Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread
Collapse
X
-
And their wolves looked different.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
-
Being naive at politics doesn't mean he can't be a ruthless, cunning and effective commander. Plus the enemy in the rebellion were commanded by a total nutjob.Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post(this is books) I am wondering how Ned managed to be successful until he came down to be the Hand. He was even successful in Robert's rebellion.
??
JM
His rise and fall basically mirrors Robb's. Tremendous victories in battle but felled as soon as he was required to get involved in more subtle politics.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
For as long as his friend Robert was king, as soon as Robert was gone he was ****ed.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
I think it's clear that Ned Stark's leadership style was appropriate for the North, but not King's Landing. He wasn't incompetent, it's just that being Lord of Winterfell requires a different skill set (and mind set) than being Hand of the King.John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
-
Robert dying and the whole country splintering apart certainly indicates that his rule was key to stability for all regions.Originally posted by Ecthy View PostThere's absolutely no hint his reign in the north depended on Robert in any way.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
But I also think Felch is right that his rule in the north was appropriate/effective enough in a regime with a strong king.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
He may have been the key to stability between the regions, certainly not in the regions. Name one region that saw any internal trouble after Robert died.Originally posted by MikeH View PostRobert dying and the whole country splintering apart certainly indicates that his rule was key to stability for all regions.
In fact, after Robert died the North mobilized and stood like one man to save Ned Stark, althought they were too late. Only when the North was empty of Stark bannermen did the Bastard of Bolton take control.
Comment
-
But it's the instability between the regions that's created the instability at the head of each region. So the inter region stability was key.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
I doubt one can say that Robert was a strong king. However, Ned was a good ruler for the North, but not for the internal politics that goes on in King's Landing. There wasn't as much backbiting and fighting for influence up North - it was more a situation of everyone knew who was in charge. I assume that it how it was during most of the Targaryen reign in King's Landing as well - when an usurper takes the throne, obviously no one really knows where they stand.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
I really think that "regions" and "instability" were mutually constituted anew in the process of "the king's death". Also, identities before interests!Originally posted by MikeH View PostBut it's the instability between the regions that's created the instability at the head of each region. So the inter region stability was key.
Comment
-
It really makes you wonder what happened to Robert but I guess Renly was right that just because someone is a good warrior or battle commander that doesn't mean they'll make a good king.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Are you sure?Originally posted by Dinner View PostIt really makes you wonder what happened to Robert but I guess Renly was right that just because someone is a good warrior or battle commander that doesn't mean they'll make a good king.
Spoiler:OT: It'd be so much fun if in the end of the day Martin decides that Jon is really the son of Ashara Dayne, not you-know-who...
Comment
-
My understanding is that Robert was more of viking-like leader than the type of king required in Westeros. He gained a on of weight as king and spent most of his free time hunting and whoring. Still, he's probably the best king Westeros ever had.Originally posted by Dinner View PostIt really makes you wonder what happened to Robert but I guess Renly was right that just because someone is a good warrior or battle commander that doesn't mean they'll make a good king.“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Comment
Comment