Game of Thrones Season 4 Discussion (TV Spoilers Only)

[Raw Shark]

[massive snip] He could have had another wife and more children but he chose for whatever reason to not remarry and so left the whole Lannister legacy to his first children, two of which he liked but couldn't control, the one whom he was incapable of loving or trusting.

Spoiler

Tywin, unlike most people in this setting, really, really loved his wife, Joanna Lannister (his cousin), according to his sister Gemma in AFFC. When she died birthing Tyrion, everything good in him died also. This is pretty much the only sympathetic trait he has besides his loyalty to the family no matter what in the books, IMHO.

[Irbis]

Are you really that ignorant of history that you believe that huge fortifications have no value?

You mean, like Roman limes (that totally stopped Barbarian tribes) or Chinese Wall (that kept Mongols out)?

Ok, maybe they were not totally worthless, but the only three examples similar to the north Wall in real life I can recall were built by powerful empires on ass end of nowhere that wasn't worth conquering or was outright nearly impossible to conquer due to drastically different environment. Westerosi Wall would be also completely worthless in secondary function provided by Roman/Iranian/Chinese walls - border control and trade taxing zone.

In Westeros, north of the Wall isn't drastically different to areas just before the wall. In real life, the only equivalent we have, far north of Europe, was indeed conquered by feudal era Sweden, Norway and Russia. In fact, no feudal European kingdom ever bothered to build anything like big continuous wall so they obviously didn't consider them worth the effort.

[LaCroix]

Irbis, you seem to forget the general rule of walls - they are just as good as the men manning it. The Wall in the old times, with a garrison of 10000 men is by all means impenetrable from the Wildling side - but miles of Wall with just 1000 men to look after is imposiible to not leak like a sieve.

The same can be said about the Limes and Chinese wall - the Limes was working fine until Rome started hiring cheap foederati, and the chinese wall did exactly what it was supposed to, until it was under attack from a rebel army conquering china from the inside(Shun) while fighting off a Manchu invasion. The Ming garrison rather opened the gates for the Manchu rather than surrendering to these rebels...

[Irbis]

Irbis, you seem to forget the general rule of walls - they are just as good as the men manning it. The Wall in the old times, with a garrison of 10000 men is by all means impenetrable from the Wildling side - but miles of Wall with just 1000 men to look after is imposiible to not leak like a sieve.

Yes, but my question earlier was, why bother with wall at all since you could do what Norwegians did to Sami and Swedes to Finns - take these 10.000 men and conquer/pacify everything to land of always winter, problem of raids solved. The only saving grace of the Wall is maybe keeping Others out, but if it really has autodestruct button or Others can walk around when water freezes in Winter then the Wall means colossal resources squandered through centuries doing nothing.

The same can be said about the Limes and Chinese wall - the Limes was working fine until Rome started hiring cheap foederati, and the chinese wall did exactly what it was supposed to, until it was under attack from a rebel army conquering china from the inside(Shun) while fighting off a Manchu invasion. The Ming garrison rather opened the gates for the Manchu rather than surrendering to these rebels...

IIRC even when manned they failed at stopping penetrations and border raids. Even relatively small, easily defended Hadrian/Antonine Wall system required multiple punitive counter-raids and historians argued Romans would be better off just conquering southern Scotland defending it with forts (like British/Scots later did in their conflict).

[Thanas]

You mean, like Roman limes (that totally stopped Barbarian tribes) or Chinese Wall (that kept Mongols out)?

So yes, we have found the only person so totally ignorant in military history that he thinks the Roman border defence was a failure despite working just fine for hundreds of years.

IIRC even when manned they failed at stopping penetrations and border raids. Even relatively small, easily defended Hadrian/Antonine Wall system required multiple punitive counter-raids and historians argued Romans would be better off just conquering southern Scotland defending it with forts (like British/Scots later did in their conflict).

Lol no. This is complete nonsense.

