Why Aegon is a better ruler and leader than Daenerys and Jon combine

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Tyrion had this tought because YG "commanded" him. That made Tyrion think that the boy is born into ruling or something.

It's not Tyrion thinking "wow that sounds like a king! He gave a command in an assertive way." The whole incident - kicking over the game, and commanding Tyrion to clean it up - is "Targaryen."

Aegon is mad at being tricked in the game and wants to punish people for it (like Dany with Mirri), Aegon caused destruction and expected others to clean it up (like Daenerys in Yunkai and Astapor). 

I agree that with Aegon, it's not as worrisome because it's just a game, but games are symbols for the whole game of thrones.

11 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

 The sleeping dragon became a motif because Viserys terrorized Daenerys with it in her entire life. This became a part of Daenerys, a saying for her, only for her.

It sounds like you're being lulled by a sleeping dragon.

[Daeron the Daring]

10 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It's not Tyrion thinking "wow that sounds like a king! He gave a command in an assertive way." The whole incident - kicking over the game, and commanding Tyrion to clean it up - is "Targaryen."

First of all, the situation isn't even as serious as some may think. Aegon showed anger, but he did not take it seriously the way Joffrey did it with Tyrion with his blusshit commands. He knew his limits. Tyrion also knew this, and went into roleplaying the humble vassal. That's it. What I'd call this situation from Aegon's perspective is childish. Which is a problem, of course, but consider that he probably was never confronted the way Tyrion did to him.

The maybe he IS a Targaryen tought came into his mind because Targaryens were the recently overthrown royal house of Westeros. This come together with the being commanded thing. Not because they had issuses keeping back their emotions. Not that Tyrion could knoe, he never really met any. This is just interpretation of whst really happened.

22 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Aegon is mad at being tricked in the game and wants to punish people for it (like Dany with Mirri), Aegon caused destruction and expected others to clean it up (like Daenerys in Yunkai and Astapor). 

This is not seek of punishment. Rather seek of revenge. Punishment is a tool of revenge. And I can hardly find characters who don't seek revenge, but I don't judge anyone for it, unlike you. Unless you're not a Jedi, you'll always seek revenge. Everyone does.

 

27 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It sounds like you're being lulled by a sleeping dragon.

I don't get this one. Means I'm blinded or what?

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Tyrion had this tought because YG "commanded" him. That made Tyrion think that the boy is born into ruling or something.

 The sleeping dragon became a motif because Viserys terrorized Daenerys with it in her entire life. This became a part of Daenerys, a saying for her, only for her.

Also, Targaryens are not known for having a terrible temper. A few having some kind of obsession with dragons is true, but I'd call it understandable, as it really comes from the extinction of dragons, a biggest black patch of their house's history.

The Targaryens are no different to any other Great House, in terms of their behaviour. 

[Daeron the Daring]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Targaryens are no different to any other Great House, in terms of their behaviour. 

Exactly.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Exactly.

With one or two exceptions, this entire story is about members of the one per cent, and about their outlook on life.  The best one can hope for is people like Ned, Catelyn, Edmure, Arya, Dany who have some empathy towards the lower classes.

[Tyrion1991]

OP

Its pretty contrived to make up a super man ruler who is going to show up an established character. Oh, the people love this new Targaryen who was impatient to get to Westeros and got given an entire fleet out of thin air. How dare the evil queen attack our brave Aegon who saved us from the Lannister’s. People forget they’re meant to be allies in the books and there’s no hint of an actual war but everyone’s clocked George on this.

Its very useful that Aegon is given his franchise position with all those experts carrying him along whilst Dany has to shoulder the world on her own. Again, that’s just George stacking the deck and fixing the odds in Aegons favor and has nothing to do with him as a leader. I could probably last for years on the board of a major company but wouldn’t have a clue how to run my own business.

Realistically, if Dany is this powerful, stunningly beautiful and charismatic woman with access to resources and people committed to her cause she SHOULD have skilled professionals around her. All those slaves she freed. Ambitious men. Wait I know book-keeping, I can get a job off that Queen who’s really nice and probably going to conquer the world with dragons. Do you think Catherine the Great ran everything in Russia? It doesn’t happen because the plot requires Dany to be isolated whilst dealing with an absurd situation in Mereen and then pushed towards the conclusion she should set the world on fire. 

