divica

50 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The real plan, for Illyrio at least, is to use the turmoil in Westeros to crash the Iron Bank. This will free Pentos from Braavosi control so Illyrio can become even richer selling slaves and otherwise dominating trade on the Narrow Sea. Varys is just a patsy in this scheme, as is Aegon. Illyrio's top co-conspirator in all of this is Littlefinger, who created the debt that will help bring down the bank and is now positioning himself to gain control of all the ports on the Westerosi side of the sea.

This probably will never happen, but it would pretty cool.

It reminds me about the theories that mance rider was the one that payed the catspaw to kill bran. And then grrm crushes us with some stupid joffrey did it for reasons that barely make sense...

49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Plainly the people in the North think very highly of the Starks - as witness the Manderlys, the Mormonts, the Mountain Clans, and Stannis' desire to associate his cause with avenging House Stark.  

Places that suffered at the hands of Northern soldiers, such as Duskendale, or the Westerlands will think poorly of them.  

Feelings are probably somewhat mixed in the Riverlands.  The Red Wedding is considered a heinous crime (as it is everywhere), but there is probably some resentment at the fact that Robb's marriage to Jeyne Westerling had such disastrous consequences. 

I think you are generalizing too much. For example, I don't know how much robb or sansa are liked in the north. One is the king that lost the north and the other is lady lannister.

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Greatjon’s argument for independence is that their oaths of fealty were to the Targaryens, who are now gone.

13 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It was also because Stannis had not actually made a claim at that point and told no one at all of his intentions so... No one knew of his intentions until months later.

Quote

Lady Mormont agreed. "Lord Stannis has the better claim."

"Renly is crowned," said Marq Piper. "Highgarden and Storm's End support his claim, and the Dornishmen will not be laggardly. If Winterfell and Riverrun add their strength to his, he will have five of the seven great houses behind him. Six, if the Arryns bestir themselves! Six against the Rock! My lords, within the year, we will have all their heads on pikes, the queen and the boy king, Lord Tywin, the Imp, the Kingslayer, Ser Kevan, all of them! That is what we shall win if we join with King Renly. What does Lord Stannis have against that, that we should cast it all aside?"

"The right," said Robb stubbornly. Catelyn thought he sounded eerily like his father as he said it.

Quote

Catelyn was thinking of her girls, wondering if she would ever see them again, when the Greatjon lurched to his feet.

"MY LORDS!" he shouted, his voice booming off the rafters. "Here is what I say to these two kings!" He spat. "Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I've had a bellyful of them." He reached back over his shoulder and drew his immense two-handed greatsword. "Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!" He pointed at Robb with the blade. "There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m'lords," he thundered. "The King in the North!"

And he knelt, and laid his sword at her son's feet.

Robb and the northmen knew that stannis is the rightfull king if they want to pass over the lannisters. And the argument that they kneeled to the dragons and that stannis isn't a targ is at most only half the reason why they rebelled. I think nobody believes that at the time any northmen would kneel to viserys or danny after what their father and borther did...

And as I said, they don't want stannis or any of the other candidates because they aren't form the north as greatjon explain in the majority of his speech.

edt: Also the argument that they owed their fealty only to the dragons is false. The north was sworn to robert. They acepted the barateons as kings.

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the books were to end with a showdown between Daenerys and the Starks, I could understand fans picking one side or the other (and if it were to end like that, I suspect that the author would wish to make both sides sympathetic).

Picking the Lannisters or Freys, or Boltons, over the Starks makes no sense at any level, since the Lannisters are Dany's enemies, and she would be disgusted by both Freys and Boltons.

I actually think the OP raised an interesting question. what do the people in the story think about the starks? because while the readers know the truth the people in westeros don't have acess to the same information as us. For example, I remember that there were all manner of rumors about how sansa escaped KL. Like she transformed into a winged wolf or something like that. If the smallfolk believe in those stories it is an interisting topic to discuss what the people in the diferent regions of westeros think of the starks...

