***** He's a pour man that took in other pour. is he a psychopath? He might be, it's not clear, does he tell others what he has to as a means to a end? Yes everyone does, that's what politics is.
d Kim ROFL he's a MASSIVE improvement over the previous rulers, so far, I should say, who knows what might happen but considering the incestuous murderous corrupt tyrants who he replaced, religious cunt sound pretty good by comparison. IMAO of course...
I am on the fence with the guy. So far he IS only going after the b-tches with the riches who had it coming anyways... but anyone who has that kind of power (as well as those fanatical of a following) is already teetering on the edge of becoming the very villain they seek to eliminate or convert. For those who hate the HS (because he is religious, and you're probably one of those SJW types who hates christians and see him as an analogy): until he f-cks a baby or feeds one to dogs, he's alright with me.... for now.
I still can't understand how _anyone_ could think the High Sparrow was against feudalism and feudal succession. He literally told Margaery that it's her obligation to give the king an heir no matter what. It doesn't get any more feudal. As a matter of fact, the High Sparrow was even more outspoken about his support of feudalism than most of the feudal lords.
> Machiavellian..............that term is such an insult to a great man who revealed shitty selfish tactics that are used by politicians, its like calling George Washington a murderous rebel, why do you kiddies use that term your insulting a man who was not even bad
Søren Markov who said, that 'machiavellian' is meant in a bad way? of course he was a great man and one of the most important political scholars. refering to him when describing someone's behaior can be a way to show him the respect he earned. ;)
Yes he was nice, but look what he did, he fed a few peasants, and made the skeleton of a Sept... What did the Sparrow do?! He fed hundreds and hundreds of peasants suffering from the war, and made the nobles eat a bit of shit for the crap they gave the poor... The nice Septon was great, but the Sparrow was way better for the people.
I actually always hated Cercie. She has evil in her heart. Since she was young. That's why she hates her brother and hates all the women who could take her place in the kingdom. But the HS isn't as evil. He is fair most of the time. Or maybe more than most. Either way I like this video.
I doubt people dislike the High Sparrow just because he's religious. After all, there were religious people in Westeros before him, and there still are after he's gone. I don't recall any hatred for Septa Mordane. One reason I dislike him is because he's false. Cersei deserved to be arrested, but Margaery? Hardly. And it does seem very selective. He seemed to be deliberately going after the "great houses", regardless of what they'd done. There's no sense that he genuinely cares about being just. And of course, the sheer arrogance of claiming you speak for the gods is never going to win friends and influence people. This is without even getting into the vile faith militant, who rule by fear alone, and are again very selective with their targets. Note how they cowered after Sir Gregor killed one of them, rather than do what they were supposed to do and bring Cersei to the High Sparrow. I won't pretend to have any respect for religion because I grew out of fairytales as a child but I have no dislike for Sansa, and she's certainly religious, not a fanatic, but religious all the same. Many of the characters believe in a god or gods of some sort.
If you support the High Sparrow you basically support the persecution of homosexuals and prostitutes. Wow, great job, you support the homophobic self-righteous High Sparrow.
+starlightshimmers great job having not actually watched the video. I like him as a character and what he means for the show. Not because I support what he's meant to represent starlightshitter
You really have a poor understanding about the actual Spanish Inquisition. The Sparrow is a pussy cat compared to Tomás de Torquemada. Seriously, you need to do some homework so as to not make such ignorant and silly statements in public.
I like the high sparrow! Or maybe I just like Jonathon Pryce.... Great analogy of why we don't like him, the projection of our feelings from modern times. No one likes him and he's actually done good deeds for the common people, unlike bitchface Cersei who even vetoed giving the leftover extravagant wedding food to the poor. And I don't get the hate for Tommen that rages on some boards either. He's a KID being manipulated by all these players who want power. In his young life he's seen his "father" die, his grandfather and two siblings murdered, his wife and mother imprisoned. He was the baby of the family, never groomed for this, he just wanted to play with Ser Pounce and now he is actually trying to do what is right. Nothing he has done is mean or evil or malicious. So I feel sorry for him and his mistakes, but I don't want him dead like most people seem to!
They kinda forget that a lot of the characters are young and has always been manipulated by the older players. Wanting a child to die because he likes to listen to reasonable (in his mind) counsel just as his grandfather taught him and then cheering for another child to learn how to ruthlessly kill is fucked up.
I don't hate him because of gay right or because he's sexist, I hate him for being a hypocrite and preaching for equality, except not really, since he get's to decide who is equal and who is not, and he get's to be the one in power, and I also hate how he thinks that he knows what "gods" are thinking. High sparrow movement is about putting a high sparrow on the seat of power and it's not about the rights of common people. Just because feudalism is wrong doesn't make HS right, he isn't against feudalism as long as it benefits him and his cause. He brainwashes common people to die for him and his cause. He just wants to exchange noble masters for cleric masters.
Well we don't know if he's only on it for power for himself or wants to change the system. I don't know where you are pulling these "facts"... Out of your ass? Also "cleric masters" wouldn't exist. It wouldn't work like feudalism, because there would be more of a voting system where you elect local leaders and village elder. If you look at history it didn't go that way and it wouldn't go that way in the series.
bassisku If you look at the history it did go that way, kings responded to Rome and Pope, Pope was the head of the church, they didn't change feudalism, they were just another thing people needed to answer to. People payed taxes to the church from many countries, and clergy got courropted. And no, common people didn't elect these clerics. High Sparrow supports the divine law of king as long as he can be at the top. He knows about incest and yet he would rather support Tommen for his claim than Dany or Stannis(alive in the books) because he knows he wont be in power with them on the throne. But ok we'll see if I'm pulling everything "out of my ass" by the end of the books and show.
i'm awesome High Sparrow is clearly a character based on Martin Luther, a radical preacher who completely changed the way religion/the feudal system operated in Europe.
Too bad, even Tyrion is trying to mix politis and religion. I thing, it is becoming as much as war between religions as it is war between kings & lords. There can be fight between tree gods, 7 gods, lord of lights god, drowned god, 3 eyed raven god, faceless god, harpy.
Within the setting (and for every human society throughout history, with the exception of European-descended nations created within literally the last 10 generations) the concept of politics and religion not being unified is absolutely absurd. They don't even distinguish clearly between the words used for "politics" and "religion", with politics being a thing that occurs WITHIN religion just as much as it does within the aristocracy until pure secularism is a thing that manages to violently overthrow the preceding unitary systems with massive, popular revolutions. And everybody is a wee bit too busy worrying about whose going to sit on the Iron Throne, what's going to happen with the White Walkers, and whether or not they're going to manage to keep themselves alive and how much booty they can run off with in the mean-time, to even CONSIDER the thought of overthrowing their entire political/religious system so that they can institute the fluffy idea of secularism because... "they should never mix". They don't give a flying fuck. And neither would you have if you lived then. You would have been too busy digging barely edible turnips out of the ground to think about literally anything besides the aching pain in your back and how to feed your family, and maybe a little bit about who the local strong man is and how you can act docile or subservient so you can be left alone to continue your wretched life of trying to keep yourself alive month to month.
RosscoAW I am sorry, but the concept of separation of Church and state is nothing terribly new, we can even see it in discussions of the roles of the Church and the roles of kings in the middle ages. The problem is that people today confuse any kind of cooperation between the two for theocracy which is just wrong.
NewName You clearly don't understand or study history/polisci history at all, so... okay then, go on believing that if it helps you to validate and support your own contemporary worldview. I don't have any problem with you needing to fabricate evidence to justify your perception, if it's easier and personally healthier for you to continue doing that than it is to perceive accurately, so long as you are neither directly nor indirectly causing harm in the process. That aside, I would point out that nowhere did I state or even imply that the concept of separation did not exist, nor that it 'church' and 'state' didn't exist as parellel institutions within the unified system of religious-politicism / social absolutism. Moreover, I never even used the terms church and state, so I don't know how you came up with that conclusion; I can only assume that you took me saying "unified" to mean "they were literally one singular institution, without any distinction", which is just quite a leap to make. Moreover, you seem to be implying only that church and state were distinct entities with a complex interplay during the middle ages; a complex interplay in which the royalty/aristocracy to gain supremacy over the church(es), and vice versa. Which is something I completely agree with, and talked about in my post explicitly: "with politics being a thing that occurs WITHIN religion just as much as it does within the aristocracy". I will grant that I should have said "WITHIN and BETWEEN religion and politics", which, again, is the reality of the situation. I might add that your concluding sentence is perfectly accurate and insightful, leaving me a bit confused as to the disconnect and disparity of rationale between that sentence and every preceding line of your comment.
All stories with fictional religions have same problem. The audience cannot relate with faith in knowingly imaginary gods. And by extension, we cannot relate to characters whos identity is strongly linked with that faith. Without empathy, there is lack of interest.
But they're really no different to religions people actually believe in. Then again, maybe a Christian can't empathise with the faith of a Hindu since the worship is being directed at a different deity. It all looks the same to me.
I would disagree. The coolest part about Warhammer and Warhammer 40k is learning more about the chaos gods and just pretending to a chaos zealot. It's just that the 7 just aren't interesting gods.
So you're saying I should like a character that would imprison and torture me because of who I love? Hell no. We don't choose who we fall in love with, people like him are the worst.
You didn´t get the point.. the real reason for imprisoning Loras, was not his love for man (that was just the excuse), he was imprisoned to make a noble house weak, and mainly because Cersei planned it that way, so she need not to marry him
He is the worst. Except all the others. Cersei gave him weapons and authority and then informed him that Loras was gay and produced evidence. She was behind it.
Strange, they are egalitarian in terms of gender and sexuality, but at least the gender aspects don't stem from progressiveness. The Rhoynish, as far as I know just never adopted such stringent gender roles in the first place, and the last of the Rhoynish were led by Nymeria (who married into House Martell) so there are important ancestral reasons for them to act as much. It's not so much they want to progress beyond social traditions, rather they see it as their way of holding on to social traditions.
As well as poisoning children and stabbing people through the face! Let us also not forget about murdering your king and his son due to petty emotions and getting away with it. Now "that's" progressive!
I love Ramsey, he's the only character that realises that GoT is supposed to be comedy. Shame that GRRM didn't relay that info to DnD, they think it's a serious drama lol
Now everybody is going to pretend to like the High Sparrow because it's perceived as unconventional... here we go. The bottom line is, hatred for him is thoroughly justified regardless of what standards you judge him by. He's a pretty shitty person by just about any standards, actually.He is hypocritically egotistical, manipulative, homophobic, sexist (even for the time period - there have been many historical cultures that were permissive of sexual expression), self-righteous, and not to mention sadistic. He locks human beings up in secluded cells like animals in cages for months on end, which is pure psychological torture, or makes them walk through the streets naked for the purpose of humiliation. The fact that he PRETENDS to be a moral individual is what makes him more reprehensible than even conventionally appalling characters like Ramsay and Joffrey, who at least acknowledge their shittiness.
I agree with you. GOT Academy is always focusing on his fiscal policies and how great that he's making the elitists pay- but he's only focusing on their personal "sins", he's obsessed with other people's sex lives. Why are only the sexual sins punished and all the other sins and exploitation is overlooked? I see him punishing women and weak men every time like a bully who only looks for weaker victims than himself. He never punishes the ruling men and they are the biggest sinners of them all! Because even though he wants to bring down the lords, he will just replace them with more oppressive patriarchal taliban crap. I really don't care about someone's economic policies when they are a sadistic bigoted fanatic.
I think that was an unfair assessment of Ned Stark; while he did inherit his position he was one of the kindest more compassionate lords in Westeros, he always treated smallfolk with respect be they from the North or King's Landing. In the books Ned always leaves a vacant seat for guests at his family dining table and would listen to their stories and everyday life with his wife and children present, whether its the blacksmith, baker, Old Nan or the captain of the guards.
I know, This channel can tend to over-generalize on its analysis, quite often in fact. Ned may have been in power, but he hated to abuse power and only used it when he felt it was his absolute duty to, and despised the idea of using it to abuse people. He didn't kill the deserter for no reason, and it was easy to tell that he did not like doing it at all, but again he felt duty bound to follow the deeply ingrained laws that the north has followed for thousands of years. GoT academy had to totally butcher Neds character just to create a bad example out of him. And you are right about ned's compassion, but i have a 'stark' suspicion that the previous stark generations had a very similar sense of justice and small-folk compassion that has been passed down. It could be argued that in the world of GoT, the Starks have one of the most progressive mentalities in westeros relative to most feudal lords.
True, but he was still happy to maintain the status quo as that's what benefited him. He was kind to the smallfolk, but wasn't pushing for reform or a more equal distribution of resources. The 'kindness' of letting them sit politely at his table and eat the food that the smallfolk themselves had grown for him could be viewed as egotistical as well.
