bible but how do you presume Jon give fArya to Ramsay when he doesn't have her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Minsc said:

While we might morally agree with Jon in part because of how we know how horrible Ramsay and Roose really are that isn't a judgment Jon should actually be making if he wishes to defend the realms of men.  The Boltons at the time when Jon was advising Stannis or allowing Mance to go South weren't waging war on the realms of men.

We will have to agree to disagree. Yes, Roose was appointed Warden of the North by the crown, and therefore his position is "legal". I won't even go into how he got appointed. The thing is, rebellions/revolutions do exist - in universe and in our own world and times. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not - and even that is highly subjective; I might find something justifiable, and the next person might not. In this specific case I wholeheartedly agree w/ Jon's decisions. From helping and counselling Stannis, the only "king" to answer the NW's plea for help, to the HH rescue mission and letting the free folk through, and finally to planning on ridind out to find Ramsay and make him answer for his threats - not only to his person but to the NW and Val, Shireen, Selyse, Monster, etc. 

Also worthy of mention is the fact that Ramsay isn't really Lord of Winterfell since his marriage was a farce. And one that I expect will be revealed sooner rather than later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 9:02 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm confused. Who are Sansa and fAegon supposed to parallel? Or are they just a rando couple to produce Jon's "heir", who for some reason adopts a bastard surname but not Jon's first name?

Perhaps the OP is suggesting that in this scenario both Caesar and Jon would end being succeeded by their sister's offspring, that would eventually get the throne. It's a tenuous parallel, though.

On 8/20/2019 at 3:36 AM, The Sunland Lord said:

Brutus thought that Rome needed him to save her. But this was just paranoia. It was Brutus who destroyed the Republic.

I wouldn't want to derail the thread and turn it into a discussion of 1st century BCE Roman politics, but I think that assessment is terribly unfair. The blame for the Republic's fall should be shared by many: Gracchus, his murderers, Marius, Sulla, Cato, Pompey,... A but if we had to choose a single person, it would be Caesar.

He had blatantly ignored the Roman law by crossing the Rubicon with his army, he had most of the senators exiled, he had himself appointed as dictator for life (another name for a king), and he passed a law by which the magistrates, the consuls and the praetors were personally elected by him instead of voted. The Republic was already dead before Caesar's murder.

On 8/20/2019 at 12:53 AM, Al Czervik said:

Brutus was a friend of Julius.  Bowen was not a friend of Jon's.  Brutus personally betrayed Julius.  Bowen Marsh didn't betray Jon because he was only doing his job.  Bowen was acting in his professional capacity and did his sworn duty to protect the realm of man against an ailing lord commander.  

Probably the role of Bowen Marsh would be closer to Cassius': a mature man, the leading instigator, and a convinced traditionalist.

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

Perhaps the OP is suggesting that in this scenario both Caesar and Jon would end being succeeded by their sister's offspring, that would eventually get the throne. It's a tenuous parallel, though. 

Wasn't Augustus his great nephew?

I dunno. Jon getting stabbed by the NW clearly drew inspiration from the Ides of March but the rest is Sansa fanfic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Wasn't Augustus his great nephew?

Yes. His sister's grandson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I wouldn't want to derail the thread and turn it into a discussion of 1st century BCE Roman politics, but I think that assessment is terribly unfair. The blame for the Republic's fall should be shared by many: Gracchus, his murderers, Marius, Sulla, Cato, Pompey,... A but if we had to choose a single person, it would be Caesar.

He had blatantly ignored the Roman law by crossing the Rubicon with his army, he had most of the senators exiled, he had himself appointed as dictator for life (another name for a king), and he passed a law by which the magistrates, the consuls and the praetors were personally elected by him instead of voted. The Republic was already dead before Caesar's murder.

Yes, it's hard when you extend the discussion into a bigger picture. That's because in the end, GRRM wrote an original story, not a complete parallel to whatever historic narrative. 

While at it, yes, Caesar's actions as a whole, influenced Rome's transformation more than those of Brutus. 

But, it's a paradox that Caesar's death didn't bring any good. Afterwards followed the most bloody civil war ever in the history of Rome. How many people died because of Brutus's noble intentions? What was his plan? Why didn't he really save the Republic? Was it worth it? 

I agree on the rest, except for Cato: He saw exactly what the Triumvirate was doing and it would put the society in its hands, which it did. Cato was the truest Republican. Only sided at the end with Pompey because he thought was the lesser evil than Caesar; although Pompey showed exactly the same ambitions as Caesar did. But then was too late; the army was already more loyal to the General than to the State since Marian reforms. 

Westeros is fractious because of similar reasons: there is a King of all kingdoms, but if a local lord decides to rebel, his vassals, at least the majority of them, follow him. 

EDIT: Bowen Marsh is not as well-intentioned nor educated as Brutus; nor is Jon Snow as ambitious as Caesar. 

Bowen is a petty man with a petty plan.

 

 

Edited by The Sunland Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×