#wishesofeternity | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

horizon-verizon · 16 days

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/wishesofeternity/699562103667851264/daemon-targaryen-rant-incoming-warning-its

curious of your thoughts about this post?

Disclaimers: None of this means you have to like Daemon or approve any of his earlier actions or think he's a good person--bc that was never the argument.

And this post will also be long. There's so much to address, and there's a character limit, so I might miss some or summarize too much.

Them:

Daemon Targaryen, like every other character, possesses the capacity for good and evil and the ability to choose. But morally? Daemon was a child groomer and a pedophile who had physical relations with his teenage niece and a 17-year old girl (he was 50 at the time), and enjoyed sampling young virgins at brothels.

So the quote that they pull, firstly, is this:

“Over the centuries, House Targaryen has produced both great men and monsters. Prince Daemon was both. In his day there was not a man so admired, so beloved, and so reviled in all Westeros. He was made of light and darkness in equal parts. To some he was a hero, to others the blackest of villains.”

And I'll just say that this is written by a character in-world, Gyldayn. It's valuable to keep reminding ourselves that this is a maester who is compiling sources to try to get pictures of who these people were so we can consider how the narrative is being framed. Let's get into it:

Daemon didn't fuck Nettles.

He was however, likely to have been including virgins in his use of sex workers at brothels. I doubt that he only went to brothels for virgins with a Valyrian look, there's no evidence of that. Gross, bc buying sex work itself is already problematic [post abt Mysaria and sex work]. Add deflowering peasant girls maybe as young as 15? yeah...smh

So I would still concede a bit here. Definitely the "darkness" of his past and the "darkness" part of his character.

I've gone back and forth with how we label what he was doing with Rhaenyra after he came back form the Stepstones. Can you put some labels on it, bc under scrutiny there are flaws.

When we think of grooming, we consider it as the older person trying to get the younger psychologically detached from their support system by convincing them that they can only rely on them...and unfortunately, I'd say that of all the people Rhaenyra had then, Daemon was the person who actually was there for her more than any other in her entire life (except maybe Aemma). And I really think he entered KL with the intent to marry Rhaenyra, not to use her up in a similar way that show!Viserys does Alicent. The issue with Dameyra people have is whether or not Daemon married her just to be her consort and rule through her, when by the evidence of F&B, he never tried to overpower her and willfully became her political subordinate similar to how he still followed most and the more important of Viserys' orders (sending Mysaria away the that was literally his first child). A groomer wouldn't tolerate such a gap in power relations.

Rhaenyra didn't follow his advice concerning the Rosby & Stokeworth debacle; his was a kinda suitable compromise even as it shunted the Rosby and Stokeworth girls and I am making commentary on how Daemon tried to plan according for Rhaenyra's future. Daemon might have showed his displeasure, but here and in all their years of marriage, he never seemed to try to overpower her directions until the very last And in that last moment, I suspect that Nettles was either a surrogate daughter or his actual bio daughter.

(I explain about Viserys multiple times, but people can start HERE.)

A difference here is how the relations helped Rhaenrya vs Alicent; Rhaenyra, for better or worse, was Viserys' heir whereas Alicent was a Hightower lady from a second son who could have had any man and still live a better life and has had no other benefit to anyone other than her father, house, herself, and Viserys.

Rhaenyra needed a husband and heirs to be more assured in her queenship role, which in turn could have provided that precedent of female rulership for other women and girls. And quite simply put, the court knowing Laenor had no interest in women presented a glaring problem for the paternity of Rhaenyra' heirs and gave more ammo to her enemies. Yes the Velaryons have their fleet Rhaenyra could use, but a marriage pact with Laena's kids to Rhaenyra's PLUS Princess Rhaenys' relations to Rhaenyra, Viserys, & Daemon had some way of allying Corlys' ambitions to Rhaenyra. It's highly doubtful bk!Rhaenys would just go green, even if Corlys wanted to and neither Baela nor Rhaena existed bc the greens are just more tied to the Hightowers.

