Lord Varys

1 hour ago, JonSnow4President said:

I haven't actually read the books for years, but isn't that only an allegation brought forth by Cleon, a man who is trying to seize power for himself?

Like it is just a command by Daenerys to kill some people - we don't know if and to what degree it happened. Stop treating things as if folks actually murdered people left and right there. The Unsullied aren't butchers but completely obedient to commands, and there were essentially no Dothraki warriors among Dany's people. So if the sack of Astapor was bloody then mostly due to violence of freed non-Unsullied slaves against their former masters - and that's totally justified. Also, of course, violence of the Unsullied against their former masters.

But we do have later reports about Cleon's regime stating that the guy restored slavery - only with the former slaves as the masters and the former slavers as the slaves. That, too, can only work if there were still former slavers left. So the notion that the old Astapori elite is gone is clearly wrong. How silly such an assumption is you can also draw from the fact that the Meereenese elite survived the conquest of the place. There was a real battle there, lots of fighting, etc. and yet the ruling class suffered but a mild bloodletting, retaining essentially all their property.

The readers tend to view Cleon in the dark colors, but he was apparently pretty loved by his people (they ended up using his corpse as a symbol), so chances are pretty good that he indeed saved the freed slaves from a restoration of the Good Masters.

No trouble killing every guy wearing a tokar (not that we have confirmation that this actually happened as the council guys Dany puts in charge later try to restore the Good Masters - which means that even some of them survived) as these people are all direct or indirect profiteers of slavery and the slave trade.

Even if there were tokar wearers who didn't own any slaves themselves (very unlikely in light of what the garment represents) they would still live in a society where they would profit and be involved in the slave trade directly or indirectly.

It is like with slavery in the US. Nothing wrong with killing a white man there back then. Even if they are not masters themselves, they feel like masters, they profit from the fact directly and indirectly that they can shit and piss on black slaves, can feel better for the fact that they are not slaves, etc.

They are all guilty to a point as they are part of a fundamentally injust, broken, and corrupt system.

You see that even today when 'white trash' scum jerks off on the fact that they are, at least, white. Part of the 'ruling race'. It is quite disgusting.

The tokar in Slaver's Bay is pretty much what white skin is in the US (back then). The signifier of the master (race/class).

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

No one is saying that. People are saying that just because Jon didn't believe a prophecy from someone who already botched one, doesn't make him a bad leader.

I do. He got sound advice, ignored it, died.

Even if he had no reason at all to trust Mel's visions - and he did have good reasons to believe her. He had every reason to know his people weren't happy with his decisions, meaning guarding himself against an assassination would have been a great thing to do.

On 5/30/2023 at 9:54 AM, Fist of the Dragon said:

Do you really understand what I mean about the similarity between Lincoln and Jon? I mean the conditions they face.
Predictions? Let's ignore his assassination due to the prophecies he receives because in the first place it is Jon's own fault that he is too blind to think about his own life. (Not only because of lack of trust or caution towards a The red woman, Melisandre herself also plays a role in this story with her Wrong perceptions)
And I agree with the rest of your words and I mentioned it in the previous comment, but personally, the other end of the scale is still heavier for me and I don't see Jon as a fool or an unworthy leader.

Jon isn't an unworthy leader, but he got himself killed there. And it was his fault. Now, if he survives his death (lol), he could improve.

But honestly I feel disappointed by the depiction of Jon Snow in ADwD. His were not only mostly boring chapters, but they were also written in a very bland tone. Jon seemed smarter and more perceptive and more curious in the earlier books.

Dany also fucked certain things up, but she didn't get herself killed - and she had a clear goal. Jon is just bumbling along.

On 5/30/2023 at 8:35 AM, Craving Peaches said:

Which Aemon says is a fake...

Sure, a fake hot Lightbringer, but still a real glowing magic sword. It might be cold, but it glows very bright. Which means Mel can do magic.

On 5/30/2023 at 8:35 AM, Craving Peaches said:

How does that prove she is a 'genuine seer'? It doesn't. None of that is evidence of her prophetic abilities.

That is true, but going from genuine sorceress to genuine prophetess is no big step. And as I said, he could have asked Stannis and his people about her prophecies.

The notion that it was smart of him to ignore the prophecy that his life was in danger from people very close to him was dumb as fuck.