It relies entirely on every character in the world being idiots and not clocking that Danys probably on the up and there’s a lot to gain buying early shares. Once she got the army and dragons realistically she would start snowballing as a faction. This only happens with Aegon because the plot requires it to whilst Dany has The DEMON ROAD and the DOOM SEA between her and Westeros. Whilst Aegon uses his quick travel to zip over to Westeros in a single chapter. That’s not nuanced analysis of themes, that’s railroading.

If the deck is rigged then George’s points can be dismissed entirely. It’s got nothing to do with a neutral analysis of “leadership style” or anything like that. Aegon is a plot device to engineer Danys downfall just as much as the only man she’ll love being her secret Nephew. 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

With one or two exceptions, this entire story is about members of the one per cent, and about their outlook on life.  The best one can hope for is people like Ned, Catelyn, Edmure, Arya, Dany who have some empathy towards the lower classes.

The 1% haha what is this, Occupy Wall Street? We're not reading David Graeber's Anarchy of Ice and Fire.

The best scenario is lords as public servants, it really has nothing to do with empathy. They also serve as a check on the king, because there's no limits to what a king can do, but the nobility arent thinking in lockstep, and don't control nukes that could blow everyone up, richies and poors.

The lower classes are complicit too. We've recently seen how they can be deluded into thinking that tyrannical mob rule is better than a procedural government run by people on a higher tax bracket. Its junk, just populist fascism, and these particular "smallfolk" just eat it up and make things worse.

[Darth Sidious]

Aegon may be better than Jon Snow, but he is not as good Daenerys Targaryen.  She made the right call to risk Belwas instead of Barri, Greyworm, or Jorah.  Those are the kinds of tough decisions a ruler will need to make.  

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The 1% haha what is this, Occupy Wall Street? We're not reading David Graeber's Anarchy of Ice and Fire.

The best scenario is lords as public servants, it really has nothing to do with empathy. They also serve as a check on the king, because there's no limits to what a king can do, but the nobility arent thinking in lockstep, and don't control nukes that could blow everyone up, richies and poors.

The lower classes are complicit too. We've recently seen how they can be deluded into thinking that tyrannical mob rule is better than a procedural government run by people on a higher tax bracket. Its junk, just populist fascism, and these particular "smallfolk" just eat it up and make things worse.

Good luck with finding lords who are public servants, in this world.  As of now, most lords are a plague on the Smallfolk.  It’s no wonder so many have embraced the Sparrows.

[Eltharion21]

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's not a minor issue since tensions are high between all the parties. Patrek and Axell don't understand free folk courtship and were just looking for prizes.

First Stannis isn't even present  when any of that happens, since he leaves Wildling prisoners under care of Lord Commander of Night Watch and leaves to curry support from Mountain Clans. 

Second their courtship seems exactly like standard Wilding practice , other that they are seemingly unworthy through failure or lack of many good qualities in Axell's case.

Quote

In marriage, free folk men are expected to be forceful with women, going so far as stealing them from their home or clan. The women, in turn, are expected to put up a fight every step of the way.^[5] It is believed that a true man will steal a woman from afar to strengthen the clan. Men must steal daughters, but not wives of other men. When the red wanderer is within the Moonmaid, it is considered a propitious time for a man to steal a woman.^[22]

 

[Wall Flower]

54 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The 1% haha what is this, Occupy Wall Street? We're not reading David Graeber's Anarchy of Ice and Fire.

The best scenario is lords as public servants, it really has nothing to do with empathy. They also serve as a check on the king, because there's no limits to what a king can do, but the nobility arent thinking in lockstep, and don't control nukes that could blow everyone up, richies and poors.

The lower classes are complicit too. We've recently seen how they can be deluded into thinking that tyrannical mob rule is better than a procedural government run by people on a higher tax bracket. Its junk, just populist fascism, and these particular "smallfolk" just eat it up and make things worse.

Of course, the 'high lords' like the Lannisters, Baratheons and Starks, etc, are the 1 % in a hierarchical feudal society. The difference being that their status comes from hereditary position, land, power and privilege, not money (inherited or otherwise). 

Unlike US citizens, the smallfolk of Westeros don't get to vote for who runs their government.  Attempts to grant them rights by Aegon V were bitterly opposed by the nobility and rolled back after his death. The slaves of Slaver's Bay lacked even the most basic of human rights before Dany's arrival.

