Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] EP 205 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I disagree. The "how she did it" is very central to her character, her personality, etc. TV-Osha is just a very different character, for no reason that makes any kind of sense, and IMO an inferior one to GRRM's Osha. I know GRRM said he liked TV-Osha and all but I just don't know why, book-Osha is so much better. Also, I don't agree with the "we're just lucky to have her" mentality at all. With this logic, we're all just lucky to have an adaptation at all so let's not discuss or criticize anything, and this forum is useless. Meh.

I agree with that, but my point is that she's such a minor character that, if she wasn't likely to be the one going north with Bran, she probably would've been cut completely. So why quibble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a question about the division if Renly's former army.

In this episode Stannis says that all of Renly's bannermen except for the Tyrells have joined forces with him. It's unclear if this means just the House Tyrell, or their vassals as well. In the book, if I recall correctly, the only Tyrell vassal forces to join with his were the Florents, the rest were Stormlords. Thus, about 20,000 men joined with Stannis, while the other 80,000 didn't, and eventually joined the Lannisters.

However, Stannis' quote (I meant quotation, sorry grammar-Nazi-Stannis!) about the Tyrells fleeing suggests that the troops that still haven't sided with him are in minority. Why else would they need to flee? It makes it sound like the Tyrell host is only a few thousand strong, at most. This would severely weaken the Tyrell's role in the upcoming victory at Blackwater, and thus undermine their hold over House Lannister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over-analyzing logistics seems a little moot for the TV series; it's just probably not going to be a factor at all. The Lannisters being weakened by their various brushes with destruction (losing the war in the north and being smashed again at the Blackwater before Tywin saves the day, primarily) while the Tyrells consolidate power will probably be enough to put them on par with one another by AFFC.

Edited by Jamie Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but does Bran ever call the 3 eyed crow a 3 eyed raven in the books? I don't remember him doing so and changing that in the show cheapens the hell out of it. 3 eyed crow is a legitimate clue to assume its a NW or former NW member but 3 eyed raven doesnt mean anything. BOOOO!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but does Bran ever call the 3 eyed crow a 3 eyed raven in the books? I don't remember him doing so and changing that in the show cheapens the hell out of it. 3 eyed crow is a legitimate clue to assume its a NW or former NW member but 3 eyed raven doesnt mean anything. BOOOO!!!

I don't know if it's on purpose but ravencould in fact be a stronger hint fot who the 3 eyed crow precisely is...but well viewers can't know about bloodraven whatsoever so it's probably not on purpose. So yeah BOOOOOOOO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about???

OF COURSE a bannerman gets no choice about what lord they follow!

Where did you get such an idea? It is patently absurd.

Political, economical and military circunstances may well direct that choice. It may even be a degenerated choice. But being some Lord's bannerman is not an automatic situation. There is a reason why time and again we go through scenes of specific Lords offering support and fealty for Joffrey, Tommen, the Starks or even Stannis.

How do you think affiliation is decided, if not by expressed choice?

Do you seriously think that House Umber or House Cerwyn could suddenly decide "Humdeedoo, red and gold go better with my wife´s lipstick, from now on I´ll be bannerman to Tywin Lannister instead of Robb Stark!"

They could, although the odds are small and the motive dubious.

If fact, we do have specific cases of Northern Houses changing loyalties, sometimes quite openly. It has been a big deal in the last few books, don't you agree?

Good luck with that!

If you are born heir to a house tha has always been sworn to some other house, you too will automatically be sworn to that house, that is basically the essence of the feudal system.

Nope. The expectation will be there, but it must be reinforced and reinstated periodically. It most definitely must be reinstated whenever the King changes, and most of all when there is open warfare about the rights to the throne.

As far as the "rightful king" and the "right to the throne" are concerned: At the end of the day a throne will always go to the person that is strong and popular enough to TAKE the throne, as has been shown again and again, in our history as well as in the history of Westeros, by Aegon the Conqueror as well as by Robert Baratheon. As one memorable line in "Shogun" by James Clavell goes : "Rebelling against your lord is ALWAYS treason ... unless you win."

It is just indicative of Stannis' rigidity and inflexibility that he seems to be unable to grasp this.

Stannis may have been rigid once, perhaps even until shortly before we first meet him. But he is letting go of that quite quickly if the books are any indication. He has consistently bent and openly challenged rules, laws and traditions in most every scene we saw him in. His reputation for inflexibility is an artifact from his past at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a question about the division if Renly's former army.

In this episode Stannis says that all of Renly's bannermen except for the Tyrells have joined forces with him. It's unclear if this means just the House Tyrell, or their vassals as well. In the book, if I recall correctly, the only Tyrell vassal forces to join with his were the Florents, the rest were Stormlords. Thus, about 20,000 men joined with Stannis, while the other 80,000 didn't, and eventually joined the Lannisters.

