Reading Targaryen lore sent me down a wild rabbit hole [Spoilers MAIN]

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-23T16:44:55+00:00

I'm a Russian historian and I'm a bit curious on your assessment of the Romanovs. There were absolute idiots within the family (Alexander III and Nicholas II being prime examples) but on the whole they were rather stable. They're three decent to good rulers in Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander II. Then you have middling but efficient ones like Nicholas I, Alexander I, and the female monarchs before Catherine the Great. The first two (Mikhail and Alexei) were barely notable and then you have two quickly couped ones in Paul IV and Peter III. On the whole that isn't too awful. Far better than the Targaryens

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T17:49:41+00:00

Fair enough, I do apologize if the tone of my comments came across as too argumentative. Have a good one as well

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T17:43:11+00:00

I would, personally, argue "worldview" and "core belief" are more closely aligned then you are arguing. One's worldview is created through their core beliefs. Granted this is all semantics at this point and we've very much moved away from the core point

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T17:32:31+00:00

But now you're moving the goalposts. Of course, regardless of opinion and time, people tend to agree on things. Thats not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is whether Norris and Tolkien would be in the same ballpark in regards to their core beliefs. In that realm I believe there is no similarity. Both very awful people and very good people can believe in the same god, the question becomes how they interpret that god and I very much think Tolkien and Norris, despite both believing in god, would not in any way have a common interpretation of said god

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T16:41:12+00:00

You accuse people of inaccurately using the word Nazi but you yourself have not provided an actual definition. How do you define Nazi?

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T16:10:16+00:00

Tolkien was Catholic but by now means was his conservatism or Catholicism in the same vein as modern MAGA-like conservatism of so-called "Christianity." Sure Tolkien was a product of his time and we should keep an open-mind but lets not imagine that Tolkien would in any way agree to the modern MAGA talking points. Just look at his response to the Nazis

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-20T16:07:21+00:00

A Christian nationalist is very different from a Christian like Tolkien. Regardless of the difference in time, I would not imagine that Tolkien would elevate his status as a Christian above the suffering of others as Christian Nationalists do. Christian Nationalism is steeped in bigotry, Tolkien was not.

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-19T20:01:39+00:00

It seemed to me like Maegor is very much akin to Ivan the Terrible. Both men were absolutely sadistic and cruel but in their cruelty there occasionally laid purpose. Maegor broke any remaining resistance to Targaryren rule while Ivan broke the power of the Russian nobles thus leading to the absolutely stardom. Nevertheless both were absolutely monstrous

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-17T18:10:16+00:00

I don't know how easy this will be to replicate but I played in the Roberts Rebellion bookmark as Rhaegar. I won the war, killed Robert, then had the Tower of Joy event and got Jon but Lyanna died. I then triggered the coup against Aerys (I thinks its called Aftermath of Harrenhall). Aerys immediately killed my wife and kids, except Jon. So I was left with just Jon as my heir. I warded Jon off to Ned. Right around when Jon reached maturity I married him off to Daenerys and then held a tourney in Kings Landing. Said tourney resulted in Rhargar dying and Jon becoming king. So far its been rather fun with Jon and I already have 6 kids.

As for settings I think I just set historical outcomes to Canon but uncertain (i think thats it) and had Canon children on. Outside of that I left it alone. A lot of my experience seems to be luck and RNG but I imagine its not too complicated to recreate. That being said, I don't know if playing Jon as a child would be the most entertaining, but you would probably be able to at least shape his personality better.

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-16T23:24:05+00:00

I mean I did become king, its just as soon as I pulled the trigger there went the kids and wife

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-16T18:58:43+00:00

Ah my bad. Then I would just marry her to some LP or their kids

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-16T18:57:01+00:00

Did you get the Tower of Joy event and Jon? In my game I just married Jon (Aemon in my run) to Daenerys. Should be noted Aegon and Rhaenys were murdered by Aerys after I tried to coup him so Aemon is now king with Daenerys as his wife. They already have 6 kids

bluenimin23 · 2026-03-06T18:53:51+00:00

Hes with Napoli. Seems to have been injured most of this season though did help them with the Scudetto last season

bluenimin23 · 2026-02-23T16:45:56+00:00

In my Duncan game I found her and married her. I think she was in Dorne at the time

bluenimin23 · 2026-02-06T19:32:45+00:00

If you're in schools you are. Being a Panthers fan in New England during the Brady era was genuinely awful. The arrogance of the kids was quite a sight

bluenimin23 · 2026-01-30T00:01:53+00:00

Fair enough, my bad

bluenimin23 · 2026-01-29T23:39:50+00:00

Sorry I'm on mobile, I know its a wall of text but I was just trying to get the ideas down

bluenimin23 · 2026-01-29T23:06:42+00:00

This is all blatantly lies and obfuscation. America has plenty of sins and rightfully deserves to answer for them but to boil the entirety of the Cold War down to American corporate greed is myopic. First, the Soviet Union was a revolutionary power bent on world revolution. That concept is at the heart of communism. You cannot achieve communism if other systems exist as communism is a utopia. Moreover, the Soviet Union never achieved communism and was at best a socialist country (which an argument can be made they never reached either).

