Would it have been possible to avoid the Dance of the Dragons?

[Floki of the Ironborn]

I'm assuming that Lucerys Velaryon makes it home safely from Storm's End in this timeline, albeit with the bad news that House Baratheon was a green.

At this point, the Stormlands are mostly behind Aegon II, as are the Westerlands and Reach. On the other hand, the North and Vale are mostly black, the Iron Islands are black (though very much a wild card) while the Riverlands are split down the middle. 

It's hard for me to decide whether it was possible to come to some kind of peaceful resolution, but neither Rhaenyra or Aegon was going to back down with such an even split of support. They were both married with a fruitful brood, as well. Those desperate suggestions from Alicent Hightower to hold a Great Council or splitting the realm in two are interesting, but again, those came when she was in a losing position (which is the only time that she seemed open to some kind of compromise). 

Was it inevitable that they'd come to blows once Aegon was crowned? 

[James Steller]

A clash was inevitable, yes. The only question was how big of a clash it would be. 
 

I’ve wondered what would have happened if Blood and Cheese had instead been ordered to kill as many Targaryens as they could. They would have slaughtered at least five members of the green family, including all three of the king’s children. That would have been deeply demoralizing to Aegon, and much more vulnerable to Aemond’s ambitions. I would imagine that the greens would easily have crumpled if Daemon had been more unscrupulous in his underhanded dealings. 
Another way it could have ended quickly would have been a swift attack on Dragonstone by the dragon-flying greens against the blacks before they knew about the death of King Viserys. It’s a very risky attack, but it would have been catastrophic for the blacks and they likely all could have died.
 

So back to the question, there was no way to avoid a dance of dragons, metaphorically, but the actual dance’s scale could definitely have been avoided.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Was it inevitable that they'd come to blows once Aegon was crowned? 

I'm not sure.

What I think we can say is that these people - especially the Hightower cabal - did not want to be as bad as they turned out to be, if that makes any sense. Yes, they wanted Aegon on the throne, but they did not want a devastating civil war. And they did not want it to become as personal as Aemond made it when he murdered Lucerys. I think that kind of thing is made very obvious when Alicent is horrified when she hears about Luke's murder and how Otto Hightower chastises his nephew. Aegon II is a cruel moron there, but in the end he is just the figurehead of mother and grandfather at this point. They could have deposed him more or less as quickly as they installed him.

It is the hindsight issue - in a real sense, the Vhagar incident is sort of the Bran attempt or, perhaps even better, the Mycah incident. Something that really deepens personal animosities, but as Aemond himself shows even at Storm's End prior to Maris' intervention - he wasn't deeply obsessed with revenge and murder, he sort of made his peace with how things turned out.

The Starks and Lannisters (and Renly, Stannis, Balon, etc.) could have prevented the war they eventually fought, too, even very late in the game. They chose not to do this.

With the Dance being this strife between very close family there are a number of ways imaginable how an escalation of hostilities and violence could have been prevented even if neither side had backed down. They could have fought proxy wars, shedding some blood but reaching an agreement in the end. There were ways how to settle things - they could have entertained that split idea Alicent comes up with later, Rhaenyra and Aegon both could have set aside their spouses to marry each other and rule jointly. This could have strengthened by marrying Helaena to Jace, and Daeron to Baela or Rhaena (assuming Aemond remained stuck with his Baratheon bride).

This would have been the enlightened idea - and I always like to point out how Aegon II could have saved both his life and crown and reptutation if he had actually grown as a character by the war they fought to offer this to his sister when he captured her rather than just murder her without a trial. They had both lost so much at that point, that they could have actually found common ground in that - like Cat decides not to murder Jaime but free him so she can back her last child(ren) back. How Ellaria Sand wants to end the circle of violence, etc. And in the end they were family - this is something people discussing this easily forget. They didn't like each other all that much, but they still were family, and on Rhaenyra's side this always shows considering that she doesn't execute neither Alicent nor Helaena.

One of the good part of this conflict is that it begins only slowly and things only escalate when a series of very cruel things are done, not just because both sides hate each other from the start to degree they always dream about murdering everybody on the other side.

But to be sure, I really don't get the shortsightedness/stupidity of the Hightower cabal. Staging a coup must mean a war of some sort, and they were the ones lacking the dragons. The Blacks could have burned KL down at the beginning of the war. If they wanted to steal the throne the better way would have been to enforce another Great Council - easily done if Otto had invited everybody to KL for the council while he kept the death of the king from Rhaenyra. But one assumes this wasn't an option because they did not believe/weren't certain they could win at such a council - or perhaps not even convene it.

