Jump to content
Alyn Oakenfist

The many political mistakes of Daenaerys Targaryen

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

The war doesn’t actually resemble the Wars of the Roses.  The battles in that war could be brutal, and marked by mass executions afterwards, and towns were sometimes sacked, but neither side sought to devastate the country.

True to an extent - devastation of the country is more akin to the Hundred Years War. But if you look at HYW, battles there happened either due to accident, as attempts to relieve a siege, or when pursuing a raiding army. They were also not all that frequent. On the other hand, battles in Westeros are incredibly frequent, and in some cases appear to be a goal into themselves: Battle of the Trident, for example. Robb Stark fights five major battles in a single year: this is more frequent than battles in Ottoman wars! And for a good reason:

https://deremilitari.org/2013/01/strategies-of-war-in-westeros/

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Aegon the Conqueror isn't an usurper. He is a conqueror who has made himself high king.

Aegon didn't cast down Torrhen Stark so that he claim Winterfell as his own seat and call himself the King in the North. He made Torrhen Stark to submit to him as his king.

Basically, Aegon's Conquest made Aegon the king of kings and the overlord of lords. He added another layer of nobility on top and put himself and his family at the top.

Take the Vale for example: the Hardyngs are vassals of the Waynwoods who are vassals of the Arryns who have now become vassals of the Targaryens. The Arryns are still the overlords of the Vale; it's just that the Targaryens are overlords of the Arryns.

The Targaryens - as overlords of the Arryns and rulers of all Westeros south of the Wall - unites the Arryns with the Starks, the Lannisters, the Martells, etc. to create a unified Westeros. Just like the Arryns - as overlords of the Waynwoods and rulers of the Vale - unites the Waynwoods with the Royces, the Corbrays and the Belmores to create a unified Vale.

I thought this was made clear when the new nation Aegon built was called the Seven Kingdoms.

The Romans did this when they allowed certain regions (i.e. Judaea) to keep their own kings and rulers so long as those kings and rulers swore and kept fealty to Rome. It's part of the reason why Jesus Christ was such a divisive figure and why he was ultimately executed: he was calling himself a king and deliberately expressing that his allegiance was only to God and that Rome was inconsequential.

GRRM made a mistake though. He should've been calling Aegon and everyone else who followed him as the one who sits the Iron Throne as "the Emperor" instead of the king and "Lord of the Seven Kingdoms." The Seven Kingdoms of Westeros is actually an empire, not a kingdom.

Agreed. In fact, something akin to Holy Roman Empire would have made a lot more sense than what we have in the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Tywin must have been based in part on Edward 1 of England, who was definitely capable of brutality and cruelty to those who got on the wrong side of him. He popularised the use of hanging, drawing and quartering for noble traitors; accepted no quarter at the Battle of Evesham (against Simon de Montfort) and then had de Monfort's body mutilated; had Robert Bruce's sister and another Scottish noblewoman kept in suspended cages for years; put a captive Welsh prince in a small cage when the Welsh dared to rebel again and had three monks who stole from the Royal Treasury flayed alive with their skin being nailed to church doors as a warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

True to an extent - devastation of the country is more akin to the Hundred Years War. But if you look at HYW, battles there happened either due to accident, as attempts to relieve a siege, or when pursuing a raiding army. They were also not all that frequent. On the other hand, battles in Westeros are incredibly frequent, and in some cases appear to be a goal into themselves: Battle of the Trident, for example. Robb Stark fights five major battles in a single year: this is more frequent than battles in Ottoman wars! And for a good reason:

https://deremilitari.org/2013/01/strategies-of-war-in-westeros/

Agreed. In fact, something akin to Holy Roman Empire would have made a lot more sense than what we have in the books.

Sieges were a lot more common in the HYW (and medieval warfare in general) than battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I feel like Tywin must have been based in part on Edward 1 of England, who was definitely capable of brutality and cruelty to those who got on the wrong side of him. He popularised the use of hanging, drawing and quartering for noble traitors; accepted no quarter at the Battle of Evesham (against Simon de Montfort) and then had de Monfort's body mutilated; had Robert Bruce's sister and another Scottish noblewoman kept in suspended cages for years; put a captive Welsh prince in a small cage when the Welsh dared to rebel again and had three monks who stole from the Royal Treasury flayed alive with their skin being nailed to church doors as a warning.

