Rhaenys or Visenya?

[UFT]

who do you like more?

[Fire Eater]

That's actually tough. Visenya does deserve credit for her creation of the KG, and cleverly taking the Vale through negotiations rather than battle. However, she loses points for basically starting an intra-house conflict by crowning her son Maegor over Aenys's children, and burning in dragonflame the castles of lords who didn't answer Maegor's summons. 

Rhaenys was skilled at PR using the Westerosi form of mass media: singers. Keeping singers at her court, and sending them off singing songs praising the Targaryens was a good move. She was also smart to arrange marriages between the Great Houses to further unite the realm. However, her invasion of Dorne proved to be failure that ended in her death. 

I'm going to go with Rhaenys. 

[divica]

11 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

That's actually tough. Visenya does deserve credit for her creation of the KG, and cleverly taking the Vale through negotiations rather than battle. However, she loses points for basically starting an intra-house conflict by crowning her son Maegor over Aenys's children, and burning in dragonflame the castles of lords who didn't answer Maegor's summons. 

Rhaenys, however, I can't name a single accomplishment of hers. She managed to lose King's Landing after a few months. She also tried to imprison the bastards who fought for like Addam of Hull. 

I'm going to have to cede it to Visenya, whom I dislike the least. 

I think she crowning Maegor was actually good. We know very little about Aegon, but at the time the targs were at war with the faith. They needed strong leadership and Aegon was a kid I think. Besides, most of maegor's cruelty had to happen for the targs safety.

[Fire Eater]

2 hours ago, divica said:

I think she crowning Maegor was actually good. We know very little about Aegon, but at the time the targs were at war with the faith. They needed strong leadership and Aegon was a kid I think. Besides, most of maegor's cruelty had to happen for the targs safety.

Aegon was in his teens, and there is such thing as a Regency. He was no pushover, as he was willing to challenge his uncle over the crown. Maegor's cruelty didn't end the Faith's Rebellion, Jaehaerys and Septon Barth's negotiations did. Maegor's brutal campaign kept the conflict going, with that kind of brutality increasing animosity towards the Iron Throne. Was the murdering of craftsmen and builders of the Red Keep for the Targaryens' safety? 

[divica]

4 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Aegon was in his teens, and there is such thing as a Regency. He was no pushover, as he was willing to challenge his uncle over the crown. Maegor's cruelty didn't end the Faith's Rebellion, Jaehaerys and Septon Barth's negotiations did. Maegor's brutal campaign kept the conflict going, with that kind of brutality increasing animosity towards the Iron Throne. Was the murdering of craftsmen and builders of the Red Keep for the Targaryens' safety? 

Maegor's cruelty broke the faith. They had to dismember the faith militant because of it. Even him and visenya burning the castles of the lords that didn t respond to his summons makes sense. They were basically saying that they were on the side of the faith...

In regards to Aegon rebeling. I think it shows more stupidity and cruelty than courage. His uncle had just ended the war with the faith  and was giving judgements. So what does Aegon do? Tries to convince all the great lords to rebel against his uncle and fights him with a smaller dragon. Not only is he ungrtaeful and oportunistic he was also dumb. I mean he is a targ and has a dragon, so where was he when the faith was rebeling against the targs because of his marriage? HIDDEN!

And yes, after he defeated the faith it is said he did pretty bad things. But I think it is very weird that he became such a monster. To me it sounds more like after their defeat the faith (and maybe the maesters) started spreading rumours that exagerated maegors cruelty in order to help jaehaerys who was more pro faith get the throne.

[Faera]

Both sisters are more interesting to me than their brother Aegon. Of the two I would say Visenya has always interested me more because she feels like she was better suited to the harsh realities the early Targaryen regime was facing. If nothing else, she is the quintessential "Empress Agrippina" figure wrapped up in chainmail and riding a dragon. I think Rhaenys died too young to really leave the same impact as her sister.

