Historical Parallels: General Hannibal & Prince Aegon

[Narea]

Yeah, because Aegon has tantrums all the times.

Well, I can't judge him based on how he acts off page, can I ?

Have you actually read the last chapter of ADWD? Where Varys explains how Aegon's been raise to believe ruling is his duty and how he's been trained overall to be a better King then the last 4?

Ehm...I don't know, but Varys seems to be either in complete denial regarding Aegon or misinformed in the epilogue (or he could be just gloating to Kevan and thus not telling the truth). He pretty much describes Aegon to be without a fault and an ideal king which, as we can see from his interactions with Tyrion and even from JonCon's reflections, is not exactly true.

[Sansa's Bad Memory]

Yeah, because Aegon has tantrums all the times.

Have you actually read the last chapter of ADWD? Where Varys explains how Aegon's been raise to believe ruling is his duty and how he's been trained overall to be a better King then the last 4?

I think it's a short trip from fAegon thinking of "duty" as "right". He is a brat.

[KingBlackfyre]

I think it's a short trip from fAegon thinking of "duty" as "right". He is a brat.

To be fair he has only one tantrum and that is when Tyrion is deliberately goading him to see if there's a response even Robb Stark wouldn't have taken that. He also orders JonCon to save Tyrion's life when he could have easily let him drown, he also values the loyalty of his men as shown by appointing Duck to the KG. He is daring as shown by his invasion of Westeros and brave as shown by his insitence to lead the attack on SE. He is charismatic as he convinced the GC to follow his plan to invade Westeros and intelligent as shown by the lessons of the Half maester, eager to listen to advice as shown by Tyrion and JON COn but does not blindly follow it as shown when he goes against Strickland's advice. All in all he has a lot of potential but we haven't seen him enough to make a full assesment.

[Sansa's Bad Memory]

It seems that GRRM doesn't put a lot of "fluff" into his writing, so I wonder why he wrote that fAegon was taught a very sharp lesson and reacted in the manner he did. He threw a fit. And looking at the boards it seems like a 50/50 split of people believing him to be a brat vs. his reaction being acceptable. So, we will have to agree to disagree on fAegon. But, I'm looking forward to you being right. I think it would be a better story to cheer for two dragons when only 1 can rule.

[King of Winters]

Well, I can't judge him based on how he acts off page, can I ?

Ehm...I don't know, but Varys seems to be either in complete denial regarding Aegon or misinformed in the epilogue (or he could be just gloating to Kevan and thus not telling the truth). He pretty much describes Aegon to be without a fault and an ideal king which, as we can see from his interactions with Tyrion and even from JonCon's reflections, is not exactly true.

As KingBlackfyre said, Tyrion deliberately made Aegon angry to see how he'd react. And Tyrion got what he wanted, to see if he could be a Targ, or have the Targ traits.

He's not saying he's without fault, but that whole speech is him saying "Aegon will be a better king at leading and ruling than the last 4, who had no clue how to".

[The King in Black]

That is how I would've liked him and his story to turn out if he is to make even an ounce of contribution to the story.

[Lion of the West]

Great write-up, though I always associated Hannibal with Robb.

Me too. I also thought that Robb and Hannibal had many paralels.

[SeanF]

I can't see much of a parallel at this point. It depends how his story turns out.

[Lord Thaeglei of Frostpyre]

I have always thought the fAegon was inspired by Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond who was exiled in France and upon the dissolution of the Lancastrian claimants sailed for England to claim the throne as he was a member of the last Lancastrian claimant being born born from the bastard line of the royal House of Lancaster..

What is interesting is that Henry Tudor later married Elizabeth of York to legitimized his claim, Elizabeth being the eldest daughter of the Yorkist king Edward IV..

I have also read somewhere that Elizabeth of York was the basis for the character of Sansa Stark, which may be a foreshadowing of a possible marriage between the two..

fAegon Targaryen already has the Stormlands support, has friends in the Reach and the possibly the full support of Dorne,it being his supposed mother's homeland..

Sansa Stark on the other hand is the widely believed lawful heir to the North, heiress presumptive to the Riverlands and first cousin to the Lord of the Vale..

[John Doe]

If Davos brings Rickon back in time, the North will belong to Rickon, not to Sansa, though. I would say Arianne seems more likely for me, but maybe she doesn't want to give up her claim on Dorne.

[James Arryn]

Hannibal's in my top 3, and I thank you for the comparison. Not sure I agree on all elements, but will get into that more.

First I would like to address the idea of Saguntum/starting the war.

The Ebro treaty was very clear; territory south of the river was Carthaginian domain. Rome later unilaterally decided that it was her concern as part of a general push towards a resumption of hostilities; Sardinia had already been occupied in another violation of the treaty. Basically think back to the U.S. before the invasion of Iraq. War had been decided on but Rome wanted (as always) to seem to be responding to aggression rather than being aggressive, and like with Saddam they were constantly pushing and making demands no state with any desire for autonomy could accede to and retain strategic integrity. The reasoning was similar, too; Rome was not monochromatic, and the argument for war had to be won before the war itself. As with practically every Imperial power in history, Rome's expansion was a series of aggressive conflicts sold as self-defence.

