Jump to content

The Book of Swords - The Sons of the Dragon SPOILERS


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

There should have been fans of Maegor because there were people who fought for Maegor when others did not. Like the lords who rallied to Maegor at the end with 4000 men, or the 4 Kingsguard who did not escape.

Those are not 'fans'. Those are people trapped in a situation where they cannot escape and feel they have to do their duty.

The Targaryens were popular with the smallfolk. But any love they may have felt for Maegor would have burned with the Sept of Remembrance. Afterwards it would have been fear and awe. And eventually hate and disgust.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

While the specific facts, like the precise whereabouts of Quicksilver after Aenys´ death should have been undisputed public knowledge, there must have been facts that were secret at the time and disputed afterwards. For example, did Maegor enter into negotiations with Aegon I,5 to get Aegon to give up his claim? Aegon I,5 was left alone in Westerlands for over a year. Addressing the threat by offer of negotiations would have made terms, yet if terms were in the end not reached, or were reached but remained unpublished till breached, that could be a matter of dispute.

That is not something that is discussed. But we have a pretty good hint that King Maegor did not negotiate. He wasn't the type for that. He made proclamations and issued ultimatums. When Alyssa Velaryon fled to Driftmark he did nothing. Because he knew that she and her children were no real threat to him and Visenya.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Or atrocities. There could easily be disputes as to whether a specific atrocity was purely unjustified fault of Maegor, purely justified by the victim/s being completely guilty of what Maegor accused them of, or a fault of a third party creating false accusations to Maegor.

But there isn't a lot of that stuff. And while there are some things - like the investigations in the Alys affair - Maegor was clearly not a person who cared who is executing right now. He just did it. There might be some additional slanders about him - like the story about Ceryse's death - but that doesn't change the character of the man.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

After all, once Harroways, Tyanna and Maegor were dead, they were unavailable for further vengeance. Meaning that the victims of Maegor´s atrocities had motives to point fingers at surviving henchmen of Maegor and accuse them not only of obeying Maegor when they shouldn´t have, but also of causing atrocities by deceiving Maegor to perpetrate them. And, on the other hand, the surviving henchmen had motives to point fingers at convenient scapegoats.

We don't know whether Alyssa and Lord Baratheon and Jaehaerys I conducted trials against Maegor's henchmen. It would be interesting to know. But the idea that Maegor was deceived by many men into committing atrocities doesn't sound very likely to me. Tyanna was capable of that with Alys, perhaps, but Maegor comes off as a Stalin- or Gregor-like character. There must have been such a climate of fear around that man that nobody would have dared to lie to him.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

How many people liked, for example, to scapegoat Tyanna and in the process whitewash Maegor?

Nobody whitewashed Maegor. Especially not the people living through his reign of terror. Why should they? Nobody liked the man, he died alone and abandoned, and was succeeded by the nephew he likely intended to kill. This is not the kind of man anyone would want to defend.

Even if Maegor did some good deeds - like deciding not to burn Oldtown - those are barely recognizable in the cruelties he inflicted on his people.

2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Honestly, I was really disappointed that there weren't more pitched battles during the Faith Militant Uprising.

It would have been good to see some more action in the Vale and the Reach, yes - especially in the latter due to the fact that they must have put down the pious lords and Faith Militant chapters there, as well as raising army to march against Oldtown. The idea that Maegor and Visenya entered Oldtown without any army simply because the Hightowers raised the Targaryen banner is as ridiculous as it sounds. That would be like Robb and Catelyn going to the Twins expecting that Lord Walder might kill them all.

But in general I like the fact that the Faith Militant had to go underground rather quickly. What we knew already indicated that no great house supported either the Faith or Prince Aegon, so it is hardly a surprise that they were broken when they lost the big battles.

It makes sense that the Starks kept themselves out of the mess - Torrhen's sons and grandsons couldn't care less about who ended up sitting the Iron Throne - but while I think about it it is very odd that the Manderlys didn't play a role in the Faith Militant uprising. There must have been Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows at White Harbor, or at least men supportive of their cause.

An episode involving such men - perhaps in combination with the Faith Militant from the Vale - could have been interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes sense that the Starks kept themselves out of the mess - Torrhen's sons and grandsons couldn't care less about who ended up sitting the Iron Throne - but while I think about it it is very odd that the Manderlys didn't play a role in the Faith Militant uprising. There must have been Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows at White Harbor, or at least men supportive of their cause.

An episode involving such men - perhaps in combination with the Faith Militant from the Vale - could have been interesting.

While i think there would have been people in White Harbor supportive of the Faith Militant i doubt they would have had chapters there. The Starks would probably not allow people that where hell bent on converting there people. After all allowing the Manderly's to keep to there own religion is one thing, but allowing active conversion is an other thing entierly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

While i think there would have been people in White Harbor supportive of the Faith Militant i doubt they would have had chapters there. The Starks would probably not allow people that where hell bent on converting there people. After all allowing the Manderly's to keep to there own religion is one thing, but allowing active conversion is an other thing entierly.

The Faith Militant are not missionaries. They protect the assets of the Faith and the followers of the Seven but they don't go around and forcefully convert people. The only episode where they did something like that was back during the last days of the Teague kings in the Riverlands.

And the Faith of the Andals rule in the lands of House Manderly. The Manderlys owe fealty to House Stark but they seem to have gotten the privilege to pray to their gods and worship them as they want on the lands the Kings in the North granted them.

Else the Faith wouldn't be as prevalent or as strong there as it is. Just recall Davos' White Harbor chapters.

Could be there were no Warrior's Sons in White Harbor and the Manderly lands - although I find that unlikely - but there most definitely would have been Poor Fellows. They were everywhere.

And the Starks' power to bar the Faith Militant entrance to the North - assuming they ever did that - would have been gone when Torrhen bent the knee. Forty years are a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are not 'fans'. Those are people trapped in a situation where they cannot escape and feel they have to do their duty.

They obviously practically could have escaped. The 4 Kingsguard could have joined the other 2 in defecting to Jaehaerys. They chose not to.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens were popular with the smallfolk. But any love they may have felt for Maegor would have burned with the Sept of Remembrance. Afterwards it would have been fear and awe. And eventually hate and disgust.

Yet Maegor led large land armies against Poor Fellows after Sept of Remembrance. It was 20 000 men he had then, not just the 4000. These 16 000 men could have chosen to disperse and not come, like they finally did. Then they did not.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the idea that Maegor was deceived by many men into committing atrocities doesn't sound very likely to me. Tyanna was capable of that with Alys, perhaps, but Maegor comes off as a Stalin- or Gregor-like character. There must have been such a climate of fear around that man that nobody would have dared to lie to him.

Maegor accused Tyanna of that - rightly or wrongly. People who survived Tyanna and Maegor could have blamed Tyanna for stuff which was actually Maegor´s own doing.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody whitewashed Maegor. Especially not the people living through his reign of terror. Why should they? Nobody liked the man, he died alone and abandoned, and was succeeded by the nephew he likely intended to kill. This is not the kind of man anyone would want to defend.

