Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Morte

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

2,130 profile views
  1. Not to say that in the world they depicted the murder on the Frey-family would still be seen as mindless slaughter and evil (just as destroying the Vatican), while nobody would have even shrugged because of the Tarlys (or the masters, by the way) - normal warfare here, nothing to see or talk about. Not even that would be much to talk about - Tyros, Korinth, Karthago, Magdeburg, just to name a few of so many cities completely destroyed... Maximum negative reaction of fellow leaders: a frown, a "well, was that necessary?" . And in this special case: a city whose citizens stood by and let the Vatican been blown up, without any consequences for the lunatic who did this? People who stayed behind their walls while the rest of the Kingdom faced the Others? With Cersei not hanging from the City-walls as the armies approached, the city would be magdeburgerised by every historical military you would put in charge.
  2. Aristoteles, while being an important philosopher, is not that dominant in ancient thinking, the Stoa, Epikur (not: Naive Hedonism!) and the Pre-Socrats were much more widespread schools. As becoming a slave could literary happen to everyone if one was unlucky (see Iulius Caesar's episode with the pirates), it was clear to everyone, that Aristoteles was talking nonsense here, his proto-racistic ramble (the darker people being wiser but more decadent and submissive, the paler people being more energetic and more bound to nature but like children and unable to control their emotions) was mostly ignored. There was a lot of cultural chauvinism in every direction in Antiquity, and some xenophobia, but racism was almost non-existent. There are hints for the theory that racism is a result of ethnic-based slavery, not the other way around. And seeing how Aristotele's ramble about "races" became prevalent after the Arabic conquest, when most slaves were either white (Slavs - that's were the word slave is coming from), or black (Africa was raided for slaves very early on), and later with the rise of slavery in the European colonies (of course only the part about the black people ), the theory might be at least partially true. You don't. It's in the Digesta - juristic teachings already hundreds of years old, when they were compiled into the Corpus Iuris Civilis under Iustinianos. That's what people don't understand about the Roman phrase of "slaves being things" in the law - it's not thinking about the person as a thing, but a juristic construct to handle the status of a person, who is not sui iuris, but also not a member of the family and owned by another person. Of course, juristic logic lead to gruesome consequences, just as it did for members of the family who were not sui iuris (who originally were little more than slaves, as the pater familias could sell them, kill them etc. according to the Twelve Tables). These inhumanities were reduced over time (for the family members more than for slaves), with varied success.
  3. He is. Also Marwyn is heading to the Cinnamon Winds while Sam is shown his sleeping cell and walked around - I don't think they will dump Gilly and the baby at some guest-house to wait for Sam who doesn't know where they are. So Gilly and Aemon Steelsong are going to Mereen too. And I'm also quite sure that Marwyn will persuade the captain to not sell the books in Oldtown, but take them with them to the Dragonqueen as well.
  4. I'm with @Arthur Peres concerning the question whether Jon is legitimate, and I think @Thandros summed the situation up quiet well from Ned's perspective. I still however can't understand why Ned didn't tell Cat, and I think he did mess up the lives of both Jon and Cat that way. Sure, in the beginning it makes sense, because he did not know her and might have thought her a gossiping one. But after a few years he should have known better to assume her telling anyone - because I think she wouldn't have. So he should have told Cat the truth, even if he would choose to never tell Jon (which I understand why he wouldn't do this), it would have made both lives a lot happier.
  5. It's not just the age of the dynasty with the Starks, it's also because they are heavily invested in the myths of the North. I don't know if the Durrandons are as interwoven in the myths of the Stormlands as the Starks are in the North. Granted: We know very little about the myths of the Stormlands - the region is heavily underdeveloped in world building. Might be a part of it, yes. But I think Orys as a person made also a difference - because he wasn't just a steward who was raised to his rank by Aegon, but the kings half-brother, who defeated the last Storm King in single combat. Imho this also played a part. Yes, because that's what you do, or can do in a feudal society - but we don't know if it was necessary. I think it helped and was seen as honourable and chivalrous(?spelling?). Especially his treatment of Argella. On this we agree. Yes, that's unfortunate. It's still quite strange, even if his foster father was very much loved and respected by all four (half-)siblings, to keep a "nobody's-name", than you can get a very old and reverend one "for free". So either it was a very human and loving gesture, or it was this and the name Baratheon had some weight on it's own. If it would be an old Valyrian name, even if not a (very) noble one, keeping the name with the arms and colours of Durrandon would point toward both ancient and venerable roots. But as you say: We unfortunately don't know; maybe we get some more insight when F&B reaches the marriage of Ormund and Rhaelle... One can always hope.
