Lannister's Bending the Knee

[DarkBastard]

2 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I don't think she conscripted the men. I think when she said join me she was speaking of supporting her claim not literally joining her army. I could be wrong though as they don't always make these things clear on the show.

Exactly, I thought that was what we were talking about all along...not that they would actually fight for her alongside her army...just that they would no longer fight against her.  

 

[snow is the man]

28 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

The funny thing is that taking the black is akin to slavery.  I always found that ironic with the whole Eddard and Jorah situation.

well usually it's that you did something horrible and you choose between taking the black and something else.

For example a rapists might have a choice between taking the black or being gelded.

A thief might have a choice between taking the black and losing a hand.

You see what I mean basically its one of the options for a punishment. Not really slavery

[snow is the man]

Just now, DarkBastard said:

Exactly, I thought that was what we were talking about all along...not that they would actually fight for her alongside her army...just that they would no longer fight against her.  

 

If this is what she meant then her saying join me or die was completly justified. I took it as actually join my army which made her in the wrong in my opinion. If this was the case then tarly was an absolute idiot since he had already surrendered

[Charlie Hustle]

Dany understood the concept of taking the black. She offered the Tarlys that and she was disrespected. So there was only two options, join her or die. Why let these same people be let go, and they are potential enemies again?? She gave them a choice. Cant be any easier than that. 

[DarkBastard]

32 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

It's clearly based enough upon our own history that, absent specific, contradictory examples from Westeros, filling the gaps with Earth's version is perfectly valid.

Your position's getting quite close to "nothing has to make sense 'cause it's fantasy". Of course making sense within the framework of the story trumps historical examples every time when they clash, but that does not invalidate historical examples as a starting point for discussion.

I disagree.  

I did not imply nothing has to make sense, I said applying our own history to an independent world of fantasy does not make sense.  GRRM writes from the perspective of the persons, not the perspective of feudal Europe.  I stated clearly there are some parallels, but to apply our historical feudal law and customs to fill in gaps of information not covered by the author is a leap...particularly when there are clearly many more instances of law/customs unique to this world presented.

In a general sense...yes.  Things like the existence of marriage, lordship, swords, bows, warfare, etc. are all founded on the basics of a feudal society like our own history.  Yes, murder, incest, rape, theft, slavery are all concepts we know of and have historical and even religious significance to us, but in the story the customs, rights, traditions, reactions, punishments, and feelings of the characters toward these things are presented uniquely by the author as part of the fantasy world he created.  

My point is that to apply our historical viewpoints or opinions on these shared concepts takes away from the experience of the characters in the story as well as the author's intent.  If he wished us to view this simply as a mirror to feudal European viewpoints he would have set the story there, not in a fictional land.

[Mikkel]

14 minutes ago, DarkBastard said:

My point is that to apply our historical viewpoints or opinions on these shared concepts takes away from the experience of the characters in the story as well as the author's intent.  If he wished us to view this simply as a mirror to feudal European viewpoints he would have set the story there, not in a fictional land.

That is true, but I still think using historical knowledge to fill gaps in information not otherwise covered is a perfectly fine basis for discussion. It is, of course, not ironclad evidence.

15 minutes ago, DarkBastard said:

I did not imply nothing has to make sense, I said applying our own history to an independent world of fantasy does not make sense.

Yes, I probably jumped the gun a little on that one, my apologies. One of my pet peeves is the "it has dragons it doesn't have to make sense" fallacy, but that's not, in fact, what you were saying.

[DarkBastard]

7 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Yes, I probably jumped the gun a little on that one, my apologies. One of my pet peeves is the "it has dragons it doesn't have to make sense" fallacy, but that's not, in fact, what you were saying.

I completely agree with you on that, some folks think anything can happen and just explain it away like you said.  I think we were just misunderstanding each other!

[Banjo]

1 hour ago, Ser Gareth said:

The funny thing is that taking the black is akin to slavery.  I always found that ironic with the whole Eddard and Jorah situation.

How? Considering only criminals or volunteers take the black? Is sending someone to prison for crimes slavery?

[Sir Dingleberry]

1 hour ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

This. I don't think Black Brothers could suddenly decide not to live in freezing wastelands and fight wildlings. It was essentially an equivalent to Siberian Gulags, but with an option to join voluntarily.

Lol are you exaggerating or are you just not aware what gulags entail? They literally worked you to death and were sentenced largely for political reasons as opposed to criminal. That is not the case with the NW.

