Knight Of Winter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Knight Of Winter

  • Rank
    Northern Bound
  • Birthday 01/05/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,214 profile views
  1. A Dance of the Dire Wolves

    Ok, these circumstances could theoretically happen, but in that case I can't imagine neither Jon nor Sansa willingly waging war against the other one. Nor against Rickon.
  2. Preston Jacobs Dornish Master Plan

    @Lord Wraith - thanks
  3. A Dance of the Dire Wolves

    This would go completely against all of Stark children's personalities established in the five books. I can't imagine anyone of them going to war against any other. So no, all of these Jon vs Sansa, Arya vs Bran, Arya vs Jon theories are not going to happen
  4. Preston Jacobs Dornish Master Plan

    Which video does PJ talk about Royces and Alayne? I'm trying to find it, but with no success so far.
  5. Roose Bolton's inevitable end

    Roose is a goner, and that's one of the very few things I'm certain about in ASOIAF. He has way too many things going up against him, and very few allies to count upon (his own troops, Freys and maaaaybe Dustins and Ryswells) Yes, and how many other Westerosi lords have done these or similar things? Only three come to mind - Ramsay, Gregor and Tywin, and they are not exactly the bar for your average Westerosi lord in terms of morality. I think books make it very clear that Roose is a monster, by modern and by medieval standards
  6. Characters I am sad never met.

    Domeric Bolton and pretty much any Northern character. The way he was described, he was the last hope for a decent and likeable Bolton lord, and I'd be curious to see how would be interact with e.g. Robb, Manderly, Glover, Maege, Greatjon etc.
  7. Dothraki vs westerosi infantry

    I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards Westerosi, but I think it's a far more closed call than most of people here assume - and I could easily be wrong. Here's a quote from a Westerosi war veteran who certainly knows how both armies work and is familiar with their composition: "Now," the knight said, "I am less certain. They are better riders than any knight, utterly fearless, and their bows outrange ours. In the Seven Kingdoms, most archers fight on foot, from behind a shieldwall or a barricade of sharpened stakes. The Dothraki fire from horseback, charging or retreating, it makes no matter, they are full as deadly … and there are so many of them, my lady. Your lord husband alone counts forty thousand mounted warriors in his khalasar." "Your brother Rhaegar brought as many men to the Trident," Ser Jorah admitted, "but of that number, no more than a tenth were knights. The rest were archers, freeriders, and foot soldiers armed with spears and pikes. When Rhaegar fell, many threw down their weapons and fled the field. How long do you imagine such a rabble would stand against the charge of forty thousand screamers howling for blood? How well would boiled leather jerkins and mailed shirts protect them when the arrows fall like rain?"
  8. Is Doran a paedo?

    This sums up my opinion of this idea:
  9. Should Baelor Breakspear have fought for Duncan?

    Yes, definitely. People who fight and take risks for causes they believe in deserve more respect and admiration than people who stand aside and watch injustice just happen while preaching agianst it. Otherwise, I agree with BBE that Baelor could and should have used his authority to e.g. order Aerion and Dunk to fight 1v1.
  10. The Republic of Littlefinger Theory

    Well thought and put out, but there are simply a number of big holes which make me disagree with your theory 1) As John Doe said, republic won't work in Westeros. European republics only developed after centuries of feudalism, thanks to several important factors: invention of printing press, age of enlightenment, commune and city tradition and its importance in e.g. Italy and Netherlands, industrial revolution which caused (among other things) huge population boom that impacted cities' size etc. Westeros, meanwhile, hasn't even started in any of these. 2) So you have your hypotheses that LF wants power and also revenge on upper echelon. So far so good. But the conclusion that he wants to change entire social system to achieve that doesn't hold water. What he wants to achieve (power for himself and revenge on nobles) he can already do inside existing political system. In fact, that's exactly what he's doing. He's the Lord of Riverlands and de facto ruler of the Vale (power for himself), while all of the nobles who have wronged him are dead or in dire position (Hoster, Brandon, Ned, Edmure, Jon Arryn). He didn't need to establish republic to achieve that. 3) LF didn't ever do anything remotely altruistic, at least not during the course of the books. He only ever does actions that profit him and his cause, while not giving a damn about anyone else. So why would he change entire social and political system for the belief that this new system is the best? LF doesn't care about ideology - he cares about himself only. In fact, let me repeat again that all of his supposed goals (revenge on nobility and amassing power for himself) can be achieved in current political system. 4) Much related to the issue above - bringing new political system implies o good dose of idealism, a desire to better the world for everyone. On the contrary, everything we've seen of LF's character so far tells us that he doesn't care of anyone else other than himself. He only manipulates others, uses them as tools, and discards them when they're no longer useful to him. he uses Ned to start and escalate Stark-Lannister tensions. When Ned proves that he's no longer useful (he rejects LF's offer to instill Renly on the throne), LF betrays him he uses Joffrey to kill Ned and irreparably damange Stark's relations with the IT (and further create chaos) he uses Dontos to communicate with Sansa and smuggle her out of KL. When that task is done, so is Dontos. he uses Tyrells to kill Joffrey. Later he sabotages their plan to wed Sansa to Wylas. he uses Lysa to kill Jon Arryn and advance his career. He offs her when she proves too unstable. he uses Sansa to satisfy his desire to have an imaginary daughter with Cat; and to satisfy his perverse lust for her. Other than that, he doesn't give a rat's ass about Sansa's happiness and well-being (if he did, he wouldn't destroy her family or implicate her in king's murder, to start) 5) Neither Braavos not the Iron Bank are militaristic powers. Perhaps the most powerful of the 9 Free Cities hasn't, in it's hundreds year long existence, conquered anything - not even Pentos or Lorath. Worst they did was impose a peace treaty on Pentos which forbids them slavery. And your theory relies on the fact that they would want to conquer an entire continent? Not gonna happen. 6) And even if Braavosi did wish to conquer Westeros, it's ridiculously obvious that they can't. Compare sizes and population of Braavos and Westeros and it's clear why. Iron Bank could beggar themselves hiring mercenaries and that still wouldn't be nearly enough to subdue Westeros.
  11. Name of Thrones

