Murdering Aenys Blackfyre was not for the good of the realm

[Canon Claude]

Bloodraven proclaimed that he sacrificed his honour for the good of the realm. I disagree on both counts. He didn't have any honour to begin with, and the only good assassinating Aenys did was secure his own power.

The succession was in a crisis, and a Great Council was called to decide what to do. Aenys Blackfyre sent a letter politely asking permission to present his claim to the throne before the Council members. They would be under no obligation to answer yes or no, and Aenys would be alone with no weapons. Bloodraven grants him safe passage, then orders him executed upon his arrival, only to drop his head onto the table of the Great Council as a warning.

One of the people in the above paragraph used violence, lies, and threats to intimidate the Great Council, and it wasn't Aenys Blackfyre.

At that point in time, what harm could there be in just letting Aenys talk? The council could just say no and pick someone else, or Aenys is such a good candidate that it would be stupid to turn him down. Maybe Aenys could have been another Jahaerys for all we know. But we won't know because all Bloodraven cared about was his own position. He thought that if Aenys won his case, then Bittersteel and all the exiled lords out east would come back and take a bloody revenge. But why would Aenys allow that? A man who's willing to peacefully treat with his family's sworn enemies and abandon his current allies to do so is not the kind of man who would then allow said allies to bring bloodshed to the Seven Kingdoms again. Bittersteel wasn't even interested in Aenys' cause, he was too busy crowning Haegon, and both of them would look utterly ridiculous if Aenys just walked over and got the throne by asking for it.

But no, Bloodraven was too paranoid to allow the slightest chance that the son of a man he hated might be a worthy candidate for the Iron Throne. His protests at being arrested for Aenys' murder are hollow. He was just as power-hungry as Bittersteel, but dressed it up as 'the good of the realm'. Personally I think it's a pity that Aegon didn't have Dunk just cut his head off. Maybe even send it to Aenys' relatives as proof of justice being served.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

He didn't have any honour to begin with,

Why? Why he had no honour before what happened with Aenys?

7 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Aenys would be alone with no weapons.

How do you know that?

8 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Maybe Aenys could have been another Jahaerys for all we know.

Or another Aegon IV.

The truth is that the Blackfyres cannot be trusted and there was no reason why someone should believe that Aenys was better than the others.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

If you honestly think a Blackfyre taking the throne wouldn't lead to trouble, then you're a greater fool than Princess Vaella. Even if Aenys was sincere in his attempts to win the throne, how many enemies did the Blackfyres make over the years? How many houses were punished for their loyalty to the Blackfyres? That feud would have torn the realm apart no matter what a Blackfyre king did. If he decides to reward his followers, then he pisses off the people who were originally in power. If he doesn't use his power for vengeance, then Bittersteel and the Golden Company declare him a traitor and try to make Haegon their king anyway. And when they invade, how many houses will fight in a war which pits Blackfyre against Blackfyre? And what happens to the remaining Targaryens?

Bloodraven saved the realm a lot of trouble by killing Aenys, because Aenys was much smarter than his other relatives. A smart enemy is worse than a dumb one who thinks that they can win by invading time after time with diminishing results.

[Macgregor of the North]

Ah, but that's what got him sent to the Wall and set in course the chain of events that saw him training Bran, who will become the most powerful greenseer ever and play an important part in the next Long night, for the good of the realm. 

Lol sorry, couldn't help myself. 

[Canon Claude]

7 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Why? Why he had no honour before what happened with Aenys?

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

9 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How do you know that?

Because when Bloodraven granted him passage, he came with no retinue that's recorded, or else we'd hear that they were all killed as well. And I assume that the Great Council would forbid carrying weapons, and Aenys clearly had no tricks planned.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, Canon Claude said:

Because he killed Baelor's son and grandsons,

Are you serious?

1 minute ago, Canon Claude said:

killed Daemon and his two sons with archery.

So the archers are dishonorable?

2 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Because when Bloodraven granted him passage, he came with no retinue that's recorded, or else we'd hear that they were all killed as well. And I assume that the Great Council would forbid carrying weapons, and Aenys clearly had no tricks planned.

