Mr. Garrison Teaches Game of Thrones as History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFA4sCBaHok
You don't have to be a History Buff to get the Link between the Lannisters and Lancasters.
I’ve seen bits of it.
Utter garbage.
Why do people watch?
It’s also mainstreaming pornography.
Mr. Garrison Teaches Game of Thrones as History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFA4sCBaHok
You don't have to be a History Buff to get the Link between the Lannisters and Lancasters.
It is a rip off of the following:
1. War of the Roses
2. Lord of the Rings
3. The Hyborian Age by Robert E Howard
I had watched the series during the ‘free weekends’ my cable occasionally has. It was difficult to keep up when they were only showing 10 episodes per year.
This month, my cable has the entire 3 previous seasons On Demand. I have been marathoning the first 3 seasons and the storyline makes more sense now. I am about half-way through Season 3 in preparation for Season 4 which starts next month.
I’ve always thought of Westeros to be Britain before the last ice advance maximum. Put the Ice wall where Hadrian’s wall was later built.
Huh? Cersei is no longer the queen and her father and brother (and lover) certainly seem manly enough. Other than that I suppose this is correct.
True enough. However, what finally turned me off the books, quite some time before the movie came out, was the absence of characters, after the death of Stark, who were honorable by the standards of their time.
We forget how utterly necessary a reputation (at least) for honor was to a medieval leader. There was no government, in the sense we think of it, only reciprocal vows of fealty and protection. A leader's power was quite literally based on his follower's belief that he was a man who would honor his vows to them, which was what led them to honor theirs to him.
Yes, Richard III probably bumped off his nephews in the Tower, something mentioned in the article. But that's precisely my point. By doing so, he lost the support of his followers, who abandoned him or turned against him, some of them on the field of battle itself.
GOT ignores the huge number of medieval men who did indeed behave honorably. One good example was John of Gaunt, ancestor of the Lancasters. He was regent for Richard II, who had succeeded at the age of 10. John could easily have usurped the throne, but remained loyal.
Another example was John of Bedford, himself a Lancaster, who loyally protected and served his nephew Henry VI, who succeeded his father as King while still less than a year old.
It seems to me GOT completely ignored the down-side, politically speaking, of a reputation for not behaving in a way seen as honorable by peers and vassals. To be sure, what that consisted of was often quite different from what we would consider it to be today.
Seems to me Martin projected the modern attitude of disdain and cynicism about personal honor back into the Middle Ages where it just didn't belong. Such men certainly existed, but they had to a considerable extent hide it. There were very real limits on what a medieval noble or king could do without destroying his own power base.
Yes, there is gratuitous sex and violence. But beyond that, it is a fascinating display of politics - the study of power.
I have since begun reading the books and just completed book 2. I greatly appreciate Martin's style of writing, his command of the English language. From a literary standpoint, it is first rate.
For those of you who are too turned off by HBO's excesses, I would highly recommend reading the books.
He who has not read the books is doomed to watch in ignorance.
Anyone watching Vikings on the History Channel?
Can anyone share what happened on last nights episode. I don’t have an HBO subscription.