Jump to content

Is F/Aegon headed for a Tragic End?


Craving Peaches

Recommended Posts

I feel like he will actually be quite a good ruler, as well as being a decent person. The wounds of the Kingdoms will slowly start to heal, he will be well liked by the common people, things might be looking up for a bit...and then along comes Daenerys with her dragons. I know it would be really nice if they got along, but I just feel like it's not meant to be - I fear Quaithe's prophecy about the Mummer's Dragon will lead to Daenerys being very suspicious of F/Aegon and not trusting him, which in turn means he won't trust Daenerys. I think either a second Dance of the Dragons is possibly being set up, or F/Aegon won't have any Dragons so will be defeated in short order. So far he's be presented as someone who is fairly competent and also a good person, which of course means he won't last. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? He doesn’t strike me as a competent guy. Not at all. 
Jon Con is biased because of his man crush for Rhaegar. And I don’t trust anything Varys says. So far we’ve seen Aegon be arrogant, temperamental, and easily swayed by Tyrion. He’s swanning around making his own impulsive decisions, making it very clear that he’s no better than anyone else vying for this absolute monarchy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Really? He doesn’t strike me as a competent guy. Not at all. 
Jon Con is biased because of his man crush for Rhaegar. And I don’t trust anything Varys says. So far we’ve seen Aegon be arrogant, temperamental, and easily swayed by Tyrion. He’s swanning around making his own impulsive decisions, making it very clear that he’s no better than anyone else vying for this absolute monarchy. 

I got the impression from what he said and did that he was well-meaning if a bit naïve. Obviously Varys is not to be trusted completely and JonCon is biased. But if he is just like everyone else, where will be the narrative tension and conflict if/when Daenerys fights him? He would just be another pretender, another obstacle. I think it would make for a better story if he was nice and fairly competent, so when he dies it is actually a loss rather than just another greedy/selfish character being mowed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I got the impression from what he said and did that he was well-meaning if a bit naïve. Obviously Varys is not to be trusted completely and JonCon is biased. But if he is just like everyone else, where will be the narrative tension and conflict if/when Daenerys fights him? He would just be another pretender, another obstacle. I think it would make for a better story if he was nice and fairly competent, so when he dies it is actually a loss rather than just another greedy/selfish character being mowed down.

I think the point will be more that fAegon can pass himself off as a Westerosi far better than Daenerys, plus he's male. The people will rally to him because of Cersei and Euron, while Dany will be pissed that the Breaker of Chains isn't getting any appreciation compared to this random nephew of hers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Really? He doesn’t strike me as a competent guy. Not at all. 
Jon Con is biased because of his man crush for Rhaegar. And I don’t trust anything Varys says. So far we’ve seen Aegon be arrogant, temperamental, and easily swayed by Tyrion. He’s swanning around making his own impulsive decisions, making it very clear that he’s no better than anyone else vying for this absolute monarchy. 

Yet unlike others he actually proposed negotiating with other pretenders (e.g. Stannis), and does not seem to be in the "Pretenders! Kill! Burn! Maim!" mindset that both Stannis and Daenerys are in.

And the only person who has any chance of establishing the absolute monarchy is Daenerys, so I really don't understand what you are trying to say with "vying for this absolute monarchy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Yet unlike others he actually proposed negotiating with other pretenders

He reminds me of Renly and Robb in this regard.

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

And the only person who has any chance of establishing the absolute monarchy is Daenerys, so I really don't understand what you are trying to say with "vying for this absolute monarchy".

It is also easier for the ruler to abuse their power in an absolute monarchy. Admittedly it is a stepping stone to democracy, but we can't take it for granted that Westeros would actually follow this path, especially if the ruler had dragons and everyone else did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, James Steller said:

I think the point will be more that fAegon can pass himself off as a Westerosi far better than Daenerys, plus he's male. The people will rally to him because of Cersei and Euron, while Dany will be pissed that the Breaker of Chains isn't getting any appreciation compared to this random nephew of hers. 

