Lord Varys

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Varys

  • Rank
    Most Devious 'Man' In The Seven Kingdoms
  • Birthday 11/25/1982

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Definitely somewhere in King's Landing

Recent Profile Visitors

17,885 profile views
  1. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    We are in agreement there. Yeah, that seems to be the case. The irritating thing is that the Mertyn nobles apparently are still with their levies - who should have remained at Bitterbridge. The interesting thing there is that Ser Justin Massey clearly isn't the Lord Massey of Stonedance. We don't know who that guy is at the time of the series. Presumably Lord Massey fought with Stannis on the Blackwater but since neither he nor Ser Justin show up in ACoK among Stannis' vassals on Dragonstone this is difficult to figure out. Were the Masseys just not mentioned by Davos and Cressen or did they only join Stannis later during his campaign? That thing is especially irritating because the Bar Emmons - who are also from Massey's Hook - were on Dragonstone during ACoK and ASoS. If they joined him later then others that are right now with him could have done so to. Aside from Ser Justin there are other noblemen and knights with Stannis who are neither the heads of their houses nor next in line to inherit those titles. People like Horpe, Suggs, and Selyse's sworn shields at the Wall fall in those categories. The presence of such men does not necessarily imply that the entire house supported Stannis' claim at one point. The Masseys certainly might have done so but Ser Richard Horpe could easily enough be the only Horpe who ever declared for Stannis Baratheon, and so on. I don't think Tarly really hates Mace. The episode that's cited there usually is the Battle of Ashford and the military men of Westeros knew who did the work there. People know it was Randyll Tarly. Mace looks bad or even ridiculous by overemphasizing his role in all that. However, Tarly wasn't the commander or general of the Tyrell army. Mace Tyrell was. If you ask me who won the Battle of the Green Fork I'd say Lord Tywin Lannister although he didn't do any personal fighting in that one. We wouldn't say Gregor Clegane, Addam Marbrand, or Kevan Lannister won that battle although they might have done the actual commanding work on the field. And when we would ask who had effectively won the War of the Five Kings on the day before Joffrey's wedding we would say King Joffrey despite the fact that the boy king didn't contribute anything to his own victory. That's just how we talk about these things. And in this sense Mace Tyrell isn't wrong in saying he had defeated Robert Baratheon at Ashford because it was his army who did that. He sort of overemphasizes his role when he claims personal responsibility as if he had been on the field but he is correct insofar as he claims that his army, his levies, and his vassals defeated Robert. It is not invalid to incorporate these people in your own person if you are a nobleman of Mace Tyrell's rank. In that sense I doubt that Tarly feels slighted all that much by Mace. Quite the contrary, actually. If it is true that Mace Tyrell isn't the sharpest knife in the box - and there are hints that this is the case although he is neither stupid nor unambitious - then Tarly could actually wield more real power and influence in Mace's service than if Mace was a shrewd man himself or if Tarly was one general among in the service of a king who was wont to make his own decision (and Aegon clearly is developing into such a person). This doesn't make it likely he would defect without good reason at this point. The problem with Willas and Garlan is that they most likely wouldn't look kindly towards Tarly if the man actually betrayed (or killed) their father. Tarly could only hope to return to the Reach without fearing repercussions from House Tyrell if they were ousted as the ruling house of the Reach and that's very unlikely right now. Mace doesn't only have three living sons (two of which could inherit his title) but also three living uncles and quite a few male cousins. Those men are not likely to stand idly by while Aegon or anybody else bestows Highgarden and the Reach on another family. For that to happen the power of the Reach and the personal power of House Tyrell must be depleted more than the West/Lannisters and the North/Starks are right now. Hell, even if the Mace's line and his uncles and male cousins were all killed then the Redwynes and Fossoways would still have a strong blood claim to Highgarden and the Reach through the female line. They are not likely to let that easily go. Tarly really is in no position to challenge any of that right now. Nor is there any indication that he wants Highgarden for himself. And if Aegon were to be forced to scourge the Reach and put somebody else in charge of that region he would likely choose a man he could really trust. Say, an officer from the Golden Company who distinguished himself during the way, say, Laswell Peake. His line would be from the Reach, too. Or he would reward early defectors like Lords Rowan and Merryweather (who are likely to join him very soon). Tarly simply isn't the first on that list. My personal guess is that there is a good chance that Mace and/or Margaery are going to die in whatever chaos might unfold in KL soon. Tarly (if he survives - quite likely considering that one hopes Sam is going to confront him in the future at some point) might then play a role in leading the Reach into camp Aegon (although I'm pretty sure Olenna and Willas are going to make overtures, too). Depending how bloody the original battle(s) between the Tyrells and Aegon will be I don't think the Reach will all that much in Aegon's campaigns outside the Reach because Willas, Garlan, the Hightowers, Redwynes, and the other lords in the south of the Reach will be occupied with the Ironborn. Whether Aegon and the Dornishmen will eventually come to their aid after they have taken KL remains to be seen. That depends on the political situation in Westeros at that point which is completely unpredictable at this point. Aegon might be force to march against the Westermen at this point. He might decide to help pacify the Riverlands to win the loyalty of the people and show that he is a king who cares about his