Jump to content

Panos Targaryen

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Panos Targaryen

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 01/20/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

855 profile views
  1. Panos Targaryen

    The Reconstruction of King's Landing

    It took 50 years to build the Red Keep, and 55 years for KL to have all its major buildings, sewers etc. completed. So fucking ridiculous.
  2. Panos Targaryen

    Loose ends

    Sansa could have just as easily rallied the Northern forces. She even came on the verge of usurping Jon, when the northern lords were displeased with him swearing fealty to Daenerys and they were pressuring her to become Queen. Getting the wildlings to side with them against the WW, maybe, but realistically how much did they really contribute to the total of the forces that fought them? From what was established in the 4th season, the wildlings had few healthy fighting age men, and were mostly civilians.
  3. Panos Targaryen

    Loose ends

    What important plot points from the show remained unresolved by the end? I don't just mean stuff that would have been cool or nice for fans to know, but still contribute to a good story by remaining mysterious. I mean stuff that by being unresolved violate the "laws of good story writing/narrative making". I'll start: 1) Why was Jon brought back if he played no role in the defeat of the white walkers? 2) What was the metaphysical force behind these events? What kind of power were the COtF manipulating to create the WW, how do red priests see the future etc. 3) Why did Bran become the 3-Eyed Raven? 4) What was the purpose of Dany using mysterious magical forces to "wake the dragons from stone"? What role did the return of dragons play in the grand scheme of things? and many others.
  4. I like that. Basically, any one of us can come up with a much better ending than what we got, and it wouldn't require too much thinking either
  5. Yeah, that sounds damn cool actually. I guess I should have clarified by saying "a scenario in which Bran Stark as himself becomes king".
  6. True. I'm a fan of absolute monarchy in fantasy cause typically feudalism is the only form of monarchy portrayed, so I tend to overemphasize absolutism as being the next logical step in the evolution of Westeros' system of government in my posts. But British Parliamentarianism (Tudor-style or post-English Civil War-style, not the modern democratic one) is also another realistic path they could take.
  7. Making her pregnant with Jon's child and then still having him reject her like he did in the actual show would have further added to the pressure that eventually makes her snap, so yeah something like that would have made her arc more logical too.
  8. From the early 7th season, things happen similarly. But more emphasis is placed on the fact that Daenerys comes to her homeland, expects a warm welcome, the common people to rise in support for their "true queen" etc., but all she feels is alienation and mistrust. Show that more, and from earlier on. Show how Westeros feels like a strange foreign land to her, how she's beginning to question what the point of her whole dream of coming here was, whether it was all worth it in the end. This adds to the pressure that eventually makes her snap. Make the audience see how that makes her crueller and more fanatical, despotic and self-righteous in her desire to rule these people and prove to them she deserves to be queen. There's still a moral slippery-slope arc for her. Another change would be how the losses she suffers are portrayed: Missandei dies similarly to the show, but somehow right before the Battle of King's Landing, or during it. Grey Worm dies in the same battle, and Dany sees that. Then, have Rhaegal die not by some random idiocy because "she kind of forgot about Euron's fleet", but during the battle (also by a scorpion bolt, maybe in the first phase of the battle, when she burns the Iron Fleet). Basically make sure the audience sees the losses for Dany piling up, and in a small amount of time. It needs to be all at once to push her off the edge. She loses Rhaegal, Grey Worm and Missandei within minutes/hours. Dany, enraged and mad with grief and loss, charges to the Red Keep with Drogon, and starts burning it to the ground to kill Cersei and everyone in it (she has destroyed all the scorpions at this point). Keep in mind she's not trying to burn KL, just the Red Keep. And then, suddenly, explosions everywhere. Green flames pour out of every corner of KL. Buildings everywhere crumble and turn to ashes. Thousands of innocents die screaming. To her horror, she suddenly remembers what Barristan told her about her father putting wildfire caches everywhere on KL. She realizes that, blinded by her rage and need for vengeance, she finished what her father started. KL is utterly destroyed. Hell, maybe even worse than the show. All the resentment, rage, desire for the Iron Throne made her almost become her father, something she's been consciously trying to avoid since the 5th season. This is the turning point, the wake-up call where she realizes that she went too far, that she has been taking a dark turn for a while. What happens from this point on would be up to the writers. It could begin a redemption arc for Daenerys, or she suddenly realizes that she should never be queen and has an ending similar to Jon, doesn't matter for my post. TL,DR: Basically things happen similarly, but rather than Dany going crazy for no reason and killing civilians, she accidentally burns KL by trying to destroy only the Red Keep in a fit of rage, which ends up setting off the wildfire planted by her father, which serves as a wake-up call to her that she has lost sight of her original purpose and is becoming a tyrant.
