SerClout

Why did Aerys send Bittersteel to the wall?

64 posts in this topic

2 hours 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?

Aerys I was terrible king. He did not care about ruling his kingdom and did not give a shit about his vassals being attacked by Dagon Greyjoy. 

Edited by Paxter Redwyne

Share this post


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

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. 

Eunuchs can only dream. But our dreams are so juicy. And Illyrio's breasts are so colossal...

Bittersteel just isn't fun. Even the name says it.

Share this post


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

Aerys I was terrible king. He did not care about ruling his kingdom and did not give a shit about his vassals being attacked by Dalton Greyjoy. 

It was Dagon Greyjoy. And who cares about that? That was a minor episode in the beginning of the man's reign that should be dealt with pretty soon after Whitewalls. Now the royal fleet is free to crush that guy, is it not?

Share this post


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

It was Dagon Greyjoy. And who cares about that? That was a minor episode in the beginning of the man's reign that should be dealt with pretty soon after Whitewalls. Now the royal fleet is free to crush that guy, is it not?

Thanks for correcting.

If King doesn't protect his subjects he fails in his main obligation toward his vassals. By refusing to fulfill his obligations, Aerys projected weakness from the top, but more importantly and demonstrated that he didn’t believe himself to be bound by his feudal oaths, fundamentally threatening the very foundations of feudalism. Lords paid taxes for protection that never came, and the service that they rendered to Daeron II the Good to protect him from Daemon Blackfyre was not returned. For all the disasters they faced, plagues and droughts, the one time that he could actually do something about the troubles facing the realm, Aerys decided to do nothing. 

Share this post


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

If King doesn't protect his subjects he fails in his main obligation toward his vassals. By refusing to fulfill his obligations, Aerys projected weakness from the top, but more importantly and demonstrated that he didn’t believe himself to be bound by his feudal oaths, fundamentally threatening the very foundations of feudalism. Lords paid taxes for protection that never came, and the service that they rendered to Daeron II the Good to protect him from Daemon Blackfyre was not returned. For all the disasters they faced, plagues and droughts, the one time that he could actually do something about the troubles facing the realm, Aerys decided to do nothing. 

That seems to be your opinion, but nobody in the TSS and TMK is actually of that opinion. King Aerys I acts through his lords under the command of the Warden of the West and the Warden of the North, respectively, to crush the Ironborn. He could also support those people by sending the royal fleet to their aid, but there is no reason to believe he is obligated to do that if he feels that doing so would actually prove to be a greater danger for himself, his family, his government and court, his kingdom, and his people.

I'm also at a kind of loss as to how Aerys I was supposed to deal with the Ironborn. He has no standing royal military force of size large enough to attack the Ironborn. And any attack on them would be done by his lords in his name, anyway. So what's the fuzz?

In fact, we can be pretty sure that Lord Beron Stark and Lord Tybalt Lannister did not move against Dagon Greyjoy without the knowledge and approval of the Iron Throne. Or else they would have risked to break the King's Peace the same way Dagon Greyjoy did.

Sure, it would have been nice if he had accompanied them, but as far as I know King Daeron II never faced Daemon Blackfyre in battle, either.

But in any case - this stupid thing was just an episode. Dagon Greyjoy did a few raids during the drought in 210-11 AC. That's it. He wasn't some great menace or anything, at least not as far as we know.

If you compare something as significant as some Ironborn raids to the crushing of two Blackfyre rebellions, the capture of two pretender kings, and as well as the capture and trial against the notorious traitor and brigand Aegor Rivers, then Aerys I record actually looks pretty damned good.

And Bittersteel really looks like a petty and stubborn troublemaker when he ran away from the king who actually spared his life, continuing to plot against the man and his family. I mean, how fucked up must you be to do stuff like that?

What do you think the decent folk among our heroes in the main series would do when they were caught by a rival king/lord or other enemy and that person actually spared their lives? Would Jon, Ned, Brienne, Davos, Dany, Robb, Asha, etc. simply spit in such a person's face and continue to plot their downfall at the next possible opportunity?

Probably not. And that's why Bittersteel pretty much was an ass.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


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

Thanks for correcting.

