Author: stevenattewell

So we know about the Reach’s golden ‘hands,’ and I’d be incredibly surprised if the Kingdom of the Rock’s currency wasn’t based around golden ‘lions,’ but do you have any suggestions for the names and metallic content of the Seven Kingdoms’ pre-Conquest currencies? I think I remember the North being a primarily silver-based economy, but ‘silver direwolves’ just doesn’t strike me as a good money name.

Let’s see:

The Reach: as stated, “golden hands.” Notably smaller and thinner than your post-Targaryen dragons. 

The Rock: agreed, definitely gold and definitely “lions.” 

The Stormlands: I wouldn’t be surprised if the stag as a coin predated the Conquest, given the Durrandon’s once-mighty empire. Perhaps they were once minted in gold, but had to be downgraded to silver as the Durrandon empire waned?

The North: silver wolves sounds good; when in doubt, simplify.

Riverlands: a wild mix of coinage, suggesting the political instability of the realm. I like the idea of the pious Teagues introducing the Star, tho. 

The Vale: silver falcons are too close to the sigil to be avoided, I think.

Dorne: Golden suns I think would be almost mandatory. 

Iron Islands: “he decreed that gold and silver coin should in future have no value, and ordained that the people should use iron money only…which in weight was over a pound and a quarter, and in value not quite a penny.” And according to legend, dipped in vinigar to make the coins brittle and thus even less useful….

“Daeron II kept the Iron Throne entirely because his bannermen stepped up and held the line even when the Hand and the King himself (if we’re being honest) were completely ineffectual.” Is this meant to be Aerys (instead of Daeron II) and if not, can you please explain? – Thank You, RSAFan.

Well, Daeron didn’t do much during the First Rebellion, after sending the arrest order – partly, this is blamed on his decision to keep on Lord Butterwell, who was notably inactive in his policy, and waiting until the eve of the Redgrass Field to replace him with Lord Hayford, which is rather surprising given Daeron’s reputation as an administrative reformer. 

If you look at most of the First Rebellion, you see local loyalists acting without support or coordination from King’s Landing: the battle at the crossing of the Mander saw Penroses from the Stormlands fighting in the Reach in defense of the crown but no Kingsguard or princes to lead them; the entire western campaign was entirely fought by local loyalists like Lord Lefford and Damon Lannister, etc. etc. It’s not until Redgrass itself that you see a royal army with Wardens and Princes and Kingsguard, and by that point Daemon was only a few day’s march from the capitol. 

Okay here’s a better question I don’t think you answered. Someone asked what should Bittersteel do after he formed The Golden Company, let’s turn it around. If you were advising Bloodraven in the days following Aerys I acent to the Iron Throne and the early conflicts we hear about in Dunk & Egg: The Sworn Sword what would you tell him to do?

opinions-about-tiaras:

I sort of wonder what precisely Bloodraven was thinking during that time period.

Mulling it over, I imagine his response to this sort of advice would be “Aerys is a King, not a God; he controls neither the weather nor the plagues. As for Dagon Greyjoy, we have a Warden of the West, a Warden of the North, and a Warden of the South for a reason, and we expect them to use their great wealth, authority, resources, and power to deal with Lord Greyjoy’s treason whilst the attention of the Crown and the Warden of the East is on our foes across the narrow sea.”

Because it isn’t like the Crown has vast armies of its own, right? It provides leadership, of course, and it can be argued that perhaps it should have picked one of the three Wardens most affected by Dagon’s reaving and put them in overall charge… but the whole point of the Warden system is for those specific lords to see to the defense of the Realm in their areas of authority. When the wildlings come south of the Wall, the Wardens of the North don’t appeal to the Iron Throne for protection; they muster a host and offer battle themselves. The Tyrells have a standing fleet, and the Starks and Lannisters wherewithal to build one. Indeed, that’s how they dealt with the Ironborn in the wake of the Red Kraken; the Lannisters and the Tyrells did not wait for the Regency Council to bestir itself, they gathered their own forces and dealt with the problem.

It isn’t unreasonable to demand that House Targaryen uphold its duty to defend its vassals… but it also isn’t unreasonable to point out that they have Wardens for that express purpose. In the time before the Dragonkings, the King of the Rock or the King of the Reach might be worried about leaving their own lands undefended while they made war among the Iron Islands. Such threats largely didn’t exist under the Targaryens, which means one might expect them to deal with the problem using their own resources, which utterly dwarf those of the Ironborn.

