Characters of ASOIAF and their historical counterparts

[James Arryn]

Richard III had scollitis curvature of the spine and one shoulder higher than t`other . York capital of northumbria in years gone by , stronghold of the north which the scots attacked time and again, thats why you have a duke of york . Middleham is a small market town and ludlow is in the midlands.use google to check facts before posting

You honestly don't know what you're talking about. Northumbria and the House of York are unrelated. The seat of the Dukes of York was never York; you don't understand noble titles. Middleham and Ludlow were fortresses considered seats, not the towns.

I don't rely on Google, but rather years of studying/teaching history. But thanks anyway.

Edit: what you're doing is taking ASoIaF rules for nobility...ie, lord of X is actually based in X...and transposing that for RL England, but it doesn't work that way. Titles were given having nothing to do with the dedicated geographic location most of the time.

For example, the hereditary lands of the Dukes of Devonshire are in North-central England, not Devon. It's an understandable mistake, but I'd avoid using the attitude when not standing on solid ground.

[James Arryn]

Did Richard III call it eboricum when the romans came over or yorvik when the vikings invaded?

What? Yes, it was called both of those; not sure what your point is.

[Keyser94]

I weird no of you had think of the obvious comparation of the Lannister with the Lancaster, and Tywin was more close to Edward I Longhanks than Richard Neville.

And the Red Wedding is based in the Black Dinner of 1440, were the Dauglas Clan was executed.

Valyria is a combination of the ancient Greece and Rome, the nine free cities is a reference to the city/states of the Ancient Greece.

[J. Stargaryen]

Can you elaborate a bit, please? From what I know about them, all they had in common was the fact that they were heirs apparent and died/got killed before they could interhit. Personality-wise they seem to be completely different - Black Prince was way more martial and ruthless than Rhaegar, and I can't ever imagine him quietly playing a harp or obsessing over some sort of prophecy. :dunno:

Edward of Woodstock only came to be known as the Black Prince decades after his death. From what I understand, there are a couple of popular explanations for the origin of this nick name. One of them attributed it to the black armor he supposedly wore. Rhaegar's own black armor is described on three separate occasions, and each time the rubies on his breast plate are noted. The near-legendary status of "Rhaegar's rubies" in story makes it appear as if they are being emphasized to the reader. Arya mentions them, the Elder Brother on the Quiet Isle, and Dany sees them in the HotU.

Well, it turns out that the Black Prince had a ruby too. In fact, to this very day the Black Prince's Ruby is one of England's crown jewels. You can see it here, at the front of the Imperial State Crown.

The Black Prince's Ruby is a symbol of English royalty, and the same could be said for the rubies on Rhaegar's black armor. After all, they were wrought in the shape of a three-headed dragon, which was the royal sigil. So, crown princes who predeceased their fathers, were known for their black armor, and their famous rubies.

[Keyser94]

And Richard II, King of England, son of Edward The Black Prince, was murder by Henry IV, father of Henry V, the conquerer of France, and his grandson Henry VI, who nearly lost all the French territories by his incompetence as King.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Actually Mance Rayder could partly be Brian Boru, now that I think of it.

[H0X0]

@Apple, excellent list. I always had the Dance of Dragons as a dead ringer for the Anarchy, too. But I don't see the parallel between Aegon III and Henry II, beyond that they got the throne after a massive dynastic clusterfuck. Henry Plantagenet was a charismatic man of action. Aegon was dour and melancholic. Aegon had a long minority. Henry came to the throne a man grown. Etc.

[King Tyrion XX]

If I told you I see many similarities and parallels between e.g. Stalin and Mother Teresa, would you hold my opinion wrong?

They both had skin, grey hair...

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple, excellent list. I always had the Dance of Dragons as a dead ringer for the Anarchy, too. But I don't see the parallel between Aegon III and Henry II, beyond that they got the throne after a massive dynastic clusterfuck. Henry Plantagenet was a charismatic man of action. Aegon was dour and melancholic. Aegon had a long minority. Henry came to the throne a man grown. Etc.

