Jump to content

Baelor vs Bloodraven who was right?


King17

Recommended Posts

the whole quote is about an honorable foe so I think Baelor was right.

anyways even when you don't know the foe by person or something to be sure of his honor , mercy should be situational and it's usually a good thing in a ruler.

lots of posters were discussing AenysB here ... Bloodraven was a competent man( and one of my favorite characters :) ) but he made a big mistake when he had Aenys Blackfyre murdered. with Egg and Maester Aemon and even infant Maegor alive, there was no way that the council choose some Blackfyre living in Essos to be king but since Aenys had come to accept the council's rule by his own , he couldn't defy the ruling later .  Maelys's rebellion and Aegon's(probably) wouldn't happen if Blackfyres and Targaryens had set aside their rivalry in that historical moment . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

Bloodraven was a competent man( and one of my favorite characters :) ) but he made a big mistake when he had Aenys Blackfyre murdered. with Egg and Maester Aemon and even infant Maegor alive, there was no way that the council choose some Blackfyre living in Essos to be king but since Aenys had come to accept the council's rule by his own , he couldn't defy the ruling later .  Maelys's rebellion and Aegon's(probably) wouldn't happen if Blackfyres and Targaryens had set aside their rivalry in that historical moment . 

I still don't understand the admiration for Bloodraven, or rather I understand it in the same way I understand, but think preople are crazy, for liking Tywin.

Bloodraven called the Great Council for the express purpose of skipping over the rightful line of succession.

The heir was clear, Maegor.

Bloodraven of all people was going to skip over a child because the father was a bad man? Nonsense! Bloodraven's own father was Aegon the Unworthy.

Bloodraven had already served as Hand, and king in all but name, for years.

I still believe the only reason Bloodraven called the Great Council was in an attempt to have himself named king, being legitimized by the same act that gave the Blackfyres a claim to the throne, and beheading Aenys was an attempt to intimidate the gathered lords into supporting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

The Others would like a word...

 

At this point, there's probably no one outside of Sam and a few others who know about the Others. Thus, you can't exactly bring them into this, especially since the people we're talking about are 100 years before the return of the WWs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

At this point, there's probably no one outside of Sam and a few others who know about the Others. Thus, you can't exactly bring them into this, especially since the people we're talking about are 100 years before the return of the WWs. 

Not into the funnies huh?

It was just supposed to be a funny response to what I see as a ridiculous viewpoint.

If you come away from the books thinking that Tywin's "kill them all approach" is valid, then I just don't know if you can be helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloodraven's view is an important point of the text. Bloodraven is amongst the most ruthless men in Westeros (the most ruthless of those who would actually defend their position as being in the greater interest), and he is teaching and influencing Bran, who is basically becoming a god. If Bran is to follow Bloodraven down the merciless relentless path (and make no mistake this is still what Bloodraven is) then what would that mean for Westeros? And especially the Lannisters?

Fortunately for everyone it is Bran's arc to reject Bloodraven's philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I still don't understand the admiration for Bloodraven, or rather I understand it in the same way I understand, but think preople are crazy, for liking Tywin.

Bloodraven called the Great Council for the express purpose of skipping over the rightful line of succession.

The heir was clear, Maegor.

Bloodraven of all people was going to skip over a child because the father was a bad man? Nonsense! Bloodraven's own father was Aegon the Unworthy.

Bloodraven had already served as Hand, and king in all but name, for years.

I still believe the only reason Bloodraven called the Great Council was in an attempt to have himself named king, being legitimized by the same act that gave the Blackfyres a claim to the throne, and beheading Aenys was an attempt to intimidate the gathered lords into supporting him.

I understand where you're coming from . Bloodraven is a harsh kinslayer who seems like a super powerful tree-witch manipulating events throughout history. but comparing him to Tywin Lannister is somewhat unjust. unlike Tywin, there is no account of Bloodraven burning down villages or recruiting people like Gregor Clegane or murdering children. not that I recall anyway.

 

most of the information we have on Bloodraven is not firsthand . they are in history book recording events. therefore, I think it's fair to say misunderstanding a character who plays a big role and yet his personal motives are unclear is easy. simply put, he is a mysterious powerful character. at the very least this makes him an interesting character ... to theorize about or to read about. 