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

So if Robb et al are all evil for rebelling against Joffrey, I assume @Aline de Gavrillac, @Moiraine Sedai and @H Wadsworth Longfellow that you view Joffrey as the rightful king? Because if Daenerys is the rightful Queen, then Robb did nothing wrong by rebelling against Joffrey, who was never the rightful king so it wasn't treason in the first place. Could someone please explain this apparent conflict of opinion to me?

Technically stannis is the rightfull king. Danny's familly lost the throne. She has a claim if she can conquer it, but stannis is the rightful heir to the throne. And Robb rebelled against stannis for no other reason than the northmen not wanting to be ruled by southerns.

25 minutes ago, Chad Vader said:

Searched and didn't see it anywhere. Anyways I'm half way through and it's had its moments. Some I dislike but I won't discuss them at this point.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HvaXYZJ69Ow&pp=ygUYNyBraW5ncyBtdXN0IGRpZSB0cmFpbGVy

the ending was the best part. The final battle lacked wow moments or even anything memorable. the rest had good and bad parts but it is yhe kind of movie that if you think about it had LOTS of things that didn t make sense

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Decent people get betrayed all the time, for reasons of jealousy or greed.

decent people? ok.

Competent leaders? NO. It is impossibe to lead a large group of people if you are constantly being betrayed for different reasons.

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Robb is only actively betrayed by Theon, and the Freys and Boltons.

As I see it, Robb made four errors, which collectively lost him the war:

• Appointing Roose Bolton as commander of the eastern division. If he had gone with the Greatjon as he originally intended, or perhaps even Rickard Karstark, this might have avoided the betrayal by Roose or at the very least hindered its effectiveness, not permitting the eastern commander to degrade loyalist Stark forces prior to the Red Wedding. A bolder commander (e.g. the Greatjon) might also have made the most of the element of surprise and defeated Tywin at the Green Fork, which combined with the Whispering Wood would effectively win the war in the field at a stroke.
• Sending Theon to negotiate with Balon instead of literally anyone else, thereby not only returning their hostage and the main bargaining chip they have, but also providing Balon with someone with insight into the North's defences and allowing the fall of Winterfell.
• Expecting Edmure to intuit his plan to lure Tywin into the Westerlands.
• Shagging Jeyne Westerling. I don't view marrying her as a mistake so much as an inevitable consequence of this in the first place. If you're going to marry the first noble girl you bone, best keep it in your pants until your wedding night.

Of these I blame Cat for the first. Robb (who had been doing a bang-up job of managing his vassals and army up to that point without her help) instinctively believed that the independent command was a job for his most loyal commander, and Cat talked him out of it.

Not keeping Edmure informed is a failure of command but I think a legitimate question can be asked about what his advisers were telling him at the time. Did nobody really appreciate that Edmure had an army and a solid defensive position and would engage Tywin if he approached unless ordered otherwise? I wonder if this is a matter of Robb internalising criticism by others (including Cat) of Edmure's ability and treating him accordingly.

The other two are pure Robb, perhaps with some help from Sybell Spicer in the latter case pushing Jeyne forward at a time when he was housebound and emotionally vulnerable.

In each case, though, except Jeyne, the critical error is failing to understand the independent motivations and pressures of his subordinates. He takes people at their word and doesn't expect some of the ways in which they exercise their initiative. This is a major flaw in his character, but also one not uncommon in clever people of his age and the kind of thing that experience knocks out of you. Indeed I suspect these setbacks were probably sufficient to teach Robb that lesson and had he survived he wouldn't have made the same errors again.

47 minutes ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

When it comes to Edmure, Robb DID tell Edmure to stay put at Riverrun. If Edmure had that extra it of information he would’ve listened, BUT Edmure did still technically disobey Robb’s orders.

are you saying that releasing jaime against robb's wishes and knowing how important he is for the northern troops isn't a betrayal? that trying to kill child hostages that robb ordered would be safe isn't a betrayal?

For one reason or another robb let things happened that made several characters act against him. Even if they didn't want to. And i think your list is wrong. Robb did a LOT of mistakes that led to several betrayals. However, not giving edmure a detailed account of his plans or shagging jeyne aren't mistakes.

