Jump to content

Why do people hate essos?


Daenerysthegreat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Dont all characters sing and fight behind shield walls and then sing some more? I also thin they fight with horses but Rohan has something going on there, which is kinda strange if the others dont. 
Nothing about Rohan imo made sense. King exiled his entire army, then woke up and told gandalf dont bother looking, then thought gandalf betrayed him, then was mad suprised when the army he banished came back to save him. And then we think hes cool, but then for some reason hes like "why should i fight with gondor"? Also do Rohan women fight or was it just her? Why dont any Gondor princess fight? 
I dont see how say, Tom Bombodill is more flushed out then anything in asoiaf

1) Songs are important in mythology, especially mythology that draws from before the literacy age. My grandfather knew several epics from memory. These were important, because that is how history was preserved. So yeah, lack of songs is a big minus for ASoIaF's realism.

2) That stuff only happened in the movies. Which are about as far off the books as later Game of Thrones seasons are. So please do not discuss movies when discussing Lord of the Rings. Essentially, Peter Jackson was a fan of character conflict, and so he went ruining characters left and right to introduce room for conflict. In the books, Gandalf, Aragorn, Theoden and Eomer are pretty much on the same page from the moment Theoden gets cured.

3) Tom Bombadil is basically a spirit of nature. And as I have already explained before, one of best things about how Lord of the Rings is written is that not everything is explained. Tolkien literally spells out in one of letters that he wanted there to still be mysteries in the world. Tom Bombadil, the "unnamed things" Gandalf saw in the deeps, hell even the men who built those ruins Aragorn and the Hobbits see... some things are simply never meant to be known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it works or not, I generally found Essos interesting enough, during books 1 to 3.

And, even in book 5, there are parts I really enjoyed, like the descriptions of the Rhoyne and Volantis.

The problem is Meereen.  Dany ought to have been able to kerb-stomp the ridiculous Yunkish lords, the moment she heard they had resumed slaving.  She ought to have crushed the Sons of the Harpy, given that freedmen are five sixths of the population.  All she needs do is tell them to string up the Great Masters.  She wouldn’t even have to deploy her soldiers.

The Dany of Book 3 is simply more competent than the Dany of Book 5, and there is no credible reason for her passivity in the face of slaver aggression or her desire to make peace with them.  The whole business about wanting to plant olives, when your enemies are marching to war, doesn’t make sense.  It reads like wheels spinning, up to the point where (presumably in Book 6) Dany unleashes fire and blood on the slavers, which she could and should have done, hundreds of pages earlier.

Yes, thematically, there’s the whole business about conquering being one thing, ruling quite another, but the timescale means Dany ought to be doing nothing other than preparing for war, because right now, war to protect her followers is the priority.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is opinion based on facts. Which I explained below.

Eh.  Opinion and fact are different.  I get that you like LOTR more and you want to explain why subjectively you prefer it but don't confuse that with objectivity.  Case in point as I already pointed: you criticise GRRM for not fleshing out societies and cultures but when I throw out the Haradrim, Corsairs of Umbar and Easterlings you say both that less is more and they're better represented by not being developed at all.  This is subjective reasoning and obviously inconsistent.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And if you are so thin skinned that a stranger on a forum writing a few impolite words not even directed at you makes something hard to read, how do you manage to survive going anywhere or talking to anyone? Genuine question.

It's a fan site for discussing a work of fiction.  To be blunt if someone acts like an angry nerd or comes across as a bit of a dick then I'm not going to spend hours reading and responding to them.  Nothing about surviving.  The real question is why you would expect otherwise.  Also, you seem to have moderated your tone and made a shorter post :P

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Because there are reasons why society develops in certain ways, and if you throw logic and realism completely out of window, there is nothing to relate to.

First up, society has obviously developed in many different ways in many different places at many different times across the globe.  There is no straightjacket that an author has to fit himself into for what you term "realism".  Second, just because things have worked as they have on earth in all their complexity and variety does not preclude the possibility that things could have worked differently in different circumstances.  One planet and one timeline does not compass all possible forms of human development - far from it.  The whole point of fantasy is for the author to use their imagination to create something new and different.  I really don't know why this would be difficult to accept because you can't google a certain society or military technology in a certain time period and tick it off as verified "realistic".

And the idea that the elements you find problematic "throw logic and realism completely out the window, there is nothing to relate to" is obviously both hyperbole and in fact plain wrong.  You have a few quibbles, e.g.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You cannot have a mountainous state rely on heavy cavalry - it not just doesn't make sense, it is impossible, for reasons of logistics, tactics and physics.

The Vale is a VALE.  The Vale is protected from outside attack by mountains, coast and a well-guarded fortified castle on The High Road. They don't need legions of pikemen or whatever you consider "historically realistic".  Heavy cavalry are the shock troops of the feudal era and they have them for fighting each other in The Vale or for projecting power outside the Vale.  You are nit picking and exaggerating wildly.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Things happen for a reason. Problem is, Martin generally doesn't understand what that reason is.

And you do? :)  You have understood the "laws" of human societal and technological development in any possible set of circumstances and can approve or condemn the literary creations of fantasy authors from your lofty seat of wisdom.  Seriously........  He chose a quasi-feudal society for Westeros and created the Kingdoms with geographic and cultural differences as he chose for story reasons and background texture.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

So long as you are writing about humans and human societies, some restrictions will be logically imposed.

If your restrictions are no heavy cavalry in The Vale or no feudalism in Westeros due to geography(?) then they aren't logical, they are subjective.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

If you don't want your cavalry to act like cavalry, don't give them horses. Give them pegasi, or wolves, or chimeras.

If you don't want your archers to act like archers, don't make them archers - make them mages.

Taking something that historically existed and making it act in a manner completely different from how it did shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of imagination.

Dude, your opinions, dare I say requirements, are your own, not those of other readers.  I don't really understand why this bothers you so much but there is no requirement for GRRM to be a military expert on the technology and tactics of whatever period or campaigns you are fixating on in order to write his story.  The battle scenes are pretty enjoyable to me and the cavalry and archers act like cavalry and archers whether or not they pass your triple A self-designed technology and deployment tactics internet search hurdle.  No need for pegasi or mages because the author has not passed your arbitrary "realism" verification test so he's not allowed to write about cavalry and archers.  Do you really think this stuff? :blink:

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

They were renowned, but that renown was unearned. Spartans were no better than any other hoplite army.They definitely weren't badasses that "300" makes them seem as.

And yet the Spartans had a reputation in Ancient Greece for military prowess.  This is attested to by contemporary sources and really can't be dismissed as "unearned" based on your subjective feelings on the matter. 

300 is of course a movie not serious history (as if this needs to be said) but my point, if the humour was lost on you, was that your friend did in fact learn that the Spartans were renowned warriors in Ancient Greece, however much you gnash your teeth about the lack of realism in the movie, or apparently dispute the validity of their reputation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

It is not an amalgram of nomadic societies, sorry. Let's use the Mongols, for example.  

That's just the easiest handle to use for discussing nomadic cavalry threatening settled civilizations - they are not mongols and are not required to be like the mongols or even any amalgam of steppe cultures.  They are inspired by the idea of a nomadic culture that terrorises sedentary civilizations with the speed and number of light cavalry they can deploy with very little warning and the problem of how to effectively deploy and defeat them, hence their periodic incursions and being bought off by tribute.  Obviously the ancient  and medieval world was subjected to this from the Huns to the Mongols but this is merely the inspiration for the idea of the Dothraki.

