EPT[TV/BOOK] *SPOILERS* Game of Thrones Discussion - Page 178
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and Fire Click Here for the spoiler-free thread. | ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
| ||
|
Irrelevant Label
United States596 Posts
The good bet is on it being Jon either way though, other than if she saw the face and it wasn't someone she recognized causing the lack of specification about who. If not Jon then things get a little weird because the only other nominees would be Bran, who is hard to call a man, and Varamyr who is hard to call important at this point. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On August 31 2012 18:26 moopie wrote: Except that the only reason Dany survived was because Jorah just happened to save her after falling in love with her. I really doubt that Varys could have foreseen that AND been sure that Jorah would have realized the poisoning attempt in time to save her. Seems like a real long shot if your goal is to help her take over the realm. Remember that Jorah was Varys' spy in the first place. So it's entirely possible that Varys sent the assassin while simultaneously letting Jorah know about the assassination attempt. It's perfect from Varys perspective: Obey the King, save Daenerys and have her trust your spy even more, all in one move. He just didn't know that the spy by then was falling in love with Dany. | ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
| ||
|
Vandrad
Germany951 Posts
On September 02 2012 02:11 Flik wrote: It does say man then wolf then man again. But the sentence before she hears the name Jon Snow and sees his long face I thought of that before too. Im glad to hear that there is actually some hints in the book that it might be true. Liked the idea of Jon learning to take over other bodies too like bran does it with hodor | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
Had he returned, he would've been informed about Cercei's doings. He might not have believed it, but there's a chance he would. | ||
|
daralharb
United States59 Posts
On September 02 2012 23:05 Euronyme wrote: One thing that's bothered me is the convenient death of Robert Baratheon. It's strange to me that the queen would risk herself, her children and the Lannisters in general when the only thing protecting her is the fact that she's given the king strong wine when he's on a hunt. I mean the only thing he has to do is to aim his spear properly and stand still. It's not something impossible to do, even when dead drunk. Had he returned, he would've been informed about Cercei's doings. He might not have believed it, but there's a chance he would. I think what the author was going for was to show the ingenuity of Cersi. She didn't kill him, just gave him enough rope to hang himself with it. If Rob hadn't been killed by the boar Cerci would have been fine. Robert in fact enjoyed the stregnth of the wine and probably would have requested more of it after a succesfull hunt. | ||
|
Irrelevant Label
United States596 Posts
| ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
On September 02 2012 23:05 Euronyme wrote: One thing that's bothered me is the convenient death of Robert Baratheon. It's strange to me that the queen would risk herself, her children and the Lannisters in general when the only thing protecting her is the fact that she's given the king strong wine when he's on a hunt. I mean the only thing he has to do is to aim his spear properly and stand still. It's not something impossible to do, even when dead drunk. Had he returned, he would've been informed about Cercei's doings. He might not have believed it, but there's a chance he would. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that she said that if he survived the hunt they would just stage an accident. She was absolutely going to kill him. That the boar killed him was just a lucky break for her, nobody thought of foul play. I think this is in one of the chapters where she's imprisoned by the faith. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
1) Tywin didn't take power during the Rebellion 2) Robert (a drunken baffoon) was chosen to be king 3) anyone thought Lyanna didn't run off willingly 4) Robert isn't known as the real Kingslayer 5) the Starks would demand anything from the MAD King 6) no one thought to communicate with anyone else 7) if everyone is such a scheming genius with 30-year plans in the works, why the Targs still had a dynasty for like 12,000 years or whatever. cause those were some of the problems i had. its like he wanted this super realistic world about political maneuvering but the politics make no sense when you really think about it, and more often than not remind me of a 17 year old who has just read (and misunderstood) Machiavelli's The Prince i just think these books had a lot of wasted potential. | ||
|
aloT
England1042 Posts
2) Because it was "his" war, as well as him having distant lineage by marriage to the Throne 3) It was a theory, and there are many. Nobody knows. 4) He didnt slay the king, he only usurped him. That is why he is sometimes called the usurper by his enemies. The only reason he is not called that by his friends as well is because they would lose their heads. 5) He was only really consolodated as the mad king after the war and all the stories really got put together. 6) Communication broke down as soon as Starks started being killed or taken away. 7) the Targs did not have a dynasty for that long. They had a long era of control but so did many other Kings, some plans work and some plans fail irregardless of time spent planning. | ||
|
