Craving Peaches

Even if all of Essos save Braavos were against them, I don't think that would stop slaves from revolting, even incredibly low chances of success are still something, the cruelty of the masters would make them desperate, they don't have to be successful slave revolts I just really think there ought to have been at least some given the cruelty of the masters and the large advantage of numbers the slaves had.

I don't understand how the system can actually sustain itself in Slaver's Bay. The freeman to slave ratio is like 1:10. And all their armies seem to be composed of slave soldiers, aside from New Ghis. I don't understand why there weren't more slave revolts in Yunkai, Meereen and Astapor.

It depends on whether Hizdahr is serious about wanting those reforms or not. He wasn't on my mind when I was thinking about the masters, but I guess he would technically count. I was thinking more about the masters in Yunkai and Astapor, who are almost cartoonishly evil.

It depends. If he went against Robert in the beginning for some reason after the Sack and when Robert was already king, then the Stormlands, Riverlands, Vale and North would be solidly against him. I don't see help coming from the Reach or Dorne so I don't think he'd win that one. If he opposed Robert before he even was king then the war would drag on for longer. Not sure of the outcome. As to later on, Tywin was actually quite lucky that the boar offed Robert, otherwise he would likely have been found to be breaking the King's Peace and the whole realm would probably gang up on him. Barely anyone outside the Westerlands save Pycelle seems to like him and a lot of people were probably looking for a chance to knock him down a peg or two. He got lucky with the way things worked out. I agree, I feel his success was quite luck dependant. With Aerys, it depends on how he was opposing Aerys.

I don't think he really has an excuse either, there was a theory that none of it was his faulty because he had a pituitary gland problem or something and it gave him blinding headaches so he was forced to consume ridiculous amounts of milk of the poppy and developed an opiate addiction. All those characters have potential excuses but I would still classify them solidly as evil, they have no redeeming features. I think Gregor, Ramsay and the masters are examples of characters that fall completely on one side of the good and evil spectrum, they are not at all grey characters for me. The green grace says that they were not always slavers in Meereen, if she was telling the truth then at some point Meereen did not have slavery so it hasn't always been the default.

This is something that I've been thinking about as well. The issue I had though is that there is arguably a 1 death for 1 life ratio established with the Dragons, but in situations where it is reversed a full life is not always required for one full death. Unless you interpret it giving a life as being servitude and not death.

Indeed, facing one's fears is a key part of being brave. As Tywin makes sure he is never in a situation when he would have to fear (about the ruin of his house), due to all of the notorious acts bar one being committed with a catspaw, he cannot be considered to be brave.

Maybe he had some weird justification for retreating like Stannis using a 'craven' sneak attack or something, so it was acceptable that once time. He could also just be a hypocrite and not practice what he preaches. Or he didn't want to retreat but was ordered by Balon to do so. He could have also not viewed the retreat as a retreat, but going back to defend the Islands or another task rather than a retreat.