Like yes, Daemon giving the gifts to Rhaenyra and spending time with her and making fun of Alicent and her kids for Rhaenrya's amusement--with the knowledge that it didn't come with his pure intentions but partly because he wanted to become her consort--comes across as dangerous for a young girl like Rhaenyra and is certainly has cunning in it. HE also knew that Viserys wouldn't like that Daemon was partly giving such attentions to marry her bc he knows Viserys (stupidly, I might add, again, refer to the post abt Viserys) doesn't trust Daemon to actually work towards the family or really his own political interests, so we can't say that it is exactly Daemon courting her. I also suspect him of being jealous of Daemon, bk or show, bc of their history and what I said about Viserys' insecuriites in the linked post.

To officially "court" someone, their parents or guardians would have to allow the interactions. [again, refer to the linked reblog abt Viserys]. Simultaneously:

Rhaenyra was already being arranged to get married at her age of 15, and by Westerosi larger patriarchal structure she was eligible for marriage even not by being 16, bc exceptions are made for girls in ways they aren't for boys; it's not totally conducive to use her age to something to discourage Daemon from pursuing her IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE or this world and in their traditions....which is why I hate real-world modern AUs for ASoIaF characters....her interactions with Daemon before Viserys found out, therefore, arguably display her having more "choice" than otherwise, even though we'd have to now examine how Daemon's specific actions, words, diction, etc. [WHICH WE DON'T HAVE BC THIS SGYLADYN DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH!] are unambiguously him deceiving Rhaenyra, how much are gray-room manipulation, and see how much "choice" Rhaenyra really has and it still wouldn't be the end-all-be all bc of the world they all live in

Viserys would have never let Daemon marry her for the wrong reasons. I don't think Daemon went in with the mind of taking advantage so much as unofficially "court" Rhaenyra in the absence of the permission he'd never obtain to force Viserys' hand. And because of this circumstance limiting both Rhaenyra and Daemon's actions, the whole thing slides into an area of where the already questionable practice of courtship and age gap relations that Westeros already has

One of the best interpretations of Daemon's interactions with Rhaenyra at this time and what I describe are written in sweetestpopcorn's fanfic The Blacks and the Greens HERE. Their Daemon is an asshole who manipulates there. He also becomes, as in canon, devoted to her herself and her cause to become queen, so he willingly serves to be, again, her political subordinate in a way that groomers can't and never can be.

Them:

He was a warmonger and war criminal who began a conquest of the Stepstones, taking all but two islands, ensuring that the people there "learned to fear" his dragon, before abandoning the entire thing because he got bored.

This is what "warmonger" means:

a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups

The Triarchy, or the Kingdom of the Three Daughters (Lys, Myr, Tyrosh), did not manage to keep the pirates they would eventually enable out of this critical piece of land between Essos and Westeros. Traders were getting assaulted and girls were getting kidnapped and trafficked. In the show, Corlys appealed to the crown for years and both bk/show!Viserys ignored the situation in the Stepstones for a long time ("A Question of Succession"):

Yes, Daemon saw in the Stepstones an opportunity to make a name for himself as what is valued in men in this system. But he certainly provoke or encourage the wars' existence because the fighting began 10 yrs before he ever even approached Corlys. There is also no evidence of him manipulating the situation where the fighting actually stopped and it began again due to any action on his part. There simply was a resurgence of enemies to fight.

If they are defining him as a warmonger because he doesn't care too much about stopping fighting or has a bloodlust for it, that's neither what that word means nor is it pathological as they seem to imply it of him. Again this is a feudal world....that rules that the "best" sort of man is a warrior who wins battles. How do young men and boys make names for themselves? By fighting in battles and winning most if not all of the, showing physical and military "prowess". Even Jaehaerys honed his physical skills at 14-15 to prove to others he was a fit king AND tried to get his son Vaegon out of his books and learn more swordsmanship through Baelon. Jaehaerys subscribed much into that warrior-male ideology as most people in their circles did. Rogar sought glory in battle as a way to fix up his reputation from trying to usurp Jaehaerys. Orys Baratheon sought to re-position himself as useful to Aegon I through battling more Dornish. So Daemon's hardly unique enough for his using battle and war to build his reputation or having that desire to use war to advance himself, esp when he knows he's good at it.

This doesn't mean that he is a good person or that we should default back to feudal times or kill people. It means that the OP has a distorted view of Daemon and makes him uniquely evil when he hardly is. If anything, he's in this weird middle area of having that "respect" and having nothing substantial in terms of power on his own besides Caraxes, being good at this one soceity-valued thing, and being related to Viserys or Rhaenyra. So he rather took an opportunity that Viserys left open.

