Jump to content
Rose of Red Lake

Dany and child murder

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Without entering the whole debate because I really don't want to, I think the answer why Dany chooses the age of 12 can be found in a Jon chapter when he tries to recruit wildlings for the Wall.

Down in the Seven Kingdoms boys of twelve were often pages or squires; many had been training at arms for years. (Jon V, ADwD 21)

Squires follow the knights they serve into war. Devan Seaworth (12) and Podrick Payne (12) were both at the Battle of the Blackwater. Edric Dayne was 11 or 12 at the Mummer's Ford. Addam Osgrey (12 or 13) died at the Redgrass Field.

It's possible that Dany is thinking in terms of that.

That's correct.

The thrust of Dany's order at Astapor is not "kill everyone aged over 12 " but "kill the elite and their soldiers but make sure you don't kill people aged under 12 among them."  As late as the eighteenth century, a boy of ten might have been a Midshipman in the Royal Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think a full treasury is the only way to measure whether a kingdom is better than before, not even the most important way but I'll agree Robert put the realm in debt. 

It wasn't just a full treasury.  The kingdom prospered under Aerys.  And it was relatively peaceful.  

On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not sure Jon Arryn had much to do with it. We've seen Robert doesn't listen much to his hand so Jon may have tried to reign him in & failed. 

Right but according to your own measurements the realm was in a terrible predicament so maybe the war was justified? 

The War of the Five Kings happened because of the Lannister twins attempting to murder Bran and Catelyn's reaction to this.  Renly and Balon just took advantage of the distraction to make their move.  So no, the war was not justified.  

On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Yes but not for long. 

People are rebelling, yes. I think that is some proof to the fact that the realm is in a bad place although considering they rebelled against Aerys too I don't know if it's fair to say it's in a worse place than before. 

The rebellion against Aerys was started by two really awful families who were plotting against the Targaryens.  Aerys had every right to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Robert was old enough to be part of this conspiracy to dethrone the Targaryens.  The kingdom itself was in a very good place under Aerys Targaryen's reign.  

On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Lord Commander Jon Snow did not start a fight with the warden of the north over a sister, or over any other matter. The fight was brought to him by the warden of the North - who is only warden due to treachery btw. 

As far as letting the wildlings through the wall he absolutely did & with good reason. Anyone with a lick of sense would have done the same thing. 

Jon Snow did start a fight with the Boltons.  His attempts to take Arya (who he thought was Arya) away from Ramsay is an attack on the Boltons.  Letting Mance Rayder go unpunished because he liked and needed the man was a grave insult to justice when you consider what Jon did to Slynt for a minor offense.  What Slynt did was very, very minor when compared to Mance Rayder's crimes.  Jon sends this criminal to get his sister, for the express purpose of sending her overseas, away from Ramsay.  That is an attack and a declaration of war against the Boltons.  

On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Yep, this is happening while the Lannisters are in power though, not the Baratheons. Not that it makes much difference. 

 

Maybe, but if her ruling of Meereen is any indication as to how her ruling of Westeros would/will be it's not looking so hot. Dany has a lot of learning to do before she would be the best thing that can happen to Westeros. It remains to be seen if she will learn or not. 

The problem in Meereen is caused by the former slave-owning class who want to bring back slavery.  Dany is a much, much better leader than Cersei, Robb, Jon Snow, and Joffrey.   Stopping slavery is a much larger fight than anything those other leaders have faced.  

On 10/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is correct.

The thing is that FaB greatly illustrated how crippled and ineffective a royal administration can be without coin. Maegor did not only wage wars against his people he also emptied the treasury, causing the Queen Regent Alyssa Velaryon to sign off on not exactly popular taxes during the minority of Jaehaerys I.

And later still, during the Dance, it is established that, in the end, Rhaenyra Targaryen lost her throne because Tyland Lannister stole Viserys I's full treasury, causing her to introduce taxes and tariffs that made her very unpopular.

A king with a full treasury, on the other hand, can afford to be generous.

Sorry for the late reply.

I can agree with that for sure. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

You have differentiate here between the common people and the nobility. Nowhere is it said at this point that King Aerys II arbitrarily targeted or killed smallfolk. Yes, some commoners seem to have been tortured and killed back when he had his lapses after the deaths of the children who died in the cradle (midwives and nursemaids, and such) but those were, in essence, privileged people living and serving at court.

Fair enough. It seems reasonable that the small folk could probably care less about which member of nobility is being killed. Sure, some under a particularly favorable Lord wouldn't be happy about his death but probably not to the point that they would rise up against him or anything. 

!! I hit enter long before I was done so I'll start another one LOL 

 

Edited by Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

It wasn't just a full treasury.  The kingdom prospered under Aerys.  And it was relatively peaceful.  

The kingdom prospered despite Aerys, the megalomaniac big spender. The credit for the 7K prospering is Tywin’s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

The average baker or stonemason or blacksmith living in KL, the Crownlands, or anywhere else in the Seven Kingdoms would have never felt the wrath of a king who - in his maddest hours - lived like a prisoner in his own castle.

The men Aerys II seems to have targeted for the most part were nobility who crossed him - the Darklyns and Hollards, later the Starks, various Hands, etc.

This would have been a problem for the noble class, but the average Kingslander wouldn't have cared that the king burned some lord from half a world away.

It would have been similar to the reign of Aegon the Unworthy who, despite being described as the worst king ever on the Iron Throne, was only really dangerous for the people who entered into his inner circle. And that would have been - for the most part - highborn people.

Right but the Noble people are people within the realm & presumably hold a louder voice than the smallfolk so it's not unreasonable to think (in fact we know) that Aerys wasn't not looked upon favorably, at least after the war. Granted this is often the case because the winners write the history. I think we have enough first hand accounts of Aerys maddness to say the noble class didn't consider him a particularly good King, at least after his insanity started showing. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'd say that something that's feudally justified doesn't make for an overall good reason. Robb could have swallowed his pride.

Sure, it doesn't always make for an overall good decision & Robb most certainly could have swallowed his pride. It would have probably saved his life & the life of his mother along with many others, but I also wouldn't be willing to say Robb's cause was completely unjustified. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Because he doesn't actually have proof. He cannot know that Cersei's children are not Robert's, yet he tries to steal the birthright of his nephews and niece, anyway. Since he failed to tell Robert while he was still alive - so that there could have been a proper investigation of the matter - he devolves to resolve a legal issue not legally but militarily.

I suppose to this I would argue that he has as much proof as he is capable of having in the times. He cannot have a DNA test performed or anything of that nature. He should have told Robert when he was alive so that it could have been investigated but I don't really see how an investigation of the sort would play out other than the way Jon Arryn & Ned investigated. I think more to the point though is that WE know the children aren't Robert's so we know Stannis is the rightful heir to the IT. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

He should also have not allowed his hatred of the Lannisters influence him so much. He is manipulated by Littlefinger, too, but it his view of Jaime and Cersei and Tywin that causes him to take Lysa's letter at face value and also to not immediately go to Robert with that letter. After all, the king likely should known (and would have wanted to know) that his foster father and Hand may have been killed by the Lannisters.

