Jump to content

Alyn Oakenfist

Members
  • Content Count

    865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Alyn Oakenfist

  • Rank
    Bastard of Hull

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,464 profile views
  1. So the fact that there was a duel at the tower of Joy and that the 3 Kingsguard died then seems to be common knowledge. And yet nobody question why there were 3 of them there. The Kingsguard is supposed to protect the King and his family. Add in the fact that they fought to the death put 2 and 2 together and you get pregnancy. So how come nobody in Westeros noticed this huge hint for R+L=J?
  2. Only considering??? I'm having to actively ration my access to prevent myself from wasting all day on it
  3. Thing is Martin intentionally made the world have at least quasi Mendelian genetics, and he is often implying the dangers of incest with the Targs and the Lannisters. And yet he seems oblivious to the fact that given the low number of houses and the high pedigree requirements, most noble houses should be in the line of Charles the II "His body did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."
  4. So all noble families are inbred, be it in Westeros or IRL. There are only so many people you can marry if you want to marry to your high status. But here Westeros is special. Their levels of elitism are through the roof. Take the Freys for example. They have been along for 600 years, and yet people consider them upstarts. So if the high lords are reticent to marry their children to someone with a meager 600 years pedigree, can you imagine how high the inbreeding coefficient must be. So what do you think? Is the fact that the entirety of Westerosi nobility doesn't have the Habsburg chin a plothole, or are they somehow less inbred then they seem?
  5. How so?? Can you tell me where is the correlation?? Because no matter how many times people keep repeating this, it's still a text book Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think the numbers are irrelevant. The problem was the whole vindictive nature of the deed. Was the crucifixion of the children a horrid crime? Yes. But she should have crucified those guilty. That would have been justice, and made the point that she's tough but reasonable. Taking 163 people at random just made her look like a tyrant.
  6. Possibly, though if she wanted to keep the slavers decently integrated in the system, some appeasement was necessary.
  7. A wonderful deal compared to what they deserved, that's true. It's a matter of perspective, however. Most saw slavery as normal and natural and felt that the things Dany did were upsetting the natural order of things. Now obviously that's wrong and evil, but again it's a matter of perspective. It was obvious most will take that route. The way I see it, Dany could have clamped down harder on them, keeping them only were they were needed. She was gonna piss them off regardless, might as well keep their power at a minimum.
  8. Not really, Churchill stepped in when France was already lost. It's more like saying Chamberlin was a failure, and I mean, he was
  9. Yeah that's my point. The slavers should not be eliminated, they should be integrated like the shavepates are
  10. But it's not really. The only ones who have freedom right now are the Mereenese. She failed in providing that much freedom, and the war in ongoing. For now she failed way more then the Americans did int eh Reconstruction. There Jim Crow laws existed, but slavery still ended. Dany cannot boast of that
  11. Now that's all well and good, but here's the thing. She needs the former slavers to be a part of the new society, in some capacity. The former slaves lack the proper education (for obvious reasons) to engage in several key fields, such as high level craftsmanship, most bureaucratic jobs and basically everything that requires a high level of education. So if she wanted to build something sustainable, nuking the slavers would not have been the solution. Confiscating their fortunes however could have worked, as it would mean that those former slavers that were necessary would now have more incentive to work and those who weren't would have no power what so ever.
  12. So it's fairly obvious that Dany's campaign in Slaver's Bay has not gone that well. Personally I would say her biggest running mistake is treating the slavers at int eh worst possible way, letting them retain a lot of power, but royally pissing them off. Like she could try either appeasing them or going for the full Iron Boot on them, both of which would be more effective then what she did in ADWD. So what do you think, what were her biggest mistakes?
  13. Yeah I read a really bad fanfic about how Dany suddenly goes mad and destroys King's Landing from hearing some Bells, and Arya pulling a teleports behind you nothing personal kid that completely destroys the Others. And the dumb authors claimed it was good because it was subverting expectations. What a bad fanfic.
  14. His father never acknowledged him as not his heir. Tyrion asked because he was smart enough to guess Tywin's intentions. He is his son, and the only son that can inherit anything. Tyrion doesn't need to be acknowledged to be his heir
×
×
  • Create New...