Jabul

Members
  • Content count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jabul

  1. I agree with much of the above, but I'd put it in a somewhat different context. I am a long term fantasy and science fiction fan. In another thread I mentioned a rule promulgated by Ursula K. Le Guin, whom I regard as one of the best writers ever to work in these fields. The rule says that you get to create your own universe, but then you have to follow the rules of this universe. By the very reasonable standards of this rule, the show runners of GoT have failed badly. If dragons are born in season 1, and then dragons grow big and strong in the following seasons, then that is to be expected. If, however, the members of Dany's team are smart, even brilliant, in the early seasons, then they turn into dunces in Season 7, that is unacceptable. There are multiple problems with the battle we are considering in this thread. One (and I do mean only one) is the fact that it occurs so late in the game. Jaime, Bron, Lord Randyll, and a considerable force of men move most of the way across a continent, and none of their enemies realize that this is happening. The bogus "surprise" nature of the attack on Highgarden is not believable. After the castle falls, the wagons loaded with gold trundle slowly all the way back (or essentially all the way back) to King's Landing before the dunces on Dragonstone rouse themselves to action. Nah, this is baloney, and my objection is not a matter of nit picking. If the story telling in GoT had remained adequate, then the battle of the wagons would have occurred much earlier, and it would have been decisive.
  2. Okay, it seems the back story for the Battle of Qohor is the same in the HBO and the GRRM versions. Thanks for the "Histories" link. It looks like it has some worthwhile stuff.
  3. I believe the story of the Battle of Qohor is only recounted in the books, right? If it is mentioned in the show, could someone tell me in which episode this occurred?
  4. Any attempt to make the war more rational has to take on the Euron problem. His motivation, as presented in Season 7, is not convincing. Even worse, it is hard to believe that he could convince a bunch of pirate guys to follow him on the enterprise that we see. They have this humongous fleet, they sail all the way around a continent, passing up lots of tempting targets, and offer their services to a woman who is the current occupant of the Iron Throne. These guys are sailing wooden ships, and they are offering to fight against a foe that has 3 fire breathing monsters. They are doing this because their leader has the hots for said current occupant. This is hard to accept. I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe we just have to let it go and work on other issues. One thing that absolutely should be done--Daenerys and her people have to have enough sense to include the humongous fleet in their war plans. This goes back to the critical need to show Team Dany acting with at least a minimum degree of intelligence. We have this war council with a plan to send a fleet here, a fleet there, here a fleet, there a fleet, everywhere a fleet fleet. No one even mentions the name "Euron." Essentially everyone knows that there is a big group of mean pirate guys out there. This group will most likely do something or other to disrupt Team Dany's plans, but no one says anything about the matter. Just have Tyrion, Yara, or whoever come up with some kind of idea of dealing with the potential enemy fleet. Later, we can have Euron win a victory or two by using some clever naval maneuver.
  5. The Main Idea: How would you rewrite Season 7 to make the war in the south more plausible? Obviously, this presupposes that you believe that the war, as presented by HBO, is hard, perhaps impossible, to believe in. A good many posters say this. I have read several posts along the lines of “In a well-written story, Cersei wouldn’t have lasted more than one episode.” There is a thread entitled “The War makes no sense,” started by Tyrion 1991. In the current thread, we will follow on from the premise that things need to be, and could be, improved. If you wish to simply criticize or defend Season 7, please refrain from posting here. You can go to the above-named thread or start your own. As an example of what I’m talking about, we have this from Count Balerion in Tyrion 1991’s thread: “I had a vague thought for a more plausible scenario, where Dany apparently wins KL, but ... what are these mysterious murders that keep taking place? Could someone EVIL be lurking somewhere in the Red Keep, weaving an insidious web of murder and torture? What's that screaming in the dungeon?” I’m willing to bend the rules a little. If you feel that Season 7 is hopeless as it stands, you can go a little ways back into Season 6 and make some changes. Perhaps Prince Doran stays in power, and Dorne stays out of the war. Maybe Cersei manages to get rid of the High Septon and reduce the power of the Sparrows without blowing up the Great Sept of Baelor. Finally, you can have Cersei lose the war and die in one or two episodes. What happens then?