people, etc. Vice versa, if Euron smashes the Redwyne fleet he might decide to ignore Oldtown and move on the capture KL and the Iron Throne with his vast armada, resulting in another battle at/near KL. Thinking about that a little bit I find it very likely that Aegon and Arianne will decide that the Dornish army in the Prince's Pass will not attack the Reach but rather come to the aid of Willas/Garlan/the Hightowers. There is a good chance that the news about the Ironborn-Redwyne battle might reach Storm's End around the time Arianne makes her final decision whom to support. If Euron defeats Paxter people will realize how great a threat this man is and Aegon would then have any reason to help the Reach against the Ironborn to win their support. And this decision could then result in Euron attacking and burning Sunspear, possibly killing both Doran and Trystane in the process (although the latter is really difficult to say - Doran Martell isn't stupid, and the Dornishmen fight like hell - if Sunspear was attacked they certainly would find ways to spirit away Doran and Trystane in time).
  2. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    @Minstral We don't really know whether Foote is already in the Marches. I'd be surprised if he was. But if that was the case I'd be very surprised if he was welcome there and could count on the support of the Caron men in the coming struggles. And if there are some (distant) Caron cousins around - either through the male or the female line - those people most certainly would jump on the chance to support Prince Aegon if that would help them to get rid of a man like Foote as their new lord. Other thing: The fact that there was no real garrison at Griffin's Roost also sort of indicates that Red Ronnet Connington took quite a few men with him when he went to Renly. In that sense the Stormlands are definitely depleted of men, at least in those regions the Golden Company has invaded. In Weeping Town things seem to be somewhat different. We also have to keep in mind that neither Stannis nor his garrison at Storm's End didn't get any support from the Stormlands after the Blackwater. Back during the Rebellion Mace Tyrell may have needed as large an army as he had to besiege Storm's End because he needed sufficient strength to prevent Robert's vassals from breaking the siege. If there were still some Stormlords left in the Stormlands with the standing among their peers to marshal and lead troops in the name of their liege/king then it is is very odd that nothing of this sort happened while Stannis was needing help on Dragonstone or when Joff and eventually Tywin's death dealt a huge blow to the Lannisters.
  3. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    Yeah, but you should keep in mind George's statement that characters usually are not dead until we have a confirmation. I'm inclined to believe that Storm could easily enough be dead if he directly participated in the battle and got caught by the men under Loras' command after he was cooked by the hot oil. It is not unlikely that the men weren't very inclined to grant a lot of mercy after that. But still, we don't know any details about the battle of Dragonstone yet. And the same basically goes for the battle on Tarth - with the addition that we don't really know whether there was a real battle. Lady Mertyn seems to be under the impression that he sons and grandsons are still alive. My point there was more that it is not very likely that the Chyttering and Farrings were already with Stannis while he was on Dragonstone. The Masseys could have been with him considering that they would have had ships and were technically sworn to Dragonstone. But the Crownlanders on the mainland close to KL would be sworn directly to the Iron Throne. Those who have their castles and lands south of the Blackwater might have been close enough to Stannis' army to decide to join him rather than oppose him after he took Storm's End. Oh, if Tarly is captured by Aegon or if his army is defeated by the Golden Company there is a good chance that he'll join him eventually. But I don't see him as a genuine Targaryen loyalist who would openly betray Mace while there are other options. And Mace himself might be willing to join Aegon, too, anyway. If Margaery or Tommen die or if their marriage is annulled he'll have little reason to stick to the Lannister king. Mace must be very aware by now what Cersei tried to do to his daughter. The same would also go if Mace himself were to lead the troops against Aegon only to be defeated and captured by him. If Tarly became a turncloak while Mace was still in power he would risk the wrath of Highgarden, and the Tyrells are not just a powerful family they are also numerous and very much at the center of the power machine in the Reach. The idea that Aegon is not going to intend to work with House Tyrell if he can isn't very likely. It wouldn't be easy to take the Reach and Highgarden from the Tyrells to hand it to another house without good reason. Granted, if Mace becomes Aegon's foremost enemy and troubles him for months to come it is imaginable that he would do something like that. But we have to keep in mind that Willas and Garlan are right now organizing the defense against the Ironborn. They will have vast armies of their own and them defending the Reach against its enemies should give them more sympathy than, say, Tarly turning his back on the Tyrells. There will be some minor houses that are likely to raise armies in Aegon's name in the Reach - Merryweather, Peake, perhaps Rowan after he has declared for him. But declaring for Aegon still isn't the same as fighting against Mace/the Tyrells. Think about how the Umbers resolved that issue when Mors and Hother decided to fight on opposite sides. The Reach lords declaring for Aegon could make it clear that they are not going to fight against their fellow Reach men nor against their liege lord but only against the Lannisters. Granted, that could mean Mace lacks the men to defeat Aegon but it is not going to be as vile a treason as openly fighting against Highgarden. And TWoIaF tells us that things aren't as violent in the Reach as in other regions, making it not so likely that the Reach lords are going to stab each other in the back. There are no lords there that are likely to behave like Roose, Walder, or Tywn.
