Islam: Origins
Jibril (Gabriel) appears before Mohammed, drawing
The religion of the Law, which for 15 centuries prepared the chosen people for the coming into the world of the its Savior, the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, preceded New Testament religion. According to the Holy Apostle Paul, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Gal. 3:24). It was all in all only "a shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10:1). When the Savior came into the world, Old Testament religion had fulfilled its purpose. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to us the mystery of the Heavenly Kingdom and established the New Covenant, which was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:31-33).
Man was redeemed from original sin and its consequences by the voluntary death on the Cross of Jesus Christ as Savior of the World. He entered into an entirely new period in terms of his relationship with God in comparison with the Old Testament: instead of the law, there was a free condition of sonship and grace. Man received new means for achieving the ideal set for him of moral perfection as a necessary condition for salvation.
Islam, having arisen in Arabia in the seventh century, appeared as the religion of the law six centuries after the God of the chosen people of the religion of the Law fulfilled its purpose.
The difference between the Old Testament religion of the Law and Islam is not only that the latter emerged more than two thousand years after God gave on Mount Sinai the Ten Commandments and other precepts that governed life for the chosen people. The most important difference is that the Law of Moses has a Divine source. The book of Exodus gives a narrative of the majestic Epiphany. "And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up" (Exod. 19:17-20).
The founder of Islam, however, did not have a Divine revelation.
How did Islam arise? We read about this in the Hadith “Al-Jamii al-Sahih”. A mysterious being began to visit Mohammed. He slept in a cave on the slope of Mount Hira. On the night of the 24th of the month of Ramadan in year 610 someone appeared to him in human form. This event is considered the beginning of Islam. This story about it is from the Sunnah: “[A]n angel appeared to him and bade him 'READ!' 'I am no reader!' Mohammed replied in great trepidation, whereon the angel shook him violently and again bade him read. This was repeated three times, when the angel uttered the five verses that commence the 96th chapter: 'READ! in the name of thy Lord, who did create—who did create man from congealed blood. READ! for thy Lord is the most generous.’” Mohammed puzzled over whether a demon or angel visited him. He confided his experiences in his wife Khadijah. I will introduce more of the story of Mohammed's biography, generally accepted by Muslims: “She said to the messenger of God, ‘O son of my uncle, are you able to tell me about your visitant, when he comes to you?’ He replied that he could, and she asked him to tell her when he came. So when Gabriel came to him, as he was wont the apostle said to Khadija, ‘This is Gabriel who has just come to me.’ ‘Get up, O son of my uncle,’ she said, ‘and sit by my left thigh.’ The apostle did so, and she said, ‘Can you see him?’ ‘Yes,’ he said. She said, ‘Then turn round and sit on my right thigh.’ He did so, and she said, ‘Can you see him?’ When he said that he could she asked him to move and sit in her lap. When he had done this she again asked if he could see him, and when he said yes, she disclosed her form and cast aside her veil while the apostle was sitting in her lap. Then she said, ‘Can you see him?’ And he replied, ‘No.’ She said, ‘O son of my uncle, rejoice and be of good heart, by God he is an angel and not a satan’” (Ibn Hisham, Biography of the Prophet Muhammad).

