Jump to content

Aegon as a king


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

The differences between Aegon and Daenerys in the ruling department are glaring. He is the shiny lad, but all style and no substance.

Aegon is (likely) no Targaryen at all. He has no dragons, no money, and no army that wouldn't sell him to his enemies the moment things go south for him.

Aegon comes with a very small army, is completely dependent on Westerosi support (Stormlanders, Dornishmen, Reach lords, etc.) to even try to win the Iron Throne, much less hold it. He has to reward his followers but he has no money of his own and like Rhaenyra he will seize an empty treasury.

Even if he wins his first battles he will have to placate and reward his followers with stolen lands and castles and titles - very much like Euron did on the Shields. That is not going to make him popular.

To fill his coffers and finance additional campaigns he will have to raise the taxes, not lower them, and he won't have the resources or the money to feed his people. The richest lords in the Realm will either never bend the knee to him (the Lannisters) or at best offer him lukewarm support (the Tyrells). The Hightowers most likely won't even bother with the fraud. They know better.

Unlike the great Targaryen kings of old he cannot point to nonexisting dragons to try a 'speak softly and carry a big club' the way Jaehaerys I did it back in the day.

When he is betrayed, when people turn against him, defect, refuse to bend the knee, his only means to keep them in line with be actual cruelty, actual examples, not merely threats of violence.

And the end of that road is pretty obvious.

Vice versa, Daenerys has no need to reward her followers by granting them lands or lordships in Westeros - she will have all of Essos. And the riches and food and supplies Essos can offer. If she had the time she could likely buy the Iron Throne with free winter provisions from Volantis and the Orange Coast and the Flatlands rather than having to conquer her throne.

She has the dragons as symbols of power and her own name and parentage to prove who she is - Aegon will have neither, he will never have her natural authority when dealing with the 'I am a Targaryen' issue. Aegon will constantly be faced with the question whether he is the real deal. He was when he talked to the Golden Company, he will be with the Stormlords, Arianne, the Reach men, the Kingslanders, etc. This thing is never going to go away, no matter what he does.

His original success may make it seemingly go away, but as soon as Daenerys Targaryen - the real Targaryen - is going to ask the question, everybody else will be echoing her, even Aegon's own men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah you did. You replied to @SeanF who said "I think it would be out of character for Dany to deliberately target women and children". You even highlighted that part.

And again, you are discussing Daenerys as she is. I am discussing Daenerys as where she might go. Those are two different people, and I have already agreed that Daenerys - as she is - would never do such a thing. But that does not mean that it is impossible for her to do it in the future.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And it blows up your claim that Aegon is going win over Westerosi lords with bold speeches instead of using "force and fear". So far, he's done none of the former and all of the latter.

Similarly, your argument that Dany will raze Westeros because she can't handle rejection/gives into her mass murderer instincts/equates Westerosi to slavers (whatever that means) is unsupported by the text. Dany has always considered it foolish to assume the realm would rise for her, has only ever wanted to fire and blood her enemies (which is perfectly normal and matches the thoughts/action of just about every other character), and has never had trouble differentiating her own behavior towards allies and enemies. Your reasoning for this discrepancy is "but the hallucinations!", which would require the character to do a complete 180 and disregard all the development in the last 5 books.

Your rationale is based on flawed premises; the Aegon and Dany that exists in your mind does not match the characters that are in the books. And I think it's because you work backwards from a prediction/theory - Aegon will be the great and beloved King of Westeros, so Aegon has to have the superior force and the Dothraki and Unsullied have to be useless, and Dany has to rejected by Westeros, which means she has to turn into a loony idiot without social skills. I suspect this is why you can't give examples of diplomacy or engage in my hypotheticals. It should be pretty easy if you took into account the characters' personalities at all in your predictions.

He has won Golden Company with a speech. But - and I have already explained that - in order for people to be ready to listen to him, in Westeros, he needs to first establish himself as a credible candidate. And that can only be done by force. But that does not mean that he will continue with force. He cannot, simply because he does not have enough force without winning allies first. And if he can win allies, then he will only need to rely on force against some of the houses which refuse all possible overtures.

Daenerys on the other hand is developing in the opposite direction. Yes, as I have stated hundred times already, Daenerys as she is at the time she leaves Meereen would never rely solely or even primarily on force. But that is where here experiences and hallucinations come to. Daenerys is doomed to go down the dark path:

  • Daenerys' childhood has sucked, big way. If Martin is interested in writing halfway realistic characters, this means that she is psychologically and emotionally unstable from the outset. She may have handled it better than Viserys, but she still has the same weakness.
  • She had no home to call her own, and her primary caretaker developed into an abusive moron. She also believed for the whole time she was running from Robert's assassins - again, something likely to cause psychological and/or emotional instability down the line.
  • When she gained some friends, her primary "friend" was Jorah Mormont - creepy pedophile who worked to isolate her from anyone not Jorah Mormont. Which is to say, he isolated her from any actually positive influence.
  • As I have already pointed out, Daenerys has ingrown cruel streak. She is suppressing it for now, but how long will that last? "A dragon plants no trees".
  • She also has visions and dreams, not all of which are inherent to her - rather, some appear to be forced by Quaithe.
  • She avoids facing mistakes of her family - she cuts off Barristan whenever he starts telling her uncomfortable truths.
  • Mirri Maz Dur and Daenerys are basically the same. Yet Daenerys burns her for killing Drogo (and in first stage Mirri actually had helped Drogo - it was his own fault for taking the poultice off).
  • From the very beginning, she is willing to sacrifice others for the Iron Throne. Now she might have changed since then, but this is what she said in AGoT:
    • Quote

      Across the road, a girl no older than Dany was sobbing in a high thin voice as a rider
      shoved her over a pile of corpses, facedown, and thrust himself inside her. Other riders
      dismounted to take their turns. That was the sort of deliverance the Dothraki brought the Lamb
      Men.
      I am the blood of the dragon, Daenerys Targaryen reminded herself as she turned her face
      away. She pressed her lips together and hardened her heart and rode on toward the gate.
      “Most of Ogo’s riders fled,” Ser Jorah was saying. “Still, there may be as many as ten
      thousand captives.”
      Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on
      Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is
      what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

       

    •  

Unlike Aegon, Daenerys - with much larger army from the outset plus three dragons - will be able to rely on the force from get-go, or at least she can reasonably assume she can rely on force.

You are assuming Martin is writing static characters, which simply isn't so, and are also acting as if Aegon is one with dragons and potentially 100k army. But he isn't, he only has Golden Company, which rather limits how far he can rely on force alone. Even if Aegon and Daenerys both had equal psychological propensity for cruelty, or if Aegon was more cruel, Aegon would still be lot more limited in terms of practical application.

