So if it wasn’t the Shavepate who poisoned the locusts, any guesses as to who the culprit really is? The points you made about it being a sloppy attempt if either Dany or Hizdahr were the target makes me think of the catspaw Joffrey sent to kill Bran. In that case, a sloppy assasination attempt indicates a not-so-bright culprit. Could it be the same with whoever poisoned the locusts? Or did they have some other purpose besides killing Dany(or Hizdahr)?

So I would start from the question: who benefits if the assassination attempt had gone as planned? Let’s say that Belwas doesn’t come to the fighting pit that day for whatever reason, and Drogon doesn’t unexpectedly show up in the middle of Daznak’s Pit.

Now, given the sloppiness of the method, it’s not clear whether Dany would have died from eating a few locusts or whether she just would have been made badly ill, but in either case the result is that Dany is out of commission (whether temporarily or permanently), which leaves Hizdahr running Meereen. And we know what happens in OTL when that happens: Hizdahr takes the Great Palace, installs his cousin as commander of the Brazen Beasts, tries but fails to take command of the Unsullied, and tries to placate the Yunkish to the point of considering killing Dany’s dragons. The main difference between OTL and our new timeline is that there would be much less confusion about where Dany was and whether she’s coming back, as she’d either be dead, dying, or “confined to her sickbed” or the like.

Overall, this follows the interests of the pro-slavery faction in Meereen – although notably there’s a bit of a difference between them and the Yunkish army outside, since while the Great Masters want Dany gone and slavery restored, they don’t want their city sacked, whereas the mercenaries want to loot the city and the Yunkish have promised loot to the Volantenes and others. So we should look for suspects to members of that faction:

Hizdahr is plausible. He’s the one who arranged the box, he’s the one who offers the poisoned locusts, he’s the one who benefits the most materially from Dany’s sidelining. On the other hand, he’s the most obvious candidate, and he’s the most implicated in all of it. Personally, I lean towards him being a catspaw or patsy rather than the overall planner.
The Harpy is also plausible. Now that Hizdahr is married and in line to take over with Dany gone, the Sons of the Harpy have a strong motive to complete their work by getting Dany out of the way and having Hizdahr carry out the counter-revolution. To me, the main counter-argument is that the Harpy tend to be a lot more stabby with their assassinations. OTOH, if the point is to get Dany out of the way subtly, so that Hizdahr can take over without opposition, I could see it.
Reznak, assuming he’s not the Harpy, is an outside possibility. There is the whole “beware the perfumed seneschal” prophecy, he’s definitely part of the pro-slavery faction, although definitely more on the collaborationist end than the militant end. He was in the box, close enough to whisper in Dany’s ear, and could have poisoned the locusts…although if he was that close to Dany, why not poison her wine?
Galazza Galare only really works if you think she’s the Harpy. She was all the way across Daznak’s Pit from Dany at the time, so a good deal of prior organization would have been needed for her to mastermind the assassination attempt. OTOH, if she is the Harpy, she’s way more subtle than we often think of the Sons as being, so her being in a perfect position to observe Dany without being suspected is quite interesting.

I hope si not a stupid question, but why did the vale lords want to join the starks in the wo5k? What do they do when robb is crowned ? Thank you

Not a stupid question at all.

There were substantial numbers of Vale lords who wanted to fight the Lannisters for several reasons:

“Lord Jon was much loved, and the insult was keenly felt when the king named Jaime Lannister to an office the Arryns had held for near three hundred years. Lysa has commanded us to call her son the True Warden of the East, but no one is fooled. Nor is your sister alone in wondering at the manner of the Hand’s death. None dare say Jon was murdered, not openly, but suspicion casts a long shadow.” (Catelyn VI, AGOT)

“Pycelle pushed himself to his feet. He was clad in a magnificent robe of thick red velvet, with an ermine collar and shiny gold fastenings. From a drooping sleeve, heavy with gilded scrollwork, he drew a parchment, unrolled it, and began to read a long list of names, commanding each in the name of king and council to present themselves and swear their fealty to Joffrey. Failing that, they would be adjudged traitors, their lands and titles forfeit to the throne.

