TheKnightOfTheNorth

I guess it has something to do with being the little brother. Much like what Asha says about little brothers being in the shadow of their older brothers.

Do they have the sufficient men though? Besides, a siege could take a lot of time and the Lannisters could easily march on the Stark forces besieging the castle.

I don't think so. First, Illyrio is not known for his piety, and he is not a fool either. If he wants to have a hand in the governance of Westeros he should not oppose the Faith. Second, as Varys also claims, Aegon had been educated in the Faith and is not a follower of R'hollor.

First, Robb would lose the war if he spent his men storming the Twins. Yes Freys would lose a lot of men but the Starks would lose a lot more so it would not be rational for Robb to storm the castle. He needed Frey for the crossing, undoubtedly. Second, even if the Starks won while I was brooding, there would be no problem, I was insulted, what was expected of me? By the way, Robb's chance of success was so small at that point even if the Freys joined their forces.

Surely, but It doesn't change the fact that the said factions hate him.

I do agree with you in many aspects. The point I was trying to make was that the fall of Oldtown would not be merely part of a territorial conquest. I'm saying that the city's fall has a significant impact on the whole of Westeros, not only politically but socially either. I don't say that everyone will submit to the Ironborn. Many will chafe under their yoke and will rise to send them back to the seas. But will there be all Westeros who fights back? The Ironborn may not have the power to conquer all Westeros, true. But they can deal the deadly blow to Westeros's fracture. Different societies and cultures through Westeros are held together by their common religion (See how the Ironborn and the Northmen are socially distant from the other peoples). Assume that the Starry Sept is put to torch by the Ironborn. Yes, many will rise consumed by their holy zeal. But as mentioned earlier Westeros is not capable of Staving off the Ironborn right now. So no matter how vengeful they are, there's no chance right now. And as time passes so does this zeal, people tend to point this rage to somewhere else, and the old hatreds resurface.(e.g. a riverman who follows the Faith of the Seven does become enraged and vengeful by the word of Oldtown's fall but the Ironborn are almost unreachable, on the other hand the Westerners are here at hand, those who hadburnt his villages, and thus he nurtures this hatred further) The case is much like the massacre of Jews in England and France after word came of the Fall of Jerusalem in 1187. But as you mentioned, the Ironborn cannot hold to power for long, eventually they will be brought to heel (Just like the case of the Mongols). But I suppose, it will happen by the hands of local rulers of the invaded places and not whole the Ironborn are at the height of their power. I don't disagree with you in the ultimate fall of the Ironborn but I wanted to point out the Social aspects of the incident.

Will they? How united can they be, once the bond is broken, old hatreds and strifes resurface. Just like real life, it is hardly likely that they will be as disciplined and united as before. Let's reference real history: First Crusade was a success for the Christians, most European nobles united under one banner and took Jerusalem, later established the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But after Jerusalem was retaken by the Muslims, the Christians couldn't answer with their previous unity like in the Third Crusade where the mission is thwarted by the conflict between Richard the Lionheart and Phillip Augustus. Or the Fourth Crusade where Constantinople is captured instead of Jerusalem which certainly shows how the West-East schism reappeared. Another example is the Fall of the Mongol Empire(s) and the Islamic monarchies which replaced them. The Safavids, the Ottomans and the Mamluks couldn't have the unity which ruled the Islamic lands during the Abbasid Caliphate. Old quarrels like Arab-Persian or Shia-Sunni conflicts resurfaced whereas prior to the Mongol Conquest, these conflicts were unconventional to some extent. And the Mongols didn't meet significant resistance at the first place either due to the policies of The Khawrazmian Empire.

Is he??? I don't say Stannis is a saint but compared to Tywin, well he is not evil at all. Let's compare: Stannis has committed fratricide and he is ruthless in justice, to a point where he burns people alive => yeah, we may call this evil. Tywin has killed children, sacked a city, burned villages. He has drowned men who had taken refuge in their mines. And the ordeal with Tysha => What do you call this pray? I don't hate Tywin, he is pragmatic and somehow wise and perhaps he hadn't been this much vile before his wife's demise. But his actions are far more villainous than any of Stannis's. What about a Martell point of view? Or a Targaryen one? Or the point of view of a King's Lander?

Only a hint to place a doubt in Robert's mind would suffice. Robert may not trust Stannis but certainly he trusts the man who is almost a father to him, Jon Arryn. When Robert was told, questions would be asked, inquiries would be made and Robert would most likely believe it, after all he was known to be rash and he didn't love Cersei. I think Robert would have turned blind by rage he wouldn't have thought of Tywin or the politics or anything, he would've acted spontaneously and rashly, just as Ned predicted.

I do agree, Oldtown may have more things in common with Alexandria than Baghdad. But still in some aspects such as the city's ties with religion and education and its almost unmatched prosperity in the area usually remind me of 12th/13th century Baghdad. Perhaps not its appearance but its social status in Westeros is really close to that of Baghdad's. A show of power perhaps? If Oldtown falls, the Ironborn will be viewed as a significant threat to all Westeros not merely some raiders off the sea. It will pave the way for their further conquest, as Oldtown's fall will be also of social and political significance (much like Baghdad).

