Author: stevenattewell

Hello! I love reading your blog, thanks for all the hard work you do! I was curious( and if my timeline is off, sorry!) If Elia, after the death of Rhaegar had sent ravens to the rebellion saying basically she didn’t approve of the actions of rhaegar/Aerys and asking protection for her and her children, and to basically save her from the Red keep, how might have that changed the outcome if at all?

Keep in mind, the Rebel Alliance didn’t do a damn thing to Elia, nor were they in control of the city when it happened. That was all up to Tywin.

So I don’t think it would have changed the outcome. 

It might have made the politics of the aftermath more difficult, but I don’t know if it would have outweighed 45,000 men in the field. 

do we know anything else about the ‘Kingdom of the Western Marches’ that made up one of the four kingdoms of the reach pre-conquest other than that one mention? Do u think it’s completely landlocked or would it have an outlet to the sea the through the mander or honeywine ?

Not really, no. I would be very curious as to who the King of the Western Marches was, and whether there was ever a King of the Eastern Marches or of the Marches period, given the modern claims of the Carons. 

Can you explain the concept of a dry exchange to me? I’ve read a bit about it in The Rise and Fall of the Medici Bank, and the author said it was a way of ensuring that usury didn’t take place, but he never really explained how the exchange actually worked.

Great question!

A dry exchange is actually a matter of historical debate. As Raymond de Roover puts it, “the nature of “dry exchange…has given rise to a good deal of confusion; and to most people the meaning of the terms remains obscure.” Different scholars have different opinions as to what “dry exchange” was, based on conflicting sources.  

As best I understand his article, dry exchange involves a legal or conceptual fiction, whereby interest rates (forbidden as usury) were concealed by adding them on to exchange rates. To quote the article:

“In view of the existing organization of the money market, only merchants who had connections abroad could take up money by exchange, because the taker had to be represented in other places by an agent, a partner, or a correspondent who would accept and honor his bills. If this representative did not have sufficient funds to meet maturities, he could always raise money by drawing on his principal. In any case a merchant who had no such connections was seriously handicapped. He was shut off from the money market, unless he could make special arrangements with a deliverer. The purpose of dry exchange was to make such arrangements possible. “Dry exchange” was merely a device by which a local loan was disguised under the form of an exchange transaction.” 

In other words, if I’m an Italian banker who wants to buy wool cloth in England, I need pound sterling to make the transaction. But if my bank isn’t particularly well known on Lombardy Street because we don’t normally do a lot of business in England, I could be out of luck because no one will take my bill  of exchange. 

However, a “dry exchange” would allow me to get a loan in pound sterling from an English banker. The English banker would, obviously, want to make a profit from this loan, but isn’t legally allowed to charge interest. So instead what happens is that I go to the banker and fill out a bill of exchange from Florins to Pounds Sterling where the banker is both payer and payee (this is what makes it fictional, he’s basically paying himself), and then the banker fills out a second bill of exchange from Florins to Pounds except for that it’s payable to me, which I can then take to a cloth merchant. He has essentially loaned English pounds to me which I then turn around and use in another exchange. 

The main difference between the two bills, besides the payers and payees, is that they would have different exchange rates between Florins and Pound Sterling, which would net the banker a profit on the exchange. However, legally speaking, the banker could say that he hadn’t actually loaned money at interest, but rather conducted two currency exchanges at variable rates. 

Wait, so I only just found out that Summer dies in GoT. Do you think this reflects where the books are going? No more dead puppies. D=

It’s possible, it fits the Last Hero narrative, but on the other hand, it’s a reality that working with animal actors is incredibly time-consuming and expensive, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the show decided to eliminate the direwolves whenever possible (do you really think Arya’s going to meet Nymeria only for Nymeria to go away?) to save money for dragons. 

While Victarion has often been compared to Gregor Clegane, could he also be seen as similar to Jaime before he lost his hand? Victarion and Jaime start out quite similar, but while Jaime begins to rethink his life even before losing his hand, Victarion lacks this ability for introspection. Also, both men lose hands, but Jaime loses his sword hand and it makes him a cripple, while Vic loses his shield hand and gets it replaced with a super-powered one.

Jaime was not that dumb, nor did he have the same sibling dynamics, etc.

“But wrt to Robb, there is legal precedent for his will. The Night’s Watch has released men from their vows in the past.” When was this?

Ok already! Given the flood of anon asks, I’ll answer. So the evidence for this is as follows:

“Jon is a brother of the Night’s Watch, sworn to take no wife and hold no lands. Those who take the black serve for life.”
“So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows…”

“Not unless he’s legitimized by a royal decree,” said Robb. “There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath.” (Cat V, ASOS)

Granny: Is there any chance that Jon could be released from his oaths of the nightwatch?

George_RR_Martin: The great council would have released Aemon from his maester’s oath, so I suppose it would be possible. With an appropriate authority. (Source)

Let’s break this down:

  •  Robb’s comment that “If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows” suggests to me that there is some process for the Watch to release someone from their vows in extraordinary circumstances. 
  • Likewise, Robb’s comment that there is more precedent for legitimizing bastards than there is from releasing someone from their oath suggests to me that there is some, but very little, precedent for releasing someone from their vows.
  • GRRM’s response to the question about Jon, and keep in mind this question is being asked after ACOK came out but before ASOS came out, suggests to me that the “appropriate authority” can release Jon from his vows. Now, the authority in question could be many things: the Lord Commander, the Brothers voting as a whole, a king’s decree, etc. 

Also, I remember GRRM talking about it on some HBO video, an Inside the Episode or History and Lore, where he said that it had happened but they don’t like doing it, but I couldn’t find what I was looking for. 

If the Nights Watch is so ancient, respected and based in tradition (at least in holding true to vows, since it was a common way to get rid of political rivals), how come in the main series so many think they can just disregard it? Robb with his will and Jon, Stannis with almost all his interactions with the Watch, Tywin backing Janos for LC, etc.? And even the former two disregard it even though Robb is northern and Stannis big on law and tradition

Because it’s been in decline for hundreds if not thousands of years. 

But wrt to Robb, there is legal precedent for his will. The Night’s Watch has released men from their vows in the past. 

Stannis respects NW’s traditions to a point – hence his actions around the election – but he puts defense vs. the Great Other first. 

Tywin doesn’t care. 

Could it be possible to build a canal from Lannisport to Red Lake to Golden Grove. There has to be more rivers in the Westerlands right?

It’s possible (although very expensive, since it’s 300 miles from Lannisport to Redlake, and politically rather difficult b/c I doubt Highgarden would want Lannister economic infiltration that bypasses Highgarden to boot), but the Silverhill River is right there and Goldengrove is on it, so why not just use that oute instead?