what else/more could the Blackfish have done?

[mediocre cheese]

Leonidas's was only trying to buy the greeks time to build their host and that he actually achieved, that's why he send the rest of the army back and stayed only with his personal guard..

This is a modern myth. The greek navy was in action at the time, not being built up (the navy won salamis). The amount of time delayed by the spartans (a few extra weeks at most) was insignificant compared to how long it took xerxes to move his huge army throughout greece. It achieved nothing other than a moral boost.

[mediocre cheese]

Not sure about that last part, where I come from in Scotland, the guy who actually won, Robert the Bruce gets a lot more attention and glory than Wallace. And as to why Edward I doesn't get glorified, because he was a massive dick

Fair enough. I was speaking globally though. No major movies get made about robert the bruce. And was edward any more dickish than your typical medieval war lord?

[SeanF]

This is a modern myth. The greek navy was in action at the time, not being built up (the navy won salamis). The amount of time delayed by the spartans (a few extra weeks at most) was insignificant compared to how long it took xerxes to move his huge army throughout greece. It achieved nothing other than a moral boost.

Well, the Greek Coalition needed a morale boost at the time.

Specifically, though, the rearguard action of Leonidas and the 300 (plus other Greeks) did buy the rest of the army time to retreat, once their position had been turned.

[Talleyrand]

Fair enough. I was speaking globally though. No major movies get made about robert the bruce. And was edward any more dickish than your typical medieval war lord?

Look at Edward's treatment of the Welsh, Berwick and the Jews

[SeanF]

Look at Edward's treatment of the Welsh, Berwick and the Jews

It doesn't necessarily make him worse than the average. After all, Robert Bruce was pretty merciless to the inhabitants of the North of England (and his brother was merciless to the Irish).

Yet, Bruce was still a superb warrior and ruler.

[Talleyrand]

It doesn't necessarily make him worse than the average. After all, Robert Bruce was pretty merciless to the inhabitants of the North of England (and his brother was merciless to the Irish).

Edward had the head of every Jewish Household executed and after that every Jew expelled from England. He had every piece of Welsh history he could find destroyed to neuter the Welsh resistance and at Berwick he had 10,000 men, women and children, nearly the city's entire population put to the sword for not accepting his surrender.

So yes I'd put him as worse than your average lord, more kind of Tywin Lannister territory

[Arkantos]

This is a modern myth. The greek navy was in action at the time, not being built up (the navy won salamis). The amount of time delayed by the spartans (a few extra weeks at most) was insignificant compared to how long it took xerxes to move his huge army throughout greece. It achieved nothing other than a moral boost.

Clearly does not understand the benefits of morale ¬.¬

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Nope, I'm sure not. The Alamo was a battle fought for the right to own slaves and hold other human beings in bondage. Nope, not one bit heroic, not one bit self sacrificing.

Oy. The fight for Texas Independence did have to do with rebellion against the new constitution, but the slavery issue was one small part of that, not the primary driving force. Just as with the Civil War, the vast majority of those who fought and died had never owned a slave in their lives. And their attitudes towards black people in general bore very little dissimilarity from the attitudes of the majority of the North and the Mexicans (free them, sure, just don't send them here, we don't want anything to DO with them ... Just, you know, set them free and it will all work itself out somehow). How it actually worked out was very similarly to the plight of the slaves freed by Dany. Now that we have freedom, what on earth are we supposed to do with it? We can't get work at a living wage and now we are free to starve and die by the thousands.

I am not by any means condoning slavery, just saying that it has always fascinated me how the paragons of virtue who put and end to it seem to forget that there will be an "afterwards," or to plan for it in any practical or workable manner. In the south, you had the thousands of slaves who chose to stay put with their former owners, because there was simply no place else for them to go (it was just too bad that those former owners could no longer feed themselves, much less their former slaves). We see something similar in Meereen when slaves ask to sell *themselves* back into bondage. It is one of the most pathetic Dany moments in the entire series, that she is shocked and hurt by this. What did she expect them to do?

