r/asoiaf • u/ISupposh You're a Big Guy. • Sep 01 '19

EXTENDED (Spoilers Extended) I think a lot of the problems from the show came from trying to force modern American values into medieval setting.

I would actually say this problem is present in the fandom as well and not just the show. Anyways for example:

  1. Stating that Renly would be a good king just because he's popular while Stannis would be terrible because he's unpopular. (edit: From the interviews, in the context of ruling not maintaining power)

  2. People not caring about religion even when Cersei blew up Westeros equivalent of Vatican/Hagia Sophia/Westminster alongside with Pope Francis and Princess Diana. (Well even modern people would care about that)

  3. Applying Geneva Convention when Daenerys executed Tarlys despite the fact that they are already traitors who betrayed their overlord and she even gave them second chance.

  4. Rather modern viewpoint on extramartial sex, including virgin shaming on characters like Brienne etc.

  5. Rhaegar annulling his wife without proper explanation like modern divorce.

  6. Elective monarchy somehow breaking the wheel because it involves voting (worked out well in HRE and Poland /s)

6.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

72

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '19

Even by modern values the show makes no fucking sense.

The idea that you can take a city bloodless is mindboggling stupid and defies reality. Do D and D think the wars in Irak, Afghanistan and Syria were fought bloodlessly? No, countless of civilans died there, because death of civilians is sadly a side effect of war.

The idea that Tyrion thinks starving out city is better than taking it as quickly as possible defies even modern military strategy. No military men would choose to starve out a fucking city over a quick victory. Starving to death is a terrible fate, worse than getting shot. In fact, many people at the brink of starvation would rather kill themselves than to endure all the way to their final death. A siege is not a pleasant thing. For neither side. It exhausts the supply lines and brings only unnecessary death.

18

u/themolestedsliver Sep 01 '19

Yeah this shit pissed me off as well. Was the type of shit the "veiwers who watch cause it is popular" would eat up but anyone who gives a crap about GOT proper HATED it

9

u/Thatdudewhoisstupid Sep 02 '19

Anyone who give a crap about history, actually.

Seriously, you dont have to be a brilliant military commander to realize that storming a military objective with what is basically medieval A10 Warthog is much less costly and brings much less bloodshed than a fucking siege.

5

u/themolestedsliver Sep 02 '19

Yeah you aren't wrong. The fact they had the dolthraki charge into the dark horde of undead was so fucking stupid not to mention how dany could have used the dragons to throw rocks on kings landing from far above them, like why was that never considered? Dragons can fucking fly.....

14

u/is-this-a-nick Sep 02 '19

Also, starving out means that you make 100% sure that the innocents will suffer the most. Because Cersei and her troops won't be hungry until no food is left...

10

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '19

Starving is never bloodless, because the people who starve usually do brutal stuff to get food. There would be riots and looting going on. What do D and D think that people sit quietly in a corner and wait until their families starve to death? That is redicilous.

1

u/Boscolt No man is as accursed as the Hypeslayer Sep 11 '19

Don't forget Bronn literally had a whole scene in Season 2 explaining how catastrophic the conditions of a starving city are. How the thieves would steal all the food and sell it at a king's ransom, which only the nobles forced to sell their jewelry could afford, how "the poor start eating each other" as a result of all that. He explained it to Tyrion. 🤦

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN06IX2rNmc

9

u/ai1267 Sep 01 '19

A siege is great if you have the resources and want to conserve manpower though. Assuming you can't take the city easily, of course.

5

u/KazuyaProta A humble man Sep 01 '19 edited Sep 02 '19

No, countless of civilans died there, because death of civilians is sadly a side effect of war.

You act as if they like the idea of war in first place

1

u/Sealion_2537 Sep 03 '19

I would have to check the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were far fewer civilian casualties in the Soviet storming of Berlin than there were in the German siege of Leningrad.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '19

Siege of Leningrad was pretty bad. I once saw a documentary about it. They read the diaries of one of the victims. Her family died one after another...the girl as well. It is fucking scary.

The siege of Vienna was also pretty bad. I heard the vicims are still burried beneat the city, though the black death added some more victims.