He´s a convenient scapegoat, yes. But there are other convenient ones. Like Tyanna.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes sense that the Starks kept themselves out of the mess - Torrhen's sons and grandsons couldn't care less about who ended up sitting the Iron Throne - but while I think about it it is very odd that the Manderlys didn't play a role in the Faith Militant uprising. There must have been Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows at White Harbor, or at least men supportive of their cause.

It would have made sense for them to enter the mess.

After all, if Faith Militant wins, what next? So far, South had been worshippers of Seven, but secular and squabbling Seven Kingdoms who usually left North alone. But now? Was Faith proposing any new secular kings for South?

If Faith would not tolerate Targaryens who called themselves worshippers of Seven but wanted to commit abominations, who´s to say that Faith with their new found power and fundamentalism would tolerate people who duly marry a single wife no closer than a cousin, but worship Old Gods? If Aenys and Maegor fall, would Blackwoods and Starks come next?

Pure consideration of being leal subjects of Targaryens and not having open military commitments at home to excuse tying down their forces would motivate Starks to send forces South to assist. The worries about Faith winning and turning on First Men would motivate Starks to do the best they safely could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Faith Militant are not missionaries. They protect the assets of the Faith and the followers of the Seven but they don't go around and forcefully convert people. The only episode where they did something like that was back during the last days of the Teague kings in the Riverlands.

And the Faith of the Andals rule in the lands of House Manderly. The Manderlys owe fealty to House Stark but they seem to have gotten the privilege to pray to their gods and worship them as they want on the lands the Kings in the North granted them.

Else the Faith wouldn't be as prevalent or as strong there as it is. Just recall Davos' White Harbor chapters.

Could be there were no Warrior's Sons in White Harbor and the Manderly lands - although I find that unlikely - but there most definitely would have been Poor Fellows. They were everywhere.

And the Starks' power to bar the Faith Militant entrance to the North - assuming they ever did that - would have been gone when Torrhen bent the knee. Forty years are a long time.

Missionaries convert peacebly fanatics forcebly and the Faith Militant were fanatics this is a establised fact in the books we hear of it every time someone speaks of them and there reputation. Hell we are told that the are implacable in there hatred for al enemy's of the faith, wich would be everyone who worships different gods, because the faith considers al other gods to be demons.

And the Faith does not rule the Manderly lands hell in the Davos chapters you yourself speak of we meet Ser Bartimus who still worships the old gods. Showing that even in the city itself there are worshippers of the old gods, and this is where the Faith would be the strongest the countryside would contain a much higher amount of people who decend of people who already lived there before the Manderly's and who with the North not having a strong Faith presence would have no reason to convert. Unless someone forces them off course but i do not think the Starks would allow that.

As to the Starks not being able to bar the Faith Militant from the North that really depends on the conditions under wich Torrhen bend the knee, there where negotiations before he did that, his bastard brother and three maesters represented him in those negotiations. I would think that one of the most important demands of Torrhen would be that his gods be respected and that the status quo would be respected meaning no Faith Militant in the North.

I find it higly unlikely there would have been anything other then sympathisers of the Faith Militant in the North.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are told that in united Westeros, with a region of 2000+ lords, a lord represents justice of King, and King is needed to make a Lord (while any knight can make a knight).

If Westerlands and Reach mobilized 600 Lords to Field of Fire, 2/3 of them from Reach, then likely Westerlands mobilized around 200 lords and had around 300 total. And North likewise.

It makes then sense that it took King to make a Lord in North.

Manderlies had 12 lords bannermen (and 100 landed knights).

So if pre-Conquest Manderlies wanted to promote a suitable candidate to a lord bannerman, as Arryns did with Baelish, had the lands to spare etc., they still needed permission of Stark.

If Manderlies wanted to make Faith, Militant or otherwise, their bannermen, they might have done so, but would have needed Stark approval.

And Stark could have insisted that all Lords in North enforce laws of the realm. Not laws of the Faith of Seven. A deal which may not have been palatable to either Faith or Starks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

They obviously practically could have escaped. The 4 Kingsguard could have joined the other 2 in defecting to Jaehaerys. They chose not to.

I guess they took the vow they swore to King Maegor seriously? Or they banded together and murdered the man...

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Yet Maegor led large land armies against Poor Fellows after Sept of Remembrance. It was 20 000 men he had then, not just the 4000. These 16 000 men could have chosen to disperse and not come, like they finally did. Then they did not.

Those men were the levies raised in the name of King Maegor by the lords of various regions. Those men owed fealty to their lords. Maegor wasn't even at the Battle of Stonebridge, personally. Back then, people were obviously more inclined to follow Maegor because they didn't yet have the full picture of the man.

And you seem to forget that the Tyanna and Alys brought a decent number of sellswords with them from Pentos. But it is quite clear that nobody cheered Maegor anymore after he burned the Sept of Remembrance. That was over. And when Maegor later killed all those craftsmen and workers from KL who had built his castle the entire city must have grown to hate him.

Pretty much every denizen of KL must have known someone who lost a relative or a friend in that slaughter.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Maegor accused Tyanna of that - rightly or wrongly. People who survived Tyanna and Maegor could have blamed Tyanna for stuff which was actually Maegor´s own doing.

Who cares what they could have done? There is no reason that any of them did.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

It would have made sense for them to enter the mess.

No, if the Faith had taken care of the abominations and their dragons the Starks could have just crowned themselves again. Chances are not that good that the Faith would have been able to conquer the North. Assuming the High Septon would have been able to establish some sort of theocratic rule. The great houses were still all around, you know.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Missionaries convert peacebly fanatics forcebly and the Faith Militant were fanatics this is a establised fact in the books we hear of it every time someone speaks of them and there reputation. Hell we are told that the are implacable in there hatred for al enemy's of the faith, wich would be everyone who worships different gods, because the faith considers al other gods to be demons.

You are not making much sense here. The consensus is that the old gods are getting a pass there, because most great houses - and the majority of the people of Westeros - are of First Men descent. They don't shit on their roots, so to speak. They may no longer worship the old gods but they did not completely break with the old traditions, either. Else no castle in the south would have any ancient godswoods left.

This is not Christianity vs. the evil heathens, it is a more nuanced approach. There were very few religious wars in Westerosi history. Most First Men converted to the Seven out of pragmatic and tactical reasons, not because they were forced to do so.

The Faith does not see the old gods as 'demons' nor does it see the followers of the old gods as their enemies.

The last Teague king went too far in that regard and that led to trouble. Chances are that the Manderlys would keep the Faith Militant in territories in line. Usually religions are all about religious tolerance when they are not the majority. In the North they would not be the majority. But, sure, being ruled by the Manderlys would have led to many people living there converting to the Seven. At least technically. You can pray in the sept and in front of a tree. That is not mutually exclusive.

