It would have been better for Westeros if Aegon III had never lived to become king

[Floki of the Ironborn]

To be specific, there's a moment during the Secret Siege where Aegon III hears Lord Rowan falsely confess. He takes it at his word, and seems ready, according to Mushroom, to leap off the battlements to his death. He's only saved by Viserys putting the obvious two and the obvious two together. I say he should have waited until after Aegon jumped.

First of all, Viserys stood for everything that Aegon stood for, only much moreso. Plus had had almost none of Aegon's flaws, and was actually able and willing to work with people. This would have meant that he could have pushed his reforms through much  easier than Aegon ever could. In fact, given the amazing year that Viserys II clearly had, and also the fact that he kept the realm together under Daeron I and Baelor, I daresay that having decades of Viserys II on the throne would have been much better for the realm.

And speaking of those two awful sons of Aegon, neither one of them was anything but a drain on Westeros. How many people might still be alive if Daeron hadn't started a stupid and pointless war with  Dorne? And Baelor was a crazed religious fanatic, and I don't think people like that should ever get within a kilometre of a position of authority over anyone. 

And thirdly, I'll address the obvious problem. Even without three awful kings, that still means that Aegon IV becomes king after his dad. But even if that still happens, let's get to Aegon's daughters. Assuming that Aegon died before he could procreate, that means that Daena the Defiant isn't born. That means no Daemon Blackfyre, and five future wars are obliterated from history. Not only does that help bring peace to the realm, but it also means that Tywin Lannister never takes charge of the Westerlands.

What do I mean by that, you might ask. It means that Tion Lannister doesn't get killed in the fourth Blackfyre rebellion and he becomes Lord of Casterly Rock. That also means he procreates, Tytos never touches real power, and neither do his descendants. Tywin, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, none of them ever amount to anything bigger than serving their cousins. This means that a lot of the trouble which plagues House Stark never happen, given that Cersei never becomes queen, and the alliance between Stark, Arryn, and Baratheon never falls apart so spectacularly. 

[Curled Finger]

Wow, well, I've actually thought much the same myself once or twice.  But start at the beginning.  Aegon III was cursed in his naming.  There was already an Aegon II, living, older.  Rhaenyra and Daemon named their child out of spite.  He could have been any name, but his parents cursed him to start his life which was cursed indeed.  Aegon III was a sad king where his little brother was (I just wrote these words in another topic) such a little badass.  He was smart and clever and bold and brave, but mostly, Viserys was alive.  Aegon was shell shocked so much of his broken little life.  He had so much working against him where Viserys had a lust for life that was evident in every move he made.  

Hindsight is so clear most times.  Yet we have Aegon IV mucking up the view.  He was a wicked man most historians blame on his mother.  Despite Viserys' lust for life, he could not be the mother his son needed, so he was not everything that was required.  I agree, there was a great deal lacking in Aegon III's reign and his sons'.   I think that's part of the dying of the dragons story.  The thinning of the great Targaryen dynasty, the cracks in their power.  I see Aegon IV and the whole Blackfyre saga as further proof.  

While it may have been better for a while for Aegon III to have ended it all right there Viserys loved his brother and would have suffered the consequences of not speaking up to save him.  There would be ramifications for that is how this writer does things.  Ass, grass or gas, no one rides for free, my friend.  That much power is abhorrent.  At that point, it has already cost too much.  The unfolding of the story is simply paying the rest.  

[Alester Florent]

40 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

To be specific, there's a moment during the Secret Siege where Aegon III hears Lord Rowan falsely confess. He takes it at his word, and seems ready, according to Mushroom, to leap off the battlements to his death. He's only saved by Viserys putting the obvious two and the obvious two together. I say he should have waited until after Aegon jumped.

First of all, Viserys stood for everything that Aegon stood for, only much moreso. Plus had had almost none of Aegon's flaws, and was actually able and willing to work with people. This would have meant that he could have pushed his reforms through much  easier than Aegon ever could. In fact, given the amazing year that Viserys II clearly had, and also the fact that he kept the realm together under Daeron I and Baelor, I daresay that having decades of Viserys II on the throne would have been much better for the realm.

And speaking of those two awful sons of Aegon, neither one of them was anything but a drain on Westeros. How many people might still be alive if Daeron hadn't started a stupid and pointless war with  Dorne? And Baelor was a crazed religious fanatic, and I don't think people like that should ever get within a kilometre of a position of authority over anyone. 

And thirdly, I'll address the obvious problem. Even without three awful kings, that still means that Aegon IV becomes king after his dad. But even if that still happens, let's get to Aegon's daughters. Assuming that Aegon died before he could procreate, that means that Daena the Defiant isn't born. That means no Daemon Blackfyre, and five future wars are obliterated from history. Not only does that help bring peace to the realm, but it also means that Tywin Lannister never takes charge of the Westerlands.

