[spoilers] Rank the rulers

[Lord Varys]

Just now, HamSandLich said:

Jaehaerys and Alysanne may not, but other feudal lords certainly would. Its what Tywin thought of Cersei, its what Brienne's father thought of her, and even if they were more than just marriage prospects, countless lords have still used their children as political capital. The Lords of Westeros are not going to risk their lives in a war with Lys to "save" Saera, not if the justification is, "Alysanne wants her daughter back". Many of them won't want to marry their sons off to her (because the paternity of her children would be in question), many of them won't enjoy seeing her pit their sons against each other in honor duels for her "favor." Politically, Saera is bad news. Whether they marry her off or keep her at court, she's going to cause an incident one way or another, and its going to reflect poorly on the dynasty. In Lys, she's outside of Westeros' political and social scene and can cause minimal harm.

Reread the piece on Edmyn Tully in the Aegon chapter. There are decent parents in this world. And Jaehaerys is clearly not exactly the best father in the story. You can see this in his laughable assessment of Vaegon. He doesn't understand the boy and never makes any attempt to do so as far as we are told. By the way - in his case you see that not all children have to marry. The boy gets out of the marriage deal rather easily. Just show no interest. Game over. Nobody commanded him to take a bride before the year is out. Forcing Vaegon to marry would have given Jaehaerys Targaryen grandchildren. Children through the male line. It wouldn't have killed him to father children. But it killed Daella, and there was a very good chance that this would happen.

We are not talking about a war. Jaehaerys could certainly have bought his daughter back. Or he could have struck a deal with them. He had dragons, and the Lyseni knew that. And they have no Faceless Men over there.

The idea that nobody would want to marry Saera with her background is also pretty laughable. Sluts are married off all the time. Jon Arryn takes Lysa Tully, Ambrose Butterwell takes Walder's sister, etc. Princess Elaena had two bastards and took three husbands afterwards. You can wait with the wedding for a couple of years. Granted, Saera being a prostitute is a different level, but she was still king's daughter and would give her sons the blood of the dragon - and thus, possibly, dragons.

None of your arguments are given in the text, by the way. If Jaehaerys had wanted his daughter back, he would have taken her back. There is no question about that. He made that call. And it was a shitty call, one he came to regret on his deathbed.

[direpupy]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are seemingly conflicted accounts on that one:

It is not exactly clear when those deliberations took place, nor is there any confirmation that they actually took place, e.g. Gyldayn only speculates that Jaehaerys consulted Barth on the matter, he gives us no citation that this actually took place. The consultation of Elysar is also just asserted, without actually being confirmed by a source. It might be this did happen before Baelon's return from Tarth and all, but the way the whole thing was done indicates it was done without at least consulting with Prince Baelon himself - who was on Tarth and was declared heir apparent on his return, never mind whether he wanted that or not.

Did you read the quote you provided?

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys did not make his decision lightly; he is known to have discussed the matter with his small council. Undoubtedly he consulted Septon Barth, as he did on all important matters, and the views of Grand Maester Elysar were given much weight. All were in accord.

"Known to" to there is no ambiguation there.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 You cannot exactly tell your father the king that you don't want the throne in front of a crowd cheering as a hero, can you?

I never said anything on wheater or not Baelon himself wanted the throne, i spoke of the prudence in making the desision which he obvieusly did not make himself. So i do not understand why you bring this up.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You do recall as how small and frail Princess Daella is described, I assume? And while there is a tendency to marry girls off this isn't a given. There are quite a few unmarried noblewoman in ASoIaF, no? The Mad Maid, Brienne of Tarth, Elissa Farman (and Rhaena's other favorites), Jeyne Arryn, Arianne Martell, Asha Greyjoy (at least insofar as she herself is concerned), etc. In Daella's case it was quite clear that marrying her and expect her to bear children was playing with her very life to a much higher degree than if she had been a strong and tall woman, and somewhat older.

Other women are described as frail and still have children without trouble so thats a weak argument. The unmarried women you name are all infameus for not having married a clear and undeniable statement that it is a exeption that is frowend upon. So i have to strongly disagree with you on this.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Taking her back doesn't exactly mean to not punish her. Or would you describe her apparent temporal banishment to Oldtown as House Targaryen and the king losing face? Not to mention that women are not men. They are less important than men. Saera might never make a proper match, but her sleeping around doesn't necessarily damage the image of a king the same way it does when a brother or a son defies him.

