Nilan8888

error: repeat post

Hmmm, well I can't comment on Saul, but for the three others, the impressive things done for their subjects tended to be incidental. And they tended to be affected by the society and times they lived in. Alexander, most prominently, spent almost all his time at war. Yes, he commissioned impressive public projects, but it's quite possible -- in fact, more than likely -- that these were about increasing his own image and fame than concern for the people of his Empire. Julius Caesar lived in a very 'republican' time -- much moreso than 100 years later -- when it was expected of you to serve in government and civil service was a virtuous position. He did a number of good things for his people, but there's a reason he was assassinated: he really was taking more power than was necessary. In fact he had a precedent in Sulla, and was quoted as saying that it was Sulla's detriment in giving up power. Whereas we don't know as much about Alexander, with Caesar it seems pretty apparent he was increasing his own status first and foremost. With Napoleon too, you have that same problematic relationship: but the thing with Napolean was that he lived in the time of the Revolution, and gained his position because of it. He probably did the most for his people out of the rulers listed, but a lot of that has to do with what preceeded his rise to power, with the examples of Danton, of Robespierre, of Roland, of Brissot, and even Marat. He himself was tied to Robespierre via his friendship with Augustin Robespierre.

Just coming in on this topic thread and from the first page, I just have to say: BRAVO jet199! There was so much about that post that was so amazing and so true. QFT, all that. Not just epic on this topic, I think it's one of the better posts I have ever read, anywhere. And I've read a lot of posts. Just to bask in what you wrote again, I'm going to re-print it here, because it so bears repeating (bold is mine): And...

Had D&D not given agency to Dany in that decision, not made it her own plan, people would be much more fed up with Dany than they currently are. This way she has made a decision.

Hmm, I think there's more to it that that, but you are on to something. Although I do NOT want to Godwin the thread, Hitler has been described in a similar context in his style of diplomacy. The historian AJP Taylor once described Hitler in the context of a gambler, but then sort of tore it down by pointing to all of Hitler's miscalculations both before and during the war. That's because until the fall of France, I think Hitler and Littlefinger share a key component in their diplomacy: they wait for an opportunity, and then exploit it. But they don't go all in unless they're pretty certain of the ground they're on. If they face serious opposition, they drop the matter entirely and wait for the next opportunity, and appear that they were never heavily invested. In other words, they weren't as good as they appeared to be, they just made it appear as if the plans they followed through on were the ones they were following all along -- when in fact they were just throwing things at the wall to see what stuck. It's not that Littlefinger isn't smart, he is: he's just not as smart as the audience might believe, which is impossibly smart. He has a myth about him that he knows everything, and he doesn't -- because there's just too much to know.

Because if he waits, Roose will just marry Ramsey off to another banner house to secure his position and get allies against Stannis. Waiting might -- might -- work well enough if Stannis wins. But if the Boltons win and marry Ramsey before the battle, that opportunity will be lost.

Just because you say this doesn't make it so. I could say that all you want to do is slam the show due to pre-conceived conclusions and that, were the show to take your suggestions and use them, more people would actually dislike the show. Frankly, I think the real reason we're discussing this so heatedly is ultimately because GRRM didn't personally write it. Well you brought up how weak they were in the TV show. Seems a natural topic to visit in response. They are in need of allies, yes -- but so would any House seeking to usurp the Starks. And as I've said before, they are not WITHOUT allies in the North, since there's at least two Houses that seem ready to stand with them. That Roose is worried about Northern reprisals does not mean the Bolton's hold on power IS weak, it just means that Roose is afraid that a significant number of Northmen might challenge him. This might be the case, but it also might not be the case. After all, the man leading the army against him is NOT a northman, and a large portion of his army -- in fact, the core of that army -- are not northmen either. I would not characterize Roose as strong, but that everyone else just happens to be weaker than he is. No. It's not backpedaling, and it's not sloppy writing: you're just refusing to accept reasonable arguments and/or ignoring them. Yes, Littlefinger would not have made this deal if he knew the Boltons were sadistic psychopaths. This is because of two reasons: 1) Sansa's safety is in jeapordy, which he does not want to risk both beacuse of his infatuation and because she's a good investment 2) It would prove that the RW was more indicative of how the Boltons are normally behind closed doors, and not just an oppertunistic way to get out of a losing war. In other words in regards to 2) -- and I'm guessing 2) would be the point you're most interested in -- LF is expecting the Boltons to be like other untrustworthy people he's dealt with in the past: the Kettleblacks, Janos Slynt, Dontos Hollard, etc. But the to parahprase The Dark Knight, what LF doesn't know is that he's turning to people that he doesn't truly understand. His only mistake is in assuming that they were going to be like just about everyone else he's run across in his life. Ok, fine with that.

