Jump to content

Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance


Jaak

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think it's unrealistic to expect Jon to work out a peace with people who've just murdered his family, along with 3,500 of the North's fighting men, who are keeping his sister (he believes) a captive, and who would certainly finish him off as soon as the opportunity arose.  I wouldn't do it in his position, so I wouldn't expect him to.

Well, then why the hell did Jon expect that his men would accept a peace he made with people who just recently (and previously for generations) killed many of their friends and family?

If that's not a double standard I don't know what that concept means.

And I guess you are just not fit to lead humanity's last stand against the ultimate enemy if you can't see above your own petty concerns. Jon should know better, though. He himself acknowledges that it does not matter who sits the Iron Throne when the dead rise in the night. That should also include that it doesn't matter that your father and brother are murdered because they suck at the political game or that your sister pays the price for their stupidity.

You don't have to forget those grievances but they should be postponed until there is time and opportunity for such petty revenge. Doran Martell knows how to do that.

Jon effectively behaves as if he doesn't know that the Others threaten everybody when he does not even try to make a peace with the Boltons.

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon's card was marked as soon as Stannis came to the Wall, and he was elected Lord Commander. Cersei planned to assassinate him, as soon as she heard.  Really, all that Jon could do was to pick a side.

He doesn't know anything about that, though. And if he could convince Cersei of the real threat she most likely would not plan to assassinate him, right? I mean, he would have then given her the opportunity to save her own life, the lives of her children and family as well as the prospect to keep her power. All of that will be gone if the Others are victorious.

Apparently even the people knowing about the Others still don't understand what kind of threat they actually are. But I guess they will when the cold begins to kill a hundred men each night. Or even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, then why the hell did Jon expect that his men would accept a peace he made with people who just recently (and previously for generations) killed many of their friends and family?

If that's not a double standard I don't know what that concept means.

And I guess you are just not fit to lead humanity's last stand against the ultimate enemy if you can't see above your own petty concerns. Jon should know better, though. He himself acknowledges that it does not matter who sits the Iron Throne when the dead rise in the night. That should also include that it doesn't matter that your father and brother are murdered because they suck at the political game or that your sister pays the price for their stupidity.

You don't have to forget those grievances but they should be postponed until there is time and opportunity for such petty revenge. Doran Martell knows how to do that.

Jon effectively behaves as if he doesn't know that the Others threaten everybody when he does not even try to make a peace with the Boltons.

He doesn't know anything about that, though. And if he could convince Cersei of the real threat she most likely would not plan to assassinate him, right? I mean, he would have then given her the opportunity to save her own life, the lives of her children and family as well as the prospect to keep her power. All of that will be gone if the Others are victorious.

Apparently even the people knowing about the Others still don't understand what kind of threat they actually are. But I guess they will when the cold begins to kill a hundred men each night. Or even more.

Jon is not asking the men of the Night's Watch to make any greater sacrifice than he is making.  He lost friends and comrades in the battles against he wildlings. 

Jon would have to be a selfless saint to then seek to make peace with Boltons.  I think that would make him an unrealistic character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If there were no Others in this story, if Dany and Jon weren't woman and man (and thus capable of hooking up in manner: D + J = GVS - great vaginal sex), if the Targaryens weren't marrying their own, if the North wasn't effectively completely spent by then such a scenario could be possible.

Perhaps even if Dany had reconquered Westeros in the middle of the War of the Five Kings when nobody was thinking about the Others. But the idea that petty things like 'Northern (or Ironborn) independence' still matter at this point just doesn't make any sense. And thus Jon Snow would never approach any powerful military leader whose men could make a (or the) difference in the battle against the Others as a rival or even an enemy.

If he had to throw himself at Dany's feet to get what he wants and needs he would do that. The man is not as stupid as the Germans in two Word Wars to think he can win a war on two fronts - with one enemy not being the mortal Russians but some evil ice demons with a zombie army.

What would be the point to even risk the chance that Daenerys Targaryen is going to oppose him? Even if he magically had the men to be a nuisance to Dany's forces the risk of losing men in another war could very well give the Others the advantage they need to destroy everyone.

You can turn it around again and again but the point is that going along with petty secessionist behavior won't make any sense at that point. That idea already seems to be pretty much dead at this point, anyway. Wyman Manderly gives no indication that he wants an independent North, and Lady Dustin's theories what Roose Bolton might want to do will not be realized.

Even with Robb's will being revealed anybody believing in the threat of the Others - and hopefully some people will believe in that at this point - would be foolish to support Jon Snow (or another Stark) becoming a King in the North because that could motivate the people in the South to decide that 'the independent Northern kingdom' should deal with the Others all by themselves. That's what any sane person would expect a sovereign kingdom to be doing. Wights are only attacked if they reach our soil.

Lord Varys

I think there is some forcing happening from your side to hurry the plot in the direction you want it to end up. Consider the Jon/Dany situation.

You seem mildly irritated at the idea that there will be any type of organized authority in the North for Dany to have to engage with on anything other than a Savior/ desperate rabble. But think about the way things are being set up.

To the Northerners, Dany will not be perceived in the way you perceive her. Instead, they will just hear of yet another claimant to the distant Iron Throne, which is by now meaningless to them in the context of their bigger struggle for survival. Assume that at that point the North is united under Jon/Bran/Rickon, and therefore aware and focused on the threat of the Others.

