Jump to content
James Steller

Who was the Biggest Villain of the Dance?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

By the way, If Stannis follows some chronology in his statement then Maester Hareth probably lived in Maekar or Aegon V's time. 

Daemon - Baelor's reign

the brothers Toyne - Aegon V

Vulture King -  rose against Daeron II Targaryen, but was eventually defeated by Lords Caron and Dondarrion. He can't be other Vulture Kings because they lived in independent Dorne and can't be traitor when they aren't sworn to Targaryens.

Quote

Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth... traitors have always paid with their lives... even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one kingand mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother'scrown.[4]

 

Edited by Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

By the way, If Stannis follows some chronology in his statement then Maester Hareth probably lived in Maekar or Aegon V's time. 

Daemon - Baelor's reign

the brothers Toyne - Aegon V

Vulture King -  rose against Daeron II Targaryen, but was eventually defeated by Lords Caron and Dondarrion. He can't be other Vulture Kings because they lived in independent Dorne and can't be traitor when they aren't sworn to Targaryens.

Nice idea, but we don't know whether the thing is supposed to reflect a chronological sequence of events. Rhaenyra certainly doesn't fit into the chronology.

People have been suggesting that Grand Maester Hareth could have been the as-of-yet nameless Grand Maester of Aerys I who is as much into sorcery as he is - he could betray his king during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion, say.

But there are other eras for him as well - Aegon III's reign, for instance (if TWoIaF and I are correct that Aegon III dismissed Munkun and had a succession of other Grand Maesters until Munkun was restored to the office after Aegon III's death), Daeron I and Baelor I, perhaps even Aegon IV, but especially Daeron II, and Aegon V. Might be the guy had issues with Egg's reforms...

Share this post


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

Nice idea, but we don't know whether the thing is supposed to reflect a chronological sequence of events. Rhaenyra certainly doesn't fit into the chronology.

 

The reason Rhaenyra was mentioned at the end is to show that even Targaryens are expected to answer their crimes/treason. So I exclude her.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 People have been suggesting that Grand Maester Hareth could have been the as-of-yet nameless Grand Maester of Aerys I who is as much into sorcery as he is - he could betray his king during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion, say.

 

Aerys I's reign is after Daeron II. Chronology still works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

The reason Rhaenyra was mentioned at the end is to show that even Targaryens are expected to answer their crimes/treason. So I exclude her.

Aerys I's reign is after Daeron II. Chronology still works.

Sure, but we also have no idea which Vulture King Stannis was referring to. Could be the one Arlan helped to defeat, could be an earlier one or one later.

Share this post


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

Sure, but we also have no idea which Vulture King Stannis was referring to. Could be the one Arlan helped to defeat, could be an earlier one or one later.

First, Second and Third Vulture Kings aren't betrayers. They fought against Targaryens, Baratheons and Marcher lords who are enemies of Dorne. Even Martells showed sympathy towards them.

But Fourth Vulture King rose after Dorne became part of the Seven Kingdoms. I think he could be someone who lost his lands after supporting Blackfyres or someone who didn't like Valyrian looking children of Princess Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

First, Second and Third Vulture Kings aren't betrayers. They fought against Targaryens, Baratheons and Marcher lords who are enemies of Dorne. Even Martells showed sympathy towards them.

Well, it would depend on who those Vulture Kings actually were. We know the first guy was a Dornishman, but we have no information on the second or the third nor any of those who might have shown up later, before or after the one Arlan was involved with.

Share this post


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

Well, it would depend on who those Vulture Kings actually were. We know the first guy was a Dornishman, but we have no information on the second or the third nor any of those who might have shown up later, before or after the one Arlan was involved with.

The second Vulture King was believed to be the minor son of a minor house in Dorne. 

Borros Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End, gathered six thousand men in support of King Aegon II Targaryen during the Dance of the Dragons. Instead of marching against Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen and her dragons, however, Borros led his host south into the Red Mountains to retaliate for incursions from Dorne. (The third Vulture King)

They hardly fit "treason category". 

Edited by Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

The second Vulture King was believed to be the minor son of a minor house in Dorne. 

Borros Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End, gathered six thousand men in support of King Aegon II Targaryen during the Dance of the Dragons. Instead of marching against Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen and her dragons, however, Borros led his host south into the Red Mountains to retaliate for incursions from Dorne. (The third Vulture King)

They hardly fit "treason category". 

But the detailed description of the first Vulture King and Gyldayn's remarks on his successors imply that there is no good knowledge on any of those guys, no confirmation who they were before they became 'the Vulture King' or how (if at all) they are connected to the previous bearers of the title. But then, technically the first Vulture King also 'betrayed' Princess Deria considering that she denounced him and did not (openly) support his cause. He wouldn't be a traitor to the Iron Throne but, in a sense, a traitor to Sunspear. And his successors might be guilty of similar crimes.

I'm with you that the Vulture from the reign of Daeron II better qualifies as a traitor - but that goes for all subsequent Vulture Kings after that one. And some such might have shown up. While we don't know how many there were and when exactly they showed up it is essentially impossible to pin down the one Stannis mentioned.

But I agree with you that it is indeed very unlikely that the first three Vulture Kings fit that bill. Unless, of course, we assume Stannis is overplaying the treason angle there as much as he does with Rhaenyra. But then, a good way to make sense of that would be to have an actually traitorous Stormlord/Marcher lord/Dornishman taking up the mantle of the Vulture King during the reign of Aegon V, possibly leading to the death of the Laughing Storm or something of that sort. That could then be really proper treason.

Your idea that Rhaenyra gets special treatment by Stannis because she is a Targaryen herself isn't that convincing to me - isn't Daemon Blackfyre effectively a Targaryen, too? Like Rhaenyra he is the child of a king and a (former) queen, and he also happens to be the brother of a king, etc.

Share this post


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

Your idea that Rhaenyra gets special treatment by Stannis because she is a Targaryen herself isn't that convincing to me - isn't Daemon Blackfyre effectively a Targaryen, too? Like Rhaenyra he is the child of a king and a (former) queen, and he also happens to be the brother of a king, etc.

Maybe Stannis thinks Daemon is wanton and treacherous by nature because of being bastard of Aegon IV so his punishment is not suprising. Also Rhaenyra is his ancestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

Maybe Stannis thinks Daemon is wanton and treacherous by nature because of being bastard of Aegon IV so his punishment is not suprising. Also Rhaenyra is his ancestor.

She is also Stannis' own ancestor ;-).

Stannis' view of treason is very warped, and apparently dependent on whether it is successful and/or punished, since he never numbers his dear brother or himself among the traitors, nor successful usurpers like Maegor the Cruel.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Browndodd said:

Were any of Stannis' alleged traitors ever convicted of treason by anything resembling a court as we would understand it?

We can definitely rule that out for Rhaenyra (murdered on the whim of a warlord), the brothers Toyne (slain by the Dragonknight defending his king from their attack), and Daemon Blackfyre (slain in battle).

And the fact that Bittersteel actually got a proper trial after the Third Rebellion when he was clearly guilty of the first and the third one implies that you even had a right for a trial even after that shit, at least if you were a member of the royal family.

One could even question the claim that Rhaenyra died a traitor's death. Being fed to a dragon isn't exactly the proper punishment for treason, that's hanging (with your entrails out) or beheading (for nobility and royalty). The Targaryens fed some people to their dragons before, but that was never established as the proper punishment for treason. If Stannis is speaking colloquially there, we don't know where else he allows himself some poetic license.

