What 'needed to be done'?

[Morgana Lannister]

On 2/24/2017 at 11:34 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Tywin does tend to do things that are more than what is needed. He didn't have to exterminate two houses for being arrogant social-climbing, power hungry jerks. He didn't have to order the death of Rhaenys (it's arguable that Aegon had to die).

Tyrion's sacrifice of some ships is justifiable in a utilitarian sense. Fighting for his family gets him a pass in my book because it's not like he had the option of going over to Stannis' side, or staying neutral. He's not equipped to live the life of a wanderer, so he did what he had to at the time.

Jaime's killing Aerys was justifiable in defense of others. Throwing Bran out the window was not. Blackmailing Edmure? I don't remember blackmail.

Cersei didn't really off Robert. The strongwine didn't help but she did not arrange for that boar to be present. Robert could easily have been killed by a boar at his usual level of drunkenness. She lucked out on that one. Imprisoning Ned wouldn't seem so bad if it weren't for Joffrey changing the script and having him executed. At the moment she chose to have Ned arrested, she didn't really have the option of coming clean. She had to either take a firm stand against him and deny everything, or risk people catching on to the truth. So for her, it was a necessary thing. 

Arya's killings are necessary. She doesn't kill for fun. She's doing what she has to do to survive, and she's a traumatized child.

Sansa doesn't have much choice but stick with Littlefinger's story. He's made her entirely dependent on him for protection. She's a victim in this.

Olenna is tough. Killing Joffrey is wrong but it's so understandable. So while I'm fine with him being dead I have to say no, she did not need to do that. I don't think she expected Tyrion to get blamed though.

Since we don't know what all happened with Rhaegar, and certainly don't know his thoughts or whether he even abducted the girl, we can't render a fair verdict on this.

I am great believer, although I dislike Tywin, that he is a very competent political leader and had little choice  (if he wanted to remain a political leader)...  To me he is the embodiment of Machiavelli's Prince lol  so yes social climber all that...

Tyrion had no choice.  He learnt of his sister using the "wildfyre".  Cersei is incompetent at best lol.  He knew he was going to massacre enemies.  I don't think he liked it that much but had to win or be destroyed (not just him but Kings Landing) and his sister likely to make "pigs ears" of the whole sorry affair.  He did it and won!

I am sure Jaime will get back to this in the books; at the time if Bran lived and talked his children wouldn't ... not precisely nobel but pretty human reaction.

Lol, she wanted him dead for sure but hey, after Rhaegar he wanted Robert and all she got was "Lyanna..."

Sansa and LF I am sure we are to see the ending lol   I don't want her to kill him or to torture him physically but psychologically lol  I think she might in the books... and the food he is hoarding, something will come of it I think 

Killing Joff is cool, leaving Sansa and Tyrion carrying the can is not.

I believe they fell in love... but I could be wrong...

 

 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

1 minute ago, Morgana Lannister said:

I am great believer, although I dislike Tywin, that he is a very competent political leader and had little choice  (if he wanted to remain a political leader)...  To me he is the embodiment of Machiavelli's Prince lol  so yes social climber all that...

Tyrion had no choice.  He learnt of his sister using the "wildfyre".  Cersei is incompetent at best lol.  He knew he was going to massacre enemies.  I don't think he liked it that much but had to win or be destroyed (not just him but Kings Landing) and his sister likely to make "pigs ears" of the whole sorry affair.  He did it and won!

I am sure Jaime will get back to this in the books; at the time if Bran lived and talked his children wouldn't ... not precisely nobel but pretty human reaction.

Lol, she wanted him dead for sure but hey, after Rhaegar he wanted Robert and all she got was "Lyanna..."

Sansa and LF I am sure we are to see the ending lol   I don't want her to kill him or to torture him physically but psychologically lol  I think she might in the books... and the food he is hoarding, something will come of it I think 

Killing Joff is cool, leaving Sansa and Tyrion carrying the can is not.

I believe they fell in love... but I could be wrong...

 

 

I think Tywin could have offered them as hostages, or at least allowed Rhaenys to live. I know he had to do something big, but that's his own fault for pulling a Walder and sitting out the war until he knew how it was going to go. 

I think Jaime could have scared the kid or made him doubt what he'd witnessed rather than trying to kill him. I understand the protective instinct, but it would be easy enough to intimidate a seven year old into keeping quiet. Jaime maybe inherited a bit of Tywin's way of overdoing things.

What LF is planning with that food I understand. It will be interesting to see if hungry people will form a mob and kill him instead of paying him.

I think they fell in love too. But we don't know enough about all the details to say whether Rhaegar was justified in kidnapping her, or if he did kidnap her.

[khal drogon]

On Thursday, March 02, 2017 at 6:53 AM, The Pimp that was Promised said:

Jon was right to confront the Boltons. He was threatened by Ramsay, and Castle Black cannot be defended from the south.