    With actual position of king and power that comes along with it - you get a number of, as Mel calls it, "trappings of power". Case in point - crown, throne, regalia etc. Now, parading these trappings of power, throne included, in a face of your sovereign (Targaryen king), would have been seen as a provocation and challenge from lords' part, hence they (smartly) avoided that.
  12. All living characters with Valyrian blood

    Many people can, apparently. I'd bet that dragons are, in that regard, just like a pack of guard dogs. Imagine that one family had a monopoly on all guard dogs in the world. The dogs would obey and listen to them, and they would attack anyone else who tries to approach them. However, it would be false to claim that members of this family are the only ones with the ability to tame and raise dogs. The same thing happened with dragons. No non-Targs were able to be dragonriders because Targs never allowed anyone non-Targ to even attempt to ride a dragon. As soon as they changed that policy, you got successful dragonriders Ulf, Hugh and Nettles.
  13. All living characters with Valyrian blood

    - entire population of Lys, Myr, Tyrosh, Pentos, Norvos, Lorath, Qohor and Volantis - them beign former Valyrian colonies and all - at least hundreds of thousands of ordinary Westerosi, whose one ancestor impregnated/was impregnated by a random Targaryen. Just imagine how many Targaryen genes did e.g. Aegon IV or Robert Baratheon spread. All in all, Valyrian blood is neither that rare nor exclusive. Quite the contrary.
  14. Are Jon's Vows Fulfilled?

    That's why it is indeed a technicality. The spirit of the NW's oath is simple: You serve NW as long as you live. Getting out of NW on the basis that you were temporarily dead follows the letter ("until my death") of the oath but not the spirit ("once you're in NW, there's no way out"). It puts technical minutia and word acrobatics ahead of essence - that's what makes it technicality. Let me ask you - based on 5 ASOIAF books you've read and the Watchmen you've been introduced to - do you think that any one of them (Jon, Sam, Alliser, Jeor, Benjen, Grenn, Pyp, Bowen, Satin etc.) would consider temporary death as a valid excuse for leaving NW?
  15. Are Jon's Vows Fulfilled?

    This needs being repeated constantly. I doubt a single Watchman (including Jon himself) would view Jon's death as a means of getting scot-free out-of-Watch card. Serving the NW is widely viewed as a serious shit across Westeros mainly because it is - you're supposed to stay NW brother for the rest of your life and give up everything else you might hold dear (wife, children, lands...). Jon getting out on a basis of a technicality is huge slap on the face to the spirit of the Watch, which Jon was earnestly trying to adhere to. It seems that good part of Jon's fandom is trying to construct some legal mumbo-jambo to allow their favourite character to both be effective and remain (on a very superficial level) his honor. To be fair, they're hardly alone at that, as you can also see other fans doing the same (Of course Sandor had to support Joffrey's behaviour, he was Joffrey's sworn sword ; Ned&Jon&Bob&Hoster had no right to rebel against Aerys, they were his vassals etc.). And if AGOT taught us anything - it was that such cases are nigh impossible - just look at Ned. If Jon finds his NW vows to be nothing but obstructive and in a way of higher cause (defeating Others or something else), I want him to break them. If he has to choose between what needs to be done and honoring his vows, I want him to choose former. And much like in Jaime's case many people will revile him for it, but Jon will have done the right thing.