Jump to content

Archived

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

Francisco Araujo da Costa

Reading from The World of Ice and Fire

Recommended Posts

Just a small question (sorry if it's been asked before.) but do we know where the name Baratheon came from? Did Orys just make it up cus it sounded cool, was it say the name of one of the original Targaryen dragons or part of the Valyrian bastard naming system or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love love love all of it! :)

Only, forgive me one small question: How did the maester know that Brandon Snow wanted to sneak into the camp and kill the dragons? He didn't confess it to the Targs, or did he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love love love all of it! :)

Only, forgive me one small question: How did the maester know that Brandon Snow wanted to sneak into the camp and kill the dragons? He didn't confess it to the Targs, or did he?

There were 3 Maesters with Brandon Snow. Presumably they knew of the plan, and one of them must have submitted a written account for the history books to the Citadel some years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love love love all of it! :)

Only, forgive me one small question: How did the maester know that Brandon Snow wanted to sneak into the camp and kill the dragons? He didn't confess it to the Targs, or did he?

Could be it was one of those maesters that were sent by Torrhen to negociate with Torrhen that snitched it to the Citadel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bang:

Thanks, guys.

It's the enthusiasm. I can't think, grrr.

(Still, how disloyal of them. They told on him! I hope Aegon and co. were uninterested in scrolls, and never read it. How embarassing for Brandon if they knew, lol.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Argella was naked and chained could be a small hint as to her personality - she could have been a woman of great pride - let's remember what methods were used to break a woman's spirit and dignity - arrogance in broader sense.

But I feel this particular event is showing the bigger scope of relations in Storm's End - not every man was loyal,and they could easily blame her (in those final,desperate moments) for the state of things (refusal of marriage). Argella could easily be a small scapegoat,to appease that mighty Aegon and his half-brother whom they considered offended,by the manner in which Argilac refused the alliance through the marriage. (»her father looked down at you,so now you can have her naked«)

Entire scene reeks of foul subordinates,turncloaks of sorts,who wish to save their backs,rather than undignified Orys' temperament - omg,I think I found one decent Baratheon!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The noteworthy issue for me is the ease with which lords backstab their Kings in Westeros. The moment things are looking bad for a ruler, one or more of his sworn bannermen revolt or betray him.

This is particularly evident during Aegon's invasion.

The moment Harren the Black is given a bloody nose, the Tullys, Mallisters and others turn their cloaks and join Aegon's march to Harrenhal.

The moment the Vale fleet is burned by a dragon, the Sistermen revolt.

The moment the Storm King is slain, his loyal garrison turns on his daughter and presents her naked to Aegon.

And 300 years later, the moment the Starks seem slightly weakened, the Boltons betray and murder their rightful overlords.

It seems to me that Westeros is simply like a pack of dogs. While the pack leader is strongest, the rest follow obediently, but as soon as he is weakened, they turn on him. Basically like a mafia gang.

Oaths, loyalty and honor be damned.

I dislike Martin's portrayal of this aspect and would have preferred men who keep their oaths even if it costs them their heads, because their word is their honor.

Alas, Martin appears to believe that its each man for himself, instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaime put it in interesting light : Starks have their Boltons,Tullys - Freys,Lannisters - Tarbecks and Reynes... : centuries long animosity.

For each disloyal family there are quite a few that are loyal.

In short,Martin holds the reins of realistic balance in every aspect of his story,and I find this consistency and approach admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The noteworthy issue for me is the ease with which lords backstab their Kings in Westeros. The moment things are looking bad for a ruler, one or more of his sworn bannermen revolt or betray him.

This is particularly evident during Aegon's invasion.

The moment Harren the Black is given a bloody nose, the Tullys, Mallisters and others turn their cloaks and join Aegon's march to Harrenhal.

The moment the Vale fleet is burned by a dragon, the Sistermen revolt.

The moment the Storm King is slain, his loyal garrison turns on his daughter and presents her naked to Aegon.

And 300 years later, the moment the Starks seem slightly weakened, the Boltons betray and murder their rightful overlords.

It seems to me that Westeros is simply like a pack of dogs. While the pack leader is strongest, the rest follow obediently, but as soon as he is weakened, they turn on him. Basically like a mafia gang.

Oaths, loyalty and honor be damned.

I dislike Martin's portrayal of this aspect and would have preferred men who keep their oaths even if it costs them their heads, because their word is their honor.

Alas, Martin appears to believe that its each man for himself, instead.

