Jump to content

Its clear that Loras went to an empty Dragon Stone


Jadakiss

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

You're not allowng a teen to grow up through his mistakes and experiences. How fast did young JonCon change after the Battle of the Bells and learning of Rhaegar's death? Within a few years he pretended to be dead (from drink) and chose to raise a toddler on a boat.

I taught teens of 15 that pulled the blood from under my nails and were a constant source of conflict and aggrevation, but who I had marvelous adult conversations with at 18 when they graduated. They're actually the ones who keep in contact with me and let me know what they're up to in life. Teens become adults and between 15 and 18 they change a lot.

I happen to agree with most you wrote and I do hope for a comeback of Loras, I would not even mind a scenario similar as described in the OP, but I believe most of us wouldn't be surprised if Loras succumbs to his wounds. To mature you need to survive. And even very mature people die in battle all the time. His mature decision in the confrontation with Cersei was after all to take a personal risk to get help to his people/family in the Reach that would otherwise be denied. What I believe GRRM has done with Loras is leaving him in a limbo intentionally, he can make a plausible comeback or not, but to say that anything (contradicting the only story given in the books so far) about his current situation is obvious is a stretch imo.

I don't agree on Jon Connington, instead of his action in Stoney Sept the mature Jon Connington would if need be butcher the town, instead of coping with his loss he grasps a straw offered by the likes of Illyrio and Varys and lets himself be exploited by them because he wants to believe in Aegon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, black_hart said:

I don't agree on Jon Connington, instead of his action in Stoney Sept the mature Jon Connington would if need be butcher the town, instead of coping with his loss he grasps a straw offered by the likes of Illyrio and Varys and lets himself be exploited by them because he wants to believe in Aegon.

The point is that JonCon changed. He sought honor (not butchering the town) and opted for an assault to battle Robert in person. Whether JonCon was used by players such as Ilyrio and Varys is irrelevant with regards to the change of character, since JonCon is not aware of this. But he was willing to play dead (even in a way that is dishonorful), play the long game in order to raise and make a king for years far away from earning personal honor and glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Snip

Well, what I see is basically a conspiracy which simply feels too unlikely. My main problem with GNC and conspiracies in general is that they always assume alot or some distant people are connected and schemes as a group (instead of as individuals or smaller groups) and that almost nothing can happen by accident. Everything has to be "planned" somehow. Yet sometimes there are legitimate reasons to suspect something is not right, due to the situation. GNC at least has a reason behind why all these people would do it - how far-fetched it might seen.

And this is why I think the idea fails. There is no clear point, no clear benefit here. What exactly do the conspiratorators hope to gain here? What is the point? What benefit do they hope to reap that couldn´t be done in another way? 

It is clearly not about the Kingsguard since then Loras would be declared dead so he could wrongly be replaced, its not about he defending Margaery since then she would have chosen combat, its not about those 1000 soldier losses, since Loras - as commander, of course have the authority to do the assault in any way it pleases him. There is basically no reason behind "Aurane lies" apart from that he somehow always lies since he wasn´t honest with his loyalty to Cersei (Pro-tip: Liars don´t lie all the time). Any any connection between him, Stannis and the Tyrells is more or less made up by sheer will.

So please, all you who believe this - can you explain why they are doing this. What is their point? What are they expecting to win from this. Because all I see is a crappy theory, that to many seem to take for given, which doesn´t survive 5 minutes under Occams razor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And yet this impetuous man manages to calmy reason with Cersei while she throws insult after insult about his brothers and lands of the Reach.

I agree that we are originally given the image of an impulsive teen as Loras's character. The restraint and calm reasoning he does in front of Cersei - while to him Margaery would be queen, not the mother of the king - could easily be waved off as OOC if we hadn't been a witness to it. But we do witness it. He acts and talks neither impetuous nor arrogantly in that scene at all. Something changed.

What could have brought that about? First, there is the loss of the love of his life. Tragedy, grief and loss does things to us. It can destroy us and make us more wreckless, or it can do the opposite. Then Loras meets with Brienne and faces the fact that the one he blamed didn't do it and how he's poersonally responsible of slaying his fellow Rainbow Guards. The scene between Loras and Cersei makes clear that Loras learned something from it all. He is not the glory seeking young man in the throne room anymore as he was before Ned Stark. He has become a man who may be quick on his feet, but also far more insightful and realistic than he was before. He behaves far more responsible, not for his own glory, but to protect his sister, to make a king and man out of Tommen, and possibly to make a new king altogether (He probably read up on Cole in the White Book as Jaime advized him to, and if he is beginning to take him as his new example, then we can easily deduce Loras would end up paralleling Cersei to Rhaenyra Targaryen).

George also hints at a change of Loras through Jaime, who on the one hand recognizes his young self in Loras but also that he could be a great man worthy of the book and tells Cersei that the white cloak changes a man.

You're not allowng a teen to grow up through his mistakes and experiences. How fast did young JonCon change after the Battle of the Bells and learning of Rhaegar's death? Within a few years he pretended to be dead (from drink) and chose to raise a toddler on a boat.

