• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Protagoras

  • Rank
    Because justice is more important than basic human "rights"

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,404 profile views
  1. Kudos to you that you try, but I am sort of wondering what motivates you to argue with people who refuses to use logic nor any kind of perspective other than "my biased position is truth because I say so and at any time someone uses real arguments and actually try to make up consistant rules, I back down to the classical "its just your opinion and you are the one who is biased" because I don´t have any real arguments but emotions". How do you stand the amount of idiocy thrown your way? I am curious. Because I find myself losing my temper when I run into stupidity, bias and ill faith.
  2. Indeed he does. But this is where I would start my negotiations if I were Walder. And this thread is about appeasing Walder. As I see it, that lordparamount-ship of Riverlands is one of the few things Robb in theory can use to cut a deal with the Freys. A carrot that compensates for the lack of a kingly marriage. Certainly he would lose even more in doing so, but that was never the question. The question was to present a deal Walder would accept and to be loyal in the future.
  3. Most Brutal (as in, how did they die, innocents? and how many) Reynes of Castamere: Everyone died, slowely but surely by water. Everyone. 100%. All innocents too. And not a pleasant way to die. In fact, a really horryfying one. Duskendale: Not everyone died, but many, including innocents, did. Many were also tortured and died painfully . However, many innocents - especially servants, survived. And Barristan was allowed to save one. Harsh, but their crime was straigth up treason. Moat Caithlin: Few men, no innocents, but all tortured severely and for no cause since they had surrendered. I don´t doubt that the way they died was worse than all other candidates on this list though. Red Wedding: Many died and violently, but with little torture. Many were also soldiers, already commiting themselves to war and their possible death. Innocents were few and you could argue that since the soldiers followed Robb, that they had taken upon themselves to sntand by him, including his oathbreaking. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Pretty standard for the time era, nor do few seem to call it out. Houses were destroyed, some were killed (but I doubt that many), some raped and a signal was sent. Tit-for-tat plays a huge role why I can´t put this higher up. And I doubt they went full crazy Song My either. Craster´s: One person died. One. And said person died pretty fast as well. The innocent women were raped surely, but I doubt much more happened. Most Justified Duskendale: Either Aerys was presented bread and salt, which make this a guest right crime by the Darklyns. Or he was ambushed under a flag of truce, a white flag so to speak - which is a war crime. And not only was he imprisoned, but the Lace serpent also have the audacity that a man entering their keep under such circumstances should be killed (and maybe even had him tortured). She more than enough deserved the sexual torture performed upon her (all those that think Aerys did this out of sexist reasons, why was said torture only performed on her?), since she was a driving force behind the treason (And I am quite frankly tired of the idea that you should go softer on women because they are women and that some limits exist in a way it doesn´t do on men. To those that think so, I say - you are a horrible persons with double standards and your opinions are a reason in itself for those limits to be broken) and treason was punished with hung, drawn and quartered in our days. At best you could argue that Aerys should only have demanded the head from those involved in the act itself and that the torture should be lighter since they surrendered, but then again - it was far to late then to just give up and avoid punishment. Destruction of Goodbrook villages: Looks pretty standard to me. Tit-for-tat do exist after all and I am pretty sure this always happen in wars in Westeros. Also, was this even intentional or something that did just "happen?". And isn´t in pretty likely that this would have happened to Lord Hosters villagers if the war has gone the other way. And were the buildings really that destroyed? And while certainly people was killed and raped, was it really a significant difference than what normally happens in war. I think no. Reynes of Castamere: You could argue that Tywin broke word, but so did the Reynes and Tarbecks many, many times before that and they sort of got what they deserved, since they were supposed to be vassals to the Lannisters and had sworn oaths to do so. This "crime" has also been approved by the legal king of Westeros by that time, so it clearly have Westerosi legal support. In addition, the Reynes didn´t want to surrender, but instead offered terms. Could Tywin be more lenient? Yes. Is he forced to? No. Red Wedding: Walder overreacted, but at least he had a reason. He had been snubbed by the Starks and wanted to get back. Problem is that he decided to break guest right, making his crimes one of the worst possible in Westeros. Luckily for Walder, this thread is about justice in comparison to the Starks and not the other things he opened up with this (The end of diplomacy and negotiation for example). In addition, not "playing by the rules" is not really a good thing here. Better to kill fair and square. Craster´s: Well, the Watch were assholes, forcing Craster to give them things that was not theirs to ask for and killed him as well as their commander when they was denied. Granted, Craster is not a good host, but it is still his home, and his rules. Yes, they were hungry, frozen and unhappy - but thats just excuses. Moat Caithlin: Well, if the Craster situation were bad, consider a situation where Craster gives the mutineeers all they ask for and they still decide to torture him anyway. Such is the situation with Ramsay and the Ironborn, a class A warcrime if ever there was one. He tortures a surrendered foe most brutally and breaks his given promise, making me wonder if any peace can ever be achieved with that "man" in charge. That "broken promise part" is so vile that it is hard to describe. All the other cases were a struggle where it was sort of expected that the strong would impose whatever they could on the weak. Next time anyone suggests deals in order for someone to surrender, this event should be in everyones mind. Nor had the Ironborn done anything to the Boltons that motivated such response. War is not a case in itself for brutal torture, even if the target is the fan favorite region.
