Jump to content
nikstar3

Something that keeps bothering me about Maegor's deminse...

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Maegor was killed on the throne, Aegon II barely sat on this chair because of his wounds and we know little about reign of Aegon IV. Again if GRRM wanted it to be realistic he would mention one way or another "good kings" who also cut themselves on the throne.

Maegor's death on the throne doesn't mean necessarily the throne killed him. Aegon no matter the frequency sat on the throne. He is never mentioned to be cut while Rhaenyra (who sat only for some months) is reported to be cut. We have much information about Aegon IV. 

Viserys I is considered a good person and a good king (or at least not bad). Yet he is cut. GRRM is realistic on that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupid people were obviously right.    Because someone made them right by using the symbolism of the chair to kill the cruel in a way that spoke to the people , lords and dragons.   So the myth is real, and that's enriching for the reader's experience just as it's fun for the commons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said:

Maegor's death on the throne doesn't mean necessarily the throne killed him. Aegon no matter the frequency sat on the throne. He is never mentioned to be cut while Rhaenyra (who sat only for some months) is reported to be cut. We have much information about Aegon IV. 

Viserys I is considered a good person and a good king (or at least not bad). Yet he is cut. GRRM is realistic on that part.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Iron Throne killed Maegor. It's rather clear that he was murdered. But symbolism still stands. There certainly is a reason why GRRM decided to give him this death. Rhaenyra's cut is most likely fabrication made by Eustace, but it may reflect how disliked she was in King's Landing at that time. And I counted two and a half pages on Aegon IV reign in World of Ice and Fire. We know his personality, but we don't have much knowledge about his reign itself.

I never considered Viserys I a good king. He was lazy, naive and didn't care much about law. He was cut after ordering to cut tongues of five people for speaking about something that there was much evidence for and was most likely was true. Mutilating people for speaking is not a trait of a good king. I recall no personal achievements of Viserys I, besides being lucky for lack of war during his reign. Also why after declaring a heir barred from succession by law, did he not changethe law? Or at least make sure that there are no rival claimants to his daughter's claim by not taking another wife or send his sons to the Citadel or to the Faith?

While not all bad people were cut by the throne, all people who were cut on it were either cruel or made cruel decision at that moment. If there was a story about how Jaehaerys I, Aegon I or Daeron II cut themselves while simply listening to his councilors or writing some letters, then I would agree with you, but until we learn about similar story, in my opinion GRRM uses cutting on the Iron Throne to show that either the ruler or what he does is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Again, GRRM made it that only bad kings or while making bad decisions were cut by the throne. If he didn't want to suggest something by this, then it all was pretty pointless. And yeah, Joffrey was really lenient. The second that Florent bastard defied Joffrey, he ordered Ilyn to kill him.

George only has people in calumnies repeat such stories which link the Iron Throne, cuts/accidents, and the quality of kings - we have this only for Maegor, Rhaenyra, and Joffrey. Nobody says Viserys I was a bad/unworthy king, nor does anybody question Aerys II's right to sit the Iron Throne (and 'King Scab' seems to have been a thing long before Aerys started to burn people as Stannis' childhood memory of his journey with his father to court while Tywin was still Hand indicates).

That whole thing is George depicting how certain things are used and interpreted in his medieval world. It is not a factual statement about the world. Just as various opinions of people about the bad blood in bastards are based are based on the truths.

Joff was sparing those of Stannis' men who bent the knee. There is nothing wrong with executing traitors who refuse to bend the knee.

Quote

GRRM is the one who created this story, so if he really wanted to show that cut on the throen means nothing he would show someone else being cut by it.

He doesn't have to do that to make it clear. Just as he doesn't have to give us a good bastard to make it clear that the belief that bastards are supposed to be all bad people is wrong.

Quote

I don't really want to talk about Aegon II and Rhaenyra as I have different view on them, but I wanted to point out that neither Rhaenyra was anointed by the Holy Septon, she was overthrowed not by her enemies, but by her subjects and that she sold her own crown , one of the biggest symbols of royal power. They both were ruled in times of war and in a way they were both false monarchs and it was Aegon III who finally managed to restore order and peace(or at least during his rule).

