The Great Kings

[Guest jasonothegreat]

On 4/24/2016 at 10:35 AM, Criston of House Shapper said:

They were siblings, as shown in the family tree at the end of the book. So, Daeron the Good was okay, despite being born of incest. And I don't know what was so bad about Aenys, he was just kind of passive and weak, but not mad or anything like that.

Aenys definitely suffered from some sort of social anxiety disorder. He wasn't mad but his reign wasn't a good one with the first few faith militant uprisings and general unrest of the reason. Admittedly not as bad as his brother Maegor but his reign was troublesome with him being the root cause of a lot of it.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, jasonothegreat said:

Aenys definitely suffered from some sort of social anxiety disorder. He wasn't mad but his reign wasn't a good one with the first few faith militant uprisings and general unrest of the reason. Admittedly not as bad as his brother Maegor but his reign was troublesome with him being the root cause of a lot of it.

The problem with Aenys was that he was ill-equipped directly ruling the Seven Kingdoms when they had not yet fully/wholeheartedly accepted the Targaryen rule. Rebellions had to happen at this point because Aenys I was just the second King on the Iron Throne and his father didn't pacify the Realm as thoroughly as he should have. It wasn't even clear yet who the biggest fish in the pond was - the High Septon or the Targaryen king. The Conqueror failed to resolve that sweltering conflict and made it clear that the Iron Throne was the ultimate authority in Westeros.

If you check some of the later kings - Aegon IV, Aerys I, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Robert Baratheon - then there were many who weren't exactly ideally equipped to rule over a kingdom but things often worked pretty well anyway because there were good Hands and a great bureaucracy. 

But back in Aenys' days the king had to make all the decisions and lead his armies personally into battle. Hell, the kings from the Conqueror to Jaehaerys I even had to show their faces constantly in all the corners of the Realm to keep their domains under control.

Aenys' main problem was that he wanted to be loved and not hurt anyone. In a peace-and-plenty time like the later reign of Viserys I that wouldn't have been much of a problem.

Of course, Aenys I failed to take an aggressive approach against the Faith as soon as the uprising began, but the Targaryens would have faced that eventually anyway unless they had intended to abandon the incest custom (which they clearly did not). Even Aenys I didn't give in to the High Septon and annulled the marriage of Aegon and Rhaena after it was made (which he certainly could have done).

The blame for the Faith Militant Uprising should be laid before the Conqueror not so much his sons. If Aegon I had daughters there would have been brother-sister marriages throughout his reign, and Aegon and Visenya would have gotten the heat Aenys I later got. It was just an accident of history that Aegon only had two sons and Aenys was later on blessed with sons and daughters.

Aegon I only gave in to the High Septon when the Maegor-Rhaena marriage was suggested, but that would actually potentially have complicated the succession not to mention that it would have been a marriage in which children could only have been expected in 13-14 years considering that Maegor was thirteen and Rhaena a newborn babe when this marriage was suggested by Visenya.

[Guest jasonothegreat]

On 4/27/2016 at 4:21 AM, Lord Varys said:

The problem with Aenys was that he was ill-equipped directly ruling the Seven Kingdoms when they had not yet fully/wholeheartedly accepted the Targaryen rule. Rebellions had to happen at this point because Aenys I was just the second King on the Iron Throne and his father didn't pacify the Realm as thoroughly as he should have. It wasn't even clear yet who the biggest fish in the pond was - the High Septon or the Targaryen king. The Conqueror failed to resolve that sweltering conflict and made it clear that the Iron Throne was the ultimate authority in Westeros.

If you check some of the later kings - Aegon IV, Aerys I, Jaehaerys II, Aerys II, Robert Baratheon - then there were many who weren't exactly ideally equipped to rule over a kingdom but things often worked pretty well anyway because there were good Hands and a great bureaucracy. 

....

Aenys' main problem was that he wanted to be loved and not hurt anyone. In a peace-and-plenty time like the later reign of Viserys I that wouldn't have been much of a problem.

.....

The blame for the Faith Militant Uprising should be laid before the Conqueror not so much his sons. If Aegon I had daughters there would have been brother-sister marriages throughout his reign, and Aegon and Visenya would have gotten the heat Aenys I later got. It was just an accident of history that Aegon only had two sons and Aenys was later on blessed with sons and daughters.

.....

Yes, this is all true but at the same time we can't deny obvious symptoms of Social Anxiety disorder, He attempted to call a great council to decide how to quell a rebellion simply because he didn't want to upset a single lord. Along with a part of his description as a character is "But Aenys hungered too much for approval, and hesitated over decisions for fear of disappointing one side or another" Something common with people who suffer anxiety disorders. While I completely agree the problems with the faith stem from Aegon's own arrogance and his inability to standardize the laws of the realm while showing who the true power was (Only established truly in the reign of Jaehaerys I), Aenys was still a bad king, true not in the best of situations, if he lived in another time he could have been much better off but as we see with cases like Aenys, Jaehaerys II and Aerys II is that the King doesn't get to choose the time he ruled, he ruled in a difficult time in a difficult position and he couldn't do it, he failed, simple as that. So to deny Aenys I's inability to rule as reasoning to identify him as one of the poorer rulers (Especially when compared to the likes of Jaehaerys I, Viserys II, Daeron II etc.) is fruitless, Westeros had many great Kings and Aenys isn't one of them

[Lord Varys]

@jasonothegreat

I would agree that Aenys I was a bad king, of course. But unlike the truly bad ones - like Maegor I, Aegon II, Aegon IV, or Robert Baratheon - he wasn't intentionally bad. Maegor as a cruel (and apparently eventually mad) sadist, Aegon IV only thought about his pleasures and playing with people, and Robert Baratheon just didn't care - he knew things were bad at his court but he didn't care enough to take charge. Aerys I also didn't give a damn about the kingship but he had the sense to appoint a capable Hand to rule in his stead while Aerys II's reign only went bad then the king actually suffered from more and more mental issues.

