Jon and Dany's similarities in ADWD, and why they're some of the few potentially good rulers

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Aldarion said:

That is a misconception, on two levels. First, even in 9th to 11th century, soldiers were not "peasant levies" but rather smallholders. Yes, they were socially peasants, but they were still well-equipped and well-trained compared to literally any kind of peasant "insurrection". They were not nobility, but they were still professional soldiers. Anglo-Saxon fyrd, where idea of "peasant soldiers" possibly originates from, had been conclusively proven to not have actually consisted of conscripted peasants. Second, Westeros is absolutely not relying on peasant levies:

Huh, didn't know that, thought honestly my knowledge of pre 13th century Europe is a lot sketchier then the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. My bad

[Aldarion]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Huh, didn't know that, thought honestly my knowledge of pre 13th century Europe is a lot sketchier then the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. My bad

I find it a saddeningly common misconception. Writers of Warhammer Fantasy knew about history a lot more than most fantasy writers, yet they still include peasant levies as a standard military unit. Now, it is true that peasant armies / levies absolutely did exist: but they were always a last-ditch effort, something you did when you had no other option, and often appeared in the context of religious warfare. John of Capistrano brought a lot of peasants to help defend Belgrade in 1456... but what is often ignored is that he also brought a significant contignent of minor nobility, and most of the fighting was done by professional soldiers. Peasants did play a large part in final defense, but that was only successful because Turks were taken by surprise - in a field set-piece battle, peasants would have gotten absolutely massacred.

[Rose of Red Lake]

40 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Yes, they did. But this seems to be the maximum Westeros potencially can do.

Westeros had peace for 4,000 years before Aegon ever stepped foot there.

How in the world did they manage to do this without a Targaryen telling them what to do?!?!?!

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Westeros had peace for 4,000 years before Aegon ever stepped foot there.

Peace is an over statement. More like Medieval Europe style constant state of warfare that makes the rare Targaryen civil wars seem like a golden age

[Nathan Stark]

27 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Westeros had peace for 4,000 years before Aegon ever stepped foot there.

How in the world did they manage to do this without a Targaryen telling them what to do?!?!?!

If you can call various states warring each other constantly throught that period "peace," than yes, pre-Targ Westeros was a veritable utopia.

[Rose of Red Lake]

11 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

If you can call various states warring each other constantly throught that period "peace," than yes, pre-Targ Westeros was a veritable utopia.

35 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Peace is an over statement. More like Medieval Europe style constant state of warfare that makes the rare Targaryen civil wars seem like a golden age

The pact between the Children and the First Men led to four thousand years of peace without a Targaryen's "help." So no reason why Westeros couldn't do that again.

[Nathan Stark]

Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

The pact between the Children and the First Men led to four thousand years of peace without a Targaryen's "help." So no reason why Westeros couldn't do that again.

Peace between the First Men and the Children, not between the various kingdoms of First Men. The pact did not extend to the kingdoms of men.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Just now, Nathan Stark said:

Peace between the First Men and the Children, not between the various kingdoms of First Men. The pact did not extend to the kingdoms of men.

Huh? There were no major wars for 4,000 years. That's all that matters and it's part of the continent's history.

If people are arguing that Targaryens are the Best Westeros Can Do, it's just not true.

[Wall Flower]

27 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Huh? There were no major wars for 4,000 years. That's all that matters and it's part of the continent's history.

If people are arguing that Targaryens are the Best Westeros Can Do, it's just not true.

The Children and the First Men fought for centuries, if not millennia, and the geography of the continent was permanently altered before the pact was signed. I agree that does outdo any of the Targaryen wars by a long margin. Not to mention that consolidation of the many petty kingdoms didn't just happened by polite agreement but by hard fought wars such as the Starks against the Boltons and the Barrow Kings.

You're also blithely skipping over subsequent developments like the Andals' invasion and conquest of much of Westeros, with repeated attempts to conquer the north, as well as the rise of brutal conquerors like Harrenhal the Black.

I don't think that the Targaryen rule was necessarily more peaceable than what came before them but it's very one-eyed to suggest that everything was somehow sweetness and light before their arrival.

