Ramsay Gimp Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Really? It doesnt require a lack of empathy to up and decide to invade and conquer a whole continent with fire and blood? Really?Suare. But lacking empathy in certain contexts does not make one a psychopath. Do you think every soldier in war was a psycho too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isgrimner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Well with the knowledge that several of the Targaryens and at least one Blackfyre we have read about seemed to take prophesy seriously and several seemed to have prophetic dreams, I always thought that May have been the driving force behind Aegon's conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Did you read the definition I laid out above? I think he does meet all the requirements, at least to some extent. Compulsive lying? Recklessness? Lack of real personal relationships? Those don't apply to Aegon People can do evil things, and even be monsters, without having antisocial personality disorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrion Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Aegon was delusional and really thought he was doing things for better, and anyone challenging his vision deserved fire and blood. Not a psychopath, just incredibly and dangerously idealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Compulsive lying isn’t always a defining characteristic. Reckless, hell yes - his invasion resulted in the needless death of thousands. He did not have many relationships at all - his only friend Is Orys Baratheon. Again, one can become a sociopath through actions and experience - I am not saying Aegon was just unluckily born with a personality disorder. That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that he exhibited many of the characteristics of one, and I am saying that ALL PEOPLE who invade other countries in unprovoked acts of agression are severely lacking in empathy, and therefore, are sociopathic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greenseer Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I wouldn't call him a violent psychopath. I would call him greedy, ambitious, and a usurper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor the Articulate Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 not sure but it has nothing to do with invading a country and waging wholesale slaughter, now does it? If you’re not interested in psycho-analyzing Aegon the Conqueror, you’ve stumbled upon the wrong thread. If you don’t want to participate, don’t be a troll and go find a thread you like. You want me just be blunt? Alright...your premise is flawed because you don't know what the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" mean. There's more to psychoanalysis than just taking decontexualised behaviour (particularly if we only see a single display of it) and seeing if it matches a checklist on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the morality of war, then do that. You don't have to bastardise psych lingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Pseudo-analyzing is completely legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 No?The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.A lot of historians doubt if that quote is authentic.But, in any case, the characteristics of a psychopath are chronic selfishness, and a complete lack of empathy. Genghis Khan displayed immense generosity and loyalty to his family, friends, and followers. Those aren't the traits of a psychopath. He also displayed immense brutality towards those who resisted him.For all his ruthlessness, I don't think Aegon lacked empathy. In fact, he worked hard to win the confidence of his subjects. Cersei and LF seem far more obviously psychopathic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 You want me just be blunt? Alright...your premise is flawed because you don't know what the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" mean. There's more to psychoanalysis than just taking decontexualised behaviour (particularly if we only see a single display of it) and seeing if it matches a checklist on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the morality of war, then do that. You don't have to bastardise psych lingo. While I do see where you’re coming from, I am still asserting that you cannot decide to invade a foreign nation “with fire and blood” without being a psychopath. You really have to be totally disconnected from empathy to wage a war of aggression which is sure to result in the death s of thousands. And he didn’t just order it - he carried it out, in person, with vigor and relentless determination, bathing field after field castle after castle in fire. But to your point, what I am really wanting to debate is the morality or war, and not whether Aegon has a specific personality disorder. My overarching point it that he was an evil man, a butcher, who lusted for power and did not care how many people died to make it happen. I call that a psychopath - and again, it fits the definition. We have a lot more to go one that one action. But use whatever word you want - he was a violent, ruthless killer. He wasn't overly sadistic, but he’s certainly not a good guy by any conceivable standard. He’s remembered as a conquering hero but he was really just a butcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 A lot of historians doubt if that quote is authentic.But, in any case, the characteristics of a psychopath are chronic selfishness, and a complete lack of empathy. Genghis Khan displayed immense generosity and loyalty to his family, friends, and followers. Those aren't the traits of a psychopath. He also displayed immense brutality towards those who resisted him.For all his ruthlessness, I don't think Aegon lacked empathy. In fact, he worked hard to win the confidence of his subjects. Cersei and LF seem far more obviously psychopathic. That’s a good point. Those two fit the bill even more strongly. I have little doubt either would hesitate to burn everyone who resisted if they had dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Onion