The hairy bear

The more I hear about the failed pilot, the more convinced I am that HBO made the right choice not greenlighting the project. Everything seem so bland... And there are too many repeated ideas: a show focusing in the ruling families in the North and the West, under threat of the Northern zombies is not an original premise at all. Even finalizing the first episode with the blood moon seems like an uninspired reuse of the red meteor that marks the end of the first book.

Of course. But if Yandel was able to write that it is because the identities of the murderers were not publicly known. You may find many other people who would be willing to rape women and murder infants. But it would be very difficult to replace a loyal battle-tested knight way over two meters high who can lead men into battle wielding a two-handed greatsword with a single hand. Let's remember that Gregor was semifinalist in the Tourney of the Hand, and that he was eliminated only because of a dirty trick. He is one of the best fighters of Westeros.

It's worth remembering that the identities of the murderers were not made public. This is what the official story says: It is tragic that the blood spilled in war may as readily be innocent as it is guilty, and that those who ravished and murdered Princess Elia escaped justice. It is not known who murdered Princess Rhaenys in her bed, or smashed the infant Prince Aegon's head against a wall. Some whisper it was done at Aerys's own command when he learned that Lord Lannister had taken up Robert's cause, while others suggest that Elia did it herself for fear of what would happen to her children in the hands of her dead husband's enemies. (TWOIAF) Robert and Jon Arryn probably never knew who killed Elia and her kids, and perhaps they were not even aware that Elia had been raped. If they even cared to ask, Tywin could easily reply that he didn't know. By the time the novels starts, Eddard has heard the rumor that Gregor was behind the murder of Elia and Aegon, but remarks that no one dares to say that in Gregor's presence. And Amory's involvement was even less known, judging by Tyrion's surprise when Tywin reveals it.

I don't think I understand which point you are trying to make. You are aware that Daemon was on the black side, aren't you? Fighting the greens or trying to damage their economy would be his goal.

Yoren informs Robb and Bran of Benjen's disappearance in Bran IV, but that's just after he has gone missing. Later on, in Bran VI, it is said: When Robb wrote to the Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, the bird that came back brought word that Uncle Benjen was still missing. The fact that the the letter said that Benjan was "still missing" also suggests that it's not the first letter that Mormont sends to Winterfell on that matter.

I don't see the problem with Baratheon's sable on gold banner. It's the same pattern than the Holy Roman Empire (and surely many others). It looks nice, and it's easily distinguishable. I agree that many others would prove hard to identify in a field of battle. Rowan and Caswell in the Reach, Sarsfield and Greenfield in the West, Harlaw and Stonetree in the Iron Islands... A naval battle in the Narrow Sea involving Manderly, Arryn, Velaryon and Estermont fleets would be madness.

We don't know, but it doesn't seem likely that they did. The Greyjoy raid was a surprise attack, the marshes are very sparsely populated, and Greywater Watch is about 75 leagues (300 km) to the south of the Fevre River and Moat Cailin. Of course, as Victarion explains when he comes back for the kingsmoot, afterwards the crannogmen harassed his men at Moat Cailin shooting poisoned arrows at them.

There's real life examples of medieval monarchs being put to trial. Only in England, I can think of Edward II, Mary Stuart, Jane Grey and Charles I. You present a false dichotomy. There's he obvious third option of capturing both Aerys and Rossart, and make public the wildfire plot. Then even the most fervent Targ supporters will agree that you couldn't let King's Landing and it's million inhabitants to be destroyed, and you'll be praised and loved. Ned disagrees with you. And he's an expert on honor and all those things! "Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me." "We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said.

For what is worth, there are many reptiles that practice cannibalism. Frogs, snakes, salamanders... Perhaps it's not that strange that a dragon does it too. As per the Cannibal's origins, if color is any indication he should be a son or sibling of Balerion.

There's certainly a difference between looking for a new job after the king you've fought and nearly died for is dead... and murdering the king. Killing Aerys was a very bad idea. And not only because it destroyed Jaime's reputation beyond repair and tarnished the prestige of the kingsguard as an institution. I think the rebels would have benefited from a public trial of Aerys. If all Westeros had seen the full extent of his madness and public knowledge of his intent of blowing up King's Landing with wildfire had became known, the Targaryen faction would have lost a lot of support and Robert may not be known as the Usurper but as the Liberator.

I'm aware of that. That's why you will neither see me argue that "preserving the North as a whole" is a good thing. Depending on how you define 'empire', there would be none. :p If we are just talking about political entities that are called empires, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire or the Nicene Empire could qualify. In comparison to what being ruthless got Tywin? I'd say that the Lannisters would have been in a much better position of wining a war if it hadn't been for Tywin's unmoral past actions (the completely unneeded sack of King's Landing, the sadistic murder of Elia and his kids, or his cruel treatment of Tyrion) While the Northmen that Robb sent to the Green Fork were part of a diversion to fool Tywin, it is an invention of the show that they were send there as lambs to the sacrifice. Robb did outsmart Tywin because he was able to divert a great part of his force undetected and took the Lannisters by surprise. Roose had no need to engage Tywin. A wiser (or more loyal) commander would have acted much more cautiously. Roose's gamble is what costed thousands of men, not Robb's clever strategy.

That's true. It is, in fact, the same that Varys told us in his parable about the sellsword who was being told by a king, a septon and a rich man to kill the other two. As he says, "power lies where we think it lies." That said, in order to call anyone "an abuser" we should have something "tangible in reality". There must be the option of evaluating it from an independent perspective. It can't be all in the eye of the beholder, or the word loses all its meaning.

We certainly cannot all agree on that. Particularly when we are talking about empires forged through conquest.

I wouldn't agree here. There's many factors to consider in each particular case, but I'd certainly defend that there are many instances where blocking public thoroughfares is a legitimate form of protest.