I hope there is no 'Aegon's Prophecy' Retcon in the Books

[Gilbert Green]

30 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because people were talking about Aegon knowing about a prophecy in other book discussion threads?

Aegon adopted the 3-headed dragon as his coat of arms.

Which I suppose does not necessarily prove he had heard about any prophesy.  It could have merely meant "my sisters ride dragons too".  But for that purpose, 3 dragons would have made as much sense.

If it turns out that Aegon had heard of the prophesy, I think you can at least say, in retrospect, that this was hinted at.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It would be a retcon, no doubt about it. And it would make all Targaryens look like complete imbeciles b/c in 300 yrs they did fuck all, and achieved even less. 

You mean like the wildlings, First Men, and Andals acted on things in the last 8,000 years? The people who built and maintained (and attacked) the Wall, who knew that ice demons were in the far north but sat on their asses and didn't even try to find and hunt them down?

They all look like morons there, but the Targaryens would only look like morons if they had a very clear prophecy that is no way vague - and it really don't looks that way.

That the magical dynasty with hereditary prophetic powers didn't actually invade this primitive backwater continent because they wanted to wear crowns and play knights was always kind of obvious.

30 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If a village is burned to the ground there will be casualties.

A specific group of people, the Dornish, are being killed because they are Dornish, so it is a genocide. Maybe not intentional in terms of Aegon I understanding it in the modern term as such but it fits the definition.

Dorne is not ruined because of the consent threat of dragon attacks it is ruined because of the constant dragon attacks.

This thing was just a war, not a genocide. Nobody wanted to destroy the Dornish because they were Dornish.

29 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Subtle as in non-existent? If people really did see this coming long ago I would love to see proof.

There are things that are right there without all that much buildup. Just think Jon's true parentage. FaB pretty much hammers home the fact by not having Gyldayn explaining why Aegon conquered Westeros. He could have done so, in fact, it could have been well-known that Aegon was a little Robb or Jon eager to win glory and territory in battle, emulating some great Valyrian conqueror.

But that's not how things are described. We get a brooding, distant guy who doesn't even like deeds at arms all that much.

I really don't get it how people cannot see what's right there. It was there at least since THK where the whole dragon dreams issue was first introduced (and that continued in TMK). This established that the Targaryens do have prophetic dreams. Now ... what event in their history could get a very interesting twist from that aspect of the world-building? It is kind of obvious, no?

And then George even introduces Aenar and Daenys the Dreamer in AFfC (without the context of the Doom - that only comes with TWoIaF/FaB) and people still don't think there are dots to connect there. It is pretty ridiculous.

Also, of course, HotD revealing that Aegon's dream is named the Song of Ice and Fire. That is the title of the series! Condal wouldn't have used that there if George had told him the Song of Ice and Fire was something else. Also, of course, such an interpretation of the Song of Ice and Fire fits perfectly Rhaegar's claim that the song of his son Aegon, then thought to be the promised prince, was the Song of Ice and Fire.

It fits perfectly because the phrase 'Song of Ice and Fire' has, so far, only be used by Targaryens, not the other people discussing savior or ancient prophecy stuff. If the name was coined by Aegon going back to a dream he had or a prophecy he made then it makes a lot of sense that the Targaryens might know and care about that ... while other people might not even know about it (and dismiss it if they do know).

Edited April 7, 2023 by Lord Varys

[Gilbert Green]

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

A specific group of people, the Dornish, are being killed because they are Dornish, so it is a genocide. Maybe not intentional in terms of Aegon I understanding it in the modern term as such but it fits the definition.

I find "genocide" to be a confusing term because no-one can ever decide what it means.  My suggestion is that we simplify the debate by calling it murder.  "Mass murder" would also be fair.  That concept, at least, is one Aegon had heard of.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

But for that purpose, 3 dragons would have made as much sense.

A three headed dragon is arguably a more distinct heraldic charge though.

9 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

If it turns out that Aegon had heard of the prophesy, I think you can at least say, in retrospect, that this was hinted at.

That would depend on what Prophecy it was.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I find "genocide" to be a confusing term because no-one can ever decide what it means. 

There is a standard UN definition which what Aegon was doing fits, but we can call it murder if you want.

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I really don't get it how people cannot see what's right there.

Because it's not right there?

If people came to this conclusion before, I would like to see when and how.

[EggBlue]

35 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I will not be happy if it happens. It conflicts with Aegon's actions in Fire and Blood and there is a complete lack of foreshadowing for it in the books. It will stand out to me as a blatant retcon and undermine my ability to immerse myself in the story. I do not feel there is any need for it and it would be silly. And of course people will then start claiming that Aegon's Dornish genocide was justified/necessary and that anyone who opposes the great Targaryan dynasty is a traitor to humanity and all that...

