LionoftheWest

Members
  • Content count

    3,578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About LionoftheWest

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Casterly Rock

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,000 profile views
  1. While true that Aegon got some bad press from Daemon, I think that Rhaenyra was not in fact percieved as a female Maegor given how her Blacks won the war and fought on in her name even after she was defeated. But its true that there seems to have been ambitions to make him into a puppet ruler and that he had critical support from his brother Viserys. You have a good point in that pride is as much a cause of problem in Westeros as ambition or greed is. With the prime examples of that of course being Robb and his rebellion, and the descendents of Daemon Blackfyre falling into the same category. In regards to those who seems to be likely to make a shot at presenting themselves as the Targaryen heirs; Daenaerys, Jon Snow and Aegon, I would think that all of them will indeed as I feel you pointed out, seek to associate themselves with "The Last Dragon" in Prince Rhaegar while disassociating themselves from Aerys. And in this Aegon would have the best shot due to being both Rhaegar's son as well as having his old friend Jon Connington around to vouch for Aegon's pedigree. Daenaerys on the other hand has the issue of only being a sister to Rhagar, thus make it a bit harder for her to say that she's Rhagar's heir as opposed to be lobbed in as Aerys' heir. And Jon Snow, being an unrecognized bastard, would seem to be in the weakest position of all to make a claim to the Targaryen legacy as he's lacking in recognition, is a bastard, uncertain pedigree, lacks dragons and lacks the Valyrian look. What I make out of Jon however is that Jon will not seek to claim the Targaryen heritage but rather stay with the Watch. Remeber that he's already turned down Winterfell and Jon is as much a Stark as a Targaryen. In regards to who will break the cycle of feuds and bloodletting? I don't think that any of the Targaryens looks like they would be like it at the moment. Aegon is marinaded in vengeance, especially if he joins with Dorne when there will be both JonCon, Golden Company and the Martells are having axes to grind. Jon Snow on the other hand has also taken an active part against the enemies of House Stark so I don't see him rising above that. The best shot is, in my mind, Daenaerys, who has so far managed to seek peace and accept comprimisses while in a position of authority. If she can restrain herself from outright massacre the whole slaver cast of Meereen then I'm pretty sure that she will be able to restrain herself from having to settle all the old scores that House Targaryen carries since Robert's Rebellion. IF Daenaerys comes to take possession of the Iron Throne and keeps it.
  2. I'd like to believe that Cersei was changed by her walk of shame but beyond infuriating her I don't know how much it did to change her mindset. And to be honest I don't see Cersei calming down or that she'll get out of power, there's no need to introduce Robert Strong if Cersei is only going to be run out of time and fall in with Euron, and I think that the reason that Mace is set up as an idiot will be that he'll allow Cersei to climb back into a position of authority. Odds are that Cersei will indeed come back to power and will indeed continue her rule of ruination. That she will dedicate herself body, mind and soul to revenge if all her children dies, that's something I am willing to believe. And I expect to, if she goes down this route, take down a chunk of Westeros with her.
  3. I'll just throw in that beyond a "Team Evil" idea I can't see Cersei teaming up with just about anyone. Cersei seems to dominering and wanting to be in control of events and people for her to be able to cooperate with anyone, least of all someone as ambitious as Euron. While Euron could probably play Cersei for a while if he really wanted, Cersei's insane paranoia and demands are likely to drive off Euron by force if not by something else and make her impossible to puppeteer for very long by anyone holding formal power. I can still recall that Cersei thought that she could play Mace to not do anything while his daughter was executed and that he would retain his loyalty to King Tommen after that. That's how she gets along with any ally of hers.
  4. The thing that broke him was him taking a crown. I don't think ti would have been easy for him to turn that meeting around but with some initaitive he could have gone for Stannis before the Greatjon made his speech. If so then Stannis would probably have had a fighting chance by the Blackwater as Robb and Edmure could well have worked to hinder Tywin's return to King's Landing along with the Tyrells. Now it would presumably have been a hard fight for Stannis' side but if Robb and Stannis could work together, they would presumably have given the Lannisters and the Tyrells a run for their money. Now I think that Stannis would still have lost or proved a king that Robb would soon grow disillusioned with but Robb would have had a fighting chance to claim victory over the Lannisters.
  5. As I see it Euron will do like Hugh Hammer did in the Dance. Manouver himself and then use his possession of a dragon to gather a force of disreputable men to his cause. The Ironmen are nothing but a steeping stone for Euron and if they all died, well, no loss from his POV.