Either him or his contemporary, Philip the Fair.  Both men led the way in making medieval warfare and politics more brutal than hitherto  (noble  English traitors were almost always beheaded, or even spared, from 1066,  until Edward I’s time.)  Execution of prisoners of war, as opposed to ransom, became far more common.  Edward pioneered the use of the chevauchee in his campaigns in Scotland and Wales.  The tactics that were previously reserved for wars against heretics and infidels became more general.  Philip had the Templars tortured and burned for their wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean I personally subscribe to the idea that it was him who killed the princes, as they weren't his blood and were a far greater threat to him than to Richard, which is pretty similar to Tywin, don't you think?

Though even in that you are kinda right that he was milder than Tywin, though let's face it not by much. However it is also true that Henry VII was pretty much the worst, while Tywin is very far from the worst in Westeros.

Martin might subscribe to that theory (he thinks Richard was innocent of their murder).  IMHO, the chronology works against it.  By winter 1483, the disappearance of the princes was the talk of European courts, and churchmen were asking pointed questions about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Martin might subscribe to that theory (he thinks Richard was innocent of their murder).  IMHO, the chronology works against it.  By winter 1483, the disappearance of the princes was the talk of European courts, and churchmen were asking pointed questions about it.

Well obviously Richard was keeping them hidden, they were a threat against his rule, bastards or not, but the fact of the matter remains the Henry had way more reasons to do the deed than Richard and fewer qualms about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 6:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

us where George R. R. Martin actually states that. The idea here is that the usurper Robert Baratheon drove the rightful king into exile. And no king after Robert is actually legitimate in any sense - Joff/Tommen are not Baratheons at all, Stannis isn't accepted by any significant as king, and half the Realm doesn't really care about the Baratheons anymore.

But Robert is legitimate, as legitimate as Aegon the conqueror and any Targ king. He took the throne by force of arms just like Aegon did, there's nothing inherently different about the way the two became kings. There's this thing called right of conquest. After all Aegon merely usurped the rights of the former kings of Westeros after defeating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

But Robert is legitimate, as legitimate as Aegon the conqueror and any Targ king. He took the throne by force of arms just like Aegon did, there's nothing inherently different about the way the two became kings. There's this thing called right of conquest. After all Aegon merely usurped the rights of the former kings of Westeros after defeating them.

Nope, Aegon the Conqueror made deals with the kings and lords of the lands he conquered. They all bent the knee to him and did him homage. It is not usurpation if you give up your claim.

The Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns ceased to be kings of their own free will ... they gave up their crowns and did homage to Aegon. That was a proper conquest between different heads of state.

Robert just overthrew his cousin and never got an 'I yield and give up my claim and birthright' from Viserys III Targaryen or Daenerys Targaryen.

The way to become legitimate (or sorts) if you depose a king and replace him is to get his surviving family onboard. Robert didn't do that ... and that means he also didn't get the people onboard who are still loyal to the Targaryens.

But even if he had gotten Viserys III onboard ... if you look at the Plantagenet struggles this is all based on them getting people onboard for a time but it doesn't mean they do not remember that they have a better claim two generations later when things look promising for them. Or take the Hundred Years' War where Edward III realized conveniently late that he was the one true King of France.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, Aegon the Conqueror made deals with the kings and lords of the lands he conquered. They all bent the knee to him and did him homage. It is not usurpation if you give up your claim.

The Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns ceased to be kings of their own free will ... they gave up their crowns and did homage to Aegon. That was a proper conquest between different heads of state.

Robert just overthrew his cousin and never got an 'I yield and give up my claim and birthright' from Viserys III Targaryen or Daenerys Targaryen.

The way to become legitimate (or sorts) if you depose a king and replace him is to get his surviving family onboard. Robert didn't do that ... and that means he also didn't get the people onboard who are still loyal to the Targaryens.

But even if he had gotten Viserys III onboard ... if you look at the Plantagenet struggles this is all based on then getting people onboard for a time doesn't mean they do not remember that they have a better claim two generations later when things look promising for them. Or take the Hundred Years' War where Edward III realized conveniently late that he was the one true King of France.

