Jump to content
Earth_Poet

The Game of Thrones TV series - Season 4

Recommended Posts

Still, being the "rightful" king doesn't make him any better, nor is it a reason to kill your brother and send thousands off to die...I'm just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though it does make him a bit better than the man who was about to do the same to satisfy his own pride (Renly) and the sadistic monster who would have done so even if he wasn't at war (Joffrey). Makes sense since the whole series seems to be about how stupid the nobles who don't earn their power are :razz:

 

Hopefully they keep his character development in book 3 in the TV series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much personal bias going into all your arguments. Just because you don't like Stannis doesn't mean he's the worst option.

 

I don't like Stannis either. I'm a fan of Robb. But I understand where Stannis' argument comes from.

 

And even though Robert did go to war for the throne, he had claim to it through his bloodline (his grandmother being a Targaryen). That's one of the basics reiterated over and over. It wasn't as lawless as all of you claim. Else Tywin Lannister would've been King. Or Jaime. Or anyone who wanted the seat.

 

So if we go through the three claiming the iron throne:

 

Joffrey - no link to Targaryens being an inbred Lannister

 

Renly - the younger brother, 2nd in line to the throne

 

Stannis - Robert's true heir

 

And yet you're arguing Stannis has no right?

 

And I don't understand what you mean by "sending off thousands to die". That's exactly what all 3 kings have or were willing to do. That's not unique to Stannis.Even Robb sacrificed 2000 soldiers to Tywin's army.

 

Also the part where the throne belongs to who reaches for it... but Stannis killing Renly is too much reach I suppose. Meh too many contradictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much personal bias going into all your arguments. Just because you don't like Stannis doesn't mean he's the worst option.

 

I don't like Stannis either. I'm a fan of Robb. But I understand where Stannis' argument comes from.

 

And even though Robert did go to war for the throne, he had claim to it through his bloodline (his grandmother being a Targaryen). That's one of the basics reiterated over and over. It wasn't as lawless as all of you claim. Else Tywin Lannister would've been King. Or Jaime. Or anyone who wanted the seat.

 

So if we go through the three claiming the iron throne:

 

Joffrey - no link to Targaryens being an inbred Lannister

 

Renly - the younger brother, 2nd in line to the throne

 

Stannis - Robert's true heir

 

And yet you're arguing Stannis has no right?

 

And I don't understand what you mean by "sending off thousands to die". That's exactly what all 3 kings have or were willing to do. That's not unique to Stannis.Even Robb sacrificed 2000 soldiers to Tywin's army.

 

Also the part where the throne belongs to who reaches for it... but Stannis killing Renly is too much reach I suppose. Meh too many contradictions.

 

Never said Stannis was the worst option. And yeah, he doesn't have any "right" to the throne. All kings lack a right to their throne. The Targaryens have none either, all they did was having an Ancestor who happened to have three dragons and an army. A claim may help you secure the throne because there are those who believe in a king having a right to the throne, but it's not really valid. If Tywin had the armies to secure the iron throne, he would have claimed it. Simple as that.

 

I've said the throne belongs to the one who reaches out for it - not that this would make someone a good king. Stannis killing his brother to achieve his goals is definitely a vile act.

 

Of course every king sends men off to die. But they have different motivations. For Joffrey, it's to secure his throne and to kill those who he feels have betrayed him. For stannis, it's to get his "rightful" throne. For renly it's his lust for the throne. Robb's original intention was to protect his family and the north(Remember he was somewhat bullied into declaring himself king), though you have to wonder how much this has changed.

 

I'd still way prefer Robb e.g. over stannis though. At least he cares about his men instead of being completely indifferent about them like Stannis is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Stannis is entirely indifferent to his men he just see's a lot of them as bad people. In Stannis' mind the number one thing you can do wrong is not be loyal and dutiful he is loathed that he has to work with the Lord's who helped his brother as he sees them as traitors still - Stannis has an incredible sense of justice which is in someways quite mad (see Davos' fingers).

