How were they based?
I was looking at some old threads and I saw some that kept mentioning how the Game of Thrones books were based.
what
ER liked them, but i don't have the attention span to read them
Won´t read them after the season 8 desaster. It killed my interest for game of thrones
I have heard people say that because it has lots of women getting raped and killed and generally BTFO’d.
I dont have an opinion on it or know much about it but that is the general reason most people here would have said it was based
I dont have an opinion on it or know much about it but that is the general reason most people here would have said it was based
I honestly think that GRRM is just a kinky motherfucker who now has a license to indulge all his weird fetishes now that he’s wildly successful. There’s a lot of sexual violence (as in cross bowing people in the head after raping them, not like smacking their ass) and it’s kind of excessive at times ngl.
Good books though. I like his work usually.
Good books though. I like his work usually.
idk I've never seen GoT
You know if GRRM ever does manage to finish them his ending will be far more nuanced than what the TV show did in 6 episodes. The result might be similar but it will probably be arrived at differently.
He's going for historical accuracy. Humans are fucked up creatures
Only cucks like that shit
Yeah but even in medieval history people really weren’t that excessive. At least in most parts of Western Europe. I’m not complaining, I like the books a lot, but he does play it up.
Why’s that?
D
Tbh season 8 is one of the worst things i've ever seen
If you have Netflix watch breaking bad. I just finished it and it’s amazing.
Western Europeans as a whole definitely could be that excessive during medieval times (gonna write a bit much here cus im a history nerd). For example, during the Jacquerie in 1358 during the Hundred Years War, the chronicler Jean le Bel wrote of a minor event where "peasants killed a knight, put him on a spit, and roasted him with his wife and children looking on. After ten or twelve of them raped the lady, they wished to force feed them the roasted flesh of their father and husband and made them then die by a miserable death". Stuff like this was going on all over north of Paris during the revolt.
Also read on what English soldiers would do during their raids on the French. During Edward the Blacks chevauchée of 1355 or the Crécy campaign, as examples. Historian David Seward writes on what the English would do during their raids: "the usual atrocities were perpetrated on the peasants—the men were tortured to reveal hidden valuables, the women suffering multiple rape and sexual mutilation, those who were pregnant being disemboweled. Terror was an indispensable accompaniment to every chevauchée." Basically, they'd go around being as barbaric as possible to strike terror into the peasants to make them submit.
Also you can read up on what the Crusaders did in Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. That's a pretty famous event.
Huh, Today I Learned. I’m a history nerd too but my expertise is Napoleonic era. I guess I had too much faith in primitives jfl.
Could some of that be chocked up to chroniclers being colorful though? Like when Herodotus was like “yeah guys, there were like, totally 3,000,000 Persians”
I only watch the first cap and i dont see anymore of that
I watched like 3 episodes. Never again
Not in my plans to watch it again tbh
Same I havent watched any new TV since like the 1990s
I remember this lol
Pretty sure Cosby's Special Sauce was the drug he used to rape teenage foids with
I've studied quite a bit Napoleonic warfare myself! And yes, humans really are just primitive animals in the end.
I used to cope by telling myself this, but I've studied many eras of history of different regions of the world a decent bit and there comes a point where you have to acknowledge reality.
Even if a few reports may be exaggerated, you can easily find many others that describe stuff just as bad. You can also look at the quality of the specific chroniclers and corroborate their reports with other writers to verify exactly what was going on. For instance, you can corroborate the individual reports of Jean le Bel, Jean de Venette, Jean Froissart, and so on (Yeah, a lot of Jean's), and they all report violence of this level and higher during the Jacquerie.
And BTW Jean de Venette was quite sympathetic towards the peasants, yet he still reports stuff like what I quoted in my previous reply, which is telling. The peasants themselves only revolted after this exact kinda stuff started happening to them after the English let loose mercenary bands uncontrollably into the countryside and the French army failed to protect them (although there were other, political, factors as well).
In comparison, when you look at Herodotus' reports, he was clearly biased (so his quality isn't high) and there are no other reports we can use to crosscheck his claims. And if there were, obviously we'd see how ludicrous his claims were. That's why as you move forward in antiquity and there were more people writing, you generally see the claims and conclusions of opposing army numbers go from like 2,000,000 to more reasonable numbers like 30,000.
Fascinating stuff tbh.
Yep. Now you have to watch/read Game of Thrones knowing you're seeing an accurate reflection of what human beings are like
What, are you one of those guys who thinks every type of media is "soy"?
If you have to ask, it's over for you
Q
Based.
Similar threads
Todd Thundercock
Users who are viewing this thread
