Jump to content

Thandros

Members
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thandros

  1. It depends on how much the information really encouraged Cersei to move up her plans by which I think the answer is a couple of hours at most if that. The Stark departure can't have been too well hidden from Lannister watchers and it's likely Cersei was going to move quickly after Robert's death to purge the Starks from King's Landing anyway so it probably wouldn't have made a difference at all if Sansa hadn't spilled the beans to Cersei. She simply ensured that the Lannisters would have one hostage locked away before the fighting rather than after it. I think the entire episode says a lot more about Sansa's character and it might come back to bite her if control over the north between the Starks comes under some form of contention than having had any serious impact on the events. Ned Stark had already doomed the Starks in King's Landing by giving Cersei an offer of mercy which she decided to turn against him while Robb's campaign seems barely affect by the Lannisters holding his sister hostage. Only way Arya and Sansa get out of King's Landing together is if Ned moves their departure up 12 hours and they leave on their boat in the middle of the night. The honestly most impactful result may even be Cersei's attempt to lure out Arya using the fake Stark guards on the Braavosi ship they were planing to sail on which comes close to tricking Arya but she sees through it quickly enough to make no difference.
  2. I think half the problem with making this argument is that a lot of people here seem to think dragons are these uber magical nuke equivalents. There very much not. They're basically armored planes with nose torrent mounted flamethrowers with exposed pilots which do weird stuff the moment they no longer have a pilot. The Targaryens don't conquer Westeros by burning it to the ground with waves of dragon fire. They do it by breaking the morale the armies they are facing. The Field of Fire where Aegon has absolutely perfect conditions to wrack up a massive kill count and permanently inspire fear of dragons in all of Westeros for generations. He kills just over four thousand or so with dragon fire with another thousand or so killed by his army. A lot of the rest of the army gets away with mostly relatively minor burns from the middle of what is presented as a massive fire storm. Only some of them have permanent scarring from their burns. If the allied army hadn't lost it's leadership and held together for a charge they'd probably still been able to smash Aegon's army charging beyond the flames. And Visenya get struck by an arrow and wounded when she is described as not evening laying into the main body of the army with dragon fire. When Garin the Great faced three dragons on his march south he killed two of them with arrows while they only managed to kill thousands of his huge army which presumably relied on a mix of luck and water wizards trying to disrupt the flight of the dragons to inflict anything like telling blows with simple bows and it worked. Two of them were killed and the third was sent fleeing with it's tail between it's legs wounded while the army they brought with them was seen off. How did the Ghiscari Empire hold out for five wars. Easy Dragons are less powerful than you seem to think particularly given the Ghiscari armies are described as having excellent morale so aren't going to break from dragon fire half as easily as the Westerosi do and they likely were more aware of the Dragons and their strengths and weaknesses particularly after the first war so were better able to counter them than the Westerosi were who never seemed able to seriously learn all the lessons between battles. Also it's possible the Valyrians in the first wars had only just learned to ride dragons so only had a few weaker ones which were much more vulnerable than older dragons and it was only in the latter wars that the Valyrians had enough old powerful dragons to actually fight and win truly decisive victories. Also the dry ground of Ghiscari would not have been as ideal terrain for the kind of firestorms that proved so devastating in the Reach. I think an apt comparison is to war elephants who despite being a useful enough weapon that fairly routinely worked very well are thought of as little more than a joke because we only really remember the times they were panicked and turned on their own men and not the times they charged forward and smashed the enemy lines to pieces. Dragons are probably a flying fantasy version of War Elephants used well they are devastating but I half wonder how many times they ended up burning their own armies or descended to eat their own troops after their rider was killed in battle. Clearly the Valyrians didn't keep any records of those embarrassments.
  3. I like to think it's because that have some limited ability to see the future like the green dreams of Jojen and they've seen just how badly wrecked Westeros is going to be by the current civil wars that are ravaging everywhere and it gives them the best shot of ensuring victory over the living. Interestingly a couple of other conflicts are associated with nasty winters which suggest preemptive awakenings associated with conflict which didn't pan out and they went back to sleep which definitely gives the idea that they're looking for opportunity.
