Jump to content

Murdering Aenys Blackfyre was not for the good of the realm


Canon Claude

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yes they were. They are magical and they fought the benevolent Freys and Greyjoys with dishonorable weapons.

Again, I don't consider the Freys or Ironborn to be honourable either. There are actually precious few people in Westeros who live up to their own standards of honour. That's actually one thing I find so fascinating about the series. There are almost no good guys or bad guys, just people. It's why we can have such lengthy debates like this one.

I for one love this kind of series which has such layers to it that we can all have such varied opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

<snip>

Yes. Yes they are. Look at any civilization before firearms and tell me what sort of men make up the archers. They're not high-born, and they aren't wealthy. Nor are they looked favourably upon by the other warriors. The Ancient Greeks considered the bow to be a coward's weapon. It's probably why Xerxes didn't just send archers against the Spartans from Day 1 at Thermopylae, he only did it because everything else had failed.

And the Middle Ages share that same idea. The archers were lower class peasants who were slaughtered in battle rather than captured or ransomed. The knights looked upon them with hatred, especially the French knights.

And since Westeros is a medieval-like place, it's safe to impose the same values upon these characters. Archery is effective, it's useful, but by Westerosi standards, it's not honourable.

<snip>

What we've learned today, class, is that poor people are dishonorable scum. This concludes today's lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

What we've learned today, class, is that poor people are dishonorable scum.

In the world of Westeros, they are.

But stepping back from whether Bloodraven was wrong or right to kill Aenys, I dothink that Aegon V was the kind of king that Westeros needed. The commonfolk really live awful lives in this society, and Aegon tried to make things better for them.

And stepping back from this whole forum mentality, my world views don't reflect my argumentative points about the details of a fictional series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloodraven violates almost every law of gods and men...

Incest - check, Shiera Seastar was his half sister

Kinslaying - check check check, lots of relatives dead at his hand (also targeting the sons so the father won't retreat is low even for a kinslayer)

Violating the laws of hospitality - check, promising safe passage and then killing someone is pretty indefensible...

Oathbreaking - check, he left his post on the wall, as lord commander no less (after 13 years... Sound familiar?)

People really want to believe he's a good guy because he sided with the Targs for a while and seems like a badass... But he evidence is pretty strong that he will end up a villain (I'd go so far as to say the return of he others could probably be laid at his feet)

Also there is the legitimate possibility he intended to take power at the great council which choose egg... After all he had been legitimized and one could argue he would be next in line if egg was passed over. Maybe he was sick of ruling in all but name and wanted the title for himself, can't really say either way till we know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Well to be fair, the Westerosi idea of 'honour' is bullshit, but if we go by what it seems to entail for the sake of this debate, then the crannogmen aren't honourable in the sense of warfare. They're certainly loyal, though. I should say that I have no problem with them, but from the Westerosi point of view, they would certainly be looked down on for their guerrilla tactics and their poisoned weapons.

I'm sorry, for some reason I'm totally unable to reply below the quote, so I have to do it here.

Well then, what are we exactly debating in this thread? By Westeros standards Bloodraven is shit, just like Tyrion. We know that. I would suppose the entire purpose of debating his character is to debate from a meta-textual POV. What is "honour" for Westeros id not necessarily "Honour" for us, is it? (Jaime comes to mind.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And how do you know that there were no Blackfyre soldiers in KL before his arrival and they would had attacked the roylists after Aenys' arrival?

Because the Blackfyres have already proved that they were not trustworthy. 

What we know is that they could never be trusted.

How do you know there were? With Bloodraven, the Raven's Teeth, and the City Watch all there do you really think Aenys had the chance to pull a coup? And if that were the case why didn't Daemon III, you know, the ACTUAL Blackfyre claimant, go instead?

So, according to you, Aenys, his two younger brothers and his sisters all proved themselves untrustworthy even though we know next to nothing about them and they were children at the time of the First Blackfyre Rebellions simply by being born into the house of the black dragon? That's despicable. 

And yeah, I'm not dealing with you. Its like talking to a wall and maddeningly frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with the OP. Murdering Aenys was bad for the realm, as it weakened the reputation of the Iron Throne and ensured that a peaceful resolution could not be reached.  It's likely that the Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion and the War of the Ninpenny kings would never have happened if Aenys had been allowed to speak in the Great Council.

From Bloodraven's perspective, perhaps he was honestly fearing that the split Targaryen vote (Daeron's daughter, Aerion's son, Aemon, Aegon) could allow Aenys being proclaimed king. But I don't think that's the case: as Master of Whispers Bloodraven had to know that the support for the Blackfyres in Westeros was very reduced by that time (the Blackfyre invasion 3 years later had very little support), and that Aenys chances were slim (he was not even Daemon's heir). Bloodraven may have acted only out of irrational hatred against the Blackfyres.

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Bloodraven violates almost every law of gods and men...

