The Young Maester

She probably saw on the flames that they would die, and so she wanted to use the leech to convince stannis of her power and lead him more towards her fire god.

Nah it doesn’t, that only applies if you are scared that breaking your oath will lead to your death or other punishments. That depends because a king is supposed to protect his subjects not incinerate them.

Oaths are oaths. Just because you don’t wish to break an oath, it dosent make you a coward. This world is defined by oaths. A Lord most keep to his oaths because if he has a habit of breaking oaths then what stops his men at arms and vassals from breaking their oaths with him.

Wyman probably confided with wylis on his plans for house Manderly. If Wyman dies, he will have his son lead the Manderly forces to sit rickon on winterfell with wylis as regent. And probably married to a Manderly daughter.

At this point the Westerlands and iron islands have declared for Robert. So it would be the reach with what little strength dorne has left, against the rest of Westeros. Not to forget both aerys and rhaegar were dead. Crowning viserys wont win as much support as rhaegar wouldve. At this stage of the war, Robert wouldve gained lots of fame as a warrior king and many knights and men at arms wouldve been more likely to defect to him (especially if he is king).

I am very doubtful of this spiriting aegon away as a babe. Because I am of the mind that before roberts rebellion.Varys was the one whispering in the kings ear about hidden traitors. Rickards death lends to a possibility that Varys told the king that his warden of the north is plotting treason. It might’ve been true or might’ve been the thing Varys needed to weaken the Targaryen legitimacy. If Rickard was plotting treason than I guess Varys just did his duty and informed the king about it. The king obviously took it to another level. Than you have aerys demanding Ned and roberts head. Demanding neds head makes sense since the mad king probably thought that if the father is a traitor than the 2nd son most be as well. Robert however is confusing because the guy was a hothead lord living his best life. The only treason Robert couldve been plotting was the one on his bed. So either Varys whispered lies to the king, or maybe aerys’s crazy mind went stark+Robert= traitors. The other factor could be that grrm invented aegon as a late character. Because he needed Daenerys in Westeros by winds, however he didnt anticipate her ark to be so long and full of other plot points. So he made aegon up so he can have a Targaryen invade Westeros by winds. If this is the case than I do believe aegon is legit since it is what George needs.

You are right in that actually, forgot about this. Grrm makes it clear that there is no room for honourable men in his world. This is certainly true for the world of asoiaf, since it is a much darker and backstabby place than our own real world. Throughout history many honourable men have succeeded in many areas. I would justify Tywins pillage of the riverlands with the fact that he is the ruler of a kingdom that dosent concern itself with the prosperity and economic output of a neighbouring kingdom. However Tywin was named hand of the king (essentially defacto ruler of westeros), and he still decides that pillaging and murdering the land of the fodder of westeros would be a good idea. This certainly backfires when you have the riots in kings landing due to the lack of food entering kings landing.

Lasagna was invented in the Middle Ages. I would kiss the person that invented it. If they are religious they probably will. It was a time when religion was respected and heavily influenced on the running of governments and kingdoms. So I can see some religious conservative being in favour towards the Middle Ages. It isnt the case for many historians today. People love history because of the great differences between our society and the past. Reading history is a good pastime as it can lead to hours of long discussions between people. I personally treat history as a life lesson. I don’t like to judge it (but I sometimes tend to do), I like to learn and study from it. Grrm understands how people used to think in those days. Thats why asoiaf has some amazing characters. There are allot of flaws on his world, but his characters arent one. Grrm no doubt read allot about medieval history but his world rarely applies accurately to the Middle Ages. Asoiaf is a much much crueler world than the Middle Ages ever were. You did have plotting, truce breaking, and backstabbing. But this wasnt to the scale of asoiaf. Wars of the roses can be an exemption since it was a darker time and resulted with the end of the Middle Ages. However England and the British isles in general werent really that keen on the chivalry way of things and didnt flinch at doing barbaric deeds. Asoiaf is a depiction of what grrm wants his world to be like. And of how he thinks the Middle Ages were. Or probably just a mixture of both.

To me Westeros always looked like an Early middle aged continent with weaponry and castles of the late middle ages. Even claiming its in the early middle ages is wrong, since people like Alfred the great (ruler of a tiny little kingdom in a damp little island) established schools for his people. George is an atheist and a pacifist. Violence and killing was a very influential part of the middle ages. It was considered normal as well. Religion obviously played a very big role on society, and it was heavily influenced by it. Crusades as an example. I think George will take a bias view of the middle ages (like many people today), and just see it as barbaric and dark time. Mayhaps the early middle ages and the arthurian age were dark and barbaric as george claims, but once you get to the 11th century. Western Europe seems like a more civilised place than Westeros.

Knut the great probably. Exaggerating tbh, only land the vikings heavily occupied was east anglia and Yorkshire. And they all became Christians and were slowly turning into Anglo-Saxons.

That article says the new series will be based 100 years after vikings. But what confuses me, is that they said it will involve harald hadrada and Erik the red. These guys were based in complete different timelines. With Erik being some 100 years from vikings and harald 200 years. Im guessing they are gonna shit on history one more time, and just somehow have these 2 character live during the same timeline. Not to forget that by the 11th century Norway and Denmark were heavily Christianised with some stubborn people still keeping to their old gods.

Just found out this show is still ongoing. Or it has ended? I’m not sure since apparently season 6 was still ongoing or something. I stopped watching at season 5. Too many historical inaccuracies and the story just got boring. They fucked Harald fairhairs potential as a character. They couldve actually made him a lead character (since the show is called vikings it dosent all have to evolve around Ragnar and his sons). They couldve shown his struggle and battles he had to go through in order to unite Norway under him. But instead they made him this scheming plotter that always gets the stick up his arse.

It seems that fat walda is pregnant as well. And because she is so fat it is easily concealed. Ramsey hears of it and shit will kick the fan.

Which stark are you referring to? Callously? that is a very strong word. All Ned did was not bring her husbands bones, and she bitches about it decades later. She suspects Ramsey of murdering her favourite nephew. Ramsey raped and starved lady Hornwood. I very much doubt she likes him more than Ned or his brood. She even had the gall to bare her gates from the warden of the north’s son and heir.

During Robert’s rebellion barbrey suggested to her husband that he sent his uncles and cousins. My guess is that those uncles and cousins are dead by now, and they only sired daughters which is why barbrey is probably still in power.