Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thandros

  1. I apologise for being unable to convince you that not every off hand mention of one character and another as somehow being in the slightest bit similar is sufficient to form the basis of a theory. You may require people more experienced with correcting such beliefs.
  2. Of course they didn't they're dumb plants they don't have highly intelligent greenseer spirits living inside them to tell them that it's a trick and not to waste energy by coming to life. Other plants don't have that. They weren't Ifeguevron is so far from where the Valryians actually went as to be ridiculous. It's lie on the opposite side of the original region of the Dothraki sea. If the Valyrians desired to conquer there why hadn't taken Sarnor first instead. There aren't any serious suggests the trees in Qarth are related to the children of the forest in anyway are there or do you have information I lack. Also on the God's Eye that's the name of the lake not the island. The island is the isle of faces which looking back at your statement seems to be a mistake your making unless you're not making yourself clear again. Either way there are probably plenty of coincidental names that could possibly tie into some massive theory if you just squint at it the right way. Doesn't mean it is actually the case though does it.
  3. Have you considered the possibility you were right to dismiss it as nothing. If we ordered the book by order written it wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense. The prologues and epilogues are only distinguished by their titles which mark them as chapter's whose characters are going to die. They are mostly directly connected to the story and basically indistinguishable some are directly connected and relevant to the plot. If you go by time why not consider the first two Dany chapter's prologues they clearly take place some time before the rest of the story. Givne the Faceless men have their origins in the volcanic mines of valyria I doubt the COTF had anything to do with them. The bleeding of the Weirwood is probably sap and it wouldn't have bleed during the tourney of Harrenhal. The Tourney of Harrenhal took place during the false spring when some but not all thought spring had arrived. The maesters disagreed and presumably a partially magic tree is smart enough to know the warm weather is a trick and not start coming back to life after a long winter. The God's Eye is called that because it looks like an eye if you're a god (from above). Why must it's name tie it to characters acting millennium after it formed. Bloodraven must be alive. Varamyr believes in his chapter that once his true body dies and he takes another his gift dies with him. Bloodraven is still clearly a powerful skinchanger and greenseer so assuming the same applies then he should be alive of a sorts.Leaf also describes as still being alive and while she may be lying given that he hasn't totally gone into the tree we must assume he is still sort of alive.
  4. I see I stand corrected. Thank you for providing evidence. Yes of course so the first part with the execution was equally tacked on since he only mentions the second half of the chapter with the Direwolves. No doubt that bit is somehow less valid as a chapter then the rest of it. Or would you disagree. I'm simply telling you what I think of your 'theories'. It establishes the degree of distance between our two points of view and as such enables us to being our discussion with an idea of how much ground each of us has to cover to bring our opposite to their point of view. The use of a term you consider insulting by states your theories are something lacking in sense was a way of establish how little I agree with you on anything.
  5. AGOT doesn't have an epilogue and also their is no way to tell which chapter was written first and in what order they were written unless you have Word of God somewhere saying elsewise. I know my insults don't validate my opinions otherwise you'd be seeing an awful lot more of them and they'd be more graphic and more direct. The Night's King is an ancient legend from the mists of Pre History where it is hard to place any detail as certainty. For all we know even the fact that he reigned for thirteen years may be false and a length dated back based on superstitions about the number thirteen rather than the actual length of his reign. Of course an evil overlord who lasted six months because his castles are indefensible is a lot less scary than one who ruled for thirteen years and required an alliance stretching both sides of the Wall to finally defeat him. Also he's very much long dead and won't actually be appearing in the Story at all beyond a few spooky legends. For AFFC the Soiled knight refers to Aerys Oakheart as he's considers himself dirty because he broke his oaths. I don't think what he's doing needs to refer to some other event in the past. ALso Arya isn't meeting an undead person in her thirteenth chapter. She's meeting a very much alive person wearing an illusion like the worm she tries to eat. He only looks undead as a test for new initiates that what their joining is scary dangerous and the faint of heart should turn around now. Also Arya doesn't meet Berick in chapter thirteen of ASOS. She meets the Brotherhood without banners and the person she meets at the end is Harwin who is very much alive and presumably has both his eyes. Make theories with correct information it makes agreeing with them enough to not bother arguing against them so much easier. The Kindly man has an illusion designed to frighten off people arriving at the house of black and white. It doesn't have to be connected to Bloodraven. Bloodraven is weird but their nothing to suggest he's undead he's just stretching his life span beyond normal means by fusing with a Weirwood tree. Beric is undead but nothing seems to link resurrection by Red Priests and the magic of the First men. Not everything is connected and the Faceless Men long predate Bloodraven and the Greenseers long predate the Faceless men and their seems no connection between them in any meaningful sense from what is presented. The Arys Oakheart plot bears no resemblance to what may have happened with Rhaegar and Lyanna I don't know what your getting at. the Stuff with Daemon is that it took two weeks fro Aemond to hear of him and arrive at Harrenhall. If Thirteen was truly a number of significance then surely the confrontation would have occurred on the thirteenth day rather than the fourteenth day. What is the connection? Provide evidence beyond the thirteen years thing.That may not be accurate at all or it could be a complete coincidence. The thing is GRRM doesn't number his chapter we do. The only difference between Will (Prologue) and Bran 1 is that Will's chapter doesn't have his name at the top.