It is surprising how easily and, gently speaking, naively this question, which in the spiritual realm is a question of life or death, had been answered with the help of a woman. Before all else, an Angel is a bodiless being, and for his sight there are no actual barriers: one can see through even clothes. Clothes hide nudity only from the eyes of man. Even so, the body of man in and of itself is not something perverse or shameful. It is a creation of God. The lust of man is sinful as well as is carnal desire, but not the body. In paradise the progenitors were naked and were not ashamed (see Gen. 2:25). The nature of an Angel is inviolate. They are alien to passions of man. But if this was a demon, then he could easily resort to trickery. Knowing how they tested him, he especially would be able to take leave of himself, so that they would take him for an Angel.
The attitude of Islam towards the Bible
Islam emerged as something syncretic out of several sources: ancient Arabic cults, Judaism, Christianity, Hanifism (a pre-Islamic monotheistic movement in Arabia) and Mazdaism (an ancient Iranian religion). There is no doubt that the Old Testament holy books and the Gospel had an influence on the formation of Islam. In the Quran many people and events from biblical history are mentioned. However, these stories are presented completely arbitrarily and inaccurately.
According to the Quran, man was created from water. "It is He Who has created man from water: Then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things)" (25:54). In another surah, it says: "Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood" (96:1-2). In another part it speaks about clay, "He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery" (55:14).
In contrast to the Bible, the Quran does not say that man was created in the image and likeness of God. This discrepancy is most profound. With God's image and likeness, man is summoned to commune directly with his Creator. He can become one with the Lord. This is not so in Islam.
The book of Genesis tells the story of how the entire family of the patriarch Noah (in Arabic, Nuh) was saved in the Ark. The Quran speaks about the death of Noah's son: "So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): ‘O my son! Embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!’ The son replied: ‘I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water.’ Noah said: ‘This day nothing can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy!’ And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood" (11:42-43). Another surah tells it somewhat differently: "(Remember) Noah, when he cried (to Us) aforetime: We listened to his (prayer) and delivered him and his family from great distress" (21:76).
There is no need to provide more examples. In the Quran, things are especially distorted when discussing New Testament events. Here the differences are purely fundamental. The Incarnation, the Crucifixion on Golgotha, and the Resurrection are all denied. Even the event of the Nativity of Christ, known to the whole world, is described very strangely. It is alleged that Maryam retreated to a faraway place and gave birth to a Son under palms (19:23). In this surah, called Maryam, She is called the "sister of Harun," i.e. Aaron. He indeed had a sister named Miriam, but she lived 15 centuries before the Nativity of Christ.
Probably due to so great a number of errors and distortions, many representatives of Islam, in order to escape from this quandary, allege that the modern Holy Scripture of Christians has been distorted (a circumstance known as tahrif). Immediately, the question arises: what evidence do they provide? There is no evidence. Characteristically, the view of Muslims toward the Bible has undergone significant change over the course of several centuries. Early Islamic writers such as al-Tabari and ar-Razi believed that the distortion comes down to tahrif bi'al ma'ni, i.e. the corruption of the meaning without changing the text. However, later authors such as Ibn Hazm and Al-Biruni introduced the idea of tahrif bi’al-lafz, i.e. the corruption of the text itself. At that, both of these positions have been preserved to the present day. Thus, the level of acceptance among Muslims of the Bible depends on one's understanding of tahrif. The very existence of these fundamentally different positions indicates that there is no concrete evidence.
It is impossible to ignore one interesting feature of the attitude that representatives of Islam have toward the Biblical text. In that they do not have their own "undistorted" biblical text, they cite our canonical text as undistorted. However, when they need to support a point, for example, negative examples from the life of Banu Isra'il (the children of Israel) with a reference to parts that do not conform to Islam, they proclaim the text to be distorted.
Muslims allege that the New Testament (Injil), which the Quran refers to positively, is not in fact the current four Gospels. We have already said that they do not provide any evidence. The falsehood of the accusation that Christians distorted the Scriptures stems from the internal inconsistencies of the very Islamic authors who wrote on this theme. According to the Quran, the New Testament was originally a true, sacred text. "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah" (5:46). In another section: "Say: ‘O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.’ It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy" (5:68). This excerpt clearly demonstrates that the Quran itself does not speak of the distorted Scripture, but about "rebellion and blasphemy" related to misunderstanding.
There is one part of the Quran (10:94) which is very problematic for Islamic commentators: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt." This ayat refers the Muslim "in doubt" to the authority of the biblical Holy Scripture. Abdul-Haqq writes: “The learned doctors of Islam are sadly embarrassed by this verse, referring the prophet as it does to the people of the Book who would solve his doubts” (Abdul-Haqq, A. A. (1980). Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers. As cited in Geisler, N.L. (1999). Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group). According to the logic of this verse, the biblical Scripture was undistorted in the 7th century at the time of the Quran's creation. Then one must recognize that the current text is also correct, since we use manuscripts written over several centuries prior to the Quran.
Textual criticism of the New Testament has achieved outstanding breakthroughs in the 20th century. Currently, there are over 2,328 manuscripts and manuscript fragments in Greek, coming to us from the first three centuries of Christianity. The most ancient New Testament manuscript, a part of the Gospel of John 18:31-33, 37-38, is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, dated 117-138 in the era of the reign of emperor Hadrian. Adolf Deissmann acknowledges the possibility of the emergence of this papyrus even under the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117). It is preserved in Manchester. Another ancient New Testament manuscript is the Papyrus Bodmer, P75. The 102 surviving pages contain the texts of the Gospels of Luke and John. "The editors, Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, date this copy to between 175 and 225 A.D. It is thus the earliest surviving known copy of the Gospel according to Luke available today and one of the earliest of the Gospel according to John" (Bruce M. Metzger. The Text of the New Testament. p. 58). This precious manuscript is located in Geneva.
Uncial script on parchment: leather codices with uncial script, (in Latin uncia means inch) letters without sharp corners and broken lines. This script is distinguished by its great refinement and precision. Each letter is disconnected. There are 362 uncial manuscripts of the New Testament. The most ancient of these codices (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) have already been mentioned.
Scholars complemented this impressive collection of ancient New Testament manuscripts with the New Testament text, which consisted of 36,286 excerpts of the Holy Scripture of the New Testament found in the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church from the first through fourth centuries. This text is lacking only 11 verses.
Scholars of textual criticism in the 20th century did a tremendous job on the collation of all—several thousands of—New Testament manuscripts and identified all textual discrepancies caused by scribal error. An evaluation and typologization was performed. Precise criteria for determining a correct variant were established. For those familiar with this rigorous scientific work, it is obvious that allegations of the distortion of the current holy text of the New Testament are unfounded. In terms of the number of ancient manuscripts and the brevity of time separating the earliest surviving text from the original, no one work of antiquity can be compared with the New Testament.

Accusations that the Bible's text is distorted are puzzling. How could it actually have been done? How could Christians and Hebrews have come together to do this? Everyone knows the degree of their mutual [doctrinal—Ed.] alienation. And yet both Christians and Jews use one and the same canonical text of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the entire New Testament was preserved in the Chester Beatty Papyri, composed in approximately 250 A.D.
It is inconceivable to accept that under the conditions that existed in Christian society, hundreds of exemplars of the New Testament text were miscopied for the purpose of distortion.
On the Monotheism of Islam
Historians and religious scholars regard the three "Abrahamic" religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as monotheistic religions. For the researcher, the doctrinal principles that representatives of each of these three religions formulate are sufficient. However, on a theological level, the insufficiency of such a formal approach becomes clear. Monotheism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for true religion. Only a religion that has Divine revelation as a source has the true and spiritually accurate doctrine concerning God. Christianity not only maintains that God is the living, absolute source, "the only true God" (John 17:3; 1 Thes. 1:9; cf. John 5:20), but also teaches thoroughly and in depth of the nature of God as without beginning, without end, and of a perfect Spirit. The chief characteristic of the Divine nature is love. "God is love" (1 John 4:16). These words of the apostle contain the principal idea of the New Testament as the good news of salvation. The ineffable goodness of God created the world. The Lord housed man in paradise. Even after the Fall, God continued to love mankind. The greatness of God's love was revealed when the incarnate God died a most agonizing death for us. Christians know from not only the Holy Scripture, but also through the power of spiritual experience, that God is all-knowing and all-wise. The apostle says: "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4:13).
God knows not only all that has happened, and all that is, but he has also perfect knowledge of the future. The mirror of the supreme Wisdom of God is the universe which He created, astounding man with its extraordinary complexity, beauty, and harmony. God demonstrates his ineffable Wisdom also in the dispensation of our salvation. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out" (Rom. 11:33).

True religion is not limited by the demand of worship for the Creator. Its ultimate goal is the spiritual unity of man with God. The Savior speaks about this in a prayer to his Father before his suffering on the cross: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21).
From the aforementioned characteristics of the Divine follows the concept of true, Christian monotheism. There can be only one all-powerful and all-just God.
The concept of God in Islam does not have a source of divine revelation. It developed on the basis of ancient Arabic religion. The word “Allah” was used in the polytheistic pantheon of Arabs to denote “God”: Allah (al - the definite article; ilah - god). Among the pagan Arabs, prior to their adoption of Islam, Allah was the supreme lunar deity, worshipped in north and central Arabia. The father of Muhammed, who was a pagan, was named Abdullah ("Servant of Allah").
In pre-Islamic times, the crescent moon was the symbol of the worship of the moon-god among the Arabs. This is confirmed by archeological evidence. The crescent moon was carried over as the main symbol of Islam.
Arabs of the Syrian desert called the wife of Allah as Al-lāt, and in the south of central Arabia, Al-‘Uzzá. In other areas of Arabia, they, along with Manat, were worshipped as the daughters of Allah. This genetic trail was preserved in the Quran. There is mention of this in the 53rd surah: "Have ye seen Lāt, and ‘Uzzā, and another, the third (goddess), Manāt? What! For you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!" (53:19-22).
In Islam, Allah is a created religious image by the human consciousness. He does not express the real almighty divine personhood. Consequently, monotheism in Islam is imagined. In a number of places in the Quran, he is endowed with intrinsically human characteristics and traits. Allah says:

