Understanding Viserys

[SeanF]

On 4/17/2020 at 8:29 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So at first glance Viserys seems like a pretty big douche, and if we're being honest he kinda is. But I still think he's a tragic and understandable character. Put it this way, sine he was probably old enough to remember he has been a ,,king". However what kind of king? He was forced to run around Essos out of fear of being assassinated, forced to be humbled by cheese mongers, being treated like some sort of freak by everybody, and even having to sell his crown, the one thing his mother left him, a mother which we have no reason not to think he deeply loved. So with all that being taken into consideration, is it that weird that he took out all his anger on Dany, who was the only one lower in the food chain then he was. Is it really that weird that he became so entitled and started to freak out when he lost even the small modicum of power in the Dothraki Sea? So what do you think? Is Viserys a tragic and understandable character or is he just a douche?

I feel some sympathy for Viserys, but his treatment of his sister was unconscionable, regardless of his sufferings.

[M.Alhazred]

There's nothing to understand about The Beggar King. He was an arrogant idiot who couldn't lead a group of ducks across the street.

[Lord Varys]

On 4/20/2020 at 9:57 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

From the beginning he knew that the Targaryens allying with the Dothraki was a sign of aggression, even before he heard of Dany's pregnancy:

“Some pox-ridden Pentoshi cheesemonger had her brother and her walled up on his estate with pointy-hatted eunuchs all around them, and now he’s handed them over to the Dothraki"...

“This Khal Drogo is said to have a hundred thousand men in his horde. What would Jon say to that?" and “If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors will join him.”

And the text repeatedly illustrates how he's right to be afraid of this situation because Dany and Viserys are both fixated on invasion. He knows that "handing them over to the Dothraki" means they're planning something because it's suspicious as hell. 

The best way for them to live to old age is to shut up, live a quiet life, stop yelling about what is owed to them, stop being loud about how they're the LAST TARGARYENS, and quit making ridiculously threatening alliances or seeking armies. They could live to old age in peace in Essos without anyone giving a shit but that's not what they want. In fact, that's what the whole plot is based around: no one in King's Landing is paying attention to the threat across the Water just like they're ignoring the threat to the North.

If they really were threatened, Dany and Viserys could go into hiding, change their identities, just like Arya and Sansa - oh wait, they're too proud to do that. They have to make sure everyone knows they're the LAST TARGARYENS.

What?? That's what the long-term goal was through this marriage: invasion. Ned II illustrates that Robert knew what they were planning. 

Bran and Rickon did the smart thing and knew they were outnumered and escaped. Now they're laying low to wait for other people to take out the Boltons for them. This is how you win when you're the underdog. Viserys and Dany certainly have an underdog quality but they could learn a thing or two about patience, lying low, and not blabbing about their goings on with banished Westerosi knights. 

One imagines, if they're living in a world where conquering is a children's cartoon. Dany has already called Joffrey The Young Usurper. And she knows that she'll probably have to crush him: "Yet I must have some army," Dany said. "The boy Joffrey will not give me the Iron Throne for asking politely." in your view Dany would get to make all this noise about conquering, get to skip the consequences, and escape the dirty part of it. What a truly exceptional kween.

They just all deserve to die, period. They took Viserys III's throne from him and they cannot complain if he does everything in his power to take it back. Why shouldn't he Dany walk through a sea of blood and kill some children of their own to retake what's theirs? Robert and his ilk did the same to steal it.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert and his ilk did the same to steal it.

Except that they didn't. 

 

Quote

Why shouldn't he Dany walk through a sea of blood and kill some children of their own to retake what's theirs?

... Because it's wrong?? .

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 4/20/2020 at 4:56 AM, SeanF said:

I'm pretty sure if I were driven into exile, and half my family had been slaughtered in the most horrible fashion, I'd want to retaliate against the people who did it.  That's not a sign of mad entitlement.  That's normal human behaviour

Agreed, however, if I valued my life I would wait until I had a viable resource & option to do this. Viserys could not see his own shortcomings. There was never a chance, even if he was gifted his Dothraki Army, that he could have led them anywhere. So in that sense, it was a very poor & not smart decision. 

On 4/20/2020 at 4:56 AM, SeanF said:

The fact that Robert is very worried that so many lords would defect if Viserys turned up with the Dothraki would suggest that he is not a popular ruler.

