Jump to content

Would the Black Dragons have been that bad?


Floki of the Ironborn

Recommended Posts

I mean, yes, another war with Dorne would have been terrible and Daeron was a great king, but apart from Aegon V none of the kings who followed Daeron came close to matching the bar he set. And even Aegon was undone by his own children. 

It's a shame that we have so little info on the Blackfyres because for all we know, they could have become good kings themselves. Even Yandel goes on and on about how awesome the first Daemon Blackfyre is and how much he resembles Aegon the Conqueror. Granted he didn't seem like a very wise man, but his sons didn't seem that bad. Daemon II had foresight, Aenys seemed like a very reasonable guy, who knows how their line might have turned out (and yes they could have been even worse for all I know, I'm just speculating).

could be that if fAegon is as good a candidate for king as Varys claims, and if he is a Blackfyre after all, it could be a chance for George to make that point about how the Blackfyres could have been just as good as the Targs but never got a chance to prove themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know.

Daemon I was a great knight and good-looking guy, we have no idea how he good he would been as a king. Daemon II was basically a puppet of Gormon Peake who didn't even understand that he was no good jouster. No idea whether that means he could have been a good king.

The twins were apparently a bully, we don't know anything about Haegon besides the fact that he did not fight to the death. Aenys was perhaps a good speaker (or just a fool like Aenys Targaryen), Daemon III could have been a good fighter, Daemon (IV) is completely unknown, and Maelys was a monster.

It is a completely open question but nothing indicates that any of the Blackfyres had the amount of visions we can clearly see in Daeron II's Dornish policies and Aegon V's attempted reforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that there is a way of knowing. Even in Daemon himself wasn’t that good we don’t know if his heirs would had been better or not or if they would had created the havoc Daeron’s heirs had done.

The only reason I would prefer Daemon over Daeron is the fact that after Dance Daena should had been the Queen and not Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't think that there is a way of knowing. Even in Daemon himself wasn’t that good we don’t know if his heirs would had been better or not or if they would had created the havoc Daeron’s heirs had done.

The only reason I would prefer Daemon over Daeron is the fact that after Dance Daena should had been the Queen and not Viserys.

You keep asserting that women should inherit before there is any law or custom in the land that they 1) can or 2) should. Imposing your own views and values on a fictional historical setting is an exercise in futility. Rhaenyra lost the Dance, so there remains no precedent for a Queen Regnant in Westeros. Dany stands a good chance of being the first.

If Daena had been named queen it wouldn't have put Daemon on the throne anyway. Legitimized bastards come after trueborn heirs, so any other children she had would be ahead of Daemon in the succession. And as queen she would have had to marry so there likely would have been more children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You keep asserting that women should inherit before there is any law or custom in the land that they 1) can or 2) should. Imposing your own views and values on a fictional historical setting is an exercise in futility. Rhaenyra lost the Dance, so there remains no precedent for a Queen Regnant in Westeros. Dany stands a good chance of being the first.

Rhaenyra didn't lost the Dance.

Quote

The account of how of the Second Aegon fell and was succeeded by the Third is a tale for another time, however. The war for the throne would go on, but the rivalry that began at a court ball when a princess dressed in black and a queen in green has come to its red end, and with that concludes this portion of our history.

10 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If Daena had been named queen it wouldn't have put Daemon on the throne anyway. Legitimized bastards come after trueborn heirs, so any other children she had would be ahead of Daemon in the succession. And as queen she would have had to marry so there likely would have been more children.

We don't know if he would had been a bastard. From all we know he could had been legitimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

They would have been neither better nor worse. Daemon had the same amount of Targ blood as Daeron II did. The only unknown is what kind of influence the maternal genetics would have had.

I'm not sure that has any relevance whatsoever. The amount of Targaryen blood is hardly relevant whether a person is a good ruler or not.

I'm reasonably confident, though, that Bittersteel would have been a worse Hand than Bloodraven and that Daemon's seven sons - along with Bittersteel marrying Calla - would have provided the background for another civil war, even if Daemon I had been able to end Daeron's line and extinguish House Martell in Dorne.

41 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Rhaenyra didn't lost the Dance.

Rhaenyra lost the war. She gave up her throne, ran back home to Dragonstone in disgrace, was captured by her half-brother, and subsequently fed to a dragon.

You could just as well say Robb Stark won the War of the Five Kings.

Aegon III sort of won the Dance. But he is not his mother, just as Bran or Rickon are not Robb.

41 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

We don't know if he would had been a bastard. From all we know he could had been legitimized.

