Jump to content

Archived

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

dantares83

Aegon II and Aegon III

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

[snip]

I agree with you about the logistics of everything, to be honest. I just don't think that a lot of the Greens had the legality of everything 100% in mind, so it's more circumstantial that I think Jaehaera's claim would be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon III didn't kill the dragons, they just died during his reign. He was afraid of the creatures since he witnessed the death of his mother (and possibly his only flight wasn't so great an experience or either) and that caused the rumors that he was responsible.

But Yandel actually told us that Aegon III gave Viserys leave to bring the Nine Mages to Westeros to try to hatch some dragon eggs after the last dragon had died. That in itself is a clue that Aegon III had nothing to do with the death of the dragons.

It is much more likely that the Citadel was behind that - and possibly even behind the Storming of the Dragonpit. Grand Maester Munkun - the only regent to serve throughout the entire Regency of Aegon III and at one point being the sole remaining regent, the Hand, and the Grand Maester - was ideally positioned to put a plan in motion to poison the dragons.

The Shepherd was behind the storming, I think. But I can imagine it was a general feeling among the common folk, I mean who likes to see those beasts fly above them every day? Lol...can't feel very pleasant. They know that accidents can happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Valens said:

The Shepherd was behind the storming, I think. But I can imagine it was a general feeling among the common folk, I mean who likes to see those beasts fly above them every day? Lol...can't feel very pleasant. They know that accidents can happen...

The Shepherd was behind that, yes. But who was the Shepherd?

And how did this all work? The reports tell us that the men attacking the dragons wore armor and had steel weapons. How did those guys get good steel? We know that the Shepherd's rabble was apart from Ser Perkin the Flea's uprising, and one would assume that those Goldcloaks abandoning Rhaenyra had better things to do than, you know, got themselves killed in the Dragonpit.

If you read TPatQ in detail you realize that the Kingslanders really had no reason to storm the Dragonpit because the Perkin movement and the other independent uprising had led to three or four city gates actually standing wide open. Therefore those people actually afraid of a dragon attack could simply have left the city.

There are few hints what was really going on:

(1) We have the news about Queen Helaena's murder at Rhaenyra's command spreading very quickly through the city. That is a pretty obvious hint that some Green agents were at work trying to create an uprising.

(2) We know that the rebels met in wine sinks and pot shops before things really got out of hand. Now, we know that there is a drug in Westeros which can drive people into a mad rage. The substance Jaqen used to make Weese's dog kill the man. If I wanted to incite a crowd into making a mad suicidal attack on four dragons I'd feed them a diluted version of that drug, have some charismatic orator (the Shepherd) address them, and then let things take their course. Among the madmen I'd plant a number of capable warriors in armor and with steel weapons to deal the dragons the deadly blows.

I don't think the Hightowers/Greens did want to kill the dragons (after all, three dragons in the Dragonpit belonged to Green riders) but I think the Citadel used the Green/Hightower agents in the city to their own ends. They sold the whole idea to the Green agents as an attack on Rhaenyra, or they just high-jacked some anti-Rhaenyra movement conducted by Green agents in the city.

At this point during the Dance the Targaryens as a whole were very weakened, and there was a good chance that nobody would ever figure out what had transpired in KL at this point regardless who won the war.

17 minutes ago, Zara Zokan said:

I agree with you about the logistics of everything, to be honest. I just don't think that a lot of the Greens had the legality of everything 100% in mind, so it's more circumstantial that I think Jaehaera's claim would be dismissed.

Well, it depends. Say, if the top dog Green upon Aegon II's sudden death was a determined 'no Queen Regnant guy' then there is a chance that Aegon III might have been crowned. But that would only have worked if the people at court had not feared (for some reason) that Aegon III would turn against on the very day he became a man grown. In that sense, crowning Aegon III was actually a pretty big risk, and one that nobody would have taken had the Greens actually won the Dance. Unless, of course, Aegon II had actually named Aegon the Younger his successor and married him to Jaehaera himself. But I really don't see him doing that.

