Jump to content
Daemon of the Blacks

The Blacks or the Greens?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Blacks had more dragons, which can’t be underestimated for starters, although they misused them. Naval supremacy was also overwhelming even after war ended.

The Blacks basically had only dragons in the beginning, whereas the Greens basically had the entire Realm - at least until a lot of people declared for Rhaenyra.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon Ii executed Rhaenyra for crimes of high treason since the war started he considered himself as rightful King and she was rebel or traitor.

His own consideration is pretty much irrelevant. He knew his father wanted Rhaenyra to succeed him and ignored that. The moment he allowed them to crown him he became a traitor, not the other way around. It is like saying the guy who stole something from you is in the right and you should, now that he has it, not try to get it back or go to the police.

But even if we were to claim Aegon II had the right of it for some reason, killing Rhaenyra still makes him a kinslayer, the murderer of his half-sister, whereas Rhaenyra never murdered any of her half-siblings, never mind that both Alicent and Helaena were her prisoners.

Rhaenyra also doesn't get a trial if you recall the account of her death. Thus this is not an execution but a murder.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

He burned Shepherd and 240 of his most zealous supporters for crime of murdering men and dragons of his House. Rhaenyra didn’t do many things that she should have.

Rhaenyra never burned people alive who had fought against her enemies. The Shepherd and his followers did fight against Rhaenyra when she was ruling the city. They played the most crucial role in driving her out of the city. One can make a case that the Shepherd deserved to die, but 200+ people of the rest who stayed loyal to him until the end? Please. It is not even clear that those people had been with him when he stormed the Dragonpit.

In any case, I say burning people alive - especially commoners who were caught up in grand affairs - is cruel. One could cite another ugly thing Aegon II - execute Trystane (True)Fyre, the guy who was used as a pawn, while pardoning essentially all the people who used him as a pawn. That is, perhaps, the greatest sham at justice we get in the entire book.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

It takes two for tango. Coup started long ago with Daemon seducing his 14 year old niece, later marrying her after many suspicious deaths without consent of king , actually forming Black alliance 10 years before Viserys's death,  even though she was named against the ruling of Great council and practice of succession  specifically so he wouldn’t be king.
 

That is just wrong. The coup that took place, and the coup I'm talking about is the coup that prevented Rhaenyra's coronation early on in 129 AC when her father died. This was not a coup that had anything to do with Daemon and everything with Otto and Alicent wanting to make Aegon king.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

If you don’t like something it doesn’t make it silly. Little mentioned House Harte and Ser Denys were mentioned in hiring faceless men in bravos to kill rival in Kings Landing prior to death of Queen Jaehaera.  Hazel Harte is mother of Daenara Velaryon  ward of house Velaryon  at that time, House who had tried since time of Great Council of 101 ac to get closer to the power.

Hazel Harte died of the Winter Fever. She was already dead when Denys Harte went to Braavos. And there is no proof that a Harte was the guy who claimed descent from Gaemon the Glorious. I suggested that this might be a nice idea, but there is evidence to support this idea at this point.

Denys supposedly hired a Faceless Men to kill one of his rivals, not the queen. The queen wasn't his personal rival, was she?

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Unwin Peake had no chance in marrying his daughter to Aegon II, he brought her rather late to court if he planned the murder , which he could have done any time .   He was green supporter and great Lords of Black : Arryn, Tully and Stark among others sent their messages warning him against it. 

Unwin Peake actually forced King Aegon III to accept his daughter as his new queen. It was only when the other regents intervened that this betrothal was unmade. There is no reason to believe Peake was not sure he could make his daughter the new queen. He tried the entire time, using underhanded methods to get what he wanted even after he had to back down originally.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Alyn was recently acknowledged bastard in a House that had many woes regarding bastards in which branch of Vaemond Velaryon grandfather of Daenara suffered a lot. Some members even tried to kill him so his situation as ruler of the house wasn't certain at all and he certainly wanted to keep his fleets.

Alyn reconciled with his cousins and forced them to add their ships to his fleet, not the other way around. More importantly, Daenaera's father had died long before Denys Harte even went to Braavos - that happened after Daeron had died at the Stepstones.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

He might have made deal to support that part of Velaryons in their bid to the throne while they acknowledge his rule over House Velaryon.
Alyn found about Viserys after the death of Queen Jaehaera  Aegon and Daenara were married in 133AC he was back in 134 AC,  why would he kill Viserys he was second born, and better that he get him home and get hero points and  have additional ally than  Lyseni trying to make deal with someone else.

Because without Viserys back in KL Alyn's wife Baela and their daughter Laena were Aegon III's immediate heirs? The only thing between Alyn Velaryon and the Iron Throne was the Broken King himself until Viserys returned - and once Viserys' wife popped out sons his wife and their child(ren) were pushed further and further behind in the line of succession.

If the guy had wanted the throne he wouldn't have married Aegon III to his ward (so that the boy eventually has heirs of his own body, too). He wouldn't have brought his brother back. He would have killed them both and then he would have ruled the Seven Kingdoms at his wife's side.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aemond killed with Dragon , Daemon with words to  assassins,  What about Jahearea and Daemon? Daemon actually killed Aemond with his own hand so he is double kin-slayer.

Well, he died, too, so apparently nobody cared about that.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Well I am not sure what is likable in Varys yet you wear his name and face, If any half decent mans was king his and Littlefinger's head would be first to roll.

Varys is not the Larys Strong fellow. That guy doesn't have a visible agenda aside from betraying people.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Versions about Cole vary though what is undoubtable is that he was great warrior beating Brokenbones, Lonmouth and Daemon  among some.His plan was Ambush at Rooks Rest where he was bait along with his men, he fought until bitter end for his king. Roxton killed Ulf the Betrayer knowing he would face 10 other men that moment makes me like him a bit. Strong I admire for his ability as master of whisperers not for his morality though he is intriguing  as character and in his final moment he showed some mettle.

