frenin Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert was not known to have any problem with children during the war, it was only after the bodies were presented to him and he dismissed them that Ned realized that about Robert. The fact that Robert wasn't known for that means that he didn't display such hatred in public, not that he did not harbor such hatred before the sack.  13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM has merely said Ned was competent as a swordsman. He has also said Ned would lose in a fight with Boromir. Martin does not say that tho, it's the conclussion of whomever wrote the ssm. Martin says this. Quote Depends on the kind of fight you had in mind. Brandon was the best of the Starks with sword in hand, and the best jouster as well. But Benjen has other skills that serve him well as a ranger... and Ned was likely the best battle commander. Ned is worst than Brandon, but that can mean anything, i agree that giving that Ned fought in the front and all that he was at least competent, but that's a pretty big room.  @Lyanna<3Rhaegar Quote Indeed & I think it has to be a reward for killing Elia & the children because, arriving late to the cause, the Lannisters did nothing else to be rewarded for. Granting stability to the new regime, had Mace had a daughter of the right age by then, he would've been the chosen one. We're given the reasons for the marriage, i'd agree that the question could be debatable if we didn't have them, but we do, the Lannisters simply seemed like the best option, morality aside. Apeasing the Martells would not secure Robert's throne, marrying the Lannisters would  @Lord Varys  Quote Sure, and it is not so much that I say Selmy should have been seen as Jaime's accomplice or anything - rather that he could feel guilty the same way Belgrave and Connington and even Jaime do. Him overcoming that guilt and joining Robert shows a deficit in KG character, if you will. He cared more about his career and his standing than about what it means to be a KG. - Connington wasn't even a KG, survivor's guilt is another matter entirely. - Selmy does feel guilty. - Feeling guilty does not mean wasting your life. It shows no deficit whatsoever, just as there was no deficit whatsoever in Fell by serving Aegon 3, not that there is a KG bushido, you're arbitraly embracing one stance while dismissing the rest.   Quote This was the argument Arryn used to convince Robert, not necessary the real reason why he wanted Robert to marry Cersei. I certainly think this was good reasoning. But as for rewards: What would you say was Robert's decision to marry his son to Sansa Stark? Would you say this wasn't a reward for the service and friendship Ned had shown his childhood friend and later king? When you are king and pick a bride from a family then this is always a sign of royal favor and is a reward in that sense. I never said Robert was rewarding Jaime and Tywin specifically for the murder of the Targaryens - but he did reward them for the Sack. Without the Sack Jaime would have likely been forced to go to the Wall as one of Aerys II's last loyal defenders and both Tywin's neutrality and long friendship with the king would have been viewed as a sign not to trust him because he could turn against Robert and his family if the Targaryens ever tried to win back the Iron Throne. Instead Robert would have looked for a bride among another prominent house which had shown its loyalty to him during the Rebellion. Why wouldn't it be the real reason?? What other interest would be?? Arryn does not care about Tywin and treating with Dorne would be a pain in the ass, if he is worried about Robert's throne. Marrying him to Cersei makes, and made him, virtually invincinble.  The Ned and Sansa thing are a very different situation, there is no political reasoning behind the bethrothal, Robert loves Ned and wants to share blood ties with him, without the Sack, Jaime is still pardoned, if Balon was there is absolutely no reason for him not be, and if Cersei is available she still marries Robert with even more reason because the rebels must take the Targs an ally. Not that things don't change anyway, Tywin would seem like the best option for marrige, with or without the Sack.   Quote I didn't say that they deserved execution, either - more that they didn't want to survive their king. The knights at the tower give me the strong vibe of a last desperate stand. A way to make up for absence while the king and his son and grandchildren and wife were butchered. They don't really act like that, they were given orders, theytried to upheld them, they failed.   Quote Well, I meant execution as proper punishment for murder. Jaime betrayed and murdered his king and should be executed for that. Just as Aegon II's murderers betrayed and murdered their king and should be executed for that. That is justice. For whom??  Quote Very few people would take the extreme Belgrave approach, but we do have Robin Ryger and Desmond Grell refusing Jaime's pardon and taking the black. Some men who feel a deep loyalty and take pride in the honor that comes with being sworn to a lord do refuse the pardons they are offered by their lord's victorious enemies - and that's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing, it's not a great thing either or even a example to mimick. Not that Belgrave took any extreme, choosing death rather than a penal colony in the end of the world does not strike me as ine of the most difficult choices ever, Belgrave did not choose that extreme until he was pushed to it.    Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 6 hours ago, frenin said: Granting stability to the new regime, had Mace had a daughter of the right age by then, he would've been the chosen one Was this stated? That the marriage to Cersei was a reward for helping to stabilize the new regime? Or that a daughter of Mace would've been chosen instead if there was one? 6 hours ago, frenin said: We're given the reasons for the marriage, i'd agree that the question could be debatable if we didn't have them, but we do, the Lannisters simply seemed like the best option, morality aside. Apeasing the Martells did not secure Robert's throne, marrying the Lannisters did Oh, my bad. I don't remember the reasons being stated but if they are, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Was this stated? That the marriage to Cersei was a reward for helping to stabilize the new regime? Or that a daughter of Mace would've been chosen instead if there was one? Oh, my bad. I don't remember the reasons being stated but if they are, you're right. And Cersei . . . I have Jon Arryn to thank for her. I had no wish to marry after Lyanna was taken from me, but Jon said the realm needed an heir. Cersei Lannister would be a good match, he told me, she would bind Lord Tywin to me should Viserys Targaryen ever try to win back his father’s throne. I loved that old man, I swear it, but now I think he was a bigger fool than Moon Boy. Oh, Cersei is lovely to look at, truly, but cold ... the way she guards her cunt, you’d think she had all the gold of Casterly Rock between her legs.  The wording is clear and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt it, Cersei was going to marry Robert with or without since she seemed the better option by far and it's not like the pool was full of brides either, with Lyanna gone it seemed Cersei or Cersei. It's hard to me to see it like the reward you'ret alking about when it was Ceresi or Cersei. Even if iwould've gone for one of the Hightower girls. This is not like Joffrey's case who has a lot of brides for Robert to choose (Arianne, Sansa, Margaery, Asha) and his decision is ofc biased when you consider that the Starks were already commited to his cause and he should marry his heir to those he is bad or not as good terms with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 1 hour ago, frenin said: The wording is clear and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt it, Cersei was going to marry Robert with or without since she seemed the better option by far and it's not like the pool was full of brides either, with Lyanna gone it seemed Cersei or Cersei. It's hard to me to see it like the reward you'ret alking about when it was Ceresi or Cersei. Even if iwould've gone for one of the Hightower gir I guess that does imply the marriage was made for military support, but marrying the King & becoming Queen is always a reward. That doesn't say anything of marrying a Tyrell if there was one though. He didn't marry her because she was the only one, the quote doesn't say that at all. He could have not married at all.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 35 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I guess that does imply the marriage was made for military support, but marrying the King & becoming Queen is always a reward. I don't know how it just implies it, it outright says that it was the reason behind the decision, it is a reward, but it's not a reward for killing innocents and children, as some you keep repeating here and there, that's simply not true as far as we can tell,  Tywin seemed the only best option, with or without sack.  35 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:  That doesn't say anything of marrying a Tyrell if there was one though.  No, that was mine, the Lannisters had already commited themselves to the Baratheons and the Tyrells didn't, marrying to the Tyrells would've been a far better move, unfortunately Margaery was a toddler then.  35 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:  He didn't marry her because she was the only one, the quote doesn't say that at all. He could have not married at all.  