• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About LionoftheWest

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Casterly Rock

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,431 profile views
  1. I know that bashing on chivalry is a thing among certain individuals, mostly to do with its modern use or misuse of the term and its lack of place in the modern world where we've found that for example work towards equality is more useful than chivalry. But to return to the subject Jamie Lannister does not have chivalry in spades even if he's striving to become such, nor did Criston Cole. We don't know if Renly was chivalrous but I'm inclined to say no, while Loras Tyrell does seem to possess a degree of chivalry. And while I suspect that Loras Tyrell was mentioned as a kind of figure to be seen in a negative light I see no reason to consider him some horrible person. And neither would I, mostly to do with Duncan and Breakspear being very, very chivalrous and obeying their knigthly vows as opposed to forget about them afterwards, and remembering those vows is very chivalrous. How would you know if Daemon would seem or not seem to have been as consistently good as Baelor? We know less about Daemon's personality, save that he "won friends easily and women were drawn to him" and what we do see of him he is very chivalrous towards the fallen Kingsguard. I don't recall us being given any story about him being an ass so until we actually get that information, I'm more inclined to support my own conclusions. I haven't to my knowledge made any kind of excuses for either Fireball or Aegor. If I have please show me where. And I am perfectly sure that Fireall was the master-of-arms at that time. If he was it would explain why he was in the Red Keep to start with and why he could save Daemon, as if he was a factor that wasn't accounted for when it went down. If he'd been one of Daemon's companions then I would think that steps would be taken to neutralize him during the arrest and he would have precious little space to save anyone.
  2. Actually we know more about both Aegor and Quentyn than that they were skilled warriors, and we can make some arguments on what they were like on what we know. We know that Fireball was chivalrous, as commented by Duncan the Tall himself, we know that Fireball used the services of prostitutes, we know that he was apparently not so corrupt that Daeron II removed him from office upon ascension and Fireball kept his office across a decade of Daeron's rule. And we know he wanted to be Kingsguard, was promised to be Kingsguard and pushed his wife to the Silent Sisters in order to be a Kingsguard. We know that Aegor didn't grow up at court and so would reasonably have been distant from Aegon IV, we know that Aegor did to my understanding love Shiera even if he didn't get the girl, we know that Aegor managed to turn the rout after Daemon's death on the Redgrass Field into a charge, we know that he had a wife but apparently either didn't have children or never pushed them to the top as it was to our knowledge always about the descendents of Daemon that Aegor was fighting for. My view on these characters are, seeing as I don't experience any particular need to either trash talk or lionize them, are the following. Fireball: That Quentyn was selfish I think goes without question giving his treatment of his wife and that he decided to betray his king in pursuit of his dream and that he happily slept with prostitutes seems to me that he was very focused on his own wants above the call of duty. But at the same time its fairly certain that being a Kingsguard wasn't just a fancy for Fireball. All he did and his apparent commitment to a knightly ideal, minus the loyalty, show rather clearly that he was very serious about it and that it was his great dream. So therefore I would say that Fireball was a man who was consumed with realizing his dream, regardless of how many number of eggs he had to break along the way. Aegor: I think the great theme of Aegor was "pawn". Not in that he was weak willed or that he was dancing on another's line, but that he seems to have been moulded by his Bracken family (Brackens being 100% idiot assholes to the last, each and every time they appear) to keep the grudges of his mother and then essentially moulded future generations of the Blackfyre line to continue their ancestor's fight. The fact that however it was always Blackfyres, not Aegor's children, who were the ones pushed towards the throne seems to me that Aegor's great commitment and loyalty was to Daemon's legacy and not his own. Not to mention that he must have been a very, very great commander if he could turn a rout after Daemon fell, into a charge and the army kept fighting all the way until the Dornish showed up with Prince Baelor. As such I think that Aegor was probably, as a person, more of a dependent than independent person and that he was very, very loyal to those who he attached himself to, even after their deaths.
  3. I've been sick so forgive me for a late reply. Thank you for the link! I think you are right in that it could be misleading to take exactly what this guy may have written. To put it shortly I thik that you make a better argument with the feudal contract than the absurd idea of an absolute kingship who definies everything on a whim.