  4. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    Not sure Rolland Storm is dead but even if he is still alive he would be a prisoner on Dragonstone and thus a non-factor. There is no reason to believe Selwyn Tarth is dead, though. The man is not exactly young and thus unlikely to participate in a battle. In addition, the policy of the Golden Company is not to kill but to capture nobles. Not to mention that Selwyn and Brienne apparently being rather close Targaryen cousins should make it very unlikely that they would want to see Lord Selwyn dead. The problem with the idea that Stannis' foot were mostly Narrow Sea men is Thus I'm inclined to believe that some Stormlander levies must have teamed up with Stannis somehow. And the presence of Crownlanders among Stannis' army in ADwD also suggests that he was able to recruit some men from those regions before the Blackwater. Lord Mathis Rowan most likely will join Prince Aegon. He should only need a little bit of nudging. That man seems to be an honest Targaryen loyalist. Either they will win his loyalty before they make their bid to Storm's End or afterwards should they capture him. But there is no reason to believe that Tarly or Redwyne (who is right now preparing to face Euron and not very likely to survive that battle) have any reason to betray Mace. Both greatly profited from their part in the War of the Five Kings and the Redwynes and Tyrells are heavily intermarried (Olenna-Luthor and Paxter-Mina) making it very unlikely that there is going to be any betrayal there. Tarly has risen to great power at court under Tommen. With right now only Mace, Tarly, and Swyft (not for long) in the city Tarly has the chance to dominate the government of young King Tommen for years to come. He has no chance whatsoever to acquire the same amount of power under a King Aegon. Aegon has other friends and allies he has to reward first. Randyll Tarly might get some minor rewards, too, but Aegon is not likely to name him to his Small Council. I expect Connington choosing a battlefield to confront the Tyrell host where they can make the best out of the terrain (which Connington should know much better than any of the Reach men), possibly using the elephants as a surprise. The Tyrell army would have to cross the Kingswood to get to Storm's End. Elephants are big, but they should be able to hide them somewhere among the trees, unleashing them in a devastating way when the Tyrells are least expecting them.
  5. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    You should read TSS. And the other D&E stories as well. However, the Webber-Osgrey dispute isn't something that happens all the time. Especially not a conflict that is actually decided by violence. Lady Rohanne and Ser Eustace are both breaking the King's Peace there and both might face severe repercussions from their liege lords for something like (Lord Rowan, Lord Tyrell, King Aerys I). Something like that is not unlikely to happen when there is a weak king or weak overlord, not the mention a time of crisis (like the drought that's troubling the Reach in TSS). I forgot the elephants up there. Those might not only send the footmen running but also a good portion of the horsemen. The horses of the Golden Company will be accustomed to the presence of elephants. The horses of the Westerosi knights will not. And, yeah, most of the Westerosi levies won't even have seen an elephant in their lives, let alone faced one in battle.