I taught teens of 15 that pulled the blood from under my nails and were a constant source of conflict and aggrevation, but who I had marvelous adult conversations with at 18 when they graduated. They're actually the ones who keep in contact with me and let me know what they're up to in life. Teens become adults and between 15 and 18 they change a lot.

You are not wrong. People do go through changes in their youth. And I think the theory that there is more to the events around DS than meets the eye holds a lot of water.

To play the devils advocate, though, I think it can just as easily be argued Loras did go to DS. Following Loras' general path; used mare in heat, jumps at the chance to hunt a criminal, kills RG members after Renly dies, joins KG, wants to kill Brienne on sight, is arrogant in discussions with Jaime, talks with and believes Brienne, volunteers to take DS so he can free up the fleet. You may be right, that the conversation with Brienne left him feeling guilty. He could also parlay that guilt into a renewed anger toward Stannis. DS is the closest part of Stannis for him to hurt and also the only obstacle holding back a key part of his homes defense. It's all conjecture, to be sure, but I am inclined to accept what the books give me. Right now I do not feel the books have given me enough to work with regarding a conspiracy amongst the Tyrells around DS. I am open to the idea but I don't want to start considering it fact until I am able to gather more information (I.e. Read more, come on George).

 

I did notice this line from Jaime about Loras that does potentially foreshadow your side of things: "... he is not false. Not yet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And this is why I think the idea fails. There is no clear point, no clear benefit here. What exactly do the conspiratorators hope to gain here? What is the point? What benefit do they hope to reap that couldn´t be done in another way? 

What is Loras's main objective? He wants the Redwyne fleet free to confront the Ironborn at sea and troops sent to the Reach. Both are at DS. It's in his and the Reach's benefit that he can send the fleet back south ASAP with as many experienced fighters to withstand the Ironborn as possible.

If Loras can have both, then why should he refrain from using an opportunity to lift the siege and send the fleet + 1000 Westerlanders to the Reach?

2 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Pro-tip: Liars don´t lie all the time

Lies have a kernel of truth, indeed. The truth would be that there is evidence of tunneling and digging beneath Dragonstone (which is to be expected if the castellan had the garisson dig for obsidian as much as they could). The likely truth is that Loras did have a parlay with the castellan, proposing single combat.

We witness a parlay and a proposal of single combat at Storm's End, as well as at Riverrun. In the first Cortnay Penrose proposes single combat, but Stannis refuses because he wants Robert's bastard and does not want to risk any loss. In the second parlay between Jaime and the Blackfish single combat comes up as well, shortly after he arrives and takes command of the siege. In both surrender is proposed instead, but refused by the one being besieged. The first situation is solved by Mel's shadowbaby that throws Penrose to his death. The second siutation is solved by Edmure who does surrender the castle as well as help his uncle escape, quite suspiciously after Tom O'Sevens sang a song to Edmure in his bath. The surrendering garisson had a choice in staying, taking the black, or surrender arms and leave. Most left and surrendered their arms, most likely armed again or welcomed by the BwB to join their ranks. Only two chose to jon the NW.

Loras would have done the same thing - propose a parlay and single combat. And indeed, Aurane mentions such a proposal, and as with the other two parlays terms of surrender would have been discussed as well. The difference here is that Rolland Storm has an interest in taking the obsidian to the Wall, and when Loras threatens to storm the walls of Dragonstone, even at great cost of the crown's troops, Rolland Storm would know that ultimately Dragonstone will fall. Rolland Storm has this choice: die in glory taking as many Westerlings with him and fail his king Stannis OR surrender Dragonstone and be allowed to sail for the Wall with the mined obsidian. And all Rolland Storm needs to do to accomplish the last is to negotiate with Loras that he and his men are allowed to take the black. 

The result? Loras takes Dragonstone from Stannis, he frees the Redwyne fleet and has knights and lords to send along to fight the Ironborn, and Rolland Storm sails for Eastwatch with the obsidian. In everyone's eyes present this would not look as treason. And Rolland Storm has followed the command of his king: mine as much obisidian as you can before Dragonstone falls and send it to the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Bastards Giant Friend said:

I think it can just as easily be argued Loras did go to DS.

I don't think anyone here proposes that Loras never went to DS. The proposal is that no actual battle took place and that Loras managed to acquire DS without having to storm it.

The OP proposes that Rolland Storm abandoned DS when Paxter arrived at the horizon, others propose a parlay where Rolland Storm and Loras came to terms of Rolland surrendering DS to Loras, but only if he was allowed to sail north with the mined obsidian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

What is Loras's main objective? He wants the Redwyne fleet free to confront the Ironborn at sea and troops sent to the Reach. Both are at DS. It's in his and the Reach's benefit that he can send the fleet back south ASAP with as many experienced fighters to withstand the Ironborn as possible.

If Loras can have both, then why should he refrain from using an opportunity to lift the siege and send the fleet + 1000 Westerlanders to the Reach?

Lies have a kernel of truth, indeed. The truth would be that there is evidence of tunneling and digging beneath Dragonstone (which is to be expected if the castellan had the garisson dig for obsidian as much as they could). The likely truth is that Loras did have a parlay with the castellan, proposing single combat.

