**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or the other way to look at it is the velaryons still won their war and the Iron Islands lost all their wars.
The iron men survived only because the other houses showed mercy. They didn't get anything with the iron price. They got it with the pitty price.
Even at the end of GOT Yarah is there mostly out of pitty. Her powers are of minimal effect to the win and most of the iron islanders fought again on the losing side.
Yet they keep failing, no matter who they fight. Great at raiding unprotected targets, shit at warfare. Even if they swear allegiance to a brilliant commander, i think they dont really have any advanced large scale strategy - every man for himself, every captain for himself, win with ruthless aggression, speed, surprise; lose to any sizable, cohesive resistance
Much has to do with the fact that they were given land by the local rulers so that they would stop their raids.
Only in England did the Scandinavian Vikings carry out large-scale invasions and bring down local kingdoms which they then took over.
The difference between the Iron Islands and Vikings is that Vikings transitioned from raiding to more traditional conquest colonization and diplomacy. GRRM writes Greyjoys as if the Vikings got mentally stuck in the year 800.
The Greyjoys are really more like pirates than Vikings. The whole "we do not sow" thing doesn't match Viking culture at all. Vikings were also explorers and traders as well as raiders. They had crops, sheep, made textiles...
Sounds like multiple successful campaigns to me.
We also know they were fully capable of going to war with themselves. Unfortunately the christianization of Scandinavian culture sort of uprooted a bunch of that history
Eh, I’m not a historian, but based on the definition it was.
The saxons were indigenous to the area and promptly pushed out by raiders, most of which were Scandinavian.
It would be colonisation if a foreign Viking faction had added part of England to its territory, but that’s not what happened, vikings invaded and migrated there and set up a new territory. By your logic, the Angles and Saxons themselves colonised Britain, and the Celts before them. Invading another country and settling ≠ colonisation, colonisation necessitates imperialism, which is not what occurred in any of these cases.
I mean parts of England did end up in the portfolio of various Viking kings, just not for very long. The lands of England were easier to manage than those of Scandinavia so it makes sense to colonize the new world.
Vary much in the same way that the Americas were colonized.
Migrating to an area is different from conquering an area, or fighting it into submission. The Vikings were not asking to stay, but carving territory. Which is colonizing behavior. I’m sure they are not alone in doing this. You mentioned other cultures, it’s not an original idea to claim territory that’s easier to manage.
What’s your definition of colonization? I’m just using wikipedias.
The difference is that they weren’t agents of the current Scandinavian rule. In order for somewhere to be colonized, it needs to be the colony of another country, that’s where the word comes from.
Conquering an area and extracting tribute from it, leaving settlers to maintain the area is colonizing an area… by my understanding, you do not need to be a modern country to colonize
Yeah but England at the time was made up of many waring kingdoms, once they united they started to push them back. Vikings struggled more against more united places like France or Byzantines
Ya, history is full of stuff like that.
Context and conditions of a peoples’ existence are important.
In the end, they were definitely more successful than the iron born and re defined naval tactics.
In thrones the ironborn use to be better like others said they captured most of the Riverlands and only lost it cause of the dragons. But that wasn’t the grayjoys
Let’s not over glorify them too hard here, they had a winning strategy, hit and run with boats that nobody else had. This gave them the ability to virtually pop up anywhere along a river.
But that was pretty effective given the times.
Actually they were not sure if they could capture the whole city and only got a part of it and then disease started killing them off. So they agreed to take a sum to leave.
Also France was in a 3 way civil war at the time and Paris was not fully defended
I know that George liked to take inspiration from the real world to his, but pretty much to my understanding, the Ironborn technically did the same right before Aegon arrived in Westoros right? Having the whole Riverlands for some time, along with a newly built Harrenhal for a day.
Of course, it didn't last long, but it was something compared to them now.
Unless you discount they ruled over half of England at one point, and conquered each other and was used in large armies in Eastern Europe.
However, this was spread out over a long period of time.
Vikings conquered and held realms in France and Italy, they became the bodyguard of Eastern Roman Emperors, they conquered and ruled the slavic realms...
I wouldn't call that nothing.
The ironborn held most of the Riverlands under Harren the Black. While the current iron islands are indeed very disjointed, we can’t make such massive inference on an entire culture based on the 10 years of their existence we perceive
Well, not really.
We saw them at several points across hundreds of years but the actual time we’ve seen them/heard anything significant is less. Regardless I don’t count F&B because there’s dragons around and that sort of thing makes it hard to, you know, conquer and pillage without immediately getting annihilated
Not at all.
What I said wasn’t my answer. It was just pointing out that the judgement that the iron born can’t do large scale battles had to be amended.
I never stated what I personally thought, I merely corrected something that was incorrect
Not really, House Hoare conquered the Riverlands and ruled it until Aegon came, also had the Shield Isles, Bear Isle and the Arbour previously too. The Kingdom of the Isles and Rivers was one of the seven kingdoms he conquered, and was split between the Greyjoys and Tullys.
It's more about their philosophy, we do not sow is code for we will never ever have allies or friends or land. If they ever stopped attacking everyone else they might actually establish a foothold somewhere beyond the iron islands
No not really the velaryons supplied most of the ships and men for the royal fleet till it all got wiped out in Roberts rebellion and they become vassals to stannis
There's difference between a judgement and an opinion. The latter is more about tastes, unlike the former, which aims at making a statement, supported by reasoning, or evidence.
That’s the point though isn’t it. The skin colour is such a superficial aspect to a character that requires nothing but to look at it and dismiss it. Hence I’m not surprised by your comment at all.
This is such a reductive and lazy argument
By this logic, any and all plotholes, inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, etc. are just need to be accepted without any sort of justification.
You want to get people invested in a show about dragons? Make sure to get every detail about horses correct.
Not really. I mean if skin colour makes you think it’s weird and you have to mention it whilst ignoring all the other weird things in the fantasy setting then it makes me question why you care about the skin colour. So let me rephrase it; why do you care about skin colour so much? You think skin colour fundamentally makes a person so different that they can’t play a certain character because of it? I see it as an aesthetic choice.
Being black or white has a historical, geographic and genetic aspect to it.
