Game of Thrones [Potential Book Spoilers]

Stannia is Caesar just not the Caesar you guys are thinking about. Tiberius Caesar.

Also Stannis has a bit of Philip the Fair in him as well as Philip the Long.

Louis X is Joffrey and Louis of Evreux is Kevan Lannister.

Mahaut is basically Olenna.

(Which is funny because the Olenna-like character is the mother in law of the Stannis-like character)

Poor Jean XXII is the High Sparrow.

There's also a moment where King Philip the Fair gets attacked by a stag during a hunting incident which then leads to him dying and starting a succession crisis down the line at the end of the first book.

Yes Tiberius (at least Tiberius pre-Capri) was an inspiration for Stannis...GRRM cited the character in I Claudius as an inspiration. As he says here, "And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI."

So that gives a hint of his inspirations.

Basically the overall plot is the contours of the Wars of the Roses, but some of the side stories and details come from other periods. The Red Wedding is based on the Black Dinner and the Glencoe Massacre, that didn't happen in the wars of the Roses. The ravaging of the Riverlands during the war is based on the Hundred Years War with the Ecorcheurs. The rise of the Sparrows is based on many medieval religious movements but the emphasis on austerity and attacking the wealthy and staging bonfires is of course Girolamo Savonarola. Cersei-Margaery Feud comes from the Tour de Nesle, Cersei's walk of shame is based on what happened to Jane Shore, a mistress of King Edward IV. It's a really rich world to lose into if you are a history enthusiast.

The Haitian govt were not an entire population. There are others of their race/religion/culture, etc. They aren't a parallel.

If the Masters are not "a people" neither were the Spartans. Their economies and political infrastructure were nearly identical:the ruling minority laconians and the servant helots. A Spartan has free reign over the helot class, and could kill any member of the helots for any reason, including proving they were merciless and battle ready

The Masters were a population, they HAD a government. It's clear from the dialogue that the Masters included poor folk with no money or political influence to speak of. Many of the Harpies were such people. Dehumanizing your enemy to justify their wholesale slaughter is once again, Would Be Rude to Say "Genocide".

Externination, as applied to humans, is genocide. I don't see what is difficult to understand here.

I'm not complaining about Dany's actions. So far thet have been just. Even the 150crucifixions: they were a direct and equal response to the 150 victims of the Masters. However, given that it isn't an attempt to exterminate the Masters root And stem, that wasn't genocide.

edited 6th Feb '16 6:43:47 AM by blkwhtrbbt

Philip the Fair fell from his horse while hunting, but not because of a stag, he "simply" got a stroke. Maybe Maurice Druon added the stag in Les Rois Maudits but the stag/succession crisis actually happened to Louis V, the last Carolingian king.

@Julep I was citing The Accursed King's version of events.

When it comes to characters, I think GRRM is inspired more by history fiction that history.

Not really. GRRM loves historical fiction like George Mac Donald Fraser's Flashman and The Accursed Kings but that doesn't mean he doesn't read historical books. Some of the stuff he's interested in isn't widely covered. Like he mentions reading Fraser's non-fiction books on Scottish history. The Armagnac-Burgundy War is also not widely covered in historical fiction. He actually really did study history in college and in interviews he mentions the shock between the shift from event-great man history to social history, which is a reference only someone who knows a bit about 20th Century history can make.

Now this doesn't mean that GRRM can peer-review stuff, what it means is that he does read stuff he is interested in deeply. He's really into heraldry as well.

Never mind.

edited 6th Feb '16 12:21:05 PM by SilentColossus

It's interesting to note that the King on the Iron Throne's title is

King of [race], [race], and [race].

As opposed to King of [Location] and [location], like Dany's Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea or Robb's King in The North.

Or King of England, Scotland, and France like some deposed king once claimed to be. In front ofthe ACTUAL king of France at the time.

This claim to rule an ethnicity is kinda weird. How would half race kids figure into that equation?

I've been thinking: a lot of people say that Robb should have attempted to sue for peace, so he can rule the north and then the southern kings have everything else. But was also the king of the riverlands.

Would pretty much saying "hey, I know you rebelled against the throne for me, but I can't protect you. You're now at the mercy of Stannis/the Lannisters/whatever. Sorry." He is already seen as weak by some for losing Winterfell - would this make matters worse?

