SUPCOM0356

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SUPCOM0356

  • Rank
    Commoner
  • Birthday February 3

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Here’s a question: do we actually think Aegon will manage to take the Iron Throne? Supposing he does rally lords to his banner, which is likely since I’m sure most were not disloyal to House Targaryen necessarily, everyone just knew the Mad King was...well Mad...and supported Robert 1) due to his claim to the throne being tied to having some Targaryen blood and 2) the realm probably preferred peace with the Baratheon king to more war. Do we think that Aegon will be able to claim the Iron Throne before Dany returns to Westeros? Or will he even be successful in gaining enough support to take it at all in the first place? He certainly does have some obstacles to overcome. Though I must admit on a personal note, the prospect of a Dance of Dragons 2.0 does seem rather exciting (much more so than the horrendous tailspin that the TV show has taken the end of the series down in, at any rate)!
  2. Actually i dont think we really disagree then. I’d personally say you’re probably right that the killing of the entire family probably goes well beyond the letter of the law (and that’s probably true in almost any case). But there’s definitely a legal framework for, as you said, some kind of action even if what Tywin did was unreasonable he still was likely in the right of taking some action initially and it wasn’t completely the liege House just doing whatever they wanted. And its Tywin’s pushing the letter of the law that made him dangerous because even if he went beyond the letter of the law he still had some basis in the legal framework of the realm. Which, i think, would be in keeping with his character: twisting the legal framework to suit his will while at the same time asserting it to protect himself against that same legal framework. Absolutely true. I’d say them being cautious and not immediately responding to whoever claims to be the “Lord of the Week” could actually be likely, and perhaps if this is what’s meant be “rebellion” then I could surely see that as a realistic possibility.
  3. Can someone explain to me why D&D made the Lannister gold mines empty and conflated the debt of the Iron Throne/Crown with the debt of House Lannister? I'm pretty sure I've read that GRRM has said explicitly that the gold mines in the books are alive and well. Also, the Crown is actually in debt to House Lannister. I think I recall Kevan even making a comment about paying the Iron Bank off with Lannister gold on behalf of the crown. Was it just to give Jaime a reason later on to need to attack Highgarden and take their gold? Or was it just because D&D couldn't understand how the Crown could be in debt when the Lannisters had a bunch of money? I have a great many other things that irked me, but this one has been on my mind for awhile, just curious what others think about this and other random unnecessary changes to the story between the show and the books.
  4. I think some variation of this is far more plausible than the Westermen out right attempting to rebel against House Lannister. I could definitely see some vassals houses or a cadet branch of the family try to assert some degree of control over them. With Tywin and Kevan gone, and us not knowing for sure what role Cersei will play now that the Tyrell's control King's Landing, I would imagine that it'd be plausible that some internal political struggles take place within the Westerlands and House Lannister itself, but rebellion I find to be unlikely. Do you really think this could happen? With Cersei and Jaime still alive I find it hard to believe that the Westermen would turn their cloaks that easily. Yes, Jaime is a maimed member of the Kingsguard but he's still Tywin's son and is now basically the only Lannister left with any clout. Now, if Daenerys has time to unleash dragons on any part of Westeros, then it might be possible. I'm still not quite sold on open rebellion from Westerlands lesser houses just yet though. If nothing else, I'd think that the growing strength of the Tyrells, the murder of Tywin and Kevan in King's Landing (both supposedly at the hands of Tyrion), and if Tyrion shows up helping the Targaryens, I'd think the Westerlands would be more likely to unite in hatred over their precarious position which is mostly due to "the Imp," at least in their minds. No?
