Brynden Rivers

[The Grey Wolf]

Warning: Really long post ahead.

5 hours ago, The Prince of Magpies said:

Text

As to your first point I agree. What I meant was if Aegon IV's promise was genuine in the sense that it wasn't made in private where others couldn't hear and the language wasn't vague then Daeron II was cherry-picking.

As to your second point I agree as well. Bittersteel was pragmatic (and IMO) honorable so he would have seen that crowning himself was a dead road. What I meant was that if he was so power-hungry as some argue I don't think he would have had any quibbles doing what Renly did and Bittersteel certainly had the intelligence, motivation, and charisma to pull it off (not as much charisma as Daemon naturally but you do NOT turn a rout in the middle of a battle with the enemy in front of you and behind you into a charge without a hell of a lot of it).

19 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Text

What I meant is that the possibility exists and I personally find the argument "they were too pious" to ring hollow when looking at the Arthurian parallels in Naerys/Aemon. As for proof well the way I see it Aegon IV could have had suspicions but never could find evidence and thus didn't want to risk losing his head in a civil war should he actually execute Naerys and disinherit Daeron but your opinion (and that of TWOIAF) is just as valid. As for when the rumors started, if you look at it from the perspective that the rumors were true (not saying you should of course), then one can make the argument (however baseless) that Aegon IV waited until Naerys and Aemon were dead so that he wouldn't have to fear them retaliating against him and TWOIAF does at least mention that he didn't have the guts to do this while Aemon was alive so.

As for honor yes that's why I meant. Bittersteel doesn't go back on his word, stays loyal to his cause, and unlike Bloodraven, never does anything personally damning like promising safe conduct and then killing the person you promised it to.

As for noble in a generations-long war there are good and bad people on all sides and all wars have legitimate and illegitimate reasons for being waged is what I meant, particularly in feudal times where the political and the personal intersect, Alicent Hightower included. To use her for example if I was a Westerosi queen and my husband tried to pass over my trueborn sons in favor of a daughter from a previous marriage when no king in the history of Westeros had done that (so far as we know), doing so went against tradition, and my husband had been elected because he was from the royal family's male line, I would have done the same as her probably for my children's rights.  This doesn't mean however that everyone has legitimate grievances. Cersei has for instance but she doesn't nonetheless have the right to sabotage the line of succession and most certainly Tywin of all people doesn't except in his mind, which as far as I'm concerned means he can go get f****.

AS for the GC. How do you know they don't know Aegon isn't real? Considering how close Illyrio is to them I'd be willing to wager the possibility they are in on the whole "perfect prince" thing from the beginning or at least have some inkling to say the least that he really is a Blackfyre, hence why they support him on the spot. Not to mention the GC is so tied to the Blackfyres the idea that they so easily support a Targaryen should raise some alarm bells. I mean Viserys once met with them and they laughed him away even though on paper he is a much better candidate to support than Aegon. His legitimacy is undeniable, he was declared his father's heir before he died, crowned by his mother (might be misremembering on this), he has a sister whose hand he can offer in marriage, and he is probably a lot more controllable than headstrong Aegon will prove in TWOW.

I can agree that nourishing the desire for the throne in the generations after Daemon may seem awful but I find it understandable in a setting like Westeros where war isn't looked at in terms of the people it hurts (ppor smallfolk) but rather in terms of "who owns what and why" and honestly if Bittersteel had succeeded people in-setting would be praising his tenacity and refusal to give up his good-brothers' birthrights so a part of it is presentist since we know he won't win whereas he doesn't. As for the exile thing what did you expect Bittersteel to do in the aftermath of Redgrass Field? Trust that Bloodraven or one of his men would have shown mercy to Rohanne and her children? Because I personally don't think they would have been given the chance to talk to Baelor, Maekar, Daeron, or someone who would be interested in sparing them. At least that's something I think Bittersteel and Rohanne might have thought because there was no way he could take the kids without their mother's agreement. Furthermore, the Targaryens themselves also contributed to the continuation of the war. Murdering Haegon and Aenys in the aftermath of the TBR most certainly made the Blackfyres even more determined, directly contributing to at least the Fourth.

Bittersteel and Fireball may have been urging him but nonetheless the decision to follow their advice and therefore start the war remains on him. Bittersteel deserves some portion of the blame I don't deny but Daemon deserves the lion's share IMO. On that note, do you find any of the Blackfyre grievances I posited (the lopsided treaty and patronage, justice for Daeron I and his 60000 men, and Daeron's possible cherry-picking of his father's will) unreasonable? I'm asking because I find all those things worth fighting for and want your opinion.

As for the NW Bittersteel didn't become a formal member of the NW and we don't even know if he agreed to or if Aerys I simply said "send him to the Wall" despite Bittersteel staying silent or verbally protesting say in favor of death in which case he wouldn't be bound to follow through with Aerys I's command because the choice was not made by him and had been forced upon him, which defeats the point of oaths and vows, which are supposed to be voluntary. Even in the case of Bloodraven he was given a choice, the Wall or lose his head.

The reason Daemon didn't work with Daeron is the tragic part because the two of them together would have been extraordinary (and make Aegon IV turn in his grave for good measure) but IMO one simply couldn't understand the perspective of the other and according to an SSM by the time of the FBR they'd already had a few clashes on a number of issues so its clear that they tried but just weren't successful and that's easy to see why. Daemon's party was made up in large parts by the pro-war faction that had fought under Daeron I and Aegon IV but Daeron II never understood the Conquest of Dorne the way these men who'd fought in it did because he was too young to understand or even remember the reign of Daeron I and when he was old enough to start figuring stuff out who's on the throne Baelor I, who makes this grand gesture of peace that is likely the defining moment of Daeron's childhood. Add to that that the next belligerent king to Dorne is his father who he doesn't get along with at all, and you can see why Daeron and Daemon didn't work out. They were approaching all the issues from completely opposite sides.