  4. I'm actually developing a little fan theory, which is that Sansa will use her marriage with Tyrion, who I think will never be accepted as Lord Lannister, to claim the Westerlands as his wife. Bringing peace between the West and the Iron Throne. There are some reasons I think this. To a degree this is of course dependent on that Sansa and Harry Hardying won't marry each other or that Sansa's real identity won't at least be discovered in relation with that marriage. The first reason is that I think that Westeros will see a gradual loss of traditional male rulers in favor of untraditionally male or female rulers and that there is some forshadowing with both the number of women claiming the lordships of their husbands as well as Joanna Lannister during and after the Dance of the Dragons for something like this to happen and that Sansa has learned alot of what not to do from Cersei, so it makes sense in a way that Sansa will claim the West and bring good things that Cersei wouldn't be able to do. And to a degree this is what I would wish to happen. in short, I don't see Sansa's final destination to be in the North but rather in the South.
  5. As I read it Renly was suprised by Stannis' letter but didn't think much of it. He'd probably assume that the children were Roberts, problem was that Renly wanted to be king and he knew the Lannisters wouldn't allow him to keep hyis life and titles when he had such a poor relation with said Lannisters. But even if the children had been black haired, blue eyed 100% Baratheons, Renly would still have rebelled and slated them for death down the road.
  6. I don't profess to have hard evidence that can't be refuted but that's what I take away from the text about how people would come to Daemon and speak to him and slowly sell him on the idea that he could, and should, be king. That the wide spread but separate grumblers comes together and finds a focus to make their grumbling become more focused and formulated into a political agenda with Blackfyre as the figurehead. So pretty much as you suggested in the quoted text. Again it depends on who is sent and so. If the Kingsguard adds some victories to their reputation that's unlikely to have aided the Blacks of that age. Just like the Stepstones didn't to my knowledge directly increase tensions in the realm, even if I know that's a theory about the STAB's origin, and war was conducted under the leadership of first Lord Baratheon and then the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Well, I think that you sell the Romans a bit high here and that its a fairly complicated mixture of different influences and reasons which ended up with the Roman legions being, well, dishonorable and illoyal scum for large parts of the empire. I haven't specialized in the ancient Rome, Greece is more of a favorite for me, so I won't try to make a deep explaination for something which I don't know enough about. Well, I wasn't convinced that the king of Westeros was absolute either but Lord Varys digged up a link where GRRM stated that it was a absolutist monarchy the Targaryens created. So I'd love to agree with you in that the king isn't the highest thing and a walking god in determining what's right and wrong. I've looked around a little for the link but couldn't find it though. I'd love to agree with this. Makes sense. I never get the sense that they felt they personally were left out. I always got a sense that they felt that the kind of virtues they had been living for and with was not honored by the king. It wasn't long-term loyalty to House Targaryen that could earn you honors from the king. It was being resilient enemies of House Targaryen that allowed you to get honors from the king. The sight, or "sight", of the enemy that so many had died fighting, people they would have been related to or known the descendents of, getting to walk in first was probably more irking than any feelings that "they" personally should have been given those honors. Now, I don't think that you can be a saint if you're given so much power and responsibility. To a degree I agree that trying to do well should be looked upon favorably and briging in Dorne was a great thing he did in building on what Baelor had already created. But to me a guy dead since over a decade can't be the sole scapegoat when half the realm goes up in arms against the king. I've seen the argument that the dead are the ones responsible before and I still reject it. Its the living that decides to do something that makes things happen and that's responsiblity can never be passed onto the dead. At all times the living can do something else instead of what the dead may have intended them to do. As for Osgrey I kind of felt sorry for him and was sympathic to his suffering until I noticed that he was supposedly a good friend of Lord Wyman Webber, and that kind of soured me on him. If he had pressed his claim, through Blackfyre, on Coldmoat against a Lord Webber who he had no special friendly relation to I would be on his side and even consider his cause to have a just nature to a degree. But to betray and take arms against a friend, especially for the sake of material benefits, speaks ill of him and that's something that I won't forgive him. As for getting his daughter back. I would imagine that many other Blacks suffered as badly as Osgrey and like you mentioned, it would more than likely have been considered a sign of weakness by many if hostages were returned without some kind of effort to win royal favor.
