[TWOIAF Spoilers] Discussions of TWOIAF

[Jon's Queen Consort]

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.

Exactly! It wasn't just the highborns and if they care about their hostages. The common people wanted to be free and they fought for it. I don't see why this is too hard to understand it.

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. Actually, I am starting to think that the ridiculous book the Young Dragon won 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.

When someone attack you with supperguns is bad if you fought dirty? Don't think so. David (Dorne) kicked Goliath's (IT and thei allies) a@s. That was awesome!

[Maid So Fair]

Damphair's ravings about Quellon Greyjoy are absolutely hilarious in retrospect - it seems he would most likely want to smack every single one of his sons.

Did Nettles go to the Mountains of the Moon?

Torturing Aemon and most likely Rheanys is pretty despicable even if you don't count the attack under the peace banner.

[Anath]

Exactly! It wasn't just the highborns and if they care about their hostages. The common people wanted to be free and they fought for it. I don't see why this is too hard to understand it.

When someone attack you with supperguns is bad if you fought dirty? Don't think so. David (Dorne) kicked Goliath's (IT and thei allies) a@s. That was awesome!

Indeed. Daeron, his playing and war, and the sudden change in the equation that he was not at all prepared for remind me of a song I liked as a child, about chess board. It would sound like this, "The king and queen - they draw back whenever they see a dangerous square. But there is no drawing back for the pawns. They only return as queens."

Same thing here. Daeron's mistake was that he underestimated the pawns - those small, common people highborn hardly gave any thought to. They fought dirty and they won. The lords followed their example. What's wrong with this? Fighting dirty was the only way they could win - and they had much more on the stake than the so called "fair fighters".

[Wmarshal]

There were lords screams peace, none find me one.

Nymor wanted Aegon from burning his castles and trying to turn his banner men, that was Aegon's war, it was Nymor that needed it

To end.

Seeing how Alyn, Aemon and Tyrell were part of the first and second strike, not seeing a great fault.

[Red Tiger]

There were lords screams peace, none find me one. I phrased that incorrectly

Nymor wanted Aegon from burning his castles and trying to turn his banner men, that was Aegon's war, it was Nymor that needed it

To end. I don't think it's that simple and I didn't find anything about Nymor's banner men wanting to turn. Nymor might have wanted to end the war, but if Aegon kept attacking than the people of Dorne would have continued to withstand him. I dont think Nymor would have been able to sell a surrender to the IT to his people. They specificaly wanted the peace of two kingdoms no longer at war, not lord and vassal.

Seeing how Alyn, Aemon and Tyrell were part of the first and second strike, not seeing a great fault.

[Gala]

Exactly! :agree: He decided that he wanted to attack, how are the Dornishmen to blame for fighting back?

I would like to point out that guerella warfare and killing truce envoys is not exactly the same. Otherwise, Dornish can be treated the same way: invited to negotiate and be slaughtered. I understand very clearly the desire to protect you home (it happens that I have war in my country right now, so yes I perfectly understand that), I won't blame them killing him during war, but that was mere treachery. If I am not mistaken, in our world such actions are not considered honourable as well, justified - yes, but never proud of. And are ALWAYS called treachery in history books, no matter how good intentions of those who did it were.How is Westeros different considering this?

ETA: I also would like to say that Daeron was a foolish boy with desire to show off. "Someone should have told him that war isn't a game"-ring a bell?!

[Wmarshal]

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.

I have no issue with rebelling, as I stated a while ago, but killing after agreeing to not to kill someone is the same as killing a foe in your home.

[Red Tiger]

I would like to point out that guerella warfare and killing truce envoys is not exactly the same. Otherwise, Dornish can be treated the same way: invited to negotiate and be slaughtered. I understand very clearly the desire to protect you home (it happens that I have war in my country right now, so yes I perfectly understand that), I won't blame them killing him during war, but that was mere treachery. If I am not mistaken, in our world such actions are not considered honourable as well, justified - yes, but never proud of. And are ALWAYS called treachery in history books, no matter how good intentions of those who did it were.How is Westeros different considering this?

Nobody is saying it was honorable, but it was necessary.

[Gala]

Nobody is saying it was honorable, but it was necessary.

That way ANY action can be justified, for example, killing Rhaegar's children so there won't be any rebellions! How about that?! So I strongly disagree. There is a difference. Dornish can't be sure that they won't be treated the same way.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Indeed. Daeron, his playing and war, and the sudden change in the equation that he was not at all prepared for remind me of a song I liked as a child, about chess board. It would sound like this, "The king and queen - they draw back whenever they see a dangerous square. But there is no drawing back for the pawns. They only return as queens."

But don't you see Daeron had every right to play Stratego Westeros edition because :uhoh: because he wanted it Fire and Blood?.

Btw; I don't know the song. But it sounds really good.

Same thing here. Daeron's mistake was that he underestimated the pawns - those small, common people highborn hardly gave any thought to. They fought dirty and they won. The lords followed their example. What's wrong with this? Fighting dirty was the only way they could win - and they had much more on the stake than the so called "fair fighters".

