Jump to content

Panos Targaryen

Members
  • Content count

    711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Panos Targaryen

  1. Panos Targaryen

    Should the Andal vs First Men conflict be more bitter?

    Probably cause the concepts race and nationalism haven't yet emerged in the world of ASOIAF. Give it 100-200 years, and a northern identity will come to existence. Religious wars between the old gods and the Faith of the Seven will also most likely happen around then. Keep in mind that in real life the European wars of religion didn't happen until 1568, almost 100 years after the end of the middle ages, and imo Westeros isn't even in the late middle ages yet. My prediction for the future of the North is that it will eventually become an independent nation, but much like Christianity in real life, the Faith of the Seven will some day be the official religion of this "new North". It seems to me from our history that much like governments, religions tend to grow and centralize. After a point in history it becomes impossible for multi-religious countries to exist.
  2. Panos Targaryen

    Evidence that Westeros is a post-apocalyptic world?

    I get your point, but if you were to take it to its ultimate analysis, then the fact that the characters speak English period (and we know they do cause the rhymes, wordplay etc. that they use wouldn't work otherwise) could be taken as proof that it's a post-apocalyptic word. After all, how could the words "knight" or "king" exist in Planetos unless the Old English word cniht existed first, or the Germanic cyning. And Latin, Proto-Germanic and other languages? After all, the "English" that they speak in Planetos must have evolved somehow. And what about ancient Greek words like philosophy and chaos, that we also see in ASOIAF? Tolkien got over this by making his own languages from scratch, and explaining in detail the languages in his universe that sound exactly like Old English and Modern English. GRRM is a great author, but he definitely didn't put as much attention to world-building like Tolkien did (and he admits it). I don't often use this phrase, but I wouldn't think too much about it.
  3. Hey everyone. I've had this pet project for the past few months, where I've been creating a history of Westeros from the years 308 (end of the wars for me) to 1300 (analogous to the end of our 21st century). No stories, just the setting in which stories could take place, with a rough timeline of all the historical events, list of future monarchs, territorial changes, wars etc. Heavily inspired by real life history, it covers the late middle ages (300-600), early modern period (600-900), late modern/imperial period (900-1100), and contemporary era (1100-1300). There are certain things I'd like to discuss about the lore with people who may be more familiar with the background history of ASOIAF, and real life history, to make my timeline as realistic/plausible as possible. Does this count as fanfiction, and therefore not allowed in this forum? If so no problem, I'd just like to know.
  4. Panos Targaryen

    Best place to discuss my future history of Westeros project?

