Jump to content

frenin

Members
  • Content Count

    2,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About frenin

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I find this argument weird, Jaime is his kingsguard for less than two years, Aerys changed a lot. It's perfectly possible that he had other patterns that he would later forego and viceversa. I'm not trying to change your mind on this one, just saying that as the books goes he didn't have much choice. About prophecies and stuff.
  2. Jaime was with Aerys for a very brief time. And he was talking about sexual assaults which only occured when he got horny by burning people, not regular beatings anyways. Don't really think he had much choice on that one, Elia told him that the oven was closed and even if he forced himself onto her, Elia could always find moon tea and be done with the problem. Besides of him needing her brother's political support.
  3. I mean unless the dude had a genuine dislike for his mother, i very much doubt that any son would be happy with that. I think that Aerys only started to "really go" at Rhaella when he was really insane and by that point the son was an adult. He was always described as a depressed man since childhood so. Seems unlikely that he didn't. Aerys was not exactly a subtle man nor he ever had a good reason to think he should be, especially once he went mad and Rhaegar was good pals with the kingsguard. Impossible to know. It's not like it would amount to anything anyway, Aerys could do whatever he pleased with his wife and every action aiming to stop would be treason. Not really, Aerys righfully believed that his son was out to get his throne and imo he had very sound reasons to suspect he had been done dirty in Duskendale. It's perfectly plausible that Rhaella's abuse was the trigger for Rhaegar to start planning on how to get rid of his father.
  4. Because you find one action much more sympathetic than the other. Both decisions are still pretty irrational and proved to have disastrous consequences. Brandon was under the impression that his sister was kidnapped, ofc he wasn't thinking about his actions. Yeah, i know. So... Doubtful, i thought he was convinced that he could actually duel Rhaegar. As her words are code for duelling. And there was the lessening factor of Lyanna actually being kidnapped. He wanted the knight brought to him and or defeated. Regardless there is being crazy with a random knight and there is executing highlords crazy. The latter no one expected it. Nor Brandon, nor Rockard, nor the Vale gang, nor the loyalist, no one. Hindsight is 20/20 tho, And given Rhaegar's and Aerys's relationship till then it was even more surprising. And Ned shouldn't?? Well. his sister was kidnapped so i doubt he was thinking and given that highlords had gone away with murder before, just ask Rpgar Baratheon, Lyonel Baratheon or all the lords who literally commited treason against Aegon 5. He could have expected a slap on the wrist, given the context, he should have gotten a slap on the wrist. You have not answered me anyway, on why Ned would or wouldn't def be a better Lord, your argument can be sumed in "Brandon is an arrogant douche, so his mistakes are unforgivable and he would never be a good lord", "Ned is not an arrogant douche, he is honourable, he made mistakes but people are human". That's just bad faith. Since i doubt your whole approach to this is going to change and we're derailing the thread, i'm happy to leave it at that.
  5. Brandon is impulsive, yet it takes the perfect storm for him to feel the need to ride for Rhaegar's head. So... Which is terribly stupid. So... I mean, he died before getting the office. I still don't know how any of that disqualifies him as ruler. There have been several rulers in history with Brandon's traits, some were good, some were awful, some were mediocre. Clearly no one thought that Aerys could pull what he pulled. Else people would not have gone. There is being mad and there's willy nilly killing a string of highlords mad. You haven't answered me however, is Ned a bad lord because he chose not to tell Robert?? We know little of Brandon, we don't know how was trained and prepared for the position to categorically state who would've been the better Lord.
  6. So a mistake made in a moment of rage and despair disqualifies you as Lord?? Is Ned a bad lord because he foolishly chose to save Cersei and her children, giving her a heads up?? That has literally nothing to do with Brandon's skills or lack of thereof as ruler, it just speaks as him as a person. There's no single player of the game, be it Tywin be it Rhaegar, be it Stannis be it Robb, be it Baon be it Aerys... who did not make a big mistake. For them however we have the full, or well a bigger picture, yet Brandon is judged by one action as if the rest of his peers were flawless.
