Daemon Blackfyre won the Battle of Redgrass Field

[HexMachina]

7 hours ago, The Fiddler said:

A Dorne divided, though? The Conqueror and the Young Dragon fought against a region united, but with at least the Yronwoods on the Black Dragon's side it could potentially be much easier. 

It's one thing to support Daemon if his goal is to separate the Crown from Dorne. It's quite another to turn traitor to your countrymen and support the invader. The way I view the Yronwood involvement is that they wished for Dorne to remain independent of the 7 Kingdoms, while the Martells, with their marriage ties, wanted to join the two Kingdoms together. A promise from Daemon to allow Dorne to remain independent in exchange (for example) for Yronwood's support and Princess Daenerys hand in marriage seems more likely than Yronwood agreeing to help him conquer Dorne.

[redtree]

Dorne would be too happy to know that a Martell is the rightful heir of the IT. I bet they'd pull the sash and scorpions move again, or whatever slick moves that would suit at the time

[Lord Varys]

In light of the fact that Daenerys and her children by Prince Maron would be the rightful heirs of the Iron Throne in the wake of the deaths of Daeron II and all his descendants, one actually wonders if Daemon Blackfyre's victory would have helped him all that much. The Targaryen-Martells could have had the potential of remaining a thorn in his sides for decades, and one really wonders whether the greater and smaller lords backing Daeron II wouldn't have just proclaimed either for Queen Daenerys or her eldest son by Prince Maron, just to have pretext to continue or resume the war.

Especially if Daemon's rise to the throne would have not gone without much bloodshed (the murders of the king, the queen, and all their sons and grandsons - either with or without Daemon's knowledge/consent) such a scenario is pretty likely. Daeron II had a lot of friends, after all, and from the series itself we know that the murders of Aerys II and Elia and the children are still open wounds for a lot of people in Westeros.

The idea that Daemon would actually have taken a widowed Daenerys as his second wife at this point in time makes no sense at all, by the way. Daemon Blackfyre already had seven sons and unspecified number of daughters. He did not need more children, and the idea to marry a woman 'for love' after you actually deposed/killed her brother and nephews doesn't make much sense. We don't even know whether there was real love between Daenerys and Daemon. I could see Daenerys being smitten with him in an adolescent way, and I certainly could see Daemon fancying the idea of marrying his (half-)sister like a proper Targaryen should do, but love is a big word if still half a child and the woman you want to marry is younger still.

In my opinion, the whole Daemon-Daenerys idea is just a story the Blackfyre loyalists liked to tell each other later on. There might have been something going on there, but I'm pretty sure Daemon's interest in Daenerys had more/everything to do with the fact that she was the king's sister than with his feelings for her.

[Shuvuuia]

I'd like to think that Shiera Seastar pretends that she always liked Bittersteel, for realz. And then he sudenly dies from a stomach bug (and she has nothing to do with it, obviously).

[purple-eyes]

2 minutes ago, Shuvuuia said:

I'd like to think that Shiera Seastar pretends that she always liked Bittersteel, for realz. And then he sudenly dies from a stomach bug (and she has nothing to do with it, obviously).

I am always wondering what happened to her in the end.

GRRM may want to use her for something in the future so he did not say anything about her ending.

 

[King of Winter-ish Stuff]

The Blackfyres just always seemed doomed to fail.

[purple-eyes]

1 minute ago, King of Winter-ish Stuff said:

The Blackfyres just always seemed doomed to fail.

I have the same feeling.

It seems like GRRM decided that these pretenders should always fail.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-01-18 at 6:14 AM, Lord Varys said:

I think the difference between the real history and our hypothetical scenario is that in the real scenario the Blackfyres never were 'real royalty' whereas in the scenario of Daemon's they would have been. Court life, being styled prince, and the trappings of real power does change you while shared hardships like exile bring you closer together - or at least can bring you closer together - as a family.

As things turned out, Bittersteel's only hope were his Blackfyre nephews because they were the sons of Daemon Blackfyre, the King Who Should Have Been, from the POV of the Blackfyre loyalists. But in a scenario in which Aegor is Daemon's Hand, married to Daemon's eldest daughter, and in a quite powerful Bloodraven-like position Daemon's seven sons easily could be perceived as obstacles rather than beloved nephews in his mind. Bloodraven never had legitimate issue so he never became a champion of his own children - but Bittersteel could have.

As to the number of Daemon's heirs: Jaehaerys I already had trouble choosing an heir and he had only three surviving sons. Daemon had seven. That is an insane amount of princes, and all would have vied with each other for the affection and attention of their royal father, trying to outshine each other in the process. Possibly (and especially) the twins.

And even in Blackfyre exile things aren't all shiny. Bittersteel effectively abandons Daemon the Younger to his fate, withholding his heirloom from him. Aenys Blackfyre doesn't give about his nephew's 'claim' (the self-proclaimed 'Daemon III'), and then there is the Daemon-Maelys thing. Perhaps some Blackfyre cousins and brothers actually were close to each other and cared for each other, but right now nothing suggests, for instance, that Haegon and Daemon were particularly close. Else Haegon would have been with Daemon in Whitewalls, or some other brother.

Daemon I would have had an awful lot of male Targaryens to get rid of - Daeron II, Baelor, Aerys, Rhaegel, Maekar, Valarr, Daeron, and possibly, at this point, also Matarys and Aerion. There was no Targaryen girl to marry to anyone besides the Targaryen-Penrose relations (Elaena's three daughters) and those wouldn't exactly have been fine matches.

Sending them all to the Wall would hardly have worked - and that would only have worked if they would have captured by unharmed by the Blackfyre loyalists (unlikely in my opinion - Daemon's guys would have sacked KL like Tywin later did, and the children and Daeron II there would have been butchered - and Mariah Martell would have been raped, most likely). Daemon himself was chivalric guy, no doubt about that, but he didn't have his eyes everywhere. And it would have been very risky to allow one of the more martial princes - Baelor and Maekar - to escape.

I really don't think Blackfyre was a very important point of the whole campaign. It was the token they used to justify the fact that Aegon supposedly wanted Daemon to be the next king, but the sword wasn't a token of kingship before or after (Daemon the Younger proved that, claiming the throne without even having Blackfyre). Daemon would have won a war, not shown the magic power of some sword, after all. And if he can win a war, so can other people.

The Conquest really is different because Aegon invades and personally subdues foreign monarchs. The other kings bent the knee and gave up their crowns of their own free will. Daemon was a subject standing up against his crowned and anointed monarch, a man he had obey and do homage to as anyone else in the Realm did. His rebellion was treason, and if it had been successful it would have been successful treason and set a very dangerous precedent. Even a more dangerous than Robert's success - Robert deposed a mad monarch, Daemon would have deposed a king who was known as 'the Good'...

I agree that hardships brings people together but unless we're going to write fan fiction about the characters we must base ourselves on what Martin writes and not our personal conjecture. Bittersteel could have turned on the Blackfyres, but then again Bloodraven COULD have sold out the Targaryens to Daemon to ensure a place a court if Daemon had won the Redgrass Field. Most likely he would not as there's no basis for it, but he COULD have theoritically done it. And thus with Bloodraven effectively destroying House Targaryen for Daemon, the Black Dragon could rule fairly well in peace. You so where I'm getting?

And I agree that Daemon's many children could have become a problem if all had lived to adulthood and so when Daemon himself died. But there could be so many factors that counts in so that its fairly possible that at least one or two, and perhaps more, would have died during the Great Spring Sickness. And I agree that the Blackfyre are not shinning knights on white horses and I haven't claimed they were. What I say is that they don't seem more inclined to internal fighting, usurpations and power-plays than the Targaryens and thus I don't think that House Blackfyre would per necessity be more unstable that House Targaryen.

Lots of heads would have rolled, no doubt, but blood relations to the royal House shouldn't be counted as unimportant. Also I agree that King's Landing would have been sacked,provided that Daeron didn't flee the city and the Gold Cloaks just opened the gates and surrendered. That's what happens when cities are taken by force in Westeros.

I think however you are greatly misunderstanding the symbolic importance of that sword. It was a thing already back in the Dance of the Dragons. 

