Alexis Bolick

4/28/16

Final Essay

Engl. 146

Game of Thrones Historical Parallels

 

The Game of Thrones is an increasingly popular HBO fantasy drama that started in 2011 and is currently airing its sixth season. It has captured an average of 7 million viewers per episode and is growing with each season. This television show originally started out as a book series, which is still being written as well. The man behind the start of it all is George R. R. Martin, whom some have compared to Tolkien as they both have created entire fantasy based universes within their respective book series. As fantastic as the world Martin has created is, there are some seemingly close parallels with actual historical events, which we will explore throughout this paper. While the series is known for what some might call disturbing death scenes, Martin has quoted in the interview that “no matter how much stuff he makes up, there’s always stuff in history that is just as bad, or worse” (Casey). From entire wars, to battles, to names that have been written down in history books Martin and the producers have pieced together tales from all over the world and historical timeline to help him create some of the vital events that happen in the series. [1]

To give a summary, Game of Thrones starts out in the Kingdoms of Westeros. One of the most prominent plot conflicts is over who is going to rule the kingdom as there are several noble families who see themselves fit to take over anyone who opposes. Once the reigning king, Robert Baratheon dies, his son takes over whom is believed to not even be his true heir, but a child of his wife’s’ Cersei, incest affair with her twin brother Jamie. There are three major families to begin with: The Starks, who have settled in the Northernmost parts of Westeros, the Baratheon’s/Lannister’s (the Baratheon’s are of the kings decent while the Lannister’s are of his wife’s) who are in the more southern parts and the Targaryen’s who has been more or less decimated throughout time, with only two true siblings left at the beginning of the series, and are also on a completely different continent across an ocean. After King Robert Baratheon is killed in a hunting accident chaos is let loose as the right to the kingdom is suddenly up for grabs (no one seems think the new king, Joffrey is stable enough to keep the crown for himself). After more than enough ruthless killings within the families a war officially broke out, with the addition of dragons (a species previously known to be extinct) due to Daenerys Targaryen. Daenerys was at first considered insignificant until she built an entire army, crossed the sea and started making her way into Westeros to try and take back what she feels is rightfully hers as her entire family originally ruled before the Baratheon’s but was then killed off by their enemies (mainly the Baratheon’s) years prior. The Starks, while strong at first have been killed off one by one with each progressing season, only the youngest members surviving thus far. The Baratheon’s are no longer ruling, as they have been taken over by the Lannister’s (even while both the young kings still have the last name Baratheon it is the Lannister’s that call the important shots), Robert’s wife’s family- the sons ruling, first Joffrey, a ruthless teenager, once he is killed, Tommen, his younger brother, takes his place, but rather making decisions by himself he is being led by the mother, Cersei. While the wars between the families prevail throughout each season, each battle grislier than the last, there is a threat that no one but those in the North, at The Wall know about- the dead are coming back to life and only seeking more death and destruction. There is technically not a “main character” in Game of Thrones as all of the main families’ characters have their own stories that are intertwined with the plot(s) of the story, so the audience builds a personal relationship with each individual, either positive or negative.

Now, to begin with the historical parallels. Let’s begin with the great war itself. As stated earlier, the beginning premise of the show (before the undead start killing anyone and everyone in their way) is that of three families seeking revenge and wanting to take over rule of all of Westeros. This can be traced back to the War of the Roses, a series of wars for control over the throne of England. Just as in Game of Thrones, there were families whom considered their sons to be the rightful heir’s to the throne of England. The war began with the Yorkist’s battling the Lancastrian (sounds like Lannister, hmm) armies nearby London in 1455(The War of the Roses). The House of York and House of Lancaster would battle for the crown for the next 30 years. Henry VI of England, the first king under the Lancaster family, was considered insane by 1453 due to losing all of the French possessions (mainly land) his father, Henry IV, had previously acquired. While Henry VI went into depression and withdrew completely from his responsibilities, the English Parliament appointed Richard Duke of York as “protector of the realm” in 1454, only to have Henry “recover” later that year and remove Richard of the power bestowed (The War of the Roses). (Let it be known that York and Henry were related, as they were cousins.) This did not bide well with the York’s, of course, and the war ensued. There was a constant “back and forth” of power as after York defeated Henry’s army during the first battle he took control, then with the next battle Henry restored it, once Henry died York was given the right to take over control. The Lancastrians surprised and killed York in 1460, but his son, Edward, was able to reach England before Margaret of Anjou (Henry’s wife), giving Edward control, a win for the York’s. Henry was eventually taken prisoner and killed after being captured from Scotland where he, Margret and their son fled to (The War of the Roses). After Edward died of natural causes in 1483 of course the crown went to his son, Edward VI, but his brother, Richard III, soon sized the crown, imprisoning Edward VI, who was killed. To continue the bloodshed Richard was killed in 1485 by the Lancastrians, proclaiming their Henry Tudor, King Henry VII. Eventually once marrying Edward IV’s daughter, the family was once more united and peace instilled (The War of the Roses).

