House Blackfyre what the difference from Red and Black Dragon?

[Veltigar]

So, Aerys was a good ruler because he let more capable people do the ruling for him? Yeah, that's not how that works. We're comparing Aerys and Daemon, not their advisors. The fact that BR was in charge further proves that Aerys was a puppet through and through. And it was an uneven fight, because Daemon had no magical sorcerers to fight his battles, he only had some grasping fools whispering in his ear, and despite all that he turned out alright

Yes, indeed. A wise ruler, above all, should know his limitations and seek council when needed. Aerys did just that, while Daemon II simply ignored the advice given to him. Which lead to the death of loyal men and the embarrasment to House Blackfyre that was the Second BF Rebellion.

[RedShirt47]

Red or Black, a dragon is still a dragon...

[Good Guy Garlan]

Yes, indeed. A wise ruler, above all, should know his limitations and seek council when needed. Aerys did just that, while Daemon II simply ignored the advice given to him. Which lead to the death of loyal men and an embarrasment to House Blackfyre.

There's a difference between seeking council and letting someone else be pretty much the de facto ruler and do everything for you. Aerys did absolutely nothing while BR had to deal with rebellions, draughts, pandemics, etc. And again, considering how throughly unprepared Daemon's advisors were he was right by ignoring their council. The idiot there was Bittersteel for not supporting Daemon back then. Even Dunk was smart to see how fucked up the realm was and how succesful a full-fledged rebellion would have been had Bittersteel being smarter. I'm telling you, that damn sword is destined to be the Blackfyre's downfall, again and again

[Veltigar]

There's a difference between seeking council and letting someone else be pretty much the de facto ruler and do everything for you. Aerys did absolutely nothing while BR had to deal with rebellions, draughts, pandemics, etc.

And BR was extremely apt at dealing with all those problems. Would you really have prefered Aerys muscling in and making decisions that might have been worse. The Smallfolk sure as hell wouldn't.

And again, considering how throughly unprepared Daemon's advisors were he was right by ignoring their council. The idiot there was Bittersteel for not supporting Daemon back then. Even Dunk was smart to see how fucked up the realm was and how succesful a full-fledged rebellion would have been had Bittersteel being smarter. I'm telling you, that damn sword is destined to be the Blackfyre's downfall, again and again

Now you must be joking. Bittersteel was a petty jerk, that's true, but certainly not an idiot. The man was right to keep the sword out of Daemon's hand. Let's not kid ourselves, Daemon II was a good man, but he would have made for a lousy BF King. Even with the sword, the BF supporters would have soon realized how weak he was and left him to his own devices. Under his leadership, a rebellion was never going to be succesful.

Because really, not one BF supporter rallied to his side when BR came to get him. That shows you how little they cared for him. If he had been his father reborn, he could have rallied all of them even without the sword, but he was not. If Faegon had been there instead of Daemon II, I'm sure that all of them would have rallied to his side, because Faegon (flaws and all) is what a BF pretender should be.

And that's all without taking other (possible) factors into account. Bittersteel and the other Blackfyres were probably consolidating power in Essos at the time and the situation of the Seven Kingdoms had not yet reached rock bottom (The IT still had to deal with the Ironborn for instance, which might have been a better opportunity to launch an attack). If Daemon had waited for a little while longer, the BF cause would have been stronger. Not that it would have mathered, for he could never be an effective BF figurehead. It appears that the Second Rebellion was Bittersteel's attempt to get rid of incompetent Daemon in favor of Haegon, who was probably much more warrior like than his older brother.

[Good Guy Garlan]

And BR was extremely apt at dealing with all those problems. Would you really have prefered Aerys muscling in and making decisions that might have been worse. The Smallfolk sure as hell wouldn't.

Now you must be joking. Bittersteel was a petty jerk, that's true, but certainly not an idiot. The man was right to keep the sword out of Daemon's hand. Let's not kid ourselves, Daemon II was a good man, but he would have made for a lousy BF King. Even with the sword, the BF supporters would have soon realized how weak he was and left him to his own devices. Under his leadership, a rebellion was never going to be succesful.

Because really, not one BF supporter rallied to his side when BR came to get him. That shows you how little they cared for him. If he had been his father reborn, he could have rallied all of them even without the sword, but he was not. If Faegon had been there instead of Daemon II, I'm sure that all of them would have rallied to his side, because Faegon (flaws and all) is what a BF pretender should be.