I do think that will help. Daenerys will be bringing savage Dothraki and slaves (I know they are ex-slaves but I don't think people in Westeros will care much about that distinction), most importantly a load of foreigners with a foreign religion and the way Westeros works it will not be as Daenerys found Slaver's Bay. People won't be crying for her to free them. They probably won't want her there at all. She will have to decide if she really wants the Throne, and if so, why.

Edit: She's also bringing tens of thousands more mouths to feed when there is already a huge food shortage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to address common assumptions with two things that are important to note:

  • Slayer of Lies, not Slayer of Liars
  • GRRM: "The second Dance of Dragons does not have to mean Dany's invasion." (SSM)

This is something to keep in mind in response to the unsubstantiated claims that a Daenerys/fAegon Dance is inevitable, much less the idea of Dany herself killing fAegon.

 

As for fAegon, I don't believe that we're meant to view him the way Varys pretends we are. Never mind the temper tantrum he threw over a board game ("Tyrion can get under your skin" is not a good excuse -- could you imagine any of our PoV characters being that immature at this point in the story, including people as young as Bran and Arya?), never mind that Tyrion himself thinks of Joffrey when this happens (who would know better?): just think of what he has done in the time we've seen him.

Tyrion simply hinted that Dany might not believe fAegon is who he claims to be and that he might not actually be the perfect prince. fAegon asserts that he is his father's son himself and claims to be the only dragon needed because his pride couldn't handle the possibility of Tyrion being correct, and brings much bloodier war (the threat of dragons can easily induce surrender; whereas other factions would have little reason not to fight back against him now) to Westeros in his impatience to get the Iron Throne, now and for himself.

And then Prince Aegon spoke. “Then put your hopes on me,” he said. “Daenerys is Prince Rhaegar’s sister, but I am Rhaegar’s son. I am the only dragon that you need.”

The Lost Lord, A Dance with Dragons

In one sense, the lie has already been slain. Dany proves that she is a dragon by action, and others who knew Rhaegar (Jorah and Barristan) tell her that she is her brother's sister. fAegon calls himself a dragon and Rhegar's son.

 

Varys is incredibly intelligent and sufficiently detached to be a true chessmaster, but he is not infallible. He is playing God, but he is not a god; and the fact that all pieces have wills of their own -- from fAegon himself to Arianne to Cersei to Daenerys -- means that they will not play the roles he has in his mind decreed they will, and even that they don't have the traits he believes them to.

Furthermore, he has to think he's in the right at this point. "For the realm" is his justification for the evils he has wrought, from keeping Aerys II on the Iron Throne for years, to cutting the tongues out of young children whom he forces to act as his spies and assassins, to actively destabilizing Westeros and inducing war. That doesn't mean he actually is in the right, and we ultimately aren't intended to support a well-intentioned extremist with emphasis on the "extreme" regardless -- see also, Melisandre.

 

The other thing is, fAegon is entirely manufactured. He is not a hero; Varys tried to shape him into one artificially. That simply cannot be done. We the reader are supposed to realize that he's describing Dany in the ADwD Epilogue; and we should also immediately perceive the problem of trying to say that someone who has had a royal retinue, guard, tutors, etc., and wanted for nothing materially his entire life, knows what it is to be hungry, hunted, and afraid.

Dany considers queenship a duty to her people, to protect them, and to justice; it is integral to her character. fAegon acts like any other claimant who simply wants power, contrary to what Varys says. Dany has actually been hungry, hunted, and afraid. Dany earned her status through great difficulties and trying to do good for people.

 

Furthermore, it completely ruins the point to have the perfect ruler -- which we already know fAegon cannot be -- be some random tertiary or secondary character whom we didn't follow in any significant way for most of the series, who had everything handed to him, and who did not have a ruling arc or even a PoV. Ruling is hard and we can only do the best we can, and the idea is to do as much good as possible. Jon and Dany are the people who have had these arcs.