I don't recall him being worried "so many lords" would defect. I recall him saying there are those who still call him usurper. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They just all deserve to die, period. They took Viserys III's throne from him and they cannot complain if he does everything in his power to take it back. Why shouldn't he Dany walk through a sea of blood and kill some children of their own to retake what's theirs? Robert and his ilk did the same to steal it.

You ignored all of @Rose of Red Lake's points. I didn't read your entire exchange but I read the full post of hers you quoted & she doesn't say anything arguing against this. (Tbf, it may be her stance, but it isn't said here) 

She provided textual evidence that your argument irt there being no invasion plans & Robert not speaking of such until Dany is pregnant, false. 

I would say Dany shouldn't walk to a sea of blood & kill some children of their own to retake the IT because it's wrong. It's wrong to kill innocent people & especially children. Robert & his ilk killing children is not a justification for Dany to do the same thing. Why would it be? 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I would say Dany shouldn't walk to a sea of blood & kill some children of their own to retake the IT because it's wrong. It's wrong to kill innocent people & especially children. Robert & his ilk killing children is not a justification for Dany to do the same thing. Why would it be? 

I don't object to an eye for an eye.  But, only in the sense of killing those who have wronged you, not their innocent relatives.

Dany killing Jaime?  Fair enough.  Dany killing Tommen and Myrcella, or people like Sansa and Arya, would be a disgrace.  (Granted, it would be a different matter, if say, Tommen had turned 15 and was fighting on the battlefield).

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

47 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't object to an eye for an eye.  But, only in the sense of killing those who have wronged you, not their innocent relatives.

I don't wholly object to an eye for an eye I guess. I don't think it's probably the best course for your own psyche but I understand the need for revenge. But yeah, not the innocents. I wouldn't buy into killing Gregor's infant son, for instance, because Gregor killed infant Aegon. Killing Gregor, yes. 

& yeah, I agree, it's different on a battlefield. 

[Lord Varys]

It is completely irrelevant whether Robert wanted to murder Viserys III or not - all that is relevant that Viserys III believed this to be the case. But even if he didn't believe that - the Rebellion alone is justification enough for him to try to regain what's his by right of birth and blood. He is also convinced that Robert wants to kill, though, and part of the reason he wants to destroy him is so he can feel safe again.

I personally do not condone collective punishment or murder or even the restoration of exiled monarchs to power (because I'm not a monarchist living in George's shitty fantasy world) but I sure as hell recognize that these are the legal and moral categories and values the people in this book series use as their guidelines.

Stannis intends to kill Cersei and Jaime and their abominations, never mind that Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella are innocent of their parents' crimes (if we want to see love as a 'crime'). Wyman Manderly expresses satisfaction over the murder of a young child innocent of the Red Wedding and chances are pretty good that he commanded said murder. The Sand Snakes want to avenge Elia and her children by slaying Cersei and her children.

This is exactly the kind of world where exiled kings and queens do have to walk through a sea of blood to retake what's theirs ... because their enemies won't just step down. It is also a world where blood feuds are a reality and it is part of the political game to target innocent members of an enemy family ... in fact it is a way to make to them suffer more. Even Doran Martell had this kind of 'justice' in mind for Tywin Lannister. Destroy everything he held dear before killing him.

I'd prefer it if Viserys III or Dany offered Joffrey or Tommen a way to abdicate before they kill them ... but I see no problem if they return the favor by retaking what's theirs by right by taking a few pages out of Tywin's and Robert's books.

[Rose of Red Lake]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I personally do not condone collective punishment or murder or even the restoration of exiled monarchs to power (because I'm not a monarchist living in George's shitty fantasy world) but I sure as hell recognize that these are the legal and moral categories and values the people in this book series use as their guidelines.

But if their morality is based on fantasies and delusions about what is actually happening or what did happen, it doesn't matter what moral code they follow. The narrative will find ways to make sure they dont get to realize them. It's less about who is justified and more about who is acting stupid, impatient, unreasonable, or delusional and who is going to get shanked, banished, or imprisoned because of that. Also these blood feuds are shown to be unnecessary and costly to not just to families but to the whole realm, so their justifications don't really matter when there's an overall illustration in the text that it's wasting lives, not to mention preventing people from working together to face the threat from the North and from the Targaryen siblings. 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

but I see no problem if they return the favor by retaking what's theirs by right by taking a few pages out of Tywin's and Robert's books.

