Jump to content
Angel Eyes

So, remind me why independence for the North is so important.

Recommended Posts

To me, there are 3 reasons the North rightly ended up independent:

(1)  Bran approved it, and so far as we know Bran is by far the most qualified judge of what is best for Westeros. (I understand that is a most unsatisfying answer to a lot of people, but I still believe it to be true.  That is the information we have been given, in my opinion)

(2) The Starks sacrificed more and contributed more to the wars against the Night King and Dany than any other House, BY FAR.  Therefore they get the biggest reward, and rightly so. (I could go on and on and on about the sacrifices and contributions by the Starks over the 8 seasons, with the biggest contribution of all being the combined efforts of Jon, Sansa, Bran and Arya in crossing off the Night King.  That was quite a favor they did for Westeros.  OH yeah, quite a big favor indeed.  Dany contributed a lot too, but of course she had other issues, and her story ended much differently).

(3)  In the end, who had the power to stop Sansa??  By all means, let me know.  At the end, Westeros was like Europe at the end of WW2, decimation of armies and populace all over the place, especially at the seat of power, King's Landing.  The Northmen helped capture King's Landing and were right there during the aftermath (indeed, as I recall, Sansa made this very point at the council where power was divided), and the only other force that even might have challenged Sansa in battle at that point was what was left of Dany's army, which was about to depart with Grey Worm.

 

In light of all of that, I found it very plausible and satisfying that the North ended up independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2019 at 2:02 AM, Cron said:

(3)  In the end, who had the power to stop Sansa??  By all means, let me know.  At the end, Westeros was like Europe at the end of WW2, decimation of armies and populace all over the place, especially at the seat of power, King's Landing.  The Northmen helped capture King's Landing and were right there during the aftermath (indeed, as I recall, Sansa made this very point at the council where power was divided), and the only other force that even might have challenged Sansa in battle at that point was what was left of Dany's army, which was about to depart with Grey Worm.

Now this part was awesome but they didnt bother to show Arya and Sansa finding out what happened too Jon, working together on a plan, and Sansa mobilizing Northern troops or leading them south. I think it would have been a huge moment in her storyline and they didnt care. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 2:02 AM, Cron said:

Bran approved it, and so far as we know Bran is by far the most qualified judge of what is best for Westeros. (I understand that is a most unsatisfying answer to a lot of people, but I still believe it to be true.  That is the information we have been given, in my opinion)

Can you elaborate on what this information is?

My impression was that we know almost nothing about Bran's current state, we're not even sure he is completely human, we know nothing at all about his motivations, and he has consistently projected "unengaged." What's his perspective? Does he even care what the humans do? If he does care, what's his angle? Is he all Stark 24/7, all tree-dude all the time, or does he transcend all that competitive stuff? As many have remarked, a couple of his statements have even implied that he intentionally allowed things to turn out as they did, including allowing the massacre of King's Landing so that he would be King.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this? If it's true, why is Bran the best judge anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2019 at 5:02 AM, Cron said:

To me, there are 3 reasons the North rightly ended up independent:

(1)  Bran approved it, and so far as we know Bran is by far the most qualified judge of what is best for Westeros. (I understand that is a most unsatisfying answer to a lot of people, but I still believe it to be true.  That is the information we have been given, in my opinion)

(2) The Starks sacrificed more and contributed more to the wars against the Night King and Dany than any other House, BY FAR.  Therefore they get the biggest reward, and rightly so. (I could go on and on and on about the sacrifices and contributions by the Starks over the 8 seasons, with the biggest contribution of all being the combined efforts of Jon, Sansa, Bran and Arya in crossing off the Night King.  That was quite a favor they did for Westeros.  OH yeah, quite a big favor indeed.  Dany contributed a lot too, but of course she had other issues, and her story ended much differently).

