• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About LionoftheWest

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Casterly Rock

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,656 profile views
  1. Royce as first family to be named meaningless or foreshadowing?

    True enough.
  2. Royce as first family to be named meaningless or foreshadowing?

    I would imagine that the Royces are symbolic because they are Andalized First Men and as such its relevant to show how the Others isn't a problem for just the First Men or the Andals but a problem for mankind as a whole and they don't discriminate between race or culture. And its also a way to get the essence of Westeros, a melting pot, into the picture from early on. That's my take on it.
  3. Why Tywin doesn't use Faceless men to kill Stannis

    Thing is that Tywin don't value them very highely, or at least Tyrion, so while Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella could be a price that Tywin would have to pay, I don't think that he would be ready to pay it. I don't think the Faceless Men would be satisfied with only Joffrey though.
  4. Given the kind of extreme situations and people involved to get the North and the Riverlands on the separatist wagon I don't see anything similar close to happen at any other time period. And like mentioned, it wasn't a simmer thing but something that kind of went off from out of the blue.
  5. Why Tywin doesn't use Faceless men to kill Stannis

    The problem is that the Faceless Men don't have a fixed price tag for a hit. They will demand that the buyer pretty much gives up the best parts of his or her life for a hit and Tywin is unlikely to be so obsessed with Stannis that Casterly Rock, his gold or his grandchildren on the Iron Throne will be worth to get Stannis killed. And its not like Stannis did in the end turn out to be such a great problem either.
  6. King without Cock

    The problem is that Theon is a PR disaster and don't have the brains or brawn to get over, or through, that problem. And to that there would be no sons of his body and so the succession could be a new war waiting around the corner.
  7. Would fAegons invasion work against a united Baratheon regime?

    At best a Targaryen invasion against a Westeros unified under the Baratheons would go like the Third Blackfyre Rebellion while most likely it would have gone like the Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion.
  8. Why women don't take black

