Jump to content

Adam Targaryen

Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adam Targaryen

  • Rank
    Squire
  • Birthday 03/02/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,121 profile views
  1. In this you are right. I was wrong when I wrote this. I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that Stannis was the one who decided that there was to be a Baratheon VS Baratheon battle, and not Renly? If so, where is your source for that? It is classical logic. I have very recently studied philosophy including logic at university level so I know how it works and it is the most legitimate kind of logic. I did not think about the possibility of Renly rebelling against Joffrey despite believing him to be legitimate, however. Thus my argument is flawed because of my faulty assumption. Since writing the post I have read and realised that Renly believed Joffrey to be legitimate. I did not know this before, or otherwise I had forgotten it. So essentially Renly is rebelling against Stannis since he is rebelling against everyone in general, regardless of their legitimacy, just because he wants the throne for himself. That is a fairer treatment of Stannis than I thought, but it is still a bad, illegal and irrational thing to do. That means Renly is not being unfair and unlawful against Stannis, he is being unfair and unlawful to everyone by not following the laws - and without any reasonable motivation of being unfairly treated or having family members imprisoned that other people like the Starks had for rebelling. His motivation is just his own will to be king, and that is in my opinion a bad one that does not justify his rebellion against everyone else. Renly does not care about the law in the case of kingship. He just wants power for himself. That is bad. And one can argue back and forth about the question of whether Renly crowning himself is an altruistic thing, since he thinks he will make the best king, but I think he would not make a better king than Stannis. Many Targaryen kings, like Viserys II, were a bit asocial or "grumpy" like Stannis but were still great kings and hands. Stannis is just and fair and is good at kingly responsibilities such as keeping order in a strict and dutiful way, unlike Renly. And there are several more examples of this with the good "grumpy" Targaryen kings other than Viserys II. But this is of course not an absolute truth so we can continue arguing about this if you do not agree with me about Stannis being better for kingship than Renly. Renly crowning himself and rebelling against the other kings or potential kings is a bad action according to me. It is selfish, irrational and dangerous. If he had not done it there would not have been the Baratheon VS Baratheon conflict. Even if Stannis was the one who initiated the specific battle by Storm's End (As I said, I do not know who it was. Please write information about it in quotes if you have information that I do not. I think that it is not stated who started it in the books, but I am not sure.), Renly initiated the possibility of there being such a battle. If Renly had not crowned himself there would not have been a need or reason for such a battle. But by crowning himself, Renly steals the men of the Stormlands that should belong to Stannis, and it is obvious that Stannis then will have to initiate a fight to get those men back or defend his claim. Renly should have known this. So even if Renly did not initiate that specific battle, he did initiate the Baratheon VS Baratheon conflict. And that is bad. Okay, you are right in this to a high degree. It is a matter of degrees, of course, but yes, there are actually big signs that Stannis is preparing himself for Robert's death. I admit that. And Stannis's silence and actions during AGOT does indeed lead to the War of the Five Kings. He is indeed guilty of a large part of that. Not all of it, since he could not have known exactly what would happen between House Stark and House Lannister and not even be entirely sure of Robert dying, but a large part of it. So yes, maybe that makes him ultimately worse than Renly. It is actually possible. That would make the entire discussion end there. Maybe it is so. It is not only Stannis's actions that lead to the War of the Five Kings, but yes, he does have a large part of the blame in it. Because of this, I now see him as roughly equal to Renly. Congratulations, you may have won or at least evened out the entire argument of who is better of Stannis and Renly by that. I did not realise that Stannis' actions were so causally related to the War of the Five Kings. And they are not to 100 %, as I have said. But yes, to a very significant degree. In conclusion, I like Renly more and Stannis less after this. As I said, roughly equal, but I may still like Stannis better and feel like I can justify this, since Stannis' actions are not the only thing leading to the War of the Five Kings and he could not 100 % know about Robert's death beforehand etc etc. (I am sorry about repeating myself, by the way, but I have to make myself clear over and over again and also kind of explain it or summarise it to myself.) So essentially, depending on how accountable Stannis is for the War of the Five Kings erupting, which is a very complex question, I might have changed my mind and consider Stannis to be worse than Renly. Maybe. It is possible. But it is not certain, since Stannis' blame in the matter is not a 100 % simple and clear thing. So yeah, maybe we can continue arguing about this, but I think it would be extremely hard or impossible