Angel Eyes

Daemon rebelling for Daenerys' love...

35 posts in this topic

It would be a great twist if it turned out that Daemon had never been in love with Daenerys, and that that was just some kind of urban legend that sprung up after the war. Most of the stories in the world book seem to be based in some version of the truth, however, so it's not likely that this was the case. Even so, it's the version I like best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It would be a great twist if it turned out that Daemon had never been in love with Daenerys, and that that was just some kind of urban legend that sprung up after the war. Most of the stories in the world book seem to be based in some version of the truth, however, so it's not likely that this was the case. Even so, it's the version I like best. 

That is not so unlikely, actually, considering that the only true in-universe contemporary source we have on the matter is Ser Eustace Osgrey, and he only tells us that Daenerys loved Daemon, not that Daemon loved Daenerys. That is an important difference.

Anything the historians tell us might be based on rumor or song, even Doran Martell's sources on the matter might be not reliable. After all, there could be a very well-known song-cycle about the Blackfyre Rebellion putting the invented romance of Daemon and Daenerys at the heart of the conflict.

If George ever gets around to flash out Rohanne of Tyrosh and the Blackfyre sons more we might get a better picture of this thing. After all, Rohanne is still alive in TMK, and might be still around during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. Hell, she could even show up at the court of Aerys I to visit her captured son Daemon II and attend the wedding of Kiera of Tyrosh and Prince Daeron.

Share this post


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

If George ever gets around to flash out Rohanne of Tyrosh and the Blackfyre sons more we might get a better picture of this thing. After all, Rohanne is still alive in TMK, and might be still around during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. Hell, she could even show up at the court of Aerys I to visit her captured son Daemon II and attend the wedding of Kiera of Tyrosh and Prince Daeron.

She would be very brave and very foolish to walk into the dragon's den and allow the Targaryens to take her as a hostage against her sons. Not a chance she would leave the Red Keep if she ever entered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may of had feelings for each other at some point but I never believed  Daemon rebelled because of her. Hopefully we learn more about the Blackfyre rebellions in the future, especially the first one.

Share this post


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

She would be very brave and very foolish to walk into the dragon's den and allow the Targaryens to take her as a hostage against her sons. Not a chance she would leave the Red Keep if she ever entered.

But Aegon V, who had sent Bloodraven off to the Wall for betraying Aenys's safe conduct, would have been the inviting party, so perhaps, she might have accepted. On the other hand, I am guessing that Kiera of Tyrosh was from a rival Tyroshi family since she was wed to Prince Valarr Targaryen apparently after the First Blackfyre Rebellion?? 

Share this post


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

She would be very brave and very foolish to walk into the dragon's den and allow the Targaryens to take her as a hostage against her sons. Not a chance she would leave the Red Keep if she ever entered.

We have no way of knowing that, nor do we know how things developed in the wake of Daemon II's capture. And Rohanne of Tyrosh is the Archon's daughter. King Aerys I would be very ill-advised to provoke the war of Tyrosh. That could give Haegon and Bittersteel a fleet of fifty war galleys 

6 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

But Aegon V, who had sent Bloodraven off to the Wall for betraying Aenys's safe conduct, would have been the inviting party, so perhaps, she might have accepted. On the other hand, I am guessing that Kiera of Tyrosh was from a rival Tyroshi family since she was wed to Prince Valarr Targaryen apparently after the First Blackfyre Rebellion?? 

Exactly. And then - Kiera of Tyrosh could be Rohanne's sister, niece, or cousin (hell, I once even entertained the notion she could be her daughter - either dropping the Blackfyre name, or a child from a second marriage after Daemon's death).

Keep in mind that Daeron II and Baelor Breakspear would have been the guys brokering the Valarr marriage. Daeron II and Baelor were men of peace. I doubt the Kiera marriage was supposed to provoke the Blackfyres or Rohanne's father - assuming he was still alive and still the Archon - into taking action against the Iron Throne. Thus the chances should be not that bad that the Valarr-Kiera match was not arranged against Rohanne and her father but rather with their (grudgingly granted?) support and blessing.

The fact that Kiera wasn't sent back to Tyrosh after the Great Spring Sickness but (eventually) ended up with Prince Daeron also indicates that her family was far from unimportant. But one wonders when that match was made. Daeron is old enough to marry any day right now, but his daughter Vaella was only born in 222 AC. Was that marriage only made after the Third Blackfyre Rebellion? Could very well be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

But Aegon V, who had sent Bloodraven off to the Wall for betraying Aenys's safe conduct, would have been the inviting party, so perhaps, she might have accepted. On the other hand, I am guessing that Kiera of Tyrosh was from a rival Tyroshi family since she was wed to Prince Valarr Targaryen apparently after the First Blackfyre Rebellion?? 

Well, that was only one of several given scenarios when Rohanne could have visited King's Landing. The others included the presence of Bloodraven at court and presumably as Hand. Thus I commented more to Rohanne visiting during Aerys I's reign than Aegon V, although I'm not sure why she would visit the family responsible for killing of her sons and grandsons.