If King doesn't protect his subjects he fails in his main obligation toward his vassals. By refusing to fulfill his obligations, Aerys projected weakness from the top, but more importantly and demonstrated that he didn’t believe himself to be bound by his feudal oaths, fundamentally threatening the very foundations of feudalism. Lords paid taxes for protection that never came, and the service that they rendered to Daeron II the Good to protect him from Daemon Blackfyre was not returned. For all the disasters they faced, plagues and droughts, the one time that he could actually do something about the troubles facing the realm, Aerys decided to do nothing. 

Maybe at first he did nothing or he could've told his LP's of the North and West to deal with the IB. According to Vic the Targs did step in eventually. 

Share this post


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

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).

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?

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.

It's hard to say without knowing the full knowledge of everything and everyone involved in the first Blackfyre rebellion but the Yronwoods could've rode with Bittersteel early in the war, attacking some loyal Targs houses in the Stromlands and then the Yronwoods could've still held the Boneway afterwards. In the First Blackfyre rebellion I could see the Yronwoods turning against the Martells directly.

Share this post


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

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.

Seems that you have a few misconceptions about Blackfyres. Not all of them were Kings. Only Haegon I and his son Daemon III. Only those two were crowned, and wielded a Blackfyre sword.

First of all Daemon II wasn't a King, he was never crowned. Bittersteel and Rohanne didn't had any intentions to crown Daemon's surviving children, after First Rebellion. During Second Rebellion Daemon was 23-24 years old, and he wasn't crowned yet, even at that age. King of what, of whom, and why? What caused Bittersteel to crown Haegon, is Daemon's death in Targaryen's imprisonment. He needed exiles to follow Haegon, and under his leadership to launch Third Rebellion on Westeros. Thus that's the reason why he was crowned.

Aenys wasn't king. His two younger brothers, after his death, also weren't crowned. Daemon the Last and Maelys the Monstrous were not Kings, they were just captain-generals of Golden Company.

So after Daemon's (II) death, those that were remaining in Essos, had zero obligations to avenge his death. They were not his subjects, they were his relatives. And that's the reason why they went with Haegon and Bittersteel to fight in Third Rebellion - because Targaryens killed their brother/son/nephew.

Have you read The Mystery Knight? Daemon the Young wasn't a King. His mother, brothers, sisters and Bittersteel were not obliged to support him in Second Rebellion. All of them were against it. He was not their ruler. He was just their sibling. And he wanted to launch Second Rebellion, just because he had a prophetic dream. The rest of his family didn't wanted to risk everything, including their peacefull lives in Essos, just because their brother had a dream. As it turned out, his dream was wrong. Dragon's egg didn't hatched at Whitewalls. The Egg just started to behave more like a prince that he was.

The rest of Blackfyres, and people that came with them to exile in Essos, were aware that they don't have enough people and resourses, to launch a successful war against Targaryens. That's why they didn't supported Daemon II. At that time Targaryen regime was very strong. Bloodraven's spies were everywhere. One day some septon was criticizing King Maeker and Bloodraven, and a few days later Dunk and Egg saw his severed head above city gates. Arrested and executed just for words. Thanks to Bloodraven, Targaryens knew everything. Under those circumstances, to launch rebellion was stupid. It didn't even began. Daemon's supporters, or those that had something against Targaryens, gathered at Whitewalls, to discuss a possibility of launching Second Rebellion. But by the next morning, the castle was already surrounded by Targaryen troops. Nearly six thousands soldiers, against two-three hundreds of conspirants, that gathered at Whitewalls. Daemon was stupid. But he still was a family. Thus after his death, the rest of Blackfyres and Bittersteel, had to go and fight with Targaryens, whether they wanted it or not.

First Rebellion - 196 AC. Second - 211. Daemon II's death and Third Rebellion - 219. Aenys' execution - 233, Fourth Rebellion (was postponed for a few years, because of winter and frozen sea) - 236. 196-219 - 23 years of inactivity, 219-236 - 17 years.

If Bittersteel had some other motives, aside from revenge for Daemon II's death, and for Aenys' execution, then he could have started war against Targaryens, at any other time. But he went to fought with them in Third Rebellion, shortly after Daemon's death in Targaryen's captivity, and in Fourth Rebellion, after Aenys' execution. And never after that, or before that. Even though he still had Golden Company at his disposal. The only reason Bitterseel fought against Targaryens, was to avenge his family. Otherwise, what other explanation could there be, for those 40 (23 and 17) years of Bittersteel's inactivity against Targaryens?

