Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About frenin

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Fair enough. Wouldn't do anything about it, but people did mind them being incestous and all, adding sorcery seems a little over the top. Not that they could do anything about it anyway but... I've already told you that support is not the same as action. And aren't you the one calling the greens incopetents?? I've not say a word about the Blacks being outstanding, even tho if that makes you happy i'll take it. I've stated they are better than the greens tho. About the later. That's nice. Hmm, no it isn't. The only reason they would not appear so soon is because of the dragons, you take that out of the equation and they have no impediment to show their colours. Yet when they do come, we're told who were they supporting and why. This apparently do not seem to you like a declaration of intentions. Those lords and knights already supported Rhaenrya. Why would those lords be swayed to the other side without an apparent reason?? And i would believe you, if the lords that supported Rhaenrya were not counted as likely supporters from the get go. We're told when dragons affected the lords and we're told when they did not. Sooner than what?? They declared their support once it was clear there was war. Otto Hightower is not the head of House Hightower, Ormund Hightower had three kids. What Aegon's crownslands?? Only the Thornes supported him. And weren't you the one arguing about Green incompetence?? I'm not saying the war would unfold as it did, i'm stating that Blacks had numerical advantage and better commanders. As such the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Sure, then there would have been no war. It certainly is but more often than not it is a mix of both with more of the former than of the latter. Such as Hannibal and Varro at Cannae or Lee and Mcclellan. The spelling can't be a fallacy. Aegon had two wives and a children with each, yet he didn't write a succesion law, nor he set a law about incest and from then on chaos. You see how absurd it is?? Ofc you don't. No one cared that they were a continuation of the Storm Kings by other name, but what Orys did do was slaughter the stormlanders into submission and then took the castle without opposition. Nor did Daemon argued to slaughter them all. The Hoares were indeed exterminated and their incomes and lands passed to the Qoherys... And the world collapsed. Yet you're assuming that Stannis would freely go to face the flames that Borros did not want to, because he would haveno choice but to do it... Storm's End siege is not a battle and he fought most of the Blackwater having the numerical advantage and blew it and let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we?? Aegon 2 was not dead when their status was quoted. The quote was directly to Aegon. Rhaenrya did want to accept peace, she did not want to pardon her brothers however. The rest, well projection.
  2. It was Robert who granted Renly Storm's End. Renly did not force Stannis to behave like a grumpy old man. Even without the Reach, Stormlands or Westernlands. There are still six regions that do not want Stannis as King, yet that doesn't matter because Stannis never bothered to win them over anyway because he's too entitled to even try. Stannis could have reached to Robb, to Lysa, to Balon, to Doran... He doesn't want to bee seen as beggar, even thos he needs them badly, so he doesn't. The Stormlords are bound to follow a Baratheon, Renly is their lord, he can't take for himself something that was always his. Is this a race?? Stannis would have taken King's Landing... And would have lost it the minute Tywin and/ or the Tyrells stormed it or laid siege to it. But since we're doing ifs, if Tywin stays in Harrenhall instead of going west, Stannis is smashed either way. The Stormlords don't have the manpower to go toe to toe against Tywin and the City's defenses. Win the Iron Throne as in getting it and keeping it. Ofc that if no one opposes Srannis, he can very much take the city just with the Crownlands foces, i doubt that the Crownlands are by themselves enough to keep the the throne. Can you tell me the rationale behind Stannis getting King's Landing when he still has enemies far more powerful than him that want him dead?? Didn't the Dance of the Dragons teach all of us the valuable lesson that putting your ass on the Throne is not by any means enough?? At no point he tries to act as if. He plainly explains that either he takes the throne or the Lannisters kill him. Given that Joffrey, Cersei and Tywin expressed at one point or another their intentions to deal with him permanently, I'd say he has a reason to be concerned. What moral obligation?? He literally says that's survival what's moving him. Well, not really. His moral and legal obligation is to bend the knee to Joffrey, you know Robert's acknowledged son and heir, and let him pass judgement on him for existing. If pardoned his duty was to join his power to Tywin and crush his traitorous brother. Isn't Joffrey a place to go?? I mean. he's the one on the throne. Whomever the Tyrells join becomes almost automatically the winning side. That's a non argument. Mace Tyrell wanted his grandson to be King, that's a powerful motivator to join the Lannisters. But that's not true. Just like Joffrey did not look like the winning side for holding King's Landing. May i remind you that at that point, the Martells had already pledged allegiance to Joffrey?? Who do you think actually looks like the winning side?? Neither Rhaenrya nor Aegon 2 looked like the winning side when they wrestled for the Throne, no matter who sat on the Throne, there were still enemies on the field who wanted to kill one of the other. Only after those enemies lost their capacity to keep the fight on or lost key leaders could Aegon 3 rest easily on the throne- Just as Stannis was heir until a son of Robert was born. Unless everyone in Westeros share the absur fandom's d belief that Stannis would never father a son, I don't know how's that any reassuring. And since Petyr was already at Bitterbridge by that point... No they wouldn't. The Tyrells can't stomach the Florents, the Florents still want Highgarden. even if Joffrey is killed. Tommen is still on the loose, he would be named King -> King>Heir presumptive. His age also means that the Tyrells would have had far more power controlling or sharing the control of a regency. The minute Renly dies, the Lannisters try and win their allegiance... why do you believe they would not do it thi time? Stannis should have taken Renly's offer, he would have been granted Storm's End and kept Dragonstone. Instead of you know, betraying both his brothers, murdering one of them. murdering his daughter, dooming his House and becoming an ice zombie.... and never being King too.
