Jump to content

Rhaenyra's Fool

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rhaenyra's Fool

  • Rank
    Commoner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

238 profile views
  1. What do you base this on? Except Viserys, everyone who speaks of Aerys does so with scorn.
  2. I believe a large part of this problem will be solved by Dany cutting short her rule in Meereen. I think her character turning 'bad' or 'mad' will involve the slow abandonment or alteration of her defining beliefs. The first shift, I think, will be a decision that her fate is not tied to Slaver's Bay, that the Ghiscari have no place for her, and so she will prematurely leave Meereen without solving all of its problems, thinking that Westeros is the place she needs to be. Then she'll be back in Westeros in no time. There are only two Victarion chapters during his entire journey from the Reach to Slaver's Bay, why should Daenerys need more? Not much needs to happen on a boat. Liberation of the Volantene slaves (I think this will happen, though it need not - forsaking the slaves of Volantis in favour of fulfilling her perceived destiny in Westeros could be part of Daenerys' character shift) need only take one chapter, and other important details can be communicated in flashbacks from multiple of our POV characters. As part of her character shift I think Daenerys will neglect to remain in Volantis to support a new government, instead ignoring the mistakes made at Astapor and, after only a brief stop at Volantis, continue on to the Narrow Sea. The faith of R'hllor could provide the backbone of a Volantene liberation government, anyway. Benerro supports Daenerys and since the adherents of R'hllor are to such a great extent slaves, it is probable that they would be a more trustworthy institution to build a liberation government around than the the Ghiscari Graces would have been (I believe the Green Grace is 'the' Harpy, if any such Harpy exists, or at the very least that she is working in the backgrounds to undermine Daenerys' rule even as she tries to make Daenerys fit in). This doesn't require the government to be successful, but perhaps it will be less of a failure, or will appear to have more potential, than the Astapori attempt. What is more characteristic of GRRM, I ask you? The noble character solving every problem of a foreign culture and triumphantly returning to her homeland, or our noble character showing her flaws and, ultimately unable to fulfil all her goals, being forced to choose between two things she desperately wants? Perhaps Daenerys' turn to tyranny/madness/evil (whatever you want to call it) will happen not against the backdrop of an inherent Targaryen flaw, but rather be borne of grief, guilt, and regret due to her failures in the east.
  3. I don't know whether the Darklyns might have given up Aerys during Tywin's sack. It's possible, definitely. As to Rhaegar becoming king, lots might have been different. Robert's rebellion very likely would not have been successful without the extra years of cruelty from Aerys poisoning lords against House Targaryen. Rhaegar abducting Lyanna would have been met with opposition from Robert and the Starks, but it might have been more muted if Rhaegar made her his second queen and Robert and the Starks knew they wouldn't have much lordly support in a rebellion (because of the absence of Aerys' cruelty and, perhaps, faith in a new, younger, fairer king). Furthermore, Rhaegar probably would have taken Lyanna to King's Landing, rather than the Dornish Marches, and by responding more quickly might have been able to avoid many of the misunderstandings that seem to be at the heart of his abduction of Lyanna. I think a more important note is that Rhaegar might never have been interested in Lyanna in the first place. I think there was love between them, but I don't believe Rhaegar would have taken the action he did if Elia had been well enough to have a third child. Rhaegar's overarching desire was to ensure the dragon had three heads. The defiance of Duskendale was in 277AC, and Rhaegar and Elia were betrothed in 279. If Rhaegar had become king in 277AC, he might have chosen for himself a different wife and whoever that woman was, she might have been able to safely deliver him the three children he was so keen to have. It might have even been Cersei. Rhaegar in 277 was eighteen years old, old enough to rule without a regent and probably a capable young man even then. Even so, he might have appreciated the guidance and continued service of Tywin as Hand, just as the first Viserys had Otto Hightower continue as Hand after the death of Jaehaerys the Conciliator. In summary, I think there's a high chance that Aerys' death at Duskendale would have prevented Robert's rebellion, whether or not Rhaegar absconded with Lyanna. It's far from certain, however. Targaryen power and prestige had much diminished in the previous century.