The names he read made Sansa hold her breath. Lord Stannis Baratheon, his lady wife, his daughter. Lord Renly Baratheon. Both Lord Royces and their sons.” (Sansa V, AGOT)

“Lysa was as lonely as she was. Her new husband seemed to spend more time at the foot of the mountain than he did atop it. He was gone now, had been gone the past four days, meeting with the Corbrays. From bits and pieces of overheard conversations Sansa knew that Jon Arryn’s bannermen resented Lysa’s marriage and begrudged Petyr his authority as Lord Protector of the Vale. The senior branch of House Royce was close to open revolt over her aunt’s failure to aid Robb in his war, and the Waynwoods, Redforts, Belmores, and Templetons were giving them every support.” (Sansa VII, ASOS)

The Lords of the Vale don’t declare for Robb Stark because Lysa has summoned her knights to the Eyrie and refuses to let them leave – “If it were up to me, I would take a hundred men into the mountains, root them out of their fastnesses, and teach them some sharp lessons, but your sister has forbidden it. She would not even permit her knights to fight in the Hand’s tourney. She wants all our swords kept close to home, to defend the Vale” – although given her close cooperation with Petyr Baelish later in ASOS, we can surmise that the reason why the knights of the Vale were kept at home is that A. Littlefinger didn’t want Robb Stark to win the War of Five Kings, and B. he wanted to keep them fresh for his attempt to win the Iron Throne.

long ask ahead: Since the Others are like jrr Tolkien’s evil Maia in that they don’t create they just twist things and control creatures, could it be that they are created by the great other the way Melkor created orcs from elves? It’d be grrm body horror for that to be the case, human babies twisted by some huge ice slug monster until they are no more and a new, subservient (to the great other) consciousness and new body emerge. this would also give Dans Jon n Tyrion something to go down fighti

My last ask was long and got cut off, was asking about the great other and how it might create the others in a way that fits the whole “opposite of life” and thus can’t create naturally set up the others seem to be alluded to have. I’m not sure if it came through in what I submitted, but I was asking if you think this is the way grrm envisions them? Cause if so to me it’d make sense of what the three amigos will be on a mission for beyond the end of the world: torching the great other.

I don’t think that GRRM is particularly looking to JRR on the White Walkers. To me, the quote that’s the most important from GRRM is that he describes the White Walkers as “Sidhe made of ice, something like that.” If you’re looking for where GRRM’s getitng his inspiration, look to the Unseelie Fae, look to the folklore of the Wild Hunt – an unpredictable, irrational, malicious force that comes thundering down on humanity out of a winter’s night and then vanishes.

As for creation, I don’t think that’s quite right either. Unlike on the show which has tended to blend the two, GRRM has always been quite clear that the created wights and the White Walkers are not the same thing, that the White Walkers are a non-human species. Moreover, GRRM has said that “the Others can do things with ice that we can’t imagine and make substances of it.” We’ve seen that the White Walkers have a material culture, they make swords and armor out of ice, they probably make other things we ken not of.

As for what our heroes will find when they travel to the Heart of Winter and encounter the Great Other, I don’t know. No matter whether you travel north or west or east or south, the further away from the center of things you go, the more the map becomes hazy and indistinct, until all that’s left is “Here Be Dragons.”

What exactly is the shavepate. I never understood his character

Skahaz mo Kandaq is a former member of the Ghiscari nobility who, in order to show his devotion to the new regime and his abjuration of his former status (since the Great Masters of Meereen characteristically wear their hair in fanciful updoes), shaves his head. He is the leader of a group of ex-nobles who share both his hairstyle and his politics.

To follow along with my Reconstruction analogy: if the Unsullied represent black Union soldiers and the freedmen represent, well, the freedmen, the Shavepates represent:

“…a very specific historical counterpart, the so-called “scalawag.” Disparagingly named after a kind of runty horse, the scalawags of American Reconstruction were Southern white unionists – residents of the mountainous regions of West Virginia, East Tennessee, the western Carolinas, and Northern Alabama who had resisted secession from the outset, as well as Southerners from other regions who had turned their backs on the Confederacy during the war (through draft resistance or desertion) or after the war (most famously the former Confederate General James Longstreet, who would go on to lead African-American state militias against the paramilitary “White League” in Louisiana).”

