Aegon as a king

[Hodor the Articulate]

11 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, it is entirely possible for her to turn all Maegor. If it turns out that Aegon has basically stolen away support she was counting on in Westeros, and Tyrion convinces her ahead of term that he is a Blackfyre who is knowingly out to steal her crown, she might well choose that path.

What is all this based on? Dany has never had any illusions about the difficulties of winning support in Westeros. Nor has she ever gone on a rampage against her own people.

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

They will have major impact in that Daenerys will be bringing with her a horde of bedtime monster stories, which will remove much of her support. Bringing Dothraki with her is, to Westerosi, not that much different from bringing the Others and wights. And if they start burning and raiding - as they are wont to do - that will reduce her support even more.

This is a common but imo flawed argument. When Bobby B heard about the her marriage to Drogo, did he laugh if off because everyone would unite against a claimant with a Dothraki horde? No, it worried him because the Dothraki are clearly considered formidable fighters, regardless of how realistic it is.

[Aldarion]

14 hours ago, Morte said:

Martin doesn't have to make any logical jumps concerning ground troupes, because he did not make the mistake he made with the ships and had given us no true informations on how they work and what they are capable of in the field. We only get glimpses and tales of victories and defeats.

 

He gave us enough already. We know that Unsullied fight as a phalanx, not as a Roman legion. Legionary combat was much more individualistic, relying on individual initiative, exploiting gaps in enemy lines, with legionaries leaving formation as necessary and engaging in individual duels so as to break enemy ranks and sow confusion. This requires individual initiative, aggression, physical endurance, quick thinking and adaptation. Unsullied are the exact opposite: physically weak, docile, and reliant on directives from highly centralized system of command and control. The only way for them to even partly overcome these disadvantages is to avoid individual combat at all costs: and this means slow, steady advance in formation, with no room for personal initiative. And that is how Greek phalanx fought.

In other words, what we have in comparison between Golden Company and Unsullied is not Macedonian Phalanx vs Roman Legions, it is Macedonian Phalanx vs Greek Phalanx. There is only one possible outcome of such a situation, and it is not Zama. It is Chaeronea. And while Dothraki might help, keep in mind that Persian Empire had Greek hoplite mercenaries, native light infantry and also missile cavalry, and they still could not do sh*t against Macedonian phalanx. The only troops which had any success against Alexander's army were Indians, who had elephants - mostly because anti-elephant tactics were not developed yet at that time.

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What is all this based on? Dany has never had any illusions about the difficulties of winning support in Westeros. Nor has she ever gone on a rampage against her own people.

 

There is difference between "difficulty of winning support" and "almost no support". Also, read her last chapters - particularly parts where she hallucinates Jorah. Her mental state is changing, and not for the better. You are, essentially, talking about wrong Daenerys here.

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This is a common but imo flawed argument. When Bobby B heard about the her marriage to Drogo, did he laugh if off because everyone would unite against a claimant with a Dothraki horde? No, it worried him because the Dothraki are clearly considered formidable fighters, regardless of how realistic it is.

Bobby B was worried because Viserys and Daenerys are Targaryens, and some would prefer Dothraki-supported Targaryens to his rule. But Daenerys will be going against a Targaryen (or at least somebody pretending to be one) here. That changes things. And as I recall, Ned Stark was not that concerned.

[Hodor the Articulate]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

There is difference between "difficulty of winning support" and "almost no support". Also, read her last chapters - particularly parts where she hallucinates Jorah. Her mental state is changing, and not for the better. You are, essentially, talking about wrong Daenerys here.

"Viserys had believed that the realm would rise for its rightful king . . . but Viserys had been a fool, and fools believe in foolish things"

Not seeing the difference. In her first chapter, Dany doubts her brother's claims that the Tyrells, Darrys, Redwynes, and the Martells will rise for them, and continues to doubt it after his death. Dany has had to work hard for every supporter she has up to now. Why would she suddenly get upset about it in Westeros?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Bobby B was worried because Viserys and Daenerys are Targaryens, and some would prefer Dothraki-supported Targaryens to his rule. But Daenerys will be going against a Targaryen (or at least somebody pretending to be one) here. That changes things. And as I recall, Ned Stark was not that concerned.

So Robert - a guy who had half the realm backing his rebellion - thought people preferred an army that is, in your words, "not that much different from bringing the Others and wights" over him? There was no such implication in the scene. What we do get is Robert stressing about the number of men Drogo has in his horde.

Ned was unconcerned because the Dothraki were unlikely to cross the narrow sea. He was also trying to talk Bobby B down from assassinating a 13 year old.

[Lord Varys]

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

At any rate, such speculation is meaningless unless we know exactly how far dragonriding traits extend. It might be something that was preserved for nobility of Valyria only, or something that was present in whole population - in which case looking Valyrian might be enough. Or it might be something you just need to befriend a dragon for.

The thing we know so far is that dragonlore experts believe you have to be a descendant of a Valyrian dragonlord - and the more blood you have the better it is. But as the cases of Addam and Alyn of Hull show having the same amount of dragonlord blood doesn't necessarily guarantee the same result.

Right now all of Dany's dragons qualify more as wild dragons - especially Viserion and Rhaegal after they established themselves - than castle dragons. They were never ridden before and they are wary of humans now that they were imprisoned (as Drogon was after he escaped imprisonment).

But it makes no sense to assume we will ever get *an answer* to the dragonrider question. We will get more dragonriders and people will speculate why those dragonriders could become dragonriders but nobody will *know for a certainty* why that was.

Bottom line is - we have no reason to expect Aegon to become a dragonrider even if he had some Targaryen blood through some Blackfyre anscestor. If he were truly Rhaegar's son his chances to mount a riderless dragon would be very good, but if that weren't the case he is effectively Quentyn material.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

What is he going to depend on, then? Unless he is actually agent of the Others and has ability to raise the dead - which is a possibility - he will not have effective land army. He cannot really look for alliances.

Sure he can, and I've been telling you half a dozen times already how that goes. He might not even have to actively look all that much for followers once reports about his magical powers spread. People also willing convert to R'hllor and follow Lady Stoneheart and before that Beric Dondarrion because their very existence marks them as divine/magical/supernatural leaders and their religion a 'religion that works', unlike the regular crap of the Faith or the old gods or the Drowned God.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Either is possible, depending on whether he gets his head out of gutter by then. As for Others, that depends on whether invasion starts by the time they arrive to Westeros. Do not forget that it was Tyrion who effectively destroyed evidence about the Others and, if memory serves me, went on to mock Alliser then. Guy is intelligent, but when it comes to things which are not screwing people over in political arena, he is an idiot.

Tyrion will realize he was wrong when he hears what Marwyn has to say about them via Samwell and Jon Snow. There is a reason why George had Tyrion up at the Wall and befriend Jon Snow in AGoT.

Also note that Tyrion sort of believed Alliser in that scene - he just couldn't admit it publicly because he feared he would be ridiculed and mocked.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Actually, it is entirely possible for her to turn all Maegor. If it turns out that Aegon has basically stolen away support she was counting on in Westeros, and Tyrion convinces her ahead of term that he is a Blackfyre who is knowingly out to steal her crown, she might well choose that path.

On what support do you think Dany is counting? As others pointed out to you already, Daenerys does not expect anybody to side with her just because she is a Targaryen.

Tyrion is not likely to convince Dany of any Blackfyre nonsense because he has no evidence for any of that, nor does he seem to believe that himself at this point. He is not entirely convinced Aegon is Rhaegar's son, but that doesn't mean he thinks he is a Blackfyre descendant.

Dany herself already ensured that she is not going to get Dornish support in light of the way how she dealt with Quentyn. Westeros isn't her priority in ADwD and it still isn't. The idea that the story of Aegon is going to make her angry is pretty stupid all things considered - she never was in Westeros and she is in no rush to get there and nothing in the prophecies she heard in the House of the Undying or elsewhere indicated she had to go there to fulfill her destiny.

If she goes to Westeros she will go there because people from there ask her, not because they tell her stories about princes. From a political point of view Aegon going to Westeros is a dream come true for Daenerys - she can live her own life now, and do what she wants, because that Aegon fellow is going to avenge her father and the honor of House Targaryen.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

And "enlightened absolutist regime" rarely actually stays enlightened. That is simply too much power concentrated in hands of one person, regardless of how good their intentions were. Feudalism is on average better than such a regime - even Westerosi shittier-than-historical version of feudalism is likely better - simply because it spreads power. The only way absolutist regime would actually work and not be a tyranny is if people (e.g. independent cities etc.) were able to oppose it enough to constrain "absolute" ruler's powers enough for ruler to not be absolute. And as you noted, she doesn't even have any plans, let alone workable plans.

Feudalism is a pre-state legal system with no proper judicial system where everybody with power and property can do what he or she wants. Proper feudalism means that powerful lords can and do themselves view as 'little monarchs' with powers similar to those of the king. The mother of modernity is absolutism - because this means not 'too much power in one hand' but a powerful bureaucracy and army which provides the lower classes with the means for advancement - something that is, so far, nonexistent in Westeros. Historically and structurally the commoners are always the direct allies of the monarchy - and their staunchest supporters - because they chafe under the heels of the nobility, not the monarchy.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

They will have major impact in that Daenerys will be bringing with her a horde of bedtime monster stories, which will remove much of her support. Bringing Dothraki with her is, to Westerosi, not that much different from bringing the Others and wights. And if they start burning and raiding - as they are wont to do - that will reduce her support even more.

So Dothraki will definitely have major plot impact - but said impact does not necessarily require them to be militarily effective.

That is not making any sense. The Dothraki are humans, not monsters. But the crucial issue is - nobody is going to identify oneself with Aegon. They won't give a fig whether dragons or Dothraki kill him or not. There might be some propaganda, but that had effectively zero effect back in the War of the Five Kings. Stannis' letters had no effect, and neither had the counter claims of Shireen's bastard parentage. Nobody decided to denouce Cersei's children or Stannis on the basis of such propaganda (nor was anybody convinced by that to join anyone)

And that was in a scenario where Westeros had a lot of fresh troops and autumn had just begun. The idea that people will give two cents who rules the Iron Throne is winter is just ludicrous. There might be still some fighting, but nobody is going to raise an army because Daenerys is coming and because he thinks she is evil and has to be stopped.

Even if they wanted to resist her - they won't be able to. Not just because of the winter weather, but also because they will be spent. Pretty much all of them.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Or it could be that it was the first time they faced actual heavy infantry. I didn't think of it before, but now that I did, whole situation reminds me of when Turks fought Western Crusaders for the first time. They attacked, but because they did not know how to deal with such heavily armoured troops - and heavy shock cavalry in particular - they got wiped out. Description of Sarnori makes me think their infantry was predominantly light infantry.

The Sarnori had been fighting with the Dothraki for hundreds of years before that. There is no indication that either of them had new unheard of tactics aside from common guile. The Sarnori lost on the Field of Crows because the Dothraki outmaneuvered them with a ruse, not because the troops of either side were better equipped and more likely to prevail on that account.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

I was not talking about Free Cities, I was talking about cities Dothraki actually destroyed. Particularly Field of Crows, where usage of chariots makes me think that Tall Men had not discovered saddle and stirrup yet.

That is not likely at all considering that would have been developed in Westeros thousands of years before that, and there would have been trade relations between the Sarnori before and after the latter migrated to Westeros. They still had chariots, but in a fantasy setting there is no reason to believe we are talking about the kind of military development we got in the real world.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

And regardless of that, you could concievably have bronze-age civilization despite having iron. I was talking about cultural and military practices, not materials used to make equipment.

I'm not sure if there are cultural and military practices that define bronze and iron age in our world. The terms seem to focus on the metal that's predominantly used.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

I want the books to make sense. But that would require Daenerys obtaining entire Ottoman Army from real world's history for her to achieve conventional military superiority in Westeros.

Honestly, what did concinve you that George's standard in the first five books fits with your own personal standard?

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Knights and sellswords take their time off, but they are not deindividualized murder machines. The whole claim to fame by Unsullied rests on not having a life. Their tactics are average, their equipment average - for Essos, in Westeros both are subpar. What makes them unique is that they are highly disciplined and cannot be routed - and both depend on them not having anything to live for. If you lose that characteristic of Unsullied, they will be just another army, and not very good one at that. Better motivated than Westerosi armies, as you point out; but still not what they were. And fact is that Westerosi have advantage in everything else: they have advantage in equipment, tactics, and fighting on home soil. The only advantage Unsullied will have is their dedication to Daenerys - but dedication alone is not enough. This is not manga where main character simply wins due to resolve and batting his head against the wall long enough.

No, the fame of the Unsullied is that they are obedient and loyal. That is the trick. Yes, the Qohor episode also established that they stand no matter what, but that's just an illustration of that point - Daenerys is going to attack, she is not going to defend, meaning the ability of the Unsullied to stand against an army of charging cavalry isn't exactly going to be their defining trait in the Westeros campaign. They might not even be used against cavalry since Dany will have tens of thousands of disposable Dothraki.

The Westerosi armies are a joke. You might not see that, but it just is the case. Most men are not professionals, and the continuing bloodletting will claim more and more of those. Most Westerosi infantry are lousily equipped - when George talks about pikemen and stuff he isn't mean professionals, he means peasants with sharpened sticks - just as he wrongly uses 'men-at-arms' as meaning 'infantry' when in fact historically men-at-arms were actually armored horsemen. And he actually thinks armies are trained in the way Dunk tries to do it in TSS. That is how levies are raised in Westeros.

And the armored men are little better - there is a tiny fraction of armored cavalry among the lords and knights, yes, but those aren't many. Hedge knights have very bad armor, and freeriders all seem to be lightly armored since they would be knights if they could afford proper armor and weapons.

If you want to know the number of professionals in an army you have to count the lords and knights and their retainers in that army. The rest are not professionals. And historically you see how many of those were in even the greatest armies. Mern and Loren could only assembled 5,000 mounted knights in an army of 55,000.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Golden Company can be replenished with Westerosi recruits. Considering how Unsullied will have had losses and will be relying a lot on "new meat" - untrained boys Daenerys took with her - it means that both armies will have a mix of veterans and new troops.

Aegon is not going to get 'new recruits' in winter. The Crown has no coin, the treasury is empty, and people are going to want food from him, not give up sons so they can die.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Aegon's death is by no means certain (it may be obvious to a reader, but do not confuse reader's view with that of a character). You yourself stated that Daenerys' dragons are not that dangerous just yet, and her army as it is now is garbage (when Unsullied and Dothraki are your elite troops, you are in trouble). Golden Company is not necessary to defeat the Unsullied, I just pointed out that two appear to be direct counterparts for each other. But logically, any Westerosi army can wipe them out.

The Golden Company first has to prevail in Westeros for there to be consideration that they and the Unsullied might clash.