Sure, Cole was a great warrior, but his motivations to actually involve himself in politics still stink.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Borros has done will of Aegon II , arrested various traitors and they waited Kings justice which was appropriate to the crime. He had part in judging those accused of treason and murder, though lot were pardoned beforehand.

Borros restored order, not Aegon II. Nobody asked for his advice when Borros acted. All they allowed him to do was to sit in judgment over the people they captured. That is not an accomplishment.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon II faced Rhaenys at Rooks rest , got burned and armor fused but Red Queen was dead. He mounted his dragon again to take Dragonstone and there was fight with Baela and her dragon, he won again. He fought and would fought regardless, because he would loose everything if he didn’t , if he knew there were some defenses he would arrived better prepared.

No, if Aegon II had known that he would face Baela and Moondancer at Dragonstone he would have not mounted Sunfyre and flown there. Because Sunfyre was no longer in the shape to face another dragon in battle. He did not win there, he lost. He lost the only creature he apparently truly loved - Sunfyre. He would have never risked that had he known who and what he would face.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon II is known as Usurper by some , Rhaenyra as Maegor’s Tits , she and her short and bloody rule  are  one of biggest reasons why there is reinforced notion that women aren’t illegible to succeed later in Westeros.

Her reign was by far not as bloody as Aegon II's.

7 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

If you failed to notice part in my post I said that I don't plan to argue about my opinions here, mostly that I don't have time as some people to engage in debates constantly, lets please don't continue to derail this thread also.

If you offer your opinions you have to be prepared to comment or justify them to at least to some degree. I don't have issues with anyone liking the Greens, I just find the reasons you have put forth not very convincing - and at times not even really understandable.

Share this post


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

Daemon had a child murdered, singular, and that only to avenge his stepson. It is a cruel thing to do, but not uncommon in this world of blood feuds. It also had nothing to do with winning the throne but settling a score.

Viserys I didn't do what he wanted in 105 AC, he went along with what his court led by Ser Otto Hightower suggested. They all wanted Rhaenyra to be the heir.

The Great Council certainly set a strong precedent, but it was one that clearly did not carry much water if the only male heir of the king was a man the majority of the court did not like. And this is why it is just a precedent and not law. Precedents can be ignored. And they should if the situation you are dealing with is not exactly the same situation covered by the precedent.

Sure he was an opportunist. He and his twin-brother both wanted to marry Rhaenyra. Who do you think they would have supported had one of them married her? Do you think Tyland would have then pointed out that he never swore a vow to uphold her rights of succession? I don't think so.

We don't know why Tyland and Jason sided with the Greens but chances are not that bad that petty jealousy had something to do with that. Rhaenyra was the first - and so far - only ticket for a man to seat his son on the Iron Throne by marrying a future Queen Regnant. And she rejected the Lannisters.

You really have sympathy for a guy who threw a party when his brother had married their nephew??? Who burned hundreds of people whose crime was to rebel against the half-sister he fought against, too?

Not sure how this would have worked considering that Sabitha fought in the war, too.

The Tyrells are smart. The greatest heroes of the Dance are those guys who saved their strength, sat back with a smile on their lips, and enjoyed the pointless bloodletting.

1) Even in a culture which accepts blood feuds killing 4 years old children is reprensible. Killing "just" one innocent child is acceptable? Did he won the war by doing it? Especialy in front of his mother, a woman who never offended Daemon or Rhaenyra. And probably the awful detail of Blood menacing Jaehaera with rape was also Daemon's idea. If Daemon wanted vengeance, he had a dragon, and a sword, and Aemond was eager for glory. They could just found a date and kill each other. Daemon only really dared to fight One-Eye after he lost all hope.

2) You confound the Court (that's it, the noble who frequent Red Keep and official acts) and the Great Council. The Court doesn't represent the kingdom. Just enjoy the food and clap when it's time.

3) Half the young knights in the Realm wanted to marry Rhaenyra. There is no proof that Tyland resented by rejected (unlike Fool Frey, I think he didn't make any official request, just some moves). Of course the lions tried to get the girl (and Brackens, Blackwoods, Velarions, Strongs...) ! No proof, again, that Tyland and Jason were jealous. Theirs was a dinastic maneuver, not a love affair. That could work for Criston Cole, mayhaps. Not all Lannisters are like Tywin.

by dictionary, oportunistic means: "taking advantage of opportunities as they arise: such as
a : exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle". If your principles are "boys before girls" (and that's the Andal principle), there is no oportunism. Also Tyland wasn't especialy rewarded by his side. He didn't even asked for it.
4) I'm not saying Aegon II was likable. I'm saying that with better advisers, he wouldn't have been so cruel. He was stupid, more than anything. His mother was far worse than him.
Sorry, what marriage are you talking about?
5- About Frey and Sabitha... I get the impression Lady Vypren only joined the fray (frey-fray, get it? heh) after his husband meet his end.
6- Lady Tyrell (pity we don't know her name) was smart, that's right. Even being neutral is risky, I admit it. But in BaF Tyrells are almost side notes. Hightowers get all the focus.

Share this post


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

The Blacks basically had only dragons in the beginning, whereas the Greens basically had the entire Realm - at least until a lot of people declared for Rhaenyra.

That statement is dubious at best considering both sides had to send emissaries to get support of North, Vale, Iron Islands, Stormlands and Riverlands? Greens had Oldtown and not all of Reach, Kings Landing infrastructure at least lawful part, though not all of Crownlands, Westerlands were only entire region with them.


Blacks had Velaryon fleet, Daemons subversive elements in Kings Landing, much more dragons.
That is only start, throughout most of the actual conflict Blacks had greater advantage (North ,Vale, Riverlands,Iron Islands,Parts of Crownlands and Reach, dragons, Velaryon fleet and Baratheons uselessness can be added to the list).