Yes I admit the Henry II parallel might be overly broad. Henry II and Aegon III were both the guys who came in after dynastic conflicts screwed everything up. Henry II was also Richard I's father and Daeron I, Aegon III's son, is our Richard I of Westeros.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

You honestly don't know what you're talking about. Northumbria and the House of York are unrelated. The seat of the Dukes of York was never York; you don't understand noble titles. Middleham and Ludlow were fortresses considered seats, not the towns.

I don't rely on Google, but rather years of studying/teaching history. But thanks anyway.

Edit: what you're doing is taking ASoIaF rules for nobility...ie, lord of X is actually based in X...and transposing that for RL England, but it doesn't work that way. Titles were given having nothing to do with the dedicated geographic location most of the time.

For example, the hereditary lands of the Dukes of Devonshire are in North-central England, not Devon. It's an understandable mistake, but I'd avoid using the attitude when not standing on solid ground.

i suggest you study some more before teaching again then. As for your Edit i was actually taking GB locations, their proximity to Hadrians wall and their history not those of noble houses and there seat. But what would i know about history? i only studied the social and economic history of britain since 1750 so unless asoiaf covers the corn laws and repeal i`ll keep my opinions to myself

[Pikachu101]

Tyrion is more like the Shakespeare version of Richard III, particularly as he appears in the Braavosi play in "Mercy."

:agree:

Him and Stannis are both Richard's counterparts, but they show the two very different interpretations of him.

Tyrion's the traditional depiction of Richard III; an evil, grotesque figure who betrayed his family and killed his nephews. Whilst Stannis is the new interpretation of him; a skilled battle commander, who many historians argue could have bought peace to the land.

[SeanF]

:agree:

Him and Stannis are both Richard's counterparts, but they show the two very different interpretations of him.

Tyrion's the traditional depiction of Richard III; an evil, grotesque figure who betrayed his family and killed his nephews. Whilst Stannis is the new interpretation of him; a skilled battle commander, who many historians argue could have bought peace to the land.

I think there's a tendency these days to go overboard in praising Richard III. He wasn't the grotesque caricature of Shakespeare's imagination (still a compelling character BTW) but he was a usurper, he did put his enemies to death without trial, and he is the likeliest culprit for the death of the Princes in the Tower.

[Keyser94]

You very outdated about Richard III; he wasnt an usurper, he was the brother of the FUCKING KING, for gods sake, and the princes were to young to govern, the usurper was Henry VII, that only gained the throne by the right of conquest. This kind of thinking is something that I expect from someone like Phillipa Gregory.

[SeanF]

You very outdated about Richard III; he wasnt an usurper, he was the brother of the FUCKING KING, for gods sake, and the princes were to young to govern, the usurper was Henry VII, that only gained the throne by the right of conquest. This kind of thinking is something that I expect from someone like Phillipa Gregory.

Richard had every right to be Regent. He went further, and proclaimed the children to be bastards, while claiming to be the lawful King.

Philippa Gregory is actually very pro-Richard.

[Guard of the Rainking]

Theon has some similarities with Tostig Godwinson.

[LordStoneheart]

I love reading through these threads, even if we get disagreement.

Eastern Essos looks like it was written with Wonders of the East in mind.

[H0X0]

Yes I admit the Henry II parallel might be overly broad. Henry II and Aegon III were both the guys who came in after dynastic conflicts screwed everything up. Henry II was also Richard I's father and Daeron I, Aegon III's son, is our Richard I of Westeros.

That makes sense. Thankfully, the parallels are not exact.

As an aside, Conquest of Dorne is Comenterii de Bello Gallico

[Ser Muradin the Small]

I love reading through these threads, even if we get disagreement.

Eastern Essos looks like it was written with Wonders of the East in mind.

Yeah, European history is very interesting....and me being not knowledgeable about it makes the subsequent research more fun

[The Bittersteel]

I've recently found a new one of these.