I don't think Aegon's death is a given - him being a failure as king is, but that's a different thing. The point, though, is that sellswords are notoriously fickle. The Golden Company won't die for Aegon. They might be kill for him, sure, but they won't die for him if they have another choice. They won't fight in a battle they fear they might lose.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

If he starts behaving as a conqueror, he will get his army destroyed. Fantasy Vikings are not that good against 15th century armies and castles.

Obviously they are, as the Starks and the Lords of the Reach learned to their sorrow. The Ironborn took the Shields and Torrhen's Square and even Winterfell.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

And why do you think that is a paradise? Foreign invaders are usually much worse than civil wars because they do not think much about killing and plundering. But considering how Martin went Grimdark to the point that even Westerosi in a civil war apparently think nothing about "burn, pillage and plunder", I do not think "not having external invaders" makes much of a difference. Especially considering how many of civil wars involved dragons.

Pretty much for the reason you described - civil wars happen rarely, if at all, and not all of those take the shape of Tywin's war in the Riverlands. War is never pleasant, but a land whose people don't have to fear enemies from the outside live in a happy paradise.

How many civil wars involved dragons, pray? At this point only one - Maegor vs. Aegon the Pretender wasn't 'a civil war', it was a aborted rebellion that was crushed in a single battle. The Faith Militant Uprising was also just a rebellion, not a civil war.

Even during the Dance the dragons were rarely unleashed on civilian population - only the worst people like Aemond, Hugh, and Ulf ever did that (and Daeron the Daring at Bitterbridge, of course).

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

She will have enemies, that much is clear. Question is only a balance of enemies vs support. Because without extensive support... well, forces she will bring with herself are (or at least logically should be) kinda useless.

They won't.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

And what has he shown so far to indicate that? Everything you have said about Aegon, you can also apply to Euron for the most part. Guy started a war in Westeros while still not having an access to the very things he is basing his strategy on.

Unlike Aegon he will get what he needs to make good of his threats. Nobody has dreams about the lad on the Iron Throne, but we have already seen Euron there. He will make it up there. And unlike with Aegon Euron doesn't really need the dragons to take what he wants. He has magical powers. He may need the dragons - like Aegon - to hold the throne, but not to take it.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, Aldarion said:

Strickland was the only one who wanted to wait. Yes, it was likely smartest option, but fact is, most of the rest of commanders - as well as rank-and-file - wanted to get moving. Lysono Maar, and evene Strickland himself realized Daenerys is not coming west. By the time Aegon spoke up, they had basically discarded as unrealistic option to either join Daenerys or to wait on her. It was either abandon any idea of conquest at all, or go to Westeros alone. Maar, Rivers, Peake, Mandrake, Flowers - they all decided on western course. You are acting as it was Aegon alone who decided on going to Westeros, but that is just not so.

The decision was made after Aegon's speech - and it was made because of that, not because of what was said before, although neither Aegon nor the Golden Company decided what would be done. It was all Jon Connington and his greyscale. If he hadn't been infected he would have insisted they go to Meereen and that would have been what they would have done. Period.

But since he no longer has much time he can no longer afford to be careless. This impatience is another nail in Aegon's coffin, by the way - and Connington's own - because it will also influence and shape future decisions of Jon Connington.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

The mages will certainly be more important than in the abomination.

Red priests especially, they could be what stands between life and death in winter, and not just because of the wights but also because of simple warmth and light.

I remember how ridiculous I found Mel's fear of the sun not going up the next morning and the entire 'R'hllor/Re has to show up tomorrow again or we are all fucked' - until I remembered that this fear of hers is likely going to become true sooner rather than later. And then people will be pretty fucked.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

Your take on Beric is indeed interesting and would explain why it went so horribly wrong with Cat. Well, I always thought that the "blood" in "Fire and Blood" had more than just the meaning of being needed to ride a dragon, first hint we get are the secret passages in Dragonstone, which might only open if someone with the right blood and the right magic comes along. But I don't see Brienne die and come back a fire-zombie (or Jon, while we are at it - imho he will chill a little in Ghost while his body is in a coma, but he is not dead).

Oh, I'm sure Jon is going to die and resurrect - and, in fact, I wonder whether Dany will have to die and resurrect, too, to take over the Dothraki. I'd not be surprised if whatever trial she is going to go through at Vaes Dothrak will kill but she is going to *survive* death in some manner.

There is too much of this resurrection thing in the story - with Beric, Cat, Gregor Clegane, Coldhands, even the wights, in a sense - for the concept to not be used with main characters - effectively confirmed for Jon at this point.

The issue with Cat I think has more to do with her being half-rotten rather than her not having dragonlord blood - she could have the same amount as Beric, anyway, since there might be both Qoherys and Lothston ancestors among the Tullys - and the latter seem to be effectively a cadet branch of House Targaryen the same way the Plumms are. Not to mention that a Lord Tully would also make a possible match for one of those sisters of Brynden Rivers after they got legitimized.

But one also can read the Cat thing as Beric simply passing on *the working magical matrix* keeping him alive to another body.

The reason why I think special blood must figure into this whole Beric thing is that his blood is magical after the resurrection and Thoros apparently could only bring back him - meaning Beric must have been special in a certain way.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

My theory is that the Valyrians actually did make themselves into what they were, which would also explain the strange genetics, the Dragon Dreams as well as their dependence on dragons for more stability as well as the affinity to fire.

And there is no R'hllor, imho, it's just fire magic the people have given a name.

Oh, yeah, the Valyrians certainly would have done something to themselves, and my idea is that this kiss of life thing is actually some sort of spell the dragonlords invented to bring back their own who died in battle or accident. Developing ways to cheat death would have been a rather popular subject of the Valyrian sorcerers. Somehow that spell would have found its way into the red priest liturgy.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

We don't know what her sell-swords will want in the end, but a lot of the people from Slaver Bay will want to go home or simply settle down.

I guess the freed slaves will, for the most part, go where she goes, and nobody is going to remain in Slaver's Bay because they will torch the cities there.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

Yes, this could happen and be the beginning of a drift within the Company. Some of them aren't happy with Strickland already, but he wouldn't be their commander if there wouldn't also be officers who do trust him and consider his judgement prudent.

Yeah. And it is noteworthy that George chose to make the leader of the Golden Company a cautious coward, basically.

On 6/12/2020 at 7:32 PM, Morte said:

The idea will start to look a lot less intelligent the moment Dany will land. But I imagine Aegon will already have problems by then, maybe some of his advisers will propose that he contacts Dany asap, but I don't think they will be heard, or it will somehow don't work out.

Oh, I think there will be contacts. My favorite idea for a brutal Dance setting is that Illyrio is going to send word to Strong Belwas - his hidden dagger at Dany's side - to take her out once he realizes she is going to come to Westeros but they no longer need her (or so he thinks at the time). If such an assassination attempt takes place and, say, leads to Barristan's, Missandei's, or Daario's death we can expect Daenerys to be very angry on a personal level - also if it nearly killed herself, or left her crippled or disfigured or just severely injured for a time.

I always thought there must be a point to the Belwas character, especially after he survived the poison in ADwD. Something like that might be it.

This thing would not escalate if Aegon's team didn't throw the first stone ... and it has to hurt considerably for there to be a proper war.

[Aldarion]

22 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Not seeing the difference. In her first chapter, Dany doubts her brother's claims that the Tyrells, Darrys, Redwynes, and the Martells will rise for them, and continues to doubt it after his death. Dany has had to work hard for every supporter she has up to now. Why would she suddenly get upset about it in Westeros?

 

Bloody hell... have we read the same books?

Quote

An hour later, her stomach began to cramp so badly that she could not go on. She spent the rest
of that day retching up green slime. If I stay here, I will die. I may be dying now. Would the horse god of
the Dothraki part the grass and claim her for his starry khalasar, so she might ride the night-lands with
Khal Drogo? In Westeros the dead of House Targaryen were given to the flames, but who would light her
pyre here? My flesh will feed the wolves and carrion crows, she thought sadly, and worms will burrow
through my womb. Her eyes went back to Dragonstone. It looked smaller. She could see smoke rising
from its wind-carved summit, miles away. Drogon has returned from hunting.
Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before,
and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank,
the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the
stream to suck up more water. When she closed her eyes at last, Dany did not know whether she would
be strong enough to open them again.
She dreamt of her dead brother.
Viserys looked just as he had the last time she’d seen him. His mouth was twisted in anguish, his
hair was burnt, and his face was black and smoking where the molten gold had run down across his
brow and cheeks and into his eyes.
“You are dead,” Dany said.
Murdered. Though his lips never moved, somehow she could hear his voice, whispering in her
ear. You never mourned me, sister. It is hard to die unmourned.
“I loved you once.”
Once, he said, so bitterly it made her shudder. You were supposed to be my wife, to bear me
children with silver hair and purple eyes, to keep the blood of the dragon pure. I took care of you. I
taught you who you were. I fed you. I sold our mother’s crown to keep you fed.
“You hurt me. You frightened me.”
Only when you woke the dragon. I loved you. “You sold me. You betrayed me.”
No. You were the betrayer. You turned against me, against your own blood. They cheated me.
Your horsey husband and his stinking savages. They were cheats and liars. They promised me a golden
crown and gave me this. He touched the molten gold that was creeping down his face, and smoke rose
from his finger.
“You could have had your crown,” Dany told him. “My sun-and-stars would have won it for you
if only you had waited.”
I waited long enough. I waited my whole life. I was their king, their rightful king. They laughed at
me.
“You should have stayed in Pentos with Magister Illyrio. Khal Drogo had to present me to the
dosh khaleen, but you did not have to ride with us. That was your choice. Your mistake.”
Do you want to wake the dragon, you stupid little whore? Drogo’s khalasar was mine. I bought
them from him, a hundred thousand screamers. I paid for them with your maidenhead.
“You never understood. Dothraki do not buy and sell. They give gifts and receive them. If you
had waited …”
I did wait. For my crown, for my throne, for you. All those years, and all I ever got was a pot of
molten gold. Why did they give the dragon’s eggs to you? They should have been mine. If I’d had a
dragon, I would have taught the world the meaning of our words. Viserys began to laugh, until his jaw
fell away from his face, smoking, and blood and molten gold ran from his mouth.
When she woke, gasping, her thighs were slick with blood.
For a moment she did not realize what it was. The world had just begun to lighten, and the tall
grass rustled softly in the wind. No, please, let me sleep some more. I’m so tired. She tried to burrow
back beneath the pile of grass she had torn up when she went to sleep. Some of the stalks felt wet. Had
it rained again? She sat up, afraid that she had soiled herself as she slept. When she brought her fingers
to her face, she could smell the blood on them. Am I dying? Then she saw the pale crescent moon,
floating high above the grass, and it came to her that this was no more than her moon blood.
If she had not been so sick and scared, that might have come as a relief. Instead she began to
shiver violently. She rubbed her fingers through the dirt, and grabbed a handful of grass to wipe
between her legs. The dragon does not weep. She was bleeding, but it was only woman’s blood. The
moon is still a crescent, though. How can that be? She tried to remember the last time she had bled. The
last full moon? The one before? The one before that? No, it cannot have been so long as that. “I am the
blood of the dragon,” she told the grass, aloud.
Once, the grass whispered back, until you chained your dragons in the dark.
“Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was … her name …” Dany could not recall the child’s name.
That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. “I will never
have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons.”
Aye, the grass said, but you turned against your children.
Her belly was empty, her feet sore and blistered, and it seemed to her that the cramping had
grown worse. Her guts were full of writhing snakes biting at her bowels. She scooped up a handful of
mud and water in trembling hands. By midday the water would be tepid, but in the chill of dawn it was
almost cool and helped her keep her eyes open. As she splashed her face, she saw fresh blood on her
thighs. The ragged hem of her under-tunic was stained with it. The sight of so much red frightened her.
Moon blood, it’s only my moon blood, but she did not remember ever having such a heavy flow. Could it
be the water? If it was the water, she was doomed. She had to drink or die of thirst.
“Walk,” Dany commanded herself. “Follow the stream and it will take you to the Skahazadhan.
That’s where Daario will find you.” But it took all her strength just to get back to her feet, and when she
did all she could do was stand there, fevered and bleeding. She raised her eyes to the empty blue sky,
squinting at the sun. Half the morning gone already, she realized, dismayed. She made herself take a
step, and then another, and then she was walking once again, following the little stream.
The day grew warmer, and the sun beat down upon her head and the burnt remnants of her
hair. Water splashed against the soles of her feet. She was walking in the stream. How long had she
been doing that? The soft brown mud felt good between her toes and helped to soothe her blisters. In
the stream or out of it, I must keep walking. Water flows downhill. The stream will take me to the river,
and the river will take me home.
Except it wouldn’t, not truly.
Meereen was not her home, and never would be. It was a city of strange men with strange gods
and stranger hair, of slavers wrapped in fringed tokars, where grace was earned through whoring,
butchery was art, and dog was a delicacy. Meereen would always be the Harpy’s city, and Daenerys
could not be a harpy.
Never, said the grass, in the gruff tones of Jorah Mormont. You were warned, Your Grace. Let
this city be, I said. Your war is in Westeros, I told you.
The voice was no more than a whisper, yet somehow Dany felt that he was walking just behind
her. My bear, she thought, my old sweet bear, who loved me and betrayed me. She had missed him so.
She wanted to see his ugly face, to wrap her arms around him and press herself against his chest, but
she knew that if she turned around Ser Jorah would be gone. “I am dreaming,” she said. “A waking
dream, a walking dream. I am alone and lost.”
Lost, because you lingered, in a place that you were never meant to be, murmured Ser Jorah, as
softly as the wind. Alone, because you sent me from your side.
“You betrayed me. You informed on me, for gold.”
For home. Home was all I ever wanted. “And me. You wanted me.” Dany had seen it in his eyes.
I did, the grass whispered, sadly. “You kissed me. I never said you could, but you did. You sold
me to my enemies, but you meant it when you kissed me.”
I gave you good counsel. Save your spears and swords for the Seven Kingdoms, I told you. Leave
Meereen to the Meereenese and go west, I said. You would not listen.
“I had to take Meereen or see my children starve along the march.” Dany could still see the trail
of corpses she had left behind her crossing the Red Waste. It was not a sight she wished to see again. “I
had to take Meereen to feed my people.”
You took Meereen, he told her, yet still you lingered. “To be a queen.”
You are a queen, her bear said. In Westeros. “It is such a long way,” she complained. “I was tired,
Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a
young girl.”
No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were
falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were
made to be. Remember your words.
“Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.
A stone turned under her foot. She stumbled to one knee and cried out in pain, hoping against
hope that her bear would gather her up and help her to her feet. When she turned her head to look for
him, all she saw was trickling brown water … and the grass, still moving slightly. The wind, she told
herself, the wind shakes the stalks and makes them sway. Only no wind was blowing. The sun was
overhead, the world still and hot. Midges swarmed in the air, and a dragonfly floated over the stream,
darting here and there. And the grass was moving when it had no cause to move.
She fumbled in the water, found a stone the size of her fist, pulled it from the mud. It was a poor
weapon but better than an empty hand. From the corner of her eye Dany saw the grass move again, off
to her right. The grass swayed and bowed low, as if before a king, but no king appeared to her. The
world was green and empty. The world was green and silent. The world was yellow, dying. I should get
up, she told herself. I have to walk. I have to follow the stream.
Through the grass came a soft silvery tinkling.
Bells, Dany thought, smiling, remembering Khal Drogo, her sunand-stars, and the bells he
braided into his hair. When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, when the seas go dry and
mountains blow in the wind like leaves, when my womb quickens again and I bear a living child, Khal
Drogo will return to me.
But none of those things had happened. Bells, Dany thought again. Her bloodriders had found
her. “Aggo,” she whispered. “Jhogo. Rakharo.” Might Daario have come with them?
The green sea opened. A rider appeared. His braid was black and shiny, his skin as dark as
burnished copper, his eyes the shape of bitter almonds. Bells sang in his hair. He wore a medallion belt
and painted vest, with an arakh on one hip and a whip on the other. A hunting bow and a quiver of
arrows were slung from his saddle.
One rider, and alone. A scout. He was one who rode before the khalasar to find the game and
the good green grass, and sniff out foes wherever they might hide. If he found her there, he would kill
her, rape her, or enslave her. At best, he would send her back to the crones of the dosh khaleen, where
good khaleesi were supposed to go when their khals had died.
He did not see her, though. The grass concealed her, and he was looking elsewhere. Dany
followed his eyes, and there the shadow flew, with wings spread wide. The dragon was a mile off, and
yet the scout stood frozen until his stallion began to whicker in fear. Then he woke as if from a dream,
wheeled his mount about, and raced off through the tall grass at a gallop.
Dany watched him go. When the sound of his hooves had faded away to silence, she began to
shout. She called until her voice was hoarse … and Drogon came, snorting plumes of smoke. The grass
bowed down before him. Dany leapt onto his back. She stank of blood and sweat and fear, but none of
that mattered. “To go forward I must go back,” she said. Her bare legs tightened around the dragon’s
neck. She kicked him, and Drogon threw himself into the sky. Her whip was gone, so she used her hands
and feet and turned him north by east, the way the scout had gone. Drogon went willingly enough;
perhaps he smelled the rider’s fear.
In a dozen heartbeats they were past the Dothraki, as he galloped far below. To the right and
left, Dany glimpsed places where the grass was burned and ashen. Drogon has come this way before,
she realized. Like a chain of grey islands, the marks of his hunting dotted the green grass sea.
A vast herd of horses appeared below them. There were riders too, a score or more, but they
turned and fled at the first sight of the dragon. The horses broke and ran when the shadow fell upon
them, racing through the grass until their sides were white with foam, tearing the ground with their
hooves … but as swift as they were, they could not fly. Soon one horse began to lag behind the others.
The dragon descended on him, roaring, and all at once the poor beast was aflame, yet somehow he kept
on running, screaming with every step, until Drogon landed on him and broke his back. Dany clutched
the dragon’s neck with all her strength to keep from sliding off.
The carcass was too heavy for him to bear back to his lair, so Drogon consumed his kill there,
tearing at the charred flesh as the grasses burned around them, the air thick with drifting smoke and the
smell of burnt horsehair. Dany, starved, slid off his back and ate with him, ripping chunks of smoking
meat from the dead horse with bare, burned hands. In Meereen I was a queen in silk, nibbling on stuffed
dates and honeyed lamb, she remembered. What would my noble husband think if he could see me
now? Hizdahr would be horrified, no doubt. But Daario …
Daario would laugh, carve off a hunk of horsemeat with his arakh, and squat down to eat beside
her.
As the western sky turned the color of a blood bruise, she heard the sound of approaching
horses. Dany rose, wiped her hands on her ragged undertunic, and went to stand beside her dragon.
That was how Khal Jhaqo found her, when half a hundred mounted warriors emerged from the
drifting smoke.

