Angel Eyes

Blackfyre claim...

75 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you assume for no good reason that there might have been other aspects to Aegon II declaring Aegon-Jaehaera his joint heirs when there is no reason to assume that there is.

You could have had a point if Aegon II hadn't named an heir at all, and the people at court had only decided to crown Aegon III after his uncle's death. But that was clearly not the case.

But even then - half the Realm or more was still fighting for Rhaenyra's son when Aegon II died. Those people thought Aegon the Younger had a claim because he was his mother's son. Aegon II's anti-Rhaenyra decree just declared that she was never a queen, it didn't change the mind of her followers that she had transferred her blood claim to her son Aegon (nor did it actually change the historical fact that did sit the Iron Throne and had called herself queen). The Blacks were fighting for Rhaenyra's son, not Daemon's son. And they had no reason not to believe that his claim to the throne came from his mother, just as they had no problem with the idea that his mother could and did sit the Iron Throne.

If you check Aegon II's decree to unmake Queen Rhaenyra it is that he said that the true queens of that age were his mother, the Queen Dowager, and his sister-wife Helaena. This is a technicality about titles, it doesn't says anything about blood claims - something none of Rhaenyra's family would have left by that time, anyway, since both branches of House Targaryen would have attainted each other by that time.

And you assume for no good reason that Aegon even when forced into to something can not turn it into something to serve himself, and Aegon III having a claim trough his mother in the eyes of his mothers supporters does not impact on the proclamation of Aegon II on his succession. which is ultimately the succession proclamation Aegon III was crowned under because Corlys wanted to make peace and could not do so without Jaehaera being joined heir to appease her fathers supporters.

I'm not saying you cant be right, you could very well be right i am only saying its not they only option and that judgment should be reserved until Fire and Blood comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, direpupy said:

And you assume for no good reason that Aegon even when forced into to something can not turn it into something to serve himself, and Aegon III having a claim trough his mother in the eyes of his mothers supporters does not impact on the proclamation of Aegon II on his succession. which is ultimately the succession proclamation Aegon III was crowned under because Corlys wanted to make peace and could not do so without Jaehaera being joined heir to appease her fathers supporters.

That we do not know. We have no idea how exactly Aegon III was crowned, and what announcements his followers made at his coronation. Aegon II would have pardoned Corlys Velaryon shortly after his restoration when it looked like he could still win the war. Even then his position was not strong enough that he could kill Corlys, Aegon, Baela, etc. But he was murdered by his own people after Borros Baratheon lost his battle and the Blacks were besieging the capital. If Corlys himself gave the order to kill the king - which is actually very likely - then Jaehaera may have been nothing but a fig leaf to indicate that the lines were united, whereas Aegon II originally intended for his daughter to play a much more prominent role there. Aegon III could very well have been crowned king without his wife having the same status to pacify the Blacks who had been victorious in the field (at least for the time being - they feared that Tyland and others might bring sellswords back from Essos).

After all, the Blacks did win. That's why Aegon II was killed. Cregan eventually decided not to continue the war but that was his decision, not the decision of the murderers of Aegon II or the Greens. They agreed to Corlys' peace terms but it fell to the new Hand to accept all those terms.

Share this post


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

That we do not know. We have no idea how exactly Aegon III was crowned, and what announcements his followers made at his coronation. Aegon II would have pardoned Corlys Velaryon shortly after his restoration when it looked like he could still win the war. Even then his position was not strong enough that he could kill Corlys, Aegon, Baela, etc. But he was murdered by his own people after Borros Baratheon lost his battle and the Blacks were besieging the capital. If Corlys himself gave the order to kill the king - which is actually very likely - then Jaehaera may have been nothing but a fig leaf to indicate that the lines were united, whereas Aegon II originally intended for his daughter to play a much more prominent role there. Aegon III could very well have been crowned king without his wife having the same status to pacify the Blacks who had been victorious in the field (at least for the time being - they feared that Tyland and others might bring sellswords back from Essos).