  6. Because they ruin your nonsense theory making. First thing the Night's King is a figure of only historical curiosity. He was simply a man of unknown presumably northern origin who was an enemy sufficiently powerful to force the Free Folk and Northerns to ally against and held command of the Night's Watch. Everything about him is purely curiosity and of no real relevance to Modern ASOIAF so to say. His Queen is the more interesting one.If was either a daughter of a Barrow king as the Maesters suggest or simply a woman who worshiped the Others she possesses no further relevancy. If you was a female Other it suggest both that Others are capable of controlling the living in some manner and they are capable of far more subtle tactics than they have currently shown. As for the rest of what your saying it's all rubbish. Relying on an literary coincidence to support some kind of theory. I'm not even entirely sure what you're trying to suggest with all this but I doubt anything can even be drawn. You struggle to do anything with AFFC 13th chapter and you to turn to your own incorrect theories to justify AGOT and ACOK 13th chapter's having any relevancy. If the best a theory can conure up to support it is literary coincidence then it probably isn't a theory worth supporting. While their is definitely reason to be suspect about Bloodraven and his methods I doubt he is actually going as far as working with the Others since he is working with the Children and they were essential in stopping the first Long Night so I doubt they'd side with an ally of the others.
  7. 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.
  8. Septa Lemore probably isn't Tyene's mother. Arianne comments on crossing the Mander to go see her with three Sand Snakes. Presumably this can't have occurred too long ago otherwise I doubt Arianne would have been allowed to make the journey. Another thing to consider is that Lemore has dark brown hair. Tyene however has blond hair which makes the entire thing unlikely. Illyrio giving Dany three dragon eggs was likely a sop to convince her and Viserys he was on their side. He never expected them to hatch.If Aegon is fake (and I'm inclined to think so for a few reasons) working with the genuine Targaryens would no doubt be great for his support. Viserys would probably have been bumped off during the invasion had he lasted that long to allow him to appear. After that the plan was to bring Dany to him and have her recognise him as her nephew to legitimise his claim. Doran is probably oblivious. Varys can't risk the secret getting out and even in Dorne he can't be certain their aren't informants who would tell to Robert or the Lannisters if they overheard a secret discussion about it. Of course if Aegon is a fake all the more reason not to let in Doran to the plot in case he realises it. Your second section draws a lot of tangential connections that mostly seem irrelevant and the wording is so confusing that in places it's impossible to tell what your actually trying to say. (minor note it was the kindly old man with the worm not the waif though given the faceless men who knows.) Not every connection is important. Mirri Maz Duur and Maestar Marwyn is probably the most substantial and proven connection you've mentioned but even that I doubt is going to amount to much. Mirri acted against Dany for personal reasons while Marwyn was likely only connected to her through association and exchange. Him teaching her healing and her teaching him his spells. The rest you mention are mostly coincidences or unimportant to broader schemes. Sure you could argue Bloodraven is 'closely related' to a lot of house Stark's enemies. You could also argue Tywin was carrying out a massive gambit to destroy House Lannister deliberately. Your last section makes even less sense. Sure the Starks came through the Reach maybe related to Brandon of the Bloody Blade. So did every other house. The First men didn't pop out of the ground in the North they migrated there across the Arm of Dorne and then made their way north. Just about every detail of family relations from this period is suspect and their is no reason to suggest the Starks arrived exceptionally later than other houses. Also no Bloodraven wasn't the night King. The thirteen stuff is a coincidence and I'll note Old Nan suggests just about every Northern house but doesn't even mention the Blackwoods Their is one principal problem withe Lemore as Ashara and that's age. Ashara would be somewhere in her thirties according to Word of God. I lean towards her being around the same age or a little younger than Eddard so roughly 36 or maybe 37 if she were alive. Lemore is described by Tyrion as being in her forties. Probably not Implausible for such a mistake but it feels a little unlikely. Of course as you say it's only plausible if Aegon is genuine which I'm pretty certain he isn't.
  9. No doubt his will (if he had a written one) would have left almost everything he had to Jamie. Everyone would promptly laugh at it and him before begrudgingly handing it over to Tyrion since legally he was the heir even if Tywin never recognised it. To be honest once's Tywin's dead his own plans for succession matter less than what is capable of happening both by the law and by the power of the individuals involved. Tywin really wanted Jamie to inherit Casterly Rock. But unless upon Tywin's death someone was willing to break you know the formal precedent that the Kingsguard serve for life again (and Jamie seems keen on that incident being a one off) and Jamie was willing to have a go at being Lord of the Westerlands (that again would be a no) then it wouldn't happen.