As for Daemon II that's all speculation. As I've said it could all be true or not. We don't know anything about the nature of Haegon or Daemon III to compare Daemon II to. For all we know one of them could be homosexual as well. And again I point out that the Second Blackfyre Rebellion took place a year before the Golden Company was founded. That cannot be a coincidence and to me that clearly shows that the one biggest reason why Bittersteel was a no-show in 211 AC was that he was busy building the Golden Company to be the bulwark of House Blackfyre. He didn't support Daemon II because he actually busy building the military to support him so to speak.

Feel free to disagree with some or all these points naturally.

[Land's End]

Quote

I respect other peoples' opinions and their right to differ so if my post seemed to imply to you that I think Bloodraven fans are "stupid, shallow fan-girls" I apologize.

I appreciate that.

On 5.10.2016 at 10:13 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

5. I agree neither he nor Bittersteel are black and white and both are interesting characters in their own way. I'm just more inclined to Bittersteel because he seems in my mind more honorable as well as a better leader and administrator. Feel free to disagree.

I do not disagree. Bittersteel is definitely more honorable if you apply a classic, stoic version of honor.

Quote

1. I think it is pretty clear from the information in D & E that Bloodraven did establish something of a police state that was definitely hated by the people and made the monarchy look awful in the process. TWOIAF compares him to Mysaria and mentions people becoming afraid to speak their mind for fear that their neighbors might be in his employ, not to mention he restricted access to the king. Furthermore, we have people like Ser Kyle the Cat openly saying there are many who would prefer Bittersteel to Bloodraven. Sure, Bloodraven was blamed for things he didn't do but his actions directly caused more damage to the crown's image due to his all-consuming feud with the Blackfyres at the expense of almost everything else (Dagon Greyjoy anyone?). Plus, how people perceive is more often than not more important than what the truth actually is practically speaking.

Here I disagree, I got a different impression from D&E. To me it sounded like those were troubled times in general. Natural disasters, epidemics and a seething rebellion on top. Such times create an atmosphere of distrust. The Sworn Sword and especially A Mystery Knight have some sort of masquerade theme going on. In this toxic atmosphere a guy who is deemed a kinslayer raises to power. He's an albino with a birthmark and is missing an eye. Obviously people are going to blame him for the atmosphere of distrust even though he might just be trying to make things better. He looks like a sorcerer. He’s the perfect scape goat.
The whole situation reminds me of Tyrion as Joffrey's Hand in King's Landing. A clever, ugly bastard/dwarf trying to reestablish order and getting cursed for it.

I’m not saying my current interpretation is correct, only that we don’t know for sure. Even if it is true it does’t make the despicable acts commited by Blood Raven right.

Thinking about it, I wonder if Bloodraven is Martin's version of Robespierre.

"It is not violent fulminations that characterise Robespierre's speeches on the Terror. It is the language of unmasking, unveiling, revealing, discovering, exposing the enemy within, the enemy hidden behind patriotic posturings, the language of suspicion." Doyle argues that Robespierre was never a dictator nor meant to become one, but that his own paranoia, in the face of plots and assassination attempts, drove him into mortal conflict with his political opponents in the Revolution. Robespierre saw no room for mercy in his Terror, stating that "slowness of judgments is equal to impunity" and "uncertainty of punishment encourages all the guilty".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre

Quote

4. Bloodraven is only trying to "save the realm" now, after he has been in the NW and has learned about the second coming of the Others. Before that all he cared about was keeping the Targaryens on the Iron Throne no matter the cost.

What do you think are his reasons for being such a strong Targ loyalist? Almost everyone in AWoIaF is sworn to some house, therefore Bloodraven isn't worse for supporting the Targs than Bittersteel for supporting the Blackfyre Rebellion.

„Saving the realm" was a corny expression, I admit. What I meant is that - in my opinion - he's not acting out of pure egoism but is rather trying to serve. Whether he's serving the right side is another question. I actually prefer Daemon over Daeron but with Bittersteel and Bloodraven it's the other way round.

Again, my understanding of Bloodraven's motives isn't necessarily true but the fact that both characters - Bittersteel and Bloodraven - leave so much room for interpretation is what makes them interesting.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

On 2016-10-05 at 1:03 AM, The Grey Wolf said:

Honestly, I don't get all the love for Bloodraven. In my opinion he wasn't very good at all.

One, he established a police state in Westeros that made the monarchy widely and highly unpopular, giving the Blackfyres fertile ground to find local support in no less than two rebellions in under twelve years, with the second (Third chronologically) being, by all indications, a genuine threat to the Targaryen dynasty much like the First.

Two, he damaged the image of the monarchy even further by abandoning the west coast to the deprivations of the Ironborn and yet he wasn't even able to stop Bittersteel from invading when he did land nor was he able to prevent Daemon II from crossing the Narrow Sea beforehand in secret, thus making his keeping the royal fleet stationed in the capital a moot point.

Three, the guy was highly unscrupulous. Seriously, look at what he did to Aenys, offering safe conduct and then breaking his word, making the Iron Throne's own word look worthless in process, and all to kill a random Blackfyre who it isn't even certain would have won the Great Council if he had been allowed to present his case while simultaneously neutralizing himself as a threat to the Blackfyres by getting himself sent to the Wall. On top of that if he had something to do with Haegon's murder, like the person who did the deed being in his employ, that makes him even worse.

Honestly, I feel like the reason people like him is because he was on the winning side, practices magic, and is a Blackwood. Personally, give me Bittersteel any day over Bloodraven. The man was clearly more honorable, not to mention charismatic, loyal to his cause, driven, and possessed of a keen, forward-thinking mind. Seriously, the Golden Company is a military revolution that somehow hasn't caught on yet, mixing combined arms doctrine with a meritocratic and efficient chain of command that, thanks to not being celibate like the NW, is able to maintain its numbers, its identity, and its unity of purpose over the generations following its founding. Plus, if anyone had the right to be pissed off all their life, it was Bittersteel.

