HBO Eyeing Aegon the Conqueror Series, Possible Feature Film

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

I agree on most details in your comment, but still broadly disagree that it was not a foreign invasion. A matter of perspective. Valyrian culture was not Westerosi culture, and that basic fact underlined a great deal of the dynamics of the conquest and the century that followed. Aegon I largely adapted his ways to Westeros, but Visenya and Maegor did not. Many other Targ. associated families such as Qoherys, Velaryon etc. had very distinct habits and beliefs from mainland Westerosi. The connection between Dragonstone and Westeros at the time was much more similar to the connection between Pentos or Braavos and Westeros in the main series (300 years later) than what it eventually became. They were foreign.

They weren't. They already spoke the Common Tongue, they kept maesters and knights, they even followed the Seven already. The one Valyrian thing they kept were their incest stuff. And that's, perhaps, a queer custom but nothing you can call 'foreign'.

They assimilated to the Westerosi ways long before the Conquest. And, no, there is no textual evidence at all for the Qoherys, Velaryon, Celtigar houses having 'distinct habits and beliefs' that put them apart from the mainlanders. Even less so for your baseless claim that Dragonstone was like Pentos or Braavos to the Westerosi prior to the Conquest.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I think Maegor’s reign made it pretty clear that when the guy with the dragon says he’s your king, there’s no denying him. That’s part of the problem with the dragons being so OP. Most of Westeros didn’t want Aegon as their king, they just wanted to avoid being burned alive even more.

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think Maegor’s reign made it pretty clear that when the guy with the dragon says he’s your king, there’s no denying him. That’s part of the problem with the dragons being so OP. Most of Westeros didn’t want Aegon as their king, they just wanted to avoid being burned alive even more.

Sorry, no. Both Aegon's Conquest as well as his entire reign shows that people fell over themselves to suck up to him - especially the common people. That's why KL grew so large so fast. If he had been perceived as a tyrant by a silent majority they would have ignored his city, would have offered passive resistance, would have even openly rebelled ... and his reign would have collapsed soon enough, most likely after his pitiful defeat in Dorne which also cost him a dragon and a queen.

Maegor also shows that a dragon means nothing if you overdo things. He wasn't defeated when he died ... but he had lost his crown already because nobody was willing to fight for him.

It is also quite clear that you cannot overdo the Harrenhal thing. Aegon could do this with Harren because he was a cruel tyrant and hated by his subjects. But he couldn't do that with Winterfell, Highgarden or Oldtown and expect that the people would accept him afterwards.

[The Bard of Banefort]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, no. Both Aegon's Conquest as well as his entire reign shows that people fell over themselves to suck up to him - especially the common people. That's why KL grew so large so fast. If he had been perceived as a tyrant by a silent majority they would have ignored his city, would have offered passive resistance, would have even openly rebelled ... and his reign would have collapsed soon enough, most likely after his pitiful defeat in Dorne which also cost him a dragon and a queen.

Maegor also shows that a dragon means nothing if you overdo things. He wasn't defeated when he died ... but he had lost his crown already because nobody was willing to fight for him.

It is also quite clear that you cannot overdo the Harrenhal thing. Aegon could do this with Harren because he was a cruel tyrant and hated by his subjects. But he couldn't do that with Winterfell, Highgarden or Oldtown and expect that the people would accept him afterwards.

This is what I don’t understand about ASOIAF fans when they talk about unreliable narrators. We get a vague reference to how the smallfolk welcomed the Targaryens with open arms, yet these were the same people who were being burned alive in battle. They approved of Aegon after the Conquest because he was a competent ruler, but there’s no reason to believe the smallfolk saw him as their savior. Would Torrhen Stark really be remembered as “the king who knelt” if that was true?

Maegor died by assassination, and the only reason anyone was willing to openly declare against him was because they had three dragon riders versus his one. 