  5. I do believe the liege lord has the ability to levy taxes from their vassals (both on behalf of the King as well as themselves). I'd have to imagine that the liege House would have some legal recourse if a vassal was indebted to them financially in some way. And I'd also add that even if there wasn't a law or edict by the Iron Throne, I'd bet the Westerlands definitely would have some edicts or at least precedents on borrowing/repaying funds since that's how the Lannisters maintain their power and prestige. As you pointed out, there's an inherent power imbalance and the vassal would likely respond to any request from the liege regardless of legality but I'd be very shocked if there wasn't some legal framework or basis for collecting on debts owed. Now the nature and severity of the punishment (in this case destroying whole Houses) might be up for debate. He obviously did not, but he also wasn't given an opportunity to object to Tywin's actions, and in the absence of explicit direction from the liege lord, his son acting as a representative of his House carried out what I'd assume was a "lawful" act in punishing their House's vassals for open defiance of their liege House including not repaying their debts. Now one could probably argue that this was not legal, but I'm not sure it'd be "illegal" either. Apologies if I was misunderstood, I definitely wasn't trying to argue that liege lords or their Houses were above the law and could do what they wanted. I simply was trying to point to the fact that where there is any gray area in the law, liege lords and their Houses seem to have a lot of latitude in terms of enforcement of "law" within their own realm. If there is a debate as to whether a liege lord is in the right, I'd assume it'd rise to the Iron Throne to determine the dispute. Specifically in the case of the "Rains of Castamere," right or wrong, I just couldn't see the King ruling against Tywin at the time (now if it happened 20 years later, then the King definitely might have ruled against Tywin but then the whole story would be in a much different place haha) and him taking action against defiant vassals does seem within the rights of House Lannister. What might be debatable is his choosing to wipe the defiant house out completely, which could be seen as overkill.
  6. Is the action actually “illegal” though? In the feudal society that they function in, when the liege House makes a request of a vassal house they are “legally” obligated to comply (at least I believe so, but don’t quote me on that). Both the Reynes and Tarbecks willingly chose not to comply (though Tywin knew full well they would not) and thus could have been considered to be rebellious even if they were not technically in an open rebellion. Does Westerosi law actually require a trial for such discipline by liege lord against vassal? Or is there some rule that the punishment should fit the crime? Ultimately it seems like just about anything a liege lord says goes in his own realm as long as it doesn’t directly contradict some edict or ruling from the Iron Throne. With the King being the only one able to say ultimately if i liege lord’s decision was just or unjust in the end. In this case, highly unlikely the king would have objected even if it was “illegal” since Tywin and Aerys were friends and it was this very incident that helped get him his position as Hand of the King.
  7. It most surely is still the region Tywin built. Just because the wars may have weakened them, as they have the entire realm except maybe Dorne, doesn’t mean its not still the Westerlands Tywin re-established after his father’s mismanagement. And an ambitious lord taking advantage of the current weakness to marry into the Lannister family to be the “power behind the throne” so to speak is not the same thing as the Westerlands rebelling. Something like that might actually be cause for rebellion. And Tywin might have been feared but he was also respected. It’s not like he just went around killing his bannerman. And Jaime’s willingness to be the heir wouldn’t necessarily prevent the Westerlands from remaining loyal to him and Cersei (especially in military matters). That’s not to say things couldn’t change, my point is simply that based on my own interpretation i dont see it happening at the moment. And i don’t recall reading anything that would lead me to think that the Westermen think anything more of the various wars than it being their duty to their liege lord and his house. And the “Rains of Castamere” events might well have bred resentment but it doesn’t seem like that is something that’d be an issue for most of his bannerman that have benefited from their lord’s success/prestige (I mean unless there are descendants of the Reynes or Tarbecks floating around out there).
  8. Hello! SUPCOM0356 here. Have been a viewer of the forums and the wiki for awhile and finally decided to contribute! I also think my friends are tired of trying to explain the lore of ASOIAF to them a non-book readers so I have direct all these musings somewhere!
  9. Why would the Westerlands rebel against the Lannisters? It’s definitely possible but I just can’t see why they would at this point. Jaime is still alive and even if he is maimed I think he’s still Tywin’s son and respected by the Westermen, and they’d likely follow Cersei out of duty at least for the time being. The Westerlands are still the region that Tywin built and I can’t imagine they’d turn their cloaks that easily. We don’t know the full implications of Kevan’s demise yet but I guess some smart, rebellious house might have just been biding their time until there was some weakness to strike. And even if Genna died, she’s been with the Frey’s for some time so I’m not sure her death would even be relevant to what happened in the Westerlands except for the Westermen seeking revenge if she was assassinated.