  7. Perhaps, but more likely it was a snowball effect and that it finally came to a call when Daeron ordered Daemon captured for treason. The same is true for every rebel and traitor under the sun. No one is a rebel or traitor until they are. Just like the Greens were not rebels until Viserys died and Aegon was crowned. I know to little about feudal Japan to comment but the Roman Republic is entirely different. The Roman Republic wasn't a feudal system and the soldiers are already more loyal to their commanders than the king in the best of times in a feudal world, unlike the earlier Roman Republic. And nothing say that Daemon and Bittersteel must be sent together or that they must be in command of the venture. To means would be to give their supporters a focus away from plotting at home, not make Daemon a war hero. To start with the king of Westeros is aboslute. There is no such thing as extrajudicial means in regards to the king as far as I know. Whatever he does is judicially correct. Thus naturally the king is always correct whatever he does unless he loses his throne or he dies and is condemned by a similarly absolute king who is alive. I don't like this kind of thing but for all intents that's how Westeros seems to work. If Daeron didn't like to become a kinslayer he could have sent them off to the Wall or cut of their hands and so disabled them as warriors or something else where they didn't die. Keeping them as hostages in the cells beneath the Red Keep would for example work as well. On another issue I do think that there are signs that Daeron did try to show equality between old servants and new ones. No one have mentioned it but I'm pretty certain that Prince Baelor's marriage into a Marcher Lord's House shows that Daeron wanted to tell his non-Dornish subjects that he valued them as much as before Dorne joined the realm. And to state clearly. I don't think that Daeron was a bad person or king. But I do think that he isn't a saint nor that he was a wonderman who dealt with everything perfectly or could do no wrong. EDITED: And now were into the derailment I deleted parts of my first post to avoid.
  8. The rebels are naturally responsible for their own actions just like Daeron is for his. But while Obama was limited by a democratic system, and I know for to little about American political history in recent years to say "this or that" about the Republicans and Democrats today or yesterday, Daeron was not. If Daeron got the Blackfyre plague to emit from pursuing a key goal of his, then he's obviously guilty since prioritised this key goal over peace in the realm at large or take actions, even strict actions, to ensure that Daemon couldn't break it out. And do note that when Bloodraven spoke to Daeron, the king did send for Daemon to be arrested. I don't claim that I sit on some magical answer nor do I think that I would be even a ok king of Westeros, but I do think that if Daeron was so briliant as it sometimes sound, then he would have found a way to deal with Daemon's Blacks. But in regards to make the opposition go away entirely, that's not the problem. We see from the Second Blackfyre Rebellion that all the opposition don't need to go away. It just needs to be weakened enough so that the loyalists can deal with it without a war raging for years and dragging almost the entire South into the flames.
  9. Not really. To my understanding the Night's Watch is more military while the Citadel is more academic rather than monastic in nature. At least that's how I see it but then again with "monastic" I kind of includes all manner of associations that others may not per necessity share.
  10. Serious enough to fight dragons with not dragons of their own. To be honest a monastic life style really isn't for everyone. And I get the impression that's what the Warrior's Sons were living.
  11. For myself I hope that Sansa will get together with Harry and we will finally get some screentime for House Arryn. I don't think that I will change my favorite House as House Arryn has already kind of got sticked with being underdeveloped, yet even so I would think that more Arryn would be nice. And for the record; of course Harry the Heir is a jerk. He's a young man, a noble and a celebrity with his head, I will assume, filled with his own importance as Robert Arryn's heir. I don't know what people reasonably expected from him but he's not a Joffrey-level of jerk and I don't think that his low-level jerkness hides some greater jerkness behind it.
  12. @The Grey Wolf The worst kings would be, in order, Aegon IV, Aerys II, Viserys I, Aenys I. Most overrated (as far as fandom goes and this won't be popular): Daeron II and Aegon V. I don't doubt that both of them were very good people, and both seemed to have raised their children to be worthy princes and kings of the Iron Throne, they still didn't, in my opinion, rule all that well even if they didn't misrule like Aegon IV and Aerys II. If you get over a decade or so with a rebellion brewing and it still breaks out with full force you obviously isn't very skilled at dealing with it and if you can't make your radical policies stick with your successors, its all really in vain and pointless to try to force them on the realm. I'd like to have both of them as relatives or friends but I'd rather have Breakspear or Bloodraven as king. But I'll cut Aegon V some slack however as his heir died a bit fast after taking the throne and that it might have been that Jaehaerys didn't get time to properly tutor Aerys II into what it means to be a king, and that Aegon V may have worked harder to anchor his political ideas in his son if he'd lived longer. @Adam Yozza You're welcome.
  13. I think I've cleaned up the post now. Like Ran, post is quoted below, mentioned I originally also mentioned the Targaryens king I find to have been bad and overrated as well. But then I figured that the thread was only for the Targaryen kings were considered to be great and I didn't want to potentially go OT but stick to what the thread is supposed to be about. Very much true. Originally I thought to write the three greatest, three worst and three (turned out to be two) more overrated Targaryen kings. But as I mentioned above I changed my mind due to it being OT and I didn't want to risk to derail the thread with a discussion about what kings I find to be overrated. So I made a sloppy edit but I think the edited post has been cleaned up enough now that it should hopefully be clear.
