Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, devilish said: That would be very very very stupid thing to do. The first thing Daemon should have done would be a- kill all male Targs he can possibly get his hands on He certainly would have tried. If he succeeded his throne would have been a little bit securer. But that wouldn't help him keep the peace between his own sons and daughters. They were looking up to a father who had deposed (and killed?) his own half-brother. As ambitious fifth of sixth son I'd have taken that example to heart, killing the old man and all of the brothers standing between me and the Iron Throne. 1 hour ago, devilish said: b- change his surname to a Targaryen. A very good idea. Nobody likes to follow a guy named after a sword. Just imagine 'House Heartsbane', 'House Ice', or 'House Brightroar' (I don't even know what a brightroar is...). 1 hour ago, devilish said: b- have his first born marry the closest available female Targ to the throne. Difficult to do. There was none. And Daemon's eldest daughter was already betrothed to Aegor. Their line would also become a rival branch to the many Blackfyre branches. 1 hour ago, devilish said: c- have all remaining sons and daughters married off to Wardens & LPs sons and daughters. That would confuse things even more. A Blackfyre prince on good standing with some great lord might get ideas that the throne should be his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilish Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: He certainly would have tried. If he succeeded his throne would have been a little bit securer. But that wouldn't help him keep the peace between his own sons and daughters. They were looking up to a father who had deposed (and killed?) his own half-brother. As ambitious fifth of sixth son I'd have taken that example to heart, killing the old man and all of the brothers standing between me and the Iron Throne. A very good idea. Nobody likes to follow a guy named after a sword. Just imagine 'House Heartsbane', 'House Ice', or 'House Brightroar' (I don't even know what a brightroar is...). Difficult to do. There was none. And Daemon's eldest daughter was already betrothed to Aegor. Their line would also become a rival branch to the many Blackfyre branches. That would confuse things even more. A Blackfyre prince on good standing with some great lord might get ideas that the throne should be his. His father would immediately drop the Blackfyre surname and adopt the Targ surname. He would argue that he was a Targ from the start, since his father, the king, legitimized him and also gave him the house ancestral sword. Anyone debating otherwise (Targ, blackfyre, Lannister, Tyrell, Flowers, the beggar in flea bottom) would be accused of treason and his head would be on a spike before noon. As a Targ he would adopt all the laws of succession that his forefathers had used. As a merciful king he would have his son and heir marry off into his half brother's lineage IF they bend the knee. Those who refuse won't see the next day. Don't who do and whose lineage is a threat would either be persuaded to take the black, or kept as guests in KL or suffer accidents. In time they will be married off to very minor houses or sent to become maesters until their claim will be so diluted that no one would even care. If there are no viable candidates then he'll marry his heir or his heir's heir to a powerful house. A Lannister maybe or a Tyrell. Daemon will have to be very wise about who will marry whom. He will need to strike a balance between building enough favour with the big houses by mixing his blood to theirs without granting his younger children enough power to rebel against their older brother. Considering he had twins as first born, it would be very wise if Aemon is taken out of the race. The younger twin can be appointed as KG while throwing him the hand of the king title as sweetener for the service rendered. This would create a clear gap in terms of age between the crown prince and Daemon II. The crown prince will be a Targ AND he will receive blackfyre which will act as a dual confirmation on who will be the next king. From then on these two things will be a prerequisite on who should inherit the crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 @devilish I just don't think Daemon Blackfyre was smart enough to do what you suggest. He was led around by the nose by the likes of Bittersteel and Fireball. A good warrior is not a wise statesman, and once Daemon was king he most likely would have done what he wanted to do, not what would have been the wisest cause of action. And keep in mind that he chose to keep the Blackfyre names after he got legitimized. He could have been a Targaryen since 184 AC. How likely is it that he intended to drop the name after he had taken the throne? And again - Daeron II had no daughters, there was no way for Daemon to marry his sons into Daeron II's line. Aelor and Aelora are still children in 211 AC, Daenora was apparently yet unborn, and Maekar's daughters were only born after the Blackfyre Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilish Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: @devilish I just don't think Daemon Blackfyre was smart enough to do what you suggest. He was led around by the nose by the likes of Bittersteel and Fireball. A good warrior is not a wise statesman, and once Daemon was king he most likely would have done what he wanted to do, not what would have been the wisest cause of action. And keep in mind that he chose to keep the Blackfyre names after he got legitimized. He could have been a Targaryen since 184 AC. How likely is it that he intended to drop the name after he had taken the throne? And again - Daeron II had no daughters, there was no way for Daemon to marry his sons into Daeron II's line. Aelor and Aelora are still children in 211 AC, Daenora was apparently yet unborn, and Maekar's daughters were only born after the Blackfyre Rebellion. He will have to adapt quickly else his reign wouldn't have seen the light of a new day. Also with so many sons at his disposal Daemon could have waited for Aelora to grow and marry his crown prince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 29 minutes ago, devilish said: He will have to adapt quickly else his reign wouldn't have seen the light of a new day. Also with so many sons at his disposal Daemon could have waited for Aelora to grow and marry his crown prince She wasn't born yet. She and Aelor were children in 211 AC. If they had been around in 196 AC they would have already been adults at that time. I think Daemon Blackfyre would have sucked as a king. He would have been an even worse king than Robert, and he was already a very bad king, never even trying to be a good king. Thus I don't think he would have taken the proper steps to consolidate his power, never mind him actually having success. In fact there is a pretty good chance that the Seven Kingdoms would have fractured after a Blackfyre victory. Dorne would definitely not have accepted the murder/deposition of Mariah's husband and children. And there might have other houses just waiting for the moment to go back to the way things once were, most likely the North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Daemon I Blackfyre: WORSE than Robert? Sorry I just don't buy that. Daemon may have been a charismatic warrior like Robert but unlike the latter we do not have any indications that he enjoyed drinking or whoring and all we know of the man paints him as a man deeply concerned with the dictates of chivalry. Furthermore, even if Daemon were as stupid as you imagine him he still had brilliant men in the form of Fireball and Bittersteel who could and definitely did influence him. In fact if he was thick-headed as you say that would make avoiding bad decisions easier. On the Dance: How do you know that all the realm was fine with Viserys's decision AFTER Aegon II's birth? It is quite telling that during his reign all we get a picture of is what's going on inside the royal court and not the wider realm. Beyond that the fact your insistence that Viserys I didn't create the Dance by f**** up the succession rings hollow to me. HE is the one that remarried into a highly wealthy, influential, and ambitious family. HE is the one who sired trueborn sons on this second wife. HE is the one that then didn't take steps to sideline them such as sending them to the Wall but instead put his fingers in his ears and his head in the sand. Furthermore, your insistence that precedent and tradition aren't worth diddly-squat because the king can do as he likes is ridiculous when those are all Westeros has for laws and more importantly that means anything a king like Maegor can do no wrong because the concept of tyranny does not exist. The Targaryens may have fancied themselves as absolute monarchs but it is clear that they were far from that. As for him being a good king NO he was not. Peace is NOT inherently superior to war. Productive peace is and Viserys didn't do shit in that regard. He didn't revise laws, build roads, increase trade, or do any of the things a truly good king does. All he did was party and create an impeding civil war within his own family that made the previous years of prosperity a moot point. Finally, here is something to ponder: NO ONE fights for Rhaenyra out of altruism or the sincere belief that as the elder daughter she ought to succeed Viserys. Let's look at her major supporters shall we? House Velaryon: Not altruistic in the slightest. They're literally in bed with Rhaenyra. House Arryn: Allegedly for kinship but not only did Jace have to actually travel there to ensure the Vale's support but Lady Jeyne supporting Rhaenyra is also politically better for her since if she supported the Greens' claims people could rightfully question why SHE was in charge of the Vale. House Stark: Not in the slightest. The text explicitly says the Blacks bribed Cregan for his support, partly with the promise of a royal marriage. House Greyjoy: Again the Blacks bribed them with a free license to raid, rape, and pillage as they please. In contrast the Greens at least have two named people whose support for the Greens comes from the principles they believe in: Jasper Wylde, who as Master of Laws, would have been an expert on these things, and Grover Tully, though sadly he was too old and sick to do much. So, in conclusion, I find your assertion that the Greens were entirely in the wrong and that they should have just rolled over so that Viserys could play "daddy's little girl" bullshit. Oh, and about his marriage to Alicent: I don't give a rat's ass that she didn't have Targaryen blood. The fact that he saw her as well as possibly their children as "lesser" for that maybe is not something I will ever condone. That's my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon I Blackfyre: WORSE than Robert? Sorry I just don't buy that. Daemon may have been a charismatic warrior like Robert but unlike the latter we do not have any indications that he enjoyed drinking or whoring and all we know of the man paints him as a man deeply concerned with the dictates of chivalry. Drinking and whoring weren't Robert's main flaws. The problem was his unwillingness to care about the government of his Realm and his disinterest in doing the right thing, appointing the right people, and prevent his court from becoming the most corrupt since Aegon IV, most likely. Being obsessed with chivalry doesn't help you govern the Seven Kingdoms. In fact, it is most likely going to be a problem. But then, it wasn't all that chivalrous trying to depose the brother you had recognized as king for twelve years, right? 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: Furthermore, even if Daemon were as stupid as you imagine him he still had brilliant men in the form of Fireball and Bittersteel who could and definitely did influence him. In fact if he was thick-headed as you say that would make avoiding bad decisions easier. They weren't brilliant men as far as I can see. Bittersteel was an ambitious man and capable warrior but nothing suggests he was a great politician. And Fireball was a great warrior, too, but a shitty husband. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Dance: How do you know that all the realm was fine with Viserys's decision AFTER Aegon II's birth? It is quite telling that during his reign all we get a picture of is what's going on inside the royal court and not the wider realm. That is a good point. But unfortunately we don't know much about the opinions of the lords on that matter. Nobody openly rebelled or petitioned the king to change the succession. They certainly could have tried to do that. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: Beyond that the fact your insistence that Viserys I didn't create the Dance by f**** up the succession rings hollow to me. HE is the one that remarried into a highly wealthy, influential, and ambitious family. HE is the one who sired trueborn sons on this second wife. HE is the one that then didn't take steps to sideline them such as sending them to the Wall but instead put his fingers in his ears and his head in the sand. Well, I see no fault in a man who hopes for the best and cannot imagine that his children would kill each other after his death. You have to be very sick to think of such. Yes, it happens with royal families and all, but Viserys had a shitty brother with Daemon and he always forgave him as a proper brother should. Viserys also didn't have firsthand Maegor experiences, unlike his grandfather, so he most likely never thought his children could ever treat each other the way Maegor treated Aenys' children. And, honestly, sending Aegon or Aemond to the Wall just to remove an obstacle in Rhaenyra's path would also have been shitty behavior. The boys hadn't done any wrong yet, and should not be punished in advance. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: Furthermore, your insistence that precedent and tradition aren't worth diddly-squat because the king can do as he likes is ridiculous when those are all Westeros has for laws and more importantly that means anything a king like Maegor can do no wrong because the concept of tyranny does not exist. The Targaryens may have fancied themselves as absolute monarchs but it is clear that they were far from that. George recently went on record during a talk stating that the Targaryens created an 'absolute monarchy'. You can find it in one of the reports on the recent event in Mexico, if I remember correctly. So that pretty much settles this debate. The succession isn't something that has anything to do with tyranny. It is more or less an internal matter of the royal family. You cannot say a king is a tyrant because he hands the kingdom to his daughter, or because he chooses a successor you don't like. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for him being a good king NO he was not. Peace is NOT inherently superior to war. Productive peace is and Viserys didn't do shit in that regard. He didn't revise laws, build roads, increase trade, or do any of the things a truly good king does. All he did was party and create an impeding civil war within his own family that made the previous years of prosperity a moot point. Viserys I continued all the great works of his grandfather. The Kingsroad, for instance, wasn't finished during Jaehaerys I's reign just as the Great Sept wasn't completed by Baelor. The laws were apparently dealt already by Jaehaerys I. But trade and everything should have greatly increased during the reign of Viserys I. His was the happiest and most prosperous reign in the history of the Seven Kingdoms. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: Finally, here is something to ponder: NO ONE fights for Rhaenyra out of altruism or the sincere belief that as the elder daughter she ought to succeed Viserys. Let's look at her major supporters shall we? House Velaryon: Not altruistic in the slightest. They're literally in bed with Rhaenyra. House Arryn: Allegedly for kinship but not only did Jace have to actually travel there to ensure the Vale's support but Lady Jeyne supporting Rhaenyra is also politically better for her since if she supported the Greens' claims people could rightfully question why SHE was in charge of the Vale. House Stark: Not in the slightest. The text explicitly says the Blacks bribed Cregan for his support, partly with the promise of a royal marriage. House Greyjoy: Again the Blacks bribed them with a free license to raid, rape, and pillage as they please. That is actually irrelevant. I never said the Blacks were in there out of the goodness of their heart or because they believed that they should have an elder daughter over a younger son all the time. However, I'm pretty sure some people supporting Rhaenyra did so because they believed that a king had the right to rule on his own succession and because they felt bound to vow they swore to Rhaenyra. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: In contrast the Greens at least have two named people whose support for the Greens comes from the principles they believe in: Jasper Wylde, who as Master of Laws, would have been an expert on these things, and Grover Tully, though sadly he was too old and sick to do much. Jasper Wylde certainly wasn't a guy who could do much, but I freely admit he died for his principles. However, perhaps he should have refused to serve a king who didn't share those principles or should have tried to convince Viserys I of his view of the matter instead of participating in a coup upon the man's death. The entire inner circle of the Greens would have lied and deceived Viserys I, Rhaenyra, Daemon, and the entire court on a regular basis considering that they would always have acknowledged Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne whenever they formally met. Grover Tully seems to have been a hardliner that only accidentally found himself in the Green camp. He opposed Laenor Velaryon in 101 AC, and thus would most likely also have rejected Jaehaera Targaryen as Queen Regnant at the end of the Dance. He wanted a king, not a queen. If Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera hadn't married he most likely would have gone with the boy rather than the girl. 38 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: So, in conclusion, I find your assertion that the Greens were entirely in the wrong and that they should have just rolled over so that Viserys could play "daddy's little girl" bullshit. Oh, and about his marriage to Alicent: I don't give a rat's ass that she didn't have Targaryen blood. The fact that he saw her as well as possibly their children as "lesser" for that maybe is not something I will ever condone. Well, you certainly are entitled to that opinion but keep in mind that those do not fit with the opinions of medieval royalty. Jenny of Oldstones was no fit wife for king, either, and while there is a difference between her and Alicent, there is certainly a much larger gap between the dragonriding Targaryens and the normal Westerosi nobility and the dragonless Targaryens and the nobility. In addition, while Alicent is a Hightower by birth she is the daughter of a mere knight, not the Lord of Oldtown. She doesn't play in the same league as the Targaryens. In fact, I think Otto cooked that whole meal and should have eaten it. Had he not pushed Viserys I to rule on the succession before the man had married Alicent everything would have been fine. I'm not saying it was a great idea to name Rhaenyra the Heir Apparent. It probably wasn't. But after that was done there was no easy way back, especially not after Rhaenyra had married Laenor Velaryon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Daemon: What I meant was that Daemon, so far as we know, did not have Robert's appetites nor do we have any reason to believe he would be as apathetic as Robert was so on those grounds I find it hard to believe he would have been worse. As for chivalry, Baelor Breakspear was, like Daemon, the very soul of gallantry and I don't think anyone in Westeros or the fandom can claim he would have been anything less than a great king on par with Jaehaerys I or Aegon I. (I would include Viserys II but alas he reigned all too briefly.) On Fireball: Being a shitty husband has nothing to do with being a good king or leader. Just look at Henry II of England. On Bittersteel: The man single-highhandedly kept the Blackfyre cause alive and potent while he lived. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was Daemon's chief campaign manager both militarily and politically. Moreover, the Golden Company is, as I've said repeatedly in other threads, a military revolution on to itself. Combined arms doctrine, a clear chain of command, and meritocratic leadership all united into a single entity with a single purpose. Honestly, the Golden Company is what the Night's Watch could have been if it didn't have that stupid rule regarding celibacy. On that note I kind of wish Bittersteel had made it to the Wall. He could have reformed the Night's Watch and done way more than what Bloodraven has done in OTL. On Viserys: Well maybe but nothing in the text says that Viserys actually continued his grandfather's work in that regard. Rather it seems to me he just preserved what Jaehaerys had already done without doing more. I mean if Viserys II who only ruled for a year got his reforms mentioned by Yandel why weren't his namesake's? Furthermore, the Kingsroad for all we know could have been finished during Jaehaerys's reign. After all the man ruled for little more than half a century unlike Baelor. On Absolute Monarchy: I am aware of that. What I was trying to say is that while the Targaryens may have tried to rule as absolute monarchs (and thus thought themselves as such) the very fact that the Crownlands are the smallest in both size and population when combined with how big a polity a united Westeros is, means that the relationship between the crown and its subjects would nonetheless be far more feudal than say the relationship between Henry VIII and his vassals or that of Louis XIV and his. This would especially be the case post-Dance but even when the Targaryens did have dragons to ride Maegor the Cruel showed that the Iron Thron's absolute power really isn't absolute if all the lords turn against you, which is kind of the opposite of what an absolute monarchy is if I'm not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon: What I meant was that Daemon, so far as we know, did not have Robert's appetites nor do we have any reason to believe he would be as apathetic as Robert was so on those grounds I find it hard to believe he would have been worse. I think he would have to be worse. He would have to ascend the Iron Throne as a multiple kinslayer and a usurper. That's not a good start at all. Maegor even got a better start considering that Aenys I's heir was unable to challenge his uncle for quite some time. But even if he had gotten through all that I think the fact that he was never properly groomed or trained for kinship would have made his reign erratic and difficult. In addition, I get the impression in TMK that Daemon I wasn't that different from Daemon II at least insofar as his trust to other people went. Don't take me wrong, I actually like Daemon II and I also think Daemon I was a good man, but both of them listened to and trusted the wrong people. Bloodraven's assessment that many men like their kings stupid (I'm paraphrasing here) also seemed to apply to Daemon I. At least in his mind. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for chivalry, Baelor Breakspear was, like Daemon, the very soul of gallantry and I don't think anyone in Westeros or the fandom can claim he would have been anything less than a great king on par with Jaehaerys I or Aegon I. (I would include Viserys II but alas he reigned all too briefly.) Sure, I'd agree there. Although Baelor was perhaps too kind. We'll never know. What he would never have done, though, is rebelling against his rightful king and claiming his throne over some dead bodies. That is not the soul of chivalry. That is treason. And regardless who Daeron II was he was still a crowned and anointed king. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Fireball: Being a shitty husband has nothing to do with being a good king or leader. Just look at Henry II of England. Fireball was a great knight and battle commander but not necessarily a good leader or politician. But I agree with you in principle. Still, getting yourself in the Kingsguard essentially over the body of your wife isn't a noble thing. A man with such a character definitely doesn't belong into the Kingsguard. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Bittersteel: The man single-highhandedly kept the Blackfyre cause alive and potent while he lived. I agree that he succeeded there until 219 AC. After the Third Blackfyre Rebellion the Blackfyres were done. The Fourth Rebellion was a minor nuisance, and the Band of Nine was a larger movement. However, we should not overplay his role. In 219 AC Daemon's sons would all have been men grown and they might have been able to do quite a lot of stuff themselves to keep their cause alive. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was Daemon's chief campaign manager both militarily and politically. That clearly seems to be the case. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Moreover, the Golden Company is, as I've said repeatedly in other threads, a military revolution on to itself. Combined arms doctrine, a clear chain of command, and meritocratic leadership all united into a single entity with a single purpose. Honestly, the Golden Company is what the Night's Watch could have been if it didn't have that stupid rule regarding celibacy. On that note I kind of wish Bittersteel had made it to the Wall. He could have reformed the Night's Watch and done way more than what Bloodraven has done in OTL. Well, that's a too much praise. They were a sellsword company. Their advantage seems to have been that they were able to draw a lot of Westerosi exiles and adventurers to them raising their sons amongst their ranks, and so on, but they are not the only professional soldiers in Essos. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Viserys: Well maybe but nothing in the text says that Viserys actually continued his grandfather's work in that regard. Rather it seems to me he just preserved what Jaehaerys had already done without doing more. Keep in mind that we don't have all the details on his reign. And we do know that he left a full treasury and continued to throw all those balls and feast until the very end of his life. Things remained on an all time high during his reign. Perhaps he should have gotten Dorne into the Realm via a marriage, but aside from that I don't see what he should have done. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: I mean if Viserys II who only ruled for a year got his reforms mentioned by Yandel why weren't his namesake's? Those seems to have been interesting but rather modest reforms on the royal bureaucracy. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Furthermore, the Kingsroad for all we know could have been finished during Jaehaerys's reign. After all the man ruled for little more than half a century unlike Baelor. But we know that the roads were only begun by Jaehaerys I. Perhaps the Kingsroad got finished during his reign, perhaps not. But some of the other roads Jaehaerys I began would have been finished by his grandson. 