Jump to content

Does YG = A? or: Aegon vs. fAegon


Recommended Posts

Good morrow to all, 

I'm doing some research on the question of Young Griff's real identity.  As I understand it, the "fAegon" theory rests on two pieces of evidence.  One is Daenerys's vision of a cloth dragon on poles.  The other is Illyrio's words and behavior in the early chapters of ADWD.  Are there any others that I've missed?

Thanks in advance --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are the two pieces of evidence you've already mentioned, and I think there is also a point where someone talks about the sign of an inn in the Riverlands. It was a black dragon sign, was thrown away (I think during the first Blackfyre rebellion) and rusted, then washed up again as a red dragon. Supposedly this is symbolic of Aegon/fAegon.

I also think the support of the Golden Company is significant. I believe it's very unlikely that they would support a Targaryen. I don't believe that 'they just want to go home' and don't care about the cause anymore. If that was all they wanted they could have done it ages ago.

I think it would be interesting if it was revealed that Aegon really was Aegon after he dies, if he does die, however I just don't feel he is. I think the evidence we do have points more to him being a Blackfyre or another fake. So far the only proof we have of him being real are the words of Varys and Illyrio, who are very suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's really just one indicator that YG could be a Blackfyre, and that's the Golden Company. The Slayer of Lies triad is not about him being a fake Targaryen, imo. That triad is a Azor Ahai triad and I will keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. 

All in all, I think there's more that indicates that YG is Aegon Targaryen than there is that says that he is someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JonCon sort of notted the difference between Rhaegar and fAegon, the difference in their looks and their behaviour:

ADWD, The Griffin Reborn:

Quote
As he climbed he remembered past ascents—a hundred with his lord father, who liked to stand and look out over woods and crags and sea and know that all he saw belonged to House Connington, and one (only one!) with Rhaegar Targaryen.
...
"Your father's lands are beautiful," Prince Rhaegar had said, standing right where Jon was standing now. And the boy he'd been had replied, "One day they will all be mine." As if that could impress a prince who was heir to the entire realm, from the Arbor to the Wall.
...

Prince Aegon Targaryen was not near as biddable as the boy Young Griff had been, however. The better part of an hour had passed before he finally turned up in the solar, with Duck at his side. “Lord Connington,” he said, “I like your castle.”

“Your father’s lands are beautiful,” he said. His silvery hair was blowing in the wind, and his eyes were a deep purple, darker than this boy’s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Megorova said:

JonCon sort of notted the difference between Rhaegar and fAegon, the difference in their looks and their behaviour:

ADWD, The Griffin Reborn:

 

That doesn’t mean much, shades and even colours of Targ children vary a lot. Jaeharys I…with a pure Valyrian sister-wife…had children with eyes ranging from pale lilac to deep purple to blue to in one instance green. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

The Golden Company, whose history of supporting the Blackfyres, threw their support to Aegon.   He is a Blackfyre.  

Strictly speaking, this is an argument in support of 'Aegon is a Blackfyre', not 'Aegon is fAegon'. The former theory is a subset of the latter.

 

I don't believe the Golden Company would back a Blackfyre; some of the captains are Essosi without any Westerosi blood, others are recent exiles. I disagree with the Blackfyre theory, but still think it is likely Aegon is fAegon.

 

20 hours ago, Aebram said:

Good morrow to all, 

I'm doing some research on the question of Young Griff's real identity.  As I understand it, the "fAegon" theory rests on two pieces of evidence.  One is Daenerys's vision of a cloth dragon on poles.  The other is Illyrio's words and behavior in the early chapters of ADWD.  Are there any others that I've missed?

Thanks in advance --

I'd turn it around. What evidence is there that the babe Gregor Clegane murdered was the peasant boy from Pisswater? It relies entirely on the word of Varys and Illyrio. 

We are given a plausible explanation, a common boy was snuck in to pose as a double for long enough to delay a pursuit & Varys knows secret routes. But if he didn't arrange a switch during this very short time then he couldn't go back for a do-ever, so the theory relies on him having acted during the limited window of opportunity.

