Floki of the Ironborn

Are we really regressing to the use of those terms?

Edmure would have been a better king than about 90% of the Targaryens who sat their asses on that stupid throne. The fact that Dumb and Dumber made him an utterly irredeemable clown and a snobbish elitist (would Book Edmure compare the smallfolk to dogs?) is one of my biggest problems with the abomination.

Aegon III was a self-absorbed brat who might have been an effective king if he'd actually bothered to commit. Instead, he just spent his life brooding while millions throughout the realm suffered for the actions that his family had committed. Aegon V might not have succeeded at reforming the Seven Kingdoms but it wasn't for lack of trying. Aegon III really was a sullen boy who lashed out and humiliated one his closest allies instead of the actual people who were manipulating him and corrupting him. Viserys did more good in one year than Aegon did in twenty-six.

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that the answer is yes. They belong to the same religion as the maesters, it would stand to reason that they'd try to remain neutral.

I love how quickly the Renly and Stannis fans rally towards any post which even mentions those two Baratheon brothers. Fitting that such a stormy and tempestuous house gets the fanbase it deserves. And don't play coy, Lord of Raventree, you knew exactly what you were doing.

Just when I thought I couldn't hate that scenario even more... So she is not only an utterly selfish imbecile, she's also a massive hypocrite. I swear, if the elopement thing is true, then I daresay that Rhaegar and Lyanna are the worst people in the entire series.

It doesn't make sense for Bittersteel to be alive. He never learned what happened to Bloodraven, and even if he wanted to also become immortal, he had no means to do so.

Hiding Lyanna's child is one thing, hiding Lyanna herself is another. Much as I wish that he would do what he could to hide Lyanna, Ned would have still brought her back to Robert. Maybe Lyanna would still make him promise to hide her child from Robert. Maybe she does live a miserable life with Robert, maybe she kills him, maybe she kills herself, but either way, I don't imagine that Lyanna would ever live happily with the man who killed Rhaegar. Though I'd say that's not a bad karma for her given all the bloodshed she may have caused by eloping with Rhaegar.

It'd still be a less painful fate than what else might happen to them.

I don't think there is a protocol. The Kingsguard can just decide for themselves. Valarr was much less experienced than Rhaegar, presumably. Plus Rhaegar was regularly sparring with Arthur Dayne and Barristan Selmy. It really seems like it's up to one's own discretion.

This, basically. Aegon would never have been able to ally with the faith, and frankly, I don't think he would have had Jaehaerys' brains to work out a fair compromise. Jaehaerys basically got super lucky, that's the real reason why he endured for so long.

If Steffon marries Genna, then Robert, Stannis, and Renly don't exist. I do find it strange when people assume, seriously or otherwise, that characters would still exist if one of their parents was swapped out with someone else entirely. It's a clean slate, so we have no idea how many kids they would have, what they'd be like, and what roles they would play in the history. One thing that we do know is that the Freys don't have any ties to House Lannister, so they might be less likely to turn to their side in ASOIAF. Plus that also means Cleos Frey doesn't exist, which means Jaime's storyline alters. Also, if Tytos had been smart enough to marry Genna to Steffon, that would be a highly favourable match, which Tywin would have approved of whole-heartedly. If anything, that means Steffon might also be alienated from Aerys, so he doesn't trust him due to his marriage ties with the Lannisters. Steffon likely wouldn't have been sent to find a bride for Rhaegar as a result, so he wouldn't have died.

I'm not a fan of most of the Blacks. Rhaenyra becomes way too violent and unstable for me to get behind, Daemon was an awful human being, Jace and Luke and Joff seemed alright, before they died young, Aegon turned out to be a truly unfit king, Viserys seemed to be better but his son was easily the second-worst king of House Targaryen... And yet much as I dislike most of the main blacks, I still can't help but find them preferable to the greens. Just on general principle, I dislike the notion that Rhaenyra's claim was opposed so thoroughly because she was a woman. But even putting my own notions aside, none of the greens were that much better than their opponents. Otto was a scheming social climber, Alicent was a bitch, Aegon was, if the rumours can be believed, a degenerate, Aemond was a sociopath, and Daeron was basically on the same level as Jace or Luke. The only ones I felt sorry for were Helaena and most of the Targs who were kids during the war. And even then I still lean black. Did anyone read this story and support the greens?

