Jump to content

You know nothing Theon Greyjoy.


Recommended Posts

I have discussed before but I believe that it deserves a thread of its own.

After Aegon’s Landing, Aegon gave Riverlands to House Tully he destroyed House Hoare, allowed the IBorns to deside who will lead them and they chose House Greyjoy and he criminalized the Old Way.


From Theon’s Pov we learn that the IB have stopped following the Old Way.


However we know that this isn’t true.


From Vic’s PoV:


“bearded the lion in his den and tied the direwolf's tail in knots, but even Dagon could not defeat the dragons."



From Mystery Knight:


Dunk frowned. "Egg and I have a long journey before us. We're headed north to Winterfell. Lord Beron Stark is gathering swords to drive the krakens from his shores for good."



There are worse things than being soaked with sweat, he told himself, remembering the fight on the White Lady, when the ironmen had come swarming over her



Take service at Winterfell, and fight for the Starks against the ironmen. You could come with us



(The Sworn sword has some quotes too but I have it in my first language and not at English so I don’t know if I will translate it correctly)


My point is that we learn that Theon is wrong but how he couldn’t know better and if he knew why he didn't said so? If he is lying what is the point since the other know the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagon Greyjoy was the leader of the First Greyjoy Rebellion, and he's likely to be the antagonist in a future Dunk & Egg tale.



They were in rebellion, of course they were going to start reaving again, and that sure as hell didn't mean the Iron Throne endorsed the Old Way, it remained very much criminal.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Old Way is not something tolerated by the Iron Throne, hence it's not something the Ironborn can do freely without facing resistance. So it's not that they particularly stopped following the Old Way, but they could no longer follow it since Aegon's Conquest unless it is a full scale rebellion by the Isles allowing them to break away from the IT and hence disregard their sanctions against the Old Way. This is why Balon rebelled and why Dagon likely rebelled. But their rebellions failed to reinstate the Old Way for a sustainable peroid so it is still outlawed



So when Theon says that Aegon destroyed the Old Way, he means that in essence it is no longer allowed openly. Some yearn for it, other leave Westeros to continue following it (like Euron). But for all intents and purposes it is no longer followed by 99% of Ironborn out of necessity. You can liken it to people who used to hide their religions to escape persecution, it does not mean they stopped following that religion does it?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So raiding is only when there is peace and when someone attack others when he wants so called independence instead fo fighting at his ground and stand in his territory is not raiding and raping?

No, it's called war. Just like Tywin ordering the Riverlands to be raped, pillaged and burnt was war.

Edit: Oh, and like Ned letting his soldiers rape the women of the Iron Islands during Balon's rebellion was war.

If you're going to aim your guns of modern morals at the Ironborn, you best direct them at Tywin, Ned and Robert, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So raiding is only when there is peace and when someone attack others when he wants so called independence instead fo fighting at his ground and stand in his territory is not raiding and raping?

Not exactly. That's an act of war. The Old Way as previously existed had to die with Aegon's arrival, for the Seven Kingdoms would never allow the return of the raiding and pillaging. It was an act of life for the IronBorn, and now it's been all but outlawed. We see in several cases how It's complicated for the IronBorn to live without the practice, but it's very much forbidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Old Way was outlawed by the Iron Throne, which enforced that ban, except for occasional instances (Rhaenyra ordering/asking, and tacitly encouraging, the Red Kraken to raid the Westerlands) or when the occupant was weak (Dagon seems to have not so much rebelled as to have simply raided more or less without opposition from the Iron Throne, whilst there was a weak king on the throne, Aerys I I do believe).
It is implied in the World Book extracts that Iron Throne did not mind the Ironborn raiding the likes of the Stepstones, or even further afield, but on the whole, raiding was not allowed in Westeros (although as an aside, the Westerlands Reading of said World Book implied that Tytos Lannister suffered raids from Quellon Greyjoy, which is odd).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's called war. Just like Tywin ordering the Riverlands to be raped, pillaged and burnt was war.

Edit: Oh, and like Ned letting his soldiers rape the women of the Iron Islands during Balon's rebellion was war.

If you're going to aim your guns of modern morals at the Ironborn, you best direct them at Tywin, Ned and Robert, too.

I never said that Tywin was any better. But my problem with what you say about the First BR is that it's ok for the Ironmen to attack the mainlanders but they (mainlanders) have no right to fight back.

Not exactly. That's an act of war. The Old Way as previously existed had to die with Aegon's arrival, for the Seven Kingdoms would never allow the return of the raiding and pillaging. It was an act of life for the IronBorn, and now it's been all but outlawed. We see in several cases how It's complicated for the IronBorn to live without the practice, but it's very much forbidden.

