Jump to content

Do you support the Greens or Blacks? Why?


teemo

Recommended Posts

No, that is not irrelevant or else there would be no Dance of Dragon. There is a reason why Randyll Tarly had to send Sam to the Wall instead of just naming Dickon his heir. There is a reason why Stannis considers Rhaenyra an usurper. Not for everyone King's word is the law. Aerys II showed that quite spectacularly.

Stannis is not nearly as just as some people make him out tobe.

He cites the law and that Joffrey and his ilk are 'abominations of incest', but the Targs constantly practised it and he says NOTHING bad about Aegon II who banged his sister to produce a couple of kids. He goes on and on about the laws of gods and men, yet he himself killed his brother. And also...this

Davos ignored the jibe. “I don’t doubt Lord Celtigar bent the knee to the boy Joffrey. He is an old done man, who wants no more than to end his days in his castle, drinking his fine wine out of his jeweled cups.” He turned back to Stannis. “Yet he came when you called, sire. Came, with his ships and swords. He stood by you at Storm’s End when Lord Renly came down on us, and his ships sailed up the Blackwater. His men fought for you, killed for you, burned for you. Claw Isle is weakly held, yes. Held by women and children and old men. And why is that? Because their husbands and sons and fathers died on the Blackwater, that’s why. Died at their oars, or with swords in their hands, fighting beneath our banners. Yet Ser Axell proposes we swoop down on the homes they left behind, to rape their widows and put their children to the sword.

These smallfolk are no traitors...”

“They are,” insisted Ser Axell. “Not all of Celtigar’s men were slain on the Blackwater.

Hundreds were taken with their lord, and bent the knee when he did.”

“When he did,” Davos repeated. “They were his men. His sworn men. What choice were they given?”

“Every man has choices. They might have refused to kneel. Some did, and died for it. Yet they died true men, and loyal.”

“Some men are stronger than others.” It was a feeble answer, and Davos knew it. Stannis Baratheon was a man of iron will who neither understood nor forgave weakness in others. I am losing, he thought, despairing.

“It is every man’s duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false,” Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.

A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. “As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?” he blurted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind, Stannis is speaking 170 years later. He may never have read any detailed history of the Dance of the Dragons. 170 years on, in the popular imagination, Rhaenyra was a usurper.

Archmaester Gyldayn's account is clear, however, that Rhaenyra was the King's heir for over 20 years. You can't usurp a Throne that you're the heir to.

:agree:

Blacks all the way. And unless I'm GREATLY mistaken, I don't think there is much proof that taking the throne was Aegon II's idea. It was a plot that many were wary of even before Viserys I died. The Hightowers usurped the throne, plain and simple.

Also I bleeping love Daemon.

Did Rhaenys choose peace? No, she wanted justice, and when she started losing, she double-downed like a hopeless gamblig addict. But at the same time, the whole thing was started by the Greens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like their dragons, the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men."

If that's enough to justify Viserys appointing Rhaenyra as heir, why it isn't enough for Aegon not to accept that appointment? The Targaryens answer to neither gods nor men after all... :rolleyes:

And Aerys was clearly right when he executed the Starks and ordered Ned and Bob to be beheaded. The Targaryens answer to neither gods nor men after all... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be on the wall...im a 3rd son.. but for the sake of discussion i would have sympathized with Aegon, A son is ALWAYS before a daughter

According to whom? If you mean in Westeros, then no - a son comes before a daughter in Andal law. Andal law also prohibits polygamy and sibling incest. The Targaryens weren't Andal, and didn't strictly follow Andal laws. If they did then the throne wouldn't have been passed to Viserys in the first place.

The Hightowers on the other hand did follow such laws, and cited them to justify crowning Aegon. But that had little and less to do with Aegon being "the rightful heir" and a lot more to do with Otto Hightower's long term plan to integrate his family into the extended royal family, by way of a half-Hightower monarch. (I believe he first hoped to do this using Daemon, but I've already mentioned that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to whom? If you mean in Westeros, then no - a son comes before a daughter in Andal law. Andal law also prohibits polygamy and sibling incest. The Targaryens weren't Andal, and didn't strictly follow Andal laws. If they did then the throne wouldn't have been passed to Viserys in the first place.

Also, there is really no Andal "law" since there's no "Andalos" anymore. There are Andal 'traditions". Even WOIAF only calls is a "precedent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there is really no Andal "law" since there's no "Andalos" anymore. There are Andal 'traditions". Even WOIAF only calls is a "precedent".

Yeah true. Most of the "laws" would have been based on precedent really, and precedent isn't binding.