[BlackLightning]

6 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Westeros should have been an absolute monarchy, not feudal one.

It's hard to argue against that.

You can easily write it off as "Aegon the Conqueror wanted to unite the realm as quickly and cleanly as possible and so he did them kindness by allowing them to still rule their lands."

But yeah: the more realistic, natural consequence of the Targaryen Conquest was to establish an absolute monarchy with Aegon at the head.

However...if the Targaryens had gone all out on full measures, would they have been able to secure the cast-iron loyalty of the Starks and the Arryns?

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The Children and the First Men fought for centuries, if not millennia, and the geography of the continent was permanently altered before the pact was signed. I agree that does outdo any of the Targaryen wars by a long margin. Not to mention that consolidation of the many petty kingdoms didn't just happened by polite agreement but by hard fought wars such as the Starks against the Boltons and the Barrow Kings.

You're also blithely skipping over subsequent developments like the Andals' invasion and conquest of much of Westeros, with repeated attempts to conquer the north, as well as the rise of brutal conquerors like Harrenhal the Black.

I don't think that the Targaryen rule was necessarily more peaceable than what came before them but it's very one-eyed to suggest that everything was somehow sweetness and light before their arrival.

My factual statement was that Westeros had 4,000 years without a war. Your response is that I'm saying "everything was sweetness and light." That's hyperbolic. I shouldn't have to spam the board with a wiki's worth of dark Westerosi history, just to point out that Westeros had a long peaceful period without House Targaryen teaching them how to behave. Which btw was in response to a poster's pathetic claim that House Targaryen was the "best Westeros could do." Being generous here, House Targaryen maybe only gave Westeros 100 years of peace compared to--fuck, you can count. And almost every major House conquered--but what did the Targaryens do after that? The author singled out House T for their "flaw" (to use the author's phrase)--which is typical of people who have powers akin to spaceships--they got lazy. Mommy, Mommy, and Daddy Targaryen left a legacy of weak government institutions because their successors relied on nukes to do all the work for them. That's not really leaving Westeros better than they found it. They may have gotten people used to unification, but then again...people were still rebelling against them by the end of it. And is Dany learning any of those lessons about Targaryen failures in Westeros? Not bloody likely. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

I just have a hard time seeing the two of them fall in love (if that is where we're heading). In ASOIAF, when people come back from the dead they are a detached shadow of their former selves. Dany loves passionate and and fiery guys like Drogo and Daario, but now she's going to fall for a cold, undead Jon Snow? I just don't find it very believable. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I just have a hard time seeing the two of them fall in love (if that is where we're heading). In ASOIAF, when people come back from the dead they are a detached shadow of their former selves. Dany loves passionate and and fiery guys like Drogo and Daario, but now she's going to fall for a cold, undead Jon Snow? I just don't find it very believable. 

 One more time for the people at home. It was clearly established in the ADWD prologue that wargs have a second life in their chained animals. That means Jon's mind and soul are alive and well inside Ghost. So unlike Beric or Catelyn, he's not being brought back from the dead, he's being brought back from Ghost, which means his mind, soul and personality are going to be fine if a bit wolfish.

I do agree though that Jon even if brought back well is not Dany's type.

[Mystical]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

...which means his mind, soul and personality are going to be fine if a bit wolfish.

Then why kill him off at all (his death isn't confirmed yet in the books anyway)? GRRM has said that coming back from the dead has a huge prize. If Jon is still the same, if a bit wolfish, then what was the point of killing him in the first place? Resurrection is supposed to have consequences for the person.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

32 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Then why kill him off at all (his death isn't confirmed yet in the books anyway)? GRRM has said that coming back from the dead has a huge prize. If Jon is still the same, if a bit wolfish, then what was the point of killing him in the first place? Resurrection is supposed to have consequences for the person.

First off, there is the narrative purpose of getting him rid of his Nights Watch vows. GRRM kinda wrote himself into a corner as Jon's drive of duty would never allow him to abandon the Watch, so he kinda needs to cheat to get him out.

Second off, just because his mind will be okay, doesn't mean it will have no consequences. Just think of the mental impact of dying, of being betrayed by his brothers, of his world basically tumbling down around him. It's a great setup for some really deep character development in TWOW, and let's be honest, Jon's character was getting kinda cushy in ADWD.