Aegon IV was married to Naerys while Daemon Blackfyre was conceived and born. He was born a bastard. Considering that a Queen Daena could not have possibly married her cousin Aegon due to the fact that he was married to his sister we can be reasonably sure she would have taken another consort, and her first legitimate child by that man would have been named her heir, not the bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I mean, yes, another war with Dorne would have been terrible and Daeron was a great king, but apart from Aegon V none of the kings who followed Daeron came close to matching the bar he set. And even Aegon was undone by his own children. 

It's a shame that we have so little info on the Blackfyres because for all we know, they could have become good kings themselves. Even Yandel goes on and on about how awesome the first Daemon Blackfyre is and how much he resembles Aegon the Conqueror. Granted he didn't seem like a very wise man, but his sons didn't seem that bad. Daemon II had foresight, Aenys seemed like a very reasonable guy, who knows how their line might have turned out (and yes they could have been even worse for all I know, I'm just speculating).

could be that if fAegon is as good a candidate for king as Varys claims, and if he is a Blackfyre after all, it could be a chance for George to make that point about how the Blackfyres could have been just as good as the Targs but never got a chance to prove themselves.

It doesn't matter how they would have been. Daemon was killed and his line was extinguished on the male side. That is all that matters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that a Blackfyre reign would have been very different from a Targaryen one in the long run. There would have been a rough start, as it seems there most often is and just like it was for the Targaryens, and if the Blackfyres could cling on they could just as well have managed well or badly. The Targaryens and Dornish would continue to seek the throne, just like the Blackfyres did, but more likelt than not the Targaryens would fail just as much as the Blackfyres did.

One of the main problems we have so far is that we know fairly little about the Blackfyres and Bittersteel and we only heard about them in warlike situations. Before we get to see how they actually run the Golden Company, which they did manage to run and keep under their control for many decades, we don't know how they would rule although I do dare to say that they were probably not total incompetents given their record and the opposition they faced.

In regards to Daena I also would think that she should have been queen as Baelor to my knowledge didn't name an heir, and if Daena was queen, she would be in perfect right to name her legitimized bastard as her heir if she wanted it. It might have caused a dynastic squabble but I'm pretty sure that a guy like Daemon when adding official endoresemnt by the queen and raised to be the official heir would have managed to win any succession war started against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I mean, yes, another war with Dorne would have been terrible and Daeron was a great king, but apart from Aegon V none of the kings who followed Daeron came close to matching the bar he set. And even Aegon was undone by his own children. 

It's a shame that we have so little info on the Blackfyres because for all we know, they could have become good kings themselves. Even Yandel goes on and on about how awesome the first Daemon Blackfyre is and how much he resembles Aegon the Conqueror. Granted he didn't seem like a very wise man, but his sons didn't seem that bad. Daemon II had foresight, Aenys seemed like a very reasonable guy, who knows how their line might have turned out (and yes they could have been even worse for all I know, I'm just speculating).

could be that if fAegon is as good a candidate for king as Varys claims, and if he is a Blackfyre after all, it could be a chance for George to make that point about how the Blackfyres could have been just as good as the Targs but never got a chance to prove themselves.

The Blackfyres were trying to usurp those who were in the direct line of succession.  That puts them in the wrong, legally speaking.  I see a future in which the Targaryens and the Blackfyres could reconcile with the marriage between Daenerys and fAegon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the Blackfyres won they would've probably called themselves Targaryens since legitimized bastards usually take the name of that house. The Blackfyre descendants would've behaved no different from  their Targaryen ancestors. They would've intermarried and would have the occaisional crazy mad king and the occaisional genius. The only differences is that the royal family would have female succession and probably be a lot more Targaryen.

I really love the humor GRRM incorporates in this absurd situation that results from not allowing female/absolute primogeniture combined with these absurd Valyrian marriage arrangements. As Daemon's mother and father were Targaryen, then he and Dareon had the same amount of Targaryen and thereby Valyrian nobility. Daemon would technically be the female bastard line of succession simply by default of the circumstance of his birth.  Although, technically Daeron would have a weaker claim if the rumor of his bastardry are true regarding Aemon Dragonknight. However, Daemon's claim is even stronger if we allow for female succession because his mother was Daena the defiant, eldest daughter of Aegon III and, being Targaryen on both sides, has a HUGE claim. Whereas Naerys was half Lyseni, her claim would be weaker. When Daeron married Mariah Martell the royal family became a truly multicultural family and primarily Essossi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2017 at 3:30 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Rhaenyra didn't lost the Dance.

We don't know if he would had been a bastard. From all we know he could had been legitimized.

Yes, she did. And the winner, her brother Aegon II fed her to his dragon in front of her son. That doesn't happen to people who win.

If you'd read what I wrote it covered that. Legitimized bastards go to the back of the line after all trueborn heirs. So Daemon would not have sat the throne unless everyone ahead of him died.

