The Grey Wolf

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Grey Wolf

  • Rank
    Lord Veroq Nassau
  • Birthday 07/08/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Richardson, TX
  • Interests
    Anime, Metal Music, Humanities

Recent Profile Visitors

1,605 profile views
  1. I don't remember the text being that explicit but alright.
  2. @Ran Are you saying Aelora was heiress to the Iron Throne after Aelor/before Maekar?
  3. @Lord Varys 2. Isn't that what I said? 3. Fair enough.
  4. 41. How did the rider bearing the order of execution for Rhaella in 48 AC make it from King's Landing to Oldtown in less than half a year?
  5. 1. I suppose. 2. To paraphrase that old Narnia movie: Numbers do not win a battle but I bet they help. Beyond that, even if Borros only took half his strength with him that should still be enough to outnmber the Lads. Plus, he would have needed quite a few men to take on Cregan, who was marching south by that point with his own army. 3. I wouldn't really consider First Tumbleton a victory for the Greens. Ulf and Hugh switch sides on their own, not to mention the Greens lose their top two commanders. Second Tumbleton, on the other hand, is an incomplete Black victory.
  6. I disagree with your assessment but my time is limited so I'll keep things brief: 1. The only battle Ser Criston Cole wins is Rook's Rest unless you count Duskendale, etc. 2. Considering that Borros sat out the whole war he should outnumber the Lads. 3. I want to see those implied Green victories and for the second half of 130 AC to make sense because it seems to me that GRRM's writing style just doesn't work very well when it comes to "fake history".
  7. Another major issue is the incompetence of the Greens, which stretches believability. To summarize: 1. The Greens consistently lose top-tier commanders in almost all their major engagements (Red Fork-Jason Lannister, First Tumbleton-Ormund Hightower, Butcher's Ball-Criston Cole, Kingsroad-Borros Baratheon) whereas the Blacks almost always lose only 8-bit characters such as Lords Darry and Mallister in the Muddy Mess. On top of all that, Aegon II is incapacitated for most of the war after just one battle (Rook's Rest) and Aemond is an idiot. 2. We see the Blacks use ambush (Butcher's Ball), flanking (Fishfeed), scorched earth tactics (Riverlands), and shock tactics (Winter Wolves). The Greens, on the other hand, are never really shown to use any proper tactics. 3. The Green victories we have all come down to luck (Ulf and Hugh at First Tumbleton), literal deus ex machina (Daeron the Daring at the Honeywine), or them taking such hideous losses that the victory is Pyrrhic and the army in question out of the fighting for the rest of the war (Three Daughters at the Gullet, First Tumbleton). The Blacks, on the other hand, always win decisive victories (Fishfeed, Butcher's Ball, Second Tumbleton, Kingsroad). 4. The Greens lose even when they greatly outnumber their opponents (Kingsroad). 5. We never see the Greens put to use their greater wealth. 6. A lot of Green victories are implied in throw-away lines (Lord Lefford in TWOIAF, Ormund Hightower in TPATQ) 7. Because of all the above most of the Green commanders come off as toothless chumps. I could buy maybe one or two of them being this dumb but not all of them. The Kingmaker and Borros Baratheon are the worst examples of this IMO. @Ran This is a major issue with the writing of the Dance so please tell GRRM.
  8. 40. 5-6 months pass between the Battle Above the Gods Eye and Rhaenyra's death. What the hell was going on during that time period? Surely, Rhaenyra wasn't stuck at Duskendale for almost half a year when Lady Meredyth didn't even want her to be there in the first place? And even if that was the case shouldn't there have been more engagements other than the Second Battle of Tumbleton? @Ran Is this something the full text explains or did GRRM simply not think through Daemon dying on the "22nd day of the fifth moon", Rhaenyra dying on the "22nd day of the tenth moon", and the Muddy Mess taking place in 131 AC?
  9. Re Daemon: I personally believe he intended to crown Daenerys as Queen of Love and Beauty at her wedding tourney. (I imagine Baelor Breakspear winning the final tilt would have left Daemon bitter and angry in this scenario.) Re the Young Dragon: What I was suggesting was that people would want to continue the war in order to bring justice to Daeron I's murderers the same way you point out the Northmen and the Riverlanders both are plotting against the Freys/Boltons/Lannisters and we know for a fact this was the sentiment before Baelor I made peace. This is where we differ: I believe the strong feelings present before peace was made would not have disappeared (at least not completely) whereas you believe they would have healed. Re the Belgraves: The reason I brought up them and the Mandrakes is because in order for the Dance to be the worst war in Westerosi history and Maegor to have earned his sobriquet we ought to given some examples of prominent houses that were wiped out during the time of the Targaryen regime.
  10. I certainly hope he expands on the lead-up to the FBR because he clearly has changed his mind on some aspects (most notably the whole romance between Daemon-Daenerys). Re my question to Ran: I was asking him whether or not there were any conflicts between 170-173 AC. Re rebellion: Are you deliberately ignoring the part of my posts where I explain how medieval mindsets wouldn't have seen Baelor's peace as grounds for rebellion even if they didn't agree with it? Re Starks: Barbrey has a personal beef with Ned, the Ryswells are related by blood to House Bolton, House Karstark was on bad terms with House Stark because of Lord Rickard's execution, and Hother clearly can't be trusted so your argument here falls short of the mark imo. Re the FBR: One of the things I hope the FBR shows us is how certain families rose and fell from power. The Mandrakes were according to JonCon pretty significant at one point, as were the Belgraves, who don't show up in the series proper at all, to mention nothing of the Heddles, Waynes, etc.