  7. That reasoning concludes that the only way people can be friends are mirrors of each others. And that's simply not true. It's not even strange that those two grew up close, they were practically raised together. About Op's question. Ned likely stays on the North, serving in a castle in the name of his brother. I doubt he had much thought of this, he was 17-19 when all hell broke loose. Based on nothing...
  8. It really does. They did not try to. As long as their supplies allows them to. Which is completely unknown. But they def can be starved to death by someone determined to see that happen. Aegon and Stannis both nicely fit the bill. It has never been tried before. On the contrary, she lost her war when she refused to give Storm's End and Casterly Rock to the two betrayers. Had she done that, she would have counted with five grown dragoms, More than enough to destroy any contrarians to her policies. No, but we already knew that. The show has made it clear that Petyr's days are numbered and half of Westeros is looking for Sansa because she's Robb's heir, The same reason why the Boltons married with "Arya" Stark. A bet? If they don't fall. likely won't be because any of this, it's likelier that it's because there is so many that you can always find someone with a cleann slate to continue the line. If the Lannisters were only reduced to a single line like the Tullys, the Baratheons or the Starks... They would fall for sure. Not really. Which can be blocked quite nicely. Unless the Lannisters have food and water for decades, once they are trapped, it's over. The thing is, are Stannis or Aegon (Dany for sure) willing to do that?? If the answer is yes, gg for House Lannister.
  9. You're very much right in this matter, ¡ i have given you the quotes anyway. No, Cat's actions triggered the war, Robert's and Ned's falls made the war certain however, Tywin didn't attack the Baratheons, nor he went to secure King's Landing, he ravaged the Riverlands and then events molded that war into a war s¡of succcession after Rely's and Stannis's crownings. Dunno, it doesn't take much to become a poisoner, yet they never did. Not really, then Robb and the Baratheon brothers as well as Edmure and Hoster gotta be neutralized too. The trap described by Harwin is revisionist crap that oddly enough isn't brought up anymore by any Lannister. And it entirely clashes with Tywin's calculated moves prior Robert's death. Ned certainly dislike Tywin a lot but he's not going to act against him unless the latter's give him a reason. He didn't bring his armies for Tyrion, he brought his armies to teach a lession to those who defied the Lannisters. It doesn't make sense and it directly contradicts the character's own version of the events. Hell. Tywin himself didn't really believe either the Starks or the Arryns would get involved in the Riverlands at all. So much for the pushback. When he wasn't leading it and it's not about prestige is about security. Yeah, she has been trying for a year. That's why the idea that Tywin wanted Robert gone asap is quite baffling, either Robert's is the luckiest man alive, able to dodge poison after poison, or neither Pycelle nor Tywin really wanted him gone. And in the end it was a not poisoned wine that made Robert killed himself... And she's right about this. I don't know how this is an argument. The Riverlords are a historically divided bunch, this is a fact. Sans the War of the 5 Kings and the overthrowing of Harren Hoare, the Riverlords have not fought as a united front in thousands of years. Because Tywin is human and make blunders and he also has luck, he makes several blunders during the war and underestimated his foes time after time, he simply got bailed out by Renly's death. Tywin didn't expect a war of succesion, he didn't even expect the Arryns or the Starks helping the Riverlands. His aim was simply crush the Riverlands and call it a day. Harwin doesn't know the events that transpired in King's Landing until much much later, so the only thing he knows is that Ned was supposed to lead them and now Gregor attack them, he doesn't know that by that time Ned was already a prisoner and Gregor could fight back. All Tywin did prior that was sending angry letters to Cersei for Ned and Robert