The best option really would have been marriage. I did say quire often how Tywin killing Elia ans Rhaenys was dumb politically, motivated only by his pride, but even with that, Dany still exists. Give Viserys Dragonstone, marry Dany to Robert's firstborn (preferably he'd actually have one) and the problem is basically solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

But Robert is legitimate, as legitimate as Aegon the conqueror and any Targ king. He took the throne by force of arms just like Aegon did, there's nothing inherently different about the way the two became kings. There's this thing called right of conquest. After all Aegon merely usurped the rights of the former kings of Westeros after defeating them.

Not exactly.  He became the overlord, through conquest, of the existing dynasties in the Crownlands, North, West, and Vale.  The Hoares were hated in the Riverlands and unmourned.  Argilac was killed in battle, but his daughter married into the new regime. The Gardners all died in battle, but would have been offered the same deal had any survived.  The Martells were peacefully incorporated by marriage and negotiation.  Most partisans of the local dynasties were content.  
 

Tywin and Robert tried to extinguish the ruling dynasty, leaving their partisans hostile, and willing to conspire.  As stated above, the intelligent thing would have been to marry the girls into the new dynasty, even if the boys were inducted into the Faith or Citadel or sent to the  Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The best option really would have been marriage. I did say quire often how Tywin killing Elia ans Rhaenys was dumb politically, motivated only by his pride, but even with that, Dany still exists. Give Viserys Dragonstone, marry Dany to Robert's firstborn (preferably he'd actually have one) and the problem is basically solved.

Not completely solved, but it would have been better.

But as I said - if Robert had gotten Viserys III and Dany onboard his actions - if they had done him homage as their king and had given up their claims - then he would have been much more legitimate. But if you do not get the rightful heirs of the previous king onboard your usurpation then things are different.

Because in the end it is not really the people who decide who is a rightful monarch - it is the royals themselves, those who have a blood claim to the throne in question. That is the way in a monarchistic framework. You can look to all the succession wars in medieval times - nobody asked the people or the minor nobility for their opinion on whether the English kings were also the French kings, or whether the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs should take the empty throne of Spain, etc.

Of course, the role of the nobility also plays a role in all that, but technically we cannot say that a bunch of dudes making Robert their king means that the Targaryens lost their claim. That only goes in that setting if they agree to give it up.

A good example to illustrate this legal framework would be the Great Council of 101 AC. After the lords chose Viserys I with overwhelming majority the Velaryons conceded. They accepted that Laenor's claim was weaker and gave it up to press the claim of the elder bloodline. We can also expect that little Prince Maegor - Egg's nephew - did something similar after the Great Council awarded the crown to Aegon V (unless it were to turn out that he eventually led a failed rebellion against his uncle and/or proclaimed himself King Maegor II).

Or take the Blackfyres - them never sitting the throne and Daemon I losing his war didn't prevent his sons and grandsons from pretending to be kings and royalty. If Haegon Blackfyre had decided to call it a day and swear fealty to Aerys I his sons would have had considerable problems justifying pretending to the throne (although his brothers may have ignored Haegon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Not exactly.  He became the overlord, through conquest, of the existing dynasties in the Crownlands, North, West, and Vale.  The Hoares were hated in the Riverlands and unmourned.  Argilac was killed in battle, but his daughter married into the new regime. The Gardners all died in battle, but would have been offered the same deal had any survived.  The Martells were peacefully incorporated by marriage and negotiation.  Most partisans of the local dynasties were content.  
 

Tywin and Robert tried to extinguish the ruling dynasty, leaving their partisans hostile, and willing to conspire.  As stated above, the intelligent thing would have been to marry the girls into the new dynasty, even if the boys were inducted into the Faith or Citadel or sent to the  Wall.

As I said, Viserys III accepting Robert as his king could have been enough. If you do swear loyalty and publicly humiliate yourself that might be enough to ensure you or your followers never rise in rebellion ... if you are serious.

But, of course, including the women of the deposed branch of the royal family could have helped. Although if one imagines Dany or Rhaenys to end up as Joff's wife then this, too, wouldn't neutralize the claim/danger posed by a Viserys III in exile. Just look how little Maegor profited from making Rhaena his queen. It didn't destroy Jaehaerys and Alysanne.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not completely solved, but it would have been better.