• "Those who reject Our signs, We shall soon cast into the fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty" (4:56);
• "...There is no help Except from God, the Exalted, the Wise: that He might cut off a fringe of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned back, frustrated of their purpose: (3: 126–127);
• "The Hypocrites—they think they are over-reaching God, but He will over-reach them" (4:142);
• "And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the best of planners is God" (3:54);
• “Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: they have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,—nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning)” (7:179).

What a great difference! Christianity teaches that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4), while Islam maintains that Allah created many people for Gehenna.
The idea of monotheism, (tawhid, from the verb wahhada—to reckon something as one) was formulated in the Quran in several surahs. For example, in the 16th surah, "The Bee": "For We assuredly sent amongst every people an apostle, (with the Command), "serve God, and eschew evil" (16:36). In the terminology of the sharia, anything people worship except for Allah is "taghut". Since Islam does not know of direct revelation, nor the holy Manifestation of God to the world, nor the unification of man with God on the foundation of love, its monotheism is imagined, formalistic and abstract, requiring not that man change himself or his way of life, but only worship and daily prayer.
Hieromonk Job (Gumerov)

editorial/climate-alarmism
Climate Alarmism is not a new phenomenon. It’s a tired, desperate, yet sadly accepted phenomenon perpetrated (and believed) by the usual suspects.

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” - Marcus Aurelius
I recently had a chance to revisit the blockbuster "documentary" 'Inconvenient Truth' featuring the inventor of the Internet himself, Mr. Al Gore AKA "ManBearPig". Watching it all these years later is actually incredibly breathtaking in all its inaccuracies and doomsday prophesies. It's an embarrassment.
I've tried to write about this for years now but the scope of this debate is so massive it requires so much time and energy I know I’ve yet to truly do it justice; but I’ve been committed to this debate since Inconvenient Truth was still in Movie Theaters, I was disgusted even then. However, if we allow ourselves to open our minds to just question what we're told by so-called "experts" I'm 100% certain that each of you, no matter who you are or what you believe or what your politics, would find yourself at least marginally disconcerted with manmade climate theory methodology and untold numbers of ethical violations.
It's amazing to me how easily the name "global warming" successfully transitioned to "climate change" with absolutely zero public demand for the governments of this world to encourage thoughtful scientific debate and dialogue, and to put a stop to the suppression of scientific dissent and black balling.
We are expected to believe, against all logic and reason, that this earth is warming solely on account of man made carbon emissions. Carbon - one of the most critical elements of life itself. Carbon - what each living being exhales thousands of times each day. Carbon - a natural element which is so powerfully emitted into the earths atmosphere naturally by volcanic eruptions, decomposing plants, animals, and leaves. Carbon, an element which constitutes 38/1000th of 1 percent of atmospheric gases.
We've been told for 15 years now that we're on the verge of destruction because of our own consumption. We're supposed to suspend disbelief and known historical facts demonstrating the earth's climate has always been remarkably unpredictable. Mankind walked this earth before, during, and since the Ice Age which ended only 11,000 some years ago. The earth went through what's still an inexplicable Medieval Warming Period (MWP) just 800 years ago when it was significantly warmer than it is now, even after the ‘.85 Cº’ warming we’ve seen since 1880 which has half the world hyperventilating, seemingly incapable of logic and reason.
Carbon also happens to be the sole variable on which climate researchers placed their focus. What a lucky break that must have been to start the rigorous scientific method required to elevate a simple 'theory' to '97% accepted science' - As a layman, I can personally think of multitudes of potential factors which may have an affect on climate. I find it remarkably convenient that the culprit was decidedly carbon emissions. That it was Carbon and no further research or variables needed to be considered whatsoever. What a lucky break.
Consider how that finding has created industries, elected politicians, elicited funding, propelled careers - and, let's not forget the irreversible damage that finding did to the oil industry, chief antagonist of liberals for decades. The oil industry so loathed by ideologues was dealt its greatest blow. I find that remarkably convenient. Think of our gas prices before "Inconvenient Truth". Think of the blow to the wallets of the entire country and how debilitating to household budgets this has been. Think of the very real blows to our freedom.
I believe we must find alternate sources of energy for one reason and one reason only - fossil fuels are a finite resource. So those of you who went out and bought a truly ridiculous Prius to symbolize commitment to the earth's health have done a great disservice to yourself riding around in that cramped up, ridiculous specimen of a yuppie-mobile. Your only reasonable rationale is the money you save at the pump; if that's the case, I get it. I just personally would choose to shut off my cable to save the money instead of sitting through 4 hours of paperwork and headache to peel out to Starbucks for a latte in my new Prius. It's really a sort of species of #HashtagActivism
I digress.
The U.N.'s International Council on Climate Change (IPCC) consists of what our leaders tell us are the most respected and expert persons on earth. Each year they issue annual findings which are used by governments around the world to make public pleas to the masses so seemingly jubilant to soak in every damned thing they hear without asking any questions. What shall we do? Spend trillions upon trillions of dollars in the name of a scientific theory which has completely broken the sanctity of the pillar of science. Scientific dissent is suppressed. Scientific research is refused for publication or peer review by scientific journals around the world.
Climate Science is now and always has been in bed with politics and that is something I simply cannot tolerate without speaking my mind. Without asking questions. I've been alarmed by this since meeting, by pure happenstance, a scientific researcher from MIT back in 2008. I had already suspicions about Al Gore and the fanaticism surrounding what was called "global warming" at the time; but it was after exchanging emails with this man for several weeks regarding climate research and the information he had shared with me regarding the great number of colleagues at MIT and worldwide who were then and continue to be absolutely shocked and highly troubled by what's happened to science. Skepticism, debate, peer review, publicizing data and methods used to formulate theories was all thrown by the wayside in regards to this ONE singular "scientific" conclusion.
We must remember that climate researchers can ONLY survive through government grants and special interests who fund their research. The research they conduct is most certainly impacted by the inappropriate conjoining of politics & science & money. It’s precisely what we were warned about by President Eisenhower in his Farewell Speech on the hazards of the Military & Industrial complex and the potential hazards of science becoming overly reliant upon government research grants, so independent research has lost objectivity. Eisenhower warned that ‘a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
The climate science community is largely dominated by a select few individuals, some of whom have dubious ties with Al Gore in particular and have been outed repeatedly for violating federal law regarding FOIA requests. Their incredible disregard for unbiased research or reliable climate data. The data itself has been found unreliable, at best... The data which the great majority of Climate science is entirely based came from highly vulnerable source (which they supposedly 'correct for' in their models; perhaps, but their models yet remain grossly exaggerated and have been year after year for 20 years now).
Even the climate models utilized to project warming have been found to be breathtakingly inaccurate yet none of this information ever reaches the general public. I'm certainly no scientist, I make no claims of my own expertise. I simply desire to encourage others to seek the truth in an effort to my part, however small, at exposing what I and many many others regard as the most criminal, disgusting, calculated deception of our time.
I am going to take the appropriate amount of time and energy necessary to convince those willing to open their minds to other possibilities. Disconcerting possibilities which are sadly very likely to be a fact of this crazy life. This subject pains me to realize that to go against climate theory is considered blasphemy by so many of you. Skeptics are condemned by run-of-the-mill private citizens based not on your own thoughtful conclusions - but the conclusions given to you by others. By the media. By the politician. And so many of us just take it in stride and pass judgement on those who DO care for truth.
I sincerely implore any and all readers not to give up on educating yourselves on this subject of such great significance to our world. To seek truth of your own volition, and to ask questions while keeping an open mind. To look deeply into "ClimateGate", a scandal so monumental at the time I truly believed it would have ended the climate discussion. No. It should have been the beginning.
But climategate, the scandal which exposed the top, most influential figures in climate as fraudulent, lying, deceptive manipulators hell bent on creating climate models that would fit their pre-concluded notions slipped right under the radar. One of the most prominent among them actually debated suicide in the wake of the scandal he rightfully anticipated, but which never materialized.
No thanks to the manipulating, pathologoical lying - either blatant or by omission - mainstream media; who cares not a damn for a single person reading this line.