We know she was the only one, you only have to look the pool of brides after the Robellion and tell me me again how many brides were better than Cersei... Joffrey could marry, Sansa, Margaery, Arianne and Asha, how many highborn brides were available to Robert after Lyanna died?? How many highborn brides were both worthy enough and secured Robert's throne?? About the latter, he could not have married at all, he did want to do that, it would be ludicrous tho. Aegon could've also not married at all and name heir Orys Baratheon but people tend to prefer father their own heirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 11 minutes ago, frenin said: How many highborn brides were both worthy enough and secured Robert's throne?? Well that's kind of my point. Tywin helped secure Robert's throne & did so by sacking KL & killing Elia & the kids. Doesn't that mean that's what the reward is for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 On 3/1/2020 at 5:13 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Well that's kind of my point. Tywin helped secure Robert's throne & did so by sacking KL & killing Elia & the kids. Doesn't that mean that's what the reward is for? Tywin was rewarded because his daughter was pretty much the only bride available and it assured, even when it was already assured but k, the Westerlands to Robert, making him virtually impossible to defeat. That would've happened with or without the sack unless Lyanna were to live. Because with or without the sack the rebels would need the Westerland's back up.  Tywin secured Robert's throne by bringing the rich of the Westerlands 50k swords to his cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 On 2/29/2020 at 9:57 PM, Lord Varys said: Sure, and it is not so much that I say Selmy should have been seen as Jaime's accomplice or anything - rather that he could feel guilty the same way Belgrave and Connington and even Jaime do. Him overcoming that guilt and joining Robert shows a deficit in KG character, if you will. He cared more about his career and his standing than about what it means to be a KG. He doesn't need to "overcome guilt" in order to join Robert. Quote I'd say some other KG also show similar traits, among them the knights at the tower, the Dragonknight (dying for a brother/king he must have loathed), etc. But, sure, that kind of thing is more an ideal, and something that only comes forth if people are tested by extreme situations. Not every KG must save his king from an assassination or has the bad luck to serve in succession crisis or civil war. Aemon fought to protect an unworthy king and died. Selmy fought on behalf of an unworthy king and was severely wounded, but survived. No one questions how hard he fought, or that he was incapacitated with injury. By westerosi standards, he has nothing to feel guilty about with the Trident. Quote The idea with that parallel is that Jaime needed both the opportunity and sort of the permission, the mental switch that convinced him that it was okay to murder the man. And that's something the Sack and Aerys II's final commands triggered in him. I agree with that "mental switch". Jaime is not really a planner/plotter. And I'd point out that we don't know how any other KG would have behaved if they were in the same situation. Quote Whether Jaime actually had the means and opportunity to murder Jaime in an obvious way (slay him with a sword, say) I'm not so sure about. He was the last Kingsguard, but that doesn't mean he could come get an audience and be with Aerys II when the king was alone. Jaime was as much hostage as he was KG. One assumes the king had other sworn swords around him by that point he trusted more than Jaime. And even if there weren't other men-at-arms at hand, chances are pretty good that the king never met with Jaime while there weren't many other people around. Jaime is the only one to know that Aerys ordered the burning of King's Landing precisely because he was the only other person present with Aerys and Rossart. Jaime was able to kill Aerys because Aerys wasn't paranoid enough about Jaime to have anyone around to protect himself from his KG. Quote We also can guess at the depth of the hatred Jaime felt for his king by the simple fact that he chose to murder him the way he did and at the time he did - he is basically a guy races to the finishing line to get a shot at this task. His father and his men are right outside. If he doesn't get to the king in time they will put him down - and Tywin will likely enjoy taking apart Aerys II piece by piece. But Jaime cannot have that. He must be the one who finishes him I think we know the depth of Jaime's hatred from his recollections of Aerys being awful and having to be told by other KG that it was their duty to maintain their loyalty to the king anyway. The manner and time of it is much less indicative... although Jaime's subsequent decision to climb to the top of the Iron Throne and sit with his bloody sword across his lap certainly indicated an unconflicted and guilt-free attitude. Jaime was killing everyone involved in the wildfire plot, and while my view is that killing Rossart alone was sufficient to abort the plan and he could have left others alive to corroborate the story, Jaime doesn't see things that way. I don't think he killed those other alchemists because he personally hated them either. Quote It started with Rossart and then it continued with the king Agreed. Quote Ned would have informed Robert about everything he saw while in the castle. And other men, too, of course. There must have been servants and chamber maids and guardsmen in Maegor's who saw what transpired there (or at least enough to implicate the Lannister men). Nothing indicates the Lannisters did murder all the folk in Maegor's. That's a good point, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they did kill everyone in Maegor's. It would be in-character, and such people would be insignificant enough not to get mentioned. Quote The idea here is that the king decides what the charge and also what the truth is. If the king accuses you of having done a particular crime he can also condemn you and you can do nothing about that (e.g. the Stinger and Jaehaerys I). If Robert said he believed Tywin commanded the murders - or decided to condemn the general for the crime of his troops or the lord for the crime of his sworn men (which is what happens all the time in a feudal setting) then Tywin could do nothing about that. All he could do was to ask for mercy. Robert had just fought a rebellion because the Mad King refused a Lord Paramount his right to a trial. There's no way that happens again, especially when everyone knows sacks are chaotic. Quote This was the argument Arryn used to convince Robert, not necessary the real reason why he wanted Robert to marry Cersei. I certainly think this was good reasoning. You think Arryn misled Robert about his actual reasoning? Quote But as for rewards: What would you say was Robert's decision to marry his son to Sansa Stark? Would you say this wasn't a reward for the service and friendship Ned had shown his childhood friend and later king? Not a reward. Ned hadn't done anything for him recently. Robert wanted to join the Stark and Baratheon houses when he was young via Lyanna. He's now getting to make good on what he wanted earlier. It's even the "Baratheon" heir with the eldest Stark daughter again. Quote That would be meaningless insofar as Robert's actual reign is concerned. A King on the Iron Throne counts his reign from the day of his coronation, not when some people declare him king in some camp. Not to mention that it would make no sense to view Robert as King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men while there was another man on the Iron Throne and many lords still in the field against him (and many others hadn't yet done him homage). Aegon I dated his reign to his coronation, because the unity of the kingdoms was a new thing. But Aegon II and Rhaenyra could each consider themselves the legitimate ruler even while the other sat on the Iron Throne, and Stannis insists he's king without ever having sat on it. Robert is slightly different in that he doesn't argue that Aerys never had a right to inherit the throne, but in a hypothetical where Aerys just destroyed the crown and throne to prevent Robert from having those symbols, Robert would scoff at the notion that this had any bearing on his reign. As kings go, he has a flippant attitude toward formality. Quote Robert would have been king in the sense Aegon III was king between Aegon II's death and his own coronation, with the difference that Robert was an adult and a warrior very much in charge of things, unlike the boy king. Being an adult who can actually give orders which will be obeyed makes all the difference. There have been purely ceremonial monarchs, but the westerosi haven't glommed onto that. Quote I didn't say that they deserved execution, either - more that they didn't want to survive their king. The knights at the tower give me the strong vibe of a last desperate stand. A way to make up for absence while the king and his son and grandchildren and wife were butchered. What would those KG have done if they'd won? Sought some other way to die? Quote Well, I meant execution as proper punishment for murder. Jaime betrayed and murdered his king and should be executed for that. Just as Aegon II's murderers betrayed and murdered their king and should be executed for that. That is justice. There's a distinction between "revenge" and "justice". Justice is supposed to take the place of, and really displace, revenge. Karstark wanted to avenge the deaths of his sons and he did that via tit-for-tat killings of Lannisters. But Robb as king cannot permit Karstark to take revenge at the expense of Robb's political order, which includes a system of justice which must balance the realities of politics. Quote The Robb example illustrates this very much - not punishing Jaime, Tywin, and his thugs means you sent the message that it is okay to betray your liege and butcher him and his family when they are in trouble or facing a seemingly more powerful foe. This undermines the core principles of the feudal framework of the society because it lowers the standards of loyalty to opportunism. I'll agree on Jaime: it's generally agreed among westerosi that a KG killing their own king is basically the worst thing they can do. Tywin is another story. They have very low expectations for what occurs in a sack, although admittedly Tywin entered under false pretenses and never gave the city the opportunity to surrender first. Quote Not everybody was pardoned. Quite a few men were sent to the Wall. And one assumes that some men were also executed - Aerys II's torturerers, say. Tywin sent men to the Wall before Robert arrived. Selmy was in Robert's camp and thus subject to Robert's magnanimous sense of mercy and forgiveness rather than Tywin or Roose Bolton. Quote And I'd say that this kind of behavior is what should be expected from a true Kingsguard if your king is either murdered, deposed, or killed in battle and replaced by the enemy he fought against. When you start treating the king as a person that can be randomly replaced you are essentially forget what your job is. Everyone considers Selmy one of the truest KG ever. And I don't consider the characters in the story insufficiently aware of the requirements of a KG compared to you. Quote And to a lesser degree this also goes for a peaceful transition. Just because Aegon the Unworthy is the son of the great Viserys II doesn't mean you should feel the same kind of loyalty for the former than you do for the latter. He was king, and that's all there is to it as far as they're concerned. KG who play politics are held in lower regard than ones who are simply loyal. Maegor is admittedly a different story. 