Besides, the walls worked just fine. (And the limes actually is not meant as a wall, but a control/trip line. If you want to take a look at a real Roman fortification system on that scale, look at the strata diocletiana). Without their walls, Rome would have fallen during the 3rd century.

As to the counter raids, do not confuse necessity with political necessity.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Irbis, you seem to forget the general rule of walls - they are just as good as the men manning it. The Wall in the old times, with a garrison of 10000 men is by all means impenetrable from the Wildling side - but miles of Wall with just 1000 men to look after is imposiible to not leak like a sieve.

Yes, but my question earlier was, why bother with wall at all since you could do what Norwegians did to Sami and Swedes to Finns - take these 10.000 men and conquer/pacify everything to land of always winter, problem of raids solved.

There are a lot of reasons:
1. Why the hell would you want to conquer said mudpit villages?
1.b) Why do you think they'll stay conquered, unless you leave your army. Garrisoned. in hundreds of tiny isolated villages over a huge territory. Over a very long period of time. (And against huge cultural differences - there's a reason why the wildling's don't have any cities, their aren't the agricultural resources to support a large static population).
1.c) Don't forget the issue of your soldiers being picked to pieces by the various raiding parties, unless you take the scorched earth approach and try to slaughter every wildling living North of the wall, (again, over a HUGE territory, and a massively dispersed, hunter gatherer mobile population).

In short, much easier just to keep them out. (Especially if you already have a giant wall constructed).

The only saving grace of the Wall is maybe keeping Others out, but if it really has autodestruct button or Others can walk around when water freezes in Winter then the Wall means colossal resources squandered through centuries doing nothing.

This ignores the issue of the Others. But! We haven't seen them cross the wall. We know about the undead "things in the water", and also past the wall [e.g. the dead ranger who almost killed Mormont in AGOT]). But we haven't seen any of the Others past the wall.

[jollyreaper]

Apparently not because just a few posts above somebody was questioning if RL walls were ever worth it.

Just because people keep repeating a strategy does not mean that it is a sound strategy, merely that it appears to be so.

Are you really that ignorant of history that you believe that huge fortifications have no value?

A fortification built around something that needs defending, that can make sense. A wall that can be bypassed, not so much. Much of history is filled with people learning the wrong lessons. My favorite is with the French vs. English knights. The English won a decisive battle with unmounted knights. The French decided there was a virtue to this and so tried the same tactic. What they didn't appreciate is the English were unmounted in the defense, thus removing the horses put more weapons per foot in the defensive line. For attackers, mobility is important. Putting knights on foot leaves them exposed to defensive fire for a longer time.

[jollyreaper]

The guy who's willing to fuck a priestess of evil to slay his enemies with demonic splooge assassins

Maybe it's because I haven't read as much fantasy as everyone else, but I've always found the focus on Melisandre's shadow assassins to be quite...strange. It's one of the things I can never agree with the fandom about. Don't get me wrong Stannis (inexplicably) jumped off the slippery slope on the show, the only character to fully do so, but the shadow assassin thing was really one of the least evil things he ever did. Instead of Melisandre sacrificing someone else to do his bidding he sacrificed a bit of himself. Instead of killing someone for being religious he killed a fellow claimant.

Is it that shadow baby/dark things==evil is some fantasy trope I'm supposed to recognize and apply here? I don't really see why I should. I haven't seen any hints that magic operates like Harry Potter or Star Wars, and certain branches of it are intrinsically wrong rather than wrong when used for evil. If dark==evil then Dany burning that woman to get dragons is far, far more evil imo.

/rant.
[/quote]

That's a fair question. Science is neutral, it doesn't care about moral agendas. Nuclear physics can give us powerplants or bombs. Any sort of Sauron's Ring temptation going on is all in the mind. A pile of gold sitting in in the middle of a room of armed men doesn't make them fight to the death to possess it, that's on them.

In fantasy settings, there's usually the idea of a kind of radioactive evil, a power that corrupts beyond the normal mortal desires. But that's probably just a holdover from religious thinking, the idea that the devil tempts someone into sin, that the proclivity for that behavior could not be entirely justified within the psychology of the sinner.

