Jump to content

the trees have eyes

Members
  • Posts

    2,155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by the trees have eyes

  1. At a moral, individual level I agree. Sweeping generalisations are clumsy and unhelpful when Roose Bolton, Tywin or Bronn could be contrasted unfavourably with Rodrik The Reader or Baelor Blacktyde (from what little we learn of them). But The Old Way gives the Ironborn an economic and legal framework to carry out reaving as a way of life that is absent in the rest of Westeros and a culture where a man's status and prestige depends on how many salt wives he has captured and men only wear jewellery they have paid the iron price for is obviously a problem for it's neighbours. I've quoted the Theon chapter on the raid on the Stony Shore in my last post as I think this sums up how The Ironborn's approach to warfare differs from the rest of the 7K. Of course this is a way of turning violent tendencies outwards rather than inwards but that just adds maintaining stability to the other reasons for reaving to continue less civil strife be added to men lacking salt wives, jewels, plunder and battle stories to boast of.
  2. You misunderstood? Ok. But you misunderstand The Old Way. Case in point. An elected monarch (like via the Anglo-Saxon Witan) does not a mass democracy make. Even a child could understand that. We don't know how Harren the Black treated the riverlands after he conquered them. We can assume he raided them extensively beforehand and raided other neighbouring kingdoms afterwards. I imagine some of the smallfolk were taken back to the Iron Isles and the bulk were treated as as thralls and salt wives in situ. They're all second class citizens however and, whether they are eastern Europeans living in a form of Ostmark or akin to Indians living in British India, they aren't equal to Ironborn. Don't be a twit. You stated, on absolutely no textual foundation whatsoever that "Euron specifically is not a follower of the old ways" so I gave you a simple quote to counter that obvious nonsense. As usual, you deflect, distract and attempt to deny the text as it's inconvenient for you. The war to the death I never mentioned and which I specifically denied in my last post to you? That you said in your opening statement was a generalisation of my point when I told you, word for word "Raiding obviously requires there be someone to raid", yet you repeat it here. That's a bad faith argument. Of course it's thralls and salt wives (and plunder) - that's the whole point of it! - but those thralls and salt wives come from preying on their neighbours. A Clash of Kings - Theon III Theon returned to his Sea Bitch. The masts of his longships stood outlined against the sky along the pebbled beach. Of the fishing village, nothing remained but cold ashes that stank when it rained. The men had been put to the sword, all but a handful that Theon had allowed to flee to bring the word to Torrhen's Square. Their wives and daughters had been claimed for salt wives, those who were young enough and fair. The crones and the ugly ones had simply been raped and killed, or taken for thralls if they had useful skills and did not seem likely to cause trouble. This is The Old Way. Despite being raised in The Greenlands Theon understands it just fine. Even if he didn't Cleftjaw and the other Ironborn know the ropes. No one is making these women's lives better, they're property though the "ugly ones" will be spared systematic rape and just used as slave labour, as long as they're useful, otherwise they're killed. This is pure ISIS. You must understand all this, it's there in black and white on page but you pretend Theon is confused about it all, that Euron doesn't really follow The Old Way and that The Old Way isn't what it in fact is. I'll take what's on page versus whatever you casually pluck from your curious mind. Why not accept the books even if you don't like what the author writes? You can criticise them without distorting them. You are misrepresenting The Old Way and quite deliberately. Even comparisons to ISIS don't give you pause. You've bent over backwards to say Pretty Pia would be better off with The Ironborn than otherwise, I mean just "part of the family", right? If this isn't defending Ironborn culture I don't know what you think it is. The reason for this seems an undifferentiated contempt for everything in story which doesn't help at all with understanding that Jaime rescued Pia rather than captured her. It's not hard to understand unless you are weirdly invested in refusing to. And there we have it. Pia "is "basically" walking the path of a thrall". Is every refugee a thrall or property in your view? Was Beric keeping all those smallfolk in The Hollow Hill as "basically" thralls or was he providing shelter and protection? You are fundamentally misrepresenting Jaime's actions with Pia. This is lazy beyond belief and quite repugnant. Lazy because your typical disdain for everything in story means you seem unable (or simply don't bother) to distinguish between what happens to Pia under The Bloody Mummers or Gregor Clegane and when Jaime and yes, even Bonifer, take over. Repugnant because Jaime has Ilyn Payne take the head off a man who tries to use her as a sex slave, something even a witless moron couldn't fail to notice. Pia is a refugee. She takes up with Jaime's squire because she chooses to not because she's anyone's captive or property. There's a principle here called consent that is missing from The Ironborn's The Old Way. One of us is misreading the text regarding Pia and it's not me..... A man beating his wife to death for cheating on him is a crime. It happens today, sadly, as well as historically / fictionally. The individual could be described as acting in an animalistic fashion but obviously they are punished for it today (unless you live in societies that consider women property) as they were / are historically / fictionally in medieval / pseudo-medieval societies. Same for rape. It's simply arrogant and lazy to dismiss entire cultures as animalistic because of violent crimes. It doesn't illuminate the text, just your own biases and the filter you read and understand the story through. Incest and cannibalism are clearly taboo in Westeros with the Targs being the sole exception to the former and justifying their right to rule through the maintenance of the special bloodline. This tells us nothing about The Seven Kingdoms as incest and cannibalism are not cultural practices that can be wheeled out to "not defend" Ironborn culture to show all are equally bad in your eyes. Prima nocte plays absolutely no part in story that I can see beyond being wheeled out by Roose as a defence for his murdering the miller and raping his wife, along with a bit of finger-pointing at the Umbers ("people are saying" as those looking to muddy the waters with false accusations say today). Ned would have punished Roose and obviously there is nothing "wilfully ignorant" about the view that prima nocte is not a widespread cultural practice in the North due to it being (according to you) an animalistic society / culture. That's a poorly supported contention. What does Jaime consider "not criminal"? When do we see anyone under his direct command commit rape like with The Mountain's Men? Why do you think he executes the Lannister guardsman for trying to rape Pia? What kind of raids, though? Warfare, border skirmishing, raids =/= enslavement expeditions. Unless there is a specific philosophy and purpose behind them that justify or require it..... It's true that Harrenhall is a horror show. But it's a wartime horror show that is a temporary nightmare for the inhabitants (should they happen to survive it). It's a nightmare that ends when peace is shakily restored and rapists start getting their heads cut off. The Stony Shore or The shields show that the raid is the beginning of the nightmare as ugly or useless women are raped and killed with the pretty or useful shipped off for a lifetime of slavery. I think the fundamental problem with your argument is that as you want to believe that the Ironborn are no different to anyone else and that they are improving the lot of women by offering security (the caveman with club quid pro quo) rather than being one of the main engines of destruction, murder, rape and enslavement. They are not giving women a better alternative, they are destroying their lives, murdering their families and taking them as booty. And rather than being a series of war crimes this is all totally fine as it's how the system is designed to work. It's an outlier in that regard. It's why The Old Way was banned by the Targs. It's why it's really bad news that it's back. The other six kingdoms do not do the same thing just without a name for it.... I don't know what goes on in your head and I don't want to know. Thralls are captured in war and taken as booty. The experience of the average peasant in the medieval world or in story is very different to this traumatizing event and total uprooting from place, family and culture to be slave labour that makes a thrall. The villagers and farmers taken as thralls really wouldn't share your complacent view that they were better off. The Old Way and the Ironborn are not the example of a society or system you should be championing. Is that not clear? And is this really you "not defending" The Ironborn? You repeating a false statement doesn't make it so. Catelyn loves her husband and her five children and she is obviously happy. Everyone has baggage and marriages are not Disney fairy tales so she is not skipping along singing about how everything is perfect. Happiness in real life =/= Happiness in Romances. Accepting your partner's flaws and loving them anyway is a precondition for a happy marriage. What