Speculation on the succession war during Maegor's reign

[Lion of the West]

I think to an extent on the Maegor succession issue we need a bit more information before we can make a judgment. The books do tend to point towards the "Aegon as the legitimate heir" answer, but since it's written from an IC perspective and is inherently unreliable it will probably remain open to question unless/until something more concrete comes out.

For my part I think the principal reason I'm keen on the "grey area" hypothesis is that I think the apparently traditional narrative of Maegor as an unequivocal usurper is boring and unimaginative on the part of whoever wrote it. I was rather disappointed in the completely one-note portrayal of a number of the Targ kings in AWoIaF and am keen to salvage something if possible. History is after all rarely black and white but if the story as presented is true then it's about as black as it gets.

On England: This isn't really the case for such a discussion, but the idea that England was a backwater before the Norman conquest is highly questionable and possibly down to the cultural penetration of initially the Francophonic nobility and later the Whiggish tendency to treat it as the effective start of history, despite the achievements of pre-Conquest kings like Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar and Cnut. In fact England was one of the better-assembled kingdoms of its day - small, certainly, but much more administratively stable and better-organised than a number of other kingdoms that were larger on paper. An argument can be made that by the time of William II's accession he was actually the most powerful king, personally, in western Europe. France might have been bigger, but northern France was backwards and poor and the king controlled only a small area around Paris, compared with the great lords of the west and south; meanwhile Germany was being ripped apart by the Pope, and Scandinavia was riven with civil wars.

In any case the point is to do with the English succession and foreign holdings, whether older or more recently acquired, are not themselves relevant to that. Leaving aside the role of acclamation in the succession, the heir apparent to William the Conqueror as king of England should have been his eldest son, Robert, regardless of any other holdings that Robert might have had. But instead Robert was cut out of the English succession in favour of his younger brother (and in turn, his younger brother). There is no reason that Normandy and England couldn't have been held by the same individual (after all, William I did it himself) and the two titles were pretty speedily reunited by Henry I; thereafter every king of England was also Duke of Normandy until the title was renounced (although it's still used at times even by the present Queen, with respect to the Channel Islands).

While I agree that England was no backwater during the Anglo-Saxon period I think that you give some rather poor examples of it from political unity. Culture has more to do with literature, architecture and the like than how effecient the tax collecting is, although administration and such are usually found in cultures and kingdoms where various arts and cultivated areas have also progressed.

Thus its entirely possible for France to be politically fragmented but culturally very much in the front.

[Lord Varys]

Well, I don't think it will become much more concrete. All we will get is histories written by maesters. I doubt George is going to fill pages depicting Bran investigating the subtleties of Targaryen succession in visions from the past (although that could be fun).

Maegor may be a usurper, but so is Aegon II. And we never got the slightest hint that Maegor got the moniker 'the Cruel' due to some concentrated effort to destroy his legacy/memory.

The longer histories like 'The Sons of the Dragon' and TPatQ and TRP - especially in their unknown unabridged versions - should shed more light - the good and the bad - on all the kings, but I actually many of the kings are more or less grey characters.

[Alester Florent]

While I agree that England was no backwater during the Anglo-Saxon period I think that you give some rather poor examples of it from political unity. Culture has more to do with literature, architecture and the like than how effecient the tax collecting is, although administration and such are usually found in cultures and kingdoms where various arts and cultivated areas have also progressed.

Thus its entirely possible for France to be politically fragmented but culturally very much in the front.

Culturally, the real powerhouses of Europe were all in the south or the east during the eleventh century: Moorish Spain, Toulouse and the Languedoc, Italy, Byzantium and (taking a contemporary view of what constituted Europe) north Africa, as well as some exciting developments in Kievan Rus'. France itself was something of a cultural backwater (while Toulouse and the Languedoc fell within the nominal borders of the kingdom, they were French only in name, and it was the thirteenth century before they were properly brought to heel).

But to turn it round and look at it in Westerosi terms, culture isn't everything. The Westerlands aren't the cultural capital of Westeros, but when Tywin speaks the realm listens, because he's done the best job of any of the lords paramount of getting his "kingdom" pointed in the same direction, quashed his rebel lords and sorted out the admin. You'd be hard pressed to call them a backwater even if they're outstripped culturally by all the kingdoms to their east (which is debatable, but the Reach is well ahead).

[Lion of the West]

Culturally, the real powerhouses of Europe were all in the south or the east during the eleventh century: Moorish Spain, Toulouse and the Languedoc, Italy, Byzantium and (taking a contemporary view of what constituted Europe) north Africa, as well as some exciting developments in Kievan Rus'. France itself was something of a cultural backwater (while Toulouse and the Languedoc fell within the nominal borders of the kingdom, they were French only in name, and it was the thirteenth century before they were properly brought to heel).