  10. Besides common sense?? There are quotes. I don't know how it sounds unrealistic, Tywin himself is in the blind of most of Joffrey and Cersei's actions and he only reacts to them, that's exactly why he gets fed up and sends Tyrion there. And it was a recipe for disaster, it got Ned killed and with that ended any diplomatic solution with Robb. And yet she had a great deal of influence there. All are mafia bosses, yet all of them allow their underlings some leeway, Tywin does to Tyrion and he certainly does to Cersei, he only starts distrusting her after Ned's execution. It's not putting his head in a bag, it's simply trusting those under him. Ofc Cat's actions triggered the war, the war only started with Robert's death however. Robert was not expected to die, hell they didn't even kill Jon Arryn, if it was as easy as Rycelle killing Robert, he would have done so from the get go. Cersei has to speed things up the moment Ned tells her he knows about the twincest and she goes with the hail mary. If Robert dies, that makes Ned regent, which not only makes going against him thrice as dangerous and stupid, since they don't know what kind of force he would going with, but reduces considerably Lannister power in court, both Baratheon brothers are likelier to fill that void, Ned would rely on them instead of well, Pycelle, LF or Varys. Tywin certainly would not take power unopposed as long as either Baratheon brother or the Starks had something to say about it. I still don't see how killing Ned benefits him. It doesn't stoke Tyrion's loyalty at all. And it's contradictory that you noth affirm that htat's how Tywin feels and that it is bogus. We have Tywin giving his reasons to march to war and they have nothing to do with what you're saying. Beric and Thoros had still been sent to kill Gregor Clegane and his band, oddly enough, Gregor Clegane and his band actually fight back. And who tells you that Ned would not have had the Kingsguard with him and more soldiers?? How it's Cersei's field?? When she was failing to do so for a whole year?? And the one time she actually succeed was because Robert got himself killed?? Yeah, when he had three great lords backing him. She isn't thinking about giving orders. She's wondering that if push came to shove, how many vassals would answer the call. Tywin made sure of no finding a single ally in the Riverlands when he randomly chose to slaughter.
  11. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean i'm missing your point. Westeros is a absolutist society that still works under feudalism. Ofc that if any country that may have had its laws would be consider as barbaric, thank god. That doesn't mean however that Westeros is a free for all country and if your only rebuttal is that we see powerful people getting away with clearly illegal actions, then ofc our real world is going to be brought up. Cat made a deal that would have never been fullfilled by betraying Robb and his cause... Yet it's Edmure's fault... I mean, i'm as big of a fan of Cat's as any of her defendants here but this is simply too absurd to consider. Jaime can't force Tywin to do anything, and Tywin's "why should i pay for something i've been given for free" attitude. He may have stopped the Red Wedding and allowed Robb to escape and gained momentum and perhaps having heirs of his blood?? Huh. The other biggest obstacle were the rest of the Lannisters Robb didn't feel like bowing to. Yes he did, we see this actually under Aenys reign, it was the Vale lords who stopped the Arryn kin killer, during the Robellion, long before the Crown took Robert seriously, it was their own great lord's vassals trying to bring them down. Nowhere it is said that nobles can't put down traitors in the name of their sovereign. It's stated that nobles can't start wars willy nilly however. AGOT would tell you otherwise, because people started to freak out real soon. And as Cersei points out, Ned was not the Hand of the King when the event happened, both Ned and Robert know that, Ned says that because what Cat had done was highly illegal and highly stupid and better have as much layers of protection as possible for the obvious backlash. Given than the rest is more of this, this is enough. And still the biggest standing army in the city by a wide margin, which means that whoever wants to succeed in a coup must count with its support, else you end like Ned. Once Cersei is installed and Joffrey is crowned, the Gold Cloaks are hers. Cersei herself states that they were the key factor to bring Ned down, not that we needed that but still. The Red Cloaks are there to serve Cersei in the capital, Cersei is the senior there and as Tywin told his nephews, they should do whatever Cersei commands. And Cersei doesn't even need to inform them that she's making a coup, why would she do that. she has just to give orders and they would obey. And we know that Tywin was quite removed of KL and usually let Cersei do her thing, it wasn't until the Ned's fiasco that hhe starts distrusting his daughter and gradually keeping her in check. What reports from his commanders?? That is a fait accompli?? Unless Tywin is coming with force, which he didn't and that's why the Gold Cloaks were vital. he doesn't really need to know anything, nor is he going to go against it. He may or he may not know, it's irrelevant anyway. No, I'm not. At the time Robert was not dead, nor was he expected to die. And Tywin doesn't go to war until