Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Thandros

  1. 8 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    Welp, can't argue with this lol

    I think you are reaching in trying to dissociate things but not everyone thinks things are related. Not doing much to dissuade me though

    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. 3 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    A Game of Thrones - Eddard XV

    "Please," Ned said, "my daughters …" The door crashed shut. He blinked as the light vanished, lowered his head to his chest, and curled up on the straw. It no longer stank of urine and shit. It no longer smelled at all.
    He could no longer tell the difference between waking and sleeping. The memory came creeping upon him in the darkness, as vivid as a dream. It was the year of false spring, and he was eighteen again, down from the Eyrie to the tourney at Harrenhal. He could see the deep green of the grass, and smell the pollen on the wind. Warm days and cool nights and the sweet taste of wine. He remembered Brandon's laughter, and Robert's berserk valor in the melee, the way he laughed as he unhorsed men left and right. He remembered Jaime Lannister, a golden youth in scaled white armor, kneeling on the grass in front of the king's pavilion and making his vows to protect and defend King Aerys. Afterward, Ser Os well Whent helped Jaime to his feet, and the White Bull himself, Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower, fastened the snowy cloak of the Kingsguard about his shoulders. All six White Swords were there to welcome their newest brother.
    I guess the other trees and plants didn't get the memo and decide it was time to mate any ways. Eddard is getting a big wiff of tree spunk that only comes in the spring.
    And time wise, yes, Dany's chapter may come first, but it is not the first chapter. 
    And its quite likely the Cotf were enslaved by the Valyrians, or at least their cousins in Essos known as the Wood Walkers or what ever the Dothraki feared so much to the north. Also those in Qarth by the blue black trees.
    The God's Eye could not be connected, but then, why would the author make such a clear association? When he is very meticulous 

    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. 12 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    Just a friendly suggestion, better ways to disagree without calling someone's theory rubbish and all the rest. I didn't dismiss the prologue cause it disagreed with my rubbish or nonsense theory. I noticed Jon's 13th pov chapter, that he died. I actually numbered the Prologue chapter 1 not thinking about it and didn't line up Bran's 2nd Pov chapter as the 13th, I had Reeks as 13. So I thought there was nothing more to it.

    Then I realized that Prologues don't count as chapters and GRRM didn't begin Agot with the Prologue. He began it with the first POV chapter listed, which is Bran's. Which GRRM even talks about in an interview of doing. This made me 2nd look what i otherwise had dismissed as nothing.

    Bloodraven is not the Faceless men, they are both something controlled by the Cotf

    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.

    12 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:
    And Bloodraven is pretty dead im guessing. Like the Faceless men, his corpse is being "worn", and his memories accessible to the COTF.
    The link is the Cotf, not so much Bloodraven himself or the Night's King who was sacrificing to the Others. Daemon carving the tree that bleeds in spring, means that while the Tourney of Harrenhal was happening, the tree was bleeding the 13 marks. The Greenmen of the Gods Eye are likely tied to the Cotf who made the pact on the Isle with the First Men. Gods Eye, being a nod to Bloodraven, the Kindly Old Man, and Beric. 
    Just my take on it though. 
    And happy to provide a link or quote for anything. I do make mistakes sometimes :)

    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. 20 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:




    So speaketh GOD, on which chapter was the "First". It was Bran's chapter, when they find the dead Direwolf.

    It is known.

    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.

    18 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    Maybe you should just refrain from being insulting in general if you expect to have "Discussion" with people.

    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. 38 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    First of all, because GRRM's first chapter written was Bran's first POV chapter, not the epilogue that was appended on later. 

    Your insults don't  validate your opinion though.

    Im very happy for you that you "think" the Nights King is irrelevant and that that the Corpse Queen is more "Interesting". Your opinion is hardly factual though despite your earnest attempt to insist upon it.

    Maybe its not a clue from the author that loves mysteries so much that he regularly post puzzles on his board, maybe it is. Im leaving that for each person to decide and you're welcome to think they are nothing :)

    ACOT, and ACOK may not matter as the 13 clue wasn't laid till ASOS with the Nights King's legend. As for AFFC I literally wrote about how it was an odd chapter not fitting the themes of the others. The others largely have Arya and Bran meeting undead people with one eye, other than the one of Jon dying (Which fits since people think he will be resurrected by Mel, like Beric was resurrected by Thoros.)

