Shuvuuia

D&E time politics and family relations

36 posts in this topic

On 05.12.2016 at 10:11 PM, Bironic said:

Yes and some think he "killed" his brother Baelor Breakspear as well, they will talk about that, Maekar says as much in D & E. Stannis reminds me often of Maekar, they seem to have a similar character, and both killed a brother, though in Maekars case it was an accident.

I like to think that thanks to Maekar's actions during the 3d Blackfyre Rebellion by the time he became king, Baelor's death was largely accepted as an accident and was only used against Maekar by his enemies. But in his head he still thought everyone was talking about it.

does anyone else wonders how exactly was he commemorating Baelor's death? Did they have a public service each year or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05.12.2016 at 11:03 PM, Lord Varys said:

But I think there some Targaryens actually are sickly and not likely to live all that long - Aenys I had health problems in his childhood, and Baelor the Blessed, Naerys, Daeron II, Aerys I, Rhaegel, Vaella, and Jaehaerys II never are described as very healthy. It is hardly surprising that they did not live to old age.

Aenys I did had problems at an early age, but after he tamed his dragon his health improved significantly. We can suggest that dragons helped their riders to survive childhood and live long, but when they died out, Targaryens were left tete-a-tete with their spoiled genetics.

If Baelor the Blessed was that sickly, he could hardly make his "little" trip through the Boneway and survive snake poison besides:) Daeron II obviously took after his mother - and it is very strange for an heir to the throne and the key to Dorne not to be a warrior AT ALL, especially being brought up by he best knight in the 7 Kingdoms - but in his fifty-five he still ruled the kingdom on his own (Baelor mentioned that justice was usually delivered by his father) and even managed to outlive his two young grandsons during the GSS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LIVIA said:

Aenys I did had problems at an early age, but after he tamed his dragon his health improved significantly. We can suggest that dragons helped their riders to survive childhood and live long, but when they died out, Targaryens were left tete-a-tete with their spoiled genetics.

That is pretty much my take on that as well, especially on those mental health issues. There are no dragonriding Targaryens known who were as deranged as Aerys II or Prince Rhaegel, only sadists like Maegor the Cruel (although he might be a special case due to his possible conception/creation through magic), Prince Daemon, and Prince Aemond.

The idea is that the Targaryens felt an overwhelming urge to bond with a dragon due to their special blood, and when there was no dragon around they could try to bond with it had a tendency to drive them mad. That would fit very well with Aerys II's later madness, and also explain the obsessions of Aerion Brightflame and even Aegon V.

24 minutes ago, LIVIA said:

If Baelor the Blessed was that sickly, he could hardly make his "little" trip through the Boneway and survive snake poison besides:) Daeron II obviously took after his mother - and it is very strange for an heir to the throne and the key to Dorne not to be a warrior AT ALL, especially being brought up by he best knight in the 7 Kingdoms - but in his fifty-five he still ruled the kingdom on his own (Baelor mentioned that justice was usually delivered by his father) and even managed to outlive his two young grandsons during the GSS. 

Baelor might have only gotten worse due to his many fastings, that's true, but then he was never a martial man. Aegon III supposedly died of consumption. That's a disease healthy people can catch, too, though.

I get the feeling that Daeron II was expecting to live not much longer. He had already named Baelor not only Hand of the King (which he possibly was since the end of the Blackfyre Rebellion) but also Protector of the Realm, giving Baelor a lot of power. The best take on the Ashford tourney is that Baelor was about to make a major progress through the South.

We actually don't know whether Daeron II outlived Valarr and Matarys or whether they survived him for half an hour or so. But it is not unlikely that Valarr and Matarys (being younger men) caught the disease outside and inadvertently infected their royal grandfather when they supped with him the next day or so. Then they would have been likely to die before Daeron II. After all, the Great Spring Sickness seemed to have killed pretty much anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I get the feeling that Daeron II was expecting to live not much longer. He had already named Baelor not only Hand of the King (which he possibly was since the end of the Blackfyre Rebellion) but also Protector of the Realm, giving Baelor a lot of power. The best take on the Ashford tourney is that Baelor was about to make a major progress through the South.

