#historical parallels
Text
If you’re not aware, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately not bombed with the firebombs that destroyed most of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in 1945 because they were two of a number of cities deliberately selected as locations for atomic bombings.
They wanted a “pristine” test of their new weapon on a previously undamaged city.
The US knew those cities were full of civilian refugees when they bombed them. They had herded them there.
Parallels, huh?
#historical parallels#atomic bombs#hiroshima#nagasaki#palestine#free palestine#gaza under attack#gaza ceasefire now#war crimes#genocide
975 notes
·
View notes
Text
What Laena Velaryon would have worn...
(RENAISSANCE PERIOD)
#hotd#house of the dragon#rhaenyra targaryen#the dance of the dragons#asoiaf#asoif/got#pre asoiaf#history#fantasy#team black#a song of ice and fire#renaissance#renaissance art#renaissance fashion#renaissance era#historical fashion#westeros#historical parallels#parallels#laena velaryon#lady laena#house velaryon
60 notes
·
View notes
Note
I have seen a post comparing Steven's adoption of Henry II in the anarchy with what the Velaryons did with the Strong boys wanting to justify that their claim is legitimate, but in my humble opinion it is not comparable at all. This situation could be extrapolated to Aegon II having adopted his nephew Aegon (that was the LEGITIMATE son of his political rival) having himself a living son, in addition everyone would know that he is not his son and well in this case it would not be applicable but the adopted heir retains his family name...This is not what happens with the Strong boys, It has nothing to do with the modern concept of adoption that they want to apply. I don't understand why it's so hard for them to accept that these guys had no real claim to the throne. They can continue enjoying their characters accepting that they are bastards in every sense of the word. Do you think they are comparable situations?
I haven't seen this argument myself but clearly those are two completely different situations. Stephen didn't adopt Henry II, he made him his heir as a compromise to end to the civil war. And yes, the clear parallel would Aegon II naming Aegon III his heir over Jaehaerys and Maelor, had they survived. Again, this was part of a peace treaty. Everyone knew who Henry II's parents were, and there was no question of his not being trueborn. Henry II was still Count of Anjou, the title he inherited through his father, and styled himself Henry FitzEmpress in honor of his mother.
To understand why this happened, we need to look at some context. Henry II was only 20 when he decided to re-take his mother's throne, and Stephen was past 60. At that point England had been at war off and on for the better part of 15 years and both the clergy and the lords were unenthusiastic about continuing and forced Henry and Stephen to the peace table after Henry made some early gains in his campaign. Stephen respected Henry, and Stephen's own sons were kind of uninspiring as future kings go. Eustace, the older son and main obstacle, died before Stephen did, and the younger son, William, agreed to renounce his claim. Stephen never really took the throne due to strong personal ambition in the first place, but because he was persuaded by people close to him that Matilda would be a poor choice for queen, both due to her being a woman and due to the influence of her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, who was pretty well hated in England. Leaving the throne to his children did not seem to be a major consideration for him when all was said and done. Conceding heirship to Henry II meant that the fighting could come to an end, and the country would be in capable hands, but Stephen himself would not face the humiliation and possible consequences of being outright deposed. As it turned out, Stephen died not even a year later, so Henry II took the throne sooner than expected.
Rhaenyra's Strong children are bastards that she's trying to put into the line of succession while claiming they are trueborn. They were not "adopted" by the Velaryons. The medieval world did not have a concept of adoption like we do in the modern world (Rome did, but not medieval Europe). The reason why it is treason to call them bastards is because what Rhaenyra is doing is illegal, and Viserys, Corlys, and Laenor are shielding her from the consequences. I wrote a post here about the whole idea that Rhaenyra's children are not legally bastards, but I have to admit comparing them to Henry II becoming heir after Stephen is a new one!
#sometimes an ask appears that makes you set aside all other waiting asks and immediately hop on it#asks#historical parallels#hotd discourse#hotd meta#team green#anti team black#anti rhaenyra targaryen
29 notes
·
View notes
Note
Elizabeth of York and Henry VII have always given me jonsa vibes.
Jon’s got a right to the crown in the North through his mother and Sansa through her father. Her claim is stronger, as was Elizabeth’s over Henry’s, since her brothers were assumed to be dead.
Lyanna was a pregnant teen and so was Henry’s mother. Both parents died before the births of their sons. Henry was an only child and so is Jon.
Although Elizabeth herself was not a red headed she had a famous red headed son.
Henry’s father was Welsh and that made him the son of “a dragon”. Henry created the Welsh flag we know, a red dragon over a white and green background and flew it as his personal standard in battle.
Henry was thought by some to be a prophesied hero from the legends of Merlin and Arthur. In reality, he was rather practical, keen to make alliances through marriage, and very careful with money. Like Jon.
Their marriage brought an end to war but it would be their great grandchild, James I, who would finally unite in himself the North (Scotland) and the South (England).
Interesting, isn’t it?
Yes! I thought of you when I added that post to my Q and wondered if you'd written about that before? I know I've read a meta, and you're so good at the historical parallels!
Several people have wondered if, since we're told Bran can't have kids, we're meant to assume that Sansa's child would be his heir/eventually rule Westeros because of Cat's lines back in AGOT:
Her sons could rule from the Wall to the mountains of Dorne. What is so wrong with that? (AGOT, Catelyn II)
which fits really well with this line of spec. I saw another post the other day, a picture of a coin with Elizabeth of York with the inscription that definitely reminded me of Stark maidens/Jonsa:
The latin inscription says: ‘Elizabeth of York wife of Henry VII Queen of England’ (obverse) and ‘Hence have our roses grown’ (reverse). (link)
81 notes
·
View notes
Note
Grrm has said that he considers Queen Alysanne to be the Eleanor of Aquitaine of Westeros. do you like that comparison and/or can find any parallels?
For what it's worth, I tend to take that statement in context - namely, as a direction to the artist Amok on how he, GRRM, envisioned Alysanne. It is perhaps unsurprising that GRRM would reach for Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor in The Lion in Winter as the physical model for his older Alysanne: the 1968 classic featuring a dominating queenly lead would have been right in the young GRRM's wheelhouse, fitting comfortably alongside the midcentury medievalism which seems to have laid the early groundwork in his mind for ASOIAF. (Though in terms of personality, I think Hepburn's Eleanor may be more akin to someone like Olenna Redwyne - the powerful elder woman, sassy, confident, scheming, and ambitious.)
Anyway, I don't see much in the way of very strong parallels between Eleanor and Alysanne. Certainly, both women shared long but sometimes troubled marriages and many children, though these features are hardly unique to Eleanor. Alysanne was not, as Eleanor was, a titled and independent aristocrat in her own right, with an inheritance of her own to return to and rule (what a pity Alysanne did not have her own Poitiers to escape Jaehaerys!). Alysanne did not come to Jaehaerys a (former) queen and mature woman, but was instead a teenage princess (although you might make a thin comparison between Alysanne's attempt to elude a Baratheon marriage by eloping with Jaehaerys and Eleanor's escape from kidnapping and forced marriage to wed Henry II). The marriage of Henry and Eleanor was not, as Jaehaerys and Alysanne's was (at least to begin with) purely an affair of romantic passion but rather a political pact between high-ranking peers. The personal divisions between Jaehaerys and Alysanne were rooted not in spousal infidelity (which Henry practiced so spectacularly) nor filial rebellion, but rather Jaehaerys' violent misogyny. Alysanne's political power was far more limited than Eleanor's ever was, not only because Eleanor had her own properties, but because she was empowered to be regent in the reigns of both her husband and her son Richard. Eleanor was far more active in arranging politically advantageous marriages for her children and granddaughters than Alysanne ever seems to have been (especially since Fire and Blood Volume 1 did little to focus on diplomatic marriages for the Targaryen princes and princesses). Eleanor continued to be active politically and religiously well into widowhood (and indeed survived Henry II by some 15 years), while Alysanne of course predeceased Jaehaerys.
If we are looking for one specific historical source of inspiration as GRRM was creating Alysanne, I think the answer is Philippa of Hainault, especially as depicted in The Accursed Kings - the specifically less than beautiful princess, married for love as a teenager to her likewise teenage groom, a long-serving queen to the (ostensibly) greatest king of his dynasty, mother of a large family and the beau ideal of medieval queenship. (It's perhaps worth noting - and groaning once again - that Maurice Druon himself had nothing kind to say about Eleanor of Aquitaine - not only having his beloved Robert of Artois assert that Eleanor "having made her first husband ... so notorious a cuckold that their marriage was dissolved, took her wanton body and her duchy to" Henry II, but then adding as a "historical note" that Eleanor was "an unfaithful princess, at least to her first husband, the King of France" - assertions that, I need not remind you, have no basis in historical evidence.)
64 notes
·
View notes
Text
The similarities between Julius Caesar’s assassination and the Ides of Marsh are well documented in fandom. It’s also generally agreed that the fall of the Night’s Watch will mirror the fall of the Roman Republic, which was quite ironically brought on by Caesar’s death. But I never see it acknowledged that Julius Caesar, some time after the establishment of Octavian’s Augustus’ rule, became deified (meaning that he was worshipped as a god or to put it bluntly, Julius Caesar ascended to godhood).
What does this have to do with Jon Snow? Well, apotheosis (1, 2) is one of the most important stages that comes towards the end of a hero’s journey. Here, the hero reaches some higher level of understanding or personhood, and this allows them to complete the hardest trials still to come in their journey. We see mental changes, but these could also be accompanied by physical changes. A good example of this in high fantasy is Gandalf’s death and return as Gandalf the White. In other myths and stories, we can point to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In ASOIAF, we have mini versions of this with Bran Stark and Jojen Reed, two children who experience life or death situations but came back with heightened magical power (Bran especially).
Jon Snow is currently at his “journey to the underworld”/“belly of the whale” moment, where he is to (presumably) face his greatest trials. Apotheosis usually comes after this stage (and is often preceded by other stages such as the “meeting of the goddess” and “atonement with the father”, both of which could very well appear in Jon’s journey as he learns of his true identity and purpose).
But what would apotheosis mean for Jon? That’s the key question. He is sure to experience profound mental changes and trauma, but these are sure to be accompanied by great magical changes that manifest physically. In the same way that Bran came out of his coma and started his journey as the last greenseer (well, once Bloodraven kicks the bucket), Jon is sure to come out of his death experience a far more powerful being. The thing is that Jon needs to change into the hero Westeros needs and the magical act of dying and coming back to life should play a role in that.
However, it won’t all be fine and dandy for him. GRRM has criticized Gandalf’s return where he seemingly came back to life better than ever with no great effects. In the same way that Jon is literally experiencing a descent into the underworld (a step that is sometimes figurative for many modern heroes), we can also ascertain that he will experience a very literal ascension into godhood (or the closest thing we have to that in ASOIAF). But magic always comes with a price. And whatever sort of “god” Jon turns into post-resurrection, he won’t be a very pretty one.
#asoiaf#valyrianscrolls#jon snow#I didn’t have space for this in the post but I think we’re bound to see an anti parallel at work with jon and euron greyjoy#euron very much wants to become a god - heck he has a whole spiel about being worshipped like one#but euron will likely be a false god#the way stannis will likely be a false savior#but SOMEONE has to be the real deal right…?#and if you’re like me and you believe jon will attain his hero’s boon - aka lightbringer#then it’s probably gonna be#belly of the whale (death) > meeting the goddess/atonement with the father (learning rlj) >#return to the living > apotheosis > ultimate boon (finally forging lightbringer and proving himself to be azor ahai) > ?? > kinghood/profit#yeah idk#julius caesar#historical parallels#the heros journey#lit analysis
69 notes
·
View notes
Text
#JON SNOW FORTNIGHT EVENT 2023 @asoiafcanonjonsnow
DAY 10: ECHOES OF THE PAST 🗝️📜 (1/2) ->
Historical parallels with Medieval bastard Kings.
Nowadays, ‘bastard’ is used as an insult.
Being born to unmarried parents is largely free of the kind of stigma and legal incapacities once attached to it in Western cultures, but it still has echoes of shame and sin. The disparagement of children born outside of marriage is often presumed to be a legacy of medieval Christian Europe, with its emphasis on compliance with Catholic marriage law.
Yet prior to the 13th century, legitimate marriage or its absence was not the key factor in determining quality of birth. Instead, what mattered was the social status of the parents – of the mother as well as of the father. Being born to the right parents, regardless of whether they were married according to the strictures of the church, made a child seem more worthy of inheriting parents’ lands, properties and titles.
It’s not until the late 12th century that evidence for the exclusion of children from succession on the grounds of illegitimate birth first appears. ‘Bastard’, as we now understand it, began to emerge here.
Importantly, this shift in the meaning and implications of illegitimacy did not arise as an imposition of Church doctrine. Instead, ordinary litigants began exploiting bits of Church doctrine to suit their own ends. Perhaps the earliest signs of this can be found in the annals of English legal history, with the Anstey case of the 1160s. This might have been the first time an individual was barred from inheriting because her parents had married illegally. And it happened not because the Church intervened, but because one clever plaintiff figured out how to exploit some scraps of theological doctrine. After that time, more and more plaintiffs began to do the same.
For example, towards the end of the 12th century, a regent countess of Champagne rushed to make use of an allegation of illegitimate birth against her nieces, in an effort to secure her son’s succession. Daughters could inherit in this region, and so these sisters did have a claim to the county once ruled by their late father. But the regent countess denounced the sisters as the product of an illegal marriage and therefore not legitimate heirs of their father. The strategy worked in that both daughters did eventually renounce their claims to the county, but not without first obtaining a great deal of money, enough to make them both extremely wealthy. As this suggests, the papacy had a far more passive role than is often imagined.
