GRRM's mistake: Essos Militaries.

[Colton Casados-Medve]

1 hour ago, Aegon VII said:

I'm interested to learn more about this. Do you have any examples of these inconsistencies? Or for that matter, any aspects of asoiaf that ruin your suspension of disbelief? 

 

Reading through this thread my first impression would be that people are being a bit unjust to GRRM. Getting bogged down in the minutia of city vs rural proportions in essos does not contribute to the story. We have to assume that if there is an Essos, there's enough farms to feed Essos. And if not, we would have read about it.

And just because we make a comparison between one of his armies and a real army from the past, doesn't mean he is making a mistake when they have differences. Ironborn are not Vikings, their ironborn. We can appreciate the similarities and look to Vikings as an influence, but we cannot critique the ironborn for not being Vikings.

Concerning whether or not Dany has a suitable army for Westeros, I say absolutely she does. She has talent, and she has diversity. Most importantly though, she has Selmy. Without Barristan or a comparable westerosi General, yeah her army would suck. Selmy makes all the difference because he knows how to properly deploy the different forces. Furthermore, he's training them to fight westerosi Knights specifically. Westerosi armies are less diverse, and Selmy knows everything about them. Danys armies are more diverse and know their enemy, whilst their enemy is less diverse and knows very little about them. 

I think the issue is, where does this culture based on seaborne raiding get the actual timber for its ships? The Iron Isles suck. No timber, no good farmland. They're a miserable place. To have the most feared fleet, you need the timber to build it. 

And I think the other point was also really good. Why wouldn't the highest concentration of naval power be along the Westerosi coast that stares across to Essos? This would be where most trade over the thousands of years would have taken place, so the likelihood of the eastern cost of Westeros having highly developed naval entities would be much higher. 

I agree with your other criticism though. We can't critique the Ironborn for not being Vikings. They're Ironborn, not Vikings. 

 

And I think the better question about Dany's army is... how well will they perform against the undead? I think the Dothraki would do very well against the wights, being fearless and all. Same goes for unsullied. 

[Aderyn]

It's not a mistake on his part, it's simply storytelling. This was his intention all along - first Dany needs to struggle to find an army, then she needs to struggle to figure out how to get the best out of them after they're well out of their comfort zone.

[lujo]

2 hours ago, Colton Casados-Medve said:

I agree with your other criticism though. We can't critique the Ironborn for not being Vikings. They're Ironborn, not Vikings. 

Except they seem to be a somewhat reductionist take on Vikings and are percieved by others the way Vikings were, and have at one point been the dominant force in Westeros (when they ruled all of the riverlands, just like scandinavians invaded and ruled a big pat of england)...  except they don't have the needed "infrastructure" to have that reputation.

Vikings did, the Ironborn don't, they're not the same (this is being diplomatic, the ironborn are viking caricatures with lovecraft and christianity bits mixed in, there's no real ground for discussion but let's be diplomatic), but they're in the same line of bussiness, and Vikings got to be there by being from Scandinavia which is, I checked, more than double the size of England and loaded with timber. Iron Islands aren't, Iron Islands couldn't have produced the Ironborn as we know them at all.

It would be a nitpick if it wasn't hugely glaring. There's actual memes going around with Euron demanding they build him a 1000 ships and the islands obviously not having any trees on them. It's the show, but it's what you'd expect from the book too.

[Fredwin]

10 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

I'm interested to learn more about this. Do you have any examples of these inconsistencies? Or for that matter, any aspects of asoiaf that ruin your suspension of disbelief? 

 

Reading through this thread my first impression would be that people are being a bit unjust to GRRM. Getting bogged down in the minutia of city vs rural proportions in essos does not contribute to the story. We have to assume that if there is an Essos, there's enough farms to feed Essos. And if not, we would have read about it.

And just because we make a comparison between one of his armies and a real army from the past, doesn't mean he is making a mistake when they have differences. Ironborn are not Vikings, their ironborn. We can appreciate the similarities and look to Vikings as an influence, but we cannot critique the ironborn for not being Vikings.

Concerning whether or not Dany has a suitable army for Westeros, I say absolutely she does. She has talent, and she has diversity. Most importantly though, she has Selmy. Without Barristan or a comparable westerosi General, yeah her army would suck. Selmy makes all the difference because he knows how to properly deploy the different forces. Furthermore, he's training them to fight westerosi Knights specifically. Westerosi armies are less diverse, and Selmy knows everything about them. Danys armies are more diverse and know their enemy, whilst their enemy is less diverse and knows very little about them. 

Heya.

Yeah, I don't really think I'm being too unjust to GRRM. The guy is very successful and his books are well-loved, I think he can take a little ribbing from a nobody. I mentioned earlier in the thread the exact point you just made, that the stuff we are discussing is minutia, which is why I threw my two cents into the thread to start with. Since the point is that it doesn't matter how well Dany's army will fare against the Westerosi, since her army and even all of Essos are just playthings for her character anyway. They exist as stepping stones and plot points to frame her story, nothing else.

