Which factions/sides do you support?

[dbergkvist]

47 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

One of the main themes of the entire book series is that there is no black and white (bad or good) but every character and goverment in grey.

I agree that GRRM usually applies this principle, and has said that he doesn't like black or white characters (and that all characters in a story should act like real people with their own personality and motivations and so on). But when it comes to the Dany story-line, he has clearly abandoned this principle: here, the slaves are helpless victims with no personality or agency etc.

Quote

Dany breaks this society and expects everyone will adapt to the new rule instantly [...] Cities that she leaves soon become slave based again either with old slaver masters or former slaves become the new slave masters (Soviet Union is good comparison for this case).

I agree that her actions would not result in happiness or peace, either in the real world, or in GRRM's normal work. But I don't think you can look at Dany's story line and say "she did this destructive thing and therefore, things turned into a mess", because the story itself is too broken to apply this kind reasoning to.

I would love it if it turned out that the reason why her story-line seems to violate GRRM's writing principles, is that Dany is an unreliable narrator, and that when Tyrion arrives we as readers will get a completely different take on the situation. If that turns out to be case, it would be possible to make a rational examination of the conflict.

But I'm not holding my breath for this "it will be revlead that Dany is psychopath theory, and this will make the Dany plot make sense", because we have already had other POV characters in Meereen, and it didn't help.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

39 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't know if you wrote that either because you indeed changed your mindor because you're tired of arguing, but i do think that there is nothing wrong with your idea, just wanted to know why and things got heated

I'm going to admit you are probably right in regards to who is to blame, but I just have a very strong hatred for lords who don't care about their subjects. And the Martells in the Dornish Wars are the best example. Yeah maybe the people were dumb enough to go along with it, but it was their duty as lords to put the needs of their subjects first and just bend the bloody knee. So yeah maybe Aegon is more to blame, but the Martells are clearly far worse lords then Aegon. Aegon only put some soldiers in harm's way. The Martells knowingly allowed their people to get butchered. Btw this is also why I think Edmure is the best lord in the story as he is the only one who has the good of the people as the first goal. Sure he isn't the sharpest knife in the Jon, but he is competent enough and he actually gives a crap about his people, unlike say Robb (this is also one of the reasons I like Stannis, who though is pretty uncaring towards his soldiers, he does care more then the other Kings, which isn't a hard thing to do however).

[Morte]

52 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

Westerosi historians are claiming that prior to Aegon's conquest, there were always at least two kingdoms at war with each other at any given point in time. But can we trust that, or is that just propaganda to justify the conquest? It's not like Westeros has freedom of speech and an independent academia.

Sure we can.

First, this aren't historians, not in a modern sense, most of them not even in a antique sense of the word, they are chroniclers. They write down what their petty lords, pardon: mighty kings, do. It rather often they forget to mention one or two war, than to imagine one, they might however exaggerate the power of the enemy and the importance of the conflict.

Second: Take a look at history. Small petty kingdoms bickering and fighting each other in stupid wars about a plowable field or some rock in the middle of nowhere was (and is) a long-time standard-practise even on this planet (and by all mean, even thou we are the bane of this poor planet and really not very bright, we did get the whole "civilisation thingy" rather better done than Martin's-world... Hello? Schools? Roads? Keeping Lords alive and well even if you as the people starve each winter? Are you nuts?!? Two thousand fucking years and you don't even have a steam engine? Did you even get π to the third decimal place, you Westerosi idiots?!?). And it only gets worse if it's a feudal society. Many of them only stop than an empire comes around and forces them to stop... and than you have two empires bordering each other? They do the same, expect if they are of equal power - or saturated. Actually, one of the most harmless and peaceful International law subjects is a saturated empire, as long as it isn't provoked.

So don't poke one.

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Btw this is also why I think Edmure is the best lord in the story as he is the only one who has the good of the people as the first goal. Sure he isn't the sharpest knife in the Jon, but he is competent enough and he actually gives a crap about his people, unlike say Robb

Thank you! I always thought I was the only one.