Just because they participated in the RW, a wartime event, doesn't mean they are psychopaths. It just means they were in on it. It means they are traitors but that in and of itself doesn't mean that everything they do is to get enjoyment out of death and murder. There are all sorts of traitors, but that doesn't mean they are psychopaths. Janos Slynt was a traitor. The Kettleblacks are traitors. Renly was a traitor. And as for being traitors, the Boltons themselves did not betray Ned during the Rebellion. They did not drop everything and go after the Starks during the Dance of the Dragons, or who knows how many Wildling invasions. If everyone hates them and thinks they're psychopaths, why are the Karstarks not at their throats, or the Dustins? The RW happned under Walder Frey's roof, not Roose Bolton's.

That makes no sense. Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting here: that makes no sense. Roose is weak because some people are murdered under his roof? That could happen, and has happened, to anyone. Especially since the people doing the murders are Wildlings, right? You know, Mance's spearwives who snuck in? The Manderleys have been likely killing people too, but I believe that was the Freys. You are getting them mixed up with the Freys. Some of the North hates them, sure, and most of them don't like them, but it's the Freys they all hate. Most of them don't know how horrible the Boltons are. The Karstarks certainly don't hate the Boltons. House Dustin as well. Telling how? That there is any army marching towards Winterfell? Yes, it's true: you can derive that an army is headed their way by the fact that the Boltons sent out an army to fight. As said just previously, they're NOT known for their cruelty. They're known for keeping a low profile. The only ones aware of their cruelty are the rare situations where word gets out. I hardly think there were any 'Reek' incidents in the times of Ned and Rickard and previous Lords of Winterfell or the Starks would have stomped on their necks long ago. Ned's not going to just sit there and say "Yeah, the Boltons are psychopaths with a lot of power... but hey, whaddya gonna do? It's not like I can go and sack their castle". "Oh wait, I'm Warden of the North, I CAN so totally do that without needing to justify it to anyone -- and everyone hated the Boltons, so even better. It's almost as if I had most of the powers of a Medieval Monarch, or something". So come on: if the Boltons were as widely known and hated as you say, there wouldn't BE any Boltons. Because the Starks would have killed them all before the story even began. No it's not. They have more immediate power than he does. Whatever Harry stands to gain in the Vale, it's in the future of a land LF already has some influence in. The Boltons have all that power of a totally separate Kingdom RIGHT NOW.

Firstly we don't know what he might have gained in immediate terms: we don't know how much gold or goods were exchanged. But he has in effect gained an alliance with the wardens of the North. How can that possibly be 'receiving nothing'? Ten years down the line he can use that alliance to do all sorts of things. 'Hey, can I get you to lend me 20 men?' 'Yeah, sure'. 'Hey, can I get you to lend me a ship or two?' 'Yeah, sure'. True, it would be more complex than that, but I'm just trying to give you the scope of favors and resources he now has potential access to. Whereas previously he did not. Since the Boltons are now Wardens of the North and not just another banner house, those resources are now that much greater. Plus it's drawing from a completely different part of the seven kingdoms. No: stop right there. That is 100% false. You are in direct contridiction to both the books and the show. Not only does not everyone know the Boltons are psychopaths, most people in the North itself DON'T. It's the entire premise hinged on Roose's comment of "a quiet land, a quiet people" in ADWD. Roose is VERY careful word does not get out about his pasttimes, and Ramsey's. Yes, it's well known that the Boltons flayed and skinned their enemies and USED to probably be psychopathic... but that was at least 400 years ago, some time before Aegon's Conquest. In other words, transposed into our own world, a time before there was even a United States of America. Nobosy's going to use that as a basis since the Boltons were loyal until that time right up to the RW. Robert's Rebellion uncluded, BTW.