They will have no reason to believe Daenerys has any interest in fighting the Others, or that she even has any good intentions for Westeros at all, other than a selfish desire for Conquest. They will see here as no different to the Lannisters who occupied the Throne in Dance, and were represented by their agents the  Boltons, in the North.

And how did Jon react to the Boltons? Irrespective of their strength and fortified position, he mobilized his meagre, badly trained Wildlings in an attempt to confront and destroy the Bolton threat if need be, before it was too late.

Similarly, when Daenerys arrives, why should they view her as some kind of godsend, when instead she may well be proclaiming her desire for all to submit to her claim? I can see an exact repeat of the events at the end  of Dance, with Jon this time rallying the entire North for a do-or-die aim of meeting this Queen with as much of a show of force as possible, in order to either convince her of the need to face the Others, or to try and destroy her as quickly as possible before Winter arrives.

And in order to determine which way this decision will go, they need to meet her first. And the most logical place to do so, will be at the Trident. Northern secession will not be their goal. Convincing her of the threat of the Others will be their goal. And for Jon to be taken seriously, he will go to this meeting with as much power as he can muster.

And with as many allies as he can bring with him - which is where the Riverlands and Vale comes in.

You seem to feel that everyone should automatically know that this alien Essosi Dragonqueen has arrived with good intentions, and should be seen as the answer to their prayers. When in truth they will have no inkling whether she even knows or cares about the Others, or about anything other than avenging her father's death. More so since at that point, she will no doubt have been the bloodied victor of yet another senseless civil war in the South, between herself, Aegon, Euron and the Lannisters.

Why should they take her arrival any more positively than that of Aegon, Euron, or Cersei, for that matter? Nope. The first meeting will be cautious, apprehensive but also filled with determination to make sure that this new potential enemy either understands the threat of the Others, or if not, is eliminated immediately, just like Jon decided that the Boltons had to be eliminated before he could face the Others without an enemy at his back.

I am sure that if the price of Dany's allegiance is that Jon submit to her, that he will do so in the interest of the Realm. But it is here that I expect that his true identity will emerge to change the entire narrative of the negotiation, and potentially its outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon is not asking the men of the Night's Watch to make any greater sacrifice than he is making.  He lost friends and comrades in the battles against he wildlings.

Who did Jon lose, exactly? People he knew for a few months, a year, perhaps? The men at the Wall lost men they had lived with for years or even decades.

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon would have to be a selfless saint to then seek to make peace with Boltons.  I think that would make him an unrealistic character. 

No. He would have been a smart guy who understood what was at stake. He is not practicing what he is preaching to his Sworn Brothers. [The German version of that idiom is that he himself drinks wine while preaching to the others that they should stick to water. That is a fitting image for the way he behaves.]

I'm not saying he should like make peace with the Boltons. And I'm also not saying he should not plot Roose's and Ramsay's murder behind their backs. After all, they only need their men not necessarily them. But not even trying to make a peace is just stupidity.

@Free Northman Reborn

Your entire scenario of the invading/evil Queen setting is a pseudo problem resolved by a single letter: 'Dear Lord Commander Snow. Archmaester Marwyn of the Citadel of Oldtown reached me in Slaver's Bay and told me about the threat my Realm faces from those ice demon creatures the legends refer to as the Others (he received this information from you yourself via your maester-in-training, a man named Samwell Tarly). Myself, my dragons, and my armies stand with you in this struggle. Yours truly, Daenerys I Targaryen, Queen of the Andals etc.'

If Dany lands in Oldtown (which is not completely impossible) or hooks up with Sam (who actually believes Dany is the savior) he could actually write and co-sign such a letter to make it even more convincing to Jon Snow.

Your idea that Dany is not going to be aware of the threat of the Others when she is finally coming to Westeros is unlikely in light of the Marwyn plot. In addition, the meaning of the prophecy as well as the point of the struggle of the hero/savior should also be clear by then. Minor details like the identity of the guy might still be not completely clear but that the Song of Ice and Fire is referring to the war against the Others seems to be pretty clear to Marwyn at least. And he is going to tell that to Dany and Tyrion.

And who knows? Perhaps the North is actually go to call for help even before Dany's arrival from one of those kings you think they would neither recognize nor care about. Stannis might die before Dany arrives in Westeros. Why shouldn't Jon try to convince Aegon of the threat his Realm is going to face in the near future? There are no bad feelings between him and that guy who might turn out to be his half-brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who did Jon lose, exactly? People he knew for a few months, a year, perhaps? The men at the Wall lost men they had lived with for years or even decades.

No. He would have been a smart guy who understood what was at stake. He is not practicing what he is preaching to his Sworn Brothers. [The German version of that idiom is that he himself drinks wine while preaching to the others that they should stick to water. That is a fitting image for the way he behaves.]

I'm not saying he should like make peace with the Boltons. And I'm also not saying he should not plot Roose's and Ramsay's murder behind their backs. After all, they only need their men not necessarily them. But not even trying to make a peace is just stupidity.

@Free Northman Reborn

Your entire scenario of the invading/evil Queen setting is a pseudo problem resolved by a single letter: 'Dear Lord Commander Snow. Archmaester Marwyn of the Citadel of Oldtown reached me in Slaver's Bay and told me about the threat my Realm faces from those ice demon creatures the legends refer to as the Others (he received this information from you yourself via your maester-in-training, a man named Samwell Tarly). Myself, my dragons, and my armies stand with you in this struggle. Yours truly, Daenerys I Targaryen, Queen of the Andals etc.'

