SerClout

Why did Aerys send Bittersteel to the wall?

64 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Every person taking the black goes there of his own free will. You cannot be forced to serve in the NW. You have to swear a vow. If you are a criminal - like Bittersteel, Ned Stark, the Dornish kings, Perkin the Flea, Dareon, Chett, etc. - then you get a choice. Take the punishment that is due to your crime, or declare that you want to take the black. Then your judge - be he king or lord - can decide to honor your wishes and allow you do that. And you basically are a man of the Night's Watch from that moment on, which makes Bittersteel very much a deserter and turncloak, and a coward.

Now, your judge - be he king or lord - could also offer you the choice to take the black - like Joff was supposed to offer Ned, and Tywin claimed he wanted to offer Tyrion - but it is then still your responsibility to accept it. If you don't accept it you don't go to the Wall. If Bittersteel had told King Aerys I that he had no intention of taking the black, then he wouldn't have been shipped to the Wall but would have instead been imprisoned or executed.

I am not really convinced. After all Nymeria sent six kings in chains to the Night's Watch. You may be right, of course, but as for now I still think that sending to Wall was his punishment and he had no choice.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We can be reasonably certain that Daeron II, Aerys I, and King Maekar all attainted the Blackfyre bloodline, cutting them out of the succession. They were exiles and traitors. Pretending to grant Aenys safe passage was nasty business, but the idea that the man had any right to present his claim is pretty far-fetched.

Yeah, Aenys Blackfyre was naive and his claim was really weak, but I think that he still had the right to at least go to King's Landing and not get murdered. By giving him safe conduct Iron Throne stated that he had right to participate in Great Council. If Bloodraven dismissed his offer and stated that sons of traitors had no right to Iron Throne there wouldn't be any problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I am not really convinced. After all Nymeria sent six kings in chains to the Night's Watch. You may be right, of course, but as for now I still think that sending to Wall was his punishment and he had no choice.

Well, then what right did the Watch have to demand that those kings sent to the Wall by Nymeria remain there? Did Dornish law and Nymeria's power extend to the Wall? Is the Night's Watch obliged to honor the wishes and execute the decrees and laws of a Rhoynish conqueror?

I don't think so.

What kept those men at the Wall was the fact that they swore to take the black. And Nymeria likely gave them the choice to go to the Wall or to be executed.

16 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Yeah, Aenys Blackfyre was naive and his claim was really weak, but I think that he still had the right to at least go to King's Landing and not get murdered. By giving him safe conduct Iron Throne stated that he had right to participate in Great Council. If Bloodraven dismissed his offer and stated that sons of traitors had no right to Iron Throne there wouldn't be any problem.

I agree with you there. There is a reason why Aegon V later sent Bloodraven to the Wall. You cannot act in the manner that he acted as a royal official, much less as the Hand of the King, speaking with the voice of the late King Maekar until King Aegon V was crowned.

But this still doesn't mean Aenys Blackfyre still had a viable claim from the point of view of the people running the Seven Kingdoms.

I hope there is more to this whole episode than just the sad story of a pathetic guy. I like the idea that Aenys was really a charismatic orator who had a decent chance to sway a majority of the lords to his side at a council where the lords basically had to choose between infant Prince Maegor and the peasant prince Aegon (Vaella and Aemon weren't really good options) - and neither of them was very popular.

Aenys would also have had the advantage of being a complete outsider, and thus not involved in any of the factionalism that nearly caused a Second Dance (which is what provoked Bloodraven to convene a Great Council in the first place).

Those men who ended up approaching Aemon during the council might have been more than willing to back a charismatic Aenys - in addition to whatever Blackfyre loyalists (or potential Blackfyre sympathizers) that were still out there. That could have cost Egg the Iron Throne, even more so if Daenora and the Arryns (or whoever else was championing Maegor's claim) had allied with Aenys to prevent a King Aegon V.

In that sense, Bloodraven may have felt it was necessary to make a very ugly example out of Aenys to hammer home the fact that he would not tolerate any Blackfyre shenanigans during the council. And that could very well have been what made Egg king in the end.

In addition, there is the fact that a controversial Great Council were Aenys had gathered considerable but not enough support to win the Iron Throne could very well have provided the starting point for a Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion.

