Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tyrion1991

(Spoilers) - The War makes no sense

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

The 'legacy' argument works for Ned and Tywin, sort of, but falls apart for Robb, which is sad, because it was one of the biggest examples in the books (the Northmen coming together and conspiring to unseat Roose Bolton because of their love for the Starks, instead of Roose falling because Ramsay decided to take advantage of Roose's only moment of humanity followed by the northmen mostly rallying to his side because kinslaying is cool), who is treated by every northerner with a pulse like a bloody moron, to the point where they seemingly preferred a sadistic, kinslaying madman, and would proceed to become the most fickle, undecided allies ever, making you wonder why Ned's legacy and Robb's subsequent legacy can even count as having an effect.

Similarly, Ramsay didn't lose because he was hated. He lost because Sansa had Littlefinger on her side, who's cynically attempting to make her his pawn (though the Vale Lords genuinely liked her, credit where it is due). And while I appreciate they attempted to have Ned's legacy appreciated explicitly with Jon mentioning he's upholding Ned's values no matter what at the parlay, it falls apart because 1: He implies that the act of being good got Ned killed, as everyone seems to, instead of attributing Joffrey's random dickery, and 2: He's using it to justify his own idiocy. So once again, credit where it is due for effort, but it falls short in my opinion.

It gets worse with Doran, who did nothing but try to uphold peace for Dorne, and for all we know, his legacy is WEAK MAN and his son is WEAK BOY, their soldiers let a bunch of bastards kill and usurp him, and we don't even know what legacy Ellaria and the Sand Sneks have left on Dorne, especially given it was not their decisions that fucked them over in the end, but Deus ex Euron, but sadly we do know D & D won't explore this because they understandably want to forget Dorne ever existed.

But I will give credit where it is due. They're perhaps actually trying to portray a somewhat non-cynical theme here... at times.

- Yes 100% agreed. Robb has no legacy in the show or at the very least he is not important enough for the show to decide to explore it. But yea from what we see he is effectively the idiot that married the foreign girl because of love and lost the war. But I don't think that negates the broader themes I referenced. 

- i don't think all the northmen embraced Ramsey. Mostly the Umbers and the Karstarks and they did it for very specific realpolitik reasons. The others stayed neutral or sided with Jon. But I don't think all the northerners have to rally to Jon's side to support the idea that Ned left a powerful legacy or that his legacy was meaninful. Legacy can be meaninful if it just positively impacts a few people because lives have meaning. But in this case his legacy will be outsized because those people he impacted are going to end up saving the world.

- Ramsey lost because he fucked over Sansa and she hated him because he was the worst. I don't see why Ramsey had to lose because he was hated by everyone or why the method of how Sansa orchestrated his demise are necessarily important for the theme to play out if that method doesn't by itself negate the theme. Of course, maybe you didn't like the execution or preferred it go down some other way. But that is a different question than is the shows's theme that cynism wins.

- I disagree with the idea that the importance of Ned's legacy is impacted because they imply that he died because he played the game poorly or he was an idiot. All men must die. The fact that Ned died or how he died to me is beside the point. He left a legacy because of the way he choose to live his life and the values he represented. Those choices and values are what positively impacts people like Jon. The fact that Jon decides to emulate Ned despite the negative consequences I think is exactly the point. Our lives have meaning and value not because we are good at playing the game of thrones or because we managed to live a long time because we manipulated that person. They have value and meaning because of the way we choose to live our lives, effectively how we live is more important than how long we live. It doesn't matter if Ned died because he did something dumb. What matters is that while he was alive he lived with honor, built a loving family, protected his nephew and fought against the injustice of killing a young girl for political reasons. He lived his life in such a way that his daughter talks about how much she misses him at the end of the season in loving terms in contrast to Cersei who can only speak about her fathers loss in purely political/ pragmatic terms. 

- Dorne is fundamentally uninmportant on the show and Doran wasn't a fully fleshed out character enough to have a legacy to leave. But Ellaria has a legacy. Her legacy/ theme is how destructive and corrosive the desire for vengeance ultimatley is. (I get that is 100% different than the books where she speaks out against vengeance instead of epitimize the folly of it as she does on the TV show) 

EDIT: i don't want to overstate the point or to short thrift Doran. There is definetly the theme with him of failing to really take the measure of your people, the risk that occurs when you want to zig and they want to zag, the limits of how much autonomy a leader truly has and frankly the danger of being too merciful. Like Ned he did fail as a politician. But that doesn't mean he didn't live a worthy life or that he didn't leave a positive legacy etc. He just isn't the focus of the story nor is one of his relatives the main character so we don't get to explore the man beyond the politician. 

EDIT 2: Actually thinking about it a bit more, maybe we can say the same thing about Doran as we said about Ned although i say this with less confidence since we know so little about him and he is truly not the focus of the story. But he kept his region out of the War of the Five Kings. How many lives did he save because of that? How many men who otherwise would have died fighting a pointless war so that one family or another could sit on some chair were able to love during that time, able to start families, care for their parents, spend time with their brothers and sisters etc? Given that our reality is defined by the fact that the end sucks no matter what and that its the events leading up to it that are meaninful, Doran gave an opportunity to his people to have another five years of peace and life before "Ellaria and her brood of bitches" came and did their best to start a war. That means something no matter his ultimate failing as a politician. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

This sums up your post; you assume too much.

Is your info about 15 months from this site (reference to Trinity Royal ship)?

http://mashable.com/2017/07/22/euron-greyjoy-1000-ships-game-of-thrones-plot-hole/#mpTw_cwiwaq3

They were comparing Trinity Royal ship to Euron's flagship Silence. Others ships in his fleet are smaller. All their further calculations are made for making fleet that consists of 1,000 Silences.