Whaaaaa? Are we watching/reading the same story? the Boltons are FAR from the 'weakest company'. In fact, in the books they seem to be stronger than Stannis. In the show they may be as well. But there is nobody particularly opposing the Boltons. But they have a long family name, troops of their own (ones that were not decimated at the RW), and most importantly, time to consolidate their position. Sansa would help do that. LF is potentially buying low and selling high. He stands to reap great rewards if the Boltons consolidate that position. At least, if they weren't psychopaths... but that's off the table because LF is unaware of that. IF he was, I highly doubt he'd ever have considered doing this. Yes, the Boltons are weak: but so is almost everyone else. And they have the potential for strength. Marrying Sansa off to a family LF 'doesn't know' is frankly just what he has to put up with. She's from the North, where her name carries the most weight, and he's not from the North, which is a totally different culture. What he does know is that the top family in the North was the Starks, and he was able to manipulate Catelyn and Ned just fine. Nobody can know everything about everyone. Considering his plans would probably work if the Boltons didn't happen to be psychopaths is saying something: he'd stand to make a much more substantial gain to ally with the Boltons than Harry the Heir.

Unfortunately it makes all too much sense as to why Sansa would protect him. Most people tend to say that Sansa made the wiser move with LF in not sellnig him out to the Vale lords -- which I absolutely disagree with, I think it was a horrible mistake and anyone who knows anything about the Royces would know that... but in the position of Sansa who's been abused, tormented, and forced to endure the outright abuse of Jeoffrey, the emotional abuse of Cersei, the more subtle abuse of LF himself and even the back and forth quasi-emotional abuse and quasi-support of the Hound, the desire to hold onto what she thinks she knows makes intellectual sense to me. I'm not sure I can relate to it, but I know people who would make decisions like that. There but for the grace of God go I, but protecting someone potentially like LF from people that would see things done right and treat them better makes sense to them. Not unless he marries her off. At which point she's more or less as out of his control as she is in the North. Who in the Vale can LF control except for Robin? And even in the books, only Robin is looking for Sansa to marry Robin. LF can't know everyone. He knows about the Boltons, he just doesn't know as much as he needs to: but there's no way of knowing that. Were the Boltons ANYONE else... except House Clegane or MAYBE the Greyjoys... this would be fine. Even if the Boltons had the disposition of House Lannister. Even if they had the disposition of House Frey. We only know they're psychopaths because we're outside of the story, reading it. But within the story, there's not a lot of psychopath noble familys: Tullys, Umbers, Karstarks, Tyrells, Martells, Lannisters (yes, they're not psychopaths like the Boltons), Freys, Royces, Dondarrions, Tarths, Baratheons...any given family is going to look more like these examples than the Boltons, RW or not. After all, the RW was done in wartime with the Boltons getting out of the losing side that already had one major house in rebellion over a completely separate incident (Karstarks), most likely to the outside proposed by either Tywin Lanniser or Lord Frey. Given that LF has done business with murderous traitors in the past (Janos Slynt), there's little to indicate the Boltons are a family of Dexter Morgans. That's just not a likely assumption or precaution to make if you're living in the world of Westeros and don't know what's up at the Dreadfort. It might be the RIGHT precaustion to take as it turns out, but it's not a likely one. People who would do that are well and truly paranoid and unable to get ahead BECAUSE they're too paranoid. Whatever way you slice it LF HAS to give Sansa up to someone he can't completely control because he doesn't have a real family name. Even in the Vale, he can't truly control the noble families. That he is even less able to control the Boltons is true... but then the potential rewards of helping out the Boltons versus the Royces are that much greater.

She wasn't under his wing anymore when the Vale lords came a'callin to look into Lysa's death. Yet somehow he still controlled her enough to get by. LF did not 'give Sansa away'. He's proposing a political alliance and that's what he's getting. Like a fistfull of cash, having Sansa in your back pocket means nothing unless you are willing to spend her. Then Sansa is useless to him anyway. What good is it going to do him if she's just hanging around? The value is in the Stark name. Having Sansa remain in the Eyrie year after year wastes the potential of that name in the North. Umm... support from the Vale? The Boltons know what's going on in the Vale even less than LF knows what's going on in the North. They probably figure that LF might be able to get troops to help them out if they run into trouble with the bannermen, as well as using Sansa to help sway said bannermen. Are you so sure this is not a situation of show apologists but that maybe you're mistaken and following your first reaction rather than thinking the situation through? It's true the show has made missteps in the past, but in this case when you think it out, it makes a lot more sense than at first glance.