Note: I started writing this and it got away from me. Rather than fill in the unfinished points, I've just left them there for everyone to consider

Preface

Randyll Tarly on a first read through is a jerk. He tortures Sam, insults Brienne, implements draconian justice and downplays the golden company threat. Prima-Facie, he is a violent commander with little political cunning.
Except for his results. By the end of ADWD
· He receives accolades for every battle fought (I hold fire on the term won)
· He holds the queen in his custody.
· He has a voice at council
· He secured his chosen heir in defiance of westrosi customs
If we assume these things didn’t happen by chance, we can re-examine some of his older achievements, actions, and then try to sort out his motives.

Randyll Tarly as a Commander

Roberts Rebellion

Battle of Ashford

Context: The battle of Ashford was Roberts one defeat in his rebellion. Tarly’s van sailed forward and defeated Roberts host, but the battle was inconclusive. Robert retreated to the stony sept, recovered, regrouped, and when his allies arrived and consolidated forces, used this new army to win the war.

Relevant Sections – directly on point paragraphs:

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion III

Tyrion had to bite his tongue at that. Robb Stark had won more battles in a year than the Lord of Highgarden had in twenty. ~Tyrell's reputation rested on one indecisive victory over Robert Baratheon at Ashford, in a battle largely won by Lord Tarly's van before the main host had even arrived.~

A Storm of Swords - Davos V

"Edric, you ought not boast," Maester Pylos said. "King Robert suffered defeats like any other man. Lord Tyrell bested him at Ashford, and he lost many a tourney tilt as well."

A Storm of Swords - Samwell V

"Your father is an able soldier," King Stannis said. "He defeated my brother once, at Ashford. Mace Tyrell has been pleased to claim the honors for that victory, but Lord Randyll had decided matters before Tyrell ever found the battlefield. He slew Lord Cafferen with that great Valyrian sword of his and sent his head to Aerys." The king rubbed his jaw with a finger. "You are not the sort of son I would expect such a man to have."

A Dance with Dragons - The Griffin Reborn

~He had lost it all at Stoney Sept, in his arrogance.~
~Robert Baratheon had been hiding somewhere in the town, wounded and alone. Jon Connington had known that, and he had also known that Robert's head upon a spear would have put an end to the rebellion, then and there~. He was young and full of pride. How not? King Aerys had named him Hand and given him an army, and he meant to prove himself worthy of that trust, of Rhaegar's love. He would slay the rebel lord himself and carve a place out for himself in all the histories of the Seven Kingdoms.

Other information gleaned from context

· Tarly did not inflict substantial casualties
· Robert won the battle of the trident within a year – Ashford is 282AC and the trident is 283
· Robert fled to and was sheltered in the stony sept, where Jon Connington failed to flush him out. The battle of the bells occurred in 283AC, as did the battle of the trident shortly after