23 hours ago, frenin said: The fact that Robert wasn't known for that means that he didn't display such hatred in public, not that he did not harbor such hatred before the sack. Ned was surprised because Robert hadn't indicated as much to him. Whether he "harbored such hatred" without expressing it is another story. Quote - Connington wasn't even a KG, survivor's guilt is another matter entirely. -Â Selmy does feel guilty. - Feeling guilty does not mean wasting your life. Connington feels guilty for not burning Stony Sept. Selmy feels guilty for not winning the tourney at Harrenhal so he could choose the Queen of Love and Beauty. By normal westerosi standards they are blameless for such things even if they personally feel terrible about the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He doesn't need to "overcome guilt" in order to join Robert. I think he should have felt guilty for Rhaegar, his wife, and his children. If he did not, he wasn't really a good KG. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aemon fought to protect an unworthy king and died. Selmy fought on behalf of an unworthy king and was severely wounded, but survived. No one questions how hard he fought, or that he was incapacitated with injury. By westerosi standards, he has nothing to feel guilty about with the Trident. I'd say that anybody serving a piece of shit like Jaime should feel guilty about not seeing this guy for what he was - I certainly would, just as I'd beat myself up for not having killed Tywin Lannister a long time ago. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I agree with that "mental switch". Jaime is not really a planner/plotter. And I'd point out that we don't know how any other KG would have behaved if they were in the same situation. Jaime himself ironically expects other KG to not behave the way he did in a similar situation - that's why he is beating up Balon Swann with his brothers. I think it was right to stop the wildfire plot, possibly even to kill Rossart (he would be executed anyway, although he could also have been just knocked out). And I also agree that any decent person, KG or not, should have prevented the king from trying to go through with the wildfire plan. But there are a lot of different ways to do that besides cruelly murdering the king and gloating or even getting off while you do it. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jaime is the only one to know that Aerys ordered the burning of King's Landing precisely because he was the only other person present with Aerys and Rossart. Jaime was able to kill Aerys because Aerys wasn't paranoid enough about Jaime to have anyone around to protect himself from his KG. Oh, there must have been more men around there, it makes no sense to assume only Jaime and Aerys and some pyromancers knew. Chelsted also found out, etc. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I think we know the depth of Jaime's hatred from his recollections of Aerys being awful and having to be told by other KG that it was their duty to maintain their loyalty to the king anyway. The manner and time of it is much less indicative... although Jaime's subsequent decision to climb to the top of the Iron Throne and sit with his bloody sword across his lap certainly indicated an unconflicted and guilt-free attitude. Jaime was killing everyone involved in the wildfire plot, and while my view is that killing Rossart alone was sufficient to abort the plan and he could have left others alive to corroborate the story, Jaime doesn't see things that way. I don't think he killed those other alchemists because he personally hated them either. It seems to me that he killed them all because he wanted to. Because he enjoyed it to punish them. I also think that's the reason why he never talked about Rossart or the other pyromancers. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That's a good point, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they did kill everyone in Maegor's. It would be in-character, and such people would be insignificant enough not to get mentioned. That would be many corpses. And there is no internal reason to assume that Tywin commanded to keep the murders of Targaryens a secret. Things only got as ugly as they were because his men murdered them in a very crude fashion and also raped and murdered Elia Martell. And Tywin only learned about how things stood when word about Maegor's got back to him, possibly only after he himself entered the Red Keep (which he liked did after all the fighting was over, considering how he likes to command from the rear). 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert had just fought a rebellion because the Mad King refused a Lord Paramount his right to a trial. There's no way that happens again, especially when everyone knows sacks are chaotic. It would depend on what the king wanted done. Tywin and the Westermen betrayed their liege and king for no reason. They were not part of the rebel movement and did not act at the orders or with the knowledge of Robert and his allies. It was up to them to interpret this as the treason and crime that it was ... or to treat it as a gift. Robert chose the latter, but if Ned had prevailed Tywin and Jaime would have been executed and the Westerlands would have gotten new overlords. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You think Arryn misled Robert about his actual reasoning? I think he used weird reasoning. Chances are very low that Tywin would have stood with the dragons after the Sack - not necessarily with the stags, either, but really not very likely with the dragons. Robert already had the Vale, Stormlands, half or more of the Riverlands, and the North. Having the Westerlands, too, certainly would put him in even more powerful a position, but he could accomplished something similar by marrying a Hightower or Tyrell, especially since that could also have helped with the Dornish situation (marrying Cersei and not punishing the Lannisters really is what triggered the entire Martell plotting, strengthening rather than weakening the Targaryen position in Westeros). 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Not a reward. Ned hadn't done anything for him recently. Robert wanted to join the Stark and Baratheon houses when he was young via Lyanna. He's now getting to make good on what he wanted earlier. It's even the "Baratheon" heir with the eldest Stark daughter again. This can still be seen as a reward. Nobody ever said it was a specific reward with 'a reward tag' stating 'thanks for killing the dragonspawn'. I mean, we even see this kind of thing discussed - Alyssa Velaryon suggests Jaehaerys I should take a bride from one of those houses who stood with Aegon the Uncrowned to reward them for their loyalty ... but Aegon the Uncrowned was dead for six years. And Benifer argued that they shouldn't do that because that would make them look as if they were willing to reward and favor their own over the followers of Maegor. We can be very sure that all the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros and Essos interpreted the Cersei-Robert match as Robert rewarding the Lannisters for their leal service during the Sack, including the murders of Aerys II, Elia Martell, and the royal children. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon I dated his reign to his coronation, because the unity of the kingdoms was a new thing. But Aegon II and Rhaenyra could each consider themselves the legitimate ruler even while the other sat on the Iron Throne, and Stannis insists he's king without ever having sat on it. Robert is slightly different in that he doesn't argue that Aerys never had a right to inherit the throne, but in a hypothetical where Aerys just destroyed the crown and throne to prevent Robert from having those symbols, Robert would scoff at the notion that this had any bearing on his reign. As kings go, he has a flippant attitude toward formality. The custom is to count from coronation, not war-time shenanigans. And how pretenders see themselves is completely irrelevant. Daemon Blackfyre also didn't become a king because he struck some coins. It is also not really relevant what kind of crown Robert wore ... but that he sat the Iron Throne. Perhaps he counted his reign from the day he claimed the Iron Throne (I'd assume he did, and it should be clear that from that moment he essentially was an uncrowned king). But it is quite clear that he would have gotten his own formal - and likely very lavish and pompous - coronation to hammer home the fact that he was the legitimate king, and not the boy pretender on Dragonstone, Viserys III. In any case, we still have no clue when exactly Jon convinced Robert to marry Cersei - if you want to believe Robert became a proper king the moment he entered the Red Keep then Jon would have convinced him before he arrived there, possibly while talking to an injured Robert at the Trident. Although I find that not very convincing while it was still unknown that Lya would die. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What would those KG have done if they'd won? Sought some other way to die? I'm inclined to believe they lost on purpose. If they intended to something else they would have long left the tower. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'll agree on Jaime: it's generally agreed among westerosi that a KG killing their own king is basically the worst thing they can do. Tywin is another story. They have very low expectations for what occurs in a sack, although admittedly Tywin entered under false pretenses and never gave the city the opportunity to surrender first. Tywin pulled something like the Red Wedding at the Sack. Robert could have punished him very harshly for that alone, regardless what happened to royal family. