Aegon as a king

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Aegon has done nothing to be treated like a would be monster, he could actually balance this and becoming a very good king.

I'm not judging him for his character ... which we simply don't know so far since the boy is just blank face so far. We don't get any insight in his character.

There are some things that allow us to assume he is becoming a bad apple:

1. Varys believes he is the boy wonder super king in the Epilogue - meaning George is likely going to fuck with Varys and make him not the boy wonder super king but a failure. It doesn't have to be tyranny, I'm equally happy with him just a general failure, but I think tyranny will be the outcome because I doubt Aegon will be able to pacify the Realm or even hold the throne after he has taken it - and not against Daenerys but against his Westerosi enemies. As things turn from bad to worse he will turn worse, too, in an ever more hopeless effort to cling to power.

2. Tyrion led him around the nose with his advice. He swallowed that whole. The other piece of advice he gave him back then was to trust no one. This could very well turn out Tyrion planting the seed of paranoia in Aegon, which might start to bear fruit when things no longer go well, the lad realizes that he is not actually/might not be Rhaegar's son (which means all the people around him would have lied to him for years and decades), and his dear advisers want him to do things he doesn't want to do. We actually see Aegon not trusting people in the Connington chapters - he didn't talk to Jon first when he made his dragon speech, and later he first secures the allegiance and applause of his men before bothering listening to Connington's advice.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

They did tho, Aemond torched the Riverlands, the field of fire was a very big thing by Westerosi standards (looking at you bloodiest day of the Dance of the dragons), Harrenhall was an absolute bloodbath and the first Dornish war was a massacre. And there is Tumbleton.

Aemond torched a couple of villages and keeps and some minor castles, and we don't know how many people died in the attacks on the villages. A dragon cannot hunt down people running away in all directions, can it?

The Field of Fire looked big and terrifying but it doesn't seem the dragons killed more people than the Two Kings would have killed if they had crushed the Targaryens. It would have been a big thing if the dragons had killed half or two third of the enemy army, but they didn't even kill a tenth.

In fact, the dragons mostly served as fire accelerants there - Aegon could have pulled off a similar thing by hiding men in the grass who would, at the right moment, ignite the dry grass and wheat. It may not have been as effective as the same thing with dragons, but the Field of Fire isn't a battle where three dragons burned or devoured thousands or tens of thousands of people - and that's what I'd count as weapon of mass destruction.

Not a number of dead that can be easily killed by mundane means.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Dragons wouldn't be of much in the North but dragons worked just fine during Winter in the South and i would hardly call winter the weather of the Stormlands.

But there simply aren't snowstorms in the Stormlands, Reach, Dorne. In the Riverlands, the Vale and the West you get some snow.

We are talking about the coming winter, not a normal winter. We do expect there to be snow in all the Seven Kingdoms in the coming winter. On the first day of winter KL is already covered in snow, and prior to that there was serious snowing in the Riverlands and the North.

And there are no places in Westeros where you don't get snow - even in mundane winters it snows 'almost never' in Oldtown or Dorne, but almost never isn't never ever, right?

But let's not allow you to distract us: The point is that KL is already caked in snow. Unless said snow melts away in the middle of winter and the sun is going to dry away the water and wetness, KL is in no danger of being burned down by dragons - be they the size of cats or the size of Balerion.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Almost everytime the phrase has been used, especially by Targs, its meaning was without a shadow of doubt "indiscriminate slaughter".

That just isn't the case. It is a phrase meaning attack/no mercy/brutality towards your enemy, but indiscriminate slaughter is something else.

Off the top of my head I remember Rohanne Webber using the phrase 'fire and sword' when threatening Osgrey - we can expect that she meant to kill all who stood behind her and Bennis, but we cannot expect it to mean her continuing the butchery after she had gotten Bennis.

Daenerys certainly might butcher people standing behind her and her goals - whatever those might be - but this doesn't mean she will deliberately target innocents once she has what she wants. Or insists murdering innocents even if it can be prevented without much trouble.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

She would execute the people that don't want to submit to her rule, and depending how loved Aegon is going to be, that will go from a couple of kingdoms to almost the whole country.

Aegon is not going to be loved by all of Westeros, most likely not even by many people by the time she arrives in Westeros. He is one of the lies Daenerys is going to slay, meaning he is fake savior, false hope, very much like Stannis. Aegon will get his day in the sun, but it will be a short day.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

The Dornish in Meeren are coming home and they are carrying not a single good word, if the Dornish believe Aegon  real, you have a perfect recipe for a war.

Dorne certainly is likely to stand with Aegon - but who cares, really? Doran has just 20,000 men raised, and those will fight and die before Dany even decides to go to Westeros. There might be quite a few left to resist her later, but they are not going to be that big of an issue.

And neither will any of the other kingdoms. They will bleed themselves dry some more before she comes. That is inevitable since there will be plot and battles before Dany shows up.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Then there is what she she is going to do with the Tullys, the Arryns, the Starks and Casterly Rock. Aegon has little power to threaten them, the Tullys are disposessed but they are relatively well loved and most of the support of the Riverlands would mean that the status quo returns and he simply can't touch, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie or what is left of Winterfell.  Dany can do that and since there is little reason those guys are going to salute her, you again have conflict.

Why should Dany give a damn about the Tullys and the Starks unless they fight against her? Aegon certainly could and most likely will march against the West, though. Once he has the Iron Throne he has to crush the Lannisters or risk they come back to oust him.

And who would give a fig about 'the Arryns'? Robert Arryn might be dead by then, meaning a Hardyng will run the Vale assuming he survives until that point.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

No but the echo of powerful monsters travel further than petty lords,  Aerys is a good example of that, he only hunted near home and thus his actions didn't get enough attention... until he decided to hunt that wrong people.

Roose and Ramsay being monsters don't have the the same implications and repercussions Ned and Robb would.

Exactly, Aegon will turn against his own people, execute the wrong guy, and then they will turn against him. Actually, Roose and Ramsay being monsters should have more repercussions since they have overlords who should execute them.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

The Reach has enough manpower to protect its lands, they were caught unawares and that's why Euron  is succesful. He is not going to be that lucky, nor even with superiority at sea can he take Oldtown, only him being Sauron can do that and i personally don't believe one word.

They are not going to bend the knee if they can fight and for now they can fight. Euron can hold places like Arbor but he can't permanently raid the coast and expect submission. Balon didn't get it, Dalton didn't get it and Dagon didn't get it. 

You should reread AFfC. Margaery is very concerned about the attack on the Shields. This is a real and permanent danger to the Reach and they know it. Once the Redwynes are crushed, the Hightowers will submit to Euron, their bannermen, too, and possibly even more Reach lords close to the coast and the shores of the Mander.

This is not the foolish thing the ancient Ironborn did - Euron moved the entire Ironborn fleet down south. He has bases there now, especially once he has taken the Arbor. Bases from where his ships will make sure his enemies on the mainland don't build ships to challenge him.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

This is a misconception, the crown has money, in fact the crown has a lot of money. But that money is indebted, yes, but that debt belongs to the Baratheons

When Aegon gets the Throne he will ind himself with a lot of money and even a bigger debts. But Aegon's great advantage is that he doesn't have to honor those debts. He is not going to pay back the Lannisters, he doesn't have to pay the Iron Bank and the Iron Bank is already doing the most harm it can (calling all the debts in and refusing new loans while backing Stannis's claim) they have little to no leverage over Aegon and Aegon can win them back by vowing to honor Robert's debt. And the money the cron owes to the Tyrells and Hightowers can be effectively used as carrot, "you want your money back, you better behave". Debts are a double edge sword, while the indebted cedes a lot, creditors are less likely to let the debtors fall if they owed them a huge amount of money and Robert's debt is going to be  one of Aegon's biggest advantages over the rest of the pretenders, just as it became an unexpected lifesaver to Stannis.

The treasury is empty since all money coming in goes out immediately to satisfy debts or pay interest or pay all the other bills coming in. Cersei had to stop paying the rates to the Iron Bank to have the necessary money to pay for her dromonds even after the Faith forgave the Iron Throne's debt owed the Faith - which was nearly a million. Aegon will need cash to pay his troops, to hire new men, to pay his coronation and wedding, to pay bribes and gifts, to buy food for the hungry, to try to rebuild land ravaged by war.

And he won't be able to do much of that.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

That is true. But again, if she wanted to try repproach later, she should have given them a trial. Her not giving them a trial indicates that she had commited to tearing down the system in its entirety - which would not be bad, except for the fact that she has clearly not thought of anything sustainable to replace it. And fact still remains that what she did was not justice per se, but vengeance - even though it might have been appropriate as justice (and it wasn't - see previous, plus as I already explained, she went neither hot nor cold there - not sufficiently thorough if she was aiming to scare them, but too cruel if she was aiming for coexistence), it was in fact an emotional decision.

There is no need for a trial. This is a summary execution after a city has been taken in war. It is the right of the victor to deal with the defeated the way she sees fit. And she showed mercy there by only demanding the same number of slavery as children were murdered - despite the fact that she clearly considered them all guilty.

Nobody ever said this was proper peace justice - but guess what: Even in peace Daenerys Targaryen has the right to set up the ways how she is going to deal with slavers in her own city - which Meereen is from the point the Meereenese yielded it to her.

What is wrong there with making emotional decisions in a literary work where all the POVs make (stupid) emotional decisions all the time?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

WTF does that have to do with anything? Fact is that Daenerys has dragons and almost slavishly loyal army, which means that she is much more capable of scaring people into obedience.

Which I have no problem with if that ever happens. But we don't have any indication she wants to scare people into obedience, do we?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

I have already pointed out that she does have such tendencies - which she is keeping under control for now, but they exist. And yes, power does corrupt - do you really think Renly would have gone and declared himself a king, in violation of laws and custom both, if he didn't have Tyrell support? Or that Red Wedding will have happened if Walder Frey couldn't count on support against any retaliation?

There are no such tendencies - or rather: Dany has less tendencies to kill or hurt or torture people than most other POVs. She fights back when she or her people are attacked, she doesn't do it because it is fun like, you know, Arya does in 'Mercy' and earlier. If you have problems with torture in this world this is your problem - I don't find it strange to torture people who are suspected terrorists and who are confirmed to be accomplices in murder. The safety of the state and the safety of Dany's army as a guarantee of stability and order in Meereen are more important than the lives and well-being of people who are suspected enemies of the state.

And last time I looked Stannis declared himself king with only a couple of thousand ragged followers.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

You are forcing a contrast where one does not need to exist. She can be a conqueror and a tyrant, yet still a failure of a ruler - not all tyrants are successful at ruling. Though I personally believe that she will:

1) be a tyrant (to conquer Westeros)

I actually don't think Daenerys will ever 'conquer Westeros'. She will take the Iron Throne, but not bother with the rest of the continent. Why should she?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

2) fail the Dothraki and her other followers (they will mostly die in Westeros - what during war for the throne, what during the Long Night)

If they die, they will have no issue with that.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

3) fail at rebuilding Westeros (not necessarily through being a failure at rebuilding, but simply due to lack of time)

She is not going to even try that since she will likely arrive only shortly before/at the begin of the Long Night. Rebuilding would have to wait until the series is over.

But you know who is going to fail in the rebuilding department: Aegon.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

1) Said brother and king had failed to clean the court in last couple of decades. You need to prove that Stannis had a reasonable chance of saving Robert before blaming him for running away.

The text makes my case for me. This is not interpretation, it is fact. Stannis believed Jon Arryn was murdered because of the twincest and he didn't say anything to Robert.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

2) Renly was going to murder Stannis, and was not open to - rather good - terms which Stannis offered him. Again, you can hardly blame Stannis for offing him first.

Stannis went to Storm's End to lure Renly there and murder him so he could steal his army. He wanted to murder him, and Renly only fought back.

Renly also did offer Stannis pretty good terms, did he not? Why didn't he accept those?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

3) We don't know much about Aegon's internal thoughts because he is not PoV and has had limited "screentime". That doesn't mean he will become a tyrant.

It doesn't, but it is the more likely scenario.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Dragons were decisive on the Field of Fire. Can't speak for the effect of winter, though - but if they are to be as ineffective as you say, what is the point of dragons and whole "song of ice and fire"? Daenerys is supposed to bring dragons over to face the Others; but if snow would truly render them so limited, that would mean that whole Daenerys plot - her whole existence in the story - is meaningless.

How should I know? Unlike you, I point out to actual historical parallels within this fictional universe we are talking about where it is repeatedly mentioned (Last Storm, Battle of the Great Fork) that the effectiveness of dragons - even dragons like Meraxes and Balerion - is reduced by rain. We have even more evidence that dragons don't like cold and snow, and have considerable issue with that. This is much more relevant as prediction element than pointing to real world stuff George might neither know nor care about.

And you don't need any parallels to know that firing a flamethrower at a house or roof caked in snow is not going to do you much good unless you can afford to first melt all the snow and dry the roof/wood so it burns.

With the Others, there clearly are magical issues to consider. Perhaps the dragonfire can melt them away like the sun can summer snow? We don't know yet. However, I never believed three dragons could defeat all the wight armies and all the Others that might be out there. They can at best be one piece of the puzzle, not the magical flamethrower that resolves everything.

And of course the dragons are going to be pretty much useless if the Others were to create a huge blizzard during a battle. Not just because it is difficult to fly in a storm, but also because the snow will render their fire to be completely ineffective even if they could target the enemy properly.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Oh, they definitely hate her for what she did as well. It is just that Slaver's Bay societies are such a carricature that even her arrival was improvement for 90% of people there.

I

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

...unless we consider her own thoughts and fears about her own nature.

I told you the point of that - it is about her being the Mother of Dragons and how she sees herself as a monster because she birthed creatures she sees as monsters (which is wrong, by the way - dragons are just animals, alpha-predators, but not monsters).

Her own nature would be a problem if she actually had sadistic thoughts and desires. If she had wanted castrate Jorah for his betrayal and slowly roast him alive after she fed his balls to him, if she still dreamed about punishing Selmy for his previous treason, if she had strong fantasies about torturing Ben to death for his betrayal. And so on. That would mean she had a problematic nature.

But while there is nothing of that kind of thing there, we cannot invent it or pretend her being somewhat strict occasionally or feeling good when dealing with people who deserve it is a severe character flaw.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Would it hurt you to try and understand symbolism for once?

1) "Fire and Blood" means a lot of things. Yes, original meaning is indeed a magical cookbook recipe for hatching dragon eggs. But just like "Winter is Coming", it is also used as a warning and as a threat. In this case "we will burn you and spill your blood if you cross us". Just like here: "Custom and caution had an iron grip upon us till you awakened us with fire and blood. A new time has come, and new things are possible. Marry me."; "Get the heads of all the noble houses out of their pyramids on some pretext, Daario had said. The dragon’s words are fire and blood. Dany pushed the thought aside. It was not worthy of her."; "“For you,” said Quentyn, all awkward gallantry. “No,” said Dany. “For fire and blood.”"; "No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. “Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.". A warning, a threat, a promise of violence.

