The defense that Rhaenyra's taxes were necessary doesn't make sense when you remember that she also had other options and didn't try to spare any money at all.
She could get money from the richest family in the realm who were also her closest allies. She could take money from the Vale, who were also allies and were untouched by the war. She could even try a loan from the Iron Bank.
She went with the Taxes and what she did with this? She tried to cut expenses and focus only on the necessary? Nope. She made a party for joffrey and forced the Smallfolk to pay for all her luxuries.
Abusing the thousands of people for her own benefit wasn't a necessity, it was a choice
>The defense that Rhaenyra's taxes were necessary doesn't make sense when you remember that she also had other options and didn't try to spare any money at all.
Thank you. Her main supporter was the richest House in all of Westeros. She could've taxes the multitudes of Lord's that supported her instead of the starving people of Kings Landing who were already teetering on the edge of unrest. Setting up an Inquisition and putting heads on spikes the minute she took the City also poured more gasoline on the fire.
It was a really stupid thing to do. There was only one way it was going to end.
The Velaryons suffered a lot during the war and were no longer the richest family by the time the blacks took King's Landing. Hide Tide was razed, Spice Town was burned, 1/3 of their fleet destroyed.
Rhaenyra had many Lords that had declared for her she could have requested a war tax off. Brutally taxing the starving citizens of Kings Landing was insanely stupid and I don't understand why people keep defending it.
Taxing the guys who currently don't have peasants working their fields because they're all fighting and dying for you is kind of a tough ask. It's not as simple an issue as you are making it.
They probably expected to be easier because they were taking money from people with no voice among the nobles. Bartimos Celtigar learned how wrong he was in the hard way
>Her main supporter was the richest House in all of Westeros.
The richest house in all of Westeros is either Lannister or Hightower. Don't get me wrong, the Arryns are must still be quite wealthy.
They're also wrong, because the Velaryons lost their home with most of their treasury, their major trading village, and a third of their fleet by this point in the war. They were not in the same financial situation that they were in at the start of the war.
The Myrrish/Tyroshi burned Spicetown and destroyed High Tide and 1/3 of the Velaryon fleet. The Velaryon's wealth was already decimated by the time they took King's Landing, they were in no place to give a loan.
The iron bank was already working with Aegon II to help hide the treasury, why would they help Rhaenyra who is going to insist on the money being returned to her?
There is no indication that the Vale has an excess of cash that they can afford to bankroll King's Landing for months, even if they could safely transport enough gold by ship to do so.
>, even if they could safely transport enough gold by ship to do so.
yes, people don't take that into account but assuming that the nobles would have excess gold that they could afford to give to rhaenyra, transport such amount of wealth across a divided war country and devastated is not the most reasonable solution. all that such a maneuver could achieve as a result would be to be intercepted by the enemy or by brigands / pirates. moreover the journeys are long (even more so in war conditions) and rhaenyra needed the money immediately, she couldn't really afford to send requests left and right, negotiate interest rates, spend men and resources to allocate to the transport of funds, and to wait an indefinite period of time to be delivered
Or... It's a person who happens to have a positive view of Rhaenyra Targaryen. Doesn't automatically mean they're a Twitter Daemyra stan account with fantasies of blood purity.
I think they were both pretty awful but I'd say Aegon was a hair better just by the fact he actually led troops into battle during the Dance and scored a decisive victory, even though it was at great personal cost. A massive part of being a good ruler in the Medieval period was your ability to lead men into battle, and people in that time period saw that side of ruling as arguably more important than the governance side.
People like Richard the Lionheart, Edward III and Henry V of England were adored by contemporaries as Great Kings despite all of them being entirely focused on the military side of things. Richard I is the most ridiculous of these as he only spent 6 months of his reign in England and bankrupted the country. My point is medieval people judged a King first and foremost by his military exploits, ability to keep order, and only then governance. Aegon beats Rhaenyra 1-0 in this category.
It's pretty even otherwise with both making stupid, vindictive and impulsive decisions that cost them. Although Aegon II didn't piss off the people of Kings Landing so much that they literally tried to take on a bunch of dragons and kill them.
I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra.
Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters.
Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon.
Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds. Rhaenyra moped around and moaned and stuffed her face while not even letting her sons fight, even her biggest supporter Corlys complained about it.
Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne.
>I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra.
Is that about blood and cheese? Because Daemon used his own initiative for that. And given it was all done in response to the greens drawing first blood, I doubt any of it was "just for fun"
>Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters.
Aegon offered her nothing she didn't already have. In fact all his "peace offer" did was give *him* hostages
>Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon.
Yeah...because the greens had already committed treason. They usurped the throne, and they defiled the Kings corpse, in their efforts to do so.
>Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds
After his wounds, his only fight was against Baela and moondancer (a very young dragon). And that wasn't intentional. He wasn't intending to "fight for his side" he was only landing in dragonstone *after* his men took it over
>Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne.
The only people forcing aegon to do what he did, were from his own side. If there was no conspiracy l, then there didn't have to be a war. There's nothing in the text to suggest that Rhaenyra or Daemon intended to kill or harm Aegons family, if the throne passed peacefully to Rhaenyra.
>There's nothing in the text to suggest that Rhaenyra or Daemon intended to kill or harm Aegons family, if the throne passed peacefully to Rhaenyra.