I cannot really say why others like bloodraven . but I try to explain why I find him interesting ...so bare with me..

the first time I read about this guy , it was aDwD where he was stuck to a tree . clearly that's not much of a good fate whether you believe children are the bad guys of the story or not. this is what he said to Bran:

Quote

You cannot speak to him, try as you might. I know. I have my own ghosts, Bran. A brother that I loved, a brother that I hated, a woman I desired. Through the trees, I see them still, but no word of mine has ever reached them. The past remains the past. We can learn from it, but we cannot change it.

 this shows that even if this person was a power-hungry ruthless man before , he is now remorseful.

after reading the world book , I assumed that the brother he loved was Daemon Blackfyre who he killed. you could say it's Daeron he is talking about, but there are two reasons I don't think so :

1) there is no cause for bloodraven to feel guilty about his past with Daeron who he served faithfully

2) Daeron is almost 2 decades older than Brynden , Daemon and Aegor which makes forming a brotherly bond a bit harder. or you could assume that Daeron was Aemon's son and Brynden knew this through his certain abilities( considering he foresaw Daemon II's plan not far from gods eye, one could assume his abilities had grown a lot- even before he went beyond the wall ).

now , he must have had a reason to kill this brother and two of his nephews. it could be that he wanted favor with Daeron . yet , I'm not convinced that it's the case since as his bastard half brother Daemon could give him power too, even more. if Daemon had a capable useful Brynden in his service , why would he favor Aegor - the hot tempered soldier one- more? .. so there is a chance that Bloodraven simply wanted what was better for the realm ( since we could assume there are some people every now and then who actually want that) and Daeron was definitely far better than Daemon on that account. 

 

Brynden was a prominent courtier in the reign of one king and was a competent hand during the reign of two more . during that period he sure had made some questionable choices ( I suspect the death of Daemon II) but we don't have much on those times. so I suppose he hadn't done anything Tywin-level horrific or anything Ned-level honorable.  

now let's get to the Great Council. we can certainly assume that council was his attempt to make himself king.

there could be two reasons for him to want kingship:

1) to rule: to become the ruler he didn't need to be the king . in fact he was already the most powerful man in the kingdom as I said above. if he crowned Maegor , he could act as his regent for years and become hand again afterwards . so what is the point of a council that could actually set Maegor aside and put some other adult Targaryen on the throne? unless it's the second reason...

2) to make dynasty: a council could give him legitimacy in reign . something that he couldn't have with , let's say, declaring himself king. but to make a dynasty he needed to have a desire to make a family. he did want to marry a certain woman but she refused his proposal for years and yet he didn't turn away to marry someone else and make little heirs. by that time he should have known his sister would never marry him . so what was the point ? did he change his mind?

also , if he truly wanted kingship killing Aenys was a stupid move . he was already a kinslayer ( which isn't a good thing with the Westerosi) , becoming an oath breaker on top of that was even worse. when he had Aenys killed, he probably knew that it would be the end of him since anything he was he sure didn't seem like an idiot. therefore, I tend to believe him when he said he sacrificed his honor for the good of the realm.

 

all in all, I think that Brynden Rivers was a capable smart character whose motivation was doing what was best for Westeros in his own view. but he made mistakes along the way , big ones, and he regrets them. as a creature bound to a tree , he must have endured the punishment for his wrongdoings; though I imagine there's a good chance that he had went on the wrong path even when he was trying to fix it all. honestly I have a soft spot for characters who want to do the right thing and then mess up everything. so while I don't agree with Bloodravens views such as the sentence in the OP , I like him as an intriguing character.

at the end since we don't have much on Bloodraven , he could be an ultimate villain and I and probably anyone who likes this character could be misjudging him.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

this shows that even if this person was a power-hungry ruthless man before , he is now remorseful.

I don't agree with that interpretation, I'm not sure where from that you are getting remorse.

It is a theme in Bran's arc,

Quote

In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us."

She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well. It was only later that he thought, Men would not be sad. Men would be wroth. Men would hate and swear a bloody vengeance. The singers sing sad songs, where men would fight and kill.

And it will be brought about through Bloodraven. We'll see Bloodraven is not for the realm, he's for the Targaryen's to rule the realm. He'd rather the realm burn and die than for Targaryens to lose the crown. Bloodraven will be unwilling to set aside his differences with human enemies to unite against the Others.

Bran will need to reject that way of thinking, and be willing to forgive and make common cause with House Lannister, even the man who took his legs, as a united realm will be necessary to win the war for the dawn.

From Egg relaying Bloodraven's stance one can make a direct clean comparison to Tywin.

