Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 106 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

From what I’ve heard, it will be mentioned that Daeron is a squire in Oldtown at some point. The only character I’ve heard they may cut is Maelor, which is probably a wise decision. He does nothing but die in a way similar to Joffrey, and Blood and Cheese can work with Helaena being forced to choose between the twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I think the key element to consider here is not the clarity of the succession rules, but the cultural environment. Fratricide was not acceptable in medieval Europe, and George has established many times that in Westeros there is a very strong cultural taboo against kinslaying.

If we come back to the Anarchy as the inspiration for the Dance, then we should remember that Matilda didn't execute his cousin Stephen when he was her prisoner. Killing close relatives, particularly siblings, it's something that just wasn't done in medieval Europe. At least not openly.

 

1/ Your statement is correct but we need to go further than that. Why was kinslaying and more generally dynastic infighting less common in Medieval Western Europe than in, say, Hellenistic times, Imperial Rome, Ottoman Turkey or Medieval Russ' ? 

Was it because Medieval Europeans were gentler or less ambitious than their forebears or than their Eastern counterparts ? Surely no.

Was it then because of Christianity's soothing influence ? The bloody court politics of Late Roman and Byzantine times would beg to disagree (unless we consider the Byzantine practice of mutilation more humane than plain old execution).

I believe it was so for a simple reason: because generally speaking rules of succession were clearer, stricter and stronger in Medieval Europe than they were in other times or parts of the world. Male primogeniture was widely respected and enforced. This made usurpation more costly, and legitimization thereof more difficult to attain. 

Whenever these rules would weaken, then Medieval men would happily go at each other throat. See for instance Peter the Cruel and his half-brother Henry of Trastamara who famously solved their quarrel with daggers. 

2/ As I wrote earlier, I am not necessarily talking about murder. Imprisoning a relative or a competitor in a dungeon and throwing away the key was quite popular in the Middle Ages. There is also the possibility of (more or less) forced exile. 

3/ Many of the responses on this issue rest on a moralistic or idealistic stance: it all comes down to Aegon and his brothers not being dicks about their rights to the throne and all would be well. This infers that every pretender in History is just a wicked guy. This is an absurdly moralistic view.

Lack of strict and clear rules of succession create ambitious men who believe they have a right to the throne, not the other way around.

4/ It is true that GRRM based Westeros on Medieval Western Europe, but I would say that he made sure to include in his setting the most ruthless aspects of our Middle Ages. In many ways, it could be argued that Westeros is even a slightly more ruthless version of our Middle Ages. We have several stories of entire bloodlines being deliberately wiped out (something that very rarely occurred in our Middle Ages); we have a king ordering the cruel and summary execution of one of his greatest lords; we have a king prosecuting a murderous religious war; a pretender assassinating his brother by sorcerous means; a noble house famed for skinning alive their opponents, etc., etc. 

5/ If Westeros if clearly mostly Medieval Western Europe in inspiration, I contend the same is not true for the Targaryens: who are not mere fantasy Plantagenets or Capetians. To me at least, they also have strong Hellenistic vibes: coming from a superior civilisation, they swiftly invaded and subjugated barbarian kingdoms with superior warfare; lording over those people while trying to preserve their racial distinctness; practicing incest; trying their hand at bigamy; regularly believing themselves to be closer to gods than to the people they rule over. This feels heavily like the Seleucids or the Lagids, who didn't take too long to fall the slippery slope of internecine fighting. I might be pushing it too far, but Targaryens could be seen as basically Byzantine or Hellenistic princes ruling a Medieval kingdom. 

 

Edited by Stenkarazine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Septon Eustace wasn't made to walk to Stoney Sept either. His replacement, Septon Bernard, was made to walk to Oldtown with his genitals hanging from his neck, and then to spend the rest of his life in silent prayer, not that I think he was too miffed about it. Dude mainly wanted to compose bad music.

And I disagree cutting Maelor would be a good idea. Bitterbridge is important for any arc they give Daeron (who I'd be tempted to quit the show over if he's cut) and more importantly its not only one of the saddest/most horrific/cinematic moments of the Dance but also one of the rare moments where GRRM let's a Green die with some actual pathos. In fact, the only other Greens whose deaths are presented as badass or sympathetic (apart from Helaena and Jaehaerys) are Hobert and Roxton but in the latter's case that's undermined by him being an outright unrepentant rapist. Contrast that with Roddy the Ruin, Daemon, Addam Velaryon, Rhaenys, Jacaerys, the Seven Who Rode, Arthor Celtigar, the last three Queensguard, and to a much lesser extent Lords Piper and Frey, etc.