If Dany lands in Oldtown (which is not completely impossible) or hooks up with Sam (who actually believes Dany is the savior) he could actually write and co-sign such a letter to make it even more convincing to Jon Snow.

Your idea that Dany is not going to be aware of the threat of the Others when she is finally coming to Westeros is unlikely in light of the Marwyn plot. In addition, the meaning of the prophecy as well as the point of the struggle of the hero/savior should also be clear by then. Minor details like the identity of the guy might still be not completely clear but that the Song of Ice and Fire is referring to the war against the Others seems to be pretty clear to Marwyn at least. And he is going to tell that to Dany and Tyrion.

And who knows? Perhaps the North is actually go to call for help even before Dany's arrival from one of those kings you think they would neither recognize nor care about. Stannis might die before Dany arrives in Westeros. Why shouldn't Jon try to convince Aegon of the threat his Realm is going to face in the near future? There are no bad feelings between him and that guy who might turn out to be his half-brother.

Your scenario above removes any currently foreseeable need for conflict between Jon and Dany. And basically means that once Dany defeats Aegon, Cersei and Euron, everything will apparently fall in place with Daenerys in charge and some desperate survivalists just hanging in the North, waiting for her arrival.

It seems like a remarkably neatly communicated solution, though. Unlike how most of the serious tends to transpire. And also makes it seem strange that the likes of Bloodraven/Bran would be so focused on Jon's identity and destiny, when they should have been focused on guiding Daenerys's path instead, in whatever way possible.

Because in the above scenario Jon is really not even needed. If Daenerys just conquers the South by force, and sweeps her overwhelmingly strong dragon-backed army up North, why do you even need Jon's story? There could be zero humans left in the North, and Daenerys would be equally successful, if everyone else is so powerless by the time she arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, Dany's arrival will be viewed very negatively by very many people within Westeros.  Assuming that some or all of the Dothraki are united and sweep across Western Essos, I imagine you'd see thousands of refugees fleeing West. That would be regardless of her actual intentions towards Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Your scenario above removes any currently foreseeable need for conflict between Jon and Dany.

What 'foreseeable need for conflict between Jon and Dany' are you talking about? Dany and Jon are not even aware of each other's existence. Where the hell are there any hints that these two people are in any need for conflict whatsoever?

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And basically means that once Dany defeats Aegon, Cersei and Euron, everything will apparently fall in place with Daenerys in charge and some desperate survivalists just hanging in the North, waiting for her arrival.

I actually think that Dany, Jon, and Tyrion will team up and form a coalition to defeat the Others. And I see no reason why the hell there has to be some sort of unrealistic pissing contest before that happens. If the characters don't learn from their mistakes (i.e. begin to think before they act) then most of things they go through are meaningless.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It seems like a remarkably neatly communicated solution, though. Unlike how most of the serious tends to transpire. And also makes it seem strange that the likes of Bloodraven/Bran would be so focused on Jon's identity and destiny, when they should have been focused on guiding Daenerys's path instead, in whatever way possible.

Well, the great Bloodraven might actually not even be aware of Daenerys' existence/importance or what she has done (hatched the dragon eggs). She was born on weirwood-less Dragonstone and spent her entire life in Essos. Can Bloodraven also see stuff in places where there are no weirwoods for thousands of leagues around? We don't know yet.

And even if he could see stuff there he clearly has no means to influence things over there.

But the idea that this guy can't be wrong or make no mistakes is unrealistic. Besides, his personal opinion that Jon Snow should be king is just that - his opinion. Brynden Rivers is no more an authority on the royal succession as Hot Pie.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because in the above scenario Jon is really not even needed. If Daenerys just conquers the South by force, and sweeps her overwhelmingly strong dragon-backed army up North, why do you even need Jon's story? There could be zero humans left in the North, and Daenerys would be equally successful, if everyone else is so powerless by the time she arrives.

I guess most of the Northmen and the Riverlanders are going to die if the Others ever bring the Wall down. That can't be helped if the threat is supposed to believable.

And again, I expect Jon to be team up with Dany. He could very well become the man leading the armies into battle. The sword in her hand, if you will, as Prince Daemon was for Rhaenyra (or Aemond for Aegon II). Not everybody has to be completely in charge so that his story has to have meaning. You always argue that all the Stark POVs are going to support Jon's claim - why the hell can't Jon support the claim of his aunt and help her win the war against the Others?

I'm the one who is arguing that this story is too big for one hero, remember? But you also to keep in mind that it would have been an entirely different story if the North was supposed to become a powerful faction in the endgame against the Others. If that was the case then the Others would have been fire demons and there would have been a Wall in the south of Dorne, enabling the Starks to join the game late rather than bleeding out early on and living in the region where the hammer of the Others will hit first.

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, Dany's arrival will be viewed very negatively by very many people within Westeros.  Assuming that some or all of the Dothraki are united and sweep across Western Essos, I imagine you'd see thousands of refugees fleeing West. That would be regardless of her actual intentions towards Westeros.

That would depend on the scenario. But I doubt the Northmen and Jon would care about any of that. They are not likely to be the first on her list, rather the last. And the fighting men she brings could be used in the real war regardless how many people they also slaughtered.

