Who was the best Targaryen King?

[Ran]

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

 

It isn't quite a zero sum game, no.  But Daeron does a lot to make it one, because he obviously favors the Dornish courtiers of his wife, marries his sister off to a Martell, allows his (cousin once removed, I think?) Elaena to marry a Dornishman... all in all, the early years of his reign are marked by a TON of favor being shown to Dorne. 

Did he favor them more than his courtiers from anywhere else? We don't know this. There were presumably courtiers from throughout the realm, and for the most part the few names of his officials that we do have are not Dornish. Indeed, Michael Manwoody is the only Dornishman to hold any particular office of note that we are aware of. I'm not saying there weren't others, and almost certainly there was a Dornishman on the small council at some point, but all we have is the vague notion that he brought "many". What is "many" to Eustace Osgrey? We have no idea.

Quote

marries his sister off to a Martell

To secure a permanent union.

 

Quote

, allows his (cousin once removed, I think?) Elaena to marry a Dornishman...

After she had made dutiful marriages as kings had directed her, and after she had essentially served as Master of Coin for some years. If she had fallen in love with a Braavosi, I'm sure he'd have allowed her that marriage, too. His being Dornish is a coincidence (quite literally, since the reason he's Michael Manwoody and not Michael Mooton or something of the sort was because the character is a nod to a late member of the forum who went by the handle of Lord Manwoody).

Quote

all in all, the early years of his reign are marked by a TON of favor being shown to Dorne.

I see no evidence of that adjective. I see the king welcoming Dorne into the realm and welcoming Dornishmen into the court that had up to then been irrelevant to any but exiles. It would have been bizzare for him to try and unify the realm and then treat the Dornish as second-class citizens (in fact, in a way Daeron I's folly lies largely in his having seen Dorne as purely a military exercise and appears to have made exceptionally little effort to then integrate them into the greater realm; taking a bunch of hostages and keeping them for years reminds everyone that they are subjects by force, not equal citizens trusted to keep their oaths once sworn).

 

 

Quote

 

It's only as the Blackfyre Rebellion draws near that there seems to be any interest in balancing this out: if we believe that Daemon began plotting his rebellion in 188 after being denied Daenerys' hand in marriage, then the politics begin to fall into place. 

188? When he was married to Rohanne of Tyrosh four years earlier at the outset of Daeron II's reign following Aegon IV's negotiations with the Archon of Tyrosh? The fundamental flaw in this argument is that Daemon had, at best, bizzare ideas in his head. 

Or do you mean he began plotting as soon as Daeron II achieved the throne? Well, then, the politics don't so much fall into place as become quite obvious: he had a notion that he was rightful king and Daeron was an usurper thanks to his father, and nothing else need be said.

 

Quote

He and Aegor and Fireball begin assembling a coalition of disaffected nobles, and it's only once he realizes his mistake that Daeron (and Bloodraven) begin trying to placate the Marcher Lords, with the marriages of Baelor and Aerys into Houses Dondarrion and Penrose taking place (it seems like that Valarr Targaryen was born in the early 190s, and Aerys I would also have been in his late teens in that time as well).

If the idea is that he starts plotting in 188, that makes little sense to me since Baelor's eldest son is from ~189. It would seem terribly reactive if Daeron was rushing marriages based on Daemon getting upset. That first marriage, at least, would surely have been long considered, and almost certainly were part of his efforts to calm the concerns of the marcher lords when he made peace with Dorne. This seems much more likely than his rushing to a marriage because of a 14-year-old Daemon (in 184) or an allegedly-heartbroken-he-didn't-get-to-have-two-wives Daemon  (in 188). The Penrose marriage, OTOH, is to a cousin and seems as much motivated by the blood ties as it is by any politics.

 

Quote

So you are right, it isn't a zero sum game.  But in feudal politics, the two most important factors for favor and influence are physical proximity to the person of the monarch, and family ties.  Daeron begins his reign in a Dornish-dominated court, with all of his marriagable relatives going to Dornish husbands.  He makes it a zero sum game, by denying influence to non-Dornish.  It's only after discontent begins, and Daemon Blackfyre starts becoming a center of disaffection, that he makes an attempt to remedy this.

"Dornish-dominated" with the only evidence being Eustace Osgrey's mutterings. "Denying influence to the non-Dornish", said Lords Butterwell and Hayford. 

If the facts supported you, I could see the point, but I simply don't see clear evidence that any of Eustace's claims are anything like an objective view of the situation. His justifications are a hodge-podge, and his view of Daemon is as rose-tinted as you can possibly get.

Quote

It's one or the other.  The Martells come into the realm as having explicitly more prestige, honor, and privilege than their counterparts. 

Who told their forefathers to give up their crowns, if it bothers them so much? You're talking about either irrational complaints or unrealistic ones. Dorne got some perks because it entered into union peacefully rather than at the point of a sword. Mostly those perks relate to maintaining continuity with the unique history and culture of Dorne.

 

Quote

 

And THEN they're given a ton of additional favors, these at the expense of the existing Lords, who have just seen fathers and brothers and sons die in wars against the Dornish, seen their king betrayed under flag of truce, etc. 

Things that are never actually brought up by anyone in the actual text, which make them look like the dreaded headcanon rather than what you can actually discern from the text.

 

Quote

The concessions can either be the royal access (marriages to Daeron, Daenerys, Elaena) or the honors and privileges bestowed on Dorne (right to call themselves Prince/Princess, less royal oversight).

Again: Daeron's marriage was for Baelor's peace and is not part of it. Daenerys's marriage is to bind Dorne. Elaena's was because she wanted it after decades of doing what she had been told and serving the realm -- it was a gift to her, not to Dorne.

The privileges + Daenerys seems perfectly reasonable. I have no problem with the idea that some chafed, but I do have a problem with the idea that these were sufficient to cause a war.

 

Quote

It's the combination of both, simultaneously, that is so egregious.  It disappears after his reign, because after his reign (a) the Blackfyre partisans are weakened considerably, and (b) the Crown reverts to a policy in which not every available royal family member gets married to a Dornish person.

This neatly glosses over FIVE major rebellions (or... three major wars and two lesser ones) and the major discontent arising from and during the reign of Daeron and his successors.

You'll notice that as those rebellions happen, they happen with increasingly little support from Westeros. They continue because the Blackfyre line continues and because Bittersteel manages to found the greatest sellsword company of them all. You'll also find less and less evidence of a specifically anti-Dornish line of reasoning, because it was always specious except for a few hardliners. Hardliners should not dictate policy.

