Jump to content

So Aerys was already pretty evil before Dukensdale?


Kaguya

Recommended Posts

Based on the timeline shown in his wiki page. It seems Aerys was already executing people and burning them as well as showing immense signs of paranoia (protecting Viscerys). Even if Dunkensdale never happened, is it safe to say He still would have Been just as bad as he was at the end, even if it might have taken a bit longer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He showed signs, but Duskendale was a clear turning point. Lots of kings have been brutal and done plenty of evil things without engaging in the sort of madness Aerys was infamous for. I think it's notable that Aerys' "evil" was all tied to either protecting his children or his rivalry with Tywin. 

A good way to put it is that Aerys was personally incompetent but ran an effective court up until Duskendale, but lost touch with reality completely afterwards. 

I'm not much for the "what if?" game, but I really doubt things would have played out similarly without Duskendale. Aerys' change in behavior - the symptomology of his madness - changed drastically. His paranoia became self-destructive, he became a pyromaniac/pyrophiliac, and he lost his ability to trust anyone in his court. All of these changes are directly related to Duskendale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say be careful of what you read on the Wiki. While many of the people who work on the Wiki are well intentioned, they have a point of view and they can't always see their biases. I think the entry on Aerys II will be the entry needing the most correction once we know the truth of Robert's Rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was pretty insane from the beginning. Always wanting attention and such. It just happens that Duskendale made him snap completely from reality.

I would say be careful of what you read on the Wiki. While many of the people who work on the Wiki are well intentioned, they have a point of view and they can't always see their biases. I think the entry on Aerys II will be the entry needing the most correction once we know the truth of Robert's Rebellion.

Or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Ravenstark said:

He was pretty insane from the beginning. Always wanting attention and such. It just happens that Duskendale made him snap completely from reality.

 

Or not.

So your choosing to ignore the fact that Barristan didn't seem to find any wrong with Aerys' behavior until after Duskendale. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that Barristan said he watched Aerys go mad, which implies that there was a time when Aerys was not mad. Like I said, sometimes people can't see past their own biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your choosing to ignore the fact that Barristan didn't seem to find any wrong with Aerys' behavior until after Duskendale. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that Barristan said he watched Aerys go mad, which implies that there was a time when Aerys was not mad. Like I said, sometimes people can't see past their own biases.

Agreed. It just happens you are also biased towards your own biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Ravenstark said:

Agreed. It just happens you are also biased towards your own biases.

I know that. That is why I use methods to help me see past them. Like looking for statements that contradict the statements made by Aerys' enemies. Like Barristan saying he watched Aerys go mad. That statement contradicts the idea that Aerys was always mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that. That is why I use methods to help me see past them. Like looking for statements that contradict the statements made by Aerys' enemies. Like Barristan saying he watched Aerys go mad. That statement contradicts the idea that Aerys was always mad.

Doesn't mean Barristan is right. He isn't the best judge of character. Almost everywhere when Aerys past is mentioned, it is mentioned he got worse with time, and Duskendale sped up it.

It seems for a point he was just a bit eccentric, weird but still tolerable. He had a good court, but he himself was just there for the show. But he got worse, that is known. As far as we know, Barristan was mentioning that, the point where Aerys stopped being a ineffectual and eccentric king and became a vicious chaotic tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Ravenstark said:

Doesn't mean Barristan is right. He isn't the best judge of character. Almost everywhere when Aerys past is mentioned, it is mentioned he got worse with time, and Duskendale sped up it.

It seems for a point he was just a bit eccentric, weird but still tolerable. He had a good court, but he himself was just there for the show. But he got worse, that is known. As far as we know, Barristan was mentioning that, the point where Aerys stopped being a ineffectual and eccentric king and became a vicious chaotic tyrant.

So says Aerys' worst enemies. Consider the source. Another good rule to follow. I won't believe most of what was said of Aerys pre-Duskendale until we find out the other side of the story. That is another way of helping someone see past their biases, waiting to hear the other side of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerys executed some people prior to Duskendale, but so what? Kings execute people all the way, what's the big deal?

There was one major incident involving the torturing and subsequent execution of one of Aerys' mistresses after the death of young Prince Jaehaerys, but unlike after Duskendale Aerys snapped out of that fit of madness, and later made amends for his mistakes. Apparently he also realized that, assuming the gods did not bless his marriage with children, he and his affairs were the cause for that, not Rhaella. And after he made his walk of repentance to the High Septon and swore a vow to stay true to his sister-wife, Viserys was born shortly thereafter.

