Lion of the West Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On 2016-02-20 at 3:05 PM, Lord Varys said: 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. Redgrass Field While I could agree that we don't have a clear list of all the lords that took part and that the Targaryens, more likely than the Blackfyres, would have had some reserves left I think the presence of pretty much all of the higher leadership on both sides show it was a battle where most forces were concentrated. But like you said, the Starks were not there, that we know of, and Lord Tyrell was also absent, so I agree that the Targaryens would not have run out of soldiers just yet if they lost the Redgrass Field. However when we considers that Daemon, his oldest sons, Bittersteel, Fireball (although he was killed on the eve before battle), Maekar, Baelor and Bloodraven was there as well as at least one of the Kingsguard, I think its a pretty good indication that it was a major commitment. For example we get the name of the main Blackfyre leaders as Daemon, Aegor and Quentyn. If there were other Blackfyre hosts operating elsewhere I'd assume we'd get a name for at least one of their commanders. Thus is seems that the Blackfyres were pretty much fully committed while the Targaryens would countered with at least a major part of their armies. The fact that Daemon, and then Bittersteel, could not crush Maekar's army is a signal to me that it was very large, large enough to take on and hold the Blackfyre host in its place in open battle for hours untill a second army with Baelor could come up from behind. In regard to Osgrey's idea I think that meant that if Daemon had not put himself into the position from where Bloodraven could have killed him from the ridge, then Daemon's inspiring leadership would have meant that Maekar could have been broken before Baelor arrived and the rebels pushed on to the capital. I do however consent that its possible that Maekar could have been defeated by Aegor Rivers if Baelor had not shown up. As for Bloodraven I don't really buy it. I don't see Daeron heaping all those honors, giving him a custom-made private guard and all, just for informing on Daemon. The fact that was already, to my knowledge, known as the Raven's Teeth and consisted of bowmen hints to me that it wasn't just a general retinue the king gav Bloodraven but something special. I don't doubt that there would have been Targaryen loyalists contuing the fight but I think that, as I believe that I've stated above. With the Princes Maekar and Baelor and the Hand of the King present on the same battlefield that only leaves the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard as a possible senior commander from the royal court who isn't present on that field. To me that speakes volumes of commitment by the Targaryens. My point is however that if the Blackfyres had won a decisive victory in a battle of such commitment by both sides, then odds are that in the riot a great deal of the Targaryen strength would have been destroyed and I've yet to see a scenario in a Westerosi war where sides recovers from devastating defeats fast enough to take part again. I'll give some examples for this. In the Dance we learn that after the Fishfeed, the Lannisters are out, the royal army is out after Cole's defeat and after the Second Tumbleton when Lord Peake retreats wer hear nothing more of the Reach, Green or Black, and the Stormlands are undone after the Battle of the Kingsroad. When an army is defeated, that army is out and don't come back. I don't see what chances the Targaryens would have had to raise a new army to counter the Blackfyres if they got beaten, and had to endure the casulties of a rout, on the Redgrass Field. The Dance was different in that there wasn't a single deciding battle but only a slow drain of the loyalists' strength which eventually lead to their collapse. Both Blackfyre Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion were on the other hand decidied by a single decisive battle. But you are right that the fighting would have continued if Baelor or Maekar got away to continue the war, although it would have been against odds stacked in favor of Daemon given both Targaryen casulties as well as the sheer propaganda victory that might have made many moderate supporter of Daeron wonder if they were on the winning side or not. Blackfyre Propaganda The important part that you fail to notice is that kings are often depicted with kernal of truth and built according to the needs of the strong and successful kings who has a need to paint them in one way or another. I'll give you two examples in Maegor and Aegon IV. Maegor must be cruel and a tyrant because if he isn't then Jaehaerys who ruled long and strong after him would look like a rebel and not a savior. If Maegor is a cruel tyrant oppressing the realm with needless hardships then Jaehaerys I is a savior who rescues the realm from a mad man and makes a much better conclusion to the war with the Faith Militant then Maegor's over-the-top brutality could have ever done. But if Maegor is a hard man for a hard time, who rescues the Targaryen dynasty and fights down the legion enemies that appears, what does that make Jaehaerys and his rebellion against Maegor look like? I can say the second alternative does not look very good at all while the first looks pretty good to me. The same is true with Aegon IV in regards to both discredit the Blackfyres, who draw their claim from him, and also make Daeron II look even better for oppsing and reversing the policies of his father. The Blackfyres are a part of the misrule of Aegon IV while Daeron the Good and his gallant sons comes to bring order the realm. In regards to Aenys or Aegon II it isn't important politically to paint them one way or another. For example with Aenys, he is of litte consequence. If Maegor was followed by a son of his own then Aenys's inept reign would have been very important as it shows how necessary it was for Maegor to take over. But now it was Jaehaerys who took over after Maegor and he did so on the basis that Maegor was a cruel tyrant and thus that is what they need to hammer down and secure in the collective understanding of history. Inheritance Laws You obviouysly don't understand my POV at all. There's a differerence in that the Rhoynar brought with them another code of law that wasn't based on a single king's whim. The issue gets complicated because two Houses from two cultures with two different laws united into one without a single one dominating the other, to my understanding, and thus its a whole different issue than the issue with Viserys. If House Targaryen and Martell had melded into a single House, Tartell, then the situation would be the same. But what we got here then its just a guy gets and idea to name someone his heir in the same manner that Aegon IV apparently tried to name his bastard as his heir before his firstborn son. Neither stands as far as I'm concerned. And to you last point: wrong. The "Coup" The king had refused to renew that the oath after over twenty years meaning that many who swore it were dead, so one wonders if the oath could actually be relevant for most people when the Dance broke out? And if I recall then Viserys was challenged in regards to him "naming an heir" but just refused to discuss it or take a firm stand for Rhaenyra against Alicent and her sons despite knowing how the sitiation was. He even allowed rival political parties to form in his own court without even trying to do something! There is no question that Viserys was pretty ambiguous. Daena I agree that we don't know, so saying that there's no reason to believe that Daena wanted the throne is a good as saying the opposite: there's no reason to believe that she didn't want the throne. Essentially there's no reason to think that Viserys wasn't willing to step up and claim the throne for himself or that he was a sexist who thought that women can't, or shouldn't be allowed, to rule. Viserys marrying Daena would have worked but maybe he just didn't want a "soiled woman" in his bed? That would certainly explain why we don't hear anything more of Daena. Aegon (future Unworthy) and his father pretty much pulled in the same direction to ruin her life. I can only weep for her being dealt such a shitty hand by fate and surrounded by so many assholes as she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said: stuff Redgrass Field: Osgrey gives us a list of names - Quickfinger, the Reyne guy, some other guys with fancy names - who gathered round Daemon, and the fates of those people aren't known. They are not mentioned as casualties on the Redgrass Field. In addition, we also know that the Yronwoods rode with Bittersteel in three Blackfyre rebellions meaning that at one point in the First Blackfyre Rebellion Bittersteel must have hung out with them. I assume Bittersteel earlier led a campaign with the Yronwoods in the Stormlands or, perhaps, even in Dorne, but that doesn't have to be the case. In that sense it is by far not clear whether the Blackfyres were fully committed to the Redgrass Field. For them the fact that Daemon and his eldest sons died on that battlefield was the crushing blow. Without Daemon Blackfyre the Blackfyre Rebellion was essentially over. If Aegor had won the battle he could, perhaps, have crowned Daemon II but that would most likely haven't helped him all that much if they hadn't also taken KL and killed/taken Daeron II. A child Blackfyre pretender wouldn't have inspired all that much loyalty and support among the people of Westeros - especially not if the Targaryen king Daeron II still sat on the Iron Throne at that point. By the way, I think I've got a strong hint supporting the idea that the Redgrass Field must have been somewhere in the Crownlands close to the capital. We learn that Daeron II replaced Butterwell with Lord Hayford as Hand only days before the battle. Considering that it would have been difficult for an absent Daeron II to do that if the battle was far away from the capital - not to mention that it would have been difficult for Lord Hayford to get to the army in time in such a scenario - I think we can safely assume that it was somewhere in the Crownlands. Since we don't know anything about the setup of the battle it is really difficult to say what was going on. But my idea is that the Blackfyres must have won some great victory shortly in the past and/or somehow outmaneuvered the loyalists if we go with the assumption that they were close to KL. I think Baelor's host actually intended to join Lord Hayford's army (which, I think, was consisting of Crownlanders and Vale men which had been deployed to the Crownlands via ship) to prevent Daemon from attacking the capital. We know there were quite a lot of battles in the West, the Reach, and the Riverlands, and my best guess is that the Blackfyre partisans continuously raised hosts in various parts of the Realm (say, because Daemon, Aegor, and others showed up at certain places inciting local lords to join them and/or had already convinced their allies to rise in Daemon's name) and shortly before the Redgrass Field the surviving and partly victorious rebel armies united wherever Daemon was at that point and then had the strength to actually attack KL. Baelor would have been down in the South to deal with some other Blackfyre forces there and/or raising another host which then came nearly too late (Leo Longthorn came too late, apparently not intentionally but with the Tyrells you never know). Well, Bloodraven could have become one of Daeron II's most important generals during the rebellion, no? About a year is enough time to recruit men and assemble a 'private army'. They are already called the Raven's Teeth on the Redgrass Field but at that point that may have just been a name. And I'm not so sure they are such a great or important force. I always thought them to be something like Tyrion's clansmen - a private guard of ill repute because their master is as a bad reputation. The point why the battle wouldn't necessarily have been decisive is that Daeron II wasn't on the battlefield. The king is the king, not somebody else. And the king effectively remains the king until he is dead. If Daeron II had made a tactical retreat, abandoning the capital to Daemon Blackfyre, he could always have come back. Especially if he had retreated to some loyalist stronghold like Sunspear (seeking refuge with his brother-in-law and sister) or some other loyalist castle. Perhaps the war wouldn't have continued immediately, but if Daeron II had survived and not publicly abdicated or something like that I think a majority of the Targaryen loyalists would not have bent the knee to Daemon Blackfyre. And technically Robert's Rebellion wasn't decided at the Trident. It was decided by the Sack. The Trident dealt the Targaryens a nearly mortal blow because Aerys II wasn't exactly the kind of guy to turn the tide of the war but there was a still a small chance of doing so (and there would have been a much bigger chance if Aerys had been a different man). Not all the armies you cite during the Dance were done because their leaders were destroyed. The Reach army ripped itself apart because there was no clear leader after the death of Lord Ormund, the Lannister host was utterly destroyed during the Fishfeed (and had most likely had some losses during the previous battles) and the same seems to be the case for Criston Cole's army in the Riverlands. In other cases armies aren't completely destroyed and the survivors have chances to regroup. Something like that may have happened to the First Blackfyre Rebellion on both sides, just as it did during Robert's Rebellion (after Ashford and the Battle of the Bells). As to royal propaganda: Well, I'd say that Maegor the Cruel never had a chance to be portrayed as a great king because he committed too many atrocities. Even Maegor's own son - had he been succeeded by his own blood - would have been reluctant to try to reinvent his father as a man 'who loved his people and was loved in return'. And I'm sure Maegor's campaign against the Faith Militant is actually one of the few things historians don't necessarily see as negative - however, since it seems he didn't care whether he was killing actual or imagined rebels later on in his reign this whole point would have been difficult to sell as 'justified