As bastardy began to acquire its modern meaning, in the early 13th century, it remained the case that the papacy focused on the regulation of illicit unions rather than the exclusion from succession or inheritance of those born to illicit unions. Hatred of illicit sex did trump dynastic politics on occasion. Hatred of the children born to such unions did not. There is very little evidence to suggest that an interest in keeping illegitimate children from inheriting noble or royal title outweighed political or practical considerations in the same way that the policing of illegal marriages sometimes did.
Understanding the changing meanings of bastardy helps us to arrive at a clearer picture of the workings and priorities of medieval society before the 13th century. Society then did not operate subject to rigid Christian canon law rules. Instead, it measured the value of its leaders based on their claims to celebrated ancestry, and the power attached to that kind of legitimacy. To be sure, marrying legitimately certainly received a good deal of lip service throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, in this pre-13th-century world, the most intense attention was paid not to the formation of legitimate marriages, but to the lineage and respectability of mothers. Only beginning in the second half of the 12th century did birth outside of lawful marriage begin to render a child illegitimate, a ‘bastard’, and as such potentially ineligible to inherit noble or royal title.
Source
Well, George R.R. Martin has been using real life historical events as an inspiration for creating the lore of A Song of Ice and Fire, more concretely English and Western Late Medieval Europe history for Westeros, and it was precisely in the Late Middle Ages when the legal situation for bastards worsened by reinforcing marriage and legitimacy laws, reinforcing concubinates to disappear and laws to avoid any kind of polygamy.
In Westerosi society there's the stigma that comes from being born as a bastard, they're said to be born from lust, lies, and weakness, and as such, they are said to be wanton and treacherous by nature, and although they could get some prominent position either in the Citadel, the Kingsguard, Night's Watch or the Faith, they are generally discriminated by other Westerosi (except in Dorne, where there's tolerance towards bastards) and they rarely inherit his father's titles nor become kings. In the Asoiaf lore, there's recording of a bastard of a Bracken and a Blackwood, Benedict Waters, who founded the House of Justman and became King of the Trident as Benedict I; as well as Alyn Velaryon, a Velaryon bastard who was legitimised and became Lord of the Tides after The Dance of Dragons.
Till the events of the published books, Jon has reached the position as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and King Beyond the Wall in all but in name, two positions he has been chosen for.
But he would not have the possibility to inherit any title as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North/King in the North as a bastard, unless someone legitimised him, like Robb did in his Will. Jon has the chance of standing as a candidate for the Northern Succession Council after defeating the Boltons.
So, if The North stays away from the Iron Throne, Jon would be a good candidate for Lord of Winterfell and King in The North, but the question is... Is there any historical example of bastards who became kings?
Yes, there are, and in this meta we're going to down through history and remember those kings. This list probably doesn't include all of the bastard kings, just a selection, if you know about some more, feel free to share it.
The most common concept for bastardy is a child born of parents who were not married when the child was born, so firstly we'll list a few kings who are included in that group, as we consider Jon as Eddard Stark's bastard or Rhaegar and Lyanna's.
Their circumstances in which those kings got to throne are diverse, but we'll get into them searching for any simmilarities between Jon's story and their lifes.
Let's start, the list is on chonological order, and we'll notice that after the 13th century the amount of bastard kings is less, like we cited at the beginning of this meta.
8th Century
-> Mauregato I of Asturias (719-788), who reigned during the late 8th century, between 783 and 788, and was the son of Alfonso I of Asturias and a Muslim concubine or servant named Sisalda. He took the throne when the nobility had declared his nephew Alfonso II of Asturias as Silo's successor, although he probablyhad support of some parts of the nobility. He wed Creusa and had a son with her, Hermenegildo. Bermudo I was elected as King of Asturias after Mauregato died.
The identity of Mauregato's mother is a bit unclear, but her being a Muslim servant is considered a common statement, so his parents followed religions, Christianism and Islam, like Rhaegar and Lyanna, the Faith and the Old Gods.
Plus as happened to Mauregato, Jon may have some problems of nobles in the Northern Great Council because he's bastard and the other candidates would have support for being legimate, although they are kids, they would need a regent, that could be beneficial for them to control the North if they want to, but maybe some other members of the Council suggest or support Jon as their leader.
11th Century
-> Ramiro I of Aragon (1006/7-1063), natural son of Sancho III of Pamplona and Sancha de Aybar. His father Sancho splited his domains and passed down one of them to his sons; from the offspring she had with his wife Muniadona of Castile: García III inherited the Kingdom of Pamplona, Ferdinand I of Leon inherited the county of Castile and Gonzalo inherited the counties of Ribagorza & Sobrarbe; and Ramiro received the county of Aragon, and he annexed the counties of Ribagorza & Sobrarbe Gonzalo died. He unified the three counties to create the Kingdom of Aragon. His relationship with his siblings was complex, due to the rivalry between them for their kingdoms, initially Ramiro tried to conquer Pamplona but he was defeated by García III, and later Ramiro allied with García and his son Sancho IV against Ferdinand I.
His reign lasted 28 years.
Ramiro married Ermesinda of Foix and Agnes of Aquitaine, their offspring was: Sancho I of Aragon & V of Pamplona, Sancha, García, Urraca and Theresa, and he had a son named Sancho out of wedlock.
-> Magnus I " the Good" of Norway and Denmark (1024 - 1047), son of Olaf II of Norway and English concubine named Alvhild. His reign lasted 12 years. When he was 4 year old, his father was dethroned by Cnut the Great, and then his family travelled through other courts seeking shelter but finally they stablished in at the court of the Grand Prince Yaroslav I of Novgorod, where he grew up, was trained as a warrior and was educated in Old Russian and Greek. Olaf was killed when he reurned to Scandinavia to fight for the throne. When Cnut left for England wife Ælfgifu and their son Svein as regents, Magnus and his supporters return to Norway and he was proclaimed king of Norway. Another son of Cnut, Harthacnut of Denmark, reclaimed Norway, but after Harthacnut died Magnus took his kingdom, but he had to face another pretender Sweyn II, Cnut's nephew, whom Magnus battled against using his father's battle axe, Hel, and he was successful, but died, and Sweyn II succeeded him as King of Denmark and Harald III as King of Norway.
-> William I the Conqueror (1028-1087), illegitimate son of Duke Robert I of Normandy and Herleva of Falaise. He was duke of Normandy and conqueror and king of England.
He started the conquest of England after his cousin, Edward the Confessor died without issue, and Harold II inherited the English throne, but he was defeated and William became the first king of England of the House of Normandy.
William and his wife Matilda of Flanders had 9 children: Robert I of Normandy, Richard, William II of England, Henry I ofEngland, Adelaide, Cecily, Matilda, Constance and Adela .
William seems to be the inspiration for Aegon I the Conqueror and his bastard brother Orys Baratheon, but he could have in common with Jon in becoming kings after their cousins died without issue (i.e. Robb) and having to defeat someone else to become kings, i.e. Jon helping Stannis to defeat the Boltons.
-> Harald III "Hen" of Denmark (1040-1080), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark and a concubine, Thora.
After Sweyn II died, Harald got elected over his brother Cnut by an assembly, and faced opposition from his brothers during his reign. He ruled over 6 years, he's known to be a peaceful ruler and introduced some monetary and legal reforms like substituting trial by combat or trial by ordeal and replace it with avsystem used by the English of calling upon honorable men to swear oaths on behalf of the parties in a trial.
Harald was married to his cousin Margareta Hasbjörnsdatter, but did not leave any heirs, and was succeeded by his brother Canute IV.
-> Cnut IV "the Holy" of Denmark (1040-1086), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine. He succeeded his brother Harald.
Cnut is considered an ambitious and strict king, ruled during 6 years, limited the power of the nobility, gave great concession and donations to the Church, and took the property of a great quantity of common land for himself or the Church. He raided England a few times and created a fleet to invade it, since he considered William I an usurper, but on his way to lead the invasion, he was killed during a peasant revolt.
After he died, he was succeeded by his brother Olaf I of Denmark.
Cnut married Adela of Flanders. They had three children: Charles I of Flanders and the twin sisters Cæcilia and Ingerid. Ingerid's descendants, the House of Bjelbo, would ascend to the throne of Sweden and Norway and Canute IV's blood returned to the Danish throne in the person of Olaf II of Denmark.
->Olaf I "Hunger" of Denmark (c. 1050 – 1095) illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
In his early years he was set aside and mistreatred and exiled by his brothers, who Ferrer he could be a political rival against them.
He succeeded his brother Cnut IV, and his reign lasted 9 years, that were plagued by several consecutive years of crop failure and famine.
Olaf married Ingegard of Norway, they didn't have any offspring, so he was succeeded by his brother Erik I.
11th Century/12th Century
-> Erik I " Evergood" of Denmark (c. 1060 – 1103), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
When he was young he was a supporter of his brother Cnut IV. After Olaf died, Erik was elected as new king.
Erik reign lasted 8 years, he was well liked by people, he was considered a strapping young man and a good speaker and diplomat, and ruthless towards pirates and robbers. Erik had a reputation as a loud man who liked parties, and even killed four of his men while he was drunken during one of his parties, and so he procced to go on pilgrimsge to Holy Land, journey in which he died. His brother Niels succeeded him.
Erik married Boedil Thurgotsdatter and had one legitimate son with her, Canute Lavard, father of Vademar I of Denmark. Eric had four children out of wedlock, Erik II of Denmark, Benedict, Harald Kesja and Ragnhilde, mother of Erik III of Denmark.
-> Niels I of Denmark (c. 1065 – 25 June 1134) illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine. He was the last son of Sweyn to become king.
He was described as mild and forthcoming, though not a competent ruler.
Niels married Margaret Fredkulla, and had two children with her, Inge Nielsen and Magnus I of Sweden. He had a daughter born out of wedlock, Ingerd of Denmark.
During the majority of Niels' reign, 30 years, Denmark had internal peace, only broken when his son Magnus was forced from the Swedish throne and a conflict erupted between Magnus and his cousin Cnut Lavard, due to his popularity. After Magnus slew Cnut, Erik II took his brother's place in the conflict, and Niels supported Magnus.
Niels and Magnus died during the civil war and Erik II became king of Denmark.
-> Erik II "the Memorable" of Denmark (c. 1090– 1137 ), illegitimate son of Eric I of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
Erik the Memorable rebelled against his uncle Niels, and was declared king in 1134.
He punished his adversaries severely, and rewarded his supporters handsomely, as he was considered a harsh and unpopular ruler, he only ruled Denmark 3 years. He was killed by a subject in 1137 and was promptly succeeded by his nephew Erik III of Denmark.
Erik married Malmfred of Kiev, they had no issue, but Erik had a son with his concubine Thunna, Sweyn III of Denmark.
12th Century
-> Sweyn III of Denmark (1125-1157), illegitimate son of Erik II of Denmark and a concubine named Thunna.
He was elected king after Erik III of Denmark abdicated.
In 1154, Sweyn was overthrown by an alliance between Canute and Valdemar, who was crowned Canute's co-ruler as Valdemar.
This prompted the Danish magnates to force through a tripartition of the kingdom into Jutland, Zealand, and Scania. Sweyn chose first, and was made the ruler of Scania.
After that Sweyn organised apeace banquet, in which Sweyn planned on killing his two co-rulers, and succeeded in having Canute killed, but Valdemar escaped. After that Valdemar and Sweyn battled, Sweyn was killed while he was scaping from the battle. Valdemar I was proclaimed king of all Denmark.
Sweyn married Adela of Meissen, daughter of Conrad, Margrave of Meissen, and Luitgard of Ravenstein. They had two children Erik and Luitgard, who married Berthold I of Istria.
->Tancred I of Sicily ( 1138 – 1194), or Tancred of Lecce, illegitimate son of Roger III, duke of Apulia, eldest son of Roger II of Sicily, and his mistress Emma of Lecce.
Tancred was born in Lecce and inherited the county from his grandfather.
With his bastard uncle Simon plotted to remove William II, legitimate son of Roger II, but failed and went to exile.
Years after, Tancred returned to Sicily he swore fealty to his aunt Constance I as William II's heiress, Tancred rebelled and was crowned as King of Sicily. Constance I and her husband the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV fought against Tancred. Tancred died during the war after 5 years of reign, and was briefly succeeded by his son William III, who was soon captured and executed by orders of Henry IV.
Tancred had married Sybilla of Acerra, an their children were: Roger III, William III, Elvira, Constance, Medania and Valdrada.
13th Century
->Manfred I of Sicily (1232 – 1266), natural son of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II with Bianca Lancia, legitimised later by his father.
Manfred became regent over the kingdom of Sicily on behalf of his nephew Conradin. As regent he subdued rebellions in the kingdom, until in 1258 he usurped Conradin's rule. After an initial attempt to appease Pope Innocent IV he took up the ongoing conflict between the Hohenstaufens and the papacy through combat and political alliances. He defeated the papal army at Foggia. Manfred was excommunicated by three successive popes, Manfred was the target of a Crusade called by the Popes Alexander IV and Urban IV.
Urban received the help of Charles of Anjou in overthrowing Manfred. Manfred was killed during his defeat by Charles at the Battle of Benevento, and Charles became King of Sicily as Charles I after having executed Conradin.
Manfred had married Beatrice of Savoy and Helena Angelina Doukaina, their children were Constance II of Sicily, Beatrice, Henry, Anselm and Frederick. He also had an illegitimate daughter, Flordelis.
His daughter Constance II married Peter III of Aragon, and with their supporters in the island of Sicily fought against Charles I, who, of the whole kingdom (the Kingdom of Sicily in that period was formed by Naples and the island of Sicily) now controlled only Naples, and Constance II and her children gained Sicily, that later became part of the Crown of Aragon, and their descendants Kings of Aragon annexed Naples some generations later, and Naples and Sicily were ruled by the same king again under the reigns of Alfonso V and his nephew Ferdinand II of Aragon & his descendants.
14th Century
-> Henry II "the Fratricidal" of Castile (1334-1379), or Henry of Trastámara, illegitimate son of Alfonso XI of Castile and his mistress Leonor de Guzmán.
