Jump to content

Aegon V was an idiot for letting Bloodraven take Dark Sister


James Steller

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Bloodraven helped Dunk and Aegon at the traitor’s tourney at Whitewalls.  Bloodraven saved the Targaryen hold on the throne.  Perhaps It was the politically sensitive decision to let him keep the sword.

Did he?

Bloodraven was very likely Maynard Plumm the whole time... What did he do to help Dunk and Egg?

He crushed a Blackfyre Rebellion certainly, that Egg and Dunk were in danger seems to me a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

He's loyal to the family, not the specific members of the family. He's taken an arborist's approach to various branches of his family tree.  Aegon V was the branch he deemed most sound.

If you've gotten to the point of defending the murder of children, I think you are on the wrong side.

And if you don't think the lives of those in the line of succession matter anyway, why not support Daemon in the first place? He was a legitimized Targaryen and the better man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I feel like it's often neglected that it sure reads like Bloodraven is the one who started the Blackfyre Rebellions.

In the end, years of such talk bore their fruit, and Daemon Blackfyre made his decision. Yet it was a decision he made rashly, for word soon reached King Daeron that Blackfyre meant to declare himself king within the turn of the moon. (We do not know how word came to Daeron, though Merion's unfinished The Red Dragon and the Black suggests that another of the Great Bastards, Brynden Rivers, was involved.) The king sent the Kingsguard to arrest Daemon before he could take his plans for treason any further. Daemon was forewarned, and with the help of the famously hot-tempered knight Ser Quentyn Ball, called Fireball, he was able to escape the Red Keep safely. Daemon Blackfyre's allies used this attempted arrest as a cause for war, claiming that Daeron had acted against Daemon out of no more than baseless fear. Others still named him Daeron Falseborn, repeating the calumny that Aegon the Unworthy himself was said to have circulated in the later years of his reign: that he had been sired not by the king but by his brother, the Dragonknight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now then to Darksister being permitted to pass along to the Wall with Lord Rivers...it did belong to him, there is that.  @James Steller the named Valyrian Steel swords are magical swords.  I imagine if you don't like the prophecy angle you likely don't dig that fact either, but it is true.  Being astute Bloodraven would have noted that he was in possession of a magical sword and insisted upon taking it with him to the magical realm of The Wall...where it would be needed and was in fact intended.  Maester Aemon was in communication with Rhaegar so I see no reason Aemon wouldn't have been in close communication with Bloodraven regarding prophecy and come across the same books Sam Tarly reads in current time.  He may have run across them in Kings Landing for all we know.  Long story short, all the named VS swords need to be there and it's a good thing at least 2 of them are close now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

And if you don't think the lives of those in the line of succession matter anyway, why not support Daemon in the first place? He was a legitimized Targaryen and the better man.

It's not for me to support one side or the other, but were I a Westerosi during the period my personal sympathies would have been with Daemon Blackfyre. But that's beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

Is that an argument? I'm talking about the motivations of a character in a story. Let's keep a little perspective here.

It is Ned's argument, and I think it holds. One may also note that Bloodraven executes men without swinging the sword, and advises Bran not to fear, both clearly the opposite of Ned's lessons. I think these contrasts are all intentional by the author.

Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?"
"For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

It's not for me to support one side or the other, but were I a Westerosi during the period my personal sympathies would have been with Daemon Blackfyre. But that's beside the point.

Ya to be clear, I'm discussing the text and apologize if my comments came off as personal attacks!

I only meant to comment on the morality of the characters as portrayed by the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

I appreciate the text, Mourning Star and the correction.

To be clear, since in retrospect I see my comments here could easily be taken as offensive, I certainly didn't mean it as such and appreciate that others may have a different opinion than I do (an opinion I think is generally more popular), even if I think that opinion is wrong.

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

Just as I read the passage you offered and don't see any indication Dunk was sent to ensure that Bloodraven didn't escape.

This is fair, it isn't obvious. I think you have to read between the lines about emptying out the dungeons "so Aemon wouldn't say his vows alone", and sending the most heavily armed group, led by his most trusted man, to the Wall since Nymeria sent kings (both Aemon and Bloodraven had claims to the iron throne).

Let's take a look at those Kings Nymeria sent to the wall for fun:

The Names of the Six Kings Sent by Nymeria to the Wall, as Related in the Histories

Yorick of House Yronwood, the Bloodroyal, the richest and most powerful of the Dornish kings deposed by House Martell.

Vorian of House Dayne, Sword of the Evening, renowned as the greatest knight in all of Dorne.

Garrison of House Fowler, the Blind King, aged and sightless, yet still feared for his cunning.