But beyond that they are whatever the author wants them to be.  So they do not in fact conquer an empire and so they do not need the military technology and siege equipment required for protracted battles or holding vast swathes of territory seized.  The Free Cities pay them tribute to go away so they secure what they want without fighting.  When they do fight a disciplined infantry army - the Unsullied of Astapor - they lose so they know to stick to their strengths - raiding, slaving, extortion of tribute through incursions and clearing any Lhazareen settlements from encroaching on the Dothraki Sea.

15 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

From just a character standpoint, I'd have to disagree because in Two Towers and ROTK, we get a bunch of Rohirrim characters who help show us what their culture is like, as compared to, say the Shire and Gondor. They sing, they fight on horseback and behind a shield wall, their feudal structure makes sense and they're competent.

I'm wary of JRRT v GRRM comparisons, particularly when someone references JRRT in their profile B)

But we meet Eomer, Eowyn and Theoden and that's really it.  A few other captains or soldiers might be referenced or briefly appear on page for Helm's Deep or The Pelennor Fields but none emerge as characters.  We go to Edoras and The Hornburg and Dunharrow and then to Minas Tirith.  Don't get me wrong: it's fine for what the story requires - but that's kind of my point with the Dothraki.

We see Drogo and his three blood riders and Dany's three handmaids and three blood riders.  We learn about Dothraki culture through Dany's chapters and her interaction with these characters.  We travel across the Dothraki Sea, go to Vaes Dothrak and then fire a Lhazareen encroachment and battle another Khalasar.  As Dany leaves the Dothraki after Drogo's death this is fine for what the story requires.

It feels pretty equivalent to me.

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

They make sense. 

It's up to each reader how they react.  I have no problem with the Rohirrim or the Dothraki.  If we spent more on page time in Essos or with the Dothraki I would probably be frustrated as it would slow the story down but the author might flesh both out more.  No telling whether that would please or disappoint the realists though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I thought he did banish the nephew and something ambiguous happened with the army and then, idk, somehow the good guys won helms deep. I mean the nephew was back when Pippen was getting high with the trees...

Theoden is under Saruman's influence through Grima Wormtongue, a counsellor at Theoden's Court who effectively enfeebles Theoden's mind using Saruman's magic and acts as a stereotypical evil counsellor.  Wormtongue lusts after Eowyn so Eomer, her brother, lets him know to keep the f*** away from her but Wormtongue gets Theoden to banish Eomer from Court.

This all happens before we arrive in Rohan in The Two Towers and Eomer meets Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli on the fringes of Fangorn Forest before heading with them to Helm's Deep.  Gandalf rides Shadowfax to Edoras, breaks Saruman's hold over Theoden and Wormtongue is banished and Eomer restored to favour.

With Theoden restored to his right mind he leads a relief of Helm's Deep where the Men of the Westmark were holed up after losing the battle of the Fords of Isen to Saruman's orcs.  This breaks the orcs siege and they fall back only to find the valley filled with Huorns, semi-sentient trees (according to Treebeard both Trees that have become ent-ish and ents that have become tree-ish) who annihilate the orcs before pootling back off to Fangorn.

Rohan wins Helm's Deep on it's own (with Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli) but the destruction of Saruman's army is largely down to the huorns so Treebeard / Gandalf (Merry and Pippin indirectly).

13 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I believe you are correct. I also believe it's the lady galadrial, I'm not sure about arwyn. (Who's from a different neighborhood then galadrial and legolas? but I can't tell the elf races apart)

How does Rohan win? Nothing climactic like in the movie? (If Gandalf doesn't help direct other people to save them I think that's pretty great because I'm kinda convinced the entire fellowship was useless except three hobbits and a little Aragon, And it'd be pretty funny if the wizard didn't even help save Rohan, tbh a little sam too. Aragons ghost ships saved Gondor tho. Wait was that only movie?)

Galadriel is Arwyn's Grandmother.  Galadriel is Noldor (high elf) royalty but after the first age she remains in middle earth and marries a wood elf king, Celeborn.  Lothlorien is their kingdom and is protected by Galdriel being wielder of one of the three elven rings of power.  Their daughter, Celebrian, was Elrond's wife.  Elrond himself is related to Galdariel as they are both descended from Finwe, original High King of The Noldor (he was Galadriel's grandfather and Elrond's Great-Great-Great-Grandfather).  Legolas is also a wood elf, being the son of Thranduil, King of the Greenwood (Mirkwood) but no relation of Celeborn or Arwyn.

Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and the dunedin take the paths of the dead from Dunharrow.  The Dead spirits fulfil their vow to Aragorn as Elendil's heir by defeating the Corsairs of Umbar at the battle of Pelargir in the south of Gondor.  This is off page but narrated later.  They are then released from their purgatory but the victory allows Aragorn to gather up the substantial Gondor forces in the south and use the corsairs' ships to sail up the Anduin and turn the battle of The Pelennor Fields for the good guys.  The movie brings the dead to The Pelennor Fields for special effects drama.

You are right that JRRT wanted the success to be achieved by the little people or at least not by high magic (which is why Merry and Eowyn not Gandalf defeat the Witch-King of Angmar - and why Frodo is ringbearer) and why I thought the movie cheapened the victory on The Pelennor Fields by bringing in the undead.

There is a question mark over whether Rohan will come to Gondor's aid.  First, Theoden is under Saruman's influence so is incapacitated.  Second, Rohan is fighting and losing to Saruman who has a coalition of his own uruk-hai and the men of Dunland on Rohan's western border.  Once Saruman is defeated and Theoden restored Rohan can come to Gondor's aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Eh.  Opinion and fact are different.  I get that you like LOTR more and you want to explain why subjectively you prefer it but don't confuse that with objectivity.  Case in point as I already pointed: you criticise GRRM for not fleshing out societies and cultures but when I throw out the Haradrim, Corsairs of Umbar and Easterlings you say both that less is more and they're better represented by not being developed at all.  This is subjective reasoning and obviously inconsistent.

17 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is not incosistent at all. When writing, it is objectively better to not explain too much. And if you do not know about some topic (as Martin clearly doesn't about non-feudal societies), it is better not to write about it. Provide bare minimum of information and let the reader fill in the blanks.

He didn't need to have Slaver's Bay, or Essos at all. He could have made Westeros smaller, and then have Daenerys living in exile in some other kingdom before coming back.

Also, you have completely missed my argument. I have never criticized Martin for "not fleshing out" societies and cultures. I criticized him for getting the skeleton wrong.

21 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

First up, society has obviously developed in many different ways in many different places at many different times across the globe.  There is no straightjacket that an author has to fit himself into for what you term "realism".  Second, just because things have worked as they have on earth in all their complexity and variety does not preclude the possibility that things could have worked differently in different circumstances.  One planet and one timeline does not compass all possible forms of human development - far from it.  The whole point of fantasy is for the author to use their imagination to create something new and different.  I really don't know why this would be difficult to accept because you can't google a certain society or military technology in a certain time period and tick it off as verified "realistic".

 

It has developed in many different ways, yes, but that was a result of conditions prevailing in that society. Ancient Greece developed into a society of city-states due to particular characteristics of Greece. Roman Empire had its own characteristics which resulted from it being a Mediterranean empire: had somebody tried to transplant Roman political and economic system into Persia or China, it would have failed due to geographic, climate and cultural differences.