Of course there is also a violent aspect to this. But this doesn't mean the meaning of this is mad or unrestricted violence. Not to mention, you know, those are the words of Aegon and Jon Snow, too, if they both are Targaryens. Does this mean they also have severe problems with their nature? Or have to go through with what those words mean according to you?

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

2) Daenerys' dragons are symbolic of her own inner choices. She chains them when she chooses a path of peace; but when Drogon approaches her, it symbolizes her turning to violence as a way of solving things.

It means she understands going to Meereen was a mistake. That is what her choice in the end is about - she decides to go back to go forward, i.e. back to Vaes Dothrak. Whether this means she will ever return to Slaver's Bay or care much about what happens there remains to be seen. I expect her to play no role at all in how things are resolved there because the people there will depose of the slavers, not she.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Revolutions also tend to eat their children. And parents, and everyone else. All revolutions for the case of freedom ended establishing merely another tyranny. Why do you think Daenerys' will be different?

That is actually factually incorrect. But even if it were true - I've no problem with a tyranny oppressing or even enslaving former slavers. But Dany is not going to be eaten by her own children, i.e. freed slaves.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Generally speaking, reason only serves to rationalize decisions based on emotions. Actual rational decisions are relatively rare in human beings, and that is something Martin portrays well. And Daenerys is definitely not a cold-hearted pragmatist, even for your average human.

You may not care how she feels, but that means that you do not care who and what she is as a character. In which case our entire discussion is a waste of time.

I judge people by their actions and deeds, not their thoughts or words or emotions. Daenerys can have all the sadistic fantasies in the world - as long as she doesn't act on them I don't care. Vice versa, I don't care how she feels when she does something that I don't consider to be a questionable act by comparison.

I mean, don't you get it - I want Dany to go all Maegor on the Ghiscari. I want her to butcher them all. I want her to bathe in their blood. Because I think it would be the right cause of action.

My problem with her character is that she is too soft, not to harsh.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

If there is a war, she is justified in killing enemies, yes. But I very much doubt that she will stop at that - and I am not sure she will not begin at that either. If she starts killing anyone who rejects her rule, that will be quite a list (which is why you are insisting that Aegon will be a tyrant, to make the list shorter and thus make Daenerys look less bad).

I really don't much care about such fantasies to be honest. We don't know who is going to oppose her rule for what reason nor who she is going to be targeting how. You can have your opinion, of course, but so far there is just no evidence to build a case that Dany is going to be merciless conqueror with a long list of people to kill.

But to be sure - I don't care much for the nobility of Westeros. I don't care if Aegon or Euron or Stannis were bathing in the blood of the aristocracy on their way to power - Stannis' (somewhat delusional) idea to make 'new lords' even sounds like a good thing to do. I'd not shed any tears if lots of lords were executed and noble houses extinguished in the process of Targaryen restoration - just as I don't mind Stannis or the Starks cleansing the North of Boltons and Bolton-lovers (Boltons themselves, Dustins, Ryswell, Hother's Umbers, other houses fighting on Roose's side) in the process of a possible Stark restoration.

Insofar as Aegon vs. Dany - she certainly could kill as many or more people than Aegon did when he rose to power. That alone means nothing. It depends on the circumstances. But the guy avenging House Targaryens and eradicating the line of the Usurper, etc. will be Aegon's job now. He is the one who got there first.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

And yes, she might well do precisely that "ridiculous" thing. As I mentioned before, her entire outlook is shifting in her last few chapters.

Only if you don't read things in context.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

And if he does so his own people will get rid of him. Daenerys however has much greater freedom of action, thanks to her dragons and Unsullied (and the likely cult-like following she will gain during her trip to Westeros).

She also has less of a reason/incentive/pressure for cruelty because she has a large following, nor a particular taste for atrocities.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

You wrote this: 

Cersei took Robert's throne from him and handed it to her bastard. Aegon will take the throne from the Lannisters, and he will it lose again to Euron or Dany or whoever else will have it after Aegon.

In response to this:

Thinking that he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons is no delusion. Robert had done it, Tywin had done it.

Robert was assassinated. Therefore it appears that you believe that possession of dragons makes person invulnerable to assassinations and accidents.

Oh, okay, the point I was trying to make simply was that you are factually wrong that Robert held on to the Iron Throne. He was murdered and it was handed to a bastard by his own wife.

History never ends - Robert was never secure, and his dynasty is going to be toppled by the Targaryens. The idea is that you definitely don't hold on to the Iron Throne even as a Targaryen if you don't have dragons, too.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

They actually did state as much during discussion itself; "it cannot be done" is as good as "we will not do it".

I don't agree there, especially since no consensus on the 'it cannot be done' idea was reached. If there had been an agreement about that, and a long silence where people were thinking about what they could do instead, with Aegon only speaking up then you would have a point. But the point here is that Tyrion led Aegon around by the nose there, setting him and the Golden Company and Varys/Illyrio up to fail. Because he does not truly believe - rightfully so - that Aegon could conquer and hold the Iron Throne without Dany and the dragons.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

You are assuming there is much trade left by now. And even then, there are ways to counter raiding of trade. Euron uses Viking longships, which simply cannot maintain continuous blockage of ports (logistics). In fact, close blockade of ports of the way which you note simply was not an option for most of Middle Ages.

I say that Oldtown is a city of trade whose wealth and lifeblood is trade. Of course the trade is already disrupted - which is the reason why the rich people whose wealth is dwindling right now will insist the Hightowers bend the knee when they don't have the strength to deal with Euron militarily.

We are also not talking about a total blockade - rather about it getting more and more difficult for traders to reach and leave Oldtown, meaning the traders will decide to shun the place entirely, making for Lannisport or KL or Gulltown or White Harbor instead.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

It is Martin's philosophy as well. Even ignoring the whole "human heart at conflict with itself" thing, fact is that the entire war is basically about a chair which represents power. Where Tolkien has Rings of Power, and One Ring in particular, George Martin has the Iron Throne and the dragons.

Actually, the stupid chair is a pointless distraction. The real plot point are the ice demons and their agenda, not the game of thrones shit.

[frenin]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

1. Varys believes he is the boy wonder super king in the Epilogue - meaning George is likely going to fuck with Varys and make him not the boy wonder super king but a failure. It doesn't have to be tyranny, I'm equally happy with him just a general failure, but I think tyranny will be the outcome because I doubt Aegon will be able to pacify the Realm or even hold the throne after he has taken it - and not against Daenerys but against his Westerosi enemies. As things turn from bad to worse he will turn worse, too, in an ever more hopeless effort to cling to power.

Or that he is actually going to be what Westeros needs but ends being ganged up by Dany and Stannis.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

1. Varys believes he is the boy wonder super king in the Epilogue - meaning George is likely going to fuck with Varys and make him not the boy wonder super king but a failure. It doesn't have to be tyranny, I'm equally happy with him just a general failure, but I think tyranny will be the outcome because I doubt Aegon will be able to pacify the Realm or even hold the throne after he has taken it - and not against Daenerys but against his Westerosi enemies. As things turn from bad to worse he will turn worse, too, in an ever more hopeless effort to cling to power.

Tyrion gave a reasonable advice to a rookie, hardly a flaw and we see him actually trusting when he names Duck his kingsguard.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aemond torched a couple of villages and keeps and some minor castles, and we don't know how many people died in the attacks on the villages. A dragon cannot hunt down people running away in all directions, can it?

The Riverlands seemed pretty blackened after he passed, ditto with Maegor's and Visenya's trip there. We aren't giving numbers but we can make a pretty good guess that more than ten people died there.

 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Field of Fire looked big and terrifying but it doesn't seem the dragons killed more people than the Two Kings would have killed if they had crushed the Targaryens. It would have been a big thing if the dragons had killed half or two third of the enemy army, but they didn't even kill a tenth.

Most of the battles in the Dance didn't kill a lot of people all things considered, the dragons and brutal sackings raise the mortality quite a bit anyway. but Martin still writes it as if it was terrying. In medieval battles 4k dying were a lot of bodies.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, the dragons mostly served as fire accelerants there - Aegon could have pulled off a similar thing by hiding men in the grass who would, at the right moment, ignite the dry grass and wheat. It may not have been as effective as the same thing with dragons, but the Field of Fire isn't a battle where three dragons burned or devoured thousands or tens of thousands of people - and that's what I'd count as weapon of mass destruction.

Not a number of dead that can be easily killed by mundane means.

Not nearly as good, the riders would have had a chance to go back, besides the horses would note it.  Three huge dragons left them without room to move or escape.

Any number of dead can be "easily" achieved by mundane means, WMD are defined mostly by its effectivity, range and quickness.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking about the coming winter, not a normal winter. We do expect there to be snow in all the Seven Kingdoms in the coming winter. On the first day of winter KL is already covered in snow, and prior to that there was serious snowing in the Riverlands and the North.

Until the Others are right at the gates i doubt it, nothing we have seen so far contradicts what has been toldm KL gets sometimes snowed, the Riverlands get some snow and the North is always snowing, i very much doubt that  Dorne or the marches are going to get snow.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And there are no places in Westeros where you don't get snow - even in mundane winters it snows 'almost never' in Oldtown or Dorne, but almost never isn't never ever, right?

Almost never is one time in a hundred years.

We see winter during the First Dornish war and it sure as hell did not snow.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That just isn't the case. It is a phrase meaning attack/no mercy/brutality towards your enemy, but indiscriminate slaughter is something else.

What is then?? When your enemy is everyone, fire and blood pretty much describes indiscrimated slaughter as Rhaenys and her siblings showed in Dorne.

Indiscrimate slaughter is killing a lot of people without doing any exceptions, regardless age, sex...

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Off the top of my head I remember Rohanne Webber using the phrase 'fire and sword' when threatening Osgrey - we can expect that she meant to kill all who stood behind her and Bennis, but we cannot expect it to mean her continuing the butchery after she had gotten Bennis.

No, it means that she will kill whoever she needs to kill Bennis  and that's the term behind indiscrimate

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Daenerys certainly might butcher people standing behind her and her goals - whatever those might be - but this doesn't mean she will deliberately target innocents once she has what she wants. Or insists murdering innocents even if it can be prevented without much trouble.

Nor did i say that she will eat children alive for breakfast, but that she wiil butcher people to further her goals.

Besides i don't really think it's going to be beyond her targeting innocents, that's quite literally her only card against Dorne.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Off the top of my head I remember Rohanne Webber using the phrase 'fire and sword' when threatening Osgrey - we can expect that she meant to kill all who stood behind her and Bennis, but we cannot expect it to mean her continuing the butchery after she had gotten Bennis.

Can't really say more than that's an opinion, he may he may not.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Dorne certainly is likely to stand with Aegon - but who cares, really? Doran has just 20,000 men raised, and those will fight and die before Dany even decides to go to Westeros. There might be quite a few left to resist her later, but they are not going to be that big of an issue.

Dany should, if Dorne doesn't bend the knee at once, she is having the first dornish war all over again, Aegon went full genocide on them, which is far more than just 20k soldiers, and still didn,'t get them to submit, Daeron's war was brutal and again he couldn't hold Dorne.

If Dorne doesn't accept her, she is going to bleed herself dry trying to conquer that kingdom, ditto with the rest.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Dorne certainly is likely to stand with Aegon - but who cares, really? Doran has just 20,000 men raised, and those will fight and die before Dany even decides to go to Westeros. There might be quite a few left to resist her later, but they are not going to be that big of an issue.

The Riverlands bled itself dry during the Dance and still had enough men to destroy the Baratheon army.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should Dany give a damn about the Tullys and the Starks unless they fight against her? Aegon certainly could and most likely will march against the West, though. Once he has the Iron Throne he has to crush the Lannisters or risk they come back to oust him.

Well he certainly wants to punish a bunch of dogs and without them, their houses would be just as good.

The West is likely to submit to Aegon with Tyrek or whatever Lannister that ousts an already disgraced Cersei.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And who would give a fig about 'the Arryns'? Robert Arryn might be dead by then, meaning a Hardyng will run the Vale assuming he survives until that point.

Everyone with an ounze of common sense, they are the only kingdom that it's not going to be affected by the war, their lands are notoriously impenetrable, they are super rich right noe due that their harvest is full and they can sell to destroy kingdoms.., And their armies are intact and they are going to be intact for quite a while, everyone might be wary of the Arryns, said Hardyng is going to be an Arryn and Jon's grandnephew, if Robin dies in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should Dany give a damn about the Tullys and the Starks unless they fight against her? Aegon certainly could and most likely will march against the West, though. Once he has the Iron Throne he has to crush the Lannisters or risk they come back to oust him.

Maybe about the first.

About the second, it's quite clear that the rumours never got to Ned, Ramsay's actions should be limited to the his lands, it wasn't until Robb was off to war that he gained

We know  that Roose made sure of that no witness could ever spill the beans.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You should reread AFfC. Margaery is very concerned about the attack on the Shields. This is a real and permanent danger to the Reach and they know it. Once the Redwynes are crushed, the Hightowers will submit to Euron, their bannermen, too, and possibly even more Reach lords close to the coast and the shores of the Mander.

I did read it, everyone would be worried about their lands being attacked but Margaery doesn't talk as if the battle was lost, he instead wants Cersei to focuse on Euron and Loras makes clear that his brothers have the men but they don't have the ships.

The Hightowers are unlikely to submit, Leyton isn't portrayed as an orthodox dude and he is filthy rich regardless, he can withstand a Euron for a time.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You should reread AFfC. Margaery is very concerned about the attack on the Shields. This is a real and permanent danger to the Reach and they know it. Once the Redwynes are crushed, the Hightowers will submit to Euron, their bannermen, too, and possibly even more Reach lords close to the coast and the shores of the Mander.

But his enemies can built ships anywhere really, what would he do when a brand new royal fleet comes after him?? Is he going to defeat the Redwynes without so much of a single lost?? Because a battle against the other relevant naval power promises to be a disaster to whomever wins,

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The treasury is empty since all money coming in goes out immediately to satisfy debts or pay interest or pay all the other bills coming in. Cersei had to stop paying the rates to the Iron Bank to have the necessary money to pay for her dromonds even after the Faith forgave the Iron Throne's debt owed the Faith - which was nearly a million. Aegon will need cash to pay his troops, to hire new men, to pay his coronation and wedding, to pay bribes and gifts, to buy food for the hungry, to try to rebuild land ravaged by war.