Analysis

Randyll leads the van some distance ahead of the main force, gets into a battle with the rebels, and inflicts minor to moderate casualties before they escape. Tyrell takes the credit.
From a military point of view, if the battle had not been decided before the main force arrived, the war would have likely ended. A much larger force (with assumedly many more horsemen) would have won the battle both more conclusively, and been able to pursue. By all rights, the strategy enforced by Mace Tyrell should have won the war (this theme will come in later in this theory), but for the fact only a fraction of his army engaged far ahead of the main host.
As an aside and jumping ahead a little – Tarly avoids doing this after the blackwater, closing off escape routes and slaughtering everyone. This hints at the fact that Ashford was a tactical mistake.
The first three viewpoints we receive on the battle are of note.
· Tyrion points out the battle was indecisive, and ~decided before the main host arrived~. He focuses on the victory in ‘battle’ as opposed to war.
· Stannis points out how able Randyll is by defeating his brother once at Ashford. Although unable to ascribe any special military strategy to Randyll, he calls him ‘able’ and decided matters before Tyrell arrived. He also flags that Mace Tyrell claimed the honours for the victory and he thinks this undeserved. It’s interesting as it’s Maces host at Ashford, a host that by all rights should have crushed Roberts army in a single battle – given the van alone defeated him. He also ascribes the only kill of note as lord Cafferen
· Maester Pylos points out that Robert lost battles at Ashford and flags it was Tyrell who bested him.
The battle by all appearances, was a farce. Ashford could have ended the war. Arguably, even with the van alone deciding the fight, it very nearly did. Instead, the battle is determined indecisive, there is no ‘impressive kill and capture list’ indicating the host was not captured or killed (as opposed to routed), and Mace has this massive potentially war-ending host not doing much because Robert is in retreat before it arrives.
Furthermore despite all this, Tarly very nearly won the day at Ashford. Robert suffered a serious – but nonfatal wound that seemingly took months (and at least weeks) to recover. The fact that a seriously wounded Robert was able to escape despite distinctive armour and weaponry raises questions of its own.
Finally, when Robert was wounded and hidden in the aftermath whilst he recovered, narratively it allowed JonCon to lay siege to the stony sept. As a parallel, one of the themes I will later touch on is how Tarly changes after this battle, and we know JonCon swears to kill more and become Tywin 2.0. as a direct result of the events at the sept. We see a similar change in Tarly.
It’s also of note that Tarly and Tyrell at this point were on the Targaryen side. This crops up later when we look into other motivations and goals.
Aftermath
So we know that Robert suffers wounds and is somewhat detached from his host (be it they left him in the stoney sept or he scattered off from the main host). We know this as he ends up wounded in the Stoney Sept. After this, the battle of the bells and all the great victories that ended the war occur.
Notably, Tarly has no major military achievements after this battle. Since Mace Tyrell was invested in the siege of Storms end, it can be presumed Tarly was positioned with the main force. The next time we see him is in the battle of 5 kings –

Discussion with Renly – The Siege of Stannis

• Renly outright ignores Tarly when he says they'll be charging into the sun. In renlys conversation with stannis he points out how overwhelmingly strong his force is and how it will be heavy horse charging into boiled leather. He's not wrong, if the armies clash, stannis will be crushed and waiting is potentially disastrous, as stannis may not engage or slow the whole process down.

Battle of the Blackwater

A Clash of Kings - Sansa VII

They came up the roseroad and along the riverbank, through all the fields Stannis had burned, the ashes puffing up around their boots and turning all their armor grey, but oh! the banners must have been bright, the golden rose and golden lion and all the others, the Marbrand tree and the Rowan~, Tarly's huntsman~ and Redwyne's grapes and Lady Oakheart's leaf. All the westermen, all the power of Highgarden and Casterly Rock! ~Lord Tywin himself had their right wing~ on the north side of the river, with Randyll Tarly commanding the center and ~Mace Tyrell the left,~ but the vanguard won the fight. They plunged through Stannis like a lance through a pumpkin, every man of them howling like some demon in steel. And do you know who led the vanguard? Do you? Do you? Do you?"

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn II

"I told you to hold Riverrun," said Robb. "What part of that command did you fail to comprehend?"
"When you stopped Lord Tywin on the Red Fork," said the Blackfish, "you delayed him just long enough for riders out of Bitterbridge to reach him with word of what was happening to the east. ~Lord Tywin turned his host at once, joined up with Matthis Rowan and Randyll Tarly~ near the headwaters of the Blackwater, and made a forced march to Tumbler's Falls, ~where he found Mace Tyrell and two of his sons waiting with a huge host and a fleet of barges~. They floated down the river, disembarked half a day's ride from the city, and took Stannis in the rear."

We know tywin likes to put his strength on his flanks and in the reserve

Interestingly, Mace is there too, and it’s a tyrell van this time, not tarly
Lord Tywin himself had their right wing on the north side of the river, with Randyll Tarly commanding the center and Mace Tyrell the left, but the vanguard won the fight. They plunged through Stannis like a lance through a pumpkin, every man of them howling like some demon in steel.
^{ACOK 62: SANSA VII}

Analysis

First the parallels. Mace Tyrell is paralleled to Tywin on the two flanks. It is a tyrell in the van who decides the day. Randyll commands the center.
Logistically, the battle is won by Mace Tyrell (whom I love as a character) with a fleet of barges and a huge host already in position (allowing the army to cross quickly enough to intercept the battle of the blackwater). Also the messenger that draws in Tywin’s host comes from Bitterbridge – Tyrell Lands. Given the van wins the battle, there’s a fair argument that Mace could have won the battle alone, albeit with all the support he wins a crushing victory instead.
So Randyll is relegated to an important, but ultimately ancillary position. Whether the battle is won by Tywin or Mace (and by all logistical accounts, it’s Mace), is another question, but the ‘finest soldier in the seven kingdoms’ is once again, somewhat ineffectual. He still commands the center in such a battle, but he displays no logistical or battle prowess in this fight either, just being a renowned commander in the right place at the right time.

Battle of Duskendale

· Lord Randyll defeats a northern army. The army is mostly foot and misplaced
· This time, few excape – XXXX cuts off the retreat.
· Some theories say he was tipped off by Roose Bolton.
· This time he gets the commander
· Figth occurs in FIELDS AND FARMS. Bad terrain for a retreat. Glover TRAPPED against blackwater bay
· Note that Glover had to be captured lest bolton treachery be revealed. Cannot be allowed to send raven.
· Strong implication of a trap and tipoff

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn IV

When they brought him word of the battle at Duskendale, where Lord Randyll Tarly had shattered Robett Glover and Ser Helman Tallhart, he might have been expected to rage.

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion VIII

But who would be mad enough to contest Joffrey's rule now, after what had befallen Stannis Baratheon and Robb Stark? There was still fighting in the riverlands, but everywhere the coils were tightening. Ser Gregor Clegane had crossed the Trident and seized the ruby ford, then captured Harrenhal almost effortlessly. Seagard had yielded to Black Walder Frey, ~Lord Randyll Tarly held Maidenpool, Duskendale, and the kingsroad.~

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion III

"No," their father said. "With the war. Varys."
The eunuch smiled a silken smile. "I have such delicious tidings for you all, my lords. Yesterday at dawn our ~brave Lord Randyll caught Robett Glover outside Duskendale and trapped him against the sea. Losses were heavy on both sides, but in the end our loyal men prevailed. Ser Helman Tallhart is reported dead, with a thousand others. Robett Glover leads the survivors back toward Harrenhal in bloody disarray, little dreaming he will find valiant Ser Gregor and his stalwarts athwart his path."~

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion I

"Until Lord Redwyne brings his fleet up, we lack the ships to assail Dragonstone. It makes no matter. Stannis Baratheon's sun set on the Blackwater. ~As for Stark, the boy is still in the west, but a large force of northmen under Helman Tallhart and Robett Glover are descending toward Duskendale. I've sent Lord Tarly to meet them, while Ser Gregor drives up the kingsroad to cut off their retreat.~ Tallhart and Glover will be caught between them, with a third of Stark's strength."