After all, the Blacks did win. That's why Aegon II was killed. Cregan eventually decided not to continue the war but that was his decision, not the decision of the murderers of Aegon II or the Greens. They agreed to Corlys' peace terms but it fell to the new Hand to accept all those terms.

The lads where advancing on Kings Landing but had not reached it yet so no siege, part of cregans anger was because he was confronted with Corlys his already in place peace when he finally arrived. 

The World of Ice and Fire - The Targaryen Kings: Aegon III

The poisoning of King Aegon II had denied them that chance. Lord Stark still marched his army into King's Landing, but to a much different outcome. He had planned to punish Storm's End, Oldtown, and Casterly Rock for having supported the king. But Lord Corlys had already sent envoys to the Rock and Storm's End and Oldtown, suing for peace. 

When you sui for peace you have to give something to they other party in order to get them to accept, this is actually the best reason i can think of that the Blacks did not tear up the decree that Rhaenyra was never queen and why Aegon II is still counted as king despite the Blacks seemingly being in control.

Also it was not just Tyland attempting to hire sellswords, there was still a green army under Lord Peake. Further first Tyland and then Lord peake becoming Hand of the King despite being Greens also points to the Blacks victory being far from complete. The marriage of Rhaena Targaryen to Garmund Hightower is even more indication that the Greens had to be placated and thus where still dangerous.

So Corlys crowning Aegon III could be done in several ways  but the easiest in order to get his peace accepted by the Greens is under Aegon II's proclamation that made Aegon III and Jaehaerea joined heirs. Now he could have crowned him as the last Targaryen male or the son Rhaenyra, hell he could have crowned him without declaring anything at all as a reason. My point is and remains that we do not know and can not say that it is one way or they other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, direpupy said:

The lads where advancing on Kings Landing but had not reached it yet so no siege, part of cregans anger was because he was confronted with Corlys his already in place peace when he finally arrived.

The Lads were already there when Aegon II was killed. They were a stone throw away from KL. The way things seem to be going was

- Borros loses.

- the Lads arrive.

- Aegon II reacts irrationally is killed.

- Aegon III is crowned and the gates are opened to the Lads.

- Corlys Velaryon sends envoys in the name of the new king to offer a peace.

- Cregan Stark arrives with his army in the capital and everything hangs in the balance.

Just now, direpupy said:

When you sui for peace you have to give something to they other party in order to get them to accept, this is actually the best reason i can think of that the Blacks did not tear up the decree that Rhaenyra was never queen and why Aegon II is still counted as king despite the Blacks seemingly being in control.

Nobody on the Black side ever doubted that Aegon II was 'a king'. Even Cregan Stark - who intended to kill him - acknowledged that Aegon II was a crowned and anointed king. Aegon II had been crowned and anointed first, and while Rhaenyra deposed him she never got around to kill him. He did, though, and restored to the Iron Throne thereafter.

The people of Westeros usually recognize real power, and that means that both Aegon II and Maegor the Cruel were true kings despite the fact that neither of them was the universally acknowledged rightful king. Aegon II decree regarding Rhaenyra's status as queen is clearly pretty much ignored by any historian writing about the Dance considering that fact that Rhaenyra actually sat the Iron Throne and ruled as queen for half a year. No historian is going to claim Aegon II sat the Iron Throne in those days. And he certainly wasn't king while he was deposed - after all, he fled his own capital city like a coward - just as Rhaenyra later did after the riots. They both gave up their crowns in a very real sense when they did that. That is why Aegon II actually had to be restored to the throne.

The reason why the Blacks did not end up dominating the regency of Aegon III is pretty simple. The all-powerful Hand Cregan Stark decided to resign and return back home. Had he decided to stay he most likely could have ruled the Seven Kingdoms for the next six years as the all-powerful Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King. He had the army to enforce his will.