  4. I just copied most of this from another post I made elsewhere: I've never believed the theory that Bran will sit the Iron Throne. My opposition is grounded in the practical realities of succession. George tries to be as realistic as possible with regards to real world historical politics, and the Starks do not have ANY claim to the throne, at all. No Targaryen princess has ever married into House Stark, nor has the non-Targaryen descendant of any Targaryen prince or princess. Certainly, power is power (Varys) and Robert's blood-based claim was a justification pasted over his military victories over the Targaryen armies (Renly), but a claim to rights through descent from Aegon the Conquerer is a necessary prerequisite to sitting the Iron Throne. The Starks are neither well known enough nor militarily strong enough to put one of their own on the throne to rule all of Westeros. Without a blood link to the Targaryens there's no way the other noble houses would accept a Stark royal dynasty. In medieval politics the only ways to assume control over a territory were through military force (conquest) or a claim seen as legitimate by the other power players in the region. Westeros is grounded in real world type medieval politics and the North is NOT strong enough to conquer the other six kingdoms and the Starks have the same claim to the throne (i.e. none) that other noble houses like the Tyrells, the Lannisters, or the Hightowers have. It would be more likely for a Martell, a Velaryon, or even a Plumm to sit the Iron Throne, as those three houses all had Targaryen princesses marry into them over the close to 300 years of Targaryen rule. Personally I see three possible scenarios for the endgame, in terms of politics: The Seven Kingdoms split into two or more independent kingdoms - probably not the same kingdoms from before the conquest, for example a Stark becomes monarch of the North and the Riverlands (uniting Ned's claim to Winterfell and the North and Catelyn's claim to Riverun and the Riverlands and maybe also Harrenhal (through Catelyn's mother Minisa Whent)). If this monarch is Sansa the kingdom might also the Vale of Arryn, through marriage to Harry the Heir. A Targaryen claimant (Dany, fAegon, Stannis, Jon as Rhaegar's son, someone else, or a combination of (married) claimants) takes the Iron Throne and restores Targaryen rule over the Seven Kingdoms. A Targaryen claimant takes the Iron Throne and reigns over a portion of the Seven Kingdoms, with one or more regions (e.g. Dorne or the Iron Islands) becoming independent nations. I personally think that scenario 1 or 3 is more likely than scenario 2, but I don't consider Bran (or any Stark) ruling the Seven Kingdoms from King's Landing to be at all possible or plausible. Even if Bran saves the world from the Others and the threat of winter and enough Westerosi are sufficiently aware of what happened to be super grateful to him, the realities of medieval power politics and aristocratic desire to advance a family's interests aren't just going to disappear. I believe David and Dan chose Bran as king for the same reason Arya slew the Night King: he is "the most obvious choice provided we aren't thinking about [him] in that moment." In regards to what the show gets right...Dany will probably turn tyrant, though not the way she did in the show, Westeros will splinter politically, aaaand I think that's about it.