"How many people would be needed to build this type of ship?

The building team for a 500-ton ship, according to Friel, would be between 30 and 50 shipwrights or more.

"However, other craftsmen and workers would also be involved, such as blacksmiths to make nails and other ironwork, caulkers to seal the gaps between planks, sailmakers, labourers and even people employed to pick up small bits of leftover timber littering the building site," he said.   

"The total size of the project team would probably be 50+, though not all would be working at the same time.  

"Building a fleet of 1,000 vessels in a short time would require tens of thousands of workers." "

 

Euron has tens of thousands of workers, he has at least 100,000. 100,000 workers. Because in different sources Iron Islands' population is between 100,000-700,000-1,500,000 people.

https://atlasoficeandfireblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/the-population-of-the-seven-kingdoms/

He has 15,000 sailors in Iron Fleet, + 25,000 of foot soldiers.

If male population old and young enought to fight is 40,000, then total population can't be lesser than 100,000+.

Quote

You can't have all the iron islanders work on bots for 6 months, then have half of them (women) make sails for 2 months (while also apparently still working on boats to fit the timeframe), while also giving them time to sail over to the mainland and cut down two million trees (your own math). I'm not even gonna continue this discussion because thats how silly I find it to be. I commend your tenacity for defending the biggest plothole of season 7, but in the real world, what the ironborn achieved is impossible.

I'm not saying that ALL of them will need to work non stop for SIX MONTHS. That's NOT what I wrote.

Also according to that link, writer and historian Dr Ian Friel (he recently wrote a book all about the medieval fleet) said that it will take only 750,000 trees to build Euron's fleet.

And according to information provided in that article, there's  between 250 to 500 trees per hectare. My previous estimate was 53 trees per acre.

1 Hectar is 2.47 acres. Wich means that there's between 100 to 200 trees per acre. And that's 2-4 times bigger than my estimates. So in that forest near Iron Islands there are 4-8 billion trees. But to build 1,000 ship fleet only 750,000 is needed.

 

Also I wrote that only 1/3 of population are females, not half. Additionally out of those 1/3 not everyone will be making sails. What I wrote is that if population of Iron Islands is 100,000 people then out of them 3,000 females will be making sails for 2 months. And that in span of 60 days each one out of those 3,000 will need to make only 1 sail. In case if population is 1,500.000, then there will be 50,000 females working for 2 months, and in span of 60 days they will make 50,000 sails <- that's too much, because nearly all ships in Iron Fleet has only one mast. So 3,000 sails will be enought for 1,000 ships.

 

And while those 3,000 females will be making sails, other 97,000 (or 1,497,000) will be working on other parts.

Also I wrote that even if only 15,000 people will be working as shipwrights, they will be able to build 1,000 ships in 3-6 months. Yes, even in 3 months, though for that they will have to work 16 hours per day <- it's hard, but possible.

For example Romans worked 7 days per week, 10 hours per day during winter, and 14 hours per day during summer.

"In the late 18th century, when companies started to maximize the output of their factories, getting to running them 24/7 was key. Now of course, to make things more efficient, people had to work more. In fact, 10-16 hour days were the norm." <- that info is from here https://blog.bufferapp.com/optimal-work-time-how-long-should-we-work-every-day-the-science-of-mental-strength

Enslaved Africans worked even longer, "It was a life of endless labour. They worked up to 18 hours a day, sometimes longer at busy periods such as harvest. There were no weekends or rest days." <- http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_69.html

"In the South, the 15-16 hours per days; 6 days per week schedule was on a continuos loop as there was no rest season." <- https://dayofaslave.wikispaces.com/

Ironborn were highly motivated to build this fleet. Because they were in stagnation for too long, after failure of Balon's rebellion. Just look at how much they were cheering after Euron's proclamation about 1,000 ships. They were 100% dedicated to this mission.

In this case crew of 15 men will have to build 1 ship in span of 90 days. That's 21,600 men/hours to build one ship (15 men * 90 days * 16 hours per day = 21,600).

Also Euron had enough people to make them work in rotation. 30,000 people devided into two squads, each 15,000 men. One squad is working for 16 hours, from 6 am to 10 pm, then next day they are replaced by second squad. Thus between shifts those 30,000 men can rest for 32 hours. For healthy adult male to work for 16 hours, and then rest for 32 is absolutely manageable task. 

Or if they will have six months of time, then they can work 8 hours per day, without using rotation, that's the same 21,600 men/hours required to build one ship. In this case they won't even need 30,000 people to accomplish this task, 15,000 will be enought. To build one ship on this schedule, crew of 15 men will work less hours per day, but for 6 months instead of 3 (15 men * 180 days * 8 hours per day = 21,600).

 

And why do I think that 21,600 men/hours of time, that ironborn can dedicate to creating Iron Fleet, is enough to build one basic ship from Iron Fleet:

 

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Iron_Fleet info from this link

"The Iron Fleet is the largest grouping of longships from the Iron Islands.

The ships, while smaller than the war dromonds of the mainland, are three times the size of a standard longship of the Isles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromon "The Greek scholar Christos Makrypoulias suggests an arrangement of 25 oarsmen beneath and 35 on the deck on either side for a dromon of 120 rowers. The overall length of these ships was probably about 32 meters."

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Iron_Fleet "the majority of the ironborn naval forces, which are estimated to number well over 500 longships. However, most of these ships only dip 20 oars."

"Iron Fleet consists of around a hundred warships dipping 100 oars or more."