And we have no idea who will be Dany's major obstacle on her arrival. Aegon or Euron? Or somebody else? King Euron should not be popular and King Aegon might no longer be popular. How much fighting will be there before Dany even arrives? And how strong will Westeros as a whole be when she finally comes? Will resistance be possible or futile? If it is futile then it is not likely that there will be much slaughtering.

Not to mention that the average Westerosi wouldn't want to wage some war in the middle of winter regardless whether they want a foreign whore queen as their ruler or not. They would want to survive winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What 'foreseeable need for conflict between Jon and Dany' are you talking about? Dany and Jon are not even aware of each other's existence. Where the hell are there any hints that these two people are in any need for conflict whatsoever?

I actually think that Dany, Jon, and Tyrion will team up and form a coalition to defeat the Others. And I see no reason why the hell there has to be some sort of unrealistic pissing contest before that happens. If the characters don't learn from their mistakes (i.e. begin to think before they act) then most of things they go through are meaningless.

Well, the great Bloodraven might actually not even be aware of Daenerys' existence/importance or what she has done (hatched the dragon eggs). She was born on weirwood-less Dragonstone and spent her entire life in Essos. Can Bloodraven also see stuff in places where there are no weirwoods for thousands of leagues around? We don't know yet.

And even if he could see stuff there he clearly has no means to influence things over there.

But the idea that this guy can't be wrong or make no mistakes is unrealistic. Besides, his personal opinion that Jon Snow should be king is just that - his opinion. Brynden Rivers is no more an authority on the royal succession as Hot Pie.

I guess most of the Northmen and the Riverlanders are going to die if the Others ever bring the Wall down. That can't be helped if the threat is supposed to believable.

And again, I expect Jon to be team up with Dany. He could very well become the man leading the armies into battle. The sword in her hand, if you will, as Prince Daemon was for Rhaenyra (or Aemond for Aegon II). Not everybody has to be completely in charge so that his story has to have meaning. You always argue that all the Stark POVs are going to support Jon's claim - why the hell can't Jon support the claim of his aunt and help her win the war against the Others?

I'm the one who is arguing that this story is too big for one hero, remember? But you also to keep in mind that it would have been an entirely different story if the North was supposed to become a powerful faction in the endgame against the Others. If that was the case then the Others would have been fire demons and there would have been a Wall in the south of Dorne, enabling the Starks to join the game late rather than bleeding out early on and living in the region where the hammer of the Others will hit first.

That would depend on the scenario. But I doubt the Northmen and Jon would care about any of that. They are not likely to be the first on her list, rather the last. And the fighting men she brings could be used in the real war regardless how many people they also slaughtered.

And we have no idea who will be Dany's major obstacle on her arrival. Aegon or Euron? Or somebody else? King Euron should not be popular and King Aegon might no longer be popular. How much fighting will be there before Dany even arrives? And how strong will Westeros as a whole be when she finally comes? Will resistance be possible or futile? If it is futile then it is not likely that there will be much slaughtering.

Not to mention that the average Westerosi wouldn't want to wage some war in the middle of winter regardless whether they want a foreign whore queen as their ruler or not. They would want to survive winter.

In a roundabout way you are saying that while Jon rising to kingship is too much of a traditional fantasy trope for you, Daenerys arriving as the glorious saviour in Westeros is perfectly fine.

Anyway, we have had this conversation before. Martin better start hurrying up, because I don't think I can handle too much more of this. It's like we are reading different books.

And while the Show has skipped a lot of plotlines, to fast forward to the end, it seems that in the broader King in the North scheme of things, they are following a similar script to what I am envisaging the plot to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think it's unrealistic to expect Jon to work out a peace with people who've just murdered his family, along with 3,500 of the North's fighting men, who are keeping his sister (he believes) a captive, and who would certainly finish him off as soon as the opportunity arose.  I wouldn't do it in his position, so I wouldn't expect him to.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, then why the hell did Jon expect that his men would accept a peace he made with people who just recently (and previously for generations) killed many of their friends and family?

If that's not a double standard I don't know what that concept means.

And I guess you are just not fit to lead humanity's last stand against the ultimate enemy if you can't see above your own petty concerns. Jon should know better, though. He himself acknowledges that it does not matter who sits the Iron Throne when the dead rise in the night. That should also include that it doesn't matter that your father and brother are murdered because they suck at the political game or that your sister pays the price for their stupidity.

You don't have to forget those grievances but they should be postponed until there is time and opportunity for such petty revenge. Doran Martell knows how to do that.

Jon effectively behaves as if he doesn't know that the Others threaten everybody when he does not even try to make a peace with the Boltons.

He doesn't know anything about that, though. And if he could convince Cersei of the real threat she most likely would not plan to assassinate him, right? I mean, he would have then given her the opportunity to save her own life, the lives of her children and family as well as the prospect to keep her power. All of that will be gone if the Others are victorious.

Apparently even the people knowing about the Others still don't understand what kind of threat they actually are. But I guess they will when the cold begins to kill a hundred men each night. Or even more.

Exactly - Jon is unreasonable here. He won´t forgive his enemies (the Boltons) but assumes old ans scarred veterans like Bowen shall forgive the Wildlings. Jon is certainly not making the same sacrifice. He has been there shorter and spended quite some time to know the wildlings from their point of view. Yet when it comes to the Boltons he is unwilling to think in the same way. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, my idea there just is that Jon has reached the conclusion the Weeper - a non-Other - is still human and thus better than an Other and does not deserve to become a wight to add another soldier to their ranks..