[Ser Gareth]

28 minutes ago, Banjo said:

How? Considering only criminals or volunteers take the black? Is sending someone to prison for crimes slavery?

For life with very little freedom.  And the people being sent to the Wall were all sorts.  Soldiers on the losing side are criminals?

The choice given was usually death or maiming vs joining the Night's Watch for the rest of your days away from your friends and family.  So basically no choice at all.

The Night's Watch is forced conscription and there are no degrees of punishment.  Murder someone?  Take the black.  Steal an apple from a Lord's tree?  Lose a hand or take the black etc.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

21 minutes ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

Lol are you exaggerating or are you just not aware what gulags entail? They literally worked you to death and were sentenced largely for political reasons as opposed to criminal. That is not the case with the NW.

My bad, I should've mentioned the Siberian prisons in general (which is where most criminals, not just dissidents) ended up. The setting was pretty much the same- freezing wasteland, limited resources and an inability to escape. Granted, The Night Watch didn't work them to death or execute them routinely, but tbh, using them as cannon fodder to protect the realm that doesn't give a shit about you, isn't that much of an improvement. Look at the situation at the end of the book series (season 5? in show)- the Nights Watch is desperate, and sends ravens to all great houses and most of them tell Jon to stfu, apart from Stannis, who only went there because Melisandre told him to. Were it not for Jon taking wildlings, retaking the North and joining the Vale, they'd be slaughtered wholesale by the oncoming zombie horde whilst Cersei pranced around the Red Keep.

Not to mention that many people there ended up there for political reasons- Janos Slynt comes to mind, Ned would've ended up there too, were it not for Joffrey, taking the black is considered an option when refusing to bend the knee- can't get more political than that. 

[Sir Dingleberry]

1 minute ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

My bad, I should've mentioned the Siberian prisons in general (which is where most criminals, not just dissidents) ended up. The setting was pretty much the same- freezing wasteland, limited resources and an inability to escape. Granted, The Night Watch didn't work them to death or execute them routinely, but tbh, using them as cannon fodder to protect the realm that doesn't give a shit about you, isn't that much of an improvement. Look at the situation at the end of the book series (season 5? in show)- the Nights Watch is desperate, and sends ravens to all great houses and most of them tell Jon to stfu, apart from Stannis, who only went there because Melisandre told him to. Were it not for Jon taking wildlings, retaking the North and joining the Vale, they'd be slaughtered wholesale by the oncoming zombie horde whilst Cersei pranced around the Red Keep.

Not to mention that many people there ended up there for political reasons- Janos Slynt comes to mind, Ned would've ended up there too, were it not for Joffrey, taking the black is considered an option when refusing to bend the knee- can't get more political than that. 

Ok, that's a bit more clear. . I wouldn't say they were necessarily cannon fodder. The real purpose of the wall/NW has been forgotten, which I'm sure you know.  So, as of the beginning of the series it was a convenient out for a lot of people to send criminals in order to not sacrifice their own resources to take care of them (guard, feed, etc.) this doesn't really include the North since they have a closer bond but they've largely forgotten the NW's purpose as well. 

To be fair, when Jon sent that out 1. no one believed him and 2. the War of 5 Kings was still ongoing (even though it was only Stannis that was a threat and he was only in the North).  So resources were short, winter had been announced, and mostly people didn't believe Jon/NW.

Agree on the zombies would roll over Westeros without the North and company at this point but the show has just created illogical characters to the South largely. 

Yes, to political reasons but not the widespread issues like Gulag.  Jon, Janos slynt, and most people that took Black after Blackfyre rebellions were done to 1. be lenient towards dissidents 2. Stop killing at that point 3. to appease other parties mostly.  In terms of gulags it was largely down to push a political agenda down everyone's throats and remove ANY other thought process (political, religious, etc.) from the equation.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

9 minutes ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

Ok, that's a bit more clear. . I wouldn't say they were necessarily cannon fodder. The real purpose of the wall/NW has been forgotten, which I'm sure you know.  So, as of the beginning of the series it was a convenient out for a lot of people to send criminals in order to not sacrifice their own resources to take care of them (guard, feed, etc.) this doesn't really include the North since they have a closer bond but they've largely forgotten the NW's purpose as well. 

To be fair, when Jon sent that out 1. no one believed him and 2. the War of 5 Kings was still ongoing (even though it was only Stannis that was a threat and he was only in the North).  So resources were short, winter had been announced, and mostly people didn't believe Jon/NW.