His efforts at the Stepstones actually brought the Stepstones more (if not totally) into Westeros' political hegemony and overall relative "peace" for a time until the new war the greens began ruined it. And unlike Rogar, who died in Dorne and stubbornly refused to go back to his home (bc he didn't want to really face what he did to Alyssa Velaryon AND the "humiliation" of Rhaena's confronting and threatening him), Daemon "tires" of the Stepstones & marries Laena to settle down ("A Question of Succession"):

I mean, if U.S. soldiers cite being "tired" of being away from home, why can't we also assume Daemon was in a similar place? He's been at the Stepstones for more than 5 years, including the time he was exiled afterwhatever happened b/t him and Rhaenrya in 111. I don't see how this perosn thought he left bc "he got bored" when it's still war...you are going to get reasonably tired of being in a battle no matter how good you are at it. Especially when you're also trying to maintain control of an island or two when the larger authority, the government (in this case Viserys and the council) does not send materials for those fortifications. To take HotD at face value, or "Watsonianly, "HotD!Daemon goes off on his own bc Viserys has just now decided to send reinforcements when he could have done so way before but refused to, again, stupidly and pridefully. So Daemon wanted to make a personal point to Viserys as well as a broader one. "Doyistly", or to criticize HotD, that whole situation of Daemon going off on his own was dumb even as it was thrilling: he couldn't have avoided all those arrows or traversed the field all by himself like that. I doubt that bk!Daemon would have done it that way.

And in the show, Alicent presses that he actually hurry up and put an end to the war not "for the realm"'s most vunerable's peace [once again, those kidnapped girls and the traders], but bc it's costing the crown money. She says as much in the 6th episode. Refusing to do as Rhaenrya suggests and build some fortifications to keep the Stepstones as they want them and even ensure future protection and eventually reduce the fighting to almost nil. Alicent's concern was not for people's lives or safety but for money and to maintain a picture of control. Viserys, too. But I digress.

Finally, we see Daemon at the black council saying they shouldn't go to war until they absolutely had to and actually had the soldiers an d support they needed. That dragons are a last resort & he agrees with Rhaenyra "surprisingly" ("The Blacks and the Greens"):

All belies this idea of him being a crazy warmonger with no restraint.

Let's just say that Daemon is definitively a war criminal. Would he be so unique in that? I don't see how Otto, Aegon the Elder, Criston Cole, Aemond, Daeron, the Hightowers, even Alicent, are all "war criminals". Daeron--Bitterbridge and those battle-damaged refugees, the raped people, Lady Caswell's end. Aemond: the Strongs, Alys Rivers, and the burning of the riverlands. And yet OP, again, makes Daemon out to be the instigator of many things....[below]

Them:

He was a child murderer responsible for the brutal murder of a 6-year old boy and the threat of rape to a 6-year old girl. He encouraged the continuation of the Dance and vengeance against his enemies, dismissing his Hand's proposal for peace. He had the selfishness of Aegon IV, the brutality of Maegor, and the tyranny of Aerys II. And that’s just scratching the surface of the things he did, both before and during the Dance.

...Aemond was a child murderer in killing Luke, which prompted Daemon's reaction. Daemon didn't begin that. Again, I speak to this idea that Daemon instigates. No, he responds.

He didn't threaten any rape of a 6 year old, Cheese was quite clearly trying to hurry Helaena up and threaten that. That shows Cheese's character, not Daemon.

Now, that Daemon at all arranged for a murder of a child? Yes, horrible, which shows he's never bene a good person. (As if there was a great and consistent argument people used to say he was?) This is different from him instigating things or causing the war. No, Aemond did that by killing Luke unprovoked. And before people bring up the eye, I already wrote about that HERE, HERE and HERE. Even if I didn't, it had been years, Aemond made as if he was cool with it....so why did he run after teen-Luke or (bk) allow himself to be so triggered by Maris Baratheon's words about his manhood to go for straight up physical intimidation and murder?!

By "his Hand", I'm assuming they are saying HotD!Daemon refused Aegon the Elder's Hand--Otto--'s terms for peace.

Not only was it that in the bk, Rhaenyra refused the terms the green council sent Grand Maester Orwyle to deliver to her (her big speech about his not being a loyal maester/subject -- HotD removes/reduces Rhaenyra's fascinating assertion of power through calling out others' trying to redefine her worthiness as heir)...