  6. 10k Golden company vs 15k Stormlanders

    This is an academic question. There won't be a battle of 10,000 Golden Company men against 15,000 Stormlanders because the Stormlanders already seem to join Prince Aegon. In addition, there is no reason to assume that the Stormlords would be able to marshal 15,000 men even if a portion of them would decide to oppose the Golden Company. The only region of the Stormlords who might have the manpower left to marshal a sizable host would be the Marcher Lords - but they would be utterly stupid to do so considering that they know that the Martells have armies in the mountains which might jump on the chance to invade their lands if the Marcher Lords turned against Aegon (or just left their lands undefended). A worst case scenario would be that the Marcher Lords being caught between the Dornishmen and the Golden Company. In light of that it is very likely that the Marcher Lords will also join Prince Aegon. Perhaps only after Arianne Martell declares for him but perhaps even before that. The other thing is that Jon Connington is a fellow Stormlord, not likely to be seen as an evil foreign invader. As long as the Golden Company more or less behaves it is very unlikely that an anti-Aegon movement will gain momentum in the Stormlands. Especially considering that the Stormlords don't really like the Lannister regime. Finally we have to consider the fact that the Stormlands are basically leaderless right now, especially those who might be technically in a position to do something about the invasion. Lord Swann's two sons aren't in the Marches, Lord Dondarrion is dead (and we don't know if he has any close male relations), and House Caron seems to be extinct in the male line. The whereabouts of the Stormlander levies are also not really known. We have reason to believe that the Marcher levies mostly stayed at home. Some men were put to death by Randyll Tarly at Bitterbridge (Stormlanders might have been included) but the blasted plot that Renly's foot remained at Bitterbridge makes it very unlikely that many Stormlander levies actually were with Stannis. At least not those men who remained at Bitterbridge. Those would have dispersed, although it is somewhat possible that some lords/knights/noblemen stayed back with their levies at Bitterbridge and then decided to sneak away to join Stannis at Storm's End. But that is never mentioned in the books. It is more likely that whatever footmen Stannis had at the Blackwater were recruited from the lands near Storm's End (i.e. the Kingswood and in general the northern reaches of the Stormlands) after he had killed Renly. He would have the time and the opportunity to send out riders to raise new levies. Most of the Stormlanders fighting at the Blackwater would still be part of the two Tyrell armies - the men who died at Duskendale fighting under Randyll Tarly's command excluded, of course. If a majority of the Stormlanders ens up joining Aegon then Mace/Tarly could get into trouble if whatever army they send against Aegon includes a sizable portion of Stormlanders. As to the Golden Company: They are professional soldiers. There are no professional soldiers in Westeros as far as we know because Westeros isn't in a state of continuous warfare. Sure, the knights, freeriders, and men-at-arms should also be professionals considering that their trade is killing people. But only a fraction of them would have fought in actual wars, and the majority of the levies in all of the Westerosi armies would never have fought in any war. By comparison, every soldier in the Golden Company - knight, squire, archer, common soldier - is a bloodied veteran. Everyone of those men has fought in countless battles and has personally killed dozens of men (presumably). They enjoy a huge psychological advantage over their Westerosi adversaries in that field, meaning that the Golden Company - being the best free company in Essos - should not be afraid facing a larger army nor is it likely that their lines will break easily. They are the kind of men who should stand their ground even if the battle seems to turn against them - and that's the kind of stamina you need to win. Not to mention that they are likely to retreat in good order, meaning that they will live to fight another day and not suffer as many losses as an army that's likely to break.
  7. Why did Criston Cole support Aegon II?

    Let's look at the time line there insofar as we can be sure about it. 1. The Battle of the Kingsroad. Aegon II's last army is defeated. He either sent men to Essos prior to look for sellswords prior to that battle or immediately thereafter (my guess is prior to it but we don't know). 2. The victorious Riverlords reach KL and camp outside the city. The Stark army is marching down. This is important. The Riverlords (and presumably some Vale men) reach KL before Cregan's larger host gets there. 3. Aegon II's advisers urge him to yield and take the Black. He refuses and is killed. 4. Aegon III is crowned and anointed, and married to his betrothed Princess Jaehaera. Queen Dowager Alicent is imprisoned. Corlys Velaryon sends messages (presumably by raven) to Oldtown, Casterly Rock, Storm's End declaring that a new king has been crowned and offering (acceptable) conditions for peace. Around the same time - perhaps even before the coronation of Aegon III - the gates would have been opened and the Riverlords would have entered the city. 5. Cregan Stark only marches his army into the city after Aegon III's coronation. He played no role in those original peace negotiations. Once he had reached the king he forced him to make him Hand and conducted his trials. People were also still waiting for the answers from the leading Green supporters by the time he arrived and everybody was anxious whether the war would continue or not. That means Cregan didn't work with Corlys Velaryon at all. Corlys wanted peace, Cregan wanted a continuation of the war and the punishment of the traitors because he had marshaled an army he did not intend to march back home. A lot of men were supposed to die in battle. In the end Cregan did not force the issue of the war - perhaps because he realized that he alone could not continue the war without the support of the other Blacks? I doubt the Riverlords had much interest in a continuation of the war in the middle of winter with their lands in ruins and neither is it likely that Jeyne Arryn was keen on that kind of thing. The Regency council was only installed after Cregan resigned as Hand. The idea we get when he conducted his trials