Jump to content

Your Unpopular ASOIAF Opinions/Hot Takes


Maegor_the_Cool
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

That's a clear statement of the author on the matter,

It isn't a clear statement.

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

if you don't like it, you have a problem with the author and the producer, not with me, if Aegon Dream triggers your twisted consideration on the figure of the Conqueror, that's not my problem 

You seem to be the one who has the problem here. Just accept that as of now, the dream does not exist in the books. If you are so confident about it being part of the story, you don't need to worry, because it will surely be in the next book. So just wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2023 at 10:07 AM, Alester Florent said:

I've done a fair bit of genealogical research in my time and one of the oddities is that you seem to relatively rarely get "medium-sized" families. Either they sprawl hugely or they stay narrow and die out. There is probably a mathematical explanation for this: I suspect part of it is that there's a tipping-point where if a family expands beyond it it becomes functionally immune to attrition but if it can't reach that critical point it remains vulnerable to occasional calamities eliminating large portions of its stock.

Sometimes families just seem to plateau or wither. William I of England had four sons who lived to adulthood, three of whom survived him, and not one surviving male-line grandchild.

Edward III had five sons who made it to adulthood, and five legitimate male-line grandsons (as well as three legitimised ones). Those five produced five more in turn, who produced another five, who produced four, and none of them produced any. The legitimised line fared similarly poorly: of the initial three, they managed to up the number to four in the next generation, who managed another three or four between them (the existence of the fourth is debated), and then none. The Plantagenet family had 13 male members in 1397. By 1499, just over a hundred years later, it was extinct in the male line, as was its legitimised cadet branch.

Of course, the leading cause of death for members of the Plantagenet and Beaufort families during this period was other members of the Plantagenet and Beaufort families. When it comes to noble families in particular, squabbles over successions can claim a lot of lives and rapidly prune branches. For that reason, noble families often like to do a bit of self-pruning and send younger siblings to places where they won't produce children (this is what eventually polished off the royal Stuarts, with their last member being a priest). The Watch and the Kingsguard, and in some cases the Faith and Citadel, may have absorbed a number of would-be founders of cadet branches over the years. Among the Targs, the Kingsguard claimed one; the Faith one (Baelor) and the Citadel two. Bloodraven probably wasn't going to have any kids by the time he went to the Wall, but the prospect of his doing so was ended when he did.

The Targs seem to have hit this critical mass point twice. The first was in the reign of Viserys I, which was apparently the numerical peak of the Targaryen dynasty (according to the World of Ice and Fire; I think they matched his reign in numbers under Daeron II, and certainly had more male members at that time). That edition of the family was destroyed by civil war between branches of the family, and although four Targs survived the Dance (I'm counting Jaehaera as a casualty), only two of them were male and able to continue the family name.
At the height of Daeron II's reign in c.208, there were twelve living male Targs, but a combination of plague, accident, misadventure and indifference whittled them down to low single figures by 221.

Other potential expansions were cut off too. Aenys had three sons, and a brother. The brother killed two of those sons and was infertile himself. Summerhall killed off any prospect of a Duncan-originated cadet branch. The chance of another expansion by the descendants of Aerys II was eliminated by Robert's rebellion and what followed.

IRL, even being around for a long time doesn't necessarily ensure permanence. The Habsburgs got started around 1100, so you'd have thought that by 1700 they'd have built up a healthy bench of reserve members. In fact they were down to two, and were extinct in the male line by 1740.

Something else I guess worth noting is that "families" of this kind don't go back to a Y-chromosomal Adam, but rather to a specific, identifiable member. Female lines are also largely disregarded, since they don't (under usual circumstances) continue the name.

What seems most unrealistic to me is that there are families of this antiquity who've preserved the same name at all. There are, I think, three noble/royal families in the world who can make a vaguely credible claim to ancestry going back two thousand years (the Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia, the Bagrationi of Georgia, and the Imperial house of Japan). The thousand-year-club is a bit better populated, including the Capetians (who, if actually a cadet branch of the Merovingians as is possible but unlikely, can claim 1600 years), the Welfs, the Wettins, the Lorrainers, the Reginarids, etc. Although none of them actually go by those names in their current guises. But the dozens if not hundreds of ancient families in Westeros seem largely fantastical.

With all of that said, there is a Stark cadet branch, which is both a legitimate and a reasonably numerous one: the Karstarks. There may be others who just aren't relevant to the story, in the same way that the Arryns of Gulltown or the Lannisters of Lannisport aren't.

Likewise, there was until recently a Targaryen cadet branch, albeit, thanks to their actions, not one anyone sensible would call such: the Blackfyres.

