Jump to content
Gnobbels

Targaryen Illness

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But nobody would have told those stories if people hadn't realized that they got sick less often than their peers.

I simply disagree. There are several reasons to come up with stories and claims that are absurdly unsupported by the reality but are well supported by the dominant narrative of the time and place. I invite you to look up The Mismeasure Of Men, a great book by the biologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould. It could give you great insight on your beliefs about Targs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar to Skinchanging, there may be some exchange of essence, between rider and dragon.   

Which might also be passed down through descendants.   

So lines like these this could be a fairly accurate representation. 

Quote

There was fire in the blood of the dragon, it was reasoned, a purifying fire that burned out all such plagues

Since dragon blood seems pretty inhospitable.  

Quote

The dragon gave one last hiss and stretched out flat upon his belly. Black blood was flowing from the wound where the spear had pierced him, smoking where it dripped onto the scorched sands. He is fire made flesh, she thought, and so am I.

Depending on bloodlines, certain Targs may have more of a connection to dragons than others and might display greater or lesser levels of resistance.  

Though at the same time it would likely make them more vulnerable to the same things dragons would be.  

Share this post


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

Sorry, the former is a historian's account about how they allegedly thought about themselves. Gyldayn's claim does not necessarily accurately reflect Jaehaerys I's own views. It would mean the guy actually believed his own propaganda. That makes little sense.

Mayhaps the Targaryens were not so close to gods as they had believed

Oh sure, this quote, which is part of a larger passage dedicated to how Targaryens see themselves, is just thrown in there for no reason at all. They actually think of themselves as average blokes at the pub. 

“the death of their beloved daughter must have seemed especially cruel, for it struck at the very heart of the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.”

We have scenes where Targaryens are shocked by the realization that they aren't infallible to illness or above "common men," like the one where Jaehaerys asks "how could this happen?"

But it's all just for show since the Targaryens never believe their own hype or anything.  OK.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 And the other is actually laughable considering it is quote illustrating how Daenerys Targaryen felt living atop a pyramid. Anyone living up there would feel like a god. I mean, do you also take Di Caprio's claim that he is 'the king of the world' as evidence that he thinks that factually correct? It expresses how his character feels while looking down on the world from the prow of the Titanic.

Don't strain yourself with that reach. DiCaprio didn't have a family history of hubris or egomania and he wasn't ruling over other people that he had JUST conquered in that scene.

If Daenerys thinks she is a god, its not a flippant thing. And it directly correlates with the line in F&B. And no other character but Daenerys says this in their thoughts - not Jon who spends his time in high places either. She thinks she's a god high above everyone in the air, and will probably feel like one on a dragon too. It's not like the author would be slowly building toward anything about her views on Targaryen supremacy...that would just be s i l l y . . . ( What does it take for people to take villain foreshadowing seriously? )

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Different from other men.

They think they are different and thus above other humans. They created this hierarchy and they believe it themselves, as we see in countless examples. They also exaggerate their differences and specialness and believe it. Daenerys thinking she is fire made flesh is another example in addition to her thinking about her specialness for immunity. They're not a separate race, they're not elves, and they're not fundamentally different than other humans. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He made it clear that not all Targaryens are immune to all diseases.

Who just happened to be Daenerys namesake? 

Not like the author would be saying anything of importance about this. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George has created individual fictional characters, not collectives that behave identical.

People can talk broadly about a dynasty. When historians write about "The Ptolemies" in general we know they're not talking about identical clones ffs.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany didn't mount the Pale Mare, did she? Despite the fact that she did hang out with many of its victims - just as Aegon III didn't catch the Winter Fever despite hanging out with many of the terminal cases. This is rather striking - as is the fact that many people carrying the blood of the dragon didn't catch the Shivers or recovered from it if they caught it.

"People carrying the blood of the dragon" wow...you really believe the hype. The author left it ambiguous, she could have or not. She certainly had a lot of symptoms for some kind of infection at the end of the novel. But if she did not, her social status is a better explanation for resistance than "her magical fire blood burned all the pestilence away" :rolleyes:

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is akin to aristocratic and monarchistic elitism which basically justified the birth rights, wealth, and power of nobles and royalty by the fact that they are set apart from normal people by their blood

It's pretty clear GRRM distilled everything that is wrong about nobility in its most extreme form and gave that to the wacko geckos of Westeros. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is very odd for someone in a world as shitty as Martinworld to never have been sick. Even if Dany were sick in her first three years without anyone never telling her, say - she should have been sick in from the 3-15 considering her lifestyle and contact with people. She traveled all the Free Cities and then the Dothraki Sea, the Red Waste, Qarth, Slaver's Bay. She would have been subjected to many new pathogens and yet she never got sick.

This makes no sense: "Even if Dany were sick....and yet she never got sick." 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, frenin said:

Historically?? Sure, in Westeros?? Not so much.

There is really no difference there. I mean, if you look at TWoIaF and FaB then the kings (especially the Targaryens) are the greatest champions of the smallfolk just as the smallfolk are the greatest supporters of the kings - think of the cheering Aegon I got at his first coronation, the insanely fast growth of KL, Queen Rhaenys making the 'rule of six', Dick Bean being the first man to champion Maegor in the Trial of Seven, Alysanne championing the interests of the smallfolk on many occasions, Aegon III's intention to feed his people, Baelor's many charities, Aegon V's reforms, etc.

