Characters of ASOIAF and their historical counterparts

[Adam Targaryen]

Robert Baratheon = The Swedish king Gustav Vasa

I agree, there are a lot of similarities. Robert Baratheon overthrew the mad tyrant king Aerys II, and Gustav Vasa overthrew the Danish tyrant king Kristian II, often called "Kristian the tyrant" (at least by Swedes XD). They're both big fat strong men with dark hair and beards. Also, when Gustav Vasa started his rebellion he gathered support from the Swedish region "Dalarna", which resembles The Vale, where Robert gained the support for his rebellion. Both Dalarna and The Vale are mountainous areas in the middle of a country. Both Robert and Gustav's fathers died when they were young and they both had blonde sons who became kings and later died from poison. Lastly, both Gustav and Robert had rebellions of their own to take care of: The Greyjoy Rebellion and The Dackefejden, during which they both succeeded in defeating their enemies.

[Adam Targaryen]

I've always thought that Daenerys is like Cleopatra. Joffrey is definitely Caligula. Khal Drogo is Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan.

[the Scorpion Knight]

....

Tywin = Byzantine emperor Basil II

this baffles me actually al little bit. imho hes more of a human version of sauron (the dark lord can't create only corrupt and mock)

I was watching The Tudors and it's scary how similar Margery is to Anne Boelyn

might it me it's because of the same actress?

Bingo.

As for Richard being "deformed," if I recall what they discovered when they found his skeleton, he did have a spinal condition (probably scoliosis), but he was not some malformed Quasimodo type.

People really need to stop getting their information on Richard from a Shakespeare play written to ass-kiss the Tudors. And I say this as someone who generally finds the Tudors interesting, but propaganda is propaganda.

not malformed cbut if richard III livedin the present day he certainly would have qualified for the paralympics.

Dunno if anybody's mentioned it already, but I always thought Tywin was a bit like Marcus Licinius Crassus.

especially in his death

Garth Greenhand-Niall of the nine hostages, both had many children and many Irish/Reachmen families claim descent from him, also the Sigil of house Gardener.

....

Garth actualy reminded of a god : the dagda

[Knight Of Winter]

this baffles me actually al little bit. imho hes more of a human version of sauron (the dark lord can't create only corrupt and mock

I'll elaborate a bit.

Basil II was considered one of the greatest Byzantine emperors in history (like Tywin was considered great Hand), although his early days gave him quite hard times he had to struggled against. When Basil's father died, he was too young to interhit, and was thus forced to watch as powerful generals struggled for the throne whilst importance of him and his dynasty was diminishing (another parallel with Lannister, who were laughing stock in days of Tytos). Only after the deaths of two "usurping" predecessors (Nicefor I was assassinated whilst John I died of illness) was Basil II able to ascend the throne.

Years of being marginalized have drastically changed Basil's character, however (comparable to Joanna's death, as I'll show). Known in his youth as affable and jovial womanizer (Tywin was quite happy in his marriage), Basil became embodiment of effectiveness, ruthlessness and pragmatism (Tywin, again). He never wed nor fathered children (Tywin after Joanna's death) and instead solely focused on expanding and empowering the state he ruled - Byzantine empire (Tywin only cared about Lannister power). Able and intelligent, he never bothered to inspire love in his subjects, requiring only obedience (pure Tywin).

Basil II is perhaps best remembered for his was against Bulgarians and their emperor Samuel. After a series of battles, he captured 15000 of war prisoners and, in a stroke as vile as effective, blinded all of them and sent them home, leaving 1 out of every hundredth soldier who could serve as guide to his comrades (veeeeery Tywinesque move, imo). The ploy was effective: seeing his army in such state, Samuel fell into coma and died soon, while Bulgarian Empire crumbled and was subjugated by Basil.

As much as cruel and ruthless his way of warfare was, his policy towards conquered country was reasonable (When enemies defy you, serve them steel. When they bend their knees, help them to their feet): he was not interested in retributions and, respecting Bulgarian customs, he allowed for their taxes to be paid in goods, rather than money. He ruled firmly to the end of his days, leaving behind him militarily and financially quite a powerful state.

Incidentally, Byzantine power crumbled shortly after his death. Next half a century was filled mostly with incompetent emperors, who slowly ruined the state from within. In the late 11th century, this culminated in losing half of its territory to Turks Seljuks (now, does anyone here doubt that Lannister power will crumble after Tywin's death? No, I think).

edit:typos

[James Arryn]

Is Basil II the Blinder? my brain is on neutral atm.