 

So what do we have? - 1. standart ship of Iron Fleet is smaller than dromon, 2. dromon is 32 meters long and has up to 120 oars, 3. standart ship of Iron Fleet is three times the size of a standard longship of the Isles, 4. standard longship of the Isles dip 20 oars, 5. Iron Fleet warships dip 100 oars, or 100+ oars (though according to 3. it should have about 60 oars, and not 100+, because three times bigger than ship with 20 oars should be ship with 60 oars not 100+ oars, but Ok let it be 100 oars).

If ship with 120 oars is 32 meters long (and that's 105 feet), then ship with 100 oars is appoximately 27 meters or 88 feet long.

In this site http://www.fram.nl/workshop/figures/timeandcosts.htm there's review how much time it takes for one person to build a 39'4" feet or 12 meters long yacht - 9594 men/hours. Also there's detailed timeframe how much time it took to finish certain work.

So based on this example if it takes 9594 men/hours to build a 39'4" feet or 12 meters long yacht, then time needed to build a 27 meters or 88 feet long ship is (9594 * 27) : 12 = 21,586.5 men/hours.

And the 15 men crew of ironborn working for 3 month, 16 hours per day will work in total 21,600 men/hours. Or the same amount of hours if they will work 8 hours per day for 6 months. In case if they will use 15,000 shipbuilders. And if they will be using rotation and work in shifts, then they will involve 30,000 shipbuilders.

15,000 (or 30,000) of shipwrights + 3,000 females making sails.

So 18 or 33 thousands will build ships and make sails, and other 67-82 thousands will be doing other works like painting, weaving ropes, making nails, cuting down trees, preparing boards, transporting supplies, cooking, etc.

If that one example with 12 meters long yacht is not enough, then there's also others:

http://www.glen-l.com/costs-and-time-to-build/

"Bandido - 30′ Inboard Deep Vee Runabout. Built by Scott Ure - I have put in around 8,000 man hours into the project over the last 7 years or so, but this is a very rough figure as I did not keep a record."

"Bolero - 24′ Deep Vee Runabout. Built by Donato Conserva (Italy) – about 300 hours."

"Console Skiff  - 15′ 9″ Open Skiff with Center Console. Built by George Yannoulis (Greece) - Building Time: 480 hrs."

https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/estimate-man-hours-to-build-a-yacht.25530/

 

Also previously I found information that for building 1 medieval ship they needed 2,000 trees. But seems that that ship was bigger than dromon, so they won't need 2 million trees. 750,000 will be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jcmontea said:

If I were D&D I would think I think I am super clever every time i look at my Emmy's and my bank account. 

How embarrassed must St. Francis of Assisi feel compared to them--or pretty much everyone, for that matter? That guy was a bum!

Worthington's Law states: More Money = Better Than.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jcmontea said:

- Yes 100% agreed. Robb has no legacy in the show or at the very least he is not important enough for the show to decide to explore it. But yea from what we see he is effectively the idiot that married the foreign girl because of love and lost the war. But I don't think that negates the broader themes I referenced. 

- i don't think all the northmen embraced Ramsey. Mostly the Umbers and the Karstarks and they did it for very specific realpolitik reasons. The others stayed neutral or sided with Jon. But I don't think all the northerners have to rally to Jon's side to support the idea that Ned left a powerful legacy or that his legacy was meaninful. Legacy can be meaninful if it just positively impacts a few people because lives have meaning. But in this case his legacy will be outsized because those people he impacted are going to end up saving the world.

- Ramsey lost because he fucked over Sansa and she hated him because he was the worst. I don't see why Ramsey had to lose because he was hated by everyone or why the method of how Sansa orchestrated his demise are necessarily important for the theme to play out if that method doesn't by itself negate the theme. Of course, maybe you didn't like the execution or preferred it go down some other way. But that is a different question than is the shows's theme that cynism wins.

- I disagree with the idea that the importance of Ned's legacy is impacted because they imply that he died because he played the game poorly or he was an idiot. All men must die. The fact that Ned died or how he died to me is beside the point. He left a legacy because of the way he choose to live his life and the values he represented. Those choices and values are what positively impacts people like Jon. The fact that Jon decides to emulate Ned despite the negative consequences I think is exactly the point. Our lives have meaning and value not because we are good at playing the game of thrones or because we managed to live a long time because we manipulated that person. They have value and meaning because of the way we choose to live our lives, effectively how we live is more important than how long we live. It doesn't matter if Ned died because he did something dumb. What matters is that while he was alive he lived with honor, built a loving family, protected his nephew and fought against the injustice of killing a young girl for political reasons. He lived his life in such a way that his daughter talks about how much she misses him at the end of the season in loving terms in contrast to Cersei who can only speak about her fathers loss in purely political/ pragmatic terms. 

- Dorne is fundamentally uninmportant on the show and Doran wasn't a fully fleshed out character enough to have a legacy to leave. But Ellaria has a legacy. Her legacy/ theme is how destructive and corrosive the desire for vengeance ultimatley is. (I get that is 100% different than the books where she speaks out against vengeance instead of epitimize the folly of it as she does on the TV show) 

EDIT: i don't want to overstate the point or to short thrift Doran. There is definetly the theme with him of failing to really take the measure of your people, the risk that occurs when you want to zig and they want to zag, the limits of how much autonomy a leader truly has and frankly the danger of being too merciful. Like Ned he did fail as a politician. But that doesn't mean he didn't live a worthy life or that he didn't leave a positive legacy etc. He just isn't the focus of the story nor is one of his relatives the main character so we don't get to explore the man beyond the politician. 