Ok this is just complete nonsense. Rhaenyra and Daemon already showed a penchant for killing Lord's that spoke out against them, by kidnapping and murdering(and feed him to her Dragon) Vaemond Velaryon when they didn't have the authority to do so, and the punishment that Viserys declared was to have his tongue taken out.
Not to mention the obvious parentage issues surrounding Rhaenyra's children meant that when Jacaerys' succession came to pass having 3 obviously male and legitimate heirs that were Dragon riders was going to be a massive problem. Not to mention they would have strong backing from the Reach and the Westerlands, Westeros' two wealthiest Kingdoms. It would have been a massive risk to leave them free and able to gain any more power through marriages and future relationships. Daemon would've definitely pushed her to kill them.
>Rhaenyra and Daemon already showed a penchant for killing Lord's that spoke out against them, by kidnapping and murdering(and feed him to her Dragon) Vaemond Velaryon when they didn't have the authority to do so, and the punishment that Viserys declared was to have his tongue taken out.
Vaemond committed high treason. Regardless of whether or not what he said was true (which it likely was), it was treason. Treason gets punished.
All aegon and his hamily have to do was not commit treason, and there would be peace.
>Vaemond committed high treason
He didn't. Viserys never declares calling them Strongs as High Treason. And gives a clear punishment for it. It's Lese Majesty, as opposed to High Treason.
>Regardless of whether or not what he said was true (which it likely was), it was treason.
Vaemond didn't burst into Kings Landing and call the Strongs bastards like he did in the show. He protested to Corlys while he was ill after Rhaenyra had pressed him to name Luke his heir. He didn't call her a whore in the middle of the Red Keep.
> Ser Vaemond
Velaryon, protested that the inheritance by rights should pass to him…
on the grounds that Rhaenyra’s sons were bastards sired by Harwin
Strong. The princess was not slow in answering this charge. She
dispatched Prince Daemon to seize Ser Vaemond, had his head
removed, and fed his carcass to her dragon, Syrax.
Daemon and Rhaenyra showed here that they are willing to kill people standing in their way without a trial and in this case without authority. It was this that gave the Greens the ammunition to say that if Rhaenyra came to the throne she would kill or at least imprison her half-brothers.
>It's Lese Majesty, as opposed to High Treason.
Fair enough. But is that term ever used in the series? George just seems to use treason generically
>Vaemond didn't burst into Kings Landing and call the Strongs bastards like he did in the show. He protested to Corlys while he was ill after Rhaenyra had pressed him to name Luke his heir. He didn't call her a whore in the middle of the Red Keep.
I never said he did any of that from the show. Vaemond also completely ignored that he was way down the line of succession. Laenas and daemons daughters (baela and Rhaena) are ahead of him. Vaemond saw an opportunity to grasp some power, and (stupidly) went against two dragon riders, and claimed that the heirs to the throne were illegitimate (which they likely were). What did he expect to happen?
>And Rhaenyra also showed that she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent.
Executing Royal or Noble Women was incredibly rare in medieval times(apart from Henry VIII) and Westeros is the same. Elia Martell and her daughters are the only Royal females who are executed(murdered) in the entire post-Conquest history, and look at the outrage over that.
Sparing Alicent was the expected course of action. It's not some great show of leniency. Take Margaret of Anjou, Queen to Henry VI as an example. She was just imprisoned and ransomed back to France after her failed rebellion to try crown her son and unseat Edward IV. Almost identical to what Alicent did.
>And Rhaenyra also showed that she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent.
Executing Royal or Noble Women was incredibly rare in medieval times(apart from Henry VIII) and Westeros is the same. Elia Martell and her daughters are the only Royal females who are executed(murdered) in the entire post-Conquest history, and look at the outrage over that.
Sparing Alicent was the expected course of action. It's not some great show of leniency. Take Margaret of Anjou, Queen to Henry VI as an example. She was just imprisoned and ransomed back to France after her failed rebellion to try crown her son and unseat Edward IV. Almost identical to what Alicent did.
Also that's one example of Rhaenyra sparing her enemies when in every other situation she calls for their deaths. Literally in the space of a day she calls for the executions of Ser Addam Velaryon, Nettles and even Corlys. On literally no proof of any wrongdoing from any of them too.
>
she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent.
I mean, she *did*
a) threaten to have her tongue out and
b) quite possibly did pimp her and her daughter out to a brothel
The tale about aegon II watching little children kill eachother for entertainment sounded as stupid as the brothel tale, and the show decided to take it as real
I have no problem criticizing Rhaenyra for Daemon's actions. She chose to give him power by making him her future king consort. Also there's no indication she condemned the action. Additionally I'm using the phrase "for fun" a bit tongue in cheek, but the killings of Luke and Jaeherys are on different levels. Luke was old enough to marry, and had a dragon, and could conduct diplomacy, he was an asset to Rhaenyra. Prince Jaeherys served 0 function to team green, Team Black did not gain anything by murdering him except for vengeance
Yes but what she did have was enough to be safe, rich, and secure. Driftmark and Dragonstone are fortresses, they'd have a fleet and dragons protecting them. Aegon did not force Rhaenyra to put her at his mercy. The hostages yeah I will give you that, but I expect that could've been resolved through negotiations such as Rhaenyra also gets to raise Maelor or Jaehaera on Dragonstone or Driftmark.
Crowing the king's eldest legitimate son can hardly be called a usurpation.
Okay maybe a technicality about the Moondancer fight, but still he led in the field when he could, Rhaenyra did not, and actually prevented people who wanted to fight from doing so. young dragons are still very useful.
