Did Argillac really kill the envoy?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So Argillac was clearly trying to make Aegon his friend in order to preempt the inevitable ironborn invasion of the Stormlands, so isn't it a bit jarring that he would commit the worst diplomatic screw up imaginable. I mean it makes more sense that Aegon just made it up as a pretext for an invasion he had clearly planned for years.

[James Steller]

38 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So Argillac was clearly trying to make Aegon his friend in order to preempt the inevitable ironborn invasion of the Stormlands, so isn't it a bit jarring that he would commit the worst diplomatic screw up imaginable. I mean it makes more sense that Aegon just made it up as a pretext for an invasion he had clearly planned for years.

Interesting. Though to be dair, Aegon also tanked negotiations by suggesting that his bastard half brother marry a princess. Argilac was being mocked and dismissed with a suggestion like that.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, James Steller said:

Though to be dair, Aegon also tanked negotiations by suggesting that his bastard half brother marry a princess. Argilac was being mocked and dismissed with a suggestion like that.

Clearly and that was meant to provoke Argillac, but I still find it doubtful that he would do something as perfect for Aegon. He probably did the Orys thing to tank negotiations and then when Argillac naturally responded with a no, he created the envoy's hand thing to have a casus belli. I mean who would dare call a man with a massive fire breathing monster a liar?

[Texas Hold Em]

3 hours ago, James Steller said:

Interesting. Though to be dair, Aegon also tanked negotiations by suggesting that his bastard half brother marry a princess. Argilac was being mocked and dismissed with a suggestion like that.

 

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Clearly and that was meant to provoke Argillac, but I still find it doubtful that he would do something as perfect for Aegon. He probably did the Orys thing to tank negotiations and then when Argillac naturally responded with a no, he created the envoy's hand thing to have a casus belli. I mean who would dare call a man with a massive fire breathing monster a liar?

Whoa, hold your horses gentlemen!  It was poor thinking to send a bastard to court a princess who happened to be daughter of a man called Arrogant.  How-Evaah It's too far out to say it was purposely done to provoke. 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

44 minutes ago, Texas Hold Em said:

 

Whoa, hold your horses gentlemen!  It was poor thinking to send a bastard to court a princess who happened to be daughter of a man called Arrogant.  How-Evaah It's too far out to say it was purposely done to provoke. 

Makes sense to me. Aegon was only interested in conquering the Seven Kingdoms, he wasn't seriously considering any offers to make an alliance where he wasn't in charge. And with three dragons, why should he negotiate? Aegon the Conqueror's so often viewed as a legendary hero, but a guy like that is going to be totally fine with slaughtering thousands to get what he wants, and that requires a level of sociopathy that we don't see in the average person (ideally). So I have no issue with the idea that he sent a humiliating proposal to a king named "The Arrogant" with the express hope that he'd lose his temper and commit an atrocity against the messenger to give himself a bit of a moral high ground for the histories. 

[Canon Claude]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So Argillac was clearly trying to make Aegon his friend in order to preempt the inevitable ironborn invasion of the Stormlands, so isn't it a bit jarring that he would commit the worst diplomatic screw up imaginable. I mean it makes more sense that Aegon just made it up as a pretext for an invasion he had clearly planned for years.

At the risk of being really pedantic, we're never actually told that Argilac killed the envoy. He just cut the man's hands off and sent them back to Aegon. A person can live without their hands, though it isn't an ideal existence. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

26 minutes ago, Canon Claude said:

At the risk of being really pedantic, we're never actually told that Argilac killed the envoy. He just cut the man's hands off and sent them back to Aegon. A person can live without their hands, though it isn't an ideal existence. 

Fair enough, but the result is the same. Harming envoys is a big no no both in our world and in Westeros.

41 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

So I have no issue with the idea that he sent a humiliating proposal to a king named "The Arrogant" with the express hope that he'd lose his temper and commit an atrocity against the messenger to give himself a bit of a moral high ground for the histories. 

I think that goes without saying, but I would take it one step further that he made up the messengers hands. Argillac probably just send him some insults.

42 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

totally fine with slaughtering thousands to get what he wants, and that requires a level of sociopathy that we don't see in the average person

I don't really agree with that. Aegon's only fault I would say is ambition, and maybe some of that Valyrian superiority (which given that they could ride dragons is super understandable). In general during his conquest he killed as few people as possible, even then only when needed. Put it this way after Field of fire he could have massacred the enemy armies but didn't, leaving only the burned 4k to die in the end, which one should note is probably less then what Robb sacrificed against Tywin at Green Ford. So calling Aegon out as a sociopath is a bit of a stretch, given that he seemed to have a higher regard for human live then people like Robb. Also before you mention moral high ground and motive, I could mention that Aegon in the long term did far more good then Robb could have ever hoped.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Just now, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Fair enough, but the result is the same. Harming envoys is a big no no both in our world and in Westeros.