 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

First Stannis isn't even present  when any of that happens, since he leaves Wildling prisoners under care of Lord Commander of Night Watch and leaves to curry support from Mountain Clans. 

Second their courtship seems exactly like standard Wilding practice , other that they are seemingly unworthy through failure or lack of many good qualities in Axell's case.

That's fine. I dont really care about Stannis and his frat boy knights.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Of course, the 'high lords' like the Lannisters, Baratheons and Starks, etc, are the 1 % in a hierarchical feudal society. The difference being that their status comes from hereditary position, land, power and privilege, not money (inherited or otherwise). 

Unlike US citizens, the smallfolk of Westeros don't get to vote for who runs their government.  Attempts to grant them rights by Aegon V were bitterly opposed by the nobility and rolled back after his death. The slaves of Slaver's Bay lacked even the most basic of human rights before Dany's arrival.

The 1% vs. 99% slogan is something I only ever hear from Dany fans which is amusing. I think you're falling into the trap of looking for the "populist hero" to solve complex problems when such figures don't exist. If you want to apply OWS to this scenario , any real change would come from the ground up, from the people. That's what OWS was. It was not looking for a savior king or queen to do it for them. Graeber insisted that "we have to save ourselves." And Aegon V as a supposed-savior fits with this. He thought dragons would help him, and in being so deluded, he blew himself up. If you really want to be radical, don't trust heroes. Don't trust people who can't put a limit on their own personal hero-worship. And that goes for the smallfolk and the nobles.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The 1% vs. 99% slogan is something I only ever hear from Dany fans which is amusing. I think you're falling into the trap of looking for the "populist hero" to solve complex problems when such figures don't exist. If you want to apply OWS to this scenario , any real change would come from the ground up, from the people. That's what OWS was. It was not looking for a savior king or queen to do it for them. Graeber insisted that "we have to save ourselves." And Aegon V as a supposed-savior fits with this. He thought dragons would help him, and in being so deluded, he blew himself up. If you really want to be radical, don't trust heroes. Don't trust people who can't put a limit on their own personal hero-worship. And that goes for the smallfolk and the nobles.

Leaderless reform does not happen in reality.

[Wall Flower]

26 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The 1% vs. 99% slogan is something I only ever hear from Dany fans which is amusing. I think you're falling into the trap of looking for the "populist hero" to solve complex problems when such figures don't exist. If you want to apply OWS to this scenario , any real change would come from the ground up, from the people. That's what OWS was. It was not looking for a savior king or queen to do it for them. Graeber insisted that "we have to save ourselves." And Aegon V as a supposed-savior fits with this. He thought dragons would help him, and in being so deluded, he blew himself up. If you really want to be radical, don't trust heroes. Don't trust people who can't put a limit on their own personal hero-worship. And that goes for the smallfolk and the nobles.

Well I'm all for a peasant uprising in Westeros and a slave revolt in Essos but there can be violent consequences to those as well. I think the latter is already on the cards in Essos and I'd be happy to see Dany as a catalyst there rather than saviour. The problem with popular uprisings or reform is that the balance of power is often against those seeking change.

I see Dany, Egg and Jon as characters who sought to use their power to effect change to an unjust or (in Jon's case) moribund system.  To change the balance of power in favour of the powerless. The author has stated that his heroes are "men and women who try to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. Some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results ....but it is the effort that's heroic as I see it." That doesn't mean that there aren't temptations, dangers and wrong turnings or that effecting change is easy. I just think that it's more about frustrated ideals, failures and intolerable compromises than some addiction to hero-worship, at least at this stage of the published material.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Well I'm all for a peasant uprising in Westeros and a slave revolt in Essos but there can be violent consequences to those as well. I think the latter is already on the cards in Essos and I'd be happy to see Dany as a catalyst there rather than saviour. The problem with popular uprisings or reform is that the balance of power is often against those seeking change.

I see Dany, Egg and Jon as characters who sought to use their power to effect change to an unjust or (in Jon's case) moribund system.  To change the balance of power in favour of the powerless. The author has stated that his heroes are "men and women who try to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. Some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results ....but it is the effort that's heroic as I see it." That doesn't mean that there aren't temptations, dangers and wrong turnings or that effecting change is easy. I just think that it's more about frustrated ideals, failures and intolerable compromises than some addiction to hero-worship, at least at this stage of the published material.