    I agree with the many posters that have pointed out that women would not fare well in the NIght's Watch and in fact the general Westerosi society would not seem to allow women to fare well in most institutions. And the reason that the Wall is mostly manned by rapists and murderers is if I recall that there simply are not anyone else who are interested in that duty, as oppose to another path through life. As such I would imagine that most women would rather die or join the Silent Sisters rather than spend the rest of their lives among almost all-male rapists and murderers. And as noted above women will in general have been thought not to consider the kind of jobs that the Watch does as suitable for them and would thus presumably not think of the Watch as a real alternative. The change to this lies many generations in the future.
  9. Civil War is war between groups within the same country, as contrasted with war between states or countries. It most also be organized and most often between different soceties or states. I agree that its complicated. No great problem in the world has an easy solution to itself. Eh, no that's not even close to what I'm talking about. Preventing genocide is to prevent someone taking the right to say that: "This group/nation/language speakers/religious group/whatever have no right to exist and so we'll kill them all based on them belonging to this group!" That depends entirely on what kind of polce you've got, to start with. And I am well aware that innocents dies in war and that is also, as I am sure you've noticed, I don't favor war as a universal solution to problems. I am just not ready to refuse the existence of the use of war in dire situations. No matter if it was Hitler or General Whatever who was in charge when the last bullet was fired, Germany was not going to be allowed to keep on going as before, with its rather special relation between military and politics, as it was already decided in 1943. See this link for more details. What can I say, military winners are always popular and Oldtown had no reason to feel bad towards Aegon given that they was never suffered his bad side. Not really. Both the Storm King and the Regent of the Vale were all to happy to make suggestions to marriage into Aegon's family, something that Lord Nobody could hardly expect for his family. Note that people only rose against dragons to a larger degree under a uniquely weak king and later when they had dragons on their own side. And as time passed dragons would have become more familiart to people, and familiarity breeds contempt. Not really. We have precious few examples that lords as a rule lost so much and "backwater lords" is really taking it to far. No, I was giving you examples to illustrate my point. I agree that there were smallfolk who liked Daeron, who liked Daemon and who didn't care a thing about any of them. They knew that any attackers would be avenged by dragons and that by living at Aegonfort there was no chance that they would be targeted for a dragon conquest themselves. Forgive me for not noticing it. Not after it became unbearable but I'll allow myself to stay silent on this until after I've read "The Sons of the Dragon". Strange then that Torrhen did submit and did not remain in the North, confident in his invincibility.
  10. Well, I am pretty sure that definition of war and peace isn't very widespread. And as such I'll have to reject this kind of rather peculiar notion of war and peace. War is in essence when there's organized violence by either a state or large organization going on, and most often when the involved's states military takes an active part. Oppression by a tyrannical regime is still peace if there's not organized violence between two, or more, parties. I agree its a tough call. I never said the decison for war was easy or that it should be easy. And while many civilians would be alive if there was not revolt against Assad, if everyone just bows down to oppression then oppression will never end. Now I don't live in Syria so I can't say if it was right or wrong to rise against Assad, but apparently enough people thought that it was right, just like people thought it was right to rise against Khaddafi in Libya. I agree. If a mass murdereror is hiding in a building, then blowing the building appart along with the innocent inhabitants should be avoided as there would be better options. To allow the mass murderer to keep killing people so that we don't have to possibly harm someone is however not one of those options. What is reasonable for us may not be reasonable for them. In America in th 1860s the issues of slavery, for or against, was very important while nationalism was very important in Western and Central Europe in 1914, and to fight for or against Communism was important in Vietnamn and the US in the 1960s. While causes shifts and changes, convictions can drive people a long way to do what they think is right and that includes going into war even when they could have not done so. I can name several, here's just two examples; NATO stopped the Serbs in Bosnia and the RPF stopped the genocide in Rwanda. In both cases military violence was used to prevent further genocidal work. And it worked wonders to stop the Daesh from creating havoc in the Levant and Iraq, for which both Christians, Shia and Yazidis can be thankful. Well you definition of a war don't really hold my weight to me as it seems that you are trying to mix the cards now when you are up against the wall. I've never seen anything close to the definition of war like the one you stated. Just because a war is fairly one-sided don't mean it isn't a war. And while time can be used to finish a genocide fact is that if you just look on the genocide will for certainly be finished and be done more throughly than with an armed force coming down to stop the genocide. That's positively horrible to hear that genocides should be allowed because we don't want to hurt the perpertrators even while they commit the most ghastly crime know to man. I must confess I am struck dumb by this. True that a Nazi successor could have come. If Nazism had been able to suvive Hitler, we would likely have known it by the 1970s. The one positiv with a military dicatorship would have been that maybe and perhaps they would have surrendered faster than Hitler did and the war would have ended earlier with less loss of life and and destruction across Europe. True that! The rot certainly went deeper and affected many more post-war celebrities than is commonly known. I would be very happy if that was the case. I'll have to check this up. I dare say that dragon riders are not nobodies by any