Ser Eric Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 One of the dragon’s heads washed up on the Quiet Isle many years later, though by that time it was red with rust. This passage fits the Golden Company quite perfectly. A lot better than it fits Aegon himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 The GC broke their contract for Dany. I don't know why everyone ignores this vital and indisputable piece of information. It was only after they broke their contract that they were informed about Aegon. It doesn't get clearer than that I'm afraid. And the only problem they had with breaking their contract was that they were losing money. The GC are like any other sellsword company at this point albeit with an impeccable reputation.Illyrio does suggest to Tyrion that the Golden Company broke their contract with Myr because she will take them home. But what about the contract writ in blood? If they did not break the contract with Myr for the contract writ in blood, why did The George slip that in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I thought upthread he said that fAegon 'might be a random valyrian looking kid.' Implying that he was more likely the real Aegon. If I was wrong about that, sorry.A random Valyrian looking kid would be a pisswater prince :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 No, for Dany. That's what everyone in the GC was told and their only concern was turning down big money, not that they were supporting a Targaryen. That's because they don't really care anymore.Please quote the indisputable textual evidence that everyone in the Golden Company was told they had broken their contract with Myr to take arms for Daenerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 If you want to view it as proof of a conspiracy, fine. But not everyone will. Well I think he doesnt write meaningless fluff in this series. If you have an alternative idea share it, but 'world building' = meaningless fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'm not talking about the whole GC, I'm talking about the people who made the deal Strickland and Illyrio. Strickland never made a deal with Dany, he made it with Illyrio....for blood. For revenge, Stricklands legacy is just as intertwined with the Blackfyre history as Illyrio's is. They want what they've always wanted; to put the heir of Dameon Blackfyre on the IT. ETA: As backed up by the post above this. "Dead men don't claim vengeance, their sons do."Actually, the contract writ in bllod was between Illyrio and Myles Toyne, but Harry said he would honor it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 yes my bad. IMO, Strickland honored it because he does have BF history as well is what I was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I don't know why everyone is being so unreasonable LOL. The textual evidence that it's not the case is that "everyone knows" the Blackfyre pretensions to the Iron Throne ended forty years ago when Barristan the Bold slew Maelys the Monstrous on the Stepstones. "Everyone knows" this because the male line was ended and there hasn't been a peep of Blackfyre pretension since then. Instead, the GC has operated as a diverse multinational sellsword company in Essos, and as far as I know, Strickland is the only surviving member with a Blackfyre connection. Does that "prove" anything to a certainty? Of course not, but it's quite a lot of textual evidence for the conventional wisdom. The case that it's not true is based on hints, suggestions and speculations -- or circumstantial evidence, if we're generous. I personally find the hints somewhat convincing -- or certainly compelling -- but Ser Eric isn't wrong to point out the lack of real evidence.So what was the point of Arianne describing the arms of House Toland right after giving us our first intoducrion to Bittersteel and the Golden Company in the Soiled Knight, Feast 13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draevan13 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Well I think he doesnt write meaningless fluff in this series. If you have an alternative idea share it, but 'world building' = meaningless fluff.If you want to believe writing lore and backstory is "meaningless", go right ahead. GRRM wrote an entire novel of nothing but lore and backstory for the World of Ice and Fire. Clearly, he does do what you call "meaningless fluff".Look, I'm not saying you're wrong about the GC. I'm saying not every detail is proof of something bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 This is not really going anywhere is it? lol I'll list my reservations below: 1. The idea that GC still holds strongly to their founding belies is rather tenuous based on textual evidence. We have more than one character even excluding Illyrio who think the GC is not what it was and they just want to go home. 2. Because of 1, the idea that because GC is now backing Aegon=Aegon is a Blackfre is very farfetched because the assumption itself is shaky at best. 3. So any evidence for Aegon being a BF must start with Aegon himself. And this is where the theory falls down because people have to resort to multiple assumptions plucked out of thin air. Illyrio being Aegon's father is a somewhat reasonable assumption given the clues but assuming he's a Blackfyre or Serra being Varys sister who is a Blackfyre are just plain gibberish.If you think the OP to this thread is gibberish, you should try some of my more original theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In A Coat of Gold Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Harry Strickland boasts that he's gold for four generations. And we learned this about the ASOIAF universe from Hoster Blackwood..."