My adverse reaction to the Red Lady comes from being skeeved out by her. It's possible she could be the Dr. Mengele of religious magic and good people could use the same tools to different effect. She creeps me the hell out, Children of the Corn style.

I don't think there's been any official word from GRRM as to whether or not the gods are real or even what it would mean if there is a god.

Traditional understanding for what constitutes black magic, in terms of real world traditions, is that there's usually some sort of harm involved. You are trying to work a harm against someone or gain a boon which involves harming someone, like a child sacrifice to gain wealth. Outside the realm of magic you can still find similar sacrifices. What if a leader has to allow an innocent man to be executed because someone has to take the blame for a crime so that there can be peace? Or a trusted retainer kills a king who has gone mad and threatens the safety of the realm, Jamie-style. Nobody really holds a bomber crew responsible for the babies undoubtedly incinerated in their raids and yet it would seem more evil if they killed those babies directly, in person. Why? Dead is dead, should it matter how and why?

Tywin did order the Mountain specifically to go out and raid the Riverlands. From that order it logically follows there will be rape and murder and all manner of evil. It does seem like a better trade for Stannis to send demon splooge against his enemies, especially since they are rival claimants and the continued war will result in more suffering. But the splooge demons still look pretty evil. Then again, Theon was a pretty nasty piece of work with innocent blood on his hands and if someone were to strangle him to death in clear view, us seeing eyes bulging and the last gasp of breath, it would look pretty horrifying and make us feel revolved, even if it is saving lives.

I think we tend to gravitate towards dualist magic systems because of the judeo-christian background of this society. If there is magic, then surely there must be good and evil. I think it would be truly fitting for the setting as presented if there is no good and evil in magic, magic is simply magic, good and evil is in the intent of the mortal wielding it, and the gods in question are just anthropomorphic personifications invented by the magicians and are no more conscious entities than a god of entropy or magnetism.

If we think about what it means to carry out Dany's crucifixion sentence. I don't think anyone has trouble imagining violence in the heat of the moment, like defending against an attacker or killing someone to defend another. But cold-blooded and deliberate brutality absent mortal threat, that's a whole other realm. Here's some guy and you don't know his story, you're told he's a master and that he's done awful things but not that you've seen. And here you are, ordered to nail him up. Brutal.

I get what you're saying. I guess it's all evil by degrees, we just viscerally respond in different ways for different things.

[TheFeniX]

Maybe it's because I haven't read as much fantasy as everyone else, but I've always found the focus on Melisandre's shadow assassins to be quite...strange. It's one of the things I can never agree with the fandom about. Don't get me wrong Stannis (inexplicably) jumped off the slippery slope on the show, the only character to fully do so, but the shadow assassin thing was really one of the least evil things he ever did. Instead of Melisandre sacrificing someone else to do his bidding he sacrificed a bit of himself. Instead of killing someone for being religious he killed a fellow claimant.

I've read a lot of fantasy and I'm in the same boat: it's not a big deal. Stannis has done far worse in his quest for the Throne. By using the Vagina of Evil to slay Renly, he not only avoided bloodshed, but also increased his manpower. I just found it funny because you would never see someone spray assassins out of their dick, but using a vagina for evil is common enough I can recall a few instances off-hand (Excalibur comes to mind immediately).

Is it that shadow baby/dark things==evil is some fantasy trope I'm supposed to recognize and apply here? I don't really see why I should. I haven't seen any hints that magic operates like Harry Potter or Star Wars, and certain branches of it are intrinsically wrong rather than wrong when used for evil. If dark==evil then Dany burning that woman to get dragons is far, far more evil imo.

I do believe it's still using "blood" magic for a "less bad" solution to a problem. Even if lives were saved, the point of the magic is some kind of sacrifice, so it's more of a road to Hell being paved with good intentions. You're also dealing with viewers who mistake pragmatism for cowardice.