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Tywin sent men to the Wall before Robert arrived. Selmy was in Robert's camp and thus subject to Robert's magnanimous sense of mercy and forgiveness rather than Tywin or Roose Bolton. Well, one expects that said men could have petioned His Grace King Robert whether they really had to go to the Wall, no? After all, what authority had Tywin Lannister to demand anything from Rykker and Thorne? 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Everyone considers Selmy one of the truest KG ever. And I don't consider the characters in the story insufficiently aware of the requirements of a KG compared to you. I'd say Selmy is sort of victim of his fame. He is a great knight, he pulled of the most amazing feat in the history of Westerosi chivalry and Kingsguard at Duskendale, but his stint as Robert's KG is a stain on his honor. And that's mostly because Robert pardoned Jaime and Tywin. If that hadn't happened Selmy would look a lot better. How much Selmy is a larger-than-life figure can be seen in correct assessment as a man who would lend honor to any cause he takes up and to any pretender he joins. 19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He was king, and that's all there is to it as far as they're concerned. KG who play politics are held in lower regard than ones who are simply loyal. Maegor is admittedly a different story. I this kind of feudal setting you have to show your colors. You have to agree that the guy who wants to be king now is also your king. The Kingsguard do swear to a concrete flesh-and-blood king, not an abstract king, and thus they - like any other lord, knight, sworn sword, etc. - have to answer the question whether the new king is also their king. That's very easy when there is a peaceful succession (although still quite hard if you are Ser Duncan the Tall and the man peacefully successing King Maekar was King Aerion Brightflame) but even then it is something you have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: I think he should have felt guilty for Rhaegar, his wife, and his children. If he did not, he wasn't really a good KG. Hmm why?? He fought for Rhaegar and while Rhaegar was dying Barri B himself was about to. Where is stated that KGs should feel guilty for the death of people not under their watch?? And why should that guilt prevent him from joining Robert??   12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: I'd say that anybody serving a piece of shit like Jaime should feel guilty about not seeing this guy for what he was - I certainly would, just as I'd beat myself up for not having killed Tywin Lannister a long time ago. What was he exactly?? Barristan and the rest coerced Jaime while they enabled Aery's shenaningans, they have little right to judge Jaime. Even then, why should anybody feel guilty about that??   12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Jaime himself ironically expects other KG to not behave the way he did in a similar situation - that's why he is beating up Balon Swann with his brothers. I think it was right to stop the wildfire plot, possibly even to kill Rossart (he would be executed anyway, although he could also have been just knocked out). And I also agree that any decent person, KG or not, should have prevented the king from trying to go through with the wildfire plan. But there are a lot of different ways to do that besides cruelly murdering the king and gloating or even getting off while you do it. He expects them not to abandon their king, not not to kill them. Sure Jaime wanted to kill Aerys... So what?? Aerys deserved every bit of that longsword.    12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: It seems to me that he killed them all because he wanted to. Because he enjoyed it to punish them. I also think that's the reason why he never talked about Rossart or the other pyromancers. Or to make sure that no one would touch the wildfire...   12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: That would be many corpses. And there is no internal reason to assume that Tywin commanded to keep the murders of Targaryens a secret. Things only got as ugly as they were because his men murdered them in a very crude fashion and also raped and murdered Elia Martell. And Tywin only learned about how things stood when word about Maegor's got back to him, possibly only after he himself entered the Red Keep (which he liked did after all the fighting was over, considering how he likes to command from the rear). And yet we don't know about many who survived and ofc Tywin would want to keep plausible deniability as much as he could. In fact that's why he never admits it publicly,btw are they less dead if they weren't killed in a crude fashion??   12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: It would depend on what the king wanted done. Tywin and the Westermen betrayed their liege and king for no reason. They were not part of the rebel movement and did not act at the orders or with the knowledge of Robert and his allies. It was up to them to interpret this as the treason and crime that it was ... or to treat it as a gift. Robert chose the latter, but if Ned had prevailed Tywin and Jaime would have been executed and the Westerlands would have gotten new overlords. Tywin betrayed their liege and King to join the rebels and executing Tywin is easy to say, doing it however...    12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: This can still be seen as a reward. Nobody ever said it was a specific reward with 'a reward tag' stating 'thanks for killing the dragonspawn'. I mean, we even see this kind of thing discussed - Alyssa Velaryon suggests Jaehaerys I should take a bride from one of those houses who stood with Aegon the Uncrowned to reward them for their loyalty ... but Aegon the Uncrowned was dead for six years. And Benifer argued that they shouldn't do that because that would make them look as if they were willing to reward and favor their own over the followers of Maegor. We can be very sure that all the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros and Essos interpreted the Cersei-Robert match as Robert rewarding the Lannisters for their leal service during the Sack, including the murders of Aerys II, Elia Martell, and the royal children. You did. And sure, people in Westeros could and would interpret it as a reward depending how much they knew about the events of the protagonists but it makes no sense whatsoever that readers do.   12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: I think he used weird reasoning. Chances are very low that Tywin would have stood with the dragons after the Sack - not necessarily with the stags, either, but really not very likely with the dragons. Robert already had the Vale, Stormlands, half or more of the Riverlands, and the North. Having the Westerlands, too, certainly would put him in even more powerful a position, but he could accomplished something similar by marrying a Hightower or Tyrell, especially since that could also have helped with the Dornish situation (marrying Cersei and not punishing the Lannisters really is what triggered the entire Martell plotting, strengthening rather than weakening the Targaryen position in Westeros). Even when i agree that Arryn made the wrong choice here and should've married Robert with a Hightower, marrying Robert to Cersei secured Robert's throne, with or without Martell plotting the only way the Targs could ever get the Throne back was... Cersei doing her thing, what Tyrell of the main branch, and we don't even know if there were female Tyrell of lesser branches either, were available for Robert to marry??    12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:  Well, one expects that said men could have petioned His Grace King Robert whether they really had to go to the Wall, no? After all, what authority had Tywin Lannister to demand anything from Rykker and Thorne? That is if Tywin actually waited His Grace King Robert, since we are never told about his involvement in any of that is unlikely that that ever happened.  12 hours ago, Lord Varys said: I'd say Selmy is sort of victim of his fame. He is a great knight, he pulled of the most amazing feat in the history of Westerosi chivalry and Kingsguard at Duskendale, but his stint as Robert's KG is a stain on his honor. And that's mostly because Robert pardoned Jaime and Tywin. If that hadn't happened Selmy would look a lot better.  Not really a stint of his honor, nor people in Westeros thought of him less honourable.     Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: I think he should have felt guilty for Rhaegar, his wife, and his children. If he did not, he wasn't really a good KG. Selmy was near Rhaegar's death, but not the rest of his family. Quote I'd say that anybody serving a piece of shit like Jaime should feel guilty about not seeing this guy for what he was - I certainly would, just as I'd beat myself up for not having killed Tywin Lannister a long time ago. None of the KG saw anything wrong with Jaime, because he wasn't giving any indications of treason. And when Tywin was Hand in King's Landing, he didn't do anything that would merit the KG killing him. Quote Oh, there must have been more men around there, it makes no sense to assume only Jaime and Aerys and some pyromancers knew. Chelsted also found out, etc. Even the surviving members of the Alchemist's Guild don't know about it, it was kept a secret amongst the king and those three pyromancers. They tried to keep it secret from the Hand as well, but he didn't trust the king and found out. Quote That would be many corpses. We don't know that there weren't. Quote And there is no internal reason to assume that Tywin commanded to keep the murders of Targaryens a secret. Things only got as ugly as they were because his men murdered them in a very crude fashion and also raped and murdered Elia Martell. Tywin knew when he ordered it that responsibility for it was something to be avoided it, which is why Robert wouldn't order it. He didn't order a full assault and breach of Maegor's by a large force of soldiers, but instead for two hand-picked knights to scale it. He neglected to give more specific orders that would have made it more discrete, but that was what he was angling for. Quote It would depend on what the king wanted done. Tywin and the Westermen betrayed their liege and king for no reason. They were not part of the rebel movement and did not act at the orders or with the knowledge of Robert and his allies. It was up