Share this post


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

It's hard to say without knowing the full knowledge of everything and everyone involved in the first Blackfyre rebellion but the Yronwoods could've rode with Bittersteel early in the war, attacking some loyal Targs houses in the Stromlands and then the Yronwoods could've still held the Boneway afterwards. In the First Blackfyre rebellion I could see the Yronwoods turning against the Martells directly.

You really think any Dornish house could actually turn against Maron and survive this after what he accomplished with Daeron II? With Prince Maron sister being the queen of the Seven Kingdoms, he himself being married to the Targaryen princess Daenerys, and Daeron II's youngest son being the husband of Dyanna Dayne?

I find that very hard to believe. That's like suggesting Roose Bolton could have supported Aerys II against Robert and Ned at the Trident, and survive it, if the battle still ends with Robert's victory.

During the Third Rebellion there could be some active fighting within Dorne, depending on the situation (Maron and Daenerys might both be still dead at that time, and Dyanna would have been dead for a long time, too).

But even then - the ambition of the Yronwoods would have been to rule Dorne under a Blackfyre king. That would have been what they wanted, and if they could get that without outside help they would have long simply taken Sunspear.

Unless the Targaryens and Blackfyre actually clashed on Dornish soil for some reason during the Third Rebellion, I see really no reason to believe the Yronwoods directly attacked the Martells on the behalf of the Blackfyres.

Share this post


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

And Bittersteel really looks like a petty and stubborn troublemaker when he ran away from the king who actually spared his life, continuing to plot against the man and his family. I mean, how fucked up must you be to do stuff like that?

He was sent to The Wall, and escaped back to Essos, in 219. And in the span of next 17 years, he did absolutely NOTHING against Targaryens. So what continuing plotting are you talking about?

It was Bloodraven who just couldn't let Blackfyres and Bittersteel to peacefully live in Essos. He was the one who lured Aenys to come to Westeros, to attend Great Council in 233. He executed him. Even though he had no legal reasons for that. Aenys didn't participated in any Rebellions. He was less than 6 years old, when he came to Essos, and since then, he stayed there. He wasn't a criminal, rebel, or traitor. Bloodraven and Targaryens had no right to execute him. That's why Aegon V sent Bloodraven to The Wall, for what he did.

Share this post


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

He was sent to The Wall, and escaped back to Essos, in 219. And in the span of next 17 years, he did absolutely NOTHING against Targaryens. So what continuing plotting are you talking about?

It was Bloodraven who just couldn't let Blackfyres and Bittersteel to peacefully live in Essos. He was the one who lured Aenys to come to Westeros, to attend Great Council in 233. He executed him. Even though he had no legal reasons for that. Aenys didn't participated in any Rebellions. He was less than 6 years old, when he came to Essos, and since then, he stayed there. He wasn't a criminal, rebel, or traitor. Bloodraven and Targaryens had no right to execute him. That's why Aegon V sent Bloodraven to The Wall, for what he did.

Maybe he was waiting for Daemon III to come of age?

Share this post


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

You really think any Dornish house could actually turn against Maron and survive this after what he accomplished with Daeron II? With Prince Maron sister being the queen of the Seven Kingdoms, he himself being married to the Targaryen princess Daenerys, and Daeron II's youngest son being the husband of Dyanna Dayne?

I find that very hard to believe. That's like suggesting Roose Bolton could have supported Aerys II against Robert and Ned at the Trident, and survive it, if the battle still ends with Robert's victory.

During the Third Rebellion there could be some active fighting within Dorne, depending on the situation (Maron and Daenerys might both be still dead at that time, and Dyanna would have been dead for a long time, too).

But even then - the ambition of the Yronwoods would have been to rule Dorne under a Blackfyre king. That would have been what they wanted, and if they could get that without outside help they would have long simply taken Sunspear.

Unless the Targaryens and Blackfyre actually clashed on Dornish soil for some reason during the Third Rebellion, I see really no reason to believe the Yronwoods directly attacked the Martells on the behalf of the Blackfyres.