EDIT 2: Actually thinking about it a bit more, maybe we can say the same thing about Doran as we said about Ned although i say this with less confidence since we know so little about him and he is truly not the focus of the story. But he kept his region out of the War of the Five Kings. How many lives did he save because of that? How many men who otherwise would have died fighting a pointless war so that one family or another could sit on some chair were able to love during that time, able to start families, care for their parents, spend time with their brothers and sisters etc? Given that our reality is defined by the fact that the end sucks no matter what and that its the events leading up to it that are meaninful, Doran gave an opportunity to his people to have another five years of peace and life before "Ellaria and her brood of bitches" came and did their best to start a war. That means something no matter his ultimate failing as a politician. 

Actually, now that you mention it, Ellaria does have the 'brood of bitches' legacy, so maybe legacy has been fucked over for her, even if it was ultimately Deus ex Euron, not her own monstrosity, that would bring about her demise. I'd love to say I fully accept that D & D gets and understands the importance of reputation and taking the people into account, then I remember that Cersei blew up the Vatican in the middle of Catholicopolis and somehow gained the love and respect of the Catholics that threw shit at her and sneered at her not so long ago.

This is probably the most frustrating part. Every now and then, I'm willing to accept a honeypot as plausible, and I look at the shit on-screen and think, 'eh, D & D ain't so bad'. And then I see other shit and go 'I shouldn't have even given them a chance' and remember that they do, in fact, think themes are for eighth-grade book reports, so they clearly don't have a high opinion of writing as an art form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Actually, now that you mention it, Ellaria does have the 'brood of bitches' legacy, so maybe legacy has been fucked over for her, even if it was ultimately Deus ex Euron, not her own monstrosity, that would bring about her demise. I'd love to say I fully accept that D & D gets and understands the importance of reputation and taking the people into account, then I remember that Cersei blew up the Vatican in the middle of Catholicopolis and somehow gained the love and respect of the Catholics that threw shit at her and sneered at her not so long ago.

This is probably the most frustrating part. Every now and then, I'm willing to accept a honeypot as plausible, and I look at the shit on-screen and think, 'eh, D & D ain't so bad'. And then I see other shit and go 'I shouldn't have even given them a chance' and remember that they do, in fact, think themes are for eighth-grade book reports, so they clearly don't have a high opinion of writing as an art form.

I still think her own monstrosity did it. Euron was just the specific way it happened. Euron would not have been hunting her if she were not a valuable gift for Cersei. She wouldn't have been a valuable gift for Cersei if she hadn't killed Cersei's daughter. 

Regarding the sept, we will ultimatley see what signfificance that has. The chapter won't be written until season 8. But I still don't know if we should be interpreting it the way you are saying that Cersei blew up the most holy's in the city of the most holy's. King's Landing has always been painted as a very sinful city and a very commercial city.

The Sparrows took out all the sin. Its not clear to me per say taking out the sparrows would make her universally reviled in king's landing. I could easily see more people hating her for unleasing the sparrows in the first place if they know she was responsible for that. The people of King's Landing seem more moved by their bread and circus than any deep seated convictions one way or the other.

I am not sure D&D meant what that quote is commonly thought to mean. In context versus just as a soundbiteI took it as the narrative is too sprawling to reduce a single season or a single episode to a single theme. But regardless of what they intend, at the end of the day not sure it matters or authors intent matters  more broadly. Its whats on the screen that counts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I still think her own monstrosity did it. Euron was just the specific way it happened. Euron would not have been hunting her if she were not a valuable gift for Cersei. She wouldn't have been a valuable gift for Cersei if she hadn't killed Cersei's daughter. 

Regarding the sept, we will ultimatley see what signfificance that has. The chapter won't be written until season 8. But I still don't know if we should be interpreting it the way you are saying that Cersei blew up the most holy's in the city of the most holy's. King's Landing has always been painted as a very sinful city and a very commercial city.

The Sparrows took out all the sin. Its not clear to me per say taking out the sparrows would make her universally reviled in king's landing. I could easily see more people hating her for unleasing the sparrows in the first place if they know she was responsible for that. The people of King's Landing seem more moved by their bread and circus than any deep seated convictions one way or the other.

I am not sure D&D meant what that quote is commonly thought to mean. In context versus just as a soundbiteI took it as the narrative is too sprawling to reduce a single season or a single episode to a single theme. But regardless of what they intend, at the end of the day not sure it matters or authors intent matters  more broadly. Its whats on the screen that counts. 

Sinful, yes, but the sparrows and the faith were still popular enough to form a paramilitary group that made the High Sparrow's 'we are the many, you are the few' threat actually hold water to Olenna. At any rate, it's odd to see the population that was calling Cersei a whore and throwing shit at her throwing a parade for her piratical madman allies after she blew up the equivalent of the Vatican, which, even without the cultural implications, was shown to have at least some collateral on civilians.

It's just odd that Cersei is so beloved when, as you pointed out, the writers seem to actually give a shit about legacy and popularity every once in a while.

And yes, what's on screen is what counts at the end of the day, but if you see how the writers think, it makes you evaluate whether or not to do things like... make up a bunch of desperate conjecture to justify the events on screen, or simply accept that maybe they just don't care about certain things and prioritise making money by showing a certain actor's face over artistic integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Sinful, yes, but the sparrows and the faith were still popular enough to form a paramilitary group that made the High Sparrow's 'we are the many, you are the few' threat actually hold water to Olenna. At any rate, it's odd to see the population that was calling Cersei a whore and throwing shit at her throwing a parade for her piratical madman allies after she blew up the equivalent of the Vatican, which, even without the culutral implications, was shown to have at least some collateral on civilians.

It's just odd that Cersei is so beloved when, as you pointed out, the writers seem to actually give a shit about legacy and popularity every once in a while.