Quote

 

I agree that he deserves credit for trying to treat Daemon Blackfyre justly, but that is what leads to the rebellion.  That's Daeron's fault!  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Without a legitimized bastard Targaryen, bearing many of the emblems of royal authority, the Blackfyre Rebellion would have been FAR easier to deal with, as indeed is the case in all subsequent risings.  

The evidence shows that Daeron tried his best to act within a framework of (as I said elsewhere) law and order and good rule as a contrast to his horrible father. If you mean he should have been more ruthless towards his half-brother Daemon, okay, but from my viewpoint Daeron's choices were entirely morally sound and can't be faulted. Ultimately it was Daemon who made the choice to rebel, in a scenario his father created for him. It's a shame that he was the victim of the malice of Aegon the Unworthy, but there's a lot of victims who have him to blame.

The most enlightening thing Eustace ever tells us is that this was just a fight between two princes, and you just had to choose who you preferred. It wasn't based on injustice or failure on Daeron's part, but was merely the inevitable result of Aegon IV having created a rival for his son and heir. Were Daemon Blackfyre not an ambitious man, perhaps _he_ should have decided that without Daenerys he might as well become a septon or go and join the Night's Watch, but no, he married and had kids and entertained treason.

I've spent way too much time on all this, so I'll leave this as my last substantial post.

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys I is to blame only partially. He could have acted differently, but then - people pretended to have put the conflicts they once had behind them when he was around. If you put yourself in his shoes for a moment - and assume he loved all of those people to various degrees - then what on earth should he have done? Sure, he could have ensured Rhaenyra's succession by sending Aegon and Aemond away to the Wall, Faith, Citadel - or by making them Rhaenyra's wards (or the wards of the Velaryons) - but that would have made Alicent - whom he also loved very much - unhappy and pissed. 

Viserys I is 100% to blame.  He is the king of a feudal monarchy; marrying Alicent Hightower and having a child with her guarantees a dynastic succession, especially in light of the Great Council of 101 which establishes the male primogeniture principal.

What he should have done was not married Alicent Hightower.  It's that easy.  He loves her, fine; but he's knowingly clouding the succession by allowing her kids to be legitimate, especially given what he should know about that branch of the Hightowers, and their ambitions, anyway.  He's the king; keeping a mistress (especially a mistress he's already fooling around with!) is 100% acceptable.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

f you have as shitty a family as Viserys I you are pretty much fucked regardless how you treat them. The only way to settle the issue would have been the favor one side and crush or exterminate the other. But that wouldn't have worked without spilling quite a little bit of royal blood. And it isn't the way a loving husband, father, brother, uncle, grandfather wants to treat his family, no?

Yes, once he has the second set of kids he's fucked no matter what.  But that isn't an excuse, since he knowingly created the problem in the first place!

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In the end, the people who are to blame are the ones who began the war. And those were Otto/Alicent and their cabal at court with their coup. Alicent's children share the blame, but are less guilty than Alicent, Otto, Cole, and the members of the Small Council who sided with them.

This is absurd.  There is a strong, perhaps overwhelmingly compelling argument that Alicent's sons have a stronger claim to the throne than Rhaenyra does.  Especially since Rhaenyra's kids are almost certainly illegitimate.  The person to blame is Viserys.  If he wanted his daughter to inherit, he should not have clouded that issue by remarrying, especially in light of the Great Council of 101's "iron precedent" that the Throne could not pass to a woman or female line descendant over a legitimate male.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If there is a war, a conflict, or even a family struggle then the people to blame are not the ones who don't prevent this by royal or parental authority. The people to blame are the ones who actually do the deeds.

This is also ridiculous on it's face.  Viserys actively and knowingly causes the succession crisis.  His descendants are taking their valid claims to their logical conclusion.  All of this could have been avoided if Viserys kept it in his pants.  Or not even that, but had the spine to refuse to marry Alicent.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

only due to their original treasonous actions (i.e. the coup).

According to the law of the kingdom, Alicent's sons were the legitimate heirs of Viserys I, by the same precedent that allowed him to ascend over his cousin Laenor.

[Knight Of Winter]

@cpg2016

The problem is, to achieve the "better" conditions for absorbing Dorne into the realm, Daeron would literally have to wait for a generation or two, likely after his own death. For, looking at them, I simply see very little he could have done differently if he wanted to achieve his strategic goal (unification with Dorne). Since you talk a lot about royal marriages, I'll start with them as well:

- he was already married to Mariah Martell, women he was betrothed to his he was a kid. He could not have changed that

- marrying his sister to Prince Maron was absolutely necessary, for without it Dorne wouldn't agree to submit in no case. Again, for Daeron's strategic goal, this was condicio sine qua non.

- as for Elaena, her marriage to Michel Mandwoody occurred somewhere between 188 and 209, so we can't say whether it was before or after Baelor's marriage, or even Blackfyre Rebellion. It wasn't even orchestrated by Daeron, only agreed to by him. One could ma(aa)ybe argue that Daeron should have taken a harsher stance.

- apart from it, as soon as another opportunity presented itself - Prince Baelor reaching maturity - Daeron married him to Marshes house. The marriage could have taken place whenever in late 180s or early 190s, though one should not that at tournament held in honor of Daenerys/Maron wedding in 187, Baelor was old enough to joust and defeat Daemon - so it's not unreasonable to believe he was already married or betrothed by that time. Soon Prince Aerys followed suit. Ergo, by the time of Daenerys' wedding or very shortly after, already was heir apparent betrothed to non-Dornish house, with his brother soon to follow.

Next you talk about special privileges given to Dorne after the unification - less royal provision and permit to keep their princely title. Compared to what Dorne offered in turn - recognizing sovereignty of the Iron Throne and forfeiting their independence, agreeing to pay taxes - I don't think anyone could claim Daeron got the wrong end of the stick there. Compared to previous state of enmity, constant threat of war and occasional border hostilities, the new situation presents a massive improvement to all the parties, non-Dornish houses included. At the very least, it offers improved trade, cooperation and not having to worry about harasses and raids from the other side. The only thing that Daeron should have done (I can't remember if he did this or not) was to make Westerosi lords shareholders in that union, insisting on marriages and trade pacts between Stormlands and Reach on one, and Dorne on the other side.

And finally, assertion that Dornishmen dominated the court showering in offices that Daeron gave them is not backed by text itself. Oh, sure, Daemon's supporters believed so (yet they were eager to accept Dornish houses such as Yronwoods in their own ranks. Hm...) - but such opinion are coming from war survivors and radicals who would consider even one Dornish office to be one too many. We have no idea about the actual composition of Daeron's court (other than Hand being Ambrose Butterwell - a man from Riverlands), only that Daemon supporters considered it Dornish flavored - which, again, is not saying much.

