Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

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

What population of Dragonstone does have? I feel most of the job was done by steward or later eldest of her sons, especially her often going on rides with Laena and Daemon.

Isn't being at the capitol better for future ruler to create his own power base and valuable connections and experience in governing the  whole realm instead, especially since she was in her thirties and had heirs to spare. 

During the war common men in Kings Landing suffered under her rule , In just under six months  she had several rebellions in the city she should have governed, that eventually caused death of all of dragons in the city, which is the one of the worst records in ruling and shows lack of talent for governing even more if she had experience in Dragonstone , which I don't see as transferable skill in this case. 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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? 

This is what I mean when I say that women right to rule could be included in the exceptionalism doctrine. Are you a dragon? no? you can't fuck your brother, no! you can't rule... in my opinion... Jaheaerys mistake... It's quite stupid if we look closely... 

Hey you Idiots! only us! descendants of Aegon the conqueror can pet dragons! :tantrum:

Hey you Idiots! only us! descendants of Aegon the conqueror are allowed to have incest sex!:tantrum:

Hey you my dear Lords... cuold you help me decide if my older son's dougther claim to the trhone is stronger than the claim of my younger son' first born son?:uhoh:

Edited by MushroomIsNoFool
:)

Share this post


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

What population of Dragonstone does have? I feel most of the job was done by steward or later eldest of her sons, especially her often going on rides with Laena and Daemon.

She ruled there. We do know that.

6 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Isn't being at the capitol better for future ruler to create his own power base and valuable connections and experience in governing the  whole realm instead, especially since she was in her thirties and had heirs to spare. 

Could be, but it is traditional that the Heir Apparent rules as Prince of Dragonstone. Prince Aemon resided there, Prince Baelon resided there before he became Hand, and Prince Viserys seems to have resided there before he became king.

Afterwards Prince Daeron lived and ruled there before he became king as Daeron II, as did Prince Rhaegar later after his marriage.

Some heirs were Hands or sat on the Small Council but it seems that the way heirs learned to rule was by actually ruling the Dragonstone and the lords of the Narrow Sea.

6 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

During the war common men in Kings Landing suffered under her rule , In just under six months  she had several rebellions in the city she should have governed, that eventually caused death of all of dragons in the city, which is the one of the worst records in ruling and shows lack of talent for governing even more if she had experience in Dragonstone , which I don't see as transferable skill in this case. 

Rhaenyra was forced to fight a war without sufficient funds. It is laid out in detail how and why she was forced to fill her coffers the way she did.

Celtigar wasn't a great Master of Coin, but you cannot really throw money at people when you don't have it.

And it is made very clear that Larys Strong and Perkin the Flea fueled the fires of discontent. If there is a secret conspiracy in the works against you you can do what you want, you will get in trouble.

That's not to say she didn't make crucial mistakes - she certainly did. But she infinitely better than Aegon II. She tried to do her best, her half-brother never even tried. And he and his ilk always threw the first stones - they may have murdered the king, they definitely murdered a loyal old man, they staged a coup, they imprisoned people who had done nothing wrong, they started the kinslaying thing, they first executed men who were loyal to their vows, etc.

The Blacks just joined the Greens on the other side of the door when they had already broken a taboo or had escalated the war.

I was very much surprised by that when I read FaB in full but that's how it is.

There are essentially no sympathetic Greens, especially not in the royal family (even Daeron develops into a bloodthirsty guy who sacks towns and had people killed by the thousands who had nothing to do with the Maelor episode). It is also the Green army and their allies who are responsible for and work with the savages who are responsible for Tumbleton.

The Blacks have Jacaerys and Joffrey and Aegon III and Viserys, they have Baela and Rhaena and the loyal Addam Velaryon. They have Corlys and Rhaenys and Alyn. They even have Rhaenyra who is severely flawed but nowhere near as bad as Aegon II or Aemond.

The only proper thug among the Blacks is Daemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow! this topic is hot as hell!

Lord Varys you are ready as we can see, to excuse Viserys I... so who's the worst Targaryen King for you?

I mean... intended or not intended... the results of Viserys actions, or inaction were catastrophic...

Maybe later we could say about Aegon IV, the catastrophic events of the Blackfire rebelion were actually intended by Aegon IV, who wanted to disgrace Daeron II.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MushroomIsNoFool said:

This is what I mean when I say that women right to rule could be included in the exceptionalism doctrine. Are you a dragon? no? you can't fuck your brother, no! you can't rule... in my opinion... Jaheaerys mistake... It's quite stupid if we look closely... 

Hey you Idiots! only us! descendants of Aegon the conqueror can pet dragons! :tantrum:

Hey you Idiots! only us! descendants of Aegon the conqueror are allowed to have incest sex!:tantrum:

Hey you my dear Lords... cuold you help me decide if my older son's dougther claim to the trhone is stronger than the claim of my younger son' first born son?:uhoh:

Doctrine of exceptionalism may have worked on some of the devout and smallfolk. 

Though when you look at the lords and how some have high opinion of themselves I doubt it would stop them from trying to shape accepted codes of society, affected through their feeling of superiority ( Cersei and Jaime and their comparing themselves with Targaryens  is one of the examples in later history).

Share this post


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

Doctrine of exceptionalism may have worked on some of the devout and smallfolk. 

Though when you look at the lords and how some have high opinion of themselves I doubt it would stop them from trying to shape accepted codes of society, affected through their feeling of superiority ( Cersei and Jaime and their comparing themselves with Targaryens  is one of the examples in later history).

ok, you've got me there...

Doctrine of exceptionalism was a more religious affaire, carried out by septons and septas...

Rights over land and armies is another matter... even the faith of the seven maybe would agree on Patriarchy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MushroomIsNoFool said:

wow! this topic is hot as hell!

Lord Varys you are ready as we can see, to excuse Viserys I... so who's the worst Targaryen King for you?

The worst is Aegon IV as per George's own words. Whether we agree with his assessment we'll see when we have read an account on his reign.

In my opinion he is followed by directly by Aegon II as the second worst king, and then by Maegor the Cruel.

Aerys II was shitty, too, but here we have to count about 20 years of peace and plenty against some mad accesses and a civil war at the end.

If Aerys II had ruled as cruelly and despotically as Maegor the Cruel for 20+ years he likely would count as the worst king simply by the amount of cruelties he would have committed.

11 minutes ago, MushroomIsNoFool said:

I mean... intended or not intended... the results of Viserys actions, or inaction were catastrophic...

But why do we blame him, mostly, for things that happened after his death and things that did not have to happen had his family behaved like proper human beings and found some non-violent means to settle their issues?

Making Viserys I the main culprit there exonerates Otto, Alicent, Aegon II and Rhaenyra for the things they did.

11 minutes ago, MushroomIsNoFool said:

Maybe later we could say about Aegon IV, the catastrophic events of the Blackfire rebelion were actually intended by Aegon IV, who wanted to disgrace Daeron II.

Aegon IV clearly wanted that something like the Blackfyre Rebellion would happen. He meticulously laid the groundwork for something like that, and a very interesting fact is that both characters in-universe and some readers actually buy into the story that Aegon IV giving Blackfyre to Daemon was not just a ploy to turn anyone against each other.

The fact that people actually do cite this decision of that scumbag as a meaningful expression of the royal will - and not just dismiss it as an obvious ploy to poison people shows how effective the man was when he was playing his mind games.

The same goes for the Aemon-Naerys story. He seems to have used exactly the right dosage of shit to make stick, so that the infection could later fester and poison everyone. That is real art.

Share this post


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

She ruled there. We do know that.

Could be, but it is traditional that the Heir Apparent rules as Prince of Dragonstone. Prince Aemon resided there, Prince Baelon resided there before he became Hand, and Prince Viserys seems to have resided there before he became king.