I'm not faulting him for Alys Karstark. He was in the rights there. She was seeking refuge and he granted her guest right.

But nothing points in this direction. Jon is only willing to do this with groups and people he sympathises with.

I also agree when it comes to Alys, and I even tend to agree that making the deal for the wildings and giving Stannis the mountain men instead as well as some tactical suggestions is technically in line with his oaths, since he make sure the wildlings stays at the wall. Then again - Jon is filling that cup more and more with coffee and soon it will overflow. 

On general, his treatment of Stannis (at least first, is pretty ok). But now he is literary at the point that he sends messenges to Stannis to warn him for the Karstark trap. This is not an act from a "neutral part". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In a roundabout way you are saying that while Jon rising to kingship is too much of a traditional fantasy trope for you, Daenerys arriving as the glorious saviour in Westeros is perfectly fine.

That is not because I want this to happen it is because Dany has the huge army and the dragons in the books. I can't change that.

Quote

Anyway, we have had this conversation before. Martin better start hurrying up, because I don't think I can handle too much more of this. It's like we are reading different books.

Well, that's part of the fun. If you had the same opinion as I there was no reason to discuss those things.

Quote

And while the Show has skipped a lot of plotlines, to fast forward to the end, it seems that in the broader King in the North scheme of things, they are following a similar script to what I am envisaging the plot to be.

Sent you a PM for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

That would depend on the scenario. But I doubt the Northmen and Jon would care about any of that. They are not likely to be the first on her list, rather the last. And the fighting men she brings could be used in the real war regardless how many people they also slaughtered.

And we have no idea who will be Dany's major obstacle on her arrival. Aegon or Euron? Or somebody else? King Euron should not be popular and King Aegon might no longer be popular. How much fighting will be there before Dany even arrives? And how strong will Westeros as a whole be when she finally comes? Will resistance be possible or futile? If it is futile then it is not likely that there will be much slaughtering.

Not to mention that the average Westerosi wouldn't want to wage some war in the middle of winter regardless whether they want a foreign whore queen as their ruler or not. They would want to survive winter.

There are a lot of variables, to be sure.  Dany's not Vargo Hoat, or even Tywin Lannister, but I'd imagine that her likely conquest of Western Essos will be pretty ghastly for a lot of its inhabitants.  Even if she can prevent wanton murder and mass rape (a big if) her forces will have to pillage to survive, and sacking cities that offer resistance is standard operating practice in this world, if only to induce the rest to surrender. 

But as you imply, if she has a sufficiently fearsome reputation, she may encounter very little resistance when she reaches Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

 

Exactly - Jon is unreasonable here. He won´t forgive his enemies (the Boltons) but assumes old ans scarred veterans like Bowen shall forgive the Wildlings. Jon is certainly not making the same sacrifice. He has been there shorter and spended quite some time to know the wildlings from their point of view. Yet when it comes to the Boltons he is unwilling to think in the same way. 

But nothing points in this direction. Jon is only willing to do this with groups and people he sympathises with.

I also agree when it comes to Alys, and I even tend to agree that making the deal for the wildings and giving Stannis the mountain men instead as well as some tactical suggestions is technically in line with his oaths, since he make sure the wildlings stays at the wall. Then again - Jon is filling that cup more and more with coffee and soon it will overflow. 

On general, his treatment of Stannis (at least first, is pretty ok). But now he is literary at the point that he sends messenges to Stannis to warn him for the Karstark trap. This is not an act from a "neutral part". 

The neutrality of the Nights Watch is a ship that has long since sailed.  It sailed once they issued a request for help to every claimant to the Iron Throne, rather than restricting their appeal to the government in Kings Landing.  This point was recognised by Tywin Lannister, who took the view that they'd repudiated allegiance to the Iron Throne and he was quite prepared to let Mance Rayder overrun much of the North.

WRT the Boltons, it's not just Jon that they've wronged.  They've wronged the families and connections of every man who died or was taken prisoner at the Red Wedding.  I reiterate that it is unrealistic to view them as allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

The neutrality of the Nights Watch is a ship that has long since sailed.  It sailed once they issued a request for help to every claimant to the Iron Throne, rather than restricting their appeal to the government in Kings Landing.  This point was recognised by Tywin Lannister, who took the view that they'd repudiated allegiance to the Iron Throne and he was quite prepared to let Mance Rayder overrun much of the North.

WRT the Boltons, it's not just Jon that they've wronged.  They've wronged the families and connections of every man who died or was taken prisoner at the Red Wedding.  I reiterate that it is unrealistic to view them as allies.

The same can be said about the Weeper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

There are a lot of variables, to be sure.  Dany's not Vargo Hoat, or even Tywin Lannister, but I'd imagine that her likely conquest of Western Essos will be pretty ghastly for a lot of its inhabitants.  Even if she can prevent wanton murder and mass rape (a big if) her forces will have to pillage to survive, and sacking cities that offer resistance is standard operating practice in this world, if only to induce the rest to surrender.

That does not have to be the case. Keep in mind that Westeros seems to be headed for another round of civil wars. Dany is likely to plunder and sack the Free Cities on her way to Westeros to have sufficient provisions for her vast armies which might eventually swell on to become entire peoples leaving their native lands.