That being said, I'm still going to nitpick things I consider wrong about the novel since it does attempt some unholy alliance of fantasy and historical fiction. 

There are lots of inconsistencies, but the ones we were discussing err mostly on the naval side of things. For instance, as lujo began to state, how is it that an Island Kingdom has such lopsided naval entities? They allow a pirate citadel to continually exist(even though it logically shouldn't exist there) which sole purpose is to rape, plunder and murder the rest of the kingdom. Said pirate citadel also manages to keep building fleets(even though they logically shouldn't be able to) which manage to win battles against superior numbers. The Ironborn also possess advanced naval techniques, yet no compasses or chronometers exist. Superior navigators and ships exist, but noone has explored the north coast? Skagos? Noone has managed to circumnavigate Planetos? It just doesn't make sense.

These are only a few of my gripes, but I feel they do a disservice to the story itself. I think it's fair to mention it since it's something readers do and will think about. Obviously GRRM is a fantastic writer, but he's not omnipotent.

[Aegon VII]

On July 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Fredwin said:

Heya.

Yeah, I don't really think I'm being too unjust to GRRM. The guy is very successful and his books are well-loved, I think he can take a little ribbing from a nobody. I mentioned earlier in the thread the exact point you just made, that the stuff we are discussing is minutia, which is why I threw my two cents into the thread to start with. Since the point is that it doesn't matter how well Dany's army will fare against the Westerosi, since her army and even all of Essos are just playthings for her character anyway. They exist as stepping stones and plot points to frame her story, nothing else.

That being said, I'm still going to nitpick things I consider wrong about the novel since it does attempt some unholy alliance of fantasy and historical fiction. 

There are lots of inconsistencies, but the ones we were discussing err mostly on the naval side of things. For instance, as lujo began to state, how is it that an Island Kingdom has such lopsided naval entities? They allow a pirate citadel to continually exist(even though it logically shouldn't exist there) which sole purpose is to rape, plunder and murder the rest of the kingdom. Said pirate citadel also manages to keep building fleets(even though they logically shouldn't be able to) which manage to win battles against superior numbers. The Ironborn also possess advanced naval techniques, yet no compasses or chronometers exist. Superior navigators and ships exist, but noone has explored the north coast? Skagos? Noone has managed to circumnavigate Planetos? It just doesn't make sense.

These are only a few of my gripes, but I feel they do a disservice to the story itself. I think it's fair to mention it since it's something readers do and will think about. Obviously GRRM is a fantastic writer, but he's not omnipotent.

I'll start by recognizing that we do both view this as minutia that does not get in the way of grrm's story telling, so end of the day, it's just fun to discuss, nothing too serious. I can definitely see your skepticism about how realistically the naval forces of Westeros are distributed.

I think I disagree with this because there are so many possible reasons that they could be distributed this way, while still being true to GRRMs world. We might assume that the west coast should have the bigger navy, but what if the west coast has had so much pirate activity that they could never build up a navy. What if their culture simply didn't embrace seafaring until much after the east. With the settling of Dorne they burned the ships after they got there, this could easily create a culture that shuns getting back on boats. I know Dorne is not really what we're talking about, I'm just showing that there could be historical events that make those houses more reluctant to ships. The west coast could have less suitable beaches (tall cliffs). It could have such chaotic waters that it took the west coast much longer to have boats. There could have been an incident in history that destroyed most of the western navys. I'm not saying any of these are great reasons why they have so much less of a navy, I just think that because so much of planetos is left up to assumptions on the part of the reader, we might be jumping to conclusions about what "should be", rather than accepting that this other world has enough unknowns to explain why it differs from what we think it should be. 

[Aegon VII]

On July 12, 2016 at 5:31 AM, lujo said:

Except they seem to be a somewhat reductionist take on Vikings and are percieved by others the way Vikings were, and have at one point been the dominant force in Westeros (when they ruled all of the riverlands, just like scandinavians invaded and ruled a big pat of england)...  except they don't have the needed "infrastructure" to have that reputation.

Vikings did, the Ironborn don't, they're not the same (this is being diplomatic, the ironborn are viking caricatures with lovecraft and christianity bits mixed in, there's no real ground for discussion but let's be diplomatic), but they're in the same line of bussiness, and Vikings got to be there by being from Scandinavia which is, I checked, more than double the size of England and loaded with timber. Iron Islands aren't, Iron Islands couldn't have produced the Ironborn as we know them at all.

It would be a nitpick if it wasn't hugely glaring. There's actual memes going around with Euron demanding they build him a 1000 ships and the islands obviously not having any trees on them. It's the show, but it's what you'd expect from the book too.