Morale is good but it reaches a point where even if you have the best morale the numbers can just be too much. Do you know the game EU4? The jousting/melee was deliberate to choose the best Kingsguard. I don't think you can blame Renly for the wager. It wasn't unnecessary from Renly's point of view. He thought Cersei was going to kill him so he needed to get rid of her. The chances of success weren't great but I don't think they were zero. Cersei herself fears getting set aside. Legally, in terms of Westeros law, I would say that had Ned gone through with Renly's plan it would have been impossible for the children to be abducted in terms of being taken illegally, because Ned as regent would have had the law backing his actions. Of course it isn't a great action in terms of morality, but there are many worse examples in the series. I don't think Renly wanted any harm to befall the children (with the possible exception of Joffrey), the plan is just to seperate them from Cersei so Cersei won't try to harm Ned, Renly and co. And basically the whole thing was going to be done so that Ned could carry out his lawful role as Regent. Legitimacy does not figure in to Renly's reasoning for why he should be king. At the time when he decided to crown himself, Stannis had been completely silent for almost a year, Renly had no way to discern his intentions. Renly was not aware of the incest. For all he knew, Stannis would support Joffrey. So whether he crowned himself or backed Stannis, from his point of view he would be skipping or help someone to skip the line of succession. Even if he randomly decided to back Stannis for despite not knowing about the incest, it would still require jumping over those who Renly perceived to be the 'rightful' rulers, Robert's own children. Either way he wouldn't be following what was the lawful line of succession from his point of view. The argument could also be made that Renly could be king with a living Stannis because Stannis is disqualified on religious grounds, either because he is not of the Faith of the Seven, or because he has failed in the obligation of the king to defend the Faith. I don't think he didn't think of Stannis at all, just that he would have no way of deducing that Stannis was going to claim the Crown because Stannis was silent for nine months. He was likely aware of Stannis preparations as others were, but though that may indicate his intention to go to war, it doesn't necessarily mean that Stannis was going to claim the crown. He may have been gathering swords because he sensed war was coming and wanted to be prepared, for example. I don't think there was ten times the fighting men (and women). There seemed to be a large contingent of children, people who weren't warriors, farm animals for example. Mance wasn't just bringing an army to attack the wall, he had all the Free Folk who wanted to go south and escape the Others. They weren't all warriors. Maybe, but I also think the North being weaker was a factor. I mean the Westerlands surely has greater plunder and stuff. And when his sons were killed it was a joint operation by the whole rest of Westeros, not just the North (I don't think). Well if Renly has taken KL in this hypothetical scenario (I think that would be very likely had he lived) then Sansa might not be near the vale in the first place. Petyr might still try something but he seems to be pro-Renly and they got on quite well. If this is a scenario where the North continued to batter the Lannisters until their weakened forces were driven out of the Riverlands by Renly, with Winter coming on, a stunted harvest due to the war, no chance of aid from the South, Wildling army at their doorstep which they have to deal with, after having lost a great deal of fighting men, then yes I would say the North looks weak. The North remembers but we've not seen much to actually back those words up. Same with Doran. All talk no show. Hopefully we'll see some action next book. I think he did, or at least he was aware of the possibility. The quote is from Varys. So I definitely think more than just Renly thought Doran would join him. Varys says Tyrion wants to dissuade him, so Tyrion must think the possibility is great enough to bother about. Could Cersei be jealous of Myrcella in some way? The point I was trying to make is that they didn't put full effort in, they didn't hire the best of the best; if Renly was king and still saw Daenerys as a threat I think he would make sure that the most effective measures were taken. But the price may have been too high, I don't know. That bit was cool, but I meant really come back. It was meant to be a joke but on a thematic level I don't think Stannis' murder of Renly can go unpunished. Yes but until he killed Renly he had pathetic small low quality army. Boats are well and good but he needed land army to win the Throne. Davos is the sea guy, Stannis should have put him in charge of Navy at Blackwater.

I believe it would have to be something of great personal value to them (depending on whether it's before or after the dragons) as well as a hefty sum of gold. So Robert might have to give up his capacity to whore. Permanently. By, well... Renly might have to give up Loras. Stannis might have to give up teeth grinding. Or Davos. Or Shireen. Robb might have to give up Jeyne. Balon might have to give up the Old Way, or Asha. Joffrey might have to give up Cersei. Post dragons there might not be a point in paying anything because the Faceless Men seem to be looking for a way to kill said dragons, so they might want to get rid of Daenerys themselves.

Could it also be linked to patsy? Pate as the alchemist's patsy? Apologies if someone has mentioned this before.

With this line of thinking he shouldn't attack anyone because they're all his subjects... How does it give them momentum? They are steadily losing men while Renly is losing no one. The advantage Renly has in numbers gets better and better. I don't see how he's cruel and stupid. The Margaery plan wasn't the best but I don't think it's the worst either, at least he was doing something to counter Lannister influence. I am training at the Citadel to be the next Master of Laws. Semantics are important! Taking children from their mother may be the same thing as abduction, it depends on context. But it (abduction) is not the same as the children being arrested, which is what you said, that Renly was trying to arrest the children or have them arrested. They can't really abduct the children because if Ned went through with the plan everything would be done with full legal authority so I don't think it could be considered abduction in the sense that an abduction is usually illegal. He has a legal obligation to, but Renly is quite open about how he thinks what's legal isn't always the best option. And he left KL so he wouldn't die. He turned traitor because he didn't like Joffrey and Cersei and thought he'd make a good king. Stannis' birthright wasn't even on his mind when he crowned himself because he didn't know about the incest. And Stannis has only himself to blame for not bringing it to Renly's attention sooner. Not really, disease was probably always there in the camps, but the only army we see seriously suffer from disease is the one in Meereen because they stay in one place too long and are badly led. Well they mean something to the characters in the story who are all concerned because their enemy has more men than they do. They are getting weaker because they are continuously losing men. The Riverlands were wrecked by Tywin, killing not just a lot of their armies but also killing men they could have called up to replace them, the rest of the surviving armies are with Robb, losing more men every time they clash with the Lannisters. As for Tywin's forces, it's mentioned that they can't just raise more and more armies, with Stafford's army they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Westerlands can raise ~50,000 max according to the wiki. And Tywin suffers lots of casualties. Robb suffers fewer but he also has fewer men to start with. The more they fight each other, the more their forces are reduced. Tywin could perhaps hire more sellswords but those would take time to arrive and may not be available depending on the situation in Essos, and with the other naval powers in the kingdom. The survivors would have more experience but they would be fighting on multiple fronts and be facing vastly superior numbers. I don't think the Wildling situation is really comparable, Stannis had a very large element of surprise which wouldn't always be possible, the Wildlings were not as disciplined as Westerosi forces would be, there were lots of non-combatants amongst the Wildlings etc. Roderick's army was like Stafford's army, all fresh peasant levies with no training. My interpretation of the events is that Balon attacked the North because it was the weaker target, I think in a scenario where Renly is alive and allied with Robb Balon may well attack the Westerlands which now look the weaker target and isolated (as well as having better booty). But if Renly and Robb don't have an agreement Balon attacking Robb helps Renly. He could let Robb and Balon fight it out amongst themselves like he did with Robb and the Lannisters, then descend on the weakened survivor. You agree it was Robb's fault for not telling Edmure the plan, right? I hate it when poor Edmure is unfairly slandered But I don't think the defence of the Riverlands would have been sustainable long term, Robb had too few men and the geography of the region makes it hard to defend, not to mention the lack of food would start to become an issue. Not just Renly thought that, Tyrion and Marq Piper did so to. Robert called off the assassins and they didn't hire the good ones because Petyr though it was too expensive, Renly clearly thought Daenerys and Viserys were a threat and if he still thought that way when he was king he wouldn't fool around, he'd likely try to hire the Faceless men if possible. For me the death of Renly was the worst part of the entire series. I had to stop reading and take some time to do comforting things like pretending he was still alive or would come back Hopefully I will be rewarded with the death of Stannis. I didn't get that sense at all, I thought Stannis was going to lose until he committed fratricide.

