Jump to content

The Shepherd did nothing wrong


Floki of the Ironborn

Recommended Posts

Normally I don’t like religious fanatics, but I think he was right about getting rid of the Targaryens and their dragons. Assuming my theory is correct, the Targaryens will be the last villains of the series. They are fire, which consumes and destroys. Their reign only last three hundred years and it’s been tearing the world apart. The heroes of the story will be the Starks, who will preserve the North from the Others and whoever else threatens it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Normally I don’t like religious fanatics, but I think he was right about getting rid of the Targaryens and their dragons. Assuming my theory is correct, the Targaryens will be the last villains of the series. They are fire, which consumes and destroys. Their reign only last three hundred years and it’s been tearing the world apart. The heroes of the story will be the Starks, who will preserve the North from the Others and whoever else threatens it. 

Dunno man george really loves his targs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Dunno man george really loves his targs 

A writer can love their villains. Bernard Cornwell once talked about how he deeply regretted killing off Obadiah Hakeswill because he was such a good antagonist and so fun to write. I don’t blame GRRM for focusing so much on the Targaryens because (A) many of them are fascinating characters, (B) It helps us understand the villains better, and (C) it makes the audience confused about whether or not they’re heroes or villains when things are written from their perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanF said:

I don’t think the Shepherd did anything good.  He whipped thousands of people into a frenzy that got them killed.

He reminds me of Peter the Hermit.

Who got more people killed? The Shepherd or the Targaryens? He tried to create a revolution against the real destroyers. A revolution is going to be violent no matter what. It’s the cause which makes it worthwhile or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Who got more people killed? The Shepherd or the Targaryens? He tried to create a revolution against the real destroyers. A revolution is going to be violent no matter what. It’s the cause which makes it worthwhile or not.

He and his followers would have done better supporting Rhaenyra.  She showed no inclination to burn them alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanF said:

He and his followers would have done better supporting Rhaenyra.  She showed no inclination to burn them alive.

Rhaenyra was going through a reign of terror. She and her half brother were both terrible and their war led to untold death and misery. If the people had any sense, they would have overthrown the Targaryens once and for all when it was just four dragonless prepubescents left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Rhaenyra was going through a reign of terror. She and her half brother were both terrible and their war led to untold death and misery. If the people had any sense, they would have overthrown the Targaryens once and for all when it was just four dragonless prepubescents left.

She was brutal to her enemies on the Small Council, and imposed heavy taxes to refill the treasury.  But, I don’t think she killed many of the smallfolk.  The mass killings were carried out by the Greens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

A writer can love their villains. Bernard Cornwell once talked about how he deeply regretted killing off Obadiah Hakeswill because he was such a good antagonist and so fun to write. I don’t blame GRRM for focusing so much on the Targaryens because (A) many of them are fascinating characters, (B) It helps us understand the villains better, and (C) it makes the audience confused about whether or not they’re heroes or villains when things are written from their perspective.

True agree the targs are tyrants,.holding entire nations hostage with their  flying wmds! The worst part is if they die or like dany bring them back with 0 knowledge of their controls they couldbreed , run wild and plauge all mankind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She was brutal to her enemies on the Small Council, and imposed heavy taxes to refill the treasury.  But, I don’t think she killed many of the smallfolk.  The mass killings were carried out by the Greens.

I’m looking at the overall Targaryen rule, not just their civil war. Rhaenyra’s descendants were some of the worst kings that their dynasty ever coughed up. And it all resulted in more death, more destruction, more tyranny, even after they lost the Iron Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I’m looking at the overall Targaryen rule, not just their civil war. Rhaenyra’s descendants were some of the worst kings that their dynasty ever coughed up. And it all resulted in more death, more destruction, more tyranny, even after they lost the Iron Throne.

In general, I think that Targaryen rule was better for the smallfolk than what came before or after.

Lordly absolutism is (IMHO) worse than royal absolutism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found the Storming of the Dragonpit weirdly...inspiring? I know lots of people died but it also showed that the dragons were not invulnerable and that there is power in faith and numbers. And yeah Rhaenyra and co. had it coming. There's only so long the common folk will put up with their crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I always found the Storming of the Dragonpit weirdly...inspiring? I know lots of people died but it also showed that the dragons were not invulnerable and that there is power in faith and numbers. And yeah Rhaenyra and co. had it coming. There's only so long the common folk will put up with their crap.

To be clear, the dragons in that pit were green and black alike. It’s not about one Targaryen faction or the other, it’s both sides that are dangerous and toxic. I too find it inspiring to see the people dispose of those dragons. But they didn’t go far enough. They failed to unite properly. If all the King’s Landing factions had instead been a united front, they could have liberated the city and barred the Targaryen factions and their supporters. You think Borros Baratheon could have defeated the population with just 4,000 men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Shepherd and his flock were the village idiots of Kings Landing.

I don't think it was as simple as that. The Shepard and his followers are a direct result of the arbitrariness and general mismanagement of the ruling class. And I don't think the Shepard was stupid. He knew how to play on people's fears and whip them into a frenzy. And when you look at all the damage the dragons caused and what they were used for those fears seem justified. It's easy for us to say that Targaryen rule was better and the Smallfolk should have just kept their mouths shut and heads down or whatever, we aren't in their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think it was as simple as that. The Shepard and his followers are a direct result of the arbitrariness and general mismanagement of the ruling class. And I don't think the Shepard was stupid. He knew how to play on people's fears and whip them into a frenzy. And when you look at all the damage the dragons caused and what they were used for those fears seem justified. It's easy for us to say that Targaryen rule was better and the Smallfolk should have just kept their mouths shut and heads down or whatever, we aren't in their position.

Given how angry we already get over our own real-life issues, imagine having to deal with our world leaders riding dragons and regularly attacking their political opponents across the countryside. Of course we'd snap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Lordly absolutism is (IMHO) worse than royal absolutism.

Having a feudal system though as opposed to centralised royal power means there is a system of checks and balances in place so no one really goes to far, the king can't act like a tyrant or the lords will rebel, if a local lord gets too tyrannical the peasants may rebel or go to the king for help. Having centralised royal power like that means there is nothing to limit the authority of the monarch, they can do whatever they like and no one can stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Having a feudal system though as opposed to centralised royal power means there is a system of checks and balances in place so no one really goes to far, the king can't act like a tyrant or the lords will rebel, if a local lord gets too tyrannical the peasants may rebel or go to the king for help. Having centralised royal power like that means there is nothing to limit the authority of the monarch, they can do whatever they like and no one can stop them.

The development of the modern state required a period of royal absolutism.  Lordly rule meant anarchy, and multiple leaders plundering the commons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The development of the modern state required a period of royal absolutism.  Lordly rule meant anarchy, and multiple leaders plundering the commons.

Yes, but the common people of King's Landing don't know this do they? I wouldn't find it very comforting if someone told me, "Oh the Targaryen kings may be awful now but in a few hundred years your descendants will get the vote". And we don't know if Westeros will even follow this path. With a centralised monarchy the monarch is free to carry out abuses on a much larger scale than a king or lord under the feudal system would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, but the common people of King's Landing don't know this do they? I wouldn't find it very comforting if someone told me, "Oh the Targaryen kings may be awful now but in a few hundred years your descendants will get the vote". And we don't know if Westeros will even follow this path.

I agree with C S Lewis that the worst form of tyranny is a theocracy, as it is sincerely exercised for the good of its victims.  Being ruled by the Shepherd would be like John of Leyden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...