    AFFC though and the soiled Knight could be many things and hence my curiosity how others took it. Soiled Knight seems to imply Jamie, the other Soiled Knight in our story. Or Arys Oakhearts plans with Myrcella mirror what the K.G. were up to during Roberts Rebellion. Which for R+L fans could be the K.G. plotting with Rhaegar to put aside Elia for Lyanna. 

    You can be as edgy as you want, but I wasn't inserting my theories despite your confusing talk. As you say, I didn't explain how I took it all  

    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.

    39 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    My point exactly. You're contradicting your self with me either inserting my rubbish theories every where, or not enough.


    As to whether I can draw a conclusion from it all myself, yes I can.

    I would say there is a clear connection between Bloodraven and the Night's King legend, with Beric and Bloodraven both being the undead, and Jon dying on chapter 13 suggest he will become undead. The Faceless men connection to Bloodraven is easy to make given the Kindly Oldman has a white worm coming out his eye socket like the Weirwood coming out of Bloodraven's eye that is described like a white worm.  Suggesting that the Faceless men are connected to Bloodraven who has a 1000 eyes and one. Who has a section of his cave with skulls on the wall like how the faceless men have a wall of faces. Like how the Weirwood paste bran drinks is similar in effect to the candles Arya smells. 

    I would say since Jon dies on Chapter 13 to become an undead and Ser Arys Oakhearts plot seeming similar to what may have happened at Harrenhal would be a clear nod to Jon who is supposedly the product of Rhaegar and Lyanna from the events of Harrenhal (Where a tree has 13 carved into it also)

    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.

    46 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:
    So yes, I do think there is a clear connection between all of them, regardless of who Jon's parents are. Bloodraven served as L.C. for 13 years same as the Nights King. There are plenty of clear connections. Whether the Nights King and Bloodraven were truly evil is debatable though. Their connection I think is pretty clear though, but that's just my opinion. 

    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.

    35 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    Is the prologue a chapter?

    Prologues come before chapter one and could be expository/introductory prose, a poem, diary letter, news clipping, or anything in between. As a reader, when I start reading a prologue, I'm usually impatient to get to chapter one



    So, Prologue, thennnnnnnnn Chapter 1 :D

    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. 5 hours ago, AlaskanSandman said:

    Prologue chapters don't count btw.

    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. 2 hours ago, Ivan Tsarevich said:

    I don't think this line of reasoning really conforms to the ideal of justice... it should be blind, and people should not be punished for what they might do in the future. The primary function of the NW, however, is not to act as a court of law, or as a penal colony... it is a military organisation, and its raison d'être is not to mete out justice, but to protect the realms of men. If it were otherwise, then how could anyone be forgiven for their crimes even if they wished to take the black?

    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

    3 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

    if Young Griff is a Targaryen , I personally think she is Ashara Dayne. I think there's a reason Martin describes the eye color of almost every new character and skipped hers, while , he spent enough time describing Ashara's eyes whenever her name came up. this of course means Varys and Illyrio's agenda is related to something other than their supposed secret lineage which should be more interesting.. I root for them being nobodies who are now shaping the world rather than lost secret princes from a rival cadet branch. 

    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. 29 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Henry was king, his blood and authority over others was enough to call upon men. Edward wasnt, until he crowned himself he was able to gain followers, freeriders, knights, and man ata arms. The earl of Warwick was wealthy but him and the duke of Norfolk couldn’t raise an army of that size between each other.

    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.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    And still we have no evidence that it was planned. 

    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.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Gulltown arryns arent liked because of their merchants blood. You clearly see in the quote it mentions how they stupidly decided to marry merchants. Merchant class isnt well liked by the nobility. You know it, but you want to keep on arguing it.

    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.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Once again arguing for the sake of it. It lasted till 1550? Thats a joke. My guess is that you said that because that’s around the time Elizabeth I came to the throne and you wanted to invalidate my point of renaissance being more civilised.

    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.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Gave you your evidence, and you want to keep putting these things into massive speculation when the evidence is there.