By contrast, if Gregor did kill baby Aegon then V&I had a great opportunity to find a suitable fake - it was years before they handed custody to Jon C. They could have, perhaps, purchased a mother-and-child slave set (Serra and Young Griff?) of Lyseni breeding, with the right colouring to pass as a Targaryen.

[The question of opportunity is part of the reason I don't support the Blackfyre theory. Even if I thought the Blackfyre line was still extant, I think it would be too great a coincidence that there would happen to be an heir of just the right age to be a convincing fAegon].

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to believe that YG is most likely the real Aegon Targaryen himself.

One reason is that I think it works better for Dany's story, another reason ... Well, I've tried to put together facts and theories(guesses) to solve some of weird past events about Ned Stark and the Starfalians . And Aegon, being the real deal worked well with it. I will try to post it tomorrow after my exam :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Buried Treasure said:

[The question of opportunity is part of the reason I don't support the Blackfyre theory. Even if I thought the Blackfyre line was still extant, I think it would be too great a coincidence that there would happen to be an heir of just the right age to be a convincing fAegon].

Though, what if he actually is a Blackfyre, and what if his birth, at just the right time, was not a coincidence? I wrote a theory how did that happened, who fAegon really is, and how is he connected to Varys, Illyrio and Golden Company, here -> Swan Song part 10/16. What happened at the Kingswood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 7:51 PM, Aebram said:

Good morrow to all, 

I'm doing some research on the question of Young Griff's real identity.  As I understand it, the "fAegon" theory rests on two pieces of evidence.  One is Daenerys's vision of a cloth dragon on poles.  The other is Illyrio's words and behavior in the early chapters of ADWD.  Are there any others that I've missed?

Thanks in advance --

The Blackfyres are too important to fade into history.  He is the best BF for now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 6:51 PM, Aebram said:

Good morrow to all, 

I'm doing some research on the question of Young Griff's real identity.  As I understand it, the "fAegon" theory rests on two pieces of evidence.  One is Daenerys's vision of a cloth dragon on poles.  The other is Illyrio's words and behavior in the early chapters of ADWD.  Are there any others that I've missed?

Thanks in advance --

There's also that really cryptic conversation Arya heard in the cellars of the Red Keep in A Game of Thrones

It's also really bizarre for Aegon to be a trueborn Targaryen and not be raised right alongside Viserys and Daenerys. Why would Varys and Illyrio work so hard to keep them so far apart? Why arrange to have Aegon educated but not do the same for Viserys and Daenerys.

It all makes so much sense if Aegon is a Blackfyre (or otherwise fake)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

There's also that really cryptic conversation Arya heard in the cellars of the Red Keep in A Game of Thrones

It's also really bizarre for Aegon to be a trueborn Targaryen and not be raised right alongside Viserys and Daenerys. Why would Varys and Illyrio work so hard to keep them so far apart? Why arrange to have Aegon educated but not do the same for Viserys and Daenerys.

It all makes so much sense if Aegon is a Blackfyre (or otherwise fake)

 

I reread the conversation that Arya overheard in the dungeon.  There's really nothing in there that suggests a Blackfyre, or any other type of impostor.  It's mostly about Ned and Cersei and the goings-on in King's Landing.

Aegon was smuggled out of the Red Keep in 283 AC, during the final days of Robert's Rebellion. But Daenerys and Viserys were already on Dragonstone, where they remained for about another year. So their escapes from Westeros were widely separated in both time and geography. And the fact that Aegon survived was kept secret, while Daenerys and Viserys's existence was well-known. So there was some merit in keeping them in different locations: an attack on one would have no effect on the other.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  The purpose of this post was just to gather information to help me further my research.  Don't consider the above as a spoiler for my conclusion!  I'll be publishing it in a separate post soon.  For now, keep those comments coming; and my thanks to everyone who's contributing their thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My thoughts:

*one of the biggest criticisms, ie on how it was technically done, how did they know the Mountain would make Aegon unrecognizable, how did they convince Elia, etc. are overthinking it because they are assuming it was always done with the ~ Shy Maid long term plan in mind whereas it would be much more likely done as a short term deception to just buy enough time to get Aegon safely out of the Red Keep and/or KL and then they took advantage of the situation. 
 

