Jaenara Belarys Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 Thank God, more reasons to hate Dumber and Dogshit! As for the surrender, I'd agree with what @SeanF said, or I'd (possibly) do what the Romans did: the last chance to surrender is before the first ram touches the gate (or before the first ship or scorpion is burnt to a crisp). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 Hiroshima was as bad as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 23 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said: Hiroshima was as bad as it gets. You could argue that it was necessary to end the war quicker, so that a US invasion of Japan didn't screw it up even more. (Two atom bombs is a little.....extreme). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 26 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said: Hiroshima was as bad as it gets. Operation Meetinghouse was actually more brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 Of course, there are arguments . Nuking a city is as bad as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, SeanF said: Operation Meetinghouse was actually more brutal. Operation what? I've heard stuff like "Market Garden", but "Meetinghouse?" Besides, I think we can at least all agree that an atom bomb will be far more destructive and thorough than a dragon, even combined with wildfire. Indeed, @HoodedCrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 We and the medievals deliver death to civilians in different ways, but the outcome is similar. For us, it’s blockades, economic sanctions, and bombing. For the medievals it was murder, arson, and pillage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said: Operation what? I've heard stuff like "Market Garden", but "Meetinghouse?" Besides, I think we can at least all agree that an atom bomb will be far more destructive and thorough than a dragon, even combined with wildfire. Indeed, @HoodedCrow. The firebombing of Tokyo on 9/10th March 1945 was the most brutal aerial attack in history, killing 90-130,000 people. A modern nuclear warhead would be far more devastating, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 Just now, SeanF said: The firebombing of Tokyo on 9/10th March 1945 was the most brutal aerial attack in history, killing 90-130,000 people. Oh, that's delightful....didn't they drop so much napalm they ran out completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard of Banefort Posted November 25, 2021 Share Posted November 25, 2021 38 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said: You could argue that it was necessary to end the war quicker, so that a US invasion of Japan didn't screw it up even more. (Two atom bombs is a little.....extreme). For what it’s worth, Russia declared war on Japan the same day the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, and many historians believe this double act is what led to their surrender. Usually when people cite this, they do it to condemn the USA’s use of the atomic bomb, but I actually think it has the opposite effect, since it would indicate that Japan’s leaders didn’t think the bomb was “bad enough” on its own to surrender without the additional threat of the Red Army. Speaking of Russia, someone with more knowledge about the USSR than me could probably make a compelling argument for why Lenin is an historical counterpart for Dany. There are other questionable acts of war that don’t get as much attention. Sherman’s March to Sea is one that’s always stuck with me. It helped end the Civil War, yes, but he still burned multiple cities to the ground. Not to mention that, since the North was fighting to preserve the Union, this was technically his own country he was destroying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 26, 2021 Share Posted November 26, 2021 11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said: For what it’s worth, Russia declared war on Japan the same day the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, and many historians believe this double act is what led to their surrender. Usually when people cite this, they do it to condemn the USA’s use of the atomic bomb, but I actually think it has the opposite effect, since it would indicate that Japan’s leaders didn’t think the bomb was “bad enough” on its own to surrender without the additional threat of the Red Army. Speaking of Russia, someone with more knowledge about the USSR than me could probably make a compelling argument for why Lenin is an historical counterpart for Dany. There are other questionable acts of war that don’t get as much attention. Sherman’s March to Sea is one that’s always stuck with me. It helped end the Civil War, yes, but he still burned multiple cities to the ground. Not to mention that, since the North was fighting to preserve the Union, this was technically his own country he was destroying. For all of it's supposed "gritty realism", the show runners' treatment of Daenerys' war was basically dishonest in Seasons 7 and 8. Varys promised "fire and blood" in Season 6 to Ellaria and Olenna, yet had turned into a near-pacifist in Season 7. Daenerys had rolled up with a massive army and fleet, yet he and Tyrion were advocating convoluted strategies of non-violent resistance against Cersei, of all people! The narrative framed Olenna and Yara as wrong for advocating Dany flying to the capital and flattening the Red Keep, when this was the obvious thing to do, and would have saved huge numbers of lives, as well as enabling the South to present a united front against the Others. And, don't get me started on the Tarlys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apovsic Posted November 27, 2021 Share Posted November 27, 2021 On 11/24/2021 at 10:37 PM, HokieStone said: " the bottom line is that the book’s ending is a more satisfying experience than the show’s" I mean...it seems unlikely we'll ever get that "satisfying experience" at this point.... Well in my book, no ending is still more satisfying than that disaster of the show's ending ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted December 9, 2021 Share Posted December 9, 2021 On 11/24/2021 at 12:50 PM, Ser Drewy said: Honestly, it'll be