Drunken.Jedi
Germany446 Posts
On September 03 2012 05:32 sc2superfan101 wrote: so does it ever explain why: 1) Tywin didn't take power during the Rebellion Because he probably couldn't have. His allegiance was dubious, having stayed out of all of the actualy fighting, so Robert and Eddard would never have accepted him as king, so the only way for him to take power would have been yet another civil war and one in which he would probably have very few allies. 2) Robert (a drunken baffoon) was chosen to be king He wasn't a drunken baffoon back then, he was a mighty warrior in his prime and a successful battle commander. Later on it turned out that he was horrible at ruling in times of peace, but as a military commander he was very good. On top of that he had the best hereditary claim to the throne out of any non-Targ. 3) anyone thought Lyanna didn't run off willingly Not sure. In general, we know very little about the whole affair. We also do not actually know whether she was abducted or if she went willingly. 4) Robert isn't known as the real Kingslayer Uh, because he didn't slay any king? He did kill Prince Rhaegar, but that was when Aerys was still king. 5) the Starks would demand anything from the MAD King It's well established that Brandon was headstrong and impulsive. Winterfell is also far away from King's Landing and Brandon certainly wasn't aware of the extent of Aerys's madness. 6) no one thought to communicate with anyone else Who didn't communicate with whom when? 7) if everyone is such a scheming genius with 30-year plans in the works, why the Targs still had a dynasty for like 12,000 years or whatever. First of all, what scheming geniuses with 30 year plans are you talking about? And secondly, the Targ line lasted for less than 300 years and it's not like it's all been smooth sailing there. There have been wars and civil wars and such during that time. | ||
|
Kyuukyuu
Canada6263 Posts
On September 03 2012 05:32 sc2superfan101 wrote: so does it ever explain why: 1) Tywin didn't take power during the Rebellion 2) Robert (a drunken baffoon) was chosen to be king 3) anyone thought Lyanna didn't run off willingly 4) Robert isn't known as the real Kingslayer 5) the Starks would demand anything from the MAD King 6) no one thought to communicate with anyone else 7) if everyone is such a scheming genius with 30-year plans in the works, why the Targs still had a dynasty for like 12,000 years or whatever. cause those were some of the problems i had. its like he wanted this super realistic world about political maneuvering but the politics make no sense when you really think about it, and more often than not remind me of a 17 year old who has just read (and misunderstood) Machiavelli's The Prince i just think these books had a lot of wasted potential. 1. Aerys refused to marry Rhaegar to Cersei, and also took Jaime in the Kingsguard and thus took away the heir to Casterly Rock since the Kingsguard serve for life and can hold no lands. Tywin gets understandably pissed off and forfeits his Handship, and also doesn't join the Targ side during the rebellion. He also does not join Robert's side until the end because Jaime is under Aerys's watch and is basically a hostage. 2. The Baratheons are related to Targaryens; Robert is specifically a distant cousin by his great great grandmother (or something like that). It was the best choice to hold the throne afterward with minimal resistance. 3. She, for one reason or another, decided not to leave a note or tell anyone that she was going willingly (if that is indeed what she did do). Since she was betrothed to Robert and Rhaegar was already married to Elia Martell it was assumed that she was kidnapped. Mostly it was a total miscommunication and pretty stupid, but in either case Robert would probably have gone to war over her. 4. Because he didn't kill the king 5. Brandon Stark is a hothead and what he did was retarded. You don't just charge into King's Landing and demand for the crown prince to come out and die, Mad King or not, but that's what he did. Also, Aerys wasn't mad all the time (pre-defiance of duskendale) 6. this is too general to really address 7. The Targ dynasty lasted less than 300 years. And it was "peaceful" (not really) because they had motherfucking dragons | ||
|
aloT
England1042 Posts
"its like he wanted this super realistic world about political maneuvering but the politics make no sense when you really think about it, and more often than not remind me of a 17 year old who has just read (and misunderstood) Machiavelli's The Prince". It is really quite unfair for you to make this comment about Martin's writing. | ||
|
Irrelevant Label
United States596 Posts
On September 03 2012 05:32 sc2superfan101 wrote: so does it ever explain why: 1) Tywin didn't take power during the Rebellion 2) Robert (a drunken baffoon) was chosen to be king 3) anyone thought Lyanna didn't run off willingly 4) Robert isn't known as the real Kingslayer 5) the Starks would demand anything from the MAD King 6) no one thought to communicate with anyone else 7) if everyone is such a scheming genius with 30-year plans in the works, why the Targs still had a dynasty for like 12,000 years or whatever. cause those were some of the problems i had. its like he wanted this super realistic world about political maneuvering but the politics make no sense when you really think about it, and more often than not remind me of a 17 year old who has just read (and misunderstood) Machiavelli's The Prince i just think these books had a lot of wasted potential. These have been answered pretty well, probably first and best by GRRM and then called by aloT, but I'll add on a couple. 