  4. Tywin horribly misplayed his hand here and it only worked out at all because of a massive stroke of good fortune. When Catelyn took Tyrion Twyin had a nice safe option of appealing to the king. Appealing about the illegal seizure on spurious grounds of one of the members of their family and demand he be returned. Eventually reports of their arrival at the Eyrie arrive and they are summoned back to King's Landing and both sides have their cases heard and everything ends up working out. Tyrion is released once the falsehood of the evidence is revealed and Catelyn perhaps escapes any serious consequences by playing on female stereotypes in the world of Westeros and Tywin gets to ensure vengeance on the person responsible by having Baelish executed for his role in masterminding the entire thing and maybe gets even more influence by arranging the replacement master of coin. Assuming Joffrey's role in the entire thing doesn't come out the Lannisters have firmly come out on top and can possibly extract a bit of grovelling from the Starks to enhance their prestige. Except they'd have to work through the king and Tywin doesn't really like having to rely on people above him to achieve his goals. It would particularly in this case the limitations of his power and I doubt he could stand that. Instead he decides to find a plan b which results in one of the many poorly thought out hare brained schemes that dominate most of ASOIAF's plot. He decides to effectively break the King's peace with raiders with only the most basic of steps taken to prevent revealing who was behind it because Tywin clearly thought that people knowing he was behind it was a good idea when it probably wasn't to lure Ned into an ambush. Right and then what? Assuming Robert isn't killed by the boar (Given Cersei was relying on a drunken hunting accident to remove him it easily have gone poorly for her) he's now had his best friend been kidnapped and held hostage. Good excuse for a war if Robert wanted one and now he can significantly improve the realms finances in one fell swoop. Most of the realm would eagerly side with him in such a war. Tywin has no serious allies to call upon who would actually stick with him and even the lords of the Westerlands might decide not to join him in a suicide conflict. This of course assumes that he is unaware of Cersei's actions which seems reasonable. If he is aware the plan makes a little more sense as a ruse to cover a military build up which can be legally unleashed once Robert is dead and Cersei is regent. The entire thing does suit Tywin's personality and his desire to send out the right messages from his point of view. A preference for dramatic statements of the risks of opposing Tywin Lannister and his wrath rather than more intelligent displays of cunning and diplomacy would definitely fit him to a tee. Dramatic overreactions to deal with problems in the least efficient way is definitely how he normally deals with most problems. He got lucky as Robert's death allow him to turn a seemingly inevitable disaster into a fairly advantageous start to the fighting in the Riverlands. If Robert hadn't died he was looking into serious possibilities of major issues in the future as had to figure his way out of the corner he was boxing himself into regardless of how well it was working out for him.
  5. Maybe but weirdly it could make a lot of sense him ending up king of Westeros. Most of the other surviving members of the great houses are either going into any post war resolution council to figure out who should be in charge with lots of baggage that would arguably prevent them becoming king without vast opposition. The Baratheons are likely to be all dead in legitimate lines that aren't distant cousins. Robin Arryn may not survive and Harry the Heir doesn't exactly look like kingly material from what we've seen if he survives. The Lannisters of any relations have no hope. The Greyjoys fall into the same boat. Edmure is likely to be the only Tully to survive and he's not exactly looked upon well by everyone so he might get pushed aside. The Tyrells have historically struggled to control their own region and they come from a lesser house before the conquest and that assumes Cersei leaves any alive if she has the opportunity to get her way. The Martells might be in an alright position after everything has ended but it's possible Arianne meets an unfortunate end if she gets too closely involved with Aegon and Tyrstane and Doran might not be in an ideal position if backing Aegon ends up getting them badly burnt. King Bran basically requires no Targaryen claimants of any merit to be in positions of power so assume Aegon and Dany kill each other or remove themselves from the game in some dramatic fashion and Jon decides maybe he just wants nothing to do with it and wanders off or his legitimacy (if he has any) is called too much into question to be taken seriously. That leaves the Starks and Bran who have had much more shit done to them than they've been dishing out and Bran himself has spent a good chunk of the civil strife lost or beyond the wall conveniently not making political enemies. The fact he can't walk may only encourage ambitious lords hoping to take advantage of a weak king to support him in hopes of crippling royal authority. I think King Bran in the vacuum of legitimate leadership (possible given the Baratheons look likely to die off completely and the Targaryens I don't think have much better odds and the Martells may end up just as badly and have been diplomatically isolated for almost a generation) has a number of advantages. He has few hardened political enemies who might bare grudges against him and may end up with powerfully allies in a number of regions depending on how the cards fall at the end. His opponents to take the position are largely discredited and he may well have other actions he's done to encourage support. Of course this would all seem to be at odds with Bran's principal character journey of ignoring temporal power in favour of higher spiritual or magical power instead e.g. Bran won't be a knight but he'll learn to fly instead. Of course his victory in the game of thrones could end up being construed as the limitations of physical means of exerting authority as against more esoteric justifications of authority and power. The Lannister faction had all the manpower and gold it could in theory ever need but it hasn't helped them one lick in actually consolidate authority over the Seven kingdoms. The Starks and Bran in particular have very limited or no forms of conventional power yet they may end up triumphing in spite of these supposed limitations.