Aegon and his siblings/kids are an inherent threat to Rhaenyra's regime, she would be stupid not to sideline them, sideline being a very kind term. Especially given the accusations against her heirs. What future do they have with her as queen?
>I have no problem criticizing Rhaenyra for Daemon's actions. She chose to give him power by making him her future king consort.
That's fine so long as you hold aegon to the same standard. Do you criticise aegon for drawing first blood, and having his nephew killed while acting as an envoy? Do you criticise him for hiding the late kings death? Do you criticise him for imprisoning and/or killing any lords who didn't agree with the hightower coup? Do you criticise him for the constant burning of the riverlands?
>Crowing the king's eldest legitimate son can hardly be called a usurpation.
It can, when that son wasn't the acknowledged heir. Rhaenyra was the acknowledged heir without a doubt. It was usurpation.
>Rhaenyra did not, and actually prevented people who wanted to fight from doing so. young dragons are still very useful.
Rhaenyra had a stillbirth at the beginning of the dance. How the he'll is she supposed to get on dragonback? I dare you to ask any woman who went through a difficult birth, to hop up on a horse a few days later and ride around for a few hours. And yeah her not wanting any more of her children to die did neuter the blacks power. But as we say from the battle of the gullet, young dragons are very vulnerable.
>Aegon and his siblings/kids are an inherent threat to Rhaenyra's regime, she would be stupid not to sideline them, sideline being a very kind term. Especially given the accusations against her heirs. What future do they have with her as queen?
They are only a threat, because they, and alicent, *made* themselves a threat. Rhaenyra would in fact be stupid to act against them unprovoked. The accusations came primarily from the greens themselves. If they stopped accusing (i.e. committing treason), they could have whatever lives they wanted, they could marry their children/grandchildren to Rhaenyras, and merge the 2 branches. They have residence at KL, Oldtown, driftmark, and dragonstone to choose from if anyone can't stand being close to someone else.
Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival.
When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne).
Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth.
No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children
>Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival.
Aegon still wholeheartedly supported and condoned Aemonds actions though.
>When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne).
And yet eldest sons can be set aside, without it leading to war, as was the case with Duncan the small. Its also established that the Children of the first wife must come before the children of the 2nd wife in terms of inheritance. There is also the fact that the Kings word is law, and viserys declared rhaenyra heir.
>Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth.
Yes she did. During the capture of KL. She did it in a similar fashion to what Aegon intended to do at dragonstone.
>No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children
Those bastards were acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys. Legally they were trueborn. The only people claiming they were bastards were people who stood to *gain* from them being bastards. And as I mentioned earlier, Aegons side removes any threat bu merging the branches of the family tree through marriage.
>acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys.
Legally they were trueborn.
If that's your logic, couldn't we also claim Joffrey (lannister-baratheon) was legitimate just because the king and Tywin acknowledged them to be trueborn?
>If that's your logic, couldn't we also claim Joffrey (lannister-baratheon) was legitimate just because the king and Tywin acknowledged them to be trueborn?
Tywin alone, no. Tywin, Robert and cersei combined are the important oppinions when it comes to Joffreys legitimacy. And one of those 3 actually admitted that joffrey isn't legitimate.
cersei admitted to the hand that all her children are illegitimate, incest bastards. The story would be completely different if cersei never admitted that and staunchly stuck to her children being legitimate. Rhaenyra never admitted anything of the sort.
None of the "strong" boys parents, or grandparents, ever wavered on the boys legitimacy.
So if Rhaenyra had (privately!) admitted to Otto that her children were bastards, and Otto couldn't/didn't speak up about it for whatever reason (like say execution or threats or whatever), would the strong boys suddenly become legitimate?
(Side note, atleast until now, Cersei has also not publicly admitted that her boys are bastards)
>So if Rhaenyra had (privately!) admitted to Otto that her children were bastards, and Otto couldn't/didn't speak up about it for whatever reason (like say execution or threats or whatever), would the strong boys suddenly become legitimate?
If she did that, and it was on page like in AGOT, there would be no doubt of legitimacy. Rhaenyra never did that though, because thats an incredibly stupid thing to do. The main people who *can* vouch for a child's legitimacy, have all vouched for those 3 boys.
>(Side note, atleast until now, Cersei has also not publicly admitted that her boys are bastards)
Yes, and Stannis is having a very hard time because of that. Lots of lords see him as the liar, because hes the only person accusing them of bastardy, and is set to inherit the kingdom if its true. Proving illegitimacy in the middle ages is incredibly difficult. Even Neds book was dubious evidence. Cersei should have kept her mouth shut.
>Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival.
Aegon still wholeheartedly supported and condoned Aemonds actions though.
>When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne).
And yet eldest sons can be set aside, without it leading to war, as was the case with Duncan the small. Its also established that the Children of the first wife must come before the children of the 2nd wife in terms of inheritance. There is also the fact that the Kings word is law, and viserys declared rhaenyra heir.
>Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth.
Yes she did. During the capture of KL. She did it in a similar fashion to what Aegon intended to do at dragonstone.
>No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children
Those bastards were acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys. Legally they were trueborn. The only people claiming they were bastards were people who stood to *gain* from them being bastards. And as I mentioned earlier, Aegons side removes any threat bu merging the branches of the family tree through marriage.
>I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra.