Personally I think you are accepting the similarities Vikings have with ironborn as evidence they should be the same, while viewing the differences as mistakes. To me, that's like saying "this square peg is broken because it won't fit in the round hole." I think your concerns about timber are valid, but like you said that's the show. I think it's important to remember that the ironborn exist through conquest, if they need ships I have to think a lot of them will be conquered enemy ships. That, or built from lumber they got through conquest. Isn't the north rich in timber? How far north do the ironborn reave? They could be hitting some northern towns rich in timber. Having the largest naval fleet, the ironborn would be in one of the best positions to go get materials they don't produce. And even if they couldn't, they could just swallow up enemy ships til they get to 1000.

[Fredwin]

14 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

I'll start by recognizing that we do both view this as minutia that does not get in the way of grrm's story telling, so end of the day, it's just fun to discuss, nothing too serious. I can definitely see your skepticism about how realistically the naval forces of Westeros are distributed.

I think I disagree with this because there are so many possible reasons that they could be distributed this way, while still being true to GRRMs world. We might assume that the west coast should have the bigger navy, but what if the west coast has had so much pirate activity that they could never build up a navy. What if their culture simply didn't embrace seafaring until much after the east. With the settling of Dorne they burned the ships after they got there, this could easily create a culture that shuns getting back on boats. I know Dorne is not really what we're talking about, I'm just showing that there could be historical events that make those houses more reluctant to ships. The west coast could have less suitable beaches (tall cliffs). It could have such chaotic waters that it took the west coast much longer to have boats. There could have been an incident in history that destroyed most of the western navys. I'm not saying any of these are great reasons why they have so much less of a navy, I just think that because so much of planetos is left up to assumptions on the part of the reader, we might be jumping to conclusions about what "should be", rather than accepting that this other world has enough unknowns to explain why it differs from what we think it should be. 

I've tried to explain away the reasoning for a lot of this stuff in my head, but without a solid excuse(even in AWOIAF) I can't really find a way to do it. It's tough because war is very much about geography and George pays almost no heed to it.

As far as like, within the story itself and not compared to realism, there are still things I don't understand. I think one of the most glaring ones is the fact that throughout history the Ironborn are basically continued to allow to exist after being beat time and time again. Now, during this age of Westeros, they were literally forced by arms to capitulate to the king. So what happened? Were they not totally disarmed? Did Robert not put every ship to flame larger than a rowbot? Either way, the people of Seven Kingdoms know the Ironborn's whole culture is based around reaving. Do they really want that on their doorstep? The Ironborn obviously never change their ways and go back to raping and reaving whenever given the opportunity. So it's crazy that not even a generation after being totally defeated they are able to raise fleets and go back at it again, like nothing happened(and that's not even discussing the whole lack of timber issue).

[lujo]

4 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

Personally I think you are accepting the similarities Vikings have with ironborn as evidence they should be the same, while viewing the differences as mistakes.

 Having the largest naval fleet, the ironborn would be in one of the best positions to go get materials they don't produce. And even if they couldn't, they could just swallow up enemy ships til they get to 1000.

Spoiler

Actually I'm a member of the Dalmatian people (who live in Dalmatia where the well known spotted dog is from originally, and where some of the GoT series was shot, it's part of today's Croatia). The Dalmatian Coast of the Adriatic Sea was probably the most OG hotbed of naval piracy in Europe and has continuously been one from before Roman times up to... one certain period which I'll explain.

I could be hugely provincial and claim the Ironborn are a lot like Dalmatians, because, well, they are an island nation of primaily pirates, which is certainly what the Dalmatians looked like to the Italians since Roman times. In fact, that's why the Romans invaded the Illyric (basically your much-later day Yugoslavia) - Dalmatian (and other Illyrian) piracy was completely insufferable and the last ruler of Illyrians, a queen by the name of Teuta (if sources are to be believed) famously replied to Roman envoys: "I can't order my subjects to stop being pirates, pirating is all they do and if I tried to stop it I'd very soon not be their queen anymore." Since the layout of the coast lends itself really well to piracy and the Italians were notoriously imperialist about moving though other people's waters without paying taxes, the tradition kept up for, well, basically thousands of years, even when technically under Roman or Italian rule. Especially during those times, come to think of it, because it was easier to play dumb when a war fleet came looking for pirates. From my cultural perspective the Vikings were Johnny-come-latelies to the "game of boats" in Europe but they got ingrained in the popular imagination because English lore became important later on and they happened to be geographically positioned to give the English cultural traumas (and also owned half the place at one point).

The Greyjoy's remind me, personally, of my own Adriatic ancestors, too, because they were both grim seafaring knuckledraggers (and they also remind me of my contemporary compatriots, because a few millenia of the same mentality is hard to shake off, we just exchanged piracy for tourism because it's easier and the victims come and hand the money over on their own). Hell I feel a strange sort of cultural pride when I read about the ghastly belligerent squids. But I'm in the position to tell one sort of european seafaring knuckledragger from another other, and what I see there is Vikings as opposed to other ones, but what I don't see is the infrastructure and circumstance that makes any "seafaring knuckledragger culture" work.

