Blaming the Starks!

[Hodor the Articulate]

Well, then, fuck the law.

It's unfair that the King has more rights than Lords, just as it's unfair that the Lords have more rights than the smallfolk.

Hmmm, on a personal level Dany can hold as many grudges as she pleases. She can hate Starks all she wants. I can even understand that she'd prefer to keep an idealized picture of her father and view him as a victim. Double standards are a cause of many problems, but it's a common human behavior, after all, though it would be to her own profit (emotionally and mentally) to come to terms with her true family history.

The problem arises when one who holds (some) power decides to act on those feelings, without taking into consideration the facts, the actual responsiblity that is due to each side and the political (and other) consequences of their actions.

Personally, I believe that she will change her view as soon as she learns. But if she doesn't, she had better take well into account that acting irrationally may very well bring her father's fate upon her.

On Aerys and his royal rights, I'd like to add that, if we accept that he had the "legal right" to execute his lords for the lolz, then he also had every "legal right" to rape his queen. I wonder how she would react to that... But this is a "detail" I wish Dany could be spared of learning.

It's not about idealising. Whatever kind of man Aerys was, and whatever he did, he was her father and he was murdered. Even if she thinks he deserved to die, Dany still feels it's her duty to avenge her family, and that's sentiment shared by pretty much every character in the series. Few are wise enough to see the destructiveness of retribution. Even then, it's sometimes necessary, to secure your rule.

Ironically, what a lot of people are asking Dany to understand, is the very thing that she's being condemned for. If she were to agree that the overthrowing and executing of Aerys was justified, because of what he did to a couple of Starks, wouldn't she also be inclined to think that punishing Ned, for what he did/intended to do to Aerys, is also justified?

[Alayne's Shadow.]

When someone’s family is in danger and in Lyanna’s case not only in danger, for the rest of Westeros she was kidnapped and raped and probably even tortured, who on Earth would say “Hm what I should do? I know I should just stand her got married and who cares about her? It’s not political wise to ask for her” If that means that he was lacked wits then he should be proud of that.

Ned Stark. He certainly did that, If you recall. And again, putting words on my mouth. I don't even know how to respond. But again, I've never said that he shouldn't do anything. I would do, if It were my sister. But yelling out for the Crown Prince to come out and die in the Red Keep in front of his Mad Father who is a known Mad Ruler that has burned people before for the smallest of slights is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that you suggest it as the best course of action.

Edit: Again, just remembering before you come out with your same set of arguments about people idealizing Rhaegar: I do not like Rhaegar Targaryen. I loathe him, as I have said before. And, Brandon did nothing criminally wrong.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

???

My post was mainly satirical. I agree with you. Its pretty much uncontendable (whether or not thats a word or i just made it up im not sure) that Brandon was an arsehole. The fact alone he accepted Petyr Baelishs duel when Petyr had no hope of winning nor would he be able to marry Cat, simply to be all macho in front of his girl. He seems like a typical 80's american high school jock. Neither he or Robert had respect for women true.

My post was a comperative joke about their sex lives. The last part was a joke about some people on the forums been anti stark.

My apologies -_-

If I misunderstood, I apologize, and I appreciate your explanation.

I try to stay balanced and see the good and bad in each character, and I try and limit my arguments to the text and not how much I like characters. If that were the case, I'd battle everyone to the death over Jon Snow, yet Jon has flaws of his own that I'd be silly to dismiss.

Too many times, people just simplify arguments to the point that it's just silly- and make wild accusations. It happened in this thread with a comment about Targaryen madness to dismiss arguments.

I took yours for the same type, and again- I apologize.

[sj4iy]

I'm afraid we disagree. It makes little sense for dishonored to mean what you say when in the context of the books, we see virginity being a huge priority for the nobility when making wedding pacts.

Virginity leaves no doubt to legitimacy, which is of huge importance to the nobility who's whole system revolves around legitimacy. Your version of dishonor doesn't explain that.

But so it goes. I still enjoy your posting as one of the more levelheaded posters I see. We don't have to agree on every point.