Edit, nvm, should have just continued reading your post.

[tank-jones]

i see LSH as a Boudica like character, she is hell bent on revenge for the murder of her family. both lost the land that belonged to their husband and then both were thrown aside and not considered threats until they both "rose again" to wreak vengeance

would love to hear peoples thoughts on this

[the Scorpion Knight]

i see LSH as a Boudica like character, she is hell bent on revenge for the murder of her family. both lost the land that belonged to their husband and then both were thrown aside and not considered threats until they both "rose again" to wreak vengeance

would love to hear peoples thoughts on this

imho she's more a cross of a revenant, the dullahan and a banshee

[James Arryn]

i see LSH as a Boudica like character, she is hell bent on revenge for the murder of her family. both lost the land that belonged to their husband and then both were thrown aside and not considered threats until they both "rose again" to wreak vengeance

would love to hear peoples thoughts on this

Boudicca's family wasn't murdered. Her husband left her and the Roman emperor as heirs, and the Romans decided that list was too long by one, and so set out to bully her into submission. That failing she was whipped and her daughters gang-raped in an ordeal expressly designed to make her a figure of shame, thus (as Romans saw things) drawing any political fangs she may have possessed. Unfortunately for the Romans, the Brits did not see women as culpable in their own abuse in the way Romans did, so it, er, backfired.

[tank-jones]

imho she's more a cross of a revenant, the dullahan and a banshee

i definitely see those two aspects in her, i believe she is a huge mix of historical figures and mythical beings but IMO i believe there is a lot of resemblance between the two and that she may have played a part (may be a small one) in GRRM inspiration

[tank-jones]

Boudicca's family wasn't murdered. Her husband left her and the Roman emperor as heirs, and the Romans decided that list was too long by one, and so set out to bully her into submission. That failing she was whipped and her daughters gang-raped in an ordeal expressly designed to make her a figure of shame, thus (as Romans saw things) drawing any political fangs she may have possessed. Unfortunately for the Romans, the Brits did not see women as culpable in their own abuse in the way Romans did, so it, er, backfired.

not every detail of her story is linked but i believe the overall theme of a woman who was once considered high amongst her people was stripped of everything she loved by an outside authority (Lannisters/Romans) and so they found themselves at the head of a rebel group and then used their place to get revenge on anybody associated with the other authority

[James Arryn]

not every detail of her story is linked but i believe the overall theme of a woman who was once considered high amongst her people was stripped of everything she loved by an outside authority (Lannisters/Romans) and so they found themselves at the head of a rebel group and then used their place to get revenge on anybody associated with the other authority

Well, the 'Rebel group' were her people, but I feel you. Was just correcting a specific misunderstanding, not trying to refute the comparison. I'm at that stage of tired when all I can do is dribble out historical trivia and movie lines.

Next time I say let's go some place like Bolvia, let's go someplace like Bolvia!

[tank-jones]

Well, the 'Rebel group' were her people, but I feel you. Was just correcting a specific misunderstanding, not trying to refute the comparison. I'm at that stage of tired when all I can do is dribble out historical trivia and movie lines.

Next time I say let's go some place like Bolvia, let's go someplace like Bolvia!

thanks for understanding haha, i kinda see the brotherhood without banners as her people due to their hatred of the Lannisters but i also see them as the merry men,misunderstandings are a huge problem in history that i do know

[King17]

Bloodraven = rasputin

[the conquering bastard 25]

Jon snow and his stark claim Could be the Stuard Claim.

[Annara Snow]

George based the series off The War of the Roses:

Robert and Robb: Edward IV

Cersei: Margaret of Anjou/Elizabeth Woodville

Dany and Aegon: Henry VII

Jon Connington: Jasper Tudor

Catelyn: Elizabeth Woodville

Melisandre: Margaret Beaufort

Tywin: Richard Neville

Stannis: Richard III

Renly: George, Duke of Clarence

Bran and Rickon: Princes in the Tower

Sansa: Elizabeth of York

Eddard: Anthony Woodville

Aerys: Henry VI

How is Sansa like Elizabeth of York? Apart from being a pawn that people wanted to marry for political reasons... which is, oh wait, just like every other young noblewoman in those times. Please don't say something like "she's going to marry Aegon, who's just like Henry VII!", since this is simply fan speculation and not something supported by text and events in the books.

Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey (and possibly relationship with Cersei) are a much better match for Anne Neville's first marriage to Edward of Lancaster in France, made to solidify Warwick's alliance with queen Margaret of Anjou - or at least the popular interpretation of it. (We don't know if Edward was really Joffrey-like as many think, but the fact that the only info on his personality is an the account of how he was talking about wanting to cut heads off when he was 7, sure isn't helping the impression.) On the other hand, Sansa's relationship with Littlefinger has strong shades of young Elizabeth Tudor/future Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour, her sort-of-stepfather (i.e. husband of her stepmother Katherine Parr) who had a creepy interest in her and may have sexually molested her when she was 14.

But ultimately, Sansa is Sansa, not an expy of some historical character or other.

Yeah, how is Stannis like Richard III? The only way I can see it is that he's a ruthless uncle of the king trying to become king himself. But that's literally all he has in common with the man. He's not deformed, he's not particularly cunning or duplicitous, and if anything, he'd be a great replacement for his 'nephew' on the throne.

Eh, they were talking about historical!Richard, not Shakespeare!Richard (i.e. Tudor era propaganda Richard). The two need to be taken separately.

GRRM certainly uses elements of both of them in ASOAIF: Ned and Stannis both have elements of historical Richard, while Tyrion has elements of Shakespeare!Richard - mainly his appearance: Tyrion is actually extremely unpopular and thought of by his contemporaries as deformed, grotesquely ugly and demonic, just like the later day Tudor historians (in histories written during Henry VIII and later) claimed Richard to have been (as opposed to the real Richard, who was charismatic and handsome although relatively short and slender, who was a polarizing figure even in his day but was actually very beloved in the north, and whose "deformity" - scoliosis, resulting in uneven shoulders - wasn't even noticeable to most of his contemporaries and didn't stop him from being one of England's most formidable warriors). However, Tyrion is actually not evil like Shakespeare!Richard, he's a grey character, politically pragmatic and sometime ruthless but arguably relatively decent compared to many of his contemporaries, but gets a really bad rap, is thought of as the Evil Uncle who murdered his nephew, and has a popular play written about him which uses the popular view of him, twisting real events and painting him as devil incarnate - much like what happened to Richard III after his death; "The Bloody Hand" is an obvious allusion to Shakespeare's "Richard III", down to the very similar villain monologue.

In addition to this, there are elements of Richard's reputation as a super-ambitious evil dude who stops at nothing to gain power in some of the other characters, including the ultimate Evil Uncle Maegor the Cruel (who does things that Richard has been accused of doing or trying to do, like usurping the throne from his nephews, killing his nephews, killing his wife[wives] and marrying his niece to solidify power) and even prince Daemon (Blood and Cheese are like the minions/killers in the Tower, Daemon seducing/marrying his hot niece to manipulate her for political gain is not unlike some interpretations of Richard's relationship with Elizabeth of York, though with GRRM's additional sexual content and amped-up creepiness due to Rhaenyra being just 13/14). OriginalDraft!Jaime (villain who kills a bunch of people including his family members and stops at nothing to gain the throne) also seemed to have been somewhat like the Shakespeare!Richard, presumably minus the physical deformities.

Renly is Clarence...how?

Clarence: alcoholic womanizer who no one liked, and who joined the RL version of the Lannisters/Cersei before switching back to his own, then back again, etc. 2nd son noted for spending much of his time complaining about not getting his due, and in particular his grudge against his king/brother for not sufficiently rewarding him and preferring others.

Renly: monogamous homosexual noted for his disciplined appetites and extreme popularity who stayed an eternal enemy to the Lannisters, and who never (that I recall) complains much about anything.

Clarence was given a trial and executed for using magic/witchcraft in pursuit of his brother Edward's death. Renly was killed by magic/witchcraft by his brother Stannis.

Young Edward IV is Robb, older version is Robert. Richard III is a bit Stannis, a bit Tytion, a bit Ned, even a bit Renly. Clarence is also a bit Tyrion, a bit more Stannis but no one all that much.

I pretty much agree with this. No one is a 1:1 counterpart of a historical figure, GRRM mixes it all up and then lets the characters develop.

Winterfell is not York. York wasn't ever the Yorkist center; Ludlow, Middleham or Sandal would more likely hold those claims...or even London, really. The name and city didn't have much to do with one another until Richard III reversed northern sympathies late in the game.

