Tyrion1991

(Spoilers) - The War makes no sense

655 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Seven Pointed Star is a Seven Pointed Star. But in throne room of Red Keep, there are two windows with Seven Pointed Stars, and blue rose in their center. Yeah, the glasswork is poorly done, so it isn't obvious that it's a rose <- that was intentional, not to make it obvious.

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/ned-stark-in-the-throne-room_518x306.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5b/04/69/5b046901ae6ec1267ae5d965063e9d58.jpg

I concede, you're absolutely right. :)

That's very interesting, I hadn't noticed that until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Megorova said:

They're tall enough not to drown there. After Jon went away, NK also went somewhere, and when he came back he brought chains. Which means that those chains were brought there by giants. Also it was giants who went in water and chained dead dragon, and dragged him on shore. Probably giants were walking in front of those columns.

... So giants can survive the waters but the weits cannot? Giants aren't that tall

This is the problem with adding your own retcon to fix poor writing. You just add more holes. 

Just admit it makes no sense without inserting your own fanfiction. 

Edited by MrJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MrJay said:

So giants can survive the waters but the weits cannot? Giants aren't that tall

Water doesn't kill wights. Look 3:00-3:20, two wights that attacked Tormund. In the end of video, three wights that attacked Jon. They don't 'shot down' because of the water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh3UpBKOhE4

When Jon went under water, he killed with his sword those wights that attacked him, and drowned with him. They didn't just let him go, when they submerged, Jon had to fight them off even under water.

They can't swim, so if they drown, they're just floating under water. But giants can walk on the bottom of the lake. They have enough power to resist water pressure, and move in it, even if they're submerged underwater. Average wights are just 'lost' in the water.

Also how deep is that lake? how close to shore the dragon fell? how high was water level in that place? Even if it was deeper there, than the height of giants, they still can walk on the bottom of the lake. Water doesn't kill them, and unlike average wights, they still can freely move under water, because they are stronger. Look from 2:20, Wun Wun walked in the sea, all the way. He didn't boarded any ship, he's to big for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3lFie7KNM

How else do you think they managed to chain submerged dragon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrJay said:

... So giants can survive the waters but the weits cannot? Giants aren't that tall

This is the problem with adding your own retcon to fix poor writing. You just add more holes. 

Just admit it makes no sense without inserting your own fanfiction. 

Yay, you got to use 'fanfiction' - the trendy word of the season!

But totally inappropriately. Megorova sums it up nicely. Water doesn't kill wights.

But that doesn't mean they can swim. From what we have seen they can't and this was explicitly stated by Jon to Euron.

I'm not sure I'd use the word drown though, as they are dead so don't need to breathe. I think they would just be directionless, carried off by currents and maybe go dormant or break apart eventually. But giants are heavy and large enough to have control. They could stand on the bottom of the lake and move about (whether submerged or not). This isn't 'retconning' nor 'fanfiction' nor 'bad writing'; it's just common sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic question of this thread is "Does the war make sense?" It is aimed at the war in the south in Season 7. I say that the answer is clearly "no." If we change the question to "Can the war in Season 8 make sense?" then my answer is "yes." At the end of Season 6, the writers had painted themselves into a corner from which they could not manage to escape with any reasonable degree of plausibility (unless they wanted to let Cersei's reign last for about one episode). They came up with a bunch of stuff that just is not believable. That isn't the situation with regard to the contest between the living and the Army of the Dead. There are lots of options. I like the idea that the zombie army will make a strong feint toward Winterfell then send the main force at King's Landing. That's an interesting possibility. There are others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jabul said:

The basic question of this thread is "Does the war make sense?" It is aimed at the war in the south in Season 7. I say that the answer is clearly "no." If we change the question to "Can the war in Season 8 make sense?" then my answer is "yes." At the end of Season 6, the writers had painted themselves into a corner from which they could not manage to escape with any reasonable degree of plausibility (unless they wanted to let Cersei's reign last for about one episode). They came up with a bunch of stuff that just is not believable. That isn't the situation with regard to the contest between the living and the Army of the Dead. There are lots of options. I like the idea that the zombie army will make a strong feint toward Winterfell then send the main force at King's Landing. That's an interesting possibility. There are others. 

The whole question of does the war make sense needs to be better defined. Does that mean that the war broadly speaking makes sense - i.e. on a macro level - or certain aspects of the war are head scratchers - i.e. micro level? 

I think broadly speaking the war makes sense. People continue on about Cersei not being able to hold on to power. But at the end of the day those are just logical arguments that may or may not align with empirical reality - i.e. nothing more than a hypothesis. In our own history most times when a ruler brutally supresses an uprising they win. The minority of cases is their a reaction against that. Unless someone is going to actually back up their assertion that Cersei would lose power with actual empirical evidence, I don’t see why that hypothesis should be the dominant one versus what is shown on screen. Now maybe that evidence exists, i just have not seen it in this thread. 

The next big picture thing about the war is does Dany not attacking KL make sense. I think it does. I submitted a paper written in April from geopolitical analysts that predicted exactly that. So if independent analysts are predicting something based on info given prior to the season it was predictible and thus made has to have made sense. 

Dany abandoing the fight for the IT to go North. Again predictible so has to make have some underlying logic that makes sense for it to be predictible. 

So on a high level the three big events that shape the war make sense 1.) cersei in power 2.) dany not attacking KL 3.) dany heading North. 

what is more questionable are the particulars and the micro details of the war. But the macro details seem fairly solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jcmontea said:

The whole question of does the war make sense needs to be better defined. Does that mean that the war broadly speaking makes sense - i.e. on a macro level - or certain aspects of the war are head scratchers - i.e. micro level? 

I think broadly speaking the war makes sense. People continue on about Cersei not being able to hold on to power. But at the end of the day those are just logical arguments that may or may not align with empirical reality - i.e. nothing more than a hypothesis. In our own history most times when a ruler brutally supresses an uprising they win. The minority of cases is their a reaction against that. Unless someone is going to actually back up their assertion that Cersei would lose power with actual empirical evidence, I don’t see why that hypothesis should be the dominant one versus what is shown on screen. Now maybe that evidence exists, i just have not seen it in this thread. 