[Josette DuPres]

Jon was killed because he was about to do something totally inappropriate for a man of the watch to do:  lead a pack of wildlings to attack a noble house of Westeros.  Jon was very wrong to even think of doing such a thing.  He was killed off because he had done his part for the story.  His character flaws and bad decisions will be the cause of the Watch's inability to stop the White Walkers.  Jon's time as lord commander is a blessing to the White Walkers. 

4 hours ago, Mystical said:

Then why kill him off at all (his death isn't confirmed yet in the books anyway)? GRRM has said that coming back from the dead has a huge prize. If Jon is still the same, if a bit wolfish, then what was the point of killing him in the first place? Resurrection is supposed to have consequences for the person.

 

[TheLastWolf]

32 minutes ago, Josette DuPres said:

Jon was killed because he was about to do something totally inappropriate for a man of the watch to do:  lead a pack of wildlings to attack a noble house of Westeros.  Jon was very wrong to even think of doing such a thing.  He was killed off because he had done his part for the story.  His character flaws and bad decisions will be the cause of the Watch's inability to stop the White Walkers.  Jon's time as lord commander is a blessing to the White Walkers. 

 

Wow! I never thought that I'd find a new Dany worshipping Stark/Snow/basically-anything-related-totheNorth hater. Well, what do I know? Shrug. Welcome to the (opposite) club! Xmas wishes in order, check out my latest Time and Causality reply . And don't think am making an assumption. Your other recent posts,... shudder 

[The Bard of Banefort]

6 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 One more time for the people at home. It was clearly established in the ADWD prologue that wargs have a second life in their chained animals. That means Jon's mind and soul are alive and well inside Ghost. So unlike Beric or Catelyn, he's not being brought back from the dead, he's being brought back from Ghost, which means his mind, soul and personality are going to be fine if a bit wolfish.

I do agree though that Jon even if brought back well is not Dany's type.

I must confess: I did not read all the other entries in this thread before I posted my comment, so if you made this argument already, then I missed it.

That said, Jon & Dany still don't seem very compatible to me, as we have both noted.

(Also there is the one comment from George about how the resurrected don't have blood circulation so, um, as far as physical intimacy goes. . . .)

[Alyn Oakenfist]

4 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I must confess: I did not read all the other entries in this thread before I posted my comment, so if you made this argument already, then I missed it.

I don't think I've written it here, not sure, but I have written it on this forum quite extensively. Sorry for sounding pissy, but from Varamyr's POV it's basically canon yet everyone seems to ignore that fact, mainly due to the abomination I think.

4 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

That said, Jon & Dany still don't seem very compatible to me, as we have both noted.

Yup. Dany might be Jon's type, but Dany's attractions make it more likely for her to fall in love with Euron than Jon. Then again according to some theories, she already has.

[BlackLightning]

13 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 One more time for the people at home. It was clearly established in the ADWD prologue that wargs have a second life in their chained animals. That means Jon's mind and soul are alive and well inside Ghost. So unlike Beric or Catelyn, he's not being brought back from the dead, he's being brought back from Ghost, which means his mind, soul and personality are going to be fine if a bit wolfish.

I do agree though that Jon even if brought back well is not Dany's type.

You just said that Jon will come back with a wolfish personality. That would make him Dany's type. She likes dangerous, tough men who are not very sleek or polished. Roughriders, thugs, gangbangers, bad boys, firebrands, Don Juans. That's Dany type. She's also very sexual.

That will be Jon. Jon is also stated to be very attractive and that is unlikely to change.

And yes, Dany is Jon's type. He likes wild, spicy and unconventional women who, despite their wildness, are still feminine. Like Ygritte, Val....and Dany.

It's inevitable to me.

If Robb can fall in love with Jeyne Westerling (lol) and marry her even though it's self-sabotaging....if Catelyn and Ned can fall in love despite their shotgun, "he cheated on me," "oops...his brother flaked and I already bought the dress" wedding...

...then why can't Jon and Dany?

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Then again according to some theories, she already has.

There's no way Daario is Euron. That theory needs to be taken out back like Old Yeller.