But don't you see. Because Daeron wanted it and because he had some hostages the people should move and should had given him Earth and water. It's not like common people have minds, lives and expectations of their own.

I would like to point out that guerella warfare and killing truce envoys is not exactly the same. Otherwise, Dornish can be treated the same way: invited to negotiate and be slaughtered. I understand very clearly the desire to protect you home (it happens that I have war in my country right now, so yes I perfectly understand that), I won't blame them killing him during war, but that was mere treachery. If I am not mistaken, in our world such actions are not considered honourable as well, justified - yes, but never proud of. And are ALWAYS called treachery in history books, no matter how good intentions of those who did it were.How is Westeros different considering this?

ETA: I also would like to say that Daeron was a foolish boy with desire to show off. "Someone should have told him that war isn't a game"-ring a bell?!

I am sorry to hear that about your country but I disagree.

[Wmarshal]

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.

So what is that act could have damned Dorne to eternal war with no peace insight.

This like saying Daeron should killed every lord he found for their word no cccasion could be trusted and anyone who a army should have done same to the defeated.

[Red Tiger]

That way ANY action can be justified, for example, killing Rhaegar's children so there won't be any rebellions! How about that?! So I strongly disagree. There is a difference. Dornish can't be sure that they won't be treated the same way.

That's a discussion for another thread.

[Wmarshal]

Nobody is saying it was honorable, but it was necessary.

How? It was close to a full on blood bath for Dorne, no how Nyrmor was a able to send his daughter to Aegon's court? He didn't burn the bridge down.

[Red Tiger]

How? It was close to a full on blood bath for Dorne, no how Nyrmor was a able to send his daughter to Aegon's court? He didn't burn the bridge down.

I don't think we're talking about the same war anymore. You're talking about Aegon's war with Dorne, my post was about Daeron's.

[Gala]

Well it was

I see. No need to discuss this matter anymore. We are completely on different ground here (I look at it from moral point of view, you are from wellfare of the masses). On the other hand, Dornish could suffer even more after that, they wouldn't be able to know that the next king wouldn't come with war again and even more troops. That was mere luck.

[Red Tiger]

I see. No need to discuss this matter anymore. We are completely on different ground here (I look at it from moral point of view, you are from wellfare of the masses). On the other hand, Dornish could suffer even more after that, they wouldn't be able to know that the next king wouldn't come with war again and even more troops. That was mere luck.

Nah, wait wait, I can see things like wardship working out, sending aegon to the wall and stuff, but holy shit a lot could go wrong.

[Wmarshal]

I don't think we're talking about the same war anymore. You're talking about Aegon's war with Dorne, my post was about Daeron's.

I was talking of Daeron, you think Nymor would have been able to talk with the Targs if he killed Rhaenys under a banner of peace?

[Red Tiger]

But don't you see Daeron had every right to play Stratego Westeros edition because :uhoh: because he wanted it Fire and Blood?.

But don't you see. Because Daeron wanted it and because he had some hostages the people should move and should had given him Earth and water. It's not like common people have minds, lives and expectations of their own.

:lol:

[Anath]

I would like to point out that guerella warfare and killing truce envoys is not exactly the same. Otherwise, Dornish can be treated the same way: invited to negotiate and be slaughtered. I understand very clearly the desire to protect you home (it happens that I have war in my country right now, so yes I perfectly understand that), I won't blame them killing him during war, but that was mere treachery. If I am not mistaken, in our world such actions are not considered honourable as well, justified - yes, but never proud of. And are ALWAYS called treachery in history books, no matter how good intentions of those who did it were.How is Westeros different considering this?

ETA: I also would like to say that Daeron was a foolish boy with desire to show off. "Someone should have told him that war isn't a game"-ring a bell?!

Yes, such actions are called treachery. Yet the unique thing here is not that they are justified (IMO, they are). The unique thing is that this was literally the only way Dornish lords could have acted. Daeron wanted Dorne, smallfolk wasn't prepared to hand it over even without the proverbial silver platter. There could be no compromise. Personally, I see Dornish highborn as surviving only as long as they stayed Dornish and not Daeron's lackeys (in the smallfolk opinion.)

Their only chance to keep anything, their own heads included, was to make sure that Dorne stayed Dornish. Which happened to correspond nicely to their own inclinations.

Smallfolk didn't care about the game of thrones and they didn't give a damn about highborn hostages. I notice that about 100 and more years later, common people in Dorne get to express their opinion quite vocally. Maybe their nobles learned something from the Daeron episode: don't mess with smallfolk, man, because they can screw you in a really big way if given enough incense. They are a power.

[Red Tiger]

I was talking of Daeron, you think Nymor would have been able to talk with the Targs if he killed Rhaenys under a banner of peace?

Nah, but they're 2 different wars entirely, I don't think Nymor would have ever been forced to do what the Dornish in the Daeron war did. I can easily imagine there's a lot more bitterness and anger towards Daeron considering this was the 3rd time the Targs attacked (4 if you count the war between the Valyrians and the Rhoynar) and they were tired of talking and I honestly think they were no longer interested in peace talks with the IT, considering Daeron had already broken the peace treaty.