Not to mention that most, if not all, issues both the kings and the smallfolk had with wars and uprisings goes back to ambitious nobles. Even the Faith Militant Uprising and the Dance go, at least in part, to Hightower ambition.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

In the Planetos the nobility is just the middle man, the King exploits everyone and  those he doesn't exploit directly he does indirectly and  overall the least interested in promote a royal bureacracy are the Kings, until the Dragonbane, every King had the chance to make changes but they, Jaeharys being the primarily example of this, loved their buble in were only nobles were allowed to get in.

We know too little about that kind of thing. However, the taxes Jaehaerys I enacts target, for the most part, the wealthy and the nobility, not the average man.

Even more, it is clear that the king - being a distant figure for most common people in Westeros - is idealized and revered whereas the lord is blamed for what goes wrong.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

Do you think that the interest of the Arryns are the same of those as the Sunderlands?? It entirely depends of the interests  we're talking about.

There are certainly different interests within the nobility as well - my point is more that the high nobility of Westeros has essentially no/very little direct ties to the royal family, unlike in medieval Europe. But even with direct ties - you still have different goals and interests as a class even if the king happens to some cousin of yours.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

What I said earlier is very true of the story... and if you don't think Martin isn't pulling from communism to develop the Targs and Dany (as he did with a few past stories), then you are missing the deeper analysis of the story and Martin's inspirations. Danaerys is the Pale Child Bakkalon, what do you think that means?

The point is that 'Animal Farm' is actually a specific text written for a specific reason, not a general text about power and manipulation. The start in both '1984' and 'Animal Farm' is a socialist revolution which eventually becomes repressive.

George's world in ASoIaF is static as hell and, if read not as fantasy literature but from an emancipatory point of view, it utterly repressive and backwater. It throws you in a medieval feudal world that's much more shitty than real world feudalism in medieval Europe, and it forces the reader to view the world and its policy only through the feudal lense.

There is not a single democrat or republican in Westeros, and the only state where they keep elections (involving only rich landowners) that has been covered in some details - Volantis - happens to be one of the worst slaver states in Martinworld. Really a great picture.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Sure, it was about the level of magic and fantasy, but to add a direwolf, something that exists no matter what, is not an issue. You don't need to amp up the type of fantasy the story stylings are to include a direwolf. The Targs were going to get fire-kenisis magic, other people were getting skinchanging/warging/greenseeing.

Direwolves existed - they no longer exist. And they never were pets. George has stated that decision was between whether there was supposed to be whether the heraldic animals were supposed to be just heraldry - or whether there would be more to those than meets the eye. That was made very much for the Targaryens, less for the Starks, and almost nothing for the Lannisters (there are some mild hints in TWoIaF that the Lannisters had a closer connection to lions while there were still wild lions in the West).

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So no, I do not assume that there would not have been direwolves just because of no dragons. They serve similar, yet very different purposes and the author will use them as his story requires.

I'm pretty sure the direwolves will be used the same way as the dragons will - to less effect, of course, considering they are just wolves. But the point of Nymeria and her pack is to kill people - just as the point of the dragons is to kill people. And the direwolves already killed quite a few people if I remember the books correctly.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Pah! Are you claiming you know more about this story and its foundational ideas than the actual author does? Martin has said so more than once, and most recently about 10-11 months ago. This is also based on his past works where the different dragon-vessels are also described as nuclear (among many other war machine terms)... by actual description. Sorry, but I am going with the author on this. Consider it foreshadowing.

I considering it sloppy talk. As an American George should know better how nuclear weapons work.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

ADDING: Dany's dragons are also not conventional dragons. They are "neverborn" undead dragons, born in blood and fire rituals that Dany performed. So much so that Dany gave them "dead" names as she notes in Clash-Dany 1. This is the intent GRRM had in mind when he started the series before adding tons of back material.

Last time I looked Dany's dragons were not 'undead' and are in no way different from the dragons we met in FaB. Sounds like a completely arbitrary distinction on your part.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Disagree.

Well, then give us any quote where anyone in the books says that there are 'magical traits' in a family in Westeros. Nobody says anything anywhere about, say, skinchanger or greenseer dynasties, not even that things like green dreams can be inherited.

14 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

That is the point! Just because you may or may not have an advantage over a people, doesn't mean you should wield absolute power, or use that power to subjugate others if you do. That is corruption whether on a person-person level, or governmental/ruling level. That is ABSOLUTELY a theme he has written into ASOIAF as he did with his past stories, most clearly those like For A Single Yesterday, Fevre Dream, Skin Trade, Dark Dark Were the Tunnels, Override, Nightshift, etc, etc... Self control. Cup of ice/cup of fire type of decisions.

Well, then George R. R. Martin shouldn't have created a world where the only form of government his main characters know is aristocratic feudalism and monarchy. Because the very framework of such a society is based on the (incorrect) claim that some people are better than others by virtue of 'high birth' and 'noble blood'. That concept is so fundamental to the story that it is never so much as questioned.

Are you so blind that the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, and any other noble family is only in power because they all have their very own 'doctrine of exceptionalism' - consisting of the claim that their children are special and have the right to keep the smallfolk in their place, etc.

On fundamental level there is no justification for this kind of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

I simply disagree. There are several reasons to come up with stories and claims that are absurdly unsupported by the reality but are well supported by the dominant narrative of the time and place. I invite you to look up The Mismeasure Of Men, a great book by the biologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould. It could give you great insight on your beliefs about Targs.

The whole 'Targaryens don't get sick' routine comes up as a part of the Doctrine of Exceptionalism in the second generation after Aegon I. That's very early if we think about it - and it is said that this kind of thing was something very much believed by the Targaryens which is why Jaehaerys I included it in his ideology.