In fact, it was so dumb that I felt like George had fucked me and not Jon when he got stabbed. I mean, I thought the entire book he would immediately discover such a plot, would not suffer the fate of Robb because he was fucking warned. But, no, he chose to be another moron.

On 5/30/2023 at 8:35 AM, Craving Peaches said:

He can expect it to be Arya stark because Melisandre, the 'genuine seer', said so??? It looks like you are blaming Jon more than Melisandre here for the vision being wrong which is silly. It was Melisandre who told him it was Arya. If Melisandre only told Jon the image and Jon reacted that way you might have a point but she didn't. From Jon's point of view Melisandre messed up a prediction already so why should he trust her other ones?

Because it was clear that she merely was wrong about the identity of the horse girl that was coming, not the fact that a horse girl was coming. Ditto with the eyeless heads.

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

Except that's not how it goes in real life.. especially when the King is dead (as when Viserys died and no one had been crowned yet), absent, underage, incapacitated or uninterested in ruling. 

Not doubting that the Hand can wield much power - but again, it is borrowed power, not invested power. The Hand is the first royal official - and as such people have to honor him. But he doesn't have power in his own right. Which is why in the feudal context actual lords and princes do outrank a Hand like Otto Hightower or Septon Barth (who would be an even better example for this).

How little the power of the Hand can mean you can see when Aegon II is incapacitated. Criston Cole doesn't take charge - Prince Aemond does.

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

Either way, the Hand answers to the King first and not to their Lord Paramount. Imagine how Westeros would run if it was otherwise?! Any Hand of the King who's not a Lord Paramount would be taking orders from their Lord instead of the King! Or Septon Barth taking orders from the High Septon while ignoring Jaehaerys!

Jon Connington taking orders from Robert Baratheon instead of Aerys and Rhaegar?

Unwin Peake taking orders from Lyonel Hightower? LMAO He also wasn't taking orders from underage Aegon II and was actually ignoring the king's wishes, a lot.. and the Regency was technically the utmost authority but they were weakened so it was pretty much just Unwin Peake doing whatever he wanted.

Unwin Peake's liege lord would be Lord Tyrell, not Lord Hightower. But, of course, the Hand doesn't take orders from them. But again - the Handship is an office and not a title. A lord wields real power he can pass on to his heir, the Handship is just a job. And, of course, the Hand's prestige and authority hinges on his general standing. Otto Hightower is a very powerful Hand in 129 AC because his daughter is the queen and his grandson the king he wants to make - had Otto still been little Ser Landless in 129 AC he couldn't have pulled a coup.

Whereas a Hand like Bloodraven or Viserys II or Baelor Breakspear - having royal blood and the prestige that comes with that - or a great lord like Tywin Lannister or Eddard Stark would have less problems exerting the powers that can come with the office - or even some powers that don't come, strictly speaking, with the office. Because they have real power independent of the office of Hand of the King.

In a very real context even the smallest lordship is a better gig than the Handship. The Hand is a servant, an employee, a guy who does a job. A lord owns lands, a castle or keep, and has levies or bannermen he can call to war. The Hand can be a lord, of course, but as Hand he has nothing of his own. Also, his job is only temporary while a lord remains a lord all his life unless he commits treason. In that sense it makes no sense to say that Otto has more prestige or outranks his brother. Because he doesn't really have a rank. He just has a job. And one word of the king can see him without a job ... which then actually happens.

It is also misleading to assume the Hand can have an agenda of his own. Speaking with the King's Voice means he repeats and reinforces the king's words. He doesn't twist his words. Yes, he can step in for the king in emergency cases, but that actually rarely happens and even with disinterested or absent kings ... the king remains the king and the Hand just the Hand. One word of the king can see him gone, can revoke anything the Hand decides.

Ned was stretching things pretty far when he condemned Gregor Clegane - Robert could have revoked that decree as soon as he heard of it. And, of course, no Hand is going to remain in office for long if they are at odds with the king's policies, wishes, or general agenda. That wouldn't make sense. That Aerys put up with Tywin for as long as he did was quite unusual. Ned wouldn't have continued much longer as Hand had Robert lived longer consider over what trivial issues they were constantly clashing.