* another criticism of Aegon, ie the cyvasse incident, is overblown and indicative of a couple assumptions, mostly that there is only one way to be a successful ruler. But some of the greatest medieval rulers had MUCH worse tempers; Henry II, possibly the most able king England ever had, would reportedly literally tear his hair and roll around on the ground eating dirt in his fury; the Plantagenets generally were famous for their temper. Alexander the Great famously had a violent temper and especially when beaten at wrestling or some kind of game. Charlemagne had a temper, Otto the great had famous fits of temper, some almost literal models for the cyvasse thing but much worse, etc.

Temper in a medieval ruler was, like anything else, a double edged issue. It showed temporary loss of control or sense of entitlement, but it also showed strength and tended to actually reflect reality; kings were expected to hold different expectations. Temper made a ruler less predictable and less malleable and those are not negatives unless they become dominant; nothing in the time we see Aegon shows that to be remotely true, it was a flash in what is otherwise an almost too ideal young man. It might be the element that keeps him from being perceived as weak or too cerebral. 
 

*Another criticism which is imo unwarranted is the idea that he will fail because Tyrion manipulated him into attacking early. First this wrongly assumes that there IS a correct path to success, it assumes that waiting for Dany is the only way he can succeed, when that it obviously wrong. Dany herself comes with many, many dangers and obstacles and might not be interested, might not be free to leave for a long time, might not see Aegon as anything more than a rival, etc. Waiting itself also comes with dangers; the GC might grow restless and get distracted, the plan might be abandoned, the Iron Throne’s other conflicts might be wrapped up and leave them able to focus entirely on Aegon, etc. 
 

Whereas from what we have seen in advance chapters, etc. Aegon’s decision does seem to succeed beyond expectations so far, and moreover his decisiveness inspired his men, even old Jon Con, and that is HUGE. If feudal leadership can be boiled down to one essential, it is the ability to inspire your important followers. And that was really the only unknown in Aegon; he looked the part, he was very intelligent and learned and had been given an extensively varied upbringing to familiarize himself with the plights of several levels of society…but none of that guaranteed that he could lead men. But in the moment we see him overrule JC and say ‘now’ we see that answered. The room is full of as jaded and cynical collection of old salts as you could imagine, but they are pretty entirely fired up by Aegon’s display of strength. So regardless of what Tyrion did or did not affect, it might be the right move at the right time.

Aegon is almost certainly destined to eventually fail, but that’s baked into GRRM’s various points about Dany, prophecy, fate vs. will, might makes right, etc. and above all I think it is destined to show that being a potentially great king can be rendered meaningless by dragons or treachery or chance or w/e. Remember GRRM is a pacifist and the lessons he thinks we ought to learn about power are not that rulers are in place because they deserve it; quite the reverse. 
 

*as to whether he is a BF or Targ, I think that at this point that’s largely a distinction without a difference. The BFs ARE Targaryens; cadet houses are extensions of those houses, not some kind of other species, and Daemon Blackfyre could have chosen to call himself Daemon Targaryen if he wanted. It would matter if a Targ was sitting on the throne because it’s an alternative, but when a Lannister or Baratheon sits the throne it represents a return to Targ rule with a slightly modified sigil, even less of a legal deviation than the Dance Velaryons represented. If fAegon is a BF he has a legit claim to the throne, and that’s all that legitimate succession requires. 

