Fire Eater Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think what he meant is there are kings effictive in time of war, as Robert, and other only good in times of peace. Robert was a weak king in time of peace, but no ones dared to oppose him either since he proved himself twice at war. Part of Jaeharerys peace was acheived because Maegor was so cruel, most of the people's hatred was directed toward him, and a big part of this hatred died with Maegor. Nymeria was no warrior, but she was a good war leader according to GRRM, and Tyrion is not much of a warrior, but a good general. Jaime is a good warrior but not so much a good general. It takes more than a warrior to be a war leader as well. Jaehaerys was a good diplomat and politician, and the Targaryens still had Balerion and all their other five dragons intact when Maegor died. He knew the Faith was tired of war, and managed to negotiate deal where the Faith was disarmed peacefully and the Targaryens got an exemption from the laws of incest. I'm trying to say that good warriors aren't synonymous with good kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterJack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Nymeria was no warrior, but she was a good war leader according to GRRM, and Tyrion is not much of a warrior, but a good general. Jaime is a good warrior but not so much a good general. It takes more than a warrior to be a war leader as well. Jaehaerys was a good diplomat and politician, and the Targaryens still had Balerion and all their other five dragons intact when Maegor died. He knew the Faith was tired of war, and managed to negotiate deal where the Faith was disarmed peacefully and the Targaryens got an exemption from the laws of incest. I'm trying to say that good warriors aren't synonymous with good kings. By "good warrior" I was implying "good general", sure any good fighter isnt to be a good king. During war you need a king willing to get blood on his hand, during peace you need a good diplomat. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 By "good warrior" I was implying "good general", sure any good fighter isnt to be a good king. During war you need a king willing to get blood on his hand, during peace you need a good diplomat. Sorry for the misunderstanding. A good warrior doesn't make a good general, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterJack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 A good warrior doesn't make a good general, either. Hey I am french, just give me some slack with the words exact meaning. To me warrior could mean war leader/general and Fighter means good at fighting. I thought we were talking about good general or his synonyms. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 By "good warrior" I was implying "good general", sure any good fighter isnt to be a good king. During war you need a king willing to get blood on his hand, during peace you need a good diplomat. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Peaces are achieved when two sides are done fighting, or the diplomats have done their work. Daeron seemed to be able to crush the First Blackfyre Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Hey I am french, just give me some slack with the words exact meaning. To me warrior could mean war leader/general and Fighter means good at fighting. I thought we were talking about good general or his synonyms. My bad. Sorry. :D A "warrior," how I'd use it, is someone with demonstrable ability at fighting. I would call Jaime, Loras or Robert a "warrior." A "general," how I'd use it, is someone with demonstrable ability at leading, strategy, organization, etc. I would call Stannis or Robb or even Ned a "general." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterJack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Peaces are achieved when two sides are done fighting, or the diplomats have done their work. Daeron seemed to be able to crush the First Blackfyre Rebellion.We could argue BloodRaven was the one who dared to get blood on his hands during this war. He advocated a hard line against the enemies and made himself a kinslayer for the Daeron.I am not so sure a Jaehaerys could have "crushed" or used diplomaties to end the Blackfyre rebellion without a BR. Not every man can be reasoned with good intentions. During most wars, both sides beleive they are right. Well I dont know if we are really arguing, we probably both agree a good general is needed during times of war and this military might is usefull to prevent wars. While a good and benevolent king is usefull during peace time but need to be able to "close his eyes" or give his "ok" to some dark moves if he wants to end the conflict on the winning side during war time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 We could argue BloodRaven was the one who dared to get blood on his hands during this war. He advocated a hard line against the enemies and made himself a kinslayer for the Daeron.I am not so sure a Jaehaerys could have "crushed" or used diplomaties to end the Blackfyre rebellion without a BR. Not every man can be reasoned with good intentions.But BR was given his position by Daeron, and Daeron's choice of war leaders turned out to be good, even excluding BR you had Baelor and Maekar, whom he had raised. We don't know what Jaeharys could have done in the Blackfyre Rebellion as he had never lived during that time, so I don't think we can make any claims as to whether or not he would have succeeded in the Blackfyre Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 We could argue BloodRaven was the one who dared to get blood on his hands during this war. He advocated a hard