In regards to her family we don't know yet but I suppose that either the Archon of Tyrosh decided that he'd been betting on the wrong horse with the Blackfyres or he decided to play both sides and see who came out ontop in the end.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no way of knowing that, nor do we know how things developed in the wake of Daemon II's capture. And Rohanne of Tyrosh is the Archon's daughter. King Aerys I would be very ill-advised to provoke the war of Tyrosh. That could give Haegon and Bittersteel a fleet of fifty war galleys

To start we have a hint that after Daemon's capture Bittersteel and Haegon moved into the front. So Daemon II either died fairly quick or was deposed and his brother crowned instead. And I'm not sure how much King's Landing would care for provoking Tyrosh given how the Archaon was already sheltering rebels and traitors in his city. More likely a hostage who is the mother of Haegon and the daughter of the Archon would be more of more worth than Tyroshi sensibilites. In short, with Rohanne as hostage, I'm not convinced the Archon would dare to give the Blackfyre a fleet of fifty ships.

Share this post


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

Well, that was only one of several given scenarios when Rohanne could have visited King's Landing. The others included the presence of Bloodraven at court and presumably as Hand. Thus I commented more to Rohanne visiting during Aerys I's reign than Aegon V, although I'm not sure why she would visit the family responsible for killing of her sons and grandsons.

Bloodraven is pragmatic. Aenys Blackfyre comes to lay claim to the Iron Throne. Rohanne of Tyrosh would come to visit her son and/or to attend the marriage of Kiera of Tyrosh - who may or may not be her kinswoman.

Those are different things entirely.

Rohanne could even have been there once already, on the invitation of King Daeron II and Baelor Breakspear for the wedding of Valarr and Kiera of Tyrosh.

Keep in mind that there was only a Second Blackfyre Rebellion because Daeron the Good was followed by a weak and bookish king who named a hated bastard sorcerer his Hand. And even then the Realm had to suffer calamities like the Great Spring Sickness and the drought to see the Black Dragon rise its ugly head again. If Baelor Breakspear had succeeded the Iron Throne there wouldn't have been a second or third Blackfyre rebellion.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

To start we have a hint that after Daemon's capture Bittersteel and Haegon moved into the front. So Daemon II either died fairly quick or was deposed and his brother crowned instead.

We know that Daemon II eventually died after living for some years at court as an honored guest. Haegon wasn't proclaimed a king while his brother was still alive.

And no - we don't know how and when and why the Blackfyre ambitions came to fore again. All we know is that there was another rebellion in 219 AC, not whether House Blackfyre worked to that ever since Whitewalls. They suffered a crushing and complete defeat there, and if Daemon II publicly admitted his presumptions and crimes at KL this would have helped to further undermine the Blackfyre cause - and I'm sure Aerys I and Bloodraven had him issue such statements. He might even have come around to see the folly of his actions. 

But in any case - we have no idea whether Rohanne or her father ever cared about Daemon's and Bittersteel's ambitions - or the ambitions of her sons. If they were not then provoking them by treating them as Blackfyre sycophants would be utter stupidity.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I'm not sure how much King's Landing would care for provoking Tyrosh given how the Archaon was already sheltering rebels and traitors in his city. More likely a hostage who is the mother of Haegon and the daughter of the Archon would be more of more worth than Tyroshi sensibilites. In short, with Rohanne as hostage, I'm not convinced the Archon would dare to give the Blackfyre a fleet of fifty ships.

Perhaps the Archon of Tyrosh is a cynic and doesn't care about the life of his daughter and much more about the presumptions of the Targaryens to dare make his daughter a hostage? He is the head of a state, remember, a state who commands a considerable naval force. Any Free City aside from Pentos should have the naval strength to reduce any coastal city of Westeros into a smoking ruin if that's what they want to do. And we all know that women make poor hostages in any case - Sansa Stark being held by King Joffrey did nothing to weaken the determination of Robb, just as Tywin Lannister refused to cease hostilities after the Starks captured Tyrion/Jaime. In fact, the abduction of Tyrion started the War of the Five Kings, so arresting Rohanne of Tyrosh could have exactly the same effect.

I'm not sure how Rohanne and her children are 'rebels and traitors'. They are Daemon's wife and children, sure, but they are staying with Rohanne's family - who is a power in their own right in Tyrosh, not bound by nor subject to Westerosi laws. As far as we know no surviving Blackfyre son has committed any crime after the Redgrass Field until Daemon II went to Whitewalls. And just because Daemon II tried to incite a rebellion doesn't mean Haegon or Aenys or one of their other siblings has to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

Bloodraven is pragmatic. Aenys Blackfyre comes to lay claim to the Iron Throne. Rohanne of Tyrosh would come to visit her son and/or to attend the marriage of Kiera of Tyrosh - who may or may not be her kinswoman.

Those are different things entirely.

The problem is that being pragmatic and being an asshole are not exclusive. Bloodraven being a pragmatic is actually very much a reason to seek to take Rohanne as a prisoner. It would be a massive boon to House Targaryen to keep a person like that as a hostage.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

Rohanne could even have been there once already, on the invitation of King Daeron II and Baelor Breakspear for the wedding of Valarr and Kiera of Tyrosh.