  5. Do you mean this should be taken as a hint that Bran will also become king by the end of ADOS? I've never believed the theory that Bran will sit the Iron Throne. I don't have an alternate explanation for this quote, but my opposition is grounded in the practical realities of succession. George tries to be as realistic as possible with regards to real world historical politics, and the Starks do not have ANY claim to the throne, at all. No Targaryen princess has ever married into House Stark, nor has the non-Targaryen descendant of any Targaryen prince or princess. Certainly, power is power (Varys) and Robert's blood-based claim was a justification pasted over his military victories over the Targaryen armies (Renly), but a claim to rights through descent from Aegon the Conquerer is a necessary prerequisite to sitting the Iron Throne. The Starks are neither well known enough nor militarily strong enough to put one of their own on the throne to rule all of Westeros. Without a blood link to the Targaryens there's no way the other noble houses would accept a Stark royal dynasty. In medieval politics the only ways to assume control over a territory were through military force (conquest) or a claim seen as legitimate by the other power players in the region. Westeros is grounded in real world type medieval politics and the North is NOT strong enough to conquer the other six kingdoms and the Starks have the same claim to the throne (i.e. none) that other noble houses like the Tyrells, the Lannisters, or the Hightowers have. It would be more likely for a Martell, a Velaryon, or even a Plumm to sit the Iron Throne, as those three houses all had Targaryen princesses marry into them over the close to 300 years of Targaryen rule. Personally I see three possible scenarios for the endgame, in terms of politics: 1. The Seven Kingdoms split into two or more independent kingdoms - probably not the same kingdoms from before the conquest, for example a Stark becomes monarch of the North and the Riverlands (uniting Ned's claim to Winterfell and the North and Catelyn's claim to Riverun and the Riverlands and maybe also Harrenhal (through Catelyn's mother Minisa Whent)). If this monarch is Sansa the kingdom might also the Vale of Arryn, through marriage to Harry the Heir. 2. A Targaryen claimant (Dany, fAegon, Stannis, Jon as Rhaegar's son, someone else, or a combination of (married) claimants) takes the Iron Throne and restores Targaryen rule over the Seven Kingdoms. 3. A Targaryen claimant takes the Iron Throne and reigns over a portion of the Seven Kingdoms, with one or more regions (e.g. Dorne or the Iron Islands) becoming independent nations. I personally think that scenario 1 or 3 is more likely than scenario 2, but I don't consider Bran (or any Stark) ruling the Seven Kingdoms from King's Landing to be at all possible or plausible.
  6. I think all of these are the main sources for slaves in the Free Cities. Two additional sources: when a Free City goes to war I'm sure I've read a reference to selling captives as slaves (maybe in Fire and Blood in the Daughters War?) Additionally, a smaller source of slaves is probably also citizens of the Free Cities like Racallio Ryndoon and Salladhor Saan (pirates) capturing people on their "adventures" and enslaving them. Aside from that I don't think the Free Cities run their own slave raids. The one exception is when the Kingdom of the Three Daughters (Lys, Myr, and Tyrosh) take control of the Stepstones. They begin charging taxes/duties on ships passing through and the Lyseni also take pretty girls and boys to enslave in their pleasure houses. I don't think this is indicative of general behaviour, though, because I think the ship captains had begun to drift towards piracy by this point.
  7. Tl;dr House of the Dragon should be about Maegor's reign. the Dance of the Dragons is huge and will make for unwieldy, expensive TV (if they don't ruin it by cutting everything interesting out). Maegor's reign is straightforward and self-contained and has a mix of violence and politics I think House of the Dragon is going to follow the Dance of the Dragons, but I think that's the wrong choice. GOT failed in large part because of the difficulty in portraying such a complex story in the medium of TV and the showrunners' disinterest in keeping any faith with the source material's complexity. I think House of the Dragon will fall at the same hurdle. I personally think that the best part of Fire and Blood to adapt would be the reign of Maegor the Cruel and the rise of Jaehaerys. It could start either at the death of Aenys or part way through Maegor's reign. The Dance of the Dragons is too long and complex a story for a TV audience to care enough about, I think. First of all, you have seventeen descendants of Jaehaerys and Alysanne alive at the outbreak of the war, and none of them could be easily cut without compressing storylines, which I think would be a mistake. Twelve of the seventeen are dragonriders and there are four non-royal dragonriders and two unridden wild dragons, so the CGI costs would be enormous, especially when it comes to dragons fighting dragons, which happens A LOT in the Dance. How