This has nothing to do with Rhaenyra as we all know she was never anointed by the High Septon and nobody claimed she was. It is about how George chose to depict Aegon II. He had a grand coronation yet the High Septon did not come to anoint him, nor did he ever ascend the Iron Throne again after his restoration.

But back to Maegor - only morons say 'the Iron Throne killed him'. When we first hear of the manner of Maegor's death it is made clear that the man died on the Iron Throne with some people claiming the Iron Throne killed him. But that's just people ascribing power to lifeless objects. There is no indication whatsoever the Iron Throne gives a shit about anything. It is just a lot of swords forged into an ugly chair. There is not even any rumor/story given that magic was involved in its creation. If that were the case then speculation might make sense there. But it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George only has people in calumnies repeat such stories which link the Iron Throne, cuts/accidents, and the quality of kings - we have this only for Maegor, Rhaenyra, and Joffrey. Nobody says Viserys I was a bad/unworthy king, nor does anybody question Aerys II's right to sit the Iron Throne (and 'King Scab' seems to have been a thing long before Aerys started to burn people as Stannis' childhood memory of his journey with his father to court while Tywin was still Hand indicates).

That whole thing is George depicting how certain things are used and interpreted in his medieval world. It is not a factual statement about the world. Just as various opinions of people about the bad blood in bastards are based are based on the truths.

Joff was sparing those of Stannis' men who bent the knee. There is nothing wrong with executing traitors who refuse to bend the knee.

He doesn't have to do that to make it clear. Just as he doesn't have to give us a good bastard to make it clear that the belief that bastards are supposed to be all bad people is wrong.

This has nothing to do with Rhaenyra as we all know she was never anointed by the High Septon and nobody claimed she was. It is about how George chose to depict Aegon II. He had a grand coronation yet the High Septon did not come to anoint him, nor did he ever ascend the Iron Throne again after his restoration.

But back to Maegor - only morons say 'the Iron Throne killed him'. When we first hear of the manner of Maegor's death it is made clear that the man died on the Iron Throne with some people claiming the Iron Throne killed him. But that's just people ascribing power to lifeless objects. There is no indication whatsoever the Iron Throne gives a shit about anything. It is just a lot of swords forged into an ugly chair. There is not even any rumor/story given that magic was involved in its creation. If that were the case then speculation might make sense there. But it isn't.

Calumny seems to be word of a day.

After restoration Aegon Ii was busy cleaning up the mess Rhaenyra left. Also he was kinda messed up badly in war so he can be pardoned for climbing in the throne ( he needed to be carried) , to his credit he stopped using milk of the poppy and even after being hurt took flight on his dragon to battle second time , I don't remember Rhaenyra mounting Syrax to defend King's Landing from rabble.

Rhaenyra has been cut by iron throne, does it signify that person is bad king , maybe, it is on reader to decide based on their actions in general ( more than enough in her case).

To me it signifies mental instability of ruler during the presiding, depending of the various difficult situations.

Joffery was facing a difficulty and proved his weak points during that exchange with unnamed Florent Bastard, afterwards crying for his mommy. 

If you blame Eustace for calumny then please ignore when he says anything in favor of Blacks , he was present there and many lords and ladies, it could have been easily denounced as fabrication after the war Blacks have won but it wasn't.

Author has even drawn a picture , nay hired an artist to do one in case people need looking her and hers without rose tinted eyeglasses.

Maegor died on the iron throne , why I can only make guess ,I would personally love that some of those he did most harm confronted him in his final moments, but most likely it was coup by his men, he certainly became different after thing with Tyanna, depressed and sluggish to react  aybe contemplating unraveling of his kingdom , I doubt it was suicide.


 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 7:13 AM, DominusNovus said:

I think Maegor was killed by the throne. I am not a moron.

Ergo, not only morons think he was killed by the throne.

But like morons you really don't have any evidence that the throne actually acted as an agent there. That belief is about as well-attested as the stories that Sansa Stark transformed into a winged wolf after personally slaying Robert Baratheon (or Stannis skinchanging the boar which killed Robert).