And he won't be able to do much of that.

If there wasn't any money, Cersei couldn't build those sweet ships, there is money, there is a lot of it, but the money is simply destined to other tasks so might as well be empty. Cersei stopped paying the necessary money to the IB before she had that fateful chat with the Sparrow.

Again, Aegon will have a lot of cash and a lot of carrots in form of debts.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Or that he is actually going to be what Westeros needs but ends being ganged up by Dany and Stannis.

LOL, right, because that's how the author is going to portray the fake dragon he had as a lie, as a cloth dragon, and a mummer's dragon introduced in the books.

Aegon is one the things Westeros does not need.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Tyrion gave a reasonable advice to a rookie, hardly a flaw and we see him actually trusting when he names Duck his kingsguard.

Aegon rewards a man he has reason to trust - the Mad King also rewarded his little cronies and sycophants, that kind of thing proves nothing. It is quite clear that Aegon is a moron for going west without the dragons.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Riverlands seemed pretty blackened after he passed, ditto with Maegor's and Visenya's trip there. We aren't giving numbers but we can make a pretty good guess that more than ten people died there.

That is only in your head. We don't get casualty reports or actual descriptions of destroyed castles. Imagine it like you will, but don't state your head images as fact.

Maegor and Visenya destroyed a bunch of castles, yes, but none of those seem to have had much importance - or, if they did, we don't know that they were big or very populous.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Most of the battles in the Dance didn't kill a lot of people all things considered, the dragons and brutal sackings raise the mortality quite a bit anyway. but Martin still writes it as if it was terrying. In medieval battles 4k dying were a lot of bodies.

Not when two armies who in total are closer to 100,000 than 50,000 clash. The Field of Fire has as many casualties as one would expect in a battle conducted by mundane means, not a battle where 'weapons of mass destruction' were used.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Not nearly as good, the riders would have had a chance to go back, besides the horses would note it.  Three huge dragons left them without room to move or escape.

That is just you making shit up. The Targaryens burned their own half of the battlefield. They lured the Two Kings in and then they burned the fields in the front and the back, cutting off the escape. This could have done with conventional means as well, especially if they used wildfire as an accelerant.

Might not have been as effective, but it could have done the trick.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Any number of dead can be "easily" achieved by mundane means, WMD are defined mostly by its effectivity, range and quickness.

No, they are defined by the fact that they can kill a lot of people with one blow. Dragons aren't nukes. They are at best World War I fighter pilots armed with close range flamethrowers. They aren't even bombers, because bombers can drop their loads from high above and don't endanger themselves during an attack.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Until the Others are right at the gates i doubt it, nothing we have seen so far contradicts what has been toldm KL gets sometimes snowed, the Riverlands get some snow and the North is always snowing, i very much doubt that  Dorne or the marches are going to get snow.

This is no mundane winter. It doesn't snow on the first day of winter in KL. And the Others breaching the Wall or stuff like that has no bearing on the quality of winter, or else winter wouldn't be a thing in Westeros at all. The Wall would keep it at way - which it doesn't.

Even if Dorne didn't get snow - who gives a damn? Nobody is going to bother conquering Dorne, especially not somebody who wants the Iron Throne.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Almost never is one time in a hundred years.

Almost never is almost never and not what you think it is. It is, however, pretty likely that this means it is going to snow in Dorne this time.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

We see winter during the First Dornish war and it sure as hell did not snow.

We don't see winter, we hear about it being the second year of autumn and then expecting that autumn weather means the heat in Dorne is going to be milder, but we don't learn when winter started nor exactly what happened during winter in Dorne. Aegon does lose both his armies in the first year of the war, 4 AC, the second year of autumn.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

What is then?? When your enemy is everyone, fire and blood pretty much describes indiscrimated slaughter as Rhaenys and her siblings showed in Dorne.

Indiscrimate slaughter is killing a lot of people without doing any exceptions, regardless age, sex...

Burning down a castle can kill a lot of people, but it is not that people weren't forewarned or didn't have an opportunity to lead or flee. I mean, all the noble houses even survived those burnings, meaning not that many people may have died there, anyway. It is not that Aegon could fly 'surprise attacks' on Dornish castles, considering the distance, especially since those dragons are huge. They may have been able to surprise the Fowlers and Wyls and Daynes, but certainly not the lords beyond the mountains. They would have gotten word that the dragons were on the move quickly enough.

Indiscriminate slaughter is something people routinely do in sacks and the like. That's perfectly normal in warfare.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nor did i say that she will eat children alive for breakfast, but that she wiil butcher people to further her goals.

Besides i don't really think it's going to be beyond her targeting innocents, that's quite literally her only card against Dorne.

Of course she will - everybody does that who tries to win a war.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Dany should, if Dorne doesn't bend the knee at once, she is having the first dornish war all over again, Aegon went full genocide on them, which is far more than just 20k soldiers, and still didn,'t get them to submit, Daeron's war was brutal and again he couldn't hold Dorne.

If Dorne doesn't accept her, she is going to bleed herself dry trying to conquer that kingdom, ditto with the rest.

LOL, Dany wouldn't give two cents about Dorne. She wants her father's throne, not an empty desert. And it is not to be expected that the Dornish will all stand with Aegon. The Martells might ... but the Yronwoods and others might not. Especially if backing Aegon is going to cost thousands of Dornishmen their lives even before Dany shows up.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Riverlands bled itself dry during the Dance and still had enough men to destroy the Baratheon army.

Which means they didn't bled themselves dry, no? They are not completely spent now, but unlike back in the Dance the Riverlands are already covered in snow. They will continue to bleed themselves in their petty wars against the Freys and Lannisters, and they will send men to die in Aegon's campaigns before Dany shows up.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

The West is likely to submit to Aegon with Tyrek or whatever Lannister that ousts an already disgraced Cersei.

LOL, no. Cersei is still the Lady of Casterly Rock. Her people control the West and they won't stand how she was treated, even more so if the pretender and fraud calling himself 'Aegon Targaryen' is going to be responsble for the deaths of Tommen and Myrcella.

Tyrek comes after Cersei, Tommen, Myrcella, and all of Kevan's children. He is a boy and may be dead. Varys might use him as a Lannister pretender, but that guy is not going rally anyone behind him. Instead, they will likely use him to hammer home the twincest as truth.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Everyone with an ounze of common sense, they are the only kingdom that it's not going to be affected by the war, their lands are notoriously impenetrable, they are super rich right noe due that their harvest is full and they can sell to destroy kingdoms.., And their armies are intact and they are going to be intact for quite a while, everyone might be wary of the Arryns, said Hardyng is going to be an Arryn and Jon's grandnephew, if Robin dies in the first place.

And why should anybody bother with them while they are cut off from the mainland and need ships to even participate in the fighting?

Nobody is going to attack the Vale aside from, perhaps, the clansmen - which could work if Harry and Sansa drag the bulk of the Vale forces into a pointless war. They have weapons now and with winter already tormenting the mountains they are going to start their raids sooner rather than later.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

I did read it, everyone would be worried about their lands being attacked but Margaery doesn't talk as if the battle was lost, he instead wants Cersei to focuse on Euron and Loras makes clear that his brothers have the men but they don't have the ships.

They do have the men if they have the ships - but they are lacking the ships because Paxter is besieging Dragonstone. The Redwynes are going to lose both their ships and their men in the coming battle, and Garlan might retake the Shields since Euron is not really defending them. But this doesn't put them into the position to challenge Euron at sea. He has the upper hand.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Hightowers are unlikely to submit, Leyton isn't portrayed as an orthodox dude and he is filthy rich regardless, he can withstand a Euron for a time.

They submitted in the past, and they will again. If they don't, Lord Leyton is going to suffer the same fate as his dear ancestor Lord Quenton. People don't like it when their leaders put their honor or pride or independence before their purses. Oldtown is a city of traders, not stupid morons who are rather free than rich.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

But his enemies can built ships anywhere really, what would he do when a brand new royal fleet comes after him?? Is he going to defeat the Redwynes without so much of a single lost?? Because a battle against the other relevant naval power promises to be a disaster to whomever wins,

What brand new royal fleet is going to be built in weeks? It took all of AFfC to build just ten dromonds, and Euron has hundreds of ships. And he is going to take on KL sooner rather than later. He wants the Iron Throne so he has to move his ass there.

And of course he is going to win without any significant losses. He has the ultimate cheating instrument - magic. He will create a huge storm or tornado or freak waves or something of that sort and direct it against the enemy ships and/or he is going to summon krakens from the deep to pull the enemy ships underwater.

Magic should also help him to foresee/find out who is going to build new ships and where - allowing him to destroy them before they are finished.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

If there wasn't any money, Cersei couldn't build those sweet ships, there is money, there is a lot of it, but the money is simply destined to other tasks so might as well be empty. Cersei stopped paying the necessary money to the IB before she had that fateful chat with the Sparrow.

She transferred the money she used to pay the rates to the Iron Bank. About the finances of the Crown reread the chapter in question and what Lord Gyles tells us about them. I was wrong about the Faith there - but Cersei actually had 'to defer our repayment of the sums owed the Holy Faith and the Iron Bank of Braavos until war's end' - confirming what I said, namely that the Iron Throne doesn't have the money to start new projects while heavily in debt.

Keep in mind that Cersei as Lady of Casterly Rock had to announce to nobody that she was also deferring the repayment of the money owed Casterly Rock - nor is it likely the Tyrells insisted on repayment in the middle of a war. Yet even with the Lannisters and Tyrells as understanding and possible future creditors backing the Iron Throne they still needed to defer repayment of the Iron Bank and the Faith.

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Again, Aegon will have a lot of cash and a lot of carrots in form of debts.

Aegon will have less cash available than Tommen since Mace is going to use what cash he has in his last ditch efforts to hold the city - and whoever flees the city might even take a lot of cash with them.

Aegon will immediately lose the support of Highgarden and the Rock, which means he will be about as credible as a pauper.

[frenin]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right, because that's how the author is going to portray the fake dragon he had as a lie, as a cloth dragon, and a mummer's dragon introduced in the books.

Aegon is one the things Westeros does not need.

Entire reasonable. not because he is fake means he is going to be nocive for the country.

Meh, we'll see about that.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon rewards a man he has reason to trust - the Mad King also rewarded his little cronies and sycophants, that kind of thing proves nothing. It is quite clear that Aegon is a moron for going west without the dragons.

It is quite clear for you, him going without dragons and taking the land without dragons means that he is out of Dany's shadow and control and can dictate his own terms. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is only in your head. We don't get casualty reports or actual descriptions of destroyed castles. Imagine it like you will, but don't state your head images as fact.

Maegor and Visenya destroyed a bunch of castles, yes, but none of those seem to have had much importance - or, if they did, we don't know that they were big or very populous.

So we are told that Aemond torched the Riverlands and we're told that Visenya and Maegor torched the castles if the traitors vut ofc, only ten people die and the castles were made of sand. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not when two armies who in total are closer to 100,000 than 50,000 clash. The Field of Fire has as many casualties as one would expect in a battle conducted by mundane means, not a battle where 'weapons of mass destruction' were used.

When one part of the armiy was 55k and the other was 11k, it was considered huge yes.

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, they are defined by the fact that they can kill a lot of people with one blow. Dragons aren't nukes. They are at best World War I fighter pilots armed with close range flamethrowers. They aren't even bombers, because bombers can drop their loads from high above and don't endanger themselves during an attack.

No, they are defined for its quickness, devastation and range. It doesn't matter whether you believed them nukes or not, Martin has said they are, so they are. 4k in a go is a huge toll in medieval warfare so...

 

 

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just you making shit up. The Targaryens burned their own half of the battlefield. They lured the Two Kings in and then they burned the fields in the front and the back, cutting off the escape. This could have done with conventional means as well, especially if they used wildfire as an accelerant.

Might not have been as effective, but it could have done the trick.

 

Quote

Aegon flew above the ranks of his foes upon Balerion, through a storm of spears and stones and arrows, swooping down repeatedly to bathe his foes in flame. Rhaenys and Visenya set fires upwind of the enemy and behind them. The dry grasses and stands of wheat went up at once. The wind fanned the flames and blew the smoke into the faces of the advancing ranks of the Two Kings. The scent of fire sent their mounts into panic, and as the smoke thickened, horse and rider alike were blinded. Their ranks began to break as walls of fire rose on every side of them. Lord Mooton’s men, safely upwind of the conflagration, waited with their bows and spears, and made short work of the burned and burning men who came staggering from the inferno.

 

No they wouldn't, Aegon confused them while Visenya and Rhaenys finished them off.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is no mundane winter. It doesn't snow on the first day of winter in KL. And the Others breaching the Wall or stuff like that has no bearing on the quality of winter, or else winter wouldn't be a thing in Westeros at all. The Wall would keep it at way - which it doesn't.

Even if Dorne didn't get snow - who gives a damn? Nobody is going to bother conquering Dorne, especially not somebody who wants the Iron Throne.

Until the others appear it is, how do you know that it doesn't snow the first day of winter in KL??

Kings don't like broken kingdoms and Dany aims to have the whole thing, not bits of it.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Almost never is almost never and not what you think it is. It is, however, pretty likely that this means it is going to snow in Dorne this time.

What do i think it is?? Almost never means very rarely and even in Dorne the snow would not be abundant.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't see winter, we hear about it being the second year of autumn and then expecting that autumn weather means the heat in Dorne is going to be milder, but we don't learn when winter started nor exactly what happened during winter in Dorne. Aegon does lose both his armies in the first year of the war, 4 AC, the second year of autumn.

We hear that they thought winter to be closed at hand and that they hoped the weather got better and it didn't in fact, we have no weird phenomenology for Dorne.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Burning down a castle can kill a lot of people, but it is not that people weren't forewarned or didn't have an opportunity to lead or flee. I mean, all the noble houses even survived those burnings, meaning not that many people may have died there, anyway. It is not that Aegon could fly 'surprise attacks' on Dornish castles, considering the distance, especially since those dragons are huge. They may have been able to surprise the Fowlers and Wyls and Daynes, but certainly not the lords beyond the mountains. They would have gotten word that the dragons were on the move quickly enough.

Indiscriminate slaughter is something people routinely do in sacks and the like. That's perfectly normal in warfare.

No, those peoples usually are not either forewarned nor its inhabitants can leave at will, the noble houses weren't there when those burnings happened, that doesn't mean that there was empty. You're free to soften it however you want tho.

Indiscriminate slaughter means exactly that, killing a lot of people regardless  of extenuatings. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course she will - everybody does that who tries to win a war.

Sure, you're the one against the words that defines that tho...