Jaehaerys I's own father was sickly as a child, his father feared he might die for most of his childhood, his own sister Vaella died in the cradle, his niece Aerea had health issues as a child, too (until that strange change) - it makes little sense for him to come up with something that is so contradictory to reality as this. Especially since about 50 years is a rather short time for people to start mad hero worship on a large scale.

For me, it makes more sense to believe the belief that those of dragonlord blood had a heightened resilience against disease goes back to Valyria itself. And if that were true then it might actually be that the Targaryens started to lose that ability to a point the more diluted their Valyrian blood became (Lord Aenar's blood definitely would have been more Valyrian than, say, the blood of the Conqueror and his successors).

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Mayhaps the Targaryens were not so close to gods as they had believed

Oh sure, this quote, which is part of a larger passage dedicated to how Targaryens see themselves, is just thrown in there for no reason at all. They actually think of themselves as average blokes at the pub.

This quote is a judgment by a third person. We have no idea to what degree themselves actually believed they were close to gods and in what sense. We don't even know how divine Valyrian gods of various kinds were - being close to an Egyptian or Greek god wouldn't have been even remotely the same than claiming you are close to the Christian god, say.

This whole thing is about how propaganda and reality don't match up.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

“the death of their beloved daughter must have seemed especially cruel, for it struck at the very heart of the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.”

We have scenes where Targaryens are shocked by the realization that they aren't infallible to illness or above "common men," like the one where Jaehaerys asks "how could this happen?"

But it's all just for show since the Targaryens never believe their own hype or anything.  OK.

Well, kings do believe their own hype and always have to reconcile the nonsense that they are ruling by right of birth because 'god' chose them and put them in their exalted place and the fact that they live in a shithole of a world where children die of disease, etc.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Don't strain yourself with that reach. DiCaprio didn't have a family history of hubris or egomania and he wasn't ruling over other people that he had JUST conquered in that scene.

LOL, but Dany never was in Westeros nor does she really know much about her family's history. She might even know less about House Targaryen than we do now.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If Daenerys thinks she is a god, its not a flippant thing. And it directly correlates with the line in F&B. And no other character but Daenerys says this in their thoughts - not Jon who spends his time in high places either. She thinks she's a god high above everyone in the air, and will probably feel like one on a dragon too. It's not like the author would be slowly building toward anything about her views on Targaryen supremacy...that would just be s i l l y . . . ( What does it take for people to take villain foreshadowing seriously? )

It is not just a high place - it is a pyramid looking down on a city.

What does it take for people to properly read literature and not reading things out of context.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

They think they are different and thus above other humans. They created this hierarchy and they believe it themselves, as we see in countless examples. They also exaggerate their differences and specialness and believe it. Daenerys thinking she is fire made flesh is another example in addition to her thinking about her specialness for immunity. They're not a separate race, they're not elves, and they're not fundamentally different than other humans. 

LOL, they are just people who give people their own medicine. The Westerosi savages they conquered have never known anything but feudalism. They know people are not the same. They are different. Their rules are of noble blood and rule them by right of birth.

Jaehaerys I uses that narrative to suit his own end - by giving the Westerosi a difference they already know and understand to justify his family's marriage policies.

I mean, do you actually think the Starks think they and blacksmiths are 'equal'? Or even the Florents or Darklyns or Dondarrions? Give me a break!

The very concept of this series is based on inequality. It is celebrated on every page, whenever a noble is presented as a person who rules over the commons.

In fact, since the Targaryens are actually different from other humans to a certain degree their attempt to use that distinction as a claim to justify to rule over others is actually more justify than the hot air all the other noble and royal families who definitely do not have the blood of the dragon use to justify their own rule.

I mean, what's the justification of the Lannisters, Arryns, Starks, etc. to rule over their smallfolk? If they are just like anybody else there should be no high birth, no noble bloods, nor privately owned castles, etc.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Who just happened to be Daenerys namesake? 

Not like the author would be saying anything of importance about this. 

He said rather important things by actually giving us Targaryens both in the main series and FaB (later in the book) who were subjected or subjected themselves to very dangerous pathogens. It is significant that Aegon III and Daenerys did not catch the Winter Fever or the bloody flux - just as it is actually noteworthy that Jaehaerys I, Alysanne, Aemon, Baelon, and Rhaena did not catch the Shivers - and quite a few Baratheons and Velaryons who caught it actually recovered - whereas entire (noble) families who would be exposed to the same degrees as the Valyrian families with higher concentration of the blood of the dragon perished.

The book is more subtle at this point than you make it out to be.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

People can talk broadly about a dynasty. When historians write about "The Ptolemies" in general we know they're not talking about identical clones ffs.

You would also make an uncalled for judgment if you collectively expressed hatred for the Ptolemies - because they would be different people.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

"People carrying the blood of the dragon" wow...you really believe the hype. The author left it ambiguous, she could have or not. She certainly had a lot of symptoms for some kind of infection at the end of the novel. But if she did not, her social status is a better explanation for resistance than "her magical fire blood burned all the pestilence away" :rolleyes:

Dany ate berries of unclear origin before she got sick in ADwD. It is pretty clear that it is not the Pale Mare.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It's pretty clear GRRM distilled everything that is wrong about nobility in its most extreme form and gave that to the wacko geckos of Westeros. 

LOL, no. Everything is wrong with nobility - and George actually completely fails at portraying that because he actually wants to write a story about noble pricks in a feudal fantasy land.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This makes no sense: "Even if Dany were sick....and yet she never got sick." 

I made clear what I mean there - even if Dany got sick and misremembers/doesn't know she got sick in her early childhood it is strange she never got sick later when she remembers what happened to/with her.