Wild Bill CH The status quo was maintained not because it suited Ned Stark, but because there was no need for social reforms in the North. All the social reformations are more likely to happen in the South, which is what the sparrow movement is all about. The Starks have always protected and supported their smallfolk e.g. the existence of Wintertown was to give the smallfolk a place to stay during the long winters and the food stores & glass gardens of Winterfell to feed them. Is that not an equal distribution of resources during the harshest time of winter? The only time when this status quo was broken was when the Boltons burned Winterfell and betrayed the Starks. Is it egotistical to bring your employees to your family dining to listen their ideas that could make their work and lives go better? Also teaching his children how to treat the smallfolk when they become lords and ladies for their own castles?
Yeah, he's a total fraud. There was no trial for Lancel, and apparently the walk of atonement is the right punishment except when the King conveniently shows up supporting the HS. Or maybe the Gods flip-flopped jut in time.
SuperCaelia Oh, yeah! He's definitely full of shit. Maybe he's just lying for religious reasons, but it's Tits and Dragons, so there's gotta be something political or personal behind it
This is an easy statement as heterosexuals-cishet men especially-to make. But Loras is one stand in, with his tortures for his homesexuality undertold, for every homesexual person. Many characters canonically morally-accept Loras' extracurricular activities, whether out of love or apathy. Let's not forget he's a youth, as well. I can't even blame most characters, in this time, for their actions; such as, Cersei, who, as a woman, faces that mind distorting regularized discrimination, that is 'sexism'. We never needed religion to stunt, slow, temporarily cease the progress of enlightenment or scientific research, like they did. I can't wait for the faith to be destroyed with the rest of the capital with fire, green or red, I want to see them Hell'd and hate this clearly-polarizing title. But I guess that's just my queer opinion. (I usually like these videos but this one had Cis•Het privledge all over it)
If you support the High Sparrow you basically support the persecution of homosexuals and prostitutes. Wow, great job, you support the homophobic self-righteous High Sparrow.
In the books he doesn't persecute homosexuals or prostitutes. He actually prays for prostitutes, and encourages them to change there ways. He arrests Margery, but for charges of infidelity(Cersei created said rumors). And as Cersei and her demon spawn have shown, queen infidelity is a serious issue.
Also, we don't quite know what is actually happening to Margery in the books. I get the feeling he knows what Cersei was trying to do and is in cahoots with Margery.
The High Sparrow is easy to hate in the show because they sort of attached him to these weird anti-homosexual tones the show contrived so Ser Loras could be put on trial. Because that was important to the show runners, for whatever reason. This doesn't occur in the books. The Sparrow is easier to like as a seemingly just and righteous man who's risen up from the ruins of the feast for crows that is the riverlands. The War of the Five Kings devastated the land, it was the smallfolk who suffered. It was these victims of war that carried the high sparrow into the city on their shoulders.. He was installed by the demand of the people, not by the mechanizations of Cersi lannister like in the show. He's a seemingly good, if taciturn man who has the best interest for the people at heart. He's feared and hated by our King's Landing point of view characters for the same reason they fear Stannis. Because he's a man with both power and a sense of justice, and our point of view characters are generally horrible people.
Of course we only see him whilst he is playing "the game". Perhaps if we saw him enacting his philosophy of helping the people along side his aspect of justice, he would be much more likable (I think.)
I do think the show's portrayal is what might still happen in the books. That the sparrow movement spirals out of control and becomes ever increasingly fanatic and violent.
I like the High Sparrow. I don´t understand how people can hate him. Spirituality is part of human nature, imo. It's good. I like how he´s living a simple life without unnecessary luxuries.
GoT Academy I didn't say he personally is worse than Joffrey. But now that you bring that up (for no apparent reason) I say that he is actually worse than Cersei and Joffrey. To quote C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth." You compared Theocracy to Feudalism and depict Theocracy as better, even though at best it has the same faults as Feudalism. At worst it's actually far worse.
Actually feudalism could work out well sometimes. Nobody seemed unhappy under the Stark rule, for example. The signs were there that most people who served the starks loved them. Furthermore, Ned Stark would have been a fair ruler after Robert's death. Theocracy, on the other hand, is by definition a lie given to the masses in order to control them. And w regards to your 1% resentment, please get over it you disgusting marxists. There's always going to be wealthier people than you or me, that doesn't make them evil by definition. Under any system there's going to be differences in wealth, otherwise there wouldn't be incentives to produce anything.
Let me quote the story: Joffrey murdered 20 babies, Cersei kills random people who make fun of her, and the crime of the High Sparrow are shaming Cersei and imprisoning a lord at the behest and request and setup of Cersei.
Anyways, the fact that you're quoting someone that lived in the 19th and 20th century is what's important. If we judge the characters by modern standards, all the lords are rapists and murderers. We can't judge one character by 21st century values and all the others by 15th century values.
when religion ruled the world, it was called the dark ages. the world this high sparrow would replace the current would only be a different kind of hell than the one peasants live in now. and ◇spoilers◇ the beloved high septon/sparrow goes full on Spanish Inquisition on anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his perception of the gods will.
And the dark ages were not actually so dark as people assume. There were higher literacy rates, higher life expectancy rates and higher infant mortality rates than the Roman Empire. The reason the dark ages are called the "dark" ages, is because many documents from that time have been lost, so we do not know as much as we would like. They are dark in the sense that we are not enlightened in some parts of that history, rather than dark as in no electricity or light.
Not really. In the early middle ages Christianity was still weak. Mainly confined to Italy, Greece, Anatolia and the Lavant. Over the course of the millenium it slowly spread across all of Europe. Eastern Europe didn't become fully Christian until the 15th century. Around 600 however most people in Europe still worshipped the pagan gods they had for centuries.
I totally agree with Itamar that the high sparrow would definitely lead to a new religious elite, and i also believe they would by nature operate very similarly to the old system, but even more uncompromising. Before many religious institutions get in power, they like to 'trump' themselves up as being the good guy, until they get into power. Take for example early Christianity. It made a lot of claims about serving the poor, until got in power and became one of the greatest sinkholes of wealth in history and based their power on that wealth, and not to mention the most rigid and uncompromising institution in europe. Unless the high sparrow actually advocated and encouraged meaningful change such as the notion that peasants should control their own farms, or that workers of all kind should control their own workplaces, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the high sparrow would not adopt nearly identical mechinizations of power and wealth to feudalism.
You guys make such an important work here!! Pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in the story, challenging the morals of the characters, you drag out into the light our own hypocrisy! You have no idea, or maybe you are among the few who have, how much I have learned about humanity just watching the fandom of this show loving, hating, taking sides and fighting each other. It is a show on its own! Thank you for your enlightening effort!
Hey Natalia! It's been very interesting to see people take sides without taking into account the realities of this world. We had this video in mind for a long time and waited for the opportunity to post glad. Glad you liked it so much :)
I like all your videos, and always looking forward to listen to you. I was thinking myself to right about all the hatred Oly received and what I think it means. Basically that we, as a society, have so little understanding of the human nature, the complexity of our motivations, and such a narrow picture of the world! Love from Romania! :)
He showed that he's not really a religious fanatic and is more concerned about actual power. If he actually was devoted solely to his faith then he wouldn't have caved on Margyrie's walk of shame just because they were able to create a crown and faith alliance. He's a schemer wanting only power no different than most of the major players in thrones
Guys, I have to say that I completely disagree with you here. First of all, he’s a fraud for at least two reasons: 1) Lancel wasn’t tried for regicide nor for having sex with Cersei, because he’s useful; 2) “the walk of atonement is the Gods’ punishment”… except, of course, if the King conveniently shows up on our side. In that case, the Gods don’t care. Secondly, it’s interesting how you dismiss anachronistic arguments AGAINST him (homophobia, fanaticism, “He’s ISIS!”), and then immediately proceed to make anachronistic arguments FOR him (class warfare, anti-elitism, “He’s Bernie Sanders!”). Implicitly, you assume that the latter anachronisms outweigh the former. I have 3 arguments against this: *1- Regime change*: the argument that he puts everyone “equal before the law” is false. By replacing the aristocracy with “the Gods”, he is merely creating a new class of oppressors which includes himself and anyone deemed worthy of interpreting “the Gods’ will”. But unlike the human aristocrats who may be flexible and restrained by reality, the Will of the Gods is always absolute and uncompromising. Instead of feudal lords, he offers mythical slave masters. *2- Medieval context*: the medieval mendicant movements which parallel the Sparrows were indeed charitable and tried to help the poor. However, by idolizing poverty itself, they did very little to actually solve it, and in fact incentivized their followers to _remain_ poor. Worse still, they were the main administrators of the early inquisition, producing characters like Robert le Bougre and Conrad of Marburg, famous for their cruelty and outright insanity. The inspiration for the HS himself may be Savonarola, who ran Florence and imposed an incredibly extreme puritanical regime, even by the standards of the time, and he was eventually deposed by an angry mob. Unlike the HS, however, Savonarola had some interesting republican ideals. So, even by the standards of the time, it’s very difficult to say that figures and “movements” like the Sparrows were actually beneficial to society. *3- Contemporary context*: Unlike in western countries, where religious militants are viewed as reactionary, in some Arab countries they have broad political support. Organizations such as Hezbollah and the Brotherhood are seen as an alternative to corrupt dictators and also provide support to the poor. However, as we see for instance in the case of Morsi in Egypt, when they reach power they quickly become _less_ popular than their predecessors. For all this, I think he deserves the readers’ hatred - he’s a charlatan with totalitarian ideals, which would make people worse off when compared to the status quo. Finally, we *do* have at least one “secular humanist” in this story: Tyrion!! Yes, he’s a rich aristocrat, but that doesn’t make him bad at all. Jon Snow, a proven leader who listens to his advisors, would be better than the HS. Even Littlefinger, the best economist in the realm with Braavosi Republican ideals, would be better. With all this people to root for, there is absolutely no reason to defend the HS.
I totally agree with you. As soon as thr church came back to power in England, it double downed on fanatacism with Bloody Queen Mary. The inquisition rose, but my first thought was Torquemada and that the death of the Sparrow will bring Lancel to the fore as the next iteration and likely at the behest of Bloody Queen Margaery
Hey Ricardo! We tried to say something good about his movement, less about the HS as a person. who can definitely be viewed as a power grabber and a charlatan (even though I'm not convinced of that, yet). If he is Savonarola, then he deserves our hatred, but he has some Francis of Assisi in him as well. And one cannot deny the fact that the Noblemen's games of thrones are hurting everyone, so they deserve our hatred as well. Of course the hatred/love towards the HS are both anachronistic (nothing wrong with that, like we said) - we can't avoid it because, well, it's a TV show/Books for a 21st century audience. We agree about Tyrion - and we see him as the one who will learn from everyone's mistakes, politically speaking.
Hey, yeah, you have a point in that this character, in typical GoT style, can’t be seen from a mere black and white point of view. And, of course, what I’ve said above doesn’t mean that the nobles are good. I just think he will actually be worse than them. For me personally, it’s hard not to look at him without thinking about what happened to my own country. Especially how in the 16th century Portugal was taken over by the inquisitors, even if this is slightly anachronistic to the time in the story. It’s hard not to remember how Lisbon changed. In the 15th century, it was a remarkably cosmopolitan, bohemian and tolerant city with Jewish and Muslim communities, full of traders from all over the world, where both male and female prostitution was tolerated. In 1506, the city experienced its first pogrom, incited by Dominican friars. In the following decades, Lisbon was gradually taken over and ravaged by religious nuts, forcing brilliant people into exile, censoring some of our best artists and thinkers, killing innocent people. As David Landes argues in “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”, it’s hard not to think of how these crazies greatly contributed to the country’s decline. I mean, of course there were other factors, and we surely had our fair share of terrible aristocratic leaders, but this is still pretty depressing stuff. So yeah, it’s really, really hard, knowing all this, to look at the HS and go: “Hey, let’s put him in charge! What can go wrong?”
9:20 The high sparrow doesn't want the wealth of the seven kingdoms to be distributed equally, he wants everybody to live a humble life without personal "indulging" with "unnecessary" earthly possessions. If the sparrow movement comes to control the seven kingdoms people won't be any better than the current situation. Sure, royal exploitation will be abolished, but there will be no freedom.. people wont be allowed to accumulate personal property, since it's un-seven-like. They will be "encouraged" to donate they "unneeded" property to the seven...
I'm saying that religious fanatics are not any better than any other form of autocratic rulers... You're trading one evil for another... The people of Westeros might get a better outcome by supporting Daenerys who (until last episode) seemed to care about the common people.