And that's all without taking other (possible) factors into account. Bittersteel and the other Blackfyres were probably consolidating power in Essos at the time and the situation of the Seven Kingdoms had not yet reached rock bottom (The IT still had to deal with the Ironborn for instance, which might have been a better opportunity to launch an attack). If Daemon had waited for a little while longer, the BF cause would have been stronger. Not that it would have mathered, for he could never be an effective BF figurehead. It appears that the Second Rebellion was Bittersteel's attempt to get rid of incompetent Daemon in favor of Haegon, who was probably much more warrior like than his older brother.

"Tell me something, do you still believe good warriors make good kings?"

That quote couldn't be more accurate. Look at Robert and what a lousy ruler he was. People like Renly or Daemon had zero warrior blood in them, but they were good politicians. The importance the BF supporters placed on that sword shows how narrow-minded they were. Again, Dunk says it himself, the realm was fucked circa Whitewalls, Maekar was brooding away on Dragonstone, Egg was right there as a hostage, Daemon was a solid choice, but the BF threw it all away because of a stupid sword

And I'm not up to date regarding the 3rd BF rebellion but I doubt the realm was as ripe for the taking as it was during Whitewalls

[Veltigar]

And I'm not up to date regarding the 3rd BF rebellion but I doubt the realm was as ripe for the taking as it was during Whitewalls

Luckily for me then, I didn't mention the third BF Rebellion at all. That's all you. I said that the 7K might not have reached rockbottom yet during the time of the Second Rebellion. If Daemon had waited a few years, the Realm might have been even weaker (and the BF's stronger). This hypothetical point in time does not automatically coincide with the time of the Third BF Rebellion.

"Tell me something, do you still believe good warriors make good kings?"

That quote couldn't be more accurate. Look at Robert and what a lousy ruler he was. People like Renly or Daemon had zero warrior blood in them, but they were good politicians. The importance the BF supporters placed on that sword shows how narrow-minded they were. Again, Dunk says it himself, the realm was fucked circa Whitewalls, Maekar was brooding away on Dragonstone, Egg was right there as a hostage, Daemon was a solid choice, but the BF threw it all away because of a stupid sword

:lmao: My God, Daemon II was a shitty politician. If he was halfway decent, he wouldn't have attempted to go without the sword in the first place. As to the rest of your argument, it's pretty nonsensical to the points I raised. I never claimed that a good warrior is automatically a good King. Again, that's all you strawmanning all over the place. What I did say, is that Daemon II had no chance of succeeding because he wasn't a charismatic warrior like his father.

To rally the BF supporters to your side, that's what you need to be. Like you pointed out yourself, they are a pretty narrow-minded bunch and that's the only type for which they would have gotten of their asses for. They don't really care for anything else in a King. Daemon II didn't realize that, which lead to the embarrasing showing that was the Second Rebellion.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Luckily for me then, I didn't mention the third BF Rebellion at all. That's all you. I said that the 7K might not have reached rockbottom yet during the time of the Second Rebellion. If Daemon had waited a few years, the Realm might have been even weaker (and the BF's stronger). This hypothetical point in time does not automatically coincide with the time of the Third BF Rebellion.

:lmao: My God, Daemon II was a shitty politician. If he was halfway decent, he wouldn't have attempted to go without the sword in the first place. As to the rest of your argument, it's pretty nonsensical to the points I raised. I never claimed that a good warrior is automatically a good King. Again, that's all you strawmanning all over the place. What I did say, is that Daemon II had no chance of succeeding because he wasn't a charismatic warrior like his father.

To rally the BF supporters to your side, that's what you need to be. Like you pointed out yourself, they are a pretty narrow-minded bunch and that's the only type for which they would have gotten of their asses for. They don't really care for anything else in a King. Daemon II didn't realize that, which lead to the embarrasing showing that was the Second Rebellion.

Well, I guess you and I have entirely different views of the discourse Martin provided in TMK. The way I see it, given Martin's penchant for deconstruction of particularly romanticized conceits, is that Daemon really had it in him to be a good king, as he proved himself to be an all-around decent human being (which shows, as I've said before, in his treatment of Dunk, his being adamant at winning the joust the honorable way, the way he tried to fight even when sorely outnumbered, etc. Where you see a hopeless loser, I see a tragic figure whose potential was squandered because of Bittersteel's uber macho ideas. That's the discourse I see Martin using, and I feel even we as readers are supposed to question at the end of TMK whose side was right after all. Martin was clearly and deliberately depicting Daemon as a sympathetic character. But you clearly have a different interpretation, so it's unlikely we're going to see eye to eye.

