• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About UFT

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/25/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Arrow, The Flash, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Avengers, Naruto, Bleach, One Piece.
    PC Games

Recent Profile Visitors

1,127 profile views
  1. except for the sake of the scenario, yes it is. read the OP, morons. i clearly meant quellon never enters robert's rebellion so all the major suicidal attacks of balon also do not occur. quellon is notoriously progressive so theres no reason why he can't maintain the neutrality in war of five kings. martells managed it. and read the OP. they are raiiding in this timeline. they just aren't launching massive stupid attacks on major families. and i don't need people telling me how supposedly boring it would be. this is simply speculative thought and if you dont want to do that, then dont click on my thread?
  2. you didnt tell me anything i didnt already know. what i clearly meant is what if quellon's death, greyjoy rebellion and greyjoy attack on the north dont occur. basically quellon tells his sons to screw off.
  3. since everyone on this site can't read, i guess i have to clarify. quellon never dies in this timeline because he told his sons to piss off. greyjoy rebellion is averted, and no matter what robb says, quellon also never helps him or anyone else in WoFK. doesnt mean hes not raiding people for food and resources. he still would. proceed from there with the effects.
  4. why did aegon stop with westeros? he and his sisters could have kept going, subjugating nearby lands. maybe not as far north as the wildlings but still. so in this timeline, he crowns himself emperor of westeros and continues on into summer isles, and some of the free cities. he was a warrior, and a conqueror, and i believe he could have been convinced to not stop (maybe by visenya)
  5. according to his speech with stannis, he didn't believe stannis was the heir. so if his own rebellion did not happen or take off, he would be nominally on the side of joffrey. for any reason you want. maybe with designs on becoming the regent/lord protector. maybe just to get more favor in court. maybe to make sure to deny stannis the iron throne and later on place tommen on it. how would that affect the WOTFK?
  6. who do you like more overall? i know we know more about boltons and of course theyre a pretty disliked house for stark fans. i myself like the evil houses a bit more anyway.
  7. who do you like more overall?
  8. which do you like more overall?
  9. then it must also be true that blood right should be a system by which you govern and that is all stannis and daenerys have. my point is to the victor goes the spoil and the history books. martial prowess also should not be a factor as the ironborn and dothraki both govern by that system. rightful heir to what? what the hell does "heir" mean? a throne they stole by murdering the targ kids and stealing their home away? because robert had a hammer and a big army? whats so rightul about that? by robert's example, anyone can take it away from him and all they need is a dragon or an even larger army. if the dynasty is built on muscling your way to power and being an asshole then anyone can be assholes right back. stannis whole thing is thinking robert had any true claim to the throne when he had the same flimsy "i have a big army" claim everyone else does. its arrogant and absurd. you wont be able to hold it if you're just basing it on "my brother was an asshole 20 years ago". power is a lie. a shadow on the wall. it lies where men believe it resides. and if its true that only the person with the greatest weaponry can have the right, ala aegon's example, then dany is the heir. all she has to say is bend the knee or burn. thats how it works. all those weak rulers you whined abouyt, they still had military support. they still had the backing of the lord paramounts. but once they did depose aerys, which i agree with btw, why didn't the throne immediately go to his closest blood relative? out of pure anti targ racism, viserys was denied it and that was the only reason. who the hell heard of a rebellion to stop a cruel king where you blame the kids for it? assholes do that. And it's important to remember that the rebels decided to crown Rebel because he had Targaryen blood. there is endless dialogue that shows thats not really what it was about. only the maesters cared about that. robert had a very big hammer and a very big army that saw him as their greatest general and leader. the only other alternatives either didn't want the thing or were brutally chased out of the country out of racism. thus he was crowned. he incorrectly feels he has any right to anything even though robert and aegon proved conquest is the only right that matters. there is a reason why hes trapped in the frozen north, outnumbered thousands to one with no hope of victory against the south. because he is not the rightful king. rightful kings have support and friends who back him up. he is so unpopular, unlikeable and generally an asshole that people see that and are like "ew.no". all the bannermen who should have risen for him happily turned their back on him for renly because at least renly is kinder. such a pragmatic and effective general that he successfully angered half the south, and the rest won't rise for him or his family either way. tyrells won't back him, not ever. arryns won't back him, not ever. and starks all want their independence back. and as i explained, all anyone needs to deny him that is have a bigger army which as it turns out, not that hard to manage. even his own supposed bannermen left him for renly. all that really matters is do you have a bigger army. robert's whole claim is based on "i have a big army and hammer" so is it surprising when with a few choice words, renly is convinced he can take that chair the exact goddamn same way? you already built up your dynasty on being assholes about it. not really. there is comments everywhere about how stannis is "omg the true king" and my entire point is no it isnt. the show has endless quotes about how power resides where men beleive it resides. how people take shit because they can, not because of blood. westerosi society is too warlike and its all about who can take it and hold it. and stannis cannot hold it. hes too unpopular. no monarch can do anything without friends and he never wanted any friends.
