Jump to content

Blacks or Greens?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

When George finally wrote the history of the Dance he apparently changed some of the earlier concepts he may have intended to play with there.

 

I think it's important to remember that the Dance was heavily inspired by a real historical event: the civil war in England known as the Anarchy. Henry I of England lost his son and heir in a shipwreck in 1120 leaving only a daughter, Matilda.

Henry did have a brother, Robert, and Robert had a son, William Clito, but instead Henry named Matilda his heir. Robert was a prisoner of Henry's at the time (and would die in prison). In any case both Robert and William Clito died before Henry (about a year before him in Robert's case).

When Henry died, his nephew (through a female line), Stephen, claimed that on his deathbed Henry had named him heir, and had himself acclaimed king. Stephen did not have the best dynastic claim (he had an older brother!) but the important thing was to get himself accepted by the lords of the realm (the body sometimes - and often anachronistically - referred to as the "Witan"), and a large part of this was reluctance to have a female ruler. Matilda protested, had herself proclaimed queen, and the two and their followers were at war for nearly twenty years.

Eventually, Matilda's son, another Henry, managed to gain a military advantage and agreed a treaty with Stephen. Henry was named his heir (over Stephen's sons). When Stephen died, Henry therefore became king as Henry II, the first of the Angevin or "Plantagenet" dynasty.

The shape of the war is therefore pretty similar to that of the Dance: male claimant usurps female claimant, war ensues, female claimant's son takes the throne in the end. The Dance is notably more brutal, mind: by waty of example both Matilda's commander (and half-brother) Robert of Gloucester and Stephen himself were captured in battle by their enemies and ultimately ransomed, something that is not the case in the Dance when the leading Greens are captured in KL or Rhaenyra at Dragonstone.

As GRRM has developed the story he has taken it in its own direction a bit more, but the underlying framework and inspiration is obvious. The big difference is really that GRRM chose to make the male claimant a legitimate son of the previous king, which in a society which seems to take agnatic primogeniture for granted means that the narrative is left with a much thornier problem of explaining why Aegon wasn't Viserys's heir all along. To my mind, GRRM still kind of fudges this: it's explicable, but Viserys's refusal to name Aegon looks a lot more like stubbornness.

Quote

t also makes little sense to have a very stable or clear set of rules governing the royal succession when Viserys I was only the fifth king on the Iron Throne. Only the succession from Aegon I to Aenys was peaceful succession where an eldest son followed his royal father. Maegor usurped the throne, and Jaehaerys I only became king in a civil war scenario where Maegor had killed his elder brothers. If Aegon the Uncrowned had prevailed or died later, his daughters (or sons, if he had any) may have succeeded him. His younger brother Viserys would have also come before Jaehaerys.

Indeed, if the wiki is correct, Maegor's preferred heir in the absence of his own children was Aegon the Uncrowned's daughter Aerea. This is curious since it implies an agnatic-preference primogeniture succession, but Maegor's own accession was essentially seniority-based. His heir by seniority (and assuming Jaehaerys and Alysanne are disinherited as rebel-traitors) would be Rhaena, already queen. Of course Maegor's accession was legalised by the Trial of Seven no matter the theoretical basis for it (and he seems to have been recognised as a legitimate king of Westeros by Jaehaerys even though he must have hated his uncle, otherwise he wouldn't be included in the king list).

The 60,000-dollar question: if Aenys's sons hadn't rebelled, would Maegor have kept them on as his heirs (in the absence of sons of his own) without real argument? My suspicion is "yes", but of course there are a lot of variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

I think it's important to remember that the Dance was heavily inspired by a real historical event: the civil war in England known as the Anarchy. Henry I of England lost his son and heir in a shipwreck in 1120 leaving only a daughter, Matilda.

It is clearly inspired by the Anarchy, but it is a very loose inspiration, and it seems that it was originally not intended to resemble it as closely as it did, since originally we heard nothing about Rhaenyra being the chosen heir of Viserys I.

But, of course, the succession of the Norman Kings kind of mirrors early Targaryen succession in the sense that there are no clear rules yet. Primogeniture didn't matter to either William II or Henry I, and it most definitely didn't matter when Stephen took the throne. The Conqueror had just taken England by force, and his successor mimicked them to a greater or lesser degree.