Now it might matter to individuals, specifically Dany and JonCon, but that has nothing to do with it’s rightness or legitimacy. Ultimately I think it likely won’t be ever explicitly known…that’s more GRRM’s style…except that ever since I imagined George imagining JonCon finding out that Aegon is not Rhaegar’s son and that redemption on that line is beyond his grasp I have had a hard time not seeing George relish writing that soul-crushing/crushed scene.

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Aebram said:

For now, keep those comments coming; and my thanks to everyone who's contributing their thoughts.

So this is what convinced me,

Quote

Are you aware that the Golden Company has broken its contract with Myr?"

"Sellswords break their contracts all the time."

"Not the Golden Company. Our word is good as gold has been their boast since the days of Bittersteel. Myr is on the point of war with Lys and Tyrosh. Why break a contract that offered them the prospect of good wages and good plunder?"

"Perhaps Lys offered them better wages. Or Tyrosh."

"No," she said. "I would believe it of any of the other free companies, yes. Most of them would change sides for half a groat. The Golden Company is different. A brotherhood of exiles and the sons of exiles, united by the dream of Bittersteel. It's home they want, as much as gold. Lord Yronwood knows that as well as I do. His forebears rode with Bittersteel during three of the Blackfyre Rebellions."

Arianna is convinced the GC just want to go home. Viserys thought that once too

Quote

Her brother Viserys had once feasted the captains of the Golden Company, in hopes they might take up his cause. They ate his food and heard his pleas and laughed at him. Dany had only been a little girl, but she remembered.

But the GC don't want to just go home, they are united by the dreams of Bittersteel. And that's certainly not to put a red dragon on Daemons throne

Edited by Hugorfonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

one of the biggest criticisms, ie on how it was technically done, how did they know the Mountain would make Aegon unrecognizable, how did they convince Elia, etc. are overthinking it because they are assuming it was always done with the ~ Shy Maid long term plan in mind whereas it would be much more likely done as a short term deception to just buy enough time to get Aegon safely out of the Red Keep and/or KL and then they took advantage of the situation. 

Word. A good tale but filled with holes

36 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

another criticism of Aegon, ie the cyvasse incident, is overblown and indicative of a couple assumptions, mostly that there is only one way to be a successful ruler. But some of the greatest medieval rulers had MUCH worse tempers; Henry II, possibly the most able king England ever had, would reportedly literally tear his hair and roll around on the ground eating dirt in his fury; the Plantagenets generally were famous for their temper.

For sure, but it's all about their win to loss ratio. Christian scholars may have thought it badass to see Henry with a moutyfull of straw but when his son John did it they thought he was a psychopath. (Not saying John wasn't a psychopath). Henry was undoubtedly brilliant while John was not but Henry got delt a good hand in the beginning while John had anything but.

Anyway, being a little wild can be politically sound, like Ramsay but also it can backfire like Cersei. But I agree its a blown up scene, I mean what kid likes losing?

45 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Another criticism which is imo unwarranted is the idea that he will fail because Tyrion manipulated him into attacking early. First this wrongly assumes that there IS a correct path to success,

Very true. But remember why Young Griff lost the game? He didn't keep the dragon close. Even Quentyn understood that, (a little too well)

49 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Remember GRRM is a pacifist

Is he? He was anti Vietnam and probably Iraq and Afghanistan, almost definitely Ukraine. But like WWII? I think he's glad America stepped in. That vampire book he wrote about the pre civil war south pulled no punches in wanting to see it all burn, fire and blood I believe was the exact phrase.

52 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I imagined George imagining JonCon finding out that Aegon is not Rhaegar’s son and that redemption on that line is beyond his grasp I have had a hard time not seeing George relish writing that soul-crushing/crushed scene.

Oh he's got to, lol. It's too good. He's literally dying for his beloveds son. It's just so inaccurate on the point of hysteresy, except the greyscale bit that's accurate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word. A good tale but filled with holes

1) For sure, but it's all about their win to loss ratio. Christian scholars may have thought it badass to see Henry with a moutyfull of straw but when his son John did it they thought he was a psychopath. (Not saying John wasn't a psychopath). Henry was undoubtedly brilliant while John was not but Henry got delt a good hand in the beginning while John had anything but.