  6. "Old fools and young malcontents still make pilgrimages to the Redgrass Field to plant flowers on the spot where Daemon Blackfyre fell. I will not suffer Whitewalls to become another monument to the Black Dragon." The Mystery Knight Something that I've been thinking about in the series is how in the latest part there has been a loss of the old guard of the leaders from the series and that much looks like heirs to these early leaders will come to carry on the fight and embrace the legacy left by their predecessors. And so I thought to write up this thread to discuss to which degree people think that legacy will have an impact on the heirs of lost leaders. Potentially inheriting both friends and foes as well as finding themselves aided or hindered by association with the actions of the previous leaders. The ones I am thinking mostly about is how Tywin is succeeded by Cersei, that Aegon will push for his father Rhaegar's legacy, Robb's phantom heir who has yet to be revealed to us and Danaerys will draw her claim to the Iron Throne from her father Aerys. Now the best example of the matter of legacy in Westerosi history is in my opinion the Blackfyre cause. Across more than half a century the descendents of Blackfyre managed to keep their flame burning, all based on the supposed awesomeness of the OG Daemon Blackfyre. To me that speaks well about just how strong a legacy can be to motivate people and steer their lives for generations. And another is Rhaenyra who after her death could keep her forces fighting against Aegon II and take victory. It seems that the Blacks of both Daemon and Rhaenyra were made of stubborn and sturdy stuff. The reason that I brought up Daemon Blackfyre was both that he personified a lasting legacy as well as that he has many similarities with two of the leaders that went out and who now have heirs coming to claim that legacy; Rhaegar and Robb. In all three causes I would argue that these leaders managed to keep their personal image free from the stain of defeat by either losing honorably and having their enemies stain their victory with dishonorable methods. In the case of Daemon its a stark contrast between Daemon's duel with Corbray and the way that Bloodraven dispatched the Black Dragon by killing his sons to hold him within the killing field. And in the case of Rhaegar we have the always favorite quote of mine; "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably." and that Rhaegar was absent and so avoided to get murders of the Starks & Co associated with himself,.which is in stark contrast to the brutal dispatch of Rhaegar's family. And finally we have Robb Stark who got killed in the most dishonorable fashion of them all with the Red Wedding, which shifts the spotlight away from him losing his rebellion to the Freys being the most dishonorable scum on Planetos. As I see it, that gives the heirs of Rhaegar and Robb a very good PR legacy in that their old supporters are itching for a re-match as much as Daemon's Blacks were after the Redgrass Field, or at least the nobles seems to have been, against enemies stained with dishonor. "For here comes he brave heir of Rhaegar/Robb to avenge themselves on the dishonorable Lannisters, Freys and Boltons!" Its a good rallying cry for various malcontens and loyalists who haven't given up the fight. The downside of these two legacies are of course that old enemies are likely to remember that old grudges lives, as pretty much personfied by JonCon, on and that Robb's heir may find it difficult to get his supporters to go for somethinig besides an independent kingdom from the Iron Throne as they see him or her as a new King/Queen in the North, rather than a leader in his/her own right. In constrast to this I would say that Cersei and Danaerys (and I am here perhaps falsely presuming that Daenaerys will make it to Westeros at one point in the series to make a go for the Iron Throne), have a more difficult legacy to grasp and use. Tywin's left most to his heir in the shape of alliance, power at court and so on, but also with much resentment against the Lannisters which means that the Lannisters needs to keep themselves on top to ensure their safety. But Cersei seems so far to have squandered much of the practical legacy and seems unable to turn this great inheritance towards a constructive purpose. Danaerys on the other hand has in my mind a cursed legacy from her father Aerys where she will need to both emphatize that she is her father's daughter and so with the strongest claim after Rhagar's disinhertitance but also distance herself so that people won't think that she's a womanly version of Aerys II come to torment Westeros again. If Maegor an heir of his body, I think that heir would be in the same situation as Danerys but since we don't have that, I can't think of any good similar figure in Westeros history to compare with her situation. What are your thought about the matter of legacy in the Game of Thrones?