People all over Westeros often swear by the old gods and the new. That makes it very clear that you can worship and pray to both of them.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

And the Faith does not rule the Manderly lands hell in the Davos chapters you yourself speak of we meet Ser Bartimus who still worships the old gods. Showing that even in the city itself there are worshippers of the old gods, and this is where the Faith would be the strongest the countryside would contain a much higher amount of people who decend of people who already lived there before the Manderly's and who with the North not having a strong Faith presence would have no reason to convert. Unless someone forces them off course but i do not think the Starks would allow that.

There are followers of the old gods in the Manderly lands, yes, but the Faith still rules there. The Manderlys and most of the vassals and knights are devout followers of the Seven. That doesn't mean that there can't be any followers of the old gods on their lands. Just as there are quite a few followers of the Seven at Winterfell and in other regions of the North. Technically most of the knights in the North - even Ser Bartimus - would have paid lip service to the Seven - because the proper way to become a knight is to stand vigil in a sept, and be anointed with holy oil, etc.

Vice versa, we also have some followers of the old gods down in the South - like the Blackwoods. And they might not be alone in there. If you live in a castle where there is an ancient weirwood heart tree in the godswood this very fact may have an effect on you. And if you are the lord of the castle then nobody is going to be able to tell you what you can or can't do in your own castle.

If the septons and septas had the power to prevent those people from honoring those old gods then it is rather odd that they weren't able to convince them to burn those places - like Mel does with Stannis.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

As to the Starks not being able to bar the Faith Militant from the North that really depends on the conditions under wich Torrhen bend the knee, there where negotiations before he did that, his bastard brother and three maesters represented him in those negotiations. I would think that one of the most important demands of Torrhen would be that his gods be respected and that the status quo would be respected meaning no Faith Militant in the North.

Why should he care so much about religious concerns? And nobody said anything about the Faith Militant coming to the North at large. Just to White Harbor and the Manderly lands which effectively are 'Andal land' or 'Faith land' in the North.

The idea that Torrhen thought this Aegon chap cared all that much about the Faith of the Andals is also rather strange. The man wasn't an Andal, and he practiced incest and polygamy which are practices condemned by the Faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody who collected a reward for an alleged head of Faith Militant served Maegor voluntarily. It was not a punishable crime even under Maegor to encounter no Faith Militant and thus have no heads to earn coin for.

And the genuineness of these heads was suspect - a number of alleged heads of Faith Militant for whom Maegor duly paid rewards are suspected to have been innocent bystanders.

The decision to kill an innocent man and present his head to Maegor as one of a Poor Fellow was a decision many people in Westeros did, and they did it for their own benefit, not to save their skins.

Which means that when individual Faith-Militant-hunters were questioned under Jaehaerys about the heads they had taken, it was in their interest to assert that the heads had been Faith Militant to the best of their knowledge and that Maegor was right to hunt Faith Militant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collecting coin from a cruel king doesn't make you love that king. It is pretty clear that people took advantage of Maegor's decision to outlaw the Faith Militant but that is a completely separate issue. It is like assuming you have to be a great Hitler fan to rat out some Jews to the Nazis whose houses, property, positions, etc. you might get in return. You can just be an opportunistic ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Collecting coin from a cruel king doesn't make you love that king. It is pretty clear that people took advantage of Maegor's decision to outlaw the Faith Militant but that is a completely separate issue. It is like assuming you have to be a great Hitler fan to rat out some Jews to the Nazis whose houses, property, positions, etc. you might get in return. You can just be an opportunistic ass.

Yes, but it does not sound good to confess to being an opportunistic ass afterwards.

One way to deny that you were an opportunistic ass is to assert that Maegor was right all along. (Unless you are right in that you really believed Maegor in the first place and were not an opportunistic ass).

Jaehaerys did NOT restore Faith Militant. Which means his Conciliation must have included conciliating Maegor´s fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Yes, but it does not sound good to confess to being an opportunistic ass afterwards.

One way to deny that you were an opportunistic ass is to assert that Maegor was right all along. (Unless you are right in that you really believed Maegor in the first place and were not an opportunistic ass).

Jaehaerys did NOT restore Faith Militant. Which means his Conciliation must have included conciliating Maegor´s fans.

Why should Jaehaerys I restore the Faith Militant? They were fighting all the abominations, not just Maegor. Jaehaerys I and the Faith Militant weren't friends.

You are imagining there were trials and the like against Maegor's cronies. You have no textual evidence for any of that.

Jaehaerys I stopped the bounties on the Poor Fellows and Warrior's Sons. But he didn't revoke Maegor's laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should Jaehaerys I restore the Faith Militant? They were fighting all the abominations, not just Maegor. Jaehaerys I and the Faith Militant weren't friends.

You are imagining there were trials and the like against Maegor's cronies. You have no textual evidence for any of that.

Jaehaerys I stopped the bounties on the Poor Fellows and Warrior's Sons. But he didn't revoke Maegor's laws.

Not trials as in criminal prosecution for wrongdoing, probably.

Think of the aftermath of Blackfyre Rebellions. Baelor Breakspear and Daeron Falseborn were merciful. Yet 15 years later, in Sworn Sword, 16 years later, in Mystery Knight, we see old partisans of both sides still arguing how they were right all along. And exiles who had declined the opportunity to return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4.11.2017 at 9:23 PM, Jaak said:

Think of the aftermath of Blackfyre Rebellions. Baelor Breakspear and Daeron Falseborn were merciful. Yet 15 years later, in Sworn Sword, 16 years later, in Mystery Knight, we see old partisans of both sides still arguing how they were right all along. And exiles who had declined the opportunity to return.

Those are completely different scenarios. For one, Maegor didn't unsuccessfully rebel against a crowned and anointed king, nor was he defeated and slain in the field. Maegor seized an empty throne and received the blessing of the gods not once but twice - when he won the Trial of Seven and when he was anointed by the High Septon. In a sense he stole the throne of Prince Aegon - but he did not rebel against him. And Maegor's victory over Aegon can also be seen as a divine sign, too.

The remnants of Maegor's followers can say that he was the rightful king - until he wasn't anymore. Daemon Blackfyre's followers can only say that Daemon should have been/be king, not that he was.

In addition, those men weren't all pardoned or anything. Daeron II didn't show them any leniency. He didn't execute all of them, but that is not something to be expected in a civilized society. If you bend the knee and give up your treason and hand over some hostages you can expect to return into the king's peace. Unless, of course, you are one of the main instigators of a rebellion, or some kind of vile war criminal. Mere followers can expect to get away with their lives out of such endeavors. Even Tywin and Bloodraven understand that. Tywin tries to teach Joffrey that you have to show leniency to those of your enemies who bend the knee.

And even the (supposedly) bloodthirsty Bloodraven did only execute the core group of conspirators around Daemon the Younger - Gormon Peake among them. Butterwell and Frey got away with their lives - and Frey with much more than that, actually - while Dunk out Alyn Cockshaw and Tommard Heddle, two of the other main conspirators. There were some more, but Bloodraven didn't exactly put down all the men he captured at Whitewalls, did he? Despite the fact that he could have easily done so.