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn IV

When they brought him word of the battle at Duskendale, where ~Lord Randyll Tarly had shattered Robett Glover and Ser Helman Tallhart,~ he might have been expected to rage. Instead he'd stared in dumb disbelief and said, "Duskendale, on the narrow sea? Why would they go to Duskendale?" He'd shook his head, bewildered. "A third of my foot, lost for Duskendale?"
"The ironmen have my castle and now the Lannisters hold my brother," Galbart Glover said, in a voice thick with despair. Robett Glover had survived the battle, but had been captured near the kingsroad not long after.

A Feast for Crows - Brienne II

Lord Randyll Tarly had commanded Joffrey's army, made up of westermen and stormlanders and knights from the Reach. Those men of his who had died here had been carried back inside the walls, to rest in heroes' tombs beneath the septs of Duskendale. The northern dead, far more numerous, were buried in a common grave beside the sea. Above the cairn that marked their resting place, the victors had raised a rough-hewn wooden marker. HERE LIE THE WOLVES was all it said. Brienne stopped beside it and said a silent prayer for them, and for Catelyn Stark and her son Robb and all the men who'd died with them as well.

Analysis

Firstly we start with the obvious comparison. Tarly lets Robert escape when Mace otherwise very nearly won the war. Given another chance, Randyll pins his enemy against the sea and plans to not let a man escape. Having somewhat surrounded the opponent on known land, with reinforcements (Clegane) behind him, he still manages to suffer heavy casualties, and the target (XXXX) escapes.
What a colossal mistake. The only good news is he intercepted enough of the force that it seems no ravens got sent off showing exactly what happened, as if one message got back, the whole red wedding could have been undone.
Now prior posts have analyzed duskendale about allowing paths of retreat, and number of losses, but I think there are three key takeaways
1) The stark contrast between this and his tactics at Ashford
2) The fact that he failed to capture the host and Gregor Clegane had to clean up the mess
3) The fact he suffered heavy losses when by all rights he had every advantage (and still failed to capture the army)
Interestingly, the message that gets to Robb is that Tarly shattered glover. The actual message from Varys is only 1000 were killed, with Tallhart. Now its difficult to say how many foot there were, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that 1000 is less than to around half the force. Clegane captures Glover in the aftermath (thankfully), and Robb gets the report that Tarly shattered the force, when in actuality a good chunk of it was Clegane.
As a sidenote- this is indicative that Clegane actually isn’t a bad commander, and in turn this makes the fact that Edmure Tully threw him back more impressive.
We also don’t hear of any captives other than the ones taken by Clegane. It appears Tarly is putting men to the sword (SEE EARLIER).
Now before we get into conspiracy theories, we see Glover in ADWD conspiring with Madderly to help the starks and Stannis, so it seems this was not some cunning scheme where he secretly got himself captured.
Interestingly, the graves Brienne sees seem to indicate a crushing victory for Tarly, like the one described by Robb. This however is at odds with the report of Varys, and the fact Clegane had to mop up the leftover army. Now there are a few possibilities for this. Varys could be wrong/lying, heavy losses is being thrown around as a relative term (but that seems suspect), or the total of Tarly dead and Clegane’s role is being hidden. The last seems the most likely, Robb hears of a crushing defeat led by Tarly not Clegane (which we know is at least partially false), the dead he kills don’t add up, and there’s no mention of Clegane whom definitely did some of the work.
Also even assuming the whole situation is true and Tarly killed men at a 2/1 ratio, this assumes there are 500 heroes tombs under the septs at Duskendale. Simply put, there may not be that many. The whole aftermath stinks of a coverup. Tarly is getting Cleganes credit (and interestingly, it’s around now that Tywin decides not to give Clegane to oberyn).
Finally we get to the tinfoily bit. Helman garrisoned with Walder Frey to make sure he kept peace. Of the two lords, Helman is arguably more problematic, he knows more of Frey habits (when Tywin is scheming a betrayal) and his nephew is a possible hornwood claimant (cough Roose cough). If there was a conspiracy to kill one and ransom the other – I can see a world where Talhart is the one to be killed. In all reality though, this is a bit too ambitious, and in reality one just died and one escaped – without some super scheme that Tarly was involved in.
So in summary – once again Tarly fails his mission. At best, he bloodies an out of position army whilst taking heavy casualties, with his reinforcements on the way, and half the army breaks free (admittedly into Clegane). This is not a great display of prowess. We also know its possible to capture these men as hostages, as Clegane successfully does so – and Tarly fails to once again. Now it’s not catastrophic as the Northerners are bleeding men and trading troops tit for tat is beneficial, but the battle itself (the thing Randyll is in charge of) is highly unimpressive. The strategic victory goes to Tywin, whom in truth entrusts it as much to Gregor Clegane as to Tarly. As it so happens, Clegane delivers and Tarly doesn’t.

A summary as a commander

Talk about failing upwards
· Charging ahead, he is able to turn a crushing win into an indecisive one which ultimately leads to Roberts Rebellion succeeding
· He gives counsel to Renly about the sun when renly knows that the sheer strength of his cavalry makes the issue moot. Renly all but ignores him.
· He doesn’t appear to do much during the battle of the blackwater
· He manages to mess up essentially an ambush at Duskendale despite reinforcements being on the way
· As a result of the 4 above points, he is given, lands, titles, honors and a position on the small council.
Upon actually reviewing his achievements and each individual battle, I’ve 180’d on Tarly. George RR Martin does a great job building him up, and having everyone describe him as a great commander, but actually unpacking his battles, he looks pretty underwhelming. The most important battle he won was Ashford, but that was a strategic catastrophe which otherwise could have potentially let Mace Tyrell win the war. Afterwards he’s carefully managed, with Renly outright dismissing him, Mace keeping the key positions of command in other people’s hands and Tywin going so far as to dispatch a trusted force behind him in the event he fails again – WHICH HE DOES.