I think that goes without saying, but I would take it one step further that he made up the messengers hands. Argillac probably just send him some insults.

I don't really agree with that. Aegon's only fault I would say is ambition, and maybe some of that Valyrian superiority (which given that they could ride dragons is super understandable). In general during his conquest he killed as few people as possible, even then only when needed. Put it this way after Field of fire he could have massacred the enemy armies but didn't, leaving only the burned 4k to die in the end, which one should note is probably less then what Robb sacrificed against Tywin at Green Ford. So calling Aegon out as a sociopath is a bit of a stretch, given that he seemed to have a higher regard for human live then people like Robb. Also before you mention moral high ground and motive, I could mention that Aegon in the long term did far more good then Robb could have ever hoped.

First of all, Robb did NOT sacrifice anyone at the Greek Fork. Roose Bolton disobeyed Robb's orders to avoid open battle and also did exactly what Robb feared the Greatjon would do if he'd been given command. But that's a whole other discussion. 

Secondly, Aegon didn't NEED to conquer Westeros. He had a perfectly fine existence on Dragonstone, and his decision to conquer Westeros did result in thousands of people dying. If Aegon had stayed home, the conquest never happens, and those people don't die. Whether or not they would have died in some other war isn't the point. Aegon made a decision to conquer, and his actions resulted in thousands of people dying. If you include his descendants and their bloodshed, that's a lot of people dead because the Targaryens thought they deserved to be treated like god-kings. 

All the same, I do see your point. Aegon I may not have been a sociopath by the standards of the Middle Ages, but he certainly wasn't as justified in war as Robb Stark was. 

[frenin]

16 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Fair enough, but the result is the same. Harming envoys is a big no no both in our world and in Westeros.

I think that goes without saying, but I would take it one step further that he made up the messengers hands. Argillac probably just send him some insults.

I don't really agree with that. Aegon's only fault I would say is ambition, and maybe some of that Valyrian superiority (which given that they could ride dragons is super understandable). In general during his conquest he killed as few people as possible, even then only when needed. Put it this way after Field of fire he could have massacred the enemy armies but didn't, leaving only the burned 4k to die in the end, which one should note is probably less then what Robb sacrificed against Tywin at Green Ford. So calling Aegon out as a sociopath is a bit of a stretch, given that he seemed to have a higher regard for human live then people like Robb. Also before you mention moral high ground and motive, I could mention that Aegon in the long term did far more good then Robb could have ever hoped.

Well, then there was the Dornish war, which was a cruel megalomaniac shitsow, for both parts, but overall you're right, he didn't engage in mass murder. (Harrenhall was pretty bad tho).

[Alyn Oakenfist]

38 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

First of all, Robb did NOT sacrifice anyone at the Greek Fork. Roose Bolton disobeyed Robb's orders to avoid open battle and also did exactly what Robb feared the Greatjon would do if he'd been given command. But that's a whole other discussion. 

Roose disobeyed his orders in acting foolish and force marching the night before, not in engaging Tywin.

40 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Secondly, Aegon didn't NEED to conquer Westeros. He had a perfectly fine existence on Dragonstone, and his decision to conquer Westeros did result in thousands of people dying. If Aegon had stayed home, the conquest never happens, and those people don't die

As I said his one flaw was his ambition.

40 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

If you include his descendants and their bloodshed, that's a lot of people dead because the Targaryens thought they deserved to be treated like god-kings. 

See here is the thing though. You can blame Aegon for being ambitious as Brutus said, but you can't really blame the Targs for anything in general. The Targaryen rule wasn't the greatest but it was light years ahead compared to the shit show pre conquest Westeros was. Yet Brutus says they were ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.

43 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

All the same, I do see your point. Aegon I may not have been a sociopath by the standards of the Middle Ages, but he certainly wasn't as justified in war as Robb Stark was. 

I'm sorry to break this to you but Robb wasn't justified either, at least not after declaring himself King in the North. And Robb is guilty of something far worse then unjustified wars, stupid wars. The death toll of Robb's war far exceeds the Conquest (The conquest has 4k in the field of fire, probably 5k at Harrenhal and Last Storm and whatever Aegon lost, all in all you have some 20k, Robb lost almost all of his initial 20k, and killed like 30k Westermen, 20k at Riverrun and let's say 10k at Oxcross) and it was a fundamentally stupid war. Whoever won the Wot5K in the end would have had the power to easily smash him in battle. Had he declared himself King in the North and stayed in the actual North it might not have been stupid. As is however. Also one thing one should note is that his inclusion of the Riverlands was pretty conquesty as the Riiverlands were basically under his military occupation so there wasn't much choice for them in joining his kingdom or not.