Maegor isn't the kind of guy anyone would idealize after his pitiful end. His very death on the Iron Throne showed that he was no longer fit - or perhaps had never been fit - to be a king.

The issue with the Faith Militant were more complex. The Faith despised all the abominations, not just Maegor. We see this when Aenys and Aegon/Rhaena and their children are condemned by the High Septon, too. The people following - and abandoning - Maegor in the end would have been welcomed into the king's peace by the new King Jaehaerys. But the Faith only if it gave up their futile resistance against the Targaryens as a whole.

It will be interesting to see how Alyssa and Lord Baratheon and Jaehaerys I dealt with Septon Moon and Ser Joffrey Doggett. The latter could have retired honorably considering that he ended up joining with the Tullys. The former might have met his end at Oldtown - or he may have ended up as the new High Septon in a frenzy following the death of Maegor. If he did the office would have forced him to change his radical policies in the face of reality.

On 4.11.2017 at 0:11 PM, Jaak said:

If Manderlies wanted to make Faith, Militant or otherwise, their bannermen, they might have done so, but would have needed Stark approval.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. For one, the Faith had its own hierarchy and command structure, independent from the lordly or even royal command structure.

The Manderlys wouldn't have made members of the Faith Militant. Those were religious military orders which men could join. You would go to a chapter, or the representative of a chapter - or the High Septon or a septon associated with the order - and then you would do what was required of you to join that order - most likely to swear a Night's Watch/Kingsguard-like vow of absolute loyalty to the Voice of the Seven on Earth as well as forsaking lands, titles, wives, family, etc. to join the Warrior's Son, and a somewhat more modest commitment if you joined the Poor Fellows (which would mean that you also give up all your worldly possessions).

With this essentially being a religious calling the Starks - or any king in Westeros - could only stop that if they would curb religious freedom and tolerance in their lands - which they explicitly did not do in the Manderly lands. At least not where the Faith of the Andals was concerned.

It would also not be the business of Lord Manderly to stop a knight or nobleman in his lands - or even in his service - from joining the Faith Militant. We see that even Kevan cannot stop Lancel from doing that. That would be interfering with the Faith's own affair, something the pious Manderlys are not all that likely to do.

Now, the Manderlys certainly could forbid or prevent the Warrior's Sons from establishing a chapter house in their city - or on their lands - but that isn't the same as no Warrior's Sons being there. People do travel. And there may have even been some Warrior's Sons with the Manderlys when they first sailed north. We don't know. What we do know is that many archaic Reach traditions from before the Conquest survived in the North in the Manderly lands - the Order of the Green Hand, for instance - so it is not unlikely that they would also have kept some Warrior's Sons there.

And the Poor Fellows essentially went wherever they wanted. They protected the smallfolk on their travels, etc. I don't think there were many of them in the North - after all, nobody in the South actually thinks there is anything of value in the North - but there might have been some in the Manderly lands, helping to protect pilgrims from White Harbor on their long walks to the holy city of Oldtown. One assumes that quite a few the people who came north with the Manderlys didn't want to be completely separated from the Andal traditions of the south. Could very well be that there was a road leading from White Harbor to the Neck which was completely in Manderly-controlled territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor isn't the kind of guy anyone would idealize after his pitiful end. His very death on the Iron Throne showed that he was no longer fit - or perhaps had never been fit - to be a king.

The issue with the Faith Militant were more complex. The Faith despised all the abominations, not just Maegor. We see this when Aenys and Aegon/Rhaena and their children are condemned by the High Septon, too. The people following - and abandoning - Maegor in the end would have been welcomed into the king's peace by the new King Jaehaerys. But the Faith only if it gave up their futile resistance against the Targaryens as a whole.

It will be interesting to see how Alyssa and Lord Baratheon and Jaehaerys I dealt with Septon Moon and Ser Joffrey Doggett. The latter could have retired honorably considering that he ended up joining with the Tullys. The former might have met his end at Oldtown - or he may have ended up as the new High Septon in a frenzy following the death of Maegor. If he did the office would have forced him to change his radical policies in the face of reality.

After Maegor´s end, there was the matter of his laws. And their beneficiaries. Like Webbers.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make a lot of sense. For one, the Faith had its own hierarchy and command structure, independent from the lordly or even royal command structure.

The Manderlys wouldn't have made members of the Faith Militant. Those were religious military orders which men could join. You would go to a chapter, or the representative of a chapter - or the High Septon or a septon associated with the order - and then you would do what was required of you to join that order - most likely to swear a Night's Watch/Kingsguard-like vow of absolute loyalty to the Voice of the Seven on Earth as well as forsaking lands, titles, wives, family, etc. to join the Warrior's Son, and a somewhat more modest commitment if you joined the Poor Fellows (which would mean that you also give up all your worldly possessions).

With this essentially being a religious calling the Starks - or any king in Westeros - could only stop that if they would curb religious freedom and tolerance in their lands - which they explicitly did not do in the Manderly lands. At least not where the Faith of the Andals was concerned.

Give up to whom?

Walking away from your family empty-handed like Lord Jeor Mormont did is one thing. Leave Bear Isle and Longclaw to Jorah, so Staks keep their bannermen, just a different family member.

But Starks also gave Brandon´s Gift, and later Alysanne´s Gift to Night Watch permanently. Without military service obligations - Watch is forbidden to rally to Stark banners to defend Neck against Andals, or Bear Isle against Ironmen. Even Skagos seems to be interpreted as part of Seven Kingdoms, against whom Watch may not fight, rather than wildings against whom they must.

Suppose that a Mormont, an Umber or a Karstark wanted to donate his whole holdings to Watch as a new Gift, making an end of his House, forever dispossessing his heirs and depriving Starks of services owed to them. Would he need Stark approval for this?

Suppose that the Umber or Karstark or Norrey wants to donate just a part of clan lands to Watch - again, as Gift, no service to North owed. Would that need approval of Stark?

And now suppose that Manderly wants to donate some of his lands to Faith Militant chapter. Would that require Stark approval, the same as Karstarks or Umbers might need Stark approval to donate some lands to Night Watch?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And the Poor Fellows essentially went wherever they wanted. They protected the smallfolk on their travels, etc. I don't think there were many of them in the North - after all, nobody in the South actually thinks there is anything of value in the North - but there might have been some in the Manderly lands, helping to protect pilgrims from White Harbor on their long walks to the holy city of Oldtown. One assumes that quite a few the people who came north with the Manderlys didn't want to be completely separated from the Andal traditions of the south. Could very well be that there was a road leading from White Harbor to the Neck which was completely in Manderly-controlled territory.

Yes, but that´s a jurisdictional question.

A pilgrim walks back Oldtown to White Harbour. In Andalos, in Frey lands, a local lord or a Frey bastard accuses the pilgrim of being a vagrant and a thief.

(Might be true. Might be a pilgrim who runs short of alms and steals to survive. Or a thief who repented his sins and went on a pilgrimage to atone. Or might be a false suspicion.)