She could secure so many riches in Yunkai, New Ghis, Volantis, Lys, Myr, Tyrosh that she will be able to throw even more food and valuables on the people of Westeros than the Tyrells could back after the Blackwater. And then nobody is going to perceive her as evil.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

But as you imply, if she has a sufficiently fearsome reputation, she may encounter very little resistance when she reaches Westeros.

I did not imply that. I implied that the wars between Aegon, Euron, Stannis, the Lannisters/Tyrells and whatever is going on in the Riverlands and the North could weaken Westeros to such a degree that even a little girl who knows nothing of war could conquer Westeros without great effort.

Even a united Westeros under Robert would have had difficulty to resist a Targaryen invasion supported by all the Dothraki, even less so Dany's vast armies. Right now Westeros is neither united nor in good shape.

Daenerys might very well have the power to do whatever the hell she wants with Westeros. She might be in a position where she has no need of single Westerosi ally because she has so much power that she can afford to kill every Westerosi and repopulate the land with her own people.

That's not what she is going to do, of course, because a lot of people should declare for her but it might be a real possibility. Unlike Aegon the Conqueror she is not going to come with three dragons a few guys. She is coming with three dragons a huge army.

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Exactly - Jon is unreasonable here. He won´t forgive his enemies (the Boltons) but assumes old ans scarred veterans like Bowen shall forgive the Wildlings. Jon is certainly not making the same sacrifice. He has been there shorter and spended quite some time to know the wildlings from their point of view. Yet when it comes to the Boltons he is unwilling to think in the same way. 

That is an important point. But then, it is not his fault alone. Nobody even suggests or entertains the notion that they could make a peace with the Boltons or write more letters/send out envoys to inform the Lords of Westeros what's going on. Mormont had that idea back in AGoT. But why not send Janos Slynt back to Cersei and Tywin? Or send Aemon to court instead of Oldtown? Those are essentially plot holes if you think about it, not just problems in Jon's character.

If Marsh and others had urged Jon to do something like that and Jon had denied them because of his feelings it would have been a deficit in his character. The way it is he might just be stupid never thinking of such an option.

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

But nothing points in this direction. Jon is only willing to do this with groups and people he sympathises with.

I think we are going too far there. I don't think he sympathizes with the Weeper. Just with the wildling way of life.

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I also agree when it comes to Alys, and I even tend to agree that making the deal for the wildings and giving Stannis the mountain men instead as well as some tactical suggestions is technically in line with his oaths, since he make sure the wildlings stays at the wall. Then again - Jon is filling that cup more and more with coffee and soon it will overflow.

The problem is that he just focuses on helping Stannis. Had he also written letters offering help and assistance to Roose or Cersei or had he actually informed them what Stannis was doing those people might not have considered him an enemy.

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

On general, his treatment of Stannis (at least first, is pretty ok). But now he is literary at the point that he sends messenges to Stannis to warn him for the Karstark trap. This is not an act from a "neutral part". 

Indeed. But that is still something that is not nearly as problematic as sending Mance to Winterfell. That was treason and interference in a matter he had no right to interfere with.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The neutrality of the Nights Watch is a ship that has long since sailed.  It sailed once they issued a request for help to every claimant to the Iron Throne, rather than restricting their appeal to the government in Kings Landing.  This point was recognised by Tywin Lannister, who took the view that they'd repudiated allegiance to the Iron Throne and he was quite prepared to let Mance Rayder overrun much of the North.

The thing is that the Night's Watch has no right to give up its neutrality. The kings and lords can ignore they calls for help but the NW has no right to do anything about that.

Writing letter to all the lords/pretender kings isn't treason or a breach of neutrality. The Watch cannot know which pretender is the true king nor which one will prevail and thus become the true king. But they need help now.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

WRT the Boltons, it's not just Jon that they've wronged.  They've wronged the families and connections of every man who died or was taken prisoner at the Red Wedding.  I reiterate that it is unrealistic to view them as allies.

As @Protagoras has said then it is also unrealistic to see the Weeper as potential ally. Or Rattleshirt. Or Harma. Or pretty much any wildling raider, Mance included. There is a reason why Mors Umber wanted Mance's skull in exchange for his allegiance. If you believe there are just petty squabbles between the Watch, the Northmen, and the wildlings and Jon losing a half-brother then you are mistaken or using a double standard.

Not to mention that Jon has actually no means to actually know how involved Roose Bolton was in the Red Wedding. He doesn't know that Roose's men did much of the slaughtering nor does he know that Roose personally killed Robb. Finally the loss of a half-brother or the suffering of a half-sister isn't that much of deal in this world. Many royal and noble half-siblings actually killed each other in this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is no fundamental difference between the century-long hatred between Watchmen and wildlings and whatever feelings Jon has for Roose and Ramsay. In fact, Roose and Ramsay just recently became enemies of the Starks while the wildlings were the enemies of the Watch for generations. Trying to heal that rift - which sits much deeper than the Stark-Bolton thing - but not making an attempt at the other thing is taking different standards, essentially stupid, and sort of cowardly.

Bowen Marsh is supposed to overcome his hatred for a man like the Weeper (who cruelly tortures every Watchman he lays his hands on and who - along with his men - just recently killed many Watchmen at the Bridge of Skulls) but Jon can make his hatred for the Boltons a foundation of his policy is a huge double standard.