[dbergkvist]

4 minutes ago, Morte said:

First, this aren't historians, not in a modern sense, most of them not even in a antique sense of the word, they are chroniclers. They write down what their petty lords, pardon: mighty kings, do. It rather often they forget to mention one or two war, than to imagine one, they might however exaggerate the power of the enemy and the importance of the conflict.

But The World of Ice and Fire and Fire and Blood does not consist of a list of all the wars and battles fought. Their statement that there were always kingdoms fighting might be a summary from such a list (or some rumor they heard and repeated), but we do not have access such a list.

[Eltharion21]

1. The Conquest: Aegon or the Kings? Kings (except for Harren)
2. The Dornish War: The Iron Throne or Dorne? Dorne
3. Maegor or Aenys? neither  you should give Aenys's children as viable answer
4. The Faith militant uprising: Targs or the Faith? Faith +1 
5. The Council of 101: Rhaenys, Laenor or Viserys? Rhaenys was most impressive of the three, still I dislike Velaryons.
6. The Dance: Greens or Blacks? Greens were a lesser evil of two.
7. The Second Dornish War: Daeron or the Martells? I sympathize with Martells, though Wyls should be exterminated
8. The Blackfyre Rebellion: Blackfyre or Targaryen?  Was there a difference?
9. Roberts Rebellion: Loyalists or rebels?  Robert the Dragonslayer
10. War of the Five Kings: Stannis, Robb, Balon, Joffrey or Renly?  One True King
11. Mance's attack: Wildlings or NW? Night's Watch
12. War in the North, Stannis or Roose?  Stannis
13. Slaver's Bay campaign: Dany or the Slavers?  I don't support slavers, but Daenerys certainly isn't building better place she is just destroying old and she can't return to Westeros and preserve her kingdom there.
14. Kingsmoot: Asha, Victarion, Euron or Farwynd? Asha 
15. The final kings: Stannis, Aegon, Jon, Dany, Tommen or Euron? Stannis to the bitter end and then some.

[Morte]

6 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

But The World of Ice and Fire and Fire and Blood does not consist of a list of all the wars and battles fought. Their statement that there were always kingdoms fighting might be a summary from such a list (or some rumor they heard and repeated), but we do not have access such a list.

Sure, because it is a more broad work (or excerpts of one). And neither do we want to read a chronic, nor would Martin (hopefully) want to write one. Most of them aren't much fun to read, but very, very dull.

[Tygett Lannister]

52 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

I agree that GRRM usually applies this principle, and has said that he doesn't like black or white characters (and that all characters in a story should act like real people with their own personality and motivations and so on). But when it comes to the Dany story-line, he has clearly abandoned this principle: here, the slaves are helpless victims with no personality or agency etc.

I agree that her actions would not result in happiness or peace, either in the real world, or in GRRM's normal work. But I don't think you can look at Dany's story line and say "she did this destructive thing and therefore, things turned into a mess", because the story itself is too broken to apply this kind reasoning to.

I would love it if it turned out that the reason why her story-line seems to violate GRRM's writing principles, is that Dany is an unreliable narrator, and that when Tyrion arrives we as readers will get a completely different take on the situation. If that turns out to be case, it would be possible to make a rational examination of the conflict.

But I'm not holding my breath for this "it will be revlead that Dany is psychopath theory, and this will make the Dany plot make sense", because we have already had other POV characters in Meereen, and it didn't help.

I agree there isn't much personality to masters barely any have even names but I still don't think they are considered completely evil.

I mean Dany's action did lead to destruction and a big chaos which was net loss for majority involved. I am not saying that her intentions are bad and that she is a psycho. I just think she is a stubborn girl with no experience in politics which led to her being unsuccessful at what she wanted to achieve. 

[Eltharion21]

15. The final kings: Stannis, Aegon, Jon, Dany, Tommen or Euron?

 

13 hours ago, frenin said:

1. Aegon, fuck the Kings.

2. The Martells, fuck the Targs.

3. Aenys.

4. Maegor*, I will support Aerys if his foe was a buch of religious zealots... But then again he fought because he wanted to impose polygamy and incest because he was an asshole too.