    Seeing as you havent given me any evidence whatsoever to back whatever your claim is. All in all its just petty arguing at this point. Have a good day.

    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.


    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. 9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    How did he manage to raise an army of 20k for the battle of towton if not because of his fame as a martial man and his likeable personality. When he named himself king it was his battle prowess that also helped attract warriors.

    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.  

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Im not taking your word for this because nowhere have i read this fact. I might be wrong but never encountered it. And its pretty heavily documented that is a mistake and they thought william was dead, but their also good arguments for it being a feint. But im not gonna just say with my chest is one or the other because people that have invested their lives on that battle dont even know.

    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).

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Ill simplify the quote 

    "save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants."

    That literally says nothing that would support your argument at all.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    100 years?????? Renaissance is clearly from 15th century till 17th century. Thats fact, you can search it if you want.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    You will see when Theon arrived at pyke informing his father about robbs plans etc.

    "By now Robb is at the Golden Tooth," Theon said.  ACOK Theon I 

    Its quite he clear he set off either some time after theon left for pyke or at the same time because he already told Theon his plans. And Theons arrival at Pyke and the harvest feast has a gap of handful of days.

    And saying Theon dosent have a clue wont mean anything. Its just denial.

    And tired of arguing this robb didnt bother to deal with the hornwood crisis since its an issue you brought up, and it has nothing to do with topic that OP started with. 

    Now had Robb been ruling at winterfell and decided to ignore the crisis, than im in agreement with you, but since he his leagues away from winterfell in some land surrounded by mountains its just typical hate trying to bring it up.

    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. 30 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Um yes, These armies were literal a large number of men that were called upon. You don’t know maybe you never campaigned with them before. 

    A leader could do what he wanted and absolutely no one would criticise him for taking the same risks as other men.

    They could and they should and they at times probably did. No leader is ever truly absolute.

    31 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Yes, Edward iv and Richard iii were warrior kings. Edward was a 6 foot 6 giant that gained the admiration of his men because he fought alongside them. He won the largest battle fought in English soil (battle of towton). All while fighting in the front amongst the confusion and the massive blizzard that was present. You know why he won? Because his nobles acted independently and didn’t require him to sit back and sit on his arse trying to give orders even tho you couldn’t see anything within 50 meters due to the blizzard.

    Richard iii also famously fought in the front. Betrayed at bosworth field when the earl of percy betrayed him by not committing his left flank.

    The lancaster didn’t have a martial king. Prince Edward (son of Henry iv), was looking like a remake of his grandfather Henry V. But sadly he died fighting at the battle of Tewksbury.

    Henry Tudor and his namesake Henry vi were the only ones that didn’t bother fighting much. And guess what? They weren’t as loved as Edward iv was. 

    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.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    No one knows if it was feint. It seemed more like a rout because they thought their duke was dead.

    And how did they feint a retreat if William was charging alongside his knights? Because according to you he should’ve been leading from the rear and if his too busy fighting than he couldn’t give orders.

    Because it is said that the Normans used two feigned flights after the real one gave them the idea to pull it off.

    35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    They would have had. It’s just speculation at this point. A bank was a business if a man wanted to open one they would if they had the money. Essos is filed with banks, but Westeros is not. 

    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.

    39 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Where did I say this? Did I say someone can’t lend money To whoever they want? Is the act of lending the only thing a bank does? Because it’s obvious its done by lords and merchants. The iron throne alone owns to a couple lords and some local merchants in kings landing.

    First you said Westeros has a bank in oldtown which is arguably true or not. Now you mention money lenders which is basically a profession on its own. Lords and merchants did lend money but we dont see a class or people that actually do this as a main profession.

    So no don’t put words in my mouth, because at this point your grasping at straws.

    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.

    40 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    A vanguard isnt just one twentieth of its army. It’s the main thrust. An army of tywins size would consist of a vanguard around 3k minimum.

    And as you said most of tywins army is professional but we have no evidence it was simply because it’s a typical feudal army which was called upon during times of war.

    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).

    41 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Does this sound like me claiming tywins army is full of useless beggars?

    again putting words in my mouth.

    I gave you evidence of why their army was no where near professional. An army that consists of chivalric knights will never be considered professional or disciplined. 

    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.