(3)  In the end, who had the power to stop Sansa??  By all means, let me know.  At the end, Westeros was like Europe at the end of WW2, decimation of armies and populace all over the place, especially at the seat of power, King's Landing.  The Northmen helped capture King's Landing and were right there during the aftermath (indeed, as I recall, Sansa made this very point at the council where power was divided), and the only other force that even might have challenged Sansa in battle at that point was what was left of Dany's army, which was about to depart with Grey Worm.

 

In light of all of that, I found it very plausible and satisfying that the North ended up independent.

If you’re asking who had armies left to fight the North if they really wanted to, it’s Dorne (relatively untouched), the Reach (untouched outside of Tarly and Tyrell families), Grey Worm and the 50k Dothraki, and Yara could have taken Moat Calen again to block the North from returning home.

Basically if all of Dany’s allies said “you know what, no I won’t bow down to some rando Stark (who’s own sister wont bow either), I want vengeance for my queen” the North and Tyrion would be screwed.

Jon claimed the North had 13k fighting men left in season 7, and they fought 2 huge battles and lost all the Wildings since that estimate. The Dothraki alone have 50k. Jon would also be a hostage the entire time.

The North is at their weakest point in history, tired from fighting 3 wars in the span of a year, suffered major losses at the Red Wedding, and were one of the poorest realms before everything went to shit anyway.

If shit went down, I don’t see anyway they come out on top unless Bran wargs into Drogon....which would have made for a way better ending than what we got.

Edited by King Wyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Now this part was awesome but they didnt bother to show Arya and Sansa finding out what happened too Jon, working together on a plan, and Sansa mobilizing Northern troops or leading them south. I think it would have been a huge moment in her storyline and they didnt care. 

I agree it would have been great to see all that stuff.  Many people have complained that Season 8 was "rushed."

 

But ultimately, I think this is what that really means:  Lots of people (including me) wish we had gotten even more Game of Thrones than we did.  Ideally, it would go on and on and on, with tremendous details, filling in all the blanks spaces along the way.

Yeah, that would be cool, no doubt, but at some point the production meets "reality," and ends

What they DID manage to give us, though (overall, over 8 seasons), was incredible, best t.v. show I've ever seen, so I try to stay focused on that, and give D&D credit for what they DID accomplish, which was nothing short of a worldwide entertainment and cultural phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Can you elaborate on what this information is?

My impression was that we know almost nothing about Bran's current state, we're not even sure he is completely human, we know nothing at all about his motivations, and he has consistently projected "unengaged." What's his perspective? Does he even care what the humans do? If he does care, what's his angle? Is he all Stark 24/7, all tree-dude all the time, or does he transcend all that competitive stuff? As many have remarked, a couple of his statements have even implied that he intentionally allowed things to turn out as they did, including allowing the massacre of King's Landing so that he would be King.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this? If it's true, why is Bran the best judge anyway?

Regarding the request for elaboration: Sure, no problem.  Under Bran's guidance, the NIght King was defeated.  Pretty easy to forget about or overlook because so many fans thought it was anti-climactic, but ACTUALLY, the fate of the entire planet was at stake.  

Clearly victory over the Night King was a highly desirable outcome, for all of Westeros and Essos, and I hold the belief that Bran gave highly specific instructions for how the last battle between the Army of the Dead and the Army of the Living MUST be fought (beyond the limited information the show gave us, which was Bran telling them that he himself HAD to be used as bait in the Godwood, contrary to all the rest of their beliefs about what should be done).  This would also explain MANY things we saw that otherwise seem to be strategic and tactical blunders that many fans have complained about in that episode (803).

(Indeed, a re-watch of Season 8 will show that there are other clues that Bran was very closely and carefully manipulating events. Examples would include him giving the dagger to Arya, and not telling the others what Jaime had done to him, thereby ensuring that Jaime would be present, as needed.)

So, what information were we given?  Well, we already knew that Bran can see the future, so as long as we believe he's benevolent, it's a good idea to do what he says, even if it seems to make absolutely no sense, because Bran, so far as we know, cannot be wrong.  He KNOWS, plain and simple.  (Of course, all this presupposes that Bran actually IS benevolent.  But as I have written about at length elsewhere, I am going to believe he is benevolent unless we are given contrary information, which I don't think we yet have.  Are there theories that he has been corrupted somehow?  Sure, but I think they are just theories, at least at this point.)