  6. No, because we KNOW it isn't so. We know nothing about the Stormlanders wanting to keep the Durrandon, you are assuming the situation would be similar to the Starks and the North, I doubt it. We are deep in the terrain of speculations here. Because he didn't want to, it's a strong hint that it wasn't necessary to rule the Stormlands undisputed - even more: that all the things Durrandon he kept would also not have been necessary. It seems his own name, even though it wasn't an important one (as far as we know, if it would be a Valyrian name, like it was suggested in your other thread, this would be a possible explanation - but it might be sufficient that he deeply loved and respected his foster father, and thus kept his name), was more precious to him than the old and myth-laden name of his wife.
  7. Because we do have the description of indigo eyes such dark that they appear to be black with the right light, and blue eyes are well in the Valyrian spectrum, so we don't know there the eyes of the Baratheons come from. And as other have told you already - Orys hair is just as black as is Argilacs, and we don't have his daughters hair colour yet (but yes, she might have had black hair, too). I am projecting nothing. He could have taken a pink sparkling pony for his arms - he did not, I tried to explain why he did not, and how this was completely understandable and normal in a feudal society. That it was important for the Stormlanders to have a Durrandon as Lord over them is indeed quite unlikely, as they delivered Argella gagged and in chains; I doubt anyone would have even blinked, had Orys decided to end the Durrandon in the female line, too. Orys Baratheon would have become the Lord of the Stormlands whether he married Argella or not. And his sons are uncontested/legal/undisputed heirs of House Baratheon. On this we agree.
  8. Do they now? Or do they look like Orys in all but eye colour (if his eyes were indeed black, and than we don't know if Orys "black eyes" were indeed a very dark indigo)? We do not know, but the black hair is (at least also) from Orys. Yes, Orys Baratheon took Argella as wife - he did not have too, she was given to him in chains and gagged. Continuity is not bad, Orys did not hold lands until then, nor does he seem to have a sigil of his own (at least we don't know one), so it's just logical that he keeps the one of House Durrandon - it also showed the Stormlanders that he honoured his wife (who they gave him in chains). And it also was common to include the colours of a new territory to your arms, if you got one though marriage or conquest. As Orys doesn't have (as far as we know) any arms of his own, including the Durrandon arms to his own make them his, essentially. As an example here the arms of Charles V of Habsburg and the House Habsburg - one could play this "game" with other dynasties just as well: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Greater_Arms_of_Charles_I_of_Spain%2C_Charles_V_as_Holy_Roman_Emperor.svg And all together the House Habsburg abandoned their original coat of arms (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Familienwappen_Habsburg-Stroehl.jpg) almost completely for the arms of Austria (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Bindenschild_Privilegium_maius_1512.svg); combined they look like this (including Lorraine): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Habsburg_Lorraine_Trishield.png Now, should he have destroyed a fine castle and made his domain somewhere else? The first one nobody would do, the second is, well... - He did conquer the Stormlands, and married the daughter of the lord of this domain, so the second suggestion is somewhat strange. Sure. It's just that @Lord Varys suggested that because it was harder for Robert to begin with, making him that dependent on the other Houses (read: one House - Lannister) wasn't a smart move on Robert's and Jon Arryn's behalf. Especially since the Stormlands aren't a very strong power base in itself. At the very least Robert should have punished the thugs who raped Elia and killed her and her children. Him not doing this (leaving aside why he did not do it) send a message of his dependence from the Lannisters as well as one of the vulnerability of royal blood and discard-ability of vows. Ned is by far not the only one who would have send Jaime to the Wall and wanted to see the murderers of Elia and her children punished.
  9. Yes and no. Robert does indeed have even more problems to maintain the influence of the king over his lords than the Targaryens had post dragons; basically he is in a position even more similar to the German Kings of the Mediaeval Ages, he is too much primus inter pares, and too little sovereign. While it is true that kings in feudal monarchies have to rely on working with their lords, there are a lot of different degrees in which this is necessary: For example the French kings or the Sicilian kings even before Friedrich II and many other feudal kingdoms were less dependent on their fellow aristocrats than the German kings were. That's also why every dynasty on the German Throne worth their salt wanted to chance that. The power and influence of the Targaryen kings over their kingdoms stands somewhere between the dynasties of the Salier and Staufer as Kings of Germany and sovereign feudal monarchs, while Robert is really more like the typical primus inter pares the German King was (power and influence-wise). There is one, ONE, Durrandon in the Baratheon's family tree. ONE. They are at least double as much Targaryen than they are Durrandon, not to mention all the other families who married into House Baratheon - They are essentially everything else more than they are Durrandon...