The next big picture thing about the war is does Dany not attacking KL make sense. I think it does. I submitted a paper written in April from geopolitical analysts that predicted exactly that. So if independent analysts are predicting something based on info given prior to the season it was predictible and thus made has to have made sense. 

Dany abandoing the fight for the IT to go North. Again predictible so has to make have some underlying logic that makes sense for it to be predictible. 

So on a high level the three big events that shape the war make sense 1.) cersei in power 2.) dany not attacking KL 3.) dany heading North. 

what is more questionable are the particulars and the micro details of the war. But the macro details seem fairly solid. 

You make a good point about the need for a better definition of the question. In this post, I’ll present an initial attempt to state my case in a more precise manner. Along the way, I’ll make references to the OP, to my first post on this thread, and to the April paper which you have mentioned.  

A couple of general points: 

  • One can find important areas in between macro and micro. There are matters like Dany’s basic strategy (macro). There are matters like “teleporting" (micro). There are also things in between, like how one side or the other in a war projects power. 
  • The show runners presented Westeros as a quasi medieval society. In Season 7, they often violate the rules of such a society badly. 

The OP:

Tyrion 1991 claimed that Cersei

1. convinced the Lords of Westeros to side with her.

2. managed to get people to forgive and forget all her crimes and her walk of shame.

 

My thoughts

1. Clearly, she hasn’t convinced all the lords. However, the process by which she and Jaime convinced many lords of the Reach to change sides and then go out and participate in the despoiling of their own lands was not even marginally believable to me. This is an area between macro and micro. The April paper talks about Cersei’s presence on the Iron Throne and Dany’s unwillingness to mount a frontal assault on KL. It also talks about the Lannister’s poor ability to project power. It does not come close to justifying the actions of the Reach lords, the ease of taking HIghgarden, or the very slow response of the Targaryen forces. It couldn't do this; these events hadn't even happened yet. 

2. The “forgive and forget” claim seems similar to the point made by many posters: Cersei does horrible things and suffers no ill consequences. I definitely am not saying that Cersei would be overthrown in a day or two. I’m not saying that there would be a popular uprising, riots, or even large scale demonstrations against the current regime. I am saying that Cersei was never popular and would now almost certainly be very unpopular. This would have consequences. Does Cersei truly control King's Landing? Did Dany control Meereen after she conquered the city? Is it not true that little birds can die, even die in very large numbers from unknown causes? 

 

Some thoughts on the April paper, especially concerning the matter of control. 

We start with the assertion that Cersei is on the Iron Throne and that Daenerys will not be willing to take KL by direct frontal assault. These things are true. 

We pass on to the claim that "Lannisters control the Westerlands, the Riverlands and much of the Stormlands, as well as the capital. But their control is maintained by a force that is spread far too thin and is facing rebellion against the Crown’s authority on all sides." I don't know about the Stormlands; I'm not sure that anyone controls that area. The Lannister control of the Riverlands doesn't last even to the opening credits of Episode 1, Season 7. The Frey leadership is wiped out. Saying that the western armies are spread too thin in the area is, I believe, understating the matter. Basically, they'd probably have a bunch of young men who very much want to go home. Their leaders would very much want the same thing. This brings up another important matter:

The idea of "control" here seems to lean very heavily on two supposed equalities.

westerner = Lannister.  and  Lannister = Cersei supporter

Neither one of these equalities are realistic. 

In my first post on this thread, I wrote: 

"Residents of Kings Landing would be worried about food shortages. They wouldn’t be the only ones. Many times in the more legitimate scenes of GoT, we hear, or hear of, lords and knights who want to return home and attend to their people and their fields. There would also be castellans who see the approach of bad weather and know that the walls and roofs of their castles and holdfasts are in bad shape. Wealth, status, and power in this society comes from the land, not from the capital city. It is absurd to suppose that an army of drones loyal to Borg Queen Brotherfucker could get away with despoiling the land, hauling everything to the capital, and leaving the peasants to starve. Indeed, there wouldn’t be any drones. They belong in another universe. Most of the troops in any Westerosi army would be farm boys and village lads. The peasants being robbed would be their own people."

The above paragraph could be applied to westerners, not just men of the Reach. For the most part, the fellows marching behind lion banners would not be from House Lannister. They would owe their fealty to lords with names like Marbrand, Crakehall, Farman, Brax, etc. After all the years of war, death, and destruction, would they follow orders to abandon the main stronghold in the Westerlands and march off, leaving the farms, holdfasts, towns, and small castles very much at the mercy of a large foreign army? Not likely. A large part of Lannister leadership has always been based on fear. The man who created that fear is dead. The April paper notes that the feudal nature of Westerosi society is reasserting itself. Rob faced opposition from the Karstarks. It seems overwhelmingly likely that Cersei would face opposition from both commoners and lords of the west. And there is every reason to believe that this opposition would exist even in KL. 

The April paper talks about Cersei's "wiping out all of the Faith’s fighters and most of the Septons in King’s Landing. News of this will travel far throughout the south, including in the Riverlands and even in Casterly Rock, the seat of House Lannister." Also, the news of the complete destruction of the Sept of Baelor will spread widely. Are there not devout people within the western population and the western armies? For that matter, didn't Lord Kevan have a wife, relatives, and friends? How dedicated are the troops on the battlements of King's Landing? How dedicated is their leadership? And to what, exactly, are these men dedicated? When Tryion was preparing the defense of KL, he said that the walls had to hold. If they were breached, all was lost. The defenders wouldn't continue to fight. Some would turn their cloaks. The army now holding KL is stronger, but is it even as dedicated? 

There is a lot more to say on these matters. This post, however, is already more than long enough. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Jabul said:

You make a good point about the need for a better definition of the question. In this post, I’ll present an initial attempt to state my case in a more precise manner. Along the way, I’ll make references to the OP, to my first post on this thread, and to the April paper which you have mentioned.  

A couple of general points: 

  • One can find important areas in between macro and micro. There are matters like Dany’s basic strategy (macro). There are matters like “teleporting" (micro). There are also things in between, like how one side or the other in a war projects power. 
  • The show runners presented Westeros as a quasi medieval society. In Season 7, they often violate the rules of such a society badly. 

The OP:

Tyrion 1991 claimed that Cersei

1. convinced the Lords of Westeros to side with her.

2. managed to get people to forgive and forget all her crimes and her walk of shame.