  10. I think they probably targeted the eggs rather than the dragons themselves. Dragons are nasty, tough and breath fire and have an unfortunate tendency to eat people. Dragons eggs are mostly harmless until they hatch of course. With the right poison you could in theory exploit eggs need to breathe (assuming dragon eggs work like any other eggs) to allow a poison into them to harm the developing dragons. This could explain the wyrm that hatched to attack Laena Velaryon (the one after the Dance) and why some of the later dragons were so small and stunted. They'd been poisoned while they were embryos until they all died in their eggs once the Maesters finally got the dosage and process just right to kill them in their eggs. Purely speculation of course. We probably won't get any definitive answers. Unless some Maester was stupid enough to write down everything they'd done.
  11. A few points. One by Towton Edward was crowned. Two by male preference primogeniture Edward had the superior claim over Henry. Three by this point Henry had so little authority that after the Lancastrian victory at the 2nd Battle of St Albans when the Lancastrian army approached London the Citizens closed the gates and refused them entry and the Lancastrians had to retreat. The Earl of Warwick and Duke of Norfolk were hardly the only major noblemen to support the Yorkists. They're just the ones who command sections of the Yorkist army at Towton. I literally noted a contemporary source who described the use of two feigned retreats by William during the battle of Hastings, after an initial genuine retreat allowed the Normans to destroy a portion of the English advantageously, to gain the upper hand in the later stages of the battle. And you say I provide no evidence. In your view of the world how did William win the battle of Hastings. Baelish wasn't being sarcastic in that statement. I know it's abnormal for him to say something seriously but I think he was. They had the good sense to marry merchants because they are actually wealthy. All the other Arryn branches are basically broke but continue to act like stuck up nobles because they happen to have a famous name despite the fact that I doubt any of them hold a title greater than ser. During the Regency of Aegon III Isembarn Arryn claimed the lordship of the Vale and while he used bribes and sellswords to mostly back his claim he also had the support of the Graftons who likely aren't one of the lesser lords mentioned before and who stuck with him even after he was imprisoned. He was then respected enough to serve as master of coin during the last phase of the regency.This is contain on pages 669,676 and 694 of Blood and Fire if you want me to reference sources. Why would excluding the reign of Elizabeth I make the renaissance less civilized? As I noted the historiographic placement as a general period is somewhat dubious and even if ti wasn't it doesn't really apply to England in the same way it applies to Italy and other places on the continent. Please explain your rationals in more detail so I can understand them well enough to make adequate rebuttals. Okay let's do this point by point so you can understand. My claim: Robb was not in hostile territory during the Harvest feast in Winterfell or immediately afterwards. He may even have still been in Riverrun and as such in a position to attempt to formulate a response to the issues of the Hornwood succession as discussed at the feast. Evidence: 1. Theon whose chapter according to your timeline would take place 5-8 days after the Harvest feast according to the timeline you presented also believes Robb will be at the Golden Tooth at maximum. Theon can't be certain he isn't in direct contact with Robb at this point but may have some details of Robb's intentions to give basis to his statements. This would still place Robb in friendly territory since the Golden Tooth lies roughly on the Border between the Riverlands and the Westerlands. This sets the lowest benchmark for Robb's advance. Theon I ACOK 2. In Catelyn II which according to your timeline takes place at 1/5/299. They have about five days of travelling without seeing signs of war. Given she notes that the worst of it was over after crossing the Blackwater we could reasonably assume that once she reaches the Reach she has reached this noted point in her journey or is very close to it. This could represent anywhere from a little less than half to maybe a third of her journey's total distance. Assuming the more conservative estimate of a third and that the time taken to cross the areas affected by war was three times due to having to move to avoid armed bands and detours to avoid villages and holdfasts as much would place her total journey time at 35 days (5 days of easy travel through untouched lands plus 30 days (10 times 3) through land ravaged by war). This would mean she was departing Riverrun at the same time that Theon was arriving at Pyke more or less on very conservative numbers. Given that Catelyn had no word of Robb was preparing to march (suggesting if any preparations had been done they were purely behind doors planing meeting rather than the more manual preparation what would cause someone to notice). Perhaps she had at most a week beforehand to prepare for the journey and their is no suggestion Robb had left by the time Catelyn had left. This at the very least implies Robb hadn't left by the time the harvest feast had occurred and was likely still in Riverrun when any raven from Winterfell discussing the Hornwood succession would have reached him. Catelyn II ACOK 3. The third piece of evidence to place Robb in friendly territory in the weeks immediately after the harvest feast is the timing and nature of the battle of Oxcross. It's location is three days ride from Lannisport more or less presumably up the River Road which probably places it closer to the Golden Tooth than to Lannisport. He can't have been in the Westerlands long beforehand since they had no warning and while Stafford didn't have sentries or scouts you can't six thousand men in hostile territory for long even if the enemy isn't locking for him and given Robb's aggression during the Westerland campaign it would out of character for him to hold back too much. It seems doubtful he was in the Westerlands proper for much more than a week maybe two if his goat track took a while to traverse. He may even have been in friendly territory east of the Golden Tooth to hear word of Ramsey seizing Lady Hornwood. Catelyn is clearly aware of some of Ramsay's crimes when she meets Bolton at the Twins. Either way Robb likely hadn't left friendly territory before he could possibly have received a Raven from Winterfell discussing the Hornwood succession given the probable timing of the battle of Oxcross. Chapters a bunch Though mostly Sansa III ACOK.