to them to interpret this as the treason and crime that it was ... or to treat it as a gift. Robert chose the latter, but if Ned had prevailed Tywin and Jaime would have been executed and the Westerlands would have gotten new overlords. Executing a Lord Paramount without trial would not be acceptable to Robert's coalition, who were themselves disloyal enough to the Targaryens to support Robert over them (some of his supporters were former loyalists who switched sides after Robert defeated them, because Robert is magnanimous and forgiving). Robert hasn't conquered the Westerlands and isn't going to be able to impose a new dynasty on them, so instead Tywin would be replaced by a relative who's going to hate Robert. Quote I think he used weird reasoning. Chances are very low that Tywin would have stood with the dragons after the Sack - not necessarily with the stags, either, but really not very likely with the dragons. Robert already had the Vale, Stormlands, half or more of the Riverlands, and the North. Having the Westerlands, too, certainly would put him in even more powerful a position, but he could accomplished something similar by marrying a Hightower or Tyrell, especially since that could also have helped with the Dornish situation (marrying Cersei and not punishing the Lannisters really is what triggered the entire Martell plotting, strengthening rather than weakening the Targaryen position in Westeros). Robert hadn't yet shown that his rule was secure, hence the Greyjoy Rebellion. The Lannisters and Tyrells combined were strong enough to be the dominant coalition during the War of the Five Kings, they would be extremely dangerous if they united behind a Targaryen. And as much as the Lannisters had done to burn their bridges with the Targaryens via the sack, Jon Arryn could not be sure Tywin wouldn't switch sides again (particularly if someone else made a marriage alliance via Cersei). We also don't know of the Tyrells having any marriageable daughters for Robert at the time. Quote The custom is to count from coronation, not war-time shenanigans. And how pretenders see themselves is completely irrelevant. Daemon Blackfyre also didn't become a king because he struck some coins. Daemon lost, whereas Robert won. Quote It is also not really relevant what kind of crown Robert wore ... but that he sat the Iron Throne. Perhaps he counted his reign from the day he claimed the Iron Throne (I'd assume he did, and it should be clear that from that moment he essentially was an uncrowned king). But it is quite clear that he would have gotten his own formal - and likely very lavish and pompous - coronation to hammer home the fact that he was the legitimate king, and not the boy pretender on Dragonstone, Viserys III. I expect he did have a coronation, and he does after all wear a crown, but just doesn't consider that very important. Robert was regarded as king by his supporters around the time of the Trident, and while there were others who had not yet accepted him as king, that was also true after he reached King's Landing and could claim the throne, since the Tyrells were still besieging Storm's End. Quote In any case, we still have no clue when exactly Jon convinced Robert to marry Cersei - if you want to believe Robert became a proper king the moment he entered the Red Keep then Jon would have convinced him before he arrived there, possibly while talking to an injured Robert at the Trident. Although I find that not very convincing while it was still unknown that Lya would die. Robert was still fixed on marrying Lyanna. Jon Arryn was able to convince him after he learned of Lyanna's death, though he initially didn't want to marry at all. Quote I'm inclined to believe they lost on purpose. If they intended to something else they would have long left the tower. They killed most of Ned's men, and by Ned's own account nearly killed him but for Howland Reed. Lyanna was pregnant for much of her time at the tower, and had only recently given birth. Even aside from Rhaegar's orders, I think there were some practicalities inhibiting their movement. Quote Tywin pulled something like the Red Wedding at the Sack. The Red Wedding was a violation of the sacred custom of guest-right. There are no legends like the Rat Cook of people being cursed after something like the sack. Varys even expected something like that, which is why he warned Aerys not to let Tywin in, and Pycelle seems to have expected similarly and merely lied to help it come about. Quote Well, one expects that said men could have petioned His Grace King Robert whether they really had to go to the Wall, no? Is there any precedent for men sent to the Wall petitioning the king? Quote I'd say Selmy is sort of victim of his fame. What does it mean to be a "victim of his fame"? Quote He is a great knight, he pulled of the most amazing feat in the history of Westerosi chivalry and Kingsguard at Duskendale, but his stint as Robert's KG is a stain on his honor. And that's mostly because Robert pardoned Jaime and Tywin. If that hadn't happened Selmy would look a lot better. Jaime is the one who actually required a pardon, since he'd served as Aery's KG, openly violated his oath, and retained a position in the KG. Tywin went back to Casterly Rock and held no position in the new regime, just as he hadn't after resigning as Hand prior to the rebellion. Quote How much Selmy is a larger-than-life figure can be seen in correct assessment as a man who would lend honor to any cause he takes up and to any pretender he joins. Once Robert has seized the throne and been acclaimed as king by the various lords of the realm, it's a bit much to still call him "pretender". Selmy fought against him when the throne was in dispute, trying to continue that afterward would mean Selmy's death rather than the return of the Targaryens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Selmy was near Rhaegar's death, but not the rest of his family. None of the KG saw anything wrong with Jaime, because he wasn't giving any indications of treason. And when Tywin was Hand in King's Landing, he didn't do anything that would merit the KG killing him. One can interpret Hightower's and Darry's lessons to Jaime as them being haughty asses ... or one can wonder why they felt they had to lecture Jaime in this manner. If his eyes and facial expression and body language indicated deep loathing and/or disgust at what the king was doing they may have feared Jaime could do something stupid and get himself killed, dishonoring the KG in the process. I find it very unlikely that Darry and Hightower very happily serving a nutcase as Aerys II but they had more discipline and experience to not show their true feelings - but Jaime was just a 15-year-old youth. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Even the surviving members of the Alchemist's Guild don't know about it, it was kept a secret amongst the king and those three pyromancers. They tried to keep it secret from the Hand as well, but he didn't trust the king and found out. Well, that doesn't make any pracitical sense, either. You cannot stock all the capital with hundreds of jars of wildfire if you work just with 3-4 old dudes, one of which was also the Hand and doing other stuff. Other people must have known stuff, although they may perhaps not have the full picture (for instance, nothing about the plan to actually ignite it). 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't know that there weren't. You were the guy who suggested that all the people in Maegor's had been killed as well as that nobody actually knew what transpired in there. But neither is actually stated by the text. It is not publicly said/confirmed that Tywin was behind what transpired, but that's not the same as what being transpired being a secret. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Tywin knew when he ordered it that responsibility for it was something to be avoided it, which is why Robert wouldn't order it. He didn't order a full assault and breach of Maegor's by a large force of soldiers, but instead for two hand-picked knights to scale it. He neglected to give more specific orders that would have made it more discrete, but that was what he was angling for. Chances are about zero that Lorch and Gregor were the only men to scale it, nor do we know that they got to Elia the scaling way and not, say, by opening the gates and lowering the draw bridge to get more men inside so they could defeat whatever defenders were guarding the royal family inside. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Executing a Lord Paramount without trial would not be acceptable to Robert's coalition, who were themselves disloyal enough to the Targaryens to support Robert over them (some of his supporters were former loyalists who switched sides after Robert defeated them, because Robert is magnanimous and forgiving). Robert hasn't conquered the Westerlands and isn't going to be able to impose a new dynasty on them, so instead Tywin would be replaced by a relative who's going to hate Robert. Nobody said anything about there not being a trial. Cregan Stark shows how you condemn men to death with flimsy evidence. If he could do it as 'the Hand a Prince' then an actual king could do the same. And of course the Lannisters could be attainted for that. Tywin is not loved, many Westermen are in the castle and somebody would gladly accept the honor of being the new Lord of Casterly Rock. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert hadn't yet shown that his rule was secure, hence the Greyjoy Rebellion. The Lannisters and Tyrells combined were strong enough to be the dominant coalition during the War of the Five Kings, they would be extremely dangerous if they united behind a Targaryen. And as much as the Lannisters had done to burn their bridges with the Targaryens via the sack, Jon Arryn could not be sure Tywin wouldn't switch sides again (particularly if someone else made a marriage alliance via Cersei). We also don't know of the Tyrells having any marriageable daughters for Robert at the time. There would be some Tyrell or Hightower woman available if they had been willing to look. There are far too many of them. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I expect he did have a coronation, and he does after all wear a crown, but just doesn't consider that very important. Robert was regarded as king by his supporters around the time of the Trident, and while there were others who had not yet accepted him as king, that was also true after he reached King's Landing and could claim the throne, since the Tyrells were still besieging Storm's End. Robert said he would lay claim to the Iron Throne around the time of the Trident, we don't know his men had already done him homage or proclaimed him their king. Everybody expects Robert to become king after the Trident, but he isn't king yet. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: They killed most of Ned's men, and by Ned's own account nearly killed him but for Howland Reed. Lyanna was pregnant for much of her time at the tower, and had only recently given birth. Even aside from Rhaegar's orders, I think there were some practicalities inhibiting their movement. We know too little about that ... for instance, it is not clear when Lyanna gave birth nor why they remained at the tower which was a place they could not really defend, etc. 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Red Wedding was a violation of the sacred custom of guest-right. There are no legends like the Rat Cook of people being cursed after something like the sack. Varys even expected something like that, which is why he warned Aerys not to let Tywin in, and Pycelle seems to have expected similarly and merely lied to help it come about. The Red Wedding was also a treasonous move by two houses determined to jump ship and show the victorious side that they were good now. And exactly that Tywin did, too. He also sort of broke guest right in the sense that the king allowed him inside his city and Tywin then decided to butcher his hosts (the Targaryens and the Kingslanders). 18 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Is there any precedent for men sent to the Wall petitioning the king? I'd say Tywin had no legal right to force anyone to do anything in KL. He was just a rebel lord. No promise you made to that shithead would be binding if not confirmed by King Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: One can interpret Hightower's and Darry's lessons to Jaime as them being haughty asses ... or one can wonder why they felt they had to lecture Jaime in this manner. If his eyes and facial expression and body language indicated deep loathing and/or disgust at what the king was doing they may have feared Jaime could do something stupid and get himself killed, dishonoring the KG in the process. Jaime was young and new to the KG. It's expected for more senior members to mentor him, just as Jaime does for Loras later. Quote Well, that doesn't make any pracitical sense, either. You cannot stock all the capital with hundreds of jars of wildfire if you work just with 3-4 old dudes, one of which was also the Hand and doing other stuff. Other people must have known stuff, although they may perhaps not have the full picture (for instance, nothing about the plan to actually ignite it). I agree it doesn't make practical sense. GRRM isn't always careful about that. Quote You were the guy who suggested that all the people in Maegor's had been killed as well as that nobody actually knew what transpired in there. But neither is actually stated by the text. It is not publicly said/confirmed that Tywin was behind what transpired, but that's not the same as what being transpired being a secret. We don't know of anybody else being in there, there are no mentions of survivors saying what happened. Quote Chances are about zero that Lorch and Gregor were the only men to scale it, nor do we know that they got to Elia the scaling way and not, say, by opening the gates and lowering the draw bridge to get more men inside so they could defeat whatever defenders were guarding the royal family inside. We are told about them scaling it, and nobody else. We are not told about any guards inside, although I expect Gregor could have handled a number of them himself. Aerys didn't seem all that worried about Elia's safety, she was instead a hostage to use against the Martells. Having guards outside should have been sufficient to prevent her from slipping out. Quote Nobody said anything about there not being a trial. Cregan Stark shows how you condemn men to death with flimsy evidence. If he could do it as 'the Hand a Prince' then an actual king could do the same. There's no poisoning conspiracy here, just a sack which everyone expects to be chaotic. Quote And of course the Lannisters could be attainted for that. Tywin is not loved, many Westermen are in the castle and somebody would gladly accept the honor of being the new Lord of Casterly Rock. The Targaryens were able to put the Tyrells in charge after wiping out the Gardeners because they had dragons. Robert just has the support of his men, who signed up to defeat Aerys and not occupy the wealthiest kingdom and its notoriously impenetrable Casterly Rock. Quote There would be some Tyrell or Hightower woman available if they had been willing to look. There are far too many of them. You don't know that. Quote We know too little about that ... for instance, it is not clear when Lyanna gave birth nor why they remained at the tower which was a place they could not really defend, etc. Jon was brought to Winterfell as an infant said to be younger than Robb, so that puts a limit on how early she could give birth. Her death also seems to be have been a result of the birth. Quote The Red Wedding was also a treasonous move by two houses determined to jump ship and show the victorious side that they were good now. And exactly that Tywin did, too. He also sort of broke guest right in the sense that the king allowed him inside his city and Tywin then decided to butcher his hosts (the Targaryens and the Kingslanders). No, Tywin did not accept bread and salt from his "host", and was not sleeping under Aerys' roof. He was not a guest, he was the leader of an army Aerys was expecting to assist him against the rebels. Rodrik Cassel wasn't Ramsay's guest when he was betrayed either. Quote I'd say Tywin had no legal right to force anyone to do anything in KL. He was just a rebel lord. No promise you made to that shithead would be binding if not confirmed by King Robert. Your logic magic sense to me, but not apparently to the people of westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't know of anybody else being in there, there are no mentions of survivors saying what happened. We also don't have anyone saying that nobody at Robert's court knew what happened to Elia and the children. You tried to make this strong case that Tywin kept the entire thing a secret. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We are told about them scaling it, and nobody else. We are not told about any guards inside, although I expect Gregor could have handled a number of them himself. Aerys didn't seem all that worried about Elia's safety, she was instead a hostage to use against the Martells. Having guards outside should have been sufficient to prevent her from slipping out. We are not told that only two dudes scaled the Holdfast. We are told Lorch and Clegane did this, but in a battle setting this would mean them and their men. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's no poisoning conspiracy here, just a sack which everyone expects to be chaotic. Well, the excuse that 'a chaotic sack' led to the death of Elia and the children the way it did isn't believable by anyone. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Targaryens were able to put the Tyrells in charge after wiping out the Gardeners because they had dragons. Robert just has the support of his men, who signed up to defeat Aerys and not occupy the wealthiest kingdom and its notoriously impenetrable Casterly Rock. Well, then just ignore the Rock if the Lannisters there do not care about the lives of the Lannisters Robert holds. Tywin, Kevan, and Jaime are in Robert's power, along with others who may have been with his army. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You don't know that. I know that because I know their family tree. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jon was brought to Winterfell as an infant said to be younger than Robb, so that puts a limit on how early she could give birth. Her death also seems to be have been a result of the birth. Unless you believe Jon is Ned's son the birth date of Jon Snow is pretty much irrelevant. Ned lied about his parentage, possibly his name, and likely also about his birth date (to make it less obvious that he could be Lya's son). 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, Tywin did not accept bread and salt from his "host", and was not sleeping under Aerys' roof. He was not a guest, he was the leader of an army Aerys was expecting to assist him against the rebels. Rodrik Cassel wasn't Ramsay's guest when he was betrayed either. That's just lawyer's prattle. He is no guest as per the ritual, but if you knock at the gates of my walled city and ask to come in and help me and I agree to let you in then you do betray me as your host if you start to butcher me and my people. It might be not as ugly a betrayal as the Red Wedding but it is still a betrayal of the same type. 6 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Your logic magic sense to me, but not apparently to the people of westeros. Which is why I assume that those men ended up at the Wall not without the knowledge and authorization of King Robert. Robert didn't pardon everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 On 3/3/2020 at 7:28 PM, Lord Varys said: We also don't have anyone saying that nobody at Robert's court knew what happened to Elia and the children. You tried to make this strong case that Tywin kept the entire thing a secret. There are just rumors. Quote We are not told that only two dudes scaled the Holdfast. We are told Lorch and Clegane did this, but in a battle setting this would mean them and their men. You may have heard that it's difficult for a large unit to move swiftly compared to a small one. Scaling a castle is magnifying that issue compared to moving across level terrain. This was not a mission to secure territory, for which you need boots on the ground. This was a targeted assassination, and sending a small number of handpicked men in quickly before the enemy can respond is an effective approach. Quote Well, the excuse that 'a chaotic sack' led to the death of Elia and the children the way it did isn't believable by anyone. It's in the official history from Yandel. Quote Well, then just ignore the Rock if the Lannisters there do not care