As I try to make clear:

Stannis just has the reputation of being a just man, and he certainly has a peculiar sense of strict justice in sentences he delivers. But he does not extend that to his own actions and motivations. He did not do his duty and go to Robert with his suspicions, he abandoned him to Cersei and his death. He does not actually know/has proof that Cersei's children are not Robert's and still he acts, claiming that Cersei also murdered Jon Arryn (which he has no evidence for either and which is actually wrong). He uses black magic to murder his brother and/or a loyal retainer of his brother (it is clear he knows what he doing in the second case), he cheats on his lawful wife with a hot sorceress but condemns prostitution, whores, and their patrons (including his own brother, the king), he uses black magic to convince the public that he burned a traitor and oathbreaker alive who he actually secretly pardoned, he himself betrayed his lawful king and cousin, Aerys II, in favor of his brother, but expects everybody to bow to him, he allows his wife and courtiers to publicly mock the man who was a second father to him without intervening, etc.

People who buy into the story that Stannis is 'a just man' buy into a propaganda. He has a sense of justice, but like all/most Baratheons (just look at Rogar, Borys, Orryn, Borros, two of his daughters, Robert, etc.) he is ruled by his emotions. Stannis is very hurt by being a mere second son, a man who will never live up to the living legend that was Robert Baratheon - a man he both admired (for his good qualities) and loathed (for his bad qualities). But in the end he craved the love and respect of this man, his older brother and king, the man he actually betrayed his true king for. And the fact that Robert didn't reward/honor him the way he wanted it is at the root of the problem here.

I mean, do we truly think our dear Stannis came up with the possibility that Robert's children were not his - and that he, Stannis, would then the presumptive heir until Robert had finally gotten himself some trueborn children - just out of the goodness of his heart? Just because Joff killed a cat and the queen was very close to her twin brother (something that's actually not that unusual in twin siblings...) one does not conclude that there is an adulterous, incestuous affair going on - or that it produced the three children the king had acknowledged as his children by the queen.

In that sense, we can draw a strong parallel between Stannis' actions and those of Borys Baratheon after Lord Rogar finally got his son by Queen Alyssa.

But now we are in completely different territory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Be my guest. Discussing things with you usually leads nowhere.

I will when You stop replying to my posts, to be honest most of the time You reply to my comments, and We have debate around same subjects and it requires too much time to answer, it would be also bad for the forum that only Your point of view is recorded for  posterity. 

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Who cares about Stannis' mind? The man is a liar and hypocrite. He has no proof that Cersei's children are not Robert's, just as he has no proof that Shireen is his child. Hair color proves nothing. Yet he presumes to move against children he treated as his nephews and niece his entire life the moment his brother closed his eyes. That's disgusting - as is him sleeping around with the foreign priestess-sorceress, using her magics as a means to kill his brother and a loyal man protecting his nephew from his 'care'. He stoops as low as to lie to the entire North about burning Mance Rayder. He preaches justice and delivers injustice when nobody looks (and it profits him).

Stannis is also quite sure that Cersei murdered Jon Arryn - if the man is wrong about then I'm sure we can trust his 'judgment' of historical figures he only knows through history classes given him by Cressen.

Even his opponents and George himself call him "truly just man".

We as readers are certain that Cersei's children are bastards made by incest, she even blatantly confesses it to Hand of the KIng in his pov chapter. If you plan to make thread about Your issues with Stannis please make different thread, since this is with his comparison by Rhaenyra, in slandering him You damage she who You would compare him to.

Though he really seems adaptable to conditions, when people consider him unbending. There was a lovely blog that wrote about him:

Iron Bends

Cersei might have effected, reduced efforts in helping him recover after Lysa and Baelish poisoned him, Stannis certainly isn't all knowing and it is a honest mistake, since she caused Roberts death, that also wouldn't be beneath her.

"During his interrogation by Tyrion Lannister, Grand Maester Pycelle reveals that Colemon had been having success in purging the poison which had been killing Jon Arryn, and that he had sent Colemon away to allow Lord Jon's condition to worsen."

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

The treason of the men Rhaenyra executed was obvious. There was no need for trials (Nettles and Alyn Velaryon excluded, of course).

Corlys Velaryon sees his dear nephews as traitors. He had no issue with them being executed. And as far as we know rebels don't get proper trials. Vaemond condemned himself by doing what his king had explicitly forbidden, making things much worse for him by not only repeating what was forbidden, but also by using that as a means to try to steal what wasn't his.

There is thing as respecting laws and conventions, person who pretends to be monarch is required to maintain them, when Highest Lords's aren't treated with due process, what is to say about treatment of common people. Rhaenyra's treason was also obvious to the Greens so she did ultimately reaped what she sowed.

So the laws should be made of pudding excluding some individuals but respecting right of others, heh?

Corlys was hypocrite and extremely ambitious man, similarly to Otto Hightower.

Corlys followed Rhaenyra until tally on his own house was too great, he also didn't want that her sons inherit House Velaryon but there needed to be marriage alliance between children of his daughter and Rhaenyra's two eldest boys, which may have also hampered alliance options possibilities with other houses ,notably House Baratheon which may have prevented the war before it even started.

Vaemond wasn't a rebel he just claimed the truth, that he should inherit since those weren't children of Laenor Velaryon. King had said that those who call their children Strongs they their tongues would be torn out by hot pincers, not that they would be executed and fed to dragon. That same King had been indecisive and inconsistent as it gets.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

A usurper - and Aegon II was a usurper - killing his rightful monarch isn't a proper execution. For that he would have to actually establish himself as the proper and rightful monarch. But that wasn't done before he had his half-sister killed.

Aegon II is recognized as true king by all of Westeros after the war, and Rhaenyra will never be considered as such, he also claimed Dragonstone his ancestral seat by right of conquest, there wasn't even talk of condemning him after Blacks won since he was acknowledged as king before he died.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

No such revelation ever happened. Ned could have revealed it, but he botched it. Stannis only has 'the evidence in his own head'.

Stannis and Jon Arryn discovered it previously and later Ned, other Lords even when being confronted with truth like Kevan, Tyrion, Lysa even Renly and Tyrells will of course follow their own interests to detriment of the realm, not the least of the mockingbirds or small arthropods just begging to be squashed.

Revelation exists also for the readers, who unquestionably know the truth, on the other hand if people want to role-play, rather clumsily as conniving mummer good for them.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

It matters, because the Dance of the Dragons has nothing to do with Rhaenyra's succession. It was about the succession of Viserys I. Nobody in the Realm had a problem with Jacaerys Velaryon's character or personality, and nobody rose against Rhaenyra because of the rumors of the parentage of her children.

Even the Green Council wasn't sure about whether they loathed 'the Strongs' because of their parentage or because gay Laenor was their father and they would continue his wanton ways because they were his seed. Those are all ridiculous arguments brought forth by ambitious and malevolent pricks.

No, they problem with their parentage evident in their appearance, though to be frank they died to Young so that any of their bad characteristic becomes too evident, though Lucerys did poke out of his cousin with a dagger at five years, and other allegedly broke his marriage vows so they weren't exactly saints.

Having bastards by first female inheritor in the Targaryen dynasty,  by minor house even and that is the same house of Sir Lucamore Strong - The Lusty which was huge scandal, know to all at the time is material for many civil unrests in the close future. 

