Grazdan of Ghis

Members
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grazdan of Ghis

  • Rank
    Commoner
  • Birthday December 15

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Old Ghis, Essos
  • Interests
    Literature, History, Mythology, Linguistics, Physics, Astronomy

Recent Profile Visitors

719 profile views
  1. Slavery is evil? Are you suggesting that all our ancestors since earliest times of recorded history (Ancient Egypt, c. 3500 BC) uptill the fall of Roman Empire (c. 500 A.D.) were evil? Are you suggestion that all members of the ruling class of the 17th-19th century Americas and Russia were evil.Because slavery was practiced in those cultures and was not considered immoral.
  2. Ramsey, Gregor, Biter etc. are not really evil - they are suffering from psychiatric disorders. In modern world, such individuals would be institutionalized. Walder is gray... very dark shade of gray to be sure, but still not completely black - he is a wicked old crook, but he still does have his reasons.
  3. The main reason I enjoy ASOIAF so much is because GRRM pretty much blurs the boundary between "heroes" and "villains". Characters are not "black and white", as in most fantasy works, but, rather "shades of gray" - just as people in the real world.
  4. Later conversations between Aemon and Sam suggest, that he believed Dany to be AAR, not Jon. I think he simply wanted to warn Jon that Stannis is not AAR.
  5. The Dothraki respect strength, first and foremost. Remember, how virtually all Dothraki who were still around to witness the birth of the dragons swore loyalty to Dany. Surely, a woman riding a fully-grown dragon will command more respect among the Dothraki then a man riding a stallion.
  6. Medieval Latin / Byzantine Greek actually - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave#Etymology The terms used during classical antiquity are "servus" (Latin) and "δουλος" /doulos/ (Greek). The new term was probably introduced because original terms came to mean "serf" rather then "slave" in medieval usage.
  7. This! Tyrells have Margaery (an adult woman married to the child-king Tommen) and the largest military contingent in the Crownlands. They de facto control both the Reach and Crownlands at this point - more then any other of the Great Houses can boast. If you leave Dany's dragons out of the equation, House Tyrell, currently, has the best chances to gain control of Westeros.
  8. Guys... I think you operate under two incorect assumptions here: 1. Cersei never actually held the throne per se. She merely became regent following Robert's death and prior to her arrest. Then the regency passed to Kevan. Who will hold the regency after Keven's assassination is unclear, but Margaery and Mace are the two most likely candidates, given that the Tyrells are the only real power in King's Landing now. 2. Most posters seem to overestimate the influence of the Faith. Yes, "High Sparrow" became an important power in King's Landing, mainly due to Cersei's own stupidity. However, his influence hardly extends beyond the Crownlands. Even there, Faith Militant orders are hardly any match for Tyrell and Lannister forces.
  9. The thing is... sometimes "hard enough" is enough. Btw, you are referring to the North/South of USA prior to Civil War, not to North/South of Westeros, I presume ... In the former case, the thing is: the North was mostly industrialized, economy of the South was mostly based on large-scale agricultural operations. Slave labor was not very profitable in the former case, but quite profitable in the latter case. Yes, there was a political/moral conflict, but there was also an economical conflict. Abolishment of serfdom (de facto slavery) in Russian Empire of 19th century had similar economical reasons - industry was becoming more and more important compared to agriculture.
  10. As the history shows, this is not strictly true. The use of slave labor tends to be very profitable in large-scale operations requiring significant number of unqualified workers. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, this was the case in Roman Empire, this was the case in some medieval societies, this was the case in 17th - 19th century USA, Russia and Latin America, this was the case in 20th century Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. It is still the case now. Slavery is still (illegally) practiced at present day for this very reason - it is very profitable in certain cases. As far as medieval European feudal society is concerned, slavery was never actually abolished formally, as it happened in the 19th century Americas. The Roman institution of slavery gradually evolved into the institution of serfdoom (the very word "serf" derives from Latin *servus", i.e. "slave"). There is no clear boundary between slavery and serfdoom - legal status of a serf could be anywhere between that of a Roman slave and that of a free peasant depending on a specific historical period and geographic location.
  11. You are wrong here. If we look at the history of Earth, economies of all ancient civilizations (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, China, India) were based on slavery and lasted for thousands of years (up to the fall of Roman Empire). While slavery mostly disappeared in Europe during the middle ages, it successfully survived in other parts of the world and was extensively practiced in some countries (USA, Brazil, Russia etc.) as late as 19th century. During 20th century, forced labor of prisoners (de facto slave labor) was used in many countries, notably Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - political and moral aspects aside, those "enterprises" were quite profitable economically. So, slavery has been successfully practiced on Earth in one form or another through all 5500 years of its recorded history. Compere this to about one millennium of European-type feudal economy only a couple of centuries history for modern industrial-type economies. So, which is more sustainable? P.S. I am not advocating slavery, merely pointing out that, historically speaking, economies based on slave labor have by far the longest success record compared to any other known economical models.
  12. Regardless of the outcome of her trial, Cersei has already lost most of her political influence, which she will have pretty hard time recovering. With Kevan dead and Jaime missing, House Lannister is effectively deprived of any competent leadership. This makes the Tyrells the biggest power in KL and most of the South. The Tyrells would want to keep Tommen on IT since this would effectively put Margaery in the position of queen-regent. They would also (secretly) want Cersei dead or joining SS, so that Tommen would also inherit Casterly Rock. Mace is the only one in the position to put some pressure on the Faith - he would likely try to plot for Cersei to be found guilty, though not of twincest (which would undermine Tommen's legitimacy as king). Else he might just try to have her killed quietly. In any case, I think Cersei is done as queen-regent - she will remain Lady of Casterley Rock at best will die at worst.
  13. Yes, he speaks a lot about doing what he does for the sake of his family... yet in the process he ruins the lives of his own children. Ironic, isn't it? The word "genocide" derives from Latin "gens" and "caedere". The latter means "to kill". The former term is often taken to mean "ethnic group", but more accurately means "clan" in the original Roman usage. What Tywin did - he wiped out the entire Reyne and Tarbeck clans, which is, quite literally, a "genocide". Later, the same was done to Darklyns... presumably at Aerys' orders, but since Tywin was the Hand at the time - chances are that he bares part of responsibility for that too.
  14. During Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion. Well, maybe not strictly "genocide" in the modern sense, but pretty damn close.
  15. From where I stand, Tywin is as vile as villains go - he commits most gruesome atrocities (genocide, murder of innocent children, gang-rape of his own daughter in law, Red Wedding etc.) and has no moral quarrels whatsoever about doing those things. Yes, he believes he is doing those things to achieve some greater goals, but so did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the likes of them. Does it justify any of them?