a weird thing to use as a litmus test for reading comprehension. Besides, you used Ned telling her never to mention Ashara's name as an argument for the misogyny of Westeros and it's the maladroitness of this example that amused me. I mean you're talking about husband's beating wives to death with their fists for adultery as the done thing in Westeros and you bring up Ned and Catelyn. I know it's all awful and they're all the same to you but I'm not the one misreading. Really. I'm very clearly saying that adultery is not a crime punishable by death. You are shifty shifting the argument as you tend to do. You clearly are making things up. Your words: "Eddard assumed the penalty for adultery was death, and there's no reason to think that isn't the case for the rest of the Sunset. Balon certainly took a legality view on the subject which is why Euron was banished." That's not text. You can't find support for your contention, much to your strange confusion, because it isn't a thing. It's not text. I don't want to be constantly distracted by this sort of nonsense but you are persistent. The King often sleeps around with noblewomen (Aerys, Robert) - absolutely a feature of early modern courts - but not so often married ones so, e.g., Tywin wanted to question Joanna about Tyrion's paternity but it's silly to imagine he intended to beat her to death with his fists - and even more so that he could do so perfectly legally. Black Walder Frey is known to sleep with a lot of his extended Frey relatives, even some of the married ones. Lord Merryweather doesn't give a shit that Lady Tanda is sharing Cersei's bed (in fact it works to his advantage that she does). These women aren't dicing with death but they are risking reputational damage. And then there's Amerei Frey, "Gatehouse Ami": A Feast for Crows - Jaime V "Gatehouse Ami, gods be good. I couldn't believe that Lancel picked that one. What's wrong with that boy?" "He's grown pious," said Jaime, "but it wasn't him who did the picking. Lady Amerei's mother is a Darry. Our uncle thought she'd help Lancel win the Darry smallfolk." "How, by fucking them? You know why they call her Gatehouse Ami? She raises her portcullis for every knight who happens by. Lancel had best find an armorer to make him a horned helm." A horned helm, not some knuckledusters. Can we drop this shit now that adultery is legally punishable by death? The story is full of carnage but in a thread about war crimes you could try to be on topic and try harder, not just issue a blanket condemnation because it all "fucking sucks". I feel sorry for whoever marked your history essays. Yes, it's treason. This can't be unclear. What is clear is that you don't think it should be but that doesn't inform the reader about the world, it just leads you to be (or act) confused and posit alternative explanations or make misleading arguments and faulty "compare and contrast" digressions. Yes, you can be sure that everyone clearly understands that statement as an honestly held opinion for whatever good it does you or the forum. What is the incoherent point behind this word salad? Richard of Gloucester was named Lord Protector in Edward IV's will and emerged the winner in the power struggle with the Woodville family, hence the two boys being removed from Elizabeth Woodville's custody, one of them from the Westminster Abbey where she had sought sanctuary. Richard had her marriage to Edward declared illegitimate thereby making all her children illegitimate, himself his brother's heir and the rightful King, and the princes in the tower were never seen again. He's one of the most reviled kings in English History thanks in part to Shakespeare (although when his body was discovered a few years ago it did have a very distinct curvature of the spine) but mostly because of this. If you're trying to prove something about adultery, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid (out of pure convenience one imagines) because of Edward's prior marriage to Eleanor Butler so if one believes the charges then Edward was the one guilty of adultery not Elizabeth. There is nothing to accuse her of. Clearly Edward as King cannot commit treason against himself by committing adultery. I don't know if I needed to say that but I thought I should. To prevent misunderstandings. If you're trying to prove something about treason, then, yes, in all probability her sons were murdered as realpolitik (and the fact they were widely considered the legitimate heirs) would necessitate but this is obviously murder, however convenient for Richard, hence the plausible deniability of their disappearance (no body, no crime). Quite obviously children are not guilty of treason by virtue of their birth and there is no legal basis to consider them as traitors. Again this shouldn't need to be said but we are inhabiting your head canon so who knows. Finally, and most obviously, there is no legal basis for Robert to kill Cersei's children. The crime is Cersei's and as, unlike the princes in the tower, they are not the king's children (even illegitimate ones) but Jaime's children there is no basis for them to dispute the succession. They could be declared illegitimate, their paternity denied and be exiled to Casterly Rock or wherever. It's precisely because Ned knows Robert will kill them out of fury and vengeance, not a fine legalistic sense (as you imagine for Balon) that he warns Cersei to take them and be gone before Robert returns. Not his smartest move but that's Ned. Yes. But it is wartime slavery that has an end. Bonifer, who you revile as no different to Hoat or Gregor won't be cutting off anyone's feet or scouring the Riverlands for smallfolk to be herded up to Harrenhall as slave labour. Law and order is restored and no one is a slave except those abducted as a thrall or salt wife by The Ironborn. No one is herded back to Lannisport or anywhere else. It's because you are looking for what you want to find rather than looking at what is there. You've reached a conclusion before examining the evidence. Look at Jaime and Daven joking about Lancel being given a wife they consider highly likely to be unfaithful: it's about her giving him horns repeatedly not how quickly he bludgeons her to death. I think maybe you should consider how you come across. Without the benefit of the enlightenment or ideas about liberal democracy or human rights they do think and act differently to us. It's mind-numbing that you despise them for it. They can't "take a bath" and suddenly exemplify and deliver on those ideals (realistically how well do we do, even armed with them). It's not. The only thing in the books you have created this fantastical shape in the clouds out of is Victarion beating his salt wife to death. Do I really need to tell you there is no such thing as a salt wife outside The Iron Isles? She's property not a citizen-wife. You appear confused that you can't find support for your assertion about adultery punishable by death being a thing throughout "Sunset" but claim it's in the book? Wanting something to be true or textually supported doesn't make it so and nor does loudly repeating that it is. Not for Kayleigh McEnany, not for you. This is just false. No one is pretending Victarion does not beat his salt wife to death. But if you think people could legally beat their wives to death in the middle ages, smelly barbarians or not, you're wrong. There is zero evidence for it in story either outside the Ironborn, and then only as a subset of second-class captives, zero otherwise. Yet you try to extrapolate this one data point into a 7K-wide legal principle and claim the text backs you up (though you can't find that back up). Sorry, but that's clearly not true. As for my view of the middle ages: well I don't want to get too off topic but no, I don't consider the renaissance was a product of smelly barbarians and no I don't consider that view to be an alternative fact. I think someone would have to be a colossally ignorant and self-righteous moron to think it was, but there it is. I'm not the one doing that. Thanks for the obfuscation. No, the Theon chapter on The Stony Shore raid I've already quoted is clearer. A Clash of Kings - Theon III The men had been put to the sword, all but a handful that Theon had allowed to flee to bring the word to Torrhen's Square. Their wives and daughters had been claimed for salt wives, those who were young enough and fair. The crones and the ugly ones had simply been raped and killed, or taken for thralls if they had useful skills and did not seem likely to cause trouble. A salt wife can expect to see her about to be "Rock husband" kill her actual husband in front of her eyes, rape and murder her ugly aunt and useless mother and take her as a captive. Pure ISIS to me. "Something of a family" to you. What an appalling argument from someone who keeps saying without irony that he isn't defending or writing an apologia for them. Your arguments are often lazy, unsubstantiated or really unpleasant.
  3. Shadd is explained as one of The Winterfell Men: A Clash of Kings - Catelyn II She cradled the tea in her scarred hands and blew on it to cool it. Shadd was one of the Winterfell men. Robb had sent twenty of his best to see her safely to Renly. There doesn't seem to be much of a way for Howland Reed or Ser Shadrich to infiltrate WF in such a way that the rest of the twenty guards don't realise he is an imposter, nor any reason for him to accompany Catelyn on this journey incognito. Why not just announce himself and be treated according to his station as a Lord. A Lord who has duties to look after his people at Greywater Watch rather than roam around the 7K like a crannog special agent. All the unremarkable Shadd does in story is slice carrots, spoon porridge or make Catelyn tea.