Actually as far as we know Dagon wasn't Rebelling, he was just raiding and pillaging. So we come back to my original question: Theon did or didn't knew about the IBorn history and if he knew why he had to lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually as far as we know Dagon wasn't Rebelling, he was just raiding and pillaging. So we come back to my original question: Theon did or didn't knew about the IBorn history and if he knew why he had to lie?

Sorry I took some time to answer you, this thread was just lost to me. Anyway, maybe It wasn't a rebellion per se, but Dagon's actions were perceived as such by the Iron Throne, as raiding and pillaging is obviously considered rebellion by the Iron Throne, even if It isn't in Dagon's mind. Which is why Vic claims that whilst he could subdue the regional powers, he could not subdue the higher power (The Targaryens).

I see no reason for Theon to lie to himself. I think Theon is aware of at least what is expected of the Ironborn after Aegon's Landing. I don't think he knew better, he was just taught that way. After all, everyone knew that if the Ironborn tried to start the Old Ways again, Seven Kingdoms>One Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Tywin was any better. But my problem with what you say about the First BR is that it's ok for the Ironmen to attack the mainlanders but they (mainlanders) have no right to fight back.

If you are going to make such allegations, I expect you to provide examples of me doing this.

To elaborate, I never said the mainlanders had no right to fight back, merely that it's hypochritical to paint the Ironborn as terrrible people when they do the exact same things as the rest of Westeros.

Actually as far as we know Dagon wasn't Rebelling, he was just raiding and pillaging. So we come back to my original question: Theon did or didn't knew about the IBorn history and if he knew why he had to lie?

Dagon was under the IT, no? Was Aegon's edict against raiding still in effect? Yes. Ergo, Dagon was deliberately and blatantly defying his liege. That's rebelling in my book.

Ask yourself, what is more likely, that Dagon was in rebellion, although it's not been specifically stated as such in the novelettes, or that Theon is indulging in some strange form of self-delusion ? I know hwich one I'd pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to make such allegations, I expect you to provide examples of me doing this.

To elaborate, I never said the mainlanders had no right to fight back, merely that it's hypochritical to paint the Ironborn as terrrible people when they do the exact same things as the rest of Westeros.

Only the rest of Westeros had to fight the IB back they didn't went there attacking them without being attacked first. The IB attacked them and then they fought back and attacked them.

Dagon was under the IT, no? Was Aegon's edict against raiding still in effect? Yes. Ergo, Dagon was deliberately and blatantly defying his liege. That's rebelling in my book.

Heck no! That is I am doing whatever I want because if it was a Rebellion the books would had called it a Rebellion but they call it raiding.

Ask yourself, what is more likely, that Dagon was in rebellion, although it's not been specifically stated as such in the novelettes, or that Theon is indulging in some strange form of self-delusion ? I know hwich one I'd pick.

I know too, that Theon is deluding himself. Just like he did during ACOK and they in ADWD he said that:

And Robb. Robb who had been more a brother to Theon than any son born of Balon Greyjoy's loins. Murdered at the Red Wedding, butchered by the Freys. I should have been with him. Where was I? I should have died with him.

But maybe he didn't knew better.

Sorry I took some time to answer you, this thread was just lost to me. Anyway, maybe It wasn't a rebellion per se, but Dagon's actions were perceived as such by the Iron Throne, as raiding and pillaging is obviously considered rebellion by the Iron Throne, even if It isn't in Dagon's mind. Which is why Vic claims that whilst he could subdue the regional powers, he could not subdue the higher power (The Targaryens).

My problem with this is that it wasn't mentioned as a Rebellion and most importanly it wasn't treated like one. It was stated that the Starks and the Lannisters were fighting the IB because they were raiding, breaking the law doesn't mean that you rebel it means that you just breaking the law. Afaik for something to be a Rebellion there should be a more massive and forceful military campaigns and not only the Starks and the Lannisters but at least the Tullys and Tyrells would had participated too.

I see no reason for Theon to lie to himself. I think Theon is aware of at least what is expected of the Ironborn after Aegon's Landing. I don't think he knew better, he was just taught that way. After all, everyone knew that if the Ironborn tried to start the Old Ways again, Seven Kingdoms>One Kingdom.

Not everyone, as I have mentioned before at Dagon's age there was no Seven kingdoms. It was the North and the Westelands with no Crown or anyother region (for now anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone, as I have mentioned before at Dagon's age there was no Seven kingdoms. It was the North and the Westelands with no Crown or anyother region (for now anyway)

The Iron Throne usually leaves the Regional solve regional problems, such as the Ironborn raiding. It wasn't considered rebellion per se, in my humble opinion, because they hadn't risen against the throne in an independence act, but they started to raid and pillage, which is forbidden by said throne. Vic's line said that when the situation grown dire to the Regional Powers, the Targaryens, the Higher Power, descended upon them for violating the edict against raiding and pillaging. It's most likely a regional situation that escalated into a National situation. But he did rebel against Aegon's laws.