As to Robb one of the main themes, I feel, of the story is how being incredibly morale and wishing the best for others as Robb and Ned did will never end up well for the person doing the wishing nor will it end up well in the end for the others. It was in some respect down to Ned's ridiculous morale code that the Kingdoms are in the state they are currently in.


Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
2mqj8rr.png
Minigames: Level 5 in All Barbarian Assault Roles PM me in game or on these forums to play. Over 500 Castle Wars Games with 460+ Tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to Robb one of the main themes, I feel, of the story is how being incredibly morale and wishing the best for others as Robb and Ned did will never end up well for the person doing the wishing nor will it end up well in the end for the others. It was in some respect down to Ned's ridiculous morale code that the Kingdoms are in the state they are currently in.

Except that they were already in that state, or working toward it. All Ned did was call Joffrey's heritage into question, it's just that he wasn't good at/interested in the game. Joffrey's actions following it caused more harm than Ned did (Killing a guy that was essential for making peace with his family, for starters).

[spoiler=Book 3 spoilers]Plus, it will probably cause to his death later on (Not that they'd cut that out of the TV series. That's a bit important). He probably wouldn't have been made to marry Margaery if not for the civil war and the shift in power that came with it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All kings lack a right to their throne.

 

You're looking too far into the past to keep thinking this. The Targaryens did just use an army to establish their kingdom. But this war isn't about establishing a new kingdom. It's about controlling what already exists. That means playing with what the Targaryens established. What you're claiming is altogether irrelevant.

 

If there were no "rights" or whatever you keep pining on, then GRRM wouldn't have placed so much focus on lineage in the story. Why do you think Tywin Lannister, the person with the greatest army and wealth in Westeros didn't just take the throne? Because he didn't have the right to it. That's it. He wouldn't have had to bow down to Robert Baratheon. He would've just sat on the throne. Or why even focus on the existing Targaryen(s)? Because blood is a significant theme.

 

You keep saying that no one has the right to the Throne when the entire story focuses on people who have a claim to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All kings lack a right to their throne.

 

You're looking too far into the past to keep thinking this. The Targaryens did just use an army to establish their kingdom. But this war isn't about establishing a new kingdom. It's about controlling what already exists. That means playing with what the Targaryens established. What you're claiming is altogether irrelevant.

 

If there were no "rights" or whatever you keep pining on, then GRRM wouldn't have placed so much focus on lineage in the story. Why do you think Tywin Lannister, the person with the greatest army and wealth in Westeros didn't just take the throne? Because he didn't have the right to it. That's it. He wouldn't have had to bow down to Robert Baratheon. He would've just sat on the throne. Or why even focus on the existing Targaryen(s)? Because blood is a significant theme.

 

You keep saying that no one has the right to the Throne when the entire story focuses on people who have a claim to it.

 

Because the rest of Robert's army would have taken King's Landing and killed him. I don't know where you got the idea that he had the greatest army from.

 

The closest thing AsoIaF has to a theme, at least at this point, is that might makes right. And maybe the fact that little people get shit on. The funny thing about nobody having a right to the throne is that everybody has an equal right, which is only augmented by their strength of arms.


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Blood should definitely of been in red just saying. Also, whats important to remember here guys is all these kings are insignificant because Little Finger is controlling it all :)


Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
2mqj8rr.png
Minigames: Level 5 in All Barbarian Assault Roles PM me in game or on these forums to play. Over 500 Castle Wars Games with 460+ Tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the rest of Robert's army would have taken King's Landing and killed him. I don't know where you got the idea that he had the greatest army from.

 

The closest thing AsoIaF has to a theme, at least at this point, is that might makes right. And maybe the fact that little people get shit on. The funny thing about nobody having a right to the throne is that everybody has an equal right, which is only augmented by their strength of arms.

 

King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Casterly Rock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys).

 

Saying blood isn't a theme in GoT is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Castlerock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys).

I'm not sure if it was brought up in the series, but in the books one of the Baratheons mentions that their family having a claim was more or less propaganda: They did have a Targaryen relative, but Robert got the throne from his army more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Castlerock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys).