  6. Umm the same reason most castles have sally ports. A well timed and executed sally against an unprepared enemy can devastate them such that they are forced to retreat and abandon the siege. Given the nature of the wall it's possible the gates are later additions and the black gate was originally the principle way through designed to ensure only black brothers left or entered. It might say something about Other tactics that such a thing might be considered necessary. Something to consider is the concept of the red herring or maybe the term coincidence means nothing to you. Of course you've probably got some theory about the number seven because it appears everywhere in the older stories. Even though it's just Septons inserting the number everywhere they can. Not every tiny match up of numbers is going to be significant. Because those castles have equally been rebuilt and coastal erosion. Pyke sits on a series of Stacks. They erode away. Not quickly but they do. The sea tower sites on the outermost sack and is the oldest because it's stack has been around the longest and will likely be the next to fall into the sea. It's simple geology of coastal erosion. Waves attack rock and erode it. Weaker rocks erode faster to create arches. Arches collapse to form stacks. Stack erode and topple to form stumps. It's not a precise process depends on the rock but it will happen eventually. This isn't even speculation the descript of Pyke in AWOIAF literally says this happened over time. The oldest part of Winterfell must be somewhat older than two thousand years old and I find it unlikely the oldest part of Pyke is that old. Also None of these castles were likely actually built by Brandon the builders. He's a sort of mythic figure not likely to actually exist. But a Bunch of old castles claim to have been built by them despite probably only reaching their current form thousands of years later in much more recent times. No it doesn't. When a language borrows a word sure it's the same for a time but Basque borrowed from the Latin term Regem perhaps two thousand years ago or maybe a little later it's hard to say. It's long ceased to be a latin term and aquired a basque nature and a basque set of forms. It's ceased to be a foreign word in Basque but a loanword and as such a part of basque. Or do you consider half of English to be a different language.
  7. One possibility is that different kings have merged to together over time defined only by their stories. Kings with the same name would end up looking very similar particularly if their stories lack distinguishing marks to tell them apart.Also do you think the Ironborn universally noted as unintellectual would have the capacity to organise the forgery of thousands of records in the citadel in such a way that no would be able to ever tell the differences and then have those changes applied to records of the Ironborn kept elsewhere. Westeros has a fair degree of the centralisation of knowledge but I don't think it's so extreme that even the Ironborn could falsify a huge amount of history. With the Night's Watch at least you could easily have several in a year without problems assuming elections are held quickly and given the nature of the job you easily expect to lose Lord Commanders fairly routinely and remember the History of the Nihgt's Watch goes back 8000 years or so plenty of time to have 998 Lord Commanders and Samwell finds some very old lists listing only 600 or Lord Commanders so they have records detailing their Lord Commanders going back quite some time at the very least. Errege is King in Basque not Latin though it is apparently derives from Latin (which if true would be a very interesting thing to try and understand about very early basque culture and their organisation). The numbers thing is probably another coincidence. It should also be noted while Lonely light and it's rocks are grouped with the Iron Islands in every sense they are unconnected. They're eight days sail away. That's no small distance so far beyond that they will probably not show up on most maps at all. Ummm no. That is all rubbish. Remember this detail. The Greyirons were wipped out by the arrival of the Andals in the Iron Islands (The Hoares do have some andal blood some marrying Andal wives to strengthen their position). Also Torgon Greyiron comes at least a thousand years prior to the end of House Greyiron and the arrival of the Andals in the Iron Islands involving timelines and tales of a some what dubious note. At the very least he comes from teh Kingsmoot era which is the older section of Ironborn history and probably pre Andal which makes this all highyl unlikely at best. Also the Black Gate isn't for sacrificing children. It's likely an old secret way across the wall that can only be used by the Watchmen to come and go in relative security for leading sorties or scouting their enemies undetected. Harren's brother and Harren have no evidence of coordination and it's more likely Harren forced his brother into the Night's Watch to secure his position. So is Winterfell's oldest tower and no one suggests they are secret Andals. Given the location and state of Pyke it probably losses Towers at a routine basis as their stack are eroded away by the sea. it's probably younger than the First Keep in Winterfell by a considerable margin. The island was a pirate den but nothing to suggest the builds were. Likely the pirates were Ironborn when they held Oldtown in the distant past. I should note the settlement is said to have originally been found by a sea faring people though given the suggestions they may not have travelled the sea in any conventional means if the deep ones are behind it like the Seastone chair and the Toad stone among others. It certainly gives some creepy edge to the Ironborn worship of the drowned god but I don't think it says much about the Hightowers themselves or whatever connections they have. They may have arrived and taken over the original oldtown some time after it's founding.