Afterwards Prince Daeron lived and ruled there before he became king as Daeron II, as did Prince Rhaegar later after his marriage.

Some heirs were Hands or sat on the Small Council but it seems that the way heirs learned to rule was by actually ruling the Dragonstone and the lords of the Narrow Sea.

Rhaenyra was forced to fight a war without sufficient funds. It is laid out in detail how and why she was forced to fill her coffers the way she did.

Celtigar wasn't a great Master of Coin, but you cannot really throw money at people when you don't have it.

And it is made very clear that Larys Strong and Perkin the Flea fueled the fires of discontent. If there is a secret conspiracy in the works against you you can do what you want, you will get in trouble.

That's not to say she didn't make crucial mistakes - she certainly did. But she infinitely better than Aegon II. She tried to do her best, her half-brother never even tried. And he and his ilk always threw the first stones - they may have murdered the king, they definitely murdered a loyal old man, they staged a coup, they imprisoned people who had done nothing wrong, they started the kinslaying thing, they first executed men who were loyal to their vows, etc.

The Blacks just joined the Greens on the other side of the door when they had already broken a taboo or had escalated the war.

I was very much surprised by that when I read FaB in full but that's how it is.

There are essentially no sympathetic Greens, especially not in the royal family (even Daeron develops into a bloodthirsty guy who sacks towns and had people killed by the thousands who had nothing to do with the Maelor episode). It is also the Green army and their allies who are responsible for and work with the savages who are responsible for Tumbleton.

The Blacks have Jacaerys and Joffrey and Aegon III and Viserys, they have Baela and Rhaena and the loyal Addam Velaryon. They have Corlys and Rhaenys and Alyn. They even have Rhaenyra who is severely flawed but nowhere near as bad as Aegon II or Aemond.

The only proper thug among the Blacks is Daemon.

I very much doubt she didn't have sufficient funds, especially when later we see Velaryon's still have lot of power at the end of war, so by estranging them she lost additional funds and way to transport food or malcontents from Kings Landing. 

She could have taken some food from the Vale, did they contribute anything at all to war, maybe from one of the Free cities, did they manage to make all of them their enemies?

Larys Strong could have embellished some of the rumors, but when every day you put more and more heads to the spikes of Red Keep , and three members of the opposing family die horrible deaths in small time period, you yourself are creating a picture of cruel regime, without enough power to hold peace in city.

There are plenty of ways to stop rebellion, but even if she failed to do that  , taking care for safety of  Dragons and her hostages is also very important, She  also couldn't even properly train her dragon. Those events show exactly how flawed a ruler she was.

In my opinion she is slightly more incompetent and much more cruel than Aegon II.

If you are referring to Beesbury again , there are several accounts about his death, my opinion he died in Black cells, mostly considering the  entire small council was present and war hasn't escalated yet. 

To me it matters less who started , but how to end the ruining of order and destruction of the realm, though that to happen people like Daemon and Aemond would had to be executed or banished without their dragons in Aemond's case , Daemon had wasted too many chances at the time, and Rhaenyra and Aegon would had to be married before the war.

The Greens didn't kill the king for sure , why would they keep his body so long unburned and wait to crown Aegon if they planed his death? It doesn't add up.

The Blacks also gave two traitors the dragons, Daemon even wanted to make them lord paramount, Greens accepted their aid when they had little choice in battle, and later killed both of them, which was only right thing to do at the time. 

That is true most of Black characters are painted sympathetically with exception of Corlys who in my opinion is a snake in true meaning of word, but Baela, Aegon and Viserys weren't killed even though they were captured unlike Helaena Targaryen, Jaehaerys, Jaehaera, Maelor. Dareon and Tyland Lannister I find also agreeable.

We also look at that history from the view of  the winning side wanting it or not, Aegon III and Viserys are future kings and it effects lot of the writing about the  Green side and characters.

Though I really hate derailing the thread like this, this should focus on Viserys and him being "bad" or "not as bad" king. 

 

 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good that Aegon IV's actions make Robert the second worst king of Westeros. But Robert is not better Aegon II. At least this guy participated in small councils and killed the treacherous men whenever it needed.

Share this post


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

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

Actually I do

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 Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong.

 

However that was never my argument it was that Otto, given his previous agenda, was always going to favor his grandson.  

If making his daughter the ruler was a priority then making Aegon's grandfather his Hand and de-facto ruler in his lazy later years was a huge mistake. 

 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

This has no bearing on the succession,

Mate you asked a question 

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?

The quotes in the text answer it. It's hilarious that you'll ask questions and when the text answers them with points that contradict your own headcanon you'll simply  ignore them.

In the year 120 Otto had a number of options as Hand, he chose the lazy option rather than his daughter or some one supporting her cause.

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. 

His daughter's succession was not a priority, making his life easier was. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

So what on earth are you arguing for? 

My only real point is that he made a pretty big mistake in not fully resolving the issue and allowing Aegon supporters to control most of the government. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should the king ask Wylde's opinion on the succession?

Are you being facetious now? 

There had never been a female ruler of Westeros, the law was that sons come before daughters. Rhaenya's succession was always going to be difficult. Appointing a Master of Law who was against a female ruler was always going to be a problem, it was yet another mistake made by a lazy King.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

The king ruled on his succession in 105 AC,

Before he had sons. He was adamant that Daemon not rule. 

120, with sons and Daemon now married to his daughter it changes a lot, he needed to clarify his position, easing the transfer of power. 

He does none of that because when ever the two sides of the family are together they fight. Any one could see what was going to happen after he died, he put it off. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

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?

“On no account can Prince Daemon be allowed to ascend to the Iron Throne,” the Hand wrote his brother, Lord of Oldtown. “He would be a second Maegor the Cruel, or worse.” It was Ser Otto’s wish (then) that Princess Rhaenyra succeed her father. “Better the Realm’s Delight than Lord Flea Bottom,” he wrote.

He swore Rhaenyra was the heir when she was the only child, not while Aegon was alive.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

It's not that clear actually. A king can only have people accept something while he's alive and has the power to make them obey. 

Jaehaerys did not just change the law, he and his council worked diligently to get people on board and make sure the new laws were clear. 

Viserys did nothing of the sort.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope.

You were not telling the truth, your two statements contradict each other.

  •  Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right  
  • Man, we don't know how many men Aegon II would have been able to raise had Rhaenyra been crowned 

Your first response was a lie. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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

There's no law guaranteeing he be obeyed after he dies. 

The realm didn't honour Maegor's arbitrary rule on his own succession, they crowned Jaehaerys instead of Aerea. The precedent of ignoring a King's choice had already been set. 

Viserys would need to do more to get his wish.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't remember that?

That quote is not about wanting to fight, it is about being willing to, a sentiment he shares with the other side. 

Corlys is actually one of the cooler heads in her council

Celtigar urged the princess to fly against King’s Landing at once, and reduce the city to ash and bone. “And how will that serve us, my lord?” the Sea Snake demanded of him. “We want to rule the city, not burn it to the ground.”

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

They came down with a vast army of about 10,000 men,

8,000. And after the war, despite the promise of marriage they took their time. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

in addition to the Winter Wolves who came earlier,

2,000

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

the Vale came with 10,000 men, too,

After the war was settled. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

 

and the Riverlords may have raised even more throughout the entire war. In the end all Riverlords fought for Rhaenyra.

Are the Brackens not part of the Riverlands? 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

The host they raised was a joke compared to the resources of the West, 

Again, your headcannon is just that. 

The West was hugely vulnerable due to their support of the war. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Citation? 

The Arryns and Starks had prices to join the war, the Lannisters didn't. The Vale and North delayed, the Westerlands didn't. Are you really arguing that they were less committed? 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

We do know. Go check.