By the time of Saguntum, it seems clear that Hannibal was either willing to respond in kind or had determined that Rome would keep pushing until Carthage broke, so he would choose the breaking point.

[Dimples]

Both have the need to avenge their fathers and complete a task, Hannibal's is to burn Rome to the ground as he promised his father and Aegon's is to retake the throne for his father. They each want blood revenge for their families. Actually it is said Hamilcar made Hannibal promise to "never be a friend of Rome." Due to potential translation errors, it's very possible he actually meant "never be subservient to Rome." Much different from burning Rome to the ground.

We've seen Aegon is headstrong and is known to want to lead the attack against Storm's End, Hannibal also lead his men from the front and in the middle as he did in the Battle of Cannae, to encourage his men to fight when they saw him leading his men from the front. Hannibal didn't usually lead from the front. He was more like Stannis-commanding from the rear, where he can see the battle unfold. At Cannae he was in the middle, to encourage the most vulnerable part of his battle line, but it's quite unlikely that he lead from the front.

Taking on the theory that Aegon will help Oldtown defeat the Ironborn in a surprise attack and House Hightower will join Aegon after no help from KL, Hannibal attacked the Spanish city of Saguntum, an ally of Rome, who called for help from Rome, but no help was sent. Though in this case Hannibal was the one attacking the city, not saving it like Aegon. Rome's alliance with Saguntum was in clear violation of the earlier Ebro treaty, and Rome was encouraging the Saguntines to provoke Carthage. Rome was trying to provoke Carthage into striking first so that Rome wasn't painted as the aggressor. In this context the comparison to Aegon and Oldtown is very weak.

Lastly, Hannibal was successful in all of his battles with Rome and their allies, delivering some of the greatest defeats Rome had ever suffered, yet he never truly fulfilled his goal of ultimately destroying Rome. This could also be applied to Aegon, who is though to gather many allies once on his campaign, but won't sit on the IT, due to Dany's arrival. Hannibal was far from entirely successful. Although the story of Zama is riddled with gaping holes, Hannibal suffered other, albeit minor, defeats. For example, he lost thrice at the town of Nola to Marcus Claudius Marcellus. Additionally, as I stated earlier, Hannibal's goal wasn't to raze Rome to the ground, but rather to weaken them so they wouldn't be the powerful warmongers they showed themselves to be.

Just some friendly nitpicking OP.

[kimim]

The problem here is that the world of Ice and Fire bears little resemblance to the World of Rome and Carthage. Most obviously, Carthage was not wiped out after the first Punic war; in Hannibal's lifetime, there was Rome, and there was Carthage, two independent, functioning entities. Also, unlike Aegon, Hannibal was no prince in exile. He was simply a brilliant Carthaginian general.

[King of Winters]

The problem here is that the world of Ice and Fire bears little resemblance to the World of Rome and Carthage. Most obviously, Carthage was not wiped out after the first Punic war; in Hannibal's lifetime, there was Rome, and there was Carthage, two independent, functioning entities. Also, unlike Aegon, Hannibal was no prince in exile. He was simply a brilliant Carthaginian general.

Yes, but just because ASOIAF is mainly inspired by the Medieval era, it doesn't mean that some histories, characters or areas can't be inspired by things other than The Middle Ages.

[King of Winters]

Just some friendly nitpicking OP.

Some historians believe it was life's aim to burn, or at least sack, Rome.

I know the rest, though concerning Hannibal leading from the back as Stannis does, I was using Cannae as an example of how Aegon could encourage his men by letting them see him lead them. Hannibal was facing a much larger Roman host, so it would also make sense if he did that to encourage his to keep fighting, so his plan works properly.

[kimim]

Yes, but just because ASOIAF is mainly inspired by the Medieval era, it doesn't mean that some histories, characters or areas can't be inspired by things other than The Middle Ages.

Aegon, if he survives long enough to turn general, might use some of Hannibal's strategies. atm, he is far from that. Right now, he is a young, exiled prince who hopes to reclaim his throne. We're not even fully sure if he is a Targaryen. What defines him is the mystery of his birth, rather than his ability as a general. In that, he is far closer to Perkin Warbeck than Hannibal.

[aryagonnakill#2]

I do see something of a Hannibal vs rome prospect upcoming if an unprepared Tyrell force is ambushed by elephants, but I think Robb is a great comparison to Hannibal already. Never lost a battle, but he couldn't figure out how to use his victories.

[King of Winters]

Aegon, if he survives long enough to turn general, might use some of Hannibal's strategies. atm, he is far from that. Right now, he is a young, exiled prince who hopes to reclaim his throne. We're not even fully sure if he is a Targaryen. What defines him is the mystery of his birth, rather than his ability as a general. In that, he is far closer to Perkin Warbeck than Hannibal.

Yes he may be at this point, but the mystery that's left won't be there for long.

[Dimples]

I was using Cannae as an example of how Aegon could encourage his men by letting them see him lead them.

That's a fair enough comparison.