The Ultimate Cliché

[Krafus]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1488982' date='Aug 21 2008, 11.12']Because something has to have caused this reckless anger.[/quote]

And something did - the news that Rhaegar had taken Lyanna. Brandon didn't wait to find out anything more, he just charged into King's Landing and the Red Keep.

[quote]Again, visiting brothels and raping are two (very) different things. Besides I'm not saying that Rhaegar is a non-stop rapist like Gregor, for example, but the fact that he didn't frequent brothels has nothing to do with a possible rape of Lyanna.[/quote]

Gah, we're going in circles on this issue. I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

[quote]As for Ser Barristan the Weathercock, I wouldn't trust much of his opinion - he always goes along with the victor, so that probably counts for his opinion as well. Yet even he, while obviously considers Rhaegar a good and just man, admits somewhat between the lines that he was a little weird.[/quote]

Rhaegar had an air of doom and gloom about him, brought on by what happened at Summerhall on the day of his birth. As to "always going along with the victor," Barristan remained loyal to House Targaryen until it was defeated at the Trident. He was seriously wounded there, and pardoned by Robert. He'd also noticed that Viserys, even as a youth, was showing signs of being another madman, which can explain why, with the death of Rhaegar, he decided to serve Robert. I'd hardly call that a weathercock (if you want some, look at Ser Donnel Swann and Lord Alester Florent).

[quote]The Targaryens also gave the Seven Kingdoms two huge and as devastating wars, and the only reason that they never lost their power in them is the fact that they warred with themselves, within the family. As for the Lannisters' misrule, it was Tywin Lannister who gave the Seven Kingdoms peace and plenty during the reign of Aerys and had he lived, he would have prepared the Realm for the upcoming winter and death better than anyone else. I agree that Cersei was nothing like him and never did anything good for Westeros, but that doesn't mean that Dany will do much better. She is an able conqueror, but for now, she hasn't shown any signs that she will be an exceptionally good ruler.[/quote]

Which wars are you referring to? Aegon's war of conquest was necessary to unify the Seven Kingdoms - the kings certainly weren't about to willingly hand him their crowns if he just asked nicely. As for the Blackfyre Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion - I'd say two major wars in the space of nearly three centuries is a pretty good average compared to what the Seven Kingdoms seem to be going through until the Conquest - three or four of the kingdoms at war with each other every generation, IIRC.

Tywin, preparing the realm better than anyone else? Hardly. Even if one grants that the Red Wedding employing beastly reavers like Gregor and the Brave Companions are legitimate acts of war (which I'm not at all sure I do), letting the North suffer at the hands of the ironmen and attempting to influence the Lord Commander election show that Tywin's main goal was the supremacy of House Lannister - and [i]not[/i] the best interests the kingdom as a whole. If he'd lived, I have no doubt he would have organized a competent response to winter and the Others - but I also have no doubt he would always have looked for advantages for House Lannister (and its allies to a lesser extent) even as he was doing it.

As for Dany, I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt until the end of ADWD - by then we should know whether or not she'll be a competent ruler. Certainly so far I think she'd look out for the greater good of all parts of the kingdom, not just House Targaryen and its allies.

[Rinso]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489088' date='Aug 21 2008, 11.40']And something did - the news that Rhaegar had taken Lyanna. Brandon didn't wait to find out anything more, he just charged into King's Landing and the Red Keep.[/quote]

Yes, but he had to have assumed that Rhaegar was done something really bad and nasty to Lyanna, to demand his death at the Red Keep. Why did he assumed that Rhaegar has done so? Because Rhaegar was the greatest and most kind-hearted guy in Westeros? There is no smoke without fire, my friend. Something [i]was[/i] wrong in that situation, we just don't know everything. Yet.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489088' date='Aug 21 2008, 11.40']Rhaegar had an air of doom and gloom about him, brought on by what happened at Summerhall on the day of his birth. As to "always going along with the victor," Barristan remained loyal to House Targaryen until it was defeated at the Trident. He was seriously wounded there, and pardoned by Robert. He'd also noticed that Viserys, even as a youth, was showing signs of being another madman, which can explain why, with the death of Rhaegar, he decided to serve Robert. I'd hardly call that a weathercock (if you want some, look at Ser Donnel Swann and Lord Alester Florent).[/quote]

Barristan is absolutely the same as Donnel Swann, it's just that the former lacks his reputation. The one is just some knight, while the other is precieved like a living hero (gods know why, he has, of course most excellent fighting skills, but otherwise...). And he is exactly a weathercock. True, a weathercock who can fight better than most and has a splendid reputation, but weathercock, none the less. Is he a bad person? Probably not, I'll wager. But he always goes with the victor. He served the Targaryens until they were crushed. Later, if he was so honourable, after he was pardoned by Robert, he may have reatreated in exile, not stay and guard the life of the man who has overthrown his former king. And I'll bet my moustache that he would have stayed with the Lannisters forever, if they hadn't thrown him out. It was not until [i]after[/i] that, when he seeked out his "rightful" queen. I wonder with who he is gonna be turned up if Dany fails and dies sometime soon (small chance of that, I know, but still)...