 

To answer the original question, I don't think we're supposed to be happy if fAegon dies, but neither do I think it will be especially tragic to lose a claimant to the throne who doesn't actually encapsulate the positive qualities that his inner circle insists he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think Aegon is up for a tragic end (probably at the lowest point of the Dream of Spring) too. whether there will be a Dance or not , I do not know ( a boring affair with only 3 dragons), but I doubt he'll survive this series. we can already be sure that another tragedy is waiting for him in tWoW . his father figure has a terrible disease and will go mad. he might have to kill JonCon after a Bells episode or support him and lose all of his kingdoms and popularity... like another Aegon I would say

RE his competence, I don't know. but he's definitely a good kid, well-behaved, generally nice, appreciates competence instead of bloodlines (as appointing Duck as his kingsgaurd shows), albeit a bit arrogant (I'd say not more arrogant or naive than Robb and Jon at the beginning of the series) and shows a hint of sexism in his Golden Company speech (as it is Westerosi way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

The other thing is, fAegon is entirely manufactured. He is not a hero; Varys tried to shape him into one artificially. That simply cannot be done. We the reader are supposed to realize that he's describing Dany in the ADwD Epilogue; and we should also immediately perceive the problem of trying to say that someone who has had a royal retinue, guard, tutors, etc., and wanted for nothing materially his entire life, knows what it is to be hungry, hunted, and afraid.

I am not basing my view of F/Aegon on what Varys says, but what we see of him through Tyrion. And I don't think all of Varys' claims are lies. Obviously Varys is biased and possibly overestimating Aegon, but that doesn't mean all of his claims are false.

2 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Dany considers queenship a duty to her people, to protect them, and to justice; it is integral to her character. fAegon acts like any other claimant who simply wants power, contrary to what Varys says. Dany has actually been hungry, hunted, and afraid. Dany earned her status through great difficulties and trying to do good for people.

 

Furthermore, it completely ruins the point to have the perfect ruler -- which we already know fAegon cannot be -- be some random tertiary or secondary character whom we didn't follow in any significant way for most of the series, who had everything handed to him, and who did not have a ruling arc or even a PoV. Ruling is hard and we can only do the best we can, and the idea is to do as much good as possible. Jon and Dany are the people who have had these arcs.

I don't think we can necessarily make these claims about F/Aegon at this stage, because we have not actually seen him 'ruling' in Westeros.

3 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

This is something to keep in mind in response to the unsubstantiated claims that a Daenerys/fAegon Dance is inevitable, much less the idea of Dany herself killing fAegon.

I don't think it is inevitable, I just think it is highly likely due to the narrative opportunity for compelling conflict.

6 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

and brings much bloodier war (the threat of dragons can easily induce surrender; whereas other factions would have little reason not to fight back against him now)

I don't think any invasion is going to be bloodless, and I am not sure if Daenerys would be able to avoid more bloodshed than Aegon just because she has dragons. Firstly, the dragons are not fully grown yet. Secondly, she needs to find two people to ride the others to be able to use them all. Thirdly, she is still going to be bringing a conventional army with her, which means all the standard raiding and looting will be happening, not to mention the especially brutal Dothraki are coming. Fourthly, the timing of Daenerys' invasion, during a major food shortage, combined with the amount of troops she is bringing, will have devastating consequences for the local people. Aegon by comparison has brought a smaller, more disciplined force.

Spoiler

Not to say that the Golden Company is good, of course, we see from the sample chapter that they have been taking food from the Smallfolk like anyone else, but they will certainly not be as bad as the Dothraki, and there are also less of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.hes frigged

If jon doesnt give him grayscale hel self sabotage.