he is sure he has the full back of KL. The rest as Tywin himself states it was to put it. And for all his talk, he did wait to ride. Btw, why would Tywin lie to Tyrion in his own camp?? Indeed there was an ambush to Ned's men, after Robert had died and Ned was arrested for treason. That doesn't mean that the ambush was set for Ned, it means that things changed and it was okay for Ned's men to disappear. We know for a fact that Ned would be heading to Winterfell had he not been hurt. Even then, it would be Robert , not Ned, the one hearing the Riverlords under normal circumstances. And i don't see a really good reason for Robert to allow Ned to personally go hunting down his father's in law vassal. Unless ofc you're telling me that Tywin knew Robert was going hunt, in which case, this man sees the fuuture. And how many times does that work?? Because we know from history that when the paramount lord calls, it's likelier that a good bunch of them tell him to go to hell. Why do you think Cat was fearing the loyalty of her father's vassals?? Because it was not a guarantee until Tywin made himsekf sure that the riverlords would only support Robb.
  12. This is rather baffling, rebellions and blood feuds are common thing in today's world!! Rebellions happened, are happening and will happen. Stability isn't a forever lasting thing. What have changed is the justification for it, yet rebelling against tyranny (Robert's case) is still morally sanctioned by people and or governments seeking to overthrow regimes. But yes, no one has the power to put an end to wars. People are not entitled to start wars in Westeros, just as people are not entitled to start wars now. The King's Peace pretty much put an end to that. No, you start private wars for greed, ideologies and resources. You still get to see powerful people starting illegal and inmoral wars. So... It's Edmure's fault for telling his vassals that Jaime had escaped and that they should check for him... but it's not Cat's fault for actually freeing him?? They would have never had prevented the Red Wedding, Tywin was determined to kill off Robb now before he again gained momentum and the Freys were determined to avenge themselves, Jaime was the only thing potentially stopping that for brcoming true. As soon as he escaped, Robb's days were numbered. And Tywin is in charge of Sansa and he's not letting the heiress of Winterfell escape his clutches, he was pretty clear about how he would deal with that. Tywin didn't have the right to summon people to Casterly Rock. he very much the right to defend his lands from rebels. He didn't act outside the law. the Reynes and Tarbecks empowered him to do so. He didn't summon vassals to face them, he didn't use any power that wasn't his. They very much do. You only need to go to AGOT to see how it is. If you're arguing that powerful people bend the rules and they sometimes get away with it... guess what, it 's happening in our times too. Law still exists but the axiom "some are equal than others" will never be out of fashion. Yes they do a lot of times, the book is full of resented people faulting entitled lords for making them suffer. As person with an army, nobleman, kingor warlord, you can do as much as your army allows you to do and if you succeed you will not have to answer to anybody. The King's Peace comes into play if you go to war without the king's blessing, it doesn't matter whether if it's a small or huge conflict, the only difference is that small conflicts are likelier to get noticed much sooner. If the King, or a proxy, finds out the punishment is the same. Are you arguing that someone breaking a law is a prove that said law is inmaterial?? Is robbery and first night allowed because there are people still doing it?? Yes, Tywin was incredibly stupid, and Tyrion points it out anyway. Yet Tywin atill was trying to get the Riverlords to start a war so he had his hands officially clean, instead of you know... starting the war he did the minute he found out his daughter was his grandson's regent. She's within her rights to demand that at Winterfell. And she is to let Robert heear the case. This is a matter between two great houses and the kin of the king. Tyrion here being a dwarf is inmateria. If the grievances are to be put to the king, that means that great lords cannot unilaterally try great nobles. Even Dunk's trial had more guarantees than that and he was a peasant. Sure, what they thought and what they actually did i¡are two different things. There's a reason Ned has to give Cat the officiality of the Hand (acting with the king's voice), because the act was a farce. She's the daughter of the owner, that means people will listen to her, that doesn't mean her words carry any legal power. She has absolutely zero legal in the Riverlands, which she knows that's why she rushes to take him to Winterfell.
