Jump to content

Realistically how much support a Targaryens restoration have


Mrstrategy

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

If Others could start an ice age by using their powers then only chance of stopping them would be by using beings that could generate enough heat. Or it is possible that without dragons anyone and anything would froze and so dragons would be literally vital for surviving next Long Night.

After all major problem for anyone fighting against white walkers is their ability to create a zone of very cold weather around them. Sometimes temperature in that cold zone is low enough to kill weaker hot blooded beings like humans and horses. So it would much easier to fight against them if people doing that would have access to some flying flamethrowers. 

Bu that's the problem, isn't it? There's always the option of making peace, killing the 'other' is not the only solution possible. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this is why the Others are named that, after the sociological 'other' the different, the inferior, the unhuman. That was the thinking of the Northerners about the southerners, except they weren't worth ten 'other' swords. Viserys saw the Dothrakis as 'others' inferior and savages, he died, while Dany, who was able to accept them as human and embrace their culture. Same thing with Jon and the Freefolk. Why would it be different with the literal Others? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2020 at 8:58 AM, CamiloRP said:

Some people say the world will end in ice

Some say fire

for what I tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire

But if I had to perish twice

I think I've seen enough of hate

To know that, for destruction, ice is also great

And will suffice.

 

Most likely, dragons aren't the answer m'dude.

Fire consumes. It consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Fire consumes. It consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing

 
". . . or not." Aemon chuckled softly. "Or I am an old man, feverish and dying." He closed his white eyes wearily, then forced them open once again. "I should not have left the Wall. Lord Snow could not have known, but I should have seen it. Fire consumes, but cold preserves. The Wall . . . but it is too late to go running back. The Stranger waits outside my door and will not be denied. Steward, you have served me faithfully. Do this one last brave thing for me. Go down to the ships, Sam. Learn all you can about these dragons."
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Cool. I hope there is nothing left. nothing. of the army of wights descending on the realm

So the solution is genocide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Bu that's the problem, isn't it? There's always the option of making peace, killing the 'other' is not the only solution possible. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this is why the Others are named that, after the sociological 'other' the different, the inferior, the unhuman.

They are not humans and people living south of the wall know nothing about them. So they really are different.

Besides there might be massive trust issues. For instance if original Long Night was ended by some kind of peace treaty and humans broke that by their actions. Like trying to occupy lands north of the Wall. Naturally assuming that peace treaty gave all lands north of the wall to them. Then White Walkers might have very strong reasons not to trust any humans and they will not do negotiate with any human unless they would be really desperate. So it is possible that WW had decided to use final solution against humans and they think that they could carry that holocaust out somehow like turning Planetos as a snowball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

If that is possible then humans have 2 choices either they slay enough Others that they cannot do that anymore or humans will perish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

They are not humans and people living south of the wall know nothing about them. So they really are different.

We don't know what they are, I think they might be human (in fact, if they are able to procreate with humans, and there are in world stories that claim they are, they are humans by GRRM standards). 

And people living south of the Wall not knowing anything about them is always the problem with othering a group, ignorance turns them into something to be feared and hated.

 

Quote

Besides there might be massive trust issues. For instance if original Long Night was ended by some kind of peace treaty and humans broke that by their actions. Like trying to occupy lands north of the Wall. Naturally assuming that peace treaty gave all lands north of the wall to them. Then White Walkers might have very strong reasons not to trust any humans and they will not do negotiate with any human unless they would be really desperate. So it is possible that WW had decided to use final solution against humans and they think that they could carry that holocaust out somehow like turning Planetos as a snowball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

If that is possible then humans have 2 choices either they slay enough Others that they cannot do that anymore or humans will perish.

Killing enough Others that they are no longer a treat wouldn't work, it'll just create a different long night in another 8k years or so. And killing all of them would be genocide, which I doubt the story would claim to be a good thing.