to conclusively determine exactly how guilty Stannis is for this. And in any case, even if he is objectively very guilty for it, I will still answer your other arguments or general sentences down below here. Maybe that is so, that Renly sees crowning himself as his only way out. If he does, he is wrong and endangering people with this wrong analysis of the situation. It is far from his only way out. He is in one of the absolutely best positions one can possibly be in. He is the lord of the Stormlands, has lots of money, the friendship of Ser Loras and a potential political ally in House Tyrell, etc etc. He does not need to fear for his own life or anything like that. Crowning himself is absolutely not "his only way out". If he thinks that Stannis can not get many men by his own, he should either use his charm to convince the men who would follow him that Stannis is a good king or otherwise kneel to Joffrey and combine his forces with the Lannisters to defeat Stannis. That would likely be extremely easy, or at least Renly would think so, since he doesn't know about Stannis' magic. Anyone could realise that the Stormlands plus Joffrey's forces could defeat Stannis. But Renly crowns himself because he does not want to kneel to Joffrey. If you really believe that he crowned himself because he saw himself as in trouble and was scared of the Lannisters coming to get him, then we can continue arguing about that. I think that he should not need to fear that if he just kneels to Joffrey and then lives out his life in Storm's End, staying a loyal liege lord to Joffrey, but maybe he has more reason to fear the Iron Throne and should be afraid. Tell me if you think that he does. I cannot really see it. You say that Renly rightfully believes that Stannis could not get the job because people simply disliked him. That is not necessarily true. I think it is false and that Renly is wrong or underestimating Stannis in this. A lot of the Stormlanders came to him after Renly's death and his current new followers from the mountain clans of the North in ADWD and so forth proves that Stannis can get people to follow him. And it would probably have worked even better if Renly had supported him and shown/told people that Stannis was a good king instead of doing the opposite. So I do think that Stannis could have gathered enough support and good will from people if Renly had supported him. Yes, Stannis may have killed more men at the Blackwater than Renly could have at Storm's End. But that is after Renly has died so you cannot legitimately compare the two of them at that point. Renly is dead and can no longer kill anyone. There is a high chance that Renly could have killed just as many if he had led the Baratheon forces at the Blackwater instead of Stannis. Just because Stannis was the one that survived, he became the one who led all those men to their deaths at the Blackwater. If Renly had survived, it is very likely that he would have killed as many men/led as many men to their deaths in a similar attack or an even worse idea - especially since Renly is not a good strategist like Stannis. So it is not right or reasonable to judge Stannis for how many people died at the Blackwater and say with certainty that Renly would not have led his forces to a similar catastrophy. It is very likely that he would have. As I said, maybe maybe Renly does crown himself out of survival sense. Please elaborate on this if you want to. I still don't think that he is in that much of a troublesome or dangerous position. He could just kneel to Joffrey and/or flee to Storm's End, which is literally impregnable. Etc etc... Yes, Stannis wants Renly's army, since he knows that it should be his, since he is the rightful king and all the kingdoms' armies should belong to him. It is not wrong for Stannis to want Renly's army. It should belong to him. Yes, he kills Renly for it since Renly has already shown that he is willing to kill Stannis. Renly is the one who creates the unnatural position wherein the younger brother rebels against the older one, forcing a conflict. If the younger brother kneels, none of them has to die. If the younger brother rebels, one of the brothers eventually has to die or kneel. And it is not right that Stannis should kneel to Renly. I do not think that Stannis would have killed Renly to get his army even if Renly had not crowned himself. They used to love each other and Stannis is not that terrible. Okay, it is possible that Stannis would have killed Renly if Renly had kneeled to Joffrey but if he had done that it would mean that he would be equally okay with Stannis' death since he did not side with him and since he knows that Stannis is extremely weak without the Stormlands army. So it is still a draw between them. Either Renly kneels to Stannis and therefore Renly's army goes to Stannis, their king, or Renly sides with Joffrey and thereby is fine with Stannis being defeated and killed by the combined force of Renly and Joffrey. In this case Renly and Stannis are equally murderous and terrible, and they both do it from a position of thinking that their side is Robert's lawful heir. So it's a draw in that scenario. Yes, it may be hypocrisy to accuse Renly of the Baratheon VS Baratheon conflict while Stannis is partly responsible for the entire War of the Five Kings. As I said above, I admit that I may be at least partly wrong in this. No, the reason why I keep saying that Stannis' actions are legitimate is not because he let Robert die for it. It is because I think (/thought, in some cases) that Stannis' actions in fact are