I agree with a lot of this, except I think it's fairer to say that LF isn't really counting much on Stannis rather than the other way around. Nobody at the wall is sending ravens off to all of Westeros saying "NP guys, Stannis got our backs, props to him". I'm not sure anyone yet knows Stannis went to the wall outside of the North. However you make a VERY good point in the relative Botlon weakness, and that is key. LF sees an opportunity because he knows how bad the Boltons need Sansa. Yes, the Boltons participated in the RW -- they're certainly not trustworthy -- but LF has, in his mind, done business with such shady people before. Not unjustly, LF believes he can gain from marrying Sansa off and have pull in the Vale and the North simultaniously. He is using the remenants of the alliance of Robert's Rebellion to his advantage. And with almost any other noble family, this would work out for him. However the Boltons are psychopaths. We know that, LF doesn't. That's why it won't ultimately work out, but there's no way he's able to know that. The RW isn't enough of an indication since the Freys took most of the heat for that. Au contraire, if LF is not putting much stock in Stannis getting anywhere -- and I think that's the prevailing wisdom in Westeros just as it was in the Iron Bank scene last season -- then LF definately SHOULD get Sansa married off to the Boltons soon. Because if he doesn't, Roose is going to get Ramsey married off to the most powerful banner house possible, whether it's the Umbers, Manderlys, Karstarks or whoever else. If he misses that boat, then they don't have a foothold in the North. This way, he assures the Boltons of support from the Vale -- in actual fact LF would have trouble getting an army out to support the Boltons in the North, but the Boltons don't know that. And in return he gets nominal support of the North for any plans he might have, within reason. He might not get their support if he wants to invade somewhere... heck, he couldn't get much Vale support if he wanted to invade somewhere... but he can get a multitude of access to non-essential resources and information in the North that he can use to better advantage later. To the effect that down the line, maybe he COULD influence the North into mustering an army for him, given the right approach.

So I've been thinking about this, and I fail to see why this is not a perfectly fine move for LF. I think a lot of people are just against this because it didn't happen in the books. but it DOES make sense. Firstly, as much as we like to think LF just knows everything about everyone, that's just not humanly possible, not in the books, not in the show. Despite his dealings with the Starks, LF is an Andal/Braavosi, and only knows their culture and their nobility second hand, just as he would with the Martells. This would mean he'd know about the RW, and that the Boltons once skinned their enemies at least 400 years ago (in our own time, 400 years ago was back before the United States was even a country), but otherwise he doesn't know as much as he'd know about the lords of the Vale, Riverlands or Crownlands. But would not knowing a noble family prevent him from acting on an opportunity? I doubt it: given that LF doesn't know the Boltons are psychopaths, this shouldn't seem as risky from his POV as many of his other moves: he's had to rely on traitorous murderers before -- Janos Slynt, the Kettleblacks, and even Lysa herself. He may have known Lysa from childhood, but he also directed her to murder her husband and turn her back on her sister, her brother AND her father (and against her uncle as well), while she was clearly a loose cannon and on her own at the Eyrie without him present there. A whole lot could have easily gone wrong with her not where he could not easily supervise. And if the Boltons weren't psychopaths, which isn't clear to LF, this would be a less risky move. The Boltons are in a precarious position with the former Stark bannermen, and this would be clear to LF at least. LF can provide the Boltons with a Stark, and potentially, for all they know, armed support from the Vale (this would actually not be easy for LF, but the Boltons wouldn't know that). Unlike the Lannisters, the Arryns have been more apt to send armies into the North, if only as far as White Harbor. This is actually a potential boon for LF, so I can see his logic. The Boltons need him more than the Tyrells ever did, for instance, and although he knows they're potentially treacherous, the Boltons have no inroads into the Eyrie, and they were good enough allies to the Starks until they were put into a losing war with at least two other Houses turning traitor because of internal politics (the Karstarks and the Freys). Yes, the situation is actually much worse than that for LF in this deal. But LF is unlikely to know that, and based on his dealings with the Starks (who these men once answered to) even book LF would likely see an opportunity to exploit, and be overconfident in exploiting it.