Jump to content

Lion of the West

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Lion of the West

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Casterly Rock

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,468 profile views
  1. Lion of the West

    Your Sigil, Your Words, Your Fealty, and the Name of Your Keep.

    Sure, why not. House Sassarp Sigil: Per bendy, Gules and Or, a griffon rampagent, Sable Words: "Faithful to friends, fearless to foes" Lands: Somewhere in the Westerlands Location: Westerlands Seat: The Red Roost House Weapons: Valyrian longsword called "Memory". Fealty: House Lannister of Castlery Rock Gods: The Seven Blood: Andal
  2. Lion of the West

    What was Tywin's original plan?

    Robert was never a problem for Tywin. The best way to predict someone's future behavior is to look at their past behavior, and whenever there has been a conflict between Stark and Lannister, Robert took the Lannister's side or chickened out. There is no reason to think that Robert would not go on the Lannister line this time as well.
  3. Lion of the West

    House Arryn Enters The War

    Its not as easy as you make it out to be. Actions and events happens depending on what happens before and elsewhere. If there are different things in the Vale, then things elsewhere will go differently and so on. I realize that I may sound a bit angry at time. The reason is to make the impression that the scenario presented here does not make sense or would work out at all. To start with, with the Lannisters being innocent of Jon Arryn's death, Eddard may not at all head south with King Robert to become Hand of the King. Finding justice for Jon Arryn, under the impression that it was the Lannisters who killed him, was a major or even the major motivation for going south. With the plot of Lysa and Littlefinger exposed, why would Eddard go south with Robert? And even more so, if Jon has a son of his own body who is an adult and grown strong, why would he marry Lysa and if not Lysa is there, why would he raise Littlefinger to any importance? These two things are extremely unlikely to take place with an adult son of Lord Arryn around. I think that just this, and I could go on, is enough to throw a wrench into the development of the story as we know it. Why would the enemy be House Lannister and King Joffrey? It was a Tully and a Baelish who killed Jon Arryn. And regardless or not, this Lord Arryn has just thrown Lysa Tully out of the Vale. It really isn't that far fetched that there would be a rift between the Tullys and the Arryns at this point as we wouldn't know to what degree the Tullys will just give up the idea of a half-Tully being the next Lord Arryn or even if they would believe the charges or just see it as a power grap by a pretender to the Eyrie. Things like this don't go always smooth and are seen in the best possible light by people in Westeros. If the new Lord Arryn is so stupid as to jump into a war without securing allies, coordinate with possible allied forces or have a firm idea about what he wants after King Joffrey, who wasn't involved in the death of Jon Arryn in any case I might add, and what he wants to gain from the war then I would imagine that he would march straight to Harrenhall and break his army against those walls. After which the remains will slink back to the Vale and play not further part. Hence Tywin will not be stopped at the crossings over the Trident so the Tyrells can find him. He will be wading knee-deep, or higher, in the blood of the Knights of the Vale at Harrenhall, when the Tyrells arrives to join him going south to save King's Landing. To start with Lord Arryn would need to get into contact with Robb or Stannis, decided which side he will support, and then move to help that side achieve their war objectives, then reap the rewards he've been promised for his contribution. If Lord Arryn would aid Stannis, then threatening Tywin's rear is a bettter choice than trying to lay siege to Harrenhall, as it would make it more difficult for Tywin to move at will to the south with an army in his rear. Now the Tyrells will bring sufficient troops to both go to the capital and leave a rearguard to hold off the Knights of the Vale, but that wouldn't be known to Lord Arryn and most importantly, with less enemies in the field it MIGHT be possible for Stannis to withdraw more forces to his ships and regroups back in the Vale of Arryn to continue the war. But they could also use Stannis' control of the royal navy along with ships from the Vale to land the Knights of the Vale north of King's Landing and so allow for a assault from both north and south, or use the Valemen to attack Tywin's relieving army and so allow for Stannis to capture the city. The key however is coordination and cooperation. The scenario would be similar with siding with Robb. Coordination and cooperation.
  4. Lion of the West

    Rules of inheritance

    A bit of speculation but... We know very little of daily life in Westeros due to the main series focusing on a major war that throws the normal playbook out the window or with the absolute upper crust of the nobility who may or may not actually care much for such things in such times. I would think its often, depending on the personality of the king, enforced in normal times unless there's a good reason not to do so. With some luck we may get a Dunk&Egg episode that deals with this issue in the future. But that's about as far as I would dare to hope to get some clarity on the issue.
  5. Lion of the West

    What happened to the Targaryen slaves?

    I'd assume Aegon and his sisters made their slaves free, and pressured any retainer to do the same, and the slaves mostly remained to do the same tasks but now with a small wage for their old masters. A few may have joined the smallfolk on Dragonstone and an even fewer number may have left Dragonstone to try their luck on the mainland.
  6. Lion of the West

    An entire royal line wiped out in one battle?

