poorquentyn:

racefortheironthrone:

Maybe. I take PoorQuentyn’s point that it was a purely military strategy aimed at purely military targets. But that doesn’t necessarily mean something isn’t considered a war crime. Weapons that cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” are considered war crimes, sometimes depending on how they are used. At various times, this has included crossbows, weapons with barbed or serrated edges, explosive or expanding bullets, poison, biological or chemical weapons,  nuclear weapons, and incendiary weapons. 

Now, whether Westeros includes that in their conception of the laws of war, I don’t know. But if Stannis had won the Battle of Blackwater, I could see him prosecuting Tyrion for murdering thousands of helpless sailors on both sides. 

Totally fair points. My only rejoinder is this wasn’t a case of armies meeting on a battlefield; as he says before his fateful sortie, Tyrion’s acting in defense of the KL civilian population which will suffer tremendously from Stannis’ forces. Admittedly, Tyrion’s fighting on behalf of a monarch that regularly and egregiously violates the social contract to the detriment of that same civilian population, and as we see at the Wall, Stannis takes post-battle atrocities seriously and punishes violators harshly. Still, I think there’s a case to be made that Tyrion has a moral imperative to utterly destroy Stannis’ army in order to spare the city another Sack, a clusterfuck of war crimes.

To put it another way: it’s the difference between Aerys turning the wildfire on the city to spite Robert and a hypothetical AU in which the alchemists somehow deploy it against Tywin’s army. The latter is still horrifying, but given what that army was about to do to King’s Landing…it’s ambiguous, but I think we’re supposed to feel the horror of Davos’ POV without quite condemning Tyrion’s, especially (again) given how his own heroic ride frames his actions as a defense of the masses that hate him. (Not entirely unjustifiably, given the burning along the quays and whatnot.) 

That’s all true, but as I mentioned in Sansa IV, the reason the city is going to be sacked is that Tyrion has made the decision to fight rather than surrender, so I don’t think Tyrion’s defense of the civilian population is entirely uncomplicated. 

I don’t think you can buy one for money. The Lannisters tried and failed. 

Maybe. I take PoorQuentyn’s point that it was a purely military strategy aimed at purely military targets. But that doesn’t necessarily mean something isn’t considered a war crime. Weapons that cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” are considered war crimes, sometimes depending on how they are used. At various times, this has included crossbows, weapons with barbed or serrated edges, explosive or expanding bullets, poison, biological or chemical weapons,  nuclear weapons, and incendiary weapons. 

Now, whether Westeros includes that in their conception of the laws of war, I don’t know. But if Stannis had won the Battle of Blackwater, I could see him prosecuting Tyrion for murdering thousands of helpless sailors on both sides. 

That’s a good question. From what we’ve read, Robert looked relieved that it was done AND that he didn’t have to do it, because murdering children didn’t account for his conception of himself as a hero. 

Certainly, I think Elia would have been gently treated. As Tywin says, by herself she was nothing, and Robert needed goodwill from the Martells as one of the leading loyalist Houses. 

The children…well, Rhaenys you can potentially marry back into the line to consolidate that claim, so that’s less problematic. Aegon’s the problem. The best you can do, short of killing him in such a way that everyone acknowledges he’s dead (because you have to be worried about impostors, given Westerosi history), is have him inducted as a septon and then sent to the Wall, because that’s two holy oaths that disinherit him and it puts him at the edge of the known world right next to the ultra-loyalist Starks. 

madeinmyr:

racefortheironthrone:

madeinmyr:

racefortheironthrone:

You mean in the sense of a de-facto reserve currency? Well, I expect that, given the dominance of the Iron Bank in Essosi finance, it’s probably the Braavosi currency (which annoyingly we don’t have a name for), at least in the Free Cities. On the other hand, we see golden honors circulating in Volantis, Slaver’s Bay, and Qarth, which suggests competing monetary blocs. 

In terms of what the exchange rate is, it’s a bit hard to say. We do know that the golden dragon is much larger than the golden honor or the golden hands that House Gardener minted, due to the consolidation of the entire Westerosi continent and thus the Westerland’s vast gold reserves. On the other hand, Westeros has an undeveloped financial system, so it may be that while dragons are more valuable for their metallic content, Braavosi coins are easier to use in commerce in the east. 