That chapter is most obvious, but we see Daenerys fighting against her impulses for much longer than that. What matters here is that it shows she is no longer winning that fight. She's slipping - not necessarily her sanity (though I would argue that above shows that as well), but her control over her destructive impulses. And fact that Drogon came to her willingly is also indicative, as dragons represent said destructive impulses. Her decision to chain them represents her decision to try the peaceful way; but she has abandoned it now.

22 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So Robert - a guy who had half the realm backing his rebellion - thought people preferred an army that is, in your words, "not that much different from bringing the Others and wights" over him? There was no such implication in the scene. What we do get is Robert stressing about the number of men Drogo has in his horde.

Ned was unconcerned because the Dothraki were unlikely to cross the narrow sea. He was also trying to talk Bobby B down from assassinating a 13 year old.

Again, have we read the same books? Even Jorah Mormont agrees that Dothraki are useless against Westerosi fortifications, though he admittedly does think they would be dangerous in a field battle:

Quote

I doubt they could take even the weakest castle in the Seven Kingdoms, but if Robert Baratheon were fool enough to give them battle...

But Robert himself is actually worrited about a Targaryen coming with the Dothraki more than about Dothraki themselves:

Quote

The king shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. “Perhaps. There are ships to be had in the Free
Cities, though. I tell you, Ned, I do not like this marriage. There are still those in the Seven
Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the
war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed,
and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors
will join him.”

Quote

“He will not cross,” Ned promised. “And if by some mischance he does, we will throw him
back into the sea. Once you choose a new Warden of the East-”

In short, only one who actually thought Dothraki a danger was ser Jorah "if Robert were fool enough to meet Dothraki in an open battle" Mormont. Everybody else was worried about the Targaryen pretendent Dothraki would be bringing with them, but not necessarily about Dothraki themselves. Ned Stark argues that Westerosi will throw Dothraki back into the sea, and Robert does not care to correct him - he focuses on Ned's idea to name Jon Arryn Warden of the East, but says not a word about Ned's argument that Westerosi can handle Dothraki horde.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bottom line is - we have no reason to expect Aegon to become a dragonrider even if he had some Targaryen blood through some Blackfyre anscestor. If he were truly Rhaegar's son his chances to mount a riderless dragon would be very good, but if that weren't the case he is effectively Quentyn material.

 

If he is a Blackfyre, he could have quite a bit of blood. Especially seeing how Martin is subverting fantasy tropes, and "magic inherent in blood" is one of those.

Sure he can, and I've been telling you half a dozen times already how that goes. He might not even have to actively look all that much for followers once reports about his magical powers spread. People also willing convert to R'hllor and follow Lady Stoneheart and before that Beric Dondarrion because their very existence marks them as divine/magical/supernatural leaders and their religion a 'religion that works', unlike the regular crap of the Faith or the old gods or the Drowned God.

You mean, like they followed Stannis and his Red Priestess? She could work magic as well, even if she was not as good at it as Beric.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrion will realize he was wrong when he hears what Marwyn has to say about them via Samwell and Jon Snow. There is a reason why George had Tyrion up at the Wall and befriend Jon Snow in AGoT.

Also note that Tyrion sort of believed Alliser in that scene - he just couldn't admit it publicly because he feared he would be ridiculed and mocked.

Point still remains that he allowed evidence be destroyed. He first ignored Alliser simply because he disliked the guy, and then proceeded to mock him. While I somewhat understand his reason for doing the latter, why couldn't he listened to ser Alliser in private, either before or after the formal meeting, if he was so afraid of being mocked? Yes, Tyrion acknowledged in his own mind that what ser Alliser is saying is not completely implausible - but that is all he did. He still proceeded to thoroughly ignore him and then do nothing.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

On what support do you think Dany is counting? As others pointed out to you already, Daenerys does not expect anybody to side with her just because she is a Targaryen.

Tyrion is not likely to convince Dany of any Blackfyre nonsense because he has no evidence for any of that, nor does he seem to believe that himself at this point. He is not entirely convinced Aegon is Rhaegar's son, but that doesn't mean he thinks he is a Blackfyre descendant.

Dany herself already ensured that she is not going to get Dornish support in light of the way how she dealt with Quentyn. Westeros isn't her priority in ADwD and it still isn't. The idea that the story of Aegon is going to make her angry is pretty stupid all things considered - she never was in Westeros and she is in no rush to get there and nothing in the prophecies she heard in the House of the Undying or elsewhere indicated she had to go there to fulfill her destiny.

If she goes to Westeros she will go there because people from there ask her, not because they tell her stories about princes. From a political point of view Aegon going to Westeros is a dream come true for Daenerys - she can live her own life now, and do what she wants, because that Aegon fellow is going to avenge her father and the honor of House Targaryen.

If we were talking about old, pre-hallucinations Daenerys, I would agree. But as I have pointed out, she has changed out there.

And even before her experience in the grass sea, Daenerys was already starting to be kinda paranoid. Recall her worrying about who the "mummer's dragon" is. But she did keep that in check.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

On what support do you think Dany is counting? As others pointed out to you already, Daenerys does not expect anybody to side with her just because she is a Targaryen.

Tyrion is not likely to convince Dany of any Blackfyre nonsense because he has no evidence for any of that, nor does he seem to believe that himself at this point. He is not entirely convinced Aegon is Rhaegar's son, but that doesn't mean he thinks he is a Blackfyre descendant.

Dany herself already ensured that she is not going to get Dornish support in light of the way how she dealt with Quentyn. Westeros isn't her priority in ADwD and it still isn't. The idea that the story of Aegon is going to make her angry is pretty stupid all things considered - she never was in Westeros and she is in no rush to get there and nothing in the prophecies she heard in the House of the Undying or elsewhere indicated she had to go there to fulfill her destiny.

If she goes to Westeros she will go there because people from there ask her, not because they tell her stories about princes. From a political point of view Aegon going to Westeros is a dream come true for Daenerys - she can live her own life now, and do what she wants, because that Aegon fellow is going to avenge her father and the honor of House Targaryen.

That depends on exact conditions. Yes, feudal lord could abuse his powers - but so could a king. And minor nobility was rarely an issue. What is important in feudalism is that you have balance: king + minor nobility + commoners vs powerful lords. In absolutism, there is little in way of balances (hence French Revolution). And feudalism actually had quite a lot of social mobility - though it is true that we see little of it in Westeros. Question is only whether that is because Martin (again) screwed up in understanding actual situation in Middle Ages, or because we see society only through eyes of upper classes, or both?

Best society is actually tribal monarchy - where you have neither feudal overlords nor absolutist ruler.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not making any sense. The Dothraki are humans, not monsters. But the crucial issue is - nobody is going to identify oneself with Aegon. They won't give a fig whether dragons or Dothraki kill him or not. There might be some propaganda, but that had effectively zero effect back in the War of the Five Kings. Stannis' letters had no effect, and neither had the counter claims of Shireen's bastard parentage. Nobody decided to denouce Cersei's children or Stannis on the basis of such propaganda (nor was anybody convinced by that to join anyone)

And that was in a scenario where Westeros had a lot of fresh troops and autumn had just begun. The idea that people will give two cents who rules the Iron Throne is winter is just ludicrous. There might be still some fighting, but nobody is going to raise an army because Daenerys is coming and because he thinks she is evil and has to be stopped.

Even if they wanted to resist her - they won't be able to. Not just because of the winter weather, but also because they will be spent. Pretty much all of them.

We will yet see whether that will be the case. But unless Daenerys picks up some serious help along the way, Aegon won't need that many forces to check Dothraki + Unsullied.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not making any sense. The Dothraki are humans, not monsters. But the crucial issue is - nobody is going to identify oneself with Aegon. They won't give a fig whether dragons or Dothraki kill him or not. There might be some propaganda, but that had effectively zero effect back in the War of the Five Kings. Stannis' letters had no effect, and neither had the counter claims of Shireen's bastard parentage. Nobody decided to denouce Cersei's children or Stannis on the basis of such propaganda (nor was anybody convinced by that to join anyone)

And that was in a scenario where Westeros had a lot of fresh troops and autumn had just begun. The idea that people will give two cents who rules the Iron Throne is winter is just ludicrous. There might be still some fighting, but nobody is going to raise an army because Daenerys is coming and because he thinks she is evil and has to be stopped.

Even if they wanted to resist her - they won't be able to. Not just because of the winter weather, but also because they will be spent. Pretty much all of them.

I am aware. But take a look at description:

Quote

Khal Haro, Khal Qano, Khal Loso (the Lame), and Khal Zhako commanded almost eighty thousand
horsemen between them, we are told. The great host of the High King of Sarnor was led by six
thousand scythed chariots, with ten thousand armored riders behind them, and another ten thousand
light horsemen (many of them women) on the flanks. Behind them marched the Sarnori foot, close to a
hundred thousand spearmen and slingers, giving the Tall Men a great advantage in numbers. On this
all chroniclers agree.
As battle was joined, the Sarnori chariots threatened to carry all before them. Their earth-
shattering advance smashed through the center of the Dothraki horde, the spinning blades on the
wheels of their chariots slicing through the legs of the Dothraki horses. When Khal Haro himself went
down before them, cut to pieces and trampled, his khalasar broke and fled. As the chariots thundered
after the fleeing horsemen, the High King and his armored riders plunged in after them, followed by
the Sarnori foot, waving their spears and screaming victory.
Their elation was short-lived. The rout was feigned. When they had drawn the Tall Men deep into
the trap, the fleeing Dothraki turned suddenly and unleashed a storm of arrows from their great bows.
The khalasars of Khal Qano and Khal Zhako swept in from north and south, while Loso the Lame and
his screamers circled round and attacked the Sarnori from the rear, cutting off their retreat.
Completely encircled, the High King and his mighty host were cut to pieces. Some say a hundred
thousand men died that day, amongst them Mazor Alexi, six lesser kings, and more than threescore
lords and heroes. As the crows feasted on their corpses, the riders of the khalasars walked amongst
the dead and squabbled over their valuables.

There have been many situations in which armies of infantry and heavy cavalry fought their way out of complete encirclement. Hell, Byzantine infantry square - later adopted by Crusaders - was designed with expectation of the army being fully encircled. Especially against an army of heavy infantry and cavalry, merely encircling them does not guarantee victory.

Reason why encirclement is so dangerous is because it reduces ability to maneuver and creates danger of people getting bunched up. This in turn means that they cannot use their weapons - be it swords, spears, bows etc. - effectively. And if formation is linear (such as a phalanx), encirclement means that the enemy can attack points of formation from two sides, which has both physical (one person cannot fight two opponents) and psychological (soldiers know that fact) impact. But in order to achieve that effect you need either a) heavy infantry or b) heavy cavalry. So far we have not seen Dothraki field either, which means that Dothraki outmaneuvering the Sarnori should not have led to massacre. In fact, presence of slingers in Sarnori ranks means that Dothraki should not have been able to harm Sarnori army at all.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not likely at all considering that would have been developed in Westeros thousands of years before that, and there would have been trade relations between the Sarnori before and after the latter migrated to Westeros. They still had chariots, but in a fantasy setting there is no reason to believe we are talking about the kind of military development we got in the real world.