Why wouldn't a Dornish house survive after what I suggested? What makes you that Prince Maron would wipe out a entire house? When even King Daeron didn't do that. Holding the Boneway and stopping a army from passing and taking the fight to the Martells and trying to take Sunspear are two different things. As for the Roose Bolton example, how many houses in the Stromlands, Riverland snd Vale supported Aerys II and survived? Why wouldn't Roose survive too? Heck Balon Greyjoy survived his rebellion after he bent the knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Maybe he was waiting for Daemon III to come of age?

It was mentioned in the book, that Blackfyres waited to launch their Fourth Rebellion, because of winter. It lasted six years, and when the spring came, Blackfyres arrived to Westeros. Seems that weather's conditions made it impossible for their army to cross the Narrow Sea. Six years of winter! Probably the sea was frozen solid. Obviously that for one small ship or galley, that brought Aenys to Westeros in 233, it was much easier to cross the Narrow Sea, then to accomplish the same for entire fleet of Blackfyres. Or maybe Aenys crossed the sea on dog-sledge. ^_^

At the time of his death, during Third Rebellion, in 219, Haegon was 26-30 years old (was born in 189-193). His son Daemon III died during Fourth Rebellion, in 236. It is known that Haegon had at least three sons, and that Daemon III was his oldest. So the latest year when he could have been born was 218 (oldest son born in 218, then in 218 Haegon's wife became pregnant again and gave birth to next son in 219, same year became pregnant again, and gave birth to her third child in 220, already after Haegon's death), so in 236 Daemon III was at least 18 years old. Though it's unlikely that Haegon's wife was giving birth every year, most likely there was a gap of year or two between her pregnancies. Furthermore, it's unlikely that Haegon married late. Most likely he married when he was 16-20 years old, in 205-213, and next year after his wedding, was born his first son Daemon III. Thus by 236 Daemon could have been 22-30 years old (born in 206-214).

Thus Daemon's age in 236 could have been anywhere between 18-30. And the age of maturity in Planetos is 16. There's a very small possibility that in 233, when Aenys was executed, Daemon was less than 16. At that time he could have been 15-27. But there's only 1/13 chances that he was 15, 1/13 that he was 16, and 11/13 that he was over 16 years old in 233.

So it's very unlikely that Daemon's age was the reason why Bittersteel was stalling.

Share this post


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

Seems that you have a few misconceptions about Blackfyres. Not all of them were Kings. Only Haegon I and his son Daemon III. Only those two were crowned, and wielded a Blackfyre sword.

Cite the source. Daemon II Blackfyre is considered the king of the guys at Whitewalls. And if Daemon Blackfyre was a king, then Daemon II Blackfyre was the king of the Blackfyre loyalists from the day of the Redgrass Field.Chances are very high that Daemon II was crowned, too, perhaps even before Bittersteel and his mother put him on that ship that carried him to Tyrosh.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

What caused Bittersteel to crown Haegon, is Daemon's death in Targaryen's imprisonment. He needed exiles to follow Haegon, and under his leadership to launch Third Rebellion on Westeros. Thus that's the reason why he was crowned.

We actually don't know for a certainty that Haegon Blackfyre was ever crowned. It is very likely, but there is no source for this. The only Blackfyre pretender that was ever crowned explicitly in the text was Daemon III. Even for Daemon I Blackfyre there is no coronation mentioned.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

Aenys wasn't king. His two younger brothers, after his death, also weren't crowned.

Quite frankly, how do you know what Aenys Blackfyre's unnamed younger brothers did after the man's death? How do you know that neither of them ever crowned himself or had himself crowned by his followers? Either of them could have led the Golden Company after Bittersteel's death.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

Daemon the Last and Maelys the Monstrous were not Kings, they were just captain-generals of Golden Company.

How do you know that? Both Daemon (IV) and Maelys could have had coronations of their own. After all, at least Maelys Blackfyre laid claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

So after Daemon's (II) death, those that were remaining in Essos, had zero obligations to avenge his death. They were not his subjects, they were his relatives. And that's the reason why they went with Haegon and Bittersteel to fight in Third Rebellion - because Targaryens killed their brother/son/nephew.