So much is true, but I doubt that she would attend a marriage where she would need to play nice and keep company with the people who killed her husband and two children and drove herself and her family into exile. But then again maybe her only desire in life could be to serve House Targaryen and thus it would make perfect sense for her to attend that wedding.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

Keep in mind that there was only a Second Blackfyre Rebellion because Daeron the Good was followed by a weak and bookish king who named a hated bastard sorcerer his Hand. And even then the Realm had to suffer calamities like the Great Spring Sickness and the drought to see the Black Dragon rise its ugly head again. If Baelor Breakspear had succeeded the Iron Throne there wouldn't have been a second or third Blackfyre rebellion.

So much is true. Although I think that Bittersteel would still have tried an invasion while he still had strength in him to capitalize on the combination of the Great Spring Sickness and following drought. But more like it this invasion would have been like the fourth, probably at least.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

We know that Daemon II eventually died after living for some years at court as an honored guest. Haegon wasn't proclaimed a king while his brother was still alive.

He probably wasn't, no.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

And no - we don't know how and when and why the Blackfyre ambitions came to fore again. All we know is that there was another rebellion in 219 AC, not whether House Blackfyre worked to that ever since Whitewalls. They suffered a crushing and complete defeat there, and if Daemon II publicly admitted his presumptions and crimes at KL this would have helped to further undermine the Blackfyre cause - and I'm sure Aerys I and Bloodraven had him issue such statements. He might even have come around to see the folly of his actions. 

And yes, we don't know but given how the the Blackfyres and Bittersteel worked before and after we can see how he most likely worked then. There's no reason to think that Blackfyre ambitions were lessoned at any time before their final extinction. While Daemon II may have come to see the folly of his plan I find it unlikely that he would fall down on his knees and worship House Targaryen. Although after a few torture sessions in the Black Cells he would most likely be ready to say anything and admitt any crime before fading into obscurity, once the Targaryens had gotten what they wanted from him, before he died soon thereafter.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

But in any case - we have no idea whether Rohanne or her father ever cared about Daemon's and Bittersteel's ambitions - or the ambitions of her sons. If they were not then provoking them by treating them as Blackfyre sycophants would be utter stupidity.

I would think that when the Targaryens killed her sons and husband, Rohanne may have cared enough to hate the Targaryens. And the Blackfyres are by their kinship with Daemon I Blackfyre already considerred enemies of House Targaryen and like Aenys proved would be treated as such regardless of oaths, opinions or decenies. No way that Bloodraven would miss an oppertunity to harm the Black Dragons.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps the Archon of Tyrosh is a cynic and doesn't care about the life of his daughter and much more about the presumptions of the Targaryens to dare make his daughter a hostage? He is the head of a state, remember, a state who commands a considerable naval force. Any Free City aside from Pentos should have the naval strength to reduce any coastal city of Westeros into a smoking ruin if that's what they want to do. And we all know that women make poor hostages in any case - Sansa Stark being held by King Joffrey did nothing to weaken the determination of Robb, just as Tywin Lannister refused to cease hostilities after the Starks captured Tyrion/Jaime. In fact, the abduction of Tyrion started the War of the Five Kings, so arresting Rohanne of Tyrosh could have exactly the same effect.

Or more likely the Archon is a man of good nature and honor, outraged by Targaryen betryal but not dared to put the life of his daughter into play. Also I don't think that women makes for poor hostages but rather its about how hostages are used. Most hostages have in the main series not worked due to the extraordinary circumstances regarding their relation to their kin. And Sansa for example could have worked wonders, if Robb had been able to threaten Casterly Rock or King's Landing, then the Lannisters might well have been able to use her. Or look at Theon's fairly successful use of Rodrick's daughter at Winterfell to stop the impending assault. Its a shame that so far the issue of hostage has not been a decisive factor or we might have seen or much or little a hostage and the threats around it would truely be worth.

On 2017-09-15 at 10:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure how Rohanne and her children are 'rebels and traitors'. They are Daemon's wife and children, sure, but they are staying with Rohanne's family - who is a power in their own right in Tyrosh, not bound by nor subject to Westerosi laws. As far as we know no surviving Blackfyre son has committed any crime after the Redgrass Field until Daemon II went to Whitewalls. And just because Daemon II tried to incite a rebellion doesn't mean Haegon or Aenys or one of their other siblings has to do the same.

Their father and husband was a traitor and thus they are traitor until they get a royal pardon. Bloodraven say that:

"...but Daemon has four younger brothers, and sisters as well. Should I be so foolish as to remove his pretty head, his mother will mourn, his friends will curse me for a kinslayer and Bittersteel will crown his brother Haegon. Dead young Daemon is a hero. Alive he is an obstacle in my half brother's path. He can hardly make a third Blackfyre king whilst the second remains so inconviently alive...."

It pretty clear that Bloodraven counts the Blackfyre family as a whole as enemies and pawns for Bittersteel .There's no "what if they refuse to work with Bittersteel?" but only assertions that they will do so and continue to fight for their claim. if you can find it anywhere that its suggested that anyone considered the option that the Blackfyres would surrender their claim on their own then I'd love to hear it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The problem is that being pragmatic and being an asshole are not exclusive. Bloodraven being a pragmatic is actually very much a reason to seek to take Rohanne as a prisoner. It would be a massive boon to House Targaryen to keep a person like that as a hostage.

