Jump to content
James Fenimore Cooper XXII

ASOIAF: Timely and Relevant?

Recommended Posts

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

Edited by James Fenimore Cooper XXII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's difficult to draw a single message from the story. When the good guys sometimes break their vows, and the bad guys sometimes redeem themselves, it's hard to choose sides. Maybe that's the message: that everyone is a mix of good and bad, and we should all avoid the tendency to oversimplify and see people in absolute terms. Or maybe that's just George, breaking the stereotypes to keep us wondering what will happen next.

Looking at the big picture of the entire story arc, the thing that stands out the most to me is the way that most of Westeros is caught up in petty political struggles, when there's a huge threat coming to them all with the arrival of Winter.  I mean, come on, Westerosi people! Autumn started in the prologue of "Clash," and many of you believe that the unusually long Summer will be followed by an unusually harsh Winter. But you're still out there killing each other, burning crops, and destroying each other's resources, precisely at a time when you ought to be conserving them. Even if you don't believe in the Others, you should know better than that.

The only one who's gotten it right is apparently Littlefinger. He advised the other Lords of the Vale to hold onto their grain, when they wanted to sell it to take advantage of rising prices. He pointed out that prices will be even higher later on.  By Spring, the Vale could end up as the effective capital of the 7K, the only region that's still functioning more or less normally.

Edited by Aebram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree absolutely with unity being the most desirable outcome, but that unity shouldn't be under Targaryen rule, then it stops being unity and starts being colonialism. Regardless of weather Monarchy remains or they transition to something more democratic, Targs can't rule, westerosi need to rule themselves.

Share this post


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

I think it's difficult to draw a single message from the story. When the good guys sometimes break their vows, and the bad guys sometimes redeem themselves, it's hard to choose sides. Maybe that's the message: that everyone is a mix of good and bad, and we should all avoid the tendency to oversimplify and see people in absolute terms. Or maybe that's just George, breaking the stereotypes to keep us wondering what will happen next.

Looking at the big picture of the entire story arc, the thing that stands out the most to me is the way that most of Westeros is caught up in petty political struggles, when there's a huge threat coming to them all with the arrival of Winter.  I mean, come on, Westerosi people! Autumn started in the prologue of "Clash," and many of you believe that the unusually long Summer will be followed by an unusually harsh Winter. But you're still out there killing each other, burning crops, and destroying each other's resources, precisely at a time when you ought to be conserving them. Even if you don't believe in the Others, you should know better than that.

The only one who's gotten it right is apparently Littlefinger. He advised the other Lords of the Vale to hold onto their grain, when they wanted to sell it to take advantage of rising prices. He pointed out that prices will be even higher later on.  By Spring, the Vale could end up as the effective capital of the 7K, the only region that's still functioning more or less normally.

Littlefinger either has a crystal ball or he's just great at speculating.  

Share this post


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

I agree absolutely with unity being the most desirable outcome, but that unity shouldn't be under Targaryen rule, then it stops being unity and starts being colonialism. Regardless of weather Monarchy remains or they transition to something more democratic, Targs can't rule, westerosi need to rule themselves.

It sure as hell should not be the Starks.  Nor the Lannisters for that matter.  The Baratheon rule was a dismal failure.  Aegon had it right from the beginning.  Westeros need the Targaryens.  

4 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

I can't really agree with the op.  The only hope for survival is unity.  The great lords wanting the title of king smacks of nationalism.  That is the last thing the people of Westeros needs when their crops are about to fail due to a lack of photosynthesis.  So those dummies in the north want their independence then they better be prepared to grow mushrooms and live off of fungus for the coming fifty years.  The Greyjoys can at least fish but many of them will die of starvation before they change their attitudes about laboring.

Greyscale will make the story relevant to our times.  It will spread like weeds in Westeros.  I don't have enough confidence in Littlefinger, Doran, Roose, Jon, and the other leaders in Westeros to know what to do.  Dany will have had experience with something similar with the pale mare and would know what to do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, H Wadsey Longfellow said:

It sure as hell should not be the Starks.  Nor the Lannisters for that matter.  The Baratheon rule was a dismal failure.  Aegon had it right from the beginning.  Westeros need the Targaryens.  