line against the enemies and made himself a kinslayer for the Daeron.I am not so sure a Jaehaerys could have "crushed" or used diplomaties to end the Blackfyre rebellion without a BR. Not every man can be reasoned with good intentions. During most wars, both sides beleive they are right. Well I dont know if we are really arguing, we probably both agree a good general is needed during times of war and this military might is usefull to prevent wars. While a good and benevolent king is usefull during peace time but need to be able to "close his eyes" or give his "ok" to some dark moves if he wants to end the conflict on the winning side during war time. And even if someone like Bloodraven was necessary in the Blackfyre Rebellion, it still took Daeron II to recognize that and elevate him to that level. You can't give Bloodraven credit without giving Daeron credit for unleashing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Pintur Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 And even if someone like Bloodraven was necessary in the Blackfyre Rebellion, it still took Daeron II to recognize that and elevate him to that level. You can't give Bloodraven credit without giving Daeron credit for unleashing him. I think this is what makes Daeron a great King. He didn't need to be a warrior/general, he just needed to put the right people in charge where he is not as knowledgeable. If Daemon would of been smart enough to fill his small council with smart people and not yes men then I think his reign would of been good. Honestly I think that is the most important part of keeping the realm together. A good small council and good generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think this is what makes Daeron a great King. He didn't need to be a warrior/general, he just needed to put the right people in charge where he is not as knowledgeable. If Daemon would of been smart enough to fill his small council with smart people and not yes men then I think his reign would of been good. Honestly I think that is the most important part of keeping the realm together. A good small council and good generals. I wonder why people rank being a warrior/general as the most important thing for a king. Daeron I was a great warrir/general and he was lucky to have Viserys and Baelor I to remedy the situation his greatness led to. Why warrior/general? Isn't financial stability just as important for a kingdom? Should the king also be a great Master of Coin? Isn't upholding the law just as important? Should the king also be a great Master of Law? A Grand Maester? I think you get the idea. Which of those thigs, exactly, did Daemon excel at to make everyone believe that he was the most suitable candidate for the ugly chair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
complexphoenix Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 As an individual Daemon was quite the fine specimen, but the reasons behind his rebellion were awful and the consequences, if he was successful, would have been very negative for Westeros as a whole. Daemon was motivated by some pretty selfish stuff: his romantic desire for his half-sister Daenerys and personal ambition that had been stoked by Bittersteel and Fireball. His supporters were motivated by something even more noxious, namely, hatred of the Dornish and desire for more wars with them. King Daeron was about the bring Dorne peacefully into the Seven Kingdoms by marrying Daenerys to Maron Martell; the Blackfyre rebellion was an effort to stop that. When you look at it from the perspective of what's best for the realm, Daeron was the better candidate, hands down. If Daemon had succeeded, the Seven Kingdoms would have fought ever more pointless wars with Dorne for decades and perhaps centuries. As for Daeron's parentage: it's possible that Aemon was the real father, but it's dubious. Aemon was by all accounts very honorable and Naerys was very pious (contrast with the sociopathic Cersei and devil-may-care Jaime), so although they loved each other they might not have actually gone there. And since Aegon and Aemon were brothers, there is no way to figure it out on the basis of physical resemblance. Personality resemblance, meanwhile, means exactly nothing when you're talking about House Targaryen - even a cursory overview of the family history shows that their personalities are very random and often differ dramatically even among the closest kin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sertravisredbeard Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I got more impressions about Daemon from the second Dunk and Egg book. He seemed like a decent enough guy, but I don't think he would have tried to become king if it wasn't for some of the guys he surrounded himself with. From what I gathered, some people thought he would be the better king because he was more of pin-up calendar action-movie star type guy than his brother Daeron was, which I thought was silly. That combined with a lot of lords being jealous of Dornishmen is what I thought caused the rebellion. Since it took 12 years for him to decide that he should be king, I don't think he actually wanted it that much, but was pressured into it. The rumors about his brother Daeron's parentage might have been true, I don't know. But the reason they were brought up wasn't because of chivalry or honor. A bunch of guys like the Peakes, Yronwoods, Sunderlands, and Bittersteel all had personal reasons for hyping up the war effort. Personal reasons and jealousy issues and more inevitably led to the rebellion, not believing that honor decreed that Daeron be brought down. Daemon might have been the nicest guy in the world, but the