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

His own consideration is pretty much irrelevant. He knew his father wanted Rhaenyra to succeed him and ignored that. The moment he allowed them to crown him he became a traitor, not the other way around. It is like saying the guy who stole something from you is in the right and you should, now that he has it, not try to get it back or go to the police.

But even if we were to claim Aegon II had the right of it for some reason, killing Rhaenyra still makes him a kinslayer, the murderer of his half-sister, whereas Rhaenyra never murdered any of her half-siblings, never mind that both Alicent and Helaena were her prisoners.

Rhaenyra also doesn't get a trial if you recall the account of her death. Thus this is not an execution but a murder.

Viserys was king,  but what kings want is also limited by law, customs and decisions of Great Council. Rhaenyra became traitor when she had bastard children and decided to make them heirs to the throne. That analogy doesn't apply since they both had claim of the "stolen" thing.

He was kin slayer though she had deserved the sentence. Rhaenyra caused the death of her siblings indirectly or even directly depending of the sources. She explicitly stated that she planed to kill Aegon, Aemond and Daeron  I don’t doubt same would be for Maelor and Jaehaera though . Alicent wasn’t a threat to her succession , her only claim derived from children by Viserys she was left alive to be tormented, Rhaenyra had to have some fun at least.

Did Otto Higtower had trial and many others? You Reap What You Sow. 

Her death has interesting irony: Realm's Delight ends like a delightful bite for dragon. In the story about Princess and the Queen at the end dragon eats the princess. :lmao:

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra never burned people alive who had fought against her enemies. The Shepherd and his followers did fight against Rhaenyra when she was ruling the city. They played the most crucial role in driving her out of the city. One can make a case that the Shepherd deserved to die, but 200+ people of the rest who stayed loyal to him until the end? Please. It is not even clear that those people had been with him when he stormed the Dragonpit.

In any case, I say burning people alive - especially commoners who were caught up in grand affairs - is cruel. One could cite another ugly thing Aegon II - execute Trystane (True)Fyre, the guy who was used as a pawn, while pardoning essentially all the people who used him as a pawn. That is, perhaps, the greatest sham at justice we get in the entire book.

Shepherd fought against Targaryens not against blacks, „enemy of my foe is my friend as long he doesn’t attack me or source of my power“.

Shepherd was asked to confess his treason and vile acts , he refused to repent his crimes and treason, he also had rallied his supporters against the Baratheon army, all multiple occasions of treason.
I don’t doubt those followers who remained were most zealous, aggressive or most foolish and not tame as lambs. They slaughtered men and dragons in orgy of bloody carnage. If not dealt with it would cause further woes of Kings Landing , considering Shepherd reborn appeared some time later with more fervid supported existing he would case mayhem.

They deserved punishment. It was probably meant to be closest to the death by dragon for their crime.  
Rhaenyra lost largest amount of dragons, so they had to make due. To use analogue of "Ill Tempered Mutated Sea Bass with Laser beams attached to their heads".

In declaring innocence of those , you ignore the crimes they have committed, to brave storming the Dragonpit and later creating sort of rebellion, and confronting army of the ruler, are all treasonous acts.
Trystane had 16 years he was adult, unlike Gaemon who wasn’t sentenced to death. Trystane supporters were pardoned before the king arrived. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just wrong. The coup that took place, and the coup I'm talking about is the coup that prevented Rhaenyra's coronation early on in 129 AC when her father died. This was not a coup that had anything to do with Daemon and everything with Otto and Alicent wanting to make Aegon king.

There are coups and coups. Coronation of Aegon had to do with many things  Succession customs, Great Council of 101 ac, Rhaenyra’s high treason  with bastard children, threat on lives of green members by Deamon, tyrannical , corruptible and paranoid characteristics of Rhaenyra and her Consort of future King.

If not Aegon II didn't accept crown, new Maegor the Cruel would be ruling the realm that was evident to everyone but king Viserys who was but a flawed man. That is why you shouldn’t have only one man decide the fate of everyone.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Hazel Harte died of the Winter Fever. She was already dead when Denys Harte went to Braavos. And there is no proof that a Harte was the guy who claimed descent from Gaemon the Glorious. I suggested that this might be a nice idea, but there is evidence to support this idea at this point.

Denys supposedly hired a Faceless Men to kill one of his rivals, not the queen. The queen wasn't his personal rival, was she?

Daenara was orphaned ward of Alyn and Baela,  they were closest thing to her parents now.  Unwin Peake hasn’t been sentenced for that crime so there wasn’t evidence for his doing either, though he may have tried to exploit the situation , it was done too competently for his record.
No he would tell everyone that "I am planing to kill the freaking Queen" and it would be written in records by the maesters under the thumb of winning Black regime , seriously.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Unwin Peake actually forced King Aegon III to accept his daughter as his new queen. It was only when the other regents intervened that this betrothal was unmade. There is no reason to believe Peake was not sure he could make his daughter the new queen. He tried the entire time, using underhanded methods to get what he wanted even after he had to back down originally.

Unwin Peake may have tried but he had so many failures and blunders, that act of murder of Queen just doesn’t have his signature.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Alyn reconciled with his cousins and forced them to add their ships to his fleet, not the other way around. More importantly, Daenaera's father had died long before Denys Harte even went to Braavos - that happened after Daeron had died at the Stepstones.

Velaryons are great house at the time, there are many cousins, some lost their tongues for saying Strongs were bastards some even tried to kill him. Alyn was her daddy now. They had fleet to parry the might of Ironborn there wasn't a shortage of trueborn Velaryons.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because without Viserys back in KL Alyn's wife Baela and their daughter Laena were Aegon III's immediate heirs? The only thing between Alyn Velaryon and the Iron Throne was the Broken King himself until Viserys returned - and once Viserys' wife popped out sons his wife and their child(ren) were pushed further and further behind in the line of succession.