30 minutes ago, James Steller said:

I’ve wondered what would have happened if Blood and Cheese had instead been ordered to kill as many Targaryens as they could. They would have slaughtered at least five members of the green family, including all three of the king’s children. That would have been deeply demoralizing to Aegon, and much more vulnerable to Aemond’s ambitions. I would imagine that the greens would easily have crumpled if Daemon had been more unscrupulous in his underhanded dealings.

Well, I still believe the goal of the assassins were the sons of Alicent, not the sons of the king, and Mysaria/Blood and Cheese confused the targets (there is even speculation that their original target was Aegon II himself, but this didn't work because he was surrounded by the KG all the time and residing in Maegor's). But to be sure, the only guy they should have taken out was Aemond. With him dead, the Blacks could have just taken KL with their dragons.

A way to push the Greens into the defensive, possibly even force them to yield without a war, could have been to not send Blood and Cheese at all but instead to take the big dragons to Riverrun, Highgarden, Oldtown, and Lannisport to show the people there that whoever supported the Greens would have to expect there cities to burn. The Greens didn't have the dragons to actually protect more than one big city at a time. In combination with the murder of Luke the Blacks could have used that as moral highground as well as a rather big stick to push people out of the Green camp or in their own.

And to convince people some more the next step would have been to turn Storm's End into another Harrenhal in answer to Lord Borros not preventing the slaughter there. That would have shown that the Blacks meant business.

If you think about it from a dragon warfare strategic viewpoint George really has the gang behave completely moronic in the beginning. And later still. I mean, yeah, the Hightower army is advancing - why not send dragons down to Oldtown and threaten to burn it if they don't disband the army? Is Lord Ormund looking forward to see his city, tower, and family burn? The same with the West when they sent their army. The Greens could have done similar things although their lack of dragons would have made that more difficult, but Vhagar flying to Gulltown or Winterfell or Barrowton certainly could have given the people there pause.

Quote

Another way it could have ended quickly would have been a swift attack on Dragonstone by the dragon-flying greens against the blacks before they knew about the death of King Viserys. It’s a very risky attack, but it would have been catastrophic for the blacks and they likely all could have died.

That would have been very risky, since I actually doubt that the citadel of Dragonstone can be molten or burned by dragonfire. It is dragon stone, after all, and should be as impervious to fire as Valyrian steel. Even if Vhagar's fire would affect it, we can expect that the place wouldn't burn quickly enough for the royal family to not take refuge in the caves and cellars (which is why Cole likely later dissuaded Aegon II from such an attack). Or to get to the dragons in time since they are close by in the dragon yards, not half across the city in their own castle.

But the other scenario - a nightly attack on KL with the Black dragons had a better chance of success. All the Green dragons were kept in the Dragonpit as far as we know, so if Caraxes or Meleys landed there while the others attacked the Red Keep at dawn nobody would be able to mount a dragon counterattack and they might even be able to provoke the same kind of riot that puts Rhaenyra in control of the city later.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I'm assuming that Lucerys Velaryon makes it home safely from Storm's End in this timeline, albeit with the bad news that House Baratheon was a green.

At this point, the Stormlands are mostly behind Aegon II, as are the Westerlands and Reach. On the other hand, the North and Vale are mostly black, the Iron Islands are black (though very much a wild card) while the Riverlands are split down the middle. 

It's hard for me to decide whether it was possible to come to some kind of peaceful resolution, but neither Rhaenyra or Aegon was going to back down with such an even split of support. They were both married with a fruitful brood, as well. Those desperate suggestions from Alicent Hightower to hold a Great Council or splitting the realm in two are interesting, but again, those came when she was in a losing position (which is the only time that she seemed open to some kind of compromise). 

Was it inevitable that they'd come to blows once Aegon was crowned? 

The time to prevent conflict was before the death of Viserys.  He should have passed the crown to Rhaenyra before he died.  It is always better to get something done instead of relying on others to carry out your wishes.  

 

[Floki of the Ironborn]

29 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The time to prevent conflict was before the death of Viserys.  He should have passed the crown to Rhaenyra before he died.  It is always better to get something done instead of relying on others to carry out your wishes.  

 

You're suggesting that Viserys should have abdicated? You'd think more kings would do that if it was an option. Jaehaerys should have done that with one of his sons way before he finally kicked the bucket. 

