Jump to content

Aldarion

Members
  • Posts

    1,332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Aldarion

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Numenor under the sea
  • Interests
    Military, history, military history, politics etc.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,779 profile views

Aldarion's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. That is a possibility, but Cersei herself will have lost a lot of power. And if she doesn't, we see that she is growing more and more paranoid. Lannisters required Tyrell alliance to stay in power, and she will single-handedly destroy that now that Kevan is dead. And check the numbers. Lannisters lost anywhere between 25 000 and 35 000 men in total. That is about half the Lannister strength gone. Or maybe she will start out as another pretender and end up fighting the Others. Others are central to Jon Snow's story, not necessarily to Daenerys' story. What is central do Daenerys story is the conflict between her "fire and blood" nature and her desire to settle down and live in peace. Or maybe he will not fail at all, until Daenerys comes. He may have been set up as a puppet, but he is breaking the strings. Looking like a 15-16 year old is actually an indication that he is not fake. More recent Targaryens that are not disfigured by incest or food tend to be of a pretty boy type rather than "handsome", and also relatively small. So somebody looking from the outside could easily shave off a few years. Person who said that Aegon is 15 to 16 is Tyrion, who also misestimated Jon Snow's age: He says that Jon Snow is 12 when he really is 14. So when Tyrion estimates Aegon as 15 - 16, it is nearly certain that he is really 17 - 18. It does not prove he is not fake - after all, Illyrio or somebody else could have had a son of age with Aegon - but it certainly doesn't prove that he is. And nobody needs to prove "benevolence". Taking and sheltering pretenders to a throne was a regular practice in medieval Europe. So long as somebody had managed to get Aegon out of the King's Landing, there will have been no shortage of people willing to provide him with a shelter. If anything, Viserys' and Daenerys' situation is one that makes no sense. Any Sealord worth his salt should have jumped at the opportunity to provide them with shelter. Unless, of course, they were afraid of Westerosi military intervention - but historically, kings were more liable to pay off other kings to keep pretenders hostage than to go to war over the issue. The only thing that actually brings Aegon's story into question is getting him out of the King's Landing in the first place. Aerys was paranoid, so it will not have been easy to do - and of course, we do have an issue of a babe whose head had been smashed against the wall, and Elia dying trying to protect it. But it is questionable if anybody knows the last factoid, or they just believe that Gregor killed her because that is what he does - and it is questionable how many people even know that it was Gregor Clegane who had killed them in the first place. So while there is no way for Aegon to conclusively prove he is who he claims he is, there is also no way to conclusively disprove it either. And the fact that he had been living with Jon Connington and had come with him to Westeros is a good proof of Aegon's identity. Even Kevan Lannister doubts Aegon's death: Aegon marrying Daenerys was supposed to remove all doubt and also ensure his legitimacy - and latter will have been the case even if there had been decisive proof of his identity. Dragons were a big symbol of legitimacy in intra-Targaryen dynastic struggles. And of course, secure him dragons' firepower. But in the end, people will believe what they want to believe. And while Daenerys' dragons are quite a big argument, so are Dothraki - and not in her favor. Not to mention how her behavior may change in the future: If her personal and military power is based on Essosi forces, it might also scare people away from her. Especially those from Central Essos (Dothraki, Slaver's Bay armies) are unlikely to have good reputation in Westeros, while at the same time not really providing military capability to counterweight their reputation. Westerosi will not give a shit about butchered Ghiscari or Essosi. But they will care about what such behavior may mean for them. And they will care about the company she keeps - if you look at it without looking at deeper cause and effect, Daenerys is basically collecting scum of the earth to her. Dothraki, Victarion and his Ironborn, Unsullied, former slaves, Red Priests... None of that will inspire confidence in her as a ruler. Old God magic flooded the Arm of Dorne, and later the Neck (Hammer of the Waters). One can also hear whispering near the Heart Trees, and Old Gods send dreams as well. And the Seven may have saved Davos. And considering Jon Snow's theme (ice and fire), it is likely his resurrection will involve Rhllor and the Old Gods both. I would definitely not consider the Fire Priests as anything approaching good or benevolent. Their own magic today is quite monstruous as well - how many times has Melisandre wanted to sacrifice somebody? Red Priests turn men on each other, create religious zealots, outright burn people, are willing to lie and manipulate, and give false prophecies and dark magic. Chances are, both the Great Other and the Rhllor are required to cancel each other out. Great Other wins, world dies by ice. Red God wins, world dies in fire. Long Night happened when the ice grew too powerful, and Doom of Valyria happened when fire was too powerful. The Others are a more immediate threat in Westeros, but that doesn't mean Red Priests are good. Dany is one head, Jon Snow is the second. Third could be anyone... Aegon included. Euron relies on magic, which means he will quite likely get himself killed. Look at what happened to Stannis: sure, he is not dead, but every time he relied on magic to solve his problems, it only got worse. Magic in this world is not the solution, if anything, it is part of the problem. Euron may have a major role left to play, but if he does, then it will be in the North as agent of the Others. And yes, Westerlands are seriously depleted. Not spent maybe, but definitely not a major player anymore.