[Adam Yozza]

5 hours ago, Fire Eater said:

That's actually tough. Visenya does deserve credit for her creation of the KG, and cleverly taking the Vale through negotiations rather than battle. However, she loses points for basically starting an intra-house conflict by crowning her son Maegor over Aenys's children, and burning in dragonflame the castles of lords who didn't answer Maegor's summons. 

Rhaenys, however, I can't name a single accomplishment of hers. She managed to lose King's Landing after a few months. She also tried to imprison the bastards who fought for like Addam of Hull. 

I'm going to have to cede it to Visenya, whom I dislike the least. 

1) I think you're referring to Rhaenyra here. Rhaenys was Visenya and Aegon's other sister.

2) Rhaenyra only ordered the arrest of two very specific bastards; the dragon riding ones; and she did it only because the other two dragonriding bastards had just betrayed her.

[Adam Yozza]

2 hours ago, divica said:

Maegor's cruelty broke the faith. They had to dismember the faith militant because of it. Even him and visenya burning the castles of the lords that didn t respond to his summons makes sense. They were basically saying that they were on the side of the faith...

In regards to Aegon rebeling. I think it shows more stupidity and cruelty than courage. His uncle had just ended the war with the faith  and was giving judgements. So what does Aegon do? Tries to convince all the great lords to rebel against his uncle and fights him with a smaller dragon. Not only is he ungrtaeful and oportunistic he was also dumb. I mean he is a targ and has a dragon, so where was he when the faith was rebeling against the targs because of his marriage? HIDDEN!

And yes, after he defeated the faith it is said he did pretty bad things. But I think it is very weird that he became such a monster. To me it sounds more like after their defeat the faith (and maybe the maesters) started spreading rumours that exagerated maegors cruelty in order to help jaehaerys who was more pro faith get the throne.

Nope. It was Jahaerys who negotiated the end of the Faith Militant. Maegor wiped them out but within a few decades they'd have reformed. Jahaerys made sure they couldn't, legally at least.

Aegon rebelled because his uncle had just stolen his crown. He was hiding from Maegor while trying to gather support. Also, my memory isn't 100% clear but doesn't Aegon rebel and die before the faith war ends, not after? I might be wrong on that one.

So you think he didn't order the deaths of everyone who had a part in building the Red Keep? That's a pretty hard fact to fake.

[divica]

34 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Nope. It was Jahaerys who negotiated the end of the Faith Militant. Maegor wiped them out but within a few decades they'd have reformed. Jahaerys made sure they couldn't, legally at least.

Aegon rebelled because his uncle had just stolen his crown. He was hiding from Maegor while trying to gather support. Also, my memory isn't 100% clear but doesn't Aegon rebel and die before the faith war ends, not after? I might be wrong on that one.

So you think he didn't order the deaths of everyone who had a part in building the Red Keep? That's a pretty hard fact to fake.

At most jaehaerys negotiated that the fait militant wouldn t reform again. They didn t exist at the time and maegor offered Money for the head of any member, so they were already ilegal... The faith doesn t decide the laws, the king does!

That wasn t what happened. Not even close. The faith rebels because Aegon marries his sister. Aenys loses KL and runs to dragonstone where he ages rapidly. Aegon and his sister are besieged somewher by the faith and aenys dies when he hears that. Visenya goes get maegor and corwns him king (the faith/maester refuses to do so). Maegor goes to KL and wins trial of the seven. Spends 28 days in a coma until the maester stops treating him because his wife arrives. Maegor starts his war with the faith burning the septon on KL and several men in the battlefiel. Maegor takes a 3rd wife and kills maester that says he already has 1 wife in oldtown and high septon denounces the marriage. Maegor dedicates himself to the construction of the red keep. Maegor forbids men from the faith of holding weapons and punishes lords that speak in defense of the faith. High septon orders maegor to go to oldtown and ask the gods for forgiveness. Maegor summons lords and waits 6 months. Maegor and his mother burn the castles of the lords that didn t answer the summons. Maegor threatens to burn the  starry sept and the high septon misteryously dies...