 

38 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

The wights are already dead. They should remain dead and not, you know, attack the living.

What about the Others? would the fire nut burn them aswell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Could never find that book in my country tho I'd love to read it. I can't argue with that except to say that, from what I gather from you argument it was a dragon v dragon thing, comparable to a one on one fight. But using dragons to wipe out the Others is comparable to a genocide by nuclear warhead. It's not the same. And furthermore, how is it framed? because I didn't claim such a thing wouldn't happen, just that it wouldn't be framed as a good thing. 

Lastly, what's The Ice Dragon about? what are it's themes? 'cause ASOIAF has consistently told us that war is not a good thing, having humanity be saved by a glorious war against the unidimentional forces of evil doesn't seem to fit

Martin has said of war: "I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II", so I think "war is bad" is an oversimplification of the themes his works. We see in this series that all war carries a price, but some wars are still framed as just.

The Ice Dragon is about a fair-haired, emotionally-distant girl who becomes a dragon rider and, with her ice dragon, defeats the attacking Northerners (who ride fire dragons). Afterwards, the ice dragon dies, but the girl is finally able to express emotions like the other children. So there's that ice and fire motif again. Fire is both good and bad (as is ice) but the story is still resolved by a battle between ice and fire, not a peace treaty.

Keep in mind, that's a battle between people. In ASOIF, we're dealing with ice monsters that are marching south and turning every person they come across into a wight (essentially, enslaving them). I don't think the Others are just misunderstood. Only the biggest hippies would consider defending yourself against them problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

We don't know.  But they can sue for peace.

Why would humanity make peace with beings they consider monsters whose only purpose is to steal people and raise the dead when they have a chance at extermination?

 

10 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Martin has said of war: "I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II", so I think "war is bad" is an oversimplification of the themes his works. We see in this series that all war carries a price, but some wars are still framed as just.

Yeah, I made a post somewhere around here and about how that quote is misguided, US hippies used to see the fighting in Vietnam as a pointless 'both sides are wrong' thing, but for the Vietnamese it was a war as just as WWII or any independence war, they where fighting to protect their home form invaders. (not that I'm arguing with you, just that the point of view George expresses in that quote bother's me)

 

Quote

The Ice Dragon is about a fair-haired, emotionally-distant girl who becomes a dragon rider and, with her ice dragon, defeats the attacking Northerners (who ride fire dragons). Afterwards, the ice dragon dies, but the girl is finally able to express emotions like the other children. So there's that ice and fire motif again. Fire is both good and bad (as is ice) but the story is still resolved by a battle between ice and fire, not a peace treaty.

Keep in mind, that's a battle between people. In ASOIF, we're dealing with ice monsters that are marching south and turning every person they come across into a wight (essentially, enslaving them). I don't think the Others are just misunderstood. Only the biggest hippies would consider defending yourself against them problematic.

Yeah exactly, it's just a battle between two armies, not nuking an entire race into extinction, which is what would happen with the Others, if WWII had been resolved by simply nuking Germany, Italy and Japan out of existence then I doubt GRRM would think it a good deed.

Furthermore, I don't see the Other's actions as more evil than the ones of men fighting war, the wights they use are already dead, so they aren't suffering from the Others controlling them. Do you think Tywin wouldn't raise the dead to fight for him if he could? or Balon, Euron, Victarion, Tarly? Of all the military commanders I can't think of that wouldn't do that, the reasons are either religious or because they wouldn't like what people would think of them for doing that, no one for ethical reasons (then there's Ned).

And you calling them monsters is likely the point George is making with their name, as I explained above, seeing people as "others" is what allows us to fear them, hate them, and kill them whit little remorse, they haven't done anything so evil it can be called monstrous, they killed people, which is bad, but most of our heroes have done the same. The only thing they've done no human has done (in the story) is taking Craster's sons, but he gives them willingly and we don't know what they do with them. I don't think they are misunderstood, they kill people and that's bad, but the evil of their actions is amplified by ignorance, it's amplified by them looking different and by us not knowing anything about them.