  4. Well, first of all I think such a deal would be impossible to reach. Walder Frey is very justifiably pissed on Robbs code of conduct and personal honor and he did indeed not make an alliance in the first place to get a Tully. So the first thing to understand here is that Robbs compensation is not even close to the sum of payment Walder needs. And Walder have no real reason to trust a oathbreaker a second time. And Walder need far more now than what he was promised in the first place. Why? Because not only do Robb have to give something to Walder that is equivalent to what he was promised, he also need to pay extra for the damage caused, the emotional suffering, Walders feelings (yes, I am serious) and especially his lack of faith and that he broke the deal in the first place. Because, a teeth for a teeth is not really fair - the person struck should have AT LEAST 2 teeths in compensation, one for the teeth and one for the violence in the first place. "He started it" IS a good argument and such action should come with a cost. So what compensation are we talking here? Well, my suggestion (if I was Walder) would be: House Frey is now the new lord paramount of Riverlands, answerable only to the Starks. They have full authority over all their new vassals, including the Tullys and henceforth can govern said region as they see fit, including taxes, military and other matters, as long as it doesn´t interfere with the Starks wishers, and those wishes are only relevant until a certain extent. In 95% of all cases, Freys are the law in Riverlands. Robb are also responsible to defend Riverlands at all costs and to recover all parts of its territory in the south. House Frey is immediatly given Harrenhal and Darry when taken, to do with however they please. They also have the right to keep any and all estates and castles in Riverlands without a clear line of succession that appears later in the war. House Frey gets a sincere apology from Robb with much, MUCH humiliation from Robbs side. House Frey will get at least 10 more marriages to prominent families in the North, that takes place before any fighting begins anew. Thouse houses that have to marry a Frey (and as close to the main line as possible with the intent that the estate passes, if poosible to a child of that union) are: Bolton, Dustin, Manderley, Karstark, Umber, Flint (2 of them), Tallhart, Ryswell and Reed. In addition, the Edmure-Roslin marriage takes place as well and so does Aryas marriage if she is found. A huge amount of money as retribution for broken promises (No less than 500.000 gold dragons, and at least half in cash). Some minor things like squire-taking, councillors etc need to have a clear Frey benefit. To top it off, Catelyn will be held hostage under pain of death until Robbs future hier has married a Frey and then released (if alive). But I doubt Robb would ever accept this.
  5. I would actually put Ramsay far far "ahead" of them. After all, the slave masters can at least claim that they acted from status quo, their cultural values and a tradition. Ramsay is at odds with his society completely and his acts are also often for his sadistic pleasure rather than "they way things have always been done".