We witness a parlay and a proposal of single combat at Storm's End, as well as at Riverrun. In the first Cortnay Penrose proposes single combat, but Stannis refuses because he wants Robert's bastard and does not want to risk any loss. In the second parlay between Jaime and the Blackfish single combat comes up as well, shortly after he arrives and takes command of the siege. In both surrender is proposed instead, but refused by the one being besieged. The first situation is solved by Mel's shadowbaby that throws Penrose to his death. The second siutation is solved by Edmure who does surrender the castle as well as help his uncle escape, quite suspiciously after Tom O'Sevens sang a song to Edmure in his bath. The surrendering garisson had a choice in staying, taking the black, or surrender arms and leave. Most left and surrendered their arms, most likely armed again or welcomed by the BwB to join their ranks. Only two chose to jon the NW.

Loras would have done the same thing - propose a parlay and single combat. And indeed, Aurane mentions such a proposal, and as with the other two parlays terms of surrender would have been discussed as well. The difference here is that Rolland Storm has an interest in taking the obsidian to the Wall, and when Loras threatens to storm the walls of Dragonstone, even at great cost of the crown's troops, Rolland Storm would know that ultimately Dragonstone will fall. Rolland Storm has this choice: die in glory taking as many Westerlings with him and fail his king Stannis OR surrender Dragonstone and be allowed to sail for the Wall with the mined obsidian. And all Rolland Storm needs to do to accomplish the last is to negotiate with Loras that he and his men are allowed to take the black. 

The result? Loras takes Dragonstone from Stannis, he frees the Redwyne fleet and has knights and lords to send along to fight the Ironborn, and Rolland Storm sails for Eastwatch with the obsidian. In everyone's eyes present this would not look as treason. And Rolland Storm has followed the command of his king: mine as much obisidian as you can before Dragonstone falls and send it to the Wall.

That's perfect... so why lie to Cersei and go to all the trouble of misleading the people in KL?

Fantasy idea: I don't know what ships Storm may have at DS. What if part of the negotiation was for him to load Sweet Cersei with the obsidian, and that Aurane (now crewed with stannis men) would come back, lie, and then steal the fleet and go to Stannis. Seahorses and mermaids will blow seashells, after all. To Loras, one ship for his entire fleet may be an acceptable term and he wouldn't (or would, what's better/worse?) know of Auranes intention to steal the whole Drummond fleet. Or maybe Aurane just saw an opportunity and took it regarding the other 9. Or maybe maybe he took them back to DS and just loaded the S out of them and then went to Stannis. Or maybe maybe maybe he is just a pirate who lucked into a kickass fleet.

 

35 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I don't think anyone here proposes that Loras never went to DS. The proposal is that no actual battle took place and that Loras managed to acquire DS without having to storm it.

The OP proposes that Rolland Storm abandoned DS when Paxter arrived at the horizon, others propose a parlay where Rolland Storm and Loras came to terms of Rolland surrendering DS to Loras, but only if he was allowed to sail north with the mined obsidian.

Maybe I should have said there isn't enough evidence against Loras storming DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

What is Loras's main objective? He wants the Redwyne fleet free to confront the Ironborn at sea and troops sent to the Reach. Both are at DS. It's in his and the Reach's benefit that he can send the fleet back south ASAP with as many experienced fighters to withstand the Ironborn as possible.

Agreed. This is Loras goal.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The result? Loras takes Dragonstone from Stannis, he frees the Redwyne fleet and has knights and lords to send along to fight the Ironborn, and Rolland Storm sails for Eastwatch with the obsidian. In everyone's eyes present this would not look as treason. And Rolland Storm has followed the command of his king: mine as much obisidian as you can before Dragonstone falls and send it to the Wall.

So why not report this result as it is instead of making up shit? Why not tell Cersei that the garrison surrendered to a man and was sent to the Wall to take the oath? Cersei might not like that they are sent there, but she made a promise that the Redwyne fleet was going west afterwards (and if she backs on it then Loras can send it on the west anyway and then truthfully and playfully state that since Cersei already had given permission that the fleet would go west after Dragonstone was liberated, he felt no need rechecking her orders since he trusts her judgement). Alternatively, "assault" and let them leave from a hidden backdoor or something (I am certain that there are alternative ways in and out) holding only a token force to make it look realistic (And likely there wont be enough boats for everyone anyway.

To quote the synopsis: " The Queen Regent denies his request, implying that the Redwyne fleet would not depart until Dragonstone fell. Knowing that Lord Paxter intended to starve them out, Ser Loras asks leave to lead the assault, and promises Cersei Dragonstone within a fortnight. Pleased by this unexpected "gift", Cersei grants him permission".

And as The Bastards Giant Friendsaid above - why lie to Cersei and go to the trouble and risk by doing so?