  11. @Ran Unless you can confirm this we don't actually know the Green Oak died alongside Daeron I. In fact, if I recall correctly, AFFC just says he died at the side of the Young Dragon in the Prince's Pass, which could have been before the false parley.
  12. For me the issue is threefold: First, the level of proof you're requiring (explicit word-for-word) would basically mean (to use an in-series example) Frey Pies couldn't be a thing. Second, as I've said before, just because GRRM has (per your word) detailed notes does not preclude him adding more when he actually sits down to write the whole thing out. As he himself says "it grows in the telling". Third, I find the binary reductionism of claiming all the Blackfyre supporters=ambitious warmongerers to be uninteresting from a thematic standpoint, not to mention it doesn't explain the sheer numbers that backed the Black Dragon, nor does it intersect with GRRM's penchant for moral complexity ("the human heart in conflict with itself") and showing the good/bad sides of both factions in a conflict (e.g-Dance of the Dragons, ASOIAF). Beyond that my argument re the Young Dragon is precisely what you just said: That it would have been an issue for at least some and that this issue would have contributed to the general anti-Dornish sentiment in Westeros, particularly after Aegon IV spent his whole reign stirring the pot, such that when Daeron II brought Dorne into the realm he made the same mistake Jon does in ADWD re the Wildlings: He pushes too hard, too fast and in so doing generates a backlash spearheaded by the lords of the Reach, who supported Daeron I (+ Aegon IV?) the most and were probably the most infuriated at seeing their ancient enemies getting (in their minds) all the rewards (four royal marriages, the concessions in the treaty, some offices of note, and major court presence in general since Daeron II brought "many" Dornishmen to KL when he assumed the throne).
  13. @Ran My original point still stands. Ser Eustace is not and cannot be the be-all, end-all for why people supported Daemon Blackfyre. Furthermore, no one has, so far as I know, ever asked GRRM if the death/murder of Daeron I and the pardoning of Baelor I contributed to the First Blackfyre Rebellion. I remember reading that someone asked him if Daena being the daughter of Aegon III played a role and he was supposedly caught off guard by the question before answering no. Finally, if what we have of Fire & Blood Volume 1 is any indication GRRM could easily expand on his notes when he writes Volume 2 to explicitly tie in the reigns of the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed with the FBR. Indeed, it would not surprise me if Aegon IV used his cousin's murder to rile people up while he was gathering swords for his Dornish invasion, sort of like Northern politicians "waving the bloody flag" after the Civil War. Speaking of which, can you tell us if the invasion of 174 AC was the only one of its kind during Aegon IV's reign? @Lord Varys Your claim that people might have seen Daeron I at the time of his death as a madman who had it coming is entirely headcanon and I refuse to believe it given his personality, the fact people still supported him after the death of Lord Lyonel Tyrell, and the outrage at his murder. Beyond that did you even bother reading my previous post fully? People in medieval times justified rebellions through illegitimacy and tyranny (which did include taking away the rights of the nobility) because those ideas stripped the king of his sacrosanct nature. Again, neither of those apply to Baelor the Blessed. There were no doubts about his parentage and it is a king's right to decide foreign policy. Thus, even though Baelor's decision stuck in many people's craw there was nothing anyone could do about it except protest because to do anything more would be to commit treason by breaking the king's peace. Finally, I do feel the need to point out that we know very little about the political landscape of Westeros during Baelor's reign, not to mention how good/bad relations with Dorne were during those ten years.
  14. I agree with most of this. @Ran It doesn't need to be literally spelled out word for word. There is such a thing as inference and logical deduction, not to mention RL history. Furthermore, you make too big a deal out of Ser Eustace Osgrey. He is just one man in a single short story. He does not and cannot represent the entire Blackfyre faction nor can ambition and warmongery alone explain the depth and magnitude of support Daemon I drummed up. Moreover, TWOIAF is written with the benefit of hindsight and posterity, which means the Blacks are going to be maligned at every turn and Daeron II exalted since he was the one who won the war. Finally, people in medieval society did not rebel even when they disagreed with the king's decisions so your argument re Baelor's peace is false. Medieval rebellions were always couched in one of the following two ideas: Illegitimacy or Tyranny. The former denied the king was sacrosanct (because he wasn't the true heir) while the latter declared he had lost that position by exceeding his rights. Neither of those cases apply to Baelor, who I should point out, also made a walk of penance, something I'm pretty sure would have pissed off quite a few grieving families since that implied Daeron I and his 60000 men were the real bad guys.