You are confusing things here. Jaehaerys is using two different standards when he doesn't try to get Saera back (who he actually punished rather mildly at Oldtown) despite the fact that he wants to (which is made evident by his senile delusions which are very reminiscent of Hoster Tully's dying ramblings) whereas he basically pardons all male traitors who are not KG breaking their vows.

The weakness of the punishment she was given only made things worse, thats why Jaehaerys could not budge on this, and the first bolded part is what i meant when i said that it is the true test because being hard on a stranger is one thing, being hard on someone you love that is difficult. The true test of a ruler is being able to do something hard/harsh that you do not actually want to do. This is why Jaehaerys is a ruler and Alysanne is a great counsilor but not a ruler by any means. The second bolded part is you trying to compare appels to pears, there both are fruit but they are not the same, trying to bring peace to the realm after Maegor his reign true forgivennes is something different from forgiving a daughter who disgraced you.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Trying to get Saera back from Lys doesn't cost the king and the queen any face considering that she wasn't exiled by the king. And it is clearly Jaehaerys own twisted moral sense and his failings as a father that cause him to react the way he does there - for him his daughter is a whore. For Alysanne she is still their daughter (that neither understand she is actually a psychopath and they can be glad to be rid of her is another matter entirely).

And what should he do when he gets her back? He would still have to punish her, beter to pretend that in your wroth you have cast her aside, its harsh but again that is the burden of being a ruler. Jaehaerys actually choose they only way out where he did not have to publicly punish her in front of the eyes of the whole realm.

And consider this, she obvieusly paid for here transport to Lys by offering herself, then lived as a whore in a pleasure garden working for the Lysene where as Jaehaerys said she has valeu to the Lysene. So how did she get to Volantis where in her own words she had a kingdom, why would they let her go? Why would the Lysene give her a portion of the money she made large enough to get away from them? Secretly getting her the money to pay for a good live of her own, now that costs Jaehaerys nothing.

[The Sleeper]

I don't understand how Sara's punishment was supposed to be light. Sending her to the silent sisters is essentially banishment, disownment and imprisonment combined. 

[DMC]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, but the description of the Golden Wedding and all strongly imply Alyssa sought happiness in this wedding. That sort of implies there was some love there, for her.

I don't see how having an ostentatious wedding implies there is love there.  Such weddings are PR events - this one in an attempt to wipe out the stain of Maegor's tyrannical regime.  Obviously there's no correlation between the grandeur of a wedding and how much (or if) the couple loves each other, both in Westeros - e.g. Joffrey and Margaery - and in real life.  Are you referring to some other aspect of the Golden Wedding?  If so, what?

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And the tears I really see as her finally understanding what this man is about. She has little reason to fear for her children because of Rogar since she can not only fire him, but also take along with his badge. Not to mention her children ride pretty big dragons.

I agree that her fear for her children isn't really rational, but that doesn't mean it wasn't clearly her predominate concern immediately upon learning Jaehaerys and Alysanne married.  Relieving Rogar because he advocates rescinding her childrens' rights to the throne is actually a much more rational reason to fear for her children - he is, after all, a great lord that is now a potential enemy.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The legend was in the making. Visenya used this gift as a way to undermine Aenys.

Ok, but that still means it was a mistake then, doesn't it?  I agree that Aenys' instinct to bind Maegor closer to him was the right move, but again it was just horribly executed by raising Maegor too high and conferring his father's sword upon his brother.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Without Maegor, Jaehaerys' decision to marry Alysanne would have marked the end of his reign.

This is a huge assumption I can't even begin to speculate on.  Without Maegor, Aegon and Viserys (and maybe even Aenys) would be alive, so this hypothetical is very difficult to game out.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, my main criteria where 'lasting legacies' and attempts to do good. Aegon II pretty much did nothing good for the kingdom or his dynasty, whereas Maegor at least gave his city the Red Keep and the Dragonpit (half of it at least) and he broke the military power of the Faith. That's why I think he is better. Aside from that, these two are not that different.

