Jump to content

Maegor´s challenge


Jaak

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

An obvious point would have been Jaehaerys I calling the first Great Council in 101. Until then, there would have been just one Council to talk about.

No, we know that Jaehaerys I formally established the Small Council as we know it during his reign. That would have meant he formally created this legal body, defined and limited the number of officials that sat on it, and also established some sort of rank system. The Handship clearly rose to the power and influence it had as the king's deputy during the long tenure of Septon Barth.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

The members of Aenys´ Council may have had the example of Gawen´s death to discourage others from confronting Maegor, but they did afterwards have the practical opportunity to slink away as soon as Maegor wasn´t looking.

Considering that Alyssa and her children might have been imprisoned on Dragonstone upon Maegor and Visenya's return this doesn't seem to be a likely option. Maegor's long coma certainly would have changed a lot of things, most likely marking the beginning of Aegon's resistance to his uncle's rule. It is easily imaginable that some people in the Targaryen camp decided to look for a new king in case Maegor would never wake up again. Visenya was old, and Alyssa's sons were the future. Quicksilver could easily enough have gotten off the island in those days.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

We do not have the story of how Aegon got Quicksilver, but he clearly did not have it in 42 when Aenys died.

See above. However, we actually don't know whether Quicksilver was with Aenys I on Dragonstone when the man died. It is very, very likely but not confirmed.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

There is no evidence of Rhaena having had Dreamfyre before 47.

No evidence to the contrary, either. We only know she rode her eventually. However, we do know that the Targaryens had more than enough dragons to give hatchlings to all the sons and grandchildren of the Conqueror. There is no reason to believe Rhaena, Aegon, and Viserys wouldn't have gotten any dragons. And if their hatchlings died there would have been hatchlings around to replace them. Six dragons hatched on Dragonstone during the reign of the Conqueror, with another two hatching on Dragonstone shortly after Aenys I had named Maegor Hand in 37 AC. That makes eight. Quicksilver, Dreamfyre, Vermithor, and Silverwing make only four. Five if we count Sheepstealer among those (after all, he hatched when the Old King was still young). That still leaves three dragons unaccounted for.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

As for Jaehaerys, 8 years old in 42, and Alysanne, 6 years old in 42, we know they eventually got dragons, but no idea when. For Alyssa and Viserys, there is no evidence of dragon.

The account of Jaehaerys I rise to power suggests he was already a dragonrider when he became king. There is no talk of him only mounting a dragon after he became king. That sort of implies that his father Aenys I or his grandfather Aegon I gave his dragon to him since Maegor most likely would have done such a thing. Not to mention that Jaehaerys would have had no access to dragons while he was on the run with his mother and younger sister.

And even Alysanne is old enough to have mounted her own dragon by the end of her father's reign. She happened to be on Dragonstone when her father fell ill, just as Jaehaerys and Viserys were.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

It is wholly plausible that from 44 to 47, Maegor was the only person who had ever ridden a dragon, and the only Targaryen known to be left alive - except by each hidden party themselves and their close accomplices.

Not really. Because, you know, Rhaena could have ridden Dreamfyre since her childhood. Alyssa Velaryon could have had a dragon, too, as could Aegon, Viserys, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne in those years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.1.2017 at 0:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

Prior to the Trial of Seven men actually gathered around the Targaryen banner despite the fact that the Faith Militant effectively controlled King's Landing at that time, and after Maegor recovered from his coma the people in the city cheered him when he presented himself to his subjects.

 

On 27.1.2017 at 0:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

If he did, those have nothing to do with him executing Grand Maester Gawen. He did so because the man objected to his ascension, and thus was challenging his right to rule. He was a traitor in Maegor's eyes, and obviously didn't care about any of the reasons Maegor might have used to justify taking the crown.

But we don't know if that was even the case. Besides, there is no reason to believe Valyrian law was relevant in the Seven Kingdoms. Aegon the Conqueror did not introduce Valyrian law to Westeros, after all.

Aegon the Conqueror did introduce incest and polygamy to Westeros.