  4. It's always a troll thread when The Red Wedding is reduced to some legitimate resolution of a dispute between House Frey and treacherous House Stark over "honour" as if the murder or taking hostage of so many Northern and River Lords is something that never happened and can be brushed under the carpet. It's all about how Walder was wronged with the broken marriage agreement as if hacking off the heads of wedding guests under your roof or burning their armsmen to death in rigged feast tents is an irrelevance that their families will forget. A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VII "Mercy!" Catelyn cried, but horns and drums and the clash of steel smothered her plea. Ser Ryman buried the head of his axe in Dacey's stomach. By then men were pouring in the other doors as well, mailed men in shaggy fur cloaks with steel in their hands. Northmen! She took them for rescue for half a heartbeat, till one of them struck the Smalljon's head off with two huge blows of his axe. Hope blew out like a candle in a storm. In the midst of slaughter, the Lord of the Crossing sat on his carved oaken throne, watching greedily. You'll get to recognise certain posters and their penchant for starting these sort of threads.
  5. Unless it somehow links in to prophecy (The Daynes, Starfall, The Sword of The Morning, the reason for the Targ conquest in the first place, The Three Heads of the Dragon, Rhaegar and Arthur Dayne being besties, etc) it feels contrived. That it's deliberately unexplained could be a wait and see a la Howland Reed or simply a closing off of a plot line that GRRM decided to drop. If the latter he has to leave it vague because he doesn't have a good reason. I agree with all of that. It's an underlying given that the author can't and shouldn't try to do explain everything mechanically. However, re the italics, the problem seems to be when people compare GRRM world with some form of medieval Europe and say "that's not realistic". If it's internally inconsistent then there's a problem - though it may be a molehill rather than a mountain depending on a person's view but that's different to eg. complaints like lack of detail on religions, inter-faith conflict or the machinery of government. Which is when it becomes subjective. I think this is subjective depending on the reader's view. I don't disagree with the principle behind either statement but I think the writing has to be pretty bad for the second statement to be true and it's not in GRRM's case. The first strikes me as pure personal preference as, for example, I'm glad he doesn't try and explain magic or Godhood. I'm unconvinced as filling in the gaps with societies or cultures requires the reader to draw on real world analogies to bulk things out in a way not required of magic (people are real, magic is an artificial construct) and the author may not want that for political reasons or simply because it's not what he has in mind for his universe. Re the first statement, maybe less on food and heraldry but these obviously don't give us internal inconsistencies or lack of realism just, as with the travelogues, a bit of bloat that could have been trimmed.
  6. Well, you elaborated but I don't really think there was much need. Historians may divide history into periods for ease of reference or to distinguish chunks of time where some systems, ideas or trends are common and those where they are not but there is of course huge overlap and such distinctions are fuzzy lines and messy anyway (technological development totally absent from Planetos being key to most of them). There is no rule that says GRRM can't use LF the way he does in his imaginary world because he has many influences and The Wars of The Roses / late medieval period forms the key influence but is not a straightjacket for his world that does not need to accurately resemble the period (long and indefinite) or place (impossible as both fictional and fantastical) that either you may think that it should or that he is trying to recreate. It's up to him is my point and you may find LF impermissible based on your view of the middle ages and how GRRM's world should work but I don't agree or think it would matter even if LF were fifty years "too early" to meet your threshold for "realism" (even if it were the case that no smart but relatively unimportant men achieved positions of power and influence through patronage). We just see this entirely differently: it's why I liked Springwatch's GRRM quote rather than any disappointment about the lack of detail regarding the machinery of government or bureaucracy. LF's actions with the power he is afforded by his patrons and his chaotic destruction (unnoticed by anyone) seem far more unlikely and problematic than his actual promotion, always as a useful tool of a more powerful individual as it is. LF's "rise" is a textbook example of a man of useful talents enjoying patronage and this is the sole reason he rises as he does: Lysa via Jon Arryn promotes him and by the time of Jon Arryn's death Robert is used to having him in place. Nothing to do with centralization. Mismanaging the realm's finances means mismanaging the Court's finances which leads to loans from the Iron Bank, The Faith and The Lannisters. This is purely serving Robert's needs, not some independent economic or financial policy from an independent minister. In the medieval period this sort of royal profligacy led to forced loans from merchants or bankers, payment of which could of course be forgone; in the early modern period (in England) it led to conflicts between late Elizabethan and, far more significantly, Stuart parliaments about granting the monarch taxes (or customary duties like Ship Money). The use of the loans and the problems Cersei's non-payment to the Iron Bank will likely cause seem fine to me (though maybe unrealistic of the powers of medieval banking dynasties in your view) and I don't know what detail we would want on a centralized / decentralized financial system and how this would improve the story. LF achieves promotion and stays on The Small Council through Lysa/Jon Arryn's patronage, has a dodgy period when Ned is appointed but makes himself useful to Ned while he is still finding his feet (except....not really), sucks up to Joffrey and makes himself useful to Joffrey, Tyrion, Tywin and Cersei. When his patrons / dupes are not in power he is smart enough to be off while Mace seeks to put one of his own family in his place - which Cersei counters with the insignificant but wealthy Giles of Rosby to counter the Tyrells (just as Tywin restored Pycelle to prevent The Citadel naming a Tyrell to his post). I imagine you find this more historically credible for the pseudo-period but LF is promoted as Arryn's man (Arryn having no family to promote) and morphs into the Lannister's man: as with all patronage systems, an attack on the placeman is an attack on the patron so LF is left alone. I don't know who Edwell Celtigar is and I haven't read the pseudo-histories you mention but it seems GRRM's attempts to give a rich tapestry of history and backstory to his main sequence novels and flesh out his world is surely more valid than deciding to "leave the gaps in worldbuilding to readers". Creating an entire world and its history from your own imagination is bound to be less than perfect or seamlessly fit together so it feels like people are expecting too much. Incidentally someone else compared Tolkien's worldbuilding more favourably with GRRM's with this "less is more" approach but I don't agree with that either: it's the author's world, not ours, and readers of course highlight the lack of elements they want included, whether religion or bureaucracy, which becomes very similar to criticism of the plot for not following the course the reader would prefer it to.