Henry was the fourth of ten illegitimate children of King Alfonso XI of Castile and Eleanor de Guzmán, a great-granddaughter of Alfonso IX of León. He was born a twin to Fadrique Alfonso, Lord of Haro, and was the first boy born to the couple that survived to adulthood.
At birth, he was adopted by Rodrigo Álvarez de las Asturias. Rodrigo died the following year and Henry inherited his lordship of Noreña. His father later made him Count of Trastámara and lord over Lemos and Sarria in Galicia, and the towns of Cabrera and Ribera, which constituted a large and important heritage in the northwest of the peninsula. It made him the head of the new Trastámara dynasty, a bastard branch from the Castilian branch of House Burgundy.
Alfonso XI gave Eleanor many titles and privileges for their children. This caused discontent among many of the noblemen and in particular the queen, Maria of Portugal, and her son Peter I of Castile.
When Peter I succeeded his father, Henry and his siblings revolted several times and were on a intermittent wars during Peter I's reign, in which Henry was supported by Peter IV of Aragon and Charles V of France.
Henry had numerous lovers, Leonor Álvarez, Elvira Íñiguez, Beatriz Fernández, Beatriz Ponce de León y Jérica, Juana de Sousa, Juana de Cárcamo and Juana de Cifuentes, and had in total 13 bastard children: Alfonso, Eleanor, Joanna, Constance, Ferdinand, Mary, Fadrique, Beatrice, Henry, Peter, Isabella, Inés and Joanna.
Henry married Juana Manuel de Villena and they had three children, John I of Castile, Eleanor and Joanna.
In 1369 Henry II defeated and killed his brother Peter I, and became the first king of House Trastámara. During his 10 year reign he faced opposition from Ferdinand I of Portugal and Constance of Castile, Peter I's daughter, and her husband John of Gaunt. Henry II was succeeded by his son John I of Castile
Due to his alliance with Peter IV of Aragon, John I of Castile wed Peter's daughter, Eleanor of Aragon, two of his children were Henry III of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, and so House Trastámara ruled over the Crowns of Castile and Aragon.
14th Century/15th Century
->John I "of Fond Memory" or "the Great" or "the Good" of Portugal (1357-1433), John of Avis, natural son of Peter I of Portugal and Teresa Guille Lourenço. He's the founder and first king of House of Avis, bastard branch from the Portuguese branch of House Burgundy.
His first important charge was Great Master of the Order of Avis, and years after, when Succession Crisis broke out, John ended up being crowned as King of Portugal. John I ruled Portugal over 48 years, the most extensive reign of all Portuguese monarch, and m9st of its reign was able to rule in peace and concentrate on the economic development and territorial expansion. He was succeeded by his son Edward I of Portugal.
It maybe a coincidence, but it's interesting the contrast between Jon and Ramsay, both being Northern bastards, but Ramsay it's like the personification of the Westerosi prejudices against bastards, Ramsay Bolton was legitimised and became his father's heir because he (allegedly) poisoned and killed his trueborn brother Domeric, meanwhile Jon will be KITN because Robb died due to the Bolton-Frey treason and in his will he legitimised and declared Jon as his heir, and in that way there's the parallel between Jon and Ramsay and John I of Portugal and Henry II of Castile, John seemed to have a good relationship with his brother Ferdinand I of Portugal and after the Succession war he became the next king, and Henry II didn't get along with his brother Peter I and he became king after he killed him.
This is a brief introduction, the next part of the meta it'll be dedicated fully to John I of Portugal and his parallels with Jon Snow.
15th Century
->Ferdinand I of Naples (1423-1494), illegitimate son of Alfonso V of Aragon and his mistress Gueraldona Carlino. Ferdinand I of Naples was named after his grandfather Ferdinand I of Aragon, first king of Crown of Aragon from House Trastámara.
His father had conquered Naples after defeating René I and stablished in Naples during most of the rest of his life there since he left in charge his wife and cousin Mary of Castile and his brother John for the government of Aragon when he was away in Italy. Alfonso didn't have legitimate children, he only had three children with his mistress, Ferdinand being the eldest.
So, Alfonso managed to declare his son as heir of Naples, with some alliances with the local nobility, like a marriage between Ferdinand and Isabella of Chiaramonte, and the rest of the Crown of Aragon was inherited by John II of Aragon.
Ferdinand I had to face opposition from foregain royalty and nobility and some local barons who didn't accept Ferdinand' reforms and ambitions and because he was a bastard and he limited they power, and often allied against him, like Pope Callixtus III, John of Anjou, Mariano Marzano, the Angevines, his cousin Charles of Viana (John's II eldest son, although John II accepted his nephew's kingship), among others.
John II of Aragon sent a fleet to support of his nephew against the Angevines, and when the Catalan nobility offered the Aragonese crown to René I during the Catalan civil war, sent troops in support.
Ferdinand had married Isabella of Taranto and his cousin Joanna of Aragon, their offspring was Alfonso II of Naples, Eleanor, Frederick I of Naples, John, Beatrice, Francesco and Joanna, who married his nephew Ferdinand II of Naples.
He had several children with his mistresses Diana Guardato, Marchesella Spitzata, Piscicella Piscicelli, Eulalia Ravignano and Giovannella Caracciolo: Mary, Joanna, Ilaria, Henry, Mary, Alonso, Cesare, Maria Cecilia, Lucrezia, Ferdinand, Mary and Joanna.
He was a very passionate man, he had an almost pathological attraction towards young women and, despite the numerous lovers and concubines, he loved very much his wife Isabella of Taranto, a woman of exceptional virtues, whose death greatly afflicted him. As a father he was very present and very fond of his offspring, especially known is the strong affection shown for his daughters.
Despite the odds, Ferdinand I ruled Naples during 36 years and brought peace and prosperity to Naples, although he had to deal with opponent powers like the Ottoman Empire, France, the Republic of Venice and the Papal States.
He was one of the most influential and feared monarchs in Europe at the time and an important figure of the Italian Renaissance, Ferdinand promoted Renaissance culture and art with his patronage, surrounding himself with numerous artists and writers who flourished in his kingdom, introducted the art of silk and printing, the King showed enthusiasm for music and established in Naples the first musical school in Italy and one of the first in Europe. Ferdinand expanded the very rich royal library founded by his father in Castel Capuano and grow at an impressive rate, thanks to purchases, gifts and the confiscation of the collections of the rebel barons.
He issued various social laws that undermined the excessive power of the Barons, favoring small artisans and peasants. This work of modernization and the resistance he put up against them led to the outbreak of the famous revolt which was subsequently suffocated.
Recognized as one of the most powerful political minds of the time, a very skilled diplomat, stablished the hegemony of Naples over other Italian states, and a dense network of alliances and relationships with Italian and foreign sovereigns, through marriages of his illegitimate and legitimate and children.
After Ferdinand died he was succeeded by his son Alfonso II of Naples, who in turn abdicated very soon in favor of his own son Ferdinand II of Naples.
To expand the list, there's another case of bastardy, in which their parents' marriage was declared null or invalid, if we're considering the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna secretly and it could be considered invalid because Rhaegar was already married to Elia and maybe the lack of credible witness make that the wedding could be considered questionable, so for a great sector of the society would be considered a bastard (i.e. The Faith).
9th Century/10th Century
->Athelstan of England (894-939), first king of England, son Edward of Wessex and Egwina. Their parents married, but due to his mother low status, their marriage got annulled. Athelstan succeeded to the throne of Wessex after his brother King Ethelweard, son of Edward and Ælfflæd of Wessex, died.
Aethelstan is known for being a great diplomat, strategist and reformer, created a strong system of alliances, istarted being king of Wessex and anexxed the other six English kingdoms: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Sussex and Essex. He never wed and ha no children, so after he died, his brother Edmund I, eldest son of Edward and his third wife, Edgiva, succeeded him.
The English Heptarchy seems to be the inspiration for the Seven Kingdoms, and it's an interesting datail that a bastard from a kingdom, started becoming king of that kingdom and then he ruled the seven kingdoms , as Jon could be proclaimed King in the North, for fighting the Others, he'll have to try to convince and unify the rest of Westeros to survive the War for the Dawn.
11th Century
->Harold I of England (1016-1040), son of Cnut the Great, King of Denmark, Norway, Sweden & England, and Ælfgifu Ælfhelmsdotter. His parents got married by the Danish law, but once Cnut converted to Cristianism and conquered England, married Emma of Normandy, who was considered as his only wife by the Church. Harthacnut, son of Cnut and Emma, left Harold as regent of England while he was away, and later Harold was proclaimed king of England. Harold ruled for four years and sixteen weeks, when he died, Harthacnut took the control of the English throne. Harold married Ælfgifu, and had a son, Ælfwine, but he became a monk.
One of the speculations within the fandom about Rhaegar and Lyanna is that there could have been a secret wedding, maybe it could have been in front of a weirwood in the Isle of Faces following the Northern wedding custumes, in contrast of Rhaegar marring Elia by the Faith of the Seven ceremony.
12th Century/13th Century
->Ferdinand III " the Saint" of Castile ( 1199/1201 – 1252), son of Alfonso IX of Leon and Berenguela I of Castile, their marriage was annulled due to the consanguinity between them. He's the first king of the Crown of Castile, his reign lasted 35 years. Ferdinand III married Beatrice of Swabia and Joan of Dammartin. His children were: Alfonso X "The Wise" of Castile, Fadrique, Ferdinand, Eleonor, Berenguela, Henry, Philip, Manuel, Mary, Ferdinand, Eleonor, Louis, Simon and John.
13th Century/14th Century
->Ferdinand IV "the Summoned" of Castile (1285 - 1312), son of Sancho IV of Castile and Maria de Molina, their marriage got annulled due to consanguinity and because Sancho was betrothed to another woman, although Pope Boniface VIII legitimised Sancho and Maria union when Ferdinand IV was already king. His reign lasted 16 years. Ferdinand IV married Constance of Portugal, their children were: Alfonso XI of Castile and Eleonor of Castile, wife of Alfonso IV of Aragon.
15th Century
-> Edward V of England (1470-1483), eldest son of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. His siblings and him were declared as bastards by their uncle Richard III alleged that Edward and Elizabeth was null because there was a promise of marriage from Edward IV to Eleanor Talbot, to get his nephew out of succession. He didn't married and had children since he was 12 when he died.
In this case, Edward V's circumstances seems to have inspired Joffrey's as well as Young Griff and Bran's partially. Stannis states that Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are bastards and claims to be the rightful king of Westeros, like Richard III did with his brother's children and now he's trying to make it to the Iron Throne; Bran's part could be inspired by the Princes in the Tower event, in which Edward and his younger brother Richard were imprisioned and probably killed by orders of their uncle, and there were rumors during the following years that maybe one of the brothers scaped, fuelled with pretenders who claimed to be some of the princes, like Perkin Warbeck. In ASOIAF, Theon captures Winterfell and kills the miller's sons to pretend he has killed Bran and Rickon, although they had escaped and in the future the rest of The North is going to know they alived when they return to Winterfell; Young Griff claims to be Aegon VI, Rhaegar and Elia's baby son who was murdered by The Mountain during the Sack of King's Landing
In summary, after reading about the lives of these kings on the list, in many of them we can note the pattern of being elected in an assembly like the Danish kings or having to face adversaries that undermine their positions as kings for being bastards, sometimes by other relatives pretenders or the Church, like happened to most of them. And those are a couple of events that may happen to Jon in the future books, his rising to kingship probably being elected at the Northern Assembly, probably making negotiatons with the supporters of his other siblings i.e. Rickon being supported by the Manderlys, Sansa by Littlefinger and the Vale etc, but Jon could have the support of the Mountain Clans, the Mormonts, the Glovers, House Thenn and The Free Folk.
The meta doesn't end here, for the parallels between Jon and John I of Portugal click here.
#jonsnowfortnightevent2023#jonsnowfortnightevent#jon snow#day 10#echoes of the past#medieval bastard kings#historical parallels#canonjonsnow#canonjon#asoiaf meta#jon snow meta#william the conqueror#john i of portugal#tancred i of sicily#magnus i of norway#cnut iv of denmark#eric ii of denmark#svend iii of denmark#manfred i of sicily#ferdinand i of naples#henry ii of castile#ramiro i of aragon#mauregato i of asturias#harold i of england#ferdinand iii of castile#ferdinand iv of castile#aethelstan of england#olaf i of denmark#niels i of denmark#harald iii of denmark
64 notes
·
View notes
Text
Vyacheslav Chornovil, 1999 | Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, 2022.
128 notes
·
View notes
Text
on historical context, medieval europe vs westeros:
GRRM cites the War Of The Roses and several Tudor-era figures as being inspirational for his Westeros, a semi-medieval fantasy europe. inspiration does not require accuracy but historical "fact" oft used as justification for Certain Things. sadly, commonly believed history is seldom representative of historic fact & historic fact is ever being relearned: as more sources are discovered and taken into account, our understanding of history grows, better knowing how history was LIVED rather than how these histories were written down.
so let's look at how GRRM's Westeros fares in historic context as opposed to historic "fact".