To sum it up:

  • Diplomacy
    • Aegon has to rely on diplomacy because he does not have organic support beyond Golden Company - his campaign in Westeros is dependant on acceptance by the Westerosi.
    • Daenerys has initial forces (freedmen, Dothraki etc.) who will not be dependant on support in Westeros. This automatically gives her far more freedom.
  • Personality
    • Aegon might crack and become a tyrant, but so far we have no such indications. Entitlement and inexperience yes, but not cruelty.
    • Daenerys has clearly shown rather dark tendencies throughout, though she has suppressed them. But as I have explained above, we cannot assume she will continue (being able) to do so.
  • Military
    • Aegon has actually useful army in Golden Company, and he can use that - if he wins some initial skirmishes - to win more support in Westeros.
    • Daenerys has army which can, in Westeros, only be successful through authorial fiat - unless she gains some forces in Westeros itself, or else from western Essos which actually fields Westerosi-model armies.

Your assumption that Daenery absolutely will not become a tyrant or go down a darker path ignores basically her whole character from the beginning. You are looking at surface and ignoring everything lying beneath.

Likewise, I never claimed that Aegon will be "beloved and great king of Westeros"; but fact is, if he is to have the throne at all by the time Daenerys arrives to Westeros - if he is to gain the throne to begin with - he has to show some minimum level of competence. Which automatically precludes him from becoming a tyrant, or even an incompetent idiot.

Dothraki and Unsullied cannot be anything but useless unless George gives them miles-thick plot armour. They are out of date and out of depth in Westeros. I wrote about Unsullied before and I will be doing one on Dothraki at some point.

Basically, Daenerys has plot armour, and her army itself will likely have plot armour; in a series renowned for "realism"* and "you reap what you sow", those are some big disadvantages.

*though it is actually much less realistic than generally assumed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon is (likely) no Targaryen at all. He has no dragons, no money, and no army that wouldn't sell him to his enemies the moment things go south for him.

Aegon comes with a very small army, is completely dependent on Westerosi support (Stormlanders, Dornishmen, Reach lords, etc.) to even try to win the Iron Throne, much less hold it. He has to reward his followers but he has no money of his own and like Rhaenyra he will seize an empty treasury.

To me those are actually advantages:

  • no dragons => he has to rely on diplomacy in Westeros
  • no money => same as above
  • completely dependant on Westerosi support => has to rely on diplomacy and cannot become authoritharian/tyrant
7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if he wins his first battles he will have to placate and reward his followers with stolen lands and castles and titles - very much like Euron did on the Shields. That is not going to make him popular.

To fill his coffers and finance additional campaigns he will have to raise the taxes, not lower them, and he won't have the resources or the money to feed his people. The richest lords in the Realm will either never bend the knee to him (the Lannisters) or at best offer him lukewarm support (the Tyrells). The Hightowers most likely won't even bother with the fraud. They know better.

And Daenerys will be coming with 100k+ Dothraki, freedmen etc. Where will she find lands for them? And if she doesn't, she will have to rely on Westerosi support. Either way she will be either no different from Aegon, or worse than him.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa, Daenerys has no need to reward her followers by granting them lands or lordships in Westeros - she will have all of Essos. And the riches and food and supplies Essos can offer. If she had the time she could likely buy the Iron Throne with free winter provisions from Volantis and the Orange Coast and the Flatlands rather than having to conquer her throne.

 

Where will she gain "all of Essos"? She should have had three cities in Slaver's Bay by now - she has only one. Fact is, she sucks at making her conquests permanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

To me those are actually advantages:

  • no dragons => he has to rely on diplomacy in Westeros
  • no money => same as above
  • completely dependant on Westerosi support => has to rely on diplomacy and cannot become authoritharian/tyrant

And Daenerys will be coming with 100k+ Dothraki, freedmen etc. Where will she find lands for them? And if she doesn't, she will have to rely on Westerosi support. Either way she will be either no different from Aegon, or worse than him.

Where will she gain "all of Essos"? She should have had three cities in Slaver's Bay by now - she has only one. Fact is, she sucks at making her conquests permanent.

I think fAegon's biggest problem is that his chief commander, Jon Connington, is mad for revenge.  So are some of his likely allies, the Sand Snakes.  If they do murder Tommen and/or Myrcella, in order to extinguish the Baratheons and Lannisters, that will likely damage the popularity of the regime.

I expect that the Slavers will get kerb-stomped in TWOW, and Volantis will rebel.  That will mean a huge shift in the balance of power in Essos in favour of Daenerys.  I imagine she'll get hold of a load of the treasure of the Masters, and the rulers of the free cities - and indeed, would expect that to be part of her bargain with the Dothraki - Give up slaving, in return for vast plunder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

And again, you are discussing Daenerys as she is. I am discussing Daenerys as where she might go. Those are two different people, and I have already agreed that Daenerys - as she is - would never do such a thing. But that does not mean that it is impossible for her to do it in the future.

Yeah, that's my whole problem with your argument. You're claiming Daenerys turns into a completely different person in TWOW. Dany's unstable childhood, dragon dreams, and being surrounded by skeevy people has existed this whole time, and it didn't make her kill people indiscriminately. But the hallucinations change everything? That's not character development. Some other things I've already address out upthread, but you continue to argue with:

  • She's never had an "ingrown cruel streak" towards anyone who didn't hurt her (like MMD) or were her enemies, and her behavior toward those groups has been on par with the characters in this series.
  • She cut off Barristan telling her about Aerys ONCE and then revisits the conversation later.
  • "Dragons plant no trees" is a reply to her excuses - "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl". You can see, in context, it means dragons don't take a nap in the middle of a war.

Again, the Dany in your head is completely different to the one in the books.

As for this "diplomacy" argument, you seem to be using the term to mean alliance forging, in which case you've missed the point of LV's post. Yes, Aegon will be more dependent on local lords than Dany, but how is he going to attract them AND keep them loyal when he's got no lands to give? This is why I kept probing you about "diplomacy" and "concessions" and what you mean by them - unless you are imagining something different, it all just amounts to handing out resources, which Aegon is short on. The idea that he's going to win over Westeros with rousing speeches is laughable because it relies on everyone being a dumb dumb, just like you rely on Dany being a dumb-dumb and refuse offers of alliances for some reason. The only reason it works on the CG is because they're already his men (though Harry Strickland was notably reluctant ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I think fAegon's biggest problem is that his chief commander, Jon Connington, is mad for revenge.  So are some of his likely allies, the Sand Snakes.  If they do murder Tommen and/or Myrcella, in order to extinguish the Baratheons and Lannisters, that will likely damage the popularity of the regime.

I expect that the Slavers will get kerb-stomped in TWOW, and Volantis will rebel.  That will mean a huge shift in the balance of power in Essos in favour of Daenerys.  I imagine she'll get hold of a load of the treasure of the Masters, and the rulers of the free cities - and indeed, would expect that to be part of her bargain with the Dothraki - Give up slaving, in return for vast plunder. 