You are aware that events described happen 170 years before War of the Five Kings, with various biases of those writing even, social development and differentiation of norms can be also taken in the account, it is possible that at the time  Westeros was somewhat more conservative.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Care to give quotes about those lots of lords?

Lords who joined the Greens and their lesser banner-men made decision as did the Blacks following their own best interests first. You probably have wiki link somewhere I substantiate enough of my claims with quotes unlike some.

" Power resides where men believe it resides." so each made their own decision who they support taking various elements into account.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

The reason why we are discussing this is that this underdog position makes Rhaenyra more like Stannis. Apparently you agree with that now.

I don't agree Stannis was Underdog in same sense as Rhaenyra. In the start of war he has Royal Navy and Lyseni, 5000 Men, and Red Woman, Rhaenyra has much more and support of other Kingdoms before war escalates, She is in much better position and also there is less factions than in his time.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

We do have strong evidence that Alicent Hightower never loved her husband and king. We don't need her POV for that. And, to be clear, I thought Alicent was more her father's pawn for years. I thought there was a good chance that she loved her husband, felt mistreated and overlooked by him, having some real justified concerns. But as it turns out she apparently only seduced and married the man to get power and prestige for herself, her children, her father and brothers. That puts her squarely in 'villain territory'.

What evidence do You have about that, please give quotes not Your own observations, personal impressions or just conjecture. Viserys married her, and had four trueborn children with her, nobody put gun to his head. 

 Later she fought for their rights maybe using some dubious actions, but also from justified fear from Daemon and Rhaenyra's vengeful character,
That makes her hardly a villain compared to many of characters in the Dance.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

The point was to illustrate that Alicent was even more a social climber than Cersei - Cersei was the daughter of one of the greatest lords of Westeros. For her the jump to queen was not that far. But Alicent essentially put up from the gutters by Viserys I. She was the daughter of a second son of the Lord of Oldtown. While her father served as Hand she could, perhaps, expect to make a great match with some heir of a great house, but by right of birth and station of both herself her normal matches would be younger sons of the Hightower bannermen or, perhaps, the household knights and heirs of petty lords sworn to Oldtown.

Normally, Alicent Hightower should expect as great a match as Daeron Velaryon, the father of Queen Daenaera - and he married a Harte.

Alicent was daughter of Otto Hightower though he was four times Hand of the King and he was Uncle to Lord of Hightower, I am aware that her status wouldn't put her in consideration in marrying the King, and she probably premeditatedly was trying to seduce Viserys, while his first wife even was alive, but when he married her and made trueborn children with her, while immoral it certainly isn't a crime and Rhaenyra isn't one to talk about morals, Alicent's children by birth got rights as children of the King. She also had to make much more social climbing than Cersei, who was instantly chosen as best and maybe only choice for Robert.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

While Daemon is a rather dark character, there is essentially no proof that he did any of the fouls deeds people lay at his feet during the reign of Viserys I. There is no proof that he murdered Laenor or the Strongs, just unconfirmed rumors. Chances are not that bad that he seduced Rhaenyra only because he hoped to marry her to become prince consort at her side - but even that's unclear because we never get his POV.

What's quite clear that the guy sucked at everything he did if he was truly about power because he never got any by those alleged schemes. Which could imply that he is actually guilty in (m)any of them.

Ran has made a pretty convincing case that this nonsense about Daemon wishing to give the Two Betrayers Casterly Rock and Storm's End was just that - slanderous nonsense. There is no direct/good source for this claim, and the fact that he just suggested and failed at convincing Rhaenyra to grant them Stokeworth and Rosby through marriage makes it rather unlikely that he would come up with such unrealistic nonsense.

But that he was an ass goes without saying.

At least we agree on dislike of Daemon, unlike many who laud him as heroes , and think he survived like Tupac...

There isn't any proof of Green crime but people like you pile to them , behaving like Black's trash doesn't stink.
Daemon certainly ordered Son for a son there is written evidence for that, his first wife untimely death, he certainly had things to gain from those deaths, there are patterns in his behavior worming his way to top of Targaryen chain using scheming, murder, also corrupting various institutions like he did with Goldcloaks.

I am not familiar with post that Ran made (great movie btw) but if that is Elio isn't his favorite character from the Dance Daemon himself and he is only one who imagined Jason Isaacs with Harry Potter wig, so he might have bit of biased.


As a quasi historical text, there are lot of various sources but there are also recurring patterns , to make us decide what truth we can from events. We have two separate occasions it is claimed Daemon sided with Dragonseeds first time regarding Rosby and Stokeworth inheritance and later Lannister and Baratheon seats of power, other sources that collaborate those events and he also was surrounded with many of lower class persons of questionable character and made lot of impulsive foolish decisions, so it is absolutely makes sense that he would ask for it.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

As I told you, she demanded the torture of Aemond to find out where his treason came from only after Alicent demanded the mutilation of Lucerys - something you apparently have no issue with.

Putting traitors to death is the right of both a monarch and a ruling lord - which Rhaenyra was both as queen and Princess of Dragonstone.

Alicent hasn't tortured many other people, including Tyland or asked Addam the LOYAL to be tortured, imprisoning and beating his father, so they don't share same amount of guilt. 

It matters how rulers reach the decision, how they execute them, and if they choose to forgive and not forget.

In the end she was just a delightful bite for Sunfyre

“These violent delights have violent ends.”

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Tyland deserved what he got. He was a traitor and should have died a traitor's death.

I disagree, he was truly great man and truthfully worked for benefit of the realm, unlike scum like Varys or Littlefinger.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Who cares what the rabble think? One day they love you, the other day they try to kill you. Just as they love and kill your dragons. There is no reason why Rhaenyra should publicly pretend to feel remorse over the deaths of children she did not authorize to kill. Especially not children she likely did not particularly care for, anyway.

Those people were brought up to that state with misrule of Targaryens, Alicent prevented them to leave by barring the gates, but Rhaenyra drove them to desperation and vengefulness, not governing properly city she conquered, from Realm's delight in only six months she became so reviled, it is quite an achievement.

She is chief commanding of her faction, and pretending to be the Queen of Westeros it is her responsibility and blood is on her hands.

This show scene would capture my response to Your claim.
 

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

This is all irrelevant because nobody actually rebelled against King Viserys I during his lifetime, nor did anyone dare to challenge the king's right to name his own successor.

You would have a case if Viserys I had executed half or his entire council when he tried to name Rhaenyra his heir, replacing them with yes-men to get through with that. Sort of like Maegor had to execute a string of septons to find one who married him to Tyanna in 43 AC. But this didn't happen, did it?

Viserys was just a man, with questionable virtues , whenever factionalism existed and great opposing alliances on the court, huge number of dragons, toleration of schemes and insubordination, lack of policy of their inheritance and use in their Kingdom, civil conflict was just waiting to happen.

Viserys was in his later years hugely incompetent, insinuated by cutting  himself  on the Throne when he asked Velaryon's to loose their tongues for claiming his grandchildren to be bastards.

On 6/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, if Viserys I had had issues with that, he could have changed the succession after Rhaenyra had married her uncle, no? The only opinion that matters on the succession is the king's.

In general:

Regardless how one plays this - with the Black side being the guys in the right, the guys who didn't start the war, the guys who didn't shed the first blood, the guys who nearly always reacted to Green aggression, we have to conclude even the worst people on the Black side look actually pretty good.