CW: potential spoilers for ASOIAF, reference to dubcon & no con, reference to child brides, brief references to historic christianity.
first off, one of GRRM's named inspirations for Westeros &, specifically, the War of the Five Kings, is the "War of the Roses". This conflict was 30-ish years of civil war in 15th century england, ending with the establishment of the Tudor Dynasty: the most famous Tudors were its last two monarchs, Henry VIII & Elizabeth I (his 2nd daughter by his 2nd wife, Anne Boleyn). The Tudors ruled England from the late 15th century 'til the start of the 17th century, having 5 monarchs in total.
my post prior to this was a reblog regarding the character Juliet Capulet from Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet", specifically her age (~14) and how understanding her age, in the context of 16th century europe, is the basis of the entire play: the play was written & performed as a tragedy and the context is greatly lost when translating the work through 500 years of retellings, societal shift, and linguistic difference. Shakespeare's plays were written in the 16th century, during the reign of Elizabeth I, and were hugely popular in that time: thusly it can be intuited that the average 16th century londoner found plays like Romeo & Juliet to reflect the morals, opinions and issues relevant to themselves and their society as a whole.
so. Juliet was the tragic heroine of Romeo & Juliet: she was 14. i will edit in a link to the post i'm referencing (which contextualizes how medieval europe viewed consent, marriage, and un/healthy maternity).
link: https://at.tumblr.com/hollowwhisperings/concerning-juliets-age/ybxrn3dtaesf
in Westeros, betrothing children from birth is not uncommon: marriage, however, is generally held off until both parties come of age. the exceptions to this exist almost entirely amongst the highborn (give or take a Tysha) and are considered Scandalous (unless you're a Targaryen or a ruthless politician). rather than medieval england or europe, the morality & maturity of the characters in ASOIAF reflect or are contrasted with the modern West (the english speaking populaces of North America, western europe, and Commonwealth countries): in Westeros, a female's consent is an afterthought or is left entirely unconsidered in a marriage. this is hugely contradictory to both catholic & tudor views on marriage, wherein female consent was considered both spiritually and medically important: marriage was a sacred institution and the good health of a wife was an important consideration. it was (& remains) the case that females who had reached maturity had fewer difficulties during their pregnancies and had healthier children; in a time of high infant mortality, it was found that children were more likely to survive infancy if they had a living mother to support them. since the endurance of a family relied on legitimate children having legitimate children, it was thusly logical to ensure that any wife was healthy & content during her marriage.
meanwhile in Westeros, girls and mature women of the noble houses (most especially & egregiously in the royal family) are consistently pressured into pregnancies (against both modern & medieval medical advice) well before they are physically mature.
there are no POV characters, thus far, in ASOIAF who are lowborn women, few secondary characters of such status & fewer still who have "typical" life experience: Daenerys has no reference for maturity beyond hypotheticals and the varying views of her advisors, living in a context of institutionalized slavery, and is a queen by conquest; Sansa is a political hostage, Arya a runaway; Brienne is a social pariah; Melissandre is a cult leader & sorceress; Cersei married into royalty; Gilly's homelife would be considered universally horrific by every society thus encountered (Free Folk, Northerners, Southron folk, Dornish, and the Dothraki would all condemn/execute Craster: it is likely that even the most traditional Ironborn would consider Craster a monster).
There are several girls (and a few boys) who are wed while very young during the ASOIAF series itself: Daenerys Stormborn (13) to Khal Drogo ("young"), 1 child born premature & stillborn; Sansa Stark (~12) to Tyrion Lannister (~27), unconsumated; Ermesande Hayford (2) to Tyrek Lannister (~14), unconsumated; Tommen I (~8) to Margaery Tyrell (~16), unconsumated; Jeyne Pool (~14) to Ramsay Bolton (~18). all these marriages were politically inspired, scandalous and genuinely dangerous (albeit unexpectedly in the case of Lady Hayford: the disappearance of her husband has proven her to be resilient and firm on the subject of naptimes).
prior to ASOIAF, there are the weddings of Rhaella Targaryen (~12) to Aerys II (~14), Tysha (13) to Tyrion Lannister (13), and of Lysa Tully (~17) to Jon Arryn (~72). both Rhaella & Lysa had traumatic, premature pregnancies and chronic health issues, reproductive & otherwise. of Tysha we can only assume that, if she survived at all, she likely suffered great & permanent injury to her person.
(i will note that, at the time of Lysa Arryn's becoming pregnant by him in 282 AC, Petyr Baelish was both 14 and very drunk)
There is a consistent disregard for female consent in Westeros, attitudes more reflective of modern societies & expectations than those of medieval europe. That said, it is also true that House Targaryen's marriage practices seem referential to similar practices in Ancient Egypt. I am as yet unfamiliar with the many thousands of years of [Dynastic Egypt] save its very last, the Ptolemaic. The Ptolemys were consistently incestuous though the extent is difficult to ascertain due to the lack of surviving records, multiple wars civil & otherwise likely affecting which records did & did not survive, the likely practice of adopting children of one's spouse [to claim credit?/legitimize the most promising?/?i'm guessing based on imperial china which was contemporary but far removed & kept its incest scandals between step-relatives, i need to do more research]... i am similarly lacking in knowing Roman history (though it, at least, consists of a much shorter time span to read up on than the millennias of imperial China or dynastic Egypt) but its mythology is as incestuous as that of the more popular pantheons throughout Egypt's ancient period, if not more so due to the frequent infidelity of Greco-Roman deities versus their decidedly monogamous Egyptian neighbours. It will be Interesting to compare House Targaryen to the Ptolemaic Dynasty, especially given the easy parallels to be found between Daenerys Stormborn and Cleopatra VII. There is much tinfoil possible in finding any similarities or allusions to Elizabeth I & her sister, Mary I ("queen of scots" in name, largely french in practice), their written histories potentially foreshadowing the fates of Daenerys and Young Griff (or Jon Snow).
This post ran away with its premise rather quickly but hopefully it has provided room for thought & critique. If I disappear before posting a compilation post on the Life Expectancies of Targaryen Kings, assume i have gotten stuck in a family tree somewhere in the centuries BC.
#valyrianscrolls#asoiaf meta#women in asoiaf#historical accuracy#medieval europe#historical parallels#rhaella targaryen#daenerys stormborn#sansa stark#jeyne poole#lysa tully#ermesande hayford#tommen i#tysha#cleopatra vii#elizabeth i
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Fucked up shit happening with Israel, the Palestine and Gaza
I don't actually feel qualified to say something to the situation, but I have to say something. For my own peace of mind if for nothing else. So here have my somewhat disjointed rambling about the situation.
I don't claim to now the history or anything substatial about the violent conflict in israel and the Gaza. I would actually not care, if our world would not be as connected as it is.
Honest disclaimer, I don't have much to do with any side of this, so what I am saying is my opinion that I fomred only from the media I have consumed. The News in my country and the things flying over my tumbler page. That said, I think I can form an honest oppinion regardless.
First, it is genocide and absolutly dehumanizing and an heinous act to cut of everything and then bomb the whole landstrip without pause. It is inhumen to deny the civillians help and to cut off any resource needed for survival. That is something that should never be done.
Second, the propaganda angainst and dehumanisation of the palestine population is something that's leaveing a sour taste in my mouth. Does the West not remember the last time that happend? What I have seen and heard is a stark reminder of my history lessons. The holocaust also began like that. Dehumanizing the population one wants gone and slowly cutting of their rights and freedom. Forcefully moveing them out of their homes and buisnesses. And then killing them in silence as it was done now, it's the modus opperandi of the Nazis.
Third, I don't think warcrimes and genocides are a way to deal with terror groups. Such violence only causes more violence after all. I don't know why this place of the world go to be such a hassard to speak about without morally compromising oneself. At least with my morals and in my country, but it did and it is frustrating.
I don't side with the decisions made from the Israel gouvernment, I don't side with their Genocide and I don't think their methods are valid in any place. But every decent human being should be able to see that it is unjust what is happening around Gaza right now.
I also condem the terrorist act happening before the violence broke out again. Abducting children and terrorizing innocent is not the way as well.
But the point I wanted to make here is, that the Israel Gouvernment and everyone fully supporting them, are just Nazis with other names and skins. I don't see the difference between the dehumanisation and the violent acts taken from Nazis against Jews (gross simplification about the holocaust, but the simplification everyone is focused on), Russia against the Ukraine population and Israel against Palestine. We condem two of them, but the third is alright? That is hypocrisy in it's finest.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Can you find the similarities?
Do you recognize these scenes?
Behold the 2 Greatest Fallen Empires of the world! One real and one fictional.
The great Kingdom of Numenor and the Byzantine Empire.
Also the "Colossus of Rhodes", was a statue of the Greek sun-god Helios, erected in the city of Rhodes, on the Greek island of the same name, by Chares of Lindos in 280 BC. One of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World........the statue was destroyed and never was remade.
And What is the crest of Numenor?
It's a Sun...
#lotr#lord of the rings#rings of power#history#coincidence?#numenor#byzantine empire#historical parallels#amazon
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
What Rhaenyra Targaryen would have worn...
(ITALIAN RENAISSANCE)
#hotd#house of the dragon#house targaryen#rhaenyra targaryen#the dance of the dragons#fantasy#pre asoiaf#asoif/got#asoiaf#renaissance era#renaissance art#italian renaissance#queen rhaenys targaryen#queen rhaenyra#team black#princess rhaenyra#history#historical fashion#parallels#historical parallels
52 notes
·
View notes
Text
And Ned Broy enters the scene!
For anyone watching Andor and thinking they sense a connection with Irish history...you are so right in so so so many ways. I have got to write up a list of more of these.
But the treaty of 1922, that led to both the Irish Republic and the current state of partition? That came out of a guerrilla war, a spy war fought by the agents of the Squad, an elite unit organized by Michael Collins at the one of the most unified and powerful moments in Irish history. Michael Collins has been modeled and paraphrased multiple times by Luthen.
In the most recent episode, we met an ISB informant come to warn the budding rebellion of a raid planned that will wipe out rebel forces. And Luthen, like many Irish leaders when Ned Broy first approached as a defector from the British intelligence network running out of Dublin, lets the raid go forward to keep the cover of their source, test their source, and build the informant network that crumbled the Castle headquarters and its hold over the Irish people.
Watching this show right when I'm researching so much of the history from which they took inspiration is such a gift. This is just masterfully crafted--knowing the history they're echoing is just making this all the more intense. Guh I'm so fucking stoked there's two more episodes to explore the flame this spark is about to ignite.
#andor#yes im a fucking nerd for#irish history#the troubles#star wars#historical parallels#so well done#spy fi#at its finest
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
what do you think about the comparisons between sansa and elizabeth i?
Traumatizing 😂 Actually, Sansa having a cult of personality in the North with a goddess like depiction in songs, well, it's what she deserves so I guess I shouldn't be too down about it!
It has merit. The LF and Thomas Seymour parallel alone feels like enough to argue Martin was influenced by her life when writing Sansa's story. But the important thing is what is says about Sansa's endgame and this was written all the way back in 2012:
Disregarded as a daughter, and later marked as the daughter of a traitor (Anne Boleyn), Elizabeth was raised to be a highborn lady. After the death of her father, brother, and the execution of Lady Jane Grey, Elizabeth was held hostage by her mentally ill sister (Bloody) Mary for almost a year before Mary's death, putting Elizabeth on the throne.
In government, Elizabeth was much more moderate than the previous Tudor monarchs had been. Her personal motto was, interestingly enough, "video et taceo" which roughly translates to “I see, and say nothing.” (much more--follow the link)
However, many people have made similar cases for Elizabeth of York being the inspo, especially because Martin has mentioned being influenced by the War of the Roses. I found this post from 2013 discussing it:
Sansa and Elizabeth resembled each other and their lives took somewhat parallel courses. Both bounced around various diplomatic marriage proposals. Both wanted to be queens. And, both married or almost married their uncles... (much more--follow the link)
@minitafan wrote about some similarities with Elizabeth of York for me once, and this part of a meta she wrote on it is particularly notable
This I think is a parallel GRRM took straight from the history books: Elizabeth’s young brothers were in line for the throne before her, but they “disappeared” presumably, were killed. To this day historians debate who exactly was the murderer, but for decades after that, several young men claimed to be either Edward or his younger brother, true heirs to the Throne. The story was they have been swapped for peasant boys by York loyalists, and the peasant boys had been murdered in their place. This is very similar to the story of Bran and Rickon being “swapped”. (link)
@trinuviel commented on the parallels:
GRRM has praised Sharon K. Penman’s novel Sunne in Splendour about the Wars of the Roses and it is quite obvious that it has been a big inspiration for his series, especially the first book. (link)
And @kitten1618x wrote a meta about all the parallels between ASOIAF and the War of the Roses, some of which are rather striking:
Amidst the War a King is Born
[...]
Edmund, a Lancastrian, was taken prisoner by Yorkist forces mere months after his marriage to Margaret, and died in captivity less than a year later, leaving behind a 13-year-old widow who was seven months pregnant with their child -whom she birthed at the tender age of 14.
This sounds vaguely familiar -like a lovable bastard prince we know, who’s mother birthed him at a tender age, his father dying in a “rebellion” of sorts -War of the Roses/Roberts Rebellion.
(much more--follow the link)
I think there are enough parallels to conclude both of the women were on Martin's mind, and seeing how he translates an influence into his own work is really interesting. Depending on how you foresee Sansa's ending, becoming queen in her own right a la Elizabeth I or marrying Jon as a kind of resolution to the Targ v Stark issues, and more pressingly, the Northern succession, for the Elizabeth of York parallel, one carries a lot more significance. I dislike the possibility of Sansa getting thrown at different guys for other people's purposes, being forced to marry, lusted after and molested by several adult men, without ever having a mutual love interest, so I can't really celebrate the Queen Elizabeth I parallels too much, although it’s nice they exist for QitN purposes.
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’m starting to suspect that GRRM named Alicent Hightower after Alice Perrers, especially if he’s acting on the infamous legend of Edward III’s relationship with her (and Alice generally). It’s obvious, after all, that GRRM took a heavy dose of inspiration for Jaehaerys I from Edward III (albeit less a strictly historical sense of Edward III and more a combination of the general popular idea of him plus that favorite historical fiction grab-bag for GRRM, The Accursed Kings). Like Edward III, Jaehaerys came to the throne as a 14-year-old boy and reigned into his 60s; like Edward III, Jaehaerys succeeded a weak and incapable father to be remembered as a strong and successful king; like Edward III, Jaehaerys was married for over four decades to the (very specifically not beautiful) princess he had wed as a teenager, whom he (supposedly) loved deeply and who represented the beau ideal of medieval/Targaryen queenship; like Edward III, Jaehaerys had a large family but at the end of his life was succeeded not by his much-loved eldest son and heir (nor even his likewise beloved second son), but his most senior grandson. (And this is all without talking about the very obvious comparisons to be made between the Alyssa Velaryon-Rogar Baratheon relationship and regency and that of Queen Isabella and the almost identically named Roger Mortimer.)