If the guy had wanted the throne he wouldn't have married Aegon III to his ward (so that the boy eventually has heirs of his own body, too). He wouldn't have brought his brother back. He would have killed them both and then he would have ruled the Seven Kingdoms at his wife's side.

Do you seriously think that through  Baela  ( female) and her child by recently recognized bastard of Snake and Mouse will be named king without issue, it is more likely there would be new divisions in the realm and civil war.

 I am not saying that he wanted to be King, just that he wanted to preserve his hold of House Velaryon and his fleets, maybe influence stability by eradicating last remnant of the Greens. Not everything needs to happen overnight.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, he died, too, so apparently nobody cared about that.

It is possible though the records we are reading are written after the events, though not one maester acknowledges the fact. He is proven kinslayer and father of future kings , someone would think his bloodline is cursed.

Those things remain like mark on people and lineage especially if written by Maesters. There are example in French history of belief that French royalty was cursed for killing of Templars. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Varys is not the Larys Strong fellow. That guy doesn't have a visible agenda aside from betraying people.

It is easier to judge Varys actions than those of Larys, since we have more information, F&B is more like reading of Roberts Rebellion from historical records, while we later have true revelations about many characters , their deeds and motivations.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, Cole was a great warrior, but his motivations to actually involve himself in politics still stink.

Thing is that we have contradicting information about his change of allegiance , and  without true reason I can’t vilify him, many knights men and  lords were forced to choose who to follow.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Borros restored order, not Aegon II. Nobody asked for his advice when Borros acted. All they allowed him to do was to sit in judgment over the people they captured. That is not an accomplishment.

You deny the king for actions that are successful or considered righteous when not present but berate him for injustices or failures when he also isn’t present.

In previous discussions you tend to do the same with representing characters like the two Betrayers entirely green or Tyland Lannister not member of green, with all other distorted view it makes Your claims extremely fallible.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, if Aegon II had known that he would face Baela and Moondancer at Dragonstone he would have not mounted Sunfyre and flown there. Because Sunfyre was no longer in the shape to face another dragon in battle. He did not win there, he lost. He lost the only creature he apparently truly loved - Sunfyre. He would have never risked that had he known who and what he would face.

He had to try, he had no other option, with loosing everything to his knowledge. Dragonstone was surrounded by Velaryon fleet, with black armies massing,  He would have used other method to kill smaller Dragon, though he would had to support attack with the Sunfyre. You seriously claim that he would remain hiding on Dragonstone drinking in the tavern now that is silly.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Her reign was by far not as bloody as Aegon II's.

Do the math of murder and people dead under each people effective government of  Kings Landing and locations or events under their direct influence.There should be far better research for such daring claim.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you offer your opinions you have to be prepared to comment or justify them to at least to some degree. I don't have issues with anyone liking the Greens, I just find the reasons you have put forth not very convincing - and at times not even really understandable.

I replied to the topic , in the style that Original Poster had done specifying my reasoning but not bothering him for expressing opposite views. 

We had plenty of debates regarding the topics and our arguments repeat over the different topics and derail them.   I am prepared to occasionally clarify my opinion or offer additional arguments , but not always , especially not with one poster with record of almost 20.000  posts ( that is almost 3x “War and Peace”) who clearly has more than enough time to overwhelm  different views of the Novels by sheer repetitiveness and represent his own views as actual version of events.

To quote show Renly; “I’d have better luck debating the wind.”

Edited by Eltharion21
Grammar and spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the Last Teague said:

1) Even in a culture which accepts blood feuds killing 4 years old children is reprensible. Killing "just" one innocent child is acceptable? Did he won the war by doing it? Especialy in front of his mother, a woman who never offended Daemon or Rhaenyra. And probably the awful detail of Blood menacing Jaehaera with rape was also Daemon's idea. If Daemon wanted vengeance, he had a dragon, and a sword, and Aemond was eager for glory. They could just found a date and kill each other. Daemon only really dared to fight One-Eye after he lost all hope.

While one certainly can blame Daemon for Blood and Cheese, it was not his decision to actually target the children of Aegon II. That was a decision made by either Mysaria or, perhaps, only by the assassins themselves after they had entered the Red Keep and found out that could not get to Aegon II directly or into Maegor's Holdfast.

In that sense, Daemon is less guilty of the murder of Jaehaerys than Aemond is to be blamed for the murder of Lucerys. The difference isn't that great but it is there.

1 hour ago, the Last Teague said:

2) You confound the Court (that's it, the noble who frequent Red Keep and official acts) and the Great Council. The Court doesn't represent the kingdom. Just enjoy the food and clap when it's time.

But there is no indication that the Great Council was binding to King Viserys I. If it were, then there would have been actual opposition against his decision to name Rhaenyra his heir - which there was not. The only man pissed about that at the time was Daemon.

1 hour ago, the Last Teague said:

3) Half the young knights in the Realm wanted to marry Rhaenyra. There is no proof that Tyland resented by rejected (unlike Fool Frey, I think he didn't make any official request, just some moves). Of course the lions tried to get the girl (and Brackens, Blackwoods, Velarions, Strongs...) ! No proof, again, that Tyland and Jason were jealous. Theirs was a dinastic maneuver, not a love affair. That could work for Criston Cole, mayhaps. Not all Lannisters are like Tywin.

But it is a significant hint that they could have had such base motives. And I didn't say any of them loved Rhaenyra. Just that they felt humiliated because they were rejected and that their were jealous of the men who finally got her hand - and thus access to the throne.

Amos Bracken, who actually won a duel fought for Rhaenyra's favor, only became Green because his father declared for Aegon II. He has a excuse there. Tyland and Jason Lannister don't have such an excuse.

Does Tyland ever imply he gives a rat's ass about 'Andal principles'. His justification is that he never swore a vow. And of course he gets rewarded for his service to the Greens - he is named Master of Coin.