Anyway, being a little wild can be politically sound, like Ramsay but also it can backfire like Cersei. But I agree its a blown up scene, I mean what kid likes losing?

2) Very true. But remember why Young Griff lost the game? He didn't keep the dragon close. Even Quentyn understood that, (a little too well)

3)Is he? He was anti Vietnam and probably Iraq and Afghanistan, almost definitely Ukraine. But like WWII? I think he's glad America stepped in. That vampire book he wrote about the pre civil war south pulled no punches in wanting to see it all burn, fire and blood I believe was the exact phrase.

4) Oh he's got to, lol. It's too good. He's literally dying for his beloveds son. It's just so inaccurate on the point of hysteresy, except the greyscale bit that's accurate

1) While nowhere near as much as I do someone like Richard III, John is someone whose reputation I sometimes dispute. Roman Emperors are largely recorded as good or bad depending upon their relationship with the history tellers, largely the Senate. Similarly medieval kings’ reputations are largely dependent on how they got along with the church, and John…did not. Now neither, to a degree, did Henry, but then as I said Henry was probably the most talented king England ever had and John only had some of that. But I completely agree that John was dealt a horrible hand; beloved Richard had left him pretty much hamstrung and most of his biggest failures were either attempts to undo Richard’s debts or failed because of same. That said he probably was some version of the recorded one, he certainly has major flaws and probably killed Arthur. 
 

I will *slightly* disagree on Henry’s situation only because, well, Stephen was king and had 2 heirs and without Eustace’s death and Stephen’s subsequent depression Henry has a very hard row to hoe to become king. In the context of FAegon the irony is that Henry’s crucial move was a premature under-supported invasion as a teenager contrary to the advice of his mother/advisors which succeeded mostly because of chance and perfect timing. Now, once that chip fell yeah, he was holding a hand full of aces. 
 

2) Right, but he does not have a dragon, so learning to win without one might be the point. Not saying you are wrong, in fact metaphorically I think it’s the almost certain forecast, but I don’t see that he has much in the way of viable alternatives. Taking the IT from Essos is a long shot whichever way he plays it.
 

3) Major tangent warning, though I’ll try to keep it leashed, but for starters I’ll suggest that maybe GRRM knows enough history to know that America absolutely did NOT ‘step in’ to WWII. In fact quite the reverse, they broke treaties of mutual protection with Britain and France to specifically avoid doing so, and only eventually sold the public on Lend-Lease because it was a great deal for America as it had Britain, in the words of the politician advocating it to Congress, ‘over a barrel’. It was in fact Japan and then Germany who declared war on America…prior to that, the Blitz on London, the conquest of Poland, France, the Holocaust, etc. did not move the needle in America much at all. And despite popular history Roosevelt was not fighting tooth and nail to get America in, and in fact according to Stimson ( and FDRs personal secretary) he was very much trying to maintain the status quo and would avoid Churchill’s calls for days when perfect excuses to get involved (like u-boats sinking an American liner) happened specifically because he had no moral or ethical excuse to use other than ‘we don’t want to’. He eventually moved more towards involvement, but not for moral reasons or loyalty to allies, but merely because Hitler was becoming too successful too quickly and he began to fear where that might affect America. 

Further, America was Nazi Germany’s greatest trading partner and munitions supplier right up until Germany attacked the U.S. and had (by far) the largest foreign Nazi party. Hell, people like Henry Ford were so committed to fascism that Ford continued to trade and supply even AFTER the U.S. was at war with Germany. Anyways, you probably know all of this and were just repeating the conventional American depiction, but I think there is a lesson to be learned here and GRRM might agree. America is and always has been a war culture, it has been at war for all but a handful of years for it’s entire existence and almost every one of those wars were ones from America’s choosing. And almost every one of those choices were ones we now see as immoral/imperial/acquisitive/hypocritical. The fact that the war Americans always point to as an example of just warfare ( and to defend all the bad choices since) was in fact the war America did not choose is an incredibly significant point imo, and I think George’s.

