Jump to content

Recommended Posts

After reading FAB, I think King Viserys I was the worst Targaryen king in the family's storied history.  Worst than Aenys, Maegor, Baelor, and Aerys.  I know that Aery's actions directly led to the Royal House's downfall, but it was Visery who was handed the crown at the height of Tarygaryen power, and with it the opportunity to solidify the Targaryen's grip on the Seven Kingdoms for all time.  Jaehaerys left Viserys in the best possible position to not only succeed, but to flourish.

1.  He was the last Targaryen to bond with Balerion (although the "Black Dread" was at his end), meaning he must have showed great promise.  But he never chose another dragon after Balerion's death and allowed himself to grow soft and portly over the years.

2.  He ignored the clear precedent set down by the Great Council out of spite and refused to fix his error, once his sons were born.

3.  He was too weak to bring his overbearing brother to heel, allowing Daemon to run roughshod over him time and again.  Even failing to take part in a private war in the Step Stones, leading to near ruinous taxation of incoming shipping.

4. He ignored the sage advice of his small council and married Alicent when he should have married Laena Velaryon and healed the breach with the "Sea Snake" and House Velaryon.

5. Due to his weak and amiable nature, he failed to see the dangers of Criston Cole.

I could go on, but the horrible decisons and indecision of the weak-willed Viserys set House Targaryen on the path to ruin, when it should have easily ruled for a thousand years or more. 

Edited by Stallion That Mounts Texas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point, while we wait for more information about Aegon IV... I have to agree with you ...

I'll only say ... Jaheaerys was firm about the exceptionalism for incest unions in his family. He could have done the same in the case of Rahenys rights to the throne ... in my opinion, the calling for great council was a bad decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree he was maybe the worst, also considering good state of realm he inherited, along with pointers for future succession made by great council and Old King.

He mostly showed his bad qualities in making a decision and not following them through, mostly evident with Rhaenyra and Daemon.

Though I am wondering what you mean by dangers of Crinston Cole? If you mean him as some main schemer he doesn't seem like the type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I agree he was maybe the worst, also considering good state of realm he inherited, along with pointers for future succession made by great council and Old King.

He mostly showed his bad qualities in making a decision and not following them through, mostly evident with Rhaenyra and Daemon.

Though I am wondering what you mean by dangers of Crinston Cole? If you mean him as some main schemer he doesn't seem like the type.

Rhaenyra lusted after him and should have been kept at a distance.  But, Viserys gave in to her and allowed him as her sworn shield and champion.  He was a great warrior and of the true steel, keeping to his vows, but he turned into a bitter enemy of Rhaenyra and ignited the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon IV was the worst.  His crazy decision to legitimize his bastards caused trouble for years after.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he was quite terrible king. I do not recall anything positive that could be attributed to him besides peace what is not entirely his contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Euron III Greyjoy said:

Its pretty close between Viserys I and Aegon IV for me. 

Viserys ruled for a quarter of a century, a period the realm was incredibly peaceful.  The Crown was at the peak of its power under him. His one mistake was being lazy and stubborn over his heir (and it's a big mistake), but besides that his overall reign was nowhere near the worst. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Sorry, but Viserys can't be worse than Maegor, Aenys, Aerys II, or  :shocked:Aerys I. 

Ok... I think this is the way we are looking at this...

The Dance is the worst event for the seven kingdoms that we know so far... it brought the biggest amount of death and slaughter and suffering for commoners ever, it brought the disapearence of a lot of Dragons, and all dragon lovers will hate that conflict only for that... Viserys is the first to blame on the Dance... BUT... though we tend to see Aegon II as an usurper, and Criston Cole as a traitor... Remeber something, Rahenyra was an adulteress, (1)Rahenyra lusted after Criston Cole... (2) her first three sons were Strong bastards... maybe not his fault, maybe she needed a man on her bed, and we know Laenor Velaryon was gay...

(1) I'm hands down with Musroom on this... Why would he say a bad thing about Rahenyra if it wasn't true, he was on his party.

(2) I mean come on! 3 dark hair sons from a highly pure Valyrian couple?

Like I said before,

Before we get more reasons to hate Aegon IV (not like we don't have plenty) I agree on Viserys I

Of course Maegor was a evil and cruel MF, but the common people didn't suffer his rage that much, only his enemies... and the builders of the Red Keep :rolleyes:

Aerys I ?? you sure? i think he does not belong to this ranking...

and... Canon Claude... You actually already read F&B? just a question, not disrespect intended

Edited by MushroomIsNoFool
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing with this criticism of Viserys I is that the Dance is laid entirely at his feet - when it was actually started by his traitorous and stupid in-laws - whereas the peace of his reign supposedly had little and less to do with him, personally.