The title of Protector of the Realm is generally connected with certain martial duties. No surprise that Daeron, being clearly unable to do them in person, decided to grant it to a skilled and experienced knight and commander of unquestionable loyalty. We don't know who was PotR before the 1BfR, but if it was Daeron, I have an idea why all these talks about the weakness of the Targaryens were that popular. The rebellion revealed all the seriousness of the situation and make Daeron distribute power and authority more wisely: he remained the ruling king and helped his dornish-looking heir to overcome contempt and mistrust from his future subjects, while Baelor fucking Breakspear, the Hammer, Prince of Dragonstone, the Heir to the Iron Throne, Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm was more useful for his father than just as Prince of Dragonstone. 

Besides, Daeron II was not the first to do this trick with the title of PotR: for example, Rhaenyra was not a warrior too, so the title of Protector of the Realm belonged to her husband, Prince Daemon.

Edited by LIVIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LIVIA said:

The title of Protector of the Realm is generally connected with certain martial duties. No surprise that Daeron, being clearly unable to do them in person, decided to grant it to a skilled and experienced knight and commander of unquestionable loyalty. We don't know who was PotR before the 1BfR, but if it was Daeron, I have an idea why all these talks about the weakness of the Targaryens were that popular. The rebellion revealed all the seriousness of the situation and make Daeron distribute power and authority more wisely: he remained the ruling king and helped his dornish-looking heir to overcome contempt and mistrust from his future subjects, while Baelor fucking Breakspear, the Hammer, Prince of Dragonstone, the Heir to the Iron Throne, Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm was more useful for his father than just as Prince of Dragonstone. 

That is stretching things too far. There are a lot of non-martial Targaryen kings - Aenys I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Aegon III, Baelor I, Aerys I (he most of all - he certainly was even less martial than his father yet Bloodraven is merely Hand of the King), Jaehaerys II, Aerys II - who all keep the title 'Protector of the Realm' for themselves.

In fact, kings don't have to be all that martial to be successful. They usually only have to look the part. It is good for a king to look like a warrior/strong man but not necessarily for him to insist to do a lot of fighting in his own person (that can lead to injury and death, which usually is bad for the Realm) or participate in tourneys.

Viserys I, Baelor I, Daeron II, Aerys I, Jaehaerys II, and a bunch of other Targaryen kings never bothered to portray themselves as 'capable warriors' (but Jaehaerys II clearly seems to have been a capable general willing to live through the ordeal of a military campaign/war despite the fact that he clearly wasn't physically up to the ordeal).

That resulted in Daeron II looking less impressive than he might have looked. But him not being a knight doesn't mean he couldn't protect the Realm as the supreme military commander the same way other kings did. And there is, of course, the slander of the Blackfyre supporters to consider. They stressed the fact that Daemon was the better man because he was the better warrior, but it is made clear again and again that a good warrior is not necessarily a good king nor a good commander (Stannis is a good commander yet we have no idea how good a knight he actually is - probably a very bad one, actually; Tywin is a good commander, too, yet nobody seems to remember any tourneys he might have won in his youth).

10 minutes ago, LIVIA said:

Besides, Daeron II was not the first to do this trick with the title of PotR: for example, Rhaenyra was not a warrior too, so the title of Protector of the Realm belonged to her husband, Prince Daemon.

That is true, but Rhaenyra was a woman and thus she (and Daemon) apparently considered it to improper for her to lead her own troops into battle. She never did that as far as we know.

I'd be very surprised if Daeron II hadn't styled himself Protector of the Realm for most of his reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2017 at 10:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

(Stannis is a good commander yet we have no idea how good a knight he actually is - probably a very bad one, actually; Tywin is a good commander, too, yet nobody seems to remember any tourneys he might have won in his youth).

This is based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, apovsic said:

This is based on what?

On the fact that we don't even know that Stannis actually is a knight. Not to mention the fact that he didn't participate in any tourney as far as we know. In addition, his character suggests that he actually holds tourney knights and the like in contempt - after all, playing at war is ridiculous behavior, and Stannis certainly isn't the kind of who thinks you are great guy just because you can push somebody off his horse.

There is a good chance that the brother of the Lord of Storm's End and later the brother of the king got his knighthood since pretty much every highborn noble or royal gets it, but it is no guarantee.