And yes, you are correct that realism is not strictly necessary. But you cannot just throw logic out of the window, because if you do, nothing will relate to anything else and the world will become bland and boring. Actions have consequences, and it is exploring consequences of different factors that makes fantasy so interesting. Do you really think something like Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress would have been interesting if the society remained the same as historical society of the time despite presence of nigh-unkillable zombies?

And bland and boring is what Essos is. Yeah, sure, it is diverse - but that diversity is shallow, because there is nothing underlying it. Westeros had potential to be interesting, and it somewhat is, because - by accident or design - it has some kind of internal consistency. Essos however is shallow - especially so the Slaver's Bay. Volantis has a ratio of five slaves for each free man. Exploring implications of that would be extremely interesting, in fact. Logically, it should have resulted in a society akin to ancient Sparta, which had a ratio of seven slaves for each free man. Basically, all freemen in Volantis - and other Slaver's Bay cities - ought to be a noble warrior caste whose sole purpose is keeping slaves in line. Myr, Tyrosh and Lys have a ratio of three slaves for every freedman, and should be similar.

Yet that is not what we see. Martin dropped an extreme form of slave society in Slaver's Bay, and failed to consider the consequences of that form of society. Slaves outnumber the free, yet free men are free to do nothing, instead of training warfare to keep their slaves in line. Instead, what we get is a caricature of American South.

In short, Martin's lack of realism does not make his societies interesting. It makes them bland and boring.

54 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

You have understood the "laws" of human societal and technological development in any possible set of circumstances and can approve or condemn the literary creations of fantasy authors from your lofty seat of wisdom.  Seriously........  He chose a quasi-feudal society for Westeros and created the Kingdoms with geographic and cultural differences as he chose for story reasons and background texture.

Why did he give Westeros seasons which include ten year winters if ten year winters are completely irrelevant? Why have story happen on a continent the size of South America when it could have just been an island the size of Great Britain or maybe Greenland?

If he is going to have his world have certain characteristics and then proceed to ignore them, why give his world those characteristics?

59 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Dude, your opinions, dare I say requirements, are your own, not those of other readers.  I don't really understand why this bothers you so much but there is no requirement for GRRM to be a military expert on the technology and tactics of whatever period or campaigns you are fixating on in order to write his story.  The battle scenes are pretty enjoyable to me and the cavalry and archers act like cavalry and archers whether or not they pass your triple A self-designed technology and deployment tactics internet search hurdle.  No need for pegasi or mages because the author has not passed your arbitrary "realism" verification test so he's not allowed to write about cavalry and archers.  Do you really think this stuff? 

 

 

It bothers me because so many people praise Martin for his "gritty realism", when truth couldn't be further from that.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

And yet the Spartans had a reputation in Ancient Greece for military prowess.  This is attested to by contemporary sources and really can't be dismissed as "unearned" based on your subjective feelings on the matter. 

These are not my "subjective feelings". Spartan reputation was created by Herodotus. In realitiy however they were no better than any other phalanx.

In fact, they didn't even manage a winning record:

https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/

Just because something is a "contemporary source" doesn't mean it is true. Propaganda is real, and Herodotus was an excellent propagandist. It is no accident some historians today call him a "father of lies".

Spartan reputation for excellence is much like Byzantine reputation for decadence. If anything, Byzantine Empire was militarily superior and more resillient in its Middle period thanks to its theme system (established in 640s, disbanded in 1053 by Constantine IX) than Roman Empire ever was at any point after Marian reforms.

Just because something is widely believed does not mean it is true.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

300 is of course a movie not serious history (as if this needs to be said) but my point, if the humour was lost on you, was that your friend did in fact learn that the Spartans were renowned warriors in Ancient Greece, however much you gnash your teeth about the lack of realism in the movie, or apparently dispute the validity of their reputation!

Except the movie doesn't portray them as renowned warriors, it portrays them as outstanding ones.

Which they weren't. They were quite average, in fact; they just had good reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Westeros was actually this size it would be better. It would make more sense scaled down. You wouldn't have situations like Renly's army being to large to actually feed itself. The Wall could just be like a taller Hadrian's wall.

Precisely. Story is written as if it is happening in Great Britain, it is just that numbers are inflated to continental scale.

I don't know if it is American proclivity towards gigantism, but it makes no sense and just makes the story seem silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Precisely. Story is written as if it is happening in Great Britain, it is just that numbers are inflated to continental scale.

I don't know if it is American proclivity towards gigantism, but it makes no sense and just makes the story seem silly.

It's not like they have cars. Things shouldn't be so spaced out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following my earlier post, I think that where Dany’s story in SB goes wrong is the absence of the 5 year gap.  It’s a 5 year story, cut down to 12 months.

The slavers, both Yunkish, and Meereenese, should be completely cowed to begin with.  Dany could exterminate them all, if she wished.  So could the freedmen.  No way would Yunkai resume slaving and plotting immediately.

Dany enjoys a honeymoon period, where the slavers are behaving themselves, and she can plant olives and watch her dragons grow.  Gradually, she drops her guard, and that’s when the old elites spot weakness, and start to push their luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, you have completely missed my argument. I have never criticized Martin for "not fleshing out" societies and cultures. I criticized him for getting the skeleton wrong.

Well, this is the comment that seemed to get us on this merry-go-round:

On 11/11/2022 at 12:24 PM, Aldarion said:

I'm not sure I agree. Tolkien's cultures and peoples feel far more fleshed out and far more natural than Martin's, despite the fact that Tolkien spent far fewer words describing them.

As you know I disagree on the fleshing out and what you regard as the "realism" in Westeros. 

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And if you do not know about some topic (as Martin clearly doesn't about non-feudal societies), it is better not to write about it. Provide bare minimum of information and let the reader fill in the blanks.

He didn't need to have Slaver's Bay, or Essos at all. He could have made Westeros smaller, and then have Daenerys living in exile in some other kingdom before coming back.

Essos is less developed as it's a sideshow.  But why should he not write about cultures and societies that he is creating?  JRRT did not need to put in the Corsairs of Umbar, the Haradrim and Easterlings, he could have chosen something different too.  That's why I keep making the comparison.

I just don't see why you deem it a critical flaw on GRRM's part not to have what you regard as realistic systems in place in secondary theatres, most notably Slaver's Bay.  Consider that they are meant to be unwieldy systems, if not outright unsustainable, so they topple over easily.  That's their story purpose.  The problem seems to be how long Dany has spent parked in Meereen which prompts both reader irritation and more scrutiny of how "Essos" / Slaver's Bay is depicted.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

But you cannot just throw logic out of the window, because if you do, nothing will relate to anything else and the world will become bland and boring. Actions have consequences, and it is exploring consequences of different factors that makes fantasy so interesting.

And bland and boring is what Essos is. Yeah, sure, it is diverse - but that diversity is shallow, because there is nothing underlying it.

As I've said I don't see logic being thrown out the window.  The examples you gave seemed more discrepancies than critical issues and I don't see a particularly negative impact in story because of it.  I don't find Essos boring: Braavos with it's Iron Bank and God of Many Faces and our brief glimpse of Volantis with it's Temple of Light and R'hllorism; Qarth, The Dothraki Sea, even The Red Waste, Pentos and The Tattered Prince; they're pretty interesting and intriguing in my opinion.  Where the story goes with these places is yet to be determined but it's only Slaver's Bay and Meereen that goes a bit flat. 