Every description of Harren uses some form of the term vain bloody tyrant. Much has been made of the Rivemen's anymosity towards towards the Ironborn, the Mallisters in particular. It's not like they were seizing an oppurtunity to beteer themselves at the expense of their leader, the were ridding themselves of a hated foreign conqueror. Harren beggared the Riverlands and the Iron Isles to build Harrenhal, he treated his people like shit and he payed for it. The Sistermen never liked being ruled by the Arryn's they knelt to them for protection, that's it. It wasn't It isn't a matter of casual betrayal, it was long standing cultural dislike, both in the Riverlands and the Sister's. Think of it as like like when The Tyrrell lord Daeron left in charge of Dore was murdered and it ignited a Dornish revolt. Argillac was called the Arogant, I can't imagine he was well liked or treated his people well. Also his daughter was willing to throw her men's lives away, not something that inspires loyalty, loyalty works both ways.And it wasn't that the North was weakened, they had lost.Winterfell sacked, heirs dead war in the South unwinable.And once agian, long standing animosity between Stark and Bolton. You're way over simplifying things. Had Robb tried to make a peace with King's Landing and gone to figth the Ironborn he may have kept his head. It will actually be interesting to see how the show deals with that because Robb's a pretty decent guy in the books trying to do the right thing but in a situation were what's right isn't always clear. In the show he throws his men's loyalty away casualy and is guilty of every charge the Frey's can lay against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free Northmen,

most of the people who rebelled immediately against their kings were conquered by said royal lines. The last King of the Riverlands was slain 300 years before the Conquest by the then ruling Storm King who conquered (most of) the Riverlands. The Hoares then took away all of the Riverlands from House Durrandon, which put the Riverlords under the thumb of Ironborn invaders (that's why Argilac apparently feared Harren and his sons, because he assumed that Harren's next target would be the Stormlands proper).

The Sistermen never wanted to be sworn to the Eyrie. They were invaded again and again by both Northmen and Valemen, and they ended up bowing down to the Eyrie 'to get the Northmen out', as Lord Borrell put it in ADwD, but that does not mean that the Sistermen ever truly accepted the Arryns as their overlords.

It would make no sense to assume or demand that conquered vassals should loyal to their kings if 1. a better option presents itself, and 2. said kings rule quite badly.

More importantly, back then there were seven independent kingdoms the lords who happened to own fiefdoms and lands in border regions of the kingdoms had to arrange themselves with ever switching borderlines due to the constant warfare. You have to be very pragmatic to survive in such an environment. And you can also use your own might as a regional power to ensure that you retain some amount of independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free Northmen,

most of the people who rebelled immediately against their kings were conquered by said royal lines. The last King of the Riverlands was slain 300 years before the Conquest by the then ruling Storm King who conquered (most of) the Riverlands. The Hoares then took away all of the Riverlands from House Durrandon, which put the Riverlords under the thumb of Ironborn invaders (that's why Argilac apparently feared Harren and his sons, because he assumed that Harren's next target would be the Stormlands proper).

The Sistermen never wanted to be sworn to the Eyrie. They were invaded again and again by both Northmen and Valemen, and they ended up bowing down to the Eyrie 'to get the Northmen out', as Lord Borrell put it in ADwD, but that does not mean that the Sistermen ever truly accepted the Arryns as their overlords.

It would make no sense to assume or demand that conquered vassals should loyal to their kings if 1. a better option presents itself, and 2. said kings rule quite badly.

More importantly, back then there were seven independent kingdoms the lords who happened to own fiefdoms and lands in border regions of the kingdoms had to arrange themselves with ever switching borderlines due to the constant warfare. You have to be very pragmatic to survive in such an environment. And you can also use your own might as a regional power to ensure that you retain some amount of independence.

I am aware of all the circumstances you list, and accept it.

But I just wish there were more examples of "fight to the death" Houses like the Umbers, Reeds, Bronze Yohn Royce, the Daynes etc.

The oath the Reed children reswear to House Stark is one of the most beautiful parts of ASOIAF to me. The ancient, formal contract between a King and his vassals, honored by both sides, both in deed and in spirit.

I guess what I really am looking for is not that Houses remain loyal to bad rulers, but that we see some examples where people are ruled by good rulers, and are fiercely loyal to said rulers as a result, to the point of refusing to accept foreign invaders into their territory.

The point is, Martin makes most of these rulers like Argilac, Harren the Black etc. sound like megalomaniacs. I know it is fashionable to view feudalism as evil and exploitative, but damn I'd love to see a feudal kingdom bucking this trend, where the peasants identify fiercely with their rulers, and the banner houses take pride in serving a just and honorable king to the death.

You know, the way things are supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be stories written for the last living feudalists in the western world, but ASoIaF is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the way things are supposed to be.

Then I think you're reading the wrong series. This isn't really a story where rose tinted glasses are going to be applied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we have fiercely loyal vassals. The Martells still stick to House Targaryen after 15 years, as do (apparently) the lords of Crackclaw Point. And we don't have to speak about the Darrys during the War of the Usurper. There is no mentioning about Vale men (I do not count the Sistermen), Westermen, or Reach men abandoning their liege lords during the Conquest.