  8. The Thing with Qarlon the Great is he must lie a little earlier than you say. Lorath was unoccupied for more than a century so it's more likely that the Andal occupation ended around maybe 1800 BAC or even earlier but certainly less than a thousand years before 1436. IT certainly works with the beginngings as early as maybe 3000BAC with the earliest Andals pulled across by promises of land and wealth while the last few were pushed across by fear of the Valyrians perhaps as late as 1500BAC but I doubt any serious groups of Andals cross after this. I agree it's possible some Essossi Andals survived around the site of Braavos after the end of the Andal invasion I don't think they were destroyed as late as you say. Theon Stark can't be as late you claim. His invasion of the Three Sisters and the Fingers would probably place him during the war between the Waters so closer to 2000 BAC-1000 BAC if you assume later dates for the War between the Waters. Another thing to note is at least some Essossi Andals were integrated into Pentos to some to give the Pentosi a measure of Andal blood so at least some must have linger on or around the site of Pentos. Most other Essossi Andals presumably either integrated into Braavos or lingered in the hills of western Andalos and diminished into nothingness. While I think your right about the Valyrian Steel since most swords with dates go back to that era. The thing about the Sept of Dragonstone is that it probably only goes back to the Targaryen arrival. The statues of the seven are noted by Davos to be supposedly carved from the masts of the ships that brought the Targaryen's to Dragonstone. The sept was either built or organised only after they arrived perhaps as an attempt to integrate better into Westerosi society they intended to connect with. Your Ironborn stuff contains several problems for one the dates you gave Qhorwyn Hoare are the last possible dates for his son Harwyn Hoare who probably actually ruled earlier roughly 110BAC to 70BAC assuming his son had a reign of twenty to thirty years. The actually order of Ironborn kings is definitely a very messy topic. Kings who must have ruled after the end of the Kingsmoot are claimed to have been selected by one. I half suspect the entire Iron Island history section of AWOIAF is little more than an unordered collection of stories like Herodotus' dealing with the history of Egyptian pharaohs. Qhored I is about the only early Ironborn king we can even guess a date assuming both the tales of his power and his destruction of the Justman's is true (assuming their aren't two Qhored's with different dates if so these dates would be for the later Qhored) can't date much later than around 1000BAC unless the Teague's and other intermittent dynasts of the Riverlands lasted a lot longer than is otherwise said. With this said I'd put Harrag Hoare and Ravos before Qhored with them representing an early return of Ironborn power before Qhored briefly exert genuine authority over much of the west coast before the defeat of his successors drove the Hoares to engage in trade and friendly dealings with the Greenlanders leading to Harmund and Hagon. Of course it also possible Qhored Hoare was the later king and an earlier Qhored GreyIron or Blacktyde was the original one with stories of the two getting merged into one. Either way the Ironborn history is a mess and we can't properly make heads or tales of it. Someone's either made a mistake or it wasn't properly thought through somewhere. I doubt Qhored was looking for anything in the Citadel archives as it's an early Qhored I doubt the Citadel would even exist and even a later one I doubt would be hunting for knowledge of dragons or something like that. As for the Mormonts I'm inclined to believe they are old and that the Northern Conquest of Bear Island originally took place during the pre Andal invasion era of Ironborn kings since It only seems reasonable a Greyjoy would be King during the Kingsmoot era. As for Jorah Mormont being called an Andal he's only done so by Dothraki who don't or can't distinguish between the different ethnic groups of Westeros so call them all Andals. One thing to consider is that I don't believe we ever get any good descriptions of the fortifications of any Essossi Cities. Round towers and such are better for defence but trickier and more expensive to actually build. Simple practicality would dictate that most buildings are built square with only towers built for defence being round except if whoever was building them had artistic vision in mind.