I could write more about the above issues, but I think that's enough for now (I don't want to be a boor), and I'll try to briefly address another issue you raise, which is whether Bran "let" the massacre at King's Landing happen so that he would become king.

There are many possibilities about this besides a theory that Bran has become corrupted and let hundreds of thousands of people get crossed off just so he could become king, even though he could have easily prevented it.

Oee possibility is that Bran knew it was going to happen (indeed, we have strong reason to believe he DID know, based on the glimpses we saw him have of Drogon over King's Landing), but it is possible that he ALSO knew that in order for the Night King to be defeated, other things HAD to happen, too.  How could that be possible?  Well, I've already talked about my belief that Bran knew EXACTLY what needed to be done to defeat the Night King, and he did it, but perhaps he also knew that doing so would leave the "pieces on the chessboard" (my expression) in such a way that what happened at King's Landing COULD NOT be prevented, because there simply wasn't enough time, forces were already in motion and could not be stopped at that point. (Let's say you are Bran, and your powers tell you that you only have two choices: (1) The Night King wins, or (2) the Night King CAN be defeated, but the only path that leads to that ALSO has Dany doing what she did at King's Landing.  Which would you choose?)

Of course, it's also possible that there was NOTHING Bran could have done anyway, and Bran never had any choice at all (even the one I speculated about above). We have been told that "the ink is dry" (that's a quote, I 'm pretty sure Bran's predecessor 3ER told Bran that) on the past.  Perhaps "the ink is dry" on the future, too, and if so that would mean that even if Bran knew what was going to happen, and that it would lead to him being king, then he also knew it couldn't be stopped and was GOING to all occur no matter WHAT he did.

Here's another possibility: Bran can see multiple futures, and knows that all other alternatives are even worse than what actually did happen.  For example, maybe Bran could have made changes to what was occurring even after the Night King was defeated, but knew that all alternate futures were even WORSE than Dany doing what she did.  Are you familiar with "The Butterfly Effect"?  It's possible that Bran knew that Dany COULD be stopped, but if he did it, then all possible alternative futures were even worse.

A final note to anyone reading this:  Yes, I'm well aware that some of the above theories and ideas are contradictory to each other.  That's because I don't claim to know the truth for sure, because, as has been mentioned, we have been given SO little information about what is going on in Bran's head since he became the 3 Eyed Raven, and I 'm not a show runner or GRRM.

 

Share this post


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

Regarding the request for elaboration: Sure, no problem.  Under Bran's guidance, the NIght King was defeated.  Pretty easy to forget about or overlook because so many fans thought it was anti-climactic, but ACTUALLY, the fate of the entire planet was at stake.  

Clearly victory over the Night King was a highly desirable outcome, for all of Westeros and Essos, and I hold the belief that Bran gave highly specific instructions for how the last battle between the Army of the Dead and the Army of the Living MUST be fought (beyond the limited information the show gave us, which was Bran telling them that he himself HAD to be used as bait in the Godwood, contrary to all the rest of their beliefs about what should be done).  This would also explain MANY things we saw that otherwise seem to be strategic and tactical blunders that many fans have complained about in that episode (803).

(Indeed, a re-watch of Season 8 will show that there are other clues that Bran was very closely and carefully manipulating events. Examples would include him giving the dagger to Arya, and not telling the others what Jaime had done to him, thereby ensuring that Jaime would be present, as needed.)

So, what information were we given?  Well, we already knew that Bran can see the future, so as long as we believe he's benevolent, it's a good idea to do what he says, even if it seems to make absolutely no sense, because Bran, so far as we know, cannot be wrong.  He KNOWS, plain and simple.  (Of course, all this presupposes that Bran actually IS benevolent.  But as I have written about at length elsewhere, I am going to believe he is benevolent unless we are given contrary information, which I don't think we yet have.  Are there theories that he has been corrupted somehow?  Sure, but I think they are just theories, at least at this point.)