No argument here. 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Realm is really fraying at the end of Robert's reign. Almost all the great houses are willing to fight each other, and House Baratheon itself is going to rip itself to pieces.

That's the worst state the Realm has been insofar. Even during the Dance there were only two factions (aside from a couple of would-be kings who died as quickly as they appeared).

But doesn't the majority of this start upon Robert's death & thus after his reign? I know Renly, Stannis, & Robert are not particularly close & Stannis has left KL before Robert's death but they certainly aren't trying to rebel against him, at least not that we know of. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jon never sent a man anywhere. Mormont did. After Mance's defeat both Stannis but especially Jon as Lord Commander should have done anything in his power to inform the Realm about what's going on. Instead he involves himself in a war in the North before he has made any attempt to negotiate or reason with Roose Bolton.

I mean, at Winterfell there are about 5,000+ men on each side, men they could need in the fight against the Others, yet it seems they prefer to kill each other rather than work together - and that's not because the Boltons and Freys decided to reject or ridicule truce proposals, it is because nobody ever offered them any.

My mistake. I remember it was Mormont now. 

I see what you mean. There could have & probably should have been more done to alert people. They may have had a shot at getting the northern folk to listen. 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, sorry, I was talking about Jon there, not you. Jon knows what's at stake - or at least he knows better what might be at stake (neither he nor the other black brothers ever seem to think the Wall itself could fall) - and that's why his interest to get Arya back and see the Lannisters and Boltons and Freys destroyed is much more difficult to excuse than Robb's desire - who didn't really have firsthand knowledge what was going on nor any means to get at the bottom of the garbled reports and stories that may have reached him.

But it is still clear that his decision to march south instead of north as Osha told him is one of his key mistakes.

Oh good! I was so confused! My apologies! 

I'll agree Robb not marching North was a key mistake but I don't think Jon shows a particular interest in seeing the Lannisters, Boltons, & Freys destroyed. It's been quite a while since I've read the books but I don't recall hearing any of this in his thoughts. He does show an interest in helping fArya but only after Mel tells him she will already have fled from Ramsay. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sending Mance to Winterfell did antagonize the Boltons, as did sending Stannis to Deepwood instead of the Dreadfort.

And as it turned out Jon decided to use the wildlings in a war against the Boltons at the end of ADwD - he isn't offering them refuge, he intends to use them in another pointless war. That is a short-term gain.

Wasn't Mance to be sent to find the fleeing Arya though? I'll have to re-read this portion but I thought Mance was supposed to be looking for fArya around a lake or something. At any rate it was Melisandre that sent Mance, Jon just allowed it to happen. 

Jon does let the wildlings in to find refuge. They make a choice to participate (& not all of them IIRC). Your statement makes it sound as if Jon tricked them by enticing them through the wall, offering refuge, only to force them into fighting for him once they got there - which isn't the case. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Has Jon sent so much as a single envoy or letter talking about the Others to any Northern house? I'm not aware of that. In fact, not even Davos - who is sent as envoy to White Harbor - tells the Manderlys about the threat the Others pose.

Maybe not & he probably should have but he sent them to more than just a boy King of 8. He sent them to every person proclaiming themselves King, who were all adults with armies at their disposal barring the boy King. 

 

On 10/4/2019 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, their crucial politicians (Ned and Robb) are too inflexible and to set in their rather haughty noble pride. Ned condemns crucial allies of Robert's in Jaime and Tywin - yes, we understand why he didn't like the Sack and what happened there, but there is hypocrisy there.

And Robb basically burns all bridges when he allows his men to make him king. It isolates him so much that he cannot make common cause with either Stannis or Renly against the Lannisters

I agree. Ned & Robb, IMO, are mostly good people but mostly bad rulers/politicians. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

It wasn't just a full treasury.  The kingdom prospered under Aerys.  And it was relatively peaceful.  

I wasn't arguing that it was or wasn't prosperous. I was arguing that a full treasury, alone, is not enough to base an assumption of great ruling on. 

 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The War of the Five Kings happened because of the Lannister twins attempting to murder Bran and Catelyn's reaction to this.  Renly and Balon just took advantage of the distraction to make their move.  So no, the war was not justified.

I personallly think any time someone is rebelling against a tyrannical or abusive ruler the war is justified. But the Wot5K was a collective effort on the part of many people. It was not the Jaime pushing Bran out the window & Cat's reaction to it alone. 

 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The rebellion against Aerys was started by two really awful families who were plotting against the Targaryens.  Aerys had every right to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Robert was old enough to be part of this conspiracy to dethrone the Targaryens.  The kingdom itself was in a very good place under Aerys Targaryen's reign.  

LOL! Aerys had every right, yes, because he is King & any command he makes is lawful. But what he did wasn't fair or justice. Again, rebelling against a cruel, tyrannical, abusive, ruler is justification enough for me. 

 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon Snow did start a fight with the Boltons.  His attempts to take Arya (who he thought was Arya) away from Ramsay is an attack on the Boltons.

Nope, not what happened. 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Letting Mance Rayder go unpunished because he liked and needed the man was a grave insult to justice when you consider what Jon did to Slynt for a minor offense. 

Also not what happened. Not even close. 

 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

What Slynt did was very, very minor when compared to Mance Rayder's crimes.  Jon sends this criminal to get his sister, for the express purpose of sending her overseas, away from Ramsay.  That is an attack and a declaration of war against the Boltons.  

Listen, I'd be more than happy to debate these points with you but not if you aren't even going to try to tell it true. You are cherry picking the information & twisting it to fit your narrative & view point. That lets me know that you have no interest in conversing on this subject, you only wish to make inflammatory statements to see if someone will bite. 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The problem in Meereen is caused by the former slave-owning class who want to bring back slavery.  Dany is a much, much better leader than Cersei, Robb, Jon Snow, and Joffrey.   Stopping slavery is a much larger fight than anything those other leaders have faced.  

So the issues under Cersei, Jon, & Joffrey's ruling are the fault of the people ruling but the issues under Daenerys's rule is the fault of the people she is trying to rule? Gotcha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The kingdom prospered despite Aerys, the megalomaniac big spender. The credit for the 7K prospering is Tywin’s. 

Care to point out where Aerys II ever spends a lot of money? I'm in full agreement that Aerys II's grand peace is, for the most part, Tywin's accomplishment, but there is no indication Aerys II ever spend much money or was otherwise a wastrel. In fact, especially during his last years he must have spent especially little coin considering that he lived like a prisoner in his own castle with no great feasts or tourneys taking place in KL.

Overall, though, people do credit the king for the successes of his government, not his officials. And Tywin the Hand of Aerys II was successful, Tywin the Hand of Joffrey and Tommen not so much...

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right but the Noble people are people within the realm & presumably hold a louder voice than the smallfolk so it's not unreasonable to think (in fact we know) that Aerys wasn't not looked upon favorably, at least after the war. Granted this is often the case because the winners write the history. I think we have enough first hand accounts of Aerys maddness to say the noble class didn't consider him a particularly good King, at least after his insanity started showing. 