They always have the fact that they fight for the just cause on their side. Combine that with the fact that there are literally no brutal sacks commanded/done by any Blacks, that Blacks only commit atrocities in retaliation to Green aggression (this even includes the Ironborn considering they only invaded the West after the West invaded the Riverlands) the Greens look rather bad collectively. The Greens are to be blamed for the sacks of Duskendale, Bitterbridge, Spicetown, High Tide, and Tumbleton - and in part for the riots in KL.

Decent Greens are very few - and those people we scarcely know: Rickard Thorne, Grover Tully (I guess), Jason Lannister (if we count him as Green), one assumes the other Westermen mentioned, and with some caveats, Marston Waters, Grand Maester Orwyle (if we count him as Green), and, perhaps, Borros Baratheon (I'd say he was also a coward and a fool, but not exactly cruel guy). Aside from those most Greens mentioned are either turncloaks, brutal/savage/cruel people, or people involved in the original coup which makes them all traitors.

Viserys was extremely incompetent as I state in paragraph above, he empowered both sides, with Small Council and Kingsguard, and power in Capitol being held by Green side, while Rhaenyra or her representative at least wasn't present at all. Whole F&B point is that when power is centered in one man, it can cause huge troubles depending of his character, so was during the Dance.


By Your own claim people don't need any sort of critical thinking, authority figures would all decide it for them, and that is "a brave new world" I want no part of.

Causes for starting the War were even more trivial than during the WotFK, even more so when they are basically closely related family, both sides committed atrocities, though Greens were more on offensive and they were operating in their opponents territory, sack of  edit: Tumbleton, riots and devastation and Kings Landing are largely caused by Black supporters  and decisions also, Velaryons holdings were sacked by Triarchy, who were waging war against them on Stepstones, you disregard crimes of Greyjoy's also.

There is of course historical bias that MUST be in favor of Black sides, as they are Pyrrhic winners of the conflict, and future Kings are from the Black sides, and higher questions of justification of war, beneficial rule, relationship between lords and their subjects, murder of innocents, and many more that transcend trivial questions of who has more right to sit the throne or who struck first blow.


Most people here seem to be missing the point of Civil War in general.
 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


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

Even his opponents and George himself call him "truly just man".

That is irrelevant when Stannis' actions show that he is no just man at all. We see this as early as Cressen's Prologue when 'just Stannis' just sits there and watches while 'Queen Selyse' humiliates his foster father. And that's hardly the only unjust and cruel thing Stannis does, authorizes, or ignores while he is present.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

We as readers are certain that Cersei's children are bastards made by incest, she even blatantly confesses it to Hand of the KIng in his pov chapter. If you plan to make thread about Your issues with Stannis please make different thread, since this is with his comparison by Rhaenyra, in slandering him You damage she who You would compare him to.

You are the one who dragged Stannis into this discussion, citing him as an authority, and now you don't want to discuss the character flaws of the guy?

My point - and the point of others sharing my opinion here - is that Stannis is much closer to Rhaenyra simply because they are set up in a similar way. If you don't see that, fine, but it is there.

It is also rather ridiculous, I must say, that you apparently can only compare Rhaenyra to other women. Her sex and gender have nothing to do with her ability or inability to rule or lead campaigns.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Cersei might have effected, reduced efforts in helping him recover after Lysa and Baelish poisoned him, Stannis certainly isn't all knowing and it is a honest mistake, since she caused Roberts death, that also wouldn't be beneath her.

Who cares that it is a mistake? The crucial thing is that Stannis has no proof for either of his claims which makes him effectively a vile traitor, a betrayer of his brother, the late King Robert, who named Joffrey Baratheon his heir and successor. You cannot try to steal your family's property and threaten to kill them just because you have 'a suspicion'. If that's allowed, then Axell Florent can also poison Stannis' morning salt water on the basis that he thinks the man wants to burn him next. You have to have actual evidence when you claim something like that. But Stannis did nothing to acquire such evidence, did he?

Instead he abandoned his dear brother to his death and thus shares part of the blame for his death. If you believe that I want to murder my wife what do you do? Call the police, warn her - or go back to your country estate to sulk because I didn't give you the position in the firm you coveted?

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

There is thing as respecting laws and conventions, person who pretends to be monarch is required to maintain them, when Highest Lords's aren't treated with due process, what is to say about treatment of common people. Rhaenyra's treason was also obvious to the Greens so she did ultimately reaped what she sowed.

Rhaenyra never moved against any 'highest lords' while she was Princess of Dragonstone. The guy started to sow executions were the Greens.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

So the laws should be made of pudding excluding some individuals but respecting right of others, heh?

Sure, the king is above the law in this world.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Corlys was hypocrite and extremely ambitious man, similarly to Otto Hightower.

LOL, right. See, nonsense like this shows that one shouldn't really take your postings seriously ;-).

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Who followed Rhaenyra until tally on his own house was too great, he also didn't want that her sons inherit House Velaryon but there needed to be marriage alliance between children of his daughter and Rhaenyra's two eldest boys, which may have also hampered alliance options possibilities with other houses ,notably House Baratheon which may have prevented the war before it even started.

Those are baseless claims. We know from FaB that Corlys Velaryon considered Rhaenyra's sons true Velaryons and was very proud of them. The problem that he never acknowledged his Hull (grand)sons was posed by his wife, Princess Rhaenys, not Rhaenyra. Jacaerys Velaryon himself supported Corlys' pitch to legitimize them. There was no bad blood between them over anything Rhaenyra and Laenor may or may not have done.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Vaemond wasn't a rebel he just claimed the truth, that he should inherit since those weren't children of Laenor Velaryon. King had said that those who call their children Strongs they their tongues would be torn out by hot pincers, not that they would be executed and fed to dragon. That same King had been indecisive and inconsistent as it gets.

Not on the issue of threats or slanders towards his grandchildren. He was rather firm on that issue, no?

Vaemond was a rebel and a traitor because he did tried to lay claim to Driftmark. That was the issue, not so much that he repeated the lie.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Aegon II is recognized as true king by all of Westeros after the war, and Rhaenyra will never be considered as such, he also claimed Dragonstone his ancestral seat by right of conquest, there wasn't even talk of condemning him after Blacks won since he was acknowledged as king before he died.

This talk is irrelevant to the matter at hand - which was how Rhaenyra was killed, not what people believed later.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Stannis and Jon Arryn discovered it previously and later Ned, other Lords even when being confronted with truth like Kevan, Tyrion, Lysa even Renly and Tyrells will of course follow their own interests to detriment of the realm, not the least of the mockingbirds or small arthropods just begging to be squashed.

Stannis and Jon Arryn never discovered anything. They read books and compared hair colors. That is not proof. That's guess work and intrigue.

Even Cersei admitting to things isn't proof, since we lack her POV there. Could be she was lying - and later when we have the POV she could be mistaken. Believing that something is the case is not the same as it being true.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Revelation exists also for the readers, who unquestionably know the truth, on the other hand if people want to role-play, rather clumsily as conniving mummer good for them.

If I kill you/sentence you to death because I believe you murdered someone I'm not doing justice, right? It doesn't matter whether I guessed correctly, because judicial decision or decision over war and peace should actually be based on good evidence, right?

The fact that you are accidentally correct in your assessment does not make your action right.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

No, they problem with their parentage evident in their appearance, though to be frank they died to Young so that any of their bad characteristic becomes too evident, though Lucerys did poke out of his cousin with a dagger at five years, and other allegedly broke his marriage vows so they weren't exactly saints.