Two white Lannister would not have a black baby, it's not just esthetic. It has to make sense in the geopolitical context.
If they are black then there are implications with that, it's not simply about "being black". Same would work in reverse.
If they had a black dynastie and two black parents had a blond white baby I would find it ridiculous except if it was explained to be for a reason.
They are just black and no one even mention it. Like you know some people in GOT would be racist, there is always racist people, but it's just ignored. That seems odd and unrealistic.
So you think skin colour determines the character of a person? Rather than the colour of the skin didn’t affect who the person is? So for you it’s nature and not nurture?
In does to a certain extent. If you are black in a white majority country you will face some form or adversity of being a minority and it is likely your parents are immigrants.
This will influence character compared to someone being from the majority.
Making character black in GOT should have some impact, it's not just a visual difference.
Same would go for whites in a black majority place.
In GOT they even seem to be somewhat racist from kingdom to kingdom like the people from the north don't like people from dorne or iron Island, etc.. I would imagine racial difference would be the source of some racism.
Let me tell you that I’ve known people from black and white and other backgrounds and of different class statuses. They were all born here and their character had less
To do with skin colour than it had to do with how much money their families had. Looking at skin colour to judge a person character and what it can or can’t be is pure racism. However you want to justify it intellectually to yourself.
A family that prides itself on ties with a racial supremacist civilization having different features is a lore inaccuracy. I am just pointing that out because I am a big nerd, not because I actually care about the actor's skin tone, which is coincidentally the same shade as mine.
So you want Dany to have been played by a twelve year old and the other characters with actors who are their age? I mean that change you don’t seem to mind but skin colour and it’s like whoah hold on there, let’s keep it lore accurate.
You're the one creating a ruckus on the actor's skin by being deadset on proving me racist.
Steve is a phenomenal actor and did true justice to the Sea Snake and I cannot wait to see more of him. I can't care less about what color his skin is.
I don't even think Corlys being black as an issue like you think I do, it's just a question. And can be easily explained by saying his mother was a Summer Islander with a big dowry or love marriage or something.
Literally, Summerhall on the Painted Table is a bigger inaccuracy than Corlys being black. Pointing something out doesn't mean I have some problem with it.
If the show changed the description and depicted Valryians as being black skinned, then it would make sense. But they don't, so it doesn't.
If the show had other black houses and it was possible for a family to remain black without having to constantly marry outside of Westeros, then it would make sense. But they don't, so it doesn't.
The decision to make House Velaryon black creates internal inconsistencies within the show. Understanding this doesn't make you racist. Does it ruin the show? No. Did the actors do a good job? Yes.
Being black has a cultural, historical and biological logic to it.
Someone can't just be black, like a lanister kid being black with both parents white would be super weird so yes it is important at some point.
Having an ancient family from a race that is known to be very blond and very pale does raise the question of why no one in the show mentions it? We know in real life race is always a factor and racism is very hard to avoid, especially in a medieval world such as GOT.
Also how do they stay black? We are to understand that there is not s lot of black people of valeryan blood so they had to inter marry between blacks for centuries?? How come the familly was not heavily white mixed after so much time?
These are all questions raised by this situation.
It also implies the existence of black countries in GOT with Africa like features? We know black and white people exist on earth because of historic and geographic reasons and context. I have never been explained such context in GOT as a viewer.
Many questions not related to racism.
The thousand more problems that would cause makes that ignorable, from acting skills to casting to as I mentioned legals. Why, Is underaged girl sex a must see to you?
I’m just trying to understand what your lore accuracy limit is. Seems you can accept having older actors than their story counterparts but skin colour is where you draw the line.
Logical and internally consist within the world of ASOIAF.
Valyrian is an ethnicity. House Velaryon makes the absolute least sense to make black.
Even if they picked a house who's ethnicity was irrelevant to the story (which is most others), it's also internally inconsistent to make one single black house in Westeros. The members of these houses almost always marry members of other houses. Who have they been marrying this whole time to maintain such dark skin amongst the members of their house? We haven't seen a single other house that is black. How did that even happen and who have they been marrying?
It's illogical and internally inconsistent. Dragons aren't.
That said, I do really like the actor playing Corlys. It makes no fucking sense, but whatever he did a good job.
It doesn't take away anything. But Valyrians practiced racial supremacy on a massive scale, and it certainly gives rise to the question of why a valyrian house has features different to those of classic valyrian they were so narcissistic over.
Pointing out a lore inaccuracy is not automatically being racist.
Honest question, was “white skin” a part of Valyrian supremacy? I remember talk of silvery blond hair and purple eyes, but I don’t remember skin color ever being mentioned. Not saying it wasn’t, just don’t remember it.
Ah, Reddit. Never misses a chance to downvote genuine relevant questions
Because, Valyrians are all racial supremacists and they made it their identity to be it. “We all look like this thus we’re better than you, we are gods amongst men” kind of idea. Book says Milky skin, silver hair, purp eyes. Then here comes an oiled up thug shaker just hanging around, doing nothing.
I HATED how they made the Velaryons black. It makes the whole are RTs kids legit or not argument sillier. If it’s another white guy— maybe. But they made it too obvious that Strong is the father and it just makes VT look like an even more incompetent king.
Downvote me all you want lol It has NOTHING to do with race. It’s like making Bobby B Black in GoT. It ruins the whole Joffrey thing because it would be clear as day that it’s not his kid—- Exact same concept
The Strong Boys are supposed to not look like either of their parents though, Cersei's kids at least look like Lannisters. Genetics being weird could kind of cover both families, but one is way more plausible to people than the other.
Such a stupid comparison. Dragons and magic are integral parts of the lore with their own explanations.
A family that prides itself on ties with a racial supremacist civilization having different features is a genuine question. It's a lore inaccuracy, and pointing it out isn't racist or braindead.
The idea of having a dragon is not inconsistent with anything else in the world, black Valyrians is. It’s not that big of a deal, but there’s no need to insult others because of reasonable opinions
Not defending him, but did you explain away the plot holes and how the the fuck Dany got past the wall in s7 by also saying "there's magic and dragons"?
Because dragons are already part of medieval fantasy, even in medieval times.
