Jump to content

Mad King Bolton

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mad King Bolton

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. They're dragons, so as a fan of fantasy, I don't pay attention to any symbolic counterpart in the real world though I'm sure they're there. Like most aspects of the story though, I think they depend on whose point of view you want to look at them though. Personally I see them as animals loyal to Dany but having a place in the natural world with their own motivations to a degree. I hope to see them kick ass and fight back against the night. But like all animals, fault of their actions often lies in their master/parent. How Dany uses them or others will be a part of their fate I'm sure. I love them and hope they survive and thrive.
  2. Given Manderly's contribution to the Bolton regime was bringing a large amount of food, it probably says a lot about the state of Winterfell's supplies. Anything that could be put to the torch in Winterfell was. Anything of value would have been carried off. So one could assume that when Bolton decided to move into Winterfell and restore it, that he was starting from scratch. Other villages and banner men would have had what stores they could, but I doubt they would have given up much to the Bolton's and I'm sure they'd have hidden what they had and needed. As to Winterfell before Theon took it, one would have to assume that under the Starks and even after Ned's departure, that Winterfell would be run responsibly with full knowledge of the season and to be prepared if winter even came early. House words.
  3. It would cost a lot since it would probably be better to raze it and start over with a modern structure. it's in extreme disrepair given its age and description. That being said, it also depends on WHEN you do the construction. Not easy to do even if you had the labour and materials in a time of war. But if the fighting had stopped and you had the resources to devote to it, then maybe not so badly if the Crannogmen were assisting given the terrain. Anyway, I guess it could be harder than expected since it sat there in that state for so long and nobody bothered to keep it up despite its strategic value. Maybe it's worse than we'd think.
  4. Stark or not Stark in Winterfell, Others or other magical creatures aren't passing the wall as long as it's standing. My guess is there are blizzards in Winterfell (and throughout the North) because it's winter and that's how it rolls up there.
  5. It's true that Martin has used appearance description many times, but it's not in everyone. True that some of Crasters daughters would likely have had a Valyrian look, but you don't get much description of that and you don't know who Craster's mother was. For all we know she had stronger darker genes which often take over (the entire "the seed is strong' notion). then it gets watered down with every generation of crasters children. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, but it IS an opinion. My opinion is that the magical blood theory connects to Targaryens and you're right that the Others predate the Valyrians of course, but not Craster. I don't necessarily say that Crasters babies become new Others, that's unproven, we just know that the Others take them and that could be to use their blood for some other purpose.
  6. My impression of Craster and his sacrifices was that he had something in his blood that made him valuable and the blood pushed throughout the story was Targaryen blood (though specifically King's blood). The Baratheons have Targaryen blood, so it's not proven that just being a king makes you special but it could. Since Mel doesn't actually burn Mance though and could have used a king's blood sacrifice, it feels like it's more specific to Targaryen (or Valyrian) blood. SO, if Craster's heritage is important to why his babies are accepted as sacrifices but he Others, wouldn't it seem more likely that he has Targaryen blood? I know Oakenfist (and others in the past) have mentioned Blood Raven as a possible father of Craster, but it could have been some other Targ bastard, castaway or otherwise unmentioned.
  7. hehe, whoops. I hope we know I meant Renly. I gotta watch that. Or did you disagree that he was very likeable?
  8. Nice, I don't know any of the samurai, but a kings guard with 7 samurai would be solid fighters and probably super noble. At least they probably wouldn't nail the queen when you were sleeping. That being said, gotta have honour and not just fighting ability. I'd keep Barristan on the list, but the dude does lose a lot of kings and I'll only keep one from their own world. I think I'd have Drizzt Do'urden Arthur Dayne (why mess with a good thing?) Inigo Montoya (don't mess with his father) mneh, my brain hurts, I'll add to this if I think of more lol.
  9. It's a complicated question because several of them overlap. Lastly I'd say Joffrey because he's shit in charge, wasn't groomed to rule, doesn't listen to advisors, and wouldn't uphold he law past his enjoyment as a sadist. I doubt he'd rule particularly wrong. Also he's a bastard who shouldn't be an option. 