Quote

"Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

GRRM would have done this very deliberately. That Bloodraven's philosophy regarding vanquished foes is more ruthless than Tywin's is going to be the point. It is all for Bran's arc, at some stage the Starks are going to have the Lannisters by the throat, and Bran will have if not the whole decision a degree of influence in their judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2021 at 10:53 AM, King17 said:

Baelor and Bloodraven had very different ideas on how to treat rebels

1 baelor believed "that clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents". 

2 Bloodraven believed "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." 

who was right and why?

Baelor, but not for Baelor's reasons.  Moral considerations transcend the ability of humans to rationally calculate outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

If you come away from the books thinking that Tywin's "kill them all approach" is valid, then I just don't know if you can be helped.

The Witch King would like a word with you. 

7 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Not into the funnies huh?

 

I do have an itching question, though:where WAS Gondor when the Westfold fell? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

I don't agree with that interpretation, I'm not sure where from that you are getting remorse.

might be a bit far fetched but from "I have ghosts" .  Bran's ghosts are the family he lost and the life that was taken away from him. Bloodraven's are above all the three siblings he mentioned , whom one he killed , one he had a long term petty rivalry with and one he couldn't completely have for some reason we don't know. why would he see these people and want to tell them something and change pasts regarding them? his relationship with none of them ended well... so I thought he might regret whatever happened in those relationships. if the most important thing for him was Targ rule, why wouldn't the past he wished to change and haunted him be the downfall of Aerys and the fact that even with his great powers he can't change that?  why doesn't he try to reach the last of his family and help them with his powers ( like he did before the tree thing ) instead of educating some stark kid? unlike all the rest of the Targaryens bloodraven doesn't seem to focus only on Targaryens when it comes to battle for the dawn.

46 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

It is a theme in Bran's arc,

And it will be brought about through Bloodraven. We'll see Bloodraven is not for the realm, he's for the Targaryen's to rule the realm. He'd rather the realm burn and die than for Targaryens to lose the crown. Bloodraven will be unwilling to set aside his differences with human enemies to unite against the Others.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Targeryen part of  that. I don't see Bloodraven's priority to be Targeryen rule. but I do agree that Bran's arc will be turning away from Bloodraven's way by picking the way of mercy rather than vengeance. 

what you say here could work in the story if half of the books were remaining. but there is only two more books. in the main series we still have nothing of Bloodraven's political agenda. we have an old man who tells Bran not only not to be afraid of the dark but also wear it like a cloak. this does suggest that Bloodraven is more of dark tutor for Bran but it says nothing of his Targaryen sympathy and I doubt it'll change in the next book, while the last book would be too late to show that side of Bloodraven. thus , Bloodraven's motives would be good of the realm and so on . and world book ( which probably is the first thing an average reader would go to after the main series) would be an explanation of how far the guy goes and a small explanation of what his motive is ( sacrificing honor for good of the realm in his own opinion) 

46 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Bran will need to reject that way of thinking, and be willing to forgive and make common cause with House Lannister, even the man who took his legs, as a united realm will be necessary to win the war for the dawn.

agree .this will prabably happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

why doesn't he try to reach the last of his family and help them with his powers ( like he did before the tree thing )

I wouldn't be so sure about the Targeryen part of  that. I don't see Bloodraven's priority to be Targeryen rule. but I do agree that Bran's arc will be turning away from Bloodraven's way by picking the way of mercy rather than vengeance. 

what you say here could work in the story if half of the books were remaining. but there is only two more books.

I believe we'll find that helping Targaryen rule is what he's been doing, only that he's more focussed on killing their enemies (rats that took out Sera, Bridge of Dreams) than concentrating on helping rule. He's just swimming against the tide of fate, and magic being a dual edged sword, he's probably caused more harm to his cause than good (or more like loads of collateral damage and still Targ rule fell apart). The Rat Cook is symbolism for Bloodraven (albino likely red eyed rat whose greatest sin was breaking guest's rights), his curse is to destroy his own young.

Aegon is probably where it will boil over, Aegon is almost certainly a fake who has been raised to king by snakes, but at the same time would probably be pretty good for Westeros should he be allowed to rule. But he's probably a Blackfyre and so watch Bloodraven go straight for the boy's throat wtithout considering the realm. 

I think you underestimate how much story is left, GRRM said for the show to do the whole story it'd have taken 16 seasons, we have theoretically 2 SOS sized books to go, which would put the story at about two-thirds through, and the breadth is going to start shrinking as POVs die or converge, meaning the time covered should/can lengthen. And as GRRM admits he's prone to underestimating things and only 2 books left isn't set in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

The Witch King would like a word with you. 