 

My thoughts

1. Clearly, she hasn’t convinced all the lords. However, the process by which she and Jaime convinced many lords of the Reach to change sides and then go out and participate in the despoiling of their own lands was not even marginally believable to me. This is an area between macro and micro. The April paper talks about Cersei’s presence on the Iron Throne and Dany’s unwillingness to mount a frontal assault on KL. It also talks about the Lannister’s poor ability to project power. It does not come close to justifying the actions of the Reach lords, the ease of taking HIghgarden, or the very slow response of the Targaryen forces. It couldn't do this; these events hadn't even happened yet.

Yes. The April paper does not mention this as its prediction was that Dany would land in the Reach and did not consider internal Reach politics or disloyalty to House Tyrell or how toxic Dany would appear arriving with Dothraki and with the bagage of her father. 

Basically the whole reach lords switch sides revolves around the following chain of logic

A.) Cersei has a horrible reputation:

“I'm a Tarley. That name means something. We're not oath breakers. We're not schemers. We don't stab our rivals in the back or cut their throats at weddings” - Randyl 7x02. Makes sense. 

B.) But that reputation inspires fear: 

“If my queen summons me, I answer the call. And I've heard what she does to those that defy her.” - Randyl 7x02 

Now does it make sense that she would inspire fear versus the desire to rebel. This is certainly a debatable point. But basically Cersei pulled a Rains of Castamere on House Tyrell and all her enemies with the sept explosion. Its not illogical that people would fear her, especially given how at this point she has managed to defeat Bobbie B, Ned Stark and now the Tyrells and the Sparrows. 

As Sansa says, “If you're her enemy, she'll never stop until she's destroyed you. Everyone who's ever crossed her, she's found a way to murder.

C.) Randyl Tarly is a deeply xenophobic and conservative man

Pretty well established in season 6 and through the primacy he places on martial values which we learn about through his treatment of Sam

D.) Daenerys is a threat to the existing order 

I am 100% Team Dany. I think she is one of the main heros of the story, will save the world along with Jon and is the likely end game Queen. I think this story ends with Targaryen Restoration. 

But literally all the propoganda Cersei uses is correct. 

If the Mad King's daughter takes the Iron Throne, she will destroy the Realm as we know it.” 

This is 100% true. Daenerys plans to break the wheel and destroy the realm as its currently known.

With their help the Mad King's daughter has ferried an army of savages to our shores. Mindless Unsullied soldiers who will destroy your castles and your holdfasts. Dothraki heathens who will burn your villages to the ground, rape and enslave your women, and butcher your children without a second thought.”

Also 100% true. We saw in season 1 how the Dothraki conquer cities. Based on what they know they have every right to fear this. They do not know that this Khaelisi is different than any normal or traditional Khal. 

“You all remember the Mad King. You remember the horrors he inflicted upon his people. His daughter is no different. In Essos her brutality is already legendary. She crucified hundreds of noblemen in Slaver's Bay. And when she grew bored of that, she fed them to her dragons.”
 

Again this is also true. She did crucify over a hundred nobleman and feed one to her dragons. 

E. Randyl chooses Cersei 

So basically Randyl has a choice. He can either go with Cercei who has a proven track record of killing her enemies but who otherwise is a very conservative figure and doesn’t threaten the existing power system. Or he can go with Dany who is a revolutionary and mortal enemy to the existing power structure and who has committed brutal acts against those noblemen who dared challenge her revolutionary aims and who is leading a foreign army rightfully famous for the worst forms of war time brutality. 

Honestly, the only reason that is even a debatable question is because Dany is rolling with three dragons and is packing serious heat. But for a man deeply invested in the status quo and in Westeros as we know it, its not unsurprising that he would throw in his lot with the forces of conservatism - cersei. Afterall he is a landed aristocrat one of the most conservative forces in most societies. 

F. Randyl switch causes the other Reach lords to switch 

This is a much more debatable point since we only get one line about it:

“Thank you for coming. The other lords of the Reach look to you for guidance now more than ever. They might not have come if you hadn't”

Basically this is just an axiom since there is no underlying evidence to suport the claim that the other Reach lords will follow Randly. But there is also no evidence in the show that they wouldn’t follow Randyl. Its an axiom we either accept or we don’t but the important point is the show does not present contrary evidence about Reach politics to make us question the axiom. Book evidence might. But that is irrelevant when talking about the show. 

2. The “forgive and forget” claim seems similar to the point made by many posters: Cersei does horrible things and suffers no ill consequences. I definitely am not saying that Cersei would be overthrown in a day or two. I’m not saying that there would be a popular uprising, riots, or even large scale demonstrations against the current regime. I am saying that Cersei was never popular and would now almost certainly be very unpopular. This would have consequences.

Popularity is irrelevant. Its not a vote. The question is whether or not she is sufficiently unpopular that she would inspire an uprising against her. Given the amount of fear people have about her, the “rally around the flag” effect when facing foreign enemies, how she represents the status quo vs. revolution and how uprisings are so uncommon in general, its not surprising or unlikely that her rule is accepted. 

Does Cersei truly control King's Landing? Did Dany control Meereen after she conquered the city? Dany had a whole class of people with lots of money and foreign backing who were against her rule because she was taking away their power and their traditional status. Cersei is not really challenging or threatining any class of people in KL other than people who supported the sparrows and its not clear how big that group of people were (we are never introduced to religious King Landiners nor given any reason to believe KL is a very religious city. And we are told the sparrows came from outside the city.) and whether or not they can actually fund and support an uprising similar to what Dany faced. Is it not true that little birds can die, even die in very large numbers from unknown causes? 

 

Some thoughts on the April paper, especially concerning the matter of control. 

We start with the assertion that Cersei is on the Iron Throne and that Daenerys will not be willing to take KL by direct frontal assault. These things are true. 