    41 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    You mean this wedding.

    Petyr Baelish was clear across the Vale, though, attending Lord Lyonel Corbray at his wedding. A widower of forty-odd years, and childless, Lord Lyonel was to wed the strapping sixteen-year-old daughter of a rich Gulltown merchant. Petyr had brokered the match himself. The bride's dower was said to be staggering; it had to be, since she was of common birth. Corbray's vassals would be there, with the Lords Waxley, Grafton, Lynderly, some petty lords and landed knights . . . and Lord Belmore, who had lately reconciled with her father. The other Lords Declarant were expected to shun the nuptials, so Petyr's presence was essential.

    Which was specifically attended by petyrs supporters. And brokered by petyr himself so he could make an ally of lord corbray.

    "Lord Lyonel Corbray is well disposed toward my rule,"

    There are several branches of House Arryn scattered across the Vale, all as proud as they are penurious, save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants. They're rich, but less than couth, so no one talks about them. 

    And with this quote it’s clear to see merchants are also looked down upon in Westeros.

    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.

    44 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    And already by that century Europe had more universities than Westeros.

    Your argument of the citadel being the university of Westeros falls flat when compared to our own world.

    Trying to switch the argument won’t change that.

    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.

    44 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Never said it was easy, and It’s really not our problem how hard it is. If Europe could do it, and Westeros can’t than they are far away from being called a renaissance  society.

    We also don’t know how hard or easy it can be pulled off. Maybe the king does have a pull and can attract many intellectuals. But we won’t know.

    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.

    45 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Ehm no. If I seem to remember the time during the 30 years war and rule of Elizabeth was during the renaissance era. If you think I’m talking about the American revolution than no your wrong.

    The Renaissance is between roughly 1450-1550 so the century before those two events.

    45 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    A women would be likely branded a witch for doing it a man can get away with it because at the time nobles and rulers started to put less weight on religion and focus more on matters of state and money.

    In the middle ages it’s legit all down to whatever nonsense your local priest says out of his mouth. During those times a priest word carried more weight. Whilst by the reformations it didn’t so much.

    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.

    50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Robb was known as a charismatic boy, and if you read his chapters where he deals with his lords it’s clear to see how much of a good job he does it.

    I will say this again you saying he shouldn’t charge into battle is the most stupid thing to say. It’s normal for the time, and it shows off your martial prowess. In the end robb didn’t lose a battle or die in battle. So your argument of “Meh he shouldn’t have charged off” is just bias hate towards the character which is clearly showing.

    Right he's charismatic and persuasive so why does he need to charge off into battle to win the loyalty of his men then.

    50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Men like petyr believe this, and how many battles or tourneys has petyr participated in? Whilst most knights in Westeros believe chivalry and honour to be the most important thing.

    Just because some important characters say it dosent mean the rest of the continent believes it.

    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.

    51 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Probably and maybes. Don’t help your argument.

    By the time Theon leaves to pyke robb is already marching west.

    The hornwood crisis only escalated after the harvest feast, and in said feast they toasted to robbs victory at oxcross.

    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.

    50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Maybes and probably too.

    Maester Luwin sent Alebelly away and closed his door. "My lords," he said gravely, "we have had a message from His Grace, with both good news and ill. He has won a great victory in the west, shattering a Lannister army at a place named Oxcross, and has taken several castles as well. He writes us from Ashemark, formerly the stronghold of House Marbrand." Bran V his harvest feast chapter.

    So clearly by the time of the harvest robb was already doing his stuff.

    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

    50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Clearly you said they’d defect which literally means rebel or switch sides.

    Exactly switch sides from Robb's to their own side and hide in their castles. They wouldn't have been the only ones.

    50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

    Might’ve and again were presuming what would happen at this point. We don’t know whether he planned to spend the winter in winterfell or if he planned to raise a new host.

    Which means we can say nothing about it.

  15. 1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    Just when professional army were becoming a thing. Its much easier to command an army that actually obeys. Especially compared to the medieval knights whom were prone to disobey. 

    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.

    1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    15th century? You sure about that. History will prove you wrong. I can point to you towards the war of the roses and youll see lots of nobles that fought tooth and nail alongside other men. 