I think they could top Tywin and Robert in the child killing department. Targaryens have to do everything bigger and better than anyone else.  

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

But if their morality is based on fantasies and delusions about what is actually happening or what did happen, it doesn't matter what moral code they follow. The narrative will find ways to make sure they dont get to realize them. It's less about who is justified and more about who is acting stupid, impatient, unreasonable, or delusional and who is going to get shanked, banished, or imprisoned because of that. Also these blood feuds are shown to be unnecessary and costly to not just to families but to the whole realm, so their justifications don't really matter when there's an overall illustration in the text that it's wasting lives, not to mention preventing people from working together to face the threat from the North and from the Targaryen siblings. 

Not sure what you are trying to say here - of course the story is based on the limited knowledge of imperfect people. Else there would never be any wars or troubles of any kind.

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think they could top Tywin and Robert in the child killing department. Targaryens have to do everything bigger and better than anyone else.  

If they result in them destroying all their enemies so that their descendants have no chance to strike back it would be a fitting end for the story, no? I mean, if Robert the Moron had but gotten his hands on Viserys III and Dany and Lyanna's brat to give them a good Clegane-Lorch treatment a huge chunk of the story wouldn't even happening. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

The same with Robert - had he but been told what Cersei and Jaime were and gotten the chance to put down Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella as the abominations that they are there wouldn't have been a War of the Five Kings. Or just think if Robert had killed all those Greyjoys back when he had crushed Balon... How great would it be if Theon and Euron and Victarion had been rotting corpses for nine years by the time the series began...

[acwill07]

On 4/17/2020 at 9:18 AM, Hugorfonics said:

I agree that Viserys did not want to sell Dany to Drogo, but after weighing the options (with fatass Illyrio leaning on the scale lol) he decided he had too. Danys feelings and wellbeing is second to his IT

I disagree here though. For all of Danys life Viserys assumed hed marry her, but not even these perverted ass Targs are checking out a toddler. He raised her, how old was she when Darry died? 6? So Viserys isnt trying to hit that either. Eventually shes a teenager and still unattractive, in her brothers/care givers eyes

The fact that Viserys wanted Dany before her wedding has to do with jealousy and envy, not lust or romance

The fact that Viserys tries to have sex with Dany before the wedding (As Illyrio tells us) is concrete evidence that he desired her sexually.  It doesn't matter if jealousy and envy were part of it too......he was sexually attracted to her.

[frenin]

On 4/20/2020 at 11:14 AM, M.Alhazred said:

There's nothing to understand about The Beggar King. He was an arrogant idiot who couldn't lead a group of ducks across the street.

One of the things i can't be mad at Viserys, the man was written to fail and to be a failure, overshadowed by two siblings bigger than life. That's pretty tough.

He is what i think Joffrey would be had he been in his shoes.

[M.Alhazred]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

One of the things i can't be mad at Viserys, the man was written to fail and to be a failure, overshadowed by two siblings bigger than life. That's pretty tough.

He is what i think Joffrey would be had he been in his shoes.

I can see it

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 4/21/2020 at 10:02 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed, however, if I valued my life I would wait until I had a viable resource & option to do this. Viserys could not see his own shortcomings. There was never a chance, even if he was gifted his Dothraki Army, that he could have led them anywhere. So in that sense, it was a very poor & not smart decision. 

I don't recall him being worried "so many lords" would defect. I recall him saying there are those who still call him usurper. 

You ignored all of @Rose of Red Lake's points. I didn't read your entire exchange but I read the full post of hers you quoted & she doesn't say anything arguing against this. (Tbf, it may be her stance, but it isn't said here) 

She provided textual evidence that your argument irt there being no invasion plans & Robert not speaking of such until Dany is pregnant, false. 

I would say Dany shouldn't walk to a sea of blood & kill some children of their own to retake the IT because it's wrong. It's wrong to kill innocent people & especially children. Robert & his ilk killing children is not a justification for Dany to do the same thing. Why would it be? 

