Blackwater Revenant Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Nobles mostly. And very few at that. And nobles who do join up voluntarily (they weren't forced to choose between that and losing their head having)are mostly way down in their family's line of succession and are I expect largely due to desperate to make up for their own feelings of inadequacy(for example. Jon), Irrelevant, what does this have to do with anything? Quote by joining something that places them on the the very top of a house. What does this even mean? Quote They can see their family's, they could eat lobster for dinner, they get the glory that they've been programmed to want since birth. Wrong, where do get this from? All men are equal once they join the Watch. Every man must earn what he gets, regardless of his prior status; That is a lesson Jon had to learn early on, as he erroneously assumed his status as a son of the Lord of Winterfell and nephew of the First Ranger would have garnered him special treatment. Quote Everyone else(the not nobles), it was usually death, prison, or a maiming that got them there. They mostly have have no desire for honor for the honor of having to serve in the watch. Irrelevant. Quote And these are the people Robb will have to look at unsupported speculation. Quote Really bribing a hundred families so much they never have to worry about poverty again. A single man wouldn't take the offer for why should he? Again, unsupported speculation. Are you claiming a son who's family is on the verge of starving to death, wouldn't accept a bribe of a hundred golden dragons to help feed his family, and also as a means to relief his burden on his family by removing himself to the Wall. You know there are men that go out on a "hunting trip", with the intent to die out in the cold, for this very reason. Quote Should Robb had been around to attempt this being King wouldn't change the fact the North had been still stretched for well everything but especially due to need to fund the war-effort. It would take a dent. And it'd felt especially at a time dangerously close to winter. And to be clear this is assuming he doesn't go with the cheaper more expedient options. And again why should the watch agree to allow Jon to break his oaths to the old gods? Because Robb thinks he needs his brother for the war that Robb is waging to avenge his father? Well ok. Robb wants Jon to be able break his oaths to the old gods and keep his head fine, but please don't pretend we're talking about an honorable discharge for some truly noble cause-we're talking about Robb bribing/blackmailing the watch into letting Jon break his oaths for Robb's want for vegence. It's not really he has to have Jon or the north is doomed or he dies situation; he recognizes there is a way out(bending the knee) but it hurts his pride too much to do it I've already told you, I'm not interested in discussing your fan fiction version of the story, that you have made up based on your biased and erroneous understanding of the characters. I have already thoroughly debunked this claim of yours, while providing direct evidence from the text. You still have failed to provide a single word from the text to support your accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: What do you think? This series is going to end with the feudal system that had been governing westeros for possibly thousands of years getting entirely scrapped? No, that's not what I think. But there are certainly going to be substantial and erratic changes happening. Just look at the state of the realm as it stands now. There is civil war engulfing the Kingdom, King's popping up everywhere, and many regions vying for independence. On top of that you have the Wildlings migrating South of the Wall and marrying into Southern houses, a Queen with dragons intending to invade Westeros - who has certainly been a champion of cultural change so far - and to top it all off, the entire existence of mankind is being threatened by a catastrophic and planet encompassing disaster, in the form of the long night. Not to mention the different religious factions that are also gaining support among previously devout followers of the old and new gods. The entire existence of mankind is at a risk of being eradicated, I'm sure it's safe to assume, should they survive, the feudal system as it now stands could be shaken up some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ned's Little Girl Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 My goodness, we've gotten a long way away from "Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sunland Lord Posted February 1, 2018 Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 34 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said: My goodness, we've gotten a long way away from "Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys". Sooner or later every thread turns into a pro/against Jon Snow and Robb Stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 It’s a device of Competitive Sport Arguing where the subject is gradually changed from a subject where one is at a disadvantage (hard to argue for burning a whole city alive) to a subject where they’re on stronger ground hoping the sparring partner won't catch on and will go along with it. It's easier to create undetected subject drift to one of better advantage with these lengthy and piecemeal quote/response structures with inflammatory statements tossed in for good measure. Whenever Competitive Sport Arguing shows up on a thread the topics always seem to end up drifting all over the place. It's necessary if one is to try to "win" the argument if the original topic itself cannot be convincingly won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 On February 1, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: Wrong, where do get this from? All men are equal once they join the Watch. Every man must earn what he gets, regardless of his prior status; That is a lesson Jon had to learn early on, as he erroneously