Incest - check, Shiera Seastar was his half sister

Kinslaying - check check check, lots of relatives dead at his hand (also targeting the sons so the father won't retreat is low even for a kinslayer)

Violating the laws of hospitality - check, promising safe passage and then killing someone is pretty indefensible...

Oathbreaking - check, he left his post on the wall, as lord commander no less (after 13 years... Sound familiar?)

Good list. Bloodraven is also the most likely culprit for having "slain treacherously" Haegon I after he had given up his sword.

It's obvious that when something that he perceives as a "greater good" comes into play, Bloodraven is willing to ignore any code of honour or morals.

1 hour ago, Canon Claude said:

The Ancient Greeks considered the bow to be a coward's weapon. It's probably why Xerxes didn't just send archers against the Spartans from Day 1 at Thermopylae, he only did it because everything else had failed.

That's actually incorrect. Perhaps you are confusing it with the highly distorted depiction of 300. But the very first thing that the real Xerxes tried at Thermopylae (both according to Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus) was throwing arrows at the Greeks from a distance, only to find out that their bronze shields and helmets deflected the arrows. In fact, there's the famous exchange before the battle where the Persian ambassador threats that their arrows will be so numerous that they will block out the sunlight (with the Spartans replying that then they'll fight in the shade).

You are right that later on, among knights (and specially among French knights after Azencourt) the archers were perceived as dishonourable, but I'd say that this view was restricted to a very small part of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I had with what Bloodraven did is exactly the problem I have with Renly's attempt to claim the throne.

The rules of succession, just like the Great Council, are established method for peaceful transition of power.  If a king dies, it goes to his heir, if no clear heir exists, we all gather together and peacefully settle on the best choice.  

Once Renly disclares that rules of succession doesn't matter, or Bloodraven establishes that the Great Council is a sham, then the only way to resolve transition any time a king dies is left to fighting it out between everyone who wants it.   Think about the Kingsmoot, once Urron Greyiron killed all the contestants at the Kingsmoot there wasn't another one held for 5,000 years until Balon Greyjoy's death. 

In the long run it's a terrible thing for the realm.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing Blackfyre support before Bloodraven executed Aenys was greater (whether much or little) than Blackfyre support after. Although I don't think they had great support before the GC, they apparently had enough friends still at court during and after the third rebellion to find out about and help Bittersteel escape on his way to the Wall.

I am not sure I agree that Bloodraven acted out of irrational hatred, but I do think he was going to do anything to prevent any Blackfyre from sniffing the throne, no matter how good or bad their chances. Bloodraven led him on, and unlike in the case of Daemon II, he had no reason to keep Aenys alive once captured, as Daemon III was already their chosen king.

I agree that Bloodraven (or perhaps Aerion) seems likely to have slain Haegon treacherously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem I have with BR pulling off such a thing purely out of hatred is - why do it in a manner so public and make it so damn obvious you're the culprit?

He could have disposed of Aenys secretly anytime before he even arrived in KL, seeing as how he wasn't going to honor the "safe passage" thing anyway.

Not to mention it's really quite curious why he even let him come in the first place.

The whole thing doesn't add up and there was probably something else going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

The big problem I have with BR pulling off such a thing purely out of hatred is - why do it in a manner so public and make it so damn obvious you're the culprit?

He could have disposed of Aenys secretly anytime before he even arrived in KL, seeing as how he wasn't going to honor the "safe passage" thing anyway.

True, but doing it in secret would not have lead him to be banished to the Wall and the NW. A strong bastard warrior from a noble house that became Lord Commander (hey, that rings a bell), and suddenly disappeared during a ranging mission north of the wall.
He was already known to have some sort of magical capabilities. He was an albino, so very pale (almost white) skin with red eyes. BR knew he was a greenseer, during his 'normal' life, I don't think he knew of his full capabilities, but I think he already was able to tap into the Weirwood network, and perhaps he also had Targ visions.

There have always been Targaryens who dreamed of things to come, since long before the Conquest.


We do not know what would've happened if BR did not kill Aenys Blackfyre, so we do not know what dangers would emerge from that scenario.
What we do know, is that executing him in public, made sure BR was able to travel to the wall and disappear from the 7 kingdoms without causing a big stir. The master of whispers disappearing would cause that.
Also, we was now able to start 'living in a tree' to prolong his lifespan to make sure he could train Bran.

Now, I'm just putting it out there, but what if BR's bigger picture wasn't the Targaryen rule, or the IT, but the very existence of human life on Westeros. If he wasn't banished, he couldn't have disappeared, couldn't have started living in a tree, would never have lived long enough to train Bran and therefore the White Walkers could gain the upper hand in the battle for existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how pretty much everyone hates the Frey's for the Red Wedding, yet there are quite a few people sticking up for Bloodraven's murder of Aenys Blackfyre. It's very nearly the same thing. What are the differences: It's a Great Council not a wedding, and Bloodraven promised safe passage instead of bread and salt. So practically the same thing on a lesser scale.