rebellion was silly and ill-advised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosimaistheHottest Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The personality thing is a weird thing to go by and also fighting ability. Bloodraven also doesn't seem to have the same type of personality as his brothers and no one claims he isn't Aegon's son. Whether or not Daeron was a warrior was a terrible thing to go by in claiming Daeron wasn't Aegon's son. Especially since Aemon was one of the best warriors and greatest knights around better than Aegon. So instead of having Aegon as a father, he has one of the greatest fighters around as a father and still isn't martial. I call foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 No matter what you think of his martial skills, he wanted what was not rightfully his. the Crown and the throne. He almost succeeded. Sometimes usurpers do. Henry IV of England did, his son Henry V held on to it but Edward IV took it back from Henry VI. That is the thing with usurpations, if they succeed, they set a dangerous precedent. In this story, Aegon II usurped and won, so Daemon proboubly felt he could win it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkbringer Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 What I find also alluring is the blood oath of the Golden Company. Obviously they don't consider the claim the least bit fatuous or frivolous, or they would have given up by now. I would say that they are the most determined people in Worldyros, especially if Varys and/or Illyrio turn out to be Blackfyres (which, of course, means Aegon is one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Maegor, Aegon IV and Robert were all warrior kings, and they were terrible. Westeros isn't always at war, there are times of peace lasting for decades, longer than the wars. Jaehaerys wasn't a warrior but a scholar, and he was the greatest king to ever sit the IT. Maegor was more then a warrior, but a kinslayer. Aegon IV was even a warrior, but a fat idiot prone to lust and impulse. Yes Robert was a king. Aegon IV Aerys II Viserys I Aerys I Aenys All terrible kings, all not that martial. As to Jaeherys, he robbed Westeros a good queen for a fool like Viserys. Daemon was a martial king, but that doesn't automatically a bad king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Of course he is referenced quite a bit. In fact most of the stories have at least one Black Dragon loyalist whom Dunk and Egg end up somehow involved with, and the Wedding Knight well... you'll have to read that for yourself to find out. :) But in tried and true GRRM fashion we only get hearsay. People from Blackfyre side idealizing Daemon and saying how he'd been such a great king, where as people loyal to the Targaryens are demonizing him and claiming he was insane. Without an actual chance of seeing Daemon speak for himself we've really no way of knowing the truth.who said daemon was insane I've never heard of anyone say that on either side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon The Black Dragon Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Say what you will about Daemon but it show's what kind of guy he was when after he defeated Corbray. Daemon defended him and had him carried of the field of battle instead of advancing. He was the first and greatest of the Blackfyres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baela of Pentos Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I wonder why people rank being a warrior/general as the most important thing for a king. Daeron I was a great warrir/general and he was lucky to have Viserys and Baelor I to remedy the situation his greatness led to. Why warrior/general? Isn't financial stability just as important for a kingdom? Should the king also be a great Master of Coin? Isn't upholding the law just as important? Should the king also be a great Master of Law? A Grand Maester? I think you get the idea. Which of those thigs, exactly, did Daemon excel at to make everyone believe that he was the most suitable candidate for the ugly chair? Very true. But unfortunately that's not how the Blackfyre supporters saw it. It's a culture that values martial prowess. Some lords didn't even bother learning their letters, and left the bookkeeping/correspondence to the maesters. (who were not viewed with respect either, if we go by Randyll Tarly.) No doubt a king surrounding himself with scholars and courtiers with (to them) strange customs was not viewed with the same respect. Say what you will about Daemon but it show's what kind of guy he was when after he defeated Corbray. Daemon defended him and had him carried of the field of battle instead of advancing. He was the first and greatest of the Blackfyres. He definitely showed an honorable side. Showing respect for his foes spoke volume on how he won so many supporters. It was like how Robert Baratheon had the maester treating Ser Barristan Selmy after the Battle of Trident. He was far from black(fyre) and white. He had charisma and inspired people. He was likely a competent/effective leader (probably like Tywin). On the other hand, his love for Daenerys did not stop him from producing many sons and daughters starting around age 14. Btw, history often claim wars were fought over a women: Daenerys I, Lyanna Stark, maybe even over Shiera Seastar. Men's ambition/pride, the instinct for survival and rise against tyranny (in the case of RR) may not sound as romantic. Btw, I have read on this forum that Bloodraven in fact loved/respected him a great deal but chose Daeron's side in spite of it. ("For the realm!") Anyone can point to the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.