We pass on to the claim that "Lannisters control the Westerlands, the Riverlands and much of the Stormlands, as well as the capital. But their control is maintained by a force that is spread far too thin and is facing rebellion against the Crown’s authority on all sides." I don't know about the Stormlands; I'm not sure that anyone controls that area. The Lannister control of the Riverlands doesn't last even to the opening credits of Episode 1, Season 7. That is debatable since we see Lannister forces go back into the Riverlands but yes its possible they have lost control. The Frey leadership is wiped out. Saying that the western armies are spread too thin in the area is, I believe, understating the matter. Basically, they'd probably have a bunch of young men who very much want to go home. Their leaders would very much want the same thing. This is introducing axioms and evidence that is not from the show. Its possible they want to go home its possible they don’t its possible they want to go home but they do their duty. We are given no actual reason to question this with evidence from the show. This brings up another important matter:

The idea of "control" here seems to lean very heavily on two supposed equalities.

westerner = Lannister.  and  Lannister = Cersei supporter

Neither one of these equalities are realistic. Why? Is there any evidence from the show to question this?  

In my first post on this thread, I wrote: 

"Residents of Kings Landing would be worried about food shortages. They wouldn’t be the only ones. Many times in the more legitimate scenes of GoT, we hear, or hear of, lords and knights who want to return home and attend to their people and their fields. There would also be castellans who see the approach of bad weather and know that the walls and roofs of their castles and holdfasts are in bad shape. Wealth, status, and power in this society comes from the land, not from the capital city. It is absurd to suppose that an army of drones loyal to Borg Queen Brotherfucker could get away with despoiling the land, hauling everything to the capital, and leaving the peasants to starve. Indeed, there wouldn’t be any drones. They belong in another universe. Most of the troops in any Westerosi army would be farm boys and village lads. The peasants being robbed would be their own people."

The above paragraph could be applied to westerners, not just men of the Reach. For the most part, the fellows marching behind lion banners would not be from House Lannister. They would owe their fealty to lords with names like Marbrand, Crakehall, Farman, Brax, etc. does the show demonstrate this of is it based on book logic? After all the years of war, death, and destruction, would they follow orders to abandon the main stronghold in the Westerlands and march off, leaving the farms, holdfasts, towns, and small castles very much at the mercy of a large foreign army? Not likely. A large part of Lannister leadership has always been based on fear. The man who created that fear is dead. Yes. And a woman who has done even more to inspire fear has taken her place. The April paper notes that the feudal nature of Westerosi society is reasserting itself. Rob faced opposition from the Karstarks. It seems overwhelmingly likely that Cersei would face opposition from both commoners and lords of the west. And there is every reason to believe that this opposition would exist even in KL. Unless of course people are scared shitless of her and based on everything the show has shown us they should be scared shitless. 

The April paper talks about Cersei's "wiping out all of the Faith’s fighters and most of the Septons in King’s Landing. News of this will travel far throughout the south, including in the Riverlands and even in Casterly Rock, the seat of House Lannister." Also, the news of the complete destruction of the Sept of Baelor will spread widely. Are there not devout people within the western population and the western armies? For that matter, didn't Lord Kevan have a wife, relatives, and friends? How dedicated are the troops on the battlements of King's Landing? How dedicated is their leadership? And to what, exactly, are these men dedicated? When Tryion was preparing the defense of KL, he said that the walls had to hold. If they were breached, all was lost. The defenders wouldn't continue to fight. Some would turn their cloaks. The army now holding KL is stronger, but is it even as dedicated? Pretty much the same questions could be asked of why the Dothraki follow Daenerys after she wiped out the Khals by burning their hut. We either accept the reason the show presents - she is seen as a god in the case of Dany, she is feared in the case of Cersei - or we don’t. But there is no real evidence in the logic of the show to question those underlying points that undergird Dany and Cersei’s power. 

There is a lot more to say on these matters. This post, however, is already more than long enough. 

 

 

 

Responses in bold above 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10/3/2017 at 10:20 AM, Daske said:

Yay, you got to use 'fanfiction' - the trendy word of the season!

But totally inappropriately. Megorova sums it up nicely. Water doesn't kill wights.

But that doesn't mean they can swim. From what we have seen they can't and this was explicitly stated by Jon to Euron.

I'm not sure I'd use the word drown though, as they are dead so don't need to breathe. I think they would just be directionless, carried off by currents and maybe go dormant or break apart eventually. But giants are heavy and large enough to have control. They could stand on the bottom of the lake and move about (whether submerged or not). This isn't 'retconning' nor 'fanfiction' nor 'bad writing'; it's just common sense.

 

Trendy or not is not an argument. Should I just say he is Making stuff up?The very notion that weits cannot swim is stupid. Not calling you stupid, calling the idea stupid. 

 

So they can't swim. OK... Can they not walk under water? How is them not being able to float even a problem? They could just go pirates of the carribbean and simply walk. They don't need air and they can climb up on any shore. 

Water pressure? They are dead. Pressure means nothing unless it literally crushes their bones and all (not some but all) of their muscles. These things can toss themselves off cliffs to be broken on stone and simply get up again and you mean to tell me that lake water is their kryptonite? 

 

If giants were used, then any weit could be used. So the entire explanation that giants did it is self defeating. And if any of them could walk under water, then there was no reason they didn't do so and just climb the island and kill Jon and Co. And euron "fleeing" to the Iron Islands means nothing since they can just walk over there under water and get him. 

The only defense against such creatures are boats. Cause they can't swim to the surface. Otherwise, water is no obstacle. 

So let's pretend that the NK always had these huge chains and predicted everything up until the dragons death. His weits can walk the floor of water. All of his weits. So the wall was never even effective on the first place. So they can't do that because it's a plot hole. Hence why we were explicitly told they can't swim. 

 

So they can't walk the bottom. But giants can because??? Just being bigger doesn't make it possible. They either can or they can't. So yes, it's fanfiction. 

When we are told they can't swim, they mean that these things cannot cross deep water. Yet they can do so to chain up a dead dragon cause plot demands it. It's dumb. This entire war and many of this seasons key moments are dumb. They rely on people not thinking, or making up their own explanations in order to work. 

Edited by MrJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 7:28 AM, Megorova said:

Water doesn't kill wights. Look 3:00-3:20, two wights that attacked Tormund. In the end of video, three wights that attacked Jon. They don't 'shot down' because of the water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh3UpBKOhE4

When Jon went under water, he killed with his sword those wights that attacked him, and drowned with him. They didn't just let him go, when they submerged, Jon had to fight them off even under water.

They can't swim, so if they drown, they're just floating under water. But giants can walk on the bottom of the lake. They have enough power to resist water pressure, and move in it, even if they're submerged underwater. Average wights are just 'lost' in the water.