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489088' date='Aug 21 2008, 11.40']Which wars are you referring to? Aegon's war of conquest was necessary to unify the Seven Kingdoms - the kings certainly weren't about to willingly hand him their crowns if he just asked nicely. As for the Blackfyre Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion - I'd say two major wars in the space of nearly three centuries is a pretty good average compared to what the Seven Kingdoms seem to be going through until the Conquest - three or four of the kingdoms at war with each other every generation, IIRC.[/quote]

I was referring to the Dance of Dragons and, yes, to the Blackfyre Rebellion. I didn't count the Conquest, because it was necessary, I agree, the War of the Ninepenny Kings, because it wasn't fought in Westeros and besides it wasn't so scary, and... I probably should have counted the War of the Usurper, because the Targaryens bear a significant fault for it, so that makes three, not two huge and bad wars, plus one not so big and terrible (the Ninepenny Kings) and one that was absolutely necessery and reasonable (the Conquest).

Look, I am not denying that it's better for Westeros to have one king and everything to be united under his power, I just can't see why this king absolutely has to be a Targaryen.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489088' date='Aug 21 2008, 11.40']Tywin, preparing the realm better than anyone else? Hardly. Even if one grants that the Red Wedding employing beastly reavers like Gregor and the Brave Companions are legitimate acts of war (which I'm not at all sure I do), letting the North suffer at the hands of the ironmen and attempting to influence the Lord Commander election show that Tywin's main goal was the supremacy of House Lannister - and [i]not[/i] the best interests the kingdom as a whole. If he'd lived, I have no doubt he would have organized a competent response to winter and the Others - but I also have no doubt he would always have looked for advantages for House Lannister (and its allies to a lesser extent) even as he was doing it.[/quote]

Well, who else? By the time of the end of ASOS there was none better and it showed during the whole AFFC. Of, course, it would have been best to avoid the whole war, but there are so many people to blame for it, that it would be unfair to point out only Tywin.
Tywin is not kind or even mildly good guy, but he [i]can[/i] rule. He would have been the best choise to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for what is still to come, IMO.
And, besides, what's wrong with looking for advantages for your own House and allies? Besides, I really doubt that he would have left everyone out of the Westerlands to die from cold and hunger during the winter, if you imply something like that.

[Easterner]

Well the thing that makes ASOIF different is that we don't know who "The One" is...most other stories, books, novels, etc. usually clearly point to who that "One" savior is and we follow him/her throughout the story.

GRRM is a real pragmatist about the whole Prince-that-was-promised thing. he keeps it wrapped up and elusive, and instead fills us up with a lot of other dilemmas in his world. So even if he did ultimately go cliche and have everyone saved by a great, destined hero...it won't be an obvious thing or an easy task for the hero. There's too much going on in GRRM's world for "one" figure to save it all.

Very different from traditional fantasy...probably, the most different.

[Maia]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1489274' date='Aug 21 2008, 12.30']Yes, but he had to have assumed that Rhaegar was done something really bad and nasty to Lyanna, to demand his death at the Red Keep.[/quote]

Well, as far as we know nobody thought that Lyanna was dead at that point, yet Brandon didn't demand to see her or anything. So, apparently her well-being wasn't his primary motivation. Anger was.

[quote]Why did he assumed that Rhaegar has done so?[/quote]

Maybe for the very same reason that Lord Rowan accused Daeron the singer of rape, when he was found in his daughter's bed? To deflect responsibility for improper behavior from a woman of his House onto the man she "sinned" with?

I'd like to point out that neither Jaime nor Cersei believed the whole "rape" propaganda for a second and they knew Rhaegar personally, even if they weren't close to him. And sure, I know that they aren't the most upstanding citizens, but that's what makes their opinion so convincing. They are very jaundiced and certainly not prone to naively thinking the best of people.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1489274' date='Aug 21 2008, 12.30']Yes, but he had to have assumed that Rhaegar was done something really bad and nasty to Lyanna, to demand his death at the Red Keep. Why did he assumed that Rhaegar has done so? Because Rhaegar was the greatest and most kind-hearted guy in Westeros? There is no smoke without fire, my friend. Something [i]was[/i] wrong in that situation, we just don't know everything. Yet.[/quote]

There [i]can[/i] be smoke without fire in Westeros. The means of communication are very primitive, and can be subverted, intentionally or not, quite easily. Look at the bald lie the Lannisters spread concerning Stannis's daughter. Given that Brandon was on his way to Riverrun when he heard, he most likely got it from the mouth of someone else, and we know how reliable mouth-to-mouth communications are.

[quote]Barristan is absolutely the same as Donnel Swann, it's just that the former lacks his reputation. The one is just some knight, while the other is precieved like a living hero (gods know why, he has, of course most excellent fighting skills, but otherwise...). And he is exactly a weathercock. True, a weathercock who can fight better than most and has a splendid reputation, but weathercock, none the less. Is he a bad person? Probably not, I'll wager. But he always goes with the victor. He served the Targaryens until they were crushed. Later, if he was so honourable, after he was pardoned by Robert, he may have reatreated in exile, not stay and guard the life of the man who has overthrown his former king. And I'll bet my moustache that he would have stayed with the Lannisters forever, if they hadn't thrown him out. It was not until [i]after[/i] that, when he seeked out his "rightful" queen. I wonder with who he is gonna be turned up if Dany fails and dies sometime soon (small chance of that, I know, but still)...[/quote]

Kingsguard serve for life (or are supposed to), remember? Even if he secretly disliked Robert, Barristan might have seen it as his duty to serve the king, whoever that might be. Would you rather Barristan had abandoned his post and fled across the sea to Viserys once he'd recovered from his wounds on the Trident? Barristan had already noticed the signs of madness in Viserys, hardly an auspicious omen for Viserys to turn into a worthy king. Barristan himself admits he would likely have gone on to serve the unworthy Joffrey - just as he once served the unworthy Aerys. Barristan isn't a weathercock - he's a man who does his best to remain true to his knightly vows, chief of them loyalty to his king.