sternness'. Not to mention outright mad atrocities like the eradication of entire houses, the execution of multiple of his wives, the polygamy in itself, the slaughtering of the workers on the Red Keep, etc. Not to mention that the majority of Westeros looked to Jaehaerys I as their savior when they deposed Maegor the Cruel. It wasn't necessarily propaganda - the boy apparently was the last hope of the various rebel factions. But if Targaryen propaganda actually worked then Aenys I and Rhaenyra would actually be remembered better than they actually are. You are correct that Jaehaerys I had no intention of remembering his uncle fondly, but he, his sister-wife, mother, and children had every interest to paint Aenys I in a better light. One would assume that Jaehaerys I would have re-imagined his late father as a man who unjustly slandered by the Faith and various rebels, not as a man who was shared a lot of the blame in his own downfall. That wouldn't have been that difficult since Jaehaerys I ruled for over fifty years, and only people close at court would have known much trouble Aenys I had to make firm decisions. But the fact that Aenys I isn't remembered fondly is pretty good evidence that the Westerosi historians were able to differentiate between fact and fiction/propaganda in their histories. In light of the fact that Rhaenyra's line prevailed in the end, and her two surviving sons ruled Westeros together for decades, one should also assume that they would have posthumously restored their mother as the rightful Queen to the Iron Throne - the fact that didn't happen shows us that propaganda had not so much power in Westeros. Jaehaerys I was apparently also not able to cut out Maegor from the list of kings and replace him with his brothers Aegon and Viserys. Inheritance Law: The only difference between the Dornish situation and the Dance situation is that Nymeria succeeded where Viserys I failed. It is as simple as that. In Dorne people accepted the decisions of their Princess, in Westeros at large half the Realm spit on the decision of their king. There weren't so much Rhoynar coming to Dorne, by the way. It wasn't ten thousand ships, apparently, and a lot of survivors died during the voyage. This had some influence on the Dornish culture, but the Rhoynar weren't settling everywhere. If laws are laws then a bunch of additional women shouldn't change them, no? We know Nymeria had three consorts. From Mors Martell she had only daughters, and from her last consort, Davos Dayne, she had a son. Presumably she (and Mors) had named their eldest daughter their heir after the girl was born. But technically the Martell-Dayne son could have challenged his elder sister's claim on the same basis as Aegon II challenged Rhaenyra's claim. One could now say that the Rhoynish influence made the Dornish more progressive and stuff but Rhaenyra had been the official heiress of the Iron Throne for nearly as long as Nymeria's daughter. People had had time to accept that. The idea that Viserys I had to renew the oath to Rhaenyra every fortnight doesn't make much sense. As far as we know lordly heirs also don't swear oaths of fealty to their kings on a regular basis but that doesn't mean they can suddenly declare that this king their father had recognized wasn't their king because they haven't sworn an oath to him. I mean, Tyland Lannister is a complete asshole there. Shouldn't he feel bound to an oath his father once had sworn and honor his memory by honoring his vows? Not to mention that part of the Lannister motivation to turn against Rhaenyra may have been the fact that she and/or Viserys I had rejected him and Jason as consorts for Rhaenyra. In their youth they both tried to win her hand. I'd agree that Viserys I should have made it clearer that Rhaenyra was his heir, especially in his later years. But there was also no question that this was what he wanted, and no one in the entire Realm had publicly spoken against that. If he had wanted to disinherit Rhaenyra he could easily have done so. He threatened to do this over the Laenor marriage, and she later gave him a very good reason to disinherit when she married Daemon without his royal permission. Daena: Well, you seem to be convinced that Viserys II was an ass because he took the throne for himself. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't necessarily the case. We don't know one way or the other but it is still completely unclear whether Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena ever thought they could rule the Realm in their own right. The Dance wasn't that far in the past, and in light of the fact that Aegon III and Viserys both had sons there would have been little to no encouragement for the girls to ever think they could become monarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOsevens Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On 18/01/2016 at 8:41 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? Obviously BR would escape and become a tree and go back in time preventing it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 On 2016-03-11 at 0:48 PM, Lord Varys said: Loads of text Redgrass Field Firstly the people that Osgrey mention are; Robb Reyne, Gareth the Grey, Aubrey Ambrose, Gormon Peake, Byren Flowers, Redtusk, Fireball and Bittersteel. And many of these are indeed known to us, to have been present at the Redgrass Field. Gormon Peake was there and so were Redtusk and Fireball and of course Bittersteel. Gormon Peake was at the Redgrass Field and slew the Hand of the King, Lord Hayford in single combat, and Redtusk and Bittersteel were likewise there. Also note that after Fireball had kicked the living shit out of the Lannisters he went to the Reach, crossed the Mander and kicked some more ass before he joined with Blackfyre for the Redgrass Field. It seems to me that any other Blackfyre host would have been forces that acted as diversions or were to far away to join with the main push under Blackfyre. And Quickfinger was a thief hired to steal dragon eggs ,or at least that's what I get from our old friend, Osgrey. The idea that Bittersteel might have commanded an army separate from Daemon during the early or mid-war parts does not seem impossible at all, however. Although given that Bittersteel was with Daemon at the battle, I'll assume that this army joined Daemon's for the battle. But in regards to its effect I am actually rather unmoved in my position. I see no reason that the Blacks of Daemon's rebellion would put down their arms any more than the Blacks of Rhaenyra's rebellion did when their chosen candidate was executed. Even less so if the Blackfyre had won the Redgrass Field and thus had a fresh major victory under their belts. I don't think that these Blacks were any less devoted to their caused that the previous Blacks had been. In regards to the army and Lord Hayford my simple suggestions is that most likely Lord Hayford was always with the army. There was just a raven or rider from King's Landing telling of the change in command and after Lord Butterwell's lack of performance, I'll assume that Lord Hayford was a renowned warrior in that his duel with Gormon Peake is mentioned as something special on pair with Aegor's duel with Bloodraven, I don't think that Hayford would have found any lack of support from men like Brynden Rivers and Prince Maekar in taking office. Thus I don't think that this gives any hint about it being in the Crownlands. The idea that Baelor was trying to join the main army seems likely, and that may also have been a reason as to why Daemon attacked, although I think that it was more design that accident that put Daemon into his positon. My speculation is that Blackfyre wanted to break out of an encirclement and supposedly struck against the main loyalist host given that it was in the direction of King's Landing and that a victory there would have given him the initiative, rather than just breaking out and being hunted by a much larger enemy force, which I think would have been disasterous for morale and also a very difficult thing in the first part. When putting together that Baelor with the Dornish and Stormlords took the rebels in the rear and that Lord Tyrell apparently could not join in time, I think that the Targaryens had actually outmanovered Blackfyre and placed him between three armies. Osgrey said that Daemon fought like the Warrior that day and I would think this was because Daemon knew that it was "do or die". He had to break the enemy before Baelor and Leo Tyrell came down on him. I do however agree that the Blackfyre rebellion was probably about lords all over the place declaring for Daemon and then joining arms with each other and gradually becoming more and more concentrated untill Daemon finally had a main army to bring to the Redgrass Field. In regards to Bloodraven I think that he absolutely rose thanks to the Blackfyre Rebellion, but I also think that the reason he did this was because he was already in Daeron's favor. Gaining a private retinue like the Raven's Teeth seems like a very good reward for just being and informer. I think there was something more. But I agree there would have been some similarities with Tyrion's clansmen. I am going to agree with you in that Daeron II most likely would have been able to keep fighting even if Daemon won the Redgrass Field. But I also think that if the loyalists had sustained serious losses, most importantly in the form of killed of captured lords, then Daeron could be looking on the same situation as Aegon II was, seeing his strenght fade away while the rebels were strong in the field. About Robert's Rebellion I believe that you are wrong. After the Trident the Targaryens were left with Aerys, and like you noted, he wasn't the kind of guy to turn things around. Thus the war was decided by the Trident because after that there was no hope of stopping the rebels, while the Sack just put a final bullet in a lost cause (or so it would seem at that point). I think my point stands about the Dance. When Lord Peake realized that there was no chance in hell of getting army to move northwards with any strength then he retreated back south and we hear nothing more of them. We don't hear of new levies being raised in the Reach or Stormlords, its all silent because the loyalists of these regions are defeated and done. I'll agree that there were some expections but it seems rather more rule than not that after a major battle, the defeated army is of little more concern. Propaganda Maegor would never have been needed to be reinted as a loved person, because the sthick was that he was the "doer" who fixed the mess his useless brother had caused but out of jealousy and envy, his nephews and nieces rose against him, after all he had done for them and House Targaryen. He'd be a bit like Bloodraven in that regard, a hard man who keeps the realm and is tough on its enemies. Not a man to love, but a man to respect for the good he did the realm. I however have a question for you. Since Viserys could, according to you if I've understood you right, name whoever he wanted as his heir why can't Maegor wield the same royal authority? The king is the highest juridical power in the realm, if he says these entire Houses are guilty of treason and should die, why wouldn't that be justice rather than an atrocity? Didn't the king say so? The only thing talking against him would be traditional view of right and wrong, a view that I've come to understand you as saying the king isn't bound by. And why wouldn't Maegor be able to take multiple women and his wives and kill the ones that displease him? He is the king. Monogamy and the associated relation between husband and wife is only a tradition like anything else and if Viserys can buckle the "sons before daughters" tradition and have the right of it, why can't Maegor buckle the monogamy tradition and have the right of it? I'm actually rather confused by you here. Personally I oppose Maegor's actions for the same reasons as I oppose Viserys I actions, in that they went outside of royal authority which is subjected to the laws and traditions of the realm. Some laws the kings can change, but I think that some are beyond even him. Such as monogamy and not being allowed to kill your wife, even if you don't like her. In regards to Jaehaerys he was by no means the last hope. When he rose, the whole realm rose against Maegor who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of turning those odds. If Jaehaerys had not been around, the lords could have put a Baratheon or Velaryon on the throne instead of a Jaehaerys, or maybe a daughter or so of Aenys. There would have been plenty of options around even without Jaehaerys. In regards to Aenys there would have been a danger of both overdoing it, since his weakness was no secret and because it was more a cause of "nice to have" rather than "must have". Aenys can be a failure since the line ultimately draws its legitimization from Aegon who is described as an almost perfect man and king and is THE guy attributed with creating the realm despite the significent importance of his sisters for it to be successful. About Rhaenyra and Aegon II getting the views they did, I think this was a combination of a compromisse to mend the wounds after the Dance and because there really wasn't any strong king with an interest in the issue. First there was Aegon III, who didn't care much and was broken, then came Daeron I who oniy cared for his new wars, then Baelor who was all for the Seven, Viserys who held the throne to shortly after which came the Grand Asshole Aegon IV and then finally a king who could potentially be interested in Daeron II. The issue with this is that I think Daeron II was to clever for it. If he would start to reinterprete the Dance then he would open up old wounds and I think that he was more interesting in keeping the realm well then bring that can of worms back. And then of course the Blackfyre issue happened for which I would assume there was pretty much no interest go back to the Dance when there were fresh and present issues to deal with. That's my explenation for it. Inheritance Laws There's a world of difference in that Nymeria came with traditions behind her and most importantly it says that "the Rhoynar brought with them their customs and their laws, which the Martells then spread throughout Dorne" which don't sound like Nymeria