I'd put Aenys I in the category who tried to be good kings and failed and thus differentiate him from those who didn't give a damn and were outright evil/cruel.

And if you compare him to Maegor Aenys I actually had at least a few positive traits - he was charming and could make friends. Maegor had none of that at all. The man seems to have been the worst possible candidate for the kingship because all he was only good at killing people. He didn't have any charisma, couldn't make any friends, and didn't inspire any loyalty in people.

Fear seems to have the only thing that kept on the throne, and while I'd agree that a hard approach against the Faith Militant was necessary a man who could also win the hearts of his people would have been able to end that war much more quickly and would also never have ended the way Maegor did.

[Lemon of Lemonwood]

On 29/4/2016 at 0:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

I'd put Aenys I in the category who tried to be good kings and failed and thus differentiate him from those who didn't give a damn and were outright evil/cruel.

The only later king comparable to him is probably Jaehaerys II, a man with doth drawbacks and virtues who tried ,but didn't have all the spine/rhobustness demanded for his times. I think that Jaehaerys was kucky that the major enemy in his reign was someone from outside the realm against whom his vassals could unite rather than the religious authority of the majority of the population.

In general,the Targaryen kings are prone to the extremes, either too commited to the realm or too cruel, crazy, megalomaniac or irresponsible to qualify for royal fools.

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, Lemon of Lemonwood said:

The only later king comparable to him is probably Jaehaerys II, a man with doth drawbacks and virtues who tried ,but didn't have all the spine/rhobustness demanded for his times. I think that Jaehaerys was kucky that the major enemy in his reign was someone from outside the realm against whom his vassals could unite rather than the religious authority of the majority of the population.

In general,the Targaryen kings are prone to the extremes, either too commited to the realm or too cruel, crazy, megalomaniac or irresponsible to qualify for royal fools.

Jaehaerys II seems to have been different from Aenys I in the sense that he actually had severe health issues which made him appear (physically) weak whereas Aenys I was actually only sickly as a child. He was never as impressive a warrior like Maegor, mind you, but he was decent warrior and did not lack for courage.

Jaehaerys II clearly was no warrior at all, but he didn't lack for courage, either. He wanted to lead the army against the Ninepenny Kings, after all. Aside from that, he did not face any challenges and just suddenly died. I see no reason to believe he would have been a bad king had he ruled longer.

[Lemon of Lemonwood]

On 6/5/2016 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys II seems to have been different from Aenys I in the sense that he actually had severe health issues which made him appear (physically) weak whereas Aenys I was actually only sickly as a child. He was never as impressive a warrior like Maegor, mind you, but he was decent warrior and did not lack for courage.

Jaehaerys II clearly was no warrior at all, but he didn't lack for courage, either. He wanted to lead the army against the Ninepenny Kings, after all. Aside from that, he did not face any challenges and just suddenly died. I see no reason to believe he would have been a bad king had he ruled longer.

Maybe I did not express myself that well.

I presonally don't see Aenys I as a bad king, more as the wrong king for his times. Or, to be more exact, I don't think that Jaehaerys II would fare that better in the same situation.That being said, I mean not to dismiss his great courage or to oversee the difficulties possed by his ill health as minor, far from it.

My main point is that in extreme times like the Faith Revolt  martial men are needed, and neither Aenys I nor Jaehaerys II were that type of kings. The War of the Ninepenny Kings was by no means as threatening. The Targaryen dynasty, while not at the peak of its popularity was established as the rightful royal dynasty for the majority of the populace, the realm was in relative peace and Jaehaerys had capable and faithful men around him. My hunch is Aenys I would have performed just as well or even better, since he could actually be in the battlefield, in a similar situation.

[Lord Varys]

@Lemon of Lemonwood

I pretty much agree with you there.

I could perhaps add that Jaehaerys II may have been a less martial man than Aenys I (who wasn't lacking courage nor was he a complete failure - he was adequate enough to not shame himself) but actually was a more decisive man.

Nobody seems to have expected Aenys I to slay men left and right - the problem was that he was incapable of making firm decisions or act decisively when facing problems/opposition. Had Aenys I publicly shown that he wasn't taking any shit - perhaps by flying on Quicksilver to Harrenhal and shower Harren the Red with dragonflame - then people would have thought twice before rebelling again. 

Jaehaerys II wasn't that kind of guy at all. He could make firm decisions and stand his ground in the face of opposition pretty well, actually.

People in Aenys I still expected personal leadership and directions from their king to a much higher degree than later on in the history of the Targaryens reign. Aerys I spent his reign mostly in his study and let Bloodraven rule in his name, but this kind of arrangement wouldn't have worked in Aenys' days because the personal loyalty/relationship between a king and his vassal was much more crucial at this stage.

Aerys I and Jaehaerys II could confidently allow their Hands to put down rebellions in their name.

[Vashon]

On 4/17/2016 at 3:43 PM, jasonothegreat said:

I know you're joking and all but I feel a need to reply by saying, He has literally comitted every crime GRR Martin has ever said was unforgivable... EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Yes and GRRM also wrote a cat loving vegan as a protagonist once. Well written story but annoying here and there.