Jump to content

cpg2016

Members
  • Content count

    715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About cpg2016

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They weren't crazy for wanting a dragon back. They were crazy for what they did to achieve it. No one would call you crazy for wanting a million dollars. People would call you crazy if you said you'd drink five gallons napalm to get it. And if there are dragons, there is no Robert's Rebellion, full stop. Robert only has Targaryen blood because Aegon V needs to shore up marital alliances to enact his social reforms. If he had dragons, he doesn't need that kind of marital support, he has his win buttons handy. Most of the problems the "modern" Targaryens face is because Aegon I built a polity on the assumptions that his dynasty would have exclusive access to dragons. And none of his followers bothered to do much in the way of centralizing power in the hands of the monarch while they could. Which is why the Targaryens, alone of the Great Houses, have little in the way of direct military support they can levy. It seems likely that Houses like the Redwynes and Hightowers can raise more troops than the Crownlands can. But to answer the original question more directly - if the Targaryens have fully grown dragons at the time of Robert's Rebellion, the rebels lose. We see that the dragons are pretty much a win button when it comes to combat in an open field. You won't see rebel armies gathering or marching, because they'll be burned alive on the march.
  2. Another example of show watchers getting confused as to the significance of a character. Book!Bronn is pretty much done with. He was there to help Tyrion a bit, but also to show the extent to which money can't buy Tyrion's way out of every problem. He pops up in the narrative here and there again to emphasize how poor of a ruler Cersei is, and how her capricious and cruel decisions (a) almost always backfire on her, and (b) how truly powerless she is to punish those who defy her without the consent of her allies. In other words, she's eroding her own grasp on power by driving away the Tyrells & Co, because without them she doesn't even have the ability to punish an upjumped sellsword who is usurping a noble family's seat (effectively) and spitting in her face while doing so. Jerome Flynn was a great actor and had great rapport with Peter Dinklage, so like everything else the show was known for, they decided to destroy everything that made the show good by thinking that audiences tuned in for nudity, clever quipping, and "shocking!" surprise twists. GRRM is, you know... not a f**King moron like Benioff and Weiss, and thus won't be shoehorning tertiary characters into every possible scene he can.
  3. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    Of course he is. He treats his daughter as a brood mare, despite the fact that she's the Queen Regent, and almost out of safe childbearing age to boot. He shows absolutely no regard for Sansa or her concerns, despite the fact that she is probably too young to be having children. His punishment of his father's mistress is nothing but misogynistic. Organizing a gang rape of Tysha? I don't see how you come to any other conclusion; these are brutal, unnecessary punishments, tied to the fact that these are women, and perpetrated to humiliate in a way Tywin doesn't aim for when his "enemy" is a man. No, he doesn't say "I hate women and think they're inferior" but... honestly, he shouldn't have to for us to accurately evaluate his actions. Tywin obviously is a domineering person and a bigot in general, but even when he's browbeating Jaime into his plans, he doesn't insist on Jaime's immediate marriage after (presumably) renouncing his white cloak. And I'm not sure why you think Myrcella would be crowned - under no circumstance is Doran making a Lannister a ruling Queen. He wants revenge on the Lannisters and he wants his position of prominence within Westeros restored (as father in law to the crown prince and future grandfather of the king). He can't get that with Myrcella on the throne.
  4. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    The text disagrees. Stannis himself says that those following Joffrey, while in the wrong, may have sound reasoning for why they do so (ditto Robb). It's nearly inconceivable that he would severely punish a vassal of Tywin's for answering their lords call to arms. Which isn't to say that the Crakehalls are suddenly going to become a major power in the realm or anything, but Stannis himself goes through the same "hard choosing" between Aerys and Robert - he very explicitly understands the difficulties of choosing sides in a civil war in a feudal system. The only people that Stannis seems as irredeemable traitors are those who follow Renly.
  5. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    Right, and I've been responding to show that your reasoning is unsound. I may not convince you, but even within the context of a discussion of fictional characters taking hypothetical actions, I think it important to show anyone reading along that you are badly mistaken and why. Your logic is... well, there isn't any. It completely ignores any semblance of reality.
  6. cpg2016

