Game of Thrones Thread

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
While I'm in the mood to talk about this franchise, I find it very peculiar how honor is portrayed as bad and gets people killed while being an absolute shit means you'll go places. What's really perplexing is how GRRM has super honorable people blindly serve tyrants out of honor despite those tyrants having no honor whatsoever. That in itself is dishonorable to an absurd degree. Honor isn't blind loyalty. Honor is fidelity to ideals. The type of honor GRRM has these characters ascribe to is bugman shit even real life bug people wouldn't have ever go for because of monumental retardation. It's no reasonable at all, much less realistic. Even if a knight swore by a king, one would eventually stab him in the back if he raped so many of his own subjects' wives or executed people willy nilly.

The heart isn't in conflict with itself at all in these scenarios. GRRM writes very retarded and ridiculously flawed people following unrealistic mockeries of real life ideals. What did I expect coming from someone who writes an absolute kingdom with an entirely decentralized government (seriously, this is the most retarded fucking shit ever now that I think about it)? Or from someone who has a religion that's treated like an absolute joke by everyone with very little established or lauded morals? GRRM's portrayal of feudalism, morality, religion, and overall humanity is typical leftist subversionist nonsense.

now excuse me, i have riverlord vassals and greenlander kings to drown in my own immortal drowned godking name in ck2
 
While I'm in the mood to talk about this franchise, I find it very peculiar how honor is portrayed as bad and gets people killed while being an absolute shit means you'll go places. What's really perplexing is how GRRM has super honorable people blindly serve tyrants out of honor despite those tyrants having no honor whatsoever. That in itself is dishonorable to an absurd degree. Honor isn't blind loyalty. Honor is fidelity to ideals. The type of honor GRRM has these characters ascribe to is bugman shit even real life bug people wouldn't have ever go for because of monumental retardation. It's no reasonable at all, much less realistic. Even if a knight swore by a king, one would eventually stab him in the back if he raped so many of his own subjects' wives or executed people willy nilly.

The heart isn't in conflict with itself at all in these scenarios. GRRM writes very retarded and ridiculously flawed people following unrealistic mockeries of real life ideals. What did I expect coming from someone who writes an absolute kingdom with an entirely decentralized government (seriously, this is the most retarded fucking shit ever now that I think about it)? Or from someone who has a religion that's treated like an absolute joke by everyone with very little established or lauded morals? GRRM's portrayal of feudalism, morality, religion, and overall humanity is typical leftist subversionist nonsense.

now excuse me, i have riverlord vassals and greenlander kings to drown in my own immortal drowned godking name in ck2
While I want to make the parallels to Alan Moore retarded views of objectivism (which is somewhat the same aspect for super heroes as honor is for chivalry), I think the more likely reason is because GRRM writes medieval politics as if they are modern day American politics:
1. There is no reason not to lie as no one will call you out on it.
2. The only thing important is how rich you are.
3. There is no ideology, only different factions that are the same from an outside view.

In doing it he doesn't realize that honor itself was a sort of currency in the past and you'd rather deal with someone who you know 100% has your back than one that is likely to betray you. This has the cumulative effect of making you wonder how anything even works when just about everyone is expected to betray you and unlike modern day, it can take you a month to find that out.
 
While I want to make the parallels to Alan Moore retarded views of objectivism (which is somewhat the same aspect for super heroes as honor is for chivalry), I think the more likely reason is because GRRM writes medieval politics as if they are modern day American politics:
1. There is no reason not to lie as no one will call you out on it.
2. The only thing important is how rich you are.
3. There is no ideology, only different factions that are the same from an outside view.

In doing it he doesn't realize that honor itself was a sort of currency in the past and you'd rather deal with someone who you know 100% has your back than one that is likely to betray you. This has the cumulative effect of making you wonder how anything even works when just about everyone is expected to betray you and unlike modern day, it can take you a month to find that out.
The problem is, in a feudal society, riches only can get you so far. Someone higher than you on the totem pole can just tax you to the bone, and you can't do anything about it. So you can be the super-rich noble or bourgeoisie dude, but if the king says you have to pay the taxes, you have to pay them.