Also how deep is that lake? how close to shore the dragon fell? how high was water level in that place? Even if it was deeper there, than the height of giants, they still can walk on the bottom of the lake. Water doesn't kill them, and unlike average wights, they still can freely move under water, because they are stronger. Look from 2:20, Wun Wun walked in the sea, all the way. He didn't boarded any ship, he's to big for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3lFie7KNM

How else do you think they managed to chain submerged dragon?

This entire argument rests on this logic. 

- A 6 foot dead body at any stage of decomposition floats. 

- A 10+ foot dead body at any stage of decomposition does not. 

I want you to think on what you are saying here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just remark that Cersei isn't a modern tyrant along the lines of Stalin, etc., endowed with control of communications, secret police (Qyburn and the little birds probably can't inspire much terror outside of KL), etc. She's in a feudal monarchy where a certain amount of support among at least a decent part of the nobility is a sine qua non. At best, the nobles might just stay out altogether and rally around whoever wins. but with dragons it's not much of a contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

jcmontea's points in bold. My replies include matters that relate to 

1. internal politics of the kingdoms and the quasi medieval nature of the society

2. the supposed toxic nature of Dany's parentage and her foreign followers

3. my assertion that Cersei and Jaime would definitely be considered traitors and thus hardly the leaders of a legitimate government

4. the matter of fear

 

jcmontea said:

The April paper does not mention this as its prediction was that Dany would land in the Reach and did not consider internal Reach politics or disloyalty to House Tyrell or how toxic Dany would appear arriving with Dothraki and with the bagage of her father. 

1. (medievalism) If internal Reach politics are to be considered, why can’t we consider internal politics of the Westerlands? You ask for show-based evidence for my claim that 

Westerner does not equal Lannister and

Lannister does not equal Cersei supporter. 

I say that the very quasi medieval nature of the society supports this. Northerner definitely doesn’t equal Stark. Tulley doesn’t equal Black Fish supporter. Tyrion doesn’t support Cersei. At the end of Season 7, Jaime doesn’t support her either. (More on this in a later post)

2. (supposed toxic relationships) I think the “baggage of her father” argument is badly overdone.See below for more comments on these matters. 

Cersei has a horrible reputation:

“I'm a Tarley. That name means something. We're not oath breakers. We're not schemers. We don't stab our rivals in the back or cut their throats at weddings” - Randyl 7x02. Makes sense. 

3. (treason) You say that Tarley’s line make sense. I say it is an unconvincing throw away line. The lord makes quick reference to strong reasons why he and his associates would not accept anything, certainly not advice on what it means to obey an oath, from the Kingslayer and other traitors and murderers. Then nothing comes of this, not in terms of Tarley’s actions, not in terms of the actions of any of the other lords of the Reach. 

4. (fear) The Reach lords come and talk to Cersei. It certainly appears that not even one of them ever talks to either Olenna, Dany, or any of Dany’s people. This has been pointed out before. A good part of the argument that this does not constitute a major plot hole appears to go like this: People would come and talk to Cersei, because they are afraid of her. People would not go and talk to Dany, because they are afraid of her. Besides the clear contradiction in this argument, it doesn’t explain why no one would try to get Olenna’s side of the story. 

 

Now does it make sense that she would inspire fear versus the desire to rebel. This is certainly a debatable point. But basically Cersei pulled a Rains of Castamere on House Tyrell and all her enemies with the sept explosion. Its not illogical that people would fear her, especially given how at this point she has managed to defeat Bobbie B, Ned Stark and now the Tyrells and the Sparrows. 

As Sansa says, “If you're her enemy, she'll never stop until she's destroyed you. Everyone who's ever crossed her, she's found a way to murder.

4. I deny that Cersei pulled a Rains of Castemere in the sept explosion.  She did not win a military victory. She denies that she did anything, claiming that the whole thing was an accident. She definitely does not destroy all her enemies, not even all of the Tyrells. Furthermore, the action doesn’t remove the power of the Tyrells. The matter is unresolved at the time of the Reach lord’s appearance in the capital. Cersei’s action is therefore very different from Tywin’s. Sansa’s statement does not hold up to close inspection. Tyrion is not dead. Sansa herself is not dead. LIttlefinger was not killed by Cersei. Olenna was killed by the Lannisters, but I maintain that her death was a bogus result of more than one plot hole. Additionally, Sansa’s statement does not consider all the setbacks the so-called “queen” has suffered. 

Back to 3—defeat Bobby B? Do Tarley and others consider this a reason to fear and obey the woman currently sitting on the throne? Why don’t most of them see that it is one of many facts that show she is a traitor and thus in no way their queen? 

Cersei’s propaganda

There is a massive fourth wall problem here. Cersei says this; Cersei says that. jcmontea says “Based on what they [the lords] know they have every right to fear this.” The show, however, has not established that even one of the guys in the throne room has ever been to Essos. It certainly appears that none of them ever talks to Dany, Olenna or any of Dany or Olenna’s people. How do we know that any of these fellows even know the difference between a Dothraki and a Pentosi? Essentially, it appears that what they have is the word of a traitor and murderer who calls herself “queen.” Viewers in Seattle, Tulsa, and Orlando know that Daenerys has a large Dothraki following. From this, I suppose, we are expected to believe that the lords have seen these "savages" and that they all nod their heads in agreement with the “queen” as she makes her accusations. 

These accusations include “mindless Unsullied soldiers who will destroy your castles and your holdfasts.” That is 100% accurate? More like 0 %. 

“She will destroy the realm as we know it.” This overlooks the fact that Daenerys is a queen, that the Targs actually created the 7K, and a variety of other factors. I see no reason to believe that she intends to destroy the Faith, get rid of the maesters, or do any of a number of other things that would come under the heading of “destroying the realm as we know it.” I don’t know that even Cersei has heard the phrase “break the wheel”—fourth wall problem again. Even if some lords hear it, I don’t know that they would conclude that it was a terrible thing. If they were the least bit reasonable, they would talk to someone about the matter. This might be Tyrion Lannister, Jon Snow, or, what the hell, even Daenerys Targaryen. 