On 27.1.2017 at 0:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

 the people still thought the Targaryens were the rightful Kings of Westeros. They still had supporters, and those rallied to the dragon banner upon Maegor's arrival to KL.

Under Maegor´s banner, not Aegon´s.

On 27.1.2017 at 0:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

Maegor actually had little reason to care all that much about Prince Aegon at that point. The boy was in the West, and besieged at Crakehall Castle. He was a non-factor in all this. Only Gawen mentioned his claim. The Targaryen loyalists in KL and the Crownlands most likely were more inclined to follow a powerful warrior-king like Maegor than some young princeling far away.

In which case Maegor could have said so in answer to Gawen - either instead of beheading, or after beheading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Aegon the Conqueror did introduce incest and polygamy to Westeros.

He did not, actually. The man had married his two sisters before he conquered Westeros. He did not take them to wives after the Conquest, nor did he ever arrange and incestuous or polygamous marriage while he lived. And he certainly never told people that they had to or should now marry all their sisters as he had done.

26 minutes ago, Jaak said:

In which case Maegor could have said so in answer to Gawen - either instead of beheading, or after beheading.

Well, we don't really know what Maegor said to Gawen nor what Gawen said to Maegor before he was beheaded, or do we? We have a very short description of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that successful Trial of Seven by Maegor would have put shame to the Faith Mllitant's causes belli against the Targaryens. When Maegor won, or "won", his Trial by Seven it was kind of a show that the Seven favored Maegor and were not at all as pissed as the Faith Militant claimed they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

It should also be noted that successful Trial of Seven by Maegor would have put shame to the Faith Mllitant's causes belli against the Targaryens. When Maegor won, or "won", his Trial by Seven it was kind of a show that the Seven favored Maegor and were not at all as pissed as the Faith Militant claimed they were.

What counts as winning Trial by Seven? Ditto by single combat, in fact. Is the combat won by last one standing, or last one breathing?

Also, what would have happened if Maegor´s side won, but Maegor fell?

Edit: seems that "an accused" falling counts as losing. But what happens to loser´s six mates? What is their stake in risking to win, rather than letting the principals fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jaak said:

What counts as winning Trial by Seven? Ditto by single combat, in fact. Is the combat won by last one standing, or last one breathing?

Also, what would have happened if Maegor´s side won, but Maegor fell?

Edit: seems that "an accused" falling counts as losing. But what happens to loser´s six mates? What is their stake in risking to win, rather than letting the principals fight?

I'd say its lost by the first one dying.

If Maegor would have died I assume that Visenya would take command. She don't strike me as someone who was afraid to take matters into her own hands.

And I think the fight is as a team with a focus on the accused as in Dunk's Trial by Seven.

Those are at least my thoughts on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jaak said:

What counts as winning Trial by Seven? Ditto by single combat, in fact. Is the combat won by last one standing, or last one breathing?

Also, what would have happened if Maegor´s side won, but Maegor fell?

Edit: seems that "an accused" falling counts as losing. But what happens to loser´s six mates? What is their stake in risking to win, rather than letting the principals fight?

The accused is declared innocent if his accuser or accusers are either defeated or yield, thereby withdrawing their accusations. If the accused is slain, it is believed the gods have judged him guilty, and the trial of seven ends. If the accused cannot find six men to stand with him, he is declared guilty as well.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Trial_of_seven

 

The wiki is a really good, obvious resource for stuff like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know if the same rules applied for Maegor's Trial of Seven. There weren't any accusers there, just the Seven Kingdoms in balance, and Maegor on the one side, and the Faith on the other. Presumably this was a battle for life and death. All champions had to be killed by the other side, but Maegor certainly couldn't afford to be killed.

But we also don't know whether Maegor going down and falling into a coma was interpreted as victory or rather as some sort of drawn. When he recovered it would have been a victory for him but while he was between life and death not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Aegon or Rhaena had any dragons, why were they trapped in Crakehall by rebellion? Why did they not simply put the would-be besiegers to dragonfire, or use their dragons to fly Crakehall for more comfort at King´s Landing or Dragonstone?

If Rhaena had Dreamfyre, where was it for four years?

Westeros is full of people. Westeros is not full of dragons.