That view is fucked up, people never need royalty, less of all colonial royalty.

Also, I see no reason why teh Starks can't rule, nor the Tyrells, Martells, Lannisters, Arryns, Tullys nor Bratheons, saying the Baratheon rule was a failure is like saying Targ rule was a failure bc of Aerys, and also, smaller houses could rule aswell, they all be better fits than colonizers, even if Dany does have good intentions (which she does) and is capable leader (which she kinda is) her rule would not be good for Westeros, it would turn it into a colony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it. Dany isn't getting to Westros any time soon. The earliest I see her arriving in Westros is at the end of The Winds of Winter. More likely, the book will end with Dany setting sail from Slavers' Bay, which means she won't make it to Westros until A Dream of Spring. So, not any time soon, in other words.

How will Dany, and her freedmen, Dothraki, reformed Ghiscari, Barristan, Tyrion, Brown Ben Plum and all find Westros when they actually get there? My money is in utter ruins, completely devastated by war, winter, famine, the Others and locked in perpetual cycles of vengeance as the smallfolk continue to die in the thousands. Between Cersie, Euron and Aegon the Unconvincing, it's fair to question whether Kings Landing will even live long enough for Dany to see it. That wildfire ain't gonna light itself, but Cersei probably will. This is all not even taking into account the ominous threat of greyscale, which has a potential starting point in both Jon Connington and Shireen.

What I'm saying is, people keep expecting that Westros will be relatively intact when Dany shiws up, and that Dany will contribute to its further destruction. I say the opposite. Westros will have been basically destroyed before she ever sets foot on it, and her arrival will constitute a basis for a new foundation on which society might rebuild. Not only for Dany's own people from Slavers' Bay, but also for the few surviving Westrosi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Between Cersie, Euron and Aegon the Unconvincing, it's fair to question whether Kings Landing will even live long enough for Dany to see it. That wildfire ain't gonna light itself, but Cersei probably will. This is all not even taking into account the ominous threat of greyscale, which has a potential starting point in both Jon Connington and Shireen.

What I'm saying is, people keep expecting that Westros will be relatively intact when Dany shiws up, and that Dany will contribute to its further destruction. I say the opposite. Westros will have been basically destroyed before she ever sets foot on it, and her arrival will constitute a basis for a new foundation on which society might rebuild. Not only for Dany's own people from Slavers' Bay, but also for the few surviving Westrosi. 

Cersei has more reason to set fire to that city than any Targaryen, Aegon and Dany see it all as theirs, their family history is there, they will cross the world to conquer all that, burning the city is the last move of someone who already lost the game, already Cersei was humiliated throughout the city, people tend to see Dany as Aerys 2.0 due to the end of the TV series maybe, but for me Dany is Aegon 2.0, she is a conqueror not a ruler and she will be relentless with her enemies, it is Cersei who is Aerys 2.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

Yes, so the lords and leaders of Westeros can at best only manage their regions.  The Baratheons got their chance and failed completely.  They took a thriving Westeros and could not keep it from breaking apart.  It is mostly the fault of the Lannisters and the Starks but the Baratheons lacked competence in ruling.  It was that weakness of the Baratheons that made the war of the five kings happen.  Only a Targaryen can unite the seven kingdoms.  The people see them as their betters.  Those who would rule nobility must themselves need to be exceptional.  They are seen as the family having the proper authority to rule.