Daenerys embodies the sense of entitlement that Westerosi lords feel they have. From birth, she's been influenced by her dick brother Viserys who gave her a revisionist history of Targaryen rule of Westeros and whitewashed their father, the Mad King,'s crimes. She thinks the common people will support her because she has dragon blood despite never living on the mainland(she was born on Dragonstone and fled shortly thereafter.) Throughout her life, she's encountered different Essos cultures and cities. She fled to the Free Cities as an enfant and stayed with Illyrio Mopatis in Pentos for quite a while. Illyrio is clearly a self-made merchant who profits off of his excellent connections with the Dothraki and others. Then she met the Dothraki who rise to the top by raiding and pillaging the most villages and having the best combat record. In fact, their system of pride is a complete meritocracy where the undefeated allow their braids to grow indefinitely and the defeated must cut them off. After this, she stayed in Qarth. The spice merchant, leader of the Thirteen, openly mocks Daenerys' sense of entitlement and her title as "Mother of Dragons." He earned all his wealth. Daenerys only survives because of her Targaryen name. Xaro Xhoan Daxos admires the dragon queen more but he is also a self-made man, a savage from the Summer Isles who came to co-rule the greatest city that ever was, is, or will be. The trend in the Free Cities, the Dothraki, and Qarth is that everyone is self-made. Then she visits Slavers' Bay. No one is self-made there. The masters inherit their slaves just as an Andal lord inherits his castle. She freed the slaves and defeated the masters but then her own sense of entitlement clouded her judgement. She decided to march on after Astapor and Yunkai to Meereen and the masters retook the former two cities. And the Sons of the Harpy, paid for by the retaken cities and Volantis, now plague Meereen. Only Tyrion's wisdom while Daenerys was off rallying the Dothraki was able to quiet Meereen. She is not a reformer at all but rather an irresponsible revolutionary who doesn't understand the consequences of letting loose thousands of raping and pillaging warriors onto the continent of Westeros or threatening to abolish every single house("I don't want to stop the wheel. I want to break the wheel") besides her own. A cross between Clinton and Sanders' worst attributes. Clinton feeling entitled because of her family name and Sanders wanting a revolution to shake everything up, not realizing what will happen when the dust settles. In my opinion, Renly would have made the best king with Ned Stark as his Hand. The common people actually love Renly and Ned Stark would be able to reduce the effects of Renly's unnecessary extravagance. After that, Robb Stark as King/Warden of the North and Stannis King of the Andals, the First Men and the Rhoynar.
And then banish Littlefinger, Varys, and Melisandre to Asshai because they will mess everything up. Beric Dondarrion would make a good captain of the Kingsguard.
As you know, the Targaryens ruled the seven kingdoms for nearly three centuries before Robert Baratheon sacked King's Landing and ruled it for only a relatively short time. The Iron Throne itself is forged from the swords of Aegon the Conquerer's enemies. I'm not saying the Targaryens did a great job and weren't mad, or that Daenerys is even making good decisions. Basic storytelling won't permit her to have success after success without an eventual downfall. But to me it's easy to see what she feels "entitled" to the throne. It's her blood that built that throne in the first place.
Dannielle Withall, of course her blood has done a lot to secure that throne but were kings like Maegor the Cruel or Dany's father entitled to the throne? Yes, by the same logic and they were terrible rulers. My point is that Dany's travels throughout Essos have introduced her into much more meritocratic cultures than Westeros such as the Free Cities, the Dothraki, or Qarth where people earn their wealth through trade, knowledge, or combat. It is not guaranteed just because your father was Illyrio Mopatis or Khal Drogo that you will be just as great, yet Daenerys feels entitled to the seat of power on a continent she hasn't been since she was a baby. The first person she met from that continent besides her lunatic brother was a disgraced knight from Bear Island who sold poachers into slavery and was exiled hence. Not a very good introduction to Westeros. Why is she attempting to conquer a land she knows barely anything about? She got a very revisionist history from her brother Viserys and had to learn from Xaro Xhoan Daxos that the usurper he went on rants about had died months ago. She probably doesn't even know that Tommen has died and the Mad Queen Cersei has the Iron Throne or that Jon Snow is the king in the North or that Maester Aemon, another Targaryen, died a few years ago at Castle Black. Hopefully, Tyrion and Varys will help her catch up.
I like your insight a lot. Regardless of whether Dany feels entitled to the throne, which I believe she does, she's not passively inheriting it. In the meritocratic fashion she knows, she's earning it. Instead of having resources fall into her lap, she (and it's hard to deny her skill in this arena) acquired them independently (Independently if you consider that she once had no allies and had to acquire those as well). It's her belief that the throne is her birthrite that pushes her to fight so hard for it. There's also this way of looking at it though: considering that gods are real in the GoT universe, though few agree on which ones (I say all of them) it appears as though the gods are purposely setting her up to be successful. Whether or not she's meant to stay successful I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say she will eventually fail, or realize the nature of her bloodline and feel ashamed to be apart of it.
I thought i didnt like joffery, but the sparrow was the most intolerable. Melisandre and others have magic powers, hence they have reasons to believe in their gods. The sparrow just sits there believeing the shit for no reason
Timothy Duch Thank you! And while yes he seems to care for the poor and those not in a power position. He clearly shows evidence of not only homophobia but also xenophobia aswell. As he doesn’t respect other religions and cultures.
What people should keep in mind: The High Sparrow HAS to keep the monarchy because even if all men in King's Landing would band under his banner, he still got a whole continent of nobles against him. They stayed in power for centuries not because the people loved them all the time but because they have armies. Even the capital can't fight against a whole continent. What the High Sparrow needs is allies, atleast as long as he needs for his ideas to get a grip in Westeros.
"...But can you name a character in the story who's acutally for gay rights?" Well not exactly, but... "I don't blame for for it. We don't choose who we love..." --Jaime Lannister.
Dorne seems to not care about people being gay or bisexual, they are just like "whatever". And I guess the Iron Islanders don't care either, all those men are following a lesbian leader. This imaginary world is not universally homophobic. There are plenty of "live and let live" cultures shown.
There's more than familiarity to liking Cersei over the Sparrow. Cersei makes her intentions clear. Only family matters, everyone else is an enemy. She's a ruthless monster? From her perspective it's self-consistent preservation, so one can understand, albeit disapproving. For the Sparrow, he's the ultimate manipulator. He corners people, and whatever they do to escape, he uses it against them... which is not the integrity I expect from a religious leader. This is why I don't buy into his piety. Nothing makes him relatable. He practices what he preaches only on the outside, but inside, he's just as bad as the other players of the Game.
Also the high sparrow just has such an air of smug moral superiority about him. Cercei is a vile manipulative woman and she knows this. It's what she beliefs she needs to be to get ahead in the world. She just seriously overestimates her own abilities but she is not blind to her own morality. People above all hate hypocrites and the sparrow is just so eager to shout at everyone how much more pure he is than they are.
Another great video guys, I love the deep discussions you have about these themes, has made me think more deeply about a fiction series I'm currently working on.
I'm not surprised that people hate High Sparrow it's totally expected in our modern society which is openly hostile to religion these days unless you live in a flyover state of the USA. yes everything bad that ever happened in history was because of religion right? I reject this revisionist notion academic Elites push in schools and universities in popular culture and yes in movies and television shows as well. but simply arguing religiousness vs. secularism makes no sense if you're talking about Game of Thrones that is not the world that they lived in so in my view based on what's going on in the story I root for the High Sparrow at least in some way because the Sparrows seem to care more about the poor people and have the support of the poor masses more than the Lords especially the Lannisters who are unbelievably corrupt and need to be dealt with and punished for their crimes. I also don't think that the sparrows winning necessarily means some sort of theocracy where the faith literally rules without the legitimacy of noble houses as some people seem to suggest. see before the high septon was simply a Lackey of House Lannister and the used his position to serve their needs and the people saw that corruption and that's why they were so open and happy to accept the High Sparrow is the new high septon all he needs to do is establish the faith representing the common people as a legitimate check on the power of the Nobles houses. The faith would not be in charge like the imams of a caliphate...no the Nobles would still rule but the faith would have the power to influence those in power and make them think twice about abusing their power again
It's ridiculous to assume that the clergy will be this eternally impartial and incorruptible mediator in politics that only looks out for the interests of the common people. If that were the case, why do the vast majority of western democracies in the real world exclude religious leaders from the political process entirely? You yourself admitted that the preceding High Septon, the head of the faith itself, was just as corruptible and decadent as the worst members of the secular nobility of Westeros. Even the High Sparrow is shown to be somewhat blinded by his vendetta against the few members of Houses Tyrell and Lannister when, as Olenna rightly says, he 'lives amongst scores of murderers, thieves and rapists' whose actions go unpunished. Humans are fallible and corruptible, regardless of whether or not they represent a noble family or a god. How would handing power over to the clergy make anything better in the long run when secular and religious leaders, especially during the Medieval era, are ofttimes just as bad as each other?
I do think it's rooted in our modern moral system but not in that way. His self righteous attitude and yelling about the 'right' really sets off bells about SJW's in people. But most of all it's the attitude of the high sparrow himself that ticks people off. People really hate that sense of inflated self-importance especially when that person is outright yelling it. Previous manipulators and vile people were honest about it and somewhat subtle.
Dylan Thompson absolute monarchy means a lot of corruptions, but so does the feudalism. But absolute monarchy at least means not so many wars and religion is not above the state
These are not medieval times! This is Westeros! People hate on The High Sparrow because of his hypocrisy. All the other people are honest about their own flaws. Cersei doesn't pretend who she is. The queen of thorns doesn't hide from the fact that she killed Joffrey. Everyone else is the same. The sparrow pretends to be all high and mighty, yet he's playing the same game as the high borns and people like littlefinger.
First, that's not a word. Second, no war or conflict has ever killed billions. Third you cannot kill in the name of Atheism, that is like killing in the name of nothing. You must always have a reason such as: nationalism, religion, greed, lust for power, etc.
Intersting idea. John Ball is remembered to a large degree because he preached in english instead of latin and delivered sermons which rhymed. Sort of a 14th century rapping minister, who knew the value of entertaining an audience and how to widely disseminate his ideas into popular culture. Didn't work out well for John Ball in the end. What fate do you think awaits the High Sparrow? John Calvin, John Westley or others which preached against the morals of the elite may be other potential parallels.
The High Sparrow will probably will switch to another claimant to the Throne in the books it will be probably be fAegon and in the show he might support Dany if she arrives, otherwise he might hold out in the Great Sept of Baelor in some sort of siege if hostilities increase between the Lannister-Tyrell alliance, and possibly take over if he plays his card right (shifting the power from an oligarchy to a democracy if you want to compare this to Plato's Republic) also do you see a connection between the Faith Militant and the Society of Jesuits
The High Sparrow is definitely Friar Girolamo Savonarola. He's going to rule well for a short period and will be well liked by the people, but he has not played the game of thrones long enough. His downfall will come because he is a religious fanatic who is obsessed with the Gods and morality, but not an effective ruler. His rule is based on the weakness that comes with being good in a religious sense. This interview pretty much confirms it: ruclips.net/video/i06c44euhpg/видео.html It would be awesome if Tommen is the one to bring the High Sparrow down, but I don't think that'll happen. It would be very interesting if the Maesters played a role in defeating the High Sparrow.
The problem is that 99% vs 1% talk is simplistic. Even in the most inequitable systems the divide is less drastic than that. And the more economic freedom there is, the more economic disparity there is- but also the greater number of people who do well.
High Sparrow is fking fat, he must've saved most of food for himself. Religious zealot like high sparrow should never be appreciated, he is nothing different from Ramsay, he is just using religions to cover and decorate the intent of his actions. PS: The idea of good is in all of us, and we know what is good and what is bad a priori. For morality, it does not matter what time or the context is, because we all deep in our heart know what is good and what is evil. The high sparrow, simply, is just evil.
I hate and am terrified of the idea of a religious power being effectively head of state, or strongly controlling head of state. That is why I hate the sparrow. He is ushering in a very scary time for Westeros. I am afraid more people will be tried for bogus crimes, and more vulnerable people will be punished for things beyond their control. Also, religious fanatics tend to have more narrow moral codes, and tend to be more extreme in punishing people who exist outside those narrow views of acceptable human behaviour.
Yes once they start punished the ordinary people the Sparrow movement is doomed. There is a parallel with a theocracy in Renaissance Florence where the head preacher was burned at the stake in the end. Possible future for the High Sparrow.