Lucifer of House Dryland, Last of His Ilk, King of the Brimstone, Lord of Hellgate Hall.

Benedict of House Blackmont, who worshipped a dark god and was said to have the power to transform himself into a vulture of enormous size.

Albin of House Manwoody, a troublesome madman who claimed dominion over the Red Mountains.

I for one, see connections to Bloodraven in every one.

My favorite is Albin Manwoody, Albin means white, so white wood man!

Alas poor Yorik, of Hamlet fame, when he talks to Yorik's skull, strong second.

If you want to dig really deep into the reference bag, Vorian, is the name of the first Atredies in Dune. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curled Finger said:

Um, James? That's sort of the point of the story.  All these horrible deeds will be waved away and justified by this prophecy or at least the characters' understanding of the prophecy.  The best part of the prophecy is that it will likely all be a huge misunderstanding.  It's irony.  Irony is really hard to hate on a scale this big.  

For all it's worth, I hate prophecy, too.  However, I can't deny the old guy hooked up to a tree living beyond a normal life span pretty much in his head.  He's got a powerful mind and this is something.  What I can't be certain, but I think it's probably a very good thing.  Possibly a vital thing.  Possibly a thing only a man with his strength of mind could do.  Can you meet me that far?  

I was hoping that GRRM would subvert the idea of prophecies by not necessarily taking the cliche approach. But I do worry that he might still do that. I worry that the story will reveal that Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped and will be completely justified in their elopement, no matter how many thousands of lives died because of it. I worry that Bloodraven’s actions will be entirely justified because this prophecy is fulfilled. I think it would diminish the fascinating universe which GRRM has built. Maybe I was being too hyperbolic by saying the cliche prophecy thing is my least favourite part, but I do strongly dislike elements of it, and I really don’t want it to play out the way I fear it will.

To be clear, I wouldn’t write off the story if that’s what happens, and I won’t burn bridges over this. Nor am I going to insult people for their stances on the series. I was simply expressing my stance. I made no attack on you and neither is this response meant as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James Steller said:

I was hoping that GRRM would subvert the idea of prophecies by not necessarily taking the cliche approach. But I do worry that he might still do that. I worry that the story will reveal that Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped and will be completely justified in their elopement, no matter how many thousands of lives died because of it. I worry that Bloodraven’s actions will be entirely justified because this prophecy is fulfilled. I think it would diminish the fascinating universe which GRRM has built.

To be clear, I wouldn’t write off the story if that’s what happens, and I won’t burn bridges over this. Nor am I going to insult people for their stances on the series. I was simply expressing my stance. I made no attack on you and neither is this response meant as such.

To be honest I think these prophecies will end up being a big rug pulled from beneath us.  In this backward world of magic and feudalism it fits perfectly.  It's hard to be modern us reading ancient them sometimes.  I will cry if The Others end up being the good guys.  

Still, those whacky Targs have got their ideas about saving the world and TPTWP.  I find Bloodraven dialed in with the old gods really interesting right here as I'm mostly sure that's not what he meant to find at all, dreams and visions be damned.  Looks like his Blackwood side got the better of him.  Ah irony!  

You brought up a great example in Rhaegar & Lyanna.  Gads, could anything make that fine?  No, not even prophecy.  Then my reader's mind kicks in and yells "it is a magical world, of course it does".  I think that's where the line is between fantasy and reality.  I wouldn't put up with Lyanna and Rhaegar in real life.  In these pages I am permitted to spend hours and hours within the suspension of normal beliefs.  I like to think it opens my mind a little bit and makes me more critical of all the bs I hear in the real world.  Then again, I don't actually live in a magical world, do I? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Actually, Martin answered the question Ashaya from History of Westeros asked a couple of years back.  It's all over the place, but you can hear it on their youtube channel, I have no doubt.  She asked if Bloodraven took Darksister to the Wall.  GRRM said yes.  

I am surprised this topic is up yet again.  Perhaps you are taking the story at face value?  Aren't most of the main villains in the story mostly grey?  Not the Vargos, but the Tyrions, Cerseis even Jamies?  Why wouldn't Bloodraven and Aegon be exactly like that?  Shaded areas we are supposed to infer motives?  

Bloodraven as we see him is basically on life support with mushrooms growing from his forehead and a root growing from his eye socket.   Is this frightening?  No, not particularly.  It is creepy and sad and desperate, but not frightening.  So why would this great Machiavellian spymaster and murderer end up this way?  The last greenseer--speaking through dreams and ravens and reanimated corpses and mute puppies?  Likely because he has and had a great powerful mind.  And a life full of sacrifice.