Since when the Blackfyres cared about the law or what was the right thing to do?

[Little Scribe of Naath]

26 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

But no, Bloodraven was too paranoid to allow the slightest chance that the son of a man he hated might be a worthy candidate for the Iron Throne. His protests at being arrested for Aenys' murder are hollow. He was just as power-hungry as Bittersteel, but dressed it up as 'the good of the realm'. Personally I think it's a pity that Aegon didn't have Dunk just cut his head off. Maybe even send it to Aenys' relatives as proof of justice being served.

Oh, is the new D & E  book out? Where can I get a copy?

Ask yourself this: If BR was truly power hungry for himself, why did he even call a Great Council? He could have allowed Aerion's infant Maegor to be king and himself to continue ruling as Hand/Regent for the next 16 years atleast. Why didn't he do that?

And next question, why did BR do the killing himself? He could have simply gotten one of his own men to do it in a clandestine manner, why do it himself and risk being executed?

[The Grey Wolf]

33 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Text

I agree with a lot of this, though not Bloodraven being power-hungry, and would like to make two points.

At the time of the Great Council following Maekar's death Daemon III, son of Haegon I, was Bittersteel's claimant, not Haegon I himself.

Bloodraven's actions are even worse than you describe. In one stroke he completely destroyed any and all trust in the crown's word. Hell, Yandel explicitly says that Aegon V had to have him arrested "lest the Iron Throne's word be seen as worthless". That is serious business. And once again it comes down to Bloodraven making decisions with short-term benefits but long-term consequences because he lacks restraint.

25 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Why? Why he had no honour before what happened with Aenys?

How do you know that?

Or another Aegon IV.

The truth is that the Blackfyres cannot be trusted and there was no reason why someone should believe that Aenys was better than the others.

Bloodraven's actions prior to the Great Council speak for themselves. He lacked honor for the most part and probably didn't care.

Because all his actions speak to the contrary? Because its said he wanted to use "words" instead of "swords" to win the throne? Because even if he carried a sword he wouldn't be the only one and moreover the lords could politely request he hand it over to a guard upon arrival?

That's the point Canon Claude was making. He could have been as great as Jaehaerys I, as bad as Aegon IV, or a mixed bag like Viserys I and Daeron I. We simply don't know. And considering the Targaryen candidates (a lackwit daughter, the infant son of a cruel madman who practiced sorcery, a physically unimpressive Maester, and a prince with pro-peasant leanings who's going to drag Westeros in civil war for his reforms) I don't see why Aenys or any of the other Blackfyres shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when so little is known about them at this point.

19 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Text

Bloodraven's decision was NOT the right one nonetheless. If Aenys's ascension was so potentially problematic Bloodraven should have simply told Aenys that he wasn't welcome and then let Bittersteel and Daemon III deal with their treasonous kinsman.

Also, Bittersteel and Daemon III wouldn't have been able to do much of anything if Aenys was crowned Aenys II Blackfyre. Considering what a debacle the Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion was (possibly due to Torwyn Greyjoy's betrayal and lack of popular support) in the actual timeline the Blackfyres by this point were almost at the end of their rope, which when coupled with the fact that Aenys would have been taken the throne by acclaim by the majority of the Westerosi nobility, meant he would have widespread popular support while Bittersteel would have practically none. Moreover, the only problematic Targaryen at this point is Aegon V himself (his children are like his niece and nephew all underage) and I highly doubt he would attempt to seize power if the Great Council didn't choose him. Plus, its explicitly said by Yandel that the murder of Aenys after that of Haegon "hardened the enmity of the exiles across the narrow sea" so there's that too.

14 minutes 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.

That one's just slander for once.

11 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Since when the Blackfyres cared about the law or what was the right thing to do?

And you're so obviously biased. We know practically nothing about any of the Blackfyres or their thoughts and personalities yet here you are generalizing them all as untrustworthy evildoers the way only a diehard Targaryen supporter could.

5 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Oh, is the new D & E  book out? Where can I get a copy?

Sadly not.

 

[Canon Claude]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Are you serious?