Lastly, even if they are as evil as Westerosi believe, I don't think defending against them would be problematic, but it'd seem of for the story to end in a war to save humanity, using WMDs to extinguish another race.

And what would that war be like? would it be a long series of battles just as the WOT5K was? Unlikely, as there are only two books left, so it wouldn't be as fleshed out as that conflict, and that'd be a weird way to end the series, having it end with a similar version of something that already happened but worse, as you don't have any POVs in one side. If not, would it be just one battle, like in the abomination? that'd be disappointing. Do you really think it fits the story to have the final conflict involve unredeemable one dimensional villains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

And what would that war be like? would it be a long series of battles just as the WOT5K was? Unlikely, as there are only two books left, so it wouldn't be as fleshed out as that conflict, and that'd be a weird way to end the series, having it end with a similar version of something that already happened but worse, as you don't have any POVs in one side

There is a chance that we will never find out what happens during next Long Night bc mr Martin will use Sopranos ending. Or in last chapter of last book of ASoIaF the Wall collapses and the sun will disappear. But he will never tell us what happens after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

There is a chance that we will never find out what happens during next Long Night bc mr Martin will use Sopranos ending. Or in last chapter of last book of ASoIaF the Wall collapses and the sun will disappear. But he will never tell us what happens after that.

that is a chance, but then there wouldn't be an Other genocide by dragon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2020 at 11:16 AM, CamiloRP said:

Yeah exactly, it's just a battle between two armies, not nuking an entire race into extinction, which is what would happen with the Others, if WWII had been resolved by simply nuking Germany, Italy and Japan out of existence then I doubt GRRM would think it a good deed.

Furthermore, I don't see the Other's actions as more evil than the ones of men fighting war, the wights they use are already dead, so they aren't suffering from the Others controlling them. Do you think Tywin wouldn't raise the dead to fight for him if he could? or Balon, Euron, Victarion, Tarly? Of all the military commanders I can't think of that wouldn't do that, the reasons are either religious or because they wouldn't like what people would think of them for doing that, no one for ethical reasons (then there's Ned).

And you calling them monsters is likely the point George is making with their name, as I explained above, seeing people as "others" is what allows us to fear them, hate them, and kill them whit little remorse, they haven't done anything so evil it can be called monstrous, they killed people, which is bad, but most of our heroes have done the same. The only thing they've done no human has done (in the story) is taking Craster's sons, but he gives them willingly and we don't know what they do with them. I don't think they are misunderstood, they kill people and that's bad, but the evil of their actions is amplified by ignorance, it's amplified by them looking different and by us not knowing anything about them.

Tywin, Balon, Euron et al. aren't exactly the good guys.

I think you're focusing too much on this genocide/nuclear bomb metaphor and not looking at the text as it actually is. The Others kill anyone they come across and then violate the corpses so that they can kill more people. You don't think that's evil and monstrous??

I certainly hope GRRM is not trying to make the Others into a clumsy metaphor for foreigners or marginalised groups (the people who are usually the target of genocide irl) because that would be rather offensive.

On 10/30/2020 at 11:16 AM, CamiloRP said:

Lastly, even if they are as evil as Westerosi believe, I don't think defending against them would be problematic, but it'd seem of for the story to end in a war to save humanity, using WMDs to extinguish another race.

And what would that war be like? would it be a long series of battles just as the WOT5K was? Unlikely, as there are only two books left, so it wouldn't be as fleshed out as that conflict, and that'd be a weird way to end the series, having it end with a similar version of something that already happened but worse, as you don't have any POVs in one side. If not, would it be just one battle, like in the abomination? that'd be disappointing. Do you really think it fits the story to have the final conflict involve unredeemable one dimensional villains?

This series already has plenty of unredeemable one dimensional villains - Gregor, Ramsey, Walder Frey, the slavers... GRRM does make every character morally grey.