Jon Snow explained multiple times about the threat from the Others, yet no one believed him.  Bowen Marsh was an idiot and most likely doomed the watch with his treasonous act. Jon is the only person at the wall that sees the big picture......Marsh and Co.,still thinks that the wildlings are the main threat beyond the wall.

IMO, Jon's only mistake was sending away most of his supporters and not keeping his direwolf close.

Jon's mistake was not taking the watch to confront the Boltons and making what he did look like desertion. He acted  very irresponsibly in his final chapter. He slipped from how a commander should have behaved and acted very impulsively which became disastrous.

His mistake was helping a rebel king more than he should have. He didn't need to give refuge to Stannis' men at all. After saving the wall he should have sent away his whole host away instead of giving them refuge.

He shouldn't have sent Mance to the south. Psychopath or not Jon gave Ramsay multiple reasons to threaten him. 

Bowen was no more of an idiot than Jon Snow. For all the Night's watch men knew the wildlings are savage and an uncontrollable lot. It is sure there will be grudges due to past experiences and fear of handling them. The watch was outnumbered by unpredictable savages which has damaged the morale within them. Jon did a poor job alleviating this worry. 

There are still groups of wildlings beyond the wall and Jon is actively manning them in the wall and even went so far as making some master at arms. Bowen worried about any betrayal by those wildlings in the case of those other wildlings attacked them. While this might not be the big picture but he saw the immediate risks posed at the watch. Marsh or his company didn't have the confidence Jon had on the wildlings and Jon didn't try to make them anymore confident.

Jon almost never heard any of his counsels and he acted based on his own whims. He almost never compromised with Marsh on anything which lost him his trust. Jon knew his counselors are unhappy but he didn't do anything for it. 

Things like these piled up and his Shieldhall speech was the last straw. 

The problem with Jon is his immaturity. He saw the big picture but he was not actually a good at managing people. His leadership had flaws and shortcomings which made the rebels to act. The rebels are not without their faults but they are not the only ones to be blamed here.

[Ser Snowflake]

2 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Jon's mistake was not taking the watch to confront the Boltons and making what he did look like desertion. He acted  very irresponsibly in his final chapter. He slipped from how a commander should have behaved and acted very impulsively which became disastrous.

His mistake was helping a rebel king more than he should have. He didn't need to give refuge to Stannis' men at all. After saving the wall he should have sent away his whole host away instead of giving them refuge.

He shouldn't have sent Mance to the south. Psychopath or not Jon gave Ramsay multiple reasons to threaten him. 

Bowen was no more of an idiot than Jon Snow. For all the Night's watch men knew the wildlings are savage and an uncontrollable lot. It is sure there will be grudges due to past experiences and fear of handling them. The watch was outnumbered by unpredictable savages which has damaged the morale within them. Jon did a poor job alleviating this worry. 

There are still groups of wildlings beyond the wall and Jon is actively manning them in the wall and even went so far as making some master at arms. Bowen worried about any betrayal by those wildlings in the case of those other wildlings attacked them. While this might not be the big picture but he saw the immediate risks posed at the watch. Marsh or his company didn't have the confidence Jon had on the wildlings and Jon didn't try to make them anymore confident.

Jon almost never heard any of his counsels and he acted based on his own whims. He almost never compromised with Marsh on anything which lost him his trust. Jon knew his counselors are unhappy but he didn't do anything for it. 

Things like these piled up and his Shieldhall speech was the last straw. 

The problem with Jon is his immaturity. He saw the big picture but he was not actually a good at managing people. His leadership had flaws and shortcomings which made the rebels to act. The rebels are not without their faults but they are not the only ones to be blamed here.

Stannis saved the watch and had 5 thousand more men. Jon had no choice but to aid Stannis. Stannis had the power to take from Jon what he wanted due to strength of numbers.

King Stannis was the only person in the 7K to do anything for the Watch. The Iron Throne was busy trying to hold on to power, while the other claimants were trying to take power. Antagonizing your only ally is not the smartest thing to do when you are outnumbered exponentially.

The Boltons weren't friends with the watch, and Ramsay threatened the Lord Commander's life. Taking the fight to the Boltons was the right thing to do. The Watch only job is to hold the wall, and the NW is vulnerable from the south.

After the battle at The Fist of the First Men, it should have been clear who were the real threat. Ice Demons with the powers of necromancy are a much greater threat than wildlings. How many times did Jon tell Marsh that the Others would kill and resurrect any wildling left north of the wall? In AGOT, he wights attacked he LC in CB. What more proof do Marsh need for who is greater threat?

Jon told them about the greater threat of the Others many times, but Marsh refused to believe him. He chose to listen to the coward Slynt and Thorne, who held a grudge with Jon due to his high birth. 

You say Jon never listened to Marsh's counsels, but he did.  They refused to listen to him. Probably because of his youth and the fact that he was a bastard. That's not Jon's fault.