assumed his status as a son of the Lord of Winterfell would have garnered him special treatment. No they're not equal like at all. Nobles get prefrence in every avenue of society, and the wall is no exception. Literaly the prelude to the first book goes into how a relatively new recruit who was a noble was given the task of leading a ranger scouting mission over a vetren ranger. The inequality between those of low-birth and high-birth is clear. Benjen being the son of the lord Paramount of the north was talking out of his ass when he said all men are equal under the watch. Jon may have been dead-last in terms of nobility of winterfell but at the watch he wasn't at the wall. unsupported speculation. The vast of the nobility will not offer their own kin up as sacrifice to the watch just so Robb could get let his bastard brother break his oaths to the old gods; one the vast majority of them will won't threaten to murder their kin into joining the watch; which they'd have to do to get them to agree to give up everything to spend all their days at such a cold miserable place as the watch; I mean again there are only so many third sons or nobleman's favored bastards who feel so thirsty for glory they'd join it. Irrelevant, what does this have to do with anything? You said there are those who did not need to be bribed into joining the watch in response to me pointing out Robb would need to bribe people the same ridiculously high amount he'd be asking them to sacrifice; as if 100+ there is a snowball chance in hell that men will ditch their families and not be able to provide for them just because Robb said please. Bribed are needed to get people to willing sighn up (if he really cared about it that much-could be he'd go the more expedient route and simply conscript them into serving.) On February 1, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: Again, unsupported speculation. Are you claiming should a son who's family is on the verge of starving to death, wouldn't accept a bribe of a hundred golden dragons to help feed his family, and also as a means to relief his burden on his family by removing himself to the Wall. You know there are men that go out on a "hunting trip", with the intent to die out in the cold, for this very reaso Some very nobley hearted sons would. Some wouldn't make such a sacrifice. Also, it's not just money. Lordships would be needed to granted, lands, house hold guards ect. One crown by a peasant would lead to trouble. They'd need real security. And 100 man for each man; that's going to build up. The watch has every reason to hope for Robb to lose(to insure they'll access to the rest of the realm). So they would ask a lot more than a 100 men to make up the difference; even then they'd be fools to actually accept the bribe given the grim state of his war-effort. On February 1, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: Quote I've already told you, I'm not interested in discussing your fan fiction version of the story, that you have made up based on your biased and erroneous understanding of the characters. Do I need to quote(what has already been done so by another in this thread), his given reasoning to Catelyn for why he can't bend the knee? The reason being the IT took his father's head? Is that really necessary? What exactly is fanfic here? That Robb wanted to continue the war rather than submit at the cost of his pride?That Robb would be bribing(or possibly blackmailing) the Watch's high command into not making a big uproar on young Jon being taken away to play heir to Robb? We could agree Robb thinks Jon is the best canindate for his succesore; ok why does he need an immediate succesore in the first place; because he's under the likelyhood of being killed if he does not bend the knee(which he could do any time). Not a really justification for saying bribing(or blackmailing) the watch into releasing Jon is somehow honorble. Robb was selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 On February 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: No, that's not what I think. But there are certainly going to be substantial and erratic changes happening. Just look at the state of the realm as it stands now. There is civil war engulfing the Kingdom, King's popping up everywhere, and many regions vying for independenc Yes, Civil wars in feudal societies do happen. There have happened before in Westeroes(The dance of dragons). No one called for any real changes in the foundation of the society then and no one really is now. People simply want to move up in the system not really change it. On February 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: On top of that you have the Wildlings migrating South of the Wall and marrying into Southern houses, a Queen with dragons intending to invade Westeros - who has certainly been a champion of cultural change so far - and to top it all off, the entire existence of mankind is being threatened by a catastrophic and planet threatening disaster, in the form of the long night. Jon has(under his authority of being lord commander of the Watch), has allowed refugees to occupy the gifts true. And the Thenns( which are distinct group from the Wildlings and more similar to the lords south of the wall), did join their people to house Karstark through marrying Alys as a desperate attempt to save and her brother's lives. And Val was offered the hand to a nobleman. But, see the wildling refugee crisis aren't going to change how goverment is done in the north; they are going to be assimilated(as plenty of them have shown willingly to do), and be forced to comply with the norms of a feudal society; if the others don't suceed in whatever plan they have and if the wildlings don't decide to migrate south of the wall once it's safe of course. If they do stay it will not sit right in the northerners. In the span of the in universe short years the series has left 1000+ years of prejudices won't be erased, it's very unlikely by end of this all the nobles of the north