25 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Actually, you are wrong, the Hand has a higher authority than any of the Lord Paramounts, just as the King has, since the Hand is seen as "speaking with King's voice" and yielding that authority when the King is absent or incapacitated and if there is no Regent to perform the role of the King. The Hand can sit the Iron Throne and pronounce Lord Tywin Lannister's bannerman Ser Gregor Clegane a traitor to the crown, without asking Lord Tywin for permission or caring what Lord Tywin would say, as Ned Stark did.

That is not authority in the Hand's own right, but the king's authority transferred to the Hand. A lord's authority, though, remains. And the Hand only wields royal authority in the king's place if the king is unable to speak. Which is rarely the case. This is not a power invested in the Hand at all time. And it is not a power at all if the Hand tries to contradict the will of the king and the king can actually still talk.

The power of the Hand is all borrowed power, similarly to having the power of representation in a company setting. You are just an employee, but allowed to speak for the director(s) in a binding way - but you don't own or run the company as such. You are just a servant.

The Lord of Oldtown, though, owns and runs Oldtown and adjacent lands. He has real power and real wealth.

25 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

Otto acting deferential to Hobart in the show while they are talking to each other has nothing to do with their formal authority - Otto is the one who outranks Hobart there - it is about their familiar relationship and the fact even someone as powerful as Otto is unable to stop looking at his older brother as his older brother. (But I doubt he feels the same about his nephew.)

Otto doesn't outrank his brother there. Otto is a hired servant - the king's first servant but still a servant - while his brother is a great lord in his own right. Otto might wield more power than his brother, but that doesn't have any effect on rank in a feudal society. Otto has no land, no vassals, no bannermen, no levies. He has no real power at all. He has just power as a cog in the Targaryen machine.

Of course, this changes when the Hand is not a landless knight like Otto but a great lord in his own right or even a royal prince. Such people have a higher rank as per their status independent of the Handship.

Also, keep in mind that rank =/= power. Queens are the highest ranking women in the Realm, just as lady wives have the same rank as their husbands ... yet they rarely have any formal power nor a say in the government. But a Hand or steward definitely has to show deference to a queen or the lady wife of his lord. Although they definitely are rarely obliged to obey them.

5 minutes ago, SoftSpell said:

Also it's a patriarchal society. So the perception was automatically that her father outranked her just by being a male. There had never been a ruling Queen in Westeros ever. A civil war was inevitable for any woman barking orders from the Iron Throne.

There were queens who sat the Iron Throne - Rhaenys and Visenya did that, but they were effectively Aegon's co-conquerors and co-rulers. Alicent is clearly subservient to her father in every respect ... until episode 9. There she asserts control, but even then she isn't a regent but merely the one demanding to run the Green faction now, controlling things because she controlled Aegon's person.

In the book it may be that Alicent had more power/agency in her own right as she was the one who brought Otto back as Hand and may have been more of a driving force in the entire thing - but it is difficult to say.

1 minute ago, Annara Snow said:

No, you don't, when you're Hand of the King. You are, in fact, the second highest authority in the realm after the monarch or the regent - and the ultimate authority in the realm in the interim when there is no crowned monarch.

Hand of the King > Lord Paramount

That is not so, as a landless knight is also beholden to his lordly brother, as Otto shows in the show. He is subservient to his brother, never mind that he wields authority as the highest royal official. The Handship is a temporary job, not a title.

The Hand is also not by default the big shot during an interregnum - that would depend on whether a dying monarch or the council name a regent or not. If no arrangement is made, then the Hand might be the one in charge - also that would also depend on the status of the Heir Apparent and the Dowager Queen's role in the government.

1 minute ago, Annara Snow said:

And in the show, Alicent was the Regent for ill Viserys so she outranked them too (technically she outranked her father too before the coronation).

Nope, Otto was running the show, not Alicent, he sat the throne in Viserys' absence, not she. She wielded informal power and authority due to her access to the king, but she wasn't an official regent. They didn't name one since the situation wasn't that bad, apparently.

On 3/9/2023 at 12:56 PM, Annara Snow said:

It's implied Jon Arryn knew, because I think it's mentioned he probably resented Lysa for having to marry a 'soiiled' girl.