So it may have been only natural that GRRM would extend the parallel by naming Alicent after Alice Perrers, who became the mistress of Edward III at some point in the mid 1360s. Would it surprise anyone if GRRM believed, as has been long assumed, that Alice was a young teenager when she became a member of the royal household and the lover of the elder king - perhaps, indeed, the same age as the 15-year-old Alicent was when, having entered the royal household as the daughter of the Hand, she was reading to the elderly and dying Jaehaerys I? Would it surprise anyone if GRRM thought of Alice - widely (if not totally accurately) remembered as grasping and ambitious, manipulating a supposedly feeble and senile king into dumping lands, treasurers, and gold almost literally into her lap - in creating Alicent - a girl whose father (who certainly did not lack for ambition) would later be accused of bringing her to court expressly to win over the future King Viserys I, and who herself would be rumored to have had a sexual relationship with the both aged Jaehaerys as well as the then-married Viserys (perhaps echoing how Alice’s relationship with Edward began while Philippa was still alive)? If Alice is far from a perfect parallel to Alicent (and there are definitely significant differences between the two), I can nevertheless believe GRRM liked the idea of borrowing some surface-level elements of Alice - including, most basically, a version of her name - to use for Alicent Hightower.
#asoiaf meta#alicent hightower#jaehaerys i targaryen#historical parallels#real world inspiration#alice perrers#Edward iii of England
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
Daenerys and Cleopatra ~ the last Targaryen queen and the last Ptolemaic queen of Egypt
Some Daenerys/Cleopatra parallels in my blog?, it's more likely than you'd think.
We can thank @sansaissteel for this one, because she was the one who told me, no middle terms, ‘I wanna see you do a Daenerys-Cleopatra one’; and since I aim to please — here I am, with a Daenerys and Cleopatra parallels meta.
As always a series of important premises before we hop on, I know I sound repetitive, but I believe them important.
I don't assume neither pretend to be in anyway an expert on the figure of either Cleopatra or Daenerys, as the first is a real, historical figure whose possible real identity has been tainted and influenced not only by the roman propaganda previous to her defeat, but the one that occurred following her defeat and death, and centuries after that as her figure has been object of mock and shaping to serve the purpose of fulfilling the role of seductress and sorceress already widespread by the roman propaganda; [I'll probably deepen a bit this bit later on the post, because I think that something of the sort might happen in asoiaf to Daenerys as well — not by saying things untrue per se but by putting them in a different light than Daenerys sees them to be, acting on a ruthless propaganda that will probably continue after her death — as the show hinted at us.] and the latter is a character for which we have one ending, and the events the author will have leading to this event might change or shift some of the consideration we make on her.
Nonetheless I feel like by taking into account the show and some textual evidence, we might make educated guesses on, at least, some aspects of her final act.
Secondly, our interpretation of these figures is influenced by the many layers that compose their identity not to them but to us and the way they are seen by us, in no way do I try to deliver some kind of holy truth with this, I only collect information due research and my own personal classical studies in high school. Our perception of these figures might different based on our education and personal convictions — and I do not mean in any way or form that those that do not agree with me are uneducated, if anything I am suggesting the fact that all of us are a product of the environment we grew up inside of and of the way certain traits speak more to us based on our own perception which is born of the education we have received by our environment and the life we have led up until now — so in no way this should be taken as some attempt to disclose one single, pure truth about either the historical figure and the fictional character.
Thirdly, as I am in no way an expert, if anyone actually is please come forward and share your opinion, and let's transform this in an occasion to learn more.
Said so, let's hop onto this train and see where it leads us, shall we?
THE ASP AND THE DRAGON; Cleopatra Thea Philopator and Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen; The last ptolemaic queen and the last Targaryen queen confronted.
Cleopatra and Daenerys with their handmaiden, I chose these two pieces because as soon as I saw the book compliant Daenerys one, with her short blond hair and her crown and her handmaiden I remembered this piece by Frederic Arthur, Cleopatra on the terraces of Philae (which again, Daenerys in her garden upon the peak of pyramid where she feels like a God— you get my drift, don't you?), as always credit to the artists for their gorgeous pieces.
Besides the iconography which is unbelievably similar, many of their traits coincide. Can the history of Cleopatra and her fall tell us more on Daenerys end?
Let's start by a bit of history of the family of which Cleopatra and Daenerys are the last heiresses and queens.
THE PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY vs. THE TARGARYEN DYNASTY
Queen of Alexandria and all of Egypt vs Queen of Meereen and the Bay of Dragons, claimant to the Seven Kingdoms
Cleopatra was the last heiress of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, a Macedonian dynasty who had taken control of Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, and they ruled over Egypt for almost tree centuries (293 years), up until the final annexation by Rome in 30BCE.
Now, House Targaryen ruled over the 7K for roughly 283years though we should add at least two years (roughly) before Aegon's coronation, (we're talking of the wars of conquest which went from 2-1 before A.C. and ended in 13 after the conquest when Rhaenys died). The dates are extremely similar, especially if we consider that the events of Asoiaf happen around 298 AC, I mean— we do see the similarity don't we?
And Daenerys is its last heiress.
Another similarity can be found in the fact that the Ptolemaic dynasty was a dynasty of foreign invaders coming from the east of Egypt, white invaders, just like the Targaryen were valyrians (thus came from the east, as Dragonstone was the western post of the Valyrian Freehold) and invaded Westeros from Dragonstone (which'll end up being the eastern post of Westeros before the Narrow Sea).
The Ptolemaic dynasty takes its name from Ptolemy Soter who was one of Alexander's commanders and generals and who survived him and was awarded at the king's death Egypt as his own domain and who declared himself pharaoh of Egypt kind of like Aegon the Conqueror declared himself rightful king of the 7K of Westeros even though he had no right no them.
In the time between the death of Alexander (323 BCE) and the time in which Ptolemy managed to stabilise his hold on Egypt as its sole ruler almost twenty years had passed (as the date of the actual begin of the Ptolemaic sovereign on Egypt is dated 305 BCE) and, while to stabilise his reign Ptolemy absorbed traits of the Egyptian culture his dynasty would have to face rebellion and civil wars from their subjects, the local, the egyptians also because his dynasty implemented the Egyptian culture with their own, the hellenistic, to the point that it is said that Cleopatra was the only one in her family who bothered to learn Egyptian as while they claimed to be successors of the pharaohs they remained barricaded in their culture, which they believed superior to the egyptians.
The strength of the ptolemaic Egypt was the grain, as Egypt was considered as the granary of the ancient world and the ptolemaic dynasty took complete advantage of this, not only in foreign politics, but also thanks to a closed-off economy for which inside the borders of Egypt only the Egyptian coin could be used, and considering the foreign coins could have up to the 17% more of silver the change from the foreign coin to the local one brought great advantages to the dynasty, enriching it.
Look at this — ☝🏽 — and tell me it doesn't remind you of the politics of Daenerys in Meereen, of her attempts to enrich Meereen and stave off the economical collapse using agriculture and taking profit, enriching her coffers for her future campaigns, from the ‘taxation’ of slavery.
The Ptolemys took to the Egyptian custom of intermarriages between siblings to keep the line pure and to have brother and sister ruling together as an unit over the throne (tho that didn't stop from inner-wars between siblings — just look at Cleopatra, Ptolemy XIII and Arisinoe — kind of like the wars between Targaryens and Blackfyres and the Dance of Dragons); in the same way as the Targaryens preferred marriages usually between themselves, or other families of Valyrian descent (barred some isolated cases) to keep the dynasty pure.
So, so far we have these similarities:
Both dynasties are of white, foreign invaders and have faced rebellions by the locals;
Both dynasties have ruled for roughly three centuries (decade più decade meno);
Both dynasties practiced intermarriages between siblings to keep the line pure;
the Ptolemaic dynasty strength resides in their grain and their closed-off economy —› compare it with Daenerys politics in Meereen (try to use agriculture to avoid the economic collapse after the dismantling of the first source of income of rich, slavery — and later reinstating slavery and taxing it with a closed-off structure to fund her campaign and fill her coffers)
Both dynasties rise themselves to the status of god-like.
And, Daenerys and Cleopatra are the last heiresses of these dynasties, both embracing their identity as a Ptolemy one and a Targaryen the other, both intent and determined to prove themselves and restore their dynasty to the previous glory.
I am blood of the dragon, she told herself. I amDaenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone, of the blood and seed of Aegon the Conqueror.
— Daenerys II, AGOT
“I know what Aegon proved. I mean to prove a few things of my own”
— Daenerys III, ASOS
‘Dany had no wish to reduce King's Landing to a blackened ruin full of unquiet ghosts. She had supped enough on tears. I want to make my kingdom beautiful, to fill it with fat men and pretty maids and laughing children. I want my people to smile when they see me ride by, the way Viserys said they smiled for my father. But before she could do that she must conquer.’
— Daenerys II, ACOK
And now that we've had a light infarinatura (smattering) on who were the Ptolemys and their politics, let's see the figures of Cleopatra and Daenerys, arguably among the most famous of each dynasty.
FROM QUEEN CONSORT TO QUEEN REGNANT
First thing first, both Daenerys and Cleopatra had various siblings (Daenerys a child of three — tho I still maintain there was something fishy in all Aerys giving all of that gold to the twins as a present for their birth just like the Targaryens did for their illegitimate children) and when their father dies they are supposed to succeed him as consort to their brother.
In fact when AGOT begins Daenerys was still convinced she was supposed to be Viserys queen and wife, that once she would flower he would wed her as she was the only suitable prospect for him as a wife and queen; at the death of her father Cleopatra marries her brother, Ptolemy XIII, and becomes queen consort of Egypt, though by being older than him for almost a decade she's the one effectively ruling, though formally Ptolemy is the king and she his consort.
The appearance and character of the two also comes into mind, both are described to be beautiful, charming and seducing, funny and entertaining as well as clever and witty. But I will digress on this a bit later.
What happens is this, Ptolemy exiles his sister, Cleopatra, in Syria, banning her from court, as the court was hostile against her, where she gathers an army of mecenaries to retake the throne of Egypt.
Daenerys is exiled in the east, sold by her brother for an army of mercenaries (who he bought by selling her as a spouse for their commander) and when her husband and brother both dies she's left alone with three dragons which are potential weapons, but she'll have to wait years before she can use them to take back her throne. So she is essentially isolated and exiled east, with assassins at her back, and with a wish to retake the throne she believes hers by right.
Sounds similar doesn't it?
Just as Cleopatra did not wait idly for some knight to come and conquer back her claim for her, neither does Daenerys and while she waits for her dragons to grow she begins a campaign east to gather resources, riches and an army to accompany the dragons. Her goal remains taking back the throne. What does she gather then?
Progressively she gathers a mercenary army loyal to her (Astapor), manpower and following (Yunkai), riches and ships (Meereen).
Now, Cleopatra did not wait idly, and once gathered her army she took advantage of the roman civil war, which front had expanded to Egypt, to gather a new ally. Cesar.
In fact, meanwhile Cleopatra had been preparing herself to fight her way back to the throne from which she had been sent off, Cesare had fought against Pompey, who had sought refuge in Egypt at the court of Ptolemy XIII.
Ptolemy, probably aided by his councillors and his sister Arsinoe (who will be Cleopatra rival for a time, and who was her half-sister, as they shared the father but not the mother — @sansaissteel imagine if Cersei ended up being Aerys' kid 👀) decides to hand as a peace offering to the most ruthless military leader of Rome the head of his enemy on a silver platter, thus he kills Pompey and gives Cesar his head as a welcoming gift.
Cesar was not impressed. Pompey was his enemy, but he was still a roman and betraying him and killing him this was an unbefitting end — especially since Cesar was a firm fautor of the latin clementia to his enemies — for a roman general, what Cesar decidedly was impressed with, was Cleopatra. The Egyptian exiled queen, in fact, managed to slither her way back to the capital and to meet Cesar privately seducing him at which point Cesar used his influence to try and pacify the two siblings. Ptolemy XIII rebelled to this attempt and with his sister Arsinoe of military pushing back Cesar and Cleopatra forces, which fails, Arsinoe flees and tries to gather new troops (things she finds easily since the egyptians were hostile toward Cleopatra and Cesar) while Cesar puts Cleopatra back on the throne with her brother, Ptolemy XIV (as Ptolemy XIII dies by drowning in the Nile) and entertains with her a romantic relationship to the point he allegedly fathers a child from her, Cesarion.
But, before any of this happened, or meanwhile, Cleopatra had to face the rebellion led by her half sister Arsinoe (born of a different mother) who had the support of the locals and of the army, but who was defeated by Cesar and led in triumph to Rome, only her young age saved her from execution and Cesar sent her to a temple where she allegedly spent the rest of her life afraid her Cleopatra's retaliation. —› if Cersei ends up being exposed as Aerys' kid (or moral heir) they would also fit this trope.
Then Cleopatra leaves Egypt to go to Rome with Cesar and live as his concubine, royal that she was, with him in Rome, where he was the wealthiest, most influent man of the Republic, hoping to become the kind of First Lady of Rome to put her son on a shared throne of the lands of Rome and Egypt.
In a similar manner, after Daenerys loses her brother (whom she already was thinking of dethroning, or put her son forward before his possible heirs) and her husband and child, and gains her dragons she starts a campaign in her own right as queen claimant of the Iron throne.