"Every visible symbol of legitimacy belonged to Aegon. He sat the Iron Throne. He lived in the Red Keep. He wore the Conqueror's crown, wielded the Conqueror's sword, [...]"

The Princess and the Queen, or, The Blacks and the Greens"

I see no reason to think that the sword Blackfyre's significance was created by Daemon Blackfyre or Aegon IV. And once again: Power lies where men belives it lies" and there is great symbolism attached to the sword of Blackfyre, being the Conqueror's own blade and being passed down to the Targaryens kings untill it came into the possession of House Blackfyre.

For the first part I agree that there would have been a difference between Aegon and Daemon in their wars. However the issue comes with that Daeron wouldn't have been known as "the Good" if he had lost but as a traitor who selled out the realm to the Dornish or their puppet. We know it isn't true, but the victor writes the history. Furthermore I don't think that Daemon's predecent would per necessity have meant so much. The Black successfully usurped King Aegon II, the rightful and anointed king, yet even so the respect for the king didn't suddenly go downhill after that, and Viserys II was able to screw over Daena and steal her throne from her, despite that Rhaenyra's side supposedly won a civil war before that. A predecent can be powerful but it isn't always so.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

stuff

Well, if we just assume that Daemon won the Redgrass Field and took the throne from there, then the chances of Bloodraven betraying the Targaryens isn't a very likely scenario or if it is - say, Bloodraven switches sides during the Redgrass Field, securing the Blackfyre victory - then Bloodraven still can't sell Daeron II, Aerys, and Rhaegel to Daemon because they are back in KL and should have ample time to flee the city. Bloodraven wasn't Hand at this point, after all.

As to Bittersteel, well, my view of the man is more that he saw Daemon and his sons as tools to fuel his ambitions and right the wrongs and slights he felt were done to him rather than that he fought for them because he actually loved them so much or believed that they were 'the true kings'. Aegor most likely felt his own claim wasn't strong enough to go after the throne himself, but he could use the claim of his half-brother to rule through him. I could be wrong there, of course. Bloodraven seems to be fundamentally different in the sense that he actually teamed up with Daeron II and his sons because he believed in their cause, and not mainly because he wanted power for himself.

We know too little about the seven Blackfyre brothers to know how close they were, but if Robert and his brothers are any indication then a successful usurpation isn't a thing that necessarily helps to bring siblings together. Especially not if Daemon Blackfyre was as stupid as Robert and handed powerful seats to many/all of his sons (a possible development if the new Blackfyre regime had to eradicate many of the greater houses). That way, Daemon's sons would have gained power bases of their own...

I never said that Blackfyre was completely unimportant, I just said that it was never symbolizing the kingship. That's a differences. Yes, it is mentioned as an important symbol of kingship by Gyldayn, but alongside the crown of the Conqueror, the Iron Throne itself, and the Red Keep - by the time of Daemon's rebellion Daeron II sat on the Iron Throne, wore his father's crown, and lived in the Red Keep. That certainly was as important as owning the sword. Especially in light of the fact that there were actually Targaryen monarchs who didn't own 'the sword' and gave it away (Aenys I) or Targaryen kings who originally preferred other swords (Jaehaerys I) as well as non-martial kings like Viserys I, Aegon III, and Baelor I who most likely only technically owned 'the sword'. Blackfyre only became important when the Blackfyre loyalists claimed that 'Aegon gave Daemon the kingdoms when he gave him the sword'. They blew that thing up to astronomic proportions because it was the only thing they could use to justify their treasonous actions.

They would have had a point if every Targaryen king from Aegon I to Aegon IV had given Blackfyre as a gift to his chosen successor by the time he was named Prince of Dragonstone and came of age or something like that. But that clearly wasn't the case.

Daeron II was already know as 'the Good' when the Blackfyre Rebellion began - the Blackfyres therefore rebelled against a monarch who was known as 'the Good'. They would have changed that name later to 'the Falseborn' or something like that, but even they would have had trouble to paint Daeron II as an unjust or cruel ruler (whereas the latter wasn't all that difficult with the 'Mad King').

The Blacks didn't really usurp anyone. The Hightowers staged a coup to install Aegon II as a king against wishes of Viserys I and their own sworn oaths. That's treason. The Blacks fought to reinstall the rightful queen, and eventually Aegon II was betrayed by his own followers, and murdered. The coronation of Aegon III was no usurpation as far as I know, and nobody in the Black or Green camp considered it as such - evident by the fact that the war ended at that point. And you should keep in mind that the respect for the king's person - false king or not - was still such back in this day that the king's holy person could not be touched (Aegon III throughout his regency) and that Cregan Stark went as far as punishing the murderers (or the people he thought had murdered) Aegon II, a king he himself intended to depose, simply because Aegon II happened to be a crowned and anointed monarch.

Somehow I doubt that Daemon Blackfyre had spared Daeron's life or punished the people murdering Daeron or his sons in his name...

Viserys II's ascension simply wasn't a big deal. Very few people in Westeros ever wanted a Queen Regnant. Rhaenyra's demise further undermined the concept of female rule, but it was already quite weakened by the fact that Aerea and Rhaenys never ruled. People still considered it, but unlike Rhaenyra - who had been the chosen and accepted heiress of her father - Daena and her sisters were clearly not favored by Baelor I at all.

[Lost Melnibonean]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, first Daemon will have to kill all the Targaryens, of course, and then, a few years later, the Blackfyre dynasty rips itself and Westeros apart when one of Daemon's seven sons slays his father to steal the throne, causing a massive civil during which he is challenged by his brothers. The Blackfyre line would most likely die out two generations after Daemon Blackfyre.

And one of Prince Maekar's daughters would be wed to a Dothraki khal and come across three dragon eggs...

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-01-21 at 9:30 AM, Lord Varys said:

Well, if we just assume that Daemon won the Redgrass Field and took the throne from there, then the chances of Bloodraven betraying the Targaryens isn't a very likely scenario or if it is - say, Bloodraven switches sides during the Redgrass Field, securing the Blackfyre victory - then Bloodraven still can't sell Daeron II, Aerys, and Rhaegel to Daemon because they are back in KL and should have ample time to flee the city. Bloodraven wasn't Hand at this point, after all.

As to Bittersteel, well, my view of the man is more that he saw Daemon and his sons as tools to fuel his ambitions and right the wrongs and slights he felt were done to him rather than that he fought for them because he actually loved them so much or believed that they were 'the true kings'. Aegor most likely felt his own claim wasn't strong enough to go after the throne himself, but he could use the claim of his half-brother to rule through him. I could be wrong there, of course. Bloodraven seems to be fundamentally different in the sense that he actually teamed up with Daeron II and his sons because he believed in their cause, and not mainly because he wanted power for himself.

We know too little about the seven Blackfyre brothers to know how close they were, but if Robert and his brothers are any indication then a successful usurpation isn't a thing that necessarily helps to bring siblings together. Especially not if Daemon Blackfyre was as stupid as Robert and handed powerful seats to many/all of his sons (a possible development if the new Blackfyre regime had to eradicate many of the greater houses). That way, Daemon's sons would have gained power bases of their own...

I never said that Blackfyre was completely unimportant, I just said that it was never symbolizing the kingship. That's a differences. Yes, it is mentioned as an important symbol of kingship by Gyldayn, but alongside the crown of the Conqueror, the Iron Throne itself, and the Red Keep - by the time of Daemon's rebellion Daeron II sat on the Iron Throne, wore his father's crown, and lived in the Red Keep. That certainly was as important as owning the sword. Especially in light of the fact that there were actually Targaryen monarchs who didn't own 'the sword' and gave it away (Aenys I) or Targaryen kings who originally preferred other swords (Jaehaerys I) as well as non-martial kings like Viserys I, Aegon III, and Baelor I who most likely only technically owned 'the sword'. Blackfyre only became important when the Blackfyre loyalists claimed that 'Aegon gave Daemon the kingdoms when he gave him the sword'. They blew that thing up to astronomic proportions because it was the only thing they could use to justify their treasonous actions.

They would have had a point if every Targaryen king from Aegon I to Aegon IV had given Blackfyre as a gift to his chosen successor by the time he was named Prince of Dragonstone and came of age or something like that. But that clearly wasn't the case.

