Trigger Warning

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Trigger Warning

  • Rank
    How you going, Dave?
  • Birthday September 30

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,395 profile views
  1. It's so Ramsay can put an arrow through his eye with pinpoint accuracy whilst Jon is standing next to him entirely open. If Wun Wun was wearing armour then that'd just get in the way of dumb shit and we wouldn't want that.
  2. My point was that there's nothing stopping GRRM as an author from describing typically equipped medieval armies and simultaneously describing recruitment techniques that wouldn't support such armies in medieval Europe, basically all the descriptions of the armies seem decently equipped as you'd expect yet also the idea of poorly armed serfs and the North being scoured of able bodied men comes up which seems contradictory, those labourers would be better left in the fields but that's what GRRM chose to describe so it would seem that in Westeros everyone gets mobilised and perhaps the lesser armed soldiers just aren't sent to the forefront of combat? They're competing ideas but they're both there so it makes arguing in depth a pointless battle in this regard since the author can pretty much say whatever he wants.
  3. I really don't think the army compositions that we've seen were given enough thought and detail for anything definitive, really they're just meant to be entertaining. The equipment we see described falls in line with commonplace high to late middle ages practices, for example you can look at Henry II's Assize of Arms as early as 1181 to see who was expected to serve and have what arms to have specifically to Henry's domains but that's not necessarily going to translate into a fantasy novel because ultimately it's all coming out of GRRM's head, he could on one end describe all this equipment typical of more wealthy freemen whilst still having in his head the idea that the armies made up of dirt poor farmers because there's not necessarily going to be a realistic consistency holding it together. In other words the descriptions of battles and weapons/armour might be based on typical equipment you'd see in more professional medieval European armies but at the same time not really mesh with the idea that these forces were assembled in a way that for example scours the North of most of its able bodied men, these two things could contradict each other but that's not necessarily going to stop an author putting them in what is ultimately a fantasy novel that doesn't explore the arms an armour and order of battle in much depth. Basically what you could draw from the text is that these armies seem to have a core of decently armed freemen and mercenaries whilst also perhaps having a tail of every Tom, Dick and Harry they can find armed with whatever they can find? In real life perhaps not very realistic but maybe it's just par for the course in Westeros even if it is pretty pointless throwing a guy with a pitchfork into a battle, it is fiction after all. Also as a side note since the idea of a rabble of farm tool armed peasants in medieval European warfare is quite a commonly held belief it's worth noting that not all peasants are serfs, freemen would still be peasants but could be relatively speaking quite well off and would be able to arm themselves and have some level of training, these would be the "peasants" that would more typically be serving in most armies in Europe although that's still a huge generalisation of a huge area and a large period of time.
  4. Having children with better claims than you murdered is basically par for the course with royalty. In context I wouldn't consider someone mad for ordering it.
  5. Plot convenience more than anything, seems unlikely that Ned wouldn't take him along considering it was the king that was his guest. All he'd likely be doing is riding along with the rest of the party and watching.
  6. Pitched battles are too risky and most commanders in history spent most of their time doing what's in their power to avoid them especially when not on their terms, to quote some guy on youtube. "A realistic battle is several days of skirmishing, then one commander goes on a hill and the other leaves" Guess Robb didn't want to bet everything on one clash with Tywin, especially with another Lannister army in the field.
  7. Some people are heavily invested in this story being more complex than it likely is.
  8. The Lannisters don't even influence that much in King's Landing, Littlefinger seems to have his fingers in more offices and he was originally Arryn's man. Most of the Lannister influence seems to reside in the King's household and that's because Robert doesn't give a shit and leaves it to Cersei which isn't even that unexpected for a wife, if anything you'd expect more Lannisters at court and holding office. As a side note the Goldcloaks, Lannister men at arms and Kingsguard didn't do anything against Robert, they moved against Ned who was a stranger from the North that didn't cultivate any alliances in the city and all of a sudden challenged Joffrey's legitimacy, even without being paid off it would be expected that the city watch and Robert's household would side with the queen and Robert's heir apparent over Ned.
  9. Sitting in the castle eating the winter stores and exploiting the local populace and resources the same as the Northern lords would do. They might live in the North but I still can't see the local lord and his garrison pottering about on mountain horses and snow shoes when winter comes, they'll hunker down and take what they need as their lordly due from the castle's lands and people and anything else they'll learn quick enough, humans are incredibly adaptable. The important thing in this scenario is controlling the castle which in Winter will be the heart of the community even more so than in summer.