 

 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, Dany wouldn't give two cents about Dorne. She wants her father's throne, not an empty desert. And it is not to be expected that the Dornish will all stand with Aegon. The Martells might ... but the Yronwoods and others might not. Especially if backing Aegon is going to cost thousands of Dornishmen their lives even before Dany shows up.

She would, it's like saying that she will not care about the north or the west, Dany styled herself as Queen of the Andal, Rhoynar and the First Men, which means that will be her intention. Her father's throne means that she is entitled to that empty desert.

The Yronwoods loved Q, which means that they will be predisposed against Dany. But ofc, everyone is going to crack except our favs.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which means they didn't bled themselves dry, no? They are not completely spent now, but unlike back in the Dance the Riverlands are already covered in snow. They will continue to bleed themselves in their petty wars against the Freys and Lannisters, and they will send men to die in Aegon's campaigns before Dany shows up.

And they will still have men to fight Dany if needed be, just as happened during the Dance. 

 

 

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. Cersei is still the Lady of Casterly Rock. Her people control the West and they won't stand how she was treated, even more so if the pretender and fraud calling himself 'Aegon Targaryen' is going to be responsble for the deaths of Tommen and Myrcella.

A disgraced lady who has not known other thing but defeat, disgrace and humiliation since she is in power is not going to rule much,  it remains to be seen the control she has over her lands. A pretender who suddenly has the majority of the support, if only for a moment, is a fare better deal than Cersei.

 

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyrek comes after Cersei, Tommen, Myrcella, and all of Kevan's children. He is a boy and may be dead. Varys might use him as a Lannister pretender, but that guy is not going rally anyone behind him. Instead, they will likely use him to hammer home the twincest as truth.

I said Tyrek as i could've said any random Lannister, bottom line is, there is no shortage to pretenders to the Rock.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And why should anybody bother with them while they are cut off from the mainland and need ships to even participate in the fighting?

Nobody is going to attack the Vale aside from, perhaps, the clansmen - which could work if Harry and Sansa drag the bulk of the Vale forces into a pointless war. They have weapons now and with winter already tormenting the mountains they are going to start their raids sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure if when you mean King of Westeros, you mean actually that or simply King in king's landing. The Vale is one of the most fertile and powerful kingdoms and right now it has precious harvest, how any ruler is just going to ignore it??

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They do have the men if they have the ships - but they are lacking the ships because Paxter is besieging Dragonstone. The Redwynes are going to lose both their ships and their men in the coming battle, and Garlan might retake the Shields since Euron is not really defending them. But this doesn't put them into the position to challenge Euron at sea. He has the upper hand.

You're using your own opinion as fact.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They submitted in the past, and they will again. If they don't, Lord Leyton is going to suffer the same fate as his dear ancestor Lord Quenton. People don't like it when their leaders put their honor or pride or independence before their purses. Oldtown is a city of traders, not stupid morons who are rather free than rich.

They submitted in a past  where the Oldtown had wood instead of stone walls, in fact a lot of the reasons they had such dominion is because the First Men lasted a millenia before figuring out stone walls were a thing.

Again opinion, Euron is hardly a plague and the trade being disrupted doesn't mean the mob is going to tear him apart, Oldtown is a city of traders but  said traders don't wield enough power to influence the mob, as long as the city doesn't starve or suffer a plague, he'll be fine.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

What brand new royal fleet is going to be built in weeks? It took all of AFfC to build just ten dromonds, and Euron has hundreds of ships. And he is going to take on KL sooner rather than later. He wants the Iron Throne so he has to move his ass there.

- I didn't say it was going to be weeks.

- He is going to try sooner or later.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And of course he is going to win without any significant losses. He has the ultimate cheating instrument - magic. He will create a huge storm or tornado or freak waves or something of that sort and direct it against the enemy ships and/or he is going to summon krakens from the deep to pull the enemy ships underwater.

Magic should also help him to foresee/find out who is going to build new ships and where - allowing him to destroy them before they are finished.

Well... that's a nice story and all, but assuming he is not Voldemort, how is he going to win without loses??

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

She transferred the money she used to pay the rates to the Iron Bank. About the finances of the Crown reread the chapter in question and what Lord Gyles tells us about them. I was wrong about the Faith there - but Cersei actually had 'to defer our repayment of the sums owed the Holy Faith and the Iron Bank of Braavos until war's end' - confirming what I said, namely that the Iron Throne doesn't have the money to start new projects while heavily in debt.

Keep in mind that Cersei as Lady of Casterly Rock had to announce to nobody that she was also deferring the repayment of the money owed Casterly Rock - nor is it likely the Tyrells insisted on repayment in the middle of a war. Yet even with the Lannisters and Tyrells as understanding and possible future creditors backing the Iron Throne they still needed to defer repayment of the Iron Bank and the Faith.

 

Quote

Lord Gyles took that as an invitation to begin coughing again. He brought up more pink spittle and dabbed it away with a square of red silk. “There is no …” he managed, before the coughing ate his words. “… no … we do not …” Ser Harys proved swift enough at least to grasp the meaning between the coughs. “The crown incomes have never been greater,” he objected. “Ser Kevan told me so himself.” Lord Gyles coughed. “… expenses … gold cloaks …” Cersei had heard his objections before. “Our lord treasurer is trying to say that we have too many gold cloaks and too little gold.” Rosby’s coughing had begun to vex her. Perhaps Garth the Gross would not have been so ill. “Though large, the crown incomes are not large enough to keep abreast of Robert’s debts. Accordingly, I have decided to defer our repayment of the sums owed the Holy Faith and the Iron Bank of Braavos until war’s end.” The new High Septon would doubtless wring his holy hands, and the Braavosi would squeak and squawk at her, but what of it? “The monies saved will be used for the building of our new fleet.”

It's significance it's clear, the money is coming but so are the debts, which means that while the money is in the coffers, it already has a destination, so it might as well not  exist. 

For a newcomer with zero obligation whatsoever to honor those debts,that's a blessing. Aegon/Dany or whomever whose last name isn't Baratheon is going to find themselves with a lot of gold and little obligations.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon will have less cash available than Tommen since Mace is going to use what cash he has in his last ditch efforts to hold the city - and whoever flees the city might even take a lot of cash with them.

Or you know, they would change sides.

 

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

9 hours ago, frenin said:

This is a misconception, the crown has money, in fact the crown has a lot of money. But that money is indebted, yes, but that debt belongs to the Baratheons

When Aegon gets the Throne he will ind himself with a lot of money and even a bigger debts. But Aegon's great advantage is that he doesn't have to honor those debts. He is not going to pay back the Lannisters, he doesn't have to pay the Iron Bank and the Iron Bank is already doing the most harm it can (calling all the debts in and refusing new loans while backing Stannis's claim) they have little to no leverage over Aegon and Aegon can win them back by vowing to honor Robert's debt. And the money the cron owes to the Tyrells and Hightowers can be effectively used as carrot, "you want your money back, you better behave". Debts are a double edge sword, while the indebted cedes a lot, creditors are less likely to let the debtors fall if they owed them a huge amount of money and Robert's debt is going to be  one of Aegon's biggest advantages over the rest of the pretenders, just as it became an unexpected lifesaver to Stannis.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

I suspect quite a few are, Wyman Manderly for example. And one of the reasons the Freys were aiming big is because their work would be the dirtiest of the all, with a pretty backlash and they would be doing Tywin the favour of cutting the head off Tywin's biggest and last enemy before he could march North and effectively secede.  

Quite a few people would be eager to kill Lannisters for free, in fact most of Aegon's hopes and campaign is based on that certainty.

As per Cersei's chapters and the ADWD epilogue, the vaults are empty. Whatever income is immediately swallowed up by expenses. Any further expenses - say, a war - will require new loans.

The Iron Bank doesn't give a fig which king owed them money. It is the crown that is indebted to them, which is why Stannis has to agree to take on Robert's debts in order to take out more loans.

Aegon can certainly refuse to honor those debts, but look at what happened when Cersei tried to simply defer payments. Not only did the IB stop loaning to the crown, they also refused new loans to merchants and lords, and started calling in debts from all over Westeros. A continuation of this isn't going to keep anyone loyal to Aegon. It certainly won't keep the Tyrells and Hightowers in line if all he offers them is their own money. We're talking about the family that poisoned a king here.

But money itself isn't really the problem. It's the lack of resources Aegon has on hand to entice Houses into alliances with, and he will need it, promises of revenge or no. Dorne more than anyone wants to see the Lannisters' heads on spikes, but they also sealed their secret alliance with Viserys/Dany with a marriage pact. Manderly has more to gain than just the satisfaction of revenge; he wants to bring back Rickon, which gives him a good chance of becoming Protector of the North, or at least more influence in the North than he currently has.

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is Martin's philosophy as well. Even ignoring the whole "human heart at conflict with itself" thing, fact is that the entire war is basically about a chair which represents power. Where Tolkien has Rings of Power, and One Ring in particular, George Martin has the Iron Throne and the dragons.

Is it his philosophy? All you've had to show this so far is your theory on where the story is going. In what GRRM has actually written, I can't think of a single character that turned evil because they gained power or the throne or dragons. Aegon V wished he had dragons after his reforms for the smallfolk were hamstrung by nobles. I don't think GRRM was framing that as unreasonable.

It's interesting you bring up the "human heart at conflict with itself". If Dany is innately cruel and violent, as you seem to think, then there's no genuine conflict.

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is not "sudden turn".

You're proposing she will behave contrary to how she was even up to the end of the last book. That's a sudden turn.

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Because those are ones I could easily find, and because she simply hasn't been under a "proper test" so far. Entire Slaver's Bay setup makes her look essentially like a saint by default. Which is part of the reason why I believe it is hiding something much darker.

Then you can hardly blame us for not finding your predictions convincing, if you're not giving the right pieces of textual evidence to support them.

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Lands (he will have conquered basically some of the richer parts of Westeros), trade (King's Landing by itself is a major port - else it would not exist)...

Well, there you go. Aegon isn't going to speechify his way to the IT. He will have to fire and blood the realm just like any other conqueror.

As for the money, note that the crown is currently barely able to balance their budget - and that's with income coming in from every region bar the North. Aegon will have, what - the Stormlands, Dorne, KL, and a handful of lands in the Reach? That's not going to be enough for expenses, let alone bribes.

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

We are talking about a starting point. And I in fact mentioned both; go back and reread what I wrote.

You misquoted so I'm not sure what you're replying to here.

9 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I actually do think she might be able to rebuild Westeros. But that would require her to survive the Long Night, which is not likely.

So you agree "dragons plant no trees" doesn't mean no rebuilding?

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

As per Cersei's chapters and the ADWD epilogue, the vaults are empty. Whatever income is immediately swallowed up by expenses. Any further expenses - say, a war - will require new loans.

The Vaults aren't empty tho, the money is just already destined which means that there isn't gold available for them, but there will be for Aegon.

 

Quote

The Iron Bank doesn't give a fig which king owed them money. It is the crown that is indebted to them, which is why Stannis has to agree to take on Robert's debts in order to take out more loans.

They should.

Aegon has little reason to honor said debts and Aegon is arriving at a time the Iron Bank is already doing as much harm as It can.

 

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Aegon can certainly refuse to honor those debts, but look at what happened when Cersei tried to simply defer payments. Not only did the IB stop loaning to the crown, they also refused new loans to merchants and lords, and started calling in debts from all over Westeros. A continuation of this isn't going to keep anyone loyal to Aegon. It certainly won't keep the Tyrells and Hightowers in line if all he offers them is their own money. We're talking about the family that poisoned a king here.

Nothing will change with Aegon and the Iron Bank is already backing Stannis, he can promise the Tyrells and the Hightowers their money back if they behave.

What option do they have?? If Aegon gets the Throne, the rest of the pretenders are either dead or unavailable. 

 

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But money itself isn't really the problem. It's the lack of resources Aegon has on hand to entice Houses into alliances with, and he will need it, promises of revenge or no. Dorne more than anyone wants to see the Lannisters' heads on spikes, but they also sealed their secret alliance with Viserys/Dany with a marriage pact. Manderly has more to gain than just the satisfaction of revenge; he wants to bring back Rickon, which gives him a good chance of becoming Protector of the North, or at least more influence in the North than he currently has.

Good thing he has that many enemies in the first place. He is going to get rid of some houses along the way.

[Aldarion]

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

A trial in this world means the Queen/King/Lord/Lord Commander taking a look at you, and deciding if they like the cut of your gib.  Or not.

Where do these fair trials with counsel representing each side, legal aid, etc. exist in the world that Martin has created?

Unlike them, Daenerys is often held up as somebody trying to change things for the better. If she expects to change things for the better, that is a major flaw.

Also, Tyrion is given a trial.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

By telling the truth he could've made Robert take the matter seriously, in fact if Stannis told the truth to the realm, every assasination plan would be blamed on the Lannisters since now they do have a reason to want to off Robert, Stannis sending his letter three months after Robert's death made him look like a desperate man looking for a way to take the throne.

By telling Ned, he also made his odds better.

That is true.

15 hours ago, frenin said:

- Renly was going to murder because Stannis left him no pther option.

- Stannis went there to see Renly dead and steal his army.

- Stannis's offer was not generous.

Renly declared himself king without even considering whether Stannis is interested in doing so. Older brother comes ahead of younger brother, which means that Renly was rebelling against Stannis. Renly may have been better king, but fact is that Stannis was ahead of him in the line of succession. So Renly should have communicated with Stannis first and then declared himself, if Stannis was not interested.

Basically, Renly had already rebelled by that point. Stannis' offer was as generous as he could have reasonably expected. What would you have Stannis do, give up the crown?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Unlike them, Daenerys is often held up as somebody trying to change things for the better. If she expects to change things for the better, that is a major flaw.

Also, Tyrion is given a trial.

 

Both of Tyrion's trials were farcical.  The first was conducted by an eight year old.  In the second, he was denied any opportunity to question witnesses, most of whom were lying, and the sentence was pre-determined.  What we mean by jurisprudence is non-existent in this world.  Since Dany is not a lawyer, why would it have occurred to her to create a system of due process?

[Hodor the Articulate]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

The Vaults aren't empty tho, the money is just already destined which means that there isn't gold available for them, but there will be for Aegon.

So he's just gonna not pay people for work? Is that what you're saying?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

They should.

Aegon has little reason to honor said debts and Aegon is arriving at a time the Iron Bank is already doing as much harm as It can.

Well, they don't. That's just the way it is. Aegon can either take on all the debts, or have his freshly conquered people riot because of continued economic chaos.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Nothing will change with Aegon and the Iron Bank is already backing Stannis, he can promise the Tyrells and the Hightowers their money back if they behave.

What option do they have?? If Aegon gets the Throne, the rest of the pretenders are either dead or unavailable. 