After this maegor makes peace with the faith and the hightowers and stays in oldtown for some months to preside trials. After some months Aegon decides to revolt...

There is nothing noble in aegon's revolt... And even worse. Anyone who suported Aegon at this time would be supporting Aegon because they were simpathetic to the faith! which were the enemy of the targs! They needed to keep reducing the influence of the faith in the smallfolk, not start saying that maegor was too cruel with the faith...

[divica]

23 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

So you think he didn't order the deaths of everyone who had a part in building the Red Keep? That's a pretty hard fact to fake.

Honnestly, I find Maegor's early life very diferent from what he is acused of doing later in life...

However targs do tend to get mad... And the most cruel acts he did was when he was angry because he believed his wife betrayed him...

In adition we have no idea how many workers he really killed. I dont think he would be able to kill the thousands involved in the construction... Most probably he killed anyone who knew about secret passages in red keep. And if we are truthful, what his the point of having secret passages if lot of people know about them? they become a danger (look at theon and winterfell)! Maegor simply had to kill some workers...

[Fire Eater]

5 hours ago, divica said:

Maegor's cruelty broke the faith. They had to dismember the faith militant because of it. Even him and visenya burning the castles of the lords that didn t respond to his summons makes sense. They were basically saying that they were on the side of the faith...

In regards to Aegon rebeling. I think it shows more stupidity and cruelty than courage. His uncle had just ended the war with the faith  and was giving judgements. So what does Aegon do? Tries to convince all the great lords to rebel against his uncle and fights him with a smaller dragon. Not only is he ungrtaeful and oportunistic he was also dumb. I mean he is a targ and has a dragon, so where was he when the faith was rebeling against the targs because of his marriage? HIDDEN!

And yes, after he defeated the faith it is said he did pretty bad things. But I think it is very weird that he became such a monster. To me it sounds more like after their defeat the faith (and maybe the maesters) started spreading rumours that exagerated maegors cruelty in order to help jaehaerys who was more pro faith get the throne.

That ignores that the Faith kept on fighting Maegor in spite of his brutality. Studies and history show that brutality often unsurprisingly increases animosity and resistance. Burning the castles of lords who don't answer a summons doesn't often win support. Even Tywin knew that violence had to be use in a restrained, controlled manner. It is using the same logic of "with me or against me" that a tyrant uses. Julius Caesar knew better, his policy of "if you're not with me, well as long as you're not against me we can be friends," actually won him support. 

Aegon was going to have to challenge Maegor at some point. How is rebelling against Maegor cruel? That doesn't make sense. The longer he waited, the stronger Maegor got, and he was going to have to challenge Maegor at some point. His uncle usurped his throne, and fought the Faith, not on Aegon's behalf, but to crush opposition to Maegor's rule. Maegor full well knew that the previous king, Aenys, expected Aegon to follow after him, and that he was usurping his nephew's throne. If Maegor ended the war with the Faith, why were there members of the Faith still fighting until Septon Barth's negotiations? That is revisionism right there. 

Except the histories aren't written by septons, but by maesters. There is little evidence to suggest the Faith made up the rumors. 

"After this maegor makes peace with the faith and the hightowers and stays in oldtown for some months to preside trials. After some months Aegon decides to revolt...

There is nothing noble in aegon's revolt... And even worse. Anyone who suported Aegon at this time would be supporting Aegon because they were simpathetic to the faith! which were the enemy of the targs! They needed to keep reducing the influence of the faith in the smallfolk, not start saying that maegor was too cruel with the faith..."

Members of the Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows continued to fight Maegor even after the deal with the High Septon. 

The Faith didn't join Aegon as the High Septon still pronounced his marriage to his sister and their children as abominations. 