  2. Tyrion is Martin's self-insert, though. Anything is believable for him. Tywin had spent Westerlands in his imperialist project. I did numbers here: Westerlands have at least 10 000 men left, but very likely not more than 20 000. They are in fact region that has lost probably the greatest proportion of its fighting power in the war. They have. And what then? Information about Others might get her to move to Westeros, but had Aegon not moved there, or if he becomes a tyrant or is outed as a fake, it will be just another repeat of "save the poor from evil, evil tyrants" that we had seen her do time and again in the Slaver's Bay. Where is there personal conflict for her? Aegon needs to be a relatively decent king if Daenerys is to further develop as a character. You want him not to be, but him being a bad king simply makes no sense considering his role in the story and relationship with Daenerys (such as it is). Aegon is neither Henry Tudor nor Perkin Warbeck of Westeros. He is both at the same time. Just as Daenerys is not simply Henry Tudor either. And his very existence brings into question Daenerys' right to rule so long as there is no conclusive proof he is a fake. Saying that it doesn't is just baseless fanboyism. By that logic, nobody can be a good king in Westeros. Not Aegon, not Stannis, not Daenerys, not Jon Snow. Old Gods also answer prayers and work miracles. So do the Seven, though less obviously so - likely because they have no blood magic fuelling them. Yes, there are good qualities to ice, and you just pointed one out. Ice preserves. In 1984, a boy survived being drowned in icy lake for 42 minutes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/01/26/the-icy-water-miracles/9f99649a-acf7-44d3-8eee-ff35a256e81c/ Italian boy survived again for 42 minutes: https://time.com/3897897/how-an-italian-boy-survived-42-minutes-underwater/ Young woman brought back to life after three hours underneath ice: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/28/colinblackstock1 And some people survived up to an hour submerged in icy cold water. Ice is also used for storage. If conditions are not good, ice can preserve things so they can be retreived later. Ice symbolizes emotional coldness and rigidity, but also purity, clarity and transformation. So saying that fire is inherently "better" than ice is wrong. Sure, fire is necessary for survival - but so is ice. In real world, snow and ice played massive role in medieval agriculture, as melting snows watered the earth and allowed the winter crops to bloom. https://www.bbg.org/article/a_blanket_of_snow_good_or_bad_for_plants https://marionowenalaska.com/how-does-snow-help-and-harm-plants/ You want Daenerys to be the Only True Savior, but that laser focus is blinding you to a lot of subtext in the books. What are they going to do? Westerlands are spent, and if Aegon wins the Iron Throne, Cersei will no longer have loyalty of the Reach... or anybody outside Westerlands, really. Jon Snow certainly isn't going south, and Euron is a fake Sauron wannabe. Yes, she will certainly look that way after she completely botched things in Astapor and Meereen...