That's my two cents.

I don't think you can blame Brynden to much for causing Blackfyre supporters,

He didn't abandon the west coast but he did delay his attack on them because he was worried about bittersteel It is stated that Dagon Greyjoy was unstoppable beating the shit out of both Lannisters and Starks but then the Dragons came (Brynden Rivers) and raped him.

We don't know anything about the third blackfyre rebelion to make any statements about it.

What he did to Aenys Blackfyre was unhonourable but having fought them for a long time he knew what a threat he was to the Targaryens and did what he demed neccisary and i can't blame him for that.

All bittersteel was was to get raped in everysingle war he ever was in.

[Duranaparthur]

5 minutes ago, Land's End said:

I appreciate that.

I do not disagree. Bittersteel is definitely more honorable if you apply a classic, stoic version of honor.

Here I disagree, I got a different impression from D&E. To me it sounded like those were troubled times in general. Natural disasters, epidemics and a seething rebellion on top. Such times create an atmosphere of distrust. The Sworn Sword and especially A Mystery Knight have some sort of masquerade theme going on. In this toxic atmosphere a guy who is deemed a kinslayer raises to power. He's an albino with a birthmark and is missing an eye. Obviously people are going to blame him for the atmosphere of distrust even though he might just be trying to make things better. He looks like a sorcerer. He’s the perfect scape goat.
The whole situation reminds me of Tyrion as Joffrey's Hand in King's Landing. A clever, ugly bastard/dwarf trying to reestablish order and getting cursed for it.

I’m not saying my current interpretation is correct, only that we don’t know for sure. Even if it is true it does’t make the despicable acts of Blood Raven right.

Thinking about it, I wonder if Bloodraven is Martin's version of Robespierre.

"It is not violent fulminations that characterise Robespierre's speeches on the Terror. It is the language of unmasking, unveiling, revealing, discovering, exposing the enemy within, the enemy hidden behind patriotic posturings, the language of suspicion." Doyle argues that Robespierre was never a dictator nor meant to become one, but that his own paranoia, in the face of plots and assassination attempts, drove him into mortal conflict with his political opponents in the Revolution. Robespierre saw no room for mercy in his Terror, stating that "slowness of judgments is equal to impunity" and "uncertainty of punishment encourages all the guilty".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre

What do you think are his reasons for being such a strong Targ loyalist? Almost everyone in AWoIaF is sworn to some house, therefore Bloodraven isn't worse for supporting the Targs than Bittersteel for supporting the Blackfyre Rebellion.

„Saving the realm" was a corny expression, I admit. What I meant is that - at least following my impression - he's not acting out of pure egoism but is rather trying to serve. If he's serving the right side is another question. I actually prefer Daemon over Daeron but with Bittersteel and Bloodraven it's the other way round.

Again, my understanding of Bloodraven's motives isn't necessarily true but the fact that both characters - Bittersteel and Bloodraven - leave so much room for interpretation is what makes them interesting.

That is kind of the ultimate poli-sci question about Bloodraven's tenure as king under Aerys I's rule; how much of the heat coming the Targaryen's way was just a natural bi-product of the times versus how much could be traced to his fault, and how much of the unrest and civil disputes around the Seven Kingdoms are due to his actions, his negligence, or due to the sheer number of still active rebellious lords?

We've seen that Westerosi are quite capable of over-applying bias and paranoia on otherwise good administrators even in the modern age, what with Tyrion being perceived as the root of Joffrey's evil. But at the same time, we've been encouraged to view pragmatic and consequentialist strategy in Westeros as being an inherently despotic game, and most of Bloodraven's actions imply the "ends justify the means" interpretation of him.

And yet...It's very tempting for me to argue that Bloodraven was the right man for the job and that he at the least improved in his job as time went on, with Westeros reaping the benefits of decades of more benign Targaryen rule thanks to his actions, and maybe even some relative political stability considering the forces arrayed against the status quo. His possibly personal infiltration of the Second Blackfyre Rebellion *can* be interpreted as correct assessment of a possibly major political threat caused by natural disasters (the plagues that killed the BFR1's hostages) and implacable ambition and disloyalty to the crown (the Peakes), all of which might justify his reluctance to turn royal power upon Dagon when there are both external and internal Blackfyre factions to contend with. And you can interpret his comments in disguise as Plumm to show a more objective and even-handed approach to spying than Peake and the rumors suggest; considering he personally heard and witnessed plotting to set-up Daemon II as king, the lack of huge dead piles of traitors may speak to mercy and clemency.

The resolution to the Dagon situation and the BFR3's context are the real variables. It's possible that Bloodraven's governance in the former led to the latter; similarly, it's possible he was aware of the possibility of a Greyjoy and Blackfyre alliance if they had a common foe, and maybe he waited and acquired the necessary allies to tackle both (perhaps Maekar was needed to help solidify Targaryen support.)

[The Grey Wolf]

1 hour ago, Land's End said:

Text

I agree there's room for both our views. Hopefully, we'll get a D & E sometime in the near future where we will finally see Bittersteel on the page.

1 hour ago, Knight of valour said:

Text

Bloodraven only dealt with Dagon later but by leaving the Starks, Lannisters, and possibly Tyrells at Greyjoy's mercy beforehand rather than doing the crown's duty to protect its subjects and provide leadership really didn't do the monarchy any favors and may have in fact if you don't mind me speculating have given the Blackfyres a good campaign ad for the Third rebellion: Get rid of the albino, sorcerer, kinslayer Hand and his weak, bookish, and (possibly) sorcerer-king with their thousand and one eyes!

As for the Third Blackfyre Rebellion given the little we know I would say it probably like the first presented a genuine threat to the Targaryens. My reasoning is the following: It was late in the reign of a highly unpopular king, Maekar displayed "leadership", Egg was seen as a hero, Aerion committed some really messed-up shit, and there was a second duel between Bittersteel and Bloodraven. All of that implies to me the Third was big and lasted around a year like the First where mere hours would have made a difference. Beyond that there is an out-of-universe reason. Namely, if the Third rebellion was anything less than as much of a danger as the First then the whole Blackfyre Pretenders being three generations of bad times really starts to look like them being a bunch of poor mooks for Bloodraven to slaughter.