I don't think anyone blames Robert in the same way for the War of the Five Kings never mind that this was to a much larger degree Robert's fault. Unlike Viserys I, who deeply loved his duplicitous wife, daughter, and grandsons, and was unable to see the danger posed by the political situation, Robert Baratheon was very aware of the shortcomings of his wife and heir, did love neither of them, did deliberately make his younger brothers great lords in their own right despite the fact that they did not get along with each other and his wife, and stupidly made his best buddy his Hand who publicly and privately loathed his wife, father-in-law, and brother-in-law.

Robert is a guy who essentially consciously cooked up the coming storm and when the first signs of it were evident to everyone he put his head in the sand and went hunting.

One can blame rulers up to a point for not settling their succession, but a succession war is not cause by a dying/dead king but by the people fighting such a war. Aegon I is not responsible for Maegor's usurpation, Jaehaerys I is not responsible for Corlys and Daemon hiring men to prepare to settle the succession by force, and Viserys I is not responsible for Otto and Alicent's coup. Still, all of them could have taken steps to prevent any of that - the problem of Maegor would have been especially easy to resolve once the twisted character of the boy had revealed itself, for instance - but in Viserys' case the situation could have been only resolved in favor of one faction (at least in the later 120s) if Viserys had really destroyed one of the two factions completely.

Only the physical destruction of Rhaenyra, Daemon, the Velaryons, and Rhaenyra's sons could have ensured Aegon II's uncontested rise. If Viserys I had just changed the succession in favor of Aegon Rhaenyra and her party would have never accepted that. They would have done or tried to do what the Greens did when Viserys I died.

At this point nobody seems to be blaming Daeron II for the Blackfyre nonsense, either. But surely there would have been no Redgrass Field if Daeron II had done to Aegon IV's bastards what Cersei Lannister did to some of Robert's bastard upon his death.

But no just king or loving father/brother, etc. would have done that. Nor can we blame one who hoped his family would find a way to make peace and live with each other the same way they lived with each other while he was alive for the fact that this did not happen.

And we do have ample evidence that Rhaenyra had no intention to murder all her half-siblings and step-kin upon her ascension.

The way Gyldayn tells the story makes it clear that the outbreak of the Dance has to be laid completely at the feet of Alicent, Otto, and Criston Cole, whereas Rhaenyra and her family merely fought back, trying to gain what they had very good reason to think was theirs. 

Basically, Alicent and Otto are Cersei and Tywin in this equation, when we draw a parallel, whereas Rhaenyra is Stannis. She may not have the greatest potential but she would have been much better than Joffrey-Aegon II had she been allowed to rise to the throne uncontested - and she had the right on her side, unlike Aegon II and his ilk.

If you just look at the outbreak of the war then you cannot really side with the Greens unless you think poison in wine, conspiracies in the dark, murdering loyal old men at the council table, and treasonous coups constitute legitimate policy.

Share this post


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

Viserys I is not responsible for Otto and Alicent's coup. 

He played a pretty big part in it, he knew how Otto thought when he removed him from office, bringing him back and allowing him to govern Viserys' last years was always going to be a problem for his daughter claiming the throne.

Corlys or some other candidate would have been a better option, or a Grand Council to officially make it a law that the oldest inherits regardless of gender.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Basically, Alicent and Otto are Cersei and Tywin in this equation, when we draw a parallel, whereas Rhaenyra is Stannis. 

 

You've go that analogy backwards, Rhaenyra and Joffrey are the chosen and named heirs, Stannis and Aegon are the rightful heirs based on the laws of the land.

I'm not even sure how Tywin and Otto are comparable, Tywin seems in the dark about the 'truth'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He played a pretty big part in it, he knew how Otto thought when he removed him from office, bringing him back and allowing him to govern Viserys' last years was always going to be a problem for his daughter claiming the throne.

How do we know that? Do we believe Otto actually told Viserys the truth when he was recalled, telling the guy he would disregard his wishes upon his death, seat the son he did not name his heir on the throne, and do his best to destroy the daughter he had helped to make the heir to whom he had sworn a vow to defend her rights?