Jon did more for the watch than anyone else. Who warned the Watch about Mance's plan to attack CB from the south?

Who infiltrated the Watch to get this information?

Who discovered that fire killed the wights?

Who held command and successfully fought off both the Thenns from the south and the King Beyond The Wall from the north?

Who made the deal with the IB to keep the watch fed throughout the long winter?

But Jon is the traitor?

 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

3 minutes ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

<snip

Jon told them about the greater threat of the Others many times, but Marsh refused to believe him. He chose to listen to the coward Slynt and Thorne, who held a grudge with Jon due to his high birth. 

<snip

 

It wasn't his high birth. It was that Ned was his father. Slynt didn't like Lord Stark. Thorne was a Targaryen loyalist who hated everyone who was on the rebel side in the war.

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

Stannis saved the watch and had 5 thousand more men. Jon had no choice but to aid Stannis. Stannis had the power to take from Jon what he wanted due to strength of numbers.

King Stannis was the only person in the 7K to do anything for the Watch. The Iron Throne was busy trying to hold on to power, while the other claimants were trying to take power. Antagonizing your only ally is not the smartest thing to do when you are outnumbered exponentially.

The Boltons weren't friends with the watch, and Ramsay threatened the Lord Commander's life. Taking the fight to the Boltons was the right thing to do. The Watch only job is to hold the wall, and the NW is vulnerable from the south.

After the battle at The Fist of the First Men, it should have been clear who were the real threat. Ice Demons with the powers of necromancy are a much greater threat than wildlings. How many times did Jon tell Marsh that the Others would kill and resurrect any wildling left north of the wall? In AGOT, he wights attacked he LC in CB. What more proof do Marsh need for who is greater threat?

Jon told them about the greater threat of the Others many times, but Marsh refused to believe him. He chose to listen to the coward Slynt and Thorne, who held a grudge with Jon due to his high birth. 

You say Jon never listened to Marsh's counsels, but he did.  They refused to listen to him. Probably because of his youth and the fact that he was a bastard. That's not Jon's fault.

Jon did more for the watch than anyone else. Who warned the Watch about Mance's plan to attack CB from the south?

Who infiltrated the Watch to get this information?

Who discovered that fire killed the wights?

Who held command and successfully fought off both the Thenns from the south and the King Beyond The Wall from the north?

Who made the deal with the IB to keep the watch fed throughout the long winter?

But Jon is the traitor?

  

Stannis had no rights to force Jon. By the law of the NW they shouldn't take part in the matters of the seven kingdoms and that includes sheltering a rebel king. Jon could have cited this law and convinced Stannis to take them South. A law abiding Stannis(which he is not) should have taken his people south with him. Jon had the right to do it because Stannis and him are equals at the Wall. In fact Stannis is a losing horse. Making him an ally itself is not smart because it will antagonise the rest  of the lords because no one likes him. So the smart move there is sending Stannis south to the wall to fight the Boltons without any refuge to his queen and men. That would at least make the NW look independent.

I am not blaming taking the fight to the Boltons at all. That had to be done as an act of self defence. But every action that led to that was his mistakes. Even then he should have called his NW men south to fight Bolton citing the threat to the watch and sent wildling men to rescue their fellow wildlings North of the wall. This at least wouldn't have had a more negative reaction.

Actually Marsh was aware of the big threat and he even reluctantly agrees for letting in the wildlings. I don't think anywhere he refuses to believe the Others. Almost all his concern was about the Watch and how it is managed. 

Jon almost never heeded to his counsel. Every chapter of Dance reads like Marsh advising Jon on something and Jon outright dismissing it saying how only he was right. Jon was aware of sentiments against him but he still chose to let that be. Jon's style was quite autocratic which made him enemies though his vision is right. 

From Jon's POV he might be right in everything and might be the greatest thing happened to the watch. But others don't have the reason to believe that. Not everyone in the watch would act like a Jon fanboy. They had their own worries and as a leader it was Jon's duty to address them. 

If Jon looked a traitor it is himself to be blamed.

[Ser Snowflake]

1 hour ago, khal drogon said:

Stannis had no rights to force Jon. By the law of the NW they shouldn't take part in the matters of the seven kingdoms and that includes sheltering a rebel king. Jon could have cited this law and convinced Stannis to take them South. A law abiding Stannis(which he is not) should have taken his people south with him. Jon had the right to do it because Stannis and him are equals at the Wall. In fact Stannis is a losing horse. Making him an ally itself is not smart because it will antagonise the rest  of the lords because no one likes him. So the smart move there is sending Stannis south to the wall to fight the Boltons without any refuge to his queen and men. That would at least make the NW look independent.

I am not blaming taking the fight to the Boltons at all. That had to be done as an act of self defence. But every action that led to that was his mistakes. Even then he should have called his NW men south to fight Bolton citing the threat to the watch and sent wildling men to rescue their fellow wildlings North of the wall. This at least wouldn't have had a more negative reaction.