There are times of weakness where money can buy power. Like when Rodrigo Borgia bought the Papacy with four mule-loads of silver. But that was when the Papacy was weak and surrounded by enemies. Meanwhile, if you tried to pull that shit during the golden age of Papal power, say in the Middle Ages with Popes like Innocent III, you'd get your ass handed to you if you tried to buy the Papacy; other nations with a stake on the Papal throne like France or the Holy Roman Empire would kick your ass out of the Vatican. They've got loads of cardinals who will vote in their favor due to geopolitical concerns; some upstart flashing cash to get votes would just get kicked out.

And yes, honor is a currency; the more honor you have, the more likely other lords or kings would deal with you positively. The more likely they would trust you with great responsibility. The more likely the Pope will listen to you. A noble or king with high levels of honor and fame would be welcomed in banquets across Medieval Christendom, and the same goes for other feudal states across the world. Someone like Liu Bei of Han China was well-loved for his generosity and honor. Just as Louis IX of France was well-loved to the point where they made the dude a saint.
 
I thought you were referring Lü Bu who was the opposite of that. Watching the show Apothecary Diaries makes me wonder if maybe the courts of concubines are closer to GoT politics than actual medieval history
Practically. GRRM has no idea how medieval politics works. Someone like Tywin who murdered baptized royal babies would be considered damned for all eternity, since royals were one step below the Pope, who is God's voice on Earth.
 
Practically. GRRM has no idea how medieval politics works. Someone like Tywin who murdered baptized royal babies would be considered damned for all eternity, since royals were one step below the Pope, who is God's voice on Earth.
Even before that, Tywin got a whole vassal house of his murdered. The inspiration of the Rains of Castamere.

The only reason he didn't suffer the consequences is because he was still in good terms with Aerys at that point. Because I'm sure getting your own people murdered in that way would make more houses to rebel against you.

Which is what happened to Aerys and it was something Tywin supported because it benefited him.
 
Even before that, Tywin got a whole vassal house of his murdered. The inspiration of the Rains of Castamere.

The only reason he didn't suffer the consequences is because he was still in good terms with Aerys at that point. Because I'm sure getting your own people murdered in that way would make more houses to rebel against you.

Which is what happened to Aerys and it was something Tywin supported because it benefited him.
I'm pretty sure Aerys II was a sadistic bastard who probably enjoyed having a liege lord kick his uppity vassal around. But if you put that in the context of the real Middle Ages, Tywin killing noble women and children would have the aristocracy of Westeros as a whole denouncing him as a ruthless killer, and Aerys II would be forced to denounce him lest he lose the nobles' support. Especially since by this time, the dragons are gone, and the Targs are ruling the land with the good grace and tolerance of the nobility.

There's a difference between killing the women and children of the peasants, and killing noble women and children. The Medieval aristocracy would react to the former with eye-rolls and a few quips about how you can't keep your guys under control. The latter would send them to a fury, because that could easily be their women and children getting killed, which is a big fat no-no. Tywin butchering noble and royal women and children would earn him the aristocracy's ire if he lived in Medieval Europe, and more than likely, the nobles would pressure the Pope to excommunicate him so they can have an excuse to raid his lands and perhaps even kill him for his transgressions.
 
One part I remember from the books is that after Dany releases the slaves in the slave coast it caused massive issues. And she got an example of what happened from a former slave that was a teacher and now was out of work.

When I read it I thought it was kinda smart, that you can't just uproot the system and expect everything to run fine. But in retrospect, I think the idea was to shill the Arab slave trade as being "benign" since "they employ teachers rather than low skill workers". Unlike western slavery.
 
While I'm in the mood to talk about this franchise, I find it very peculiar how honor is portrayed as bad and gets people killed while being an absolute shit means you'll go places. What's really perplexing is how GRRM has super honorable people blindly serve tyrants out of honor despite those tyrants having no honor whatsoever. That in itself is dishonorable to an absurd degree. Honor isn't blind loyalty. Honor is fidelity to ideals. The type of honor GRRM has these characters ascribe to is bugman shit even real life bug people wouldn't have ever go for because of monumental retardation. It's no reasonable at all, much less realistic. Even if a knight swore by a king, one would eventually stab him in the back if he raped so many of his own subjects' wives or executed people willy nilly.