Bloodraven is magical. We are told about it every time he's brought up, so I believe it's feasible that he could have ensured Valarr's children were stillborn. I believe that the septon at Stoney Sept in "The Mystery Knight" was telling the truth, precisely because he ended up dead for saying such things. Why kill someone for words if they're meaningless lies? People aren't murdered for telling lies, they're murdered because they tell truths which others fear.

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So the archers are dishonorable?

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.

8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Since when the Blackfyres cared about the law or what was the right thing to do?

Since Aenys clearly put his life in the hands of the Great Council when he sailed over from exile. Why do something as stupid as that unless you genuinely want to behave and use words to get what you want rather than violence? Aenys was naive to trust Bloodraven, sure, but it confirms his innocence to me far more than any words would have.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

3 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

And you're so obviously biased. We know practically nothing about any of the Blackfyres or their thoughts and personalities yet here you are generalized them all as untrustworthy evildoers the way only a diehard Targaryen supporter would.

That's quite funny considering it's the exact same thing happening here - we have zero details of what was going through BR's mind and yet yourself and Canon Claude presume to know that "he was power hungry" "he was paranoid" "he was evil" and what not.

[The Grey Wolf]

Just now, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That's quite funny considering it's the exact same thing happening here - we have zero details of what was going through BR's mind and yet yourself and Canon Claude presume to know that "he was power hungry" "he was paranoid" "he was evil" and what not.

I actually pointed out in my first post that I don't think Bloodraven is or was power-hungry but that I agree with Canon Claude's assessment that murdering Aenys Blackfyre was not right nor excusable.

[Canon Claude]

Just now, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That's quite funny considering it's the exact same thing happening here - we have zero details of what was going through BR's mind and yet yourself and Canon Claude presume to know that "he was power hungry" "he was paranoid" "he was evil" and what not.

He was certainly paranoid. Look at his spy network. Look at his murder of Aenys. Why even invite Aenys at all? Just let him stew in Essos by not replying to his letter. No, he had to go out of his way to rid himself of any Blackfyres that he could get his hands on.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Bloodraven's actions prior to the Great Council speak for themselves. He lacked honor for the most part and probably didn't care.

Which actions? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Because all his actions speak to the contrary? Because its said he wanted to use "words" instead of "swords" to win the throne? Because even if he carried a sword he wouldn't be the only one and moreover the lords could politely request he hand it over to a guard upon arrival?

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?

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That's the point Canon Claude was making. He could have been as great as Jaehaerys I, as bad as Aegon IV, or a mixed bag like Viserys I and Daeron I. We simply don't know. And considering the Targaryen candidates (a lackwit daughter, the infant son of a cruel madman who practiced sorcery, a physically unimpressive Maester, and a prince with pro-peasant leanings who's going to drag Westeros in civil war for his reforms) I don't see why Aenys or any of the other Blackfyres shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when so little is known about them at this point.

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

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

And you're so obviously biased. We know practically nothing about any of the Blackfyres or their thoughts and personalities yet here you are generalized them all as untrustworthy evildoers the way only a diehard Targaryen supporter would.

What we know is that they could never be trusted.

Just now, Canon Claude said:

Bloodraven is magical. We are told about it every time he's brought up, so I believe it's feasible that he could have ensured Valarr's children were stillborn. I believe that the septon at Stoney Sept in "The Mystery Knight" was telling the truth, precisely because he ended up dead for saying such things. Why kill someone for words if they're meaningless lies? People aren't murdered for telling lies, they're murdered because they tell truths which others fear.

That is what you think and not what is in the text so it's basically your fan fiction. 

No lord would had allowed someone to commit treason and what the septon did was treason. To threaten the people in order to follow the Blackfyres.

2 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Yes. Yes they are. 

I see that you don't make sense, you seem to prefer your fan fictions from the text, so I don't see a reason why I should even try to have a logical discussion with you.

[Bael's Bastard]

Bloodraven consistently demonstrated his loyalty to Daeron II and his line, and he absolutely was willing to sacrifice whatever honor he had to ensure their stability, against Aenys and in previous cases, and to ensure no Blackfyre would ever take the throne.