The issue is varys and iltlyrio have caused so much chaos and bloodshed for 'the realm' which in reality means  their moulded ideal leader (whos also ilyrios son and its  probably personal for 'uncle varys' too) but we see all this may count for nowt...faegon may still gave the targ madness  he already appears easily provoked  to anger or action and unwilling to listen to wise counsel ...if he wont listen fully to jon connington the question is who will.he listen to? Also most dangerously like dany did he feels he has a destiny to make westeros submit (and/or seek vengence)....fanatical.belief like that is always dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

faegon may still gave the targ madness  he already appears easily provoked  to anger or action

Come on, all he did was knock over some game pieces after Tyrion wound him up. I don't really think that shows he has the 'Targaryen Madness'. My Dad ragequit online chess after losing, does that mean he has the Targaryen Madness too?

Spoiler

What if I've inherited the Targaryen Madness from him...? :uhoh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

As for fAegon, I don't believe that we're meant to view him the way Varys pretends we are. Never mind the temper tantrum he threw over a board game ("Tyrion can get under your skin" is not a good excuse -- could you imagine any of our PoV characters being that immature at this point in the story, including people as young as Bran and Arya?), never mind that Tyrion himself thinks of Joffrey when this happens (who would know better?): just think of what he has done in the time we've seen him.

I don't think the guy's the perfect king like Varys likes to believe either . but that is not to say Tyrion's assessment of him is correct . in book 1 , Tyrion did the exact same thing to Jon on their way up to Wall and Jon had Ghost terrorized Tyrion for it. sure, Tyrion didn't compare Jon to Joffrey then. but if we compare the two instances with Aegon and Jon, save for Tyrion's position in the whole thing they are exactly the same. two princes showing exactly the same behavior towards a certain (physically) underdog when faced with terrible truths. only Tyrion sees himself in Jon as a bastard,  is generally in a better mood and genuinely wants to help Jon see the truth. with Aegon, he downright tries to make him angry and manipulate him, he himself is in a bad place and doesn't see anything of himself in Aegon . so naturally he thinks about the other prince he knew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am not basing my view of F/Aegon on what Varys says, but what we see of him through Tyrion. And I don't think all of Varys' claims are lies. Obviously Varys is biased and possibly overestimating Aegon, but that doesn't mean all of his claims are false.

The same Tyrion who compared him to Joffrey? That isn't an empty reflection either; Tyrion, above anyone else, would know what exactly that entails. (I know and agree with @EggBlue's point that it isn't entirely fair to view this as significant, but it is still telling that this comes to his mind.)

The same Tyrion who barely touched on his pride and quickly saw that he was eager to conquer Westeros sooner solely to prove himself, demonstrating no duty to the people whom he wishes to rule?

17 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think we can necessarily make these claims about F/Aegon at this stage, because we have not actually seen him 'ruling' in Westeros.

We can actually make these claims from what we have seen of fAegon (seriously, the entire point is that his actions and behavior by and large do not fit his hype), and from thematic understanding of the text.

 
18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think we can necessarily make these claims about F/Aegon at this stage, because we have not actually seen him 'ruling' in Westeros.

My comparison was to the original proposition of fAegon and Dany joining forces, not the contrast of fAegon attacking by himself now and Dany attacking by herself later. Their unified attack would have been significantly more bloodless.

I also believe that the "dragons aren't fully grown" argument has to be set aside because of narrative necessity. They will have to be big enough to be ridden and used in the War for the Dawn, and if that means an accelerated growth rate as Dany finally travels to Westeros that slightly stretches the suspension of disbelief, so be it. 

Do we have any indication that the Dothraki under the leadership of Daenerys won't be more disciplined than their usual plunder? If she unites all the khalasars as the Stallion prophecy implied, they would be following her strength and would in large part abide by her wishes. Dany put an end to the sacking of Meereen as soon as she could and punished the offenders from her own troops: murderers, rapists, and looters. Obviously, she can't stop it completely, but why would she not do her best to minimize it in her own Seven Kingdoms, as she has already done in cities of slavers? (And on the flip side, the Unsullied wouldn't be engaging in that sort of conduct at all.)

