Wiki of Westeros

Dueling Trailers.jpg Choose your trailer. Green vs. Black. Two sides. One war. June 16.

READ MORE

Wiki of Westeros
Wiki of Westeros
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
   
 
:::Where did any sacking occur, though? --[[User:Potsk|Potsk]] ([[User talk:Potsk|talk]]) 04:09, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
 
:::Where did any sacking occur, though? --[[User:Potsk|Potsk]] ([[User talk:Potsk|talk]]) 04:09, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::
  +
:::1.) Yes you're right. Calling it the Second would be a minsomer. By bad
  +
:::2.) And yeah, all sieges/battles are massacres to an extent. But the episode really emphasized that the level of destruction and death was high even by medieval standards. I've no doubt that both in the next episode and within the hypothetical fictional history of Westeros, the needless carnage will be a huge point of contention and significance. I was thinking at first Sack may be even too weak a word; the Rape of King's Landing (a la Nanking) is what came to my mind but obviously that's a bit of a needlessly charged title. So I stand by either Sack or Massacre
  +
:::3.) Did any sacking occur? Umm, that was basically the entire episode. The destruction, death and rape were all there. Knowing the Dothraki, I'm sure looting occurred off-screen. [[User:Venividivici0|Venividivici0]] ([[User talk:Venividivici0|talk]]) 04:21, May 13, 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:21, 13 May 2019

The title's okay, but given how it's very one-sided and the massive civilian casualties, wouldn't "Massacre" or "Second Sack" be more appropriate?

Venividivici0 (talk) 03:48, May 13, 2019 (UTC)

I'd vote for the Second Sack of King's Landing because that's just hilarious
Sabovia (Message Wall) | (Contributions)
"Second Sack"? What? Is this battle part of Robert's Rebellion? No. People will be searching for "Battle of King's Landing". Not "Second Sack" or "Massacre". --Potsk (talk) 03:53, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
The title is conjectural (as indicated at the top of the page) and created before the episode aired, and having seen it, yes, I agree that there might be a more fitting title than "battle..." but I'm not sure. I don't think "Massacre" would be it, though, given that the objective was conquest, not slaughter, even if that was what happened (what conquest isn't a massacre though?). Not "Second Sack" either - that would imply there was a first sack, which there was in Robert's Rebellion, but that was a different conflict entirely. Naming it Second Sack would imply there was another sack in this same conflict (see: Sack of Rome). So... I would either probably name it Sack of King's Landing (war for Westeros) or rename it Sack of King's Landing and rename the current Sack of King's Landing to Sack of King's Landing (Robert's Rebellion), while creating a disambiguation page. Still needs to be noted that it is conjectural. Not sure though. Reddyredcp (talk) 03:54, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
Where did any sacking occur, though? --Potsk (talk) 04:09, May 13, 2019 (UTC)
1.) Yes you're right. Calling it the Second would be a minsomer. By bad
2.) And yeah, all sieges/battles are massacres to an extent. But the episode really emphasized that the level of destruction and death was high even by medieval standards. I've no doubt that both in the next episode and within the hypothetical fictional history of Westeros, the needless carnage will be a huge point of contention and significance. I was thinking at first Sack may be even too weak a word; the Rape of King's Landing (a la Nanking) is what came to my mind but obviously that's a bit of a needlessly charged title. So I stand by either Sack or Massacre
3.) Did any sacking occur? Umm, that was basically the entire episode. The destruction, death and rape were all there. Knowing the Dothraki, I'm sure looting occurred off-screen. Venividivici0 (talk) 04:21, May 13, 2019 (UTC)