    Targaryens marrying sisters

    It's debatable whether the Valyrians are even susceptible to this kind of danger. There is a strong implication that the special connection between the Valyrians and dragons comes from interbreeding; in other words, the Valyrians seemed to have been extremely adept geneticists, even if they used magic rather than science. Certainly dragons seem to be some sort of hybrid wyvern/firedrake; it's not inconceivable that the magical nature of their "science" has allowed them to mitigate the impacts of inbreeding. Certainly you'd see a real impact over thousands of years that goes beyond mere phenotype differences like purple eyes and pale hair.
  7. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    No, he wouldn't. First off, he doesn't have access to Myrcella. She's effectively a hostage in Dorne, a prisoner of the man who hates him more than anyone else in Westeros. Secondly, Tywin is a giant misogynist, who may not even believe that the Seven Kingdoms should have a ruling Queen. So both by preference and necessity, Myrcella is not a candidate for Queen anymore. Doran will never ally with Tywin for a variety of reasons, Tywin has no ability to "rescue" Myrcella, and even if he did, as we see in the various Great Councils, it's very much in doubt whether his vassals and allies will support a female candidate for ruler.
  8. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    Because in the first scenario, he is fighting for something. For his grandson to keep his ass firmly planted on the Iron Throne. That is a clear and achievable war aim. Tywin can't/won't surrender while Joffrey is alive, because it means allowing his children and grandchildren to be killed, or at best exiled, and he won't do that while there is still a chance that he can keep one of Cersei's kids alive and in power. If Stannis wins at the Blackwater, Tommen and Joffrey are toast, Cersei and Tyrion are toast... there isn't anything left to fight for. He's going to hope Stark loyalists recover Jaime and trade his swords for Jaime to preserve the Lannister line. Moreover, if Joffrey/Tommen are dead, there is no compelling reason for his vassals to fight for him, either. As I said, IOTL Tywin has a clear and distinguishable war aim, and if he's letting his vassals endure some suffering to get to that goal... well, that's an easy message to get across, if not to hear. Once that becomes impossible, why is Tywin fighting? And by extension, why are his vassals fighting?
  9. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    Yes except "murders entire families" and "irrational" aren't the same thing. In fact, in many ways Tywin is hyper rational, to the point that he's a sociopath and completely devoid of any morality. Tywin had a very good rationale for murdering the Reynes and Castameres. Whether or not those are "good" or ethical actions, or ones that are conducive to the long-term survival and primacy of the Lannisters, is another question entirely. But his rationale was "my father let our power slip away, I need to do something drastic to punish these families as a message to the rest of our vassals." Agree with it or not (or with the fact he got away with it), that is a rational action. Tywin 100% would back down, given the right circumstances. I'm sure he wouldn't forgive, or forget, but he'd understand the value of biding one's time and waiting for the right moment to get revenge.
  10. The exact opposite seems to be true, actually. The Westerlings are as ancient a House as any, but are looked down on for marrying the Spicers. The Gulltown Arryn's are looked down on despite being among the most powerful and wealthy of the Arryn branches (aside from the main one, of course), for marrying into a merchant family. Baelish isn't respected despite how obviously dangerous he is, because he comes from what is effectively now a nouveau riche family. Tywin is openly disdainful of the magisters of Pentos, despite the fact (or the implication) that as individuals they are wealthier than almost any Westerosi lords. Janos Slynt is denigrated as an upjumped butcher's son, despite becoming one of the most powerful lords in the Seven Kingdoms after he is gifted Harrenhal. Hell, the Freys, who have been around for centuries, are considered barely anything more than tollkeeprs The evidence suggests that there is a massive move towards social snobbery for those lordly houses who either (a) have married into unlanded merchant families (b) have achieved their present status in anything remotely resembling the recent past, or (c) achieved their current status through anything that has even a whiff of commercialism. In Winds of Winter, we see Lord Belmont (IIRC) expressing his natural aversion to any kind of mercantile activity by his reluctance to even try and price gouge the market by holding on to his grain stores. The only Houses that get away with it are ones that have such an ancient and powerful pedigree that no one can turn their nose up. The Velaryons in the Targaryen era, the Redwynes now... that's pretty much it. As for the rest of the question, we don't know much about this stuff. Petyr Baelish has stolen what probably amounts to millions of dragons from the royal treasury, which has been enough for him to buy off essentially an entire sub-kingdom, which should give some indication of the sums involved.
