Jump to content

Morte

Members
  • Content count

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Morte

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Sigil, the Hive Ward
  • Interests
    (in no particular order:) books, comics, CRPGs, history, archaeology ... have I mentioned books?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,073 profile views
  1. As I said, it can well be, that the Valyrians did "only" create the bound between them and the dragons, and that the dragons were always there. We don't know. But as you said: Nobody else did tame dragons, at least not in "historical times" (which are quite longer in Essos) and as far as we know. There is a connection between the Others and the existence of dragons however, a balance between fire and ice. It was disturbed with the death of the last dragon, and the winters are becoming longer since. This points toward the dragons existence predating their taming (if we think, as we are told, that the Others also were always were), but would not collide with the theory of the Valyrians gaining their ability to ride them through a however horrible "Nissa-Nissa-like" sacrifice, if we want to stay with the theory that you need dragon blood to ride a dragon.
  2. My theory is that the "creation of dragonriders" (or even dragons as we know them, because to be honest: we don't know what and how "dragons" were (if they were) before the Valyrians bound them) was the event which the legend of Azor Ahai speaks about, personalized, just as the "last hero". In my opinion the legends transport what was done to end the last Long Night. One was the bounding (or even creation) with (of) fire made flesh, aka dragons. This would explain why only people out of the bounded/magically changed bloodlines could bound with dragons - if we have it right that Valyrian blood is indeed required.
  3. Morte

    Summer vs. Jaime Lannister

    Well, at least he does reflect about his more mean actions and clearly sees them as wrong, even if he tries to justify them before his own eyes, so hope is not lost here. Also, at least one of the Stark children has to grown out of bad habits (and not deeper into them), no? *fingers crossed*
  4. Morte

    Summer vs. Jaime Lannister

    I'm in the same boat here. Yes, Arya and - to a certain degree - Jon let themselves be ruled by revenge, but I think Bran will not fall into that trap. Maybe not out of human reasons, but because of the greater picture. Or maybe, because all will become kind of irrelevant once you are a allseeing tree. Beside: Jaime's habit has already run its course, as we can see in the dreams he has, especially the one with his Kingsguard brothers, Rhaegar ... and Ned.
  5. I'm repeating myself here, but it's still my opinion, that the characters in Essos and whose moving toward Dany are the one damaged most by skipping the 5-years-gap: GRRM clearly didn't think about the way on what is going to happen till everybody has arrived in Meereen and taken his or her position. He knew who and how and in which mindset they have to be when the five years are over, but he hasn't fleshed out the details for himself and is now struggling to show how they ended where. And because he has to make sure the time continuum is at least mostly intact, Dany has to wait "in real time" while the other are moving, doing essentially ... nothing. That's what damaged her arc in ADWD the most. IMHO
  6. Morte

    Problematic aspects of Sansa`s education

    You started an interesting topic, as far as I can tell... But I think the forum ate at least half of your post, because for me it just simply ends in the discussion of Ned's reaction of Sansa at the tournament - followed by a lot of blank space. So... What and how much are we missing?
  7. Morte

    The Trolley Problem and A Song of Ice and Fire

    Interesting topic indeed; I'm with @Lluewhyn here and strongly recommend Max Weber's essay "Politics as a Vocation" on the topic of "Gesinnungsethik" (Ultimate end) vs. "Verantwortungsethik" (ethic of responsibility), as I, too, think, that GRRM is trying to highlight the struggle between this two (with both Jon's and Dany's "Gesinnungsethik" failing miserably at this moment, while Dany is also not comfortable with what little "Verantwortungsethik" she did). If he indeed does this (as his statement about Aragon implies), then the characters will have to realise, that good things they intended can and did indeed turn out wrong or even causing great harm, while they have to do thing they find wrong or even abhor to get a good/better result. Struggling with this and having to realise, that one can't always follow one of the two ways, but have to balance them, while always having to face the consequences of your actions, ruling with the head, not heart or soul. For Weber, the ability to work like this, makes the difference between a truly good politician and most people in politics (no matter which political system).
  8. Morte

    What to do with Harrenhal?

    Yes, especially as Missandre pointed out that the Unsullied can be used as police and building squad in peace times (just as the roman legions were). In this case Harrenhal would make a really good head quarter. Good question. If they hear whispers directed to them, it's not unlikely. We know little about the Lady of Spears, but people tend to attribute things they can not understand to their gods, so - yes?
  9. Morte

    What to do with Harrenhal?