I'd ask you - if you were put in Daeron's shoes in 187. , just before agreeing to a match between Maron and Daenerys - how would you approach the whole situation? Proceed with it and accept Dornishmen into the realm, or call off the wedding and postpone the unification for unknown period?

 

[The Grey Wolf]

The binary reductionism in this thread (and the forum as a whole) is honestly just lame imo. That being said I agree with you, @cpg2016.

[Bael's Bastard]

At best, one can argue that Viserys should have remarried and tried for more kids before he named Rhaenyra his heir, but that is easier said than done when he had no other children, no wife, and a brother ambitious for the throne. Not remarrying was never an option when he and his brother Daemon might have been the only male line Targaryens in existence at the time of Aemma's death. But once he named Rhaenyra his heir there was no choice but to stick with it. Viserys never wavered on his choice of Rhaenyra, and never gave Alicent and her children any reason whatsoever to think they had a superior claim to the throne. Jaehaerys I could have easily just named Viserys his heir after Baelon's death as the son of the son. But he left it to a council to decide, and though the council overwhelmingly chose Viserys over any female or male claimant through the female line when given the power to, that choice did not take away a king's right to choose his own heir.

[The Grey Wolf]

@Knight Of Winter

TWOIAF explicitly mentions the Dornish were given offices of note.

And tbh Dornish independence is overrated considering the fate of the North/Iron Islands post-conquest.

 

[cpg2016]

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

Did he favor them more than his courtiers from anywhere else? We don't know this. There were presumably courtiers from throughout the realm, and for the most part the few names of his officials that we do have are not Dornish. Indeed, Michael Manwoody is the only Dornishman to hold any particular office of note that we are aware of. I'm not saying there weren't others, and almost certainly there was a Dornishman on the small council at some point, but all we have is the vague notion that he brought "many". What is "many" to Eustace Osgrey? We have no idea.

Yes, he did.

the belief that Dorne held too much influence over the king—for Daeron II brought many Dornishmen to his court, some of whom were granted offices of note.

And:

Many famed warriors who looked with dismay on the peace in the realm and the Dornish in the king's court began to seek Daemon out.

Obviously, the predominant influence in Daeron's court is Dornish.  Or at least that is what the realm believes, and given the massive favor shown to Dorne (not least because he also raises a grand palace in Dorne), they aren't wrong or concocting it out of whole cloth.

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

To secure a permanent union.

This isn't a rebuttal to my argument.  What if the price of a permanent union was slaughtering every person who lived in the Stormlands?  The point I, and the Blackfyre loyalists, are making is that the price of that union was excessive and the Daeron II gave away too much at the expense of his existing vassals.  And that is an excellent point.

If you're argument is that acquiring Dorne was worth any dynastic price, then there can be no argument.  But understanding feudal politics, Daeron cashed in every possible chip he had to woo the Dornish, both in terms of dynastic alliances, influence at court, and allowing his new Dornish vassals to set themselves above his existing vassals.  OF COURSE his other lords are going to be resentful, and rightly so.  They fought and bled and died for the Targaryens - and they're being rewarded by being cut off from any royal influence or favor.

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

After she had made dutiful marriages as kings had directed her, and after she had essentially served as Master of Coin for some years. If she had fallen in love with a Braavosi, I'm sure he'd have allowed her that marriage, too. His being Dornish is a coincidence (quite literally, since the reason he's Michael Manwoody and not Michael Mooton or something of the sort was because the character is a nod to a late member of the forum who went by the handle of Lord Manwoody).

Perhaps you don't understand feudal politics.  There are no "coincidental" royal marriages.  And Daeron should know that.  You're trying to handwave away his mistakes as inconsequential instead of acknowledging them as active decisions.  Daeron should know that allowing his relation to marry another Dornishman will be viewed as a sign of royal favor (which it is).  And Martin could have had ANY character marry a Manwoody and slipped it in as a tribute... the fact that it's a Targaryen is meant to add to the story, and it does.

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

I see no evidence of that adjective. I see the king welcoming Dorne into the realm and welcoming Dornishmen into the court that had up to then been irrelevant to any but exiles. It would have been bizzare for him to try and unify the realm and then treat the Dornish as second-class citizen

Seriously?  Objectively speaking, Daeron II treats the rest of the kingdom as second class citizens!  This isn't even open to difference of opinion or argument; it is explicitely stated that the Dornish get rights, honors, and privileges the rest of the kingdoms don't get.

He could have unified the kingdoms by giving the Dornish additional rights, but then marrying his sister to a Tyrell to show the realm that while the Dornish might have certain rights and privileges, he wasn't turning a deaf ear to the concerns of his existing vassals.  He could have married himself and Elaena and Daenerys to Dornish in order to secure them privilege, power, and a Martell-descended royal line, but not given the Dornish the additional privileges of being "better" than his other vassals.  He could have kept the Dornish influence out of his court to assure his subjects that while the Dornish might have power and privilege, he himself wasn't "smelling Dornish" and that his heirs would be traditional Westerosi.

He does none of those things.  Those are all conscious choices.  Taken individually, they all make sense.  Taken together, it's a strong message that the Dornish have pre-eminence.  And his vassals take note.

43 minutes ago, Ran said:

188? When he was married to Rohanne of Tyrosh four years earlier at the outset of Daeron II's reign following Aegon IV's negotiations with the Archon of Tyrosh? The fundamental flaw in this argument is that Daemon had, at best, bizzare ideas in his head. 

What bizarre ideas?  We know Daemon loved Daenerys, and there is decent evidence to support that it was reciprocal. We know Aegon IV favored Daemon over Daeron.  We know that Daemon bore the sword of the Conqueror - a powerful legitimizing symbol.  Daemon is a pure-blooded Targaryen with no questions over his paternity.  There aren't ANY fundamental flaws in the argument, which is one reason the Blackfyre Rebellion happens.

48 minutes ago, Ran said:

If the idea is that he starts plotting in 188, that makes little sense to me since Baelor's eldest son is from ~189.

You have no idea what the year is.  Baelor is 39 when he dies in 209.  If we assume that Baelor is 16 at the time of his marriage (the age of manhood in Westeros, it seems), that means 186.  His wife is almost certainly younger than he is, if every other Westerosi marriage is any indication, so even if he's married immediately, and even if his wife is immediately of childbearing age, Valarr can't be born until 187 at the earliest, and likely at least a few years later.  I posit that he's 18 or 19 at the time of his death, which puts his birth at 190-191.  But that is speculation.

52 minutes ago, Ran said:

It would seem terribly reactive if Daeron was rushing marriages based on Daemon getting upset.