I can't say I disagree.

The problem is "Aegon's prophecy" is a bit of a goofy theory, claiming that Aegon knew precisely what would happen and had exactly the correct conclusions as to what to do! As we've seen in the books, prophecies/dreams are vague on their own, then there is the perception of them! It is almost impossible that Aegon would get all the right answers!  However, I do think the books give enough vagueness that Aegon can potentially have a dream or prophecy driving him, though not the famous "Aegon's prophecy" that HOTD used. In my opinion, that is the three-headed dragon prophecy. The thing is, Aegon was involved in Essosi affairs before his sudden and ambitious conquest.  he also married both his sisters ;and during the conquest and afterward treated them as equals. all despite the fact that no Targaryen lord after Aenar had more than one wife. then he took up the three-headed dragon sigil. and it could be only a sigil, if Rhaegar and Aemon hadn't seen more to it. whatever reason Rgaegar and Aemon had to think three is a sacred number when it comes to the dragons, Aegon and his sisters must have had the same notion. my best guess is some sort of prophecy or dream.

[kissdbyfire]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You mean like the wildlings, First Men, and Andals acted on things in the last 8,000 years? The people who built and maintained (and attacked) the Wall, who knew that ice demons were in the far north but sat on their asses and didn't even try to find and hunt them down?

Now you’re just being silly. Most people in the current timeline don’t even believe the Others are a threat now, or worse, don’t even believe they ever existed. And that includes Targaryens. 
The difference is that the First Men, the Free Folk, the Andals, and their aunts aren’t walking around claiming to be a god-like master race with access to prophetic dreams about the future of humanity. And that will still be true if this retcon makes it into the books. But then whatever doom & gloom and death & destruction the Others cause now will make Targaryens look incredibly stupid for having had this knowledge for hundreds of years but keeping mum about it because… fuck knows.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Now you’re just being silly. Most people in the current timeline don’t even believe the Others are a threat now, or worse, don’t even believe they ever existed. And that includes Targaryens. 

Not talking about present-day people, but the guys who (deliberately?) forgot about the Others and the threat they posed.

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The difference is that the First Men, the Free Folk, the Andals, and their aunts aren’t walking around claiming to be a god-like master race with access to prophetic dreams about the future of humanity. And that will still be true if this retcon makes it into the books. But then whatever doom & gloom and death & destruction the Others cause now will make Targaryens look incredibly stupid for having had this knowledge for hundreds of years but keeping mum about it because… fuck knows.

LOL, it is not they who say they have those talents - it is the books themselves. The Targaryens in-universe don't walk around patting each other on their backs and saying 'man, are we a great master race with prophetic powers'.

In fact, this thing is kind of played down - which seems to be the reason why people seem to overlook or not catch what this actually means.

But, of course, them First Men and their aunts did have their greenseers right? Why did they forget? Does this make any sense at all?

And the Targaryens have their very own greenseer with their Bloodraven guy. What did he do to save humanity but rot in that cave like the half-rotten corpse that he is?

I don't deny that it could make some Targaryens look stupid if they had a very precise prophecy. But everything we know about it at this point indicates that it was rather vague and unclear. The notion that they should have focused more on the Watch and the Wall is ludicrous, though. They had dragons, after all, and the strength of an entire united continent. It was completely irrelevant if 2,000 or 20,000 would-be warrior-monks froze the balls off up on the Wall.

And we can certainly ask the question if the post-Dance guys (descended from Aegon III and Viserys II) actually knew about it. It would make sense to assume that the lore was kind of lost with the Dance, only to be rediscovered later by Aerys I and Bloodraven.

[GZ Bloodraven]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

Because that part at least is not from the books, nor has it ever been confirmed by GRRM.

Call it Aegon's dragon dream if you want. 

[Gilbert Green]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

A three headed dragon is arguably a more distinct heraldic charge though.

True.  But that also makes it more of a coincidence.  Or, perhaps, more of a clue that it is not just coincidence.

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

That would depend on what Prophecy it was.

Well then, we have no complaints ... yet. 

[Mithras]

If this was always in the plans, then it is bad writing because GRRM failed to build that up in the books so far.

If this is a retcon (which it is btw), then it is a bad retcon.

Not all retcons should necesarily be bad but this particular one is even worse than Maggy's Prophecy.

GRRM needs to see that he has a third alternative. Instead of choosing his poison as bad writing or bad retcon, he could well do nothing.

If GRRM proceeds with this idea, it will be worse than the catspaw failure.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I find "genocide" to be a confusing term because no-one can ever decide what it means.  My suggestion is that we simplify the debate by calling it murder.  "Mass murder" would also be fair.  That concept, at least, is one Aegon had heard of.