  9. I was simply pointing out outside forces exploiting internal divisions to take over is hardly uncommon. I'm not sure how that is deflection all of a sudden.
  10. It is but it's hardly the only time an outside force has exploited local divisions to their own advantage. the conquistadors in Mexico and Peru had were similarly able to exploit local differences to their own advantage in taking over and Caeser also initially does in Gaul. It's hardly uncommon scenario. Look hard enough and you can find it. Possibly but they were Andal ideas made by Andals who came over. Given the time involved saying anything is impossible but the faith in it's most basic form must predate the Andal invasion to a degree and emerged in Essos. Some of the other stuff may have emerged later in Andal culture but who can say.
  11. The Stormlanders are the Anglo Saxons. Invited in to deal with a disturbance in Britain (Riverlands) aiding one side against the other and then refusing to leave and end up taking over. The Iron born conquest is the invasion of the Vikings. They initially defeat the Local forces of the Riverlands (Northumbria and other Anglo saxon kingdoms) and eventually manage to win victories against the men of Wessex (Stormlands) and they were able to claim control of part of the Kingdom of the Stormlands, the Riverlands (Northumbria and East Anglia and elsewhere). It's a very rough paraphrasing at best and misses some details but mostly works. On the Iron age. Some Iron artifacts made by smelting go back as far as 1800 BCE the general consensus that large scale smelting began around 1200 BCE long before the end of the Dark Age (a period which really only refers to Greece, the other regions have their own periodization which often doesn't match up.) That entire last section is a random hodgepodge of different myths tales and legends of no historical value. Maybe people did believe them but I doubt anyone would seriously claim to be descended from them. Theories exist but that doesn't mean their right or important. You seem to think every thing is connected with the right wacky interpretation I can produce an answer that will answer everything and fail to realise in the process you've created theories that lack any basis in anything. If you want me to give a serious answer please produce a serious piece of writing to analyse in the first place. Slapping every myth you find together does not make an argument. The Hoares when they controlled Oldtown could alter the records all they wanted but they can't change the fact that when Aegon landed Oldtown and the Hightower were held by the Hightowers as bannerman to the Gardener Kings. "The Greatest city in all of Westeros, Oldtown was ringed with massive walls, and ruled by the Hightowers of the Hightower, the oldest, richest, and most powerful of the noble houses of the Reach. … Thus it was that no men from Oldtown Burned on the field of fire, though the Hightowers were bannermen to the Gardeners of Highgarden." Fire and Blood p23-25 There literally in the text. The Hightowers ruled oldtown as Bannermen to the Gardeners. No uberpowerful Hoares ruling everything and only stopped by the arrival of Aegon. As for Euron. I think conquest is the last thing on his mind. Kings age and die, their realms crumble around them and turn to dust and ashes in their hands. Gods live forever though both in reality and in the minds of their worshipers. Just a couple of things about the Vandals. One they were a germanic people not vikings. Viking is a particular Norse term refering to an activity not a group of people and two the Vandals never invaded Britain as a group. They crossed the rhine in 409 into Gaul then entered Spain before eventually invading and settling North Africa before being effectively destroyed when the Vandal Kingdom was conquered by Justinian. One the greek view is highly reductionist and extremely inapplicable particularly if you are trying to compare polytheistic and monotheistic religions. It often won't work very well and you should really analyse culture with it's own context not try to force it to fit another. First point is that the connection between Earendel and dawnbringer relies on a possible connection across different language groups from opposite ends of Europe. Also Koine greek develops into Medieval Greek before Old English really begins to appear depending on who you ask. Second with the Morning Star you once again cross cultures and language groups to assimilate the Morning Star and Lucifer. Lucifer is the Latin name for the Morning Star not related to Lucifer