Also, Richard's skeleton was pretty severely deformed. As a fan of Richard, it was closer to the legend than I expected to be true.

It's not really close to the legend at all. Scoliosis is very different from kyphosis. Even Usain Bolt has scoliosis! As explained in many articles about his condition, he did not limp or anything like that, he didn't have a hunched back, it just meant one of his shoulders was higher than the other (which wouldn't even been noticeable when he was clothed and even less so when armored) and it would not have hindered physical activities - as seen in the fact that he was an amazing warrior, enjoyed riding, hunting, dancing etc. They even found a guy who has the exact same angle of spine curvature, and demonstrated that he can perform well in medieval fighting after just 2 weeks of training (even though the guy is really skinny and didn't have any athletic background). None of the contemporary accounts of RIII's appearance, including those by the ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire or the memories of old people who remembered him that were recorded in 16the century, mentions any deformity - my guess is that the story only spread after they stripped his dead body naked and paraded it through Leicester, and then this fact was used in Tudor era to discredit him because of the superstitious belief that deformity means you're cursed by God and evil, and then got exaggerated over time until he became a limping ugly hunchback with a withered arm.

But really, why do people still react to this discovery as if having some sort of physical deformity is a strike against someone's character? If anything, if he was able to be such a good fighter/warrior in spite of a spinal problem and back pain and somewhat limited lung capacity that came from it, more power to him, no? What's extremely frustrating is that people so often keep conflating the two completely different issues: Richard's actions, and his appearance. Both of these have been heavily misinterpreted by Tudor historians and Shakespeare, but those are two different things - but you wouldn't know that from some of the media coverage and people's comment after his skeleton was found, facial reconstruction made and scoliosis diagnosed, which contained such gems from both sides as "Aww, he was so handsome, this is not the face of a tyrant" and "A-ha! He had a crooked back after all, so Shakespeare was right, and he probably did kill his nephews!" (I kid you not: I read an article with two historians giving pros and cons to "Did he or didn't he" and all the arguments on both sides were well reasoned until the guy who's in the "he killed them" camp threw that at the end - "his skeleton shows he had scoliosis, so Shakespeare may have been right!" :bang: ) You'd think that now, in 21st century, we're long past the "Beauty Equals Goodness" and "Any physical deformity means you're evil" mindset, but apparently not.

Well now,

He may or may not have been an usurper. Depends on whether or not you believe in the prior secret-marriage-to-get-laid idea ( I mean the one before the secret-marriage-to-get-laid that we know about)...but it seems most people who knew Edward found it very likely. At the very least he'd had several shams before...not at all unlikely that he'd gone through with it, drunk or sober.

I find it plausible enough to credit; less so the archer thing, but then Edward's height was extremely odd for his immediate family. But it only takes one, and in any event Richatd observed the legalities and there was an open trial of sorts, and parliament voted overwhelmingly in agreement.

I would have suspected the document to have been BS made just to bolster Richard's claim - if not for the fact that Henry VII, who was aware of its contents, destroyed all copies he got his hands on and made it illegal to possess a copy. If the claim about Edward's pre-contract had been obviously shaky and poorly supported, Henry would have certainly made it public, to discredit the claim and prove that 1) Richard was a usurper and 2) Henry's wife Elizabeth of York had a legitimate claim to the throne as heir to Edward IV. The fact he did everything to destroy it suggests that the evidence of Edward's pre-contract was strong and that Richard's ascension to the throne was indeed legal.

It's also interesting that Henry VII, while assigning many crimes to Richard, never publicly accused him of the murders of the princes.

With this description, you could make a good argument for the Ned being inspired by Richard as well. No one is an exact replica, but bits and pieces are apparent. I don't believe Stannis is Richard York Reborn, but as far as a historical counterpart, which is what was asked for, Richard for Stannis (and now Ned) definitely fits. If Littlefinger had stayed out of it, Stannis and Ned together could have been great for Westeros, at least until the Henry VII character (potentially Aegon...?) lands.