As for Bittersteel never winning. We don't know much about the First, Third, and Fourth Blackfyre Rebellions apart from the two battles that ended the First and the Fourth (Redgrass Field and Wendwater Bridge) and in the latter case only the result (that it was a crushing defeat) so its more a lack of information than anything else. There is no way Bittersteel in those three rebellions didn't win some commendable and frightening victories. One, the Blackfyres start looking like a joke and the whole three generations of strife doesn't hold up otherwise. Two, the first appearance of the Golden Company in the Third in particular should be terrifying. A professional (albeit mercenary) army with a meritocratic chain of command and combined arms tactics uniting the best Westeros and Essos have to offer going up against a feudal army? Things are going to get nasty real quick. We'll have to wait for Fire & Blood or more D & E to get the details though. 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

What I meant is that the possibility exists and I personally find the argument "they were too pious" to ring hollow when looking at the Arthurian parallels in Naerys/Aemon. As for proof well the way I see it Aegon IV could have had suspicions but never could find evidence and thus didn't want to risk losing his head in a civil war should he actually execute Naerys and disinherit Daeron but your opinion (and that of TWOIAF) is just as valid. As for when the rumors started, if you look at it from the perspective that the rumors were true (not saying you should of course), then one can make the argument (however baseless) that Aegon IV waited until Naerys and Aemon were dead so that he wouldn't have to fear them retaliating against him and TWOIAF does at least mention that he didn't have the guts to do this while Aemon was alive so.

Then one must ask the question why they didn't claim Daenerys was illegitimate either. In fact around the time of her conception Aegon IV was well into the habit enjoying the company of plenty of other women, so quite likely for Queen Naerys to have cheated, no? Yet they don't do that because - of course, they need her name as the raison d'être for the rebellion. 

In fact, now that I recall, it is heavily hinted that Aegon himself started the rumours because he hated Daeron.

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for honor yes that's why I meant. Bittersteel doesn't go back on his word, stays loyal to his cause, and unlike Bloodraven, never does anything personally damning like promising safe conduct and then killing the person you promised it to.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here because our notions of what we consider honourable behaviour seem to be very different.

I'd say that I have a feeling there was a very good reason why BR might have done what he did, possibly to make Egg's path to the throne smooth, but that will be my biased speculation until we get more details on the whole matter. 

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for noble in a generations-long war there are good and bad people on all sides and all wars have legitimate and illegitimate reasons for being waged is what I meant, particularly in feudal times where the political and the personal intersect, Alicent Hightower included. To use her for example if I was a Westerosi queen and my husband tried to pass over my trueborn sons in favor of a daughter from a previous marriage when no king in the history of Westeros had done that (so far as we know), doing so went against tradition, and my husband had been elected because he was from the royal family's male line, I would have done the same as her probably for my children's rights.  This doesn't mean however that everyone has legitimate grievances. Cersei has for instance but she doesn't nonetheless have the right to sabotage the line of succession and most certainly Tywin of all people doesn't except in his mind, which as far as I'm concerned means he can go get f****.

Woah we completely disagree here. I don't find any of the people you named justified in their war, and I simply don't see even a shred of morality in starting a war simply for your own lust for power or desire for revenge, whatever. Every pretender comes up with some BS "justification" for their rebellion - but the underlying emotion is greed for power. I don't have even an ounce of sympathy for Alicent Hightower. In fact, I'd say Cersei actually has far more of a legitimate greivance considering how Robert treated her, but even then it's very difficult to justify what she did.

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

AS for the GC. How do you know they don't know Aegon isn't real? Considering how close Illyrio is to them I'd be willing to wager the possibility they are in on the whole "perfect prince" thing from the beginning or at least have some inkling to say the least that he really is a Blackfyre, hence why they support him on the spot. Not to mention the GC is so tied to the Blackfyres the idea that they so easily support a Targaryen should raise some alarm bells. I mean Viserys once met with them and they laughed him away even though on paper he is a much better candidate to support than Aegon. His legitimacy is undeniable, he was declared his father's heir before he died, crowned by his mother (might be misremembering on this), he has a sister whose hand he can offer in marriage, and he is probably a lot more controllable than headstrong Aegon will prove in TWOW.

Do you sincerely think the entire GC knows about Aegon? Heck Jon Connington and the rest of the crew of the Shy Maid doesn't seem to know. You really think Illyrio and Varys trusted anyone except for the top GC brass (Myles Toyne, at best) with this secret? It's their life's work coming to fruition. One wrong word in the ears of the wrong guy and the game is up.

I'm pretty confident in stating 99% of the GC doesn't know he's a BF, yet they're still willing to support a Targ because they don't have any interest in fighting for a pointless cause and want to go home.

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Bittersteel and Fireball may have been urging him but nonetheless the decision to follow their advice and therefore start the war remains on him. Bittersteel deserves some portion of the blame I don't deny but Daemon deserves the lion's share IMO. On that note, do you find any of the Blackfyre grievances I posited (the lopsided treaty and patronage, justice for Daeron I and his 60000 men, and Daeron's possible cherry-picking of his father's will) unreasonable? I'm asking because I find all those things worth fighting for and want your opinion.

No, I don;t find it reason enough to start and sustain a generation wide war. Daeron 1 was a fool who didn't want to listen to better counsel and tried to conquer Dorne for again, no reason, forgetting that his ancestors with dragons couldn't do so. It is quite likely that this "revenge for Daeron" nonsense grew out of the increased Dornish influence at court and the racism of many of the Westerosi Lords towards the Dornish. I'm totally unsure where you're getting the "lopsided treaty and patronage" and "cherry-picking of father's will", but that's maybe cause it's been a while since I read TWOIAF.