What do I mean by that, you might ask. It means that Tion Lannister doesn't get killed in the fourth Blackfyre rebellion and he becomes Lord of Casterly Rock. That also means he procreates, Tytos never touches real power, and neither do his descendants. Tywin, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, none of them ever amount to anything bigger than serving their cousins. This means that a lot of the trouble which plagues House Stark never happen, given that Cersei never becomes queen, and the alliance between Stark, Arryn, and Baratheon never falls apart so spectacularly. 

Leaving aside that, pending BaF, I'm not convinced that either Daeron or Baelor was as dreadful as the fandom sometimes assumes.

But in any case, you can't reason more than one or two steps ahead in any chain of causation, because the overall circumstances are so different and you don't know what else would have happened. Maybe Aegon poisons Viserys as soon as he turns sixteen and we get an extra twenty years of him. Maybe he fathers a different bastard and favours him over his son. Perhaps Daeron II turns out differently. Maybe Damon Lannister trips over some trinket that in reality his dad gave to furnish Baelor's sept, falls down the stairs and breaks his neck without fathering any kids.

We can reasonably say that no Aegon III means no Daeron or Baelor, I don't think we can really extrapolate too far into what would have happened instead.

[GZ Bloodraven]

I think Baelor the Blessed was essential for a post-dragon Targaryen family to hold onto its power, and so having Aegon die before having Daeron and Baelor would have spelled doom for House Targaryen. But I understand the urge to have Viserys II as the actual ruler of Westeros for an extra 30 years, and the prevention of the birth of Daemon Blackfyre, though I do think that Aegon IV would have just found another one of his bastards and made them heir, creating a parallel rebellion. 

[James Steller]

20 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

To be specific, there's a moment during the Secret Siege where Aegon III hears Lord Rowan falsely confess. He takes it at his word, and seems ready, according to Mushroom, to leap off the battlements to his death. He's only saved by Viserys putting the obvious two and the obvious two together. I say he should have waited until after Aegon jumped.

First of all, Viserys stood for everything that Aegon stood for, only much moreso. Plus had had almost none of Aegon's flaws, and was actually able and willing to work with people. This would have meant that he could have pushed his reforms through much  easier than Aegon ever could. In fact, given the amazing year that Viserys II clearly had, and also the fact that he kept the realm together under Daeron I and Baelor, I daresay that having decades of Viserys II on the throne would have been much better for the realm.

And speaking of those two awful sons of Aegon, neither one of them was anything but a drain on Westeros. How many people might still be alive if Daeron hadn't started a stupid and pointless war with  Dorne? And Baelor was a crazed religious fanatic, and I don't think people like that should ever get within a kilometre of a position of authority over anyone. 

And thirdly, I'll address the obvious problem. Even without three awful kings, that still means that Aegon IV becomes king after his dad. But even if that still happens, let's get to Aegon's daughters. Assuming that Aegon died before he could procreate, that means that Daena the Defiant isn't born. That means no Daemon Blackfyre, and five future wars are obliterated from history. Not only does that help bring peace to the realm, but it also means that Tywin Lannister never takes charge of the Westerlands.

What do I mean by that, you might ask. It means that Tion Lannister doesn't get killed in the fourth Blackfyre rebellion and he becomes Lord of Casterly Rock. That also means he procreates, Tytos never touches real power, and neither do his descendants. Tywin, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, none of them ever amount to anything bigger than serving their cousins. This means that a lot of the trouble which plagues House Stark never happen, given that Cersei never becomes queen, and the alliance between Stark, Arryn, and Baratheon never falls apart so spectacularly. 

Hell of a stance to take, advocating for a traumatized teen to kill himself in front of his wife and brother…

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

8 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Hell of a stance to take, advocating for a traumatized teen to kill himself in front of his wife and brother…

And for his brother to allow it. I think a man willing to allow his traumatized brother to kill himself wouldn’t be a man who’d make a good king.

[Lord of Oldstones]

Everyone take Tyrion's views as complete picture and make  Baelor worse than his actual self...being mad and all and same with Benjen's with regards to Daeron. 

I really like Aegon III and his personality. He is what the circumstances made him. He is much better person than his parents and his father in law/uncle. 

[Curled Finger]

1 hour ago, Lord of Oldstones said:

Everyone take Tyrion's views as complete picture and make  Baelor worse than his actual self...being mad 

 

Not really.  I think it's the locking up of the sisters in the Maidenvault so he wouldn't be tempted by them that did it to most of us regardless of Tyrion's thoughts.  Baelor was an asshole, period.  What sort of pious moron locks women up so he won't be tempted?  

[Alester Florent]

I've wondered why Daeron I wasn't married. Perhaps he was going to marry Daena, but since he was killed when she was 16, he died before the wedding could be organised. Had they had a son, things could have been very different: a long regency under Viserys II, and likely no reign for Baelor or Aegon IV.