The regency council of seven was only made after Cregan left, apparently as a compromise to establish a lasting peace and knit the torn Realm back together again. Without Stark as an overwhelming influence there compromise won the day. And it seems that Corlys Velaryon was the father of that - after all, that man already tried compromise with Rhaenyra once, when he first came up with that Aegon-Jaehaera match. He and others were desperate for peace and had no intention to eradicate the other side entirely. That is why Aegon II had to go, too. Because he had become an obstacle to peace.

But this doesn't mean the Blacks didn't have the upper hand. Far to the contrary, actually. If they had had a strong leader determined to continue the war and exact vengeance it could have been done.

Just now, direpupy said:

Also it was not just Tyland attempting to hire sellswords, there was still a green army under Lord Peake.

No, the Hightower army disbanded after Second Tumbleton.

Just now, direpupy said:

Further first Tyland and then Lord peake becoming Hand of the King despite being Greens also points to the Blacks victory being far from complete.

Tyland was chosen as Hand because the regents thought he was weak thanks to the ordeal he went through. He wasn't - and apparently his rival on the Black side - the Protector of the Realm Leowyn Corbray, brother to Ser Corwyn - wasn't exactly that smart a man.

But there were some Greens on the original regency council. Confirmed Blacks were

- Lady Jeyne Arryn

- Ser Torrhen Manderly

We can most likely also count Corlys Velaryon among the Blacks since he defended the rights of Aegon the Younger despite the fact that he was pardoned by Aegon II. Not to mention that he may have been crucial in killing the king.

It might be similar with Lord Manfryd Mooton who only declared for Aegon II due to the Nettles affair. Whether he continued to stick with him after Rhaenyra's murder and the capture of Aegon the Younger we do not know.

The convinced Greens on the regency council may have been

- Lord Roland Westerling (who may have been the brother of Lady Johanna Lannister)

- Lord Royce Caron.

Lord Peake only became a regent after Corlys Velaryon's death. And he only rose to real power and influence after the Winter Fever killed so many of his rivals in the city, allowing him to become both Hand and Protector of the Realm.

But he certainly was no longer a Green - if he ever was one. A Green would never have murdered Queen Jaehaera.

Just now, direpupy said:

The marriage of Rhaena Targaryen to Garmund Hightower is even more indication that the Greens had to be placated and thus where still dangerous.

That happened later on - Rhaena was married to Ser Corwyn Corbray until his death in 134 AC. We don't know when exactly Rhaena married Garmund, but it could have been actually a Targaryen power grab. If Garmund was the Lord of Oldtown at that point whoever arranged that marriage might have thought it might come in handy if the half-sister of the king sat at the side of the Lord of Oldtown.

Just now, direpupy said:

So Corlys crowning Aegon III could be done in several ways  but the easiest in order to get his peace accepted by the Greens is under Aegon II's proclamation that made Aegon III and Jaehaerea joined heirs. Now he could have crowned him as the last Targaryen male or the son Rhaenyra, hell he could have crowned him without declaring anything at all as a reason. My point is and remains that we do not know and can not say that it is one way or they other.

Well, we do know that Aegon II had to be murdered before Aegon III had to be crowned. Aegon II had no intention to die, right? And the people who killed him did not have his interests or the interests of his family at heart.

But crowning Aegon III is actually independent from the peace the people at court offered to the remaining Greens. After all, Aegon the Younger was Aegon II's named heir, so they didn't do anything wrong when they crowned him, right? But symbolically the Greens lost and the Blacks won when Aegon II died and Aegon III was crowned. That is inevitable. Aegon III was Rhaenyra's son and Aegon II his mortal enemy. Even Aegon II pardoning Aegon the Younger and betrothing him to Jaehaera was a defeat for the Greens. Aegon III's eventual rise to the throne sealed that defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was Aegon III named heir to Aegon II?