No we don't. We don't know the precise number of battles, if that army was re-upped. 

It's good account of the war, we don't know if its complete. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Of course it is. 

If someone turns up at 4:45 for work then they are not commited. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Tully failed to support his king.

He did. His king was Aegon.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

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

lol clearly it was far from good enough, her time at Kings Landing was disastrous. 

 

Share this post


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

I very much doubt she didn't have sufficient funds, especially when later we see Velaryon's still have lot of power at the end of war, so by estranging them she lost additional funds and way to transport food or malcontents from Kings Landing. 

She didn't have any funds when she arrived at KL. The quarter of the treasury that the Greens had kept in KL was spent.

The Velaryon wealth was not the royal treasury. Wealthy in-laws and relations to the royals do not pay their debts. We see this with Tywin who, despite the fact that Joffrey and later Tommen don't have much money and a lot of debts has no inclination to pay the royal bills with Lannister gold. He considers that notion absurd, and rightfully so. He also doesn't forgive the Iron Throne the gold the king owes Casterly Rock.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

She could have taken some food from the Vale, did they contribute anything at all to war, maybe from one of the Free cities, did they manage to make all of them their enemies?

There was no shortage of food. She just got immensely unpopular due to the taxes and tariffs Lord Celtigar collected.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Larys Strong could have embellished some of the rumors, but when every day you put more and more heads to the spikes of Red Keep , and three members of the opposing family die horrible deaths in small time period, you yourself are creating a picture of cruel regime, without enough power to hold peace in city.

In a city which has hundreds of thousands of people you would really need a guard numbering in the tens of thousands - or perhaps even as much as a hundred thousand to actually maintain the peace in a time of crisis caused by the threat of attacking dragons. But nobody ever had such a strong City Watch.

Punishing traitors is not wrong in war.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

There are plenty of ways to stop rebellion, but even if she failed to do that  , taking care for safety of  Dragons and her hostages is also very important, She  also couldn't even properly train her dragon. Those events show exactly how flawed a ruler she was.

Rhaenyra had nothing to do with Syrax rejecting Joffrey. She wasn't his dragon. A dragon accepts only one rider at a time.

Sure, not properly protecting the Dragonpit and not mounting Syrax to come to their defense and/or release them was a grave mistake. Although the latter part also lies at the feet of the dragonkeepers. Why didn't they open loose their chains and open the gate?

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

In my opinion she is slightly more incompetent and much more cruel than Aegon II.

Aegon II thought the murder of Lucerys was great. Aegon II was completely unprepared for his rise affecting trade. Aegon II constantly wanted his sister and his nephews to die. Aegon II sent a Kingsguard to murder his half-sister and/or her sons. Aegon II fired his grandfather because he did not understand how policy worked. Aegon II did not make any attempt to comfort his sister-wife after the Blood and Cheese episode. Aegon II signed off a dangerous plan that nearly got him killed. Aegon II executed loyal Black lords whose only crime was to stay true to their vows. Aegon II cruelly killed his half-sister and the Grand Maester his sister had made. He wanted to kill his cousin and nephew and was only stopped by political necessity. He burned hundreds of people in the city, and executed a boy who may have been his half-brother while rewarding the man who used him as a pawn. He plotted to murder Corlys Velaryon once he was no longer of any use and only never got around doing that because he was killed first. He was unwilling to offer his enemies pardons, even pretty insignificant enemies like the lords of the Crownlands.

Rhaenyra makes mistake, but she is not wantonly cruel and vindictive. She had no hand in Blood and Cheese nor the murder of Prince Maelor. She spared the lives of both Alicent and Helaena.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

If you are referring to Beesbury again , there are several accounts about his death, my opinion he died in Black cells, mostly considering the  entire small council was present and war hasn't escalated yet. 

But that is clearly marked as the account that is not likely to be true. It comes from Munkun by means of Orwyle who, as Gyldayn stresses, had every reason to portray his role and the things he was involved in as favorable light as possible.

Eustace tells us of the dagger story, and he was at the castle at the time and had no reason to lie there.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

To me it matters less who started , but how to end the ruining of order and destruction of the realm, though that to happen people like Daemon and Aemond would had to be executed or banished without their dragons in Aemond's case , Daemon had wasted too many chances at the time, and Rhaenyra and Aegon would had to be married before the war.

Aegon II had the chance to end the war. When he captured Rhaenyra both he and his half-sister were widowed. They could have married each other, ended the fighting, and shared the rule. Had he made such an offer it would have been a sign that the war had taught him some things.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

The Greens didn't kill the king for sure , why would they keep his body so long unburned and wait to crown Aegon if they planed his death? It doesn't add up.

There is a rumor that Alicent poisoned Viserys I. And that is not unlikely considering the king died at a very opportune moment, when Rhaenyra was unable to react quickly due to her pregnancy. Viserys I's had to be concealed for other reasons. He had to die for the Greens to act, but his death had to be concealed so Rhaenyra would not learn what was happening until it was too late.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

The Blacks also gave two traitors the dragons, Daemon even wanted to make them lord paramount, Greens accepted their aid when they had little choice in battle, and later killed both of them, which was only right thing to do at the time. 

One assumes the Greens actually made the Two Betrayers the Two Betrayers by persuading them to turn their cloaks. Larys Strong's name is mentioned there, too.

31 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

We also look at that history from the view of  the winning side wanting it or not, Aegon III and Viserys are future kings and it effects lot of the writing about the  Green side and characters.

Gyldayn's account seems to be pretty unbiased. And a lot of the actions speak for themselves. 

52 minutes ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

It is good that Aegon IV's actions make Robert the second worst king of Westeros. But Robert is not better Aegon II. At least this guy participated in small councils and killed the treacherous men whenever it needed.

Robert was never as cruel as Aegon II, though. But, sure, he ranks close to Aerys II in my opinion. He took his throne over the corpses of children, he set a very bad precedent in taking the throne, he beggared the Crown, and he set the stages for a conflict that seems to be as cruel as the Dance. And unlike in the case of Viserys I it is made evident that Robert could at least have prevented the entire Stark-Lannister part of the conflict by not insisting Ned Stark should be his Hand. Ned makes it perfectly clear in a number of conversations with the king that he loathes the Lannisters, and Jaime and Tywin Lannister especially. Only an utter fool like Robert would think having such people would work amicably together.

Share this post


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

Actually I do

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 Viserys stripped Ser Otto of his chain of office and named in his place the taciturn Lord of Harrenhal, Lyonel Strong.

 

However that was never my argument it was that Otto, given his previous agenda, was always going to favor his grandson.

Man, don't you understand? I know what happened in 109 AC. But there is no evidence that Otto continued his confrontational approach after he was recalled to court. I mean, is there any evidence that Otto continued to hector Viserys as he had back in 107-109 AC? No, there is not.

And one would have to assume that Otto was an utter fool if he continued a conflict that had led to his dismissal the last time he broached the subject with the king. Since there is no hint that he was that stupid I assume he was not that stupid. Because one should assume he would have been dismissed again had he presumed to lecture the king on the succession again.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

If making his daughter the ruler was a priority then making Aegon's grandfather his Hand and de-facto ruler in his lazy later years was a huge mistake. 

And I agree with that. He should have known better. What we don't know, though, is whether he actually knew better and ignored his gut instinct or whether he was deceived into honestly believing Otto had accepted Rhaenyra as the heir now. Since Otto had been the one championing Rhaenyra in the first place chanced are not that bad that he succeeded at such a deception.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Mate you asked a question 

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?

The quotes in the text answer it. It's hilarious that you'll ask questions and when the text answers them with points that contradict your own headcanon you'll simply  ignore them.

In the year 120 Otto had a number of options as Hand, he chose the lazy option rather than his daughter or some one supporting her cause.

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. 

His daughter's succession was not a priority, making his life easier was.