We know from the histories (don't bother, I know that's stupid) that BR studied magic and prophecy.  So did Septon Barth for crying out loud.  No one gives him crap.  Maybe because the good Septon wasn't a Targaryen himself...wasn't a bastard...didn't have to make bloody hard decisions in war time...was just a normal looking guy?  Aegon also studied magic and prophecy, for all the good that did him or anyone else.  Why?  Aegon wanted to make Westeros a better place for everyone, even the smallfolk.  He no doubt studied right alongside his uncle.  Targs are weird and like all families, complicated.  No doubt there was love and fear and respect between them. 

Yes, the execution was very bad and put and end to any more of this Blackfyre nonsense for a good long while, perhaps freeing Bloodraven to do what he really wanted which was going to The Wall to further investigate prophecy and magic.  He had to be having dreams and visions, just as Bran and Euron did.  He didn't take command of the Watch for a long time.  He earned his way to the top and disappeared on a ranging.  Just like Benjen.  I believe he followed his dreams and visions right into the cave like Bran and true to form gave the remainder of his life in service to a cause he believed in.  Right or wrong.  The guy is dedicated.  

 

Cersei isn’t morally grey. She is bad from pretty much day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, I don't consider the arrest and execution of Aenys Blackfyre bad. He tried to get ahead in line of his nephew.

I don't necessarily consider Daemon Blackfyre evil either. I'm certain Daemon came into contact with some witness that helped him be convinced that Daeron was not Aegon IV's son. But he was willing to plunge the realm back into a civil war after Daeron was already king for over a decade, and he allied himself with houses and factions that wanted to go to war against Dorne. Just utterly stupid shit. And it was Blackfyre who put his twins on the battlefield to fight for him.

The others that follow after all go for it because wouldn't it be neat if they got to be king, and then eventually the youngest sons of Daemon, like Aenys, don't even respect their own Blackfyre line of succession anymore. Aenys' older brother might be dead, but his older brother has a son (Daemon III) and Aenys just thinks to jump ahead with his letter to the grand council. Maelys is even worse (kinslayer).

So, good riddance of Aenys imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also with @Curled Finger about Dark Sister and other VS swords.

The "magical" swords should be used where they matter, not as heirloom or a snob of a king waving his sword around "isn't it cool I have a VS sword!" So, when it comes to the OP's question or opinion, I think the complete opposite: Aegon V was actually very smart in allowing Bloodraven to take Dark Sister with him. By treating it as a tool that should be used where it has the biggest impact by someone who can wield it, he removed it from the political machinations as happened with Daemon and the sword Blackfyre. It's already a horrible mess with the IT itself, let alone IT claimants waving their swords "I have Blackfyre" or "I have Dark Sister".

Jaime got it, when he handed Oathkeeper to Brienne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

We could go through the whole family tree, but I'll start with the ones called out in the text.

"How can the truth be treason?" asked Kyle the Cat. "In King Daeron's day, a man did not have to fear to speak his mind, but now?" He made a rude noise. "Bloodraven put King Aerys on the Iron Throne, but for how long? Aerys is weak, and when he dies, it will be bloody war between Lord Rivers and Prince Maekar for the crown, the Hand against the heir."
"You have forgotten Prince Rhaegel, my friend," Ser Maynard objected, in a mild tone. "He comes next in line to Aerys, not Maekar, and his children after him."
"Rhaegel is feeble-minded. Why, I bear him no ill will, but the man is good as dead, and those twins of his as well, though whether they will die of Maekar's mace or Bloodraven's spells…" Seven save us, Dunk thought as Egg spoke up shrill and loud. "Prince Maekar is Prince Rhaegel's brother. He loves him well. He'd never do harm to him or his."

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

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

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

The context of this conversation is of course a traitors' tourney full of Blackfyre loyalists, where anti-Bloodraven conspiracy theories will be at their peak. And the person who points out that Rhaegel is the heir is (probably) Bloodraven himself. If Ser Kyle is right, why would Bloodraven be culling the family in Maekar's favour? And what interest would he have in making Aegon king at this stage? Ser Kyle also predicts Maekar killing his brother and nephews, which we know isn't his character: killing Baelor was an accident that he deeply regrets.

Note also that Ser Kyle predicts a war between Maekar and Bloodraven, which absolutely does not happen: the crown passes uneventfully from Aerys to Maekar and Maekar keeps Bloodraven on as Hand. So I don't think we can really place too much weight on Ser Kyle's theories.

Rhaegel and Aelor 's deaths are the one that look most obviously suspicious. Lampreys of course evoke Henry I of England, and choking on a pie is pure Joffrey. One of those was poison; the other probably not. With Aelor, we're told this was at his wife's hands. We need more information in both cases before we can condemn Bloodraven in either case.