Laenor Velaryon only got knighted a fortnight before his wedding so that he had a title, and Tytos Lannister never was a knight. Many Targaryen kings may not have been knights - Aenys I, Viserys I, Aegon III, Baelor the Blessed, Daeron II, Aerys I, possibly even Jaehaerys II (although he at least had once a squire - but then, a king certainly can have a squire even if he isn't a knight, just as Tyrion can).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this isn't really hard evidence. I mean, sure I could buy it if Stannis was some minor character from the books or WOIAF, but he is not. He is one of the major character of the books and one of the most talked about. He is a Baratheon, family known for great fighters and what is more he is brother of a man, who was known for his fighting skills. And yet in all five books there is no mention that Stannis is a bad fighter. There is a lot of talking about him, how he is like what are his cons and prons, a lot of comparing him with Robert and yet no one says something like "And Robert was a great fighter and Stannis is shit!". So therefore I really don't see any solid rock evidence for Stannis being VERY BAD warrior. 

OTOH I won't claim that he was something special (based on the fact that he was Baratheon or something like that). I think that he was an average warrior, maybe slightly above or bellow. And until there is some good evidence, no one can claim that he is probably good/bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

On the fact that we don't even know that Stannis actually is a knight. Not to mention the fact that he didn't participate in any tourney as far as we know. In addition, his character suggests that he actually holds tourney knights and the like in contempt - after all, playing at war is ridiculous behavior, and Stannis certainly isn't the kind of who thinks you are great guy just because you can push somebody off his horse.

There is a good chance that the brother of the Lord of Storm's End and later the brother of the king got his knighthood since pretty much every highborn noble or royal gets it, but it is no guarantee.

Laenor Velaryon only got knighted a fortnight before his wedding so that he had a title, and Tytos Lannister never was a knight. Many Targaryen kings may not have been knights - Aenys I, Viserys I, Aegon III, Baelor the Blessed, Daeron II, Aerys I, possibly even Jaehaerys II (although he at least had once a squire - but then, a king certainly can have a squire even if he isn't a knight, just as Tyrion can).

Can a King or Lord create a knight in Westeros, or can it only be a knight that makes a knight?

In real life, I was interested to read that King Francis I of France made a point of not taking a knighthood, until he'd proved himself worthy of it in battle.  He was then knighted by Chevalier Bayard, after the battle of Marignano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Can a King or Lord create a knight in Westeros, or can it only be a knight that makes a knight?

In real life, I was interested to read that King Francis I of France made a point of not taking a knighthood, until he'd proved himself worthy of it in battle.  He was then knighted by Chevalier Bayard, after the battle of Marignano.

A king can make a knight regardless whether he is a knight or not. A lord who isn't a knight can't. George has told us as much. But the latter shouldn't matter because a lord usually commands the allegiance of knights who could dub people in his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, apovsic said:

Well this isn't really hard evidence. I mean, sure I could buy it if Stannis was some minor character from the books or WOIAF, but he is not. He is one of the major character of the books and one of the most talked about. He is a Baratheon, family known for great fighters and what is more he is brother of a man, who was known for his fighting skills. And yet in all five books there is no mention that Stannis is a bad fighter. There is a lot of talking about him, how he is like what are his cons and prons, a lot of comparing him with Robert and yet no one says something like "And Robert was a great fighter and Stannis is shit!". So therefore I really don't see any solid rock evidence for Stannis being VERY BAD warrior. 

Aenys I, an average fighter, was the half-brother of the great swordsman Maegor the Cruel. Prince Daemon was the brother of the happy fat guy Viserys I. Aerys I was the brother of the great Baelor Breakspear and the pretty good warrior Maekar I. Eddard Stark was an average swordsman and the brother of the pretty good warrior Brandon Stark.

Do you see the pattern? Stannis is never even described as a very muscled or strong man. In fact, after he gives a lot of his life force to Melisandre to make some shadow assassins he pretty much looks like a living corpse. This makes it very unlikely he is a good fighter. And remember how he talks about fighting men in his service like Richard Horpe and Clayton Suggs. He isn't fond of that kind of people, and there is most likely a reason for that.