  7. Strawman, I never said that it was. Why pretend that? It's dishonest. Raiding obviously requires there be someone to raid. As I told you, look at The Shield Islands. Or look at The Stony Shore or the raiding up the Mander. You could look at the Kingsmoot too for how Euron wins the support of The Iron Lords and what he offers them. Euron very much is a follower of The Old Way . It's what he has been doing on Silence all these years and why he has a crew of mute thralls with their tongues cut out. A Clash of Kings - Theon II Theon shifted his seat. "My uncle Euron has not been seen in the islands for close on two years. He may be dead." If so, it might be for the best. Lord Balon's eldest brother had never given up the Old Way, even for a day. His Silence, with its black sails and dark red hull, was infamous in every port from Ibben to Asshai, it was said. Selling slaves for money rather than keeping them as thralls or salt wives is not part of The Old Way, true, and appears to be an innovation that Victarion disapproves of but Victarion would happily have killed the men rather than sell them - that's The Old Way at it's purest. What you said was that Jaime took her and "she was walking the path of the thrall". It's obvious bullshit, Jaime is protecting her not carrying out some Westerosi version of The Old Way (and you are perversely trying to represent The Old Way as a means of offering protection to women). The rest is pure distraction as you show your general undifferentiated contempt for everything and anything in place of the holes / complete fabrications in your argument. Bonifer, as religious zealots tend to do, does not look approvingly on those with loose sexual morals (as he / they see it) and turfs her out. She's a refugee, Jaime protects her, end of story. Nothing to do with thralldom (actually salt wifery) or sexual slavery; nothing to do with war crimes and The Old Way. So if a society has laws then it's because everyone is a rapist and murderer and all these things are part of the culture? I think you'll find the laws are against things that are generally considered unacceptable by the society or culture and that they deem deserve punishment, often quite severely, like gelding or sending to The Wall or execution, all punishments meted out for rape in Westeros. It's the same where you live even if you have to scratch your head every morning about why there are all these laws against you carrying out the bona fide cultural practices you would otherwise engage in. I'm specifying Roose because he carries out rape and murder but obviously keeps it quiet because Ned would have executed him for it. This is an umambiguous incident that occurs in peacetime. Jaime does indeed consider that Walton and men like him would commit rape in wartime but then go home to their wives and families and be law-abiding citizens in peacetime. It's why the attitude of military commanders to rape, the punishment to be meted out and the use of rape as a weapon of war are being debated in this topic on war crimes. The Free Folk are very like the Ironborn in some ways, a marginal society who raid the more prosperous lands on their borders and take women as property. Neither of these are Westerosi traditions or cultures though the attempt to change Ironborn culture by forbidding The Old Way has been a kind of project since the Targaryen conquest. It really isn't. You know this. Why type such bollocks? The women taken by the Ironborn are the equivalent of the Yazidis being stolen by ISIS. I specifically made this analogy to make you think about what you are writing such an apologia for. For reasons known only to yourself you are doubling down on this and portraying the kidnappers as emancipators. What an astonishingly stupid, not to say vile position to take up. Except of course, not all the neighbours fucking suck and only the ironborn have this cherished tradition or raiding everyone for plunder, thralls and sex slaves, glorified and codified into a way of life. The Wildlings raid and fight and steal women from each other and only the most daring go over The Wall for plunder(?) and women but they aren't part of Westeros at all while the Ironborn are half in / half out. Odd that you are quiet on condemning the slaughter and enslavement of the Yazidis even if you imagined it in the middle ages ("it wouldn't be as alarming [then]") as if you know that by saying what you really think you would have to criticise the Ironborn for doing the same thing, something you have quixotically decided to defend as benefiting the victims. Your shades are painted black. The Old Way is a unique practice and the thralls / salt wives taken back have no analogue in Westeros. War crimes are committed in Westeros, it's the whole point of this thread, but no other culture legally or traditionally operates in this way against it's neighbours who have all been bound together in one kingdom for the last 300 years under the same set of laws anyway. I don't think you see it clearly at all. This apologia for the Ironborn is just a rather silly way of showing your contempt for Westeros in general. It's a feudal kingdom, man, no one is unaware of it's faults, but you don't have to resort to a smug lazy dismissal of everything as equally bad that leads you to some terrible arguments and eye-popping conclusions. Ned's marriage to Cat is a happy one and when he leaves to become Hand he leaves her in charge at Winterfell. The worst incident in their marriage is when she questions him about Ashara, rumoured to be Jon's mother, and he tells her quite coldly never to mention her name again. This is meant to display the extreme misogyny in Westeros that you want to include in your ass-pull argument that adultery is punishable by death. It's not peculiar at all, you are fabricating something then acting surprised that there is no support for your fabrication in the text. This is one of those terrible arguments and eye-popping conclusions I mentioned. You are simply making things up in bad faith in order to try and support an absurd position you took out of contrariness. Um. It's one of those water is wet moments. He doesn't need to call it treason because it is understood that it is. If you're very young (you're not) or have no historical background to understand treason in a feudal monarchy (you have) you might need this explained but the author doesn't think it needs it. I think that could happen today (and, does, sadly). It doesn't mean that if I hear about it on the evening news that I live in an "animalistic society", simply that someone committed murder and will be punished for it. I don't quite agree with the picture of the Ironborn as an "animalistic society" though I do think the thralls and salt wives are second class citizens who are really slaves by a nicer name, certainly property that can be punished lethally if the owner is enraged and the property at fault. I don't agree at all with the silly and morally smug condemnation of feudal Westeros as animalistic or the feudal nobility as war hawk megalomaniacs. That you find it peculiar that the novels aren't full of husbands beating their wives to death is a problem with your own faulty comprehension (actually deliberate invention of alternate facts) and projection of distaste for all these smelly barbarians who don't live in an enlightened and pluralistic utopia. If the tail end of the word salad is saying that adultery is a crime punishable by death throughout Westeros and that treason is not and you believe you have textual support for this (notwithstanding your peculiar confusion that you could not find supporting evidence for this a mere two sentences ago) your attempt to substitute your fabricated alternate facts is, um, not well founded. This is really poor stuff. Oh, Victarion didn't. He punished his property, lethally so. He didn't kill a citizen of The Iron Isles. I think Euron did break the law though as he made use of his brother's property without his permission, and it's very clear that Victarion would not have given such permission. But as adultery is not a capital crime anywhere in Westeros or The Iron Isles (despite your attempt to reverse engineer it so to justify your contrarian take on what happens between the Greyjoy brothers) and this is only a piece of property there's not much to punish him for. The idea that Balon would have taken a "lethal approach" (or that he is some kind of legalistic paragon a la Stannis) and executed one of his own brothers over a piece of property picked up as booty is unsupported - and that is putting it charitably. Balon kicks out Euron so it doesn't end in kinslaying between Victarion and Euron, not because of a judge's astute reading of non-existent laws. Bad troll, Hugor. Catelyn is not Ned's property. But Victarion's wife was: A Feast for Crows - The Iron Captain When he did not answer, Asha said, "I was away when Silence sailed. I had taken Black Wind around the Arbor to the Stepstones, to steal a few trinkets from the Lyseni pirates. When I came home, Euron was gone and your new wife was dead." "She was only a salt wife." He had not touched another woman since he gave her to the crabs. I will need to take a wife when I am king. A true wife, to be my queen and bear me sons. A king must have an heir. A salt wife =/= a true wife because: A Dance with Dragons - The Iron Suitor The larger, heavier, slower ships made for Lys, to sell the captives taken on the Shields, the women and children of Lord Hewett's Town and other islands, along with such men who decided they would sooner yield than die. Victarion had only contempt for such weaklings. Even so, the selling left a foul taste in his mouth. Taking a man as thrall or a woman as a salt wife, that was right and proper, but men were not goats or fowl to be bought and sold for gold. a male slave = a thrall; a female (sex) slave = a salt wife He makes it clear that she was a salt wife, not a true wife. Dany will be a true wife, not property. I hope that helps but I'm sure you will try and turn it all on it's head again for shit and giggles
  8. "The Old Way" is a system of perpetual warfare between the Ironborn and everyone who is not Ironborn. The Targaryen conquest made Westeros off limits to reaving but the likes of Euron always aimed at other targets in Essos and ofc all Westeros is now back on the table. It's not ambiguous at all. Take a look at The Shield Islands for how it works. She's a refugee, not a piece of property. You must be able to understand the difference between someone abducting and raping her, then claiming her as a sex slave (granted the label of salt wife to distinguish her from a proper wife) and someone granting her protection on a temporary basis. Temporary because whether she becomes a washerwoman at Casterly Rock or a Tavern Maid in Lannisport or The Riverlands, he's helping her not claiming her. No one can genuinely be confused about this. This is a mess. Quite obviously Westeros does not have a culture that allows this and has laws against it. Roose Bolton knows this which is why he has the miller murdered: so he can't go to Ned and demand justice which Ned, as Jorah Mormont serves to remind us, would assuredly dispense. A law being broken is not evidence that law is pointless, nor is it evidence that the underlying culture does not accept or recognise the morality or legality of said laws. Jesus... The criminal element might not but they then get punished for law-breaking. I think if ISIS ever want to lawyer up then you're their guy. All those Yazidi women they're being pragmatic to in a nicer way would assuredly be better looked after by their children in their toothless dotage under the Caliphate's peace than otherwise in the war-torn world. You clearly feel the cultural integration of those children into their fathers' way of life has benefits and should be a priority, yes?.... Of course, if you take your peculiarly rose-tinted spectacles off then the Ironborn are the ones creating thousands of Pretty Pias on The Shield Islands not rescuing them. The penalty for treason is death. That the treason takes the form of adultery (fifteen years worth of it, and fourteen years worth of passing off her brother's bastards as the King's children and heirs to the Iron Throne) shouldn't be confused with adultery being a capital crime. And you know perfectly well that it's not. "There's no reason to think". Are you really trying to pretend that adultery is a capital crime in Westeros? What an incredible ass-pull . Balon gave not a damn about a piece of property being dispensed with. He didn't want Victarion and Euron coming to blows and one committing fratricide so he banished Euron as the wrongdoer. I mean, please, just stop. If Balon took a legalistic view he would have banished Victarion for law-breaking and murdering a salt wife, someone apparently in your fantasy offered legal protections. But he banishes Euron.