  9. Partially yeah, but regardless there's no scenario in which I can accept Bran becoming king in the end, GRRM or not.
  10. Source: Wikipedia Holy Roman Empire: Although officially an elective monarchy, from 1440 to 1740 a Habsburg was always elected emperor, the throne becoming unofficially hereditary. This continued from 1740-1806 when the new line of Habsburgs took over, until the fall of the HRE. Anglo-Saxon England: A system of elective monarchy existed in Anglo-Saxon England, with the Witenagemot being able to elect and depose kings. This ended with the Norman Conquest and William the Conqueror's accession. Dutch Republic: In the Dutch Republic of the 17th and 18th Century there was the office of the Stadtholder, whose power fell short of those of a monarch, and which was elective. In theory anyone could be elected Stadtholder, though in practice it was restricted to members of the House of Orange. The House of Orange and its adherents tried to increase the powers of the Stadtholder to approximate those of a Monarch, to make it officially hereditary (which it became in the later part of the 18th Century) and finally to transform it into a full-fledged hereditary Monarchy – as it was in 1815. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: Became hereditary constitutional monarchy with the Constitution of 3 May 1791. Sweden: Originally, the Kings of Sweden were elected by all free men at the Mora Thing. Elective monarchy continued until 1544, when the Riksdag of the Estates designated the heirs of King Gustav Vasa as the heirs to the throne. Denmark: The Danish monarchy was officially elective, although the eldest son of the reigning monarch was usually elected. This continued until 1660, when an absolute and officially hereditary monarchy was instituted by Frederick III. Norway: In the tradition of Germanic monarchy the king had to be elected by a representative assembly of noblemen. Men eligible for election had to be of royal blood; but the eldest son of the previous king was not automatically chosen. During the civil war era the unclear succession laws and the practice of power-sharing between several kings simultaneously gave personal conflicts the potential to become full-blown wars. Over the centuries kings consolidated their power, and eventually a strict succession law made Norway a principally hereditary kingdom. France: Medieval France was an elective monarchy at the time of the first Capetian kings; the kings however took the habit of, during their reign, having their son elected as successor. The election soon became a mere formality and vanished after the reign of Philip II of France. Bohemia: Since medieval times, the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown. Since 1526, when the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I assumed the Bohemian Crown, it was always held by the Habsburgs, who expected this situation to go on indefinitely. In 1618 the Bohemians chose to exercise in practice their legal right to choose a King at their discretion, and bestowed the Bohemian Crown on Frederick V, Elector Palatine. However, the Habsburgs regarded this as an act of rebellion, imposed their rule over Bohemia in the Battle of the White Mountain and in the aftermath abolished the Bohemian Elective Monarchy and made exclusive Habsburg rule the de jure as well as de facto situation. Just saying. The "wheel" was not "broken". With a "Stark" monarch beyond the Wall (hopefully what Jon has become in the end), a Stark monarch in the North, and a Stark monarch in the South, as well as probably a Stark being the first to discover the continent west of Westeros (which will no doubt be fought over and colonized in the future by the powers of Westeros like the Americas were in real life) Stark hegemony is assured in the continent. When Bran dies/becomes a tree childless there will be no election, just a brief diplomatic and political squabble before Sansa or her ancestors assert their rights over the kingship of Westeros. Elective monarchy in general is not sustainable, much less so in a medieval society, even more less so when one House controls the entire continent anyway. Anyway, the idea that an elective monarchy is automatically "progress" over a hereditary one is a big assumption, and very Whigish. It seems to me that historically countries in a more primitive and "newborn" state, when things are chaotic and the main powers of the land are warlords, start as elective, and then as they become more sophisticated and advanced hereditary monarchy becomes the norm. So actually, historically speaking elective monarchies are more "primitive" than hereditary ones. There's no reason for democracy and revolution to be themes in ASOIAF, it can still be a positive story without them. You know what would be a realistic scenario where Westeros' political system becomes more "advanced"? Absolute monarchy and/or enlightened absolutism.
  11. Panos Targaryen

    The Ending Was very conventional

    What do you have against while males? Why is the Kingdom of the North xenophobic? Why does GoT need to have liberal revolutionary political themes to be a good story?
  12. Panos Targaryen

    Wheely? Discussing the "breaking of the wheel"

    Absolute monarchy =/= despotic monarchy. Some of the greatest reformer monarchs were absolutists.
  13. Panos Targaryen


    The ending is irredeemable. Sorry man.
  14. Yeah for sure, I think GRRM was going for something like Jesus in the desert. By the end of that experience Dany will have a much clearer vision of who she is and what her destiny and goals are.