Or do we believe that both Alicent and Otto pretended to uphold Viserys' decrees and wishes in spite of the fact that they would have preferred that he choose a different successor? I'd assume the latter was the case. I mean, we don't believe Viserys deliberately made Otto his Hand to ensure that there would be a succession war when he closed his eyes for the last time, right? That's something Aegon IV may have done but not Viserys I.

It is not a natural law that people in power always have to do what they think is right. They can, like Eddard Stark when he told Cersei what he had figured out, try to do the good and honorable thing. 

Otto Hightower could have felt it was wrong that Rhaenyra should ascend the Iron Throne but he could have still done his best to ensure that she would become queen. Nobody forced him to do what he did. He chose to betray his late king and the woman he had sworn a vow to.

We can agree that recalling Otto was a pretty big mistake but we cannot really say that Viserys must have or should have known how great a mistake that turned out to be. He did not have the benefit of hindsight. And we don't have sufficient or detailed enough information to actually make assessment what Viserys I should or could have known/suspected at what point in the story. He is a very pale character and we know next to nothing about his personal feelings and convictions. What we little we do know implies that his family was able to deceive the old man with a charade of amity and unity whenever he was around, especially in his later years. Just think of the feast they were all commanded to attend when Viserys I had recovered from his injury. 

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Corlys or some other candidate would have been a better option, or a Grand Council to officially make it a law that the oldest inherits regardless of gender.

Corlys was pretty old already, and, most likely, not exactly a guy Viserys I liked to work with. They have a pretty unpleasant history.

A Great Council wouldn't have been necessary, rather another grand ceremony with now all the lords and princes of the Realm doing Rhaenyra homage as their future queen. Or, of course, her succeeding Lyonel Strong as Hand, with her sitting firmly on the Iron Throne ruling the Realm while her ailing father slowly died.

It seems that the Realm is only spit in half because of the successful coup. Once Aegon II is crowned and anointed people, at first, think that he is the new king and Rhaenyra cannot/will not prevail. If there had been no coup, if nobody had crowned or proclaimed Aegon II king chances are pretty low that anyone would have taken up arms against Rhaenyra.

Keep in mind that even all those so-called stalwart Greens - the Hightowers and the Lannisters who had people directly involved in the original coup - were not exactly all that keen to go to war. They had to be commanded to do that by Ser Otto when parts of the Reach stood up in Rhaenyra's name and when the Prince Regent started his doomed campaign against Daemon at Harrenhal.

Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right - and those who are seem to believe only in the abstract principle that a son should come before a daughter.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

You've go that analogy backwards, Rhaenyra and Joffrey are the chosen and named heirs, Stannis and Aegon are the rightful heirs based on the laws of the land.

Oh, the comparison was about Cersei/Tywin effectively seizing power at court in a coup against the guy the late king wanted to have power (Ned in Robert's case, Rhaenyra in Viserys I's case). And Rhaenyra is Stannis in the sense that the right is on her side, whereas they both have certain traits - Rhaenyra being female, Stannis being a prick who basically nobody likes or loves - that make their campaigns difficult.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm not even sure how Tywin and Otto are comparable, Tywin seems in the dark about the 'truth'.

Otto and Tywin are the men behind two ambitious queens who push them to do ugly things. They are both men who stop at nothing to accomplish the goal of seeing their grandchildren on the throne.

Otto succeeded with Viserys I and Alicent where Tywin failed when dealing with Aerys II and Rhaegar.

Share this post


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

How do we know that?

Come on! Are you serious?

Are you really telling me that Otto being biased towards his Grandson over Rhaenyra is something that would blindside anyone with a brain during that period? 

Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC King Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

He was literally fired for his opinion, Otto being recalled was always going to be a problem for Rhaenyra's succession. Viserys is either an idiot or he simply is too lazy. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can agree that recalling Otto was a pretty big mistake but we cannot really say that Viserys must have or should have known how great a mistake that turned out to be.

Of course he should. And it is not just Otto, his own Master of Law went to his death claiming Aegon was the rightful heir.

 Ironrod followed him to the block, still insisting that by law a king’s son must come before his daughter. 

He stacked the Council in favor of his son. You can argue ignorance or stupidity, he's culpable either way.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He did not have the benefit of hindsight

He does not need it, what he needed was common sense. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Corlys was pretty old already, and, most likely, not exactly a guy Viserys I liked to work with. They have a pretty unpleasant history.