    And Saying "Just about everyone realised this" is a bold claim since it is nowhere near the truth. Had you said that people started to see the advantage of not getting involved than it would be more believable, especially since its when muskets started being rolled in.

    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.

    1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    You say you shouldnt but thats your opinion. We literally have tons of evidence of leaders doing exactly what robb did in both asoiaf and our own real world. Trying to use a modern warfare mindset to criticise/compare what men in the middle ages is silly because they do what they simply because its considered normal at the time. I can say Lords shouldnt marry off their daughters against their will (my opinion and modern mindset), but it dosent mean im right because this is considered normal for the time.

    If someone wants to risk their life more than they already are than thats on them. They will reap the rewards and win glory. Its the dark ages not modern times.

    This is especially true because your trying to link one mans action of bravery to a succession crisis which really has nothing to do with it. 

    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. 

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    I assume you forgot catelyn exists. She is still the lady of winterfell before whispering wood. If lords wish to challenge her regency they might try but seeing as lady Lysa wasnt challenged than I don’t see how catelyn (a very capable women), would fail. Whoever she names leader of the army its up to her.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    It’s not modern pike and shot era. Middle Ages battles were simpler. Just bash into the enemy, some tactical plan were made (they mostly weren’t followed). Whoever had the strongest will would win.

    What you want to happen wouldnt work for the era because for their to be maneuvers and coordination you need a professional army with separate regiments, platoons etc. which we dont see until the Protestant reformation. Check Gustavus Adolphus

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Equipment? The soldiers the lords call upon have their own equipment. Lords didnt equip their armies, they only equipped the retinues. Ammunition, only people that cared about a steady supply of ammunition were the English (heavily centralised kingdom for the time). And nowhere do we see other kingdoms have this level of care for ammunition.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    True for the roman age, and modern age. But not for the middle ages.

    Tell that to the pompous knights that seem charge without orders. Same goes for lords deciding to do their own things during battles. Its the dark ages, not the romans or the modern one. Middle Ages saw heavy stagnation on every aspect of life (military, construction, literature etc).

    Their are so many examples of even the best of soldiers lacking discipline. The age of chivalry was more about personal glory.

    Its not so hard to see. Armies werent professionally trained, they were called upon in times of war and every man would bring their own training, experience, and equipment. They knew how to stand in a formation, how to do shieldwall, and knights/man at arms with horses knew that when charging at the enemy you stay knee to knee when in a cavalry formation. But other than that no other training or discipline is installed into these men.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    One bank which is never mentioned and we dont even know it exists. One city in the middle ages would have dozens of banks.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

     "He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers' rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport … and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen." Tyrion at the green fork.

    These trained men are knights (with ill discipline). The lannister army isnt drilled yearly, they dont have platoons or regiments (whatever it is called). Ghengis khans Hordes has a closer shot at being called professional.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Yes but they didnt feel disgusted and jealous by the merchant class as much as their medieval ancestors did. They realised that trade is more important than taxes.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Well thats a westerosi problem. Easily solved by kings/lords building their own institution so that they can receive men trained in certain roles. And all tho maesters do learn what a man had available in a middle ages university (astronomy, engineering, etc.) this is only available at oldtown. Whilst by the 14th century kingdoms throughout europe already had more than one university in their respective kingdoms, and westeros is three times the size of western europe. If this dosent scream stagnation than I dont know what does.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    From our point of you we dont see the difference. But civilisation has always been a progressive one. The middle ages were dark for the people, and in the renaissance era we see more gentlemanly things. In the renaissance you had kingdoms promoting freedom of religion and bill of rights. Not to forget you werent burned as a heretic by some zealot priest because you somehow discovered how to cure a disease.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Leobald Tallhart had his turn the following day. He spoke of weather portents and the slack wits of smallfolk, and told how his nephew itched for battle. "Benfred has raised his own company of lances. Boys, none older than nineteen years, but every one thinks he's another young wolf. When I told them they were only young rabbits, they laughed at me. Now they call themselves the Wild Hares and gallop about the country with rabbitskins tied to the ends of their lances, singing songs of chivalry."

    "I have fought beside the Young Wolf in every battle," Dacey Mormont said cheerfully. "He has not lost one yet."