Share this post


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

There is really no difference there. I mean, if you look at TWoIaF and FaB then the kings (especially the Targaryens) are the greatest champions of the smallfolk just as the smallfolk are the greatest supporters of the kings - think of the cheering Aegon I got at his first coronation, the insanely fast growth of KL, Queen Rhaenys making the 'rule of six', Dick Bean being the first man to champion Maegor in the Trial of Seven, Alysanne championing the interests of the smallfolk on many occasions, Aegon III's intention to feed his people, Baelor's many charities, Aegon V's reforms, etc.

Not to mention that most, if not all, issues both the kings and the smallfolk had with wars and uprisings goes back to ambitious nobles. Even the Faith Militant Uprising and the Dance go, at least in part, to Hightower ambition.

I don't think there really is a correlation.

 

  • I mean, Aegon being cheered by a couple of fishwives that happened to be there, before they even knew what was going on is not a good example.
  • KL is the where the dragons are and  where people would feel most sheltered, there is a powerful House there.
  • The rule of six was made because and  especially for the smallfolk, it didn't have much to do with the nobility and   i'd say that the average peasant is angry that he can't beat his wife if he sees  it fit, when they don't directly ignore the order.
  • I don't really understand the Dick Bean thing.
  • Alysanne is really the best example here.
  • Ironically enough, those smallfolk who loved so much Egg, fought against him anyways when their lords  called them to war.

And honestly no, It takes two to Tango, the Crown had more than a hand  in every war Westeros fought and  they especially had absolutely all the blame in the Dornish wars, which were the most brutal wars we've info about, the nobles being against the Dornish is in no small part due  to both Daerons and  how poorly the managed the Dornish affairs,the rights of pits and  gallows and  the such were all granted and  reaffirmed by the crown.

The smallfolk are not going to go against their liege for their Kings, the only exception of that would be The Dragon and  the Conqueror but people are Westermen, Reachmen, Valemen or Riverlander and they think themselves as such more than Westerosi, that's why The nobility can managed them so easily, only a King with enough presence within the smallfolk could change that and  even then that didn't help Egg much, he who practticallt grew among them. There is no point in talking about Dorne, the North or the Iron Islands, the crown had zero sway there, only Alysanne could break the North and  even her never made an attempt/could sway the Ironborn.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We know too little about that kind of thing. However, the taxes Jaehaerys I enacts target, for the most part, the wealthy and the nobility, not the average man.

 

No, Jaeharys taxes are a emergency solution, he knew he couldn't tax the smallfolk more, so he aimed against the rich, not only nobility there, The merchants would also be affected but Jaeharys only thinks about his peers, we know however that the King tax the nobles, and  the innkeepers, pimps and  pretty much everything but the Faith and  ¿Citadel? The King can't tax a noble without parasiting the smallfolk, he's profiting for their situation  and  most of them see it as the natural way of things.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Even more, it is clear that the king - being a distant figure for most common people in Westeros - is idealized and revered whereas the lord is blamed for what goes wrong.

Quite the contrary, if you don't know your King you're not cheering him, the most popular Kings were those who let them to be seen, Aegon III ruled mostly on peace  for 26 years and  he was one of the most ignored Kings by the smallfolk, Aenys and  Maegor were hated when the Faith got in the way and  with Aerys I people wanted the Blackfyres back.

The average northener  or valeman would naturally feel most attached to their Lords than to a King he never hopes  to see.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There are certainly different interests within the nobility as well - my point is more that the high nobility of Westeros has essentially no/very little direct ties to the royal family, unlike in medieval Europe. But even with direct ties - you still have different goals and interests as a class even if the king happens to some cousin of yours.

But the nobility is not a uniformed class, so it makes no sense treating them as such, every Lord and  every King have their own agenda and  sometimes it might be the same and  sometimes, most of the time it isn't.

While the Lords of the Realm rebelled time after time against Egg to protect  their godgiven rights, the Great Lords were making a deal  under the table with Aegon V in exchange of their support.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

Alright.  Yes.  The genes for super resistance to infectious diseases are present in Viserys III and his little sister but it is not there for every Targaryen.  Viserys III made a blanket generalization because he only spent a few years with the other Targaryens other than his little sister.  He may have forgotten his history lesson and the Targaryens who died during the epidemics of the years that have passed.  He was correct in specific terms but incorrect in generalizing. 

Share this post


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

I don't think there really is a correlation.

There absolutely is. This is the thread to search the quotes for you, but if you look you can see that basically all the quotes where the smallfolk offer their opinion - which are very few - it has to do with them being Targaryen people. We have that from the old Riverlander from Arya's chapter who idealizes Mad Aerys, the Oldtown folk toasting Dany, the White Harbor whores talking Targaryens, Dick Crabb revealing the Crackclaw Point folk are die-hard Targaryen loyalists, the Kingslanders having fun with the play where the dragon devours the lions, etc.

And FaB this is only reinforced with various smallfolk being mentioned as standing with the dragons - cheering the Conqueror at his two coronations, standing up for a Maegor, even, loving Rhaenys and Alysanne and Jaehaerys I, Riverlander smallfolk being the first taking up arms to defend Rhaenyra's right to the throne (which is one of the most touching scenes in the entire book).

I mean, Varys/Illyrio and Doran Martell would have to be utter lackwits if they believed a Targaryen restoration made sense if basically everybody hated them...

12 hours ago, frenin said:

And honestly no, It takes two to Tango, the Crown had more than a hand  in every war Westeros fought and  they especially had absolutely all the blame in the Dornish wars, which were the most brutal wars we've info about, the nobles being against the Dornish is in no small part due  to both Daerons and  how poorly the managed the Dornish affairs,the rights of pits and  gallows and  the such were all granted and  reaffirmed by the crown.