So, how could this possibly parallel to Game of Thrones? This is answered mainly through Stannis Baratheon’s relationship to the crown. He is the older brother of King Robert Baratheon. Once Robert dies of questionable circumstances and Stannis hears of this he expects to be the newest rightful heir of the kingdom, but this is not the case. Even though Cerci, Robert’s wife, had Robert’s original requests and will destroyed which would have made Eddard Stark, the head of House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, and his personal friend, named “protector of the realm”, rather than anyone Robert was related to. Cersei of course had her children (whom are children of incest) instead inherit the kingdom, specifically Joffrey become king. Stannis, without knowing any of this, understood only that he wasn’t decaled king even though he believes the crown was rightfully his, then started seeking vengeance from the Lannister’s and any of their allies. This is again a feud between individuals of the same family. Once can compare Robert Baratheon to King Henry IV, Joffrey to King Henry VI and Stannis Baratheon to the Duke of York. The Battle of Blackwater could technically be paralleled to any of the battles within the War of Roses, but seems to be more similar to the first large battle in the war than any of the rest, as this is (in the show) when Stannis first makes contact with the family. The individuals in comparison don’t line up perfectly, however, as Robert Baratheon is obviously already dead, but one could see this on a broader spectrum without being too nit-picky of the smaller details.

Or, the Battle of Blackwater could have been (and most likely was in comparison to any other battles) inspired by something completely different- a battle in a different country, and a different time period all together. What made the Battle of Blackwater as both memorable and horrifying as it was, was the “Wildfire” Cersei had the Alchemists’ Guild create for her. Of course none of this was brought up in the War of Roses as all of the battles were on land- and there are no legitimate writings of England having this type of technology at the time, but someone did, (even though it a completely different century): The Arabian population. The Battle of Blackwater seems to have distinct parallels to the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Instead of wildfire as it’s called in Game of Thrones, the Arabian’s called their main form of defense on the sea “Greek Fire” ( Byzantine Military). This happened approximately 700 years before the War of Roses, however, in the year 717. Unfortunately do to its incredibly early time period not many details are known about the Siege of Constantinople, but it is known that the Greek Fire was invented by a Syrian Christian refugee named Kallinikos (Byzantine Military). While Martin doesn’t ever specifically write out the ingredients of Wildfire, historians are at least somewhat familiar with those that made up the Greek Fire. Some of the possible ingredients were naphtha, quicklime, Sulphur and niter. Of course due to such the early time period this took place in there isn’t any video or photographic documentation of the Arabian soldiers using the Greek Fire as a form of defense and weaponry. There are, however, drawings of the men holding onto types of machines that seem to eject the fire onto other ships and out in the water just as it was seen in Game of Thrones (although the Greek Fire in the drawings doesn’t seem to have the same green coloring that the Wildfire does). This is probably one of the most relatable parallels between historical records and what is seen in the Game of Thrones universe.

While fire has already been brought up, this is the perfect time to introduce the parallel of Melisandre, known as the Red Woman (of whom Stannis is loyal to until he dies) and her faith to R’hllor. This entity is also known as the Lord of Light, the Red God, the Heart of Fire, and the God of Flame and Shadow. With that many names it is obvious he is a critical character in the series, and while he was never actually seen, his religion was widely followed by Melisandre (known as the Red Woman) whom manipulated Stannis with her dark magic. As is stated by the name, fire takes an avid role in worshiping this deity, as it also vital in another ancient religion known as Zoroastrianism. Although it is believed by several Western individuals that to practice Zoroastrianism one must worship fire, this is not correct. “Zoroastrians believe that the elements are pure and that fire represents God’s light or wisdom” (Zoroastrianism).  As R’hllor is the Lord of Light, one can see where the parallel lies. While the faith of R’hllor isn’t prominent in Westeros, it is very widely known in Essos, a landmass that is located to the east of Westeros. Just as any religion has done throughout time, followers of the Lord of Light travel and spread their worship, just as Melisandre did with Stannis. The use of fire during “worship” is seen more through Melisandre than anyone else. On multiple accounts she lights a fire within her tent/room (or wherever she is staying at the time) and can see individuals that are bound to die in the future and other events that will eventually happen-this of course proving useful information for Stannis. She is also able to kill enemies using the dark magic that comes from her faith to R’hllor, but must have some sort of blood sacrifice to do so. The fact that there is blood used in the worship and religious performances is the biggest difference between the faith in R’hllor and Zoroastrianism. The practice of using fire in both religions definitely brings the parallel into play, although through the worship of R’hllor much more heinous and terrible crimes are committed (such as Melisandre burning Stannis’s daughter, Shireen, to a steak, saying it would ensue for Stannis’s victory to attack one of his greatest enemies). This is in comparison to Zoroastrianism which teaches its believers that the only way they will get to a desirable afterlife is if their “good deeds” outweigh the “bad ones”, as it has notable similarities to other religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam(Zoroastrianism).