    I'd also add that not taking with sons who are of age and can fight is also a major slap the faces of said sons, and would likely undermine their future authority if one of them became the next king. In regards to males warriors are admired in Westeros, while bench-warmers and non-combatants don't seem to be, by the warrior aristocracy at large.
  7. Lion of the West

    Armies of Westeros and Essos

    I agree with the rest but I would say that we are talking past each other here. I am not talking about the strategy laid out or the tactical decisions made by the commander or if the army routs or not without its commander. I am talking about if routine aspects of soldiering, like building and securing the camp, posting sentries and such, normally works regardless of the competence of the commander or if these routine things are dependent on the commander to be carried out by the soldiers and sub-commanders? For example, if a Byzantine commander orders his men to make camp in a place, does he need to specify that the camp is build according to regulations and sentries posted, or will the soldiers and sub-commanders be, well, good enough soldiers know this needs to be done and how to do it?
  8. Lion of the West

    Armies of Westeros and Essos

    I think you're right on discipline and in regards to tactics I think the Byzantines will also be more adaptable and diverse than the Westerosi given how the Westerosi would seem to suffer from essentially the same kind of problem that the, almost fabled, Samurai would seem to have suffered from; military development incest. A harsh term yes, but in both cases their military system primarily had experience to fight against itself. Westerosi normally only fights other Westerosi and the Samurai, to my knowledge, primarily only fought opponents from the same military system. Hence the systems would have been developing to face itself, but if a different kind of opponent showed up, that could cause it to struggle. And just like the Samurai, again to my limited knowledge, didn't make much headway against the Chinese or Koreans, so the Westerosi may be at a disadvantage to fight the Byzantines who do not fight like the Westerosi have prepared for. Even if the Westerosi have managed to win against both Golden Company and Dornish, who would seem to fight differently than Andals or Northmen (I am here thinking of tactical victories, not that the Westerosi lacked a successfull strategy to overtake Dorne). While the Byzantines would have much experience and tactics to do many different things and face many different opponents, including throwing in a few tricks the Westerosi would find hard to counter, like the before mentioned mounted archers. In regards to the camps I think you've struck the nail, although I think that it shows how dependent the Westerosi armies are on their leaders. Now this is just my speculation but my thoughts on it is that if the Westerosi have a competent leader, like Stannis or Tywin or someone like that, then things can work alright with an ordered camp, defenses, patrols and all that. But if the leader is not up to the task of ensuring that these things gets done, the Westerosi would seem not have the discipline to, you know, get their asses moving unless someone essentially tells them or kicks them, to do it. I am mostly here thinking about the examples of the "Battle of the Camps" in WoFK and the "Second Battle of Tumbleton" in the Dance. In fact the way that leadership breaks down in the Green army after the Hightower commander is killed with infighting and scheming while ignoring the Blacks, would seem a perfect example of dependence on a strong leader for a Westerosi army and the lack of discipline at essentially all levels. Problems which I am pretty sure would not exist among professional Byzantine soldiers. As for irregular fighting I totally agree with you. Everything I've read states to me that the Westerosi favors a decisive engagement, not drawn out campaigns of skirmishes, raids and ambushes. Sure, Tywin avoids that impulse after the "Battle of the Green Fork", but that would seem to be against the norm. The more I write the more I'm starting to change my perception that the Byzantine soldiers would probably have an advantage over Westerosi warriors during a war, if not a single battle. The more drawn out a war would be the more the odds are likely to tilt over in advantage of the Byzantines as these could grind the Westerosi down and use the Westerosi desire for a decisive engagement against them. Not to mention that, as was mentioned before, the lack of more advanced Westerosi logistics would allow the Byzantines to pick off groups of foragers, unless the Westerosi had a Brynden or someone of that calibre to play the Byzantines' own game of skirmishes, raiders and ambushes against them.
  9. Lion of the West

    Armies of Westeros and Essos

    I may be to generous to the Westerosi but I don't see this being the case. Westerosi vs Byzantines will be a closely fought one, so its a very interesting discussion. If we look at the composition of at least one Westerosi army, then we can see that at the Battle of the Green Fork, we can see that about 1/3 was cavalry. That's an insane ammont of shock power right there, even a degree of them would not be heavy cavalry. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_on_the_Green_Fork Thus I feel that I must reject the notion of the Westerosi being part of the prejudice and caricature that the term "Dark Ages" often refer to. EDITED: And one more thing. Do remember that Westerosi armies have faced and fought professional solders in form of the Golden Company, and others, before with success. Both at home and abroad, so there's no reason to think they will per definition lose to a professional army.
  10. Lion of the West