Aegon held the realm together through a mix of competence and fear. As soon as Aenys took over, rebellions sprang up everywhere.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is what I don’t understand about ASOIAF fans when they talk about unreliable narrators. We get a vague reference to how the smallfolk welcomed the Targaryens with open arms, yet these were the same people who were being burned alive in battle. They approved of Aegon after the Conquest because he was a competent ruler, but there’s no reason to believe the smallfolk saw him as their savior. Would Torrhen Stark really be remembered as “the king who knelt” if that was true?

Maegor died by assassination, and the only reason anyone was willing to openly declare against him was because they had three dragon riders versus his one. 

Aegon held the realm together through a mix of competence and fear. As soon as Aenys took over, rebellions sprang up everywhere.

What the smallfolk want above all is security, from foreign enemies, lords waging private wars, and brigands.

[Craving Peaches]

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is what I don’t understand about ASOIAF fans when they talk about unreliable narrators. We get a vague reference to how the smallfolk welcomed the Targaryens with open arms, yet these were the same people who were being burned alive in battle. They approved of Aegon after the Conquest because he was a competent ruler, but there’s no reason to believe the smallfolk saw him as their savior. Would Torrhen Stark really be remembered as “the king who knelt” if that was true?

The smallfolk flocked to the side of the Faith as well when the rebellion began. Saying the Smallfolk support/love the Targaryens because they are Targaryens is just wrong. They support whoever brings prosperity/peace and leaves them alone. It has nothing to do with the Targaryens being Targaryens.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

What the smallfolk want above all is security, from foreign enemies, lords waging private wars, and brigands.

Exactly. So why would they support the people with the flying WMDs who are setting their land on fire? It makes sense that they eventually came to support Aegon because he was a competent ruler, but during the Conquest I have a hard time believing they saw him as any kind of savior.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

The smallfolk flocked to the side of the Faith as well when the rebellion began. Saying the Smallfolk support/love the Targaryens because they are Targaryens is just wrong. They support whoever brings prosperity/peace and leaves them alone. It has nothing to do with the Targaryens being Targaryens.

The dragons are so overpowered (to the point of being virtually indestructible) that the only thing that prevented Aegon and Jaehaerys from being tyrants was a conscience and idealism. Neither cared for violence for the hell of it, and both wanted to create a thriving society, complete with happy smallfolk. Maegor shows just how powerless anyone is against a dragon rider. Either you need to assassinate them during a moment of vulnerability (which is also what happened to Aegon II) or you need to find a different dragon rider who can defeat him. Rogar wouldn’t have openly declared rebellion against Maegor if he didn’t have Jaehaerys  and Alysanne (and eventually Rhaena) on his side.

[frenin]

38 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Neither cared for violence for the hell of it,

Except that one time in Dorne.

Still trying to figure out hhow they are going to manage making them sympathetic after that.

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

20 minutes ago, frenin said:

Still trying to figure out hhow they are going to manage making them sympathetic after that.

Whatever they do it won't make me sympathetic.

[The Bard of Banefort]

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Except that one time in Dorne.

Still trying to figure out hhow they are going to manage making them sympathetic after that.

 

 

I meant that they weren’t interested in tourneys, melees, etc. 

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is what I don’t understand about ASOIAF fans when they talk about unreliable narrators. We get a vague reference to how the smallfolk welcomed the Targaryens with open arms, yet these were the same people who were being burned alive in battle. They approved of Aegon after the Conquest because he was a competent ruler, but there’s no reason to believe the smallfolk saw him as their savior. Would Torrhen Stark really be remembered as “the king who knelt” if that was true?

This is not about unreliable narrators. Gyldayn does't write a history about the common people celebrating the Targaryens ... it is between the lines that we see this. With the rapid growth of KL, with Dick Bean - a common man - being the first champion of King Maegor at the Trial of Seven, with the simple fact that the Targaryen dynasty survived and thrived. If the common people had felt about Aegon like the common people in Dorne felt about him (and later the Young Dragon) his reign would have collapsed. And also with the actual details of the Conquest ... where 'the common people' weren't the ones being burned in battle. There are two main burnings during the original Conquest - Harrenhal and the Field of Fire. At Harrenhal burned a hated and loathed tyrant with his Ironborn retinue. We can be pretty sure that both the Riverlords defecting to Aegon as well as the common people making up their armies did not weep anyone who stuck with fucking Harren. The man bled the Riverlands try for his monstrous castle. Aegon comes as a liberator to the Riverlands, not as a conqueror.