Gotcha, that makes sense.  Our criteria seem to be different; yours seems to start at zero - where Aegon II is at - while mine can and does negative.  So, I agree that Maegor has more "positive" points than Aegon II, but he also has far (far) more "negative" points, which ultimately put him further in the red.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

I don't understand how Sara's punishment was supposed to be light. Sending her to the silent sisters is essentially banishment, disownment and imprisonment combined. 

Only if it was intended to be permanent which we know it was not.

[The Sleeper]

5 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Only if it was intended to be permanent which we know it was not.

We do not know for certain that and Saera certainly wouldn't. 

[direpupy]

5 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

We do not know for certain that and Saera certainly wouldn't. 

Saera not knowing is not important to it being a intended light punishment, it is the reason it went wrong but that is beside the point.

And we do know it was not intended as permanent because we are explisitly told so.

[The Sleeper]

5 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Saera not knowing is not important to it being a intended light punishment, it is the reason it went wrong but that is beside the point.

And we do know it was not intended as permanent because we are explisitly told so.

"Septon Barth, who knew the king’s mind better than most, would later maintain the sentence was meant to be a lesson." 

I take this to mean that Barth was expressing an opinion. 

As for Saera her induction to the order was certainly not voluntary and shows why she escaped when she had a chance. 

[direpupy]

3 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

"Septon Barth, who knew the king’s mind better than most, would later maintain the sentence was meant to be a lesson." 

I take this to mean that Barth was expressing an opinion. 

I don't think it was an opinion, it is a explicit statement by Jaehaerys best friend that the punishment was not to be permanent.

5 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

As for Saera her induction to the order was certainly not voluntary and shows why she escaped when she had a chance. 

No argument there, like i said it is the reason the whole thing went wrong, but that is not relevant to the fact the punishment was intended as a light one.

[LadyTargaryen1]

2 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

I don't understand how Sara's punishment was supposed to be light. Sending her to the silent sisters is essentially banishment, disownment and imprisonment combined. 

Exactly. Jaehaerys was a great king but a terrible father. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Did you read the quote you provided?

"Known to" to there is no ambiguation there.

There is when we reach the point of the individuals Jaehaerys supposedly talked about this. Note that Corlys Velaryon sat on the Small Council, too, at the time. It doesn't seem as if he was heard on the matter. This is not a thing where our dear historian actually puts down his sources. Him speculating that the king may have talked to Septon Barth makes no sense if there were actually sources that the Small Council discussed the thing - because that would mean the Hand of the King would have given input on the matter by default.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

I never said anything on wheater or not Baelon himself wanted the throne, i spoke of the prudence in making the desision which he obvieusly did not make himself. So i do not understand why you bring this up.

Because I originally said that Baelon was groomed as Aemon's Hand and could just as well have served his niece in that capacity.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

Other women are described as frail and still have children without trouble so thats a weak argument.

We are not talking about other women here. Parents do not necessarily try to mimic other parents in their parenting. But even if we were considering other parents, Jaehaerys and Alysanne had nine living children. They were in no need to force her Daella into a marriage for dynastic reasons. They had healthy children who could do (and already did) that job - Aemon and Baelon and Alyssa. There was no dynastic pressure there. Or do you think Vaegon would have been allowed to waste his life as an archmaester had he been the first or second son? No. Jaehaerys didn't care one bit about his daughter there. This is very plain. If he was not joking he would have been willing to marry Daella to anyone, even some peasant. Where is the dynastic purpose of possibly forcing his daughter into a morganatic marriage?

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

The unmarried women you name are all infameus for not having married a clear and undeniable statement that it is a exeption that is frowend upon. So i have to strongly disagree with you on this.

Can you give us textual evidence for your claim that they are 'infamous for not having married' and that 'this is frowned upon'? Your opinion on unmarried women doesn't seem to be based on anything GRRM wrote - not in FaB and not elsewhere.