legitimate. I clearly wrote "at the time of Renly's death", not afterwards. Blackwater and the thing with Stannis happens after Renly's death. Please read more carefully. Yes. But isn't it still the right thing to do, if it is for the greater good, with the unjustified death of one person leading to thousands of lives spared, Stannis winning the crown and then being a good king and saving the kingdom and so forth? Maybe. Maybe not. We can continue arguing about this. 1. You do not know that. Do you seriously believe that Stannis is such a terrible person that he does not care about sparing lives at all??? I think Stannis does care. He does moral actions from time to time and I think he is a good person at heart who cares about the lives of the people. And there was no guarantee that telling people about the incest was going to save thousands of people or that the opposite would lead to thousands of deaths. Stannis is not a psychic, he could not predict the exact future and exactly what terrible things would come. 2 & 3 It is possible that you are right in this. I did not think of this actually. Yes, you are right. Renly did not necessarily prepare to kill Stannis by declaring himself king. All right. You are right in that. And the offer of Storm's End was a good and fair one in such a position. Once again, I very clearly said "at the time of Renly's death". Your question and mentioning of the Blackwater is irrelevant. But since you asked I will answer it anyway. Stannis' spending of thousands of lives in his failure at the Blackwater is Renly's fault by Renly declaring himself king instead of kneeling to Stannis, leading Stannis to kill Renly as almost the only option he has for winning the war and therefore being left alive and having to take the blame for leading Baratheon men into Tyrion's unexpected wildfire apocalypse. And if Renly had killed Stannis it would have been Stannis' fault that Renly led men to their deaths against the Lannisters afterwards. As I have said, it is irrelevant since it happened after Renly's death and we can not know how Renly would have acted if he had survived (and won against Stannis). But it is likely that Renly could have suffered a similar defeat. (1) Did he really say that he intended to burn or kill a great amount of his enemies with those dragons? Maybe he would use them as a deterrant, and make people kneel when they saw his power. Or maybe he would just use the dragons on a small few of his enemies. It is not certain that he would kill a great amount of people with the dragons. Many would likely surrender just from hearing about their existence, thus leading to Stannis winning the war with minimal bloodshed. (2) No, of course it does not. But at least Stannis is not betraying someone he loves deeply. That would be worse. Edric is his nephew but it would have been worse if they had truly known each other. That is what I mean. (3) Stannis's status as a grown man does not alter the fact that he is a fictional character without an ability to express his voice and defend his own actions on this Internet forum. Thus, if I am to win the argument, I have to defend him, and it is also reasonable to do so. A good and very common way of arguing about which one of two persons is worse and which one is better is to compare them side by side. So you should not have a problem with me comparing Stannis's bad actions to Renly's bad actions. Such a comparison is in the nature of good and rational argumentation. (4) Yes. You are right in this. I am ambivalent towards your first sentence. You may be more or less right, you may be more or less wrong. Regarding your second sentence: Yes, Renly did start something. Sure, he may not have gone to war against Stannis directly, but declaring oneself king against the law and rebelling against the lawful succession - whether it is Joffrey or Stannis - means indirectly starting a conflict or war with them. I'm guessing you mean why Robert would give Stannis Storm's End so that he would be in a strong position to fight for the throne. Obviously, Robert would most likely not expect Stannis to want the throne or there to be a war over it within House Baratheon. So Robert probably did not think as badly of Stannis as you do. Robert might have wanted to give Stannis Storm's End and the Stormlands to show him gratitude over his great actions during Robert's Rebellion, saving Storm's End from the Tyrell siege etc etc... There are many many reasons why Robert could have and should have given Storm's End to Stannis. Yes, there is complex arguing. No, Robert was not officially obligated to give anything to his brothers but I think he should have given Storm's End to Stannis as a thankyou since Stannis followed him so dutifully and bravely during Robert's Rebellion and was a very good younger brother who was worthy of it. Etc etc... And it is very complex with Storm's End VS Dragonstone since the Targaryen dynasty has been replaced with the Baratheon dynasty but partly via Robert's kingship being justified via his Targaryen heritage. There are many questions which are not entirely clear. Which of the Targaryen traditions should live on? Which should be replaced? Since Robert rules over both the Seven Kingdoms and the Stormlands, should he get the Red Keep and Storm's End all to himself? Should the Baratheon heir that is closest to King Robert in the line of succession (Stannis) get Storm's End as the Baratheon heir who is unoccupied with ruling from the Red Keep? Or should he be given Dragonstone, since that was the tradition of the previous Targaryen