In that sense - the whole thing was very bad form on Bloodraven's part but it may have still been a good thing for the Targaryen side, especially those who wanted to see Egg ascend the throne as Aegon V.

Share this post


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

Well, then what right did the Watch have to demand that those kings sent to the Wall by Nymeria remain there? Did Dornish law and Nymeria's power extend to the Wall? Is the Night's Watch obliged to honor the wishes and execute the decrees and laws of a Rhoynish conqueror?

I don't think so.

What kept those men at the Wall was the fact that they swore to take the black. And Nymeria likely gave them the choice to go to the Wall or to be executed.

Doesn't they accept anyone who is sent to the wall? They are neutral anyway so Night's Watch shouldn't really care for what people are sent there. And again we don't know yet if Aegor was given a choice. I mostly just don't think that there is good evidence supporting it. Maybe we will learn about it later if ever GRRM decides to continue Dunk and Egg stories.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I agree with you there. There is a reason why Aegon V later sent Bloodraven to the Wall. You cannot act in the manner that he acted as a royal official, much less as the Hand of the King, speaking with the voice of the late King Maekar until King Aegon V was crowned.

But this still doesn't mean Aenys Blackfyre still had a viable claim from the point of view of the people running the Seven Kingdoms.

I hope there is more to this whole episode than just the sad story of a pathetic guy. I like the idea that Aenys was really a charismatic orator who had a decent chance to sway a majority of the lords to his side at a council where the lords basically had to choose between infant Prince Maegor and the peasant prince Aegon (Vaella and Aemon weren't really good options) - and neither of them was very popular.

Aenys would also have had the advantage of being a complete outsider, and thus not involved in any of the factionalism that nearly caused a Second Dance (which is what provoked Bloodraven to convene a Great Council in the first place).

Those men who ended up approaching Aemon during the council might have been more than willing to back a charismatic Aenys - in addition to whatever Blackfyre loyalists (or potential Blackfyre sympathizers) that were still out there. That could have cost Egg the Iron Throne, even more so if Daenora and the Arryns (or whoever else was championing Maegor's claim) had allied with Aenys to prevent a King Aegon V.

In that sense, Bloodraven may have felt it was necessary to make a very ugly example out of Aenys to hammer home the fact that he would not tolerate any Blackfyre shenanigans during the council. And that could very well have been what made Egg king in the end.

In addition, there is the fact that a controversial Great Council were Aenys had gathered considerable but not enough support to win the Iron Throne could very well have provided the starting point for a Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion.

In that sense - the whole thing was very bad form on Bloodraven's part but it may have still been a good thing for the Targaryen side, especially those who wanted to see Egg ascend the throne as Aegon V.

Yes, it could be very interesting to see what actually type of person Aenys was. His claim may have been shaky at best, but by accepting his offer, Bloodraven actually made him viable candidate. And by being outsider he would be very attractive candidate as he would need to seek support for his rule from powerful vassals, most likely by giving favors and privileges. Historically outsiders were popular choices for monarchs as nobles believed that they would be easier to control.

Personally I don't think that giving Aenys safe conduct and then killing him was the best decision, but considering what failure Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion was, man can argue that Bloodraven achieved what he wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 1:58 PM, SerClout said:

He had him right there, why did he spare his life? Sure, killing him might not have prevented the Ninepenny war but seriously come on? He was like a thrice timed traitor? At least throw him in the dungeons if it's kinslaying he was worried about, instead of sending him half across the realm waiting for the right opportunity to escape, which he eventually did.

I see what you did there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 1:58 PM, SerClout said:

He had him right there, why did he spare his life? Sure, killing him might not have prevented the Ninepenny war but seriously come on? He was like a thrice timed traitor? At least throw him in the dungeons if it's kinslaying he was worried about, instead of sending him half across the realm waiting for the right opportunity to escape, which he eventually did.

Sending vanquished foes to the Wall is a pretty solid tradition. I'd say the more surprising thing was that Aegor Rivers acted so dishonorably by accepting the appointment and then escaping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 2:38 AM, SerClout said:

He could've kept him hostage as Bloodraven did with Daemon II who later died. Could there be other reasons than convenience of the story leading to future blackfyre rebellions? Did Aerys for some reason want him to escape?