We disagree here. It’s clearly established during Arya’s stay in Braavos that Volantene honors are the most widely used of the Free City currencies.

‘The blind girl went to work in the dark, stripping the dead of boots and clothes and other possessions, emptying their purses and counting out their coins. Telling one coin from another by touch alone was one of the first things the waif had taught her, after they took away her eyes. The Braavosi coins were old friends; she need only brush her fingertips across their faces to recognize them. Coins from other lands and cities were harder, especially those from far away. Volantene honors were most common, little coins no bigger than a penny with a crown on one side and a skull on the other. Lysene coins were oval and showed a naked woman. Other coins had ships stamped onto them, or elephants, or goats. The Westerosi coins showed a king’s head on the front and a dragon on the back. (DwD, The Blind Girl)’

Volantis is rich and all Western ships heading east have to stop at the city to resupply while most Eastern traders drop their cargos off there and turn around. If the precious metal content of Volantene coins is stable and reliable then it would be one of the more convenient currencies for anyone engaged in Summer Sea trade, the Iron Bank included.

1. I interpret that sentence differently. Arya’s saying that of the non-Bravaosi coins, Volantene coins are the most common, not that the Volantene coins are the most common in the Free Cities. 

2 If that was the case, it’s a major worldbuilding flaw on GRRM’s part. Either the Iron Bank is the largest and most dominant bank in Essos or the Volantene currency is dominant, but it shouldn’t be both. The Bank of Amsterdam did not make loans denominated in Byzantine solidi. 

1. This is how we interpret the above quote. Braavosi coins are naturally the most common currency available in Braavos, but of all the other Free City currencies Arya picks out of ordinary Braavosi pockets, Volantene honors are the most common. This is rather significant given how geographically distant Braavos is from Volantis. In closer cities the ratio of Volantene currency is probably higher. When this evidence is considered alongside the appearance of Volantene honors in Slaver’s Bay and Qarth it seems pretty clear that honors are more widely used then titans.*

2. Money is no more than a state created store of value and medium of exchange. With spec currency it’s the precious metal content of the coins and market price of said precious metal that determines their real value. A gold honor is worth as much as the gold that can be retrieved from melting it down (which is why traders and bankers bite and weigh the coins they are paid and why bazaar prices go up whenever the currency is debased). There’s no law that says the Iron Bank’s assets cannot include a considerable amount of foreign coin given that the origin of said coin does not matter, only their composition. The Iron Bank’s assets no doubt include a considerable amount of bonds, stocks, debts, and real and movable property, only some of it Braavosi. If Volantene coins have a reliable precious metal content and are minted along a major commercial artery then it’s not surprising that they would be more widely used then other Narrow Sea currencies.

It does not follow that the country with the largest and most dominant bank must have most dominant currency. This was not the case with the Byzantine Empire, where banks and credit played only a very minor role. The solidus of Justinian was ‘accepted everywhere from end to end of the earth’ (says Cosmas Indicopleuste) and ‘eagerly accepted from England to India as an instrument of payment as good as gold itself’ (see Robert Lopez’s ‘Dollar of the Middle Ages’). The solidi’s wide acceptance as an international medium of exchange for more than seven centuries was founded on the stability and fineness of its gold content. This position was held until the thirteenth century, when Genoa, Florence and other Western states issued pure gold currencies which gradually displaced the devalued bezant in international trade. If the Bank of Amsterdam had existed in the sixth century (or at any time up until and including all of the eleventh century) it undoubtedly would have accepted repayment of its debts in solidi.

Steven has also made the mistake of confusing the Iron Bank with Braavos as a whole. The Iron Bank might be bigger than every other Free City bank combined, but bank vaults do not contain the sole sum of a nation’s wealth. One reason that Braavos has the largest bank is because the city does not directly participate in the slave trade. So liquid capital that in any other Free City would be invested in the acquisition, maintenance, training and terrorizing of slaves is instead available for commercial lending to traders, artisans, speculators and governments.