Again, only if she would make a good hostage. If they invited her to attend a wedding they would not take her hostage.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

So much is true, but I doubt that she would attend a marriage where she would need to play nice and keep company with the people who killed her husband and two children and drove herself and her family into exile. But then again maybe her only desire in life could be to serve House Targaryen and thus it would make perfect sense for her to attend that wedding.

We know nothing about that woman. Cersei had Robert killed and Lysa murdered Jon. Daemon essentially used Rohanne as a broodmare while he (supposedly) lusted after Princess Daenerys. She may have hated that guy, and she might have blamed him and Bittersteel for the deaths of her twin sons. You cannot say just because she is a mother and a wife she agreed with the political opinions of her children and husband.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

So much is true. Although I think that Bittersteel would still have tried an invasion while he still had strength in him to capitalize on the combination of the Great Spring Sickness and following drought. But more like it this invasion would have been like the fourth, probably at least.

Bittersteel had no noteworthy power base in 211 AC since the Golden Company hadn't been founded yet. Baelor Breakspear would have been another Jaehaerys I. Chances that anyone would have rebelled against that guy are pretty low. 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

He probably wasn't, no.

We know that's the case - else TWoIaF would have informed us that Haegon was proclaimed king while Daemon II was still alive.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And yes, we don't know but given how the the Blackfyres and Bittersteel worked before and after we can see how he most likely worked then. There's no reason to think that Blackfyre ambitions were lessoned at any time before their final extinction. While Daemon II may have come to see the folly of his plan I find it unlikely that he would fall down on his knees and worship House Targaryen. Although after a few torture sessions in the Black Cells he would most likely be ready to say anything and admitt any crime before fading into obscurity, once the Targaryens had gotten what they wanted from him, before he died soon thereafter.

He doesn't have to be tortured to say something like that. It is enough that King Aerys I spares his miserable life and allows him to live out his life in a tower cell rather than a black cell.

The man believed in his mad dreams but Dunk and Glendon and Bloodraven very effectively showed this 'brown dragon' what a fraud and failure he actually was. He may have prophetic dreams but nothing in those dreams point towards Daemon being destined for something great. It would not surprise me if he learned that lesson at Whitewalls-

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I would think that when the Targaryens killed her sons and husband, Rohanne may have cared enough to hate the Targaryens. And the Blackfyres are by their kinship with Daemon I Blackfyre already considerred enemies of House Targaryen and like Aenys proved would be treated as such regardless of oaths, opinions or decenies. No way that Bloodraven would miss an oppertunity to harm the Black Dragons.

Bloodraven doesn't make the decisions, though. The match of Valarr-Kiera and Daeron-Kiera would have involved Daeron II, Baelor Breakspear, Prince Maekar, and King Aerys I. And just as Bloodraven knew it would be foolish to kill Daemon II he might also have known that it would have been foolish to take Rohanne prisoner. Just as he realized it was not foolish - under different circumstances - to kill Aenys Blackfyre.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Or more likely the Archon is a man of good nature and honor, outraged by Targaryen betryal but not dared to put the life of his daughter into play. Also I don't think that women makes for poor hostages but rather its about how hostages are used. Most hostages have in the main series not worked due to the extraordinary circumstances regarding their relation to their kin. And Sansa for example could have worked wonders, if Robb had been able to threaten Casterly Rock or King's Landing, then the Lannisters might well have been able to use her. Or look at Theon's fairly successful use of Rodrick's daughter at Winterfell to stop the impending assault. Its a shame that so far the issue of hostage has not been a decisive factor or we might have seen or much or little a hostage and the threats around it would truely be worth.

Hostages work on a lower level, but not on the great level. When people truly hate each other or wage a huge war they are useless. We see this with Theon-Balon, the Lannister and Stark hostages, the captured Targaryens during the Dance, etc. If you are young enough you can have more sons or a new wife.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Their father and husband was a traitor and thus they are traitor until they get a royal pardon. Bloodraven say that:

"...but Daemon has four younger brothers, and sisters as well. Should I be so foolish as to remove his pretty head, his mother will mourn, his friends will curse me for a kinslayer and Bittersteel will crown his brother Haegon. Dead young Daemon is a hero. Alive he is an obstacle in my half brother's path. He can hardly make a third Blackfyre king whilst the second remains so inconviently alive...."

That is Bloodraven's opinion, not necessarily a fact. But as you note he says nothing there about Rohanne making a good hostage. In fact, it becomes quite clear that they should do nothing to cause her unnecessary distress, possibly indicating that the Tyroshi would care about that. Also keep in mind that Tyrosh isn't a monarchy. Rohanne might be the daughter of the Archon but it would be Tyrosh as a state that's insulted if the Iron Throne seized the daughter of the Archon as a hostage. Those other families would care about the insult, not about the life of Rohanne, and thus her use as a hostage would be non-existent. 

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

It pretty clear that Bloodraven counts the Blackfyre family as a whole as enemies and pawns for Bittersteel .There's no "what if they refuse to work with Bittersteel?" but only assertions that they will do so and continue to fight for their claim. if you can find it anywhere that its suggested that anyone considered the option that the Blackfyres would surrender their claim on their own then I'd love to hear it.

Bloodraven himself is biased against Bittersteel and the Blackfyres. There is certainly a strong possibility that these two are equally responsible for the continued violence between the Blackfyres and the Targaryens. Making Bloodraven certainly didn't help reaching a peaceful understanding with Daemon's sons and Bittersteel. Baelor Breakspear might have been able to do just that. He was an honorable guy, not a cynical sorcerer.