 

[Curled Finger]

Who doesn't dig a magic sword wielding, dragon riding, sorcery studying, bad ass woman?  

OTOH Rhaenys sure left some juicy mystery including but not limited to the real paternity of her son not to mention her own demise.  

It's a toss up.   Aegon was a lucky bastard. 

[divica]

16 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

That ignores that the Faith kept on fighting Maegor in spite of his brutality. Studies and history show that brutality often unsurprisingly increases animosity and resistance. Burning the castles of lords who don't answer a summons doesn't often win support. Even Tywin knew that violence had to be use in a restrained, controlled manner. It is using the same logic of "with me or against me" that a tyrant uses. Julius Caesar knew better, his policy of "if you're not with me, well as long as you're not against me we can be friends," actually won him support. 

Aegon was going to have to challenge Maegor at some point. How is rebelling against Maegor cruel? That doesn't make sense. The longer he waited, the stronger Maegor got, and he was going to have to challenge Maegor at some point. His uncle usurped his throne, and fought the Faith, not on Aegon's behalf, but to crush opposition to Maegor's rule. Maegor full well knew that the previous king, Aenys, expected Aegon to follow after him, and that he was usurping his nephew's throne. If Maegor ended the war with the Faith, why were there members of the Faith still fighting until Septon Barth's negotiations? That is revisionism right there. 

They were remnants of the faith that hated maegor because he defeated them. Saying that a few fanatic survivors that probably were always hidden kept the war going is revisionism. He broke the power of the faith because he brought them fire and blood. This is undeniable. You can say he didn t achieve true peace and I would agree. But in AffC we have marwin saying that maesters killed the dragons, so jaehaeris also didn t achieve peace. Both of them acheived a measure of peace.

Then you are confusing things. Maegor was brutal to his enemies because he was in a war. Tywin is talking about that there must be a limit to being cruel to a defeated enemy. However until the high septon died they were in open war! And maegor was pretty nice in not using his dragon to burn the starry sept and end the faith. Besides, being brutal to his enemies is a good way assure people don t want to be your enemies. 

Then the war started because Aegon married his sister. So yes, maegor was fighting also for Aegon because the faith thought he was na abomination! And After his uncle defeated his enemies Aegon rebels and calls his uncle a tyrant? Who do you think would support Aegon at that time and think of maegor as a tyrant? Nobles simphatetic to the faith and religious people. The targ supporters had just won one war... Aegon's rebellion is almost treason against the targs... And maegor is so bad that he only killed Aegon and spared the life of his mother that crowned him and even acepted his brother as a squire... If Aegon wanted to revolt first he should help his uncle stabilie the kingdom and build his own power while doing it. Then use legal means and only then war. 

36 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Except the histories aren't written by septons, but by maesters. There is little evidence to suggest the Faith made up the rumors. 

"After this maegor makes peace with the faith and the hightowers and stays in oldtown for some months to preside trials. After some months Aegon decides to revolt...

There is nothing noble in aegon's revolt... And even worse. Anyone who suported Aegon at this time would be supporting Aegon because they were simpathetic to the faith! which were the enemy of the targs! They needed to keep reducing the influence of the faith in the smallfolk, not start saying that maegor was too cruel with the faith..."

Members of the Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows continued to fight Maegor even after the deal with the High Septon. 

The Faith didn't join Aegon as the High Septon still pronounced his marriage to his sister and their children as abominations. 

 

Yeah spetons don t spread rumours... what is it that the high sparrow is doing in KL?

We are even told that maegor enemies spread a rumour about him kiling his first wife... The simple admission that there were rumous about his cruelty circulating is reason to question how cruel he really was.

And I didn t say the faith joined Aegon. Only people simpathetic to the faith and other religious people. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 1/4/2018 at 2:27 AM, UFT said:

who do you like more?