of the Bible. It relies on mistranslation of the Hebrew Old testament through Latin into English to create. it's not important. And then you compound by mistaking the given grammar. David is the bright morning Star not Jesus. The section in the comma refers to the individual before it not the one at the start. One if you've forgotten Zeus was the son of Kronus so he cast Hyperion away from nothing. Two Zeus didn't have children until after the overthrow of Kronus that part doesn't make sense. Three given I've broken the Morning star, jesus and lucifer connection already the rest makes no sense. Iaeptus is equated with Japheth. They're not the same chracter they come from vastly different mytholigical underpinnings. Trying to make them the same is just the wrong thing to do. Aphrodite is much more commonly said to have been born from the cut off private parts of Ouranos. Also Greek myth is mess with different places having different beliefs and ideas which don't always come together. The casket is a casket. They decided to give it a bunch of different images on all it's sides from different places and peoples. The connection to Troy relies on the incomplete lid which is disputed as to what it refers. It's hard to place anyone's actual belief based purely on what they placed on a casket. Very important for early anglo saxon art and culture. It suggests they had knowledge of familiarity with a wide variety of topics to carve into it. I'm not sure what your trying to go with here. Also they ain't the ancients. By the time of the poems they'd have entered the Medieval period. The object Frodo holds up is a Phial containing the light of Earendil not Earendil the star or the person. The Star's in the sky and the light is the Silmaril Earendil carried to Valinor and then bore upon his brow in the sky forevermore. Earendil is the father of Elros and Elrond who traveled across the sea from Beleriand to Valinor to because the Arda to provide aid against Morgoth.
  12. Great idea the andals were always in Westeros. One problem we have at least one account of Andals that you can't exactly disprove because of poor records. Qarlon the Great who led an attack on Norvos and provoked Valyrian retribution. Also if the Andals where never in Essos where does Andalos get it's name from. It would be a great theory if it held the slightest bit of evidence that would actually allow it to exist. Ok this goes from unsubstantiated theory making to out the window madness. Ok one Azor Ahai and christ have very little in common except for being important figures in religion. Azor Ahai is a warrior hero while Christ very explicitly isn't. There's a lot of stuff that's very dubious in their including the crazy stupid idea that the Vikings are somehow related to the Lost tribes of Israel. I can't explain how stupid that is. You mention technological progress as a means to determine your 'timeline' So assuming the conquest correlates to around the norman conquest so 1066 onwards dating back to the beginning of the Iron age puts the date around 2300 BAC or perhaps a bit earlier than that dating in the ancient world is hard. For the first men assuming they have reliable access to both copper and tin we could probably not unreasonably take the date for their arrival back towards maybe 7,000 or 8,000 BAC. Based on the evidence for organised smelting in the real world at lest 6,000 years BCE and maybe even further. Like I said dating anything in the ancient world is very hard. Your decision to compare the viking invasion to the Andal invasion is curious given both have better comparisons. The Andal invasion is perhaps better compared to the invasions of the sea peoples which played a role in ending the bronze age kingdoms of the near east and could be compared with ideas from Greek myth of the Dorian invasion. The anglo saxon migration and the viking invasions are perhaps better compared with the Stormlander conquest of the river lands (beginning with the arrival of the saxon/stormlanders to aid against domestic enemies and they end up staying) and the Iron Born invasion of the Riverlands. The long Night/ Trojan war comparison is rubbish. The Trojan war in greek myth was the swan song of the age of heroes, their last great deeds and a plot by Zeus to kill off as many demigods as possible, so it falls better right before the Andal invasion where as the long night falls in the middle of the age of heroes and lacks an obvious historical counterpart (unless you want to start considering flood myths though that may relate to the breaking of the arm of Dorne).