If not for the success of Bloodraven's approach for nearly forty years in the rebellions leading up to the GC and during the GC, they might have received much more support than they did after the first rebellion.

The Blackfyres never had a serious invasion again after Bloodraven executed Aenys. Their last two attempts both failed miserably. One barely made it into Westeros before it was crushed, and the other never stepped foot in Westeros.

And arguably the failed fourth rebellion might never have happened had Aegor been executed when captured in the third rebellion. But he was allowed to escape and crown Haegon's son, Daemon III.

 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

2 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

He was certainly paranoid. Look at his spy network. Look at his murder of Aenys. Why even invite Aenys at all? Just let him stew in Essos by not replying to his letter. No, he had to go out of his way to rid himself of any Blackfyres that he could get his hands on

How exactly do you know that?

6 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

Bloodraven is magical. We are told about it every time he's brought up, so I believe it's feasible that he could have ensured Valarr's children were stillborn. I believe that the septon at Stoney Sept in "The Mystery Knight" was telling the truth, precisely because he ended up dead for saying such things. Why kill someone for words if they're meaningless lies? People aren't murdered for telling lies, they're murdered because they tell truths which others fear.

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

[Little Scribe of Naath]

9 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

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.

So basically, then we consider the crannogmen in the North to be totally dishonourable and evil because of the methods they used to kill/drive the ironmen out of Moat Cailin. No matter that they are the people who have proved themselves most loyal to the Starks, the heir and heiress of the crannogmen has risked their own lives for their liege Bran. 

[Canon Claude]

8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 

I see that you don't make sense, you seem to prefer your fan fictions from the text, so I don't see a reason why I should even try to have a logical discussion with you.

I gave reasons for my argument which are historical fact. That's not fanfiction.

5 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

How exactly do you know that?

It's not difficult to reasonably infer motive behind specific actions. Bloodraven lured Aenys to King's Landing under the promise of safe conduct, and then murdered him.

Why would he do that? He could have literally done nothing and solved the problem. Aenys wouldn't have been able to arrive without the permission of Bloodraven, so why not refuse it? No Aenys in King's Landing means that his cause is weakened to the point that it might as well not exist. But that clearly wasn't good enough for Bloodraven. He needed Aenys dead. Why? The only sensible answer I can think of is his hatred for all things Blackfyre and paranoia that they might still have friends in Westeros.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

So basically, then we consider the crannogmen in the North to be totally dishonourable and evil because of the methods they used to kill/drive the ironmen out of Moat Cailin. No matter that they are the people who have proved themselves most loyal to the Starks, the heir and heiress of the crannogmen has risked their own lives for their liege Bran. 

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

[Canon Claude]

2 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

So basically, then we consider the crannogmen in the North to be totally dishonourable and evil because of the methods they used to kill/drive the ironmen out of Moat Cailin. No matter that they are the people who have proved themselves most loyal to the Starks, the heir and heiress of the crannogmen has risked their own lives for their liege Bran. 

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.

Also, I'd hardly consider the Ironborn to be honourable either.

[Bael's Bastard]

33 minutes 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.

Because when Bloodraven granted him passage, he came with no retinue that's recorded, or else we'd hear that they were all killed as well. And I assume that the Great Council would forbid carrying weapons, and Aenys clearly had no tricks planned.

You are repeating rumors that we don't know to be true, and seem likely to be untrue.

But what we know to be true is that Bloodraven and his archers killed Daemon I and his two eldest sons Aemon and Aegon in the first rebellion. He captured Daemon's next eldest son Daemon II in the second rebellion, and imprisoned him to prevent Bittersteel from naming Haegon in his place. Haegon was killed after surrendering his sword (not sure whether it was Bloodraven, on the orders of Bloodraven, or someone else). He killed Aenys after luring him by the offer of safe conduct.

Whether one argues that Bloodraven already had no honor, or that he sacrificed it in the case of Aenys, it is clear that for over forty years he put Daeron II and his line above his own personal honor from the very beginning. He killed his own brother and nephews for Daeron II and his line, and even went so far as to violate guest rights to ensure they stayed on the throne.