  12. I suspect given the history of Peake support for the Blackfyres they got caught in a conspiracy for a new blackfyre rebellion. However it failed to either gain traction or support and it got found out before the Peakes could gather any allies and the Blackfyres and their allies elected to sit it out so it doesn't get included among the Blackfyre rebellions. Maekar probably brought a coalition of forces from different houses as a show of strength telling the Blackfyres how many powerful houses supported (it may not have been great numbers from each house but we can't say). Caught out the Peakes resulted to rising alone hoping to do well enough to incite a broader rebellion or at least force the Iron Throne to reasonable terms. They did well enough to kill Maekar (perhaps an accident or a minor wound gone bad were why) but not enough to actually achieve any of their aims.
  13. Because he had the support of powerful members of the nobility such as the Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Norfolk among others. If that's your arguement how was Henry VI a much less popular figure with no martial prowess to speak able to raise a larger army to fight at Towton. There were several flights. The first was genuine triggered by rumour but then he made use of the tactic of feign flights later in the day to weaken the English shield wall by drawing it's warriors out of their strong position. It's said by William of Poitiers who gives our best account of the battle (I can only find a online copy in Medieval latin so I can't actually read the original source). That literally says nothing that would support your argument at all. Nothing in histography is fact. It's all interpretation of events and the continuity and change between them. The Renaissance even as a historiographic period is somewhat doubtful since it doesn't exactly universally correspond to changes across a large part of europe at the same time. The thing is we don't know exactly what Robb was doing. Given later events we can assume he was possibly scouting out the area and developing his plans. We know Robb hadn't left Riverrun as early as you suggest. He was only planning his march before Catelyn left to treat with Renly since she'd heard no word of it and she has a much shorter journey than Theon did and was likely making better time. Either way he wasn't beyond the Golden tooth and out of contact at that point. It was probably possible for a rider from Riverrun to find him easily enough and deliver letters too him. Of course we won't know with any certainty.
  14. They could and they should and they at times probably did. No leader is ever truly absolute. Edward IV was beloved not because of his martial nature but because he gave England something more valuable, peace. After over 15 years of chaos, infighting and open civil war his second reign gave England more or less twelve years of peace in a period otherwise marked by numerous wars. That he was also charismatic and good at winning people to his side didn't hurt. He won the battle of Towton for a bunch of reasons, he had the wind behind him so his arrows hit the enemy and the sudden arrival of the Earl of Norfolk and his men allowing him to flank the Lancastrian line and force a rout. Richard III was highly unpopular among most of England. His support from the North was because of his successful campaigning against the Scots not because he was some great warrior. He had a curvature of the spine so great he would be considered disabled now days. His charge at Bosworth was an opportune attempt to assassinate Henry Tudor after he and his bodyguard exposed themselves to his attack. It's also unclear whether the Earl of Northumberland was truly disloyal or simply was not signalled properly or was unable to advance meaningfully in support of Richard III. Henry VI was unpopular because of military defeats and his own inability to actually rule and the fact his reign was a downward spiral into internal conflict and civil war. Henry VII was disliked because he was a miser who levied harsh fines from the nobility and employed lawyers to find and charge nobles with crimes to extract more money from them. Their unpopularity has little to do with their lack of martial prowess. Because it is said that the Normans used two feigned flights after the real one gave them the idea to pull it off. Everything is speculation because we aren't there to directly see the evidence. You can't know what life in 1450 actually was like. All you can do is guess based on the sources you have access to and any other information you can gather. Speculation is the cornerstone of what we are doing. Your one whose grasping at straws. Plastic straws soon to be illegal. I make a comment based on your seeming lack of understanding and you prove it by making a whole bunch of commentary with no connection to the original statement. Of course we don't see a class of dedicated money lenders. We barely see the lower classes at all. The left flank was a thousand men. The text literally says that Tywin's army is twenty thousand and the numbers given for the battle of the Green fork in the other detachments add up to nineteen thousand which leaves a thousand on the left. Thirteen hundred if you include Tyrion's clansmen. We have evidence. The right flank is all cavalry mostly knights but given the percentages given it most also include other armoured lancers. Some of them will be their under feudal obligation and the rest will most certainly being paid to do so. that makes them professional. The centre is archers (given their rate of fire they'd have to be professional), pikeman (almost certainly professional proper usage of pikes requires training and discipline) and men at arms (professional to a point at least, many of them are likely on someone's payroll). A feudal army can be professional. Fighting is their job which makes them professional to a point and they equally can be disciplined. Your own bias are showing. Lord Corbray was already his ally. Baelish mentions it earlier when discussing his own military ability compared to that of the Lords Declarant. All the later quote implies is that the Gulltown Arryns