dynasty? Robert did not have to continue with the Dragonstone tradition. He got rid of other things from the Targaryen era. But he chose to do it anyway, and regardless of whether he thought it was an honour to Stannis or not, it was not that good for Stannis to have Dragonstone. Stannis was mistreated by Robert in this, even if Robert's intentions were good. (1) Yes, you are right in this, once again, I did not know that. (2) Yes. Fine. According to Renly's point of view, yes. Yes, Renly did rebel against Stannis. By declaring himself king, he rebels against both Joffrey and Stannis. What treason do you mean? The killing? Or what? ... If you want to you can answer back, or maybe we can end it at this. It has taken me extremely long (2 1/2 hours) to write this down and I am not sure if I would do it again if you replied with an equally long answer. I don't know. Anyway, to sum up, I was wrong about several things and admitted to that. I have gotten a better understanding of Renly regarding his view on Cersei's children, his intentions of making Stannis kneel instead of killing him, Stannis' actions in part leading to the War of the Five Kings etc etc. But you can of course answer whatever you want and we can maybe continue. We will see. // Cheerz~
  2. I am neither of the two. I will, however, admit to being only half-decent and therefory half faulty with numbers in this specific case. I did a quick google search to find Stannis' army numbers and on some pages it was estimated at 5000-10 000. It is very possible that you are right and Stannis only had 5000 at the most. And you are right regarding Renly's warriors being better equipped and trained. So it would probably be less than 14 000 deaths. Maybe half of that. 7 000. If all of Stannis' men die but they kill 2000 men. Thus it could still be circa 10 times more men than Stannis has killed on Dragonstone, which I think is less than 100. We can continue arguing about the exact numbers of how many would have died in the Baratheon VS Baratheon battle, but it was several thousands in any case. The point is that Renly was willing to go through with these thousands of deaths, and those deaths, even if they are just 7000 or even if they would be 1000, are a much larger number than the amount of people Stannis had killed at Dragonstone up to that point in the story.
  3. Okay, you are completely right. I did not remember that.
  4. A reasonable number from what I have seen seems to be that Stannis had circa 5000-10 000 men at the time of Renly's death, so I say 7000. It is a reasonable number within those limits. If Stannis' 7000 men were to fight with Renly's men, it is reasonable to suppose that each soldier on both sides kills 1 man, and then dies himself. Thus the 7000 men in Stannis' army would kill circa the equivalent of Renly's army before Renly's army had killed all of them. 7 000 Stannis soldiers and 7 000 Renly soldiers kill each other, and then the rest of Renly's huge army is left victorious. 7 000 + 7 000 = 14 000. I think that Stannis killed/sacrificed 100 people or less on Dragonstone. Tell me if you think the number was larger than that. If I am right in the 100 number, the following calculation makes sense and is relevant. 100 X 10 = 1000. 100 X 100 = 10 000. Stannis killed maybe 100 men. Renly's act of claiming himself king and going to war against Stannis would have led to the deaths of maybe 14 000 men in the battle between Renly and Stannis. 14 000 is more than 10 000 and much more than 1000. That is how Renly's actions would have led to 10 or 100 times more deaths than Stannis' killings. ... Whether Stannis is commited to continue the war or not is an irrelevant question since the potential death of ca 14 000 Stormlanders is a consequence of Renly's first actions. Renly started it. Without Renly's act of claiming himself king over Stannis the war situation would not exist between them. Yes, it is true that Cersei's children are considered legitimate in the eyes of "everyone". It is not necessary that Stannis should demand Renly kneeling before him instead of kneeling before Joffrey. But it is completely reasonable that Renly should kneel to Stannis if he also sees Cersei's children as being not from Robert. If Robert has no legitimate children, the next person in the line of succession is Stannis. Thus Stannis is indeed in a position to demand that Renly kneels before him if he does not kneel before Joffrey. Yes, Stannis has "left Robert to die". But I don't think that it is reasonable to expect that Stannis should have seen Robert's death coming. Almost noone in Westeros (including Renly himself too) saw it coming and many of us readers did not either. Therefore Stannis can not reasonably be blamed for this more than Renly can. They were both on the small council meeting and pretty much equally close to Robert and saw what was happening around court. Stannis' departure to Dragonstone, "leaving Robert" in King's Landing, can definitely be criticised in a legitimate way. It was bad of him and without any legal/legitimate reason. It was also bad of him to steal the fleet. But I don't think that these things are as bad as Renly claiming himself king. We can continue discussing this exact thing further if you want. I may change my mind, it is possible. It is very possible that the war between the Lannisters and Baratheons is partly Stannis' fault. But the war between Lannister and Baratheon did not need to lead to a war between Baratheon and Baratheon. That is the point. If Lannister had battled Baratheon in the field, many men on both sides would