As for Aegon II:

The guy did have pretty good advisers, especially in the beginning. Yet he ignored their advice and insisted on killing everyone from the start. Otto Hightower may have been able to win the war for him, but he fired him. Criston Cole had him start military campaigns in the Crownlands that made him a cripple and a drug-addict and helped to seal his ultimate defeat - due to the Darklyns siding with the Blacks on the Kingsroad. That wouldn't have happened, most likely, had Aegon II not brutally sacked Duskendale.

Not to mention that the guy even had better advice how to save his sorry hide in the end. Corlys Velaryon as not eager to poison him, apparently, but suggested ways to make peace again and again. First that was rejected by the king, and then the man even failed to take the black.

Alicent was bad, too, but not nearly as bad as Aegon II as the latter throwing a party for Aemond the Kinslayer shows - he is happy while both his mother and grandfather are horrified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon's last moment did get me to pity him at least a little bit. He seemed to at least entertain the idea of taking the black until his mother made him chance course. 

Despite being king Aegon didn't really seem all that much in charge. While him at first refusing the crown is probably propaganda the Green council did make him king without him doing or knowing anything about it(but obviously being willing to get along with it) then he gets into a coma for a while and was prevented from preventing his death by the corrupting influence of his mother. 

He's definitely a nasty piece of work, cruel, unforgiving, inept and possibly a pedophile but he also seems to be something of a puppet and not at all a boon to the Greens. He's no politician like Otto, he's no warrior like Cole, commander like Daeron or a dragon rider on par with Aemond. He's just the face of the Greens and its least remarkable member but that also makes him relatively ''harmless'' when compared to Cole, Alicent, or Aemond.  

While more cruel he also seems to lack the paranoia of his rival. When Aegon fed people to dragons or set them on fire it was because they really did something to raise his ire. At the end Rheanya was lashing out at imagined enemies like Addam or Nettles which eventually dragged Corlys and herself down. 

Edited by Daemon of the Blacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read literally anything in this thread, including the OP, but the blacks.  C'mon.  The argument for the greens rests entirely on asserting women should never rule unless absolutely necessary.  Who wants to take that position?  I think it's weird people take that position, and anyway, I'd be totally uncomfortable doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both would be pretty terrible at ruling Westeros, but the Blacks have a lot more interesting characters.

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I haven't read literally anything in this thread, including the OP, but the blacks.  C'mon.  The argument for the greens rests entirely on asserting women should never rule unless absolutely necessary.  Who wants to take that position?  I think it's weird people take that position, and anyway, I'd be totally uncomfortable doing so.

Not really pro-Green myself, but many point to the fact that there would not be a feminist outcome where the Iron Throne and Westeros would adopt Dornish-style succession, rather that it allowed a “special case” of a king being able to name his heir. Rhaenyra decreed that Rosby and Stokeworth would be succeeded by their sons, not their first-born daughters. So the argument is you leave the door open to future succession disputes.

Share this post


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

So the argument is you leave the door open to future succession disputes.

Sure, a downstream effect would be there'd be more succession disputes involving women.  So?  This presumes there aren't already succession disputes between men, which from the impression we get is, ya know, pretty damn common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, a downstream effect would be there'd be more succession disputes involving women.  So?  This presumes there aren't already succession disputes between men, which from the impression we get is, ya know, pretty damn common.

Not really what I am arguing. If Viserys can choose not to follow the typical Westerosi laws of succession, then that can also set a precedent for a monarch further down the line choosing to name a second son, for instance, because succession becomes the monarch’s decision rather than a more established law. While what the Greens did is shitty, the argument in their favour is that it more clearly follows the laws accepted in Westeros. 

Aside from the legitimisation of Aegon IV’s kids as an intentional act of instability, the second Great Council (where it was the lords’ decision rather than just the king’s) and the War of the Five kings (where Renly is a dick) it seems that this law tends to be followed somewhat smoothly in the three centuries of the Iron Throne’s existebce. 

Share this post


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

If Viserys can choose not to follow the typical Westerosi laws of succession, then that can also set a precedent for a monarch further down the line choosing to name a second son, for instance, because succession becomes the monarch’s decision rather than a more established law. While what the Greens did is shitty, the argument in their favour is that it more clearly follows the laws accepted in Westeros. 

One precedent breaking one other precedent isn't the same as breaking "established law."  It's saying that precedent didn't matter.  But that precedent had nothing to do with second sons.  Like I said, it would change things in terms of women being more highly regarded in succession disputes, but saying that would extend to second sons is just an erroneous slippery slope argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

Aegon's last moment did get me to pity him at least a little bit. He seemed to at least entertain the idea of taking the black until his mother made him chance course.

She wasn't completely wrong there. Do we actually think Aegon III would have allowed his uncle to take the black had it been his call? Would the Lads or Cregan Stark have been okay with that? Most likely not.

1 hour ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

He's definitely a nasty piece of work, cruel, unforgiving, inept and possibly a pedophile but he also seems to be something of a puppet and not at all a boon to the Greens. He's no politician like Otto, he's no warrior like Cole, commander like Daeron or a dragon rider on par with Aemond. He's just the face of the Greens and its least remarkable member but that also makes him relatively ''harmless'' when compared to Cole, Alicent, or Aemond.

Oh, he is the guy in charge in the end. And he was in charge at least from the moment he fired Otto - and perhaps even before that - until he got himself nearly killed. He is just one of the stupidest kings who ever sat the throne in addition to his cruelty and malice. The fact that Aemond seems to be even dumber than Aegon II doesn't make him smart.

1 hour ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

While more cruel he also seems to lack the paranoia of his rival. When Aegon fed people to dragons or set them on fire it was because they really did something to raise his ire. At the end Rheanya was lashing out at imagined enemies like Addam or Nettles which eventually dragged Corlys and herself down. 

Addam or Nettles was unpleasant, but it was not Rhaenyra who really came up with all that. Her advisers almost unanimously pushed her to do this, whereas similar cruelties/stupidities usually originated with Aegon II himself.