Sure enough, the the First Dornish War - and Daeron's war - were ugly things. But the Conqueror ended the continuous warfare that troubled all of Westeros before - both the official wars between the Seven Kingdoms as well as the many private wars that plagued the Realm before the King's Peace.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

No, Jaeharys taxes are a emergency solution, he knew he couldn't tax the smallfolk more, so he aimed against the rich, not only nobility there, The merchants would also be affected but Jaeharys only thinks about his peers, we know however that the King tax the nobles, and  the innkeepers, pimps and  pretty much everything but the Faith and  ¿Citadel? The King can't tax a noble without parasiting the smallfolk, he's profiting for their situation  and  most of them see it as the natural way of things.

Jaehaerys I invented new luxury taxes for rich merchants and lords and abolished the Celtigar taxes.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Quite the contrary, if you don't know your King you're not cheering him, the most popular Kings were those who let them to be seen, Aegon III ruled mostly on peace  for 26 years and  he was one of the most ignored Kings by the smallfolk, Aenys and  Maegor were hated when the Faith got in the way and  with Aerys I people wanted the Blackfyres back.

See above. I'd agree that those kings who showed their faces were more popular than those who didn't, but popularity is not exclusive to the former.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

The average northener  or valeman would naturally feel most attached to their Lords than to a King he never hopes  to see.

That would depend on the lord. If the lord is nice then he would perhaps not loath him all that much ... but he would still be the guy who exploits them. The king is the guy you can turn to if the lord mistreats you.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

But the nobility is not a uniformed class, so it makes no sense treating them as such, every Lord and  every King have their own agenda and  sometimes it might be the same and  sometimes, most of the time it isn't.

There are class interests. And on that level the king and the nobility had never anything in common. The nobility only stood with kings if the kings were not acting against their interests.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

While the Lords of the Realm rebelled time after time against Egg to protect  their godgiven rights, the Great Lords were making a deal  under the table with Aegon V in exchange of their support.

We don't know anything about Egg's reform at this point, but chances are not that bad that the guy was never deposed because the smallfolk stood with him rather than against him with their lords.

3 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

@Lord Varys

Alright.  Yes.  The genes for super resistance to infectious diseases are present in Viserys III and his little sister but it is not there for every Targaryen.  Viserys III made a blanket generalization because he only spent a few years with the other Targaryens other than his little sister.  He may have forgotten his history lesson and the Targaryens who died during the epidemics of the years that have passed.  He was correct in specific terms but incorrect in generalizing. 

Sure, I mean it is not that all Targaryens are even described as healthy - Aenys, Vaegon, Naerys, Aerys I, Jaehaerys II are all described as sickly, and even some of the others are described as not all that robust. Many suffered from various maladies and died of illness (if they weren't poisoned).

But that does not mean that some cannot also be immune to diseases - nor does it mean that those who died of illnesses must have been immune to all diseases nor does it mean that they succumbed to infectious diseases when they died - although it might sense that old and weakened individuals may not have been protected by their 'magical blood' against infection. The blood of the dragon is never described as a miracle cure...

But as I laid out multiple times already I actually think the Shivers and the Winter Fever and, perhaps, the Great Spring Sickness, too, were actually magical plagues with a higher mortality rate than common illnesses. I think there is a chance that the Others cooked up the Shivers and sent it down south in winter as a direct response to Alysanne and Silverwing's visit to the Wall which they may have interpreted as a threat. The Shivers came in the cruel winter directly after the visit to the Wall (and the Winter Fever could have been a reaction the death of the many dragons during the Dance which could have caused the Others to move their plans forward).

That's all speculation, of course, but I like to make sense of things that way.

And that not all Targaryens have the same kind of magical talent despite the fact that they all have the blood of the dragon has been clear since, well, forever, considering Viserys III and Aerys II couldn't have hatched a dragon egg when they had a hammer to open whereas Dany could. They all have the dormant talent or can pass it along to the next generation, but very few can actualize their potential.

And there are some subtle clues that Visenya-Aegon-Rhaenys and Aemon-Daenerys-Baelon did have the potential to become the three heads of the dragon if the need had arisen.

Share this post


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

There absolutely is. This is the thread to search the quotes for you, but if you look you can see that basically all the quotes where the smallfolk offer their opinion - which are very few - it has to do with them being Targaryen people. We have that from the old Riverlander from Arya's chapter who idealizes Mad Aerys, the Oldtown folk toasting Dany, the White Harbor whores talking Targaryens, Dick Crabb revealing the Crackclaw Point folk are die-hard Targaryen loyalists, the Kingslanders having fun with the play where the dragon devours the lions, etc.

I have already seen those exact  examples before, it's not that touching, you're ignoring context here to make a point.

First of all, this is not to say that the smallfolk ignored the crown, that would be a blatant lie but you're exxagerating  a great deal  here and totally ignoring the context.

The people have endured two years of one of the most brutal civil wars Westeros' ever faced, people absolutely hate the Lannisters in power  and  either believed Tommen is a Lannister tool or they absolutely believed him a bastard, the popular figures like Robert or Renly are long dead, people wouldn't be toasting for Dany if there was peace  in the Realm and  a popular figure in the Throne, that's the reason why we never heard  about any pro Blackfyre move when Daeron 2 and  Baelor were alived but they spreaded like wildfire when Aerys and  Bloodraven were in charge, in the North the Starks are all dead as far as everyone knows, in that situation the Targs are the only viable option, Stannis is not an option poor man, to restore Peace, that's why there are people cheering for them now and  why there is a now or never for Aegon to seize the Throne, they are not there for the love people had for them but the hate and  wary people have for the most.