A Poor Fellow interferes to protect the pilgrim. And gets accused as an accomplice of a robber band.

Who will sort out the dispute on the Frey side? A secular lord? Or a Faith court, on grounds that Faith has jurisdiction over Poor Fellows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2017 at 2:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

Why should he care so much about religious concerns? And nobody said anything about the Faith Militant coming to the North at large. Just to White Harbor and the Manderly lands which effectively are 'Andal land' or 'Faith land' in the North.

The idea that Torrhen thought this Aegon chap cared all that much about the Faith of the Andals is also rather strange. The man wasn't an Andal, and he practiced incest and polygamy which are practices condemned by the Faith.

That is a weak argument, he cares because he believes in the old gods and he would want to make sure that his religion is respected. Manderly lands are not Andal lands in the North, they are lands given to a Lord of Andal decent. But we know for a fact that there where already First Men living there so at most its a mixed land, but under the  First men Overlordship of House Stark, who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing an armed force not under there control or sworn to them in there lands. 

Aegon made a show of his respect for the Faith, we are actually told he threaded carefully when it came to the Faith. Also the Targaryens had converted to the Faith at least officially. So Torrhen had every reason to make sure his gods where respected by this man and his new regime.

The negotiations about Torrhens surrender took a while and there where many messages going back and forth before Torrhen knelt, these messages would have been about the conditions for Torrhen's surrender. There is no reason to assume they ignored the fact that they believed in different Gods and the consequences of this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaak said:

After Maegor´s end, there was the matter of his laws. And their beneficiaries. Like Webbers.

Maegor's laws had little to do with that. Maegor took lands away from the Osgreys for their support of the Faith Militant. Any king can - and does - do that. And usually his successor doesn't restore such lands unless it is some civil war scenario during which the successor king was supported by the guy who lost some lands.

But this wasn't the case there.

Maegor isn't seen as a false king or pretender. He actually sat the Iron Throne and ruled the Seven Kingdoms for over six years. His laws and decrees did stand.

7 hours ago, Jaak said:

Give up to whom?

You don't seem to understand. If you join the Faith Militant you give up your lands and titles - just as you do when you become a septon, a maester, or join the NW or the KG. We see this with Lancel. He is not a knight of the Warrior's Sons and the Lord of Darry right now, he is just a knight of the Warrior's Sons.

The idea that a lord can hand over his entire lordship to the Faith - or an order of the Faith - without the permission of his liege lord/king doesn't seem to be the case. After all, the king technically owns all the land in his kingdom. However, the Faith is very wealthy, even after it lost its military arm and its judiciary privileges. But then, lands can also be bought and sold. You can sell part of the lands belonging to your lordship.

Someone must have given the Faith all the lands, septries, villages, etc. it still controls. And those people were, presumably, pious lords and kings in the ancient days. Not to mention many pious warriors among the original Andals establishing the first septries, etc. when they conquered the Seven Kingdoms.

And like things are with the real world church - land and property once handed to the Faith would remain in the possession of 'the Seven' forever. It is pretty clear that the whole point of those Faith courts was to ensure that no lord - or king - ever accusing a member of the Faith of wrongdoing or a crime would get property back his dear old senile grandfather had willed to this or that order of the Faith on his deathbed - at least according to the septon who was there to hear his last words (or who draw up his last will).

7 hours ago, Jaak said:

And now suppose that Manderly wants to donate some of his lands to Faith Militant chapter. Would that require Stark approval, the same as Karstarks or Umbers might need Stark approval to donate some lands to Night Watch?

If it is just a small section of land and on the same level as the many other institutions of the Faith that should own land and property in White Harbor and the Manderly lands - mother houses, septries, etc., for instance - then I don't see any reason why Lord Manderly should ask permission from the Starks (or later the Starks and the Targaryens) for that.

He could not make a new lord, but there is no indication that a chapter of the Warrior's Sons was operating on the same legal level as a lordship. It would have been a grant of land or a gift to a religious order.

And especially in the city of White Harbor that should have been able to happen. I mean, there are red priests in the city of Oldtown who apparently had the coin and the permission of the pious Hightowers to buy themselves some property there.

White Harbor would be a very totalitarian city if followers of the same religion of the Manderlys couldn't buy - been given - a chapter house there.

7 hours ago, Jaak said:

Who will sort out the dispute on the Frey side? A secular lord? Or a Faith court, on grounds that Faith has jurisdiction over Poor Fellows?

Obviously the latter. Interests of the Faith are concerned there.

And there are no 'secular lords' in this world. In the end, the ultimate authorities of these people - be they followers or the old or the new gods - are the gods. Kings rule in the name of gods, noblemen and commoners alike swear in the name of gods, trial-by-combats are decided by the will of the gods, etc.

Specific Faith courts dealt with the private affairs with the Faith - which would also include all affairs of the Faith had with people who were not members of the Faith - but the Faith - and the customs and traditions of the old gods - also influenced all the other court decisions.

Even lords and kings personally not believing in any gods would have to pay lip service to the religious traditions of their land - just as Trump and the other members of the US elite to today to keep the rabble in line they control - so that they do not give them reasons to rebel.

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

That is a weak argument, he cares because he believes in the old gods and he would want to make sure that his religion is respected.

We have no reason to believe that King Torrhen was particularly pious, nor that he had any reason to believe the point of King Aegon's war of conquest was to convert the Northmen to the Faith of the Andals.

In fact, the Andals were never a missionary bunch, unlike Christianity. If they were, then the Faith would continue to spread to other regions as well, and the High Septon would send missionaries to the Summer Islands, the Free Cities, Ib, etc. But there is nothing of that in this series.

The Andals came to Westeros because they were threatened by the Valyrian advance in Essos and because they believed their gods had promised them those lands in the west to rule. They went there to carve out (new) kingdoms for themselves.

There were zealots and fanatics among them, but it is quite clear that they had more issues with the Children than the First Men. They slaughtered and destroyed the former, not the latter. Many First Men - especially the ruling houses - switched religions for pragmatic reasons. And we know that especially the first Andal kings - as well as those First Men kings who converted to the Faith - had the good sense to ensure that there were no lasting conflicts over religion. The worship of the old gods in the south just quietly died over the centuries. But the signs of the old religions - the godswoods of the ancient castles - are still there. They were never destroyed. That shows that things were much different here than in our world when the early Christians forcefully converted the followers of many other religions and actively destroyed their temples and other places of worship.

In that sense the idea that Torrhen would have thought Aegon had any issues with his religion - or was fighting a crusade in the name of the Seven - is pretty much without basis, especially in light of the fact that we have no textual evidence that the old gods ever came up in his negotiations with Aegon.

But even if it did come up - Aegon had the upper hand there. If Aegon had pushed Torrhen to allow septon and septa missionaries into the North then Torrhen wouldn't have had any means to stop him, right?