And yes, what's on screen is what counts at the end of the day, but if you see how the writers think, it makes you evaluate whether or not to do things like... make up a bunch of desperate conjecture to justify the events on screen, or simply accept that maybe they just don't care about certain things and prioritise making money by showing a certain actor's face over artistic integrity.

I def. don't think they care about logistics for example. I think they want to make it plausible enough to not destroy the sense of disbelief but no more than that. Of course, when your going for the bear minimum sometimes you miss. 

Thinking about it a bit more, i think its more the bread and circus interpretation than that Cersei is beloved. They cheared Euron because it was a fun show. They cheared Cersei's walk of shame because it was a fun show. They just want spectacle and they love to see mighty high born's humbeled, in these two cases Cersei, Yara and Ellaria. Jaime has a quote that supports this interpretation. 

Good point about the sparrows. But where they from king's landing? I thought there was a line about many of the sparrows being people from the countryside. 

5x01

KEVAN: They call themselves sparrows. Bloody fanatics. Religion has its place, of course, but at a certain point… They never would have come to the capital when Tywin was alive.

EDIT

The Jaime conversation i referenced

JAIME: This same mob spat at my sister not long ago, and if you turn on us, they'll cheer to see your head mounted on a spike.

EURON: Or yours. They just like severed heads really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I def. don't think they care about logistics for example. I think they want to make it plausible enough to not destroy the sense of disbelief but no more than that. Of course, when your going for the bear minimum sometimes you miss. 

Thinking about it a bit more, i think its more the bread and circus interpretation than that Cersei is beloved. They cheared Euron because it was a fun show. They cheared Cersei's walk of shame because it was a fun show. They just want spectacle and they love to see mighty high born's humbeled, in these two cases Cersei, Yara and Ellaria. 

Good point about the sparrows. But where they from king's landing? I thought there was a line about many of the sparrows being people from the countryside. 

5x01

KEVAN: They call themselves sparrows. Bloody fanatics. Religion has its place, of course, but at a certain point… They never would have come to the capital when Tywin was alive.

Then you'd think more would have survived the septsplosian and started putting pressure from beyond the capital, but honestly, you need a high-paid actor as a leader to have a presence in the plot in GoT :P

As for the 'KL civilians just want spectacle'... hm... maybe this is what D & D think their audience is? Lol.

It's odd that civilian legacy matters in one part of Weisseroff (the North) but not another (KL), but as we've come to agree, D & D probably don't care at this point. They've made their money, they just need to wrap up, take their final returns, and move onto their planned show about the American Civil War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Then you'd think more would have survived the septsplosian and started putting pressure from beyond the capital, but honestly, you need a high-paid actor as a leader to have a presence in the plot in GoT :P

As for the 'KL civilians just want spectacle'... hm... maybe this is what D & D think their audience is? Lol.

It's odd that civilian legacy matters in one part of Weisseroff (the North) but not another (KL), but as we've come to agree, D & D probably don't care at this point. They've made their money, they just need to wrap up, take their final returns, and move onto their planned show about the American Civil War.

I don't think they showed that civilian legacy matters in the North at all. I think they showed individual peoples legacies mattering due to the impact they have on other individuals. But the northern people did not rise up to fight for Ned Stark's good name. If anything they have showed that the mob, the people don't care about the games high born lords and ladies play. 

Civilians do want spectacle. This is a historically truthful statement. True enough that Roman poets decried how docile the people were in the early imperial period. Make sure people are fed and entertained and the people are taken care of. I don't think its an accident that the only time we see a violent mob in King's Landing is when people are hungry in Season 2. Do you think it requires much more than that to keep people from revolting?

Regarding how many survived the sept splosion. Yea. Your just supposed to assume that most of them blew up in the sept and not think too much more of it. Lol. But I don't think that makes it bad writing or a bad TV show. At the end of the day this is a TV show which entails a certain amount of narrative economy. For this specific story being told, how Cersei rounded up and dealt with the remnants of the Sparrows is fundamentally unimportant. Something like that can truly be left off screen if it has no broader impact on the main tale either plot wise or character wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I don't think they showed that civilian legacy matters in the North at all. I think they showed individual peoples legacies mattering due to the impact they have on other individuals. But the northern people did not rise up to fight for Ned Stark's good name. If anything they have showed that the mob, the people don't care about the games high born lords and ladies play. 

Civilians do want spectacle. This is a historically truthful statement. True enough that Roman poets decried how docile the people were in the early imperial period. Make sure people are fed and entertained and the people are taken care of. I don't think its an accident that the only time we see a violent mob in King's Landing is when people are hungry in Season 2. 

Regarding how many survived the sept splosion. Yea. Your just supposed to assume that most of them blew up in the sept and not think too much more of it. Lol. 

As we all know, blowing up the leaders of the Taliban has always led to the Taliban permanently disappearing! It doesn't ever exacerbate situations.

Lol. And yeah, I'll agree, the civilians just wanting spectacle is a thing, but it's odd that the civilians that rioted at Joffrey possibly being a child of incest didn't riot at the septsplosion. I guess they've learnt that Weisseroff is a shit world where shit things happen all the time, and they just want some spectacle to come of it, much like a good portion of GoT's audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

As we all know, blowing up the leaders of the Taliban has always led to the Taliban permanently disappearing! It doesn't ever exacerbate situations.

Lol. And yeah, I'll agree, the civilians just wanting spectacle is a thing, but it's odd that the civilians that rioted at Joffrey possibly being a child of incest but not at the septsplosion. I guess they've learnt that Weisseroff is a shit world where shit things happen all the time, and they just want some spectacle to come of it, much like a good portion of GoT's audience.

I think season 2 established that people were hungry and that played a large role in them rioting. 