Share this post


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

Again, only if she would make a good hostage. If they invited her to attend a wedding they would not take her hostage.

Like how Bloodraven didn't kill Aenys Blackfyre when he granted that guy safe passage?

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know nothing about that woman. Cersei had Robert killed and Lysa murdered Jon. Daemon essentially used Rohanne as a broodmare while he (supposedly) lusted after Princess Daenerys. She may have hated that guy, and she might have blamed him and Bittersteel for the deaths of her twin sons. You cannot say just because she is a mother and a wife she agreed with the political opinions of her children and husband.

And Catelyn was devoted to her husband and his family just like Olenna Tyrell is also devoted to her great family. Daemon had many children with Rohanne but there's no telling on their relations so that's just conjecture that they would have a bad relations. More likely is that she blamed the death of her two sons on the guys who were, you know, killing them. Thus she would especially hate Bloodraven and have no love for the men who kept Bloodraven in power and with. And just because she's a mother and and wife don't mean that she must hate her husband or use convoluted logic to shift blame for the benefit of House Targaryen.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bittersteel had no noteworthy power base in 211 AC since the Golden Company hadn't been founded yet. Baelor Breakspear would have been another Jaehaerys I. Chances that anyone would have rebelled against that guy are pretty low. 

The reason that the Golden Company was founded was to stop the Blackfyre supporters dividing themselves among various sellsword companies. Thus its fairly certain that Bittersteel had most of the exiles with him at that point. Not to mention that I doubt that Bittersteel would sit on his ass and do nothing instead of risking a rebellion with unfavorable odds.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that's the case - else TWoIaF would have informed us that Haegon was proclaimed king while Daemon II was still alive.

There are many Blackfyre pretenders where we don't have a coronation date so this would be no different.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He doesn't have to be tortured to say something like that. It is enough that King Aerys I spares his miserable life and allows him to live out his life in a tower cell rather than a black cell.

Maybe Daemon II was the kind of craven to so easily throw away his honor but i doubt it. More likely he was subjugated to intense torture to be kept under control while passed off as a trophy for King Aerys.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The man believed in his mad dreams but Dunk and Glendon and Bloodraven very effectively showed this 'brown dragon' what a fraud and failure he actually was. He may have prophetic dreams but nothing in those dreams point towards Daemon being destined for something great. It would not surprise me if he learned that lesson at Whitewalls.

There's a different between being disillusioned and being and outmost coward who caves in at the slightens threat. More likely is the Hand of the King would have his "fun" with Daemon and make his life as miserable as possible.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bloodraven doesn't make the decisions, though. The match of Valarr-Kiera and Daeron-Kiera would have involved Daeron II, Baelor Breakspear, Prince Maekar, and King Aerys I. And just as Bloodraven knew it would be foolish to kill Daemon II he might also have known that it would have been foolish to take Rohanne prisoner. Just as he realized it was not foolish - under different circumstances - to kill Aenys Blackfyre.

A guy like Bloodraven, being Hand of a disinterested king, would surely have managed to find a way to advance House Targaryen against House Blackfyre. Its rather telling that Bloodraven tells Dunk and Egg what will happen with Daemon II as if King Aerys was of no consequence, which he pretty much wasn't at this point.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Hostages work on a lower level, but not on the great level. When people truly hate each other or wage a huge war they are useless. We see this with Theon-Balon, the Lannister and Stark hostages, the captured Targaryens during the Dance, etc. If you are young enough you can have more sons or a new wife.

So much is mostly true in regards to what've we've seen so far. Yet even so no one has really dared to follow through and see if the other side dares it. In most cases they've either been unable or unwilling to things to the test.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is Bloodraven's opinion, not necessarily a fact. But as you note he says nothing there about Rohanne making a good hostage. In fact, it becomes quite clear that they should do nothing to cause her unnecessary distress, possibly indicating that the Tyroshi would care about that. Also keep in mind that Tyrosh isn't a monarchy. Rohanne might be the daughter of the Archon but it would be Tyrosh as a state that's insulted if the Iron Throne seized the daughter of the Archon as a hostage. Those other families would care about the insult, not about the life of Rohanne, and thus her use as a hostage would be non-existent.

In the absence of a ruling king the Hand rules the realm. Thus Bloodraven's opinion is pretty much a statement of policy at this time in the Seven Kingdoms.

A hostage Rohanne would prevent the Blackfyres from crossing the Narrow Sea and that's the main thing. Tyrosh alone can't hope to fight the Seven Kingdoms in an offensive war and if the Blackfyres can be kept from new rebellions then that means that the Blackfyre threat will surely melt away with time.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 Bloodraven himself is biased against Bittersteel and the Blackfyres. There is certainly a strong possibility that these two are equally responsible for the continued violence between the Blackfyres and the Targaryens. Making Bloodraven certainly didn't help reaching a peaceful understanding with Daemon's sons and Bittersteel. Baelor Breakspear might have been able to do just that. He was an honorable guy, not a cynical sorcerer.