JonCon has already held his nephews and nieces hostage, which isn't a good look. If anyone's going crazy and rampaging, it's him. This will be Aegon's biggest problem - not JonCon per se, but being pulled in different directions by everyone wanting him to be their puppet king. Dany can mitigate this affect with her legitimacy, her dragons, and her loyal followers. Aegon has Duck and Lemore.

Your theory about the Dothraki is interesting. I love the idea of changing Dothraki customs through materialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

JonCon has already held his nephews and nieces hostage, which isn't a good look. If anyone's going crazy and rampaging, it's him. This will be Aegon's biggest problem - not JonCon per se, but being pulled in different directions by everyone wanting him to be their puppet king. Dany can mitigate this affect with her legitimacy, her dragons, and her loyal followers. Aegon has Duck and Lemore.

Your theory about the Dothraki is interesting. I love the idea of changing Dothraki customs through materialism.

I imagine that the profits from the slave trade have accrued far more to the various elites in Slavers Bay, Volantis, the Free Cities, New Ghis, Qarth etc. than they have to the Dothraki.  Dany could point out that hitherto they've got peanuts, comparatively speaking.  She can promise them the world, instead, if they unite.

I do expect that to be a very big difference to the show.  The Dothraki may well be impressed by her passing some form of trial by ordeal, but I'm sure she'll still have to bargain with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

To me those are actually advantages:

  • no dragons => he has to rely on diplomacy in Westeros
  • no money => same as above
  • completely dependant on Westerosi support => has to rely on diplomacy and cannot become authoritharian/tyrant

You don't seem to be understanding politics. Diplomacy only works if you can convince the other side that you actually have a valid point - which Aegon won't with his sworn enemies (which we can expect the Lannisters, Euron, Stannis, and other people he might hurt in his ascent will be). They are going to want to destroy him because of what he did or because they want the same thing.

I'm sure Aegon is going to try to end the war once he has the throne - but Euron and the Lannisters and others won't play that game. Fighting will continue and the only thing he has to make them understand he means business is violence.

And considering his shaky basis he has to also use violence on traitors in his own midst - or people who defect to the enemy, resist him on important issues, etc.

Diplomacy is a game the powerful can play - the ones who can afford to also fight and win a war to get what they want but prefer, for the benefit of the weaker party, to make a deal. It is not something for people who only think they are strong ... especially in a conflict with people who really don't want them in their country or on their throne.

Quote

And Daenerys will be coming with 100k+ Dothraki, freedmen etc. Where will she find lands for them? And if she doesn't, she will have to rely on Westerosi support. Either way she will be either no different from Aegon, or worse than him.

Again, in Essos. The Dothraki will take all the lands between the Rhoyne and the Narrow Sea. Dany's people will accompany her not to conquer or relocate to Westeros, but to put her on the Iron Throne. They are not exiles wanting their homes back, like the Golden Company. They should be happy with vast estates in the Flatlands, on the Stepstones, in the Volantene lands, where the Norvoshi, Qohorik, Myrmen once ruled, etc.

Assuming they crave any rewards at all and are not just very happy to fight and die in her names - as the Volantene tiger soldiers most likely will be who, according to ADwD, are devoted followers of R'hllor whose priests teaches that they are going to get rewards in the afterlife/next life if they fight and die in service of the reborn Azor Ahai.

Quote

Where will she gain "all of Essos"? She should have had three cities in Slaver's Bay by now - she has only one. Fact is, she sucks at making her conquests permanent.

With the Dothraki, who can and will crush all the Free Cities on the mainland. Volantis will free itself, for course, and establishing a government of former slaves will invite all the freedmen and other anti-slavery people to live and rebuild the place there, after the Old Blood and their allies have been put down.

I'd imagine that Slaver's Bay is going to be completely destroyed since it is just pointless to continue to live there since the only real trade there was the slave trade. The surviving freedmen/reformed Ghiscari will either remain with Dany or settle in Volantis - a place that is right now too large for its declining population, meaning the city could actually profit from immigrants, especially once the slaves have killed most/all of the slaver population (which is just a sixth of the entire population, so not that many people).

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think fAegon's biggest problem is that his chief commander, Jon Connington, is mad for revenge.  So are some of his likely allies, the Sand Snakes.  If they do murder Tommen and/or Myrcella, in order to extinguish the Baratheons and Lannisters, that will likely damage the popularity of the regime.

It is not just that, but many other things like that - Connington the stone man will be revealed, in combination with a plague this will make Aegon into the worst pretender ever, there will be his inability to deal with the Ironborn (Euron could be the same thorn in Aegon's side Aemond in the Riverlands was for Rhaenyra), etc.

But, yes, if Tommen/Myrcella are dealt with the way Tywin dealt with Aegon/Rhaenys/Elia then this is not going to be seen as a positive development - it will be poetic injustice, so to speak.

Quote

I expect that the Slavers will get kerb-stomped in TWOW, and Volantis will rebel.  That will mean a huge shift in the balance of power in Essos in favour of Daenerys.  I imagine she'll get hold of a load of the treasure of the Masters, and the rulers of the free cities - and indeed, would expect that to be part of her bargain with the Dothraki - Give up slaving, in return for vast plunder. 

The wealth of Yunkai'i alone is massive. They are among the richest people in the world. And she will, in the end, also have all the Meereenese riches. If she were to take Qarth, too, she would be fabulously rich, but in combination with Volantene wealth, and the riches of Myr, Tyrosh, Lys, Qohor, Norvos, and Pentos she will have assets the rest of the world can only dream about ... especially insofar as food and provisions are concerned. Taking over those cities will also mean she is going to control their hinterlands and the land where their farmers live.

Unlike the Meereenese, the Free Cities are not likely going to know what hits them - at least not all of them. The Pentoshi especially cannot burn down all the Flatlands - they don't even have the men to command such a thing.

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, that's my whole problem with your argument. You're claiming Daenerys turns into a completely different person in TWOW. Dany's unstable childhood, dragon dreams, and being surrounded by skeevy people has existed this whole time, and it didn't make her kill people indiscriminately. But the hallucinations change everything? That's not character development. Some other things I've already address out upthread, but you continue to argue with:

  • She's never had an "ingrown cruel streak" towards anyone who didn't hurt her (like MMD) or were her enemies, and her behavior toward those groups has been on par with the characters in this series.
  • She cut off Barristan telling her about Aerys ONCE and then revisits the conversation later.
  • "Dragons plant no trees" is a reply to her excuses - "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl". You can see, in context, it means dragons don't take a nap in the middle of a war.

As a general statement it also doesn't make any sense. The Targaryens did plant trees in Westeros after they had conquered the continent.

She did half of a conquest and then changed policies deciding that she would rather be a queen than a bloody conqueror after she had taken Meereen because she realized how things had went wrong in Astapor and Yunkai.

To interpret this as her wanting to destroy things now is ridiculous. Especially in relation to Westeros.