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

You're suggesting that Viserys should have abdicated? You'd think more kings would do that if it was an option. Jaehaerys should have done that with one of his sons way before he finally kicked the bucket. 

Not something George thought about as a concept to secure the succession, but not a bad idea. Abdication as such is a known concept in the world, and the installation of junior kings/co-rulers to ensure a peaceful succession was something the French kings did for a very long time.

But the mistake with Rhaenyra was more to not make her and/or Daemon or at least a staunch Black Hand after the death of Lyonel Strong - because the Hand is effectively as good as the king when the king is incapacitated/dead before the next king is crowned (i.e. also sort of a co-ruler vice-king during an interregnum). Or at least when he realized that he wouldn't have that many years left. He could have dismissed Otto after he recovered from the loss of his fingers to replace him with Rhaenyra. If she had effectively run the government when her father was slowly dying there wouldn't have been a coup and no succession war after the coup.

In the end, if you look at the ultimate root of the war it is all Otto and Alicent. Because the striking thing one has to consider is that they meticulously planned and then executed their coup ... while Rhaenyra and Daemon did literally nothing to prepare for war. Otto had the Hightowers and Lannisters and quite a few other houses on board immediately after the king had died, but Rhaenyra first started to look for allies after she learned about her father's death - despite the fact that she must have known he wouldn't live that long considering this condition. There is not the slightest indication that they expected something like that would happen.

[James Steller]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not something George thought about as a concept to secure the succession, but not a bad idea. Abdication as such is a known concept in the world, and the installation of junior kings/co-rulers to ensure a peaceful succession was something the French kings did for a very long time.

But the mistake with Rhaenyra was more to not make her and/or Daemon or at least a staunch Black Hand after the death of Lyonel Strong - because the Hand is effectively as good as the king when the king is incapacitated/dead before the next king is crowned (i.e. also sort of a co-ruler vice-king during an interregnum). Or at least when he realized that he wouldn't have that many years left. He could have dismissed Otto after he recovered from the loss of his fingers to replace him with Rhaenyra. If she had effectively run the government when her father was slowly dying there wouldn't have been a coup and no succession war after the coup.

In the end, if you look at the ultimate root of the war it is all Otto and Alicent. Because the striking thing one has to consider is that they meticulously planned and then executed their coup ... while Rhaenyra and Daemon did literally nothing to prepare for war. Otto had the Hightowers and Lannisters and quite a few other houses on board immediately after the king had died, but Rhaenyra first started to look for allies after she learned about her father's death - despite the fact that she must have known he wouldn't live that long considering this condition. There is not the slightest indication that they expected something like that would happen.

Now that you mention it, you’d think Daemon Targaryen would at least have considered some kind of conspiracy from the greens. 

[Loose Bolt]

30 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Now that you mention it, you’d think Daemon Targaryen would at least have considered some kind of conspiracy from the greens. 

I assume that the Rogue Prince was playing his own game. Or he either wanted funny hat for himself or made sure that the Blacks needed to keep him around for his services.

[BlackLightning]

Absolutely.

The whole thing can be traced back to King Jaehaerys I and his misogyny. Had he left well enough alone and allowed his granddaughter Rhaenys to remain his rightful heir, the precedent that the Greens so desperately relied on would not exist. In fact, if Jaehaerys had treated his daughters the same way he treated his sons, the anti-female precedent that the Blacks had to fight against wouldn't have existed....definitely not as far as House Targaryen and the Iron Throne was concerned.

I also think that King Viserys failed. He was clear in regards to who will follow him on the Iron Throne and the law backed him up...that said, he should've made his daughter an integral part of his government. He definitely should not have tolerated any funny business between his daughter and wife and his grandsons and his sons. Prince Aemond was always going to be a problem and that should've been nipped in the bud early. Not at all. And to be honest, he married the wrong sort of woman.

Viserys was much tougher on Daemon than he should've been too.

[Eltharion21]

8 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I'm assuming that Lucerys Velaryon makes it home safely from Storm's End in this timeline, albeit with the bad news that House Baratheon was a green.

At this point, the Stormlands are mostly behind Aegon II, as are the Westerlands and Reach. On the other hand, the North and Vale are mostly black, the Iron Islands are black (though very much a wild card) while the Riverlands are split down the middle. 

