Mithras Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Actually, I think Aegon V may have been the most progressive (and thus best) monarch Westeros ever had. He seems to have been the only who actually cared about the common man whereas every other monarch - even Jaehaerys I and Daeron II - where only good monarch within the confines of the feudal structure they operated in. The feudal monarchy of Westeros is essentially a nightmare. The smallfolk has essentially no rights at all, there is no strong central government, no societal structure to create a lasting peace. Everything depends on the whims and character of the guy who is born to rule - both at the top and on mid-level (i.e. lordly level). We have yet no idea what reforms Aegon V tried to make - or what reforms he actually did enforce which were later taken back by Jaehaerys II and Aerys II and Tywn - but the impression Yandel gives is that he tried to circumvent the Lords not strengthen the Crown's power but rather to emancipate the smallfolk and strengthen its rights. The whole dragon idea was supposed to be a way to strengthen his power but he only wanted that power to change the society he lived in for the better. If we ignore the scandals and rebellions during his reign I'd imagine he was indeed one of the best monarchs in Westerosi history as I simply cannot imagine he would be disinterested when he, for instance, held court or dealt out justice. Egg was always a smart and very interested boy - that would not have changed when he took the crown. Even more importantly, he ruled supreme until his death which means he was both a skilled warrior/commander as well as a good politician. Despite his reform agenda no enemy of his was able to outmaneuver him and forge an successful rebel coalition against him. That is quite a feature especially in light of the still looming Blackfyre threat. Caring about the common people is good but it is not enough by its own. Dany is the proof of that as well as Egg himself. Both Viserys II and Egg were reformists but both of them sucked at parenting. We cannot ignore te scandals and rebellions during his reign because they are part of his reign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 And thank gods he failed to bring the dragons back. Aerys with a grown up dragon would mean the end of civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemond's Eye Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Caring about the common people is good but it is not enough by its own. Dany is the proof of that as well as Egg himself. Both Viserys II and Egg were reformists but both of them sucked at parenting. We cannot ignore te scandals and rebellions during his reign because they are part of his reign.Viserys II sucked at parenting? Aemon and Naerys turned out well - and Viserys tried, in vain, to put an end to Aegon's wanton behaviour at times. Had the Targaryen family not lost so many during the Dance then Viserys may well have permitted Naerys to be a septa, but it's understandable why he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Mithras, if you are a subject than caring about the common people is a good thing in itself. It makes also no sense to compare Dany's efforts to Egg's as we don't even know exactly what Aegon V tried to change and thus we can neither assess nor compare it to anything else. And Dany's efforts aren't all that bad, either. As of yet, she does yet rule supreme in her quarter of the world but if she wins her wars she may be able to end slavery for good and all. We also have no idea how much the marriage stuff harmed Egg's policies - say, was Lord Lyonel still not his friend even after Rhaelle had married Ormund? - nor do we know whether the Tyrells, Tullys, and Redwynes would actually have helped Egg with his reforms. Perhaps they would have found excuses why they couldn't even in that cases? Without a detailed account on the reign of Aegon V we cannot say anything with a certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It seems that Aegon V was trying to reform the feudal system and centralise the government; what you think of that largely depends I think on a number of factors, including one's own political prejudices, and what one thinks were his motives for doing so. In the late modern era there's a tendency to believe that royalty and aristocracy are fundamentally allies in the struggle against reform, and there may be some truth in that. But before the rise of the bourgeouisie, it was often quite the reverse. The aristocracy were, along with the church, the king's greatest rivals and most powerful potential enemies. It's thus not historically uncommon for a king to empower the people as a counterweight against the nobles in order at least to an extent to shore up their own power. (It's generally easier for kings to be widely populist than it is for nobles who have to deal with their peasant subjects every day). In Westeros the church is long gone as a meaningful political force until Cersei stupidly re-empowers it, but the aristocracy are still a major threat to the crown. By the time Aegon V comes to the throne the realm has endured a century of on-and-off civil wars which have been enabled to an extent by the power still concentrated in the hands of the Lords Paramount and their vassals. Aegon's own father was killed suppressing a noble revolt. Seen from that perspective, the reforms he instituted to curb the power of the nobles might not just have been about improving the lot of the people, but improving the lot of the crown. His time as a squire will have given him an insight into how the peasantry think, and if he's sufficiently shrewd (which it seems he was) he might have twigged that this was something he could try. In that respect perhaps he didn't go far enough, as the tradition of appointing a powerful vassal to the position of Hand was always going to mean the laws got changed back with a sufficiently assertive Hand in power. Certainly the nobles seem to have seen him not as a people's champion, but as a tyrant. As people have said he might well have been ahead of his time in general, though, and that's always a problem. Westeros is enormous and just doesn't have the infrastructure to support a properly centralised government, which is what is necessary if the crown is going to be able to enforce major changes in an ongoing way. In that respect his reforms might well have been doomed to failure before he started, and attempting them at all ended up doing more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Getting really fed up of these double posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunaida1975 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Crazy idea. Aegon was Egg. What about Jon (Snow) is short for Aegon? He is Egg reborn. The Prince Promised? etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VVSINGOFTHECROSS Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Crazy idea. Aegon was Egg. What about Jon (Snow) is short for Aegon? He is Egg reborn. The Prince Promised? etc etc. Lol go home Lunaida you're drunk :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tyrion I Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Crazy idea. Aegon was Egg. What about Jon (Snow) is short for Aegon? He is Egg reborn. The Prince Promised? etc etc. Welcome to the boards! :cheers: I find it kind of sad that we don't have a detailed report of his reign. And yes, I also see bias in Yandel's report about his time. I also like Aegon V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.