  6. I think the main reason would be that Stannis can in that case just sit and wait, since all others are at war with eachother and that Robb and Tywin sooner or later need to come to some sort of battle. Also, Stannis might give pardon if said lords removes their crown. And he will be more or less untouchable by sea. If somehow king´s landing falls, he can just sail out of there. In addition, Stannis now control Crownlands which is an excellent food source. And his success should mean the Iron bank might show up earlier. And while few regions actually like Stannis, few actively dislike him too. At some point they might just accept status quo. And as pointed out above, Robb for one would have a reason to surrender. In addition, Dorne will fake-surrender and wait for a Targ, Ironborn won´t surrender, but are not an issue for Stannis and can be dealt with later. Lannisters will at some point be forced to sue due to losses and Littlefinger might change his strategy if he can keep his Lord of Harrenhal title. The Reach are the one left and they might consider peace as well as long as they know the Florent won´t usurp their stuff. With both Joff and tommen dead, they have no advancement to fight for any more. The main problem for Stannis I would say comes not from Westeros, but from whatever force Daenerys and/or Aegon has scrambled toghether
  7. I can see several scenarios. Held as captive at King´s landing, killed, liberated by BWB - it really comes down to if GRRM plans to let the Umbers survive as a house or if their removal will be seen as one of those losses that simply have to follow of a war of that calibre. in addition, their lands will be hit first by the others. I am more or less convinced that both Mors and Hother will die and that the Umbers will have a tough, tough time ahead of them. So I am marginally more on the "Greatjon dies" side. But I can see GRRM saving Greatjon for a reason too. Maybe he will be assisting BWB when they attack. Or he dies to make it all more tragic and impactful.
  8. Yup, I agree with everyone else that Robb was full of shit here. The "guard his rear is very straigt-forward"(and if that command was no longer actual, then Robb should have informed Edmure about it. A command is active UNTIL the superiour officer informs otherwise). Robb, as pointed out above, removes the possibilty for any riverlord to support Edmure in this and have this "you fucked up" speech in private. And Edmure is not good at standing up for himself, nor can he really blame the person who he took as his king. The "You don´t know everything that was on stake" is a hard argument to defeat (and you can certainly ask yourself: "then shouldn´t I have been GIVEN this crucial information") but it also points toward low intelligence. After all, there is nothing wrong with drawing conclusions of the information you have available. Arguing that you are not "allowed" to do so is both unrealistic as well as insulting. Allowed according to who? Who are you to judge on what information that is sufficient to draw a conclusion? And what logical standard can you produce for the future that will consistantly say when to draw a conclusion and when to not. I also want to point out that Edmure DID held Riverrun (Hold riverrun doesn´t necessary mean "defend it in a siege" but means "Make sure our enemies doesn´t take Riverrun, how doesn´t matter"), and that if Robb wants to forbid him from doing other stuff then he need to state that. Robb gave Edmure a prime directive (which Edmure succeded) but gave no orders about other things at all. So, as long as Edmure succeds in this prime directive, he can do what the hell he wants apart from that. After all, to be accused of not following orders, you have to actually SHOW an order that was not followed. Sure, Edmure doesn´t have to guard his lands against Tywin nor order Roose to take Harrenhal, but he chose to do so since there were no orders who forbid him. After all (again), Riverrun was held. Mission accomplished. Anyone who think Edmure didn´t do as he was told is delusional. Edmure is Lord Paramount of the Riverlands and is in charge of most of Robb's men, so he has a responsibility to make decisions based on the best known information at the time. And that information is that he was to protect Robb, make sure Riverrun never was taken and apart from that do whatever the hell he wanted to. He was never informed about the importance of holding Tywin from King´s landing and therefore, since that information was above his paygrade, he doesn´t need to figure that out himself because he wasn´t supposed to know. You never have to take into considerance things that are not told to you, instead your superiuors are the ones to decide if this information is something that they should shere or not, making it their fault if you act according to the task given but fail to take into considerance those things you shouldn´t know about from the first place. I also think those on this fandom that argue against this are biased, hypocritical and doesn´t even logically know what "disobeying a command" MEANS. First, they try to go full blame-mode "Edmure did wrong!!! He didn´t do as he was told". And then when far, far wiser heads actually point out that he did actually do what he was told and that Edmure worked within his orders, then suddenly they argue "He should have thought for himself". Hypocritical, biased idiots...