Then again, I've made it clear before in my opinion the Dance is poor character work and an even worse war story so at this point I'm probably just repeating myself.

Edited by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ran said:

Rhaenyra was the character we were referring to. Her good counsel at the small council, and more significantly her attempt to patch up the break between the two by proposing the marriage (which is something they've invented). To us, this episode mostly cast Alicent in a bad light and mostly cast Rhaenyra in a positive light, which we think isn't what those who want the conflict to be more "equal" will want. That said, there's 4 episodes left, plenty of enormities yet to come, and it's never easy to predict how people will feel about characters.

I think that's pretty much a consequence of the Strong plot. Alicent cannot appear sympathetic when she has issues with the parentage of Rhaenyra's sons ... unless the writers would agree that it was oh so slutty and bad that Harwin fathered the boys.

Rhaenyra's advice is not necessarily much better than Alicent's - having the Tullys deal with Trident business isn't wrong, not wasting the money of the Crown in a costly and (most likely) ultimately futile war isn't something one has to agree with, just as hawkish warmongering isn't that great in itself.

Including the smallfolk in the matter was a good idea, though. But Rhaenyra does have supporters and friends in the Riverlands, so this fits with the story.

That Jace-Helaena comes up as a potential match is kind of obvious. That George didn't bother to consider that match could even be seen as an oversight. And with the Strong thing in mind it cannot be Alicent suggesting or pushing it because wouldn't want to marry her only daughter some filthy bastard.

The idea that Rhaenyra was a bad adviser/ruler of Dragonstone is not really implied in the book.

6 hours ago, Stenkarazine said:

This bugs me a little. The fact that Otto's and Alicent's fears are treated as delusional or manipulative is not very realistic. Our own Ancient and Medieval times are rife with brothers, nephews, cousins, offing each other at the first opportunity or the merest uncertainty about the succession, so we can assume the same in the setting of Westeros.

We cannot really accept this as a given since there is actually precedent for this in Westeros. Medieval royalty did not off each other in succession wars ... there were succession wars, to be sure, but the savagery of the Wars of the Roses was pretty much the very end of the Middle Ages, and the result of a decline in general morals. It was a last resort to kill a deposed king and very rarely were rival pretenders outright murdered.

6 hours ago, Stenkarazine said:

The fact that Rhaenyra has never given any indication that she would murder her half-brothers on the first day of her reign does not dispel the possibility. I don't think that, to cite but one instance among countless others, Antiochus IV announced to all and sundry that he would liquidate his young nephew as soon as he got a son of his own. Maybe the thought didn't even occur to him before the uncertainty (ie., having a son of his own) occurred. 

No matter what Rhaenyra says or thinks now, the possibility that she (or her partisans) would execute, imprison or at least confine her half-brothers once Viserys dies is very real, and actually highly probable. Simply because she (and her family) have every interest to do so, in the same way that Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, Caligula, the Ottoman Sultans, Catherine the Great and countless others had every interest to do so. Unless somehow Westeros, a realistic Medieval setting in almost every way, verges on idealism on this one particular point.

That is basically stuff that happens in other cultures Westeros is not really based on. Murdering Elia and Rhaegar's children was a monstrous crime, just as killing both Aegon II and Aerys II was. They were anointed kings.

This kind of thing usually happened in monarchies or military dictatorships where there is no clear succession at all and every other royal is a potential pretender. The Romanovs and Ottomans had to be as cruel as they were because there were (for a long times) no rules at all - which is why even consorts could become Tsar.

George could have modelled the Targaryens more on the Ptolemies - then we could have even sibling incest couples warring with each other - but that's not it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

It's a better choice to just impose your female heir in a society that has disdain for women and hope for the best, which is what Viserys did. His method avoided a war of succession, Viserys' willful blindness didn't.

The patriarchal culture that has existed thanks to andal culture isn't enough on its own to make war inevitable.