In addition, a puppet queen would have been a much better to actual control the Iron Throne. If Borros Baratheon married his son to Queen Jaehaera he could not only dominate her Regency he could also hand the Seven Kingdoms to the control of his own son, who could have taken over the stewardship of the Realm as Prince Regent and Lord Protector on the day Jaehaera came of age (because she would never be able to rule in her own right as a lackwit). And her successor would then have been a Baratheon king, not a Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dance ultimately was a succession war, not a war against tyranny. A good number of the Blacks must have still fought believing they are right, that they are upholding the law, that they are fighting for Viserys' will. The dead of Aegon III makes Aegon II, and his daughter, the only living descendants of Viserys. So, if the lack of claimant descended from Viserys doesn't outright end them, it's bound to cause discord in their ranks, even defections. In my opinion Aegon II best course of action would have been to dispose of Aegon III, and offer some sort of partial amnesty, though I'm not familiar enough with the character to judge would have he been capable and willing for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it depends. Say, if the top dog Green upon Aegon II's sudden death was a determined 'no Queen Regnant guy' then there is a chance that Aegon III might have been crowned. But that would only have worked if the people at court had not feared (for some reason) that Aegon III would turn against on the very day he became a man grown. In that sense, crowning Aegon III was actually a pretty big risk, and one that nobody would have taken had the Greens actually won the Dance. Unless, of course, Aegon II had actually named Aegon the Younger his successor and married him to Jaehaera himself. But I really don't see him doing that.

In addition, a puppet queen would have been a much better to actual control the Iron Throne. If Borros Baratheon married his son to Queen Jaehaera he could not only dominate her Regency he could also hand the Seven Kingdoms to the control of his own son, who could have taken over the stewardship of the Realm as Prince Regent and Lord Protector on the day Jaehaera came of age (because she would never be able to rule in her own right as a lackwit). And her successor would then have been a Baratheon king, not a Targaryen.

That's true, it depends on the circumstances, if things had been different, then maybe Jaehaera could have been queen upon Aegon II's death. I'm just saying that keeping Aegon III alive was a short-term solution for Aegon II. If Aegon II had stayed alive for longer, and the Blacks had taken more losses, then maybe Jaehaera would have been Queen Regnant, though of course, with her husband ruling jure uxoris. But in the middle of a succession war where the Greens wanted to discredit the claim of the long-established female heir, Jaehaera wasn't exactly a secure heir for Aegon II after Rhaenyra's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zara Zokan said:

That's true, it depends on the circumstances, if things had been different, then maybe Jaehaera could have been queen upon Aegon II's death. I'm just saying that keeping Aegon III alive was a short-term solution for Aegon II. If Aegon II had stayed alive for longer, and the Blacks had taken more losses, then maybe Jaehaera would have been Queen Regnant, though of course, with her husband ruling jure uxoris. But in the middle of a succession war where the Greens wanted to discredit the claim of the long-established female heir, Jaehaera wasn't exactly a secure heir for Aegon II after Rhaenyra's death.

My guess is that Aegon II did not decide who should succeed him should he suddenly die. After all, he planned to remarry and most likely to father more sons. But if he - and his advisers - thought of anyone as his heir presumptive at the time of his restoration it would most likely have been Jaehaera because anything else would just haven't made much sense.

The Dance escalated from a succession dispute into a total war in which either side tried to annihilate the other. There were certainly pragmatic people on either side, but the rift between the royal family itself was way too deep. Aegon II killed Rhaenyra herself, and Prince Daemon killed both Aemond and Vhagar as well as orchestrating the murder of Aegon II's eldest son and heir Jaehaerys which also happened to drive his sister-wife mad.

The idea that this man could stand the idea of his nephew from Rhaenyra and Daemon ever inheriting the throne just doesn't make any sense.