Share this post


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

The Lads were already there when Aegon II was killed. They were a stone throw away from KL. The way things seem to be going was

 

A stone's trow away but not yet there so i am still right that there was no siege like you originaly claimed. Its also doubtfull they would have had siege equipment and Aegon II had fled the city once before he could do it again. If he retrated to Storms End or Oldtown and raised new forces there then the war would have been far from over. This is probably why the murderer(s)  resorted to murder in stead of just waiting until The Lads or Cregan arrived because Aegon II's capture was not assured.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The reason why the Blacks did not end up dominating the regency of Aegon III is pretty simple. The all-powerful Hand Cregan Stark decided to resign and return back home. Had he decided to stay he most likely could have ruled the Seven Kingdoms for the next six years as the all-powerful Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King. He had the army to enforce his will.

Cregan left, but his army stayed behind so the all powerfull position you propose for the Blacks would still have been there.

 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

No, the Hightower army disbanded after Second Tumbleton.

The Green army did not disband it retreated under Lord Peake.

Bowing to defeat, Lord Unwin summoned his lords and serjeants and ordered a retreat. No disbandment is mentioned

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Tyland was chosen as Hand because the regents thought he was weak thanks to the ordeal he went through. He wasn't - and apparently his rival on the Black side - the Protector of the Realm Leowyn Corbray, brother to Ser Corwyn - wasn't exactly that smart a man.

Yes Tyland was hoped to be weak but they still made a Green Hand, them choosing one they hoped they could control does not change the fact that they where either to weak to make a Black the Hand or bound by a compromise to do so, and all this despite Cregan leaving his army behind.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Lord Peake only became a regent after Corlys Velaryon's death. And he only rose to real power and influence after the Winter Fever killed so many of his rivals in the city, allowing him to become both Hand and Protector of the Realm.

But he certainly was no longer a Green - if he ever was one. A Green would never have murdered Queen Jaehaera.

Unwin Peake was insulted that he was not chosen among the original regents so obviously he was a man of some power at the end of the war (perhaps because he was in command of the army that retreated from Tumbleton)

Matters deteriorated further when Unwin Peake, Lord of Starpike, Dunstonbury, and Whitegrove, became first a regent, then the Hand. He had played a significant role at First and Second Tumbleton, and had felt slighted when he was not chosen to be among the first regents. 

His latter ambitions do not change the fact that he was originally a Green and that they thus choose a Green as Hand.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The regency council of seven was only made after Cregan left, apparently as a compromise to establish a lasting peace and knit the torn Realm back together again. Without Stark as an overwhelming influence there compromise won the day. And it seems that Corlys Velaryon was the father of that - after all, that man already tried compromise with Rhaenyra once, when he first came up with that Aegon-Jaehaera match. He and others were desperate for peace and had no intention to eradicate the other side entirely. That is why Aegon II had to go, too. Because he had become an obstacle to peace.

I agree with you that the regency was a compromise and most likely the work of Corly's, in my mind he is the prime suspect for the murder of Aegon II.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we do know that Aegon II had to be murdered before Aegon III had to be crowned. Aegon II had no intention to die, right? And the people who killed him did not have his interests or the interests of his family at heart.

But crowning Aegon III is actually independent from the peace the people at court offered to the remaining Greens. After all, Aegon the Younger was Aegon II's named heir, so they didn't do anything wrong when they crowned him, right? But symbolically the Greens lost and the Blacks won when Aegon II died and Aegon III was crowned. That is inevitable. Aegon III was Rhaenyra's son and Aegon II his mortal enemy. Even Aegon II pardoning Aegon the Younger and betrothing him to Jaehaera was a defeat for the Greens. Aegon III's eventual rise to the throne sealed that defeat.

Symbolic defeat or not that does not say anything about as heir to whom and what Corlys crowned Aegon III and again that is the whole point we do not know and have to little information to make judgement. you could be right but you could equally be wrong.

Its obvious we are not going to agree because you have made up your mind that your head canon is the truth, but i for one will not pas final judgement until we get more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

When was Aegon III named heir to Aegon II?