However, Jon Arryn was practically blackmailed by Hoster Tully because he wouldn't give him military support in the war unless he married Lysa. And for that to happen, Hoster needed to trick Lysa into miscarring her child - because Jon would obviously not want to acknowledge another man's child as his own, nor would be have married a girl who had a bastard, and neither Hoster nor Jon would've tolerated their reputations being smeared and Jon Arryn would never agree if it meant people would laugh at him. So it was incredibly important no one else knew.

That is just in your head. The timeline doesn't allow for Hoster to abort Littlefinger's child so that Lysa could marry Jon Arryn ... as Lysa most likely lost her child long before the Rebellion even started. The duel took place before Harrenhal, and Harrenhal took place months before the actual war. And Hoster only ended up making a deal with Ned and Jon months after the war had started. Lysa's pregnancy cannot have lasted longer than four months, say. Else it would have been public knowledge that she was pregnant - and Cat didn't know it, for instance.

On 3/9/2023 at 12:56 PM, Annara Snow said:

There is no doubt that public knowledge of a woman having had a bastard and generally having been "soiled" significantly reduces her chances in that society, both for a good marriage, and, which is crucial in this case, of inheriting - especially when it's the throne. It certainly contributed to reducing Daena's chances of taking the throne.

It is all about power. If Rhaenyra remains the heir, people will want her even if she has a harem of lovers. Because with her hand come power, prestige, and the fucking Iron Throne.

On 3/9/2023 at 12:56 PM, Annara Snow said:

And both the book and show imply that at least Daemon believed that ruining Rhaenyra's reputation would be enough for him to blackmail Viserys to marry her to him, because "no one else would want her now". 

You are misconstruing things - in one book scenario Rhaenyra was in love with and had had sex with Daemon, and they both ask for her hand. The other is Mushroom's silly fantasy where Daemon actually thinks he can claim a niece he hadn't even seduced so far on the basis of giving her practical sex education simply because those stories would tarnish her reputation.

That obviously never happened as Rhaenyra is still surrounded by suitors in 111-113 AC, and neither Laenor nor Harwin have a problems with slutty Rhaenyra.

In the show it is clear that Daemon doesn't want Rhaenyra because she is a slut, but because he, as a Targaryen, is the only worthy husband she could have - just as she is the only worthy bride for him.

24 minutes ago, SoftSpell said:

When he was Lord of House Hightower received a letter from his younger brother, Ser Otto;

On no account can Prince Daemon be allowed to ascend to the Iron Throne.[...] He would be a second Maegor the Cruel, or worse.[...] Better the Realm’s Delight than Lord Flea Bottom.

So he KNEW about it being likely to happen in the future. Ormund would lead his family's forces in the Reach. So yes, 'House Hightower' as in more than one member, as a broader political entity, participated in the coup.

The lord in question here would be Otto's older brother, not Ormund. But you are quite right that House Hightower plotted the coup, as Otto and Alicent Hightower ran the Green Council. And Lord Ormund Hightower later aided and abetted the traitors, just as Alicent's brother Gwayne did.

In the show it is even more obvious that the Hightowers as a house are traitors, as the ultimate architect of the 'King Aegon II traitor project' is Otto's older brother, the Lord of Oldtown, not Otto himself nor Alicent.

King Viserys I makes it clear in episode 3 that anyone assuming Aegon was the rightful heir was a traitor, commanding Jason Lannister to rat such traitors out. There is no doubt about the legal situation in the show.

1 minute ago, csuszka1948 said:

I don't think it's a good idea to become obsesses with prophecies and becoming paranoid. That's the road that leads to becoming Cersei.

LOL, no, that kind of thing may have led to Jon Snow's birth. This is a magical world, where magic and prophecies are real things. They shape and form reality. People who ignore that do it at their own peril. People arguing against magic in this world are like creationists or flat-earth morons.

4 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

I wouldn't say that Dany is leagues better. Jon is actually better at long-term planning*, but also more prone to making big impulsive mistakes. 

Jon doesn't do any long-term planning in ADwD. He makes spontaneous and impulsive decisions, very much like Daenerys ... but without communicating what he does. He jumps on the chance Tycho Nestoris' arrival gives him ... but he doesn't reach out to the Iron Bank or anyone else who might give him money by himself. He doesn't think and figure out that the wildlings are people, too, he needs to have his experience at the godswood beyond the Wall. Stannis tells him that he has to man the other castles or he, Stannis, will take them and do it himself. The Hardhome mission is also a spur of the moment idea, caused by reports he receives.