  6. 1. I don't think I'm misinterpreting Robert's comments. After all, I wrote "What does he say is a viable long-term strategy? He doesn’t say." Concerning Robert's thinking, I also wrote "It sounds more like, 'Hey, if the Dothraki get here, we’re probably doomed.'" Being doomed if the Dothraki arrive is the same as being "f*ed either way." However, as you say, 2. Robert's comments may not even enter into Cersei's thinking. Thus, the whole matter is not all that important.
  7. Thanks for the link. I've looked the site over a bit. Some quick reactions: I would really want Dany's team to act more intelligently. The lack of intelligence is one of my main complaints about Season 7. Thus, I heartily approve of your idea of sending out the ravens early. If, for some reason or other, that doesn't happen, then other methods of communication should be tried--sending ships to various ports, sending riders to various castles, etc. Also, some sort of move toward King's Landing is a must. At least do some scouting, intelligence work, patrolling, etc. Differing reactions to Daenerys, interactions with Olenna, Margaery's thoughts and actions...all have interesting possibilities. Euron is a major problem. More on him later.
  8. Sure, I don't want to presume what mode you were operating in or what your intentions were. I'd say that: 1. Your second paragraph was not a strawman. 2. I stay with my commentary on your second paragraph, whether it was close to what you intended or not. 3. Defense of show logic is a large topic. It has some relevance to the current thread, but a full discussion of the matter is a bit too much to attempt here
  9. Good question. I believe that there are places where the show is not true to its own logic. However, discussion of these things would probably take us beyond the current issue, even beyond issues which are appropriate for this thread. Let’s say my statement applies only to the castle issue. (I also quoted King Robert as saying, “Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field,” but there are ways we can get around that.) My exact statement was "On the castle issue, I vote with MrJay. In fact, I'd go a bit further. I don't think the show is even true to its own logic. (Underlining added.)" Thinking further, I see that there are ways to avoid the whole business. One possibility—It’s reasonable to believe that Cersei would follow the former king’s advice on strategy and tactics. She hated the man, but she knows he was a good warrior. Saying this is reasonable, however, doesn’t say that it’s inevitable. Perhaps Cersie forgot the whole conversation. Perhaps she doesn’t even want to think about her former husband concerning his opinions on military matters. Then we have to judge the Lannister queen’s actions as smart, stupid, or something in between. Show logic doesn’t enter into the matter.
  10. Let’s say that Lord Reasonable is threatened by enemy forces. He decides not to stay in his castle. In Robert’s terms, he won’t “hole up” there. You appear to be saying that because he makes this decision, it absolutely follows that he must give up his castle. This is a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between a sort of “stay in your shell” strategy and taking some kind of offensive action, even pretty aggressive action. If I attempted to formalize your weak argument, I could try something like this: You claim that my assertion doesn’t make sense. You claim that I am proceeding in a way like the following: One must not do action A (simply holing up). It will not work. Cersei does action B (abandoning castles). Therefore, Cersei is doing something that will not work; the show isn’t true to its own logic. On this basis, you claim that my statement does not make sense. But I have not made any argument like the one above, and you have not established the fact that I have made any argument like the one above.