Would you be for a peasant uprising or slave revolt if they rose against Dany? Would you be for it if Dany did not benefit from it? If the answer is no you don't really care about any of this. The people trying to make the world a better place in the books aren't being loud about overthrowing the class structure, or railing against "the 1%." They're feeding people and preparing for Winter. They're doing quiet unassuming things. They are the people who don't break the feudal contract and who treat the duty of the office seriously. I really dont see this as a book about a revolutionary overthrow of feudalism, or even an OWS stance, when "the everyday people fighting for justice" turn into a mob run by a fire zombie.

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Leaderless reform does not happen in reality.

It doesn't. But reform has to have prerequisites on the ground. Slavery lasted for as long as it was economically viable, in basically all countries, including the most Christian ones. Christianity did not manage to outlaw slavery, economy outlawed slavery. Fact that Slaver's Bay has lasted for so long means that there must be reasons behind their slavering, which means that slavery will return as soon as Daenerys leaves.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

It doesn't. But reform has to have prerequisites on the ground. Slavery lasted for as long as it was economically viable, in basically all countries, including the most Christian ones. Christianity did not manage to outlaw slavery, economy outlawed slavery. Fact that Slaver's Bay has lasted for so long means that there must be reasons behind their slavering, which means that slavery will return as soon as Daenerys leaves.

Slavery is still economically viable, which is why it persists in this world.  Next to drug trafficking, it’s the second most profitable illicit activity. 

But there were and are alternative economic models.  So, for example, it had mainly gone from Western Europe by 1150 or so.  (Even countries that subsequently engaged in slave-trading like England and France never re-legalised it on their own soil).

In-universe, the Reach and Braavos show that it’s quite possible for places to flourish without slavery.  Slavery redistributes wealth upwards, rather than creating wealth.  Xaro’s spiel about the need for slavery is so much BS.  Even in Slavers Bay, an economy without slavery is quite viable, based upon a Mediterranean-type agriculture, and trade in commodities.

[Wall Flower]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Would you be for a peasant uprising or slave revolt if they rose against Dany? Would you be for it if Dany did not benefit from it? If the answer is no you don't really care about any of this. The people trying to make the world a better place in the books aren't being loud about overthrowing the class structure, or railing against "the 1%." They're feeding people and preparing for Winter. They're doing quiet unassuming things. They are the people who don't break the feudal contract and who treat the duty of the office seriously. I really dont see this as a book about a revolutionary overthrow of feudalism, or even an OWS stance, when "the everyday people fighting for justice" turn into a mob run by a fire zombie.

Believe it or not, it isn't all about Dany for me - as it seems to be for you. 

Slavery is one of the fundamental, systemic evils of this fantasy world and Dany is one of the few people standing against it, however imperfectly. At the current moment in the book, the people undermining her rule by acts of terror are slavers who want to retain the power, privilege and wealth that trading in human beings brings them.

I love characters like Ned and Edmure who take their responsibilities as feudal lords seriously but that doesn't alter the essential injustice of the feudal system that Aegon V was trying to do something about by providing smallfolk with legal rights and protections that didn't rely on the lucky chance of having a good lord. The end of Egg's story doesn't invalidate his goals.

I think you're taking a very conservative view of books if you think that they're just about how to be a better member of the feudal order. You see the Targaryens, and Dany in particular, as the problem while I see the systemic injustices of the world as the problem.

I don't know what OWS means.

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Believe it or not, it isn't all about Dany for me - as it seems to be for you. 

Slavery is one of the fundamental, systemic evils of this fantasy world and Dany is one of the few people standing against it, however imperfectly. At the current moment in the book, the people undermining her rule by acts of terror are slavers who want to retain the power, privilege and wealth that trading in human beings brings them.

I love characters like Ned and Edmure who take their responsibilities as feudal lords seriously but that doesn't alter the essential injustice of the feudal system that Aegon V was trying to do something about by providing smallfolk with legal rights and protections that didn't rely on the lucky chance of having a good lord. The end of Egg's story doesn't invalidate his goals.

I think you're taking a very conservative view of books if you think that they're just about how to be a better member of the feudal order. You see the Targaryens, and Dany in particular, as the problem while I see the systemic injustices of the world as the problem.

I don't know what OWS means.

I doubt even if Aegon V was a revolutionary.  He simply saw the need for reform more clearly than many lords did.  It's always better to reform to preserve, rather than resist change to the point where you are violently overthrown.