  3. His older brother doesn't have the power or the allies to win the Throne, if Renly doesn't ally with the Tyrells the Lannisters would. And soon enough, Renly is murdered, the Martells go to Joff and Stannis is crushed. Renly already explains why he took the crown.
  4. I do agree with him that having dragons was the right call. I'm curious, How do you think the Targs would have lost their powers in the Dance ?? By angering the gods?? Genetic curse/disease?? ?? Where do i say they are staunchly loyal or one track minded?? I'm only talking about where their support leaned to from the get go. Whether that support remains or not is a different thing, as the Tullys proved, but that's not to say such support does not exist. And honestly. i do not know if you read your quotes. The text is proving you wrong and you keep misquoting. Those lords who responded slowly already supported Rhaenrya. Sure, the Tullys would have no reason to choose neutrality or the Blacks, that would be their gain however, the rest would not change, unless ofc you believe that people like Frey or Piper were faking it. The only House in the Riverlands who chose the Blacks coerced were the Tullys. If there is no dragons there is no reason to believe that support would disappear, what would disappear however would their only reason of concern, It is your question, since at no point we're told that those events were correlated and that they were motivated by such victories. I don't know how were they going to muster another army if Ormund Hightower were to be captured, if not they would be led by a child and the Tyrells still had one of the Higtowers as ward. With all the major leaders in the Reach either captured or killed... how well do you think that campaign would've gone?? Might, might not. The reason Aemond had the strenght to think of that plan were the dragons he used to subdue the Crownlands. Most of militarily victories are due to failure of other men, so it is a matter of preference. Given that the same armies would remain, leading by the same men without the context of dragons, the outcome would by logic be the same, especially if your believe that Martin depicted the Green leadership as unbelievably idiots is somewhat true. I amazed that you're so capable of dismissing and then using the same fallacy. Daemon is responsoble for events beyond his control, yet Aegon is not. Giving Storm's End to the Baratheons dissolved the entire feudal society, disintegrate the realm and would later plunge the Realm in war, such a slippery slope The two betrayers already had inmense power, they had already two of the biggest dragons at the time. Better to keep them close. If they disprove you, i doubt so. Sorry, I was asking you if Stannis would have faced the dragons if he gained so little. The only battle Stannis has fought with a weaker force was at the Wall, and most of his enemies were camp followers. His famous victory at Fair Island was with him leading the Royal fleet and the Redwyne fleet. And he had the superior force at the Blackwater. Which is the same as "Hightowers would no longer help Aegon". Aegon would not have accepted such thing, that's literally going against his character. Yet they would still be undefeated. Besides it's harder to justify isn't it?? Wouldn't the Targs be viewed as warlocks and witches?? Being able to tame a creature as fearsome as a dragon and commanding it at your will gives you some gravitas. Burning people with your mind howevwer...