Ned was definitely inspired by Richard III, though there's also Richard, Duke of York and Hastings in there. That doesn't mean he's the replica of any of these people, or that he and Richard III are similar in personality; but there are lots of similarities between the situations the two are put after the death of Robert/Edward IV, and a plot of AGOT very much reads as a story of what could have happened if Richard had been someone much softer, more politically naive and less willing to be just as ruthless as everyone else, and failed to (or refused to) make his move when the Woodvilles started working to undermine him. (Which, again, doesn't mean that Elizabeth Woodville was as bad as Cersei - Cersei also resembles Margaret of Anjou, Isabelle of France, possibly Isabeau of Baviere, plus the wild and trumped up accusations of incest that Henry VIII brought against Anne Boleyn - except in this case they're true - but in the end, Cersei is Cersei.) And Cersei makes that comment to Ned that he should have taken the crown when he had a chance to - "You win or you die" - which sticks like a sore thumb in the context of AGOT, since Ned taking the crown after RR or at any point doesn't actually make sense and was never in the cards (although Ned's confession of treason before his death includes the claim that he wanted to take the throne for himself, which is silly since Ned had no claim on it, just like Shae's accusation that Tyrion wanted to take the throne for himself made no sense for the same reason).

In spite of many differences between Ned and RIII, Edward IV's relationship with Richard is much more like Robert's relationship with Ned than Robert's relationship with either Stannis or Renly. In addition to always being staunchly loyal to Robert, Ned is also ruling the North for Robert and is beloved there - Richard was popular in the north and remained so, the city of York even went into mourning after receiving news of his death at Bosworth, certainly a brave thing of them to do. In addition to this, while Robert/Edward are both sex addicts who publicly sleep with countless women even while married (the difference is that Robert's marriage is unhappy and loveless, unlike Edward's to Elizabeth), like prostitutes, and have fathered numerous unacknowledged bastards, many of them during their marriage; Richard, like Ned, appears to have been monogamous and happily married; Ned is believed to have fathered a bastard during the early days of his marriage and is a devoted father to him, while Richard had two bastards presumably fathered in his teenage, pre-marriage days, who he publically acknowledged and took great effort to provide for their futures. All this is very much unlike Stannis.

I always thought King Robert's character was based loosely on Henry VIII.

In youth, both were considered handsome; charismatic and powerful warriors. They were natural leaders representing fairly young houses.

As they got older, they both partied too hard and turned in to fat messes.

Robert is based on Edward IV - GRRM himself confirmed it. Henry VIII looks much more like the inspiration for Aegon the Unworthy (even his mistresses have obvious inspirations - Barba is an Anne Boleyn who didn't manage to marry the king, Missy is a Jane Seymour who did not die, and Bethany is an even more sympathetic Katherine Howard) and Maegor the Cruel.

I don't actually and that fascinates me. Ned is sort of like a better-behaved William Hastings (the real Hastings whored around with Edward IV). Hastings got involved in the succession dispute and ended up being summarily beheaded at the Tower of London.

Jon's birth is also quite similar to Henry VII's. Henry's mother was a young teenager when she gave birth, just like Lyanna. She gave birth in an isolated part of Wales, just like how Lyanna gave birth in Dorne. Henry's father died before he was born, just like Rhaegar died before Jon's birth. And like Henry, Jon grew up without his mother (Margaret lived but rarely saw her son when he was growing up) and under the protection of his uncle. Aegon's adventures with JonCon mirror Henry's later life better, but it's the combination of Henry and Perkin Warbeck that makes Aegon's case so cool: There are elements of both the victor and the fraud, so it blurs the lines and makes it harder to tell which is which. And if Aegon is actually a Blackfyre, that would make them analogous to the Beauforts: a line of legitimized bastards led now by a female-line scion.

My stance of (f)Aegon is something I've made clear in many previous threads, but I won't mention it now. But I can see GRRM playing with different, simultaneous historical parallels to keep the readers on their toes: Aegon may be Perkin Warbeck, or he may be Henry Tudor; and, IMO, he may also be False Dmitry I (I tend to believe his fate will be most similar to Dmitry's - he will take the throne and will be initially very popular, but he will lose support, only hold it for a short time before being deposed and killed). But GRRM tends to tweak things, many of his historical parallels read like AU (e.g. what if Edward IV, after winning all the battles, lost his crown and life due to his ill-advised marriage? See: Robb Stark), so we can't use any parallels to predict future events.

Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was extremely weak.

As for the princes, if Richard didn't kill them, I wonder why he didn't produce them to quell the rumors they were dead after they disappeared during the summer? Or how exactly someone else would have managed to kill the princes who were under his care, guarded by his men, presumably his most trusted men?