But then - there is no reason to believe this was really an issue. The First Men of the Andal kingdoms had given up their old religious practices but they had not cut their ties with their ancient past. The overwhelming consensus of most of the people of Westeros seem to be that following the old gods is perfectly fine. It is not what most people do, but it is not something you look down upon, either. It is strange and somewhat backwards but it is no demon-worship or fundamentally wrong.

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

Manderly lands are not Andal lands in the North, they are lands given to a Lord of Andal decent. But we know for a fact that there where already First Men living there so at most its a mixed land, but under the  First men Overlordship of House Stark, who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing an armed force not under there control or sworn to them in there lands. 

Newsflash: There are First Men everywhere in Westeros. The people of the South call themselves Andals because they adopted their religion, customs, laws, etc. but they are still predominantly First Men.

And the Manderlys are also a house of First Men ancestry. After all, we do know that the Mander supposedly got its name from them, right?

The Starks can't expect to control or know about all armed men in their lands. 

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

Aegon made a show of his respect for the Faith, we are actually told he threaded carefully when it came to the Faith. Also the Targaryens had converted to the Faith at least officially. So Torrhen had every reason to make sure his gods where respected by this man and his new regime.

That is something that only came up when Aegon actually sat the Iron Throne - which he did not when Torrhen bent the knee to him. By the time Torrhen knelt there was no way to know how Aegon would deal with Oldtown. He could have burned the city. And then he would have never tread carefully around the Faith, would he?

But since Aegon was actually treading carefully around the Faith during his reign - what do you think would have happened if the High Septon had sent a group of Warrior's Sons to Oldtown? Would Aegon have allowed that or refused that on the basis of promises he may or may have not made to Torrhen Stark?

As Aegon/Aenys show the Targaryens had the power not only to force a group of people to accept the followers of another religion among them but also to remove representatives of the majority religions from the Iron Islands.

But as I said it above - I find the idea ridiculous that there can be red temples in Oldtown but not chapters of the Warrior's Sons - or houses controlled by the Poor Fellows - in White Harbor, a city dominated and controlled by followers of the Seven. That just doesn't make any sense.

A city usually is somewhat cosmopolitan.

4 hours ago, direpupy said:

The negotiations about Torrhens surrender took a while and there where many messages going back and forth before Torrhen knelt, these messages would have been about the conditions for Torrhen's surrender. There is no reason to assume they ignored the fact that they believed in different Gods and the consequences of this fact.

Sure, but religious tolerance usually does not imply religious conservatisms or the enshrinement of ancient customs. It means that people can follow whatever gods they choose. The idea that Aegon decided that no septons or septas could go to the North or that no Northman could convert to the Seven (or no follower of the Seven to the belief of the old gods) is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

1)We have no reason to believe that King Torrhen was particularly pious, nor that he had any reason to believe the point of King Aegon's war of conquest was to convert the Northmen to the Faith of the Andals.

2)in fact, the Andals were never a missionary bunch, unlike Christianity. If they were, then the Faith would continue to spread to other regions as well, and the High Septon would send missionaries to the Summer Islands, the Free Cities, Ib, etc. But there is nothing of that in this series.

3)The Andals came to Westeros because they were threatened by the Valyrian advance in Essos and because they believed their gods had promised them those lands in the west to rule. They went there to carve out (new) kingdoms for themselves.

4)There were zealots and fanatics among them, but it is quite clear that they had more issues with the Children than the First Men. They slaughtered and destroyed the former, not the latter. Many First Men - especially the ruling houses - switched religions for pragmatic reasons. And we know that especially the first Andal kings - as well as those First Men kings who converted to the Faith - had the good sense to ensure that there were no lasting conflicts over religion. The worship of the old gods in the south just quietly died over the centuries. But the signs of the old religions - the godswoods of the ancient castles - are still there. They were never destroyed. That shows that things were much different here than in our world when the early Christians forcefully converted the followers of many other religions and actively destroyed their temples and other places of worship.

5)In that sense the idea that Torrhen would have thought Aegon had any issues with his religion - or was fighting a crusade in the name of the Seven - is pretty much without basis, especially in light of the fact that we have no textual evidence that the old gods ever came up in his negotiations with Aegon.

6)But even if it did come up - Aegon had the upper hand there. If Aegon had pushed Torrhen to allow septon and septa missionaries into the North then Torrhen wouldn't have had any means to stop him, right?

7)But then - there is no reason to believe this was really an issue. The First Men of the Andal kingdoms had given up their old religious practices but they had not cut their ties with their ancient past. The overwhelming consensus of most of the people of Westeros seem to be that following the old gods is perfectly fine. It is not what most people do, but it is not something you look down upon, either. It is strange and somewhat backwards but it is no demon-worship or fundamentally wrong.

8)Newsflash: There are First Men everywhere in Westeros. The people of the South call themselves Andals because they adopted their religion, customs, laws, etc. but they are still predominantly First Men.

9)And the Manderlys are also a house of First Men ancestry. After all, we do know that the Mander supposedly got its name from them, right?

10)The Starks can't expect to control or know about all armed men in their lands. 

11)That is something that only came up when Aegon actually sat the Iron Throne - which he did not when Torrhen bent the knee to him. By the time Torrhen knelt there was no way to know how Aegon would deal with Oldtown. He could have burned the city. And then he would have never tread carefully around the Faith, would he?

12)But since Aegon was actually treading carefully around the Faith during his reign - what do you think would have happened if the High Septon had sent a group of Warrior's Sons to Oldtown? Would Aegon have allowed that or refused that on the basis of promises he may or may have not made to Torrhen Stark?

13)As Aegon/Aenys show the Targaryens had the power not only to force a group of people to accept the followers of another religion among them but also to remove representatives of the majority religions from the Iron Islands.

14)But as I said it above - I find the idea ridiculous that there can be red temples in Oldtown but not chapters of the Warrior's Sons - or houses controlled by the Poor Fellows - in White Harbor, a city dominated and controlled by followers of the Seven. That just doesn't make any sense.

15)A city usually is somewhat cosmopolitan.

16)Sure, but religious tolerance usually does not imply religious conservatisms or the enshrinement of ancient customs. It means that people can follow whatever gods they choose. The idea that Aegon decided that no septons or septas could go to the North or that no Northman could convert to the Seven (or no follower of the Seven to the belief of the old gods) is ridiculous.

1)We also have no reason to assume that he was not pious.

2)they converted the entire south so that is certainly not true.

3) to carve new kingdoms out in a land promised to them by there gods gee that sounds familiar, ever heard of the crusades? secular men fighting in the name of religion and such.

4) I got news for you, half of the christian holidays are stolen from the pagans they converted, so the godswoods surviving is actually a parallel to christian conversion methods. Also converting kings in the hopes that there people will follow is also a historical trick of the christian faith so there is an other parallel to conversion there two.

5) we also have no evidence that they did not come up in the negotiations, and Aegon may not have been on a crusade himself but what of the guy who would follow him, Torrhen could not be sure about what Aegon's successor would do, and since he bent his knee to protect his people from unnecessary slaughter so he does seem like a guy who would think about future treats to them.