I added more to my point above regarding the remnants of sparrows. 

EDIT: regarding my point above about the sparrows happening off screen, i think we have to recognize that TV as a medium has more in common with plays than it does with novels. Even the great plays allow for a bunch of stuff to happen off screen if its not important to the main tale. Sometimes for the main tale we don't need to know the how just that it was done and resolved. If we are going to accept TV as a medium, we have to be willing to grant the same licesnse. Its not a novel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jcmontea said:

I think season 2 established that people were hungry and that played a large role in them rioting. 

I added more to my point above regarding the remnants of sparrows. 

Did they suddenly get less hungry? The Lannisters had to raid the Reach for food this season due to the Lannister-Tyrell alliance blowing the fuck up. That doesn't seem like an improved situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Did they suddenly get less hungry? The Lannisters had to raid the Reach for food this season due to the Lannister-Tyrell alliance blowing the fuck up. That doesn't seem like an improved situation.

Yea. That is probably set up for civil unrest in season 8. 

But it was not established that the people were hungry now. Just that food was needed if they were to survive a siege and we can infer a bad winter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.09.2017 at 11:41 AM, SirArthur said:

Nah man. It's all too easy. You just go the Pyke hardware shop and buy 1000 starter kits for homemade longships. This includes all tools, all nails and all the rigging material. And a 24h smithing service for repairs and restocking is included. Hemp and Iron can be ordered from Summer Islands Delivery Service SIDS Ltd.. Easy. Oh wait, the starter kit is only for longboats and not longships. Bugger. But 1000 ships it is.

No need to be so sarcastic. Even if you don't agree that it's possible to build 1000 ships in 3-6 months, doesn't mean that it's imposible. What obstacles, in your opinion, can prevent them from accomplishing this task?

In a navy medieval nation all males are experienced shipwreights and lumberjacks. Because in old times all sailors were able to repair on site, ships and boats damaged in storms or battles. They didn't went to repair shops. They did all work by themselves. All medieval people were handymen, capable of working all sorts of jobs. They themselves build their own houses from scratch, and did any needed repair works while they lived there.

Furthermore in a medieval times, in a territory with a 1,500,000 population, every household had an axe, saw, and other tools. So they won't have to go to nonexistant in those times hardware shops. Additionally in those times blacksmith was a very popular and in-demand profession. Out of those men of Iron Islands that are not sailors, soldiers, or fishermen, probably every third, or every fifth is a blacksmith. So they have at least 10,000 blacksmiths.

Also I was wrong when I based my calculation on estimations that Iron Islands population is only 100,000 people. They indeed have 1,5 millions. 250,000 adult males, 250,000 adult females, 250,000 elderly of both genders, and 750,000 children (with average 3 children per family).

Interesting fact that in many of Westerosian families there are 3 children.

Dany has 3 dragons ^_^ Other people that also have/had 3 children are - Cersei, Tywin, Mad King Aerys, Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, Randyll Tarly, Baratheons with their three sons (Robert, Stannis and Ranly).

Families with only 1 child are rare, and it seems that usually those families are very unlucky. In S7 the man with 1 daughter had to kill both of them not to die from hunger. Stannis had 1 daughter. Lyssa Aryn had 1 son. The man that went to ask for help from Faceless men also had only 1 daughter, and had to ask them to kill her. So to have only 1 child is a bad omen.

Though to have too many children also brings misfortune - Cat with her 5 children + 1 bastard, Robert with his 18 bastard children, Balon Geyjoy with his 4, Oberyn Martel with his 8 daughters.

"The dragon has 3 heads". 3 is a lucky number in ASOIAF world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Yea. That is probably set up for civil unrest in season 8. 

But it was not established that the people were hungry now. Just that food was needed if they were to survive a siege and we can infer a bad winter. 

True. Here's hoping D & D actually wake up and make Cersei suffer some actual consequences in Season 8. As I've said, there's a little part of me that wants the show to be well-written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Megorova said:

In a navy medieval nation all males are experienced shipwreights and lumberjacks.

Seriously ? Name one nation.

Quote

No need to be so sarcastic. [...]What obstacles, in your opinion, can prevent them from accomplishing this task?

I can try to translate sarcasm. How about (hard) wood has to dry a few month before it is ready ? Or the requirement to grow the hemp for all the rigging a season in advance. And let's not start with the tools that have to be build and the iron and coal that has to be mined to craft all the ship nails.

As I said you need a starter kit. And you need it because there is not enough time. In a year ? Far more likely. In two ? Sure.
 

Quote

Furthermore in a medieval times, in a territory with a 1,500,000 population, every household had an axe, saw, and other tools.

 

I don't know what that has to do with the population ... and I don't know what's up with the axe or the saw. Longships need curved tools for the clinker construction.

Quote

Out of those men of Iron Islands that are not sailors, soldiers, or fishermen, probably every third, or every fifth is a blacksmith. So they have at least 10,000 blacksmiths.

Do you have any references or are the numbers just made up ? Because soldiers are really not that numerous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Megorova said:

No need to be so sarcastic. Even if you don't agree that it's possible to build 1000 ships in 3-6 months, doesn't mean that it's imposible. What obstacles, in your opinion, can prevent them from accomplishing this task?

In a navy medieval nation all males are experienced shipwreights and lumberjacks. Because in old times all sailors were able to repair on site, ships and boats damaged in storms or battles. They didn't went to repair shops. They did all work by themselves. All medieval people were handymen, capable of working all sorts of jobs. They themselves build their own houses from scratch, and did any needed repair works while they lived there.