I do have an itching question, though:where WAS Gondor when the Westfold fell? 

I am not unfamiliar with second breakfast.

4 hours ago, EggBlue said:

I understand where you're coming from . Bloodraven is a harsh kinslayer who seems like a super powerful tree-witch manipulating events throughout history. but comparing him to Tywin Lannister is somewhat unjust. unlike Tywin, there is no account of Bloodraven burning down villages or recruiting people like Gregor Clegane or murdering children. not that I recall anyway.

Bloodraven is an oathbreaker and kinslayer, violated guest right and strang up a priest on the side of the road who spoke against him. He basically had a reign of terror.

"Bad business, cutting off the heads of septon. All he did was talk. Words are wind."

I think it is very much a fair comparison. As for killing children, I'm not so sure he is innocent of that either.

"Rhaegel is feeble-minded. Why, I bear him no ill will, but the man is good as dead, and those twins of his as well, though whether they will die of Maekar's mace or Bloodraven's spells…" Seven save us, Dunk thought as Egg spoke up shrill and loud. "Prince Maekar is Prince Rhaegel's brother. He loves him well. He'd never do harm to him or his."

While I believe Egg that Maekar didn't kill them, all three of these Targaryens who stood between Bloodraven and the throne died...

Rhaegel died in 215 AC, whilst choking on a lamprey pie.

Aelor died in 217 AC at the hand of his sister-wife through a mishap, which left her mad with grief.

Some time later, Aelora took her own life after being attacked at a ball by three men known as the Rat, the Hawk and the Pig.

Quote

most of the information we have on Bloodraven is not firsthand . they are in history book recording events. therefore, I think it's fair to say misunderstanding a character who plays a big role and yet his personal motives are unclear is easy. simply put, he is a mysterious powerful character. at the very least this makes him an interesting character ... to theorize about or to read about. 

On that we agree!

Quote

I cannot really say why others like bloodraven . but I try to explain why I find him interesting ...so bare with me..

the first time I read about this guy , it was aDwD where he was stuck to a tree . clearly that's not much of a good fate whether you believe children are the bad guys of the story or not. this is what he said to Bran:

 this shows that even if this person was a power-hungry ruthless man before , he is now remorseful.

Does it?

I think it shows that Bloodraven is not nearly as powerful as some speculate. I personally do not believe he was the three eyed crow in Bran's dreams, nor do I think he is masterminding events, with the single glaring exception of the fact that I believe he is responcible for the return of the Others.

Let me ask you this, do you think the woman referred to in that quote was Shiera Seastar? Do you think she is still alive? If the answer to both of those questions is yes then I think you need to reassess the meaning of what you quoted.

Quote

after reading the world book , I assumed that the brother he loved was Daemon Blackfyre who he killed. you could say it's Daeron he is talking about, but there are two reasons I don't think so :

1) there is no cause for bloodraven to feel guilty about his past with Daeron who he served faithfully

2) Daeron is almost 2 decades older than Brynden , Daemon and Aegor which makes forming a brotherly bond a bit harder. or you could assume that Daeron was Aemon's son and Brynden knew this through his certain abilities( considering he foresaw Daemon II's plan not far from gods eye, one could assume his abilities had grown a lot- even before he went beyond the wall ).

I agree the brother may well have been Daemon. It seems his motivating factor was often the hate of Bittersteal, and would suggest that that more than loyalty to the Targaryens may have motivated him.

Quote

now , he must have had a reason to kill this brother and two of his nephews. it could be that he wanted favor with Daeron . yet , I'm not convinced that it's the case since as his bastard half brother Daemon could give him power too, even more. if Daemon had a capable useful Brynden in his service , why would he favor Aegor - the hot tempered soldier one- more? .. so there is a chance that Bloodraven simply wanted what was better for the realm ( since we could assume there are some people every now and then who actually want that) and Daeron was definitely far better than Daemon on that account. 

It may well be that Bloodraven set out trying to do what was "best for the realm", or that may just have been what he told himself. 

Quote

Brynden was a prominent courtier in the reign of one king and was a competent hand during the reign of two more . during that period he sure had made some questionable choices ( I suspect the death of Daemon II) but we don't have much on those times. so I suppose he hadn't done anything Tywin-level horrific or anything Ned-level honorable.  

We don't have much to go, I am not so sure.