Actually Marsh was aware of the big threat and he even reluctantly agrees for letting in the wildlings. I don't think anywhere he refuses to believe the Others. Almost all his concern was about the Watch and how it is managed. 

Jon almost never heeded to his counsel. Every chapter of Dance reads like Marsh advising Jon on something and Jon outright dismissing it saying how only he was right. Jon was aware of sentiments against him but he still chose to let that be. Jon's style was quite autocratic which made him enemies though his vision is right. 

From Jon's POV he might be right in everything and might be the greatest thing happened to the watch. But others don't have the reason to believe that. Not everyone in the watch would act like a Jon fanboy. They had their own worries and as a leader it was Jon's duty to address them. 

If Jon looked a traitor it is himself to be blamed.

Stannis didn't have the right to force Jon......he had the army. How was Jon supposed to oppose Stannis when he had no leverage against him?

 Stannis  was the master of laws and probably forgot more about the law than LC Snow ever learned. 

Jon did send Stannis south to fight the Boltons. He was right to shelter Stannis. The Iron Throne never lifted a finger to help the NW when they begged for helped. The Watch even sent the KL proof of the wights and got laughed out of court for it. Aiding Stannis was not only practical it was smart. So what if KL disapproved....it's not like they were a reliable ally. Stannis aided them, so the Watch returned the favor. 

Besides if Jon would have tried to force Stannis out of CB after the battle, Stannis would have burned him alive most likely and replaced him with someone more biddable. This is Stannis Baratheon we are talking about.

Jon didn't heed Marsh's counsel because it was the wrong counsel. Marsh was always against allying with the Free Folk against the Others. He whined about it all during ADWD.

If anything Marsh is wrong for not heeding his Lord Commander's counsel. If it wasn't for Jon, they would all be dead.

Jon had misgivings about the Old Bear when he went on his ranging with most of the strength of the NW, but he never whined about it. He followed the LC because that is how the chain of command works.

Marsh on the other hand constantly threw a fit and fought Jon at every turn. 

Was it the Old Bear's fault when he got murdered at Craster's Keep?

Its funny how people keep saying that Jon looked like a traitor, but all those who stabbed him were traitors. Just like all who murdered Mormon were traitors.

The Watch has lost too many good men, and if Jon is dead, they are truly screwed.

[khal drogon]

3 hours ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

Stannis didn't have the right to force Jon......he had the army. How was Jon supposed to oppose Stannis when he had no leverage against him?

 Stannis  was the master of laws and probably forgot more about the law than LC Snow ever learned. 

Jon did send Stannis south to fight the Boltons. He was right to shelter Stannis. The Iron Throne never lifted a finger to help the NW when they begged for helped. The Watch even sent the KL proof of the wights and got laughed out of court for it. Aiding Stannis was not only practical it was smart. So what if KL disapproved....it's not like they were a reliable ally. Stannis aided them, so the Watch returned the favor. 

Besides if Jon would have tried to force Stannis out of CB after the battle, Stannis would have burned him alive most likely and replaced him with someone more biddable. This is Stannis Baratheon we are talking about.

Jon didn't heed Marsh's counsel because it was the wrong counsel. Marsh was always against allying with the Free Folk against the Others. He whined about it all during ADWD.

If anything Marsh is wrong for not heeding his Lord Commander's counsel. If it wasn't for Jon, they would all be dead.

Jon had misgivings about the Old Bear when he went on his ranging with most of the strength of the NW, but he never whined about it. He followed the LC because that is how the chain of command works.

Marsh on the other hand constantly threw a fit and fought Jon at every turn. 

Was it the Old Bear's fault when he got murdered at Craster's Keep?

Its funny how people keep saying that Jon looked like a traitor, but all those who stabbed him were traitors. Just like all who murdered Mormon were traitors.

The Watch has lost too many good men, and if Jon is dead, they are truly screwed.

By your logic if Stannis had the right to force the NW with his army then Ramsay has the right too.

Stannis is a losing horse. Betting on him is not smart.

Marsh followed Jon's commands though reluctantly till Shieldhall speech. Marsh did give valid counsel like sending freefolk to rescue the wildlings at hardhome than sending men of the Watch which Jon rejected without giving any reason. He also advised him to not look too close to Stannis which he rejected too. Oh yes wrong counsels.

It is funny that people want everyone to see Jon as the Snowflake he is. 

 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, Darkstream said:

I am attempting to do just so. Unfortunately, your uncivil insistence on ignoring forum guidelines and rules are preventing me from doing so.

The civil thing to do when asked off-topic questions would be to direct, or provide a link to the appropriate thread.

...

The irony is not lost on me, that I am doing the very thing I am complaining about by engaging in this childish argument. I do apologize to anyone that might be getting annoyed by this.

Use the ignore button.