I have no problem with the series ending in a battle. As someone said upthread, the Others are an existential threat for the humans to come together against, like the giant squid in Watchmen. This is the threat and the "worthy"war that the high lords have ignored because they were too busy with "unworthy" squabbles over land and power. That seems to be the theme to me, not "all war is bad".

I fully expect the dragons to be instrumental in destroying the Others and the wights, and then die themselves (thus restoring the balance between ice and fire), just like in The Ice Dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not rule out the possibility of peace with the Others.  Craster had good relations with them.  The Kings of Winter must have had good relations with them.  In my opinion, the Others think of themselves as gods who deserve offerings from folks who live in their lands.  This is no different from the blood tribute expected by the nobles from their vassals.  Each family sends its sons to fight and die for the nobles.  So these Others expect something like a blood tax from those who would like to live in the North. 

The Starks were generously paying their blood tax by tossing their bastards out into the cold.  As the Kings of the North, the Starks enforced this tradition on all of the families in their kingdom.  They would prefer to sacrifice their bastards.  This is not honorable and would compromise the way these nobles see themselves.  They are not about to openly talk about murdering babies.  But good Queen Allysanne must have listened to the common girls and learned the ugly truth.  Their lords were taking liberties with them and then forcing them to sacrifice their babies. 

The way to peace is to leave the North and let the Others have their lands back.  The Others ranks are made up of turned bastards who may believe they have claims to the lands of their lord fathers.  A just peace would require the people of Westeros to give up their lands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Tywin, Balon, Euron et al. aren't exactly the good guys.

I can also see Doran, mace and most targaryens doing it

I would also see Robert, Renly, etc doing it if they could do it without the people disliking them.

I would also see Stannis doing it if there wasn't religious motives.

 

Quote

I think you're focusing too much on this genocide/nuclear bomb metaphor and not looking at the text as it actually is. The Others kill anyone they come across and then violate the corpses so that they can kill more people. You don't think that's evil and monstrous??

I think it's absolutely wrong, I don't think it's worse than what Tywin did in the Riverlands, for example.

I think that what Bran does with Hodor is one of the worse deeds in the story, yet I don't think Bran should be killed.

But I'm not claiming a metaphor, I'm saying that the Others, who seem to be named after a sociological term used to refer to a group different as the 'us', a group who's often hated, feared and discriminated for no reason, being wiped out entirely would be genocide, as in that's the definition of genocide. I'm also saying that dragons are WMDs in this contexts, and having WMDs gloriously save humanity doesn't seem like something George would do. (I'm basing this entirely on your brief description of the story and some light google searching, but in The Ice Dragon dragons don't seem to be WMDs, they're more like fighter jets).

 

Quote

I certainly hope GRRM is not trying to make the Others into a clumsy metaphor for foreigners or marginalised groups (the people who are usually the target of genocide irl) because that would be rather offensive.

I don't think he is, he dislikes allegories, I rather think he's making a statement about how misunderstanding each other, ignorance and fear of the unknown are the actual enemy, or something like that. The Others aren't a marginalized group, they are a different group of people that we fear because we don't understand them, and humans are likely the same for them. 

Think about WOT5K, Ned othered the Lannisters, and his men did too (one northern sword is worth ten southron ones). Ned saw the Lannisters as less honorable, less honest and he was certain they where involved in some things they weren't (Jon Arryn and the catspaw). That was one of the most important causes of the war (Baelish offers Ned a peace and he says he can't bc of the attempt on Bran's life). Had Ned been able to see the Lannisters as the same as him, not as morally inferior, the war would at least been different.

 

Quote

This series already has plenty of unredeemable one dimensional villains - Gregor, Ramsey, Walder Frey, the slavers... GRRM does make every character morally grey.

While you can consider them unredeemable (tho I thought that of Jaime and Theon in the past) you can't definitely call any of them one dimensional.