That is a very different thing. To be clear, I am making my argument here assuming that Jon didn't have any personal issues/put them aside/ there was a neutral LC of the Watch.

With the wildlings, even if you leave the humanitarian argument aside, you have the practical argument  that leaving 100000 people on the wrong side of the Wall directly increases the Others' army by that very number. So even a LC of the Watch who was not particularly sympathetic to the Wildlings would have to consider letting them in through the Wall if he was bothered about the real fight

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, no Lord of the North came to the help of the Watch. None at all. And Aemon was writing letters to all of them. It is not that just the Boltons refused to help. But Roose has a very good excuse as why he didn't help. He was in the South with Robb Stark, remember? Any letters sent to the Dreadfort wouldn't have reached him.

The same is not true for the lords who remained in the North (Manderly, Dustin, the Ryswells, the clansmen etc.) as well as the various castellans (Karstark, Umber, etc.) who weren't attacked by the Ironborn. They just refused to help while the Watch was attacked by the wildlings who would then invade their own lands after they had dealt with the NW. That is a major logical problem in the narrative and can perhaps best be resolved that all of the lords/castellans receiving such letters lacked the strength to actually spare any men at this time (due to a general lack of men due to Robb's war or because they were at that time bringing in the last harvest).

But the idea is not that Jon Snow is going to write some letters to Roose. The idea is that he actually tries to make peace with him. He could have sent envoys to Barrowton and Winterfell. He could have personally attended his sister's wedding. He could have done anything in his power to make Roose understand the danger they are all in. And he could have tried to convince Stannis of such a course of action, too. The idea that it was smart to continue the fighting with the Others at your back was insane from Stannis' point of view. The man should have sent envoys to Roose to try to make a peace with him throughout winter and/or tried to make him understand the real threat they are facing.

Why? Why should the LC of the Watch do this? The business of duty to the realm is a two-way street, you know. If the LC of the Watch sends a letter asking for help, it is the duty of the Lord of Winterfell to take it seriously if he expects the Watch to protect his lands. If we're going to expect Jon Snow to put aside his hatred and send a letter to Roose, then we should apply the same standards to Roose as well, right - that he should have put aside all his other business and immediately marshalled the North towards the Watch? Why does the LC have to grovel at his feet - that too when another much more pliant option is available?

Your scenario also assumes that the LC of the watch would have so much sway over both Stannis or Boltons that he would be able to get them to ally so easily. That seems like a very unrealistic scenario to me.

Let's look at it from the POV of the NW commander. He knows that the Boltons have suddenly become the Lords of the North, with their army mysteriously untouched. The previous King, from the family who had ruled the North for centuries and who, everyone knows, had the steadfast loyalty and love of most of the Northern houses during that time - has been just killed brutally. Does it take a genius to put two and two together from this and figure that the Boltons may possibly have been involved in all this, and that the North may not accept their rule? And from this, can the LC not extrapolate that the Boltons wouldn't care about his cause any more than they cared about their king? How do you think it would have looked like to the rest of the North when Ramsay Bolton - rapist, flayer, monster extraordinaire became acting Lord of Winterfell? The story of Lady Hornwood was very well known, as also Roose's raping of Ramsay's mother.

On top of that, the enemy you are seeking help against are the Others, "half forgotten ice demons of legend" gone 8000 years ago.   The LC doesn't even have actual evidence, just a few accounts from some NW men and the wildlings (which the North hates anyway). 9 times out of 10, people are not going to take this seriously.

On the other hand you have Stannis Baratheon, one of the more powerful Lords of Westeros,  who's actually taken your cause seriously, helped you when you needed it the most, and plans to restore the rightful (in the eyes of the Northerners) ruler to Winterfell, thus bringing political stability back to the North to some extent. Following which he is sure to marshal more men and resources your way for the real fight. He'll even do most of the legwork and canvassing for the cause, sparing you from sending men to grovel at all the Lords' feet. You know that he is a man of his word.

Seriously, why should he choose the Boltons? Even if you didn't have Jon's own personal issues in the mix, it's very likely an LC of the Watch would still take a similar decisions to him of supporting Stannis.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is your (and Stannis', and Jon's) mistake. A united North won't be able to stand against the Others. I doubt even a united North under Eddard Stark would have been able to stand against the Others. But a united North after the toll of the War of the Five Kings, the Red Wedding, the continued civil war in the North, and the cold and famine winter will bring won't be able to stand against anything, basically.

My argument refers to a pre-Daenerys' arrival scenario -  basically the time of ADWD. But even with regards to her, I don't share your certainty that all three dragons will make it out alive and under her control from the DotD.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All the Lords of the North are traditionally friends of the Watch, not just the Starks. In addition, the Starks are as much 'traitors' as the Boltons. Robb took up arms against King Joffrey after Eddard Stark conspired against him. People tend to forget that Robb is actually guilty of treason because he actually considered Joffrey Robert Baratheon's son when he took up arms against him. 

I recall you saying on another discussion of ours that in the feudal system, the son is expected to avenge his father. In the North, by all accounts, the LC would have the knowledge that Eddard Stark was a man of honour. So it's entirely possible that he suspects that Ned was executed unfairly. Certainly nobody in the North believes Robb was a traitor, why should the LC?

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the South cannot be counted upon to send assistance eventually they should all abandon their posts or kill themselves now. Because the few fighting men left in the North won't help them hold the Wall.

