ERRI8013

Members
  • Content count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ERRI8013

  • Rank
    Freerider
  1. I provided historical scenarios. Read any book of history and the difference could you clear.
  2. Yes, but they were still the property of somebody else. You asked for a definition and I provided you a definition. The difference between the two situations is being the property of another person or not. Furthermore, they were offered also the possibility to go to the wall (remember that they are in war time), but they refused. So, it was: 1. become my vassal, 2. maybe I could accept to send you to the Wall 3. or die. So, if you believe that the above is similar to become my slave or die, I think that it is useless to keep discussing. Regards
  3. Tarly was not yet a vassal. His decision was being a vassal or die. No be a slave or die. We are not talking about killing enemies in war, but about slavery. I already did: "As nouns the difference between vassal and slave is that vassal is (historical) the grantee of a fief, feud, or fee; one who keeps land of a superior, and who vows fidelity and homage to him, normally a lord of a manor; a feudatory; a feudal tenant while slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition." I agree on the issue concerning the possible equivocation related to the word slave. I do not agree on the "alignment" between Roman Empire slavery and the one in Essos. It looks to me that the situation of slaves in Essos, in terms of rights, is more similar to the one of the Atlantic slave trade. Still, I'm very interested in understanding why you think that it is more similar to the Roman one. Wow, man, I like this group because of answers like your one. It is so interesting to discuss at this level! Great answer... (Also if I still believe that there is a way to "fantasyze" the Magna Carta as they made with the Hadrian's Wall...)
  4. Watching this show, for me, is like eating the tomaccoes of Homer Simpsons. I hate it, but I have to eat it... I just hope that Martin is taking so long to avoid this crap and in the end we will get a decent road to finale for ASOIAF.
  5. It was just an example. As nouns the difference between vassal and slave is that vassal is (historical) the grantee of a fief, feud, or fee; one who keeps land of a superior, and who vows fidelity and homage to him, normally a lord of a manor; a feudatory; a feudal tenant while slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition. http://wikidiff.com/vassal/slave
  6. What you're saying is against all definitions we have in our books of history. Being requested to swear fidelity or die is historically completely different from "be a slave or die".
  7. The last two points are the most important. Now, we have to decide if we take the character as currently designed by D&D or as it should be. I think the main discussion is based on the poor work D&D are making with Jon.
  8. Did anyone of you read Redshirts by John Scalzi? If yes, do you have the impression that the mission of bringing back an undead is exactly aligned to the fictional plot of the Intrepid? Laws of space and time lose any sense if the writers want so, characters act in a very unlikely way (e.g. Jon looks exactly like Kerensky in more occasions), heroes seems to not be able to die anymore, but background actors are just there to die (see the people without names just appeared from no-where in the “mission” to die)… Did you read the book? Is it just my impression?
  9. Jon written by D&D reminds me of Lieutenant Kerensky from book Redshirts (by John Scalzi).
  10. Are you saying that a vassal surrendering himself to the lord (by kneeling and giving his joined hands to the lord) is similar to gleba servant or to slaves like the African bought to America? I think that there is a big difference between requesting your fealty (even if under threaten) and making slaves.
  11. In 1215 King John of England implemented the Magna Carta, promising protection of church rights (do you remember what happened to the High Spawn under Cersei?) and protection for the nobles from illegal imprisonment (see Jon approach on punishment of the heirs of “traitors”). They can take it and make it bigger as in the myth of a Magna Carta protecting individual freedom.
  12. Nah, too complicated. I believe that things are just the way they seems. I would have liked that too, but I don't think it is the way it will go. I believe that under D&D Arya has just become as angry and dumb as she looks like and Sansa learnt nothing. We will have Bran telling them the truth (the super-hero that knows everything), Arya that will kill Littlefinger (stupid but powerful assassin super-hero) under the command of Sansa (the beauty saved by the two of them). So we have the triumph of the pack and the death of the depth of Martin's novels.
  13. ?
  14. It was not a trick: https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/79049/why-does-this-happen-with-longclaw http://imgur.com/r/freefolk/QJ32p
  15. She had to learn about watching and listening to people. She had to learn how to kill a man who was surrounded by guards and she had to plan it carefully through a very smart strategy. She made it only after a lot of time spent watching and studying him and his habits. She had to be able to provide information every day. Furthermore, she came in possess of the ability of being no-one using different faces. If you would have different faces and had to spy on someone, would you do it by wearing your face? So, actually it seems that Arya is outsmarted by LF, but the way it is done sound like bad scripts (also the attitude of Arya is very different from the one she used to have before arriving in Westeros). Maybe it's not bad writing and D&D are just playing the "surprise" card... but I don't think so now. I believe that they just dulled Arya, making her become as flat as the worst super-hero and that the turning point will be based on "the pack wins" in some way.