Skahaz has something of a Longstreetish parallel, as the leader of the Brazen Beasts who combat the Sons of the Harpy – a parallel to the state militias who tried (usually unsuccessfully) to combat white terrorist organizations like the White League or the Klan. However, in his personal politics, Skahaz is more of a Robespierre stand-in, pushing Dany to adopt ever more militant policies (from torturing suspects to taking hostages to conducting reprisal killings) in response to the ongoing terrorist campaign against her new regime.

Unlike many ASOIAF commentators, I don’t think Skahaz poisoned the locusts. At the same time, I absolutely believe that Skahaz is taking advantage of the situation to try to regain the power he lost following Hizdahr’s rise to power, and to try to complete the revolution that Dany left unfinished. To that end, I’m sure that, while Barristan (and Victarion and Tyrion) wins the Battle of Fire outside the walls of Meereen, Skahaz will solve the problem of the Sons of the Harpy and the threat of counter-revolution by putting the entirety of the Great Masters (including the child hostages) to the sword. Whether he’ll survive Ser Barristan’s reaction, I don’t know.

As I’ve said before, the Shavepate is not a nice man, nor a good man. But he’s also not wrong about what’s going on in Meereen.

In regards to the War of 5 or 4 Kings, what do you think about this legalism? Balon’s claim actually predates all of the others, by a decade & folk were aware of it (notably Robb in his offer, sent while Renly was alive) even if he hadn’t held a coronation. His argument to Robert was that he wasn’t a traitor, since his duty to the throne died with Aerys and Robert seems to have tacitly accepted that, by demanding the missing oath. Thus Balon’s reign would date from Robert’s death.

I think Balon mooted that particular claim by himself:

“Quellon Greyjoy still sat the Seastone Chair when Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark, and Jon Arryn raised their banners in rebellion. Age had only served to deepen his cautious nature, and as the fighting swept across the green lands, his lordship resolved to take no part in the war. But his sons were relentless in their hunger for gain and glory, and his own health and strength were failing. For some time his lordship had been troubled by stomach pains, which had grown so excruciating that he took a draught of milk of the poppy every night to sleep. Even so, he resisted all entreaties until a raven came to Pyke with word of Prince Rhaegar’s death upon the Trident. These tidings united his three eldest sons: the Targaryen were done, they told him, and House Greyjoy must needs join the rebellion at once or lose any hope of sharing in the spoils of victory. (emphasis mine)

Lord Quellon gave way. It was decided that the ironborn would demonstrate their allegiance by attacking the nearest Targaryen loyalists.“

(WOIAF)

The Iron Islands could not have simultaneously been independent prior to Robert’s Rebellion (Balon’s argument following his defeat at Pyke) and have joined the rebellion prior to the Battle of the Mander (Balon’s argument in 283 AC) – because that battle post-dated the news of the Battle of the Trident, and Robert’s acclamation would have been part of that news.

And this, along with so many other reasons, is why Balon Greyjoy is utter bullshit.

I’m struggling with the concept that Cersei’s children would be killed if the truth of their parentage was known, particularly in the context of a society accustomed to Royal incest. Ned wanted them to live – is his objection to killing children that rare? Do the faith practise forgiveness – the children did not sin themselves-if so would they offer to take them in? On a related note, if Cersei hit her head and changed personality, would the children be equally threatened in the free cities?

The text is pretty clear on this point:

“She had seen enough of Robert Baratheon at Winterfell to know that the king did not regard Joffrey with any great warmth. If the boy was truly Jaime’s seed, Robert would have put him to death along with his mother, and few would have condemned him. Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.” (emphasis mine)

Catelyn IV, ACOK

So I’d question whether Westeros is “a society accustomed to royal incest.” What they were accustomed to was treating the Targaryens as an exception to the role – although not without some sotto voce disgust (see Dunk’s reaction to Egg talking about his sisters in Sworn Sword) – and even that came after A. the Revolt of the Faithful, and B. the Targaryens marrying into other major families after the loss of the dragons, so as to reduce the frequency of incest.