First, they are in a war. If robb gives a order then his lords have to obey. There is a chain of command that people in a war have to follow because only the comanders know the full plans. And edmure wasn't in robb's inner circle. Him going against robb's orders is only his fault.

Second, shagging the girl isn't the problem. The problem is that robb cared more about his honnor/feelings than the welbeing of his people and the sucess of the war. we just have to look at ned that despite of the rumors that he was in love with ashara (and may have shagged her) married cat for the sucess of the war and to help his people. That is what a leader MUST do in dificult times.

On 4/12/2023 at 6:01 AM, SeanF said:

Another poor effort to justify evil.

The Lannisters attempt to murder a child; are nominally led by a boy psychopath, who enjoys ripping out tongues and sexually abusing an 11 year old girl;  inflict mass murder, starvation, and rape across the Riverlands.  Roose and Ramsay murder, flay, and rape for sport.  The Freys murder thousands at a wedding because they’re butthurt.

And you, @Rondo @Quoth the Raven @Darth Sidiousare all cheering them on.

For the sake of consistency, you should be on the side of Ghiscari slavers, and, in real life, of people like Dirlewanger or Beria. They’re your sort of people.

truth be told, some of robb's problems are because some of his followers kill or want to kill inocents/children.

robb's biggest sin is that he doesn't understand people. His mother, the karstarks, the freys, theon, balon, edmure, roose...

He must be doing something wrong if he is betrayed by a LOT of characters. And all of them for diferent reasons!

54 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm not sure.  Five years time:  Stannis goes to Essos, gets money and mercenaries, comes back North, works to establish ties, keeps fighting the Others, plots about going South.  Jon is lord commander, dies, comes back, works with Stannis to protect the North.  Cersei will have been pre occupied with her own enemies.  Maybe she's engaged in some diplomacy or sent some soldiers at one time or the other.  It doesn't work as well as some of the other stories, but it has been TWENTY THREE years since Swords came out.  At the end of Dance Arya is still only 11.  Bran is 10 I think.  

**I have confidence that GRRM could have come up with something better than the above paragraph for the 5 year gap if he had put his mind to it.

 

5 minutes ago, Kyll.Ing. said:

I think the more pressing problem is that of the Others, as they have emerged as an urgent threat as early as the Great Ranging, and they are the main force driving the Wildlings south toward the Wall, practically snapping at their heels as they move. Once the Others have been set in motion with that show of force, it'd be a bit awkward for them to go back into hibernation for five years and wait for the rest of the plot to happen before they move again.

The problem is that grrm drove himself into a hole with the north. That place needs time to heal, to build defenses and weapons against the others, deal with food problems, build glass gardens, unite itself... 

If the others attack anytime soon the north will fall pretty fast. On the other hand, grrm can easily create a plot where the others need to find the horn of joramund in order to pass through the wall or something else and therefore their atack could  still be far away.

And yes, certain characters need time to train and adquire new skills. But the really big problem here is that the north is just really behind where it needs to be because there was no time jump. Even a time jump of 1 or 2 year would solve a lot of problems.

On 4/6/2023 at 3:44 PM, Cas Stark said:

I've said for years, he should have made the time jump work, even if it would have worked less well for some characters than others.  It would have been immeasurably preferable to the running in place we got in the zlast two books, that caused the author to become so caught up in the weeds that at the end of Dance he didn't progress the story up to the 5th year.  Two books and the children are still children

 

probably he should have released a novella about what happened north of the neck during the time jump and then released the book he wanted. Because the big problem here is the north and that 5 years is just too much.

46 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

C'mon guys. This sniping at each other is pretty counterproductive. No need to namecall or come within Godwin's Law. It's fiction. Let's enjoy the characters and discuss the proposal at issue. 

Is Dany Azor Ahai come again? I think not, because Azor Ahai was never a person that existed. Azor Ahai is a part of a monomyth, and is a similar figure to the Last Hero, another mythical figure that never existed. These figures are not here to be reborn as literal people. They are more or less archetypes. Dany might share similar traits to the mythical figure, as does Jon, but neither of them are literally Azor Ahai.