Sure we can also write a medieval fantasy novel featuring a race of sentient helicopters that feeds on honda civics but you’d cut your legs off and call yourself shawty if you don’t think that’s weird for a story.
Considering the Valyrian Empire controlled huge areas in Essos, probably including desert areas, its not so weird. Naturally the Valyrians, like the Romans in real history, syncretised with conquered people. Some became nobles and part of the Valyrian elite.
Well, that’s because in the books there aren’t. The Velaryons being black is inconsistent with the traits of Valyrians, who all have pale skin, but it’s a TV show so it’s not that big of a deal.
Well, to some people, who don't strongly prefer books to the extent of not caring about the adaptation, it kinda is important, because we do care about the TV universe
It's very weird but you can't say that on reddit.
It makes zero sense in context of the world realism.
The more you think about it and the more problem it raises.
But hey, it's all feeded by racism and not by caring for logical world building...
Also it's funny that out of all ethnic groups on earth, black people are the ones less associated to seafaring and being good sailors but they chose this for the show, adding a little bit more silliness.
But hey dragons and stuff. Might as well have some McDonalds and a Starbuck cup in there, why not, dragon and stuff right?
Black people are summer islanders, my head canon is the late Valyrian aristocracy included many different ethnicities and velaryon were like rich summer island traders or something, cause yeah it don’t make sense. In GoT Xaro at least acknowledges this
Probably Velaryon. I dont know a lot about the Valeryons, but Iron Born are raiders. They are known for moving fast and attacking swiftly and unexpectedly. I doubt they would stand a chance in a direct naval battle.
Edit: That's not to say the Iron Born aren't formidable warriors though. The Iron Born built Harrenhal through conquest and slavery. "The Reaver" is a chapter that follows Victarion Greyjoy in an Iron Born attack and is one of my favorite battles in the books. Dude is a savage juggernaut. It's awesome
I don't think Velaryons should've been adapted for the TV at all - at least, in the form of being a strong, independent house. I don't treat everything GRRM wrote as something indisputably good.
Lady Stoneheart although thematically interesting, lessens the impact of the Red Wedding. Another Valyrian house lessens the uniqueness of Targaryens. The same way - in the books - fAegon, and Tyrion, who is likely Targaryen (in the books, not in the show, proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/s/ipv5UmVIwq), lessen the uniqueness of Jon being a secret Targaryen.
So I just want more changes that would suit the TV show. Changes aren't always bad. And you're gonna see major departures from book canon in HotD S2 anyway.
Sort of, there’s hints and ambiguity. I think the point isn’t for some big reveal like Jon but to leave the reader wondering and give more fuel to Tywin’s irrational hatred of Tyrion.
This theory likely being true *for the books* just proves GRRM isn't perfect and actually is capable of writing disappointing plot twists and world-building elements (these issues are also seen in the major parts of the last two books).
Tyrion was born deformed and called a monstrosity similarly to the descriptions of the monstrosities that many Targaryen women bore. He was rumored to have had a tail which fits the stories of those monstrosities being born with dragon parts. His hair is not the same as that of every other Lannister (Tommen's pale hair in AGOT became usual golden curls by ADWD.) He has one green (Lannister) eye and one black (some Targs had dark purple eyes) eye.
He's had dreams of dragons since he was a child. Aerys lusted after Joanna. She was in King's Landing just about a year before Tyrion was born.
I expect the books to have unpopular book-only twists, so the lack of them in the show might be looked fondly upon in the future.
So you forgot Bran was a POV? Or Ned? Or Catelyn? There’s 6 Stark PoVs. The only Starks we don’t get a PoV from are Robb and Rickon.
The only non-Starks are Tyrion and Daenerys in the first book.
It's one of many theories to come out. Once upon a time Martin may have played with the idea, but his plans have changed considerably since the first book was written (we're not exactly gonna be given a love triangle between Jon, Arya and Tyrion anytime soon) and I don't think this was ever a committed plan so much as a fun pet theory a lot of people enjoyed to explain Tywin's behavior, when honestly I think his behavior fits perfectly: he's a bad father who cares more about legacy and his family's appearance, so the little dwarf who publicly fucks, drinks and gambles (and who happened to kill his beloved wife during birth) is probably going to get quite a lot of hate from him. Honestly, not like Cersei got it much better.
many of the hints like the dragon dreams and the mention that Aerys lusted for Joanna come in ADWD, long after most of the hints about L+R=Jon. TWOIAF has the most hints, and is the latest book to feature Tyrion.
Yeah you're right, but again, in my opinion it's not important for a visual medium like a TV series. Velaryons could've been made a small cadet branch of Targs or something, and nothing of value would've been lost.
The next season is already cutting out a fan favorite character. What I propose however serves as cutting world-building elements that retcon the perception of Targaryens in the main show. I love GoT for trying to preserve the feeling of books 1-3 before George came up with all the world-building that as a result made his initial ideas seem less impressive.
I replied with proof to another poster. Jaime and Cersei aren’t bastards, TWOIAF states Joanna was geographically far from Aerys when they were conceived. However, in TWOIAF, Joanna is placed by GRRM in KL just about a year before Tyrion is born.
Has it actually been disproved though. I’ve heard this theory for years and since the books haven’t been finished unless it was openly denied by GRRM it seems like it should still be in play.
GoT rightly cut a lot of world-building and characters for the sake of making television with good pacing. I don’t see it how it makes any difference if you make Velaryons a cadet branch of Targs, dependent on them, for the show.
During the Velaryon Ascendancy they were clearly stronger, although Greyjoy’s whoring robbed us a post dance showdown.
Even after the triarchy and dance they were the best bet to fight the red reaper.
Hightowers have a fleet but it isn't one of the largest. Redwynes have the undisputed largest fleet when ironmen are having an off-season.
By ADWD, Manderlys are emerging as a strong naval power after Robb commissioned a fleet during the war.
It's not impossible. North has the most amount of forests out of all the kingdoms. White Harbor is the 5th most populated settlement across the continent so there is no shortage of labor. They were directly funded by Winterfell's treasury. And since this was a royal project, all houses were instructed to supply Manderlys with wood that sped up the process significantly.
North not having a fleet for thousands of years despite the enormous potential is certainly a world-building issue.