This is Otto and Daemon in that last episode.

We need to remember that Otto is just as willing to risk a war if it gets him what he wants. He made that choice as soon as he pimped his daughter out to Viserys and kept insisting that Rhaenyra's position was defaulted once Aegon was born, as he says in this own. He is and never was willing to stave off a war. He is the one to insiste that Rhenyra is not even a "true" heir despite the fact that Viserys, time and time again, reinforced her position PUBLICLY. Otto explicitly says Rhaenyra is not the true heir. He was never about "protecting" anyone, much less the peasants who'd be caught up in this war.

So, again, I find it strange OP missed that and says Daemon is at fault for the war bc of a supposed bloodthirstiness for war and violence itself...when the man even backs off from Otto by Rhaenyra's order of "No" in that scene. Yes he was preparing the castle in case the greens attacked it as they coronated Aegon...wouldn't most of us one we hear news of a someone depowering or usurping the person we are tasked to protect?! Daemon is rather responding to what happening, which is Rhaenyra being usurped and pressing for her rights to the throne as Otto is trying to assert Aegon's right to the throne. Why is Otto figured as this righteous seeker of "order" and "peace" and not someone enabling an event where Rhaenyra is losing a thing due to her gender...esp since Otto is both the guy who suggested her appointment as heir in the first place AND the guy who explicitly said to Alicent that the reason he did so/and is plotting against her is bc she is a woman?!

He had the selfishness of Aegon IV, the brutality of Maegor, and the tyranny of Aerys II

He can't have any sort of "tyranny" if he's not the ruler or final authority of anything...so...

He's certainly self centered and only thinks about his own family's needs or desires. However, to say he's equal to Aegon IV, who willfully and purposefully and consciously set up a situation where a war could happen just to spite his son, wife, and brother out of pure jealousy is disingenuous. Aegon IV betrayed his own family; Daemon died for his family. And again, he canonically allowed himself to be subordinate to Rhaenyra. Can we really say Aegon IV is the same, when he rapes his sister after she explictly told him she didn't want to have sex with him anymore, threw away his various mistresses and daughters for new mistresses, neglected most of his kids?

As for being as "brutal" as Maegor...yeah, he wasn't opposed to torture and he, again, was no stranger nor repulsed or against using violence. He was brutal.

However unlike Maegor who tortured two of his wives and raped another (Rhaena), Daemon doesn't flagrantly use torture against those who--again--haven't already presented themselves as critical enemies. Alys Harroway was completely innocent even if she had had affairs bc she didn't endanger Maegor's life. Tyanna was unequivocally evil and carried out Alys' gruesome murder, even though she absolutely was being sidelined for not giving Maegor heirs--having to become "useful" to him otherwise [which is another discussion about class and misogyny in those spaces]. And she would have done so to the others if she had the chance. Tyland Lannister, though? He was hiding the secrets of the stolen royal treasury. (Aegon stole the throne, the greens moved funds that never should have been in their possession, and they did it specifically so they could diminish Rhaenyra's ability to really establish herself at KL in their absence. Which explicitly shows us that they aren't "legitimate" rulers bc Rhaenyra had still been alive and someone they had to get rid of. So yes the funds were stolen.)

So Daemon's brutality is of a different quality than Maegor's; the slight but very important difference between them is that Maegor hurt those closest to him while Daemon never stooped low, that far nor ever looked for a fight that wasn't there already.

I think there is also a conflation of grey morality with unpredictability. Daemon was unpredictable, with his sudden elopements and kickstarting of wars and general mercuriality. The moral complexity of this, however, depends on his motives, and none of his are particularly complicated or difficult to morally pin down: he is primarily and consistently motivated by self-interest. If they happen to benefit others, it’s purely coincidental, and always secondary. Unpredictability does not automatically make someone morally grey, and it certainly doesn’t with Daemon. [...] If the narrative had leaned into his awfulness, he could have potentially been a fun villain.