Yes.  But it isn't so crazy if he arranges that marriage because all of a sudden, he's getting whispers that rebellious and discontented sentiment is starting to coalesce around Daemon.  Daemon Blackfyre isn't part of the argument, we've already all agreed that however pure his intentions, Daeron II badly mishandled the Great Bastards and that it contributed to generations of trouble for the monarchy.;  In this instance, Daemon is the figurehead for a broader sense of alienation among the nobility that Daeron caused with his overly-generous Dornish settlement.

54 minutes ago, Ran said:

"Dornish-dominated" with the only evidence being Eustace Osgrey's mutterings. "Denying influence to the non-Dornish", said Lords Butterwell and Hayford. 

Except those sentiments are supported by the Wiki, which makes a point to reiterate that the culture of the court is notably Dornish.

55 minutes ago, Ran said:

If the facts supported you, I could see the point, but I simply don't see clear evidence that any of Eustace's claims are anything like an objective view of the situation. His justifications are a hodge-podge, and his view of Daemon is as rose-tinted as you can possibly get.

Agreed on Daemon.  But he has a reason to lionize Daemon - he lost a lot in supporting that cause.  But he has no reason to be anti-Dornish unless that is his actual belief.  And since he is a noble (well, former noble/current landed knight), it is proof positive that the nobility of the Seven Kingdoms, even people who aren't traditionally anti-Dornish.  He isn't a March Lord - he's just a member of the upper class who believes the Dornish have too much influence at court.  Objectively, the preponderance of evidence favors that view, but it doesn't matter.  It's what Daeron's vassals think which matters, and they think he's too pro-Dornish.

59 minutes ago, Ran said:

Who told their forefathers to give up their crowns, if it bothers them so much? You're talking about either irrational complaints or unrealistic ones. Dorne got some perks because it entered into union peacefully rather than at the point of a sword. Mostly those perks relate to maintaining continuity with the unique history and culture of Dorne.

Right, which are privileges that no one else got.  And again, look at it from the perspective of a Stormlander, or Reachman.  They died to subjugate the Dornish on behalf of Daeron I.  And they conquered Dorne!  It was only through the basest possible act of treachery that the Dornish successfully revolt.  And now they're rewarded?  This isn't a subject in which objective views matter; Daeron's vassals believe (rightly) that the Dornish are being rewarded for their treachery and deceit, and Daeron II doesn't do enough to ameliorate that sentiment.  That is a failing.  You keep acting like his mistakes are the product of some ethereal other "thing" that doesn't matter.  There is a MASSIVE rebellion on his watch, and he does literally nothing to prevent it until the last possible moments, despite sowing the seeds well before that.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Things that are never actually brought up by anyone in the actual text, which make them look like the dreaded headcanon rather than what you can actually discern from the text.

What?  They happen.  We know they happen.  We know enough about Westerosi society to know the impact it has.  Look at what the attitude towards the Freys and Lannisters is in the present day - murdering a king under a flag of truce is nearly as bad, it's not "headcanon" to know there was outrage, nor is it a stretch to think that sons might want to avenge fathers, or fathers sons.  

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Again: Daeron's marriage was for Baelor's peace and is not part of it. Daenerys's marriage is to bind Dorne. Elaena's was because she wanted it after decades of doing what she had been told and serving the realm -- it was a gift to her, not to Dorne.

I don't assign blame to Daeron for his marriage.  But he makes all those other marriages KNOWING what they mean, since his heirs will all be half-Dornish.  You cannot possibly exempt that circumstance!  Again, you are working on the base assumption that ANYTHING meant to bind Dorne is acceptable, that there is no price that is too high.  Maron Martell already has ensured his family will be ruling Targaryens - there is literally no higher honor or privilege.  Everything that comes in light of that has to be interpreted as favor to Dorne above and beyond the pale.  And whatever Daeron's reason for agreeing to Elaena's marriage may be, it still sends a message to his vassals.  If he's ignorant of that, then he's a bad politican and deserves to be called out for it.  He made a conscious decision - reward his relation for years of service, versus reassuring his subjects that their voice was still valued.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The evidence shows that Daeron tried his best to act within a framework of (as I said elsewhere) law and order and good rule as a contrast to his horrible father. 

Fine, I don't disagree.  But those decisions caused the Blackfyre Rebellion.  I've pointed out half a dozen inflection points where Daeron could have acted in a manner which would have lessened the magnitude of the Rebellion, or potentially avoided it entirely.  His choices in every case favored a larger, more widespread rebellion, even if that wasn't his intent.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Daeron's choices were entirely morally sound and can't be faulted

This is a disgustingly reductionist argument.  What you mean to say is that Daeron's choices are regards his half brother were personally morally sound.  But the burden of a ruler is sometimes weighing the needs of the many against those of the few.  He treated Daemon well because it felt right to him; Daemon was family.  But by 188 he knows Daemon is discontented with his lot, and does nothing to pull his fangs, and tens of thousands die for it.  Treating Daemon more cruelly, or even just doing something simple, like, you know... not giving him a castle, or taking back Blackfyre (a potent symbol of royal authority and legitimacy).

TL:DR, you don't seem to understand feudal politics.  Every choice Daeron makes is a zero sum game; by marrying Daenerys to a Martell, he gives more favor to Dorne at the expense of his vassals.  Ditto Elaena.  By allowing the Prince of Dorne to have a superior title to his other great lords, he makes explicit that they are lesser vassals in a society where honor and prestige are worth more than money, and are worth dying for.  By filling his court with Dornishmen, he gives Dorne more royal favor and more access to the royal person, which is a direct corollary to being more powerful.

If I'm a Tyrell or Baratheon bannerman, I see that just about every major feudal prize, or every route to honor and advancement, has gone to a Dornishman.  That is a conscious decision by Daeron, and is a direct contributor to the ferocity and magnitude of the Blackfyre Rebellion.

[Bael's Bastard]

36 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Knight Of Winter

TWOIAF explicitly mentions the Dornish were given offices of note.

And tbh Dornish independence is overrated considering the fate of the North/Iron Islands post-conquest.