LOL, right. Neither you nor the Greens do have any proof about the parentage of Rhaenyra's children so all you have is wishful thinking and slander.

It even gets more ridiculous when one keeps in mind that you are slandering boys who basically have no bad traits at all while Alicent's children are all either among the worst Targaryens of history (Aegon II, Aemond) or too weak to be worthy of the throne (Helaena, Daeron 'the Daring').

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Lords who joined the Greens and their lesser banner-men made decision as did the Blacks following their own best interests first. You probably have wiki link somewhere I substantiate enough of my claims with quotes unlike some.

" Power resides where men believe it resides." so each made their own decision who they support taking various elements into account.

LOL, I was asking you to provide textual evidence for lords and knights joining the Greens because they believed Rhaenyra's sons should not succeed her. Gyldayn cites not a single lord, nobleman, knight, or peasant who supported Aegon II and the Greens because of that. The reasons given have nothing to do with the parentage of Rhaenyra's sons. You seem to be obsessed with that issue for some reason, but outside the inner circle of the Greens (i.e. Alicent and her sons and Cole) nobody seemed to care about that.

Especially not Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys who should have been pissed the most about this issue if there was something to it.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

I don't agree Stannis was Underdog in same sense as Rhaenyra. In the start of war he has Royal Navy and Lyseni, 5000 Men, and Red Woman, Rhaenyra has much more and support of other Kingdoms before war escalates, She is in much better position and also there is less factions than in his time.

LOL, right, just as Stannis has a vast army of Stormlanders and Reach men before the War of the Five Kings escalates, right? Like Rhaenyra, he is capable of making alliances - although he clearly sucks more in that department than she.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

What evidence do You have about that, please give quotes not Your own observations, personal impressions or just conjecture. Viserys married her, and had four trueborn children with her, nobody put gun to his head. 

Why should anyone put a gun to his head? He loved her, and there is nothing wrong with that. She never loved him, though, that's the obvious message both George and Gyldayn sent with the talk about Alicent never once talking about her husband and king, the man she was married to for 23 years, a man who raised her up to be the queen at his side, who showered her with gifts and favors, who gave her the four children she wants to be with after her death. Instead she apparently prefers her husband's grandfather, a man whose chamber pot she empties while he slowly lost his wits and died.

This is a powerful message the author is sending, and if you don't recognize it then the fault is yours not mine or George's.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

 Later she fought for their rights maybe using some dubious actions, but also from justified fear from Daemon and Rhaenyra's vengeful character,
That makes her hardly a villain compared to many of characters in the Dance.

She started the entire war with her coups. Her children didn't have any rights. The king decides who succeeds him, not the queen.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

At least we agree on dislike of Daemon, unlike many who laud him as heroes , and think he survived like Tupac...

I like the idea of Daemon surviving and becoming a Green Man assuming that Green Men are going to show up in the future of the series - which George has hinted at. It is better to have a character that has been previously introduced in some capacity - like he did with Bloodraven - rather than inventing some new guy.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

There isn't any proof of Green crime but people like you pile to them , behaving like Black's trash doesn't stink.
Daemon certainly ordered Son for a son there is written evidence for that, his first wife untimely death, he certainly had things to gain from those deaths, there are patterns in his behavior worming his way to top of Targaryen chain using scheming, murder, also corrupting various institutions like he did with Goldcloaks.

Who cares about Blood and Cheese? It was ugly, yes, but done in retaliation to the unprovoked murder of Lucerys. This kind of blood feud stuff is hardly unheard of in this world. It was also part of warfare.

What I meant is that there is basically no evidence for all the bad things Daemon was supposed to have done to Laenor, the Strongs, etc. back during the reign of Viserys I. There are just unsupported rumors. 

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

I am not familiar with post that Ran made (great movie btw, but if that is Elio isn't his favorite character from the Dance Daemon himself and he is only one who imagined as actor playing Slitherine boy's father, so he might have bit of biased).

Unlike you there are people who actually try to find out what parts of FaB are based on (reasonably) good sources and what stuff is less trustworthy. Gyldayn doesn't give sources for the claim that Daemon wanted to give Casterly Rock and Storm's End to the Two Betrayers, so one doesn't have to buy that particular claim the same we have to buy things that are attested by multiple sources - or by one good source, etc.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

As a quasi historical text, there are lot of various sources but there are also recurring patterns , to make us decide what truth we can from events. We have two separate occasions it is claimed Daemon sided with Dragonseeds first time regarding Rosby and Stokeworth inheritance and later Lannister and Baratheon seats of power, other sources that collaborate those events and he also was surrounded with many of lower class persons of questionable character and made lot of impulsive foolish decisions, so it is absolutely makes sense that he would ask for it.

See above.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Alicent hasn't tortured many other people, including Tyland or asked Addam the LOYAL to be tortured,imprisoning and beating his father, so they don't share same amount of guilt. 

Alicent wanted her granddaughter to murder her cousin and king.

Alicent also never ruled directly, so she didn't exactly have the authority or opportunity to torture many people. But you do recall she had Larys Strong torture Blood, no? And that she wanted to bathe in the blood of his family.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

I disagree, he was truly great man and truthfully worked for benefit of the realm, unlike scum like Varys or Littlefinger.

He betrayed his king, Viserys I, the man who named him to his Small Council. He was scum and deserved what happened to him.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Those people were brought up to that state with misrule of Targaryens, Alicent prevented them to leave by barring the gates, but Rhaenyra drove them to desperation and vengefulness, not governing properly city she conquered, from Realm's delight in only six months she became so reviled, it is quite an achievement.

It is not that hard to fail when you don't have the money to fight a war and keep the rabble happy.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

She is chief commanding of her faction, and pretending to be the Queen of Westeros it is her responsibility and blood is on her hands.

Just as the blood of every person dying in the Dance is on the hands of Alicent Hightower.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Viserys was extremely incompetent as I state in paragraph above, he empowered both sides, with Small Council and Kingsguard, and power in Capitol being held by Green side, while Rhaenyra or her representative at least wasn't present at all. Whole F&B point is that when power is centered in one man, it can cause huge troubles depending of his character, so was during the Dance.

This is all irrelevant. This is a monarchy, not a democracy where the entire Realm has a word in the succession of the king. He rules on his succession, nobody else. And Viserys I did rule on his succession, did he not?

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

By Your own claim people don't need any sort of critical thinking, authority figures would all decide it for them, and that is "a brave new world" I want no part of.

Who cares what you or I want? I don't live in a monarchy - not even in a constitutional monarchy which all should be abolished - and don't want to live in one. I merely point out that your standards don't fly in a world like Westeros where the opinions of the subjects of the king don't matter in the relation to the succession. He decides who should succeed him, not his council, his wife, his father-in-law, or his children.

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Causes for starting the War were even more trivial than during the WotFK, even more so when they are basically closely related family, both sides committed atrocities, though Greens were more on offensive and they were operating in their opponents territory, sack of Duskendale, riots and devastation and Kings Landing are largely caused by Black supporters  and decisions also, Velaryons holdings were sacked by Triarchy, who were waging war against them on Stepstones, you disregard crimes of Greyjoy's also.

This doesn't change the fact that the Greens started on the atrocities, just as they started the war as such. The Blacks only fought back, making them the attacked party, not the one aggressor. And that gives them the moral high ground by default.