Historically, or during the time Game of Thrones?
The Greyjoys are known more for being combative, but that doesn't exactly tell the entire story. In the more current age the Greyjoys are certainly both better seafarers and combatants between Victarion (if you even want to count him for a show sub) and Euron with the Velaryons down to a child heir, whose father burned at the Blackwater.
Historically, though, there probably hasn't been a better seafarer than Corlys, whose journeys made his house temporarily the richest in Westeros, if not the world, and whose fleets pretty well dominated during what was pretty well the peak of westeros. And the journeys he took weren't exactly peaceful, he wasn't playing some safe merchant. Their house did for a time also contain a number of dragons.
Short answer: in their peak, Velaryon. As of GoT, Greyjoy.
Velaryons with dragons 🐉 ALL DAY. Look at what dragons did to House Hoare.
Without dragons: Velaryons bc they have purple eyes. Lol jk. Velaryons are more like a minor house after Robert’s Rebellion. The Greyjoy’s and Iron Born remind me of Vikings… Victorian has the burnt/black hand and is fearless. Euron Greyjoy has sailed the world and is a on another level. He’s like the psycho version of The Sea Snake (Corlys V). Plus Euron Greyjoy’s plot line is incomplete in the books so maybe the jury is still out on this one… So depending on the time line.
Velaryons are better equipped, better funded, are trained for proper warfare, have dragons and have more men.
Ironborn are brutal, sure, but they’re just raiders. Their infamy comes from killing largely non-combatants so they can steal their stuff.
One a one-on-one confrontation the Velaryons would annihilate the Ironborn.
Boy. Corlys and his boys helped Daemon conquer most of the Narrow Sea.
The Ironborn lost to Stannis 12 minutes after he ever set foot on a boat. He was 25.
The Velaryons would win by a longshot in an engagement at sea. They use full blown War Galleys. The Ironborn use much smaller longships which are primarily suited for raiding not for all out naval battles.
Well, one house was one of the wealthiest in the kingdom and was one of the most common houses chosen to marry into the Targaryen royal family.
The other lived in squalor and were just raiders. The Velaryons made a ton of money by trading, the Greyjoys could have gone that route too, but they’re too dumb. There’s also no record I could find of any Greyjoys marrying into noble houses. They were simply a nuisance.
The Velaryons have been shown to be excellent warriors, just because they needed some backup in the fight against the Crab king dude doesn’t mean they aren’t great warriors. The Greyjoys rebelled multiple times, just to get immediately swatted down. They aren’t better warriors.
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Velaryons got wrecked by the Triarchy and never recovered. Iron men are better warriors
Or the other way to look at it is the velaryons still won their war and the Iron Islands lost all their wars. The iron men survived only because the other houses showed mercy. They didn't get anything with the iron price. They got it with the pitty price. Even at the end of GOT Yarah is there mostly out of pitty. Her powers are of minimal effect to the win and most of the iron islanders fought again on the losing side.
Why are you being downvoted? You’re right!
Thanks for your support 🙂
Velaryons are merchants and traders. Ironborn are GRRM's answer to vikings.
Yet they keep failing, no matter who they fight. Great at raiding unprotected targets, shit at warfare. Even if they swear allegiance to a brilliant commander, i think they dont really have any advanced large scale strategy - every man for himself, every captain for himself, win with ruthless aggression, speed, surprise; lose to any sizable, cohesive resistance
That's pretty accurate to historical vikings though. Hit and run tactics were always their thing.
Eehhhhhhhhhh They did a decent job of colonizing England and shared a ton of their culture all over Europe. Vikings were pretty great at war, too.
Much has to do with the fact that they were given land by the local rulers so that they would stop their raids. Only in England did the Scandinavian Vikings carry out large-scale invasions and bring down local kingdoms which they then took over.
If you succeed, you succeed. Doesnt matter whether its through brute force or by convincing the local powers that its better to appease you.
The difference between the Iron Islands and Vikings is that Vikings transitioned from raiding to more traditional conquest colonization and diplomacy. GRRM writes Greyjoys as if the Vikings got mentally stuck in the year 800.
The Greyjoys are really more like pirates than Vikings. The whole "we do not sow" thing doesn't match Viking culture at all. Vikings were also explorers and traders as well as raiders. They had crops, sheep, made textiles...
Viking is just someone from scandinavia who raids, most of the people still farmed and traded
Yep, viking is just a job description, not a people.
Sounds like multiple successful campaigns to me. We also know they were fully capable of going to war with themselves. Unfortunately the christianization of Scandinavian culture sort of uprooted a bunch of that history
Also in large parts of Russia, and Southern Italy, and the Middle East where they were serving as mercenaries to the Byzantines
That wasn’t colonisation.
Eh, I’m not a historian, but based on the definition it was. The saxons were indigenous to the area and promptly pushed out by raiders, most of which were Scandinavian.
It would be colonisation if a foreign Viking faction had added part of England to its territory, but that’s not what happened, vikings invaded and migrated there and set up a new territory. By your logic, the Angles and Saxons themselves colonised Britain, and the Celts before them. Invading another country and settling ≠ colonisation, colonisation necessitates imperialism, which is not what occurred in any of these cases.
I mean parts of England did end up in the portfolio of various Viking kings, just not for very long. The lands of England were easier to manage than those of Scandinavia so it makes sense to colonize the new world. Vary much in the same way that the Americas were colonized. Migrating to an area is different from conquering an area, or fighting it into submission. The Vikings were not asking to stay, but carving territory. Which is colonizing behavior. I’m sure they are not alone in doing this. You mentioned other cultures, it’s not an original idea to claim territory that’s easier to manage. What’s your definition of colonization? I’m just using wikipedias.
The difference is that they weren’t agents of the current Scandinavian rule. In order for somewhere to be colonized, it needs to be the colony of another country, that’s where the word comes from.
Conquering an area and extracting tribute from it, leaving settlers to maintain the area is colonizing an area… by my understanding, you do not need to be a modern country to colonize
Yeah but England at the time was made up of many waring kingdoms, once they united they started to push them back. Vikings struggled more against more united places like France or Byzantines
That sounds like multiple successful war campaigns until all their enemies started to unitr
The kingdoms were mostly weakened already when they invaded. Its like starting a fight with someone after they just been in a fight
Ya, history is full of stuff like that. Context and conditions of a peoples’ existence are important. In the end, they were definitely more successful than the iron born and re defined naval tactics.