We do have smallfolk crediting and praising Aerys II for his lasting peace. That's what the old Riverlander does in ACoK in Arya's chapters. The moniker 'Mad King' doesn't change that - and even despite Aerys II madness half the Realm still supported him, many courtiers hoping to profit more from Aerys II's well-known generosity.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, it doesn't always make for an overall good decision & Robb most certainly could have swallowed his pride. It would have probably saved his life & the life of his mother along with many others, but I also wouldn't be willing to say Robb's cause was completely unjustified. 

I'm not saying that, either. It was a pretty rash decision, though. Cat rightfully derides Robb for leading the army himself in AGoT. Had he not lead it himself many problems could have been avoided.

The reason why Robb rebels is because he feels wronged on a personal level. And that's in essence his feudal ego speaking. He just believes his father wasn't a traitor - he has no proof. But he still starts a war. Sure, he had to do something to keep face and all but that's part of the toxic aristocratic setting.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I suppose to this I would argue that he has as much proof as he is capable of having in the times. He cannot have a DNA test performed or anything of that nature. He should have told Robert when he was alive so that it could have been investigated but I don't really see how an investigation of the sort would play out other than the way Jon Arryn & Ned investigated. I think more to the point though is that WE know the children aren't Robert's so we know Stannis is the rightful heir to the IT. 

Sure, but a man who essentially obscures things by not telling the guy in charge only to then act after the guy is dead to steal what the birthright of what he thought were his children is very ugly business. It is, in essence, treason because Robert believed his children were his seed and he had acknowledged them as his heirs. Stannis ignored Robert's last will just as much as Cersei did (and Ned, too, when he forged it).

Robert may have named Stannis his heir had he known the truth - but it is due to Stannis and Ned's silence that he never could make that call. And it was his call to make. Deciding the matter with swords mean the guy who wins battles wins the throne - that throws the law out the window.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But doesn't the majority of this start upon Robert's death & thus after his reign? I know Renly, Stannis, & Robert are not particularly close & Stannis has left KL before Robert's death but they certainly aren't trying to rebel against him, at least not that we know of. 

Oh, I'd say Robert's court was much more rotten than the court of Viserys I before the Dance. There you had two factions, and the king failed to realize that they might kill each other after his death. At Robert's court you have a Hand who doesn't get along with the queen's family, a queen who cuckolds the king and conspires to murder her husband to put her son on the throne, two brothers who covet the crown so much that they would kill each other rather than work together against their common foe(s) - and in addition to that ambitious upstarts like Littlefinger and a foreign eunuch with his own agenda.

No man on Robert's council was honestly striving to keep the Realm together or preserve the peace. It was likely the worst council in the history of the Seven Kingdoms insofar as mutually exclusive private agendas were concerned.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'll agree Robb not marching North was a key mistake but I don't think Jon shows a particular interest in seeing the Lannisters, Boltons, & Freys destroyed. It's been quite a while since I've read the books but I don't recall hearing any of this in his thoughts. He does show an interest in helping fArya but only after Mel tells him she will already have fled from Ramsay. 

He expresses thoughts that he wants to destroy House Lannister when he discusses the letter he writes to Tommen early on in AFfC. Instead of supporting Stannis in his Northern war (I understand why he did that) he should have tried to convince Stannis to prevent a war in the North and make a truce with the Boltons so that they can take on the Others together.

If they had rejected that, a war should have been fought, of course.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Wasn't Mance to be sent to find the fleeing Arya though? I'll have to re-read this portion but I thought Mance was supposed to be looking for fArya around a lake or something. At any rate it was Melisandre that sent Mance, Jon just allowed it to happen. 

Jon signs off on that - and Mance clearly has a plan to infiltrate Winterfell with his women. The whole chapter is somewhat garbled but in light of the fact that the vision of the girl could have been a future vision it is clear why they decided to send Mance to Winterfell itself. To pick up somebody on the road Jon could have sent anyone.

Stannis hands over Rattleshirt-Mance to Jon earlier, meaning it was truly his call to make. Mel suggested Mance, of course, but Jon made the call.

And even if the plan hadn't been infiltration, then by feudal standards and values, etc. Jon is still responsible for the action of his man - which Mance was. Remember how Ned immediately makes Cat's abduction of Tyrion his own deed by saying she acted on his command? You own the actions of your men, you don't try to jump through hoops to distance yourself from them like a craven.

And Jon, to his credit, doesn't do that. When he shows his colors in the end and decides to declare war on the Boltons he does that openly and, one imagines, proudly. He wanted to do that all along, and his decision to send Mance down was his first step down that slippery slope.

The problem is that this is neither in the best interest of the Watch nor mankind - and it cannot be reconciled with his duties as Lord Commander.

18 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Jon does let the wildlings in to find refuge. They make a choice to participate (& not all of them IIRC). Your statement makes it sound as if Jon tricked them by enticing them through the wall, offering refuge, only to force them into fighting for him once they got there - which isn't the case. 

He made the refuge conditional on them staying throughout winter and helping to defend the Wall against the Others. It was not an offer of unconditional asylum. But later he decides to use them for his own personal vendetta. One assumes he always intended to use the wildlings as a force to defend the Wall against enemies from the south should the Boltons defeat Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not saying that, either. It was a pretty rash decision, though. Cat rightfully derides Robb for leading the army himself in AGoT. Had he not lead it himself many problems could have been avoided.

The reason why Robb rebels is because he feels wronged on a personal level. And that's in essence his feudal ego speaking. He just believes his father wasn't a traitor - he has no proof. But he still starts a war. Sure, he had to do something to keep face and all but that's part of the toxic aristocratic setting.

For sure. I understand what you are saying. Out of curiosity, what should he have done? I admittedly don't know much about the ways & strategies of war but always felt like Robb got a ball rolling that he couldn't stop. I think he was young, somewhat dumb, & impulsive - that got coupled with him being thrust into a position of power, that he neither earned nor was ready for, made a terrible mixture. 

 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but a man who essentially obscures things by not telling the guy in charge only to then act after the guy is dead to steal what the birthright of what he thought were his children is very ugly business. It is, in essence, treason because Robert believed his children were his seed and he had acknowledged them as his heirs. Stannis ignored Robert's last will just as much as Cersei did (and Ned, too, when he forged it).

Robert may have named Stannis his heir had he known the truth - but it is due to Stannis and Ned's silence that he never could make that call. And it was his call to make. Deciding the matter with swords mean the guy who wins battles wins the throne - that throws the law out the window.

Agreed - nasty business indeed. I often find myself telling my children that had they just communicated with the other party most, if not all, of the argument could have been saved. I think this is the case with adults also, more often than we like to admit. 

 

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I'd say Robert's court was much more rotten than the court of Viserys I before the Dance. There you had two factions, and the king failed to realize that they might kill each other after his death. At Robert's court you have a Hand who doesn't get along with the queen's family, a queen who cuckolds the king and conspires to murder her husband to put her son on the throne, two brothers who covet the crown so much that they would kill each other rather than work together against their common foe(s) - and in addition to that ambitious upstarts like Littlefinger and a foreign eunuch with his own agenda.