Aerys only become really cruelly mad and obsessed with fire after Duskendale. And unlike the pathologically cruel Targaryens like, apparently, Maegor the Cruel, Prince Daemon, or Prince Aerion Aerys II was mostly a nice and pleasant. Yeah, he had a lot of mistresses and some weird ideas, but he wasn't running around burning people alive for pretty much no reason for the greater part of his life (and reign).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is that he was not "mad" before Duskendale, just merely cruel, selfish and barbaric. He was much like what Joffery was.

He was all powerful, with no real morals and no one to ever tell him no.

Before Duskendale it never occurred to him that anyone would ever dare to stand up to him, and even if they did he would smite them.

After Duskendale, he had learned that is was quite possible that people would stand up to them and he might not have the power to do anything about it, so he saw everyone as out to get him. the paranoia started then.

When you add paranoia to his other faults, now you have a person who actively seeks out people to destroy because he thinks they are out to destroy him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, King Viserys Targaryen IV said:

My feeling is that he was not "mad" before Duskendale, just merely cruel, selfish and barbaric. He was much like what Joffery was.

He was all powerful, with no real morals and no one to ever tell him no.

Before Duskendale it never occurred to him that anyone would ever dare to stand up to him, and even if they did he would smite them.

There is actually little evidence for that. Aerys was neither cruel nor particularly selfish or barbaric. He had weird notions, a lot of mistresses, and he wasn't particularly nice to his sister-wife at some point, but that's not making him a spectacular bad person - especially not in a society like Westeros.

Most importantly, we have actually Yandel tell us that his sentences grew gradually worse overtime - suggesting that Aerys may have actually have been a rather lenient and merciful king up until the time around Duskendale (when he bothered to sit in judgment himself).

Somehow I don't think that Tywin was a very just and/or popular judge when he sat in judgment in Aerys' place. You know, because Tywin never was a nice guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Duskendale he seemed more like Aegon the Unworthy.  Not mad - just selfish, arrogant and enjoyed using the power he had for inconsequential things.  Hell, in some respects he was *slightly* better than Aegon!  At least he *had* some ideas for his kingdom, even if they were weird and difficult (if not impossible) to put into practice. 

8 hours ago, Lord Ravenstark said:

Doesn't mean Barristan is right. He isn't the best judge of character. Almost everywhere when Aerys past is mentioned, it is mentioned he got worse with time, and Duskendale sped up it.

It seems for a point he was just a bit eccentric, weird but still tolerable. He had a good court, but he himself was just there for the show. But he got worse, that is known. As far as we know, Barristan was mentioning that, the point where Aerys stopped being a ineffectual and eccentric king and became a vicious chaotic tyrant.

That point that he stopped being ineffectual and became vicious was Duskendale.  Before Duskendale he had no reason to *be* particularly vicious because he was "all powerful" (it works better if you read it like a narrator in a comic!) and during Duskendale he realizes he's not *actually* all-powerful, and after Duskendale he become vicious, paranoid and acts out against any and every one who *he* thinks is going to take power away from him (real power, imagined power, whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

Before Duskendale he seemed more like Aegon the Unworthy.  Not mad - just selfish, arrogant and enjoyed using the power he had for inconsequential things.  Hell, in some respects he was *slightly* better than Aegon!  At least he *had* some ideas for his kingdom, even if they were weird and difficult (if not impossible) to put into practice. 

That is not really the picture Yandel paints.

We learn that Aegon the Unworthy was a who practiced willful misrule. He deliberately and consciously ruled badly, most likely because it gave him a kick to treat people badly and see how they blamed each other for it (and, of course, because he didn't give a damn about his people nor his courtiers and 'friends' as long as he got what he wanted). After all, the man seemed to have been very capable deflect anger away from him - none of the Blackfyre partisans citing his favors shown to Daemon Blackfyre ever seemed to ask themselves what the king's ulterior motives behind those acts of fatherly love and kindness might have been...

Aerys II doesn't show such tendencies at all. Yeah, Aerys had many mistresses in his youth, but that doesn't make him remotely like Aegon the Unworthy. Young Aerys apparently was just a lively and lustful youth whose personality traits made him very receptive to flatteries and favor-seekers, and who therefore early on became convinced that he was a much greater and much more competent guy than he actually was.