interesting when Winds comes out to see just how divergent the next books and the second half of the show are. I sometimes wonder that, aside from some overlapping plot points, there may not actually be much in common. In my opinion season 5 went off the rail in terms of faithfulness to the books. and it clearly only goes downhill from there. Of course I look forward to reading the canonical story rather than having the TV series* be the defacto canon for the final ~1/3 of the story. *I stopped watching after season 5 since that's where the books currently end. Though it's hard to remain completely unspoiled by the last few seasons. I've kept it to a reasonable minimum. I did have to watch the fight between young Ned and the Sword of the Morning though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnS Posted December 9, 2021 Share Posted December 9, 2021 The sloppiness of the last 2 seasons reflected a lack of interest by the showrunners consistent with their desire to bring the show to an end as quickly as possible and move on to other projects.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted December 9, 2021 Share Posted December 9, 2021 3 hours ago, LynnS said: The sloppiness of the last 2 seasons reflected a lack of interest by the showrunners consistent with their desire to bring the show to an end as quickly as possible and move on to other projects.. Which would seem to be exactly the wrong approach if one wants to, you know, actually get those other projects. But, yes, I agree that this is definitely how it seemed over those last seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynnS Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 On 12/9/2021 at 9:25 AM, Prince of the North said: Which would seem to be exactly the wrong approach if one wants to, you know, actually get those other projects. But, yes, I agree that this is definitely how it seemed over those last seasons. Martin thought they had enough material in 5 books to go 12 seasons. When the 6th book wasn't forthcoming they had nothing to adapt and no inclination to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alysanne Donnelly Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 On 11/26/2021 at 5:05 AM, SeanF said: For all of it's supposed "gritty realism", the show runners' treatment of Daenerys' war was basically dishonest in Seasons 7 and 8. Varys promised "fire and blood" in Season 6 to Ellaria and Olenna, yet had turned into a near-pacifist in Season 7. Daenerys had rolled up with a massive army and fleet, yet he and Tyrion were advocating convoluted strategies of non-violent resistance against Cersei, of all people! The narrative framed Olenna and Yara as wrong for advocating Dany flying to the capital and flattening the Red Keep, when this was the obvious thing to do, and would have saved huge numbers of lives, as well as enabling the South to present a united front against the Others. And, don't get me started on the Tarlys! The problem with "anyone can die" shows is that not anyone can die, just people the show runners are willing to lose. They weren't willing to lose Cersei so they made everyone else into idiots instead. They were unwilling to commit to the story, even to the last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard of Banefort Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 If they wanted Dany burning the Tarlys to be a sign of her cruelty, then instead of having Dickon ask to burn with his father, Dany should have decided to burn Randyll AND his heir herself in order to “send a message” to any lords who planned on resisting. In the books, she had one guy’s daughters tortured in front of him in order to get information from him, so it wouldn’t even be totally out of left field for her. (I believe this was a Stalinist technique as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 15 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said: If they wanted Dany burning the Tarlys to be a sign of her cruelty, then instead of having Dickon ask to burn with his father, Dany should have decided to burn Randyll AND his heir herself in order to “send a message” to any lords who planned on resisting. In the books, she had one guy’s daughters tortured in front of him in order to get information from him, so it wouldn’t even be totally out of left field for her. (I believe this was a Stalinist technique as well). It came two episodes after Jon had told Sansa and his vassals he would have executed Lords Karstark and Umber for treason, had they been captured at Winterfell, when discussing their child heirs. Neither man had given Jon or Sansa fealty, so presumably, fighting the Starks and losing was deemed sufficient on its own to be treason (realistically, in a medieval world). Ramsay himself was put to death for treason (among other crimes), as were the Freys, and Baelish. Capital punishment is the norm for that offence. Dany actually offered clemency to the Tarlys, which they stupidly rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 On 12/30/2021 at 4:28 PM, The Bard of Banefort said: (I believe this was a Stalinist technique as well). It was. On 12/31/2021 at 8:12 AM, SeanF said: Dany actually offered clemency to the Tarlys, which they stupidly rejected. It was a bit unrealistic to be honest. Randyll Tarly is not an idiot. He's more likely to bend the knee than to choose to be executed by dragonfire. Dickon's execution makes even less sense. Absolutely no father worth being called a father -- medieval or modern, fictional or real -- would allow his son and the future of his family to be executed along side of him...for no reason. On 12/10/2021 at 11:59 AM, LynnS said: Martin thought they had enough material in 5 books to go 12 seasons. When the 6th book wasn't forthcoming they had nothing to adapt and no inclination to continue. 5 (out of 7) books for 12 seasons is unrealistic and crazy. But they definitely could've spent two seasons (maybe two and a half or three if they played their cards right (i.e. put the Battles of Meereen and Winterfell at the end of the events for Dance) for Feast and Dance instead of trying to cram them into one season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.