I hate and am terrified of the idea of a religious power being effectively head of state, or strongly controlling head of state. That is why I hate the sparrow Then your gonna love sharia law/Muslim's
What, and Westeros hasn't been going through a very scary time already? People have already been getting tried for bogus crimes (look at Ned Flanders). People are already being punished for existing outside of the narrow views of the elites. And in any case, if the HS caused a reform and in some way the Faith of the Seven became the main power in Westeros it'd most likely be similar to the way that faith worked in medieval Europe - if you want to engage in a bit of sin, then as long as you don't do it openly you're not going to be burnt because you're not worth the trouble and the church doesn't have the time to care or the mass surveillance necessary to really find out about it. Sure, if the Church becomes more powerful than the nobles then more people might be tried for religious crimes rather than crimes against the crown, but both of those law systems feature heavy punishments for petty crimes, and both of them have authority that'd be based on what we'd consider to be flimsy evidence today (the Sparrows and the Crown both claim to get their authority directly from the gods). So what makes the one better than the other? Only one of them is more willing to help the poor and bring the corrupt elites to justice, and that's the one I can get behind for now. Maybe it's cyclical - in a couple of hundred years the Sparrows'd become corrupt and the nobles'd displace them and rule in a better way, and then after a few hundred of that the nobles'd get replaced by someone else and it'd start again, but for now the Sparrows are the good guys, relatively speaking.
Nav Vandela Under current rule, only a minority of people are being punished or tried for bogus crimes, mainly as power plays. When you have religious power, you tend to get a) more witch burnings, and b) you still get the ordinary people suppressed or enslaved, it's just considered divine right to do so. *spoiler talk* So far, the sparrows haven't actually brought justice to the people. They arrested, tortured and shamed Cersei. Other than that, they've arrested one man for being homosexual, one woman for protecting her brother, they broken business such as bars and beaten up ordinary working class people who were having a drink. Yes, they are also providing food to the poor. But Margery was doing that too, before they imprisoned and tortured her. I dont' see them as good guys - I see them as fanatics, with a charismatic and clever leader
captain pinky Mate, any religion given extremes of power, can be terrible to live under. There was no need to go there with your comment; it was borderline xenophobic.
Tenth! On an unrelated note, do u guys think that the big revelation about Jon's parentage is in episode 10? It would make sense most likely during episode 10 jon will visit the crypts of winterfell and learn about his own parentage while bran is also learning it from a flashback.
Great video! But I have something else to say (and prove why we must at least be disgusted by the High Sparrow anyway): it is true that the sparrows' movement is a direct result of the elite exploitation and social injustice in this world (and it reminds me much more of the bolcheviques in Russia back in 1917 than the islamic extremists of our time, or the peasants rioting in the rise of French Revolution); BUT religious zealots (and political ones) are the first to bring intellectual and cultural darkness; The Catholic Church burnt and condemned many scientists and thinkers back then, they defended stupid and unscientific ideas (creationists still do). Can you imagine a world where maester's love of rationality can live peacefully with sparrows' fanaticism? I cannot. The High Sparrow is like a religious Stalin. He must die. :D
Euron= Trump Cersei= Clinton H. Sparrow= Bernie (Edit: Bernie-Cruz-Hybrid) Kevan Lannister = Ryan Paul Bonus: (Ryan Anderson) The Mad King = V.I.P.resident Trump Littlefinger = Hillary Clinton
At 1:12, the text is in Czech :-). English translation: Who can tell you at the New Year's Eve, whether we will be here at the next one? So, let's drink buddies, while we are thirsty, while we can!
Hey Itamar! A conspicuous omission to the conversation of applying modern morals to GoT characters: Jon Snow. His philosophy as a leader was a lot like Yitzhak Rabin, he bore no ill will to his enemies and showed them mercy, strove for a real peace with the wildlings, not just political peace. Even when he did not have the leadership position he was lifting up members of the watch who the leaders wrote off as useless, empowering the weak in a real way not just whipping them up into a frenzy like the Sparrow. Also Snow and Rabin assassinated for very similar reasons, breaking with traditions and making concessions in pursuit of peace. I guess what I am saying is that even though he may have broken vows and whatnot he would jive very well with modern morality. What do you think?
hahaha I really like this video! You guys are funny. And I've always like the High Sparrow, and used the Ned-decapitating-the-Night's-Watchman scene as an example of double standards in the show. The HS is a great blend of pragmatism and idealism, and possibly my favorite player in the game. I can't wait to see him and Tyrion haggle once Danny & Crew comes ashore and tries to break up the Faith Militant.
I think what makes the high sparrow hated is the fact that we don't know anything about him. We are totally blind regarding his background, where he came from, what makes him tick and how does he think. Unlike Dany or Tywin we know what they want, why they want those thing, and how they want to have the thing that they want. In the case of the high sparrow we know that he wants justice, that is what he want, but why? How? Up until his demise any basic information that wilk make us empathize him is never revealed. We know he uphold the faith and justice very seriously but we do not know why or what even is the faith and justice to him.
OMG, these two guys are so funny.... How come they don't have their own tv show on a tv channel? They make me laugh even in my hard times. Love you guys 😂😂😘😘
Another thing, do you guys believe Cersie to be playing the high sparrow with Tommen, she seemed oddly too calm after the events of last episode, or maybe its too much of me expecting D & Ds writing to be intricate :/
well without little finger or varys in KL I'm really missing the scheming...Margaery seems to have been playing to sparrow, but did not account for a failed coup. Still love this show but its missing a certain degree of intelligence lately
She is calm because she has put all her trust in the Mountain. Also cerceis trackrecord has shown that she is horrible at scheming so why expect her to be good at it now
Sorry,I quit watching this within the first 3 minutes. The video wasn't going anywhere. Plus it was contrary to any good sense, medeival or otherwise. But I didn't watch the whole thing, perhaps you made sense later, but it seemed boring.
There are few who remember that It has been more than 40 years in the non- Game of Thrones world that all over the world life used to be centered on religion and it's interpretation of the world and events in it. The "conservative" point-of-view consists of those who believe that everyone should live their lives according to religion-guided rules. The "liberal" or progressive point-of-view, lately called the secular view, consists of those who think the conservative point-of-view is BS, and that the changes and progress since World War Two is not completely horrible and scary. In the Game of Thrones world it has only been six years that we have been visiting this world, but in that time there has been war in which the common people(that the sparrow cares about) have learned - the hard way - about what we blithely call "Collateral Damage"(but never experience in the places where Game of Thrones is so popular). In our non-GoT world, in feudal times refugees and survivors(of battles or massacres) - often maimed or traumatized - became monks(or nuns) to live the remainder of their lives as best they could in the care of religious orders at monasteries(or cloisters). It is easy to neglect these people for the more dramatic, more magical and more interesting things going on in the series, but the High Sparrow is at the head of a "grass-roots" movement which has grown out of dislike for war's unpleasant side-effects. The corruption, the violence and the exploitation happens in peacetime, too. The High Sparrow is unpopular because he has military and political power - and these things will kill him, too. In the non Game of Thrones world, comic George Carlin had it right - we're the swirling water and stuff circling the toilet bowl before it goes down the drain. Best thing to do is smoke a fattie, eat some ice cream and have sex. Then watch Game of Thrones.
Cersei's walk of shame was of her own making. She revived the faith militant to suit her own ends, but got caught in her own trap. Have no sympathy for her at all.
I love The High Sparrow, he's smart, holds to his beliefs, and out wits assholes that only love there own power. How can you hate that?
Yup times a thousand...
***** He's a pour man that took in other pour. is he a psychopath? He might be, it's not clear, does he tell others what he has to as a means to a end? Yes everyone does, that's what politics is.
There are theories that he is actually Howland Reed, one of Ned Stark's most trusted allies.
d Kim
ROFL he's a MASSIVE improvement over the previous rulers, so far, I should say, who knows what might happen but considering the incestuous murderous corrupt tyrants who he replaced, religious cunt sound pretty good by comparison. IMAO of course...
I am on the fence with the guy. So far he IS only going after the b-tches with the riches who had it coming anyways... but anyone who has that kind of power (as well as those fanatical of a following) is already teetering on the edge of becoming the very villain they seek to eliminate or convert.
For those who hate the HS (because he is religious, and you're probably one of those SJW types who hates christians and see him as an analogy): until he f-cks a baby or feeds one to dogs, he's alright with me.... for now.
"Everyone's least favorite character" - *Coughs* Ramsay Bolton xD
Right :(
I like Ramsay
Joffrey
Nope. Mine is Jon Snow
I'm one of the only people that didn't feel any sympathy for Cersei LOL I want the Sparrow to win and then lose badly.
The walk of shame was glorious IMO
Absolutely agree
I feel the same. If she gets another big "win" before she dies I'm going to scream.
Love the actress and character tho.
Yes!
I agree that walk of shame was glorious ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I still can't understand how _anyone_ could think the High Sparrow was against feudalism and feudal succession. He literally told Margaery that it's her obligation to give the king an heir no matter what. It doesn't get any more feudal. As a matter of fact, the High Sparrow was even more outspoken about his support of feudalism than most of the feudal lords.
10:09 "hey that's not rain, that's pee." Fucking GOLD MAN! I'm legit rolling on the floor laughing!!
the high sparrow is actually the least crazy person in all the show.
Machiavellian characters do tend to have that trait about them...
given the fact that machiavelli despised savonarola, i wouldn't say that the high sparrow is a machiavellian character.
> Machiavellian..............that term is such an insult to a great man who revealed shitty selfish tactics that are used by politicians, its like calling George Washington a murderous rebel, why do you kiddies use that term your insulting a man who was not even bad
Søren Markov
who said, that 'machiavellian' is meant in a bad way? of course he was a great man and one of the most important political scholars. refering to him when describing someone's behaior can be a way to show him the respect he earned. ;)
George Washington was a rebel though.
Everybody show the High Sparrow some LOVE
He is creepily awesome.
Everybody show the GoT Academy some LOVE
Im glad im not the only one who loves this character.
Hope he kicks more elitist snub asses.
ItaloGordz
↑What he said also works↑
Absolutely genius! So effortlessly explained
The other Septon who got killed tonight, I liked him much better. He wasn't holier than thou. And he said Fuck a lot.
Yes he was awesome imagine him as the High Septon cursing like a trooper would be great!
If you like watching Ian Mcshane swear, watch deadwood!
San Francisco cocksucka!
Can't wait for the Deadwood Movie.
Yes he was nice, but look what he did, he fed a few peasants, and made the skeleton of a Sept... What did the Sparrow do?! He fed hundreds and hundreds of peasants suffering from the war, and made the nobles eat a bit of shit for the crap they gave the poor...
The nice Septon was great, but the Sparrow was way better for the people.
+lestrange
Deadwood movie?? say what 0.O
I actually always hated Cercie. She has evil in her heart. Since she was young. That's why she hates her brother and hates all the women who could take her place in the kingdom. But the HS isn't as evil. He is fair most of the time. Or maybe more than most. Either way I like this video.
Fair? Hes a sadist and only goes after the rich
I doubt people dislike the High Sparrow just because he's religious. After all, there were religious people in Westeros before him, and there still are after he's gone. I don't recall any hatred for Septa Mordane.
One reason I dislike him is because he's false. Cersei deserved to be arrested, but Margaery? Hardly. And it does seem very selective. He seemed to be deliberately going after the "great houses", regardless of what they'd done. There's no sense that he genuinely cares about being just. And of course, the sheer arrogance of claiming you speak for the gods is never going to win friends and influence people. This is without even getting into the vile faith militant, who rule by fear alone, and are again very selective with their targets. Note how they cowered after Sir Gregor killed one of them, rather than do what they were supposed to do and bring Cersei to the High Sparrow.
I won't pretend to have any respect for religion because I grew out of fairytales as a child but I have no dislike for Sansa, and she's certainly religious, not a fanatic, but religious all the same. Many of the characters believe in a god or gods of some sort.
I personally love the High Sparrow, I don't know why people can hate him. He's anti Cersei, that's enough for me
Agree! 100%
If you support the High Sparrow you basically support the persecution of homosexuals and prostitutes. Wow, great job, you support the homophobic self-righteous High Sparrow.
+starlightshimmers Congratulations, you completely missed the point of the video dipshit.
+starlightshimmers great job having not actually watched the video. I like him as a character and what he means for the show. Not because I support what he's meant to represent starlightshitter
Also, Loras was burned trying to capture Dragonstone in the books. The High Sparrow had nothing to do with that.
Polska!
I also like book HS more. In the show it's all Spanish Inquisition, and I didn't expect that
LOL!
Its ok,no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
You really have a poor understanding about the actual Spanish Inquisition.
The Sparrow is a pussy cat compared to Tomás de Torquemada. Seriously, you need to do some homework so as to not make such ignorant and silly statements in public.
I think it was just a reference to the Monty Python comedy bit about the Spanish Inquisition. :)
Excuse me, my Lord. I'm just a young girl with no learning and scattered wits.