And while your at it, attack all the people on this thread who are now debating Jon and Stannis. And then go the General forum and find any and all posts about RL=J, the Northern Conspiracy, the Pink Letter, Mance=Rhaegar and all the other topics that have been discussed ad nauseum.

[Cataldo]

Tywin didn't need to do anything, the war was already over, all he had to do was wait in Casterly Rock until King's Landing fell and go declare fealty to Robert, that would have been the end of it.

 

Personally I think he sacked the city and killed Rhagar's children purely to get back at Aerys for all the slights he suffered. Very much fits into the character we see in the books, a vindictive man.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

See this is what I mean about going with what you think I meant rather than what I said. Don't assume. Just read. For the record I think Mel is unaffected because she's got some magic thing and being already previously dead going on.

I think Cressen dies so suddenly because he's getting a very concentrated dose because most of the poison is sitting in the bottom of the glass, not all of it.

I'm betting the poison does not automatically and magically evenly distribute itself throughout the wine and attach itself to every molecule/drop. I think a thorough stirring would probably mix it better with the wine, which would be best for assassination attempts because it would affect the system a little at a time unless somebody was greedy and chugged the whole thing at once...Robert for example would probably do that.

I think Joffrey has to drink more of the wine to get the same effect because of this. 

To discredit the "wine theory" rather requires arguing that the poison should be equally distributed when there's no reason to think that.

Now if you'd just mentioned that before it would have made a difference. May I point out that we don't know that both were the same kinds of wine? Joffrey's wine may have been made with the skins of the grapes steeping in it for longer and thus be a darker color already.

Sorry, but this is the theory you have brought up: that the poison is heavier than the wine and sinks to the bottom. This has nothing to do with why Mel didn't die (I personally think she's already dead), but why the poison only sinks to the bottom when Cressen is holding the cup upright but not when Mel tips it bottom-up to drink long and deep. To treat this idea logically, there should have only been a trace in the last swallow because the rest of this heavier-than-wine silt would have rushed right down her throat. The poison either sinks or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

But let's say the poison does cling to the bottom of the cup for some reason, why would anyone pay a small fortune for a poison that requires the victim to swirl it around in their glass first? Why use a poison in which just a tiny flake turns a normal amount of wine deep purple if not black? If the poison sinks, why would they purposely give Joffrey a huge chalice and then use that as the delivery mechanism? And the very idea that a crystal would dissolve into heavy silt runs counter to everything we know about dissolvable crystals, as does the very idea that dilution would delay the poison at all.

This is what I mean when I say the wine theory collapses in on itself -- the things we need to be true to explain one part simply dispute other parts. And all the while, the whole thing rests on an endless string of maybes: maybe their wines are different (even though the text says they are normal red wines); maybe the poison acts in some magical, fictional way; maybe things are happening that aren't in the text.

And we've only just scratched the surface here. We have to go through the same logic-twisting process from Bitterbridge to the poisoning to the aftermath. At virtually every step, the conflicts between the text and the wine theory must be explained away in some illogical or extremely unlikely fashion -- all without a shred of evidence or even in direct contradiction to the text itself.

 

[John Suburbs]

35 minutes ago, Cataldo said:

Tywin didn't need to do anything, the war was already over, all he had to do was wait in Casterly Rock until King's Landing fell and go declare fealty to Robert, that would have been the end of it.

 

Personally I think he sacked the city and killed Rhagar's children purely to get back at Aerys for all the slights he suffered. Very much fits into the character we see in the books, a vindictive man.

Not sure I agree on this. After the Trident, Tywin knew the capital would fall, and if he wasn't part of it he would have little leverage to influence the post-war peace.

It seems to me that the sack and killings were intentional, but not for petty revenge.

The sack was only way Tywin could get his men close enough to the Red Keep to have a chance of getting Jaime out alive. Aerys had plenty of defenders in the castle, so Tywin's men were only needed on the city walls and perhaps at key points throughout the city. Any movement toward the RK would have roused the king's suspicions and placed Jaime's life in jeopardy. But if there is a riot in the city and reports are coming in that Tywin's men are trying to quell it, that makes it easier to move troops close enough to the RK to quickly scale the walls to get allies to Jaime's side.

And the children had to die because they were Aerys' legitimate heirs. Even if they renounced their claims, others would still seek to put them on the throne someday anyway. So as long as they live, they are a threat to the new dynasty.

[Cataldo]

8 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Not sure I agree on this. After the Trident, Tywin knew the capital would fall, and if he wasn't part of it he would have little leverage to influence the post-war peace.

It seems to me that the sack and killings were intentional, but not for petty revenge.

The sack was only way Tywin could get his men close enough to the Red Keep to have a chance of getting Jaime out alive. Aerys had plenty of defenders in the castle, so Tywin's men were only needed on the city walls and perhaps at key points throughout the city. Any movement toward the RK would have roused the king's suspicions and placed Jaime's life in jeopardy. But if there is a riot in the city and reports are coming in that Tywin's men are trying to quell it, that makes it easier to move troops close enough to the RK to quickly scale the walls to get allies to Jaime's side.