  5. Fair enough. Well not really. Daemon made clear that they had a lot of supporters, they only needed a place as rallying point. Ie, those lords already supported her. And the only Greens in the Riverlands were those three Houses, everyone else supported the Blacks. The reason the Lords of the Trident were so weary was... Well, dragons. So, the Greens loyalists do stay the same however. Sure, if Stannis is any measure that's an obvious. Yet the only reason the Hightowers made it so far was Tessarion. Without dragons, the Greens don't make it to Tumbleton, the Lannisters are remain as routed and the Stormlords are as defeated. The Greens wouldn't have also no means to keep their own source of direct power, since they on their own could have never subdued the Crownlands, which were also overwhelmingly for Rhaenrya. So, people are not commanders nor are they meaningful, even when their accomplishments say otherwise, due your personal taste. Aegon I should have never conquered Westeros. That act alone started a chain of events that costed his family its dragons and left them on the verge of extinction. After they were given lesser prizes they aimed at the top. That and the fact that the fiercest dragons of the war had just died. Neither does wishing something not to be true. Would he?? Stannis would have faced the dragons in a brawl that interesar him in nothing?? The same Stannis who only attacked Renly once he had magic with him and before that left King's Landing and locked himself up in Dragonstone?? Such faith. The Hightowers were not going to help them, point well made by Velaryon. The Mercs would not arrive in time. And i don't see why Winter is any impediment for the North. They have to decide whether freezing to death in the North or plunder in the South.
  6. At the start of the war the Blacks had the support of the Crownlands, who had to be subdued by Dragonfire, half the Reach (which was the reason the Tyrells decided to sit that one out) and most of the Riverlords. I don't really know where the idea of people not supporting the Blacks come but certainly not from the books. No, they weren tho.
  7. Sure but that would not have changed the war. 1) Harrenhall was a rallying point, that does not mean that the Riverlords would somehow become less loyal. 2) King's Landing can be taken later. 3) The Gullet, even without dragons, was going to be a defeat for the Greens. No Gullet and Jacaerys still lives. Main, not unique. As it happened, the Greens had dragons too and were decisive. Given that without dragons, Rhaenrya wouldn't need have King's Landing and thus she would not need the Royal Treasure so badly, I'd say that's a disadvantage. You sure?? Because Dustin, the Lads, Pate etc. They do all sound like capable commanders. They effectively wiped out the Western army and did the same with the Baratheon one... And the only reason they did not destroy Hightower's was fue to... Well dragons. In fact the only reason Hightower lived so long was due to dragons, which not only bailed him out in more than one battle but make him able to add Black loyalists to his own levies by force. I don't know how using corruption was a mistake. Nor did he gave dragons to the two betrayers. He wanted to give them, Casterly Rock and Storm's End. Had that happened is very unlikely they would have betrayed Rhaenrya. Yet, once again. Blacks had the competent commanders. And i don't know how the Greens would have won the war, nor how Stannis would've made it better than Borros without retorting to hindsight, Cregan's army was days from reaching the capital.
  8. The Greens lose badly. The reason why the Greens reached Tumbleton in the first place was because Tessarion. Had it not been for dragons the Reach Blacks would have wiped out the Reach Greens. The Riverlands was almost completely pro Rhaenrya, Jeyne Arryn too supported Rhaenrya. The only wildcards of the war would still being Cregan and Borros. The Blacks had more manpower and far better commanders. The outcome seems particularly one sided. That war is has only lasted months longer than the Dance...
  9. And rewarded in different ways in this tale. Almost all the Great Houses are full of child murderers, genocides and etc. And most of them survived because it's portrayed as big balls tough guy in action. Evil gets you Thrones and lasting dynasties just as much as it ends your line. Well not really, the Baratheons are dying as a result of the cuckolding and Stannis's and Renly's decisions and there are tons of Lannisters, just as Robert left bastards to spare. I'm curious, if at the end of the day the Lannisters make it and the Baratheons survive via Robert's now legitimized bastard just as the show did... Would you consider them vindicated?? I find it a very absurd and resultadist take, when arguing morality we should not look for whether it pays off or not. I partially agree with the former, i find it needlessly cruel not even punishing Gregor and the other, the Martells would always want the Lannisters head however, which the rebels could not give, out of pragmatism, the Lannisters were ready to swear allegiance and offered much more in terms of manpower and resources whereas no one could tell whether the Dornish would be commited with the new regime even if the Baratheons did everything in their power to appease them and even if they did, the Lannisters still offered them more. I do find the marroage with Cersei bad. I very much disagree with the former, the rebels could not spare Viserys and Rhaella, since they were not in their power, and Robert did concede to Jon Arryn and decided not to kill the Targlings when it was easy, and honestly convenient, to do so. Did they?? I believe that the lordship bit is only mentioned by Jorah. Which is a better excuse than "my spymaster told me assasins were coming".