I like the high sparrow! Or maybe I just like Jonathon Pryce.... Great analogy of why we don't like him, the projection of our feelings from modern times. No one likes him and he's actually done good deeds for the common people, unlike bitchface Cersei who even vetoed giving the leftover extravagant wedding food to the poor.
And I don't get the hate for Tommen that rages on some boards either. He's a KID being manipulated by all these players who want power. In his young life he's seen his "father" die, his grandfather and two siblings murdered, his wife and mother imprisoned. He was the baby of the family, never groomed for this, he just wanted to play with Ser Pounce and now he is actually trying to do what is right. Nothing he has done is mean or evil or malicious. So I feel sorry for him and his mistakes, but I don't want him dead like most people seem to!
What were Tommen's mistakes?
Kern Albert trusting that everyone has his best interest at heart and good intentions and not their own agenda :)
+geekishgirl perfect
They kinda forget that a lot of the characters are young and has always been manipulated by the older players. Wanting a child to die because he likes to listen to reasonable (in his mind) counsel just as his grandfather taught him and then cheering for another child to learn how to ruthlessly kill is fucked up.
fitch bit Exactly.
I don't hate him because of gay right or because he's sexist, I hate him for being a hypocrite and preaching for equality, except not really, since he get's to decide who is equal and who is not, and he get's to be the one in power, and I also hate how he thinks that he knows what "gods" are thinking. High sparrow movement is about putting a high sparrow on the seat of power and it's not about the rights of common people. Just because feudalism is wrong doesn't make HS right, he isn't against feudalism as long as it benefits him and his cause. He brainwashes common people to die for him and his cause. He just wants to exchange noble masters for cleric masters.
The point is judging these characters based of postmodern morality/sensibility is anachronistic and pointless
Well we don't know if he's only on it for power for himself or wants to change the system. I don't know where you are pulling these "facts"... Out of your ass? Also "cleric masters" wouldn't exist. It wouldn't work like feudalism, because there would be more of a voting system where you elect local leaders and village elder. If you look at history it didn't go that way and it wouldn't go that way in the series.
bassisku If you look at the history it did go that way, kings responded to Rome and Pope, Pope was the head of the church, they didn't change feudalism, they were just another thing people needed to answer to. People payed taxes to the church from many countries, and clergy got courropted. And no, common people didn't elect these clerics. High Sparrow supports the divine law of king as long as he can be at the top. He knows about incest and yet he would rather support Tommen for his claim than Dany or Stannis(alive in the books) because he knows he wont be in power with them on the throne. But ok we'll see if I'm pulling everything "out of my ass" by the end of the books and show.
i'm awesome High Sparrow is clearly a character based on Martin Luther, a radical preacher who completely changed the way religion/the feudal system operated in Europe.
Tycho Johnson Oh, and where did you get that from?
Politics and Religion should never mix, the high sparrow had to die.
Too bad, even Tyrion is trying to mix politis and religion.
I thing, it is becoming as much as war between religions as it is war between kings & lords. There can be fight between tree gods, 7 gods, lord of lights god, drowned god, 3 eyed raven god, faceless god, harpy.
They are separate, they are just working together as two pillars of society. Long live Tommen the Blessed!
Within the setting (and for every human society throughout history, with the exception of European-descended nations created within literally the last 10 generations) the concept of politics and religion not being unified is absolutely absurd. They don't even distinguish clearly between the words used for "politics" and "religion", with politics being a thing that occurs WITHIN religion just as much as it does within the aristocracy until pure secularism is a thing that manages to violently overthrow the preceding unitary systems with massive, popular revolutions.
And everybody is a wee bit too busy worrying about whose going to sit on the Iron Throne, what's going to happen with the White Walkers, and whether or not they're going to manage to keep themselves alive and how much booty they can run off with in the mean-time, to even CONSIDER the thought of overthrowing their entire political/religious system so that they can institute the fluffy idea of secularism because... "they should never mix".
They don't give a flying fuck. And neither would you have if you lived then. You would have been too busy digging barely edible turnips out of the ground to think about literally anything besides the aching pain in your back and how to feed your family, and maybe a little bit about who the local strong man is and how you can act docile or subservient so you can be left alone to continue your wretched life of trying to keep yourself alive month to month.
RosscoAW I am sorry, but the concept of separation of Church and state is nothing terribly new, we can even see it in discussions of the roles of the Church and the roles of kings in the middle ages. The problem is that people today confuse any kind of cooperation between the two for theocracy which is just wrong.
NewName You clearly don't understand or study history/polisci history at all, so... okay then, go on believing that if it helps you to validate and support your own contemporary worldview. I don't have any problem with you needing to fabricate evidence to justify your perception, if it's easier and personally healthier for you to continue doing that than it is to perceive accurately, so long as you are neither directly nor indirectly causing harm in the process.
That aside, I would point out that nowhere did I state or even imply that the concept of separation did not exist, nor that it 'church' and 'state' didn't exist as parellel institutions within the unified system of religious-politicism / social absolutism. Moreover, I never even used the terms church and state, so I don't know how you came up with that conclusion; I can only assume that you took me saying "unified" to mean "they were literally one singular institution, without any distinction", which is just quite a leap to make.
Moreover, you seem to be implying only that church and state were distinct entities with a complex interplay during the middle ages; a complex interplay in which the royalty/aristocracy to gain supremacy over the church(es), and vice versa. Which is something I completely agree with, and talked about in my post explicitly: "with politics being a thing that occurs WITHIN religion just as much as it does within the aristocracy". I will grant that I should have said "WITHIN and BETWEEN religion and politics", which, again, is the reality of the situation.
I might add that your concluding sentence is perfectly accurate and insightful, leaving me a bit confused as to the disconnect and disparity of rationale between that sentence and every preceding line of your comment.
I don't like the High Sparrow because I don't find his story line compelling
All stories with fictional religions have same problem. The audience cannot relate with faith in knowingly imaginary gods. And by extension, we cannot relate to characters whos identity is strongly linked with that faith.
Without empathy, there is lack of interest.
But they're really no different to religions people actually believe in. Then again, maybe a Christian can't empathise with the faith of a Hindu since the worship is being directed at a different deity. It all looks the same to me.
I would disagree. The coolest part about Warhammer and Warhammer 40k is learning more about the chaos gods and just pretending to a chaos zealot. It's just that the 7 just aren't interesting gods.
Well you pretty admitted to us that you are a shallow person.
great analysis! I think your reasons are legit but peoples anti-theism factors into the equation
So you're saying I should like a character that would imprison and torture me because of who I love? Hell no. We don't choose who we fall in love with, people like him are the worst.
stfu
You didn´t get the point.. the real reason for imprisoning Loras, was not his love for man (that was just the excuse), he was imprisoned to make a noble house weak, and mainly because Cersei planned it that way, so she need not to marry him
He is the worst. Except all the others. Cersei gave him weapons and authority and then informed him that Loras was gay and produced evidence. She was behind it.
The Dornish are quite progressive, promoting both gender equality and the fluidity of human sexuality.
Also, both the Watch, the Brotherhood Without Banners, and the Iron Born all more or less elect their ruler.
+Sam And comparing Dani to Hillary! This is quite a stretch.
Strange, they are egalitarian in terms of gender and sexuality, but at least the gender aspects don't stem from progressiveness. The Rhoynish, as far as I know just never adopted such stringent gender roles in the first place, and the last of the Rhoynish were led by Nymeria (who married into House Martell) so there are important ancestral reasons for them to act as much. It's not so much they want to progress beyond social traditions, rather they see it as their way of holding on to social traditions.
As well as poisoning children and stabbing people through the face! Let us also not forget about murdering your king and his son due to petty emotions and getting away with it. Now "that's" progressive!
Starting irrational wars because someone lost a fair duel.
Progressivism in a nutshell.
"Everyone's least favourite character in the show, and in the books". Wait what? Who says that? Isn't Ramsay at least worse?
I love Ramsey, he's the only character that realises that GoT is supposed to be comedy. Shame that GRRM didn't relay that info to DnD, they think it's a serious drama lol
what?
Ramsay is not the comedian. I just don'tt understand how people can like psychopaths like Cersei and Ramsey.
Ramsay is a fucking king!! Shame he got poisoned by his enemies..
Ramsey was fun. High Sparrow was boring as fuck.
Now everybody is going to pretend to like the High Sparrow because it's perceived as unconventional... here we go. The bottom line is, hatred for him is thoroughly justified regardless of what standards you judge him by. He's a pretty shitty person by just about any standards, actually.He is hypocritically egotistical, manipulative, homophobic, sexist (even for the time period - there have been many historical cultures that were permissive of sexual expression), self-righteous, and not to mention sadistic. He locks human beings up in secluded cells like animals in cages for months on end, which is pure psychological torture, or makes them walk through the streets naked for the purpose of humiliation. The fact that he PRETENDS to be a moral individual is what makes him more reprehensible than even conventionally appalling characters like Ramsay and Joffrey, who at least acknowledge their shittiness.
I agree with you. GOT Academy is always focusing on his fiscal policies and how great that he's making the elitists pay- but he's only focusing on their personal "sins", he's obsessed with other people's sex lives. Why are only the sexual sins punished and all the other sins and exploitation is overlooked? I see him punishing women and weak men every time like a bully who only looks for weaker victims than himself. He never punishes the ruling men and they are the biggest sinners of them all!
Because even though he wants to bring down the lords, he will just replace them with more oppressive patriarchal taliban crap. I really don't care about someone's economic policies when they are a sadistic bigoted fanatic.
I think that was an unfair assessment of Ned Stark; while he did inherit his position he was one of the kindest more compassionate lords in Westeros, he always treated smallfolk with respect be they from the North or King's Landing. In the books Ned always leaves a vacant seat for guests at his family dining table and would listen to their stories and everyday life with his wife and children present, whether its the blacksmith, baker, Old Nan or the captain of the guards.
I know, This channel can tend to over-generalize on its analysis, quite often in fact. Ned may have been in power, but he hated to abuse power and only used it when he felt it was his absolute duty to, and despised the idea of using it to abuse people. He didn't kill the deserter for no reason, and it was easy to tell that he did not like doing it at all, but again he felt duty bound to follow the deeply ingrained laws that the north has followed for thousands of years. GoT academy had to totally butcher Neds character just to create a bad example out of him. And you are right about ned's compassion, but i have a 'stark' suspicion that the previous stark generations had a very similar sense of justice and small-folk compassion that has been passed down. It could be argued that in the world of GoT, the Starks have one of the most progressive mentalities in westeros relative to most feudal lords.
True, but he was still happy to maintain the status quo as that's what benefited him. He was kind to the smallfolk, but wasn't pushing for reform or a more equal distribution of resources. The 'kindness' of letting them sit politely at his table and eat the food that the smallfolk themselves had grown for him could be viewed as egotistical as well.
Wild Bill CH The status quo was maintained not because it suited Ned Stark, but because there was no need for social reforms in the North. All the social reformations are more likely to happen in the South, which is what the sparrow movement is all about.
The Starks have always protected and supported their smallfolk e.g. the existence of Wintertown was to give the smallfolk a place to stay during the long winters and the food stores & glass gardens of Winterfell to feed them. Is that not an equal distribution of resources during the harshest time of winter?
The only time when this status quo was broken was when the Boltons burned Winterfell and betrayed the Starks.
Is it egotistical to bring your employees to your family dining to listen their ideas that could make their work and lives go better? Also teaching his children how to treat the smallfolk when they become lords and ladies for their own castles?
Well he did get killed for being honest. He really didn't have time to push for anything while he was in King's Landing.
***** It's hard to hate a man who isn't despicable enough to be good at the game of thrones.
Daenerys: "I'm gonna free these slaves and then leave them to rule Westeros. 'Cus you know, it's my BIRTHRIGHT!"
He's not in it for religion. He's LYING!
Season 5: "I gave my shoes to a poor hobo"
Season 6: "I left home and never took my shoes with me."
Margery knows he's lying.
I'm more inclined to believe that's a continuity error by the writers
Yeah, he's a total fraud. There was no trial for Lancel, and apparently the walk of atonement is the right punishment except when the King conveniently shows up supporting the HS. Or maybe the Gods flip-flopped jut in time.
Not just that, in S6 he speaks of a party and everyone passing out
In S5 he refuses wine because 'he doesn't like the taste.'