The other event is the Field of Fire. Reread the description. The men burning there would have been exclusively royals, lords, knights, and squires, not common people. Aegon lured the so-called 'iron fist' of the Two Kings into his trap - which was their armored cavalry, not the infantry made up of commoners. Aegon conquered the West and the Reach by breaking their elite, not by bleeding out the common people.

Of course, the commoners at the Field of Fire would have also been cowed by the sight ... but they weren't the ones who burned.

11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Maegor died by assassination, and the only reason anyone was willing to openly declare against him was because they had three dragon riders versus his one.

That narrative doesn't work there. When Jaehaerys was proclaimed king they had but two smaller dragons, ridden by a 14-year-old boy and 12-year-old girl who would never be allowed to ride to war (Jaehaerys I later makes it very clear to Rhaena and Alysanne herself he won't permit her to ride to war on Silverwing). The idea that Jaehaerys and Alysanne could have defeated Balerion in battle strikes one as utterly ludicrous. And Rhaena - who only joins them later - was too craven to join Aegon and Quicksilver in their fight against Maegor ... so I'd not really count on her support there.

Jaehaerys is a focal point and figurehead in the fight against Maegor. His return/public revelation helped to convince the Realm to abandon/not support Maegor, but he could have never defeated Maegor in a dragon battle. Maegor could have torched Storm's End half a day or so after he heard about the proclamation. There was no defense against that. And even if Alyssa and her children had magically gotten away with the dragons ... his cause should not have survived such a defeat.

It is also pretty clear that thanks to Maegor Westeros could have gotten rid of the Targaryen yoke if they wanted it gone. Jaehaerys was the last male Targaryen and but a boy - the others were women. If Lyman Lannister and Brandon Stark had decided they would be kings again now, Rogar and his boy would have had no way to stop them - ditto if the Hightowers had declared the independence of Oldtown, the Arryns that of the Vale, etc. Obviously the idea of a united Realm was stronger than the desire of the great houses to play king again - if they still had such desires.

11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Aegon held the realm together through a mix of competence and fear. As soon as Aenys took over, rebellions sprang up everywhere.

Not everywhere. In the vicinity of the Realm. What rebels do we talk about here? A quarrelsome Ironborn madman, a guy who was effectively a Dornish invader, an outlaw butchering a hated lord. The only highborn rebel is Jonos Arryn - and that guy seems to have more issues with own brother Ronnel than the Targaryens. King Aenys shows weakness in the way how he deals with those challenges ... but neither actually threatens Targaryen rule. And no prominent house actually supports any of those rebels (House Arryn is obviously split in its support of 'King Jonos').

I honestly had hoped that actual proper lordly houses would any of those rebellions. But what we get there is pathetic. Note that the rebellions don't even involve any Western or Reach veterans of the Field of Fire. The place where the Targaryens should be hated the most in the wake of the Conquest would be among the nobility of the Reach who lost many of their men on the Field of Fire. But they never did anything.

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The smallfolk flocked to the side of the Faith as well when the rebellion began. Saying the Smallfolk support/love the Targaryens because they are Targaryens is just wrong. They support whoever brings prosperity/peace and leaves them alone. It has nothing to do with the Targaryens being Targaryens.

That is factually incorrect. A minority of the smallfolk and no great houses backed the Faith Militant - that's why they lost. Nobody says the Faith didn't have sway over the commoners - they were the power base especially of the Poor Fellows. But their support was limited. If, say, 80% of the smallfolk wanted the incestuous abominations gone and were willing to fight for it they would have succeeded.