No man on Robert's council was honestly striving to keep the Realm together or preserve the peace. It was likely the worst council in the history of the Seven Kingdoms insofar as mutually exclusive private agendas were concerned.

I see. I haven't read FaB or much at all on Targ history so I guess I just assumed Robert's reign was not out of the norm. Compared with Joffrey's where the small folk are starving in the streets & willing to assault the King & Court when they see him Robert's reign doesn't look so bad. His court is definitely a hot mess though. 

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He expresses thoughts that he wants to destroy House Lannister when he discusses the letter he writes to Tommen early on in AFfC. Instead of supporting Stannis in his Northern war (I understand why he did that) he should have tried to convince Stannis to prevent a war in the North and make a truce with the Boltons so that they can take on the Others together.

If they had rejected that, a war should have been fought, of course.

I don't remember those thoughts but I believe you. I don't think there would have been any convincing Stannis of anything but I suppose it wouldn't have hurt to try. 

 

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon signs off on that - and Mance clearly has a plan to infiltrate Winterfell with his women. The whole chapter is somewhat garbled but in light of the fact that the vision of the girl could have been a future vision it is clear why they decided to send Mance to Winterfell itself. To pick up somebody on the road Jon could have sent anyone.

He agrees to let him go yes, but it was not upon his order that he went. I remember Mance wanting to take the spear wives for something he was up to that we & Jon aren't - Maybe Mel too but I doubt it. 

Jon couldn't have sent anyone though. Had he requested a member of the NW to go retrieve her he would definitely have been in the wrong. Mel picks Mance & Jon agrees. He is guilty of agreeing & not saying "Nope, I don't want anything to do with this" or commanding Mance doesn't go - but that wouldn't have gotten him very far considering Mance is not under his rule, nor is Mel. I understand why they went to WF, what I'm questioning is whether or not Mance set out to break fArya out of WF & if Jon was aware of this. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me but it makes a little. If Jon knowingly agreed for Mance to go break fArya out of WF he is a little more complicit than if he agreed for Mance to go assist an already fled fArya. In one case she is breaking out on her own & Mance is rescuing & aiding her from the elements. In the other Mance is assisting in the break out & rescuing her from Ramsay himself. Again, not a huge difference but a little one. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis hands over Rattleshirt-Mance to Jon earlier, meaning it was truly his call to make. Mel suggested Mance, of course, but Jon made the call.

I don't recall Mance being handed over to Jon. As far as I remember the first Jon knew Rattleshirt was Mance is when Mel suggests Rattleshirt retrieve fAray & Jon says no. They then reveal that Rattleshirt is actually Mance glamored. Or am I not talking about the same thing you are? 

I do agree  who went was essentially Jon's decision. Mel holds a carrot in front of him & plays a little trickery IMO. She doesn't say "Do you want me to send someone to retrieve your sister?" She says basically "Who do you want me to send?" Rattleshirt? No? How about Mance then? 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And even if the plan hadn't been infiltration, then by feudal standards and values, etc. Jon is still responsible for the action of his man - which Mance was. Remember how Ned immediately makes Cat's abduction of Tyrion his own deed by saying she acted on his command? You own the actions of your men, you don't try to jump through hoops to distance yourself from them like a craven.

I suppose this is the core of where we disagree. Mance wasn't Jon's man. If he were Jon would hold a lot more of the blame. Mance was Stannis's prisoner - a self-proclaimed King who Jon was in no position to question or disobey outright. I don't mean to suggest Stannis would have executed Jon if he could have made a good argument as to why Mance shouldn't go to retrieve fArya but Stannis certainly would have exacted punishment on Jon if he were to execute Mance. 

I agree you own the actions of your men.  Maybe I'm jumping through hoops to distance Jon from Mance? I don't mean to. I just see this differently than you. Mance was Stannis's prisoner & thus Stannis's man IMO. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And Jon, to his credit, doesn't do that. When he shows his colors in the end and decides to declare war on the Boltons he does that openly and, one imagines, proudly. He wanted to do that all along, and his decision to send Mance down was his first step down that slippery slope.

The problem is that this is neither in the best interest of the Watch nor mankind - and it cannot be reconciled with his duties as Lord Commander.

I agree he was with war with himself on the inside & ultimately it probably felt good to say "screw it" I'm going after this prick. There is some argument for him doing so that fall within the rules of being LC though. Ramsay has threatened his life & commanded he turn people over to him that Jon either doesn't have or cannot turn over if he does. So while it may have felt good & in his heart he truly did want to help fArya I think there is something to be said for waiting until he did. I would've made a terrible LC because I could not have handled it emotionally. I would have probably left as soon as I heard she was being married to that sadistic f*ck.

I think it isn't in the best interest of mankind - that would be to stay & focus on the fight against the others. But it may have been best for the Watch. Taking the fight to Ramsay rather than waiting for the fight to come to them & keeping the NW members out of the fight strategically doesn't sound too bad to me. Again, I don't know much about battle strategy though. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He made the refuge conditional on them staying throughout winter and helping to defend the Wall against the Others. It was not an offer of unconditional asylum. But later he decides to use them for his own personal vendetta. One assumes he always intended to use the wildlings as a force to defend the Wall against enemies from the south should the Boltons defeat Stannis.

Yeah, I think it's only fair for their fighting men to help protect the wall. It also keeps them from raiding the North. I guess the term I'm taking issue with is "use" he didn't insist or command them to come fight with him they wanted to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 5:38 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote 1: “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” - Daenerys, ASOS

Quote 2: “In death he looked even younger than he had with blade in hand. “A boy,” said Dany. “He was only a boy.”
“Six-and-ten,” Hizdahr insisted. “A man grown, who freely chose to risk his life for gold and glory. No children die today in Daznak’s, as my gentle queen in her wisdom has decreed.” - Daenerys, ADWD

Quote 3: "A boy came, younger than Dany, slight and scarred, dressed up in a frayed grey tokar trailing silver fringe. His voice broke when he told of how two of his father's household slaves had risen up the night the gate broke. One had slain his father, the other his elder brother. Both had raped his mother before killing her as well. The boy had escaped with no more than the scar upon his face, but one of the murderers was still living in his father's house, and the other had joined the queen's soldiers as one of the Mother's Men. He wanted them both hanged. I am queen over a city built on dust and death. Dany had no choice but to deny him. She had declared a blanket pardon for all crimes committed during the sack. Nor would she punish slaves for rising up against their masters."- Daenerys, ADWD

Several questions here - 

First, is everyone who wears a tokar a slave master? Or, is the tokar the garment worn by free people, some of which are slave owners, some are not?

Second, at what age is a person in Slavers Bay responsible for slavery?