After Borros had re-taken King's Landing for Aegon II and when Aegon II was trying to get Corlys over on his side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, direpupy said:

A stone's trow away but not yet there so i am still right that there was no siege like you originaly claimed. Its also doubtfull they would have had siege equipment and Aegon II had fled the city once before he could do it again. If he retrated to Storms End or Oldtown and raised new forces there then the war would have been far from over. This is probably why the murderer(s)  resorted to murder in stead of just waiting until The Lads or Cregan arrived because Aegon II's capture was not assured.

Well, I never said they had siege equipment and the like. But surrounding a city and preventing you from leaving it through the gates - which they certainly would have been able to do - also qualifies as a siege.

And, no, if there was a wider spread conspiracy to murder Aegon II - which is sort of likely since Corlys or whoever spearheaded the murder would then have been arrested and executed by the still loyal Greens - then it is very unlikely that those men still had any hope of winning the war and saving their lives.

Even Yandel indicates that, stating that Borros Baratheon had had the chance to turned the tide when he marched against the Lads. But he failed, and that was the end of it.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

Cregan left, but his army stayed behind so the all powerfull position you propose for the Blacks would still have been there.

No, since there is no reason to believe anyone but Lord Cregan Stark could control this army. Those men were Northmen and seems quite clear that the Crown did not exactly have the money to feed and pay them all. Not in the middle of winter.

You get the same example with the Hightower army in the wake of the deaths of Lord Ormund and his cousin. That robs them of a clear leader/chain of command which results in factionalism which leads to defeat and chaos. There is a Targaryen prince there, the younger brother of their king, but even that doesn't help.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

The Green army did not disband it retreated under Lord Peake.

Bowing to defeat, Lord Unwin summoned his lords and serjeants and ordered a retreat. No disbandment is mentioned.

 

It is not necessary to mention that there because the army was already pretty much disarray even before Second Tumbleton. There was no clear supreme commander, factionalism, and cowardice. They had the advantage there, but the men only cared about plunder and were afraid to face dragons in battle at KL.

We know that the Caltrops actually had to plot to rid themselves of the Two Betrayers. That army wasn't under the command of Lord Peake, he just was one of the higher ranking lords who survived the two battles and the mayhem involved. But there is no reason to believe that the men who had chosen to follow Hugh or Ulf or even other Reach lords felt obliged to follow his orders. He would have marched back home a chunk of the army, but not all of them.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

Yes Tyland was hoped to be weak but they still made a Green Hand, them choosing one they hoped they could control does not change the fact that they where either to weak to make a Black the Hand or bound by a compromise to do so, and all this despite Cregan leaving his army behind.

Tyland Lannister was still a Lannister. And the Crown needed the gold of Casterly Rock to rebuild. Them offering the Lannisters a boon doesn't mean they had to do that. The Lannisters, Hightowers, and Baratheons - the major Green powers - were all pretty much done militarily whereas the Lads, the Starks, and the Lords of the Vale were not exactly beaten.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

Unwin Peake was insulted that he was not chosen among the original regents so obviously he was a man of some power at the end of the war (perhaps because he was in command of the army that retreated from Tumbleton)

Matters deteriorated further when Unwin Peake, Lord of Starpike, Dunstonbury, and Whitegrove, became first a regent, then the Hand. He had played a significant role at First and Second Tumbleton, and had felt slighted when he was not chosen to be among the first regents. 

His latter ambitions do not change the fact that he was originally a Green and that they thus choose a Green as Hand.

He was chosen because he had played a significant part in two battles of the war. It is quite clear that the people setting up the regency council wanted the Greens to share power so that peace could better be established. The question is whether they did that because they had to or because they wanted to.

And everything indicates that they wanted to. Especially Corlys wanted peace, and he seems to have been the major guy who set up the regency in the wake of Cregan's departure, so this was a conciliatory approach to the former enemies, an attempt to leave the war behind them.