Rhaenyra made mistakes, but she didn't fall because of them, she fell because people in the city where actually working against her. And because she was betrayed. I mean, the Nettles/Addam think looks cruel but if you just heard about Tumbleton and there is a realistic chance that the Two Betrayers might turn into Four Betrayers, with you being the people who get cooked alive this time the thing doesn't really look like paranoia and rather, say caution. Sure, it was rather unrealistic that Addam Velaryon would betray his (grand-)father in such a manner, but still...

16 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Not really what I am arguing. If Viserys can choose not to follow the typical Westerosi laws of succession, then that can also set a precedent for a monarch further down the line choosing to name a second son, for instance, because succession becomes the monarch’s decision rather than a more established law. While what the Greens did is shitty, the argument in their favour is that it more clearly follows the laws accepted in Westeros. 

There is law for the succession of the Iron Throne. There are just precedents. Viserys I just set another such precedent when he declared his Rhaenyra his heir. Nobody ever said he couldn't do that or that this was 'against the law'. 

16 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Aside from the legitimisation of Aegon IV’s kids as an intentional act of instability, the second Great Council (where it was the lords’ decision rather than just the king’s) and the War of the Five kings (where Renly is a dick) it seems that this law tends to be followed somewhat smoothly in the three centuries of the Iron Throne’s existebce. 

You mean like when Maegor the Cruel usurped the throne, setting a precedent that a brother can come before a son? And that the Iron Throne goes to the person who has the strength to seize, not the weak son of a feeble king?

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

One precedent breaking one other precedent isn't the same as breaking "established law."  It's saying that precedent didn't matter.  But that precedent had nothing to do with second sons.  Like I said, it would change things in terms of women being more highly regarded in succession disputes, but saying that would extend to second sons is just an erroneous slippery slope argument.

Well, we have that kind of thinking with Visenya favoring Maegor over Aenys, and also, although less strongly, with Daemon Blackfyre and Renly. One can be reasonably sure that no follower of Renly's believed that primogeniture supported his claims nor does it make much sense to assume most followers of Daemon Blackfyre actually bought the unproven story that 'Daeron Falseborn' was actually the son of his uncle. Those men following these two clearly believed that the better looking, more martial, more charismatic younger brother should come before the older.

We also see this in Wyman Manderly referring to Rickon Stark as his liege lord rather than his actual liege lord, the cripple. He is alive, too, but nobody in the North wants a cripple child as a liege lord, right?

Share this post


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

She wasn't completely wrong there. Do we actually think Aegon III would have allowed his uncle to take the black had it been his call? Would the Lads or Cregan Stark have been okay with that? Most likely not.

Given what we know about Aegon I think there's a solid chance. Even his treasonous arms instructor who Aegon despised, who tortured his best friend and tried to kill the wife of the little brother he adored got a chance to take the Black. Granted feeding his mom to a dragon and making him watch is definitely several miles worse but there is precedent of Aegon giving the chance to someone he hates very, very much.  

I don't think the lads would be a problem either. Benjicot is a soft boy. Given what we know about him he likely wouldn't have the heart to refuse a man begging to take the Black. And given his (crumbling) opposition to Cregan Kermit just wanted the whole war to be done with so he might not have a preference between death or the black. And Aegon II still had hostages. He could offer to take the black while at the same time putting a chained Baela and little Aegon on the wall with the message that if he dies, the hostages go with him. 

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, he is the guy in charge in the end. And he was in charge at least from the moment he fired Otto - and perhaps even before that - until he got himself nearly killed. He is just one of the stupidest kings who ever sat the throne in addition to his cruelty and malice. The fact that Aemond seems to be even dumber than Aegon II doesn't make him smart.

True he's overall in command and can fire people but firing Otto is just about the only thing he does. Crowning him was the work of his mother, the Triarchy was the work of Otto, Rooks rest was Cole's plan, getting destroyed in the Riverlands was all Aemond and taking back Kingslanding was done by Orros with the implied scheming of Lary to back him up. No real plan of action ever seems to have came from Aegon II.

Edited by Daemon of the Blacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DMC said:

One precedent breaking one other precedent isn't the same as breaking "established law."  It's saying that precedent didn't matter.  But that precedent had nothing to do with second sons.  Like I said, it would change things in terms of women being more highly regarded in succession disputes, but saying that would extend to second sons is just an erroneous slippery slope argument.

I'd buy that this is a weak argument if we got an indication that Rhaenyra was intending to permanently set the law of the Iron Throne to be that sons and daughters inherited equally -- after all, Nymeria managed it. But instead, there is an indication that this could have been a one-off thing. She buys Corlys's justification that this was a special case and doesn't apply to the rest of a realm. Well, couldn't it also not apply in the future to the Iron Throne too?

Rhaenyra's claim seems to be based on her being declared heir by her father, and does not seem to have intended to enshrine it in law. If Jacaerys had become king and had a daughter and then a son, would the daughter automatically follow him? Under what we know, he would probably have to explicitly name her his heir, and if not, yes, this is probably going to open the door to more civil wars, as opposed to the probability of a more clear-cut succession. Again, I am no Green fan, I just am inclined to buy this argument about long-term stability.

Considering Renly declares himself king on the grounds of being more popular than Stannis, and that the younger bastard Daemon Blackfyre was "the King Who Bore the Sword," I really don't think it's unlikely that the precedent of naming a daughter over a son could be appropriated to justify a king naming a strong, popular, second son over a less popular firstborn son if there is more of a precedent that "who the king names is heir" versus the supposedly "iron precedent" of a Great Council.

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is law for the succession of the Iron Throne. There are just precedents. Viserys I just set another such precedent when he declared his Rhaenyra his heir. Nobody ever said he couldn't do that or that this was 'against the law'. 