If there had been a constitution or anything resembling an act of parliament declaring the laws of succession, then there'd have been no need for the coup. The whole reason Aegon II was crowned by his grandfather, mother and Ser Cole was because there was no such royal law of succession, and no guarantee that the realm wouldn't acknowledge Viserys' chosen heir as the rightful one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's enough to justify Viserys appointing Rhaenyra as heir, why it isn't enough for Aegon not to accept that appointment? The Targaryens answer to neither gods nor men after all... :rolleyes:

And Aerys was clearly right when he executed the Starks and ordered Ned and Bob to be beheaded. The Targaryens answer to neither gods nor men after all... :rolleyes:

1. Aegon felt like he deserved it more than his sister, largery because of his mom's machinations. This is very consistent with the Targs answering to neither gods nor men, simpy doing whatever the fuck they wanted out of a feeling of superiority

2. Your second argument is based on nothing cause I never said Aerys was in the right and quite frankly you bringing it up makes no sense, my point has always been that the Targs never held themselves to the standards of Andal law

3. It's been pointed out several times before that the Targs fucked brother and sister, engaged in polygamy and did all types of other shit that would get Jaime and Cersei (for instance) executed for what would be considered an affront to the gods, proving that Targs were allowed to do shit that others wont (which makes your Tyrion/Tywin argument invalid), I am done discussing this with you, if you just wanna keep ignoring the fact that the Targs coudl do all types of shit that others couldn't go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, the Dance was inevitable.

Do you know what would have happened if Aegon had ascended to the throne?

Daemon would have had him killed or made a play for the throne himself.

And with Rhaenyra's help, he would have succeeded.

It's made pretty clear from the texts that Viserys I essentially had two splintered families that he seen as one. In that sense it was inevitable. I do think he could have done a lot more to prevent the disharmony ever growing as string as it did, or taken steps to assure Rhaenyra's ascension. Essentially, it was inevitable because Viserys ignored the problem in front of him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Viserys had gone and changed the law Aliscent and Otto Hightower would have still crowned Aegon because they wanted the power.

The Dance was unavoidable when Viserys married into a family of power hungry treacherous assholes, they got theirs in the end tho.

There was no law. There's no law. None. Zero.

Also, the Dance would likely have been avoided if Rhaenyra had decided to spend her last trimester in King's Landing - just in case. Daddy Daemon would have been there to keep an eye on everyone too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Viserys had gone and changed the law Aliscent and Otto Hightower would have still crowned Aegon because they wanted the power.

The Dance was unavoidable when Viserys married into a family of power hungry treacherous assholes, they got theirs in the end tho.

Otto couldn't have crowned anyone if he hadn't been recalled to the capital and restored as HOTK after Lyonel Strong's death. At that point he should have appointed Rhaenyra or Daemon as his Hand - the former would be the better option, most likely.

I think he should also have fostered his children with houses that had already pledged to uphold Rhaenyra as the heir - effectively have them squire etc for her loyalists. It might not have changed how Aegon and Aemond turned out, but I think it may have. (And it would also have instantly meant Daeron as a hostage at the start of any war.)

Rhaenyra's glaring error at the start was assuming that Borros Baratheon would uphold Boremund's pledge to support her. Perhaps she should already have betrothed Joffrey, Aegon or Viserys to one of Borros' daughters - again, this is something Viserys himself could have done.

Viserys towards the end of his reign seems a lot like Robert Baratheon in some ways. He's focused more on feasts and tourneys than the governance of the realm, and has allowed his in-laws control of the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, the Dance was inevitable.

Do you know what would have happened if Aegon had ascended to the throne?

Daemon would have had him killed or made a play for the throne himself.

And with Rhaenyra's help, he would have succeeded.

I disagree. And I think Martin would too. I don't think it's a matter of inevitability. If nothing else, it's a fascinating look at how success can breed contempt and "righteous causes do not equal peace and prosperity". The fact that all this suffering comes as a result of Jaeherys I being a terrific King, and having a large healthy, well connected family is a bitter bitter irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Aerys was clearly right when he executed the Starks and ordered Ned and Bob to be beheaded. The Targaryens answer to neither gods nor men after all... :rolleyes:

Well, there's a big difference, Aerys didn't have something that his ancestors had. Fire breathing dragons can make people accept a lot that they wouldn't otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. And I think Martin would too. I don't think it's a matter of inevitability. If nothing else, it's a fascinating look at how success can breed contempt and "righteous causes do not equal peace and prosperity". The fact that all this suffering comes as a result of Jaeherys I being a terrific King, and having a large healthy, well connected family is a bitter bitter irony.

"Too many dragons are as dangerous as too few, I heard His Grace tell my lord father..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. And I think Martin would too. I don't think it's a matter of inevitability. If nothing else, it's a fascinating look at how success can breed contempt and "righteous causes do not equal peace and prosperity". The fact that all this suffering comes as a result of Jaeherys I being a terrific King, and having a large healthy, well connected family is a bitter bitter irony.

Yep, and it is the other side of the coin to Aerys' madness, and shows that in the long ultimately the monarchy isn't a concept that can't generate peace and success for too long;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to whom? If you mean in Westeros, then no - a son comes before a daughter in Andal law. Andal law also prohibits polygamy and sibling incest. The Targaryens weren't Andal, and didn't strictly follow Andal laws. If they did then the throne wouldn't have been passed to Viserys in the first place.

The Hightowers on the other hand did follow such laws, and cited them to justify crowning Aegon. But that had little and less to do with Aegon being "the rightful heir" and a lot more to do with Otto Hightower's long term plan to integrate his family into the extended royal family, by way of a half-Hightower monarch. (I believe he first hoped to do this using Daemon, but I've already mentioned that.)

I would be on the wall...im a 3rd son.. but for the sake of discussion i would have sympathized with Aegon, A son is ALWAYS before a daughter

mainly i meant it, in that boys are better than girls and should be favored :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...