And just one comment on the 3rd Rebellion, because I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say the 7k were probably worse by then, I said the opposite: if Dagon was done raiding and Maekar was already in power (because failing to produce heirs was yet another of Aerys' problems) then the realm was likely better and the 3rd rebellion had fewer chances of succeeding. Like I said, I'm not up to date on any info pertaining to this, so I could be totally wrong, but I do think the realm was even more of a mess circa Whitewalls. I do think the 3rd rebellion had more support, but that's again because of the dudebro mentality of Bittersteel's lot

[Veltigar]

Well, I guess you and I have entirely different views of the discourse Martin provided in TMK. The way I see it, given Martin's penchant for deconstruction of particularly romanticized conceits, is that Daemon really had it in him to be a good king, as he proved himself to be an all-around decent human being (which shows, as I've said before, in his treatment of Dunk, his being adamant at winning the joust the honorable way, the way he tried to fight even when sorely outnumbered, etc.

Martin's work pretty much showcases the polar opposite, namely that good men don't necessarily make good rulers (and that bad men aren't necessarily bad lords). It's not enough to be a decent human being to be an excellent King. The Baelor Breakspear's of this world are sadly a very rare occurence.

Where you see a hopeless loser, I see a tragic figure whose potential was squandered because of Bittersteel's uber macho ideas. That's the discourse I see Martin using, and I feel even we as readers are supposed to question at the end of TMK whose side was right after all. Martin was clearly and deliberately depicting Daemon as a sympathetic character. But you clearly have a different interpretation, so it's unlikely we're going to see eye to eye.

Thanks for again deciding what I think. What would I do without you. But now let me give my real opinion, instead of relying on your misrepresentation of my position. Daemon II imo was a tragic and sympathetic figure, like I said he was a good man and he didn't deserve the ending he got. That doesn't preclude him from being a delusional "loser" though. He was daft to think that his attempt could end in anything else than a catastrophe.

And just one comment on the 3rd Rebellion, because I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say the 7k were probably worse by then, I said the opposite: if Dagon was done raiding and Maekar was already in power (because failing to produce heirs was yet another of Aerys' problems) then the realm was likely better and the 3rd rebellion had fewer chances of succeeding. Like I said, I'm not up to date on any info pertaining to this, so I could be totally wrong, but I do think the realm was even more of a mess circa Whitewalls. I do think the 3rd rebellion had more support, but that's again because of the dudebro mentality of Bittersteel's lot

And again, I'm baffled by the fact that you keep dragging the third BF Rebellion into this discussion. Read this part of my previous post again:

Luckily for me then, I didn't mention the third BF Rebellion at all. That's all you. I said that the 7K might not have reached rockbottom yet during the time of the Second Rebellion. If Daemon had waited a few years, the Realm might have been even weaker (and the BF's stronger). This hypothetical point in time does not automatically coincide with the time of the Third BF Rebellion.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Martin's work pretty much showcases the polar opposite, namely that good men don't necessarily make good rulers (and that bad men aren't necessarily bad lords). It's not enough to be a decent human being to be an excellent King. The Baelor Breakspear's of this world are sadly a very rare occurence.

Thanks for again deciding what I think. What would I do without you. But now let me give my real opinion, instead of relying on your misrepresentation of my position. Daemon II imo was a tragic and sympathetic figure, like I said he was a good man and he didn't deserve the ending he got. That doesn't preclude him from being a delusional "loser" though. He was daft to think that his attempt could end in anything else than a catastrophe.

And again, I'm baffled by the fact that you keep dragging the third BF Rebellion into this discussion. Read this part of my previous post again:

No offense, but you're being way too hostile for an online discussion about fictional characters and I'm not digging the confrontational vibe. I'm not looking for a fight, so let's just call it quits and move on :)

[Dofs]

Well, Aegon is passed as Targaryen, so that makes him a fake Targaryen (if he is not Rhaegar's son). And despite the fact that Blackfyres are dragons, they are not a royal family thus have no rights to the thrones.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Well, Aegon is passed as Targaryen, so that makes him a fake Targaryen (if he is not Rhaegar's son). And despite the fact that Blackfyres are dragons, they are not a royal family thus have no rights to the thrones.