29 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well, then there was the Dornish war, which was a cruel megalomaniac shitsow, for both parts, but overall you're right, he didn't engage in mass murder. (Harrenhall was pretty bad tho).

Harrenhal would have been a shit show regardless as Harren and his Ironborn were too stubborn to bend the knee despite the bloody dragons. Also in regard to the Dornish wars, it was kinda the Dornish fault for turning what could have been a simple and relatively bloodless affair (though a very one sided one) into all out total guerrilla war. It was their choice to put their civilians on the line of fire, and they paid the price for it. It was Aegon's fault for starting the war, but the Dornish escalated it into the shitshow it became.

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Harrenhal would have been a shit show regardless as Harren and his Ironborn were too stubborn to bend the knee despite the bloody dragons.

It was kinda of genocide tho.

 

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Also in regard to the Dornish wars, it was kinda the Dornish fault for turning what could have been a simple and relatively bloodless affair (though a very one sided one) into all out total guerrilla war. It was their choice to put their civilians on the line of fire, and they paid the price for it. It was Aegon's fault for starting the war, but the Dornish escalated it into the shitshow it became.

Hmm no, it's not their fault they decide to not be invaded, that's not how it works, Aegon was the one bringing fire and blood to them. Aegon was the one burning fields and castles. Honestly, this is the weirdest take I've seen honestly.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, frenin said:

It was kinda of genocide tho.

I agree but it was the only way to actually fight the Dornish.

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Hmm no, it's not their fault they decide to not be invaded, that's not how it works, Aegon was the one bringing fire and blood to them. Aegon was the one burning fields and castles. Honestly, this is the weirdest take I've seen honestly.

It's their fault for being more proud then smart. They knowingly sacrificed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people just because they couldn't bend the knee. It's not like Aegon was a tyrant or anything, Aegon's terms were more then decent, do him fealty and he'll leave you alone. Just as Torrhen saved the lives of his people when he did the smart and reasonable thing, so did the Martells sentenced countless of their subjects to die just so they could still be ,,unbowed".

[Floki of the Ironborn]

26 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I agree but it was the only way to actually fight the Dornish.

It's their fault for being more proud then smart. They knowingly sacrificed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people just because they couldn't bend the knee. It's not like Aegon was a tyrant or anything, Aegon's terms were more then decent, do him fealty and he'll leave you alone. Just as Torrhen saved the lives of his people when he did the smart and reasonable thing, so did the Martells sentenced countless of their subjects to die just so they could still be ,,unbowed".

That's a strange double standard with how you responded to my point of Aegon saving thousands of lives by staying home on Dragonstone. Pride is stupid but ambition is just a minor character flaw? It sounds like you're saying the Conqueror is justified in his ambitions for conquest and domination because he rewards obedience with a benevolent rule. It feels like a big gaslight of anyone who resists domination by someone else if they're not able to resist properly. By that logic, the US or Russia or China shouldn't be opposed if they decide to invade their neighbours and absorb them just because they have all the advantages.

[Colonel Green]

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So Argillac was clearly trying to make Aegon his friend in order to preempt the inevitable ironborn invasion of the Stormlands, so isn't it a bit jarring that he would commit the worst diplomatic screw up imaginable. I mean it makes more sense that Aegon just made it up as a pretext for an invasion he had clearly planned for years.

There's no indication that this was the case.

And it's not like there wouldn't be plenty of witnesses.  If Aegon had made the whole thing up, that would have been the subject of a propaganda war.

[frenin]

9 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I agree but it was the only way to actually fight the Dornish.

Another way was not fighting them.

10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

It's their fault for being more proud then smart.

I don't know, they want their freedom, as stupid as that concept in this setting might be, I don't know why we praised people who fight for their freedom if it's their fault, they could always submit...

 

13 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

They knowingly sacrificed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people just because they couldn't bend the knee.

Nope, because they didn't want to be submitted by them, they didn't choose to be targetted. Aegon did.

 

18 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Aegon's terms were more then decent, do him fealty and he'll leave you alone.

But they didn't want to do him fealty, Aegon's answer was genocide. That's on him.

