FeastForCrows

1 minute ago, darksellsword said:

can you give some examples of monarchs that were crowned and had people chime in and give them titles that sound demeaning to their face?

If you read what I wrote you wouldn’t see it as “demeaning”

15 hours ago, darksellsword said:

I'm sorry but I can't let the "Bran the broken" idiocy go. If someone gets a title it's something flattering or impressive, Why wouldn't they go with Bran the wise or Bran the 3eyeRaven, I know it's Brendan Rivers nickname in the books but on the show it is a title that is passed on. If they do get a condescending nickname it's said behind their back. I get it, it was supposed to be a throwback to the whole "cripples bastards and broken things" line Tyrion spewed in Season 1. I guess the show doesn't use the term cripple anymore because they pandered so hard to the liberals so now Bran is just one of the "broken things" that's so much better right. These guys can't write anything for themselves and when they drop these little season 1 references all the time its just cringing. I think 90 percent of anything D&D contributed was meme generated crap.

There are plenty of examples of this happening in our own history. It’s supposed to mean something like, ‘look at what this ruler accomplished despite their disability’ 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly don't think any of George's character ever tried to minimize deaths in their military campaigns.

Which is why George could never even write a character doing shit like that. I mean, even Victarion Greyjoy wouldn't do shit like that. Yes, he would drown a ship full of people if they serve no purpose, but he would never burn down a city and the inhabitants of a city he actually wants to conquer and rule.

If she burned the city for no reason - as she does in the show - yes, it would be over the top. If she burns a city for the same reason Aegon burned Harrenhal it would be just the deed of a successful conqueror.

Well, there is lip service - various UN treaties, international law, etc. stipulating that basically all direct targeting of civilians in war constitutes war crimes - and then there is the actual practice of war - in the past and present - which routinely includes such practices. I mean, even drone assassinations today don't go without 'collateral damage'.

In a medieval framework the destruction of a complete city doesn't strike me as particularly gruesome. And the very idea that anybody on the other side would give a damn about the lives of 'innocent civilians' on the enemy side is ludicrous. This is not something that would ever happen in the books, especially not in a scenario where the burning of a great city became an option. Just look what kind of person Lem Lemoncloak is right now. The fighting men would all ravel at the prospect of plunder and the chances to rape a couple of women. This is, more or less, why they follow some general to war.

From reading medieval texts of that period, especially in France, killing the civilian population, women and children included, after a surrender, would be a rare occurrence and if it happened would be absolutely looked down upon. You say it would be ludicrous for someone to care about innocent lives, you understand one of the tenants of knighthood was about protecting those who can’t protect themselves, right? Not to mention, the dynamic between the Church (the many Archibishops of cities, the Pope) and the temporal powers of the time. They would have been convicted of Heresy for those crimes. 

First impression:

Other than Arya getting a lot better scenes than Jon and some other minor logical inconsistencies; i’m not going to nitpick on this one. This episode moved me, Lena Headey was the star.