Daeron II was already know as 'the Good' when the Blackfyre Rebellion began - the Blackfyres therefore rebelled against a monarch who was known as 'the Good'. They would have changed that name later to 'the Falseborn' or something like that, but even they would have had trouble to paint Daeron II as an unjust or cruel ruler (whereas the latter wasn't all that difficult with the 'Mad King').

The Blacks didn't really usurp anyone. The Hightowers staged a coup to install Aegon II as a king against wishes of Viserys I and their own sworn oaths. That's treason. The Blacks fought to reinstall the rightful queen, and eventually Aegon II was betrayed by his own followers, and murdered. The coronation of Aegon III was no usurpation as far as I know, and nobody in the Black or Green camp considered it as such - evident by the fact that the war ended at that point. And you should keep in mind that the respect for the king's person - false king or not - was still such back in this day that the king's holy person could not be touched (Aegon III throughout his regency) and that Cregan Stark went as far as punishing the murderers (or the people he thought had murdered) Aegon II, a king he himself intended to depose, simply because Aegon II happened to be a crowned and anointed monarch.

Somehow I doubt that Daemon Blackfyre had spared Daeron's life or punished the people murdering Daeron or his sons in his name...

Viserys II's ascension simply wasn't a big deal. Very few people in Westeros ever wanted a Queen Regnant. Rhaenyra's demise further undermined the concept of female rule, but it was already quite weakened by the fact that Aerea and Rhaenys never ruled. People still considered it, but unlike Rhaenyra - who had been the chosen and accepted heiress of her father - Daena and her sisters were clearly not favored by Baelor I at all.

For a guy like Bloodraven I wouldn't be suprised if he'd planned it all along. First he'll advice Maekar to make a fatal mistake, as well as not kill Daemon when he has the chance, and then when Maekar's shieldwall breaks and he hurries back to KL to spin his tale of tragedy and disaster and continue to work havoc. Or he turns on the Targaryens and has his agents open a guard a night for Daemon's men to make it into the city. I can imagine many ways in which someone of Brynden's caliber and skills would be able to orchestrate the destruction of House Targaryen and ascension of House Blackfyre. Not being Hand could be a obsticle for Bloodraven, but hardly a definite stop for him.

You view of Bittersteel has been noted and it follows a trend I've noticed with villificating characters that oppose your favored side. My view of Bittersteel is however that he is primarily motivated by his bitterness and resentment of Bloodraven. Bloodraven essentially gets everything that Bittersteel would want or could think he deserved. Thus to break this cycle of exclusion Bittersteel supports Daemon against Daeron, from whom Bittersteel can only expect shit, and tied himself to the cause of House Blackfyre. I do not think that Bittersteel was a shinning knight on a white horse who was merely misunderstood, but I do think that he had a sincere affection for Daemon and that he was not motivated by a desire to work evil or grasp as much power as he could. He was in the wrong but not an evil man. But since I think that Dunk and Egg will one day meet with Aegor Rivers, I think that we shall know a great deal more about his character at that point.

The danger of Blackfyre's many sons are of course true but there's nothing to say that Daemon would have not as Robert and spread lands and titles to his close kin. As I see it, Aegon would have gained the throne, and then Dragonstone and Summerhall as well as Blackfyre's supposed castle/keep/whatever south of the Blackwater would have gone to another son, and that would have been that. Only Dragonstone would have a chance to raise an actual force to press a claim, and from what we know, none of Blackfyre's sons were his equal so the odds of one of them managing to gather a large enough following to press a claim on the Daemon's heir seem unlikely to me.

I agree that the sword Blackfyre was not the definite symbol, yet even so its the one symbol that can be passed along by the king. And as far as I've looked only Maegor wielded the sword, who wasn't a king, and he ended up usurping Aenys' heir, Aegon. If there are other examples of people actually using the sword Blackfyre who was not a Targaryen king then I'll be happy to hear.

I fail to see the problem. If Stannis had been victorious one the Blackwater and somehow won the whole war, then people would talk about how he saved the realm from Lannister scheming despite the fact that we know, the Lannisters actually started to lose their hold on power rather shortly thereafter, and that Tommen for example would have been a great king. They would just spin it, as I see it, as that they saved the realm from Dornish poison being poured into the very king's heart. And with no one to say against them, they could manufacure all manner of plots that the Dornish would have been hatching untill Daemon came and cut them out.

The Black's most certainly usurped their legal and true king, Aegon II. To say that the Hightowers committed a coup is like saying that the Martells enacted a coup when they fought Blackfyre. They fought a rebellion against the Iron Throne in which pretenders tried to claim the throne on some flimsy "my father liked me more than you" reason. In regards to the war, it ended because the loyalists were beaten and the rebels captured the capital where the king was murdered, just before his whole line had died in the war. I don't recall some grand reconcilliation between loyalist and rebel. And its rather significant that Aegon was supposed to marry Princess Jaehaera since that would follow a known pattern of the usurper marrying the daughter of the defeated ruler to legitimize his claim.

That Cregan Stark punished those who murdered the king he was himself helping to usurp paints him in a better light, even though his case was in the wrong. But like you said, the importance of being the righful king mattered, even for rebels trying usurp the very king. 

And I agree that Daemon most likely would not have been very sad by Daeron's death, he'd be an utter fool to punish anyone for it, unless the Targaryens were safely broken beyond the hope of return.

I agree that the sexism and direct misogynism of Westeros made Daena's loss of her birthright a non-issue. To me its irrelevant wheter Daena had her father's blessing or not. She was the rightful queen and that snake Viserys stole her throne from her rather than aid her to take and hold it, as he should have. I think its one of the great ironies and tragic parts about Westeros that when thinking of all the women who had their throne stolen from them, the only woman to rule from the Iron Throne was a pretender and attempted usurper.

 

 

 

[Veloknight]

On 1/18/2016 at 0:27 AM, purple-eyes said:

if love can make jorah and rhaegar win the tourney, maybe love can also make daemon conquer Dorne? 

Rhaegar had an excellent record as a jouster before winning the tourney, so the fact that he won HH isn't surprising. Plus, depending on what politics were going on at the tourney, he may have had an easier time of it. Plus, Jorah's win shows that sometimes these things come down to luck.

Conquering, let alone holding, a foreign nation isn't something one man can do "because love". Also, if he loved Daenerys so much, why did he sit around all those years before rebelling? He's not conquering Dorne.

[Lord Varys]

On 22.1.2016 at 5:37 PM, LionoftheWest said:

stuff

Hm. My interpretation of Ser Eustace's story that Daemon would have won the throne had he not stepped down to help Gwayne Corbray is that the Redgrass Field must have been somewhere in the Crownlands, pretty close to KL itself. If that's right, then Daeron II and his remaining sons would have abandoned KL as soon as their heard the news about the battle, realizing that they could not hold the city. That would allow Bloodraven not much time (if any) to try to sell the king to Daemon. But that is really a difficult subject to discuss. Especially if we continue to have to uphold (sort of) the Bittersteel-Bloodraven hatred at the same time.

Actually, I don't think I'm painting Bittersteel in a bad light. I had pretty much no opinion about him prior to TWoIaF in which Yandel/George paint him in a rather bad light. The Bittersteel-Bloodraven rivalry is still a big mystery to us, and has basically nothing to do with Aegor's relationship to Daeron II. Daeron II reaching out to Bloodraven doesn't mean he did not also try to win Bittersteel's trust and friendship, no? And Shiera choosing Bloodraven over Bittersteel has nothing to do with Daeron II, either. You can have a good relationship with Daeron II without liking Bloodraven, that much is clear. But in addition we have Bittersteel being portrayed as the man behind Daemon Blackfyre, fueling his ambition (both in TMK and TWoIaF) and then the very revealing thing about the betrothal between Aegor and Calla. Bittersteel has a vested interest in championing Daemon's cause from that point on because it has effectively become his own cause, and he'll profit from a success, too.

And considering Bittersteel's subsequent importance for the Blackfyre cause (with the Golden Company and all) I'm more inclined to believe that people like Haegon and Daemon III have been actually led astray/convinced to fight unrealistic and doomed campaigns by their dear uncle Aegor (who may have cared more about his own revenge than to do the best he could for Daemon's children and grandchildren). Bittersteel certainly ignored the whole 'To crown her, is to kill her' thing. But perhaps I'm mistaken there. But I doubt it. Who would have been the guy feeding Haegon and Daemon III the idea that they were 'the rightful kings'? Bittersteel would be the main suspect...