A big difference there is that the Normans were building their own empire of sorts, later greatly enlarged by Henry II, in which England was just an important part. Things would have gone more smoothly for Matilda, one imagines, if she had been at her father's side when he died - or England, ready and prepared to take the throne.

George tries to mimic that with the KL-Dragonstone rivalry there ... but it doesn't really work all that well.

13 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

As GRRM has developed the story he has taken it in its own direction a bit more, but the underlying framework and inspiration is obvious. The big difference is really that GRRM chose to make the male claimant a legitimate son of the previous king, which in a society which seems to take agnatic primogeniture for granted means that the narrative is left with a much thornier problem of explaining why Aegon wasn't Viserys's heir all along. To my mind, GRRM still kind of fudges this: it's explicable, but Viserys's refusal to name Aegon looks a lot more like stubbornness.

He could have made Rhaenyra less exceptional by increasing the role the Targaryen women had played earlier.

But I don't think it is that big of a deal, it just kind of mirrors how succession customs changed in Dorne. Nymeria had daughters and sons both from her three consorts, yet her eldest child was a daughter and she succeeded her. It could have worked with Rhaenyra, too. The Iron Throne could have easily enough adopted equal primogeniture, or at least strengthened the king's prerogative to name an heir.

Which was never called into question, anyway, since the heirs of the subsequent kings were all named, too.

13 minutes ago, Adelstein said:

Indeed, if the wiki is correct, Maegor's preferred heir in the absence of his own children was Aegon the Uncrowned's daughter Aerea. This is curious since it implies an agnatic-preference primogeniture succession, but Maegor's own accession was essentially seniority-based. His heir by seniority (and assuming Jaehaerys and Alysanne are disinherited as rebel-traitors) would be Rhaena, already queen. Of course Maegor's accession was legalised by the Trial of Seven no matter the theoretical basis for it (and he seems to have been recognised as a legitimate king of Westeros by Jaehaerys even though he must have hated his uncle, otherwise he wouldn't be included in the king list).

The 60,000-dollar question: if Aenys's sons hadn't rebelled, would Maegor have kept them on as his heirs (in the absence of sons of his own) without real argument? My suspicion is "yes", but of course there are a lot of variables.

Maegor just usurped the throne. Aenys' clear had been his eldest son, Aegon. Maegor ruled on his own succession only pretty late, likely expecting to get a son by Alys or Tyanna early in his reign. I think we can view Prince Viserys as his presumptive heir while he served him as squire (and hostage). If Maegor had been killed in battle or stricken by a sudden illness, it seems clear that Viserys would have succeeded him. And whilst Aegon the Uncrowned yet lived, the crown would have gone to him. One imagines that Visenya set all that up, since she likely did not only want to see Maegor become king but also protect the legacy of her siblings and the Targaryen dynasty. Maegor only moved against Aegon when he launched a rebellion. But once Visenya was gone, Maegor did what he wanted ... and he apparently didn't care about the lives of his nephews to the same degree as Visenya may have.

(I mean, we don't have any details on Alyssa's flight, but it would not surprise me if the idea there is that a dying Visenya let Alyssa and the children go, knowing fully well that Maegor would murder them all when she was gone. She knew her son best. Alyssa knew that Viserys was Maegor's hostage, so one imagines that she would have only risked his life and well-being if she was very sure that she, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne would die if they remained on the island.)

But when Alyssa and her youngest children fled and Maegor ended up marrying Rhaena with the other two black brides he named Aerea his heir until such a time a son was born to him whilst formally disinheriting Jaehaerys. One imagines that this was him favoring Rhaena who he had just made his queen. Rhaena and Aegon were Aenys' eldest children, so their offspring was the senior branch of House Targaryen. If Maegor had finally gotten a living son he would have likely married him to Aerea, considering the twins were still very young in 47-48 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am both, but let me explain.