She starts in exile with a campaign east to gather the resources she would need to invade and take back Westeros, not only she charms Xaro in Qart, making of him one of her supporters, she continues furthers, she gains an army of slaves in Astapor (an army she does not free, but I am digressing) and following and manpower in Yunkai (as well as starting her own propaganda, by demonstrating a few things herself, as she states in Astapor), lastly she heads to Meereen and there she gathers a mercenary army (under the lead of Daario Naharis), riches and with them the funds, she hopes, to move west.
She chooses to remain in Meereen as queen regnant as she gathers more resources, and in a way to prove out of any reasonable doubt her worth as a ruler, by ruling over the freedmen and freemen alike.
Having disassembled the main source of income of the Slavers' Bay, Daenerys needs to find new incomes to avoid the collapse of Meereen especially when the government she has put in place collapse and the other cities fall back in their previous ways leaving Meereen isolated economically and physically due the embargo and the ship blockade as well as the mercenaries armies stationed outside of the city and the pestilence spreading in the city.
Daenerys' court in Meereen is full of vipers, Hizdahr (whom she is forced to marry to stabilise her rule and avoid a full-civil war) is no better than a lobbyist in the books, and he is far away from his show counterpart, and the environment is hostile towards her from the noble families a previous leaders of the city; this is in part due her revolutionary policies (abolishing slavery, upon which these people build their riches is revolutionary), in part due her methods (she crucified 163 freemen without any form of trial or judgment being passed, choosing them randomly — and I've already digressed on why it's vengeance and not justice, as justice would've been to have trials and investigations, but if she wanted to be quick, it would've been more ‘just’ for the time's standard to crucify the masters who had given their child-slaves up for crucifixion; remember, investigations before a trial is something done since Ancient Rome, and Daenerys and her story are set around Middle Ages Europe, so it's not far-fetched to expect for her to do something more juridicial than what she did — and she takes as cupbearers hostages the children of the main families to keep them in line), in part due the heritage she's so proud of (the cities of Slavers' Bay were founded by ghiscari, and Ghis and Old Valyria were the equivalent of Cartage and Rome), in part due to her gender (misogyny is an important matter in asoiaf, not because the story itself is misogynist but because the society that it depicts was).
It's a situation not so different from the one Cleopatra had to face in her own court. An hostile court within her own hostile reign, a reign she took both military and also without rising a physical finger, much like Cleopatra did allying with Cesar, Daenerys ends up — while being still loved by her freedmen (tho that might change when she returns after having fled Meereen on dragon back if her people felt abandoned, which would be an interesting layer to add, because common people end up blaming their ruler for even those calamities which are out of their hands, like the Egyptians blaming Cleopatra for the unreliable Nile's floods) — being surrounded by hostile counsellors she doesn't know if she can trust, and counsellors whose capacities lay elsewhere (Barristan is mostly a knight, and he is a bit fickle with his loyalty. He would have sworn for Joffrey had Joffrey not humiliated him — but that was Varys' plan all along, to provoke the old knight's pride to send him to Aegon's aide, tho he ends up in Daenerys' entourage), betrayed by those she held in high esteem (Jorah) and essentially a young girl fitting shoes almost too big for her with dreams of love unperturbed by the day-to-day politics of ruling, a determined young woman, intent on bringing glory to her House and avenge her family and right to the throne.
‘I mean to sail to Westeros, and drink the wine of vengeance from the skull of the Usurper.’ —Daenerys III, ACOK
Exactly like Cleopatra, Daenerys is a queen in her own right, (while Cleopatra had her son as co-regent, so never ruling formally alone), Daenerys is the sole head of her entourage, which has a pyramidal structure (much like the ancient Egyptian society), but without a bureaucratic system put in place to resolve the matters that can also be not taken directly to her, which ends being inefficient. Her court is hostile to her, despite her trying to adapt their customs and this is were the two figures actually start to almost coincide, but I will digress on this later. She is, all in all, an hellenistic absolute ruler, a god-like ruler, her figure is object of veneration by her freedmen, they hail her Mhysa, I will return to this later as well.
Mhysa which means mother, similarly Cleopatra had her own form of propaganda with the indigenous people of Egypt, by portraying herself and her son as Isis and Horus on earth, thus creating a personal cult of the Mother-and-the-son-of-myth.
Problem was, the romans were steadfastly against the very idea of the absolute hellenistic ruler of which Cleopatra, de facto queen regnant of Egypt, was a prime example. Problem is, the westerosi are steadfastly against the idea of an absolute ruler, they are based on middle aged England, and the very idea of an absolute king is preposterous for them. The ruler is supposed to be a Primus inter pares, someone who rules them, yes, someone who has right of life and death on them, but they have proved that if those death are unjust and they disagree they will rebel — remember? What actually spiked the rebellion was not Lyanna's abduction, that was the pretence, the real event that spiked the Rebellion was Aerys murdering Rickard and Brandon and his next move to demand the head of Robert and Ned as well. Yes, the king is the king, but the lords are not subject to his every whim, they will push back.
A very important point to add to this last consideration about romans disliking the very idea of the hellenistic ruler is that while that might seem foolish and incorrect since Octavian — Cesar's heir — was de facto the first roman emperor, it's actually true. In fact while we call the time that goes (roughly) after Octavian definite ascension as sole leader of Rome as ‘Roman Empire’ especially in for the first ‘emperor’ the correct term is that of principato (princedom) as Octavian and his heirs proposed themselves as Primus inter pares (first between equals) and as guarantor of the morals and values of the Republic, it was only after that they became more like the hellenistic ruler the romans of Cleopatra's time disliked so much.
So, the romans, were afraid that Cleopatra would influence Cesar to become that kind of hellenistic ruler. Rome had already had the so called homo fors (strong man) to which they awarded the imperium as a dictator (but it was a short-term solution) because romans believed that power should be in the hands of only a man only when the situation was so stringent and urgent to demand it. Fear that became reality when Cesar used his wealth and influence to force the Senate to name him dictator for life. The next logical step everyone was waiting for was for him to make this new dictatorship inheritable, and fearful because the people (common) loved Cesar so much they would've accepted it, the Senators decided to kill him and actually did at the idis of March of 44 BCE.
At that point Cleopatra had no real ally in Rome, and the death of Cesar meant she was unwelcome, and her son, Cesar's formally unrecognised son — her son — could be in peril thus she fled back to Egypt.
Once returned to Egypt soon enough her brother and co-regent Ptolemy XIV was killed — some say by her own agents — and Cleopatra remained the sole queen regnant of Egypt, while formally her son, Cesarion, ascended as Ptolemy XV and as her co-regent.
For the first time, now, Cleopatra's hold on the throne of Egypt was strong and unshakable, still, she had not accounted for the floods of the Nile being unreliable and the disaster that caused for the economy and for the people (who already disliked her, for she was philo-roman), as I told you before, in those times, as now (if now a little less) people ended up blaming their rulers even for cataclysms or things that were out of their control (the floods of the Nile, the pestilence in Meereen) so it wouldn't surprise me if the people of Meereen would happen to be disillusioned by their Mhysa once she finally manages to return home after all they suffered while she was away, but that is yet the realm of hypothesis as the books are not out yet, and there it'll stay.
Daenerys in Meereen is facing the hardships of ruling over a city with two souls, the freedmen who venerate her as Mhysa and saviour, and the freemen/exslavers who see her as a conqueror and nothing more, she tries to make the city thrive despite loosing its first source of income, she tries with agriculture and commerce, but she has to face retaliation from the opposite faction which is re-organising and doesn't mean to let go of their power so easily. The conditions end up being so bad, her freedmen come to plead with her to reinstate slavery so that they can re-sell themselves into slavery and her reply is to accept that and tax it, but instead of choosing to use that tax to implement the condition of the city (thus accepting any kind of goods) she uses a completely closed-off economy and demands payment only in gold and gemstones, the kind of wealth that can help fund her campaign west.
But what happens in real history after Cesar' murder?
Meanwhile civil war had spiked again in Rome, the factions being the previous allies of Cesar (his heir, Octavian; his legatus Mark Anthony and Lepidus) and his assassin (Brutus and Cassio) and both factions asked for her support. In the end Cleopatra decided to send her support to the triumvirate which defeated the assassins at the Battle of Philippi.
After that Octavian and Mark Anthony split the territories of Rome (poor Lepidus was just caught in between and got what was left) and Mark Anthony summoned Cleopatra to Tarsus. She went willingly and seduced him, she charmed him and he fathered by her two children (twins — boy and girl) to then leave her to return to his lawful wife and children in Rome.
The relation between Octavian and Mark Anthony were strained and to avoid another civil war Mark Anthony was forced to marry (after his third wife died) Octavian favoured (half)sister Octavia; yet Rome was growing and at one point, in 37 BCE Mark Anthony met with Cleopatra again to obtain funds and support for his war against Parthia and she negotiated to get back much of the eastern lands that had once belonged to Egypt.
—› this is apparently the route D&D went with, with the show. Jon would be the Mark Anthony of the moment, who, desperate for help by the eastern queen promises her back lands that do not belong to her anymore (the North) to then become something akin to her prime consort, putting aside all previous relations (the Starks). Spoiler alert: it didn't work.
They became lovers again, and soon enough Mark Anthony fathered another child by her (after the twins) and after the resounding defeat he was delivered in Parthia, he decided to publicly set aside his wife, Octavia, and become Cleopatra's husband and prince consort.
Cleopatra convinced him to declare publicly her son, Cesarion, as Cesar's true and rightful heir (despite him being anything but) and Mark Anthony granted to each of their children lands that belonged formally to Rome, acting thus exactly like an hellenistic ruler, bringing to life the fear that had led the Senate to conjure against Cesar in 44 BCE.
At this point Octavian — Cesar' chosen and designed heir — had not only managed to strengthen his position in Rome (he had also married Livia, who previously had been the wife of one of his oppositors managing to bring together the two factions, and with whom he fell in love, remaining faithful to her for all of his life, a long life, reinforcing this idea of him as a guarantor of the old morals), appearing as Cesar's moral heir to the populares and as guarantor of the morals of Rome to the whole republic started a ruthless campaign against Cleopatra.
Mysoginy?
Yes but not only. Cleopatra was an easier target of his ruthless campaign of propaganda, than Mark Anthony, not only for her gender (tho that played a part as well) but because she was foreign and it would have been easier to provoke the Senate and people against a foreign than against a roman legatus, she and her eastern ways were figure of mock for the romans — the fact that she had persuaded/seduced Mark Anthony to pay homage to foreign gods and act like an hellenistic ruler when in fact his first duty should've been to Rome much easier to swallow than his ambition taking the highest road and severing him from his duty to Rome — and would've made his quest against her and Mark Anthony as no longer a roman, much easier to swallow for the people of Rome.
But before diving in the this last section of this meta, let's first see exactly, beyond the story, the parallels between these queens; this has turned extremely long, and — in my defence — I was left unsupervised after @sansaissteel unleashed me on Tumblr.
CHARMING, WITTY, FUNNY AND BEAUTIFUL, A SEDUCTRESS, AND A FEMME FATALE, RUTHLESS AND DETERMINED, A RULER AS CAPABLE, OR INCAPABLE AS ANY OTHER MAN (it's not a matter of misogyny it's a matter of equality)
Another two gorgeous pieces, here we see a very Egyptian looking Cleopatra, an hellenistic ruler who did her best to adapt to the Egyptian customs while trying to bring her dynasty back to glory; and Daenerys Targaryen with the bells in her hair as the Dothraki leader she is.
Now, we have seen how the stories of these two queens seem to shadow each other, and in some point even coincide, but let's break down, point by point, the similarities between these two queens, the way they are viewed and they way the view themselves.
Sorry if some points will sound redundant, but it's needed to tie everything together.
Let's start by the simplest:
both of them are foreign queens coming from a dynasty of ‘white’ invaders, who have conquered the power they have military first and politically later.
Cleopatra comes from the Macedonian dynasty of the Ptolemys who aided Alexander the Great in invading and conquering Egypt, and she, herself, to whom both the people and the court were hostile, took back her right to the throne by fighting with an army of mercenaries and striking alliances with foreign invaders (Cesar) —› Daenerys comes from the Targaryen dynasty, a dynasty of Valyrian refugees who took the 7K with a military campaign, who were overthrown and she, exiled east as Cleopatra had been by her own brother, gathers an army made of mercenaries (and Unsullied) to take back the throne she perceives as belonging to her. The Ptolemys were foreign for the indigenous egyptian while Targaryens were foreign both to the westerosi and to the essosi.
both of their dynasties rule over their kingdom for roughly three hundred years (their tenure as queens claimant/regnant included)
The Ptolemy hold on Egypt went from 323 BCE to 30 BCE, 293 years, —› while AGOT starts in 298 AC, 298 years after the coronation of Aegon the conqueror.
both of them come from incestous relationship, as both their dynasties practiced intermarriages to keep the bloodline pure and have brother and sister marry and rule together.
Cleopatra is the daughter of Ptolemy XII and his sister-wife, and had several half-siblings (one of them, Arisonoe, tried to overrule her as queen with the help of their brother Ptolemy XIII, but failed her military campaign and was brought in triumph at Rome, to then find sanctuary in a temple and be killed on order of Cleopatra) —› Daenerys is ‘the last dragon’ and the daughter of Aerys II and his sister-wife Rhaella, she has several siblings (two brothers, and her mother had several stillbirths).
—› Arsinoe's role, in asoiaf, could be fulfilled by Cersei, who if not Aerys' kid, is without doubt his moral heir (just think on when she burns the Tower of the Hand and is aroused by the sight of wildfire, reminding her brother Jaime of Aerys) —› also if the twins ends up being Targaryens bastards (like some evidence would have) Jaime would easily fulfil the role of Ptolemy XIII who tried to keep Cleopatra away from the throne by siding with his sister, Arsinoe.
Both of them are described as beautiful and charming, full of allure as well.