But as I said - if Robert had gotten Viserys III and Dany onboard his actions - if they had done him homage as their king and had given up their claims - then he would have been much more legitimate. But if you do not get the rightful heirs of the previous king onboard your usurpation then things are different.

Because in the end it is not really the people who decide who is a rightful monarch - it is the royals themselves, those who have a blood claim to the throne in question. That is the way in a monarchistic framework. You can look to all the succession wars in medieval times - nobody asked the people or the minor nobility for their opinion on whether the English kings were also the French kings, or whether the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs should take the empty throne of Spain, etc.

Of course, the role of the nobility also plays a role in all that, but technically we cannot say that a bunch of dudes making Robert their king means that the Targaryens lost their claim. That only goes in that setting if they agree to give it up.

A good example to illustrate this legal framework would be the Great Council of 101 AC. After the lords chose Viserys I with overwhelming majority the Velaryons conceded. They accepted that Laenor's claim was weaker and gave it up to press the claim of the elder bloodline. We can also expect that little Prince Maegor - Egg's nephew - did something similar after the Great Council awarded the crown to Aegon V (unless it were to turn out that he eventually led a failed rebellion against his uncle and/or proclaimed himself King Maegor II).

Or take the Blackfyres - them never sitting the throne and Daemon I losing his war didn't prevent his sons and grandsons from pretending to be kings and royalty. If Haegon Blackfyre had decided to call it a day and swear fealty to Aerys I his sons would have had considerable problems justifying pretending to the throne (although his brothers may have ignored Haegon).

You know, it's funny, I agree 100%, but what's interesting is that the main takeaway here was just how moronic Robert and Tywin were with the Targs.

As we discussed previously, usurpation really wasn't a good idea, but even going with it the way they did it was terrible.

Killing Aegon and Rhaenys was a bad idea. I argued previously why Rhaenys should have been taken alive, but reading this, I think Aegon should have too, as it would nake the fealty process a lot smoother and prevented any bad blood with the Targs.

Even after that, leaving Viserys and Dany in exile was such a bad idea...

Tywin really was like Cersei, wasn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know, it's funny, I agree 100%, but what's interesting is that the main takeaway here was just how moronic Robert and Tywin were with the Targs.

As we discussed previously, usurpation really wasn't a good idea, but even going with it the way they did it was terrible.

Killing Aegon and Rhaenys was a bad idea. I argued previously why Rhaenys should have been taken alive, but reading this, I think Aegon should have too, as it would nake the fealty process a lot smoother and prevented any bad blood with the Targs.

Even after that, leaving Viserys and Dany in exile was such a bad idea...

Tywin really was like Cersei, wasn't he?

100% agree. Robert should have warded the four Targs, marrying Rhaenys himself like ten years later or something. Then Renly should've wedded Dany. At the right time Viserys and Aegon should be sent to the Wall. That's from Robert's POV.

Tywin should've kept both of Rhaegar's children alive, handing Rhaenys to Robert and requesting to ward Aegon as a reward, with the promise of having him join the NW when of age. Then Tywin has many years to plot if Bobby is dumb enough to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know, it's funny, I agree 100%, but what's interesting is that the main takeaway here was just how moronic Robert and Tywin were with the Targs.

As we discussed previously, usurpation really wasn't a good idea, but even going with it the way they did it was terrible.

Killing Aegon and Rhaenys was a bad idea. I argued previously why Rhaenys should have been taken alive, but reading this, I think Aegon should have too, as it would nake the fealty process a lot smoother and prevented any bad blood with the Targs.

Even after that, leaving Viserys and Dany in exile was such a bad idea...

Tywin really was like Cersei, wasn't he?

If you look at it then the Sack of King's Landing is really one of the most atrocious things done by the standards of the world involved. Never before has royalty been treated in this contemptuous manner (and by the standards of the people involved royal children and women are much, much better than smallfolk children and women). We only realized this after FaB when it became that even the likes of Maegor didn't really just murder his underage or female relations (unless he thought they were guilty of severe crimes). And while things like Blood and Cheese or the death of little Maelor happened neither were done at the explicit command of the monarch in whose name they were (sort of) done.