I believe that once we realize that the "greyness" of Daemon stems from his insistence to put his family before his own search for power as a man about his being "good" to people not-his family, the greyness works. Because much of the Dance was also about defending the family you think or you really are defending. HotD!Alicent (and for some people, bk!Alicent, too) thinks she is protecting her kids from people using Rhaenyra and harming her kids (lying to herself)...but she really troggers a war that will end with ALL her kids dead and only 4 of 7 of Daemon and Rhaenyra's surviving. A war that lead to many sacks, the Riverlands burning the Strongs going extinct. All because Otto wanted more power and Viserys was an idiot and Jaehaerys was a misogynist and Aerys was stupid and Aegon I didn't take a chance.

Daemon of HotD explicitly says to Otto that he doesn't trust his sons with Aegon, the "drunken usurper cunt of a king"....and he was right to. If the show continues to make Aegon as he was in the bk, Aegon will threaten to mutilate Aegon III, castrate him, etc. so that Rhaenyra's line "must end". Aegon explicitly says as much in his conversation to Alicent abt how to stave off Rhaneyra's supporters.

'I rather think Daemon is one of the most predictable characters of this story. What is "unpredictable" is that because he doesn't try to be a "good" knight or typical protector or try to make people "love" him as Viserys does; or try to flatter others, he's "unpredictable" to those people who would have wanted him to be more like what Loras Tyrell puts out. And that sentiment, that reputation he built as being that more "shameless" bleeds through various tellings of his actions, esp with him & Nettles [refer to the very first link abt Nettles I have above].

There is a morality in how one treats one's family, as I implied through my comparison to Maegor. I also think of Jaehaerys and his treatment of Rhaena, Alysanne, his daughters, how he handled his succession, etc. Jaehaerys--through his abusiveness and sidelining of important, critical women around him--sets up the Dance. Yet many in the fandom think of him as an absolutely good king instead of a relatively good one. And through Jaehaerys and Aegon Iv and the rest, we see how protecting your family and valuing them above their roles contributes tot he overall stability of a dynasty's grasp on power bc all these sidelined women were able to politically contribute...but were sidelined and forced to make separate lives for themselves.

As I said, Daemon is motivated in part by legacy...as much as Visenya was with Maegor. But again, he didn't die at the Gods Eye for selfish ambition...otherwise he would have never allowed himself to die in the first place and even hand Nettles over. Even if he had been just sleeping with her, what would stop him from being totally selfish and handing her over to be killed similar to how several lords abandon their mistresses or one night stands? do we think that Tywin Lannister would advocate or try to help out Shea if she were to ever get into trouble? Sacrifice himself or disobey an order form another force/authority for here to live?!

Daemon was never going to be a villain, bc villains are characters who are amoral antagonists to the protagonist. "Villain" is a specific literary/media term, it's not a term you apply whatsoever just because the person is evil. Even protagonists can be amoral or eveil (Dorian Grey). But Daemon is actually one of the protagonists. The greens are the antagonists; they usurped the actual, main protagonists, Rhaenyra, and Daemon is on the protagonist's side. Once again, who loses more? The greens or the blacks? Whose line ends? Who has their last member (Jaehaera) killed in a manner similar to how Alicent became Viserys' queen consort? The greens. (Unwin Peake had Jaehaera killed to make way for his own daughter to marry Aegon III...Otto may not have killed Aemma or had her killed, but he & Alicent certainly was looking for power through a nonTarg Queen consort). Everuone is certainly punished for the war...but the greens lose utterly and didn't accomplish what they set out to do, which was to establish their own line of rulers.

It's like with Macbeth, who got to be king. But one of his killed adversaries and the scion of the past king he murdered--actually got to propagate the next line of kings. I also have to remind everyone that when Corlys said that Aegon the Elder should name Aegon the Younger as his heir, Alicent got pissed...showing that she and the greens banked on growing their own Targ line...so yeah this matters ("The Sad, Short Reign of Aegon II"):

No one ever said that unpredictability = moral greyness. The moral greyness was that he was a good dad and only cared about protecting his family in a way that many people even now would just think about protecting those close to them.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of this blatant favoritism is how Daemon is turned into the essential protagonist of the Dance of the Dragons.

This line contradicts what the OP said about him being a villain...what gives?