    The feudal society of Westeros doesn't have standing armies yet, so - while indeed being quite a nice place for something like a big garrison - no one could use it for it. If however Daenerys would bring her Unsullied, and if they survive the fight against the Others as "the Unsullied", Harrenhal would indeed would make a fine head quarter for them. In fact, the only thing that can effectively man it's walls is a legion, so it seems to be made for the Unsullied. Professional standing armies appeared in Europe around the first century BC (development toward this started earlier, of course), the Unsullied were highly inspired by this particular standing army (with some reminiscences of the hoplites), so I wouldn't be surprised if they turn up as garrisoned at Harrenhal.
  10. Morte

    Why did George give daenerys everything

    The NW's problem in this state is not their vow, but forgetting about the Others and the whole purpose of the Watch. That's why nobody wants to go there anymore, because nobody remembers (just as @Lord Varys pointed out just a few posts above yours). This only works with an actual military system in place, with a strong state administration and citizens. Which you don't have in this feudal society, expect for military orders (like the NW). We are not talking about Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union or any other modern state here, we are talking about a feudal and by far pre-modern society, the people are not citizens, they are subjects, and are not only threatened as such, but also think in the way subjects thought about their lords. The "best" thing you could get in such a world as standing army would be lansquenets - if you want to know how "nice" the lansquenet-system worked for anybody but the people paying them, read about the Thirty Years' War.
  11. Morte

    Why did George give daenerys everything

    Not love as in fraternity, but romantic and familiar love. In the Long Night you have to extend your "love" from your family to all people. If everybody is looking for the safety and survival of their relatives first and foremost, how will you as humanity stand against the Others and survive the Long Night? You will kill each other for food and temporary shelter even without seeing an Other. So no, this part of the vow wasn't stupid and maybe is even one of the oldest parts: Make an organisation with the only purpose to save and guard humanity, without thinking about lovers and family. It became an abomination in regard on the Wildlings ( @kissdbyfire is right here), as they were excluded from the mission and seen as enemies, while I do think that originally they were part of what the NW had to guard (maybe even more then the people living in the safety of the Wall; the NW was there to look out for the Others to come back and provide the people staying outside the Wall with a safeguard and retreat). And also because the NW forgot their original mission. Yes, blind adherence. That's the point. Not all the vows are stupid, nor is following them in their meaning and by understanding them, see Maester Aemon's and Mormont's interpretation of the vow in AGoT, for example. In fact, in the books we see that both, blind adherence and careless discarding of vows, lead to destruction and bad things. Here we agree (even if we maybe will never agree about the Pink Letter and Jon's reaction to it ). It's about keeping the balance.
  12. Morte

    Why did George give daenerys everything

    For me Jon's personal arc (his character development) in the first three books was very much about realising the names and families are not that important, but what you do it. And that there are things more important than family heritage. I always thought about Jon as becoming the Lord Commander under who's rule the Night's Watch found it's purpose again and fought the Others. That's why I'm with @Lord Varys here and don't like the assassination plot very much, as for me the Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter was far out of the development he already achieved in the first three books. But then, all the people who helped him remember his vows are away, but still... I would have liked at least a little more inner (and outer) conflict on this matter, not just a "I'm going to save my sister! Hug!" [The way this plays out is not Jon's fault as an imaginary person and character, but because this all was written as a plot drive, and maybe wasn't mend to be written at all with the 5-year-gap in place. It's the same with Daenerys sitting in Mereen not solving any conflict, waiting for people to arrive who should have made most of their way offscreen.] But then, now that this thing happened, I'm with @kissedby fire and hope he isn't dead dead, but only very severely wounded, having some wolf dreams while in his coma, etc. If Jon has to come back as a fire zombie, I do hope he comes back focused on the Night's Watches vows, not as another vengeance-family-zombie, as we have that one already (frankly, if he becomes something with a mind set close to Stoneheart, I would prefer him staying dead, as this would go so much against his arc of becoming free from the thinking in clan-pattern and "us and them"). As for Daenerys: My gut feeling is, that if/when she ends on the Iron Throne it will no longer be because she wanted it, and it will not be about being happy, as happiness in her life will at that moment have long ended [I think in this scenario all her three loves and a lot of people she did and could indeed trust will be dead, maybe she will loose another child, at least one of her dragons will not survive (and I think by treason), etc.] but about duty and things that must be done. It will be part of the bitter-sweet ending (more bitter then sweet). Her reign would start on the note of "I'm married to England" and end on "Since well I've played my part, all clap your hands, And from the stage dismiss me with applause". A life for the realm, nothing else, as nothing else is left. I, too, like this idea: Belwas had no purpose till now, as you point out. And concerning Illyrio, Dany switches between trust and a gut feeling, that he is too good to be real and has his own plans. It would move thing forward the Dance - and the Tattered Prince would get his Pentos.
  13. Morte

    Mance Rayder's background story?

    Captain Obvious at your command, Sir!
  14. Morte

    Mance Rayder's background story?

    Has anyone mentioned recently that we need the next book? Because we do.
×