Less is more, right?  Let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks for the Forest of Qohor or the River Rhoyne, or The Black Walls or The Stone Men or Asshai beyond The Shadow.  Boring is a subjective opinion.  Everyone has their preferences and likes and dislikes.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Why did he give Westeros seasons which include ten year winters if ten year winters are completely irrelevant? Why have story happen on a continent the size of South America when it could have just been an island the size of Great Britain or maybe Greenland?

We don't know the impact of ten year winters because we don't have experience of them.  The further south you go in world the less the impact so it's not a land of eternal winter.  That said, it's one almighty logistical challenge he has side-stepped by writing in story in summer and autumn and is facing up to now (or not).  Map scale is a mistake, as is the height of The Wall, but as map scale is not expressed in story for people to obsess about the distance from KL to WF and how long it would really have taken Cersei's wheelhouse to travel up and down the King's Road I don't see it as a problem.  Much better to keep things fluid so you can move characters around more easily.

Scale allows for more cultures and a more epic feel to the story.  You can have Britain and King Arthur or you can have the World and an existential threat.  It's ambitious but I don't fault that any more than I would RJ or BS for their fantasy worlds.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

These are not my "subjective feelings". Spartan reputation was created by Herodotus. In realitiy however they were no better than any other phalanx.

Then your task is much bigger than "correcting" your friend's new-found knowledge or undoing the baleful influence of 300.  Best of luck with it :thumbsup:

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Except the movie doesn't portray them as renowned warriors, it portrays them as outstanding ones.

Which they weren't. They were quite average, in fact; they just had good reputation.

I'm not at all interested in 300 but regardless of that, most people would regard those terms as synonymous.

Herodotus gathered stories throughout the Ancient World and reported those he was told irrespective of plausibility.  Nonetheless as history as we understand it did not exist as a rigorous discipline at the time and as he is equally regarded as The Father of History, with his inquiries, or Historia, into the causes of the Persian-Greek conflict giving us the word history, I think we can be a little more generous.  I'm not at all swayed by your view that the Spartans military reputation rested on Herodotus's accounts alone but consider as a Greek living in the 5th century BC he would have access to contemporary views more reliable than his stories of men with dog's heads living beyond the boundaries of the known world he sceptically but faithfully recorded with other tales from afar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Essos is less developed as it's a sideshow.  But why should he not write about cultures and societies that he is creating?  JRRT did not need to put in the Corsairs of Umbar, the Haradrim and Easterlings, he could have chosen something different too.  That's why I keep making the comparison.

 

Your comparison is wrong. Corsairs of Umbar and Haradrim and Easterlings were absolutely necessary, for multiple reasons: Sauron had to have human armies, and he had to had a wide sphere of influence. As Gandalf says to Denethor: Sauron isn't an emperor, and conflict is much wider than just Gondor versus Mordor. If Sauron had been constrained to Mordor, with no Corsairs, no Haradrim and no Easterlings, then the war would be a war between a human kingdom (Gondor) and a dark kingdom (Mordor), and that would have ruined what the conflict is, as well as ruining Sauron as a character. It was also significant on metaphysical level, to show both Sauron's goal - rule over the entire world - and also how widely his corrupting influence has spread.

Nevertheless, Tolkien did precisely what he needed to do and how much he needed to do. If it were Martin writing Lord of the Rings, he would have added another two POVs where Blue Wizards are raising resistance movements against Sauron in Rhun and Harad, then he would have gotten sidetracked into Rhunon / Haradrim politics, created a Haradrim Knot, ended up writing nine books instead of three...

That is what Martin is doing with Essos. And Essos (so far at least) literally has no point beyond being Daenerys' playground, her sandbox to play in while she figures out (or not) how to rule. It is superfluous, and it shows in how it is badly designed.

There is a lot of stuff which Martin could have simply dumped into some sort of a guide or appendices or extra material the way Tolkien did it. And that stuff includes, literally, entirety of Essos.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I just don't see why you deem it a critical flaw on GRRM's part not to have what you regard as realistic systems in place in secondary theatres, most notably Slaver's Bay.  Consider that they are meant to be unwieldy systems, if not outright unsustainable, so they topple over easily.  That's their story purpose.  The problem seems to be how long Dany has spent parked in Meereen which prompts both reader irritation and more scrutiny of how "Essos" / Slaver's Bay is depicted.

So why do we even have a story set there?

Also, doesn't matter how morally reprehensible you think system may be, if it is not sustainable then it cannot sustain itself. Slaver's Bay had remained apparently not changed much for centuries, so the system is clearly sustainable. Yet it is also supposed to be unsustainable.

How do you solve that issue?

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

As I've said I don't see logic being thrown out the window.  The examples you gave seemed more discrepancies than critical issues and I don't see a particularly negative impact in story because of it.  I don't find Essos boring: Braavos with it's Iron Bank and God of Many Faces and our brief glimpse of Volantis with it's Temple of Light and R'hllorism; Qarth, The Dothraki Sea, even The Red Waste, Pentos and The Tattered Prince; they're pretty interesting and intriguing in my opinion.  Where the story goes with these places is yet to be determined but it's only Slaver's Bay and Meereen that goes a bit flat. 

Less is more, right?  Let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks for the Forest of Qohor or the River Rhoyne, or The Black Walls or The Stone Men or Asshai beyond The Shadow.  Boring is a subjective opinion.  Everyone has their preferences and likes and dislikes.

What they are is flashy and shallow. Problem with much of Essos - and Slaver's Bay especially - is that there reader's mind cannot fill in the blanks because things are so contradictory.

Yes, Essos has a lot of material... but most of it is just chaff. Dothraki and the slavers are both so stupid that I can't find myself to care either way: they can exist or not, live or die, I don't care; I just want the show there to be finally over. The Lamb Men are a stupid concept and should have been dead for ages anyway, so nothing to care about them.

And to me, these discrepancies are critical issues. Sure, most people may not notice them... but FFS Martin, if you are going to provide a social commentary, then get your society right.

Also, flatness of Slaver's Bay and Meereen is definitely a problem, considering how much time Daenerys is spending there. Dothraki weren't particularly deep either.

The only things I find remotely interesting about Essos are the Free Cities, Valyria, the Great Empire of the Dawn and those blackstone fortresses. That's it. And of those, the Free Cities and maybe even the Valyria have a lot in common with Westeros, and the Free Cities I find more interesting as a concept to think about than the actual description and role in the story.

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

We don't know the impact of ten year winters because we don't have experience of them.  The further south you go in world the less the impact so it's not a land of eternal winter.  That said, it's one almighty logistical challenge he has side-stepped by writing in story in summer and autumn and is facing up to now (or not).  Map scale is a mistake, as is the height of The Wall, but as map scale is not expressed in story for people to obsess about the distance from KL to WF and how long it would really have taken Cersei's wheelhouse to travel up and down the King's Road I don't see it as a problem.  Much better to keep things fluid so you can move characters around more easily.

Scale allows for more cultures and a more epic feel to the story.  You can have Britain and King Arthur or you can have the World and an existential threat.  It's ambitious but I don't fault that any more than I would RJ or BS for their fantasy worlds.

We don't need to experience the impact of ten year winters. We should have been able to see it in how the society is structured: for one, feudalism should have been impossible. Rather, you would have something more akin to the Pharaoh era Egypt: you can in fact just read the Bible to see how a society would prepare for a ten year winter. The only way to explain it away is that Westerosi "winter" is not actually a winter but something akin to a Little Ice Age. But even then, do you know what Little Ice Age caused, in part? Rise of despots, and the end of "proper" feudalism. Also, if it were just a general cooling while harvests are still possible, why is there talk of a "last harvest"?