In 101 AC, when Jaehaerys I held the Great Council of Harrenhal, the lords who voted for Viserys over Rhaenys set the precedent that a male bloodline was favored over a female bloodline. And while yes, Viserys technically named Rhaenyra his heir, it was expected that as soon as his new wife brough forth a son, that son would be named heir over Rhaenyra. And yes, a named heir should have more claim over the rest, but Rhaenyra did nothing to help herself when it came to ensuring her succession of the Iron Throne. She exposed herself in Flea Bottom with Daemon, slept with her sworn shield, had three bastard sons that she paraded around the courts and expected no consequence, and had her husband "murdered" so she could then marry Daemon in secret. Now the whole bastards and sleeping with others was do a lot by men, especially by rulers, Rhaenyra was a woman. And while it sucked, she was not afforded the same luxuries as a man and the way she acted as the heir was nothing more than the actions of a spoiled woman who knew her father would not do anything about it. And then you have to think, as a woman in that time and in Westeros, would kind of restrictions your husband, brother or son is going to place on you. Rhaenyra did not deserve the throne even if she was the named heir. 

However, Aegon absolutely did not deserve the throne either, and he didn't even want it. He was a drunken lecher, who did whatever he wanted and was gross towards women. Not to mention how often he cheated on his wife. Alicent was told to prepare Aegon to rule and she did a very very bad job. But what other choice did she have? She honestly believed that if Rhaenyra became queen, her children would be killed so there was no challenge against her claim. Viserys screwed his family by naming Rhaenyra his heir, and ended up causing a civil war. Lets be honest, he may have been a peaceful king, but he was a weak man. He could not do what needed to be done and could not be there for his family when they needed him the most. And I just know that Baelon would have been so dissapointed in Viserys for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 12/15/2022 at 2:25 PM, lukevelaryon said:

She honestly believed that if Rhaenyra became queen, her children would be killed so there was no challenge against her claim.

The problem with that is that you cannot say that Alicent honestly believed that Rhaenyra's ascension to the Iron Throne would be marked by kinslaying. It simply is not true because there is absolutely no evidence to support such an honest belief.

On 12/15/2022 at 2:25 PM, lukevelaryon said:

And while yes, Viserys technically named Rhaenyra his heir, it was expected that as soon as his new wife brough forth a son, that son would be named heir over Rhaenyra.

Actually, no it wouldn't be. Especially not on account of how Viserys made all the lords and landed knights of Westeros pledge fealty to Rhaenyra as the heir to the Iron Throne a total of three times.

The Widow's Law protects and upholds Rhaenyra's claim as the stronger claim.

There was a reason why more than half of the realm rose in support of Rhaenyra. If Rhaenyra's claim was so weak or delegitimized (or, on the contrary, if Aegon was so supremely powerful and/or intimidating), then it would have been a repeat of Aegon the Uncrowned's super-short rebellion against Maegor.

Instead, what you get a massive civil war. As a matter of fact, it was so massive that Dorne and some of the Free Cities got involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 8:25 PM, lukevelaryon said:

I am both, but let me explain.

In 101 AC, when Jaehaerys I held the Great Council of Harrenhal, the lords who voted for Viserys over Rhaenys set the precedent that a male bloodline was favored over a female bloodline. And while yes, Viserys technically named Rhaenyra his heir, it was expected that as soon as his new wife brough forth a son, that son would be named heir over Rhaenyra. And yes, a named heir should have more claim over the rest, but Rhaenyra did nothing to help herself when it came to ensuring her succession of the Iron Throne. She exposed herself in Flea Bottom with Daemon, slept with her sworn shield, had three bastard sons that she paraded around the courts and expected no consequence, and had her husband "murdered" so she could then marry Daemon in secret. Now the whole bastards and sleeping with others was do a lot by men, especially by rulers, Rhaenyra was a woman. And while it sucked, she was not afforded the same luxuries as a man and the way she acted as the heir was nothing more than the actions of a spoiled woman who knew her father would not do anything about it. And then you have to think, as a woman in that time and in Westeros, would kind of restrictions your husband, brother or son is going to place on you. Rhaenyra did not deserve the throne even if she was the named heir. 

However, Aegon absolutely did not deserve the throne either, and he didn't even want it. He was a drunken lecher, who did whatever he wanted and was gross towards women. Not to mention how often he cheated on his wife. Alicent was told to prepare Aegon to rule and she did a very very bad job. But what other choice did she have? She honestly believed that if Rhaenyra became queen, her children would be killed so there was no challenge against her claim. Viserys screwed his family by naming Rhaenyra his heir, and ended up causing a civil war. Lets be honest, he may have been a peaceful king, but he was a weak man. He could not do what needed to be done and could not be there for his family when they needed him the most. And I just know that Baelon would have been so dissapointed in Viserys for it.