Can you cite the text that gives Haegon and Bittersteel's motivation to launch the Third Rebellion? Do you know the year in which Daemon II died? Do you know whether there is a causal link between Daemon's death and the launching of the Third Rebellion? No.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

Have you read The Mystery Knight? Daemon the Young wasn't a King. His mother, brothers, sisters and Bittersteel were not obliged to support him in Second Rebellion. All of them were against it. He was not their ruler. He was just their sibling. And he wanted to launch Second Rebellion, just because he had a prophetic dream. The rest of his family didn't wanted to risk everything, including their peacefull lives in Essos, just because their brother had a dream. As it turned out, his dream was wrong. Dragon's egg didn't hatched at Whitewalls. The Egg just started to behave more like a prince that he was.

Bittersteel was apparently reluctant to support him. But we don't even know whether Peake and Daemon actually asked the man for help or not. There is no mention of the feelings of his mother or siblings on the matter. Perhaps Daemon II even forbade them to accompany him. We don't know.

However, what's clear is that Blackfyre was Daemon II's sword from the moment his father breathed his last on the Redgrass Field. He was the eldest surviving son of 'King Daemon Blackfyre', and thus he had a right to his father's sword. Bittersteel had no right to withhold it from him.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

He was sent to The Wall, and escaped back to Essos, in 219. And in the span of next 17 years, he did absolutely NOTHING against Targaryens. So what continuing plotting are you talking about?

This plotting:

Quote

The ship carrying Bittersteel and a dozen other captives was taken in the narrow sea on the way to Eastwatch-by-the-Sea, and Aegor Rivers was freed and returned to the Golden Company. Before the year was out, he crowned Haegon’s eldest son as King Daemon III Blackfyre in Tyrosh, and resumed his plotting against the king who had spared him.

You don't have to launch of full-scale invasion to plot against someone. You can also just plot, even if nothing comes of it.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

It was Bloodraven who just couldn't let Blackfyres and Bittersteel to peacefully live in Essos. He was the one who lured Aenys to come to Westeros, to attend Great Council in 233.

Aenys himself wanted to come. Bloodraven lied to him, of course, but he didn't exactly approach the man out of the blue to invite him.

9 hours ago, Megorova said:

Aenys didn't participated in any Rebellions. He was less than 6 years old, when he came to Essos, and since then, he stayed there. He wasn't a criminal, rebel, or traitor. Bloodraven and Targaryens had no right to execute him. That's why Aegon V sent Bloodraven to The Wall, for what he did.

Ah, do you know what Aenys Blackfyre did during the Third Rebellion, by any chance? No. We don't know how many sons and grandsons of Daemon Blackfyre and Bittersteel were actually participating in that one, but if it was really a large one several scions of the Black Dragon may have been there. Some might have even died in the battles, not just Haegon after he was captured.

Aenys Blackfyre certainly could have been at the side of his brother Haegon during the war. Or not. We don't know. Claiming we know he stayed his entire life in Essos until he came to the Great Council when we don't know what he did is simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind. 

Edited by Lost Melnibonean

Share this post


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

That seems to be your opinion, but nobody in the TSS and TMK is actually of that opinion. King Aerys I acts through his lords under the command of the Warden of the West and the Warden of the North, respectively, to crush the Ironborn. He could also support those people by sending the royal fleet to their aid, but there is no reason to believe he is obligated to do that if he feels that doing so would actually prove to be a greater danger for himself, his family, his government and court, his kingdom, and his people.

I'm also at a kind of loss as to how Aerys I was supposed to deal with the Ironborn. He has no standing royal military force of size large enough to attack the Ironborn. And any attack on them would be done by his lords in his name, anyway. So what's the fuzz?

In fact, we can be pretty sure that Lord Beron Stark and Lord Tybalt Lannister did not move against Dagon Greyjoy without the knowledge and approval of the Iron Throne. Or else they would have risked to break the King's Peace the same way Dagon Greyjoy did.

Sure, it would have been nice if he had accompanied them, but as far as I know King Daeron II never faced Daemon Blackfyre in battle, either.

But in any case - this stupid thing was just an episode. Dagon Greyjoy did a few raids during the drought in 210-11 AC. That's it. He wasn't some great menace or anything, at least not as far as we know.