6) You argue that Aegon did not care for the Faith and was not on some crusade,so in that light what would he want more Torrhen and his 30000 men to join him in exchange for a promise to respect there religion or an unnecessary battle.

7) It is not an issue for the peasant who only cares about his harvest but to the Faith Militant come on that is the same cop out argument of before, they are fanatics we actually get an example of them supporting suppression of the Old Gods in the Riverlands. This is just you being stubborn because you don't like people shooting down your idea's.

8) Thats right converted First men so there goes your argument that the Faith does not convert, and your argument that Torrhen did not have to be concerned about conversion.

9) true enough a converted First Men house more then enough reason to fear conversion among your own houses best take precousions against it.

10) You really think that nobody is going to tell the Starks that there are religious fanatics of a different religion roaming around there lands, come on that is not something you can hide for long. This is again you being stubborn because you don't like people shooting down your idea's.

11) No he converted to the Faith before he landed at the Blackwater so he was already trying to curry favor.

12) Treading carefully is one thing but breaking a promise is an whole other cane of worms, if his word meant nothing that would have coused more trouble then its worth.

13) you just proved your own argument in the point above is invalid, by pointing out they could and did remove the faith from the Iron Islands so why would debarring  the Faith from the North be any different. 

14) A dockside temple for foreigners to worship in and armed fanatics are two different things, and we don't know when that temple was build it could be after the Faith Militant was gone, and last but not least Oldtown is not White Harbor so things possible in one does not mean they are possible in they other.

15)City yes, lands around it not really. But my main objection against this is how is this relevant to the discussion. Because it is not.

16) they only thing that is ridiculous is the thought that they did not discuss this in there negotiations since it is a pretty big thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

1)We also have no reason to assume that he was not pious.

You raised that point, so it is up to you to prove that this is the case. The fact that Aegon and Torrhen negotiated doesn't give us any evidence about what exactly they negotiated.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

2)they converted the entire south so that is certainly not true.

The First Men converted and andalized themselves. There was never a forced conversion going on there. Even in the Vale the foolish Shetts began it by actually making a show out of their conversion in an attempt to suck up to the Andals. And later all the First Men kings - the Lannisters, Durrandons, Gardeners - all converted of their own free will. Changing their religion was a way to keep their power, not something they cared about in and of themselves.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

3) to carve new kingdoms out in a land promised to them by there gods gee that sounds familiar, ever heard of the crusades? secular men fighting in the name of religion and such.

The people fighting the crusades were not 'secular men'. Nobody in the European middle ages was 'secular'. Everyone was religious. There was just a difference between the clerical class and the normal mortals.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

4) I got news for you, half of the christian holidays are stolen from the pagans they converted, so the godswoods surviving is actually a parallel to christian conversion methods. Also converting kings in the hopes that there people will follow is also a historical trick of the christian faith so there is an other parallel to conversion there two.

Those holidays are now all Christian holidays, are they not? Their origins are irrelevant. The Westerosi godswoods are still the godswoods of the old gods. They have not been high-jacked or usurped by the Seven. If things had gone the way they went in our world there would be no castle godswoods around in the South, or they would all be used to worship the Seven now.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

5) we also have no evidence that they did not come up in the negotiations, and Aegon may not have been on a crusade himself but what of the guy who would follow him, Torrhen could not be sure about what Aegon's successor would do, and since he bent his knee to protect his people from unnecessary slaughter so he does seem like a guy who would think about future treats to them.

That would mean that Torrhen actually gave a shit about preserving the ancient traditions of the North. Can you prove that this came up in the negotiations. What would have concerned him is to be allowed to keep Winterfell and some semblance of power in the North. He did not negotiate with Aegon from a perspective of strength, no?

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

6) You argue that Aegon did not care for the Faith and was not on some crusade,so in that light what would he want more Torrhen and his 30000 men to join him in exchange for a promise to respect there religion or an unnecessary battle.

Again, we don't know whether religion came up. Aegon most likely allowed the Northmen to keep their gods, but that doesn't mean he is going to forbid them from changing it. And the Starks also allowed the Manderys to convert the Northmen living on their lands - or rather: they allowed them to change their religion as they saw fit.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

7) It is not an issue for the peasant who only cares about his harvest but to the Faith Militant come on that is the same cop out argument of before, they are fanatics we actually get an example of them supporting suppression of the Old Gods in the Riverlands. This is just you being stubborn because you don't like people shooting down your idea's.

And the older Andals were even more zealous than the last Teague king. So what? Those are wars of the distant past. The Faith Militant never went around and forced people to conform to some sort of theocracy. Westeros was never Iran, or Puritan New England, Calvinistic Geneva. 

The Faith Militant didn't have the power to force the Andal lords to fight against the Targaryens. How on earth do you think they could have had the power to forcefully convert any Nothmen when they were an utter minority up there?

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

8) Thats right converted First men so there goes your argument that the Faith does not convert, and your argument that Torrhen did not have to be concerned about conversion.

They all did it by themselves. They were not forced. Not even the Royces or any of the other First Men houses who lost to Artys Arryn.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

9) true enough a converted First Men house more then enough reason to fear conversion among your own houses best take precousions against it.

Why should they? Nothing indicates that there are any religious fanatics or zealots among the Northmen. In fact, even the Starks accept the term 'old gods' which indicates that, by and far, their beliefs and gods are a thing of the past, no?

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

10) You really think that nobody is going to tell the Starks that there are religious fanatics of a different religion roaming around there lands, come on that is not something you can hide for long. This is again you being stubborn because you don't like people shooting down your idea's.

The Starks actually married quite a few Manderlys and Royces themselves. They obviously don't care about the beliefs of the people they intermarry with. Why should they not allow the Manderlys to have some Faith Militant people on their lands - assuming they had the right or power to prevent them from doing so. They did allow the Manderlys themselves into their lands, and they brought pious knights and septons and septas with them.

You do know that there is essentially no real difference between a deeply pious knight and a knight of the Warrior's Sons. They can have exactly the same world view. And it is quite clear that quite a few of the Manderly knights are pious followers of the Seven.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

11) No he converted to the Faith before he landed at the Blackwater so he was already trying to curry favor.

Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms with dragonfire and steel, not by carrying favor with the majority religion. And he did antagonize them, you know, with his incestuous polygamous marriage.

Aegon and his sister-wives following the Seven was actually pretty much a joke. You are not following a religion properly if you insist on continuously committing two major sins which abominable in the eyes of the Seven.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

12) Treading carefully is one thing but breaking a promise is an whole other cane of worms, if his word meant nothing that would have coused more trouble then its worth.

How do you know that? The Starks were in no position to challenge the Targaryens. Aegon had very large dragons. Dragons that multiplied during reigns of his sons and grandson.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

13) you just proved your own argument in the point above is invalid, by pointing out they could and did remove the faith from the Iron Islands so why would debarring  the Faith from the North be any different. 