  9. That's more accurate, I suppose. Harrenhall is on the edge of the tail end of a war zone with the only River Lords yet to submit (Blackwood and Brynden in lieu of Edmure Tully) under siege. The area is full of broken men and law and order will need time to restore, years maybe (the sack of Saltpans, the BWB as you point out). But Harrenhall is recovered territory (if not exactly friendly) and the inhabitants are to be offered the protection of the law, rather than treated like an occupied enemy. What I mean is Jaime would punish soldiers under his command who carried out rape (in peacetime or wartime). He's not exactly Stannis and his track record with honour is spotty to say the least but he would punish rape. However, men under one of his father's bannermen clearly committed atrocities at Harrenhall when it was in rebellion against the Iron Throne (or it's Lady/Lord was), including a whole lot of rape and he does not punish this. Maybe he doesn't see this as his business, as he was not in command of those men so although he doesn't approve he doesn't think he has the right or authority to interfere retroactively with another's orders and punish them (which authority he does have now and makes his view very clear). Feudal right of justice belongs to the lord unless you took a grievance or complaint up the line - as the villagers who were initially pillaged by Gregor's men did by appealing directly to the King / Ned in Robert's absence. But I find that a bit unlikely as it would prevent Jaime (or anyone) from intervening in any way when they found a crime being committed. So I tend to think he knows the men are guilty of crimes but that the "wartime vs peacetime" distinction means he feels obliged to overlook what their own Lord / officers permitted against an enemy, albeit an enemy civilian population. It's not quite the same as an amnesty but like Dany after the Sack of Meereen it's not going to be punished, though new offences will. Westeros doesn't have a written penal code afaik so the penalty for rape is not set in stone - rapists seems to be offered a choice of castration or joining the NW - Daereon I think; Jon Snow has a black brother who was a serial rapist of septas and tattooed himself for every victim - but Jaime has him executed. Why? Military discipline or making an example to restore that discipline? Licence to pass sentence as the lord sees fit? An attempt to be true to the vows of knighthood, given that spotty record to date? Fondness for Pretty Pia who Bolton sent to him as a bed warmer and who he turned away, mixed with anger at the knowledge of what she must have endured? The wartime / peacetime distinction is an attempt to understand Jaime's actions - ignoring past actions and punishing the present rape - when rape is obviously a crime. Westeros seems to blur the line in wartime as to whether rape will be punished (Stannis obviously, Ned and others most likely, Tywin and his like will ignore it or punish it depending on the benefit to be gained) without using rape and sexual enslavement as a tactic, indeed a motive, like the Ironborn.
  10. Yes, I said he restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall as it is now peacetime. I also said what he doesn't do is go over past events, take a witness statement from Pia and seek to punish crimes that were committed during the war. Any crime from this point on is punished. You'll note that the man implicates all his colleagues in raping Pia earlier but Jaime does nothing about this. I'm really trying not to derail this thread but what you type is, um, curious, let's call it that. So you think Jaime is following a version of The Old Way? Even you have to be able to see he is rescuing and protecting her not stealing and raping her. You "guess not legally"? The whole point is what the law allows and what it doesn't. We have laws against rape, human trafficking, forced prostitution and coercive control - doesn't mean they are always observed or that our courts manage a decent conviction rate or effective protections. But the Ironborn have a law / cultural practice that allows it. You have to be able to see that.... So the Ironborn's sexual enslavement adds a safeguarding element to it does it? It's superior to the Greenlanders "animalistic" ways, is it? What did Victarion do to his salt wife again? One group has laws against this kind of thing, the other doesn't, it has a society built on it. Please just stop. This is beyond clowning around.
  11. Fully agree. Jaime restores military discipline and the rule of law at Harrenhall. But it's also now peacetime, the Riverlands are restored to the 7K, the River Lords have made their submissions to the Iron Throne and it's now friendly territory. He doesn't set about taking a witness statement from Pretty Pia or establishing if (and it's not a very big if) any of the Mountain's Men raped her and she doesn't point the finger. It's an acknowledgement that what has gone before, under Hoat, Bolton-Hoat and The Mountain is now over (although Jaime doesn't leave her there and she isn't keen to stay) but may not be seen as a strict violation of law because, well, war, rebellion, right of conquest and punishment of rebels / the defeated enemy. And as Jaime knows, Tywin ordered the Riverlands to be set alight so which atrocities are to be punished and which forgotten? If Pretty Pia had been a noble daughter of a friendly lord or bannerman somehow caught up in the fighting, a Jeyne Westerling say (absent marriage to or sleeping with the enemy, with wolves) it would be treated as a straightforward case of rape and Jaime would have punished the perpetrators severely. If it had been a noblewoman from the other side - a daughter of Lady Whent or a Blackwood, say - probably Jaime would have punished the perpetrators out of class solidarity and the political considerations of mollifying the local powers that be and pacifying the resentful countryside more swiftly; and out of personal distaste too. But Pretty Pia is not important enough for him to start gelding or hanging his own Lannister foot soldiers over, however scummy. And as the soldiers would say: "But m'lord Bolton / Ser Gregor said we could make use of her".