Furthermore in a medieval times, in a territory with a 1,500,000 population, every household had an axe, saw, and other tools. So they won't have to go to nonexistant in those times hardware shops. Additionally in those times blacksmith was a very popular and in-demand profession. Out of those men of Iron Islands that are not sailors, soldiers, or fishermen, probably every third, or every fifth is a blacksmith. So they have at least 10,000 blacksmiths.

Also I was wrong when I based my calculation on estimations that Iron Islands population is only 100,000 people. They indeed have 1,5 millions. 250,000 adult males, 250,000 adult females, 250,000 elderly of both genders, and 750,000 children (with average 3 children per family).

Interesting fact that in many of Westerosian families there are 3 children.

Dany has 3 dragons ^_^ Other people that also have/had 3 children are - Cersei, Tywin, Mad King Aerys, Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, Randyll Tarly, Baratheons with their three sons (Robert, Stannis and Ranly).

Families with only 1 child are rare, and it seems that usually those families are very unlucky. In S7 the man with 1 daughter had to kill both of them not to die from hunger. Stannis had 1 daughter. Lyssa Aryn had 1 son. The man that went to ask for help from Faceless men also had only 1 daughter, and had to ask them to kill her. So to have only 1 child is a bad omen.

Though to have too many children also brings misfortune - Cat with her 5 children + 1 bastard, Robert with his 18 bastard children, Balon Geyjoy with his 4, Oberyn Martel with his 8 daughters.

"The dragon has 3 heads". 3 is a lucky number in ASOIAF world.

Even the Vikings had artists, architects, smiths and other professions than 'ship builders and reavers'. No society is just a 'people of hats'. This is a gross oversimplification of how societies work. Hell, in Viking society, women's battle was on the birthing bed, and dying in chilbirth got women into Valhalla, not their works of war. Women could also be renowned as prophets and seers, and the Ironborn have their equivalent in the Drowned Men (hell, if Aeron's in the show, and you're willing to assume an offscreen formation of the 'black guard', then the Drowned Men exist in the show universe). What about them? Are they all talented shipwrights, even though they only build with driftwood?

The fact you're now relying on making D & D's worldbuilding worse by making the Ironborn a monotonous horde of never-resting ship-builders and reavers is kind of sad, honestly. Just take jcmontea's explanation, it was surprisingly plausible: Euron didn't build 1000 ships, he just built a lesser, but still large amount. Because D & D have been ham-fistedly making Euron an obvious analogue to Donald Trump.

C'mon man, even I'm trying to help you out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

 Just take jcmontea's explanation, it was surprisingly plausible: Euron didn't build 1000 ships, he just built a lesser, but still large amount. Because D & D have been ham-fistedly making Euron an obvious analogue to Donald Trump.

Well there was Reagan's navy of 600 ships. But that's not what I take from a kingsmoot announcement to build 1000 ships. This sounds more like the film 300's "the thousand nations of the persian empire..". I mean whatever, the goat is missing D&D. And I don't think Euron had any plans of finishing in half a year. 

In general Euron and his iron plunder buddies are the least of the problems this season has. He is not even plundering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Thinking about it a bit more, i think its more the bread and circus interpretation than that Cersei is beloved. They cheared Euron because it was a fun show. They cheared Cersei's walk of shame because it was a fun show. They just want spectacle and they love to see mighty high born's humbeled, in these two cases Cersei, Yara and Ellaria. Jaime has a quote that supports this interpretation. 

Jaime's quote makes the populace equivalent to the mob in the Simpsons, which sways back and forth on a whim. But that's a comedy, and Game of Thrones is supposed to be more serious. Anyway, they didn't always used to just go with whoever provided them with the best Highborn Brought Low entertainment. 

Why did they turn on Joffrey, who brought them fabulous entertainment by beheading Ned. 

They hated Tyrion all along, whether he was ascendant or falling down. He didn't get any credit for bringing down Joffrey. (Whom he didn't kill, but they didn't know that.)

They didn't turn on Cersei after she killed the lowborn Sparrow and the People's Queen, Marge. She did kill a lot of highborns probably nobody liked, but they weren't cheering the deaths of Mace Tyrell or Kevan Lannister, because who cares? No one was cheering in the streets because "Ooh, pretty explosion!" At least we can thank the show for not making the common folk that stupid. 

It required Rock Star Euron bringing in Ellaria, which I guess makes sense that people would cheer, absent any other information. Because Euron just won a victory and maybe Myrcella is fondly remembered. But it's all being done for Cersei, whom they had no reason to cheer and plenty reason to boo in the meantime.

Unless it's a Behind the Music sorta thing, and the crowds love a rise-fall-rise story. But then we're back to them being fickle morons. Because I don't remember the Behind the Music where Meat Loaf got caught eating human baby at a Satanic ritual, then released Bat Out of Hell II and everyone loved him again.

You may argue crowds in real life are fickle like that, but they aren't, really. We like to drag people's names through the mud then give them a "comeback," yes. But Cersei shouldn't be able to come back from blowing up the Sept. Especially considering she apparently didn't suffer from it in popular opinion in the meantime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.09.2017 at 5:03 AM, Jabul said:

The main thing is that a monarch communicates with his or her kingdom.

It's not Dany's kingdom, and she isn't their monarch. Monarch of 7K is Cersei. So even if Dany will send ravens all over Westeros, like it was done by Aegon, those people that will recive her messages, will ignore her. They are not afraid that she may come to get them, for not submitting to her. Because even though she has 3 grown dragons, as Aegon had, prior he decided to conquir Westeros, Targaryens lived at Dragonstone for 300 years. They had a full court there. People loyal to them.

With passing of time it seems that Tyrion isn't entirely loyal to Dany. He cares too much about wellbeing of his own family.