[quote]I was referring to the Dance of Dragons and, yes, to the Blackfyre Rebellion. I didn't count the Conquest, because it was necessary, I agree, the War of the Ninepenny Kings, because it wasn't fought in Westeros and besides it wasn't so scary, and... I probably should have counted the War of the Usurper, because the Targaryens bear a significant fault for it, so that makes three, not two huge and bad wars, plus one not so big and terrible (the Ninepenny Kings) and one that was absolutely necessery and reasonable (the Conquest).[/quote]

Do we know the exact scope of the Dance of the Dragons? Was it a kingdom-wide conflict like the Blackfyre Rebellion? But even if we include it, it still makes for a total of only three major wars in nearly three centuries. Still quite an acceptable average, IMO.

[quote]Look, I am not denying that it's better for Westeros to have one king and everything to be united under his power, I just can't see why this king absolutely has to be a Targaryen.[/quote]

Oh, it doesn't [i]have[/i] to be a Targaryen king, I agree with you. Personally, I would like to see the Targaryens return to power... but even more than that, I want to see the Lannisters fall from power. That's all they deserve, considering the way the gained and held the throne.

[quote]Well, who else? By the time of the end of ASOS there was none better and it showed during the whole AFFC. Of, course, it would have been best to avoid the whole war, but there are so many people to blame for it, that it would be unfair to point out only Tywin.
Tywin is not kind or even mildly good guy, but he [i]can[/i] rule. He would have been the best choise to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for what is still to come, IMO.[/quote]

Who else? Let's see. Mathis Rowan, Garlan Tyrell, Brynden Tully and Bronze Yohn Royce all struck me as good, honourable, highly capable men of high enough rank that very few would balk at taking orders from them. Maybe even Kevan Lannister - we don't know him very well yet, but I don't think he'd be as ruthless as Tywin. One might even include Randyll Tarly on the list, though I think he'd be better as a battle commander in the field than an overall ruler. I'm sure there are other highly capable men in the Seven Kingdoms we haven't met (Lord Anders Yronwood, maybe) or know too little of. Heck, I'd even rather see Davos Seaworth than Tywin as leader of the effort against the Others.

[quote]And, besides, what's wrong with looking for advantages for your own House and allies? Besides, I really doubt that he would have left everyone out of the Westerlands to die from cold and hunger during the winter, if you imply something like that.[/quote]

What's wrong is when you deprive others of what they should have, or, in the case of supplies in winter, what they [i]need[/i] to survive. Looking for advantages for your own House and allies is fine, but not when it comes at dear and unfair cost to others. Tywin was highly capable, I do not deny that. But he was also, quite simply, too Lannister-centric. His decisions weren't based on what's best for the kingdom, but what's best for House Lannister.

A king is supposed to protect and watch out for the best interests the [i]whole[/i] of the realm, not just the parts that his House and allies control. Yet when the Night's Watch cried out for help, not only did Tywin do nothing, but he later even tried to influence the Lord Commander election - a process that is supposed to be the sole province of the black brothers.

As to the Westerlands, Tywin would of course have looked out for his own lands first if some crisis threatened them. However, I have no trouble envisioning him cold-bloodedly sacrificing the whole North so the rest of the kingdom will have time to prepare for the onslaught of the Others. He's already shown he was willing to let the ironmen, Bolton, and even the wildlings have their way with the North, so why not let those annoying northerners bear the brunt of the Others' attack while the rest of the kingdom mobilizes and learns how to best fight the foe?

[Shewoman]

Rinso, no name is given to the woman in the spoiler, and we have no evidence that Ned returned there.

[Rinso]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489603' date='Aug 21 2008, 15.46']There [i]can[/i] be smoke without fire in Westeros. The means of communication are very primitive, and can be subverted, intentionally or not, quite easily. Look at the bald lie the Lannisters spread concerning Stannis's daughter. Given that Brandon was on his way to Riverrun when he heard, he most likely got it from the mouth of someone else, and we know how reliable mouth-to-mouth communications are.[/quote]

You know, we won't get to an agreement with this case. You think that Brandon may had gotten awfuly angry without an apparent reason, I think the contrary, let's call it а deuce and move on.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489603' date='Aug 21 2008, 15.46']Kingsguard serve for life (or are supposed to), remember? Even if he secretly disliked Robert, Barristan might have seen it as his duty to serve the king, whoever that might be. Would you rather Barristan had abandoned his post and fled across the sea to Viserys once he'd recovered from his wounds on the Trident? Barristan had already noticed the signs of madness in Viserys, hardly an auspicious omen for Viserys to turn into a worthy king. Barristan himself admits he would likely have gone on to serve the unworthy Joffrey - just as he once served the unworthy Aerys. Barristan isn't a weathercock - he's a man who does his best to remain true to his knightly vows, chief of them loyalty to his king.[/quote]

Of course that his duty is to serve the king. It's not in his authority to choose which king, though, but funny enough, he chose the victor king. I'm not saying what would [i]I[/i] rather Barristan do, but yes - exile would have been the more honourable option. Not the most comfortable, though.

Besides, the knightly vows in Westeros are hypocritical as hell and are upheld mainly by hypocrites, and the Kingsguard vows are twise as bad. He keeps his oaths, true, he is not a liar or an oathbreaker, but he just happens to change the kings when the situation with them gets shitty.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489603' date='Aug 21 2008, 15.46']Do we know the exact scope of the Dance of the Dragons? Was it a kingdom-wide conflict like the Blackfyre Rebellion? But even if we include it, it still makes for a total of only three major wars in nearly three centuries. Still quite an acceptable average, IMO.[/quote]

Well, as far as I know - yes, it was a kingdom-wide conflict. It wiped out most of the dragons in Westeros, a lot of members of the royal family and the lesser branches died and the whole Realm was devided in two - even the Kingsguard had splitted - it doesn't sound like it was a small time quarrel to me.