It's hard for me to decide whether it was possible to come to some kind of peaceful resolution, but neither Rhaenyra or Aegon was going to back down with such an even split of support. They were both married with a fruitful brood, as well. Those desperate suggestions from Alicent Hightower to hold a Great Council or splitting the realm in two are interesting, but again, those came when she was in a losing position (which is the only time that she seemed open to some kind of compromise). 

Was it inevitable that they'd come to blows once Aegon was crowned? 

Yes then it was too late already,  it could be prevented for a generation or two by marrying Aegon and Rhaenyra or excessive support to either, by even disinheriting one publicly.

Though Targaryen civil war was inevitable because increase of dragons ,  longer life than their rider, possibility of people like Aemond, Daemon, Maegor inheriting powerful dragons and lack of policy, rules or direction to their use ( expansion to East, Dorne or replacing problematic lords like Ironborn with Targaryen nobles)

Peace offering and allowing her half-brothers to take black is something that besides Alicent, Corlys proposed to Rhaenyra which she refused supported by Daemon. 

Quote

Cognizant of all these threats, Queen Rhaenyra’s Hand, old Lord Corlys Velaryon, suggested to Her Grace that the time had come to talk. He urged the queen to offer pardons to Lords Baratheon, Hightower, and Lannister if they would bend their knees, swear fealty, and offer hostages to the Iron Throne. The Sea Snake proposed to let the Faith take charge of Dowager Queen Alicent and Queen Helaena, so that they might spend the remainder of their lives in prayer and contemplation. Helaena’s daughter, Jaehaera, could be made his own ward, and in due time be married to Prince Aegon the Younger, binding the two halves of House Targaryen together once again. “And what of my half-brothers?” Rhaenyra demanded, when the Sea Snake put this plan before her. “What of this false king Aegon, and the kinslayer Aemond? Would you have me pardon them as well, they who stole my throne and slew my sons?”
“Spare them, and send them to the Wall,” Lord Corlys answered. “Let them take the black and live out their lives as men of the Night’s Watch, bound by sacred vows.”

 

[frenin]

Yes, by calling a Great Council before seizing the Throne.

 

8 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The time to prevent conflict was before the death of Viserys.  He should have passed the crown to Rhaenyra before he died.  It is always better to get something done instead of relying on others to carry out your wishes.  

 

This is also a great idea, have Rhaenrya crowned when he was too weak to leave the bed, It would've made possible that Rhaenrya had the power to dismiss her rivals and ensured a peaceful transition.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, James Steller said:

Now that you mention it, you’d think Daemon Targaryen would at least have considered some kind of conspiracy from the greens. 

That he didn't, gives us a hint that the Blacks also didn't plan to murder or put down Alicent, Otto, and Rhaenyra's half-siblings and their children - else, one assumes, they would have made similar preparations as the Greens. And while there were Blacks at court - many of which were arrested and eventually murdered by the Greens, none of them seem to have been involved in any conspiracies on Rhaenyra's behalf while Viserys I was slowly dying.

Stannis was more prepared for Robert's death and the war that would be fought then since he stole the royal fleet when he moved to Dragonstone.

In that sense, the fault for the war has to be laid squarely at the feet of the Greens - unless we assume the Blacks had a moral duty to accept the coup and back down and not fight back (which would be nonsense by the rules of their society).

8 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The whole thing can be traced back to King Jaehaerys I and his misogyny. Had he left well enough alone and allowed his granddaughter Rhaenys to remain his rightful heir, the precedent that the Greens so desperately relied on would not exist. In fact, if Jaehaerys had treated his daughters the same way he treated his sons, the anti-female precedent that the Blacks had to fight against wouldn't have existed....definitely not as far as House Targaryen and the Iron Throne was concerned.

Well, to be sure, if a Queen Rhaenys had ruled there could have been a pretext for a succession war among the descendants of Baelon's branch, i.e. Viserys/Daemon and their descendants. Laenor certainly could have married Rhaenyra as Rhaenys' heir, but he could just as well have married his sister Laena, and then the male line Targaryens would have been excluded from the succession completely. I don't think Baelon would have made trouble for Rhaenys, and Viserys neither, but Daemon definitely would have eventually.

Regardless how you spin it after Baelon's death in 101 AC the situation was fucked up. There is a reason why the king agrees with Vaegon and call a Great Council because he himself no longer has the authority to settle the succession peacefully. But in a sense that poisoned the future since the decision for Viserys and against Laenor created a precedent where the female line was sort of completely unvalidated in the eyes of many, which, in case of a king without a son (which Viserys I himself was until after he had married Alicent) who doesn't want his brother or his brother's children to succeed him is in a weaker position than before.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Yes then it was too late already,  it could be prevented for a generation or two by marrying Aegon and Rhaenyra or excessive support to either, by even disinheriting one publicly.