is that he was the man in charge, not the first among equals. He was the man with the army, he controlled the king and his entire court. And Corlys Velaryon could only save his own life and titles thanks to the schemes of his granddaughters and Cregan's future wife. That strongly suggests that these two men weren't exactly best friends. If Baela/Rhaena/Alysanne hadn't intervened Corlys might have ended up at the Wall or short a head. Once Cregan was gone the whole compromise thing prevailed with seven regents and shared power and all, but that wouldn't (necessarily) have been the case with Cregan as Hand. Details like that show that the Blacks actually won the war and agreed to make an honorable peace with the Greens rather than being forced into a compromise by mere necessity. The impression you get is that this army disintegrated because there was no clear leader left and they lacked provisions. Perhaps a fraction of them could have reformed but this would have only worked if the men would have been still willing to fight - unlikely considering that they just disbanded. Most of the men already would have gotten their spoils of war from their march through the Reach. Well, it is clear that the man did not want to rule, right? I mean, that should be the main reason why he resigned as Hand on the same day he took the office. The point I'm making is that it is quite clear that the issue of man vs. woman was much more important than personal loyalty to some bloodline. Just because you don't want to be ruled by a woman doesn't mean you are particularly loyal to the man whom you have to accept as your king in her place. Being against Rhaenyra as queen isn't the same as being a die-hard follower of Aegon II. I assume you don't think that being against Stannis isn't the same as being a Joffrey or Tommen loyalist. The Tyrells are against Stannis and struck a deal with the Lannister but they still murdered Joffrey. The idea that a lot of the men in camp Green weren't caught from the same cloth is pretty naive. And you see what happens when Peake murders the Queen. Absolutely nothing. Come on, you know what I meant. I was talking about a Targaryen man, of course, not just some man. Aegon III was a male royal, a member of the royal family. The lords were accustomed to be ruled by such people. People obviously preferred Aegon III to the up-jumped bastard of some blacksmith. That is hardly a surprise. I guess this was always nothing but some symbol for peace and reunion. Even back when Corlys first suggested this idea to Rhaenyra. The idea that a Queen Regnant Jaehaera would ever have had much support among the lords had she been married to some powerful lord is not very likely. She would still be a lackwit suspected to produce lackwit children. And most lords would not find the idea all that attractive that one of their peers became effectively king at her side. Not to mention that the entire faction of the 'We don't want a female monarch' among the Greens wouldn't have suffered any of this. Aegon III was male despite the fact that his came through his mother. You choose him rather than an actual woman if you don't want a female ruler. Connington only mentions the usurper and his line. His issues are with Robert and his children, not so much the Lannisters. He doesn't know that Cersei's children aren't Robert's as far as we know. They will have to. But then - perhaps the High Septon won't have another choice. If relations sour with the Tyrells and the administration with King Tommen then the only other pretender he can reasonably declare for is Aegon. Stannis and Euron are heretics/devil-worshipers, and Dany is female and far away right now. Tyrion taught Aegon a lesson and there are strong hints in Connington's second chapter that he is following his advice. He begins thinking for himself, rewards men like Rolly Duckfield who have proven their loyalty, and he is also beginning to keep Jon Connington on arm's length. Aegon let Connington wait for an hour until he went to him, taking a tour of the castle and spending time with his men before that. That very much shows how the dynamic of power has already shifted in his favor and that's only going to continue once Aegon actually wears a crown. The Martells want revenge for Elia and the children. Not for Aerys. And Jaime only killed Aerys. But keep in mind that I spoke about the Lords of the West, not the Lannisters. Aegon very well could win the allegiance for a majority of the bannermen of House Lannister without granting the Lannisters any favors. Well, if the Lords of the Crownlands stand with King Tommen they are all traitors and can be attainted easily enough. And you should not underestimate the importance of those seats. Rosby is supposed to a be very rich man. I also not said that some common men/second-tier officers should be rewarded with lordships. Castles and titles should go to the officers, meaning first to Strickland and then to Black Balaq, Garys Edoryen, Lysono Maar, and then to the other captains. I guess some of the other captains and officers might get rewards, too, and even some of the common men if they prove their loyalty in battle. The idea that the Golden Company expect that Aegon is going to grant them all of Westeros or some ancestral seats they claim are theirs is not very likely, though. The Peake castles aside from Starpike might no longer exist, by the way. They have never been mentioned in the books as of yet. The same might go for Coldmoat.
  8. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    If that was the case then Jasper Wylde and the other Greens should have rebelled against Viserys I the very moment it became clear that young Aegon would not be recognized as the king's heir, don't you think? After all, it would be Viserys I who broke Andal law, not Rhaenyra. The crime would have been to allow her to remain Princess of Dragonstone after Aegon's birth. No, because a Great Council never had such a right. Jaehaerys I decided who would be his successor in the end. The fact that he chose to follow the vote of the council isn't surprising because he called the council to advise him in this matter. Ind 233 AC Bloodraven presided over the Great Council as Hand. He spoke with Maekar's voice and he would have ratified the council's decision arranging the coronation of Aegon V. Until Aegon V actually was king Bloodraven was the man in charge. That's clear from the fact that nobody has the power to punish him for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre until the new king is crowned.