If the smallfolk loved the Targs so much, Robert would've never been King, an entire town like the Stony Sept would never have betrayed their loved King and  dynasty for a rebel  lord and  would've never hid  him to the point it cost  some of them their lifes. How many toasts Viserys got?? How many people were wondering about the Targs whereabouts when Robert sat his drunk ass on the Throne and  the Realm was at peace??

The truth as it is that most of people are anti Lannisters, not pro Targs, had Renly ever seized the Throne or Robb ever achieved his independence, you would not be hearing that in those places but at this point, Renly and  Robb are long dead, Dany has dragons and  is coming and  people think that with a Targ there, the North wouldn't be so fucked, do you really think that had there been a Stark in Winterfell people in White Harbor would wonder about what happened with a dead babe 17 years ago??

A tumult of sound drowned his last words, a rolling thunder of rage and fear and hatred that engulfed them from all sides. "Bastard!" someone screamed at Joffrey, "bastard monster." Other voices flung calls of "Whore" and "Brotherfucker" at the queen, while Tyrion was pelted with shouts of "Freak" and "Halfman." Mixed in with the abuse, he heard a few cries of "Justice" and "Robb, King Robb, the Young Wolf," of "Stannis!" and even "Renly!" From both sides of the street, the crowd surged against the spear shafts while the gold cloaks struggled to hold the line. Stones and dung and fouler things whistled overhead. "Feed us!" a woman shrieked. "Bread!" boomed a man behind her. "We want bread, bastard!" In a heartbeat, a thousand voices took up the chant. King Joffrey and King Robb and King Stannis were forgotten, and King Bread ruled alone. "Bread," they clamored. "Bread, bread!

"If Kingslanders are cheering for Robb, that tells you how reliable their cheers for the dragons are and  at the end their King is and  always will be King bread.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And FaB this is only reinforced with various smallfolk being mentioned as standing with the dragons - cheering the Conqueror at his two coronations, standing up for a Maegor, even, loving Rhaenys and Alysanne and Jaehaerys I, Riverlander smallfolk being the first taking up arms to defend Rhaenyra's right to the throne (which is one of the most touching scenes in the entire book).

Again, the Smallfolk will cheer and  boo practically everything and  everyone, the smallfolk hated Maegor, they cheered the substitute, Jaeharys did do a great job winning the smallfolk over after his father and  brothers ends.

Riverlander smallfolk had two options, fighting for Rhaenrya or for Aegon, it's like saying that Kingslanders hating  Rhaenrya meant they hated all the Targs.

We know the smallfolk disliked Aegon III and  they pretty much hated Aerys,to the point that people left flowers in the place the Black Dragon fell , that's something we'll never see with the Targs even when they ruled for 300 years, it literally took for everything to go to hell, so people started remember them.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, Varys/Illyrio and Doran Martell would have to be utter lackwits if they believed a Targaryen restoration made sense if basically everybody hated them...

Tbf their plan don't seem like a well thought plan, the fact that even after Westeros was at war, the GC had to wait till Tywin died, a sign in the sky, because they would've otherwise been stuck waiting for years for Dany to come speaks volumes.

And no, I never said the Targs were hated, in certain places they would not be much loved tho like the North due  to Aerys, Rhaegar, Lyanna, Brandon and  Rickard, tbf most of the Realm weren't too much bothered with them and their fall, they had peace  and  Robert was a loving meme for most of them, in the Stormlands, Westerlands, the North and  the Vale, the smallfolk loved their lieges in the Riverlands they just liked them and even in war Edmure won onver a chunk of them.

And Varys and Doran main corncern, just as is the GC, is the opinion of the nobility, becuse they know the smallfolk is sheep and will follow their liege.

The Blackfyres had far more people actively fighting for them that the Targs ever had in the shadows, agents  in KL instead of agent in KL, several loyalists gathering around in Whitewall instead of the Martells going solo... because purely revengy reasons, they don't give a damn about Targs truly, Viserys was known as the beggar King and  still no one ever did so much as offer a helping hand  or even sending a middle man .

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure enough, the the First Dornish War - and Daeron's war - were ugly things. But the Conqueror ended the continuous warfare that troubled all of Westeros before - both the official wars between the Seven Kingdoms as well as the many private wars that plagued the Realm before the King's Peace.

If the Conqueror is later using them to invade a land he doesn't even know how to hold and caused the most brutal war Westeros knew so far, he's greatly diminishing himself don't you think?? 

And i really doubt the many private wars, such as the Webbers and  the Osgreys ever stopped, the King's Peace meant that really powerful Lords, like the Brackens or Blackwoods couldn't do whatever they wanted but in a smaller scale?? Doubt it would change much.

The only thing Aegon ended for good was the old way.

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys I invented new luxury taxes for rich merchants and lords and abolished the Celtigar taxes.

Unless he abolished  his granddad's taxes too. he still profited from everyone's work.