And the children had to die because they were Aerys' legitimate heirs. Even if they renounced their claims, others would still seek to put them on the throne someday anyway. So as long as they live, they are a threat to the new dynasty.

Ehh, Jaime's life was in danger throughout the whole war, he probably would died at the trident if he went, doesn't really matter who sacks the city. If Tywin was that worried he would have ordered Jaime to return to Casterly Rock around the same time Jon Arryn raised his banners.

As for the royal children yeah everyone knows they had to die, but it wasn't Tywin's war and he really had no business doing it. All it really did was make lifelong enemies of the Martells and make House Lannister look like evil opportunists to the rest of the realm.

 

 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but this is the theory you have brought up: that the poison is heavier than the wine and sinks to the bottom. This has nothing to do with why Mel didn't die (I personally think she's already dead), but why the poison only sinks to the bottom when Cressen is holding the cup upright but not when Mel tips it bottom-up to drink long and deep. To treat this idea logically, there should have only been a trace in the last swallow because the rest of this heavier-than-wine silt would have rushed right down her throat. The poison either sinks or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

But let's say the poison does cling to the bottom of the cup for some reason, why would anyone pay a small fortune for a poison that requires the victim to swirl it around in their glass first? Why use a poison in which just a tiny flake turns a normal amount of wine deep purple if not black? If the poison sinks, why would they purposely give Joffrey a huge chalice and then use that as the delivery mechanism? And the very idea that a crystal would dissolve into heavy silt runs counter to everything we know about dissolvable crystals, as does the very idea that dilution would delay the poison at all.

This is what I mean when I say the wine theory collapses in on itself -- the things we need to be true to explain one part simply dispute other parts. And all the while, the whole thing rests on an endless string of maybes: maybe their wines are different (even though the text says they are normal red wines); maybe the poison acts in some magical, fictional way; maybe things are happening that aren't in the text.

And we've only just scratched the surface here. We have to go through the same logic-twisting process from Bitterbridge to the poisoning to the aftermath. At virtually every step the conflicts between the text and the wine theory must be explained away in some illogical or extremely unlikely fashion -- all without a shred of evidence or even in direct contradiction to the text itself.

 

No, that's an oversimplification of what I said and assumes things I did not say. And I agree that Mel is dead/undead. That doesn't change anything. I'm not talking about weight but density. 

You dismissed my chocolate milk analogy too soon. Rather than being arrogant about it, maybe give it a chance for a couple of minutes. Dismissing it right off the bat makes it look like you're not even willing to consider any alternative to your own theory.

Any time one is mixing two substances (especially a liquid with a non-liquid) together, it requires a fair amount of stirring to make sure the second substance is fully absorbed throughout the first substance. This is true of wine, chocolate milk, lemonade, etc. It's like an unwritten law of beverages. An exception being that when the main liquid is extremely hot the two will usually combine more easily.

Substandard mixing will not mix the two substances to where they are equally present throughout the beverage. There is no stirring in the Cressen prologue, and too few people in the room to miss it if there had been.

The Stranger crystal itself is heavier than the wine. As it dissolves it will of course incorporate into the wine, but not evenly throughout without the assistance of mixing. 

Just as the chocolate remains in the bottom of the glass, so the strangler could as well.

Why would anyone use a poison that is supposedly so potent that only a sip will kill someone. That's pretty obvious. If you want it to be essentially undetectable of course you're going to want something that will fully incorporate, and that will take stirring no matter what poison you're talking about. You lack a criminal mind, ser--which I would say is a good thing, but not helpful when discussing murder schemes. GRRM is writing fantasy but he is not using magic poisons...the follow the same rules as real life poisons. No one is going to buy a poison so powerful and then do a half-assed job of using it, unless they don't care if they're caught...like Cressen is, or they're in a situation where there are enough people that narrowing down the suspect list is going to take time...like at a royal wedding.

To deflect suspicion. Again, you do not have a criminal mind. If he takes one sip and dies, then it's too quick and it's too obvious. They don't want that. They want to make it look like he's choking on food. They want people to think what you think. And it would have worked fine if it hadn't been for Cersei jumping to the conclusion that Tyrion was responsible.

The text says red wine. It doesn't say what kind of red. I don't even drink and I know that there are endless varieties of red wine, and that some of them happen to look purple, because the producers left the purple grape skins in longer specifically to get that color--note they are still called red wines, there is no purple wine market.

Uh, no. I'm basing it on real life, you're misunderstanding. That's not my fault. I don't resort to magic for anything that can be easily explained otherwise.

It's only illogical or unlikely to you. And that might be because you're looking at it from one angle and one angle only--something that does not best serve with this series.