  10. what if quellon greyjoy supported the royalists from the beginning vs robert baratheon? maybe at the behest of euron. would that have turned the tide and maybe convinced tywin to be royalist
  11. lets say renly isn't assassinated. and balon sides with robb. robb also marries the frey. what happens now?
  12. and he is a naive fool for thinking he still does. in westerosi history, its chock full of conquerers and ambition. from andal invasion, ironborn taking the riverlands and aegon the conqueror, "claim" and blood right seems to be tossed aside for might makes right, every time. when you can't hold some shit, ambitious assholes rise up and take it away from you. the real claim is claim of "conquest" which rewards only the most powerful generals, and the most populist and charismatic ones. mix the two and you get robert, no matter how much of an usurping thug he might also be. stannis claim to the iron throne thus can be tossed aside as easily as robert tossed aside the claims of viserys, daenerys and rhaella when his rebellion ended.and as easily as when aegon took westeros. if the only claim you need is a large army, or superweapon and the populist charisma to keep the shit you took after you took it and had people bend the knee, then anyone with a big army can take and keep anything they want. and its seemingly always been this way, going back to valyria, andals and old ghis. power resides only where men believe it resides. and usually you need some kind of long dynasty before people fully accept it. otherwise you'll just have every ambitious asshole trying to take your shit the moment you seem vulnerable because hey, you were an asshole first. stannis entire relevance comes from one thing, hes the brother of a much more badass dude who did much more badass shit. and thats it. hes got a tiny army and no one supporting him. had he not been the one with the closest blood relation to robert, he would have faded into obscurity along with the "one true king"" memes. even though we are told all throughout the series it doesn't mean shit unless you can hold it, and he CANT HOLD IT. too many people want to deny him. hes outnumbered thousands to one, trapped in the frozen north with only a few weakened houses backing him. "anyone who merely says hes the king is not a true king" "all the chivalry of the south rides with me. you'll destroy me? with what? those 5000 codfish lords?" renly explained once that because he had a large army, and because his brother robert seemed to handle conquering westeros, he would do the same thing, as that is the precedent set by not just robert but also aegon. not to mention daemon blackfyre rebelling because he felt he was the better choice. stannis is just robert's brother. well if robert's whole thing was "i have a big hammer and a big army and that means i can have this throne" then a civil war after his death between every brother and uncle and cousin only made sense. it wasn't based on anything else so like i said, if you're the asshole first, of course people are gonna take your stuff by being assholes too. whoever wins writes the history books, and whoever writes the history books gets to say three the true legitimate royal. isnt that what robert and aegon founded their claims on? as well as renly and ironborn and the andals? stannis better actually win first. before he can count himself as a legitimate king, or else he's just one more claimant like dany is. he wants to do so with magic, which he likens to the use of dragons, which is indirectly admitting he wants to take it with the same force as everybody else but like i said, cannot. he cant spam shadow babies. armies win wars. all the evidence is there that in the ASOIAF, the supposed law means nothing. what law? the law didn't seem to matter when they committed treason against rhaella viserys and dany and denied them their throne.even if you want to deny viserys and aerys the throne, what about rhaella? wouldn't rhaella have been ten times the stateswoman, diplomat and leader robert was, who thought that being king meant he could bang boars and hunt whores all day, and had ten times the experience? i would not deny her the throne cos her family members did some shit. she hated her king as much as anyone. if you want law, why didn't robert immediately execute gregor for his murders? he had an odd way of proving he cares about the law. i could be horribly wrong about all of this, and maybe stannis does end up the king of westeros by the end of the series, but i doubt it. and i doubt it because of the evidence in book 2 that he had no support then, not even his own stormlander people initially, and is only barely getting by via the abilities of someone else (melisandre). all throughout the show (im not entirely sure about the books. years since i read them), you have men and women all saying that no, just saying you have a good claim to a thing you want does not mean you get to have it and hold it. it takes more than that. "no one wants you for their king. you never wanted any friends, and a man without friends is a man without power." in my mind the only system that truly works, is elective merit based one, that NW has. and to some extent the ironborn and north. and to cement my point once and for all, imagine if a more modern army got teleported into westeros and then they took it over with modern guns? what does their precious blood right mean then? you can't do anything without either a large populace enforcing your will, or the weapons to kill them if thye dont.
  13. including the major lords mine 1. hoare 2. greyjoys 3. drumms. i dont know why drumms. they just seem badass to me, with a cool sigil and colors.
  14. who is the greatest in single combat? also who would be the greatest admiral theyve ever had?