I think that in Agot grrm wanted us to think that danny was AA and in Adwd he wants us to think that after all it might be jon because he drops a lot of hints in that book.

1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Try it. Let's see. 

Not me. I don't remember enough of her chapters in dance to open a topic about it. You do it and have fun.

Just now, Jaenara Belarys said:

Oh I see a lot of problems:

1. Why marry to solidify your rule over a city you'll be leaving eventually?

2. Blood taxes are well and good, but you need to actually crack down. 

3. I don't like the murder of children, so maybe get older hostages to use? And then actually do something? 

4. You might not have enough soldiers to take on the Yunkai'i, but you have some 13,000 Unsullied. The Unsullied are the best foot in the world and discipline is better than numbers. 

5. Reopen the pits, it's a good way of making money and it shows you respect their customs, even if you're not staying forever 

I am not talking about anyone in specific, but open a topic criticizing danny rullings in mereen and you will see what happens.

And besides what you said, you realize how insane it was to order the unsulied to take care of the sick people? She could(and may) lose her armies because some of her soldiers get sick and spread the illness. And I don't like the bias she has against slavers in the decisions she has while holding court. It feels like she wants peace but at the same time keeps punhishing the slavers for their past actions. She has to either acept that as her subjects they have equal rights to the former slaves or she has to get rid of the slavers. The mid term serves no one.

1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

It ain't much progress. 

In regards to this talk.

I find much more interesting how most people don't see anything wrong with how danny ruled mereen. I have had several discussions here over the years about that and people just never change their minds about anything. 

15 hours ago, El Guapo said:

Dany knows nothing about AA. In fact of all the contenders she is the only one who has never heard of the prophecy.

But will learn pretty fast when red priests and their followers start arriving to where she is. 

1 minute ago, LynnS said:

I think the war was fought on several fronts not just in Westeros.  We don't know when the battle for the battle for the dawn took place.  Was it before the hammer of the waters?  Were there still land bridges spanning the Narrow Sea?  It seems the First Men had their own hero who's sword did break.  That doesn't mean AA is the same hero, but someone who is a hero to the Red Lot who also fought in the battle for the dawn.  His sword most certainly didn't break and he dispatched a beast that sounds a lot like a white walker.  But he didn't end the Long Night or dispatch the ancient enemy to which Mel refers.  Perhaps this is why she tells Jon that the Wall is her place as much as it is Jons. 

The part about several fronts I totally agree and that AA might only be the one that defeated the others in an area where people believed in r'hllor.

But think on this. Why would a red priest need a sword that emanates heat? And if the WW can be killed by steel (dragonsteel) why would anyone want to incorporate fire into a sword? And keep in mind that a fire sword would be of very limited use to couter the cold genereted by the others.

To me it only makes sense to put fire into a sword if AA is looking to create a weapon that can resist the cold from the WW weapons because all his weapons shatter when they touch.

3 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

To me, melting sounds a bit odd - I'd have expected eyes to sizzle and steam, maybe - I assume the oddness is to highlight the link. Works for me anyway.

But the eyes aren't 100% water so they couldn't just steam. There would always be a melting effect present. And at least to me melting eyes make more sense than steaming eyes. Anyway, the language makes sense to me. Maybe I am weird.

6 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

It's an assumption worth considering, because experts in both traditions think Dany is their hero.

I'm not really seeing the problem with the dragons. It's just another way of saying a team isn't it?

I have some doubts about what moqorro thinks, but we have had several examples of characters being completly wrong. Or changing their mind afterwards.

And I meant that maybe there will appear more dragons. That the dragon must have 3 heads may not mean much.

12 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

But here's the thing. Dany is a long way down her path - the bleeding star, the dragons from stone. Prophets swarm round her like bees at a honeypot. If Rhaego is a red herring, Dany would be a red whale, and there's no graceful way to dispose of a dead red whale.

Of course there is. In asoiaf you just have to send letters anouncing you have free food.