Quote

As for this "diplomacy" argument, you seem to be using the term to mean alliance forging, in which case you've missed the point of LV's post. Yes, Aegon will be more dependent on local lords than Dany, but how is he going to attract them AND keep them loyal when he's got no lands to give? This is why I kept probing you about "diplomacy" and "concessions" and what you mean by them - unless you are imagining something different, it all just amounts to handing out resources, which Aegon is short on. The idea that he's going to win over Westeros with rousing speeches is laughable because it relies on everyone being a dumb dumb, just like you rely on Dany being a dumb-dumb and refuse offers of alliances for some reason. The only reason it works on the CG is because they're already his men (though Harry Strickland was notably reluctant ).

This will already be an issue with the Crownlands where certain castles are about to be redistributed - Rosby, possibly Stokeworth (Bronn is just a usurper, basically), Hayford, etc., then we have Storm's End in the Stormlands, possibly some Narrow Sea castles.

I mean, we don't even know yet whether the Tarth, Estermonts, etc. will be allowed to keep their seats or whether Aegon is going to hand them over to the officers of the Golden Company - either by attainting them, or by marrying them to the women of the families.

Strickland is going to turn against Aegon as soon as the man starts to make real mistakes - starting foolish campaigns, making weird decisions that must backfire, antagonizing people that could have been assets. He may also, for instance, fiercely oppose the idea of Aegon marrying Arianne, for instance.

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I imagine that the profits from the slave trade have accrued far more to the various elites in Slavers Bay, Volantis, the Free Cities, New Ghis, Qarth etc. than they have to the Dothraki.  Dany could point out that hitherto they've got peanuts, comparatively speaking.  She can promise them the world, instead, if they unite.

It is going to be a religious thing, sort of like the Kwisatz Haderach had to do certain things for the Fremen, the Dothraki will expect Daenerys to give them what, according to their own lore, the Stallion Who Mounts the World will give the Dothraki as a people.

This is not going to be up for debate or anything.

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I do expect that to be a very big difference to the show.  The Dothraki may well be impressed by her passing some form of trial by ordeal, but I'm sure she'll still have to bargain with them.

And the concessions she might have to make to their leaders might even be higher if she demands - which she is most definitely going to do - that slavery is over now. This will come with a price tag attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

And the concessions she might have to make to their leaders might even be higher if she demands - which she is most definitely going to do - that slavery is over now. This will come with a price tag attached.

Slavers Bay can support a Mediterranean-type agriculture.  It has copper and salt.  Even without the slave trade, there will be some kind of economy there. And the profits from slave-trading would never have gone to more than a very small percentage of the population. So, I'd expect to see it still support a substantial population. 

I think that, to a large extent, the Dothraki will supplant the ruling classes of Volantis and the Free Cities.  You could have a similar situation to Western Europe, during the last years, and after, the Roman Empire, where a fixed portion of revenues from estates went to barbarian soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Slavers Bay can support a Mediterranean-type agriculture.  It has copper and salt.  Even without the slave trade, there will be some kind of economy there. And the profits from slave-trading would never have gone to more than a very small percentage of the population. So, I'd expect to see it still support a substantial population. 

I think that, to a large extent, the Dothraki will supplant the ruling classes of Volantis and the Free Cities.  You could have a similar situation to Western Europe, during the last years, and after, the Roman Empire, where a fixed portion of revenues from estates went to barbarian soldiers.

As I wrote above, I really think they are going to torch the place. Destroy all the cities and relocate the survivors and freedmen to other places, especially Volantis - which is a declining city with a lot of empty estates and houses, even more so after the slavers are all dead.

Remaining in Slaver's Bay would also risk that slavery would eventually return, whereas living this accursed place for good certainly would allow for a fresh start, especially the reformed Ghiscari and the freedmen.

Whether Dothraki are going to want to settle in cities we have to wait see. I think Volantis will have a revolution before the Dothraki can arrive there, but they certainly could take possession of the lands of the Qohorik, Norvoshi, Pentoshi, Myrmen, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Strickland is going to turn against Aegon as soon as the man starts to make real mistakes - starting foolish campaigns, making weird decisions that must backfire, antagonizing people that could have been assets. He may also, for instance, fiercely oppose the idea of Aegon marrying Arianne, for instance.

I can very much see this happening. The question is what is risk averse Strickland going to do about it? If he breaks the contract with Aegon, will all his men obey?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that Aegon will take King's Landing and be the reason that Daenerys starts cracking but I don't necessarily think that he will ride a dragon (he might but he also might not). As long as he holds the Iron Throne and he is a Targaryen (even if it's a lie) Dany still has to use her dragons to damage her own seat and userp the Throne from another Targaryen.

If he gets a Dragon I believe that he will make it through an alliance with Euron Greyjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I can very much see this happening. The question is what is risk averse Strickland going to do about it? If he breaks the contract with Aegon, will all his men obey?

 

Enough will.  One of the constants so far is the black sheep in every team.  There is always that one person on each team who is conflicted.  GC is liable to have a lot of black sheeps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think fAegon's biggest problem is that his chief commander, Jon Connington, is mad for revenge.  So are some of his likely allies, the Sand Snakes.  If they do murder Tommen and/or Myrcella, in order to extinguish the Baratheons and Lannisters, that will likely damage the popularity of the regime.

I expect that the Slavers will get kerb-stomped in TWOW, and Volantis will rebel.  That will mean a huge shift in the balance of power in Essos in favour of Daenerys.  I imagine she'll get hold of a load of the treasure of the Masters, and the rulers of the free cities - and indeed, would expect that to be part of her bargain with the Dothraki - Give up slaving, in return for vast plunder. 

Agreed.

17 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Yeah, that's my whole problem with your argument. You're claiming Daenerys turns into a completely different person in TWOW. Dany's unstable childhood, dragon dreams, and being surrounded by skeevy people has existed this whole time, and it didn't make her kill people indiscriminately. But the hallucinations change everything? That's not character development. Some other things I've already address out upthread, but you continue to argue with:

  • She's never had an "ingrown cruel streak" towards anyone who didn't hurt her (like MMD) or were her enemies, and her behavior toward those groups has been on par with the characters in this series.
  • She cut off Barristan telling her about Aerys ONCE and then revisits the conversation later.
  • "Dragons plant no trees" is a reply to her excuses - "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl". You can see, in context, it means dragons don't take a nap in the middle of a war.

Again, the Dany in your head is completely different to the one in the books.

As for this "diplomacy" argument, you seem to be using the term to mean alliance forging, in which case you've missed the point of LV's post. Yes, Aegon will be more dependent on local lords than Dany, but how is he going to attract them AND keep them loyal when he's got no lands to give? This is why I kept probing you about "diplomacy" and "concessions" and what you mean by them - unless you are imagining something different, it all just amounts to handing out resources, which Aegon is short on. The idea that he's going to win over Westeros with rousing speeches is laughable because it relies on everyone being a dumb dumb, just like you rely on Dany being a dumb-dumb and refuse offers of alliances for some reason. The only reason it works on the CG is because they're already his men (though Harry Strickland was notably reluctant ).