... The Old King's Peace lasted half a century. But then some fresh quarrel broke out, and the old wounds opened and began to bleed again. That's how it always happens, my father says. So long as men remember the wrongs done to their forebears, no peace will ever last. So we go on century after century, with us hating the Brackens and them hating us. My father says there will never be an end to it.""There could be." "How, my lord? The old wounds never heal, my father says." "My father had a saying too. Never wound a foe when you can kill him. Dead men don't claim vengeance." "Their sons do," said Hoster, apologetically. "Not if you kill the sons as well. Ask the Casterlys about that if you doubt me. Ask Lord and Lady Tarbeck, or the Reynes of Castamere. Ask the Prince of Dragonstone." --So Martin explains how such blood fueds can last not only generations but centuries. Even after fifty years of peace (how long ago did Maelys die?) old wounds reopen. The only way to seal them is to destroy the other house. So then why does Strickland so plainly not want to go through with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So what was the point of Arianne describing the arms of House Toland right after giving us our first intoducrion to Bittersteel and the Golden Company in the Soiled Knight, Feast 13? She's talking about where Quentyn has really gone, "crossing the narrow sea in secret." The reference to House Toland's arms illustrates that she's anticipating the return of the Targaryens, and she's stated her belief that the GC has broken their contract with Myr because "it's home they want, as much as gold." Since we know why Quentyn crossed the narrow sea in secret, and we know the plan is for the GC to hook up with Dany, it seems rather clear she's talking about the "return of the dragons" led by Daenerys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 The sarcasm isn't necessary. There's a spectrum of evidence, from "hint" to "POV character's thoughts." Based on what LM has admirably laid out, we don't get very far along that spectrum. Show me more GC besides Strickland with a connection to the old rebellions. Show me someone, anyone, thinking about how they'll deal with Dany (as a Targaryen enemy, rather than a potential Targaryen ally). I mean, I could make a huge list of real evidence, but Illyrio smiling through his forked beard wouldn't make the list. ;)I thought you said sarcasm wasn't necesary? :P In any event, it most certainly is evidence. This is literature--storytelling--not a trial. For example, consider the passage where we learn about Tyrion's first love..."Myrish. The Seasons of My Love.' Sweet and sad, if you understand the words. The first girl I ever bedded used to sing it, and I've never been able to put it out of my head." Tyrion gazed up at the sky. It was a clear cold night and the stars shone down upon the mountains as bright and merciless as truth. "I met her on a night like this," he heard himself saying. "Jaime and I were riding back from Lannisport when we heard a scream, and she came running out into the road with two men dogging her heels, shouting threats. My brother unsheathed his sword and went after them, while I dismounted to protect the girl. ... Tyrion VI, Game 42Of, course Jaime goes on to tell him that it was all a lie. Then, two books later, we learn that it was the truth. But the author already told us that it was the truth. Read the quote above again. Do you see it? Here it is again...Tyrion gazed up at the sky. It was a clear cold night and the stars shone down upon the mountains as bright and merciless as truth.Tyrion VI, Game 42That's textual evidence that what Tyrion believed to be true was true and not a lie as Jaime lied later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I assumed because they're the most numerous, with War Elephants (big advantage), and a reputation of never breaking a contract. They sound like the best of the Free Companies by far, I'd hire them if I could over all the other combined.Plus a lot of them are Westerosi, thus presumably have contacts and knowledge of Westeros, which would be useful for invading that land.But they weren't hired. They are honoring a contract writ in blood. I say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 World-building, I'd say. LML, You're up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draevan13 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 LML, You're up... :dunno: Didn't realise mentioning possibilities was so forbidden 'round these parts... I'm not saying "it's x, not y" I'm saying "it's not necessarily y, have you considered x?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Because they are the best company with the largest army and a strong burning desire to return to Westeros. A combination that I imagine is quite unique among such companies especially as an actual motive other than money. Returning home to Westeros was also one of their aims lest we forget.I thought you said they were a sellsword company with mostly Essosi and other backgrounds, several generations removed from Westeros. Why would they have a burning desire to return "home" to Westeros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draevan13 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 But they weren't hired. They are honoring a contract writ in blood. I say no more. I'm saying I'd hire them. I know Varys and Illyrio didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I say no more. Unlikely. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Unlikely. :cheers:HA! I shoulda said "mayhaps" :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.