  9. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    What people? Nobody in-universe thinks that this was the case. Dany thinks Aegon would one day have ruled as Aegon VI but that would have been so if Rhaegar had been king. Aegon was his eldest son and would have been his heir had Rhaegar taken the throne. But there is no hint or confirmation whatsoever that Aegon was universally considered to be second in line to the throne (Aerys publicly rejecting his granddaughter Rhaenys is a pretty strong sign that Elia's children weren't even considered members of the royal family) or Aerys' heir after the death of Rhaegar. Instead we got confirmation that Viserys was Aerys' new heir. Well, neither the Elia nor the Aerys thing is complete nonsense. Aerys tried to burn everybody in KL, and we know that parents in Westeros have killed their children before when they expected to suffer an even worse fate. Nobody ever said Aerys disinherited Rhaegar. How do you think the succession changed in Dorne? Nymeria succeeded Prince Mors and in turn named her eldest daughter her successor. If Viserys I had no right to name Rhaenyra his heir Nymeria also had no right to make her daughter her successor. After all, both of them had sons. In addition, Rhaenyra was named Heir Apparent when Viserys I didn't have any sons. He never disinherited Aegon in favor of Rhaenyra. He named her his heir and then stuck to it. Maegor himself was a usurper, was he not? And Maegor named Aerea his heir in the middle of a war waged against him (also) by the widow of Aenys I and his sons. What makes you believe Maegor I didn't name Aerea his heir the same way Viserys I named Rhaenyra? We don't have any details on this whole thing.
  10. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    Can you point me to a source actually confirming that? I'm not arguing that it is not common practice that younger son follows his elder brother should he die without issue. But it is quite clear that there is no certainty as to whether a grandchild from the eldest son or younger son of the lord/king came before. Else there wouldn't have been so much confusion. The idea that Prince Aegon was firmly seen as King Aerys II's default heir presumptive should something happen to Prince Rhaegar is not clear at all. Claiming that this is a lie isn't even confirmed. Do you know whether there were no rumors claiming that Aerys or Elia had killed her children? No, so Yandel recounting them is perfectly fine. He talks about many other rumors, too. I also see no reason to cross-confirm believable stuff by using the other books. If I did that then half of the Targaryens mentioned in TWoIaF might not even exist. It doesn't say that. It tells us that many interpreted the first Great Council in such a way. But that doesn't mean 'that a woman cannot take the throne'. It just means that many people do not want a woman to take the throne and while there still close male heirs around no woman after Rhaenyra ever claimed the throne. Again, give me any textual evidence that there was a fixed and binding line of succession all the kings were bound to. Something like that is never mentioned. The only thing we have is that Valarr was considered to be second in line to the Iron Throne during the late years of Daeron II. But we have no reason to believe that this was not confirmed by the king's decree and not by the right of some line of succession the king could not change. When you were to present a long line of succession to George he would probably laugh and point out that the Westerosi succession customs are deliberately vague and unclear, wax in the hands of the mighty so that they could do whatever the hell they wanted to. Yes, it is true that after the Dance the idea of female succession became very unpopular indeed. But that doesn't mean that everybody agreed whether a grandson should become before a younger son. There is no reason to believe Maegor was disinherited (nor his cousin, Princess Vaella). The idea that those people were never named Maekar's heirs and could thus be pushed aside. You are also mistaken in your belief that Viserys I changed the succession when he named Rhaenyra his heir. She was his first and only anointed heir. Prince Daemon never was Viserys I's heir apparent nor did his royal brother grant him the title Prince of Dragonstone. Thus your idea that that Viserys 'changed his heir' makes no sense. We are not talking about who would care or not. We are talking about what's the case.
