Beneath the Calm, a Brewing Storm - An ASOIAF NG

Bloody hell, what is it about this game that is making everyone such a pain in the backside?

Now we're arguing about who has a special legal status because you don't have swords in the Iron Throne? Really?

What the actual fuck, dudes. Just because GRMM didn't post a comprehensive list of every sword that makes up the throne doesn't mean it's a "thing". Surrender and regrant is a thing, and works the same as conquest from a legal aspect.
As I said, it's pretty clear to me that the nature of the Starks' surrender was a different one. To draw a gross parallel, when the Spanish in general conquered the New World, they claimed rights of Empire (as in exercise of political power, drawn from Tordesillas and thus God), but not rights of Dominion (property), unless those were taken in a just war. That is, the relationship between the Spanish Crown and the indigenous peoples was one of a consensual social contract, borne out of the natives' willingness to swear fealty to the Crown, and they thus preserved their rights of property. The agency lies with the natives here. On the other hand, when the indigenous people refused to acknowledge Spain's imperial rights over their territory, then they passed from the condition of consensual subjects under tutelage to conquered people under tutelage, which permitted the Spanish to, for example, enslave them in just wars. That's why indian slavery was outlawed by the Leyes Nuevas, for instance. The ideological difference is huge, though in practice it was often meaningless well into the late 16th century.

This is an interpretation I am adopting to explain the North's view of all this Seven Kingdoms BS. They are not a conquered people, but willing subjects who swore their fealty to the Iron Throne out of the goodness of their hearts, or as Aerys puts it, wisdom (unlike all the other kingdoms, which were militarily defeated and effectively conquered). This comes together with an abstract set of rights and privileges that have never been elaborated upon. The line is ultimately quite meaningless - it doesn't change the feudal contract between the North and the Iron Throne, and neither does it alter the political hierarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. It's only a big issue if Aerys wants to make a big issue of it, since it's a resistance mechanism against the enforcement of royal authority in the North, which has been historically autonomous in all but name. I would even presume that this ideology was developed after Jaehaerys' tyrannical Northern progress, which was much worse than Aerys', and far less rewarding. Note that it only came up now, after Aerys did his Northern adventure and now directly meddles with Stark vassals while bypassing Winterfell entirely.

Of course, there will be different interpretations of the nature of the feudal contract between Stark and Targaryen, just as there were at least three main ideological branches in conflict during the early period of the Spanish Empire. I'm not saying that's the Targaryen view of things, I'm saying it's the Stark view that justifies, in their own eyes, their integration into the wider Seven Kingdoms when they have pushed back foreign invaders and preserved their independence historically (wildlings, Ironborn, Andals). And I think such a difference is great as it breeds potential conflict (of the good, non-destructive kind), especially in the ideological sphere, of which we see so little in these games when compared to more material concerns.​
 
Last edited:
It's ambiguous. While there were no Hightower men in the Field of Fire, iirc the text never says if Aegon collected (or not) swords from Oldtown. Also, your lieges got conquered. The Hightowers are a special snowflake anyway.

It's not ambiguous at all. The Hightowers didn't send a single man to the Field of Fire, and opened the city gates to Aegon and allowed the High Septon to crown him in Oldtown. There's no way in seven hells a single Hightower sword is on that throne. After all of that ceremony, Aegon is just going to demand from Lord Hightower he surrender over steel to forge his chair? As if he didn't already have thousands of swords from the Reach before? I really doubt that...Aegon wasn't the type to demand the Hightowers surrender over swords to forge the Iron Throne that from a family that not only refused to oppose him at all with military force, but accepted him with completely open arms to the point of using their seat for Aegon's coronation as King.

Our lieges didn't get conquered...they got wiped out. :p

Not saying the get treated any differently because the Iron Throne doesn't have Hightower steel in it. That wasn't my point...I just wanted to bring up that fact because the Hightowers are special snowflakes as you pointed out.
 