People can turn into "whole different person", given right circumstances. As I have already explained, George Martin has provided foundation for such an about-face in Daenerys' history and personality. The only thing really necessary for Daenerys to become a tyrant is for her to make a different choice: there is nothing in her personality or psyche which makes her inherently incapable of / resistant to following either path (peace or bloodbath).

"Dragons plant no trees" is no reply to excuses, and even if it were, meaning remains unchanged: dragons burn, they don't build.

Daenerys is battling against violent instincts on pretty much daily basis, at least since she started to rule. Again, you are discussing Daenerys as she has been so far and completely ignoring any potential she has for different development - which is massive.

Diplomacy means lot more than resources. Westeros so far appears to be significantly moneyed society - which means that land is not the only source of influence. Even without land, person in possession of the Iron Throne should be able to dole out various favours. Fact is that IT has significant tax income (even beyond various details provided, we see that IT maintains significant naval force, which is a huge financial burden). But such setup means highly complex and advanced system of governance: and this in turn means a large number of positions which can be filled. That is in large part how Byzantine Empire maintained cohesion: yes, there were rebellions. But all resources were in the hands of the central government . Westeros is a feudal society, but the manner in which it functions as well as the fact that it has maintained cohesion this far means that it is actually a feudal society with significant modern elements: more similar to Matthias Corvinus' Hungary or to England than to "proper" feudal societies such as France (where kings typically only truly ruled Ille-de-France). This in turn means that king has a lot of levers available, even though we are not exactly given details.

And there is one thing we have not discussed before: Martin's tendency to repeat history. It is generally agreed that Aegon will take the throne and Daenerys will take it from him. That situation to me appears to parallel the situation between Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Uncrowned. Latter BTW was 16 or 17 when he died, and Tyrion estimated Young Griff to be 16. Of course, that doesn't mean that Daenerys will necessarily turn into Maegor, but it is something Martin would do: original events where cruel pretender takes the throne from rightful king, to be repeated by a situation where cruel rightful queen takes the throne from the pretender.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't seem to be understanding politics. Diplomacy only works if you can convince the other side that you actually have a valid point - which Aegon won't with his sworn enemies (which we can expect the Lannisters, Euron, Stannis, and other people he might hurt in his ascent will be). They are going to want to destroy him because of what he did or because they want the same thing.

I'm sure Aegon is going to try to end the war once he has the throne - but Euron and the Lannisters and others won't play that game. Fighting will continue and the only thing he has to make them understand he means business is violence.

And considering his shaky basis he has to also use violence on traitors in his own midst - or people who defect to the enemy, resist him on important issues, etc.

Diplomacy is a game the powerful can play - the ones who can afford to also fight and win a war to get what they want but prefer, for the benefit of the weaker party, to make a deal. It is not something for people who only think they are strong ... especially in a conflict with people who really don't want them in their country or on their throne.

I never said that he will convince Euron, Stannis or Cersei. Nobody would be able to in such a situation. But none of those are in command of monolithic power blocks you seem to imagine. Power of great lords stems from their vassals, and none of those will have many vassals on mainland by the time Aegon has established himself. Even Euron is not exactly safe on the throne: all of them will have the exact same problems you seem to ascribe to Aegon only.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, in Essos. The Dothraki will take all the lands between the Rhoyne and the Narrow Sea. Dany's people will accompany her not to conquer or relocate to Westeros, but to put her on the Iron Throne. They are not exiles wanting their homes back, like the Golden Company. They should be happy with vast estates in the Flatlands, on the Stepstones, in the Volantene lands, where the Norvoshi, Qohorik, Myrmen once ruled, etc.

Assuming they crave any rewards at all and are not just very happy to fight and die in her names - as the Volantene tiger soldiers most likely will be who, according to ADwD, are devoted followers of R'hllor whose priests teaches that they are going to get rewards in the afterlife/next life if they fight and die in service of the reborn Azor Ahai.

If Dothraki are given lands in Essos, that means that only a small portion of their force will be able to accompany Daenerys - if they choose to accompany her at all.

I agree about Volantenes.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

With the Dothraki, who can and will crush all the Free Cities on the mainland. Volantis will free itself, for course, and establishing a government of former slaves will invite all the freedmen and other anti-slavery people to live and rebuild the place there, after the Old Blood and their allies have been put down.

I'd imagine that Slaver's Bay is going to be completely destroyed since it is just pointless to continue to live there since the only real trade there was the slave trade. The surviving freedmen/reformed Ghiscari will either remain with Dany or settle in Volantis - a place that is right now too large for its declining population, meaning the city could actually profit from immigrants, especially once the slaves have killed most/all of the slaver population (which is just a sixth of the entire population, so not that many people).

Even assuming that Dothraki will be able to do so (I do wonder how Martin will pull it off, considering that Dothraki so far are are less Mongols and more Comanches - and even Mongols might not have been able to pull off such a feat), that still a) does not mean "all of Essos" and b) does nothing about the fact that she will be able to utilize only a portion of that force in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

People can turn into "whole different person", given right circumstances. As I have already explained, George Martin has provided foundation for such an about-face in Daenerys' history and personality. The only thing really necessary for Daenerys to become a tyrant is for her to make a different choice: there is nothing in her personality or psyche which makes her inherently incapable of / resistant to following either path (peace or bloodbath).

"Dragons plant no trees" is no reply to excuses, and even if it were, meaning remains unchanged: dragons burn, they don't build.

Daenerys is battling against violent instincts on pretty much daily basis, at least since she started to rule. Again, you are discussing Daenerys as she has been so far and completely ignoring any potential she has for different development - which is massive.

Every piece of evidence you've submitted towards Dany becoming a whole other person in ADWD has been repudiated by myself and others in this thread. You can't just keep making the same claim like we're all on the same page with your interpretations and assumptions.

Repeating your interpretation of "dragons plant no trees" doesn't make it true, and I've pointed to the context of the quote which proves it to be untrue. Likewise, repeatedly claiming Dany has been fighting some instinct to indiscriminately kill and destroy isn't convincing me, when the character has been the complete opposite for the whole series. In fact, her exhaustion with war and death was the very reason she decided to stay in Meereen.

Dany acquiring an entirely different personality in TWOW is neither realistic or consistent with the rest of George's writing.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Diplomacy means lot more than resources. Westeros so far appears to be significantly moneyed society - which means that land is not the only source of influence. Even without land, person in possession of the Iron Throne should be able to dole out various favours. Fact is that IT has significant tax income (even beyond various details provided, we see that IT maintains significant naval force, which is a huge financial burden). But such setup means highly complex and advanced system of governance: and this in turn means a large number of positions which can be filled. That is in large part how Byzantine Empire maintained cohesion: yes, there were rebellions. But all resources were in the hands of the central government . Westeros is a feudal society, but the manner in which it functions as well as the fact that it has maintained cohesion this far means that it is actually a feudal society with significant modern elements: more similar to Matthias Corvinus' Hungary or to England than to "proper" feudal societies such as France (where kings typically only truly ruled Ille-de-France). This in turn means that king has a lot of levers available, even though we are not exactly given details.