Also when Aegon went into battle, his two sisters with their dragons also went there. And three dragonriders are more efficient than one rider and two rideless dragons. If Dany will be killed, as Tyrior said, one arrow may cost them their entire future. She's alone, so she can't risk.

On 20.09.2017 at 5:03 AM, Jabul said:

It is flat out ridiculous that Tyrion the Formerly Intelligent needs the recommendation of a red priestess before he tries to communicate with places like Winterfell.

Looks like he indeed is a traitor. Because nearly all his advices are useless.

On 20.09.2017 at 7:47 AM, darmody said:

Tywin merely "ruled" as an administrator, or gray eminence, though one who was known to the court and maybe the public (I'm not sure.) He was not the sovereign. You can't pass bureaucratic power down through the generations like that.

Spoiler

"When Stannis was no more than four years old, his father took him and his brother Robert to court. There, Stannis believed he saw King Aerys II Targaryen on the Iron Throne, holding court. Stannis was impressed, and he and Robert agreed that the king had been as noble as the dragons were fearsome. It was years later that Steffon told him that it had been Hand of the King Tywin Lannister whom they had seen, as King Aerys had cut himself on the throne earlier that day and Tywin had taken over for him."

"King Aerys was full of schemes, boasting about his grand plans, then quickly forgetting about them in less than a moon's turn. Aerys boasted upon his coronation about invading the Stepstones and adding them to the Seven Kingdoms. When Lord Rickard Stark of Winterfell visited King's Landing in 264 AC, the king hatched a plan to build a new Wall hundreds of miles north of the current one and claim all the lands in between. After complaining about the stink of King's Landing in 265 AC, Aerys wanted to build a new city of white marble on the south bank of the Blackwater. In 267 AC, after a dispute with the Iron Bank of Braavos, Aerys claimed he would build a war fleet and bring the Titan of Braavos to its knees. When he visited Dorne in 270 AC, he told the Princess of Dorne that he would build an underwater canal and make the deserts bloom. Nothing ever came from any of these grandiose schemes, as Aerys was changeable and grew as bored with his ideas as quickly as they came to him.[4]

Still, the Seven Kingdoms prospered during Aerys's reign, due to his Hand of the King, for Tywin Lannister was everything Aerys was not. Lord Tywin was diligent, decisive, tireless, fiercely intelligent, just and stern. Eventually, Aerys came to regret his choice for Hand – not because of any lack of competence on Tywin's part, but rather the opposite.[4]He proved to be a brilliant administrator, and as Hand his reputation for brutal effectiveness became so well-known and so widely respected that popular rumor held it was Tywin, not Aerys, who truly ruled the realm."

"By now, Aerys had become aware of the tales being told in his Kingdoms; that it was Lord Tywin who truly ruled the Seven Kingdoms and that Aerys was but a hollow figurehead."

"At this tourney, Lord Tywin proposed a marriage between his daughter Cersei and Prince Rhaegar to King Aerys. However, Aerys's fear of Tywin's power and ambition led him to reject the offer rudely, saying that Tywin was a mere servant of the crown, and no servant's daughter was fit to marry a prince of royal blood."

<- Tywin wasn't a mere administrator, even King Aerys himself was afraid that Tywin's power may cost him his kingdom.

"He even stated to Pycelle that he could not dismiss Tywin as Hand, as Tywin would have him killed then as well."

True ruler wouldn't be afraid to dismiss someone who is a mere administrator.

He can. Because he appointed people loyal to him to all government posts. Nearly all court officials were his people, and not King's people. So he was the one who really ruled over 7K, while Aerys was just a figurehead.

On 20.09.2017 at 7:47 AM, darmody said:

He couldn't be king himself, unless he Roberted himself onto the throne. When people say he ruled as Hand they're speaking figuratively. Aerys demonstrated his superiority and rulership when he ordered Tywin's head be brought to him.

That was only by the end, when he was driven into corner, before that he was even afraid to dismiss him from his post, not to mention kill him.

On 20.09.2017 at 7:47 AM, darmody said:

He couldn't be king himself, unless he Roberted himself onto the throne.

Even though during Robert's rule, Tywin wasn't one of courts officials, he still managed to steal lots of money from state treasury. Crown's huge debt to Iron Bank was created by Tywin's long hands.

On 20.09.2017 at 7:47 AM, darmody said:

As for Cersei's queendom, she was indeed queen consort to Bobby B., queen regent for Joffrey (and Tommen? I can't remember), and briefly queen mother. But there's no reason for her to be queen regnent.

Unless she was going to announce that King Tommen appointed her as his Regent. After sept's explosion she planned to become Regent, keep Tomen secluded in Red Keep, and rule 7K in his place. So when he died, she just told everyone that previously King Tommen has chosen her as his Regent, thus even though now he died, she is rightful ruler, successor appointed by previous KIng. That's how she legitimised her becoming Queen of 7K.

On 20.09.2017 at 7:47 AM, darmody said:

Jaime supersedes her. He's not in the Kingsguard anymore, is heir to Casterly Rock (can't be anyone else we know of, anyway; Cersei's sons, Kevan, and Lancel are dead; Tyrion is a fugitive with a death sentence hanging over his head), and was Tommen's closest male relative (father-uncle). Plus, he was the one with the army at King's Landing after the poop hit the fan. 

Doesn't matter what are their ranks in Lannister family. Neither of them isn't heirs in crown line to Iron Throne, Cersei included. What gave power to Cersei is that she was King Tommen's mother, and if after his death she claimed that he appointed her as 7K's Regent, people won't challenge her. Afterwards they will definitely gossip behind her back, but no one would dare to say it to her face - "You killed your own son. He gave you away to Sparrows. So there's no way that he made you his Regent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×