  3. Do you? Or you just think you do? Seems like your bachelor's did you no good. By the way, my Bachelor's is in media and propaganda, and my Master's is in international relations. I think it is safe to say that I understand these things better than you do. You should study propaganda, by the way. Might do you good in understanding how Communism ensnares people and what makes it so damn dangerous. Yes, they are. Othering and hostility are inherent in Communism, Nazism and Fascism alike. Difference between Communism and Fascism is not in their base nature but in specifics. To be precise, Fascism specifies the "Other" primarily in national and/or ethnic/racial terms, while Communism specifies the Other in class terms; Nazism does both. Therefore, Fascist terror is primarily outwards-directed while Communist terror is primarily inwards-directed. But "primarily" does not mean "exclusively". Fascism also had a lot of inwards-dirrected terror and Communism had a lot of outwards-directed terror. Or to sum it up: Fascism is a pig. Nazism is a pig with Jason Vorhees mask, and Communism is a pig with lipstick. All three are pigs, yet because of lipstick, some people want to snoggle Communism. And the only reason why Communism never started the world war like Nazism did is because there was no obvious opportunity to do so, and Communists didn't have ideas of racial superiority clouding their minds. But had they had the opportunity, they will have happily invaded the rest of the world. They tried to do precisely that in fact, through a combination of Soviet-sponsored Communist uprisings and outright military invasions during the 1919 - 1923 period. Both the constant revolutions abroad and Soviet military invasions stopped only in 1924 when Stalin came to power and decided to focus on his idea of "socialism in one country". But had Red Army been more competent, Second World War may have been started by the Soviet Union in 1919, not by Nazi Germany in 1939. Yes. And it is also a revolutionary socialist ideology, but I guess they don't teach you in school. In fact, fact that Fascism is a socialist ideology is pointed out in the very definition you had quoted: The only lie there is that it is a "far-right" ideology. It isn't. It is an extremist ideology of the center, being a compromise and an union of far-left positions (socialism, revolutionary ideals, belief in progress) and far-right positions (ultranationalism, militarism, belief in hierarchy). But you can't see the truth even when it is staring you in the face. And they never tell you what, exactly, creation of said society entails? Here is a tip: humans are different. This means different abilities, inclinations, everything. And that means that the only way to achieve is through authoritarian regime employing extreme levels of oppression - a.k.a., totalitarianism. And genocide. And can you quote where I said that they are same? Of course they are different, they are different ideologies - just as Fascism and Nazism are not the same, neither are Fascism and Communism or Nazism and Communism. But nothing that you have written actually refutes my statement that Hate is a base part of Communist doctrine as well. But where Fascist hate is defined in national and Nazi hate in racial terms, Communist hate is defined in class terms. Communists too use hate as a tool and as part of base ideology. As I have said: Communism defines the "other" primarily in class terms. Nazism and Fascism do it in racial and national terms, respectively. This is what allows Communism to "cool down" and avoid war when it is not advantageous to do so. But you are a fool if you think that Communists are not thinking, day and night, how to export their "glorious revolution" and murder everybody who does not agree with them. The only reason why North Korea isn't invading anybody is because it cannot do so, not because it does not want to. Because it does want to. All Communist regimes want to. They are wiser than Nazis and Fascists - but that does not make them less evil, and only makes them more dangerous, not less.
  4. North is not necessarily a good example because it is geographically massive, and Robb left in a hurry. He basically scoured the nearby lands of troops... for all we know they could have ten thousand men left at the arse end of nowhere that nobody bothered to call up. Agreed.
  5. Antifascism was a name created by Communists to move attention away from their own crimes. Anybody not a Communist will be an antitotalitarian, not an antifascist. Communism however is as evil as Fascism, and is in fact far more destructive political ideology than either Fascism or Nazism... especially considering it is responsible for their appearance. It too seeks war, control and othering of other people by its nature. The only difference between the Communism, Nazism and Fascism is in the way they define the "other". You have been brainwashed by propaganda and you don't even see it. And you are not "countering" anything, because you have no clue what you are talking about.