I don't think that was that necessary since, again, while there was strife, the Black side didn't expect a coup, nor were any of Alicent's sons involved in the schemes of their mother, grandfather, and Cole. Aegon the Elder isn't part of coup as such, only approached later, and Aemond wasn't in the know, either.

With hindsight in mind one quickly believes both men would have meant trouble for their half-sister in any case, but if Otto and Alicent and Cole had decided to crown Rhaenyra they would have likely not staged a rebellion on their own. Especially not Aegon who, while a shithead as a person, doesn't seem to have been that eager to be king.

In that sense it may have been enough to not have Otto as the Hand and send Alicent back to Oldtown as well. The half-siblings could have found of modus vivendi if there hadn't been a coup.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Though Targaryen civil war was inevitable because increase of dragons ,  longer life than their rider, possibility of people like Aemond, Daemon, Maegor inheriting powerful dragons and lack of policy, rules or direction to their use ( expansion to East, Dorne or replacing problematic lords like Ironborn with Targaryen nobles)

Eventually some sort of dragon civil war was likely inevitable, but they could have postponed it for a much longer time period, and perhaps even taken steps to prevent it, with their incest/kin marriage practices as well as controlling access to dragons like Jaehaerys I did it with his children.

Things would have gotten really dangerous if there had been an established second dragonlord house in Westeros - like the Velaryons effectively were during the reign of Viserys I. If there had been one or two or more such houses - either male cadet branches of the Targaryens or through the female line who weren't linked or reabsorbed in the main line via marriages then the risk of things exploding would have gotten ever higher.

But one has to keep in mind that even then personality plays a huge role. Corlys and Rhaenys still had the means to start a Dance after 101 AC. Especially once Laena got Vhagar. They didn't because they were nice enough people, not just because the lords didn't support their bid at the Great Council. If they had used their dragons to burn down KL while Daemon was in the Vale, killing Viserys I in the process, we can expect people would have fallen in line.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Peace offering and allowing her half-brothers to take black is something that besides Alicent, Corlys proposed to Rhaenyra which she refused supported by Daemon.

That particular advice of Corlys' was weird. For one, Aemond would have never taken the black (Aegon II may have in the end if his mother hadn't intervened), but the vexing question there are the dragons. How can the oaths of the Night's Watch bind the riders of Vhagar and Sunfyre? There is no precedent for a dragonriders with their dragons at the Wall. Does it make sense that people would not support them in another bid for the throne if they just flew away on their dragons and started to threaten/visit lords in their castles?

[Adam Yozza]

15 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I'm assuming that Lucerys Velaryon makes it home safely from Storm's End in this timeline, albeit with the bad news that House Baratheon was a green.

At this point, the Stormlands are mostly behind Aegon II, as are the Westerlands and Reach. On the other hand, the North and Vale are mostly black, the Iron Islands are black (though very much a wild card) while the Riverlands are split down the middle. 

It's hard for me to decide whether it was possible to come to some kind of peaceful resolution, but neither Rhaenyra or Aegon was going to back down with such an even split of support. They were both married with a fruitful brood, as well. Those desperate suggestions from Alicent Hightower to hold a Great Council or splitting the realm in two are interesting, but again, those came when she was in a losing position (which is the only time that she seemed open to some kind of compromise). 

Was it inevitable that they'd come to blows once Aegon was crowned? 

If Luke doesn't die, then maybe. The Green's seem to assume Rhaenyra would have far less support than she actually did so if it hadn't escalated beyond the the war of quills the Greens may have been forced to back down. Rhaenyra had the North, Vale, Iron Islands, half of the Reach and nearly all of the Riverlords backing her (along with most of the prominent Lords of the Crownlands). By contrast, the Green's had half the Reach, the Stormlands, Westerlands and a few Riverland/Crownland houses. And less dragons. The odds were against them from the start.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For one, Aemond would have never taken the black 

Men don't always have a choice about whether they're going to the Wall or not. I highly doubt Aemond would have been able to object if he were bound, gagged, and thrown into a ship's hold under guard away from his dragon. One day Vhagar might wonder where his new master is, all while Aemond is all the way up in the North, trapped there by desperate conditions and being utterly lost in the North's countryside.