Politicks, Loyalties and Conspiracies

There’s a lot to get through so I’m not going to source everything here. Rather, I’ll list dot points, and we will be collecting everything under theories. In time it may be worth sourcing this all, but for now, I want to get something out – so it’ll be shortform
· Historically house is blackfyre
· Renly Sworn NOT STANNIS
· Joined at bitterbridge to Renly
· Shadowbaby and killing others
· VIEWS ON MAESTERS
· Killing Stannis supporters at bitterbridge
· Saving Brienne
· Helping Brienne / Bewilderment
· Views on Women and Strongmen
· Sam, Maesters, the Marches and Strength
· Maidenpool Rulership
· Renown amonst common men
· Downplaying the Golden Company
· Bravosi Debts
· Taking the QUEEN ahead of Mace Tyrell

Theoreis Stemming off Data

The Blackfyre Theory

Let’s assume that Randyll supported the Blackfyres because his house traditionally were Blackfyre Loyalists. This is a little thin on evidence, but quite a few of his actions also support this, lending some credence to the theory
1) He swore to Renly not Stannis.
a. Stannis was 17 or 18 when he held storms end. He is approximately 13 years older than Renly, making Renly 5 at the time. This means that during Roberts Rebellion, for all relevant purposes, Renly was a non-participant, whilst Stannis actively fought against the dragons. If Randyll is a dragon supporter, his repulsion at joining Stannis is apparent.
b. In fact, he goes as far as to kill stannis supporters at bitterbridge to consolidate the reach forces. This is interesting as it contrasts stannis whom takes pains to not kill the karstarks to a man once he realizes their treason.
2) He downplays the golden company
a. At the end of AFWC, Randyll is downplaying the golden company as much as he can. If we assume he is pro-dragon, this gives time for the blackfyre cause to swell, as he delays Kevan Lannister to the best of his ability
3) He hates the Maesters
a. Between the Grand Maester Conspiracy [LINK], lady Dustin’s general hatred of Maesters and Marwyn’s comments about Maesters and Dragons, it seems credible that dragon supporters may have cause to mistrust Maesters. Indeed, we get hints of this from Doran, and a general mistrust of Maesters by some of the lesser lords.
i. "I would need a bucket, with this pain. Thank you, but no. I want my wits about me. I'll have no more need of you tonight."
b. This explains also why he is so determined Sam will not become a Maester and why he drives him to the nights watch. If he is a loyalist, he’s never going to let a member of his family into an enemy order. If Sam is given any sort of free reign in a role other than lord, he’s going to end up a Maester (indeed even at the nights watch he ends up there, despite his protests and fears of his fathers wroth).
4) Do we actually see any trouble in the marches. I don’t think we do and it’s only STANNIS who fears dorne through the marches, not Tarly or Tyrell. In fact, this area is left undefended when they march on the blackwater.
a. I have a sub-theory that despite complaining a lot, we don’t see any real antagonism between Dorne and the reach throughout the series, just some loud complaining that makes us think of antagonism. Oberyn hints at this to Tyrion.
5) Killing Florents
a. Florents have ties to Stannis
b. Florents are Tyrell rivals
c. Florents instantly defect to stannis. Note they were set aside by dragons over highgarden
d. Their protests were denied by King Aegon I, perhaps because the Florents had fought House Targaryen when the Tyrells did not.
e. https://www.reddit.com/asoiaf/comments/3tr6gx/spoilers_all_house_of_the_week_house_florent/
i. Theories florents Green
6) This is of course also consistent with him racing Ahead of Mace Tyrell’s army and having the Tyrell queen taken into his personal custody. Unfortunately, this bodes badly for our lovely doe-eyed Margery. Oh well.
7) ~If it were up to me, I would send them all to the Night's Watch, and Connington with them. The Wall is where such scum belong."~ He’s setting it up so the only legitimate claimant of JonCon’s lands is in fact, JonCon. Obviously a new lord can be appointed, but this suggested move adds legitimacy to the blackfyre cause, removing the heir apparent and putting JonCon back in his ancestral lands without a real challenger.

1) The ‘show of strength / toxic masculinity theory’
a. This theory has to do with Tarly appearing competent millirarily rather than being competent. He doles harsh justice and havy discipline, which in some ways hides his lackluster results as a commander. I should note this is the weakest of the three theories, but it sort of feeds into the other two.
b. This would be indicative of his hatred for Sam. The moment the ‘veil’ of masculinity and strength is lifted, his actual achievements are lackluster
c. After ashford he appears much more brutal than before. We have no indication he was brutal pre Ashford, and post ashford he’s executing enemies, cornering and murdering northmen to a man (as best he can at least) and doling out harsher justice than his peers
d. Every character who speaks of Tarly speaks of his millirary accolades. I think his ‘larger than life’ persona has played at least a part in this, and Tarly looks the part as the veteran commander.
e. I ought to note this theory doesn’t stop Tarly from playing the game of thrones, it just suggests he isn’t an exceptional tactical commander. Logistically, he has always been with the winning side as a vassal, he’s been able to spin every battle to gain honors and accolades, and he has a knack for being in the right place at the right time (declaring for renly early, being in the van at ashford etc.)
f. All that aside, this theory also doesn’t stop Tarly from being a jerk. Given how he acts to Sam and both towards and around Brienne, we are naturally inclined to mislike him as a harsh leader.
2) Not as dumb as he looks theory
a. He’s taken the queen into his personal Custody. We literally heard from Renly back in book 1 – he who holds the XXXX holds the crown. With all the chaos in the recent books, it’s easy to miss, but this is a huge move in the game of thrones. The Tyrells do not have the queen. Tarly does.
b. As far as I can tell, he’s never been at real risk in a battle since Ashford. He had backup and numbers at duskendale, a massive host at the blackwater, The Siege of Storms End was just a great big preservation of army by Mace whilst Roberts rebellion raged, and the Siege on Stannis was totally lopsided but for magic shadow-baby.
c. Dorne does not seem to have acted against him once nor demanded concessions. [CHECK]. For a lord in the Dornish Marches which have been tumultuous for years, this is somewhat of a big deal. He also seems to be unafraid of moving his forced forward – we have no indication he left levies to protect himself from Dorne, hinting that he wasn’t afraid of Dorne misbehaving (even if only to harry border towns, a bit like Bolton grabbing up the hornwood lands).
d. He sucks up to the bravosi Banker when all the debts are being called in. We have this picture of this strong, just, military man, but the banker scene shows he’s not just a sword arm, and he knows when to suck up. This is important as it shows he is at least considering the wider world and the future outside of the battles, as opposed to a certain dwarf whom never actually meets the bankers.
e. He has turned a bunch of mediocre achievements into being renowned as the greatest soldier in the realm. By all rights, Stannis and Robb are much better commanders (with the caveat that Robb was only good tactically). If we want to get nasty, Mace Tyrell has only won crushing victories – with the exception of ashford (messed up by Tarly) and storms end (where he lost no troops in a rebellion that depleted most of the realm).
i. The most competent appearing thing he said was to not charge into the sun, which was largely irrelevant when plated heavy cavalry is charging into boiled leather. As Renly said to Stannis, his force wouldn’t survive first impact, so this whole sun business is a bit silly.
ii. Arguably the most competent thing was executing all the soldiers considering going over to Stannis, but I’m not sure if this is truly competent or just brutality – Stannis did not do the same with the Karstarks in a similar position.
f. He’s bypassed succession laws. By getting rid of Sam he has set himself up with his chosen heir. Look at the thorny knot Tywin tied himself with Tyrion, whom still arguably is the rightful heir to Castelry Rock (which he made full use of with the Second Suns). We know Maesters can be kicked out of the order (see our favourite necromancer), and can be used to play with succession (Aemon is a good example, albeit he said no) and I don’t really see Sam as a priest.
i. There’s actually a good question as to whether he would have killed Sam. The gods hate kinslayers, and the threat sufficed. If we assume tarly isn’t an idiot, he would have realized the threat likely sufficient.
g. Given how he sets himself up at Maidenpool, its hinted that the Maidenpool land is part of his reward for the blackwater. We never hear of exactly ‘what’ Tarly’s reward is, except in the aftermath he’s patrolling Duskendale (still seemingly with house Rykker),, Maidenpool and the kings road, and seems to be setting himself up in Maidenpool for the long haul. In AFFC, Tarly’s heir is married off to Eleanor Mooton (the seeming heiress to maidenpool) and Tommen pardons Moonton. Maidenpool is a major port in the world of Ice and Fire, which would make it a fine reward[[1]](#_ftn1).
1.