  6. Most of kingdoms are far from spent. Generally speaking, a winning army suffers 5% losses while losing one suffers 20-40% losses. But these are numbers for Roman battles, which are unusually bloody by medieval standards. At Agincourt, French suffered 24% losses, which would be more typical of medieval battles. North didn't really suffer that many defeats. In fact, if I look at ALL battles in the War of the Five Kings, we have: Golden Tooth Riverlands army: unknown but less than 8 000 men, casualties unknown - estimated 1 600 - 3 200 dead Lannister army: 15 000, casualties unknown - estimated 250 Mummer's Ford Beric Dondarrion's company (Stormlands): 80 dead Mountain's company: unknown Riverrun #1 Lannister army: 15 000 men, estimated 750 dead Tully army: unknown, est. 10 000 men, estimated 2 000 - 4 000 dead Conquest of Riverlands: unknown Battle of the Green Fork Lannister army: 20 000 men, around 1 000 dead Stark army: 17 800 men, 5 000 dead Battle in the Whispering Wood: Lannister army: 2 250 men at maximum, 2 000 dead Stark-Tully army: 6 000 men, 200 dead Battle of the Camps: Lannister army: 12 750 men, 8 000 dead Stark-Tully army: 6 000 men, estimated 300 dead Sack of Darry: unknown Fall of Moat Cailin: Greyjoy army: unknown Stark army: 200 archers, estimated 40 - 80 dead Fall of Deepwood Motte: Stark army: est 100 - 200 men, est 20 - 80 dead Greyjoy army: 1 000 men, est 50 dead Harrying of the Stony Shore: Stark army: unknown, all dead (perhaps 200?) Greyjoy army: 200 - 250 men, est 0 dead Torrhen Square: Stark army: 900 men, est 45 dead Greyjoy army: est 150 men, est 30 - 60 dead Capture of Winterfell: Stark garrison: est 10 men, all dead Greyjoy force: 30 men, est 2 dead Battle at Winterfell: Stark force: 2 000 men, est 400 - 800 dead Bolton force: 600 men, est 30 dead Sack of Winterfell: Bolton force: 570 - 580 men, no dead Greyjoy force: 18 men, 16 dead Capture of Torrhen Square: Stark force: est 20 men, 2 dead Greyjoy force: 200 men, 10 dead Attempt to free Jaime: Tully force: unknown, 4 dead Lannister force: 100 guards, est 40 dead Battle of Oxcross: Lannister force: est 20 000 men, 10 000 dead Stark force: 6 000 men, est 300 dead Siege of Storm's End: no casualties Bitterbridge: unknown, minor Fords: Lannister force: 20 000 men, est 2 000 - 4 000 dead (not defeated) Tully force: 11 000 men, est 550 dead Harrenhall: Lannister force: 100 men, 97 dead North force: 200 men, est 10 dead Storming of the Crag: Lannister garrison: unknown, weak (est. 100, 10 dead) Stark force: 6 000 cavalry, est 300 dead Blackwater: Lannister force: 7 000 - 8 000 garrison (Royal House); 20 000 Lannister, 50 000 - 70 000 Tyrell; est 1 000 dead Baratheon force: 16 400 mostly Reach cavalry, 4 600 Crownland+Stormland infantry; est ~4 000 - 6 000 dead Siege of Darry: unknown Battle of Duskendale: Tyrell - Lannister force: unknown, unknown casualties (est. 6 000 men, 1 000 dead) Stark force: 3 000 men, 1 000 casualties Capture of Harrenhall: unknown Taking of Maidenpool: unknown Fighting at Fords of Trident: Lannister army: unknown, at least 6 000, est 300 dead Stark army: 6 000 men, 2 000 casualties (dead, captured) Red Wedding: Traitors: "thousands" of Freys, 3 500 Boltons and Karstarks - est. 6 500 at least, est 300 casualties Loyalists: 3 500, est. 3 000 casualties Taking of the Shields: Tyrell force: 50 longships, 38 ships captured - est 5 000 men, 3 800 captured Greyjoy fleet: >94 longships (est 200), 6 longships lost - est 20 000 men, 600 dead Second Siege of Storm's End: unknown Siege of Dragonstone: Royal force: 2 000 men (Tyrell + Lannister), 1 000 dead - mostly Lannister Baratheon force: unknown, unknown dead Siege of Riverrun: unknown casualties, likely minimal Siege of Raventree: unknwon casualties, likely minimal Battle Beneath the Wall: Wildlings: 30 000 - 40 000 fighting men, 1 200 wildlings dead Stannis: 1 500 cavalry, light losses - est. 50 dead Siege of Moat Cailin: Northern force: 400, likely no casualties Ironborn force: 67, all killed Fight by Deepwood Mottle: Greyjoy force: 200, all killed or captured Northern force: 3 900 men, est 100 casualties Landing of the Golden Company: unknown casualties So total losses are: Riverlands: 6 000 - 9 600 1 600 - 3 200 2 000 - 4 000 ~150 4 550 150 1 500 Westerlands: 26 500 - 28 500 (unknown number mercenaries) 250 750 1 000 2 000 8 000 40 10 000 2 000 - 4 000 100 10 500 500 300 1 000 Stormlands: 1 100 80 1 000 Crownlands: 1 000 1 000 North: 11 000 5 000 200 ~150 40 - 80 20 - 80 200 45 300 10 300 1 000 2 000 150 1 500 100 Iron Islands: 1 150 - 1 180 50 200 - 250 30 - 60 600 67 200 Reach: 6 800 500 2 000 500 3 800 And keep in mind that my estimates are based on Roman battles. So real losses will have been much lower than the above. Compare this to starting strengths: North: 30 000 19 000 left Riverlands: 20 000 10 000 - 14 000 left Westerlands: 35 000 10 000 left at least + 32 500 navy Crownlands: 20 000 + 42 000 navy 19 000 left + ~20 000 navy? Iron Islands: 42 000 40 000 left Stormlands: 25 000 24 000 left Reach: 65 000 + 35 000 navy 65 000 + 28 200 navy left Vale: 25 000 Dorne: 25 000 Overall, Westeros still has 280 000 - 290 000 troops left (197 - 201 000 ground troops, 87 500 navy) at least.
  7. I am doing some reading on Celtic religion for my own worldbuilding, and I noticed this: https://silvotherapy.co.uk/articles/nature-connection-celts Notice something? Stag and the boar. Stag is the symbol of Bratheons, and Robert of course got killed by the boar. I may be looking too much into this, but I do wonder if this holds some significance. That direwolf got impaled by a stag, which is Baratheon symbol, and killed the stag as well. Ned's actions led to Robert's death and Robert's actions led to Ned's death. But what about the boar? Sure, boar killed Robert - but is there also some significance to that?
  8. At minimum, Dorne, Stormlands, Crownlands and portions of Reach will join Aegon while Ironborn may join Daenerys. Basically what I wrote here: https://warfantasy.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/clash-of-empires-daenerys-vs-westeros-conventional-forces/ If you expand beyond it: 1) portions of Riverlands may join Aegon 2) portions of Reach may join Daenerys though both are equally unlikely I think. Quite easily, in fact.