was forcing it down the throat of every House in Dorne. As the World book would have it it was a melding of the Rhoynar and Andals to create a new people, the Dornish, thus a much more democratic change than an authocrat forcing his whims on a realm. "When Mors Martell took Nymeria to wife, hundreds of his knights, squires and lords bannermen also took Rhoynish women, and many of those who were already wed took them for their paramours. Thus were their two peoples united by blood." That is the difference as Nymeria could lean back on long traditions of as change and because it was a melding of cultures and not a display of absolute authority that makes it so very different. The fact that half the realm didn't accept Rhaenyra as their heir is rather telling that they were not ready to accept absolutist kings at all. The idea of renewing and oath is not at all strange. The oath was sworn to defend her rights when she had no brothers, when the situation change there should have been a new oath as her rights were then not lawfully including succession to the throne. Viserys didn't do this. He didn't need to make a new oath every year, only that when the situation regarding the succession change there should have been an oath to show that he was still on the same trail as before. I seriously doubt that the Lannister motivation was to get back at Rhaenyra for spurning them. Some people, not all but some, and I include the Lannister brothers among those who do, do move on. Not the least because they expressed not direct venom at Rhaenyra and because for example Tyland showed a much greater fortitude in his adherence to the Green cause than being petty minded would have motivated. In regards to Viserys' generally feeble attitude towards his family I'll not add much. Daena I'm not convinced Viserys II was an ass, but since you keep pointing out the possibility of Daena in actuality being little more than pretty little doll on a shelf in the Red Keep, and no desire to be anything else, then I'll point out the possibility that she was not but royally fucked over by asshole relatives. Or as in your scenario above, be patted on the head and told with a smile that "Sweet darling, this is beyond your little head, I will handle this for the best of all." Because that's really how it comes across to me. I don't know or even think its intentional but its the picture I get in my head when read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 On 13.3.2016 at 6:08 PM, LionoftheWest said: stuff Fireball died before the Redgrass Field. Redtusk was on the Redgrass Field, but we don't know any details on Robb Reyne, Gareth the Grey, Aubrey Ambrose, and Byren Flowers, or do we? I don't remember anything about them. The fact that Fireball went to the West in the first place seems a hint to me that he went there to help Daemon's supporters there. Daemon Blackfyre was after the throne, not the Lannisters/Casterly Rock. Crushing the Targaryen loyalists in the West (as Fireball apparently did) would only make sense if they were already under threat by the rebels fighting in Daemon's name. One assumes that the gold Daemon I used to mint his coins came from the mines and castles the rebels captured after the Lannisters were defeated. The difference between Rhaenyra and Daemon Blackfyre seem to be quite clear. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the Princess of Dragonstone and the chosen heir of her father, Viserys I, for twenty-four years. She laid claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros the very moment she learned of her father's death, and at once challenged Aegon II's presumptions. Daemon Blackfyre, on the other hand, was just a charismatic natural son of a king whose legal claim wasn't exactly rock-solid. Daemon, very much like Robert later on, made friends and alliances thanks to his people skills and prowess as a warrior. Most of Rhaenyra's supporters fought for her and her son, Aegon the Younger, because they considered the Iron Throne's was theirs. They weren't following some great muscled guy who was 'the Warrior himself' or 'Aegon the Conqueror come again'. They fought for an aging woman and a ten-year-old introvert boy. Not to mention that some of Rhaenyra's more fervent followers - Jeyne Arryn, the Northmen - either had a contract with her (the Starks) or were actually related to her (Jeyne Arryn). There were opportunists as well, of course - Dalton Greyjoy, foremost amongst them. But Daemon's followers seem to have been mostly in love with Daemon in one way or the other. At least those who were sincere. The others were using him for their own ends, having their own issues with their Dorne-loving bookish monarch. But people like that - men adoring and following a warrior-king - aren't very likely to continue a lost cause/war in the name of physically weak (an eight-year-old) boy pretender. Bittersteel was a die-hard Blackfyre loyalist, of course, he kept the Blackfyre cause alive, but his power base was a lot smaller than Daemon's - even a fervent Blackfyrian like Osgrey refused to go into exile. In that sense I think the rebels would have to regroup after the Redgrass Field if the Blackfyres had sort of won but Daemon, Aegon, and Aemon had been killed as they were, and either Maekar or Baelor had gotten away, and the Blackfyres lacked the strength or the opportunity to take KL and the Iron Throne (because the city wasn't exactly close). My guess is that Daeron II would have had the chance to drive a wedge between the rebels, offering pardons to those of the rebels who wouldn't necessarily die for Daemon II the same way they would have for Daemon I. In addition there is the fact that successful general often think they make better kings than the young sons of their kings - the most notable historical example would be Alexander the Great whose wife, mother, and children were killed by one of his own generals who then claimed part of Alexander's realm for himself. Bloodraven actually could already have had some personal guardsmen with the name 'Raven's Teeth' before the war. But I really think they only rose to real prominence after Bloodraven became Hand. The Raven's Teeth already existed when Dunk first saw Bloodraven but I'm not sure Bloodraven the private citizen could feed as many soldiers as the Hand of the King under Aerys I could. But that then really depends on the incomes Bloodraven had overtime. And we really don't know anything about that. But Bloodraven could really have been rewarded quite substantially by Daeron II when he warned him about Daemon's impending rebellion/coup. That way Daeron II could act first which may actually have saved both his crown and his life - we don't know what exactly Daemon and Bittersteel had planned. One assumes the best way to win the throne would have been to attack and murder the entire royal family. The difference between Daeron II and Aegon II would be that Daeron II was known as a man of reason and honor whereas a good part of the continued war against Aegon II was that people actually were afraid what that guy would do to them if he remained in power. Daeron II could have reached a compromize with some of Daemon's followers - and perhaps even Aegon II could have done that (but instead he sent Borros against the Riverlords and then even failed to realize that he had lost the war militarily when 'the Lads' and eventually Cregan Stark came knocking at his very door). I agree that Aerys II himself was a guy ill-suited to turn the tide but one really doesn't know what would have happened had Aerys not alienated the Martells so much (and tactically retreated first to Dragonstone and then to Dorne) or had he still a capable and inspiring commander like Gerold Hightower or Barristan Selmy in KL who could have met the rebels in battle (there were still several thousand loyalists in the city). In such a scenario Tywin may have stuck with Aerys rather than betraying him. As to propaganda: Well, choosing your heir by royal decree/last will isn't the same as murdering people. The one thing is a legal matter which can be debated in such a setting of vague and unclear inheritance laws. But in the other sphere things are much clearer. Murder is wrong, and kings usually can't turn that on its head. There is a small chance that Maegor would have been celebrated as this 'doer' you seem to imagine if he had ruled for about the same time as Jaehaerys I later did, giving the Realm a period of peace and prosperity in the later forty years of his reign. Then he could have reinvented himself just as Augustus did after the civil wars. That man, too, was a bloody despot who rose to supreme power illegally and over the corpses of a lot of his peers. But to be reminded as a great ruler you really have to be one - if the realm doesn't prosper under your rule prosperity just will not look kindly on you. Augustus eventually got rid of his image as butcher - but whether Maegor was willing or capable of doing the same isn't clear. The Westerosi historians apparently didn't think so. Not to mention that even Augustus isn't a universally celebrated 'great politician/ruler' - critical/good historians point out the fact that he was a butcher and despot. Just as, presumably, not all (German) historians would universally celebrate Hitler as a great statesmen had he won World War II or had been assassinated before the end of the war. Maegor isn't criticized for naming people traitors - Yandel and other historians would agree with that - it is more that he extinguished entire houses for the (alleged) crime of one person (House Harroway, apparently). Nobody would say it was a just ruliing that Aerys II killed all Darklyns and Hollards just because of the crime of Lord Denys. Had Maegor succeeded and polygamy become a standard practice among his successors then most historians would have gone along with that, I guess, but that wasn't the case. But then, perhaps it would have fallen out of practice and then people would have counted that trait among Maegor's 'flaws' rather than his virtues. Maegor's contemporaries all despised him for that. In addition, history would always remembered Maegor's origin as a usurper. Prince Aegon was Aenys I's chosen heir, not Maegor, and Maegor ascended the Iron Throne only over the dead body of Grand Maester Gawen, a fact that would have been remembered, too. In light of that it would have been difficult to reinvent Aegon, Rhaena, and Jaehaerys as ingrates who plotted against their heroic uncle - not to mention poor Prince Viserys' whose dreadful death would have to have been deleted from history to make Maegor look good in that whole affair. I mean, considering that the boy's death took nine days the historians couldn't even lay all the blame at Tyanna's door without making Maegor look like a moron - he would have noticed that his squire was gone, wouldn't he? As I see it, I really could see the Faith Militant and the lordly rebels putting down the entire Targaryen dynasty alongside Maegor had Prince Viserys been Aenys' last son. At that time the Targaryen dynasty hadn't yet taken root, and there is no reason to believe that the other lords would have accepted a woman, a (dragonless) Velaryon, or a Baratheon as their overlord. I don't see a Stark, Arryn, or Lannister bent to knee to one such. Not at this time, not when there were still people alive who remembered that their fathers and grandfathers had worn crowns. The fact with Aenys I is that the man was Jaehaerys I and Alysanne's father. He suffered a sudden death and if royal propaganda really worked then historians could have saved his reputation by writing favorably in his memory throughout the reign of Jaehaerys I. That is what I would have done had I been Jaehaerys I. The man was my father and the link that connected me to Aegon the Conqueror while his half-brother was the evil uncle who killed two of my brothers. In Rhaenyra's case it is the same, really. Aegon III and Viserys II both were her sons, and Alicent Hightower's entire line was extinguished, not just Aegon II and his brood. Perhaps there is a reason why Rhaenyra's sons didn't honor her memory more but perhaps they did and later historians just didn't care? Aegon III also lacked the chance to lay the blame for the Dance at the feet of the Greens because of the long Regency. But unlike the real-world Anarchy on which the Dance is based Rhaenyra never gave up her claim to the Iron Throne, and her followers fought in the name of Aegon III and eventually saw him crowned because he was her son, not because he also happened to be the heir of Aegon II. Matilda eventually supported her own son, Henry II, rather than continue to press her own claim but Rhaenyra did nothing of this sort. In addition, there is the fact that Aegon III has little reason to hate or loath his mother. He spent most of the Dance at her side, and was apparently cared for and deeply loved by her. Aegon's actions at the time of his mother's capture and execution seem to be a testament that he loved her. Perhaps he failed to express this later in public but I doubt that he ever spoke ill of his mother or allowed that she was slandered in his presence. He might have felt abandoned and betrayed by his father, Prince Daemon, though. The Rhoynar only landed at the shore in the Martell domains, and they mostly wed into this people. Mors and Nymeria had to conquer the rest of Dorne, and there is little reason to assume that the Dornish kings they eventually defeated also accepted those changed inheritance laws or the Rhoynish customs. They wouldn't even have the time considering that they were much shorter under the yoke of Sunspear than the original Martell bannermen. The difference is that the Dornishmen didn't rebel against Nymeria's daughter but a sufficient number of Westerosi lords did rebel against Rhaenyra. Granted, Dornish culture would by then have been a little bit more accepting of women participation in power and everyday life as Westeros was in the day of Viserys I but the difference wouldn't have been so striking. It was the beginning of the change in Dorne, not the end of it, and Rhaenyra certainly would have been Viserys I's heir for roughly the same time as Nymeria's daughter was hers. People had time to come to terms with it. And if you check the Dance most of the lords and people did. There was no broad anti-Rhaenyra movement - had Otto