In any case, this is wandering off thread subject. The point was that many "they died to the last man" scenarios are romanticized and seen as heroic. BF probably did not mind so much the idea of being a martyr for his cause. Whether all those who would have died with him felt the same is an open question, since we would have to assume that there was no "line drawn in the sand."

Out of curiousity, since the issue of BF tossing out the smallfolk has been raised repeatedly, do you (general you) see much of a line between the lot in life of the "smallfolk" versus your average slave, minus the whole branding/collars/slavecatcher thing/

[Stannis the Great]

Edward had the head of every Jewish Household executed and after that every Jew expelled from England. He had every piece of Welsh history he could find destroyed to neuter the Welsh resistance and at Berwick he had 10,000 men, women and children, nearly the city's entire population put to the sword for not accepting his surrender.

So yes I'd put him as worse than your average lord, more kind of Tywin Lannister territory

That actually sounds normal for a medieval king. He also completely revolutionised English legislation and diminished the powers of the barons while also ensuring that England would be the dominant land in the British Isles. Because of his actions he brought Wales into the English kingdom (and I'm saying that as a Welshman). It would have been near impossible for that achievement to occur had he chosen a softer approach. Surprisingly enough life isn't black and white. Sure what he did was terrible but it wasn't abnormal for a medieval king.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Edward had the head of every Jewish Household executed and after that every Jew expelled from England. He had every piece of Welsh history he could find destroyed to neuter the Welsh resistance and at Berwick he had 10,000 men, women and children, nearly the city's entire population put to the sword for not accepting his surrender.

So yes I'd put him as worse than your average lord, more kind of Tywin Lannister territory

How you saw him, though, probably depended a great deal on which side you were on at the time. As the saying goes, the winners get to write the history, and Edward I's English contemporaries considered him an ideal king and were quite proud of him, while agreeing that Wallace and the Bruce were traitorous outlaws. It is all on which side of the fence you tend your sheep on. For that matter, Henry V has always been considered a hero by the English; while the French considered him simply a butcher for Agincourt.

Tywin had his proponents, and it was not all because people were too scared to speak against him. He did a basically good job ruling as Hand by most accounts (especially with an increasingly mad king to cope with). If he had lived long enough to see the war through and restore order and undisputed Lannister rule, then Westerosi history may very well have ended up portraying him as one of its greatest heroes; glossing over the cruelties and focusing solely on the accomplishments.

[Alexia]

We could argue forever about whether or not slavery was a primary driving force in the Texas War of Independence and probably never agree. IMHO, just as it was a primary driving force in the Civil War (despite modern protestations to the contrary) it was a primary driving force behind the Texas War of Independence. There were other factors, to be sure, but the issue of slavery was the primary factor. But, best to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that the whole "fought to the last man" issue is way over-romanticized. ;)

I think there are some parallels between the smallfolk and slaves, but there is definitely a distinct difference. Just how much of one is an interesting question, because I'm still not sure how similar the smallfolk are to feudal serfs.

[Errant Bard]

It's interesting to note that Brynden Tully is such an uninteresting guy that people prefer to talk about Alamo, Scots or Thermopylae.

[LordBloodraven]

I have difficulty with Blackfish surrendering being a good idea. The RW have just happened. It would be foolish for the Blackfish to surrender to the Lannisters. Why would they have mercy? Why would they be honorable? They have just butchered a whole host which was feasting at a marriage alliance. Why would he believe that they will just pat him on the shoulder and tell him to serve loyally Tommen. IMHO, he had two viable options: either stay in Riverrun, make of a siege a hell of an option for the Lannisters, knowing that storming would cost more and hereby force them to negociate (surrender and the Wall for him) or just pack his gear and get the hell out of Westeros.