 

Considering that saddle and stirrup were the reason chariots were abandoned in the first place, I would say it is pretty indicative. Though it is true that in a fantasy world - especially one whose writer does not really understand warfare all that well - it might not hold the same importance.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure if there are cultural and military practices that define bronze and iron age in our world. The terms seem to focus on the metal that's predominantly used.

 

This:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/warfare-in-bronze-age-society/introducing-bronze-age-warfare/36FB62B1111F3254CEFDF79724034471/core-reader

Bronze age saw the rise of semi-professional warriors, and in fact professionalization of military as an institution. But keep in mind that it is a process, meaning that it is entirely likely Sarnori infantry at least were not professionals (nobility fielding chariots and cavalry definitely were). It is true that bronze age saw also professional infantry such as Sumeran phalanx of Middle Bronze age, but - these were combined-arms phalanxes. In ASoIaF Sumeran phalanx seems to be represented by the Unsullied and the Iron Legions of New Ghis; there is no indication however that Sarnori had such force: Sarnori foot are described as plunging in after horsemen, "waving their spears and screaming victory". Hardly behaviour of a professional army, and definitely not of a professional army familiar with tactics of steppe nomads (or cultures descended from those: contrast behaviour of French knights at Nicopolis to that of Hungarian army, which adopted much more cautious approach due to having fought against Ottomans for quite some time already).

Illiad described what is Bronze Age warfare. You will notice that emphasis is on heroic, individual combat, but also that Homer describes early implementation of massed-formations (that is, early phalanx). But if massed combat is only developing, then it means that they will have lacked the sophistication of armies of later periods.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Khal Haro, Khal Qano, Khal Loso (the Lame), and Khal Zhako commanded almost eighty thousand
horsemen between them, we are told. The great host of the High King of Sarnor was led by six
thousand scythed chariots, with ten thousand armored riders behind them, and another ten thousand
light horsemen (many of them women) on the flanks. Behind them marched the Sarnori foot, close to a
hundred thousand spearmen and slingers, giving the Tall Men a great advantage in numbers. On this
all chroniclers agree.
As battle was joined, the Sarnori chariots threatened to carry all before them. Their earth-
shattering advance smashed through the center of the Dothraki horde, the spinning blades on the
wheels of their chariots slicing through the legs of the Dothraki horses. When Khal Haro himself went
down before them, cut to pieces and trampled, his khalasar broke and fled. As the chariots thundered
after the fleeing horsemen, the High King and his armored riders plunged in after them, followed by
the Sarnori foot, waving their spears and screaming victory.
Their elation was short-lived. The rout was feigned. When they had drawn the Tall Men deep into
the trap, the fleeing Dothraki turned suddenly and unleashed a storm of arrows from their great bows.
The khalasars of Khal Qano and Khal Zhako swept in from north and south, while Loso the Lame and
his screamers circled round and attacked the Sarnori from the rear, cutting off their retreat.
Completely encircled, the High King and his mighty host were cut to pieces. Some say a hundred
thousand men died that day, amongst them Mazor Alexi, six lesser kings, and more than threescore
lords and heroes. As the crows feasted on their corpses, the riders of the khalasars walked amongst
the dead and squabbled over their valuables.

Fact that he at least tries to keep things somewhat realistic on a tactical level (e.g. impact of terrain and flanking maneuver at Battle of Blackwater, Tywin's combined-arms deployment, his attempted "no true khalassar" retcon if that is what it was, and so on). This means that he will be constrained in what he can do with Unsullied and Dothraki in Westeros, at least if he attempts to keep to the same standard (I have already acknowledged that he may throw it all out for the sake of plot convenience, but I doubt it).

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the fame of the Unsullied is that they are obedient and loyal. That is the trick. Yes, the Qohor episode also established that they stand no matter what, but that's just an illustration of that point - Daenerys is going to attack, she is not going to defend, meaning the ability of the Unsullied to stand against an army of charging cavalry isn't exactly going to be their defining trait in the Westeros campaign. They might not even be used against cavalry since Dany will have tens of thousands of disposable Dothraki.

The Westerosi armies are a joke. You might not see that, but it just is the case. Most men are not professionals, and the continuing bloodletting will claim more and more of those. Most Westerosi infantry are lousily equipped - when George talks about pikemen and stuff he isn't mean professionals, he means peasants with sharpened sticks - just as he wrongly uses 'men-at-arms' as meaning 'infantry' when in fact historically men-at-arms were actually armored horsemen. And he actually thinks armies are trained in the way Dunk tries to do it in TSS. That is how levies are raised in Westeros.

And the armored men are little better - there is a tiny fraction of armored cavalry among the lords and knights, yes, but those aren't many. Hedge knights have very bad armor, and freeriders all seem to be lightly armored since they would be knights if they could afford proper armor and weapons.

If you want to know the number of professionals in an army you have to count the lords and knights and their retainers in that army. The rest are not professionals. And historically you see how many of those were in even the greatest armies. Mern and Loren could only assembled 5,000 mounted knights in an army of 55,000.

Unsullied are obedient and loyal, yes, but that does not mean they will be useful in Westeros.

Fact that Daenerys is going to attack does not mean Unsullied will not face a cavalry charge in an open field - what gave you that idea? Most battles happened when relief force showed up to lift a siege. If that happens, Unsullied will still have to face charging cavalry in an open field, unless they have a) contravallation and b) enough food to outlast a siege of their fortifications.

Westerosi armies are complete opposite of a joke, regardless of what you might like to be the case. Look at their behaviour. Tywin's deployment at Battle of Green Fork means that he has highly trained, professional infantry - otherwise he would have never placed infantry in the centre. Northern pikemen stand against a barrage of missiles and attack of enemy pike before being broken by heavy cavalry charge - you could hardly expect anything more than that, even from Unsullied.

And lousily equipped? Have you even read the books you are discussing? This is description of Stark infantry:

Quote

Ser Wylis and his brother Ser Wendel followed, leading their levies, near fifteen hundred men:
some twenty-odd knights and as many squires, two hundred mounted lances, swordsmen, and
freeriders, and the rest foot, armed with spears, pikes and tridents. Lord Wyman had remained
behind to see to the defenses of White Harbor. A man of near sixty years, he had grown too stout
to sit a horse. “If I had thought to see war again in my lifetime, I should have eaten a few less
eels,” he’d told Catelyn when he met her ship, slapping his massive belly with both hands. His
fingers were fat as sausages. “My boys will see you safe to your son, though, have no fear.”
His “boys” were both older than Catelyn, and she might have wished that they did not take after
their father quite so closely. Ser Wylis was only a few eels short of not being able to mount his
own horse; she pitied the poor animal. Ser Wendel, the younger boy, would have been the fattest
man she’d ever known, had she only neglected to meet his father and brother. Wylis was quiet
and formal, Wendel loud and boisterous; both had ostentatious walrus mustaches and heads as
bare as a baby’s bottom; neither seemed to own a single garment that was not spotted with food
stains. Yet she liked them well enough; they had gotten her to Robb, as their father had vowed,
and nothing else mattered.

Quote

A swollen red sun hung low against the western hills when the gates of the castle opened. The
drawbridge creaked down, the portcullis winched up, and Lady Catelyn Stark rode forth to rejoin
her son and his lords bannermen. Behind her came Ser Jared Frey, Ser Hosteen Frey, Ser
Danwell Frey, and Lord Walder’s bastard son Ronel Rivers, leading a long column of pikemen,
rank on rank of shuffling men in blue steel ringmail and silvery grey cloaks.

Quote

Catelyn rode at the head of the serpent, with her son and her uncle Ser Brynden and Ser Stevron
Frey. Behind followed nine tenths of their horse; knights, lancers, freeriders, and mounted
bowmen. It took hours for them all to cross. Afterward, Catelyn would remember the clatter of
countless hooves on the drawbridge, the sight of Lord Walder Frey in his litter watching them
pass, the glitter of eyes peering down through the slats of the murder holes in the ceiling as they
rode through the Water Tower.
The larger part of the northern host, pikes and archers and great masses of men-at-arms on foot,
remained upon the east bank under the command of Roose Bolton. Robb had commanded him to
continue the march south, to confront the huge Lannister army coming north under Lord Tywin.

Where you got the idea that Westerosi pikemen are "peasants with sharpened sticks" I do not know and I am not sure I want to know. But whatever the case, that idea is wrong. Pikes are not something which can be used by untrained or badly trained men, nor are peasants likely to own mail armour (which would have cost around 100 day wages, and was by 15th century more expensive than plate armour). This is what Tyrion thinks about your "peasants with sticks":

Quote

Crow food,” Bronn muttered beside him, giving voice to what Tyrion had left unsaid. He could
only nod. Had his lord father taken leave of his senses? No pikes, too few bowmen, a bare
handful of knights, the ill-armed and unarmored, commanded by an unthinking brute who led
with his rage... how could his father expect this travesty of a battle to hold his left?

Quote

His uncle would lead the center. Ser Kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad.
Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines, to
east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows. Between them, pikemen formed
squares; behind were rank on rank of men-at-arms with spear and sword and axe. Three hundred
heavy horse surrounded Ser Kevan and the lords bannermen Lefford, Lydden, and Serrett with
all their sworn retainers.
The right wing was all cavalry, some four thousand men, heavy with the weight of their armor.
More than three quarters of the knights were there, massed together like a great steel fist. Ser
Addam Marbrand had the command. Tyrion saw his banner unfurl as his standardbearer shook it
out; a burning tree, orange and smoke. Behind him flew Ser Flement’s purple unicorn, the
brindled boar of Crakehall, the bantam rooster of Swyft, and more.

And from same battle, we have descriptions of Northern infantry:

Quote

He had no time to think about it. The drums were so near that the beat crept under his skin and
set his hands to twitching. Bronn drew his longsword, and suddenly the enemy was there before
them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields
and pikes.

(...)

As the horns died away, a hissing filled the air; a vast flight of arrows arched up from his right,
where the archers stood flanking the road. The northerners broke into a run, shouting as they
came, but the Lannister arrows fell on them like hail, hundreds of arrows, thousands, and shouts
turned to screams as men stumbled and went down. By then a second flight was in the air, and
the archers were fitting a third arrow to their bowstrings.

(...)

A crescent of enemy spearmen had formed ahead, a double hedgehog bristling with steel,
waiting behind tall oaken shields marked with the sunburst of Karstark. Gregor Clegane was the
first to reach them, leading a wedge of armored veterans. Half the horses shied at the last second,
breaking their charge before the row of spears. The others died, sharp steel points ripping
through their chests. Tyrion saw a dozen men go down. The Mountain’s stallion reared, lashing
out with iron-shod hooves as a barbed spearhead raked across his neck. Maddened, the beast
lunged into the ranks. Spears thrust at him from every side, but the shield wall broke beneath his
weight. The northerners stumbled away from the animal’s death throes. As his horse fell,
snorting blood and biting with his last red breath, the Mountain rose untouched, laying about him
with his two-handed greatsword.

Shagga went bursting through the gap before the shields could close, other Stone Crows hard
behind him. Tyrion shouted, “Burned Men! Moon Brothers! After me!” but most of them were
ahead of him. He glimpsed Timett son of Timett vault free as his mount died under him in full
stride, saw a Moon Brother impaled on a Karstark spear, watched Conn’s horse shatter a man’s
ribs with a kick. A flight of arrows descended on them; where they came from he could not say,
but they fell on Stark and Lannister alike, rattling off armor or finding flesh. Tyrion lifted his
shield and hid beneath it.

The hedgehog was crumbling, the northerners reeling back under the impact of the mounted
assault. Tyrion saw Shagga catch a spearman full in the chest as the fool came on at a run, saw
his axe shear through mail and leather and muscle and lungs. The man was dead on his feet, the
axehead lodged in his breast, yet Shagga rode on, cleaving a shield in two with his left-hand
battle-axe while the corpse was bouncing and stumbling bonelessly along on his right. Finally
the dead man slid off. Shagga smashed the two axes together and roared.

This is all just the first book. Yet it is more than enough to show that Westerosi infantry is in fact highly trained and professional, even if it is not composed of full-time soldiers. At worst, they would be equivalent of troops furnished by Hungarian banderial system, which were part-time professionals:

https://books.google.hr/books?id=V9vom-ZAElcC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=hungarian+banderial+system&source=bl&ots=zHtctYMbM2&sig=ACfU3U0RyLgJZANFAo9XIbsRS0r6mbcU7A&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihl8363oDqAhWIyKQKHQpkAmQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=hungarian banderial system&f=false

https://books.google.hr/books?id=qRVEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=hungarian+banderial+system&source=bl&ots=gmoIrHtY6Z&sig=ACfU3U3YkPJKuwvT0dfpt6AAil4jWhBDKw&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihl8363oDqAhWIyKQKHQpkAmQQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=hungarian banderial system&f=false

https://books.google.hr/books?id=7qgpDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=hungarian+banderial+system&source=bl&ots=KzGpo2-cai&sig=ACfU3U2kmpw3uHw9wrJtDgDL6xsFJPy83Q&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihl8363oDqAhWIyKQKHQpkAmQQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=hungarian banderial system&f=false

And men-at-arms are actually very well equipped, even in North:

Quote

A double column of men-at-arms in chainmail and steel helms was
waiting outside the tower, eight strong.

I do agree that he misunderstands what men-at-arms were, but that misunderstanding hardly invalidates his own descriptions.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon is not going to get 'new recruits' in winter. The Crown has no coin, the treasury is empty, and people are going to want food from him, not give up sons so they can die.

Quote

 

Quite the opposite, actually. Winter will mean a wealth of new recruits, sons given up to army service just so they can die in a useful way. At least in the North, but why would South be that different?:

Quote

“Winter is almost upon us, boy. And winter is death. I would sooner my men die fighting for the
Ned’s little girl than alone and hungry in the snow, weeping tears that freeze upon their cheeks. No one
sings songs of men who die like that. As for me, I am old. This will be my last winter. Let me bathe in
Bolton blood before I die. I want to feel it spatter across my face when my axe bites deep into a Bolton
skull. I want to lick it off my lips and die with the taste of it on my tongue.”

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Golden Company first has to prevail in Westeros for there to be consideration that they and the Unsullied might clash.

I don't think Aegon's death is a given - him being a failure as king is, but that's a different thing. The point, though, is that sellswords are notoriously fickle. The Golden Company won't die for Aegon. They might be kill for him, sure, but they won't die for him if they have another choice. They won't fight in a battle they fear they might lose.

There is a lot indicating that they will prevail in Westeros. Their first battle is as good as won - there is a reason why Mace Tyrell is going to be in command of the army that is marching to oppose them.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Golden Company first has to prevail in Westeros for there to be consideration that they and the Unsullied might clash.