not staged his coup Rhaenyra would have risen to the throne without a fight. The Greens suffer a huge surprise when half the Realm jumps to Rhaenyra's defence, indicating that many people wanted and expected her to become their Queen Regnant. Aside from the Hightower-led cabal at court there is no hint that any organized opposition existed throughout the Realm. It doesn't seem that even a die-hard 'sons first' partisan like Grover Tully or Ironrod Wylde would have led a rebellion if the royal family had universally accepted Rhaenyra I as the Queen of Westeros. Tyland Lannister certainly was competent and showed some stamina, but we don't know what exactly drew him into the Hightower/Green circle in the first place. One assumes he and Jason were after Rhaenyra's hand because they wanted to become Prince Consort at her side - which means they sought power and prestige. Rhaenyra spurning them certainly didn't make them fans of hers - and while she wasn't Queen her favor didn't count as much as Alicent's. If it turns out that it was Alicent or Otto who made Tyland Lannister Master of Ships it is quite clear how the Lannisters ended in camp Green. And why Tyland stayed there is rather obvious, too - Dalton/Rhaenyra were ravaging his homeland, and Rhaenyra had him multilated, blinded, and castrated. We don't even know whether Tyland kept silent about the whereabouts of the treasury - after all, we know a quarter went to Braavos, another to Casterly Rock, a third to Oldtown, and the last quarter was kept in KL to be used for bribes, gifts, and to hire men. Presumably that quarter was nearly or completely spent by the time Rhaenyra took the city, and she and her people didn't like what Tyland was telling them. Saying that the gold was in Braavos, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock didn't help Rhaenyra at all, and it may have been simply convenient for her to believe Tyland might be lying and a continuous torture might bring forth 'the truth'. The idea that Tyland didn't say that the gold was out of Rhaenyra's grasp when they were castrating and blinding her doesn't sound very convincing to me. Especially since that information didn't harm Aegon II or his cause at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragons Hand Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 The field gets a different name to start with. Does Daemon then go on to claim Daenerys for his wife, as she was his alleged reason for rebellion? Good luck trying to take a single individual out of Dorne when they don't want you to. But then if he doesn't, to people call him out on that being a false reason? If he succeeds, where does the leave the children of his first marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 13 hours ago, The Dragons Hand said: The field gets a different name to start with. Does Daemon then go on to claim Daenerys for his wife, as she was his alleged reason for rebellion? Good luck trying to take a single individual out of Dorne when they don't want you to. But then if he doesn't, to people call him out on that being a false reason? If he succeeds, where does the leave the children of his first marriage? If Daemon tried to do that it would make him look ridiculous. Daenerys presumably already had children by Maron Martell at that point, she was therefore soiled goods and not worthy of being married to a king. Not to mention that the claims Rohanne's sons and daughters would be called into question if Daemon had taken Daenerys as a second wife considering that any sons by Daemon and Daenerys would have had Targaryen blood on both sides. In addition, the claim of the Daenerys' children by Maron would also have beens strengthened considering that their mother was now the wife of the king, and they themselves remained the grandchildren of Aegon IV. The whole thing would have had the potential to rip the Blackfyre movement apart. In 196 AC Daenerys Targaryen would have been seen as a Dornish princess - making her the queen wouldn't have been in the best interest of those Marcher Lords who backed Daemon because they resented the Dornish influence at court. And if Daemon had only been able to claim Daenerys as his bride by butchering the entire Martell family (perhaps Daenerys' children included) as well as previously butchering every Targaryen he got a hand on his reign wouldn't have been exactly peaceful. Hell, adolescent infatuation or not, Daenerys herself may have cut Daemon's throat at night had he treated her brother, nephews, husband, and children in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 On 2016-03-15 at 9:12 PM, Lord Varys said: Fireball died before the Redgrass Field. Redtusk was on the Redgrass Field, but we don't know any details on Robb Reyne, Gareth the Grey, Aubrey Ambrose, and Byren Flowers, or do we? I don't remember anything about them. The fact that Fireball went to the West in the first place seems a hint to me that he went there to help Daemon's supporters there. Daemon Blackfyre was after the throne, not the Lannisters/Casterly Rock. Crushing the Targaryen loyalists in the West (as Fireball apparently did) would only make sense if they were already under threat by the rebels fighting in Daemon's name. One assumes that the gold Daemon I used to mint his coins came from the mines and castles the rebels captured after the Lannisters were defeated. Fireball died on the eve of the Redgrass Field, so he was there with Daemon and Bittersteel.Its true that we don't know of Robb, Gareth, Aubrey and Byren, but we do know that Fireball, Bittersteel, Gormon Peake (whom you seem to have forgotten) and Redtusk were there. That's about half of Daemon's famous knights gathered at a single place. Its a rather big collection and can't easily be dismissed as anything but a major concentration of Daemon's finest warriors, and probably commanders if Fireball and Bittersteel is anything to go by. I can see several reasons for Fireball to go into the West. He could absolutely go there to aid Blackfyre supporters, or he could go there to capture wealth for Daemon's campaign or know the Lannisters out the war before the West could unite their forces with other loyalists in the east. Destroying your enemies piecemeal is after all a rather good strategy. Quote The difference between Rhaenyra and Daemon Blackfyre seem to be quite clear. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the Princess of Dragonstone and the chosen heir of her father, Viserys I, for twenty-four years. She laid claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros the very moment she learned of her father's death, and at once challenged Aegon II's presumptions. Daemon Blackfyre, on the other hand, was just a charismatic natural son of a king whose legal claim wasn't exactly rock-solid. Daemon, very much like Robert later on, made friends and alliances thanks to his people skills and prowess as a warrior. They were not peas in a pod, I'll give you that. One big difference was also that Rhaenyra had lots of time to build her support before her father died while Daemon was elevated with Blackfyre and a legitimization just a few years before his father's death, if I recall. But one should not forget he different ways that Rhaenyra and Daemon came to their decisions. Rhaenyra was already in conflict with her half-brothers by the time of Viserys' death while Daemon was slowly turned over, one fool at a time, who came to flatter him. Obviously, at least to me, Rhaenyra was in the mental state and with the political connections to start her rebellion at once while Daemon needed build-up time. Quote Most of Rhaenyra's supporters fought for her and her son, Aegon the Younger, because they considered the Iron Throne's was theirs. They weren't following some great muscled guy who was 'the Warrior himself' or 'Aegon the Conqueror come again'. They fought for an aging woman and a ten-year-old introvert boy. Not to mention that some of Rhaenyra's more fervent followers - Jeyne Arryn, the Northmen - either had a contract with her (the Starks) or were actually related to her (Jeyne Arryn). There were opportunists as well, of course - Dalton Greyjoy, foremost amongst them. But Daemon's followers seem to have been mostly in love with Daemon in one way or the other. At least those who were sincere. The others were using him for their own ends, having their own issues with their Dorne-loving bookish monarch. That Rhaenyra's followers fought for her and her son gives them credit for their loyalty, but as far as I can see, Daemon's Blacks had a similar determination. Even after Daemon died at the Redgrass Field, along with his oldest sons, Bittersteel could also rally these Blacks and continue fighting, not to mention that many apparently went into exile with him after the war. To me, that points to dedication to their cause. All causes that attracts large numbers of people will have many different types in them and people will be motivated by different things. I do however not find any significant lack of dedication on behalf of the Blacks in either rebellion. Quote But people like that - men adoring and following a warrior-king - aren't very likely to continue a lost cause/war in the name of physically weak (an eight-year-old) boy pretender. Bittersteel was a die-hard Blackfyre loyalist, of course, he kept the Blackfyre cause alive, but his power base was a lot smaller than Daemon's - even a fervent Blackfyrian like Osgrey refused to go into exile. See above for the ascribed lack of dedication. Also note that several lords who never went into exile schemed for the Blackfyres as quick as they could. I don't think that you need to throw away your entire life and all your possessions in meaningless sacrifice to be called loyal to a cause. And its not like only people who went into exile were loyal to the Blackfyres. Quote In that sense I think the rebels would have to regroup after the Redgrass Field if the Blackfyres had sort of won but Daemon, Aegon, and Aemon had been killed as they were, and either Maekar or Baelor had gotten away, and the Blackfyres lacked the strength or the opportunity to take KL and the Iron Throne (because the city wasn't exactly close). My guess is that Daeron II would have had the chance to drive a wedge between the rebels, offering pardons to those of the rebels who wouldn't necessarily die for Daemon II the same way they would have for Daemon I. In addition there is the fact that successful general often think they make better kings than the young sons of their kings - the most notable historical example would be Alexander the Great whose wife, mother, and children were killed by one of his own generals who then claimed part of Alexander's realm for himself. Well, I kind of disagree that they would fall appart. Baelor had suggested a mild treatment of Daemon and his Blacks but Daeron had gone on Bloodraven's line of a harsh treatment. I see no reason as to why they would just pack up and go back home and give up the fight after a major victory. My guess, to counter your guess, is that the Blackfyres would have harrried the routed loyalists as far as they could and then either struck for King's Landing or sought to finish the job by destroying Daeron's field armies. Quote Bloodraven actually could already have had some personal guardsmen with the name 'Raven's Teeth' before the war. But I really think they only rose to real prominence after Bloodraven became Hand. The Raven's Teeth already existed when Dunk first saw Bloodraven but I'm not sure Bloodraven the private citizen could feed as many soldiers as the Hand of the King under Aerys I could. But that then really depends on the incomes Bloodraven had overtime. And we really don't know anything about that. But Bloodraven could really have been rewarded quite substantially by Daeron II when he warned him about Daemon's impending rebellion/coup. That way Daeron II could act first which may actually have saved both his crown and his life - we don't know what exactly Daemon and Bittersteel had planned. One assumes the best way to win the throne would have been to attack and murder the entire royal family. In regards to Bloodraven you are correct that it would take a substantion income to maintain the Raven's Teeth, especially since Bloodraven is not known to have ever held any lands to my knowledge. About Daemon, one could also assume that the man who went to such efforts to aid his fallen foe in the Corbray Kingsguard would not lower himself to kill denseless women and children. A very possible alternative is to simply keep them as hostages and take control over the capital in a bloodless coup. One could also wonder that if Daemon didn't have more men with him than he needed to flee the city with the aid of Fireball, then he most likely didn't have enough men to overcome Daeron's, and even less to hold the city against vengeful loyalists. Quote The difference between Daeron II and Aegon II would be that Daeron II was known as a man of reason and honor whereas a good part of the continued war against Aegon II was that people actually were afraid what that guy would do to them if he remained in power. Daeron II could have reached a compromize with some of Daemon's followers - and perhaps even Aegon II could have done that (but instead he sent Borros against the Riverlords and then even failed to realize that he had lost the war militarily when 'the Lads' and eventually Cregan Stark came knocking at his very door). The problem with this is that while people were afraid of Aegon II would do, Daeron II did some bad stuff himself in apparently sending many people into exile or taking large swathes of land from them. The fact that Daeron II never reached any compromisse with any of Daemon's followers to my knowledge speaks against the possbility that he could have. In regards to Aegon II I fail to see what compromisse he could offer. He was entirely outgunned by his enemies as the Riverlands were still in the war and the North and Vale seems to not even have been bloodied yet, while only the Stormlands remained to the king. What kind of leverage could he possibly have hoped to use to see them not just destroying his last army and taking the city? He already tried to scare them off with harming his prisoner and some of his men apparently rather saw him as dead then go throught with it, I think it was of fear for acts of vengence