If you compare something as significant as some Ironborn raids to the crushing of two Blackfyre rebellions, the capture of two pretender kings, and as well as the capture and trial against the notorious traitor and brigand Aegor Rivers, then Aerys I record actually looks pretty damned good.

And Bittersteel really looks like a petty and stubborn troublemaker when he ran away from the king who actually spared his life, continuing to plot against the man and his family. I mean, how fucked up must you be to do stuff like that?

What do you think the decent folk among our heroes in the main series would do when they were caught by a rival king/lord or other enemy and that person actually spared their lives? Would Jon, Ned, Brienne, Davos, Dany, Robb, Asha, etc. simply spit in such a person's face and continue to plot their downfall at the next possible opportunity?

Probably not. And that's why Bittersteel pretty much was an ass.

With all respect, but what you say also seem to be just your opinion. We have no reason to believe that Aerys did anything with Dagon and Lords defending themselves can hardly be called support from Iron Throne. Everything we read in Dunk and Egg novels seem suggest that they are acting individually. King doesn't need to command armies, but he at least delegate his powers to others, putting the resources of the kingdom at their disposal. Aerys and Bloodraven, however, consciously made the choice to abandon the west coast to the Greyjoys, leaving it to Lords Lannister and Stark to defend the people. If Aerys ordered combined amphibious assault of Reach, Westerlands, Rivrlands and North like Robert did during Balon's Rebellion, Dagon would be quickly defeated and punished accordingly for his acts.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but are you suggesting that defending against invaders would be considered as breaking of king's peace?

Kyle Cat in Mystery Knight stated this:

"The throne should take a lesson from Stark and Lannister," declared Ser Kyle the Cat. "At least they fight. What do the Targaryens do? King Aerys hides amongst his books, Prince Rhaegel prances naked through the Red Keep's halls, and Prince Maekar broods at Summerhall."

Dagon raided as far as Arbor, his raiders sacked many cities, including Little Dosk, Lord Stark himself was killed in battle against them, Fair Isle was sacked from half of its wealth and at least hundred of women were carried off. Even Dunk' ship was attacked when he sailed from Dorne to Oldtown, although it is not specified who were the raiders.

I don't understand why you have such a big problem with Bittersteel. Yes, he was a douchebag, but Bloodraven was just as ruthless and dishonorable as him. After all he even deserted Night's Watch to become magical tree. Bittersteel was obsessed with putting Blackfyres on Iron Throne by all means necessary just like Bloodraven was obsessed with getting rid of Blackfyres by all means necessary.

In the end, I think we can just agree to disagree.

Share this post


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

With all respect, but what you say also seem to be just your opinion. We have no reason to believe that Aerys did anything with Dagon and Lords defending themselves can hardly be called support from Iron Throne.

The point I was making is the that the Iron Throne really doesn't have all that many resources to help his leal lords to put down traitors and rebels. He could grace them with his presence, but he himself is no army.

And I simply don't buy the idea that Aerys I could have afforded to send the royal fleet around Westeros to put down the Ironborn while Bittersteel was plotting in Tyrosh and Daemon II and his allies were preparing their game at Whitewalls.

If he had done that, the Second Blackfyre Rebellion would have likely been a success for Daemon II. Better the throne under your ass than the squid on your plate. You cannot enjoy sea food when you are dead, if you get my meaning.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Everything we read in Dunk and Egg novels seem suggest that they are acting individually.

That's just the thing - we hear talk from hedge knights. Since when are hedge knights in the Riverlands experts on what's going on in Casterly Rock and Winterfell - or what letters the Hand or King Aerys sent to Lord Stark and Lord Lannister?

Maynard Plumm - likely Bloodraven in disguise - explained why he and Aerys I were doing nothing. They had larger concerns. Bittersteel and the Blackfyres in Tyrosh, and - of course - Daemon II, Peake, etc. at Whitewalls (although he didn't say that when they were talking at the weirwood stumps, of course).