Why are you speaking as if the Tyrells and the Hightowers will be destitute? The Tyrells have power and prestige with Tommen. They're not giving that up for someone else's puppet king unless they get just as good an offer, or it looks like Aegon will be the winner. The Hightowers are probably going to be captured by the IB. I'm sure they'll kneel for Aegon if he can defeat Euron... but let's be honest, Euron is not going to beaten by a bit character.

What money did the Tyrells and Hightowers loan to the crown, anyway? I genuinely don't remember this happening.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Good thing he has that many enemies in the first place. He is going to get rid of some houses along the way.

Sure? I don't quite see how this follows from my post...

[Aldarion]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need for a trial. This is a summary execution after a city has been taken in war. It is the right of the victor to deal with the defeated the way she sees fit. And she showed mercy there by only demanding the same number of slavery as children were murdered - despite the fact that she clearly considered them all guilty.

Nobody ever said this was proper peace justice - but guess what: Even in peace Daenerys Targaryen has the right to set up the ways how she is going to deal with slavers in her own city - which Meereen is from the point the Meereenese yielded it to her.

What is wrong there with making emotional decisions in a literary work where all the POVs make (stupid) emotional decisions all the time?

Everyone being an idiot does not make being an idiot right choice. And basic reason you (and everyone else) gave why it is good for Daenerys to have dragons is "she will make everything oh so much better". But 1) there is no evidence she will make things better, at least for Westeros, and 2) again, dragons are simply too much of a concentration of power.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need for a trial. This is a summary execution after a city has been taken in war. It is the right of the victor to deal with the defeated the way she sees fit. And she showed mercy there by only demanding the same number of slavery as children were murdered - despite the fact that she clearly considered them all guilty.

Nobody ever said this was proper peace justice - but guess what: Even in peace Daenerys Targaryen has the right to set up the ways how she is going to deal with slavers in her own city - which Meereen is from the point the Meereenese yielded it to her.

What is wrong there with making emotional decisions in a literary work where all the POVs make (stupid) emotional decisions all the time?

Actually, we do. She agrees to torturing man's daughters in front of him simply to extract evidence:

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”
“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. 

And then there is this:

She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood...

You can argue all day long that "these were Masters, they deserved it", but that is not the point. Point is, Daenerys clearly has propensity of making cruel decisions when she is angry. And crucifixion in particular can hardly be anything but "scaring people into obedience".

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no such tendencies - or rather: Dany has less tendencies to kill or hurt or torture people than most other POVs. She fights back when she or her people are attacked, she doesn't do it because it is fun like, you know, Arya does in 'Mercy' and earlier. If you have problems with torture in this world this is your problem - I don't find it strange to torture people who are suspected terrorists and who are confirmed to be accomplices in murder. The safety of the state and the safety of Dany's army as a guarantee of stability and order in Meereen are more important than the lives and well-being of people who are suspected enemies of the state.

And last time I looked Stannis declared himself king with only a couple of thousand ragged followers.

We clearly see that torture gives no usable information, and anyone with any experience in the matter would have been able to tell so to Daenerys. So either she doesn't listen to advisors, is surrounded by idiots, or allows her anger to rule her.

And again, Daenerys has dragons and what is (purpoted to be) fanatically loyal army. Thus standards must be stricter for her, because she has less external limitation.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think Daenerys will ever 'conquer Westeros'. She will take the Iron Throne, but not bother with the rest of the continent. Why should she?

 

Because that is her goal? Iron Throne is merely a symbol of Targaryen conquest of Westeros. Having Iron Throne yet not ruling is worthless.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If they die, they will have no issue with that.

 

Irrelevant; if they follow her, she is responsible for them. Especially if it is not just warriors.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no such tendencies - or rather: Dany has less tendencies to kill or hurt or torture people than most other POVs. She fights back when she or her people are attacked, she doesn't do it because it is fun like, you know, Arya does in 'Mercy' and earlier. If you have problems with torture in this world this is your problem - I don't find it strange to torture people who are suspected terrorists and who are confirmed to be accomplices in murder. The safety of the state and the safety of Dany's army as a guarantee of stability and order in Meereen are more important than the lives and well-being of people who are suspected enemies of the state.

And last time I looked Stannis declared himself king with only a couple of thousand ragged followers.

Robert at that point didn't know anything about twincest. In such a situation, making a move to kill Robert would actually be illogical for Cersei, as if it failed it would make succession less likely than if she just sat tight. Point is, Stannis had no reason to think Robert is in danger - of course, that depended on nobody else continuing Arryn's investigation.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis went to Storm's End to lure Renly there and murder him so he could steal his army. He wanted to murder him, and Renly only fought back.

Renly also did offer Stannis pretty good terms, did he not? Why didn't he accept those?

Stannis is the older brother and therefore one in line for the throne. By accepting Renly's offer he would undo the entire fabric of feudal society. Do you have any clue about what that would lead to?

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

How should I know? Unlike you, I point out to actual historical parallels within this fictional universe we are talking about where it is repeatedly mentioned (Last Storm, Battle of the Great Fork) that the effectiveness of dragons - even dragons like Meraxes and Balerion - is reduced by rain. We have even more evidence that dragons don't like cold and snow, and have considerable issue with that. This is much more relevant as prediction element than pointing to real world stuff George might neither know nor care about.

And you don't need any parallels to know that firing a flamethrower at a house or roof caked in snow is not going to do you much good unless you can afford to first melt all the snow and dry the roof/wood so it burns.

With the Others, there clearly are magical issues to consider. Perhaps the dragonfire can melt them away like the sun can summer snow? We don't know yet. However, I never believed three dragons could defeat all the wight armies and all the Others that might be out there. They can at best be one piece of the puzzle, not the magical flamethrower that resolves everything.

And of course the dragons are going to be pretty much useless if the Others were to create a huge blizzard during a battle. Not just because it is difficult to fly in a storm, but also because the snow will render their fire to be completely ineffective even if they could target the enemy properly.

All of which mean basically one thing: Daenerys' whole plot is superfluous, or at least her possession of dragons is. And people complain about Young Griff's plot being a waste of time...

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I told you the point of that - it is about her being the Mother of Dragons and how she sees herself as a monster because she birthed creatures she sees as monsters (which is wrong, by the way - dragons are just animals, alpha-predators, but not monsters).

Her own nature would be a problem if she actually had sadistic thoughts and desires. If she had wanted castrate Jorah for his betrayal and slowly roast him alive after she fed his balls to him, if she still dreamed about punishing Selmy for his previous treason, if she had strong fantasies about torturing Ben to death for his betrayal. And so on. That would mean she had a problematic nature.

But while there is nothing of that kind of thing there, we cannot invent it or pretend her being somewhat strict occasionally or feeling good when dealing with people who deserve it is a severe character flaw.

And now you are the one forgetting we are talking about a story here. Those "good feelings" are there for a reason. They show that she has at least potential for Maegor-like behaviour.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course there is also a violent aspect to this. But this doesn't mean the meaning of this is mad or unrestricted violence. Not to mention, you know, those are the words of Aegon and Jon Snow, too, if they both are Targaryens. Does this mean they also have severe problems with their nature? Or have to go through with what those words mean according to you?

 

They don't have to go through. Daenerys is one focusing on her Targaryen identity, "being a dragon" or "blood of a dragon"; though Aegon may think so as well - we don't know.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I told you the point of that - it is about her being the Mother of Dragons and how she sees herself as a monster because she birthed creatures she sees as monsters (which is wrong, by the way - dragons are just animals, alpha-predators, but not monsters).

Her own nature would be a problem if she actually had sadistic thoughts and desires. If she had wanted castrate Jorah for his betrayal and slowly roast him alive after she fed his balls to him, if she still dreamed about punishing Selmy for his previous treason, if she had strong fantasies about torturing Ben to death for his betrayal. And so on. That would mean she had a problematic nature.

But while there is nothing of that kind of thing there, we cannot invent it or pretend her being somewhat strict occasionally or feeling good when dealing with people who deserve it is a severe character flaw.

It is part of her choice, but dragons themselves specifically symbolize "fire and blood".

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I judge people by their actions and deeds, not their thoughts or words or emotions. Daenerys can have all the sadistic fantasies in the world - as long as she doesn't act on them I don't care. Vice versa, I don't care how she feels when she does something that I don't consider to be a questionable act by comparison.

I mean, don't you get it - I want Dany to go all Maegor on the Ghiscari. I want her to butcher them all. I want her to bathe in their blood. Because I think it would be the right cause of action.

My problem with her character is that she is too soft, not to harsh.

Yes, I get it. Problem is that you are in a contradiction: you want her to be a warlord, yet you also want her to be a ruler. You want her to rule in a way that will destroy slaver's society, yet you also expect her to perform well in Westerosi feudal society. But these are contradictory expectations: you will get one, or another. Not both.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I judge people by their actions and deeds, not their thoughts or words or emotions. Daenerys can have all the sadistic fantasies in the world - as long as she doesn't act on them I don't care. Vice versa, I don't care how she feels when she does something that I don't consider to be a questionable act by comparison.

I mean, don't you get it - I want Dany to go all Maegor on the Ghiscari. I want her to butcher them all. I want her to bathe in their blood. Because I think it would be the right cause of action.

My problem with her character is that she is too soft, not to harsh.

Which also means that she has less need to restrict her cruelty, as she has organic power base and thus does not to rely as much on Westerosi support.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, okay, the point I was trying to make simply was that you are factually wrong that Robert held on to the Iron Throne. He was murdered and it was handed to a bastard by his own wife.

History never ends - Robert was never secure, and his dynasty is going to be toppled by the Targaryens. The idea is that you definitely don't hold on to the Iron Throne even as a Targaryen if you don't have dragons, too.

You won't hold onto the Iron Throne even with dragons, if you can't do it without them.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, okay, the point I was trying to make simply was that you are factually wrong that Robert held on to the Iron Throne. He was murdered and it was handed to a bastard by his own wife.

History never ends - Robert was never secure, and his dynasty is going to be toppled by the Targaryens. The idea is that you definitely don't hold on to the Iron Throne even as a Targaryen if you don't have dragons, too.

Can you, then, point me to the place where anyone provides any plan to reaching Daenerys that is actually doable and/or not shot down after being proposed?

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, the stupid chair is a pointless distraction. The real plot point are the ice demons and their agenda, not the game of thrones shit.

Wrong. In fact, if anything, it is ice demons who are a distraction. Else we wouldn't be spending so many books on the Throne. Also:

But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Martin is actually a big fan of Tolkien, and quite open on how Tolkien influenced him (including Gandalf's death etc.). Above suggests - and if memory serves me right, GRRM even stated it once outright - that one of main goals for A Song of Ice and Fire is to show actual process of ruling. So yes, "game of thrones shit" is if anything more important of two plot points, even as it really is a distraction from the real threat.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Is it his philosophy? All you've had to show this so far is your theory on where the story is going. In what GRRM has actually written, I can't think of a single character that turned evil because they gained power or the throne or dragons. Aegon V wished he had dragons after his reforms for the smallfolk were hamstrung by nobles. I don't think GRRM was framing that as unreasonable.

It's interesting you bring up the "human heart at conflict with itself". If Dany is innately cruel and violent, as you seem to think, then there's no genuine conflict.

As I already stated, Tolkien is big influence on Martin. Now consider this and how it relates to Martin's Iron Throne:

Quote

“Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).”

…

“Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left “good” clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.”

I don't think Dany is "innately cruel and violent", I just think that she has "innate tendency towards cruelty" and that her quest for the throne will push her in that direction. And above description of Gandalf-as-Lord-of-the-Rings sounds a lot like Daenerys might turn out once she sets out to acquire the bloody chair.

And yes, I think that Aegon V not having dragons will eventually turn out to be a very good thing.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

“Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).”

…

“Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left “good” clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.”

Which is supported by her own inner thoughts.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Well, there you go. Aegon isn't going to speechify his way to the IT. He will have to fire and blood the realm just like any other conqueror.

As for the money, note that the crown is currently barely able to balance their budget - and that's with income coming in from every region bar the North. Aegon will have, what - the Stormlands, Dorne, KL, and a handful of lands in the Reach? That's not going to be enough for expenses, let alone bribes.

I never said that Aegon will speechify his way to the Iron Throne. I just said that he will be forced to rely on diplomacy, which will prevent him from being a tyrant.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So you agree "dragons plant no trees" doesn't mean no rebuilding?

As a quote it actually does. It just doesn't mean that she is innately incapable of rebuilding; but her choices may prevent her from doing so.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

 

We clearly see that torture gives no usable information, and anyone with any experience in the matter would have been able to tell so to Daenerys. So either she doesn't listen to advisors, is surrounded by idiots, or allows her anger to rule her.

 

That was a cruel and spiteful order on Daenerys' part, given under the stress of her friend's murder.  However, it was Daenerys who ordered an end to torture, because she concluded it was producing no valuable information.  She's probably the first person in this world to have reached that conclusion.  Jon Snow, Stannis, Lord Manderly, Qhorin Halfhand, Mance Rayder, Jon Arryn, have all resorted to torture on occasions, let alone the more obviously bad guys. In coming to that conclusion, she's well in advance of the standards of her world.  

I must say I'm still not following the ethics of butchering peasants = soldiers' duty, butchering slave-drivers = morally outrageous.  The average peasant is far less culpable than the average slave driver, at least in my opinion.  When Meereen was taken by storm, the slave-drivers' lives were at Daenerys' disposal.

[Hodor the Articulate]

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Wrong. In fact, if anything, it is ice demons who are a distraction.

What even is this take??? Not a single person in Westeros is paying attention to the apocalypse zombies, except some of the NW and the Wildlings, because they're all too busy power grabbing. Gee, I wonder the message of the story is...?

12 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I don't think Dany is "innately cruel and violent", I just think that she has "innate tendency towards cruelty" and that her quest for the throne will push her in that direction. And above description of Gandalf-as-Lord-of-the-Rings sounds a lot like Daenerys might turn out once she sets out to acquire the bloody chair.

That Tolkien quote is about goodness seeming evil when people are forced to do good. I'm struggling to see how it applies to your argument.... unless your trying to say Dany will muscle everyone to be good and everyone will hate it. In which case, the people should get over themselves.

"Innate tendency towards cruelty" sounds a lot like "innately cruel and violent". And whatever cruelty Dany conjures up is comparable with that of the other characters.

As for this argument that she's more cruel when she's angry, that's just normal human behavior. Does Jon not start wailing on Emmett because he got all emotional? Did Robert not strike Cersei when he got upset with her? Let's not forget our boy Aegon ordering Tyrion to pick up the cyvasse pieces he knocked over when he threw a tantrum. What would be concerning is if she got off on violence and cruelty, like Maegor or Joffrey or Aerys. How GRRM has portrayed tyrannical characters is markedly different from how he's written Daenerys.