 

The targaryens under Aegon were established as absolute monarchs over the continent. Any involvement from vassals in the affairs of the crown was a granted privilege, not a formalized/owed position. Besides Valyrian culture was much more egalitarian which showed itself with the roles Visenya and Rhaenys played during and after the conquest. The Targaryens faced uprisings over their marriage customs yet the dragon won and the realm submitted. That didn't mean it applied to the rest of the kingdom, rather just the Iron Throne. It could easily be repeated with implementing an absolute-cognatic succession.

 

Jahaery's attempt at conciliating the realm was inherently faulty for this reason. It set a dangerous precedent for the Targaryen's position in the realm and would come to cripple them not just during the dance but especially when the dragons died out. Jahaerys should of conciliated with Alysanne in the beginning over Rhaenys as heir.

Viserys had the misfortune of inheriting the fruits his grandsire's errors bore. His own scruples didn't bring upon the Dance alone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Staying with the books, there is a way that Jace's genes could have been introduced into the Stark family line through the Mountain clans, and specifically through Arya Flint.  Arra Norrey and Sara Snow apparently both grew up in Winterfell.  Presumably both being close to Cregan, they may have been fairly close to each other as well.  So it seems quite possible that Arra Norrey may have arranged a marriage alliance with someone in the Mountain clans through her family, to help out her friend Sara who may have been left with Jace's child.  

The child (or children if twins) grows up in the Mountain clans and one of his/her descendants being Arya Flint, who is then married into House Stark.

That certainly is something George may do if he ends up revisiting Sara Snow. Although Arra Norrey is already dead during the Dance.

If the show were wanting to create a link between Rhaenyra and Arya Stark then we would, I think, need a clear link like some Targaryen child marrying into House Stark. The idea that some daughter of Jace and Sara ends up being Arya's ancestor through the female line isn't something they can sell convincingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But how? It's her making the choice that makes the whole thing dramatic.

Not to mention the whole "an eye for an eye, a son for a son" thing doesn't work if there's only one son. Oh, and the fact Jaehaera's female as well as autistic means the right choice would be obvious dynastically-speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra's advice is not necessarily much better than Alicent's - having the Tullys deal with Trident business isn't wrong, not wasting the money of the Crown in a costly and (most likely) ultimately futile war isn't something one has to agree with, just as hawkish warmongering isn't that great in itself.

with any other two houses , Alicent's advice is actually pretty decent . but it's Blackwoods and Brackens and their liege is weak Tully of pre-Dance . we explicitly know that Tullys become more powerful in Riverrun after the Dance (thanks to Kermit) and Blackwood/Bracken feud is known among us . Rhaenyra's advice to directly investigate the case is a great idea, long term. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Assuming S2 ends with Rhaenyra taking King’s Landing, we’re going to lose Jaehaerys, Rhaenys, Otto, Criston Cole, Tyland Lannister, Viserys (fake-out), Jace, and probably some other characters that I’m forgetting in one season. 

I'm curious how that fake-out is supposed to work. A title card at the end saying he eventually came back? In a vacuum the best thing for the show might be to just kill him off for real on screen, but that would kinda mess up the family tree! 

Also it's Jason, not Tyland who dies. Poor Tyland arguably suffers a worse fate. I wouldn't mind if they toned that down a bit to say just blinding him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think that's pretty much a consequence of the Strong plot. Alicent cannot appear sympathetic when she has issues with the parentage of Rhaenyra's sons ... unless the writers would agree that it was oh so slutty and bad that Harwin fathered the boys.

Rhaenyra's advice is not necessarily much better than Alicent's - having the Tullys deal with Trident business isn't wrong, not wasting the money of the Crown in a costly and (most likely) ultimately futile war isn't something one has to agree with, just as hawkish warmongering isn't that great in itself.

The idea that Rhaenyra was a bad adviser/ruler of Dragonstone is not really implied in the book.

We cannot really accept this as a given since there is actually precedent for this in Westeros. Medieval royalty did not off each other in succession wars ... there were succession wars, to be sure, but the savagery of the Wars of the Roses was pretty much the very end of the Middle Ages, and the result of a decline in general morals. It was a last resort to kill a deposed king and very rarely were rival pretenders outright murdered.

Alicent's beef with the bastardy of Rhaenyra's sons may not be sympathetic to everyone but it is certainly understandable from an in-setting perspective.

I actually liked that Alicent and Rhaenyra both made good points. Keeps things from getting cartoonish.

If Rhaenyra wasn't a bad ruler how do you explain Marston Waters, Broome, and the Two Toms getting almost everyone on Dragonstone to switch sides?