by the victorious Blacks. Quote I agree that Aerys II himself was a guy ill-suited to turn the tide but one really doesn't know what would have happened had Aerys not alienated the Martells so much (and tactically retreated first to Dragonstone and then to Dorne) or had he still a capable and inspiring commander like Gerold Hightower or Barristan Selmy in KL who could have met the rebels in battle (there were still several thousand loyalists in the city). In such a scenario Tywin may have stuck with Aerys rather than betraying him. I think that it was more or less over. Aerys could have prolonged the war but seeing their king turn tail and run like hell from his enemies would not be a morale lifting experience. Likewise while there were men in the city to defend it but I don't think that could have the numbers to go out in open combat. Also note that Barristan Semly was at that point captured by the rebels after the Trident. It seems to me that the last hope for the loyalists was for Lord Tyrell to to march north and turn the tide, but I don't think that even the Reach could hope to beat three or potentially four Great Houses themselves, not to mention that the politically unreliable nature of the Reach lords could make itself know again. Quote As to propaganda: Well, choosing your heir by royal decree/last will isn't the same as murdering people. The one thing is a legal matter which can be debated in such a setting of vague and unclear inheritance laws. But in the other sphere things are much clearer. Murder is wrong, and kings usually can't turn that on its head. Actually, both picking your heir and killing people at will is based on the same principle, the principle that kings are above customs and traditions and can establish binding laws as they please. Murder is a legal term for unlawful killings. Lawful killings are such as execution, killing enemy soldiers in a war and the like, based very much on traditions of when its ok and when its not ok to kill someone, which has been codified into laws. If a king can overturn the laws set in regards to inheritance, which is kind a major aspect of feudal systems, why can't a king overturn the established laws and traditions of what killings are lawful and not? I don't see that you have put forward any arguments but essentially "it just is!".And that sound very much like its "just" a tradition and custom, mayhaps one that is only waiting for a king to overturn it? Quote There is a small chance that Maegor would have been celebrated as this 'doer' you seem to imagine if he had ruled for about the same time as Jaehaerys I later did, giving the Realm a period of peace and prosperity in the later forty years of his reign. Then he could have reinvented himself just as Augustus did after the civil wars. That man, too, was a bloody despot who rose to supreme power illegally and over the corpses of a lot of his peers. But to be reminded as a great ruler you really have to be one - if the realm doesn't prosper under your rule prosperity just will not look kindly on you. Augustus eventually got rid of his image as butcher - but whether Maegor was willing or capable of doing the same isn't clear. The Westerosi historians apparently didn't think so. Not to mention that even Augustus isn't a universally celebrated 'great politician/ruler' - critical/good historians point out the fact that he was a butcher and despot. Thing is that Maegor is given critical remarks after he lost and was dead, while Augustus is given critical remarks in a liberal and democratic society that has not need or reason to lionize or idolize the man who gav the Roman republic its killing blow. In Westeros it would be entirely different with a lack of liberal or democratic parts of society and with a royal family with a significant interest in keep Maegor's image clean, the maester to write unfavorably of Maegor would be taking very large risks. Only with the beginning of House Baratheon on the throne could such works have reasonably been possible to write and spread, and even then there could have been a royal interest in keeping Maegor's image clean. Quote Just as, presumably, not all (German) historians would universally celebrate Hitler as a great statesmen had he won World War II or had been assassinated before the end of the war. Germany would most likely not have been very close to Westeros. But in a Nazi Germany I seen to reason as to why a negative view of Hitler would have been tolerated. Quote Maegor isn't criticized for naming people traitors - Yandel and other historians would agree with that - it is more that he extinguished entire houses for the (alleged) crime of one person (House Harroway, apparently). Nobody would say it was a just ruliing that Aerys II killed all Darklyns and Hollards just because of the crime of Lord Denys. Yes, I know. The traditions and customs of what is murder and what is a reasonably punishment for it have not been oveturn by some madman on the throne, yet. And for that we should be thankful. Quote Had Maegor succeeded and polygamy become a standard practice among his successors then most historians would have gone along with that, I guess, but that wasn't the case. But then, perhaps it would have fallen out of practice and then people would have counted that trait among Maegor's 'flaws' rather than his virtues. Maegor's contemporaries all despised him for that. Many people despised the idea Rhaenyra as an heir and Daeron's bookish ways. But I don't see you taking much impression from that as a reason as to why it was wrong or wouldn't be accepted in the future. Quote In addition, history would always remembered Maegor's origin as a usurper. Prince Aegon was Aenys I's chosen heir, not Maegor, and Maegor ascended the Iron Throne only over the dead body of Grand Maester Gawen, a fact that would have been remembered, too. In light of that it would have been difficult to reinvent Aegon, Rhaena, and Jaehaerys as ingrates who plotted against their heroic uncle - not to mention poor Prince Viserys' whose dreadful death would have to have been deleted from history to make Maegor look good in that whole affair. I mean, considering that the boy's death took nine days the historians couldn't even lay all the blame at Tyanna's door without making Maegor look like a moron - he would have noticed that his squire was gone, wouldn't he? I think that isn't a long term problem. Orys was also a usurper to Storm's End, but the Baratheons seems to have gained rather complete control over the Stormlands by the time of the Dance, for example. And given the maester's vast advantage on historical facts and information I would say that it could be reinvented. Maybe not directly after Maegor but certanly a generation or two after him, with a gradual polishing of his image. Quote As I see it, I really could see the Faith Militant and the lordly rebels putting down the entire Targaryen dynasty alongside Maegor had Prince Viserys been Aenys' last son. At that time the Targaryen dynasty hadn't yet taken root, and there is no reason to believe that the other lords would have accepted a woman, a (dragonless) Velaryon, or a Baratheon as their overlord. I don't see a Stark, Arryn, or Lannister bent to knee to one such. Not at this time, not when there were still people alive who remembered that their fathers and grandfathers had worn crowns. Its absolutely a possible scenario, but at best it would mean that Jaehaerys was the Targaryen's last hope, and not Westeros' last hope even if I think that Westeros is better off united than divided. Quote The fact with Aenys I is that the man was Jaehaerys I and Alysanne's father. He suffered a sudden death and if royal propaganda really worked then historians could have saved his reputation by writing favorably in his memory throughout the reign of Jaehaerys I. That is what I would have done had I been Jaehaerys I. The man was my father and the link that connected me to Aegon the Conqueror while his half-brother was the evil uncle who killed two of my brothers. You may have done so, but it wouldn't have been necessary but a "nice to have" thing. Thing is also that I get the impression that Aenys' weak rule was kimd of know among the nobility and not some secret within the royal family. Rest will continue in a separate part, in a day or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 On 2016-03-15 at 9:12 PM, Lord Varys said: In Rhaenyra's case it is the same, really. Aegon III and Viserys II both were her sons, and Alicent Hightower's entire line was extinguished, not just Aegon II and his brood. Perhaps there is a reason why Rhaenyra's sons didn't honor her memory more but perhaps they did and later historians just didn't care? Aegon III also lacked the chance to lay the blame for the Dance at the feet of the Greens because of the long Regency. But unlike the real-world Anarchy on which the Dance is based Rhaenyra never gave up her claim to the Iron Throne, and her followers fought in the name of Aegon III and eventually saw him crowned because he was her son, not because he also happened to be the heir of Aegon II. Matilda eventually supported her own son, Henry II, rather than continue to press her own claim but Rhaenyra did nothing of this sort. I'm not well-versed enough in English Medieval history to comment on the Anarchy, but I would say that it makes sense that the children of Rhaenyra and her descendents would not be able or willing to lay the blame on the Greens. The most important reason I think would have been that it would have threatened to fracture the realm again as most of the powerful Greens remained in power with undiminished power after the war as well. Why alienate and insult two Lords Paramount and a House like Hightower for something that happened decades ago, and while these Houses remain in power? Its a much better deal to just essentially sweep it under the rug and keep an unfavorable opinion to oneself when these House also seems to have reconciled with the new ruling branch of the royal House. Quote In addition, there is the fact that Aegon III has little reason to hate or loath his mother. He spent most of the Dance at her side, and was apparently cared for and deeply loved by her. Aegon's actions at the time of his mother's capture and execution seem to be a testament that he loved her. Perhaps he failed to express this later in public but I doubt that he ever spoke ill of his mother or allowed that she was slandered in his presence. He might have felt abandoned and betrayed by his father, Prince Daemon, though. I am not well enough versed in children's psycology to try an explain his situation. I would guess that the stress from the Dance where he also lost his siblings, together with a lack of actual, or adoptive parents due to the Regency Wars, was a main reason he became broken. But of course if someone more knowledgable about these kind of things I will be happy to hear a more informed opinion. Quote The Rhoynar only landed at the shore in the Martell domains, and they mostly wed into this people. Mors and Nymeria had to conquer the rest of Dorne, and there is little reason to assume that the Dornish kings they eventually defeated also accepted those changed inheritance laws or the Rhoynish customs. They wouldn't even have the time considering that they were much shorter under the yoke of Sunspear than the original Martell bannermen. Yes, as they did one can expect that their children married across Dorne and brought these ideas with them. I understand that to you these differences might not be very important but I think they are so. And who knows, maybe the Andals of Dorne decided that the Rhoynar customs were actually better than their own due to this melding with another culture? Its note like only the fief of Sunspear is known as Dornish. Just to make it clear. My issue is not and never has been that women can inherit before men. My issues is and has been and will be, that kings should not have absolute power in Westeros. If they get that power then a Maegor or Aerys II is more likely than a Daeron II to rule. Quote The difference is that the Dornishmen didn't rebel against Nymeria's daughter but a sufficient number of Westerosi lords did rebel against Rhaenyra. Granted, Dornish culture would by then have been a little bit more accepting of women participation in power and everyday life as Westeros was in the day of Viserys I but the difference wouldn't have been so striking. It was the beginning of the change in Dorne, not the end of it, and Rhaenyra certainly would have been Viserys I's heir for roughly the same time as Nymeria's daughter was hers. For the first part you are clearly exaggerating Rhaenyra's influence on Westeros at large. There is no indication that women were more or less involved in everyday life in Westeros when Rhaenyra was alive and the king was dotting on her, than they were before or after he life. Its like saying that Christina of Sweden promted women in the 17th century Sweden to suddenly become involved in all levels of the Swedish society and state. Fact is that as far as I know, the impact of having a women as ruler in a country has in itself fairly little influence on the positons and situation for the majority of women in that very country. Its more about the rule of person and the policies implemented. Rhaenyra could have begun some form of change, but she might just as well have not done so. Its not like she oppose arranged marriages for her own children, for instance. Quote People had time to come to terms with it. And if you check the Dance most of the lords and people did. There was no broad anti-Rhaenyra movement - had Otto not staged his coup Rhaenyra would have risen to the throne without a fight. The Greens suffer a huge surprise when half the Realm jumps to Rhaenyra's defence, indicating that many people wanted and expected her to become their Queen Regnant. Aside from the Hightower-led cabal at court there is no hint that any organized opposition existed throughout the Realm. It doesn't seem that even a die-hard 'sons first' partisan like Grover Tully or Ironrod Wylde would have led a rebellion if the royal family had universally accepted Rhaenyra I as the Queen of Westeros. People had certainly not come to terms of with Viserys's folly. The fact that there were so many loyalists fighting for Aegon II speaks rather plain to me that Viserys could