I never expected that before I read the full text of TDoD. But that's how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is irrelevant when Stannis' actions show that he is no just man at all. We see this as early as Cressen's Prologue when 'just Stannis' just sits there and watches while 'Queen Selyse' humiliates his foster father. And that's hardly the only unjust and cruel thing Stannis does, authorizes, or ignores while he is present.

His actions are open to interpretation he hasn't Pov chapter or that doesn't count in his case unlike You claim it does in Cersei's?

His story isn't finished in the novels yet, so judgment of unbiased reader will depend how events unfold.

Stannis is certainly rather cold even towards his own family, and his brusque speech, lack of conventional charisma and humor, makes him easily misunderstood and lot of people cant forgive him insulting Eddard, Robb, Gilly, Jon or other more likable characters. 

Some theorize that Melisandre has seen Cressen attempt on her life (since that is the first thing she learned to see) told Stannis about it to show her powers, and Stannis wanted him retired so he was more harsh toward him, not inviting him several times to counsels to avoid it happening.

Quote

Lord Stannis's eyes were shadowed beneath his heavy brow, his mouth tight as his jaw worked silently. He always ground his teeth when he
was angry. "Fool," he growled at last, "my lady wife commands. Give Cressen your helm."

No, the old maester thought, this is not you, not your way, you were always just, always hard yet never cruel, never, you did not
understand mockery, no more than you understood laughter.

We already have lot of contradicting information about him in GoT, this may have be another, since he seems rather pragmatic in many choices and capable in showing regret and human emotion.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

You are the one who dragged Stannis into this discussion, citing him as an authority, and now you don't want to discuss the character flaws of the guy?

My point - and the point of others sharing my opinion here - is that Stannis is much closer to Rhaenyra simply because they are set up in a similar way. If you don't see that, fine, but it is there.

It is also rather ridiculous, I must say, that you apparently can only compare Rhaenyra to other women. Her sex and gender have nothing to do with her ability or inability to rule or lead campaigns.

You try to undermine his Statement without going in depth, focusing on every one of those characters Deamon Blackfyre, Brothers Toyne, Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth., and the fact he recognizes both Viserys I and Aegon III as rightful kings, but focus on his character and extensive story lines in Asoiaf, which isn't only time consuming and counterproductive for this thread, but also shows You are willing to disregard everything just to absolve Rhaenyra's crimes.

I cant see it, some compare him to Cregan or even Aegon III during the dance , I can't see similarities to neither regardless of their sex, because what I see in essence is one of rare characters who tries to do right thing, though shadowed with his personal issues, perspective and self preservation.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Who cares that it is a mistake? The crucial thing is that Stannis has no proof for either of his claims which makes him effectively a vile traitor, a betrayer of his brother, the late King Robert, who named Joffrey Baratheon his heir and successor. You cannot try to steal your family's property and threaten to kill them just because you have 'a suspicion'. If that's allowed, then Axell Florent can also poison Stannis' morning salt water on the basis that he thinks the man wants to burn him next. You have to have actual evidence when you claim something like that. But Stannis did nothing to acquire such evidence, did he?

Instead he abandoned his dear brother to his death and thus shares part of the blame for his death. If you believe that I want to murder my wife what do you do? Call the police, warn her - or go back to your country estate to sulk because I didn't give you the position in the firm you coveted?

We as readers know Stannis is right, lot of High Lords are also aware of the incest but they only do things what is in their interest, that is huge difference between likes of Lysa Arryn, Tyrion, Kevan, Renly and Eddard or Stannis.

In such societies, Eddard's investigation and comparison between numerous Roberts bastards and his children by Cersei is evidence enough, and would tip the scale in favor of those claiming their bastardy, that is one of the reasons Cersei ordered their deaths.

Jon Arryn's death confirmed his suspicions in Stannis eyes, seeing that Kings Landing is corrupted by Lannisters and other Lords would only respect power in the end, so he decides to prepare for war.

Robert wasn't his dear brother, he tried to influence Robert many times but it fell on deaf ears, and to inform him about it through Jon Arryn,  because it is little likely he would believe him.
Kings Landing and its organisations were deeply rotten, he knew that as part of Small Council and he had little support there, he wouldn't fare much better than Eddard Stark. 
He didn't sulk, he started preparing for the war he knew it was very likely .

Most of Your analogies are inapplicable in those cases. You compare them with modern logic and not with existing quasi medieval feudal family system.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra never moved against any 'highest lords' while she was Princess of Dragonstone. The guy started to sow executions were the Greens.

Even Kings or Queens need to respect laws they proclaim, or it all falls apart.

She ordered execution of Vaemond knowing her children were bastards, so You are wrong on that also.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, the king is above the law in this world.

I disagree, King's in Westeros are also men and they should answer to the laws and decisions that better Kings and majority of lords reach, especially regarding succession.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right. See, nonsense like this shows that one shouldn't really take your postings seriously ;-).

I feel same about majority of Your claims, and lack of knowledge about most of topics compared to number of posts here.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Those are baseless claims. We know from FaB that Corlys Velaryon considered Rhaenyra's sons true Velaryons and was very proud of them. The problem that he never acknowledged his Hull (grand)sons was posed by his wife, Princess Rhaenys, not Rhaenyra. Jacaerys Velaryon himself supported Corlys' pitch to legitimize them. There was no bad blood between them over anything Rhaenyra and Laenor may or may not have done.

Corlys was trying to get to the throne from before Great Council, either through Rhaenys or Laenor, he was very ambitious as mentioned several times in the text. 

His family managed eventually to reach that position through their ward marrying Aegon III after murder of  Queen Jaehaera , histories would be in favor of their description as "heroes" of the war.

There is no point of marrying daughters of Daemon and Laena Velaryon to sons of Rhaeanyra and Laenor Velaryon and not only  once but twice, unless there are some secluded cracks in their alliance.
Velaryons switched sides two times later so their relationship was less than stellar.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Not on the issue of threats or slanders towards his grandchildren. He was rather firm on that issue, no?

Vaemond was a rebel and a traitor because he did tried to lay claim to Driftmark. That was the issue, not so much that he repeated the lie.

Vaemond told the truth, consequence of that truth is that he is next in the line to inherit that House. He paid with his life for daring to tell truth.

Because Rhaenyra nor Daemon ware never a rightful persons they murdered him, that shows how much moral high ground they held among many other things.

Viserys was incompetent, during his later years even more so and his decisions caused the dance.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

This talk is irrelevant to the matter at hand - which was how Rhaenyra was killed, not what people believed later

She died a traitor's death, similarly to Renly.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Stannis and Jon Arryn never discovered anything. They read books and compared hair colors. That is not proof. That's guess work and intrigue.

Even Cersei admitting to things isn't proof, since we lack her POV there. Could be she was lying - and later when we have the POV she could be mistaken. Believing that something is the case is not the same as it being true.

It was enough for them both a Hand of the King, there is no Dna test in that society, later also Eddard Stark, Cersei instantly confessed when confronted and tried to seduce him instead, Kevan also found out, many other lords quite easily accept it as the fact when told, but their decisions are based on self interest, not on justice.(I am forced to repeat myself when faced with same questions.)

Seriously... There are numerous mentions of Jaime being the father it in her chapters later and Jaime's too...

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

If I kill you/sentence you to death because I believe you murdered someone I'm not doing justice, right? It doesn't matter whether I guessed correctly, because judicial decision or decision over war and peace should actually be based on good evidence, right?

The fact that you are accidentally correct in your assessment does not make your action right.