There are a lot of morons in this world, believing and spreading foolish stories.

On 12/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Eltharion21 said:

After restoration Aegon Ii was busy cleaning up the mess Rhaenyra left.

Aegon II increased the mess he himself and Rhaenyra and the three kings created. He didn't clean up anything. Had he cleaned things up Aegon III would have never ascended the throne.

On 12/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Eltharion21 said:

Rhaenyra has been cut by iron throne, does it signify that person is bad king , maybe, it is on reader to decide based on their actions in general ( more than enough in her case).

This doesn't signify anything - even if it were well-attested (which it isn't in Rhaenyra's case) aside from the person cutting herself being somewhat clumsy.

On 12/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Eltharion21 said:

To me it signifies mental instability of ruler during the presiding, depending of the various difficult situations.

I guess you should spend a day on the Iron Throne before you make such proclamations. Even Ned attests that this is a very uncomfortable seat. He and Tyrion nearly cut themselves both when during their stay up there. It is just very easy to use such accidents as fodder for your propaganda against a king. There is a reason why nobody tells such stories about popular kings.

On 12/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Eltharion21 said:

If you blame Eustace for calumny then please ignore when he says anything in favor of Blacks , he was present there and many lords and ladies, it could have been easily denounced as fabrication after the war Blacks have won but it wasn't.

That is a non-argument. Gyldayn writes a history of the Targaryen kings not a historical summary of comments and reviews of Eustace's history. We have no idea whether any of the eye witnesses who were there when Rhaenyra took the throne later bothered to read Eustace's history (I'd not read histories on events I actually witnessed myself unless I had a very good reason to waste time with that kind of thing). Not to mention that whether Rhaenyra bled or not is a rather irrelevant little detail in the grand scale of things...

But the calumny there is not that Rhaenyra did not bleed when she came down from the throne - she certainly may have - but that this event is retroactively interpreted as 'a sign' that her days on the Iron Throne would be few, etc.

Although I have to say that what we know of her day makes it very likely that especially her cuts on/the bleeding of her legs was due to a pampered, plump woman unaccustomed to armor wearing such armor for about 24 hours or more. Anyone in her place would be pretty sore after that. 

On 12/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Eltharion21 said:

Maegor died on the iron throne , why I can only make guess ,I would personally love that some of those he did most harm confronted him in his final moments, but most likely it was coup by his men, he certainly became different after thing with Tyanna, depressed and sluggish to react  aybe contemplating unraveling of his kingdom , I doubt it was suicide.

We don't know. What it was definitely not is some magical intervention of the Iron Throne. My best guess is that it was murdered more or less clumsily disguised as suicide on the throne. And as I already said - perhaps the fact that all of Maegor's Kingsguard - who would have been the main suspects for such a murder - had to go implies that Alyssa and Jaehaerys suspected that they were the ones to put down Maegor - and they were not willing to reward Kingsguard who had turned kingslayers.

1 hour ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Doesn't look like that at all with FaB as a source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Seems to me that FaB has lots of such magic, but its always kept vague. The idea that there was dark magic used to keep Maegor alive is reasonably hinted at.

And where exactly would that be? There is a hint that Tyanna may have used magic to heal Maegor, but no actual hint that the man was ever dead nor any hints that his personality changed after his health was restored.

He doesn't even have any freak appendages like Victarion did after Moqorro healed him. No indication that his blood could ignite steel weapons or that he had some mortals wounds that didn't heal after he was 'healed'.

We do know how undead creatures look like and behave in this world - we have the wights, Beric, Catelyn, even 'Ser Robert Strong'. As far as we know Maegor didn't suddenly stop eating or visiting the privy during his reign. And things like that would sure as hell have been noticed by the people around him.

In fact, Maegor would have likely been put down as the abomination that he was a mere fortnight after his 'return' if that had been the case. Nobody would have followed a zombie king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And where exactly would that be? There is a hint that Tyanna may have used magic to heal Maegor, but no actual hint that the man was ever dead nor any hints that his personality changed after his health was restored.