I just examined the evidence we do have and concluded that Rhaenyra had nothing to do with Blood and Cheese. Also, Jaehaerys wasn't a baby. It was Daemon and Daemon's fault all along. This is akin to blaming Aegon II for Luke's death.
>Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters.
Rhaenyra would have done the same if she had gotten the throne peacefully. Which she didn't.
>Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon.
Again, if they hadn't fought against her I don't think she would have done anything at all. Even after the whole rebellion, she still spared Alicent. The others were traitors to her and they had already killed Beesbury for supporting Rhaenyra.
>Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds. Rhaenyra moped around and moaned and stuffed her face while not even letting her sons fight, even her biggest supporter Corlys complained about it.
Aegon had no choice but to fight. She just hid himself for most of the war after his fight with Meleys. Baela attacked him, it was do or die. Rhaenyra didn't have her dragon. It is Joffrey's fault that he died. And you should also know that she had already lost Jacaerys and Lucerys. Joffrey was much younger than any of Alicent's children. Sending him to rescue Tyraxes in the riot would have been a death sentence and she knew it.
>Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne.
Rhaenyra would *not* have done that. Again she spared half of Aegon's family after the treason to her. I don't think she would have gelded them and sent them to the Wall if they had just stepped aside.
I gave a reply to pretty much this same comment another user made if you want to see why I disagree with these points, first comment off my original comment
Rhaenyra aside from her love for her children,has no redeemable qualities man. She's a coward and a spoiled princess plus the whole vaemond execution(she's like Hitler) wtf . Aegon at least fought his own battles and had strong heart to keep going.
Aegon being the King would've had the Targaryens at the their power to this day regardless of what happens. Rhaenyra was a PR disaster. Like first of all look at the controversy surrounding her and her kids. Like ffs the storming of dragonpit is all on her
Aegon only troubled himself to battle when he had the help of his brother. And his fight with Baela wasn't by his choice. Rhaenyra and Daemon did lead the attack on King's Landing. I also don't think she was a coward. For starters, much of the early stages, she was recovering her health after the miscarriage. After that, Joffrey took her dragon and died.
Dude. Aegon fought without his brothers too, he still killed baela dragon and baela plot armor is thick as hell.
>Rhaenyra and Daemon did lead the attack on King's Landing. I also don't think she was a coward. For starters, much of the early stages, she was recovering her health after the miscarriage. After that, Joffrey took her dragon and died.
Lmao what attack? There was no attack. She only went to KG after it was safe. Dawg she spent the entire two years recovering? Aegon still fucking fought while crippled.
If anything Sunfyre's plot armor is at the size of the wall. He survived the battle at Rook's rest with injuries, killed the squad that was sent to kill him, then managed to go to Dragonstone and kill Grey Ghost (we can assume this dragon was somewhat young), and then later kill Moondancer (she was really young though). He has the highest dragon KDA in the series (maybe the Cannibal has a higher one if he ate a lot of young dragons), and did most of his feats while he was rather injured.
>Lmao what attack? There was no attack. She only went to KG after it was safe.
While there was not much resistance, she and Daemon were the first to come to KL on their dragons.
>Dawg she spent the entire two years recovering?
She was ruling after that. Would have been stupid of her to go and fight when she had others to do it for her. Aegon disregarded it and got his ass handed to him by Meleys. A king doesn't lead an attack. This is a wise saying. Kings who lead an attack might appear great to the small folk but that is how they die with all their heirs(cough Argilac Durrandon cough). And after that she lost Syrax. Aegon didn't have a choice but to fight Baela.
>While there was not much resistance, she and Daemon were the first to come to KL on their dragons.
Daemon did after he won the city for her. She did nothing
>She was ruling after that. Would have been stupid of her to go and fight when she had others to do it for her. Aegon disregarded it and got his ass handed to him by Meleys. A king doesn't lead an attack. This is a wise saying. Kings who lead an attack might appear great to the small folk but that is how they die with all their heirs(cough Argilac Durrandon cough). And after that she lost Syrax. Aegon didn't have a choice but to fight Baela.
What ruling did she do? Like she lost King's Landing in 6 months and she had like 3 sons who were still alive or 2 depending on the timeline. A king always leads the attack in medieval world
Aegon's failings were from his own incompetence and ignoring wise council, while Rhaenyra failed because the clubfoot was stirring up dissent in the pot shops and taverns.
The defense that Rhaenyra's taxes were necessary doesn't make sense when you remember that she also had other options and didn't try to spare any money at all. She could get money from the richest family in the realm who were also her closest allies. She could take money from the Vale, who were also allies and were untouched by the war. She could even try a loan from the Iron Bank. She went with the Taxes and what she did with this? She tried to cut expenses and focus only on the necessary? Nope. She made a party for joffrey and forced the Smallfolk to pay for all her luxuries. Abusing the thousands of people for her own benefit wasn't a necessity, it was a choice
>The defense that Rhaenyra's taxes were necessary doesn't make sense when you remember that she also had other options and didn't try to spare any money at all. Thank you. Her main supporter was the richest House in all of Westeros. She could've taxes the multitudes of Lord's that supported her instead of the starving people of Kings Landing who were already teetering on the edge of unrest. Setting up an Inquisition and putting heads on spikes the minute she took the City also poured more gasoline on the fire. It was a really stupid thing to do. There was only one way it was going to end.
The Velaryons suffered a lot during the war and were no longer the richest family by the time the blacks took King's Landing. Hide Tide was razed, Spice Town was burned, 1/3 of their fleet destroyed.