I don't think Aegon's death is a given - him being a failure as king is, but that's a different thing. The point, though, is that sellswords are notoriously fickle. The Golden Company won't die for Aegon. They might be kill for him, sure, but they won't die for him if they have another choice. They won't fight in a battle they fear they might lose.

1. Shields were taken after winning a naval battle - because most of defenders died at sea.

2. Torrhen's Square was undefended.

3. Winterfell was taken when it was nearly undefended.

So far, we have not seen the Ironborn go against a proper Westerosi army.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Pretty much for the reason you described - civil wars happen rarely, if at all, and not all of those take the shape of Tywin's war in the Riverlands. War is never pleasant, but a land whose people don't have to fear enemies from the outside live in a happy paradise.

Westeros is a feudal society. Low-level warfare will be endemic. Now large wars do appear to be rare, that is true - but Westeros just came out of a rather major war, which will have produced troops and commanders who know how to fight.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Pretty much for the reason you described - civil wars happen rarely, if at all, and not all of those take the shape of Tywin's war in the Riverlands. War is never pleasant, but a land whose people don't have to fear enemies from the outside live in a happy paradise.

Yes, he is relying on magic. So did Stannis, and how well did it go for him? If anything, relying on magic is a good argument for why Euron should not be successful.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The decision was made after Aegon's speech - and it was made because of that, not because of what was said before, although neither Aegon nor the Golden Company decided what would be done. It was all Jon Connington and his greyscale. If he hadn't been infected he would have insisted they go to Meereen and that would have been what they would have done. Period.

But since he no longer has much time he can no longer afford to be careless. This impatience is another nail in Aegon's coffin, by the way - and Connington's own - because it will also influence and shape future decisions of Jon Connington.

Again, Aegon only made his speech after eastwards path was already discarded. At that point, it was either go West or go home.

[Morte]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Also note that Tyrion sort of believed Alliser in that scene - he just couldn't admit it publicly because he feared he would be ridiculed and mocked.

Exactly. It's not so much Tyrion not believing Alliser (he is more rude than needed because of Alliser's attitute toward his friend Jon) but the people around him don't believe it. And that problem will be still relevant for Aegon and anybody else in the South of Westeros, they will essentially realise what the real threat is much too late.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is too much of this resurrection thing in the story - with Beric, Cat, Gregor Clegane, Coldhands, even the wights, in a sense - for the concept to not be used with main characters - effectively confirmed for Jon at this point.

On this we have to agree to disagree, as I think it was already used too much to use it again on even more characters.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure if there are cultural and military practices that define bronze and iron age in our world. The terms seem to focus on the metal that's predominantly used.

There are of course developments (many and in many variations in different places) during this two very long epochs, both cultural and military, but they aren't really or only defined by the metal used, nor are they consistent in the way of evolving into something better/more complex necessarily - the Dark Ages in Greek don't have their name for funnies, nor is the aristocratic society which emerged out of them more sophisticated or better for it's people. In fact and for example, all the constructions against drought and flood build on the Peloponnese crumble during the Dark Ages and the Archaic Period and stayed that way because the aristocratic city-states weren't able nor willing to fix them.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Feudalism is a pre-state legal system with no proper judicial system where everybody with power and property can do what he or she wants. Proper feudalism means that powerful lords can and do themselves view as 'little monarchs' with powers similar to those of the king. The mother of modernity is absolutism - because this means not 'too much power in one hand' but a powerful bureaucracy and army which provides the lower classes with the means for advancement - something that is, so far, nonexistent in Westeros. Historically and structurally the commoners are always the direct allies of the monarchy - and their staunchest supporters - because they chafe under the heels of the nobility, not the monarchy.

Exactly. Oligarchic and aristocratic systems are the most unstable and the worse for the people as such; that's why essentially every tyrannos build his power upon the commons and why it's a king under the mountain - it's the dream of a stable central government with a bureaucracy and laws enforced on everybody equally. Essentially it's the dream of Rome.

If you can't build a democracy or at least a republic, than monarchy is a much better choice for the commons historically than any form of aristocracy or oligarchy.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The decision was made after Aegon's speech - and it was made because of that, not because of what was said before, although neither Aegon nor the Golden Company decided what would be done. It was all Jon Connington and his greyscale. If he hadn't been infected he would have insisted they go to Meereen and that would have been what they would have done. Period.

But since he no longer has much time he can no longer afford to be careless. This impatience is another nail in Aegon's coffin, by the way - and Connington's own - because it will also influence and shape future decisions of Jon Connington.

And this impatience will crash with Strickland's caution, me thinks. And more than once. Till the cunctator is proven right in one battle. Because:

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah. And it is noteworthy that George chose to make the leader of the Golden Company a cautious coward, basically.

 

7 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Illiad described what is Bronze Age warfare. You will notice that emphasis is on heroic, individual combat, but also that Homer describes early implementation of massed-formations (that is, early phalanx). But if massed combat is only developing, then it means that they will have lacked the sophistication of armies of later periods.

The Illias (where does English get the "d" from? There isn't any in the whole word!) describes aristocratic, Hellenic warfare and aristocratic ideals of the Iron Age, as they were common in the aristocratic world of the Greek Archaic, where it also belongs culturally; what little parallels it has with Near-Eastern-epics, it has with much older material, and there aren't that many. It has nothing to do with the semi- and fully professional (almost or truly) standing armies of the Empires of the Near East of the Bronze and Iron Age except for telling about a battle which took place a long time before the epos was first sung, and even longer before it was written down.

 

Note to everybody: Later more, have to get some work done here first.

[Hodor the Articulate]

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

That chapter is most obvious, but we see Daenerys fighting against her impulses for much longer than that. What matters here is that it shows she is no longer winning that fight. She's slipping - not necessarily her sanity (though I would argue that above shows that as well), but her control over her destructive impulses. And fact that Drogon came to her willingly is also indicative, as dragons represent said destructive impulses. Her decision to chain them represents her decision to try the peaceful way; but she has abandoned it now.

Yeah, I read that part, thanks. I also read all the other chapters which gives the scene context. Up until that point, the whole book is Dany trying improve the lives of her people (the freedmen) by making concessions to their oppresses (the slavers). In her hallucinations she realises how dumb that was when she had the power to enforce her rule. So how does that point to Dany losing it because she doesn't attract allies the minute she lands in Westeros? Where does it even imply she's changed her doubts about Westeros rising up for her?

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, have we read the same books? Even Jorah Mormont agrees that Dothraki are useless against Westerosi fortifications, though he admittedly does think they would be dangerous in a field battle:

Quote

I doubt they could take even the weakest castle in the Seven Kingdoms, but if Robert Baratheon were fool enough to give them battle...

But Robert himself is actually worrited about a Targaryen coming with the Dothraki more than about Dothraki themselves:

Quote

The king shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. “Perhaps. There are ships to be had in the Free
Cities, though. I tell you, Ned, I do not like this marriage. There are still those in the Seven
Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the
war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed,
and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors
will join him.”

Quote

“He will not cross,” Ned promised. “And if by some mischance he does, we will throw him
back into the sea. Once you choose a new Warden of the East-”

In short, only one who actually thought Dothraki a danger was ser Jorah "if Robert were fool enough to meet Dothraki in an open battle" Mormont. Everybody else was worried about the Targaryen pretendent Dothraki would be bringing with them, but not necessarily about Dothraki themselves. Ned Stark argues that Westerosi will throw Dothraki back into the sea, and Robert does not care to correct him - he focuses on Ned's idea to name Jon Arryn Warden of the East, but says not a word about Ned's argument that Westerosi can handle Dothraki horde.

Right after that, Jorah says yes, Robert is such a fool. Clearly, Robert does fear them for what they are. If it were just a Targ returning he'd feared, he wouldn't be so focused killing Dany or on the size of the khalasar. His council thought the same, seeing as all of them except Barristan also thought it was a prudent to assassinate her.

Again, Ned is only dismissive because he's trying to prevent Robert murdering a child. His "throw him back in the sea" was a desperate attempt at that because later also says, "I shall fear the Dothraki the day they teach their horses to run on water". He would have said anything to talk Robert down, and thought it unlikely Dothraki were even going to get anywhere near Westeros.

Anyway, that Jorah quote proves the Dothraki are formidable, even if they are useless in sieging (Dany will be having open battles at some point). And that Robert quote puts a dent in your claim that Westeros was going to unite against Dany for having a Dothraki horde.

[Tyrion1991]

As an aside. Do you think George thought Aegon and Dany going into a civil war was meant to be a surprise plot twist? Pretty much every reader has immediately assumed this without any suggestion of it in the text. 

I think a lot of the later books got very predictable coz I think readers have him figured out and what his game is. You’re not naïvely going to assume a little bit of discord between allies. No, it’s a satire and George is going to go for situation which creates the most conflict.

IMO I think another Targaryen claimant pulling the rug out under Danys story is an absurd and contrived plot twist to railroad Dany into being the villain. It came out of nowhere and it completely undermines the integrity of the story. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

@Tyrion1991 We've assumed it because we spend a lot of time here combing through every detail. Who knows what readers with actual lives think?

It's not true there's no suggestion in the text, anyway. Even those who missed the Dance of the Dragons symbolism or the mummer's dragon foreshadowing would have noticed Tyrion's shit stirring. Also didn't GRRM himself say there was going to be another dance? Obviously it's not entirely predictable because I disagree that Aegon is a tool to villify Dany.

[Tyrion1991]

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

@Tyrion1991 We've assumed it because we spend a lot of time here combing through every detail. Who knows what readers with actual lives think?

It's not true there's no suggestion in the text, anyway. Even those who missed the Dance of the Dragons symbolism or the mummer's dragon foreshadowing would have noticed Tyrion's shit stirring. Also didn't GRRM himself say there was going to be another dance? Obviously it's not entirely predictable because I disagree that Aegon is a tool to villify Dany.

 

Its too consistent an opinion though. I don’t see much variation of it on the forum and not everybody on the forum will have reread multiple times. I doubt people assumed the Frey’s would backstab at the end of AGOT; he’s just that creepy lord. But Aegon, as soon as he shows up we’re immediately talking about a civil war. Which is a huge leap considering they’re ostensibly allies planning on marrying.

Foreshadowing which he put into ADWD. Meaning it’s a left field thing that he threw into the story without any setup. Aegon introduced and Dany starts getting bombarded with unsubtle magical visions that she isn’t asking for. 

He is blatantly going to be used to vilify Dany. George had to explain why the Lords and people of Westeros would vehemently oppose Dany overthrowing Cersei. To explain why rational people wouldn’t just step aside and cut a deal. If the Lannister position is based on power that house of cards should fold once something more powerful shows up. It would never have made sense.

George’s solution is to completely change the setting before Dany gets to Westeros. Have a popular Targaryen King become the hero and save Westeros from the Lannister’s long before Dany reaches Westeros. So people are committed to him personally and more willing to stand by him. This Dany is reframed as a villain trying to overthrow her nephew out of lust for power. The Targaryen Dynasty will have already been restored. There is no reason anymore for her to invade Westeros. She would go from fighting “the usurpers dogs” to Targaryen loyalists. That is satire.

All of which has been done without any decision on Danys part. Aegon just shows up, gets given a Fleet and presented with an easy conquest of Westeros. Dany literally has a demon road put in front of her and put into story jail because she’s waiting for a fleet to show up. It’s not a choice if your entire army dies anyway. The character is being railroaded into a war that should not be happening. It is an absurd plot twist.

Georges excuse is obviously going be. “Oh But Dany you’re being cynical. He refused to marry Arriane, but you’re listening to the evil mystics whispering in your ear rather than believing in something good. You only have to marry him and have everything you want”. Which is absurd because why would anyone believe anything Quiathe says or anything a mage says after one murdered your child? I don’t get why Dany isn’t taking the view of killing every mage on site. Nobody is going to trust a creepy ghost that’s haunting you; it would just freak you out. Again, it’s an absurdity and a contrivance meant to create this situation. That’s not really a choice because the characters are doing irrational things and everything is being rigged to create this dumb outcome. It would be a terrible direction to take the story in.

[Morte]

So, the last bits... Thankfully, @Hodor the Articulate already responded to a lot of open points, so I just have titbits left.  

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Obviously it's not entirely predictable because I disagree that Aegon is a tool to villify Dany.

Agree. As I said somewhere above, it isn't even sure we don't get a peaceful ending of the Second Dance, in contrast to the first.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I think there will be contacts. My favorite idea for a brutal Dance setting is that Illyrio is going to send word to Strong Belwas - his hidden dagger at Dany's side - to take her out once he realizes she is going to come to Westeros but they no longer need her (or so he thinks at the time). If such an assassination attempt takes place and, say, leads to Barristan's, Missandei's, or Daario's death we can expect Daenerys to be very angry on a personal level - also if it nearly killed herself, or left her crippled or disfigured or just severely injured for a time.

I always thought there must be a point to the Belwas character, especially after he survived the poison in ADwD. Something like that might be it.

This thing would not escalate if Aegon's team didn't throw the first stone ... and it has to hurt considerably for there to be a proper war.

Well, if we get a brutal version (I'm not sure about this; it may be not, simply to contrast the first one), the death of one of her loved ones would imho be the only way to get Dany to be really angry.

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He is blatantly going to be used to vilify Dany. George had to explain why the Lords and people of Westeros would vehemently oppose Dany overthrowing Cersei. To explain why rational people wouldn’t just step aside and cut a deal. If the Lannister position is based on power that house of cards should fold once something more powerful shows up. It would never have made sense.

George’s solution is to completely change the setting before Dany gets to Westeros. Have a popular Targaryen King become the hero and save Westeros from the Lannister’s long before Dany reaches Westeros. So people are committed to him personally and more willing to stand by him. This Dany is reframed as a villain trying to overthrow her nephew out of lust for power. The Targaryen Dynasty will have already been restored. There is no reason anymore for her to invade Westeros. She would go from fighting “the usurpers dogs” to Targaryen loyalists. That is satire.

Now, you are painting it really black, wait till we have at least the next book and don't spend so much thoughts on the abomination. We don't even know how Aegons campaign will fare.

Beside: Who will save the West in your scenario? Or the decent Freys? Do you think he wants us to cheer for stupid bloody and senseless vengeance? For eye for an eye?

Also: Why should Dany go to Westeros to conquer or invade it, if it is also very much possible and within the pacing we have now also much more likely that she will come because she is needed against the Others?

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

That chapter is most obvious, but we see Daenerys fighting against her impulses for much longer than that. What matters here is that it shows she is no longer winning that fight. She's slipping - not necessarily her sanity (though I would argue that above shows that as well), but her control over her destructive impulses. And fact that Drogon came to her willingly is also indicative, as dragons represent said destructive impulses. Her decision to chain them represents her decision to try the peaceful way; but she has abandoned it now.