And danny thinking she is AA and then finding out she isn t would be completly in tone with her arc. Don't forget she thinks she is the last targ but everyone knows that isn't true. She probably isn't even the heir to the IT and when she gets to westeros the people will already be suporting a diferent targ (faegon).

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

In the above passage, AA labors in a temple - a religious building.  An assumption can be made that since he labors without sleep for such a long time, that he is a red priest and doesn't need to sleep or eat, as we learn in DwD from Mel.  She doesn't need to eat or sleep either.  

The holy fire is likely dragon fire and the steel of his blade, valyrian steel.  I think we can also make a fair assumption that Nissa Nissa is a priestess of the temple; transformed by fire in the same manner as Mel.  Her heart is bathed in holy fire according to Mel.

So we have the blood and fire of valyrian sorcery trapping Nissa Nissas soul in the blade.

This time around it isn't necessary to forge a valyrian steel sword since they exist.  To transform it into the Red Sword, someone only has to plunge it into a living heart that has been transformed by holy fire. 

I think you are wrong about the sacred flames and there is proof of that. Notice this

Quote

 Melisandre had practiced her art for years beyond count, and she had paid the price. There was no one, even in her order, who had her skill at seeing the secrets half-revealed and half-concealed within the sacred flames.

Quote

, Moqorro remained beside his nightfire, as he did every night. The red priest rested by day but kept vigil through the dark hours, to tend his sacred flames so that the sun might return to them at dawn.

It seems that it is usual to refer to some special flames the red priests use as sacred flames. At the moment there is no reason to link these sacred flames to dragons.

I think that this expression is also very interesting "Yet when he plunged it into water to temper the steel it burst asunder". It seems like he wanted to incorporate some fire magic into a sword and the steel just couldn't handle it.

So I don t think that LB needs to be valyrian steel. I can't think of a reason for VS to burst.

If you want some cracpot theory based on logic what makes sense to me is:

AA was some red priest or r'hllor follower that was leading the fight in that area against the others. However he didn't have valyrian steel and therefore his weapons shatered when facing the others. Therefore he decided to create a special magic sword that contained fire in order to protect it from shatering when it was in contact with the other's ice swords. And as followers of r'hllor he and his nissa believed in sacrifice in order to acomplish their goals. So nissa nissa was in exctasy to be sacrificed for r'hlor and he was also happy to do it. For some reason (either nissa nissa was special or r'hllor interfered) AA was capable to create a sword that contained fire without bursting.

So I kind of agree that any valyrian sword should be able to copy LB but I doubt those swords would need some sacrifice to temper them. Just some red priest that knows how to put fire inside the sword.

3 hours ago, LynnS said:

The whole warrior of light business points to a red priest and priestess.  AA forged his sword in a temple and he didn't eat or sleep for 120 days and nights while he was doing so.  He tempers the sword in a heart bathed in holy fire (a soul transformed by dragon fire) capturing Nissa Nissa's soul in the blade, making it warm to the touch.  This is far different from Beric setting his sword on fire with his blood.  It's only a representation of LB,  not even close the the real thing.  Same with Stannis' sword cludged by Mel to impress the ignorant.  I think the blank sword has to be valyrian steel forged with magic and dragonfire, then tempered in the heart of someone who's soul has been cleansed by fire.

The lore for making Valyrian steel has been lost so we won't see 120 days making the sword.  However since valyrian swords exist, presumably one could be used to temper the sword in a heart bathed in holy fire.  Mel certainly qualifies and potentially Dany.  They may play a part in tempering the sword but they won't be the one who wields it. 

  

He forges the sword in a temple? And nissa nissa was bathed in holly fire? I don t remember that. But I like the idea that nissa nissa was special and it was because of it that she could temper LB instead of her relationship with AA. 

But to there are somethings really strange going on with LB. First, it is a weird jump from tempering a sword with water to using hearts of living creatures. 

Then it is clear than more than tempering he wanted to incorporate a soul into the sword. Which sounds awful and evil as fuck. 