about the lives of the Lannisters Robert holds. Tywin, Kevan, and Jaime are in Robert's power, along with others who may have been with his army. The fact that Tywin has an army with him does not make arresting him smarter. If Ned hadn't dispatched so many of his own men to arrest Gregor and assist the goldcloaks it would have been harder to arrest him. Quote I know that because I know their family tree. Ok, who were the candidates? Quote Unless you believe Jon is Ned's son the birth date of Jon Snow is pretty much irrelevant. Ned lied about his parentage, possibly his name, and likely also about his birth date (to make it less obvious that he could be Lya's son). Jon is believed to be younger than Robb, and that would not have been plausible if he was significantly more developed as an infant. Quote That's just lawyer's prattle. He is no guest as per the ritual, but if you knock at the gates of my walled city and ask to come in and help me and I agree to let you in then you do betray me as your host if you start to butcher me and my people. It might be not as ugly a betrayal as the Red Wedding but it is still a betrayal of the same type. Westerosi take those rituals seriously. Tywin was not making a social call, he was acting as head of an army. Which is why Varys didn't think guestright would offer any protection, and I think we can say the same with Pycelle. Quote Which is why I assume that those men ended up at the Wall not without the knowledge and authorization of King Robert. Robert didn't pardon everybody. I would say he pardoned everyone who bent the knee to him, and since he never encountered those men he indeed didn't know about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There are just rumors. Ned doesn't just believe into rumors. He knows that Tywin did kill Elia and the children. And other people who were in KL at the time do know the truth, too. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You may have heard that it's difficult for a large unit to move swiftly compared to a small one. Scaling a castle is magnifying that issue compared to moving across level terrain. This was not a mission to secure territory, for which you need boots on the ground. This was a targeted assassination, and sending a small number of handpicked men in quickly before the enemy can respond is an effective approach. Regardless how you try to spin it, I don't believe for a moment Tywin was stupid as to send just two guys into Maegor's. That is ridiculous in light of the fact that he would have no clue how many armed men were inside to protect the people therein. I'm not sying they would have taken an vast army, of course, but it is kind of a given that Lorch and Clegane would have needed enough men to overcome the Targaryen men up on the battlements of Maegor's. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's in the official history from Yandel. No, Yandel never mentions anything about Tywin's men accidentally killing Elia and her children in chaotic sack - just that there are various rumors floating about as to what happened there. And that certainly can be the case. In Oldtown shortly after the Sack, for instance, there would be rather unreliable rumors floating around than, say, in the Red Keep shortly after the Sack. Just as rather unreliable rumors about events happening during the War of the Five Kings float around in places far away from where they transpired. Yandel chose to not include the Lannister stuff - instead he included other rumors that may indeed be believed by some people in Westeros. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The fact that Tywin has an army with him does not make arresting him smarter. If Ned hadn't dispatched so many of his own men to arrest Gregor and assist the goldcloaks it would have been harder to arrest him. Ned had his own troops, and eventually Robert came to court as well, along with all the rebel forces fighting at the Trident. Tywin would have been outnumbered. And if Stannis can arrest and and execute the Karstarks in the middle of his army, Robert could do a similar thing with Tywin. It all depends on how you do it. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ok, who were the candidates? You can do it yourself - and I never said Robert would have to marry a woman close to his own age. He can take a child bride or widow just as well as a maiden in her twenties. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jon is believed to be younger than Robb, and that would not have been plausible if he was significantly more developed as an infant. How so? He is a bastard and bastards are believed to grow faster than trueborn children. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Westerosi take those rituals seriously. Tywin was not making a social call, he was acting as head of an army. Which is why Varys didn't think guestright would offer any protection, and I think we can say the same with Pycelle. Neither Varys nor Pycelle talk about or mention guest right. And neither did I - I just said that Tywin effectively did something similar as the Red Wedding to Aerys II and the Kingslanders. Roose Bolton never was Robb's host or guest, by the way, and he played a most crucial role during the Red Wedding. He is perhaps even a better analogy - pretending to be Robb's leal man and then literally killing him. He didn't break guest right in all that. Does that make him less loathed? Should it make him less loathed? 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I would say he pardoned everyone who bent the knee to him, and since he never encountered those men he indeed didn't know about them. Do you know Robert never knew about those men? Robert didn't pardon Connington nor did he grant Red Ronnet all the Connington lands nor did he restore all the wealth of Longtable to the Merryweathers after he allowed Orton to come home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 7, 2020 Share Posted March 7, 2020 On 3/5/2020 at 4:49 PM, Lord Varys said: Ned doesn't just believe into rumors. He knows that Tywin did kill Elia and the children. And other people who were in KL at the time do know the truth, too. Ned just saw Tywin present the bodies and Robert dismiss them as dragonspawn. Within Casterly Rock people have a firmer idea, but from Ned's POV we just know that "some said" Gregor killed Aegon. We don't get any of his thoughts on Amory Lorch, if he has any. Quote Regardless how you try to spin it, I don't believe for a moment Tywin was stupid as to send just two guys into Maegor's. That is ridiculous in light of the fact that he would have no clue how many armed men were inside to protect the people therein . I'm not sying they would have taken an vast army, of course, but it is kind of a given that Lorch and Clegane would have needed enough men to overcome the Targaryen men up on the battlements of Maegor's. We don't get references to any armed men inside or on the battlements. Aerys sent his queen and heir away, so he was not focusing on protecting anyone inside Maegor's. Quote No, Yandel never mentions anything about Tywin's men accidentally killing Elia and her children in chaotic sack - just that there are various rumors floating about as to what happened there. I didn't say anything about an "accident", just that in a chaotic sack lots of people will die and assigning responsibility isn't obvious. Although Tywin could be blamed for his decision to sack the city at all. Quote Ned had his own troops, and eventually Robert came to court as well, along with all the rebel forces fighting at the Trident. Tywin would have been outnumbered. And if Stannis can arrest and and execute the Karstarks in the middle of his army, Robert could do a similar thing with Tywin. It all depends on how you do it. The Karstarks were arrested for plotting to betray Stannis. It was imperative to arrest them, and if their troops had tried fighting that would be indicative that they were likewise ready to turn on Stannis. Making a show of force compelling Stannis to release the Karstarks isn't really an option. Quote You can do it yourself If you don't do it yourself when asked to provide evidence that you know there were candidates, it suggests you don't actually know. Quote He can take a child bride or widow just as well as a maiden in her twenties. Not "just as well". If Robert doesn't want to marry at all, he's not going to buckle under to marry a child who can't even consummate a marriage. And since one of the most important duties of a king is to have heirs, he really does need to focus on someone of childbearing age. Quote How so? He is a bastard and bastards are believed to grow faster than trueborn children. I said "significantly". There are limits to folk beliefs, because people would notice whether bastards really leapt ahead of other children in development. Quote I just said that Tywin effectively did something similar as the Red Wedding to Aerys II and the Kingslanders The Westerosi don't see it that way. Quote Roose Bolton never was Robb's host or guest, by the way, and he played a most crucial role during the Red Wedding. He is perhaps even a better analogy - pretending to be Robb's leal man and then literally killing him. He didn't break guest right in all that. Does that make him less loathed? Should it make him less loathed? Roose Bolton had acclaimed Robb Stark as king and been appointed one of the highest ranking leaders in his army, and had commanded an enormous number of men on Robb's behalf. Tywin during Robert's rebellion is somewhat more like Walder Frey during that same rebellion. He stayed out of the fighting until after the Trident decided things. He wasn't able to stab Aerys like Roose stabbed Robb, because he wasn't that close to him, although Jaime wound up killing him. Jaime is remembered as having violated a sacred vow. Roose Bolton was also in a marriage alliance with Walder Frey and coordinated the betrayal with him, so Walder's violation of guest-right carries over to taint Roose. While he was part of the planning of it, Tywin gets less blame for that because he was more removed. Quote Do you know Robert never knew about those men? We get no reference one way or another. Quote Robert didn't pardon Connington Connington is one of the most die-hard loyalists, and he never bent the knee. Quote nor did he grant Red Ronnet all the Connington lands nor did he restore all the wealth of Longtable to the Merryweathers after he allowed Orton to come home. He restored some of it. Since we don't here of him depriving many loyalists of land, the source of Davos Seaworth's land could well come from Connington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 7, 2020 Share Posted March 7, 2020 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ned just saw Tywin present the bodies and Robert dismiss them as dragonspawn. Within Casterly Rock people have a firmer idea, but from Ned's POV we just know that "some said" Gregor killed Aegon. We don't get any of his thoughts on Amory Lorch, if he has any. Ned still believes Tywin was behind that and wanted him punished. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We don't get references to any armed men inside or on the battlements. Aerys sent his queen and heir away, so he was not focusing on protecting anyone inside Maegor's. LOL, that's just nonsense. Aerys II's daughter-in-law and grandchildren were in Maegor's. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I didn't say anything about an "accident", just that in a chaotic sack lots of people will die and assigning responsibility isn't obvious. Although Tywin could be blamed for his decision to sack the city at all. LOL again. Unless people who show up with certain corpses can explain how those people were killed and who did it it makes sense to suspect them. Tywin never pointed his finger to other people as the perpetrators. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Karstarks were arrested for plotting to betray Stannis. It was imperative to arrest them, and if their troops had tried fighting that would be indicative that they were likewise ready to turn on Stannis. Making a show of force compelling Stannis to release the Karstarks isn't really an option. Tywin betrayed his king, Karstark betrayed his king. Stannis and Robert had about the same kind of evidence. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: If you don't do it yourself when asked to provide evidence that you know there were candidates, it suggests you don't actually know. Not "just as well". If Robert doesn't want to marry at all, he's not going to buckle under to marry a child who can't even consummate a marriage. And since one of the most important duties of a king is to have heirs, he really does need to focus on someone of childbearing age. I feel no need to convince you of a rather obvious fact. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I said "significantly". There are limits to folk beliefs, because people would notice whether bastards really leapt ahead of other children in development. LOL again. Joffrey is bastardborn and he taller than Jon and Robb who are two years older than Joff. Jon is actually shocked when he realizes this in AGoT. This is no coincidence, it is subtle clue that Joffrey is actually a bastard. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Westerosi don't see it that way. It is never mentioned that they do not see this as a betrayal akin to the Red Wedding, lacking the whole bread and salt nonsense only the Northmen care about. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Roose Bolton had acclaimed Robb Stark as king and been appointed one of the highest ranking leaders in his army, and had commanded an enormous number of men on Robb's behalf. Tywin during Robert's rebellion is somewhat more like Walder Frey during that same rebellion. He stayed out of the fighting until after the Trident decided things. He wasn't able to stab Aerys like Roose stabbed Robb, because he wasn't that close to him, although Jaime wound up killing him. Jaime is remembered as having violated a sacred vow. Roose Bolton was also in a marriage alliance with Walder Frey and coordinated the betrayal with him, so Walder's violation of guest-right carries over to taint Roose. While he was part of the planning of it, Tywin gets less blame for that because he was more removed. Roose never acclaimed Robb Stark as his king and wasn't appointed to high office by 'King Robb'. In fact, Roose never even did homage to 'King Robb'. They only met each other again shortly before the Red Wedding, and there Roose talks to Robb and calls him 'Your Grace', but he never declares himself his subject nor does his acknowledge Robb as his liege lord and king. Tywin Lannister did do Aerys II homage as his liege lord and king. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: We get no reference one way or another. You made the ridiculous claim Robert pardoned everybody. Which is clearly false. 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Connington is one of the most die-hard loyalists, and he never bent the knee. How could he bend the knee in exile? Do you think Orton 'bend the knee in exile' and then wrote a letter to Robert after which Robert allowed him to come back? 15 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He restored some of it. Since we don't here of him depriving many loyalists of land, the source of Davos Seaworth's land could well come from Connington. If Robert had pardoned everybody Red Ronnet wouldn't have lost any lands. Davos got his lands from Stannis, not Robert. And it makes no sense to assume said lands do not also belong a lord. Landed knights hold their lands in the name of a lord, not in their own right. They are not lords themselves (and even lords only hold them in the name of their liege lord, up to the king). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 8, 2020 Share Posted March 8, 2020 On 3/6/2020 at 10:20 PM, Lord Varys said: Ned still believes Tywin was behind that and wanted him punished. What punishment did he advocate? Quote LOL, that's just nonsense. Aerys II's daughter-in-law and grandchildren were in Maegor's. His daughter-in-law was a hostage being used against the Dornish, and he'd previously dismissed her child as "smelling Dornish". He'd also named Viserys his heir, skipping over Aegon. If he cared about protecting them, they would have also been on a ship. Quote LOL again. Unless people who show up with certain corpses can explain how those people were killed and who did it it makes sense to suspect them. Tywin never pointed his finger to other people as the perpetrators. There have actually been multiple instances of bodies only being found after the fighting is over, without knowing who specifically killed them. It even happens to a kingsguard during the riot in Clash of Kings, during which Tyrek Lannister simply disappeared. Quote Tywin betrayed his king He betrayed Aerys, who was no longer king but dead. Aerys tried to send Jaime after Tywin, but that didn't work. Quote Karstark betrayed his king Plotted to betray his king, but didn't succeed in killing him. Quote Stannis and Robert had about the same kind of evidence. Robert could do nothing to Tywin and remain alive and on the throne, as he did just that. Stannis could not permit the Karstarks to proceed with their betrayal of him. Quote I feel no need to convince you of a rather obvious fact. I now pronounce all my claims to be "obvious", and if anyone disagrees it just proves they are so obtuse as to not understand the obvious Seriously, this is just more evidence that you can't, because if you could have you would have rather than repeatedly replying without doing so. Quote LOL again. Joffrey is bastardborn and he taller than Jon and Robb who are two years older than Joff. Jon is actually shocked when he realizes this in AGoT. This is no coincidence, it is subtle clue that Joffrey is actually a bastard. Do you actually believe that a marriage causes children to grow more slowly in Westeros? Is Brienne of Tarth a bastard? Gregor and Sandor Clegane? Quote It is never mentioned that they do not see this as a betrayal akin to the Red Wedding, lacking the whole bread and salt nonsense only the Northmen care about. The custom of guest-right exists throughout Westeros (including the Riverlands, where the Twins are), even if it's most sacred to northmen (and I should note that Wyman Manderly gives his Frey guests parting-gifts as per custom though he's a follower of the Faith of the Seven). And nobody thinks of Tywin as cursed due to that betrayal like the Rat King was and the Freys now appear to be. He's considered dislikable rather than a sacred oathbreaker like Jaime. Quote Roose never acclaimed Robb Stark as his king and wasn't appointed to high office by 'King Robb'. In fact, Roose never even did homage to 'King Robb'. They only met each other again shortly before the Red Wedding, and there Roose talks to Robb and calls him 'Your Grace', but he never declares himself his subject nor does his acknowledge Robb as his liege lord and king. Alright, so Roose answers Robb's call for banners and accepts command of a host for war against the Lannisters prior to Robb being declared king. He continues to fight on Robb's behalf throughout the war, and acknowledges him as "your grace". Then he stabs his king at dinner. Quote You made the ridiculous claim Robert pardoned everybody. Which is clearly false. I said Robert pardoned everyone who bent the knee to him, and acknowledged those two guys Tywin sent to the Wall as happening without Robert being present or even being aware as far as we know. We've been talking about Kingsguard, and Robert was present to pardon Selmy despite Roose urging his death, and later to permit Jaime to continue serving. I suppose Ned could have tried to kill Jaime or Tywin before Robert arrived, but he was written by GRRM rather than you and wouldn't attempt something so stupid. Quote How could he bend the knee in exile? Aenys Blackfyre was able to send messages submitting himself to a Great Council, and Jorah Mormont was also able to get a pardon while in Essos. He could have sent messages proclaiming Robert to be king and asking for forgiveness. Quote Do you think Orton 'bend the knee in exile' and then wrote a letter to Robert after which Robert allowed him to come back? I don't actually know. Orton himself hadn't done anything against Robert as far as we know either. Quote If Robert had pardoned everybody Red Ronnet wouldn't have lost any lands Jon Connington fought Robert and never bent the knee, and we know remained a Targaryen loyalist even in exile. That was not the case with the kingsguard. To give a later example, he also accepted the surrender of Balon Greyjoy (after he bent the knee and proclaimed Robert king) and permitted him to remain Lord of the Iron Islands, but still required Theon as a hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.