Last edited:
As I said, it's pretty clear to me that the nature of the Starks' surrender was a different one. To draw a gross parallel, when the Spanish in general conquered the New World, they claimed rights of Empire (as in exercise of political power, drawn from Tordesillas and thus God), but not rights of Dominion (property), unless those were taken in a just war. That is, the relationship between the Spanish Crown and the indigenous peoples was one of a consensual social contract, borne out of the natives' willingness to swear fealty to the Crown, and they thus preserved their rights of property. The agency lies with the natives here. On the other hand, when the indigenous people refused to acknowledge Spain's imperial rights over their territory, then they passed from the condition of consensual subjects under tutelage to conquered people under tutelage, which permitted the Spanish to, for example, enslave them in just wars. That's why indian slavery was outlawed by the Leyes Nuevas, for instance. The ideological difference is huge, though in practice it was often meaningless well into the late 16th century.

This is an interpretation I am adopting to explain the North's view of all this Seven Kingdoms BS. They are not a conquered people, but willing subjects who swore their fealty to the Iron Throne out of the goodness of their hearts, or as Aerys puts it, wisdom (unlike all the other kingdoms, which were militarily defeated and effectively conquered). This comes together with an abstract set of rights and privileges that have never been elaborated upon. The line is ultimately quite meaningless - it doesn't change the feudal contract between the North and the Iron Throne, and neither does it alter the political hierarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. It's only a big issue if Aerys wants to make a big issue of it, since it's a resistance mechanism against the enforcement of royal authority in the North, which has been historically autonomous in all but name. I would even presume that this ideology was developed after Jaehaerys' tyrannical Northern progress, which was much worse than Aerys', and far less rewarding. Note that it only came up now, after Aerys did his Northern adventure and now directly meddles with Stark vassals while bypassing Winterfell entirely.

Of course, there will be different interpretations of the nature of the feudal contract between Stark and Targaryen, just as there were at least three main ideological branches in conflict during the early period of the Spanish Empire. I'm not saying that's the Targaryen view of things, I'm saying it's the Stark view that justifies, in their own eyes, their integration into the wider Seven Kingdoms when they have pushed back foreign invaders and preserved their independence historically (wildlings, Ironborn, Andals). And I think such a difference is great as it breeds potential conflict (of the good, non-destructive kind), especially in the ideological sphere, of which we see so little in these games when compared to more material concerns.​



The Starks tried this BS once. The Targaryens showed up with a flight of Dragons, went about talking to their vassals and publicly on a whim stripped the Starks of hundreds of miles of territory.

If the Crown can take lands, if the Crown is the ultimate source of justice (In the name of Robert...") if the Crown can command armies, send summons, take over the castle "Winterfel is yours your grace" said from a kneeling man and if the Crown can levy taxes and tarriffs then its very hard to argue the North has any special status at all and certainly not in the eyes of the Monarchy, or the Citadel.​
 
The Starks tried this BS once. The Targaryens showed up with a flight of Dragons, went about talking to their vassals and publicly on a whim stripped the Starks of hundreds of miles of territory.

If the Crown can take lands, if the Crown is the ultimate source of justice (In the name of Robert...") if the Crown can command armies, send summons, take over the castle "Winterfel is yours your grace" said from a kneeling man and if the Crown can levy taxes and tarriffs then its very hard to argue the North has any special status at all and certainly not in the eyes of the Monarchy, or the Citadel.
So?
 
So the Starks can think it, maybe even say it to their vassals but if they ever act on it the Crown has the legal powers to slap them down and if the Starks ignore those legal commands then it just comes down to a war.

Westeros has only had a codified law for under two centuries and that was written whilst Dragons were still around by the King who slapped down the Starks acting like special snow flakes. You can bet the law reflects this.
 
This is so boring and nonsensical. Lots of people in Westeros "willingly" or willingly surrendered, not one of them got any special status, and yes their swords were taken and forged into the Iron Throne. Stark, Hightower, you name it, everyone except Martell and the Dornish, assuming Aegon didn't take swords from the temporary Targaryen victories down under (seems likely).

Sheesh.
 
So the Starks can think it, maybe even say it to their vassals but if they ever act on it the Crown has the legal powers to slap them down and if the Starks ignore those legal commands then it just comes down to a war.