Why on earth would Aerys want Bittersteel to escape? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 3:26 AM, Lord Varys said:

Bittersteel wasn't much worth as a hostage, presumably. He wasn't all that young at that point, and he was the main cause for the continuous trouble with the Blackfyres. If he had ended up at the Wall there would have likely been neither a Fourth nor a Fifth Blackfyre Rebellion.

And one really has to say that Bittersteel was a piece of shit. If you agree to take the black, you take it. You don't run away like a coward. It is no surprise that Daemon III had as little support from the Westerosi as he had, considering that Bittersteel was with him at that point.

But best not to say that in his presence, especially lacking a pair of balls.

I'd like to know more about that episode. But from what we do know, he appears to have sacrificed a great deal of personal honor there, as you point out, but as far as the throne and the ruling families of Westeros were concerned, his honor was already forfeit anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 10:55 AM, Megorova said:

I think that there was someone in Targaryens court, who worked for Blackfyres, secretly supported them, or maybe was just feeling sorry for them, and thus convinced Aerys not to keep Bittersteel in the dungeon. Maybe it was Shiera Seastar.

It certainly would make for a nice Dunk and Egg tale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 5:08 PM, Paxter Redwyne said:

Maybe, this is mostly my opinion. There is statement in World of Ice and Fire about Aerion actions but we don't know yet what exactly.

I agree it is reasonable to suspect that Aerion killed Haegon dishonorably. 

On 2/25/2018 at 5:08 PM, Paxter Redwyne said:

Maybe, this is mostly my opinion. There is statement in World of Ice and Fire about Aerion actions but we don't know yet what exactly.

I can't find anywhere that Aegor accepted Aerys' pardon. World of Ice and Fire says that he was tried, found guilty and sent to wall as punishment. If I forgot about something please let me know.

Hmm... I suppose that's possible... That he was tried and commanded to take the black rather than that he was offered to take the black and accepted. 

On 2/25/2018 at 6:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

Every person taking the black goes there of his own free will. You cannot be forced to serve in the NW. You have to swear a vow. If you are a criminal - like Bittersteel, Ned Stark, the Dornish kings, Perkin the Flea, Dareon, Chett, etc. - then you get a choice. Take the punishment that is due to your crime, or declare that you want to take the black. Then your judge - be he king or lord - can decide to honor your wishes and allow you do that. And you basically are a man of the Night's Watch from that moment on, which makes Bittersteel very much a deserter and turncloak, and a coward.

Now, your judge - be he king or lord - could also offer you the choice to take the black - like Joff was supposed to offer Ned, and Tywin claimed he wanted to offer Tyrion - but it is then still your responsibility to accept it. If you don't accept it you don't go to the Wall. If Bittersteel had told King Aerys I that he had no intention of taking the black, then he wouldn't have been shipped to the Wall but would have instead been imprisoned or executed.

Are we 100 percent sure that a king could not command someone to take the black? I know we haven't seen such an example, but it would be possible, no? 

On 2/25/2018 at 6:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

He would have been a pretty good leader, just not exactly a guy with a great reputation. Even if he hadn't fled from the NW like a coward, he certainly was a huge living failure. The man never accomplished anything he set out to do.

Man, you sure do use that term pretty authoritatively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Are we 100 percent sure that a king could not command someone to take the black? I know we haven't seen such an example, but it would be possible, no? 

What about Jaqen H'ghar?

 

When no knights at the court of the Red Keep volunteer to join the Night's Watch following the plea of wandering crow Yoren, Lord Eddard Stark, the Hand of the King, gives Yoren his pick of the king's dungeons.[6] Jaqen is one of the three men Yoren takes from the black cells.[7]

Jaqen is transported to the Wall in a cage by Yoren. He is locked in together with Rorge and Biter,[3] who had been in the black cells with him. He is polite to Arya Stark despite his situation. Yoren remains caged with Biter and Rorge when the group of recruits decides to spend the night in the holdfast of |a deserted town on the southern shore of the Gods Eye.

 

Jaqen, Biter and Rorge didn't volunteered, didn't agreed to join NW, nevertheless they still were taken there, by force, in a cage.

Based on this, it seems that people could be sent to The Wall even against their will. And when they arrive to one of NW's castles, they are placed in the ice cells. Then they are given a choise, to join NW or to be executed.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, then what right did the Watch have to demand that those kings sent to the Wall by Nymeria remain there? Did Dornish law and Nymeria's power extend to the Wall? Is the Night's Watch obliged to honor the wishes and execute the decrees and laws of a Rhoynish conqueror?