  11. Why did Criston Cole support Aegon II?

    The Greens were defeated on the field, that much is clear. And they were also in no shape to continue the war while the Blacks were. The Starks and Riverlords were undefeated, and there might have been Vale armies as well. The Lannister, Hightower, and Baratheon armies were all defeated. The war could have continued if the envoys Aegon II had sent to Essos would have returned with sellswords but they did not. Nobody in Westeros was able to fight for the Green cause on the battlefield. That is not the case. Corlys Velaryon offered terms for a peace and those were accepted, yes, but it is quite clear that there was opposition to this from the Black side. Cregan Stark chose to not push the issue but he actually wanted to punish all the traitors rebelling against Rhaenyra. In addition, the Regency council and government the Realm eventually got was only established after Cregan Stark resigned as Hand and decided to go home. Had he not done that he alone could very well have ruled the Realm in the name of Aegon III throughout the king's minority. He was the Hand and he had the army. What else would he have needed? Once the Stark element was gone from court there was no longer a clear leader aside from Corlys Velaryon who already had favored compromise and peace earlier in during the war. The Regency council of the seven regents most likely was his idea, and it is pretty obvious that the Blacks were willing to give the Greens a share in the government of the Realm. There is no hint that they were forced to do that. In fact, with Aegon II the whole conflict should have come to a sudden end. Most of the Greens fighting for 'principles' wanted a male monarch on the throne. They got that with Aegon III. The Blacks got what they wanted, too, by having Rhaenyra's son on the throne rather than some child of Aegon II's. The idea that anybody aside from Alicent was particularly loyal to the her bloodline or the bloodline of Aegon II is ridiculous. Thus one should not assume that the Black-vs.-Green did survive Aegon II's death for long. And Queen Jaehaera was basically a joke for everyone considering she was female and a lackwit. That makes no sense whatsoever. Cregan tried to charge Corlys with the murder, too, and had to dissuaded from that. Besides, it is completely within the Stark mindset to punish the murderers of king (whereas the Lannisters show their inherent dishonor when Tyland doesn't feel bound by a vow his father swore to Rhaenyra). That influence is waning in his last chapter. Not to mention that Connington and Aegor Rivers have nothing in common. There is no hatred between Connington and some Bloodraven-like figure in Westeros. Not to mention that there is also no woman involved there. Why the hell doesn't Connington not butcher all those treasonous Stormlords who rebelled against Aerys II and helped kill Rhaegar at the Trident? If they are smart they could include the High Septon into Jaime's whitewashing. That should work considering how popular the new High Septon should be with the commoners. Awaiting is not the same as plotting and preparing. Doran and Varys did stuff like that. Aegon is smart enough to see the difference between claimed and true loyalty. He can to the people who are going to put him there. Those who are going to oppose him won't be treated all that well. But if Jaime is trying to help him he is not going to be punished for that. In fact, if Aegon can forgive Jaime then many other lords might decide that they prefer this mild and forgiving king over vindictive Cersei or 'just Stannis'. Aegon has to make himself attractive to the lords or else nobody is going to declare for him. And the Lords of the West are certainly among the men he does not want to antagonize if he can prevent it. Humble the Arryns? Why the hell would he want to do that? And why would he want to antagonize the Lannisters (aside from Cersei, of course)? There is no reason for that. Aegon has to reward his Golden Company officers, that's true. Conveniently a lot of the Crownland houses are without a clear and powerful leader right now. The Lady of Hayford is a child, Rosby is without a lord, Stokeworth in the hands of a baseborn sellsword. Those would make fine seats for officers who prove their mettle in battle. And yeah, those friends in the Reach might not look so kindly on the Golden Company if they begin killing their kin there. If the Peakes are genuine they better not want to steal any lands from Titus Peake or else they won't find many friends there. Lord Caswell is also not going to like this Rolly Duckfield chap on Aegon's Kingsguard. Certainly not to Casterly Rock. Jaime could also be effectively a hostage on Aegon's Kingsguard. The cripple is not likely to pull off another kingslaying with his sword. The idea here is that I imagine that a majority of the people around Aegon II were in agreement that it was futile to continue the war. They had to yield and Aegon II had to go to the Wall or face execution. In such a scenario there is no need for a coup. Political reality dictates a certain cause of action and if the king stands in the way of reason he has to go. You don't need a large conspiracy for that. In fact, it seems Aegon II power had completely eroded by this point. Nobody cut off Aegon's ear despite his order. The idea that the man still had much support among the men around him is very unlikely. Else they would have killed more people than just Aegon II or there would have been a violent coup like the one Cersei pulled off after Robert's death.
  12. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    Jasper Wylde wasn't the Master of Law when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone. Lord Lyonel Strong was. Wylde might have later held the view that Viserys I should have changed the succession but that doesn't mean he held the belief Daemon should have come before Rhaenyra while Viserys I had no sons. The idea that a son should come before a daughter was a widespread belief in Westeros. Nobody doubts that. But that doesn't mean that the same people did not think the king could rule on his own succession. The thing is that Jaehaerys I most likely favored Baelon over Rhaenys not just because he got along well with his son but also because he was aware of the reservations his lords had for a female monarch. In addition it seems to be rather likely that he favored Viserys over Rhaenys/Laenor in 101 AC just as he favored Baelon over Rhaenys in 101 AC. Thus it is not unlikely that the Great Council was just the sneaky way the king used to ensure his favored heir would succeed him without a civil war.