You need a proper coastline and a proper inland culture to sell the loot back to. Islands are at best pirate bases, whenever the Italians wanted to cut piracy (or seafaring taxation, depending on your perspective and the time period) down what they did was send a force to ravage the coast and massacre the civilians. Hell, they even hijjacked a crusade once for this purpose. Because those civilians were the pirates, or at least related to them, and while you can have some sort of "naval aristocracy" emerge, the actual society is never about that. 

And how they eventually got rid of the custom for every tiny village to have it's pirate fleet, was to, in places, cut every damned piece of wood down. And that does the trick, and it's also why large patches of Dalmatia look like the surface of the moon today. And also part of why the Balkans are thought to be "backwards", even though when tourists come and you read a bit of history it turns out that Balkans were doing quite fine, in fact, much better than most places in Europe, well into the Renaissance. At that point, however, the Venetians have had enough of being at the perfect spot to put European goods on a boat, but at the worst possible spot on the globe to actually try to transport these goods anywhere (because you'd have to sail through the most dense archipelago in Europe infested with, well, the Ironborn), and just started genociding and cutting trees down.

And that worked. Just about every tree you can see in Dalmatia today that isn't old black oak (which you can only find in one or two places these days) has been planted after WW II. Without a LOT of timber very close to a coast, like in Scandinavia, or like the Balkans Adriatic coast used to be back in the day when it was all just a huge oak jungle as far as the eye can see, you can't have any kind of piracy, let alone a pirate culture. And you'd have the largest fleet maybe once in the entirety of the worlds history, but if you ever lose one time and get your ships destroyed, you would never ever be a naval power again. Anyone who beat you would sink all your ships and cut all your trees down, you'd be lucky to have enough wood to build rafts with for centuries afterwards and the only ships you'd get to see is foreign ones coming to trade if any ever came. By all means the Iron Islands should be worse off than the Sisters.

It's just plot and cheezyness, I know, I mean it's unrealistic that Starks and Dorne don't have ships at all. The silly thing is that absolutely everybody in Westeros is more likely to be a naval power than the Greyjoys if things were realistic. Sure, Dorne would have trouble getting wood, but that just makes the idea of someone burning ships even sillier.

Oh, and I also see, apart from Lovecraftian stuff, a great big serving of "American writing about something he finds cool but doesn't even begin to understand" in that the piracy of the Greyjoys has the Carribean piracy "somewhere in the back of it's head". But Carribean piracy wasn't a  grassroots, cultural thing and was quite different from traditional European piracy like that of the Vikings, Baltics, the Adriatic or even the Aegean sea or the south mediterranean Berber Coast.

Carribean piracy was weird, and would have made some sense on the Stepstones, but not on the Iron Isles. Martin even acknowledges this by having Euron be distincly a pseudo-carribean type as opposed to more "grasroots" Iron Islanders but the problem is that he made the Iron Islanders too Carribean to begin with (probably without being aware enough of it).

Doesn't take being this much into piracy, just about anyone runs into the "wth, where do these guys get the trees for all the longships from?" which is rather enough to break suspension of disbelief. I still like the silly buggers because they remind me of my folk (in embarassing ways, but wth), but  they make about as much sense as Jack Sparrow (or, rather, even less sense than Jack Sparrow). 

[Charerg]

Re: the Ironborn

I think it's fairly obvious that from a realistic standpoint, a population based on a few small islands shouldn't be any more influential than the peoples of Corsica and Sardinia, or the Orkney Islands were in history.

Simply put, the Iron Islands are too small and too scarce in resources for them to be able to contest with the far larger mainland kingdoms.

Compare for example, Crete to mainland Greece. The Cretans apparently exhausted their "tree supply" during the Minoan era, and in later times didn't have a major inluence over the mainland powers (rather, they were conquered/colonised by various powers). If Westeros' history is considered from a "strategic standpoint" the Iron Islands would have probably changed hands several times between the North, the Riverlands and the Westerlands and been a major trade hub between the North and the Westerlands.

In short, I think GRRM should have made the Iron Islands MUCH bigger, in order for them to work from a logistic standpoint as a power that can rival the mainland kingdoms.

[Rhodan]

On 14. 7. 2016 at 8:07 PM, lujo said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Actually I'm a member of the Dalmatian people (who live in Dalmatia where the well known spotted dog is from originally, and where some of the GoT series was shot, it's part of today's Croatia). The Dalmatian Coast of the Adriatic Sea was probably the most OG hotbed of naval piracy in Europe and has continuously been one from before Roman times up to... one certain period which I'll explain.