He doesn't even have any freak appendages like Victarion did after Moqorro healed him. No indication that his blood could ignite steel weapons or that he had some mortals wounds that didn't heal after he was 'healed'.

We do know how undead creatures look like and behave in this world - we have the wights, Beric, Catelyn, even 'Ser Robert Strong'. As far as we know Maegor didn't suddenly stop eating or visiting the privy during his reign. And things like that would sure as hell have been noticed by the people around him.

In fact, Maegor would have likely been put down as the abomination that he was a mere fortnight after his 'return' if that had been the case. Nobody would have followed a zombie king.

WoIaF and FaB are both written with the conceit that they’re histories, written in-universe by Maesters. Every single instance of magic other than dragons is discounted or ignored. The in-universe author does not want to consider magic as an answer to any of the questions.

Besides, I’ll note that we should avoid conflating ‘being kept alive by magic’ and ‘being revived by magic.’ Physically speaking, Khal Drogo was perfectly normal after being kept alive by magic. 

Edited by DominusNovus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two separate offhand quotes about Maegor returning from the grave in Fire & Blood.

The first is Jaehaerys' master at arms saying something like "even if Maegor returned from the grave I'd wager on you" re: single combat.

Then later when Balerion returns with Aerea (along with 3 horn blasts) the maester writes something like "many thought Maegor had returned from the grave to mount Balerion once again"

Furthermore there are a huge number of Maegor/Gregor parallels, and Gregor obviously "returned from the grave" so to speak.

The maesters certainly suggest he was alive when Tyanna got to him, but the subtext hints very strongly that he was dead (and no maesterly author would pre-suppose he literally returned from the grave without a massive amount of proof). It's not enough to be certain, but enough to be confident imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, History of Westeros said:

There are two separate offhand quotes about Maegor returning from the grave in Fire & Blood.

The first is Jaehaerys' master at arms saying something like "even if Maegor returned from the grave I'd wager on you" re: single combat.

Then later when Balerion returns with Aerea (along with 3 horn blasts) the maester writes something like "many thought Maegor had returned from the grave to mount Balerion once again"

Furthermore there are a huge number of Maegor/Gregor parallels, and Gregor obviously "returned from the grave" so to speak.

The maesters certainly suggest he was alive when Tyanna got to him, but the subtext hints very strongly that he was dead (and no maesterly author would pre-suppose he literally returned from the grave without a massive amount of proof). It's not enough to be certain, but enough to be confident imo.

Excellent citations. I’m more inclined to think that it was more akin to what was done with Drogo, just without him being tirned into a vegetable. We’ll likely never be sure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hints whatsoever that the loss of Tyanna somehow affected this hypothetical magic that brought Maegor back from the dead.

And we don't know whether Drogo was resurrected from death or merely healed/brought back from the brink of death. Those are different things. Drogo's mind may have been fried by the spell 'healing' him rather than be a result of his resurrection.

Confirmed resurrected people/zombies act and behave in a way that makes it very unlikely that such freaks could rule as kings without anyone noticing what was going.

We don't yet know what exactly Melisandre is, but we can be sure that historical accounts on Stannis' reign/campaign would mention her strangeness. If Maegor had been hot to touch, etc. there would be rumors about that.

9 hours ago, DominusNovus said:

WoIaF and FaB are both written with the conceit that they’re histories, written in-universe by Maesters. Every single instance of magic other than dragons is discounted or ignored. The in-universe author does not want to consider magic as an answer to any of the questions.

That is not true. We hear of many instances where people are referred to as sorcerers or witches. The most crucial things being Alys Rivers' spell on the escapee from Harrenhal.

Share this post


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

There are no hints whatsoever that the loss of Tyanna somehow affected this hypothetical magic that brought Maegor back from the dead.

And we don't know whether Drogo was resurrected from death or merely healed/brought back from the brink of death. Those are different things. Drogo's mind may have been fried by the spell 'healing' him rather than be a result of his resurrection.

Confirmed resurrected people/zombies act and behave in a way that makes it very unlikely that such freaks could rule as kings without anyone noticing what was going.