    Armies of Westeros and Essos

    If the Byzantines could take on the Westeros would depend on alot of stuff. But in a big fight on a open field, I think it could go either way. The Byzantines of the 10th century would likely have an advantage in discipline but given how the Westeros are, essentially a mash of different time periods, but have things like plate armour and other late medieval weapons which could be a crucial advantage in a decisive part, like an engagement between knights and cataphracts, I don't think that a Westerosi defeat is a forgone conclusion. In a certain way the Byzantines would be facing a Western Sassanid empire with a heavy focus on cavalry. But lets not forget that a solid part of the Westerosi infantry would be professional men-at-arms and the Westerosi heavy cavalry is a formidable fighting force, and I've yet to see them do anything stupid due to bad discipline. As seen by the Redgrass Field, several encounters during the Dance and War of Five Kings, the Westerosi are fully capable of producing solid commanders and warriors from their military traditions and system. The biggest advantage for the Byzantines would probably be that the constant feuding and obsession over personal honour could, during a longer war, among the Westerosi could allow them to open rifts among the Westerosi and so open up for defections or less enthusiastic participation in the war. The Westerosi would be a far more potent foe for the Byzantines than the Vandals or Ostrogoths, and I don't know the general outcome of fighting between Byzantines and Western Crusaders, but I do know that the Normans of Sicily had alot of battlefield success over the Byzantines, and since heavy cavalry charging in with lances is one of the main tricks used by the Westeros, the Byzantines may have a fairly tough fight on their hands. But then again I would think that the Byzantines could cause havoc with mounted archers since the Westerosi have no experience of knowledge of how to deal with such foes, and the Byzantine infantry is likely going to be as, or more, disciplined than the Westeorsi one even if parts of the Westerosi infantry may have better gear than their Byzantine counterpart. But one think that I think is very possible is that the Byzantines, through a professional army, may well be able to execute complex battlefield manouvers better than the Westerosi would, thus potentially giving them an advantage in responding to developments on the field of battle. But this is just what I think, and I'm not an expert on medieval warfare.
  11. I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that the Western Feudal "rise-and-fall" dynamic of nobles families seems to be replaced by great stability in Westeros. And with such stability perhaps the nobles just don't need the merchants' money like they did in our world?
  12. Lion of the West

    Is Walder Frey the smartest man in Westeros?

    I am afraid you are mistaken here. Its rather clear that Brandon made threats to the crown prince's life. Anyone making these kind of threats, idle or serious, can only expect the harshest censure from any monarch who intends to actually sit on his throne. Not all monarchs will be as brazen or blunt with their response, but I can't see a good king, or a bad king with a good hand, not acting at such words. The only king I can think would accept such threats would be Baelor the Blessed, but his Hand Viserys is likely to start making arrangements for you as soon as possible.
  13. Lion of the West

    Is Walder Frey the smartest man in Westeros?

    Walder Frey is undoubtable clever and cunning, but his lack of actual foresight, and it seems lack of understanding of the long run and big picture, means I can't possibly see him as intelligent.
  14. Lion of the West

    Rules of inheritance

    I am pretty sure that technically all the man's children are considered part of his line, Westeros being a patrilineal society and all. Although from previous experience we can see that "family" regarding relations are normally those who have a common mother as opposed to a common father, even if they legally are on big family as seen from the perspective of the patriarchal system. The examples I would mention in order to support this idea that common mothers are what binds families together are; Aegon I's children, Viserys's children and grandchildren and the Freys in the main series. In all those cases having a common mother means peace and cooperation, to my knowledge, while having a common father means very little for their mutual relation. I can't remember a scenario where people with a common mother kill or fight each other, but there are plenty of examples where people with a common father does so.
  15. Lion of the West

    Characteristics of a good ruler

    You are right in that they are not enough by themselves, but I was thinking of more general traits as opposed to more situational advantageous traits. For example; at some periods you need a warrior, some times a diplomat and some times a good administrator depending on the state of the realm and the challenges its facing. But I think that regardless if you need a warrior, a diplomat or an administrator, adaptability and character judgement are things that are always critical to have in a pre-modern ruler. Taking examples from the Classical and Late Antiquity Western Roman Empire, the Emperor presumably needs to be good at different things at different times. There's no single skill set that's always going to win out regardless of circumstances, except being perfect and best at everything, of course. So I say that for example during the Julio-Claudians to the end of the Five Good Emperors, being a good diplomat and administrator is the key. Having military or scheming talents are probably good as well, but nothing that you absolutely must have in that era. Then comes the Crisis of the Third Century when to my knowledge any skill beyond military talent and certain populist skills are next to useless as the soldiers decides who is emperor and they respect military talent and love populist policies directed at their benefit. Then we can take the final period in the Western Roman Empire when military men held most emperors as puppets and then the emperor, needs to be a schemer who can detect and eliminate threats to himself within the Imperial court. In the three example periods I picked I see an emperor primarily needing very different skills to have a foundation for thriving in his office. But to go back to my suggested traits, adaptability and judgment of character is always useful, no matter if the emperor has to be an administrator, a general or a schemer to keep the Imperial throne.