Because, again, this situation and its proponents seems to make a theory out of thin air just to have one - because anyone beeing truthful at Cersei and that the news actually can be in her liking is somehow an alien concept? In addition, if Loras goal is what you wrote above - why take any chances? Why make up a lie when you know there is a easier way, to simply storm the castle and actually do as you were told. You know you will win when you do it due to your forces. Again, a cigar is just a cigar and this theory causes more problem than it solves and complicates things (compare with R+L =J, which actually answers question why different people act as they do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And yet, Stannis claims DS will fall soon. He expresses the sentiment that he doesn't believe that he could keep DS. He ordered his castellan to mind "as much" as possibel before it "falls". That implies the readiness to abandon the castle. This is textual evidence from Stannis's own lips that he is not motivated to keep DS at all cost. You are ascribing a motivation to Stannis he already revealed not to have. 

1 shipment of obsidian is still better than 0 shipments of obsidian.

1 is better than 0 and more than 1 is better than 1. I never said Stannis *wasn't* ready to abandon the castle. That's an assumption you are making and I didn't throw out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Agreed. This is Loras goal.

So why not report this result as it is instead of making up shit? Why not tell Cersei that the garrison surrendered to a man and was sent to the Wall to take the oath? Cersei might not like that they are sent there, but she made a promise that the Redwyne fleet was going west afterwards (and if she backs on it then Loras can send it on the west anyway and then truthfully and playfully state that since Cersei already had given permission that the fleet would go west after Dragonstone was liberated, he felt no need rechecking her orders since he trusts her judgement). Alternatively, "assault" and let them leave from a hidden backdoor or something (I am certain that there are alternative ways in and out) holding only a token force to make it look realistic (And likely there wont be enough boats for everyone anyway.

To quote the synopsis: " The Queen Regent denies his request, implying that the Redwyne fleet would not depart until Dragonstone fell. Knowing that Lord Paxter intended to starve them out, Ser Loras asks leave to lead the assault, and promises Cersei Dragonstone within a fortnight. Pleased by this unexpected "gift", Cersei grants him permission".

And as The Bastards Giant Friendsaid above - why lie to Cersei and go to the trouble and risk by doing so?

Because, again, this situation and its proponents seems to make a theory out of thin air just to have one - because anyone beeing truthful at Cersei and that the news actually can be in her liking is somehow an alien concept? In addition, if Loras goal is what you wrote above - why take any chances? Why make up a lie when you know there is a easier way, to simply storm the castle and actually do as you were told. You know you will win when you do it due to your forces. Again, a cigar is just a cigar and this theory causes more problem than it solves and complicates things (compare with R+L =J, which actually answers question why different people act as they do).

You know what? I am willing to admit that I am wrong. After years of arguing that no battle took place because it wasn't logical for there to be a battle under such circumstances, I went back and read the whole thing again. Here was the passage that changed my mind (AFFC-Chapter 36):
 

Quote

 

..."Do we have Ser Loras to thank for this triumph?"

His smile vanished. "Some will say so, Your Grace."

"Some?" She gave him a quizzical look. "Not you?"

"I never saw a braver knight," Waters said, "but he turned what could have been a bloodless victory into a slaughter. A thousand men are dead, or near enough to make no matter. Most of them our own. And not just common men, Your Grace, but knights and young lords, the best and bravest."

 

The bolded is where the author acknowledges that the most logical outcome in this situation would have been a negotiated surrender. But that is not what happened. Aurane was telling Cersei the truth. When Cersei was delighted by what Aurane was telling her rather than being horrified, that was when Aurane turned against the Lannisters and Tyrells. Aurane will definitely go back to Stannis (one of Patchface's prophecies suggest there will be an alliance between Manderlys and Velaryons) or join Dany and/or Aegon. I now think the weirdness we see in Aurane is him turning from weakly supporting Cersei to despising everything Lannister and Tyrell.

Damn. This is what frustrates me about debate on this forum. If even one person had pointed this out I would have acknowledged that I was wrong. But debate rarely comes with quotes because there is a strong contingent who refuse to acknowledge when they have been proven wrong with a quote. It discourages people from taking the time to look them up. And yes, I know I'm guilty of this myself.:blush:

ETA: I'm guilty of not taking the time to look up quotes. I will freely admit that I'm wrong once someone make a good argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-01-06 at 2:20 AM, bent branch said:

You know what? I am willing to admit that I am wrong. After years of arguing that no battle took place because it wasn't logical for there to be a battle under such circumstances, I went back and read the whole thing again. Here was the passage that changed my mind (AFFC-Chapter 36):
 

The bolded is where the author acknowledges that the most logical outcome in this situation would have been a negotiated surrender. But that is not what happened. Aurane was telling Cersei the truth. When Cersei was delighted by what Aurane was telling her rather than being horrified, that was when Aurane turned against the Lannisters and Tyrells. Aurane will definitely go back to Stannis (one of Patchface's prophecies suggest there will be an alliance between Manderlys and Velaryons) or join Dany and/or Aegon. I now think the weirdness we see in Aurane is him turning from weakly supporting Cersei to despising everything Lannister and Tyrell.