The heart isn't in conflict with itself at all in these scenarios. GRRM writes very retarded and ridiculously flawed people following unrealistic mockeries of real life ideals. What did I expect coming from someone who writes an absolute kingdom with an entirely decentralized government (seriously, this is the most retarded fucking shit ever now that I think about it)? Or from someone who has a religion that's treated like an absolute joke by everyone with very little established or lauded morals? GRRM's portrayal of feudalism, morality, religion, and overall humanity is typical leftist subversionist nonsense.
I looked up a review of the Game of Thrones Telltale game, and the reviewer stated that the main cast, the Forresters, have anti-plot armor, which means that things will suck for them no matter what.


But the thing is, that's a flaw not just with the game, but with GRRM's writing in general. The way he writes honorable good guys is basically just suicidal lemmings. There's more than a few stories out there of good and honorable people navigating a political landscape full of liars and backstabbers, and they use their brains to outwit the evildoers without sullying their honor or breaking their own moral code. You don't get that with GRRM's stories; you get either a backstabbing Machiavelli or a suicidal Mahatma Ghandi, with the rest trapped somewhere in between.

The fact that GRRM thinks the monarchy in a medieval context is absolute goes to show that he's read very little history outside of American history. Absolute monarchs were a late Medieval/Renaissance thing as they began to model their kings after the Roman emperors once the Papacy shat the bed and had a civil war/Papal Schism within the Church. Long periods of war also allowed the monarchy to gain more power through war that allowed them to lord over the nobles with ease. But before that, during the Medieval age, kings were subject to the whims of nobles, bishops, and Popes. The king relies upon the goodwill of the Church to rule, and he relies on the nobles to enforce his decrees; if he pisses off either one, he can find himself excommunicated by the Church or overthrown by the nobles, which in both cases, he loses what little power he had to begin with.

In an actual absolute monarchy like the Roman/Byzantine Empire, bad monarchs tended to lose their heads. Jaime Lannister wouldn't be that hated considering the fact that the Praetorian Guard, which were the Kingsguard of the Roman Empire, fucking decapitated their emperors for reasons ranging from "he's an insane maniac" to "the fucker didn't pay us enough". Jaime killing a mad king who was about to nuke the capital would be seen by them as him doing his job.

The Medieval nobles would've likely stripped Aerys II of all his power once he started going nuts. Aerys killing the Stark father and son on a whim would've led to ALL of the major noble houses, the Tyrells, Lannisters, and Martells included, chipping in with the Rebellion and saying "no, you can't do that." The nobles would fear and despise a king who would kill high-ranking nobles without a trial or just cause. That could easily be them getting killed, and they sure as fuck won't approve of that. Especially since Aerys II has no dragons; so there's nothing he can threaten them with. They own the larger armies; all he has are the crownlands and little else.
 
Last edited:
One part I remember from the books is that after Dany releases the slaves in the slave coast it caused massive issues. And she got an example of what happened from a former slave that was a teacher and now was out of work.

When I read it I thought it was kinda smart, that you can't just uproot the system and expect everything to run fine. But in retrospect, I think the idea was to shill the Arab slave trade as being "benign" since "they employ teachers rather than low skill workers". Unlike western slavery.


For whatever it is worth, there are interviews with Martin in which he explains his version of slavery being more directly inspired by the Roman system of slavery.
 
But if you put that in the context of the real Middle Ages, Tywin killing noble women and children would have the aristocracy of Westeros as a whole denouncing him as a ruthless killer, and Aerys II would be forced to denounce him lest he lose the nobles' support. Especially since by this time, the dragons are gone, and the Targs are ruling the land with the good grace and tolerance of the nobility.
There is one thing about GoT the show that I hate is (and I said this after checking someone reviewing the show after watching by first time, can't remember which channel it was, I just watch them as background noise when I'm working) that people are convinced of this being an accurate representation of middle ages time as in, nobility simply hated everybody who wasn't theirs, which wasn't the case at all. While they weren't the most egalitarian folk, they had the concept of noblesse oblige. While the books are more nuanced about this, the show does portray them as if they just hate people just because. It does make you wonder what's the point of Martin's comments about Tolkien not being realistic enough when he's portraying nobility in the most inaccurate way.