Finally, we have what is considered to be one of the most dramatic and detested scenes thus far in Game of Thrones: The Red Wedding. While the rest of the parallels in this paper have been mainly speculative, George R.R. Martin himself has acknowledge and released information regarding his inspiration to the grisly scene(Casey). According to Martin in an interview The Red Wedding is based upon a couple of actual events in Scottish history, one being called The Black Dinner. One can look back to the Scottish historical records of 1440, the king of Scotland was fighting members of clan known as “the Black Douglas”- the king attempted to make peace, offering the younger Earl of Douglas safe passage. The Douglas clan, not understanding the danger before them saw this as their best option to save their dwindling numbers accepted the offering and took part in a considerably large feast. After the feast the Earl was given a plate, and on that plate was the head of a black boar- the Scottish symbol for death (Sewell). It was at this point the Earl understood his death and he and his men were ambushed and killed. There is a striking similarity to this historical event and that of Martin’s Red Wedding, which the HBO television version kept extremely close to what was originally written. Of course the Earl’s pregnant wife wasn’t repeatedly stabbed in the stomach nor did his mother have to watch his throat be slit- that is strictly in Martin’s version, both events are nonetheless hideous- but yet there is another past historical event Martin also pulled from to give himself enough inspiration to write out the killing that occurred within Lord Walder Frey’s castle walls. There is also what was known as the “Glencoe Massacre”. In this event, a Highland Scottish clan known as Clan MacDonald took refuge with the Campbell clan, also not thinking anything of disaster striking, but were soon awaken around five o’clock in the morning and were either brutally murdered where they were sleeping or drug out of their sleeping quarters and later murdered in different places around the castle (The Massacre of Glencoe). The Campbell clan left no survivors, just as there weren’t any after the Red Wedding. And as if two historical examples aren’t enough, there is a third of a host having his guests slaughtered. In the year 711 a Japanese emperor, Emperor Jim-Mu accepted His Augustness Kamu-yamato-ihare-biko, another Japanese noble whom had 80 men with him (called bravoes) into his home for a banquet, he also called upon 80 butlers- one butlers to kill one of Augustness’s men (Chamberlain). It is quoted that he gave the order “When ye hear me sing, cut (them down) simultaneously.” (Chamberlain). With all of these historical examples it is not shocking for Martin to choose this type of death to occur to several of the main characters in the novel such as Robb Stark, the current Leader of the North, his wife (whom was pregnant), Talisa, and his mother, Catherine Stark, to all be brutally murdered without warning after a banquet in the castle of someone who they didn’t believe to be an enemy of theirs anymore.

These are most likely only a small handful of historical parallels Martin has chosen to be inspired by and outwardly explore when writing his novel series “Game of Thrones”. While there has been quite a bit of controversy concerning the HBO series steering away from the original books, all of the scenes mentioned in this paper have occurred in both the book and show series. As seen above, Martin has confirmed a few of the historical parallels (such as the Scottish clan’s betrayals) while others could be fan theories that just so happen to have enough historical evidence to make astonishing similarities. If Martin did in fact pull from all of the events mentioned in this paper it is interesting that he studied such a range of worldwide history, not only studying Europe’s history, but also Arabian and Japanese. With the use of such a wide variety of historical happenings Martin has created, and HBO has brought to life, an increasingly popular television series that has taken the world by storm over the last five years.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Note: This paper will only refer to “Game of Thrones” through the HBO television series, rather than the actual books themselves. I have not read the books and am aware of the many differences that encompass the two, therefor all details will not coincide with the book, only with the show.