If you look at Tywin then the guy was clearly driven by a bunch of things. To Tyrion he says he had to really show his commitment to Robert - that House Lannister had forsaken the dragons for good. That is accurate considering Tywin's long friendship with Aerys II would have made it less likely that Robert would have favored him if he had given him just lukeworm support (the Ironborn weren't favored by Robert despite the fact that they also jumped the bandwagon at the last moment).

But then we also know that he had a longstanding love-hate relationship with the Mad King ... and we can assume that he was very angry that the Princess of Dorne - whose offer for a marriage alliance he apparently dismissed brusquely - beat him to it and made her daughter Rhaegar's wife. That was a stab at Tywin - or Tywin would have viewed it as such - and he stabbed back when he had his men murder Elia and her children.

At least that's a way to interpret this, especially in light of the fact that Tywin also showed no mercy to the Tarbecks and Reynes. It would fit the pattern.

The Lannisters killing Aerys II is less of an issue. Tywin could assume that Robert wanted him gone and would be glad if he were killed in battle so they would not have to go through a trial and whatnot.

But targeting Elia and the children was actually not in Robert's best interests ... and their murder something that could have easily backfired if Robert had been a more upstanding guy, a man of principle.

In that sense I'd say Tywin had them killed because he wanted them dead, not because he thought Robert would want him to do it. Although he most likely also correctly guessed that he could get away with it.

If Aegon and Rhaenys and Elia had lived there may even have been a chance that, after news about Lya reached court, that Robert marry the widowed Elia and make Rhaegar's children his heirs. This could have worked, too. It would have smoothed things up, and Robert could have made the Targaryen bloodline his own by fathering children on Elia (if that still worked) that could then marry Aegon the Targaryen way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

100% agree. Robert should have warded the four Targs, marrying Rhaenys himself like ten years later or something. Then Renly should've wedded Dany. At the right time Viserys and Aegon should be sent to the Wall. That's from Robert's POV.

Not what I would have done honestly, seeing as ending the Targ line may ruffle a few feathers, marrying Dany to Renly is dangerous, as is not marrying Cersei.

What I'd do is give Aegon Dragonstone, marry him to Dany to make sure he gets no marriage alliances for the first crucial generation, and marry Rhaenys to my firstborn.

Also I'd free Jaime from his vows to placate Tywin and claim some bs about Aerys naming him without Tywin's consent, making the appointment invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If you look at it then the Sack of King's Landing is really one of the most atrocious things done by the standards of the world involved. Never before has royalty been treated in this contemptuous manner (and by the standards of the people involved royal children and women are much, much better than smallfolk children and women). We only realized this after FaB when it became that even the likes of Maegor didn't really just murder his underage or female relations (unless he thought they were guilty of severe crimes). And while things like Blood and Cheese or the death of little Maelor happened neither were done at the explicit command of the monarch in whose name they were (sort of) done.

If you look at Tywin then the guy was clearly driven by a bunch of things. To Tyrion he says he had to really show his commitment to Robert - that House Lannister had forsaken the dragons for good. That is accurate considering Tywin's long friendship with Aerys II would have made it less likely that Robert would have favored him if he had given him just lukeworm support (the Ironborn weren't favored by Robert despite the fact that they also jumped the bandwagon at the last moment).

But then we also know that he had a longstanding love-hate relationship with the Mad King ... and we can assume that he was very angry that the Princess of Dorne - whose offer for a marriage alliance he apparently dismissed brusquely - beat him to it and made her daughter Rhaegar's wife. That was a stab at Tywin - or Tywin would have viewed it as such - and he stabbed back when he had his men murder Elia and her children.

At least that's a way to interpret this, especially in light of the fact that Tywin also showed no mercy to the Tarbecks and Reynes. It would fit the pattern.

The Lannisters killing Aerys II is less of an issue. Tywin could assume that Robert wanted him gone and would be glad if he were killed in battle so they would not have to go through a trial and whatnot.

But targeting Elia and the children was actually not in Robert's best interests ... and their murder something that could have easily backfired if Robert had been a more upstanding guy, a man of principle.