It would have been hard to conceal whereabouts of Dreamfyre, Vermithor or Silverwing anywhere. People would have noticed and talked.

It would have been possible to avoid getting caught - by being constantly on the move around Westeros, flying away before Balerion or Vhagar arrived, like Vhagar would do avoiding Caraxes and Sheepstealer. Or flying out of Westeros. But Maegor and whole Westeros would have known where dragons were.

An alternative is that Rhaena, Alyssa, Jaehaerys and Alysanne were completely dragonless, hiding as people, and Dreamfyre, Vermithor and Silverwing were riderless/never tamed, accounted for and under Maegor´s control, such as on Dragonstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

An alternative is that Rhaena, Alyssa, Jaehaerys and Alysanne were completely dragonless, hiding as people, and Dreamfyre, Vermithor and Silverwing were riderless/never tamed, accounted for and under Maegor´s control, such as on Dragonstone.

There, you came up with the possibility yourself. If Rhaena was already riding Dreamfyre in 42 AC the dragon most likely would have remained behind, either on Dragonstone or in KL. That is not very likely considering that a royal progress usually had the Targaryens show off their dragons (we know that the Conqueror and Aenys/Alyssa did this earlier, just as Jaehaerys I did it later when he brought six dragons to Winterfell). Thus Aegon and Rhaena would most likely not have gone on the progress without any dragons. And that would mean they most likely were dragonriders at that point but that they dragons did not survive their (various) encounters with the Faith Militant rebels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2017 at 4:37 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't know if the same rules applied for Maegor's Trial of Seven. There weren't any accusers there, just the Seven Kingdoms in balance, and Maegor on the one side, and the Faith on the other. Presumably this was a battle for life and death. All champions had to be killed by the other side, but Maegor certainly couldn't afford to be killed.

But we also don't know whether Maegor going down and falling into a coma was interpreted as victory or rather as some sort of drawn. When he recovered it would have been a victory for him but while he was between life and death not so much.

Really? No accusers?

“Visenya then challenged any who denied Maegor’s right to rule to prove themselves, and the captain of the Warrior’s Sons accepted the challenge. Ser Damon Morrigen, called Damon the Devout, agreed to a trial of seven after the ancient fashion: Ser Damon and six Warrior’s Sons against the king and his six champions.”

What exactly is Damon Morrigen in this scenario then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There, you came up with the possibility yourself. If Rhaena was already riding Dreamfyre in 42 AC the dragon most likely would have remained behind, either on Dragonstone or in KL. That is not very likely

Agreed. But if Rhaena was not a dragonrider in 42, then a dragon of course would not have accompanied her.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

considering that a royal progress usually had the Targaryens show off their dragons (we know that the Conqueror and Aenys/Alyssa did this earlier, just as Jaehaerys I did it later when he brought six dragons to Winterfell).

... except we know these specific Targaryens did have dragons who naturally would have accompanied their riders while travelling.

Showing off their dragons was not the whole point of a royal progress. Aegon was accompanied by six maesters and as many as a thousand knights.

Balerion did not carry a thousand knights. Non-dragonriders accompanying the Targaryen on ground slowed the progress to speed of land travel. If the point were showing off dragons, Aegon could have gone on royal progresses alone on Balerion, like the solo missions of Visenya/Vhagar to Eyrie, or Rhaenys/Meraxes to Sunspear.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Thus Aegon and Rhaena would most likely not have gone on the progress without any dragons.

They were aged 16 and 19. If from the experience of Aegon, royal progresses were seen as a way for Targaryens to show face, bring their court along and dispense honour and patronage, then it would have been natural to send them on progress - even if Targaryens were experimenting with how to display dragonless royals.

Grand Council of 101 ended up supporting Viserys even though he was dragonless, and dragonriding Targaryen alternatives did exist at that point (Daemon, Rhaenys, Laenor).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

What exactly is Damon Morrigen in this scenario then?

A man who challenges Maegor's claim and right to sit the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror. He doesn't accuse Maegor of anything. He says he is not worthy, an abomination born of incest that has to be put down like a mad dog. Like all Targaryens should.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Agreed. But if Rhaena was not a dragonrider in 42, then a dragon of course would not have accompanied her.