Thanks for the compliment ^^

I would say this, though: If the world were to find out that Jon the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and that he had been born in wedlock, the lack of the Starks' approval wouldn't affect his claim on the throne as the legitimate heir- whereas he if had been born out-of-wedlock, he would be a bastard and have no claim on it at all. That's really what the point of a woman's honor was- that her children would be legitimate heirs to the father's lands and titles.

[stateofdissipation]

That's irrelevant because Brandon never killed Rhaegar and Rhaegar never explained himself.

That being said, in the real word, if a 30 year old married man absconded with a 16 year old girl, parents would call the police. The police would look for the 30 year old, treating him as a suspect. If he did not quickly give a satisfying explanation, the cops would break in with guns drawn and if the guy is armed he likely gets shot.

At that point the 16 year old may wail; 'But we loooooooved each other', the cops would still not be in the wrong.

But in Westeros, there are no police. If you get kidnapped, it's pretty much accepted that if anyone comes looking for you, it will be your family (and retainers/bannermen if available). If you don't have those, though luck, no one is coming.

In that sense, Brandon was doing what he was supposed to do, albeit in an unwise fashion. In Westeros, if your own brother will not come looking for you when you go missing, who will?*

*Now that I think about it, it's ironic that Ned Stark would then, fourteen years later, be himself confronted by an angry brother confronting him about a missing sibling of his own. And that this angry brother was the man who killed the man who killed Ned's own angry brother. Eh, brothers.

That being said, in the real word, if a 30 year old married man absconded with a 16 year old girl, parents would call the police.

A 16 year old girl goes missing. The parents call the police and state she was missing and she was last seen with a 30 year old man.

The police would look for the 30 year old, treating him as a suspect.

Agreed.

If he did not quickly give a satisfying explanation,

The police could ask him to come in for questioning. Without a warrant or probable cause the police could neither arrest the man nor enter his home.

the cops would break in with guns drawn and if the guy is armed he likely gets shot.

If the police broke in without a warrant or probable cause and shot the man, that would be murder.

At that point the 16 year old may wail; 'But we loooooooved each other', the cops would still not be in the wrong.

If we add the girl in the man's house. The police would likely never face charges. Because they were right.

If the girl was not in the apartment, the police who killed a man without probable cause, warrant, and lacking anything that could have possibly given either would be charged with murder (if they honestly told what had happened)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But in Westeros, there are no police. If you get kidnapped, it's pretty much accepted that if anyone comes looking for you, it will be your family (and retainers/bannermen if available). If you don't have those, though luck, no one is coming.

There is the king's justice. But you are largely correct.

In that sense, Brandon was doing what he was supposed to do, albeit in an unwise fashion. In Westeros, if your own brother will not come looking for you when you go missing, who will?*

Agreed, Brandon was acting like a cop without warrant or probable cause that broke in to the mayor's house and shot at mayor. (No he did not harm the mayor). When officers respond to the call of shots fired, they find Brandon in the mayor's house and the only evidence of any crime is Brandon's bullet hole in the wall. Brandon is going to jail.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We don't know what Rhaegar did

We don't know what Lyanna did

We don't know what Brandon heard.

And the big hypocrite here is Brandon. He was mad because Rhaegar allegedly did to his sister what he did to many other ladies. If such ladies had the "aaaaaaaagencyyyyy" to have sex with him, so did Lyanna.

[Mal Malenkirk]

If the police broke in without a warrant or probable cause and shot the man, that would be murder.

If they know where the man is and he does not provide satisfying explanations (I.e. does not even answer) they will have warrant in a matter of hours. There are judge on call for just such situations. At this point they go in, if he's armed and does not promptly surrenders, he gets shot, and if it turns out they were in love all along it does not matter one bit.

Don't be obtuse, this is falling into extended analogy territory.

The point is, Rhaegar acted like a complete moron and the outrage of the Starks was natural.

Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, it's a feudal monarchy. The King barely has an army, all his power is derived from the support of the lords sworn to the throne. It follows that you shouldn't piss off the lords from whom your power derives. From that perspective, even appearing as abducting the daughter of a lord Paramount is the height of folly.

Louis the XIV of France could do whatever he pleased in his kingdom, that was an absolute monarchy, but Aegon (and Rhaegar) could not.

EDIT: It might have been an absolut(ish) monarchy back when they had dragons, then they would have been deriving their power from a source they fully controlled. But those days were long gone.

[Mal Malenkirk]

And the big hypocrite here is Brandon. He was mad because Rhaegar allegedly did to his sister what he did to many other ladies. If such ladies had the "aaaaaaaagencyyyyy" to have sex with him, so did Lyanna.

He slept around but I am not aware he took Young women from their home without warning or explanations, leaving their relative to fear the worst.

[stateofdissipation]

If they know where the man is and he does not provide satisfying explanations (I.e. does not even answer) they will have warrant in a matter of hours. There are judge on call for just such situations. At this point they go in, if he's armed and does not promptly surrenders, he gets shot, and if it turns out they were in love all along it does not matter one bit.

Don't be obtuse, this is falling into extended analogy territory.

The point is, Rhaegar acted like a complete moron and the outrage of the Starks was natural.

Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, it's a feudal monarchy. The King barely has an army, all his power is derived from the support of the lords sworn to the throne. It follows that you shouldn't piss off the lords from whom your power derives. From that perspective, even appearing as abducting the daughter of a lord Paramount is the height of folly.

Louis the XIV of France could do whatever he pleased in his kingdom, that was an absolute monarchy, but Aegon (and Rhaegar) could not.

EDIT: It might have been an absolut(ish) monarchy back when they had dragons, then they would have been deriving their power from a source they fully controlled. But those days were long gone.

As a single Lordling facing the king and 6 Lords, outrage untempered by caution is folly. The untempered outrage of the Starks was natural if they were allied with Baratheon, Tully, and Arryn.

However, that alliance precludes Stark innocence... It turns it into Stark belligerence.

[Mal Malenkirk]

As a single Lordling facing the king and 6 Lords, outrage untempered by caution is folly.

He was not a lordling. Petyr Baelish was a lordling. Brandon Stark was the heir of a lord Paramount. Exactly the sort of people a king in a feudal monarchy has to treat carefully. It'd be like the King of France executing on thin reasons the son of the Duke of Orléans and then the Duke himself back when it was France's most powerful vassal. And then he requires the next heir be delivered to him for more 'justice' along with the Young duke of Auvergne for good measure, another powerful vassal. It's folly.

As I wrote elsewhere, a sane King would have thrown Brandon in jail to cool off AND then brought his own son to heel and returned Lyanna to her family (and disregard any silly notion of a polygamous marriage if they had indulged in such a thing). But he was mad so fuck it, let's alienate essential vassals for no good reason and lose the crown in the process.

The untempered outrage of the Starks was natural if they were allied with Baratheon, Tully, and Arryn.

However, that alliance precludes Stark innocence... It turns it into Stark belligerence

You cannot have it both way: You can't on the one hand argue it was wrong of Brandon to assume that Rhaegar was a rapist and a kidnapper and then argue we can assume that the Starks were plotting against the throne and Aerys was right to punish them pre-emptively!

It's perfectly natural for powerful lords to forge links betwee them and insure their powers, it's basic self preservation. Aerys sure as hell did not prove them wrong on that count.

[stateofdissipation]

He was not a lordling. Petyr Baelish was a lordling. Brandon Stark was the heir of a lord Paramount. Exactly the sort of people a king in a feudal monarchy has to treat carefully. It'd be like the King of France executing on thin reasons the son of the Duke of Orléans and then the Duke himself back when it was France's most powerful vassal. And then he requires the next heir be delivered to him for more 'justice' along with the Young duke of Auvergne for good measure, another powerful vassal. It's folly.