Well, I'm not so sure about what Daemon would have been forced to do after his successful ascension. We know that the Arryns and the Vale were strong supporters of Daeron II - perhaps Alys Arryn was at that point already married to Prince Rhaegel? - most likely resulting in the eradication of the Arryn line in the Vale, or at least the dispossession and exile of the lordly branch of House Arryn. To whom should Daemon I Blackfyre hand the Eyrie and the Vale? To some lickspittle Vale lord who claimed he would have wanted to come to his side but dared not (to our knowledge the Vale stood united against Daemon Blackfyre during the war)? Or to one of his younger sons?

What would Bittersteel have wanted in return for his service? Just the office of the Hand, or a great lordship of his own? And whom would Daemon think he could trust more - his own sons/kin or people he wasn't related to? The same is true for the Lannisters - Daemon could easily have decided to execute the Grey Lion and his sons and hand Casterly Rock to one of his sons instead of, say, the Reynes (the fact that one Reyne was among Daemon's followers doesn't mean that House Reyne supported him, by the way), perhaps marrying him to a Lannister girl to solidify the claim.

Daemon would have had a lot to do to strengthen his claim to the throne, and installing Blackfyres as great lords in various places may have looked as a very fine idea at that point. After all, a succession war would have been a thing of the future, but Daemon would have been troubled by the lords simply rebelling against the usurper either in the name of a Targaryen across the water or a a Targaryen-Martell in Dorne, toppling his new dynasty.

Well, the Blackfyre symbolism is really strange. If there was no established ritual of 'the sword' being handed over to the king's heir then all Blackfyre was one of many ancient heirlooms in the possession of the Targaryen kings. Any king could have done whatever he wanted with it. He could have given it to some peasant, made it the price in some tourney, thrown it away, etc. As it seems, all we get in favor of the 'the sword is the kingdom' story is Blackfyre propaganda.

My point there was that Daeron II was already publicly known as a good monarch since he was already been called 'the Good'. It would have been much more difficult for Daemon Blackfyre to justify his rebellion and subsequent usurpation as a legal or necessary act than it was for Robert who could point at the Mad King and his hideous crimes.

If you read the TPatQ it is quite obvious that Otto Hightower staged a coup to install Aegon II as king. He kept the death of Viserys I a secret, incarcerated many people at court who had not committed any crimes for no reason at all besides that he thought that they would remember their vows to Rhaenyra, and so on. That is a coup. You can of course be of the opinion that Aegon II was still the rightful king, but that doesn't mean that he came into his throne in a legal way. Half the Realm did not think that Aegon II was the rightful king, after all. In the absence of a king, Otto should have laid Viserys' last will before a Great Council to discuss the the succession with the entire Realm, Rhaenyra and her people included. Otto may have spoken with the King's Voice at this point, but I'm not sure the King's Hand is well-advised trying to contradict the king when talking with his voice. Especially not if he did not publicly challenge Rhaenyra's claim to the throne for the last twenty years or so.

You should really stop calling Daena the rightful queen. Nobody in Westeros does, really. And we don't even know the details of Viserys' ascension yet. Perhaps she and her sisters abandoned their claims voluntarily, considering their uncle to be better qualified for the throne? Just because some people believed Daena should become queen doesn't necessarily mean Daena herself believed that, too. And the fact that Elaena later becomes a close adviser of Daeron II certainly seems to indicate that she did not think the throne should be hers, either.

[purple-eyes]

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Hm. My interpretation of Ser Eustace's story that Daemon would have won the throne had he not stepped down to help Gwayne Corbray is that the Redgrass Field must have been somewhere in the Crownlands, pretty close to KL itself. If that's right, then Daeron II and his remaining sons would have abandoned KL as soon as their heard the news about the battle, realizing that they could not hold the city. That would allow Bloodraven not much time (if any) to try to sell the king to Daemon. But that is really a difficult subject to discuss. Especially if we continue to have to uphold (sort of) the Bittersteel-Bloodraven hatred at the same time.

Actually, I don't think I'm painting Bittersteel in a bad light. I had pretty much no opinion about him prior to TWoIaF in which Yandel/George paint him in a rather bad light. The Bittersteel-Bloodraven rivalry is still a big mystery to us, and has basically nothing to do with Aegor's relationship to Daeron II. Daeron II reaching out to Bloodraven doesn't mean he did not also try to win Bittersteel's trust and friendship, no? And Shiera choosing Bloodraven over Bittersteel has nothing to do with Daeron II, either. You can have a good relationship with Daeron II without liking Bloodraven, that much is clear. But in addition we have Bittersteel being portrayed as the man behind Daemon Blackfyre, fueling his ambition (both in TMK and TWoIaF) and then the very revealing thing about the betrothal between Aegor and Calla. Bittersteel has a vested interest in championing Daemon's cause from that point on because it has effectively become his own cause, and he'll profit from a success, too.

And considering Bittersteel's subsequent importance for the Blackfyre cause (with the Golden Company and all) I'm more inclined to believe that people like Haegon and Daemon III have been actually led astray/convinced to fight unrealistic and doomed campaigns by their dear uncle Aegor (who may have cared more about his own revenge than to do the best he could for Daemon's children and grandchildren). Bittersteel certainly ignored the whole 'To crown her, is to kill her' thing. But perhaps I'm mistaken there. But I doubt it. Who would have been the guy feeding Haegon and Daemon III the idea that they were 'the rightful kings'? Bittersteel would be the main suspect...

Well, I'm not so sure about what Daemon would have been forced to do after his successful ascension. We know that the Arryns and the Vale were strong supporters of Daeron II - perhaps Alys Arryn was at that point already married to Prince Rhaegel? - most likely resulting in the eradication of the Arryn line in the Vale, or at least the dispossession and exile of the lordly branch of House Arryn. To whom should Daemon I Blackfyre hand the Eyrie and the Vale? To some lickspittle Vale lord who claimed he would have wanted to come to his side but dared not (to our knowledge the Vale stood united against Daemon Blackfyre during the war)? Or to one of his younger sons?

What would Bittersteel have wanted in return for his service? Just the office of the Hand, or a great lordship of his own? And whom would Daemon think he could trust more - his own sons/kin or people he wasn't related to? The same is true for the Lannisters - Daemon could easily have decided to execute the Grey Lion and his sons and hand Casterly Rock to one of his sons instead of, say, the Reynes (the fact that one Reyne was among Daemon's followers doesn't mean that House Reyne supported him, by the way), perhaps marrying him to a Lannister girl to solidify the claim.

Daemon would have had a lot to do to strengthen his claim to the throne, and installing Blackfyres as great lords in various places may have looked as a very fine idea at that point. After all, a succession war would have been a thing of the future, but Daemon would have been troubled by the lords simply rebelling against the usurper either in the name of a Targaryen across the water or a a Targaryen-Martell in Dorne, toppling his new dynasty.

Well, the Blackfyre symbolism is really strange. If there was no established ritual of 'the sword' being handed over to the king's heir then all Blackfyre was one of many ancient heirlooms in the possession of the Targaryen kings. Any king could have done whatever he wanted with it. He could have given it to some peasant, made it the price in some tourney, thrown it away, etc. As it seems, all we get in favor of the 'the sword is the kingdom' story is Blackfyre propaganda.

My point there was that Daeron II was already publicly known as a good monarch since he was already been called 'the Good'. It would have been much more difficult for Daemon Blackfyre to justify his rebellion and subsequent usurpation as a legal or necessary act than it was for Robert who could point at the Mad King and his hideous crimes.

If you read the TPatQ it is quite obvious that Otto Hightower staged a coup to install Aegon II as king. He kept the death of Viserys I a secret, incarcerated many people at court who had not committed any crimes for no reason at all besides that he thought that they would remember their vows to Rhaenyra, and so on. That is a coup. You can of course be of the opinion that Aegon II was still the rightful king, but that doesn't mean that he came into his throne in a legal way. Half the Realm did not think that Aegon II was the rightful king, after all. In the absence of a king, Otto should have laid Viserys' last will before a Great Council to discuss the the succession with the entire Realm, Rhaenyra and her people included. Otto may have spoken with the King's Voice at this point, but I'm not sure the King's Hand is well-advised trying to contradict the king when talking with his voice. Especially not if he did not publicly challenge Rhaenyra's claim to the throne for the last twenty years or so.