Many women do marry and it is certainly what's expected of them, but there is no evidence that this is as rigid a concept as you make it out to be.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

The weakness of the punishment she was given only made things worse, thats why Jaehaerys could not budge on this, and the first bolded part is what i meant when i said that it is the true test because being hard on a stranger is one thing, being hard on someone you love that is difficult. The true test of a ruler is being able to do something hard/harsh that you do not actually want to do.

But Jaehaerys never actually severely punished Saera, certainly not the way you would want her punished (based on arbitrary standards not based on anything George laid out). Her time with the silent sisters was supposedly temporary, not final (Barth's opinion isn't confirmation, just an opinion/strong hint). And he didn't send her to Lys. So by your assessment Jaehaerys was a weak ruler because he doesn't follow your arbitrary standards, I take it? Also weak, I take it, because he followed the advice of his weakling wife which couldn't possibly rule?

Who never was considered a ruler here anyway. All I said was that Alysanne was smarter than Jaehaerys, more innovative, and I think she would have made a better ruler - because a ruler she would have been in a different role and would have likely not indulged her daughters as much in the nonsense Jaehaerys let them get away with.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

This is why Jaehaerys is a ruler and Alysanne is a great counsilor but not a ruler by any means. The second bolded part is you trying to compare appels to pears, there both are fruit but they are not the same, trying to bring peace to the realm after Maegor his reign true forgivennes is something different from forgiving a daughter who disgraced you.

LOL, no. Your daughter is your daughter, and traitors are traitors. You are supposed to have different standards there. If you punish your daughter more cruelly than would-be usurpers and henchmen of usurpers you show that you don't understand a feudal setting. This is not a world where you have to show that all men are supposed to equal in front of the king. You are supposed to hang scum with their entrails hanging out (as Jaehaerys aptly does) and treat nobility different from them (allowing them trials-by-combat or grant them a beheading if they have to die, pay fines, hand over hostages, etc.) - and great nobility even more differently (a Lannister can get away with much more than a Brune, say). And people you should forgive and pardon in any case are the princes and princesses who are part of your own family. They are your own. Just take Robb as an example - he was expected to fight for/avenge his father, never mind whether he was actually a traitor or not.

You show this kind of favoritism to actually send your vassals and subjects that they can expect special treatment when they ingratiate themselves with you. That is part of a feudal and a royal setting. Gregor Clegane is a murderer but he is Tywin's murderer and can count on Tywin's protecting him.

If Saera had actually committed treason she should have been punished pretty harshly.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

And what should he do when he gets her back? He would still have to punish her, beter to pretend that in your wroth you have cast her aside, its harsh but again that is the burden of being a ruler. Jaehaerys actually choose they only way out where he did not have to publicly punish her in front of the eyes of the whole realm.

There is no reason to believe he would have punish her if he didn't want to. What he should do if he got her back I don't know - and I don't really care. The point is just that getting her back wouldn't have been that much of a problem. For all I care he could have gotten her back to take her head. Not that I think there is any indication that sleeping around while being a unwed woman warrants execution in this world.

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

And consider this, she obvieusly paid for here transport to Lys by offering herself, then lived as a whore in a pleasure garden working for the Lysene where as Jaehaerys said she has valeu to the Lysene. So how did she get to Volantis where in her own words she had a kingdom, why would they let her go? Why would the Lysene give her a portion of the money she made large enough to get away from them? Secretly getting her the money to pay for a good live of her own, now that costs Jaehaerys nothing.

I think you would have try to put yourself in Saera's shoes for a moment. She was a psychopath. She could play people. Saera may have been a slave in Lys - we don't know - but slaves may be able to buy their freedom with their own coin. Or she may have been bought by some patron who was helplessly besotted and manipulated by her wiles, giving her her freedmon (say, the triarch who fathered one of her sons and may have brought her to Volantis).

It may even be that Jaehaerys is just making stuff up when he claims the Lyseni would not let her go, etc. He wants to dissuade his wife from going to Lys. He doesn't necessarily want to present the facts as they are. And if he and Alysanne and Aemon and Baelon had flown to Lys demanding the Lyseni give them Saera back, the Lyseni would have compiled. There is no question about that.

[The Sleeper]

48 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I don't think it was an opinion, it is a explicit statement by Jaehaerys best friend that the punishment was not to be permanent.