Third, would a person wearing a tokar, who is 12 years old, have been killed in the sack? If so, did Dany sanction child murder? (quotes 1, 2, 3)

Fourth, if she thinks 16 is a child, where did she come up with the number 12 before this? (referring to quote 1 and 2)

Finally, would you consider Mirri Maz Duur a slave who rose up against her master? (referring to Quote 3)

I preface my answer by saying I read only the first page of the replies here and it sickened me. 
Our current society has a massive problem with having been sold, and adopted, a huge moral, ethical and intellectual fraud.
Accurate (fair) judgement is only possible when looking at the individual case, not by breaking things into broad classifications and assumptions. Broad classifications and assumptions are easier and can be significantly useful as a starting point - because we can't possibly know all the true data about any situation we stumble into and so in order to respond in more suitable ways most of the time we make generalisations that work more often than not. But those generalisations are not necessarily accurate in any particular case. It is necessary that we accept that there will be the occasional 'wrong' assumption in order to be able to act or think at all.

There are two ways this has gone horribly wrong in modern society.
1. We are increasingly being led, demanded at, pushed, to use broad generalisations and assumptions (which may not be correct in any particular case) for serious legal and societal decisions and actions which have huge ramifications in peoples lives. The proper use of these generalisations and assumptions is as a useful starting point only before further information gathering which may prove or disprove them in an individual case. But, often for political reasons, the 'further information gathering' part is being dropped from the process entirely.
An easy example of this are calls for slavery reparations in America. Which, at least as reported in my part of the world, neglect so many facts that its ... ridiculous, and utterly ignore the individual circumstances of each person relevant.
2. The advent of social media has meant that social media lynch mobs, full of fools who have gleefully adopted the moral, ethical and intellectual fraud they've been sold, constantly make cowardly, vicious, ignorant, calls for some horrible 'action' or other, based on .... the tiniest bit of (often mis)information, plus said generalisations and assumptions.
This, IMO, is true evil. playing out in full public, and growing stronger in our society all the time.

Our culture has a major problem with moral superiority. Not externally. Internally. By people who have abdicated morals, ethics, and reason.

 

 

Now, to your questions.

1. We don't have a full detailed exposition of Tokar-usage. Based on what we know, it seems to me, that the Tokar is a culturally significant garment. It 'shows' that a person is wealthy enough to not have to work (physically at least). I can't see more than that, unless I've missed something.
As a generalisation, a mostly useful one, most people wearing Tokars in Slavers Bay are Slavers, or are closely associated (I'm not even going to head in the direction of what 'closely associated' means, and how relevant it is) with Slaving. But there doesn't seem to be any reason that someone can't wear a Tokar even if they have no association at all with Slaving. Dany does. 
I'm not saying there definitely are Tokar wearers who have no association with Slavery. Just that there cold be and we have nothing to say there are not. The assumption that a Tokar wearer is closely (and foully) associated with Slavery may be a useful one, but before a serious judgement is passed it is a moral, ethical and intellectual failing to understand the individual circumstance in detail before-hand.

2. I don;t think there is a reasonable answer to that question. Heck, I don't think its a reasonable question as it lumps everybody into a category subject to significant judgement based on two broad generalisations - where they are, and what age they are. That is wrong, perhaps evil once you think about it deeply.
A person in Slavers Bay (or anywhere else) is responsible for their own actions. If they own slaves, they are responsible for that. There is more, but not much more and its very very complicated, far to difficult to parse here. You are not responsible for the whole culture you were born to, only for your own actions and the things you could influence. If you hold power, you are responsible for the exercise of that power. If you hold none, or none over relevant situations, then you can't have responsibility for those situations. And Power itself has many subtle levels.

3. Probably yes, a 12 year old wearing a Tokar would have been killed during the sack. Whether thats 'murder' or not is not so clear - Dany is at war. People die in wars. Children as well as adults. And while killing a child feels worse than killing an adult (at least for most people in most situations, unless they've shelved their humanity for an ideology, or have other deep psychological issues), its not actually any different. Thats just a biological instinct we have to protect the next generation and make sure humanity continues.
I think Dany did sanction child murder, in one way. At the same time, its not actually possible during a War/Sack to go into details of individual situations and cases, so Dany effectively made a generalisation that from the age of 12, a person has adult responsibilities, even though that does not hold in all cases or situations (even with the same individual person).

4. Out of her ass? Different situations, different judgements. If pressed to judge, I'd suggest its probably that 12 years fit her intellectual, theoretical, prescription of having adult responsibilities, but the physical reality of a dead 16 year old boy did conform to that idea. I doubt it really challenged her to think about that intellectually though, perhaps we'll see otherwise. 
To some extent, age is just a number. Different people in different circumstances have different capabilities, both physical, intellectual and emotional, and may be able to be 'adult' or 'responsible' in different ways for different things at different ages.

5. Heck, I'm not even sure Mirri Maz Durr 'rose'. Drogo didn't follow her instructions with the poultice, Dany stayed in the ritual against advice and then Jorah interrupted it (MMD told Dany no one must enter). Mirri doesn't argue when Dany decides that her son's life was the price for Drogo's, but that doesn't make it so. Killing the Stallion was Mirri's instruction originally.
Mirri gives (placidly) Dany reasons why Drogo, and Dany, had no claim on her allegiance - reasons that could justify deliberate malpractice on Mirri's part, but even then, Mirri places a religious rather than a personal context on it.
I'm not sure either way, but I can see Mirri as simply doing her best and believing that what happens is the will of her god(s).
But lets assume she 'rose'. 
Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. There are many ways of looking at it. Even if we assume we have enough details in this particular case, its morally ambiguous enough I'm not sure what I think about what Mirri supposedly did, deliberately.  Dany might feel betrayed, but she's not exactly spotless here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For sure. I understand what you are saying. Out of curiosity, what should he have done? I admittedly don't know much about the ways & strategies of war but always felt like Robb got a ball rolling that he couldn't stop. I think he was young, somewhat dumb, & impulsive - that got coupled with him being thrust into a position of power, that he neither earned nor was ready for, made a terrible mixture. 

Not commanding the troops himself would have been a start. Then he could have seen to the defense of the North, meaning no Ironborn invasion, no broken Frey betrothal, and no Red Wedding. Instead a Stark of Winterfell who does his duty and comes to the defense of the Wall when Mance Rayder attacks in ASoS.

It would have meant trouble for the Riverlands, of course, but Robb being there didn't save them from trouble either, did it?

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed - nasty business indeed. I often find myself telling my children that had they just communicated with the other party most, if not all, of the argument could have been saved. I think this is the case with adults also, more often than we like to admit. 

Things like that underline the pettiness of the entire War of the Five Kings. It is not a war about anything meaningful nor even a war where there are good and bad sides - especially not if you do not like either monarchy nor feudalism.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I see. I haven't read FaB or much at all on Targ history so I guess I just assumed Robert's reign was not out of the norm. Compared with Joffrey's where the small folk are starving in the streets & willing to assault the King & Court when they see him Robert's reign doesn't look so bad. His court is definitely a hot mess though. 