    In the days that followed, Robb was everywhere and anywhere; riding at the head of the van with the Greatjon, scouting with Grey Wind, racing back to Robin Flint and the rearguard. Men said proudly that the Young Wolf was the first to rise each dawn and the last to sleep at night, but Catelyn wondered whether he was sleeping at all. He grows as lean and hungry as his direwolf.
     "In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf."

    She had taken her other daughters with her, but as one of Robb's battle companions Dacey had chosen to remain by his side. He has Ned's gift for inspiring loyalty. Olyvar Frey had been devoted to her son as well. Hadn't Robb said that Olyvar wanted to remain with him even after he'd married Jeyne?

    Smalljon Umber and Robin Flint sat near Robb, to the other side of Fair Walda and Alyx, respectively. Neither of them was drinking; along with Patrek Mallister and Dacey Mormont, they were her son's guards this evening.

    She saw Smalljon Umber wrestle a table off its trestles. Crossbow bolts thudded into the wood, one two three, as he flung it down on top of his king.

    "The Young Wolf is dead," Manderly allowed, "but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard's only son. Robett, bring the lad."

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    You cant be serious? So because Mr.Robb decided to be brave and charge into battle. Which is completely normal thing to do. You blame daryns and others death on him doing what chivalry and honour demands. 

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Yes i assume ravens can smell robbs army on the move and just coincidentally land on robbs shoulder. Robb left regents why would rodrik or luwin ask for orders when they are left in charge. They cant bother him with matters of state because he is campaigning in enemy land.

    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.

    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Convincing men to march south again would be hard with winter approaching. But that dosent mean a lord would outright deny him and rebel. And seemed that robb planned to spend the winter in winterfell, but we will never know.

    So no, defections dont apply here.

    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. 9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    But your whole point is that he should stay back and supposedly lead. Your point is that he can better lead his army from the rear. So this is still confusing.

    Put himself in danger? Who cares he is at war, men die in war, if he dies it’s fine he has 2 heirs available, and dozens of lords that are willing to protect his family’s rights.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Well some other man at arms would’ve given chase. You had dozens of lords in that battle. They all would’ve reacted accordingly. They all know the plan, you cant expect one person to make all the decisions. Your seeing it from a board games point of view. Where you as the player can make instant decisions which would otherwise take minutes or hours for the orders to be sent.

    The whole point of giving other lords command is for them to lead and react to things.

    You think if someone like greatjon or Richard karstark saw some men slip right past them, that they would just simply ignore them? Their commander would be hundreds of meters away overseeing the battle (as you say), why wait for an order when you know they can’t escape. Plus in this era most nobleman in battle would make their own decisions. It’s why this era was really tough on battles since victory can’t be guaranteed due to the fickleness of men.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    This is true for the modern and gunpowder era, but in the Middle Ages, discipline was almost non existent, and logistics were essentially “live off the enemy’s lands.”Some did carry baggage trains, but if they are invading a foreign land than theyd ditch the baggage and instead take the food off the peasants. 

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    As you said broader world. And saying essos is close to the renaissance era is another arguable discussion.

    All these points you said apply to Essos only (which I wouldn’t consider continent in brisk of the renaissance era) Westerosi nobles still grumble at the presence of merchants, and they think counting money is beneath them. Westeros dosent have a banks, lawyers, university’s, a larger interest on trade from noblemen, more centralisation, and emphasis on conscripted and trained soldiers, and less use of knights and man at arms that most be called upon. And mercenaries have been around since men have learnt that money can be made off war.

    The behaviour of the westerosi resembles more the brutal and savage manner people in the early Middle Ages acted.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    His death defo made him a martyr in the north. But his actions during his campaign is what made him likeable.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    As I said linking the events during that battle to these events of betrayal is laughable. It’s like blaming me for giving you money to call a taxi home and on the way home the taxi crashes and you get injured. The sons of these lords willingly joined a campaign where they can Die, pinning their deaths on their leader is ridiculous especially when they offered themselves as guards to said leader.

    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.

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Robb was campaigning in the west, when the crisis began. When a king is far away from their kingdom they leave regents behind (e.g Richard lionheart when he was campaigning in Jerusalem). You cant expect a king to rule his realm whilst his on campaign. They dont have telephones or supersonic ravens.