5. Rhaenys. Pd: Jaeharys is an asshole.

6. Blacks. Jace is my waifu.

7. I want to say the Dornish badly but how they betrayed Daeron really soured me against them, so I'm not picking a side here.

8. The Reds, Daemon was awesome tho.

9. Rebels, that's not even a question.

10. Renly, if he doesn't kill Robb, if it comes between Renly and Robb, Robb.

11. The Watch.

12. Dany, that's not even a question.

13. Asha.

15. Stannis.

That's Freudian slip if any.

[frenin]

Just now, Eltharion21 said:

15. The final kings: Stannis, Aegon, Jon, Dany, Tommen or Euron?

 

That's Freudian slip if any.

Actually no, of all the rulers, Dany being second, he is the best suited for rule, since i don't have a fav among any of them... He is still the worst but so is Tywin and he is a great ruler.

[Eltharion21]

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Actually no, of all the rulers, Dany being second, he is the best suited for rule, since i don't have a fav among any of them... He is still the worst but so is Tywin and he is a great ruler.

 

Well color me surprised!

[Alyn Oakenfist]

34 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

neither  you should give Aenys's children as viable answer

Well it wouldn't really be a choice then. Aenys's children are clearly way better then both, and them 2 are really interesting in how they contrast. Also to add tot he dilemma Maegor's clearly the bigger piece of shit, but Aenys probably did cause more damage to the seven Kingdoms (somehow). One's a bloodthirsty tyrant the other a spineless wuss.

14 minutes ago, frenin said:

He is still the worst

I don't think he's the worst any more. Don't get me wrong of all the original 5 kings Stannis is the best only by default because 3 of the others are somehow even more entitled and arrogant then him, while Robb is just plain stupid outside the battlefield.

However by TWOW I think he's transformed into an actual good king, who no longer just claims to care about the realm, but actually is the King who Cares. Also he's massively calmed down in terms of arrogance and entitledness.

[Arthur Peres]

On 5/20/2020 at 5:40 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Kingsmoot: Asha, Victarion, Euron or Farwynd? 15 - 3 - 2 - 2

I think you counted my vote for Farwynd twice.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Arthur Peres said:

I think you counted my vote for Farwynd twice.

Nah I put my own votes and opinions in there and I agree on Farwynd. When they would finally elect him, they would have the chance to discover the New World leading to untold richness and prosperity for them. So yeah Farwynd is their best chance to stop being so impoverished and savage.

[Lord Daedrunk]

1. The Conquest: Aegon
2. The Dornish War: Dorne
3. Maegor or Aenys? Aenys
4. The Faith militant uprising: Targs
5. The Council of 101: Viserys
6. The Dance: Blacks
7. The Second Dornish War: Daeron
8. The Blackfyre Rebellion: Targaryen
9. Roberts Rebellion: Rebels
10. War of the Five Kings: Robb
11. Mance's attack: NW
12. War in the North: Stannis
13. Slaver's Bay campaign: Dany
14. Kingsmoot: Asha
15. The final Queen: Dany

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

1. The Dance: Greens or Blacks? Greens were a lesser evil of two.

Still really do not understand people with this mindset. The Green's were pantomine villains and while some of the leading Black's weren't great in terms of morality (Looking at you Daemon) most were saintly compared to their counterparts.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

Faith +1 

[frenin]

11 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I don't think he's the worst any more. Don't get me wrong of all the original 5 kings Stannis is the best only by default because 3 of the others are somehow even more entitled and arrogant then him, while Robb is just plain stupid outside the battlefield.

Eh, Renly, Balon and Robb seemed to me better candidates, i don't really see what Stannis is the best, even his so much repeated concern for his people is nonexistent there. I know you dislike Renly but... 