Visenya

[Lion of the West]

I like Rhaenys most because I enjoy song and think poetry is a good thing even while swords must be kept to protect all of it. Now Visenya is a an interesting character in herself but I think that I would probably like Rhaenys' personality more. And I do like her for dealing with that incident with a blacksmith that beat his wife to death.

[Darth Sidious]

I take Rhaenys for a girlfriend but I want Visenya ruling the kingdom.  I just feel protected with a strong person in charge.  Rhaenys made some questionable political moves.  Iirc, she forced feuding families to marry.  Feuds are there for a reason and sometimes you have to let them fight it out or maintain the peace through strength.  Can't force people to love one another but you can force them to keep the peace.   And how the hell do you get a dragon killed.  She flew too low and too slow.  That's poor tactics and she let the yellow toad push her around.  Visenya wouldn't take that shit from the Dornish.

[Adam Yozza]

5 minutes ago, Agent Orange said:

I take Rhaenys for a girlfriend but I want Visenya ruling the kingdom.  I just feel protected with a strong person in charge.  Rhaenys made some questionable political moves.  Iirc, she forced feuding families to marry.  Feuds are there for a reason and sometimes you have to let them fight it out or maintain the peace through strength.  Can't force people to love one another but you can force them to keep the peace.   And how the hell do you get a dragon killed.  She flew too low and too slow.  That's poor tactics and she let the yellow toad push her around.  Visenya wouldn't take that shit from the Dornish.

Visenya would take it from the Dornish because they had no other option. All the castle's were abandoned and the soldiers were hiding out. Short of staying in Dorne permanantly, there was nothing they could do to control the region. Any garrisons installed would have been slaughtered the second the dragons left and maintianing a large enough army there would be far too costly.

Also, IIRC, Rhaenys and her dragon being killed was pure luck by the Dornish.

[Fire Eater]

On 1/5/2018 at 0:20 AM, divica said:

They were remnants of the faith that hated maegor because he defeated them. Saying that a few fanatic survivors that probably were always hidden kept the war going is revisionism. He broke the power of the faith because he brought them fire and blood. This is undeniable. You can say he didn t achieve true peace and I would agree. But in AffC we have marwin saying that maesters killed the dragons, so jaehaeris also didn t achieve peace. Both of them acheived a measure of peace.

Then you are confusing things. Maegor was brutal to his enemies because he was in a war. Tywin is talking about that there must be a limit to being cruel to a defeated enemy. However until the high septon died they were in open war! And maegor was pretty nice in not using his dragon to burn the starry sept and end the faith. Besides, being brutal to his enemies is a good way assure people don t want to be your enemies. 

Then the war started because Aegon married his sister. So yes, maegor was fighting also for Aegon because the faith thought he was na abomination! And After his uncle defeated his enemies Aegon rebels and calls his uncle a tyrant? Who do you think would support Aegon at that time and think of maegor as a tyrant? Nobles simphatetic to the faith and religious people. The targ supporters had just won one war... Aegon's rebellion is almost treason against the targs... And maegor is so bad that he only killed Aegon and spared the life of his mother that crowned him and even acepted his brother as a squire... If Aegon wanted to revolt first he should help his uncle stabilie the kingdom and build his own power while doing it. Then use legal means and only then war. 

I'll ingore the obvious to quoque in accusing me of revisionism when evidence proves the opposite. Those remnants were still fighting Maegor so technically the war wasn't over. The problem with bringing up Jaehaerys is that the Citadel wasn't at war with House Targaryen. There was no declaration by the maesters against them. 