However, Stannis' quote (I meant quotation, sorry grammar-Nazi-Stannis!) about the Tyrells fleeing suggests that the troops that still haven't sided with him are in minority. Why else would they need to flee? It makes it sound like the Tyrell host is only a few thousand strong, at most. This would severely weaken the Tyrell's role in the upcoming victory at Blackwater, and thus undermine their hold over House Lannister.

The division of Renly's former troops has been remarkably glossed over in the books. I would assume that those with a significant fleet in Storm's End would prefer to take their chances with Stannis, which is why the Florents sided with him. The Tyrells, obviously, had good reasons to prefer the Lannisters instead. Those caught between probably decided by their particular preferences and it stands to reason that at least a few Houses probably split apart on this matter.

In any case, I would never give Stannis' evaluation a lot of credit. The man is notoriously delusional and unreliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get such an idea? It is patently absurd.

Political, economical and military circunstances may well direct that choice. It may even be a degenerated choice. But being some Lord's bannerman is not an automatic situation. There is a reason why time and again we go through scenes of specific Lords offering support and fealty for Joffrey, Tommen, the Starks or even Stannis.

How do you think affiliation is decided, if not by expressed choice?

You're completely misunderstanding the nature of medieval land tenure. It's as if you're somehow thinking each lord owns their lands and a kingdom is only a loose confederation of independent entities, which is patently false.

Let's take the Stormlands as an example: every Stormlord owes fealty and service to the lord of Storm's End, who, in turn, owes his fealty and service to Highgarden as the Wardens of the South... who, in turn, owes fealty and service to the Iron Throne. This is because, when Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms, he literally took them as his own and claimed allodial ownership, allowing their former rulers to retain their control as Lords Paramount in some cases (the Arryns. Starks, Kings of the Rock, etc.)

No lord gets to decide who his/her overlord is, unless they are willing to abdicate the lands they hold as a vassal of that overlord.

Joffrey asking for oaths of fealty was because he was attempting to consolidate power in a situation where the kingdom was about to be in turmoil. In England in the dark ages, as another example, it was customary for formal oaths of fealty to be sworn in the event of the coronation of a new king or if a lord died and his son took his place. This usually had to happen within 12 months. If a new king took the crown but a lord from the far-north couldn't make it to London to swear his formal oath until 6 or 8 months later, he couldn't claim to take another king in the meantime, not without abdicating the lands he held. His fealty was understood in the intervening months because his father, grandfather, and so on had sworn it in the past. The fact that his family had their lands and wealth at all was a direct result thereof.

Think of it this way... the King owns everything. He parcels-out big chunks to his most-trusted people (the Wardens). In England, these major houses (represented as Stark, Lannister, Arryn, and Tyrell in ASoIaF -- and, I would argue to add Dorne and Riverrun to this list until the latter is placed under the rule of Harrenhal as the new paramount house of the Riverlands) would rule duchies. Each Duke would parcel-out lands to another crop of lesser lords who would be Earls and Barons. Some knights (the Cleganes) received lands they held in a form of feudal land-tenure known as a knight's fee (fief) in return for military service. The crop of hooligans that follow the Mountain to war are all men who live on the lands of his knight's fee, and owe him military service.

Edited by J.S. Crews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fact, we do have specific cases of Northern Houses changing loyalties, sometimes quite openly. It has been a big deal in the last few books, don't you agree?

Many of them are now following House Bolton as the Iron Throne's designated Wardens of the North. Others are with Stannis because the Bolton's are seen as betrayers, and these are rightly considered rebels from the perspective of the Iron Throne.

Whichever side wins will dictate whose heads roll, but none are simply switching sides on a whim as you seem to think is their right.

Edited by J.S. Crews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man is notoriously delusional and unreliable.

It's pretty obvious you don't care for the character and will continue to argue against him, no matter how many facts are presented, proving your points to be null.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this episode really goes to show it's not whether a scene is a change from the books but the quality of it. So much of what happens in Qarth is completely made up or changed significantly, but I loved all of it. Last week it was the low point of the episode, this week it was the highlight for me. We really needed some lightheartedness after last week, and they delivered it there. I love the continuity that Doreah is playing with the dragons too much, and she's hotter than dragon fire. Dany and Irri are both attractive women, but Doreah makes them kind of invisible.

I'm not exactly sure how the NW can spot a lookout fire on the mountain but the lookouts on the mountain apparently can't spot 400 guys running around in black out in the open against a white background. They couldn't have put spotting the fire into the next episode, at night, so it makes sense?

Someone on winteriscoming had a crazy theory that Dagmer is actually

Ramsey

, which gets less crazy the more I think about it. He looks a lot more like what I would expect for that character than Dagmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're completely misunderstanding the nature of medieval land tenure.