 

 

 

Works Cited:

“Byzantine Military.”: The Siege of Constantinople. Blogspot, 4 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Casey, Dan. “George R.R. Martin Explains The Red Wedding’s Historical Roots.” Nerdist. N.p., 05 June 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Chamberlain, Basil Hall. “The Kojiki: —Emperor Jim-mu (Part V.—The Earth-Spider of the Cave of Osaka).” The Kojiki: Volume II: Section XLVIII.—Emperor Jim-mu (Part V.—The Earth-Spider of the Cave of Osaka). N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Sewell, Robert. “The Black Dinner of 1440.” The Black Dinner of 1440. Livingston Alive, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

“The Massacre of Glencoe.” The Massacre of Glencoe. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

“The War of the Roses.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

“Zoroastrianism.” ReligionFacts.com. 10 Nov. 2015. Web. Accessed 27 Apr. 2016.

I am so far enjoying Life After Life, but one reoccurring theme that keeps sticking out to me is the lack of sympathy towards the veterans spoken of in the book. The biggest reason that this has stuck out to me is because I am taking an Anthropology class concerning war and peace and our current unit talks about veterans going through PTSD and specifically how they are affected and thought of in today’s (and the pasts) societies. It is so unfortunate that this crippling psychological disorder was so misunderstood during the early 1900’s (although it still baffles psychologists and anthropologists today as well), but this is something war veterans had to deal with during the time. As Ursula is constantly around either men currently fighting in the war or veterans who have been maimed enough as to where they can’t fight anymore (George Glover, for example), there is an extreme lack of sympathy for those that have served or are currently serving. I do not blame Atkinson for this at all, however. I believe this is how average civilians legitimately felt about veterans during the time, which says something about humanity. Men fighting in the war were seen as killing machines that fought without conscious- which isn’t ever true. While I think it would have been interesting for Atkinson to have dove into PTSD a little more in the story considering the time frame(s), it was hardly mentioned, just as it is hardly mentioned in today’s time concerning war vets. Just a little something to think about. I have attached an article and a documentary for those who are interested in learning more about the minds of veterans- both are extremely interesting and worth looking into.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvNQBwVRe9M

Just to get this blog post started, I’ll give my opinion of the book and movie in general. I both liked and disliked both for completely different reasons, but overall I would recommend either. The book seemed to be too much without saying hardly anything, at least in the first two parts. I understand that it was important to grow up with the children, but I still feel as though all (or at least most) of the events that happened in parts one and two could have seriously been shortened. While the book offered almost too much character insight for my taste, the movie unfortunately offered none, or at least very minimal in comparison- that is the pitfall with all book to movie adaptations, I understand, but I feel if they would have had more of Kathy’s narration within the movie it would have offered its audience a better appreciation of Kathy and her relationship with Tommy. Throughout the entire movie it felt like I was watching a love story. The movie portrays Kathy to be completely in love with Tommy throughout the entire story, and when the children have grown and are in the cottages, the movies makes Kathy out to be a very jealous teenager who listens to sappy love songs when she’s lonely (speaking of the love song- the entire Judy Bridgewater song was different- it didn’t even say the word “baby”, which was why Kathy loved it so much to begin with- it was just a love song without any meaning in the movie). It didn’t even seem as though Ruth was very prominent to begin with- she only really started to become a main character after it showed she and Tommy started dating, and more so once they moved out to the cottages, which is a shame, because she was a very important part to Kathy’s childhood. Speaking of Ruth- she was a bitch in the book, but man did they turn her into a mega bitch in the movie. I didn’t know I could even dislike Keira Knightly until I saw her play Ruth. I wasn’t the biggest Ruth fan in the movie because of how much of an ego she gave herself ever since childhood, but in the movie Ruth verbally attacked Kathy, telling her that she wouldn’t ever be anything more than Tommy’s friend, and then continued to ridicule her for looking at the porno magazines. In the movie this is why Kathy left the cottages and started becoming a carer, which was another adaptation I wasn’t a complete fan of. It once again undermined the relationship the trio had and made it extremely superficial, the audience only thinks it’s about love and jealousy, which was such a small part of a much bigger plot.

As I was watching the movie I wrote on a word document all of the differences- and I filled out a page and a half. I obviously cannot state all of them in one blog post, but a couple more differences I wasn’t too fond of was how Miss Lucy was changed from having an almost secret relationship with Tommy to openly telling Kathy’s entire classroom their fate, and being kicked out for that very open discussion. Another difference, Kathy didn’t become Ruth’s doner- which I wasn’t too unhappy about- the less of Ruth I saw in this movie the better. The theme of sex and its importance was severely underplayed throughout the movie, but to keep a conservative rating I suppose this was a necessary deletion- with it, however, Kathy’s persona was changed once again as she wasn’t said to have any sexual partners in the movie, making her seem even more so like a desperate, lonely hormone induced teenager.