 

Again, have we read the same books? Even Jorah Mormont agrees that Dothraki are useless against Westerosi fortifications, though he admittedly does think they would be dangerous in a field battle:

 

But Robert himself is actually worrited about a Targaryen coming with the Dothraki more than about Dothraki themselves:

Dany's entire story in ADwD is her being King Aenys or Neville Chamberlain - always conceding, always compromising, hacking off her own hands and feet to placate the Nazis slavers she is dealing with.

Trying to win the love of people who hate you - and who only understand violence and might - is pointless. Daenerys is destroyed piece by piece by Reznak and the Green Grace and Hizdahr and all those little compromises she makes.

Her core mistakes are in her very first chapter - taking on unreformed Meereenese as her advisors, compromising with the Green Grace and the slaver elite. The only language those people understand is fire and blood. Crucifying all of them would have resolved her problems. Her delusion was to want to be a just queen for (former) slavers and freed slaves alike. That doesn't work. The former have to be physically destroyed for there to be peace - or at least be given a choice between physical annihilation or consequent and lasting reform. Placating them in any way, giving them a place at the table, allowing them to conclude that you don't mean business, that you won't unleash your dragons should they misbehave was all nonsense.

Caring more about the children of the people who hate her - as she shows when she imprisons her dragons because one of them might have eaten a child - than her own children, the dragons, is fundamentally wrong. It is against her nature in a very real sense because she abandons who she is as a person - the Mother of Dragons. This has nothing to do with her family history (which include enlightened women like Alysanne Targaryen or the Daenerys who lived at the Water Gardens and taught the Martells to be the best rulers in Westeros) but her own identity and destiny.

The idea that this kind of conflict comes back in Westeros is ridiculous. It would be her half-conquering Westeros and then deciding to compromise with Aegon or Euron or Cersei or Stannis or whoever else might resist her. There can only be one ruler, just as there can only be one policy in Slaver's Bay - the end of slavery, period.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

In short, only one who actually thought Dothraki a danger was ser Jorah "if Robert were fool enough to meet Dothraki in an open battle" Mormont. Everybody else was worried about the Targaryen pretendent Dothraki would be bringing with them, but not necessarily about Dothraki themselves. Ned Stark argues that Westerosi will throw Dothraki back into the sea, and Robert does not care to correct him - he focuses on Ned's idea to name Jon Arryn Warden of the East, but says not a word about Ned's argument that Westerosi can handle Dothraki horde.

 

If he is a Blackfyre, he could have quite a bit of blood. Especially seeing how Martin is subverting fantasy tropes, and "magic inherent in blood" is one of those.

Ned and Robert never even saw a Dothraki, much less fought one. Their expertise on them isn't worth anything.

But of course Robert does not only fear that Viserys III will gain support in Westeros, he also fears the army he will take to Westeros in addition to the traitors who will join him.

And Aegon will be fretting about Dany and her dragons and Dothraki the same Robert did. Especially since Dany doesn't have to conquer Westeros. All she needs to do is to take the Iron Throne and kill Aegon or the other pretenders. Then everybody will fall in line. She doesn't have to conquer anything else, she can afford that her enemies march against her. And then they will be crushed.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You mean, like they followed Stannis and his Red Priestess? She could work magic as well, even if she was not as good at it as Beric.

Stannis is a sulking, whiny man-child with the charisma of a snail. How much he sucks as a king you can see by the very fact that he couldn't even win with magical help. Euron is a charismatic, powerful leader. He isn't Aegon the Conqueror, but if there is a character who can pretend he is it is Euron. He has the charisma

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Point still remains that he allowed evidence be destroyed. He first ignored Alliser simply because he disliked the guy, and then proceeded to mock him. While I somewhat understand his reason for doing the latter, why couldn't he listened to ser Alliser in private, either before or after the formal meeting, if he was so afraid of being mocked? Yes, Tyrion acknowledged in his own mind that what ser Alliser is saying is not completely implausible - but that is all he did. He still proceeded to thoroughly ignore him and then do nothing.

Tyrion agreed to grant Thorne some more men, and he later did his best to help convince his father to send more men to the Wall. I'd agree that he should have received Thorne in private and if he had the moving hand certainly would have made an impact on him.

But the fact remains that there is a reason why George had Tyrion see the Wall and befriend Jon Snow. He is going to back Marwyn when he gives Dany his report about the Others and wights especially in light of the fact the source of that is, ultimately, Jon Snow. And he also remembering Thorne's report and going to realize the man was serious back then, taking that as further proof he made a mistake back then ... but is not going to repeat them when talking to Dany.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And even before her experience in the grass sea, Daenerys was already starting to be kinda paranoid. Recall her worrying about who the "mummer's dragon" is. But she did keep that in check.

That is not paranoia but caution. She knows that there are three lies she has to slay, and she correctly made the connection that Quaithe's mummer's dragon is the cloth dragon from her own vision. Being wary of the perfumed seneschal is also not paranoia.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

That depends on exact conditions. Yes, feudal lord could abuse his powers - but so could a king. And minor nobility was rarely an issue. What is important in feudalism is that you have balance: king + minor nobility + commoners vs powerful lords. In absolutism, there is little in way of balances (hence French Revolution). And feudalism actually had quite a lot of social mobility - though it is true that we see little of it in Westeros. Question is only whether that is because Martin (again) screwed up in understanding actual situation in Middle Ages, or because we see society only through eyes of upper classes, or both?

Best society is actually tribal monarchy - where you have neither feudal overlords nor absolutist ruler.

A proper feudal society did not allow for any social mobility - the medieval ideal was that every man (not to speak of the women) remained where he was born. You did what your father had done before you, period. People breaking free of those shackles were freak accidents. Nobody liked new money, and the whole freedom in the cities was seen as a poison destroying society as it should be - and it was slowly but surely killing feudalism.

The French Revolution was not so much a revolution against the monarchy - although the king was eventually overthrown and executed - but against the ridiculous privileges and powers the ancien regime was preserving and enshrining for the (high) nobility and clerics. As far as I recall none of these people even paid taxes at the time, meaning the commons had to pay for everything but had no voice in anything that was done in the state. The 18th century hungered for an enlightened king to do away with all that stuff, but pretty much nobody in 18th century Europe wanted to abolish the monarchy ... as long as the monarch but made some concessions.

What destroyed most of European monarchies was the unwillingness of most royal houses to even entertain the notion that there could be something called 'constitutional monarchy'.

If you go back in the middle ages then strong, pre-modern absolutist rulers like Louis the Fair were the ones who allowed commoners to rise to the very top of society, employing one of them effectively as a co-ruler (that is something that is right there in Druon's series, but George refused to use that kind of thing unless one views Varys as such a guy). In Tudor England you have such a man in Thomas Cromwell who rose from being a nobody to the ruler of the Anglican Church.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We will yet see whether that will be the case. But unless Daenerys picks up some serious help along the way, Aegon won't need that many forces to check Dothraki + Unsullied.

I'm sorry, in light of the fact that Aegon is not likely to have but a fraction of the military potential of Westeros at his disposal, while Dany will had hundreds of thousands of Dothraki the letter would win even if they were thrown sandals at the knights.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

There have been many situations in which armies of infantry and heavy cavalry fought their way out of complete encirclement. Hell, Byzantine infantry square - later adopted by Crusaders - was designed with expectation of the army being fully encircled. Especially against an army of heavy infantry and cavalry, merely encircling them does not guarantee victory.

Yeah, of course, but for that you need really trained and experienced soldiers - which those Sarnori obviously weren't. Or rather: They were not disciplined enough. They were not prepared for being encircled and didn't figure out in time what to do when it happened.

A realistic element George really likes to use in his battles is the fact that battles can get confusing very quickly, and that a very important way to secure victory is to remain in control of the situation or to follow a battle plan no matter what - adapting to a new situation in the middle of a battle if you no longer have any reserves is pretty much impossible, though.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Reason why encirclement is so dangerous is because it reduces ability to maneuver and creates danger of people getting bunched up. This in turn means that they cannot use their weapons - be it swords, spears, bows etc. - effectively. And if formation is linear (such as a phalanx), encirclement means that the enemy can attack points of formation from two sides, which has both physical (one person cannot fight two opponents) and psychological (soldiers know that fact) impact. But in order to achieve that effect you need either a) heavy infantry or b) heavy cavalry. So far we have not seen Dothraki field either, which means that Dothraki outmaneuvering the Sarnori should not have led to massacre. In fact, presence of slingers in Sarnori ranks means that Dothraki should not have been able to harm Sarnori army at all.

Well, obviously this means George R. R. Martin thinks the Dothraki are capable to do what you do think they are not able to do - and they will continue to do that in Westeros even against armored knights.

I mean, I laid it out in great detail how I think they will be able to crush knights - simply by means of their superior bows (and there will be as many dragonbone bows as George wants them to have - those bows were introduced for a reason) and their superior mobility and the fact that they can shoot ahorse while the knights and Westerosi archers cannot do that.

It is very easy to imagine how those advantages will play out in a battle. The knights will be crushed by the dragonbone archers, and the infantry will be put to rout and ridden down by the conventional Dothraki archers.

The very idea that the Dothraki could break because a couple of hundred knights charge at them is ridiculous if you think of Qohor - they were willing to get themselves killed in the hundreds and thousands by the Unsullied there, meaning the Dothraki won't stop an attack just because hundreds or thousands of their peers were killed by a charge of knights.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Considering that saddle and stirrup were the reason chariots were abandoned in the first place, I would say it is pretty indicative. Though it is true that in a fantasy world - especially one whose writer does not really understand warfare all that well - it might not hold the same importance.

This might be the case in the real world, but we have no idea when saddle and stirrup were invented in Martinworld.

In fact, the impression I get is that those chariots of the Sarnori with their scissors are supposed to be seen as terrible weapons against Dothraki and other cavalry charges because they could actually kill the horses. There is no reason to think of bronze age chariots there - but armored fantasy chariots.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Fact that he at least tries to keep things somewhat realistic on a tactical level (e.g. impact of terrain and flanking maneuver at Battle of Blackwater, Tywin's combined-arms deployment, his attempted "no true khalassar" retcon if that is what it was, and so on). This means that he will be constrained in what he can do with Unsullied and Dothraki in Westeros, at least if he attempts to keep to the same standard (I have already acknowledged that he may throw it all out for the sake of plot convenience, but I doubt it).

There is pretty much nothing realistic about the Blackwater battle. Even the setup makes no sense in light of the fact that Stannis captured 10,000+ horse at Storm's End - meaning he had the largest cavalry force in Westeros, ever (after Renly, who had 20,000 horse taken to Storm's End). Where the hell where all those knights and lords at the Blackwater? And where are all those horses?

The idea to rely on the ships to build a bridge is also pretty ridiculous - why the hell didn't Stannis land somewhere north of KL to deploy half his troops there to attack KL from both the front and the rear? Even without the chain a naval battle on the Blackwater was putting his troops in danger, especially since they knew to had to reckon with wildfire attacks. Not to mention the devastating effects a sortie on the landing/bridge-building Stannis troops could have.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Unsullied are obedient and loyal, yes, but that does not mean they will be useful in Westeros.

They will be as useful as loyal and competent and professional soldiers are - and you don't get much of those in this worlds. Knights and sellswords might be professionals, but they are not really loyal.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Fact that Daenerys is going to attack does not mean Unsullied will not face a cavalry charge in an open field - what gave you that idea? Most battles happened when relief force showed up to lift a siege. If that happens, Unsullied will still have to face charging cavalry in an open field, unless they have a) contravallation and b) enough food to outlast a siege of their fortifications.

I don't expect Daenerys to bother much with besieging castles and cities, and I most definitely don't expect anybody to come to the aid of whoever she ends up besieging - especially since she won't be surprised ever by any such attempts thanks to the fact that she has dragonrider scouts.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Westerosi armies are complete opposite of a joke, regardless of what you might like to be the case. Look at their behaviour. Tywin's deployment at Battle of Green Fork means that he has highly trained, professional infantry - otherwise he would have never placed infantry in the centre. Northern pikemen stand against a barrage of missiles and attack of enemy pike before being broken by heavy cavalry charge - you could hardly expect anything more than that, even from Unsullied.

Those are interpretations, not facts as such. All that's in the text is that certain people are in the center - what that means is just in your head, not the text. Whenever the text actually talks about the quality of men it reinforces that the bulk of Westerosi warriors are amateurs, not professionals

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And lousily equipped? Have you even read the books you are discussing? This is description of Stark infantry:

Where you got the idea that Westerosi pikemen are "peasants with sharpened sticks" I do not know and I am not sure I want to know. But whatever the case, that idea is wrong. Pikes are not something which can be used by untrained or badly trained men, nor are peasants likely to own mail armour (which would have cost around 100 day wages, and was by 15th century more expensive than plate armour). This is what Tyrion thinks about your "peasants with sticks":

And from same battle, we have descriptions of Northern infantry:

Oh, I know all those descriptions, and I know how expensive mail was in the real middle ages - but that's again a fantasy series, no. As I laid out in the other thread, the idea you can take those careless and imprecise descriptions filtered through the POV in question as 'facts' is a stretch - especially contrasted to the actual talk about the quality of men and how the military system actually worked. And there things like Meribald's speech and the actual depiction of a landed knight raising levies in TSS take precedence.

The best way to make sense of those Frey soldiers in mail is that the Freys either have a lot of money - which they do - or that this is an exaggeration - the POV seeing a bunch of Frey soldiers in mail and then extrapolating that all those men look the same.

The fact just is that those people you talk about and think play a role in the overall narrative structure of the series are just extras and background details - George doesn't care about army structures and the capabilities of the men his heroes use as cannon fodder. They will have what they need to do what the plot demands, not the other way around.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Quite the opposite, actually. Winter will mean a wealth of new recruits, sons given up to army service just so they can die in a useful way. At least in the North, but why would South be that different?:

Because winter usually isn't the season for war.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

There is a lot indicating that they will prevail in Westeros. Their first battle is as good as won - there is a reason why Mace Tyrell is going to be in command of the army that is marching to oppose them.

I think Aegon will win that one, too, but don't count on it that Mace is going to be the general there. It might be Tarly will command the army and Mace remains behind - or they command jointly. In both cases we could not expect there to be (m)any blunders, which means Aegon will have to figure out an actually experienced general - or what counts for experienced in Westeros (Tarly is just a veteran of one battle, not counting his recent victory at Duskendale).

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

1. Shields were taken after winning a naval battle - because most of defenders died at sea.

Nope, they had to conquer the actual castles - which should have been pretty well defended in light of the fact that they are likely not pretty large and thus don't need a large garrison to be actually defended.