Edwell Celtigar, Lord of Claw Isle, had been an ineffectual Hand for Maegor the Cruel. Given a second chance under the regency, he proved to be an equally ineffectual master of coin. Unwilling to offend his fellow lords, Celtigar instead decided to impose new taxes on the smallfolk of King’s Landing, who were conveniently close at hand. Port fees were tripled, certain goods were to be taxed both coming into and out of the city, and new levies were asked of innkeeps and builders. None of these measures had the desired effect of filling up the treasury vaults. Instead building slowed to a halt, the inns emptied, and trade declined notably as merchants diverted their ships from King’s Landing to Driftmark, Duskendale, Maidenpool, and other ports where they might evade taxation. (Lannisport and Oldtown, the other great cities of the realm, were also included in Lord Celtigar’s new taxes, but there the decrees had less effect, largely because Casterly Rock and the Hightower ignored them and made no effort to collect.) The new levies did, however, serve to make Lord Celtigar loathed throughout the city. Lord Rogar and Queen Alyssa received their share of opprobrium as well. Another casualty was the Dragonpit; the Crown no longer

Port fees were trippled, not were created out of nowhere, new levies were asked to the innkeepers, not new levies were created for the innkeepers, Jaeharys invented new taxes, Celtigar just raised  the old ones and  he clearly could raise, the nobility old ones but he didn't want to, nor Jaeharys was willing too.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. I'd agree that those kings who showed their faces were more popular than those who didn't, but popularity is not exclusive to the former.

Well, it surely was for Aegon III and  Aerys I. Popularity just because you're royalty is just propaganda.

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That would depend on the lord. If the lord is nice then he would perhaps not loath him all that much ... but he would still be the guy who exploits them. The king is the guy you can turn to if the lord mistreats you.

The Great Lord is the guy you can turn to if the Lord mistreats you, not the King, that's why people are generally more attached to their overlords and  see themselves as wolves, lions, roses etc. Most of them will never see their Great Lords, less so their Kings and  the idea that the King is going to help The smallfolk is just bad propaganda, one that the smallfolk definetely don't feel like believing, only a handful of King actually live up to the propaganda and  the rest of the time people are Riverlander, Westermen or Reachmen.

 

And the King is exploiting them  all of them all the same, the idea that the King is the good guy of this story is honestly laughable what happen if the guy you can turn to if the lord mistreat you, don't care about you?? Is worst than the lord o simply won't dare crossing the lord because of a peasant?? , the King is the greater enforcer of the will of the nobility and protector of their privileges so far. if their lords treat them fair, they would love him till the point of adoration, plain and simple, they would not just be ok with them.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are class interests. And on that level the king and the nobility had never anything in common. The nobility only stood with kings if the kings were not acting against their interests.

Again, you're generalizing to make a point, Aegon V was making deals under the table  with the Great Lords whole the rest of lesser nobles were protecting their interests, they didn't give a damn about that as long as they got what they wanted, if Aegon was trying to reduce the power of nobility and  while the average Lords rebelled, we know that Lyonel Baratheon supported Eggs policies yet again acting against his class intereset,  the most powerful Lords were ready to look the other way as long as Egg gave them juicy matches, you don't have much of a case here, powerful lords were ready to reduce their power as long they gained something from it, other lords were not, that would mean that the powerful lords would side against their fellow classmen, there will be times the King and the smallfolk interest will be the same, there will be times the King and the Church interest will be the same, there will be times the lesser lords and the king's interests will be the same,they will be time the nobility acted as "class", theu will be times the nobility and the smallfolk acted united against the King and so on. Painting a black and white situation is wrong.

Do you think so?? I can see the average lesser lord being shocked for what Aerys pulled off in Duskendale but i can't picture a Great Lord doing the same, they had a very common interesy, not being overthrown for their vassals.

 

 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know anything about Egg's reform at this point, but chances are not that bad that the guy was never deposed because the smallfolk stood with him rather than against him with their lords.

We do know he was trying to take the nobles godgivem rights from them.

Hmm nope, that couldn't happen. The Lords don't have an standing army, their army is the smallfolk, so for them to put up a fight and actually stop most of Eggs reforms  have to be because they had the smallfolk firmly under their thumbs and the smallfolk love for Egg don't stop them from obeying their liege... like they always have done.

There were other battles during the time of Aegon V, for the unlikely king was forced to spend
much of his reign in armor, quelling one rising or another. Though beloved by the smallfolk, King
Aegon made many enemies amongst the lords of the realm, whose powers he wished to curtail. He
enacted numerous reforms and granted rights and protections to the commons that they had never
known before, but each of these measures provoked fierce opposition and sometimes open defiance
amongst the lords
. The most outspoken of his foes went so far as to denounce Aegon V as a “bloody-
handed tyrant intent on depriving us of our gods-given rights and liberties.”
It was well-known that the resistance against him taxed Aegon’s patience—especially as the
compromises a king must make to rule well often left his greatest hopes receding further and further
into the future. As one defiance followed another, His Grace found himself forced to bow to the
recalcitrant lords more often than he wished.
A student of history and lover of books, Aegon V was
oft heard to say that had he only had dragons, as the first Aegon had, he could have remade the realm
anew, with peace and prosperity and justice for all.

They couldn't depose him, Aegon and  his line  were the only line  available until Ormund married Rhaelle and  his kids wouldn't be ok with that, also Duncan and  his brothers didn't seemed to dislike his father's policies given that fact that it was Aerys who actually overruled  them.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 7:54 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

We  are told in Fire and Blood that from Aenar the Exile, through Jaehaerys the Conciliator, no Targaryen got sick. Does that suggest that Targaryens became more susceptible to common illnesses after intermarrying with no Targaryens, notably Alyssa Velaryon, wife of Aenys I and daughter of Aethan Velaryon and Alarra Massey?  