Obviously, that is not how I read it. The context makes me think it is presented as an opinion, or a belief not knowledge. 

The whole affair sounds a bit like sending someone to the Night's Watch temporarily. It doesn't work quite like that and it sounds to me that Jaehaerys was really angry. 

One could also argue that claiming a dragon was Saera's birthright and she was of age. It does not sound like every Targaryen asked for permission before claiming a dragon and I don't think it is a coincidence that with the exception of Alyssa none of Jaehaerys's other daughters rode dragons despite being of age. 

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

One could also argue that claiming a dragon was Saera's birthright and she was of age. It does not sound like every Targaryen asked for permission before claiming a dragon and I don't think it is a coincidence that with the exception of Alyssa none of Jaehaerys's other daughters rode dragons despite being of age. 

Yeah, that part I found odd as well, as I do find the idea that Saera of all people apparently never thought about claiming a dragon before she was needed one to flee the city. I mean, come on, the girl is not learned (imagining kings-beyond-the-Wall where there are none and not knowing how many wives uncle Maegor actually had) but she craves power and attention. What better way than to have a dragon.

Would have been a much better story if they had separated from her dragon and prevented her from entering the Dragonpit to get to her than have her only then come up with the idea to claim one.

And the same goes even more for Viserra - who actually hung out with some guys at the Dragonpit.

But this thread is not supposed to be about Saera. We can go back to the ruler thing now ;-).

[direpupy]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 2:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is when we reach the point of the individuals Jaehaerys supposedly talked about this. Note that Corlys Velaryon sat on the Small Council, too, at the time. It doesn't seem as if he was heard on the matter. This is not a thing where our dear historian actually puts down his sources. Him speculating that the king may have talked to Septon Barth makes no sense if there were actually sources that the Small Council discussed the thing - because that would mean the Hand of the King would have given input on the matter by default.

Because I originally said that Baelon was groomed as Aemon's Hand and could just as well have served his niece in that capacity.

We are not talking about other women here. Parents do not necessarily try to mimic other parents in their parenting. But even if we were considering other parents, Jaehaerys and Alysanne had nine living children. They were in no need to force her Daella into a marriage for dynastic reasons. They had healthy children who could do (and already did) that job - Aemon and Baelon and Alyssa. There was no dynastic pressure there. Or do you think Vaegon would have been allowed to waste his life as an archmaester had he been the first or second son? No. Jaehaerys didn't care one bit about his daughter there. This is very plain. If he was not joking he would have been willing to marry Daella to anyone, even some peasant. Where is the dynastic purpose of possibly forcing his daughter into a morganatic marriage?

Can you give us textual evidence for your claim that they are 'infamous for not having married' and that 'this is frowned upon'? Your opinion on unmarried women doesn't seem to be based on anything GRRM wrote - not in FaB and not elsewhere.

Many women do marry and it is certainly what's expected of them, but there is no evidence that this is as rigid a concept as you make it out to be.

But Jaehaerys never actually severely punished Saera, certainly not the way you would want her punished (based on arbitrary standards not based on anything George laid out). Her time with the silent sisters was supposedly temporary, not final (Barth's opinion isn't confirmation, just an opinion/strong hint). And he didn't send her to Lys. So by your assessment Jaehaerys was a weak ruler because he doesn't follow your arbitrary standards, I take it? Also weak, I take it, because he followed the advice of his weakling wife which couldn't possibly rule?

Who never was considered a ruler here anyway. All I said was that Alysanne was smarter than Jaehaerys, more innovative, and I think she would have made a better ruler - because a ruler she would have been in a different role and would have likely not indulged her daughters as much in the nonsense Jaehaerys let them get away with.

LOL, no. Your daughter is your daughter, and traitors are traitors. You are supposed to have different standards there. If you punish your daughter more cruelly than would-be usurpers and henchmen of usurpers you show that you don't understand a feudal setting. This is not a world where you have to show that all men are supposed to equal in front of the king. You are supposed to hang scum with their entrails hanging out (as Jaehaerys aptly does) and treat nobility different from them (allowing them trials-by-combat or grant them a beheading if they have to die, pay fines, hand over hostages, etc.) - and great nobility even more differently (a Lannister can get away with much more than a Brune, say). And people you should forgive and pardon in any case are the princes and princesses who are part of your own family. They are your own. Just take Robb as an example - he was expected to fight for/avenge his father, never mind whether he was actually a traitor or not.