have died. But if Renly would have lived on and made Baratheon battle Baratheon before that, it would have meant even more of the Baratheon men dying. That is very obvious. Thus the first conflict (Lannister VS Baratheon) was indeed partly Stannis' fault. But very importantly Stannis had a legitimate reason: his knowledge of the illegitimacy of Cersei's children. This justifies Stannis' actions leading to the Lannister VS Baratheon war in the eyes of the law in Westeros. Renly's creation of the second conflict (Baratheon VS Baratheon) is 100 % his own fault and increases the Baratheon deaths. And very importantly he has no legitimate reason to do it. He does not have justification for his actions leading to the Baratheon VS Baratheon war in the eyes of the law in Westeros. Stannis had not even spent one thousand lives in his quest or illegitimately (without legitimacy from the line of succession) taken the initiative to do so at the time of Renly's death. Correct me if I am wrong in this. Yes, he sacrifices people to his quest. Yes, he kills his brother to his quest. Yes, he sacrifices tens of thousands of lives to his quest. Yes, he almost killed his own nephew to his quest (I assume you mean Edric Storm and not Joffrey. Correct me if I am wrong in this.). It is not that the only one who is allowed to do that is Stannis. It is not so absolute. But he does have relatively reasonable reasons for doing so. He sacrifices people to his quest because every king sacrifices people to his quest in war. It is not a big difference whether one gives a man to the flames (which, as we have noticed in the story, can result in actual magic powers, which means a greater chance for victory for Stannis and thus equally reasonable as sacrificing people by making them soldiers to die from similarly terrible deaths.). He kills his brother to this quest because it is the easiest way of ending the war with the least bloodshed (apart from kneeling himself before an unjustified claim). Only one death, the death of Renly, spares thousands. And regarding the brother relationship, Renly was obviously ready to kill Stannis himself, since he started the war and seemed ready to go through with it and have Stannis killed in battle. Thus Renly was ready to kill Stannis before Stannis was ready to kill Renly. It is not unjust of Stannis to give Renly what Renly had in mind for Stannis. He does not sacrifice tens of thousands of lives in his quest at the time of Renly's death in a way that Renly has not already started. He almost kills his nephew, Edric Storm, because it is an easy way of sparing the lives of many many others (including innocents) by killing only one innocent person. If you think it is bad since it is kinslaying, we can continue arguing about that. I think that the sparing of thousands makes up for one act of kinslaying, especially since they have barely even met before and have no real relationship to each other. It would have been worse if he had known Stannis for a long time and trusted him/loved him or vice versa. But they do not know each other. And very importantly, Renly is prepared for kinslaying Stannis despite Stannis not having done anything bad toward Renly. Thus Stannis' intention of killing Edric Storm is reasonable when compared to the greater situation and also not worse than Renly's initial act of rebellion which means that he is ready to commit kinslaying with Stannis. What do you mean? Which tens of thousands did Stannis kill, and how and when? Yes, Stannis killed Renly. Stannis was the one actually killing his brother because he got it done (and as I explained above here, it was a good and justified thing compared to the alternative). But Renly was the one who started the lethal conflict between them. By declaring himself king over Stannis and going to war against him, Renly showed that he was willing to kill Stannis before this. Renly started it and would have killed Stannis in battle if the had the chance. Yes, Stannis abandoned Robert. Read what I have said about that situation earlier above. Yes, Stannis was about to kill his blood. As I have said, Renly was too. Renly was about to kill Stannis in battle. And Renly started that conflict. Stannis is not worse than Renly in this regard just because he happened to be the one who actually got it done. Robert and Renly both put him in difficult situations. Robert put him in the bad position of having Dragonstone instead of Storm's End, having to marry Selyse Florent etc etc. Renly put him in the bad position of having to fight his own brother and kingdom for his legitimate kingship while being in a severely disadvantageous military and economical position. There is very much arguing. The question of whether Stannis should have gotten Dragonstone or Storm's End is very complex and it is reasonable to argue about it as there are several perspectives and issues which are important and not just one clear answer to it. But precisely therefore, since it is such a complex issue, I think we should not argue about it. It would be extremely hard or impossible to say what was right and what was not in this situation. So I think it is best to leave this point neutral. Renly's duty is with Robert's kids if he thinks they are legitimate. If he does not think this, which he in fact does not, his duty is then to Stannis, as the next in the line of succession over him. Yes, he might have been unfairly treated by Stannis. We do not know this. But I absolutely do not think that he was so unfairly treated by Stannis that it was a reasonable excuse for rebelling against him.