The rationale behind staying at Riverrun was to force Lannister to make concessions instead of surrendering without conditions. After all, his niece and niece have just been betrayed and killed (and let's not talk about corpse desecration) while his nephew was captive (and had the Damocles sword looming over his head); he just can't expect that the Riverrun besiegers would be treated mercifully.

[mediocre cheese]

Edward had the head of every Jewish Household executed and after that every Jew expelled from England.

That would quite terrible. It also didn't happen. The jews were expelled, but there was no mass execution whatsoever.

Specifically, though, the rearguard action of Leonidas and the 300 (plus other Greeks) did buy the rest of the army time to retreat, once their position had been turned.

Which had practically no effect on the war, because its unlikely xerxes would have caught up with the greek army, nor did that army prove instrumental at salamis. The greek aim had been to prevent Xerxes from crossing into greece. They failed and he took the boetian cities.

Interesting fact, the romans won a battle at Thermopylae by using the exact same hill pass that xerxes used, 300 years later. One would think that the battle would have been famous enough for the selucids to guard against that.

And their attitudes towards black people in general bore very little dissimilarity from the attitudes of the majority of the North and the Mexicans (free them, sure, just don't send them here, we don't want anything to DO with them ... Just, you know, set them free and it will all work itself out somehow). How it actually worked out was very similarly to the plight of the slaves freed by Dany. Now that we have freedom, what on earth are we supposed to do with it? We can't get work at a living wage and now we are free to starve and die by the thousands.

I am not by any means condoning slavery, just saying that it has always fascinated me how the paragons of virtue who put and end to it seem to forget that there will be an "afterwards," or to plan for it in any practical or workable manner. In the south, you had the thousands of slaves who chose to stay put with their former owners, because there was simply no place else for them to go (it was just too bad that those former owners could no longer feed themselves, much less their former slaves). We see something similar in Meereen when slaves ask to sell *themselves* back into bondage. It is one of the most pathetic Dany moments in the entire series, that she is shocked and hurt by this. What did she expect them to do?

So many things I'd disagree with regarding this, but all I'll say for now is that:

A. The fact that northerners and mexicans were racist does not mean their attitudes were similar to southerners. Their attitudes were vastly different. Northerners did not believe whites had the right to own blacks as property.

B. The republicans had practical and working plans for the south. They set up schools for freedmen (and for whites), they gave freedmen the right to vote, they occupied the south militarily to protect the rights and lives of freedmen. During the 1860s there were black republican congressmen and senators. The reason they failed to establish a system of racial equality was because of violent insurgency and terrorism by the former slave masters. When Grant stepped down from power blacks had the right to vote. His successor, Hayes pulled troops out, and subsequently the American south had a system of racial apartheid for another 80 years.

[Talleyrand]

That would quite terrible. It also didn't happen. The jews were expelled, but there was no mass execution whatsoever.

1279 - 280 heads of Jewish Households are executed in London.

[Tini]

The rationale behind staying at Riverrun was to force Lannister to make concessions instead of surrendering without conditions. After all, his niece and niece have just been betrayed and killed (and let's not talk about corpse desecration) while his nephew was captive (and had the Damocles sword looming over his head); he just can't expect that the Riverrun besiegers would be treated mercifully.

He was not expected to surrender unconditionally. Jaime Lannister was willing to offer generous terms. The Blackfish didn't accept them. He was fully prepared to endure a lengthy siege without any hope of getting better conditions, or more concessions. He didn't want to be seen surrendering peacefully.

[Winterfell is Burning]

You all are HIGHLY underestimating how difficult it is to take a well provisioned, garrisoned castle. Especially one like Riverrun.

The siege would have taken YEARS. The Lannisters already didn't have many troops (they are still heavily outnumbered by the Tyrells and Tarley's forces in KL after the Lannisters return from the Riverlands).

I think the BF could have held Riverrun. Hell, Stannis held Storm's End for what...like a year?

Exactly. And Stannis was starving after some months, while BF had food for much more than that.