Is it immunity or the ability to tolerate higher temperatures.  Maybe they catch the infection but their bodies respond differently.  Normal people react by carefully elevating body temperature to fight the invader.  The Targaryen can elevate this temperature to a higher level than a normal person.   High heat tolerance can make the body better able to kill off invading organisms.  A temp that  can harm a normal person won’t bother a Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Is it immunity or the ability to tolerate higher temperatures.  Maybe they catch the infection but their bodies respond differently.  Normal people react by carefully elevating body temperature to fight the invader.  The Targaryen can elevate this temperature to a higher level than a normal person.   High heat tolerance can make the body better able to kill off invading organisms.  A temp that  can harm a normal person won’t bother a Targaryen.

ASOIAF is high fantasy rather than hard fantasy, so the how is less important than the how, I think, no? 

Share this post


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

ASOIAF is high fantasy rather than hard fantasy, so the how is less important than the how, I think, no? 

I'd agree, but the how is not uninteresting here, especially if you think that you see the 'relatively of degree' in this whole 'heat affinity' of the Targaryens and the dragons, too:

Targaryens/dragonlords descendants have an affinity to both heat and dragons - they do sweat less often, they like hot temperatures other people do not like, etc. - yet they still do suffer burns and can be burned to death (very magical circumstances aside) as Aegon II, Viserys III, and Daenerys clearly show.

But despite the fact that dragons are creatures of fire and flame, they, too, can and do burn as the Doom of Valyria clearly demonstrates.

This means that the claim that Targaryens can be burned is evidence that they cannot  have magical heat-based talents is about as invalid as the (at this point rather fictional claim) that the fact that dragons can burn to death means that dragons are not (magical) creatures of fire and flame.

In that sense whatever talent the Targaryens inherit could immunize them to various degrees to certain pathogens - perhaps even Aemon's whole 'fire consumes' routine comes into play - the fire might be able to 'consume' certain pathogens. But clearly not all - and the facts that the known Targaryens who died of natural causes are relatively short-lived also lends credence to the idea that the fire in the blood might consude their life quicker than other people.

Aenys, Rhaena, Baelon, Viserys I, Aegon III, Viserys II, Aerys I, Daeron the Drunk, and Jaehaerys II all seemingly died of natural causes while not living to particular old age.

But, one assumes, even those Targaryens did, for the most part, not die of causes that implied they fell prey to common infections - or else the whole 'Targaryens don't get sick' routine would be completely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to re-stoke the fire here  and I apologise if I get ling winded but...

Using the Targs to showcase the idiocy of progressing from different to special to better is, quite frankly, a bit overdone?If their 'difference', genetic, magical, whathaveyou, did not afford them power over others, would dragonlords have risen from the primordial ooze of Planetos? Nope, they'd probably be subjugated to whomever got the special sparklies like they did to others in Essos and the Targs in particular did as they installed themselves as topdog of Westeros. They are just 'more' of the same. 

The possibility of power over other people on the scale the author repeatedly gives us ever not going wrong is simply absurd. Once you get to the present era in the stories? A single indoctrinated child faced with repeated choices between insignificance and ever growing power? Destructive power at that? Sure, that'll work. Could a weapons' system superior to anything in living memory ever be used as anything more than a threat at the least, or a mechanism of more effective destruction than anything in the known world at the worst?

The thing for me, and you're welcome to tell me if I'm not seeing it as intended, is that using the Targs as kings, and as such 'more' of the assholes nobility are or, at the very least, are entitled to be, went a bit overboard. To the point where the centuries of Targaryen reign seem to have clouded many readers' perception of how shitty feudalism is and made them give a pass to other noble houses on account of the Targs' Fire and Blood ways. Targaryen idiocy or ideology, call it what you will, does not wipe the board on how the other noble houses are still feudal lords with all it implies and enables them to be at will.

Keeping power in the hands of the right people through classism might not be enough, since the medieval like setting would simply muddy the waters as 'the way things are done in these here parts'.

Enter the dragonlords with their inbreeding pushed straight to incest made law through exceptionalism and magical traits more obvious than the olden days' tales of greenseeing and warging that the Andal Faith made unseemly for nobility as the First Men culture fell into ill repute, making them 'special'. Then, the coffin nail. Their special trait lends itself to war and destruction, little else. 

So what the author did, or what I saw it as, was create a particular kind of pig to rule over the pigs and other animals, to follow the comparison with Orwell above. They are still pigs, just with special spots or some such. He simply made them so repelant to some sensibilities that it masks how other pigs are still justifying their position over the other animals with all it entails and leads to.

If the idea is to make different simply different and not 'better', all noble houses are in the same boat, perpetuating a system that puts them above others for their own benefit and the detriment of others. Targ idiocy and delusions of superiority are merely a refinement that seems to have eclipsed 'blue blood' good old boys clubism from many of the readers' awareness as far as I see it in reocurring discussions.

Now, as to the OP, I'm not at all saying Targs are special snowflakes unlikely to be affected by plebeian things like diseases that kill other people by droves. No way.

At best some genetic trait from the original Essosi ancestors might make them resistant to some, which added to better living and nutrition to increase their general wellbeing could statistically create an artificial impression translated into propaganda over time. But there are deaths. There are tales of illness. And no amount of ignorance of her own line or indoctrination in Daenerys' upbringing can change what we know. What the author has given us.

As far as what she was told? As far as I understood, we are not to believe she would ever get the truth from of 'steadily loosing his marbles' Viserys if he even knew anything of actual truth about his own line and not what was sanctioned by 'already lost his marbles' Daddy.

If she is indeed becoming sick, it has nothing to do with her belief being faulty and simply with an immunity or resistance to a specific pathogen which she simply does not have. If she is not sick, same, either she has the above mentioned genetic difference in respect to the specific illness or she hasn't been sufficiently exposed or whatever.

No amount of 'blood of the dragon' self coaching can factually negate a pathogen's presence in her system. 

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

×