supress the opposition, but not at all turn them to his way of thinking. Your talk of "only" a Hightower "cabal" speaks falsely as it sounds like it was some small minority of people who wanted this, and not just the leaders of the Green party. The fact that the Greens could count on two Great Houses and the Hightowers along with Harrenhall, Starpike, Stone Hedge and many lesser lords, means to me that the Green party was far more than just some camarilla at court. And the fact that there was a royal Green army at the capital for Criston Cole to lead also says something about the influence of the loyalists. Odds are that they outnumbered the Blacks. Quote Tyland Lannister certainly was competent and showed some stamina, but we don't know what exactly drew him into the Hightower/Green circle in the first place. One assumes he and Jason were after Rhaenyra's hand because they wanted to become Prince Consort at her side - which means they sought power and prestige. Rhaenyra spurning them certainly didn't make them fans of hers - and while she wasn't Queen her favor didn't count as much as Alicent's. If it turns out that it was Alicent or Otto who made Tyland Lannister Master of Ships it is quite clear how the Lannisters ended in camp Green. And why Tyland stayed there is rather obvious, too - Dalton/Rhaenyra were ravaging his homeland, and Rhaenyra had him multilated, blinded, and castrated. We don't even know whether Tyland kept silent about the whereabouts of the treasury - after all, we know a quarter went to Braavos, another to Casterly Rock, a third to Oldtown, and the last quarter was kept in KL to be used for bribes, gifts, and to hire men. Presumably that quarter was nearly or completely spent by the time Rhaenyra took the city, and she and her people didn't like what Tyland was telling them. Saying that the gold was in Braavos, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock didn't help Rhaenyra at all, and it may have been simply convenient for her to believe Tyland might be lying and a continuous torture might bring forth 'the truth'. The idea that Tyland didn't say that the gold was out of Rhaenyra's grasp when they were castrating and blinding her doesn't sound very convincing to me. Especially since that information didn't harm Aegon II or his cause at all. I take this long part to say that we don't know what draw Tyland to the loyalist cause? I find it about as likely for the Lannister twins to have been drawn to Rhaenyra as for any other of her suitors: we don't know and hunger for power, as you suggest, is not supported so far in anything written. Second part now posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 On 15/03/2016 at 8:12 PM, Lord Varys said: If it turns out that it was Alicent or Otto who made Tyland Lannister Master of Ships it is quite clear how the Lannisters ended in camp Green. The world book suggests that it was Viserys who rewarded the Lannisters for their support. The Lannisters chose to side with Prince Viserys in the deliberations—a choice remembered and rewarded some years later, when Viserys ascended the Iron Throne and made Lord Jason Lannister's twin brother Ser Tyland his master of ships. Tyland and his brother were old enough in 112 to compete for the Princess so I'd say there was a good chance that he was given a place on the Small Council in the years that Strong was the Hand rather than Otto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 18 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said: The world book suggests that it was Viserys who rewarded the Lannisters for their support. The Lannisters chose to side with Prince Viserys in the deliberations—a choice remembered and rewarded some years later, when Viserys ascended the Iron Throne and made Lord Jason Lannister's twin brother Ser Tyland his master of ships. Tyland and his brother were old enough in 112 to compete for the Princess so I'd say there was a good chance that he was given a place on the Small Council in the years that Strong was the Hand rather than Otto. I know that quote, but that doesn't tell us anything. Viserys I was the King. He would have named the members of the Small Council, not the Queen or the Hand. But that doesn't mean that there weren't people who suggested Viserys I whom he should name to the Small Council. And keep in mind that Ser Otto was already Hand during the Great Council - and, since Jaehaerys I himself was absent during the final deliberations, most likely played a crucial to secure Viserys' victory. If he was the one who bought the votes from Lord Tymond then the beginning of the Hightower-Lannister alliance might go far back as that. Also keep in mind that Ser Otto was, apparently, the most fervent Black under the sun back in 105 AC when he convinced Viserys I to name Rhaenyra his heir to get Daemon out of the way. The entire 'old guard' of the Greens once was in Rhaenyra's camp, not just Criston Cole. Therefore it actually makes a lot of sense to assume that Tyland just choose to ignore his father's vow because Otto and Alicent expected that of him. I'm not sure about Tyland's age, either. I assume he was in Rhaenyra's age or perhaps even a little bit younger. He has said he was a child in 105, not a boy, so the idea is that he was under ten, I think. We know that Lord Jason didn't have any sons old enough to fight, and that would also mean he had no sons in the age of Jace and Luke (since sons of that age would, most likely, have accompanied Jason to war). I think Tyland actually came rather late to the party, only in the 120s, because he apparently didn't do anything in his new job. I mean, the Greens were preparing things for a coup against Rhaenyra, and they knew she resided on Dragonstone and effectively controlled the Velaryon fleet. But nobody even mentions a royal fleet in 129 AC. If a Lannister had been Master of Ships for over a decade one would expect him to actually build some ships. The Crown had the coin - and even if he didn't, a Lannister would have been expected to pay the ships with his own coin at this time and age. On 13.3.2016 at 6:08 PM, LionoftheWest said: stuff 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 The Targaryens There are too many of them: Daeron himself, Baelor, Valarr, Aerys, Rhaegel, Maekar, Daeron, Aerion, probably Matarys... Somebody always survives Dorne And so he spoke, and so he spoke That proud Blackfyre king; But now the sands scrub out his bones With not a soul to hear. Oh, what a surprise... But it is the most likely result. If not, Daenerys will be very happy to see her children murdered by her own brother, and become his second wife after that. The Blackfyres First of all, honorble knights will be very honored to bow to the King Kin- and Kidslayer. His Grace is not an ugly freak of nature who kills his enemies with damned longbow - so, all okay! Secondly, Daemon's seven sons will be very proud of their heroic father, and will love each other in his memory. Especially Aemon will love his twin bro: "What?! I was actually born THE FIRST? No, no, how dare you, it's totally impossible..." The North - Guys, it seems that Aegon's bunch of steel was taken by people who don't ride dragons and are not my childhood friends... - KING IN THE NORTH!!! Westeros *being ripped apart with new civil war on two fronts* And finally the Only Rightful Queen comes out from the treasury and takes the Iron Throne back from the descendants of Viserys the Usurper *trollface* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hoare Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Probably not much different from the Targaryen rule, bit harder to legitimize. Daemon would need to convince the maesters to write that Daeron II was indeed a bastard, and make a story about himself being a hero that restored his father's legacy. He was a perfect knight, the peasants and many lords would fall for it. The remaining Targaryens needed to be sent to the wall, killed or obliged to swear fealty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell's son Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/17/2016 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? Bloodraven would have one of his loyal troops break him out of lockup, he would then stage an ambush where he would have his archers kill Daemon's sons so daemon would come to the rescue and get killed, then Brynden would fight Bittersteel and win, losing an eye in the process and all of the loyalists would rise up and drive Daemon's followers to essos so the story would continue as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 3/24/2016 at 7:44 PM, Lord Varys said: Text On 3/23/2016 at 11:51 PM, LionoftheWest said: Text Since you two are discussing the Dance I'll leave my thoughts here: On the Greens being a cabal: They were FAR from a cabal. As @LionoftheWest pointed out they had the support of Casterly Rock, Oldtown, Storm's End, Stone Henge, Harrenhal, and who knows how many other noble houses. Furthermore, if the realm was so fine and dandy with Rhaenyra being ruler then why did so many houses support the Greens' "coup" as you call it AFTERWARD? If plenty of lords were willing to fight for Rhaenyra even though Aegon II was crowned first why wouldn't the opposite have been true? More on the Greens: For all their other faults the Greens at least sincerely TRIED to come up with a peaceful solution to the Dance. First attempt: Alicent's suggestion to marry Rhaenyra and Aegon together. Sure, part of was undeniably ambition but part of it was also to bring the two factions together. What was Viserys's response? "She wants HER blood on the throne" (emphasis mine). Yeah, no f****** kidding Viserys she wants her kids on the throne. They're your f**** trueborn sons. What kind of mother would she be if she DIDN'T want them to be king after you? Seriously, that one line tells me that Viserys clearly saw Alicent as nothing more than a glorified mistress and for that he can go to hell. Second Attempt: The terms they send Rhaenyra at the very beginning. There is a reason Gyldayn calls them "generous". The Greens not only offer Rhaenyra as well as ALL her supporters pardons they also offer Aegon the Younger and Viserys positions at court where they could one day potentially join the Kingsguard or Small Council on top of which they even concede to give her Dragonstone as well as Driftmark in perpetuity, which is significant for two reasons. First, that means that Rhaenyra as well as Jace and Luke after her will have some means of being financially independent from royal favor. Second, and more importantly, considering the Greens held it as an article of faith that Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards them offering to accept them as being trueborn is a significant sacrifice on their part. What does Rhaenyra offer in return if they surrender? NOTHING except that she won't kill them, not even bothering to include a pardon for the Greens' supporters! Third Attempt: Alicent's offer to call a Great Council when King's Landing falls and lest you claim that this was done out of desperation I remind you that at that point in time the Lannisters had invaded the Riverlands, the Triarchy had sacked Driftmark, the Hightowers were marching on King's Landing after winning on the Honeywine with a huge army, and the Blacks had lost three dragons along with their riders, one of which, Rhaenys, was probably the most experienced commander after Daemon. What makes this all the more remarkable is that she made this offer this even though the Blacks had driven her daughter insane by having her eldest grandson, a child of six unlike Lucerys, who was at least old enough to fight, brutally murdered in front of them. On confronting Viserys I: I honestly don't get why you insist that the Greens act like a bunch of suicidal idiots. They KNEW what Viserys would do if they confronted him. When Otto Hightower understandably clamored on behalf of his grandson Viserys sacked him. When Vaemond Velaryon's kin repeated the probable truth that Rhaenyra's first three sons were bastards he had their tongues torn out. When Aemond after taming Vhagar said the same thing Rhaenyra demanded he, a child AND her own half-brother, be "questioned sharply", which is Westerosi speak for tortured, till he spoke where he heard that from and Viserys didn't even have the decency to get mad about that or the fact that his son just got his EYE gouged out. Seriously, cut them some slack. They were NOT dealing with a reasonable person. On Tyland, Oaths, and Precedents: Sorry but I disagree. There is a difference between your father swearing an oath under a certain set of circumstances regarding the king's wishes and entirely something else for you to have to abide by that when one, you didn't swear the oath yourself, two, the circumstances are now different, and three, you yourself may not agree with the king's decision. The last point is particularly noteworthy in this case because there are no less than THREE cases supporting Aegon II's claim BESIDES tradition: The precedent of 92 AC, the precedent of the Great Council of 101 AC, and the fact that the ONLY precedent for female succession was Maegor making Aerea his heir, which considering who we're talking about here, is not a point in Rhaenyra's favor, especially since it was Jaehaerys who took the throne in the end. Seriously, the idea that Viserys I could just introduce Dornish succession rules on a whim to satisfy his own desires is right in league with Aegon the Unworthy and Maegor the Cruel in terms of arbitrary abuse of the royal prerogative. The Iron Throne is NOT Dorne, it never was, and never has been. That Viserys thought he could change that willy-nilly was but one of the MANY mistakes he made in the process of setting up the Dance, which is why he is IMO one of the WORST kings to sit the Iron Throne. On Aegon II: At least he was willing to put his life on the line for his cause and actually developed slightly as a character, which is more than I can say for Rhaenyra. Also, how can you seriously call the man a coward for escaping King's Landing? He was physically in no shape to fight, hell, he couldn't even stay awake for more than two hours due to his injuries, not to mention making a stand there would have been suicidal and thus stupid. On Redgrass: The idea that it was nothing less than the deciding battle of the whole