We don't yet know what exactly Melisandre is, but we can be sure that historical accounts on Stannis' reign/campaign would mention her strangeness. If Maegor had been hot to touch, etc. there would be rumors about that.

That is not true. We hear of many instances where people are referred to as sorcerers or witches. The most crucial things being Alys Rivers' spell on the escapee from Harrenhal.

We hear of people being accused of sorcery. Alys is a good counterpoint, but that text leans heavily against believing her powers. Look at how it is treated when she blows up a head - all of a sudden, Mushroom is a reliable source. Maester Gyldan clearly wants to discount magic whenever possible.

Share this post


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

We hear of people being accused of sorcery. Alys is a good counterpoint, but that text leans heavily against believing her powers. Look at how it is treated when she blows up a head - all of a sudden, Mushroom is a reliable source. Maester Gyldan clearly wants to discount magic whenever possible.

We don't have any reason to assume that successful spells were practiced in every corner during the time covered by FaB, do we? Just as our guys in the main series don't do/witness spells all the time.

Actually sorcery also comes up with the Faceless Men are discussed, who are even referred to as sorcerer-assassins at one point. Gyldayn doesn't claim their methods are all trickery, does he?

Alys Rivers and Tyanna of the Tower may have been genuine sorceresses, and that possibility is not ridiculed or dismissed by Gyldayn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't have any reason to assume that successful spells were practiced in every corner during the time covered by FaB, do we? Just as our guys in the main series don't do/witness spells all the time.

Actually sorcery also comes up with the Faceless Men are discussed, who are even referred to as sorcerer-assassins at one point. Gyldayn doesn't claim their methods are all trickery, does he?

Alys Rivers and Tyanna of the Tower may have been genuine sorceresses, and that possibility is not ridiculed or dismissed by Gyldayn.

Yes exactly its just a common thing in a mid evil setting, that woman with power or a different practice of religion are seen as witches. Visenya was not like an average woman, she was just like Danelle Lothston a warrior and didnt do the average woman-like things. I really dont believe in so much mayor characters being sorceresses. In asoiaf if we didnt know better Maege Mormont could be one or Brienne or Lisa Arryn, alot of people in the story think some of these characters are nuts and maybe later they will get also the title sorceresses or fucking with bears or  being a woman possessing man skills in battle or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seaserpent said:

Yes exactly its just a common thing in a mid evil setting, that woman with power or a different practice of religion are seen as witches. Visenya was not like an average woman, she was just like Danelle Lothston a warrior and didnt do the average woman-like things. I really dont believe in so much mayor characters being sorceresses. In asoiaf if we didnt know better Maege Mormont could be one or Brienne or Lisa Arryn, alot of people in the story think some of these characters are nuts and maybe later they will get also the title sorceresses or fucking with bears or  being a woman possessing man skills in battle or whatever.

The Maesters would likely say something similar about Melisandre.

Share this post


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

Yes exactly its just a common thing in a mid evil setting, that woman with power or a different practice of religion are seen as witches. Visenya was not like an average woman, she was just like Danelle Lothston a warrior and didnt do the average woman-like things. I really dont believe in so much mayor characters being sorceresses. In asoiaf if we didnt know better Maege Mormont could be one or Brienne or Lisa Arryn, alot of people in the story think some of these characters are nuts and maybe later they will get also the title sorceresses or fucking with bears or  being a woman possessing man skills in battle or whatever.

That is why I mentioned only Tyanna and Alys above. These two might be genuine sorceresses. This is less likely in the cases of Visenya and Rhaena.

53 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

The Maesters would likely say something similar about Melisandre.

The maesters would cite reports of Cressen and Davos Seaworth and Jon Snow and that would paint a pretty accurate picture of Melisandre the sorceress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Confirmed resurrected people/zombies act and behave in a way that makes it very unlikely that such freaks could rule as kings without anyone noticing what was going.

Beric wasn't all that off, and we only met him after he'd been brought back more than half a dozen times. The story suggests that he got progressively worse, suggesting he might not have been that bad in the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×