Sure, but we don't know she wasn't at that time. She was the eldest child of Aenys I, after all.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

... except we know these specific Targaryens did have dragons who naturally would have accompanied their riders while travelling.

No, we don't, actually. We don't know whether Jaehaerys I and Alysanne took the riders of those six dragons with them on their progress. They could also have taken riderless dragons with them for the fun of it. If this was early in their reign (as Alysanne's youthful behavior suggests) Vhagar and Balerion might have been both riderless at that time. Do you think it would have been a good idea to leave them without Targaryen supervision on Dragonstone or in KL? I don't think so.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Showing off their dragons was not the whole point of a royal progress. Aegon was accompanied by six maesters and as many as a thousand knights.

And his dragons.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Balerion did not carry a thousand knights. Non-dragonriders accompanying the Targaryen on ground slowed the progress to speed of land travel. If the point were showing off dragons, Aegon could have gone on royal progresses alone on Balerion, like the solo missions of Visenya/Vhagar to Eyrie, or Rhaenys/Meraxes to Sunspear.

We see how Prince Aemond and Prince Daeron stay with the host they are accompanying during the Dance. The Conqueror and his dragonriding wives, children, and grandchildren wouldn't have flown all the time during their progresses. We know Prince Aenys was at Highgarden for some progress when his father died. He had Quicksilver with him and quickly returned to Dragonstone to receive his father's crown. Later on the court was on another progress through the south when Aenys I received the news about Harren the Red at Riverrun. Lord Tully urged him to attack the castle with Quicksilver just as his father had attacked Harrenhal with Balerion.

The dragons were always there when the Targaryens went on a progress.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

They were aged 16 and 19. If from the experience of Aegon, royal progresses were seen as a way for Targaryens to show face, bring their court along and dispense honour and patronage, then it would have been natural to send them on progress - even if Targaryens were experimenting with how to display dragonless royals.

Why should the eldest children and heirs of Aenys I be dragonless? That makes no sense. There were dragons around, two of which hatched in the very year of Aenys I's ascension. 

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Grand Council of 101 ended up supporting Viserys even though he was dragonless, and dragonriding Targaryen alternatives did exist at that point (Daemon, Rhaenys, Laenor).

The Great Council was discussing legal claims, not dragonriders. And Viserys I deliberately chose not to mount another dragon. He could have done so any day he liked. There were a lot of riderless dragons around. Whatever dragon his father Baelon had ridden. Alysanne's Silverwing, and so on. He could even have demanded some hatchling after Balerion's death in 94 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A man who challenges Maegor's claim and right to sit the Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror. He doesn't accuse Maegor of anything. He says he is not worthy, an abomination born of incest that has to be put down like a mad dog. Like all Targaryens should.

So he doesn't accuse Maegor of anything except ..... not worthing of being ....... a king, in the eyes of gods and men? Looks a lot to me like Damon is accusing him of something. Damon is acting as the accuser/plaintiff in this particular trial. This is a criminal trial with an accused and an accuser, or plaintiff an defendant if you prefer.

This is pretty clearly a plain trial by combat that fits into every definition we've been given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but we don't know she wasn't at that time. She was the eldest child of Aenys I, after all.

Yes, but we have some evidence.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know Prince Aenys was at Highgarden for some progress when his father died. He had Quicksilver with him and quickly returned to Dragonstone to receive his father's crown. Later on the court was on another progress through the south when Aenys I received the news about Harren the Red at Riverrun. Lord Tully urged him to attack the castle with Quicksilver just as his father had attacked Harrenhal with Balerion.

The dragons were always there when the Targaryens went on a progress.

Aenys had a dragon - and we see that he used it to leave progress behind when needed.

That Aegon and Rhaena did not use dragons to suppress the rebellion, nor escape the siege of Crakehall, strongly suggests that neither of them had a dragon. That´s the least unlikely of several possibilities.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should the eldest children and heirs of Aenys I be dragonless? That makes no sense. There were dragons around, two of which hatched in the very year of Aenys I's ascension. 