Agree on the zombies would roll over Westeros without the North and company at this point but the show has just created illogical characters to the South largely. 

Yes, to political reasons but not the widespread issues like Gulag.  Jon, Janos slynt, and most people that took Black after Blackfyre rebellions were done to 1. be lenient towards dissidents 2. Stop killing at that point 3. to appease other parties mostly.  In terms of gulags it was largely down to push a political agenda down everyone's throats and remove ANY other thought process (political, religious, etc.) from the equation.

TBH, it's easy to dismiss WW threat from any Southern lords perspective- after all, they were though to be either log buried history or a myth, and wildlings only threatened the North, but I remember Tywin saying to the small council something like "why should we waste resources on Nights Watch, when the North is in open rebellion, if NK is real, we'd let Robb fight them and Ironborn from both sides", so even if the threat of them was real, they were willing to let NK breach the wall and take the North, so long as it helps Lannister rule. Now think of how many southern lords thought alongs the same lines?They applied the same logic to the Ironborn, not taking them seriously past Greyjoy rebellion, because they mostly plagued Starks, and then they were taken unawares by Euron and co sailing down the Mander. 

I agree that NW wasn't used for intimidation like Gulags, they had sacking, raping and pillaging for that. Even Northen forces were guilty of mistreatment of smallfolk during the war (Roose Boltons doing but still), so I can't imagine taking the black being any scarier than having entire villages slaughtered for disobedience.

I guess it also depends on the perspective of the person taking the black - Ned would have  seen it as an honourable way out, especially if it kept lives of his precious girls, whilst someone like Slynt would be a lot more bitter about it.

 

[Sir Dingleberry]

13 minutes ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

TBH, it's easy to dismiss WW threat from any Southern lords perspective- after all, they were though to be either log buried history or a myth, and wildlings only threatened the North, but I remember Tywin saying to the small council something like "why should we waste resources on Nights Watch, when the North is in open rebellion, if NK is real, we'd let Robb fight them and Ironborn from both sides", so even if the threat of them was real, they were willing to let NK breach the wall and take the North, so long as it helps Lannister rule. Now think of how many southern lords thought alongs the same lines?They applied the same logic to the Ironborn, not taking them seriously past Greyjoy rebellion, because they mostly plagued Starks, and then they were taken unawares by Euron and co sailing down the Mander. 

I agree that NW wasn't used for intimidation like Gulags, they had sacking, raping and pillaging for that. Even Northen forces were guilty of mistreatment of smallfolk during the war (Roose Boltons doing but still), so I can't imagine taking the black being any scarier than having entire villages slaughtered for disobedience.

I guess it also depends on the perspective of the person taking the black - Ned would have  seen it as an honourable way out, especially if it kept lives of his precious girls, whilst someone like Slynt would be a lot more bitter about it.

 

No I agree with you.  However, Tywin and Cersei and most Southerners (as you mentioned) don't believe in the NK and saw it as an opportunity to affect the North. But I would say that's largely because they believed the NK was human (aka not a threat to actual life itself) and was a logical force to have against someone in rebellion against them.  However, as we see in the show, Cersei is becoming a big fan of the Mad King in that she's a child and will say that if she can't have it (the throne) then no one can and everyone should die.  I don't believe Tywin would come to the same conclusion if he was alive and saw the NK as the threat he was (just look at his convo on the red wedding about it better that 200 men die than 10k).  So, just along what you're saying, I agree the South largely won't take NK seriously but that's b/c most logical actors are now dead, which will just add to the "desperation" of the livings fight.

I would say the Bolton's actions can't necessarily be lumped against the entire North. At least not in the same way Cleganes actions (rape, pillage, murder, etc in the Riverlands) can be lumped into the Lannisters (ie the West) b/c one was at the command of the Warden of that territory and the other was the rogue actions of a bannerman that Robb was too late in realizing the purpose and by that point Bolton was in power and could do what he wanted. But taking the Black has this "grey image" of life ending, which it kind of does (no marriage, in the cold, lonely, fight wildlings, largely forgotten by the rest of the world), but not in the same sense of actually being killed. 