Edmund Ironside= Daeron the young Dragon

and his brother Edward the Confessor= Baelor the Blessed

Although the characters of the two are slight exaggerations the similarities are fairly remarkable.

Edit: Interesting that some people see Richard the Lionheart as Daeron, which he clearly isn't.

[James Arryn]

I think there's a tendency these days to go overboard in praising Richard III. He wasn't the grotesque caricature of Shakespeare's imagination (still a compelling character BTW) but he was a usurper, he did put his enemies to death without trial, and he is the likeliest culprit for the death of the Princes in the Tower.

Well now,

He may or may not have been an usurper. Depends on whether or not you believe in the prior secret-marriage-to-get-laid idea ( I mean the one before the secret-marriage-to-get-laid that we know about)...but it seems most people who knew Edward found it very likely. At the very least he'd had several shams before...not at all unlikely that he'd gone through with it, drunk or sober.

I find it plausible enough to credit; less so the archer thing, but then Edward's height was extremely odd for his immediate family. But it only takes one, and in any event Richatd observed the legalities and there was an open trial of sorts, and parliament voted overwhelmingly in agreement.

Now much of that may have been bolstered by the general and very real fear of another ruinous minority rule, but that imo is Richard's strongest card. England has been laid low from better starting positions by child kings, and the Woodevilles had already made it quite clear they intended to 'tear up the will' as regards to Richard's Regency, and it's interesting that Edward was so explicit about Richard in that role alone, as opposed to the more ordinary panel of regents, including the mother/'s family.

That imo is Richard's central motivation, to preserve his dynasty and prevent the Woodeville faction from a camouflaged coup. He had spent many, many years establishing a rep of complete loyalty to his brother; there's not much there that shows much in the way of private ambition, but he was a Plantagenet. I think his whole life experience had been one of war or the immediate threat of war, and I think that was a reasonable attitude to take with regards to the Woodevilles, esp. given Elizabeth's opening moves (trying to keep him in the dark about his brother's death/his Regency and rushing the boys across England for a hasty crowning before Richard could assume same.) I think he was a conscientious and above all practical man, and taking control was the (by far) wisest course at that time. Any doubts about legitimacy would have been more fuel on the fire.

As to his being the 'most likely' re: Princes in the Tower, it's a long discussion, but in short I don't agree entirely, but I would not find it at all unthinkable for his day and age. Edward himself had overseen some pretty shady 'deaths' in pursuit of stability, I don't see why the pragmatic Richard would be so different. My greatest problem with pointing the finger at him was the complete lack of exploiting their deaths...ie making them known...coupled with a slight redundancy given Actus. There's also evidence of illness before the disappearance, and this was an age when illness often meant death. But it would have been a simple thing to have them suffocated or similar and state they died of any of the commonly fatal ailments of the day that spread quickly. To have them just disappear would in fact serve no purpose but to undermine his credibility, and everything in his history shows an operator well able to perceive that. So either it wasn't him, or whoever did it bungled it so bad the bodies had to remain hidden...but still, why not announce their deaths?

When you say 'enemies', you mean Hastings and...? I agree that was wrong, but even his enemies considered it out of character for him; the only real moment of the famous Plantagenet temper he ever seemed to show in a career most characterized by deliberation and personal restraint (relatively speaking). And by then he was under considerable strain, personally and as King. Not that that's an excuse; Hastings was imo his worst moment by far. Even if the allegations were true...and that appears probable...it was unwise and unjust to resort to such a dramatic summary judgment.

Another factor was booze. While not rivalling either brother, analysis of his bones shows that his alcohol consumption had spiked dramatically in the years since becoming King, and was even extreme for an age where alchohol was an all day every day kind of deal. Increase is expected given how much if being a king meant feasts and procession, but potentially more problematic given his small size.

Wrote much longer than intended; nothing I mentioned isn't well covered material so it was probably a waste of time, but this is a bit of a pet issue for me.