You should really stop calling Daena the rightful queen. Nobody in Westeros does, really. And we don't even know the details of Viserys' ascension yet. Perhaps she and her sisters abandoned their claims voluntarily, considering their uncle to be better qualified for the throne? Just because some people believed Daena should become queen doesn't necessarily mean Daena herself believed that, too. And the fact that Elaena later becomes a close adviser of Daeron II certainly seems to indicate that she did not think the throne should be hers, either.

To be fair, Daena indeed brought up her claim in the council and her claim was rejected for those reasons: less supporters and reputation for being wild and wanton. 

Daena at least does not object to pushing her claim. 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, purple-eyes said:

To be fair, Daena indeed brought up her claim in the council and her claim was rejected for those reasons: less supporters and reputation for being wild and wanton. 

Daena at least does not object to pushing her claim. 

Nope. All we know is that 'that there were those amongst the lords and the smallfolk who thought Princess Daena should be queen' (quote from memory) not that Daena and her sisters actually should one of them should be queen (Princess Rhaena most likely already was a septa by the time of Baelor's death - she wouldn't have pushed her own claim, nor supported her sisters in such an enterprise). That is a difference. It is, of course, possible that Daena herself wanted to be queen, but if that's the case then we have no evidence for that. Whether Daena is asked if she wants to push her claim or not isn't clear, either. The people championing her cause could actually be people hating/not liking the idea of King Viserys II - after all, the man was Hand of decades and most have acquired a string of people who did not like him. None of them might even have talked to Daena or asked her about her opinion. After all, we don't even know when exactly the princesses got out of the Maidenvault. Immediately after Baelor's death? Or only after Viserys' ascension? If the latter was the case the claims of the princesses may have been discussed and dismissed while they were still imprisoned.

And since the smallfolk idolized Baelor it is easily imaginable that they believed the stories that he had been poisoned by Viserys, or saw Viserys as the 'evil uncle' who constantly hindered their pious hero to follow the call of his heart and the gods...

By the way, we don't even know in what forum Daena's claim was discussed. Most likely in a Small Council session, certainly not in a Great Council since nothing suggests that Viserys (or anyone) called such a council. We don't even know if anyone on Baelor's Small Council championed the claim of Daena, or whether the people supporting her were people outside the ranks of the Small Council (if the latter is true, then her case would have been even weaker).

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-01-22 at 6:27 PM, Lord Varys said:

Letters forming words

I agree that the Redgrass Field most likely lied in the Crownlands although I base this on the fact that the Stormlords and Dornish could take the Blackfyres in the rear and that Lord Tyrell did not manage to get to the field in time to take part. The comment on Daemon winning if he hadn't helped the fallen Kingsguard sounds more like it was that either Daemon could have taken the central ridge, a strong position for the rest of the battle, and denied it to Bloodraven's archers or that Eustance is thinking that Daemon couldn't possibly have been defeated if Bloodraven had not killed him. We can't know for sure although if Daemon was break Lord Arryn's van to pieces it makes sense that he could have taken the ridge and so gain a superior position for the rest of the battle, as well as not get sniped by Bloodraven and his men.

I don't really see the big mystery in the rivalry. Their mothers were rivals, and arguely the Brackens both suffered and resented the Blackwoods for what happened. It makes sense that both Barbra and Melissa would poison their respective sons against each other. In regards to Aegor and his nature, the issue with Aegor's favor of Daemon over Daeron does not mean that I meant that Daeron was behind Aegor's problems. What I was trying to say was that Aegor resented Bloodraven and Bloodraven and his mother were, if I recall, close to Daeron, and thus any way to Daeron will be blocked by Bloodraven. Aegor's true anger is of course directed at Bloodraven but seeing how high Daeron held that very Brynden Rivers, I don't find it odd that Aegor would resent also Daeron and see him as either a tool of Bloodraven or an accomplice. Would it be right for Aegor Rivers to do so, probably not, but it makes sense in a way to see things this way. And finally in regards to Aegor getting Calla, I don't see the issue. It could be that Aegor wanted a way to legitimize his own, coming, power but it might just as well have been that Daemon thought Aegor was a swell guy, and so married his daughter to a man that he felt would be a good husband to her. That Bittersteel will profit from Daemon's success is a given, just as given as that Bloodraven de-facto profited from the Targaryens' success. Also I agree that Bittersteel was the prime mover behind the Blackfyre pretenders after Daemon died. As I see it, its essentially a mirror image of Jon Connington and Aegon. Jon Connington feels that he let Rhaegar down and now strives to do everything in his power to put Rhaegar's son on the throne. As I see it, its the same issue with Bittersteel. He feel that he failed his best friend, and now he'll be damned before he fails his friends son. I don't see Bittersteel's motivator as being greed but rather wrath for what he and his kith has endured and an unshakable loyalty to the cause of Daemon Blackfyre. One can absolutely ask if this was what was actually best for Daemon's kids. I don't know. Perhaps Daenerys would have been happier to be married to some wealthy merchant in the Free Cities and perhaps her brother would not be as unhinged if he wasn't obsessed with re-taking his father's crown and could become something else than a "Begger King"? As I see it, Blackfyres and Targaryens in exile were very similar and took identical choices; to return and take the crown they felt should belong to their House.

What would happen after a Blackfyre victory is of course hard to know as we don't know Daemon and his inner circle well enough to see how they would have reasoned and what men were in such favor that giving them a Lord Paramountship could come into question. However if stabilizing the realm was the main issue, I don't think that Daemon's sons would make for good Lord Paramounts. The oldest were after all thirteen or twelve at that time, and Blackfyre supposedly had many famed knights loyal to his cause that he could pick from and who had proven their loyalty to House Blackfyre. They could become an issue later on but I think that in regards to the conflict with House Targaryen, they were pretty much solid on Blackfyre's side. In regards to the Great Houses I don't think that Lannisters would have fared better than anyone else. Maybe they would be sent into exile or maybe they would be executed. I don't know but they would surely have felt the defeat. 

In regards to the sword Blackfyre I would say that the fact that there wasn't a single occasion where it was not given to a man who didn't become king, even if Maegor was by all attempts an usurper, that's pretty telling of its significance. Its not Dark Sister that is bestowed on prominent warriors, but the very sword of the king. The fact that it never was given or thrown away says something of its significance. 

In regards to Daeron I don't see the issue. Blackfyre raise a substantial host to challenge Daeron, so that probolem had already been solved. And later on the maesters can be made to write a history more favorable to House Blackfyre.

I've read both accounts of the Dance of the Dragons, and the Rogue Prince, as well. I don't see the coup that you are hinting at. What I see is the Greens taking reality into consideration. They know many fools thinks Rhaenyra was the rightful heir, just like many apparently thought that Blackfyre was the rightful heir, and so they needed to take that fact into consideration. That it don't become as pretty as it should have been, well that's more a problem with the rebels than the Greens. And if I recall a Great Council was proposed to Rhaenyra and she dismissed it because she knew her usurpation wouldn't have gained the support she needed. Her only hope of stealing the throne was by force of arms.

For the reasons that her claim was considered and that there were people looking to to make her the queen she should have been, means that I will most certainly not stop calling her what she was; the rightful queen. You should also note that the reasons to bypass her has nothing to do with legitimacy and everything to do with the fact that she could be bypassed without harm for the culprits. Without allies and with a reputation as a "bad woman" Viserys could spin that tale to steal the throne and leave his own niece on the sideline. That a woman like Daena would sit step aside for her uncle and fade into obscurity seems very unlikely. She had sisters with that inclination, but nothing points to that she would have shared it.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

stuff

If I remember TSS correctly, then Eustace says something like 'Daemon would have had on the throne' if he had saved Corbray, so Osgrey clearly believes Daeron II wouldn't have had the strength to continue the fight/protect his capital and throne if the loyalists had lost on the Redgrass Field. But that whole thing is open to interpretation. But the Redgrass Field has to have been pretty close to KL or else it couldn't have been the deciding battle. If it had been far away from KL the war wouldn't have been over because Daeron II could have called upon new levies.