There is going to be battle at/near Winterfell that will involve about 10,000 men. That is the bulk of the strength left in the North (Freys included). In addition there might be some Manderly men left, and whatever men there are on Skagos. That's it. Depending how bad the battle(s) are going to get half or more the strength of the North might die. That is not going to be a good thing even if the Boltons are defeated.

You are assuming an extremely idealistic scenario that people are actually even going to take this threat of ice demons seriously.The entire reason the Others are such a massive threat is because their enemy doesn't even believe they exist. The idea that everyone is all of a sudden going to put everything aside and listen to the LC of the Watch proclaiming that ice spiders and ice demons are on their way is very unlikely. Until the Wall falls or something drastic happens, the South is never going to take this seriously. GRRM has clearly set it up that way.

 

Will respond to other points later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.9.2016 at 7:47 PM, Heavy D said:

Aerys had the right to name his heir.  It is clear from that passage that he did, in fact, disinherit Rhaegar's line. 

The clear part is that Aerys did purport to disinherit Rhaegaer's line. What's not clear is whether he had the right to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaak said:

The clear part is that Aerys did purport to disinherit Rhaegaer's line. What's not clear is whether he had the right to do so.

Aerys II just named a new heir - his own son, Prince Viserys. This doesn't mean that Aegon and Rhaenys were completely out of the succession or disinherited. It just meant they now came after Viserys.

Nobody in Westeros seems to be denying that a king can name his heir. Aegon IV threatened to make one of his bastards his heir and nobody in Westeros told him that this was unthinkable or impossible.

More importantly, there are a number or precedents where a a younger son of a king prevailed over a grandchild (Jaehaerys I instead of Aerea; Baelon/Viserys I instead of Rhaenys/Laenor; Viserys II instead of Daena; Aegon V instead of Maegor/Vaella; Jaehaerys II instead of Duncan).

Thus Aerys II decision for Viserys instead of Aegon was completely in line with the tradition especially considering that this was the choice between an infant and a seven-year-old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Varys,

None of the wildling leaders has betrayed their liege lord and king, in the way that the Boltons did.  The wildlings may or may not turn out to be treacherous, but the Boltons have already proved to be treacherous.  I wouldn't expect such people to hold to any bargain I reached with them, and I wouldn't expect Jon to believe that they would.  We never get to see Jon's reaction to news of the Red Wedding, but he was plainly aware of it by the time he got elected.  It wouldn't be hard to determine the essentials of what took place in succeeding weeks, even if he doesn't have all of the details.

In addition, there are pragmatic reasons for negotiating with the wildlings (as Little Scribe of Naath has suggested) that don't apply to the Boltons.  The wildlings are coming to the Wall anyway.  Either they'll come as wights, or they'll come potentially as allies.  They may turn out to be treacherous enemies, but there doesn't seem anything to lose at this point, by treating them as allies.

Then there is Stannis.  He came to the rescue of Castle Black.  The Night's Watch owes him a huge debt.  What's more, he outnumbers them three to one.  He can, if he chooses, take what he is asking for.  Anything that Jon gives Stannis makes him an enemy in the eyes of Kings Landing, whether he likes it or not.  I think it is hugely unlikely that Jon could broker any peace agreement between Stannis and Roose Bolton.  I don't think he has any choice but to pick a side.  If I have a criticism of Jon, it's that once he decided to back Stannis, he should have been whole-hearted about it.

Finally, Ramsay.  Ramsay's recreational activities are well-known throughout the North.  As is his treatment of Lady Hornwood.  Again, I wouldn't expect anyone to just shrug if their sister was being forcibly married to a man with a record of inflicting rape, torture, starvation and forcible bestiality on women.  In fact, I'd despise Jon if he was okay with this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II just named a new heir - his own son, Prince Viserys. This doesn't mean that Aegon and Rhaenys were completely out of the succession or disinherited. It just meant they now came after Viserys.

Was Robert (while in open rebellion) in succession after Viserys, after Rhaenys, or not at all?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody in Westeros seems to be denying that a king can name his heir. Aegon IV threatened to make one of his bastards his heir and nobody in Westeros told him that this was unthinkable or impossible.

That's still compatible with a lot of people denying he had the right to do so.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

More importantly, there are a number or precedents where a a younger son of a king prevailed over a grandchild (Jaehaerys I instead of Aerea;

NOT named by King. Maegor expressly named Aerea as his heir - Jaehaerys usurped the throne anyway.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Baelon/Viserys I instead of Rhaenys/Laenor;

Highly arguable. It's true that Jaehaerys appointed Baelon, and then appointed Viserys separately after Great Council. However, when Viserys I appointed his heiress, a lot of people did not obey.

A Green could argue that neither Jaehaerys nor Viserys had the right to name their heir - they had obeyed Jaehaerys not because he had the right to name heir but because he had named the right heir, and Viserys had no right to name his heir and had named the wrong one. And anyone who complies to Aegon II-s decrees by failing to list Rhaenyra as Queen and numbering Aegon son of Rhaenyra as Aegon III is recognizing the Greens as right.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys II instead of Daena; Aegon V instead of Maegor/Vaella;

Again NOT named by King.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys II instead of Duncan).

Moot because Duncan did not, in the end, survive his father.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Thus Aerys II decision for Viserys instead of Aegon was completely in line with the tradition especially considering that this was the choice between an infant and a seven-year-old.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...