I could write more about the above issues, but I think that's enough for now (I don't want to be a boor), and I'll try to briefly address another issue you raise, which is whether Bran "let" the massacre at King's Landing happen so that he would become king.

There are many possibilities about this besides a theory that Bran has become corrupted and let hundreds of thousands of people get crossed off just so he could become king, even though he could have easily prevented it.

Oee possibility is that Bran knew it was going to happen (indeed, we have strong reason to believe he DID know, based on the glimpses we saw him have of Drogon over King's Landing), but it is possible that he ALSO knew that in order for the Night King to be defeated, other things HAD to happen, too.  How could that be possible?  Well, I've already talked about my belief that Bran knew EXACTLY what needed to be done to defeat the Night King, and he did it, but perhaps he also knew that doing so would leave the "pieces on the chessboard" (my expression) in such a way that what happened at King's Landing COULD NOT be prevented, because there simply wasn't enough time, forces were already in motion and could not be stopped at that point. (Let's say you are Bran, and your powers tell you that you only have two choices: (1) The Night King wins, or (2) the Night King CAN be defeated, but the only path that leads to that ALSO has Dany doing what she did at King's Landing.  Which would you choose?)

Of course, it's also possible that there was NOTHING Bran could have done anyway, and Bran never had any choice at all (even the one I speculated about above). We have been told that "the ink is dry" (that's a quote, I 'm pretty sure Bran's predecessor 3ER told Bran that) on the past.  Perhaps "the ink is dry" on the future, too, and if so that would mean that even if Bran knew what was going to happen, and that it would lead to him being king, then he also knew it couldn't be stopped and was GOING to all occur no matter WHAT he did.

Here's another possibility: Bran can see multiple futures, and knows that all other alternatives are even worse than what actually did happen.  For example, maybe Bran could have made changes to what was occurring even after the Night King was defeated, but knew that all alternate futures were even WORSE than Dany doing what she did.  Are you familiar with "The Butterfly Effect"?  It's possible that Bran knew that Dany COULD be stopped, but if he did it, then all possible alternative futures were even worse.

A final note to anyone reading this:  Yes, I'm well aware that some of the above theories and ideas are contradictory to each other.  That's because I don't claim to know the truth for sure, because, as has been mentioned, we have been given SO little information about what is going on in Bran's head since he became the 3 Eyed Raven, and I 'm not a show runner or GRRM.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 2:30 PM, King Wyman said:

If you’re asking who had armies left to fight the North if they really wanted to, it’s Dorne (relatively untouched), the Reach (untouched outside of Tarly and Tyrell families), Grey Worm and the 50k Dothraki, and Yara could have taken Moat Calen again to block the North from returning home.

Basically if all of Dany’s allies said “you know what, no I won’t bow down to some rando Stark (who’s own sister wont bow either), I want vengeance for my queen” the North and Tyrion would be screwed.

Jon claimed the North had 13k fighting men left in season 7, and they fought 2 huge battles and lost all the Wildings since that estimate. The Dothraki alone have 50k. Jon would also be a hostage the entire time.

The North is at their weakest point in history, tired from fighting 3 wars in the span of a year, suffered major losses at the Red Wedding, and were one of the poorest realms before everything went to shit anyway.

If shit went down, I don’t see anyway they come out on top unless Bran wargs into Drogon....which would have made for a way better ending than what we got.

Seems to me you're trying to match up hypothetical future forces (including some not even formed and trained yet, and nearly all of whom were VERY far away except for the what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki, which I'll address below) against Sansa's actual army, which was right there, at King's Landing, fully formed, organized, mobilized, and comprised of hardened veterans of the 3 wars you mentioned.

In my opinion, there is no conceivable way such hypothetical future forces could have prevented Sansa from taking King's Landing; in fact her forces (along with what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki) already did.