The Dance didn't end with two equally strong parties meeting and agreeing to a truce and then a peace treaty. It ended with the Blacks having the upper hand.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

I agree with you that the regency was a compromise and most likely the work of Corly's, in my mind he is the prime suspect for the murder of Aegon II.

Sure, but mostly because we have no other major suspect. After all, we don't even know who else sat on the Small Council or had a position of power at court aside from Larys Strong.

3 hours ago, direpupy said:

Symbolic defeat or not that does not say anything about as heir to whom and what Corlys crowned Aegon III and again that is the whole point we do not know and have to little information to make judgement. you could be right but you could equally be wrong.

Well, presumably Aegon III was crowned because Aegon II had named him his heir, no? The men doing that knew it was the will of both the late king (sort of, at least) as well as the victorious Blacks outside their gates and the Starks behind them. The idea that those men gave anything about claims at this point doesn't make a lot of sense - those involved in the murder of the king did so in an attempt to save their own life. They all basically defected from the Green to the Black side, if those terms still meant anything at this point.

We also shouldn't forget that Alicent ended up being imprisoned for life despite the fact that some Greens eventually ended up on the regency council. One wonders why that was. I mean, she wasn't really guilty of any real crime if Aegon II was truly the rightful king, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Like i said where not going to agree, you have made up your mind based on very little evidence and despite me clearly stating multiple times that i have not made up my mind because there is so little evidence and information, you seem determent to push your view as canon, even do i have already given many plausible reason why things could be very different. Your determination has in my opinion led to tunnel-view on your part leading you to construe things that simply are not correct and in other cases lead to oversimplification.

Even in your latest post there are simply things that are wrong or simplifications of the facts. Take Cregans army, most where taken into the service of the Riverland Lords who where for the most part Blacks so that this army was no longer a factor is simply wrong. And there are other things beside this, but i have known you long enough on this forum to know when you no longer have a open mind on a subject which is a shame because when you do have an open mind the discussions are always highly enlightening and full of good observations.

I look forward to reopening this discussion after Fire and Blood comes out and more information is available, and am looking forward to your observations on this upcoming book as you are one of my favorite poster and i do have they utmost respect for you and your opinion.

Edited by direpupy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Like i said where not going to agree, you have made up your mind based on very little evidence and despite me clearly stating multiple times that i have not made up my mind because there is so little evidence and information, you seem determent to push your view as canon, even do i have already given many plausible reason why things could be very different. Your determination has in my opinion led to tunnel-view on your part leading you to construe things that simply are not correct and in other cases lead to oversimplification.

Well, I'm always open to new sources and I've changed my mind on a lot of issues as new things are revealed. I'm not saying my stuff is gospel. I'm just saying that as things stand right it seems pretty likely that Aegon III's descent from Daemon played a role in him being made Aegon II's heir or in him becoming king.

Quote

Even in your latest post there are simply things that are wrong or simplifications of the facts. Take Cregans army, most where taken into the service of the Riverland Lords who where for the most part Blacks so that this army was no longer a factor is simply wrong.

I know that, what you don't seem to realize is that men in the service of some lords are no longer an army. And an army is a group of people following a (single) leader to war. But war was over, and those men didn't end serving the Crown,

It is interesting to note there that none of the Lads ended up on the regency council, never mind the strong position they were in at the end of the Dance, possibly indicating that the war left the Riverlands in such a bad shape that they couldn't afford to spend time at court.

Technically Lord Kermit Tully should have been nearly as powerful and influential as Cregan Stark. But perhaps the youth of the Lads precluded them from actually serving as regents for a minor king. Benjicot Blackwood was only a year older than Aegon III, after all. And we don't know how old Kermit Tully was. He could also have been technically still a minor at that point.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


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

It is interesting to note there that none of the Lads ended up on the regency council, never mind the strong position they were in at the end of the Dance, possibly indicating that the war left the Riverlands in such a bad shape that they couldn't afford to spend time at court.