  10. Forth: The majority* of the slaves in not only the Spartacus-revolt, but quite a number of slave-revolts in Antiquity, weren't interested in changing the system itself; they just wanted to go home (many of those who succeeded had no problem at all with slaves in their homelands, or even with keeping slaves themselves). This seems quite different with Dany's campaign. *Not all, there were some pioneers, philosophers and those influenced by them.
  11. Yes, but - as you correctly said - this were executions, and we know that only very few people actually did watch this part of the ludi. In Meereene we have a full house watching the horror, and not against condemned criminals - and that's very over the top (and makes one wonder even more how readers can defend these people).
  12. And not even that: if the audience decided "pollice recto" (as they did most of the time; a pollice verso was very, very rare - a defeated gladiator would have to really "work" to get one), it would have been a serious scandal if the owner would have killed the defeated gladiator. Of course, he could have decided to have the slave killed (at least until Antoninus Pius; it's actually quite interesting, because raping of ones own slaves was forbitten since the very late republic and castration and reasonless mutilation of slaves had been prohibited already in the 1st century), but as you said: taking into account how much the slave had cost him until then, it would not be something a lanista would even consider. In fact, mortality for gladiators was highest between the age of 18-25; mostly at the beginning of their "career" in the arena. But of course most of this men weren't killed before yielding, but died because of their wounds (as while the healthcare was very good indeed, Tetanus and other wound-inflicted diseases were a huge problem). Newer calculations are one out of eight gladiators actually dying in the arena itself. It isn't financially viable, also it doesn't make much sense why remotely sane people would even be interested in such a spectacle [one has to point out that executions (expect for those done as scenarios, like naval battles etc. - but this was something else entirely, as the rudis was possible, albeit seldom) and the beginner-fights were placed in the early hours of the ludi in Ancient Rome, with only very few attendants]. As you said: the Roman games were build around making a fight as fair - and thus interesting and exiting - as possible. That's why the arma-pairings are fixed, why there always is a referee, etc. Hell, even the venationes (beast fights - not to confuse with damnatio ad bestias, which was an execution) were as fair as possible - we know of at least two beasts who were granted the rudis (the wooden sword): a lion and a bear (named innocentia by the audience). Yes, but who would watch this (see above)? It's not funny, not interesting nor exiting. While real-world munera were a very bloody "sport", one can at least imagine why people would watch them - and even for the Roman games we have quite a lot of contemporary people who found them disgusting, brutal and/or not interesting at all. So making the Mereenese cheer for such "games" is more than a little over the top and makes the whole "culture" a caricature (well, it's not the only thing, so: MST3K-Mantra... Ommmmm Ommmmmm) Actually, there is a really great book on Rome in fiction (mostly: movies), only existing because the author did not follow your advice: Markus Junkelmann, Hollywoods Traum von Rom (Hollywood's dream of Rome). Unfortunatly, it was never translated into English, but if you can read German - get it! It is essentially a long and - at least for historians - funny rant by a historian and experimental archaeologist who spend his life working on Roman military and gladiators, triggered by the movie Gladiator.
  13. Here we have to agree to disagree, unfortunately. Olenna tells us she is opposed to the idea, while she might be opposed to the implementation and execution, as well as the modifications to the plan, giving her great-daughter to one king after the other. This would be two quite different things, but Olenna would of course not tell us. And Margaery is an even greater enigma in her motivations, but as much as you doubt that she has an agenda on her own, as much do I think that she has. So... We need a POV. That I can not say, as I only watched rants and summaries after the second episode of season two.
  14. I think we all agree here. It's kind of frustrating to have so little to work with, but I think the only way to get more informations on this would indeed be a Tyrell-POV (my preference for a number of reasons would be Loras). So let's hope we get one... I don't believe in any of this statements; or more specific: I do believe that Olenna had little love for Renly, simply because she doesn't seem to have much love for a lot of people , but I don't believe Margaery did not want to be queen, nor that Olenna is/was really against the idea as such. Well, if I had to choose who cooked up the plan, I would go with Loras and Margaery (with how much Olenna I don't know), convincing Renly because he could get rid of Cersei that way. Then, after Robert's death and some thinking, the plan changed into crowning Renly and making Margaery his queen. Margaery surly isn't a pawn here, but a player - and I simply can't believe Loras getting or giving in to such an idea without his sister's very explicit consensus. I don't think @Lord Varys is really convinced about this, just that with so little informations it is a possibility we can't discard with 100%, only with about 99,99%. So LV is laying a lot of emphasis into the fact that with the structure of the early books we really can't know for certain, and have way too little insight into the motivations of one of the major factions in the War of the five Kings and - as the Tyrells are still in the game - until now. And that this is quite frustrating ( ) - an assessment I do share, even while I do agree with you that what little we do know hints a lot more toward Renly's decision being made some-when "on the run", and that he never did plan to crown himself while still in KL.
  • Create New...