 

TWOIAF only says that some of the Dornishmen Daeron II had brought to court were granted offices of note. How many and which offices is not clear. The Dornish were also likely going from having had zero offices for obvious reasons. His earliest known Hand was a Butterwell from the Riverlands who had served as Master of Coin under Aegon IV, and his next was a Hayford from the Crownlands. Only after the Blackfyre Rebellion had started and claimed his Crownlands Hand did he appoint his half-Dornish son Baelor as Hand. And arguably, it was naming a man from the Storm Lands to the KG over Quentyn Ball of the Reach that was Daeron's most detrimental decision, as it appears to have been the key to his support for Daemon, and he appears to have been the only thing that kept Daemon from being arrested and the rebellion put down before it could start.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Ran

The reason the Great Houses didn't support Daemon is obvious. Daemon's greatest supporters were generally the second-most powerful family in their regions or historically troublesome ones:

Reyne-Westerlands
Bracken, Lothston-Riverlands
Yronwood-Dorne
Sunderland-Vale
Peake-Reach

When you're at the top change is bad and Daemon clearly intended to shake things up if he became king given the above supporters, all of whom would deserve (and expect) rewards for their loyal service.

Some of those houses may have supported Daemon Blackfyre completely - I give you the Brackens, the Peakes, the Sunderlands, and the Yronwoods - but only the Yronwoods are the most powerful secondary house here. The Lothstons saw the light in the end, and supported Daeron II - and whether they were as powerful as the Freys or Butterwells of that age we don't know.

With the others we have just individual names. Ser Robb Reyne isn't House Reyne. If you had as much information on the War of the Five Kings as you have on the Blackfyre Rebellion then you could also deduce that the Royces stood with 'King Renly' because Robar Royce was a man of his Rainbow Guard.

One has also to note that we have no way of knowing how many a house supporting the Blackfyres (or one of the pretenders during the Dance) could actually field during the war. If you don't know the allegiance of your neighbor or liege lord you are not likely to commit as many men to the cause of the pretender you support than you were sure if everyone around you stood with Daeron or Daemon (or Rhaenyra or Aegon).

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Speaking just of House Tyrell:

The fact that the majority of the Reach supported Daemon and Leo Longthorn couldn't get his men to the Redgrass Field in time implies the Tyrells stayed neutral (or gave Daemon lip service allegiance) before then pivoting to attack the stragglers/men returning home after the Redgrass Field, which explains how Longthorn won victories against the Black Dragon.

We actually don't know this, since we actually don't know a lot about the First Blackfyre Rebellion aside from the Redgrass Field and some talk about the campaign in the West. It would be very interesting to know how exactly Bittersteel rode with the Yronwoods during the First Rebellion (which he must have done, at one point, or else claim that he did is factually wrong). I assume this may have happened during some campaign in Dorne or the Stormlands (the Yronwoods and Bittersteel attacking Daeron's allies in the Marches, say) but we don't know.

The power of House Tyrell would have been somewhat diminished by many smaller lords backing Daemon, but the power of House Tyrell is vast. They could still field 50,000 men even if half their bannermen were in the other camp. And since many Reach houses kept a foot in both camps - the Hightowers and Oakhearts, for instance, along with the Butterwells and Tarbecks - we actually don't know how this kind of game transferred into men to each party.

The case of House Butterwell is especially interesting. According to Egg he sent a son to each side, but kept himself out of the war completely. How many Butterwell men were on the Redgrass Field then? Most likely not all that many. Just as House Swann kept itself pretty effectively out of the War of the Five Kings up to this point due to the fact that Lord Swann sent his sons and some men to various pretenders, but never actually raised a considerable host.

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

How do you or anyone else know that Dorne would have been amenable to a union in 157 AC?

I don't know that. I just pointed out that Daeron I didn't even try that option. He wanted to win glory in battle, that's why he entered into a war with Dorne. One assumes that Dorne would have been open to negotiations for a peaceful settlement during and especially after the conquest. If Daeron I had offered to marry a Dornish princess while one of his sisters (or his brother, too) to a Dornish prince (or other important Dornish nobleman) the whole conquest thing could have gone much better.

But, no. The man had to install the presumptuous and cruel Tyrell governor in Dorne, treating the Dornishmen like inferior people, basically. Last I looked Aegon the Conqueror didn't travel from castle to castle fucking the most beautiful daughters of the Seven Kingdoms, no?

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

For all we know there may have been peaceful attempts to do that during the reign of Aenys I or Jaehaerys I but if so they fell through.

Dorne was under no obligation to bend the knee to the dragons. 

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

They defied Aegon and his sisters atop their three great dragons. Now, the dragons were gone because the Targaryens ripped themselves to pieces and the new king on the Iron Throne was an untested fourteen year-old.
Even if Coryanne (to use the MUSH for argument's sake) wasn't the same type of person as Aliandra, Daeron I attempting to bring Dorne into the fold through marriage rather than through war could have dismissed by her pretty easily.
The Dornish were clearly happy being independent and without dragons what threat could this boy king pose?
In that sense Daeron I's war not only revitalized the monarchy but also forced the Dornish to see that even if the Targaryens could no longer ran fire down from on high they were still a potent threat to Dorne, which made marriage and union much more palatable than before.

The Dornishmen would have to be morons to assume they could not also be subdued by a supreme military force. And negotiation is always an option, during a war just as much as it is before or after a war.

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Adam Yozza

Viserys I was the one who decided to remarry and have trueborn sons even after declaring his daughter his heir in defiance of the two precedents that won him the throne in the first place. That's why. He set up the Dance. And to be clear, I don't blame Alicent for what she did. It would take an extraordinarily meek woman to not fight tooth and nail for her child's rights when said child is the king's oldest surviving son.

If said woman obviously accepts the power of the king to name his own heir - which both Alicent and Otto did - then she is simply a liar and traitor. Just as Pycelle is correct in his assessment of Ned as a lying traitor if he interprets Ned's promise to the dying Robert to take care of his children - if we assume he interpreted this as referring to Cersei's children.

Alicent may have favored Aegon over Rhaenyra. Fine. But since she never rebelled against her royal husband while he lived she accepted his authority and ruling on the matter.

Not to mention Otto the Moron, who actually made Rhaenyra Princess of Dragonstone and swore that oath to defend her rights only to later break it.

Precedents don't bind a king, either. The idea that the circumstances how a king took his throne are relevant how he arranges his own succession are pretty weird. Aegon conquered the Seven Kingdoms. Did that mean Aenys had to do that, too? Maegor successfully usurped the throne - does this precedent mean that this kind of thing is okay.

Nobody ever said Viserys I had no right to make his daughter his heir. Aegon IV also entertained the notion to make one of his (not yet legitimized) bastards his heir instead of Daeron. Aerys II considered making Viserys his heir instead of Rhaegar.