I should note that a lot of the specific allegations raised here are specific to the show. While I'm a fan of the show, it does take a few liberties (even if I think they are improvements). In Fire and Blood, Rhaenyra was rumoured to have slept with Daemon, but it was a private affair, not one in the Street of Silk for all to see. The parentage of her children is made more obvious in the show because the Velaryons are dark-skinned and the children have no trace of that: on the page, while they did resemble Strongs more than Velaryons, it was more open to question. And the whole business with Laenor Velaryon was different: indeed the character of Laenor was entirely different. Worth pointing out too that on the page, the choice for king had not been between Rhaenys and Viserys, but rather between Laenor and Viserys, with Viserys obviously the preferable choice.

As to the suggestion that Viserys was weak in the matter of the succession, I think this is an easy one to make but a harder one to substantiate. Choosing Rhaenyra over the objections of his Hand and then keeping her as heir despite increasing pressure from his Hand, his wife and his small council in many ways shows remarkable strength. Indeed, had Viserys caved on the matter of the succession, that would have demonstrated sufficient weakness as to open the floodgates altogether: any powerful lord will know that if sufficient pressure is applied the king will break. And disinheriting Rhaenyra would still have provided fertile ground for a powerful malcontent faction just as occurred around Aegon.

Indeed, I have wondered how with the cards he was dealt - i.e. following the death of Prince Baelon and Queen Aemma, and the resulting disgrace of Daemon - Viserys could reasonably have played them any better.

Holding off on appointing Rhaenyra as heir would have empowered Daemon. Once she was made heir, and he had expended political capital to make it so, he couldn't reasonably back down. Perhaps he should have married an older widow who was less likely to bear children, but that would leave the dynasty vulnerable as he still only has one male heir (who is also dangerous and unpredictable). An obvious solution might be to marry Aegon and Rhaenyra - but Rhaenyra is so much older than Aegon that wouldn't leave much of a window for them to have kids.

The only viable solution I can really think of would be to marry Rhaenyra to Daemon and then refrain from having any further kids himself. But this would be much easier had it not been for the "heir for a day" incident. Really, the personality clash between Daemon and Otto is how this all starts. It's the rivalry between those two that sets (and keeps) everything in motion.

His biggest mistake was allowing the Hightowers to become too powerful at court after Lyonel Strong died. Having installed Rhaenyra as heir and kept her there in the face of some opposition, he should have bolstered her faction with relevant appointments. Get a Velaryon back as master of ships (Laenor, if Corlys won't do it). When Lyonel died, he should have found a Hand loyal to Rhaenyra rather than turning back to Otto. But Rhaenyra is also to blame here for not doing more to prop up her own power at court, and buggering off out of King's Landing to Dragonstone when the king is ill, leaving her enemies in possesion, was an obvious mistake.

Overall, though, while the seeds of the Dance were certainly sown in Viserys's reign, I don't think he sowed too many of them personally, so much as watched frustrated as other people sowed them, not sure how to stop them. What caused the Dance was that too many of the people he trusted - most of whom were competent and loyal to him personally while he lived - betrayed his wishes after he died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emotionally, Blacks all the way. I mean sure, Daemon is a chilling man to be around, but so far I fail to see why Rhaenyra is so often called "evil". The most evil thing she has done so far was not telling Rhaenys that her son is alive. And that's just nothing compared to good queen-dowager.

I enjoeyed the final scene in a cynical way, I'm afraid. Aemond looks like a freaking Witcher but he turns out to be a reckless fool... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

In Fire and Blood, Rhaenyra was rumoured to have slept with Daemon, but it was a private affair, not one in the Street of Silk for all to see.

The show didn't have it 'for all to see' - merely for a couple of perceptive people who recognized Rhaenyra. Eustace's version has Daemon sleep with Rhaenyra but we don't know where although it is implied it was in the castle because Arryk Cargyll found them. The Mushroom version, if true, effectively means that all the city and the Realm would know Rhaenyra for the slut of century, outdoing Saera Targaryen. After all, Mushroom says the story came out, meaning it became public.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

As to the suggestion that Viserys was weak in the matter of the succession, I think this is an easy one to make but a harder one to substantiate. Choosing Rhaenyra over the objections of his Hand and then keeping her as heir despite increasing pressure from his Hand, his wife and his small council in many ways shows remarkable strength. Indeed, had Viserys caved on the matter of the succession, that would have demonstrated sufficient weakness as to open the floodgates altogether: any powerful lord will know that if sufficient pressure is applied the king will break. And disinheriting Rhaenyra would still have provided fertile ground for a powerful malcontent faction just as occurred around Aegon.