A one dimensional character is a character who only has one of the three important 'dimensions' established. Said dimensions are, physical (what they look like), psychological (dreams, desires, needs, flaws, fears, loves, personality quirks, likes, dislikes, etc) and sociological (their family, their friends, their lovers, their religion, their politics, etc). We know all these (with lesser or greater detail) for each one of the characters you listed. Also, none of them are absolutely evil.

But the Others? what do we know about them? we know how they look, we know they can talk and laugh and we know they traded babies with Craster. We know nothing of them, so that'd make them really boring villains, IMHO, they're a fine mystery, but I couldn't see myself enjoying a WOT5K-like conflicts with them as the Lannisters.

 

Quote

I have no problem with the series ending in a battle. As someone said upthread, the Others are an existential threat for the humans to come together against, like the giant squid in Watchmen. This is the threat and the "worthy"war that the high lords have ignored because they were too busy with "unworthy" squabbles over land and power. That seems to be the theme to me, not "all war is bad".

Except, the squid in Watchmen wasn't a solution to the problem, it's a stupid solution, si finding someone else to hate the only reason to stop war? That seems overly simplistic, and Watchmen clearly states that Ozymandias's plan wouldn't work.

To quote Chance The Rapper:

Quote

I always feel a lil cheated when I see allegorical racism in movies cause that racism usually stems from human emotion or tolerance but not by law or systems the way it is in real life. The characters in #Bright live in a timeline where racism is gone... cause we hate ork now

What happens after humanity defeats the Others? do they go back to their unworthy squabbles?

 

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I fully expect the dragons to be instrumental in destroying the Others and the wights, and then die themselves (thus restoring the balance between ice and fire), just like in The Ice Dragon.

But in The Ice Dragon the ones who die are a group of evil men, not an entire race.

If humanity needs the destruction of the Others to continue there are only two explanations: the Others are all evil, which would be really offensive, claiming that an entire race of people can just be genetically evil, or rather them and humanity are both separate types of races that just don't mix well together and the only way one of them can survive is if the other does not, which, why should we root for the humans in that scenario? Is humanity inherently better? The Others where likely there first.

And you haven't answered, don't you think it'd be anti-climactic if it does end in an apocalyptic war but it's: shorter than the WOT5K, less complex, as you have no likable character in one side and no POVs, and you are fighting people you can't even understand?

 

That I'm aware Martin wrote only one story that includes a fight against the apocalypse (tho many have apocalyptic event's) The Armageddon Rag, and in there the point of the story is that there isn't a clear, correct side, there's even a point in which a characters says something on the lines of: "the forces of good against the forces of evil, that's what armageddon is supposed to be, which side are we?" and he's replied with "you got to figure out that for yourself, this ain't like in Tolkien, isn't it?" (sorry, couldn't find the exact quote). Also in that story the protagonist is convinced by visions that he has to kill someone in order to stop the apocalypse, but he realizes those visions where sent so he'd kill that person and start the apocalypse, so he kills no one and that's how he wins.

Both that and the example I gave with In The House Of The Worm sound, IMHO, much more like ASOIAF than The Ice dragon.

There's also the fact about the Other's name.

And what would be the theme of the story if humanity kills the evil race with dragons? Genocide is okey when you fear for your race? Nukes are cool? 

I'm sorry, but that I'm aware of, George has never written about a race needing to be eliminated for the salvation of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Genocide is okey when you fear for your race?

If the only choice is between your own group being genocided and the other group being genocided, then yes, it is.

Question is, will GRRM really keep Others as an inherently evil force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

If the only choice is between your own group being genocided and the other group being genocided, then yes, it is.

Question is, will GRRM really keep Others as an inherently evil force?

Yeah, that's my point, it'd be a weird fit for the story, to end with a 'justifiable' genocide. We don't know that the Others want to end humanity, and even if we take that as a fact, we still don't know what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...