Because if they had dragons, they would have been expected to use them. The least unlikely explanation is that they were indeed dragonless.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Great Council was discussing legal claims, not dragonriders.

It was a council of lords, not maesters. It is not clear whether they had a training to consider law regardless of consequences, nor that anyone asked them to.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Viserys I deliberately chose not to mount another dragon. He could have done so any day he liked. There were a lot of riderless dragons around. Whatever dragon his father Baelon had ridden. Alysanne's Silverwing, and so on. He could even have demanded some hatchling after Balerion's death in 94 AC.

He might have done so. He was heir presumptive - it was likely that if Baelon duly reigned, he would not disinherit his elder son in favour of his niece despite the niece having the better claim.

Yet in seven years, he did not bother (or dare) to do so - running for throne as a 24 year old dragonless prince against dragonriders.

This suggests that having a dragon was not seen as so urgent - supporting the plausibility of Rhaena and Aegon having been dragonless at 19 and 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jaak said:

That Aegon and Rhaena did not use dragons to suppress the rebellion, nor escape the siege of Crakehall, strongly suggests that neither of them had a dragon. That´s the least unlikely of several possibilities.

Perhaps their dragons were already dead when they were besieged there? We have no reason to believe that the attacks of the Faith Militant began only at Crakehall. A royal progress isn't a small affair, there would have been many lords, hundreds of knights, and thousands of men-at-arms with them. The Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows attacking them must have been quite numerous to actually force Aegon and Rhaena to hide behind the walls of some castle. We have no reason to believe that they were at Crakehall when the attacks begin. It could have been much sooner.

'The Sons of the Dragon' makes it quite clear that everywhere in the Realm the Faith Militant was rebelling, attacking people, and forcing them to choose between the Seven and the abominations. There was no middle ground there, and Aegon and Rhaena would have experienced that opposition firsthand. And two smaller dragons are killed easily enough, especially if they are attacked while chained or on the ground. Later the rebels even killed Syrax who could have flown away. 

25 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Because if they had dragons, they would have been expected to use them. The least unlikely explanation is that they were indeed dragonless.

I'm with you that they would have been dragonless at Crakehall. But that doesn't mean they were dragonless when they left KL.

25 minutes ago, Jaak said:

It was a council of lords, not maesters. It is not clear whether they had a training to consider law regardless of consequences, nor that anyone asked them to.

They were discussing claims, proximity vs. primogeniture and the like. They were not talking about the size of dragons or whether having a huge dragon gives you a better claim.

25 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Yet in seven years, he did not bother (or dare) to do so - running for throne as a 24 year old dragonless prince against dragonriders.

TRP explicitly states that Viserys I chose to not claim a dragon after Balerion's death. Perhaps out of respect for the dragon of the Conqueror. Perhaps also because he didn't like dragons or to fly and found it unnecessary to waste his time on dragon. What good would it do if he had a dragon and would never mount it because he preferred to travel by horse or even in a chariot or the like?

25 minutes ago, Jaak said:

This suggests that having a dragon was not seen as so urgent - supporting the plausibility of Rhaena and Aegon having been dragonless at 19 and 16.

Nope, back in the days of the Conqueror and Aenys I Westeros still had to see that their rulers were powerful dragonriders who could crush any rebellion with dragonfire. Viserys I was the successor of the Old King. When Jaehaerys I reign ended the Targaryen dynasty had absolute power in Westeros. Nobody dared to challenge their rule now, and thus there was no reason for the king to appear physically impressive or a powerful dragonrider himself. He commanded the dragonriders. Not riding one yourself but commanding the others actually would have made Viserys I appear more powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Because it seems to me that anyone successfully killing a dragon should have been a big deal. The bad news about Aegon should then have been not that Aegon was under siege, but that both Aegon´s and Rhaena´s dragons had been killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

Because it seems to me that anyone successfully killing a dragon should have been a big deal. The bad news about Aegon should then have been not that Aegon was under siege, but that both Aegon´s and Rhaena´s dragons had been killed.

But we have only a very concise account of the events happened, and both Yandel and Gyldayn focus much more on the people than the dragons. Dragons are pretty much irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...