Damn. This is what frustrates me about debate on this forum. If even one person had pointed this out I would have acknowledged that I was wrong. But debate rarely comes with quotes because there is a strong contingent who refuse to acknowledge when they have been proven wrong with a quote. It discourages people from taking the time to look them up. And yes, I know I'm guilty of this myself.:blush:

ETA: I'm guilty of not taking the time to look up quotes. I will freely admit that I'm wrong once someone make a good argument.

Edit: Ahh, you have changed your mind and wasn´t really arguing that I was wrong. Ok - then we seem to be in agreement about the attack on Dragonstone.

But the quote doesn´t prove me wrong. At best, it gives suggestion to a possible, but less likely alternative. And I will explain why.

Lets see what Aurane say here:

"Some will say so, Your Grace" = So the triumph could be due to ser Loras leadership or personal effort, but the removal of the smile tells us that there is more to the story. That Loras acted in some ways controversial. Moving on.

"I never saw a braver knight" = Pretty straighforward. Aurane was there personally and saw Loras (the "knight" referenced to) acting very brave. In this case, the likeliest interpretation of brave was that Loras showed no fear over the situation, took command and placed himself as well as his troops at significant risk, that is - he decided to storm Dragonstone.

"but he turned what could have been a bloodless victory into a slaughter" = And here we have the controversial choice. The "bloodless victory" is of course as I see it Lord Paxters original intention to starve them out (what they were doing before Loras showed up) - the best bloodless victory you can get. And even if you disagree on that, its clearly not a straight out fact that the author acknowledges (GRRM rarely do this in general). Thats just your analysis and again a pretty unlikely alternative. The slaughter means that there was a great many deaths, and since Aurane is not happy we can draw the conclusion that their side took a pretty severe hit, despite its liberation. The most logical outcome in this situation would NOT have been a negotiated surrender, since why negotiate if you know you will win eventually by starvation? And if you allow your opponents to leave in peace, have you really won if they keep fighting you? Surely, the word can easily be open for interpretation, but we are in Westeros and in Westeros, westerosi morals apply. If you try to take a hill for example and your opponent retreats, usually you don´t call that "a victory over the enemy" since the enemy is still there to fight you later.

"A thousand men are dead, or near enough to make no matter. Most of them our own" = This is the slaughter in more detail and thats why he uses the words bloodless victory, because what they got was a very costly victory, with many of their best dead.

And obviously, if Aurane is telling Cersei the truth as you said, then he has clearly seen a storming and almost a thousand dead.That clearly means that there was a fight.

In general, you seem to have this fix idea that a quote somehow settles it, because it can always be interpreted one way. I am sorry to disappoint you here, but thats not how quotes work. I see the reality from my subjective perspective (as do we all) and what might be the truth for you is not necessary the truth for me. this is an excellent example. So what you need to prove is not that you have a quote. You need to prove why "bloodless victory" means "negotiated surrender" and not "starving your enemies slowly to death" in this case. And considering why Aurane and Lord Paxter was there to do in the first place (Starve them out), I think starving is much more likelier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Bastards Giant Friend said:

Maybe I should have said there isn't enough evidence against Loras storming DS.

There isn't actual evidence that Loras stormed DS. All we have is the word of a man who embezzled the crown into building a fleet and then steal off with it. All we can be sure of is that Dragonstone isn't Stannis's anymore, that it changed hands, because that's been confirmed in an entirely different plot arc (the Vale's by independent sources).

But the source of the battle story itself is highly questionable and is full of information that is questionable, such as the "tunneling" when we know that if any digging was done it was done by Storm, because Stannis ordered it.

On 5-1-2017 at 6:44 PM, The Bastards Giant Friend said:

That's perfect... so why lie to Cersei and go to all the trouble of misleading the people in KL?

Cersei has agreed to release Paxter, but not to releasing troops. And especially since she has been making deliberate nonsensical decisions since the start to spite the Tyrells on basically everything there is enough reason for Loras to doubt she wouldn't make some stupid decision to obstruct the plans to help the Reach.

Since the very beginning, she preferred incompetence and weakness to satisfy her vanity. Just because we don't have a reliable POV with the Tyrells in KL doesn't mean they're stupid. She makes Gyles Rosby master of coin, so it won't be the man the Tyrells wanted. It's understandable up to a point that she wants to avoid Tyrell proposals, but surely there are better men in the realm, in the Westerlands than Gyles Rosby who could be master of coin. What Merryweather's competence is also a total mystery. She alienates her uncle Kevan who's MIA for quite a while, her own brother who's LC of the KG, heck even the most Lannister loyal maester ever to have been on the council for decades. She refuses to have Tommen trained in any of the martial arts and keeps him completely out of any of the ruling, doesn't appoint a master of arms, and is not even allowing Tommen to be his own ears on the council. She makes trouble with the Iron Bank.

To anyone with some political brain it's clear that Cersei is surrounding herself deliberately with incompetence to have total individual power and shut everyone else out of it, while she herself is quite ignorant, incompetent and unreliable herself. She'd rather cut of her own nose to spite the Tyrell's face.