That would be the same category as the idea that the Freys and the Starks/Tullys can heal their rift somehow, that Cersei could reconcile with Stannis, or that the supporters of King Tommen would just suddenly decide to offer the crown to Stannis or Shireen after Tommen and Myrcella's death.

If you are is some sort all-out war then the succession no longer matters at all. What matters is to win the war and to destroy your enemies. And they remain your enemies even if they are the only surviving legal claimants to a throne. 

If we go back to the question why Aegon II let Aegon the Younger live:

I guess the best explanation for that really is that he thought using him as a hostage could help his cause. The man was isolated on Dragonstone at this point, and had most likely no clear picture of the political situation in the Realm. His hope would have been that him having Rhaenyra's last son as a hostage would force any remaining Black loyalists to yield.

He could always kill him later, after all. For the very same reason he would have kept Baela Targaryen alive. As long as they were his prisoners he controlled them and if things turned against him he should still have time to kill them so that they not survive him. However, killing them then and there would have not helped him at all.

He only killed Rhaenyra because he hated her so much, but had he been thinking straight he would have kept her as his hostage, too. Not to mention that he could have taken her to wife and thus ending the Dance, and sparing the Seven Kingdoms that dreadful regency. Rhaenyra could still have given him some children, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My guess is that Aegon II did not decide who should succeed him should he suddenly die. After all, he planned to remarry and most likely to father more sons. But if he - and his advisers - thought of anyone as his heir presumptive at the time of his restoration it would most likely have been Jaehaera because anything else would just haven't made much sense.

The Dance escalated from a succession dispute into a total war in which either side tried to annihilate the other. There were certainly pragmatic people on either side, but the rift between the royal family itself was way too deep. Aegon II killed Rhaenyra herself, and Prince Daemon killed both Aemond and Vhagar as well as orchestrating the murder of Aegon II's eldest son and heir Jaehaerys which also happened to drive his sister-wife mad.

The idea that this man could stand the idea of his nephew from Rhaenyra and Daemon ever inheriting the throne just doesn't make any sense.

That would be the same category as the idea that the Freys and the Starks/Tullys can heal their rift somehow, that Cersei could reconcile with Stannis, or that the supporters of King Tommen would just suddenly decide to offer the crown to Stannis or Shireen after Tommen and Myrcella's death.

If you are is some sort all-out war then the succession no longer matters at all. What matters is to win the war and to destroy your enemies. And they remain your enemies even if they are the only surviving legal claimants to a throne. 

If we go back to the question why Aegon II let Aegon the Younger live:

I guess the best explanation for that really is that he thought using him as a hostage could help his cause. The man was isolated on Dragonstone at this point, and had most likely no clear picture of the political situation in the Realm. His hope would have been that him having Rhaenyra's last son as a hostage would force any remaining Black loyalists to yield.

He could always kill him later, after all. For the very same reason he would have kept Baela Targaryen alive. As long as they were his prisoners he controlled them and if things turned against him he should still have time to kill them so that they not survive him. However, killing them then and there would have not helped him at all.

He only killed Rhaenyra because he hated her so much, but had he been thinking straight he would have kept her as his hostage, too. Not to mention that he could have taken her to wife and thus ending the Dance, and sparing the Seven Kingdoms that dreadful regency. Rhaenyra could still have given him some children, after all.

Pretty much, yeah.

Though, to be honest, I don't think a Rhaenyra/Aegon II marriage could have ever happened after Helaena and Daemon's deaths, it did, after all, escalate into total war with the Blacks and Greens trying to annihilate one another as you said, and even if she was held captive, it seems far too out of character for Rhaenyra to go through with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world book notes Corlys was pardoned and made a member of the small council.... but all this was in a bid to get him to use his wealth and power to raise forces to defend Aegon II. But Corlys would absolutely not accept the execution of Aegon the Younger, and indeed proposed that Aegon should be betrothed to Jaehaera (to the annoyance of Queen Alicent) as a requirement before he'd willingly support Aegon II again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ran said:

The world book notes Corlys was pardoned and made a member of the small council.... but all this was in a bid to get him to use his wealth and power to raise forces to defend Aegon II. But Corlys would absolutely not accept the execution of Aegon the Younger, and indeed proposed that Aegon should be betrothed to Jaehaera (to the annoyance of Queen Alicent) as a requirement before he'd willingly support Aegon II again.