Perhaps the lords have independent sources of info. The show doesn’t tell us what these might be. Let’s presume such sources exist. Why wouldn’t they provide the lords with strong counter arguments to Cersei’s accusations? They might, for example, reveal that the horse lords have not been killing and raping under the Mother of Dragon’s rule. They might report that the young queen got her Iron Islanders to agree to stop their raiding and stealing. 

If the lords proceed go on a weeks-long mission to attack their liege and rob their peasants, how is this supposed to prevent the monster that the Lannister queen describes from attacking KL and destroying it? Doesn’t it even occur to any of the lords that no such attack has happened, that no such attack appears to be eminent, and that their actions in the Reach would not prevent such an attack? It seems to me that at least one gentlemen hearing all the fear mongering about raping and burning should see that said fear mongering may well be highly exaggerated. 

And (2 again) the “mad queen’s daughter” business is almost beyond belief. The dragon queen is just like her father? Is it not true that every damn lord in the place fought for her father? Is this fact not even to be considered? Furthermore, what about the label “Kingslayer.” Has this insult, so prominent and important earlier in the story, somehow just gone out of existence? If people are so prejudiced against the Mother of Dragons because of her parentage, why then don’t they celebrate the man who killed the mad ruler?  

 

 

 

Edited by Jabul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Count Balerion said:

I would just remark that Cersei isn't a modern tyrant along the lines of Stalin, etc., endowed with control of communications, secret police (Qyburn and the little birds probably can't inspire much terror outside of KL), etc. She's in a feudal monarchy where a certain amount of support among at least a decent part of the nobility is a sine qua non. At best, the nobles might just stay out altogether and rally around whoever wins. but with dragons it's not much of a contest.

Right. This is not 1984. Big Sister is not watching you. Even within KL, little birds are not super heroes. They are mainly street urchins, right? Street urchins die all the time. Say their mortality rate goes up a good bit. This would not require any kind of an uprising. Qyburn wouldn't know that it was a move against the government. Granted that he has suspicions, he might have a very hard time finding who is behind the murders, even if there is a single entity responsible. 

"Stay out altogether" is a real possibility. One might call it. "The Tywin Lannister Option."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Jabul said:

jcmontea's points in bold.                                                                                                     My replies include matters that relate to 

1. internal politics of the kingdoms and the quasi medieval nature of the society

2. the supposed toxic nature of Dany's parentage and her foreign followers

3. my assertion that Cersei and Jaime would definitely be considered traitors and thus hardly the leaders of a legitimate government

4. the matter of fear

 

jcmontea said:

The April paper does not mention this as its prediction was that Dany would land in the Reach and did not consider internal Reach politics or disloyalty to House Tyrell or how toxic Dany would appear arriving with Dothraki and with the bagage of her father. 

1. If internal Reach politics are to be considered, why can’t we consider internal politics of the Westerlands? You ask for show-based evidence for my claim that 

Westerner does not equal Lannister and

Lannister does not equal Cersei supporter. 

I say that the very quasi medieval nature of the society supports this. Northerner definitely doesn’t equal Stark. Tulley doesn’t equal Black Fish supporter. Tyrion doesn’t support Cersei. At the end of Season 7, Jaime doesn’t support her either. (More on this in a later post)

 

What I am asking for is show based evidnce that the Westerlands and the Lannister army should be anti-Cersei. You don’t provide any of that above. All you assert is A.) the quasi mediveval nature of the socitey implies b.) something that Cersei’s power over the westerlands should be reduced. 

But A.) The quasi medieval nature of the society is not a strong enough assumption to conclude b.). And certainly there is no direct evidence in the show you can point to where a=>b. There are several points that are needed between a and b and your not providing them and the show is certainly not providing them. Thus your conclusion at the end of the day can’t be true. Its just a hypothesis. 

Literally its the same thing as me saying the mongol nature of dothraki society would never allow them to accept a woman who burned their leaders as their next leader. Really? Is that statement unambiguously true? No not really. Its just a hypothesis/ assertion i am making. There is no way to test that hypothesis. The only evidence that is available - evidence from the show and the world of the show - says that hypothesis is not true. Same with your assertion. 

Quote

2. (supposed toxic relationships) I think the “baggage of her father” argument is badly overdone.See below for more comments on these matters. 

Cersei has a horrible reputation:

“I'm a Tarley. That name means something. We're not oath breakers. We're not schemers. We don't stab our rivals in the back or cut their throats at weddings” - Randyl 7x02. Makes sense. 

 

3. (treason) You say that Tarley’s line make sense. I say it is an unconvincing throw away line. The lord makes quick reference to strong reasons why he and his associates would not accept anything, certainly not advice on what it means to obey an oath, from the Kingslayer and other traitors and murderers. Then nothing comes of this, not in terms of Tarley’s actions, not in terms of the actions of any of the other lords of the Reach. 

 

Beside the point. Nothing has to come from it. The point is that people know who Cersei is. What you are saying is that they know who she is but why don’t they do something? Well, what I am saying is that the answer to that is because they fear her on the one hand and they have more interests in common with her than with Daenerys. 

Quote

4. (fear) The Reach lords come and talk to Cersei. It certainly appears that not even one of them ever talks to either Olenna, Dany, or any of Dany’s people. This has been pointed out before. A good part of the argument that this does not constitute a major plot hole appears to go like this: People would come and talk to Cersei, because they are afraid of her. People would not go and talk to Dany, because they are afraid of her. Besides the clear contradiction in this argument, it doesn’t explain why no one would try to get Olenna’s side of the story. 

They go talk to Cersei because they are summoned by Cersei. We have no idea if Dany summons them, if Olenna sunmons them or if they just assumed they would remain loyal. Your introducing a strawman above. 

But what is Olenna’s side of the story?Its exactly what Jaime told Randyl. 

“She was a great woman, once. Now she's broken. She wants revenge so badly she brought the Dothraki to our shores. The Dothraki in Westeros for the first time in history?”

This is true. What side of the story is Randyl going to get from Olenna? That she didn’t bring the Dothraki to Westeros because she didn’t want revenge? 

So what exactly is the point of making a big deal of Randyl not getting Olenna’s side of the story if Olena really will tell Randyl exactly what Jaime said? Its obvious to us the viewer and to Randyl that that is the choice. Stay loyal to Olenna who in her quest for vengence brought the Dothraki to Westeros or not. There is no other side of the story. 