Jon is a good analyst of other people's problems - the advice he gives Stannis is very good. But he still acts as an outsider, a watcher who wants to be Robb but knows he can never be. He doesn't see himself as a leader, a lord, a potential king.

Dany understood what she was, what she had to be very shortly after Viserys' death. But Jon rightfully doesn't think he has the right to play 'Lord Stark', so he cannot do what he would have to do to be a good ruler.

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Melisandre being a 'genuine seer' doesn't mean much when discussing leadership abilities because Jon has no idea she is as she has not proven it to him. It's not like Jon was given undeniable proof and still chose to ignore it. He was cautiously sceptical of Melisandre's claims because she had not given Jon much cause to believe they were reliable. And given she mucked up the Arya prediction why should Jon blindly trust everything she says? I really don't think this is a mark against him, that he didn't trust someone who claimed to be able to see the future but already botched one prediction.

LOL, sorry, he sees the woman gave Stannis a magical sword that glows, he knows she burned eagle Orell somehow, and she disguised fucking Mance Rayder as Rattleshirt. She also messes with his connection to Ghost somehow. He has no justification not to trust that she is the real deal. And if he had doubts he could ask Stannis about her earlier predictions, could approach some of Stannis' men for information about her, etc. He accompanies her up to the wall and sees how unnaturally hot and steamy her body is. He knows she is not a normal woman but a supernatural sorceress. He also happens to be a stupid ass when he 'blames' Mel for Alys Karstark. She told him about a vision she had - how the hell can Jon expect that some girl on a dying horse is fucking Arya Stark, a girl Mel never actually met??? Alys showing up proves Mel had a genuine vision of a girl on a dying horse - they both misinterpreted it. He shows his stupidity by reacting like a stubborn child there - 'I want my prophecies to be exactly the way you said, I don't care that you only see images without name tags attached!'

Now, skulls circling around you is also not completely clear ... but there is nothing wrong taking proper precautions. Interpreting it as death threats is the best take on that want - better safe than sorry, right?

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

And anyway he does do something. He executes Slynt and separates the troublemakers like Thorne so they can't plot. He has bodyguards.

Slynt was never a prophesied danger to him, not being a guy that was close to him. Thorne neither. Jon never considered that the men who killed him would or could kill him. Also no sign that his move against Slynt or Thorne had anything to do with the Mel prophecy about the skulls. He completely ignores or forgets this.

Jon's bodyguards abandoned him or might even turn out to have helped kill him. There is no indication that those guys are actually loyal to him.

4 minutes ago, Fist of the Dragon said:

Incompetent leader? I disagree. Even deserving leaders fail.

Last I looked Abe Lincoln wasn't murdered by his Vice President. Any leader who suffers that fate was incompetent as hell - first for not foreseeing this, second for antagonizing a close colleague like that.

A genuine seer literally tells Jon Snow in his first chapter in ADwD that the men closest to him plot his death. And he literally does nothing. He doesn't watch them, doesn't investigate this thing, doesn't take precautions to protect himself better. He is a moron. And what makes it worse is that both his own policies as well as his communication strategy causes Bowen Marsh and company to move against him.

And now he is dead. And only magic will get him back into the game.

13 minutes ago, sifth said:

Hey, you’re making me think Dany will probably be evil in the end, with every post you make. You’re making her sound like Light from Death Note. Who cares if she kills thousands or even millions since they’re all wink wink “bad people”. 

Again, it ain't her job to be the babysitter of the Astapori. Next people blame the French or British or American for Hitler because, you know, they didn't occupy and properly take care of Germany back after World War I.

5 minutes ago, sifth said:

Yet she’s shocked when her kangaroo government she created for Astapor failed. I mean it’s one of the main reasons she chooses to stay in Meereen. 

Why shouldn't she be shocked if former slaves end up wanting to restore the old slavers to power?

10 minutes ago, sifth said:

I mean the Iron Born are scum. So if your comparing what she did to Astapor to their actions, is not putting Dany in a very bright light.