I agree pretty much with this. Breakspear's death was the worst thing to happen to the realm between the rise of Maegor and the marriage between Cersei and Robert. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Like how Bloodraven didn't kill Aenys Blackfyre when he granted that guy safe passage?

And Catelyn was devoted to her husband and his family just like Olenna Tyrell is also devoted to her great family. Daemon had many children with Rohanne but there's no telling on their relations so that's just conjecture that they would have a bad relations. More likely is that she blamed the death of her two sons on the guys who were, you know, killing them. Thus she would especially hate Bloodraven and have no love for the men who kept Bloodraven in power and with. And just because she's a mother and and wife don't mean that she must hate her husband or use convoluted logic to shift blame for the benefit of House Targaryen.

I'm not saying they had bad relations. I'm not saying anything, in fact. I just said it is possible that Kiera of Tyrosh is a relation of Rohanne of Tyrosh and might have attended (either of) Kiera's wedding(s).

Any speculation about Rohanne's feelings for Daemon, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, the Targaryens, etc. is just that - speculation.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The reason that the Golden Company was founded was to stop the Blackfyre supporters dividing themselves among various sellsword companies. Thus its fairly certain that Bittersteel had most of the exiles with him at that point. Not to mention that I doubt that Bittersteel would sit on his ass and do nothing instead of risking a rebellion with unfavorable odds.

That doesn't seem to be the case considering that Bittersteel himself served with the Second Sons before he founded the Golden Company. Unless you want to assert without good evidence that most of the Blackfyre loyalist exiles served with him in the Second Sons we can safely say that the Golden Company draw the exiles back together after they had begun to drift apart.

Bittersteel wouldn't have had the funds to feed a small army of landless lords and knights while he had no free company of his own.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

There are many Blackfyre pretenders where we don't have a coronation date so this would be no different.

Actually, no. We know that Daemon was 'the king' after his father and elder brothers died, we know that Haegon only tried to claim the Iron Throne after his elder brother died, and we know when Daemon III was crowned. That leaves only Maelys the Monstrous but we don't even know whether that dude called himself king.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Maybe Daemon II was the kind of craven to so easily throw away his honor but i doubt it. More likely he was subjugated to intense torture to be kept under control while passed off as a trophy for King Aerys.

LOL, there is no reason to believe that anyone would have subjugated him to torture. Why should they? Parading him around as an honored guest is much more humiliating. Not to mention, you know, that torturing him for no good reason would only provoke another rebellion/invasion - and perhaps even justify it in the eyes of many lords.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

There's a different between being disillusioned and being and outmost coward who caves in at the slightens threat. More likely is the Hand of the King would have his "fun" with Daemon and make his life as miserable as possible.

Bloodraven makes it clear that it is not his decision what's going to happen to Daemon II. If he was speaking for King Aerys I he would have made the decision then and there, just as he did it with Peake and the other rebels. And we do know that Aerys I ended up allowing Bittersteel to take the black - against the wishes and advice of both Bloodraven and Aerion Brightflame. That indicates the king made certain decisions himself.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

A guy like Bloodraven, being Hand of a disinterested king, would surely have managed to find a way to advance House Targaryen against House Blackfyre. Its rather telling that Bloodraven tells Dunk and Egg what will happen with Daemon II as if King Aerys was of no consequence, which he pretty much wasn't at this point.

See above. It is also pretty clear that Bloodraven actually accepted the wishes of his king - else Daemon II would have suffered some mortal accident on his way to KL. Or Bittersteel wouldn't have survived that second duel with Bloodraven or lived to be presented to King Aerys to hear his sentence. 

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

So much is mostly true in regards to what've we've seen so far. Yet even so no one has really dared to follow through and see if the other side dares it. In most cases they've either been unable or unwilling to things to the test.

The Blackfish certainly dared the Freys to kill his nephew. Tywin dared the Starks to kill Tyrion and Jaime, Prince Aemond and the Hightowers dared Rhaenyra to kill Alicent and Helaena, etc.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

In the absence of a ruling king the Hand rules the realm. Thus Bloodraven's opinion is pretty much a statement of policy at this time in the Seven Kingdoms.

What are you talking about? The Realm did have a king when Kiera of Tyrosh married her Targaryen husbands.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

A hostage Rohanne would prevent the Blackfyres from crossing the Narrow Sea and that's the main thing. Tyrosh alone can't hope to fight the Seven Kingdoms in an offensive war and if the Blackfyres can be kept from new rebellions then that means that the Blackfyre threat will surely melt away with time.

LOL, since when do you know the military capabilities of Tyrosh? They should have a fleet large enough to destroy KL. And the Blackfyres can be kept from invading Westeros by keeping Daemon II as a hostage, no? He is actually a Blackfyre. Rohanne is simply their mother, and we have more than enough evidence that female hostages aren't worth all that much.

In that sense it makes no sense for anyone to take Rohanne hostage unless certain people actually hate her personally. And we have no reason anyone does.

Share this post


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

I'm not saying they had bad relations. I'm not saying anything, in fact. I just said it is possible that Kiera of Tyrosh is a relation of Rohanne of Tyrosh and might have attended (either of) Kiera's wedding(s).

And I'm not saying they had a good relation either. I'm just pointing out the possibility that Rohanne might be not thrilled at Targaryens after the death of her husband and two sons.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Any speculation about Rohanne's feelings for Daemon, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, the Targaryens, etc. is just that - speculation.

