Wmarshal Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 This is the last time im gonna say this (BTW I cut your last post because I am tired of saying this). Yes Dorne promised him something, but if wars are bad enough then all types of bitterness, anger and hatred can lead to the violations of promises. And this violations of promises leads to Sk never making any packs, all the heirs killed and the dornish lords spending the rest of their days running around in the desert. It was idiotic and could have went shitty for them. This was Freyish, like them, the Freys acted out of vengeance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 And this violations of promises leads to Sk never making any packs, all the heirs killed and the dornish lords spending the rest of their days running around in the desert. It was idiotic and could have went shitty for them. This was Freyish, like them, the Freys acted out of vengeance. I am fully aware of this, but once again and I have been saying this shit for 2 days, you don't seem to understand that Dorne would rather die or live without their precious castles than be subjugated. But this is a matter of different cultures and mindsets.What is idiotic to you is not idiotic to them. Unlike the Freys who are one noble house acting out of vengeance, Dorne was an entire country acting out of it's principles, they withstood the Iron Throne 3 times over two different generations. The Freys on the other hand just quickly killed Robb at a wedding, they didn't grit it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I am fully aware of this, but once again and I have been saying this shit for 2 days, you don't seem to understand that Dorne would rather die or live without their precious castles than be subjugated. But this is a matter of different cultures and mindsets.What is idiotic to you is not idiotic to them. Unlike the Freys who are one noble house acting out of vengeance, Dorne was an entire country acting out of it's principles, they withstood the Iron Throne 3 times over two different generations. The Freys on the other hand just quickly killed Robb at a wedding, they didn't grit it out. Then they should wage, committing a act such as this robs them of every being free. It leaves them in a consent of war. They acted out stupidity, this was close to all out destruction. Both times they lucked the hell out that Aegon gave a shit what was in the letter and Baelor being Baelor.The Dornish just killed Daeron under a peace banner they didn't kill him in some great battle or sneak attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Because it is needed to have a two way talk between foes. Why do I keep having to say this? The Dornish can't out man them and the IT can just keep sending men to gut them and force them to run around in their desert. Aegon the Conquer only stopped because of some letter. If wanted to fight good for them, out right acts such thisonly leads to a SK that continually invades and guts them without the dornish getting to say"but wait.." Hostages would die and the lords replaced. You seem to forget the only thing the French Revolution led to was the reign of terror and a power hungry Napoleon. A better comparison would be the overthrow of the Napoleon branch across Italy and Spain. War for freedom is common breaking sacred codes in war is just idiotic and could lead to a endless war and terror on the people. This act didn't end the war, Baelor forgiving them was. I think that there is a huge difference between our opinions. You see, my opinion is that when someone attacks you try to take your home, try to enslave you and take your freedom and your life there is no such thing as discussing and rights. “Well you see I can give you this, this and this”. No. When you seemed to believe that when it comes to the same situation you would make tea and discuss what he wants. No sorry. That seems really silly and illogical to me. Two things could have happened afterwards. Either the IT wipes out the Dornish lords or Dorne once again fights off the IT. What you don't seem to understand is that some nations would rather die than be subjugated. Exactly! Some people want their freedom and they fight for it no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Then they should wage, committing a act such as this robs them of every being free. It leaves them in a consent of war. This is assuming that the other party wants to continue attacking and has unlimited resources (which they did) and the motivation to do so (questionable). They acted out stupidity, this was close to all out destruction. Both times they lucked the hell out that Aegon gave a shit what was in the letter and Baelor being Baelor. That letter would have never worked if Aegon was actually making progress and getting closer to winning the war (but if you wanna call it luck, I won't stop you). You're also forgetting that shitty rulership aside, Daeron was a military genius, it is doubtful that the next Targ king would be as good at waging war and Viserys showed no interest in Dorne. The Dornish just killed Daeron under a peace banner they didn't kill him in some great battle or sneak attack. NOBODY is refuting this, you are correct here. And nobody was saying he died in some great battle or sneak attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Exactly! Some people want their freedom and they fight for it no matter what. Marshal really should take a trip to Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I think that there is a huge difference between our opinions. You see, my opinion is that when someone attacks you try to take your home, try to enslave you and take your freedom and your life there is no such thing as discussing and rights. “Well you see I can give you this, this and this”. No. When you seemed to believe that when it comes to the same situation you would make tea and discuss what he wants. No sorry. That seems really silly and illogical to me. Exactly! Some people want their freedom and they fight for it no matter what. Well for one, Daeron was trying to inslave them, why you keep saying that i will never know, he beat them and they swore fealty. This act nearly cause death and doom for Dorne. Saying that this gave them freedom is silly as silly, it was Baelor that saved them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 This is assuming that the other party wants to continue attacking and has unlimited resources (which they did) and the motivation to do so (questionable). They were, the Sk was very much willing to hunt them to the ends of the Earth. Again, the only reason they stopped was because of Baelor. That letter would have never worked if Aegon was actually making progress and getting closer to winning the war (but if you wanna call it luck, I won't stop you). You're also forgetting that shitty rulership aside, Daeron was a military genius, it is doubtful that the next Targ king would be as good at waging war and Viserys showed no interest in Dorne. He was, you seem to forget it was Nymor who wanted to end the war, not Aegon, his council and lords very much wanted the war to keep going. He already created the prefect system, invade from sea take the river and come every way possible. Aemon, is kin and sworn sword and Alyn could easily repeat his system. NOBODY is refuting this, you are correct here. And nobody was saying he died in some great battle or sneak attack. And that is treachery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Well for one, Daeron was trying to inslave them, why you keep saying that i will never know, he beat them and they swore fealty. This act nearly