I'm pretty sure Aerys II was a sadistic bastard who probably enjoyed having a liege lord kick his uppity vassal around.
He was, but before he went completely nuts, he and Tyrion (along with Steffon Baratheon, Robert, Stannis, and Renly's father) were BFFs.

One part I remember from the books is that after Dany releases the slaves in the slave coast it caused massive issues. And she got an example of what happened from a former slave that was a teacher and now was out of work.

When I read it I thought it was kinda smart, that you can't just uproot the system and expect everything to run fine. But in retrospect, I think the idea was to shill the Arab slave trade as being "benign" since "they employ teachers rather than low skill workers". Unlike western slavery.
I remember to have read that it was more a commentary on US invading and destabilising the middle east. The slavery part was just to locate an issue in that context and to make the leaders villainous to antagonize Dany.
 
There is one thing about GoT the show that I hate is (and I said this after checking someone reviewing the show after watching by first time, can't remember which channel it was, I just watch them as background noise when I'm working) that people are convinced of this being an accurate representation of middle ages time as in, nobility simply hated everybody who wasn't theirs, which wasn't the case at all. While they weren't the most egalitarian folk, they had the concept of noblesse oblige. While the books are more nuanced about this, the show does portray them as if they just hate people just because.
The Church beat the idea into the nobles' heads that if they don't help the poor, God will hold them accountable in the next life. Many real-world nobles did things that Westerosi nobles would've seen as nonsensical, such as donate large fortunes to the Church, go Crusading for the Church, or even allowing Church officials to be as powerful or even more powerful than the nobles. If you applied the godless, Machiavellian ideology of the Westerosi nobility onto the Medieval nobles, they wouldn't have done half the shit they actually did in real life.

Some noble ladies refused to marry/remarry when their husbands, brothers, or fathers died, and gave away their land and wealth to the Church when they died, keeping themselves chaste. Some noble lords risked their lives and fortunes and fought in the Holy Land, in Spain, in Lithuania, in Novgorod, or even in Byzantium, crusading for the Church against pagans, or Orthodox and Muslim heretics. And of course, there's the obvious acts of charity that the Church encourages at home.

Outside of nobles like the Tyrells who used charity for PR, one could never imagine Westerosi nobles doing something like this in ASOIAF. Imagine an Andal noble or even a Targaryen king crusading in Essos to fight against Volantis for worshiping the wrong interpretation of God. Or imagine Westerosi noblewomen purposefully remaining chaste after their fathers, brothers, or husbands died off, so that their land would be given to the High Septon when they died. Or imagine the average noble donating money in the same way Margaery Tyrell did, to the point where she wouldn't be so special since most nobles would be donating to the poor to buy their way to heaven.

It just astounds me how Westerosi nobles think, when actual Medieval nobles had concerns that ASOIAF never brought up, such as economic concerns, concerns for their people, (yes, they cared for their serfs, if only because they needed manpower) and their relationship with the Church, which in some instances, is a familial one, since they have family members acting as bishops who also participate in the welfare system.

It does make you wonder what's the point of Martin's comments about Tolkien not being realistic enough when he's portraying nobility in the most inaccurate way.
Exactly. Hell, LOTR's politics is closer to how Medieval societies work, given how there's no central locus of power, and local kings and principalities can feel free to ignore the so-called superpowers and do their own thing. Rohan can decide whether or not they want to support Gondor, and other local powers like Isengard or the Easterlings can decide to support Sauron over Gondor and Rivendell. That's how Medieval allegiances were like; they can shift with the wind, and you'll have to deal with them.