    First thing I did was to correlate the years of Planetos to the years of our history, to have an idea of the technological level and historical developments for each century, so that I know which periods of our history to base each era of my timeline on. I defined the end of Second War for the Dawn (308) as the year 1254, which is also the beginning of Daenerys' and Jon's co-rule. It marks the end of the High Middle Ages for Westeros, and the beginning of the Late Middle Ages, with the Early Modern Period beginning around 550-600. So I've settled on: 300: 1250 350: 1275 400: 1300 450: 1350 500: 1400 550: 1450 600: 1500 650: 1550 700: 1600 750: 1650 800: 1700 850: 1725 900: 1750 950: 1775 1000: 1800 1050: 1850 1100: 1900 1150: 1950 1200: 2000 1250: 2050 1300: 2100 To make the years work, in some centuries the cultural and technological development rate is halved. In 300-400 that is due to the damage caused by the war of five kings, long winter, second war for the dawn, the last long winter Planetos will ever experience, and rebellions and wars in the early decades of Dany and Jon's reign. Also a delayed Enlightenment in the years 800-1000. For now I am still working on the list of monarchs of the restored Targaryen dynasty, from 300-600 (end of the Middle Ages). This "kinglist" is essential to me writing the timeline in detail, as I have to know where each reign begins and ends. I am using an Excel table, with the columns being the name of the monarch, their year of birth, year of death, age upon coronation, age upon death, and length of reign. Through the use of formulas, all that information is auto-filled, being dependent on what I set as the reign lengths and years of birth (the only information I have to think about). I've been having a pretty hard time making the reign lengths and birth years such that I don't constantly have monarchs a) Ascending to the throne aged 40-50 years old all the time b) Dying at historically unrealistic old ages c) Having their children/heirs at too old an age by pre-modern standards I haven't been able to figure it out yet, and I honestly don't understand how it worked in real life history, cause the math just doesn't add up. Daenerys having a long reign leads to her having a 55 year old son ascend the throne, and this just sends time ripples across the list which fucks everything up. So, my next step is to create such tables for all the monarchs of England and France, as well as the Iron Throne monarchs from 1-298 AC, so that I can base my history's info on that. Setting that aside, I've got a pretty good general idea of what "chapters of history" each era corresponds to: 300-400: Golden Age of Queen Daenerys and King Aegon VI (Jon Snow), centralization begins as Hand of the King and Queen Tyrion Lannister reforms the royal government, and the Iron Throne begins to use "Great Councils", committees composed of all the great lords, septons, maesters and legal scholars of Westeros. These essentially become permanent by the end of D&J's grandson's (King Viserys III) reign. 400-550: Tensions rise between the Iron Throne and the Great Councils, culminating in a civil war which officially establishes the Westerosi Parliament. 550-750: Parliamentary era. The modern Kingdom of Westeros and Westerosi nationalism are established in this era. 750-770: As colonization increases the government's wealth, and creates a source of wealth for the crown not dependent on Parliament-approved taxes, a rapid growth of royal power occurs. The Parliamentary system breaks down. After a really tyrannical and incompetent king, a massive civil war causes once again the Targaryens to lose the throne and become exiled. Westeros becomes an oppressive and corrupt republic, a la Cromwell. Prince Aegon eventually takes the throne after years of living in exile, dissolves Parliament and declares absolute monarchy as King Aegon XII. 770-950: Absolutist era. 980: Westeros defeats the Kingdom of Braavos, biggest power in Essos, and establishes its supremacy as the dominant world power of Westeros-Essos. The Valyrian Empire is established. 1000-1100: The industrial age. Westeros' "imperial century". The Targaryens, holding the titles Kings of Westeros and Valyrian Emperors, rule an advanced, powerful and world-spanning Empire. 1100: Similar trends to the early 20th century. Modernism begins to make monarchies ineffectual, liberalism and nationalism begins a slow and gradual dismemberment of the Valyrian Empire, and newly-emergent powers begin to chip away at the Targaryen empire's power and influence. 1130: World War 1. 1160: World War 2. At its end, the beginning of the 100-year long Cold War between the Socialist Republic of Central Westeros and x country (haven't decided yet) and their allies and satellites. 1300: Targaryen restoration, end of historical account. Basically, the history of Westeros roughly resembles England in the late middle ages, France in the early modern period, the British Empire in the late modern period, and then in the end Russia in its "20th century". And yes, this is a massive Targaryen wankfest
  5. 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.
  6. Panos Targaryen

    Best place to discuss my future history of Westeros project?

    Never heard of him, but I checked him out, and what he's doing is similar to what I want to do. Thanks for the suggestion!
  7. Panos Targaryen