And, no, the idea that the common people are just sheep and don't buy into political propaganda and don't like particular houses and royals more than others is wrong, too. For instance, we know that Renly and Margaery are more popular with the people than Cersei or Tyrion. We also know that pretty much nobody likes Stannis and that that's a huge problem for his campaign, etc.

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Exactly. So why would they support the people with the flying WMDs who are setting their land on fire? It makes sense that they eventually came to support Aegon because he was a competent ruler, but during the Conquest I have a hard time believing they saw him as any kind of savior.

It would depend on the region - the common people in the later Crownlands and the Riverlands welcomed Aegon, the common people in the North never saw him so they likely never gave a damn (Targaryen rule in the North was always little more than nominal, so why should anyone up there care?), ditto with the common people in the Vale and the West (where no Targaryen army ever set foot during the Conquest). The people in the Reach would have seen many Targaryen men but the Oldtowners welcomed them all the same - as did the Tyrells at Highgarden.

If the Conquest had been viewed as a horrible event and people had hated the dragons and Aegon, the war wouldn't have lasted just two years. Aegon would have faced constant resistance, especially during his failed Dornish campaign. Yet nothing of that sort happened - I know that this is unrealistic as hell, but the only way to make sense of this is that people were actually more happy with the Targaryen rule than with how things had before. Because that explains why no ambitious great lord in the vicinity could motivate anyone to rebel with him - which should have been a very promising enterprise after Aegon lost Rhaenys and Meraxes in Dorne and had but a sickly and weak heir who was likely not to live to adulthood.

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The dragons are so overpowered (to the point of being virtually indestructible) that the only thing that prevented Aegon and Jaehaerys from being tyrants was a conscience and idealism. Neither cared for violence for the hell of it, and both wanted to create a thriving society, complete with happy smallfolk. Maegor shows just how powerless anyone is against a dragon rider. Either you need to assassinate them during a moment of vulnerability (which is also what happened to Aegon II) or you need to find a different dragon rider who can defeat him. Rogar wouldn’t have openly declared rebellion against Maegor if he didn’t have Jaehaerys  and Alysanne (and eventually Rhaena) on his side.

The dragons are not overpowered, they are not depicted properly. George sucks at portraying them. It is ridiculous to assume that a childless Maegor could actually cow Westeros into submission. He just has one dragon and a very old mother. The notion that a 70+ Visenya could survive it burning multiple castles in the Riverlands in just one night is ludicrous. The way Oldtown yields to Maegor is just a gigantic plothole.

With Jaehaerys we get a semblance of realism in the dragon department, but it is always clear that those dragons cannot really work to force people into submission. Dorne shows that. Vice versa, the fact that people actually assemble armies during the Dance is ridiculous, too. The Westermen army, the Black Reach lords, the Northmen, etc. march to war against dragonriders ... without their own dragonriders. That's obviously suicidal.

More importantly, though, it makes absolutely no sense that so much as a single lord - especially those with big castles, towns, and cities - would dare to raise so much as a finger against Rhaenyra. Her advantage in dragons meant she could burn every castle, every town, and every city whose rulers dared to rise up against her. Obviously people are just intimidated by dragons when it is convenient for the plot - in other cases they have no problems facing them at all (most extreme case there is the Storming of the Dragonpit, of course).

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

That is factually incorrect.

No it is not. The Faith was very popular with the Smallfolk. It says so in Fire and Blood.

Just now, Lord Varys said:

And, no, the idea that the common people are just sheep and don't buy into political propaganda and don't like particular houses and royals more than others is wrong, too

No one is saying that.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

No it is not. The Faith was very popular with the Smallfolk. It says so in Fire and Blood.

You give the impression the smallfolk as a whole opposed the Targaryen reign because of their affiliation with the Faith. But that's wrong. If they had been all with the Faith and determined to get rid of Maegor they would have won. Maegor also failed to raise armies through the great houses - he fought for the most part with his own which, for the most part, would have been commoners. Sure enough, he also had knights and lords but we never hear about lords and knights from the West, the Reach, the Vale, the Stormlands or the North fight in one of Maegor's armies.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Rhaena wasn’t craven. Aegon forbid her from riding with him into battle.