And while the Kingdom of the North and the Riverlands would be very hard to return again, it's not like his only other choice was surrendering to Lannister power. Even without full knowledge of the events, BF would have to know at least that the Lannister army was melting away, that Tywin is dead, that a part, if not most of the Boltons and Freys would be in the North, and that Winter is Coming, all factors likely to force the Lannisters to give up on Riverrun.

He was not expected to surrender unconditionally. Jaime Lannister was willing to offer generous terms. The Blackfish didn't accept them. He was fully prepared to endure a lengthy siege without any hope of getting better conditions, or more concessions. He didn't want to be seen surrendering peacefully.

And, as said before, he had no reason to believe in Jaime's word.

Not to mention, again, that every event in the AFFC and ADWD just made a Lannister defeat more and more likely.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

I always liked the Blackfish while reading, but I'm sympathetic to the claims of the article. I'm not sure I would have come to them myself, though! I guess I never thought much of him. I do think he's overrated, like Oberyn Martell, Syrio, and Jaquen. People just like these kinds of "uncomplicated" badasses. Given what's been pointed out here, I'd say The Blackfish is the most complicated of these...

And whoever it was... Maybe the Blackfish is gay, maybe not. Given we have no direct information about his sexuality other than his refusal to marry we should take the position that he's just as likely to be one way as the other. Pointing out he might be gay is not forwarding a homosexual agenda any more than pointing out he might have been in love with some woman. Ranting about how he CAN'T be a HOMO is, however forwarding a homophobic agenda.

Off topic response to the topic of slavery:

We see something similar in Meereen when slaves ask to sell *themselves* back into bondage. It is one of the most pathetic Dany moments in the entire series, that she is shocked and hurt by this. What did she expect them to do?

I believe you misread this. The people selling themselves into slavery weren't former slaves, for the most part. Most of the freedmen remained loyal to Daenerys and of course were pleased to no longer be considered objects. Indeed they began selling their skills and creating economic activity the moment they were freed - for the most part to the same people that had stolen their labors before. The men selling themselves into slavery were the former slave owners, who could no longer support their extravagant quality of life which was built upon enslaving others. Further, these men were threatened by the fact that under Daenerys' regime, their former chattel had equal rights to them - better to go somewhere where at least they could be elite slaves (since they could read and write), rather than stay and be poor like everyone else.

Your entire premise is pretty insulting, IMO. The idea that slavery was an economic boon and that poor blacks had no way of supporting themselves after they were freed is not supported by current research and is a fiction nicely perpetuated by Texas history textbooks I think. The reason that some blacks remained indentured servants is because of continued repression by the people with the power and money - whites. Interesting parallels to the situation in Meereen when you think about it. The former nobles continue to attempt repression against the freedmen, killing as many as they can find, sabotaging all real progress in an attempt to turn back the clock. Unfortunately for these monsters, like the southern racists, the clock cannot be turned back.

[Alexia]

1279 - 280 heads of Jewish Households are executed in London.

Can you offer a cite on this? I've been reading a history book that contrasts the treatment of Jews in Cristendom and the Islamic world and am well past the expulsion of the Jews from England. No mention whatsoever is made of this massacre, and I am pretty certain it would have been had it happened.

[mediocre cheese]

Can you offer a cite on this? I've been reading a history book that contrasts the treatment of Jews in Cristendom and the Islamic world and am well past the expulsion of the Jews from England. No mention whatsoever is made of this massacre, and I am pretty certain it would have been had it happened.

He's referring to this. I'm not sure about the head of households aspects, though.

Edit:

The stannis comparison is off. Stannis holds storm's end which is frequently said to be impregnable. Riverrun is never spoken of in the same way, and neither Jaime nor anyone else there believes the lannisters lack the ability to storm the castle. The reason they don't is because of the huge numbers of casualties they would take. Loras captured Dragonstone, which is also a well-fortified castle.