Also he describes himself as a pacifist fwiw. I don’t know anything about his vampire stories but I definitely think his pacifism, like mine, is tempered by a fascination with military history/characters, and that enthusiasm bleeds into the page en route to his (imo) larger point. But it would be sadly telling if even a pacifist American buys into the revisionist history of the U.S. selflessly choosing to ‘step in’ to stop Hitler/save Europe/stop the Holocaust, etc.

4)  Yeah, it’s almost too him. Poor JonCon. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

While nowhere near as much as I do someone like Richard III, John is someone whose reputation I sometimes dispute. Roman Emperors are largely recorded as good or bad depending upon their relationship with the history tellers, largely the Senate.

I'm seriously not a fan of any ancient Roman Emperor, or Richard III, I'm curious why you are. (About Richard, not like Trajan lol). 

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Similarly medieval kings’ reputations are largely dependent on how they got along with the church, and John…did not. Now neither, to a degree, did Henry, but then as I said Henry was probably the most talented king England ever had and John only had some of that.

John played the church like, well Henry; the eighth. (Not so much lol) But he was like gods servant or something after he robbed god blind. The pope kept on calling the magna Carta illigal.

Its more the losses

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

But I completely agree that John was dealt a horrible hand; beloved Richard had left him pretty much hamstrung and most of his biggest failures were either attempts to undo Richard’s debts or failed because of same. That said he probably was some version of the recorded one, he certainly has major flaws and probably killed Arthur. 

Oh yea. Strangled him personally. It's a fun story like Aegons but this time it's probably true. 

Yea I kinda like John lol, I agree that Henry Ii is arguably the best, most talented, lucky, whatever, but because his kids and wife were so Henry like they tarnished his legacy unlike Henry VIII who's kids did their best to tarnish his legacy but the last one managed to get things under control. (I don't wanna get into Tudors wives lol)

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

In the context of FAegon the irony is that Henry’s crucial move was a premature under-supported invasion as a teenager contrary to the advice of his mother/advisors which succeeded mostly because of chance and perfect timing.

I want to say it's because of his wifes support, but I'm not actually sure they were married yet, shame. It would have segwayed nicely

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Right, but he does not have a dragon, so learning to win without one might be the point. Not saying you are wrong, in fact metaphorically I think it’s the almost certain forecast, but I don’t see that he has much in the way of viable alternatives. Taking the IT from Essos is a long shot whichever way he plays it.

Tyrion convinced him to not be a begger, because that's low class or whatever. Quentyn ribbits his way into a turncloak company though and Dany still offers him a dragon. 3 heads and all that. I completely agree that nothing's set in stone but, keep your dragon close should be, after you take one.

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Also he describes himself as a pacifist fwiw.

Ok, so this is from a Rolling Stones interview

Quote

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that. World War I is much more typical of the wars of history than World War II – the kind of war you look back afterward and say, “What the hell were we fighting for? Why did all these millions of people have to die? Was it really worth it to get rid of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that we wiped out an entire generation, and tore up half the continent? Was the War of 1812 worth fighting? The Spanish-American War? What the hell were these people fighting for?”

There’s only a few wars that are really worth what they cost. I was born three years after the end of World War II. You want to be the hero. You want to stand up, whether you’re Spider-Man fighting the Green Goblin, or the American saving the world from the Nazis. It’s sad to say, but I do think there are things worth fighting for. Men are still capable of great heroism. But I don’t necessarily think there are heroes. That’s something that’s very much in my books: I believe in great characters.