  13. No, they are not. There are literal laws ruling especifically against it. Then it's up to Robert to change. It's like arguing that we're entitled to seek retribution when we don't like an unfair ruling. There are laws going against those customs today as much as they are in Westeros. No, they don't have to. Can you tell me where this is stated?? This sounds like the nightmarish Riverlands scenario This is especially stupid if the king is still able to impose his law, Tywin was almost able to bait the Edmure and the rest of the dumb riverlords to openly commit treason for that thinking. Why do you think Hoster forced them to seek the Throne's blessing first and why Ned was thankful he had done so?? Even if that is true, it was Cat's decision to free Jaime that sealed Robb's fate. Making himself king was not a mistake he could not come back from. Acting as if Jaime was not a deterrent is pretty wild to me. Well there's the key difference that Tywin did not start any war with the Tarbecks or Reynes, they were the ones who responded a summoning with treason, at that point Tywin was simply putting down traitorous rebel lords. So do ours, that doesn't mean that what they are doing is either legal, morally correct or goes without consequences. Just as our world. Powerful people ruining hundreds of thousands of people due to sheer entitlement is and always will be a thing. I don't think how we should pretend that what they are doing is legal or good, rather than simply them getting away with murder. Cat's actions were dumb, rather illegal and helped kickstart a war. That's just false. But, let's see where's that legal framework. The King's Peace however, first law of the land and that, dictates that Cat is bound by law to take her grievances to the king. There's no legal framework that sanctions the death of the innocents, not even the ironborn are that barbaric. All of that are actions of war. And none of that are sanctioned by law or even custom. This is simply angry people taking revenge. It doesn't really. It shows that blood feuds are a thing in war, it's like arguing that nobody has a thing with the feud between the Btackens and Blackwoods because they are old as time. Btw, acting as if actions during war are okay in peace is pretty crazy to me. The Targs and Martells carrying out total war doesn't mean it's an acceptable behaviour. That's not the problem of Robert however, that's simply society, if they want a better justice, they would start dividing the powers of the state and not concentrating them in one person, the Starks have to bring the evidence in front of him, that's exactly what Ned was trying to do, putting the band aid before the wound hardly ever works.
  14. Cersei needs the Gold Cloaks for her coup. Had the Gold Cloaks gone to Ned, both the Red Cloaks and the Hound would have been inmaterial to the outcome. The Red Cloaks obey the senior Lannister around and that's Cersei. I don't see how none of that applies, the Red Cloaks were ordered to stand by Cersei and help the Red Cloaks to arrest Ned for treason, which was by all means apparently true, Cersei really didn't have more to tell them. I don't know how Tywin knows about the coup in advance, unless Cersei tells Pycelle. There was no war in the Riverlands until Robert dies and Ned is seized. I still mantain is a terrible argument, especially given Ned being likely to be gone to his domains. It's not helpful to the coup tho, like at all, it gives the Riverlands a reason to hate the Lannisters in a situation where they would have been split between the Starks, the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The Riverlords are a famously divided bunch, Tywin's war crimes only made it sure that all of them followed Robb. Likely, his seizure simply accelerated that part. Both Robert being in that fateful hunt and Ned sending his retinue to the Riverlands are due to that.
×
×
  • Create New...