Quote

Now does it make sense that she would inspire fear versus the desire to rebel. This is certainly a debatable point. But basically Cersei pulled a Rains of Castamere on House Tyrell and all her enemies with the sept explosion. Its not illogical that people would fear her, especially given how at this point she has managed to defeat Bobbie B, Ned Stark and now the Tyrells and the Sparrows. 

As Sansa says, “If you're her enemy, she'll never stop until she's destroyed you. Everyone who's ever crossed her, she's found a way to murder.

4. I deny that Cersei pulled a Rains of Castemere in the sept explosion.  She did not win a military victory.

 

This again is a strawman. The importance of the Rains of Castamere as explained in the show is not that it was a military victory. The importance of it was that the lannisters wiped out a house that threatened them. This is exactly what Cersei did. Wipe out her enemies. She settled family business when she blew up the Sept. the fact that she didn’t get the old grandma who has no way of continuinng the house doesn’t change the point. House Tyrell (on the show) ends with Olenna. 

Quote

She denies that she did anything, claiming that the whole thing was an accident. She definitely does not destroy all her enemies, not even all of the Tyrells.

 

 

The argument that Cersei denies it is beside the point. The point is that people would fear Cersei because of what she did. This is not refuted by saying she denies it. This can only be refuted by showing evidence that people believe her denials. There is no evidence that people who matter and have power believe those denials since the show provides evidence that smart and powerful people - Randyl, Nestoris and Arya - know it was her. Only dumb people like Hot Pie can’t clearly see the truth. 

Quote

Furthermore, the action doesn’t remove the power of the Tyrells. The matter is unresolved at the time of the Reach lord’s appearance in the capital. Cersei’s action is therefore very different from Tywin’s. Sansa’s statement does not hold up to close inspection. Tyrion is not dead. Sansa herself is not dead. LIttlefinger was not killed by Cersei. Olenna was killed by the Lannisters, but I maintain that her death was a bogus result of more than one plot hole. Additionally, Sansa’s statement does not consider all the setbacks the so-called “queen” has suffered. 

 

All this stuff is beside the point. Again the point is that people would fear Cersei because of what she did. The logic of the show rests on the idea that people would. Above your not really providing any evidence that they would not. 

Quote

Back to 3—defeat Bobby B? Do Tarley and others consider this a reason to fear and obey the woman currently sitting on the throne? Why don’t most of them see that it is one of many facts that show she is a traitor and thus in no way their queen? 

 

Yes. They would consider it a reason to fear her. She has eliminated almost all her enemies over the course of the show. This is shown to us. 

They could think she is a traitor who is not their queen. But it doesn’t matter what they think. If they are too scared to do anyhing about it than what they think is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether they fear her and whether they have more common interests with her than with Dany. 

Quote

Cersei’s propaganda

There is a massive fourth wall problem here. Cersei says this; Cersei says that. jcmontea says “Based on what they [the lords] know they have every right to fear this.” The show, however, has not established that even one of the guys in the throne room has ever been to Essos. It certainly appears that none of them ever talks to Dany, Olenna or any of Dany or Olenna’s people. How do we know that any of these fellows even know the difference between a Dothraki and a Pentosi?

 

There is no fourth wall problem. Robert and Ned - two other Westerosi lords who had never been shown to have gone to Essos - know exactly what the Dothraki are in season 1 when they hear Dany was married to Drogo. That is enough to establish for the viewer that Westerosi lords should know about the Dothraki. 

 

 

Quote

These accusations include “mindless Unsullied soldiers who will destroy your castles and your holdfasts.” That is 100% accurate? More like 0 %. 

They are mindless. They don’t make independent decisions. Part of the appeal of them is they are 100% obedient since they are slaves. This is established in season 3 episode 1 when they are introduced. These people have not been following Grey Worm for the last four years and know he is a fully fledged human with wants and desires of his own. 

Quote

“She will destroy the realm as we know it.” This overlooks the fact that Daenerys is a queen, that the Targs actually created the 7K, and a variety of other factors. I see no reason to believe that she intends to destroy the Faith, get rid of the maesters, or do any of a number of other things that would come under the heading of “destroying the realm as we know it.” I don’t know that even Cersei has heard the phrase “break the wheel”—fourth wall problem again.

 

Again another point that is really beside the point. Cersei does not need to know about “break the wheel”. There is no fourth wall problem. Cersei doesn’t even use the phrase break the wheel. She points to actual things Dany has done to make the point that she is a revolutionary who is a threat to the existing order. 

We as an audience should know that what Cersei is saying is 100% true since we know that Daenerys really does want to overturn the social order. We heard the break the wheel speech. We saw what she did in Slavers Bay. We should know that Cersei is correct. 

The specifics of whether Dany wants to get rid of the faith is again beside the point. 

Cersei’s argument is that Daenerys is a revolutionary who will overturn the social order of Westeros. We know from seeing Dany that she is a revolutionary who will overturn the social order of Westeros if she can. 

The real fourth wall problem here is that you can’t disasociate what you know of Dany from just how scary she should seem and appear to any nobel and landed aristocrat who has not been following her story and getting her PoV. That fourth wheel problem is also preventing you from seeing that there is a legitimate conflict of interest between Dany’s vision and what is good for these nobles personal interest in maintaing the status quo since they are the biggest beneficiar

 

Quote

And (2 again) the “mad queen’s daughter” business is almost beyond belief. The dragon queen is just like her father? Is it not true that every damn lord in the place fought for her father? Is this fact not even to be considered? Furthermore, what about the label “Kingslayer.” Has this insult, so prominent and important earlier in the story, somehow just gone out of existence? If people are so prejudiced against the Mother of Dragons because of her parentage, why then don’t they celebrate the man who killed the mad ruler?  

 

 

 

No. Its not really beyond belief. Again as I said above the real fourth wheel problem is that you can’t see things from the perspectice of people who haven’t been following Dany’s story for 7 years. 

This is a woman who is coming to Westeros with three fire breathing monsters, a horde of barbarians and who over threw and crucifed the equivalent of these lords where she is coming from. And you think they should act reasonable and calm and just go try and figure things out instead of being fundamentally insecure with that. Why? Why wouldn’t they think she might crucify them like she did with their equivalents in mereen? 

This is exactly how wars happen in the world. One side mistrusts the other and takes actions to defend themselves. This defensive action appears to others as aggressive and so they themselves take defensive action and conflict ensues. 