12 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

And yes, I think that Aegon V not having dragons will eventually turn out to be a very good thing.

For whom? The great lords? It certainly wasn't good for the smallfolk, who got to live under the thumbs of their lords another 50 or so years. I thought you opposed concentrated power? Or is okay as long as it's shared among a group of elites?

31 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I never said that Aegon will speechify his way to the Iron Throne. I just said that he will be forced to rely on diplomacy, which will prevent him from being a tyrant.

Yeah you did. You said Aegon was an awesome motivational speaker, and used this as an example of the diplomacy he will supposedly rely on.

Your only other suggestion was "hope", but what you describe sounds more like vengeance. And as I said, even the most vengeful expected to be rewarded in lands and/or betrothals, etc. Since he is short on resources, Aegon will have to resort to tyranny, which is pretty much what he's giving the Stormlands right now.

33 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

As a quote it actually does. It just doesn't mean that she is innately incapable of rebuilding; but her choices may prevent her from doing so.

If your interpretation of the quote only makes sense when you strip it of context, then the quote doesn't mean what you say it means within the story... no matter how many times you say it.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, frenin said:

It is quite clear for you, him going without dragons and taking the land without dragons means that he is out of Dany's shadow and control and can dictate his own terms. 

Aegon himself sells his campaign as them being Dany's vanguard. They go there for her to join them eventually. They don't want to get out of her shadow at all.

They might involuntarily leave that shadow and set themselves as the only Targaryen faction, but so far they don't want to do that.

That he will fail without dragons in the end - not just against Dany and her allies but against his other enemies, too - is what Tyrion himself believes. He wants to destroy Aegon with this advice of his, not help him.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

So we are told that Aemond torched the Riverlands and we're told that Visenya and Maegor torched the castles if the traitors vut ofc, only ten people die and the castles were made of sand. 

I just say that those tiny attacks and the unknown number of casualties do not warrant for me a description of dragons as weapons of mass destruction. And 'the Riverlands' are far bigger than the tiny region Aemond torched.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

When one part of the armiy was 55k and the other was 11k, it was considered huge yes.

Nobody says the losses at the Field of Fire were huge.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

No, they are defined for its quickness, devastation and range. It doesn't matter whether you believed them nukes or not, Martin has said they are, so they are. 4k in a go is a huge toll in medieval warfare so...

LOL, why is anyone even talking to you? If Martin says nukes are teddy bears do you believe that, too? Dragons are what they are depicted to be, not what the author wants them to be but not depicts them to be.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

No they wouldn't, Aegon confused them while Visenya and Rhaenys finished them off.

I said, the dragons made the whole thing easier, but the general plan of burning the lands before and behind the enemy could have been pulled off without dragons.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Until the others appear it is, how do you know that it doesn't snow the first day of winter in KL??

Because we have winter announced during the Dance in 130 AC but snow is only a thing in KL after the Dance is over and the regency in place. We also can take from Jaime's chapters in AFfC that snow this early (before the end of autumn) is unusual for that region, too.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Kings don't like broken kingdoms and Dany aims to have the whole thing, not bits of it.

Daenerys wants the Iron Throne. This is a succession war, not a bloody conquest. They are Targaryens. Once she or Aegon have the Iron Throne the Westerosi people will fall in line. They won't have to conquer every last village of peasants. If some Dornishmen, etc. want to topple her, they will have to leave their desert and come at her, not the other way around.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

What do i think it is?? Almost never means very rarely and even in Dorne the snow would not be abundant.

Certainly not your baseless proclamation of one in a hundred. Almost never means almost never.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

We hear that they thought winter to be closed at hand and that they hoped the weather got better and it didn't in fact, we have no weird phenomenology for Dorne.

Just admit when you are wrong. You claimed we saw winter in Dorne, but we did not. We just saw autumn in Dorne.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

No, those peoples usually are not either forewarned nor its inhabitants can leave at will, the noble houses weren't there when those burnings happened, that doesn't mean that there was empty. You're free to soften it however you want tho.

We have no idea who was at what castle when the dragons attacked. The nobles were gone during Aegon's actual conquest back in 4 AC, but we have no idea whether they hid in the wild when the dragons came.

Stuff we learn specifically about the Wyls indicate that there were Dornish lords who didn't give a rat's ass about their castles being burned because they had access to underground cellars and caves and the fire couldn't touch them.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

She would, it's like saying that she will not care about the north or the west, Dany styled herself as Queen of the Andal, Rhoynar and the First Men, which means that will be her intention. Her father's throne means that she is entitled to that empty desert.

But again - this doesn't mean anybody is going to bother with conquering it. For that to happen Dorne would have to secede from the Iron Throne after Aegon's death and not accept Dany's rule at that point - assuming Aegon dies at all.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

The Yronwoods loved Q, which means that they will be predisposed against Dany. But ofc, everyone is going to crack except our favs.

Lord Anders lost his own heir, Ser Cletus, on that doomed mission. We have to wait and see what they think of all that and of Prince Aegon. I don't doubt they will march to war with Arianne, but once they have to choose between a fake dragon married to a Martell and a Targaryen queen with actual dragons we don't know which side they and other Dornish houses will go.

I'd not be surprised if Archibald Yronwood remained with Barristan, actually. It is Gerris who blames Dany for Quentyn's death, not Arch.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

And they will still have men to fight Dany if needed be, just as happened during the Dance. 

Or they will have men to join her. Or they will no longer have any men. We don't know that at this point. Chances are that Thoros' people are more likely to join the woman with the dragons than the guy lacking them. Especially if she shows up with other red priests.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

A disgraced lady who has not known other thing but defeat, disgrace and humiliation since she is in power is not going to rule much,  it remains to be seen the control she has over her lands. A pretender who suddenly has the majority of the support, if only for a moment, is a fare better deal than Cersei.

There are no 'Lannister pretenders' challenging Cersei, nor is there any indication she is going to lose her power over the Rock. Even Kevan never intended to take that away from her, he wanted to send her back home after the trials.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

I said Tyrek as i could've said any random Lannister, bottom line is, there is no shortage to pretenders to the Rock.

There are Lannisters at the Rock, two of which owe their high offices (Gaven and Damion) to Cersei. Neither of them has a good claim to the Rock, with both of them being mere cousins of the lordly line of Tytos and Tywin.

Other Westermen might not be willing/eager to follow Cersei the same they followed Tywin, but so far there is no chance that the Lannisters as such abandon Cersei. She is POV and a big villain in this story for a reason.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm not sure if when you mean King of Westeros, you mean actually that or simply King in king's landing. The Vale is one of the most fertile and powerful kingdoms and right now it has precious harvest, how any ruler is just going to ignore it??

Again, man, did Rhaenyra or Aegon II or Daemon Blackfyre or Robert Baratheon try to conquer the Vale or the Stormlands or the West or any other place but the Iron Throne? If you want the throne as a royal pretender you take it, and then you deal with rebellions if people don't accept your rule. You don't conquer everything. And if people want to resist your rule after you have the royal seat and throne then you let those rebels come at you, you don't march your men into a desert or use ships to invade some backwater vale isolated from the rest of your lands by huge mountains.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

They submitted in a past  where the Oldtown had wood instead of stone walls, in fact a lot of the reasons they had such dominion is because the First Men lasted a millenia before figuring out stone walls were a thing.

All I said was they submitted in the past. They have no trouble doing that. And I expect Euron to give them very fine terms. Better terms, perhaps, than they currently enjoy under the aegis of the Iron Throne. Lower taxes, say.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Again opinion, Euron is hardly a plague and the trade being disrupted doesn't mean the mob is going to tear him apart, Oldtown is a city of traders but  said traders don't wield enough power to influence the mob, as long as the city doesn't starve or suffer a plague, he'll be fine.

The Oldtowners are very pissed. Reread the last Samwell chapter. If the Redwynes don't resolve things continued resistance would mean more losses.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

- I didn't say it was going to be weeks.

- He is going to try sooner or later.

How much time do you expect TWoW to cover? A couple of months at best, and the need for more ships will only arise after the destruction of the Redwyne fleet reaches the ears of the Hightowers - which isn't going to happen on page 1 of the book.

They won't be able to build ships in time, nor do they have the men trained for sea battles since the Hightowers and Tyrells do not have ships of their own capable to challenge the Ironborn at sea. Only the Redwynes have those ships.

In the meantime, Oldtown and its vassals and the other people close to the coast will be defenseless against Ironborn raids. They won't have the ships to fight back, while the Ironborn can attack them at will. And their mobility at sea will allow them to show up everywhere and nowhere. If they protect the city, the castles will fall, if they protect the castles, the villages and towns will be raided, if they protect the villages and towns, the city will fall, etc.

They will have to compromise.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Well... that's a nice story and all, but assuming he is not Voldemort, how is he going to win without loses??

Again, with magic. He is preparing a magical ritual in 'The Foresaken' and he should be able to direct that against his enemies while protecting his own ships.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

It's significance it's clear, the money is coming but so are the debts, which means that while the money is in the coffers, it already has a destination, so it might as well not  exist. 

For a newcomer with zero obligation whatsoever to honor those debts,that's a blessing. Aegon/Dany or whomever whose last name isn't Baratheon is going to find themselves with a lot of gold and little obligations.

That is just nonsense. Stannis also has nothing to do with Robert's or Joffrey's or Tommen's debts yet his creditors demand he take them on, too. Do you think Aegon will get better terms from any of his creditors - especially the Lannisters and Tyrells?

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Or you know, they would change sides.

The Tyrells could - or not. The Lannisters definitely won't.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 7/6/2020 at 11:54 AM, Morte said:

To be one of the wonders of the world, you had to also be one of it's hammers, else your enemies would crush you and your plans, as well as your allies.

Well, you know the saying about hammers...

On 7/7/2020 at 2:25 AM, Aldarion said:

I am arguing it because her numerical advantage playing out in Westeros would be completely illogical.

Yeah, she's going to lead thousands to their deaths like Paul with the Fremen. I agree that the Dothraki will suffer more losses than the Westerosi overall.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Because those are ones I could easily find, and because she simply hasn't been under a "proper test" so far. Entire Slaver's Bay setup makes her look essentially like a saint by default. Which is part of the reason why I believe it is hiding something much darker.

Interesting take. But Meereen was a test - if she could be persuaded to give up the throne. She almost passed. But riding Drogon for the first time made her decide that Westeros was more important.

On 7/7/2020 at 6:24 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

The meaning of planting trees in Meereen is given plainly in the exchange. It represents settling down in the middle of an unfinished war, an act that leads to rollbacks on most of her reforms, rendering all the death and destruction meaningless. But to make this interpretation, you'd have to use context instead of making claims based on a single chapter or out-of-context quotes.

There is nothing about the "war" in that conversation. She thinks the peace is still in place. In the end of the chapter, she's having a conversation with herself about why she stayed in Meereen and isn't in Westeros yet. 

Most of the quotes you're using to justify your interpretation arent even quoted fully. You thought that turning away from "her children" in the last chapter was referring to the freedmen. Nope, it was her dragons. You also think she's agonizing over whether to fight against slavers or not. But there is nothing going on in that internal convo that even suggests that she cares about them or that war right now. She just cares about Westeros/the Iron Throne/Drogon. 

Also how is she going to help the freedmen if she's decided that helping society flourish is for suckers? 

Quote

Speaking of Dany X, it's clear by the first page she's thinking about her freedmen on the first page.

Quote the whole thing. She's trying to convince herself that she should return to Meereen, but she doesn't want to because Hizdahr doesn't excite her passions like riding Drogon does. What she doesn't want to do is in italics, with the truth in the bold:

Quote

“On Drogon’s back she felt whole. Up in the sky the woes of this world could not touch her. How could she abandon that?
It was time, though. A girl might spend her life at play, but she was a woman grown, a queen, a wife, a mother to thousands. Her children had need of her. Drogon had bent before the whip, and so must she. She had to don her crown again and return to her ebon bench and the arms of her noble husband.
Hizdahr, of the tepid kisses.”

This was at the beginning of the chapter - at the end she concludes that she belongs in Westeros. Pay attention to the arc. 

If she doesn't care about being a queen in Meereen, she doesn't care about helping "her children" (who are full grown adults, btw). A ruler in Meereen means stick around, ruling, to help the freedmen. 

On 7/6/2020 at 4:31 PM, Lord Varys said:

She doesn't want her dragon children devour her other children. She wants peace between both of them ... but Drogon eating Hazzea (if he did that) only symbolizes that there can never be peace between the dragon and the harpy, Daenerys and the Ghiscari, and the freedmen and the slavers. This isn't a conflict that can be sugar-coated or explained away.

So in this analogy, Hazzea represents the Harpy? Or is that Drogon? 

Or, maybe it just symbolizes that dragons fuck people up, no matter who they are. The closer she gets to her dragons the closer she gets to murdering children. 

On 7/7/2020 at 2:25 AM, Aldarion said:

Aegon's and Arianne's power is dependant on consent of the people they are leading, so definitely not comparable to Daenerys' power with dragons (and likely also religious cultists).

Aegon is also dependent on Arianne - he needs her more than she needs him. Arianne/Doran can continue to stave off vengeance for few extra years if they want. I just dont think the Sandsnakes will stand for it. So I foresee some dissention in the ranks in Dorne. Arianne is skeptical of the GC and knows the history of those failed Blackfyre rebellions.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

Or, maybe it just symbolizes that dragons fuck people up, no matter who they are. The closer she gets to her dragons the closer she gets to murdering children. 

In your headcanon, the Targaryen dragon riders spent their lives roasting people alive, on the backs of dragons.  When they weren't eating babies for fun.

Those of us who have actually  read Fire and Blood and the The World of Ice and Fire, learned that in fact, the Seven Kingdoms were mostly at peace, under the Targayrens.  Even those who rode dragons.  If you object to that, take it up with George Martin.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Everyone being an idiot does not make being an idiot right choice. And basic reason you (and everyone else) gave why it is good for Daenerys to have dragons is "she will make everything oh so much better". But 1) there is no evidence she will make things better, at least for Westeros, and 2) again, dragons are simply too much of a concentration of power.

Dany's dragons have nothing to do with her decision to torture people for information or how she dealt with the slavers in the wake of them crucifying children.

I never said Daenerys Targaryen would be the best possible queen for the Seven Kingdoms; at this point I think she is the best alternatives to the travesties that are Stannis, Tommen, and Euron.

And I don't think Aegon has to be bad by default. I think they could be great together. I just think him having not dragons and Dany and the legitimacy that came with that is going to mean he will face multiple problems and his inability to resolve them will turn him into a tyrant.