You show this kind of favoritism to actually send your vassals and subjects that they can expect special treatment when they ingratiate themselves with you. That is part of a feudal and a royal setting. Gregor Clegane is a murderer but he is Tywin's murderer and can count on Tywin's protecting him.

If Saera had actually committed treason she should have been punished pretty harshly.

There is no reason to believe he would have punish her if he didn't want to. What he should do if he got her back I don't know - and I don't really care. The point is just that getting her back wouldn't have been that much of a problem. For all I care he could have gotten her back to take her head. Not that I think there is any indication that sleeping around while being a unwed woman warrants execution in this world.

I think you would have try to put yourself in Saera's shoes for a moment. She was a psychopath. She could play people. Saera may have been a slave in Lys - we don't know - but slaves may be able to buy their freedom with their own coin. Or she may have been bought by some patron who was helplessly besotted and manipulated by her wiles, giving her her freedmon (say, the triarch who fathered one of her sons and may have brought her to Volantis).

It may even be that Jaehaerys is just making stuff up when he claims the Lyseni would not let her go, etc. He wants to dissuade his wife from going to Lys. He doesn't necessarily want to present the facts as they are. And if he and Alysanne and Aemon and Baelon had flown to Lys demanding the Lyseni give them Saera back, the Lyseni would have compiled. There is no question about that.

So originaly i decided not react to this at all, like i have done in the past in certain other discussions i had with you, but at they insistence of someone else who said that just disapearing from a discussion will only empower you in your opinion, i will explain why i will not respond to this post.

In every discussion i have with you there comes a point where you are no longer willing to consider changing anything about your headcanon, you are willing to change your opinion on details but when someone challenges a "pillar"of your headcanon you stop being resonable. You twist and turn in order to save your headcanon even going so far as to continue to challenge @Ran even when he downright tells you your wrong. I have come to recognize when you have reacht te point where you stop being resonable and that is when i simply do not bother any more.

Having said that, i do enjoy the discussions with you up to the point where you stop being resonable, i always read treads you post in even when i do not chime in myself, because you do always have interesting things to say and observations to make. Its just a shame that after a certain point you become to stuck in your headcanon to consider other options.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, direpupy said:

So originaly i decided not react to this at all, like i have done in the past in certain other discussions i had with you, but at they insistence of someone else who said that just disapearing from a discussion will only empower you in your opinion, i will explain why i will not respond to this post.

I'd suggest you not get personal here. I'm not here to have personal meta-discussion about the implications of the way I do discuss things. If you want to talk about that, you can write me, or not, but this is supposed to be discussion about topics.

It also makes for a very weird way to paint yourself here as a person who addresses me on behalf of third parties. This is a discussion board on ASoIaF and we discuss usually very obscure topics. Who cares how a discussion ends? We do not influence public opinion here, or anything, and should not pretend this is anything but having a good time (mostly, at least).

6 hours ago, direpupy said:

In every discussion i have with you there comes a point where you are no longer willing to consider changing anything about your headcanon, you are willing to change your opinion on details but when someone challenges a "pillar"of your headcanon you stop being resonable. You twist and turn in order to save your headcanon even going so far as to continue to challenge @Ran even when he downright tells you your wrong. I have come to recognize when you have reacht te point where you stop being resonable and that is when i simply do not bother any more.

Ran doesn't have the truth on everything. Unless he tells us that George told him Nettles and Daemon had an affair, for instance, I'm not necessarily following his opinion there if his arguments do not convince me.

You are the one who came up with rigid definitions what constitutes a good ruler here, either overlooking or ignoring that certain roles bring forth certain qualities while they reduce or suppress others. George is aware of that concept as is very evident in Aemon's 'kill the boy' lesson. Alysanne never was a ruler, so she didn't have to learn that lesson. You making proclamations that she couldn't have been a good ruler if she had been crowned at the age of twelve in Jaehaerys' place is just nonsense, and you should know that.