I am not saying the kingdoms won't become independent again.  The kingdom of Westeros will indeed break.  It has already started with the war of the five kings.  Separatists like the Greyjoys and the Starks are not the good guys in this.  They will contribute to the break up and it is not in the best interest of the people.  The north for the present is still part of the kingdom but that changes if Roose should loose.  The kingdom will break apart but it won't be separate kingdoms for long.  What's left will be rabble.  The people will live like tribes.  There won't be any kings but tribal chiefs instead.  This is the desperate conditions in which Queen Daenerys Targaryen will find Westeros when she makes her arrival.  She will be bringing her own people of course.  Her first task is to clean up the wights and push the Others back to the north.  Moat Cailin will be the boundary between south and north while the land is still covered by darkness.  The Starks and the wildlings will agree to a deal with the Others to continue living in the north.  It's not hard.  Just sacrifice human boys to the Others regularly.  In return, the Starks will again dominate the north until summer comes and their reign over the north will end for good.  Asha is the future of the ironborn people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

That view is fucked up, people never need royalty, less of all colonial royalty.

I'm not sure the term "colonial" is appropriate here? House Targaryen lived on Dragonstone for 114 years before the Conquest. They never ruled from thousands of miles away. Some were good kings, some were bad, but at least they all had their royal boots on the ground in Westeros.

It would be nice for the people if the 7K could transform from a monarchy to a republic with one Grand Council. But I don't expect that to happen. That would be the stuff of fantasy.  -- Oh, wait... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Aebram said:

I'm not sure the term "colonial" is appropriate here? House Targaryen lived on Dragonstone for 114 years before the Conquest. They never ruled from thousands of miles away. Some were good kings, some were bad, but at least they all had their royal boots on the ground in Westeros.

It would be nice for the people if the 7K could transform from a monarchy to a republic with one Grand Council. But I don't expect that to happen. That would be the stuff of fantasy.  -- Oh, wait... 

They don't need to be thousands of miles away for it to be a colony tho, they did colonize the rest of Westeros, the same way the US colonized the old west, for example. The Targs have an unequal relation with the rest of the houses, having them rule would be like 'uniting' Hispanic America and have only the spaniards be eligible for president. 

Even if they get some form of democracy Targaryens can't keep existing because they turn the process less democratic by their mere existence, as traditionalist would vote for Targaryens just because of their last name, and, IMHO, this is the purpose of having Dany be barren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

They don't need to be thousands of miles away for it to be a colony tho, they did colonize the rest of Westeros, the same way the US colonized the old west, for example. The Targs have an unequal relation with the rest of the houses, having them rule would be like 'uniting' Hispanic America and have only the spaniards be eligible for president. 

Even if they get some form of democracy Targaryens can't keep existing because they turn the process less democratic by their mere existence, as traditionalist would vote for Targaryens just because of their last name, and, IMHO, this is the purpose of having Dany be barren.

Oh so you think the Starks had equal relations with their banner men and common folk!  Lady Dustin sent off her farm workers to war because she wanted to!  Not because she feared the wrath of the Starks!  

The Targaryens kept Westeros together, and for the better, for three hundred years.  Most of those years were peaceful and good.  The common folk had it better under Targaryen rule.  It was they who outlawed the northern custom of the lord's right to bang any bride he wants.  Westeros common folk have a better chance of gaining some rights under a Targaryen rule than they would have if the kingdoms were to revert back to Pre-Targaryen days.  

Listen here, if you are talking about what's "good" for the great houses, then yeah, independence would be good for them.  They can bang and abuse their peasants as they wished.  They can call themselves kings and wage petty wars on each other, wasting the lives of their common folk, just for kicks.  But I don't care about the Starks or any of the other great houses.  What is good for the Starks is not necessarily a moral choice.  The Stark line can end and the people would be fine.  The best way to give the majority of the people relief, which are the peasant and working classes, is to have a strong central government, the Targaryens.  The Targaryens should rule over the Starks and the other so called great families.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

The outline of the story was set a long time ago.  The themes are not going to be timely but timeless.  George R. R. Martin does not seem like a man who goes with the flow.  

Edited by Prince Rhaego's Soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 12:57 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

Lords and ladies will be a thing of the past.  A long winter would turn back time and an interregnum would follow.  The survivors will have become Gatherers and Scavengers.  There will be nothing to hunt except wights.  Crows and direwolves will grow thin.  H Wadsey Longfellow is right about farming fungus.  Those who can will be farming fungus underground and resorting to cannibalism.  Common and fallen nobles will be side by side in struggling to survive.  Kingdoms and boundaries will cease to exist.  It is all but guaranteed if the long winter lasted more than a year or two.  Petyr Baelish and his grain will not last long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Oh so you think the Starks had equal relations with their banner men and common folk!  Lady Dustin sent off her farm workers to war because she wanted to!  Not because she feared the wrath of the Starks!  