Robert's reign looks good compared to things in war times, yes - and also to things after war is just over. But his court is still rotten. There might be others which were similarly rotten, but there were those kings who had functional governments and councils where everybody was working together to better the Realm - but Robert's government wasn't one of those.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He agrees to let him go yes, but it was not upon his order that he went. I remember Mance wanting to take the spear wives for something he was up to that we & Jon aren't - Maybe Mel too but I doubt it. 

We only see the start of that decision - the chapter breaks off before Jon allows Mance to go and before Mance has picked his women. One assumes Jon asked him what the hell he needed those women for. And it is clear that they were part of an infiltration plan.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Jon couldn't have sent anyone though. Had he requested a member of the NW to go retrieve her he would definitely have been in the wrong. Mel picks Mance & Jon agrees. He is guilty of agreeing & not saying "Nope, I don't want anything to do with this" or commanding Mance doesn't go - but that wouldn't have gotten him very far considering Mance is not under his rule, nor is Mel. I understand why they went to WF, what I'm questioning is whether or not Mance set out to break fArya out of WF & if Jon was aware of this. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me but it makes a little. If Jon knowingly agreed for Mance to go break fArya out of WF he is a little more complicit than if he agreed for Mance to go assist an already fled fArya. In one case she is breaking out on her own & Mance is rescuing & aiding her from the elements. In the other Mance is assisting in the break out & rescuing her from Ramsay himself. Again, not a huge difference but a little one. 

Jon himself ends up offering Alys Karstark asylum once she arrives at Castle Black. He could have sent some men down the Kingsroad and have those black brothers offer the girl on the horse refuge at the Wall. She was in trouble, after all. There was no need to use Mance for that.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't recall Mance being handed over to Jon. As far as I remember the first Jon knew Rattleshirt was Mance is when Mel suggests Rattleshirt retrieve fAray & Jon says no. They then reveal that Rattleshirt is actually Mance glamored. Or am I not talking about the same thing you are? 

Stannis hands over 'Rattleshirt' to Jon earlier in ADwD and 'Rattleshirt' himself says that he is Jon's man now. That is quite clear. Stannis leaves 'Rattleshirt' with Jon when he goes to war because he knows he is actually Mance Rayder and they need his knowledge at the Wall.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I suppose this is the core of where we disagree. Mance wasn't Jon's man. If he were Jon would hold a lot more of the blame. Mance was Stannis's prisoner - a self-proclaimed King who Jon was in no position to question or disobey outright. I don't mean to suggest Stannis would have executed Jon if he could have made a good argument as to why Mance shouldn't go to retrieve fArya but Stannis certainly would have exacted punishment on Jon if he were to execute Mance. 

Jon makes it quite clear he would rather kill 'Rattleshirt' than to allow him to go down south to save his sister before Mel reveals who he actually is. This makes it clear that Jon thinks the Rattleshirt guy is in his power and he can do with him what he wants - especially if he were to try to do things he doesn't want him to do.

The person who remains Stannis' prisoner - who is not formally handed over to Jon Snow - is Val. She remains Stannis' prisoner - and Jon knows that he might get in trouble after Stannis' return if she were not to come back to the Wall when he sends her out to talk to Tormund.

He has no such thoughts about Mance. He is Jon's man now, to do with him as he sees fit - especially if he were to act in concert with Melisandre on the matter (which he does).

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree you own the actions of your men.  Maybe I'm jumping through hoops to distance Jon from Mance? I don't mean to. I just see this differently than you. Mance was Stannis's prisoner & thus Stannis's man IMO. 

See above. And a lot of people have issues with that particular incident. But Jon doesn't really need defenders on this. He knows what he is doing, and he has no problems with that. In the end, his sister means more to him than vows and promises and honor. It is just a fact.

This doesn't mean that this is good, though. Or bad. It is just how it is. The idea that there is a clear right and wrong in this conundrum is pretty much insane - it is deliberately designed to a strong internal conflict.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree he was with war with himself on the inside & ultimately it probably felt good to say "screw it" I'm going after this prick. There is some argument for him doing so that fall within the rules of being LC though. Ramsay has threatened his life & commanded he turn people over to him that Jon either doesn't have or cannot turn over if he does. So while it may have felt good & in his heart he truly did want to help fArya I think there is something to be said for waiting until he did. I would've made a terrible LC because I could not have handled it emotionally. I would have probably left as soon as I heard she was being married to that sadistic f*ck.

Well, if Stannis were truly dead then his cause is dead, too. Selyse and Shireen and Mel are at Castle Black so he can hand them over. Those he didn't have he couldn't hand over, of course, but that he could easily prove or try to prove.

The ugly thing is that Ramsay is in the right here. Mance snuck into Winterfell, broke guest right, and abducted Ramsay's wife, killing people in the process. And Ramsay also seems to have testimony - either from Mance himself or from one of the wildling women he captured - to corroborate those accusations. If Lord Commander Mormont had pulled something like that with Ned he would have received a similar ultimatum - although likely containing fewer insults.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think it isn't in the best interest of mankind - that would be to stay & focus on the fight against the others. But it may have been best for the Watch. Taking the fight to Ramsay rather than waiting for the fight to come to them & keeping the NW members out of the fight strategically doesn't sound too bad to me. Again, I don't know much about battle strategy though. 

The problem here is that if Ramsay did not lie - if Stannis is truly dead - then all the North should now rally behind the Boltons - especially if a turncloak Lord Commander of the NW actually tried to wage war on Winterfell with an army of wildlings. From the average Northern point of view this must be the epitome of treason. Jon couldn't give the Boltons a greater advantage than actually marching down south with a wildling army at his back - he himself tells that Stannis earlier in the book when Stannis intends to use the wildlings to attack the Dreadfort.

In that sense, killing Jon might actually have saved Jon from his greatest mistake - assuming he ever returns back to life. Because whenever that happens chances are about zero that any wildlings are going to march down south with him at that point.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I think it's only fair for their fighting men to help protect the wall. It also keeps them from raiding the North. I guess the term I'm taking issue with is "use" he didn't insist or command them to come fight with him they wanted to. 

Well, he changed the agreement - an agreement that also involves the taking of hostages. It is not a nice deal.

The Others are the common enemy of both Watch and wildlings, but that's not (necessarily) the case for the Boltons. If Roose or Ramsay were to agree to settle them somewhere in the North they likely wouldn't have any reason to have issues with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Care to point out where Aerys II ever spends a lot of money? I'm in full agreement that Aerys II's grand peace is, for the most part, Tywin's accomplishment, but there is no indication Aerys II ever spend much money or was otherwise a wastrel.

Not particularly. But aren’t there mentions of endless balls and such early on? I may be misremembering, it’s been a while since my last full read through of TWoIaF. But not to worry, if you take issue w/ it I can just as easily remove “big spender” and replace it w/ “nutjob. So, now, the sentence should read, “megalomaniac nutjob” instead of “megalomaniac big spender”. :)

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, especially during his last years he must have spent especially little coin considering that he lived like a prisoner in his own castle with no great feasts or tourneys taking place in KL.

Agree irt his last years as king. Too busy being crazy to do anything else. :lol:

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Overall, though, people do credit the king for the successes of his government, not his officials. And Tywin the Hand of Aerys II was successful, Tywin the Hand of Joffrey and Tommen not so much..