Also your point regarding Kingslayer makes no sense since you seem to think that one can’t hate the Mad King yet scorn Jaime for being a Kingslayer. Yet that is clearly not true since we see in Season 1 that the very people who fought against the Mad King - Robert and Ned - still disrespect Jaime for being the Kingslayer and don’t celebrate him. The fact that you would suggest otherwise betrays a shocking lack of knowledge and understanding about this story. You might be better served going back and watching Season 1 and actually understanding the world before trying to pick it apart. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:33 AM, MrJay said:

Trendy or not is not an argument. Should I just say he is Making stuff up?The very notion that weits cannot swim is stupid. Not calling you And stupid, calling the idea stupid. 

That wasn't meant to be an argument, I was just pointing it out. There seemed no other reason to use the term. So even though we haven't seen wights swim, most zombies in other portrayals can't swim and it's actually stated by a character in-universe that they can't swim it's a stupid notion?

So they can't swim. OK... Can they not walk under water? How is them not being able to float even a problem? They could just go pirates of the carribbean and simply walk. They don't need air and they can climb up on any shore. 

Water pressure? They are dead. Pressure means nothing unless it literally crushes their bones and all (not some but all) of their muscles. These things can toss themselves off cliffs to be broken on stone and simply get up again and you mean to tell me that lake water is their kryptonite? 

I said in my post that they don't need air. I never mentioned water pressure. I said water currents which would easily sweep away a wight and do so in real life to humans. A giant being much bigger and heavier could probably drop to the floor of the lake though.

If giants were used, then any weit could be used. So the entire explanation that giants did it is self defeating. And if any of them could walk under water, then there was no reason they didn't do so and just climb the island and kill Jon and Co. And euron "fleeing" to the Iron Islands means nothing since they can just walk over there under water and get him.

There was no giant there at that point. The giants brought up the chains later.

The giants might be able to make it there. But I doubt it. It seems unlikely that they could navigate to a specific point miles away under water by themselves even if they can navigate around underwater obstacles like cliffs, fissues etc. But anyway, maybe Euron fleeing to the islands would be folly. It was his idea, no one else's. He's just assuming this is the case. 

The only defense against such creatures are boats. Cause they can't swim to the surface. Otherwise, water is no obstacle. 

So let's pretend that the NK always had these huge chains and predicted everything up until the dragons death. His weits can walk the floor of water. All of his weits. So the wall was never even effective on the first place. So they can't do that because it's a plot hole. Hence why we were explicitly told they can't swim. 

I don't believe the wights can walk along the floor at least not without losing direction or as mentioned being swept along somewhere. Try walking along the bottom of a swimming pool and you can see how difficult it is even without current and all the obstacles a lake or sea would throw at you. And you're alive with meat on you, the wights are basically brain dead and can't think for themselves beyond 'kill that'. They don't seem to remember how to ride a horse, why would they remember how to swim?

So they can't walk the bottom. But giants can because??? Just being bigger doesn't make it possible. They either can or they can't. So yes, it's fanfiction.

Of course being bigger makes it possible. It also makes it possible for them to hold and move the giant chain. This is just weird you can't see that. 

And I don't think you know what fanfiction is. Why do you think fanfiction is stuff that is contradictory or bad? That's not what it is.

When we are told they can't swim, they mean that these things cannot cross deep water. Yet they can do so to chain up a dead dragon cause plot demands it. It's dumb. This entire war and many of this seasons key moments are dumb. They rely on people not thinking, or making up their own explanations in order to work. 

If you can't see the difference between a giant jumping to the bottom into a lake holding a giant chain and human-sized zombies trying to swim or walk in open water then I'm not sure you are thinking about this logically at all. You are trying to find problems with the plot when there isn't one in this case.

 

Edit: This is really off-topic for this thread, so suggest we won't agree on this and leave it there.

 

Edited by Daske

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder .. Some of the defense of show-logic seems to be saying "It happened, therefore it makes sense." (Probably that's an over-simplification.) But of course it only happened because it was written that way.

I could see the Dothraki, etc., coming in as an argument for supporting Cersei if the Septsplosion also came into it. Perhaps if Tarly and Olenna had a conversation where T says "Evil foreigners!" and O says "Blasphemous mass-murderer! Wiped out Tyrells!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Count Balerion said:

I wonder .. Some of the defense of show-logic seems to be saying "It happened, therefore it makes sense." (Probably that's an over-simplification.) But of course it only happened because it was written that way.

I could see the Dothraki, etc., coming in as an argument for supporting Cersei if the Septsplosion also came into it. Perhaps if Tarly and Olenna had a conversation where T says "Evil foreigners!" and O says "Blasphemous mass-murderer! Wiped out Tyrells!"

Thats actually not the argument. But thats a good strawman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

...

They are mindless. They don’t make independent decisions. Part of the appeal of them is they are 100% obedient since they are slaves. This is established in season 3 episode 1 when they are introduced. These people have not been following Grey Worm for the last four years and know he is a fully fledged human with wants and desires of his own. 

 

No, they are not mindless. Your comment about Grey Worm shows that. The fact that the lords have not been following Grey Worm is irrelevant. The question is why would the lords believe Cersei? She hasn't been to Astapor. Neither have the lords. Other than Cersei's word, what do the lords know about the Unsullied? How could they know for sure that the Mother of Dragons even has Unsullied soldiers? 

The Astapori slaver claimed his slaves were mindless. Obviously, he was wrong. And not just about Grey Worm. The Unsullied can make their own choices, and they have done so. And it didn't take them four years. They chose to stay with Daenerys. They chose their own names. They chose their own leaders.

More later. 

 

Edited by Jabul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jabul said:

Furthermore, what about the label “Kingslayer.” Has this insult, so prominent and important earlier in the story, somehow just gone out of existence? If people are so prejudiced against the Mother of Dragons because of her parentage, why then don’t they celebrate the man who killed the mad ruler?  

That is like saying if Robert Baratheon really hated the Mad King so much and the Targaryen family, why doesn’t he celebrate the man who killed the mad ruler? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy hell these are some long quotes and replies. Was looking for my convo and I must say I give up. Whatever retorts anyone posted I agree 100%. No way I am gonna skim all this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now