I could be hugely provincial and claim the Ironborn are a lot like Dalmatians, because, well, they are an island nation of primaily pirates, which is certainly what the Dalmatians looked like to the Italians since Roman times. In fact, that's why the Romans invaded the Illyric (basically your much-later day Yugoslavia) - Dalmatian (and other Illyrian) piracy was completely insufferable and the last ruler of Illyrians, a queen by the name of Teuta (if sources are to be believed) famously replied to Roman envoys: "I can't order my subjects to stop being pirates, pirating is all they do and if I tried to stop it I'd very soon not be their queen anymore." Since the layout of the coast lends itself really well to piracy and the Italians were notoriously imperialist about moving though other people's waters without paying taxes, the tradition kept up for, well, basically thousands of years, even when technically under Roman or Italian rule. Especially during those times, come to think of it, because it was easier to play dumb when a war fleet came looking for pirates. From my cultural perspective the Vikings were Johnny-come-latelies to the "game of boats" in Europe but they got ingrained in the popular imagination because English lore became important later on and they happened to be geographically positioned to give the English cultural traumas (and also owned half the place at one point).

The Greyjoy's remind me, personally, of my own Adriatic ancestors, too, because they were both grim seafaring knuckledraggers (and they also remind me of my contemporary compatriots, because a few millenia of the same mentality is hard to shake off, we just exchanged piracy for tourism because it's easier and the victims come and hand the money over on their own). Hell I feel a strange sort of cultural pride when I read about the ghastly belligerent squids. But I'm in the position to tell one sort of european seafaring knuckledragger from another other, and what I see there is Vikings as opposed to other ones, but what I don't see is the infrastructure and circumstance that makes any "seafaring knuckledragger culture" work.

You need a proper coastline and a proper inland culture to sell the loot back to. Islands are at best pirate bases, whenever the Italians wanted to cut piracy (or seafaring taxation, depending on your perspective and the time period) down what they did was send a force to ravage the coast and massacre the civilians. Hell, they even hijjacked a crusade once for this purpose. Because those civilians were the pirates, or at least related to them, and while you can have some sort of "naval aristocracy" emerge, the actual society is never about that. 

And how they eventually got rid of the custom for every tiny village to have it's pirate fleet, was to, in places, cut every damned piece of wood down. And that does the trick, and it's also why large patches of Dalmatia look like the surface of the moon today. And also part of why the Balkans are thought to be "backwards", even though when tourists come and you read a bit of history it turns out that Balkans were doing quite fine, in fact, much better than most places in Europe, well into the Renaissance. At that point, however, the Venetians have had enough of being at the perfect spot to put European goods on a boat, but at the worst possible spot on the globe to actually try to transport these goods anywhere (because you'd have to sail through the most dense archipelago in Europe infested with, well, the Ironborn), and just started genociding and cutting trees down.

And that worked. Just about every tree you can see in Dalmatia today that isn't old black oak (which you can only find in one or two places these days) has been planted after WW II. Without a LOT of timber very close to a coast, like in Scandinavia, or like the Balkans Adriatic coast used to be back in the day when it was all just a huge oak jungle as far as the eye can see, you can't have any kind of piracy, let alone a pirate culture. And you'd have the largest fleet maybe once in the entirety of the worlds history, but if you ever lose one time and get your ships destroyed, you would never ever be a naval power again. Anyone who beat you would sink all your ships and cut all your trees down, you'd be lucky to have enough wood to build rafts with for centuries afterwards and the only ships you'd get to see is foreign ones coming to trade if any ever came. By all means the Iron Islands should be worse off than the Sisters.

It's just plot and cheezyness, I know, I mean it's unrealistic that Starks and Dorne don't have ships at all. The silly thing is that absolutely everybody in Westeros is more likely to be a naval power than the Greyjoys if things were realistic. Sure, Dorne would have trouble getting wood, but that just makes the idea of someone burning ships even sillier.

Oh, and I also see, apart from Lovecraftian stuff, a great big serving of "American writing about something he finds cool but doesn't even begin to understand" in that the piracy of the Greyjoys has the Carribean piracy "somewhere in the back of it's head". But Carribean piracy wasn't a  grassroots, cultural thing and was quite different from traditional European piracy like that of the Vikings, Baltics, the Adriatic or even the Aegean sea or the south mediterranean Berber Coast.

Carribean piracy was weird, and would have made some sense on the Stepstones, but not on the Iron Isles. Martin even acknowledges this by having Euron be distincly a pseudo-carribean type as opposed to more "grasroots" Iron Islanders but the problem is that he made the Iron Islanders too Carribean to begin with (probably without being aware enough of it).

Doesn't take being this much into piracy, just about anyone runs into the "wth, where do these guys get the trees for all the longships from?" which is rather enough to break suspension of disbelief. I still like the silly buggers because they remind me of my folk (in embarassing ways, but wth), but  they make about as much sense as Jack Sparrow (or, rather, even less sense than Jack Sparrow). 

You see under one  Preston Jacobs video there was one user who theorized that Martin is very intentionally... Well, not plagirasing, but making ultra-homages to practically every of his favorite fantasy works by making almost literal geography out of them, such as Lannisters/Westerlands being Narnia, Harrenhall being Gormenghast (with Littlefinger as Steerpike), much of Essos being the Hyborian Age, etc. When I think in these lines, I must ask myself if Euron isn´t supposed to be On Stranger Tides character. If I want, I´ll find parallels between him and every of the book´s four antagonists.   

