Jon Snow and Julius Caesar

[James West]

On 8/27/2019 at 5:05 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.

Jon's job was to stay out of Bolton business and avoid violating the NW rule of neutrality.  Bowen had to stop Jon from leading the wildlings on a Bolton raid.  Bowen is right, Jon is wrong.

[corbon]

1 hour ago, Foss Gly said:

Jon's job was to stay out of Bolton business and avoid violating the NW rule of neutrality.  Bowen had to stop Jon from leading the wildlings on a Bolton raid.  Bowen is right, Jon is wrong.

 Did you read the Pink Letter? 

Quote

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Jon doesn't have at least two of the people Ramsey demands, and the for those he does have access to he has no moral right to send them to Ramsey.
Ramsey declared war on the Watch. 

[R2D]

He was stabbed in the back by his own men like Ceasar, but that's the only similarity.

[Bowen 747]

On 9/26/2019 at 9:21 PM, Foss Gly said:

Jon's job was to stay out of Bolton business and avoid violating the NW rule of neutrality.  Bowen had to stop Jon from leading the wildlings on a Bolton raid.  Bowen is right, Jon is wrong.

Correct. 

On 9/26/2019 at 11:03 PM, corbon said:

 Did you read the Pink Letter? 

Jon doesn't have at least two of the people Ramsey demands, and the for those he does have access to he has no moral right to send them to Ramsey.
Ramsey declared war on the Watch. 

None of that would have happened if Jon had only minded his own business.  Arya was no longer his business. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Bowen 747 said:

None of that would have happened if Jon had only minded his own business.  Arya was no longer his business

I've asked this lots of times but never really get a logical answer. I'll try again though. 

What, in your opinion, would have been the correct thing for Jon to do? 

Jon's trying to take battle to Ramsay was the reaction to Ramsay's action so clearly that isn't what caused Ramsay's demands. I assume you are saying that Melisandre sending Mance & Co. to help a supposed fleeing Arya was Jon's doings & therefore it was his fault Ramsay made these demands? If not, I apologize but would be happy to hear what you did mean by saying the PL wouldn't have happened had Jon minded his own business. 

[corbon]

4 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

None of that would have happened if Jon had only minded his own business.  Arya was no longer his business. 

And how was Jon "not minding his own business" again?
Exactly what did he, or the Nights Watch, do that was interfering with Ramsey?

 

[SeanF]

Neutrality is part of the custom of the Night's Watch.  There is no actual oath to remain neutral in Northern affairs.  As we have seen with the Kingsguard  under Aerys, remaining neutral in the face of evil can make one complicit in evil.

The Nights Watch had lost its way, morally.  It had allied itself with an ally of the Others (Craster) and fought against the Wildilings, who were being driven South by the Others.  They forgot that the Others were the true enemy.  Jon is actually very clear-sighted about who the true enemy is.  The problem was that he did not make sufficient efforts to win over the more hidebound members of the Order, like Bowen Marsh.  The violation of neutrality might have been the last straw for Marsh, but it was Jon's correct willingness to allow the Wildlings through the Wall, in order to fight the Others, that caused Marsh to turn against him.

Turning to Stannis and the Boltons, well, neutrality is a ship that has sailed.  Once the Nights Watch requested help from every claimant to the Iron Throne (and not just the government in Kings Landing) they had ceased to be neutral.  Once Stannis turned up on the scene and defeated the wildlings, they were bound to feed and house his men, and aid him.  And, Jon is absolutely right to see Stannis, the man who came to their aid, as a much better bet for defending the realms of men than Roose and Ramsay Bolton will ever be.  Of course, Jon wants revenge for the wrongs done to his family, but he's not wrong to see the Boltons as people who are undermining the North's ability to defend itself against the Others.

[The Commentator]

Jon is a failure.  Julius was not.  

[Azor Azai]

On 8/27/2019 at 3:02 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?

I believe that Sansa is Elizabeth of York and fAegon is Henry Tudor who became Henry VII. 

[The Young Maester]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Neutrality is part of the custom of the Night's Watch.  There is no actual oath to remain neutral in Northern affairs.  As we have seen with the Kingsguard  under Aerys, remaining neutral in the face of evil can make one complicit in evil.

The Nights Watch had lost its way, morally.  It had allied itself with an ally of the Others (Craster) and fought against the Wildilings, who were being driven South by the Others.  They forgot that the Others were the true enemy.  Jon is actually very clear-sighted about who the true enemy is.  The problem was that he did not make sufficient efforts to win over the more hidebound members of the Order, like Bowen Marsh.  The violation of neutrality might have been the last straw for Marsh, but it was Jon's correct willingness to allow the Wildlings through the Wall, in order to fight the Others, that caused Marsh to turn against him.

Turning to Stannis and the Boltons, well, neutrality is a ship that has sailed.  Once the Nights Watch requested help from every claimant to the Iron Throne (and not just the government in Kings Landing) they had ceased to be neutral.  Once Stannis turned up on the scene and defeated the wildlings, they were bound to feed and house his men, and aid him.  And, Jon is absolutely right to see Stannis, the man who came to their aid, as a much better bet for defending the realms of men than Roose and Ramsay Bolton will ever be.  Of course, Jon wants revenge for the wrongs done to his family, but he's not wrong to see the Boltons as people who are undermining the North's ability to defend itself against the Others.

Agree with this quote. With the threat of the Others, Oaths are no longer relevant. The Nights watch had to adapt in order to successfully defend against the others (by allowing the wildlings through the wall).

Jons decision to attack the Bolton’s was reckless and emotional. But in a way it was the moral thing to do. As long as the Bolton’s hold winterfell the North will never be able to successfully defend against the Others. The bastard son of the legitimate lord of winterfell would’ve turned the tide of the war against the Bolton’s. He would’ve broken his vows, but at this point it doesn’t matter.

Vows are words, and words are wind.

[Elegant Woes]

On 10/3/2019 at 8:12 PM, Azor Azai said:

I believe that Sansa is Elizabeth of York and fAegon is Henry Tudor who became Henry VII. 

F!Aegon is nothing like Henry Tudor. He's doomed to die. If anything Jon Snow is the one who resembles Henry VII. A 'bastard' raised by his uncle, who married his cousin, and was nicknamed Winter King. Plus the only character who can use Henry's coat of arms in ASOIAF is Jon. I know that Jon ending up as king might be seen as cliche, but it would also be bad writing if he doesn't. 

[Azor Azai]

On 10/30/2019 at 3:48 PM, Elegant Woes said:

F!Aegon is nothing like Henry Tudor. He's doomed to die. If anything Jon Snow is the one who resembles Henry VII. A 'bastard' raised by his uncle, who married his cousin, and was nicknamed Winter King. Plus the only character who can use Henry's coat of arms in ASOIAF is Jon. I know that Jon ending up as king might be seen as cliche, but it would also be bad writing if he doesn't. 

All excellent points.