  11. No, obviously not. I said that I vote with Mr. Jay on the castle issue. I don’t see how anyone can stretch and contort that into saying that I support the Lannister forces staying in their castles as a long term strategy. Such a contention gets even weirder when anyone reads what I’ve said in many posts in this thread. The war in the south makes no sense. If I were forced to say what Cersei’s best long term strategy is, I suppose I’d reply that she should talk to the show runners and tell them to keep providing plot holes and plot gifts. Maybe I could have made my point more clear by writing, “show logic,” but I don’t see why the quotation marks should be necessary. MrJay says that you do not give up a castle. I think this is a solid argument. Here is the part of his post that I quoted: "...The show can say that casterly rock is a death trap and that it is worthless to anyone. That doesn't make it any less stupid. ... Daeny would have her main foothold and split the 7k in two as well as control Lannisport and the port of KL from dragonstone. If this was written with even the slightest amount of military sense, Cersei would have lost by now in a dozen ways. You do not give up a castle. Not even an empty one. They are that important. But that's real life. The show can say that dragons are worthless and it would be so cause show logic. " The bolded part, if applied to the war in the south, is on point. Frequently in Season 7, the phrase “show logic” is an oxymoron. However, if we accept some things said in an earlier season, when the writing was better, it is the case that “Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field.” Thus, Cersei’s act in sending her forces out into the open is the act of a fool. However, the king also doesn’t like the idea of staying in castles. What does he say is a viable long-term strategy? He doesn’t say. He does maintain that “We won’t be able to stop them.” Cersei gives reasons why the Dothraki are not such a threat. The king does not agree or disagree. He just says she sounds like her father. I don’t see how anyone can take Bob’s statements as a recommendation to either stay in castles or leave them. It sounds more like, “Hey, if the Dothraki get here, we’re probably doomed.” Also, Cersei does not go on the offensive with the full backing of the iron bank. She sends her forces most of the way across the continent and back before she gets said full backing. This enterprise, as I and others have said, is ridiculous. You have an army, including Reach forces, marching out in the open for the purpose of killing the liege of the Reach and despoiling the land. You also have Olenna Tyrell, a character who has been portrayed as one of the sharpest ladies in Westeros, acting like one of the dumbest broads in the world. No reasonable military men (Jaime, Bron, whoever) would have assumed that they could just depend on unbelievable stupidity on the part of their enemies. The whole thing fits in with MrJay’s “would have lost by now in a dozen ways.”
  12. Well, let’s just look at the bolded part of Count Balerion's post. That is not a strawman, at least if I understand it correctly. It’s a good point. Tarly (and the other lords too) is supposed to be a leader of his people and a man of honor. Important matters: 1. If you only talk to one side in a dispute, then you only get one side. This is a serious business; Tarly should do everything he can to gain accurate info. He cannot conceivably do that by talking exclusively to the pretender on the throne and her many-times-a-traitor brother/lover. 2. Olenna is his liege. If he has any honor at all, it is absolutely his duty to let her explain herself. Maybe she can’t do a good job. That is not the point. He has a duty. He can’t just assume that she has nothing of worth to say. We could, and perhaps should, take “Tarly” out of points 1 & 2 and substitute “the lords of the Reach,” along with the appropriate pronouns and possessive adjectives. Technically, there is an understandable problem. The show runners aren’t going to have most of the lords say anything; those lords are extras. This doesn’t change the argument significantly. Somehow, the show has to demonstrate that honorable, reasonably decent leaders are honorable decent leaders. I see no possibility that this can be done and at the same time have said “leaders” decide to take on what has to look like a suicide mission, a suicide mission aimed at betraying and killing their liege and despoiling the Reach. Of course, one could take a different tack here. Maybe the writers are trying to say that the lords are morons and/or the vilest of villains. I don’t think so. I think we have some poor story telling here.
  13. The bolded part is not accurate. In Season 4 (episode 4 I think) Olenna reveals how she used her "feminine skills" to catch Luthor Tyrell. Luthor was originally supposed to wed Margaery's great aunt, but Margaery's grandmother managed to show him that marrying her was a better idea. Thus, it is quite clear from GoT that Olenna had a husband. We don't see the wedding. So what? That is unimportant back story, quite different from this supposed murder club you claim the Lannister queen has. More importantly, it isn't legitimate to just assume something is true because you think it logical and then try to reason backward to show it must be the case. I could say that people in KL are badmouthing Cersei. It is only logical that Varys is in contact with some of them and has set up a secret network in the capital. After all, it is only logical that the Spider isn't as incompetent as he seems to have become in Season 7. It must be a secret network, because the guy who was killed by the Mountain was shooting off his mouth in public. Anyone in the Spider's network wouldn't be that dumb. I could come up with lots or other "logical" things that are "obvious." The problem is, I wouldn't have any evidence for these things, just as you don't have any evidence for your claims. The fact that Cersei ordered Qyburn to extend her network doesn't show that the network was extended in any effective way. Even if it has been extended, we have no reason to suppose that it contains unknown "other people" who are good at killing, People in the Reach, Dorne, etc. do not want to be killed. The authorities in these places don't want their people killed. Some creep in King's Landing would not have the power to fool all the authorities in far away locations.