She was doing a sack there, and not taking over the rule of the city. So that Astapor suffered later is the fault of the morons who remained behind. Remember that lots of freed slaves, etc. had the chance to join her - like Missandei did. The bulk of the folks who suffered in Astapor are slaver scum and former slaves like Cleon who thought they were better off on their own.

Daenerys Targaryen owed them nothing ... but she still feels guilty about abandoning them in ADwD.

Her goal was never to rule Slaver's Bay, so if you judge her there judge her as a raider, as the general of an army marching through and living off the land, taking what she wants and needs ... and by that standard she was very successful, even more so when dealing with Yunkai and then Meereen. Part of the reason her rule of Meereen doesn't work well is because she switches policies in the middle of the campaign, turning from a raider to conqueror and and ruler.

But even that only becomes a problem because she wants to be nice and peaceful, doesn't what to antagonize the slaver scum further.

25 minutes ago, sifth said:

Did Dany leave anyone to defend Astapor? Did she leave one of her generals to rule over it in her name? What about an army or some peacekeeping force? She found a bunch of people she thought were smart, left them no army to defend themselves and said "good luck".

That has nothing to do with her rule. She didn't conquer the place, she just sacked it. It is like saying the Ironborn are responsible for the coastal regions they raid. Not Dany's problem if the people cannot properly rule themselves.

Jon is not really dumb, but he is an unwilling and thus incompetent leader. The guy wins the election by a landslide and is then assassinated by one of his closest associates shortly thereafter. He failed to inspire loyalty in his own men. Which means failed as a leader in a very spectacular fashion. He wasn't assassinated by some outsider lunatic, but by the guy who was effectively his second-in-command.

Dany's mistakes are not even remotely in the same league. In ADwD her only mistake is her desire for peace - not the way she communicates or interacts with her own people. Her weakness is her own desire, not the way she communicates it. Unlike Jon, she always had the means and assets to triumph - she just chose not to use them. She also doesn't surround herself with advisors whose opinions she knows in advance and whose input she ignores.

Whenever she did use them in the past she showed a striking understanding of power and strategy. She also makes lonely decisions, at times, but hers are instinctively the right decisions.

Jon shows that he is an anti-intellectual with little imagination in ADwD, unfortunately. I wanted to scream at the asshole when he reveals he literally didn't listen to Sam's historical lecture. Being a leader doesn't fit with 'I want to be a super swordsman and train in the yard hours each day, pretending I also work as master-at-arms'. You get the vibe that he is Jaehaerys to Dany's Alysanne - she got the brains while he is much more conventional.

Dany clearly has an intuitive understanding of languages. She might not be formally educated but she is smart as hell. Jon was portrayed as smarter and deeper than Robb back in the day ... but somehow that wasn't exactly transferred well (or at all) to ADwD.

2 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Viserys allowed two major factions to form at court, going so far as to bring back Ser Otto Hightower as Hand after the death of Lord Lyonel Strong - the same Ser Otto he fired as Hand because Ser Otto could not seem to stop pushing for Prince Aegon to be named Heir over Rhaenyra. This allowed the Greens to take power in the Red Keep and fill the Small Council with their allies who would eventually launch the coup after his death to put Aegon on the Throne (RIP to the loyal and true Lord Beesbury). At least Robert never brought Tywin in as his Hand.

It is true that Viserys made crucial mistakes ... but he only had two factions at his court and they were two branches of his own family. Robert fueled divisions and strife both within his family with overly generous and (apparently) unjust gifts (Storm's End to Renly, Dragonstone to Stannis) as well as between the great houses of Stark and Lannister - something Viserys never did.

And as I said he also closed to eyes to the festering wounds left by his own rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion. He set up the Realm to disintegrate and explode upon his death. When Robert dies three Baratheon pretenders try to claim the throne, two secessionist kings stand up ... and the Targaryen loyalists sharp their knifes to bring the old dynasty back.

(I'd be not so keen to claim that Otto staffed the Small Council with Green lackeys. They turned Green when the king died, but we don't know where they stood before. Keep in mind that Cole and his KG escorted them at swordpoint to the queen's apartments ... and they then did kill Beesbury there, apparently.)

2 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Viserys kept enabling this brother Daemon, forgiving Daemon time and time again, and always trying to make Daemon a part of his government. In turn Daemon loathed Otto Hightower - an other person Viserys could not just seem to quit bringing back into the fold - and their feud divided the court and was a major factor in developing the factors that begat the Green/Black factions. 

