The Young Maester

I’m gonna go with the theory that the letter was written after the battle of the Crofters village. Either stannis lost terribly or winterfell thinks they have defeated stannis. This most likely prompted Ramsey into writing a rash letter. If Ramsey believes that stannis has been defeated than it makes sense that he would want to March against the bastard that helped stannis. Too many years without a new book has made people delusional, and literally every possible theory has been explored at this point.

My guess is that in order to revoke casterly rock or lordship over the Westerlands. The rock would have to be sieged/assaulted. I’d guess that a son of kevan or maybe kevan himself will be allowed to keep their position as warden of the west. In regards to Tywin making a truce, It depends where he is and how his situation is looking. If he still invades the riverlands, than he is quite fucked since he would be far from home and exposed to armies from the north, east, and south. Tbh I really dont know what would happen to Tyrion. Maybe postpone the invasion for when Westeros is weak. I think the chances of Varys successfully sabotaging the war against the lannisters are rather unlikely since the odds are so high against them. Tywin would need to spawn some sort of dragon to turn it around. Possibly and if that fails he’ll sell em for some money. Mances army would probably be obliterated. Mainly because the whole north will be able to respond to this threat. Some would survive, and if Jon is still elected, than it is likely he would settle them with permission from the lord regent. Despite what other people think, I actually think Ned would’ve made a good regent. He isnt as stupid as some other people make him seem, nor naive.

It’s likely that Robert in his deathbed was more the Robert from the rebellion. It explains how Ned and Robert were friends in the first place. Made me realise that it is probable that roberts whole reign flashed through his eyes, and it made him regret the fat oaf he had become.

No need to be rude. If you could grab me a quote where it solves the mess for me, that It would be great, however if you can’t than the point still stands. We don’t know when exactly Tywin sent Gregor, or when Ned received the river lords, or when the mummers Ford happened. None of it can be pin pointed with Robert death. I already said that Tywin likely invaded after getting word of roberts death. Hence why I said Tywin had a some excuse to justify his invasion. You are pointing out the things I already said. Tywin wouldve invaded even with Robert alive. book Tywin is certainly not show Tywin. Not even Tywin is stupid enough to openly commit treason without knowing 100% he has his back covered. This whole quote just backs my point about Tywin having an excuse. But this confuses me because it seems you changed your stance. Tywin didn’t need an excuse but now you are saying he had an excuse? Its just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The timeline is a bit messed up however. It is very likely that Tywin invaded when he got word of Roberts death. But we have no way of knowing whether he knew that Robert was dead when he attacked berics man. Also Tywin was assembling men before the mummers Ford so we can safely assume he planned on invading regardless.

If we forget about the incest, and just presume it never happened. Robert would just demand an end to the war and wash his hands off it. Tywin most likely had a bullshit excuse to slightly justify his invasion. However we need to remember that Ned would be whispering in Robert’s ear. Ned would certainly demand a heavy punishment for tywins invasion, and maybe even naming him an outright traitor. However Robert is too lazy to deal with such a messy situation. So it’s likely that Ned and Robert would come to some sort of middle arrangement to end the war with just a slap on the wrist for Tywin (reparations to river lords). If we take the incest as a factor, we remember that Ned was planning on telling Robert about the cuckolding. We can safely presume that Robert was gonna slap Cersei to death, and afterwards March an army to the riverlands for Jamies head. Tywin would be caught in the middle of all this, exposed and far away from his defendable homeland.

Master at arms and castellan are completely different jobs. One is just literally training the garrison and the local nobleman. The other is governing an entire region. He was a good master at arms but a horrible castellan.

20 good men

I don’t think he has even mentioned that a dance will happen.

Vargo liked cutting limbs off of people. Their is also a possibility that he did it because he suspected that roose would turn cloak, so he decided to harm tywins golden son. This way the blame goes to Roose Bolton because vargo is Boltons man.