 

Quote

Just as Torrhen saved the lives of his people when he did the smart and reasonable thing, so did the Martells sentenced countless of their subjects to die just so they could still be ,,unbowed

But they can't be at fault for trying to not be submitted. They weren't the aggresors, Aegon was, they weren't the genocides, Aegon was. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

That's a strange double standard with how you responded to my point of Aegon saving thousands of lives by staying home on Dragonstone

He save them in the short term. Had the conquest not happened many more people would have died from the constant war. One only has to look at how big the nights watch was in order to realize just how much bloodshed there was pre conquest..

6 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Pride is stupid but ambition is just a minor character flaw?

One I never said it's a minor flaw. Two the two are not opposite.

11 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

It sounds like you're saying the Conqueror is justified in his ambitions for conquest and domination because he rewards obedience with a benevolent rule. It feels like a big gaslight of anyone who resists domination by someone else if they're not able to resist properly. By that logic, the US or Russia or China shouldn't be opposed if they decide to invade their neighbours and absorb them just because they have all the advantages.

I never said that. Aegon is the guilty one for invading Dorne, but the Martells are the guilty ones for turning it into a total guerilla war. Also this is the middle ages not current day, there are no things such as nationalism, national self determination, democracy, all those things that may make it worth it fighting an invader to the last. Put it this way, who gains anything from not bending the knee to the Targaryens? The people would be the same if not even better under the Targs (better infrastructure and trade as well as a unified set of laws under the Targs), but the nobles would have to do fealty (what a tragedy), but as they didn't bent the knee, their peoples were burned, their cities and castle destroyed. The only thing they gained was that their nobles felt better.

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

they want their freedom,

Freedom from what exactly? they would be under feudalism regardless, this isn't democracy or the age of nation states. They would be under feudalistic yoke regardless.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't know why we praised people who fight for their freedom if it's their fault, they could always submit...

Nobody praises Harold Godwinson as a freedom fighter, even though he was a brit fighting against the french. Again for whose freedom from what do you think they were fighting?

50 minutes ago, frenin said:

But they didn't want to do him fealty, Aegon's answer was genocide. That's on him.

Put it this way. The french mass suicide charges in WW1 were made to stop the german invasion. The germans massacred the french for the stupidity of attacking tranches. Yet the fault wasn't with the germans, they were just fighting a war. The fault was with the french high command for sacrificing their men like sheep.

[Lord Varys]

There is no reason to even consider the idea that the envoy didn't lose his hands. This is not something Aegon could make up. There was a Storm's End court and a Dragonstone court and historians would have gotten reports from both courts. If events were in doubt, we would have heard something about that. We don't, so there is no reason to doubt they were.

And this is completely in accordance with the actions of a king who is called 'the Arrogant'.

[frenin]

54 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Also this is the middle ages not current day, there are no things such as nationalism, national self determination, democracy, all those things that may make it worth it fighting an invader to the last.

Being middle ages matters little, they are not fighting for democracy but Dorne is very much nationalist... It was the Dornish smallfolk that resisted Daeron 2, in fact none of the Dornish tactics could be made without the people's total support. Even the Yronwoods were against the Targs because nationalism.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The people would be the same if not even better under the Targs (better infrastructure and trade as well as a unified set of laws under the Targs), but the nobles would have to do fealty (what a tragedy), but as they didn't bent the knee, their peoples were burned, their cities and castle destroyed. The only thing they gained was that their nobles felt better.

I doubt about better set of laws, the Dornish laws seem better than anything the Westerosi could come up with for a time and all the Dornish feel better.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Freedom from what exactly? they would be under feudalism regardless, this isn't democracy or the age of nation states. They would be under feudalistic yoke regardless.

From the Targs which is freedom to all of them, this is not democracy, is just nationalism.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Nobody praises Harold Godwinson as a freedom fighter, even though he was a brit fighting against the french. Again for whose freedom from what do you think they were fighting?

People still praise the spanish as freedom fighters, when they fought arguably one of the dumbest wars ever.

They were fighting against the Targs, which was freedom for them.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Put it this way. The french mass suicide charges in WW1 were made to stop the german invasion. The germans massacred the french for the stupidity of attacking tranches. Yet the fault wasn't with the germans, they were just fighting a war. The fault was with the french high command for sacrificing their men like sheep.

Except that the Dornish didn't charge, they hid, Aegon was the one genociding just because.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 minutes ago, frenin said:

Except that the Dornish didn't charge, they hid, Aegon was the one genociding just because.

If they just his that would have been smart. But they hid and attacked whenever they got the chance. It's simple really, when you mobilize the entire population for the war them dying in it is on your hands.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

I doubt about better set of laws, the Dornish laws seem better than anything the Westerosi could come up with for a time and all the Dornish feel better.