have no manners or refinement so no one mentions them when discussing the Arryns more broadly. I was making a counter point. You the classic tactic in a debate to provide counter factual evidence to oppose an opponent's argument. I apologise if this simple debating technique is too hard for you to understand. Europe has advantages Westeros lacks. For one the Maesters maintain such a controlling monopoly on more advanced education that efforts to form a rival institution would probably struggle to acquire teachers of a suitable skill. For another westeros lack the figures who in the real would give a nascent university it's credibility either the Holy Roman Emperor or more often the Pope. The High Septon seems to have no interest in education at all which would be good evidence of imperfect world building. The Renaissance is between roughly 1450-1550 so the century before those two events. If a priest during the middle ages called a woman a witch in Europe. The person punished would be the priest not the woman since the Catholic church didn't believe in witchcraft or magic. Almost all of the big witch trials took place in Protestant regions such as Northern Germany or Britain. Also most witch trials happen in the Renaissance onwards because progress is not a straight line. Right he's charismatic and persuasive so why does he need to charge off into battle to win the loyalty of his men then. I'm pretty sure Tywin would scoff at Honour and Chivalry as well. Also in the Hedge Knight Ser Duncan is thank by a number of people for being a knight who remembers his vows implying most don't and when he tries to use the justice of his cause to find another knight to fight with him he receives silence from the crowd of knights. Even prince Baelor who does join him suggests the use of a dubious tactic to gain an upper hand in the trial. One could easily suggest that honour and chivalry are much less respected among the nobility the than you would imply. When Theon arrives at Pyke he thinks Robb is at the Golden Tooth and that's weeks after he left Riverrun. Theon doesn't have a clue. The Harvest feast is also weeks before Oxcross. Bran V comes two chapters after the Harves feast which is Bran II and III. Weeks have passed by this point at least until we get to this point. The Lords Luwin is refering two are Bran, Rickon and the two Walders Exactly switch sides from Robb's to their own side and hide in their castles. They wouldn't have been the only ones. Which means we can say nothing about it.
  15. Umm no. It gives the ability to observe the battlefield and equal ensures the army doesn't rout when the general is killed or captured. This is a thing even in the medieval period. Nobles, not necessarily the ones leading the army. Those nobles were directly commanding their own men not leading the entire army. Also muskets are a 16th century thing and even the Arquebus is a late 15th century invention. One there is no dark ages. That's a bunch of histography myths about the last bit of Late antiquity that don't really hold up outside of Briton. Two it definitely isn't in the Dark ages since Feudalism is at least notionally a thing. And sure plenty of leaders led from the front that doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone to do it. Some leaders are better off at the front particularly if they are excellent warriors which Robb most certainly isn't. Yes but she can't lead an army. Maybe she'd be fine if they were at peace but in the middle of a war it doesn't fix the problem. Also given how badly grief is affecting Catelyn she may not be in any state to govern if Robb died in front of her. She also says Robb could have named someone else to lead the army and he says he couldn't. Catelyn would realise the same thing as well. yet in ASOIAF we see quite a bit of complex tactical plans set up by the various leaders involved. Clearly that suggests the level of development is higher than the medieval period. Also I suspect you are underestimating the amount of thought that could go into the planning of a medieval battle. No we explicitly see that Tywin has an organized baggage train containing spare equipment which is used to equip Tyrion's clansmen when they arrive. There is clearly some level of organized equipment procurement and repair present in Tywin's army. There are plenty are examples where you could point to medieval forces having discipline to varying degrees. Do you think that William the Conquer would have been able to pull of feigned retreats at Hastings without a lot of discipline among his forces. Should I point how tricky it is to get and infantry line to hold firm in the face of charging cavalry and how often they could actually pull that off. You seem to think medieval arms were rabbles of men and glory seeking knights even if it weren't particularly true. No they would have had money lenders for sure but not Banks. You seem to not understand the difference between a bank and a guy who lends people money. You literally restrict yourself to the one twentieth of Tywin's army which is deliberately filled with ill disciplined men and raw recruits so that it will break as a tactical plan. And then you claim it extends to the entire army which is clearly described elsewhere using terms implying a much better trained and equipped force. Maybe but I don't seem to see many Westerosi nobles being exceptionally disgusted by the merchants. When Lyonel Corbray marries a merchant's daughter the wedding is well attended even by unexpected members of the Lords Declarant. The main issue seems to be common birth requiring a large dowry. One I assume by most european kings that excludes Poland, Scotland, Hungary, Bohemia and Scandinavia who didn't have any by the start of the 14th century and most of them either only got one in the 14th century or none at all. Also setting up such an institution I don't think is as simple as you think it is. You need to find a large number of educated men. You need to organize a system of teaching and certificates to demonstrate progress and capability and you need to be able to convince people that those certificates are worth something. Not an easy thing given the