Things like the excessive favouritism for the Dornish and not appointing Fireball were definitely mistakes on the part of Daeron II, but I fail to see where Bittersteel was affected by all of this. 

And again, your opinion might differ, but it very much seems like most of these "grievances" appeared to be more of a smokescreen for the real reason for the entire thing. Not to say they had absolutely no grievances, but their response was completely and totally not proportionate. At the end of the day, Daeron was known to be a kind and reasonable man and they could have reached some compromise with him for their problems if they really wished to.

9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The reason Daemon didn't work with Daeron is the tragic part because the two of them together would have been extraordinary (and make Aegon IV turn in his grave for good measure) but IMO one simply couldn't understand the perspective of the other and according to an SSM by the time of the FBR they'd already had a few clashes on a number of issues so its clear that they tried but just weren't successful and that's easy to see why. Daemon's party was made up in large parts by the pro-war faction that had fought under Daeron I and Aegon IV but Daeron II never understood the Conquest of Dorne the way these men who'd fought in it did because he was too young to understand or even remember the reign of Daeron I and when he was old enough to start figuring stuff out who's on the throne Baelor I, who makes this grand gesture of peace that is likely the defining moment of Daeron's childhood. Add to that that the next belligerent king to Dorne is his father who he doesn't get along with at all, and you can see why Daeron and Daemon didn't work out. They were approaching all the issues from completely opposite sides.

That I can see, but that doesn't mean I have to respect Daemon for not seeing the larger picture at how Daeron 1's conquest was incredibly unnecessary, and using "revenge" that as a impetus for his own rebellion. After all, if he was so smart, he should have understood that what his brother was doing was better for the long term of the realm. 

9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for Daemon II that's all speculation. As I've said it could all be true or not. We don't know anything about the nature of Haegon or Daemon III to compare Daemon II to. For all we know one of them could be homosexual as well. And again I point out that the Second Blackfyre Rebellion took place a year before the Golden Company was founded. That cannot be a coincidence and to me that clearly shows that the one biggest reason why Bittersteel was a no-show in 211 AC was that he was busy building the Golden Company to be the bulwark of House Blackfyre. He didn't support Daemon II because he actually busy building the military to support him so to speak.

This is comletely speculation on your part as well - that Bittersteel was "founding" the Golden Company at the time. TWOIAF gives us other hints completely. 

Bittersteel never bothered to give him the sword, for reasons unknown. He would also have had to know how badly it would damage the legitimacy of the Blackfyre cause if they end up losing their second rebellion as well. Yet he cared little and let him go ahead with his stupid plan. It is actually hinted that Bittersteel knew very well that Daemon II was a useless candidate and hence was waiting for him to die so he could push Haegon I to the fore.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

6 hours ago, Land's End said:

Here I disagree, I got a different impression from D&E. To me it sounded like those were troubled times in general. Natural disasters, epidemics and a seething rebellion on top. Such times create an atmosphere of distrust. The Sworn Sword and especially A Mystery Knight have some sort of masquerade theme going on. In this toxic atmosphere a guy who is deemed a kinslayer raises to power. He's an albino with a birthmark and is missing an eye. Obviously people are going to blame him for the atmosphere of distrust even though he might just be trying to make things better. He looks like a sorcerer. He’s the perfect scape goat.
The whole situation reminds me of Tyrion as Joffrey's Hand in King's Landing. A clever, ugly bastard/dwarf trying to reestablish order and getting cursed for it.

I’m not saying my current interpretation is correct, only that we don’t know for sure.

 

6 hours ago, Duranaparthur said:

That is kind of the ultimate poli-sci question about Bloodraven's tenure as king under Aerys I's rule; how much of the heat coming the Targaryen's way was just a natural bi-product of the times versus how much could be traced to his fault, and how much of the unrest and civil disputes around the Seven Kingdoms are due to his actions, his negligence, or due to the sheer number of still active rebellious lords?

We've seen that Westerosi are quite capable of over-applying bias and paranoia on otherwise good administrators even in the modern age, what with Tyrion being perceived as the root of Joffrey's evil. But at the same time, we've been encouraged to view pragmatic and consequentialist strategy in Westeros as being an inherently despotic game, and most of Bloodraven's actions imply the "ends justify the means" interpretation of him.

And yet...It's very tempting for me to argue that Bloodraven was the right man for the job and that he at the least improved in his job as time went on, with Westeros reaping the benefits of decades of more benign Targaryen rule thanks to his actions, and maybe even some relative political stability considering the forces arrayed against the status quo. His possibly personal infiltration of the Second Blackfyre Rebellion *can* be interpreted as correct assessment of a possibly major political threat caused by natural disasters (the plagues that killed the BFR1's hostages) and implacable ambition and disloyalty to the crown (the Peakes), all of which might justify his reluctance to turn royal power upon Dagon when there are both external and internal Blackfyre factions to contend with. And you can interpret his comments in disguise as Plumm to show a more objective and even-handed approach to spying than Peake and the rumors suggest; considering he personally heard and witnessed plotting to set-up Daemon II as king, the lack of huge dead piles of traitors may speak to mercy and clemency.

The resolution to the Dagon situation and the BFR3's context are the real variables. It's possible that Bloodraven's governance in the former led to the latter; similarly, it's possible he was aware of the possibility of a Greyjoy and Blackfyre alliance if they had a common foe, and maybe he waited and acquired the necessary allies to tackle both (perhaps Maekar was needed to help solidify Targaryen support.)

Couple of excellent posts. I think Bloodraven, once all is said and done, will definitely be one of the most fascinating character studies of the series. To me, it seems like a lot of the "evil" acts he does are actually extremely "grey" and I think it's going to turn out to be very difficult to really say whether his actions are wrong or right once we get his full story.

[The Grey Wolf]

26 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Text

Well you have your view and I have mine so I'll leave it at that.