But this doesn't mean he knew or suspect that Otto was determined to prevent the rise of the heir he had chosen to succeed him.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

So what on earth are you arguing for? 

My only real point is that he made a pretty big mistake in not fully resolving the issue and allowing Aegon supporters to control most of the government. 

I can agree with the former but in the latter case you seem to overlook that they actually staged a coup. FaB lays that out in detail. The impression we have is that this was, in the beginning, just a cabal of three people - Otto, Alicent, Cole - and they brought Lannister, Wylde, Orwyle, and Strong on board. Afterwards they had to arrest a lot of other courtiers and pretty much exchange the entire leadership of the City Watch. Gyldayn also explicitly mentions that Strong and Lannister were the youngest members of the council - indicating that they didn't serve that long - while Orwyle was the newest member who favored neither Blacks nor Greens.

Things went as smoothly because the king suddenly died and none of the Blacks at court learned the news until they were marched into the dungeons at sword point.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Are you being facetious now? 

There had never been a female ruler of Westeros, the law was that sons come before daughters. Rhaenya's succession was always going to be difficult. Appointing a Master of Law who was against a female ruler was always going to be a problem, it was yet another mistake made by a lazy King.

There is no such laws as that. There are just precedents and legal opinions. And we don't know whether Wylde actually ever talked to anyone about his opinion on the succession prior to the council session discussing the succession. That that is basically all he does thereafter doesn't mean that's all he did before Viserys' death.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Before he had sons. He was adamant that Daemon not rule. 

He made it clear that this decision would stand even after he had sons. Repeatedly.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

120, with sons and Daemon now married to his daughter it changes a lot, he needed to clarify his position, easing the transfer of power. 

He does none of that because when ever the two sides of the family are together they fight. Any one could see what was going to happen after he died, he put it off. 

“On no account can Prince Daemon be allowed to ascend to the Iron Throne,” the Hand wrote his brother, Lord of Oldtown. “He would be a second Maegor the Cruel, or worse.” It was Ser Otto’s wish (then) that Princess Rhaenyra succeed her father. “Better the Realm’s Delight than Lord Flea Bottom,” he wrote.

He swore Rhaenyra was the heir when she was the only child, not while Aegon was alive.

One assumes that the vow didn't include that caveat, or else nobody would have felt bound by that vow, would they?

Rhaenyra succeeding would also not put Daemon on the throne, by the way. The man had essentially no impact on the government of his wife.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jaehaerys did not just change the law, he and his council worked diligently to get people on board and make sure the new laws were clear. 

Viserys did nothing of the sort.

Viserys I actually ruled on his own succession. Jaehaerys I gave in to pressure and had the lords rule on his own succession. He prepared nothing, he allowed himself to be ruled on the matter by others. If they had chosen one of Saera's bastards or the guy who was allegedly his bastard he would have to go with that - or break his word that he would abide by the judgment of the lords.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

You were not telling the truth, your two statements contradict each other.

  •  Aegon II has very few loyalists who actually fight for him because he thinks he is right  
  • Man, we don't know how many men Aegon II would have been able to raise had Rhaenyra been crowned 

Your first response was a lie. 

LOL, no. Most men who fought for him fought because they wanted advancement, where related to him, were bought by him, etc. They did not think he was right or a good king. Broome fought for him because it allowed him to get even with the bitch-queen and the fat man.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There's no law guaranteeing he be obeyed after he dies. 

The realm didn't honour Maegor's arbitrary rule on his own succession, they crowned Jaehaerys instead of Aerea. The precedent of ignoring a King's choice had already been set. 

Viserys would need to do more to get his wish.

Maegor was a usurper, Viserys I was the universally acknowledged rightful king (even by the Velaryons and Baratheons).

A king can expect that his subjects honor his wishes and commands. That why he is king. That's what they protect to do when they do him homage.

I mean, do you expect that Otto, Alicent, and the half-siblings, Criston Cole, etc. did not lie through their teeth countless times when addressing Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent, Princess of Dragonstone, etc. They would have implicitly accepted her as the king's successor, as they would have whenever they did not contradict the king in council or court when he was talking about Rhaenyra as his heiress.

There is just no way to spin this as those people being 'nice people', 'just people' or of them being 'in the right'. 

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That quote is not about wanting to fight, it is about being willing to, a sentiment he shares with the other side.

LOL, right, why don't you say he was looking forward to die climbing the serpentine steps. He comes to Rhaenyra on Dragonstone and he pledges her the support of House Velaryon in war. Daemon shares his view that they should not burn down KL.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

8,000. And after the war, despite the promise of marriage they took their time. 

Well, it depends. Perhaps it was 20,000. Nobody has any issue with them coming late.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

2,000

I know.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

After the war was settled. 

No. They came to cast down Aegon II. He was killed while they were on the way to the city.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Are the Brackens not part of the Riverlands? 

Sure they are - and they fought for Rhaenyra in the end when Lord Kermit Tully led the Riverlords to war for the last time.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, your headcannon is just that. 

The West was hugely vulnerable due to their support of the war. 

LOL, no:

Quote

Jason Lannister had assembled a formidable host in the western hills; a thousand armored knights, and seven times as many archers and men-at-arms.

This is a joke when you consider the men the Westermen can field during the War of the Five Kings - and then still seen formidable enough so that Balon Greyjoy fears Lord Tywin.

It is hardly believable the absence of so few men could have led the Lannisters to fail to repel the Ironborn, but we don't know many details about all that.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Citation? 

The Arryns and Starks had prices to join the war, the Lannisters didn't. The Vale and North delayed, the Westerlands didn't. Are you really arguing that they were less committed? 

Sure. Lady Johanna decided to ignore Aegon II's calls for aid, and Lord Jason brought a mere 8,000 men to battle. Not the 20,000 or 30,000 he could have marshaled.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No we don't. We don't know the precise number of battles, if that army was re-upped. 

It's good account of the war, we don't know if its complete. 

We cannot arbitrarily invent stuff.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Of course it is. 

If someone turns up at 4:45 for work then they are not commited. 

You mean, like Lord Cregan was not committed when he planned to destroy the Baratheons, Hightowers, and Lannisters for their treason?

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He did. His king was Aegon.

But his queen wouldn't have been Jaehaera, no?

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol clearly it was far from good enough, her time at Kings Landing was disastrous. 

At least Rhaenyra was not as stupid, ineffective, and unpopular to turn literal her entire council and court against her, causing them to band together and put her down along with her thugs. It is Aegon II who got that fate, and deservedly at that. Aside from mommy and the cravens and turncloaks that could only hope for advance under a man as corrupt as he was (Broome, the Toms, etc.) he had no one when he died. And that is very significant since the men who killed him were the men closest to him. Men who sat on his council and ruled the Realm with him. They knew him intimately and they did that to him. One cannot imagine better evidence that this man failed utterly in inspiring love, devotion, and respect in the men he presumed to rule.

No other king in Westerosi history got as a miserable a death as Aegon II. Even Maegor the Cruel had more loyalists and supporters left when he died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for sure he was a bad one, but Aegon IV still the worst and more irresponsible in my opinion.

The Dance was only a war of a 2-3 years period and it was inevitable, while the Blakfyre rebellions lasted almost 100 years and was the fruit of irresponsible acts.

Edited by Marcelowww

Share this post


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

She didn't have any funds when she arrived at KL. The quarter of the treasury that the Greens had kept in KL was spent.

The Velaryon wealth was not the royal treasury. Wealthy in-laws and relations to the royals do not pay their debts. We see this with Tywin who, despite the fact that Joffrey and later Tommen don't have much money and a lot of debts has no inclination to pay the royal bills with Lannister gold. He considers that notion absurd, and rightfully so. He also doesn't forgive the Iron Throne the gold the king owes Casterly Rock.