Besides, you can say that only four wars (I don't want to count the Conquest, otherwise are five), worth of notice for 300 or so years is not bad result, but consider this as well - every one of these four wars was caused by the Targaryens themselves one way or another.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489603' date='Aug 21 2008, 15.46']Who else? Let's see. Mathis Rowan, Garlan Tyrell, Brynden Tully and Bronze Yohn Royce all struck me as good, honourable, highly capable men of high enough rank that very few would balk at taking orders from them. Maybe even Kevan Lannister - we don't know him very well yet, but I don't think he'd be as ruthless as Tywin. One might even include Randyll Tarly on the list, though I think he'd be better as a battle commander in the field than an overall ruler. I'm sure there are other highly capable men in the Seven Kingdoms we haven't met (Lord Anders Yronwood, maybe) or know too little of. Heck, I'd even rather see Davos Seaworth than Tywin as leader of the effort against the Others.[/quote]

I'd be the first to agree that the men you listed are all able, more or less, and their help would be most useful, but you just make mistake as you wave Tywin away so lightly. True - he is calculating and cold-hearted, true - he can be totaly ruthless towards his enemies if the situation calls for it, true - he will do everything he must to win... But that's exactly the sort of man I would want to have on top of the pile of good and able men like the ones you listed, if my world is going to be invaded by the Others.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489603' date='Aug 21 2008, 15.46']What's wrong is when you deprive others of what they should have, or, in the case of supplies in winter, what they [i]need[/i] to survive. Looking for advantages for your own House and allies is fine, but not when it comes at dear and unfair cost to others. Tywin was highly capable, I do not deny that. But he was also, quite simply, too Lannister-centric. His decisions weren't based on what's best for the kingdom, but what's best for House Lannister.

A king is supposed to protect and watch out for the best interests the [i]whole[/i] of the realm, not just the parts that his House and allies control. Yet when the Night's Watch cried out for help, not only did Tywin do nothing, but he later even tried to influence the Lord Commander election - a process that is supposed to be the sole province of the black brothers.

As to the Westerlands, Tywin would of course have looked out for his own lands first if some crisis threatened them. However, I have no trouble envisioning him cold-bloodedly sacrificing the whole North so the rest of the kingdom will have time to prepare for the onslaught of the Others. He's already shown he was willing to let the ironmen, Bolton, and even the wildlings have their way with the North, so why not let those annoying northerners bear the brunt of the Others' attack while the rest of the kingdom mobilizes and learns how to best fight the foe?[/quote]

On your point, about Tywin being too Lannister-centric and not caring about the others... I tend to both agree and disagree. It depends of which Tywin are we talking. If we talk about the young Tywin, who was Hand of Aerys, you are wrong as hell. He was the one who gave the Seven Kingdoms the peace and plenty that even some of the smallfolk remember now. If we talk about the older Tywin, who was the Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West, yes - of course he was Lannister-centric, but that was that was expected of him. For example, Ned was just as much Stark and North-centric before he became Hand of Robert. Would you blame him for it? And if we talk about the even older Tywin who was Hand of Joffrey, that was during a time of war, and in a time of war you care for your men and allies, not for your enemies. The North had declared that it no longer needs to be a part of the Iron Throne - then why should Tywin care for them? Did Robb, for example, cared for these villagers from the Crownlands, which were tortured and taken captive by Gregor (in ACOK, when he had Arya with them, but didn't knew)? It's the same.
As for the situation with the Night's Watch, he probably believed that they have allied themselves with Stannis, like it would seem to everyone thousands of miles away, which would mean to him that they already had forsaken their rule of neutrality in favor of Stannis, so why should he be obliged to help them. Of course, me and you know that it wasn't so, but he didn't and had no way of knowing, being at the other end of the continent.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1489801' date='Aug 21 2008, 17.30']You know, we won't get to an agreement with this case. You think that Brandon may had gotten awfuly angry without an apparent reason, I think the contrary, let's call it а deuce and move on.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Of course that his duty is to serve the king. It's not in his authority to choose which king, though, but funny enough, he chose the victor king. I'm not saying what would [i]I[/i] rather Barristan do, but yes - exile would have been the more honourable option. Not the most comfortable, though.

Besides, the knightly vows in Westeros are hypocritical as hell and are upheld mainly by hypocrites, and the Kingsguard vows are twise as bad. He keeps his oaths, true, he is not a liar or an oathbreaker, but he just happens to change the kings when the situation with them gets shitty.[/quote]

"When the situation get shitty"? Rather, when there's a change of kings. After Aerys died, Robert was acknowledged King of the Seven Kingdoms by practically everyone. Who is Barristan, a Kingsguard who takes his vows very seriously, to serve but Robert? Perhaps the change was unlawful, but it was Aerys who forced Robert's hand by calling for his head. And after Rhaegar died, there was no viable Targaryen for Barristan to champion, had he been so inclined.

Perhaps asking to be released from his vows would have been more honourable than serving Robert. But in any case, I can't fault Barristan for his choices, and I find calling him a weathercock quite unwarranted.

[quote]Well, as far as I know - yes, it was a kingdom-wide conflict. It wiped out most of the dragons in Westeros, a lot of members of the royal family and the lesser branches died and the whole Realm was devided in two - even the Kingsguard had splitted - it doesn't sound like it was a small time quarrel to me.