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure that has any relevance whatsoever. The amount of Targaryen blood is hardly relevant whether a person is a good ruler or not.

I'm reasonably confident, though, that Bittersteel would have been a worse Hand than Bloodraven and that Daemon's seven sons - along with Bittersteel marrying Calla - would have provided the background for another civil war, even if Daemon I had been able to end Daeron's line and extinguish House Martell in Dorne.

<snip

The amount of Targaryen blood no, but my point is he had about the same genetic background so he had the same chance (based on inherited traits) as Daeron did to be a decent king. And while none of that would matter to us it might to the people of Westeros, most of whom are uneducated.

I agree about Bittersteel. Maybe the twins would have killed each other or gotten offed during a rebellion. 

I doubt Daemon could have extinguished House Martell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Joe of Generic Hall said:

I really love the humor GRRM incorporates in this absurd situation that results from not allowing female/absolute primogeniture combined with these absurd Valyrian marriage arrangements. As Daemon's mother and father were Targaryen, then he and Dareon had the same amount of Targaryen and thereby Valyrian nobility. Daemon would technically be the female bastard line of succession simply by default of the circumstance of his birth.  Although, technically Daeron would have a weaker claim if the rumor of his bastardry are true regarding Aemon Dragonknight. However, Daemon's claim is even stronger if we allow for female succession because his mother was Daena the defiant, eldest daughter of Aegon III and, being Targaryen on both sides, has a HUGE claim.

Daena wasn't Targaryen on both sides, her mother was Daenaera Velaryon, not a Targaryen. We can be reasonably sure that Daenaera (the daughter of one Daeron Velaryon, after whom Daeron I seems to be named, himself a cousin of Alyn Velaryon) had some Targaryen ancestors but we have no clue how for down the family tree they hide. Perhaps he is descended of one of the twin daughters of Aegon and Rhaena. If not, then his Targaryen ancestors must have lived around or even before the Conquest, putting her into the very distant past.

We have no idea whether Daena would ever have legitimized her bastard Daemon had she ascended the Iron Throne. Considering that a queen has to have a consort (and that Aegon was already married nor likely the type of man Daena would want to marry) I doubt Daemon would have been particularly favored during Daena's reign. Especially not if she had married a powerful lord in his own right and given birth to a bunch of trueborn sons. Then Daemon would have disappeared in obscurity.

25 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The amount of Targaryen blood no, but my point is he had about the same genetic background so he had the same chance (based on inherited traits) as Daeron did to be a decent king. And while none of that would matter to us it might to the people of Westeros, most of whom are uneducated.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. We have no idea whether Rohanne was Valyrian or whether the Blackfyres continued the incest thing. Many of the Targaryens of the same era either married into different families or only pretty distant cousins. Daemon III and his brothers and some of his cousins might actually have been purer Valyrians than Egg's children.

25 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I agree about Bittersteel. Maybe the twins would have killed each other or gotten offed during a rebellion.

I actually expect that Daemon I would have been killed by one of his sons. If he had been successful he would have set a very strong precedent that might makes right and rebellions can be successful. With so many male heirs the more ambitious ones might have decided to rid themselves of the old man as well as some of their brothers.

And Bittersteel himself might have made plans to get his progeny on the throne by marrying one of his daughters by Calla to one of Daemon's younger sons and then moving them into a position to strike.

25 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I doubt Daemon could have extinguished House Martell. 

He most likely would have to if he intended to actually rule the Seven Kingdoms. The same would go for Daeron's entire line. He would have to kill them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip

He most likely would have to if he intended to actually rule the Seven Kingdoms. The same would go for Daeron's entire line. He would have to kill them all.

But if he truly loved Daenerys, could he have killed her children? She'd been married to Prince Moran for several years before Daemon started his rebellion.

Depending on who he listened to he might have been willing to betroth one of his sons to a daughter of Daenerys' and bring them in that way, as Baelor had intended. It was Baelor who set up Daeron and Mariah's marriage, wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

But if he truly loved Daenerys, could he have killed her children? She'd been married to Prince Moran for several years before Daemon started his rebellion.

He seems to have been willing to kill her royal brother and nephews; if he can do that, he could also kill her children. Not necessarily her, though. But then, did he really love her? Or rather what she represented (power and closeness to the throne)? And even if he did love her, did he still love when he began his rebellion? I don't think so.

10 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Depending on who he listened to he might have been willing to betroth one of his sons to a daughter of Daenerys' and bring them in that way, as Baelor had intended. It was Baelor who set up Daeron and Mariah's marriage, wasn't it?