2 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Absolute Monarchy: I am aware of that. What I was trying to say is that while the Targaryens may have tried to rule as absolute monarchs (and thus thought themselves as such) the very fact that the Crownlands are the smallest in both size and population when combined with how big a polity a united Westeros is, means that the relationship between the crown and its subjects would nonetheless be far more feudal than say the relationship between Henry VIII and his vassals or that of Louis XIV and his. This would especially be the case post-Dance but even when the Targaryens did have dragons to ride Maegor the Cruel showed that the Iron Thron's absolute power really isn't absolute if all the lords turn against you, which is kind of the opposite of what an absolute monarchy is if I'm not wrong. Sure, post-Dance the power of the Iron Throne declined. That much is clear. We even get that stated by Gyldayn in the beginning of TPatQ. However, that was not yet the case during the reign of Viserys I. He was the most powerful king of the Targaryen dynasty, actually. My take on the dragon days would be that the great lords were essentially little more than royal officials. The Conqueror and his successors had granted the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryn the right to keep their castles and lands but everybody knew they could easily enough lose everything for good. They could basically rule through their lords because they knew they owned their lords. After the dragon days that would have changed in truth but it seems as if the special semi-divine aura the Targaryens had acquired by then still kept their subjects in check very effectively. Still, the Realm got a lot larger without the dragons, and it would have been much more difficult to exert direct royal control over, say, the North, Oldtown, or the Vale. A good example for the amount of power they had would be THK, I think. Yet still the Targaryens only have troubles with their own during the second half of the second century. The third century sees the Lothston and the Peake rebellions and all those during the reign of Aegon V which seem to indicate an amount of resistance from the lords that the dragonriding Targaryens never met. But even there, George seems to a see a huge breakdown coming in the reign of Aerys the Mad, the Rebellion, and the subsequent misrule of Robert Baratheon. I'd say that the Realm would never have fractured the way it did after Robert's death had the Iron Throne been as strong as under Aerys II/Tywin in the, say, 260s, let alone under the reign of martial Aegon V or Maekar I. And the strength of the Crown in those would pale in comparison to the power the Targaryens had during the days of Viserys I and Jaehaerys I. As to Maegor and absolute power: An absolute monarchy merely means that there are no powerful legal institution limiting the power of the king. That was true for the dragon days as well as the Crown under Robert Baratheon. All the lords can do is openly rebel. They cannot legally put any restrictions on the power of the king and there is no assembly or council of the great lords that the king has to ask for advice or permission when he creates some taxes, or something of that sort. But this doesn't mean a king cannot create a situation where his subjects turn against him and depose him. That's what happened to Maegor. Maegor had every chance to be a good king. His problem was that he was paranoid sadistic madman who eventually even turned against his strongest supporters and allies (Alys Harroway and her father; Tyanna). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 On Daemon: Just because you haven't been groomed to rule doesn't mean you can't do good once you sit the throne. More than a few RL rulers have come to power despite never expecting to. In setting we also have the example of Maekar, Aegon V, and earlier, Jaehaerys I. None of them were first in line or could have expected to become king but all three did and proved to be good kings, Aegon V less so admittedly but that was because of his reforms. If he hadn't sought them his reign would have been a lot more stable not that I would ever fault him for wanting to improve the lives of the smallfolk. As for the whole kinslayer and usurper thing well if Daemon managed to hold on to the throne long enough eventually people would forget the latter and as for the former I think you're overestimating how much people care about that stuff. People still supported Maegor for a time after 44 AC, no one challenged Aegon IV or Maekar's ascension, both sides during the Dance committed kinslaying but that didn't stop their supporters, Gerold Lannister wasn't opposed during his time as lord of Casterly Rock, and Maelys had so far as we know the complete loyalty of the Golden Company to give a few examples. On Fireball: If what you desire is absolute loyalty and a good sword-hand then Fireball was more than perfect. I'm not defending what he did to his wife but the Kingsguard by that point had seen and could have done far worse than him if his dedication to Daemon is anything to go by. On the Golden Company: Maybe but you can't deny they are by far the best fighting force in the series and that is entirely due to Bittersteel's brilliance. Sellswords they may be but the Golden Company has a reputation for honesty and discipline for a reason. As JonCon put it: "these are the heirs of Bittersteel and discipline is their mother's milk". Not to mention that shortly after their creation they sacked Qohor for failing to honor its contract, which, given the information in TWOIAF, shouldn't have been as easy as it sounds like it was. Furthermore, can you name any other military force with as organized and efficient a chain of command? Or one that is also as meritocratic? Just compare their camp outside Volantis to that of the Windblown in ADWD. The difference couldn't be more stark. And the fact that they can marry and have children means the Blackfyres will always have men willing to fight for them, which is again pretty good thinking on Bittersteel's part. On Viserys I: How much was cut from TRP and TWOIAF concerning his reign? On Viserys II: They were far more than modest reforms of the bureaucracy otherwise Yandel wouldn't bemoan his passing as Westeros losing a second coming of the Conciliator. The man made a number of economic and legal reforms in a single year! A single year I tell you! On Absolute Monarchy: I understand you and agree with you here though I personally think the realm fracturing upon Robert's death has less to due with a loss of prestige or power and more to do with the fact that the corruption under him was compounded by factionalism within the royal court to a degree far beyond that seen during the reigns of say Viserys I or Aegon IV. Stannis, Renly, the Lannisters, Baelish, and Varys all have incompatible goals so when Robert dies this causes the STAB alliance that won him the crown to fracture rather than coalesce, particularly since two of the aforementioned are actively working to destabilize the Baratheon regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon: Just because you haven't been groomed to rule doesn't mean you can't do good once you sit the throne. More than a few RL rulers have come to power despite never expecting to. In setting we also have the example of Maekar, Aegon V, and earlier, Jaehaerys I. That is true. The problem I see there is that we know too little about Daemon to say whether he wanted to be a king or whether he was the man who could be a good king if he tried hard enough. The fact that it seems that other people (Bittersteel, Fireball, Peake, etc.) pushed him to rebel against his half-brother doesn't make me overly confident that he would have been able to do the right thing (however unpleasant it might be) after he had become king. Take Stannis as an example. The man is a shitty human being who uses foul magics to get what he wants yet he has such a rigid code of morals and impartial sense of justice that he would actually be a very good judge. And dispensing justice is one of the main duties of a king. If Stannis was king we could expect that the overwhelming majority of his subjects would actually get justice from him. In Daemon's case I'm not so sure. The man was very popular, and most likely enjoyed that popularity. Even if Bittersteel had been a great and capable administrator in all matters of state one wonders whether Daemon would have continued to listen to him after he finally wore a crown? He shows a tendency to listen to lickspittles and the like when he allowed Bittersteel and Fireball to convince him to rebel in the first place. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: None of them were first in line or could have expected to become king but all three did and proved to be good kings, Aegon V less so admittedly but that was because of his reforms. If he hadn't sought them his reign would have been a lot more stable not that I would ever fault him for wanting to improve the lives of the smallfolk. I'd actually say Aegon V most likely was a very good king. The fact that his reign was troubled doesn't mean that he sucked as king. Jaehaerys I clearly was some prodigy but also had the advantage of having very capable advisers in Alysanne and Barth. He - and Maekar and Aegon V, too - might not actually have wanted to be king. That was a character trait Daemon Blackfyre clearly lacked. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for the whole kinslayer and usurper thing well if Daemon managed to hold on to the throne long enough eventually people would forget the latter and as for the former I think you're overestimating how much people care about that stuff. People still supported Maegor for a time after 44 AC, no one challenged Aegon IV or Maekar's ascension, both sides during the Dance committed kinslaying but that didn't stop their supporters, Gerold Lannister wasn't opposed during his time as lord of Casterly Rock, and Maelys had so far as we know the complete loyalty of the Golden Company to give a few examples. Well, if you reread TSS and TMK then you see that Bloodraven's reputation in Westeros is about as black as it can get thanks to his kinslaying, and we know that things are no longer as secure as they were under the Good King and Baelor Breakspear. Maegor's crown was constantly challenged, he was always at war. He failed to make peace with his enemies. Prince Aegon brought his death upon himself by rebelling against his uncle, but the treatment and murder of Viserys was just an atrocity. The same goes for his eradication of the Harroways. But you should keep in mind that kinslaying could be more easier overlooked in the dragon days than thereafter, explaining how Maegor, Daemon, Aemond, and Aegon II got away with a lot of stuff they did. The poisoning plots (Visenya killing Aenys I; Aegon IV killing his own father; Gerold killing Cerelle) are just rumors. Rumors are not black deeds done in the open. And Maekar killing Baelor was clearly an accident. Still, the fact that he killed his brother didn't make him more popular, that's quite clear. And the Golden Company is a military company. They follow strength. Maelys the Monstrous supposedly was the Targaryen equivalent to Gregor Clegane. His men would have feared the guy as well as been reasonably confident that he could lead them to victory. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Fireball: If what you desire is absolute loyalty and a good sword-hand then Fireball was more than perfect. I'm not defending what he did to his wife but the Kingsguard by that point had seen and could have done far worse than him if his dedication to Daemon is anything to go by. I'm not sure if Fireball was a man with absolute loyalty. The man seems to have been motivated by his hatred for Daeron II (who refused to give him a white cloak) not so much his loyalty for Daemon. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Golden Company: Maybe but you can't deny they are by far the best fighting force in the series and that is entirely due to Bittersteel's brilliance. I agree with the former but not necessarily the latter. Bittersteel is dead for a long time, and the Golden Company is still in perfect shape. In fact, I'd be surprised if they had been as strong as they are now in the days of Bittersteel. Elephants certainly would have made a difference during the Fourth Rebellion, don't you think? But I agree with you that Bittersteel created a very fine war machine. I'm just not sure that in itself is a exceptionally great. Couldn't have another exiled lord done the same thing? 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Sellswords they may be but the Golden Company has a reputation for honesty and discipline for a reason. As JonCon put it: "these are the heirs of Bittersteel and discipline is their mother's milk". Not to mention that shortly after their creation they sacked Qohor for failing to honor its contract, which, given the information in TWOIAF, shouldn't have been as easy as it sounds like it was. Furthermore, can you name any other military force with as organized and efficient a chain of command? Or one that is also as meritocratic? Just compare their camp outside Volantis to that of the Windblown in ADWD. The difference couldn't be more stark. And the fact that they can marry and have children means the Blackfyres will always have men willing to fight for them, which is again pretty good thinking on Bittersteel's part. Agreed, I'm pretty sure they will crush the Tyrell army marching against them, with or without Dornish help, and even against overwhelming odds. I just point out that I think professional soldiers with discipline (and I think many of the other companies should also have discipline) should be much more effective than the Westerosi armies. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Viserys I: How much was cut from TRP and TWOIAF concerning his reign? We don't know precisely. Less than was cut from TPatQ but still a considerable amount, apparently. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Viserys II: They were far more than modest reforms of the bureaucracy otherwise Yandel wouldn't bemoan his passing as Westeros losing a second coming of the Conciliator. The man made a number of economic and legal reforms in a single year! A single year I tell you! Sure, but this is a controversial issue. Some people think he was a great visionary guy, others don't think so. There wouldn't be a controversy if his reforms had been obviously great. 