One element that makes Martin's world truly unique, and nothing about it makes sense.

And King's Landing? It is said to have a million people, then half a million... but under conditions of feudalism, a city of that size would starve to death. And how does it make it through the winter?

Epic has little to do with physical scale. Lord of the Rings feels far more epic than A Song of Ice and Fire or Temeraire, despite events happening on a generally much smaller scale than in those two series. Rather, what is epic about LotR is metaphysical scale, the whole conflict of good and evil which Martin apparently wanted to avoid.

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm not at all interested in 300 but regardless of that, most people would regard those terms as synonymous.

Herodotus gathered stories throughout the Ancient World and reported those he was told irrespective of plausibility.  Nonetheless as history as we understand it did not exist as a rigorous discipline at the time and as he is equally regarded as The Father of History, with his inquiries, or Historia, into the causes of the Persian-Greek conflict giving us the word history, I think we can be a little more generous.  I'm not at all swayed by your view that the Spartans military reputation rested on Herodotus's accounts alone but consider as a Greek living in the 5th century BC he would have access to contemporary views more reliable than his stories of men with dog's heads living beyond the boundaries of the known world he sceptically but faithfully recorded with other tales from afar.

"Renowned" means "famous", "talked about", "well known". But something can be famous while still being bad. Bismarck is a renowned battleship, yet its design is significant inferior to the French Richelieu class which is far less known.

I am aware of Herodotus' activities. What I am saying however is that a) Herodotus did not check his sources and b) he had an agenda. Basically, Herodotus saw Sparta as a model of an ideal society - and in his view, an ideal society had to have an ideal army. So he glossed over Spartan defeats, played up their victories, and in doing so, created a legend.

His "history" was basically a collection of myths, stories and everything he could find. Tuchydides, who actually did go to effort to check things, does not to my knowledge think highly of Herodotus.

You are probably correct that it wasn't just Herodotus' accounts, but consider the following:

1) Sparta was a massive polis - the largest in Greece, and it alone occupied almost one third of the Peloponnese. That means that on Peloponnese, they had the largest army early on, though their internal politics caused a steady decline in numbers of Sparta's hoplite class (Spartiates). So even if they were merely average (which they were), early on - before the number of Spartiates had declined - they will have been winning simply by weight of numbers.

2) Hoplite armies were arranged by reputation. In short, the worst of the lot took the left wing, and then you got progressively better troops towards the right wing. Best of the best got the right wing. Catch here is, Spartans usually were leaders of their alliances, and did have the reputation as the best. So they always faced the worst the enemy had to offer - meaning that they will have usually won, even if they themselves were merely average by hoplite standards. (Keep in mind that Spartiates were a nobility, so they will have been larger and taller than most of their opponents - and in phalanx combat, size matters).

So it is possible that Sparta did use to be a military power and then declined over time (in fact, decline is a trend we see from the period we do have historical accounts of). But even when it had declined back to Greek average, their reputation will have still remained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Your comparison is wrong.

Nope.  Each author created a scenario they wanted to - and each author could have done it differently.  The details are up to them.  I understand why you don't like Essos but that's you and I don't share your view.  I quite like it, actually....just not the story being bogged down in Meereen (as I see it).

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

So why do we even have a story set there?

Slaver's Bay? Because the author chose it?  To create a larger world and to have Dany distant from Westeros for the war of the five kings and have her character growth and dragons hatching happen way off the stage of the seven kingdoms.  I mean why not?  Why shouldn't he?

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Slaver's Bay had remained apparently not changed much for centuries, so the system is clearly sustainable. Yet it is also supposed to be unsustainable.

How do you solve that issue?

No one had ever turned up with a dragon before.  No one had ever gained all of the Unsullied and used them on the Ghiscari before.  Ready "to topple over easily" still requires a push.

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

What they are is flashy and shallow. Problem with much of Essos - and Slaver's Bay especially - is that there reader's mind cannot fill in the blanks because things are so contradictory.

Yes, Essos has a lot of material... but most of it is just chaff. Dothraki and the slavers are both so stupid that I can't find myself to care either way: they can exist or not, live or die, I don't care; I just want the show there to be finally over. The Lamb Men are a stupid concept and should have been dead for ages anyway, so nothing to care about them.

And to me, these discrepancies are critical issues. Sure, most people may not notice them... but FFS Martin, if you are going to provide a social commentary, then get your society right.

Subjective.  And what is this obsession with being the arbiter of the standard for creating a fictional society or culture in broad strokes?  You don't care for it much but honestly so what?  It's just your opinion.   Idk why you get so worked up over this...

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

The only things I find remotely interesting about Essos are the Free Cities, Valyria, the Great Empire of the Dawn and those blackstone fortresses. That's it. And of those, the Free Cities and maybe even the Valyria have a lot in common with Westeros, and the Free Cities I find more interesting as a concept to think about than the actual description and role in the story.

Sure, subjectivity is all about saying what we like and why we like it.

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We don't need to experience the impact of ten year winters. We should have been able to see it in how the society is structured: for one, feudalism should have been impossible. Rather, you would have something more akin to the Pharaoh era Egypt: you can in fact just read the Bible to see how a society would prepare for a ten year winter.

What?  Why do you think you get to set the rules the author has to follow in his world?  Why do you think examples you pluck at random from our world are the only possible solutions that could be viable?  And why, oh why, do you point to The Old Testament as a source for how his world should operate?

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Epic has little to do with physical scale. Lord of the Rings feels far more epic than A Song of Ice and Fire or Temeraire, despite events happening on a generally much smaller scale than in those two series. Rather, what is epic about LotR is metaphysical scale, the whole conflict of good and evil which Martin apparently wanted to avoid.

This is entirely subjective.  I consider them both epic fantasy (I have no idea what Temeraire is) though LOTR in isolation is merely a thousand-odd page story glimpses of the world JRRT imagined.  It benefits hugely from the appendices and the Silmarillion and other works Christopher Tolkien published after his father's death.

You're welcome to your opinion but you keep presenting it as if it's objective fact.  That's what I keep getting at.

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

"Renowned" means "famous", "talked about", "well known". But something can be famous while still being bad.

Renowned warriors are obviously not renowned for being bad.  Synonyms for renowned include: famous, celebrated, famed, eminent, distinguished, acclaimed, illustrious, pre-eminent, prominent, great, esteemed, well thought of, of note, well known, noted, notable, prestigious, fabled, legendary, proverbial.  Not bad or average.

I see that your desire for realism in world-building is matched by a desire for precision and explicit meaning in language.  Oddly, I find this leads you to the wrong conclusion rather than the right one but that's just my view :)

13 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I am aware of Herodotus' activities. What I am saying however is that a) Herodotus did not check his sources and b) he had an agenda. Basically, Herodotus saw Sparta as a model of an ideal society - and in his view, an ideal society had to have an ideal army. So he glossed over Spartan defeats, played up their victories, and in doing so, created a legend.

His "history" was basically a collection of myths, stories and everything he could find. Tuchydides, who actually did go to effort to check things, does not to my knowledge think highly of Herodotus.

When I read ancient history (many years ago) we used both Herodotus and Thucycides as sources.  All sources should be treated with caution and Thucydides was certainly more analytical than (and quite disparaging of) Herodotus but then again he was an Athenian general who wrote the History of The Peloponnesian War - between Athens and Sparta, of course - so as E.H. Carr would have us remember we might look carefully at his views on Sparta.