Maesters control of higher learning to pull off. You'd probably need to get contacts with the Free cities which runs into other problems as well. Two things to note here. One you seemed to have mistaken the Renaissance for the Enlightenment which are about 200 years or so apart. No one was talking about freedom of religion or bills of rights in the Renaissance. Secondly I don't think anyone was burning people as heretics for discovering how to cure disease. You'd be burned for witchcraft which is actually If I understand correctly more of a Renaissance thing than a medieval thing. A bunch of fools caught up in stories. An extreme optimist trying to convince herself they can still win. A king trying to convince his men he is worth following clearly because some might have been having doubts. Melisandre making a comment I'm not sure is relevant. Catelyn making probably a distorted impression of him and his success in gathering loyal followers. Right guards doing their most basic job. Manderly showing loyalty to the Starks a trait we already know he possesses. At best you could argue from this is that Robb had a good enough work ethic to encourage loyalty. That doesn't explain why he had to be charging off into danger with every battle. Right and you say this about a series which suggests that Honour is something to be careful and chivalry is a pile of garbage said by knights to make themselves seem batter. Two things. One Rodrick and Luwin explicitly say they are asking about this to give information so Robb can make a decision. Two when the Harvest feast was going on Robb probably wasn't in the field and even if he was he wasn't in the Westerlands and out of contact he was probably only just beginning to probe the borders looking for passage into the Westerlands so he could still have time to make a decision. I never said they'd rebel and it wouldn't be the first time a lord had sent fewer men than they could have. THe Dustins already sent as few men as they dared and others might have done the same. If Robb wants to launch a second southern campaign who's to say more might take the opportunity to hold men back from the actual campaign.
  16. 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.
  17. You once again miss the point. it is better to command from the rear. Just about everyone realised this as the 15th century rolled on. If you're going to fight alongside your men you shouldn't be doing it from the front rank which will get you killed and leave you with little opportunity to command your men. You should do it from the middle of your ranks where you are well protected. Yes he has two heirs. An eight year old cripple who can't walk and a four year old. Neither can lead the army and the disputes over who would serve as formal regent would no doubt cripple the Northern war effort as arguments and disagreements about what is in the best interests of the kingdom and the Starks themselves. It's exactly why Robb had to take overall command of the army marching south in the first place. He can't have someone else simply take over the army. Sure the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark and others would send men after them. But if the Lannisters split up to increase their chances and they aren't properly coordinated then perhaps might slip through the net. Besides the only battle where we see significant autonomous actions by subordinates is the battle of the camps and that's only because the command had been decapitated. Elsewhere we see very little autonomy demonstrated by the lords fighting the battles. I think your misconceptions about the era ASOIAF is set in is affecting you. Logistics and discipline affects more than you seem to think. Logistics isn't just ensuring you have enough supplies. It's also ensuring you have sufficient equipment, ammunition for battle and that they are in good condition. Discipline has been the foundation of some of the most effective armies in every period. Ill discipline can destroy an army by leading it into traps, allowing it to be picked apart piece by piece and a thousand other problems that a lack of discipline can cause. It's not just the modern and gunpowder era. There is a bank in Westeros, the Bank of Oldtown, it's never mentioned in the books themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't still exist. These is also a university, the Citadel which you would have heard of. The Lannister army is mostly trained men and professional armies don't really exist even in the renaissance period at least not universally. Landed Aristocracy have been grumbling about people who earn their money through other means before the renaissance and long after. The absence of lawyers and the disinterest of some of the nobility in trade and financial management might be more down to the Maesters doing their best to monopolize power through control of knowledge rather Westeros not being advanced. Also people have always been nasty, brutal and savage. The people of the early middle ages are no worse than the people of the Renaissance. Did they? Please provide evidence and proof of the beloved nature of Robb. Most of the North seems more interested in avenging their own dead and the Mountain Clansmen are fighting for Ned rather than Robb. It's called responsibility. Leaders have a duty to protect the men who serve them. Take reckless risks that endanger them, which Robb did, makes him responsible for their deaths when they die. There are always risks but when you deliberately take them that endanger people needlessly then you have the problem. It's a week by raven from Winterfell to Riverrun maybe a day or two more. Given roughly when the Harvest feast happened and when Oxcross happened it's not unreasonable that a message could have been sent to Robb from Winterfell to ask for judgement on the issue he could easily have had a few days to decide on a course of action and then send a response North before he departs westward Maybe not necessarily defections but I suspect a lot of men may decide that the dangers to their own home are too great to leave again or the 'injuries' they sustained in the fighting mean they can't rejoin a southern campaign.
