Jump to content

Tywin Tytosson

Members
  • Content Count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tywin Tytosson

  • Rank
    Noble

Recent Profile Visitors

1,069 profile views
  1. I wouldn't say it came down to that. It's more : Ice bad, fire bad. Fire is needed to defeat Ice, but then Fire has to go as well. Just like after the first Long Night, the wolves gets to rebuild. Brandon the Builder did found House Stark, among his other alleged accomplishments. True. Very true. They certainly are.
  2. No, you do not. I agree re. Tywin - he was quite a good ruler as Hand to Aerys. Fortunately, King Bran doesn't have the power to directly enforce unpopular decisions. At least not now. No dragon. No standing army. No bureaucracy. A realm in relative ruins after so much war. But a good question. Very understandable. It's one thing to give advice. Another to rule directly. It may be better from Bran to stay the 'Voice in the Tree', as you say. It many respects, it can be better to be the power behind the throne rather than sitting on it. The old 'grey eminence', as it were. Oh I agree. A King (really an Emperor) saying this won't be believed by all of his/her subjects. Especially by those whose own agenda conflicts with 'the greater good'. Bran could be ruthless, yes. I picture in a coldly logical, Vulcan kind of way. And also in the way that Leto II Atreides was as God-Emperor of Dune as he set humanity on his Golden Path. How does that saying go? One persons hero/savior is another's tyrant or villian?
  3. Well... Machiavelli did try to describe an 'ideal ruler'.
  4. This isn't a requirement for a medieval/feudal kingdom. Or even early modern kingdoms. I would say 'citizenship' only became a requirement with republics and democracies. To wit: England (or the English Parliament) chose William of Orange as their king in 1688/1689. William was Stadtholder of the Netherlands. After Queen Anne, England chose George I of Hanover as their King. Hanover was part of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, the first Reich) and was an Elector who chose the German (HRE) Emperor. King George's son (King George II) and grandson (King George III) held the Hanoverian title, including the Electoral title. George III was King during the American Revolution and also during the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars. Poland elected Duke (and Elector) Frederick Augustus of Saxony as King Augustus II in 1697. Saxony was in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany). His son was both Elector of Saxony and King of Poland. Emperor Karl V was already King of Spain when he was elected Holy Roman Emperor (German Emperor) in 1519. But he was born in Ghent, which was in the HRE, I believe. Empress Katherine II of Russia, though not elected, was born in Pomerania (Prussia) to the German family of Anhalt-Zerbst.
  5. You are absolutely correct. The show didn't explicitly tell or show us. So we have to resort to our own head-canon answers.
  6. True. Cerseis's power should have been very brittle. We should have seen or hear of various rebellions against her. re. the Tarly's, Cersei (or Jamie) offered them the Wardenship of the South. The Tyrells in the show were going extinct, So their bannermen would be looking for The Next Thing (tm). It does seems that other Reach lords follow Randall Tarly in supporting Cersei. In particular the "marcher lords" on the borders with the Westerlands. Cersei does convince them that Dany may be mad like her father, that few in the Realm liked. And that Dany may just ignore the 'social contract' that the Crown has with the nobles. Quibble/Question : how is Cersei a kinslayer? It isn't. I just 'refuse' to be put on the defensive or be labelled. The phrase 'patching up problems' is an attempt to put the 'other side' on the defensive. we really don't have much to disagree about then. I never said season 8 was perfect. far from it, sadly. there should have been 10 episodes. or even 16 - 2x8 episode half seasons. I can see what the showrunners wanted to communicate, and think that the overarching story and story points are there. But the details ... well, the Devil is in the details, isn't it? That's fair. As I said, I can see the overarching story, but don't think that enough groundwork was laid or time taken to get from A to B, as it were. So I guess that I don't think that it was profoundly stupid. It just wasn't executed as well as it could have been. As part of that, I do think that Dany received too much 'good press' for too long. She was lauded up as an infallible heroine past when her faults should have been showing. An interesting article that I read mentioned the excised prophecies re. Dany and how their inclusion may have made Dany's 'other side' more obvious or explainable. Sadly, your are correct. They are not part of the show, so they have to be 'made up' or inferred. But that's part of the fun, eh? Oh but for the Mummer's Dragon! With 'fAegon' being excised, Cersei had to carry the brunt of his story. With Jon picking up the rest.