During lockdown I read Ryszard Kapuściński's "Travels with Herodotus" and it put me in mind of re-reading both Herodotus and Thucydides.  I never got round to it, maybe an executive summary would do these days (I did read a fair bit of Plutarch but found Suetonius too dry), but maybe I will.  Those dog-headed men need a bit of a re-visit :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Nope.  Each author created a scenario they wanted to - and each author could have done it differently.  The details are up to them.  I understand why you don't like Essos but that's you and I don't share your view.  I quite like it, actually....just not the story being bogged down in Meereen (as I see it).

My point is, if Martin didn't feel like / want to / whatever develop Essos properly, why even write about it at all? He could have described it in as sparse terms as possible, so we wouldn't have to wonder about how Dothraki are apparently civilization-destroying warriors while also being a complete joke of steppe nomads, how the Slaver's Bay even exists, and so on.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Slaver's Bay? Because the author chose it?  To create a larger world and to have Dany distant from Westeros for the war of the five kings and have her character growth and dragons hatching happen way off the stage of the seven kingdoms.  I mean why not?  Why shouldn't he?

Because, if what you wrote is true, then Essos is hardly a sideshow. Which means it should have been better developed, rather than being an obvious low-effort carricature of historical realities.

Basically, in creating Essos Martin bit off more than he could chew.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

No one had ever turned up with a dragon before.  No one had ever gained all of the Unsullied and used them on the Ghiscari before.  Ready "to topple over easily" still requires a push.

By that measure, almost every historical society was "ready to topple over easily".

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Subjective.  And what is this obsession with being the arbiter of the standard for creating a fictional society or culture in broad strokes?  You don't care for it much but honestly so what?  It's just your opinion.   Idk why you get so worked up over this...

It is hardly subjective that these societies cannot work. 

And the reason why I care so much is because 1) I like ASoIaF so obviously low effort and low standards put into Essos chafe me personally, and 2) people have this idea of Martin being concerned with "historical realism" (see here), which is incorrect. He is concerned with psychological realism, and even there he looks at it from a postmodernist perspective which is not necessarily correct for a fundamentally medieval world.

I love Martin's writing, but frankly, he is being praised for all the wrong reasons.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Sure, subjectivity is all about saying what we like and why we like it.

And that, as it happens, is the entire point of this thread.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

What?  Why do you think you get to set the rules the author has to follow in his world?  Why do you think examples you pluck at random from our world are the only possible solutions that could be viable?  And why, oh why, do you point to The Old Testament as a source for how his world should operate?

Stop being so insulted over nothing. My point is that Martin's world would be far more interesting if he actually took time to consider logical consequences of the basic premise of his world (ten year winters in Westeros) than simply creating a copy-pastiche of Medieval Europe and carricature of Mediterranean and Near East.

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

This is entirely subjective.  I consider them both epic fantasy (I have no idea what Temeraire is) though LOTR in isolation is merely a thousand-odd page story glimpses of the world JRRT imagined.  It benefits hugely from the appendices and the Silmarillion and other works Christopher Tolkien published after his father's death.

You're welcome to your opinion but you keep presenting it as if it's objective fact.  That's what I keep getting at.

Of course it is subjective. But we are discussing opinions here; I fail to see why I have to constantly note "this is my opinion".

To make it easier for you: it is objective fact that Essos is very badly designed from the point of historical realism, functionality and internal consistency. It is a subjective opinion that that fact makes it bland, boring, unenjoyable and overall a waste of time.

If you don't care about logical or internal consistency, that is you prerogative. I happen to care about these things, and for that reason I don't like Essos.

Capisci?

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Renowned warriors are obviously not renowned for being bad.  Synonyms for renowned include: famous, celebrated, famed, eminent, distinguished, acclaimed, illustrious, pre-eminent, prominent, great, esteemed, well thought of, of note, well known, noted, notable, prestigious, fabled, legendary, proverbial.  Not bad or average.

 

Reputation and reality do not need to match. For reputation, propaganda matters more than facts. Consider how popular culture portrays various armies and states:

1) Sparta.

Reputation: Best of the best, best soldiers in Ancient Greece and maybe even the antiquity.

Reality: Just your average hoplite phalanx, in some respects better than most of their peers in Ancient Greece, but decisively outmatched by the refused-flank phalanx of Epaminondas' Thebe and post-Philip II reforms Macedonian army.

2) Late Roman Army

Reputation: Weak, ineffective, inefficient, and a major step down from the unbeatable legions of Republican Rome and the Principate.

Reality: Probably the best military force Roman state of antiquity had fielded, although still outmatched by the Byzantine forces of Belisarius and Basil II. Decent and very varied infantry comprised of legionaries, archers and slingers, a good mix of light and heavy cavalry, and very good command and control, logistical support and fortifications system. Only inferior to Republican armies in that it couldn't field replacements like crazy.

3) Byzantine Empire.

Reputation: Hopelessly complex dysfunctional bureaucracy which did nothing but impede the Empire itself. A state in constant decline, a shadow of the Roman Empire of old.

Reality: Byzantine Empire had a very small, efficient bureaucracy, which was capable of running the state even through a massive crisis. And while the Empire overall was in decline, it also survived several massive defeats, any one of which would have spelled doom of literally any other state in existence at the time, and eventually (mostly) recovered from those defeats. It was brought down less by its human enemies and more by a series of really unfortunate plagues, starting with the Antonine Plague of 165 AD, through Justinianic Plague in 541., to the Black Death of 1347. And these are just the most significant waves, as each massive wave of plague was followed by smaller outbreaks: for example, periodically reocurring outbreaks of the plague following the Justinianic Plague would keep reocurring for the next 200 years, until the mid-8th century.

4) Holy Roman Empire.

Reputation: Hopelessly complex, dysfunctional and unable to do anything because of its own internal politics.

Reality: One of major powers of Middle Ages, capable of deploying massive armies, and by the 16th century it had managed to fight the Ottoman Empire to a standstill. Showed very high degree of adaptability and managed to survive as a relevant power until 17th century and as a political entity until 19th century.

And I have already noted Bismarck: an objectively bad design, yet many people still consider it the best and most powerful battleship to be put to the sea. Both assertions are wrong: the "best" battleship would be British HMS Vanguard, while the most powerful would be the Japanese Yamato class.

Ancient people were no different. Everybody loves a good story, and Spartans being badass warriors was a good story. And as I have noted, Spartans may have even been truly good army, but if they were, then they had declined decisively by 4th century BC. It is hard to say, as we don't have as good records for 5th century BC, and Spartans weren't exactly keen on recording their military losses (or much of anything, really).

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

When I read ancient history (many years ago) we used both Herodotus and Thucycides as sources.  All sources should be treated with caution and Thucydides was certainly more analytical than (and quite disparaging of) Herodotus but then again he was an Athenian general who wrote the History of The Peloponnesian War - between Athens and Sparta, of course - so as E.H. Carr would have us remember we might look carefully at his views on Sparta.

 

Possibly. But on the other hand, fact that he was Athenian general also means that he was actually in a position to know how Sparta actually was.

Herodotus on the other hand didn't really care about history or facts. What he did was use Sparta as a foundation of what was a fundamentally political tractate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

My point is, if Martin didn't feel like / want to / whatever develop Essos properly, why even write about it at all? He could have described it in as sparse terms as possible, so we wouldn't have to wonder about how Dothraki are apparently civilization-destroying warriors while also being a complete joke of steppe nomads, how the Slaver's Bay even exists, and so on.