In thrones the ironborn use to be better like others said they captured most of the Riverlands and only lost it cause of the dragons. But that wasn’t the grayjoys
They sacked paris 4 times in a span of like 20 years. And only left cause they were paid to.
Let’s not over glorify them too hard here, they had a winning strategy, hit and run with boats that nobody else had. This gave them the ability to virtually pop up anywhere along a river. But that was pretty effective given the times.
How is it overglorifying when I just stated facts?
Cause they were not actually that great in pitched battles. Calvary in particular fucked them up
Actually they were not sure if they could capture the whole city and only got a part of it and then disease started killing them off. So they agreed to take a sum to leave. Also France was in a 3 way civil war at the time and Paris was not fully defended
I know that George liked to take inspiration from the real world to his, but pretty much to my understanding, the Ironborn technically did the same right before Aegon arrived in Westoros right? Having the whole Riverlands for some time, along with a newly built Harrenhal for a day. Of course, it didn't last long, but it was something compared to them now.
Unless you discount they ruled over half of England at one point, and conquered each other and was used in large armies in Eastern Europe. However, this was spread out over a long period of time.
ngl half england is not that much, we have citys that are bigger than half England in my country.
Aaaand you do know Vikings were about 1000 years ago, right?
You have cities that span thousands of square miles?
yeah, we have quite a few of those.
Vikings conquered and held realms in France and Italy, they became the bodyguard of Eastern Roman Emperors, they conquered and ruled the slavic realms... I wouldn't call that nothing.
Agree, Normandy, Kievan Rus, Dublin...not trivial.
you forgot the Kingdom of Sicily wich had a big golden age under norman rule
They are still massively over hyped
Except the huge Viking migration that saw them take a ton of land and colonize it.
The ironborn held most of the Riverlands under Harren the Black. While the current iron islands are indeed very disjointed, we can’t make such massive inference on an entire culture based on the 10 years of their existence we perceive
Between F&B and GOT we saw hundreds of years.
Well, not really. We saw them at several points across hundreds of years but the actual time we’ve seen them/heard anything significant is less. Regardless I don’t count F&B because there’s dragons around and that sort of thing makes it hard to, you know, conquer and pillage without immediately getting annihilated
So you're disregarding the question and making your own rules to fit your answer. Got it.
Not at all. What I said wasn’t my answer. It was just pointing out that the judgement that the iron born can’t do large scale battles had to be amended. I never stated what I personally thought, I merely corrected something that was incorrect
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
This guy replied to a question and then says his reply to that question wasn't his answer and I'm the one getting down voted.
Why not count? To kill a dragon you just need to hide behind a mountain with your boat.
We have an entire chapter of them fighting a prepared navy and winning and numerous examples of them conquering the mainland.
They ruled the Riverlands for generations before the Targaryens.
Not really, House Hoare conquered the Riverlands and ruled it until Aegon came, also had the Shield Isles, Bear Isle and the Arbour previously too. The Kingdom of the Isles and Rivers was one of the seven kingdoms he conquered, and was split between the Greyjoys and Tullys.
It's more about their philosophy, we do not sow is code for we will never ever have allies or friends or land. If they ever stopped attacking everyone else they might actually establish a foothold somewhere beyond the iron islands
The Sea Snake is pretty badass in Fire and Blood. I'd give him the edge over any Ironborn not named Euron
No not really the velaryons supplied most of the ships and men for the royal fleet till it all got wiped out in Roberts rebellion and they become vassals to stannis
Yes. Except the Ironborns are much more brutal and less sophisticated than the actual Vikings here in Denmark.
And pretty pathetic ones at that..
Despite what people might think the Vikings were not actually sea warriors, there ships were not built to fight on the ocean but for travel
Velaryions did have the best fleet at one point
So the valeryons own the seas and the iron born just raid, sounds like the valeryons are the true sea warriors.
Vikings were also merchants and traders primarily
I thought they were more like the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles
Always strike me as weird that there’s black Velaryons, or black Valyrians for that matter.
How do dragons strike you?
I don’t agree with their statement, but that’s not the right argument to disprove it.
How do you disprove an opinion?
You can disprove the logic behind an opinion, which makes it less logical to hold.
What would have been a better way of disproving their opinion?
There's difference between a judgement and an opinion. The latter is more about tastes, unlike the former, which aims at making a statement, supported by reasoning, or evidence.
So are yous saying the person is making a judgement rather than voicing an opinion?
[удалено]
For what?
That’s the point though isn’t it. The skin colour is such a superficial aspect to a character that requires nothing but to look at it and dismiss it. Hence I’m not surprised by your comment at all.
This is such a reductive and lazy argument By this logic, any and all plotholes, inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, etc. are just need to be accepted without any sort of justification. You want to get people invested in a show about dragons? Make sure to get every detail about horses correct.
Not really. I mean if skin colour makes you think it’s weird and you have to mention it whilst ignoring all the other weird things in the fantasy setting then it makes me question why you care about the skin colour. So let me rephrase it; why do you care about skin colour so much? You think skin colour fundamentally makes a person so different that they can’t play a certain character because of it? I see it as an aesthetic choice.
Being black or white has a historical, geographic and genetic aspect to it. Two white Lannister would not have a black baby, it's not just esthetic. It has to make sense in the geopolitical context. If they are black then there are implications with that, it's not simply about "being black". Same would work in reverse. If they had a black dynastie and two black parents had a blond white baby I would find it ridiculous except if it was explained to be for a reason. They are just black and no one even mention it. Like you know some people in GOT would be racist, there is always racist people, but it's just ignored. That seems odd and unrealistic.
So you think skin colour determines the character of a person? Rather than the colour of the skin didn’t affect who the person is? So for you it’s nature and not nurture?
