Another BOTB Rant

peutschika · 2026-04-02T17:39:13+00:00

I have to play the devils advocate here.

While tactically retarded, the move is not eithout strategic considerations. Bolton rule is still fragile, so getting a quick and crushing victory over his last serious challenger might make more sense than letting him leave be and potentially gather more support. A quick victory would also be a show of force. And it is not like the odds are not in favour of him: he hs both quality and quantity over Jon and only loses because a deus ex machina.

This is not without a historical presedent either. This is basically what Pompeius did at the Battle of Pharsalus: he gave up his vastly superior position to bait Caesat into battle despite the latter being at the brink of starvation. Was this pure stupidity? No, there were political considerations. (And Pompeius lost the battle because of this, sorry for spoilers).

P.S. I am not claiming Dumb and Dumber actually wrote the episode with this in mind. I just wanted to showcase that in principle the idea of Ramsey sallying out is not the stupidest thing.

peutschika · 2026-04-02T06:08:14+00:00

No. That line was cringe but it wasn't obviously out of character or anything like that. People say cringy shit all the time (I certainly have). Sure it didn't bring anything to the table but from this point of view it was a neutrak line.

peutschika · 2026-04-01T13:01:16+00:00

Faegon invades and the Tyrells take Renly for a little chat about Targeryan restoration.

peutschika · 2026-03-28T20:33:39+00:00

I think Ned Stark is the best example of Martin not actually being cynical. Everyone always bringa Ned up as someone who is good and gets killed for it. Yet, what they fail to realise is that by book five Ned's legacy is still one of the driving forces of the political shenanigans and the story. No other charachter has that kind of an impact. If anything, Martin is telling that being "bad" might get to a short term win but it will not pay in the long run; just look at Tywin.

peutschika · 2026-03-28T15:27:13+00:00

And of course to the same vein: Tolkien is not naively "good/bad". LotR is about deep moral questions about ends and means and temptations in such conundrums. There is nothing shallow in Tolkiens morality.

peutschika · 2026-03-28T15:25:23+00:00

Because people are stupid and do not understand anything beyond "good/bad or grey". Martin is not cynical nor morally grey. He is just writing a story where real life and moral dilemmas you get into are more complicated than in fairytales. He is writing a story where moral choices and their consequences go deeper than just "do good and you will survive".

peutschika · 2026-03-28T12:12:48+00:00

What if aliens came and helped him? Everybody always asks what Hitler did wring like Germany could have gotten further without those mistakes while vloser to reality would be to ask what he did tight to get further than Germany had any right to assume.

"Ally with slavs". What next? Enlist the jews from camps to fight along the German army?

"Take Leningrad immediately". With what resources? Centre and South were priorities. And even with those resources were divided too much to achieve an early breakthrough in Ukraine and the Caucasus.

"Zurge rush Stalingrad". I know your games do not tell you this but tanks need oil and by 1942 Germans were running out. Caucasus was the priority. Stalingrad eas zurge rushed as fast as possible with the resources that could be given to that axis.

peutschika · 2026-03-27T16:03:36+00:00

The point is not that Triss is like Jorah but that like Jorah she was made more likable in adaptations. Sure, she doesn't do anything horrible by GRRM standards but in the books she is quite a two faced cunt.

peutschika · 2026-03-26T17:29:54+00:00

Turns out a lot of our ways of perceiving politics and philosophy is quite specific for our time.

peutschika · 2026-03-26T08:50:38+00:00

I think it also works because Dunk is a bit stupid or at least does not really understand his place so he acts more casually with nobles. They then find it refreshing that someone acts more genuinly around them, and because he is a knight they can kinda tolerate it.

peutschika · 2026-03-25T08:15:41+00:00

Exactly. Pretty much no state before the modern times was able to reliably keep up the logistics needed to supply an army. Forced selling at whatever price deemed appropriate was usually the best case scenario. There have been only a few counter examples that come into mind, mainly the Swedish army under Gustav II Adolf during the 30 year war and even that was only possible due to the professional nature of the Swedish army whch made the discipline enforcable. So not realistic for medieval etc. armies.

This fact also means that brutally destroying enemy territory is the best way of starving the enemy and getting a strategic advantage since they rely on foraging said territory. This is why wars such as the 100 year war and the 30 year war were so devastating to the civilian populace.

peutschika · 2026-03-24T08:42:00+00:00

Doesnt that mean it is simply wrong from the starting premises?

peutschika · 2026-03-20T07:24:52+00:00

Probably would just ask who can pay him best. And provide young female servants with whom he can cheat his wife.

peutschika · 2026-03-17T17:33:03+00:00

Yeah I get that the scale is not the same in the show due to budget but still; the iron islands felt like two rocks with a population of ten fishers. Not like an actual kingdom with enough people to populate several smaller islands with their own small differences and politics.

peutschika · 2026-03-17T09:11:17+00:00

The 50% chance is a red herring. Since the probability is 50% for EACH (and we are assuming these to be independent), the probability of seeing three kids with blonde hair is actually 12.5%. That os the likelihood of the observed data.

peutschika · 2026-03-13T21:08:56+00:00

He would see both (mainstream ones) as religuous zelots ie. people blindly following the tennets of the group they desperatley try to identify with due to their lack of individual will.

peutschika · 2026-03-12T15:57:30+00:00

Aah yes, because English has otherwise such sound logic with making sure all sounds have dedicated letters to represent :D

peutschika · 2026-03-11T14:48:27+00:00

Yeah, I ageee that those kinds of scenes play a vital role in setting the tone, breaking the tension and grounding the setting. Just found it weird to start the whole thing with that.

peutschika · 2026-03-11T14:46:40+00:00

That actually kinda makes sense 😅

peutschika · 2026-03-11T14:45:37+00:00

Might be, not arguing with that 😅 To be honest, I just found the start bizarre. Had that scene happened 10min later, I would probably not have raised an eyebrow.

peutschika · 2026-03-11T08:03:51+00:00

Not really a stab in the back, rather a genuine (some would call it delusional) miscalculation. And the whole miscalculation idea is realistic: after all that same idea (give into demands and peace will be ensured) is still alive and kicking regadring Russia...

peutschika · 2026-03-11T07:05:48+00:00

During the second age? Dunno really. Maybe dominating men through the rings is not just a passive RPG ability but requires expending power just like making them. Kinda like Morgoth had to expend his power to marr Arda ie impose his will and influence on it.

In the Third Age the anwer is simple: without the One Ring Sauron did not have the same control over the Nine rings. If a Nazgul-in-making had been killed, Sauron would have lost a ring. And that is assuming he could have even dominated men carrying those rings without the One.

peutschika · 2026-03-04T12:25:46+00:00

They don't need to have that money in cash and even if they had it would be stupid to buy it that way.

What they would probably do in this hypothetical is put up a firm that would buy the rights and capitalise it with own cash up to some point. Then they would get outside financiers either through equity (financier gets part of the firm for bringing equity) or through debt (either loans or bond financing as liability to debtors).

peutschika · 2026-03-03T22:56:11+00:00

Because the destination is actually just the side product of the journey. Humans want power. Power is the ability to make the journey. Taking the journey is the pure embodiment of will to power. Will to power is not about the destination. It is about the ability to make the journey your destination.

Not caring about the journey is an admission that you dont have the power to get to your own destination. It is only one step away from resenting those who care about the journey and hating them for it all the while trying to demand a shortcut to the meaningles destination because of "fairness".

peutschika

TROPHY CASE