SuperCaelia
Oh, yeah! He's definitely full of shit. Maybe he's just lying for religious reasons, but it's Tits and Dragons, so there's gotta be something political or personal behind it
This is an easy statement as heterosexuals-cishet men especially-to make. But Loras is one stand in, with his tortures for his homesexuality undertold, for every homesexual person. Many characters canonically morally-accept Loras' extracurricular activities, whether out of love or apathy. Let's not forget he's a youth, as well. I can't even blame most characters, in this time, for their actions; such as, Cersei, who, as a woman, faces that mind distorting regularized discrimination, that is 'sexism'. We never needed religion to stunt, slow, temporarily cease the progress of enlightenment or scientific research, like they did. I can't wait for the faith to be destroyed with the rest of the capital with fire, green or red, I want to see them Hell'd and hate this clearly-polarizing title. But I guess that's just my queer opinion. (I usually like these videos but this one had Cis•Het privledge all over it)
i agree with you. Honestly i am sure half the people wouldn't hate him if he didn't torture Loras and imprisoned Margaery
#HighSparrowOrBust
#NeverCerci
If you support the High Sparrow you basically support the persecution of homosexuals and prostitutes. Wow, great job, you support the homophobic self-righteous High Sparrow.
In the books he doesn't persecute homosexuals or prostitutes. He actually prays for prostitutes, and encourages them to change there ways.
He arrests Margery, but for charges of infidelity(Cersei created said rumors). And as Cersei and her demon spawn have shown, queen infidelity is a serious issue.
"Preys" on prostitutes eh?
Also, we don't quite know what is actually happening to Margery in the books. I get the feeling he knows what Cersei was trying to do and is in cahoots with Margery.
The High Sparrow is easy to hate in the show because they sort of attached him to these weird anti-homosexual tones the show contrived so Ser Loras could be put on trial. Because that was important to the show runners, for whatever reason.
This doesn't occur in the books. The Sparrow is easier to like as a seemingly just and righteous man who's risen up from the ruins of the feast for crows that is the riverlands. The War of the Five Kings devastated the land, it was the smallfolk who suffered. It was these victims of war that carried the high sparrow into the city on their shoulders.. He was installed by the demand of the people, not by the mechanizations of Cersi lannister like in the show.
He's a seemingly good, if taciturn man who has the best interest for the people at heart. He's feared and hated by our King's Landing point of view characters for the same reason they fear Stannis. Because he's a man with both power and a sense of justice, and our point of view characters are generally horrible people.
Of course we only see him whilst he is playing "the game". Perhaps if we saw him enacting his philosophy of helping the people along side his aspect of justice, he would be much more likable (I think.)
plus in the book he even lets Margaery go because there is no real prove against her. Unlike in the show
I do think the show's portrayal is what might still happen in the books. That the sparrow movement spirals out of control and becomes ever increasingly fanatic and violent.
I like the High Sparrow. I don´t understand how people can hate him. Spirituality is part of human nature, imo. It's good.
I like how he´s living a simple life without unnecessary luxuries.
Yes. We should show the irrational, power hungry, religious zealot some love. After all, theocracy always worked out well.
You're right. Better to be ruled by rational Joffrey and Cersei. After all, feudalism always worked out well.
GoT Academy I didn't say he personally is worse than Joffrey. But now that you bring that up (for no apparent reason) I say that he is actually worse than Cersei and Joffrey.
To quote C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth."
You compared Theocracy to Feudalism and depict Theocracy as better, even though at best it has the same faults as Feudalism. At worst it's actually far worse.
Actually feudalism could work out well sometimes. Nobody seemed unhappy under the Stark rule, for example. The signs were there that most people who served the starks loved them. Furthermore, Ned Stark would have been a fair ruler after Robert's death. Theocracy, on the other hand, is by definition a lie given to the masses in order to control them. And w regards to your 1% resentment, please get over it you disgusting marxists. There's always going to be wealthier people than you or me, that doesn't make them evil by definition. Under any system there's going to be differences in wealth, otherwise there wouldn't be incentives to produce anything.
Let me quote the story: Joffrey murdered 20 babies, Cersei kills random people who make fun of her, and the crime of the High Sparrow are shaming Cersei and imprisoning a lord at the behest and request and setup of Cersei.
Anyways, the fact that you're quoting someone that lived in the 19th and 20th century is what's important. If we judge the characters by modern standards, all the lords are rapists and murderers. We can't judge one character by 21st century values and all the others by 15th century values.
Cersei 2016: The Devil You Know
LOL
Sparrow 2016: Man of Faith; Just 4 Seasons too late!!
Jamie 2016: When You Need a Hand
when religion ruled the world, it was called the dark ages. the world this high sparrow would replace the current would only be a different kind of hell than the one peasants live in now.
and ◇spoilers◇
the beloved high septon/sparrow goes full on Spanish Inquisition on anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his perception of the gods will.
The Dark Ages are actually when feudalism ruled the world
And the dark ages were not actually so dark as people assume. There were higher literacy rates, higher life expectancy rates and higher infant mortality rates than the Roman Empire. The reason the dark ages are called the "dark" ages, is because many documents from that time have been lost, so we do not know as much as we would like. They are dark in the sense that we are not enlightened in some parts of that history, rather than dark as in no electricity or light.
True dat
AGOT already takes place in their world's version of the dark ages.
Not really. In the early middle ages Christianity was still weak. Mainly confined to Italy, Greece, Anatolia and the Lavant. Over the course of the millenium it slowly spread across all of Europe. Eastern Europe didn't become fully Christian until the 15th century. Around 600 however most people in Europe still worshipped the pagan gods they had for centuries.
I had no idea people hate the high sparrow. I freaking loved that guy in the show
I'll take the High Sparrow over Cersei's stupid, entitled self any day. For realzies!
I totally agree with Itamar that the high sparrow would definitely lead to a new religious elite, and i also believe they would by nature operate very similarly to the old system, but even more uncompromising. Before many religious institutions get in power, they like to 'trump' themselves up as being the good guy, until they get into power. Take for example early Christianity. It made a lot of claims about serving the poor, until got in power and became one of the greatest sinkholes of wealth in history and based their power on that wealth, and not to mention the most rigid and uncompromising institution in europe.
Unless the high sparrow actually advocated and encouraged meaningful change such as the notion that peasants should control their own farms, or that workers of all kind should control their own workplaces, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the high sparrow would not adopt nearly identical mechinizations of power and wealth to feudalism.
You guys make such an important work here!! Pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in the story, challenging the morals of the characters, you drag out into the light our own hypocrisy! You have no idea, or maybe you are among the few who have, how much I have learned about humanity just watching the fandom of this show loving, hating, taking sides and fighting each other. It is a show on its own! Thank you for your enlightening effort!
Hey Natalia! It's been very interesting to see people take sides without taking into account the realities of this world. We had this video in mind for a long time and waited for the opportunity to post glad. Glad you liked it so much :)
When we sat that The Young Turks dislike the High Sparrow we said to ourselves that we got to do a video about him
Your show is a million times better than the TYT show. Watching Cenk lusting for the demise of the High sparrow is cringe.
I like all your videos, and always looking forward to listen to you. I was thinking myself to right about all the hatred Oly received and what I think it means. Basically that we, as a society, have so little understanding of the human nature, the complexity of our motivations, and such a narrow picture of the world! Love from Romania! :)
Natalia Frese
You're so right. Love!
He showed that he's not really a religious fanatic and is more concerned about actual power. If he actually was devoted solely to his faith then he wouldn't have caved on Margyrie's walk of shame just because they were able to create a crown and faith alliance. He's a schemer wanting only power no different than most of the major players in thrones
A cross between Francis of Assisi and Rasputin, the most interesting character to join game of thrones in many seasons
Guys, I have to say that I completely disagree with you here. First of all, he’s a fraud for at least two reasons: 1) Lancel wasn’t tried for regicide nor for having sex with Cersei, because he’s useful; 2) “the walk of atonement is the Gods’ punishment”… except, of course, if the King conveniently shows up on our side. In that case, the Gods don’t care.
Secondly, it’s interesting how you dismiss anachronistic arguments AGAINST him (homophobia, fanaticism, “He’s ISIS!”), and then immediately proceed to make anachronistic arguments FOR him (class warfare, anti-elitism, “He’s Bernie Sanders!”). Implicitly, you assume that the latter anachronisms outweigh the former. I have 3 arguments against this:
*1- Regime change*: the argument that he puts everyone “equal before the law” is false. By replacing the aristocracy with “the Gods”, he is merely creating a new class of oppressors which includes himself and anyone deemed worthy of interpreting “the Gods’ will”. But unlike the human aristocrats who may be flexible and restrained by reality, the Will of the Gods is always absolute and uncompromising. Instead of feudal lords, he offers mythical slave masters.
*2- Medieval context*: the medieval mendicant movements which parallel the Sparrows were indeed charitable and tried to help the poor. However, by idolizing poverty itself, they did very little to actually solve it, and in fact incentivized their followers to _remain_ poor. Worse still, they were the main administrators of the early inquisition, producing characters like Robert le Bougre and Conrad of Marburg, famous for their cruelty and outright insanity.
The inspiration for the HS himself may be Savonarola, who ran Florence and imposed an incredibly extreme puritanical regime, even by the standards of the time, and he was eventually deposed by an angry mob. Unlike the HS, however, Savonarola had some interesting republican ideals.
So, even by the standards of the time, it’s very difficult to say that figures and “movements” like the Sparrows were actually beneficial to society.
*3- Contemporary context*: Unlike in western countries, where religious militants are viewed as reactionary, in some Arab countries they have broad political support. Organizations such as Hezbollah and the Brotherhood are seen as an alternative to corrupt dictators and also provide support to the poor. However, as we see for instance in the case of Morsi in Egypt, when they reach power they quickly become _less_ popular than their predecessors.
For all this, I think he deserves the readers’ hatred - he’s a charlatan with totalitarian ideals, which would make people worse off when compared to the status quo.
Finally, we *do* have at least one “secular humanist” in this story: Tyrion!! Yes, he’s a rich aristocrat, but that doesn’t make him bad at all. Jon Snow, a proven leader who listens to his advisors, would be better than the HS. Even Littlefinger, the best economist in the realm with Braavosi Republican ideals, would be better. With all this people to root for, there is absolutely no reason to defend the HS.
I totally agree with you. As soon as thr church came back to power in England, it double downed on fanatacism with Bloody Queen Mary. The inquisition rose, but my first thought was Torquemada and that the death of the Sparrow will bring Lancel to the fore as the next iteration and likely at the behest of Bloody Queen Margaery
on the otherhand, the death of HS will be the catalyst for the fire breathing church so maybe it would have been better for him to succeed.
Hey Ricardo! We tried to say something good about his movement, less about the HS as a person. who can definitely be viewed as a power grabber and a charlatan (even though I'm not convinced of that, yet).
If he is Savonarola, then he deserves our hatred, but he has some Francis of Assisi in him as well. And one cannot deny the fact that the Noblemen's games of thrones are hurting everyone, so they deserve our hatred as well.
Of course the hatred/love towards the HS are both anachronistic (nothing wrong with that, like we said) - we can't avoid it because, well, it's a TV show/Books for a 21st century audience.
We agree about Tyrion - and we see him as the one who will learn from everyone's mistakes, politically speaking.
Hey, yeah, you have a point in that this character, in typical GoT style, can’t be seen from a mere black and white point of view. And, of course, what I’ve said above doesn’t mean that the nobles are good. I just think he will actually be worse than them.
For me personally, it’s hard not to look at him without thinking about what happened to my own country. Especially how in the 16th century Portugal was taken over by the inquisitors, even if this is slightly anachronistic to the time in the story.
It’s hard not to remember how Lisbon changed. In the 15th century, it was a remarkably cosmopolitan, bohemian and tolerant city with Jewish and Muslim communities, full of traders from all over the world, where both male and female prostitution was tolerated. In 1506, the city experienced its first pogrom, incited by Dominican friars. In the following decades, Lisbon was gradually taken over and ravaged by religious nuts, forcing brilliant people into exile, censoring some of our best artists and thinkers, killing innocent people.
As David Landes argues in “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”, it’s hard not to think of how these crazies greatly contributed to the country’s decline. I mean, of course there were other factors, and we surely had our fair share of terrible aristocratic leaders, but this is still pretty depressing stuff.
So yeah, it’s really, really hard, knowing all this, to look at the HS and go: “Hey, let’s put him in charge! What can go wrong?”
I think the High Sparrow reminds me of Girolamo Savonarola, maybe High Sparrow will suffer the same fate.
Ned didn't execute the ranger because he ran away from the White Walkers. He executed him because he ran away from Castle Black.
9:20 The high sparrow doesn't want the wealth of the seven kingdoms to be distributed equally, he wants everybody to live a humble life without personal "indulging" with "unnecessary" earthly possessions.
If the sparrow movement comes to control the seven kingdoms people won't be any better than the current situation.
Sure, royal exploitation will be abolished, but there will be no freedom.. people wont be allowed to accumulate personal property, since it's un-seven-like. They will be "encouraged" to donate they "unneeded" property to the seven...
