u/SajadFreeke

We’ve all heard the official story: Braavos was founded by slaves from various places who rose up and took Valyrian ships, hiding in a foggy lagoon to escape the dragonlords. It’s a "melting pot" tale. However, if you examine the economics, culture, and architecture, I believe that most of the "runaway slaves" were Old Ghiscari. The city was likely founded as a new, hidden version of the Ghiscari Empire. This explains why the Iron Bank doesn’t care about Daenerys' war.

Here is the theory: 1. The "Slaves" Were Skilled Elite Soldiers The founders didn't just survive; they built a stone city in a swamp, created a complex banking system, and developed advanced naval tactics right away. That requires high-level skills. The Ghiscari were known for their specialized legions and engineering prowess. When Valyria conquered Old Ghis, they didn’t kill everyone; they enslaved the best builders and soldiers. It was these Ghiscari captives who led the revolt.

2. The Cultural Hidden-in-Plain-Sight Braavos has no fixed ethnicity but is considered "more Valyrian than Andal in its origins" in architecture, according to GRRM. The Ghiscari were the original masters of the region, similar to Braavos, as a complex, stone-based urban civilization. Moreover, the Braavosi passion for banking and economic warfare mirrors a more extreme, "non-slavery" version of the Ghiscari trade focus. The Ghiscari influence is still apparent; even in Slaver's Bay, the dialect heavily borrows from the old Ghiscari language.

3. Why Braavos Ignores Slaver's Bay (The Big One) Braavos despises slavery, that’s true. They ended Pentos' slave trade. But they ignore Meereen, Astapor, and Yunkai. Why? If Braavos was founded by Ghiscari, they are not opposing slavery itself; they are opposing Valyrian-style slavery. The Iron Bank is fine with allowing Slaver's Bay to continue as it represents a Ghiscari economic system. It’s not about ideology; it’s a struggle between two historical systems of power: Valyrian versus Ghiscari.

4. The Faceless Men Connection The Faceless Men began as a group aiming to end the plight of slaves in the Valyrian mines. If the founders were Ghiscari elites subjected to that suffering, the urge to conceal their origins by creating a "new" culture would be strong. Summary Braavos represents Ghiscari vengeance—a new, superior, non-slave-based empire that uses capital rather than legions to dominate Essos. They don’t fight Slaver's Bay because the people there are just younger, louder, and less clever versions of the founders. TL;DR: The runaway slaves were elite Ghiscari, making Braavos a Ghiscari legacy state. They only combat Valyrian-origin slavery, not Ghiscari-origin slavery. What do you think?

I know I’m going to catch some backlash for this. Everyone loves to say Cersei is a fool who thinks she’s playing chess while she’s really playing checkers. But I’ve just finished my third re-read of A Feast for Crows, and I’m convinced the story actually presents a "sober vs. drunk" arc rather than a "smart vs. stupid" one. This especially applies to Aurane Waters. Aurane isn’t just a mistake; he proves that Cersei's judgment is impaired by the large amount of alcohol she drinks in AFFC. Here’s why she wouldn’t have given him the fleet if she were sober.

1. The "Rhaegar" hallucination Aurane Waters is a handsome, silver-haired, purple-eyed bastard from Driftmark. Cersei has spent her life obsessed with Rhaegar Targaryen and with a handsome Targaryen-looking bastard. When she sees him, it’s not about political strategy; it’s her drunken, fantasy-driven desire for a man she can control, mixed with her longing for a man she never had.

2. The constant wine consumption I started counting in the later Cersei chapters. It really is absurd. She drinks at the Small Council meetings. She drinks while meeting with Aurane. She wakes up drunk and goes to bed drunk. It’s noted that Aurane flatters her. She "fancies" him, and he tells her what she wants to hear. A sober Cersei, especially one trying to emulate Tywin’s cold pragmatism, would have seen through his "charming" act in no time and either sent him to the Wall or used him to lure in Velaryon-Stannis loyalists.

3. The "New Men" strategy Cersei intentionally tries to remove the "old guard" (Kevan, Pycelle, Mace) because she doesn’t trust them and believes they are plotting against her. While this might be a mistake, it’s not stupid in principle; it’s a move to consolidate power. However, giving the fleet to a random bastard with no experience just because he looks good while she’s drinking? That’s not a plan; that's a drunk girl at a party handing her keys to a stranger.

4. The "Lord of the Tides" irony When Aurane disappears, the small council suspects he has gone off to be a pirate. A sober Cersei knows the history of the Stepstones and the Velaryon loyalty to Stannis (he was Stannis’s man before Blackwater). Giving him a fleet was a "drunk on wine" mistake, not a "stupid" mistake. TL;DR: In AFFC, Cersei is a high-functioning alcoholic whose paranoia and ego are amplified by her constant drinking. If she weren’t drunk, she would never have trusted the Bastard of Driftmark. What do you think? Is her downfall solely due to intoxication, or was she never smart to begin with?

I’m on my third read, and I’m really struggling with the fandom’s view on Jon Snow versus Robb Stark. It seems like everyone calls Jon a "morally gray" character, especially in ADWD. But when I look at his actions—protecting the realm from the Others, saving wildling women and children, brokering peace—I see a guy trying to do the right thing under extreme pressure. Meanwhile, Robb is often seen as a tragic hero who "did nothing wrong," except for the Jeyne/Talisa marriage.

But let’s be honest: Robb killed Karstark, which cost him half his army. He broke an oath to the Freys, leading to the deaths of his men, and he ignored his advisors multiple times. Isn’t Robb, with his pride, impulsiveness, and romantic mistakes that caused serious harm to his people, actually more gray, or at least more "foolish," than Jon? Why do people consider Jon, who seemingly acts for the greater good, to be the morally gray one, while Robb gets a pass as a romantic tragic hero?

I see a lot of discussion about Bran, Dany, and Jon Snow.

I think we aren't giving enough attention to Jon Connington. When I reread A Dance with Dragons, I realized how powerful and tragic his chapters are. While Tyrion is being negative, Connington is creating fantasy stories. His greyscale pushes him to act quickly and make decisions. I believe Connington is being set up to play a significant role in the upcoming war. We know he wants to make up for failing Rhaegar by placing someone on the throne. However, his greyscale affects him more than just physically. It also makes him act impulsively and recklessly. Ironically, he tries to emulate Tywin Lannister, but he is really a romantic who acts based on his feelings. I think he will make a mistake. He may win some battles, but his pride will lead to a disaster. This will turn people against him.

He is a man trying to secure a future with a past that no longer exists. What do you all think? Is he an important new character in the later books, or am I overestimating him?