Daenerys and Viserys have as much reasons to want their lands back as the Starks do.  Taking back a castle will result in the death of innocents,  Including children.  The same goes for taking back a kingdom.  The deaths of children and innocents didn't prevent Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon, and Ned Stark from rebelling.  Daenerys actually wants to do this in such a way to limit casualties to the innocents.  She has the most professional soldiers in the world, ones who will not rape and steal.  The Unsullied. 

[frenin]

38 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys and Viserys have as much reasons to want their lands back as the Starks do.  Taking back a castle will result in the death of innocents,  Including children.  The same goes for taking back a kingdom.  The deaths of children and innocents didn't prevent Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon, and Ned Stark from rebelling.  Daenerys actually wants to do this in such a way to limit casualties to the innocents.  She has the most professional soldiers in the world, ones who will not rape and steal.  The Unsullied. 

The rebels rebelled because it was do or die for them, there is no urgence for Dany and i said the Starks have far more right than Dany, at least Westeros was Viserys's home.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys and Viserys have as much reasons to want their lands back as the Starks do.  Taking back a castle will result in the death of innocents,  Including children.  The same goes for taking back a kingdom.  The deaths of children and innocents didn't prevent Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon, and Ned Stark from rebelling.  Daenerys actually wants to do this in such a way to limit casualties to the innocents.  She has the most professional soldiers in the world, ones who will not rape and steal.  The Unsullied. 

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

The rebels rebelled because it was do or die for them, there is no urgence for Dany and i said the Starks have far more right than Dany, at least Westeros was Viserys's home.

If the Starks had been exiled from Winterfell, in favour of the Boltons, for twenty years, I'd bet they'd still want it back.

As to child murder, I'm  sure that Tywin was not the only person who favoured the complete extermination of the Targaryen royal family.  

The rebels had two aims (a) self-defence.  That was entirely legitimate (b) the replacement of Aerys by Robert.  Ned believed that could be achieved just by killing Aerys and Rhaegar.  It's unlikely that all the rebel leaders were that naive.  Robert's crown would rest a lot easier on his head if there were no longer any Targaryens left alive. 

Ned recognised that Robert had no compunction about the murder of children - hence his determination to hide Jon's identity, and his wish to give Cersei the chance to flee, in order to save her own children.  Robert recognised that murdering children didn't look good in terms of PR, but he was happy enough for others to do the job for him.   Stannis, the Sand Snakes, Lord Manderly, Jon Connington go that bit further, in being willing to do the job/give the orders, themselves.

And let's face it, it's logical, if horrible.  Leave the children of your enemies alive, and you leave alive people who may grow up to avenge their dead parents.  

[frenin]

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

If the Starks had been exiled from Winterfell, in favour of the Boltons, for twenty years, I'd bet they'd still want it back. 

I have no beef with Viserys being interested in return to his home, it's his home after all.  But if Rickon spent 20 years off the North and didn't even remember anything about, just that he vaguely had a family there, i'd call it bs entitlement too. And at least Rickon is from the North and Winterfell, I would not even go to  Rickon's exiled children.  It's different for Arya, Sansa or Jon as much as it's different for Viserys. But neither Rickon, nor Dany nor Aegon are in that position. They would be claiming something that never was theirs and acting as if they could do and undo the very lands that ousted  them. That's simply too ludicrous to bear, even for Westerosi standards of entitlement.

Nor do i think why if the Starks would do it it's acceptable.

 

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

As to child murder, I'm  sure that Tywin was not the only person who favoured the complete extermination of the Targaryen royal family.

I'm sure he was, hence why the Targ royal family was not exterminated. And it's not like he was outspoken to finish the job either. Hell, if Tywin wanted them murdered, there was absolutely nothing stopping him.

 

Quote

Ned recognised that Robert had no compunction about the murder of children

Did he?? I miss that part. 

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

  - hence his determination to hide Jon's identity

Jon's identity had to be hidden, a child of Rhaegar is a perfect claimant and a target, whatever Robert may feel about the matter. But sure, Robert likely would lost it and try to kill him. 

 

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

and his wish to give Cersei the chance to flee, in order to save her own children.

Children born of incest are considered abominations, Cat is not outspoken in her desire of seeing dead babies every morning but she quite liiterally sees no problem in killing  children born of incest.

 

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

but he was happy enough for others to do the job for him.

He was indifferent enough most like. 