As has been noted, the crown's coffers are empty. In fact, they're massively in debt.

We've seen what positions can be promised through Cersei and Tyrion's chapters: there are the highly coveted small council seats; the gold cloaks; the Kingsguard. The latter two are maybes in terms of attracting Houses, and some of these positions will be taken up JonCon and certain members of the CG. That's not all that many, and more importantly, every other person fighting for the throne is offering the exact same positions.

I'd like to hear what diplomacy entails during a conquest, other than enticing lords with resources, which is what the above is.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And there is one thing we have not discussed before: Martin's tendency to repeat history. It is generally agreed that Aegon will take the throne and Daenerys will take it from him. That situation to me appears to parallel the situation between Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Uncrowned. Latter BTW was 16 or 17 when he died, and Tyrion estimated Young Griff to be 16. Of course, that doesn't mean that Daenerys will necessarily turn into Maegor, but it is something Martin would do: original events where cruel pretender takes the throne from rightful king, to be repeated by a situation where cruel rightful queen takes the throne from the pretender.

Aegon the Uncrowned is called that because he was never sat the IT, and Dany isn't an anti-social 30 yr old man. You're doing some heavy cherry picking. Far clearer fAegon analogues are Robb Stark and Daeron I, handsome and naive young kings with "Young..." epithets, who gained infamy with their victories on the battlefield but blazed out quick. fAegon and Daeron even have the same line - "You have a dragon. He stands before you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed.

People can turn into "whole different person", given right circumstances. As I have already explained, George Martin has provided foundation for such an about-face in Daenerys' history and personality. The only thing really necessary for Daenerys to become a tyrant is for her to make a different choice: there is nothing in her personality or psyche which makes her inherently incapable of / resistant to following either path (peace or bloodbath).

It is just not her story to become a tyrant, it is Aegon's. Daenerys may not even arrive in Westeros at a time when it is particularly attractive to conquer a snowy shithole of a country about to be ravaged by ice demons and their undead armies.

This idea that her story is about revenge and conquest and all that crap is ludicrous since the moment Aegon Targaryen decided to do that without the dragons and without her.

We won't get exactly the same motivations for two Targaryen pretenders. That would be boring.

And to be sure - Daenerys might not plant any trees in Westeros when she gets there. Because her destiny might be to burn Westeros and herself to defeat the Others.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

"Dragons plant no trees" is no reply to excuses, and even if it were, meaning remains unchanged: dragons burn, they don't build.

In context this means you cannot create a peace against the will of the people involved. If they want to fight you have to fight, too. That is not difficult to understand.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Daenerys is battling against violent instincts on pretty much daily basis, at least since she started to rule. Again, you are discussing Daenerys as she has been so far and completely ignoring any potential she has for different development - which is massive.

That is just nonsense. Daenerys has no 'violent instincts' - if you want to claim that, do cite scenes where she actually has sadistic or violent fantasies that she wants to act out but restrains herself. Where are those scenes? Even things like that Red Wedding idea is something Daario has to suggest to her - it isn't something she comes up with. She doesn't dream about burning Yunkai'i alive, or gets aroused at the thought that her dragons devour children, nor does she herself look forward to the moment that she watch her highborn children hostages being killed.

Dany needs to see massive violence and cruelty done to people she considers her friends or innocents to pay those people back in kind - this is what triggered her anger when Drogo attacked the Dothraki/Lhazareen back in AGoT, her anger over Mirri Maz Duur's betrayal (which was disgusting), her anger over the way the Good Masters treated the Unsullied and their other slaves, and her anger over the crucifixion of many children.

And none of that is particularly over the top or unusual.

Aegon II - who isn't regularly numbered among the particularly cruel or mad or tyrannical Targaryen kings - burned more people alive than Daenerys crucified - and those followers of the Shepherd actually did him some good, considering they drove Rhaenyra out of the city.

So far Daenerys Targaryen is a weak-willed wimp - she has to get somewhat harder to prevail. The Meereenese nearly ate her alive.

Aegon on the other hand is all style and no substance. He failed when the stone man jumped on the ship. He is led around by the nose by Tyrion. And he deludes himself into believing he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons. The more success he has - which he will not owe to his own nonexisting genius but merely the circumstances and the plotting and efforts of the people who invested so much in him - the more reckless he will become, and the more self-involved and arrogant he becomes the less will he be able to deal with setbacks and defeats.

It is not just the military issue, he will have to deal with a great plague, the rumors or revelations about his true parentage, the empty treasury, enemies using sorcery against him (Euron, Stannis, and Cersei), the plots of ambitious women, hunger and starvation and the mundane effects of winter even before the Others are a thing.

The boy can only crack. Anybody would under this pressure, but especially a character who is just a plot device to show that the hidden prince created to be the perfect king can only disappoint the expectations of the people who created him.

Aegon is basically George's big 'Fuck your approach!' to Varys. Aegon's failure is going to be Varys' great tragedy.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Diplomacy means lot more than resources. Westeros so far appears to be significantly moneyed society - which means that land is not the only source of influence. Even without land, person in possession of the Iron Throne should be able to dole out various favours. Fact is that IT has significant tax income (even beyond various details provided, we see that IT maintains significant naval force, which is a huge financial burden). But such setup means highly complex and advanced system of governance: and this in turn means a large number of positions which can be filled. That is in large part how Byzantine Empire maintained cohesion: yes, there were rebellions. But all resources were in the hands of the central government . Westeros is a feudal society, but the manner in which it functions as well as the fact that it has maintained cohesion this far means that it is actually a feudal society with significant modern elements: more similar to Matthias Corvinus' Hungary or to England than to "proper" feudal societies such as France (where kings typically only truly ruled Ille-de-France). This in turn means that king has a lot of levers available, even though we are not exactly given details.

Nothing of that changes the fact that the Crown is bankrupt, as Ser Kevan again makes clear at the end of ADwD.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And there is one thing we have not discussed before: Martin's tendency to repeat history. It is generally agreed that Aegon will take the throne and Daenerys will take it from him. That situation to me appears to parallel the situation between Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Uncrowned. Latter BTW was 16 or 17 when he died, and Tyrion estimated Young Griff to be 16. Of course, that doesn't mean that Daenerys will necessarily turn into Maegor, but it is something Martin would do: original events where cruel pretender takes the throne from rightful king, to be repeated by a situation where cruel rightful queen takes the throne from the pretender.

