Adam Yozza

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Adam Yozza

  • Rank
  1. The current Stark's don't look like Stark's because all three of the male Stark heirs and the eldest daughter look like Cat instead of Ned.
  2. I'm pretty sure Ned would simply have told Robert; and everyone else; that she died from a bad fever and never expanded on that in any way. Robert's mind takes him to the conclusion that she caught the fever as a result of hundreds of rapes and other types of abuse. Other's; like Barristan, who probably has doubts about the abduction story; might assume it was something to do with the climate.
  3. They knew the dragons were there. They were not surprised by them. However having knowledge of somethings existence doesn't really translate into being prepared to wage war against them.
  4. Point me to where I claimed that the oaths to the Starks/Jon should be kept at all costs. I also didn't claim that oaths should be broken at convenience. I said that when faced with a choice between keeping to ones oaths and doing the right thing, one should choose to do what is right. Rescuing Arya was right because she was being mentally, physically and sexually abused by Ramsay. Doing nothing would have been wrong. The fact that it's his sister affects Jon's judgement, but does not change the morality of the action. Jon didn't ignore Marsh on the issue of food. As you said he had a letter of credit and was making plans to have food imported to the Watch from the Free Cities, which is just about the only thing he could do. He couldn't leave the Wildlings out north of the Wall, not least because doing so would just give the Others more bodies to throw at them. It was wrong for Bolton and Frey to kill Robb because of the manner they did it. Not because they broke an oath. If Frey had barred his gates and not allowed Robb to pass in Storm, and allowed Tarly and Gregor to attack them from behind, and Bolton changed sides mid battle, then the Frey's would not be nearly so reviled.
  5. No because you're thinking about it wrong. The probability of getting that exact combination of sons and daughters 1/344, yes, but that is basically just useless theory because everytime his wife gets pregnant there is a fifty-fifty chance of it being born a son. The sex of the previous child does not affect the chance of the next one being male. So no, it's perfectly plausable. Just like how Jonos Bracken has only trueborn girls and a natural son. Or how Tytos Blackwood had six sons and a daughter. Or like how Daemon Blackfyre had at least six sons and only one daughter (that we know of). There is nothing more to read into it.
  6. The Night's King sided with the Others, thus outright betraying the mission of the watch. Jon did not. That's one difference. Difference two: despite what you may believe, Jon did not start the conflict with the Bolton's. The Night's King, on the other hand, was the instigator. So no, Bowen was in no way correct to do what he did. I could put together another long explanation about why that is so, but it would be completely lost on you as you would just fall back on 'he broke his oath', completely ignoring the fact that one of the recurring themes of the series is that 'words are wind'. Martin doesn't want us to see these oaths as absolutes that should always be followed regardless of the morality of the situation. Jaime killed the Mad King to save the city and even though he broke his oath to do so it was still very clearly the right thing to do. Jon; who by the way actually hasn't broken the oath since becoming Lord Commander because nowhere in the oath does it state that the NW has to be neutral (that's tradition not oath) nor does it say they can't ally with the wildlings; absolutely does the morally right thing when he sends Mance to rescue Arya at Long Lake. Note: Jon did not send Mance to Winterfell. He went there of his own accord and as such Jon is not responsible for it. Furthermore, even if he was and he did outright send Mance to break into Winterfell it would still be the right thing to do. And your own morality becomes quite questionable if you retort that leaving 'Arya' with Ramsay is the right thing to do.
  7. It certainly won't end fine for Marsh and Yarwyck and their supporters, but Jon's loyalists at other castle's (Edd at Long Barrow, Grenn and Pyp at Shadow Tower IIRC and the others who's recruit class he was in) should be fine. Satin is in more danger because's he'll almost certainly side with Tormund and Leathers against Marsh and he could die in the fighting, but the NW as a whole will survive; probably. Really depends on how many side with Marsh, how many side with Jon (or his memory) and who stays neutral (Probably Pyke and Mallister)
  8. Well, from Cressen's prologue in Clash we hear that he sounded out the Stormlords to see if he could gain their support before he made any move. His adviser's; Davos and Cressen included; advised him not to push his claim once Davos could not raise the Stormlords. At the advice of Melisandre and Selyse, he did it anyway. That accounts for the delay; he was seeing if it was worth it, if he had a chance and it was only because of Mel and her visions that he went forward with it despite the odds being against him.
  9. Renly was probably happy to deal with anyone who wanted to negotiate but most likely didn't reach out to anyone else because he was already more powerful than the other three combined. Stannis wouldn't negotiate or deal with anyone. If they didn't back him when he sent his letter, then; in his mind; they were traitors. Dumb but thats his personaility. As you said, Joffrey (or at least his Hand, Tyrion) reaches out to Dorne and later the Vale and considers the Greyjoy's IIRC. But yeah Robb was far more active in diplomacy than the others.
  10. Pretty much. For the most part it seems that the larger the company is the more it costs, with some variation for quality. Then there are the individual sellswords (and freeriders and hedge knights) that swear themselves to a lord during war in exchange (usually) for cash. There's a lot of these guys so they quickly swell the numbers a bit.
  11. Not as far as I recall. The riders were yeah, and Moondancer was blinded by Sunfyre's flames (another example of eyes being the weak spot on a dragon) but that's about it. Caraxes died of the injuries Vhagar gave it and vice-versa, Vermithor tore out Tessarion's throat and sent Seasmoke crashing into the ground only to then be arrowed through the eye. Vermax either drowned or was killed by scorpion bolts, Arrax was beheaded (by Vhagar's teeth) and the dragons in the dragonpit were killed by crude spears and whatever other weapons the mob had. So no I can't really remember a time where a dragon died to fire.
  12. It's not water that protects the gorge. It's probably closer to the truth to assume that the Wall is a physical representation of the magic that prevents the Others from advancing past a certain point (this point being the horizonatal 'line' that the Wall draws across the continent). This magic barrier stretches further east and west than the physical wall does, and is equally as effective at keeping the Others out. When the Wall falls, so too does this magic barrier. That's one theory I've seen anyway, and personally it seems the most likely in universe explanation. The real world option is that George didn't think that far ahead when planning his world or has some explanation waiting in the wings for an appearance in the next book, probably through Bran.
  13. He held out as long as he did because Bracken was leading the siege but he initially refused to bend the knee only out of loyalty to Robb, something that only he, Blackfish and Mallister can claim.
  14. Hodor. Wyman Manderly, who's going to great length's to juggle keeping his house alive while trying to restore the Stark's to Winterfell. Tytos Blackwood, who was the last Riverlord to hold out against the Lannister's. Pretty much all the other main ones have been said already but I'd like to reiterate the Northern Clans and the Cassel's again. And Lyanna Mormont.
  15. Yeah but some people just don't bother trying to understand what level of nobility is what (like me and I'm English so that's probably pretty bad). Where you find the general use of Lord for all ranks to be confusing, I would find the use of Duke and Earl etc to be more confusing. Besides, there are ranks of nobility in Westeros. The Lord Paramounts/Wardens are the highest lord, then noble lords, then minor lords then landed knights/masterly houses. Not sure where clans like Liddle and Flint fall but probably about the same as a minor lord. Anyway, the point is there are ranks to it and it's not hard to figure out what rank a Lord falls into just based on the size of their lands or their seat (with a few confusing exceptions; Glover and Connington for example). It seems in Westeros, the term Lord is just a courtesy title used for all nobility who are the head of their house.