[Aetta]

Bloodraven is an iteration of the Brandons.  To me he's like Odin, the Norns and Mimr all in one.  

You could even go all crackpot and connect him to Azor Ahai.  A (bastard) promised prince (hey, he has as much claim to the title "Prince" as Jon, considering House Baratheon won the throne by conquest and the Targaryens are not major landholders that influence the council, so no Targaryen has claim to titles unless they re-conquer).  Reborn amidst salt (when he passed under the drippy drops of the Wall to embark on his final journey) and smoke (often associated with him), and could be in possession of a potential Lightbringer sword. Maybe he can plunge it into his daughter Melisandre or Quaithe Seastar, if you buy into that school of thought.

He needs Bran Stark to take his tree throne so he can reconstitute his body and be "reborn" as a warrior.

He has woven the fates to it's current ends for a century.

He's also a bit of a Last Hero, isn't he?  Who's to say if his Raven's Teeth traveled and died with him on his arduous journey to find the Children, just as the Last Hero's companions?  

And he's is the ultimate song of ice and fire, is he not?  I think if nothing else, we will connect him deeply to both the dragons and the Others, in the end.

All of these sorts of parallels draw you further into his character.  That's how GRRM has gotten away with writing maybe 2 sentences about the guy, yet we feel like he's such a massive presence in the plotline.

[Duranaparthur]

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

 

Couple of excellent posts. I think Bloodraven, once all is said and done, will definitely be one of the most fascinating character studies of the series. To me, it seems like a lot of the "evil" acts he does are actually extremely "grey" and I think it's going to turn out to be very difficult to really say whether his actions are wrong or right once we get his full story.

Even beyond the morality of his actions, there's the question of how practical his options during Dunk and Egg are.

Can you afford to bring Dagon Greyjoy to heel, a plan that requires marshaling your forces for an amphibious assault on the western coast of the continent, while also leaving your back exposed to the Golden Company and their potential allies? Can you afford to keep post-poning a response to Dagon, when his every action challenges the rules and expectations of feudal society? Can you risk splitting your forces, thereby risking a demoralizing defeat and undermanned eastern defenses? And just how secure is the Targaryen throne when arguably the best candidate to take it if Aerys dies is either a harmless but uninspiring man with mental illness or a relatively unpopular warrior labeled a kinslayer like yourself?

[Little Scribe of Naath]

On 9/16/2016 at 11:52 PM, YOVMO said:

Exactly. I feel that GRRM puts a big emphasis on sacrifice of ones own honor. Obviously Ned. But also Griff who lives the life of a sell sword, Jon when he kills the Halfhand and joins the wildlings and probably Doran Martell who eats a lot of doodie but is probably planning something.The idea of sacrificing ones own honor is a big deal. Even Sansa pretending to be a bastard (though that is more about survival than noble purposes).  I would even go as far to say that Jamie is one of, if not the, biggest sacrificers of honor. I mean, he thinks about the nobility of knighthood and the greatness of Dayne and Aryes other KG. For all his arrogance and brashness and don't give a f@*kness he is keenly aware of the fact that he is now the Kingslayer because he was put in an impossible position between his king and his father and he never really complains....he just lives up to the part.

 

If you follow the characters who have silently borne their own loss of honor or position willingly (Aemon) you see the story of the most important characters. To think that Bloodraven won't fit this pattern is totally nutso.

 

Also, this is a stark contradiction (pun intended) to guys like littlefinger who have no nobility or honor to give up...rather they steal it where they can. 

 

Quote

I can't see why someone would devote themselves to the existence we see of him in ADWD for "destroying the realm" or whatever....it's completely illogical. He's getting nothing out of this, as far as we can see.

Again, correct. I mean, there is definitely something we don't know about BR and his motivations and we will, if the gods are good old and new, see in TWoW. I simply can't by BR on a angry "lets destroy the world because i didn't get mine" streak or even, for that matter, taking revenge on the realm because of the downfall of the targaryens.  It just doesn't give with who he is.....I mean, sure, his time at the wall and his time with a tree in his eye and mushrooms on his head has probably changed him some, but he is still him. He wants something and whatever it is, it simply doesn't seem like it will be something selfish.

Quote

He's not a good guy by any means, but none of his acts can be called evil/cruel. Intensely practical, and most often for the good of the realm. Just my personal opinion, but for a person in power (as Bran,Jon etc will be) I don't think Ned's honour can be applied to every situation - sometimes you need a BR-like attitude.

The one thing I get from bloodraven as we see him in the Weircave is lethargy and depression. I mean, he has been watching and he knows. There is a deep sadness and world-weariness -- the German word  Weltschmerz seems to be the absolute perfect description. So what could BR want that he wants for a non selfish reason? I know it is totally tinfoil but I think it might be something similar to (if not actually in league with) the faceless men. All men must die may not be just a pithy kind of slogan, but an imperative.....all men must die.....if BR is to be "evil" and bringing about the long night I could very well believe it was something like giving the gift of death to all people. Not saying that this is what it is, but the weight of causing an apocalypse weighing on his heart though knowing he has to do it to prevent suffering is much more in line with BR than any of the ideas that he is just some big jerk face trying to avenge a dynasty 

YOVMO I think I missed this post initially when you wrote it but it was amazing, I just wanted to say I agree with all of it. I love the way GRRM has been exploring the concepts of "good" and "Evil" in this series. Very few characters are totally black or white. Can one really say that the action of the 3 KG who died at the TOJ were definitely better than Jaime's action to save KL soiling his own reputation? It's not so clear cut. Doran Martell is another guy I respect as well for putting the lives of the people he has pledged to rule above his personal desires (though I think he should have sent an assassin or two after Tywin.) One can even argue that Ned was foolish for not taking Joff, Myrcella and Tommen into custody secretly in AGOT, possibly averting a war - but that would have gone against his own personal honor, of course. GRRM intentionally creates ambiguous situations to provoke the reader to think, to wonder - what really is the morally "right" choice? Is there one, even, or just the lesser of two evils? This is doubly true for those in power.