So, yes, there is ample evidence that we can deduce it has become a situation where people at court actually have an interest in keeping Cersei out of the loop, to prevent her from having any accurate information she would use to obstruct and instead give her the illusion that she has what she wants to do your own thing. Even those who are not directly at court are realizing this. Example: Bronn and the ward of Rosby are both making sure that none of Cersei's inner circle set foot inside their walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5-1-2017 at 10:09 PM, Protagoras said:

So why not report this result as it is instead of making up shit? Why not tell Cersei that the garrison surrendered to a man and was sent to the Wall to take the oath? Cersei might not like that they are sent there, but she made a promise that the Redwyne fleet was going west afterwards (and if she backs on it then Loras can send it on the west anyway and then truthfully and playfully state that since Cersei already had given permission that the fleet would go west after Dragonstone was liberated, he felt no need rechecking her orders since he trusts her judgement). Alternatively, "assault" and let them leave from a hidden backdoor or something (I am certain that there are alternative ways in and out) holding only a token force to make it look realistic (And likely there wont be enough boats for everyone anyway.

I'll copy my own previous post:

 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Cersei has agreed to release Paxter, but not to releasing troops. And especially since she has been making deliberate nonsensical decisions since the start to spite the Tyrells on basically everything there is enough reason for Loras to doubt she wouldn't make some stupid decision to obstruct the plans to help the Reach.

Since the very beginning, she preferred incompetence and weakness to satisfy her vanity. Just because we don't have a reliable POV with the Tyrells in KL doesn't mean they're stupid. She makes Gyles Rosby master of coin, so it won't be the man the Tyrells wanted. It's understandable up to a point that she wants to avoid Tyrell proposals, but surely there are better men in the realm, in the Westerlands than Gyles Rosby who could be master of coin. What Merryweather's competence is also a total mystery. She alienates her uncle Kevan who's MIA for quite a while, her own brother who's LC of the KG, heck even the most Lannister loyal maester ever to have been on the council for decades. She refuses to have Tommen trained in any of the martial arts and keeps him completely out of any of the ruling, doesn't appoint a master of arms, and is not even allowing Tommen to be his own ears on the council. She makes trouble with the Iron Bank.

To anyone with some political brain it's clear that Cersei is surrounding herself deliberately with incompetence to have total individual power and shut everyone else out of it, while she herself is quite ignorant, incompetent and unreliable herself. She'd rather cut of her own nose to spite the Tyrell's face.

So, yes, there is ample evidence that we can deduce it has become a situation where people at court actually have an interest in keeping Cersei out of the loop, to prevent her from having any accurate information she would use to obstruct and instead give her the illusion that she has what she wants to do your own thing. Even those who are not directly at court are realizing this. Example: Bronn and the ward of Rosby are both making sure that none of Cersei's inner circle set foot inside their walls.

Cersei would call it treason if Loras, Aurane and Paxter allow Storm and Stannis's garrison to take the black. They'd basically be sending Stannis's own men to Stannis. What they can tell themselves is a tradition would be treason in Cersei's eyes: Loras might just as well give himself up to be charged with treason and have his head lopped off for it. Aurane was part of the council that discussed the Wall issue.

You are still arguing as if Cersei is a reasonable character. She isn't. She's dillusional, paranoid and out to get Tyrells killed and completely deaf to reason. Heck, she knows the rumors of Loras and Renly, and yet for a moment she wonders whether Loras is fucking Margaery.

On 5-1-2017 at 10:09 PM, Protagoras said:

Because, again, this situation and its proponents seems to make a theory out of thin air just to have one -

It's not based on thin air. We may be filling in speculative scenariots to fill in the gaps, but there are reasons, hints and characterizations to question Aurane's story.

Quote

because anyone beeing truthful at Cersei and that the news actually can be in her liking is somehow an alien concept?

Of course Cersei liked Aurane's story - it was her dream scenario. She coudln't wait to tell Margaery. Still, doesn't mean Aurane was truthful. He's acting like a conman. And both IRL and in fiction I consider a conman to act as a conman in every situation. A tiger doesn't change its stripes

 

On 6-1-2017 at 2:00 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

I never said Stannis *wasn't* ready to abandon the castle. That's an assumption you are making and I didn't throw out there.

You stated that it makes perfect sense that Stannis would want to keep DS. Yes, if he could he'd prefer to keep it no doubt. Stannis however already counts on the fact that he won't be able to keep DS, he expects it to fall. So any orders given to Strong and any actions that Strong would take are based on the belief that DS will fall. Stannis and his orders have no intention in trying to keep DS. Dig for as much obsidian as you can and send it north before DS falls - those are the orders Storm has. 

He took all his army except a spare garrisson north, including horses. He would have taken as much food as possible from DS when he went North. So, the food reserves at DS would already be pretty low. Since it's an island it can be entirely blockaded (Stannis knows since he besieged it himself). It's not the same thing as with Storm's End in a bay that's hard to besiege from the water. Besieging of Storm's End is only done from the land. 