  14. Greatest (ranked with Jaehaerys I being the greatest of them all, followed by Aegon I and then Aegon III) 1. Jaehaerys I 2. Aegon I 3. Aegon III
  15. Mockery is not the same as wishing someone dead. I know that its kind of a popular sentiment in much fiction to kill, or wish people dead, for dislike in general but I don't think that's the case in Westeros. Baelor Breakspear didn't arrange for Aerion to be murdered despite the fact that Baelor proboably didn't like Aerion very much. Thus just because Aemond may have fancy notions of his own worth does not mean that Aemond didn't risk his life for Aegon II's case or that he wished his older brother dead. The most important part of this is that Aemond never took the title king. No. The one with the title of king is the king. Bloodraven and Tywin also ruled more than their respective kings but neither of them were kings or seems to have sought to be kings regardless of how much power they had. If Aemond wanted to be the king then he would have taken the royal title as well. The fact that he didn't shows that he didn't want to be king. No. In light of his aversion to claiming the throne it shows that he's very much fighting for his older brother and that he does not intend to steal the crown from his nephew. Aemond had many flaws but he was not a Maegor to press a claim against his own brother's sons under the pretension of practicality. I actually disagree. I think you are right in that both of them were kind of the same personality types. But power wasn't the game here. It was glory and recognition as well as an attraction for violence to solve disputes. If you want to look at power as the main attraction then I would think that Aegon II, Alicent and Rhaenyra was more into that kind of person. I do not deny tha Daemon felt attracted to power but I don't see it as his main motivating force. In my opinion obscurity was more threatening to him than being powerless. Absolutely. Westeros is a barbaric place and reverts to barbaric means at many times. Not really political. That's how the social construction in Westeros is created and what kind of norms are drilled into the people as they grow up. But to a degree you are right in how it governs people's behavior. Well, they dared to rebell against Maegor as well. Just because you have dragons don't mean that everyone will roll over for you. And that's something that I think that Danaerys fans will find to their suprise. Everyone will not just roll over for Danaerys because she has dragons and she will not auto-win because she has dragons. No, not at all. Rhaenyra is the monarch while Daemon is only a consort to that monarch. Rhaenyra is the one with power in that relationship and Daemon has no right to do anything but obey his queen. It is not for him to judge the queen for her power is absolute and that is regardless of her mental health. In fact if Daemon had tried that all but those who were in on the plot to overthrow Rhaenyra would see it as the naken rebellion it would be. In short Daemon has no right to judge or confine his queen. His position is to advice and obey. And that's the end of it. Its really enought that Corlys is present for he was Rhaenyra's man and continued to be so also after his imprisonment. He would not accept Daemon to remove Rhaenyra and would be more likely to attempt to get back into his queen's favor by freeing her than going along with Daemon's scheme. Maegor tried that route as well. Didn't work out very well in the long run for him either. So sure Daemon would could be a new Maegor and hold on to power for a few years, but in the end he would not survive better than Maegor did. She was respected enough for armies to have been in the field for her and people dying for her, lords dying of their own free will to fight for her. And again look at Maegor. A big dragon does not mean that all your enemies fall over themselves to surrende to you. Corlys and Addam were both pretty hard core for Rhanyra or else it seems more reasonable that Corlys would have thrown in their support behind Aegon II when he actually freed them. But we know that Corlys didn't really support Aegon II but undermined his new king with schemes and finally murdering Aegon II. I see no reason as to why Corlys would be more favorable to Daemon if Rhaenyra just happened ot die while in Daemon's care. People are not that stupid and always ready to think the worst of people with power over them. Just like people could figure out that Tyrion killed Tywin, so they could figure out that Daemon killed Rhaenyra. And he would be arrested on the spot as soon as he's separated from his dragon or possibly facing Black dragons coming to fight him. He's not going to walz into the Red Keep and issue a ton of orders that people will obey. Putting a ruling queen in her place is no easy feat as people have an obligation to obey her, not Daemon. And we can see in the case of Aerys II that there are many people who are perfectly ready to follow the commands of a mad ruler. Not really. A death in battle and a blaze of glory for coming generations to remember would be more in character for him than to try and fight the whole world by himself and be condemned by that very same world for all time to come. At that point legacy was more important than power for Daemon.