Those are the dangers of a princely life, really. If you are raised as the second in line to the throne everybody is going to laugh about your jokes, do whatever the hell you want, and give you the impression that you, and you alone, are the center of the universe (for comparison, just reread Sansa's lickspittle attitude towards Joffrey in her first chapter). Not to mention that Aerys was the only son of his parents, who therefore most likely doted on him very much. Even Aegon V may have doted on his only grandson - grandfathers usually want to be nice grandfathers when they are grandfathers, even if they treated their own children quite differently.

In addition, we should not praise Tywin too much for Aerys' quiet and stable reign. Apparently the stabs and jokes on Tywin's expense began much earlier than previously expected. But the King and the Hand cannot have a working relationship if the King commands one thing and the Hand another. If Aerys and Tywin had been at odds as often as some of the examples Yandel gives us suggest, then the government would effectively have been crippled, and Aerys would have been forced to replace Tywin much sooner than he actually did. The fact that this didn't happen seems to suggest that they still got along most of the time and Aerys is never described as an absent king on the same scale as Robert. Aerys seems to have attended his council meetings, and actually done quite a lot of ruling himself (Ned is actually pretty shocked by the fact that Robert doesn't show up at council so this seems to be a very uncommon practice for a King of Westeros).

Tywin could only have been a really great Hand as long as Aerys allowed to rule the Realm. But to what extent he actually did that, what great decisions were Tywin's and what they made together isn't clear at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not really the picture Yandel paints.

We learn that Aegon the Unworthy was a who practiced willful misrule. He deliberately and consciously ruled badly, most likely because it gave him a kick to treat people badly and see how they blamed each other for it (and, of course, because he didn't give a damn about his people nor his courtiers and 'friends' as long as he got what he wanted). After all, the man seemed to have been very capable deflect anger away from him - none of the Blackfyre partisans citing his favors shown to Daemon Blackfyre ever seemed to ask themselves what the king's ulterior motives behind those acts of fatherly love and kindness might have been...

Aerys II doesn't show such tendencies at all. Yeah, Aerys had many mistresses in his youth, but that doesn't make him remotely like Aegon the Unworthy. Young Aerys apparently was just a lively and lustful youth whose personality traits made him very receptive to flatteries and favor-seekers, and who therefore early on became convinced that he was a much greater and much more competent guy than he actually was.

Those are the dangers of a princely life, really. If you are raised as the second in line to the throne everybody is going to laugh about your jokes, do whatever the hell you want, and give you the impression that you, and you alone, are the center of the universe (for comparison, just reread Sansa's lickspittle attitude towards Joffrey in her first chapter). Not to mention that Aerys was the only son of his parents, who therefore most likely doted on him very much. Even Aegon V may have doted on his only grandson - grandfathers usually want to be nice grandfathers when they are grandfathers, even if they treated their own children quite differently.

In addition, we should not praise Tywin too much for Aerys' quiet and stable reign. Apparently the stabs and jokes on Tywin's expense began much earlier than previously expected. But the King and the Hand cannot have a working relationship if the King commands one thing and the Hand another. If Aerys and Tywin had been at odds as often as some of the examples Yandel gives us suggest, then the government would effectively have been crippled, and Aerys would have been forced to replace Tywin much sooner than he actually did. The fact that this didn't happen seems to suggest that they still got along most of the time and Aerys is never described as an absent king on the same scale as Robert. Aerys seems to have attended his council meetings, and actually done quite a lot of ruling himself (Ned is actually pretty shocked by the fact that Robert doesn't show up at council so this seems to be a very uncommon practice for a King of Westeros).

Tywin could only have been a really great Hand as long as Aerys allowed to rule the Realm. But to what extent he actually did that, what great decisions were Tywin's and what they made together isn't clear at all.

I was thinking more a "sliding scale model" of bad kings - Aegon the Unworthy on one side (deliberately an asshat) to Aerys II at his worse (there's a reason he's the "Mad King") and figured early-Aerys was closer on the scale to Aegon than the "Mad King" he'd become.  The only reason Aerys is sometimes considered "worse" than Aegon the Unworthy is because of the madness later in life.  Before he went mad he was certainly more effective than Aegon the Unworthy - but that's not all that difficult.  Even before his madness, I never got the impression he'd ever end up on the "good kings" list.  Might have moved into the "who?" list of kings had he not gone mad.  But even before his madness, he had it in him to be a "bad" king, too.  Maybe not as "Unworthy" as Aegon, but certainly no Old King Jaehaerys.