Besides, you can say that only four wars (I don't want to count the Conquest, otherwise are five), worth of notice for 300 or so years is not bad result, but consider this as well - every one of these four wars was caused by the Targaryens themselves one way or another.[/quote]

Four? I thought the War of the Ninepenny Kings didn't count, since it didn't occur in Westeros. We've got the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion. That's three. And as to the wars being caused by the Targaryens themselves, what of it? That's about one major war every three generations. Before the Conquest, there were always three of four of the Seven Kingdoms at war with each other every generation. It's a major improvement.

Look at the Field of Fire - the combined armies of the King of the Reach and the King of the Rock numbered only fifty thousand. By the time the series start, the Lannisters can field that number, or very near it, all by themselves, and the Reach can put up to a hundred thousand men on the field. Obviously, there was a serious population increase between the Conquest and ASOIAF's beginning. Therefore, despite a few major wars, I say the Targaryens did quite well at ruling.

[quote]I'd be the first to agree that the men you listed are all able, more or less, and their help would be most useful, but you just make mistake as you wave Tywin away so lightly. True - he is calculating and cold-hearted, true - he can be totaly ruthless towards his enemies if the situation calls for it, true - he will do everything he must to win... But that's exactly the sort of man I would want to have on top of the pile of good and able men like the ones you listed, if my world is going to be invaded by the Others.[/quote]

Not me. If I had ever offended him, his House, or was just seen as an impediment, I'd constantly worry that I'd get backstabbed one way or another. Vital supplies and/or reinforcements encountering "unfortunate delays," being put at the front of a battle, murdered in breach of the laws of hospitality, a "sad riding accident"...

[quote]On your point, about Tywin being too Lannister-centric and not caring about the others... I tend to both agree and disagree. It depends of which Tywin are we talking. If we talk about the young Tywin, who was Hand of Aerys, you are wrong as hell. He was the one who gave the Seven Kingdoms the peace and plenty that even some of the smallfolk remember now. If we talk about the older Tywin, who was the Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West, yes - of course he was Lannister-centric, but that was that was expected of him. For example, Ned was just as much Stark and North-centric before he became Hand of Robert. Would you blame him for it? And if we talk about the even older Tywin who was Hand of Joffrey, that was during a time of war, and in a time of war you care for your men and allies, not for your enemies. The North had declared that it no longer needs to be a part of the Iron Throne - then why should Tywin care for them? Did Robb, for example, cared for these villagers from the Crownlands, which were tortured and taken captive by Gregor (in ACOK, when he had Arya with them, but didn't knew)? It's the same.[/quote]

I agree that the younger Tywin might not have been so callous. But it's the older Tywin we're dealing with, and it's that older Tywin who would have met the challenge of the Others. And there's IMO a large difference between caring for your House and lands and being so own-House-centric that you'll stoop to base treachery to eliminate your foes and advance your cause.

As for the North, after Robb's death, there was no reason to let the North go on suffering. But did Tywin make plans to send a large army there to kick the ironmen away and restore the king's peace and the king's justice ASAP? No, he was content to let the northmen, both those against and for Roose Bolton, and the ironmen fight it out and bleed themselves white - all so that once winter had passed, Tyrion and his offspring by Sansa could go in and take control, all for the greater glory of House Lannister. Countless innocent commoners would have died during those battles and the winter, but, as usual, Tywin didn't care about the smallfolk and chose the most Lannister-centric option.

And as for Robb, he [i]did[/i] release most of the river lords to go back to their strongholds in ACOK, when it would have been more militarily sound to keep them with him at Riverrun so he'd have his entire army available on short notice if Tywin moved from Harrenhal.

[quote]As for the situation with the Night's Watch, he probably believed that they have allied themselves with Stannis, like it would seem to everyone thousands of miles away, which would mean to him that they already had forsaken their rule of neutrality in favor of Stannis, so why should he be obliged to help them. Of course, me and you know that it wasn't so, but he didn't and had no way of knowing, being at the other end of the continent.[/quote]

Remember, Stannis hadn't arrived at the Wall when Tywin must have received word of the wildling attack on the Wall. It's only in AFFC, after Tywin's death, that King's Landing receives news that Stannis is at the Wall. But Tywin had already shown he didn't give a rat's ass about the Watch - rather than being worried that the Watch might fall, he openly mused that Mance Rayder might make a useful ally.

By the way, this discussion is highly enjoyable. I haven't had this much fun arguing about ASOIAF for, well, years. Thanks. :)

[Rinso]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']"When the situation get shitty"? Rather, when there's a change of kings. After Aerys died, Robert was acknowledged King of the Seven Kingdoms by practically everyone. Who is Barristan, a Kingsguard who takes his vows very seriously, to serve but Robert? Perhaps the change was unlawful, but it was Aerys who forced Robert's hand by calling for his head. And after Rhaegar died, there was no viable Targaryen for Barristan to champion, had he been so inclined.

Perhaps asking to be released from his vows would have been more honourable than serving Robert. But in any case, I can't fault Barristan for his choices, and I find calling him a weathercock quite unwarranted.[/quote]

Yes, and the situation gets shitty every time when there is a change of kings in the last 14-15 years or so. After Aerys died, Robert was acknowledged by the Great Houses and the nobles and the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, aye, but not by Aerys' Kingsguard. Remember the Tower of Joy? When Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower said their knees do not bend easily and "woe to the Usurper" if they fought against him. [i]These[/i] are men that are not weathercocks. Now, I don't necessarily approve the logic of "loyal to the death", but that is what is expected from the Kingsguard, not the changing of kings like socks.