They also defeated them at sea, to be sure, but the whole thing be a surprise attack means the Shield Islanders didn't get their entire fleet at sea and did not lost all their men there.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

2. Torrhen's Square was undefended.

It was well-defended the first time around, and no longer that well-defended the second time since the Tallharts had sent men to Rodrik. But Ramsay did not kill all of them, nor is there are a chance that the Tallharts emptied out Torrhen's Square the way Ser Rodrik emptied out Winterfell - that would be foolish after Rodrik had just lost Winterfell because of that.

The lesson you can draw from that is that the Ironborn definitely know how to take pretty strong castles.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

3. Winterfell was taken when it was nearly undefended.

Yes, but it was still something that had to be done. Asha also took Deepwood Motte.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

So far, we have not seen the Ironborn go against a proper Westerosi army.

We did see them crush the Stormlanders at Fairmarket in TWoIaF. And we saw how Harren's Ironborn fought Aegon until they were defeated.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Westeros is a feudal society. Low-level warfare will be endemic. Now large wars do appear to be rare, that is true - but Westeros just came out of a rather major war, which will have produced troops and commanders who know how to fight.

There are minor rebellions here and there, but those are not wars. Hunting outlaws and robber knights doesn't prepare you to fight pitched battles.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yes, he is relying on magic. So did Stannis, and how well did it go for him? If anything, relying on magic is a good argument for why Euron should not be successful.

See above. Stannis sucks as a leader and king due to his personality ... Euron does not.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, Aegon only made his speech after eastwards path was already discarded. At that point, it was either go West or go home.

It wasn't discarded, people were arguing for and against it, but it is Aegon who suggest that they go to Westeros without Dany. Prior to that nobody had even considered that possibility. People were wary of going to Meereen but they saw no alternative until Aegon gave them one.

12 hours ago, Morte said:

On this we have to agree to disagree, as I think it was already used too much to use it again on even more characters.

I really don't like that plotline, either, but I think George very much does. We wouldn't have gotten Beric and Catelyn if this undead/resurrection thing wasn't going to be a big thing in the story as magic becomes more and more prominent. But I'd agree with you that I'd prefer it if he would not go down that route...

12 hours ago, Morte said:

There are of course developments (many and in many variations in different places) during this two very long epochs, both cultural and military, but they aren't really or only defined by the metal used, nor are they consistent in the way of evolving into something better/more complex necessarily - the Dark Ages in Greek don't have their name for funnies, nor is the aristocratic society which emerged out of them more sophisticated or better for it's people. In fact and for example, all the constructions against drought and flood build on the Peloponnese crumble during the Dark Ages and the Archaic Period and stayed that way because the aristocratic city-states weren't able nor willing to fix them.

Yeah, but certain crucial military developments spread rather quickly - I'm thinking how the chariots were quickly used in Egypt, how horse and camel domestication spread when the cultures came in contact, etc.

The point in relation to Martinworld simply is that we cannot expect that the high cultures of Essos around/after the Doom of Valyria were in any way, shape, or form behind the barbaric savages of Westeros insofar as military development is concerned. We don't know anything about the Valyrian or Rhoynish military, but the way their clash is depicted indicates that both cultures would have made short work out of the Seven Kingdoms if they had ever clashed - without taking dragonlords or water wizards into account.

And this would also extend to the Sarnori whose martial culture is made evident by their own wars among each other as well as the fact that they served as mercenaries during some of the Ghiscari Wars.

12 hours ago, Morte said:

Exactly. Oligarchic and aristocratic systems are the most unstable and the worse for the people as such; that's why essentially every tyrannos build his power upon the commons and why it's a king under the mountain - it's the dream of a stable central government with a bureaucracy and laws enforced on everybody equally. Essentially it's the dream of Rome.

If you can't build a democracy or at least a republic, than monarchy is a much better choice for the commons historically than any form of aristocracy or oligarchy.

Yeah, and we see this evident in George's history pieces as well - the smallfolk are the staunchest monarchists/Targaryen loyalists - they cheer Aegon the Conqueror the loudest, a humble commoner is the first to volunteer to fight for Maegor in his Trial of Seven (which I think is a very deliberate choice by the author), the commoners still love Good Queen Alysanne all across the Realm even during the time of series, the Crackclaw Point folk are Targaryen men (because they freed them from the yoke of the Celtigars), and so on.

Another version of that is the idealization of Robert Baratheon by the original Brotherhood without Banners. They see the king as a symbol of justice in whose name they act - even if that king is dead.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, I read that part, thanks. I also read all the other chapters which gives the scene context. Up until that point, the whole book is Dany trying improve the lives of her people (the freedmen) by making concessions to their oppresses (the slavers). In her hallucinations she realises how dumb that was when she had the power to enforce her rule. So how does that point to Dany losing it because she doesn't attract allies the minute she lands in Westeros? Where does it even imply she's changed her doubts about Westeros rising up for her?

Pretty much that, as I also tried to illustrate above. If Dany was caught in a madness then this mad dream lasted from her first chapter to her last - and the voices she heard in the grasslands woke her up to see reality as it is.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Right after that, Jorah says yes, Robert is such a fool. Clearly, Robert does fear them for what they are. If it were just a Targ returning he'd feared, he wouldn't be so focused killing Dany or on the size of the khalasar. His council thought the same, seeing as all of them except Barristan also thought it was a prudent to assassinate her.

Yeah, he feared Drogo and Dany's son by him more than Viserys III, that much is clear. And that means he also had more fear of a Targaryen pretender with a Dothraki army than a Targaryen pretender just coming all by himself and being dependent on the support of Westerosi lords.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Anyway, that Jorah quote proves the Dothraki are formidable, even if they are useless in sieging (Dany will be having open battles at some point). And that Robert quote puts a dent in your claim that Westeros was going to unite against Dany for having a Dothraki horde.

The point to consider here is that a historical view on the war between the Dothraki and the Sarnori - as well as the other cities they destroyed during the Century of Blood - means they certainly knew/know how to overwhelm cities. Mardosh the Unconquerable certainly was besieged before its ultimate downfall.

The way the Dothraki are viewed in contemporary Essosi society is pretty much the same way the Sarnori viewed them - the Pentoshi and others are as stupid as the Sarnori once were and don't even realize it - the Volantenes are more wary, but it seems the Norvoshi and Qohorik are pretty complacent, too.

It is correct that the Dothraki mostly don't bother besieging cities - but that doesn't mean that they can do that if they want to/feel they have to, nor does it prevent them from learning how to do it.

And the idea that Robert could have defended his throne if he had refused to meet the Dothraki in the field is ridiculous if you think about for five minutes - a king who hides in his castle/city while his people suffer is no king at all ... especially if there is another king with the people ravaging the countryside.

9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

As an aside. Do you think George thought Aegon and Dany going into a civil war was meant to be a surprise plot twist? Pretty much every reader has immediately assumed this without any suggestion of it in the text. 

I think a lot of the later books got very predictable coz I think readers have him figured out and what his game is. You’re not naïvely going to assume a little bit of discord between allies. No, it’s a satire and George is going to go for situation which creates the most conflict.

IMO I think another Targaryen claimant pulling the rug out under Danys story is an absurd and contrived plot twist to railroad Dany into being the villain. It came out of nowhere and it completely undermines the integrity of the story. 

It still is a plot twist. The main reason why we can expect this to happen is that George himself let it slip that there will be a Second Dance of the Dragons. Without that I'd think that very few people would be very convinced that Aegon and Dany have to clash - and even with the Second Dance talk it is not a given that they will have to clash severely or at all. The Second Dance of the Dragons could still be another war/event.

And I don't imagine it as a conflict strictly between Dany and Aegon.

But as I try to argue here I don't think Daenerys is going to be 'the villain' here - I think Aegon will be the failure/tyrant, because he - unlike Daenerys - was set up to be the ideal king by the people who 'created' him, and George isn't the kind of author who is going to make Varys' plan succeed perfectly and have only Dany ruin it all.

And this is not something coming out of the left field. Aegon is there since ACoK, when we get our first glimpse of the cloth dragon on a pole in front of a cheering crowd who is one of the lies Dany has to slay. He may look promising or nice enough now - like Stannis does right now - but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't the heroes of the story at all. Stannis defending the Wall doesn't absolve his earlier crimes and sins, and most definitely not the sacrifice of Shireen if that's going to be done at his command.

With Aegon we don't yet know what he is going to do to be a lie that has to be slain, but it likely is going to include some shitty stuff.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

It's not true there's no suggestion in the text, anyway. Even those who missed the Dance of the Dragons symbolism or the mummer's dragon foreshadowing would have noticed Tyrion's shit stirring. Also didn't GRRM himself say there was going to be another dance? Obviously it's not entirely predictable because I disagree that Aegon is a tool to villify Dany.

The best evidence we have are George's own talk about the Second Dance (which was a tease at a con years ago where he was asked whether the person meant the First of the Second Dance of the Dragons) and the seemingly prophetic dreams of Teora Toland about people dying around the dancing dragons. There is a small chance that this could mean Dany's living dragons killing people who approach/mess with them, but I guess that's supposed to be the foreshadowing for a war, not a minor affair.

7 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He is blatantly going to be used to vilify Dany. George had to explain why the Lords and people of Westeros would vehemently oppose Dany overthrowing Cersei. To explain why rational people wouldn’t just step aside and cut a deal. If the Lannister position is based on power that house of cards should fold once something more powerful shows up. It would never have made sense.

George’s solution is to completely change the setting before Dany gets to Westeros. Have a popular Targaryen King become the hero and save Westeros from the Lannister’s long before Dany reaches Westeros. So people are committed to him personally and more willing to stand by him. This Dany is reframed as a villain trying to overthrow her nephew out of lust for power. The Targaryen Dynasty will have already been restored. There is no reason anymore for her to invade Westeros. She would go from fighting “the usurpers dogs” to Targaryen loyalists. That is satire.

All of which has been done without any decision on Danys part. Aegon just shows up, gets given a Fleet and presented with an easy conquest of Westeros. Dany literally has a demon road put in front of her and put into story jail because she’s waiting for a fleet to show up. It’s not a choice if your entire army dies anyway. The character is being railroaded into a war that should not be happening. It is an absurd plot twist.

Georges excuse is obviously going be. “Oh But Dany you’re being cynical. He refused to marry Arriane, but you’re listening to the evil mystics whispering in your ear rather than believing in something good. You only have to marry him and have everything you want”. Which is absurd because why would anyone believe anything Quiathe says or anything a mage says after one murdered your child? I don’t get why Dany isn’t taking the view of killing every mage on site. Nobody is going to trust a creepy ghost that’s haunting you; it would just freak you out. Again, it’s an absurdity and a contrivance meant to create this situation. That’s not really a choice because the characters are doing irrational things and everything is being rigged to create this dumb outcome. It would be a terrible direction to take the story in.

You ignore the overall story here. There are still Euron and Cersei out there. It is wrong to assume Aegon is going to become some sort of shiny king who will restore peace to Westeros if Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger and Lady Stoneheart and the Tyrells and Stannis and many other people are still out there.

Instead, he will be a short flame of hope before he starts to make things worse for everybody - just like many of the other people do. He will bring the grey plague to Westeros, he will continue the war against the old Targaryen enemies, possibly especially the Lannisters, but also against all those who contest his rule. He will make mistakes, he will fail to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for the Others, he will start to see traitors everywhere around him, etc. There are so many possibilities there.

If you look at his character the crucial thing after ADwD is that we barely saw him in private, nor did we ever get a view of his true persona. He was just there, aside from the one conversation he had with Tyrion, and the speech he gave which was effectively Tyrion's. What he actually thinks and does in his heart we don't know yet, meaning there is potential there for a developing cruel streak, for a paranoia, mistrust, arrogance, and hubris.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Agree. As I said somewhere above, it isn't even sure we don't get a peaceful ending of the Second Dance, in contrast to the first.

The biggest issue there will be how the Others thing go. If they really take their time - and if Stannis and his allies actually continue to alienate/antagonize the south, refusing to deal with Aegon or work with him for the good of the Realm (which he may offer after he takes the throne) so that his people won't prioritize the Wall issue - then this Dance thing can be very bloody. But even then I think a crucial part will be about the savior thing - Aegon's delusion he is the promised prince and savior of mankind rather than Dany - not so much about the throne. Because crowns should become less and less important as winter progresses and reports about the true enemy come down south.

But when the Wall falls and they hear about that, I cannot see that war to continue. And I certainly can't see it happening after the Wall has fallen nor after the Others are defeated (as the abomination sort of played it).

[Tyrion1991]

 

“It still is a plot twist. The main reason why we can expect this to happen is that George himself let it slip that there will be a Second Dance of the Dragons. Without that I'd think that very few people would be very convinced that Aegon and Dany have to clash - and even with the Second Dance talk it is not a given that they will have to clash severely or at all. The Second Dance of the Dragons could still be another war/event.

And I don't imagine it as a conflict strictly between Dany and Aegon.

But as I try to argue here I don't think Daenerys is going to be 'the villain' here - I think Aegon will be the failure/tyrant, because he - unlike Daenerys - was set up to be the ideal king by the people who 'created' him, and George isn't the kind of author who is going to make Varys' plan succeed perfectly and have only Dany ruin it all.

And this is not something coming out of the left field. Aegon is there since ACoK, when we get our first glimpse of the cloth dragon on a pole in front of a cheering crowd who is one of the lies Dany has to slay. He may look promising or nice enough now - like Stannis does right now - but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't the heroes of the story at all. Stannis defending the Wall doesn't absolve his earlier crimes and sins, and most definitely not the sacrifice of Shireen if that's going to be done at his command.

You ignore the overall story here. There are still Euron and Cersei out there. It is wrong to assume Aegon is going to become some sort of shiny king who will restore peace to Westeros if Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger and Lady Stoneheart and the Tyrells and Stannis and many other people are still out there.

Instead, he will be a short flame of hope before he starts to make things worse for everybody - just like many of the other people do. He will bring the grey plague to Westeros, he will continue the war against the old Targaryen enemies, possibly especially the Lannisters, but also against all those who contest his rule. He will make mistakes, he will fail to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for the Others, he will start to see traitors everywhere around him, etc. There are so many possibilities there.

If you look at his character the crucial thing after ADwD is that we barely saw him in private, nor did we ever get a view of his true persona. He was just there, aside from the one conversation he had with Tyrion, and the speech he gave which was effectively Tyrion's. What he actually thinks and does in his heart we don't know yet, meaning there is potential there for a developing cruel streak, for a paranoia, mistrust, arrogance, and hubris.”

It was really obvious anyway and that’s not brought up a lot on the forums that specific interview.

I am sure she’ll be killing other people and continuing the trend of being the only faction truly impacted by logistics. But, simple geography says that she’s going to be mainly fighting Aegon. Euron and Cersei are on the other side of the continent and Aegons allies are in the way.