We see later in time, that Jon and Stannis manage to make deal with Iron Bank regarding the funds for their campaign.

Vale and North to less extent should have added more to her cause, Kings Landing wasn't under siege also and their side ruled the seas. 

Poorest have basic needs , if they didn't lack in food, then why did she need to tax them for - war effort? She didn't field large army , mostly focusing strategy on using dragons.  

She could have awarded those who contribute in war later with lands and tithes, when she becomes undisputed ruler, but hey lets squeeze the smallfolk with increasing taxes including those on bastards (how ironic).

Her monetary policies, combined with bad intelligence in Kings Landing and vindictive and torturous decisions, resulted in rebellion in several different sources ,   which is something even Cersei will be hard to outpreform. 

I don't see similar proclamations of efforts for diplomacy when she controlled Kings Landing  with slippery fingers.

 

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There was no shortage of food. She just got immensely unpopular due to the taxes and tariffs Lord Celtigar collected.

Yep she was got nickname by Maegor, no small feat.

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In a city which has hundreds of thousands of people you would really need a guard numbering in the tens of thousands - or perhaps even as much as a hundred thousand to actually maintain the peace in a time of crisis caused by the threat of attacking dragons. But nobody ever had such a strong City Watch.

Punishing traitors is not wrong in war.

You need to guard vital parts of the city like granaries, water supply, port, Palace, Dragonpit, and have good intelligence to judge what can be threatened, she didn't need more people but to use better what she had, organisation instead focusing on punishing those who slighted her driven by her paranoia.

Punishing traitors is more prudent after the war, and you don't need to rip peoples tongues before execution , that is added cruelty.

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra had nothing to do with Syrax rejecting Joffrey. She wasn't his dragon. A dragon accepts only one rider at a time.

Sure, not properly protecting the Dragonpit and not mounting Syrax to come to their defense and/or release them was a grave mistake. Although the latter part also lies at the feet of the dragonkeepers. Why didn't they open loose their chains and open the gate?

I am not referring to Joffery, I am saying her dragon landed and attacked Sheperd's flock with tooth and claw because of her. I don't know why they failed to do that , but she was in charge or is her responsibility only when she does good thing.

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II thought the murder of Lucerys was great. Aegon II was completely unprepared for his rise affecting trade. Aegon II constantly wanted his sister and his nephews to die. Aegon II sent a Kingsguard to murder his half-sister and/or her sons. Aegon II fired his grandfather because he did not understand how policy worked. Aegon II did not make any attempt to comfort his sister-wife after the Blood and Cheese episode. Aegon II signed off a dangerous plan that nearly got him killed. Aegon II executed loyal Black lords whose only crime was to stay true to their vows. Aegon II cruelly killed his half-sister and the Grand Maester his sister had made. He wanted to kill his cousin and nephew and was only stopped by political necessity. He burned hundreds of people in the city, and executed a boy who may have been his half-brother while rewarding the man who used him as a pawn. He plotted to murder Corlys Velaryon once he was no longer of any use and only never got around doing that because he was killed first. He was unwilling to offer his enemies pardons, even pretty insignificant enemies like the lords of the Crownlands.

Rhaenyra makes mistake, but she is not wantonly cruel and vindictive. She had no hand in Blood and Cheese nor the murder of Prince Maelor. She spared the lives of both Alicent and Helaena.

 

Rhaenyra also smiled with death of Maelor , or she gave her sister his head in chamber pot, by some sources. When her nephew lost eye in quarrel with her sons , she showed no empathy but asked that he be tortured, There is recurring association with her and punishing people.

Aegon II wanted her to die after lot of blood was already spilled, he didn't care much about her of hers before.

We really don't know if Aegon tried to comfort Haelena or how she reacted to him considering not much love between them.  He certainly was affected mostly showing in him executing bunch of rat catchers , and Otto finding cats to replace them , which shows what he or Ser Criston had to deal with in  him and Aemond.

Aegon still managed to beat Rhaenyra, and after her death to punish those guilty for various crimes, murder of dragons not the least, city was in horrible state when she left and some semblance of order was formed .

He burned hundred of people who had part in crimes including against Blacks even,  he would have used dragons but unfortunately Rhaenyra managed to loose them all somehow.

Aegon II mounted his dragon in battle two times , second time even after he was badly  hurt in contrast to his sister and father, any plan in war is risky , that at least is how person pretending to be ruler should do if possible.

Corlys was also imprisoned and tortured by Rhaenyra herself, and who signed treaty with Aegon in naming her son a heir and later killing him when he had chance. 

Rhaenyra formed  "knight inquistors" I am not sure if anyone before or after has created something similarly ominous in name or purpose, she also had put bounty on head of children.

Aegon II may have executed people but Rhaenyra tortured lot before doing the same , he also didn't kill or torture either her son or Baela, which couldn't be proven in her case for his children and wife.

 

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is clearly marked as the account that is not likely to be true. It comes from Munkun by means of Orwyle who, as Gyldayn stresses, had every reason to portray his role and the things he was involved in as favorable light as possible.

Eustace tells us of the dagger story, and he was at the castle at the time and had no reason to lie there

How does that make Orwyle paint in more positive light? Did he effected that in any way possible? 

Eustace also might have something against Cole , considering his reports mostly being negative about him , having conflict with other writing about him . Was he even present at the event? He also did survive war so I am not sure much about his loyalties despite his favoritism of Aegon II.

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II had the chance to end the war. When he captured Rhaenyra both he and his half-sister were widowed. They could have married each other, ended the fighting, and shared the rule. Had he made such an offer it would have been a sign that the war had taught him some things.

Did they know about Daemons death at the time? I really doubt that would have worked especially since so many people and especially  family members on both sides have died.

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a rumor that Alicent poisoned Viserys I. And that is not unlikely considering the king died at a very opportune moment, when Rhaenyra was unable to react quickly due to her pregnancy. Viserys I's had to be concealed for other reasons. He had to die for the Greens to act, but his death had to be concealed so Rhaenyra would not learn what was happening until it was too late.

There are many rumors though you seem to focus on those benefiting the Blacks.

How members of the Green act at start of the war doesn't attribute to the idea of having knowledge of Viserys death , they would prepare for it much better if they did. Though there could be some players trying to pit two sides similarly to events in "aGOT".

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One assumes the Greens actually made the Two Betrayers the Two Betrayers by persuading them to turn their cloaks. Larys Strong's name is mentioned there, too.

If in doubt blame it on Larys Strong. They didn't need much persuasion anyway to turn cloaks . Didn't Larys aid Corlys also to kill Aegon II,  can we be sure he was "Black" or "Green"?

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Gyldayn's account seems to be pretty unbiased. And a lot of the actions speak for themselves. 

Gyldayn uses sources that were written at time, he tries to be unbiased but he has personal distaste toward Mushroom and his stories (Eustace, Mushroom , Munkun, Orwyle and rumors are main sources , he seems to compile them).  When reading it I try to find patterns in behavior of men and what events are undoubtedly truth , that don't have multiple versions presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I know what happened in 109 AC. But there is no evidence that Otto continued his confrontational approach

Where has anyone claimed he did? 

His bias towards his Grandson would have been obvious to anyone given his past opinions on both Aegon being king and Daemon not being allowed near power. 

  • Aegon's his grandson
  • he hates Rhaenyra's husband

He's a bad choice to be the defacto ruler for a king who wants his daughter to replace him.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

after he was recalled to court. I mean, is there any evidence that Otto continued to hector Viserys as he had back in 107-109 AC? No, there is not.

Who claimed he did. Please quote where I made that argument?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And one would have to assume that Otto was an utter fool if he continued a conflict that had led to his dismissal the last time he broached the subject with the king. Since there is no hint that he was that stupid I assume he was not that stupid. Because one should assume he would have been dismissed again had he presumed to lecture the king on the succession again.