I still stand by this as my opinion:

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Before Duskendale he seemed more like Aegon the Unworthy.  Not mad - just selfish, arrogant and enjoyed using the power he had for inconsequential things.

It's not a perfect comparison - but on my personal "sliding scale" early-Aerys is still closer to Aegon than the man he would become after Duskendale.  He *was* selfish, he *was* arrogant, and he did like using his power whenever he could.  Was he the same "type" of selfish as Aegon - no.  Was he arrogant about the same things as Aegon - no.  Did he use his kingly power for the same things Aegon did - no.  But Aerys was still all of these things, even if he had better handlers and listened to them better.  Yandel paints a picture of a selfish, arrogant, powerful man who was never going to be a "good" king.  But he wasn't a "mad" king from the get-go, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

stuff

But wasn't Aerys a good king in any meaningful sense of the word (until the outbreak of the war, of course). A good king gives his people peace, prosperity, and stability. Aerys did all that. Whether he personally was a nice guy to the people around him or whether he personally made the good decision is actually irrelevant.

Just compare him to Aerys I in that regard. The man very seldom participated in his own government, he let his uncle do the ruling thing. But Aerys I was still king, and therefore as good or bad as Bloodraven made him look like. It is really the same with Aerys II.

The picture of a king isn't painted by his private life or what he says or does behind close doors. It is his public image that counts, and that's actually shaped completely by propaganda.

Aerys II sucked in the end at that but if we compare his reign prior to Duskendale to those of all his predecessors he might actually come off as a better king than, say, his own father (considered to be weak), Aegon V (whose reign was troubled and full of rebellions), Baelor I (a religious nutcase with weird ideas that were actually implemented more often than not), Aerys I (two Blackfyre Rebellions), Aenys I (multiple rebellions), and perhaps even Daeron I (stupid war that cost lots or lives and led to nothing).

As long as king's private lust for power and domination don't affect the state affairs they should not actually hurt his public image. And, in fact, that was also the case with the Unworthy. Only the people stupid enough to hang out with him became his victims. But thus are the risks of court life. You don't have to try to win the favor of the king, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got my Targ Kings sorted a bit differently in my head then you, is all.  In my opinion the "good" Kings are ones like Jaehaerys I.  He himself takes a highly active role in ruling and he chooses a highly effective Hand to help him.  Then you've got the "who?" list, which includes someone like Aerys I, who sits back and lets his Hand do all the work.  Then you've got the "bad" Kings, like Aegon the Unworthy, who didn't even bother to find a half-decent Hand.  In my personal categorization system, before madness Aerys II looked to join his namesake in my "who?" category.  After Duskendale...burning people alive with wildfire definitely gets him into my "bad" category with very little effort!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that he was always a self-centered asshole, pretty dumb, insecure, narcissistic.  The best we hear of him in the main text from Barristan is "he could be charming when he wished" which is very faint praise indeed.  Yes, he does say he watched him go mad but that doesn't mean he wasn't already a jerk when he started to go mad.

I think the main thing that Duskendale did was to cause Aerys to no longer care what people thought of his actions.  His insecurity (which was earlier directed at Tywin, the Dornish, and his wife and Son primarily) turned to widespread paranoia. His Fascination with fire and sadism turned to burning people alive for increasingly minor offenses.  

I'm still not totally convinced Aerys was "mad", beyond being paranoid, sadistic, and sociopathic, with completely unrestricted power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I'm still not totally convinced Aerys was "mad", beyond being paranoid, sadistic, and sociopathic, with completely unrestricted power.  

:lol: I hope I never learn what your definition of madness is.

But I think you're right that Aerys was just a jerk regardless. In the books sometimes it seems like people almost use his madness as an excuse for his behavior, but I'm of the opinion that he probably would've been spoiled and entitled no matter what.

I do, however, think that the madness was a factor and, to an extent, I think it affected his judgement, temperament, and emotional maturity.

I used to know a neuroscientist who said that being predisposed to mental illness is like owning a lemon (a bad car, not the fruit). You might drive it forever without anything going seriously wrong, as long as you don't encounter any problems on the road. However, if one day you end up driving over some bumpy road, you might start to notice serious problems with your car. The human brain is kind of like that. You might be genetically predisposed to depression, for example, and never develop it. But some kind of mental and emotional trauma might be the thing that sets you off. 

Aerys was definitely cruel and paranoid before his kidnapping and I think he'd already started to go a bit mad, but Duskendale was his bumpy road and it made everything 100x worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...