My problem with this is that it wasn't mentioned as a Rebellion and most importanly it wasn't treated like one. It was stated that the Starks and the Lannisters were fighting the IB because they were raiding, breaking the law doesn't mean that you rebel it means that you just breaking the law. Afaik for something to be a Rebellion there should be a more massive and forceful military campaigns and not only the Starks and the Lannisters but at least the Tullys and Tyrells would had participated too.

True. But they were breaking the law - Which caused the Regional Conflict. Most likely the Iron Throne thought the Regional Powers could solve the situation, but when they were deemed ineffective, the Higher Power had to intervene. That does show raiding and pillaging is forbidden, and that's why eventually the throne had to do something about it. It's similar to the situation put in the Lannister piece we have from the World - The Targaryen King tells Tytos to solve the Local situation in the Westerlands or the Crown will have to intervene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's called war. Just like Tywin ordering the Riverlands to be raped, pillaged and burnt was war.

Edit: Oh, and like Ned letting his soldiers rape the women of the Iron Islands during Balon's rebellion was war.

If you're going to aim your guns of modern morals at the Ironborn, you best direct them at Tywin, Ned and Robert, too.

I find it quite amusing that the way you often defend the Ironborn is to show how many other cultures are as bad as the Ironborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite amusing that the way you often defend the Ironborn is to show how many other cultures are as bad as the Ironborn.

Glad you are amused. I will add that I've never said the Ironborn are angels pure as snow. I just hold they're about the same as everyone else and not devils taken human form. Apparently around here, that's a radical and controversial stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you are amused. I will add that I've never said the Ironborn are angels pure as snow. I just hold they're about the same as everyone else and not devils taken human form. Apparently around here, that's a radical and controversial stance.

When each other culture besides the Dothraki has religion that promotes raiding, warring, and raping, I'll be more inclined to believe you. You're right that the other cultures are not very great either, but it's wrong to say they're all equally awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iron Throne usually leaves the Regional solve regional problems, such as the Ironborn raiding. It wasn't considered rebellion per se, in my humble opinion, because they hadn't risen against the throne in an independence act, but they started to raid and pillage, which is forbidden by said throne. Vic's line said that when the situation grown dire to the Regional Powers, the Targaryens, the Higher Power, descended upon them for violating the edict against raiding and pillaging. It's most likely a regional situation that escalated into a National situation. But he did rebel against Aegon's laws.

Even if I agree with most of what you say I believe in the case of a Rebellion the crown would at least hava a minimum involvement since the Rebel would act against it (the crown) and at least all the Regions near the place there was the Rebellion which also didn't happened.

Breaking the law=/=rebelling. If that was the case then for example: Skagos (and most probably Last Hearth) where the first night still exists is rebelling yet no one ever called it Rebellion.

True. But they were breaking the law - Which caused the Regional Conflict. Most likely the Iron Throne thought the Regional Powers could solve the situation, but when they were deemed ineffective, the Higher Power had to intervene. That does show raiding and pillaging is forbidden, and that's why eventually the throne had to do something about it. It's similar to the situation put in the Lannister piece we have from the World - The Targaryen King tells Tytos to solve the Local situation in the Westerlands or the Crown will have to intervene.

Even if that was the case the Regional powers were not involved (Reach and Riverlands). In Westerlands case when the Tarbecks rebelled against the Lannisters it were not the Westerlings or the Marbrands those who put the Rebellion down it was the Lannisters even if the Westerlings and the Marbrands were the Regional powers. Something that means when someone is Rebelling against his leage it's the leage who will put the Rebellion down not its neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking the law=/=rebelling. If that was the case then for example: Skagos (and most probably Last Hearth) where the first night still exists is rebelling yet no one ever called it Rebellion.

There are rumors first night is being upheld, only. If there were just rumors the ironborn were raiding westeros, that wouldn't be rebellious either.

Furthermore, if a lesser vassal is breaking the kings law, it is the duty of their liege to punish this, not the crown, unless the liege is unwilling or incapable of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are rumors first night is being upheld, only. If there were just rumors the ironborn were raiding westeros, that wouldn't be rebellious either.

Furthermore, if a lesser vassal is breaking the kings law, it is the duty of their liege to punish this, not the crown, unless the liege is unwilling or incapable of doing so.

Only the Greyjoys' liege lord was the King they had no other above them. According to what you say (breaking a law=rebelling) a petty thief is a Rebel. It makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the Greyjoys' liege lord was the King they had no other above them.

Exactly. When a direct vassal of the king breaks his law deliberately, after being ordered to stop, this is by definition rebellious.

According to what you say (breaking a law=rebelling) a petty thief is a Rebel. It makes sense.

Blatant strawman. I said no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...