I’m sure that’s what Bloodraven would have liked people to think, but I don’t think that’s how his actions were taken – in no small part because the feudal social contract has reciprocal obligations of protection and support:

racefortheironthrone:

Uphold the feudal social contract. Daeron II kept the Iron Throne entirely because his bannermen stepped up and held the line even when the Hand and the King himself (if we’re being honest) were completely ineffectual. 

Especially when you’re in the opening stages of a multi-generational civil war and you’ve just gone from Valarr to Aerys as your figurehead, you need to reward that loyalty because it’s what’s going to win you the war in the long-run. 

So the King needs to be seen to be actively protecting his people, whether that’s in relief of the Great Spring Sickness and the drought, or in using at least part of the royal navy along with the Oldtown fleet to crush Dagon Greyjoy like a bug. 

I would argue that the Third Blackfyre Rebellion could have been made a lot more like the Fourth if they’d done that…

“They say the king gives justice and protects the weak.“

“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”

“There’s much I don’t understand,“ Davos admitted. "I have never pretended elsewise. I know the seas and rivers, the shapes of the coasts, where the rocks and shoals lie. I know hidden coves where a boat can land unseen. And I know that a king protects his people, or he is no king at all.”

When you look at the various texts (ASOIAF, D&E, WOIAF), you see a pretty broad consensus that the King is falling down on the job, stretching from Maester Yandel to the hedge knights at Whitewalls, which suggests an expectation of royal assistance.

Again, I don’t think the King had to move heaven and earth to clear that bar – just a demonstration that the King was actively involved in uphold the King’s Peace and the King’s Justice. 

What do you think was the bigger creative mistake: Jim Lee pushing to use Magneto in more antagonistic roles again starting with the X-Men vol 2 relaunch, or Chris Claremont implicating the Shadow King as a root cause of all of Magneto’s silver age plots during the Muir Island Saga?

Ooh, that’s a tough one. I’m sort of leaning to the latter, because I could see Magneto as an antagonist working after his New Mutants phase, but it could have been done somewhat more intelligently and more impactful.

Whereas the Shadow King thing always smacked a bit much of Claremont trying to wrap things up too neatly. 

Okay here’s a better question I don’t think you answered. Someone asked what should Bittersteel do after he formed The Golden Company, let’s turn it around. If you were advising Bloodraven in the days following Aerys I acent to the Iron Throne and the early conflicts we hear about in Dunk & Egg: The Sworn Sword what would you tell him to do?

Uphold the feudal social contract. Daeron II kept the Iron Throne entirely because his bannermen stepped up and held the line even when the Hand and the King himself (if we’re being honest) were completely ineffectual. 

Especially when you’re in the opening stages of a multi-generational civil war and you’ve just gone from Valarr to Aerys as your figurehead, you need to reward that loyalty because it’s what’s going to win you the war in the long-run. 

So the King needs to be seen to be actively protecting his people, whether that’s in relief of the Great Spring Sickness and the drought, or in using at least part of the royal navy along with the Oldtown fleet to crush Dagon Greyjoy like a bug. 

I would argue that the Third Blackfyre Rebellion could have been made a lot more like the Fourth if they’d done that…

Hi–I love your stuff, so thank you for writing what and how you write! Why does it seem swords are the default knightly weapon? My understanding is that swords are unlikely to slash through chainmail, and they almost certainly are not going through plate. But bludgeoning weapons like morning stars or maces would easily injure through mail, and the brute force of a mace blow would seemingly have effect through plate as well. So why swords instead of maces as knightly arms or am I just wrong?

Well, swords can stab as well as slash, so it’s not like they weren’t useful…although historians of arms and armor note that from the 10th century onwards, you start to see sword blades becoming more slender, suggesting a switch in emphasis from slashing to stabbing. (Hence the development of half-swording and the Deutsche Schule, which hardly ever using slashing attacks.)

Knights would certainly have trained in the use of the mace, morning star, handaxe, warhammer, etc. and would have used them all the time, so it’s not like those weapons were neglected.

So rather than the sword being the default, I would call it instead the symbolic weapon. Axes, maces, warhammers – these are civilian (i.e, peasant) tools pressed into service in time of war, whereas a sword is designed only for war. Thus the sword becomes the badge of office of the knight whose profession is war – and all of the symbolism around knighthood (dubbing, swearing fealty, etc.) revolves around the sword. 

And yes, lest we miss the obvious, the fact that the development of knighthood all took place in an intensely Christian context – especially when the Crusades start up and you get the development of chivalric literature – it didn’t hurt that the knight’s sword is shaped like a cross.