Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GoT_Academy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

829 profile views
  1. know the official story is that Aegon Targaryen was perfect - beat his enemies, united the realm, created the 7 kingdoms. But what we don't read in any of the history books about Aegon is about his faults. And there's one GLARING fault that is monumental - he failed to groom his heirs, get them ready and get the kingdom ready for the day after. That's pretty moronic, it's hard to find the words to explain how much. Aenys is so clueless when he steps into the role of king, that it's laughable and absurd. He doesn't understand his lords, the Faith, the common folk, he trusts everybody. I think this casts a new light on Aegon, and I think it's a deliberate jab by GRRM when he says that when Aegon dies he was in the middle of telling his grandkids about his conquests. To show his vanity, and the nonsense he was immersing himself in instead of doing what proper kings do, which is divide power and influence among his two sons, while he's alive, making sure they're getting along and know their roles, prepare them for the challenges ahead, etc. I mean, this is really basic stuff. Aenys gives too much to too many people, and you only need rudimentary knowledge about people to understand that it's not effective. And Maegor thinks that fear is all he needs. There's actually some Machiavelli in that (and GRRM is a Machiavelli fan), when he talked about fearing and/or loving the ruler. That you need a combination of those, that if your lords just love you but don't fear you, they'll seize on that weakness. And if they just fear you, they'll end up loathing you, and that's bad for you too. But that's another topic. My point is that Aegon was far less awesome than the history that was written about him while he was alive would have us believe. I mean, really, every parent prepares their child/ren for the basic challenges of life, and if you leave your kids your family business, you teach them how to run it. And a king has a responsibility to do it for the realm. Well, unless all he wants to do is watch his highlight reels and tell the story of The Field of Fire to his grandkids for the hundredth time. I elaborate on that in this video (trigger alert for people who don't understand hyperbole) > https://youtu.be/LNpn4cniiwM
  2. Yo. long time youtube subscriber. Didn't know you guys were on the forums here. Awesome.

  3. The story of Aegon The Conqueror is clearly a piece of propaganda hatched by the shrewdest political campaign strategists in the realm. Since this book is written as a proper history written in medieval times, we have to keep in mind that it was not written as a purely academic pursuit, but as an effort to advance an agenda. And this agenda is a clear pro-Aegon story meant to justify everything that he did, deter those who read it from rebelling against this new Targaryen dynasty, and When we read what happened we should ALWAYS keep that in mind. This story was written by the winners, and passed down through the generations, until this maester wrote it. So who was actually this Aegon fellow? We don't know. Nobody knows. He's a mythical figure that might be very different from how he is portrayed. It's not important who he actually was, what's important is what he represents. He is nobody and everybody at the same time. If he had wanted people to know what he was really like, he would have told the maesters to write a different story about him. But he left himself, intentionally, as an enigma. You can project into his mythical image whatever you're looking for - warrior, ruler, collaborator, strong-willed, he's whatever you want him to be. That's a powerful image, and obvisouly deliberately crafted. The story is meant to justify the conquest by: 1. Highlighting how bad the situation was before he came around (constant in-fighting) 2. He's not the problem - he's the solution (sure, he killed thousands but with one realm it's better for all) 3. Emphasizing that Aegon is not really a foreigner, and definitely not an outside invader (he visited Westeros, he landed in an empty space, he prays to the Seven, has banners, respects Westerosi customs and institutions, etc) 4. Making him out to be divine, with omens and godly support (the dry grass in the Field of Fire, the High Septon praying on it for seven days, etc) I think this is the subtext that George put into his story: a man who wrote about himself as a perfect person. No one during that time would have dared write anything negative about him, and the people who did write, maesters mostly, became close allies and gained national influence through Aegon's Conquest and the unification of the realm. Do you read Aegon's story as is, at face value? I elaborate more on this in this video on my channel > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZKR9_dBfow
  4. I see her being kidnapped as cannon There is much honor in obeying your king. That's how it goes in feudalism. Ned has to obey Robert, northerners have to obey Ned, etc. I agree with your last point. It's just that Ned is very judgy towards everybody else, and hence he should be able to take it if he wants to dish it out.
  5. I've been re-reading ASOIAF and got to Ned II on AGOT, when Ned and Robert talk about Lyanna, Robert's Rebellion and the mother of Jon Snow. And it got me thinking. Basically, Ned has forsaken so many vows when he lied about Jon Snow's heritage - betrayed his king and his wife and the north. Ned is so strict when it comes to honor (see: Jaime) and laws (see: Jorah), but he seems to be fine with promising his sister to be dishonorable. His 16 year old sister eloped with a Rhaegar even though she was betrothed to someone else, Robert. Her Father, Lord of Winterfell, made that decision, and that decision is binding. But she didn't want to marry Robert. She wanted to marry someone else. Let's remember that this is a medieval world with feudal rules. We do not judge the characters according to contemporary values, because if we did then Ned should be vilified for not giving Will of the Night's Watch a fair trial and for his sword-happy use of capital punishment, when Will was telling the truth about the Others. But in Lyanna's case, we forgive Ned because he had personal reasons to promise her to lie. Were these reasons more valid than Jaime's reasons to kill the Mad King? Or more valid than Will's reasons to desert? If every lord in the realm would put personal emotions before the law - then there would be chaos. Yet, we overlook that. The result of Lyanna's decision to betray her Father and family and house was an all-out civil war that caused thousands of deaths, untold emotional, physical and monetary suffering. But Ned doesn't seem to judge her for it in his internal monologues. Is he lying to himself? Or doesn't he see his hypocrisy?knowing Ned, would he have been so forgiving if another young daughter of a different big house - say, the Lannsiters - have done the same and descended the realm into chaos and then covered it up? What do you think? I'm genuinely interested in hearing more views about this, because I don't remember hearing or reading anyone talk about Ned's dishonor. Not "cheating" on his wife (Catelyn doesn't care that he slept with someone else), but covering for his baby sister's grievous offense of putting herself before her Father, house, the north and the realm. I talk more about that chapter, Ned II, in my re-reading ASOIAF video series on my YouTube channel, Got Academy.