Varys would have still turned on Renly and killed him so that Aegon could sweep in. And even if he didn't, Dany was always going to be on the horizon with her dragons.

Simple question. Assuming that Rhaenyra did bend the knee, would she have been allowed to keep Dragonstone and pass it on to her heir? It seems like a rash decision for the greens to cede the ancestral Targaryen home and assume there wouldn't be any trouble in the future about it. Plus Lucerys would be at the head of House Velaryon as well, and that was when they were at their most powerful. What would happen when another succession crisis occurred?

I doubt Vaegon left any descendants in Oldtown. I'm far more curious about Saera's descendants. One of them looked exactly like Jaehaerys. There absolutely were Targ bastards in Essos who escaped the Dance of the Dragons, far as we know. Imagine if Viserys and Aegon were no longer in the picture, and the Seven Kingdoms needed to rely on Saera's line to continue the Targaryen line.

Roose was throwing the fight to bleed his rival nobles. From the very start, he was treacherous.

That was unworthy. I'm a flippant man, and bitter. Forgive me, ser/lady

Yes, I was inspired by CravingPeaches' post to make this one, because I think it makes for a more interesting 'what if' scenaro. Given that Robb would have outnumbered Tywin's army, and he would have had an enhanced element of surprise due to his warging ability, I think there was a strong chance that Robb could have defeated Tywin's army. And depending on how badly he beat him, that would have changed everything in regards to the War of the Five Kings. A Lannister defeat at the Green Fork means that Jaime would very likely have lifted the siege of Riverrun and gone after Robb. Plus with Tywin and/or Tyrion and/or Kevan as Robb's prisoner instead of Jaime, that means House Lannister is basically doomed. Even better if Tywin and/or Tyrion and/or Kevan die(s) in the battle or its aftermath. And yes, there is a chance of a Northern defeat at the battle, of course there is, but I don't think it would have happened.

Jon isn't a failure. He was ahead of his time, that's all.

There was no way in seven hells that Joffrey, Tywin, Stannis, Lysa, Robb, or pretty much anyone would agree to a Great Council idea. That's why Renly said no. To make such a suggestion would be a sign of weakness. Renly had the biggest army, the biggest food supply, and now he's going to try and settle the war with some big council where people decide the course of action? Everyone would be too stupid or too ambitious to see the sense in that kind of idea.

Technically possible, but was it practical? I don't doubt that many slaves did break free and did find some kind of peaceful existence outside of the Roman world, especially when crowds of random peoples later returned as the Huns and nearly overran a dying empire. But that took a long time, and there was also a lot of other factors which led to Rome's collapse. A lot of those factors haven't been put into effect yet in Slaver's Bay. And as someone else said, we don't have a super-detailed history of the region. It's one of GRRM's oldest tricks. He'll be tight-lipped and vague about some era or some location until he can give it the Gyldayn/Yandel treatment.

Honestly, I think Ned would accept a war against Tywin. He's always resented how the Lannisters got away with committing war crimes, so this would be some retroactive punishment.

Spartacus was an exception, not a rule. No slave revolt ever reached the scale that Spartacus' revolt managed to do, or else why should he be special if there'd been dozens of others like him?

The Riverlands had twice the fighting men that the Ironborn had, and it's not like the Ironborn could keep all their forces in the Riverlands anyway, else the Iron Islands would have been undefended. And sure, Harrenhal is the biggest castle in Westeros, but it's just that; a castle. If the Riverlands revolted, they might not be able to get at the Hoares in the castle, but the Hoares would be stuck in that castle. If the Starks could defeat the Boltons after two years of siege, I think the Riverlords could do the same if they were united, possibly aided by other armies. The Stormlands would have every reason to want to help the rivermen overthrow the Ironborn tyrants (rather ironic, really) as do the Reach and the Westerlands, given that they'd be next on House Hoare's conquest list.