Quote

now let's get to the Great Council. we can certainly assume that council was his attempt to make himself king.

there could be two reasons for him to want kingship:

1) to rule: to become the ruler he didn't need to be the king . in fact he was already the most powerful man in the kingdom as I said above. if he crowned Maegor , he could act as his regent for years and become hand again afterwards . so what is the point of a council that could actually set Maegor aside and put some other adult Targaryen on the throne? unless it's the second reason...

2) to make dynasty: a council could give him legitimacy in reign . something that he couldn't have with , let's say, declaring himself king. but to make a dynasty he needed to have a desire to make a family. he did want to marry a certain woman but she refused his proposal for years and yet he didn't turn away to marry someone else and make little heirs. by that time he should have known his sister would never marry him . so what was the point ? did he change his mind?

Maybe he thought he could still have children, or maybe he didn't plan on dying.

Quote

also , if he truly wanted kingship killing Aenys was a stupid move . he was already a kinslayer ( which isn't a good thing with the Westerosi) , becoming an oath breaker on top of that was even worse. when he had Aenys killed, he probably knew that it would be the end of him since anything he was he sure didn't seem like an idiot. therefore, I tend to believe him when he said he sacrificed his honor for the good of the realm.

He was already a kinslayer and fear has been known to work. We really don't know what happened but it sure seems like there is supposed to be more to this story of what happened at the great council. If nothing else, Dunk probably fell backwards into saving the kingdom somehow.

Quote

all in all, I think that Brynden Rivers was a capable smart character whose motivation was doing what was best for Westeros in his own view. but he made mistakes along the way , big ones, and he regrets them. as a creature bound to a tree , he must have endured the punishment for his wrongdoings; though I imagine there's a good chance that he had went on the wrong path even when he was trying to fix it all. honestly I have a soft spot for characters who want to do the right thing and then mess up everything. so while I don't agree with Bloodravens views such as the sentence in the OP , I like him as an intriguing character.

at the end since we don't have much on Bloodraven , he could be an ultimate villain and I and probably anyone who likes this character could be misjudging him.

Hopefully one day we find out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

I believe we'll find that helping Targaryen rule is what he's been doing, only that he's more focussed on killing their enemies (rats that took out Sera, Bridge of Dreams) than concentrating on helping rule. He's just swimming against the tide of fate, and magic being a dual edged sword, he's probably caused more harm to his cause than good (or more like loads of collateral damage and still Targ rule fell apart). The Rat Cook is symbolism for Bloodraven (albino likely red eyed rat whose greatest sin was breaking guest's rights), his curse is to destroy his own young.

Aegon is probably where it will boil over, Aegon is almost certainly a fake who has been raised to king by snakes, but at the same time would probably be pretty good for Westeros should he be allowed to rule. But he's probably a Blackfyre and so watch Bloodraven go straight for the boy's throat wtithout considering the realm. 

I don't deny the possibility that what you say here could happen. after all you think Bloodraven's motivation will be given to us in the next book. so we cannot really argue about that. though I think there is as much chance that his motivation won't be what you suggest. so either one of us could be right on this.

9 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

I think you underestimate how much story is left, GRRM said for the show to do the whole story it'd have taken 16 seasons, we have theoretically 2 SOS sized books to go, which would put the story at about two-thirds through, and the breadth is going to start shrinking as POVs die or converge, meaning the time covered should/can lengthen. And as GRRM admits he's prone to underestimating things and only 2 books left isn't set in stone.

I don't think I am. let's say winds and dream would each be the size of feast+dance ( because they are basically one book splitted in two)  . obviously this big book was full of new characters and plotlines . technically winds could be the same ... but the thing is winds has to be about bringing all those plots together and more importantly developing all those new characters so the readers be more engaged with those parts of the story. meanwhile, there should be more pages on the characters from the first 3 books that were a bit minor in feast+dance, while dream should wrap everything up and give answers. technically , martin could bring the whole Targaryen/Bloodraven history to the book , develop it and explain it . but I doubt he will.

the number of the books aren't set in stone as you say . yet if he is going to write more than two books, we undoubtedly won't ever know how it all ends ...

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Bloodraven is an oathbreaker and kinslayer, violated guest right and strang up a priest on the side of the road who spoke against him. He basically had a reign of terror.

"Bad business, cutting off the heads of septon. All he did was talk. Words are wind."

I think it is very much a fair comparison. As for killing children, I'm not so sure he is innocent of that either.