If brutality is required in war, then why is there such a term as "war crimes" or in this society, "chivalry?" The Dornish were brutal towards the nobles and knights they captured in the first Dornish War, and that just led to the families of their victims along with Aegon I howling for vengeance and intensifying the conflict. Brutality can instill the desire for vengeance and more war. Maegor's actions go against Machiavelli's advice of avoiding being hated at all costs. Aegon rebels? If Maegor was fighting for Aegon then why did he usurp his inheritance? He knew Aenys wanted the crown to go to Aegon, and Maegor knew how inheritance worked in this society of male primogeniture. Maegor likely knew his own father, Aegon I, wouldn't have approved of Maegor seizing the Iron Throne. Maegor seizing the inheritance of the Crown Prince illegally isn't treason against House Targaryen but Aegon rebelling against Maegor doing that is? I don't know how that logic works. You fail to address that. Nobles sympathetic to the Faith supporting Aegon makes no sense. Didn't the Faith declare war on House Targaryen after Aegon married Rhaena? Show me in the text where it says those sympathetic to the Faith supported Aegon? The Faith was opposed not simply to Maegor but the Targaryen monarchy in general. Who would think of Maegor as a tyrant? Basically anyone with a moral compass. As for Aegon's brother, Maegor had that same brother tortured to death and left his body to rot in the yard. Aegon was pinned in the westerlands by the Faith, and couldn't come to King's Landing. Had he been in King's Landing at the time, he would have opposed his uncle's actions. Maegor was taking the crown by force. 

On 1/5/2018 at 0:20 AM, divica said:

 

Yeah spetons don t spread rumours... what is it that the high sparrow is doing in KL?

We are even told that maegor enemies spread a rumour about him kiling his first wife... The simple admission that there were rumous about his cruelty circulating is reason to question how cruel he really was.

And I didn t say the faith joined Aegon. Only people simpathetic to the faith and other religious people. 

Proof? There is nothing in the text to back up your claim. 

[divica]

17 hours ago, Fire Eater said:

I'll ingore the obvious to quoque in accusing me of revisionism when evidence proves the opposite. Those remnants were still fighting Maegor so technically the war wasn't over. The problem with bringing up Jaehaerys is that the Citadel wasn't at war with House Targaryen. There was no declaration by the maesters against them. 

If brutality is required in war, then why is there such a term as "war crimes" or in this society, "chivalry?" The Dornish were brutal towards the nobles and knights they captured in the first Dornish War, and that just led to the families of their victims along with Aegon I howling for vengeance and intensifying the conflict. Brutality can instill the desire for vengeance and more war. Maegor's actions go against Machiavelli's advice of avoiding being hated at all costs. Aegon rebels? If Maegor was fighting for Aegon then why did he usurp his inheritance? He knew Aenys wanted the crown to go to Aegon, and Maegor knew how inheritance worked in this society of male primogeniture. Maegor likely knew his own father, Aegon I, wouldn't have approved of Maegor seizing the Iron Throne. Maegor seizing the inheritance of the Crown Prince illegally isn't treason against House Targaryen but Aegon rebelling against Maegor doing that is? I don't know how that logic works. You fail to address that. Nobles sympathetic to the Faith supporting Aegon makes no sense. Didn't the Faith declare war on House Targaryen after Aegon married Rhaena? Show me in the text where it says those sympathetic to the Faith supported Aegon? The Faith was opposed not simply to Maegor but the Targaryen monarchy in general. Who would think of Maegor as a tyrant? Basically anyone with a moral compass. As for Aegon's brother, Maegor had that same brother tortured to death and left his body to rot in the yard. Aegon was pinned in the westerlands by the Faith, and couldn't come to King's Landing. Had he been in King's Landing at the time, he would have opposed his uncle's actions. Maegor was taking the crown by force. 

Proof? There is nothing in the text to back up your claim. 

Are the lannisters still at war with the north? Because it is said that the war is over and it is a similar situation...

We are using the word brutality but in those earlier years Maegor only burned his enemies. You could say that burning the sept in KL was brutal, but it was full of people belonging to the faith that had just conquered KL and oposed the targs. That isn t brutal...