  11. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    No prob. The whole thing is strongly hinted at by the text but it is definitely easy to overlook the interview stuff
  12. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    I don't think this is true, at all. First off, it's debatable in the extreme whether Tywin would consider Myrcella to be a legitimate contender for the throne. His extreme misogyny, coupled with several generations of precedent which dictate that women shouldn't inherit the IT, might work against him. Second, it's not clear that Doran would accept this. As he makes clear, he has two goals; to avenge Elia and her kids, and to regain the power he sort of held when he was the father in law to the Crown Prince. With Myrcella, those are mutually incompatible - to put his son on the Throne means rewarding the man he knows killed Elia. The thing is, under these circumstances, he can't get revenge. Lets assume that Edmure doesn't stop Tywin at the Fords, Stannis takes Kings Landing, and Cersei, Joffrey, and Tommen die. Where does Tywin stand? Jaime is still in captivity, technically. I can't quite recall if Cat knows about the results of Blackwater when she frees Jaime, but it stands to reason she does, or else she wouldn't think the Lannisters were in a position to return Sansa and "Arya". Tyrion, for all that he's hated, is dead. Robb is burning and pillaging at will in the West. What exactly is Tywin going to do? Most of his vassals aren't going to fight on; they're going to sue for peace or go home to protect their lands. Tywin no longer has any chips. He is massively outnumbered, he's got nothing left to fight for and no allies left to call in, massively outnumbered, having hemorrhaged men throughout the WOT5K, he's got a losing hand and no one he can bluff. What he'll do is try and parlay what little influence he has left, from his money and his army, into securing Jaime's release. Even if he wants to challenge for the throne for Myrcella, he won't have the Tyrells as allies, since they won't ally with the Dornish.... in other words, he's screwed.
  13. "Robb is a monster who got what was coming to him." That was you. I'm not sure how else I, or anyone else, is supposed to take this. Calling Robb a monster is idiotic, in an absolute and relative sense. Your argument, then, is that war is immoral? In all cases? Robb goes to war to separate himself and his kingdom from the legal jurisdiction of a government which has been murdering and oppressing his family, and his entire region, for decades. From Aerys II through Joffrey, the Starks have seen their family members kidnapped and raped, burnt alive, imprisoned without trial, had their murder called for, and then imprisoned and murdered again. And lets not forget, this isn't restricted to Robb's family; many of their bannermen have also suffered at the hands of these people. Moreover, as we see Tywin is actively trying to undermine the Night's Watch and let Mance Rayder loose into the North, the smallfolk of the North have as much of a stake in this as do the nobles, since they're the ones who will be kidnapped or burnt out of their homes by the wildlings. Robb is right to want independence from this kind of tyranny. American colonists went to war and tens of thousands died because the colonists didn't like paying taxes and billeting British soldiers. Um... no, it isn't. Its a morality tale in that Dany needs to understand that by being party to an injustice, even ignorantly or unwillingly, has consequences. Dany thinks she's doing Mirri Maz Duur a favor by rescuing her, without realizing that she, as a privileged member of Dothraki society, is partially responsible for the terrible things that happened in the first place. It is part of what informs her later care for making sure that her actions are moral, and not just using the status quo as an excuse for what she does. For someone so intent on imposing modern morals and geopolitics on these characters, your awfully dense about what constitutes real change. To anyone except the Tullys and the Starks, the North forming an independent kingdom with the Riverlands is meaningless. It's the same social stratification. The same old bonds of vassalage and serfdom. Whereas Dany is overthrowing the entire social order. Look at the American South. What is a bigger difference, that between the antebellum government and the CSA government, or the difference between the abolition of slavery and the legal rights of blacks being enshrined versus they're enslavement? Obviously the latter was a more fundamental change to the social order. Right, because his forces aren't party to the same kind of mass atrocity committed by the Lannisters or the Dothraki. In fact, in many cases, his subjects (e.g. Edmure) are actively involved in protecting the smallfolk at the expense of purely military aims. Really? That's your takeaway? I mean... you've missed all the core themes of these books. Dany is not being criticized for using her power to set things right; she's being applauded for it, but GRRM is using her story to display the perils of how merely meaning well doesn't translate into a rejuvenation of the land, Fisher King-style. Hammering out the policies involved and making them work is hard and requires tough compromise. Well GRRM is, in general, writing for a smarter and more conscientious audience than you. This