Are you finished with the straw man arguments you can shoot down? 

Focus on the arguments being made to you, not what your fevered imagination thinks people are saying. 

Otto's position was known to Viserys. He was a bad choice if his intention was to make his daughter the Queen.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

What we don't know, though, is whether he actually knew better and ignored his gut instinct or whether he was deceived into honestly believing Otto had accepted Rhaenyra as the heir now.

If he's being deceived then it's on Viserys. not Otto.

  • Aegon's his grandson
  • he hates Rhaenyra's husband

His position was clear to everyone.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Since Otto had been the one championing Rhaenyra in the first place chanced are not that bad that he succeeded at such a deception.

At Daemon's expense. 

He championed the kings only child because he hated Daemon. 

He now has more reasons, not less, to stop Daemon getting power.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But this doesn't mean he knew or suspect that Otto was determined to prevent the rise of the heir he had chosen to succeed him.

Then he's a fool. 

The kingdom was already split on the subject, the very least he should have done was make sure his Small Council was pro Queen. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I can agree with the former but

Of course there is a but. 

Why be concise when you can waffle and waffle.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

 

in the latter case you seem to overlook that they actually staged a coup. FaB lays that out in detail. The impression we have is that this was, in the beginning, just a cabal of three people - Otto, Alicent, Cole - and they brought Lannister, Wylde, Orwyle, and Strong on board. Afterwards they had to arrest a lot of other courtiers and pretty much exchange the entire leadership of the City Watch. Gyldayn also explicitly mentions that Strong and Lannister were the youngest members of the council - indicating that they didn't serve that long - while Orwyle was the newest member who favored neither Blacks nor Greens.

What does this have to do with anything I said? 

Are you trying to bore me into submission?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

There is no such laws as that. There are just precedents and legal opinions. And we don't know whether Wylde actually ever talked to anyone about his opinion on the succession prior to the council session discussing the succession. That that is basically all he does thereafter doesn't mean that's all he did before Viserys' death.

If Viserys never broached the subject about who the legal heir was with his Master of Law then its clear he dropped the ball bigtime.

There had never been a female ruler and here is Viserys ignoring it and hoping for the best. It was not a priority for him any longer.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He made it clear that this decision would stand even after he had sons. Repeatedly.

So why was there a civil war, why was the realm split?  You say it was clear but the war and great support on both sides show it was not clear. 

If Rhaenya was in the right why is she not counted as an official ruler? Both her sons were kings yet officially Aegon succeeded Viserys. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

One assumes that the vow didn't include that caveat, or else nobody would have felt bound by that vow, would they?

Another assumption. Does it ever end. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra succeeding would also not put Daemon on the throne, by the way. The man had essentially no impact on the government of his wife.

lol are you for real? 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys I actually ruled on his own succession. Jaehaerys I gave in to pressure and had the lords rule on his own succession.

Exactly. Kings can't just make up arbitrary rules and hope the realm honours them. 

Viserys was too lazy to go that extra yard.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

He prepared nothing,

Yeah, he did. 

He and his council of four did much preparation to get their laws supported. Jaehaerys took new laws very seriously, he did not just hope for the best.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Most men who fought for him fought because they wanted advancement, where related to him, were bought by him, etc

 

Don't be hyperbolic. Name these most men Half the realm supported him, you are letting fictional propaganda dictate your responses.

Both sides have followers like that.

Quote

They did not think he was right or a good king. Broome fought for him because it allowed him to get even with the bitch-queen and the fat man.

No one has argued that. 

Many fought for him because they thought he was the legal king. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Maegor was a usurper, Viserys I was the universally acknowledged rightful king (even by the Velaryons and Baratheons).

And yet Maegor was officially a ruler of Westeros and Rhaenyra not. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

A king can expect that his subjects honor his wishes and commands. That why he is king. That's what they protect to do when they do him homage.

While he's alive. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, do you expect that Otto, Alicent, and the half-siblings, Criston Cole, etc. did not lie through their teeth countless times when addressing Rhaenyra as Heir Apparent, Princess of Dragonstone, etc.

eh? 

Your rambling again.  What does this have to do with anything I've said? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

They would have implicitly accepted her as the king's successor, as they would have whenever they did not contradict the king in council or court when he was talking about Rhaenyra as his heiress.

Sure, but Alicent and Otto's thoughts were clear. 

Viserys fucked up, his lack of foresight on an obvious feud doomed the realm to a civil war. 

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.

 

He's well aware of the feud. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is just no way to spin this as those people being 'nice people', 'just people' or

No one has.  In a bid to waffle some more on the subject you have created another imaginary argument never made.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

of them being 'in the right'. 

Ultimately they were. The history books record that Aegon succeeded his father.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right, why don't you say he was looking forward to die climbing the serpentine steps. He comes to Rhaenyra on Dragonstone and he pledges her the support of House Velaryon in war. Daemon shares his view that they should not burn down KL.

eh? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it depends. Perhaps it was 20,000. Nobody has any issue with them coming late.

Ran says it was 8k, I'm going to assume he's right. 

Who was still around? The Blacks were defeated. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No. They came to cast down Aegon II. He was killed while they were on the way to the city.

The war was still settled. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure they are - and they fought for Rhaenyra in the end when Lord Kermit Tully led the Riverlords to war for the last time.

Rhaenyra was dead at that point, they were not fighting for her.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a joke when you consider the men the Westermen can field during the War of the Five Kings - and then still seen formidable enough so that Balon Greyjoy fears Lord Tywin.

So why could they not defend themselves?

The Westerlands sacrificed more in the war than either the North or the Vale, who both joined very,very late.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is hardly believable the absence of so few men could have led the Lannisters to fail to repel the Ironborn, but we don't know many details about all that.

And yet that's what happened.  It's  canon. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure. Lady Johanna decided to ignore Aegon II's calls for aid, and Lord Jason brought a mere 8,000 men to battle. Not the 20,000 or 30,000 he could have marshaled.

Hardly mere for that era.  No lord comes close to assembling a 20k army in this war.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We cannot arbitrarily invent stuff.

Tell yourself that. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You mean, like Lord Cregan was not committed when he planned to destroy the Baratheons, Hightowers, and Lannisters for their treason?

Did he follow through? Or did he quickly change his mind? 

Cregan clearly was not committed. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

At least Rhaenyra was not as stupid, ineffective, and unpopular to turn literal her entire council and court against her, causing them to band together and put her down along with her thugs.

She  not only did a of the above but managed to get the whole city to riot. 

She lost all support and was forced to sell the crown. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

It is Aegon II who got that fate, and deservedly at that.

Again, you are taking this far too personally. 

Aegon II is a wretched character, Rhaenya, all her sons, Daemon's daughters would all be better choices to rule.

This discussion is not about personal preference, I wanted the Blacks to win, but about the fact that the realm was divided on the issue and Visery's did not do nearly enough to support his daughter's succession.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

No other king in Westerosi history got as a miserable a death as Aegon II. Even Maegor the Cruel had more loyalists and supporters left when he died.

This argument has never been about popularity. You are letting your emotions dictate your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Rhaenyra and Aegon II, were in power in war time... In war time where the only thing in mind is how you kill your enemies before they kill you... To try to make a judgment of them as rulers just seems ridiculous...