That's a bit hyperbolic. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A Great Council wouldn't have been necessary

Of course it would, he's trying to change the law that affects every noble House. Is the daughter now favored above the son or is it just firstborn? 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It seems that the Realm is only spit in half because of the successful coup.

No it does not. 

Rhanyra, to get support for her faction, had to promise twice as many marriages as her rivals. She also lucked out with the Ironborn supporting her cause.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

 

Keep in mind that even all those so-called stalwart Greens - the Hightowers and the Lannisters who had people directly involved in the original coup - were not exactly all that keen to go to war.

Was Corlys keen to go to war? 

Not sure what point you are making here. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right 

That's a lie. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the comparison was about Cersei/Tywin effectively seizing power at court in a coup

A coup is directed at the royal family. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

against the guy the late king wanted to have power

To serve and guide Joffrey, his heir. 

At no point did Robert want Ned to bribe the Gold Cloaks and try to arrest his family. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Come on! Are you serious?

Are you really telling me that Otto being biased towards his Grandson over Rhaenyra is something that would blindside anyone with a brain during that period? 

Still, questions persisted, not the least from Queen Alicent herself. Loudest amongst her supporters was her father, Ser Otto Hightower, Hand of the King. Pushed too far on the matter, in 109 AC King Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong. “This Hand will not hector me,” His Grace proclaimed.

He was literally fired for his opinion, Otto being recalled was always going to be a problem for Rhaenyra's succession. Viserys is either an idiot or he simply is too lazy. 

Nonsense. You are talking about 109 AC. But we were talking about Otto being recalled in 120 AC. Where is it stated that Otto still loudly and publicly insisted that Aegon should follow his father? Where is it stated that Otto did that after Viserys had reappointed him Hand?

How much sense does it make to assume that Viserys I would deliberately make a man his Hand and grant him the right to rule the Realm until Rhaenyra's coronation if he also believed that Otto would do anything in his power to prevent Rhaenyra's rise to the Iron Throne?

It makes no sense, so the only reasonable assumption here is that Viserys I did actually believe that Otto had changed his mind on the matter of the succession or had decided to accept the king's ruling even if he, personally, had a different opinion on the matter.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Of course he should. And it is not just Otto, his own Master of Law went to his death claiming Aegon was the rightful heir.

 Ironrod followed him to the block, still insisting that by law a king’s son must come before his daughter. 

He stacked the Council in favor of his son. You can argue ignorance or stupidity, he's culpable either way.

Did Wylde hector his king with his opinions on the succession while the king was still alive? Did he end every council session with the sentence, 'Oh, and by the way, I think the king's firstborn son must succeed him, not matter what His Grace himself believes'?

Not as far as we know. Don't pretend that Ironrod's ramblings on the way to the block mean that he must have been as forthcoming when Viserys I was still around.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Of course it would, he's trying to change the law that affects every noble House. Is the daughter now favored above the son or is it just firstborn? 

Who cares? Viserys I was just ruling on his own succession, not the succession of the Iron Throne in general. Just as the first Great Council just settled the succession of Jaehaerys I.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No it does not. 

Rhanyra, to get support for her faction, had to promise twice as many marriages as her rivals. She also lucked out with the Ironborn supporting her cause.

Man, we don't know how many men Aegon II would have been able to raise had Rhaenyra been crowned in 129 AC and he had decided to rebel some time after that. It is clear that Rhaenyra starting with only Dragonstone and Driftmark won half the Realm on the basis that everybody knew she was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, the one chosen by her royal father and the one whose throne had been stolen by a coup.

Aegon would have never had had that moral high ground. Everybody knew his royal father had not favored him.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Was Corlys keen to go to war? 

His speech about the Dance being the last storm he the gods preserved him for, etc. implies he was looking forward to the fighting, yes. He only seems to have lost the taste for it when the war killed his wife and destroyed a pretty large portion of his fleet, one of his castles, and towns.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Not sure what point you are making here. 

The point that Aegon II loyalists were not exactly willing to commit themselves as strongly as they could have. The army Lord Jason raises for Aegon II is a joke size-wise, and the same goes for the Baratheon army. And once Aegon II is finally restored to his throne and the Northmen, Riverlords, and Vale men close in around him Oldtown, Storm's End, Casterly Rock, and Highgarden prevaricate and do nothing to save him - despite the fact that all of them must have had the resources to help continue the war.

Lord Lyonel later considers a continuation of the war after the murder of Aegon II - but even he didn't lift so much as a finger to help save his royal cousin from his many enemies.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That's a lie. 