Even if they did, wouldn’t change th fact that Aerys played no part in the 7K thriving during his reign. And the truth is, they didn’t. From nobles all the way down to lowly peasants, everyone knew it was Tywin who was running everything, not Aerys. Just one quote here, but one that makes my point very clear:

TWoIaF, Aerys II

“None of these grandiose plans ever came to fruition; most, indeed, were forgotten within a moon’s turn, for Aerys II seemed to grow bored with his royal enthusiasms as quickly as he did his royal paramours. And yet the Seven Kingdoms prospered greatly during the first decade of his reign, for the King’s Hand was all that the king himself was not—diligent, decisive, tireless, fiercely intelligent, just, and stern. “The gods made and shaped this man to rule,” Grand Maester Pycelle wrote of Tywin Lannister in a letter to the Citadel after serving with him on the small council for two years.
And rule he did. As the king’s own behavior grew increasingly erratic, more and more the day-to-day running of the realm fell to his Hand. The realm prospered under Tywin Lannister’s stewardship—so much so that King Aerys’s endless caprices did not seem so portentous. Many Targaryens before him had exhibited similar behavior without great cause for concern. From Oldtown to the Wall, men began to say that Aerys might wear the crown, but it was Tywin Lannister who ruled the realm.”

“It was Tywin Lannister who settled the crown’s dispute with the Braavosi (though without “making the Titan kneel,” to the king’s displeasure), by repaying the monies lent to Jaehaerys II with gold from Casterly Rock, thereby taking the debts upon himself. Tywin won the approbation of many great lords by repealing what remained of the laws Aegon V had enacted to curb their powers. Tywin reduced tariffs and taxes on shipping going in and out of the cities of King’s Landing, Lannisport, and Oldtown, winning the support of many wealthy merchants. Tywin built new roads and repaired old ones, held many splendid tournaments about the realm to the delight of knights and commons both, cultivated trade with the Free Cities, and sternly punished bakers found guilty of adding sawdust to their bread and butchers selling horsemeat as beef. In all these efforts he was greatly aided by Grand Maester Pycelle, whose accounts of the reign of Aerys II give us our best portrait of these times.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not particularly. But aren’t there mentions of endless balls and such early on? I may be misremembering, it’s been a while since my last full read through of TWoIaF. But not to worry, if you take issue w/ it I can just as easily remove “big spender” and replace it w/ “nutjob. So, now, the sentence should read, “megalomaniac nutjob” instead of “megalomaniac big spender”. :)

He liked balls and such in his early days, when he had that string of short-lived mistresses. However, there is no indication that he ever arranged balls that were particularly expensive. Especially early on during his reign - when there were still those Iron Bank debts to deal with Tywin's graciously paid with Lannister coin (debts of Jaehaerys II which may go back to the War of the Ninepenny Kings) - it doesn't seem likely Aerys II could afford to be overly generous.

As for megalomania - I'm not sure that describes Aerys II accurately, either - he certainly was a narcissist and later he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or something along those lines. But he never actually did anything megalomaniacal. He had grand designs ... but those always changed and nothing ever came of it.

Even the Mad King moniker seems to go back to rather mundane stuff related to his paranoia and mental illness - fear of blades caused him to never cut his hair or nails, paranoia and sudden mood swings caused him to behave completely improper in public, etc.

Cruel punishments didn't earn other kings the moniker 'the Mad'. And private things like him raping Rhaella and cruelly ravaging her in the process seem to be the kind of thing that even to this day very few people outside courtier circles know.

15 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Even if they did, wouldn’t change th fact that Aerys played no part in the 7K thriving during his reign. And the truth is, they didn’t. From nobles all the way down to lowly peasants, everyone knew it was Tywin who was running everything, not Aerys.

Well, it seems clear that Tywin really dominated the first half of the reign of Aerys II - when they still were on the same page and Aerys II usually followed Tywin's advice in all things. But once the partnership started to fray, and Aerys II did things without consulting with Tywin first the government did not suddenly implode nor did things start to go to hell. I imagine that Tywin returned to dominate policies after Duskendale when Aerys II effectively became a recluse in his own castle, but if the king and the Hand are not on the same page the Hand can do only things if the king allows him. If he were to overrule all the Hand's decision nothing positive could come out of the Hand's good acts.

Or take another example - Jon Arryn seems to have been a decent Hand - but Robert still emptied Aerys II's full treasury and then beggared the Crown. Aerys II didn't do that - not while Tywin was Hand, nor after he had accepted his resignation.

Yandel's account seems to reflect more the views of the informed people - i.e. the lords and nobles with ties to court or such who received reports from their by raven, etc. The average peasant - just as the average Kingslander - didn't exactly credit the Hand or the king's advisers for the king's actions. We see the same thing with Tyrion as Acting Hand in ACoK. He is the one who really tries (at least at first) to do justice and defend KL against the the enemies who march against the city. Yet the majority in the city doesn't blame fair Joff for his shittiness - instead they blame Tyrion because he looks ugly.

A Hand like Tywin - with as a dark reputation as Castamere would have given him, in combination with his less than sunny overall character - wouldn't have been popular and loved - even with those informed people who knew that most positive decisions at court originated with him. They would have been jealous of his access to the Iron Throne and the influence he had over the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 12:17 AM, frenin said:

And the Lannisters were ravaging the Riverlands and had killed Ned, the reasons why the Robellion was justified also applied here, the Starks and Tully didn't swear to be treated like garbage and neither Robb nor Edmure swore an oath to Joffrey either.

It isn't responsible to start a war to get satisfaction or revenge over Bran's  injury.  And that is what Catelyn and Ned did.  Cat knew what it meant to arrest Tyrion.  Ned knew what it meant to escalate the fighting into war. 

The Tullys and the Starks swore an oath to the throne.  Robb and Edmure owed their pampered and rich lifestyles because their ancestors decided to swear fealty.  You inherit the privilege and you inherit the responsibility.  The two go hand in hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

It isn't responsible to start a war to get satisfaction or revenge over Bran's  injury.  And that is what Catelyn and Ned did.  Cat knew what it meant to arrest Tyrion.  Ned knew what it meant to escalate the fighting into war. 

 

Is there a time where nobles don't war for selfidh reasons and  make the world bleed because of that?? The only war that worth something is actually Dany's campaign.

Cat knew the Lannisters were plotting against the crown and that war was coming soon, so she wanted a leverage, she didn't want to capture Tyrion but she could not afford that Tyrion told his siblings Cat was travelling incognito in the south... if the Lannisters were plotting against the crown and were behind Bran's murder attempt, Ned wanted proves of their betrayal and actually escalate the conflict into a devastating civil war by not giving Cersei and the kids to Robert, had ever happened Tywin Lannister would rebel, if he decided to rebel, alone against the might of the Throne and he would've been destroyed, would you ever delivered three innocents kids, even if one of them ironically ends up killing you, to their deaths and not doing the logical thing?? People are not logical, they're passional for better or for worse.