That all indicates that people thought kings could that kind of thing. And why not? They rule pretty much supreme. There is no higher authority than the king in this world.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

This  is the link. I'm cautious about this in the sense that we have it second hand from someone who may be substituting "absolute monarchy" for something else GRRM said, and that what is described doesn't really strike me as suggesting GRRM is denying the existence of the king's feudal obligations to his vassals.  "Absolute monarchy" often seems to have the meaning that lords have no rightful recourse against an unjust king -- because the concept of "justice" is solely the property of the king to define! -- but in fact there are agreed upon concepts of what is just and what is unjust, and what a vassal owes and what the suzerain owes. The recourse may be violent (rebellion) or less so (negotiation or capitulation), and the escalation to violence may lead to defeat or destruction, but still, these are legitimate things and we see in the text the sense that a king can indeed by just or unjust.

But if we simply mean by absolute only the sense that there is no formal means of putting a king to trial by law, then sure, I suppose he's absolute. But the actual relation between the king and his vassals is the feudal contract, and if contracts are broken, well, stuff can happen.

I think we should read the absolutist thing in the legal terms it most definitely is true.

There are no legal restrictions to the power of the king in this world. No independent justice system, no parliament, not even formal royal bureaucracy whose members form some sort of cabinet the king technically has to consult when making important decisions. The king can transfer power and authority to the Hand and the Small Council, but all authority derives from him. A word from him, and the Hand and the advisers are nothing again.

And it is really the same with the lords. They hold their lands in the name of the king, enact his will, rule in his name, do justice in his name, etc. That this doesn't mean the king actually has a lot of influence in backwater regions is a separate matter. He is feared and recognized as the ultimate authority - even in the North in AGoT - which is really a huge thing. If there is essentially a lord who is technically a viceroy or small king in his domains it is Eddard Stark. But it is made clear that raising the ire or suspicion of King Robert could lead to the downfall and destruction of House Stark.

Rebellion is always possible. But if you do that you are breaking the law. It would be like saying 'the ancien regime wasn't an absolutist monarchy because the French Revolution overthrew it'. Rebellions and revolutions can do that.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even if the marriages of Baelor and Aerys occurred after the Daenerys marriage, they all would have been done within a handful of years of each other, not trying to "balance things out" long after the fact. And again, those daughters of the Storm Lands were in line to be queens, to be wives and mothers of queens. Daenerys, Maron, and their children were not.

We know Baelor-Jena and Maekar-Dyanna both happened before the Blackryre Rebellion (Daeron is 18 in 209 AC, and Valarr/Aerion are 16).

Considering that Maekar was the youngest it is more than likely that Daeron II arranged the marriages/betrothals of his elder sons (Baelor & Aerys, but perhaps those of the younger ones, too) back during the reign of his father - or immediately after he became king, when he also allowed Daemon's marriage to Rohanne to take place.

Daeron II was an only son, and House Targaryen down to a single male branch (if one ignores the bastards for a moment). Finding brides for Daeron's sons would have been an important task in those days.

[Bael's Bastard]

Basically, support for Daemon appears to originate from a handful of notable butthurt bannermen. I can't even recall a Storm Lands house which supported Daemon, though I have to think there were some. The Reach and Riverlands, including the house of the mother of bitter bastard Aegor, appear to have provided the most support, but even some of those houses were playing both sides to see who would win. Hell, the Yronwoods supported the Blackfyres in multiple rebellions. What, were they self-hating Dornish?

[Adam Yozza]

46 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Hell, the Yronwoods supported the Blackfyres in multiple rebellions. What, were they self-hating Dornish?

Dornish who didn't like the Martell's I presume.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Viserys I is 100% to blame.  He is the king of a feudal monarchy; marrying Alicent Hightower and having a child with her guarantees a dynastic succession, especially in light of the Great Council of 101 which establishes the male primogeniture principal.

Nope. Alicent could have been as fertile as Aemma, giving the king no living sons, or only a daughter. Rhaenyra could die in childbirth (or even prior to childbirth of some illness).

The Great Council has some legalistic morons interpreting it setting an 'iron precedent'. But guess what - kings set legal precedent, not some councils. That's a monarchy, not a democracy. The king makes and interprets the law, not his subjects.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

What he should have done was not married Alicent Hightower.  It's that easy.  He loves her, fine; but he's knowingly clouding the succession by allowing her kids to be legitimate, especially given what he should know about that branch of the Hightowers, and their ambitions, anyway.  He's the king; keeping a mistress (especially a mistress he's already fooling around with!) is 100% acceptable.

That would have been nonsense. Rhaenyra was named Heir Apparent to prevent Daemon from succeeding Viserys. Prior to the decree and the vow in 105 AC Daemon, and not Rhaenyra, was Viserys I's presumptive heir. Viserys didn't grant him the title 'Prince of Dragonstone' but he treated and considered Daemon as his heir presumptive, despite the fact that he loved and doted on Rhaenyra. He only changed his opinion there when Daemon mocked his dead son.

Viserys was compelled to remarry because House Targaryen was down to two male branches - one of them the barren branch of Daemon, the other Viserys' female branch. If Viserys had married any other woman - especially Laena Velaryon - the same shit would have happened.

In fact, I daresay the Hightower cabal would have staged their coup even if Rhaenyra had been male. They were motivated by personal hatred, greed, and ambition. Perhaps not as many lords and knights would have supported them but they would have done it anyway.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes, once he has the second set of kids he's fucked no matter what.  But that isn't an excuse, since he knowingly created the problem in the first place!

So what? His family could have just dealt with what he the father and king had decreed. This is not a democracy. Alicent, Daemon, Rhaenyra, Aegon, etc. - they all have no right to question their king. 

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is absurd.  There is a strong, perhaps overwhelmingly compelling argument that Alicent's sons have a stronger claim to the throne than Rhaenyra does.  Especially since Rhaenyra's kids are almost certainly illegitimate.  The person to blame is Viserys.  If he wanted his daughter to inherit, he should not have clouded that issue by remarrying, especially in light of the Great Council of 101's "iron precedent" that the Throne could not pass to a woman or female line descendant over a legitimate male.

Again, who cares about that? The people responsible for the things who happen are the ones doing actually doing them.

Otto, Alicent, Cole, most members of the Green Council, the Green Kingsguard, etc. share most of the blame for the Dance. They arranged Aegon II's coronation without thinking things through. If they had instead called another Great Council discussing the succession again - which Otto as the Hand could certainly have done - then one could actually respect them. But then - the reason that they did is most likely that Rhaenyra and Daemon (and their people) would have demolished their case by pointing out that Ser Otto Hightower had been the architect of Rhaenyra being declared the Heir Apparent - and perhaps event he first person to swear that oath of obeisance to her. If that fool forgot to include some kind of clause into the vow or the royal decree naming Rhaenyra the Heir Apparent stating that this only was the case while the king had no trueborn sons then he doesn't deserve to be let off the hook.