I guess one of us is.

It's as if you're somehow thinking each lord owns their lands and a kingdom is only a loose confederation of independent entities, which is patently false.

You're overstating the weight - and the rules - of fealty. Rebelling is a real option. It has happened, time and again. Often enough, it in fact must happen.

Let's take the Stormlands as an example: every Stormlord owes fealty and service to the lord of Storm's End, who, in turn, owes his fealty and service to Highgarden as the Wardens of the South... who, in turn, owes fealty and service to the Iron Throne.

That is the goal, sure. And no serious claimant will ever openly admit lacking the means to attain it.

This is because, when Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms, he literally took them as his own and claimed allodial ownership, allowing their former rulers to retain their control as Lords Paramount in some cases (the Arryns. Starks, Kings of the Rock, etc.)

No lord gets to decide who his/her overlord is, unless they are willing to abdicate the lands they hold as a vassal of that overlord.

In practice, to rebel against their supposed overlords. People don't actually get tired of having their own lands with any frequency.

Joffrey asking for oaths of fealty was because he was attempting to consolidate power in a situation where the kingdom was about to be in turmoil.

Most certainly. Were the realm in peace, he would still do the same, but with far less urgency and mostly for ceremonial purposes.

Note however that you are illustrating my point. Joffred needed to consolidate his power, because it was anything but certain, despite having proper support of the law.

The same would be true of Stannis, had he managed to turn the letter of the law towards supporting him. Still, consolidating military and political power is if anything even more of a priority for those claimants that can't appeal to the letter of the law. The difference is small, but it does exist.

In England in the dark ages, as another example, it was customary for formal oaths of fealty to be sworn in the event of the coronation of a new king or if a lord died and his son took his place. This usually had to happen within 12 months. If a new king took the crown but a lord from the far-north couldn't make it to London to swear his formal oath until 6 or 8 months later, he couldn't claim to take another king in the meantime, not without abdicating the lands he held.

You mean it just happened that way, cleanly and without military conflict? Every time? Somehow I doubt it.

His fealty was understood in the intervening months because he father, grandfather, and so on had sworn it. The fact that his family had their lands and wealth at all was a direct result thereof.

Or so the overlords said. Of course, the idea that people can actually own large tracts of land and can therefore give them freely is arguable at best, but that is medieval politics for you and me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of them are now following House Bolton as the Iron Throne's designated Wardens of the North. Others are with Stannis because the Bolton's are seen as betrayers, and these are rightly considered rebels from the perspective of the Iron Throne.

Whichever side wins will dictate whose heads roll, but none are simply switching sides on a whim as you seem to think is their right.

You really have a hard time following me, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious you don't care for the character and will continue to argue against him, no matter how many facts are presented, proving your points to be null.

More like it is pretty obvious that it will take far better and more convincing facts than the books offer to convince me to overlook Stannis' betrayal of Renly's trust and good will, you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're overstating the weight - and the rules - of fealty. Rebelling is a real option. It has happened, time and again. Often enough, it in fact must happen.

I'm stating the law as it was written. Yes, rebelling is a real option; it is also illegal, by the very definition of the word. A rebel who fails to win will either lose their head or be forced to make serious concessions to keep it. Because, right up until they win, they're criminals. There is no argument you can put forth that will refute that fact. Our own Founding Fathers here in the U.S. knew that, the moment they put their names to the Declaration of Independence, they were all dead men, unless they won.

That is the goal, sure. And no serious claimant will ever openly admit lacking the means to attain it.

He shouldn't have needed to attain it. It was his by right. Anyone who didn't want Stannis for their king should have supported Joffrey. In no universe does Renly have a claim as long as Stannis lives.

In practice, to rebel against their supposed overlords. People don't actually get tired of having their own lands with any frequency.

No, but they also have no legal right to them without doing their fealty, unless they rebel and win. But, even if they win, they were still rebels - just successful rebels.

Joffred needed to consolidate his power, because it was anything but certain, despite having proper support of the law.

The same would be true of Stannis, had he managed to turn the letter of the law towards supporting him. Still, consolidating military and political power is if anything even more of a priority for those claimants that can't appeal to the letter of the law. The difference is small, but it does exist.

It all hinges on whether Joffrey et al. are Jaime Lannister's bastards. If they are, Stannis is King. If not, Joffrey is King. If they can't prove they are and simply want to rebel, Stannis -- as elder brother -- still has the better claim. In no instance possible does Renly have a right to the Iron Throne, supporters or no supporters. He could conceivably have seized it, but men the world over would have called him a usurper, just like they did Robert. Eddard Stark could have claimed the Iron Throne for himself when he led Robert's vanguard into KL and found the Mad King dead. He didn't. Robert had the better claim, just as Stannis does now.