[Tanasinn]

It's that he kills his own brother, not that he uses shadow magic, that's the problem. This doesn't come across well in the show (nor does Stannis's characterization, for that matter), but kinslaying is a BIG FUCKING DEAL culturally in Westeros. You don't do it, period. It's up there with "violating guest-right." This is why people see it as a dark stain on Stannis's record, a guy who's supposed to be honor and lawbound to a fault. A big deal about this is made between him and Davos, and by the end even Stannis is clearly troubled.

[Crown]

It's that he kills his own brother, not that he uses shadow magic, that's the problem. This doesn't come across well in the show (nor does Stannis's characterization, for that matter), but kinslaying is a BIG FUCKING DEAL culturally in Westeros. You don't do it, period. It's up there with "violating guest-right." This is why people see it as a dark stain on Stannis's record, a guy who's supposed to be honor and lawbound to a fault. A big deal about this is made between him and Davos, and by the end even Stannis is clearly troubled.

Pretty sure that kinslaying is a-ok when said kin takes up arms against you to deny you your birthright.

[LaCroix]

Pretty sure that kinslaying is a-ok when said kin takes up arms against you to deny you your birthright.

If you meet them by chance in battle - but assassination of kin stays just as yucky...

[The Grim Squeaker]

Pretty sure that kinslaying is a-ok when said kin takes up arms against you to deny you your birthright.

If you meet them by chance in battle - but assassination of kin stays just as yucky...

Actually, more like the other way round.
Having kin killed is super bad. Killing them by your own hand, is considered far worse and accursed by the gods, even if it's an accident in some cases (eg in a tourney)

[Ziggy Stardust]

You mean, like Roman limes (that totally stopped Barbarian tribes) or Chinese Wall (that kept Mongols out)?

The fortifications that we now consider to be the Great Wall were built by the Ming Dynasty. AFTER the Mongols had conquered China, and after their empire had collapsed. When the Mongols conquered China, there was no Great Wall, though there was a network of non-connecting fortifications in different parts of northern China. The actual Great Wall we think about did a great job of protecting China for the better part of 200 years. It only fell in 1644 to the Manchus when rebels had already essentially dissolved the Ming dynasty and let the Manchus through; after that, the Wall was only worthless because all the territory to the north of it was part of China.

So ... yeah, you clearly don't know the history as well as you seem to think you do.

[Pelranius]

Pretty sure that kinslaying is a-ok when said kin takes up arms against you to deny you your birthright.

If you meet them by chance in battle - but assassination of kin stays just as yucky...

Actually, more like the other way round.
Having kin killed is super bad. Killing them by your own hand, is considered far worse and accursed by the gods, even if it's an accident in some cases (eg in a tourney)

Wouldn't that work out better for Stannis then? Most people wouldn't really credit him with having killed Renly with his own hand (they'd suspect it was assassins or something, since I don't recall anyone actually thinking that Melisandre teleported him into the middle of the Baratheon-Tyrell camp in the middle of the night).

If anything, the case against Stannis would be that he got his Red Priestess to kill his brother via "magic", as opposed to cutting down Renly during battle.

[Darksider]

Doesn't everybody in-universe thing Brienne stuck Renly? I mean maybe they think Stannis put her up to it, but the whole shadow baby thing isn't common knowledge, is it?

[Thanas]

A fortification built around something that needs defending, that can make sense. A wall that can be bypassed, not so much. Much of history is filled with people learning the wrong lessons. My favorite is with the French vs. English knights. The English won a decisive battle with unmounted knights. The French decided there was a virtue to this and so tried the same tactic. What they didn't appreciate is the English were unmounted in the defense, thus removing the horses put more weapons per foot in the defensive line. For attackers, mobility is important. Putting knights on foot leaves them exposed to defensive fire for a longer time.

Literally everything you posted here in this thread is either completely ignorant, fucking stupid or both. The above is no exception. For your information, the French at Agincourt knew full well what the Brits were doing. Cavalry attacks did not work. Attacking in an infantry formation was the only way they had any chance at victory and chances are that they would at least have had a chance had the cowardly British not started slaughtering prisoners.