  12. I agree that there is no substantive reason connected to Brienne for Tarly to dismiss any of his knights but as they are household knights, in effect one step up from mercenaries rather than landed bannermen, he can dismiss them at will. The fact that he is retained for over a year, along with several others, would seem to indicate that the bet over Brienne wasn't a rape waiting to happen but indicative that Hunt isn't exactly a shining star in Tarly's eyes. Nothing happens to Brienne. Renly makes her a member of the Rainbow Guard. She feels humiliated when it's explained to her that all the knights courting her aren't doing it out of chivalrous admiration but because of a wager to bed her. Until they are told that she's a highborn daughter of a key bannerman and to stop that shit. And that's that. And that rapist would end up on The Wall or gelded, his House and family dishonoured and ostracised. Not a very smart move. I think you're letting your own bias show here. The bolded is a non sequitur as you reach a determination of guilt from zero evidence and the italicised simply says all knights are rapists. If this is really your view then it's not remotely established in the text. There's no inevitability here, just a bet that led to nothing. The English burned Joan of Arc for heresy, the French made her a saint. It's like this. There are two attempts to rape Brienne. The first is by three of the bloody mummers, the worst scum in the series. Jaime defuses this by bellowing "Sapphires!" which gets Vargo Hoat all worked up about damaging her ransom value. The second is when, after Lord Selwyn refuses the ransom demand, Hoat has her washed and inspected (a man of his morals having had problems with his intimate health before) before she bites half his ear off: it's why she ends up in the bear pit with a tourney sword. Renly's young Turks are chasing tail but if any one of them pushed it too far he would end up with half his ear bitten off too. She's the daughter of Lord Selwyn of Tarth and a member of Renly's Rainbow Guard: you seem to be making her an amalgam of Brave Danny Flint surrounded by rapists and murderers and who's fate "is all but guaranteed" and Val, a wildling princess, who Stannis's now landless bannermen see as a lifeline and compete over (because they are dumb, she is not an heiress like Alys Karstark). There is absolutely no evidence that these knights or young nobles wold attempt to rape her or join in for the lolz, that's just your cynicism conjecturing an outcome you can easily condemn. Rape is a crime and they know the consequences of committing it: the topic is about war crimes and how far the normal operation of law is dispensed with during war. Brienne's mere presence among Renly's army during peacetime does not make her an "all but guaranteed" rape victim - and by her own side and social class. How far it might go is probably best illustrated by Hunt, much later in AFFC(?), dismissed by Tarly and in Brienne's company, making a proposition that she marry him and let him share her blankets that night. She threatens to geld him and he's smart enough to leave her alone. Yes, it is in fact a thing (although ransom or marriage value and the desire of nobles to in fact protect rather than rape other noblewomen would usually protect them) . The thing is: is it a thing that is okay or a thing that will be punished? The Dornish want justice for Elia but until Gregor is dumb enough to publicly confess to what he did to her all they know is that she and her children died in the sack of KL. When Gregor tells everyone Tywin wants him saved so he can be tried and executed. Now there's a difficulty here in separating the rape and the murder but until this point there is no specific crime (did anyone know she was raped or how she died?) and certainly no culprit. Once there is, it's not ok. Activities during a sack are generally excused, although not those explicitly confessed to, those during a tourney towards your own side are not. I'm aware that you treat all cultures with equal contempt and refuse to distinguish any one from the others in terms of awfulness. Nonetheless, the Ironborn are the only culture to operate a quaint cultural tradition of reaving, whereby they raid their neighbours and abduct and sexually enslave womenfolk. The lives of the smallfolk in Westeros are not easy and in war when the dubious protection of the law is effectively suspended life becomes brutal but they are not enslaved and made thralls or salt wives - at least not legally. Pretty Pia may be raped at Harrenhal but she is not carried back to The Dreadfort or Lannisport as a chattel slave. The only direct comparison is Ramsay taking the women of Winterfell back to The Dreadfort for his "sport" (which is actually worse given the nature of his sport) but this is obviously as illegal as we can imagine in Westeros not a bona fide "cultural tradition".
  13. If we take Tarly at his word then he still clearly sees this as a punishable crime and one that he took action to prevent. He is showing zero tolerance by dismissing knights from his service to make it perfectly clear he will not tolerate this. Now he might not give a damn about Brienne - in fact he doesn't, the fact is she's highborn is what brings this to his attention. But he wants to both maintain military discipline and avoid a huge scandal with political and military implications as the Lord of Tarth demands restitution for the wrong done him, not to mention he wants to avoid the associated dishonour attached to House Tarly and to him personally as it was by his men or under his leadership that this happened. If we don't take him at his word, literally at least, then he is trying to frighten Brienne off or at least to discourage her by pretending he would offer her less protection than he in fact did (and he is quite obviously potential-victim blaming her to get her off-balance). Until very recently and even today conservatives have had / have a huge problem with women in the military, at least in combat roles, so it's not that surprising that in a pseudo-medieval world or defined gender roles Brienne would be told to go home and encouraged / leaned on to do so. Does Tarly have proof that "it was only a matter of time" or is he just trying to scare her off? I don't think the "Brienne incident" is a good example of Westerosi tolerance of / attitudes to rape or rape as an instrument of war. In modern times the codification of rape as a war crime stems from observable patterns of mass rape as a deliberate form of punishment of a defeated enemy - the Soviet treatment of German civilians at the end of WWII, the use of rape in the Bosnian War to punish or pollute the gene pool of the opposing ethnic groups, the sexual enslavement of the Yazidi women and girls by ISIS (although the last example is a subset of enslavement and genocide). Sadly, I'm sure there's many more examples from modern times and throughout history. In Westeros, only the Ironborn seem to really tip the scales here through the practice of taking salt wives. What foragers do, or what armies do in the sack of a city seems to depend on the orders given by their commanders and how they think their commanders will react if they are caught breaking either specific orders or customary rules of behaviour.
  14. Renly's knights compete among themselves to take her virginity but this is a case of a bunch of young hoorahs having a competition to get a woman into bed. She's highborn so Tarly disapproves and dismisses several of his household knights over it but there's never any suggestion any of them were planning to rape her. Rape is a crime, rather than a war crime per se, but like a lot of crimes - theft, assault, arson, murder - the line gets blurred during combat as to what will be overlooked and what will be punished. Dany after the sack of Meereen is a good example. Amnesty is effectively given for what happened during the sack but the rule of law is reinstated immediately afterwards and rapists are subsequently punished by gelding. I imagine Army Commanders would apply similar standards depending on their characters / ulterior motives with Stannis being notoriously rigid and unforgiving rather than the norm.
  15. I should probably leave this topic alone but about poor Melara.... She must have had tremendously bad eyesight to fall down that well. And she must have drowned extremely quickly to die before Cersei could have summoned help by screaming blue murder until some guards, servants or nightwatchmen arrived to see what all the fuss was about; or before Cersei could lower a bucket on a rope so at least she had something to hold onto until help arrived. What Maggy tells Melara is A Feast for Crows - Cersei VIII "Not Jaime, nor any other man," said Maggy. "Worms will have your maidenhead. Your death is here tonight, little one. Can you smell her breath? She is very close." Now you can read that in a poetic sense, in that in an impersonal metaphysical sense death is nearby, stalking her, creeping up on her. Or you can read it in a literal sense, that the person who kills her by pushing her down the well is stood right next to her (since when was Death a "She" rather than an "It"?)... And as for helping her: A Feast for Crows - Cersei IX She could still hear Melara Hetherspoon insisting that if they never spoke about the prophecies, they would not come true. She was not so silent in the well, though. She screamed and shouted. So it seems she didn't hit her head on the way down the well shaft and drown while unconscious. She is shouting and screaming for help. Cersei though doesn't once in her recollections ever indicate that she did anything to help. In fact her memories of Melara are all negative because of Melara's revealed infatuation with Jaime, a clear motive for Cersei's actions. And then there's the walk of shame A Dance with Dragons - Cersei II The queen began to see familiar faces. A bald man with bushy side-whiskers frowned down from a window with her father's frown, and for an instant looked so much like Lord Tywin that she stumbled. A young girl sat beneath a fountain, drenched in spray, and stared at her with Melara Hetherspoon's accusing eyes Why accusing eyes? GRRM in his classic style, drips information and clues to us bit by bit. You can take a whitewashing or defence lawyer's argument that you can't prove Cersei pushed her in but this is art not law and it seems pretty clear what the author is telling us. I mean you can spin it into part of the great tragedy of Cersei's life that she lost her closest friend at such a young age A Feast for Crows - Cersei V Taena's wit always cheered her. Cersei had not had a friend she so enjoyed since Melara Hetherspoon, and Melara had turned out to be a greedy little schemer with ideas above her station. I should not think ill of her. She's dead and drowned, and she taught me never to trust anyone but Jaime. but that is to see her as she sees herself, always a victim (with the dead girl the wrongdoer and Cersei the injured party!) and her pov is given to us to explain her actions not justify them, a distinction that seems fairly straightforward.
  16. IIRC two prisoners in Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital, one a convicted murderer who went on to murder a further two inmates in other prisons, tortured and brutally murdered another prisoner (a quite prolific paedophile) over nine hours. I consider Raff the Sweetling to be scum but Arya kills him in a revenge killing for the murder of Lommy Greenhands (staging the killing in the same way) not serial paedophilia. His seedy response to Arya offering herself to him is opportunistic rather than predatory / compulsive and is further confirmation, if any were needed, that he is human excrement but I don't think he's comparable with a serial paedophile (or his killing with the Hannibal the Cannibal / spoon murder). I remain broadly sympathetic to Daeron, who some people seem keen to portray as a rapist / paedophile to justify his killing, while glad that Raff got his comeuppance, if slightly troubled by how accurately Arya recreated Lommy's final moments.