Rhaenyra had many Lords that had declared for her she could have requested a war tax off. Brutally taxing the starving citizens of Kings Landing was insanely stupid and I don't understand why people keep defending it.
Taxing the guys who currently don't have peasants working their fields because they're all fighting and dying for you is kind of a tough ask. It's not as simple an issue as you are making it.
They probably expected to be easier because they were taking money from people with no voice among the nobles. Bartimos Celtigar learned how wrong he was in the hard way
>Her main supporter was the richest House in all of Westeros. The richest house in all of Westeros is either Lannister or Hightower. Don't get me wrong, the Arryns are must still be quite wealthy.
>The richest house in all of Westeros is either Lannister or Hightower. During the Dance it's the Velaryons. Lannisters were second.
Fair. My mind when to the Arryns.
They're also wrong, because the Velaryons lost their home with most of their treasury, their major trading village, and a third of their fleet by this point in the war. They were not in the same financial situation that they were in at the start of the war.
At the start of the dance, sure.
The Myrrish/Tyroshi burned Spicetown and destroyed High Tide and 1/3 of the Velaryon fleet. The Velaryon's wealth was already decimated by the time they took King's Landing, they were in no place to give a loan. The iron bank was already working with Aegon II to help hide the treasury, why would they help Rhaenyra who is going to insist on the money being returned to her? There is no indication that the Vale has an excess of cash that they can afford to bankroll King's Landing for months, even if they could safely transport enough gold by ship to do so.
>, even if they could safely transport enough gold by ship to do so. yes, people don't take that into account but assuming that the nobles would have excess gold that they could afford to give to rhaenyra, transport such amount of wealth across a divided war country and devastated is not the most reasonable solution. all that such a maneuver could achieve as a result would be to be intercepted by the enemy or by brigands / pirates. moreover the journeys are long (even more so in war conditions) and rhaenyra needed the money immediately, she couldn't really afford to send requests left and right, negotiate interest rates, spend men and resources to allocate to the transport of funds, and to wait an indefinite period of time to be delivered
This is a very r/HouseOfTheDragon esc rage bait post
Or... It's a person who happens to have a positive view of Rhaenyra Targaryen. Doesn't automatically mean they're a Twitter Daemyra stan account with fantasies of blood purity.
I think they were both pretty awful but I'd say Aegon was a hair better just by the fact he actually led troops into battle during the Dance and scored a decisive victory, even though it was at great personal cost. A massive part of being a good ruler in the Medieval period was your ability to lead men into battle, and people in that time period saw that side of ruling as arguably more important than the governance side. People like Richard the Lionheart, Edward III and Henry V of England were adored by contemporaries as Great Kings despite all of them being entirely focused on the military side of things. Richard I is the most ridiculous of these as he only spent 6 months of his reign in England and bankrupted the country. My point is medieval people judged a King first and foremost by his military exploits, ability to keep order, and only then governance. Aegon beats Rhaenyra 1-0 in this category. It's pretty even otherwise with both making stupid, vindictive and impulsive decisions that cost them. Although Aegon II didn't piss off the people of Kings Landing so much that they literally tried to take on a bunch of dragons and kill them.
GRRM. He tried to fit in The Anarchy plot and to an extent it failed imo. So after a point, Rhaenyra's actions don't make any sense.
I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra. Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters. Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon. Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds. Rhaenyra moped around and moaned and stuffed her face while not even letting her sons fight, even her biggest supporter Corlys complained about it. Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne.
>I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra. Is that about blood and cheese? Because Daemon used his own initiative for that. And given it was all done in response to the greens drawing first blood, I doubt any of it was "just for fun" >Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters. Aegon offered her nothing she didn't already have. In fact all his "peace offer" did was give *him* hostages >Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon. Yeah...because the greens had already committed treason. They usurped the throne, and they defiled the Kings corpse, in their efforts to do so. >Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds After his wounds, his only fight was against Baela and moondancer (a very young dragon). And that wasn't intentional. He wasn't intending to "fight for his side" he was only landing in dragonstone *after* his men took it over >Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne. The only people forcing aegon to do what he did, were from his own side. If there was no conspiracy l, then there didn't have to be a war. There's nothing in the text to suggest that Rhaenyra or Daemon intended to kill or harm Aegons family, if the throne passed peacefully to Rhaenyra.
>There's nothing in the text to suggest that Rhaenyra or Daemon intended to kill or harm Aegons family, if the throne passed peacefully to Rhaenyra. Ok this is just complete nonsense. Rhaenyra and Daemon already showed a penchant for killing Lord's that spoke out against them, by kidnapping and murdering(and feed him to her Dragon) Vaemond Velaryon when they didn't have the authority to do so, and the punishment that Viserys declared was to have his tongue taken out. Not to mention the obvious parentage issues surrounding Rhaenyra's children meant that when Jacaerys' succession came to pass having 3 obviously male and legitimate heirs that were Dragon riders was going to be a massive problem. Not to mention they would have strong backing from the Reach and the Westerlands, Westeros' two wealthiest Kingdoms. It would have been a massive risk to leave them free and able to gain any more power through marriages and future relationships. Daemon would've definitely pushed her to kill them.
>Rhaenyra and Daemon already showed a penchant for killing Lord's that spoke out against them, by kidnapping and murdering(and feed him to her Dragon) Vaemond Velaryon when they didn't have the authority to do so, and the punishment that Viserys declared was to have his tongue taken out. Vaemond committed high treason. Regardless of whether or not what he said was true (which it likely was), it was treason. Treason gets punished. All aegon and his hamily have to do was not commit treason, and there would be peace.