Given that the Rat, the Hawk and the Pig were still around in 251 AC and Maekar became king thirty years earlier, it seems likely that Aelora had already been passed over before she died.

Quote

This is some grand villain behind it all logic, and kind of what I imagine.

He almost certainly has some self justification for his actions, that doesn't make it not evil.

If you came away from reading this series and went, you know what, the ends do justify the means! I think you have missed the forest for the trees.

My thesis was that Bloodraven is deeply loyal to the Targaryen dynasty and the idea that he kills off a couple of potentially disastrous heirs in fact supports that idea rather than undermining it. Even if killing those heirs off was in itself evil, which I'm not disputing (though I'm not convinced that he did).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alester Florentmay want to consider sources here, too.  Kyle the Cat is absolutely no one.  He is a hedge knight for a lesser house.  He protects a toddler.  Not like this guy is dialed in on the hot gossip.  Maynard Plumm has got to just be having a good time speaking with him at all.  For all it's worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

The context of this conversation is of course a traitors' tourney full of Blackfyre loyalists, where anti-Bloodraven conspiracy theories will be at their peak. And the person who points out that Rhaegel is the heir is (probably) Bloodraven himself. If Ser Kyle is right, why would Bloodraven be culling the family in Maekar's favour? And what interest would he have in making Aegon king at this stage? Ser Kyle also predicts Maekar killing his brother and nephews, which we know isn't his character: killing Baelor was an accident that he deeply regrets.

To be fair its not so much an anti-bloodraven, since he gives equal weight to Maekar's Mace as Bloodraven's spells. (Edit: I take that back, Kyle was very anti-bloodraven!)

But it is Bloodraven who is said to rule in all but name.

And the septon we hear speaking against him is the one seen dead hanging in a cage by the road.

I agree that Maekar killing his family doesn't seem like his nature, Egg agrees too.

"Prince Maekar is Prince Rhaegel's brother. He loves him well. He'd never do harm to him or his."

I'm not so sure about Bloodraven

Rhaegal and his children dying moves everyone below up in the line of succession, including Maekar, Bloodraven, and Egg.

I do not think Bloodraven was interested in making Aegon king at all.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Note also that Ser Kyle predicts a war between Maekar and Bloodraven, which absolutely does not happen: the crown passes uneventfully from Aerys to Maekar and Maekar keeps Bloodraven on as Hand. So I don't think we can really place too much weight on Ser Kyle's theories.

We don't know anything about these events though. Whatever happened it is strange that Bloodraven stayed on as Hand.

We do know that Ser Kyle was right about Rhaegal and his children dying.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Rhaegel and Aelor 's deaths are the one that look most obviously suspicious. Lampreys of course evoke Henry I of England, and choking on a pie is pure Joffrey. One of those was poison; the other probably not. With Aelor, we're told this was at his wife's hands. We need more information in both cases before we can condemn Bloodraven in either case.

True, all we can do is speculate, which is what I'm doing.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Given that the Rat, the Hawk and the Pig were still around in 251 AC and Maekar became king thirty years earlier, it seems likely that Aelora had already been passed over before she died.

Aelora died before Maekar became king, as Maekar was his last heir.

The war in 251AC resulted in the death of Aegon's son Daeron, well after Egg took the throne.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

My thesis was that Bloodraven is deeply loyal to the Targaryen dynasty and the idea that he kills off a couple of potentially disastrous heirs in fact supports that idea rather than undermining it. Even if killing those heirs off was in itself evil, which I'm not disputing (though I'm not convinced that he did).

As I tried to point out above (and I don't think you are really disputing), any character, no matter the motive, who is killing children, is on the wrong side of ASoIaFs morality.

As you point out, it's all based on speculation to begin with. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But, I think it fits well with the overarching story we are presented with.

Consider this, if Bloodraven called the Great Council, and the only purpose of the Great Council is to skip over rightful heirs (or decide between claims), then why wouldn't he consider himself a good candidate for king?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

Aelora died before Maekar became king, as Maekar was his last heir.

The war in 251AC resulted in the death of Aegon's son Daeron, well after Egg took the throne.

Yeah, I just think it's odd. if indeed they were. Maekar became king in 221 and Daeron died in 251. Is it really credible that three villains whose names nobody even knows were active for so long? It seems almost more likely that Aelora had already been passed over (whether due to sex or mental capacity) and her death happened much later, during Maekar or Aegon's reign.

This might be an authorial oversight.

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

Consider this, if Bloodraven called the Great Council, and the only purpose of the Great Council is to skip over rightful heirs (or decide between claims), then why wouldn't he consider himself a good candidate for king?

Do we know whether he even put himself forward? Surely that was his big chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...