Ned is positioned in AGOT as an exception to the rule – due to the traumatic loss of his family in Robert’s Rebellion and his unusual commitment to his code of honor – which we can see in the Small Council “debate” over assassinating a pregnant teenager where only he and noted idealist Barristan Selmy express a moral objection.

Was it ever possible to take successive castles by surprise? Or completely ignore them and move on through enemy land? We see the Blackfish holding out against the Lannisters/Freys with just 200 men, but at the start of the war, the westerlands armies rampage all across the Riverlands incredibly quickly, and Twyin after the Green Fork somehow takes Harranhal by walking in. Is this just off page weirdness?

Yeah, that particular part of the campaign has GRRM’s thumb squarely on the scales, because it has to happen that way in order to set up Robb’s decision to go for Jaime or Tywin.

I mean, it’s technically possible to take successive castles by surprise – but it becomes increasingly unlikely with each castle, because word spreads fast. And it’s absolutely possible to ignore castles as long as you’re willing to live off the land and cut yourself off from supply lines, but that doesn’t seem to be what Tywin was doing, since these castles are described as fallen not bypassed.

As for Harrenhal, that’s never made sense.

I had a question (sorry if it’s stupid) about the Aerys I’s heirs. In the World of Ice and Fire, Yandel says that after the death of Alor Targaryen, Maekar became the Prince of Dragonstone. But on the wiki i saw that Aelora Targaryen was the Princess of Dragonstone after the death of her brother, implying that she was the heir to Iron Throne. If this case is true, and not an error, why was your younger sister, Daenora, not considered to be heir to the throne before her uncle if her sister was?

nobodysuspectsthebutterfly:

Hey, y’all, @condedatorre especially. The clarification and definition of Princess of Dragonstone is actually on the wiki. 🙂 If you look at the article for Prince of Dragonstone, you’ll see Aerys I Targaryen’s heirs include “Aelora Targaryen^[15]”, and if you check Aelora’s article, it says that “Aelora became the new heir to the throne for her uncle, King Aerys I Targaryen, following Aelor’s death.^[4]” A bold statement without proof, yes? Nope! Those citations link to this thread on the forum, where Ran (Elio Garcia) explains:

The situations of the past are not congruent with those of the
present, really, so not relevant. For that matter, we’ve certainly
discussed the value of precedent… but another question would be
whether the precedents of the _Targaryen_ dynasty are necessarily in
place for the Baratheon dynasty. It may well be that over the 15 years
of Robert’s rule, it’s been made clear that there is a firm order of
succession, with Myrcella ahead of Stannis. The machinations of Cersei
and Tywin? One more sleight for Stannis to chew on? Mayhaps.

Having seen the Targaryen family tree from its early form, I don’t think
the Viserys II change made much difference – you’re assuming that
Daeron and Baelor had sisters back then…

As to Aerys’s heirs, Rhaegel _was_ his heir, and then Rhaegel’s son
Aelor, and then Aelora. These are all things George established before
“The Sworn Sword” or “The Mystery Knight”. (Yes, the mystery of Daenora
remains – something we brought up with George at the time and he
insisted on our leaving things as he had written them, so I assuming
there’s a reason why Daenora is not considered at all when it’s said
Maekar is the only possible heir remaining.)

Bolding mine. Later comments in the thread clarify Aelora’s status:

The Grey Wolf:
Are you saying Aelora was heiress to the Iron Throne after Aelor/before Maekar?

Ran:
Yes. The text is explicit in running down through Aerys’s various heirs
before coming to Maekar, and explicitly links Aelora’s death with Maekar
becoming heir.

The Grey Wolf: I don’t remember the text being that explicit but alright.

Ran:
I’m referring to GRRM’s write up on Egg which discusses the situation.
In the course of editing we ended up compressing things so it’s not
explicit there.

And Elio additionally says:

Given GRRM’s response, there’s no error with the Aelora situation, or
the Daenora one. He seemed to have definite ideas about it that he did
not explain.

And there the conversation stops, as they realize they’ve gotten way off topic from the thread’s main subject (an endless discussion of R+L=J, apparently).