Yes, Viserys was definitely not weak in the matter of the succession. Rather pretty determined and crystal clear. Considering the decisions against Rhaenys and Laenor in 92 and 101 AC Viserys couldn't really just acknowledge Rhaenyra as presumptive heir if he wanted to install her as an alternative to Daemon. Because those precedents - especially the Great Council - gave Daemon, his followers, and other lords who didn't want a ruling queen the necessary ammunition to ignore a simple decree acknowledging Rhaenyra as heir.

But once you do as grand a ceremony as Viserys does - involving vows sworn to Rhaenyra to uphold and defend her rights to succeed her father - you can no longer double down on that.

Sure enough, he could have made the entire ceremony include the caveat 'until a son is born to me' ... but he didn't, so she was his heir now, regardless how many sons he might have in the future.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

Indeed, I have wondered how with the cards he was dealt - i.e. following the death of Prince Baelon and Queen Aemma, and the resulting disgrace of Daemon - Viserys could reasonably have played them any better.

Yes, the show makes it pretty clear why and how this comes about. Viserys is down to two potential heirs - Rhaenyra and Daemon - and the latter proved again and again that he wasn't suited for the throne. Also he was either incapable or unwilling to consummate his marriage and father an heir of his own, so handing the throne to Daemon meant handing it to a dynastic dead end.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

Holding off on appointing Rhaenyra as heir would have empowered Daemon. Once she was made heir, and he had expended political capital to make it so, he couldn't reasonably back down. Perhaps he should have married an older widow who was less likely to bear children, but that would leave the dynasty vulnerable as he still only has one male heir (who is also dangerous and unpredictable). An obvious solution might be to marry Aegon and Rhaenyra - but Rhaenyra is so much older than Aegon that wouldn't leave much of a window for them to have kids.

Viserys is sick already at that time in the show, so remarrying to try to father spares is essential. Rhaenyra might die in childbirth like Aemma and Alyssa, after all, possibly without producing living children of her own. That would then be the end of House Targaryen - or at least of Viserys' own branch of the family. And as I've said, Daemon was childless at that point and not likely to father heirs soon ... and his dangerous lifestyle could easily enough lead to him dying in a tavern brawl or something like that.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

The only viable solution I can really think of would be to marry Rhaenyra to Daemon and then refrain from having any further kids himself. But this would be much easier had it not been for the "heir for a day" incident. Really, the personality clash between Daemon and Otto is how this all starts. It's the rivalry between those two that sets (and keeps) everything in motion.

It could have been a way to settle things ... but a Rhaenyra being married to Daemon in her teens would likely mean she would become his creatures. He was her uncle and her elder after all. Her marrying him of her own free will and while she is safe and secure not only in her role as heir but also the ruler of her own lordship makes everything better.

I'd imagine that this was part of the reason why Viserys refused to give permission to this match.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

His biggest mistake was allowing the Hightowers to become too powerful at court after Lyonel Strong died. Having installed Rhaenyra as heir and kept her there in the face of some opposition, he should have bolstered her faction with relevant appointments. Get a Velaryon back as master of ships (Laenor, if Corlys won't do it). When Lyonel died, he should have found a Hand loyal to Rhaenyra rather than turning back to Otto. But Rhaenyra is also to blame here for not doing more to prop up her own power at court, and buggering off out of King's Landing to Dragonstone when the king is ill, leaving her enemies in possesion, was an obvious mistake.

This is where the show kind of drops the ball. George gives some weak explanation as to why Otto was recalled as Hand, but the show just ignores this whole conundrum. It makes no sense for Viserys to recall him, nor for Rhaenyra to allow this.

Ditto with Rhaenyra's weird decision in the show to go to Dragonstone for no reason at all. In the book the constant quarrels between her and Alicent and the children cause her to spend most of her time on Dragonstone in the two years prior to Laena's death - but it is only after the Vhagar incident that the king himself decrees that Rhaenyra and her family permanently reside on Dragonstone.