I agree with that. I think one thing that will hit the audience the most is the fact that she watches almost all of her sons die. I can see many people shedding a tear for such a tragedy. The dance is essential all out war. But this is what worries me, that they will focus on the war side of things (like s8 did), and not put that much effort into the story. Because one thing I’ve learned from the average joe viewer is that they love a good action movie/series. And the dance isn’t really lacking on violence tbh. So I can easily see them take this approach, especially considering it is allot easier than actually writing dialogues and a story. This is one thing that I really want. Maybe start the show before rhaenyra marries. Like this we get to see the greens grow up, and even maybe sympathy’s with them, same for the blacks and all their actions. However if they do the approach that I mentioned above (more action than story), than theyd probably cut most of the prelude of the dance and just start the story just before viserys dies. They need a good writer and someone who’s aware of how medieval courtly affairs worked etc. Looking at the two show runners it seems one has a pretty good track record whilst the other dosent seem so. But we shall see how it turns out. Naturally people will always sympathy’s with the blacks, especially considering that they were stolen their inheritance. I can easily see lots of people siding with the blacks because their queen is a female character that had what is hers by right stolen by ambitious lords. Same as it seems the blacks were in a defensive war from the start of the war. I reckon they will either make aegon an antagonist that stole the throne. Or a humble lad that was coerced into taking the throne by his ambitious mother and kingsguard. And later after all the tragedies aegon suffered we will see him turn cruel and ruthless. It would make a nice story of a good person gone bad. Similar to what breaking bad was, like the main purpose of that story wasnt the drugs, it was a good person being turned into a bad person. And that is something I can enjoy to watch. It might not be accurate to the source material. But as you said they might have to come up with other shenanigans to make the story intriguing. Anything that makes the story feel rich and good. One key factor that disappointed me from the show was the inaccuracies of most customs. Everything from the armour of household guards to the attire that certain people wore, was abysmal and inaccurate. What I like about book adaptions is actually watching all the details we get from the book be re-enacted on tv.

Question is how true to the source material will they remain. Lots of the tv show fans hated season 8 because it villainised Daenerys (not because of bad writing). And I’m sure hbo is aware of that, so they might just not turn Rhaenyra into the ruthless women she was during the end of the dance. If I remember reading correctly (don’t really keep up with these news), they cut the strongs from the show, which are in my opinion at least an important family to the story. I remember reading somewhere. One of the hbo guys (shareholder or something), said that the new tv show will have all the amazing dragons that viewers loved and even more. This just turned me off, mainly because whoever said this seems to have forgotten that the show didn’t gain massive popularity because of meh dragons. It became what it is today because it was something new and never seen before. The beautiful dialogue, rich story, amazing plots, literally no plot armour. All these things are what made it great, and hbo being the typical corporate company that is in it for the money, makes me worry what they actually think made the show so big, and what approach they will carry on. One of my greatest worry’s is the lack of dialogue, and that would mean the writers would have to come up with the dialogues. But in overall, I agree we get the impression that the blacks were the good guys in the war. But at the same time I never actually saw any moral differences between each side. Like I believe both sides were equally immoral with their actions. With the lads probably being one of the only exceptions since they are pretty likeable and just are a couple teens playing at conqueror. The making aegon a pawn of his family’s scheme seems like a possibility. During the beginning of the dance that is actually the impression we get since aegon had to be convinced into taking the throne. In general it depends how they paint characters. One thing I noticed with dumb and dumber is that they had their own bias views against certain characters/actors. And some would get thrown under the bus if they didn’t like either the actor or the book character itself.

Seeing the direction the show will clearly take. Blacks= good guys, Greens= bad guys. I was kinda hoping for them to actually paint both sides as both righteous and bad. This would force the viewer to choose either the blacks or the greens. Give both factions some flavour to make them likeable and dislikable. It would create this opinion between viewers, like for example “I am a black supporter” or “I am a green supporter”, “I think the greens will/should win” etc. But the great twist at the end is that the war technically ends in some sort of draw. And in overall it would blow viewers mind. But one can only dream.

Mate come back when you are capable of providing any sources or quotes to back you up. Because you keep dodging some of my quotes and comments, and handpicking the ones you want, just to type things in which you have no evidence to back your claim with. And read a book also, it will help with keeping good knowledge on certain aspects of this fantasy.

Because he had rebel soldiers to kill? Isnt it obvious. And I already said the city was actually occupied with no resistance. They were liberating a riverlander town. Yes their is, by hiding robert they are essentially traitors. Notice how they didnt give him up whilst connington was searching for him. Not sure what it has to do with qoute. Who made this rule? You? some history professor? some general? Of course it would, and a slaughter still turns men into beasts. It is not hard to see, when the killing starts, the pillaging also begins. Again contribute to nothing in regards to quote. That is your assumption as well. We have tons of evidence where a medieval siege always leads to a sack, especially considering the widlfire that tyrion just pulled. "Your Grace," said Jorah Mormont, "I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count. There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs. The scent of blood is all it takes to wake him." You fail to remember that asoiaf was built on the foundations of medieval history. Grant you their are lots of unhistorical differences between both worlds, but the similarity is still there. Read a good historical book based on the middle ages and youll notice the similarities between both worlds. You are still unable to provide me evidence or quotes to back your claim. And any evidence I give you, you decide to push it away as "ASoIaF is not a historical setting so your medieval analogy fails (never mind it is wrong)." I ask you Why it is wrong but you decide to not reply to that comment. This already tells me all I need to know. All in all, you are just arguing in bad faith so I shall rest my case here. bîgengnes