  7. I thought that there really wasn't time to do any negotiating before the Rebellion. Aerys demanded Jon Arryn either hand over Ned and Robert or kill them himself. Jon refused, and the Rebellion began. The North, or parts of the North, could have been agitating for independence. If Ned didn't agree with that, then he would have have ignored said agitation. The Starks had been trying a 'Southern Strategy' at the time, no? So the Starks may have wanted to keep the North in the Realm.
  8. Actually, there would be 7 Kingdoms. 7 independent Kingdoms. Or maybe 6. The Riverlands was under the thumb of the Iron Islands when Aegon arrived. Always was a bad choice of words, I admit. But the Targaryens hail from Essos, originally. They were 'foreign invaders' who conquered due do dragon power. Eventually the assimilated. More or less. Breaking the Wheel isn't revolutionary rhetoric? Cersei appeared to convince much of the nobility of Dany's revolutionary stance and her cruel treatment of nobles. Yep. That's what is done here. We take what we read or what we saw and bounce theories and opinions off of each other. Feel free to contribute your own ideas What do you mean by 'defense of what was actually put on screen'? I really don't understand. You didn't like what you saw? Is that it? Hmm... if Dany had more of a stated agenda, then mabye. In the show, Dany followed Tyrions advice to try to win over the nobility. Unfortunately for her, she failed to do so. She already was unpopular in the regions that fought against her father - the North and the Vale in particular. She should be unpopular in the Stormlands also, but we didn't see that. I agree that Cersei got more support than I expected. I wouldn't call her legitimate, but she was the only option for those who didn't want a Targaryen restoration. Or a dynasty restored by foreign troops who would be 100% loyal to the monarch.
  9. Didn't Fire and Blood disabuse us of he notion that the North just 'rolled with the new norm' after Torrhen bent the knee? Thought there was talk of rebellion in the North. I agree re. GRRM's final outcomes being setup to make more sense than the show.
  10. This. I think the same applies to the greenseers of the CotF. Like Greatjon Umber declared, when he nominated Robb as King. What Sansa did was more politic. By emphasizing what the North did for the rest of Westeros, she put her request/claim on the moral high ground. Thus reducing opposition from the other Lords present.
  11. I take it as everybody just wants peace. The election was forced on them with no notice, so they chose. The next election would be something completely different. One hopes that Bran (or Tyrion) sets things up to keep things under control. Bronn on council was great! He's not a criminal. He was a sellsword who became a knight. And had been Commander of KL's City Watch. He has his own code, which he follows rather consistently. By being Lord of Highgarden, Bronn is now in charge of and runs one of the wealthiest positions in the 6 Kingdoms. Remember - the Tyrells were 2nd only to the Lannisters in wealth. And the Lannister's gold mines have run dry. What is interesting is that the Small Council has 2 people on it who started life as commoners - Bronn and Davos. Why do you think Bronn was a criminal? Disclaimer - I like Bronn, and am happy that he finally got his castle.
  12. Disagree. Agree. She marries a guy to try bring peace to Meereen. Not necessarily to be a more fair ruler. She locks up the dragons because the person was a child and it triggers something in her re. her inability to have children. [the show doesn't portray this; it is from my recollection of the books] This is not correct. She expects that Jon bending the knee means that the North will bend the knee. She is not used to the Norths 'King in Parliament' kind of governance. Mmmm.. yes, she did. She burned those Dothraki Khals alive. And was quite ready burn 3 if not 4 of the cities that attacked Meereen in S6 to the ground.
  13. All the Starks showed up. As did all of the Arryns and all of the Greyjoys. I just assumed that Bran insisted on accompanying Sansa when she went to KL. There was no way Tyrion could have suggested Jon. Grey Worm would not have accepted that. Doubtful that Yara would have either. Jon was about a poor a candidate at that point as Tyrion, for similar reasons.
  14. Being "unloved" wasn't the issue that made here less 'fit'. The Targaryens were always 'foreign invaders'. Dany was raised in Essos and returned at the head of 2 armies comprised of Essosi. Dany's 'revolutionary rhetoric' would have alienated most of the Westerosi nobility. As would (and did) her hardline stance re. bending the knee.
  15. The purpose was to destroy Fire, just as Ice had been destroyed at Winterfell. After that, rebuilding could be done.
×
×
  • Create New...