You mean like when Maegor the Cruel usurped the throne, setting a precedent that a brother can come before a son? And that the Iron Throne goes to the person who has the strength to seize, not the weak son of a feeble king?

I just don't think that the succession law of the Iron Throne can be entirely divorced from the lordships under it. Naming a daughter over an uncle in this situation seems fine, because Rhaenyra was declared heir and had oaths sworn to her at a time when she had no living brothers. Things get murky when he does not name Aegon II heir instead when he is born. Viserys really could not do much more to ensure a succession war by naming Rhaenyra his heir but letting Alicent have influence and letting Greens be on his small council.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to think that Maegor's going to be used as a common precedent for succession, considering everyone knows he was a tyrant and that he was close to being struck from the records as a legitimate king. Viserys was corrupt, but not so much that someone would look at his rule and Maegor's on the same level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

Given what we know about Aegon I think there's a solid chance. Even his treasonous arms instructor who Aegon despised, who tortured his best friend and tried to kill the wife of the little brother he adored got a chance to take the Black. Granted feeding his mom to a dragon and making him watch is definitely several miles worse but there is precedent of Aegon giving the chance to someone he hates very, very much.  

Aegon III didn't deliver the sentence in that case, did he? But I did not say he would have necessarily executed his uncle had it been his call, just that Alicent's advice there is not necessarily all that wrong.

52 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

I don't think the lads would be a problem either. Benjicot is a soft boy. Given what we know about him he likely wouldn't have the heart to refuse a man begging to take the Black. And given his (crumbling) opposition to Cregan Kermit just wanted the whole war to be done with so he might not have a preference between death or the black. And Aegon II still had hostages. He could offer to take the black while at the same time putting a chained Baela and little Aegon on the wall with the message that if he dies, the hostages go with him. 

Well, they could have pretended to go along with his demands and then they could have just killed him after the hostages were freed. It is quite clear, I'd think, that Cregan Stark wanted to kill the guy. That is why he is so pissed that others killed him before he got the chance, and that they used underhanded means to do it.

52 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

True he's overall in command and can fire people but firing Otto is just about the only thing he does. Crowning him was the work of his mother, the Triarchy was the work of Otto, Rooks rest was Cole's plan, getting destroyed in the Riverlands was all Aemond and taking back Kingslanding was done by Orros with the implied scheming of Lary to back him up. No real plan of action ever seems to have came from Aegon II.

Aegon II is the guy who insist on making the entire thing a war, he is the one who doesn't want to offer Rhaenyra terms and who gets angry when his rather ridiculous terms are rejected - those were 'keep what you've got, I keep what I stole' terms.

But I agree that Aegon II never actually come up with a plan of his own. However, he came up with some rather moronic suggestions and decided to dismiss a lot of good ideas made by his advisers. I mean, even the rushed coronation in the beginning was done at his insistence. If they had had another week or fortnight to prepare they may have been able to actually secure the allegiance of certain key houses which were later approached and won by Rhaenyra.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I'd buy that this is a weak argument if we got an indication that Rhaenyra was intending to permanently set the law of the Iron Throne to be that sons and daughters inherited equally -- after all, Nymeria managed it. But instead, there is an indication that this could have been a one-off thing. She buys Corlys's justification that this was a special case and doesn't apply to the rest of a realm. Well, couldn't it also not apply in the future to the Iron Throne too?

Sure. This is were Rhaenyra really becomes a tragic figure, that she doesn't even have the strength to use her own precedent as a means to change the overall succession laws in Westeros.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Rhaenyra's claim seems to be based on her being declared heir by her father, and does not seem to have intended to enshrine it in law. If Jacaerys had become king and had a daughter and then a son, would the daughter automatically follow him? Under what we know, he would probably have to explicitly name her his heir, and if not, yes, this is probably going to open the door to more civil wars, as opposed to the probability of a more clear-cut succession. Again, I am no Green fan, I just am inclined to buy this argument about long-term stability.

Any king had and did have to formally name an heir. Aegon I did, Aenys did, Maegor did, Jaehaerys I did repeatedly, Viserys I did, Rhaenyra did repeatedly, Aegon II did (after Corlys pressured him), and what we know of later kings they did, too.

When their was no named and confirmed heir then the succession was in doubt - as Aegon III's was before his brother Viserys returned. That is why the regents discuss the succession. If Aegon III had been ruling in his own right he could have just named an heir.

Even during the reign of Jaehaerys I it takes a while until Prince Aemon is formally acknowledged as Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. That seems to coincide with his formal investiture as Prince of Dragonstone in 62 AC, when he was seven years old.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Considering Renly declares himself king on the grounds of being more popular than Stannis, and that the younger bastard Daemon Blackfyre was "the King Who Bore the Sword," I really don't think it's unlikely that the precedent of naming a daughter over a son could be appropriated to justify a king naming a strong, popular, second son over a less popular firstborn son if there is more of a precedent that "who the king names is heir" versus the supposedly "iron precedent" of a Great Council.

Sure, one assumes this could be done. It wouldn't be very likely but it could be done. Just as Jacaerys Velaryon could have decided to name a younger son rather than an older daughter his heir. Although it wouldn't have been easier for him to make his daughter his heir than it had been for his grandfather.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I just don't think that the succession law of the Iron Throne can be entirely divorced from the lordships under it.

But it is, and the Great Council made it so. On the lordly level daughters have a better claim than brothers.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Naming a daughter over an uncle in this situation seems fine, because Rhaenyra was declared heir and had oaths sworn to her at a time when she had no living brothers. Things get murky when he does not name Aegon II heir instead when he is born. Viserys really could not do much more to ensure a succession war by naming Rhaenyra his heir but letting Alicent have influence and letting Greens be on his small council.

Sure, the man made mistakes, but making Rhaenyra the heir in a grand ceremony as she was - precisely because this was necessary due to the precedent set against female inheritance by the Great Council - made it pretty much impossible for Viserys I to change the succession again in favor of a son. Vows were sworn by many lords and knights, vows that may be upheld regardless what the king later decrees.