Regarding whatever was left of the Dothraki and Unsullied:  Their actual strength is highly speculative.  They took massive losses in Episode 803 (The Long Night), and cannot bring up reinforcements (because other Unsullied are across the Narrow Sea and not loyal to Grey Worm anyway, and the Dothraki, as i understand it, ,pretty much all followed Dany to Westeros already).  But can the North bring up reinforcements?  Oh yeah, big time.  They don't have to cross the Narrow Sea, and the North is huge, larger than all 6 of the other kingdoms combined. (Remember, the GoT series covers quite a few years.  During that time, many young boys grew to fighting age in the North, I have no doubt.)

Plus, of course, Grey Worm had no interest in more fighting in Westeros, he wanted to leave, and what did he care about whether the North belonged to the Starks or not???  It is unimaginable to me that he would care if the Starks held the North.  And who is the "leader" of whatever was left of the Dothraki??  Nobody, far as I know, and I can't imagine why the Dothraki would care if Sansa is Queen of the North, either..

Plus of course, all the members of the council at the end agreed Bran would be best anyway, for a variety of different reasons.

As such, these are basically the reasons I thought it was entirely plausible that the Starks got the North in the end, and it's not even just a matter of "might makes right," because as I've also mentioned above, I believe the Starks deserved the North and rightly won their independence, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 5:22 AM, Cron said:

Seems to me you're trying to match up hypothetical future forces (including some not even formed and trained yet, and nearly all of whom were VERY far away except for the what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki, which I'll address below) against Sansa's actual army, which was right there, at King's Landing, fully formed, organized, mobilized, and comprised of hardened veterans of the 3 wars you mentioned.

In my opinion, there is no conceivable way such hypothetical future forces could have prevented Sansa from taking King's Landing; in fact her forces (along with what was left of the Unsullied and Dothraki) already did.

Regarding whatever was left of the Dothraki and Unsullied:  Their actual strength is highly speculative.  They took massive losses in Episode 803 (The Long Night), and cannot bring up reinforcements (because other Unsullied are across the Narrow Sea and not loyal to Grey Worm anyway, and the Dothraki, as i understand it, ,pretty much all followed Dany to Westeros already).  But can the North bring up reinforcements?  Oh yeah, big time.  They don't have to cross the Narrow Sea, and the North is huge, larger than all 6 of the other kingdoms combined. (Remember, the GoT series covers quite a few years.  During that time, many young boys grew to fighting age in the North, I have no doubt.)

Plus, of course, Grey Worm had no interest in more fighting in Westeros, he wanted to leave, and what did he care about whether the North belonged to the Starks or not???  It is unimaginable to me that he would care if the Starks held the North.  And who is the "leader" of whatever was left of the Dothraki??  Nobody, far as I know, and I can't imagine why the Dothraki would care if Sansa is Queen of the North, either..

Plus of course, all the members of the council at the end agreed Bran would be best anyway, for a variety of different reasons.

As such, these are basically the reasons I thought it was entirely plausible that the Starks got the North in the end, and it's not even just a matter of "might makes right," because as I've also mentioned above, I believe the Starks deserved the North and rightly won their independence, too.

The North was the poorest and least populated realm (by far) in the 7 Kingdoms before the books/show even began. We’re talking centuries worth of decline. 

If reinforcements were an option, then they wouldn’t have had little girls fighting in the Long Night. Those theoretical boys grown into men don’t exist. 

Jon flat out stated they had 13k left in season 7, and there wasn’t even enough time for Cersei to start showing her pregnancy between then and the end season 8, so increasing those numbers significantly is impossible, even without the Long Night happening. 

Especially when parents are killing their children so they won’t have to starve to death because, again, the North is super poor and has been ravaged by war and winter.

They also said the Dothraki still had half their numbers which means 50k since they started with 100k. I personally thought they were wiped out in that dumb suicide charge, but they specifically said they still had half their numbers. 