  14. Who are these people that her network has killed? Can you give me a list? When the lords of the Reach meet with Cersei, Olenna is alive, the Sand Snakes are alive, Tyrion Lannister is alive, Lord Baelish is alive, and Sansa Stark is alive. Cersei's father and her three children are dead. Jaime doesn't have a right hand. I don't think the lords would be that impressed with Cersei's accomplishments. I don't think they'd be afraid of her. On the castle issue, I vote with MrJay. In fact, I'd go a bit further. I don't think the show is even true to its own logic. Do you remember the scene from "The Wolf and the Lion" (Season 1,5) where Robert talks to Cersei about the dangers of a Viserys-led invasion? He says the Westerosi leaders would hole up in their castles. "Only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field. They leave us in our castles. They go from town to town, looting and burning, killing every man who can't hide behind a stone wall, stealing all our crops...How long do the people of the Seven Kingdoms stand behind their absentee King, their cowardly King hiding behind high walls? When do the people decide that Viserys Targaryen is the rightful monarch after all?" The situation turns out to be considerably worse than the former king envisions. The Lannister-led forces give up a strong castle (actually more than one castle I'd say). They are no match for the Dothraki in the open field. And it's the noble defenders of King's Landing who steal crops. The Dothraki, to this point, haven't killed anyone but enemy soldiers.
  15. Considering Mr. Jay's legitimate complaint, let me be brief here. What rational basis does Lord Tarly, or any of the Reach lords, have for fearing Cersei Lannister? Or, more precisely, do these men have some rational fear-based reason for backing her in the war? What can she do to them that would make them act as they do? It's true that she blew up the Great Sept of Baelor. So what? Is she going to teleport wildfire beneath their castles? She has an army, but not one that is all that strong compared to the forces opposing her. I'm not asking for any other reasons for backing Cersei (e.g. xenophobia). I'm not just asking for quotes from the show, indicating fear on the part of some person. Of course, you can give quotes, but you need to say why you think the quotes provide the basis for a good answer to my query. There are lots of plot holes in the story. Characters often say and do things that do not make sense; the statements and actions just move things in a direction the show runners want to go.
  16. You have a good point. Sorry about that.
  17. No, they are not mindless. Your comment about Grey Worm shows that. The fact that the lords have not been following Grey Worm is irrelevant. The question is why would the lords believe Cersei? She hasn't been to Astapor. Neither have the lords. Other than Cersei's word, what do the lords know about the Unsullied? How could they know for sure that the Mother of Dragons even has Unsullied soldiers? The Astapori slaver claimed his slaves were mindless. Obviously, he was wrong. And not just about Grey Worm. The Unsullied can make their own choices, and they have done so. And it didn't take them four years. They chose to stay with Daenerys. They chose their own names. They chose their own leaders. More later.
  18. Right. This is not 1984. Big Sister is not watching you. Even within KL, little birds are not super heroes. They are mainly street urchins, right? Street urchins die all the time. Say their mortality rate goes up a good bit. This would not require any kind of an uprising. Qyburn wouldn't know that it was a move against the government. Granted that he has suspicions, he might have a very hard time finding who is behind the murders, even if there is a single entity responsible. "Stay out altogether" is a real possibility. One might call it. "The Tywin Lannister Option."