With all of this being said, I am very glad that I read the book before seeing the movie. Without the book it is only a superficial love story- yes, it does talk and show plenty of the donations and completions ,but the characters have no depth, which is what lets you know they did in fact have souls, and makes you further realize how horrible the situation they are put in is.

My last point (is honestly more a question). Why wasn’t there any mention of a rebellion? This is the biggest difference I have noticed of all of these Dystopian novels- usually you hear of some sort of an uprising, but with these children there was none. Sure Madame and Miss Lucy tried, but only with artwork… This is my least favorite detail of the book. I feel like I read it all for nothing, as nothing changed within the world. Kathy most likely died, and you know that Tommy and Ruth died. That’s it. It reminds me so much of 1984, which I had the same problem with.

Book: 7/10

Movie: 5/10

In issue #3, an experiment is mentioned where a facilitator (Stanley Milgram) would have two text subjects, one who would tell the other a set number of phrases and then ask a specific question about a phrase in particular, and another individual who would receive an increasingly stronger electric shock if he answered wrong. It was fixed, however, as no one was ever shocked and it was always the same man on the other side of the wall- but the person doing the shocking didn’t know this- and with disturbingly high rates the volunteers would continue to shock the man on the other side of the wall no matter how much he yelled concerning the pain, and even when he stopped answering all together. Milgram tested people of all different nationalities, economical statuses, and even a few women- they all, for the most part, gave the same results- even though Milgram only suggested they continue due to scientific knowledge, none of them outright said they wouldn’t, or even went to check on the man in the room who had stopped responding to the electric shocks. This experiment, however unethical it may have been, let psychologists see a side of human nature they never realized before- that when given power, even the most ordinary people can take advantage of it, and even if someone might get hurt in the end,  it only takes someone being nudged by what they believe to be a superior to use such power to hurt another and not stop until it is too late. This seems to be the case in England during the time of this graphic novel, especially at the Larkhill Resettlement Camp. As Dr. Deliah Surridge mentions of the experiment, she believes that she and her colleges were feeling the same feelings the volunteers did in the Milgram Experiment- but of course V doesn’t see this as a valid excuse- but neither does she. Surridge even admitted that things changed within her inner subconscious while she was a doctor in the camp- she originally wanted to do “good”, not help with the torture and death of those in the camps, but because she was more concerned in taking orders, even if many suffered at her hands. Whether this psychological phenomenon still exists has yet to be tested in a laboratory since the 60’s, but I think that history shows many individuals, no matter how strong willed they are, can succumb to evil in the end.

Here is a trailer for the film “The Experimenter”, which shows the experiment through the eyes of Stanley Milgram himself (it is also on Netflix and is a fantastic movie for those interested).

This seems to be the generally shared theme between Kindred and Handmaid’s Tale. As we saw in Kindred, Tom and Rufus Weylin’s slaves (Sarah and even Dana, for example) both become familiar and accepting of their roles as slaves, and having to call someone “Master”. In Handmaid’s tale, there are women who seem to actually enjoy this lifestyle of basically being a slave, especially the Martha’s. It’s obvious that they aren’t being paid, because women weren’t paid since before Offred went to the Red Center to become a Handmaid- so it’s all basically slave labor. The Jezebel’s are to be considered sex slaves- even if they chose this life for themselves because they thought it was better than any other option they are given. Perhaps it’s because these people literally don’t have a choice in their lives anymore that they are okay with this lifestyle, but I couldn’t see myself being able to live this way whatsoever. Of course it’s because I’ve grown up in a world completely the opposite of these two and it is extremely hard for me to imagine myself in those situations, but I would like to think I would stand up for my womanly rights. Wishful thinking, I guess? At least I know that if some for of Republic of Gilead starts to arise in America I won’t be going down without a fight.

As America has been bombarded with political ad after political ad after another endless political ad the past year, it is interesting to think that LHoD doesn’t want to promote a single entity in the form of politics, but rather is actually interested (or at least Genly’s people are) to learn more about what political parties are out there, which ones work, which ones don’t, and most importantly: why?

Although there are an eclectic array of political structures within the nation of Gethen there doesn’t seem to be any omnipresent political motive taking over faction by faction (such as democracy has in most “first world” countries- not that this is a negative thing, just stating a fact) but each nation respects the other nations as far as the reader is concerned, and there aren’t any wars over which political ideology is superior to which.

Then again, I do think it’s mentioned that perhaps the people are too cold to fight, which, as this cold as this past weekend has been, I haven’t even wanted to venture out to Franklin Street to get food, much less worry about taking over another nation for political differences.