  9. And? That only means that he will be relevant to the dragon story, not that he himself will become a dragonrider. In fact, "small guy casting a big shadow" would seem to indicate that he will become a politician instead, new Tywin, affecting things from the shadows by influencing people and their actions. He has already started. Cersei wouldn't. She has no chance of being dangerous opponent to anyone any more. She had been exposed to mockery, her power largely broken, her fleet has deserted her, and even if she somehow recovers, she is too insane to be a threat to anybody. Stannis, Aegon and Euron are literally the only major players left in the game in Westeros right now. No, she doesn't. Daenerys likes to think she only does what she does because she feels it is her duty. And luckily for her... as the last member of her family, she can do what she does without feeling any internal conflict about it! But introducing Aegon means that she has to confront herself about what she truly wants. Does she want the family? Does she want to rule? Does she want both, and if so, what is more important to her? People who want Aegon to be some evil usurping tyrant, or even just fake and/or incompetent, typically want it precisely to avoid said conflict, so that Daenerys can just murder him and take the throne completely free of guilt. But that would be a boring choice, and not how Martin generally writes things. Fact is that Daenerys has had no major moral dilemma so far. Her only opponents until now had been slavers. No dilemma there - world is definitely better off without them. In Westeros, you have Euron, Victarion and Cersei. What to do, what to do, just burn them. Jon Snow is a decent person, but he will never sit on or even seek the Iron Throne - no moral dilemma there, either. So that leaves only Aegon. But making Aegon into a fake usurping tyrant means that Daenerys doesn't have to face moral dilemma there either. It is a bad choice for storytelling, and it also significantly cheapens Daenerys' character. It is unlikely Martin, or any halfway decent writer, would do what you are suggesting here. That is why it is unlikely we will ever learn if Aegon was a fake as well. Sure, his story is a stretch - but there is no "smoking gun" to prove that he truly is a fake. So people in the story will do precisely what people in real life do when confronted with him - they will decide whether he is real or fake based on their emotional preferences. Yet just above you said this: Which is it? Will it be Aegon who will start conflict, or will Daenerys conclude that he is a fake and thus start a war before even meeting him? Seems to me you are just choosing whatever will make Aegon look as bad as possible without even bothering to keep your argument consistent with itself, let alone with the story. So there will be a lot of bumps and problems... except for the one that is personally and emotionally relevant to her? That would just make her into a boring Mary Sue. I mean, we already know she isn't dying before the Long Night comes. She needs some true obstacles - and by that I mean emotional obstacles, because as I said, physically she is perfectly safe with her plot armor. None of which means he will be a bad king. It just means that he is not the "Prince That Was Promised" or whatever. Yes, and? Also, Grayscale and Grey Plague are not the same. Sure, both carriers of grayscale may turn out to be carriers of grey plague, but the main impact of it was to make Connington throw caution to the wind. Yet we don't even know if people down South will ever see the Others and the Wights. Winterfell. The place where winter fell. Nor do we know when invasion of the Others will start. She may come before the Others invade... or come after they do and still launch invasion of the south while north is in danger. We don't know. I don't buy that. Old Gods may be of help, but R'hllor is opposed to literally every other religion. Red Priests believe all other gods to be fake - and that includes the Old Gods. Fire is not going to save Westeros from ice. If fire wins, people of Westeros will be just as screwed as they will be if ice wins. Euron has only Iron Islands, Cersei will either die or run off to Westerlands, and Jon Snow is busy in the North. And Daenerys is not going to look better with all the barbarians at her back.
  10. I probably said it before, but: 1) Golden Company is the best army in Planetos, pound-for-pound 2) Westerosi armies are far superior to Essosi armies on average 3) Unsullied and the Dothraki are some of the worst armies in Planetos
  11. Rhaegar is the one who brought three heads into the story, I believe. And no, Tyrion is not the "most obvious and the best" candidate. Most obvious candidate would in fact be... literally anyone else. Aegon, who even if he is not who he says he is may still be a Blackfyre. Victarion, who has the Dragonbinder. Even Brown Ben Plumm. It is possible for Tyrion to become a dragonrider. But it doesn't make sense within his own storyline. He doesn't even need to be alive for what I wrote to work... but it will be far better if they do actually meet. Maybe. But that in no way negates the relation to Daenerys that I have described. So far she had been completely certain in her right to the Iron Throne and that she is on a righteous crusade... there needs to be a point where that will be brought into question. And no, Jon Snow does not work for that, because I do not see his trajectory coming anywhere near the Iron Throne. Even if he does become a king, that will happen only after the Long Night. Or maybe both will start it. Aegon because he feels he doesn't need her any more, and Daenerys because she has become paranoid over visions and prophecies. Maybe. But that is a big maybe. You want to see a basically straight road with no crossroads or bumps ahead of her, but that isn't how Martin writes stuff. Yet it is likely he will be a popular king (possibly even a good one). Meanwhile Daenerys will be bringing barbarians and pirates to Westeros, making her invasion potentially nearly as bad as that of the Other - thus inverting the typical relationship between a good rightful king and an evil usurper.