  19. jcmontea's points in bold. My replies include matters that relate to 1. internal politics of the kingdoms and the quasi medieval nature of the society 2. the supposed toxic nature of Dany's parentage and her foreign followers 3. my assertion that Cersei and Jaime would definitely be considered traitors and thus hardly the leaders of a legitimate government 4. the matter of fear jcmontea said: The April paper does not mention this as its prediction was that Dany would land in the Reach and did not consider internal Reach politics or disloyalty to House Tyrell or how toxic Dany would appear arriving with Dothraki and with the bagage of her father. 1. (medievalism) If internal Reach politics are to be considered, why can’t we consider internal politics of the Westerlands? You ask for show-based evidence for my claim that Westerner does not equal Lannister and Lannister does not equal Cersei supporter. I say that the very quasi medieval nature of the society supports this. Northerner definitely doesn’t equal Stark. Tulley doesn’t equal Black Fish supporter. Tyrion doesn’t support Cersei. At the end of Season 7, Jaime doesn’t support her either. (More on this in a later post) 2. (supposed toxic relationships) I think the “baggage of her father” argument is badly overdone.See below for more comments on these matters. Cersei has a horrible reputation: “I'm a Tarley. That name means something. We're not oath breakers. We're not schemers. We don't stab our rivals in the back or cut their throats at weddings” - Randyl 7x02. Makes sense. 3. (treason) You say that Tarley’s line make sense. I say it is an unconvincing throw away line. The lord makes quick reference to strong reasons why he and his associates would not accept anything, certainly not advice on what it means to obey an oath, from the Kingslayer and other traitors and murderers. Then nothing comes of this, not in terms of Tarley’s actions, not in terms of the actions of any of the other lords of the Reach. 4. (fear) The Reach lords come and talk to Cersei. It certainly appears that not even one of them ever talks to either Olenna, Dany, or any of Dany’s people. This has been pointed out before. A good part of the argument that this does not constitute a major plot hole appears to go like this: People would come and talk to Cersei, because they are afraid of her. People would not go and talk to Dany, because they are afraid of her. Besides the clear contradiction in this argument, it doesn’t explain why no one would try to get Olenna’s side of the story. Now does it make sense that she would inspire fear versus the desire to rebel. This is certainly a debatable point. But basically Cersei pulled a Rains of Castamere on House Tyrell and all her enemies with the sept explosion. Its not illogical that people would fear her, especially given how at this point she has managed to defeat Bobbie B, Ned Stark and now the Tyrells and the Sparrows. As Sansa says, “If you're her enemy, she'll never stop until she's destroyed you. Everyone who's ever crossed her, she's found a way to murder.“ 4. I deny that Cersei pulled a Rains of Castemere in the sept explosion. She did not win a military victory. She denies that she did anything, claiming that the whole thing was an accident. She definitely does not destroy all her enemies, not even all of the Tyrells. Furthermore, the action doesn’t remove the power of the Tyrells. The matter is unresolved at the time of the Reach lord’s appearance in the capital. Cersei’s action is therefore very different from Tywin’s. Sansa’s statement does not hold up to close inspection. Tyrion is not dead. Sansa herself is not dead. LIttlefinger was not killed by Cersei. Olenna was killed by the Lannisters, but I maintain that her death was a bogus result of more than one plot hole. Additionally, Sansa’s statement does not consider all the setbacks the so-called “queen” has suffered. Back to 3—defeat Bobby B? Do Tarley and others consider this a reason to fear and obey the woman currently sitting on the throne? Why don’t most of them see that it is one of many facts that show she is a traitor and thus in no way their queen? Cersei’s propaganda There is a massive fourth wall problem here. Cersei says this; Cersei says that. jcmontea says “Based on what they [the lords] know they have every right to fear this.” The show, however, has not established that even one of the guys in the throne room has ever been to Essos. It certainly appears that none of them ever talks to Dany, Olenna or any of Dany or Olenna’s people. How do we know that any of these fellows even know the difference between a Dothraki and a Pentosi? Essentially, it appears that what they have is the word of a traitor and murderer who calls herself “queen.” Viewers in Seattle, Tulsa, and Orlando know that Daenerys has a large Dothraki following. From this, I suppose, we are expected to believe that the lords have seen these "savages" and that they all nod their