Nope, I'm not arguing this at all, in a perfect world all the great houses would cease to be, but the Targaryen's rule over Westeros is colonialism, and that's bad.

 

Quote

The Targaryens kept Westeros together, and for the better, for three hundred years.  Most of those years were peaceful and good.  The common folk had it better under Targaryen rule.  It was they who outlawed the northern custom of the lord's right to bang any bride he wants.  Westeros common folk have a better chance of gaining some rights under a Targaryen rule than they would have if the kingdoms were to revert back to Pre-Targaryen days.  

I'm not arguing that the kingdoms should be split, unity is the answer, but unity under Targaryen rule would be colonialism.

Also, the common folk have a better chance under Dornish rule, as Dornish law seems to be more about social justice.

 

Quote

Listen here, if you are talking about what's "good" for the great houses, then yeah, independence would be good for them.  They can bang and abuse their peasants as they wished.  They can call themselves kings and wage petty wars on each other, wasting the lives of their common folk, just for kicks.  But I don't care about the Starks or any of the other great houses.  What is good for the Starks is not necessarily a moral choice.  The Stark line can end and the people would be fine.  The best way to give the majority of the people relief, which are the peasant and working classes, is to have a strong central government, the Targaryens.  The Targaryens should rule over the Starks and the other so called great families.  

I agree with everything except the last line, no one should rule over anyone just cause, monarchy is bad and it brought many horrible governments both in Westeros and in the real world, colonialism is also bad, and the Targaryen's is a colonialist dynasty. Westeros should be united because they wish to be united, not because they fear an invader with nukes, and the only way to accept that is to be able to rule without need for war or genetics, being from any kingdom.

Share this post


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

Nope, I'm not arguing this at all, in a perfect world all the great houses would cease to be, but the Targaryen's rule over Westeros is colonialism, and that's bad.

Colonialism is bad. Imperialism as well (if the big Kahuna (whichever Targ it turns out to be) decides to rule from elsewhere. And in this case the would be colonisers are  a master race of white supremacists to boot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 12:57 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

The troublemakers are going to be dead.  Except those who get a second life: the Starks.  The ending will have the north covered in snow.  We will see a scene of the direwolves playing and cavorting in the snow.  I do not think we have to worry about them.  The last few pages should have the survivors, hopefully led by Dany, making plans to regroup and rebuild.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Nope, I'm not arguing this at all, in a perfect world all the great houses would cease to be, but the Targaryen's rule over Westeros is colonialism, and that's bad.

 

I'm not arguing that the kingdoms should be split, unity is the answer, but unity under Targaryen rule would be colonialism.

Also, the common folk have a better chance under Dornish rule, as Dornish law seems to be more about social justice.

 

I agree with everything except the last line, no one should rule over anyone just cause, monarchy is bad and it brought many horrible governments both in Westeros and in the real world, colonialism is also bad, and the Targaryen's is a colonialist dynasty. Westeros should be united because they wish to be united, not because they fear an invader with nukes, and the only way to accept that is to be able to rule without need for war or genetics, being from any kingdom.

Most of the people will vote to unite.  The Starks and Stannis won't.  They want to rule after all.  But so what.  They do not constitute the majority.  So if you are concerned about having things democratic then everybody should get to choose.  Including the regular folk.  The Starks will lose the vote because their population is lower.  It will get even lower, unless you want to give the wights a vote.  

 

Share this post


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

Colonialism is bad. Imperialism as well (if the big Kahuna (whichever Targ it turns out to be) decides to rule from elsewhere. And in this case the would be colonisers are  a master race of white supremacists to boot. 

 there's that as well, and the fact that half of them seem to be batshit crazy and really into burning people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...