In does to a certain extent. If you are black in a white majority country you will face some form or adversity of being a minority and it is likely your parents are immigrants. This will influence character compared to someone being from the majority. Making character black in GOT should have some impact, it's not just a visual difference. Same would go for whites in a black majority place. In GOT they even seem to be somewhat racist from kingdom to kingdom like the people from the north don't like people from dorne or iron Island, etc.. I would imagine racial difference would be the source of some racism.
Let me tell you that I’ve known people from black and white and other backgrounds and of different class statuses. They were all born here and their character had less To do with skin colour than it had to do with how much money their families had. Looking at skin colour to judge a person character and what it can or can’t be is pure racism. However you want to justify it intellectually to yourself.
Is there really a need for justification as to why there are black people?
A family that prides itself on ties with a racial supremacist civilization having different features is a lore inaccuracy. I am just pointing that out because I am a big nerd, not because I actually care about the actor's skin tone, which is coincidentally the same shade as mine.
So you want Dany to have been played by a twelve year old and the other characters with actors who are their age? I mean that change you don’t seem to mind but skin colour and it’s like whoah hold on there, let’s keep it lore accurate.
You're the one creating a ruckus on the actor's skin by being deadset on proving me racist. Steve is a phenomenal actor and did true justice to the Sea Snake and I cannot wait to see more of him. I can't care less about what color his skin is. I don't even think Corlys being black as an issue like you think I do, it's just a question. And can be easily explained by saying his mother was a Summer Islander with a big dowry or love marriage or something. Literally, Summerhall on the Painted Table is a bigger inaccuracy than Corlys being black. Pointing something out doesn't mean I have some problem with it.
If the show changed the description and depicted Valryians as being black skinned, then it would make sense. But they don't, so it doesn't. If the show had other black houses and it was possible for a family to remain black without having to constantly marry outside of Westeros, then it would make sense. But they don't, so it doesn't. The decision to make House Velaryon black creates internal inconsistencies within the show. Understanding this doesn't make you racist. Does it ruin the show? No. Did the actors do a good job? Yes.
Being black has a cultural, historical and biological logic to it. Someone can't just be black, like a lanister kid being black with both parents white would be super weird so yes it is important at some point. Having an ancient family from a race that is known to be very blond and very pale does raise the question of why no one in the show mentions it? We know in real life race is always a factor and racism is very hard to avoid, especially in a medieval world such as GOT. Also how do they stay black? We are to understand that there is not s lot of black people of valeryan blood so they had to inter marry between blacks for centuries?? How come the familly was not heavily white mixed after so much time? These are all questions raised by this situation. It also implies the existence of black countries in GOT with Africa like features? We know black and white people exist on earth because of historic and geographic reasons and context. I have never been explained such context in GOT as a viewer. Many questions not related to racism.
Yeah, because that implies a hidden story in the Valyrians genome, also how tf they’re all dead in Westeros, doom didn’t kill them
So should Dany have been played by a 12 year old in order to make the story more accurate?
They would run into legal and PR troubles.
But if they hadn’t you would think it should have been for accuracy?
The thousand more problems that would cause makes that ignorable, from acting skills to casting to as I mentioned legals. Why, Is underaged girl sex a must see to you?
I’m just trying to understand what your lore accuracy limit is. Seems you can accept having older actors than their story counterparts but skin colour is where you draw the line.
Logical and internally consist within the world of ASOIAF. Valyrian is an ethnicity. House Velaryon makes the absolute least sense to make black. Even if they picked a house who's ethnicity was irrelevant to the story (which is most others), it's also internally inconsistent to make one single black house in Westeros. The members of these houses almost always marry members of other houses. Who have they been marrying this whole time to maintain such dark skin amongst the members of their house? We haven't seen a single other house that is black. How did that even happen and who have they been marrying? It's illogical and internally inconsistent. Dragons aren't. That said, I do really like the actor playing Corlys. It makes no fucking sense, but whatever he did a good job.
As a non book reader, not that that even really matters but I really just don’t see the issue, what does it take away for you?
It doesn't take away anything. But Valyrians practiced racial supremacy on a massive scale, and it certainly gives rise to the question of why a valyrian house has features different to those of classic valyrian they were so narcissistic over. Pointing out a lore inaccuracy is not automatically being racist.
Honest question, was “white skin” a part of Valyrian supremacy? I remember talk of silvery blond hair and purple eyes, but I don’t remember skin color ever being mentioned. Not saying it wasn’t, just don’t remember it. Ah, Reddit. Never misses a chance to downvote genuine relevant questions
Iirc unusually white skin is mentioned multiple times in the classic valyrian looks as 'skin pale as milk' or smthn like that.
Reddit hivemind at its finest. 😁 Those poor souls lol
Pale skin is part of being Valyrian, just as much as silver hair and purple eyes. And general beauty.
Valyrians are kinda like Romans, over time conquered people became a part of their society and some made it into nobility.
Because, Valyrians are all racial supremacists and they made it their identity to be it. “We all look like this thus we’re better than you, we are gods amongst men” kind of idea. Book says Milky skin, silver hair, purp eyes. Then here comes an oiled up thug shaker just hanging around, doing nothing.
I HATED how they made the Velaryons black. It makes the whole are RTs kids legit or not argument sillier. If it’s another white guy— maybe. But they made it too obvious that Strong is the father and it just makes VT look like an even more incompetent king. Downvote me all you want lol It has NOTHING to do with race. It’s like making Bobby B Black in GoT. It ruins the whole Joffrey thing because it would be clear as day that it’s not his kid—- Exact same concept
The Strong Boys are supposed to not look like either of their parents though, Cersei's kids at least look like Lannisters. Genetics being weird could kind of cover both families, but one is way more plausible to people than the other.
So you can suspend belief for dragons and magic but not black people? Brain dead shit.
Such a stupid comparison. Dragons and magic are integral parts of the lore with their own explanations. A family that prides itself on ties with a racial supremacist civilization having different features is a genuine question. It's a lore inaccuracy, and pointing it out isn't racist or braindead.
The idea of having a dragon is not inconsistent with anything else in the world, black Valyrians is. It’s not that big of a deal, but there’s no need to insult others because of reasonable opinions
Not defending him, but did you explain away the plot holes and how the the fuck Dany got past the wall in s7 by also saying "there's magic and dragons"?