(The rest of that answer is reasoning why we shouldn't cancel the racist fuck Woodraw Wilson which I agree with but we were talking about another racist fuck/great president FDR lol)

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Anyways, you probably know all of this and were just repeating the conventional American depiction, but I think there is a lesson to be learned here and GRRM might agree. America is and always has been a war culture, it has been at war for all but a handful of years for it’s entire existence and almost every one of those wars were ones from America’s choosing. And almost every one of those choices were ones we now see as immoral/imperial/acquisitive/hypocritical. The fact that the war Americans always point to as an example of just warfare ( and to defend all the bad choices since) was in fact the war America did not choose is an incredibly significant point imo, and I think George’s.

Lol facts.

Yea Americas totally been a war nation, I was just thinking that when I was talking to my brother on how historically China more or less stays in their boundary but Russia from inception to the czars soviets and oligarchs have been wildling. Kinda like America, just less years to work with. (Also the parallels of Russia's love of WWii is pretty striking too)

So I'd actually say WWii is our second biggest war, the first being the civil. Another war where Washington had no inclination of taking the higher moral ground and where they were attacked first. 

But it was just warfare. Firstly because the south had no reason to secede and Germany and Japan had no reason to annex (history is confusing) but mainly because they were slavers and facists.

But yea, calling everyone a Nazi and facist is a little too close to Russian parallels for me right now, so Viva La France? GRRM says Spanish American war was bad, why? because it was started by some capitalist who owned newspapers in America and land in Cuba and Puerto Rico? Lol. The propoganda and shady shenanigans was real no doubt about that, but was it different in revolutionary France? Fuck the old order and force democracy. (America didnt do a great job then, but then again neither did revolutionary France lol) Now forcing any nation is bad, for sure, but as Americas third greatest war, the revolution, was (not) about, fuck the old order.

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

But it would be sadly telling if even a pacifist American buys into the revisionist history of the U.S. selflessly choosing to ‘step in’ to stop Hitler/save Europe/stop the Holocaust, etc.

He reads a lot of Captain America

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah

 

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, it’s almost too him. Poor JonCon.

That's what he gets from saving Tyrion's life lol

Edited by Hugorfonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/23/2022 at 7:17 PM, James Arryn said:
On 5/23/2022 at 6:34 PM, Megorova said:

JonCon sort of notted the difference between Rhaegar and fAegon, the difference in their looks and their behaviour:

ADWD, The Griffin Reborn:

 

That doesn’t mean much, shades and even colours of Targ children vary a lot. Jaeharys I…with a pure Valyrian sister-wife…had children with eyes ranging from pale lilac to deep purple to blue to in one instance green. 

+

23 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Ultimately I think it likely won’t be ever explicitly known…that’s more GRRM’s style…except that ever since I imagined George imagining JonCon finding out that Aegon is not Rhaegar’s son and that redemption on that line is beyond his grasp I have had a hard time not seeing George relish writing that soul-crushing/crushed scene.

JonCon already knows that fAegon is not Rhaegar's son. It seems that he knew it all along, or at least guessed the truth years ago. He's aware that fAegon is not who Varys claimed him to be, though JonCon doesn't care, because the role that he plays now, as fAegon's mentor/guardian/protector, gave him a purpose in life, and gave him an opportunity to avenge Rhaegar's death by bringing down people whom he blaims in Rhaegar's death and his own downfall - Baratheons, Lannisters, Starks, etc.

He knows, and he (nearly) doesn't care. JonCon is using fAegon and Varys, same as Varys is using JonCon. This -> ADWD, The Lost Lord

Quote

“We want no songs about the gallant exile,” the eunuch had tittered, in that mincing voice of his. “Those who die heroic deaths are long remembered, thieves and drunks and cravens soon forgotten.”

What does a eunuch know of a man’s honor? Griff had gone along with the Spider’s scheme for the boy’s sake, but that did not mean he liked it any better. Let me live long enough to see the boy sit the Iron Throne, and Varys will pay for that slight and so much more. Then we’ll see who’s soon forgotten.

What are those other things that JonCon will make Varys to pay for? -> It's the deception that fAegon is supposedly Rhaegar's son. JonCon is aware that it's a lie, and that Varys is just using him to get fAegon to the Throne. There even were a few intentional give-aways on GRRM's part, like here:

Quote

The captain-general smiled up at the prince. “And this must be your son.”