The fact is that Volantis is a very wealthy city, probably wealthier than Braavos (the Iron Bank and all its assets included). Braavos might have the world’s largest bank, but Volantis has the largest harbor west of Valyria and the world famous Merchant House. Volantis is the world’s leading manufacturer of high quality colored glass and the spices that pass through the city’s warehouses have a high reputation for quality (“cracked pepper from Volantis, nothing finer”). Volantis is closer to the resource exporting, luxury importing harbors of Oldtown and Lannisport then Braavos. Volantis is closer to the Planky Town and the Dornish market then Braavos. Volantis is closer to Qarth and the Summer Islands then Braavos. Braavosi ships have to sail through the pirate and privateer infested Stepstones to trade in the Summer Sea, while Volantene ships do not. Whenever Volantis and Braavos are at war, Braavosi merchantmen would have a very hard time trading east of Valyria while Volantene merchants would be largely unaffected (as Volantis is the principle resupply port for eastern merchant venturers). Volantis controls far more arable land then Braavos, has in a sub-tropical climate and sits astride a major north-south river trade route. Volantis has a larger population then Braavos and controls at least two “towns” that are large cities in their own right. Volantene merchants can directly trade in human flesh, while honest Braavosi merchants cannot (hence Braavosi ships are unknown in Slaver’s Bay and therefore miss out on the trade in olive oil, gems, spices, and wool cloth that accompany the trade in human beings).

So is it really all that surprising that Volantene honors are widely used in international trade?

*titans seems as good a name for Braavosi coins as any. That is the titan’s head on it, no?

1. I fundamentally disagree with how this quote should be interpreted and I don’t think Arya sorting pocket change is good data for continent-wide monetary flows. (That being said, I like “titans” as a name for Braavosi coins.)

2. Here’s the problem for me. While I accept that “it does not follow that the country with the largest and most dominant bank must have most dominant currency,” I think the reverse does follow – dominant currencies tend to lead to dominance in finance. Hence, when the Roman Empire began to expand and Roman currency became dominant in the Mediterranean, Roman moneylenders became hegemonic in regions of the ancient world they never had before, because they had access to the coins everyone wanted and could thus loan them out and because they could get special privileges from the state. Likewise, the decline of the Byzantine bezant has a lot to do with the loss of trade to Genoa and Venice (as well as the loss of provincial territories in the Balkans and the Middle East who were no longer paying taxes), and the transformation of commercial wealth into currency. 

So to use your analogy, if people were still using the solidi, you don’t get a Bank of Amsterdam. 

2a. Now it’s true that the Iron Bank can have in its assets “a considerable amount of foreign coin” (after all, moneychanging is a key part of their business) as well as “a considerable amount of bonds, stocks, debts, and real and movable property.” But it’s highly unlikely Volantene coins make up the majority, for several reasons. First, it would be ludicrously easy for Volantis to dominate Braavos’ economy and polity by refusing to export honors to Braavos, much as how the EU Central Bank puts the screws on Greece because Greece can’t print Euros on its own. Second, it’s not entirely true that “a gold honor is worth as much as the gold that can be retrieved from melting it down” – yes that’s important for relative value of different currencies, but most things can’t be bought with blank discs of gold, otherwise you wouldn’t have government minting coins in the first place. The Iron Bank and its customers have to pay their taxes with minted coins, and in Braavos that means Braavosi coins. Braavosi manufacturers and shopkeeps and merchants are going to do business primarily in Braavosi coins, because the alternative is having to be your own moneychanger and assayer and most people can’t do that. Given that the Iron Bank’s original core business was business loans to Braavosi artisans and merchants, it can only fulfill that function with a large supply of Braavosi coins. Third, it’s good for business. The wider Braavosi coins circulate, the more that merchants and foreign banks have to do business with the Iron Bank to facilitate trade with Braavos, creating an additional stream of demand for their services.  

3. According to the World of Ice and Fire, “The youngest of the Nine Free Cities, Braavos is also the wealthiest, and in all likelihood the most powerful…Despite its humble origins, Braavos has not only become the wealthiest of the Free Cities, but also one of the most impregnable.” Volantis is wealthy, but it is palpably not as rich as Braavos. Moreover, it’s a city in decline both in terms of population and infrastructure, which you can see in almost every chapter set in Volantis. While it probably outranked Braavos when it was at its height, it spent much of its blood and treasure in the attempt to conquer the Free Cities, and has been slowly declining ever since. 