That was a comparatively small issue. He behaves like an asshole, but he never does anything unforgivable. Daemon is effectively no political factor after Rhaenyra is declared Heir Apparent. He only comes back as a real player when he marries Rhaenyra in 120 AC. Then it certainly adds to the animosity between Blacks and Greens but it doesn't cause it.

2 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Viserys also turned a blind eye to the fact that Rhaenyra was cheating on her husband.

Since Laenor did that, too, or encouraged it, forced her to do it, whatever ... this is a non issue. I mean, do you think the king should defend the honor of a man who is fine with having an open marriage? To Laenor in book and show Rhaenyra's sons are his own. That is only their business, especially since royal blood is transferred from mother to son there. This is not Cersei passing Jaime's children for Robert's.

2 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Viserys had a lot in common with Robert and he also did nothing to heal the divisions in his court, in fact he enabled them by constantly forgiving the men causing them and bringing them back into his circle of power so that they might continue to chip away at the illusion of peace and happiness he wanted to preserve. 

Robert was not forced to bring in Ned as Hand - who wasn't a member of his own family. To demand that Viserys kill or severely punish his wife, daughter, brother or other close kin is too much. That would have undermined his rule, too, turning him into a tyrant or monster in the eye of the public. Not to mention that it wouldn't have helped resolve the issues at hand.

Bringing back Otto as Hand was certainly a big mistake - but perhaps only in hindsight. The way Otto is portrayed in the show makes it clear why Viserys may have thought he could trust the man. They were friends, Otto was his father-in-law, and he himself had originally pushed Viserys to make Rhaenyra the heir.

Robert also trusted his buddy Ned ... never expected the man to forge his last will and try to make Stannis king instead of Joffrey.

Cersei cannot even be remotely like Robert because she cannot go out drinking and whoring with the boys now, or can she? It is joke to compare the ability a male lord/king has to win the hearts of his subjects and the ways to win love a woman has.

There are similarities, although they are rather intentional on her. Like many an abused victim Cersei wants to try out rape herself ... and does it with Taena. That is more tragic than evil. The stress makes her drink more, but that is understandable, too. Robert is just an alcoholic for no reason, Cersei ends up drinking more wine that's good for her because she lost her son (apparently murdered by her own brother in front of her) and then also her father to that same brother.

She has a good excuse to resort to rather draconian measures. One wonders what Robb would do if Bran had murdered his son and then also put a bolt in Ned's gut. Sometimes it is good to shoot first and ask questions later.

Cersei still shoots the wrong people, of course, but she is surrounded by traitors and conspirators who want to destroy her. Her methods are correct, she just uses them against the wrong people.

13 hours ago, SilverGhost said:

Robert was a mediocre King in the mold of Viserys I, the realm had peace and prosperity for the most part but a willful ignorance towards serious issues and ambitious bad actors meant war and chaos upon the death of the King. Without the Rebellion Robert would be another boisterous, lusty, Lord of Storm's End who loved a good fight - which is pretty much the description you'd find next to "historical Baratheon" in a weird dictionary. 

Nope, Robert is much worse. Viserys I only problem is the succession issue - Robert was a spendthrift who not only emptied a full treasury but indebted the Crown to multiple (foreign) creditors. Robert also blatantly cultivated factionalism to the highest degree at his court. He put both his brothers into positions where they could easily become pretenders for the throne, he did nothing to check the ambitions of his wife and his wife's family ... and he gave the Realm a Hand who was totally at odds with his wife. It was a recipe for disaster. Viserys did nothing of this sort.

In addition he did nothing to heal the festering wounds that were left both after his own rebellion as well as the Greyjoy Rebellion. Targaryens in exile, their loyalists in Westeros and the Ironborn continued to sharpen their knives while he was looking the other way.

Robert is like a paper shield hiding the rot of a kingdom that's about to disintegrate completely.

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Are we considering the Middle Ages and Renaissance as two different things? Because most of the women in renaissance painting are pudgy by our standards. (For what it’s worth, I thought Viserys was still kind of pudgy for the first few episodes, even if he wasn’t as plump as in the books. It wasn’t until his health started rapidly deteriorating that he became all skin and bones).