If Dorne could send six kings to the Wall in golden fetters, then there's a precedent for sending men to the Wall against their will.

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Men don't always have a choice about whether they're going to the Wall or not. I highly doubt Aemond would have been able to object if he were bound, gagged, and thrown into a ship's hold under guard away from his dragon. One day Vhagar might wonder where his new master is, all while Aemond is all the way up in the North, trapped there by desperate conditions and being utterly lost in the North's countryside.

If Dorne could send six kings to the Wall in golden fetters, then there's a precedent for sending men to the Wall against their will.

Of course, but when this proposition is discussed, Queen Rhaenyra doesn't exactly hold any of her half-brothers in chains, does she? Aegon is hiding under some rock, Aemond is burning villages in the Riverlands with his dragon, and Daeron and his dragon are part of a vast army trying to topple her.

Corlys suggested she give her half-brothers the choice to take the black, i.e. send ravens or envoys to the Riverlands, the Hightower army, and publicly announce that Aegon II can come forth and take the black without fearing for his life.

She may have reached Aegon with this if he was really in a dark mood at that time, but Aemond and Daeron (and the Hightower army) had no good reason to accept such terms. They were believing they had the upper hand/could still win the war.

But if Aegon and Aemond and Daeron had agreed to those terms they would have taken the black of their own free will and it would have been their call (in the case of Vhagar and Tessarion - Sunfyre and Aegon were separated) whether they would have parted with their dragons or whether they would have taken them with them. Nobody could separated them from their dragon by force since they weren't captives of Queen Rhaenyra.

Also, there is this dragon bond issue - even if they are separated, Sunfyre returned to Aegon II on Dragonstone. We don't know why that was, but if it was truly because the dragon sensed the need of his rider then Tessarion and Vhagar could have searched out their riders at the Wall even if they left them behind - especially if they released them into the wild like Arya did with Nymeria rather than handing them over to Rhaenyra's people so they could be locked into the Dragonpit.

In light of all that I think Rhaenyra rejecting this notion was the only thing he could do. But she should have listened to Corlys about reaching out to the main Green supporters - offering good terms to the Baratheons and Lannisters. She could have tried with the Hightowers, too, but Lord Ormund and Daeron would have most likely not listened, anyway. But if she had gotten Borros and Johanna acknowledge her as queen, she would have weakened the Green cause overall and may have prevented something like the treason of Tumbleton.

But to be sure - the main mistake Rhaenyra made was to send Hugh and Ulf together on a mission. One of them could have served at Daemon's side - he definitely would have been able to control Hugh. And Ulf alone wouldn't have tried anything had remained in KL or had been serving with a loyal dragonrider like Addam Velaryon. Let's say Daemon takes Hugh with him for the hunt for Aemond rather than Nettles, and Addam, Nettles, and Ulf go to Tumbleton to defeat the Hightower army everything would have worked out fine. The war would have been won then and there. They were about to win it, actually. Or they just ignore Aemond for the time being and use most of their dragons to crush the Hightower army. They could have flown with Syrax, Caraxes, Silverwing, Vermithor, Seasmoke, and Sheepstealer to Tumbleton to deal with the enemy there ... and be back before Aemond in the Riverlands even learned that KL had been pretty defenseless for 1-2 days.

Properly rewarding Hugh and Ulf could have also helped. Daemon's suggestion there with the Rosbys and Stokeworths was good, but the power and prestige those dragons gave them should have actually warrented even bigger prices - Harrenhal could have gone to Hugh, say, and some other big castle to Ulf.

[BlackLightning]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, to be sure, if a Queen Rhaenys had ruled there could have been a pretext for a succession war among the descendants of Baelon's branch, i.e. Viserys/Daemon and their descendants. Laenor certainly could have married Rhaenyra as Rhaenys' heir, but he could just as well have married his sister Laena, and then the male line Targaryens would have been excluded from the succession completely. I don't think Baelon would have made trouble for Rhaenys, and Viserys neither, but Daemon definitely would have eventually.

Regardless how you spin it after Baelon's death in 101 AC the situation was fucked up. There is a reason why the king agrees with Vaegon and call a Great Council because he himself no longer has the authority to settle the succession peacefully. But in a sense that poisoned the future since the decision for Viserys and against Laenor created a precedent where the female line was sort of completely invalidated in the eyes of many, which, in case of a king without a son (which Viserys I himself was until after he had married Alicent) who doesn't want his brother or his brother's children to succeed him is in a weaker position than before.