So while I could accept Volantene coins being widespread in Essos, especially in the Slave Cities, I don’t accept them being the most widely circulated in Essos.

kateofthecanals:

racefortheironthrone:

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Sansa V, ACOK

 “The Mother’s altar and the Warrior’s swam in light, but Smith and Crone and Maid and Father had their worshipers as well, and there were even a few flames dancing below the Stranger’s half-human face…for what was Stannis Baratheon, if not the Stranger come to judge them?” Synopsis: Sansa is trapped in Maegor’s Holdfast with Cersei, who’s not looking very stable. SPOILER WARNING: This chapter…

View On WordPress

Now, I loves me some Stevie A., and he’s usually so (refreshingly) spot-on in his analysis of Sansa and Sandor’s relationship, which is why I am so surprised by how he seemed to miss the point of Sansa’s prayer for the Hound.

For starters, Steven opens his analysis by talking about the idealogical conflicts amongst the different aspects of the Seven itself/themselves:

In this prayer [the Mother’s Hymn], we can see a unique voice, embodying the “strength of women,” speaking out against an activity literally deified by a male aspect of the Seven. The Mother contests with the Warrior, not merely to protect her sons and daughters, but to end war itself and “teach us a kinder way.” There is a quiet rebellion here, and one that I hope we see again, because it shows us a side of the Seven that contrasts sharply with the Sparrow Movement.

Sansa’s prayer for the Hound completely illustrates this point! When she’s praying for him, she is not praying to the Warrior to give him strength and courage in battle; no, she chooses to pray to the Mother to keep Sandor safe and to heal his psychological pain. Like, WOW! And the fact that George chose to reveal to us her actual prayer for Sandor and no one else’s (even her own family) speaks for itself.

Now, on to the analysis of the prayer itself:

Sansa’s emphasis is rather more on the latter, and raises some interesting questions about the Hound. First, is it the case that “he is no true knight?” The Hound refuses to hit women no matter who orders him to, did save a young maiden from danger, will demonstrate enormous bravery in the field in Davos III, and while he certainly did murder Micah, that doesn’t make him that different from most knights. It may be the case – continuing Sansa’s theme of surfaces vs. reality – that Sansa is reacting to his surface appearance and performance rather than looking at his actions at a deep level. On the other hand, the Hound’s sanity is less than secure, so as we’ll discuss in Sansa VII, his offer of escape might well be one to avoid. Regardless, Sansa’s plea to the Mother to “save him if you can, and gentle the rage inside him” seems to be one of those rare cases in which the Seven seem to act at least on a thematic level, given how the Hound manages to survive the battle, his trial by combat, the Red Wedding, and a near-fatal wound, and does find peace on the Quiet Isle. 

The claim that Sansa is viewing Sandor on “surface appearances” because she calls him “no true knight” couldn’t be farther from the truth. It’s the exact opposite, in fact! Sansa is pretty much the ONLY person in all of Westeros who is actually able to see and acknowledge that Sandor is more than just a “Lannister dog”; from the moment he broke down and told her the horrible truth behind his burned face in only her second freaking chapter in this series, Sansa has had an insight into this man that literally nobody else does (or cares to; even his own employers). When she says, “he is no true knight, but he saved me all the same”, what she means is, “he swore no vows to protect the innocent, but he did so anyway.” Thus, it’s her definition of knighthood that is receiving a surface-level assessment here, not Sandor himself. She knows better at this point, and that’s why she prays for Sandor’s bodily AND spiritual salvation. 

All the same, looking forward to the analyses of her upcoming ACoK chapters!

Well, I have to admit that I consider Sandor and Sansa some of the hardest material for me to analyze, both because it tends to be more about literature and psychology as opposed to politics and history, which are my strong suit, and because so much amazing stuff has been written about it by other people, so I have this nagging suspicion I’m falling short. 

It’s entirely possible that I just misunderstood what’s going on in Sansa V, and in the interests of maintaining accountability, I’m going to go back and take a look and the chapter and what I’d written. 

I think my main issue here is with the use of the term “no true knight.” We’ve seen Sansa use it before, both the first time she talks to the Hound and when she talks to him again in the godswood in ACOK. True knighthood, as I understand it, is about actions not vows – the Gregors and Meryn Trants of the world took vows as knights, but they don’t act to uphold them and instead lash out against the helpless. By contrast, neither Dunk nor Brienne have taken vows as knights, but they are true knights because they act as the vows demand without any expectation of reward or recognition. 