Try this on for size: the most intelligent character in the series figures out easily that it was the wine, and dumps the rest of the wine out. That's the text spelling it out. 

Do you think you're smarter than Tyrion?

And don't you think Tywin would have thought to have Pycelle examine the pie in case of a mistake to see if there was poison in Tyrion's pie? Sure Tywin wanted to get ride of Tyrion, but not in a way that dragged the family name through the mud like that. And anyone trying to poison a Lannister would face Tywin's wrath, the same way he caused problems when Tyrion was arrested by Catelyn.

It's the very act of pouring out the rest of the wine that is seen as proof of Tyrion's guilt when all it is is proof that he figured out what happened.

If you're going to reject, dismiss, and otherwise act like you've been doing on this subject, then please don't waste your time or mine with a response. I'm done here.

[OtherFromAnotherMother]

@Lady Blizzardborn

All you have to so is ask how the wine is purple before Joff takes a bite of the supposedly poisoned pie. This ruins any ideas of suspecting it was the pie and not the wine. 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 0:22 PM, Cataldo said:

Ehh, Jaime's life was in danger throughout the whole war, he probably would died at the trident if he went, doesn't really matter who sacks the city. If Tywin was that worried he would have ordered Jaime to return to Casterly Rock around the same time Jon Arryn raised his banners.

As for the royal children yeah everyone knows they had to die, but it wasn't Tywin's war and he really had no business doing it. All it really did was make lifelong enemies of the Martells and make House Lannister look like evil opportunists to the rest of the realm.

Aerys kept Jaime close for the specific reason of ensuring Tywin's loyalty:

Quote

 

FFC,  Jaime I

"Your Grace," Jaime had pleaded, "let Darry stay to guard the king, this once, or Ser Barristan. Their cloaks are as white as mine."

Prince Rhaegar shook his head. "My royal sire fears your father more than he does our cousin Robert. He wants you close, so Lord Tywin cannot harm him. I dare not take that crutch away from him at such an hour."

 

So without Jaime in the RK, Tywin might still have faked the reconciliation in order to get inside the city, although it's doubtful Aerys would have fallen for it. But either way, as long as Jaime is free from the king, there is nothing to prevent Tywin's betrayal whenever the opportune moment arose.

Once Jaime donned the white cloak, Tywin could not order him to do anything. He belonged to the king.

All wars are Tywin's business because no matter who wins it ends up shifting the balance of power in the realm. And since this was a war for the Iron Throne, it was most definitely Tywin's business because he needs some way to craft the post-war peace to his liking.

 

[Cataldo]

25 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Aerys kept Jaime close for the specific reason of ensuring Tywin's loyalty:

 

Whole lotta good it did him.

25 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Once Jaime donned the white cloak, Tywin could not order him to do anything. He belonged to the king..

Wrong, Tywin could do whatever he liked once Aerys' authority wavered and there was a huge rebellion.

In fact we have textual evidence, Jaime leaves King's Landing in AGOT to go follow his father's orders in the Riverlands war.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No, that's an oversimplification of what I said and assumes things I did not say. And I agree that Mel is dead/undead. That doesn't change anything. I'm not talking about weight but density. 

You dismissed my chocolate milk analogy too soon. Rather than being arrogant about it, maybe give it a chance for a couple of minutes. Dismissing it right off the bat makes it look like you're not even willing to consider any alternative to your own theory.

Any time one is mixing two substances (especially a liquid with a non-liquid) together, it requires a fair amount of stirring to make sure the second substance is fully absorbed throughout the first substance. This is true of wine, chocolate milk, lemonade, etc. It's like an unwritten law of beverages. An exception being that when the main liquid is extremely hot the two will usually combine more easily.

Substandard mixing will not mix the two substances to where they are equally present throughout the beverage. There is no stirring in the Cressen prologue, and too few people in the room to miss it if there had been.

The Stranger crystal itself is heavier than the wine. As it dissolves it will of course incorporate into the wine, but not evenly throughout without the assistance of mixing. 

Just as the chocolate remains in the bottom of the glass, so the strangler could as well.

Why would anyone use a poison that is supposedly so potent that only a sip will kill someone. That's pretty obvious. If you want it to be essentially undetectable of course you're going to want something that will fully incorporate, and that will take stirring no matter what poison you're talking about. You lack a criminal mind, ser--which I would say is a good thing, but not helpful when discussing murder schemes. GRRM is writing fantasy but he is not using magic poisons...the follow the same rules as real life poisons. No one is going to buy a poison so powerful and then do a half-assed job of using it, unless they don't care if they're caught...like Cressen is, or they're in a situation where there are enough people that narrowing down the suspect list is going to take time...like at a royal wedding.

To deflect suspicion. Again, you do not have a criminal mind. If he takes one sip and dies, then it's too quick and it's too obvious. They don't want that. They want to make it look like he's choking on food. They want people to think what you think. And it would have worked fine if it hadn't been for Cersei jumping to the conclusion that Tyrion was responsible.