Ran,

since you are there right now:

Oh, that's interesting. Was Aegon the Younger then married to Jaehaera prior to the death of Aegon II, or did they only betroth the children to each other at this point? And does this mean Aegon II had to accept Aegon the Younger as his heir in exchange for Corlys' allegiance?

And: Can you shed any light on the whereabouts of Baela and Rhaena at this point? I guess Baela was taken to KL when Aegon II went there but was she also released into the custody of her grandfather? And do you know whether the dragon fire left her permanently scarred/disfigured as some people assume?

And since you mention Alicent:

Who let her out of her cell? Do you know how it came that Rhaenyra didn't take her and Corlys with her when she left the city? Were they running for their lives, or why did they leave such important people behind?

And then: Who let Corlys and Alicent out in the first place? The regime of Trystane Truefyre? Or did they spend that entire interregnum in prison? How came it that Trystane Truefyres was executed but Ser Perkin the Flea and the Gaemon Palehair child were pardoned?

Do you have any real insight into the murder of Aegon II that extends beyond Yandel's words? It seems odd to assume that the Belmore KG and Larys Strong would want to die if they had anything to do with it, and the only other guy we know on Aegon II's council at this point was Corlys Velaryon. Was he the main force behind the poisoning? He clearly was the guy who was determined to enforce some sort of peace. Come to think of it - did Aegon II have any Hands after his restoration. I assumed Borros Baratheon might have demanded the office, but he then died, was succeeded by Corlys or Larys Strong, or did Aegon II not get around to name anybody?

And the final question: You indicated that the regents discussed the question of Aegon III's succession at one point prior to the return of Prince Viserys. Did they reach any sort of conclusion on who would succeed Aegon III if he suddenly died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were betrothed, yes, and Aegon and Jaehaera were declared heirs.

Won't say more than that, as the other questions are for Fire and Blood. Just figured that we had to compress the details of Corlys and Aegon III so much that it was worth shedding a little light on that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ran said:

They were betrothed, yes, and Aegon and Jaehaera were declared heirs.

Won't say more than that, as the other questions are for Fire and Blood. Just figured that we had to compress the details of Corlys and Aegon III so much that it was worth shedding a little light on that here.

But what about the planned marriage between Aegon II and one of Borros' daughters? Didn't he want to have a new son of his own who could succeed him?

It makes sense that he would cow in to Corlys' demands, but there would be a difference between Aegon/Jaehaera being the heirs-presumptive and them being anointed heirs in general. Or did Aegon II even name Aegon the Younger Prince of Dragonstone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ran said:

The world book notes Corlys was pardoned and made a member of the small council.... but all this was in a bid to get him to use his wealth and power to raise forces to defend Aegon II. But Corlys would absolutely not accept the execution of Aegon the Younger, and indeed proposed that Aegon should be betrothed to Jaehaera (to the annoyance of Queen Alicent) as a requirement before he'd willingly support Aegon II again.

This really makes me wish we had access to the full 80000 text of TPATQ. Seriously, at 30000, we have less than half! :(

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But what about the planned marriage between Aegon II and one of Borros' daughters? Didn't he want to have a new son of his own who could succeed him?

It makes sense that he would cow in to Corlys' demands, but there would be a difference between Aegon/Jaehaera being the heirs-presumptive and them being anointed heirs in general. Or did Aegon II even name Aegon the Younger Prince of Dragonstone?