And people take offense to their leader being murdered (just look at the Starks). Especially Dothraki who are actual savages and know nothing about due process. It’s part of their lore to avenge their fallen Khal at all costs. Grey Worm was literally murdering innocent prisoners who surrendered 5 minutes before Jon killed Dany.

They don’t care about who rules the North, but they would absolutely want vengence for Dany’s murder, and would never wait for a trial or even view that as an option. 

Expecting the Dothraki, Dorne, the Reach, and Iron Islands to just be cool with Jon and the North, is like expecting Ned Stark to deliver himself for execution to Aerys, or for Robb to bend the knee to Joffrey. 

That’s one of the reasons northern independence (based on what they showed) makes no sense. They’re utterly dependent on Bran providing supplies and keeping all of their enemies at bay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2019 at 8:11 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Why was it so important for Sansa to have independence for the North? Will the North have the same laws as the rest of Westeros? If they don’t, what’s stopping a lord from exercising First Night and creating another Ramsay? Will the North be alone in supplying the Wall? And when Sansa dies, there’s nobody to pass the throne to since there haven’t been separate branches of Starks for three generations. The North could degenerate into civil war if/when Sansa dies.

Sansa wanted a crown for herself.  End of.

It's a peculiar form of independence that requires others to fight your battles for you, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 4:26 PM, SeanF said:

Sansa wanted a crown for herself.  End of.

Except Sansa clearly went down to KL to get Jon out and for him to rule as King again. She freaking said so. I hate the writing in S8 as much as the next person but canon is canon. There is no proof in the text as to your assertion. But there is for the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mystical said:

Except Sansa clearly went down to KL to get Jon out and for him to rule as King again. She freaking said so. I hate the writing in S8 as much as the next person but canon is canon. There is no proof in the text as to your assertion. But there is for the opposite.

Didn't Bran say "why do you think I'm here?"  He knew he's get the Six Kingdoms, and Sansa would get the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sansa just didn’t trust strangers and only trusted her family to rule so she makes political moves to that effect but it’s not exactly for herself. I didn’t see anything to indicate she was angling for a crown - and I think she’d rather just have Jon do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 11:49 AM, SeanF said:

Didn't Bran say "why do you think I'm here?"  He knew he's get the Six Kingdoms, and Sansa would get the North.

Just because Bran knows the future doesn't mean Sansa does. She wouldn't have needed to take an army south if she did, an army probably only comprised of soldiers not fit to travel when the Jon went to KL in episode 4. The Sansa of S7/8 would have rather left them to recuperate in the North.

Sansa wanted Jon free. And she clearly wanted him to be King in the North after. Again, Jon hasn't been King since S7 so the only reason for Sansa to say 'they lost their King' is if she intended to free him and him to be King again. Her saying that makes no sense otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was fanservice.

The muppets some would call showrunners liked Robb, liked the idea of northern independence (even though the concept of northern independence was always rather illogical, even within the context of the story) and they felt bad/embarrassed about the way they treated Sansa, so they did it to make themselves feel better in the hopes of winning some cool points.

They never won the cool points. Everyone with a brain knows it's fanservice.

That being sad, I do think that all of the kingdoms become independent at the end of the story united only by their belief in the old gods and by Bran as the ultimate overseer, counselor and peacekeeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

It was fanservice.

The muppets some would call showrunners liked Robb, liked the idea of northern independence (even though the concept of northern independence was always rather illogical, even within the context of the story) and they felt bad/embarrassed about the way they treated Sansa, so they did it to make themselves feel better in the hopes of winning some cool points.

They never won the cool points. Everyone with a brain knows it's fanservice.

That being sad, I do think that all of the kingdoms become independent at the end of the story united only by their belief in the old gods and by Bran as the ultimate overseer, counselor and peacekeeper.