 

And yeah I think it's very likely that BR is world-weary, natural for a 120 year old man stuck in a tree, doomed to replay his life forever or simply watch others. I hope he opens up a little to Bran about his regrets, his decisions, this that....though may not be very likely. It's our best shot though, at getting something close to a BR POV because that line "I have my own ghosts, Bran...." seemed like the most emotional BR has ever been from whatever we see of him in the D&E novels (Admittedly very little, though.). Not sure if he's in league with the FM though, but it's possible.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

21 minutes ago, Duranaparthur said:

Even beyond the morality of his actions, there's the question of how practical his options during Dunk and Egg are.

Can you afford to bring Dagon Greyjoy to heel, a plan that requires marshaling your forces for an amphibious assault on the western coast of the continent, while also leaving your back exposed to the Golden Company and their potential allies? Can you afford to keep post-poning a response to Dagon, when his every action challenges the rules and expectations of feudal society? Can you risk splitting your forces, thereby risking a demoralizing defeat and undermanned eastern defenses? And just how secure is the Targaryen throne when arguably the best candidate to take it if Aerys dies is either a harmless but uninspiring man with mental illness or a relatively unpopular warrior labeled a kinslayer like yourself?

Exactly. It seemed like a really tough situation he was caught in there. 

One can make the same argument even about the supposed "police state" that BR created - was that created for his own nefarious purposes, or was it actually because theft and crime had spiked greatly during the period of the drought and famine? We can't say.

[Land's End]

14 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I agree there's room for both our views. Hopefully, we'll get a D & E sometime in the near future where we will finally see Bittersteel on the page.

You didn't answer my question though. What do you think are Bloodraven's motives? I didn't ask to start an argument, I'm honestly curious.

15 hours ago, Duranaparthur said:

That is kind of the ultimate poli-sci question about Bloodraven's tenure as king under Aerys I's rule; how much of the heat coming the Targaryen's way was just a natural bi-product of the times versus how much could be traced to his fault, and how much of the unrest and civil disputes around the Seven Kingdoms are due to his actions, his negligence, or due to the sheer number of still active rebellious lords?

Yes! Great post.

On 17.9.2016 at 5:52 AM, YOVMO said:

Exactly. I feel that GRRM puts a big emphasis on sacrifice of ones own honor. Obviously Ned. But also Griff who lives the life of a sell sword, Jon when he kills the Halfhand and joins the wildlings and probably Doran Martell who eats a lot of doodie but is probably planning something.The idea of sacrificing ones own honor is a big deal. Even Sansa pretending to be a bastard (though that is more about survival than noble purposes).  I would even go as far to say that Jamie is one of, if not the, biggest sacrificers of honor. I mean, he thinks about the nobility of knighthood and the greatness of Dayne and Aryes other KG. For all his arrogance and brashness and don't give a f@*kness he is keenly aware of the fact that he is now the Kingslayer because he was put in an impossible position between his king and his father and he never really complains....he just lives up to the part.

I accidently skipped over this post. Little Scribe of Naath's quote brought my attention to it.

I completely agree. Being honorable but at the same time sacrificing said honor is one of the major themes in the books. I'd like to add that it's not only about sacrificing honor but also about not being rewarded for the sacraifice. We expect fictional characters who do this kind of thing to be redeemed. In the end, everybody recognizes what they did was good. They marry the girl/boy, become king and live happily ever after. In ASoIaF Ned gets executed as a traitor. Whether Jon is dead or wounded, his current „situation" surely has to do a lot with people suspecting him to be a turncloak. Tyrion in King's Landing somehow managed to become more hated than Joffrey. Jaime's whole story is about him being hated for the only good thing he did (from his perspective).

I think this is also one of the most important real life lessons from the books. They tell us to take a careful look on who is hated by the public and why.

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

To me, it seems like a lot of the "evil" acts he does are actually extremely "grey" and I think it's going to turn out to be very difficult to really say whether his actions are wrong or right once we get his full story.

I hope so

Quote

And yeah I think it's very likely that BR is world-weary, natural for a 120 year old man stuck in a tree, doomed to replay his life forever or simply watch others

...and watch others not being recognized for the difficult choices they made, watch how history just washes over them.

[The Grey Wolf]

5 hours ago, Land's End said:

You didn't answer my question though. What do you think are Bloodraven's motives? I didn't ask to start an argument, I'm honestly curious.

My bad.

Honestly, I don't think there is much ambiguity to Bloodraven's motives.

Before being sent to the Wall I think he has two. One, to keep Targaryen hands firmly on the reins of power. Two, I think he wants to make the Blackfyres suffer as much as possible (because I personally subscribe to the idea that Daemon was the brother he loved and that he not only hates Bittersteel for "corrupting Daemon" (who probably given his chivalrous nature was one of the few to treat him kindly despite his being albino with a birthmark) but after killing said beloved brother he has to go all in lest the great choice in his life (to personally kill Daemon at Redgrass) be rendered meaningless).

After being sent to the Wall and encountering the Children I think Bloodraven's motives correctly shift away from the political and temporal to the metaphysical and existential in that he realizes that the Others should be his first priority. Compared to them wildlings, Bittersteel, etc. are small fry. However, even here I think Bloodraven makes the same mistake he did before in terms of small gains at the cost of long-term gains by awakening Euron's potential, which, judging by The Forsaken, is going to have apocalyptic consequences despite him having only the best intentions for humanity as a whole.

Hope that makes my opinions clear.

[Land's End]

7 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

My bad.

Honestly, I don't think there is much ambiguity to Bloodraven's motives.

Before being sent to the Wall I think he has two. One, to keep Targaryen hands firmly on the reins of power. Two, I think he wants to make the Blackfyres suffer as much as possible (because I personally subscribe to the idea that Daemon was the brother he loved and that he not only hates Bittersteel for "corrupting Daemon" (who probably given his chivalrous nature was one of the few to treat him kindly despite his being albino with a birthmark) but after killing said beloved brother he has to go all in lest the great choice in his life (to personally kill Daemon at Redgrass) be rendered meaningless).