4th would be Really. Really is a likeable guy, loved by the people. He'd make an excellent lord if he stayed in his lane. As king he might not have been bad either as he was open handed, smart with good advisors though he seemed to make his own decisions as a ruler should. He was soft, but seemed to be hard when he had to be as was evident in his preparation for battle with Stannis. He had no claim though as the youngest son. If Stannis willingly abdicated then fine, but he didn't. 3rd was Balon. He made a land grab against another kingdom. not the reaving of his culture, but a full on assault. I understand and respect his right to sovereignty when those you bent the knee to were gone. However, trying to take over another kingdom makes me lose all respect for him. Fair, the Iron Islands are shit and he wanted some mainland to expand the kingdom, but he didn't even attempt to take back land the I.I. lost during the conquest like Harrenhal. So fuck him. 2nd was Robb. Make the North independent sure. Got no problem with that for the same reason Balon can regain sovereignty. I wish Robb stayed north of the neck once Ned was gone and his rebellion was mostly pushed by his popularity with his men and their support of him. He was pretty much pushed into it. His Tully blood is more what got him killed in the end since the Riverlands is a losing position to hold. If he stayed in the North to be King in the North then he'd have probably been fine. I doubt the rest of the kingdom would muster to go win back the North at the beginning of winter. My top choice for support is Stannis. Rightful king by the laws the land followed. He just couldn't prove it universally. Stannis is not a tyrant. He doesn't follow his own law and make things up as he goes and destroy or take what he wants. He follows an established law with established consequences. He could be more lenient, he could be gentler, but this is his character. He's got plenty of faults and plenty of virtues and he would have been a strong king. Unloved but strong and the land would have likely prospered as a result. He'd be a tough act to follow though and whomever followed would surely want to be more loved and have weakness like Aegon's son, or he'd overcompensate and try to be like Stannis and be more of a Maegor. That's how I see it.
  10. It's an interesting question of whether Stannis knew it was Mance or not. I don't think he did. Melisandre knows Stannis well enough by now to know he had to burn him or lose credibility. With that it's entirely possible she either didn't tell Stannis as she saw a greater purpose for Mance and set him to it or it's possible that she convinced Stannis of Mance's worth and he agreed to the subterfuge. If she didn't tell him though and Mance and Stannis are both successful in what their tasks were, over time, it would seem likely that Stannis would find out and have to do something about the lie. Mel is only fanatically loyal to the Lord of Light. Stannis would not write the Pink Letter nor suffer it to be written. He has shown no stylings of that sort of move. My feeling reading AFFC was that Stannis did not know. We'll see when I get to a second reading.
  11. I would agree with this OP. I think Jon is Azor even though there's plenty of evidence that could make someone else be Azor. It would seem that Jon is Rhaegar's 3rd son. I don't think Rhaegar's past belief in a prophecy that the book series is titled would need to be shared if it wasn't important to the larger plot end game. Jon has been in the thick of the story where the real war will be fought between the living and the dead. I would think that we can agree that the Iron Throne is the focus of many characters that are in Westeros either directly or is drawing them to Westeros but eventually, what is happening at the wall is going to draw every major POV character in the story there directly or indirectly (Cersei probably won't end up in the North I suppose). Central to the story in the North is Jon and in regards to what one poster said, he's only doing more harm than good from the perspective of some narrowly focused individuals who mistakenly see wildlings as the main enemy and not the Others.
  12. I'm farther in the book now and after Barristan grovelling for forgiveness Dany, I can see how guilty he felt that he accepted Robert's reinstatement. My understanding was that Barristan was grievously wounded (as in lying unconsiously and dying) but captured and mended for fighting valiantly. Offered pardon (I still think that's horseshit at least from a duty point of view since no crime was committed but acceptable from a changing sides point of view as he didn't fight with Robert. If you thought you had died in battle and awoke to find your side had lost and those you served had died. Then found out that you had been tended to and offered to live and serve an honourable victor, I don't see the shame in that. Choosing to die after the fact would not contain shame though I'm not in his position or point of view, so clearly he was conflicted by it. To compare Barristan Selmy to Jaime Lannister is far from the same thing. Barristan failed to die for his king but was defeated unto death on the battlefield whereas Jaime murdered the king by his own hand. Anyway, of course feel free to say your last bit, I'm withdrawing. Barristan clearly seeks forgiveness from Dany for the life given back to him and accepted by Robert and whether I Agree or not, feels guilty.
  13. I get what you're saying. I'm just saying pardon is the incorrect word as is traitor. definition of traitor - a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle. Barristan fought for the recognized king at the time of battle (not to mention it was called Robert's Rebellion historically afterwards). He at no point fought for Robert's cause and so cannot be a traitor to it. The victor become the ruling party, I get it, not overthinking it, I'm saying it's a poor choice of words.
  14. That's a nice historical reference. I think it's an exception though, as Robert nor anyone else in the realm considered Robert to be king until he was king.
  15. You don't become a rebel after the fact. You rebel against the crown (a crime), you win, and you become the crown, that part is fine. But you fight lawfully defending against rebels, you lose, you don't become a traitor. What would you have betrayed? If you continue to fight, you could become a rebel, but what Baristan did was not a crime, hence he wouldn't need a pardon, he'd need to swear allegiance and bend the knee.
×
×
  • Create New...