I'd venture that Aegon II named them co-heirs only until he actually sired sons on his Baratheon wife so that there wouldn't be any ambiguity concerning the succession until then as well as because of Corly's demands. As to the question bandied around as to whether he could even sire children at that point, well, why the hell not? His legs may be broken but his junk is fine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dantares83 said:

I have a question on these two.

So why didn't Aegon II tried to kill Aegon III after he eventually won the civil war. True, he made Aegon III watched his mum get eaten by a dragon but Rhaenyra basically killed Aegon II's family (and children). Given that the Targaryen are mostly mad (due to inbreeding), I am surprised Aegon II allowed his nephew to live and even allowed him to ascend the throne after him. I am pretty sure that even though he is heirless, there are other Targaryen he would prefer to put on the throne.

I mean by putting his nephew onto the throne, it effectively meant that Rhaenyra is the eventual winner. What he should have done is to name Jaehaera as heir (just as Rhaenyra was named heir) and made her Queen of Westeros. 

Anyone knows why? 

If he makes her heir, he basically says his own ascension to the throne was wrong because he disregarded his father's decree of Rhaenyra the heir.

 

Also Jaehaera was apparently "simple". Aegon was a hostage more than anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

If he makes her heir, he basically says his own ascension to the throne was wrong because he disregarded his father's decree of Rhaenyra the heir.

 

Also Jaehaera was apparently "simple". Aegon was a hostage more than anything

Why exactly? The Greens were about primogeniture, sons before daughters. Aegon II had no living sons at that time so there is nothing hypocritical or self-damning about him naming his daughter his heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I'd venture that Aegon II named them co-heirs only until he actually sired sons on his Baratheon wife so that there wouldn't be any ambiguity concerning the succession until then as well as because of Corly's demands. As to the question bandied around as to whether he could even sire children at that point, well, why the hell not? His legs may be broken but his junk is fine.  

Yeah, until Ran clarifies even further it seems they were (at least temporarily) co-heirs.

The Baratheon wife thing is still a mystery in itself. Unfortunately we don't know what came of Aemond's betrothal to Borros' daughter. There was a deal made, yet neither the did the Stormlords march to defend Aegon II nor did Aemond actually seem to marry the girl. At least the family tree lists him as unmarried and without legitimate children. And I guess Aegon II wouldn't have taken the leavings of his late brother - he would not have married Aemond's widow.

From the MUSH we know that one daughter of Borros ended up as a silent sister - this was most likely the one who had been betrothed to either Aemond or Aegon II (or both). One of the other daughters seemed to have married some no-name guy, the other two were claimed by major Black loyalists (Benjicot Blackwood and Thaddeus Rowan).

Well, we don't know where exactly Aegon II got burned throughout all his ordeals, and what exactly got broken during his final fall. If only his legs were shattered then he most likely could still perform. If his back was broken, too (like Bran's), then intercourse should technically be impossible.

But this is actually an interesting piece of new information. And Corlys technically looks now a lot more guilty in Aegon II's then he did before. We know he already had had the idea of a Aegon-Jaehaera marriage back when Rhaenyra still sat the Iron Throne.

Forcing Aegon II to make Aegon the Younger his legal heir would have been the first step to get rid of Aegon II. The next way would be to murder him after a sufficient number of Greens at court was actually okay with the new plan.

And we should actually not underestimate the power of the prestige of that man. Corlys Velaryon's corpse lay on a bier beneath the Iron Throne for seven days. Reputation-wise the man most likely played in the same league as the Old King and the Conqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gathered that there was a betrothal between Aemond and one of Borros' daughters, and that was sufficient for Borros to declare for Aegon II.
 All the same, the stormlands seem very slow to take the field. I don't think they are mentioned in any of the major battles in the Dance until they lose. The only other action we hear of is the fact that Ser Byron Swann tires to kill Syrax by hiding behind his shield, but we never have any battles that Syrax fights except the fall of Kings Landing.