[lujo]

2 hours ago, Rhodan said:

You see under one  Preston Jacobs video there was one user who theorized that Martin is very intentionally... Well, not plagirasing, but making ultra-homages to practically every of his favorite fantasy works by making almost literal geography out of them, such as Lannisters/Westerlands being Narnia, Harrenhall being Gormenghast (with Littlefinger as Steerpike), much of Essos being the Hyborian Age, etc. When I think in these lines, I must ask myself if Euron isn´t supposed to be On Stranger Tides character. If I want, I´ll find parallels between him and every of the book´s four antagonists.   

Eh, now I could be some sort of fanboy and try to defend Martin's rampant plagiaris... er, derivativene... erm, unoriginal... hmmm, unimaginat... eh, stealing classic wo.... um, anyway, for some reason say that On Stranger Tides is the inspiration for all of the modern piracy tales (Monkey Island was directly inspired by it, and so were the Pirates of the Carribean), but yeah, it's exactly like everything else in the book - Martin took his favorite stuff, which also happens to be everybodies favourite stuff due to being classic, and stuck it into a d&d world.

Dragonstone is Melnibone, in case noone noticed, which would be strange and sad.

[Illyrio Mo'Parties]

58 minutes ago, lujo said:

Eh, now I could be some sort of fanboy and try to defend Martin's rampant plagiaris... er, derivativene... erm, unoriginal... hmmm, unimaginat... eh, stealing classic wo.... um, anyway, for some reason say that On Stranger Tides is the inspiration for all of the modern piracy tales (Monkey Island was directly inspired by it, and so were the Pirates of the Carribean), but yeah, it's exactly like everything else in the book - Martin took his favorite stuff, which also happens to be everybodies favourite stuff due to being classic, and stuck it into a d&d world.

Dragonstone is Melnibone, in case noone noticed, which would be strange and sad.

Lol, I just read the wikipedia entry on Melnibone... talk about deja vu!

Btw +1 for On Stranger Tides - it fizzled out by the end but for a while that book was the shit

[lujo]

2 hours ago, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Lol, I just read the wikipedia entry on Melnibone... talk about deja vu!

Btw +1 for On Stranger Tides - it fizzled out by the end but for a while that book was the shit

Read the TV tropes entry for On Stranger Tides, too.

And as for Melnibone - so much of ASOAIF is plainly, blatantly and nonchalantly lifted straight and very precisely from the Elric tales that I bet you a whole bunch of stuff about the prophecies can be figured out just by rereading those. I mean, both the "protagonists" are Elricky to high heavens, one even has a red-eyed albino white wolf (because ofc he does), while the other has the big twist that, zomg, Elric is a woman (which is a cool gimmick, compared to the usual Elric ripoffs, lol, because she can marry Cona... I mean Khal Drogo, right). 

But there's a certain galling "can't be bothered to put an actual spin on it" cavalier attitude to other people's IP in Martin's writing, much moreso than with even truly strictly-formula hacks the genre is otherwise rife with. So it might actually be possible to figure out exactly what's going to happen?

"Sam takes out Shelob" meets "Blackbeard gets unceremoniously put out by a dweeb" for Euron? Eh, eh?

Also, if there isn't an "At the mountains of madness" rehash in the Land of always winter at one point, I'll be very surprised, too.

[Rhodan]

3 hours ago, lujo said:

Dragonstone is Melnibone, in case noone noticed, which would be strange and sad.

Yes, yes,or in general, the entire Valyria is Melniboné (with a little of Númenor and a little of original Atlantis archetype) and that very guy mentioned Elric (although in the relation to Jon and Bloodraven, not Dany). He kinda run with it and he made some strange case for Jacquen = Rhaegar theory based on Aragorn analogies. I´ll not call it insane in case it´ll turn out to be true. 

[lujo]

3 minutes ago, Rhodan said:

Yes, yes,or in general, the entire Valyria is Melniboné (with a little of Númenor and a little of original Atlantis archetype) and that very guy mentioned Elric (although in the relation to Jon and Bloodraven, not Dany). He kinda run with it and he made some strange case for Jacquen = Rhaegar theory based on Aragorn analogies. I´ll not call it insane in case it´ll turn out to be true. 

Yeah, Valyria = more or less Melnibone with small pinches of other things possibly thrown in. And the thought process for Dany has 100% fer sure been "I'mma make me a female Elric, too" and then went on from there.

Not sure why folk go mad tinfoil afterwards, though. Rhaegar = also Elric, incredibly and very obviously so.

[Rhodan]

39 minutes ago, lujo said:

Yeah, Valyria = more or less Melnibone with small pinches of other things possibly thrown in. And the thought process for Dany has 100% fer sure been "I'mma make me a female Elric, too" and then went on from there.