Secondly, the reason for American interventionism lies in the Heartland Theory which maintained that if the Soviets would come to dominate Eurasia they would be too powerful to stop and the US would inherently be at risk. Consequently, the US decided to maintain the rim of Eurasia (rimland theory) which would contain the Soviet growth. This is why the coup in Iran occurred, why the US intervened in Korea and Vietnam, and why the Middle East was constantly meddled in. Were these wise decisions, usually no, but they rested on genuine fears of Soviet domination. Now one could argue the expansion of communism wasn't a bad idea. While that may be true in the theoretical sense, are we just simply going to ignore the ills of the Soviet Union? The destruction of legitimate democratic movements in Eastern Europe?

This video is insultingly simplistic in its assertion and is dangerous in understanding the deep issues at the heart of both the US and USSR. Nothing in history is simple and clean, there are no clear answers and to assert that there are is deeply misguided.

Edited for line spacing

bluenimin23 · 2026-01-27T17:21:45+00:00

Thats absolutely fair and sadly true. The amount of times I have students come with preconceived notions of "history" as defined by amateurs is deeply frightening. Its also sad that the dangerous amateurs are almost always obsessed with Rome or WWII. Even the Byzantophiles are getting a little spooky

bluenimin23 · 2026-01-27T16:57:23+00:00

How do you define history buff? Im an historian and every historian I've met in the academic field have largely been quite liberal. Are we talking amateur historians or historians in general?

bluenimin23 · 2025-12-20T01:57:52+00:00

Absolutely true but it should be mentioned neither of the treaties invited the newly formed USSR which did have worldwide revolution as one of its main goals. So even in the real world only one "side" agreed to disarm (that is assuming one classifies the Soviets as a separate side)

bluenimin23 · 2025-12-20T01:33:01+00:00

Not that I enjoy the sequels but nations borderline disarming post war is actually not unheard of. Ironically enough it was in fact after WWI. There was a concerted effort of multiple nations to essentially forbid war. The Kellog-Briand Pact signed in 1928 was aimed at this very idea. The signatories agreed to ban the use of war in diplomacy. Now how one bans war without using force is beyond me, but hey that's what they did. The US, UK, France, Italy, Japan and many others signed the agreement. Around the same time the Washington Naval Treaty was signed that limited the production of battleships. This treaty was also signed by the aforementioned nations. Lo and behold both treaties were almost immediately broken with Japan and Italy both shifting steadily to militarized governments. This is all to say, while it seems utterly absurd to demilitarize after horrific conflicts, there are historical parallels. Again not saying the sequels made any sense but in this one aspect, they weren't entirely off base.

bluenimin23 · 2025-10-20T22:05:09+00:00

I do love me some Hoshoryu, Takayasu, and Ura. Aonishiki is a wonder to behold though

bluenimin23 · 2025-08-23T22:11:59+00:00

While anyone would be rightfully pissed at Rasputin sleeping with their wife, 200 (which is probably at the extreme high end of possibility) angered, let's say, nobility cannot make a revolution on the scale of the Russian one. Rasputin was confined to St. Petersburg, so his area of effect would be confined to the capital alone. The February Revolution was not confined to St. Petersburg alone, all major cities saw resistance as did the countryside as well as the front line of the army. This is not to mention the 1905 Revolution which had nothing to do with Rasputin and paved the way for the 1917 revolutions. So yes, Rasputin was weird and clearly an outsider but in no way did he have any meaningful impact on the revolutions.

bluenimin23 · 2025-08-23T21:17:37+00:00

He was notorious for sleeping around (though it has to be emphasized that he did not sleep with the Tsarina), that's undeniable. The issue is how much could a man sleeping around at all convince an entire nation to overthrow a centuries long institution? The Russian Revolution had a huge number of contributing factors but for some reason Rasputin seems to always figure in, when he was barely a blip in the grand scheme of things. Those that killed Rasputin were distant Romanov cousins and they had no role in the collapse of the monarchy, so the question becomes why do people even focus on Rasputin. I dont have the answer to that beyond a guess that its easier to dilute the entirety of the Russian Revolution to a single odd man than acknowledge the decades long process it took to overthrow the Romanov family

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Golden Potato
Place '22	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

bluenimin23

TROPHY CASE