I didn't actually think that Aegon II had named a heir at the point of his death. Aegon III basically inherits the throne because there are no other male Targareyans left. (Pretty much the same situation Dany finds herself in a couple of hundred years later.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this topic when lo-and-behold, this thread was on the front page of General.

This is the problem with the ASOIAF expanded lore. As it stands right now it's not nearly as thought-out or logically justifiable as the main series. 

I always found it very hard to believe that the Dance of the Dragons ended so amicably. (What's really hilarious is how all the animosity and desire for retribution between the two sides evaporated just because a letter was sent too early.) It lends the Princess and the Queen to carry an incredibly anti-climactic conclusion.

It's not the first time where major events in the lore have a conclusion that makes you go "Wuh?" either. Baelor's treaty with the Dornish is another and the Westerosi-Dornish relationship after it is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sleath56 said:

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this topic when lo-and-behold, this thread was on the front page of General.

This is the problem with the ASOIAF expanded lore. As it stands right now it's not nearly as thought-out or logically justifiable as the main series. 

I always found it very hard to believe that the Dance of the Dragons ended so amicably. (What's really hilarious is how all the animosity and desire for retribution between the two sides evaporated just because a letter was sent too early.) It lends the Princess and the Queen to carry an incredibly anti-climactic conclusion.

It's not the first time where major events in the lore have a conclusion that makes you go "Wuh?" either. Baelor's treaty with the Dornish is another and the Westerosi-Dornish relationship after it is another.

Well, the fact that winter was in it's first year in 131 AC and the Realm was devastated and without food most likely should have motivated more than a few lords to decide they didn't care about this whole Iron Throne question anymore.

And from what Ran has indicated it seems that Corlys Velaryon was able to force the Realm into a peace by sheer force of will. The fact that Aegon II felt he had to make a deal with him in the first place shows that he had no hope that the Hightowers or Lannisters would be able or willing to defend his throne. And he may have had realized by then that Borros Baratheon and the Stormlords alone were not enough. That's why he would have decided to send Tyland Lannister and others across the Narrow Sea to hire sellswords.

And winter may also have been a factor after the death of Daeron I. We don't know the season in that time, but if it was late autumn or winter already then many lords in the northern parts of the Realm wouldn't have been exactly eager to send their levies to war - despite the fact that war in Dorne would still be possible in winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ran said:

They were betrothed, yes, and Aegon and Jaehaera were declared heirs.

Won't say more than that, as the other questions are for Fire and Blood. Just figured that we had to compress the details of Corlys and Aegon III so much that it was worth shedding a little light on that here.

Thank you very much for this information and that Corlys had terms for supporting the king. The relation between Corlys and Aegon II is certainly an interesting subject regarding the later period of the Dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Thank you very much for this information and that Corlys had terms for supporting the king. The relation between Corlys and Aegon II is certainly an interesting subject regarding the later period of the Dance.

Well, it certainly puts into perspective how weak Aegon II was after his restoration in spite of the support of Lord Borros. And somehow I'd wager much money on the idea that even one Velaryon man-at-arms ever died in the service of Aegon II.

If Aegon II was forced to proclaim Aegon the Younger his definite heir and even named him Prince of Dragonstone then he was really in a very bad position.

But this makes the Dance resemble the Anarchy even more considering that King Stephen was eventually forced to accept Matilda's son Henry II as his heir, too. The only difference there is that - assuming Aegon II could still father children - Aegon II (unlike Stephen) intended to take a new wife and thus could have had more sons.

Ironically Aegon II would thus have been in the very same position his own father had been had he lived longer. He may have had a bunch of sons from his second wife he would like to follow him on the throne but his legal heirs were his daughter from his first wife and his hated nephew who had been married to his daughter.

One assumes that the fact that there was only a betrothal can be interpreted as a sign that both Alicent and Aegon II hoped they could dissolve the betrothal once they had won the war and rid themselves of Aegon the Younger after old Lord Corlys had died. The man would not live forever, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×