  10. Whether you think it's good or not is entirely up to you but it certainly makes a decent amount of sense. He wanted land not plunder, it was Theon that overextended. He quickly captured castles and castles project power, the main Northern strength was below the neck and the campaigning season would be ending soon. He has time to broker deals, offer land to ambitious northern nobles etc etc. In essence he captured staging points for further expansion in the North, it's not a matter of capturing all the castles and holding them in one go. The Ironborn can't just raid forever, manpower and trade of goods, crops and natural resources is more important for the long term stability of a kingdom than plunder and the North was his best opportunity to grab some land and hunker down in preparation for further expansion. The Vikings didn't just raid forever, they took land, brokered deals and assimilated.
  11. Feudal politics is messy, the Freys are powerful enough to play loose with the feudal contract and in any case are they not also vassals to the Iron Throne? Robb's most loyal vassal the Greatjon threatens to march his men home if he doesn't get preferential treatment and is only cowed by Robb's iron response, simply put realpolitik is always going to be a factor especially in a feudal setting where individual lords hold so much personal power, Frey saw the opportunity to further the interests of his house and took it as you'd expect many lords to do. The Tullys themselves outright betrayed their overlords for the sake of marriage alliances. Furthermore if he does nothing he might gain the approval of Tywin Lannister but in return gain further enmity with his Tully overlords.
  12. Most wars end in terms being established between two sides, fighting to unconditional surrender is not the norm. The Tyrells rebelled against their king, now they're married to his brother.
  13. The Frey marriage was not only a marriage to a much less prestigious house but also a marriage to a second son. The daughter of the Lord of Casterly Rock would be one of the most prestigious matches in the Seven Kingdoms and the Frey marriage basically got them nothing in return, the reasons of course will be different for every single marriage.
  14. I'm not saying that Renly would be able to make something good of it but I think he'd be able to offer some meagre justifications after the fact (evil counsellors, murder of Robert maybe even go with the illegitimacy angle etc) and still probably be more accepted simply because he's the gallant and dashing brother of the late king. People would likely choose to believe Stannis was lying based solely on the fact that they don't like him. In any case I don't think anyone's justifications will be going down in history as particularly good but Renly's would likely be easier to forget and forgive down the line simply because I think Stannis' reign would be one of constant friction between himself and his nobles and a general dislike of the king where the murder of his nephews is always in the mind of his people, reality is Renly's simply more agreeable and that goes a long way when getting over cunty things they've done, also Renly's probably going to get rid of Joffrey and his siblings in a more PR friendly way than Stannis will.
  15. Ooooo are we having the argument that Renly should put off his crown (and Margaery's) and tell all the lords of the Reach and Stormlands that despite them rising in rebellion for him that Stannis is now king and you have to fight for him because he came out of nowhere and said Bob's kids aren't Bob's kids, AKA political suicide. If Stannis wanted Renly's support he should have come to him before Robert was murdered or if not right after Robert was murdered not sit around on his island hoarding the oh so convenient knowledge that just so happens to make him the rightful king. Seriously, his brother is known to be working against the Lannister faction at court and is the Lord of Storm's End besides why would he not try and involve him or win him to his side? What if Renly had simply sworn fealty to Joffrey as Robert's heir and raised his armies in his defence if anything Stannis is lucky that Renly raised an army at all because without it Stannis wouldn't have made much headway. Without Robert's protection or Ned's support in controlling Joffrey Renly crowning himself king was the most assured way he could both protect his own life and power, once Renly was crowned king there was no going back, he's already usurping his nephews and niece comparatively jumping over Stannis should barely even matter and certainly isn't something to trash your alliances for as Stannis' claims are dubious at best and at the time Renly claimed the throne Stannis hadn't declared his intentions and wasn't even an option. As soon as Robert died the the die was cast. Also Stannis murdering his nephews and claiming the throne would likely be looked upon in history as just that because he wasn't a particularly likeable fellow anyway, he'll be the classic jealous evil uncle a few years down the line. If anyone has a chance of spinning usurping Joffrey in a good way it's Renly. As always I say that if people are arguing that Renly should have done his duty and not put his personal interests first then people should be arguing that he should support Joffrey and not Stannis. Supporting Stannis was never a practical possibility because Stannis didn't try and get Renly's support when it mattered, he did it when it was too late. Thinking Renly's an opportunistic arsehole is fair enough, whatever float's your boat but it's a leap to suggest that he should just support Stannis instead like nah don't commit treason for yourself but do it for your brother you don't even like on this flimsy premise of royal bastards when you're already crowned with a huge army in the field, these discussions are always so Stannis-centric and it makes me look like the biggest Renly fanboy. EDIT: And here's where I cowardly remove myself from the board for a month to avoid going down the people that don't really care much about Renly but don't think he's the devil vs Stannis fans infinite loop rabbit hole.