So I guess my confusion remains, how is Sandor not a “true knight?” Here, I think I did make a mistake and wasn’t very clear in explaining my thinking: I don’t think it has to do with Sandor’s appearance and I shouldn’t have written that. However, I do think that it does have something to do with Sandor’s performance as opposed to his completed actions – when the chips are down, he saves her life and tries his best to protect her from Joffrey, but he keeps putting blades to her throat, which isn’t what a true knight should do. 

At the same time, I don’t think Sandor really means to harm her in those moments; he’s pantomiming being a dangerous badass who nothing can hurt, but the moment that Sansa refuses to play along, he collapses into tears.

And I think Sansa recognizes this, hence her prayer. So why say “no true knight”? 

rewenzo:

racefortheironthrone:

Well, politically, it’s basically replacing one main prop for the monarchy with another. The Tyrells would definitely be looking to replace Lannister appointees with their own people. On the other hand, they’re better at PR and making alliances and sharing the wealth, so there’s going to be less resentment. 

Personally? Margaery would definitely be a lot better at managing Robert, because she’s better at performing than Cersei ever was. Robert would probably be besotted and over-the-top-generous in that class mid-life-crisis second-marriage way, although he’s probably still going to drink too much and sleep around eventually. Very much likely to do that Henry VIII I’m still young thing – big question there is whether Margaery can get him to whip himself back into shape or whether she’ll have to fake being in love with OldElvis Robert. 

Something to consider here is how Robert becoming aware of the twincest will affect Robert emotionally. Will this make him suspicious of Margaery at all times? Would he lock Margaery away in the Maidenvault to ensure that she can only get pregnant from him? Would he be inclined to mistreat or distrust Loras? This could piss of Margaey and Loras and the Tyrells.

Maybe, but if Henry VIII is any model to go by, I don’t think so. Rather, I think he’ll salve his ego by pointing to Cersei’s “unnatural lusts” as proof that she was always the problem in his marriage not him, and putting Margaery on a pedestal as the superior, properly feminine, woman who’s proof of his continued virility. 

Especially since Margaery would make it her business to be fun to be around – witty and vivacious, endlessly flattering, coming up with entertainments to keep him interested, and so on. If anything, I think Robert would be more clingy than suspicious, wanting Margaery around him constantly to show off to other people, to have her ooh and awww at his accomplishments, and to share in the merriment. 

As for Loras, from the book, he seems more inclined to treat him like the son he never had. And if he started to get suspicious, all it takes is a word in the ear about Loras and Renly to allay all suspicions. 

Because you cannot “rearrange the succession so that Margaery’s children could come before Cersei’s.” Three hundred years of precedent establishes that the oldest legitimate male child inherits. Absent an accusation of incest, there is no legal reason for Joffrey to be disinherited. 

Not only would there be a civil war, but Margaery’s children will be seen as the Blackfyres come again and Joffrey as the wronged party, and Robert himself would be seen as a second Aegon the Unworthy. 

As for why not reveal it first – after getting rid of Cersei, Robert could choose to marry anyone, and there’s no guarantee that he’d go for Margaery Tyrell explicitly. There’s also the possibility that Robert dies untimely and leaves Stannis as the openly acknowledged heir. 

As I saw it, the point was to win his heart and loins first so that he’s got a strong spur to end his marriage and marry Margaery, then reveal the evidence of Cersei’s incestuous adultery so there’s a clear legal reason for why Cersei’s children are disinherited, and so that there’s no question about the legitimacy of Margaery’s kids. 

You once said you would rank Visenya as one of the top queens. My question are you referring to just Visenya during Aegon’s reign or during her entire reign as Queen (both Consort and Dowager). 

Because she does well during Aegon’s reign, subduing the Eyrie without bloodshed, along with the lords of Crackclaw Point, creating the Kingsguard, looking after the construction of the Red Keep, etc. However, after Aegon’s reign, she kills the king and basically starts an intra-house civil war in the middle of a rebellion.

True, but let’s not forget that she killed the king who provoked the rebellion and had lost the capitol through incompetence and lack of willpower. Maegor did many awful things, but he maintained the Targaryen dynasty as the military hegemon of Westeros. Without that, there is no monarchy. 

So no, I think Visenya is one of the top queens, period.