Try to make it out as me doing a straw man on your word as much as you want... All I know is that you're trying to argue it's nonsense that Stannis and Storm would abandon DS and will try to keep DS at all cost to keep an indefinite supply line open. And I say if that's the case then Stannis is dillusional. I don't think he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6-1-2017 at 2:20 AM, bent branch said:

The bolded is where the author acknowledges that the most logical outcome in this situation would have been a negotiated surrender. But that is not what happened. Aurane was telling Cersei the truth. When Cersei was delighted by what Aurane was telling her rather than being horrified, that was when Aurane turned against the Lannisters and Tyrells. Aurane will definitely go back to Stannis (one of Patchface's prophecies suggest there will be an alliance between Manderlys and Velaryons) or join Dany and/or Aegon. I now think the weirdness we see in Aurane is him turning from weakly supporting Cersei to despising everything Lannister and Tyrell.

That's one interpretation of that quote. I don't think it's actual evidence that Aurane told the truth. I agree that the author acknowledges that there is a strategy available to come to a bloodless victory. It's up to the reader to figure out what that victory might be. It can be seen as a hint of what really went down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 5, 2017 at 8:20 PM, bent branch said:

You know what? I am willing to admit that I am wrong. After years of arguing that no battle took place because it wasn't logical for there to be a battle under such circumstances, I went back and read the whole thing again. Here was the passage that changed my mind (AFFC-Chapter 36):
 

The bolded is where the author acknowledges that the most logical outcome in this situation would have been a negotiated surrender. But that is not what happened. Aurane was telling Cersei the truth. When Cersei was delighted by what Aurane was telling her rather than being horrified, that was when Aurane turned against the Lannisters and Tyrells. Aurane will definitely go back to Stannis (one of Patchface's prophecies suggest there will be an alliance between Manderlys and Velaryons) or join Dany and/or Aegon. I now think the weirdness we see in Aurane is him turning from weakly supporting Cersei to despising everything Lannister and Tyrell.

Damn. This is what frustrates me about debate on this forum. If even one person had pointed this out I would have acknowledged that I was wrong. But debate rarely comes with quotes because there is a strong contingent who refuse to acknowledge when they have been proven wrong with a quote. It discourages people from taking the time to look them up. And yes, I know I'm guilty of this myself.:blush:

ETA: I'm guilty of not taking the time to look up quotes. I will freely admit that I'm wrong once someone make a good argument.

Thank you for that quote.  Funnily enough I actually think you focused on the wrong part.  Aurane says that many of the dead are "knights and young lords".  Their bodies would be expected back in KL to be sent to the silent sisters and then sent home.  Nobles get sent home, if not it is considered an insult as we see from Barbery Dustin, and dead bodies are not kept on ships for disease reasons.  

That is exactly the kind of thing I and others have been pointing out would ruin the lie rather quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Edit: Ahh, you have changed your mind and wasn´t really arguing that I was wrong. Ok - then we seem to be in agreement about the attack on Dragonstone.

But the quote doesn´t prove me wrong. At best, it gives suggestion to a possible, but less likely alternative. And I will explain why.

Lets see what Aurane say here:

"Some will say so, Your Grace" = So the triumph could be due to ser Loras leadership or personal effort, but the removal of the smile tells us that there is more to the story. That Loras acted in some ways controversial. Moving on.

"I never saw a braver knight" = Pretty straighforward. Aurane was there personally and saw Loras (the "knight" referenced to) acting very brave. In this case, the likeliest interpretation of brave was that Loras showed no fear over the situation, took command and placed himself as well as his troops at significant risk, that is - he decided to storm Dragonstone.

"but he turned what could have been a bloodless victory into a slaughter" = And here we have the controversial choice. The "bloodless victory" is of course as I see it Lord Paxters original intention to starve them out (what they were doing before Loras showed up) - the best bloodless victory you can get. And even if you disagree on that, its clearly not a straight out fact that the author acknowledges (GRRM rarely do this in general). Thats just your analysis and again a pretty unlikely alternative. The slaughter means that there was a great many deaths, and since Aurane is not happy we can draw the conclusion that their side took a pretty severe hit, despite its liberation. The most logical outcome in this situation would NOT have been a negotiated surrender, since why negotiate if you know you will win eventually by starvation? And if you allow your opponents to leave in peace, have you really won if they keep fighting you? Surely, the word can easily be open for interpretation, but we are in Westeros and in Westeros, westerosi morals apply. If you try to take a hill for example and your opponent retreats, usually you don´t call that "a victory over the enemy" since the enemy is still there to fight you later.

"A thousand men are dead, or near enough to make no matter. Most of them our own" = This is the slaughter in more detail and thats why he uses the words bloodless victory, because what they got was a very costly victory, with many of their best dead.

And obviously, if Aurane is telling Cersei the truth as you said, then he has clearly seen a storming and almost a thousand dead.That clearly means that there was a fight.

In general, you seem to have this fix idea that a quote somehow settles it, because it can always be interpreted one way. I am sorry to disappoint you here, but thats not how quotes work. I see the reality from my subjective perspective (as do we all) and what might be the truth for you is not necessary the truth for me. this is an excellent example. So what you need to prove is not that you have a quote. You need to prove why "bloodless victory" means "negotiated surrender" and not "starving your enemies slowly to death" in this case. And considering why Aurane and Lord Paxter was there to do in the first place (Starve them out), I think starving is much more likelier.