5 hours ago, apovsic said:

OTOH I won't claim that he was something special (based on the fact that he was Baratheon or something like that). I think that he was an average warrior, maybe slightly above or bellow. And until there is some good evidence, no one can claim that he is probably good/bad.

Still, there is no evidence that he is even a knight. And while I think he was properly trained at arms this doesn't mean he has to be good or even average. He could have been an awkward and clumsy youth, lacking the courage to ever try to compete with Robert in the yard. And if that was the case then he would have given up the trait pretty early on. Stannis' weird focus on the law and stuff is a pretty strong sign that he had different interests. We never see him train at arms, unlike Jon or Stannis' men. He has other men fight for him as the majority of the lords and kings do.

Also consider that Stannis should have some friends if he had some success on the yard or in tourneys but he doesn't. He isn't a people person, and one cannot really imagine him traveling with some buddies to some tourney at KL, or somewhere in the Stormlands or the Reach. He wouldn't have had any fun, constantly complaining about the bad weather, the dirty tents, the advances of the camp followers (or lack thereof), and the tourney stuff itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aenys I, an average fighter, was the half-brother of the great swordsman Maegor the Cruel. Prince Daemon was the brother of the happy fat guy Viserys I. Aerys I was the brother of the great Baelor Breakspear and the pretty good warrior Maekar I. Eddard Stark was an average swordsman and the brother of the pretty good warrior Brandon Stark.

Do you see the pattern? Stannis is never even described as a very muscled or strong man. In fact, after he gives a lot of his life force to Melisandre to make some shadow assassins he pretty much looks like a living corpse. This makes it very unlikely he is a good fighter. And remember how he talks about fighting men in his service like Richard Horpe and Clayton Suggs. He isn't fond of that kind of people, and there is most likely a reason for that.

Well, that just confirms my point, not yours, doesn't it? He is probably an AVERAGE fighter not VERY BAD.

 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, there is no evidence that he is even a knight. And while I think he was properly trained at arms this doesn't mean he has to be good or even average. He could have been an awkward and clumsy youth, lacking the courage to ever try to compete with Robert in the yard. And if that was the case then he would have given up the trait pretty early on. Stannis' weird focus on the law and stuff is a pretty strong sign that he had different interests. We never see him train at arms, unlike Jon or Stannis' men. He has other men fight for him as the majority of the lords and kings do.

I never said that he is a good fighter. And if you don't know any solid information about someone's skills with arms, it's probably because he is average (so nothing to talk about, if he would be much better/worse it would be probably talked about): And also  I really don't see a correlation between focus on law and being a bad fighter? And about training, how many man do we really see that train? Are all of those, who do not train bad fighters? And having man under your command also doesn't give if one is good fighter or not. So really it all based on some really thin assumptions.

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Also consider that Stannis should have some friends if he had some success on the yard or in tourneys but he doesn't. He isn't a people person, and one cannot really imagine him traveling with some buddies to some tourney at KL, or somewhere in the Stormlands or the Reach. He wouldn't have had any fun, constantly complaining about the bad weather, the dirty tents, the advances of the camp followers (or lack thereof), and the tourney stuff itself.

Really? Like Meagor eh? Also yeah, I agree, but that just mean that he don't attend tourneys, not that he is BAD fighter. Yes, he is probably not very good one, but I really don't know who would claim that.

Also, I apologies for off topic, should we continue the debate somewhere elsewhere or should we stop? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, apovsic said:

Well, that just confirms my point, not yours, doesn't it? He is probably an AVERAGE fighter not VERY BAD.

Yeah, okay, perhaps he isn't a very bad fighter. When I was writing that I was comparing him to Robert in my mind.

1 minute ago, apovsic said:

I never said that he is a good fighter. And if you don't know any solid information about someone's skills with arms, it's probably because he is average (so nothing to talk about, if he would be much better/worse it would be probably talked about): And also  I really don't see a correlation between focus on law and being a bad fighter?

A focus on law suggests that you spend a lot of time reading, writing, and talking. Not in the practice yard. Compared to Robert Stannis would essentially have been stay-at-home/bookworm.

1 minute ago, apovsic said:

And about training, how many man do we really see that train? Are all of those, who do not train bad fighters? And having man under your command also doesn't give if one is good fighter or not. So really it all based on some really thin assumptions.

