Was Aegon I Targaryen a Violent Psychopath?

[darkdude103]

Accidental post spam delete please

[darkdude103]

Accidental post spam if a mod could delete this item would be great

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

Being raised by a shrink, I know the clinical definitions but usually tend to adapt to the laymen generalities as I rarely feel those raising the point are trying to arrive at a clinical diagnosis of the subject. This is even more true for fictional characters who will never be made available for sufficient exploration.

Not to say I can't be a pedant at times, God knows I can. But I rarely dig in on it for too long without feeling guilty, as the principle here is much more about communicating ideas than upholding conventions.

Edit: in general I agree. I find our community oddly selective. Slavery wrong, blood-based absolute power right. Rape justification wrong, murder justification right. Etc. We're awful arbitrary.

Definitely agree with the sentiment that many people seem fairly selective concerning moral judgments in the stories.

[The Mountain That Flies]

I was definitely aiming to discuss the morality of his actions, and the requisite lack of empathy to commit them more than identifying a particular mental health condition that he is showing signs of. Obviously we can't have a psychologist put Aegon on the bench... The thrust of this post was to view his actions rationally, and not through the fog of propaganda and glory which surrounds him.

That said, he was anti-social. He was only close to Orrys and Rhaenys, and even then, he was constantly traveling around the realm, staying away from home and his wives and court, almost like he was avoiding them. Women were drawn to him, yes, but he didn't connect with any of them. All of thes reasonable things he did while governing - adopting the local customs and religion, allowing areas which did not resist more freedom, etc - can be chalked up to rational expediency as opposed to any kind of human emotion or kindness. It's open for interpretation. He seems fairly cold blooded and ruthless.

In regards to his morality, it is possible he believed united under one ruler Westeros would suffer from far less wars (which were incredibly common in the pre-Targ times). Obviously that is a very naive way of thinking, especially when inter-Targ fights come into the equation, but at a purely rational level a unified country should have less conflict.

Also, saying a leader is anti-social is a bit unfair, since as we see from Jon in Dance and Robb during much of the war someone in a high position needs to keep a certain distance, as they need to think at a rational level and not let personal preferences or desire to protect friends get in the way of the pack. The man had to travel to make sure his new kingdom was kept in order, and he didn't connect with any women because he already had the love of his life (Rhaenys), and only accepted a second wife out of duty. And a real psychopath would have chucked rational expediency aside once things were settled down and tried to impose his own (Valyrian) ideologies, which Aegon did not do.

In short, Aegon was not a psychopath, nor was he strictly amoral. Hell, he had people encouraging him to commit genocide against the Iron Islands when they were in turmoil, and he decided against it. We know he loved at least Rhaenys, and as has been said psychological profiles depend a lot on the environment someone is raised in. We have no instances of Aegon abusing his power for his own enjoyment, and he didn't even seem to enjoy ruling very much, since he left most of that up to Orys and his sisters.

Finally, there was a theory I saw on the boards recently that suggested Aegon was sterile (Aenys being the product of Rhaenys having many male "admirers" and Maegor being created by Visenya from dark magic). if that were true, it could mean Aegon's real desire for invading Westeros was to create a legacy for himself, since he would never be able to leave a biological one. Just a thought.

[The Dragons Hand]

No. He was a Conqueror and he was a King. A unified Westeros was the goal and he had the means to do it, perhaps I'm light on him because I would've done the same. Then again I consider myself to have a higher level of psychopathy than most people, so it's not so encouraging.

[Maid So Fair]

Cutting someone in the face to prove a point is one thing, cutting someone in the face with friggin Valyrian sword I would say is a little overboard.....

Cutting someone with Valyrian steel is the sensible choice as a clean cut is easier to treat and will heal faster.

[SweetPea]

It's practically the morale of the story: when the high lords play their game of thrones, it's the small folk who pay the price. Some people are totally not getting that.

I think we get that, we just don't think Aegon was any more cruel than all the other kings who went to war for power. At least I don't. From the time the First Men appeared in Westeros up until Aegon's Conquest, lords and kings were fighting and killing each other to gain power. Same goes for Aegon, only he had dragons. I'm not arguing what he did was right, I'm just saying that he wasn't particularly more cruel and violent than others in that time.

[James Arryn]

I think we get that, we just don't think Aegon was any more cruel than all the other kings who went to war for power. At least I don't. From the time the First Men appeared in Westeros up until Aegon's Conquest, lords and kings were fighting and killing each other to gain power. Same goes for Aegon, only he had dragons. I'm not arguing what he did was right, I'm just saying that he wasn't particularly more cruel and violent than others in that time.

Power people tend to be people about power. I think they'd often test off the scales for a lot of negative qualities. It's like how CEO's test off the charts for various pathologies. To say 'not worse than most CEO's' may or may not mean much.

[TimJames]

The basis for Ageon being "a violent psychopath" seems to stem from the idea that invading another country solely out of a desire to expand territory is automatically wrong.

I will have to contest this view.

I would argue that Ageon's invasion of Westros did more good than harm. Seven kingdoms which previously were at each other's throats are now united under a single ruler. This means that they will be forced to interact peacefully and even to blend their cultures a bit. Ageon turned a split and contested region into a multicultural empire. Apart from internal strife, Westros has had much more peace than it had pre-conquest.

Now, some would argue that seven distinct culture groups should not be forced into one country; that the iron islanders are one people and should have their own country, that the same could be said for the Northmen and so forth.