Of Cleopatra some of the fonts we have, tell us this:
(...) she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at that time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most striking; she also possessed a most charming voice and a knowledge of how to make herself agreeable to every one. Being brilliant to look upon and to listen to, with the power to subjugate every one, even a love-sated man already past his prime, she thought that it would be in keeping with her rôle to meet Caesar, and she reposed in her beauty all her claims to the throne.
— Dio, Roman history (XLII)
(...) her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to whatever language she pleased.
— Life of Anthony, XVII
(...) a woman who was haughty and astonishingly proud in the matter of beauty.
— Life of Anthony, LXXIII
Appian remarks on the "beautiful image of Cleopatra by the side of the goddess" (II.102) in the Temple of Venus Genetrix, and Antony being "amazed at her wit as well as her good looks" (V.1.8) —› if we think Daenerys is associated with the eastern Venuses, like Astarte and Ishtar and Inanna this hits closer to home than I had at first expected.
Her beauty is considered as harmful as the beauty of Helen of Troy, only, instead of being harmful to the trojans it was harmful to the romans (who, btw, claimed descent from the Trojan prince Aeneas) instigating civil war between Octavian and Mark Anthony (on this point I will return later, bear with me)
—› Daenerys, instead, is described as a lovely teen, slender of frame and with the beautiful traits of old Valyria, pale skin and purple eyes, silver-gold tresses, fair and beautiful.
"I... that was not fitting. I am your queen."
"My queen," he said, "and the bravest, sweetest, and most beautiful woman I have ever seen. Daenerys—"
— Daenerys I, ASOS
(...) And now the most beautiful woman in the world was waiting in Meereen, and he meant to do his duty and claim her for his bride.
— The Merchant's man, ADWD
She was no stranger to the overblown courtesies of Qarth. "If you are drunk, blame the wine."
"No wine is half so intoxicating as your beauty. My manse has seemed as empty as a tomb since Daenerys departed, and all the pleasures of the Queen of Cities have been as ashes in my mouth. Why did you abandon me?"
— Daenerys III, ADWD
—› this association of her beauty being more intoxicating than any wine, is actually another nudge to Cleopatra, who seduced Mark Anthony in the span of a series of encounters which later would become a routinely date by the name of “the Inimitable Livers” as they founded their own wine-club.
Also, Cleopatra was described not only as beautiful, but as charming and witty, many in fact, commented on how her beauty was not striking enough alone to seduce all men, but her wit and her charm and her silver-tongue would do the rest. Daenerys herself is witty and often funny, she is still a girl, and sometimes she shows her young age with teasing and japes.
"Ser Barristan," she called, "I know what quality a king needs most."
"Courage, Your Grace?"
"Cheeks like iron," she teased. "All I do is sit."
— Daenerys I, ADWD
Now let's hop onto the ones who are more shady, as what we know of Cleopatra has been heavily influenced by the way the romans saw her (which, in turn, was a product of Octavian propaganda and campaign against her), while what we see of Daenerys is mostly what she and those closer to her (and on her good side) see. So, in both cases, the opinion is not devoid of bias.
Just as Cleopatra Daenerys is very clever, outsmarting the slavers in Astapor and the mercenary, she's also ruthless and not afraid of getting her hands dirty. Just think of the way she first agreed to the price of the Astapori'i for the Unsullied and then went back on her word once the deal was made (and she made sure to get informations about how the Unsullied's mind worked before she decided how to move to collect them as army and make sure they were loyal only to her, for she is afraid that once she's done with them and sells them they would be used against her) or the way she outsmarted the mercenaries by giving them until dawn to think, and attacking them by night. She ain't afraid of playing dirty to get what she wants, that's for sure. And Cleopatra wasn't either.
Cleopatra, sent from her court by her brother, the rightful ruler by law, decided she cared not that her brother was king, she was equally worthy of being queen, she was the queen of Egypt and she would fight her way back to the throne. She started a civil war thanks to the mercenaries armies she gathered and outsmarted Ptolemy and Arisinoe by convincing Cesar to side with her, by slithering her way back to the palace and seducing him (kinds of remind me both of Daario changing sides because he is charmed by her beauty and her managing to take Meereen by seducing the fighting slaves in Meereen with the prospect of freedom tbh).
Cleopatra didn't care about the roman custom of the pater to name his own heir by law, she didn't care her son actually had no lawful ground to be recognised as Cesar's heir, she wanted to put her son to the throne and she moved for it, completely disregarding, the not so little detail that by naming an heir Cesar had definitely put Cesarion out of the picture to inherit from him. In the same way, while proclaiming Viserys as her king, Daenerys has no qualms about planning of putting her son by Drogo on the Iron throne (disregarding the fact that Viserys, if he ever got to sit on the Iron throne would then marry and have children, heirs to his throne, and thus Rhaego would be out of the picture).
And sometimes she found herself wishing her father had been protected by such men. In the songs, the white knights of the Kingsguard were ever noble, valiant, and true, and yet King Aerys had been murdered by one of them, the handsome boy they now called the Kingslayer, and a second, Ser Barristan the Bold, had gone over to the Usurper. She wondered if all men were as false in the Seven Kingdoms. When her son sat the Iron Throne, she would see that he had bloodriders of his own to protect him against treachery in his Kingsguard.
— Daenerys IV, AGOT
—› notice the use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ very confident, there and in all of this, Viserys is still very much alive, and will die next chapter, so she is effectively planning to put her son on the throne she said belongs to her brother, as in Daenerys V, she still claims Viserys is her brother and her king and that if he wanted the eggs he only needed to ask, yet, in Daenerys IV she already believes her son will be the one to sit on the Iron throne, after Viserys or in this place is not clear, thus disregarding either Viserys ‘claim’ she believes in and any possible heirs he might father if he ever takes the Iron throne.
This is a very bold move which reminds me of Cleopatra disregarding Cesar' will naming Octavian his heir to find the way to put Cesarion in his father's place at the head of Rome and one day king of joint Rome and Egypt.
(...)
Daenerys had gone cold all over. "He says you shall have a splendid golden crown that men shall tremble to behold."
Viserys smiled and lowered his sword. That was the saddest thing, the thing that tore at her afterward … the way he smiled.
"That was all I wanted," he said. "What was promised."
When the sun of her life reached her, Dany slid an arm around his waist. The khal said a word, and his bloodriders leapt forward.
— Daenerys V, AGOT
The khal’s mouth twisted in a frown beneath the droop of his long mustachio. “The stallion who mounts the world has no need of iron chairs.”
Dany propped herself on an elbow to look up at him, so tall and magnificent. She loved his hair especially. It had never been cut; he had never known defeat. “It was prophesied that the stallion will ride to the ends of the earth,” she said.
“The earth ends at the black salt sea,” Drogo answered at once. He wet a cloth in a basin of warm water to wipe the sweat and oil from his skin. “No horse can cross the poison water.”
“In the Free Cities, there are ships by the thousand,” Dany told him, as she had told him before. “Wooden horses with a hundred legs, that fly across the sea on wings full of wind.”
Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze.
“Yes, my sun-and-stars,” Dany said. Drogo would take his bloodriders and ride in search of hrakkar, the great white lion of the plains. If they returned triumphant, her lord husband’s joy would be fierce, and he might be willing to hear her out.
Savage beasts he did not fear, nor any man who had ever drawn breath, but the sea was a different matter. To the Dothraki, water that a horse could not drink was something foul; the heaving grey-green plains of the ocean filled them with superstitious loathing. Drogo was a bolder man than the other horselords in half a hundred ways, she had found . . . but not in this. If only she could get him onto a ship . . .
— Daenerys VI, AGOT
—› look at this (☝🏽) at Daenerys broaching the subject after they've had sex, so he's spent and maybe more willing to listen to her, or to her thinking of trying again after he feels victorious for the hunt and tell me it doesn't remind you of the very idea of Cleopatra meeting Cesar in secret to convince him to side with her, or meeting Mark Anthony and seduce him to her side?
Another trait that seems to link these two women is them being able to speak more than one language. Cleopatra is told to be able to shift from one language to another without difficulty and she's said to know dozens of languages; Daenerys knows high valyrian and westeron, she learns quickly both Dothraki and old ghiscari which is a testament to the abilities of both women of being chameleon and adapting to their environment. Cleopatra is said to be the only one who bothered to learn egyptian and Daenerys was the only one, between her and Viserys, to bother to learn Dothraki and later she learns old ghiscari as it might aide her in governing.
both women adapts to their environment and adopts some of the customs of the people they are ruling over, Cleopatra keeps up the pretense of the inter-siblings marriages the Ptolemys had taken to (an egyptian custom) though she entertains not-incestous relationships and means to put her son, not born from an incestual relationship on the throne that thrived on it for three centuries (Daenerys wanting to put Drogo's son on the Iron throne the Targaryen sibling-spouses build); Daenerys adapts some of customs of the Dothraki (even after Drogo's death, when she is khaleesi in her own right, she keeps wearing blue and yellow which were Drogo's colours; and wears bells in her hair, since they aren't long enough to braid after they were burned in the pyre), she wears a tokar in Meereen to appease to the ghiscari sensibilities of her eastern court and keeps Hizdahr in her council despite his book-version being no better than a lobbyist, going as far as to marry him and re-opens the pits (another Meereenese custom —› tho, it must be said that she did that as another manoeuvre to gather riches in her coffers for the campaign west and secure the peace that would permit her to leave sooner for westeros).
both are capable of making very questionable decisions, Cleopatra has Arsinoe assassinated despite her not representing a threat to her rule anymore (and it is rumoured she had a hand in the death of both Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV as well); Daenerys does not differentiate between slavers and freemen when in Astapor and has them all killed, say nothing about the women and declares safe only under 12 boys (tho, it is said in the text that her army didn't seem care to stop and ask, to look at evidence, they would look at boy and go ‘yeah look like 13, die’ and be done with it, even if the kid was 11) she has the wine seller's daughter tortured in front of the father to gather from him information she isn't even sure he has, crucifies 163 random freemen for the 163 children (and I've already digressed as of how, with a few adjustments she could've delivered justice and how she didn't, so I won't digress on it further here).
Both Daenerys and Cleopatra are subject to and use the cult of veneration. Cleopatra makes sure she is portrayed and thus seen as Isis (which as I've explained in the mythology meta about Sansa Stark, x, was considered the epitome of egyptian queen mother) and her son, Cesarion, as Horus king and queen mother of Egypt, Daenerys is venerated by her people as Mhysa (mother) and one of her epithets is ‘Mother of dragons’ (might I remind you that Horus was a winged creature as well?) , and both identifies as such (Cleopatra meets Anthony dressed as Isis, and Daenerys has her whole titles recited every time, as well as considers herself mother of dragons, mother of monsters, even when it is a matter of monstrosity identifying herself with the dragons that she considers her children).
both Daenerys and Cleopatra are military leaders, Cleopatra led her fleet in battle and Daenerys (whose strength is also her fleet) would've led her forces in battle, had her commanders not convinced her otherwise; both end up being the exact opposite of the ideal of queendom the people they mean to rule over would have — military leaders, instead of a matron working in the shadow for Rome, and a queen wielding soft power for Westeros. As highlighted by this passage, her beauty (bells in the hair) take a dark connotation by meaning war and destruction:
“I dreamt a wolf howling in the rain, but no one heard his grief," the dwarf woman was saying. "I dreamt such a clangor I thought my head might burst, drums and horns and pipes and screams, but the saddest sound was the little bells. I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.”
— Arya VIII, ASOS
I think the lonely wolf howling in the rain might be Arya, because “no one” hears his grief (and we know Sansa felt Jon's grief and death), we know the maid slaying the giant in a castle build of snow and with purple serpents in her hair is Sansa (respectively against Joffrey and LF). But what refers to Daenerys is this bit: ‘such a clangor I thought my head might burst, drums and horns and pipes and screams (Dothraki screamers, just saying), but the saddest sound was the little bells’.
The saddest part was the little bells.
The saddest part was the little bells.
The saddest part was the little bells.
The saddest part was the little bells.
Daenerys wears bells in her hair for her victories, and they cling in the wind as she moves... as she attacks kings landing won't the bells (connected to death and war and creation) be sounding?, those in her hair and those of the tower?
But, in truth, one of the points I believe to be key to the similarities between them resides on the fact that little is known of the true Cleopatra, all that is told about her comes from roman authors who write decades after her death and is, as I have already stated, heavily influenced by Octavian's propaganda against her; in the same way I believe Daenerys shall be subject of opposing propaganda as well, and indeed, she already is.
"Must?" Tyrion made a tsking sound. "That is not a word queens like to hear. You are her perfect prince, agreed, bright and bold and comely as any maid could wish. Daenerys Targaryen is no maid, however. She is the widow of a Dothraki khal, a mother of dragons and sacker of cities, Aegon the Conqueror with teats. She may not prove as willing as you wish."
— Tyrion VI, ADWD
“The frightened child who sheltered in my manse died on the Dothraki sea, and was reborn in blood and fire. This dragon queen who wears her name is a true Targaryen. When I sent ships to bring her home, she turned toward Slaver's Bay. In a short span of days she conquered Astapor, made Yunkai bend the knee, and sacked Meereen. Mantarys will be next, if she marches west along the old Valyrian roads. If she comes by sea, well … her fleet must take on food and water at Volantis.”
— Tyrion II, ADWD
Daenerys sees herself as a saviour and a liberator, a queen in her own right fighting her way back to the throne she thinks belong to her by right. But how do other see her?, as a sacker of cities, a conqueror and an unyielding khalees (which are all negatively connotated, a nasty woman who has power and won't be easy to bend to men's rule with a penchant for burning and sacking cities and enemies). This will only get worse with TWoW and ADoS.
As in the show, part of Daenerys' failings, despite her politics, was the fact that she played perfectly in the hands of the players around her.