We know that Brynden always had good relations to court (his mother was liked by Naerys, the Dragonknight, and Prince Daeron), and it is also true that the Dragonknight and Daeron forced Aegon IV to send Barbra and her father away after they had tried to install Barbra as the new queen when it looked as if Naerys was dying after the birth of Daenerys. However, Aegor wouldn't have witnessed any of that, first hand. More importantly, neither Daeron nor Brynden would have had anything to do with the complete downfall of House Bracken following the Toyne affair (which led to the execution of Aegor's maternal grandfather and his aunt Bethany).

Even more importantly, Brynden was three years younger than Aegor (the former was born in 175 AC and the latter in 172 AC), and subsequently both were still rather young when Daeron II took the throne (Brynden was nine, Aegor was twelve). Aegor apparently didn't spend much time at court - his eyes fell on Bethany Bracken when he visited the Brackens to see his son by Barbra, confirming that he lived with her rather than at court as a royal ward. Perhaps young Aegor spend a short time at court while his grandfather was hand and his aunt the new mistress of the king, but he would have been sent away after the downfall of the Brackens.

Which means that the king calling Aegor to court and raising him there alongside his own son, allowing him to train in the yard with the other princes under the tutelage of Fireball would have been Daeron II, not Aegon IV. Daeron II reached out his hand in friendship to all the great bastards, including Daemon Blackfyre, of course, and just because he had a good relationship with you Brynden (again, nine years at the time) doesn't mean he could not also have a good relationship with Aegor - just as both the Lord Bracken and the Lord Blackwood could be on good terms with their liege lord and their king.

In addition, we don't really know whether Bloodraven rose to prominence and high office at court prior to the Blackfyre Rebellion or whether that only happened thereafter (in fact, we don't even know he was a member of the Small Council prior to the reign of Aerys I, although a line from Egg seems to suggests he served on that body in some capacity in the years before 209 AC). If there wasn't yet a really special relationship between Bloodraven and Daeron at this point, then Aegor clearly had little to no reason to poison Daemon's mind against his royal brother because of that whole thing. Even more so in light of the fact that Daemon was gradually turned against Daeron II, not exactly quickly. That could mean that Aegor was already trying to convince Daemon to move against Daeron II long before the whole Shiera-Bloodraven affair (which must have been a very late thing considering that Shiera would have been still a very young girl during the early years of the reign of Daeron II).

Yandel tells us that the Calla-Bittersteel marriage was part of the deal that permanently forged their alliance, and if we assume that Aegor had a real interest in Shiera and wanted her to marry this must have been a rather late development as Bittersteel couldn't have married Shiera and Calla at the same time. This means that the Calla-Aegor match must have been after Shiera's final decision for Bloodraven which, in turn, would have been both after the early attempts of Bittersteel and Fireball to turn Daemon against Daeron II. In that sense, the Bittersteel-Bloodraven rivalry certainly would have been a factor for Bittersteel's decision to finally stick to Daemon/push him into a rebellion, but hardly the only or necessarily the main factor.

Well, if we have a realistic setting for a victorious Daemon then the Realm is not necessarily at peace after the Redgrass Field. Some great lords might be unwilling to bend the knee to the usurper, pushing for independence (I could see the Lannisters, Arryns, or Starks try do something like that). Defeating them could take quite some time during which Daemon's sons would grow older. But even if that's not the case, the Blackfyre sons could nominally become great lords with castellans and regents ruling in their name until they came of age. For instance, we don't know when exactly Robert gave Storm's End to Renly but if that happened shortly after his ascension then Renly wasn't Lord of Storm's End in his own right for years.

There is no big difference between Dark Sister and Blackfyre, by the way. It was always in possession of members of the royal family, including some future kings (Maegor I and Jaehaerys I, for instance). It wasn't the sword of the Conqueror, though. During the Dance the important symbols of power Aegon II has in the beginning are all directly connected to the founder of the royal dynasty (the Conqueror's crown, the Conqueror's sword, the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror, etc.).

Sure, the maesters can write a favorable Blackfyre history. But propaganda cannot necessarily always rewrite history completely. Certainly not during the lifetime of the people involved. They could certainly undermine Daeron's birth and brand him a bastard of the Dragonknight, but that does not necessarily make Daemon's future reign great. Daeron was known as 'the Good', and if Daemon's ascension resulted in decades of bloody war with Dorne and/or lots of rebellions and civil wars then whatever the maesters write is not going to make the Blackfyres look good. If Daemon had ruled for fifty years and given the Realm a long period of peace then nobody would have cared how he came into his throne when he finally died. But to accomplish that he would have to have been a great king. If he had failed as a ruler (say, because one of his sons murdered him, plunging the Realm into another civil war) then Daemon I Blackfyre wouldn't have been remembered as a great king even if the Blackfyre dynasty had survived that thing (because some other Blackfyre descendant had survived the subsequent wars and eventually restored peace to the Realm).

Well, you are at odds with George himself on this rightful king issue. The succession laws are vague and unclear, and it is not up to you or me to decide who is the rightful king or not. Considering the nature of those laws every king who can get a majority behind himself to call him 'the true king' and actually sit the throne for a time is the king. That is why Maegor the Cruel is universally accepted as a true and rightful king who even had the blessings of the gods (due to the fact that he won a Trial of Seven where the throne was at stake), and this is also why Robert I, and Joffrey and Tommen, too, are counted among the Kings of Westeros until such time as a Targaryen king (or Stannis) retroactively and successfully brands them as usurpers and pretenders (there is a decent chance that Aegon VI and/or Daenerys I will do that to get around paying the debts of the Baratheon crown to the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and the Iron Bank).

Otto Hightower clearly staged a coup back in 129 AC. He had all potential opposition incarcerated, and effectively crowned a new king without even noticing all members of the royal family that the previous king had died. That is a coup. Alicent Hightower later suggests a Great Council after Rhaenyra has taken the city and the castle, but the Greens did not have the courage to call such a council when Viserys I died. If they had thought they could win such a council why didn't Otto send out ravens to the great lords meet at KL for another Great Council to discuss the succession in KL? If he had taken the advantage of Rhaenyra's pregnancy and kept the death of her father from her as long as he did in the other scenario the Blacks would have been forced to go along with the Great Council thing. But they did not. They thought they could get through with their coup, and they greatly miscalculated.

We don't know anything about Daena's interest in being Queen Regnant. Granted, what we do know about her personality makes it somewhat likely she may have wanted to be queen, but whether that was actually the case we don't really know. Being wild and tomboyish in her youth doesn't mean she actually wants to spend her life sitting on the throne, listening to petitioners, and so on. More importantly, we also don't know whether Viserys II actually wanted the throne for himself, or whether he was asked to take it because, you know, nobody wanted a wanton woman on the Iron Throne. Viserys had been a loyal Hand to his brother and his two nephews, after all.

[Dorian Martell]

On 1/18/2016 at 5:41 PM, The Fiddler said:

Prince Maekar, Prince Baelor, and Brynden Rivers are captured or killed and King Daeron II is taken into custody alongside the remainder of the royal family. What happens next? What would modern day Westeros be like with House Blackfyre at its helm, or would they have been deposed long ago?

Daemon and his kids would die of a flux, the royals would escape in the ensuing chaos and Aegor would flee across the narrow sea so the story could continue as written 

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-01-24 at 2:38 PM, Lord Varys said:

If I remember TSS correctly, then Eustace says something like 'Daemon would have had on the throne' if he had saved Corbray, so Osgrey clearly believes Daeron II wouldn't have had the strength to continue the fight/protect his capital and throne if the loyalists had lost on the Redgrass Field. But that whole thing is open to interpretation. But the Redgrass Field has to have been pretty close to KL or else it couldn't have been the deciding battle. If it had been far away from KL the war wouldn't have been over because Daeron II could have called upon new levies.