  7. I have no problem to see a pampered and spoiled sixteen year old girl despise a six yeard old boy she considers to be a rival for affection, attention and the future. And a child may not understand courtly intrigues but it will understand that "this person don't like me". Not to mention that young Aegon would have recived contradictionary singnals from two different sources; "you're the second son" from the father and "you're the heir" from his mother. And if we consider what we talkes about before in how mothers seems to be the centre of the kinship group then it should be clear ,at least to me, that the signals coming from the mother who raises Aegon will be go stronger into his mind than the signals from his father. And once he grows up the basic identity for Aegon will include that "I am my father's heir". Yes he was. She would have known that many people around them wanted Aegon to be the heir and so would focus the feelings of threat into anger at Aegon. Its rather common for people to put ill-will towards people who are upheld by people they dislike, regardless if this is actually logical or not. I think that you are reading these personal relations to mechanical and trying to fit logical explaintion for emotional relations. No. Alicent and Otto only have what power and influence that Viserys affords them so if Robert is responsible for Stannis and Renly rebelling against Joffrey, then Viserys is responsible for the Dance of the Dragons by single-handedly settings everything up for the big show down. Viserys could, at any oppertunity, have stopped to sleep with Alicent or sent his sons to the Watch, the Faith, wherever and kept them away from claiming dragons. Likewise Alicent and Otto could have been sent back to Oldtown and that would have been the end of it. But Viserys didn't and so allowed the Greens to gather support, influence and most importantly dragons to go up against Rhaenyra. The truth is that Viserys single-handedly, in his foolishness, set up the Dance where a strong-willed and/or clever king would have danced around it. Six years is old enough to understand that "my half-sister hates me" and "my mother wants me to be the next king but my half-sister wants to take this away from me". Any child can understand "my half-sister is going to take my birthday gift from me" if you want to boil it down. So it is, but I think they would be of the right age to be considered spouses for Aegon II' children and that would once more prevent the House of the Dragon to split off into multiple branches. I would think that she would want her own children to inherit the throne before those of her half-brothers and from the example she herself would have set. Its not entirely impossible that they would I suppose. Perhaps they would have managed it. But I agree that once blood is shed there's few ways to turn it around. Presumably he could, but I don't think that he would. As long as the Lannister kids are alive they would have worked wonders to focus any hostility to Renly, just like say the Blackfyres were able to focus such and be a problem, and being loved can also be done by giving the people bloodshed they are longing for. Many people hated the Lannisters so killing Lannisters would have made Renly popular. And its not like that with the Tyrells around, Renly can't kill the children and look like he was trying to save them. The "best" beat to not kill them would be to send them to the Wall and Silent Sisters. If you think that two should die, why should not the others die? Tommen and Myrcella are about as guilty as Joffrey of whatever Joffrey is guilty of. I agree that kinslaying is a vile ting. But Renly has options different from a public execution. And if he really wanted, Renly could send Stannis up to the Wall after the seas were safe. And I dare say that while Renly would resent the stigma of kinslaying, there's little to see that he resents the actual deed of it, only th PR from it. I agree that its speculation, but I base it on that Tyrion has lots of chapters and his main and most interesting interactions and relations are with his siblings and his father. Tywin is dead so that leaves Tyrion with Jamie and Cersei. Now its entirely possible that GRRM will cut Tyrion loose and let him drift on the wind but without his relations, which has now turned to hatred, against House Lannisters, what would drive him as a character in the story? I can't however see that if Cersei and Jamie are alive, that Tyrion wouldn't see and treat them as enemies, at least at first. And remember that Tyrion isn't just any guy coming in to join with Daenaerys. Its the Imp who killed his own father, the monkey demon who starved King's Landing and poisoned his own nephew and king. The view in Westeros isn't that Tyrion is a kind but misunderstood person who only means well. We know that its unfair to throw these things at Tyrion but I doubt that the people in the story sees things this way. Daenaerys may not yet have a problem with Cersei but Cersei will have a problem with Daenaerys. Cersei sees herself as the real ruler of the Iron Throne and so will have a problem with another pretender coming up press a claim on that very throne. I take it that you agree that a queen has no other public parts than to give heirs to her husband? Its a sad state and doubtless a waste of much talent but that's how it is. And the problem is that Viserys would, if he was a wise man, know that he came to power through a male-preference in regards to succession and that if he has sons, there would likely be trouble. If Viserys was really wanting for heirs he could either have waited to see if Rhaenyra could provide her own heirs or make Daemon marry again and get a branch with less claims on the Iron Throne than any direct