Uhm, I was agreeing that you were right and I was wrong.

Quotes in context absolutely settles disputes. The only problem comes in when people's reading comprehension is not as good as they think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Cersei would call it treason if Loras, Aurane and Paxter allow Storm and Stannis's garrison to take the black. They'd basically be sending Stannis's own men to Stannis. What they can tell themselves is a tradition would be treason in Cersei's eyes: Loras might just as well give himself up to be charged with treason and have his head lopped off for it. Aurane was part of the council that discussed the Wall issue.

So then do the fake assault and let them leave from a backdoor or, I don´t know - just storm them and kill them, like you told you would. If Cersei is so paranoid why even gamble here? Why let that garrison go? Why even strike a bargain with them - they are enemies, serving the man who Loras (after talking to Brienne) might suspect is behind Renly´s murder and is still, at this moment, fighting Tommen and his sister, the queen.  If Loras is afraid to get his own head lopped of them think about what happens if Cersei catch him in a lie and that that garrison is stilll alive or that those wounds doesn´t stop Loras coming back unharmed, which will make Cersei do a closer investigation. And Loras has the forces, forces that are partly Westerlanders - people he might be willing to sacrifice. And people do die in war.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You are still arguing as if Cersei is a reasonable character. She isn't. She's dillusional, paranoid and out to get Tyrells killed and completely deaf to reason. Heck, she knows the rumors of Loras and Renly, and yet for a moment she wonders whether Loras is fucking Margaery.

She is not reasonable - but she doesn´t have to be. There are simply few reasons for Loras and Rolland to work together. And Loras doesn´t need troops. Highgarden has troops as it is. He needs Paxter and his fleet (ie NOT troops), something that has already been promised. Even IF Loras would be executed for allowing Stannis men to take the black he is STILL able to send the fleet westwards. And don´t forget - such an execution, Cersei can´t do in secret, like Falyse and the Blue Bard. Killing Loras in public for treason must have motivation behind it, and that Cersei doesn´t trust the nights watch is hardly something she can work with. She IS reasonable enough to understand that she need the alliance, what she have been doing far are some skullduggery behind the scenes to weaken them without doing anything officially. At best, she might get him expelled from the Kingsguard or kill him by an "accident".

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's not based on thin air. We may be filling in speculative scenariots to fill in the gaps, but there are reasons, hints and characterizations to question Aurane's story.

No, there really isn´t. Aurane do seen genuine in that scene and acts almost with a bit of shock. Nor does he try to spin the situation in his favor, and leaves before he is given any. It is more likely that he is earning trust and political capital in order to spring his real con - the fleet (if I would try to screw you over, I would wait until I am in a position to really hurt you and get what I want, acting completely trustworthy until then, then stab you so hard that you can´t believe that you ever trusted me). To assume that a conman has to act false in every given situation is quite frankly a very limited perspective (and a clear sign that you havn´t met that many conmans in real life or have drawn the wrong conclusion after that meeting). This theory in addition almost forces you to reevalute many characters and not just a few. Loras, Stannis, Rolland, Aurane, the Tyrells. It simply gives far more questions than it solves.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Of course Cersei liked Aurane's story - it was her dream scenario. She coudln't wait to tell Margaery. Still, doesn't mean Aurane was truthful. He's acting like a conman. And both IRL and in fiction I consider a conman to act as a conman in every situation. A tiger doesn't change its stripes

Then you got a issue you need to work out, I am afraid. A conman that always act as a conman is not a successful conman and won´t end up in a position when he can screw you (and if he/she still does then that person really got themselves to blame at least partly). Aurane doesn´t have to change his stripes since he is conning for something else (the fleet). Why taking risks and potentially screw his real con up by acting dishonest in every given situation? Again - this sound like a defense-reaction from someone who got backstabbed from a conner they trusted and then mentally change the sitation in their heads - that they never really, really trusted that person and lie to themselves in order to feel better. In addition, making this "typical profile" does strike me as an extremely unhealthy way to look at your surrounding - isn´t it that in fact the exact kind of thinking that means some men get away with rape nor gets suspected for it, since "they are not that type"¨?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bent branch said:

Uhm, I was agreeing that you were right and I was wrong.

Quotes in context absolutely settles disputes. The only problem comes in when people's reading comprehension is not as good as they think it is.

Yeah, sorry - I read you wrong the first time.

We are clearly not in agreement about the importance of quotes, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

All we can be sure of is that Dragonstone isn't Stannis's anymore, that it changed hands, because that's been confirmed in an entirely different plot arc (the Vale's by independent sources).

Additionally, Riverrun has been informed that Dragonstone has fallen by AFFC Jaime VII.

Quote

Still, he felt curiously content. The war was all but won. Dragonstone had fallen and Storm's End would soon enough, he could not doubt, and Stannis was welcome to the Wall. The northmen would love him no more than the storm lords had. If Roose Bolton did not destroy him, winter would.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...