His most trusted men? You mean, like Buckingham (the wannabe-Kingmaker 2.0 who famously engineered Richard's ascension to the throne only to later start a failed rebellion against him, first supposedly in favor of Edward V and then supposedly in favor of Henry Tudor, though Buckingham himself also had a claim to the throne that some would argue was stronger than Henry's), who was rumoured to have had something to do wtih their disappeance? Or Thomas Stanley (notorious fence sitter, married to Henry Tudor's mother Margaret Beaufort, had long-time issues with Richard due to the latter's rulings and involvement in land disputes in the north with a family called Harringtons who happened to be some of RIII's closest supporters*, had to be threatened to get his forces to fight at Bosworth, sat the battle out while his brother William Stanley openly switched sides mid-battle and attacked Richard, was made Earl of Derby under Henry VII), who controlled all access to the Tower since 1483?

It's certainly possible that RIII ordered the deaths of the princes (though if he did, I wonder why the whole thing was done in such a stupid way that would only fuck him up rather than bring him benefits, I mean why not have then die of "natural causes" and organize state funerals, or at least frame someone for murder and organize state funerals and all, rather than have them disappear, so you only get either thought of as an evil uncle that murdered his nephews, or at best a king who is unable to protect the nephews who were in his charge, while their fate is still unknown so you could have a pretender appear in the future just like Henry VII had to deal with Lawrence Simnel and Perkin Warbeck?), and I used to think it was the most likely explanation, but the evidence is pretty flimsy once you start looking into it.

* More about this here: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii (warning: the article is heavily pro-RIII to the point of adoration, but just focus on the facts about the land dispute between Stanley and the Harringtons)

I read this recently, and I found it really fascinating and very ASOAIF-like that decisions behind outcomes of big battles that change history may have really been about petty reasons like land disputes. In fact, reading this is what made me find this thread. While Thomas Stanley has some obvious parallels with Walder Frey as explained here (his answer to RIII's threat of executing his son if he doesn't provide forces - "Sire, I have other sons"), reading this made me think: OMG, Thomas Stanley = Roose Bolton. It seems that Stanley, for a long time, was trying to take the lands of the Harrington family from Hornby (=Hornwood?), and they conveniently died at Bosworth when Stanley failed to engage (while his brother's forces attacked RIII and his vanguard which included the Harrington family members) so he got their lands and was made Earl of Derby by Henry VII. Could be a coincidence... but then, probably not. That makes me think of the way Roose used war and battle to dispose of many of his rival lords in the north, sending Glover, Tallhart and the Karstark heir to Duskendale to die/be captured, and then getting so many of the rivals lords killed or captured at the Red Wedding in addition to offing Robb Stark, resulting in becoming the Warden of the North.

...Wow, this was a long post. I'm really on my War of the Roses research kick currently, it's fascinating to notice many ASOAIF parallels and contrasts.

[Pellinore]

I have actually learned a lot of history in this thread; I only came to see who Ned Stark would have been because I couldn't think of one!

Could Robb be based upon Robert the Bruce? Charismatic warrior-king who fights to establish an independent kingdom.

In a similar vein, how about the GreatJon as Sir James Douglas?

...Wow, this was a long post. I'm really on my War of the Roses research kick currently, it's fascinating to notice many ASOAIF parallels and contrasts.

This is an area I have always been interested in learning more about. Do you have any suggestions of books to read on the War of the Roses?

[Mythrel]

Tyrion is Sir Jeffery Hudson! Seriously check this guy out. He's awesome.

[Annara Snow]

I have actually learned a lot of history in this thread; I only came to see who Ned Stark would have been because I couldn't think of one!

Could Robb be based upon Robert the Bruce? Charismatic warrior-king who fights to establish an independent kingdom.

In a similar vein, how about the GreatJon as Sir James Douglas?

This is an area I have always been interested in learning more about. Do you have any suggestions of books to read on the War of the Roses?

Oh, when I said I've been reading up a bit on WotR, I just meant the essays, articles, quotes from various sources etc. that can be found online -not physical books, I don't live in an English speaking country so I don't know if any such books can even be found here, probably not, I'd have to order some from Amazon if I wanted them. I'd also love a good recommendation. Though I prefer comparing different interpretation to reading just one.

[Nictarion]

This is an area I have always been interested in learning more about. Do you have any suggestions of books to read on the War of the Roses?

The Wars of the Roses by Alison Weir is pretty good.

[Annara Snow]

The Wars of the Roses by Alison Weir is pretty good.

I've read some quotes from her book online which, let's say, make me pretty suspicious of the quality and method of her conclusion-drawing (or assumption-making) and evidence-providing.