heads in agreement with the “queen” as she makes her accusations. These accusations include “mindless Unsullied soldiers who will destroy your castles and your holdfasts.” That is 100% accurate? More like 0 %. “She will destroy the realm as we know it.” This overlooks the fact that Daenerys is a queen, that the Targs actually created the 7K, and a variety of other factors. I see no reason to believe that she intends to destroy the Faith, get rid of the maesters, or do any of a number of other things that would come under the heading of “destroying the realm as we know it.” I don’t know that even Cersei has heard the phrase “break the wheel”—fourth wall problem again. Even if some lords hear it, I don’t know that they would conclude that it was a terrible thing. If they were the least bit reasonable, they would talk to someone about the matter. This might be Tyrion Lannister, Jon Snow, or, what the hell, even Daenerys Targaryen. Perhaps the lords have independent sources of info. The show doesn’t tell us what these might be. Let’s presume such sources exist. Why wouldn’t they provide the lords with strong counter arguments to Cersei’s accusations? They might, for example, reveal that the horse lords have not been killing and raping under the Mother of Dragon’s rule. They might report that the young queen got her Iron Islanders to agree to stop their raiding and stealing. If the lords proceed go on a weeks-long mission to attack their liege and rob their peasants, how is this supposed to prevent the monster that the Lannister queen describes from attacking KL and destroying it? Doesn’t it even occur to any of the lords that no such attack has happened, that no such attack appears to be eminent, and that their actions in the Reach would not prevent such an attack? It seems to me that at least one gentlemen hearing all the fear mongering about raping and burning should see that said fear mongering may well be highly exaggerated. And (2 again) the “mad queen’s daughter” business is almost beyond belief. The dragon queen is just like her father? Is it not true that every damn lord in the place fought for her father? Is this fact not even to be considered? Furthermore, what about the label “Kingslayer.” Has this insult, so prominent and important earlier in the story, somehow just gone out of existence? If people are so prejudiced against the Mother of Dragons because of her parentage, why then don’t they celebrate the man who killed the mad ruler?
  20. Yes, things would be complicated. I think we could make them more rational though, and that's the idea behind this thread. Some tradeoffs are involved. We'd lose the final scene between Jaime and the Queen of Thorns. We'd still have two interesting Tyrell characters. Other scenes could. be written.
  21. You make a good point about the need for a better definition of the question. In this post, I’ll present an initial attempt to state my case in a more precise manner. Along the way, I’ll make references to the OP, to my first post on this thread, and to the April paper which you have mentioned. A couple of general points: One can find important areas in between macro and micro. There are matters like Dany’s basic strategy (macro). There are matters like “teleporting" (micro). There are also things in between, like how one side or the other in a war projects power. The show runners presented Westeros as a quasi medieval society. In Season 7, they often violate the rules of such a society badly. The OP: Tyrion 1991 claimed that Cersei 1. convinced the Lords of Westeros to side with her. 2. managed to get people to forgive and forget all her crimes and her walk of shame. My thoughts 1. Clearly, she hasn’t convinced all the lords. However, the process by which she and Jaime convinced many lords of the Reach to change sides and then go out and participate in the despoiling of their own lands was not even marginally believable to me. This is an area between macro and micro. The April paper talks about Cersei’s presence on the Iron Throne and Dany’s unwillingness to mount a frontal assault on KL. It also talks about the Lannister’s poor ability to project power. It does not come close to justifying the actions of the Reach lords, the ease of taking HIghgarden, or the very slow response of the Targaryen forces. It couldn't do this; these events hadn't even happened yet. 2. The “forgive and forget” claim seems similar to the point made by many posters: Cersei does horrible things and suffers no ill consequences. I definitely am not saying that Cersei would be overthrown in a day or two. I’m not saying that there would be a popular uprising, riots, or even large scale demonstrations against the current regime. I am saying that Cersei was never popular and would now almost certainly be very unpopular. This would have consequences. Does Cersei truly control King's Landing? Did Dany control Meereen after she conquered the city? Is it not true that little birds