I don't think that was that necessary since, again, while there was strife, the Black side didn't expect a coup, nor were any of Alicent's sons involved in the schemes of their mother, grandfather, and Cole. Aegon the Elder isn't part of coup as such, only approached later, and Aemond wasn't in the know, either.

With hindsight in mind one quickly believes both men would have meant trouble for their half-sister in any case, but if Otto and Alicent and Cole had decided to crown Rhaenyra they would have likely not staged a rebellion on their own. Especially not Aegon who, while a shithead as a person, doesn't seem to have been that eager to be king.

In that sense it may have been enough to not have Otto as the Hand and send Alicent back to Oldtown as well. The half-siblings could have found of modus vivendi if there hadn't been a coup.

Eventually some sort of dragon civil war was likely inevitable, but they could have postponed it for a much longer time period, and perhaps even taken steps to prevent it, with their incest/kin marriage practices as well as controlling access to dragons like Jaehaerys I did it with his children.

Things would have gotten really dangerous if there had been an established second dragonlord house in Westeros - like the Velaryons effectively were during the reign of Viserys I. If there had been one or two or more such houses - either male cadet branches of the Targaryens or through the female line who weren't linked or reabsorbed in the main line via marriages then the risk of things exploding would have gotten ever higher.

I strongly disagree. The ascension of Queen Rhaenys is not laying the groundwork for further succession crises. If it somehow does, then the solution is simple.

Adopt a somewhat Dornish model.

Male Targaryen princes pass on the Targaryen name regardless of whether or not they are allowed to be heirs and they get preferential treatment in regards to inheritances but female Targaryens who stand to inherit either the Iron Throne or Dragonstone due to the lack of brothers pass on the family name to the next generation.

It's that simple. It's already been established that Targaryen princesses who marry high lords and distinguished knights never take their husband name nor do they lose their title as princess. It is a very small step from allowing the daughters of a Targaryen king who has no sons to both keep their maiden name and pass it on to their children. It is very uncommon in Westeros north of the Red Mountains but it is not unheard of.

Speaking of Dragonstone and possible cadet branches, it's also simple. Let the main Targaryen family branch keep King's Landing and rule the nation and let the secondary branch of the Targaryen family keep Dragonstone and oversee the continued prosperity of House Targaryen's ancestral home and the raising and welfare of the dragons

For the sake of the motif of the Targaryen three-headed dragon, let's say there is a third cadet branch of the Targaryen family. Create a Summerhall-esque palace or castle and let that branch of the family rule over it. Or install a Targaryen prince or princess in the Gift, the Stepstones, the Iron Islands, the Red Mountains, on Skagos or even on the Wall -- aka places that could stand to use a stronger, immediate presence from the Iron Throne. Or annex the Summer Islands into the realm.

In any case, I think you only need two. If you play your cards right, it'd be completely unnecessary for those two or three branches of the family won't to even marry brother and sister.

As Queen Rhaenys of the House Targaryen, First of Her Name (or Second of Her Name depending), she should be allowed to call her firstborn son Laenor a Targaryen. Period.

Who cares about Daemon? He wouldn't been able to do anything; Rhaenys and Viserys both come before him. If Daemon never moved against his brother, he wouldn't at all been willing to move against his brother, his cousin, her husband and their children. And besides, Daemon can be pacified by being allowed to marry Laena or whomever else he wanted.

As a brief sidenote: I do think that Viserys should've fully supported Daemon's bid to conquer the Stepstones and bring them into the fold of the Seven Kingdoms. It's not a bad idea, especially in light of what befell Aemon.

Again: this is all goes back to Jaehaerys and his sexist views. He could've easily given one of his children complete unfettered control of Dragonstone as its Prince or Princess once Rhaena passed and allowed them to pass it on to their children. He had nine children survive to adulthood but only five of them were put to good use. Daella and Viserra were ill-suited for marriage and child-rearing at the time. Viserra actually could've been given some real responsibility and it would've done her much good. Saera is 100% Jaehaerys' fault as she should've been corrected and dealt with earlier; she too could've been tasked with more responsibility which would've either tempered her or made her too busy for shenanigans. Gael seems to have been sadly very neglected. 

For big talk about exceptionalism and how wise he was, Jaehaerys made some pretty unexceptional, boneheaded decisions.