Then you are talking as if brutality is a bad thing. Look at how efective the castamere story is for tywin and he even threatens wyman manderly with it and it works. Look at how awfull it was for the targs to spare bittersteel when they captured him... Well aplied brutality is very useful and can instil fear and respect. And if we take into account that most of maegor enemies at that time were fanatic traitors that used Aegon I's death to rebel... To me using a certain brutality in war is simply being realistic... And once again, at this time maegor acted with chivalry. He could have burned the starry sept for example... 

And yes, Maegor isn t a saint. But he was fighting a war while Aegon was hidden with the lannisters (the siege was broken shortly after maegor arrived in KL, Aegon decided to hid himself after that). What has maegor done in these years that makes him a tyrant? nothing! the only people that might dislike him are religious people. And why would they support Aegon? Because maegor crushed them so they would prefer Aegon than keep being opressed by maegor.

And it is true that it was a rumour that he killed his first wife. If there was 1 rumour about his cruelty is it wierd that there might be more? 

 

 

[Fire Eater]

3 hours ago, divica said:

Are the lannisters still at war with the north? Because it is said that the war is over and it is a similar situation...

We are using the word brutality but in those earlier years Maegor only burned his enemies. You could say that burning the sept in KL was brutal, but it was full of people belonging to the faith that had just conquered KL and oposed the targs. That isn t brutal...

Then you are talking as if brutality is a bad thing. Look at how efective the castamere story is for tywin and he even threatens wyman manderly with it and it works. Look at how awfull it was for the targs to spare bittersteel when they captured him... Well aplied brutality is very useful and can instil fear and respect. And if we take into account that most of maegor enemies at that time were fanatic traitors that used Aegon I's death to rebel... To me using a certain brutality in war is simply being realistic... And once again, at this time maegor acted with chivalry. He could have burned the starry sept for example... 

And yes, Maegor isn t a saint. But he was fighting a war while Aegon was hidden with the lannisters (the siege was broken shortly after maegor arrived in KL, Aegon decided to hid himself after that). What has maegor done in these years that makes him a tyrant? nothing! the only people that might dislike him are religious people. And why would they support Aegon? Because maegor crushed them so they would prefer Aegon than keep being opressed by maegor.

And it is true that it was a rumour that he killed his first wife. If there was 1 rumour about his cruelty is it wierd that there might be more? 

 

 

Yes, the Lannisters are still at war with the North, or do you think Stannis and the Starks are going nowhere? 

Since when does brutality have to have a political affiliation?  That is a dangerous mode of thinking, since it basically says traitors aren't entitled to certain rights that people should have. Brutal according to the dictionary means "savagely violent." Burning people fits that definition. 

Yes, it absolutely is a bad thing for anyone with a moral compass or sense of ethics. Manderly doesn't cower; if you read the story, you'd find he replied to Tywin's threats by saying he wouldn't bend the knee until his son is returned, and he is also aiming to turn his cloak and fight them again as we saw in Davos chapters. He only gave the appearance of being cowed. Regarding Bittersteel, execution for treason isn't thought of as brutal unless torture is involved. By your thinking, Robert should have killed Barristan. Brutality instills fear not respect. The International Criminal Court in Hague and the code of chivalry in Westeros would disagree with on the necessity of brutality in war. You don't need to be brutal to win a war, just smart at winning battles and allies. Maegor didn't burn the Starry Sept, because the High Septon had been assassinated, and Oldtown surrendered. 

Aegon was trying to get support for his claim, and he was hiding from Maegor. What did Maegor do that makes him a tyrant? Beheading three of his Grand Maesters, for starters. He wiped out all of House Harroway and "put the entire garrison [of Harrenhal] to the sword, along with every man, woman and child he found to have any drop of Harroway blood. Then he marched to Lord Harroway's Town on the Trident, and did the same there." He killed all the workmen who constructed the Red Keep. He had his nephew, Viserys, tortured to death. In the end, generally the entire realm turned against him, including his allies like Lord Tully, and two of his Kingsguard.