cause death and doom for Dorne. Saying that this gave them freedom is silly as silly, it was Baelor that saved them. Given the fact that Daeron lost 50 000 men, Dorne would be saved anyway. Baelor being peaceful helped the matters but at the end, everyone who was not a teen longing to prove his mettle would have thought twice before sacrificing another 50 000 to get the desert. At the end, even Daeron tried to do it the other way. And by the way, oaths sworn under duress don't count at all in my book. Actually, the fact that it was the smallfolk who rebelled is quite telling. No negotiations and nothing indicating surrender would ever be accepted by those who could not be bullied and done away with, so the nobles would better solve the matter now, as effectively as possible since their smallfolk isn't too obedient and doesn't care about their negotiations and their rule of the game. Funny how we have all those privileged nobles who play the poetically named game of thrones and lose so much without ever achieving all their goals while the smallfolk many of whom couldn't even read played at cudgels and won in no time at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 They were, the Sk was very much willing to hunt them to the ends of the Earth. Again, the only reason they stopped was because of Baelor. Yes, but just because certain parts of a military wants to continue the war does not mean entire nations are willing to continue fighting. Taking losses in a war generally doesn't make you look good in regards to your bannermen. He was, you seem to forget it was Nymor who wanted to end the war, not Aegon, his council and lords very much wanted the war to keep going. He already created the prefect system, invade from sea take the river and come every way possible. Aemon, is kin and sworn sword and Alyn could easily repeat his system. I didn't forget this, but wanting to end the war is not the same as saying 'im done, I can't take this shit no more'. Nymor preferred peace, but if Aegon kept attacking Dorne would not have surrendered and it doesn't matter how perfect your plan or system is, if the execution is faulty it won't work. And that is treachery. I already said how I felt about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Given the fact that Daeron lost 50 000 men, Dorne would be saved anyway. Baelor being peaceful helped the matters but at the end, everyone who was not a teen longing to prove his mettle would have thought twice before sacrificing another 50 000 to get the desert. At the end, even Daeron tried to do it the other way. And by the way, oaths sworn under duress don't count at all in my book. Actually, the fact that it was the smallfolk who rebelled is quite telling. No negotiations and nothing indicating surrender would ever be accepted by those who could not be bullied and done away with, so the nobles would better save the matter now, as effectively as possible since their smallfolk isn't too obedient and doesn't care about their negotiations and their rule of the game. Funny how we have all those privileged nobles who play the poetically named game of thrones and lose so much without ever achieving all their goals while the smallfolk many of whom didn't even read played at cudgels and won in no time at all. We have a report of the SK demanding vengeance. At the end it was the lords of Dorne who promised to surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Marshal really should take a trip to Vietnam. And Europe around WWII, Greece in 1821, America in 1775, France in 1789. Basically all around the world where people prefer to fight for freedom and maybe die than lose their freedom and die under a tyrant. Well for one, Daeron was trying to inslave them, why you keep saying that i will never know, he beat them and they swore fealty. This act nearly cause death and doom for Dorne. Saying that this gave them freedom is silly as silly, it was Baelor that saved them. How exactly Dorne was doomed? What happened in the end? Daeron died and what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 We have a report of the SK demanding vengeance. Yes because demanding vengeance and wanting to continue fighting always means that you're gonna end up winning. At the end it was the lords of Dorne who promised to surrender. Ah, that gorgeous P-word again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Green Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No it isn't, Robb Stark was the King of the Trident and the NOrth, plus his mom was their overlord's daughter. They never raised arms against the Freys, Robb and Cat just asked for their help. That's completely irrelevant as far as the sanctity of the peace banner is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I think you should open a new thread for that^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 We have a report of the SK demanding vengeance. At the end it was the lords of Dorne who promised to surrender. Yes, and the desire for vengeance was to be expected. They promised, so what? It was clear that they couldn't control their smallfolk when the smallfolk felt their freedom was infringed upon. As far as I am concerned, the moment Daeron first attacked Dorne, he lost every right to expect honesty and fair fight. What was fair about unleashing his superior force against Dorne? He wanted to play war, he lost big. End of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, and the desire for vengeance was to be expected. They promised, so what? It was clear that they couldn't control their smallfolk when the smallfolk felt their freedom was infringed upon. As far as I am concerned, the moment Daeron first attacked Dorne, he lost every right to expect honesty and fair fight. What was fair about unleashing his superior force against Dorne? He wanted to play war, he lost big. End of the story. Exactly! :agree: He decided that he wanted to attack, how are the Dornishmen to blame for fighting back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naseridrl Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wasn't Daeron the one who broke the peace by attacking Dorne full on in the first place after they'd come to an accord with Aegon the Conqueror? He broke the peace accord first after that it seems to have become a free for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wasn't Daeron the one who broke the peace by attacking Dorne full on in the first place after they'd come to an accord with Aegon the Conqueror? That too Another I think Marshal seems to forget. This isn't like say the Starks fighting the Lannisters, this is one ENTIRE country fighting 6 other ones. The mentalities are very different. If the Vietnam war was simply a case of the US and South-Vietnam brass vs A couple of North-vietnam generals who wanted to fight, North-Vietnam would have never held out. It was the lowest citizen to the highest man of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Exactly! :agree: He decided that he wanted to attack, how are the Dornishmen to blame for fighting back? I can sort of see the appeal of preferring fair war against dirty tactics... all things being equal. But the thing is, things were blatantly unequal. Dorne is one, the other kingdoms are six. Dorne is the smallest and most sparsely populated, the other side has advantage on this line, as well. Actually, I am starting to think that the ridiculous book the Young Dragon wrote not only made him look greater but less cruel. He did unleash his forces against someone who was very disadvantaged. Still, the disadvantaged ones won. Fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.