 

Quote

The rebels had two aims (a) self-defence.  That was entirely legitimate (b) the replacement of Aerys by Robert.  Ned believed that could be achieved just by killing Aerys and Rhaegar.  It's unlikely that all the rebel leaders were that naive.  Robert's crown would rest a lot easier on his head if there were no longer any Targaryens left alive. 

The problem isn't whether it would be best to killing them or not, which i dont think so, nor do i believe it's a good pr campaign.  But whether it's necessary or not.

I doubt that the rebels weren't that naive, if we can call them that, Dany and Viserys are spared for the very same thought of process, They are children leave them be. It's clear from Robert's and Ned's fall out that the murder of children was off the table until Tywin made it a reality.

I think that until we're shown more, this vilification of the rebels seems over the top.

On 4/23/2020 at 8:07 AM, SeanF said:

And let's face it, it's logical, if horrible.  Leave the children of your enemies alive, and you leave alive people who may grow up to avenge their dead parents.  

It's not the only way tho. And certainly it wasn't neither for the rebels, nor is for Dany now. The wall, a hole in Winterfell or the Sisters work just as fine.When Robert called it war, Ned righfully called it bs, if one rebels may have said that to justify the murder of Rhaegar's children, they were simply saying that they were unwilling to charge Tywin for murder. And well, Tywin is just rationializing his awfulness. I think that the idiocy of the rebels was let the Targlings wander off and never make an attempt to capture them.

 

 

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, frenin said:

I have no beef with Viserys being interested in return to his home, it's his home after all.  But if Rickon spent 20 years off the North and didn't even remember anything about, just that he vaguely had a family there, i'd call it bs entitlement too. And at least Rickon is from the North and Winterfell, I would not even go to  Rickon's exiled children.  It's different for Arya, Sansa or Jon as much as it's different for Viserys. But neither Rickon, nor Dany nor Aegon are in that position. They would be claiming something that never was them and acting as if they could do and undo the very lands that ousted  them. That's simply too ludicrous to bear, even for Westerosi standards of entitlement.

Nor do i think why if the Starks would do it it's acceptable.

 

I'm sure he was, hence why the Targ royal family was not exterminated. And it's not like he was outspoken to finish the job either.

 

Did he?? I miss that part. 

Jon's identity had to be hidden, a child of Rhaegar is a perfect claimant and a target, whatever Robert may feel about the matter. But sure, Robert likely would lost it and try to kill him. 

 

Children born of incest are considered abominations, Cat is not outspoken in her desire of seeing dead babies every morning but she quite liiterally sees no problem in killing  children born of incest.

 

He was indifferent enough most like. 

 

It's not the only way tho. And certainly it wasn't neither for the rebels, nor is for Dany now. The wall, a whole in Winterfell or the Sisters work just as fine.When Robert called it war, Ned righfully called it bs, if one rebels may have said that to justify the murder of Rhaegar's children, they were simply saying that they were unwilling to charge Tywin for murder. And well, Tywin is just rationializing his awfulness. I think that the idiocy of the rebels was let the Targlings wander off and never make an attempt to capture them.

 

 

As I noted upthread, the descendants of people who lost property and citizenship in Eastern Europe under the Communists and Nazis have put in thousands of claims for restitution, despite never living in such places.   I don't think that's unreasonable entitlement. 

[frenin]

Just now, SeanF said:

As I noted upthread, the descendants of people who lost property and citizenship in Eastern Europe under the Communists and Nazis have put in thousands of claims for restitution.  I don't think that's unreasonable entitlement. 

I believe that an stolen wardrobe is not similar than a whole continent and all that lives in it.

 

49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Stannis, the Sand Snakes, Lord Manderly, Jon Connington go that bit further, in being willing to do the job/give the orders, themselves.

Please don't put Lord Lamprey among them until proved otherwise.

 

 

 

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

I believe that an stolen wardrobe is not similar than a whole continent and all that lives in it.

 

Please don't put Lord Lamprey among them until proved otherwise.

 

 

 

Sure, but even so, it's a pretty basic human emotion to want to regain what was lost.  The vast majority of Jews, for example, identify with Jerusalem, wherever they live in the world. Ethnic groups all over the world dream of regaining lost territories.  There comes a point when you just have to recognise that it's no longer a practical option, but I think it takes longer than twenty years.