children of Viserys would have. As I see it, Viserys had both an heir and a spare in Rhaenyra and Daemon, and the fact that Viserys refused to change the inheritance to favor Aegon tells me that VIserys didn't really care that much for the popularity of his heir. And lets not forget that Viserys was a pretty young man when he got Rhaenyra and he was like fourty when Jacaerys was born, meaning that there was well enough time to wait and see if Rhaenyra could give, as she did, heirs of her body, before Viserys would be forced to act in order to provide heirs. And after Rhaenyra in four years gave birth to three sons, there really would have shown Viserys that there was no need for additional Targaryens as spares. But fool as he was, he didn't wait but created a new branch of Targaryens. And had the children of Alicent not been raised as dragon-riding princes at the court there would have been no Dance and if Daeron II had not tried to win Daemon Blackfyre over with largesse and kindness there would have been no Blackfyre Rebellion. What I want to say is that while I agree that its ultimately Robert's fault that Renly and Stannis has the strength to compete with Joffrey, its also clear that people taking advantage of a kind or generous ruler is very much a thing that has happened before. For one thing the Northern-Riverlands separatist cause as, as far as we know at present, collapsed and lost its strength while its former leaders, thus the first pick of leaders in these regions, are mostly either dead or hostages. I see no reason as to think that with a lack of other pretenders coming to challgne King Tommen why these areas would not be brought back to the King's Peace. And in regards to Euron, yes, he's a threat but given how he's winning enemies and sending off much of his fleet with Victarion I don't see how he's anything above a gambler in attitude. Sure, if his gamble goes well then he wins, but if he don't win everything then he'll lose everything. Thing is that as a feudal lord Robb has an obligation to defend his bannermen, not leave them out to dry, and if he look at how his rule progressed I would expect a full blown rebellion in his rear within a few years if we add total faithlessness to his bannermen to the list. A rebellion that could easily deliver the North straight to King Tommen. Officially disbanded they were, but they by all accounts remained in arms up to Jaehaerys I. My point was, and is, that the Faith's war with Maegor was different from Jaehaerys I and could well have continued if the Old King had not come to terms with the Faith. Yes. Hardly likely. Lord Velaryon opposed Daemon's proposition to unseat the Lannisters, Hightowers and Baratheon and Rhaenyra took a middle approach. The scenario you paints sounds more liked she would have agreed with Daemon which we knows that she didn't. No, Balon invaded the North and after his death the Ironmen withdrew without any gains from the invasion. So Balon didn't steal anything, he tried and failed miserably. In regards to Euron, its "just" another pretender along with Stannis, Renly, Daenaerys and Aegon. Half of these have already been neutralized and I expect the other half to follow in the next two books. That makes no sense. Both Viserys and Robert was essentially the same kind of kings; they could keep their hands on the throne but were unable to rule their own Houses. Viserys had more resources, yes, but he was about as strong a king as Robert who also kept himself on the throne until his death. If you can't make the necessary dynastic arragements then it don't matter if Viserys lived well on the work of Jaehaerys I or if Robert squandered Aerys' old possessions. You're setting things up to fail. One crucial mistake? Viserys started with his mistakes when he brought Criston Cole into the Kingsguard, he sired competitors against Rhaenyra and allowed them to claim dragons so they really could challenge his heir, he was blind to the chaos within his own House, he was unable to take a firm stand against the Greens but filled his entire small council with them and the list goes on. Robert was about as much of a fool as Viserys was. Both essentially set things up for a civil war after their deaths. The only thing that was a mitigation was that they needed to die before all hell broke loose. Could he? I recall everyoen going against the Drowned Men to have died prematurely and that would have been necessary if Robert, or anyone else, wanted the islands to remain clam. And I can name three dragonriding people who fought against a Targaryen heir in order to make someon else king; Aegon, Aemond and Daeron. When seeing how bad the relations was between Alicent and Rhaenyra then it wouldn't take an Archmaester to know it would blow. And to that I recall something of Targaryens riding dragons and rebelling against Maegor. You would have to be about as foolish as to think that giving out large castles is without risk as to think that allowing anyone to claim a dragon is without risk. And as a final touch, I'll add the Two Betrayers. Given what we hear of the First Blackfyre Rebellion, I'd say it was. And sixty years of strife was certainly nothing to just ignore, not to mention that Daeron had twelve years and couldn't prevent the rebellion, and instead if blew up straight in his face. The Tyrells are not enemies to the Baratheons or Lannisters, yet at least. The only person you mention that I am worried about is that worm Littlefinger. From the rustling of leaves, from the break of waves and from the dance of winds. Stannis is a dead man walking and if anyone will fight th Boltons it will be the Others, or possibly Zombie-Jon. I'd say that anything that didn't put Alicent's children on the throne would be to little to prevent the Dance.