Anyway. Regarding what Elio says about the explicit/edited text and Aelora’s status, I double-checked TWOIAF, and it says:

goodqueenaly:

Don’t apologize!

The wiki is, of course, a fan-run creation, and while extremely helpful and accurate in the vast majority of areas, it is not ultimately canon. I’m not sure who worked on the Aelora article, but my guess, if I had to make a guess, is that the person was going on the fact that Aelora was married to her brother Aelor while the latter was Prince of Dragonstone. Now, we’ve never seen the title “Princess of Dragonstone” applied to the wife of a Prince of Dragonstone; the only two Princesses of Dragonstone in-canon are Rhaenyra (who was formally named and acclaimed as such by her father, King Viserys I, when he decided to treat her as his heiress) and our Daenerys (who, once she was in exile with Viserys, was at least arguably his heir presumptive, since after him she was and is the last of the legitimate, dynastic male line of Aegon the Conqueror). Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if the wife of the consort was known as “Princess of Dragonstone”, and indeed I’m hopeful to get clarification on this in the future.

In the course of that reign, His Grace had recognized a series of heirs, though none were children of his body; Aerys died without issue, his marriage still unconsummated. His brother Rhaegel, third son of Daeron the Good, had predeceased him, choking to death upon a lamprey pie in 215 AC during a feast. Rhaegel’s son, Aelor, then became the new Prince of Dragonstone and heir to the throne, only to die two years after, slain in a grotesque mishap by the hand of his own twin sister and wife, Aelora, under circumstances that left her mad with grief. (Sadly, Aelora eventually took her own life after being attacked at a masked ball by three men known to history as the Rat, the Hawk, and the Pig.)
The last of the heirs Aerys recognized before his death would be the one to succeed him to the throne: the king’s sole surviving brother, Prince Maekar.

I can only assume that whatever was edited out was something that would have made it far more clear that Aelora was included in Aerys’s series of heirs, and was Princess of Dragonstone in her own right before she died. What’s left… sigh… I hope Elio eventually gets that second edition of TWOIAF he wants, or else Fire & Blood vol. 2 better have all the details. And as for Daenora being excluded from that title and status… I’m just going to assume there that it’s a Dunk & Egg thing, due to GRRM being both mysterious and insistent about it. Especially considering her marriage to Aerion and the evidence from TWOIAF that he returns as an antagonist in later D&E stories.

But seriously, somebody could just follow Elio’s w.org posts and get so many details that apparently didn’t make it into TWOIAF but still count. Sigh, it’s worse than the SSMs for obscure non-textual but apparently canon details. Also, I should note that this whole thing got off topic regarding women succeeding to the Iron Throne, where Elio is insistent that Yandel’s “iron precedent” is not necessarily all that iron, and well, he should know…

A very interesting development, although one that I think adds to my confusion about Bloodraven and Maekar.

As I’ve explored with Aziz over at History of Westeros podcast, everything leading up to Maekar becoming king speaks to Bloodraven and Maekar being fierce political rivals who are widely expected to come to blows the moment Aerys II dies, with “bloody war between Lord Rivers and Prince Maekar for the crown, the Hand against the heir.“

Aelora being named as Princess of Dragonstone ahead of Prince Maekar, would absolutely have been viewed by much of the political community and probably by Maekar himself as a direct attack on his rights as heir by Bloodraven, looking to extend his monopoly on royal power through what would have been a lifelong Regency. And yet, four years later, all is forgiven and Bloodraven remains as Hand for the whole of Maekar’s reign?

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but we’re getting absolutely no information about how this transformation occurred, and all the information we’re getting points the other way.

While Jon focusing NW on archery is a good idea now, was it really bad for NW to focus on melee weaponry prior to start of the story? Horde of Wildlings attacking the wall is a new development, so likely 99+% of wildling encounters happened on Rangings and the like, where melee is more useful. In addition, practice shooting at horizontal targets 100′ away or so is of marginal benefit when shooting at enemies 700′ directly below you.