[Ahriman238]

My understanding of ASOIAF magic is that you really are invoking powers beyond human comprehension. To do so involves great sacrifice (Stannis' vitality, Gendry's blood, Varys' balls, Dani's child) and even so there's a decent chance you won't really get what you wanted, See: the attempted healing of Khal Drogo. Maybe because of your wishes being made too literal, maybe because what you asked for still doesn't help you all that much.

On the other hand, I do believe there are differences between magic as practiced by the worshippers of the Red God, the White Walkers, and the First Men (see Bran and other Wargs.)

[Iroscato]

My understanding of ASOIAF magic is that you really are invoking powers beyond human comprehension. To do so involves great sacrifice (Stannis' vitality, Gendry's blood, Varys' balls, Dani's child) and even so there's a decent chance you won't really get what you wanted, See: the attempted healing of Khal Drogo. Maybe because of your wishes being made too literal, maybe because what you asked for still doesn't help you all that much.

On the other hand, I do believe there are differences between magic as practiced by the worshippers of the Red God, the White Walkers, and the First Men (see Bran and other Wargs.)

I agree, and I like the magical presence in the show - very elemental, subtle yet there, and almost totally taboo among the people of Westoros and Essos. One of the few disappointments of the finale for me, actually, was the use of the shooty-shooty boom-boom variety of magic used by the little Tree Midget (I know not their real names, so that will suffice until I do). It seemed a bit jarring to suddenly have fireballs being chucked about willy-nilly.

[Serafina]

Given that the Children are a magical race, its no more jarring to me than firebreathing dragons or the powers of the White Walkers.


Also, i got a question:
If Oberyn Martell had won the duel against the mountain, what would the consequences of his use of poisoned weapons be? It's probably not an approved thing during a judicial duel, might it have invalidated the results?

[Imperial Overlord]

Given that the Children are a magical race, its no more jarring to me than firebreathing dragons or the powers of the White Walkers.


Also, i got a question:
If Oberyn Martell had won the duel against the mountain, what would the consequences of his use of poisoned weapons be? It's probably not an approved thing during a judicial duel, might it have invalidated the results?

Well if he had won the duel with the Mountain he would have finished him with the spear. He's a Prince of Dorn and the Mountain is clearly dead of a stab wound. It's a hard to prove that he cheated and trying to do so could be politically disastrous, fatal, or both. That's why he did it. If he won, then he's going to get away with it. If he loses, the Mountain still dies in pain.

[Sinewmire]

My understanding of ASOIAF magic is that you really are invoking powers beyond human comprehension.

My understanding of it is that magic is like a tide, that's coming back with winter.

Before the comet, before summer's end, there was no working magic, no dragons, no white walkers and no Children of the Forest.

Now winter comes back and with it magic. Suddenly Thoros of Myr's prayers work, suddenly dark things stir once more in the snows, suddenly dragons are reborn.

Maybe just my interpretation ofc.

[Iroscato]

My understanding of ASOIAF magic is that you really are invoking powers beyond human comprehension.

My understanding of it is that magic is like a tide, that's coming back with winter.

Before the comet, before summer's end, there was no working magic, no dragons, no white walkers and no Children of the Forest.

Now winter comes back and with it magic. Suddenly Thoros of Myr's prayers work, suddenly dark things stir once more in the snows, suddenly dragons are reborn.

Maybe just my interpretation ofc.

I think the current situation is a little more unique than that. Winters come and go every few years in Westoros AFAIK, but this one is going to be particularly long and harsh. The dragons have been gone for centuries by this point, their return coinciding with the coming of winter is more or less a coincidence, albeit an interesting and unfortunate one.

[Pelranius]

Huh, just found out that Charles Dance played a henchman to a Bond villain in For Your Eyes Only.

Said Bond Villain was Kristatos, aka Maxmillian Veers, aka Pycelle (Julian Glover).

My, how the tables have turned.