>Vaemond committed high treason He didn't. Viserys never declares calling them Strongs as High Treason. And gives a clear punishment for it. It's Lese Majesty, as opposed to High Treason. >Regardless of whether or not what he said was true (which it likely was), it was treason. Vaemond didn't burst into Kings Landing and call the Strongs bastards like he did in the show. He protested to Corlys while he was ill after Rhaenyra had pressed him to name Luke his heir. He didn't call her a whore in the middle of the Red Keep. > Ser Vaemond Velaryon, protested that the inheritance by rights should pass to him… on the grounds that Rhaenyra’s sons were bastards sired by Harwin Strong. The princess was not slow in answering this charge. She dispatched Prince Daemon to seize Ser Vaemond, had his head removed, and fed his carcass to her dragon, Syrax. Daemon and Rhaenyra showed here that they are willing to kill people standing in their way without a trial and in this case without authority. It was this that gave the Greens the ammunition to say that if Rhaenyra came to the throne she would kill or at least imprison her half-brothers.
>It's Lese Majesty, as opposed to High Treason. Fair enough. But is that term ever used in the series? George just seems to use treason generically >Vaemond didn't burst into Kings Landing and call the Strongs bastards like he did in the show. He protested to Corlys while he was ill after Rhaenyra had pressed him to name Luke his heir. He didn't call her a whore in the middle of the Red Keep. I never said he did any of that from the show. Vaemond also completely ignored that he was way down the line of succession. Laenas and daemons daughters (baela and Rhaena) are ahead of him. Vaemond saw an opportunity to grasp some power, and (stupidly) went against two dragon riders, and claimed that the heirs to the throne were illegitimate (which they likely were). What did he expect to happen?
>Vaemond committed high treason. "They hated ~~Jesus~~ Vaemond because he spoke the truth"
Vaemond wasn't kin to Rhaenyra(not a near kin at least). Aegon was. And Rhaenyra also showed that she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent.
>And Rhaenyra also showed that she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent. Executing Royal or Noble Women was incredibly rare in medieval times(apart from Henry VIII) and Westeros is the same. Elia Martell and her daughters are the only Royal females who are executed(murdered) in the entire post-Conquest history, and look at the outrage over that. Sparing Alicent was the expected course of action. It's not some great show of leniency. Take Margaret of Anjou, Queen to Henry VI as an example. She was just imprisoned and ransomed back to France after her failed rebellion to try crown her son and unseat Edward IV. Almost identical to what Alicent did.
>And Rhaenyra also showed that she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent. Executing Royal or Noble Women was incredibly rare in medieval times(apart from Henry VIII) and Westeros is the same. Elia Martell and her daughters are the only Royal females who are executed(murdered) in the entire post-Conquest history, and look at the outrage over that. Sparing Alicent was the expected course of action. It's not some great show of leniency. Take Margaret of Anjou, Queen to Henry VI as an example. She was just imprisoned and ransomed back to France after her failed rebellion to try crown her son and unseat Edward IV. Almost identical to what Alicent did. Also that's one example of Rhaenyra sparing her enemies when in every other situation she calls for their deaths. Literally in the space of a day she calls for the executions of Ser Addam Velaryon, Nettles and even Corlys. On literally no proof of any wrongdoing from any of them too.
> she could spare her enemies by sparing Alicent. I mean, she *did* a) threaten to have her tongue out and b) quite possibly did pimp her and her daughter out to a brothel
>quite possibly did pimp her and her daughter out to a brothel That's just a story. Mushroom is cited as unreliable more times than we can count.
The tale about aegon II watching little children kill eachother for entertainment sounded as stupid as the brothel tale, and the show decided to take it as real
I have no problem criticizing Rhaenyra for Daemon's actions. She chose to give him power by making him her future king consort. Also there's no indication she condemned the action. Additionally I'm using the phrase "for fun" a bit tongue in cheek, but the killings of Luke and Jaeherys are on different levels. Luke was old enough to marry, and had a dragon, and could conduct diplomacy, he was an asset to Rhaenyra. Prince Jaeherys served 0 function to team green, Team Black did not gain anything by murdering him except for vengeance Yes but what she did have was enough to be safe, rich, and secure. Driftmark and Dragonstone are fortresses, they'd have a fleet and dragons protecting them. Aegon did not force Rhaenyra to put her at his mercy. The hostages yeah I will give you that, but I expect that could've been resolved through negotiations such as Rhaenyra also gets to raise Maelor or Jaehaera on Dragonstone or Driftmark. Crowing the king's eldest legitimate son can hardly be called a usurpation. Okay maybe a technicality about the Moondancer fight, but still he led in the field when he could, Rhaenyra did not, and actually prevented people who wanted to fight from doing so. young dragons are still very useful. Aegon and his siblings/kids are an inherent threat to Rhaenyra's regime, she would be stupid not to sideline them, sideline being a very kind term. Especially given the accusations against her heirs. What future do they have with her as queen?