I don't know, he seems quite rattled by it, offers to go get help for Ned etc. But it could just be him pretending. Could Jaime have found out without spies? Could he have asked around? Could it just be a coincidence? Jaime until he lost his hand was quite headstrong and rash, so if he happened to run into Ned it's possible he would just take the opportunity to get payback for Tyrion's imprisonment. I think it could go either way.

But then you can't say for certain that Robb wouldn't bend the knee. He was never given the opportunity to bend the knee after Joffrey, the main person he had issue with, died, because he'd already been killed at the Red Wedding. So any option is a 'what if'. I agree, but what does this have to do with my point that using a proxy isn't as brave as carrying out the act yourself? That situation is not comparable because Joffrey ordered Illyn to kill Ned openly and in public. Does Tywin publicly order the murder of Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys? Does he publicly order Gregor Clegane to burn the Riverlands? The only time which he openly did any of those things was when he exterminated the Reynes and Tarbecks. This is the main act his reputation is built on. People know with certainty that he did it. With the other acts, people only suspect, there is no direct proof that leads back to him, he has plausible deniability with other acts apart from this one. The whole reason he has the Freys do it is so he would avoid taking the blame. Now as Tyrion did, one can deduce that Frey did not act without protection, but yet again Tywin has plausible deniability, there is nothing to directly link him to the event, even if people suspect they have no proof. Because Tywin doesn't want the stain on his house's reputation. He cares about what other people think. He fears being seen like Tytos. Being brave is about facing your fears. Tywin avoids having to face his fears, potentially damaging the reputation of his house, because he gets someone else to carry out the unsavoury act for him. So I can't see how he's brave. "The only time we can be brave is when we're afraid" and all that. Tywin is never in a situation where he's afraid because someone else does the dirty work for him.

Why should they be fighting when their enemies are fighting each other for them? Cruelty doesn't necessarily affect whether someone is pragmatic or not. From a pragmatic viewpoint it was arguably a good move as it likely meant Cersei wouldn't try anything against them. And the children wouldn't be arrested, they would be removed from Cersei's care, which isn't necessary the same thing. How? Ned, the legal regent, wasn't going to listen to him. Even if Renly hangs around he can give Ned 100 more swords, if Ned doesn't go with his plan it makes no difference as the City Watch still sides with Cersei. He's in the Reach, the most fertile region with a bountiful food supply as noted by Catelyn when she meets with him, futhermore Renly is moving from place to place so he would be avoiding disease and eating the land bare. The armies in Meereen start to suffer from disease because they stay in one place too long, something Renly isn't doing. They're getting weaker because they're loosing men by the day, not to mention they have a huge disadvantage in numbers to start with. With his biggest and bestest army Seriously though, Tywin and Robb were killing each other, Renly had almost double their men combined in numbers. In the scenario where Renly didn't due, if the Greyjoys still attacked Robb it might benefit him if he's not worked something out with Robb, if he had the Greyjoys might have attacked the weaker and isolated Westerlands instead. Robb can't defend the Riverlands, geography is against him and he doesn't have enough men. Just now Doran is all talk no action. And multiple people say Doran was going to declare for Renly anyway. With the Daenerys issue, well she won't be coming until later, and Renly may choose to send assassins after her again. It was supposed to be a joke about how we can't have nice things in the books. First time we have ever seen the shadow assassin being used. Never even heard of it until that point. Barely any foreshadowing. It was completely unexpected for me.