I'm not sure if it was brought up in the series, but in the books one of the Baratheons mentions that their family having a claim was more or less propaganda: They did have a Targaryen relative, but Robert got the throne from his army more than that.

 

It's not a propaganda. Robert's grandmother (his father's mother) was a Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it was brought up in the series, but in the books one of the Baratheons mentions that their family having a claim was more or less propaganda: They did have a Targaryen relative, but Robert got the throne from his army more than that.

 

It's not a propaganda. Robert's grandmother (his father's mother) was a Targaryen.

I didn't deny that, was just mentioning that in the books they admit that it really didn't matter. I'll try to find the quote later :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it was brought up in the series, but in the books one of the Baratheons mentions that their family having a claim was more or less propaganda: They did have a Targaryen relative, but Robert got the throne from his army more than that.

 

It's not a propaganda. Robert's grandmother (his father's mother) was a Targaryen.

I didn't deny that, was just mentioning that in the books they admit that it really didn't matter. :razz:

 

What book/chapter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was book 2, probably from Stannis or Renly. So, either Catelyn or Davos.

 

Lol you gotta be more specific than that. I'm willing to read those chapters right now if you just post which ones.

 

If it's Renly who says it, it's probably irrelevant considering he's already ignoring the line of succession. If it was Stannis, then I'd be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the rest of Robert's army would have taken King's Landing and killed him. I don't know where you got the idea that he had the greatest army from.

 

The closest thing AsoIaF has to a theme, at least at this point, is that might makes right. And maybe the fact that little people get shit on. The funny thing about nobody having a right to the throne is that everybody has an equal right, which is only augmented by their strength of arms.

 

King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Castlerock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys).

 

Saying blood isn't a theme in GoT is laughable.

 

Just because his army was untouched doesn't mean it was the largest. Robert's army was more than prepared to take it from the Targaryens before Tywin and Jaime saved them that trouble. They would've taken it no matter who held it, the only difference being in the number of lives lost. This line of discussion is moot because Tywin wouldn't have thrown away the goodwill generated from his victory over King's Landing for a short time on the throne. He's more subtle than that.

 

Dismissing all of Tywin's motivations to not take the throne because "blood is a theme", and doing the same with Daenerys' inclusion in the plot, is equally laughable.


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the rest of Robert's army would have taken King's Landing and killed him. I don't know where you got the idea that he had the greatest army from.

 

The closest thing AsoIaF has to a theme, at least at this point, is that might makes right. And maybe the fact that little people get shit on. The funny thing about nobody having a right to the throne is that everybody has an equal right, which is only augmented by their strength of arms.

 

King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Castlerock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys).

 

Saying blood isn't a theme in GoT is laughable.

 

Just because his army was untouched doesn't mean it was the largest. Robert's army was more than prepared to take it from the Targaryens before Tywin and Jaime saved them that trouble. They would've taken it no matter who held it, the only difference being in the number of lives lost. This line of discussion is moot because Tywin wouldn't have thrown away the goodwill generated from his victory over King's Landing for a short time on the throne. He's more subtle than that.

 

Dismissing all of Tywin's motivations to not take the throne because "blood is a theme", and doing the same with Daenerys' inclusion in the plot, is equally laughable.

 

Yeah I don't think you understand how strong defensively King's Landing really is or Casterly Rock's wealth.

 

If Tywin wanted to take the Throne, he would've. The later books focus a lot on mercenaries. Guess who is the wealthiest family (wealthier than the Throne) in Westeros? Yeah, the Lannisters. Considering how long the Rebellion took, that would've been enough for Tywin to purchase enough mercs on top of his already big army (Casterly Rock has the biggest familial army) to decimate Aerys and Robert.

 

If you take away the blood theme, then a lot of the story doesn't make sense. I don't want to get into spoiling for TV watchers because just think about the importance of the purplehaired guy in the last book is, how his bloodline is relevant and how it changes the "game".