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

King doesn't need to command armies, but he at least delegate his powers to others, putting the resources of the kingdom at their disposal. Aerys and Bloodraven, however, consciously made the choice to abandon the west coast to the Greyjoys, leaving it to Lords Lannister and Stark to defend the people. If Aerys ordered combined amphibious assault of Reach, Westerlands, Rivrlands and North like Robert did during Balon's Rebellion, Dagon would be quickly defeated and punished accordingly for his acts.

 

Yes, and in the meantime Daemon II Blackfyre would claim the Iron Throne.

You have to compare this situation to the Ironborn's invasion of the North or the wildling threat during the War of the Five Kings. Joffrey/Tommen should also defend their subjects there since they claim to rule over those lands but they have larger and more important concerns. If your own throne and life is threatened it is silly to first protect some peasants in the vicinity of your kingdom.

You cannot allow such dangers to grow out of control, of course - which is why I believe Dagon Greyjoy's time was over pretty quickly after Whitewalls. The end of the Second Blackfyre Rebellion gave Aerys I the resources to put the Ironborn back in their place.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but are you suggesting that defending against invaders would be considered as breaking of king's peace?

If you amass an army without the king's leave you would be breaking the King's Peace. Everything is done in the name of the king in this world. Ned sentenced Gared to death in King Robert's name, never mind that King Robert likely never heard of the man nor of Ned's judgment. Yet that's how it is done.

The hedge knights complain that the Targaryens do not participate in the fighting of the Starks and Lannisters. Fine, they have a point there. But that doesn't that the Starks and Lannisters didn't have the king's leave to deal with Dagon - they could even be acting under his or Bloodraven's orders. That is actually not unlikely.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I don't understand why you have such a big problem with Bittersteel.

I don't have a big problem with him. I actually think he is somewhat funny. One can say him saying 'I'll be back' again and again and again, leading nowhere.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Yes, he was a douchebag, but Bloodraven was just as ruthless and dishonorable as him. After all he even deserted Night's Watch to become magical tree.

Did he? We don't know that yet. Perhaps he had no other choice. He could have been attacked by the Others only to be saved by the Children who may have ensured he may never leave before he had a choice on the matter.

It is odd that Bloodraven never reached out to Aemon or any of his other brothers at the Wall, you know. He could have send some Children as envoys there.

But, sure, if Bloodraven deliberately searched for the Children and abandoned his brothers in the process he would be somewhat of an oathbreaker and deserter, too. Although it is possible that he his fulfilling his vows much better as the last greenseer than he could ever as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. We don't know it as of yet.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Bittersteel was obsessed with putting Blackfyres on Iron Throne by all means necessary just like Bloodraven was obsessed with getting rid of Blackfyres by all means necessary.

Oh, I never defended Bloodraven here. In fact, I pretty much thing the man wasted most of his life for an irrelevant and stupid cause. It is completely irrelevant which branch of the dragon family sits on that stupid chair, and it is most definitely madness to kill your own family and kin over that question. Bloodraven and Bittersteel both would have had their reasons - and I think Bloodraven's reason might have been a tidbit better considering it seems he really loved Daeron II and thus felt honor-bound and compelling to ensure the success of his half-brothers sons whereas Bittersteel just seems to have been pissed, using even Daemon Blackfyre's sons as pawns in his game of vengeance - but that doesn't mean either of them was a great guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 3:47 PM, 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.

 I stand corrected, aside from Bittersteel having good reasons for revenge my point is still valid. If they would have kept Bittersteel a captive like Daemon II he might have suffered from some "untimely" death as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2/25/2018 at 4:42 PM, Lord Varys said:

This is actually not 'most likely'. We have no idea why Haegon Blackfyre was killed or by whom. We don't even know all the players in town, either. The idea that only the guys mentioned in that sketchiest of outlines were important players during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion would be stupid.

Haegon Blackfyre could be killed by anyone - and it is not unlikely he might be killed by a person we have not even met at this point. Somebody that's going to be introduced in some future Dunk & Egg story.

Or, hell, it could be one of the usual scoundrels/villains in making - Steffon Fossoway, Bennis of the Brown Shield, etc.