  17. The weirwoods are widely spread over thousands of miles and are present in locations like the Isle of Faces where the connection of one grove to another seems physically impossible. Like with Aspens a grove of weirwoods is linked by one root system but different groves are different colonies. What ties the weirnet together are the green seers and / or enthroned singers (really depends on whether the enthroned singers are repositories of that grove's ancestor memories and that the green seers link the groves or whether the enthroned singers are the green seers). I imagine losing a colony has a huge impact as ancestor memories and fragments of those ancestors themselves "go dark". I suppose for the enthroned singers or greenseers who could project their consciousness into distant groves this would be traumatic but for the regular singers it would be more of a cultural or psychological violation than the same as losing a part of your own physical body. But if you knew the spirits of your ancestors lives on in some way - until some barbarians turned up and started murdering them - you wouldn't need to experience the slaughter at first hand to pick up weapons and fight.
  18. Well you may have misunderstood my point so there's that for you to mull over or give another snarky response to as you see fit.
  19. Thomas Cromwell was Henry VIII's premier minister for years and he wasn't noble at all. Despite being born the son of a cloth merchant he came to hold an enormous number of titles including Chancellor of The Exchequer 1533-40, Principal Secretary 1534-40 and Lord Privy Seal 1536-40. I hope we can agree that neither the existence of Thomas Cromwell nor LF upend the general operation of the system. I know Tudor England is Early Modern rather than Medieval England but the problem of using "realism" as a cudgel arises when you take a sanitised view of a medieval ideal (the middle ages lasted c 1000 years) and create a stereotype that you require the author to adhere to. Real history is much messier.
  20. Thanks for that quote, I love it The really surprising thing is the number of people who complain about things like travel time, map scale or population density. The world is the canvas he paints the story on, not the masterpiece itself. I don't care if The Wall is too tall because that in itself has no story impact. Or I disagree if someone thinks he should have done more work on religion or culture or class or bureaucracy etc. because the story does just fine with what it has. In fact there's already too much without adding heaps more background and world building. Creating and detailing the World shouldn't overwhelm the story. And bureaucracy? Don't people read fantasy to escape bureaucracy?! Honestly scratching my head at this one. If you're focusing on this you're missing all the fun. I never really get the point of these discussions. Fantasy simply takes inspiration from the real world to create a world of the author's imagination, The influences are many, overlapping and are synthesised as the author plots, writes, changes his mind and takes as much or as little as he considers necessary, appropriate or desirable to create the world he wants to in order to frame his story and make it come alive. The Wars of The Roses heavily influenced GRRM but the author read widely (maybe too much about food and heraldry...) to get a window for the time period and the elements he wanted to incorporate or use as influences for his world.
  21. I didn't ignore it, I overlooked it. Quoting a post removes the embedded quotes (as it has done here for your Machiavelli quote). But why ignore everything on the actual subject we are discussing - the characteristics of recklessness, arrogance or impulsiveness (compulsiveness / impetuousness) and to what degree they are present in individual Lannisters, particularly Tywin, to focus on several marginal comments? If you prefer: the vast majority (one might also say the lion's share) of the blame and and the infamy attaches to the Freys and Boltons who carried out The Red Wedding but the obvious benefit to the Crown (/Lannisters) is clear - the North and Riverlands return to the 7K under loyal bannermen. They are none the less at arm's length from the events and Tywin's actions result from the textually explained calculation that he is insulated. Whether he is right or not will become clear in time but it is a decision driven by calculation not impulse. Yes but I confess it was over 30 years ago. It's still on my bookshelf. Thank you for asking. So you take a metaphor where he deals with Fortune (and compares it to a woman, or capricious Lady Luck if you will) and advises that it is better to be bold rather than cautious, in other words to drive events rather than to wait on them, to take calculated risks rather than being paralysed into inertia by fear, and interpret that as an argument in favour of recklessness and impulsive action without thought of the consequences? There's two meanings for impetuous. The first is moving forcefully or rapidly and is what Machiavelli is advising (synonyms are powerful, vigorous, forceful, relentless and rapid). The other, which you are construing, is acting or doing quickly without thought or care (synonyms are impulsive, rash, overhasty, heedless, reckless and foolhardy). I hope it's clear which behaviour Machiavelli is advising Princes to adopt and that it's to be vigorous and forceful not heedless or foolhardy. If we can agree on language then we might be able to agree that Tywin's behaviour throughout is in line with Machiavelli's advice and that neither his behaviour nor the advice is to be impulsive or reckless.
  22. Sigh. So give me all the examples of young drunk Tywin acting impulsively and recklessly. That's right, there aren't any, any more than there are for Ned or Stannis. Tywin equally was "never the boy you were". You are making a bad argument with nothing to support it. Joffrey also gets drunk at his wedding and attempts to humiliate Tyrion, upending the chalice over him. Not to mention the kitchen cat or Joffrey's faun. Brandon = the wild wolf, Ned = the quiet wolf. Robert is wild and impulsive, Stannis the opposite. Family members have different personalities and instinctive behaviours. Tywin is not impulsive and this is a bizarre point to circle the wagons around. Lol what? Ser Rodrik rides out and captures "Reek" (believing he has killed Ramsay in the process) but he leaves a dispute between two Stark bannermen - Bolton and Manderly - to the king to resolve. The fighting between Manderly and Bolton troops happens after Ramsay is captured because both now have a claim to the Hornwood lands that the king must rule on. This is about Bolton and Manderly's actions not Ramsay's initial crime. The Ironborn are not Stark bannermen and invade so he goes to fight the invaders. Pretty simple to understand his actions in both circumstances really unless you misrepresent his actions or misunderstand his job (or both). I think you overlook the extent to which private wars were a feature of medieval feudal systems. Which is understandable as we have a completely different system but not helpful to an understanding of either the Hornwood-Manderly or the Lannister-Tully(Stark) disputes. Tywin is neither impulsive nor compulsive. He plans carefully, hiring sell swords and mustering troops before raiding the Riverlands in order to draw Ned out from KL and kidnap him to trade for Tyrion. Cersei boaring Robert to death makes Joffrey king and completely changes the situation. Raiding the Riverlands may be ruthless but it's strategic calculation not impulsiveness. And it's never 1 v 7. The Lannisters have a dispute with the Tullys/Starks that only spills into open warfare after Robert's death. At that point Joffrey is king so legally Tywin has the whip hand vs the Tullys and Starks even if the war of the five kings is a free for all. Almost comically wrong. Jaime had no intention of kidnapping Ned. If he had he could have done so right there. He has 20 guardsmen and Ned has 4. Done as easily as Catelyn took Tyrion. He can put a bag over his head and whisk him off to Casterly Rock as easily as he goes there himself. But this is Jaime we're talking of so he kills Ned's men to chastise him and then has to abscond as a fugitive, without the prisoner you somehow manage to claim he had calculated to acquire. It is reckless, impulsive and plain foolishness and he never planned or attempted to take Ned captive so let's not pretend he did. TBH I don't really know what point you are trying to make here. He was wrongfooted by the Stark-Frey alliance and Robb's relief of Riverrun and capture of Jaime put him at a tactical disadvantage. Given both Stannis and Renly have declared themselves kings at this point and Renly has the Tyrells, Tywin's military position is not good with the south in rebellion as well as the north and Riverlands. Robb has shown himself a capable opponent but he is not Tywin's only opponent so what are you trying to demonstrate? Harrenhall has a clear central strategic location between KL and Casterly Rock and controlling north-south troop movements while living off enemies' lands. In any case he also attempts to move back west to gain reinforcements but this is scuppered by Edmure's defence of the fords and Robb's victory at Oxcross. Why you think the fortunes of war give some insight into impulsive or compulsive