IIRC he was planning on marching north regardless, but throwing the Riverlords under the bus and admitting it might not go over well. The Riverlands would be almost impossible to hold due to a lack of natural borders, but would it still make him look weak?

edited 6th Feb '16 2:31:12 PM by SilentColossus

the person sitting the iron throne has claim to both the races inhabiting westeros and also the 9 different polities/kingdoms Aegon I was crowned and confirmed by the faith: "Aegon of House Targaryen, the First of His Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm" It's lengthy but all encompassing imo

Robb was kinda screwed from the beginning. At best (and with hindsight), he could have declared a personal vendetta against House Baratheon of King's Landing after Robert died and tried to get other Lord and Lady Paramounts to join him in despoing them and picking the ruler of the Iron Throne from a council like Catelyn suggested to Stannis and Renly. The Baratheon brother's personalities and stubbornness didn't leave Robb much room for anything.

edited 6th Feb '16 2:53:42 PM by byakugan0889

I mean Robb did sue for peace but Cersei ripped up the proposal.

I'm still not sure why Tywin didn't just sue for peace or an armistice. He needed to concentrate on Stannis and Renly. Instead he illogically decided he needed to destroy Robb first.

And....unfortunately, the author rewards Tywin for it.

edited 6th Feb '16 2:57:21 PM by MadSkillz

The Lannisters were surrounded by 3 foes and Robb was the one actively meeting them in the field. It makes sense why Tywin was focused on Robb since they were both in the Riverlands. I suppose Tywin had faith that Cersei and the King's Landing contingent could hold off Stannis and/or Renly

that too. And Tywin couldn't risk Robb catching him going south

edited 6th Feb '16 3:31:51 PM by byakugan0889

Also, Robb was a threat first. Tywin was already in the Riverlands when the others rebelled.

Yeah but I mean Stannis and Renly were more pressing matters.

Robb was just fighting to win independence for the Riverlands and the North. One of his obligatory war goals wasn't to murder Joff. Renly and Stannis were aiming to murder Tywin's grandkids.

Robb could be dealt with later. Stannis and Renly couldn't be.

Robb was coming to KL to rescue his sisters. And litter the south with Lannister dead.

Tywin knew Robb wouldn't likely forgive the muder of his father and all those guards who were likely friends or cousins to the Starks

Yes but Robb sued for peace.

Like he literally sent a peace treaty to the Lannisters saying that he had dominion of the North and Riverlands and to return Sansa and they'll have peace so unless you think Tywin thought that Robb was going to break faith then it doesn't matter.

Also the Starks have no close relations besides some distant Vale lords who would at best be third or fourth cousins to them..

edited 6th Feb '16 6:15:09 PM by MadSkillz

Also, Stannis and Renly started fighting each other almost immediately, to the shock and joy of Cersei and Tyrion. By the time Stannis had his eyes set on King's Landing, Tywin had already went to go fight Robb in the Westerlands.

At least in the books.

Edit: It was Tyrion who formed the Tyrell alliance in the books, correct? Tyrion held off Stannis at the Blackwater, created the alliance that saved the city, and Tywin only arrived in time because Edmure "protected Robb's flank". The show downplays all but the first one, but were it not for Tyrion, the Lannisters would have lost.

So I'm not sure why he focused on Robb in the show, but in the books it makes somewhat more sense, even if it could have cost him the war.

edited 6th Feb '16 6:48:43 PM by SilentColossus

But Tywin knew that Renly had been crowned king by the Tyrells just after Jaime got destroyed by Robb.

And he even says this after Robb had just taken down his second army:

Sort of. It is Tyrion's idea but he's forced to send Littlefinger to broker it because he couldn't leave KL lest Cersei undoes everything he did there and Cersei refused to go.

But as Tywin points out, Stannis was not on the move yet. And it may have been the wiser choice to go for Renly, so it is possible that Tywin made a grievous error. But then Stannis and Renly attacked each other instead, and Robb went to raid the Westerlands.

So Tyrion and Littlefinger pretty much saved the day.

Man, I'm annoyed that they didn't leave this speech in or some form of it.