I just want to say, I loved this. So much detail. It deserves more than me just giving you thumbs up, I needed to actually say it. It was something I've wondered about but had little expertise on. Anyways, thank you, haha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

That's a clear statement of the author on the matter, if you don't like it, you have a problem with the author and the producer, not with me, if Aegon Dream triggers your twisted consideration on the figure of the Conqueror, that's not my problem 

GRRM has never once said Aegon had a dream in the books. But he has in fact said that the show and books are different. So him adding Aegon’s Dream to the show in no way means it’ll be in the books. I don’t understand how it’s so hard to of a concept to grasp for you. It’s not twisted at all. Next to the Hoares, the Targaryens murdered thousands of people, and launched a war of conquest on sovereign nations. And when he was resisted he was willing to directly murder thousands personally. Be they slaves in Harren’s castle, or the thousands of Dornish men, women, children he murdered when his invader wife was justifiably killed in Dorne. And no she wasn’t tortured like some martyred messiah as you think. 
 

What can one expect from someone with an Aerys II profile. At least pick a Targ that wasn’t a psychotic monster. I know that may be hard, but I’d help your credibility some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Darrow of Lykos said:

GRRM has never once said Aegon had a dream in the books. But he has in fact said that the show and books are different. So him adding Aegon’s Dream to the show in no way means it’ll be in the books. I don’t understand how it’s so hard to of a concept to grasp for you. It’s not twisted at all. Next to the Hoares, the Targaryens murdered thousands of people, and launched a war of conquest on sovereign nations. And when he was resisted he was willing to directly murder thousands personally. Be they slaves in Harren’s castle, or the thousands of Dornish men, women, children he murdered when his invader wife was justifiably killed in Dorne. And no she wasn’t tortured like some martyred messiah as you think. 
 

What can one expect from someone with an Aerys II profile. At least pick a Targ that wasn’t a psychotic monster. I know that may be hard, but I’d help your credibility some.

I hate the “Aegon had magic dreams” theory as well, but GRRM did hint at it during interviews. It’s not in the books though, so take that for what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, since we have to have this take brought up again. If Aegon had visions...that doesn't excuse murder. I see a lot of people in this forum take the justification of a certain character, and then act like it's an actual factual justification...when it's not. Listen....people who do bad things often have justifications for their actions, that doesn't actually make those actions justifiable. Let's just say...Aegon had a vision. I have news for y'all....the land is not a unified Kingdom. He failed. His actions didn't lead to Westeros being a unified front against the Others. I.e. His justification was meaningless. And to add to this, the ends don't justify the means. He murdered people. A lot of people. He waged a horrific war of conquest. Again, every war of conquest has had leaders who often justified their actions by some sort of divine right or prophecy...again, that doesn't mean we need to believe that is actually a good justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegon finally decided to take over Westeros, and unify the Seven Kingdoms (that existed at the time) under a single rule. There is a lot of speculation that, in some sense, he saw what was coming 300 years later, and wanted to unify the Seven Kingdoms to be better prepared for the threat that he eventually saw coming from the North – the threat that we’re dealing with in A Song of Ice and Fire.” –GRRM in Fir&Blood release video

I based my assumptions on what the author said, and what the author said it's more important than your pointless arguments, give me a quote where he denies about Aegon Dream, there isn't, it's actually content in the next books the producer of Hotd included. 

The Targaryen rule made Westeros better, if you are triggered because Aegon roasted some of members of your favorite houses, I want to tell you : good he did, he should have done more as Orys and Lord Oakheart wished

Edited by KingAerys_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

I want to tell you : good he did, he should have done more

Yeah!

He gave women the vote!

He built schools and hospitals!

He put a chicken in every pot!

He built roads, dams and railroads!

He created child welfare laws and ended child labor!

He made laws against animal cruelty and abuse!

He ended torture for prisoners!

He closed the black cells, the Sky Cells and other gaols!

He gave the famous "I Had a Dream!" speech!

He built the Wall!

He chopped down weirwoods!

He became a master of propaganda!

See!  See! much good he did!

:bs:

:ack:

not

 

 

Edited by LongRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon finally decided to take over Westeros, and unify the Seven Kingdoms (that existed at the time) under a single rule. There is a lot of speculation that, in some sense, he saw what was coming 300 years later, and wanted to unify the Seven Kingdoms to be better prepared for the threat that he eventually saw coming from the North – the threat that we’re dealing with in A Song of Ice and Fire.” –GRRM in Fir&Blood release video

I based my assumptions on what the author said, and what the author said it's more important than your pointless arguments, give me a quote where he denies about Aegon Dream, there isn't, it's actually content in the next books the producer of Hotd included. 