2. Robert was the defacto leader of the Rebellion, alongside two men with no interest in the throne themselves (Ned and Jon). He wasn't a drunken buffoon, he was the most proven battlefield commander in the kingdoms and one of the better individual combatants as of his conquests in the Rebellion. He won battles where he was outnumbered, where he had marched his army through the night, and where he personally had been in the front killing some of the most notable champions of the opposing side. 20-year-old Robert was basically everything people like about Rob and Stannis combined, with some Tyrion thrown in when it comes to vice. He, or rather the Baratheon line, also represented the best claim to the throne on account of multiple Targaryen princesses having been married off to Baratheon lords including most recently his grandmother. They also descend from Orys Baratheon, Aegon I's half brother. Ned could have taken it if he wanted, the maesters and priests would have cited the line of the kings of the north etc. instead of Targaryen princesses and half brothers, but he didn't because he was Ned. This sort of goes for #1 too. Tywin had no grounds to take it and would have simply lost a quick 1v6 if he tried, with the only real contest being for his head between Oberyn's rage/Olenna's realpolitik/Ned's justice. 5. One thing the Starks are known for is being hot headed. Ned refers to it as having "the wolf's blood" and remarks how it was strong in the two of his siblings who died around the rebellion and Arya. Speaking of which, <insert what was already said about Brandon>. 7. Forgetting the technical inaccuracies in the question and getting to the answer to what is being asked: Dragons. When they are in play there are no proper wars, there are occasional BBQ's of those stupid enough to let a disagreement escalate to forceful conflict against those with Dragons. The Valyrians quickly took control of anywhere they cared to expand to for thousands of years and during the 150 that Targaryens had dragons in Westeros the only war that lasted much longer than the time it takes for a dragon to fly from KL was when both sides had them. They are not invincible, but with any plurality of them and/or certain particularly large ones they have been unbeatable so far. | ||
|
laszmosis
Australia112 Posts
My particular thoughts are with the relationship between Stannis and John with the Iron Bank of Braavos. Is there any indication how much power or corruption the bank of Braavos has over Braavos? If they are able to influence the house of black and white? Because the connection I was thinking, the Iron Bank of Braavos, with it's connection now to Stannis and John, that if it's in their power, they could hire a faceless man for them, which could possibly be Arya. Also with Jaquen, does anyone know how the faceless man got in jail? (before the knights watch dude got him). Did he fail an assassination? And to assassinate who? Lawl, just my thoughts of the day. I feel like in the end of the story, the starks will be re-united somehow. And this was a connection I thought it could make possible with Arya. | ||
|
daralharb
United States59 Posts
I really with the author would devote more chapters to Arya, she's one of my favorites | ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
The way it is described, it seemes like a Mordor-esque post-cataclysmic wasteland, cursed in some way and full of riches. George R. R. Martin has always been so vague about the Doom, so I really hope we'll get some clarification on that. So far, Tyrion has come closest to Valyria and it's really fitting for him to be the first one to enter it, since he's been send to hell and back already. Well, not back actually, just to hell. | ||
|
Sugarfluff
Sweden132 Posts
On August 26 2012 03:35 TheFish7 wrote: So Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark are Jon Snow's parents. That is most likely true unless its the biggest red herring in book writing history... Were did this theory come from? It's been awhile since I read the books, but the only clue I remember about Jon's mother is what Davos hears when he is on his way to White Harbour. He gets shipwrecked before he arrives and recieves assistance, during this conversation he is told about Robert's first rebellion and how Eddard passed through the same way back then. Apparently Ed recieved help from some girl that he fathered Jon with. Am I completely misremembering that? Or was the "lord" of those islands just full of shit?  Edit: Looked up the passage. "At the dawn of Robert's Rebellion. The Mad King had sent to the Eyrie for Stark's head, but Jon Arryn sent him back defiance. Gulltown stayed loyal to the throne, though. To get home and call his banners, Stark had to cross the mountains to the Fingers and find a fisherman to carry him across the Bite. A storm caught them on the way. The fisherman drowned, but his daughter got Stark to the Sisters before the boat went down. They say he left her with a bag of silver and a bastard in her belly, Jon Snow, she named him, after Arryn." It isn't a perfect fit, true, but it isn't so far fetched to assume that Edd came back when the fighting was done and picked up Jon. Right or wrong I'd like to hear the bases for the other theory as I seem to have missed it going through the books. | ||
|
Irrelevant Label
United States596 Posts
Edit: Tower of the Hand used to have what to my knowledge was the best essay on the whole topic but I can't seem to find it and GSL code S is on so I'm calling off the search for now. | ||
| ||