I would've loved it if they had Stannis wondering about the peach still when Brienne comes to kill him on the tv show.

edited 6th Feb '16 7:56:30 PM by MadSkillz

Well the point of Aegon the Conqueror was that there would only be One King, so he made all the 7 Kingdoms into one throne. Calling himself King of The North/The Riverlands/The Stormlands etcetera would still acknowledge that those areas are still separate, while identifying cultures and peoples (First Men/Rhoynar/Andals) unifies broader groups across Westeros. I mean remember that the real England was once The Heptarchy which means...you guessed it...Seven Kingdoms which was invaded by Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Danes until unified by William the Conqueror.

When Robb Stark claimed King of the North, he was also acclaimed King of the Riverlands so there you see an acknowledgement of separate domains in the title. Aegon the Conqueror's point was that Westeros was one Nation, and that people could move between kingdoms, at least in theory, because he kind of left the pre-war feudal structure far more intact than the real-life William the Conqueror did. It's only when England conquered the separate kingdoms of Scotland, Wales and Ireland that the titles expanded. They also claimed King of France as the title during and even after The Hundred Years War, and only renounced that claim during The French Revolution (partly because they were sympathetic to royalists all of a sudden, since they wanted to prevent a revolution in their country by stamping out France's).

edited 6th Feb '16 10:23:10 PM by JulianLapostat

Robb Stark's campaign is a classic example of Mission Creep, in that his goals and mission exceeds his original intentions. His initial goal in riding South was to rescue his father...the Riverlands was in his path, the Lannisters were raiding the Riverlands and who's riding with them but Jaime. So Robb captures Jaime and the situation then is pretty simple, Jaime for Ned. Only by the time the information reaches Tywin, Joffrey executes Ned Stark on a whim. Remember that this was never Tywin's intention (nor Cersei's), they wanted to send Ned to the Night's Watch, hold Sansa and Arya hostage for sometime but basically they wanted to avert war with the North. Tywin himself said that Joffrey killing Ned was a dumb decision. I mean, Robb would have been well within his rights to kill Jaime then and there had Sansa and Arya not been at King's Landing. So at this point, the Riverlands and the North know that they're against the Iron Throne, so their second option is Renly...but as Robb himself points out they can't support Renly because he's Stannis' younger brother ("Bran and Rickon can't be Lord of Winterfell before me, and neither can Renly before Stannis"). If they said yes to Renly, what's to stop their younger brothers in the future from revolting. I mean you can't say you are fighting against the Lannisters because they broke the law by killing Ned and then support Renly when he's also breaking laws.

This is the main reason why Renly is important to the story, he gives Robb and the Riverlords a reason for them to Start My Own and Take a Third Option, which in turn divides them from Stannis. In the show, Stannis only declares his claim after recieiving Ned's letter about the children's bastardy (and Stannis being legalistic would never claim outright without a proper reason). By the time Robb finds out about Stannis and his letter, he's already acclaimed King and since he's out in the field beating Lannisters, he can't very well walk away while in the middle. Eventually there might have been a fight between Robb and Stannis which I am sure is a Negated Moment of Awesome, the two best generals among the book's characters never went head to head alas.

Renly is the spoiler candidate who divides the ticket, the Ralph Nader if you will who finally paves the way for the triumph of George W. Bush (or Lannisters in this case). The Lannisters, even with Tywin-The-Self-Proclaimed-Great, would have been crushed in a week, if Robb/Stannis/Renly were united. Instead Renly divided everyone and that gave the Lannisters breathing room through which they could scrape through, and it makes their stroke of good fortune at the end of ACOK and Season 2 believable to the extent that it doesn't seem lucky at first glance. This is good writing by the way.

Littlefinger...started the war, so I don't know if we can credit him in anyway. But yes, Tyrion, book and show, is the main reason, outside of luck, why the Lannisters won the day. The Lannisters also lucked out when the Greyjoys invaded North (an invasion that was militarily suicidal for the Ironborn and didn't get them much, Book and Show, and mainly worked to puncture a hole in Robb's campaign) rather than the Westerlands which Robb suggested (and would have been far more practical, Balon is just Stupid Evil).