stretch. Escpecially when there were only three of them in the whole world. I wouldn't be suprised. The dragons were still new to Westeros and so the novelty of them in both fear and wonder would have worked its magic on the realm. While I can see some changes I don't see the great changes you seem to hint at. They still rule the same ammount of territory and so would need effectively basically the same system to keep things working. Alright, some lords lost some honors and positions at their king's court. But they retained their lands and power of it. The basis of their power was still theirs. Not what I was talking about. I was talking about that Osgrey could rather evident raise his smallfolk as soldiers for Blackfyre against the Targaryens despite the fact that Daeron was called "the Good" also among the smallfolk. The grip the nobles hold on their lands seems by all accounts to have been very strong and very possibly stronger than what power the king could normally project beyond King's Landing. Which I dare say is the greatest flaw in the Targaryen's rule, that they didn't build a power base for a non-dragonriding monarchy when they had the chance. Aegon scored victory after victory, and people knew that place was under his rule. There was very little risk of being burnt by a dragon while living in Aegon's own territory and by a fortress which was garrisoned by his men. Except that we don't know. After the Dornish revolt broke out, Baelor just dropped the ball and went home, so to speak. If he had sent his armies into Dorne to take it by force we have no idea if the Dornish would be able to stand against him. I actually think they would not, not in the situation they would have been in after getting smacked around by Daeron two times already. It wouldn't made the Targaryens popular in the North, I agree. Well, Dorne was conquered once by Daeron and Baelor never tried to force the issue, so I say that odds are that the North would fall before the Targaryens of they had dragons, and could well have fall also without.
  11. Yes, its totally an argument, even if you don't agree with it. And yes I will die. But if I try to kill a lot of people I do think you have a right to restrain me from doing so. What I wanted to say is that under the some kind of regime its entirly possible for many people to be killed despite there being peace. Now peace tends to lead to less death and destruction than war, but that isn't my argument. The argument is that there are examples when war is necessary, not that the two are equals. I have never denied that peace is most often preferable to war, but I do react on the notion that its always preferable to war. Both of them are subjective. If this crap is important to people, its important to them, regardless of its importance to you or me. I didn't say wars prevented genocide from occuring, for that work towards tolerance and inclusiveness is more important. I said that when genocide occurs wars stops them better than most other solutions known so far to mankind so far. I agree. To that I also agree, provided that the Third Reich would have survived his death given his rather special kind of leadership, which I don't doubt would have taken his down as far as statesmen goes. Fascism just isn't very compatible with productive management of countries to my knowledge. To much emotion and rejection of rationalism. I agree to a degree, but the enemy's great leader is seldom considered a hero but more often a great villain. I think the Rule of Six was a mitigation over the, in my eyes, barbaric "right" of men to use violence on women. And I don't think that domestic violence is restricted to any single group in society. Its found across the social and economic spectrum or at least that's what I've read and heard on the subject. Makes sense that a conquering warlord with the biggest dragon who wasn't mad like Maegor would be popular, or that people would be smart to show popular emotion to him. But like you said there's little information to go on right now so we'll have to see what October (?) brings with "Sons of the Dragon". The problem is that for everyone else beyond the former kings and raised Lords Paramount, nothing had really changed. Lord Marbrand had neither less nor more power than before the Targaryens came, same with Lord Karstark, Lord Peake or Lord Grandison. Just like you rightfully pointed out that the acceptance of the smallfolk is vital to a regime, so is also the acceptance of the nobility at large. I dare say that its a great deal harder to form such loyalty than it is for the common noble. The smallfolk interact constantly with their own lord but very seldom if every with their king. I don't for example recall Eustace Osgrey complaining, and he seems to like to complain, how hard it was to raise his smallfolk for the Black Dragon despite the smallfolk allegedly calling Daeron for "the Good". But I will say that I will agree that without acceptance its hard to rule a people. Forgive me for being unclear but I meant the Poor Fellows were not running around to abuse people or do violence on them. I don't see the labor of love. I see the power of the dragons and how one dragon victory piled on another and people saw in which direction the wind was blowing. And like I said, there were many reasons to take a shot with a new start beyond love for the Targaryens. The men-at-arms are smallfolk who have taken the side of the nobility, and so far men-at-arms have shown little restraint when it comes do doing violence on other smallfolk. And I wasn't talking about an all-out-war. I was talking about the nobility using selective violence to enforce their rule, not trying to kill as many smallfolk as they could. Thank you for the correction. I agree with the ruling part but disagree with the rebellious part, as Westeros lacks the industralized infracstructure for a holocaust given how its a premodern society and the ideological goal wouldn't be to exterminate some ethnical group rather than force a political kingdom to surrender. Although it would surely have been as brutal as any other war. What I mention is pretty much what Aegon actually did in Dorne, or at least tried to, in the Dragon's Wroth and there were no rebellions or other disturbance for Aegon and Visenya from the general population. As such I dare say that such actions in the North would have cost many lives but not much for the Targaryens. Provided that the same effective guerilla tactics would not have been possible in the North as they were in Dorne, in which case the North would also have been able to withstand the Targaryens forever more.