rebellion is simply ludicrous. The Blacks were within spitting distance of the capital on top of which the Hand, Lord Arryn, both of the king's martial sons, one of which included the crown prince, at least one Kingsguard, and Bloodraven were all present. As for Lord Tyrell, once again I say the Leo Longthorn Conspiracy. It is the only thing that fits given the information we have. Anyway, if Daemon won there I don't see why he wouldn't be able to sit the throne as securely as Robert Baratheon. Lord Arryn would have been captured or killed, Lord Lannister was trapped in the Rock, the Starks as well as the Greyjoys stayed out and most likely wouldn't care, Baelor and/or Maekar could have been killed or captured, in which case he/they would have been held as hostages a la Daemon II, and as for retreating to Dorne this time it would have been divided thanks to the Yronwoods siding with the Blacks which means no Sunspear is NOT a safe option. Couple this with the fact that the Reds do not have anyone of Bittersteel's caliber to forge something like the Golden Company to keep their supporters united and their gaze fixed on Westeros things do NOT look good for them. There is a reason Robert Baratheon as a dynastic threat was compared to Daemon I Blackfyre, who GRRM described in an SSM as "the greatest of the Blackfyre Pretenders", which given that mere HOURS decided the final outcome makes complete sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceHenryris Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Wow, a lot of long, well thought-out and interesting posts. I enjoyed reading this thread, but I think it's a lot less complicated. If Daemon had won on the Redgrass Field and captured the Iron Thronedn, the best he could have hoped for was a reduced kingdom. At the very least, Dorne would have reasserted its independence. From my eye, somewhere in the North, an idea along the lines of the Greatjon's speech in aGoT would have taken hold in Winterfell. So he's already two "kingdoms" down. Admittedly, they're two of the less populous, but they're both hard to conquer and even harder to hold. Daemon didn't have the full support of any of the other remaining regions. Daemon's supporters might find themselves fighting in the Vale, West, Reach and Riverlands. Only the Drowned gods know what the Ironborn will do, but my guess is that they'll start reaving wherever they see weakness. So, in the end, I believe that even if Daemon won, he wouldn't have won much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On the Greens being a cabal: They were FAR from a cabal. As @LionoftheWest pointed out they had the support of Casterly Rock, Oldtown, Storm's End, Stone Henge, Harrenhal, and who knows how many other noble houses. Furthermore, if the realm was so fine and dandy with Rhaenyra being ruler then why did so many houses support the Greens' "coup" as you call it AFTERWARD? If plenty of lords were willing to fight for Rhaenyra even though Aegon II was crowned first why wouldn't the opposite have been true? You need better arguments. The Greens were a cabal in the sense that the pretended to be loyal to their king and his decisions but in truth they weren't. They were liars and traitors, hiding their true intentions behind false smiles and feigned professions of loyalty. Ser Otto Hightower was the foremost supporter of Princess Rhaenyra's claim in 105 AC, most certainly being one of the first men to swear that vow of obeisance to the recently made Princess of Dragonstone. It is also quite clear that Green party led by Alicent and Otto couldn't have made any widespread plans what to do after Viserys I's death (which Alicent/Otto/Cole most likely caused, considering that he died at such a convenient time) because of the risk that Rhaenyra, Daemon, or Viserys I might hear of that, and act first. In that sense it is quite clear that Greens actually have a lot of recruiting to do after Viserys I died. First at the Small Council session (where not all of the men who later swear that blood oath might have been on board with the plan from the start - if they had been, there would have been no need for a discussion) and then later when they controlled the information of the king's death and Otto Hightower was writing letters and arresting Black supporters/sympathizers the entire day. That pretty much is a coup, you cannot doubt that. The succession was clear, and had been confirmed and accepted as such by any member of the court, including Viserys I's sons, his wife, and his father-in-law. Alicent and Otto had repeatedly asked Viserys I to change the succession in Aegon's favor but this effectively entails that they also accepted the succession as it was since only then there was a necessity to change it. They did not openly declare that Viserys I had had no authority to decide who his successor should be nor did they say that a king cannot rule on his own succession. That would have been utter stupidity by the way. After all, Otto Hightower had been the main architect of the decree that made Rhaenyra Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne in the first place. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: More on the Greens: For all their other faults the Greens at least sincerely TRIED to come up with a peaceful solution to the Dance. First attempt: Alicent's suggestion to marry Rhaenyra and Aegon together. That has nothing to do with a peaceful solution to the Dance considering there was no Dance in sight at that time. We also have to keep in mind that we learn that Rhaenyra and Aegon never got along, not even when Aegon was still very young (he was six when Alicent suggested him as husband for Rhaenyra). Whose fault would it be if the royal children didn't get along, Alicent's or Rhaenyra's? Rhaenyra was friendly towards her stepmother and welcomed her in the royal family. She had no reason to be cross with her. Alicent and Otto were the ones turning against her after Alicent had given Viserys I some sons. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Sure, part of was undeniably ambition but part of it was also to bring the two factions together. What was Viserys's response? "She wants HER blood on the throne" (emphasis mine). Yeah, no f****** kidding Viserys she wants her kids on the throne. They're your f**** trueborn sons. What kind of mother would she be if she DIDN'T want them to be king after you? Seriously, that one line tells me that Viserys clearly saw Alicent as nothing more than a glorified mistress and for that he can go to hell. You have to keep in mind that this was a marriage of passion, not a marriage of state. Viserys I loved that woman, but that doesn't mean he has to consider children from such a marriage worthy of inheriting the Iron Throne of the Conqueror.The Targaryens marry their own, and the purity of blood is an important factor in all that. Only Maegor the Cruel had non-Valyrian wives, and only because there were no such around. As soon as he could claim his niece Rhaena as his wife he did. He would never have married a Westerling or a Costayne had he not been so obsessed with producing an heir of his own body. If you don't have any children whatsoever you would gladly hand your throne to whatever child you are finally able to produce. But imagine Maegor had finally got a bunch of children from various of his wives, let's say Tyanna, Jeyne Westerling, Rhaena, and Elinor Costayne. Who do you think would have had the best claim? The eldest child? Or the one from the noblest mother (i.e. Princess Rhaena)? I'd favor the latter possibility, especially in light of the fact that Tyanna was basically a whore made a queen and the Costaynes and Westerlings were not exactly lines to which the people of Westeros would be most likely willing to bow down to. Such 'Targaryen kings' would have been quickly thrown down. Rhaenyra is the child of two grandchildren of the Old King and the Good Queen, Alicent's children are not. And Viserys I himself has an impeccable incestuous ancestry, being the son of the siblings Baelon and Alyssa, the grandson of the sibling Jaehaerys and Alysanne, the great-grandson of the cousins Aenys and Alyssa, and the great-great-grandsons of the siblings Aegon and Rhaenys. We learn that Lyman Beesbury cites the fact that Rhaenyra had more Targaryen blood than Aegon and his siblings as a reason why her claim to the Iron Throne is stronger. In addition to this we have the fact that Rhaenyra is much older than Aegon, had been groomed to rule since childhood, and so on. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Second Attempt: The terms they send Rhaenyra at the very beginning. There is a reason Gyldayn calls them "generous". The Greens not only offer Rhaenyra as well as ALL her supporters pardons they also offer Aegon the Younger and Viserys positions at court where they could one day potentially join the Kingsguard or Small Council on top of which they even concede to give her Dragonstone as well as Driftmark in perpetuity, which is significant for two reasons. First, that means that Rhaenyra as well as Jace and Luke after her will have some means of being financially independent from royal favor. Second, and more importantly, considering the Greens held it as an article of faith that Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards them offering to accept them as being trueborn is a significant sacrifice on their part. What does Rhaenyra offer in return if they surrender? NOTHING except that she won't kill them, not even bothering to include a pardon for the Greens' supporters! There is some truth to that if you believe those terms were genuine. They conveniently ceded only stuff to Rhaenyra she already controlled with them not (yet) having the means to take them away from her. But do you think they weren't aware that she controlled the majority of the Targaryen dragons now and in perpetuity if they really gave Dragonstone to her? And do you think Ser Otto had not already begun writing those letters to his friends in the Triarchy at this point? Or to Dalton Greyjoy? Both sides were preparing for war already, and no side was willing give way. Had they truly allowed Rhaenyra to keep Dragonstone her sons would have grown to manhood as dragonriders, and their dragons would have grown with them. Five of ten years later Rhaenyra could have taken the throne without facing any problems. Rhaenyra scarcely could make a good offer to Aegon considering that he had stolen her throne and she had virtually nothing she could offer him should he step down. If the Greens had truly tried to make a peace offer Aegon should have offered to set aside his sister-wife Helaena, disinherit his two two sons by her, and ask Rhaenyra to do the same with Daemon and his sons by Laenor Velaryon. Then they could marry each other, with Aegon ruling the Seven Kingdoms as the man should, and Rhaenyra sitting at his side as the sister-wives of the Conqueror and the Good Queen had done in the past. To further stabilize that new peace they would betrothe Aegon the Younger to Jaehaera so that their existing lines would be united in the next generation. Jacaerys Velaryon would get Driftmark upon the Sea Snake's death, with Baela Targaryen sitting at his side. Prince Daemon would get Dragonstone, with his younger son Viserys to inherit the island after him. That would have been a real compromise, with either side giving something up. This way peace could really have been preserved. Perhaps. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Third Attempt: Alicent's offer to call a Great Council when King's Landing falls and lest you claim that this was done out of desperation I remind you that at that point in time the Lannisters had invaded the Riverlands, the Triarchy had sacked Driftmark, the Hightowers were marching on King's Landing after winning on the Honeywine with a huge army, and the Blacks had lost three dragons along with their riders, one of which, Rhaenys, was probably the most experienced commander after Daemon. What makes this all the more remarkable is that she made this offer this even though the Blacks had driven her daughter insane by having her eldest grandson, a child of six unlike Lucerys, who was at least old enough to fight, brutally murdered in front of them. That was clearly a desperate attempt to save face and try to keep the upper hand in the public relations war. There is a reason why the Greens staged a coup and did not call a Great Council in 129 AC when Viserys I died. Because the entire Realm knew that Viserys I had named Rhaenyra his successor, and half the Realm or more had sworn to uphold and defend Rhaenyra's claim. If Rhaenyra and Daemon had come to KL (or wherever that Great Council would have been) with all the dragons they and the Targaryen-Velaryons controlled to address the assembled lords I'm pretty sure that it would have been a tough call, and most likely a small majority would have supported Rhaenyra. Especially if they had both made it clear that they would not suffer any dissension and would retaliate with dragonfire against anyone who dared betray Rhaenyra. In addition, Otto would have looked like a fool had he asked the lords to turn against Rhaenyra in light of the fact that he himself had made her the idea. You cannot look more hypocritical or more foolish than that. Now, after Aegon II had been crowned and anointed things were completely differently. The Realm already had a new king, and many lords had fought and bled and killed for that king. Now it would be not so easy for Rhaenyra to win the vote, especially with her advantage in dragons beginning to disappear. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On confronting Viserys I: I honestly don't get why you insist that the Greens act like a bunch of suicidal idiots. They KNEW what Viserys would do if they confronted him. When Otto Hightower understandably clamored on behalf of his grandson Viserys sacked him. When Vaemond Velaryon's kin repeated the probable truth that Rhaenyra's first three sons were bastards he had their tongues torn out. When Aemond after taming Vhagar said the same thing Rhaenyra demanded he, a child AND her own half-brother, be "questioned sharply", which is Westerosi speak for tortured, till he spoke where he heard that from and Viserys didn't even have the decency to get mad about that or the fact that his son just got his EYE gouged out. Seriously, cut them some slack. They were NOT dealing with a reasonable person. Still, they feigned loyalty to that king and were all a bunch of traitors. Just look how true loyalty looks like. Davos and Ned are out there to tell their kings the stuff they don't want to hear. That it is wrong to kill an innocent girl even if she might become your enemy. That it is wrong to punish the people and family of a man who betrayed you simply because you can (the Claw Isle scenario). If you believe a king doesn't have the right to withhold the throne from his trueborn son you have to say so, out in the open, and suffer the consequences. Or you could at least openly betray the man, denouncing his as a false king and a tyrant like the High Septon did with Aenys I or Rickard Karstark with Robb. But the Greens did nothing of this sort besides (possibly) killing that man in his sleep. The whole matter of Rhaenyra's sons is different from that. Whether they were bastards had no impact on her own claim. And with Laenor Velaryon and Rhaenyra both acknowledging the boys as his sons there is essentially nothing anybody can do about it. If Stannis had gone to Robert telling him about his suspicions about Jaime and Cersei, and Robert had casually replied: 'They are my sons. I publicly acknowledged them. You will never repeat those filthy lies again or I'll see your head on a spike' then this would have been the end of that 'investigation', too. Even if anybody had caught Rhaenyra committing adultery during their her marriage it would have been up to Laenor Velaryon as her lord husband or Viserys I to punish/discipline her for that. Her half-siblings or stepmother had no right to interfere with her marriage and her sex life. Not even on the basis of matters of state (which motivate Stannis, Jon Arryn, and Ned) because the claims of Jace, Luke and Joff to the Iron Throne go through Rhaenyra, not Laenor Velaryon. Whether he is the biological father or not doesn't have any bearing on the matter at all. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Tyland, Oaths, and Precedents: Sorry but I disagree. There is a difference between your father swearing an oath under a certain set of circumstances regarding the king's wishes and entirely something else for you to have to abide by that when one, you didn't swear the oath yourself, two, the circumstances are now different, and three, you yourself may not agree with the king's decision. That can all be said on former kings Torrhen, Loren, and Ronnel swearing allegiance to Aegon the Conqueror. Or about all the countless former petty kings who once swear fealty to the kings whose descendants would one day become the great kings of the Seven Kingdoms. If the vow a father swore is not also, in a very real sense, binding to the son then there would never have been any Seven Kingdoms, nor would the Targaryens been able to unite them under their rule. There are certainly differences between oaths. If I take the oath of a knight then my son is not necessarily a knight, too, of course. But that's a personal vow, not a commitment that binds your family. The idea that you are not bound to accept the king's heir your father acknowledged makes little sense to me, just as you are supposedly by the same vow your (fore-)father swore to a king. We know that kings demand oaths of fealties from their lords upon their coronation. Presumably it is also not unlikely that there can be other lavish ceremonies for the installation of a new Prince of Dragonstone. Say, Rhaegar got one such in his childhood. Surely Robert and Brandon are technically obliged to uphold that regardless whether they were actually present or forced to swear a vow during such an event if they fathers did so. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: The last point is particularly noteworthy in this case because there are no less than THREE cases supporting Aegon II's claim BESIDES tradition: The precedent of 92 AC, the precedent of the Great Council of 101 AC, and the fact that the ONLY precedent for female succession was Maegor making Aerea his heir, which considering who we're talking about here, is not a point in Rhaenyra's favor, especially since it was Jaehaerys who took the throne in the end. This is all meaningless legal talk in light of a new decree of King Viserys I. Just because things were done in the past in a different way doesn't mean they have done so forever. Just look how all the reasonable nations of the West have rid themselves on their monarchs. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Seriously, the idea that Viserys I could just introduce Dornish succession rules on a whim to satisfy his own desires is right in league with Aegon the Unworthy and Maegor the Cruel in terms of arbitrary abuse of the royal prerogative. It certainly isn't. Especially since he never formally introduced Dornish law to the Seven Kingdoms. He just picked his own heir after nearly his entire court pushed him in that direction. And apparently nobody cared or thought about the fact that such a decree should better entail limiting clauses for the case that the king should have a trueborn son in the future. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: The Iron Throne is NOT Dorne, it never was, and never has been. That Viserys thought he could change that willy-nilly was but one of the MANY mistakes he made in the process of setting up the Dance, which is why he is IMO one of the WORST kings to sit the Iron Throne. Certainly not. The succession war wasn't Viserys I's fault. The man was dead (although not yet cremated) when it began. The fault lies entirely with the people who fought it, not the people who died so that it could happen. Viserys I gave the Seven Kingdoms twenty-six years of peace and plenty, that in itself made him one of the most successful kings of the history of Westeros. The Dance could have been shorter or less bloody and could have ended sooner or dragged on much longer, nothing of that could be influenced by him. Dorne was also 'not Dorne' before they had introduced those new Rhoynish customs. How is it that Dorne can change but the rest of the Seven Kingdoms can't? Or do you think Dorne was somehow less dominated by Andals and First Men while they were the only people living there? 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Aegon II: At least he was willing to put his life on the line for his cause and actually developed slightly as a character, which is more than I can say for Rhaenyra. She developed, too, although I think the only thing Aegon II developed into was a drug addict so that he could learn that doing drugs was bad. The man we meet at the end of TPatQ seems to have been as vindictive as the guy we meet early on in the story. He is just more capable to control his emotions (and we don't know how worse he became after he was restored to the throne; one assumes there was more than just one reason why his own people might have been willing to poison him). Rhaenyra was protective of her children (and quite correct there, actually) not so much of her own person. She could not ride her dragon early on in the war, and later on actually rode to battle once. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Also, how can you seriously call the man a coward for escaping King's Landing? He was physically in no shape to fight, hell, he couldn't even stay awake for more than two hours due to his injuries, not to mention making a stand there would have been suicidal and thus stupid. That was point of my argument (I think) that Aegon II lost his royal status and his crown when he gave up his throne and fled his castle and his city. I do not fault him for fighting when defeat was effectively certain. But my take on this is that a crown is actually depended on you being seen as a king. Just because you say you are a king or you were once crowned doesn't mean you die a king. Stannis isn't a king, just a pretender. Tommen is king right now. Daenerys is a pretender to the Iron Throne, too, just as Viserys III was before her. In regards to the Dance I'd thus say that Aegon II was the crowned and anointed King of Westeros until he fled the city and went into hiding in 130 AC (although the actual ruling lay in the hands of the Prince Regent for quite some time before that). After he conquered Dragonstone one could see him as the Prince (or King) of Dragonstone (in the sense that he was ruling the island, not in the meaning of being an heir to the Iron Throne) and as the King of Westeros only again after his restoration to the Iron Throne (although he would have been a pretender from the moment he announced the fact that he was still alive and intended to return to his capital). Rhaenyra would have been a pretender to the Iron Throne after her own coronation on Dragonstone in 129 AC. She would have kept that status until she took KL and the Iron Throne in 130 AC, becoming the Queen Regnant of Westeros. Once she fled the city later that year she would also have lost/given up her status as queen, just Aegon II did before her. When she returned to Dragonstone in defeat she effectively no longer a queen. Just as Aenys I was no longer the king of the kingdoms his father had conquered when he gave up the Iron Throne and fled to Dragonstone. He might have died the King of Dragonstone but not the King of the Seven Kingdoms. 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: On Redgrass: The idea that it was nothing less than the deciding battle of the whole rebellion is simply ludicrous. The Blacks were within spitting distance of the capital on top of which the Hand, Lord Arryn, both of the king's martial sons, one of which included the crown prince, at least one Kingsguard, and Bloodraven were all present. As for Lord Tyrell, once again I say the Leo Longthorn Conspiracy. It is the only thing that fits given the information we have. I don't believe in that until we have good evidence for it. Not that there might not have been some underhanded support for Daemon among the Tyrells but we have to keep in mind that this might not really have been necessary for Daemon to gain a lot of support in the Reach. How strong was power of the Tyrells during the Targaryen reign? They were just up-jumped stewards and there were (and are) a lot of powerful lords in the Reach. A coalition of such lords could easily enough deliver Daemon a lot of men and effectively sideline House Tyrell. During the series the Tyrells are very much ingrained in the power structure in the Reach, with a lot of Tyrells having secured rather powerful matches in recent years. That might give them more power during the series than they ever had in the past (crucial elements there are, of course, Mace-Alerie Hightower and the two Tyrell-Redwyne marriages in the last two generations). 7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said: Anyway, if Daemon won there I don't see why he wouldn't be able to sit the throne as securely as Robert Baratheon. Lord Arryn would have been captured or killed, Lord Lannister was trapped in the Rock, the Starks as well as the Greyjoys stayed out and most likely wouldn't care, Baelor and/or Maekar could have been killed or captured, in which case he/they would have been held as hostages a la Daemon II, and as for retreating to Dorne this time it would have been divided thanks to the Yronwoods siding with the Blacks which means no Sunspear is NOT a safe option. Couple this with the fact that the Reds do not have anyone of Bittersteel's caliber to forge something like the Golden Company to keep their supporters united and their gaze fixed on Westeros things do NOT look good for them. There is a reason Robert Baratheon as a dynastic threat was compared to Daemon I Blackfyre, who GRRM described in an SSM as "the greatest of the Blackfyre Pretenders", which given that mere HOURS decided the final outcome makes complete sense. That is a possible optimistic scenario. We don't know where the Redgrass Field exactly was, not all the people you list have to be killed or captured, and King Daeron II himself (as well as his sons Aerys and Rhaegel in addition to some grandsons) could easily enough escape KL by ship. Assuming they have to flee and not still a strong garrison inside the city walls (which we don't know anything about, actually). The situation in Dorne might already have been settled in favor of the Targaryens and Martells which certainly could allow Daeron II to seek refuge with his brother-in-law Prince Maron and his sister Daenerys. And there they could regroup to eventually make an attempt to restore the Targaryens to the Iron Throne. Also keep in mind that Robert didn't win at the Trident. Tywin's betrayal brought the final victory of the rebels. Had the Lannisters stayed true to the Targaryens they could helped with the defense of the capital, first crushing Ned's vanguard, and then later dealing with Robert's main host. Even if Robert had kept the upper hand, they could have retreated inside the city keeping the enemy out with their strong garrison. IF the Tyrells had then decided to save the Targaryen dynasty and reap the subsequent rewards they could have abandoned the siege of Storm's End to crush Robert once and for all. That certainly would have been a possibility. And a similar reversal of fortune is also imaginable after a Targaryen defeat on the Redgrass Field. Oh, and by the way - Prince Baelor would have been even better than Bittersteel in exile, that's pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Storm Reborn Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 It's not that complicated to imagine, Daemon is the reduced version of Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer of Justice Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 it would change nothing....=) Except that the Lords Paramount in each region would be from other houses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilish Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 18/01/2016 at 2:10 AM, 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. 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 b- change his surname to a Targ b- have his first born marry the closest available female Targ to the throne c- have all remaining sons and daughters married off to Wardens & LPs sons and daughters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.