  8. I don't doubt that Doran wants to bring the Targaryens, back but I doubt that he will succeed with it.
  9. I believe one explination is that Aerys considered Ethan to be a child and so spared him and the other is that Aerys was simple illogical and insane. Either one can see it so that Aerys wasn't as mad as the rebels made him out to be, or that he was so bonkers that he simply couldn't keep his own cruelty coherent.
  10. I expect Ramsay to turn Stannis into a corpse and be home for dinner, at which he'll send his letter to Jon Snow. Stannis will never come further south than the crofters' village.
  11. I think there are laws as Jaehaerys I is credited with creating a common law for the realm. But the importance would be that there's no Roman legacy to fall back on in regards to legal traditons and so law is more of customs and guidelines than what we consider "laws". With an absolute king who can cause havoc without restraints at the top.
  12. I would imagine that Kevan did what he was supposed to do, no matter how reluctant. Kevan was a follower after all but its also entirely possible that Kevan was kept in Castamere as a hostage so that if things when sour, there would be no chance for Lannister to jump over the lines or to desert during the battle.
  13. I will agree that its an unpopular opinion and one that I don't share but I think that you have many good points. There's a reason as to why the potentially poorest and most isolated region turns to reaving, being cursed with poor soil and a position opposite the Narrow Sea where they could, if they had been there, particioned in the sea trade. And that up to Dalton and then Dagon, the Greyjoys were loyal to the Iron Throne without getting anything from it. Its no small wonder that the magic of the Targaryens wore off and they Ironmen tried to take with rebellion what loyalty would evidently not given them. So you are entirely correct in that alienation has a price, although I would add that its seems to be a two-way street with many Ironmen not being to thrilled to be part of the greater realm either, most notably the influential Drowned Men.
  14. I agree that the Lannisters are not people who despises honorable or chivalrous men like som cartoon character. But I think that its fairly clear that they make good use of people of low honor-standing. Tywin has Gregor and Lorch, while Tyrion gets Bronn and the Clansmen and Cersei gathers the Kettleblacks, Slynt and Qyburn to her side, and for all that we know, the Lannisters do get usefulness from these men while Robb, for instance, got more problem than use from his Boltons and Freys. The the positive side of the Lannisters though they do seem to be loyal to their tools. They don't throw these under the bus after using them, so in that regard dishonorable men can know that if the Lannisters asks you to do something evil, they'll hold your back after it, and not just use and discard you. Which is a kind of loyalty that make the Lannisters more than just "evulz" enemies of the "goodies".
  15. The Tullys have a history of rebellion and faithless oppertunism for at the very least the last three hundred years or so. And they probably have the worst record, alongside the Greyjoys, when it comes to their relation to the Iron Throne. Despite that the Tullys has their esteemed position to thank the Iron Throne for. When Aegon came the Tullys raised their banners against Harren. When Aenys and Maegor ruled the Tullys were with them, until Maegor started to slip, at which point they went over to Jaehaerys' side. At the Dance Lord Grover Tully wanted to fight for Aegon II, but his, I presume, son more or less conducted a coup in order to isolate the old Lord Tully until he'd died and his son could join Riverrun to the Blacks. Don't know who were went with the Blackfyre but I would presume that for once they managed to keep things straight, and we don't know how well or bad that they went with Aegon V's reforms. Robert's Rebellion, turned rebel for a price of status-filled marriages War of Five Kings, turned traitor against the Iron Throne, not just the Baratheon-Lannister reign but against the whole idea of a unified Westeros, when they joined the Starks in separatism It seems like more or less every chance they get, the Tullys rebel or practice some shenanigans. If it had just been one or two of these things I would have not thought much of it, but its a common theme that shows up time and again with the Lords of Riverrun. And given that Tommen has now stripped Riverrun from them I think it was only a matter of time before the Tullys would have turned rebel one time to many and the whole thing blew up in their face with a failed rebellion that they attached themselves to. And to be honest given their history and current problems with a unified Westeros, I have a hard time seeing any man on the Iron Throne, Baratheon, Targaryen or even Greyjoy, who would be eager to give back the Riverlands to House Tully as opposed to make a new Lord Paramount. If the Tullys ends with Riverrun back in their hands they should count themselves lucky.