Technically Lord Kermit Tully should have been nearly as powerful and influential as Cregan Stark. But perhaps the youth of the Lads precluded them from actually serving as regents for a minor king. Benjicot Blackwood was only a year older than Aegon III, after all. And we don't know how old Kermit Tully was. He could also have been technically still a minor at that point.

Now that is an interesting thing indeed, i do know that part of Cregans army married widows in the Riverlands so in that regard there was a need to restore the damage with an outside source.

I think that them being young is a plausible explanation i certainly cant think of any other good reason on short notice.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that, what you don't seem to realize is that men in the service of some lords are no longer an army. And an army is a group of people following a (single) leader to war. But war was over, and those men didn't end serving the Crown,

They went into the service of those Lords, but when did those Lords disperse? If those Lords did not agree with the peace they would have been able to stay together and force there will upon the situation so i do not agree that these men where no longer a factor.

Share this post


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

Now that is an interesting thing indeed, i do know that part of Cregans army married widows in the Riverlands so in that regard there was a need to restore the damage with an outside source.

Cregan essentially brought his men down south to die heroically in battle, basically. He wanted to rid the North of some men so that his people could survive winter. That should indicate that most of the men that remained in the South were men Cregan did not want in the North - that would be mostly younger sons and grizzled old warriors that wouldn't survive winter, anyway. Noblemen most likely could get back home anyway - after all, they were nobles and could count on the support of their families to various degrees. But a peasant cannot afford to feed a string of younger sons and brothers.

So we can say that this is most likely information on the common men in Cregan's army, indicating that those men ended up marrying widowed smallfolk in the Riverlands and/or replacing men-at-arms and sworn swords there. The Riverlands took the bulk of the fighting during the Dance, most likely resulting in much more casualties there than they suffered in the main series to this day.

24 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I think that them being young is a plausible explanation i certainly cant think of any other good reason on short notice.

Well, Kermit Tully was apparently a knight before he became a lord so he should have been at least 14-16 when his father died considering that Maegor and Daemon were both the youngest knights of all time at the age of sixteen. But the Dance certainly could have resulted in some battlefield knighthoods being granted to minors, etc.

TWoIaF states that the Tullys were never as powerful as they were after the Dance, so this is really somewhat odd. But we also have to keep in mind that official power is not the same as informal power. Corlys Velaryon and Jeyne Arryn should have been the most powerful regents while they were on the council, considering their standing and rank. Men like Cregan and Kermit may have been smart enough to stay out of the tedious business of day-to-day ruling while still retaining a lot of real but unofficial power for decades to come. We do know that Cregan reaped a lot of rewards for his service to Rhaenyra and Aegon III during the Dance.

Vice versa, we do know that the Baratheons had to pay for their support of Aegon II. It took them a long time to get back into good graces with the Iron Throne.

The Lannisters were needed in the whole rebuilding thing but the Baratheons were not. And while the Hightowers got Rhaena (we don't know why, though) they never really played as prominently a role in the politics of the Realm, especially not after the High Septon moved to KL. The only short exception is the short stint of Lord Jon Hightower as Hand of the King in the last years of Aegon IV. But one assumes he was one of the very corrupt courtiers, being shipped back to Oldtown as soon as Daeron II took power.

24 minutes ago, direpupy said:

They went into the service of those Lords, but when did those Lords disperse? If those Lords did not agree with the peace they would have been able to stay together and force there will upon the situation so i do not agree that these men where no longer a factor.

I guess the Lads may have decided to send the bulk of their men home soon after the coronation of Aegon III. Perhaps even before Lord Cregan arrived. They must have wanted peace as much as Lord Corlys or else there wouldn't have been any peace but an execution of Green traitors under a regime led by the Lads, even before Lord Cregan arrived. And after his arrival the war would have continued, with Lord Stark laying siege to Storm's End first, and continuing with the sack of Oldtown in the middle of winter. 