The same goes for your rigid view about the role and function of women in royal dynasties - Ran agrees with me there, as you may or may have nor read, not that this is relevant insofar as the merit of the argument is concerned. You have also given us no evidence that maiden women are somehow looked down on and it was thus absolutely necessary that Daella wed, etc. Ran cited Patrice Hightower from FaB, you can also think of Jeyne Arryn from the same book.

The same goes for your arbitrary ideas what constitutes weakness in relation to dealing with a wayward child.

[direpupy]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd suggest you not get personal here. I'm not here to have personal meta-discussion about the implications of the way I do discuss things. If you want to talk about that, you can write me, or not, but this is supposed to be discussion about topics.

It also makes for a very weird way to paint yourself here as a person who addresses me on behalf of third parties. This is a discussion board on ASoIaF and we discuss usually very obscure topics. Who cares how a discussion ends? We do not influence public opinion here, or anything, and should not pretend this is anything but having a good time (mostly, at least).

Ran doesn't have the truth on everything. Unless he tells us that George told him Nettles and Daemon had an affair, for instance, I'm not necessarily following his opinion there if his arguments do not convince me.

You are the one who came up with rigid definitions what constitutes a good ruler here, either overlooking or ignoring that certain roles bring forth certain qualities while they reduce or suppress others. George is aware of that concept as is very evident in Aemon's 'kill the boy' lesson. Alysanne never was a ruler, so she didn't have to learn that lesson. You making proclamations that she couldn't have been a good ruler if she had been crowned at the age of twelve in Jaehaerys' place is just nonsense, and you should know that.

The same goes for your rigid view about the role and function of women in royal dynasties - Ran agrees with me there, as you may or may have nor read, not that this is relevant insofar as the merit of the argument is concerned. You have also given us no evidence that maiden women are somehow looked down on and it was thus absolutely necessary that Daella wed, etc. Ran cited Patrice Hightower from FaB, you can also think of Jeyne Arryn from the same book.

The same goes for your arbitrary ideas what constitutes weakness in relation to dealing with a wayward child.

Thank you for proving my point in post.

[Seaserpent]

On 11/25/2018 at 8:14 PM, Lord Varys said:

For me it would be:

1. Jaehaerys I (and Alysanne)

2. Aegon I, Visenya, and Rhaenys

3. Viserys I

 

I would have put Daeron the good on place 3. Viserys 1 was terrible, because of him the dance of the dragons started. He choice the fleet of Corlys above peace inside the family. Either Rhaenyra and Alicient would have been in favor of a marriage between Aegon 2 en Rhaenyra, only Viserys didnt want it. If that Happened there would have never been a dance of the dragons and the Targaryans losing their biggest wapons. I think he is one of the three worse. With number 1 and 2 i totally agree!

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, Seaserpent said:

I would have put Daeron the good on place 3. Viserys 1 was terrible, because of him the dance of the dragons started. He choice the fleet of Corlys above peace inside the family. Either Rhaenyra and Alicient would have been in favor of a marriage between Aegon 2 en Rhaenyra, only Viserys didnt want it. If that Happened there would have never been a dance of the dragons and the Targaryans losing their biggest wapons. I think he is one of the three worse. With number 1 and 2 i totally agree!

Oh, I just ranked the rulers from FaB I.

On a total list I'd agree that Daeron II should be #3 and Viserys I to come behind some other better kings. But 26 years of peace-and-plenty are still very great achievements.

[Seaserpent]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I just ranked the rulers from FaB I.

On a total list I'd agree that Daeron II should be #3 and Viserys I to come behind some other better kings. But 26 years of peace-and-plenty are still very great achievements.

Yes true, i look more at who doesnt brought the kingdome and the kings house in danger and put the realm as a whole at risk, thats why Aerys 2 is my worsed king and Maegor is a much better king than some weaklings. If it not was for Maegor to safe the kingdome from Aenys mistakes, the Targaryan rule and the kingdome comes to an end and religion fanatics would have ruled westeros. So his position in your list i agree with.

For example the Roman people and senate hated peace they only choose emperors and followed them after, if this emperor mad war for conquering more land, so Daeron 2 and Aegon 1 would have been great emperors at that time. So in every society is this different.