  9. Hmm, Septon Barth had an easy job, being hand to one of the best kings in history. Not saying that he lacks accomplishments, but when everything goes your way, its hard to not look good. Then again, he must have been good because of his long tenure. Bloodraven did a decent job rooting out traitors and he was hand during one of the worst natural disasters possible under a weak king, but you could argue that his methods created more problem than it solved. To take this quote: "Myself, I blame Bloodraven," Ser Kyle went on. "He is the King's Hand, yet he does nothing, whilst the krakens spread flame and terror up and down the sunset sea". Yes, Bloodravens fear of Bittersteel looks to be a good reason at first, but a kingdom too uninterested to support the land in times of need is not a kingdom that will later on support its monarch as fully as they could. Indeed, it is likelier that the Blackfyre threat was taken care of due to Aegon V and the removal of Bloodraven. Barristan is an abyssmal hand. Yes, he is trustworthy and good with a sword but a moral coward and too easily manipulated. He does not have the required skillset to deal with his new position (something he recognizes himself). He also gets schooled by an eleven year old in political intrigue. Need I say more? Tyrion Lannister basically did a bang-up job. He was able to to contain Joffreys worst impulses, make a plan to save the day and is cunning enough to root out traitors. He is certainly not motivated by justice, but by being loved but that is not really a weakness. His largest weakness is his unwillingness to engage in PR. And he is willing to dirtying his hands, something that Ned was not (and that ethic led to the destruction of himself, his house and his family). He also understand the importance of alliances. He had an impossible task and he did as good as can be expected. Nor is he as ruthless as Tywin,but a good mix between pragmatism and ideals. This hand job requires a certain amount of brutality. Rossart never got the chance to prove himself, but I doubt that he would have been successful. He was a political nominee and his one strength seem to have been that he was loyal toward his king. But would he have been able to find out hidden threats and to enfoce the king´s will effectivly? I think not. Not only is the man a commoner, but a sadist who seem to just nod at whatever Aerys say. Thats not an efficient hand. Hands need to complement the ruler. We havn´t seen much of Mace Tyrell so far as hand, but I think we can speculate in the result. Lord Puff-fish won´t see the threats until they are too late, focusing on improving the standings for his family rather than assisting Tommen. His reign will be short I take it and he will not be able to use his political clout to gain results, nor smart enough to use his new abilities to to its best. Jon Arryn was ok. He never saw the corruption from Lysa and Littlefinger, nor was he able to sway Robers bad impulses nor stabilizing the budget, nor didn´t he remove the old small council (which really should have been purged) and the man he added was even more of a risk, but he was the architect between the peace with Dorne and the marriage between Baratheon and Lannister. He also was able to deal with the Greyjoys and the realm was at peace...ish during his tenure. Then again, its easy to loo good if you have a long summer. Davos Seaworth seems to be more of a philosopher than a hand, due to his ideas of kingship, but its clear that he has had a positive impact on Stannis campaign. He came with the idea to save the north from the wildlings, taking Stannis back into the game and could theoretically with his deal with Wyman give Stannis the North. His smuggling of Edric can be discussed (and it is a flaw servingwise), but he was able to stand for it, be honest and truthful toward his king (very important!) and came out with head intact. He has so far done a decent job. Tywin Lannister gets a bad rap on this forum, but he and Tyrion knew how to play the game of thrones. He might be cruel and pragmatic (and certain choices - like not granting charters, are questionable) but he knew how to run a realm and he ran it under Aerys. Hardly the best monarch there is. Running the economy and keeping houses in line is a necessary ability and he, in contrast to Tyrion, had a long experience doing so. He was able to adapt to his king´s mood, be it maiming Ilyn or that Joanna incident. He is also very good at organizing, managing to raise and supply large numbers of troops even after defeats. The red wedding is also (for the Lannisters) a strength, since he was able to deal with an enemy politically, and that fallout will not hit Lannisters as much as the Freys and the Boltons. Again, this job requires a certain amount of brutality. So, yes - the Lannisters take this one. Who is best of them? Take your pick. Septon Barth and Davos (at least what we have seen so far) also clearly has some skills necessary for the office. As for a woman as hand, no I don´t think Westeros will allow that to happen for a while. Since women are barred from many positions in society, it will be hard for them to actually convince others of their worth. Even Queen of thorns (the best candidate imo) has to work behind the scenes. I suppose in the future, a Targaryen might nominate a female dragonrider (And Visenya sort of was hand to Aegon) but what we need is a person with power of her own, who doesn´t need to act through a man. And I don´t see that person in Westeros atm apart frm maybe Daenerys herself, but she lacks the political skills needed for that job (and want the crown, not to serve).