    And you forget how long it takes for news to reach people across the continent. If robb heard about the abduction of lady hornwood, than he wouldve heard later on how Rodrick dealt with the issue and killed ramsey. By the time he gets news of the capture of winterfell he is also told his brothers are dead.

    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

    9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    This is an assumption, had went north and taken moat cailin. He would later secure and stabilise the rest of the north. From than on it’s all speculation what would happen. If his lords didn’t defect with all the bad events that happened (duskandale, winterfell, moat cailin, deepwood motte, Frey-karstark desertion). Than I don’t see how him liberating the north would lead to more defections.

    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. 1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    On your first point you said their is a difference between overseeing the battle at a safe position and charging into it. But now you say its either leading a charge or fighting alongside other men. So im not sure which one is the point you stand on.

    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.

    1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    All 3 of robbs battles didnt involve any reserves and they were all ambush battles which have very little risks because you caught the enemy unawares. Stannis, roose, and Tywin led pitched battles not coordinated ambushes. In most of robbs ambush battles it’s quite obvious that whatever struggle the enemy gave lasted very little, so their was no need to stay back and coordinate when by the time your orders would be fulfilled the enemy would’ve been routed. Only exception would be whispering wood in which Jamie’s army was geared and ready to battle, only difference is that they didn’t expect to be ambushed. Mayhaps if robb fought in a pitched battle we wouldve seen how he handles it but we never get to see that.

    And fighting along sides your men does wonders to morale. Morale is the most important thing when heading into battle. And fighting for a warrior king will inspire people. Seeing your lord take the same risks as you will make you risk yourselves even more.

    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.

    1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

    Westeros is nowhere near renaissance. It’s social, feudal, and economic structure resembles more the early Middle Ages. Only thing that resembles early renaissance  era is military equipment.

    Their are risks and rewards when fighting. Robb reaped all the rewards, since after his death, his subjects talk fondly about him and his bravery. After his marriage to a women of lower status, desertion of Freys, and karstarks. His lords still remained loyal.

    The one thing we can pin on him, which resulted with lords deserting/switching sides. Is the Frey betrayal, his marriage really was a slap on the face. Everything else the karstark and boltons was a result of other peoples action which were out of his control.

    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. 6 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    A leader that joins the fray of the fighting is someone that will gain his mens loyalty and it would boost morale. So no their is nothing wrong with charging headlong into battle. It’s the Middle Ages, kings and nobleman would constantly put themselves at risk.

    Their are risks in war and if you willingly join an army on campaign than you already acknowledged the risks. Daryn willingly joined robbs guard and by doing so he also knows that he will sacrifice his life for robbs.

    So blaming robb for daryns death is like blaming a world leader for one of his bodyguards taking a bullet for him.

    It was his job and he did his job successfully.

    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. 16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    So basically he should’ve stayed back with his mother and let the men do the fighting?

    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.

    13 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

    You've got it backwards. Jaime was the one leaping at Robb when he realised that he was trapped. It was Daryn's hard luck that both he and his dad got killed in two different battles (though I do blame Roose Bolton for putting Halys in the line of fire purely so he'd die). 

    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. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 5 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

    A lot of wars throughout history have been grouped under one larger name because they took place at the same time, in roughly the same region, and shared some of the same combatants. Should we go back through history and start renaming every war that's like this? Should we change the names of the World Wars and break them down into half a dozen separate wars, even though almost all of them involve several of the same parties and began from the same casus belli? The Napoleonic Wars? The Revolutionary Wars? The American War of Independence? The Seven Years' War? The War of the Austrian Succession? The Great Northern War? The War of the Spanish Succession? The Nine Years' War? The Thirty Years' War? I could keep going, but I'll limit it to only modern history.

    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.

  24. 1 hour ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

    Assuming that in this timeline Ser Stafford Lannister still dies at Oxcross, that still leaves Ser Devan Lannister to take command in the westerlands. Since he was later made the Warden of the West by Cersei in Feast, it's not far-fetched to imagine that he'd be an acceptable choice to take charge of the westerlands should there be no other Lannisters available. He seemed to do a decent enough job in Feast (though granted at that time the war was all but over). 

    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...