You don't have a king with absolute power in a time when lords still fielded their own private armies. Absolute monarchs either relied on large armies of levies or mercenaries (Byzantium, Spain), or used large numbers of royal footsoldiers who are trained and supplied by the crown, and no one else. (France, Prussia) That's how a monarch can get away with being an absolutist; they've got the only army in town, and it's a pretty big one, so you'll have to play ball with them. Meanwhile, in a feudal society, every local power has their own army, and like the LOTR example I cited above, they can choose which side to fight on.

Some French duchies can choose to side with the British over their own native French king. Some Italian city-states favored Imperial rule, others preferred freedom or allegiance to the Pope. Sometimes the King of Sicily helps the Pope against the Holy Roman Emperor, and in other times, the King of Sicily IS the Holy Roman Emperor, and he's got the Pope sandwiched between his German and Sicilian lands.

GRRM has some real brass balls (not brains) to bitch about how Tolkien got things wrong, when Tolkien's approach to feudal politics is closer to how the real Medieval Europe worked.

The closest thing to absolutism the Targaryens had was when they had dragons. But once the dragons died, Targaryen absolutism should've died with it. The fact that GRRM didn't notice this goes to show that he doesn't even keep up with the logistics of his own creation. Other lands such as the Reach, the Westerlands, and the Vale can each muster armies larger than the Crownlands; so at that point, the Targaryens would only be able to rule with the tolerance of the nobles, yet the story still acted as if the post-Dance Westerosi monarchy can be an absolute monarchy.
 
Last edited:
It just astounds me how Westerosi nobles think, when actual Medieval nobles had concerns that ASOIAF never brought up, such as economic concerns, concerns for their people, (yes, they cared for their serfs, if only because they needed manpower) and their relationship with the Church, which in some instances, is a familial one, since they have family members acting as bishops who also participate in the welfare system.
There is a scene when war is coming to Riverlands and Edmure makes the people enter Riverrun to protects them, and Cat bitches about her brother being too soft. Thing is, they didn't have the Church, but they had the Faith of the Seven, which is basically the same thing and with similar sets of values. They should consider their people and their sake more.
 
There is a scene when war is coming to Riverlands and Edmure makes the people enter Riverrun to protects them, and Cat bitches about her brother being too soft. Thing is, they didn't have the Church, but they had the Faith of the Seven, which is basically the same thing and with similar sets of values. They should consider their people and their sake more.
Not to mention that even the most pragmatic and secular landlord would want to protect their serfs as a source of manpower, to say nothing of the Church which preaches that God wants you to protect the needy and the innocent.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dean Pentel
Didn't her son marry a daughter of Aegon II? And didn't Aegon II kill Rhaenyra and sit on the throne at the end of the war?
Aegon II was eventually killed.

Aegon III married Aegon's daughter, but their King children died. The throne passed to his brother Viserys, whose wife was from Essos and that's where the current Targaryen línea comes from.
 
Aegon II was eventually killed.

Aegon III married Aegon's daughter, but their King children died. The throne passed to his brother Viserys, whose wife was from Essos and that's where the current Targaryen línea comes from.
That still doesn't count as a victory. More like mutually-assured destruction. Especially when the history books side with Aegon II and later kings have a male primogeniture policy. Everything that Rhaenyra fought for was ground to dust.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: madethistocomment
That still doesn't count as a victory. More like mutually-assured destruction. Especially when the history books side with Aegon II and later kings have a male primogeniture policy. Everything that Rhaenyra fought for was ground to dust.
That's true, but his line died nevertheless. Doesn't matter how much Stannis calls Rhaenyra a traitor, he comes from her blood directly too.
 
That's true, but his line died nevertheless. Doesn't matter how much Stannis calls Rhaenyra a traitor, he comes from her blood directly too.
That still doesn't matter, when the world basically says that Aegon II was right, and they even altered the laws to make sure he would always be right. Rhaenyra went down in the history books as a rebel, and Aegon II went down as the rightful ruler.

That, and technically, Aegon II killed Rhaenyra and sat on the throne, concluding the war. So even if it was for a short while, he did taste victory.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: madethistocomment
Back