The Tarlys and Royces also seem to stay loyal to their overlords (even if those are average military commanders or boy lords hiding behind the skirts of their mothers). Loyalty is not uncommon down in the South. But the bond between the Starks and many houses of the North might actually have a deeper quality then those down in the South, but my guess is that GRRM is going to show us that this has less to do with the fact that they are 'better examples of lived feudalism' and much more with the fact that a strong central power is crucial in the North to ensure that as many people as possible survive winter.

And then, we do have the loyalty of the Manderlys, which seems to be quite exceptional.

As to the beautiful vow of the Reeds:

Yeah, that sounds interesting, but it still has to made a political impact on the story. As things stand, the Reeds and their fellow crannogmen all but abandoned King Robb when he marched down South. I'd be actually surprised if the Starks would ever profit in any way from the loyalty of the crannogmen. Howland Reed may know stuff, but he is not going to come galloping to the rescue of everybody later in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be stories written for the last living feudalists in the western world, but ASoIaF is not one of them.

And yet the fans love it when young Lyanna Mormont declares:" There is only one King in the North and his name is Stark."

And when Wylla Manderly declares that they remember the Oath, and that King Robb was good and strong and brave and the Frey's killed him.

And when Lord Manderly fiercely declares his loyalty to Rickon, his liege lord, to Davos.

And when Big Bucket Wull declares that it's not just any girl they're going to rescue from the Boltons, it's Ned's girl.

And when the nameless Norry tells Bran in the cave that everything was allright back when a Stark ruled the North.

And when the Reeds swear to serve the Starks by Earth and Water, by Bronze and Iron and by Ice and Fire.

Or when Lord Umber fiercely declares his loyalty to the King in the North!

People can pretend to be as world wise, immune to sentiment and cynical as they like, but the romanticism of the examples I listed above touches the heart strings of a vast number of us.

And it would be foolish to assume that Martin does not know this. He is a good writer, and nothing is in his work by chance. The above is meant to stir up our emotions. Else it wouldn't be in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the beautiful vow of the Reeds:

Yeah, that sounds interesting, but it still has to made a political impact on the story. As things stand, the Reeds and their fellow crannogmen all but abandoned King Robb when he marched down South. I'd be actually surprised if the Starks would ever profit in any way from the loyalty of the crannogmen. Howland Reed may know stuff, but he is not going to come galloping to the rescue of everybody later in the story.

How did they abandon Robb? They're not a major millitary power so them riding with him doesn't really serve a purpose. THey do however harry the Iron Born at Moat Cailin and Robb was counting on their help to get back North to figtht the Iron Born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the fans love it when young Lyanna Mormont declares:" There is only one King in the North and his name is Stark."

And when Wylla Manderly declares that they remember the Oath, and that King Robb was good and strong and brave and the Frey's killed him.

And when Lord Manderly fiercely declares his loyalty to Rickon, his liege lord, to Davos.

And when Big Bucket Wull declares that it's not just any girl they're going to rescue from the Boltons, it's Ned's girl.

And when the nameless Norry tells Bran in the cave that everything was allright back when a Stark ruled the North.

And when the Reeds swear to serve the Starks by Earth and Water, by Bronze and Iron and by Ice and Fire.

Or when Lord Umber fiercely declares his loyalty to the King in the North!

People can pretend to be as world wise, immune to sentiment and cynical as they like, but the romanticism of the examples I listed above touches the heart strings of a vast number of us.

And it would be foolish to assume that Martin does not know this. He is a good writer, and nothing is in his work by chance. The above is meant to stir up our emotions. Else it wouldn't be in the books.

To be honest, I loved most of those scenes only because the North was rejecting "king" Stannis. I especially loved the part when a 10 year old girl told Stannis to go kick rocks. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harren´s soldiers were deserting him left and right before Aegon actually applied his forces to Harrenhal - the defenders of Harrenhal were outnumbered by the Riverlands rebels.

It is interesting that Tullys, Mallisters etc. did not already rebel against Hoares in favour of Argilac the Arrogant....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must have been a clear divide between Ironborn lords and Riverlords? The way Edmund Tully joined Aegon, it's implied that he and the Riverlords didn`t have much love for Harren and were looking for the first occasion to ditch him. Even Freys joined the Targs instead of watching it in the sidelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rebel against Hoares in favour of Argilac the Arrogant....

Would you rebel in favor of someone with that name...? LOL

Anyway I think that the ironborn were ruling with the iron fist (punt intended) and the Riverlords decided to rebel only when they saw a certain victory (dragons = dead ironmen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×