Ran would be thinking of 12-13th century courtly love there. Which is but a tiny fraction of medieval literature which was popular only for a short time. And even there and to contemporay romance literature men and women are marked more by clothes and attire than their physical figures. My favorite example for this is the Nibelungenlied.

My issue is basically that is very childish to assume a jealousy issue over fatness would be a thing between Rhaenyra and Alicent. That is a silly modernistic discourse. Ditto with Eustace's fatshaming.

Rhaenyra is the Targaryen mother of the century, producing five strong sons, more than any other Targaryen but the wife of Daemon Blackfyre. Realistically, Alicent should jealous of that, not Rhaenyra of Alicent's slender body.

What could have been a great jealousy angle for book and show is if Rhaenyra felt Alicent stole the love of the people from her, if over time, Alicent was able to make herself more popular with nobles and commoners alike. That could have hurt Rhaenyra who could have shown a more brittle, less accommodating attitude as she grow older. Not Stannis, of course, but more like him than Margaery.

But the biggest issue is the worldbuilding which would give people other priorities. And we kind of see it with Cat judging Jeyne's hips.

51 minutes ago, SilverGhost said:

On secondary and tertiary characters it risks doing what GOT did with a good number of interesting secondary characters, either not adapting them or giving them a half-heart representation on screen that goes nowhere and removes what made the characters interesting in the first place. I am pretty sure what they will do -- just hoping that is doesn't backfire like in the latter seasons of GOT.

The Dance just lacks arcs and character development. The writers have to make up motivation, nuance, tragedy. Just take the Two Betrayers. Villains without depth in the book. The show has to make them work.

51 minutes ago, SilverGhost said:

As for the deaths, Hobart's death might seem dumb to the reader but the text gives it a bit of drama and respect. 

One kind of gets it why they would want to off them while they were undermining Daeron and the absent Aegon II ... but then Hugh and Daeron are dead and with Ulf they could have taken the throne. Poison could have been queen a fortnight later ... or a blow on the head of a drunken fool.

That move is just nonsensical.

As is Daemon-Aemond or only Rhaenys at Rook's Rest. What were the Blacks thinking? That the Green dragonriders won't fly to war?

Or take Rhaenyra leaving all her prisoners in KL when she flees. Absolutely nonsensical.

The Dance has powerful scenes but it is just style. There is little to no motivational substance there. Especially since the noble sacrifice shtick is overused. Rhaenys does it, Daemon might or it is just murder-suicide, Baela tries it, Addam does it.

5 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

So... Creatively it'll make sense because he wants it to happen?

Obviously ... like with all the children heroes.

Just now, Angel Eyes said:

Given Martin's emphasis on realism in the books, it's surprising he'd be so lax with logistics. Something else the show copied over.

Not all the logistics, just the ones he doesn't care about.

I mean, have you ever thought how the hell the Targaryens could feed their many dragons in winter? How much meat they would have to waste on those beasts while many Westerosi starved in winter? How much would just Balerion have to eat per day?

The idea that Dany's gigantic army couldn't be moved because of 'logistics' is nonsense. If the plot demands that they go to Westeros, they will. And it seems that this is the point of Dany's plot because if she was supposed to go to Westeros with a small army or no army we would not see her gaining more and more strength.

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

But they landed scattered all over the place not in one cohesive unit.

Because they were dependent on the Volantenes. But the point here is that George didn't even care to portray how this happened - it just did. He doesn't give shit about logistics. But he also made it clear the infrastructure to move a lot of people is there, ripe for the taking. Volantis arranged transport for the Golden Company only by way of using merchant ships. The Volantene navy didn't partake in that at all. And that's just one Free City. Dany might end up controlling all Free Cities on the mainland ... and she will have the Iron Fleet and whatever ships her people secure in Slaver's Bay.

Dany is likely to control her fleet and ensure her armada lands (for the most part) at the desired destination.

The idea with the Dothraki is not so much that Dany will actually move all of them ... but she could do it if she were forced to do it. The very fact that she is likely going to be the god-empress of all the Dothraki should cow her enemies into submission because if her enemies force her she could throw wave after wave of Dothraki against them.

The notion that Dany can be defeated in the field is very unlikely.