But even with everything, Tywin and the Tyrells arriving at King's Landing would have been far too late. It's only because of Tyrion's wildfire and his rallying defense (after Joffrey and Cersei shrivel up) that make their "rescue" matter. It's similar to Wellington and his boys holding the line at Waterloo until Blucher and the Prussians arrive...though that isn't a proper comparison because Napoleon would have lost the war even if he lost at Waterloo and le petit caporal was not on his A-game on that battle which Stannis undoubtedly was, so Tyrion has one over the Iron Duke in that respect. That's the amazing ironic part of Tyrion's story. That ultimately the heroism of Blackwater Bay doesn't matter. All that selfless courage and heroism only to install an unworthy King like Joffrey, all his sacrifices and hard-work unacknowledged and finally framed and cast aside by his family. He ends up as much a loser at Blackwater as Stannis does, and I like the part in the Trial where Tyrion finally realizes, "I should have Stannis kill you all."

My favorite Stannis moment they cut out was his "World of Cardboard" Speech (and one by Davos that was also cut out):

There is much I do not understand, I have never pretended elsewise. I know the seas and rivers, the shapes of the coast, where the rocks and shoals lie. I know hidden coves where a boat can land unseen and I know a king protects his people or he is no king at all.

— Ser Davos Seaworth, Hand of the King, A Song of Ice and Fire

Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne. — King Stannis Baratheon, A Song of Ice and Fire

That actually is as close to An Aesop in ASOIAF and its a shame the show removed it, but given the direction they went with Stannis, I am kind of glad they removed these awesome bits, because it would have only made the show's direction even worse than it already is, similar how Sansa's S5 story, horrible as it already is, is doubly worse because of that Darth Sansa stunt they pulled at the end of S4.

edited 6th Feb '16 11:01:36 PM by JulianLapostat

So 5 changes that would've greatly improved the show to me:

1) Hire more writers especially women writers, Dead God does this show need women writers to cut down on all the rampant machismo.

2) Portray the chatacters a bit more evenly and less original characters. Like for instance you can tell D & D have a hard on for the Lannisters. There a ton of scenes within the show that are just focused on developing them. There's a pretty useless scene of Tywin scaring Joffrey, Cersei talking with Robert about their marriage, scenes between Tyrion and Cersei discussing their impending marriages, scenes between Cersei and Tyrion discussing how much she loves Joffrey even if he is a monster, scenes between Tywin and Cersei about the incest and how she thinks of herself as his true heir, Joffrey hurting some prostitutes etc.

Stannis has had less screen time than Tywin Lannister. Roose Bolton has had less screen time than Talisa. And Mance Rayder got less screentime than Gilly.

3) I'm okay with tweaking characters but I'd like a more faithful portrayal of the characters' personalities.

In the show Stannis is an automaton. A grim robot. Melisandre's wind up toy. A man brimming with ruthless adherence to his ambition. And a religious zealot. In the books Stannis is a whiny entitled man that despite his flaws is dutiful and just albeit draconian. He doesn't automatically do what people tell him to do but he still listens to advice and weighs it. He's also extremely sensitive and a victim of middle child syndrome which we don't really see in the show.

Renly is a completely different and less compelling character.

Cersei's a weird case in where she's actually equally as good of a character as Cerse from the book while still being very different.

Tyrion's character got neutered. It varies from episode to episode after season 2 but he often feels like he has no bite. I want to see more of Tyrion's dark side. But I don't need him to be as grimdark as in the books. Like for instance I'm glad they left out him raping a sex slave twice but it's not cool that they had him playing pick up artist with a sex slave in a brothel. It comes off as dishonest.

4) Different actors for Jon and Daenerys. Kit Harrington plays Jon like a dullard although he's improved and Emilia Clarke can't act unless it's in Valyrian.

5) I would love it if they left some of the more impactful character speeches in the books like Jorah's story about Lynesse, Proudwing, Jon Snow's speech about his dream to Samwell Tarly, Renly's peach and Stannis' dream, Cat and her speech about peace right before they crown Robb, Oberyn's speech about why Tywin had Elia Martell killed, Doran's Fire and Blood speech, Robb on how he wanted to be an honorable, just king etc

Minor quibble: More DIREWOLVES less Dragons, include the crowns ( only Joffrey and Renly got a crown), Stannis' stupidly shiny sword, include more of the look from the books like individual surcoats and shields (it seems everyone only has a shield and armor with the insignia from their main house) and bring in Mormont's Raven as well as Pachfaxe.