Westeros has only had a codified law for under two centuries and that was written whilst Dragons were still around by the King who slapped down the Starks acting like special snow flakes. You can bet the law reflects this.
How does this contradict anything I said? I only said that the nature of the Stark's fealty is consensual rather than militarily-imposed by conquerors and that's how the Starks justify their integration of the Seven Kingdoms and that's how they will react against royal authority in a region that hasn't been under its curfew historically, if it's enforced beyond reasonable limit, e.g. ignoring the Stark monarchy based on Stark justice by summoning the greatest and most loyal bannerman to King's Landing on a king's whim when the Starks already told the King it's all ok. Indeed, I think it fits perfectly into the post-Jaehaerys world, in the terms that, prior to his grand progress, the Stark political philosophy was leaning towards independence from the tyrannical dragonlords and then shifted to this consensual relationship based on loyalty, intimacy and reciprocity once Jaejae played his cards.
 
Actually, this is beyond boring. I can handle Eliud's usual codswallop of tripe but not multiplied exponentially like this.

@CommandoHowizter I need some time away from this, feel free to find another Targaryen player and retcon whatever you or they find taxing.
 
This is so boring and nonsensical. Lots of people in Westeros "willingly" or willingly surrendered, not one of them got any special status, and yes their swords were taken and forged into the Iron Throne. Stark, Hightower, you name it, everyone except Martell and the Dornish, assuming Aegon didn't take swords from the temporary Targaryen victories down under (seems likely).

Sheesh.
That contradicts the canon quote I gave you and unless you can provide another quote explicitly stating that the Northern swords were forged into the Iron Throne, then I can take your... alternative interpretation and consider it canon.
 
That contradicts the canon quote I gave you and unless you can provide another quote explicitly stating that the Northern swords were forged into the Iron Throne, then I can take your... alternative interpretation and consider it canon.

THE QUOTE EXPLICITLY SAYS AEGON TOOK THE SWORDS AND TOOK THEM SOUTH WITH HIM.

Ask yourself - what did Aegon do with swords from defeated foes?

It's not a hard code to crack, mate.

The state Aegon found or received the swords in = zero correlation with them being fused into the Iron Throne.
 
Actually, this is beyond boring. I can handle Eliud's usual codswallop of tripe but not multiplied exponentially like this.

@CommandoHowizter I need some time away from this, feel free to find another Targaryen player and retcon whatever you or they find taxing.

Ummm....ok.

I have been contemplating whether we should end this as personally I have also been hardpressed to keep up with modding.
 
THE QUOTE EXPLICITLY SAYS AEGON TOOK THE SWORDS AND TOOK THEM SOUTH WITH HIM.

Ask yourself - what did Aegon do with swords from defeated foes?

It's not a hard code to crack, mate.

The state Aegon found or received the swords in = zero correlation with them being fused into the Iron Throne.
Read the quote again.
 
Read the quote again.

King Torrhen did send Brandon Snow across the Trident. But he crossed with three maesters by his side, not to kill but to treat. All through the night messages went back and forth. The next morning, Torrhen Stark himself crossed the Trident. There upon the south bank of the Trident, he knelt, laid the ancient crown of the Kings of Winter at Aegon's feet, and swore to be his man. He rose as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, a king no more. From that day to this day, Torrhen Stark is remembered as the King Who Knelt...but no Northman left his burned bones beside the Trident, and the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted or melted or bent.

In parallel to:

Harren and his last sons died in the fires that engulfed his monstrous fortress that night. House Hoare died with him, and so too did the Iron Islands' hold on the riverlands. The next day, outside the smoking ruins of Harrenhal, King Aegon accepted an oath of fealty from Edmyn Tully, Lord of Riverrun, and named him Lord Paramount of the Trident. The other riverlords did homage as well—to Aegon as king and to Edmyn Tully as their liege lord. When the ashes had cooled enough to allow men to enter the castle safely, the swords of the fallen, many shattered or melted or twisted into ribbons of steel by dragonfire, were gathered up and sent back to the Aegonfort in wagons.

The condition the swords were in isn't an indication of their ultimate fate (which was one and the same - collected and taken away), but the different storylines of how each King responded to Aegon. That is all.
 
King Torrhen did send Brandon Snow across the Trident. But he crossed with three maesters by his side, not to kill but to treat. All through the night messages went back and forth. The next morning, Torrhen Stark himself crossed the Trident. There upon the south bank of the Trident, he knelt, laid the ancient crown of the Kings of Winter at Aegon's feet, and swore to be his man. He rose as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, a king no more. From that day to this day, Torrhen Stark is remembered as the King Who Knelt...but no Northman left his burned bones beside the Trident, and the swords Aegon collected from Lord Stark and his vassals were not twisted or melted or bent.