Because, if what you wrote is true, then Essos is hardly a sideshow. Which means it should have been better developed, rather than being an obvious low-effort carricature of historical realities.

Basically, in creating Essos Martin bit off more than he could chew.

By that measure, almost every historical society was "ready to topple over easily".

It is hardly subjective that these societies cannot work. 

And the reason why I care so much is because 1) I like ASoIaF so obviously low effort and low standards put into Essos chafe me personally, and 2) people have this idea of Martin being concerned with "historical realism" (see here), which is incorrect. He is concerned with psychological realism, and even there he looks at it from a postmodernist perspective which is not necessarily correct for a fundamentally medieval world.

I love Martin's writing, but frankly, he is being praised for all the wrong reasons.

And that, as it happens, is the entire point of this thread.

Stop being so insulted over nothing. My point is that Martin's world would be far more interesting if he actually took time to consider logical consequences of the basic premise of his world (ten year winters in Westeros) than simply creating a copy-pastiche of Medieval Europe and carricature of Mediterranean and Near East.

Of course it is subjective. But we are discussing opinions here; I fail to see why I have to constantly note "this is my opinion".

To make it easier for you: it is objective fact that Essos is very badly designed from the point of historical realism, functionality and internal consistency. It is a subjective opinion that that fact makes it bland, boring, unenjoyable and overall a waste of time.

If you don't care about logical or internal consistency, that is you prerogative. I happen to care about these things, and for that reason I don't like Essos.

Capisci?

Reputation and reality do not need to match. For reputation, propaganda matters more than facts. Consider how popular culture portrays various armies and states:

1) Sparta.

Reputation: Best of the best, best soldiers in Ancient Greece and maybe even the antiquity.

Reality: Just your average hoplite phalanx, in some respects better than most of their peers in Ancient Greece, but decisively outmatched by the refused-flank phalanx of Epaminondas' Thebe and post-Philip II reforms Macedonian army.

2) Late Roman Army

Reputation: Weak, ineffective, inefficient, and a major step down from the unbeatable legions of Republican Rome and the Principate.

Reality: Probably the best military force Roman state of antiquity had fielded, although still outmatched by the Byzantine forces of Belisarius and Basil II. Decent and very varied infantry comprised of legionaries, archers and slingers, a good mix of light and heavy cavalry, and very good command and control, logistical support and fortifications system. Only inferior to Republican armies in that it couldn't field replacements like crazy.

3) Byzantine Empire.

Reputation: Hopelessly complex dysfunctional bureaucracy which did nothing but impede the Empire itself. A state in constant decline, a shadow of the Roman Empire of old.

Reality: Byzantine Empire had a very small, efficient bureaucracy, which was capable of running the state even through a massive crisis. And while the Empire overall was in decline, it also survived several massive defeats, any one of which would have spelled doom of literally any other state in existence at the time, and eventually (mostly) recovered from those defeats. It was brought down less by its human enemies and more by a series of really unfortunate plagues, starting with the Antonine Plague of 165 AD, through Justinianic Plague in 541., to the Black Death of 1347. And these are just the most significant waves, as each massive wave of plague was followed by smaller outbreaks: for example, periodically reocurring outbreaks of the plague following the Justinianic Plague would keep reocurring for the next 200 years, until the mid-8th century.

4) Holy Roman Empire.

Reputation: Hopelessly complex, dysfunctional and unable to do anything because of its own internal politics.

Reality: One of major powers of Middle Ages, capable of deploying massive armies, and by the 16th century it had managed to fight the Ottoman Empire to a standstill. Showed very high degree of adaptability and managed to survive as a relevant power until 17th century and as a political entity until 19th century.

And I have already noted Bismarck: an objectively bad design, yet many people still consider it the best and most powerful battleship to be put to the sea. Both assertions are wrong: the "best" battleship would be British HMS Vanguard, while the most powerful would be the Japanese Yamato class.

Ancient people were no different. Everybody loves a good story, and Spartans being badass warriors was a good story. And as I have noted, Spartans may have even been truly good army, but if they were, then they had declined decisively by 4th century BC. It is hard to say, as we don't have as good records for 5th century BC, and Spartans weren't exactly keen on recording their military losses (or much of anything, really).

Possibly. But on the other hand, fact that he was Athenian general also means that he was actually in a position to know how Sparta actually was.

Herodotus on the other hand didn't really care about history or facts. What he did was use Sparta as a foundation of what was a fundamentally political tractate.

Sparta had declined significantly by 371 BC.

One hundred years earlier, their army outclassed any likely opposition.

The decline was due to (a) a crazy social system,  constantly reducing the number of Spartiates (b) an army that was designed to hold down the helots being used for foreign wars (c) decades of war resulting in there  being thousands of well-trained non-Spartan Greek professional soldiers. 

Sparta could have survived and thrived, had it enrolled the periokoi and helots as citizens, and turned aggression outwards, as Macedon did.  Likewise, Rome, with its vast citizen armies.

You’re quite right about later Roman armies.  Gibbon’s conclusions are mainly rejected, these days, but he’s right that Aetius’ army was one of the best the Romans ever fielded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 4:30 AM, the trees have eyes said:

But we meet Eomer, Eowyn and Theoden and that's really it.

We get background stuff, like setting, and we can surmise the societal structure of Rohan through armies and such. We know that it's partially based off of Anglo-Saxon society, so we can also extrapolate a bit more information. 

With the Dothraki, since they are simply not related to Mongols besides being "big scary horse nomads who kill every enemy in their path," it's harder, since their known society contradicts IRL nomads. 

On 11/13/2022 at 4:30 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I'm wary of JRRT v GRRM comparisons, particularly when someone references JRRT in their profile B)

 

Eowyn x Aragorn for the win, but Arwen is pretty good too. 

On 11/13/2022 at 4:30 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Obviously the ancient  and medieval world was subjected to this from the Huns to the Mongols but this is merely the inspiration for the idea of the Dothraki.

 

True, but when GRRM says that he's attempting to be "real" and when people praise his story for "gritty realism," it should be actually realistic. 

 

On another note, @SeanF and @Aldarion, do you think that the Lhazareen should've logically been attached to Meereen, if Dothraki raids were such a problem? Sure, Meereen doesn't seem to have a standing army (which is another odd thing, if they're so rich. They should have a big military/bureaucratic apparatus), but it might deter most raiders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

We get background stuff, like setting, and we can surmise the societal structure of Rohan through armies and such. We know that it's partially based off of Anglo-Saxon society, so we can also extrapolate a bit more information. 

With the Dothraki, since they are simply not related to Mongols besides being "big scary horse nomads who kill every enemy in their path," it's harder, since their known society contradicts IRL nomads. 

Eowyn x Aragorn for the win, but Arwen is pretty good too. 

True, but when GRRM says that he's attempting to be "real" and when people praise his story for "gritty realism," it should be actually realistic. 

 

On another note, @SeanF and @Aldarion, do you think that the Lhazareen should've logically been attached to Meereen, if Dothraki raids were such a problem? Sure, Meereen doesn't seem to have a standing army (which is another odd thing, if they're so rich. They should have a big military/bureaucratic apparatus), but it might deter most raiders. 

The Dothraki don’t seem to object to the Lhazareen settling South of the Skahazadan River.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

We get background stuff, like setting, and we can surmise the societal structure of Rohan through armies and such. We know that it's partially based off of Anglo-Saxon society, so we can also extrapolate a bit more information. 