  12. People die in peace as well. In fact a significant number of people can be killed and its still called peace. Except that there are reasons strong enough to make people volunterily enter wars, even while these reasons can change over time, the fact is that many people are ready to give their lives for something they believe in by entering into a war. For good or worse. Secondly I agree that war seldom prevent genocide, there are many better alternatives to preventive work. But when a genocide is being carried out, there are few things as effective as war to stop it. Thank you for this clarification. Not really. Napoleon is seen as better than Hitler due to unbelivable transgressions and atrocities by Hitler's soldiers and allies. Same as why Willheilm II generally isn't considered as bad as Hitler, because he rather simply was not as bad as Hitler, at least to my knowledge. And to this I'd like to point out that there are many, many reasons to judge one warlord this way or that. Edward "Longshanks" for example is unlikely to be judged the same by English and Scottish historians due to their national perspective while in my own country there's king we call "the tyrant" while he is known as "dear to the people" to our neighbours in the south. And then comes personal prejudice and bias and so on. Success in war is seldom enough to garantee fame among historians, and that becomes more true the closer you are in the timeline. Even if I will agree that its an important step in one's own country. Not really. Its rather clear that the Targaryens went a long way in order to make their rule become smooth for the nobility while few concessions or rights were ever granted to the smallfolk, in fact I can't think of a single thing that Aegon or his sisters even did for the smallfolk beyond the unification that would have prevented more wars between the former kings but that can't be seen as directed to the smallfolk specifically. The nobles on the other hand were pretty much uniformly assured of their previous power and standing. When the smallfolk cheer I can see a love in that the constant wars had come to and end, but I don't see some deeper love for the Targaryens but fear mixed with wonder. Its always well for the weak ones to be on friendly terms with the strongest kid on the block. Except that's some thirty years after the Conquest when King's Landing would have been established, if not the largest city on the continent. Its rather clear there were no Poor Fellows running around in King's Landing during the life of Aegon I. I have to disagree. If the people of Westeros didn't welcome the Targaryens, then knights, men-at-arms and dragons would have used whatever force they felt were necessary to force the smallfolk into subjugation as the lords did accept the Targaryens. To my knowledge the Dornish nobility never accepted the Targaryens and it would have been an entirely different ballgame in Dorne if the nobles were with the Dragon. As for the North I would imagine that first the dragons would have burned every major seat in the land, then the winter would have swept in with most storehouses gone and so with the produce, and then the Targaryens could start to mob up the pitiful survivors who still wanted to fight. Eh, yes, the Rhoynar totally conquered Dorne. Its a matter of strategy, tactics, diplomacy and logistics to counter Dorne, not color of skin or feelings of with whom you belong.
  13. No one said it was allowed either. Except you said that "Peace is always preferable to war" which don't really give many openings other than to roll over for crazy dictators. Luckily however most of the world don't follow that philosophy. As for the reality of war its very true that its mass of suffering, misery and death. But there are reasons that are strong enough to go into such a situation, like stopping a genocide for example or to win freedom from unbearable oppression. As such peace is generally preferable to war, but not always. No, I don't see this. First you say that peace is always preferable to war, which would make all wars bad. Some wars are naturally worse than others, but now you are arguing that the war should be judged on the death toll in relation the territory won in it? All I see is that the Conquest succeded while the Conquest of Dorne did not, but they were found on the exact same principle of Targaryen domaintion over Westeros. For the record I think its very poor to judge the morality of an action based on its success of failure. I have a better way to say it. Aegon and his sisters wouldn't have ruled for as long as they did withou tthe dread and wonder inspired by the dragons and the cooperation of the nobility to keep the population focused on serving their betters combined with royal largesse and a conservative acceptance for traditional customs. I think that there was a good reason for those royal processions involving dragons that the early Targaryens did as it would have inspired the fear and the wonder that came from dragons. There are many reason to move to the capital, such as protection by the royal dragons, seeing chances for a new start in life, trade benefits, looking to set up shop where there's no hoary guild elders to lock down the market etc. which are really not connected with basic love of the ruler, even if such may well have developed from a sense of specialness in the capital. Now some without a doubt loved the Targaryens, such as, I would imagine, many of the Riverlords, and some no doubt hated them as evident by the support the rebellions and uprisings against Maegor showed.. Neither do the Ironmen but many people are all to happy to see the Iron Islands under Targaryen, or Baratheon reign without clamering for their freedom, despite repeated rebellions by the Ironmen. People bring up the raids by the Ironmen as a reason to keep them conquered, but the Dornish did raids as well to. So I see no real difference there or why the Ironmen should be kept subjugated by the Dornish left alone. The Dornish were brought to heel by the Rhoynar without dragons, and if they tried, the Targaryens would have been able to bring Dorne to heel without dragons as well as far as I know, that's what Daeron did and the Dornish abandoned all honor as they stood no chance to win by other means.
  14. How did Cersei get Jamie in the KG

    True enough, forgive my blunder. Marrying into the nobility is a massive step upwards for Bronn, more than Tyrion had arranged for him so far, and so I hope that my point still stands.
  15. Viserys meets the dragon

    Pretty much so. One wonders if not Viserys could be tricked to sell or give away the dragons in return for promises for aid for his return to Westeros.