Genocide only came into use as a legal term, after 1948, and it is now much over-used.

Many jurists disliked it at the time.  One put it thus, “If I destroy a rabbit warren on my land, and you interfere, *you* are the trespasser.”

None of the Allies in WW2 had any issue with widespread ethnic cleansing, with which the term is often used interchangeably.

I do wonder if the term actually does add anything to mass murder, murder of prisoners, murder of civilians, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, as legal terms.

 

[Craving Peaches]

9 hours ago, EggBlue said:

However, I do think the books give enough vagueness that Aegon can potentially have a dream or prophecy driving him, though not the famous "Aegon's prophecy" that HOTD used. In my opinion, that is the three-headed dragon prophecy.

I don't mind Aegon knowing about some prophecy, but making it his whole motivation for the conquest I would find silly as it conflicts with what we see him do.

[Craving Peaches]

6 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

True.  But that also makes it more of a coincidence.  Or, perhaps, more of a clue that it is not just coincidence.

It's not like the Houses seem to follow historical heraldic rules anyway but I would imagine that for someone on the field of battle, a single red three-headed dragon on a black field would be easier to distinguish than three separate red dragons on a black field.

6 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Well then, we have no complaints ... yet. 

Yes, that is why the word 'hope' is in the title of the thread.

[Ran]

Personally, I don't think there's a retcon, as such. I think from the time we saw Rhaegar talk of the "three heads of the dragon" that fans have speculated that Aegon and his sisters themselves were likely motivated by prophecy in conquering Westeros.

The bit that would be a "retcon" is if George takes the show's tack and makes it that Aegon believed the prophesy was unfulfilled and that they had to pass this secret knowledge down through the generations. To me, Aegon's behavior makes much more sense if we assume that he thought the very act of the Conquest  fulfilled the prophecy and that there was no point dwelling on it further (or passing information on about it) because they had achieved their prophesized destiny.

[frenin]

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I find "genocide" to be a confusing term because no-one can ever decide what it means.  My suggestion is that we simplify the debate by calling it murder.  "Mass murder" would also be fair.  That concept, at least, is one Aegon had heard of.

I mean, it has a very specifical set of definitions.https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

 

Quote

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

One can argue that Aegon's campaign in Dorne may or not fit with this criteria, especially with Visenya quite literally stating she'd be more than happy to leave no person alive in Dorne.

 

To OP.

On the bright side, the books are never coming, so your hope will be kinda fulfilled. But Martin has stated the prophecy was a factor so that's that.

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I do wonder if the term actually does add anything to mass murder, murder of prisoners, murder of civilians, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, as legal terms.

[Annara Snow]

15 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I will not be happy if it happens. It conflicts with Aegon's actions in Fire and Blood and there is a complete lack of foreshadowing for it in the books. It will stand out to me as a blatant retcon and undermine my ability to immerse myself in the story. I do not feel there is any need for it and it would be silly. And of course people will then start claiming that Aegon's Dornish genocide was justified/necessary and that anyone who opposes the great Targaryan dynasty is a traitor to humanity and all that...

You don't know that it's a retcon, rather than something GRRM had in mind all along but hasn't revealed yet 

Aegon I has always been a mystery, and the books don't let us into his mind and his motives 

I like this because it makes Aegon and the Targaryens a bit more morally grey, because otherwise, the Conquering trio are just straight up villains - regardless of how much their propaganda and the Targ stans try to make them look good.

With Aegon's prophecy, it becomes more interesting since he is still an incestuous mass murdering colonizer,  but he thinks he has a higher purpose and is doing it to save the world - an idealistic goal combined with incredible arrogance of seeing yourself as the keeper of knowledge and the messianic hero that is the only one that can save the world - or if not you, then your heirs. He's an imperialist who drinks his Koolaid and believes in Manifest Destiny.

As for the Targ stans using that to claim all the colonizing and mass murder including the genocide in Dorne (which was prompted mostly by personal feelings, Rhaenys' death) was justified - so what? They've been doing that anyway way before HotD. They're eugenics-obsessed weird cult like people. Who cares about what they say?

 

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

You don't know that it's a retcon, rather than something GRRM had in mind all along but hasn't revealed yet 

True, but if he had this in mind all along he did such a poor job at seeding it that it would feel like a retcon. 

[sweetsunray]

16 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It would be a retcon, no doubt about it. And it would make all Targaryens look like complete imbeciles b/c in 300 yrs they did fuck all, and achieved even less. 

Maybe that's the point? It would portray hubris - Aegon and his sisters believed they could just force Westeros to be 1, and then they only had to fly north at the first sing and kill them with their three dragons in their minds. Except, it never happens in his lifetime and one of his "heads" and her dragon die. Woops.