 But we do know that Aerion Brightflame  came back from exile during the third blackfyre rebellion. And his later actions were “well known” I believe is the quote..... sounds possible. But it just as likely could’ve been a fossaway... or dare I say a Hightower (bc like you’ve said multiple times we DON’T KNOW) 

:lmao: By the way if somehow Bennis of the brown shit head shield was able to actually get away with that as well....  I thoroughly believe dunk would hunt him down. :) (I  understand you were simply putting forth characters which have already been introduced to us and not being serious in any manner) simply saying bennis would be an enormous shit stain in history if it were somehow true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Bloodraven killed a half-brother and two nephews who were unjustly rebelling against a crowned and anointed king, their half-brother and half-uncle. And even Aenys Blackfyre was a traitor, claiming a throne and a crown he had no right to since the day his father rose in rebellion against Daeron II.

Still, one can certainly make a case that luring Aenys to KL wasn't exactly the nice way. But slaying enemies in battle is perfectly fine.

Bittersteel likely had considerable support until the Third Rebellion, but afterwards his star obviously sank rather quickly.

If I live in that society as a targ (or had sworn them fealty). I think every person who would support Daemon Blackfyre 1 ( without a  type of will from the Unworthy saying “I want Daemon as king not Daeron” it’s obviously treason to consider anyone except Daeron) is a traitor who just wanted a good looking god-like king or to move their position higher.

 I’m  obviously simply using your quotes to set up my main point and I apologize for that.

The blackfyres weren’t just Family who wanted to take over the other branch as a bloodline monoarchy.  They were absolutely stubborn as a mule and unwaveringly persistent and had an unrelenting need to win as well.  The most persistent and stubborn happened to be the  Great bastard  with the most grudge against the iron throne  and those around it was Aegor Bittersteel.

 Basically everyone of these blackfyre guys had to be stopped.  Any form of government cannot allow treason after treason after treason,  but I understand that comes down to each separate individual.  I’m sure some would much rather serve  The iron throne  (whether it be  cleaning a privy or becoming a Squire to a famous knight) or take the black rather than be killed for their cause.) But  when you get to Maelys  as your new king to save you from the oppressive 7 kingdoms (7 kingdoms thanks to Daeron)  it really shows what cockroaches were involved in all of this. (And I understand  Maelys wasn’t exactly voted in by any means) but like the other pretenders STILL SUPPORTED.  

It’s why I honestly couldn’t care less about the way BloodRaven handled his blackfyre business considering he gave Lords Peak and Butterwell multiple chances (Lord Frey as well likely) and the fact he  personally conducted the interrogations  gave me the impression he certainly  kept up with each person‘s role in the treasons against the IT. So long as the deaths were clean and quick,  that’s about as good as a traitor can hope for. 

 

 

Edited by One-eyed Misbehavin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah, whence all the Blackfyre hate?

Once you believe that Daeron II was not Aegon IV's son and that Daemon Blackfyre's legitimization was valid (no reason to believe otherwise), and that Aegon IV was a valid king (this is more up to debate, but Daeron II's right also depends on this), then there is no option but to regard oneself as bound in fealty to follow Daemon Blackfyre and his descendants and see them rule.

In fact, DB was only a younger son of Aegon the Unworthy but the eldest son of his mother, who was the senior heir, being the daughter of Aegon III (sister of Daeron II the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed), to whom Viserys II, the father of Aegon IV, was a younger brother.

Hence even with Daeron II actually being legitimate, DB still can be argued to have a better claim to be the senior representative of the dynasty in general, though not as a direct heir to Aegon IV as the previous king.

DB's children through Rohanne of Tyrosh were quite possibly descendants of the bypassed Vaelaryon heirs (through Rhaenys, the Queen Who Never Was), even before the Dance of the Dragons, as Viserys I, the father of both Aegon II and Rhaeryna was not the senior heir. Hence they would have an even better claim than DB himself.

So it's not about wanting to usurp the other branch and improve the fate of their own branch of the dynasty, but about where the blood points, who should be king or even who is by right the lawful king, seen as an obligation as much as a right. In their own minds, the Blackfyres are already kings by simply existing and being who they are, and consequently they have the obligation to rule the Seven Kingdoms. That we don't necessarily agree with them (as it's enough to recognize Aegon IV as valid and Daeron II as his bio son — even because of sheer absence of contrary proof — and then go by birth order; this is all perfectly convincing) is a different thing.

 

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