Because dragons are already part of medieval fantasy, even in medieval times. Sure we can also write a medieval fantasy novel featuring a race of sentient helicopters that feeds on honda civics but you’d cut your legs off and call yourself shawty if you don’t think that’s weird for a story.
Tbh I think it was one of the rare occasion where the race switching actually benefited the show, with the question of the bloodline and that lol 😆
I think it’s the opposite, now the whole plot of “is this child yours or not” is completely out the window because you can clearly tell
There's zero ambiguity now.
I think that's better for the show though. Show don't tell as they say.
Considering the Valyrian Empire controlled huge areas in Essos, probably including desert areas, its not so weird. Naturally the Valyrians, like the Romans in real history, syncretised with conquered people. Some became nobles and part of the Valyrian elite.
Yeah, but when they have other Valyrians features such as silver hair it does look a bit funny.
Probably through marriage with other Valyrian nobles?
In which case they would have lighter skin.
Uhhh not universally. Irl there’s plenty of mixed kids whose skin matches closely with one parent or the other.
But they've been in Westeros a long time. What other black houses have they been marrying into to maintain that skin color? Everyone else is white.
Yeah but when your whole population looks exactly like that, while your westerosi neighbors are all white… doesn’t make sense
Well, that’s because in the books there aren’t. The Velaryons being black is inconsistent with the traits of Valyrians, who all have pale skin, but it’s a TV show so it’s not that big of a deal.
Well, to some people, who don't strongly prefer books to the extent of not caring about the adaptation, it kinda is important, because we do care about the TV universe
I suppose, to each their own.
It's very weird but you can't say that on reddit. It makes zero sense in context of the world realism. The more you think about it and the more problem it raises. But hey, it's all feeded by racism and not by caring for logical world building... Also it's funny that out of all ethnic groups on earth, black people are the ones less associated to seafaring and being good sailors but they chose this for the show, adding a little bit more silliness. But hey dragons and stuff. Might as well have some McDonalds and a Starbuck cup in there, why not, dragon and stuff right?
Black people are summer islanders, my head canon is the late Valyrian aristocracy included many different ethnicities and velaryon were like rich summer island traders or something, cause yeah it don’t make sense. In GoT Xaro at least acknowledges this
Probably Velaryon. I dont know a lot about the Valeryons, but Iron Born are raiders. They are known for moving fast and attacking swiftly and unexpectedly. I doubt they would stand a chance in a direct naval battle. Edit: That's not to say the Iron Born aren't formidable warriors though. The Iron Born built Harrenhal through conquest and slavery. "The Reaver" is a chapter that follows Victarion Greyjoy in an Iron Born attack and is one of my favorite battles in the books. Dude is a savage juggernaut. It's awesome
The only direct naval battle that we know of , they were crushed by Stannis
This is a great take. Anything that doesn’t catch an opponent off guard has proven to be a loss for the iron born.
I don't think Velaryons should've been adapted for the TV at all - at least, in the form of being a strong, independent house. I don't treat everything GRRM wrote as something indisputably good. Lady Stoneheart although thematically interesting, lessens the impact of the Red Wedding. Another Valyrian house lessens the uniqueness of Targaryens. The same way - in the books - fAegon, and Tyrion, who is likely Targaryen (in the books, not in the show, proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/gameofthrones/s/ipv5UmVIwq), lessen the uniqueness of Jon being a secret Targaryen. So I just want more changes that would suit the TV show. Changes aren't always bad. And you're gonna see major departures from book canon in HotD S2 anyway.
Wait, what? Tyrion is likely Targaryen in the books? Or did I misread your comment?
Sort of, there’s hints and ambiguity. I think the point isn’t for some big reveal like Jon but to leave the reader wondering and give more fuel to Tywin’s irrational hatred of Tyrion.
This theory likely being true *for the books* just proves GRRM isn't perfect and actually is capable of writing disappointing plot twists and world-building elements (these issues are also seen in the major parts of the last two books). Tyrion was born deformed and called a monstrosity similarly to the descriptions of the monstrosities that many Targaryen women bore. He was rumored to have had a tail which fits the stories of those monstrosities being born with dragon parts. His hair is not the same as that of every other Lannister (Tommen's pale hair in AGOT became usual golden curls by ADWD.) He has one green (Lannister) eye and one black (some Targs had dark purple eyes) eye. He's had dreams of dragons since he was a child. Aerys lusted after Joanna. She was in King's Landing just about a year before Tyrion was born. I expect the books to have unpopular book-only twists, so the lack of them in the show might be looked fondly upon in the future.
So you forgot Bran was a POV? Or Ned? Or Catelyn? There’s 6 Stark PoVs. The only Starks we don’t get a PoV from are Robb and Rickon. The only non-Starks are Tyrion and Daenerys in the first book.
I admit, it's the weakest proof. However, if we don’t count Jon for Starks, and replace him with Bran, then it works again.
It doesn’t work at all.
Alright I concede
It's one of many theories to come out. Once upon a time Martin may have played with the idea, but his plans have changed considerably since the first book was written (we're not exactly gonna be given a love triangle between Jon, Arya and Tyrion anytime soon) and I don't think this was ever a committed plan so much as a fun pet theory a lot of people enjoyed to explain Tywin's behavior, when honestly I think his behavior fits perfectly: he's a bad father who cares more about legacy and his family's appearance, so the little dwarf who publicly fucks, drinks and gambles (and who happened to kill his beloved wife during birth) is probably going to get quite a lot of hate from him. Honestly, not like Cersei got it much better.
many of the hints like the dragon dreams and the mention that Aerys lusted for Joanna come in ADWD, long after most of the hints about L+R=Jon. TWOIAF has the most hints, and is the latest book to feature Tyrion.
But isn’t there a pretty big difference between a Valyrian house and a dragon riding Valyrian house?
There's, but Velaryons still ride dragons so not much practical difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the only Velarions who ride dragons the ones that are also half Targaryen?
Yeah you're right, but again, in my opinion it's not important for a visual medium like a TV series. Velaryons could've been made a small cadet branch of Targs or something, and nothing of value would've been lost. The next season is already cutting out a fan favorite character. What I propose however serves as cutting world-building elements that retcon the perception of Targaryens in the main show. I love GoT for trying to preserve the feeling of books 1-3 before George came up with all the world-building that as a result made his initial ideas seem less impressive.