As for wether we should fault Barristan for his choices... probably not. Like I said, I'll wager that he is not a bad person, but he just always will go with the victor. I don't blame him, if was a Westerosi, I'd probably do the same, if not in greater scale in order to survive and advance in life.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']Four? I thought the War of the Ninepenny Kings didn't count, since it didn't occur in Westeros. We've got the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion. That's three. And as to the wars being caused by the Targaryens themselves, what of it? That's about one major war every three generations. Before the Conquest, there were always three of four of the Seven Kingdoms at war with each other every generation. It's a major improvement.

Look at the Field of Fire - the combined armies of the King of the Reach and the King of the Rock numbered only fifty thousand. By the time the series start, the Lannisters can field that number, or very near it, all by themselves, and the Reach can put up to a hundred thousand men on the field. Obviously, there was a serious population increase between the Conquest and ASOIAF's beginning. Therefore, despite a few major wars, I say the Targaryens did quite well at ruling.[/quote]

I don't count the War of the Ninepenny Kings as a "huge and devastating war", which is the way I referred to the Dance and the Blackfyre Rebellion, but that doesn't mean that it didin't happen. And even if a war is not huge and devastating, it's still a nasty piece of work and (innocent) people die.
Besides, aside from the major wars, there were other conflicts, involving Targaryen rule - the epic fail of King Daeron I to conquer Dorne, the troubles of King Maegor with the Faith... There are probably more, both known and unknown to us. It's not like the reign of the Targaryens was all roses and blooms.

As for your question "And as to the wars being caused by the Targaryens themselves, what of it?", my answer is that points that they are just as much troublemakers as the others.

The reason of the general well-being of Westeros during their reign is in the fact that there was only one king to make important decisions and mistakes, not seven or eight, or whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact that this one king was a Targaryen.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']Not me. If I had ever offended him, his House, or was just seen as an impediment, I'd constantly worry that I'd get backstabbed one way or another. Vital supplies and/or reinforcements encountering "unfortunate delays," being put at the front of a battle, murdered in breach of the laws of hospitality, a "sad riding accident"...[/quote]

Nah, I think you are exaggerating here. You made him sound like if you accidentally spill some wine or grease on his dress during a feast, for example, the same night you will find a couple of vipers in your bed, a Gregor in the wardrobe, a manticore in the bowl with fruits and a Faceless Man in the privy (just in case). To fear from his vengeance, you must have deliberately and badly humiliated him, like Aerys did, he is not gonna kill you because you forgot to tell him "Good morrow" on breakfast because you were sleepy. I'd be much more worried to be backstabbed by people like Cersei, or Littlefinger, or Varys, than Tywin.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']I agree that the younger Tywin might not have been so callous. But it's the older Tywin we're dealing with, and it's that older Tywin who would have met the challenge of the Others. And there's IMO a large difference between caring for your House and lands and being so own-House-centric that you'll stoop to base treachery to eliminate your foes and advance your cause.[/quote]

Are you referring to a concrete event for this so called Lannister-centric elemination of foes? Because I fear that you are referring to what he did to the Reynes and the Tarbecks and I just won't accept the opinion that he was wrong end evil about it. And if by treachery you mean the way he conquered King's Landing during the War of the Usurper, well, it was a good plan strategy-wise, but I suppose that most people prefer to watch it from the morality's POV.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']As for the North, after Robb's death, there was no reason to let the North go on suffering. But did Tywin make plans to send a large army there to kick the ironmen away and restore the king's peace and the king's justice ASAP? No, he was content to let the northmen, both those against and for Roose Bolton, and the ironmen fight it out and bleed themselves white - all so that once winter had passed, Tyrion and his offspring by Sansa could go in and take control, all for the greater glory of House Lannister. Countless innocent commoners would have died during those battles and the winter, but, as usual, Tywin didn't care about the smallfolk and chose the most Lannister-centric option.

And as for Robb, he [i]did[/i] release most of the river lords to go back to their strongholds in ACOK, when it would have been more militarily sound to keep them with him at Riverrun so he'd have his entire army available on short notice if Tywin moved from Harrenhal.[/quote]

I doubt that he would have left the North to starve and die. As you know, Roose Bolton was his man, and he had plans to give Winterfell to Tyrion. So, obviously, he wouldn't have left them on their own, because if that was the case, it would have been pointless to even bother placing them there, on key positions. However, he died before he got a true reason or opportunity to act in that direction, so we don't know for sure what he would or would have not done.

Robb let the Riverlords to return to their homes, true, but I was referring that he didn't care about the people in the enemy territories. And the absolutely same goes for Tywin.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']Remember, Stannis hadn't arrived at the Wall when Tywin must have received word of the wildling attack on the Wall. It's only in AFFC, after Tywin's death, that King's Landing receives news that Stannis is at the Wall. But Tywin had already shown he didn't give a rat's ass about the Watch - rather than being worried that the Watch might fall, he openly mused that Mance Rayder might make a useful ally.[/quote]

Okay, my mistake.

Still, there is a other explanation. You see, for all Tywin knew, the Wall was more or less useless. He didn't knew about the threat of the Others; if he knew it as good, as we do, he would never have left the Wall defenceless, not even for a day.
But from his POV there is just no point of doing anything about it. The Wildlings were a threat for the rebellious North and Stannis (if he knew that he went there, I'm not sure if he did). If Bolton failed to butcher them (unlikely, because they are laughable, compared to a smaller, but more organized and well prepared host), the Ironmen would have done the job sooner or later without needing his assistance or help, because the Wildlings are just not that big of a menace.