If you don't like speculation you are free to refrain from indulging in it.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't seem to be the case considering that Bittersteel himself served with the Second Sons before he founded the Golden Company. Unless you want to assert without good evidence that most of the Blackfyre loyalist exiles served with him in the Second Sons we can safely say that the Golden Company draw the exiles back together after they had begun to drift apart.

Given the reason for the Golden Company most exiles would have served with BIttersteel in the Second Sons or been in contact with him so that when the Golden Company was founded Bittersteel was able to draw them together again. Its interesting to see how Bittsteel managed to forge the exiles together into a force capable of fighting the Targaryens for several decades after the first war and how it would continue to live after his death.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bittersteel wouldn't have had the funds to feed a small army of landless lords and knights while he had no free company of his own.

Bittersteels influence among the exiles would have kept them pullng in the same direction and more than likely most of them signed on as a group with the Second Sons before moving on to the Golden Company.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, no. We know that Daemon was 'the king' after his father and elder brothers died, we know that Haegon only tried to claim the Iron Throne after his elder brother died, and we know when Daemon III was crowned. That leaves only Maelys the Monstrous but we don't even know whether that dude called himself king.

That is not true at all. To start with while we have the line of succession between Daemon I and Daemon III we don't know what happens thereafter. For example Maelys fought a cousin of his for control over the Golden Company and most likley that Daemon was also the Blackfyre pretender before Maelys "relived him of command". So that's at the least one Blackfyre that uncounted for as the link between Daemon III and Maelys I. And there could be more for all we know.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, there is no reason to believe that anyone would have subjugated him to torture. Why should they? Parading him around as an honored guest is much more humiliating. Not to mention, you know, that torturing him for no good reason would only provoke another rebellion/invasion - and perhaps even justify it in the eyes of many lords.

Not really. Murdering Aenys didn't turn any lords that we know against the Targaryens and Ramsay's torture of Theon didn't to my knowledge turn anyone against the Boltons. Westeros is not a place where most people take great offence at the suffferig of their enemies. In fact it would fit with the Targaryen operaton to both parade around Daemon II to humiliate him and send him for torture sessions in the Black Cells, Ramsay-style. I can definietly see Bloodraven being up for such.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bloodraven makes it clear that it is not his decision what's going to happen to Daemon II. If he was speaking for King Aerys I he would have made the decision then and there, just as he did it with Peake and the other rebels. And we do know that Aerys I ended up allowing Bittersteel to take the black - against the wishes and advice of both Bloodraven and Aerion Brightflame. That indicates the king made certain decisions himself.

Bloodraven's authority isn't threatened by a king disinterested in ruling who will go along with whatever the Hand proposes with one sole exception that we know of.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. It is also pretty clear that Bloodraven actually accepted the wishes of his king - else Daemon II would have suffered some mortal accident on his way to KL. Or Bittersteel wouldn't have survived that second duel with Bloodraven or lived to be presented to King Aerys to hear his sentence. 

Its pretty clear that Bloodraven will easily accept the wishes of a king who has no wishes regarding the affairs of the realm. Bloodraven rules and whatever wish is what becomes policy. There's a reason as to why King Aerys sits in his castle and lets Bloodraven do all the work and fom the decisions.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Blackfish certainly dared the Freys to kill his nephew. Tywin dared the Starks to kill Tyrion and Jaime, Prince Aemond and the Hightowers dared Rhaenyra to kill Alicent and Helaena, etc.

Exceptional circumstances at all times. Tywin wasn't about to be pushed arund and with the Hightowers and Aemond we don't have enough information to say what reasoning they had. Or maybe Rhaenyra wanted to make use of Alicent and Helaena if the fighting would go agaisnt her.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What are you talking about? The Realm did have a king when Kiera of Tyrosh married her Targaryen husbands.

The king didn't care for ruling and that means that there's essentially no king around.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, since when do you know the military capabilities of Tyrosh? They should have a fleet large enough to destroy KL. And the Blackfyres can be kept from invading Westeros by keeping Daemon II as a hostage, no? He is actually a Blackfyre. Rohanne is simply their mother, and we have more than enough evidence that female hostages aren't worth all that much.

And what do you know about Tyrosh beig a threat that can destroy King's Landing? Anyway, there's no reason to think that a single Free City can destroy King's Landing due to the fact that the city is fortified and there's a royal navy to protect it.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In that sense it makes no sense for anyone to take Rohanne hostage unless certain people actually hate her personally. And we have no reason anyone does.

They don't need to hate Rohanne, only hate her relatives and be of a...pragmatic nature.

Share this post


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

And I'm not saying they had a good relation either. I'm just pointing out the possibility that Rohanne might be not thrilled at Targaryens after the death of her husband and two sons.

You mean like Ellaria Sand? Who didn't want the daughters of her paramour to avenge her beloved Oberyn less they get killed, too? Or Catelyn Stark who didn't insist on continuing the war after her beloved Ned was taken from her? It is a point in this story that not everybody is obsessed with blood feuds and revenge. Some people are deeper than that. And Rohanne might have been one such - especially since nothing indicates she was involved in any Blackfyre Rebellion.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Given the reason for the Golden Company most exiles would have served with BIttersteel in the Second Sons or been in contact with him so that when the Golden Company was founded Bittersteel was able to draw them together again. Its interesting to see how Bittsteel managed to forge the exiles together into a force capable of fighting the Targaryens for several decades after the first war and how it would continue to live after his death.