Cregan's men likely stayed at or around KL at first when their lord left, not knowing what to do. Some might have tried to join the service of the king but that's where the shortage of money and the unclear chain of command comes in. It should have taken quite some time until the regency was set up the way it was and until people were found to fill the positions.

Things may have gotten better after Tyland returned considering that this should have been the moment when things really got better with the Lannisters. Tyland would have been the one who would arranged things with Johanna to really help them with their rebuilding efforts. 

But by that time those men might already have been forced to look for service elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 19, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't know that for a certainty, but if Aegon the Unworthy sleeping with over 900 women during his lifetime the chances are very low that Daeron II and Daemon Waters are his two eldest sons.

The man could have had hundreds of children and it is not that likely that not a huge chunk of them were male.

But the point there is not that such a hypothetical elder bastard son would have pushed his claim, the point is that those men opposing the rule of Daeron II on the basis that the man wasn't the king's son should have turned the eldest bastard son of the king, not Daemon Blackfyre - unless, of course, they were absolutely sure that Daemon was his second eldest son after Daeron. But that is never stated anywhere. Nobody ever said anything about Daemon being the king's oldest male bastard.

But there is no confirmation that this is the case. Instead those men championed Daemon because they were in love with him, basically, instead of giving shit about the proper line of succession and the right of primogeniture.

The deathbed decree that legitimized Daemon Blackfyre legitimized all of Aegon's bastards, so the very decree that strengthened Daemon's claim also weakened it if we assume that the king may have had a son that was older than Daemon.

Anyone truly caring that the rightful heir sat the throne wouldn't have turned to Daemon but would have investigated as many of those 900 women Aegon had throughout his life, tracking down all of their children.

Yeah there a chance that Aegon had a lot of bastards out there. We are told in TWoIaF  Aegon never acknowledged scores of his bastards. If Aegon never give them a second thought, why would other people. Or how could they ever prove that Aegon was the Father. The paternity test in Westeros is pretty much a man saying the kid is his. Really it doesn't matter tbh. We all know why people supported Daemon and it had very little to do with him being Aegons 100% for sure oldest male bastard. 

Share this post


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

 

Things may have gotten better after Tyland returned considering that this should have been the moment when things really got better with the Lannisters. Tyland would have been the one who would arranged things with Johanna to really help them with their rebuilding efforts. 

 

Well monetarily it should have gotten beter tyland will have brought back the money he took with him to hire sellswords, and he should have been able to get the quarter of the royal treasury that got sent to Casterly rock back. In that regard an other quarter got sent to Oldtown i assume that as part of the peace the Hightowers would have had to give that back, which leaves the quarter sent to the Iron Bank now this is where recognition of Aegon III as heir to Aegon II might come into play because they where keeping it for Aegon II. Altough they could work around that by claiming it in Jaehaera's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, direpupy said:

Well monetarily it should have gotten beter tyland will have brought back the money he took with him to hire sellswords, and he should have been able to get the quarter of the royal treasury that got sent to Casterly rock back. In that regard an other quarter got sent to Oldtown i assume that as part of the peace the Hightowers would have had to give that back, which leaves the quarter sent to the Iron Bank now this is where recognition of Aegon III as heir to Aegon II might come into play because they where keeping it for Aegon II. Altough they could work around that by claiming it in Jaehaera's name.

Well, I'd not speculate about the whereabouts of Viserys I's treasury. We don't know whether the parts sent to Oldtown and Casterly Rock ever arrived there, nor do we know whether those monies would have been even remotely enough to cover the Crown's debts that must have piled during the war. Not to mention the rebuilding that came after.

If Lady Johanna did get her hands of the treasury money she may have just decided to use the Crown's money to rebuild the West/deal with the Ironborn. The Iron Throne/House Targaryen was responsible for the raiding of the Westerlands, after all, even more so after Aegon III had become king.

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