 

15 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

 The Tullys and the Starks swore an oath to the throne.  Robb and Edmure owed their pampered and rich lifestyles because their ancestors decided to swear fealty.  You inherit the privilege and you inherit the responsibility.  The two go hand in hand. 

Again, they never swore it was ok for them to be treated like garbage, they didn't rebel and later secede for funsies, so this is kinda pointless, they didn't have the right to do it, no one really has the right to do anything then, so??

Why is secesion  less justified, as in morally justified which was the topic, than conquest?? Why Aegon and  his descendants had the right to genocide and  warring  because of his massive ego and  people suddenly have a problem and  feel that the Wot5k is irresponsible?? I'm feeling a curious double standard here??

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This again.  I have to say it makes for interesting talk.  Start by tackling the executions of Rickard Stark and Brandon Stark.  Those who believe they were conspiring to remove the Targaryens from power do say those deaths were deserved because they were guilty of treason.  With Lyanna being the glue to hold the houses together when they finally declare war on the Targaryen.  Aerys was justified in executing the Starks.  He was justified in calling for the heads minus the bodies of Robert and Eddard.  I believe this because I think the chances are quite reasonably high that the Starks were part of the plan to overthrow the Targaryens. 

I know more than a few people here will still speak up for the Starks even if they are guilty of treason.  I know I would still support the Targaryens even if the Starks are innocent.  It is determined by which side you like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23 August 2019 at 5:22 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robb isn’t a vehicle to explore social reformers who gain too much power, that seems like what Dany is a vehicle for. Its just poking holes in power fantasies. Sometimes critical thinking stops when it comes to Dany, and I think it’s amusing. 

I don’t think this is a relativist novel. At its core I think it’s still a fantasy novel with a problematic House like Tolkien’s Dark Numenoreans and a light house like the elves, only the dark/light imagery is switched to bait the reader. And the author will never fully allow for too much hero worship or hype, which Dany has in excess. There will be checks on the “power fantasy” that these leaders present, either through contradictions or major losses.  Robb lost pretty badly and all that hype went down the drain. No one can be too fantastical or larger than life. 

There's no problematic or light house in this story.  That's Harry Potter.

There is no reason to believe that Starks, Lannisters, or Targaryens are better or worse than each other, on average.

Given Martin's political outlook, I would be surprised if he is trying to make the point that someone who tries to reform a rotten status quo is inevitably worse than a person who just accepts it and benefits from it.  (I accept, that probably is the political outlook of D & D).

Share this post


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

Given Martin's political outlook, I would be surprised if he is trying to make the point that someone who tries to reform a rotten status quo is inevitably worse than a person who just accepts it and benefits from it.  (I accept, that probably is the political outlook of D & D). 

I, too, would be surprised. If Martin is making a point about power, I'd argue that it's not who should wield it but what should be done with it. And it's pretty clear to me he thinks we should use power to free slaves and give more power to smallfolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

This again.  I have to say it makes for interesting talk.  Start by tackling the executions of Rickard Stark and Brandon Stark.  Those who believe they were conspiring to remove the Targaryens from power do say those deaths were deserved because they were guilty of treason.  With Lyanna being the glue to hold the houses together when they finally declare war on the Targaryen.  Aerys was justified in executing the Starks.  He was justified in calling for the heads minus the bodies of Robert and Eddard.  I believe this because I think the chances are quite reasonably high that the Starks were part of the plan to overthrow the Targaryens. 

I know more than a few people here will still speak up for the Starks even if they are guilty of treason.  I know I would still support the Targaryens even if the Starks are innocent.  It is determined by which side you like. 

I don't know why people are so obsessed with a treason in the series isn't even hinted, wouldn't have Barri B or Jaime talk about it??

Is Ned suffering from cognitive dissociation this is clearly not thinking about his treason??  How can chances be reasonably high if this treason is entirely headcanon??

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 12:56 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Prosperity allows for the majority of the people, high or low, the chances of economic security.  There were long periods of peace and stability during his reign.  

On 10/9/2019 at 12:56 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I personallly think any time someone is rebelling against a tyrannical or abusive ruler the war is justified. But the Wot5K was a collective effort on the part of many people. It was not the Jaime pushing Bran out the window & Cat's reaction to it alone. 

Jaime's attempt on Bran's life was the trigger that lit the fuse.  That is true.  However, it was the Starks and the Lannisters who opened the door for Balon to think he had a chance.  It was a Stark who provoked Cersei into action that got Robert killed.  

In so far as justification, one has to weigh the consequences.  The consequences were so great that Catelyn should have left Tyrion alone even if it meant not getting any justice for Bran.  Thousands of innocent children suffered because of that decision.  

On 10/9/2019 at 12:56 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

LOL! Aerys had every right, yes, because he is King & any command he makes is lawful. But what he did wasn't fair or justice. Again, rebelling against a cruel, tyrannical, abusive, ruler is justification enough for me. 

For you, but not for the people living under the feudal system and not for many in this forum.  There happen to be many people here who would support what Aerys did to Brandon and Rickard Stark.  Robb had no way of knowing who Joff's true parents were and he had no basis to rebel against his king.  

On 10/9/2019 at 12:56 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Nope, not what happened. 

Also not what happened. Not even close. 

 

Listen, I'd be more than happy to debate these points with you but not if you aren't even going to try to tell it true. You are cherry picking the information & twisting it to fit your narrative & view point. That lets me know that you have no interest in conversing on this subject, you only wish to make inflammatory statements to see if someone will bite. 

So the issues under Cersei, Jon, & Joffrey's ruling are the fault of the people ruling but the issues under Daenerys's rule is the fault of the people she is trying to rule? Gotcha. 

The damage during the leaderships of Cersei, Jon Snow, and Joffrey are indeed mostly their own fault.  Just as that is true, it is also true that the problems in Slaver's Bay are the fault of the former slavers who are actively attempting to bring back slavery.  If those former slavers would just cooperate and give up on slavery, yes, the situation would be so much better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jaime's attempt on Bran's life was the trigger that lit the fuse.  That is true.  However, it was the Starks and the Lannisters who opened the door for Balon to think he had a chance.  It was a Stark who provoked Cersei into action that got Robert killed.  

... So, people should just let injustices happen always because things could not go as planned??

Ned should've let three  innocent kids die??

 

18 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

For you, but not for the people living under the feudal system and not for many in this forum.  There happen to be many people here who would support what Aerys did to Brandon and Rickard Stark.  Robb had no way of knowing who Joff's true parents were and he had no basis to rebel against his king.  

 

18 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The damage during the leaderships of Cersei, Jon Snow, and Joffrey are indeed mostly their own fault.  Just as that is true, it is also true that the problems in Slaver's Bay are the fault of the former slavers who are actively attempting to bring back slavery.  If those former slavers would just cooperate and give up on slavery, yes, the situation would be so much better.  

Don't you see the irony here?? Or as long as a Targ do whatever they want you'll be fine with it??

I hope there are not many people who support what Aerys did to Brandon and  Rickard.

Edited by frenin

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

×