As I wrote elsewhere, a sane King would have thrown Brandon in jail to cool off AND then brought his own son to heel and returned Lyanna to her family (and disregard any silly notion of a polygamous marriage if they had indulged in such a thing). But he was mad so fuck it, let's alienate essential vassals for no good reason and lose the crown in the process.

You cannot have it both way: You can't on the one hand argue it was wrong of Brandon to assume that Rhaegar was a rapist and a kidnapper and then argue we can assume that the Starks were plotting against the throne and Aerys was right to punish them pre-emptively!

It's perfectly natural for powerful lords to forge links betwee them and insure their powers, it's basic self preservation. Aerys sure as hell did not prove them wrong on that count.

You cannot have it both way: You can't on the one hand argue it was wrong of Brandon to assume that Rhaegar was a rapist and a kidnapper and then argue we can assume that the Starks were plotting against the throne and Aerys was right to punish them pre-emptively!

I argued that if Lyanna was not kidnapped Brandon was wrong to assume she had been.... but that is pretty selfevident.

Now assume she had been kidnapped. Brandon's reaction was beyond wreckless if he did not believe he had some serious backing. It would have been suicidal.

If Brandon came to KL thinking the backing to take on Rhaegar and get away with it, he can hardly claim innocence.

A Lord Paramount's heir threatens the crown prince and has the backing of his father.... that is treason.. there is nothing preemptive about Aerys' actions. .

In the end Brandon was right, the Starks and their allies had the power to wipe the Targaryens out. It just took Aerys a year or so too long to see it,

[LordStoneheart]

Yeesh, I haven't claimed dragons are the end all of war, and when thinking about the Starks winning everyone conveniently forgets the Unsullied and the other sellswords, and potentially the Dothraki. I never said it would be Dany atop Drogon slaughtering the whole northern host. I just think its a bit ridiculous to think in the current condition of each side, the scattered Starks could hold their own against Dany.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

Yeesh, I haven't claimed dragons are the end all of war, and when thinking about the Starks winning everyone conveniently forgets the Unsullied and the other sellswords, and potentially the Dothraki. I never said it would be Dany atop Drogon slaughtering the whole northern host. I just think its a bit ridiculous to think in the current condition of each side, the scattered Starks could hold their own against Dany.

No, but the books have. Every single one of the Kings of Westeros had far larger armies than Aegon the Conqueror. What he had was trained adult dragons to make up for a puny army.

The point I made about warging is simple- If there had been two powerful wargs in Westeros when Aegon came, Balerion may have had to fight Vhagar and Meraxes.

The Starks are powerful wargs, and their potential to take Dany's largely feral dragons would quickly level any imbalance in the odds.

There have been far too many references to past Dances of the Dragons for Dany to never have to face the same issue.

[OldGimletEye]

Yeesh, I haven't claimed dragons are the end all of war, and when thinking about the Starks winning everyone conveniently forgets the Unsullied and the other sellswords, and potentially the Dothraki. I never said it would be Dany atop Drogon slaughtering the whole northern host. I just think its a bit ridiculous to think in the current condition of each side, the scattered Starks could hold their own against Dany.

Explain to me how Dany feeds all those troops if she invades the North during awful winter conditions. The way I see it, she wont be able to forage for food. Her only possible option is to establish some kind of supply lines, mostly likely through White Harbor or the Neck (and supply trains were not sophisticated in Medieval Times). And if she has to establish those supply lines, her army would probably have to be restricted to the King's Road, leaving her supply trains vunerable to attack. Also, without the ability to forage, the Dothraki will lose one of their big advantages -- operational mobility.

Here is what you do if you are the North: Destroy White Harbor. Leave no docks or naval facilities for Dany. Burn every boat and every ship that Dany could use. Take a few of those ships and spike them in the Harbor and spike a few in the White Knife. Any food supplies that can't be hidden or taken, destroy. Leave nothing for Dany's advancing army. We'll see how long her army survives on a 600 long mile trek (my rough estimate) to the Wall.

[LordStoneheart]

So start destroying the north before Dany can?