Considering that many of Daemon's followers resented the Dornish influence at court such a marriage alliance seems unlikely. It could have happened, I guess, if Daemon had not been able to subdue the Martells militarily. But then, he apparently had the Yronwoods on his side so one assumes that a Blackfyre victory would have mean that the Yronwoods replace the Martells as the rulers of Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no idea whether Daena would ever have legitimized her bastard Daemon had she ascended the Iron Throne. Considering that a queen has to have a consort (and that Aegon was already married nor likely the type of man Daena would want to marry) I doubt Daemon would have been particularly favored during Daena's reign. Especially not if she had married a powerful lord in his own right and given birth to a bunch of trueborn sons. Then Daemon would have disappeared in obscurity.

She liked Aegon enough to sleep with him and bear his child. And from all accounts she loved Daemon fiercely and acted to see him on the throne. He was her only child and I'll bet she wanted the best for him. 

Daenerea's Velaryon heritage is hinted at being heavily Targaryen as well. Definitely valyrian. The Velaryon family also supported Rhaenyra, largely during the dance of dragons, which leads me to believe they supported female inheritance. 

Female inheritance is pretty much the impetus for both the dance of dragons and the blackfyre rebellion (and GRRM is reportedly a feminist), so that leads me to believe she would've legitimized daemon. Daenerys represents the last chance to allow absolute primogeniture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ser Joe of Generic Hall said:

She liked Aegon enough to sleep with him and bear his child. And from all accounts she loved Daemon fiercely and acted to see him on the throne. He was her only child and I'll bet she wanted the best for him.

Daena sleeping with Aegon says nothing about her feelings for him. She had a very strong personality and was very pissed that her royal brother both divorced her and then incarcerated her. And Aegon was the greatest womanizer of his generation. The man should have had no problems seducing Daena, especially if Barbra Bracken helped with that, which she perhaps did.

In fact, impregnating and thus dishonoring Daena might have been part of Aegon's plan to secure the throne for his father and thus eventually himself. We don't know whether Baelor I ever named an heir but considering that he pretty much knew about the character of his eldest cousin one would expect that he might actually have considered to name Daena or one of his other sisters his heir. If so, then Daena becoming pregnant and bearing a bastard despite the fact that she was confined to the Maidenvault could have destroyed that whole thing. Baelor would never have allowed such a wanton woman to sit the Iron Throne, not to mention that Daena's reputation would have been destroyed also with many lords of the Realm in the wake of this affair.

As a Queen Regnant Daena would most likely have to marry. And no, we have no idea that she very much loved Daemon. All we know is that she did not get all that old and that she named her bastard after her paternal grandfather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/2/2017 at 0:10 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes, she did. And the winner, her brother Aegon II fed her to his dragon in front of her son. That doesn't happen to people who win.

The quote;

Quote

The account of how of the Second Aegon fell and was succeeded by the Third is a tale for another time, however. The war for the throne would go on, but the rivalry that began at a court ball when a princess dressed in black and a queen in green has come to its red end, and with that concludes this portion of our history.

is from the ending of TPATQ and it pretty much say that the war wasn't over.

On 23/2/2017 at 0:10 AM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If you'd read what I wrote it covered that. Legitimized bastards go to the back of the line after all trueborn heirs. So Daemon would not have sat the throne unless everyone ahead of him died.

If there is one thing that the Targaryen history has taught us is that they the King, or Queen, makes the rules, they don't respect the rules of the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If there is one thing that the Targaryen history has taught us is that they the King, or Queen, makes the rules, they don't respect the rules of the land.

There are plenty of examples, too, of kings that have tried to change the rules of the land and they weren't able to: Viserys I wanted Rhaneyra to inherit the throne, Aegon IV wanted to disinherit Daeron, and Aegon V had to "bow to the recalcitrant lords" who opposed his reforms. Meanwhile, kings who reigned with utter disrespect for laws and customs, such as Maegor or Aerys II, were killed (with their murderers going unpunished).

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know whether Baelor I ever named an heir but considering that he pretty much knew about the character of his eldest cousin one would expect that he might actually have considered to name Daena or one of his other sisters his heir.

If Baelor thought that women ought to be imprisoned in order to "preserve their innocence from the wickedness of the world", I very much doubt that he ever considered them capable of ruling.

That said, I agree that Daena getting pregnant by an unknown father effectively ended her chances to become queen. The World Book claims that after Baelor's death some defended her claim, and surely this idea would have had more following if not for the scandal of Daemon's birth, that took place just the year before Baelor died.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

we have no idea that she very much loved Daemon.

I'd say that it's unlikely they loved each other, since once Daena was released from the Maidenvault a year later one expects they would have married if they wished so. Aegon was in an unhappy marriage and his wife was actually asking him to allow her to become a septa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...