No, if that was the case then the exiles could have simply taken over or stayed with the Second Sons. There was no need to found a new free company. But a successful free company run by the Westerosi Bittersteel certainly draw all those exiles back to him who had begun to go their separate ways. After all, the Golden Company would have been the only home the average Westerosi exile can get in Essos.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Bittersteels influence among the exiles would have kept them pullng in the same direction and more than likely most of them signed on as a group with the Second Sons before moving on to the Golden Company.

See above. You are just making things up.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

That is not true at all. To start with while we have the line of succession between Daemon I and Daemon III we don't know what happens thereafter. For example Maelys fought a cousin of his for control over the Golden Company and most likley that Daemon was also the Blackfyre pretender before Maelys "relived him of command". So that's at the least one Blackfyre that uncounted for as the link between Daemon III and Maelys I. And there could be more for all we know.

We don't know whether this Daemon (IV) pretended to anything. Perhaps he just wanted to command the Golden Company? In addition, we don't know whether Maelys took command from Daemon (IV) or whether these two Blackfyres fought for control of the Golden Company after the previous unknown captain-general of the Golden Company - perhaps the father of Daemon (IV) - died.

But even if Daemon (IV) was the captain-general of the Golden Company this doesn't mean this man was also a pretender to the Iron Throne. It could just as well be that the Blackfyres gave up that ridiculous shit and Maelys sort of 'rediscovered' his claim to the Iron Throne when he co-founded the Band of Nine and there was suddenly a chance to stage another invasion.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. Murdering Aenys didn't turn any lords that we know against the Targaryens and Ramsay's torture of Theon didn't to my knowledge turn anyone against the Boltons. Westeros is not a place where most people take great offence at the suffferig of their enemies. In fact it would fit with the Targaryen operaton to both parade around Daemon II to humiliate him and send him for torture sessions in the Black Cells, Ramsay-style. I can definietly see Bloodraven being up for such.

LOL, but torturing royal kin isn't exactly common in Westeros. Bloodraven and Aerys I aren't Ramsay. Aerys I sent his uncle Aegor Rivers to the Wall because he didn't want to execute his uncle, presumably. Do you really think such a man would have submitted his cousin to torture for no good reason? Especially since, you know, you have no evidence for that claim.

Daemon II isn't Aenys. Aenys was killed much later under very different circumstances. In 211 AC the Blackfyres were still somewhat of a threat. In the 230s their cause was much weaker.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Bloodraven's authority isn't threatened by a king disinterested in ruling who will go along with whatever the Hand proposes with one sole exception that we know of.

We don't know how Aerys I's government is run in detail. We have no idea how the council sessions go or what Bloodraven presumes he can do with or without the consent of his king. The fact that he himself brings up the king in relation to Daemon II means there are limits to his power.

I doubt Aerys I led any armies personally during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. But he is the one who sat in judgment over Bittersteel, not Bloodraven or Maekar.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Its pretty clear that Bloodraven will easily accept the wishes of a king who has no wishes regarding the affairs of the realm. Bloodraven rules and whatever wish is what becomes policy. There's a reason as to why King Aerys sits in his castle and lets Bloodraven do all the work and fom the decisions.

Nope.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Exceptional circumstances at all times. Tywin wasn't about to be pushed arund and with the Hightowers and Aemond we don't have enough information to say what reasoning they had. Or maybe Rhaenyra wanted to make use of Alicent and Helaena if the fighting would go agaisnt her.

Those people simply didn't care about the lives of their relations - just Walder Frey didn't gave shit about the life of Emmon and his grandchildren by him when he joined Robb. And you see what reasoning Tywin had. If you insult my honor I don't give shit about the family members you have in your power. I think of them as dead already and punish you for your presumptions. That's the proper way to think of hostages. That's also the reason why this Hoster Blackwood fellow is no hostage at all. Lord Tytos dotes on his daughter but he has four living sons. He can spare one more, especially the bookworm. Lord Bracken tried to tell Jaime that but the man didn't understand or care.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The king didn't care for ruling and that means that there's essentially no king around.

So you think Bloodraven arranged a marriage between Prince Daeron Targaryen and Kiera of Tyrosh without the king's or Maekar's permission? While Prince Daeron - the heir of Summerhall - resided with his father at Summerhall? How should such a wedding take place?

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And what do you know about Tyrosh beig a threat that can destroy King's Landing? Anyway, there's no reason to think that a single Free City can destroy King's Landing due to the fact that the city is fortified and there's a royal navy to protect it.

Well, they would have to defeat or outmaneuver that navy first but - sure, Tyroshi sellsails and sellswords should be able to destroy KL. Especially if they hire more free companies in addition to the Golden Company. Bloodraven is wary of the Blackfyre sons and Bittersteel while they don't have the support of Tyrosh. If Tyrosh gave them money and access to their own resources they could have become a very dangerous threat. And perhaps that's what they are going to do during the Third Rebellion. We don't know. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If you don't like speculation you are free to refrain from indulging in it.

:lmao:

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