will be singing on how much they are just the best of friends. And Dany could only effect change in westeroes' system of government(which she really hasn't shown-the only meaningful change she wants for the country is getting the Targaryens back on top), which you scoff at being ludicrous. Even if, she did get the throne, the changes she would make would at very most be a reattempt of Aegon's reforms that ultimately failed to stick. The long night wont suddenly make people want new-they'd want a retread a thing that they're actually used to. On February 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: Not to mention the different religious factions that are also gaining support among previously devout followers of the old and new gods. The Red god's actual influence in Westeroes lies mostly in Stannis's followers(whiose # are small and getting smaller), and the BWB, who'd at this point become grotesque. It's likely when/if Stannis dies Rh'lor's influence on the continent dies with him-for at least the next generation. The entire existence of mankind is at a risk of being eradicated, I'm sure it's safe to assume, should they survive, the feudal system as it now stands could be shaken up some. Very unlikely. No one(at least in power or the potential of power) has really expressed an interest in giving any change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Lollygag said: It’s a device of Competitive Sport Arguing where the subject is gradually changed from a subject where one is at a disadvantage (hard to argue for burning a whole city alive) to a subject where they’re on stronger ground hoping the sparring partner won't catch on and will go along with it. It's easier to create undetected subject drift to one of better advantage with these lengthy and piecemeal quote/response structures with inflammatory statements tossed in for good measure. Whenever Competitive Sport Arguing shows up on a thread the topics always seem to end up drifting all over the place. It's necessary if one is to try to "win" the argument if the original topic itself cannot be convincingly won. Eh, no one had argued for burning a city. Some People tried to argue against the OP proclamation(which I personally think is just common sense), that Jamie had broken his oaths or Jamie could have kept them if he had simply knocked him out or that Jamie had to kill the mad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I have to say there is one thing I overlooked in regards to arguing Jamie would have gotten some slack if had simply let Aerys get arrested,(to which others I recall pointing out) that Barristan basiclly did the same thing in regards to Viserys and Daenarys that Jamie would be doing if he had let the Wastelands soldiers take Aerys He was obligated to go and serve Viserys; but he couldn't bring himself to yet he is generally still respected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 There is a certain chance for social change - but only to the worse, not the better. The Others won't be defeated by a committee or by people debating the best course of action. The quarrelsome lords and the people won't have a voice in all this. Their power will be crushed. There will be no place for dissension, disunity, disloyalty, When fighting against the Others Melisandre's views are right. There is no middle ground. You are either on board with the righteous heroes, or you are an enemy of life. And there won't be any room for such people when the fight truly begins. In that sense we are likely going to see a system implemented where a few people command, and the rest obediently follow. There won't be any compromises, alliances, participation, inclusion, or other feudal or democratic crap. Just the absolute rule of the good guys. Whether that system is going to survive the War for the Dawn is another matter, but if the savior(s) of mankind survive the fight their power should remain. And saving everybody from certain death is also the ideal foundation for a theocracy or absolute monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 19 hours ago, Lord Varys said: There is a certain chance for social change - but only to the worse, not the better. The Others won't be defeated by a committee or by people debating the best course of action. The quarrelsome lords and the people won't have a voice in all this. Their power will be crushed. There will be no place for dissension, disunity, disloyalty, When fighting against the Others Melisandre's views are right. There is no middle ground. You are either on board with the righteous heroes, or you are an enemy of life. And there won't be any room for such people when the fight truly begins. In that sense we are likely going to see a system implemented where a few people command, and the rest obediently follow. There won't be any compromises, alliances, participation, inclusion, or other feudal or democratic crap. Just the absolute rule of the good guys. Whether that system is going to survive the War for the Dawn is another matter, but if the savior(s) of mankind survive the fight their power should remain. And saving everybody from certain death is also the ideal foundation for a theocracy or absolute monarchy. True. The person or group who'd save the world would basiclly elevate themselves to the popularity of of a literal messiah; the person or group could basiclly do whatever they wanted because it'd really bad looking for anyone to actually oppose them. No one (in any real position to do something), really disagrees with the monarchical way of doing things; there is never really a question on whether or not nobles should rule only which ones(sometimes). Hell the coming long night is not even the first world threat(if the legends believed) on how and society didn't really deviate from monarchical system after the long night. Hell even Jon whose pretty progressive given his context never makes hint that he thinks Westeroes should move away from feudalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.