I'm thinking about two other factors: the Others and the current northern armies outside winterfell. It seems as if the north is going to fight each other until they're too weak to fight the Others and have to flee south. So ice armies coming down from the Wall and the Unsullied, Dothraki, sellswords, plus at least one dragon in the south.

Sometimes conventional warfare might not be the way to look at this since its getting closer to the big "magic" battle. From what I can tell, the state of the north is and will be weakened so the Others can come further south.

I think I also remember Grrm saying there's been nothing in history to suggest a skinchanger can change into a dragon.

[OldGimletEye]

So start destroying the north before Dany can?

I'm thinking about two other factors: the Others and the current northern armies outside winterfell. It seems as if the north is going to fight each other until they're too weak to fight the Others and have to flee south. So ice armies coming down from the Wall and the Unsullied, Dothraki, sellswords, plus at least one dragon in the south.

Sometimes conventional warfare might not be the way to look at this since its getting closer to the big "magic" battle. From what I can tell, the state of the north is and will be weakened so the Others can come further south.

I think I also remember Grrm saying there's been nothing in history to suggest a skinchanger can change into a dragon.

If that is what it takes to resist a tyrant, then yes. Burn and destroy anything useful to Dany. War is a bitch.

[LordStoneheart]

If that is what it takes to resist a tyrant, then yes. Burn and destroy anything useful to Dany. War is a bitch.

So it still could be said that Dany did win over the north, as they're now weakened with the Others at their backs and help to the south that is probably not too sympathetic at this point... :D

[OldGimletEye]

So it still could be said that Dany did win over the north, as they're now weakened with the Others at their backs and help to the south that is probably not too sympathetic at this point... :D

Dany will not be able to maintain a large field army in the North, no matter what the conditions may be. Also, I think the Others will bypass a lot of North. They don't have to operate like convential armies do. So maybe they will get to the South and Dany will be to busy having to deal with them to invade the North.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

So it still could be said that Dany did win over the north, as they're now weakened with the Others at their backs and help to the south that is probably not too sympathetic at this point... :D

Why would anyone need to bother fighting? According to you, she's an unstoppable force that nothing can threaten. Nevermind that a smattering of insurgents forced her and all her power into a political marriage in a single city. Nevermind that there are wargs and dragon horns that are supposed to bind dragons are floating around as threats to her.

In this scenario you propose, the Starks aren't even necessary. They're just a 5 book multiple POV red-herring. Dany was just going to reveal her colors as red blue and yellow, take a stylized "S" as her sigil, and forcibly kick the crap out of the entire magical threat all by herself.

That's not the ending to this story, m'man. Sorry. She's going to need help. Lots of it. And those pesky magical Starks you dismiss are going to be a big part of it.

[LordStoneheart]

Why would anyone need to bother fighting? According to you, she's an unstoppable force that nothing can threaten. Nevermind that a smattering of insurgents forced her and all her power into a political marriage in a single city. Nevermind that there are wargs and dragon horns that are supposed to bind dragons are floating around as threats to her.

In this scenario you propose, the Starks aren't even necessary. They're just a 5 book multiple POV red-herring. Dany was just going to reveal her colors as red blue and yellow, take a stylized "S" as her sigil, and forcibly kick the crap out of the entire magical threat all by herself.

That's not the ending to this story, m'man. Sorry. She's going to need help. Lots of it. And those pesky magical Starks you dismiss are going to be a big part of it.

When did I say she was unstoppable? When did I say she was the savior? When did I say the Starks were a red herring?

I originally said that I can't understand why the "Starks" would be seen as superior because of these points:

1. The "Starks" are scattered and don't really exist as a force anymore.

2. Dany is less scattered than them and has actual armies.

3. Dragons, while not trained, are still dragons and made a difference in the first conquest. It would be an even worse red herring imo to have them be completely ineffective as everyone around here likes to paint them as

4. The northen armies are destroying themselves

5. The Others are still a factor in this, probably the biggest, and the people they're closest to are the northerners