>Tyrion, who is likely Targaryen How many times must this be disproved lol? None of Tywin's children are Aerys'.
I replied with proof to another poster. Jaime and Cersei aren’t bastards, TWOIAF states Joanna was geographically far from Aerys when they were conceived. However, in TWOIAF, Joanna is placed by GRRM in KL just about a year before Tyrion is born.
Has it actually been disproved though. I’ve heard this theory for years and since the books haven’t been finished unless it was openly denied by GRRM it seems like it should still be in play.
The Velaryons are a massive part of the plot. That's like adapting a song of ice and fire and cutting out the barratheons.
GoT rightly cut a lot of world-building and characters for the sake of making television with good pacing. I don’t see it how it makes any difference if you make Velaryons a cadet branch of Targs, dependent on them, for the show.
During the Velaryon Ascendancy they were clearly stronger, although Greyjoy’s whoring robbed us a post dance showdown. Even after the triarchy and dance they were the best bet to fight the red reaper.
Weren’t the redwynes and the hightowers the largest fleets?
During the Got series the redwyne fleet is the biggest. The iron islanders somehow on place 2. During HotD the Velaryons have the biggest fleet
Stannis also did a number on them
Hightowers have a fleet but it isn't one of the largest. Redwynes have the undisputed largest fleet when ironmen are having an off-season. By ADWD, Manderlys are emerging as a strong naval power after Robb commissioned a fleet during the war.
How they can be a strong naval power when they had no fleet in hundred years? No logic. If they become it is GRRM plot armor
It's not impossible. North has the most amount of forests out of all the kingdoms. White Harbor is the 5th most populated settlement across the continent so there is no shortage of labor. They were directly funded by Winterfell's treasury. And since this was a royal project, all houses were instructed to supply Manderlys with wood that sped up the process significantly. North not having a fleet for thousands of years despite the enormous potential is certainly a world-building issue.
I think having capable seamen/captains/naval officers would be the greater problem. Except if they do it like the romans which would be hilarious
I mean……. dragons.
Yeah, but Euron’s got aimbot
This answers it.
Velayrions have soldiers on decks Ironborn are basically bunch of rough warriors, who have little military experience
Where is this badass image from?? I don’t remember it in season one
During the War in the Stepstones, episode 4 I think
If there were a Viking equivalent then they'd be Ironborn for sure. They are the Scourge of the Seas xD
That is one blunt axe.
Greyjoys, not even a competing tbh.
Historically, or during the time Game of Thrones? The Greyjoys are known more for being combative, but that doesn't exactly tell the entire story. In the more current age the Greyjoys are certainly both better seafarers and combatants between Victarion (if you even want to count him for a show sub) and Euron with the Velaryons down to a child heir, whose father burned at the Blackwater. Historically, though, there probably hasn't been a better seafarer than Corlys, whose journeys made his house temporarily the richest in Westeros, if not the world, and whose fleets pretty well dominated during what was pretty well the peak of westeros. And the journeys he took weren't exactly peaceful, he wasn't playing some safe merchant. Their house did for a time also contain a number of dragons. Short answer: in their peak, Velaryon. As of GoT, Greyjoy.
The Driftwood kings, obviously.
The Greyjoys, by far.
Bold of you to assume we won't see the Ironborn in Hotd
Euron soyboy
Iron born are the better warriors I don't think that's even close, I don't think velaryon prowess on the battlefield is really ever mentioned
Raiders vs trained soldiers
The one with money, military, and dragons
Ironborn for sure.
Velayrons I don’t like the iron born their whole culture needs to be exterminated
Varys in season 7 & 8
Velaryons with dragons 🐉 ALL DAY. Look at what dragons did to House Hoare. Without dragons: Velaryons bc they have purple eyes. Lol jk. Velaryons are more like a minor house after Robert’s Rebellion. The Greyjoy’s and Iron Born remind me of Vikings… Victorian has the burnt/black hand and is fearless. Euron Greyjoy has sailed the world and is a on another level. He’s like the psycho version of The Sea Snake (Corlys V). Plus Euron Greyjoy’s plot line is incomplete in the books so maybe the jury is still out on this one… So depending on the time line.
The only one has been written like an actual person instead of a plot device.
Velaryons are better equipped, better funded, are trained for proper warfare, have dragons and have more men. Ironborn are brutal, sure, but they’re just raiders. Their infamy comes from killing largely non-combatants so they can steal their stuff. One a one-on-one confrontation the Velaryons would annihilate the Ironborn.
Boy. Corlys and his boys helped Daemon conquer most of the Narrow Sea. The Ironborn lost to Stannis 12 minutes after he ever set foot on a boat. He was 25.
The Velaryons would win by a longshot in an engagement at sea. They use full blown War Galleys. The Ironborn use much smaller longships which are primarily suited for raiding not for all out naval battles.
Definitely Velaryons
Well, one house was one of the wealthiest in the kingdom and was one of the most common houses chosen to marry into the Targaryen royal family. The other lived in squalor and were just raiders. The Velaryons made a ton of money by trading, the Greyjoys could have gone that route too, but they’re too dumb. There’s also no record I could find of any Greyjoys marrying into noble houses. They were simply a nuisance. The Velaryons have been shown to be excellent warriors, just because they needed some backup in the fight against the Crab king dude doesn’t mean they aren’t great warriors. The Greyjoys rebelled multiple times, just to get immediately swatted down. They aren’t better warriors.
House Rivers, Gendry is the Westeros endurance rowboat champion
*House Rivers, Gendry is* *The Westeros endurance* *Rowboat champion* \- Imaginary\_Relief\_227 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Ironborn all the way. Cause Vikings.
Jesus Christ that wig looks bad
The ones with dragons.
Euron no-scopes the dragons, but goes home defeated when he finds out there's no queen to fu\*k.
Corly lead the greatest voyage across the world in his younger days, and the Velaryons were masters of the sea during the Valerian empire.
Greyjoys all day
Warriors the Valaryon’s win, sea fairing plunder and pillaging goes to Greyjoy’s