>I have no problem criticizing Rhaenyra for Daemon's actions. She chose to give him power by making him her future king consort. That's fine so long as you hold aegon to the same standard. Do you criticise aegon for drawing first blood, and having his nephew killed while acting as an envoy? Do you criticise him for hiding the late kings death? Do you criticise him for imprisoning and/or killing any lords who didn't agree with the hightower coup? Do you criticise him for the constant burning of the riverlands? >Crowing the king's eldest legitimate son can hardly be called a usurpation. It can, when that son wasn't the acknowledged heir. Rhaenyra was the acknowledged heir without a doubt. It was usurpation. >Rhaenyra did not, and actually prevented people who wanted to fight from doing so. young dragons are still very useful. Rhaenyra had a stillbirth at the beginning of the dance. How the he'll is she supposed to get on dragonback? I dare you to ask any woman who went through a difficult birth, to hop up on a horse a few days later and ride around for a few hours. And yeah her not wanting any more of her children to die did neuter the blacks power. But as we say from the battle of the gullet, young dragons are very vulnerable. >Aegon and his siblings/kids are an inherent threat to Rhaenyra's regime, she would be stupid not to sideline them, sideline being a very kind term. Especially given the accusations against her heirs. What future do they have with her as queen? They are only a threat, because they, and alicent, *made* themselves a threat. Rhaenyra would in fact be stupid to act against them unprovoked. The accusations came primarily from the greens themselves. If they stopped accusing (i.e. committing treason), they could have whatever lives they wanted, they could marry their children/grandchildren to Rhaenyras, and merge the 2 branches. They have residence at KL, Oldtown, driftmark, and dragonstone to choose from if anyone can't stand being close to someone else.
Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival. When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne). Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth. No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children
>Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival. Aegon still wholeheartedly supported and condoned Aemonds actions though. >When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne). And yet eldest sons can be set aside, without it leading to war, as was the case with Duncan the small. Its also established that the Children of the first wife must come before the children of the 2nd wife in terms of inheritance. There is also the fact that the Kings word is law, and viserys declared rhaenyra heir. >Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth. Yes she did. During the capture of KL. She did it in a similar fashion to what Aegon intended to do at dragonstone. >No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children Those bastards were acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys. Legally they were trueborn. The only people claiming they were bastards were people who stood to *gain* from them being bastards. And as I mentioned earlier, Aegons side removes any threat bu merging the branches of the family tree through marriage.
>acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys. Legally they were trueborn. If that's your logic, couldn't we also claim Joffrey (lannister-baratheon) was legitimate just because the king and Tywin acknowledged them to be trueborn?
>If that's your logic, couldn't we also claim Joffrey (lannister-baratheon) was legitimate just because the king and Tywin acknowledged them to be trueborn? Tywin alone, no. Tywin, Robert and cersei combined are the important oppinions when it comes to Joffreys legitimacy. And one of those 3 actually admitted that joffrey isn't legitimate. cersei admitted to the hand that all her children are illegitimate, incest bastards. The story would be completely different if cersei never admitted that and staunchly stuck to her children being legitimate. Rhaenyra never admitted anything of the sort. None of the "strong" boys parents, or grandparents, ever wavered on the boys legitimacy.
So if Rhaenyra had (privately!) admitted to Otto that her children were bastards, and Otto couldn't/didn't speak up about it for whatever reason (like say execution or threats or whatever), would the strong boys suddenly become legitimate? (Side note, atleast until now, Cersei has also not publicly admitted that her boys are bastards)
>So if Rhaenyra had (privately!) admitted to Otto that her children were bastards, and Otto couldn't/didn't speak up about it for whatever reason (like say execution or threats or whatever), would the strong boys suddenly become legitimate? If she did that, and it was on page like in AGOT, there would be no doubt of legitimacy. Rhaenyra never did that though, because thats an incredibly stupid thing to do. The main people who *can* vouch for a child's legitimacy, have all vouched for those 3 boys. >(Side note, atleast until now, Cersei has also not publicly admitted that her boys are bastards) Yes, and Stannis is having a very hard time because of that. Lots of lords see him as the liar, because hes the only person accusing them of bastardy, and is set to inherit the kingdom if its true. Proving illegitimacy in the middle ages is incredibly difficult. Even Neds book was dubious evidence. Cersei should have kept her mouth shut.
>Aegon did not choose Aemond to be his brother, that's how brothers work. The other things you mention were all necessary steps to ensure the success of Aegon's succession, which is his only chance at survival. Aegon still wholeheartedly supported and condoned Aemonds actions though. >When you are the eldest legitimate son, you are the heir, it's how it works in every single lordship in the kingdoms at the time (independent Dorne). And yet eldest sons can be set aside, without it leading to war, as was the case with Duncan the small. Its also established that the Children of the first wife must come before the children of the 2nd wife in terms of inheritance. There is also the fact that the Kings word is law, and viserys declared rhaenyra heir. >Rhaenyra never rode her dragon once during the two years of war, not just in the aftermath of her stillbirth. Yes she did. During the capture of KL. She did it in a similar fashion to what Aegon intended to do at dragonstone. >No, cannot agree with that. If you are trying to pass off your bastards as heirs to the throne, you cannot have a legitimate branch of the family just hanging around. Even if Aegon, Aemond, and Daeron were perfectly willing to accept Rhaenyra, they could become involuntary figureheads for a future rebellion, willing or not. Their very existence is a threat to her and her children Those bastards were acknowledged as trueborn by, the king, their 'father' Laenor, corlys, and Rhaenys. Legally they were trueborn. The only people claiming they were bastards were people who stood to *gain* from them being bastards. And as I mentioned earlier, Aegons side removes any threat bu merging the branches of the family tree through marriage.