    Slavoj Zizek on the ending

    My personal analysis and interpretation of Game of Thrones and ASOIAF is to pretend it's "real history" set in a world similar to ours, with similar factors affecting the progress of history, development of the economy through the ages etc., and which happens to be going through a period analogous to our Middle Ages. Eventually they will end, Westeros will go through an early modern period, industrial revolution, experience the emergence of nationalism etc., with its political systems and social mores following a similarly "realistic" development. Therefore, any attempts by people to inject to it their personal leftist revolutionary Marxist ideals are dismissed by me. There's 0 obligation for the story to conform to our modern morals and ideological paradigms, and imo it's selfish and entitled to expect it to. Also, indicative of a lack of understanding on how to write a good realistic story set in a medieval-like period, as well as real-life history.
  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. Hello everyone, first post in the book forum after 4 years. These seem to be the top theories/wishes on the series' ending and the future of Westeros' political system. The way I see it, the same sociocultural and historical forces that exist in our history should also exist in the world of ASOIAF (with the exception of magic, or other creative decisions by GRMM on his world and its nature and history, like the order of the maesters, "Asia" and "Europe" being two continents separated by a mini Atlantic ocean and others). Technological progress, plagues, and other external factors would change the economy, the economy would change the political system, etc. Gunpowder would eventually make castles obsolete, the rise of professional armies would make knighthood and chivalry militarily irrelevant, the discovery and colonization of a continent beyond the Sunset Sea would make Kings richer, allowing them to centralize power and lead to the emergence of modern states, etc. ASOIAF seems to be based on our 1300s-1400s. It's been 300 years since the unification of Westeros (England's seven kingdoms were unified in 927, Norman Conquest and feudalism in 1066), no gunpowder, feudalism is still dominant but power seems to be increasingly concentrating on a few big houses, straining this old system, an old dynasty has just been overthrown (like the Valois in France), a huge dynastic war has shaken the foundations of their society (like the War of the Roses), and so on. If we pretended that the world of ASOIAF were real, the most likely outcome is that their history would have a similar general outline to ours: feudalism declines, monarchs and/or states centralize power, technology advances, their early modern period begins. Why are people assuming that the average peasant or noble of the world would suddenly question the legitimacy of kings? How could the people of ASOIAF even have the concept of "breaking the wheel" (stupid show quote) and "changing the system"? They wouldn't be aware there's such a thing as "the system". Monarchs being the executive leaders of the government didn't end in our world until 100 years after the industrial age began. How would democracy even work in Westeros? The same holds with Westeros breaking up into its old kingdoms. I can think of very few examples in history where great nations (not empires or states) balkanized or reverted to their old, non-unified state. WW1 happened only 50 years after Germany's unification, and yet even after suffering a humiliating defeat in a war and a huge economic crisis after, it remained unified. What most likely will happen is that nationalism will eventually rise in their world as well, leading to the creation of a Westerosi identity, as the Great Houses decline and the kingdoms are seen more and more as mere regions of one kingdom. Maybe there will be some kind of wars of religion and the North and Iron Islands will become independent, but I don't see central Westeros ever breaking up. So why are so many theories on the final state of Westeros and its system of government based on it becoming democratic or breaking up into separate kingdoms? Why not more absolute monarchy/Tudor-style parliamentary monarchy theories? tl,dr: applying the same principles and patterns of economic and historical evolution, development and historiography that happened in our world, it makes very little sense for the Seven Kingdoms to become democratic or break up, everything seems to be pointing to centralization like in real life
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Yeah, that sounds damn cool actually. I guess I should have clarified by saying "a scenario in which Bran Stark as himself becomes king".
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Partially yeah, but regardless there's no scenario in which I can accept Bran becoming king in the end, GRRM or not.
  18. 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?
  19. Panos Targaryen

    Wheely? Discussing the "breaking of the wheel"

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

    Bittersweet?

    The ending is irredeemable. Sorry man.
  21. 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.
  22. It makes 0 sense for him to be king in the end. There was nothing in his storyline or arc that had anything to with him ruling. There are no arguments. Even Daenerys going mad was more plausible. At least with the other shitty writing, I can kind of justify it by assuming that it will happen in the books, it just got rushed and badly executed by D&D and it will be more coherent in them when it happens there. But not even GRRM himself could have Bran become king in the end and make it make sense. I seriously doubt it will happen in ASOIAF.
  23. Panos Targaryen

    The Six Kingdoms

    Democracy/elective monarchy makes zero sense. The whole "breaking the wheel" concept would never occur in a medieval setting like AGOT's, unless the "wheel breaker" is a monarch who wants to become absolutist and curb the rights of the nobility so that he can pass his reforms. You could even have a situation like the Magna Carta, where the nobles, burghers and peasants would demand some limitations on the monarch to preserve their "ancient, God-given liberties". But the idea of making the world more "democratic" in a middle ages-inspired setting is just stupid. No one would think like that.
×