No. Rhaenyra basically has common men from the Riverlands to flock to her banner left and right. Men remembering their vows doing the honorable thing. Aegon II has mostly foul traitors declare for him - those Blackwater guys and the Dragonstonian turncloaks and the Two Betrayers (sort of). And then the scum of Ser Perkin the Flea. Even the Mootons do not side with Aegon II because they love him but because they no longer want to follow Rhaenyra. Aegon II's only loyal follower seems to have been Marston Waters, basically. That guy may have really loved him. And Tyland was loyal, too. But that's it.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

A coup is directed at the royal family. 

To serve and guide Joffrey, his heir. 

At no point did Robert want Ned to bribe the Gold Cloaks and try to arrest his family. 

I didn't say that. This is just a parallel, not an exactly identical carbon copy. Why don't you fault for not pointing out that Cersei is not named Alicent, that Otto is not named Tywin, and that Rhaenyra and Stannis are not identical, either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Viserys really did get complacent. There were things he could have done to secure Rhaenyra the succession, not least a public reaffirmation of her place as successor, getting the Hightowers and Alicent's children to swear a public oath, making Corlys Velaryon his final Hand, and so on. 

He's basically someone who ran the realm really well for a quarter of a century, and then dropped the ball on one niggling issue which led to disaster. It's like starting to celebrate a touchdown and tripping at the five yard line.

That said, Aegon IV is the worst king in the sense that he was knowingly and wittingly committing misrule for corrupt reasons. Viserys was stupid, lazy, or merely incompetent, Aerys II was mad, Maegor was cruel, Aenys I weak, but Aegon was corrupt through and through. Everyone else basically ruled to the best of their abilities.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


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

 Viserys really did get complacent. There were things he could have done to secure Rhaenyra the succession, not least a public reaffirmation of her place as successor, getting the Hightowers and Alicent's children to swear a public oath, making Corlys Velaryon his final Hand, and so on. 

Sure, he made a mistake. I just don't think this mistake makes him one of the worst kings ever. Rulers can never guarantee a successful or smooth succession. And as I lay out above - we cannot pretend to know that he should have known better. Robert also should have known a lot of things - some he ignored, but I think he clearly had no clue about the twincest nor did he expect that his brothers would kill each other mere months after he was in his grave.

Kings and rulers often find themselves in a position where they are unable to see what's going on around them, especially when they grow older and the people around them have grown very accustomed to defer to them in their presence and keep unpleasant things from them.

And one very much assumes that Otto, Alicent, Cole, and the other Greens did not exactly tell him about their coup plans or indicated that they would accept Rhaenyra's rise to power. Especially not after the Velaryon judgment - which was unusually harsh for Viserys I.

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

He's basically someone who ran the realm really well for a quarter of a century, and then dropped the ball on one niggling issue which led to disaster. It's like starting to celebrate a touchdown and tripping at the five yard line.

I'd say what twists the view of the man is that Gyldayn actually completely ignores Viserys I's reign in favor of reducing it and the Great Council to a prologue to the Dance. We know nothing about the details of the man's reign, and how it affected the well-being and prosperity of his subjects aside from the fact that it was peace and plenty. A proper history of the man's reign as a reign and not a collection of court gossip could have given an accurate picture of his reign. 

A proper assessment of Obama's two terms would also not be based on the fact that he was succeeded by Trump - or that Obama failed to prevent/helped Clinton to run instead of Biden or Sanders or any other candidate who may have been able to prevent Trump.

History is too complex to be reduced to a single issue, and that goes for fictional history, too.

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

That said, Aegon IV is the worst king in the sense that he was knowingly and wittingly committing misrule for corrupt reasons. Viserys was stupid, lazy, or merely incompetent, Aerys II was mad, Maegor was cruel, Aenys I weak, but Aegon was corrupt through and through. Everyone else basically ruled to the best of their abilities.

I'd say Aegon II now ranks pretty much directly behind Aegon IV. Aerys II has the excuse of being mad, Maegor at least helped to crush a rebellions against Targaryen rule in general, Aenys at least meant well, Aerys I had a strong Hand stepping in for him, but Aegon II was just vile and cruel and spiteful without ever making any attempt to rule well.

The only reason why one assumes Aegon IV was worse is that Aegon II was more too stupid and too disinterested/incompetent to actually practice misrule intentionally - not to mention that that Aegon IV had more time to do what he did, and also had the Machiavellian instinct and intelligence to prevent any serious uprising or rebellion against his rule.