many of our plucky riverlords will they cut? Which lords and knights of the Vale, North, Reach, and Westerlands must be ignored to make the story TV size? The history leading up to the Dance is important, I think, so how are they going to manage that? A lot of exposition? Will they show the Great Council of 101? I think the only way the Dance could be turned into a TV show is if they dramatically cut and compress characters, storylines, and events, way past the point of keeping the overall storyline coherent (they could, for example, reasonably cut out two or three dragons such as the Cannibal and Grey Ghost, but beyond a certain point it stops being the Dance.) Aegon's conquest would be a bad section to adapt in my opinion because it is almost entirely battles and dragonfire. Sure, epic battles are epic, but a show that is entirely armies marching and dragons fighting causing lots of death would get boring pretty quickly. Maegor's reign is perfect. The history is simple: old king dies, old king's brother seizes the throne and is opposed by old king's children. It has a small cast of essential characters: eight Targaryens (two of whom, Aerea and Rhaella, are infants at this time so don't need more than lip service to be included), Queen Alyssa, Lord Rogar. That's...it. Important secondary characters would be the High Septon, some Warrior's Sons, and Maegor's five other wives, but compared to the Dance it's a very small cast and you can split it into three camps: Maegor's court; Rhaena and Aegon; Alyssa, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne. Maegor's reign is a much more self-contained, simple story and for that reason I think it would translate onto TV better. There's only six dragons rather than the Dance's eighteen, and only one fight between dragons (at the Gods Eye). It has a balanced set of bloody battles and political intrigue. They could kind of make it as long or as short as they want. If they want it longer they could do it from the start of Maegor's six year reign and end it with Jaehaerys turning sixteen and marrying Alysanne - easily get ten seasons out of that, I think. If they only want to do three or four seasons they could start in the middle of Maegor's reign and end it with his death and Jaehaerys' coronation. Note: my numbers for dragonriders and descendants of Jaehaerys and Alysanne are counts I did off the top of my head, so apologies if they're incorrect. I didn't count Addam and Alyn of Hull/Velaryon because I'm certain Laenor wasn't the baby daddy.
  8. I'm a big fan of Fire and Blood, all of it. Favourite parts occur in the regency of Aegon III, notably the Maiden's Day Cattle Show (because Baela and Rhaena) and the Secret Siege. Honourable mention to the Dance when Rhaenys and Meleys fought the Kinslayer, the Usurper, Vhagar, and Sunfyre and when Baela and Moondancer brought down the Usurper and Sunfyre.
  9. Unwatchable (I read a synopsis instead of watching the final episode)
  10. I think there's a chance it'll come back, and that maybe certain of the Free Folk and even some mountain clans (in the North and/or the Vale) might still do human sacrifice. There's something I found interesting in Fire and Blood. When Harren the Red took Harrenhal he killed Gargon "the Guest" Qoherys in the Godswood. I've always thought that a little strange. Why not kill him in the yard where the castle folk and Harren's band might all better be able to see the execution? We know that there is at least some worship of the Old Gods in the Riverlands still (e.g. House Blackwood, and Gyldayn's wording when he talks about Cregan Stark's men marrying into Riverlands communities implies that there was such worship among the smallfolk even before the infusion of northern blood during the minority of Aegon III). I think that Gargon Qoherys' execution might have doubled as a sacrifice, since it happened inside the Godswood.
  11. This question makes me crazy cause I have no idea how to answer it. If it were one of the five people Ser Lumpyhead mentions I think it could only be Leo Tyrell, given how expensive the Faceless Men are. They get more expensive the more important a target is, which would theoretically make Pate a cheap target, but I still don't think Rosie or her mum could have afforded to hire one. Alleras maybe, but I don't see Alleras wanting Pate dead. I doubt Walgrave would have the money for a Faceless Man either, and even though we don't know much about him I don't think it's his style - he'd just go to Gormon, I think. Gormon already dislikes Pate so he wouldn't need much of an excuse to get rid of him. That being said I don't think Leo would have either. I don't think Leo wanted Pate dead, because that's then one less person he can bully, which strikes me as Leo's main joy in life.
  12. Aegon (not that he had a legitimate claim before the Conquest, but dragons are cool...) Dorne Aenys Targaryens ( I hate Maegor but I also hate religious extremism) Rhaenys, the Queen Who Never Was The Blacks The Martells Targaryen Rebels Robb Wildlings (hardest one to answer) Stannis Dany Asha (though I wish Victarion had accepted the deal where Asha would be his Hand) Dany
×
×
  • Create New...