But to turn it round and look at it in Westerosi terms, culture isn't everything. The Westerlands aren't the cultural capital of Westeros, but when Tywin speaks the realm listens, because he's done the best job of any of the lords paramount of getting his "kingdom" pointed in the same direction, quashed his rebel lords and sorted out the admin. You'd be hard pressed to call them a backwater even if they're outstripped culturally by all the kingdoms to their east (which is debatable, but the Reach is well ahead).

Historically the Middle Ages were alot longer than the eleventh century. Furthermore the Occitan area has, as far as I know, been part on and off to France, or the Frankish Empire, since before Charlemagne and if they were within the borders, they were part of France, like it or not.

The Westerlands are part of the Westerosi South, or Andal cultural world, and it takes more than not being the capital to be the backwater. I never claimed that England was a backwater, I just said that political unity and military power isn't a good way to measure wether something is a backwater or not.

To turn the table around another time, look at the Norse world. Ragnar Lodbrok held a lot of power and kicks some serious ass pretty much everywhere he went. But even so its a fact that the Norse world was, despite its fantastic culture (which human culture has not been rich?) its clearly a backwater compared to England, Andalusia or the Frankish realm.

[Alester Florent]

Historically the Middle Ages were alot longer than the eleventh century.

Yes, I am not a moron. But I was talking specifically about the Norman succession to William I which was in the eleventh century. If you want to go further back than that then non-primogeniture systems become much more common, which was in fact why I started talking about this in the first place. I'm not actually sure what you're trying to prove here.

Furthermore the Occitan area has, as far as I know, been part on and off to France, or the Frankish Empire, since before Charlemagne and if they were within the borders, they were part of France, like it or not.

France as we now understand it didn't really exist until around the time of the Albigensian Crusade (the first "king of France" was Philip II, who signed off on it); prior to that, the Frankish Empire included half of Germany, much of Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. so it's not a great yardstick. Toulouse was politically and culturally much closer to Barcelona than to Paris - they didn't even speak the same language as in France proper - and the king of Aragon considered them his vassals (hence why he intervened in the Crusade). Nor is Normandy in Occitania, so regardless of whether or not it's part of France - and there are people in the Languedoc who would argue they're not really French even today - using Occitan culture to measure the relative power and worth of Normandy and England doesn't really work.

[Lion of the West]

Yes, I am not a moron. But I was talking specifically about the Norman succession to William I which was in the eleventh century. If you want to go further back than that then non-primogeniture systems become much more common, which was in fact why I started talking about this in the first place. I'm not actually sure what you're trying to prove here.

France as we now understand it didn't really exist until around the time of the Albigensian Crusade (the first "king of France" was Philip II, who signed off on it); prior to that, the Frankish Empire included half of Germany, much of Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. so it's not a great yardstick. Toulouse was politically and culturally much closer to Barcelona than to Paris - they didn't even speak the same language as in France proper - and the king of Aragon considered them his vassals (hence why he intervened in the Crusade). Nor is Normandy in Occitania, so regardless of whether or not it's part of France - and there are people in the Languedoc who would argue they're not really French even today - using Occitan culture to measure the relative power and worth of Normandy and England doesn't really work.

If I have insulted you I offer my apologies for it since it was not my intention.

I was making an admittedly clumsy point that we can't just freeze at one single period and say that "this part of the Middle Ages is what matters!" we must look at its entire history as the relative power and influence of kingdoms and regions could and did change.

And I know that France as we know it didn't exist then, but the way we define France today isn't relevant for what France was in that day either. The homogenization (spelling?) standard set for a national state was not relevant in the Middle Ages and there are plenty of other kingdoms where different languages or customs didn't prevent them from being part of the same kingdom. Thus we would need to be careful to not forgot the age of nationalism that lies between us and the Middle Ages.

[Lord Varys]

I think we should really drop this whole real world issue. I was just jokingly referring to England around the time of the Norman Conquest as 'backwater' or 'on the fringes of civilization' because it - and Ireland - effectively was one of the westernmost outposts of Europe. And politically one could say it remain irrelevant/occupied with itself until the days of Elizabeth I and the rise of the Empire.

But this was only brought up because of the whole succession stuff - in the real world middle ages primogeniture wasn't binding, there were seniority elements in there, as well, and holdings could be split up among the children.

This all is not the case in Westeros. Primogeniture is the rule, and everything else is an exception. Maegor certainly is, as he was neither the designated heir of his brother, Aenys I, nor chosen by his own father, Aegon I, as heir of Aenys should Aenys predecease Aegon. Aenys had five living children, and they all came before Maegor in the line of succession.

George hasn't even decided to portray the ancient First Men or Andals differently. Primogeniture also seems to be the rule there, although I expect that an uncle occasionally usurped the place of his young nephew(s). That's the way things are.