To be fair, it's not like the common people had much freedom under the Nobles/King.
I'm saying that religious fanatics are not any better than any other form of autocratic rulers... You're trading one evil for another...
The people of Westeros might get a better outcome by supporting Daenerys who (until last episode) seemed to care about the common people.
Sparrow is a little commie. He practically wanted to turn westeteos into USSR w/ religious bent
He actually reminds me of Girolamo Savonarola
Yes Gabriel me too and Iain Glen played Savonarola in 'Borgia' did you know that?
+Shipwreck Stilpo You just reminded me of that.
I actually think that Savonarola believed most things he said, unlike the high sparrow.
Daenerys embodies the sense of entitlement that Westerosi lords feel they have. From birth, she's been influenced by her dick brother Viserys who gave her a revisionist history of Targaryen rule of Westeros and whitewashed their father, the Mad King,'s crimes. She thinks the common people will support her because she has dragon blood despite never living on the mainland(she was born on Dragonstone and fled shortly thereafter.)
Throughout her life, she's encountered different Essos cultures and cities. She fled to the Free Cities as an enfant and stayed with Illyrio Mopatis in Pentos for quite a while. Illyrio is clearly a self-made merchant who profits off of his excellent connections with the Dothraki and others. Then she met the Dothraki who rise to the top by raiding and pillaging the most villages and having the best combat record. In fact, their system of pride is a complete meritocracy where the undefeated allow their braids to grow indefinitely and the defeated must cut them off. After this, she stayed in Qarth. The spice merchant, leader of the Thirteen, openly mocks Daenerys' sense of entitlement and her title as "Mother of Dragons." He earned all his wealth. Daenerys only survives because of her Targaryen name. Xaro Xhoan Daxos admires the dragon queen more but he is also a self-made man, a savage from the Summer Isles who came to co-rule the greatest city that ever was, is, or will be.
The trend in the Free Cities, the Dothraki, and Qarth is that everyone is self-made. Then she visits Slavers' Bay. No one is self-made there. The masters inherit their slaves just as an Andal lord inherits his castle. She freed the slaves and defeated the masters but then her own sense of entitlement clouded her judgement. She decided to march on after Astapor and Yunkai to Meereen and the masters retook the former two cities. And the Sons of the Harpy, paid for by the retaken cities and Volantis, now plague Meereen. Only Tyrion's wisdom while Daenerys was off rallying the Dothraki was able to quiet Meereen. She is not a reformer at all but rather an irresponsible revolutionary who doesn't understand the consequences of letting loose thousands of raping and pillaging warriors onto the continent of Westeros or threatening to abolish every single house("I don't want to stop the wheel. I want to break the wheel") besides her own. A cross between Clinton and Sanders' worst attributes. Clinton feeling entitled because of her family name and Sanders wanting a revolution to shake everything up, not realizing what will happen when the dust settles.
In my opinion, Renly would have made the best king with Ned Stark as his Hand. The common people actually love Renly and Ned Stark would be able to reduce the effects of Renly's unnecessary extravagance. After that, Robb Stark as King/Warden of the North and Stannis King of the Andals, the First Men and the Rhoynar.
Davos is a great Hand of the King as well.
And then banish Littlefinger, Varys, and Melisandre to Asshai because they will mess everything up. Beric Dondarrion would make a good captain of the Kingsguard.
As you know, the Targaryens ruled the seven kingdoms for nearly three centuries before Robert Baratheon sacked King's Landing and ruled it for only a relatively short time. The Iron Throne itself is forged from the swords of Aegon the Conquerer's enemies. I'm not saying the Targaryens did a great job and weren't mad, or that Daenerys is even making good decisions. Basic storytelling won't permit her to have success after success without an eventual downfall. But to me it's easy to see what she feels "entitled" to the throne. It's her blood that built that throne in the first place.
Dannielle Withall, of course her blood has done a lot to secure that throne but were kings like Maegor the Cruel or Dany's father entitled to the throne? Yes, by the same logic and they were terrible rulers. My point is that Dany's travels throughout Essos have introduced her into much more meritocratic cultures than Westeros such as the Free Cities, the Dothraki, or Qarth where people earn their wealth through trade, knowledge, or combat. It is not guaranteed just because your father was Illyrio Mopatis or Khal Drogo that you will be just as great, yet Daenerys feels entitled to the seat of power on a continent she hasn't been since she was a baby. The first person she met from that continent besides her lunatic brother was a disgraced knight from Bear Island who sold poachers into slavery and was exiled hence. Not a very good introduction to Westeros. Why is she attempting to conquer a land she knows barely anything about? She got a very revisionist history from her brother Viserys and had to learn from Xaro Xhoan Daxos that the usurper he went on rants about had died months ago. She probably doesn't even know that Tommen has died and the Mad Queen Cersei has the Iron Throne or that Jon Snow is the king in the North or that Maester Aemon, another Targaryen, died a few years ago at Castle Black. Hopefully, Tyrion and Varys will help her catch up.
I like your insight a lot. Regardless of whether Dany feels entitled to the throne, which I believe she does, she's not passively inheriting it. In the meritocratic fashion she knows, she's earning it. Instead of having resources fall into her lap, she (and it's hard to deny her skill in this arena) acquired them independently (Independently if you consider that she once had no allies and had to acquire those as well). It's her belief that the throne is her birthrite that pushes her to fight so hard for it. There's also this way of looking at it though: considering that gods are real in the GoT universe, though few agree on which ones (I say all of them) it appears as though the gods are purposely setting her up to be successful. Whether or not she's meant to stay successful I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say she will eventually fail, or realize the nature of her bloodline and feel ashamed to be apart of it.
I thought i didnt like joffery, but the sparrow was the most intolerable. Melisandre and others have magic powers, hence they have reasons to believe in their gods. The sparrow just sits there believeing the shit for no reason
Timothy Duch Thank you! And while yes he seems to care for the poor and those not in a power position. He clearly shows evidence of not only homophobia but also xenophobia aswell. As he doesn’t respect other religions and cultures.
What people should keep in mind: The High Sparrow HAS to keep the monarchy because even if all men in King's Landing would band under his banner, he still got a whole continent of nobles against him. They stayed in power for centuries not because the people loved them all the time but because they have armies. Even the capital can't fight against a whole continent. What the High Sparrow needs is allies, atleast as long as he needs for his ideas to get a grip in Westeros.
"...But can you name a character in the story who's acutally for gay rights?" Well not exactly, but... "I don't blame for for it. We don't choose who we love..." --Jaime Lannister.
That's a good point. Too bad he's a murderer and tried to murder a boy. That's worse than not supporting gay rights, that's actually killing someone.
GoT Academy That is true, and I would never argue that he was really a good person... But he was definitely unique in a few ways, to say the least.
Dorne seems to not care about people being gay or bisexual, they are just like "whatever". And I guess the Iron Islanders don't care either, all those men are following a lesbian leader. This imaginary world is not universally homophobic. There are plenty of "live and let live" cultures shown.
By that reasoning all GoT characters are trash... why do you even have a channel devoted to it?
There's more than familiarity to liking Cersei over the Sparrow. Cersei makes her intentions clear. Only family matters, everyone else is an enemy. She's a ruthless monster? From her perspective it's self-consistent preservation, so one can understand, albeit disapproving.
For the Sparrow, he's the ultimate manipulator. He corners people, and whatever they do to escape, he uses it against them... which is not the integrity I expect from a religious leader. This is why I don't buy into his piety. Nothing makes him relatable.
He practices what he preaches only on the outside, but inside, he's just as bad as the other players of the Game.
Also the high sparrow just has such an air of smug moral superiority about him. Cercei is a vile manipulative woman and she knows this. It's what she beliefs she needs to be to get ahead in the world. She just seriously overestimates her own abilities but she is not blind to her own morality.
People above all hate hypocrites and the sparrow is just so eager to shout at everyone how much more pure he is than they are.
So funny. I am unconvinced with the argument. Even though I should be. Screw the high sparrow!
NNNOOOOOOOO!!!
He's a man of the people, unlike the wasteful and corrupt nobles. I'm all for him.
Another great video guys, I love the deep discussions you have about these themes, has made me think more deeply about a fiction series I'm currently working on.
WOW, that's awesome. Fingers crossed
GoT Academy Cheers guys
I'm not surprised that people hate High Sparrow it's totally expected in our modern society which is openly hostile to religion these days unless you live in a flyover state of the USA. yes everything bad that ever happened in history was because of religion right? I reject this revisionist notion academic Elites push in schools and universities in popular culture and yes in movies and television shows as well.
but simply arguing religiousness vs. secularism makes no sense if you're talking about Game of Thrones that is not the world that they lived in so in my view based on what's going on in the story I root for the High Sparrow at least in some way because the Sparrows seem to care more about the poor people and have the support of the poor masses more than the Lords especially the Lannisters who are unbelievably corrupt and need to be dealt with and punished for their crimes. I also don't think that the sparrows winning necessarily means some sort of theocracy where the faith literally rules without the legitimacy of noble houses as some people seem to suggest. see before the high septon was simply a Lackey of House Lannister and the used his position to serve their needs and the people saw that corruption and that's why they were so open and happy to accept the High Sparrow is the new high septon all he needs to do is establish the faith representing the common people as a legitimate check on the power of the Nobles houses. The faith would not be in charge like the imams of a caliphate...no the Nobles would still rule but the faith would have the power to influence those in power and make them think twice about abusing their power again
It's ridiculous to assume that the clergy will be this eternally impartial and incorruptible mediator in politics that only looks out for the interests of the common people. If that were the case, why do the vast majority of western democracies in the real world exclude religious leaders from the political process entirely? You yourself admitted that the preceding High Septon, the head of the faith itself, was just as corruptible and decadent as the worst members of the secular nobility of Westeros. Even the High Sparrow is shown to be somewhat blinded by his vendetta against the few members of Houses Tyrell and Lannister when, as Olenna rightly says, he 'lives amongst scores of murderers, thieves and rapists' whose actions go unpunished. Humans are fallible and corruptible, regardless of whether or not they represent a noble family or a god. How would handing power over to the clergy make anything better in the long run when secular and religious leaders, especially during the Medieval era, are ofttimes just as bad as each other?
I do think it's rooted in our modern moral system but not in that way.
His self righteous attitude and yelling about the 'right' really sets off bells about SJW's in people.
But most of all it's the attitude of the high sparrow himself that ticks people off. People really hate that sense of inflated self-importance especially when that person is outright yelling it. Previous manipulators and vile people were honest about it and somewhat subtle.
like the Kings of Europe, Westeros needs to shift from feudalism to absolute monarchy.
Dylan Thompson absolute monarchy means a lot of corruptions, but so does the feudalism. But absolute monarchy at least means not so many wars and religion is not above the state
These are not medieval times! This is Westeros!
People hate on The High Sparrow because of his hypocrisy. All the other people are honest about their own flaws. Cersei doesn't pretend who she is. The queen of thorns doesn't hide from the fact that she killed Joffrey. Everyone else is the same. The sparrow pretends to be all high and mighty, yet he's playing the same game as the high borns and people like littlefinger.
"All tyranny begins with the desire to coerce others for the greater good." Naval Ravikant. Fanatics are the worst people.
"Yeah, yeah!"- Itamar
This video made me a fan. your sly, precautious, pointed, detailed and persuasive allegory of our own hypocrisy, and reality was impressive.
Thanks Cris, much appreciated :)
I detest organized religion, but even I can't help but like the High Sparrow.
ditto
high sparrow is likely the lesser evil here, but who knows how corrupted he would become over time
Marxist atheista killed billions.
why do you like him
First, that's not a word. Second, no war or conflict has ever killed billions. Third you cannot kill in the name of Atheism, that is like killing in the name of nothing. You must always have a reason such as: nationalism, religion, greed, lust for power, etc.
Could .the High Sparrow be parallel with John Ball
Intersting idea. John Ball is remembered to a large degree because he preached in english instead of latin and delivered sermons which rhymed. Sort of a 14th century rapping minister, who knew the value of entertaining an audience and how to widely disseminate his ideas into popular culture. Didn't work out well for John Ball in the end. What fate do you think awaits the High Sparrow?
John Calvin, John Westley or others which preached against the morals of the elite may be other potential parallels.
The High Sparrow will probably will switch to another claimant to the Throne in the books it will be probably be fAegon and in the show he might support Dany if she arrives, otherwise he might hold out in the Great Sept of Baelor in some sort of siege if hostilities increase between the Lannister-Tyrell alliance, and possibly take over if he plays his card right (shifting the power from an oligarchy to a democracy if you want to compare this to Plato's Republic) also do you see a connection between the Faith Militant and the Society of Jesuits
I really like the depth to which you guys delve into the characters and lore. You also do so in a way that keeps my attention. Kudos.