In parallel to:

Harren and his last sons died in the fires that engulfed his monstrous fortress that night. House Hoare died with him, and so too did the Iron Islands' hold on the riverlands. The next day, outside the smoking ruins of Harrenhal, King Aegon accepted an oath of fealty from Edmyn Tully, Lord of Riverrun, and named him Lord Paramount of the Trident. The other riverlords did homage as well—to Aegon as king and to Edmyn Tully as their liege lord. When the ashes had cooled enough to allow men to enter the castle safely, the swords of the fallen, many shattered or melted or twisted into ribbons of steel by dragonfire, were gathered up and sent back to the Aegonfort in wagons.

The condition the swords were in isn't an indication of their ultimate fate (which was one and the same - collected and taken away), but the different storylines of how each King responded to Aegon. That is all.
Hm, I hadn't observed that particular parallel. I stand corrected re: the swords.
 
Love you too man.

Codswallop of tripe? That's a good one, I'll have to research what it means. Sounds bad though.

I have nothing against you personally, but game-wise absolutely loathe your typical habit of doing insane or nonsensical things IC that are completely jarring in the scenario but claiming you're doing it out of a duty and love for your peasantry, as if that somehow matters or makes it OK. No doubt as much as you loathe my playing style in turn.
 
I have nothing against you personally, but game-wise absolutely loathe your typical habit of doing insane or nonsensical things IC that are completely jarring in the scenario but claiming you're doing it out of a duty and love for your peasantry, as if that somehow matters or makes it OK. No doubt as much as you loathe my playing style in turn.
Oh I loath your playing style as well. And as well, nothing against you personally. I've even defended you when you where argued against from time to time.

I mainly function by ck2 rules of feudalship and the function of the feudal hierarchy. Landed Knight<Lord<High Lord< Lord Paramount< King, (compared to ck2's Baron<Count<Duke<King<Emperor) . If the king can order every high lord around like he can lord paramounts, then why bother having them then? That's my point I am having. To say nothing of the role of warden and all the other stuff.
 
Last edited:
Oh I loath your playing style as well. And as well, nothing against you personally. I've even defended you when you where argued against from time to time.

I mainly function by ck2 rules of feudalship and the function of the feudal hierarchy. Landed Knight<Lord<High Lord< Lord Paramount< King . If the king can order every high lord around like he can lord paramounts, then why bother having them then? That's my point I am having. To say nothing of the role of warden and all the other stuff.

For the same reason as Kings and anyone in power had and have delegates since the start of time. I have multiple superiors where I work, but when the big bossman comes in he's very fond of making snap-decisions: No, you wear this, you, you go there, you, shave your beard, you, use this elevator, you, what are you doing using that phone? whatever. And his word overrides any rules or protocols that delegates might have put in place, obviously within the confines of the law and good reason. The same was true, for example, of the Holy Roman Emperor, who generally ignored his Italian subjects and allowed various communes, dukes and counts and capitano del popolos who acted as imperial vicars and whatnot, but when, very sporadically, he was in situ, his word overrode all of the laws, all of the councils, all of the consuls and captains and gonfaloniers and whatever the city had, because he was their feudal superior. This endured for generations. The same is true for pretty much any monarch anywhere before you start getting "estates of the realm" and noble rights developing and thickening out, which, for better or worse, do not exist in Westeros as we find and encounter it. The King's word trumps that of any LP, just as any LP's word trumps the word of his intermediate vassals, on and on down the chain.

I'm sure the CK2 game is great fun and a lovely scenario but it is a distinct game, not canon, and an incredibly faulty, incongruous template to try and confine GRMM's universe into.​
 
This is so boring and nonsensical. Lots of people in Westeros "willingly" or willingly surrendered, not one of them got any special status, and yes their swords were taken and forged into the Iron Throne. Stark, Hightower, you name it, everyone except Martell and the Dornish, assuming Aegon didn't take swords from the temporary Targaryen victories down under (seems likely).

Sheesh.

I wasn't aware you were the God-Mod or GRRM. Thanks for clarifying.

You can say that all you want...doesn't make it correct both in universe or in game.
 
Back
Top