One important corrective: “hordes of wildlings attacking the Wall” is NOT a new development:

“Wildlings have invaded the realm before.“ Jon had heard the tales from Old Nan and Maester Luwin both, back at Winterfell. “Raymun Redbeard led them south in the time of my grandfather’s grandfather, and before him there was a king named Bael the Bard.”
“Aye, and long before them came the Horned Lord and the brother kings Gendel and Gorne, and in ancient days Joramun, who blew the Horn of Winter and woke giants from the earth. Each man of them broke his strength on the Wall, or was broken by the power of Winterfell on the far side…”

The Watch is primarily a defensive military force manning a fixed fortification. GRRM’s problems with math aside, it makes a lot more sense to train them in archery and siege weaponry than it does to emphasize hand-to-hand training, given that melee weapons’ arms-length range doesn’t do you much good when you’re on the top of a bloody great wall and the enemy is at the bottom.

Now, ranging is a different story, but I would maintain that Ser Alliser’s godawful training scheme is still a bad one: emphasizing fighting on foot one-on-one is a very bad idea when the Night’s Watch is badly outnumbered by wildling raiders, who are absolutely going to use their advantage of numbers to overwhelm whatever negligable training in the blade a crow gets in boot camp.

To the extent that you’d emphasize melee combat at all in the Watch, it should absolutely be focusing on cavalry tactics, which would allow the Night’s Watch to punch above their weight vis-a-vis the mostly on-foot Wildlings. And cavalry tactics emphasize horsemanship over swordsmanship, because you don’t need to be very good with a sword when you’re thundering down on someone at top horsepower.

Hello, Do you know any “rules” about wealth that make a noble person seem cultured/refined/ect? What would be considered nouveau riche and garish? Things with jewelry, food, clothing, horses would be nice to know. I mean this in context of ASOIAF/medieval and not today’s standards. The Lannisters are ridiculously wealthy, but since they are an old money family would they make big displays of wealth like the Tyrells? The Tyrells seem to use their wealth to deal with people who covet Highgarden.

The tricky thing is that there were different fashions for this kind of thing that changed dramatically over the course of the Middle Ages, the Early Modern period, etc – especially when you factor in the complicating factor of commoners getting richer than nobles by getting their hands dirty “in trade,” which makes the dividing line harder to enforce.

So for example, big displays of wealth could be very “on-brand” at various times, because nobles are supposed to be “magnificent.” This fashion obviously works in a context in which commoners either can’t afford to keep up with their betters, or aren’t legally allowed to due to sumptuary laws. At other times, understatement and the display of refined aesthetic might be considered the mark of true nobility – this fashion works in a context in which merchants, the rising bourgeoisie, etc. have tons of money but don’t have the social and cultural capital to know the “right” way to display it.

In general, I would say that some good rules of thumb for refinement are:

Don’t Talk About the Price Tag: regardless of what the fashion is about the degree of opulence at the moment, one of the key attitudes of the nobility w/r/t money is that you don’t care how much stuff costs, because you’re supposed to be stupendously wealthy, generous and open-handed, and more concerned with refined aesthetics than commercial calculation. It’s not an accident that one of the oldest tropes about “nouveau riche” is that they constantly talk about how much various things cost, because they’ve still got that bottom line mentality going on.
Know the Fashion, Know the Scene: one of the advantages of being a wealthy parasite who doesn’t work for a living is that you have a lot of spare time to do things like keep up with what’s in fashion and what’s not, what the trends are, who the best craftsmen are, etc. Especially in an aristocratic context where what’s fashionable is less decided by manufacturers and specialized press and more about what important individuals (the monarch, the monarch’s immediate family, the monarch’s mistress/mister, various long-time fixtures at court) are wearing, a lot of this knowledge is very personal and having a grasp of it is a sign that you’re close to the right people.
Making Fashion, Not Just Taking It: of course, one of the clearest signs of refinement is that the noble in question doesn’t merely follow the latest fashions but makes them, bending it to their personal aesthetic. To give an example, “Beau” Brummell was a leading aesthete of his day and, thanks to his close connections with the Prince of Wales and his own personal force of charisma, changed the dominant well-to-do men’s fashion of the day from the fop (powdered wigs anf faces, knee britches, stockings, and buckled shoes, tailcoat, lace cravats, etc.) to the dandy (hair worn naturally, clean face, long trousers, white linen cravats, frock or morning coats).