Because we have no reason to believe the Starks did not allow the Faith into their lands - they did with the Manderlys. And the Manderlys intermarried with other noble families in the North. By the time of AGoT there are living quite a few knights at Winterfell, not to mention the Tallharts who are essentially a house of landed knights.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

14) A dockside temple for foreigners to worship in and armed fanatics are two different things, and we don't know when that temple was build it could be after the Faith Militant was gone, and last but not least Oldtown is not White Harbor so things possible in one does not mean they are possible in they other.

White Harbor is still a city, not some town. And I never said the Warrior's Sons of White Harbor would have to be as powerful and presumptuous as some of their chapters in the South might have been.

It is you who come up with the idea that the Faith Militant must have been the same brand of fanatics everywhere. You could just as well say all Andals are equally aggressive. They are not. As the Manderlys and their bannermen living in the North prove.

51 minutes ago, direpupy said:

16) they only thing that is ridiculous is the thought that they did not discuss this in there negotiations since it is a pretty big thing.

Perhaps they did discuss it and Aegon told Torrhen that this kind of thing was out of his hands now that he was bending the knee to his new king. Prove me wrong ;-).

It is pretty obvious that very few people in the South actually cared about the North. It is a frozen wasteland with shitty winters in comparison to the more fertile lands. Only fools would go up there of their own free will. The Manderlys didn't go there for the mild climate.

Very few people should care about the way of life of the people in the North. The Iron Islands was different because the religion there encouraged and preserved this stupid raider culture that had caused trouble for the kingdoms of Westeros for centuries. Converting the Ironborn would actually have an effect on their way of life and end those raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor's laws had little to do with that. Maegor took lands away from the Osgreys for their support of the Faith Militant. Any king can - and does - do that. And usually his successor doesn't restore such lands unless it is some civil war scenario during which the successor king was supported by the guy who lost some lands.

But this wasn't the case there.

There was a civil war scenario.

Jaehaerys was a wanted and disinherited fugitive. And then led an open rebellion against Maegor. And ended up winning.

Almost everybody supported Jaehaerys against Maegor. That could have included a lot of people who had lost lands.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor isn't seen as a false king or pretender. He actually sat the Iron Throne and ruled the Seven Kingdoms for over six years. His laws and decrees did stand.

That would have been open to argument. After all, it was the first time since Doom of Valyria that a dragon had fought a dragon.

Jaehaerys could have declared Maegor to have been usurper all along, like Aegon II would declare Rhaenyra. Apparently, he did not. Does not mean Jaehaerys could not have had supporters who urged that view.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't seem to understand. If you join the Faith Militant you give up your lands and titles - just as you do when you become a septon, a maester, or join the NW or the KG. We see this with Lancel. He is not a knight of the Warrior's Sons and the Lord of Darry right now, he is just a knight of the Warrior's Sons.

The idea that a lord can hand over his entire lordship to the Faith - or an order of the Faith - without the permission of his liege lord/king doesn't seem to be the case. After all, the king technically owns all the land in his kingdom. However, the Faith is very wealthy, even after it lost its military arm and its judiciary privileges. But then, lands can also be bought and sold. You can sell part of the lands belonging to your lordship.

Someone must have given the Faith all the lands, septries, villages, etc. it still controls. And those people were, presumably, pious lords and kings in the ancient days. Not to mention many pious warriors among the original Andals establishing the first septries, etc. when they conquered the Seven Kingdoms.

And like things are with the real world church - land and property once handed to the Faith would remain in the possession of 'the Seven' forever. It is pretty clear that the whole point of those Faith courts was to ensure that no lord - or king - ever accusing a member of the Faith of wrongdoing or a crime would get property back his dear old senile grandfather had willed to this or that order of the Faith on his deathbed - at least according to the septon who was there to hear his last words (or who draw up his last will).

And Maegor and Jaehaerys got rid of those Faith courts.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If it is just a small section of land and on the same level as the many other institutions of the Faith that should own land and property in White Harbor and the Manderly lands - mother houses, septries, etc., for instance - then I don't see any reason why Lord Manderly should ask permission from the Starks (or later the Starks and the Targaryens) for that.

He could not make a new lord, but there is no indication that a chapter of the Warrior's Sons was operating on the same legal level as a lordship. It would have been a grant of land or a gift to a religious order.

Certainly. But if he did grant a chapter of the Warrior´s Sons a land on the legal level of lordship, with Stark approval, that would have included some right of jurisdiction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

There was a civil war scenario.

Jaehaerys was a wanted and disinherited fugitive. And then led an open rebellion against Maegor. And ended up winning.

Almost everybody supported Jaehaerys against Maegor. That could have included a lot of people who had lost lands.

A civil war was about to happen. But then Maegor just died. There was not a single battle fought between men following Jaehaerys and men following Maegor.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

That would have been open to argument. After all, it was the first time since Doom of Valyria that a dragon had fought a dragon.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Maegor was a crowned and anointed king. Alyssa Velaryon bent the knee to Maegor, the High Septon anointed him, the Seven showed their favor when they helped him win the Trial of Seven and crush Prince Aegon's rebellion, Prince Viserys loyally served his uncle and king as squire.

All of Westeros remembers Maegor the Cruel as 'King Maegor'.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Jaehaerys could have declared Maegor to have been usurper all along, like Aegon II would declare Rhaenyra. Apparently, he did not. Does not mean Jaehaerys could not have had supporters who urged that view.

Royal decrees and declarations do not change reality. Maegor sat the Iron Throne for over six years and that's a fact. You look like a laughingstock if you royal proclamations try to change historical facts. Especially if you yourself actually bent the knee to that king.

Aegon II destroyed Rhaenyra's claim after the fact but even he could not make himself the only king in the years 129-131 AC. Everybody knows that the Prince Regent Aemond, Queen Rhaenyra, and King Trystane sat on the Iron Throne in 130 AC, not Aegon II.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

And Maegor and Jaehaerys got rid of those Faith courts.

Sure, but that doesn't have any bearing on the existence of those courts during the days they were around.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Certainly. But if he did grant a chapter of the Warrior´s Sons a land on the legal level of lordship, with Stark approval, that would have included some right of jurisdiction.

One would assume that the Faith did indeed have the same rights on the Manderly land than it did in all the other Andal territories. After all, the Faith is the majority religion of the people living in the Manderly lands.

However, it doesn't seem they were able to spread out into the other regions of the North. So if a person had issues with the Faith in White Harbor that person would take that up with the courts of the Faith there. But in territory not under Manderly jurisdiction the Starks would ultimately rule on such issues. Or perhaps even in the Manderly lands, too, if the dispute involved a Stark, or a member of a noble house or family who did not live in Manderly territory.

In the end the Manderlys would have the power there because they would be the ones upholding what privileges the Faith had on their lands.

Which could likely be the reason why there were no 'fanatics' among the followers of the Seven in the North - even among the Faith Militant, if some of them were there. They were a minority there, and could not afford to push the religious majority up there.

And just to clarify again:

I'd have liked to hear something about the Faith Militant in White Harbor. I never said those people would have to exist. I just find it not implausible that they would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...