[quote name='Krafus' post='1489994' date='Aug 21 2008, 18.54']By the way, this discussion is highly enjoyable. I haven't had this much fun arguing about ASOIAF for, well, years. Thanks. :)[/quote]

Yup, I agree, I enjoy it too. It doesn't matter (to me) that we carried ourselves far beyond the original topic, it is a interesting debate :wideeyed:

[shadowbinding shoe]

Yes this is a good discussion. I don't post so rapidly like Rinso so good going Rinso.

Anyway just wanted to say about the wars during the Targaryen regime, these wars may have been fewer but they were also bigger. In these wars each side had forces as big as half the kingdom fighting.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1490082' date='Aug 21 2008, 22.09']Yes, and the situation gets shitty every time when there is a change of kings in the last 14-15 years or so. After Aerys died, Robert was acknowledged by the Great Houses and the nobles and the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, aye, but not by Aerys' Kingsguard. Remember the Tower of Joy? When Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower said their knees do not bend easily and "woe to the Usurper" if they fought against him. [i]These[/i] are men that are not weathercocks. Now, I don't necessarily approve the logic of "loyal to the death", but that is what is expected from the Kingsguard, not the changing of kings like socks.

As for wether we should fault Barristan for his choices... probably not. Like I said, I'll wager that he is not a bad person, but he just always will go with the victor. I don't blame him, if was a Westerosi, I'd probably do the same, if not in greater scale in order to survive and advance in life.[/quote]

Remember, Barristan didn't meekly go over to Robert like Alester Florent did with Stannis. Barristan killed a dozen men on the Trident, and was quite seriously wounded himself. Roose Bolton urged that his throat be cut, but instead Robert sent his own maester to attend Barristan. Is it then any wonder that Barristan went over to Robert after such a noble act?

[quote]I don't count the War of the Ninepenny Kings as a "huge and devastating war", which is the way I referred to the Dance and the Blackfyre Rebellion, but that doesn't mean that it didin't happen. And even if a war is not huge and devastating, it's still a nasty piece of work and (innocent) people die.
Besides, aside from the major wars, there were other conflicts, involving Targaryen rule - the epic fail of King Daeron I to conquer Dorne, the troubles of King Maegor with the Faith... There are probably more, both known and unknown to us. It's not like the reign of the Targaryens was all roses and blooms.[/quote]

No it wasn't, I've never disputed that. But I still firmly maintain that, as far as the general population is concerned, it was still a major improvement over the previous situation.

[quote]As for your question "And as to the wars being caused by the Targaryens themselves, what of it?", my answer is that points that they are just as much troublemakers as the others.[/quote]

Again I beg to differ. Under the Targaryens, the Seven Kingdoms had an average of one major war every three generations. Previously, one could count on two-three major wars every generation.

[quote]The reason of the general well-being of Westeros during their reign is in the fact that there was only one king to make important decisions and mistakes, not seven or eight, or whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact that this one king was a Targaryen.[/quote]

But it does have everything to do with the fact that it's a Targaryen who unified Westeros, and that after Aegon died it was the Targaryen dynasty that managed to maintain power long enough for the kingdom to thrive in relative peace.

[quote]Nah, I think you are exaggerating here. You made him sound like if you accidentally spill some wine or grease on his dress during a feast, for example, the same night you will find a couple of vipers in your bed, a Gregor in the wardrobe, a manticore in the bowl with fruits and a Faceless Man in the privy (just in case). To fear from his vengeance, you must have deliberately and badly humiliated him, like Aerys did, he is not gonna kill you because you forgot to tell him "Good morrow" on breakfast because you were sleepy. I'd be much more worried to be backstabbed by people like Cersei, or Littlefinger, or Varys, than Tywin.[/quote]

Oh, I do think that if one just neglected to refer to him properly, he'd 1) arrange something later on if one is a noble or 2) arrange it immediately if one is a commoner. Perhaps not that very same night, but should an opportunity arise, he'd take it. And he has no compunctions about taking it out on the offspring of people who've pissed him. Look at Ser Jaremy Rykker - his father joked about Tywin and the gold shit, so when Tywin took King's Landing, Jaremy was offered a choice between the Wall or hanging. I wouldn't want to have to worry about being on his black list just because a relative. He had Tysha raped by a barracks of his guard. He wanted to have Podrick Payne executed because he had the misfortune of being helper to the cook who'd stolen a ham from Tywin's reserve. So not only did Tywin carry grudges for a long time, but his punishments can be very extreme. I'd rather deal with Littlefinger and Varys than Tywin (not Cersei, though).

[quote]Are you referring to a concrete event for this so called Lannister-centric elemination of foes? Because I fear that you are referring to what he did to the Reynes and the Tarbecks and I just won't accept the opinion that he was wrong end evil about it. And if by treachery you mean the way he conquered King's Landing during the War of the Usurper, well, it was a good plan strategy-wise, but I suppose that most people prefer to watch it from the morality's POV.[/quote]

I can accept the deception for the purpose of gaining entrance into King's Landing. But not the Sack that followed. Jorah says that there were countless rapes and murders done then. Stannis has shown that a lord can keep his men in line if he so wants. But Tywin let his pillage, murder and rape their way through King's Landing - just as he did to the riverlands during the War of the Five Kings. It's a preferred strategy of his, one that maximizes pain, misery and death for the kingdom's people.