  5. Okay, you are right. He has not always been respectful towards others but at least relatively often and more often than Renly.
  6. - All right, cheerz. I agree with most or at least a lot of what you have said and the rest I think it's unnecessary to continue arguing about. ...
  7. Yes, we did see one part of Stannis' true face and it was not that good, but Renly's true face was not good either. Renly's true face was to betray his rightful king. In Planetos that is at least almost as bad as the things Stannis has done. Stannis' actions were blood magic, sacrifice of a few people and kinslaying. Renly's actions would have led to ten or a hundred times more deaths if the Baratheon civil war would have continued. First they were both in relatively neutral positions. One can say that Stannis should have been the lord of the Stormlands or the lord of Dragonstone depending on how one looks at the situation. Since everyone thinks differently on this it is probably best to consider them both neutral in power except for Stannis' position as the older brother and rightful king. After that, a neutral position where the right thing by the laws of gods and men is that Stannis becomes king and Renly kneels before him, Renly decides to rebel and make himself king instead without any legitimate reason, breaking the laws of gods and men (plus also being extremely unfair on a personal level towards Stannis who saved his life during the siege of Storm's End) and willfully dragging the entire Stormlands into war where thousands of his own kingdom will die. Thus Renly is extremely clearly the bad person in this stage. After that Stannis does some bad things as well, which are considered to be as bad as Renly's actions or worse by some people, but which aren't. He sacrifices a few people to R'hllor. These people are circa a hundredth of the numbers who would die in a Baratheon civil war. Then he uses blood magic and kinslaying to kill Renly. This can be seen as a very bad thing because of various reasons, but they are at war and Stannis' "cheating" method of using magic is not more unfair than Renly rebelling without a legitimate reason according to me. Stannis has now stopped the Baratheon civil war and saved thousands of lives. In short: I don't think Stannis' true face is worse than Renly's true face, and Renly's true face is much worse since he did what he did because of his own irrational and faulty thoughts about being a potentially better king than Stannis. Renly did his terrible actions, which risked the deaths of thousands, from an easy position where he was in no desperation whatsoever. Stannis did his terrible actions, which killed maybe a hundred or a few hundred people, from an extremely difficult position of great desperation that he had been put in by (Robert and) Renly. And yes, the Stormlands were Renly's, and one can argue back and forth about whether this should have been the case from the beginning but yes, in the eyes of the law they were legitimately Renly's. BUT Renly is the younger brother within House Baratheon and should kneel before his older brother and the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms. And he had not been unfairly treated by Stannis in any way and therefore did not have the same reason for rebelling as for example House Stark had during Robert's Rebellion.
  8. Stannis. Robert is worthy of some respect since he is a great warrior and has at least kept Westeros in a state of peace during his reign. But he has also made many mistakes and allowed the realm to degenerate and wasted the money and everything. Renly is worthy of little respect since he has done very little for the realm and just brings it into chaos by declaring himself king without any right to do so whatsoever. He just chooses to ignore Stannis' claim because Stannis doesn't have a charming personality. That is an absurd and extremely bad reason for claiming oneself to be a king, and he also owes Stannis his life and much else. Stannis is a worthy warrior, a great tactician and someone who has always been respectful towards others and done his duty even when he did not like it. He is the rightful king and he fights for it and later for the realm itself and the Starks, even though he may not like it. He endures great hardship with an iron constitution for the good of the realm and his just claim to the throne. Etc etc... Obviously much more could be said but yeah. Obviously Stannis has some bad sides but they are justified by his bad position which forces him to become reliant on R'hllor. If Renly had not betrayed him he might not have become like that since he would have had all of the Stormlands' army, which should have been his from the beginning.