 

12 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

but I just have a very strong hatred for lords who don't care about their subjects. And the Martells in the Dornish Wars are the best example

I had my concerns with this as well, especially when we see that Aegon was content with people calling him King and taxing them. On the outside it just seems as entitlement and stubborness for no good reason honestly.

 

12 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

but it was their duty as lords to put the needs of their subjects first and just bend the bloody knee.

On the other side, the Martells come from Nymeria and the horrors of the dragonlords and the havoc they brought over Rhoyne. Maybe and only maybe, Meria did not trust a dragonlord because dragonlords so far were tyrants and made a costly choice.

Btw, let's flip it, how it was the best for the new submitted Stormlands and Reach a long and brutal war, quite literally the most brutal war we are told about in Westeros, with Dorne?? Because they got nothing but get butchered because of Targ megalomania and in the end they had nothing to show for. Dorne remained independent. No wonder they were so pissed, only Balerion explains the lack of revolts over that bs.

Aegon should have called it day after Orys and the rest came back, he didn't. How Aegon is better than anyone here?? You can argue that Meria is fighting that horrific war for her people what was Aegon excuse?? Why the Martells should bend the bloody knee but Aegon is allowed, let's ignore what he was pulling un Dorne, fight a pointless that is bleeding out his own kingdoms as well?? Why are the Dornish the ones who are supposed to be reasonable instead of you know, the one who has conquered a Continent and becomes a genocide over a desert??

 

12 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

but the Martells are clearly far worse lords then Aegon. Aegon only put some soldiers in harm's way.

Well, no. That's not true. Aegon put the Stormlands, the Reach and King's Landing in harm's way and the Dornish unleashed their cruelty and vengeance there for a decade. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

33 minutes ago, frenin said:

Eh, Renly, Balon and Robb seemed to me better candidates, i don't really see what Stannis is the best, even his so much repeated concern for his people is nonexistent there. I know you dislike Renly but... 

Ok so Renly and Robb I get it (Renly not so much as all he seems to be good at is wearing Gucci and being very lucky that the only other gay man at court is a Tyrell) but Balon? Are you for real? Balon "we do not think, we do not plan"? Also didn't you vote for Stannis?

33 minutes ago, frenin said:

Maybe and only maybe, Meria did not trust a dragonlord because dragonlords so far were tyrants and made a costly choice.

She had 6 other kingdoms as example of what kind of ruler Aegon was. 

34 minutes ago, frenin said:

only Balerion explains the lack of revolts over that bs

I mean Balerion is the only reason for both the Iron Thrones existing and surviving until Jaehaerys could come and actually create a unified kingdom.

36 minutes ago, frenin said:

one who has conquered a Continent and becomes a genocide over a desert??

To be fair, Dorne is a desert but it seems to be a very rich desert, don't really know how that works out but we know that they fairly rich,

36 minutes ago, frenin said:

Stormlands, the Reach and King's Landing

Ok so Stormlands and Reach I get it but KL? Haven't read that part of F&B for a while (mainly because I tend to only re read the Dance and regency) so could you please enlighten me?

38 minutes ago, frenin said:

Dornish unleashed their cruelty and vengeance there for a decade. 

You are kinda giving me arguments here, that the Martells weren't good guys. Also while it is true that the 7(6) kingdoms suffered it didn't even compare to what happened to Dorne. The lands under Aegon suffered a bit under the war but it wasn't devastating. On the other side I'm honestly surprised Dorne ever recovered after Aegon. So in terms of lords putting their people at risk, I do agree that Aegon is partially guilty of this too, but clearly not on the same level as the Martells.

[Eltharion21]

11 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Still really do not understand people with this mindset. The Green's were pantomine villains and while some of the leading Black's weren't great in terms of morality (Looking at you Daemon) most were saintly compared to their counterparts.

I really don't want to derail this thread with another Dance discussion, but i need to respond your claim.

To me black cause represent ruling through criminalization ignoring or bending laws and traditions to reach their ambition, through use of murder and torture. Neither side has moral high ground, especially in this Civil War. 