They didn't need the Frey army or their force, they could ultimately beat the Starks. But if they made a compromise with the Freys and prevented them from rejoining forces with the Starks, they would avoid one or two more years of war.

For a certainty, I wouldn't go back to the Starks as my first option, even with Freys at their back, their chances to retake North and beat the Lannister-Tyrell alliance was scarce. I would discreetly negotiate with the Lannisters first (certainly they will ask a price). If the Lannisters offered generous terms and didn't ask for some outrageous price (e.g. Red Wedding), I would certainly declare for them. But if the Lannisters balked at that, I would sit idle in the Twins until there are more favourable terms offered by the Starks or the Lannisters (and this would certainly happen bacuae both factions needed the Freys)

Not everything depends on wealth though. We cannot say Tywin is cruel because it has been his nature. Surely like Ramsay, his evil traces back to something.

A Storm of Swords, Tyrion VI "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing." "Then why did the Mountain kill her?" "Because I did not tell him to spare her. I doubt I mentioned her at all. ..." Tywin did not order Elia's murder, he simply did not care about her.

Surely but the validity of Tyrion's marriage could work as a pretext for those in power. Perhaps it could be used to annul Sansa's marriage. No matter if it truly was.

My argument mostly relies on the similarities between the two cities rather than the invaders but as many agree that The Ironborn are similar to the Vikings, I must say there are again similarities between the Mongols and the Vikings thus between the Dothraki and the Ironborn. Hard places breed hard men. The Gobi desert and Scandinavia are much alike in this. Ruthlessness in battle, raising puppet rulers in the conquered lands and ...

Actually I meant their Conquest of Transoxiana, forgive me. The Mongols only started to ask submission from the local rulers in the last satges of war(e.g. the Salgurids of Fars). Let's look back to when the Mongol envoy is ruthlessly executed by the Kharazmshah. The first stages of war had been far more merciless and ruthless, cities like Bukhara and Nishapur were razed to the ground. So yes this is quite similar to the actions of the Ironborn. As for their pretext, it was not mentioned until Hulego Khan led his army west. I admit I haven't studied about Syracuse, I cannot argue if it fits more.

As I said, I don't believe that the Stannis we have seen in the books is capable of such a thing. Yes the Show Stannis is depicted quite differently that this decision aligns well with his character. But still it is likely that Shireen won't survive, but I believe if this happens, it would be in a different manner.

I do know, this is not the likeliest possibility, however seeing Shireen ascend the throne will fulfill Stannis's arc. I imagine, Stannis will finally(by his death) gain the respect and loyalty he has always craved (Being the person who fights in the war against the Others). It would be possible that the North and many others declare for Shireen as Stannis's legacy. As I have mentioned earlier I guess, Stannis will most likely betrothe Shireen to Rickon if he is found and Winterfell is taken, thus binding his cause and the North. As for the burning, I don't think Book Stannis will ever burn his daughter, Book Stannis and Show Stannis are quite different. And Myrcella and her brothers were known in the south, but if it is proved that they are born of incest, will anyone look up to them as their monarch? We know that most Westerosi call these children Abominations.

Why, all of them. I really like to see wether there had been only one major house with the name Flint and the houses we have now are its descendent (if this, how?) or these houses have completely different origins.

If they refused, he could've named them traitors and then acted ruthlessly as king has to. But by doing it quietly, he lost the support of the reluctant nobles. He portrayed himself as a cruel king and Robert as a saviour, not the other way around.

The monarch's power in Westeros is not absolute, yes there's no Magna Carta but Westeros is ruled by the feudal system, where the king must rely on the other nobles for his alleged power. If the nobles decide that they don't need this monarch anymore, power can easily shift from one's hands to another's. As we saw in case of Aerys. Westeros is much like western Europe in late medieval ages where unlike the East the monarch did not command a royal army. As in case of Stannis, we see that many didn't choose to support him because of his religion. Even Stannis's power is not absolute, if some nobles like the Florents cease to support him he is doomed. If the king of Westeros does as he pleases, he may not stay a king for long, because there are others who hold power close to that of the king's. Whereas Daenerys's power is absolute now, for her subjects do not hold significant power.

House Flint House Tarth House Royce House Estermont

I suppose, by this story, we learn that not everyone thinks of Ned as we think of him. There are various perspectives on Ned in different places and by different people. If we ask someone from Dorne about Jon's parentage, the answer they give us is quite different from the answer a Northman would provide. I believe the purpose here is to add to these rumours around Eddard Stark. We never saw The Sisters in the first three books, did we?

I suppose the hand's chain isn't made of solid gold either due to same reasons you provided. He doesn't need to, his other hand is enough for asphyxiation if he uses his golden hand only to hold his victim's throat. I agree, we can comsider it metaphorically. In this case gold may refer to Casterly Rock or his sigil.