can die, even die in very large numbers from unknown causes? Some thoughts on the April paper, especially concerning the matter of control. We start with the assertion that Cersei is on the Iron Throne and that Daenerys will not be willing to take KL by direct frontal assault. These things are true. We pass on to the claim that "Lannisters control the Westerlands, the Riverlands and much of the Stormlands, as well as the capital. But their control is maintained by a force that is spread far too thin and is facing rebellion against the Crown’s authority on all sides." I don't know about the Stormlands; I'm not sure that anyone controls that area. The Lannister control of the Riverlands doesn't last even to the opening credits of Episode 1, Season 7. The Frey leadership is wiped out. Saying that the western armies are spread too thin in the area is, I believe, understating the matter. Basically, they'd probably have a bunch of young men who very much want to go home. Their leaders would very much want the same thing. This brings up another important matter: The idea of "control" here seems to lean very heavily on two supposed equalities. westerner = Lannister. and Lannister = Cersei supporter Neither one of these equalities are realistic. In my first post on this thread, I wrote: "Residents of Kings Landing would be worried about food shortages. They wouldn’t be the only ones. Many times in the more legitimate scenes of GoT, we hear, or hear of, lords and knights who want to return home and attend to their people and their fields. There would also be castellans who see the approach of bad weather and know that the walls and roofs of their castles and holdfasts are in bad shape. Wealth, status, and power in this society comes from the land, not from the capital city. It is absurd to suppose that an army of drones loyal to Borg Queen Brotherfucker could get away with despoiling the land, hauling everything to the capital, and leaving the peasants to starve. Indeed, there wouldn’t be any drones. They belong in another universe. Most of the troops in any Westerosi army would be farm boys and village lads. The peasants being robbed would be their own people." The above paragraph could be applied to westerners, not just men of the Reach. For the most part, the fellows marching behind lion banners would not be from House Lannister. They would owe their fealty to lords with names like Marbrand, Crakehall, Farman, Brax, etc. After all the years of war, death, and destruction, would they follow orders to abandon the main stronghold in the Westerlands and march off, leaving the farms, holdfasts, towns, and small castles very much at the mercy of a large foreign army? Not likely. A large part of Lannister leadership has always been based on fear. The man who created that fear is dead. The April paper notes that the feudal nature of Westerosi society is reasserting itself. Rob faced opposition from the Karstarks. It seems overwhelmingly likely that Cersei would face opposition from both commoners and lords of the west. And there is every reason to believe that this opposition would exist even in KL. The April paper talks about Cersei's "wiping out all of the Faith’s fighters and most of the Septons in King’s Landing. News of this will travel far throughout the south, including in the Riverlands and even in Casterly Rock, the seat of House Lannister." Also, the news of the complete destruction of the Sept of Baelor will spread widely. Are there not devout people within the western population and the western armies? For that matter, didn't Lord Kevan have a wife, relatives, and friends? How dedicated are the troops on the battlements of King's Landing? How dedicated is their leadership? And to what, exactly, are these men dedicated? When Tryion was preparing the defense of KL, he said that the walls had to hold. If they were breached, all was lost. The defenders wouldn't continue to fight. Some would turn their cloaks. The army now holding KL is stronger, but is it even as dedicated? There is a lot more to say on these matters. This post, however, is already more than long enough.
  22. The basic question of this thread is "Does the war make sense?" It is aimed at the war in the south in Season 7. I say that the answer is clearly "no." If we change the question to "Can the war in Season 8 make sense?" then my answer is "yes." At the end of Season 6, the writers had painted themselves into a corner from which they could not manage to escape with any reasonable degree of plausibility (unless they wanted to let Cersei's reign last for about one episode). They came up with a bunch of stuff that just is not believable. That isn't the situation with regard to the contest between the living and the Army of the Dead. There are lots of options. I like the idea that the zombie army will make a strong feint toward Winterfell then send the main force at King's Landing. That's an interesting possibility. There are others.