26 minutes ago, Vaith said:

I think it's a bit unrealistic to think that Maegor's going to be used as a common precedent for succession, considering everyone knows he was a tyrant and that he was close to being struck from the records as a legitimate king. Viserys was corrupt, but not so much that someone would look at his rule and Maegor's on the same level.

But Maegor still set this precedent. At times a younger brother becomes before a son. Daemon Blackfyre and Renly are in good company there, and this kind of thing also plays a role when the Great Councils chose the claimant they like more rather than the one who has the better claim.

Share this post


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

Well, they could have pretended to go along with his demands and then they could have just killed him after the hostages were freed. It is quite clear, I'd think, that Cregan Stark wanted to kill the guy. That is why he is so pissed that others killed him before he got the chance, and that they used underhanded means to do it.

That would be dishonorable. While keeping hostages isn't exactly a shining act of virtue its at least a conventional part of Westerosi political bickering. Its normal. Breaking established deals much less so. 

Cregan Stark would likely want to kill Aegon II but he's not the type to go ''Haha! you fell for my ploy! No black Cloak for you!''. If big Aegon says he'll throw little Aegon off the castle wall if he's not allowed to take the Black, and if Cregan agrees to it he doesn't seem the type to break his word, the lads even less so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

That would be dishonorable. While keeping hostages isn't exactly a shining act of virtue its at least a conventional part of Westerosi political bickering. Its normal. Breaking established deals much less so. 

Cregan Stark would likely want to kill Aegon II but he's not the type to go ''Haha! you fell for my ploy! No black Cloak for you!''. If big Aegon says he'll throw little Aegon off the castle wall if he's not allowed to take the Black, and if Cregan agrees to it he doesn't seem the type to break his word, the lads even less so. 

Yeah, okay, I agree with that. Point still would be that whatever Aegon III agreed to grant the evil uncle wouldn't necessarily be considered a valid deal by either the Lads, Cregan Stark, or Jeyne Arryn. The way I interpret this deal suggested by Corlys is that Aegon II abdicate in favor of Aegon III before the Lads get a chance to storm the city. The idea being that Aegon III's rise to the throne is enough of a boon to the Blacks in the field that they don't exactly kill Aegon II and his council. And that's how Larys Strong then played it, anyway, after they had gotten rid of Aegon II the other way.

But considering that an abdicated Aegon II who had declared to take the black wouldn't have teleported to the Wall, chances are pretty high that he would have been taken into custody by either the Lads or Lord Cregan - and Corlys and Larys and the others would have been as powerless to stop that as they were powerless to stop their own arrest when Cregan Stark accused them of regicide.

And make no mistake - Cregan Stark wanted to be the guy to kill Aegon II. That's why he came down with his army. If he had been the one to defeat the last Greens in the field and had subsequently stormed/marched into KL to take possession of the Red Keep he would have seized the false king and usurper, and he would have tried and executed him. Just like his descendant Eddard Stark wanted to do with Aerys II.

Share this post


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

I'd buy that this is a weak argument if we got an indication that Rhaenyra was intending to permanently set the law of the Iron Throne to be that sons and daughters inherited equally -- after all, Nymeria managed it.

That's not really what I was arguing.  I was just admitting that, yes, if Rhaenyra's reign was accepted and lasted without incident that sure, that could change perceptions regarding inheritance.  Could not be too, I don't really care.

7 hours ago, Vaith said:

Again, I am no Green fan, I just am inclined to buy this argument about long-term stability.

I don't think you can argue your decision is about long-term stability when that decision literally means you're starting a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greens.

Legally, Iron Throne's succession was really messed up by that point. Maegor seized the throne from uncrowned Aegon and tried to establish inheritance by appointment (Aerea) as well as exclusion of particular heir from succession (bypassing Jaehaerys). Jaehaerys seized the throne from Aerea, establishing a precedent for excluding even those women who would inherit under Andal law (daughter > uncle). Then Viserys was elected under the same banner. By trying to appoint Rhaenyra as heir, Viserys undermined not only the precedents that raised him personally to power - he undermined the precedent that raised Jaehaerys to power. Rhaenyra's claim to the throne collapses on itself because if women can be appointed ahead of male claimants, then Aerea was the rightful Queen, Jaehaerys was a usurper and Viserys was just some guy talking nonsense. At least Aegon II's kingship doesn't undermine the last century of Targaryen dynasty.

In terms of ability to rule, neither candidate is impressive, but since no monarch can realistically rule alone, it's the team that counts and Aegon II definitely had a better team. Rhaenyra's government is insane with the exception of Corlys, Rhaenyra's support outside Dragonstone's island chain is practically non-existent - Black Riverlords basically carry the Black war effort by themselves while Northemen/Valemen wait and Ironborn do their thing. Even Rhaenyra's relatives don't care for her - Baratheon joins the Greens and Arryn sits out the entire war in the Vale. Aegon's government is actually pretty good - Otto is quite competent, Tyland even more so, Larys is a genius and Orwyle is actually very decent guy. Aegon's armies suffer from tactical incompetence, but there is a lot of them since he actually has the wide support - in the Reach, in Westerlands, in Stormlands and beyond. In the end the Blacks had to accept a draw and give massive concessions to the Greens because the Blacks never quite coalesced as an actual party rather than a collection of guys each doing their thing.

In terms of likable personalities, George made even Adam unlikable. His sacrifice for the Queen doesn't seem nowhere nearly as heroic given his residence in Dragonpit - the same Dragonpit where Rhaenyra had hundreds or thousands of innocent people murdered and fed to the dragons during her short reign. It's hard to think of a person as heroic when they stink of human blood and meat. But I did like Orwyle (he taught regular people to read) and Tyland (he is the only actual statesman of his era since he does something for the realm at large - see granaries, public relief fund and such).

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

×