I think Bloodraven is more of a Tyrion in books 2 & 3 than Tywin. Tyrion wasn't a good guy or ruler by any means and he was on the Lannister side ( here BR is different since he had a choice in picking his own side between Daeron and Daemon , unlike Tyrion who was on the side of his family anyway and can't be judged by that). in people's eyes Tyrion was a monkey monster since in a way he was a freak ( a dwarf ) . it is possible ( and is my belief)  that BR was also a freak in peoples eyes being a red-eyed albino half-blind bastard of an unworthy king who had greenseer and skinchanging abilities that people counted as sorcery . what makes me say this, is the drought that people unjustly blamed BR for, claiming it was on BR's sorcery.

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

While I believe Egg that Maekar didn't kill them, all three of these Targaryens who stood between Bloodraven and the throne died...

Maekar was a harsh just king and not at all blind to facts or stupid. I can't believe he would have kept BR as his hand if he even slightly suspected BR for murdering them. 

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I think it shows that Bloodraven is not nearly as powerful as some speculate. I personally do not believe he was the three eyed crow in Bran's dreams, nor do I think he is masterminding events, with the single glaring exception of the fact that I believe he is responcible for the return of the Others.

no , I think he tried to mastermind events but failed drastically. maybe even triggered the thing he wanted to fight.

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Let me ask you this, do you think the woman referred to in that quote was Shiera Seastar? Do you think she is still alive? If the answer to both of those questions is yes then I think you need to reassess the meaning of what you quoted.

yes - can't be sure. I will try and look at it at other angles though.

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I agree the brother may well have been Daemon. It seems his motivating factor was often the hate of Bittersteal, and would suggest that that more than loyalty to the Targaryens may have motivated him.

I think Bittersteel's hate was more than Bloodraven's

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

It may well be that Bloodraven set out trying to do what was "best for the realm", or that may just have been what he told himself. 

here we cannot be sure yet. I think he genuinely wanted "the best for the realm" . this one thing makes him different from Tywin whose sole motive was Lannister pride.  how much BR was successful or right in the steps he took is a different matter. 

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Maybe he thought he could still have children, or maybe he didn't plan on dying.

I strongly doubt he wanted children . thinking of being immortal? I never thought of that... I don't think so, though it could be. who knows?!

8 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Hopefully one day we find out!

I do hope we will:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EggBlue said:

I don't think I am. let's say winds and dream would each be the size of feast+dance ( because they are basically one book splitted in two)  . obviously this big book was full of new characters and plotlines . technically winds could be the same ... but the thing is winds has to be about bringing all those plots together and more importantly developing all those new characters so the readers be more engaged with those parts of the story. meanwhile, there should be more pages on the characters from the first 3 books that were a bit minor in feast+dance, while dream should wrap everything up and give answers. technically , martin could bring the whole Targaryen/Bloodraven history to the book , develop it and explain it . but I doubt he will.

All that's needed is enough for Bran to understand Bloodraven is prioritising fighting an historic war of house allegiances over the good of the realm. Aegon's back story is going to come out and relate to other plot threads anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I would rather side with Baelor than Bloodraven, though Bryden wasn't completely wrong in his mindset he still went overboard in his ruthlessness and lack of mercy doing many despicable things.

It's indeed important to eliminate those who may rebel or betray you later, but it has to done to those who are really too ambitious, disloyal, opportunistic and self-centered and are certain to do it later, while forgiving most of your former enemies and treating them well can really earn their loyalty or at least make it far more difficult for them to have interests into betraying you, one of the best examples was Tyland Lannister who was an enemy of the Blacks during the Dance of the Dragons and had very good reasons to hate them and Aegon III but became a very good and loyal hand to Aegon who faithfully served him until his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

I would rather side with Baelor than Bloodraven, though Bryden wasn't completely wrong in his mindset he still went overboard in his ruthlessness and lack of mercy doing many despicable things.

It's indeed important to eliminate those who may rebel or betray you later, but it has to done to those who are really too ambitious, disloyal, opportunistic and self-centered and are certain to do it later, while forgiving most of your former enemies and treating them well can really earn their loyalty or at least make it far more difficult for them to have interests into betraying you, one of the best examples was Tyland Lannister who was an enemy of the Blacks during the Dance of the Dragons and had very good reasons to hate them and Aegon III but became a very good and loyal hand to Aegon who faithfully served him until his death.

Yeah but these so called-lords were only loyal to the Black Dragon because they were corrupt and/or hated Dornishmen. They had no valid reason to rebel other than a really weak rumour that Daeron was Aemon's bastard. Bloodraven's approach was right because the strategy clearly worked. No rebellion after the First Blackfyre Rebellion achieved the same success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...