Since we have to go with him being the worst king ever this is actually a pretty great accomplishment and a testament to his intelligence. Even while his baser desires completely took him over he was still able to stay and in power and very successfully poison the reign of his son and heir.

Aegon IV may have died in 184 AC but the protagonists of the Blackfyre Rebellion were still dangling at the threads of the web he had woven during his lifetime.

Share this post


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

Nonsense. You are talking about 109 AC. But we were talking about Otto being recalled in 120 AC. Where is it stated that Otto still loudly and publicly insisted that Aegon should follow his father? Where is it stated that Otto did that after Viserys had reappointed him Hand?

Mate you are going to have to be consistent with your posts.  The "Where is it stated" argument can be used on 99% of your posts. 

Not only was Otto Aegon's grandfather, an enemy of Daemon's but he also had history of pushing his agenda. Nothing in the last 9 years of his life shows that it was a priority for Viserys. 

Though Viserys I would reign for nine more years, the bloody seeds of the Dance of the Dragons had already been planted, and 120 AC was the year when they began to sprout.

The books are right, your headcannon is not. We are told how pivotal the year 120 was to the Dance, the year Otto was re-appointed.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

How much sense does it make to assume that Viserys I would deliberately make a man his Hand and grant him the right to rule the Realm until Rhaenyra's coronation if he also believed that Otto would do anything in his power to prevent Rhaenyra's rise to the Iron Throne?

Because he was lazy and complacent.  Strong died and he went with someone he knew.

Viserys I Targaryen was not the strongest-willed of kings, it must be said

He also did not want the hassle of his daughter and wife in the same city

His Grace had reached the age of three-and-forty, and had grown quite stout. He no longer had a young man’s vigor, and was afflicted by gout, aching joints, back pain, and a tightness in the chest that came and went and oft left him red-faced and short of breath. The governance of the realm was a daunting task; the king needed a strong, capable Hand to shoulder some of his burdens. Briefly he considered sending for Princess Rhaenyra. Who better to rule with him than the daughter he meant to succeed him on the Iron Throne? But that would have meant bringing the princess and her sons back to King’s Landing, where more conflict with the queen and her own brood would have been inevitable.

Otto is picked due to the king's laziness.  Rhaenyra should have been, at the very least. on the Small Council yet laziness, his libido and avoiding the issue made him ignore it. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes no sense, so the only reasonable assumption here...

lol can you please not. The books are clear why he was chosen, why he made no effort to train his daughter, change the small council or have the new lords of the land proclaim their vows to his daughter in the last 20 years, it was because of complacency. 

Grand Maester Mellos suggested bringing in some younger man, and put forward several names, but His Grace chose familiarity, and recalled to court Ser Otto Hightower, the queen’s father, who had filled the office before for both Viserys and the Old King.

 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Did Wylde hector his king with his opinions on the succession while the king was still alive? Did he end every council session with the sentence, 'Oh, and by the way, I think the king's firstborn son must succeed him, not matter what His Grace himself believes'?

Did the king bother to ask his Master of Law who was the legal heir? Did he question him enough or gave up for a quiet life, too lazy to have to find another councillor? 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not as far as we know. Don't pretend that Ironrod's ramblings 

lol can you not with this undermining tactic, the character is incredibly consistent with his viewpoint;

“It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter.

His opinion on the matter was not 'ramblings'.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares? 

The majority of the lords and ladies of the realm. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, we don't know how many men Aegon II would have been able to raise had Rhaenyra been crowned 

Exactly, so when you claim Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right  you are clearly lying, by your own admission. 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon would have never had had that moral high ground. Everybody knew his royal father had not favored him.

But the law does, that is why there was a huge civil war and the kingdom split apart. 

Viserys was a fool or complacent to think it would be easy, him largely ignoring it and hoping for the best is a fault.

 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

His speech about the Dance being the last storm he the gods preserved him for

Do you have that quote and the context of the chapter

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point that Aegon II loyalists were not exactly willing to commit themselves as strongly as they could have.

Citation?

It was the Black supporters in the North who took little part till the end. It was two of Rhaenyra's dragon riders who quit on her, even Corlys wavered.

The Westerlands clearly did commit, they suffered for their commitment. 

Which of the Green supporters sacrificed as much as Tyland? 

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The army Lord Jason raises for Aegon II is a joke size-wise,

Is it? We don't know how many men were raised, all we know is that it was too many to defend themselves.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

and the same goes for the Baratheon army.