 

 

All in all, the Dance could've been avoided if either:

• Aemon's daughter was allowed to follow her grandfather as Queen
• Aemon's grandson was allowed to follow his great-grandfather as King

[The Merling King]

If we are talking about right after the death of Viserys I and no way to change the past for example, Viserys not remarrying and siring additional children, making Aegon II his heir, dismissing Otto Hightower for a second time, limiting the family members that can ride dragons or bringing Rhaenyra to court/naming her hand. Then I think the only way would be for the greens to try to call a great council or for either side to accept the others peace terms.

Didn't the greens actually offer better terms, didn't Rhaenyra/Jace get dragonstone as a hereditary seat for the Targaryen/Valeryons and Luc would be confirmed as lord of Driftmark. Didnt the black just offer to make the Targeryen/Hightowers glorified hostages in Kingslanding and maybe execute Otto and Alicent?

I still cant wrap my head around how it all started in the first place besides to get rid of the dragons.  Viserys I names Rhaenyra his heir, completely contradicting the great councils decision that made him king and the prior precedent that made Jaehaerys king, that the iron throne can not pass through the female line, He did this primarily because he had no living sons and also so that his scheming/immoral brother Daemon could not inherit the throne. He then remarries and has living/legitimate sons, why doesn't he change his will?  He had opportunities, his designated heir created a scandal and her designated heirs might or might not be bastards. Then his designated heir married said uncle, guaranteeing he will be heavily involved in the government. Viserys does nothing, he is as lazy as the greens are incompetent at war but he supposedly ran peaceful and prosperous kingdom for 3 decades?

I could understand if Viserys did not have any sons, like if Aegon II was his nephew (either a son of Daemon or a new younger brother) then Rhaenyra would have precedent and legal right but no place in Westeros skipped sons for daughters except the separate and hated (at the time) Dorne. Can anyone provide a Westerosi or historical example?

Yes, Viserys had a shit ton of dragons but its hard for me to believe that know one in the Westerosi warrior aristocracy had an issue with this decision or could not see the powder kegs waiting to explode? I know Rhaenyra has a ton of support in the fandom and this opinion has nothing to do with gender, I have no issue with Rhaenys and Laenor Valeryon succeeding and I personally think historically the empress Matilda and her children had a better right to the throne of England then her usurping cousin Stephen but this story line just doesn't make sense to me.

[The Merling King]

42 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

As Queen Rhaenys of the House Targaryen, First of Her Name (or Second of Her Name depending), she should be allowed to call her firstborn son Laenor a Targaryen. Period.

I agree but I don’t think the Seasnake would....

 

42 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Who cares about Daemon? He wouldn't been able to do anything; Rhaenys and Viserys both come before him. If Daemon never moved against his brother, he wouldn't at all been willing to move against his brother, his cousin, her husband and their children. And besides, Daemon can be pacified by being allowed to marry Laena or whomever else he wanted.

Until he wanted a better match, all 3 of Daemon’s marriages show his ambition for vertical progress and guaranteed he stayed a contender for the crown if the right circumstances ever happened to present themselves to him. Daemon rebelling against Viserys would be suicide and also Aemond never tried to usurp the throne from his catatonic brother but that doesn’t make him a good guy...

 

[BlackLightning]

15 minutes ago, The Merling King said:

I agree but I don’t think the Seasnake would....

Actually I don't think he would mind at all. It's not within his character. Besides, there are other Velaryons to continue the family line.

In any case, Rhaenys would be Queen. She can make illegitimate children legitimate, give and take away lordships, end her own marriages and name her own heirs as she wishes.

The Seasnake King can only offer and press his opinion but she'd have the ultimate say in the matter.

If the Seasnake would be that pressed to have a son named Velaryon (he doesn't seem like he is), then I'm sure he and Rhaenys could make another and name him Prince _____ of House Velaryon.

[The Merling King]

On 7/11/2020 at 11:55 PM, Floki of the Ironborn said:

You're suggesting that Viserys should have abdicated? You'd think more kings would do that if it was an option. Jaehaerys should have done that with one of his sons way before he finally kicked the bucket. 

It’s not very common but a historical example would be the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty and one of Alexander the greats generals who took over the Egyptian part of his empire. They share the conquering foreign lands and incest thing with the Targaryens. Ptolemy I Soter wanted his youngest son Ptolemy Philadelphus to succeed him, so he crowned him co-king and basically abdicated for the last two years of his life. He also exiled most of his older sons with financial support and married off all his daughters to foreign royalty to guarantee a smooth transition.