And the problem with your valyrian sword theory is that those swords are already tempered and they don't break. I don't even know if the objective of LB is to be unbreakable like balyrian steel or to generate heat and light. It is also dubious if during the long night people knew how to forge steel. 

58 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Think of the Sword of Damocles. 

The point is that just because up until now danny has done several things that resemble the profecy doesn't mean there is a definite proof she is AA.

It is easy to proof that there are several ways that what she has done isn't exactly what the profecy says. 

Hell, stannis converted to r'hllor in dragonstone probably under the red comet so he was reborn amidst salt and smoke under a bleeding star. He is responsable for curing shireen of greyscale and she has dragon blood, so in a way he woke a stone dragon. He took a sword from a fire and called it LB. If you take liberties stannis also is AA.

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

All I know is that if someone gave Dany a book to read and the passage she highlights describes how AAR killed a monster in an almost word to word way on how Jon killed a monster there would be no more debate and the Jon fans would tout it absolute proof.

Just sayin'

And one has to ask oneself why would GRRM even include that at all as what Jon actually reads is of no use to him whatsoever. 

In order to show that stannis LB is a fake because it doesn't emit heat as the true one must.

What he reads is pretty usefull for jon to know that stannis and mel are lying.

12 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

It is, but it's a stretch made by grrm himself when he put it the mouth of Xaro. I'm not going to worry about it. GRRM promised that prophecies would bite you.s

There is another hint in the text - the eyes of a monster killed by Lightbringer melted; and so did the eyes of a slaver killed by Drogon (iirc).

They eyes of anyone burned would melt. I think it is just grrm way of describing death by fire than anything else.

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

The dragon has three heads. That's got to come true somehow. Maybe the first AA did things differently. Maybe he didn't exist at all. If a dragon dies, the sword of dragon power will be that much weaker.

Here you assuming that the targ prophecy is the same thing and the AA profecy. And we not know if the dragon must have 3 heads at the beguing but 2 or 20 at the midle.

15 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

You're being literal again. But who knows? GRRM will do what he likes. But he would have to do a lot of work to make a 'red herring' twist satisfying to me. I don't see it at all.

The story is full of red herrings. It would be weird if there weren't some included in the AA profecy. And I am not completly against grrm creating several scenarios where multiple characters can be AA. Leave it open to interpretation.

19 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Which is a literal flaming sword, yes, but there's a lot more in the prophecy.

I'm not prepared to ditch any AA candidates yet - if the signs are there, they mean something. I haven't given up on Stannis yet.

meh, you are you still waiting for when ned wrote "until his rightful heir" instead of son in robert's will to mean something? Or for rhaego to be the stallion that mounts the world?

Just now, Springwatch said:

There's no reason to believe that prophecies will be fulfilled in a totally literal way. Remember Jojen's prophecy of the drowning of Winterfell.

It doesn't need to be literal, but calling 3 dragons a sword is a stretch. What happens when each dragon has a rider? And what is the diference between these 3 dragons and the dragons that existed during the first long night? And what happens if one of the dragons dies? 

I am not saying it can't work. But there are a lot of things that if you focus on them don't really work as the profecy says. It can be simply the way profecy work or that danny is a red herring. 

And if people want to take so many liberties with the profecy then any flaming sword can fulfill it. Even something like beric's sword.

2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

 

Remember XXD? 

"When I went to the Hall of a Thousand Thrones to beg the Pureborn for your life, I said that you were no more than a child," Xaro went on, "but Egon Emeros the Exquisite rose and said, 'She is a foolish child, mad and heedless and too dangerous to live.' When your dragons were small they were a wonder. Grown, they are death and devastation, a flaming sword above the world." He wiped away the tears. "I should have slain you in Qarth." 

-ADWD, Daenerys III

 

A flaming sword is still not the Red sword of heroes called Lightbringer. The profecy is pretty clear about it. And Beric also has a flaming sword for example.

And you are implying that all 3 dragons are a sword? So what would happen when the other dragons have their riders? 

Or are you implying that each dragon is a flaming sword?