Dany has literally nothing in common with Maegor.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I never said that he will convince Euron, Stannis or Cersei. Nobody would be able to in such a situation. But none of those are in command of monolithic power blocks you seem to imagine. Power of great lords stems from their vassals, and none of those will have many vassals on mainland by the time Aegon has established himself. Even Euron is not exactly safe on the throne: all of them will have the exact same problems you seem to ascribe to Aegon only.

I never said they were in control of monolithic power blocs, I said that to get rid of them Aegon will be forced to fight. Diplomacy won't work there. And he won't be able to threaten Euron much less defeat him considering he has no ships. Vice versa, Euron is a great and accomplished diplomat as we learn in AFfC. He knows how to convince people of his point of view, he can charm them, bribe them, etc.

If there is a king who is going to win support in Westeros through diplomacy it will be Euron - because people will also know that he will destroy/severely hurt them if he were to reject his overtures.

Aegon will never have the same kind of gravitas. He cannot offer the Reach lords threatened by the Ironborn to magic them out of their waters, he cannot threat the Vale or the West into acknowledging him as their king because he doesn't have the strength or means to attack them, and he can also not magically pacify the North or the Riverlands.

You really should look at the books - the point of the entire Ironborn plot giving them the strength to attack and raid the entire southern coast as well as the Mander up to Highgarden is to make it believable that half the Reach or more actually ends up joining Euron for the time being or at least remain occupied with defending their own lands so they cannot team up with Aegon or any of the other anti-Euron pretenders in the near future.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

If Dothraki are given lands in Essos, that means that only a small portion of their force will be able to accompany Daenerys - if they choose to accompany her at all.

That doesn't follow at all. The Dothraki could all come with Dany but not expect her to give her lands in Westeros because they already have lands in Essos. I can have vast estates somewhere and still help my god-empress to conquer another throne, no?

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I agree about Volantenes.

It isn't just the Volantenes, but they specifically - Dany's freedmen and Unsullied and even Daario don't have any problems dying in her service. Neither does Jorah Mormont, for that matter.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Even assuming that Dothraki will be able to do so (I do wonder how Martin will pull it off, considering that Dothraki so far are are less Mongols and more Comanches - and even Mongols might not have been able to pull off such a feat), that still a) does not mean "all of Essos" and b) does nothing about the fact that she will be able to utilize only a portion of that force in Westeros.

It means all of Essos which we saw, i.e. the lands from the Bones to the Narrow Sea, and the Shivering Sea to the Summer Sea.

They are going to take that all because that is what the prophecy of the Stallion Who Mounts the World says.

It might even be a fight to persuade the Dothraki that it means that since we do know they actually dream about crossing the Bones to conquer the fortress-cities and the Jogos Nhai and the YiTish. If Dany is their prophesied ruler then she actually should deliver at that front, too. It is not going to be easy to convince them they should limit themselves to all the Free Cities, Ghiscari cities, and Qartheen cities.

But they will demand that all - else there would be no reason why they should accept a foreign woman as their prophesied ruler. Those people are not stupid. Drogon is easily killed, and Daenerys herself even more easily.

22 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I can very much see this happening. The question is what is risk averse Strickland going to do about it? If he breaks the contract with Aegon, will all his men obey?

I don't think this will already lead to an open split, but a struggle between the Dany+Aegon faction at his court and the Only Aegon/Aegon+Arianne faction. Connington should also be in the Dany+Aegon camp. He rejected the Aegon-Arianne match in ADwD as well as the idea that he himself could marry Arianne. He is not going to change his view on that until he starts to believe Daenerys is dead - which can only happen when the news of her disappearance travels west.

And neither the Stormlanders in Aegon's camp nor the Reach allies are going to like the idea of a Dornish queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 3:04 AM, Aldarion said:

You are assuming Martin is writing static characters, which simply isn't so, and are also acting as if Aegon is one with dragons and potentially 100k army. But he isn't, he only has Golden Company, which rather limits how far he can rely on force alone. Even if Aegon and Daenerys both had equal psychological propensity for cruelty, or if Aegon was more cruel, Aegon would still be lot more limited in terms of practical application.

The fact that you have to point out this basic fact is sad. While this is a story about various shades of power, only one person is at the top of that hierarchy. Dany has a kind of absolute power that no one else has; that will have consequences to her morality, otherwise the story might as well be a fairy tale. The situation Dany is in even defies her predecessors. No one person within the house had a monopoly on dragons and they could check each other. Now Westeros can only hope for 1) a hidden dragon rider who can stop her; 2) a once-in-a-lifetime spear shot to connect or 3) a situation like the peasant revolt (which was only possible at huge cost because they were chained and a Targaryen wasn't around to take control of them to kill the peasants).

I think folks confuse Dany's power with just your average monarch's. Her fans hold her up as this goddess who was the only one to birth dragons; but don't want her to face any negative consequences for this great power (i.e. corruption). They make false equivalencies to Dany and Robb and simultaneously get power fantasy boners thinking about her destroying cities.

Joffrey had absolute power of the realistic, non-magical kind. Joffrey didn't even have to work for it; he had everything handed to him. And Aegon is trying to work for it, in the traditional way. Joffrey shows us how age should be a concern. GRRM asked "Do you know many 13-year-old kids you’d like to give absolute power to?" He was talking about Joffrey but if I recall, Dany is the same age. So it's even worse because she is young, has absolute power, and a 1000 megaton superweapon. 

There is also the classical speculative fiction canon to consider. The author can't write against that too much because we'd end up with some pretty stupid stuff like, "Anakin Skywalker is the only one who has the Force but he uses it for good and only ever kills full grown stormtroopers and dark jedis" or "Galadriel has the One Ring and only uses it to kill orcs; she acts heroically despite wielding enormous power to kill en masse then decides to give up the Ring freely." To avoid this hilariously stupid plotting he has to be realistic about what this power will do; so she's on a winding, twisty corruption arc. Aegon is her foil because he's trying to do the same things she is, with less hard power. He still has Targaryen traits (like kicking over the game board when losing), but a loose canon at the head of the Golden Co isnt much to worry about; a loose canon on the back of a dragon though! Another point - Aegon hasn't spent a good chunk of his time fighting cartoonish monsters. That's a situation that even philosophers were wary of. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 8:14 AM, Lord Varys said:

As a general statement it also doesn't make any sense. The Targaryens did plant trees in Westeros after they had conquered the continent.

Aegon I may have done that - but the rulers that followed him did not; illustrating something wrong with the way they wield power on the whole. And the Targaryen dynasty lasted a relatively short time, destroyed buildings and cities, along with itself. They did not leave Westeros better than they found it.

dragons can't reform, improve, or build. How do you interpret that quote from the author?

I see "dragons plant no trees" as extremely anti-environmentalist and anti-humanity. It offends me to my soul, because if you don't plant trees, what do you do to them? You burn them or cut them down. Life has no opportunity to flourish. It's just...death.

On 7/4/2020 at 6:28 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:
  • "Dragons plant no trees" is a reply to her excuses - "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl". You can see, in context, it means dragons don't take a nap in the middle of a war.