I completely disagree with this.

Having a separate culture does not give a group the right to independence. At the end of the day we are all humans, so its best different cultures start learning to get along sooner rather than later.

[James Arryn]

The basis for Ageon being "a violent psychopath" seems to stem from the idea that invading another country solely out of a desire to expand territory is automatically wrong.

I will have to contest this view.

I would argue that Ageon's invasion of Westros did more good than harm. Seven kingdoms which previously were at each other's throats are now united under a single ruler. This means that they will be forced to interact peacefully and even to blend their cultures a bit. Ageon turned a split and contested region into a multicultural empire. Apart from internal strife, Westros has had much more peace than it had pre-conquest.

Now, some would argue that seven distinct culture groups should not be forced into one country; that the iron islanders are one people and should have their own country, that the same could be said for the Northmen and so forth.

I completely disagree with this.

Having a separate culture does not give a group the right to independence. At the end of the day we are all humans, so its best different cultures start learning to get along sooner rather than later.

Gotta say, promoting invasion as a way for cultures to get along better is Olympic level gymnastics. Impressed.

[The Onion Kniggit]

Cutting someone with Valyrian steel is the sensible choice as a clean cut is easier to treat and will heal faster.

One small misstep from Egg and he'll have a nice half Glasglow smile

[JonCon's Red Beard]

You all lack ambition and vision. Wait for me to get dragons and hypogriffs... and two hot husbands who are not my brothers, because they aren't hot. My cousins are ok, though...

[TimJames]

Gotta say, promoting invasion as a way for cultures to get along better is Olympic level gymnastics. Impressed.

In the Testament of Alexander, one of the plans he had was to intermix eastern cultures with greek culture so as to combine the best of both. Many other plans he had included public works projects as ambitious as his campaign is: this implies that Alexander the Great intended to make his Empire better than the sum of its parts.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Testament

And I'm not blanket promoting invasion, I'm simply stating that invasion is not intrinsically evil as some people seem to think it is.

Ageon never sent ethic or culture groups to death camps, he never forced the people of Westros to worship the Valyrian Gods, he never stood by and allowed a famine to kill millions of members of an ethnic group.

Ageon was a just ruler by any measuring stick.

[Maid So Fair]

One small misstep from Egg and he'll have a nice half Glasglow smile

Apparently, Visenya is more than proficient in the exquisite art of the Valyrian sword.

[James Arryn]

In the Testament of Alexander, one of the plans he had was to intermix eastern cultures with greek culture so as to combine the best of both. Many other plans he had included public works projects as ambitious as his campaign is: this implies that Alexander the Great intended to make his Empire better than the sum of its parts.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Testament

And I'm not blanket promoting invasion, I'm simply stating that invasion is not intrinsically evil as some people seem to think it is.

Ageon never sent ethic or culture groups to death camps, he never forced the people of Westros to worship the Valyrian Gods, he never practiced slavery, and he seemed to rule rather justly.

p

Swear to God, I almost mentioned Hellenism as the exception that proves the rule. That said, most experts believe that it was incedental; the Macedonians themselves (him excepted, which may have hastened his death) had no interest in a profusion of cultures, and once Alexander died all positions of authority rested firmly in Macedonian/Greek hands. Culture distribution had more to do with a breakdown of Greek collectivism plus greeks in far flung corners of Alexandria on the whatever wanted to reconstruct a bit of home. The Asians who adapted largely did so reluctantly and quite slowly.

Anyways, awesome that you mentioned it; one of my favourite eras, and am toying with the idea of writing a semi-fantasy on that model (fused a bit with Sengoku Japan and Napoleonic Europe.)

[Hodor the Articulate]

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.

If you insist on continuing to call him that, then you don't see where I'm coming from at all. The reason that so many replies to this thread are about Aegon's psychopathy (or lack thereof) is that you've reduced a character into a single label, one which you've set your own arbitrary definition for.

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.

Even in this very post, you're not debating about war; you're just arguing that Aegon is amoral or violent or some other subjective term. It rubs me the wrong way, because it's just one facet of the character, and is only prevalent in certain contexts.

[The silver dragon]

i took the psychopathy test. (out of mere curiosity)

i scored a 6 on it. (6 to 12 being sane) (18 and up being not so sane.)

if given the choice to do what aegon did, i would definitely do it, no doubt about it.

so he was not a psychopath.

Violent? he lived in the freaking medieval era of course he's Violent.

are you seriously telling me you would not be violent if you lived in westeros???

[Cookiesbane]

In addition to what everyone else, the context should not be ignored. If Aegon lived in 2015 US he might have attempted an aggressive stock purchase of Westeros Inc. But in the feudal world we are talking about fire and blood were the tools of the trade. We cannot use the current mindset and morality standards to draw conclusions on the personalities and judge the actions of people that act in a completely different setting.

[Durran Durrandon]

I think the Bush Doctrine has had a direct impact on his storyline, not joking.

I see this pretty clearly with Daenerys' arc. Whatever one thinks of Bush's motivations, we see in Daenery's point of view a clear motivation to do good and how badly that gets subverted by freed people picking bad leadership and insurgents trying to restore the old regime.

[shmewdog]

When Aegon invaded Westeros it was fragmented into regional kingdoms that constantly warred with each other. After the Conquest Westeros was one kingdom that constantly warred with other kingdoms (see Dorne) as well as several civil wars among Targs.

Take your pick. Both seem pretty terrible honestly.