  18. I'm making the point is that even if he has to go and fight with his men he doesn't need to be the one leading the charge he could place himself in the middle of his men sharing their dangers without being an idiot and putting himself in unnecessary harm. In an ambush battle if would be arguably even more important to be overseeing the battle to make sure everything is going well. At the Whispering Wood if a small detachment of Jamie's army had been able to slip away by luck and Robb had been unable to coordinate a pursuit because he was too busy chasing after glory in the heart of battle we would be lambasting him for his failures. Perhaps if he'd been overseeing the Oxcross more carefully he'd have been able to direct his forces after fleeing Lannisters better and they'd have killed even more of them. As for the second point I don't morale is the most important thing. High morale when going into a battle that will see your army slaughtered is not going to help you in the long term. What's most important for winning battles is Logistics and Discipline. There what ensure's your army will actually win battles rather than charging off to be utterly destroyed every time you tried to fight. Westeros and the broader world look nothing like the early middle ages at all. You have complex banking systems, sophisticated trade networks, the importance of money over feudal contract, the increasing emphasis on mercenaries and a lot of other things you could point to definitely push it up the theoretical timeline comparison towards the Renaissance. It definitely isn't early middle ages. And remember Westeros is the primitive ass end of the world and far behind the rest of the world. For all their posturing Westeros is behind everywhere else in a lot of ways. No the ignominy of how he was killed got his those favourable opinions after his death. The memory of good Stark rule by better Lords than Robb. Karstark and Bolton defections can be linked back to his desire to be far too close to the action at the Whispering wood. The Karstarks quite directly and the Boltons indirectly through the Hornwood succession crisis and the fighting that results. A conflict only addressed in part during the harvest feast in the North while Robb blindly ignores the ticking time bomb about to blow up his kingdom. Robb undoubtedly faced more disloyalty and defections if he'd survived the Twins but he didn't because the first act of open treachery was enough to end him completely.
  19. The thing is that there is a difference between fighting alongside your men and leading a charge. Stannis, Tywin, Roose and even Renly aren't leading the charges of their armies into the heart of battle. Only Renly was even considering being anywhere near the actual fighting. Most leaders are clever enough to realise that getting stuck into a battle might get you a little morale for your men but being able to coordinate the battle, direct reinforcements and react effectively to events is more important. The thing is it really isn't medieval it's more early renaissance where even in the real world generals were understanding this as well. As for loyalty he would probably have had more if he'd been a bit more cautious in his deployment. Not only might he not have to deal with a serious collapse in the North but he also wouldn't have lost the Karstarks in the way he did. One could even take Robb's decision to lead from the front is reflective in his extremely narrow view of the conflict which results in errors and mistakes which undo his entire campaign while Tywin who leads from the rear is able to defeat him because he takes a broader view of the conflict and capitalize on Robb's mistakes.
  20. Of course not but their is a difference between overseeing a battle as a general from a safe position and charging headlong into the enemy where any random foot soldier could in theory kill him and end the northern campaign in an instant. Maybe it was Jamie leading a charge against him but Robb hardly gave him a difficult task. Robb is explicitly leading the charge in Catelyn's description of it. He also must have already lost his horse and had a gouge carved into his shield before Jamie even got to him as by the Jamie got to him he was unarmed. Also Jamie led his charge up the valley meaning Robb had to basically already be right in the middle or pretty close to the middle before Jamie spotted him and led his charge. it may have been bad luck Daryn died but it was only good luck that Jamie didn't get the kill to end the war there and then.
  21. I would avoid it in the first place by ensuring Robb Stark doesn't leap into the middle of battle one against of the best swordsman of Westeros like an idiot. Much easier than trying to unpick a delicate political situation in the middle of a war which the king never seems to care a lick about.
  22. Mediocre at best. Tywin wins through sheer brutality being willing to do stuff no one else would and with good reason. Most of those actions have consequences that others would understand are far too great to deal with. Tywin often deliberately picks solutions to problems which work well in the immediate or short term but come with long term problems he doesn't seem to care about. Oh You've permanently pissed off Dorne. It'll be fine. You've broken a pivotal institution which helps ensure harmony between the lords of the realms and permanently pissed off two more realms and all their friends. I'm Tywin Lannister I'll deal with it somehow. Tywin was successful in building a Lannister regime but he built it on quicksand. Half the realms will never be his friends and his only allies are greedy and have little real loyalty to him and his cause. If he'd lived longer he may have been able to deal with some of them through fear holding some in line but sooner or later he would have suffered a genuinely serious setback and it would have fallen to pieces very quickly.
  23. I think normally the threat of funding rebels is enough to convince most to pay them back. They have enough of a reputation about it that they have their own saying after all. Westeros is kind of exceptional both in the amount borrowed and just how hopelessly unstable the entire situation is. The other consideration is that they probably have other financial avenues of profit than just lending money.