If we include additional layer that novel is written as quasi-historical book, where there is bias toward either side but mostly winning side, my belief is that Black side is probably worse than it is represented.

There are possibly complex characters on Green side considering with lack of in depth view of first person view, and we have our share of dubious character surprise us with excusable motive in Asoiaf (Jaime and Kingslaying, Mance and his cloak, Theon)

Not a fan of show but this quote I like, : 

Quote

It's tempting to see your enemies as evil, all of them, but there's good and evil on both sides in every war ever fought.

 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Ok so Renly and Robb I get it (Renly not so much as all he seems to be good at is wearing Gucci and being very lucky that the only other gay man at court is a Tyrell) but Balon? Are you for real? Balon "we do not think, we do not plan"? Also didn't you vote for Stannis?

I don't really know why i said that, it's the bias talking, don't mind it. Renly yes, it has little to do with the fact that Loras was gay but with the fact that he was his squire and he able to create a meaningful bond with him before banging him and he could win the loyalty of powerful people as well as the love of the commons.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

She had 6 other kingdoms as example of what kind of ruler Aegon was. 

Had she?? Because in the first 4 years, Aegon was mainly conquering.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean Balerion is the only reason for both the Iron Thrones existing and surviving until Jaehaerys could come and actually create a unified kingdom.

True.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

To be fair, Dorne is a desert but it seems to be a very rich desert, don't really know how that works out but we know that they fairly rich,

One of the reason they are fairly rich is becauseof the Dornish themselves, i don't see a Westerosi breeding Dornish horses for example, so mass murdering those who make the soil fairly rich is not a good policy.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Ok so Stormlands and Reach I get it but KL? Haven't read that part of F&B for a while (mainly because I tend to only re read the Dance and regency) so could you please enlighten me?

The Dornish sent assasins, a lot of assasins to KL to deal with their enemies, mainly Targs.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You are kinda giving me arguments here, that the Martells weren't good guys.

What do you want me to say, you can't be Gadhi when your foe is Gengis Khan, the Dornish were cruel for their own survival. It's not like the idiocy the Wyls pulled on the pit snakes.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Also while it is true that the 7(6) kingdoms suffered it didn't even compare to what happened to Dorne.

Sure, but the Targs had wmds and went out their way to prove it and the Dornish poisoned the wells, that's a very bad combo.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The lands under Aegon suffered a bit under the war but it wasn't devastating.

Depending of the regions but i'd say they didn't suffered a bit, they suffered a lot, armies lost, lords dead, fields and fields scorched... And the Dornish didn't have dragons or manpower and they did all that. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

On the other side I'm honestly surprised Dorne ever recovered after Aegon.

It doesn't make sense to me, this is what we're told.

Dorne was a blighted, burning ruin by this time, and still the Dornish hid and fought from the shadows, refusing to surrender. Even the smallfolk refused to yield, and the toll in lives was uncountable TWOIAF

By then Dorne was a smoking desert, beset by famine, plague, and blight. “A blasted land,” traders from the Free Cities called it. F&B

 

I find difficult to believe that they could have ever recovered, let alone quickly enough to raise 30k men that had nothing better to do than raiding the marches 25 years later. Famine, blight and plague alone tend to do wonders with population.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So in terms of lords putting their people at risk, I do agree that Aegon is partially guilty of this too, but clearly not on the same level as the Martells.

Well it depends of the bar and the gains and what everyone consider worth fighting and dying for.

If the bar is just avoiding innecesary danger and preserving one's life, then ofc the Martells are the worst and it's easy and natural for one to draw the conclussion that the Martells were idiots that led their people to slaughter for no good reason really. It's completely natural see these feudal lords and conclude that their supposed freedom was not worth the slaughter, especially having in mind that nothing would change for anyone of the bar taxes.

But the Martells were fighting for independence and freedom and the Targs kept pushing regarding of the toll of lives, i'm really talking about the westerosi part here, just for the sake of vanity. So...