  23. Yes, have the HS deposed and put a lackey in his place. That would be the way to go if you're going to have Cersei stay in some kind of position of power in KL. The High Sept of Baelor is just too important to the Faith of the Seven, and the belief that Cersei is guilty of destroying the place is too widespread. The attempts by some posters to say "Well, other High Septons have been killed" doesn't work as an excuse to see the Lannister pretender as an accepted monarch. In a better-written story, she would face far too much opposition, both from the common people and from the powers-that-be. Of course, if you're going to have this wanna-be queen go into hiding or escape to CR, then things change. You still have to do something about the dragons. Having Daenerys diverted to the north early in Season 7 is one possibility. As to the chains, the NK's aim, and other matters--the title of this thread is "A More Plausible War." I'm not trying to cover all the problems I see with Season 7.
  24. I think the best move with regard to the High Septon would require a little character adjustment. If the guy is perfectly sincere and consistent, however fanatical, then his popularity and his work for the poor would be hard for any of his opponents to get around. However, let's suppose that someone discovers some unpleasant things about this holy man. Maybe his moves against Loras are not based purely on theology. The High Sparrow has a problem with his own drives. He has a bit too much interest in males, perhaps including young boys. If this is discovered and publicly proven (i.e. the man is caught in the act), then the dynamic changes. In particular, Margaery, a very popular leader, can express her shock, disappointment, and outrage. How can we treat certain sinners so severely when the guy passing judgement is himself so involved In sin? Your point about climatic event(s) in episode 10 is well taken. There can be definite tradeoffs involving things like character development, plausibility of events in a story, and big events like explosions. This is true of any work that is at all cinematic. There is a temptation to go with things that go boom and to let logic and consistent characterization slide.
  25. Well, we have the option of saying that Varys's inability to do his job in Season 7 is not the result of having lost control over some little kids. We can say that it is the result of some poor story telling on the part of the show runners. That's what I took you to mean when you said-- I'll note again that this doesn't have to mean that GoT is schlock or that Season 7 is worthless. It just means that there are some major problems with the writing. Major problems, not just trivial details of interest only to nit pickers. Trying to explain the sudden apparent incompetence of two major game players by saying that one is a traitor and the other lost some birds doesn't work. There are a good many reasons for this inadequacy. One is that Dany and her whole team have inexplicably turned incompetent-- As I said earlier, the case of the unknown fleet is a worse plot hole than darmondy indicates here. No friggin' body on Dragonstone brings up the matter at all. We have these war councils where no one gives any thought to what their enemies might be doing. In particular, the council that includes Yara, the head snake, and Olenna stands out as an incredible case of "Let's ignore the elephant in the room." Tryion doesn't seem able to think that a big honkin' unfriendly fleet out there might cause some problems. Varys doesn't know anything at all about its locations or its movements, and he doesn't seem to have made any effort to acquire this info. And Lady Olenna--Hello, oh clever, insightful game player. You do know that your kingdom has a west coast, don't you? You have some small knowledge of Westerosi history and the part the Iron Islands have had in it, right? So, monster pirate fleet coming down the west coast--why can't you see that this might be trouble for you and your people? Perhaps the most unbelievable performance, however, is that of Yara. She listens to all of the business about how this Targ fleet will go here and that Targ fleet will go there, and she never once mentions the name "Euron." Later, on her ship, she is getting cozy with Ellaria: ELLARIA: So, you're going to be Queen of the Iron Islands. YARA: Once I kill my uncle. Oh yeah, right. You don't like the guy much. You must know that he's really pissed off at you, that he's a mean pirate son of a bitch, and he has a big fleet. You don't even know where he is. Did it ever occur to you that he might know where you are? Not too hard to figure out which one of you is more likely to get killed, is it? This is the woman who has had such a great career as a warrior? This is the daughter that Balon put in charge of his attack on the North? Sheesh. Once again, we have a fine example of characters acting totally out of character.