I don't think so.

What kept those men at the Wall was the fact that they swore to take the black. And Nymeria likely gave them the choice to go to the Wall or to be executed.

More like they were brought to The Wall, escorted there by Nymeria's guards. And upon arrival to The Wall, they were given a choise, join NW or those guards will execute them, and then go back to Dorne. Because once those people swore an oath, they became NW's responsibility. So if they will desert/escape, after their escorts will leave, then they will be executed either by Starks or by other watchers.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

What about Jaqen H'ghar?

 

When no knights at the court of the Red Keep volunteer to join the Night's Watch following the plea of wandering crow Yoren, Lord Eddard Stark, the Hand of the King, gives Yoren his pick of the king's dungeons.[6] Jaqen is one of the three men Yoren takes from the black cells.[7]

Jaqen is transported to the Wall in a cage by Yoren. He is locked in together with Rorge and Biter,[3] who had been in the black cells with him. He is polite to Arya Stark despite his situation. Yoren remains caged with Biter and Rorge when the group of recruits decides to spend the night in the holdfast of |a deserted town on the southern shore of the Gods Eye.

 

Jaqen, Biter and Rorge didn't volunteered, didn't agreed to join NW, nevertheless they still were taken there, by force, in a cage.

Based on this, it seems that people could be sent to The Wall even against their will. And when they arrive to one of NW's castles, they are placed in the ice cells. Then they are given a choise, to join NW or to be executed.

More like they were brought to The Wall, escorted there by Nymeria's guards. And upon arrival to The Wall, they were given a choise, join NW or those guards will execute them, and then go back to Dorne. Because once those people swore an oath, they became NW's responsibility. So if they will desert/escape, after their escorts will leave, then they will be executed either by Starks or by other watchers.

This is the same Rorge that pretty much massacred a whole town. You can't leave him unsupervised.

Share this post


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

Why on earth would Aerys want Bittersteel to escape? 

Well Aerys didn't execute or imprison him. Considering the options for a man like Bittersteel, a traitor who rebelled against the throne three times, the wall was the worst possible choice. Maybe Aerys plainly didn't care what happened to him as long as he didn't have him around Kings Landing.

Share this post


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

But best not to say that in his presence, especially lacking a pair of balls.

I'd not say it Harry Strickland's face, but Bittersteel: bah, I say, bah. 

9 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

I'd like to know more about that episode. But from what we do know, he appears to have sacrificed a great deal of personal honor there, as you point out, but as far as the throne and the ruling families of Westeros were concerned, his honor was already forfeit anyway. 

I don't think so, actually. I think from the point of view supporting Daemon Blackfyre and being sympathetic to his cause Bittersteel would have been a very virtuous and honorable man. A fact that could have been tarnished when he chose to flee from the Wall. I mean, just think about what the Starks or the Northmen would think of him after that... We don't know whether there were any Northmen supporting the Blackfyres, of course, but if there had been some they wouldn't look favorably on Bittersteel after this thing.

And there are other people in Westeros who care about personal honor. People who simply wouldn't be willing to work with a man like Bittersteel after that. It put him more in the company of exiles and rogues, separating him much more permanently from decent lordly people than anything he had pulled off before.

Or I'm just imagining things. But think about it: How would Ned Stark have looked had he been 'saved' by Robb on his way to the Wall and been restored as Lord of Winterfell? Do you think anybody could have looked at Ned with a straight face after that? Do you think the man himself could suffer to look at himself in the mirror? Bittersteel apparently could, and that makes him a rather interesting piece of work.

8 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Are we 100 percent sure that a king could not command someone to take the black? I know we haven't seen such an example, but it would be possible, no? 

He could, technically, but he could not force such a person to swear a vow or stay there, could he? Let's say King Aerys I commanded Bittersteel to take the black - how could he then force the man to stay there? The Watch isn't a prison camp. There are no guards or anything. Nobody could stop him from jumping a ship at Eastwatch and flee to Tyrosh. And if Bittersteel never swore a vow nobody in Westeros could execute him as a deserter.

The system works because people swear vows and are beholden to them. And Bittersteel clearly did not care about that.