Dany is not even going to be the one to start this Second Dance - he and his people will. And then they deserve what's coming for them.

Dragons are a great thing, by the way - as long as only one person/faction has them. If there are as many as there were during the reign of Viserys I they become a danger.

Quote

Actually, we do. She agrees to torturing man's daughters in front of him simply to extract evidence:

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”
“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. 

And then there is this:

She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood...

You can argue all day long that "these were Masters, they deserved it", but that is not the point. Point is, Daenerys clearly has propensity of making cruel decisions when she is angry. And crucifixion in particular can hardly be anything but "scaring people into obedience".

No, this had nothing to do with scaring people into obedience. It was vengeance for the murdered children, satisfaction for their parents and other kin who could do nothing to stop the slavers doing this, and, too, for Dany herself who knew those children were murdered because of her and so she had to watch them all on the way to Meereen.

It is perfectly okay within the context of this world to demand repayment in blood for shit like that - just as it is great to feel joy at the sight of crucified slavers.

Guess what - everybody has the propensity to make cruel decisions when angry. That is perfectly okay. Dany would have a problem if she would make cruel decisions all the time or if she was angry all the time.

Quote

We clearly see that torture gives no usable information, and anyone with any experience in the matter would have been able to tell so to Daenerys. So either she doesn't listen to advisors, is surrounded by idiots, or allows her anger to rule her.

And again, Daenerys has dragons and what is (purpoted to be) fanatically loyal army. Thus standards must be stricter for her, because she has less external limitation.

Torture can give good information, but even if it did not - people in this world believe torture is part of their policing and justice system. Take it up with George if you don't like it.

There is no reason to use different standards on somebody with dragons or 'a fanatically loyal army'. Next you are saying Castamere is wrong because Tywin is richer than everybody else, or the Tyrells should use fewer soldiers because they are 'naturally overpowered', etc.

Quote

Because that is her goal? Iron Throne is merely a symbol of Targaryen conquest of Westeros. Having Iron Throne yet not ruling is worthless.

She is a Targaryen. Taking the Iron Throne is the only thing she'll need if she can also dispatched of the other pretender(s). If not, she will have to hunt them down, of course. But there is no reason to believe Westeros would on principle rebel against her or she would have to face a peasant rebellion or stuff like that.

This is the weird misguided notion that Targaryens will have to conquer everything - the whole factionalism and regionalism is going to die now that all the pretenders in the game want everything, not just a piece of the cake.

Quote

Irrelevant; if they follow her, she is responsible for them. Especially if it is not just warriors.

Well, if they have no problem dying for her and her cause then she isn't a bad ruler if she sacrifices them. If I volunteer for a suicide mission you don't get me to tell that I'm doing the wrong thing.

Quote

Robert at that point didn't know anything about twincest. In such a situation, making a move to kill Robert would actually be illogical for Cersei, as if it failed it would make succession less likely than if she just sat tight. Point is, Stannis had no reason to think Robert is in danger - of course, that depended on nobody else continuing Arryn's investigation.

Stannis believed Cersei's children weren't Robert's and that she murdered Jon Arryn to keep this a secret. He believed that Robert would turn against Cersei - in fact, he and Jon Arryn wanted to persuade Robert to believe Cersei's children weren't his to destroy Cersei and Jaime and, perhaps, even the innocent children - if he ever found out the truth, just as he believed that Cersei murdered Robert when she did. He does not believe his brother Robert died an accidental death, does he?

Stannis had a legal and moral duty to tell Robert what he thought he knew - and he had a legal and moral duty to inform the king about the murder of Jon Arryn. Instead he did nothing of that sort, ran away, and prepared for war.

Quote

Stannis is the older brother and therefore one in line for the throne. By accepting Renly's offer he would undo the entire fabric of feudal society. Do you have any clue about what that would lead to?

To exactly the same thing as Stannis' own usurpation on the basis of nonexisting evidence about the twincest. Or the thing Robert pulled with his own usurpation. Renly was even nice to Stannis - he only demanded his fealty, not his head.

Quote

All of which mean basically one thing: Daenerys' whole plot is superfluous, or at least her possession of dragons is. And people complain about Young Griff's plot being a waste of time...

Dany's story is about more than just dragons. And the fight against the Others involves more than just dragons, too. You have too superfluous a view of the story.

Not to mention this idea of her having dragons, plural. That is nonsense. She will have one dragon - Drogon. The other two will be controlled by other riders - men or women who may or may not feel beholden to Daenerys Targaryen.

Quote

And now you are the one forgetting we are talking about a story here. Those "good feelings" are there for a reason. They show that she has at least potential for Maegor-like behaviour.

Maegor-like behavior is sadism and cruelty without reason or limits, it is cruelty and torture and execution because it is fun to kill and torture people or watch it happen. That is Maegor-like cruelty. Dany is as far away from that as Brienne or Davos are from Gregor or Ramsay.

Quote

They don't have to go through. Daenerys is one focusing on her Targaryen identity, "being a dragon" or "blood of a dragon"; though Aegon may think so as well - we don't know.

Daenerys focuses on who she is as Mother of Dragons and what it means to have dragons. She doesn't see this necessarily as a positive thing. She is making her peace with having a cruel or dangerous side, too - but this isn't a dichotomy. It is not all good or all bad. It is about making your peace with being cruel when it is necessary, not shying away from cruel acts when they are called for.

Quote

It is part of her choice, but dragons themselves specifically symbolize "fire and blood".

Dragons have nothing to do with blood as such. They are fire made flesh, not blood made flesh. The blood part in the saying has to do with Valyrian sorcery being rooted in blood and fire and with the dragonlords believing/knowing they literally have/are 'the blood of the dragon', i.e. being descended from birth humans and dragons or at least having dragon-like qualities themselves thanks to the blood magic their ancestors did to bind themselves and their descendants to dragons.

This has an aspect of 'how human/normal am I' in Dany's mind because she and her family are definitely not like other normal people, but it has nothing to do with sadistic or cruel tendencies. Dragons don't torture people, either. They might kill prey when they have to/want, but they are not monsters like human psychopaths.

Quote

Yes, I get it. Problem is that you are in a contradiction: you want her to be a warlord, yet you also want her to be a ruler. You want her to rule in a way that will destroy slaver's society, yet you also expect her to perform well in Westerosi feudal society. But these are contradictory expectations: you will get one, or another. Not both.

LOL, no. Dany's troubles in Meereen have nothing to do with there being 'different societies'. It has to do with her controlling a city (state) full of terrorists and traitors.

Dany is never going to have to deal with terrorists and traitors in Kl, butchering other Kingslanders to send them a message, nor is ever going to bother how the lords of Westerosi exploit or brutalize their peasants.

There is a cultural and political difference between Dany and the slavers that cannot be resolved peacefully - which is not going to be the case in Westeros. There all she has to do is to kill the other pretenders and people will fall in line.

Quote

Which also means that she has less need to restrict her cruelty, as she has organic power base and thus does not to rely as much on Westerosi support.

But she will get Westerosi support because she has symbols of great power in the dragons as well as in her army. She has a strong claim to the throne, too, meaning people will flock to her banner no matter what she does ... just like they flocked to the banner of a monster like Maegor.

This idea that the Westerosi will support a dragonless Aegon more than the Mother of Dragons is just nonsense.

Quote

You won't hold onto the Iron Throne even with dragons, if you can't do it without them.

That I'd contest. The only reason Westeros worked as united Realm is because it was forged into one by dragonflame. Nobody else could have done that, and the Targaryens remained after the dragons died because people had grown accustomed to how great things were under this united, peaceful regime - and how powerful one could be as a lord when one served on the Small Council or as Hand.

You see how batshit crazy the Baratheon dynasty is - no stability, no unity in the royal family nor the Realm at large, no sense of responsibilty, just narcissism, laziness, decadence, and repressed ambition.

Quote

Can you, then, point me to the place where anyone provides any plan to reaching Daenerys that is actually doable and/or not shot down after being proposed?

Well, no, but I said that the point of the issue is that they hadn't yet settled what they would do. You seem to want it to be that Aegon just expressed something they all wanted to at that point - which is wrong.

Quote

Wrong. In fact, if anything, it is ice demons who are a distraction. Else we wouldn't be spending so many books on the Throne.

LOL, that is because this series isn't finished so far. We know the story grew out of proportion as written, and the big conflict, the only conflict that matters in the end is the one which didn't really develop since the very first Prologue - the Others and who they are, what they are about, and how they can be defeated.

You do know the original conception of the story - AGoT: about the pointless Lannister-Stark conflict culminating in the deaths of Robb and Catelyn, ADwD: Dany's conquest of Westeros, TWoW: fight of the survivors (Daenerys included) against the Others.

We are still stuck between book 1 & 2 of the original conception. Dany's conquest of Westeros will now be the Second Dance, one assumes. But as we are saying all this time - this cannot really work if the Others cut short that plot. As soon as the Wall is breached the sane people won't continue to fight for the chair.

Quote

Martin is actually a big fan of Tolkien, and quite open on how Tolkien influenced him (including Gandalf's death etc.). Above suggests - and if memory serves me right, GRRM even stated it once outright - that one of main goals for A Song of Ice and Fire is to show actual process of ruling. So yes, "game of thrones shit" is if anything more important of two plot points, even as it really is a distraction from the real threat.

Of course George also explores various aspects of kingship and ruling in this series, but that doesn't change the fact that the real conflict is the one most people overlook/ignore so far - just as it is kind of obvious that the real saviors/heroes of the ultimate struggle have no clue about their role in this because they are either at the wrong end of the world so far (Dany) or don't even know who they are (Jon Snow).

I mean, seriously, who gives shit about who sits the throne or what pompous, arrogant noble gets back his seat or avenges himself on some other noble house - I don't. The only thing that makes this whole story interesting is that there is a common enemy to all the people and that those petty conflicts have to stop if they want to survive in the end.

Quote

As I already stated, Tolkien is big influence on Martin. Now consider this and how it relates to Martin's Iron Throne.

The Iron Throne has nothing to do with a Ring of Power. Absolutely nothing. George doesn't have Tolkien's warped Christian view on power and stuff. To him, actions and choices make a good or bad ruler, not instruments. It is childish, superstitious view to believe that the mere methods how you do something will corrupt you, even if you do something good.

This is very much illustrated by the Aragorn example - Tolkien's Aragorn is a good king because he is the rightful king, the one with the dragons healing hands, longevity, special palantír control, magical blood and divine ancestry, etc. He is not a good king because of his choices, decisions, character, etc. What he is is rooted in his ancestry and blood and racial legacy - this is what brings forth great kings - whereas George makes it perfectly clear that his royal and noble families bring forth good and bad apples. There are no Orcs among his people, nobody who is bad or irredeemable by birth or upbringing.

Quote

I don't think Dany is "innately cruel and violent", I just think that she has "innate tendency towards cruelty" and that her quest for the throne will push her in that direction. And above description of Gandalf-as-Lord-of-the-Rings sounds a lot like Daenerys might turn out once she sets out to acquire the bloody chair.

But you are wrong there. Dany has no innate tendency towards cruelty which is exemplified by the fact that she just isn't all that cruel - and never when it is uncalled for.

Quote

And yes, I think that Aegon V not having dragons will eventually turn out to be a very good thing.

That is definitely wrong. Aegon V is one of the guys who definitely should have had dragons. Perhaps the only person aside from Aegon I and Jaehaerys I who should have had dragons.

Quote

I never said that Aegon will speechify his way to the Iron Throne. I just said that he will be forced to rely on diplomacy, which will prevent him from being a tyrant.

You mean, like Aerys II lacking dragons couldn't become a tyrant? Or Aegon II lacking any dragons after his restoration at the end of the Dance? You think just because somebody should use diplomacy means he will or has to use it? That just makes no sense.

Robb also shouldn't have made himself king because that meant he would inevitably fail. Yet he and his people still went through with that, triggering the eventual Bolton-Frey betrayal which would have never happened had Robb not proclaimed himself king.

The idea is that Aegon having too much success too fast is going to make him drunk with power and his own self-importance. I don't think he will be particularly cruel - not at first, but when he is going to face betrayal and rebellions and starts to realize that the blows hit closer to home each time he will try to stop things by making examples out of traitors - meaning heads on pikes, destruction of entire noble houses, people being burned with wildfire, that sort of thing. And I actually think this could work up to a point. Cruelty and brutality can give people pause.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Both of Tyrion's trials were farcical.  The first was conducted by an eight year old.  In the second, he was denied any opportunity to question witnesses, most of whom were lying, and the sentence was pre-determined.  What we mean by jurisprudence is non-existent in this world.  Since Dany is not a lawyer, why would it have occurred to her to create a system of due process?

It makes no sense to even compare war justice with proper justice. Dany crucifying the slavers is akin to Tarly and others hanging outlaws and broken men and collaborators in the Riverlands. Inter arma enim silent leges, as the Romans put it. Dany is not sitting in judgment over slavers in peace, she is a victorious conqueror and deals with slaver scum as she sees fit - just as the Brotherhood without Banners do with Frey scum, the Manderlys do with Frey scum, Stannis' men will do with Frey and Bolton scum, etc.

The very idea that one has to give people a proper trial in war time is ridiculous - especially in a fucked-up world like that.

But as you correctly pointed out - proper justice in Westeros is a joke even if you get it.

On that torture about that terrorist wineseller and/or his daughters - that is after one of Missandei's brothers and one of Dany's own advisers, the harpist Rylona Rhee are murdered. This is as close as an attack on her personally as it could get - the idea that mercy and forgiveness and kindness is the proper reaction to this is just stupidity.

Also, if one reads about Dany's identity crisis, her problems with seeing the dragons - and by extension herself - as monsters, and people being unable to love her for who and what she is (already in a sense defeated by the deep and apparently true love Daario later feels for her, evidenced by his hurt and desperate behavior after their affair is over - for her the guy is more a distraction, a shiny thing she desires, but she seems to be dead wrong in her assessment that he doesn't love her for who she is as a person, and not just for her crown), are going to go away when she (1) learns that her dragons and she herself are needed, destined even, to help defend Westeros and mankind itself against the Others, and (2) she falls in love with Jon Snow.

She wants to be loved ... and she will be loved. And she wants her dragons to be more than instruments of destruction ... and they will be. They will help to save mankind from annihilation.

This desperate wish to cast Dany as a character on a path of destruction cannot work in a context where the ultimate conflict, the last people will be fighting is mankind against the ice demons and their undead hordes. If we had a story where we could expect that Dany coming to Westeros is going to result in nothing but pointless bloodshed, if pretty much everything was happy and well there, and her invasion would only mean another pointless conflicts with people dying left and right for no reason, then one could say hers is going to be a dark story. But as things are, she cannt be the bad guy in this story. This cannot work.