People when trying to reach to just conclusion of crimes and situations, when faced with opposition of guilty party which evades their sentence by devious means, have different choices in pursuing the justice:

First is try to get solution honorably placing Yourself some legal limitations like  Eddard tried, and die.

Or by using any arms at your disposal to punish them like Stannis does, neither is perfect way of solving the problem, I personally am partial to more effective one.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right. Neither you nor the Greens do have any proof about the parentage of Rhaenyra's children so all you have is wishful thinking and slander.

It even gets more ridiculous when one keeps in mind that you are slandering boys who basically have no bad traits at all while Alicent's children are all either among the worst Targaryens of history (Aegon II, Aemond) or too weak to be worthy of the throne (Helaena, Daeron 'the Daring').

Even geneticists in our modern age would say chances are few thousand times at least in favor of Rhaenyra's  children father being Harwin Strong, as claimed before "Power resides where men believe it resides", if enough doubt they are true born, more power goes to their undoubtedly and existing true born kin.

I slander nothing, usually when depicting people in F&B their worse traits become prominent later in life , Rhaenyra's children died too young to  evaluate their character, and two excesses mentioned aren't slander but true recordings.

Aegon II is hardly the worst Targaryen even in that time period.

It isn't very hard to show weakness inherent in other side also, after all Rhaenyra and Daemon are  prime example, and also those people never did pretend to sit the throne and prove to be horrible rulers unlike them.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, I was asking you to provide textual evidence for lords and knights joining the Greens because they believed Rhaenyra's sons should not succeed her. Gyldayn cites not a single lord, nobleman, knight, or peasant who supported Aegon II and the Greens because of that. The reasons given have nothing to do with the parentage of Rhaenyra's sons. You seem to be obsessed with that issue for some reason, but outside the inner circle of the Greens (i.e. Alicent and her sons and Cole) nobody seemed to care about that.

Especially not Corlys Velaryon and Princess Rhaenys who should have been pissed the most about this issue if there was something to it.

I hope You have enough mental capacity to apply what is written of Small Council after the death of Viserys, where in various reasons were put for supporting either side, it isn't very unlikely that some of the Houses joined depending of their situation or interests regarding
succession as evident with situations in Vale, Rosby, Stokeworth  and having in mind that in Westeros matters of bastardry are important so much that Civil Wars are started for.

Corlys and Rhaenys decided they would mitigate it through marriage with their grand daughters, and they probably came to terms that Laenor would ever have children.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right, just as Stannis has a vast army of Stormlanders and Reach men before the War of the Five Kings escalates, right? Like Rhaenyra, he is capable of making alliances - although he clearly sucks more in that department than she.

He didn't have dragons, Stannis was truly a Underdog, Rhaenyra wasn't.

Even when besieging the King's Landing with around 20.000 men and 200 ships he was against the garrison of 8000 men, 57 ships, city walls and Wildfire along with relief force of 50.000- 100.000 men breathing down his neck.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Why should anyone put a gun to his head? He loved her, and there is nothing wrong with that. She never loved him, though, that's the obvious message both George and Gyldayn sent with the talk about Alicent never once talking about her husband and king, the man she was married to for 23 years, a man who raised her up to be the queen at his side, who showered her with gifts and favors, who gave her the four children she wants to be with after her death. Instead she apparently prefers her husband's grandfather, a man whose chamber pot she empties while he slowly lost his wits and died.

This is a powerful message the author is sending, and if you don't recognize it then the fault is yours not mine or George's.

You talk about love in world where arranged marriages are rule and that by their siblings mostly, any true love is doubtful to happen in those situations, they are mostly alliances of power. 

Her children with Viserys were true born and acknowledged dragonriders and had claim to the throne.

Jaehaerys seems to have been truly great man, worthy of remembrance and respect, they might have bonded as he mistook her for his daughter and she recalled him in her old age.I found that interesting and somewhat touching,

Viserys disposition toward everyone seems to be overly tolerating, and sweeping most of the issues under the rug, she also suffered her son losing an eye unresolved, he was far from loving husband, if he didn't take her well being and those of their children in account. 


Thankfully i don't see message You are seeing.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

She started the entire war with her coups. Her children didn't have any rights. The king decides who succeeds him, not the queen.

King is dead and succession crisis was evident while he was alive, and he did little to stop it. That is why institutions, laws, and traditions exist when common sense and ego's of offspring are preventing peaceful transition. 

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

I like the idea of Daemon surviving and becoming a Green Man assuming that Green Men are going to show up in the future of the series - which George has hinted at. It is better to have a character that has been previously introduced in some capacity - like he did with Bloodraven - rather than inventing some new guy.

There isn't much that character could add, and over seasoning with another "surprising" Targaryen along with theories about Melisandre, Quaithe, Mance and others would turn Asoiaf in parody. Bloodraven is more than enough.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Who cares about Blood and Cheese? It was ugly, yes, but done in retaliation to the unprovoked murder of Lucerys. This kind of blood feud stuff is hardly unheard of in this world. It was also part of warfare.

What I meant is that there is basically no evidence for all the bad things Daemon was supposed to have done to Laenor, the Strongs, etc. back during the reign of Viserys I. There are just unsupported rumors. 

I am talking about the letter he sent to Rhaenyra which is written evidence of his involvement, along with other events that sometimes don't have written records but show pattern of murderous scheming behavior nonetheless.


Killing innocents as payment for crimes of their family is never justified, and that claim makes me doubt everything else You claim or adhering to any sort of "moral high ground" .

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Unlike you there are people who actually try to find out what parts of FaB are based on (reasonably) good sources and what stuff is less trustworthy. Gyldayn doesn't give sources for the claim that Daemon wanted to give Casterly Rock and Storm's End to the Two Betrayers, so one doesn't have to buy that particular claim the same we have to buy things that are attested by multiple sources - or by one good source, etc.

There are two separate occasions of him supporting the Betrayers, along with Mushroom and Munkun collaborating on their reaction when being rejected. The glove fits in this case.

There are many things under doubt in information that Gyldane compiles, those aren't put in to doubt either by author or by claims of other sources in the story, to me it seems you are grasping for straws.


Please put quotes or links to those argumented claims if You want to be taken seriously.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Alicent wanted her granddaughter to murder her cousin and king.

Alicent also never ruled directly, so she didn't exactly have the authority or opportunity to torture many people. But you do recall she had Larys Strong torture Blood, no? And that she wanted to bathe in the blood of his family.

In that moment She was truly broken Woman, with most of her family killed, unlike Rhaenyra I felt sorry for her and she reminded me of Lady Stoneheart.


Blood would be tortured regardless of her decision, You forget the King was present in the capital. 

Regarding bathing in blood of his family, that is unproven rumor, if anything she should be asking to bathe in blood of Rhaenyra's and Daemon's children  which she didn't though She was in position later.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

He betrayed his king, Viserys I, the man who named him to his Small Council. He was scum and deserved what happened to him.

I disagree and I believe author of the story does too, judging by this lovely passage also King was having health issues at the time of his placing in position, so he might have been chosen by Ser Otto :

Quote

Ser Tyland Lannister had never been beloved. After the death of Queen Rhaenyra, he had urged Aegon II to put her son Aegon to death as well, and certain blacks hated him for that. Yet after the death of Aegon II, he had remained to serve Aegon III, and certain greens hated him for that. Coming second from his mother’s womb, a few heartbeats after his twin brother, Jason, had denied him the glory of lordship and the gold of Casterly Rock, leaving him to make his own place in the world. Ser Tyland never married nor fathered children, so there were few to mourn him when he was carried off. The veil he wore to conceal his disfigured face gave rise to the tale that the visage underneath was monstrous and evil.