The logic in Bloodraven's defense seems to be "He did it for the good of the realm, so he was justified". By that logic, Walder Frey should be hailed as a hero because he put down a rebellious lord and his bannermen which is also "for the good of the realm". Instead, the Frey's and Boltons are almost universally hated both in canon and by real life book readers. 

So, if you hate the Frey's then you should not be condoning what Bloodraven did. If you condone Bloodraven's actions, then you should also condone the Red Wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Because he killed Baelor's son and grandsons, he dabbled in sorcery and spying, and killed Daemon and his two sons with archery.

Tip of the iceberg, man. Bloodraven was also: a bastard, an albino, one-eyed (and didn't even have the courtesy to wear a patch!), and a half-Blackwood. That's just fucked up.

(Although in Westeros archery is a perfectly appropriate skill for knights and lordlings, as shown by Ser Balon Swann, Theon Greyjoy and Ser Brynden Tully - hell, it's customarily required from the heir of House Tully! - but let's not spoil our fun with some facts, right? B))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I like how pretty much everyone hates the Frey's for the Red Wedding, yet there are quite a few people sticking up for Bloodraven's murder of Aenys Blackfyre. It's very nearly the same thing. What are the differences: It's a Great Council not a wedding, and Bloodraven promised safe passage instead of bread and salt. So practically the same thing on a lesser scale.

There are more fundamental differences: we were there for the Red Wedding, we saw it up close, and it was horrifying. And we grew to care about the victims and their families. To care more about "bad shit happening to someone I know" than about "bad shit happening to some perfect strangers" is just human, it's silly to pretend otherwise.

(Seemingly, there are some important differences in-universe, too - breaking one's word is bad, but violating the guest right is absolutely evil and irredeemable. Cat's "as soon as we eat his bread, we'll be safe" clearly shows that just an invitation is not protection enough).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I like how pretty much everyone hates the Frey's for the Red Wedding, yet there are quite a few people sticking up for Bloodraven's murder of Aenys Blackfyre.

During the Red wedding the majority of Robb's men died, what BR did had only one death. Do you feel bad about the 12 years old that Dany killed as bad as you feel about what happened to Rhaenys and Aegon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Nonsense. The septon was talking treason and inciting rebellion against the crown. That is punishable by death. 

The septon was talking against Bloodraven, accusing him of killing prince Valarr's children in their mother's womb. The Hand is the king's second man, but I don't recall talking against him or accusing him of murder being treason.

But if you know, please enlighten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Freys were hated before the Red Wedding, they were written to be unlikeable. That they turned on the family which made up all except two of the original POVs, murdering the king they swore to, in violation of guest rights, for the benefit of the hated Lannisters just took it to another level of scumbaggery.

Bloodraven is guilty of plenty, but he has an almost entirely negative portrayal in the books, except when we actually see him interact with characters we are meant to like. Much of what he is guilty of has been in his consistent and loyal service to Daeron II and his line, and nearly forty years of trying to put an end to the Blackfyre threat. What Bloodraven did was good for the line he served loyally, which ruled the realm. Of all the things Egg had to worry about during his reign, a serious BF rebellion in Westeros was not one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While devious he actually makes a reference at one point in Dunk and Egg that a mysterious and evil reputation makes it easier to control or have power over people.  His nefarious reputation works to his advantage since his grand plan was to end up at the wall anyways.  I'm of the opinion he put the realm above himself and his reputation. 

Everything Bloodraven did was to ensure the succession of Daeron II.  He was in tune with magic before going to the wall so I don't think it is a big stretch to speculate he was in tune with prophecy during his tenure as master of whispers.  Keeping Daeron II and his line on the throne resulted in Rhaegar, and ultimately in one of the main protagonists, who likely will play a critical role in preventing the apocalypse in the current time line.  

While murdering Aeyns was arguably awful it did cause a devastating blow to the Blackfyres that they never recovered from.  The remaining uprisings were far from successful. If a true candidate had surfaced support from previously loyal houses in Westeros could have caused an even worse divide.  As another poster mentioned this also ultimately resulted in his journey to the wall. It could be viewed as a tactical way to cinch up the Blackfyre succession issues and disappear into obscurity without tainting the Targaryen rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vaedys Targaryen said:

The septon was talking against Bloodraven, accusing him of killing prince Valarr's children in their mother's womb. The Hand is the king's second man, but I don't recall talking against him or accusing him of murder being treason.

But if you know, please enlighten.

Quote

"The grave has claimed them, every one, yet he endures, this pale bird with bloody beak who perches on King Aerys's shoulder and caws into his ear. The mark of hell is on his face and in his empty eye, and he has brought us drought and pestilence and murder. Rise up, I say, and remember our true king across the water. Seven gods there are, and seven kingdoms, and the Black Dragon sired seven sons! Rise up, my lords and ladies. Rise up, you brave knights and sturdy yeomen, and cast down Bloodraven, that foul sorcerer, lest your children and your children's children be cursed forever-more."

He was threatening and cursing people in order to make them to follow the Blackfyres. That is treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...