Trees = her rebuilding arc in Meereen. She was wielding a different kind of power (that GRRM identified in his "is that sufficient?" quote).

And those aren't "excuses" and she wasn't "napping." That was her being human. And you think that's wrong? If you want her to be more savage, I think you'll regret that.

Being weary of war is normal. Wanting to rest is healthy. Wanting to laugh is a good thing. Wanting to plant trees is even better (unless you cheered when Saruman pulled down the trees in the Two Towers?). Watching trees grow means she has her humanity in-tact. Trees are the symbol of all life on earth. Her goal to focus on rebuilding Meereen was not weak and ineffectual.

What you think is the correct conclusion is in fact, the wrong one for someone who wants to keep their humanity: if she's a dragon, dragons don't build anything.

She recalls that she is the "blood of the dragon" which is Viserys' supremacist thoughts in her ear. 

ETA: she's also not thinking about "the war to fight to the slavers" at all, she's thinking about where she belongs, in Westeros or Meereen. She says it in response to her longing for Westeros.

"You are a queen, her bear said. In Westeros.

"It is such a long way," she complained. "I was tired, Jorah..."

If you read each line as an argument between -  

Meereen 

Westeros

Meereen

Westeros

the last line ends on Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Aegon I may have done that - but the rulers that followed him did not; illustrating something wrong with the way they wield power on the whole. And the Targaryen dynasty lasted a relatively short time, destroyed buildings and cities, along with itself. They did not leave Westeros better than they found it.

dragons can't reform, improve, or build. How do you interpret that quote from the author?

I see "dragons plant no trees" as extremely anti-environmentalist and anti-humanity. It offends me to my soul, because if you don't plant trees, what do you do to them? You burn them or cut them down. Life has no opportunity to flourish. It's just...death.

Trees = her rebuilding arc in Meereen. She was wielding a different kind of power (that GRRM identified in his "is that sufficient?" quote).

And those aren't "excuses" and she wasn't "napping." That was her being human. And you think that's wrong? If you want her to be more savage, I think you'll regret that.

Being weary of war is normal. Wanting to rest is healthy. Wanting to laugh is a good thing. Wanting to plant trees is even better (unless you cheered when Saruman pulled down the trees in the Two Towers?). Watching trees grow means she has her humanity in-tact. Trees are the symbol of all life on earth. Her goal to focus on rebuilding Meereen was not weak and ineffectual.

What you think is the correct conclusion is in fact, the wrong one for someone who wants to keep their humanity: if she's a dragon, dragons don't build anything.

She recalls that she is the "blood of the dragon" which is Viserys' supremacist thoughts in her ear. 

ETA: she's also not thinking about "the war to fight to the slavers" at all, she's thinking about where she belongs, in Westeros or Meereen. She says it in response to her longing for Westeros.

"You are a queen, her bear said. In Westeros.

"It is such a long way," she complained. "I was tired, Jorah..."

If you read each line as an argument between -  

Meereen 

Westeros

Meereen

Westeros

the last line ends on Westeros.

The Targaryens lasted about as long as the Plantagenets, and Westeros was at peace for about 250 of the 283 years they were in power.  They built Kings Landing, abolished the First Night, imposed limits on domestic violence, and produced some fine rulers.   Jaehaerys I and Viserys I were pretty good kings, notwithstanding they rode dragons.  The idea that the Targaryens just went around destroying everything comes from you, not from George Martin. 

There's nothing in the text to suggest that the average lord of the North, or the Riverlands, or the West, is any more benevolent or charitable towards the Smallfolk than the Targaryens were. They variously "set the Riverlands ablaze", hang women who "lie with lions", place Pretty Pia and the women of Harrenhall in stocks to be raped, and "pay the West back in kind" for what happened in the Riverlands.  I doubt if their victims were thinking "Thank the Seven they weren't Taragaryens."

WRT Dany/Robb comparisons, she is the slightly more humane military commander of the two, on the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The fact that you have to point out this basic fact is sad. While this is a story about various shades of power, only one person is at the top of that hierarchy. Dany has a kind of absolute power that no one else has; that will have consequences to her morality, otherwise the story might as well be a fairy tale. The situation Dany is in even defies her predecessors. No one person within the house had a monopoly on dragons and they could check each other. Now Westeros can only hope for 1) a hidden dragon rider who can stop her; 2) a once-in-a-lifetime spear shot to connect or 3) a situation like the peasant revolt (which was only possible at huge cost because they were chained and a Targaryen wasn't around to take control of them to kill the peasants).

I think folks confuse Dany's power with just your average monarch's. Her fans hold her up as this goddess who was the only one to birth dragons; but don't want her to face any negative consequences for this great power (i.e. corruption). They make false equivalencies to Dany and Robb and simultaneously get power fantasy boners thinking about her destroying cities.

Joffrey had absolute power of the realistic, non-magical kind. Joffrey didn't even have to work for it; he had everything handed to him. And Aegon is trying to work for it, in the traditional way. Joffrey shows us how age should be a concern. GRRM asked "Do you know many 13-year-old kids you’d like to give absolute power to?" He was talking about Joffrey but if I recall, Dany is the same age. So it's even worse because she is young, has absolute power, and a 1000 megaton superweapon. 

There is also the classical speculative fiction canon to consider. The author can't write against that too much because we'd end up with some pretty stupid stuff like, "Anakin Skywalker is the only one who has the Force but he uses it for good and only ever kills full grown stormtroopers and dark jedis" or "Galadriel has the One Ring and only uses it to kill orcs; she acts heroically despite wielding enormous power to kill en masse then decides to give up the Ring freely." To avoid this hilariously stupid plotting he has to be realistic about what this power will do; so she's on a winding, twisty corruption arc. Aegon is her foil because he's trying to do the same things she is, with less hard power. He still has Targaryen traits (like kicking over the game board when losing), but a loose canon at the head of the Golden Co isnt much to worry about; a loose canon on the back of a dragon though! Another point - Aegon hasn't spent a good chunk of his time fighting cartoonish monsters. That's a situation that even philosophers were wary of. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

The situation that Dany is in, as of now, is that she has narrowly avoided death and rape, and is now in a  Mexican standoff with the Dothraki.  Drogon can burn them;  they can shoot her.  That's a long way from absolute power.  

Martin has said he has no interest in writing about a Dark Lord.  Daenerys is not Sauron or Morgoth, or even Saruman.  She's not Palpatine or Darth Vader or Voldemort.  Like all the sympathetic characters in this tale, she's a shade of grey.  A big part of her character arc is about judging when war or peace is the better option, and what level of brutality is appropriate in war.  No doubt, that will continue to be the case.  There are vicious and depraved people, like the Bloody Mummers, Ser Gregor Clegane, Kraznys Mo Nakloz, and one or two saints like Septon Merribald.  But, none of the six principal points of view comes into either category (Tyrion is perhaps closest to vicious and depraved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...