Some called him craven for keeping Westeros out of the Daughters’ War and doing so little to curb the Greyjoys in the west. By moving three-quarters of the Crown’s gold from King’s Landing whilst Aegon II’s master of coin, Tyland Lannister had sown the seeds of Queen Rhaenyra’s downfall, a stroke of cunning that would in the end cost him his eyes, ears, and health, and cost the queen her throne and her very life.

Yet it must be said that he served Rhaenyra’s son well and faithfully as Hand.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is not that hard to fail when you don't have the money to fight a war and keep the rabble happy.


Then She maybe shouldn't taken the capital but tried either capturing economically sustainable towns, valuable resources, taking the loans... 

Actual truth is that she was vastly incompetent for the position she desired.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Just as the blood of every person dying in the Dance is on the hands of Alicent Hightower.

Alicent wasn't in deciding position during the much of the war or previously, she was mostly counseling, making most impactful decisions was mostly on Viserys , later on Aegon II and Rhaenyra.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

This is all irrelevant. This is a monarchy, not a democracy where the entire Realm has a word in the succession of the king. He rules on his succession, nobody else. And Viserys I did rule on his succession, did he not?

It is relevant when King decides to gather all the lords in the land to decide about choosing his heir, when brother of King usurps the throne kills his brother son and marries his daughter, even Jaehaerys succession is based on power of political alliance, going over daughter
of Aenys and her daughters.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

Who cares what you or I want? I don't live in a monarchy - not even in a constitutional monarchy which all should be abolished - and don't want to live in one. I merely point out that your standards don't fly in a world like Westeros where the opinions of the subjects of the king don't matter in the relation to the succession. He decides who should succeed him, not his council, his wife, his father-in-law, or his children.

My statement is directed mostly on your philosophy that Kings should decide everything, and not be bound by any laws in society, which I disagree with.


Even in Westeros power of King isn't absolute, that analogy could clearly be seen in the Iron Throne its huge size, and barbs that no king is meant to sit comfortably.


High Lords are closest to power of King if their word or decisions of previous rulers aren't recognized it creates huge instability and ignoring them shows how badly person would rule.

On 6/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

This doesn't change the fact that the Greens started on the atrocities, just as they started the war as such. The Blacks only fought back, making them the attacked party, not the one aggressor. And that gives them the moral high ground by default.

I never expected that before I read the full text of TDoD. But that's how it is.

I disagree  intrigue, assassination and creation of alliances ware happening much before real war has begun.
 Greens were on offensive during the most of the conflict in their opponents territory so it is logical they would be considered by aggressors by population there, when in fact they were fighting under authority of Aegon II. Blacks as winners of conflict are certainly portrayed in better light by contemporary sources.


Claiming one side had moral high ground is dubious at best, two wrongs don't make a right. 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:18 PM, Lord Varys said:

She is also Stannis' own ancestor ;-).

Stannis' view of treason is very warped, and apparently dependent on whether it is successful and/or punished, since he never numbers his dear brother or himself among the traitors, nor successful usurpers like Maegor the Cruel.

No one should find this surprising.

This whole "Rhaenyra is Cersei" thought is trash. If Cersei is similar to anyone, it'd be Alicent Hightower or (on a more meta level) Criston Cole.

As far as the text (both ASOIAF and F&B) are concerned, Stannis and Rhaenyra are two peas in the pod. They are just alike. It's deeply ironic because like @Lord Varys says, Stannis' idea of treason is warped and very biased.

If Maegor is not a traitor and a usurper, I don't know who else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 2:48 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

f Maegor is not a traitor and a usurper, I don't know who else is.

I assume that Maegor saved Targ dynasty. Or I think that without him they would had lost the crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

I assume that Maegor saved Targ dynasty. Or I think that without him they would had lost the crown.

He did not save the dynasty, he nearly destroyed it. He killed two of the Conqueror's grandsons, and also tried to kill the third as well as one of his great-granddaughters.

The war against the Faith was necessary, of course, but Prince Maegor could have fought that war in the name of King Aegon II, as his Hand, Prince Regent, or Protector. There was no need to usurp the throne - but that's what Maegor did.

His reign was also pretty much a catastrophe - he beggared the Crown with his many wars, made the roads uncertain and increased outlawry with his persecution of the Poor Fellows, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

He did not save the dynasty, he nearly destroyed it. He killed two of the Conqueror's grandsons, and also tried to kill the third as well as one of his great-granddaughters.

The war against the Faith was necessary, of course, but Prince Maegor could have fought that war in the name of King Aegon II, as his Hand, Prince Regent, or Protector. There was no need to usurp the throne - but that's what Maegor did.

His reign was also pretty much a catastrophe - he beggared the Crown with his many wars, made the roads uncertain and increased outlawry with his persecution of the Poor Fellows, etc.

It seems to me that the faith wanted to get rid of Targs. Or if somebody would not have destroyed military forces and allies of religion there would not have been Iron Throne any more. So basically Maegor's brutal ways to wipe out his enemies saved IT and Targ dynasty and he also "tamed" the faith and so made lives of his successors much easier.

Another thing is that as a son of Aegon I and queen Visenya Maegor had very strong claim to crown. After all there are none inheritance law that would disagree with that claim. Or it is possible that Maegor actually had best claim :) and so anyone who disagreed with his rule was a traitor and as a king he had right to hunt down and kill all those traitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 10:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

He did not save the dynasty, he nearly destroyed it. He killed two of the Conqueror's grandsons, and also tried to kill the third as well as one of his great-granddaughters.

The war against the Faith was necessary, of course, but Prince Maegor could have fought that war in the name of King Aegon II, as his Hand, Prince Regent, or Protector. There was no need to usurp the throne - but that's what Maegor did.

His reign was also pretty much a catastrophe - he beggared the Crown with his many wars, made the roads uncertain and increased outlawry with his persecution of the Poor Fellows, etc. 

I agree.

He saved the Targaryen dynasty from the Faith. Yes, this is true. But let's not forget that the war against the Faith was not entirely one-sided.

He should've stepped down when Aegon and Rhaena pressed their claims and asked to be named the Prince of Dragonstone and/or Hand of the King. Naming Aerea as his heir is ludicrous considering that Aerea was the rightful Queen in the first place...AFTER Maegor killed her father.

On 6/22/2019 at 12:18 PM, Loose Bolt said:

It seems to me that the faith wanted to get rid of Targs. Or if somebody would not have destroyed military forces and allies of religion there would not have been Iron Throne any more. So basically Maegor's brutal ways to wipe out his enemies saved IT and Targ dynasty and he also "tamed" the faith and so made lives of his successors much easier.

Another thing is that as a son of Aegon I and queen Visenya Maegor had very strong claim to crown. After all there are none inheritance law that would disagree with that claim. Or it is possible that Maegor actually had best claim :) and so anyone who disagreed with his rule was a traitor and as a king he had right to hunt down and kill all those traitors.

Maegor did not have the best claim.

Aegon had the best claim. Then it was Aerea and then Rhaella. Then Viserys, Jaehaerys, Rhaena and Alysanne in that order. Only after Alysanne, did Maegor have a claim. So that made Maegor 8th in line. The only person that has a weaker claim than Maegor is Visenya, his mother.

And even she would've been a better ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×