Not sure why folk go mad tinfoil afterwards, though. Rhaegar = also Elric, incredibly and very obviously so.

Well, if Martin steals, he can "mix".... But anyway, you really should do a total list of every ASOIAF character you consider plagiat.

[lujo]

2 hours ago, Rhodan said:

Well, if Martin steals, he can "mix".... But anyway, you really should do a total list of every ASOIAF character you consider plagiat.

Spoiler

Well, that's just the thing, a lot of the stuff is ripoffs and spoofs and even your ocasional honest homage, but apart from Tyrion, and Tyrion in the first book paricularly, and to a degree Catelyn, not all that much I'd necessarily bother calling plagiat. I haven't really looked at the extent of lifting from the Elric stories because it's so ridiculously obvious and all over the place. To the point that even after years of hacks lifting stuff from Elric stories, so much so that you can consider a decent chunk of overall fantasy output just Elric fanfiction of varying degrees of uninspired, Martin can still leave you breathless with just how much he milks it. He does "mix" it up a tiny bit, but it's ghastly anyway. Just go read the Elric books, TWOW won't be here for a while still.

Lovecraft unfortunately died poor and his work is not protected by any law, which has been the cornerstone of many a sucessful career in american popular fiction, and just about everybody has been milking him dry. But since noone can sure you, no point calling it plagiarism. Moorcock isn't American, and if Sapkowski wasn't Polish he would have been sued into the ground by Moorcock (or, more likely, Glen Cook, but that's a different discussion, but the point is that Sapkowski is too much of a franchise in Poland for the government to allow someone to put a stop all that). So if Moorcock whipped up a lawsuit against Martin on a count of "Dude, I wrote way too much of this stuff you're peddling, what gives?" it wouldn't go anywhere so no point calling it plagiarism even if it is. Same for most of the other stuff. But Martin doesn't poach any old generic stuff either, or make it obvious it's a parody/homage/farce like, say, Pratchet does, he poaches stuff that makes people who don't know it's stolen be swept away with how imaginative he is, that's my problem with him. Take away the elements that other people came up with from "his" characters or "his" world and it simply would not sell. Just try to imagine what it all looks like it you know exactly where he lifted it from? You've read all that stuff already, there's just no decent, honest explanation for why someone would go and write that stuff - it's like fanfiction, but with the names changed and then presented as original work. Except it's not fanfiction of generic crap, but, like, very distinct and conspicuous stuff. I'll wait 10-15 years, and just take all "his" iconic, book selling characters and change their hairdo's and names and sell them as my own. He's against people writing fanfiction happening in his world? Hah! You can write "Martin" fanfiction not happening in his world with little to no difference and if his legal people accuse you of anything you can prove you've just been inspired by the stuff he lifted orginally. That's an actual fact.

But I wouldn't do it. Even if you couldn't get it through a court, and call it plagiarism, if someone did that to me, I would find that person and just beat them to death with a bat and no mercy or pity whatsoever. I think most people would, or would at least wish they could. And if you think you wouldn't, you just haven't been in a position to consider it. I find the idea that Lovecraft died abandoned and starving, eating cold canned beans while guys just stick his stuff into "their" works revolting - doesn't matter that I like reading Lovecraft fanfiction. If I end up doing this sort of thing I'll cut the folks I steal from a percentage, if it ends up being successful.

That's spoilered because it's OT.

Also, in case the youngsters haven't seen it, there's a bunch of "The Vikings" (by this point older movie with Kirk Douglas) in there, too, but that's unavoidable. The Greyjoys.

But as far as Iron Islands are concerned - yeah, mixing the Carribean and Medieval European pirating traditions without understanding how geography (and certain other things) plays into it can lead to immersion breaking unrealistic moments. I like what he was trying to DO though, and quite a bit about how he's done it, with the Kraken, and the Chtulhu in place of the voodoo and the subtle digs at christianity, and the psychology of Victation (who's an actually interesting character despite, or because of, being dumb as a post so reading about his is oddly fun for me, and he turning into Zombie Pirate Lechuck from Monkey Island, too, with Dany as Elaine, lol. Quentyn would've made the perfect Guybrush Threepwood, too. I just find it funny to think about out it like that).

But anyway, I wish he just understood what he's writing about better instead of cramming all of his favourite stuff into it regardless of (unintended) concequences. A lot of his favourite stuff is just pulp fiction, after all, no matter how genre defining, recognizable and unmistakeable, and could've stood actual improving upon instead of just dipshit fanboyism like making all the Melniboneans also look like Elric (facepalm).

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

On 14 July 2016 at 4:19 PM, Aegon VII said:

Personally I think you are accepting the similarities Vikings have with ironborn as evidence they should be the same, while viewing the differences as mistakes. To me, that's like saying "this square peg is broken because it won't fit in the round hole." I think your concerns about timber are valid, but like you said that's the show. I think it's important to remember that the ironborn exist through conquest, if they need ships I have to think a lot of them will be conquered enemy ships. That, or built from lumber they got through conquest. Isn't the north rich in timber? How far north do the ironborn reave? They could be hitting some northern towns rich in timber. Having the largest naval fleet, the ironborn would be in one of the best positions to go get materials they don't produce. And even if they couldn't, they could just swallow up enemy ships til they get to 1000.