 

I think you and everyone else bought into Cersei's schtick about power. But GRRM is weaving something a lot more complex than "durr they stronger they own throne" caveman mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controlling King's landing is not enough to control the kingdom...If Tywin had a reasonable chance of becoming King, he would've seized it. But no one but Lannisters would have supported him and eventually, he would have succumbed to Robert, who by now has a huge following because he just defeated the army of the last king and liberated the country from his grip. Lannisters also exactly didn't make friends with the way they took King's Landing.

 

 

And I'm not saying that blood lines are completely irrelevant, because obviously some people do care, and those who do have a legitimate claim to the throne have bigger chances of getting it than those who don't at all. But that doesn't make the latter impossible, and more importantly, it doesn't *actually* mean that someone has a right to the throne or that he will do better as a king.

 

GRRM is more than well aware of that and this series won't end with the one with the best claim getting the throne just because of that. Possibly as a part of it, but by far not enough on its own. On the same page, that purple-haired guy will not just become king because of who he is. His claim might help, but that's about it. And if the series did end this way, GRRM would pretty much sell what his series is originally based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controlling King's landing is not enough to control the kingdom...If Tywin had a reasonable chance of becoming King, he would've seized it. But no one but Lannisters would have supported him and eventually, he would have succumbed to Robert, who by now has a huge following because he just defeated the army of the last king and liberated the country from his grip. Lannisters also exactly didn't make friends with the way they took King's Landing.

 

 

Which only supports my argument... why exactly does Robert have such a huge following? Or rather, why did they choose Robert to lead the rebellion despite Ned Stark or Jon Arryn having stronger share of their forces? Oh right, because he had the best claim to the throne.

 

Another factor is Dorne. Dorne thinks they have the power to overthrow the Throne (and probably do, remember they were only subdued due to dragons but even then they weren't fully invaded). Why are they or their leader, at least, so hell bent on finding Daenerys (w/ zero knowledge of the dragons) first rather than just kill their way to the throne? Especially when they have reasons for revenge against the Lannisters?

 

But yeah Langzor, there's no blood or lineage theme in the series at all. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controlling King's landing is not enough to control the kingdom...If Tywin had a reasonable chance of becoming King, he would've seized it. But no one but Lannisters would have supported him and eventually, he would have succumbed to Robert, who by now has a huge following because he just defeated the army of the last king and liberated the country from his grip. Lannisters also exactly didn't make friends with the way they took King's Landing.

 

 

Which only supports my argument... why exactly does Robert have such a huge following? Or rather, why did they choose Robert to lead the rebellion despite Ned Stark or Jon Arryn having stronger share of their forces? Oh right, because he had the best claim to the throne.

 

Another factor is Dorne. Dorne thinks they have the power to overthrow the Throne (and probably do, remember they were only subdued due to dragons but even then they weren't fully invaded). Why are they or their leader, at least, so hell bent on finding Daenerys (w/ zero knowledge of the dragons) first rather than just kill their way to the throne? Especially when they have reasons for revenge against the Lannisters?

 

But yeah Langzor, there's no blood or lineage theme in the series at all. None.

 

Ummm, where is the part where it's explained that Robert got his support because he had Targaryen blood? I've never even remotely read anything like that to my memory. They chose Robert, or rather Robert chose himself, because he was a fierce warrior, first to openly rebel against Aerys.

Unless I missed a big part of the book...

 

And I've never claimed that lineage doesn't help. Of course it does. And military power to conquer your enemies isn't enough, you obviously have to have enough to control the country afterwards as well.

 

I'm just saying that asoiaf doesn't buy into the typical cliché "and it turns out he's secretly the heir to the throne and now everyone kneels to him" you see in other fantasy (as in e.g. memory,sorrow and thorn, partly in the lord of the rings)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A large part of the reason Robert led the rebellion is his relationship with Lyanna Stark and his anger at Rhaegar T for the way him and the other T's supposedly mistreated her. But to be honest it is largely speculation as to why Robert led the rebellion as in the books its never fully explained as far as I can remember.

I should mention I've never read the first book.


Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
2mqj8rr.png
Minigames: Level 5 in All Barbarian Assault Roles PM me in game or on these forums to play. Over 500 Castle Wars Games with 460+ Tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol you gotta be more specific than that. I'm willing to read those chapters right now if you just post which ones.