Something the tv shows just flat out ignored was how important the religion of the 7 was to westeros.  Some Northerner becoming king while worshipping the old gods and practicing magic seems like a recipe for mass rebellion in the south.  Goes right along with D&D ignoring the Cersei blew up the pope though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/2/2019 at 2:47 PM, argonak said:

Something the tv shows just flat out ignored was how important the religion of the 7 was to westeros.  Some Northerner becoming king while worshipping the old gods and practicing magic seems like a recipe for mass rebellion in the south.  Goes right along with D&D ignoring the Cersei blew up the pope though.

You're absolutely right.

If they wanted Cersei to blow up the Westerosi version of the Pope and the Vatican up, they should've spent the next season focusing on the consequences of that. The smallfolk in King's Landing were rioting back in season 2 because they were hungry.

I think that a significant part of the war between Aegon and Daenerys will be a religious one. Thanks to Cersei, Aegon is likely to have the full support of the Faith Militant and almost everyone who seriously worships the 7. Daenerys, on the other hand, is going to be bankrolled by the red priests. I'm not sure if Daenerys will ever come to personally believe in R'hllor (I think she might towards the end) but she is going to have a bunch of support from the red priests. Honestly, she needs their support in Essos but she'll have some serious problems in Westeros.

So yeah: even though I don't believe Daenerys and the Others are evil, they are supposed to both embody serious existential threats to Westeros. As far as the more human element (Daenerys) is concerned, what's more existential threatening than the prospect of a foreign invasion that carries the very real implication that you'll be forced to convert to foreign religion.

At this point, septons and smallfolk in the south view Stannis as an undesirable nuisance. Daenerys will look like Satan to them.

In the end, I think the two religions will either be completely destroyed or no longer have any clout in Westeros. Especially the Fot7 because they are obviously fake whereas R'hllor and the old gods are very well.

Before all is said and done, thanks to Bran, Arya, Sansa and general northern heroism, I feel like people will start worshipping the old gods again.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was important to restore things to the way they were thousands of years before the Targaryen invasion. Torrhen Stark bent the knee to the Targaryens and maybe it was to restore their independence to what it was before the Targaryens made them part of the seven kingdoms.  Of course, this would require one to assume that Sansa’s motives were solely done for the North with no selfish personal motives whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

You're absolutely right.

If they wanted Cersei to blow up the Westerosi version of the Pope and the Vatican up, they should've spent the next season focusing on the consequences of that. The smallfolk in King's Landing were rioting back in season 2 because they were hungry.

I think that a significant part of the war between Aegon and Daenerys will be a religious one. Thanks to Cersei, Aegon is likely to have the full support of the Faith Militant and almost everyone who seriously worships the 7. Daenerys, on the other hand, is going to be bankrolled by the red priests. I'm not sure if Daenerys will ever come to personally believe in R'hllor (I think she might towards the end) but she is going to have a bunch of support from the red priests. Honestly, she needs their support in Essos but she'll have some serious problems in Westeros.

So yeah: even though I don't believe Daenerys and the Others are evil, they are supposed to both embody serious existential threats to Westeros. As far as the more human element (Daenerys) is concerned, what's more existential threatening than the prospect of a foreign invasion that carries the very real implication that you'll be forced to convert to foreign religion.

At this point, septons and smallfolk in the south view Stannis as an undesirable nuisance. Daenerys will look like Satan to them.

In the end, I think the two religions will either be completely destroyed or no longer have any clout in Westeros. Especially the Fot7 because they are obviously fake whereas R'hllor and the old gods are very well.

Before all is said and done, thanks to Bran, Arya, Sansa and general northern heroism, I feel like people will start worshipping the old gods again.

Good points.  Dany is not Satan, but may look like it, if the Red Priests are conducting a holy war in her name, as Azhor Ahai reborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SeanF said:

Good points.  Dany is not Satan, but may look like it, if the Red Priests are conducting a holy war in her name, as Azhor Ahai reborn.

If she attacks Westeros with dragons and burns livestock, food, and soldiers who are basically the common folk she shoots herself in the foot. Dragonphobia, tyrantphobia, Targphobia, and pyrophobia would all be added to the mix and aren't completely unreasonable from their POV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×