You mean it just happened that way, cleanly and without military conflict? Every time? Somehow I doubt it.

No, but it was suppose to. You seem to be confusing a tendency to rebel as a right, under the law. The law of succession is what we're talking about; rebellion, by definition, is outside the bounds of the law.

Or so the overlords said. Of course, the idea that people can actually own large tracts of land and can therefore give them freely is arguable at best, but that is medieval politics for you and me.

Correct. Right or wrong, that's how it worked, so any debate to the contrary is pointless. It was how it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but does Bran ever call the 3 eyed crow a 3 eyed raven in the books? I don't remember him doing so and changing that in the show cheapens the hell out of it. 3 eyed crow is a legitimate clue to assume its a NW or former NW member but 3 eyed raven doesnt mean anything. BOOOO!!!

Are people seriously complaining about the change from crow to raven? Wot?

Anyway, raven does have a significance.... Bloodraven. So there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like it is pretty obvious that it will take far better and more convincing facts than the books offer to convince me to overlook Stannis' betrayal of Renly's trust and good will, you mean.

I'm trying to understand how it is a betrayal for the elder brother with the legal birthright to refuse to step aside for the younger brother with no birthright, simply because he's more popular and looks better in pretty clothes. Stannis owed nothing to Renly. Renly, on the other hand, owed Stannis his fealty and support.

Edited by J.S. Crews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean it just happened that way, cleanly and without military conflict? Every time? Somehow I doubt it.

Have you actually read any of the English history from which GM took his inspiration? Serious question not being sarcastic because I'm trying to see where you're coming from with your modern ideas of what feudalism actually meant in the Middle Ages. There have been very few instances, in the long 1000 plus years history of rulers of what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which power didn't pass smoothly from father to son or father to grandson or, occasionally, uncle to nephew.

Once William the Conqueror set himself on the throne in 1066 there have been less than half a dozen unique incidents involving either an outright rebellion or a war between claimants to the throne:

1 - Matilda and Stephen following the death of her father (his uncle) Henry I. Matilda should have been queen but she would have been the first female ruler and the barons weren't so sure about that so Stephen went for the throne. His reign was short and resulted in him accepting Matilda's son as his heir.

2 - Simon de Montfort's baron's rebellion against his brother-in-law Henry III, which centred around Henry being pissed off at de Montfort using his name to secure a loan from European bankers and used it as an excuse to try and get rid of him and his fellow barons who were seeking reform in the way in which the country was governed by the King. In his one year long de facto reign, de Montfort called the first recognisable version of a Parliament.

3 - One long period of history, starting from the fact Edward II was a dick and unfit to rule, in which the descendants of Edward III fought over who had the senior claim to the English throne - called the War of the Roses and, oddly enough, one of the main inspirations from which George Martin draws his ruling families and the Five Kings War in Westeros.

3a - Henry VII seizes the throne from Richard III to basically end the War of the Roses.

4 - the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley, tries to put his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead of Mary I (his excuse being that he doesn't wish to see England return to the Catholic faith and because neither did Edward VII and there's no suitable male heirs in the Tudor line).

5 - the exiled Stuarts two failed rebellions in 1715 and 1745, unlikely to succeed because there's been a German born king on the throne quite successfully now for a period of more than 50 years (also no longer technically in the Middle Ages).

So yes, in the more than 1000 years history of English rule, pretty much every succession bar these few have passed without any incident and without barons failing to swear allegiance to the crown.

(None of this includes the English/Welsh or the English/Scottish conflicts, they are not based on feudal fighting but sovereignty over another country).

Under any version of primogeniture and sovereign law, Stannis has the senior claim over Renly.

Edited by Cadiva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you actually read any of the English history from which GM took his inspiration? Serious question not being sarcastic because I'm trying to see where you're coming from with your modern ideas of what feudalism actually meant in the Middle Ages. There have been very few instances, in the long 1000 plus years history of rulers of what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which power didn't pass smoothly from father to son or father to grandson or, occasionally, uncle to nephew.

-- Deleted for Brevity --

So yes, in the more than 1000 years history of English rule, pretty much every succession bar these few have passed without any incident and without barons failing to swear allegiance to the crown.

(None of this includes the English/Welsh or the English/Scottish conflicts, they are not based on feudal fighting but sovereignty over another country).

Under any version of primogeniture and sovereign law, Stannis has the senior claim over Renly.

Thank you and very well-said. Also, descending down the tree of feudal land-tenure, it worked much the same at lower levels. If a holder of a knight's fee failed to answer a call to war by his overlord or to swear fealty, he would shortly have problems. It didn't matter if he disliked the lord or disagreed with what they were doing. His lands were his lands only by the grace of his lord; the same way the people living within the borders of the lands that made up his knight's fee were bound to serve him in return for the use of the land he parceled-out to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...