  24. Yes but a lot of those wars already have various sub wars that re distinguished within them. The Napoleonic and French Revolutionary wars have the seven coalition, the Peninsular war, the Neapolitan war, the Finnish war, the Russo Persia war among many others that get thrown into it. The War of Austrian succession also has the two Silesian wars, the first Carnatic war and the war of Jenkin's Ear thrown into it. Many of those had North American sub war sections referred to distinctly including the French and Indian war for the seven years war (which actually started before the actual seven years war) and King George's war for the War of Austrian succession. Hindsight and careful histography is what has resulted in the them largely being grouped together (some of them due have distinct casus belli and alliances and some of them don't history is complicated). The maesters are calling it the war of the five kings but it's definitive name won't be known until after it's ended and one can be formulated (or the name will be used for the early part of the conflict and a different one for the continuing sections). It ain't over either. Balon is dead but the Ironborn remain in rebellion under Euron, Stannis is still active against the Crown in the North after a brief detour to aid the watch against Wildings and Aegon has landed in the Stormlands. Presumably Dany will show up at some point to get involved and there are others who may seek to get involved in the entire mess. Even the Maesters are disputing the naming as is mentioned in the prologue of AFFC so perhaps we'll have a comment that they've decided on a different name. On the other issue of Tywin. My view is that Tywin favours quick solutions to problems with less than a desired consideration for the long term problems such solutions present. The Sack of King's Landing allows him to prove definitively that he has broken with the Targaryens and opens doors for him with Robert's regime that gives him opportunities moving forward but permnanetly turned Dorne against him and alienate more honourable sections of the Rebel coalition like the Starks. The problem is that other methods likely simply taking the city for Robert without the sack and bloodshed and handing Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys over to Robert would have generated less negative publicity for him. The Red wedding is similar. Yes in the short term it has ended military hostilities in the Riverlands and North effectively. However most of the Riverlands aren't even pretending to be loyal to the Lannisters. Half of them aren't at the siege of Riverrun and the ones present don't want to be there. In the North it's even worse. Roose's only reliable allies are the Freys and one branch of the Karstarks trying to usurp the main branch. Even his allies by marriage the Dustins and Ryswells have suggestions they are planning treachery against him. The Mormonts and Reeds remain in open rebellion even after the Red Wedding and most appear at least tacitly willing to accept Stannis as King of Westeros because he's fighting against the Boltons. The only reasons the Manderlys aren't initially willing to openly plot against the Boltons is because the Lannisters hold hostages and for the Umbers that only works well enough to keep half of them on the Bolton side on paper. Maybe if Tywin had lived he would have been able to deal with all the horrible political ramifications in the short term for the Red wedding. In the long term there isn't a solution. As long as a descendent of Tywin Lannister sits upon the Iron Throne he will have to deal with Northern and Riverlander Rebellions every time there is a succession crisis or some claimant who comes from overseas to try and claim the throne they'll have fertile ground to rustle up military support for their cause. Tywin permanently alienate three regions from his cause and maybe even created serious concerns for members of other regions who may decide they can't trust them anymore. Tywin effectively sacrificed long term advantage for short term gains and he does it consistently. He spends most of the books alienating the one member of the next Lannister generation who may have been able to hold everything together to the point he decides to be a kinslayer because he hates him that much and openly work for Tywin's enemies. He'd rather get a somewhat suboptimal heir free of his responsibilities rather than reinforcing an institution whose reputation is in the dirt and which could be a major asset if handled well. He's willing to allow an organization as old as anything in Westeros to fall to allow a marauding army to undermine his enemies and when that fails he hopes to interfere in it in hopes of placing a candidate in charge who'll be loyal to him for political gain destroying it's neutrality for no obvious gain. It's same with his decision to march west against Robb. He decided to fix the short term problem of Robb Stark ravaging his homeland while sacrificing his ability to come swiftly move to defend King's Landing because he made an assumption that Stannis would be tied down besieging Storm's end and that he wouldn't possibly take it so quickly despite the fact he could have simply elected to leave it to strike King's Landing while it was poorly defended or you know kill the garrison commander in a duel. Tyrion is the only reason King's Landing doesn't fall before the Tyrells can arrive. The Tyrell alliance was his idea as well and the only reason Tywin has a clue that the city is threatened.. He's the only reason the garrison is capable of firing wildfire at Stannis at all and the entire arrangement of the wildfire is suggest to be his idea. He cleared the men battering the King's Gate and while he doesn't get to the Mud Gate it's implied by Balon Swann's arrival that another sortie from the Mud Gate has driven them back. The Baratheon troops at the Mud gate aren't even mentioned to have a battering ram in either reference to them attacking the Mud Gate. The only reason Stannis get's even close to victory is that Cersei orders Joffrey pulled back to the Red Keep. If he'd stayed by the Mud Gate The gold cloaks wouldn't have fled if Joffrey had stayed. By the Time Tyrion is taken out of action the Tyrells have already arrived and are smashing Stannis on the Southern Bank even if what forces he had left been able to break into the city the battle was already lost.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...