8 hours ago, Megorova said:

Jaqen, Biter and Rorge didn't volunteered, didn't agreed to join NW, nevertheless they still were taken there, by force, in a cage.

Because apparently Yoren considered them too dangerous to let them run around before they were at the Wall. But unless they agreed to go to the Wall they could not really be forced to stay there, could they?

8 hours ago, Megorova said:

Based on this, it seems that people could be sent to The Wall even against their will. And when they arrive to one of NW's castles, they are placed in the ice cells. Then they are given a choise, to join NW or to be executed.

This decision is made before the lord or king allows a wandering crow to take a prisoner, not at the Wall. Else there would be a legal loophole where it would not be oath-breaking/desertion to flee.

Share this post


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

Well Aerys didn't execute or imprison him. Considering the options for a man like Bittersteel, a traitor who rebelled against the throne three times, the wall was the worst possible choice. Maybe Aerys plainly didn't care what happened to him as long as he didn't have him around Kings Landing.

Actually, in a series where we see the cockamaime Rube Goldberg plot to assassinate Drogo and the Targlings to motivate Drogo into an immediate invasion of Westeros, I could see how Aerys might have set up the whole thing in an effort to lead Bittersteel into shaming himself. 

Share this post


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

Considering the options for a man like Bittersteel, a traitor who rebelled against the throne three times

Actually that's incorrect. Bittersteel rebelled only once, when he supported Daemon I in First Blackfyre Rebellion. After that he was staying in Essos, for over 15 years, without cousing any more problems for Targaryens. He didn't participated in Second Rebellion. That was entirely project of Bittersteel's nephew Daemon II. And Third Rebellion was a retaliation for Daemon's death.

After failure of Second Rebellion, Daemon II was imprisoned by Targaryens. But other Blackfyres and Bittersteel did nothing about it. They were against Daemon's idea to go to Westeros. None of them wanted another rebellion to happen. They failed in First Rebellion. Daemon I and his two sons died then. So his wife Rohanne, and other children, didn't wanted to suffer even more, because of their feud with Targaryens. But then their brother Daemon II died, presumably was killed by Targaryens, thus they had no other choise, but to go and fight against Targaryens again. So Third Rebellion was a pay back to Targaryens for killing Daemon II. It's unlikely that his death was natural, he was less than 30, when he died. Thus somehow Targaryens were involved in his death.

So could be that aside from Bloodraven, other Targaryen family members, thought that it isn't right, to execute Bittersteel, just because he supported his brother in First Rebellion, and started Third Rebellion, because he was obliged to do this, because he thought that Targaryens killed his nephew.

By that point of time, Bittersteel rebelled twice, not three times. And both times he participated in rebellions, just because he was supporting his family, first his brother Daemon I, and then was helping his nephew Haegon I, to avenge death of his brother Daemon II. Even Fourth Rebellion was just a retaliation for Aenys' execution. Bloodraven lured Aenys to come to Westeros, to attend Great Council, promised him that he has a chance to become King, but instead executed Aenys, when he came to King's Landing.   

I wouldn't call a traitor, someone who was doing all of this, just because he was supporting his family. GRRM depicted Bittersteel as a tragic hero, not as a villain.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


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

Actually that's incorrect. Bittersteel rebelled only once, when he supported Daemon I in First Blackfyre Rebellion. After that he was staying in Essos, for over 15 years, without cousing any more problems for Targaryens. He didn't participated in Second Rebellion. That was entirely project of Bittersteel's nephew Daemon II. And Third Rebellion was a retaliation for Daemon's death.

After failure of Second Rebellion, Daemon II was imprisoned by Targaryens. But other Blackfyres and Bittersteel did nothing about it. They were against Daemon's idea to go to Westeros. None of them wanted another rebellion to happen. They failed in First Rebellion. Daemon I and his two sons died then. So his wife Rohanne, and other children, didn't wanted to suffer even more, because of their feud with Targaryens. But then their brother Daemon II died, presumably was killed by Targaryens, thus they had no other choise, but to go and fight against Targaryens again. So Third Rebellion was a pay back to Targaryens for killing Daemon II. It's unlikely that his death was natural, he was less than 30, when he died. Thus somehow Targaryens were involved in his death.

So could be that aside from Bloodraven, other Targaryen family members, thought that it isn't right, to execute Bittersteel, just because he supported his brother in First Rebellion, and started Third Rebellion, because he was obliged to do this, because he thought that Targaryens killed his nephew.