The Targaryen rule made Westeros better, if you are triggered because Aegon roasted some of members of your favorite houses, I want to tell you : good he did, he should have done more as Orys and Lord Oakheart wanted 

Then I really hope Rhaenys was taken and tortured because she’d absolutely deserve it :). 
And IF Aegon’s prophecy is true it makes him and his family look like fucking morons. As they do nothing afterwards to prepare for the Others. At all.

Westeros was not better off with the Targaryens. They went from several wars/border skirmishes over thousands of years to multiple intercontinental wars over 300, marred by psychotic Targaryens threatening murder people with their dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Targaryen rule (unification of 7K) made Westeros better" and "Aegon should have roasted more people" are two separate statements.

The first is true and apparently the author approves it (his answer about Alexander the Conqueror makes it clear), but it's pretty worrying that some fans believe the second one, that Aegon's mistake was not roasting enough nobles. He should have given up the conquest of Dorne sooner, the very latest after his first invasion attempt (between 4-7 AC) failed, because it made it clear that the Dornish people are fundamentally opposed to Targaryen rule.

Edited by csuszka1948
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Yeah!

He gave women the vote!

He built schools and hospitals!

He put a chicken in every pot!

He built roads, dams and railroads!

He created child welfare laws and ended child labor!

He made laws against animal cruelty and abuse!

He ended torture for prisoners!

He closed the black cells, the Sky Cells and other gaols!

He gave the famous "I Had a Dream!" speech!

He built the Wall!

He chopped down weirwoods!

He became a master of propaganda!

See!  See! much good he did!

:bs:

:ack:

not

Aegon I made Westeros great again! :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darrow of Lykos said:

Then I really hope Rhaenys was taken and tortured because she’d absolutely deserve it :). 
And IF Aegon’s prophecy is true it makes him and his family look like fucking morons. As they do nothing afterwards to prepare for the Others. At all.

Westeros was not better off with the Targaryens. They went from several wars/border skirmishes over thousands of years to multiple intercontinental wars over 300, marred by psychotic Targaryens threatening murder people with their dragons.

 

It was clearly better after Targaryen rule. Several wars and border skirmishes every year are worse than one intercontinental war every century, that's why the population of many kingdoms doubled over 300 years and much less captives were sent to the Night's Watch.

The author makes it clear that he thinks a unified world or continent is better:

"Putting aside the specifics of the situation, and taking a long-range look, I think history shows that we do better when we join together into larger political units that embrace diversity, rather than building walls and breaking into smaller units. Alexander’s empire was better than the squabbling city-states of ancient Greece that preceded it (a pity he did not live long enough to make the union with Persia permanent, and twice a pity that his successors broke it all up into smaller countries to war on each other). The thirteen American colonies were wise to join together into one large country, despite their differences, than they would have been as thirteen small ones. The nations of Europe have been fighting each other for centuries; joining together into one great multi-national nation represents real progress." - GRRM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

"The Targaryen rule (unification of 7K) made Westeros better" and "Aegon should have roasted more people" are two separate statement.

The first is true and apparently the author approves it (his answer about Alexander the Conqueror makes it clear), but it's pretty worrying that some fans believe the second one, that Aegon's mistake was not roasting enough nobles. He should have given up the conquest of Dorne sooner, the very latest after his first invasion attempt (between 4-7 AC) failed, because it made it clear that the Dornish people are fundamentally opposed to Targaryen rule.

Imagine trying to save the World from Ice Demons and idiots start yelling : Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken, and start retaliating doing ganrape and slavery, if Aegon roasted House Wyl, was he wrong? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Imagine trying to save the World from Ice Demons and idiots start yelling : Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken, and start retaliating doing ganrape and slavery, if Aegon roasted House Wyl, was he wrong? 

That's all we'll ever be doing, because none of this is in the books and even if Aegon had a dream, which he didn't in the books, he never mentioned it to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon was a good character, not a grey character, but a good character and he is one of the most important characters in the series, there are fans of Ramsay Bolton and Tywin Lannister, I can be fan of Aegon as well

 

Well, Aegon definitely isn't a villain like Ramsay or Tywin, but my impression is that the text presents him as a complex and relatively morally grey person, more like Stannis. Stannis has plenty of fans, so loving Aegon (who was much more successful than Stannis) is pretty fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Stannis has plenty of fans, so loving Aegon (who was much more successful than Stannis) is pretty fine.

It's not so much that Ageon has fans, it's that this particular fan is not arguing in good faith and implies only he is right, and his theory is the only correct one and no other possibilities exist.  If he hasn't convinced us by now, guess what? He never will.  He can keep his theory and his belief in it, but's time to acknowledge that he should just agree to disagree and save face that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...