SeanF

There’s one i too many in Morion

Arianne’s plan is clear to me. Myrcella will just be used as a puppet, to clear her own path to power in Dorne. Myrcella could always be sent back to Cersei, in due course.

As before, I enjoy the Nornish characters the most. The interactions between Pratiki, Viyeki, and other nobles, are excellent. Pratiki thinks Utukhu is mad as a box of frogs, but courtly etiquette makes it lethally dangerous to say such a thing. So, criticism must be framed in the most oblique terms - a form of code that only the most skilled politicians can discern. So, it must have been at the courts of the Ch’ing Dynasty, or the Shogun.

About the 14th, in this case.

We’ve seen the Arryns die out once already in the direct line with Lady Jeyne, who was a lesbian. They’ll probably die out again with Sweetrobin. But the inheriting relative just takes the Arryn surname. I expect the same has happened with the Starks.

Someone like Macchiavelli’s Prince. The parameters of this world are that the nobility are selfish and greedy, and would supplant you, if they could. Everyone considers capital punishment and torture are legitimate. People view women as inferior to men, and consider that people should rule because of their bloodlines or wealth. Views on chattel slavery do differ; more enlightened people consider it wrong, even if they buy into the rest of these values. Almost without exception, the existence of God or Gods is taken for granted. Due process is non-existent. Guilt or innocence depends on the king or lord deciding if he likes the cut of your jib. So, a good ruler is a hard bastard, but not capricious. Someone like Alfred the Great, Edward, Athelstan, Henry I or II, Edward III, Edward IV, Henry VII, or Elizabeth I.

I think Martin loves Tyrion in the way that Shakespeare loved Richard III. (No one can watch that play and not be rooting for Richard, even though Henry is the nominal hero).

100 pages in, and I’m enjoying it. I do wonder if the Sacrifices will eventually turn on the pure-blood Norns. Soldiers recruited from among slaves frequently do. And, Forest Gramps has migrated from The Witcher and captured Miri.

Yes, Cole has no redeeming features that I can see.

It was intended as a surgical strike against a handful of Protestant leaders. And it turned into a bloodbath. That’s possibly true of the Red Wedding.

I’ve just received my copy from Amazon.

Then, there are the girls who are lucky enough to marry Walder Frey. He had some nerve offering marriage to Arianne Martell.

There is a limited truth to it. Over time, Italians mostly stopped volunteering for military service, whereas people from poorer parts of the empire did so in large numbers, but that was mostly about economics. A career as a legionary ceased to be attractive in wealthy places, but was very attractive in poorer places.

Brett Devereaux calls it the “Fremen Mirage”, ie the notion that civilisation is inherently corrupting, whereas men who live hard, simple lives will invariably defeat their civilised opponents, who have gone soft. In fact, military history does not bear that out in general.

The Eastern Empire was in no way lacking in martial prowess, long after it became Christian. The Iconoclast Emperors, however, railed against monacticism, for the reasons you indicate. They hated the idea of generals and ministers retiring to the cloister.

The ancients attributed the fall of civilisations to "luxury", which is not quite the same thing, but covers some of the same ground. The brother of Scipio Africanus was (in modern terms) a homosexual, and Old Cato thundered about the moral laxity of his army, in the Senate, eventually driving both Scipios out of public life. Gibbon was just taking at face value, an ancient trope, but reinforced by his own prejudices against "degenerate and effeminate" Greeks.

On the theme of "decadence", it's surprising really, how popular remains the notion that dynasties and civilisations are brought down by sexual licentiousness. In reality, there's very little evidence for it. Rome was filled with sexual licentiousness, in the last hundred years of the Republic, and yet, hundreds of years of military success lay ahead of it. Any number of successful military leaders have had absolutely voracious sexual appetites (eg Caesar, Wellington, Napoleon, Zhukov).

To be fair to D & D (not something I often say) I loved The Winds of Winter and the The Field of Fire. Even The Bells was impressive, if marred by absurdities. The problem with later seasons is that these high points were few and far between, and everything was riddled with plotholes.

The Greens' defeat was the most complete defeat that anyone could have experienced - the complete extinction of Alicent's bloodline.

The antagonist of the tale is Milady de Winter. By any objective measure, she is no worse than the Musketeers, perhaps somewhat better. She murders people, on the orders of the French first minister. They murder people, for reasons of pique or “honour.” Athos is a common murderer, and D’Artagnan a rapist. They rob tradesmen and abuse servants. And, they seduce married women, before blackmailing them for money.

Sometimes the author and (some of) the readers will perceive a character differently. I was thinking of that when reading the (uncensored version of) The Three Muskeeteers. The Musketeers are actually pieces of shit, in my view, but that's not the view of the author.

Okay, I misread that. I think he’s wrong, for the reasons I’ve listed.

Tyrants and genocidaires can still be sympathetic, if written well enough. In the main series, every character of note ranges from being pretty ruthless, at one end, to being a sociopathic butcher, at the other.

I meant five times the viewership.

Tournament fighting is the only example I can think of of the upper classes engaging in a dangerous contact sport, for the amusement of the lower classes (as well as highborn ladies). Almost always, the reverse is the case.