Lastly, Dany will no doubt have to deal with the downside of bringing Fire and Blood as part of her darker turn in The Winds of Winter. She had finally decided to embrace it for just war against the slavers over the false peace that empowered them and left the former slaves with little, but she probably will no longer show her former hesitance in bloodshed when battle becomes necessary, and that is a lot less justifiable in a conquest campaign of Westeros. I do imagine that sexism and xenophobia will play huge roles in how she is perceived, as will the spread of the slavers' propaganda to Westeros; and this alongside with her supposed nephew claiming all the support she would have, will further cause her to reach that lowest point in its outstanding unfairness.

However, it is important not to go so far as to essentially blame her for the inevitability of Winter, or for coming to the place where she was born and which she has always considered home the only way she possibly could (with an army). Those arguments don't have real merit.

 

11 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

I don't think the guy's the perfect king like Varys likes to believe either . but that is not to say Tyrion's assessment of him is correct . in book 1 , Tyrion did the exact same thing to Jon on their way up to Wall and Jon had Ghost terrorized Tyrion for it. sure, Tyrion didn't compare Jon to Joffrey then. but if we compare the two instances with Aegon and Jon, save for Tyrion's position in the whole thing they are exactly the same. two princes showing exactly the same behavior towards a certain (physically) underdog when faced with terrible truths. only Tyrion sees himself in Jon as a bastard,  is generally in a better mood and genuinely wants to help Jon see the truth. with Aegon, he downright tries to make him angry and manipulate him, he himself is in a bad place and doesn't see anything of himself in Aegon . so naturally he thinks about the other prince he knew. 

This was Jon at fourteen and before his character development.

Furthermore, the circumstances were hardly comparable. Tyrion was definitely being manipulative by design, but all he did to fAegon was imply that Dany might not be as submissive as he would like and that he might not be as perfect as he claims to be, a fairly minor attack on his worldview. On the other hand, he shattered Jon's naïve worldview in the cruelest manner imaginable, telling him about how low his new brothers would be and mocking his bastardry.

Also, this is fAegon now, who will soon be king on the Iron Throne. That seems to be a big problem, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

The same Tyrion who compared him to Joffrey? That isn't an empty reflection either; Tyrion, above anyone else, would know what exactly that entails. (I know and agree with @EggBlue's point that it isn't entirely fair to view this as significant, but it is still telling that this comes to his mind.)

The same Tyrion who barely touched on his pride and quickly saw that he was eager to conquer Westeros sooner solely to prove himself, demonstrating no duty to the people whom he wishes to rule?

I think I did a bad job of trying to convey my opinion. What I meant to say is that I think we should judge F/Aegon by what we see him doing, not by what other characters say and think of him. We should try and take an objective view. In this respect he comes across to me as a well-meaning but naïve young man. With regards to the Joffrey comparison, Tyrion was bitter and angry at the time, and I don't think it would be a compelling story if F/Aegon just turned out to be Joffrey lite or whatever.

23 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

My comparison was to the original proposition of fAegon and Dany joining forces, not the contrast of fAegon attacking by himself now and Dany attacking by herself later. Their unified attack would have been significantly more bloodless.

It would have, but they had no idea when or even if Daenerys would ever show up. They were trying to capitalise on a moment of weakness where the Seven Kingdoms wasn't united against an external threat. If they stay waiting for Daenerys who may not even show up then they lose this moment.

23 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Obviously, she can't stop it completely, but why would she not do her best to minimize it in her own Seven Kingdoms, as she has already done in cities of slavers?

I have no doubt that she would try her best but at the end of the day it is standard practice for armies, especially the Dothraki, and we see even the disciplined Golden Company engaging in it. Even if Daenerys manages to put a stop to all raiding, which I do not see happening as I just don't think it is feasible, she will still need to feed her army. She is unlikely to be importing masses of food meaning that they will need to eat whatever is available in Westeros, which is little enough as it is, and when it comes to soldiers vs peasants  getting food, well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...