The text says red wine. It doesn't say what kind of red. I don't even drink and I know that there are endless varieties of red wine, and that some of them happen to look purple, because the producers left the purple grape skins in longer specifically to get that color--note they are still called red wines, there is no purple wine market.

Uh, no. I'm basing it on real life, you're misunderstanding. That's not my fault. I don't resort to magic for anything that can be easily explained otherwise.

It's only illogical or unlikely to you. And that might be because you're looking at it from one angle and one angle only--something that does not best serve with this series.

Try this on for size: the most intelligent character in the series figures out easily that it was the wine, and dumps the rest of the wine out. That's the text spelling it out. 

Do you think you're smarter than Tyrion?

And don't you think Tywin would have thought to have Pycelle examine the pie in case of a mistake to see if there was poison in Tyrion's pie? Sure Tywin wanted to get ride of Tyrion, but not in a way that dragged the family name through the mud like that. And anyone trying to poison a Lannister would face Tywin's wrath, the same way he caused problems when Tyrion was arrested by Catelyn.

It's the very act of pouring out the rest of the wine that is seen as proof of Tyrion's guilt when all it is is proof that he figured out what happened.

If you're going to reject, dismiss, and otherwise act like you've been doing on this subject, then please don't waste your time or mine with a response. I'm done here.

Sorry, but no. What you are describing is a crystal that dissolves unlike any dissolvable crystal in the whole history of dissolvable crystals. And then you have a poison, which is undeniably a contact poison, that reacts to the human body unlike any other poison of its kind in the history of poisons.

You present all of this without a shred of evidence -- other than, "this is what chocolate does in milk" (about as different from crystals and wine as you can get) -- and you completely ignore the fact that if the poison did require all of this stirring, did produce this dense glob of goo that clings to the bottom of the glass and did turn red wine purple with just a tiny flake, then it most certainly would not have acquired a reputation as the most lethal and stealthy means to kill a high-value target like a king, and the preferred delivery method would most certainly not be wine. Come on, in all the centuries that this poison has been in existence, do you actually think that not a single person would ever notice that all of these problems arise with concealment and delivery and then stop to think that maybe there is a better way to deploy it other than as a crystal dropped in wine?

And if we're talking about arrogance, I can think of nothing more arrogant than to continuously toss out an unsupported, illogical and completely contradictory idea as a crystal that turns denser than wine -- not to mention the scores of contradictory assumptions we need to even get to this point in the plot -- rather than simply accept the one basic truth that removes all of these factual, logical and textual inconsistencies: that the poison was in the pie.

I'm lost on the rest of your post. Are you saying that Tyrion, Tywin and everyone else is exactly right about the wine? Their not even right about who the poisoner is. And nobody would dare to poison a Lannister like Tyrion for fear of Tywin's wrath, but yet they have no fear of poisoning Tywin's Lannister grandson, the king?

 

23 hours ago, OtherFromAnotherMother said:

@Lady Blizzardborn

All you have to so is ask how the wine is purple before Joff takes a bite of the supposedly poisoned pie. This ruins any ideas of suspecting it was the pie and not the wine. 

Like I said, a room filled with orange candle- and torch-light reflecting off a golden chalice onto a thin layer of red wine set against pale white skin. A perfectly rational, reasonable conclusion.

Now, can you give me an equally rational, reasonable conclusion as to how this purple wine changes back to red and then back to purple all in a matter of minutes?

[John Suburbs]

6 minutes ago, Cataldo said:

Whole lotta good it did him.

Wrong, Tywin could do whatever he liked once Aerys' authority wavered and there was a huge rebellion.

In fact we have textual evidence, Jaime leaves King's Landing in AGOT to go follow his father's orders in the Riverlands war.

OK, your first point has nothing to do with why Jaime was kept close to Aerys in the first place, just that it was a bad call in hindsight.

As for the second, Tywin could try to order Jaime to leave but there is no practical way to get such an order to Jaime and no practical way for Jaime to exit the RK unless he fights his way out, alone, through thousands of Targ loyalists.

Jaime flees the city in the middle of the night after the fight with Ned while Robert is out hunting, without the king's leave and not on orders from Tywin. Aerys, meanwhile:
 

Quote

 

SoS, Jaime V:

"My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close. I was my father's son, so he did not trust me. He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night. So I heard it all." 

 

So in the end, there was no way for Tywin to get his men close enough to the RK to have even a chance of getting Jaime out alive unless he could disguise it as putting down violence in the city. The sack was a tactical maneuver, not a spiteful one.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Elia and Rhaenys were clearly killed purely out of revenge/spite.  Aegon had to be done for sure, but Rhaenys and especially Elia were much more useful alive than dead, killing them hurt their cause so the only explanation is spite/revenge.