  10. That's hard to believe in a saga that tries really hard to be realpolitik and you're good=fool. I find it hard to believe, the only reason the hit failed and blew up so spectacularly was because Jorah was warned beforehanded. Finally giving Varys and Illyrio the war they were hoping for. If Dany gets killed and the preparations for war are tedious, Dony finds a new toy... There are many ifs in between. I'd say that the assasination plan was risky, yet nothing comes without a price. And for the council it was either avoid a war that was coming or try to avoid the war that was coming but fail. They could not know that Drogo was not about to honor his word. Even when the rest of your comments are half true, at best. The most devastating war in Westeros is stated to have been the Dance of the Dragons...And the First Dornish war. Well, someone who had read the books might disagree with you, Robert never thinks or says that half the lords would rise against him. Especially because that's pretty much impossible by the beginning of AGOT. The rebels had consolidated their power in their domains and purge or make amends with the loyalists, Darrys or Goodbroks for example,united the Realm against a common foe like the Ironborn and slowly but firmly started to erode the loyalist base in the Reach, the Florents married into the Baratheons and Loras was squire and constant companion, pretty good hostage if needed be, of Renly's, Mace's favourite son grew up in a world in which anti Targ was the norm and so did his sons, Renly was fairly beloved by powerful Reach lords etc... And Robert still, nominally, commanded the greatest coalition by far. Even after that coalition breaks after Robert's and Eddard's death, there's no way the Targlings can have a say since the new men in power had no reason for longing for the return of the dragons. The only reason why the Golden Company decided to attack was because Tywin is dead, and with him gone there are more likely to find supporters... And even with Tyrion's divine intervertion, Varys has to kill the last competent Lannister leader... because Kevan would have united his coalition, which was half the Realm mind you, to destroy the Golden Company Without dragons, since dragons trump them all, it takes the complete destruction of Robert's coalition, the destruction of their lands, the deaths of the old guard and the deaths of the new guard, Cersei and a toddler in power for any loyalist to show his face. If you don't have several people swearing to god that they were always loyal, it'd be confusing to say the least.
  11. Tywin dies for being unable to shut his mouth, Theon is mutilated and castrated by Ramsay, who doesn't give a damn about what happened in Winterfell and ditto for Jaime and Hoat. Do you see that those fake pretenders... are around right?? Aegon Targaryen needs to be in Westreos for people to recognize him and support him, no one's gonna care and support him from Essos. You may want to reread the books again. Ofc Robert targets her specifically. It's through her, and the children she may have, that the alliance is mantained.
  12. Well. no Dany no invasion, it's not like Robert could know that the Khal was not interested or that Jorah would be tip off by Varys.
  13. Well, not really. Since the war of the 5 kings would still happen regardless, no dragons and no anti slavery movements tho. Sure but a strained relationship is not a broken one, else Ned would not have put down Balon's Rebellion alongside Tywin and Robert. No, it isn't. Since at no point Cersei cuckolds Robert out of revenge. Cersei had already arranged the hail mary murder by then. Ned's actions had little to do with it. And he's destroyed by Petyr, not Ceresi, not the children. Why not?? Viserys is a pretender, that doesn't change if the murders are punished. By whom?? The reason why Robert was king was not particularly because he was a nice person but because he commanded the greatest coalition in Westeros. Tywin killed Elia and her children and Robert pardoned him, that didn't change the fact that by the time Eddard met Mace, he and his followers were ready to submit and Doran saw outright confrontation as a lost cause and this decided to wait for a sign in the sky to strike. Sure but as to present pretenders, as, there are still people fighting for said pretenders. Not exiles. People are mad when you murder a pretender you still care about, hence the fighting, people are less prone to act out against exiles, the very fact they are rotting in exiles without help proves that you either don't care much about them or you are too afraid to protest. I would be surprised if we didn't have a lighter version of this. As much as i want this to be true i don't know how true this is. Tywin was regarded as a big balls tough guy after he exterminated both Reynes and Tarbecks and ditto with Aegon 1. We have a very mixed context of this, from houses getting a very heated backlash to others greatly profiting from it. Sure it is disgusting but it doesn't negate the fact that both Viserys and Dany were conspiring to invade Westeros and that Pycelle was right that they would not try to seize the crown by popular vote.
  14. At no point this happens tho, the destruction of the Baratheons is due incest and infighting which unless Aerys and Elia were pulling the strings from the other world, had nothing to do with them. Besides it being obvious... Martin does state it. That was the point of no return and, along with the abuction, is mentioned several times by several people. And once the remaining Targs start meeting some opposition, Young G is right now in Baratheon soil, trying to gain over Baratheon loyalists whom whether they decide to side with him or not will surely have a far different version of the event than Connington, is bound to be thrown at their face, at least the show got that right
  15. Well, not really. All that are aware of what happened there agree that it was horrific and disgusting, only Jaime reveals the details. There has never been a point in which Aerys's actions had been exonerated...by anyone.
  • Create New...