[quote]I doubt that he would have left the North to starve and die. As you know, Roose Bolton was his man, and he had plans to give Winterfell to Tyrion. So, obviously, he wouldn't have left them on their own, because if that was the case, it would have been pointless to even bother placing them there, on key positions. However, he died before he got a true reason or opportunity to act in that direction, so we don't know for sure what he would or would have not done.[/quote]

Huh? Tywin [i]did[/i] plan to let the North starve and suffer, as I showed in my last post. After the Red Wedding, it's a given that a number of northern lords would never accept Bolton as overlord. Tywin's original plan was to let all the players in the north bleed themselves white during winter, with much misery and dying for everyone, and to have Tyrion go take over come spring. Just because Joffrey's wedding and Tywin's death occurred doesn't invalidate the fact that that was Tywin's preferred way of dealing with the north.

[quote]Robb let the Riverlords to return to their homes, true, but I was referring that he didn't care about the people in the enemy territories. And the absolutely same goes for Tywin.[/quote]

The only time Robb was in enemy territory was when he went west into the Westerlands in ACOK, hoping to lure Tywin there. IIRC he returned with a lot of sheep, and that's it. I very much doubt he unleashed reavers like Gregor, the Bloody Mummers and Amory Lorch to do widespread slaughtering, raping, and burning like Tywin did - that would certainly have been mentioned in one of Tyrion's later chapters, or in ASoS.

[quote]Still, there is a other explanation. You see, for all Tywin knew, the Wall was more or less useless. He didn't knew about the threat of the Others; if he knew it as good, as we do, he would never have left the Wall defenceless, not even for a day.
But from his POV there is just no point of doing anything about it. The Wildlings were a threat for the rebellious North and Stannis (if he knew that he went there, I'm not sure if he did). If Bolton failed to butcher them (unlikely, because they are laughable, compared to a smaller, but more organized and well prepared host), the Ironmen would have done the job sooner or later without needing his assistance or help, because the Wildlings are just not that big of a menace.[/quote]

No point? How about not letting the Watch fall? A king's greatest duty is to defend the people who live in his kingdom. The Watch is part of that kingdom, too, and certainly never did anything to directly offend Tywin. The right, honourable thing to do would have been to send reinforcements to the Wall as soon as he received the news of the wildling attack, or at least make plans to do so. Instead, he was willing to let the Watch be butchered and for the wildlings to slaughter more of the kingdom's people as part of his overall plan for the North.

[b]shadowbinding shoe:[/b]

[quote]Anyway just wanted to say about the wars during the Targaryen regime, these wars may have been fewer but they were also bigger. In these wars each side had forces as big as half the kingdom fighting.[/quote]

True. Yet, despite those wars, the kingdom as a whole undeniably prospered, as the major population increases show. And once one was over, the kingdom's people had about two generations to recover before the next one.

[shadowbinding shoe]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1490418' date='Aug 22 2008, 16.02']True. Yet, despite those wars, the kingdom as a whole undeniably prospered, as the major population increases show. And once one was over, the kingdom's people had about two generations to recover before the next one.[/quote]

Maybe. In numbers of killed soldiers and civilians I think it would have been about the same (you have 1 Targ war every 3 gens compared to 3 pre-Targ wars every gen meaning its 9 times more frequent. I have ~3 kingdoms fighting another 3 compared to 1 Kingdom fighting another as well as ability and willingness in the Targ era to put all their resources on the field since they had no other enemies to fear compared to the reservation of forces in the pre-Targ era for fighting against other bordering countries. So the armies would have been about 9 times bigger overall.)

I think the prosperity had more to do with the unrestricted trade allowed by the annihilation of hostile borders between the 7 kingdoms. In the beginning of GoT we are told that in the past as much as half the population in the North kingdom would starve from lack of food during the long winters. But now they trade furs for food and scrape through in the winters.

Similar improvements probably account for the improvements in the other kingdoms as well.

[Krafus]

[quote name='shadowbinding shoe' post='1490480' date='Aug 22 2008, 10.02']Maybe. In numbers of killed soldiers and civilians I think it would have been about the same (you have 1 Targ war every 3 gens compared to 3 pre-Targ wars every gen meaning its 9 times more frequent. I have ~3 kingdoms fighting another 3 compared to 1 Kingdom fighting another as well as ability and willingness in the Targ era to put all their resources on the field since they had no other enemies to fear compared to the reservation of forces in the pre-Targ era for fighting against other bordering countries. So the armies would have been about 9 times bigger overall.)

I think the prosperity had more to do with the unrestricted trade allowed by the annihilation of hostile borders between the 7 kingdoms. In the beginning of GoT we are told that in the past as much as half the population in the North kingdom would starve from lack of food during the long winters. But now they trade furs for food and scrape through in the winters.

Similar improvements probably account for the improvements in the other kingdoms as well.[/quote]

Good points about trade. However, I doubt that the major wars in the Targaryen era resulted in the same number of deaths than as for the perpetual wars of before the Conquest. True, populations were lower back then, but the Redgrass Field (not sure if that's the exact name), which seems to have been the biggest battle of the Blackfyre Rebellion, only resulted in 10k deaths. And we know that some lords held back during the Blackfyre Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion - likely others did during the Dance of the Dragons, all thus minimizing damage to their lands and smallfolk.

[Branfangd]

I agree with the Thread there are some annoying Cliches

[Enguerrand]

There is a lot of the word rape here. Just wanted to point out that even if Lyanna was perfectly willing to be Rhaegar´s sidedish, the disgrace is insufferable for the Starks.
Brandon could never let something like that stand and that he holds Rhaegar accountable is hardly surprising.

[Enguerrand]

double post