Targs aren't a royal family either, not in Westeros anyway

[Dofs]

Targs aren't a royal family either, not in Westeros anyway

They are not but are still remembered and that is why Varys and Illyrio are passing him as a Targaryen, so when Aegon conquers the Iron Throne, people would accept him easier as he would have at least some legitimacy in the minds of Westerosi. A Blackfyre would have no legitimacy in the minds of Westerosi.

[Black Dragons]

To Council Member (Rhaenys Targaryen) I don't know what law you talking about but it may be true because they were never talks of Daena's of never getting the crown, But the CROWN SHOULD HAVE GONE TO Daena's because the line of succession because she next in line and you right that some thing happen to after Rhaenyra Targaryen try to get crown (but it was hers crown, her father said that she was his heir) before that there was the Queen who was never because was the old King had said no, but there big discussion with the council about it.

[Acnologia Targaryen]

Actually he did. He just choose not to.

Don't matter bro/sis he chose Blackfyre from he changed teh last name he was not a targ to the realm anymore.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

To Council Member (Rhaenys Targaryen) I don't know what law you talking about but it may be true because they were never talks of Daena's of never getting the crown, But the CROWN SHOULD HAVE GONE TO Daena's because the line of succession because she next in line and you right that some thing happen to after Rhaenyra Targaryen try to get crown (but it was hers crown, her father said that she was his heir) before that there was the Queen who was never because was the old King had said no, but there big discussion with the council about it.

There is a difference between the law of inheritence for the throne, and the law of inheritance of the Andals. We see a "normal" inheritance matter in Dance with Dragons, where Rickard Karstark had sons and one daughter. Only after Rickard and all his sons had died, could the daughter inherit. Should Alys now die, then Rickards uncle can inherit (as Rickard doesn't have any brothers himself).

For the throne, the situation is different. There is an SSM about it (quote from GRRM) where he talks about throne inheritance:

I told George that when he changed Viserys I from a son to a brother he created an error in that Baelor's sisters did not inherit the throne after him, George replied that women came after all men in the Targaryen succession after TDWD. Something interesting and neatly explains Daena and the rest not becoming queen.

That should answer your question about Daena and her inheritance rights. ;)

The big question is now, whether this was also the case before the war. That is still not known, and hopefully the world book gives an explanation about it.

[Lord Varys]

On Aerys I and Bloodraven:

We really don't know how their relationship worked in detail. Aerys I was perceived as a puppet by the general public and the smallfolk, i.e. by people who were not really close to court and king. That does not mean that Aerys I did not have a say in matters of state, or did not make important decisions himself. In fact, there is no hint in TMK that Bloodraven does not mean it when he says in the end that Aerys has to decide what is done with Daemon II.

We can safely assume that Aerys I was disgusted by or unwilling to fulfill all the representation duties that came with being king in a society like Westeros. He refused to actively participate in any of that, but this does not mean that Bloodraven usurp the place of the king. It seems to be the other way around - Aerys I chose his bastard uncle to serve as acting king in his stead, and many people at court and throughout the Realm - Maekar included - were not all that happy with that decision.

On Daemon II:

I don't think he would have sucked completely as a king, nor do I think that he was completely mistaken. He had his dreams, and he had a good reason to believe that he could foresee the future.

Hedging his bet on the likes of Gormon Peake was a rather poor decision, though. Although I'd be very surprised if it turned out that Bittersteel had personality all that different from that of Gormon Peake.

[denny717]

Yeah I think eventually they decided that if your completely incompetant, then you get skipped. Like aerion daughter was skipped to put maester aemon on the throne. Of course a maester can't be king so aemon was like" I can't be king! Wtf give the throne to my bro.

I don't think daemon2 was that incompetant. he did seem charismatic, honorable, and he was a decent warrior. Just because one person in the tourney beat him, it doesn't mean he was awful. But it's been so long since I read TMK so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think of it as multiple rebellions. It's not like daemon2 was going to rise up against the targ then and there. He was raising awareness for when they strike later. That's why he didn't bother risking bringing his sword. He was simply showing people he was a good and just king with honor. Unfortunately he invited families like peaks and freys, who value treachery and doing whatever it takes to win rather then honor and fairness