Kniggit Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Even if he were, he's still a long way from his younger son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even if he were, he's still a long way from his younger son. Maegor was a sadist, and fairly insane to boot. To whatever extent of any of this guys may have been a “psychopath,” I agree Maegor takes the cake. I’m just sort of noticing that Aegon wasn’t that much better - he wasn’t totally insane, or sadistic - but again, he BURNED TO DEATH anyone who refused his authority. So, at the least, he was a violent authoritarian and a mass killer... and I don’t think most people really look at him that way. That was the point of this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 He wanted to be the ruler of Westeros. Not much different than many politicians today, except they don't have dragons and they have to use different tactics like pretend they care about people and their rights. Wanting to be the leader of the gang is human nature. If I wanted to go after my boss position and I work really hard to get there, I'm a psychopath because I don't care about him/her and his/her feelings and don't play fair? No one wants to be on the bottom but at the top of the ladder. Some can, some others cannot. Aegon could because he owned game changing weapons. If he had gotten dolphins instead, his conquest would have ended up quite funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadow282 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Pseudo-analyzing is completely legitimate. Do you realize how utterly ridiculously contrary that is? It's like saying "He's a pathological liar, so we should take everything he says as absolutely true". Or "He's a kleptomaniac, so I feel perfectly safe leaving him alone in my house full of valuable stuff". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Onion Kniggit Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Maegor was a sadist, and fairly insane to boot. To whatever extent of any of this guys may have been a “psychopath,” I agree Maegor takes the cake. I’m just sort of noticing that Aegon wasn’t that much better - he wasn’t totally insane, or sadistic - but again, he BURNED TO DEATH anyone who refused his authority. So, at the least, he was a violent authoritarian and a mass killer... and I don’t think most people really look at him that way. That was the point of this post. To be honest, based on everything I've read in ASOIAF and TWOIAF I kinda get the feeling that Aegon was probably bullied and pussy whipped by his older sister throughout his life. It kinda explains why he is so distant to her and left most of the ruling to his sisters which given the fact that Rhaenys died like about 10 years into his reign as well as Orys' resignation means Visenya was doing most of the ruling for the remainder of his rule. Not to mention her making important decisions like choosing his OWN bodyguards as well as daring shit most queens wouldn't do, like cutting his face to prove a point. Maybe poor Aegon just has some sort of inferiority complex with his sibling and need to take it out on other people to make himself feel better? Wasn't it said that Aegon raised Aenys who was seems like a good chap albeit too much of a weakling while Visenya was the one who raised the monster that was Maegor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetPea Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 To be honest, based on everything I've read in ASOIAF and TWOIAF I kinda get the feeling that Aegon was probably bullied and pussy whipped by his older sister throughout his life. It kinda explains why he is so distant to her and left most of the ruling to his sisters which given the fact that Rhaenys died like about 10 years into his reign as well as Orys' resignation means Visenya was doing most of the ruling for the remainder of his rule. Not to mention her making important decisions like choosing his OWN bodyguards as well as daring shit most queens wouldn't do, like cutting his face to prove a point. Maybe poor Aegon just has some sort of inferiority complex with his sibling and need to take it out on other people to make himself feel better? I never felt that way while reading TWOIAF. For example, Visenya cutting his face proved a point: he needed better guards. The fact that he accepted it shows only one thing, that he is a sensible person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The Onion Knight. I doubt if he was dominated by Visenya to that extent (he made peace with Dorne against her wishes). But, she clearly was a very formidable personality. By marrying Maegor bigamously, she was effectivly asserting that she was Co-ruler of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Anyone who decides that naked might is enough justification to kill people and take their stuff is some shade of asshole. I'll not commit to the clinical description for it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Suare. But lacking empathy in certain contexts does not make one a psychopath. Do you think every soldier in war was a psycho too?Soldiers don't choose to launch an invasion of a foreign country. Soldiers enlist to defend their country; certainly mission creep means their mission may not also ways be so clean cut, but most soldiers don't enlist for the joy of invading another country (with few exceptions, such as the crusades, where they pulled people out of prison and gave them swords). Aegon I Targaryen CHOSE to invade Westeros, which resulted in thousands of deaths, rapes, orphans, starvation, and everything else that comes with war - everything that George has shown us happens to the small folk after a war, like the War of 5 Kings. The Kings play their game of thrones and the people die. The worst kings are those who start unnecessary wars. That's clearly one of the things George is saying to us - so I think we should look at all leaders in those terms. Aegon the Conqueror chose war, for the sole reason of consolidating power under his rule. He's just like every conquering leader - his motto is, "Obey me, or die." I think that's a really insane and violent thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.