9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Absolute Monarchy: I understand you and agree with you here though I personally think the realm fracturing upon Robert's death has less to due with a loss of prestige or power and more to do with the fact that the corruption under him was compounded by factionalism within the royal court to a degree far beyond that seen during the reigns of say Viserys I or Aegon IV. Stannis, Renly, the Lannisters, Baelish, and Varys all have incompatible goals so when Robert dies this causes the STAB alliance that won him the crown to fracture rather than coalesce, particularly since two of the aforementioned are actively working to destabilize the Baratheon regime. That is certainly true as well. The inclusion of the two of the king's brothers into the Small Council as well as them both being great lords in their own right made them way too powerful. The same goes for Robert allowing the Lannisters to acquire so much power in light of Cersei not getting along all that well with his brothers. The prestige problem I see there is that Robert didn't do anything to reassert his personal authority. His successful rebellion weakened the unity of the Realm as the Greyjoy Rebellion proved. He put that one down because he was very good at fighting, at least back then (nine years later things are somewhat different) but he didn't care about the rot at his own court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Daemon Blackfyre: To me that is the appeal and tragedy of the Black Dragon. We can never know whether he would have been as great as Aegon I, as bad as Robert I, or controversial like Daeron I. On the other hand history has denied Daemon a voice. All we know of the man comes from other people after he has died and because of that they either condemn him (Stannis, Yandel) or they lionize him (Ser Eustace) but neither is the whole picture, which is so sad. We will never know the man who bore the sword. He will never be able to tell us his story first-hand and thus there will always for us be a certain degree of mystery surrounding him. However to address the point about lickspittles: Considering it took them ten years to convince him and that this started when he was at an impressionable age I wouldn't be so quick to lablel him as similar to Aerys II in terms of how easy prey the latter was for flatterers and sycophants. On Stannis: I really do not want to derail this thread but I have to ask why is Melisandre's magic foul? Do you mean to say that using magic in general is foul or just the specific kind she used to kill Renly because if the latter I think your being a bit petty in saying that burning someone to death with a dragon is alright but assassinating them with a shadow is monstrous. On Kinslaying: You're only a kinslayer if you do the deed yourself, which Daemon wouldn't have to do. If he won and sat the throne he could just have the King's Justice do the deed and that shouldn't be an issue in of itself. No way sometime in Westerosi history there wasn't a king who had close kin executed. On Aegon V: I just meant he was less successful than Maekar and Jaehaerys because he sought reforms that actively destabilized the realm by upsetting the status quo, not that he sucked so that was me not being clear. On Fireball: Why can't it be hatred for Daeron II AND loyalty to Daemon? So far as we know up until the point Daeron broke his father's promise to Fireball the man was nothing but a faithful subject of the crown who did his job as master-at-arms very well given how Daemon, Baelor, and Maekar all turned out to be gifted warriors. On Bittersteel and the GC: You are right that the GC changed over time, which in itself would be interesting to learn more of. For example, since JonCon says Westeros has never seen elephants before in ADWD we can infer that the GC did not acquire them until after the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Furthermore, it is possible that in previous generations the GC fielded less than 10000 or more. The latter would make more sense to me as that would not only make the Third Blackfyre Rebellion that much more hard-fought but it could also be explained by having it be that the Blackfyres lost so many in the Third and Fourth rebellions that their numbers permanently declined since they actually need to sire and raise children to replace their fathers. As to whether anyone else could have done what Bittersteel did? I'll be honest I don't think just any lord would have been able to do it. I think you would need someone like Baelor Breakspear to do what Bittersteel did, particularly because he didn't just create any ordinary sellsword company. He introduced innovations like a clear, merit-based chain of command as well as combined arms tactics and in a setting like Westeros which is still fighting with feudal armies where every lord is responsible for his men so making those forward-thinking decisions requires a person with vision, dedication, and attention to detail not to mention in order to bring the exiles together a would-be other would require both personal charisma and cunning to convince the lords to unite, especially since they are going to be all the prouder of their lineage now that they are exiles in foreign land. So, to summarize: Could an extraordinary man like Baelor Breakspear or Daeron the Young Dragon do what Bittersteel did? Yes. Could any lord? No. On discipline: We agree completely here. On Viserys I: Really? That is news to me. Guess I should look forward to learning more about the reign of the Old King's grandson then. On Viserys II: I'm not really sure there was any controversy surrounding his reforms, only whether or not he poisoned Baelor and desired the throne. Also, the man only ruled for a year so I doubt he had enough time to do anything controversial enough to get mentioned in the histories. Beyond that both Yandel and Tyrion praise him so I think it is safe to say Viserys II is the ultimate "what could have been". Not to mention the fact that he kept the realm solvent all throughout Daeron I's warring and Baelor's spending on charities or building the Great Sept speaks for itself. On Robert: Balon was a delusional fool so I have little doubt he would tried taking on Aerys eventually. We are talking about the man who thought the Ironborn could conquer the North. Plus, Robert crushed him. Utterly. And as for the rot we should remember that most of the realm doesn't see what we see in AGOT. Most of the realm is outside the court (which is actually one of the problems with a monarchy) and as far as they know Robert is ruling well. There are no wars, no high taxes, no plagues or famines or natural disasters, etc. Sure, they might know he likes to eat, drink, hunt, and whore and might make bawdy jokes about it (which Robert would probably like actually) but they do not know him to be the fat shadow of a man he is 298 AC. He is King Robert Baratheon the Demon of the Trident. At the very least he had more prestige at the end of his reign than his predecessor did considering how little support the latter had during Robert's Rebellion. Point of clarification: When I say less support I don't mean in terms of actual men but in terms of how many regions and houses are supporting him. During RRs the loyalists had amongst their ranks so far as we currently know 3 Stormlands houses, 1 Vale house, 3 Riverlands houses, the Reach, the Crownlands, and Dorne though in this last case only because Aerys held Elia as well as children hostage. The rebels in contrast have the support of the Vale, the Stormlands, the North, and the Riverlands, with the late addition of the Westerlands and the dubiously nominal Iron Isles but even if you don't count the last two I'm pretty sure the STAB alliance are numerically superior still in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon Blackfyre: To me that is the appeal and tragedy of the Black Dragon. We can never know whether he would have been as great as Aegon I, as bad as Robert I, or controversial like Daeron I. I agree there. But that goes for any of the people who missed their shot at being king. How good would have been Aenys I's sons Aegon and Viserys? Or Prince Aemon, Princess Rhaenys, or Baelon the Brave? How good a queen would have Rhaenyra been had she ascended the Iron Throne as she was supposed? We have no idea, really. I personally like the idea that Prince Aegon was some half-mad guy without much promise. I'm just not all that interested in Daemon Blackfyre as a person. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the other hand history has denied Daemon a voice. All we know of the man comes from other people after he has died and because of that they either condemn him (Stannis, Yandel) or they lionize him (Ser Eustace) but neither is the whole picture, which is so sad. We will never know the man who bore the sword. He will never be able to tell us his story first-hand and thus there will always for us be a certain degree of mystery surrounding him. That is true for a lot of people. I'd like to know much more about the Dragonknight, for instance, and a lot of different people. I think we already have a good picture of Daemon Blackfyre. He was well-built, physically very strong, very capable warrior and knight. He was quite charismatic and capable to overcome the stain of his bastard birth quite effectively. He was also, I think, not the most intelligent of men and susceptible to flattery. I give him the benefit of the doubt and consider it possible that he thought he could be a good king and eventually grew to believe that his half-brother had wronged him, but to assume this we have to go with him not being very bright. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: However to address the point about lickspittles: Considering it took them ten years to convince him and that this started when he was at an impressionable age I wouldn't be so quick to lablel him as similar to Aerys II in terms of how easy prey the latter was for flatterers and sycophants. Well, considering that Aegor Rivers was only twelve years old when Aegon IV died we can be reasonably sure that any talk of Daemon being the rightful king etc. only began years later, especially talk coming from Aegor. I'd say this cannot have began before the year 190 AC, perhaps even later than that. There might have been other people at court in 184 AC fearing the ascension of Daeron II who began repeating the slanderous tales about Naerys and Aemon, but the whole idea of Daemon being the true king came much later. Fireball was much older than the great bastards but he would only have turned against Daeron II after he was not given his white cloak, and that could easily enough have been only around 190 AC or so, too. Kingsguard usually don't die like flies. And certainly Aerys II's character trait wasn't all that good, either. In fact it was pretty bad. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Stannis: I really do not want to derail this thread but I have to ask why is Melisandre's magic foul? Do you mean to say that using magic in general is foul or just the specific kind she used to kill Renly because if the latter I think your being a bit petty in saying that burning someone to death with a dragon is alright but assassinating them with a shadow is monstrous. I was writing sort of in Westerosi prejudice mode. Nobody in Westeros likes the idea of man using magic to accomplish his goals. That even less manly than using poison to kill an enemy. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Kinslaying: You're only a kinslayer if you do the deed yourself, which Daemon wouldn't have to do. If he won and sat the throne he could just have the King's Justice do the deed and that shouldn't be an issue in of itself. No way sometime in Westerosi history there wasn't a king who had close kin executed. That is not true. There is talk about Rhaenyra being a kinslayer because she might have commanded the death of Helaena or might have quietly killed Aegon II and deposed of the body so that she would not be accused of kinslaying. You are also seen as a kinslayer if you command the murder of a close relative. You don't have to do the deed yourself. And I'm pretty sure that is precisely the reason why Aerys I actually pardoned Bittersteel and sent him to the Wall. He knew that commanding the execution of his half-uncle would make him a kinslayer. Keep in mind how allergic the barbaric Ironborn are to the concept of kinslaying. Balon makes it clear that killing Euron would be kinslaying, regardless whether he, Victarion, or presumably some man under Balon's command would do it. That's a strong sign that this is a really powerful taboo. It seems that you kill a close relative quietly, with poison or by arranging some accident. But you don't do it openly in a way that can be traced back to you. And as a king or lord sitting in judgment over a close kinsman you better show mercy to him by allowing him to take the black instead of executing him. Unless, of course, he stands accused of a vile crime like regicide or kinslaying (or both) himself. I doubt that the people saw Tyrion's imminent execution at Tywin's command as kinslaying. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Fireball: Why can't it be hatred for Daeron II AND loyalty to Daemon? So far as we know up until the point Daeron broke his father's promise to Fireball the man was nothing but a faithful subject of the crown who did his job as master-at-arms very well given how Daemon, Baelor, and Maekar all turned out to be gifted warriors. That is why I think his disillusionment came only later. But I find it difficult to see him as a man who was loyal to Daemon if he helped to make them a pretender to the Iron Throne. That makes Daemon Blackfyre more his creation than Fireball a loyal man. And the same goes for Bittersteel, too. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Bittersteel and the GC: You are right that the GC changed over time, which in itself would be interesting to learn more of. For example, since JonCon says Westeros has never seen elephants before in ADWD we can infer that the GC did not acquire them until after the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Furthermore, it is possible that in previous generations the GC fielded less than 10000 or more. The latter would make more sense to me as that would not only make the Third Blackfyre Rebellion that much more hard-fought but it could also be explained by having it be that the Blackfyres lost so many in the Third and Fourth rebellions that their numbers permanently declined since they actually need to sire and raise children to replace their fathers. Could very well be that they once had more, especially during the Third Rebellion. During the Fourth not so much. Aegon V would have had a massive army to easily defeat 10,000 men of the Golden Company. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: As to whether anyone else could have done what Bittersteel did? I'll be honest I don't think just any lord would have been able to do it. I think you would need someone like Baelor Breakspear to do what Bittersteel did, particularly because he didn't just create any ordinary sellsword company. He introduced innovations like a clear, merit-based chain of command as well as combined arms tactics and in a setting like Westeros which is still fighting with feudal armies where every lord is responsible for his men so making those forward-thinking decisions requires a person with vision, dedication, and attention to detail not to mention in order to bring the exiles together a would-be other would require both personal charisma and cunning to convince the lords to unite, especially since they are going to be all the prouder of their lineage now that they are exiles in foreign land. So, to summarize: Could an extraordinary man like Baelor Breakspear or Daeron the Young Dragon do what Bittersteel did? Yes. Could any lord? No. Well, we know that the Golden Company was founded only after the Second Rebellion, and we know that Bittersteel fought among the Second Sons prior to that. I think he was able to combine the best things the two worlds had to offer. The professionalism of the free companies with the chivalry of the Seven Kingdoms. That worked pretty well. What kept them together and lifted them above the other companies seems to be their cause, their vision to one day return back home in triumph. That certainly is a powerful motivator. But I'd say any exiled lord who was a good commander/warrior in the service of an exiled king/prince could do that. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Viserys I: Really? That is news to me. Guess I should look forward to learning more about the reign of the Old King's grandson then. I think I even asked George about that one on his NAB when 'Rogues' came out. But the memory is blurry. It has been a few years. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Viserys II: I'm not really sure there was any controversy surrounding his reforms, only whether or not he poisoned Baelor and desired the throne. Also, the man only ruled for a year so I doubt he had enough time to do anything controversial enough to get mentioned in the histories. Beyond that both Yandel and Tyrion praise him so I think it is safe to say Viserys II is the ultimate "what could have been". Not to mention the fact that he kept the realm solvent all throughout Daeron I's warring and Baelor's spending on charities or building the Great Sept speaks for itself. I was referring to the debate between Tyrion and Oberyn about Viserys II's qualities as king. Those are reflected in Yandel's account on his reign, although Yandel seems to be more in Tyrion's camp. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Robert: Balon was a delusional fool so I have little doubt he would tried taking on Aerys eventually. We are talking about the man who thought the Ironborn could conquer the North. Plus, Robert crushed him. Utterly. And as for the rot we should remember that most of the realm doesn't see what we see in AGOT. Most of the realm is outside the court (which is actually one of the problems with a monarchy) and as far as they know Robert is ruling well. There are no wars, no high taxes, no plagues or famines or natural disasters, etc. Sure, they might know he likes to eat, drink, hunt, and whore and might make bawdy jokes about it (which Robert would probably like actually) but they do not know him to be the fat shadow of a man he is 298 AC. He is King Robert Baratheon the Demon of the Trident. At the very least he had more prestige at the end of his reign than his predecessor did considering how little support the latter had during Robert's Rebellion. I agree with you about many parts of the Realm being ignorant about how things stood at court. Ned certainly was. But the important people knew. And their number was presumably growing each day. I think we can be fairly certain that the Iron Throne as an institution/the unity of the Realm is not going to survive the series unless there is a Targaryen restoration of some sort. Fake Baratheon child monarchs and despised Stannis are not going to restore or the authority of the Crown. Oh, and Robert is definitely not inspiring the new generation. Remember what Jon and Sansa think of him? I don't think they are alone there. Robert was a great warrior and charismatic leader in his youth. But now he is a fat drunkard. He is still fun to be around if you like to drink but one really wonders if such a man would actually be capable to draw many men to his banner if he were seriously challenged. 58 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said: Point of clarification: When I say less support I don't mean in terms of actual men but in terms of how many regions and houses are supporting him. During RRs the loyalists had amongst their ranks so far as we currently know 3 Stormlands houses, 1 Vale house, 3 Riverlands houses, the Reach, the Crownlands, and Dorne though in this last case only because Aerys held Elia as well as children hostage. The rebels in contrast have the support of the Vale, the Stormlands, the North, and the Riverlands, with the late addition of the Westerlands and the dubiously nominal Iron Isles but even if you don't count the last two I'm pretty sure the STAB alliance are numerically superior still in that regard. Rhaegar apparently had more troops at the Trident than the rebels. And that without drawing heavily on the Reach. But then, aside from Robert's Stormlander host being completely ripped apart by the time of the Battle of the Bells we don't know how many men each of the three other rebel leaders - Ned, Hoster, and Jon - actually brought to the Trident. Perhaps Jon had had more losses in the Vale than we think? Or Ned wasn't able to gather as many troops as he would have liked? Or more Riverlanders than we know fought under the dragon banner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On Daemon: The reason why to me he stands out in that regard is because unlike the other characters you mentioned we don't just know him through the lens of history but also through D & E plus Daemon ultimately had a far greater impact on Westerosi history than say Baelon the Brave or Aegon, son of Aenys. He was the the first Blackfyre pretender, the progenitor of all the rest, and the source of "five generations of strife" that prevented the Targaryen dynasty from ever catching its breath long enough to get a firm foundational footing following the Dance. As for him being dumb sorry but I just can't see that. Idealistic in the extreme? Yes. Sort of like if you took Ned and combined him with Viserys I. But I guess we'll have to wait for F & B or more D & E before we can make any definitive statements about the man. If it turns out that he led men in battle to victory on more than one occasion or that the currency thing was his idea to begin with then he couldn't have been stupid but I will concede that given the information at hand he may well have been naive or gullible. On Stannis: Gotcha On Robert: Even in his later condition I'm sure he could have made a comeback if he made an honest effort to get himself back into shape, which he most certainly would have done had his reign been seriously challenged. Moreover, even if he was no longer "muscled like a maiden's fantasy" I'm sure he would have done fine had an actual Targaryen restoration been attempted. In fact to prove that let's run through the following scenario: The year is 298 AC shortly after the death of Jon Arryn. In Essos for whatever reason rather than go through with the Dothraki plan Illyrio instead introduces Viserys and Dany to Aegon, who Viserys is then convinced to acknowledge as his heir. Shortly thereafter Viserys dies tragically of a sudden illness, Aegon and Dany are wed, and together they land in Westeros with the might of the Golden Company at their back courtesy of Illyrio. Who in this case would rise for the dragons against the stags? I'll go through them by region: North: No way is Ned and by extension anyone north of the Neck supporting the Targaryens after what they did to Lyanna, Rickard, and Brandon. Westerlands: No way. Tywin's finally got his life-long dream of seeing his blood on the Iron Throne thanks to Robert not to mention the Targaryens would never forgive him for the Sack anyway. Add to that no loyalists rising for the dragons in the west out of fear of getting their own taste of Castamere should they do so. Riverlands: They were heavily divided in RR and with Hoster sick and Edmure untested they will be so again. Stormlands: Divided but not as badly as the Riverlands. Robert may not be as inspiring as he was before but he can't have lost all his charm plus Renly is at this point basically him in his youth minus the appetite so there's that. Vale: I imagine very few if any would rise for the dragons in this scenario considering not that many sided with them in RR originally given what we know and Jon Arryn by all accounts was well-loved in his homeland. Iron Islands: A real wildcard. They could either stay out or side with the Targaryens for payback. With Balon at the helm its anyone's guess. The Reach: Another wildcard. They could support either side for a number of reasons or the Reach could like in the Dance and FBR become divided amongst itself. Dorne: Targs all the way. No question. Crownlands: Targs all the way as well. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if in this scenario Robert got trapped in the Red Keep by the city-folk if he didn't get out quickly enough. The lords of the Narrow Sea might stay loyal though since Stannis has a weird way of inspiring fanatical loyalty in the few men he has. So all in all Robert could count on the full support of the Westerlands and the North plus some measure of support from the Vale, the Riverlands, and the Stormlands against the full might of Dorne, the Crownlands, maybe the Iron Isles and the Reach plus the GC. As for commanders there are for the stags Ned, Robert, Stannis, Tywin, and Bronze Yohn. For the dragons there are JonCon, Oberyn, and maybe Randyll Tarly. Looks to me like either side could win. On RR: Considering how many men the Reach can field Rhaegar could have peeled off a large number while still leaving Mace with more than enough to continue his siege of Storm's End. Keep in mind according to an old SSM there were quite a few skirmshes, raids, and other minor battles we don't know about yet but will almost certainly learn of in the coming books given that GRRM has said that we know all there is to know about RR by the end of ASOIAF. Plus, Jon thinks in ADWD of how Robert was famous for his forced marches and midnight rides so clearly we are lacking a complete picture of 282-283 AC for the moment. On the Iron Throne: I personally don't think the Iron Throne will even exist by the end of the series. In fact I am of the opinion that when Dany goes to war against Aegon she will unintentionally ignite the wildfire under King's Landing and cause the whole place to burn to the ground along with the five hundred thousand souls within its walls, thus creating a new Valyria and destroying Aegon the Conqueror's dream of a united Westeros, which would be fitting. Aegon united Westeros with fire and blood using three dragons and Dany, in many ways Aegon reborn, will end that the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon: The reason why to me he stands out in that regard is because unlike the other characters you mentioned we don't just know him through the lens of history but also through D & E plus Daemon ultimately had a far greater impact on Westerosi history than say Baelon the Brave or Aegon, son of Aenys. He was the the first Blackfyre pretender, the progenitor of all the rest, and the source of "five generations of strife" that prevented the Targaryen dynasty from ever catching its breath long enough to get a firm foundational footing following the Dance. I don't think the Blackfyres were such a great threat. Daemon I was, for sure, but even he wasn't necessarily such a great threat. I don't think his victory on the Redgrass Field would have necessarily meant the end of the Targaryen dynasty. They could have regrouped to come back later, just as they do now in the series. Robert didn't win at the Trident, either he won after the Sack. As I've pointed already somewhere things could have gone the other way if the Lannisters hadn't betrayed Aerys, and if the Tyrells had come to Aerys' defense. The Second Rebellion was a joke, the Third Rebellion might have been somewhat more severe (although we don't know anything about that one yet) but it, too, ended in a decisive Targaryen victory, and the Fourth might have been even worse than the Second considering that Daemon III seemed to have had little to no Westerosi support. That was more a failed invasion of a foreign enemy than a rebellion. And one really wonders whether Bittersteel was to blame for that considering that he had cowardly decided to escape instead to go to the Wall. He might have been able to sell this to his buddies in the Golden Company as the false king Aerys having no right to send him to the Wall, etc. but the Lords of Westeros were Targaryen men and they universally despise men who flee from the Wall. Bittersteel would have been given a choice - go to the Wall or use your life. If he agreed to go to the Wall he was trapped there. 