From what we know Dorne doesn't have a unified set of laws. The only thing they have is equal succession which would have been the same as Aegon allowed local nobles to have the same succession laws as before. As for anything else, are you honestly saying the Dornish were better off independent. I'm not talking about the nobility but of the peoples. Had they bent the knee would the people have been better off or worse off?

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

They were fighting against the Targs, which was freedom for them.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree that the Dornish were for this thing, but this doesn't make it any less stupid. Remember the Northern soldiers were for fighting Aegon too, it was Torrhen who decided to do what was best for the people. And what was best for the people was to bend the knee. Aegon offered everybody the chance to lose no power only a bit of prestige but in return to be under his protection and have their peoples be unharmed. It wasn't tyranny. If anything Aegon gave the peoples more freedom as they were conscripted by their lords far less often.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

People still praise the spanish as freedom fighters, when they fought arguably one of the dumbest wars ever.

From what you say you're Spannish so I hope I'm not offending you but as an outsider (more exactly a Romanian and we are very well connected with Spain, hell a million romanians work in Spain) we don't really consider the war that heroic, given that the main reason for the start of the fun was Napoleon trying to implement some much needed reforms, mainly his famous Napoleonic code, which ironically the entirety of Europe adopted sooner or latter. So we see it as a stupid, pointless war started by a power hungry clergy not wanting to lose it's privileges. I'm not saying that this is what truly happened, as honestly I don't really know that much about the subject as I'm more attracted by the eastern fronts of Napoleon's wars, but this is the general way in which the war is viewed from outside, or at least from here.

[frenin]

28 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

If they just his that would have been smart. But they hid and attacked whenever they got the chance. It's simple really, when you mobilize the entire population for the war them dying in it is on your hands.

Well ofc, if they didn't attack, the Targs would not have any reason not to keep genociding them, if they keep just hiding, Aegon's hands are free and the casualties would be even more.

No, when you mobilze the entire population, them dying is on the hands of the invasor. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

From what we know Dorne doesn't have a unified set of laws. The only thing they have is equal succession which would have been the same as Aegon allowed local nobles to have the same succession laws as before. As for anything else, are you honestly saying the Dornish were better off independent. I'm not talking about the nobility but of the peoples. Had they bent the knee would the people have been better off or worse off?

I don't know from where you get that, there is a reason why Dornish law prevails in Dorne, because it's a thing.

It depends, the Dornish would've to pay taxes, which is not good and Jaeharys is going to suppress Dornish law, as he suppressed the non andal ones...

The only thing i can say the Dornish would've benefited is roads. But the Dornish are simply isolated and they commerce with Essos, not really with Westeros.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree that the Dornish were for this thing, but this doesn't make it any less stupid.

Nationalism tend to be, as stupid as unfair imperialism is.

 

Quote

Remember the Northern soldiers were for fighting Aegon too, it was Torrhen who decided to do what was best for the people. And what was best for the people was to bend the knee

The best for his people and for him, Aegon is not the kind of man that gives second chances. The fact that Torrhen bent the knee because he faced a war he could not win does not make Aegon any less of a tyrant.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Aegon offered everybody the chance to lose no power only a bit of prestige but in return to be under his protection and have their peoples be unharmed. It wasn't tyranny.

It was very much tyranny because what if a people... Not the lords, but the whole country rejected Aegon?? Genocide. They didn't want to be under his protection, they didn't care about him, Aegon forced those he could force into obey them.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

If anything Aegon gave the peoples more freedom as they were conscripted by their lords far less often.

Unless he had to pull stupid stunts as the Dornish wars...

 

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

From what you say you're Spannish so I hope I'm not offending you but as an outsider (more exactly a Romanian and we are very well connected with Spain, hell a million romanians work in Spain) we don't really consider the war that heroic, given that the main reason for the start of the fun was Napoleon trying to implement some much needed reforms, mainly his famous Napoleonic code, which ironically the entirety of Europe adopted sooner or latter. So we see it as a stupid, pointless war started by a power hungry clergy not wanting to lose it's privileges. I'm not saying that this is what truly happened, as honestly I don't really know that much about the subject as I'm more attracted by the eastern fronts of Napoleon's wars, but this is the general way in which the war is viewed from outside, or at least from here.

None taken dude, the war of independence was one of the dumbest wars ever fought and a war that only brought tragedy and sorrow to Spain, since you can clearly trace all of our plagues from that war, from Fernando VII and the Carlists wars to Franco and the civil war etc.

But it's an evidence that people will fight to the last man for their, perceived,freedom.