But why was supporting the Targaryens more important than the brother he loved (according to you)? My question was aimed at what the motivation behind his loyalty to the Targaryens was. Just power? Duty? Or something else?

Does he support the Targs just because? That would be very simple-minded. Does he support them because he was treated better than Bittesteel? Still doesn’t explain why he doesn’t back Daemon if he loves him so much.

I always thought Bittersteel represents both brothers, the one he loved and the one he hated but I have absolutely no evidence to back this theory. I like your version.

[The Grey Wolf]

14 minutes ago, Land's End said:

But why was supporting the Targaryens more important than the brother he loved (according to you)? My question was aimed at what the motivation behind his loyalty to the Targaryens was. Just power? Duty? Or something else?

Does he support the Targs just because? That would be very simple-minded. Does he support them because he was treated better than Bittesteel? Still doesn’t explain why he doesn’t back Daemon if he loves him so much.

I always thought Bittersteel represents both brothers, the one he loved and the one he hated but I have absolutely no evidence to back this theory. I like your version.

Misinterpreted your question then.

Why I think Bloodraven supported the Reds comes down to a number of factors.

One, Bittersteel was with the Blacks so that automatically is going to make Bloodraven wary of joining them.

Two, somehow I think that even if Daemon treated Bloodraven well his supporters would not have been fond of a bastard-born albino archer who dabbled in sorcery (we don't know when Bloodraven started studying the arcane or when knowledge that he did so became common).

Three, he had already risen high in Daeron's court, being given Dark Sister and having the king's ear (given that he was the one who revealed Daemon's intention to crown himself, leading to the failed arrest).

Four, Bloodraven's mom was the only mistress of Aegon IV to cultivate good relationships with Daeron, Aemon, and Naerys such that even when she was cast off Bloodraven remained at court. Thus, he would have had more familiarity, perhaps even a father-son-like, relationship with Daeron II given the age difference between them.

Five, Aerys I and Shiera were both known to share his interest in the arcane so he had someone to bond with over his hobbies whereas no one like that existed on the side of the Blacks.

Sixth, I think is that he honestly believed that Daeron was the better king, which is what makes the First Blackfyre Rebellion so interesting in contrast IMO to the Dance. A lot of it came down to who people thought was "the better man" and in this case each claimant had merit. Daemon was a great politician, warrior, and general while Daeron was a great administrator and an able diplomat (though not always).

[Land's End]

6 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Misinterpreted your question then.

Why I think Bloodraven supported the Reds comes down to a number of factors.

-snip-

Thanks! That was quite an interesting read. I assume most of the information comes from AWoIaF? Don't think I'll  ever be able to read it as I'm already having a hard time with the pseudo-historical style of The Princess and the Queen (I know it's meant to be this way but I’m a historian so it feels like work ).

[The Grey Wolf]

4 minutes ago, Land's End said:

Thanks! That was quite an interesting read. I assume most of the information comes from AWoIaF? Don't think I'll be ever able to read it as I'm already having a hard time with the pseudo-historical style in The Princess and the Queen (I know it's meant to be this way but I’m a historian so it feels like work ).

Yes, a lot of it is from TWOIAF but some it also comes from a series of spectacular essays on the Blackfyre Rebellions over at Tower of the Hand.

I would suggest if you have issues with the writing style to read only, say, one section a day. The way the book is divided is really good for that and the amount of new material in it (plus the artwork) means it is worth the price if you ask me.

Anyway, glad you found my thoughts interesting.

[Duranaparthur]

I think one pragmatic reason to support Daeron over Daemon comes down to long term stabilty for Westeros.

Much of Daemon's support came from the secondary Great Houses like the Reynes and Peakes, while the inferred policy difference between the Daeron and Daemon was their approach to Dorne. If Daemon was truly representing a total anti-Dornish faction, then the combination of that policy with his supporters ensures ever-perpetuating warfare; either the old Great Houses get wiped out, which is unlikely to be a peaceful or even permanent process, or you inevitably have dozens of families repeating the Bracken and Blackwood feud, and all while Dorne most likely declares independence once more, inviting the rest of Westeros to keep trying a war of attrition. And that's not taking into account how the North (which was apparently un-involved) and the Iron Island will react.

It's quite probable that the Targaryens, without dragons, are already going to be opposed by threats to their rule regardless of Daemon's involvement; he simply galvanizes most unrest behind a single new name.

Perhaps Bloodraven simply believes that the status quo of Seven Kingdoms united under the Iron Throne and House Targaryen is the saner and safer decision, particularly when Daemon succeeding in his coup could set a dangerous precedent for internal warfare being lauded and praised (i.e., Robert's Rebellion), and particularly since Daeron's faction already unites 7 Kingdoms including Dorne and has stronger dynastic possibilities (since Daeron probably already has grandsons compared to Daemon's barely teenage kids).

[The Grey Wolf]

5 minutes ago, Duranaparthur said:

Text

That could indeed be one reason Bloodraven believed Daeron was the better king, especially since Bloodraven is a pragmatist.

However, I don't think the Blackfyres were as anti-Dornish as is commonly believed. Again, the Yronwoods rode with Bittersteel in three of the five rebellions, even the Fourth, which was an unusual disaster (my money is on Torwyn Greyjoy betraying Bittersteel) along with all their vassals. That to me signals that while anti-Dornish bias (particularly in the Reach) did play a role Daemon's intent with Dorne wasn't independence or a recreation of Daeron I's Conquest but rather one, making the Yronwoods lords paramount of Dorne instead of the Martells, and two, revising the Dornish Treaty Daeron II made to be less overwhelmingly in favor of Dorne (say taking away some of the exclusive rights and liberties Dorne won and giving them to the rest of the 7K).