behaviour on Tywin's part is unclear. Of course it's true. The blame is on the Freys and Boltons. No Lannister troops took part in The Red Wedding. This odd behaviour of attempting to blame all Tywin's calculations on impulsive behaviour is just totally wrong. I think you could read The Prince and accuse Machiavelli of being impulsive, you're that far off here. If you want to disagree with his political acumen or understanding or any of his decisions, then by all means go ahead. But there is a logical absurdity in decrying his political and diplomatic calculations as "not calculating" because you don't like or agree with them. There is also no grounds for effectively accusing Tywin of being ideological or intransigent, he is above all ruthless and pragmatic. If you think Tywin is impetuous in not moving with the times you'll have to attempt to explain what you mean, otherwise it's a nonsensical word salad. So you agree that Genna's "paranoia" is an accurate and astute reading of the difficult situation she is in and well founded. Seems you have a non-dictionary understanding of paranoia as well. Okay. Well, yes, none of us want to play the game of thrones I hope but you could at least try and discuss characters in context. Of course it's normal for nobility in a feudal system. Land = money, military force and political power. Despite that some characters are arrogant and others are not based on their personality and to varying degrees, just as in real life, both historical and contemporary. Neither Genna nor Kevan strike me as similar in behaviour to Joffrey, Jaime and Cersei but if you want to make a class based argument for them all sharing characteristics based on birth and education that override any differences of character or personality I find that quite mistaken and a really limiting approach, although a useful cudgel, to take to most characters in story. I think we're at cross-purposes here. Early Tyrion has a big mouth but his actions are not impulsive or reckless, they're quite reasonable or considered as we're often in his head to see. Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey are all presented in the early novels in an appalling light with little to no impulse control, few or no boundaries and an astonishing recklessness. Later Tyrion is darker and more reckless - killing Shae and his father when he had no need to even confront them - but I'm not saying emotion is not an important part of his make-up from the beginning (being a dwarf obsessing over Tysha it's very much there), more that he has a better control over it and that this is when my impression of Tyrion as a character formed. I partly agree with the last sentence but being quick thinking and decisive is not the same as being impulsive. Being impulsive is acting in line with an emotional reaction or a subconscious desire, or acting in line with a conscious desire without considering the implications or consequences. So Tyrion demanding a trial by combat at The Eyrie (or KL) is a considered response to his predicament after weighing up his options as is the gambit with the mountain clans when he is kicked out of The Vale of Arryn. This is one of his strengths, a quick reading of the situation and the selection of the best available option, often high stakes and / or creative as the situation demands. Taking Shae to KL on the other hand is impulsive because he knows the risks but ignores them because he wants to.
  23. No, Joffrey is drunk. Tywin is never drunk in story. Drunken showboating is entirely out of character for Tywin but not for Joffrey (also drunk at his wedding and determined to humiliate Tyrion). Saying you can imagine a sloppy drunk 13 year old Tywin acting like Joffrey did is as pure a piece of invention as to say 13 year old Ned or Stannis would have got sloppy drunk and acted the same. Why not indeed... None of those characters would have got themselves into that situation. Tywin is one of the most calculating and considered characters in story, not impulsive at all. It's not impulsive or reckless. It's a considered response that punishes a slight to House Lannister by punishing House Tully (Catelyn being the one to kidnap Tyrion) and attempting to draw Ned out of KL to capture him and trade him for Tyrion. Private wars or armed conflicts between rival nobles were a feature of medieval feudal kingdoms and breaking the king's peace only earned a rap on the knuckles provided no treason was involved. Remember that after Ramsay kidnapped, married and starved Lady Hornwood Roose Bolton claimed the Hornwood lands and we had Manderly knights and Bolton armsmen fighting each other over who would claim the Hornwood inheritance. Ser Rodrik's response is to try and restore the peace and let Robb sort it out. That's the calculation Tywin makes. Now Jaime waylaying Ned in the streets of KL, butchering his men and then having to flee is entirely impulsive and reckless. Tywin is ruthless and his response is extreme but it is carefully calculated. Please be serious. Jaime is investing Riverrun and Tywin is blockading the King's Road. The only place for Robb to cross the Greenfork is The Twins and they are impregnable with Walder Frey expected to sit on the sidelines as he did during the Robellion. Tywin is outmanoeuvred by the Stark-Frey marriage pact but it is hardly because he is reckless and impulsive. All the stigma for The Red Wedding and all the blood is on Frey and Bolton hands. Tywin wrote a few letters, made a few promises and carefully ensured his ends were achieved and that House Lannister is insulated because it took no part. I think you have a non-dictionary understanding of recklessness and impulsiveness. None at all. He doesn't respond to Balon's approach because Balon is already attacking and weakening the Starks so why should he make concessions or promises when he has no need? Balon has claimed independence and will be brought to heel in time. If by Aemon you mean the Night Watch's appeal for aid then the calculation is the same - trouble in the North means trouble for the Starks and a tactical benefit to the Iron Throne. No one believes in the boogeymen to the north so his calculations are based on imperfect information (as all decisions are) but it is calculation not impulse. I think you're mistaking his instinctive grasp of the political and military situation for an impulsive unconsidered response. We don't have much on them but I'm curious as to why you think Genna is paranoid, let alone extremely paranoid or why a potential misjudgment on Kevan's part would make him and / or Genna as recklessly arrogant as Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey. Do you mean Genna can clearly see that setting up in Riverrun after The Red Wedding with a lot of Riverlands nobility inc Edmure held hostage is a horribly uncomfortable and exposed situation? And that as Emmon's a bit thick and absorbed with pride at his new title she confides in Jaime? I think she has good grounds to worry. Still, what little we see of Genna and Kevan strikes me as pretty normal and in no way resembles the behaviour of Cersei, Jaime or Joffrey in their self-indulgent and arrogant excesses. Tyrion can't keep his mouth shut, true, but he's shrewd. We see Tyrion as Hand so we can see how he approaches ruling as opposed to Cersei and we can see how Tywin and Joffrey approach the same problem of what to do with prisoners after the Blackwater - kill them all (impulse, emotion, vengeance) versus forgiveness for oaths of loyalty (calculation, statecraft). As Genna tells Jaime, Tyrion is Tywin's son.
  24. A Lannister always pays his debts, sure. But would he have got himself in that position? I sincerely doubt young Tywin would have got sloppy drunk while on a ride with his fiancee or that, if Arya had struck him with a stick, he would completely have lost his sh*t and started swinging a sword at her. Acts of enormity tend to come from difficult situations springing from earlier terrible decision-making. So if you don't bang your sister in a Lord Paramount's castle and get caught committing high treason by their seven year old son you don't need to throw him out the window and if you don't get drunk and pick on someone you don't have to demand the murder or maiming of two children when your showboating goes wrong. Tywin is ruthless but not reckless, calculating not impulsive. In other words I can't see young Tywin pushing Melara Hetherspoon down a well either. Joffrey has an extra level of entitlement as royalty, a level of irresponsibility and insulation from accountability due to maternal indulgence and his own personality issues (a certain kitchen cat comes to mind). I'm close to it being a consequence of inbreeding (after all Tywin married his cousin and their union produced the twincest) with Joffrey getting Jaime and Cersei's self-centredness and recklessness but then Tommen and Myrcella seem pretty normal kids. Maybe GRRM wants us to see that all genetics (and personalities) are coin flips. Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey all seem to have a reckless arrogance that Tywin, Kevan, Genna and Tyrion don't. The older Lannisters had to endure a time when their house was weak and Tyrion has always been an outsider so they seem to have less arrogance and entitlement than Jaime, Cersei and Joffrey who have always believed that the world would bend to their wishes.
×
×
  • Create New...