I disagree.

The Ironborn are clearly meant to be somewhat analogous to the Vikings, just as the Dothraki are to the Mongols, however both fiction peoples lack the advantages that made the real life versions as successful:

• Vikings were much better shipbuilders than the peoples they fought, the Ironborn have not had much of an advantage building ships in 2,000 years.
• Vikings were often better equipped than the poor French and Saxon soldiers they faces, the Ironborn sometimes are better equipped, but more often than not they are up against people just as well equipped or better.
• Vikings were very disciplined, Ironborn aren't particularly.
• Vikings had a large homeland with many natural resources, Ironborn do not.
• Vikings were traders, explorers and mercenaries, IE they were successful in ways other than raiding. The Ironborn have a theft based economy, which makes little sense.
• (Expanding on points 2 and 3) During Viking times they were at the tactical forefront if you will, in Westeros Ironborn are outmatched by cavalry, massed archers, pike squares, et cetera.
• Vikings weren't particularly good at siege warfare (AFAIK), but there were that many good fortifications at that time in that are of the world anyway, Ironborn definitely aren't any good, but are in a world with advanced and strong fortifications. 

There's probably a few other points.

The problem isn't that they aren't exactly the same, just that the differences pretty much universally make the Ironborn less able to succeed. If you are going to base a fictitious military culture on a real one, make sure you fictional society has at least some of the advantages that made the real civilisation successful.

[Jasta11]

2 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

I disagree.

The Ironborn are clearly meant to be somewhat analogous to the Vikings, just as the Dothraki are to the Mongols, however both fiction peoples lack the advantages that made the real life versions as successful:

• Vikings were much better shipbuilders than the peoples they fought, the Ironborn have not had much of an advantage building ships in 2,000 years.
• Vikings were often better equipped than the poor French and Saxon soldiers they faces, the Ironborn sometimes are better equipped, but more often than not they are up against people just as well equipped or better.
• Vikings were very disciplined, Ironborn aren't particularly.
• Vikings had a large homeland with many natural resources, Ironborn do not.
• Vikings were traders, explorers and mercenaries, IE they were successful in ways other than raiding. The Ironborn have a theft based economy, which makes little sense.
• (Expanding on points 2 and 3) During Viking times they were at the tactical forefront if you will, in Westeros Ironborn are outmatched by cavalry, massed archers, pike squares, et cetera.
• Vikings weren't particularly good at siege warfare (AFAIK), but there were that many good fortifications at that time in that are of the world anyway, Ironborn definitely aren't any good, but are in a world with advanced and strong fortifications. 

There's probably a few other points.

The problem isn't that they aren't exactly the same, just that the differences pretty much universally make the Ironborn less able to succeed. If you are going to base a fictitious military culture on a real one, make sure you fictional society has at least some of the advantages that made the real civilisation successful.

 

Very true. Indeed, Vikings were not a people, but basically a ''job'' that Norsemen took, supported by a strong economy back home (those ships don't build themselves). I've read that Viking raids happened in part because Norse lands were enjoying a population boom, which created thousands of strong young men with nothing to their name and not much to do. Solution, send these guys out ti pillage and reave. Some of them ight even conquer land permanently. The Ironborn do not have a strong economy, and certainly are in no position to enjoy a population boom, so them only reaving for thousands of years makes little sense. 

The Dothraki have a similar problems. Armorless horsemen using curved swords and bows and refuse to fight any other way? Even the Huns were more advanced than them, to say nothing of the Mongols. But while the Huns faced (and sometimes lost to) a vestigal Roman empire, Westeros has about a millenia and technological advancement on Rome, to say nothing of being staffed with experienced, educated commanders,

[Hot Capicola]

On 7/10/2016 at 8:55 AM, Illyrio Mo'Parties said:

Interesting notion. The relevant section:

-- ADWD, Daenerys IX

 

Although this begs the question, why were the Westerosi so afraid of the prospect of a Dothraki invasion? Perhaps they're just judging them on a reputation that's unjustified.

This would make for an interesting twist to the story... but it's still weak world-building. What good explanation is there, in story, for the richer and more populous continent to be militarily inferior?

Were those confirmed to be real Dothraki or were they just slaves dressed up as Dothraki?   Dothraki military strength is based on them being superior riders compared with anyone else.  There is a reason why the army with the biggest cavalry won almost every battle up until the age of firearms.

 

Dothraki horses are smaller, faster and more agile than the big warhorses favored by armored knights.  This makes them a hard target for archers.  This also allows them to outmaneuver charging lancers. 

 

In an open field, a Dothraki horde would cut through a Westerosi army IMO.