  9. The Martells and Vances sailed to Westeros ca 4000 years ago or something. I really don't think their families in Essos still have the knowledge of which house in Westeros they are related to and most Andals that stayed in Essos were probably largely mixed with other cultures as well, so that the Essosi Andals barely still exist as one people.
  10. I guess that your question mark is meant to indicate a slightly doubtful view of my rationality/"behaviour" in not explaining why until I'm asked, and not a doubtful view towards your own will to know. So: I mostly think that the theory about Valyrians having a special hip shape and that one needs Valyrian hips in order to ride on dragons is a very random theory without a strong foundation, mostly based on Tyrion's crooked legs and supposing that he's a Targaryen (unless I am forgetting some other example about why Valyrians would have special hips). BUT in the text which I showed above is an extremely random thing about Daenerys' pinky toes getting blisters. She thinks to herself that it could be because of the way she walks. And this whole thing is so strange and specific that it seems to be a good, strong foundation for the theory of Valyrian hips and dragon-riding. Thus Daenerys X gives "evidence" or credence to this theory. Specifically the fact that she thinks about it and "comments" it makes it seem like it could be important. When characters notice random things that seem trivial and consciously think about them, it can often be something important in hindsight (in contrast to if her blisters had only been mentioned by the narrator and she hadn't thought about it herself). Because she thinks that her blisters have something to do with the way she walks, then she probably thinks this because she does in fact walk in a certain way and not normally. The most logical thing which combines her blisters with her gait is that she gets blisters on her pinky toes because she applies more pressure on them than she does on the rest of the foot. This happens when one walks bow-legged with wide strides, putting the pressure and weight on the outsides of the feet, like a cowboy or a Dothraki. This type of gait can either come from riding an animal (such as a horse or a dragon) very often or a genetical condition. The Valyrian hips theory says that it is genetical but it could be genetical AND behavioural, since Daenerys gets used to riding horses in AGOT and later rides Drogon in ADWD. (There can of course be other ways in which she walks strangely, or maybe she walks with that bow-legged gait because she is tired, or maybe it has nothing to do with riding dragons and everything to do with her Dothraki horse riding, so yeah, it's absolutely not necessarily related to Valyrians but yeah.) If the Valyrian hips theory is true, I think it's a very interesting aspect of the Valyrians' genetical traits and something which at least I have probably never read about before in a fantasy story - a fictive race of people having a certain strange hip shape. It also seems to make them even more superhuman, superior and elevated than other humans, since the normal human hip structure/pelvis is already specifically broad and bent out towards the sides into a broad, elegant hip shape in comparison with a chimpanzee's narrow hip bones/pelvis, and the Valyrians' hips/pelvis would then be the further stage in the human evolution. It also makes sense to have wider hips for humans in the future since we currently have a problem with human babies almost having too big heads to be born naturally. So the Valyrian hip theory is interesting because it makes the Valyrians even cooler and stranger, elevates them further into some sort of futuristic superhuman people, gives them an aspect which is very random and at least in my experience seldom used as a signifying feature of a people in fiction AND means that other people may not be able to ride dragons bareback (which could be important for Daenerys' dragons in the next books).
  11. Oh my God, you are completely right!! I didn't even think about Dragonstone. So then they DID rule over Seven Kingdoms! Even if they did not have control over the rest of the Crownlands, which I am not sure about. Thankyou lol
  12. I don't know whether Aegon had full control of the Crownlands when he was crowned by the High Septon, so I am not sure. I thought that he had but if you say that they were still disputed territories, I believe you to be correct in that. I thought that he had full control of it at the coronation but it is very possible that he did not and that you are correct. Thus Aegon can be said to not have been king over the Crownlands at the time of his coronation. And the Riverlands can of course be considered not to be a kingdom, since it did not have a king at the time. Thus the Kingdoms which he ruled over were The North, The Vale, The Iron Islands, The Westerlands, The Reach and The Stormlands. Six Kingdoms. Thus what you are saying is not incorrect.