Cersei used her policies east as a manner of propaganda, presenting her as this kind of hellenistic ruler/tyrant who'd act out of place in Westeros and has come to instigate civil war, what does Daenerys do?
She shows the Westeros Cersei is right, I have already spoken on how she broke the chivalry code (which was in place since William the Conqueror thus is something the Westeros version of middle age England would know and does know, as Robb keeps the Lannister's squires for ransom and he executes Karstark when he disobeys him and makes of him a betrayer of the code of chivalry) by burning the Tarlys instead that ransoming them or stripping them of their titles and send them to the Wall.
Sansa chirps the truth about her and Jon's to the right ears and points out how Jon is better suited as a ruler than Daenerys is, and what does Daenerys do?, she proves Sansa is right by disregarding Varys pleadings about Kings Landing, and instead of showing she is a good ruler, I don't know, by going to a conquered keep (Highgarden, Harrenhal, whenever else) and set up court and become the alternative to Cersei's iron-fist, she goes and burns Varys to suggest she takes the long route and does not burn KL and proceeds by burning the city and all the people inside.
All Cersei and Sansa said was the truth of Daenerys, merely seen from an outsider point of view, they do not see Daenerys try to make peace with the Meereenese, they see Daenerys crucifying random people without a trial (not even a mock one), they see Daenerys keeping hostages the kids of noble families in her court and they see her as a sacker of cities and a destabiliser of governments without the good outcome of having a better prospect to rise economy, in fact Daenerys fills her coffers with Meereen's riches because war have costs and they are won as much by weapons as they are by coin.
As I said before, it's not cleancut, just as Cleopatra was not only a seductress and temptress. But propaganda works that way, and peace be to Cersei she is not a better, more stabile prospect, but Sansa is backing a better, more stable prospect to the throne. Jon.
And Daenerys with her policies plays right into their hands and it's possible that the same will happen in the books. After all the game of thrones is exactly that, put the enemy in a bad light, and make sure you are viewed in the right light showing how you are better suited to rule. The difference between Daenerys and Cersei is that Daenerys wants the Iron throne as Cersei does, but Daenerys also has this dream of making her kingdom beautiful and love her, though she has proved, time after time, that violence works better than diplomacy (I already digressed on this), the difference with the Starks is more pronounced. Jon and Sansa's arcs are political and focused on the good of the people they are in charge of (just look at Sansa's whole arc in the Vale, on how she is trying to protect her cousin now that his mother is dead, and is trying to get him to be loved by his people by caring for them and make sure he is viewed as a suitable prospect, shaping him to become some; and look at Jon choosing the NW over Ygritte because of his duty to the North, and him choosing to let the wildling through the Wall because by having them fight together he has more possibility of saving Winterfell and the North), Bran's arc has always been about sacrificing for the good of those in his charge and Arya is learning to be justice instead of vengeance. The core difference is that Daenerys, as well as Cersei, see the throne as their right, the Starks see their “throne” as their duty first and their right after, which is why the Starks propaganda (coupled with Cersei and mayhap even Arianne and Aegon's) might work and corner Daenerys. And once cornered Daenerys goes Dothraki on her issues and resorts to violence, thus playing in their hands completely.
Why?, because they are right, in part; as power and politics is not a clean-cut matter. Even a tyrant might have good intentions and put in act good policies but in the wrong ways, or he/she might make good policies, but bad decisions on other more important matters.
Is Daenerys solely good?, is she solely evil? Neither.
Is Cersei? No.
Are the Starks? No.
It's all shades of grey, and the smarter shade of grey is the one who manages to stabilise its hold, care for its people and thus living and ruling long.
OCTAVIAN vs CLEOPATRA ~ SANSA vs DAENERYS a war of morals and politics
I mean — whoah guys, I had no intention of going in this direction until writing this long meta it kind of became obvious — here we have ‘Meeting between Cleopatra and Octavian after Antium’ by Luis Gauffier and on the right the infamous scene of the meeting between Daenerys and Sansa after Jaime's farce of a trial. I mean, even the visuals play their part to perfection.
So, when I started this meta, I already had in mind how it was supposed to end with Cleopatra being outwitted and defeated by Octavian, and tbh I thought that either Jon or Aegon would be Daenerys' Octavian, but as I was writing I realised how wrong I had been in that assumption. As I've said numerous times, I firmly believe that Martin has been pitting these two ladies against each other since book 1 (and I've spoken a bit about it here) as moral and political rivals.
Whereas Daenerys has been learning to rely mostly on herself and her dragons to resolve issues once she's backed into a corner, without the possibility of pushing back violently Sansa has had to learn the long, tortuous way that getting people to work together is a matter of art and patience as much as stitching (and it is not a chance that Sansa is first show being complimented on her stitchings, btw). By this I do not mean that Daenerys has not tried her hand to diplomacy, she has, but it has shown her nothing but that it fails, that it is too long to bear fruits and that the quickest and surest route to obtain what she wants is through violence and her dragons. It's what has been working for her better, no matter how hard she tried with diplomacy; Sansa has had not this possibility, she has learned to rely solely on diplomacy and her political skillset to survive, and she's apt at it too (as @elegantwoes was telling me the other day, her whole role in the creation of the Winged Knights and the Tourney of the Vale serves various political purposes — of which she means to talk about so I won't digress here — and it show us how subtly and diplomatically clever she has grown).
What more, I realised that Sansa fulfilled the Octavian role almost to perfection.
Octavian was Cesar's unlikely heir, he was young and untested when he inherits Cesar's will and place at the head of the family —› Sansa is an unlikely heir (though she is both the moral heir and factual heir of Ned, but I digress) apparent (as her younger brothers are both alive though presumed dead), young and untested when she ends up being the only Stark on the chessboard (Robb fulfils part of Cesar' role in her story).
Octavian played the part of the unsure, modest and willing to be guided youth, Sansa played the part of the little bird after Ned's death to survive when South.
Octavian had a duty to Cesar's veterans, as Cesar had demanded in his will and sold all of his properties to face those demands; Sansa has a duty to the North and to her people, and she's subtly manoeuvring to get back home, no matter that she has for a time to shed her Stark identity to hide as Alayne Stone.
Cicero, believing in Octavian's ploy of being easily manipulated, takes him under his tutelage and helps him gather enough influence by becoming consul of Rome (all the while Octavian has his father's enemies to still get rid of, Brutus and Cassius — Walder Frey and Roose Bolton), Littlefinger, believing Sansa to be easily manipulated, takes her under his tutelage and helps her gather influence by making her the de facto great lady of the Eyrie, a spot she is exploiting subtly to her advantage wielding the soft power learned from Catelyn.
Octavian obliterated thanks to Mark Anthony Cesar's enemies and split the lands of Rome with his allies outsmarting Cicero by coming out from his false identity of gullible youth and taking hold of Rome's Senate on his own and has Cicero killed (tho he was his mentor of sort), Sansa is foreshadowed to help her sibling through winter and against their enemies and also to bring forth LF's end (tho as shown by the show, she still uses his lessons as he was her mentor, in a way — I spoke of these matters at length already, x, xx, xxx, xxxx, xxxxx).
Octavian was de facto the emperor of Rome, yet he never consacred himself as such, rathering the title of princeps and guarantor of the romans morals, Sansa, in the same way is a princess in the north and is Ned's moral heir, thus a guarantor of the Stark's morals.
Octavian acted against Mark Anthony and Cleopatra first by the means of propaganda to then, attack military and reach his goal, similarly Sansa has done the same in the show, to defend Jon (the Mark Anthony of the moment) she used propaganda against Daenerys to then move in military to save her brother when he was imprisoned, reaching her goal by gaining independence for the North and securing Jon's life.
—› also Jon might play the role of Mark Anthony in the book too, but just like he was undercover with the wildling he might be a false Mark Anthony, who'd kill Daenerys (deal the final blow —› ‘love is poison’ Cleopatra allegedly died of poison and she was felled by love, the love Jon bears his family. And Sansa has many Cregan Stark parallels, one of which going South after the assassination of a king/queen and putting a child she supports on the throne (Bran) while taking back North a southern of the opposite faction (Jon, who outwardly supported Daenerys, but we know the book is building toward polJon). Btw, Octavian did something similar by marrying Livia, the wife of a man of the opposite faction (going as far as to adopt her son and make him his heir), a woman whom he loved until the end of his life, a wilful woman who lurked in the shadows and ruled next to both her husband and her son. If Jonsa does happen, Jon would have played the Mark Anthony to then end up being unmasked as a gender swapped Livia to Sansa's Octavian, and I am here for it, if it does happen.
Now, let's return to the topic, why was it easier to attack Cleopatra instead of Mark Anthony? Octavian's propaganda focused against Cleopatra, reducing Mark Anthony to a poor sod who had been ensnared by her charms and had failed to maintain his duties toward Rome by falling for her seduction and taking away any ambition Mark Anthony might have harboured to become a king in the same fashion as Cleopatra promised him; also reducing Cleopatra to a witch, a seductress and temptress instead of the political mastermind who said her own, as any other man, in a world build by men for men.
Cleopatra herself went as far as to have coins made that depicted her as masculinely as possible, so that people saw almost no difference between herself, Mark Anthony and Octavian. Putting herself on the same stand as the two men, Octavian completely obliterated that attempt by shaping the way her memory would be remembered centuries from her life and death, and that was one his greatest victories against Cleopatra.
As I've said already Mark Anthony had a reputation in Rome, he had been Cesar's right hand and had helped Octavian secure to justice Cesar's assassins, he was beloved even if he was loosing some of that love, by disregarding his duties to Rome and acting as Cleopatra toy-consort.
He gave Octavian many weaknesses to exploit, and all returned and advantaged Cleopatra (which made her even of an easier target):
He declared her son Cesarion as Cesar's rightful heir, thus disregarding the roman custom of naming an heir, to advantage Cleopatra and her goals for her son;
He disposed of the land of Rome as if it was his own, first giving it to Cleopatra, and secondly by granting it in inheritance to his children exactly like a hellenistic ruler would've done, bringing to life the fears that had provoked the roman Senate to assassinate Cesar;
He lived comfortably by the egyptian custom, after a resounding defeat against the kingdom of Parthia, setting aside his lawful roman wife and children (Octavia, Octavian's own sister) for a life of commodities with Cleopatra at her court, paying homage with her to her Gods, instead of the romans.
So, Cleopatra took advantage of any political manoeuvre Mark Anthony did, which, considering Mark Anthony's previous reputation, made her such an easy target as the seductress who had ensnared a proud, strong roman from his duties to serve her own ambitions and purposed. This way it became a matter of accepting the fact that by disregarding the roman ways, Mark Anthony was no longer a roman and the fault was Cleopatra's and they needed to defeat both of them, to secure the peace for Rome and its return to glory and to the previous morals, avoiding the peril of Cleopatra making of Rome a new Egypt.
In the same way Sansa, in the show and possibly in the book as well, might end up actively opposing Daenerys (subtly, like when she showed she was a better option by commenting on the food, on how the soldiers needed rest and it was necessary to speak with them to ascertain the truth of their condition to not plunge them into a mindless war without have them being prepared against an enemy who was rested and strengthened) forwarding Jon (and later Bran) for the throne, thus managing as well for the wish for independence of the northern to be fulfilled with the North going free.
Actually I think both Arianne and Sansa might play a part like this in Daenerys' arc, because I believe both girl will gain independence for their respective kingdom and princedom, which they'll rule and restore back to glory, beloved by their people. A direct contrast against Daenerys, who will perceived as an invader, a foreign (as the whole scene between her and Randyll Tarly exploited) and someone who does not fit the bills of aptitude to rule over Westeros.
Anyway, propaganda, just as it was the beginning of the end for Cleopatra, might actually be the beginning of the end for Daenerys; in fact after all of his propaganda, Octavian managed to use his own fleet, which power was considered lesser than the egyptian war-fleet, to battle and defeat both Anthony and Cleopatra — will Sansa manage to gather the assistance of some of Daenerys' forces (maybe even a dragon through Jon?) to use against Daenerys in an efficient manner?
After Anthony was dead, Octavian had a private talk with Cleopatra at the end of which Cleopatra was granted a noble death — death by suicide once defeated was a noble way to go for the romans — and she died by poison, and he made sure Egypt befell under roman rule, he made sure Cesarion was no longer an issue, by killing him; might it be that after having secured the throne to Bran, Sansa will take one of the possible heirs to the Targaryen rule (Jon) back North and giving him the Stark name (which it's what he always wanted) as suggested by the fact that the crypt teaser has Jon statue in the crypts of Winterfell entombed as a Stark king of old, thus eliminating a possible threat to Bran's rule? (something Jon might do all alone as well by abdicating in Bran's favour to return North where he belongs).
Of course most of this is hypothetical and build on historical figures that have been layered by myth and propaganda, and fictional characters whose end is not yet specifically delivered by the author, basing off the only canon we have on the show, but we cannot deny that the similarities (both positive and negative) between Daenerys and Cleopatra are there, and part of their stories shadows and overlaps each other in a way that leave us wondering — will the rest of Daenerys show follow (in broad strokes) Cleopatra's end and demise?
I think it's an interesting question, don't you?
As always, thank you for bearing with me to the end of this!, and I am anxious to see what you think about this!, and thank you @sansaissteel for this request to write this meta, it was interesting — long, and you were there for every step of the way to listen to me gushing and mumbling about it all with incredible patience — and I had fun, which really is one of the important parts of this fandom hobby and all!
#Daenerys and Cleopatra#parallels#historical parallels#Daenerys stormborn#cleopatra#the last Targaryen queen#the last ptolemaic queen#tagging just to be safe#dark Daenerys#not really#but we all know why#Daenerys neutral
35 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
mamath
Mamath
5-fuxking-unicorns
jen 💛
where-the-giants-are
Where-The-Giants-Are
orinthered
only the blades can offer salvation.
someintimatesecrets
Maybe Someday ❇