  13. The thing is the Wolf's den is the name for White Harbour before the Manderlys arrived to found White harbour a thousand years before Aegon's conquest. This means at the very least the attack on the Wolf's den occurred over a thousand years before Aegon's conquest and the king's who launched the attack are not the original king who began the war at the very least it occurred a generation or more after the start of the war. Given that the Lord of Sweet sister believes the Rape of the Three Sisters occurred two thousand years ago according to the Maesters I'm willing to go along with that date as a reasonable one. A lot of the rest of the early I've already contested so let's get to the meat. What I think is going on is massive over reach by you based on sources from different periods into some massive Ironborn empire which never really existed. The Hoare sigil marks historical conquests. By the time the Maesters really come into existence they've long lost Oldtown and other areas and it for example doesn't mentioned the greatest Hoare conquest of all the Riverlands. It's likely the sigil is a later post Andal creation which reflects the historical might of the Hoares. As for the issues with Qhored Hoare the obvious answer is. There is more than one Qhored Hoare and our sources simply don't distinguish between them. One who was a great king during the olden early days of the Ironborn before the coming of the Andals who conquered a vast empire and a second later one after the Hoares became hereditary kings of the Iron Islands who fought and defeated the Justman dynasty. Given that Qhored Hoare was the greatest king of the Ironborn in their early days then is makes sense that they would name some of their sons after him. We see it everywhere else after all. The Hoares at Aegon's conquest ruled the Iron Islands and the Riverlands and nowhere else. If they did we would have seen references in the actual text to Ironborn control of these areas. The Night's Watch was simply led by his brother at the time he had no control or influence over them let alone the lands in between. The Crabs are references to Hoster having cancer which I believe the ancient Greeks described as crabs pinching the stomach or something like that. Not something to do with Ironborn or some other wacky conspiracy. What do I think is going on? Once again you worked up a crazy theory in your head from a bunch of half gathered references from different points with little connection and tried to call it some idea of Ironborn domination of Westeros only stopped by the arrival of Aegon the Conquerer.
  14. Actually it does conform to the ideas of justice. Considering whether a criminal would reoffend is something judges should and I believe do consider in sentencing. Janos has committed a crime. If spared death (death being a reasonable punishment which in this case you could argue it is) he will commit further crimes and lead others possibly into committing crimes then enacting a punishment which will protect the innocent (relative term here) from his villainy would be in the spirit of justice. The idea of justice being blind I think means that it shouldn't be who you are that determines what happens to you. Instead it should be how you live your life, how you act and think and what you've done and why that determines how you are punished. Janos slynt is clearly a slime who'll do any horrible deed for his own advancement and has already tried to extrajudicially execute Jon for a crime other more reasonable people have basically taken the view he was innocent of. He had every reason to suspect Slynt would commit further crimes of a worse nature than his initial one and acted accordingly.
  15. I suspect that the Lords of the Crownlands are engaging in part a deliberate policy to diminish their military strength for political gain. Like the in the RIverlands where refusal to grant charters to prospective growing towns to restrict their size the Crownlands seem to have had a similar policy in stifling the formulization of city governance as provided by a formal charter. Given that the Crownlands arguably have the most urbanized population of any region this could have serious consequences. We know Denys Darklyn sought a charter for Duskendale which probably if he'd gotten the one he wanted would have granted him economic advantages to strengthen his trade but would equally have required other less palatable concessions on topics such as self governance (a double edged sword which could have given the Darklyns more or less control over Duskendale) and rights over the organization of a town militia. Such could represent a considerable force of men particularly in a massive city like King's Landing. Yet at the same time an armed force of commoners inside your own city walls right outside your own gates would have given the urban burghers who ran the city considerable leverage over the crown. Such urban militias in the real world represented a considerable force of semi professional infantry of reasonable quality and a valuable force. Clearly the political risks in allowing such an armed force to be organized so close to his castle. In fact their seems to be no evidence of any such urban militia in any of the cities of Westeros suggesting either deliberate policy to restrict the political capacity of urban elements or incomplete world building.