But if that's the game... both were shitty, but Aegon was the worst by far... When Aemond got back from Storms End with the blood of his nephew in his hands, he just said "what a great start"... I mean, this fucking guy! can you really blame Alicent or Otto for this kind of actions? I understand that bastards on that society are seen like the lowest people... but I mean, Aemond and Aegon were a bloodthirsty pair...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion got really weird. I mean how can you defend Rhaenyra's actions while attacking Aegon's? They both were terrible people and even worse rulers. I would rank them Ex æquo as one of the worst Targaryens to sit on the Iron Throne. Suggesting that torture of Tyland and cutting out tongues of Stokeworth and Rosby just before executing them was justified, while saying that Aegon's actions(burning alive rebels, feeding Rhaenyra to Sunfyre) were somehow bad, is just laughable. You cannot blame only one side of the conflict for everything that happened during Dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

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.

I think the question was who is the worst ruller, not the worst father. I think both Aegon II and Rhaenyra are worse rullers than their father Viserys. My personal favourites for  worst Targaryen rullers are Aegon II and Rhaenyra. I cannot choose. Both are unprepaired and lacked ability to rule a kingdom. For a proper ruller the right question is "can he"/she rule", not "does he/she got ancestral right for the throne". Aegon II and Rhaenyra both caused a great disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking disaster then the choice has to be Aegon IV for letting his fatherly love lead him to legitimize his bastards.  I might also include Aegon V on that list of bad kings.  He allowed his heart to lead him in making poor choices.  Maegor was not so bad.  He was the right man to save his family from the faith militants and their religious followers.  Win the war and save the Targaryen monarchy first, then they can talk about peace and reconciliation.  Jaeherys and Allysanne would never have gotten in position to do the good things they did if it were not for Maegor saving the monarchy.  Maegor The Great.  

Share this post


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

Where has anyone claimed he did? 

His bias towards his Grandson would have been obvious to anyone given his past opinions on both Aegon being king and Daemon not being allowed near power. 

  • Aegon's his grandson
  • he hates Rhaenyra's husband

He's a bad choice to be the defacto ruler for a king who wants his daughter to replace him.

I agree, but this doesn't mean Otto couldn't - and didn't - convince Viserys I that he had gotten over all that. I mean, you know the text, and you do know that the family always pretended to be amicable and friendly when the king was around. Just think of the feast where Otto and Daemon complimented each other.

It is mentioned explicitly that the king was fooled by this - and Gyldayn and his sources all write with hindsight in mind. Perhaps more people than just Gyldayn were fooled by all that.

I mean, why the hell aren't Daemon and Corlys and Rhaenys in KL when Viserys I grows steadily worse? Obviously they did not expect the coup they came. Rhaenyra did not expect that Otto and Alicent would try to steal her throne.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who claimed he did. Please quote where I made that argument?

You made that implicitly the entire time. You complained that Viserys I reappointed a Hand who had made trouble over ten years ago. Instead, it seems that he pretended to have changed his mind on the succession. People can change, they can apologize, and they can pretend to have changed.

With hindsight it seems silly to recall Otto, but one assumes Otto did not presume to provoke the king the way he did in the years after his firstborn grandson. After all, nothing indicates that Otto Hightower so much as raised the issue of the succession with the king during his second term as Hand.

Even Alicent may not have done that. All we know is that she and her Greens repeatedly entreated the king to change the succession, but we don't know when that happened.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Are you finished with the straw man arguments you can shoot down? 

Focus on the arguments being made to you, not what your fevered imagination thinks people are saying. 

Otto's position was known to Viserys. He was a bad choice if his intention was to make his daughter the Queen.

See above. You don't even seem to understand why you are making bad arguments. 

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

If he's being deceived then it's on Viserys. not Otto.

  • Aegon's his grandson
  • he hates Rhaenyra's husband

His position was clear to everyone.

Sure, Viserys should have seen through this thing. But the fact that he did not doesn't make him a bad king or even particularly stupid because many smart people are fooled by evil people.

And, again, people can change. It is silly to assume a person will do action or crime X before he has done that, simply because you know said person may have a motivation to do X - even more so if the person promises you he won't do X.

I mean, why don't you blame Robert for the Lannister-Stark war - didn't he know that Ned despised Cersei, Tywin, and Jaime? Why don't you blame anyone who was ever fooled by Littlefinger and Varys because you know or believe you know how they were fooled?

The hints George gives us in the sections on Alicent's death are explicitly cruel since they imply that Alicent never actually loved Viserys (at least that's how I think the fact that she never speaks once about Viserys and instead focuses on King Jaehaerys, the Targaryen king she may have actually loved), making their entire relationship and marriage a sham and a power grab. If Alicent didn't even love the king she married the entire thing gets much worse than it is when she was torn between the love for her husband and king and the love for her father and her children, and what she thought were the rights of her children.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

At Daemon's expense. 

He championed the kings only child because he hated Daemon. 

He now has more reasons, not less, to stop Daemon getting power.

Daemon would have just been the prince consort. Consorts do not wield power in Westeros. As far as we know Alicent being Viserys' wife didn't give her so much as a hand in the government of the Realm.

And again - Otto pretended to have overcome his differences with Daemon.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Then he's a fool. 

The kingdom was already split on the subject, the very least he should have done was make sure his Small Council was pro Queen. 

Well, perhaps Otto told he was pro-Rhaenyra now? And Criston Cole, too? Beesbury was on board, Orwyle not against Rhaenyra, and Lannister, Wylde, and Strong also may have told the king what they thought he wanted to hear when he named there.

I mean, go on, give us evidence that Viserys I had a reason to believe that any of the councilors besides Otto had been opposed to Rhaenyra's succession in the past? You cannot do that. While Viserys is still alive we don't even have a quote from Cole where he states that Rhaenyra should not succeed the king. We have evidence that he no longer loved her, that he resented her, but no quote on the succession.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

If Viserys never broached the subject about who the legal heir was with his Master of Law then its clear he dropped the ball bigtime.

Your opinion based on insufficient information. Who cares? The legal opinion of a guy who may have earned his nickname by fucking his wives to death may not exactly be worth all that much, anyway ;-).

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There had never been a female ruler and here is Viserys ignoring it and hoping for the best. It was not a priority for him any longer.

Tell that to the tongueless Velaryons.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

So why was there a civil war, why was the realm split?  You say it was clear but the war and great support on both sides show it was not clear. 

Because there was a coup and then Rhaenyra fought back. The Hightowers seized power at KL, they won support with letters, bribes, threats, the power of their family, and the brute fact that Aegon II got a grand coronation in the Dragonpit.

The fact that both sides had to win and bribe various lords - and many of those lords - especially those supporting the Greens - sent only tiny armies in comparison to their actual military potential strongly indicates that very few people were actually split on this issue. Aside from Tumbleton and the Gullet, the Dance was not a bloody war at all. Even the Fishfeed killed only about 2,000 people - compare that to the corpses made at the Red Wedding alone!

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

If Rhaenya was in the right why is she not counted as an official ruler? Both her sons were kings yet officially Aegon succeeded Viserys. 

For the same reason Maegor the usurper is counted as an official ruler and Aegon the Uncrowned is not.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Another assumption. Does it ever end. 

Then explain why anyone fought for Rhaenyra if she had been only named heir until such a time as a son was born to the king? That was the caveat Maegor added to the decree that named Aerea his heir.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol are you for real? 

Sure. Give me an example how Daemon influenced policy after his wife had taken the throne. The only examples can remember is stupid advice to grant Hugh and Ulf Storm's End and Casterly Rock (rejected by the queen), his suggestion to marry them to the daughters of Stokeworth and Rosby (rejected by the queen), and his suggestion to destroy all their enemies before offering terms (half-rejected by the queen).

If Otto truly feared this guy would 'rule them' then he was an utter fool - even more since he must have known that ruling actually bored Daemon. After all, there was a reason why he sucked while sitting on the Small Council, right?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Exactly. Kings can't just make up arbitrary rules and hope the realm honours them. 

Viserys was too lazy to go that extra yard.

Sure they can. They make up such rules whenever they create an office, whenever they rule on an issue where there is no precedent, whenever they rule on a contested succession where there is no easy way out.