Yes but peoples perception of Aegon is what matters. It doesn’t matter if he’s the real deal or not. He will have enough early success to secure a place of power and can blame any failing afterwards on his mad aunts betrayal. I think it’s one of two outcomes. Either beating him destroys Danys reputation with the common people. Or, they initially back him but start to get cold feet, however by time mob is starting to clock who he is, Dany goes full Genghis Khan and so they end up hating her anyway; or dead. George can still poke fun at Aegons flaws and demonise Dany at the same time. He wants to put the Starks on a pedestal so there’s no issue with criticising two Targaryens.

That vision could be literally anything. George is a gardener and does not do outlines. He made up the character and the plot because he wanted to turn the people of Westeros against Dany. Simply rocking up with a foreign army wouldn’t be a compelling reason anymore.

Oh I agree he will fail. But he’s going to mortally wound Dany in the process. I don’t see Dany walking away without her reputation in the gutter.

Safely on the other side of Westeros from Dany.

I can’t see Cersei holding more than the Rock and Euron has the fleet. The land is likely to fall to Aegon pretty quickly TBH. A total collapse isn’t beyond possibility if the Tyrell army is defeated. They’ll have their own problems to contend with.

I agree I think George would have Aegon become this craven, diseased King surrounded by his dying subjects as he raves about how everyone is failing him. Problem is, ordinary people won’t know that and he’ll die a martyr in their eyes. Even if Dany is 100 percent legit heir and Aegon does terrible things it won’t matter. I think George is going to play on this power resides where men believe it resides. People will want to believe in him as a messiah and so he will be that in their minds irrespective of anything to the contrary. 

But ultimately Aegon exists to push Dany into doing evil things and to turn the people of Westeros against her.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I am sure she’ll be killing other people and continuing the trend of being the only faction truly impacted by logistics. But, simple geography says that she’s going to be mainly fighting Aegon. Euron and Cersei are on the other side of the continent and Aegons allies are in the way.

Oh, you have no idea where exactly Cersei and Euron and other factions will be when Dany finally shows up. Aegon might sit the Iron Throne in TWoW before Daenerys has even secured the allegiance of the Dothraki. And once he has won the throne, he will be a target for all his enemies, long before Dany shows up.

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Yes but peoples perception of Aegon is what matters. It doesn’t matter if he’s the real deal or not. He will have enough early success to secure a place of power and can blame any failing afterwards on his mad aunts betrayal. I think it’s one of two outcomes. Either beating him destroys Danys reputation with the common people. Or, they initially back him but start to get cold feet, however by time mob is starting to clock who he is, Dany goes full Genghis Khan and so they end up hating her anyway; or dead. George can still poke fun at Aegons flaws and demonise Dany at the same time. He wants to put the Starks on a pedestal so there’s no issue with criticising two Targaryens.

There is no indication George wants to put the Starks on a pedastal - nor is that, if he wanted to do it, contradictory with Aegon becoming a tyrant. I don't expect the Starks to be a faction unaffiliated with the Targaryens. In fact, I'm pretty sure Arya is going to end up in camp Dany in the books. She is not going to take Catelyn's revenge plot.

As for the common people - Aegon should lose his standing with them as soon as he starts to make mistakes and turns into a tyrant. He is the guy who could be the Rhaenyra of the story - hailed and cheered when he bloodlessly takes the city, but cursed and jeered when he is hounded out of the city because he failed to deliver. They even face the same issues - the treasury is empty right now, Aegon, like Rhaenyra, will have to raise taxes once he takes the throne. He might even start a war with the West to get access to the gold of Casterly Rock.

Daenerys won't get the same story she got in the shit show because George already has a mad queen in Cersei - a woman who is truly mad and unhinged and cruel and paranoid - as well as a bad Targaryen in Aegon. He won't make Dany a version/amalgmation of those two characters. That wouldn't work.

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That vision could be literally anything. George is a gardener and does not do outlines. He made up the character and the plot because he wanted to turn the people of Westeros against Dany. Simply rocking up with a foreign army wouldn’t be a compelling reason anymore.

But it wasn't about anything. George had Aegon and Rhaenys there for a reason, he told us years ago that Aegon looked Targaryen, he even had the germ of that entire plot in AGoT with Varys/Illyrio not being confirmed/die-heard loyalits of Viserys III.

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Oh I agree he will fail. But he’s going to mortally wound Dany in the process. I don’t see Dany walking away without her reputation in the gutter.

For that it would have to be a different scenario - one where people could actually believe in this Aegon fellow to be the real deal and him having the time and the means to actually restore peace and prosperity to the Realm - which just won't happen. He doesn't have the means to do any of that, all he can do is make matters worse.

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Safely on the other side of Westeros from Dany.

I can’t see Cersei holding more than the Rock and Euron has the fleet. The land is likely to fall to Aegon pretty quickly TBH. A total collapse isn’t beyond possibility if the Tyrell army is defeated. They’ll have their own problems to contend with.

We don't know where exactly Daenerys will land nor where anyone will be by the time that happens - which should be a year from now, if not later. She won't come to Westeros in TWoW. She may not even start her journey in the next book (although that could happen).

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I agree I think George would have Aegon become this craven, diseased King surrounded by his dying subjects as he raves about how everyone is failing him. Problem is, ordinary people won’t know that and he’ll die a martyr in their eyes. Even if Dany is 100 percent legit heir and Aegon does terrible things it won’t matter. I think George is going to play on this power resides where men believe it resides. People will want to believe in him as a messiah and so he will be that in their minds irrespective of anything to the contrary. 

That makes no sense as such - sure, some people will believe in him, but people's minds are fickle, and Daenerys is the better dragon. She is the one with the actual dragons and the one whose ancestry is as solid as stone. Aegon is a man pretending to be a prince everybody knows died years ago as an infant. People certainly want to believe a Targaryen is going to save them - but that will only fly as long as he is saving them, which Aegon simply won't, in the end.

And the idea that nobody is going to care whether he is the real deal or not once there is a real alternative in Daenerys makes no sense. Aegon might be male, but he might also be a whoreson without a single drop of royal blood.

If you are a guy like Aegon in this world you have to have constant success. You cannot make any mistake, cannot show any weakness ... because your case is, in the end, built on sand. Which is why Varys/Illyrio and Strickland wanted him to have Dany and the dragons. That would have given him legitimacy. Without that he can only fail ... at least against Daenerys. And possibly even against Euron and Cersei.

The issue with Aegon as a failure is also not just that he does some cruel things, but simply that he will fail to pacify the Realm and restore peace to the Seven Kingdoms. He won't make winter go away, won't feed the Riverlands, etc. - instead he has already brought war to the Stormlands and will continue that in the Crownlands and possibly to the Reach and the West as well.

The idea that the people are going to blame Dany for problems Aegon caused while she wasn't even in Westeros really makes no sense.

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But ultimately Aegon exists to push Dany into doing evil things and to turn the people of Westeros against her.

I don't think so. I think the point of the Aegon plot is George deconstructing the 'hidden prince' trope - Aegon is like Aragorn, but showing that men like Aragorn would make lousy kings in a realistic scenario.

Dany's story isn't 'Westeros turning against her', but her role in relation to a prophecy about a promised prince saving the world. That is her job, along with the other guy who is going to figure into that, Jon Snow. Her story is not, in the end, about conquest and popularity and queenship - just as Jon Snow's story is not about kingship. Both of those crucial characters might end up having the powers of kings and queens, but they will only be used as a means to an end - to save the world and mankind from the Others.

Especially if both of them were not to survive the final confrontation.

[Hodor the Articulate]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point to consider here is that a historical view on the war between the Dothraki and the Sarnori - as well as the other cities they destroyed during the Century of Blood - means they certainly knew/know how to overwhelm cities. Mardosh the Unconquerable certainly was besieged before its ultimate downfall.

The way the Dothraki are viewed in contemporary Essosi society is pretty much the same way the Sarnori viewed them - the Pentoshi and others are as stupid as the Sarnori once were and don't even realize it - the Volantenes are more wary, but it seems the Norvoshi and Qohorik are pretty complacent, too.

It is correct that the Dothraki mostly don't bother besieging cities - but that doesn't mean that they can do that if they want to/feel they have to, nor does it prevent them from learning how to do it.

And the idea that Robert could have defended his throne if he had refused to meet the Dothraki in the field is ridiculous if you think about for five minutes - a king who hides in his castle/city while his people suffer is no king at all ... especially if there is another king with the people ravaging the countryside.

I don't put much weight in irl history when making predictions because, at the end of the day, George is more concerned about getting his story to the right place. If he wants a weak army to take an impenetrable castle, he'll shadow baby it into happening. We didn't spend the first book learning about what fearsome warriors the dothraki are to have them be completely useless later on.

And if we take Robert's opinion to be a good representation of most Westerosi lords', having a Dothraki horde isn't going to dissuade anyone from supporting Dany. Maybe if she went in with Hizdar on her arm, chewing a dog leg and threatening to burn septs, but I doubt even the worst Dany-haters genuinely believe that's going to happen.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It still is a plot twist. The main reason why we can expect this to happen is that George himself let it slip that there will be a Second Dance of the Dragons. Without that I'd think that very few people would be very convinced that Aegon and Dany have to clash - and even with the Second Dance talk it is not a given that they will have to clash severely or at all. The Second Dance of the Dragons could still be another war/event.

Thanks for confirming. I think we'd have less people taking it as a given that Aegon will be an antagonist to Dany, had GRRM not said that. I mean, there are still people who believe fAegon is the real Aegon. A few people think Dany and Aegon won't be at odds, even.

@Tyrion1991 to add to what others have said, don't forget this line: "A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." It could be that Westeros turns against Dany because of something involving Aegon, but that doesn't mean Dany will be presented as a villain to the reader.

[Mithras]

12 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany starts getting bombarded with unsubtle magical visions that she isn’t asking for

That is the same way GRRM provided her dragons. Are you complaining about them as well?

[Lord Varys]

37 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't put much weight in irl history when making predictions because, at the end of the day, George is more concerned about getting his story to the right place. If he wants a weak army to take an impenetrable castle, he'll shadow baby it into happening. We didn't spend the first book learning about what fearsome warriors the dothraki are to have them be completely useless later on.

Of course, but we can also assume that he paralleled the Sarnori and the people of the Free Cities there for a reason - he could have made it so that the Dothraki as a culture only developed after the Doom of Valyria, that prior to that the grasslands were home to a completely different people/culture, but instead we are told that the Dothraki always were a thing, but they they only became a danger to the Sarnori when they united under a powerful leader and then continued on that path of conquest.

They stopped that thing at Qohor, but George makes it very clear that the people believing they could not continue where they left off are very much mistaken.

And that, of course, extends to Westeros.

Quote

And if we take Robert's opinion to be a good representation of most Westerosi lords', having a Dothraki horde isn't going to dissuade anyone from supporting Dany. Maybe if she went in with Hizdar on her arm, chewing a dog leg and threatening to burn septs, but I doubt even the worst Dany-haters genuinely believe that's going to happen.

Considering the Andals crushed the First Men and the Targaryens conquered the Seven Kingdoms - and had the Faith teach that the gods created them to be a different breed of men entirely - I don't hold my breath that a foreign invasion would necessarily cause the Westerosi to unite against them - especially not in their present state. The Dothraki could come without Daenerys and dragons and still prevail - if there were no Others, of course - simply because the current bloodshed and warfare set the people so against each other that they would rather murder each other in their petty little blood feuds than unite against a common enemy.

One could see how the Manderlys side with this khal to destroy the Freys, how the Stark children side with that one to regain Winterfell, how Stannis employs a khalasar to gain the throne, how Littlefinger tries to bribe them, etc.

There is a reason why George likes to portray his characters as irrational morons - because he doesn't really believe people are rational and enlightened or smart enough nor willing to do the right thing. That's how the First Men lost, and that's how people are setting themselves up to be butchered by the Others for five books already.

Quote

Thanks for confirming. I think we'd have less people taking it as a given that Aegon will be an antagonist to Dany, had GRRM not said that. I mean, there are still people who believe fAegon is the real Aegon. A few people think Dany and Aegon won't be at odds, even.

Aegon can be the real Aegon and still 'the mummer's dragon' in the sense that he is still just a figurehead propped up by Varys.

But overall, there are too many subtle clues in ADwD and the sample chapters to not expect Dany and Aegon to clash. The best things in that regard is Arianne's ambition to be queen/her jealousy of 'King Quentyn' and the way Gerris Drinkwater speaks about Daenerys after Quentyn's death. Those things will have repercussions of some sort.

Quote

@Tyrion1991 to add to what others have said, don't forget this line: "A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." It could be that Westeros turns against Dany because of something involving Aegon, but that doesn't mean Dany will be presented as a villain to the reader.

Since Stannis is definitely not the hero of the story, chances are that Aegon won't be a hero, either, and neither will 'the stone beast, breathing shadow fire'. Those people might be heroes of their own stories, but not in the grand scale of things.

And one can actually hope that a cloth dragon on poles is just going to be a diversion for Daenerys for one afternoon or so - he is not going to be her big bad. He will be an annoyance and an obstacle, but not her main nemesis/antagonist. If George had wanted to send such a message he wouldn't have made him a cloth dragon in that vision but rather some sort of real monstrous dragon, a creature that scared Dany even in that vision she had.

The person people should be scared about is Euron - both the readership and Daenerys.

[rotting sea cow]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The person people should be scared about is Euron - both the readership and Daenerys.

Pretty much agree. I don't think that Aegon will last long once Dany comes to Westeros. Although the price of victory will be high.

Euron is a different thing. I tend to think that many will need to join forces to defeat him, with Dany (and Jon?) giving him the last blow. This alliance against Euron will likely be the prelude of the alliance against the Others.

 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Pretty much agree. I don't think that Aegon will last long once Dany comes to Westeros. Although the price of victory will be high.

I'm not that sure that this price is going to be that high. I mean, technically Stannis is also one of those lies, but we would all be surprised if he were cast down by Daenerys. Perhaps Euron will weaken Aegon sufficiently, so he isn't all that much of a challenge.

But then - perhaps we are miscalculating things. If Stannis - who is also one of those lies from the prophecy - ends up securing his loans and hiring his sellswords he will come big time. In fact, Braavos could also side with him in the coming struggles. We could even see him as a player in this Second Dance thing.

It would mean the Others story would have to be postponed for quite some time yet, but we really have no data to try to calculate when they are going to attack the Wall or when it is going to fall.

4 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Euron is a different thing. I tend to think that many will need to join forces to defeat him, with Dany (and Jon?) giving him the last blow. This alliance against Euron will likely be the prelude of the alliance against the Others.

That could be, although Euron does need allies on the mainland to become a real danger. If he marries Cersei he can gain the support of the Westermen, but that alone is not going to make him a really big player. There have to be more people than just that.

I actually think that his way to greatness and power will be a way of charistmatic deception - he will paint himself as the true savior of the people in winter, promising that his magical powers will keep winter at bay and bring back the sun, etc. Because we should consider the possibility that the light is going to go away and people are going to freeze to death in droves before the Wall is going to fall. The Others really like to take their time. They are in no rush.