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

1 hour ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

No I agree with you.  However, Tywin and Cersei and most Southerners (as you mentioned) don't believe in the NK and saw it as an opportunity to affect the North. But I would say that's largely because they believed the NK was human (aka not a threat to actual life itself) and was a logical force to have against someone in rebellion against them.  However, as we see in the show, Cersei is becoming a big fan of the Mad King in that she's a child and will say that if she can't have it (the throne) then no one can and everyone should die.  I don't believe Tywin would come to the same conclusion if he was alive and saw the NK as the threat he was (just look at his convo on the red wedding about it better that 200 men die than 10k).  So, just along what you're saying, I agree the South largely won't take NK seriously but that's b/c most logical actors are now dead, which will just add to the "desperation" of the livings fight.

I would say the Bolton's actions can't necessarily be lumped against the entire North. At least not in the same way Cleganes actions (rape, pillage, murder, etc in the Riverlands) can be lumped into the Lannisters (ie the West) b/c one was at the command of the Warden of that territory and the other was the rogue actions of a bannerman that Robb was too late in realizing the purpose and by that point Bolton was in power and could do what he wanted. But taking the Black has this "grey image" of life ending, which it kind of does (no marriage, in the cold, lonely, fight wildlings, largely forgotten by the rest of the world), but not in the same sense of actually being killed. 

Oh, I definitely agree with all of the above. I just think Tywin has entertained the possibility that NK is real- but he probably thought that worst case scenario, he'd deal with him when it comes to it, and it was a very unlikely course of events in his mind. He's nothing if not practical.

I agree that Boltons actions can't be held against Robb- but we, as readers have the privilege of knowing all the details of the events that took place, whereas to most Southern lands smallfolk, Bolton would be lumped together with the rest of the northmen, even if his is a renegade fraction. Remember how Arya is treated by the occupants of Harrenhal after Weasel Soup- the old lady who's daughter was put in stocks for any man to use her, even Gendry is somewhat cold to her. For people like that woman,politics mean very little beyond the fact that someone from the North came and forced her daughter to be raped repeatedly. She doesn't know or care that Robb would've stopped it, all she knows that it happens to her at that particular point in time.

And yes, Roose is nothing compared to Clegane, plus, Tywin uses him specifically to terrorise people, whilst Roose does it out of his own volition.

Well, I suppose taking the black isn't life ending, compared to other ways life ends in Westeros, but it's still a life sentence in hard service for people who don't care about you. You know things are bad when that is a lenient option 

[Sir Dingleberry]

1 hour ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

Oh, I definitely agree with all of the above. I just think Tywin has entertained the possibility that NK is real- but he probably thought that worst case scenario, he'd deal with him when it comes to it, and it was a very unlikely course of events in his mind. He's nothing if not practical.

I agree that Boltons actions can't be held against Robb- but we, as readers have the privilege of knowing all the details of the events that took place, whereas to most Southern lands smallfolk, Bolton would be lumped together with the rest of the northmen, even if his is a renegade fraction. Remember how Arya is treated by the occupants of Harrenhal after Weasel Soup- the old lady who's daughter was put in stocks for any man to use her, even Gendry is somewhat cold to her. For people like that woman,politics mean very little beyond the fact that someone from the North came and forced her daughter to be raped repeatedly. She doesn't know or care that Robb would've stopped it, all she knows that it happens to her at that particular point in time.

And yes, Roose is nothing compared to Clegane, plus, Tywin uses him specifically to terrorise people, whilst Roose does it out of his own volition.

Well, I suppose taking the black isn't life ending, compared to other ways life ends in Westeros, but it's still a life sentence in hard service for people who don't care about you. You know things are bad when that is a lenient option 

True. It would have been interesting if Tywin had made it to the end and had to make an alliance with the North after all he had done. Would have been interesting to see how Martin would have handled that but not D&D lol. 

And agree on that point. Back to your statement on perspective and where you are coming from. So pretty much agree with those thoughts.

[Lord Okra]

The whole Dothraki following Dany across the narrow sea thing is just something that I toss into the "suspension of disbelief" file.

Trying to make sense of the Dothraki giving up all their ways and traditions just for Dany is just something a viewer needs to take as part of the cool story and nothing more.

If you stop to think about it then it becomes problematic.  There's nothing to appreciate about the Dothraki really.  They are savages but for some reason they are apparently willing to no longer enslave or rape or pillage or plunder.  Yeah, it doesn't make much sense but that's what we are to believe.

I mean, she turned them loose on Mereen and I just assume they didn't rape half the women and plunder the city due to "Dany said not to rape/plunder anymore so we won't."

Sometimes you just have to just go with the story.

We have "good" Dothraki because Dany burned their Khals.  Now they just do what they are told apparently.