  13. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    I didn't argue. I honestly thought you didn't know what we were talking about. People are somewhat invested in this thing because it might have 'meaning' for the interpretation of the thoughts of the knights at the tower of joy.
  14. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    We are talking about Viserys being Aerys' 'new heir' during the short time between Rhaegar's death and the Sack. Yandel tells us in TWoIaF that Viserys was Aerys' new heir when he sent him and Rhaella to Dragonstone. Thus Viserys did not just become Aerys' heir after Aegon was killed but was already his heir since the king learned that Rhaegar was dead. In fact, Aerys might even have named him Prince of Dragonstone. He even sent him there.
  15. Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

    Sure, that is a fact Marsh and the old guard actually understood and conceded, too. But they disagreed on the 'We are going to feed, cloth, and arm the wildlings' policy. They could have just allowed them to pass. There was no need to keep them close and try to fraternize with them the way Jon did. No, it isn't. The NW has a duty stipulated by their oaths whereas the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms (and their king) have no stipulated duty whatsoever towards the NW. And the NW are subjects of the Iron Throne like anybody else. They are not a legal body outside the law. Since Jon never wrote such a letter to Roose we will never know what his response would have been. I never said Jon would have had success. But he didn't even try. Nobody did. The argument 'nobody believes in the Others' isn't a very good one. There is proof that the Others exist and we are talking about a world where magic and monsters actually exist. If you tell a convincing story about the Others (let it be Sam, Jon himself, or any of the other survivors from the Fist or some of the wildlings encountering them) then quite a few people might listen. Stannis never saw an Other, either, yet he believes that they exist. The North already accepted their rule. We are talking about the beginning of ADwD. And Bolton being spared in the Red Wedding isn't proof that he was involved. Perhaps Roose was taken hostage and eventually agreed to serve the Lannisters in exchange for his life? Jon cannot be sure about any of that. This is all irrelevant. If the Others are a real threat then making common cause with some rapist and torturer shouldn't be a problem. Neither for the Northmen nor for Jon Snow. If you have to choose between getting your hands dirty by association and the end of your race. If we take that as an argument then mass suicide would be a better option. You cannot be more fatalistic than not trying to win allies by arguing that nobody would believe you. Stannis was done at this point. He is the beaten pretender and thus unlikely to win the support of anybody in Westeros. It is not necessarily wrong to support Stannis - but not in fighting in a war against potential allies. Jon made peace with the wildlings because of the Others. The Boltons are not different in principle. That has nothing to do with Dany. I just think Westeros as a whole has little chance to stand against the armies and magics the Others can muster. They fight dirty, after all. The king of the LC sits on the Iron Throne not in Winterfell. Robb might have an obligation to avenge his father to avoid losing face but what has that to do with the LC of the Night's Watch? Harren Hoare's brother might have loved him as well yet he did not forsake his vow and marched against Aegon Targaryen to avenge him. In a world where those ice demons actually exist this is not an extremely idealistic scenario. Why do you think the the fall of the Wall is going to change anything, by the way? All the people in the south will get is rumors and reports that the Wall has fallen, they won't see the actual fallen Wall. Again, Robb Stark also betrayed his liege lord and king, Joffrey Baratheon, when he marched against him. That he failed to kill him doesn't mean he didn't have the intention to do so. You cannot fault Roose for killing Robb when he finally remembered where his true loyalties lie - with the Iron Throne, not this self-proclaimed king he never chose. The Boltons did not betray the NW. What they did to other people doesn't count. And as I've outlined above this is only treachery from the Stark perspective. That is not the only perspective you can take. He cannot have any good information because we know that the Walder and Roose didn't send letters or envoys disclosing the entire story. And we don't know what Jon believes. I'm not faulting them for trying to work with the wildlings. I'm faulting Jon for not trying to work with the Boltons, the Lannisters, the Tyrells, everyone, basically. Yeah, Stannis could have put down the leadership of the NW, that's true. But so what? After he left the pressure was gone, too, and Jon could have reaffirmed his neutral stance by contacting the Iron Throne and Roose telling them about his plans. That way the victorious faction might send him some real help and not just take the food and clothes of the NW (which is all what Stannis did in ADwD). Jon playing at politics led the Pink Letter and essentially a war between the NW and the Boltons which the NW can only lose if it ever comes to that. Ramsay is an extreme case but he has no right to interfere there. And it is not that there is law or anything that a man has to treat his wife kindly or anything. Mistreating and beating of wives is perfectly fine by Westerosi law. And Jon has no neither proof nor knowledge that Ramsay is mistreating his sister.