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yeah, she's going to lead thousands to their deaths like Paul with the Fremen. I agree that the Dothraki will suffer more losses than the Westerosi overall.

The Fremen didn't die, though, did they? They ruled with an iron fist over the known universe and bathed in the blood of millions.

But you are mistaken here - Paul didn't lead the Fremen, they used him. He became the savior figure of their religion/mythology. The Dune series is a series about the danger of religion and religious fanaticism and how nominal leaders of fanatical movements do not control them. Paul didn't want this djihad, he desperately tried until the end to prevent it, yet despite his ability to project and foresee many possible futures he still found no way to stop it.

If Daenerys became a Paul-like figure for the Dothraki, they would call the shots, not she. She would have to play the role of their prophesied savior for them ... or die.

Quote

So in this analogy, Hazzea represents the Harpy? Or is that Drogon?

Or, maybe it just symbolizes that dragons fuck people up, no matter who they are. The closer she gets to her dragons the closer she gets to murdering children. 

There are children and children. Your own children should and do come before other children, no? A mother protects her children, not the children of her enemies. But Dany did - she favored Ghiscari children over her own, the dragons, and that was a betrayal of herself and who she is that nearly got her killed. Because the slavers never forgot who they were and who and she and her dragons are - their mortal enemies.

[frenin]

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Renly declared himself king without even considering whether Stannis is interested in doing so. 

Why would he ask him anything?? It's not like Tommen and Joffrey didn't come way ahead of them.

 

12 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Older brother comes ahead of younger brother, which means that Renly was rebelling against Stannis. Renly may have been better king, but fact is that Stannis was ahead of him in the line of succession. So Renly should have communicated with Stannis first and then declared himself, if Stannis was not interested.

Ditto.

 

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

Both of Tyrion's trials were farcical.  The first was conducted by an eight year old.  In the second, he was denied any opportunity to question witnesses, most of whom were lying, and the sentence was pre-determined.  What we mean by jurisprudence is non-existent in this world.  Since Dany is not a lawyer, why would it have occurred to her to create a system of due process?

The fact that the game might be rigged sometimes doesn't mean that there is not game at all. There are jokes of trials even in democracies of today world, that doesn't mean that the trials overall we're created for people to cheat.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So he's just gonna not pay people for work? Is that what you're saying?

No, he's not going to pay the creditors he doesn't feel like paying. He certainly is not going to pay anything to the Lannisters and so on.

 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Well, they don't. That's just the way it is. Aegon can either take on all the debts, or have his freshly conquered people riot because of continued economic chaos.

They do. Aegon is certainly not going to pay them when they have already struck a deal to sit Stannis on the Throne. 

 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Why are you speaking as if the Tyrells and the Hightowers will be destitute? The Tyrells have power and prestige with Tommen. They're not giving that up for someone else's puppet king unless they get just as good an offer, or it looks like Aegon will be the winner. The Hightowers are probably going to be captured by the IB. I'm sure they'll kneel for Aegon if he can defeat Euron... but let's be honest, Euron is not going to beaten by a bit character.

I don't know if they are going to be in a power position to negotiate, it will all depends if the Golden Company has as many good friends in the Reach as they believe and if the Ace is the one leading his troops to battle, if one, if not the two, come to happen the Reach is going to suffer a very embarassing defeat.

Again, unless Euron is Voldemort, the man is not overcoming Oldtown's walls,  let alone Hightower's, he doesn't have the men or the resources to do it and Oldtown is not empty, seems like a suicide.

Euron may perfectly be beaten by a bit character, it's the type of boost of popularity the "false dragon" needs to be loved and accepted by all.

 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What money did the Tyrells and Hightowers loan to the crown, anyway? I genuinely don't remember this happening.

Not the Hightowers, i misremembered.

 

Quote

“The Crown is more than six million gold pieces in debt, Lord Stark. The Lannisters are the biggest part of it, but we have also borrowed from Lord Tyrell, the Iron Bank of Braavos, and several Tyroshi trading cartels. Of late I’ve had to turn to the Faith. The High Septon haggles worse than a Dornish fishmonger.”

 

10 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Sure? I don't quite see how this follows from my post...

He is going to have many lands from those who oppose him.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, with magic. He is preparing a magical ritual in 'The Foresaken' and he should be able to direct that against his enemies while protecting his own ships

Again, that's a nice story, one that i Will certainly not believe until I've seen it written.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense. Stannis also has nothing to do with Robert's or Joffrey's or Tommen's debts yet his creditors demand he take them on, too. Do you think Aegon will get better terms from any of his creditors - especially the Lannisters and Tyrells?

Stannis does have a lot to do with Robert's and Joffrey's debt, he is their heir. And as his heir, he inherits not only the Throne and its privilege and rights but also the responsibilities.

Aegon is not their heir, he is a Conqueror from a different House and as such, he will not owe people anything. He will start cancelling debts with the traitors, a la Philip the Fair. This is not particularly difficult to understand, Stannos's claim is via inheritance and Aegon's is via conquest, both have different rights and duties. Stannis inherits everything  for good or bad, Aegon doesn't.

Aegon is not going to give anything to the Lannisters, that's a given, he will negotiate with the Tyrells, if they want their money back, they will support him.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Tyrells could - or not. The Lannisters definitely won't.

And they will likely be defeated.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

How much time do you expect TWoW to cover? A couple of months at best, and the need for more ships will only arise after the destruction of the Redwyne fleet reaches the ears of the Hightowers - which isn't going to happen on page 1 of the book.

I don't really know how much time it will cover, maybe 5 months, maybe three years.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In the meantime, Oldtown and its vassals and the other people close to the coast will be defenseless against Ironborn raids. They won't have the ships to fight back, while the Ironborn can attack them at will. And their mobility at sea will allow them to show up everywhere and nowhere. If they protect the city, the castles will fall, if they protect the castles, the villages and towns will be raided, if they protect the villages and towns, the city will fall, etc.

They will have to compromise.

The Reach has enough manpower to protect the most important settlements and the Hightowers have enough resources to relocate their folk and defend their most important settlements. And with what men is going to do that?? The IB have what, 15k men?? Seems like an over the top enterprise.

This a new and different game, they are not fighting bronze swords and wooden palisades anymore. If they try that they are going to bleed to death.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody says the losses at the Field of Fire were huge.

People say that the fishfeed was huge. 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Oldtowners are very pissed. Reread the last Samwell chapter. If the Redwynes don't resolve things continued resistance would mean more losses.

Yep they want to fight back, they aren't in a very submissive mood nor they are begging for a peace, It would be the first time in a good while people do with the Ironborn.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All I said was they submitted in the past. They have no trouble doing that. And I expect Euron to give them very fine terms. Better terms, perhaps, than they currently enjoy under the aegis of the Iron Throne. Lower taxes, say.

They did have a problem doing that and thet stopped paying them any ransom aa soon as they could. Because people hate Ironborn and they are not going to submit unless death, not money, is what they are gambling. As long as Oldtown can withstand, Euron is not going to submit anyone there.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, man, did Rhaenyra or Aegon II or Daemon Blackfyre or Robert Baratheon try to conquer the Vale or the Stormlands or the West or any other place but the Iron Throne? If you want the throne as a royal pretender you take it, and then you deal with rebellions if people don't accept your rule. You don't conquer everything. And if people want to resist your rule after you have the royal seat and throne then you let those rebels come at you, you don't march your men into a desert or use ships to invade some backwater vale isolated from the rest of your lands by huge mountains.

Yes, they did.

Rhaenrya sat and discussed how to end with further resistance, so did Aegon and so did Robert in Dorne.

Why would those people come at them?? They just need to wait, Aegon came at his enemies and her certainly went to Dorne, Robert went to the Dornish.

Aegon 2 did wait because his enemies were determined to kill him.

If Kingdoms reject Dany's rule and Dany lets them be, she will have de facto allow their independence.  And the Vale is simply too valuable to lose.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon himself sells his campaign as them being Dany's vanguard. They go there for her to join them eventually. They don't want to get out of her shadow at all.

They might involuntarily leave that shadow and set themselves as the only Targaryen faction, but so far they don't want to do that.

That he will fail without dragons in the end - not just against Dany and her allies but against his other enemies, too - is what Tyrion himself believes. He wants to destroy Aegon with this advice of his, not help him

He also sells with campaign as them not needing Dany, he is the only dragon thet need. Precisely because of Tyrion's words.

Tyrion doesn't want ti destroy Aegon, nor wants him to fail, he wants to send them against his kin.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are Lannisters at the Rock, two of which owe their high offices (Gaven and Damion) to Cersei. Neither of them has a good claim to the Rock, with both of them being mere cousins of the lordly line of Tytos and Tywin.

And could retain said offices if they support a less tainted ruler. They don't need to support Cersei.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, why is anyone even talking to you? If Martin says nukes are teddy bears do you believe that, too? Dragons are what they are depicted to be, not what the author wants them to be but not depicts them to be.

Good question.

Dragons are metaphorical nukes adapted to Westerosi world, emphasis in metaphorical and adapted.

He doesn't need to depict Balerion as little boy.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are no 'Lannister pretenders' challenging Cersei, nor is there any indication she is going to lose her power over the Rock. Even Kevan never intended to take that away from her, he wanted to send her back home after the trials.

There were no Lannister pretenders challeging her while she was Regent no, things are different now. There is no indication that she's going to have that power.

Kevan said that Cersei was broken and powerless, what more did he intend to take from her??

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Or they will have men to join her. Or they will no longer have any men. We don't know that at this point. Chances are that Thoros' people are more likely to join the woman with the dragons than the guy lacking them. Especially if she shows up with other red priests.

Sure, but why is only fun to draw catastrophist scenarios on Aegon??

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because we have winter announced during the Dance in 130 AC but snow is only a thing in KL after the Dance is over and the regency in place. We also can take from Jaime's chapters in AFfC that snow this early (before the end of autumn) is unusual for that region, too.

So, two times out of 300 hundred years??

 

Quote

Daenerys wants the Iron Throne. This is a succession war, not a bloody conquest. They are Targaryens. Once she or Aegon have the Iron Throne the Westerosi people will fall in line. They won't have to conquer every last village of peasants. If some Dornishmen, etc. want to topple her, they will have to leave their desert and come at her, not the other way around.

They will not fall in line, they never fall in line. They just need to renounce fealty to the Throne or back another pretender and you'll ser how fast Dany, Aegon or whomever will bestir themselves.

Dorne plays better at home so...

 

Quote

We have no idea who was at what castle when the dragons attacked. The nobles were gone during Aegon's actual conquest back in 4 AC, but we have no idea whether they hid in the wild when the dragons came.

What we are told is that the most of fighting men and women parted with the nobles and the children, old men and women stayed. 

You can do with that info whatever you want.

 

Quote

But again - this doesn't mean anybody is going to bother with conquering it. For that to happen Dorne would have to secede from the Iron Throne after Aegon's death and not accept Dany's rule at that point - assuming Aegon dies at all

It does mean that, Dorne doesn't have to opt with secession, they simply need nit to recognize the new power and stop paying taxes. Lysa never secede, yet for 2 years the Eyrie did not answer to the Iron Throne.

If people don't acknowledge her, she has two options, the same everyone does, either let it happen and accept it or submit them.

 

 

Quote

I'd not be surprised if Archibald Yronwood remained with Barristan, actually. It is Gerris who blames Dany for Quentyn's death, not Arch.

 Anders is behind Doran in this and all the Dornish were pissed at Dany's treatment to Q. 

 

 

 

[frenin]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dragons are a great thing, by the way - as long as only one person/faction has them. If there are as many as there were during the reign of Viserys I they become a danger.

Sure, tell that to Maegor or the Dornish. Dragons are a great thing as long as insane people don't have them.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

 

The fact that the game might be rigged sometimes doesn't mean that there is not game at all. There are jokes of trials even in democracies of today world, that doesn't mean that the trials overall we're created for people to cheat.

 

Sure, it's just that what we would consider to be a fair trial simply hasn't been depicted as existing in this world.  There are no counsel, the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses does not exist, there are no professional judges, people can appeal to trial by combat.  I think it's unlikely that in practice, societies which are economically as advanced as they are in this world, would not have developed more sophisticated trial procedures, but that's an issue of world building.  Economically, most of the world is between 1300 and 1600, but judicially it's still in the Dark Ages.

[Hodor the Articulate]

5 hours ago, frenin said:

No, he's not going to pay the creditors he doesn't feel like paying. He certainly is not going to pay anything to the Lannisters and so on.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

They do. Aegon is certainly not going to pay them when they have already struck a deal to sit Stannis on the Throne. 

Then he gets civil unrest and his potential allies flock to Stannis or Tommen or Dany or Euron. It isn't just debts, but regular expenses the crown won't have the coin for.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't know if they are going to be in a power position to negotiate, it will all depends if the Golden Company has as many good friends in the Reach as they believe and if the Ace is the one leading his troops to battle, if one, if not the two, come to happen the Reach is going to suffer a very embarassing defeat.

Again, unless Euron is Voldemort, the man is not overcoming Oldtown's walls,  let alone Hightower's, he doesn't have the men or the resources to do it and Oldtown is not empty, seems like a suicide.

Euron may perfectly be beaten by a bit character, it's the type of boost of popularity the "false dragon" needs to be loved and accepted by all.

I'm sure some Reach lords will be convinced to join Aegon, or that hint wouldn't have been dropped into the story. But so long as there is no benefit for Highgarden to do the same, they will stick with their pliable boy king, and so will most of their bannermen.

I'm not sure what Euron=Voldemort means to you, but he is being set up as a powerful villain. He's going to take Oldtown with sword and sorcery and won't be stopped by a barely tertiary character like Aegon. Not only would be like Hot Pie defeating Cersei, it makes all the IB chapters a complete waste of time. It's just wishful thinking.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Not the Hightowers, i misremembered.

Quote

“The Crown is more than six million gold pieces in debt, Lord Stark. The Lannisters are the biggest part of it, but we have also borrowed from Lord Tyrell, the Iron Bank of Braavos, and several Tyroshi trading cartels. Of late I’ve had to turn to the Faith. The High Septon haggles worse than a Dornish fishmonger.”

All the way back in AGOT, huh? Doesn't this undercut your argument, since the Tyrells backed Renly? The situation you propose with Aegon would be similar - both sides are offering to continue to honor debt repayments but only one side is offering a huge Tyrell influence in court. This further supports Tyrells sticking with Tommen.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

He is going to have many lands from those who oppose him.

He's not going own any of that land unless he conquers it. And he's not going to conquer all his enemies.