How many men did the Vale send and how early? Same goes for the North.

Do you even think your arguments through or do you just waffle for the sake of it hoping no one has the time to reply to a reply that Tolstoy would feel is a little much.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

 

No. Rhaenyra basically has common men from the Riverlands to flock to her banner left and right. Men remembering their vows doing the honorable thing.

The Lord Paramount of the Trident, Grover Tully, had been an old man even at the Great Council of 101, where he spoke for Prince Viserys; though now failing, he was no less stubborn. He had favored the rights of the male claimant in 101, and the years had not changed his views. Lord Grover insisted that Riverrun would fight for young King Aegon. Yet no such word went forth. The old lord was bedridden and would not live much longer, Riverrun’s maester had declared. “I would sooner the rest of us did not die with him,” declared Ser Elmo Tully, his grandson. Riverrun had no defense against dragonfire, he pointed out to his own sons, and both sides in this fight rode dragons. And so whilst Lord Grover thundered and fulminated from his deathbed, Riverrun barred its gates, manned its walls, and held its silence.

The realm was divided, passionate supporters on both sides. Viserys ignored this.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Aegon II has mostly foul traitors declare for him

Listen to yourself, you sound like Alicent or Rhaenyra. You've clearly bought into the propaganda a little too much. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Stallion That Mounts Texas said:

Rhaenyra lusted after him and should have been kept at a distance.  But, Viserys gave in to her and allowed him as her sworn shield and champion.  He was a great warrior and of the true steel, keeping to his vows, but he turned into a bitter enemy of Rhaenyra and ignited the war.

That sounds plausible, though seeing how she was corrupted by Daemon and found other paramour rather fast in Breakbones, I wonder if she would done same to any other knight or lord in her service if her "White knight" wasn't chosen as her sworn shield. 

 

Viserys spoiling his daughter could also be added to his failings, instead of having her being part of the small council or having some sort of job or duty besides bringing up children.

Realm has also fallen apart in war only a moments after his death, he had most power to stop it, while he let many things pass or under the rug, probably because he loved his entire family too much.  

He seems to have inner struggle also with him realizing the issue that caused his deteriorating health,  that caused him to die earlier, though I doubt he would change much if he lived longer.

Allowing creation of two opposing blocks armed with super weapons in one kingdom is one of worst policies in Westeros history.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Mate you are going to have to be consistent with your posts.  The "Where is it stated" argument can be used on 99% of your posts. 

Not only was Otto Aegon's grandfather, an enemy of Daemon's but he also had history of pushing his agenda. Nothing in the last 9 years of his life shows that it was a priority for Viserys. 

Though Viserys I would reign for nine more years, the bloody seeds of the Dance of the Dragons had already been planted, and 120 AC was the year when they began to sprout.

The books are right, your headcannon is not. We are told how pivotal the year 120 was to the Dance, the year Otto was re-appointed.

Because he was lazy and complacent.  Strong died and he went with someone he knew.

You have no case that Otto publicly and privately told Viserys that he felt Aegon should succeed the king.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Viserys I Targaryen was not the strongest-willed of kings, it must be said

He also did not want the hassle of his daughter and wife in the same city

His Grace had reached the age of three-and-forty, and had grown quite stout. He no longer had a young man’s vigor, and was afflicted by gout, aching joints, back pain, and a tightness in the chest that came and went and oft left him red-faced and short of breath. The governance of the realm was a daunting task; the king needed a strong, capable Hand to shoulder some of his burdens. Briefly he considered sending for Princess Rhaenyra. Who better to rule with him than the daughter he meant to succeed him on the Iron Throne? But that would have meant bringing the princess and her sons back to King’s Landing, where more conflict with the queen and her own brood would have been inevitable.

Otto is picked due to the king's laziness.  Rhaenyra should have been, at the very least. on the Small Council yet laziness, his libido and avoiding the issue made

lol can you please not. The books are clear why he was chosen, why he made no effort to train his daughter, change the small council or have the new lords of the land proclaim their vows to his daughter in the last 20 years, it was because of complacency. 

This has no bearing on the succession, merely on the fact that the queen and the princess and their families didn't get along. But this doesn't mean they have to go to war after the king's death, or that there has to be a coup.