And in general, a king can do as he wants anyway. He is not bound by any decrees or traditions, especially not in relation to as important a matter as his own succession.

He also doesn't have to concern himself with the ambitions and motivations of his subjects, his family included. Very few people pick their spouses with the question in mind what those spouses might do to their children from an earlier marriage or whether their grandchildren will get along with each other. The future is the future, not the present. It is unknown, and it can change. But people usually expect their family to act and treat each other as family.

And the entire prelude to the Dance shows how allegiances can change. Just look how Daemon turned from Rhaenyra's rival to her darling uncle/seducer to a non-entity in her life to her friend and second husband. Alicent and Rhaenyra could have gotten along, too. They actually did, during Rhaenyra's childhood and early youth. Aegon and Rhaenyra could have gotten along, too. And then they might have even been married to each other. Alicent's children and Rhaenyra's children could have gotten along, etc.

What would have happened if, say, Aemond and Jace had turned out to be as close as Jon and Robb?

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is also ridiculous on it's face.  Viserys actively and knowingly causes the succession crisis.  His descendants are taking their valid claims to their logical conclusion.  All of this could have been avoided if Viserys kept it in his pants.  Or not even that, but had the spine to refuse to marry Alicent.

That is just nonsense. Men are not responsible for the actions of their children. And neither are men responsible for the ridiculous legal presumptions of their family. Nobody forced Alicent and Otto to prop up Aegon the Elder as potential pretender to the Iron Throne.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

According to the law of the kingdom, Alicent's sons were the legitimate heirs of Viserys I, by the same precedent that allowed him to ascend over his cousin Laenor.

Nope. Again - precedents are not binding. You can cite them, but you can also completely ignore them. You can also create new precedents by doing what you want to do. Especially if you are the king.

This society has traditions and stuff, but those traditions can be changed. Ask the crownless Starks, Lannisters, Arryns. Ask the lords who no longer can practice the Long Night because a king made a new law, etc.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

At best, one can argue that Viserys should have remarried and tried for more kids before he named Rhaenyra his heir, but that is easier said than done when he had no other children, no wife, and a brother ambitious for the throne. Not remarrying was never an option when he and his brother Daemon might have been the only male line Targaryens in existence at the time of Aemma's death.

One could perhaps say that people pushing Viserys to settle the succession at his age - just to ensure Daemon could not possibly become king - shouldn't have been so stupid/eager to think about what's going to happen after the death of the king.

But that's how things were. And in 105 AC the only alternative to Daemon was Rhaenyra.

50 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Basically, support for Daemon appears to originate from a handful of notable butthurt bannermen. I can't even recall a Storm Lands house which supported Daemon, though I have to think there were some. The Reach and Riverlands, including the house of the mother of bitter bastard Aegor, appear to have provided the most support, but even some of those houses were playing both sides to see who would win. Hell, the Yronwoods supported the Blackfyres in multiple rebellions. What, were they self-hating Dornish?

There are no known Stormlanders who supported Daemon Blackfyre. Not a single house name as far as we know. And even if there was a Stormlander in Daemon's army - that isn't proof yet that the man's entire house supported Daemon. See above for the Reyne situation. Ser Robb Reyne isn't Lord X Reyne of Castamere. Just as Robar Royce fighting for Renly didn't mean that Runestone stood with him, too.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Dornish who didn't like the Martell's I presume.

The question is pretty interesting. If the anti-Dornish agenda was so strong among Daemon's followers - to the degree that those people didn't even want the Dornish in the united Realm - then it is very odd that Dornishmen fighting in Daemon's armies would have been welcome there - be they Yronwoods or not.

[Bael's Bastard]

18 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Dornish who didn't like the Martell's I presume.

Exactly. Just like the Brackens were riverlanders that didn't like the Blackwoods. I imagine the houses that supported Daemon were pretty diverse in their reasons for dissatisfaction with their lot, and saw Daemon as an opportunity to improve it. People like Ball, Butterwell, etc. had personal reasons to turn on Daeron that had nothing to do with Dorne. Dorne was probably just an easy excuse for some, though no doubt some from the Reach and presumably Storm Lands would have had legitimate bad feelings against the Dornish, though again, no trace of Storm Lands support for Daemon.

[Aegon1FanBoy]

Quote

 

Jeahearys I

Aegon I

Daeron II

[Adam Yozza]

12 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Exactly. Just like the Brackens were riverlanders that didn't like the Blackwoods. I imagine the houses that supported Daemon were pretty diverse in their reasons for dissatisfaction with their lot, and saw Daemon as an opportunity to improve it. People like Ball, Butterwell, etc. had personal reasons to turn on Daeron that had nothing to do with Dorne. Dorne was probably just an easy excuse for some, though no doubt some from the Reach and presumably Storm Lands would have had legitimate bad feelings against the Dornish, though again, no trace of Storm Lands support for Daemon.

Yeah but with a few exceptions aside we have no evidence of any major houses supporting Daemon. Yet he was able to amass an army that posed a significant threat to Daeron's rule. That to me indicates that either a) a lot more houses supported him than we've been told of or b.) a lot of dissatisfied knights and nobles from all over the realm rallied together to fight for him. So there probably were Stormlanders in Daemon's army, be they individual knights or entire houses.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah but with a few exceptions aside we have no evidence of any major houses supporting Daemon. Yet he was able to amass an army that posed a significant threat to Daeron's rule. That to me indicates that either a) a lot more houses supported him than we've been told of or b.) a lot of dissatisfied knights and nobles from all over the realm rallied together to fight for him. So there probably were Stormlanders in Daemon's army, be they individual knights or entire houses.

This doesn't have to be the case, actually. Most of the men fighting in an army wouldn't be (relevant) nobility. In addition, think about the fact that an occupying force actually could control the assets of the region they are occupying without ever winning the allegiance of the local nobility. Sort of like the Golden Company right now control a significant chunk of the Stormlands, despite the fact that the local nobility doesn't necessarily agree with that.

Chances are not that bad that Daemon had the ability to raise a considerable force rather easily due to his immense popularity with the young knights and warriors of the Realm and then won significant victories early on his war - which lead to other men flocking to his banner.

But if you think about the strength of the Reach, the Westerlands, and the Riverlands in comparison to the other regions of the Seven Kingdoms, a host comprising only of a fraction of the forces from those regions would already be large enough to be a considerable threat to any king - especially if a majority of the lords and knights actually took some efforts to stay out of the war - sending only token forces, pulling a Frey and coming too late, sitting on their asses like Tywin, hedging their bets and sort of supporting both sides, etc.