  11. As have been said by others, you have a much better case for US civil war history when it comes to Daenerys and her war in the east.
  12. I think we are talking about sligtly different things here. Yes, there is a limit on how effective you can make your chain of supply and a limit on how much food you can purchase and how fast it can be delivered. I still doesn´t change my point that any region can raise much much more manpower if they are willing and able to to pay for it. But it is normally not worth the investment. And you risk offsetting the economy. My point was: Manpower is not a limiting factor. Cash (foremost), supplies and training is. Where the roof go, where you basically place yourself in a position you describe that you cant supply such an army is not really important (and it reeks of bad planning more than having an unfeasonable number I would say). Nor is it likely that such a roof point has already been reached. So, yes - I can't buy supplies that don't exist. But I can pour more money into it, cutting more and expensive trade deals for supply delivery (and if I am wise I have already worked out those deals beforehand), I can buy more weapon and gear and have it delivered to me. I can pay farmers and lords high prices to deliver food to me as we march, I can willingly choose to offset my longterm economy to get more soldiers, I can pay high amount of cash for mercenaries and pay high solds for soldiers to increase willingness, I can pour money into PR - to spread this out so that people will hear about my generous terms and I can with a short amount of time have all those soldiers trained, if needed, due to my new instructors I also bought. And all of this should mean that I can increase my army size by a large margin because of money, no?
  13. If I have unlimited amounts of money, then I can buy unlimited amount of supplies - outbidding everyone else and get them physically delivered to me at whatever exhorbant rate it will cost. You seem to have completely misunderstood my point in other words. While I can´t eat money directly, the economy is the base on where my war is commited, the fuel that drives my war. So, yeah, from a philosophical POW money can be eaten. And with a strong economy I can afford to offset other crucial things to gain more soldiers, more supplies and more gear & training. And, yes, at some point my army will die off faster then the deliveries can reach it. That is too much of a hypothetical scenario to consider however. Nor is that crops go to waste particulary relevant if I am willing to accept that loss, since I again have unlimited amounts of money and can get that food anyway.
  14. My position is roughly the same as in that thread: 40-50000 raisable soldiers for the North, varies by season leadership and offence/defence. Both higher and lower numbers possible due to circumstances and troop fluctuation. Skagos should in no shape or form be counted in the possible northern mobilization pool. We can also divide soldiers in A, B and C team - where A is trained cavalry/personal guard/easiliy obtainable forces and C is basically Osgreys levies quality. And the North has in general less money that other regions so they will have marginally worse gear, but not that significant. 1/5th of those solders can be classified as horse/heavy horse, which is in the low/average group percentwise compared with other regions in westeros. The RPG figures should been seen as likely approximations, and those numbers basically put the North behind all regions except Iron Islands, Dorne (who is likely to have a higher percentage cavalry, but very little heavy cavalry due to the climate) and Stormlands, whose numbers are just explained as "low" (low as the Norths ones maybe?). In addition, some regions like the crownland should have less heavy horse in absolute numbers but a higher percentage (due to great amounts of wheat and food. So do we count percentages or exact numbers? The cavalry troop numbers av explained by the shenanigans of Dustin and maybe Ryswell who most likely made the excuse "We didn´t have time to raise our forces, here is all (or most) of our cavalry instead", sending 100% cavalry making FNR assume a higher proportion of cavalry than what is likely. However, any region could raise far more people if they wanted to. Because it is never about manpower - its about money first and foremost. Training, supply etc are things that matters. And you rarely run out of manpower, and even if you do as long as you have unlimited cash and are willing offset your economy and pay extreme soldier wages, you can raise people forever.
  15. Sandkings! Can highly recommend. A must for Horror fans. Personally, I would skip Fevre dream. While the setting and the time era was interesting, I found the characters and plot dull and boring.