There, too, the show blundered somewhat - which could have easily made more sense with another episode dealing with the repercussions of 'Laenor's death' and the Rhaenyra-Daemon marriage.

On 1/11/2023 at 2:55 PM, Adelstein said:

Overall, though, while the seeds of the Dance were certainly sown in Viserys's reign, I don't think he sowed too many of them personally, so much as watched frustrated as other people sowed them, not sure how to stop them. What caused the Dance was that too many of the people he trusted - most of whom were competent and loyal to him personally while he lived - betrayed his wishes after he died.

Yes, that's also something the shows does pretty well. Viserys could really trust Otto and Alicent - and presumably also all his other advisers. But Rhaenyra could not. And it is not that hard for somebody who personally trusts somebody - and knows he can - to really believe they would turn against and try to kill their child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 5:30 AM, Fenris87 said:

Emotionally, Blacks all the way. I mean sure, Daemon is a chilling man to be around, but so far I fail to see why Rhaenyra is so often called "evil". The most evil thing she has done so far was not telling Rhaenys that her son is alive. And that's just nothing compared to good queen-dowager.

I enjoeyed the final scene in a cynical way, I'm afraid. Aemond looks like a freaking Witcher but he turns out to be a reckless fool... 

Not trying to be mean...but you cleary a show watcher. This is the book forum... If you want to enjoy the show without the spoilers you should go to the Tv show part of the forum.

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/forum/147-house-of-the-dragon-the-hbo-tv-series/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From a dynastic PoV, I would support the Greens. The High Council of 101 set a precedent of agnatic primogeniture, the fact that Viserys chose to ignore it just because he's the King could only lead to civil war after his death. Then Rhaenyra commits high treason by siring bastards and passing them as trueborn children of Laenor. The Realm of the Seven Kingdom is not an absolute monarchy but a feudal society, the King and his heir apparent cannot expect their bannermen to swallow any bullshit they want to give. 

From a personal PoV, the Greens have committed so many atrocities that I'd rather support the Blacks by default. Besides they won the war and I wouldn't want to be on the losing side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 5/15/2021 at 12:30 PM, Daemon of the Blacks said:

To quote myself from my own topic on the matter:

Some of my favorite houses like the Lanisters, Baratheons and Hightowers ended up with the Greens but despite that I found myself favoring the Blacks to a significant extend. All in all the Blacks seem far more capable than the Greens ever were. Aegon II was a pretty awful war leader and while Rhaenya was hardly any better she seemed to be the weak link in a faction of capable people while an air of incompetence surrounds the Greens. At Aegon's side were Aemond and Cole who felt it was a good idea to self destruct in the Riverlands and give the Blacks a chance to take the capitol, Cole had a pretty clever plot to kill Rhaenys but seemed unable or unwilling to correct the mistakes of either Aemond or Aemon. Otto hightower was pretty clever by enlisting the Triarchy, but somehow overlooked that his rival Daemon was the one who founded the Goldcloaks despite having been Daemon's rival for decades. Lord Lannister died pretty early in the war and for all his bluster Borros Baratheon got destroyed by ''boys and woman'' when he finally got around to fighting the Blacks. Prince Daeron seemed to be the only one who didn't blunder throughout the war but since he was just a kid he never rose far enough on the political ladder for the Greens to benefit from his skills. 

To contrast the mediocrity of the Greens the Blacks had some of the most capable commanders of the era like Corlys and Daemon while also earning the loyalty of very talented new blood like prince Jace, Benjicot, Alyn and Cregan Stark. Rhaenya, in all her genius eventually drove off Corlys and Daemon but she failed her faction rather than her faction collectively failing her like with the Greens. 

Generally the Black commanders speak more to the imagination. The have a rogue, dragon riding Targaryen pirate prince, an elderly ''sea serpent'' who traveled the world, Benjicot the capable kid general or a future legend like Alyn. In contrast the Green have a big brat riding a huge dragon, an incompetent king, a competent pencil pushing Hand that got fired, and the grand genius that was Unwin Peak. 

On the question of legitimacy the Blacks have a pretty easy win since their opponents blatantly disregarding the decree of the late king and killing the one who disagreed wasn't particularly legitimate of them.  

I actually think the opposite. The only reasons the Greens lasted as long as they did is through their own competency and the incompetency of the Blacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...