In that sense I'd say Tywin had them killed because he wanted them dead, not because he thought Robert would want him to do it. Although he most likely also correctly guessed that he could get away with it.

If Aegon and Rhaenys and Elia had lived there may even have been a chance that, after news about Lya reached court, that Robert marry the widowed Elia and make Rhaegar's children his heirs. This could have worked, too. It would have smoothed things up, and Robert could have made the Targaryen bloodline his own by fathering children on Elia (if that still worked) that could then marry Aegon the Targaryen way.

Obviously, raping and murdering Elia of Dorne would be a much worse crime than raping and murdering Elia of Flea Bottom in this world.  But, I think the Sack was still considered atrocious, because the city opened its gates peacefully, and Tywin tricked them. Even someone as naive as Sansa, in ACOK, can see the distinction between Tywin’s actions, and the city’s fate ifStannis takes it by storm.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Obviously, raping and murdering Elia of Dorne would be a much worse crime than raping and murdering Elia of Flea Bottom in this world.  But, I think the Sack was still considered atrocious, because the city opened its gates peacefully, and Tywin tricked them. Even someone as naive as Sansa, in ACOK, can see the distinction between Tywin’s actions, and the city’s fate ifStannis takes it by storm.

Of course, but this blatant cruelty towards the royal family is really something without precedent so far. Brutal sacks we also about during the Dance, say.

And while the Kingslanders still loathe the Lannisters for the Sack, so far we do not have reports about extraordinary, Tumbleton-like cruelty for the Sack. That doesn't mean it was 'a nice sack', just that it may not have been particularly cruel. But there is a chance that we'll get more details on this if and when the Kingslanders oust Tommen and his ilk in favor of Aegon Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not what I would have done honestly, seeing as ending the Targ line may ruffle a few feathers

How so? I mean, it's the standard Tywin move, you are not ending a line, you are continuing it through the Baratheons, like what happened to the Durrandons.

 

Quote

marrying Dany to Renly is dangerous, as is not marrying Cersei.

Why?  Her marrying Renly isn't my first choice, that would be her marrying Robert and Rhaenys's son, but that would make her at least ten years older than her betrothed. I wouldn't marry Cersei either, you don't give such a prize to a last minute supporter, specially when you actual supporters got nothing. I would make alliances by marrying Stannis, Renly, Edmure and Benjem (If he convinces him not to go to the wall) to houses Tyrell, Lannister, Martell and Greyjoy, that could make war a far less likely thing to happen.

 

Quote

What I'd do is give Aegon Dragonstone, marry him to Dany to make sure he gets no marriage alliances for the first crucial generation, and marry Rhaenys to my firstborn.

That would be bad, as a couple any descendants of Aegon and Dany would have a way better claim than anyone in the IT and would definitely rebel. But also, the Baratheons keeping Dragonstone is an abuse, the Crownlands should be split between the Vale and the Riverlands, while the Starks should be given a reduction in taxes.

 

Quote

Also I'd free Jaime from his vows to placate Tywin and claim some bs about Aerys naming him without Tywin's consent, making the appointment invalid.

Yeah, that would be a good move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

That would be bad, as a couple any descendants of Aegon and Dany would have a way better claim than anyone in the IT and would definitely rebel

Argon would have a hella claim regardless if he married Dany or not. Marrying them removed two potential allies through marriage to the Targaryen cause, and hopefully gives a crucial generation needed to solidify House Baratheon on the Throne. As @Lord Varys said, once Aegon bends the knee and renounces his claim, his descendants are left with nothing. What's crucial is that Aegon's knee remain bent, which marrying him to Dany helps.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

But also, the Baratheons keeping Dragonstone is an abuse, the Crownlands should be split between the Vale and the Riverlands, while the Starks should be given a reduction in taxes.

Fuck no. The King is weak enough already, butchering the Crownlands would make him into a puppet.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

How so? I mean, it's the standard Tywin move, you are not ending a line, you are continuing it through the Baratheons, like what happened to the Durrandons.

Yes, but:

A, we've already established Tywin is way too often needlessly cruel and or stupid

B, the only Durrandon to have died was Argillac, on the field of battle. Things would have been as smooth is he had a son whom Orys then murdered or sent to the Wall before marrying Argella.

Edited by Alyn Oakenfist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...