  16. Technically speaking if Tytos' line fails is to reduced to unacceptable candidates it would go to Damion Lannister or his father Damon Lannister (who we don't know if he's alive or not) much more background characters we know nothing at all about. Daven Lannister I suspect would do a good job if the circumstances called for it but he isn't the first in line after the descendants of Tytos he's just much more prominent.
  17. …. you seem to be completely missing the point. Sure in the original timeline they were all alive if not necessarily available (Willem and Martyn were prisoners of Robb) in a scenario where Renly takes King's Landing then Tyrion and Lancel are either dead or prisoners of Renly. This would leave the Westerlands in the hands of women, distant cousins or Freys if Tywin and Kevan die. Your second section seems to be making a completely unrelated point to both the first and the context of the conversation so I'm going to ignore it.
  18. Unless Tyrion and Cersei's plans with Tommen work out and Tommen ends up in the Westerlands. All of that happening is rather unlikely and that leaves Tywin as a directionless rebel with no cause diminishing manpower and resources and extremely limited ability to bring in reinforcements from anywhere given that Renly would control the sea of the Reach by that point. Tywin also has no future to count upon given his only available heir of his name is a two year old girl if him and Kevan kick the bucket. Unless he goes into Genna's brood but two of them are also prisoners including the eldest, one we know nothing about and only the youngest is known to be safe. With Tommen Tywin can present a threat to Renly ideologically and could attempt to swing alliances his way. Without him Tywin is out of friends and doesn't really have a cause to motivate his men. Renly could leave him for a while to see if his forces simply break apart and he can capitalize by accepting Westlander defections. Particularly if he's able to get his hands on some Westermen captives from Robb Stark. The other thing to consider is where Renly's army is. King's Landing. To directly attack Tywin he has to march all the way back through the Reach and then up the ocean road. Both other routes to the Westerlands lead through the Riverlands and Robb Stark would probably feel either compelled or advantageous to harass his flank if Renly tried to march along the Gold Road. But Robb Stark's separatism does represent a threat to Renly's power base. The longer Robb Stark resists Renly the more his ideas of breaking up the Seven Kingdoms would take root. If Renly leaves Robb alone for a year to defeat Tywin (and given the defences Tywin may be able to rely on it could easily take longer) then Robb will have a year to consolidate his state and bed down the ideas of an independent North and Riverlands as well as encouraging the Vale to join them. But after Renly would have taken King's Landing the Northern Kingdom was in shambles. Large swaths of the North were effectively out of his control and he'd lost his lines of communication to the North. A quick strike and some victories could unravel Robb's entire kingdom particularly if the Freys or Boltons decide to defect and a relatively gentle hand could help keep the North in line freeing him up engage the more dug in Lannisters on more favourable terms. On the other hand Tywin can gain advantages by attacking the Northerners in the Riverlands. He can free captives Robb holds helping improve his internal politics and if Renly takes a hard line and Robb suffers defeats encourage defections if it appears the choice is allying with the Lannisters or dying fighting Renly. It's quite reasonable to assume that Tywin has a larger army than Robb does in this situation.
  19. That is exactly right and it would have worked in hindsight with Stannis. But the plan would have been made with Renly in mind who is absolutely hostile to Robb. If it goes perfectly Tywin has a large army in the Westerlands and Renly still has his massive Reach and Stormlander Army in King's Landing. Robb Stark is stuck in the middle of two larger armies both hostile to him. Effectively Robb is the same position at the start of ACOK but the armies on his flanks are larger and all he has gained is Harrenhall and some loot and plunder. His only hope is to assume Renly goes after Tywin and Tywin is able to grind him down enough having lost one of the better opportunities to diminish Renly's forces.
  20. Robb Stark's military plan during ACOK. Most of these plans have some tiny slim prospect of improving the situation of the ones initiating the plans. Robb's plan if everything goes exactly as he was planning puts him in a worse military position than he started. It only had the chance of working in his favour at all because of stuff he likely didn't even consider occurring when he was originally making the plan. It works much better in hindsight than it ever could have in foresight.
×
×
  • Create New...