We know that Brynden always had good relations to court (his mother was liked by Naerys, the Dragonknight, and Prince Daeron), and it is also true that the Dragonknight and Daeron forced Aegon IV to send Barbra and her father away after they had tried to install Barbra as the new queen when it looked as if Naerys was dying after the birth of Daenerys. However, Aegor wouldn't have witnessed any of that, first hand. More importantly, neither Daeron nor Brynden would have had anything to do with the complete downfall of House Bracken following the Toyne affair (which led to the execution of Aegor's maternal grandfather and his aunt Bethany).

Even more importantly, Brynden was three years younger than Aegor (the former was born in 175 AC and the latter in 172 AC), and subsequently both were still rather young when Daeron II took the throne (Brynden was nine, Aegor was twelve). Aegor apparently didn't spend much time at court - his eyes fell on Bethany Bracken when he visited the Brackens to see his son by Barbra, confirming that he lived with her rather than at court as a royal ward. Perhaps young Aegor spend a short time at court while his grandfather was hand and his aunt the new mistress of the king, but he would have been sent away after the downfall of the Brackens.

Which means that the king calling Aegor to court and raising him there alongside his own son, allowing him to train in the yard with the other princes under the tutelage of Fireball would have been Daeron II, not Aegon IV. Daeron II reached out his hand in friendship to all the great bastards, including Daemon Blackfyre, of course, and just because he had a good relationship with you Brynden (again, nine years at the time) doesn't mean he could not also have a good relationship with Aegor - just as both the Lord Bracken and the Lord Blackwood could be on good terms with their liege lord and their king.

In addition, we don't really know whether Bloodraven rose to prominence and high office at court prior to the Blackfyre Rebellion or whether that only happened thereafter (in fact, we don't even know he was a member of the Small Council prior to the reign of Aerys I, although a line from Egg seems to suggests he served on that body in some capacity in the years before 209 AC). If there wasn't yet a really special relationship between Bloodraven and Daeron at this point, then Aegor clearly had little to no reason to poison Daemon's mind against his royal brother because of that whole thing. Even more so in light of the fact that Daemon was gradually turned against Daeron II, not exactly quickly. That could mean that Aegor was already trying to convince Daemon to move against Daeron II long before the whole Shiera-Bloodraven affair (which must have been a very late thing considering that Shiera would have been still a very young girl during the early years of the reign of Daeron II).

Yandel tells us that the Calla-Bittersteel marriage was part of the deal that permanently forged their alliance, and if we assume that Aegor had a real interest in Shiera and wanted her to marry this must have been a rather late development as Bittersteel couldn't have married Shiera and Calla at the same time. This means that the Calla-Aegor match must have been after Shiera's final decision for Bloodraven which, in turn, would have been both after the early attempts of Bittersteel and Fireball to turn Daemon against Daeron II. In that sense, the Bittersteel-Bloodraven rivalry certainly would have been a factor for Bittersteel's decision to finally stick to Daemon/push him into a rebellion, but hardly the only or necessarily the main factor.

Finally found time to write a reply. Shgrter than what I may have liked, but here you go.

In regards to the Redgrass Field I think that its very possible it was close to King's Landing but it could also mean the committment. Both sides were committed fully to that battle with their majority of force and main commanders, meaning that if the loyalists had broken, the rout could have resulted in such catastrophic casulties as to break the Targaryens just like the Trident broken the Targaryens despite that the Tyrells were still in the field, and that the battle took place some distance from King's Landing. Because with the Kingsroad in place, an army can cover a lot of distance while levies do not spawn automatically. On a more conjecture side, many lords might have been killed, captured or decided to switch support over to Daemon, just like many did after, or even during, the Blackwater in regards to Joffrey.

But about Bittersteel, the main issue is that he was raised with his mother who had many reasons to hate Brynden and Daeron. That Aegor was not personally there is actually fairly much an argument in my favor, as that would have left him with his Bracken relatives as the sole sources of information, and I can totally see them filling him with hate for her enemies or their descendents. Just look at Rhaenyra and Alicent's children. They both came to loath each other primarily because, as far as I can tell, the enmity between their mothers. I think that you seriously underestimate both how emotional people can be, how the Brackens are written as asshole idiots right through the story and Aegor's mother's influence over him. Its not hard to see that Barbra shared some unflattering views of the Blackwoods and Daeron with her son, who then met these people and had a negative basic attitude to them which would have been reinforced by any and all slights, real or percieved. I think the Shiera affair was just another drop in a cup that the Brackens had already filled to the brink with hate and contempt. And I agree with Calla, it wasn't the deciding factor but just one more factor pointing to rebellion.

About Brynden's place at court I think its fairly obvious that he was already in high favor when the rebellion broke out. The fact that he had a special guard named after himself with him speaks to me that he was just not another man in the ranks. No way that Brynden could have created the Raven's Teeth out of his own pocket but only with royal support.

Quote

Well, if we have a realistic setting for a victorious Daemon then the Realm is not necessarily at peace after the Redgrass Field. Some great lords might be unwilling to bend the knee to the usurper, pushing for independence (I could see the Lannisters, Arryns, or Starks try do something like that). Defeating them could take quite some time during which Daemon's sons would grow older. But even if that's not the case, the Blackfyre sons could nominally become great lords with castellans and regents ruling in their name until they came of age. For instance, we don't know when exactly Robert gave Storm's End to Renly but if that happened shortly after his ascension then Renly wasn't Lord of Storm's End in his own right for years.

I don't really see the issue with the Lannisters in this regard, and them continue to defy the Blackfyres would go against what we've seen in Westeros. When the war is lost, most people bend the knee or gets the hell out. After Aegon II was murdered and the Blacks had taken the capital, the Lannisters and Baratheons didn't continue a lost war. I fail to see why these Great Houses would fight on in a lost war rather than just bend then knee according to practice. But do remember that princes are not at all expected to be great lords or castellans. In fact Westerosi princes are more likely to be glorified household knights or courtiers than anything else. Robert was never under some pressure to give seats to Stannis and Renly, nor was Viserys I ever turning over stones in order to finds castles for his many sons by Alicent.

Quote

There is no big difference between Dark Sister and Blackfyre, by the way. It was always in possession of members of the royal family, including some future kings (Maegor I and Jaehaerys I, for instance). It wasn't the sword of the Conqueror, though. During the Dance the important symbols of power Aegon II has in the beginning are all directly connected to the founder of the royal dynasty (the Conqueror's crown, the Conqueror's sword, the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror, etc.).

I agree its a big difference. Dark Sister is a Valyrian steel sword, while Blackfyre is the sword of kings and that is where its symbolic importance comes, just like the conqueror's crown and the Iron Throne. Sitting the Iron Throne does not give you power by itself, but is a very symbolic act which is associated with ruling the realm.

Quote

Sure, the maesters can write a favorable Blackfyre history. But propaganda cannot necessarily always rewrite history completely. Certainly not during the lifetime of the people involved. They could certainly undermine Daeron's birth and brand him a bastard of the Dragonknight, but that does not necessarily make Daemon's future reign great. Daeron was known as 'the Good', and if Daemon's ascension resulted in decades of bloody war with Dorne and/or lots of rebellions and civil wars then whatever the maesters write is not going to make the Blackfyres look good. If Daemon had ruled for fifty years and given the Realm a long period of peace then nobody would have cared how he came into his throne when he finally died. But to accomplish that he would have to have been a great king. If he had failed as a ruler (say, because one of his sons murdered him, plunging the Realm into another civil war) then Daemon I Blackfyre wouldn't have been remembered as a great king even if the Blackfyre dynasty had survived that thing (because some other Blackfyre descendant had survived the subsequent wars and eventually restored peace to the Realm).

If think that little things like unfortunate truths and facts can get in the way of creating a good story to pass as history, you are very naive. Daemon's failures can be blamed on Targaryen plots or evil councilers who tricked the valerous Daemon, and so on. I fail to actually see any scenario that can't be twisted as necessary to have Daemon be an awesome king.