By that point of time, Bittersteel rebelled twice, not three times. And both times he participated in rebellions, just because he was supporting his family, first his brother Daemon I, and then was helping his nephew Haegon I, to avenge death of his brother Daemon II. Even Fourth Rebellion was just a retaliation for Aenys' execution. Bloodraven lured Aenys to come to Westeros, to attend Great Council, promised him that he has a chance to become King, but instead executed Aenys, when he came to King's Landing.   

I wouldn't call a traitor, someone who was doing all of this, just because he was supporting his family. GRRM depicted Bittersteel as a tragic hero, not as a villain.

Nice spin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 26, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd be very surprised if the Blood Royal of Yronwood fought with Daemon III. Some Yronwoods apparently did, but I doubt the entire house was committed to that lost cause. 

We know the Yronwoods rode with Bittersteel, so during the First Rebellion there must have been either some fighting in Dorne involving Yronwoods and Bittersteel, or - more likely, I think - the Yronwoods and Bittersteel attacked some of Daeron II's allies in the Stormlands early on during the war (the Dondarrions and Penroses).

With Dorne retaining as many privileges as it did, it may have fallen to the Prince of Dorne to punish the Yronwoods for their treason. And they may have been lenient the first time.

How it went during the Third Rebellion remains to be seen.

The Yronwoods could've just held the boneway in the 1st Rebellion, delaying  the Martell army from joining up with the Targ army in the Stormlands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

The Yronwoods could've just held the boneway in the 1st Rebellion, delaying  the Martell army from joining up with the Targ army in the Stormlands. 

Nay, it is explicitly said that the Yronwoods rode with Bittersteel in three Blackfyre Rebellions. That implies they physically were with Bittersteel at one point in the First Rebellion.

And, quite frankly, I doubt that they actually turned against the Martells directly in those rebellions. That could gone very bad for them. I expect Daemon Blackfyre offered them the rule over Dorne in exchange for their help, but it more likely they took a Dalton Greyjoy approach there - attacking an enemy of their king outside their own home turf - rather than attacking Sunspear in Daemon's name (or later in the names of other Blackfyre pretenders).

6 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Actually, in a series where we see the cockamaime Rube Goldberg plot to assassinate Drogo and the Targlings to motivate Drogo into an immediate invasion of Westeros, I could see how Aerys might have set up the whole thing in an effort to lead Bittersteel into shaming himself. 

Aerys I certainly proved he was the better man and the rightful king. You really draw somebody's pants down when you pardon them for a crime they have committed. You show them who is in charge, and who is insignificant.

Even if Bittersteel hadn't deserted the NW, he clearly looked like the petty, vindictive thug that he was after that. I mean, how fucked up must you be to continue to fight against a man (and his family) who actually spared your fucking life? In what sense was Daemon III a better king than Aerys I, Maekar, or Aegon V?

5 hours ago, Megorova said:

And Third Rebellion was a retaliation for Daemon's death.

Where is that stated? Haegon invaded after Daemon II's death, but there is no indication that this was in retaliation for Daemon's death, nor that Haegon and Bittersteel gave so much as a fig about the imprisoned Daemon.

They might even have prayed for his death, or sent assassins to take him out to finally be able to crown Haegon.

Where exactly were Haegon and Aenys and the two nameless brothers during the Second Blackfyre Rebellion? Where was Bittersteel? Daemon II Blackfyre supposedly was the king of all those people, and thus it would have been their duty to fight at his side. Technically they weren't exactly entitled to have their own opinion.

Share this post


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

Aerys I certainly proved he was the better man and the rightful king. You really draw somebody's pants down when you pardon them for a crime they have committed. You show them who is in charge, and who is insignificant.

Even if Bittersteel hadn't deserted the NW, he clearly looked like the petty, vindictive thug that he was after that. I mean, how fucked up must you be to continue to fight against a man (and his family) who actually spared your fucking life? In what sense was Daemon III a better king than Aerys I, Maekar, or Aegon V?

Some strange sexual overtones, there bud. Coupled with the unhinged rage you have been expressing toward the fictional Bittersteel and the admiration  that I have read you express toward fiddling John in the past, and I wonder what is really going on in that head of yours. 

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