Cersei didn't have Robert's bastards killed. It was Joffrey.
360p crew represent.
Hail High Bernie.
Dun noe.
Hail High Bernie!
The High Sparrow is definitely Friar Girolamo Savonarola. He's going to rule well for a short period and will be well liked by the people, but he has not played the game of thrones long enough. His downfall will come because he is a religious fanatic who is obsessed with the Gods and morality, but not an effective ruler. His rule is based on the weakness that comes with being good in a religious sense.
This interview pretty much confirms it: ruclips.net/video/i06c44euhpg/видео.html
It would be awesome if Tommen is the one to bring the High Sparrow down, but I don't think that'll happen. It would be very interesting if the Maesters played a role in defeating the High Sparrow.
daenerys is not the first queen of Westeros btw.
First ruling queen, we meant
GoT Academy Even still, Rhaenyra Targaryen was the first ruling queen of Westeros.
OK, point taken. Anyways, it was a dig at Hillary Clinton
+GoT Academy HAHAHAHAAHAH HOW did I not catch that?! whoops!
Darian Jackson
LOL
The problem is that 99% vs 1% talk is simplistic. Even in the most inequitable systems the divide is less drastic than that. And the more economic freedom there is, the more economic disparity there is- but also the greater number of people who do well.
If my life was at stake I couldn't articulate why but for some reason you guys have become my favorite Game of Thrones commentators. Keep it up!
Thanks, but be safe, right?
High Sparrow is fking fat, he must've saved most of food for himself. Religious zealot like high sparrow should never be appreciated, he is nothing different from Ramsay, he is just using religions to cover and decorate the intent of his actions. PS: The idea of good is in all of us, and we know what is good and what is bad a priori. For morality, it does not matter what time or the context is, because we all deep in our heart know what is good and what is evil. The high sparrow, simply, is just evil.
I hate and am terrified of the idea of a religious power being effectively head of state, or strongly controlling head of state. That is why I hate the sparrow. He is ushering in a very scary time for Westeros. I am afraid more people will be tried for bogus crimes, and more vulnerable people will be punished for things beyond their control. Also, religious fanatics tend to have more narrow moral codes, and tend to be more extreme in punishing people who exist outside those narrow views of acceptable human behaviour.
Yes once they start punished the ordinary people the Sparrow movement is doomed. There is a parallel with a theocracy in Renaissance Florence where the head preacher was burned at the stake in the end. Possible future for the High Sparrow.
I hate and am terrified of the idea of a religious power being effectively head of state, or strongly controlling head of state. That is why I hate the sparrow
Then your gonna love sharia law/Muslim's
What, and Westeros hasn't been going through a very scary time already? People have already been getting tried for bogus crimes (look at Ned Flanders). People are already being punished for existing outside of the narrow views of the elites.
And in any case, if the HS caused a reform and in some way the Faith of the Seven became the main power in Westeros it'd most likely be similar to the way that faith worked in medieval Europe - if you want to engage in a bit of sin, then as long as you don't do it openly you're not going to be burnt because you're not worth the trouble and the church doesn't have the time to care or the mass surveillance necessary to really find out about it.
Sure, if the Church becomes more powerful than the nobles then more people might be tried for religious crimes rather than crimes against the crown, but both of those law systems feature heavy punishments for petty crimes, and both of them have authority that'd be based on what we'd consider to be flimsy evidence today (the Sparrows and the Crown both claim to get their authority directly from the gods). So what makes the one better than the other? Only one of them is more willing to help the poor and bring the corrupt elites to justice, and that's the one I can get behind for now.
Maybe it's cyclical - in a couple of hundred years the Sparrows'd become corrupt and the nobles'd displace them and rule in a better way, and then after a few hundred of that the nobles'd get replaced by someone else and it'd start again, but for now the Sparrows are the good guys, relatively speaking.
Nav Vandela Under current rule, only a minority of people are being punished or tried for bogus crimes, mainly as power plays.
When you have religious power, you tend to get
a) more witch burnings, and
b) you still get the ordinary people suppressed or enslaved, it's just considered divine right to do so.
*spoiler talk*
So far, the sparrows haven't actually brought justice to the people. They arrested, tortured and shamed Cersei. Other than that, they've arrested one man for being homosexual, one woman for protecting her brother, they broken business such as bars and beaten up ordinary working class people who were having a drink.
Yes, they are also providing food to the poor. But Margery was doing that too, before they imprisoned and tortured her.
I dont' see them as good guys - I see them as fanatics, with a charismatic and clever leader
captain pinky Mate, any religion given extremes of power, can be terrible to live under. There was no need to go there with your comment; it was borderline xenophobic.
Nice try lol but I still don't like the High Sparrow. Don't like Cersei either.
Same here.
We did our best :)
GoT Academy You get an E for effort! in case you are disappointed in those results, just remember that E comes before F!
Sokami Mashibe
Our mom always told us to strive for an E
Tenth!
On an unrelated note, do u guys think that the big revelation about Jon's parentage is in episode 10? It would make sense most likely during episode 10 jon will visit the crypts of winterfell and learn about his own parentage while bran is also learning it from a flashback.
Yea, you are probably right. Something like that will hapen.
Most likely since the actor who plays yound ned is gonna show up in episode 10 presumably
This type of analysis is exactly why I love your channel and support on Patreon. Thanks
Thanks Lauren!!!!!
Great video! But I have something else to say (and prove why we must at least be disgusted by the High Sparrow anyway): it is true that the sparrows' movement is a direct result of the elite exploitation and social injustice in this world (and it reminds me much more of the bolcheviques in Russia back in 1917 than the islamic extremists of our time, or the peasants rioting in the rise of French Revolution); BUT religious zealots (and political ones) are the first to bring intellectual and cultural darkness; The Catholic Church burnt and condemned many scientists and thinkers back then, they defended stupid and unscientific ideas (creationists still do). Can you imagine a world where maester's love of rationality can live peacefully with sparrows' fanaticism? I cannot. The High Sparrow is like a religious Stalin. He must die. :D
Itamar feels the bern!!
Euron= Trump
Cersei= Clinton
H. Sparrow= Bernie (Edit: Bernie-Cruz-Hybrid)
Kevan Lannister = Ryan Paul
Bonus: (Ryan Anderson)
The Mad King = V.I.P.resident Trump
Littlefinger = Hillary Clinton
The Mad King= Trump
*future Trump
Clinton is a cross between Tywin and Tyrion.
The High Sparrow is a cross between Cruz and Bernie.
how dare u tim.... Bernard dont breach this religious control BS. Margery would be Bernie sanders
I totally forgot about Cruz... (will edit my comment)
At 1:12, the text is in Czech :-). English translation:
Who can tell you at the New Year's Eve, whether we will be here at the next one?
So, let's drink buddies, while we are thirsty, while we can!
Awesome we had no idea
Hey Itamar! A conspicuous omission to the conversation of applying modern morals to GoT characters: Jon Snow. His philosophy as a leader was a lot like Yitzhak Rabin, he bore no ill will to his enemies and showed them mercy, strove for a real peace with the wildlings, not just political peace. Even when he did not have the leadership position he was lifting up members of the watch who the leaders wrote off as useless, empowering the weak in a real way not just whipping them up into a frenzy like the Sparrow. Also Snow and Rabin assassinated for very similar reasons, breaking with traditions and making concessions in pursuit of peace. I guess what I am saying is that even though he may have broken vows and whatnot he would jive very well with modern morality. What do you think?
Dorne does accept gay people though
Let's immigrate to Dorne!
hahaha I really like this video! You guys are funny. And I've always like the High Sparrow, and used the Ned-decapitating-the-Night's-Watchman scene as an example of double standards in the show. The HS is a great blend of pragmatism and idealism, and possibly my favorite player in the game. I can't wait to see him and Tyrion haggle once Danny & Crew comes ashore and tries to break up the Faith Militant.
Man the hype sparrow is such a pimp, great vid guys by the way
the high sparrow is basically bernie sanders
I think what makes the high sparrow hated is the fact that we don't know anything about him. We are totally blind regarding his background, where he came from, what makes him tick and how does he think. Unlike Dany or Tywin we know what they want, why they want those thing, and how they want to have the thing that they want. In the case of the high sparrow we know that he wants justice, that is what he want, but why? How? Up until his demise any basic information that wilk make us empathize him is never revealed. We know he uphold the faith and justice very seriously but we do not know why or what even is the faith and justice to him.
I like how you subtly mock faux blames of antisemitism.
I actually like the High Sparrow somewhat. He's the Devil of the postmodern modern society. :v
OMG, these two guys are so funny.... How come they don't have their own tv show on a tv channel? They make me laugh even in my hard times. Love you guys 😂😂😘😘
Thanks!! Do you know any TV exec?
GoT Academy I wish I did. I'm in an unknown country here.... 😭
Lol , "That's not rain...that's pee" XD
"And there is no high-road to the Muses." I see that Pound biography!
High Sparrow needs to die and the actor who plays him should go back to play in Pirates of the Caribbean
lel
but if he would do that I would like the character and for now I hate Euron
Brilliant, Guys! Thank you.
Ned Flanders 👍👍
"Ding dong, the Sparrow's dead! Which sparrow? The High Sparrow! Ding dong, the wicked Sparrow's dead!"
SUCK IT!!!
(I apologize for nothing!)
Another thing, do you guys believe Cersie to be playing the high sparrow with Tommen, she seemed oddly too calm after the events of last episode, or maybe its too much of me expecting D & Ds writing to be intricate :/
We don't think Cersei is smart enough for that
well without little finger or varys in KL I'm really missing the scheming...Margaery seems to have been playing to sparrow, but did not account for a failed coup. Still love this show but its missing a certain degree of intelligence lately
She is calm because she has put all her trust in the Mountain.
Also cerceis trackrecord has shown that she is horrible at scheming so why expect her to be good at it now
Sorry,I quit watching this within the first 3 minutes. The video wasn't going anywhere. Plus it was contrary to any good sense, medeival or otherwise. But I didn't watch the whole thing, perhaps you made sense later, but it seemed boring.
As a former Catholic and grew up in the church, I have no moral choice than to hate the Sparrows. Praise the Old Gods.
lmfao, you guys are my favorite
You're our favorite commenter!
High Sparrow: We need a political revolution in this country!
Cersei: #FeelTheBurn
Okha plz don't compare the high sparrow with bernie, it doesn't make sense
Loved that definition of Elites: "the only group of people who do not pay for their mistakes".
#stilldontlikethehighsparrow
#wefailed :(
:((
I still don't like him either, but if it helps, I also don't like Cersei, or the Tyrells. :)
There are few who remember that It has been more than 40 years in the non- Game of Thrones world that all over the world life used to be centered on religion and it's interpretation of the world and events in it.
The "conservative" point-of-view consists of those who believe that everyone should live their lives according to religion-guided rules. The "liberal" or progressive point-of-view, lately called the secular view, consists of those who think the conservative point-of-view is BS, and that the changes and progress since World War Two is not completely horrible and scary.
In the Game of Thrones world it has only been six years that we have been visiting this world, but in that time there has been war in which the common people(that the sparrow cares about) have learned - the hard way - about what we blithely call "Collateral Damage"(but never experience in the places where Game of Thrones is so popular). In our non-GoT world, in feudal times refugees and survivors(of battles or massacres) - often maimed or traumatized - became monks(or nuns) to live the remainder of their lives as best they could in the care of religious orders at monasteries(or cloisters).
It is easy to neglect these people for the more dramatic, more magical and more interesting things going on in the series, but the High Sparrow is at the head of a "grass-roots" movement which has grown out of dislike for war's unpleasant side-effects. The corruption, the violence and the exploitation happens in peacetime, too.
The High Sparrow is unpopular because he has military and political power - and these things will kill him, too.
In the non Game of Thrones world, comic George Carlin had it right - we're the swirling water and stuff circling the toilet bowl before it goes down the drain. Best thing to do is smoke a fattie, eat some ice cream and have sex. Then watch Game of Thrones.
I don't hate High Sparrow at a personal level, nor do I hate anybody who are religious. I do hate it when people go on a fanatical frenzy though....
Cersei's walk of shame was of her own making. She revived the faith militant to suit her own ends, but got caught in her own trap. Have no sympathy for her at all.
Even Johnathan Pryce, the actor who plays the High Sparrow, says that he views the High Sparrow as the good guy in these events.
Well he has to view him that way, since he's playing him
Does Ramsey's actor view his character as the good guy?
+GoT Academy flawless logic
firecrotch hotpants
He's a sociopath, so that's different
in that case i lost all my sympathy for Johnathan Pryce