Other key takeaways

BRIENNE THING

A Feast for Crows - Brienne III

Randyll Tarly solved the mystery the day he sent two of his men-at-arms to summon her to his pavilion. His young son Dickon had overheard four knights laughing as they saddled up their horses, and had told his lord father what they said.

… "The gods made men to fight, and women to bear children," said Randyll Tarly. "A woman's war is in the birthing bed."
Someone was coming down the cellar steps. Brienne pushed her wine aside as a ragged, scrawny, sharp-faced man with dirty brown hair stepped into the Goose. He gave the Tyroshi sailors a quick look and Brienne a longer one, then went up to the plank. "Wine," he said, "and none o' your horse piss in it, thank'e."

JUSTICE THING

Battle of the Blackwater – a step Sideways

In short
Randyll Tarly is a shrewd Blackfyre loyalist who now has custody of the queen, a position on the small council and whom is not considered a political threat. He’s not half the commander he’s made out to be, probably has anti-maester sentiment and is possibly friendly with Doran Martell. And he has an army.
This has been quite a ride and I’m sure I got many details wrong so let’s end on a high note. Given all this, I expect Randyll to sacrifice Margery and prove ser pounce’s lineage to the age of conquest. Tommen will blindly stamp a document marrying himself to the cat, the white walkers will be appeased (their problem is only humans), and everyone lives happily ever after except for Danerys who dies.
Maidenpool
https://preview.redd.it/4gfx1jxsbd1d1.png?width=217&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6c648fe2853a80f249aeae5546a21b38b4123e9

https://preview.redd.it/k8457xokad1d1.png?width=214&format=png&auto=webp&s=307adce84cafc2965bb483d4adcf31d8dd7ee576
Photo above - America's $2 trillion office skyscraper market is imploding. Can Tareq and Christina help transition it to affordable housing?
Suppose someone told you that the big city office vacancy rate was 20%. Would you consider this a crisis? Or would you wait for a government response which said that “vacancy rates are complicated, and not all methods arrive at the same 20% number. Some are as a low as 3.4%” . . . ?
The US vacancy rate actually IS 20% (see link below). And nobody in DC is yet claiming the numbers are bogus. However, the month isn't over yet and those stats were just released on Friday. And this IS an election year.
There aren't many office towers where I live. However, I DO know that about 20% of the stores are vacant at the 2 malls I still visit. I buy about 20% of my stuff on Amazon now. Dishwasher tabs delivered on Friday. I did not have to scour the 3rd class mail adverts from supermarkets to figure out which – if any – store was having a sale this week. I'm gradually moving to an “all Amazon” purchase model. I still buy fresh fruits, frozen foods, and eggs/milk at the grocery store. And heavy stuff like cases of water and soda. But I got a gallon of canola oil from Amazon earlier this month. $2 less than Piggly Wiggly. If Amazon ever gets shoe sizes right, it's doom-ocalypse for mall shoe stores.
Back to office vacancies. I don't blame myself for empty offices, like I do with malls. I'm just fighting inflation when I shop Amazon. I have nothing to do with why millions of people are suddenly working from home. That's entirely on congress. In addition to adding about $7 trillion to the national debt, covid lockdowns proved lots of people can work from their dining rooms and almost impersonate being at the office. The only people NOT allowed to work from home appear to be government employees. Can we see if senators and house members can be kept home? And can we lock them out of Zoom so they pull less stuff on us while WE are working?
How much is 20% of the office marketplace worth? The Columbia University study in the link below doesn't say. So I googled “total US office space” (11 billon square feet) and multiplied it by $200 (2023 cost per square foot of office space transactions). It comes to . . . $2.2 trillion. Which seems high if you're an ordinary wage slave like me. Or low, if you visit any city and gaze up at something like Trump Towers. In any case, those vacancies mean potentially $400 billion in loan defaults. About the same as the 2008 bank bailouts during the real estate crisis. Will we be seeing Tareq and Christina launching a new “flip or flop” show to rehab Trump Towers into something else, after Letitia James seizes it in court?
The Columbia study suggests that vacant office towers in places like Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco should be turned into apartments. After all, we ARE having an affordable housing crisis too. But before we put the pedal to the metal on that, maybe we ought to commission a study on who actually wants to live in an urban high rise, with high taxes, high crime, and high grocery prices. Suppose they're happier living in the 'burbs, and working from their suburban dining rooms, 40 miles from downtown?
I'm just sayin' . . .
~'Vicious cycle': US office vacancy levels hit record high — are we on the precipice of an 'urban doom loop?' (msn.com)~