Sure, it isn't confirmed.

1 minute ago, apovsic said:

Really? Like Meagor eh?

In Maegor's case we know he was a great fighter and not a people person. Presumably we also knew it if Stannis was a great fighter, no? And I also counted Tywin among those guys. I could also add Edmure Tully, Mace Tyrell, Ned Stark, etc. Neither of those men is likely a good fighter. And some of them might actually be pretty bad, especially if they had not properly trained for decades.

1 minute ago, apovsic said:

Also yeah, I agree, but that just mean that he don't attend tourneys, not that he is BAD fighter. Yes, he is probably not very good one, but I really don't know who would claim that.

Also, I apologies for off topic, should we continue the debate somewhere elsewhere or should we stop? 

I think we can wrap it up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, there is no evidence that he is even a knight.

I think that we can safely assume that Stannis is a knight, because we know that he knighted Davos and he could only have done that if he was a knight himself. (Cressen thinks "Stannis had knighted Davos", and Davos says "Lord Stannis knighted me")

But anyway, I agree with you assumption that he can't have been a very good knight. And even if he was a good fighter (which I doubt), the rest of the qualities that are supposed to go with knighthood besides mere martial prowess were not in him: a knight is supposed to be a defender of the Faith, but he burned septs and septons. A knight is supposed to protect the innocent, but he was prepared to sacrifice a boy for his personal gain. A knight is supposed to be brave and loyal, but he deserted his king and brother and fled to Dragonstone at the time of gravest danger. A knight is supposed to fight with honour, but he resorted to dark arts to kill Cortnay and Renly instead of facing them in battle.

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I think that we can safely assume that Stannis is a knight, because we know that he knighted Davos and he could only have done that if he was a knight himself. (Cressen thinks "Stannis had knighted Davos", and Davos says "Lord Stannis knighted me").

Thanks for that! That settles that. I should have realized that myself. I wondered for quite some time whether Stannis was a knight or not but him knighting a man while he was a mere lord, or possibly only a knight (depending whether he knighted Davos before or after Robert made him Lord of Dragonstone which we don't know) settles that question for good.

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

But anyway, I agree with you assumption that he can't have been a very good knight. And even if he was a good fighter (which I doubt), the rest of the qualities that are supposed to go with knighthood besides mere martial prowess were not in him: a knight is supposed to be a defender of the Faith, but he burned septs and septons. A knight is supposed to protect the innocent, but he was prepared to sacrifice a boy for his personal gain. A knight is supposed to be brave and loyal, but he deserted his king and brother and fled to Dragonstone at the time of gravest danger. A knight is supposed to fight with honour, but he resorted to dark arts to kill Cortnay and Renly instead of facing them in battle.

When you phrase it that way one could actually make a case that Stannis is unconsciously closer to Sandor insofar as he also seems to despise what 'knighthood' stands for. Clearly a lot of the issues Stannis has with other people were greatly increased by the way Robert treated him when they were young, and by his jealousy about Robert's skills as a manly man and his ability to make friends. The fact that Robert had so much success without having any of the character traits Stannis himself considers to be good (being dutiful, stoic, correct, sober, etc.) would have made matters even worse.

We see it in ADwD how Stannis is still fighting against the shadow of Robert, comparing himself to the guy (something that really irritated me when I first read the book). One can practically see him talking to Robert's shade in his tent while he was preparing his attack on King's Landing in ACoK. 'Look you drunken fool what I'm doing. Nobody likes me, and I detest all those fools whom you once called friends in your stupidity, but now I am making them bow to the power I've unleashed. They will all be punished, every single one of them. I might not be as strong as you or as popular as you but my lover is still going to make them all bow to me. Who are you calling Weakwing now?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys,

I wholly agree with you assertion of Stannis: his main problem was Robert's shadow. He could have turned out a fine knight/lord/man if it wasn't for his obsession for his older brother. being Lord of Dragonstone was an honor, but he wanted to be Lord of Storm's End because that was Robert's title. And later he sacrificed everything he was and "sold his soul" to the red Devil just to be a king. Not because he wanted to be a king, but because Robert had been. A very sad man.

But perhaps we should get back to topic. We are only in the second page of a D&E era politics! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.