 

If it's Renly who says it, it's probably irrelevant considering he's already ignoring the line of succession. If it was Stannis, then I'd be interested.

I know. Would have mentioned that but I had to leave. I'm pretty sure it's Renly, and he's just saying it to justify his own lack of a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol you gotta be more specific than that. I'm willing to read those chapters right now if you just post which ones.

 

If it's Renly who says it, it's probably irrelevant considering he's already ignoring the line of succession. If it was Stannis, then I'd be interested.

I know. Would have mentioned that but I had to leave. I'm pretty sure it's Renly, and he's just saying it to justify his own lack of a claim.

 

Heh, I'm rereading it atm (reaching the end of game of thrones atm) so if I stumble upon it, I'll let you know ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I don't think you understand how strong defensively King's Landing really is or Casterly Rock's wealth.

 

If Tywin wanted to take the Throne, he would've. The later books focus a lot on mercenaries. Guess who is the wealthiest family (wealthier than the Throne) in Westeros? Yeah, the Lannisters. Considering how long the Rebellion took, that would've been enough for Tywin to purchase enough mercs on top of his already big army (Casterly Rock has the biggest familial army) to decimate Aerys and Robert.

 

If you take away the blood theme, then a lot of the story doesn't make sense. I don't want to get into spoiling for TV watchers because just think about the importance of the purplehaired guy in the last book is, how his bloodline is relevant and how it changes the "game".

 

I think you and everyone else bought into Cersei's schtick about power. But GRRM is weaving something a lot more complex than "durr they stronger they own throne" caveman mentality.

Yes, those notoriously reliable mercenaries. I remember when Tywin hired the Brave Companions, they did a splendid job of representing Tywin's interests and following his orders (ha get it I am being sarcastic wakka wakka). Hiring sellswords to defend a place under heavy siege would be a pretty terrible practice.

 

Which only supports my argument... why exactly does Robert have such a huge following? Or rather, why did they choose Robert to lead the rebellion despite Ned Stark or Jon Arryn having stronger share of their forces? Oh right, because he had the best claim to the throne.

 

Another factor is Dorne. Dorne thinks they have the power to overthrow the Throne (and probably do, remember they were only subdued due to dragons but even then they weren't fully invaded). Why are they or their leader, at least, so hell bent on finding Daenerys (w/ zero knowledge of the dragons) first rather than just kill their way to the throne? Especially when they have reasons for revenge against the Lannisters?

 

But yeah Langzor, there's no blood or lineage theme in the series at all. None.

Could you say where you got your force numbers from? I was under the impression that both the Vale and the North held less men than the lands the Baratheons hold. The Vale is small and the North sparsely populated. Robert was chosen mainly because he was the instigator of the rebellion, Jon Arryn was elderly and Eddard didn't want anything to do with being king.

 

[spoiler=Dorne stuff in spoilers/purple-haired man]Doran knew he wasn't strong enough to face the Lannisters who had become buddy-buddy with the Baratheons, which is why he wanted to marry one of his daughters to Viserys. The Martells would get vengeance, one of their house as queen, and a massive Dothraki horde to supplement theirs and the Golden Companions' forces. Doran Martell is similar to Tywin Lannister in that he is very cautious and deliberate in his decision making, perhaps moreso than Tywin.

 

I don't know any purple-haired dudes from DWD, but I guess you mean Aegon? It doesn't really change anything, just introduces a complication to Daenerys' plot. I guess it subverts the themes of lineage and blood if they end up fighting each other.

 

 

As for the last bit, I don't get why you're suddenly altering your argument? You were arguing pretty hard that blood and lineage were pretty significant themes.

 

For what it's worth, I agree that they are themes, I never said they weren't. I just disagreed with your explanation of Tywin's decision to take Robert's side. Though I feel the themes of blood and lineage are more there for subversion than anything, see: Robert having Targaryen blood but being a pretty lame king, and Targaryens in general being batshit insane.

 

As for schticks, I probably buy into Varys' explanation the most. "Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, etc."


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.