Quote

Well, you are at odds with George himself on this rightful king issue. The succession laws are vague and unclear, and it is not up to you or me to decide who is the rightful king or not. Considering the nature of those laws every king who can get a majority behind himself to call him 'the true king' and actually sit the throne for a time is the king. That is why Maegor the Cruel is universally accepted as a true and rightful king who even had the blessings of the gods (due to the fact that he won a Trial of Seven where the throne was at stake), and this is also why Robert I, and Joffrey and Tommen, too, are counted among the Kings of Westeros until such time as a Targaryen king (or Stannis) retroactively and successfully brands them as usurpers and pretenders (there is a decent chance that Aegon VI and/or Daenerys I will do that to get around paying the debts of the Baratheon crown to the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and the Iron Bank).

I am not actually at odds with George because as I recall that SSM he says that in the absence of sons, the inheritance gets complicated. Thus I am willing to admit that the issue of Rhaenys and Daena could be discussed even while I think they were the rightful heirs, but Aegon II is the rightful king. I can agree that we can't decided but we can hold opinions and I have my opinions on the matter and how I have understood Westeros to work.

Quote

Otto Hightower clearly staged a coup back in 129 AC. He had all potential opposition incarcerated, and effectively crowned a new king without even noticing all members of the royal family that the previous king had died. That is a coup. Alicent Hightower later suggests a Great Council after Rhaenyra has taken the city and the castle, but the Greens did not have the courage to call such a council when Viserys I died. If they had thought they could win such a council why didn't Otto send out ravens to the great lords meet at KL for another Great Council to discuss the succession in KL? If he had taken the advantage of Rhaenyra's pregnancy and kept the death of her father from her as long as he did in the other scenario the Blacks would have been forced to go along with the Great Council thing. But they did not. They thought they could get through with their coup, and they greatly miscalculated.

I fail to see the coup, only the realpolitik. There were many fools who thought that Rhaenyra was the heir and could have started even more trouble. The reason to not call a Great Council has more to do, once again, with realpolitik than anything else. Calling a Great Council would allow the princess, or her husband Daemon, time to attack her brother and attempt to force her way by dragonfire before the council was summoned, and while the Greens might not have called a council, Rhaenyra rejected the notion out of hand as well. The crow should not call the raven black.

Quote

We don't know anything about Daena's interest in being Queen Regnant. Granted, what we do know about her personality makes it somewhat likely she may have wanted to be queen, but whether that was actually the case we don't really know. Being wild and tomboyish in her youth doesn't mean she actually wants to spend her life sitting on the throne, listening to petitioners, and so on. More importantly, we also don't know whether Viserys II actually wanted the throne for himself, or whether he was asked to take it because, you know, nobody wanted a wanton woman on the Iron Throne. Viserys had been a loyal Hand to his brother and his two nephews, after all.

I'll give you a quote because Aegon II or Maekar I makes for more convincing reluctant kings than Viserys II. "No one holds power they don't want, and no one keeps power by not doing what they can to keep it." That Viserys would be some poor chap with big tearful eyes climbing the throne and becoming king looks ludicrous. If he didn't want to be king, there were alternatives like his nieces.

Until we get more information, I'll be more inclined to think that Daena was ready to fight for her rights and didn't want to just be put aside on the succession matter.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

stuff

To keep it somewhat simpler:

Redgrass Field:

We don't really know whether both sides were fully committed to that battle. For instance, if we assume the battlefield wasn't in the Crownlands then it may actually have been the case that the Targaryens still had a pretty big host back there in reserve to protect the capital. In addition, there are no Northmen, (many) Reach men or other greater houses mentioned to have been on the Redgrass Field. We only know that the Arryns were there, and that some Stormlanders and Dornishmen came with Baelor and Maekar, respectively. That doesn't necessarily indicate that either side threw all their strength left into that battle.

In addition, Osgrey's idea of Daemon winning the throne had he continued his attack after the Corbray incident only makes sense if we assume that Baelor and Maekar's arrival on the battlefield couldn't have changed anything - meaning, most likely, that Daemon and his horse would already have been gone, pushing on to a defenseless KL. Bloodraven gaining the ridge and all led to the deaths of Daemon and his twins, but that was apparently not deciding the battle. The rebels continued the fight and without the hammer and the anvil Bittersteel might actually have been able to defeat the loyalists.

Brynden may actually have bought a high place at court with his original information on the Blackfyre treason. He supposedly was the one informing Daeron II on Daemon's plans, leading to the attempt to have Daemon arrested by the Kingsguard. The Raven's Teeth easily could have begun as part of a Targaryen force led by Bloodraven during the war. I very much doubt Daeron II tolerated standing private armies of any kind prior to the rebellion.

I don't see a reason why Targaryen loyalists would not have continued the fight after the Redgrass Field. If Daeron II and his four sons all had slipped away there would have been no reason whatsoever to not continue the fight. Just as the Greens didn't give up just because Rhaenyra took the Iron Throne. And even if Daeron II was killed, the war could have been continued in the name of one Daeron's sons or grandsons, or perhaps even in the name of Princess Daenerys and her sons - who would have been the legal heirs of the Iron Throne if the Targaryen male branch had died out.

When the Dance ended, nobody aside from Cregan Stark actually wanted to continue the fight. The Greens at court themselves murdered their king because he failed to see that he was done, and no major Green house actually had any strength left to continue the fight. The Westerlands had been ravaged and plundered, the Stormlander army perished on the Kingsroad, and the strength of House Hightower was ripped to pieces during the two battles at Tumbleton. Not to mention that winter had come and it would have been insane to continue the war in winter if there was little reason for that. 

Nothing suggests that any of the supporters of Daeron were in a similar situation after the Redgrass Field.

Blackfyre propaganda:

You really overestimate the power of all that. If Daemon could have been made a great king no matter what - as you are saying above - then why the hell do the historians tell us that there were bad Targaryen kings? Why is there a Maegor the Cruel and not a Maegor the Great? Why is Aenys I remembered as weak and Aegon II as grasping? The Targaryens were in power for nearly 300 years yet they failed to make all their kings great guys. How is it that you think the Blackfyre propaganda would be so much better when they would have a very bad start at it (justifying the usurpation of King Daeron the Good)?

That just doesn't make much sense.

As to inheritance laws:

Laws can change. Viserys I named his daughter his heiress not caring about the fact that he eventually also had sons. So did Princess Nymeria after she and Mors Martell had conquered Dorne. Do you also think all the Princesses of Dorne who have ruled Dorne since the days of Nymeria were doing so 'unlawfully'? Nymeria made her eldest daughter her successor instead of her son, and it worked. In Rhaenyra's case it eventually failed. But from your POV Dorne's laws must have been unchangeable as well because, you know, 'Andal Law' would have prevailed there, too, even after the Rhoynar came regardless what they said. And just as the Targaryens are not allowed to change Andal Law in their domains the Martells should not have been allowed to change, either, right?

As to the coup:

Viserys I had made a testament and a last will naming Rhaenyra his heir. The entire Realm knew and had confirmed that. This was a legal reality not even the Hand of the King could ignore. Otto Hightower claimed the succession had to be settled, but Viserys I already had done that. So this was essentially a coup in which the traitorous Hand of the King defied his king's wishes and installed another pretender on the throne. That many people may have secretly shared the view that Viserys I shouldn't have kept Rhaenyra as his heir after the birth of Prince Aegon may be the case. But if so, they should have challenged that royal decision while their king was still alive instead of paying lip service to him and betraying him even before his corpse was cold.

If you are no hypocrite and a legal expert on something (assuming such a thing exists in Westeros which isn't very likely) then you usually protest that such and such a law or decree is unlawful when it is made, not over twenty years later when it finally takes effect.

Daena:

There is no reason to believe she even prepared to fight for her throne. Only that some people who may or may not have been connected to her (the smallfolk wanting her as queen certainly wouldn't have been close to her) voiced their opinion that she should be queen. That doesn't mean she wanted to be queen. And it also doesn't mean that Prince Viserys didn't go to his three nieces at once after he learned of Baelor's death, offering each of them the crown in turn which they then declined. The man supposedly was loyal to his brother and his two nephews. We have no good reason to believe he was power-hungry nor have we any reason to believe the girls wanted the Iron Throne.

Hell, there would even have been a good way to make Daena (or Rhaena or Elaena) Queen Regnant while Viserys remained in charge of things. Daena or one of the others could have married the widowed Viserys who would then continue to rule the Realm as Lord Protector and Hand in the name of the new Queen Regnant.