  12. Dragon has three heads. Or maybe he doesn't. Who is to say that Rhaegar wasn't mistaken in his prophecy? And even if we assume that he wasn't mistaken... as I said, Tyrion is literally the worst choice for a third dragonrider. And we already have anti-Jon in Aegon, there is no need for Tyrion to be there as well. And no, Aegon is not "showing how you can exploit people's hopes by way of propping up a fake pretender". Rather, he is there for Daenerys. Specifically, to crack open Daenerys and her presupositions and beliefs. We see that Daenerys has built up a lot of her identity around being the last Targaryen and avenger of her family, but she also (occasionally) daydreams about what will have happened had Aegon and Rhaenys (and specifically Aegon) not been murdered. So when she meets Aegon and he is on the throne, what will win? Her desire for family or her desire for power? And his existence will later affect her meeting with Jon Snow as well.
  13. Making Tyrion into a secret Targaryen nullifies basically everything that made Tyrion, Tyrion. It makes his character arc pointless, it makes his character pointless, because "secret Targaryen" can be basically anybody at this point. Hell, making Aegon into a secret Targaryen masquerading as a Blackfyre masquerading as a Targaryen makes more sense than making Tyrion into one! The entire point behind Tyrion's character is that one child that Tywin despised the most is one that has the characteristics he prided himself on. In fact, if you look at it, each one of Tywin's children has inherited one aspect of Tywin's personality. Cersei has Tywin's cruelty, Jaime has Tywin's fighting prowess, but it is Tyrion that has Tywin's political and social acumen - the very thing that made Tywin so dangerous in the first place. "Jaime, sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak...but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you". Tyrion has literally all the mental characteristics of his father - his intelligence, his manipulativeness, his affinity for whores. Tyrion is Tywin, yet Tywin refuses to acknowledge him and treats him like shit his entire life. Tywin wishes Tyrion was not his son. Making Tyrion into Targaryen would basically make Tywin's wish come true, another reason why it would be bullshit writing. It makes more sense to make Jaime and Cersei into Aerys' children. Jaime, the perfect Lannister, person whom Tywin wanted to inherit his position... not a Lannister at all! And also a kinslayer in addition to being a kingslayer. This alone means that it makes far more sense for Jaime to be a secret Targaryen, as it adds parallel between Jaime and Tyrion with both of them killing their biological father. Similarly, Cersei has obsession with fire that just rings Aerys, and since they are twins, her being a Targaryen also makes Jaime into one. And lastly, looking beyond just storytelling, Tyrion has black hairs in his hair and beard: One green eye and one black one peered out from under a lank fall of hair so blond it seemed white. He had let his beard grow to cover his pushed-in face, until it was a bristly tangle of yellow and black hair, coarse as wire. Strands of hair, pale blond and black, clung to his brow, Lannisters are blonde. Targaryens are usually white-haired. The way genetics work in Westeros, there is no way for Tyrion to be a Targaryen if he is Joanna's son. And if he wasn't Joanna's at all, Tywin will have noticed and gotten rid of him. He may ride a dragon, yes, despite not being a Targaryen. But I think it is more likely for him to betray Daenerys and deliver a dragon to somebody else. Tyrion is defined by his smarts, not by his physical prowess. Nope. It is quite enough for Tywin to believe that Tyrion is Aerys' son for his relationship with Tyrion to make sense. There is no need to make it an actual truth.
  14. Brown Ben Plumm and Victarion yes. But dragonrider Tyrion just smells wrong.
  15. Not unless they find Toothless somewhere and the series turns into How to (not) Train Your Dragon.
×
×
  • Create New...