Lol. Say that to Pedro the Cruel or Arthur, Duke of Brittany or John the Fearless or William Rufus or Donald III to name just a few counter-examples to your assertion. Hell, William I and Henry II faced multiple outright rebellions from their sons on top of William I's sons fighting each other after his death and John I scheming against Richard I. Oh, and there's the deposition/murder of Edward II as well as Richard II. Almost as if people WEREN'T hesitant to off their kin if it meant securing their own power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I'm curious how that fake-out is supposed to work. A title card at the end saying he eventually came back? In a vacuum the best thing for the show might be to just kill him off for real on screen, but that would kinda mess up the family tree! 

Also it's Jason, not Tyland who dies. Poor Tyland arguably suffers a worse fate. I wouldn't mind if they toned that down a bit to say just blinding him. 

Good catch with Jason. GRRM made them retcon Jaehaerys II back into existence, I doubt he’d let them kill off Viserys II, who was arguably much more important. 
 

26 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But how? It's her making the choice that makes the whole thing dramatic.

She’d still be forced to choose, only now it would be a child for a child rather than a son for a son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Bard of Banefort said:

GRRM made them retcon Jaehaerys II back into existence

I read this once before, what is it referring too? Did they finally mention him in the later seasons? 

3 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

If Rhaenyra wasn't a bad ruler how do you explain Marston Waters, Broome, and the Two Toms getting almost everyone on Dragonstone to switch sides?

I mean being a good ruler and a popular ruler are not always the same thing. We're told the one guy was mad about getting passed over as castellan, and a lot of other people on the island were bitter about relatives lost or maimed in the sowing. I'm sure not everyone wanted to switch sides. Once something like that gains enough momentum you either go along or find yourself in a dungeon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I mean being a good ruler and a popular ruler are not always the same thing. We're told the one guy was mad about getting passed over as castellan, and a lot of other people on the island were bitter about relatives lost or maimed in the sowing. I'm sure not everyone wanted to switch sides. Once something like that gains enough momentum you either go along or find yourself in a dungeon. 

Enough people did switch sides to make a difference but fair enough.

Edited by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I read this once before, what is it referring too? Did they finally mention him in the later seasons? 

D&D took Jaehaerys II out of the show canon when they made GoT, making the Mad King the son of Aegon V. One of GRRM's requests for HotD was that Jahaerys II would be put back into the show canon, but as far as I know that hasn't actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Good catch with Jason. GRRM made them retcon Jaehaerys II back into existence, I doubt he’d let them kill off Viserys II, who was arguably much more important. 
 

She’d still be forced to choose, only now it would be a child for a child rather than a son for a son.

Plus let’s be real, this will give the show another opportunity to beat us over the head with how sexist everyone is since Helaena will chose Jaehaera to die and they’ll kill Jaehaerys instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

D&D took Jaehaerys II out of the show canon when they made GoT, making the Mad King the son of Aegon V. One of GRRM's requests for HotD was that Jahaerys II would be put back into the show canon, but as far as I know that hasn't actually happened.

Right I remembered the first part, I just don't remember him being re-cannonized and like....how could he possibly be in HotD?

Also I wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily think Rhaenyra was a good ruler. I still haven't forgiven her for ordering Nettles' death! She also probably should have fought in her own battles more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Right I remembered the first part, I just don't remember him being re-cannonized and like....how could he possibly be in HotD?

 

I'm going to assume that George means that if they produce any material showing the Targaryen dynasty going forward, references about things in the future in the DVD extras, etc., that they should include Jaehaerys II rather than dropping him.

Alternatively, this relates to discussions of other stories to explore after this phase of HotD is over (re: talk of continuing to explore other eras of the Targaryens), and maybe someone mentioned the War of the Ninepenny Kings and when it got to figuring out whether to stick to D&D's show version where it was during Aegon V's reign or whether it was the book version with Jaehaerys II, and George insisted on the latter.

As it happens, in my interview with Condal (which I think has gotten too late to publish today, so tomorrow), he talked about being interested in an era where the Targaryens no longer had dragons but how would that change warfare and how they threaten others and so on. So I think his mind turned to one of those colorful conflicts -- Daeron's conquest, or the Ninepenny Kings, or a Blackfyre rebellion...

Edited by Ran
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...