Trigger Warning

Members
  • Content count

    2,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Trigger Warning

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

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,312 profile views
  1. I feel like he's just borrowing from the heavy involvement of religion in such things from his historical influences without really giving the equivalent importance to the actual establishment of the Faith of the Seven, if anything I feel like having the church be a much more powerful influence in the politics of the Seven Kingdoms would have made the intrigue of the series much more interesting as a whole, it's like he wants to have that similar faith of the seven/divine right tie in with knights and kings as in Medieval Europe and yet isn't really committing to it but I dunno, maybe the faith will become more influential down the line with the resurgence of their militant arm and what is basically the end of days.
  2. I don't really understand the OP, obviously Jaime broke his oath, he even says one oath is basically always conflicting with another. Are we saying that breaking an oath is inherently morally wrong? Cough cough... "I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
  3. I'm pretty sure GRRM said that's just a mistake in an interview.
  4. I think people are focusing too much on rape. When you send men raiding in enemy territory you're basically giving them permission to treat the populace as they please, to specify anything specific about raping or not raping would be entirely out of the norm and frankly strange. Both Robb and Tywin unleash soldiers on a civilian population, Tywin just does it to a greater extent. The idea that Robb's lords raiding the West would be civil affair just comes across as an attempt to whitewash Robb when in reality ordering your men to forage and raid is more or less par for the course for a medieval commander. It's better to argue the extent to which a commander uses brutality on a civilian population rather than whether he does or doesn't at all because it'd be out of the norm for one not to when on campaign in an enemy's lands. The way I see it it's pretty clear that Robb has commanded his forces to attack the infrastructure of the West and attacking that infrastructure is the same as attacking the civilian population "Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun", for this to happen in a way where soldiers weren't raping burning and pillaging would be simply bizarre. Does this make Robb a bad person? Perhaps, perhaps not, what is does make him though is a medieval commander that's acting in a fashion typical for his time. Tywin's doing that as well but on a much greater scale, they are both morally wrong but you can argue which was worse due to the scale of the devastation. I simply don't buy that Robb's men can "raid" and steal cattle in a bloodless fashion and I don't think GRRM would have wanted us to take it like that either. Not to mention the idea that loot is expected on campaign, depriving his men of pillage in the rich westerlands wouldn't go down very well.
  5. Potential civil war between his own children is pretty bad, Joffrey wouldn't take it lying down.
  6. Nobles typically don't raise their children anyway, Joffrey might try to emulate Robert but it's always in a way that's exaggerated by his own sadism.
  7. Because her son is Lord of the Eyrie, her power flows from him. Why wouldn't you want to be the husband of the mother of a complete mummy's boy that happens to be your overlord.
  8. Oh I agree, I was just posting generally since the idea that the campaign in the West was a tame affair comes up quite a lot in threads like this.
  9. I really don't see any reason why we should assume that Robb's soldiers would act in any way better than basically any other group of soldiers in history have when unleashed against a civilian populace. "the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they‟d inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun" They're raiding and stealing livestock, it pretty much goes without saying that they're also burning, raping and murdering, it would be weird and entirely out of the norm if they weren't. Tywin just takes it further by centring his campaign around chevouchee. Robb's men would probably be up in arms against Robb himself if he refused them plunder whilst attacking the infrastructure of the West.
  10. I said that another noble could use it, I don't think it would be particularly hard for some noble to bully Sam into saying that he condones whatever actions someone takes to recover lands his and birthright. In any case his claim by itself is a threat, beyond killing him the Night's Watch is the least risky and most expedient way of getting rid of him.
  11. He probably thought Sam would never complete his chain and then he'd be a threat to Dickon should some other noble use his claim. At the Wall he's at the other end of the continent and will have his vows sworn in no time.
  12. I don't think he will care at all.
  13. We'd need first hand accounts of their conduct in the Westerlands but I'm going to go out on a limb and say probably, of course they did pillage a region but that's just typical war innit.
  14. Worth it just for these threads.
  15. I don't think he really had to think about it, I doubt he thought Sam would refuse under any circumstances, the result was likely never in question.