The number of sellswords, freeriders, hedge knights, tourney knights, landless knights, etc. especially in the Reach (but also the West and the Riverlands) must be pretty high. If all or most of those men gathered under one banner they would be more than a considerable force. And if they then united with the troops of a considerable number of minor houses (and contingents from a few more prominent houses) such an army would be more than a match the king's host. After all, this kind of recruiting technique would inevitably drain the troops the loyalists in those regions could raise if they were to do so.

We have reason to believe the North stayed out of the entire conflict. The Lannisters seemed to have stayed out of it, too, after Fireball defeated Lord Lefford and Lord Lannister in the West. After that, a considerable portion of the Westermen might have declared for Daemon, but that would then have been under duress/being convinced at swordpoint.

Daemon had a considerable force on the Redgrass Field, so the idea would be that this rebellion went somewhat similar than Robert's - Daemon and his buddies begin with a force of their must trusted friends and allies. They propaganda about 'evil Daeron Falseborn's attempt on noble Daemon's life' wins them some more support among disgruntled/like-minded people. They win some smaller victories, resulting in more people flocking to their banner. At one point, the gang splits up. Bittersteel ends up teaming up with the Yronwoods, perhaps to do attack some Targaryen forces in Dorne or the Stormlands. Fireball leads an army in the Westerlands at one point, where he wins his victories (Daemon doesn't seem to be there).

I could see the original Blackfyre army being split up so they can target known loyalists directly and/or possibly succeed in winning more support in crucial regions. In that sense I assume Daemon Blackfyre's own campaigns might have taken him to the Reach.

There is technically a lot of potential there for a good (back) story considering that we don't know the situation at court or where the royal family was at the time. Could be that Baelor and Maekar were not at KL at that point (perhaps visiting their the families of their wives in Dorne and the Stormlands). We also know that Lord Ambrose Butterwell wasn't exactly doing a good job as Hand at the time, indicating that things weren't going as smoothly for Daeron as one may have wanted them to go.

One really wonders what exactly such an unimpressive as Ambrose Butterwell did to be named Hand by King Daeron II. One really hopes the man was only given the job shortly before the rebellion began, or else the kingdom would have been ruled jointly by Daeron and this guy for (possibly) twelve years. The fact that Daeron II promoted a man who had served his father as Master of Coin is also not exactly all that reassuring. I mean, surely all the Masters of Coin under the Unworthy were corrupt lickspittles, and everybody must have know that...

[Bael's Bastard]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The question is pretty interesting. If the anti-Dornish agenda was so strong among Daemon's followers - to the degree that those people didn't even want the Dornish in the united Realm - then it is very odd that Dornishmen fighting in Daemon's armies would have been welcome there - be they Yronwoods or not.

Yup, and the Yronwoods in particular are said to have joined Bittersteel in three of the Blackfyre Rebellions. This indicates they took part in the First (196 AC), Third (219 AC), and Fourth (236 AC) rebellions over the course of forty years.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Yup, and the Yronwoods in particular are said to have joined Bittersteel in three of the Blackfyre Rebellions. This indicates they took part in the First (196 AC), Third (219 AC), and Fourth (236 AC) rebellions over the course of forty years.

Yeah, as I said somewhere above, we have to assume that Bittersteel fought some kind of campaign at the side of the Yronwood forces during the First Rebellion prior to the Redgrass Field. After all, it seems there were no Yronwoods on the Redgrass Field, and the only Dornishmen mentioned to be there - as of yet at least - are those coming with Maekar.

An idea I tossed around is that Aegor may have convinced and joined the Yronwoods in an attack on Daeron's friends in the Marches/Stormlands. The idea that the Yronwoods actually openly turned against the Martells in any of those rebellions is less likely, considering that this would then have had serious consequences for their relations and standing with the Princes of Dorne.

A less likely scenario could be the Yronwoods and Bittersteel stirring up trouble in Dorne itself, which is eventually crushed by Maekar, the Daynes, and the Martells - before a united Dornish army marches to the Redgrass Field. 

But I find a scenario where Aegor Rivers would actually waste time by fighting in Dorne - where the Iron Throne not actually stands and cannot be won - not as likely as him securing Yronwood support to attack Daeron's friends.

In light of the privileges the Martells got as per their union with the Iron Throne it may have been left to the Martells how to punish Dornish rebels against the Iron Throne. And if the Yronwoods didn't really harm the Martells all that much in any of this they could have been chosen to merciful. Not to mention, you know, the possibility of close Martell-Yronwood marriage ties around the time of the later rebellions. If the Prince(ss) of Dorne in 219 or 236 AC had an Yronwood consort or paramour (or one of his/her children) then this could also explain why they were treated rather mercifully.

One hopes only a token force led by some younger sons of House Yronwood - or even some cousins - showed at the Wendwater Bridge. If they fully supported a cause as hopeless as Daemon III's they would be really stupid.

The Sunderlands hopefully also saw the light after the Third Rebellion. They likely supported the Black Dragon during the first three rebellions.

[The hairy bear]

On 30/11/2017 at 7:40 PM, Ran said:

Meaning Daemon's leading supporters were largely driven by warmongery or by ambition rather than by a sense of injustice or misrule.

Which underscores that Dorne was an excuse for most of the rebels, not a cause.

I agree that a lot of the Blackfyre leaders were overtly ambitious, but I wouldn't dismiss the Dorne issue as "an excuse", and I'm convinced it played a significant part on turning people against Daeron.

The murder of the Young Dragon under a peace banner was a very serious breach of the basic rules of war. And it happened just 34 years before the rebellion. I imagine that the sons and brothers of the ones that died with Daeron I didn't have an easy time seeing some of the nobles that orchestrated that on court.

I assume that even many who sided with Daeron II (such as the lord Tyrell whose father was murdered on a bed under guest right) were probably not very enthusiastic about the union with Dorne under terms that were more advantageous than their own (keeping their own laws, gather the taxes,...). Perhaps they didn't dare to rebel against the Iron Throne, but hey may have not given Daeron II their full support either. And that would have also helped spread the rebellion.

More than 50.000 of Daeron's soldiers died in Dorne. That's a huge toll for a kingdom that had already taken a demographic hit due to the civil war just three decades before. Probably most noble familes in Westeros surely had some relative or friend that had been killed by the Dornish.

So, in short: while I agree that the leaders of the rebellion used Dorne as an excuse, it only worked because there was a strong (and justified) anti-Dornish sentiment in Westeros, and specially among the noble class. Perhaps a wiser king would have not pressed on the unification with Dorne so soon, or would have made sure that no Dornishmen obtained significant positions at court for some time. Perhaps the fact that she was happily married to Mariah blinded him to the perception that the realm had of Dorne.