His relatives died because he abandoned one and killed the other. Obviously he feels entitled to the throne but does he also want it or not? He must have been expecting something to happen to Robert because he abandoned him, suspecting the Lannisters were trying to kill Jon Arryn, and started gathering swords.

He only tries to start a war with the Bolton's after Ramsay's letter, and anyway him declaring war on the Boltons does not betray Westeros, given they threatened the whole NW he's not really betraying the Watch either. But that has no bearing on whether he betrayed anyone or not.

But Jon didn't betray the people of Westeros over Arya... How will he come back like this when the Others can't resurrect people south of the wall?

Yes, I forgot about the bit where he moans about it to Cat after Ned just died. That makes him even worse in my view, he didn't even leave to save his own skin, he left to go and sulk.

Do you have a quote for that? Brienne specifies the knights she felt especially annoyed by. I can't see how anywhere near 75% of knights would be involved given that Randyll Tarly wasn't aware until informed by his own son. Renly does not get drunk. It is explicitly noted by Catelyn that he drinks and eats in moderation. And he wasn't really 'sitting around', he was marching slowly and gathering more support, it was a deliberate plan. What's wrong with them loosing to Brienne? She is one of the better fighters in the series. She is very skilled and lucked out in the genetic lottery when it came to fighting advantages, being big and strong. Well because I think he makes the right call all the time, tries to get rid of Cersei because she's a pain, tries to make sure Ned is unopposed as Regent to reign in Cersei, realises that everything's going to go wrong and gets out of King's Landing, gathers the largest army ever seen in Westeros, takes control of the Kingdom's food supply, loses no men while his enemies get weaker by the day, etc. He was all set up to win, and was also a fairly nice, competent guy, so of course he wasn't allowed to get anywhere near the Throne alive and had to be taken out by never seen before, barely hinted at, impossible to defend from means.

I don't know, I can't see any redeeming features in Ramsay for example. Not really Gregor either, although you can make the excuse for him that he is an opium addict...And the Masters in Slavers bay, I can't really see them as grey characters.

I don't think he would attack the Westerlands as he didn't seem to want to fight the whole Throne, attacking the North meant he had to fight fewer people and because he was attacking rebels it meant he would be less likely to antagonise the Throne. The North was the weaker target. Less risk but also less reward.

Balon would rebel anyway I think. He was already gathering his forces. Asha was his preferred heir so the attack would provide a good way of removing Theon from the line of inheritance. He attacks the North and Robb is forced to kill Theon in response. Of course Robb might not have done this but Balon likely thought he would. He probably wanted Theon out of the way.

But Roose rebelled alongside the Starks when they first rebelled. His armies clashed with the Lannisters. I thought that psychopaths, at least one type, had a lack of long term planning skills/didn't consider the long term consequences of their actions very much. Ramsay seems to want instant gratification and I don't think he has the patience to wait for long-term plans to pay off. So he may not have thought much about how his treatment of Lady Hornwood could affect his survival later on, looking only at what her death got him in the moment. I think Roose thinks through everything while Ramsay thinks through basically nothing. In my opinion, Roose is a bit stuck because he knows Ramsay is unsuitable but he doesn't want a boy lord ruling house Bolton. He seems to think he won't live much longer, which is odd.

Well we can't see in Stannis head but the fact that he constantly uses duty as a justification for everything he does makes me think he may be using to mask his real, less righteous reasons for doing those things because he doesn't want to accept he's flawed and motivated by something else, that he is more similar to his brother's than he thinks. If you treat him as the rightful king then everything he does/says is duty is so, but I think that is a slippery slope because you could use it to justify any atrocity Stannis commits as just him doing his duty. From what I recall Jon Arryn and Stannis were going to inform Robert together, but then Jon Arryn died, Stannis felt Robert wouldn't listen to him alone and left because he thought the Lannisters would come after him next. So he was motivated by self preservation. But regardless of the threat to his life or whether Robert would listen or not, it was still Stannis' duty to inform him. And I don't think Stannis would view self-preservation as acceptable grounds for any of his vassals to shirk their duties to him.