  13. I noticed two extremely cool things while reading Daenerys X a couple of weeks ago: 1. Regarding the theory about Valyrian hips and the need to walk or sit in a certain way in order to ride dragons: In Daenerys X (A Dance with Dragons), when Dany has ridden on Drogon a couple of days ago and is walking in the Dothraki sea, she specifically has blisters on both her pinky toes and giggles to herself, thinking that it is because of the way she walks. ... ”She was very tired, and fresh blisters had appeared on both her feet, including a matched set upon her pinky toes. It must be from the way I walk, she thought, giggling.” ... One probably has to walk with wide strides and one’s hips and legs arched out to both sides, like a real-world cowboy or a Dothraki, in order to get blisters on one’s pinky toes. One is putting the weight on the outer sides of the feet. And it makes sense, both because Daenerys is Valyrian and because she has learned to arch her hips and legs like that while riding with the Dothraki. So either Daenerys has walked with a certain wide gait all her life, from being Valyrian, or she learned to do it with the Dothraki, and if she learned it from them, maybe she was predisposed to be able to do it because of her Valyrian genes. Or she is just walking in a certain way for some other reason of course, but it makes sense that it would be connected to riding dragons since she has just ridden on Drogon in this chapter. ... 2. Another thing from Daenerys X (A Dance with Dragons), which I also noticed now while reading it: The ants crawling over the stone wall to bite Daenerys in her sleep is clear foreshadowing of the wights coming over the Wall to invade Westeros, as the continent is ”sleeping". ... ”The next morning she woke stiff and sore and aching, with ants crawling on her arms and legs and face. When she realized what they were, she kicked aside the stalks of dry brown grass that had served as her bed and blanket and struggled to her feet. She had bites all over her, little red bumps, itchy and inflamed. Where did all the ants come from? Dany brushed them from her arms and legs and belly. She ran a hand across her stubbly scalp where her hair had burned away, and felt more ants on her head, and one crawling down the back of her neck. She knocked them off and crushed them under her bare feet. There were so many... It turned out that their anthill was on the other side of her wall. She wondered how the ants had managed to climb over it and find her. To them these tumbledown stones must loom as huge as the Wall of Westeros. The biggest wall in all the world, her brother Viserys used to say, as proud as if he’d built it himself.” ... This metaphor/foreshadowing is extremely clear and obvious. A beautiful woman (such as Daenerys) lying down and being attacked by small creatures biting at her has been used as a metaphor for Westeros before, in Daenerys’ House of the Undying vision. There it was dwarves, representing the kings of Westeros in the War of the Five Kings. Now it’s ants, representing the wights of the Others in the second Long Night. Also, this time it is Daenerys herself who is this woman - Dany herself is Westeros - which probably means that while she was not in Westeros nor affected at all during the War of the Five Kings, she will be in Westeros and probably even rule over it during the new Long Night. (Two extra things: The dry brown grass could represent the wildlings, since they are a sort of link to the Others and might in some way be ”responsible”. The ants are coming to Dany via the grass and the wights will come to the Seven Kingdoms via the wildlings. Also, the ants climbing over Daenerys’ stubbly scalp after her hair has been burned away by Drogon could represent the wights making it all the way to King’s Landing after it has been burned by Daenerys herself/Drogon. If Daenerys is Westeros, then her scorched head is the scorched capital - King’s Landing. One ant even makes it to the back of her head, which is her most vulnerable part, which might mean that a wight or Other will make it to the most vulnerable/vital part of King’s Landing before Westeros wakes up and defeats them.) ... What do you guys think?
  14. No, they ruled over seven kingdoms. Dorne made it eight. At the beginning of the Conquest, it was only seven including Dorne, but that was because the Riverlands and the Iron Islands was one kingdom, under Harren the Black. Then the Hoare kingdom was split into the Iron Islands and the Riverlands once again, and the total number of kingdoms in Westeros became eight. One can of course say that the Riverlands was not a kingdom when it became free from the Iron Islands, because it was then ruled by a lord, Edmyn Tully, but then one can also argue that the Crownlands was the seventh kingdom in a way. The whole thing about "Seven Kingdoms" is obviously very complicated.
×
×
  • Create New...