With the Dothraki, since they are simply not related to Mongols besides being "big scary horse nomads who kill every enemy in their path," it's harder, since their known society contradicts IRL nomads. 

Eowyn x Aragorn for the win, but Arwen is pretty good too. 

True, but when GRRM says that he's attempting to be "real" and when people praise his story for "gritty realism," it should be actually realistic. 

 

On another note, @SeanF and @Aldarion, do you think that the Lhazareen should've logically been attached to Meereen, if Dothraki raids were such a problem? Sure, Meereen doesn't seem to have a standing army (which is another odd thing, if they're so rich. They should have a big military/bureaucratic apparatus), but it might deter most raiders. 

The Rohirrim are more like steppe horsemen than Anglo-Saxons, although Tolkien gave them Saxon-sounding poetry and song.

Albeit, steppe horsemen who’ve picked up some ideas from Gondor like knighthood and fortifications.  Some steppe horsemen were Germanic, such as the Lombards and Heruli, which fits with the Rohirrim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

Sparta had declined significantly by 371 BC.

One hundred years earlier, their army outclassed any likely opposition.

Even if that is so, was that due to quality or numbers? Because remember that Sparta as a polis owned a full third of Peloponnese. With that sort of advantage it would be weird if they didn't have advantage in war. And as numbers of Spartiates declined, so did their military power.

Now, it is true that Spartan phalanx seems to have been slightly better (as in, more mobile) than your average Greek phalanx, which would have given them advantage in a fight. But even so, what this meant was that Spartans were better able to do simple maneuvers than other Greek phalanxes, and that was that (e.g. outflanking). Complex maneuvers such as carried out by Phillip's and Alexander's Macedonian phalanx, by Roman legion, or by medieval pikemen were completely beyond Spartan abilities.

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

The decline was due to (a) a crazy social system,  constantly reducing the number of Spartiates (b) an army that was designed to hold down the helots being used for foreign wars (c) decades of war resulting in there  being thousands of well-trained non-Spartan Greek professional soldiers. 

Agreed.

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

Sparta could have survived and thrived, had it enrolled the periokoi and helots as citizens, and turned aggression outwards, as Macedon did.  Likewise, Rome, with its vast citizen armies.

 

That however would have required removing the very system which so many people believe made Sparta amazing.

But yes, it would have been better. Take a look at Byzantine Empire: 5th/6th century Byzantine army would have won any most battles against the 7th/8th century Byzantine army... yet theme system was far better for defense than the full-time standing professional army that Byzantines had previously.

And I will note that Roman citizen armies were far better than Spartan or other Greek hoplite armies in literally every respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

My point is, if Martin didn't feel like / want to / whatever develop Essos properly, why even write about it at all? He could have described it in as sparse terms as possible, so we wouldn't have to wonder about how Dothraki are apparently civilization-destroying warriors while also being a complete joke of steppe nomads, how the Slaver's Bay even exists, and so on.

Because he wanted one character far removed from the others and to experience a different part of his imaginary world?  There's no hurdle here he has to pass in order to be allowed to write about his creations.  It's not your cup of tea, I get it.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Because, if what you wrote is true, then Essos is hardly a sideshow. Which means it should have been better developed, rather than being an obvious low-effort carricature of historical realities.

As of the end of AFFC we have 20 pov characters (excluding prologue/epilogue characters).  1 of those 20 is in Essos, Dany, and 1 other, Arya, has just arrived.  It's very definitely a sideshow imo.  And we only have Dany's pov for all of it for most of 4 books. 

Problem seems to be Meereen and ADWD because we get Barristan and Quentyn, Tyrion's travelogue, with Vicatarion en route, but no pay off or story resolution.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Basically, in creating Essos Martin bit off more than he could chew.

Ok, that's your opinion.  But not an objective fact :thumbsup:

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

By that measure, almost every historical society was "ready to topple over easily".

That's rather a sweeping statement.  The Astapori rely entirely on The Unsullied for defence but in return for a dragon they make a rather large tactical error.  It's up there with accepting a wooden horse as a gift from your enemies but both sets of circumstances are unique.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Stop being so insulted over nothing. My point is that Martin's world would be far more interesting if he actually took time to consider logical consequences of the basic premise of his world (ten year winters in Westeros) than simply creating a copy-pastiche of Medieval Europe and carricature of Mediterranean and Near East.

I'm not insulted.  I'm bemused by you applying arbitrary criteria to say he should not have written about something or what he should have written, and by you positioning your argument as resting on objective rather than subjective criteria (Westeros not allowed feudalism, The Vale not allowed knights etc*).

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Of course it is subjective. But we are discussing opinions here; I fail to see why I have to constantly note "this is my opinion".

You often make statements that something can't exist because it goes against logic or objective fact*.  I've told you any number of times you're welcome to your opinion but you seem to make large claims based on this that I find subjective and don't agree with.  It's easy to hold and respect different opinions, less so when one person claims factual or logical authority.  If that basis is not agreed it's likely to be a point of disagreement.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

To make it easier for you: it is objective fact that Essos is very badly designed from the point of historical realism, functionality and internal consistency. It is a subjective opinion that that fact makes it bland, boring, unenjoyable and overall a waste of time.

Well, that first's still a large claim.  Essos is a big place.  Slaver's Bay is a caricature though GRRM has moved from the idiocy of the Astapori to more nuance with the Ghiscari in Meereen as the reality of ruling hits Dany.  The Dothraki have an outline - which I find just fine for story purposes - analogous to the Rohirrim as I've said before.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

If you don't care about logical or internal consistency, that is you prerogative. I happen to care about these things, and for that reason I don't like Essos.

It is but who says I don't?  I don't have the same detailed requirements you do, that's all.

And, yes, I understand why you don't like "Essos"

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Capisci?

Perfettamente :thumbsup:

On 11/14/2022 at 4:14 PM, Aldarion said:

Reputation and reality do not need to match.

Oh, indeed.  But as I said, the Spartans were renowned for being great warriors so you have set yourself a large task to battle the baleful influence of 300, Herodotus, any other contemporary sources and several millennia of received wisdom.

ETA: You should add Tom Holland to your list.  I read "Persian Fire" last year and really enjoyed it.

16 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

We get background stuff, like setting, and we can surmise the societal structure of Rohan through armies and such. We know that it's partially based off of Anglo-Saxon society, so we can also extrapolate a bit more information. 

I never really got the Rohirrim on a societal basis.  Not that it bothered me because I don't find the world-building / realism critiques to be the meat or point of the story.  They were Gondor's ally and a cavalry army who could sweep down to dramatic effect.

But they're a horse-based society that migrated from the north and settled in Rohan when Eorl aided Gondor and was granted Gondor's northern provinces.  Rohan is a vast area so they should be nomadic, widely dispersed and follow the herds.  They "should" drink fermented mares' milk and live in yurts or equivalent.  Instead they have mountain fortresses like Edoras and The Hornburg so even if these were built by the Numenoreans/Gondor they feel semi-sedentary at least but with no agriculture.  And JRRT, as an Englishman, turned them into anglo-saxons, more like Beowulf or Roland (yes I know he's a Frank), with housecarls and shieldwalls and drinking halls filled with warriors quaffing mead and singing songs.

It doesn't bother me but I never quite got how Rohan was supposed to work so all this talk of worldbuilding and realism makes me point out that neither Gondor nor Rohan are particularly well-developed in LOTR.  They don't need to be but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...