[Craving Peaches]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You give the impression the smallfolk as a whole opposed the Targaryen reign because of their affiliation with the Faith. But that's wrong.

No I don't. I give the impression the Faith was popular amongst the Smallfolk. Which it was and is.

[Lord Varys]

36 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

No I don't. I give the impression the Faith was popular amongst the Smallfolk. Which it was and is.

You wrote this earlier:

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The smallfolk flocked to the side of the Faith as well when the rebellion began. Saying the Smallfolk support/love the Targaryens because they are Targaryens is just wrong. They support whoever brings prosperity/peace and leaves them alone. It has nothing to do with the Targaryens being Targaryens.

And that's just wrong. You implied the smallfolk as a group flocked to the Faith, not saying that it was obviously only a minority who did that. Others continued to fight for Maegor, more still kept out of the entire war and continued with their lives (especially in the places where no fighting took place like, apparently, the North, the Vale, etc.).

Also you try to paint the common people as apolitical who don't have a (developed) loyalty to a particular house or dynasty. We know that's wrong for the loyalty of the common Northmen to the Starks, the popularity of the Baratheons in the Stormlands (mentioned explicitly in the second Jon Connington chapter in ADwD), etc.

The Targaryens are the royal family who ended millennia of constant warfare in Westeros, also ending noble blood feuds and arbitrary (mis-)rule of local lords and the abuse of the common people from the hands of such lords. That is why they became popular. Prior to the Conquest life just sucked more for the common people. And they know this.

Also, in context, royalty is rarely unpopular with the common people in a feudal monarchy - they are aloof and far away and generally more likely to be viewed as allies of the common people than the lords who are close and do the actual exploiting. The Targaryens bettered the lives of the common people and their dragons were not a weapon against the commoners but rebellious lords.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's just wrong. You implied the smallfolk as a group flocked to the Faith,

You interpreted it as such. No one else did. It is not as though I wrote: all Smallfolk flocked to the Faith. Maybe it would have been clearer if I omitted 'The' and just wrote 'Smallfolk flocked' but that is reaching ridiculous levels of pettiness.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Also you try to paint the common people as apolitical who don't have a (developed) loyalty to a particular house or dynasty.

No I did not. I said the Smallfolk did not like the Targaryens because they were Targaryens, but because they brought peace and prosperity. Name one Smallfolk character who liked a Targaryen purely because they were a Targaryen and not because of something they did.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

You interpreted it as such. No one else did. It is not as though I wrote: all Smallfolk flocked to the Faith. Maybe it would have been clearer if I omitted 'The' and just wrote 'Smallfolk flocked' but that is reaching ridiculous levels of pettiness.

No I did not. I said the Smallfolk did not like the Targaryens because they were Targaryens, but because they brought peace and prosperity. Name one Smallfolk character who liked a Targaryen purely because they were a Targaryen and not because of something they did.

The Starks, Martells, Baratheons, etc. are also not loved for specific accomplishments, but because of their public relations policies - ditto, especially, with the Tyrells and Margaery. The Targaryens did that, too, in addition to actually making the lives of the common people better. That's a matter of historical law (the King's Peace, the Rule of Six, etc.).

That some commoners supported the Faith Militant Uprising we all know - no need to tell us this if you didn't want to make a special case there.

And to be sure - the Targaryens are not loved 'as Targaryens' but as the royal family. Today the British celebrated their new king at his coronation - they didn't celebrate him as a Battenberg, Windsor, or Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha but as their king, the eldest son of their former queen and the most senior member of the royal family. And that's how the Targaryens are viewed, too.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Today the British celebrated their new king at his coronation

I know, I live there and watched it live.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

but because of their public relations policie

That is doing something though. As you can see, literally no Smallfolk like the Targaryens because they are Targaryens, but because of them doing something positive.