If the decision to make Rhaenyra the heir was so outrageous then no one would have defended her right to ascend the throne.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, he did. 

He and his council of four did much preparation to get their laws supported. Jaehaerys took new laws very seriously, he did not just hope for the best.

Jaehaerys I supposedly had no hand in resolving the crisis around his own succession. The laws he made earlier had nothing to do with the succession to the Iron Throne. Else there would have been no need for a ruling in 92 AC, would there?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Don't be hyperbolic. Name these most men Half the realm supported him, you are letting fictional propaganda dictate your responses.

Both sides have followers like that.

Reread the section on the Riverlanders rising for Rhaenyra. Those were humble men, for the most part, commoners, poor knights, people like that. They rose because they recalled the vows they swore in their youth, and because they remembered the Realm's Delight from her progress through the Riverlands.

No such men are ever mentioned for Rhaenyra. The Lannisters never give a reason as to why they fight for her, and their contributions are small. It seems they do this only because Ser Tyland sits on the Green Council - but we have no reason to believe that Ser Tyland is there because he is a die-hard Green. He is there when Viserys I dies and then he sides with the Greens. He could just as well have sided with the Blacks - and likely would have if Rhaenyra had married him when he proposed to her back in the day.

Borros Baratheon was bought/intimidated by Vhagar's presence, and only bestirred himself with a small fraction of the Stormlanders.

The Hightowers failed to rise three of their powerful bannermen for the king, and a significant portion of the vast Hightower army at Tumbleton were defeated Blacks pressed into service and neutral guys who had no choice but to join Lord Ormund when he came knocking on his march to KL.

Rhaenyra's followers were men who believed in her rights, and who loved her, personally. She has no men in her service who believed, on principle, that a daughter should come before a son (aside, perhaps, from the Yronwood knight in her service).

In that sense she had the moral high ground.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No one has argued that. 

Many fought for him because they thought he was the legal king. 

Not all that many. The only lords we know who believed that were Grover Tully - who failed to fight for him - and Unwin Peake - who would eventually murder his king's only child and heir. Of petty lords we have the treasonous Blackwater men, and we have some nameless Dragonstone traitors. That's it.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And yet Maegor was officially a ruler of Westeros and Rhaenyra not.

Because he won. Because he crushed the pretender who was the rightful king. Jaehaerys I rise did not erase the fact that Maegor had ruled for six years. Just as Aegon III's rise did not erase the fact that Rhaenyra was killed by her half-brother who then was restored king (although not to the Iron Throne).

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

While he's alive. 

So you think a king has no right to expect that his last will is respected? Don't you think Cersei should not have ripped Robert's last will to pieces?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? 

Your rambling again.  What does this have to do with anything I've said? 

If you publicly address and style a person in a certain way, you announce publicly that she is who you say she is. Especially in such a feudal setting. That is why Alyssa Velaryon doing homage to Maegor as her king at his third wedding was a sign that even she had abandoned her son's cause. 

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure, but Alicent and Otto's thoughts were clear. 

So you say people should have been able to read their thoughts?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Viserys fucked up, his lack of foresight on an obvious feud doomed the realm to a civil war. 

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.

 

He's well aware of the feud. 

Yeah, children quarrel. But do the clashes between Arya and Joffrey or Joffrey and Robb mean they have to go to war later? The fact that you want children not to fight does not mean you expect them to murder each other when you are no longer there.

And back in 120 AC the Luke-Aemond issue was still fresh. Obviously Viserys I later believed his daughter and wife and brother and father-in-law and children and grandchildren had overcome their differences.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No one has.  In a bid to waffle some more on the subject you have created another imaginary argument never made.

Ultimately they were. The history books record that Aegon succeeded his father.

Just as Maegor succeeded Aenys. Does this make Maegor not a usurper? Gyldayn makes it clear he was a usurper, just as Aegon II was a usurper, and Robert is a usurper. But Westeros is not Egypt or Rome. History is recorded more or less as it happened, not as people wished or wanted it to happen.

The fact that somebody wins a war does not make him right. Aegon I conquered the Seven Kingdoms - but that doesn't mean he had a just cause to go to war in the first place (he had not), or that him winning justified all his actions. 

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? 

Ran says it was 8k, I'm going to assume he's right. 

Ran just interprets the numbers given by Gyldayn. It is more likely that Munkun is right there than Eustace, but we don't really have any reason to believe that any of those numbers really are 'the truth'. Some might be closer to the truth than others, but we cannot really make a factual judgment on that.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who was still around? The Blacks were defeated. 

You mean the Greens, right?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The war was still settled. 

Yeah, the Blacks had won it. The Greens at court all became Black when they put down the usurper, right?

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Rhaenyra was dead at that point, they were not fighting for her.

Sure they were. They were carrying her banners. The Lads on the Kingsroad had Rhaenyra's quartered banners. They were fighting for her like the Brotherhood without Banners if fighting for King Robert.

Rhaenyra may have been dead by then, but she won the war. And she would have been there to punish all the traitors had she stayed on the ship and continued to the Vale or White Harbor. She would have returned to KL in triumph.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

So why could they not defend themselves?

How should I know? Bad writing on George's part? Them being utterly stupid and being unprepared for a naval attack? We don't know. But only Lannisport, Fair Isle, and Kayce seem to have suffered greatly. The Westerlands have coastlines but there is more there than just coast. And large portions of the West should have been far away from the places where the Ironborn had a chance to raid.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Westerlands sacrificed more in the war than either the North or the Vale, who both joined very,very late.

The Vale and the North sent men earlier in the war, too.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Hardly mere for that era.  No lord comes close to assembling a 20k army in this war.

LOL, if the lords could assemble such armies during the Conquest, and the population north of Dorne doubled during the reign of Jaehaerys I (which it did) and would have continued to grow during the reign of Viserys I then they should have had ample resources to rise large armies during the Dance.

They chose not to do this, likely because they were afraid of the dragons, but they could have.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Did he follow through? Or did he quickly change his mind? 

Cregan clearly was not committed. 

He changed his mind eventually, but this didn't happen quickly. He saw that the other Blacks would not support him in this, and he no longer had a good pretext when the remaining 'Greens' all accepted Corlys' terms.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

She  not only did a of the above but managed to get the whole city to riot. 

She lost all support and was forced to sell the crown. 

Because her enemies plotted against her and arranged those riots. Aegon II faced similar riots before, they just didn't get that much out of control.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, you are taking this far too personally. 

No. I don't even like Rhaenyra. She is vain, stupid, craven, and makes a lot of bad choices. But she was much better than Aegon II.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Aegon II is a wretched character, Rhaenya, all her sons, Daemon's daughters would all be better choices to rule.

This discussion is not about personal preference, I wanted the Blacks to win, but about the fact that the realm was divided on the issue and Visery's did not do nearly enough to support his daughter's succession.

And I'd agree with that. He could have done more. What's silly and stupid on your part is to claim that a king not doing enough on that part, him being deceived into believing his family would not kill each other as soon as he was dead, means he was one of the worst kings ever. Kings and reigns are not judged solely on the basis how contested their succession was. In fact, their succession is not even part of their reign, since that happens thereafter. And unlike with the succession of Jaehaerys I violence and war was not threatening while the king was still alive. It all only started once he was dead.

This entire claim that the man who believed in his family, the man who apparently couldn't conceive that his daughter and wife wanted to destroy each other, that his wife would end trying to force her granddaughter to murder Viserys' grandson, etc. is supposed to share the bulk of the blame for a war others started is just silly.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

This argument has never been about popularity. You are letting your emotions dictate your argument.

I don't particularly care about any of these people. The story of the Dance is told, and most of them were pricks, throwing away their lives for stupid reasons.

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

×