It is like blaming World War II on the outcome of World War I. Sure, certain seeds were laid there, but many things had to happen to accomplish that. Even Hindenburg handing power to Hitler didn't force Hitler to start a war six years later. That was a choice - and the Dance was caused by a choice made by Alicent, Otto, Criston Cole, and Aegon II - not by Viserys I.

Viserys I should have made things more clear again in his last years, that was a mistake, and I never said it was not a mistake.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Did the king bother to ask his Master of Law who was the legal heir? Did he question him enough or gave up for a quiet life, too lazy to have to find another councillor?

lol can you not with this undermining tactic, the character is incredibly consistent with his viewpoint;

“It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter.

His opinion on the matter was not 'ramblings'.

The majority of the lords and ladies of the realm. 

Why should the king ask Wylde's opinion on the succession? The king ruled on his succession in 105 AC, long before Ironrod was in office, with the support of Otto Hightower, the Hand of the King. You are aware of the fact that Otto helped to make Rhaenyra heir to the throne and did swear a vow to defend her right to succeed to the throne, right?

It is also pretty clear that the king makes legal decisions in this world, not his advisers. They can offer their advice, sure, but that's it.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Exactly, so when you claim Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right  you are clearly lying, by your own admission. 

Nope.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But the law does, that is why there was a huge civil war and the kingdom split apart. 

There is no succession law prohibiting the king from making arbitrary rule on his own succession. 

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Do you have that quote and the context of the chapter

Don't remember that?

Quote

But the greatest lord to pledge his strength to the princess was Corlys Velaryon of Driftmark. Though the Sea Snake had grown old, he liked to say that he was clinging to life “like a drowning sailor clinging to the wreckage of a sunken ship. Mayhaps the Seven have preserved me for this one last fight.

 

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It was the Black supporters in the North who took little part till the end. It was two of Rhaenyra's dragon riders who quit on her, even Corlys wavered.

They came down with a vast army of about 10,000 men, in addition to the Winter Wolves who came earlier, the Vale came with 10,000 men, too, and the Riverlords may have raised even more throughout the entire war. In the end all Riverlords fought for Rhaenyra.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Westerlands clearly did commit, they suffered for their commitment. 

The host they raised was a joke compared to the resources of the West, and they only did that during a campaign where they were expecting to get an additional army and dragon support from KL.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Which of the Green supporters sacrificed as much as Tyland? 

Tyland certainly was a Green, but his sister-in-law and twin-brother didn't appear to have been die-hard loyalists of Aegon II.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Is it? We don't know how many men were raised, all we know is that it was too many to defend themselves.

We do know. Go check.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

How many men did the Vale send and how early? Same goes for the North.

See above. Why do you care about the time they sent their men? This is not relevant when we talk commitment, is it?

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Do you even think your arguments through or do you just waffle for the sake of it hoping no one has the time to reply to a reply that Tolstoy would feel is a little much.

The Lord Paramount of the Trident, Grover Tully, had been an old man even at the Great Council of 101, where he spoke for Prince Viserys; though now failing, he was no less stubborn. He had favored the rights of the male claimant in 101, and the years had not changed his views. Lord Grover insisted that Riverrun would fight for young King Aegon. Yet no such word went forth. The old lord was bedridden and would not live much longer, Riverrun’s maester had declared. “I would sooner the rest of us did not die with him,” declared Ser Elmo Tully, his grandson. Riverrun had no defense against dragonfire, he pointed out to his own sons, and both sides in this fight rode dragons. And so whilst Lord Grover thundered and fulminated from his deathbed, Riverrun barred its gates, manned its walls, and held its silence.

The realm was divided, passionate supporters on both sides. Viserys ignored this.

Listen to yourself, you sound like Alicent or Rhaenyra. You've clearly bought into the propaganda a little too much. 

Tully failed to support his king. And he did not care about Aegon II as a person, he cared only about the principle. That's the difference. Rhaenyra has men who are personally devoted to her, her cause, and the vows their swore to her and her father. Aegon II has his mother's ambitious family and lukewarm support by the Lannisters and Baratheons. And he has some guys who fight for him because of an abstract principle.

Grover Tully would have switched to Aegon III as soon as Aegon II no longer had a male heir. He would have never supported Jaehaera, because he is was against the female line on principle, just as Unwin Peake, the Green who murdered the Green queen, was.

8 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Viserys spoiling his daughter could also be added to his failings, instead of having her being part of the small council or having some sort of job or duty besides bringing up children.

Rhaenyra ruled in her own right on Dragonstone for over a decade. She had ample experience as a ruler.

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

×