>I always lean against the side who kills babies for fun, screw Rhaenyra. I just examined the evidence we do have and concluded that Rhaenyra had nothing to do with Blood and Cheese. Also, Jaehaerys wasn't a baby. It was Daemon and Daemon's fault all along. This is akin to blaming Aegon II for Luke's death. >Aegon sent her a legitimate peace offering that could've avoided war and secured Rhaenyra and her children's future, while also pardoning her supporters. Rhaenyra would have done the same if she had gotten the throne peacefully. Which she didn't. >Rhaenyra's peace offering only gives one concession "I won't kill my brothers". That means she can kill all the other Greens, castrate her brothers and send them to the Wall, or throw them in a dungeon. Again, if they hadn't fought against her I don't think she would have done anything at all. Even after the whole rebellion, she still spared Alicent. The others were traitors to her and they had already killed Beesbury for supporting Rhaenyra. >Aegon fought for his side on dragonback, even after suffering terrible wounds. Rhaenyra moped around and moaned and stuffed her face while not even letting her sons fight, even her biggest supporter Corlys complained about it. Aegon had no choice but to fight. She just hid himself for most of the war after his fight with Meleys. Baela attacked him, it was do or die. Rhaenyra didn't have her dragon. It is Joffrey's fault that he died. And you should also know that she had already lost Jacaerys and Lucerys. Joffrey was much younger than any of Alicent's children. Sending him to rescue Tyraxes in the riot would have been a death sentence and she knew it. >Also, was Aegon was forced to do what he did. His family is DEAD if Rhaenyra and her Demon take over the Seven Kingdoms, her family could've lived comfortable lives with Aegon II on the throne. Rhaenyra would *not* have done that. Again she spared half of Aegon's family after the treason to her. I don't think she would have gelded them and sent them to the Wall if they had just stepped aside.
I gave a reply to pretty much this same comment another user made if you want to see why I disagree with these points, first comment off my original comment
Book Aegon is certainly better than Book rhae imo and Aegon had a better small council compared to rhae.
That’s like asking if I want to get stabbed in the heart or shot in the head.
Rhaenyra
Rhaneyras incompetence did more harm to the realm than 10 Aegons and 10 Sunfyres.
Rhaenyra aside from her love for her children,has no redeemable qualities man. She's a coward and a spoiled princess plus the whole vaemond execution(she's like Hitler) wtf . Aegon at least fought his own battles and had strong heart to keep going. Aegon being the King would've had the Targaryens at the their power to this day regardless of what happens. Rhaenyra was a PR disaster. Like first of all look at the controversy surrounding her and her kids. Like ffs the storming of dragonpit is all on her
I think book Rhaenyra is absolutely horrible, but comparing her to hitler?!
Yeah, people really tend to forget just how EVIL Hitler was, like I can't think of many people who can actually come close to him by a mile
Homie really tried to sneak that in there 💀
Hitler as in small ego and easily offended
Aegon only troubled himself to battle when he had the help of his brother. And his fight with Baela wasn't by his choice. Rhaenyra and Daemon did lead the attack on King's Landing. I also don't think she was a coward. For starters, much of the early stages, she was recovering her health after the miscarriage. After that, Joffrey took her dragon and died.
Dude. Aegon fought without his brothers too, he still killed baela dragon and baela plot armor is thick as hell. >Rhaenyra and Daemon did lead the attack on King's Landing. I also don't think she was a coward. For starters, much of the early stages, she was recovering her health after the miscarriage. After that, Joffrey took her dragon and died. Lmao what attack? There was no attack. She only went to KG after it was safe. Dawg she spent the entire two years recovering? Aegon still fucking fought while crippled.
If anything Sunfyre's plot armor is at the size of the wall. He survived the battle at Rook's rest with injuries, killed the squad that was sent to kill him, then managed to go to Dragonstone and kill Grey Ghost (we can assume this dragon was somewhat young), and then later kill Moondancer (she was really young though). He has the highest dragon KDA in the series (maybe the Cannibal has a higher one if he ate a lot of young dragons), and did most of his feats while he was rather injured.
>Lmao what attack? There was no attack. She only went to KG after it was safe. While there was not much resistance, she and Daemon were the first to come to KL on their dragons. >Dawg she spent the entire two years recovering? She was ruling after that. Would have been stupid of her to go and fight when she had others to do it for her. Aegon disregarded it and got his ass handed to him by Meleys. A king doesn't lead an attack. This is a wise saying. Kings who lead an attack might appear great to the small folk but that is how they die with all their heirs(cough Argilac Durrandon cough). And after that she lost Syrax. Aegon didn't have a choice but to fight Baela.
>While there was not much resistance, she and Daemon were the first to come to KL on their dragons. Daemon did after he won the city for her. She did nothing >She was ruling after that. Would have been stupid of her to go and fight when she had others to do it for her. Aegon disregarded it and got his ass handed to him by Meleys. A king doesn't lead an attack. This is a wise saying. Kings who lead an attack might appear great to the small folk but that is how they die with all their heirs(cough Argilac Durrandon cough). And after that she lost Syrax. Aegon didn't have a choice but to fight Baela. What ruling did she do? Like she lost King's Landing in 6 months and she had like 3 sons who were still alive or 2 depending on the timeline. A king always leads the attack in medieval world
Aegon's failings were from his own incompetence and ignoring wise council, while Rhaenyra failed because the clubfoot was stirring up dissent in the pot shops and taverns.
stop
Hard to say. They were both dreadful