8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for him being dumb sorry but I just can't see that. Idealistic in the extreme? Yes. Sort of like if you took Ned and combined him with Viserys I. But I guess we'll have to wait for F & B or more D & E before we can make any definitive statements about the man. If it turns out that he led men in battle to victory on more than one occasion or that the currency thing was his idea to begin with then he couldn't have been stupid but I will concede that given the information at hand he may well have been naive or gullible. I'm sorry, but Ned? Really? Ned would never have rebelled against his king because he believed he had the better claim, and he would never have tried to claim a throne over the corpses of children (Prince Daeron was still alive during the Blackfyre Rebellion). In fact, he tried to save the lives of Cersei and her children despite her crimes. Daemon Blackfyre would have been both naive with some cruel streak behind all that knightly exterior. Somewhat like Renly. The man also charismatic and a pretty good tourney knight yet we see that he doesn't have any scruples to see his own brother killed. Not necessarily with his own hands, of course, but still... And we can be pretty certain that there was bad blood between Daemon and Baelor on Daemon's side. Baelor Breaspear defeated on that tourney during Daenerys' wedding, something one assumes would have quite vexed him, especially if he had intended to show off his prowess at that occasion. And speaking about Baelor: Do you remember how he chides Egg for expressing his hatred for Aerion, and how he does the same when Maekar publicly expresses his contempt for his own son Daeron? That is a truly chivalric man. He lives up to the true principles of knighthood even more when he defends Dunk against his own family. Daemon Blackfyre didn't even live up the standard that you obey your king and do not raise your arms against your family members. And Daeron II and his sons were his family. 8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Robert: Even in his later condition I'm sure he could have made a comeback if he made an honest effort to get himself back into shape, which he most certainly would have done had his reign been seriously challenged. I agree there. Robert could have possibly gotten back into shape if there had been an outside threat but one wonders whether things would have gone as you think they would. Ned is very defensive of the Targaryens in exile in AGoT. The rivalry/hatred between the Starks and Lannisters would have been still there. Ned is quickly disillusioned of the man Robert had become in the last nine years, and he was his best friend. Do you think many of the people who weren't Robert's best friend still liked that man? Even Stannis abandoned him to his enemies in the end. 8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On RR: Considering how many men the Reach can field Rhaegar could have peeled off a large number while still leaving Mace with more than enough to continue his siege of Storm's End. Keep in mind according to an old SSM there were quite a few skirmshes, raids, and other minor battles we don't know about yet but will almost certainly learn of in the coming books given that GRRM has said that we know all there is to know about RR by the end of ASOIAF. Plus, Jon thinks in ADWD of how Robert was famous for his forced marches and midnight rides so clearly we are lacking a complete picture of 282-283 AC for the moment. That SSM goes back before we learned about the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of Ashford, I think. There might have been more battles but I'd not bet all that much money on that. Robert's quickness could easily enough refer to the three battles at Summerhall. I guess Robert could have done some of those raids while he was crossing the Reach and on his way to the Riverlands (for some reason, we don't yet know how he ended at Stoney Sept). But we have no idea if and how many Reach men were with Rhaegar. His army was made up of the remnants of Connington's army (which actually could have contained some of his own Stormlanders as well as some Reach men raised earlier by Owen Merryweather), the Dornish contingent, Crownlanders under Rhaegar, and contingents from the loyal Riverlords (Whent, Darry, Mooton, etc.). The bulk of the Reach seems to have been with Mace or out of the war entirely. 8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Iron Throne: I personally don't think the Iron Throne will even exist by the end of the series. In fact I am of the opinion that when Dany goes to war against Aegon she will unintentionally ignite the wildfire under King's Landing and cause the whole place to burn to the ground along with the five hundred thousand souls within its walls, thus creating a new Valyria and destroying Aegon the Conqueror's dream of a united Westeros, which would be fitting. Aegon united Westeros with fire and blood using three dragons and Dany, in many ways Aegon reborn, will end that the same way. I doubt there is still wildfire under the Red Keep. Perhaps somebody is going to stash new jars down there for such a grand finale but I'm pretty sure Varys is not going to allow the castle he and his birds are living in (and his golden boy is supposed to rule from in the future) to be at the mercy of 'the substance'. He would have known where Aerys II stored the Red Keep fruits, and they most likely were destroyed on the Blackwater. There might still be undiscovered wildfire under other portions of the city but not under the Red Keep. I don't think destroying the whole unity thing at the end of the series will make any sense. First, the threat of the Others should unite everybody much more closely, especially those who survive the War for the Dawn. If the symbol of unity were then destroyed we would end the series basically on a cliffhanger. That wouldn't be a good ending. Just as Robb being declared the King in the North wouldn't have been a good ending. You would want to read about the wars to come, not imagine them in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Text On the Blackfyres: With all due respect the idea of the Blackfyres not being a major threat isn't really supported by the in-series text. Again, Robert was compared to Daemon I. I'll concede that the SBR was a joke but then again it doesn't make any actual sense to even call it a rebellion in the first place when it was nothing more than a failed plot. On the TBR sorry but I think it was a major war on par with the First. Particularly given that Maekar is described as showing leadership, Egg courage, and Aerion his darker nature. Plus, as you have pointed out elsewhere by this point the rest of Daemon's sons would be adults and Bittersteel too could have sons of his own fighting beside him. Moreover, the Golden Company, which may have had more than 10000 men at that point, would be landing with popular support on the mainland. Though how much is debatable I think it safe to assume they had quite a bit. Aerys and Bloodraven were definitely not popular at the time, which the Blackfyres would have been sure to exploit. As for the FBR they had a little support since the Yronwoods sided with them and I agree it was a debacle but not because Bittersteel escaped getting sent to the Wall but because many believed the Blackfyres were a lost cause and because the memory of Daemon I was fading as the older generation that fought for him was replaced by a younger generation that only saw the Blackfyres as repeatedly failed pretenders. As for the Fifth Blackfyre Rebellion sure it never reached Westeros but it was still a significant threat. The Band of Nine overran Tyrosh, the Disputed Lands, and the Stepstones in a matter of months! Not to mention at the time all the Targaryens had left were sickly Jaehaerys, infant Rhaegar, Aerys and his cousin Steffon, the latter two actually present on the battlefield with all the attendant danger that entailed. Beyond that we know the war lasted over a year which is longer than any other war in the Targaryen era other than the Dance and the Faith Militant Uprising and that the Westerlands alone sent 11000 men while the Iron Isles also sent a 100 longships so clearly it was a massive pan-Westerosi endeavor. Personally, I wish GRRM had included more rebellions, ideally two to bring the total to seven, or retconned the second into being an actual rebellion. Again, I really don't get why the second is included at all. On Daemon: Do you have any proof of Daemon being cruel? Also, to be clear what I meant was that I can imagine Daemon as having Ned's rigid sense of personal honor as well as Viserys I's inability to see the obvious even when everyone else around him could. As for your whole thing about him being a rebel=bad well to play devil's advocate if you believed that Daeron wasn't the rightful king it didn't matter that he was anointed or that you had pledged fealty to him before since that had been done under false pretenses and as for the fact that he was kin to Daemon that wouldn't make him any less a usurper that needed to go. I mean your whole thing about him being a would-be kinslayer making him horrible doesn't really make sense to me when Bloodraven murdered Aenys and before that someone fighting for the Reds murdered Haegon yet the 7K didn't react or do anything about that, hell some of the lords at the Great Council were glad in the former's case! On Robert: There is a difference between Robert ordering the assassination of Dany while she is across the Narrow Sea and her landing in Westeros with an army intending to take Robert's head. Even as Robert is dying he is still Ned's friend not to mention in the scenario where the Targaryens try to launch a restoration while Robert is actually alive there is no reason to side with them unless you are a diehard loyalist like the Crownlands or have personal grievances with Robert like Dorne. Everyone knows Aerys was mad and Robert even if he is uninspiring now is at least not that and moreover has given the realm more than a decade of peace. If people could tolerate a king like Aegon IV how can you be so certain that many would turn against Robert if Dany, Viserys, or Aegon landed? Just because he is "the Usurper"? On RR: Wasn't there a rather large gap between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident? Some minor battles could have happened in that timeframe. On endgame: Respectfully disagree. From the text we know Aerys clearly had caches of wildfire strewn all throughout the city in complete secrecy by only the top members of the Alchemists' Guild and it is mentioned that wildfire gets more volatile as it ages. As for Varys that's kind of the point. He comes up with this grand plan and it literally all goes up in flames in front of his eyes precisely because you CAN'T plan for, predict, or know everything. Furthermore, I should point out that Jaime IS the only one who knows about the wildfire before he tells Brienne about in ASOS. If Varys knew about it removing them would then have been a massive endeavor, one that we most certainly would have heard about by now because it just can't be done secretly or by one person. To conclude I don't think ASOIAF is about a Stark/Targaryen restoration but rather about the end of an era and how people in the aftermath will rebuild and look back on what came before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Blackfyres: With all due respect the idea of the Blackfyres not being a major threat isn't really supported by the in-series text. Again, Robert was compared to Daemon I. Robert was compared to Daemon some time prior to the Trident. Robert was a severe threat, to be sure, but there are more factors to consider than just the Trident. It was a close call, and the Targaryens are still there, poised to return. And I'm with you that Daemon was a severe threat. But as long as we don't know any details about Haegon's rebellion I won't hold my breath for that being a severe threat. No Targaryen even died during that war. George could have killed Prince Aelor or some other son of Rhaegel's he could have invented during that war. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: I'll concede that the SBR was a joke but then again it doesn't make any actual sense to even call it a rebellion in the first place when it was nothing more than a failed plot. On the TBR sorry but I think it was a major war on par with the First. Particularly given that Maekar is described as showing leadership, Egg courage, and Aerion his darker nature. Plus, as you have pointed out elsewhere by this point the rest of Daemon's sons would be adults and Bittersteel too could have sons of his own fighting beside him. Moreover, the Golden Company, which may have had more than 10000 men at that point, would be landing with popular support on the mainland. Though how much is debatable I think it safe to assume they had quite a bit. Aerys and Bloodraven were definitely not popular at the time, which the Blackfyres would have been sure to exploit. That is all true and I'm with you that it can be a major threat. But it doesn't have to be. It is not yet confirmed. I hope it will be a major threat, too. In fact, I think the story about that one should be a small novel not some novella because you cannot really cover a war in a novella. I'm pretty sure Maekar, Egg, and Aerion all we do something memorable during that war, but that doesn't mean that they have to fight half the Realm as they once did when Daemon rose against Daeron II. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for the FBR they had a little support since the Yronwoods sided with them and I agree it was a debacle but not because Bittersteel escaped getting sent to the Wall but because many believed the Blackfyres were a lost cause and because the memory of Daemon I was fading as the older generation that fought for him was replaced by a younger generation that only saw the Blackfyres as repeatedly failed pretenders. And they were failed pretenders. Two major threats (if the Third is going to be a major threat) out of five rebellions isn't a good statistic in favor of the Blackfyres as a major threat. And I still think Bittersteel was no longer popular in Westeros after his dick move to avoid the Wall. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for the Fifth Blackfyre Rebellion sure it never reached Westeros but it was still a significant threat. The Band of Nine overran Tyrosh, the Disputed Lands, and the Stepstones in a matter of months! It was only Tyrosh, was it not? 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Not to mention at the time all the Targaryens had left were sickly Jaehaerys, infant Rhaegar, Aerys and his cousin Steffon, the latter two actually present on the battlefield with all the attendant danger that entailed. Beyond that we know the war lasted over a year which is longer than any other war in the Targaryen era other than the Dance and the Faith Militant Uprising and that the Westerlands alone sent 11000 men while the Iron Isles also sent a 100 longships so clearly it was a massive pan-Westerosi endeavor. Personally, I wish GRRM had included more rebellions, ideally two to bring the total to seven, or retconned the second into being an actual rebellion. Again, I really don't get why the second is included at all. The problem there seems to have been that it was naval warfare as well as land battles, and the Targaryens were actually fighting for the control of the Stepstones. That seems to have been rather difficult. I agree that the Band of Nine would have been pretty strong but they still never even made it to Westeros. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Daemon: Do you have any proof of Daemon being cruel? I think he was prepared to murder his half-brother and nephews. If he wasn't he would have been an utter fool which I don't think he was. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Also, to be clear what I meant was that I can imagine Daemon as having Ned's rigid sense of personal honor as well as Viserys I's inability to see the obvious even when everyone else around him could. As for your whole thing about him being a rebel=bad well to play devil's advocate if you believed that Daeron wasn't the rightful king it didn't matter that he was anointed or that you had pledged fealty to him before since that had been done under false pretenses and as for the fact that he was kin to Daemon that wouldn't make him any less a usurper that needed to go. That's not how it goes. A subject never has the right to question the paternity or legitimate birth of a crowned and anointed king. You cannot knock at Buckingham Palace and demand Elizabeth II subjects herself to a paternity test because you believe that she actually isn't the daughter of George VI but has rather been fathered by her uncle. Daemon Blackfyre sat on his hands for twelve years. During those years he would have recognized and acknowledged his half-brother countless times. He can no longer change his mind on that and think that he can get through with that. If Daemon had rebelled on the pretense that Daeron Falseborn was no king upon the man's coronation he would have a point. But the way he acted he clearly was a hypocrite up to a point. Aegon II and Rhaenyra are a different case. They challenged each other's claims at once, and did not wait for over a decade to do so. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: I mean your whole thing about him being a would-be kinslayer making him horrible doesn't really make sense to me when Bloodraven murdered Aenys and before that someone fighting for the Reds murdered Haegon yet the 7K didn't react or do anything about that, hell some of the lords at the Great Council were glad in the former's case! I don't think Bloodraven killing as many Blackfyres as he did was a good thing. I think his hatred of Bittersteel and the Blackfyres was part of the problem why this conflict continued as long as it did. And I don't think Haegon's murder was a good thing, either. Unless it turned out that the man was a cruel psychopath and only gave up his sword because he calculated that he could save his life this way. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Robert: There is a difference between Robert ordering the assassination of Dany while she is across the Narrow Sea and her landing in Westeros with an army intending to take Robert's head. Even as Robert is dying he is still Ned's friend not to mention in the scenario where the Targaryens try to launch a restoration while Robert is actually alive there is no reason to side with them unless you are a diehard loyalist like the Crownlands or have personal grievances with Robert like Dorne. Everyone knows Aerys was mad and Robert even if he is uninspiring now is at least not that and moreover has given the realm more than a decade of peace. If people could tolerate a king like Aegon IV how can you be so certain that many would turn against Robert if Dany, Viserys, or Aegon landed? Just because he is "the Usurper"? I think Robert's status as a usurper remained (and is still) a problem. In his youth he could make friends easily. But the fat drunkard doesn't seem to be all that good at it. That could become a problem in another war, especially with the men who remained more inclined to the Targaryens. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On RR: Wasn't there a rather large gap between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident? Some minor battles could have happened in that timeframe. There could have been some battles there but we don't know who was involved there. We also know that the fighting supposedly ceased in that time. The only exception we know about seems Hoster's move against some of his own bannermen but we don't know when exactly that happened. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On endgame: Respectfully disagree. From the text we know Aerys clearly had caches of wildfire strewn all throughout the city in complete secrecy by only the top members of the Alchemists' Guild and it is mentioned that wildfire gets more volatile as it ages. That is not in doubt. But we also know that a lot of those caches were found and subsequently burned on the Blackwater. 3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: As for Varys that's kind of the point. He comes up with this grand plan and it literally all goes up in flames in front of his eyes precisely because you CAN'T plan for, predict, or know everything. Furthermore, I should point out that Jaime IS the only one who knows about the wildfire before he tells Brienne about in ASOS. If Varys knew about it removing them would then have been a massive endeavor, one that we most certainly would have heard about by now because it just can't be done secretly or by one person. To conclude I don't think ASOIAF is about a Stark/Targaryen restoration but rather about the end of an era and how people in the aftermath will rebuild and look back on what came before. That isn't true. We know that the Hand, Lord Qarlton Chelsted, found out about the wildfire plan and tried to stop it. Who told him? How did he find out? Do you think Chelsted found something out Varys didn't know? We know the alchemists collected wildfire jars both from beneath the Great Sept and the Dragonpit. They might also have long collected the stuff hidden beneath the Red Keep. And if not, then Varys and his little birds would have found and taken care of it. The idea that Aerys could hide something beneath the Red Keep without Varys knowing or learning about it doesn't make any sense. Still, I could see KL being burned down by a dragon, or all of the dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Text On the Blackfyre Rebellions: I personally don't count the Second but otherwise we see eye-to-eye on the matter. On the Band of Nine: They did take the Stepstones as well as the Disputed Lands in addition to Tyrosh. Its in TWOIAF section covering Jaehaerys II's reign. On Daemon: I don't think that necessarily means the man had to have been cruel, especially not when everything else we know about the man points to the contrary. Also, technically he rebelled because Daeron tried to arrest him with supposedly minimal proof of wrongdoing. (I'm being cheeky here just to be clear.) On Robert: Who would be more inclined to the Targaryens apart from the Crownlands and Dorne and why? On RR: Well I certainly hope there were a few. Robert's entire reputation as a commander resting on Summerhall would be disappointing to me. Perhaps we'll get more information in TWOW now that the Stormlands are poised to play a prominent role in the narrative again, which is welcome because weirdly the Stormlands are the least developed and interesting part of the 7K despite the current royal family (nominally) coming from there. On endgame: Whether its wildfire or dragonfire King's Landing isn't IMO surviving the Second Dance of the Dragons or the Second War for the Dawn, which is the bitter part of the conclusion. One, that people fought over the city and in the end no one gets it. Second, that Aegon I's grand vision of a unified Westeros will be destroyed in the process. The sweet part then comes from the fact that people won't forget the Targaryen/Baratheon era and thus the rebuilding of the 7K will see them becoming much more peaceful and amendable to one another, certainly more than they were at the time of the Conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblackdragonI Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 On 18/01/2017 at 2:41 PM, Lord Varys said: Difficult to do. There was none. And Daemon's eldest daughter was already betrothed to Aegor. Their line would also become a rival branch to the many Blackfyre branches. Could Shiera Seastar have counted? I know shes a legitimized bastard but still technically a female and renowned Targ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: I did not forget Lord Peake, but all those names in general only mean much if many of them were commanders. Which we can only say with some confidence for Bittersteel and Fireball (who was not on the Redgrass Field if he died before the battle). And we don't even know whether he brought an army to Daemon, whether he had been with Daemon for quite some time, or whether whatever men he intended to bring to Daemon had actually been defeated elsewhere. We just don't know all that much about that war. You forget that its "lord" Peake, as lords seldom are idolized footsoldiers. At the least they are in command of their levies and I see no reason to think that Lord Gormon Peake was not a commander on the Blackfyre side. To me its pretty clear that Fireball had an army with him or do you think he did all the things he's mentioned as doing while going solo? On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: If some of the known great knights were elsewhere or already dead then this could mean the Blackfyres still had men in reserve - or not. It is impossible to say at this point. Could be, but odds are that those reserves would have been unable to turn the tide when the main host has failed. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, I think Fireball should have a good reason to march against the Lannisters. The West can field many troops, after all, and unless Daemon didn't have (m)any friends there it would have been a foolish move. After all, if the Grey Lion hadn't yet bestirred himself it may have been wiser to not drive the lions into the Targaryen camp by attacking their lands. Not to mention that Daemon Blackfyre had nothing to win by devastating the land. He wanted to win the Iron Throne and become rule over the lords of Westeros, not antagonize them. If the Lannisters had already declared for the Targaryens, or Daemon could draw on previous experience to tell that the Lannisters would side with House Targaryen, then attacking the West before they can unite with other loyalists further east makes perfect sense. Antagonizing your enemies is something one just have to do during a war. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Rhaenyra didn't rebel against anyone, by the way. She had never sworn fealty to Aegon II. But he had recognized her as Princess of Dragonstone and heiress to the Iron Throne. Daemon Blackfyre, on the other hand, would have humbled himself in front of Daeron II countless times during the latter's reign. He had recognized his half-brother as king just as Robert later had recognized Aerys II. This is why they are rebels. Rhaenyra rebelled against Aegon II as I recall. Saying that she didn't rebel is like saying that Robb Stark never rebelled against Joffrey or Balon never rebelled against Robert. Its rather clear that Robb and Balon were in rebellion against the crown and Joffrey and Robert held the crown during these two times. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Daemon Blackfyre received Blackfyre in 182 AC, when he was twelve years old, that was two years before the Unworthy's death. In 184 AC Daemon was married to Rohanne of Tyrosh and it is said that he and Daeron II already had clashed a few times at this point, putting Daemon in the same camp as Aegon/Rhaenyra insofar as at least one of them didn't like the other (Rhaenyra and Aegon both despised each other, of course). But Daemon still recognized his brother as king. That's the difference there. That - and the fact that he originally may not have even wanted the crown. If you recognize someone as king or not before you press for that person't throne still makes you a rebel when the holder of the title has the legitimiacy to succeed the former king. I don't really see the point here. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Daemon Blackfyre's supporters are no 'Blacks', either. No idea why you refer to them in this way. The Blacks and the Greens are singularly to the Dance, and unlike the prelude to the Dance (or Robert's Rebellion, or the near-Dance after Maekar's death) there were no factions at each other's throats by the time Aegon IV died. Daeron II had no rival and ascended the Iron Throne without any problems. Yes, they are Blacks in that their symbol is a black dragon and its easier to write Blacks than Blackfyre supporters everytime you need to refer to them. Its rather clear that when Daemon rebelled, there was a faction supporting him as otherwise it would be hard for him to raise an army. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: As to the determination of the Blackfyre loyalists: We don't know if Bittersteel's companion went into exile voluntarily. Some might have done so, but others may actually have been banished by Daeron II. But the fact is that more lords seemed to have bent the knee, and those lords most likely would also have accepted a pardon from Daeron II had the man reached out to them after Daemon, Aegon, and Aemon had died on the Redgrass Field. Again - a child isn't a good figurehead, especially not for those people who were only drawn into the war because of Daemon's charisma. I think that you underestimate how complex these things are, and a child was perfectly possible to serve as a figurehead for Rhaenyra's Blacks so no reason to think they wouldn't serve for Daemon's Blacks. In regards to the lords I agree that many who fought for Daemon would have abandoned the Blackfyre cause after its loss at the Redgrass Field. Everyone wants to be on the winning side after all, and the first Daemon apparently had the best shot of all the Blackfyres. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: And you see in TMK that the bulk of the Blackfyrians are actually disillusioned and done with this thing. The rank-and-file veterans do not look forward to another Redgrass Field at all. In addition, not all the men at Whitewalls actually fought for Daemon I during the First Rebellion. Many did, but others - like Lord Frey - were invited because they had issues with Aerys I or Bloodraven. There is not necessarily a continuity among the followers of the various Blackfyre pretenders. In fact, by the time of the Third or Fourth Rebellion there might be people fighting among the banners of the Golden Company which had originally fought against them and only joined their ranks later. Not to mention that various other houses in Westeros might have decided to team up with the Black Dragon in this or that rebellion. For the first thing there is a difference between being willing to fight for someone and willing to die pointlessly for someone. A stand at Whitewalls had no chance in hell to succeed and would not have accomplished anything. And I really don't think that the common-born soldiers are generally at all as invested in the different dynastic disputes as their noble bosses are. But I totally agree that there isn't a great continuation for the Blackfyre supporters but for each rebellion, people with current and fresh grievences will join one side or another, not because of what grievence was relevant to their grandparents some sixty years ago. An excellent example of this is Webber who fought the First Rebellion for the Reds but then descendents ended up with the Golden Company. My guess is that Rohanne's counsin who didn't get Coldmoat sided with the Blackfyres in an attempt to press that claim and then his descendent is currently fighting for Aegon in the Stormlands, and still wants to press a claim to Coldmoat and become a lord. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: You can see the 'loyalty' of the Blackfyre loyalists at Whitewalls. Who of the people we met there would you consider a true loyalist of Daemon II Blackfyre? I'd not even call Gormon Peake such a man. The guy wanted to use Daemon II to gain power and get his castles back, nothing else. Black Tom Heddle wanted to take over Whitewalls, most likely, and even Alyn Cockshaw cared more about his sex life than his 'king'. Not really. I can see the loyalty of these persons but I see no reason to think that they are representing every Black during those times. But in general I agree that the gallery gathered at Whitewalls is a pretty miserable lot. Hence why the Second Rebellion didn't manage much and why Bittersteel would not support it. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: There is no reason to believe Baelor Breakspear advised his father to be merciful after the Redgrass Field. Years later Egg overhears a conversation between Baelor and Bloodraven on the Small Council how to treat a rebel, but that would have been an entirely different conversation. As far as we know Daeron II was pretty merciful. He didn't eradicate any houses we know of, after all. Hell, we don't even know whether he executed anyone. He punished the rebels, yes, but that was to be expected. You don't rebel against your anointed king and then get away with it unscathed. I didn't talk about after the Redgrass Field but before it. But it could of course be GRRM filling his books with nosense that has no relevance to characterization, plot or anything else of the sort. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: We know the Great Bastards all had certain incomes of their own, granted to them either by Aegon IV or Daeron II, but whether anyone aside from Daemon Blackfyre ever held any land we don't yet know. But it is possible that Bloodraven (eventually) did. Could be that Bloodraven held lands, but I personally don't think he did. He don't seem the guy interesting in caring for any House other than Targaryen. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: We also know that Bittersteel and Daemon had something planned when Bloodraven betrayed their plans to Daeron II. Considering that it would be utter stupidity to risk a civil war if you could also kill the king and his sons my guess is that the rebels would rather have done that, instead of raising troops. Perhaps Daemon Blackfyre wouldn't have consented to or commanded the murder of the king and his sons (Mariah didn't have to die) and insisted on an arrest, but that would have been utter stupidity. People can continue to fight in the name of and imprisoned king/prince. The smarter people around Daemon (Bittersteel, Fireball, Peake) would have realized this, and would have ensured that Daeron II and his sons suffered 'accidents' while they were 'arrested' (or would have made it clear to Daemon that there was no place for foolish chivalry). I don't think the man was stupid enough to think he could ascend the Iron Throne without spilling a little bit of royal blood. Could be but in the lack of more info I am not ready to ascribe this scheme to Daemon just yet. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Daeron II didn't unduly punish the rebels who yielded as far as we know. He restored peace for another sixteen years, and without the Great Spring Sickness there wouldn't even have been this travesty that calls itself 'Second Blackfyre Rebellion'. Nobody wouldn't have had the courage for that because the Iron Throne would still have had hostage from every major Blackfyre loyalist house in Westeros. Problem is that Daeron II did die, and Baelor did also die. If both had lived, then yes, the Blackfyres would probably have faded away in the east without more issues. But that's not what happened though. In a medieval world you can't expect everyone to live into their ninties or so. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: As to Aegon II: He could have offered pardons and peace instead of sending Lord Borros against the Riverlords? By the way, we know from Ran that 10,000 Vale men fought in the Dance on Rhaenyra's side, so there are battles we don't know anything about as of yet. The Vale certainly was bloodied by the end of the Dance. Maybe he could but why would the Black accept that? They were winning greatly and would probably have just waved such an offer aside and gone for total victory. Its a rather fact that no, and I repeat no, Green force any much success or staying power beyond the Green army in the Reach. When you score victory after victory, why settle for something but total victory? No need for a compromisse. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: As to kings making tactical retreats: Aegon II victoriously returned to KL after he had run and hidden like a coward. This can work. All you need is another army. Stannis also won people to his cause in the North despite the fact that he got his ass kicked on the Blackwater. And, you know, with Aerys II escaped there would have been a pretty good chance that the rebels would have ripped each other to pieces sooner or later. Especially if he could have been able to use the Lyanna card to drive a wedge between Robert and Ned. I find it hilarious that you say that Aegon ran and hide like a coward. What should we then say of Rhaenyra who was driven out of her own capital by her own subjects and ran like hell to hide in Dragonstone? Aegon II was at least wounded in battle by his enemies. But anyway I'll leave it at this unless you really want to continue. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, there are no precedents of monarchs in Westeros who wanted to change the moral system in which they lived. Even Maegor didn't try to establish himself as a guy who thought murder was a great deed if he did it. But there are no law books in Westeros. No legal systems aside from the king and his bureaucracy/institutions to tell you what's allowed and what's not allowed (and how it's punished). George has repeatedly said that (especially the) succession laws and customs are vague and unclear. That's how it is. But the guy who decides how to (re-)interpret them is the king. In addition there is the whole religious sphere which restricts the power of a monarch to a degree. Not really. Several times there have been the kings, or queens, who have had to rely back on custom and tradition for a legal situation. There's a distinct lack of the autocratic "I am king and therefor I can decide whatever I want regardless whatever I want!" And I agree that the inheritance can be murky. But I have yet to find a single example that its murky at all when there are living sons of the ruler alive. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: There is simply no one above the king and you don't have any legal measure at all to go against him if he reaches this or that decision on a legal matter. Citing some hallowed traditions from the past isn't going to change anything if he doesn't care. And you have no means to tell him that he can't do what he wants. There are ways to defend one's right. Maegor and Aerys II both learned how people react to royal authority that goes beyond its traditional bounds. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, Westerosi history - as much as Roman history - isn't written exclusively by the king's officials but rather by the maesters of the Citadel which seem to be pretty independent. Not to mention that the means of a Westerosi king to reach the masses are a joke, really. Maegor would have incredible luck if all the Realm knew his name by the time he died... Well, I can give that some parts of the North or Vale might not have know his name. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: And you are completely wrong with your assumption that critical histories can only be written after the entire dynasty has been deposed. It is enough for the king in question to die. After all, who is to say that Maegor's hypothetical son cares more about the public image of his father more than Jaehaerys I cared about his father's public image? A lot of historians apparently said many bad things about Targaryen kings despite the fact that the sons or grandsons still ruled. So that doesn't make any sense at all. You may have a point but I will reserve my final opinion to when we get Fire and Blood. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: And by the way: The fact that the contemporaries knew/thought that Aenys I was weak doesn't mean that propaganda cannot posthumously idolize him. That's what propaganda is for. All Jaehaerys I and Viserys I would need do was to have singers and poets etc. write songs and poems about his father, and slowly the public image would change. By the time Jaehaerys I died pretty much nobody should have been alive who knew Aenys I personally, but 2-3 generations would have grown up with the propaganda. I agree. And that's why I also think that regardless of how unsuited Daemon Blackfyre would have been as king, in a couple of generations people could well be singing his praises. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: But even that doesn't mean that historians couldn't get down to the truth - at least not unless Jaehaerys I had deliberately destroyed many historical records and the records testifying to that. Still, it would have been more difficult to make Maegor look good than to make Aenys more popular - after all, the guy was the Old King's father, and that in itself makes him look good nearly by default. Yep. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Well, there is no evidence that many people despised the idea of Rhaenyra being the heir (neither Yandel nor Gyldayn ever give us an account what the majority of the people or lords thought about that during the reign of Viserys I - we only get the view of the factions at court) and pretty much nobody despised Daeron II for being bookish. People didn't find him physically impressive, that's all. Just as Rhaegar was compared to Baelor the Blessed as a child. But that doesn't mean that they could not take the throne. There seems to have been a very large confusion though in regards to the succession. If you think that the realm as a whole was just waiing to embrace Rhaenyra I don't think you've been paying attention. On 2016-03-25 at 1:44 AM, Lord Varys said: Orys Baratheon didn't usurp anything. He defeated Argilac in battle and given Storm's End as a reward by his king, Aegon the Conqueror. That was the right of conquest. Not to mention that he married Argilac's only heir and thus strengthened his claim to the Stormlands. If Argella didn't despise her husband it is easily imaginable the Stormlands accepted their new overlord as early as a few years after the Conquest. I agree. Might frankly tends to conqer right in regards to power politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.