Does he know? Griff wondered. How much did Myles tell him? Varys had been adamant about the need for secrecy. The plans that he and Illyrio had made with Blackheart had been known to them alone. The rest of the company had been left ignorant. What they did not know they could not let slip.

That time was done, though. “No man could have asked for a worthier son,” Griff said, “but the lad is not of my blood, and his name is not Griff. My lords, I give you Aegon Targaryen, firstborn son of Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, by Princess Elia of Dorne … soon, with your help, to be Aegon, the Sixth of His Name, King of Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, and Lord of the Seven Kingdoms.”

Silence greeted his announcement. Someone cleared his throat. One of the Coles refilled his wine cup from the flagon. Gorys Edoryen played with one of his corkscrew ringlets and murmured something in a tongue Griff did not know. Laswell Peake coughed, Mandrake and Lothston exchanged a glance. They know, Griff realized then. They have known all along. He turned to look at Harry Strickland. “When did you tell them?”

The captain-general wriggled his blistered toes in his footbath. “When we reached the river.

So originally the only three people that knew about "Aegon" and why JonCon really left Golden Company, were JonCon, Illyrio and Myles Toyne, so how did Harry Strickland also knew about this? -> He knew because Varys is a Blackfyre, and Illyrio's wife Serra also was a Blackfyre, and they (GC) knew all along about fAegon's existance, even before his birth -> they knew his mother - Septa Lemore/Jeyne Swann (the Swanns are bloodrelated to the Blackfyres - Larra Rogare/Serenei of Lys, paternal grandmother of Daemon I Blackfyre and Aegor Bittersteel Rivers (the founder of GC), was half-Swann thru her mother - Johanna Swann, the Black Swan of Lys. Though, that's not important, what's important is that GC knew about fAegon years before the boy was brought to JonCon).

So they all were aware who fAegon really is, and they all knew that Varys lied to JonCon that the boy is Rhaegar's son - just read thru their reaction to what Jon was saying to them. They all know that he's a fool tricked by Varys into taking that boy under his protection. They all know that Varys thru his agents manipulated JonCon into joining GC, and that Varys was intending to somehow use JonCon in the future, and then a few years later Varys brought fAegon to Jon and lied to him who the boy is. So when JonCon with fAegon left GC, they all actually knew why and where did he really went, and at that point in time Varys and Myles Toyne/Blackheart, to trick JonCon, pretended that this is the plan and that no one should know about this, except the three of them -> "Varys had been adamant about the need for secrecy. The plans that he and Illyrio had made with Blackheart had been known to them alone. The rest of the company had been left ignorant. ... They know, Griff realized then. They have known all along. "

He has realised years ago that fAegon is not Rhaegar's son, though he's still playing along with Varys (because this mission - to put supposedly Rhaegar's son on the Iron Throne, and that way to avenge Rhaegar's death, gives JonCon a purpose in life). And that lie is one of the things for which JonCon is planning to make Varys pay, after fAegon will become the King.

So there won't be any soul-crushing scenes from JonCon, because he knows.

P.S. Though, there will be a soul-crushing scene from Barristan Selmy, when he will find out that fAegon is HIS SON, and then he will have to make a choice - either to help his son to become the King of the 7K and to betray his Queen - Daenerys, to whom he gave an oath of loyalty, or to let his son die. The treason for love - a parallel to the choice that Jaime Lannister had to make during Robert's Rebellion - either to kill his own father, or to betray his King, and we know what he had chosen. And because in GRRM's books the history repeats, what choice Barristan will make, is also predictable (specifically because GRRM left in the books hints about this outcome).

Edited by Megorova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I want to say it's because of his wife's support, but I'm not actually sure they were married yet, shame. It would have segued nicely.

They were betrothed and, thus, they knew about each other. His wife supported him from afar.

So it still segues nicely...

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...