particular criticism reflects more poorly on you than it does on GRRM. Which is likely because Robb's story is a deconstruction of fantasy tropes in different ways than Dany's. Robb is Aragorn - fated to win battles against all odds and become the king that was promised. But he isn't the protagonist of this story, so he dies despite being essentially blameless. And again, if you cannot understand that Robb is revolting against a very real, and very life-threatening, tyranny, then you need to do a reread. And he isn't portrayed as flawless - he's often shown to have flaws. What we see is that his war aims are just, but because we don't get a POV from him, we don't get his internal strugge. If Dany were portrayed in the same way, we'd get an equally glowing review - the dragon queen, breaking chains and fighting to liberate the downtrodden. As it is, it's more complex than that, as it surely is for Robb, but the author doesn't have time to hold your hand, so he's assuming you'll get that basic point and not ask him to outline every morally irresponsible thing Robb does. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA are you five years old? Or just incapable of nuance? Where the hell do you get this? The whole point is that the slaver's have absolutely no interest in respecting Dany's prohibitions on slavery, and are going to maintain their hold on power and topple Dany's vision the moment they can. We know the slaver's aren't interested in a peaceful political settlement - they're besieging the damn city!!!! How do you not understand that? If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, I'm not "interested in a peaceful settlement." I'm mugging you, plain and simple, and the fact that you can get out of the situation without violence does not mean that you aren't justified in defending yourself. Your attitude is morally repugnant. It implies that every victim is ultimately the cause of any violence done to them, because if they only gave in to their mugger's demands they would have gotten away without harm. Again, if you don't speak English as a native language, I suggest you say so and ask for a simpler argument from me. If you do, you should really, really go back elementary school, because your reading comprehension is that of a third grader. I have said the exact opposite of this; it is you who is drawing a moral equivalence between Robb and Tywin (again, Robb is a "monster" in your words). Robb deserves criticism. He is engaged in a war which costs innocent lives. He makes mistakes which cost more. He does things that aren't ethically praiseworthy, necessarily. But one must contextualize these actions - war is bad in general, but in certain circumstances is an acceptable evil. I am saying that we should judge Robb as a character relative to his peers. No one is without sin or fault, but Robb is a living saint compared to Tywin or Gregor Clegane, or to a lesser degree someone like Renly Baratheon. Different things are being criticized. Dany is praised for the reasons she goes to war. And with good reason; she's a liberator, she cares about her "children", she is genuinely trying to do good. If you've missed that, you're an idiot. GRRM supports her crusade in Slavers Bay, wholeheartedly. The point being made in her storyline is that conquering and governing are not the same thing. We see shades of this when Robb has to execute Rickard Karstark, or when he talks about winning battles but losing the war. Dany conquers all, but has to deal with how to hold on to her principles while governing in a fair manner, a dilemma I'm sure even modern day politicians could reflect on. Since we don't get Robb's thoughts, we can't hear about how he feels about the many ethical compromises that come with ruling - we're only supposed to see him as the Young Wolf, the legend who never loses a battle, who is an inspiration to those Northern lords who oppose the Bolton/Frey/Lannister bloc and who plot to return the Starks to power. Your inability to grasp this is... disappointing. There is a saying. If you look around a crowded room and can't spot the idiot, it's probably you. If you're reading these books and thinking "wow, the author is taking a really hamfisted approach to comparing these two characters," then it's probably you not understanding it, and not the author being a nincompoop.
  14. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1116 GRRM has confirmed that post-Blackwater, Walder Frey was going to betray Robb in some way, because he wanted to be on the winning side. The whole Jeyne Westerling issue is just a convenient excuse, not a motivating cause. It should also be pointed out that the timing means that this has to be the case as well; to start that kind of dialogue and hammer out terms with Tywin means that a line of communication must have been open prior to hearing about Robb's wedding.
  15. cpg2016

    Robb’s Strategy

    To be fair, this has no actual impact on Robb's fortunes. Robb loses the war when Tywin wins at the Blackwater. Once Tywin has the Iron Throne firmly in hand, and the political support to make it stick, it's inevitable that the Freys and Boltons jump ship. Which we know, because that's exactly what happens. The Freys are abandoning Robb before they hear about Jeyne, and Roose is maneuvering to weaken Robb and his Northern rivals as early as the Battle of the Green Fork.
×