Like I already said, villains in a story are antagonists, never the protagonist! Out of the story, amongst those discussing, we can maybe say that a protagonist is a "villain" in the nonliterary and colloquial sense but these should not erase/overpower the basic structure of the story being told. (if they are "villains" to your own personal set of values, that makes sense. but not for the story written)

And no, he's not the essential protagonist, he's one of them. Rhaenyra is rather the protagonist. The story is about a woman usurped of her throne and position because others took advantage of her being a woman and being the first female heir apparent that was actually intended to be Queen. The question of female rulership (and agency) is the center of the Dance alongside what the "price for power" is, which contextualizes Dany's own struggles from being a woman AND ruler. Learning how to be a better sort of ruler in the face of societies that already say she can never be so because if her gender AND the result of this Dance war that lead to more Targaryen women losing power the more it became embedded in Andal patriarchal culture for the dynasty's grip on power. Rhaneyra's foils are Aegon and his mother, Alicent. "Princess an the Queen"? And Aegon is the model for the Targaryen male royal who exemplifies all the unusual allowances this society gives to men while women like Rhaenyra are subjugated or condemned for doing mush less or simply things no one can say are immoral but somehow trouble the men's grip on power. Which is why Daemon is more of a positive force in her life than a negative and is "morally grey", bc he subordinates himself for her. Again, he fights for her and has his legacy through her winning. Rhaenyra's son Aegon derives his claim through her, not Aegon the Elder nor though Daemon ("Lineages and Family Tree"):

His wives are all overshadowed by him and primarily defined by their relationship with him. Rhea Royce is an unfeatured non-entity who exists solely for him to hate, and conveniently dies in time for him to remarry. Laena is a beautiful, fiery, perfect companion who dies tragically young and in a conveniently gendered manner, once again in time for him to remarry. Rhaenyra is sidelined and eclipsed in her own war and her own story in favor of him. Nor should we forget his lovers: more time is spent describing Nettles and Mysaria’s relationships with Daemon than actually telling us more about them as individuals. Once he’s out of the picture for good, the former completely retreats from civilization, and the latter is gruesomely murdered by his enemies. Once again, all I can say is: Convenient.

Once again, Nettles was never his lover.

If you feel Daemon is more "interesting" than Rhaenyra, that's your own thing. However, again, Rhaenyra is the true center of the Dance, not Daemon. This is the basic structure & purpose of the narrative. Ignore the stupid dudebros. It is the rumors and Mysaria's deciding Rhaenyra that Nettles is Daemon's lover that springboards' Rhaenyra's fall. After Daemon dies, she still lives and has her own tragic end that has its own commentary on women in power and femicide.

For the story of Rhaenyra targeting Nettles to work, it has to be true that DaemonxNettles was never a thing...bc Rhaenyra became paranoid of betrayals after Ulf and Hugh defected and destroyed Tumbleton PLUS her grief from her two sons getting killed before she landed on KL.

Also, again, I very much doubt that he struck up an affair with Mysaria when they landed. Once again, this is a book written by a maester who was not there. Septon Eustace--who hates Rhaenyra...oh look more proof that it's all abt Rhaenyra--says that Daemon slept with Mysaria...he also says that Rhaenyra cut herself on the throne while wearing full armor and tries to say that this indicated she would never be a good ruler...Even f she had cut her palm, us as readers have to remember that even Aegon I was cut. Aegon IV, however, was never reported to be cut. Arguably one of the worst rulers Westeros ever had. This was a superstition, it was a chair made out of swords....come on, now! And if Mysaria were sleeping with Daemon, why would she choose to have him killed?! Especially when she stood to gain so much more from his being alive than dead as the their mistress of whispers? Rhaenyra was also very possessive of Daemon and more likely saw Mysaria as not trustworthy (without the context of Mysaria working for her) as she did Laena those years past. Proven by how she acted with Nettles. I doubt that she would allow Daemon to sleep with Mysaria without going crazy and putting a stop to it so Septon Eusatce can have more to write gleefully about.

What narrative purpose would Rhea Royce serve? What would she do for this purpose of the Dance but to be as she was--a minor character whose marriage to a specific Targ rather shows Jaehaerys and Alysanne bungling marriage alliances? If F&B doesn't give Rhea as much attention as it does Rhaneyra or Laena or Rhaneys or Alicent, it's because the story isn't about these "lesser" lords and ladies who are not there to not build up the central character's characterizations. that's how stories work. But perhaps more importantly, Gyldayn is writing F&B as its onw historical volume. F&B is a work against female rulership. Rhea being so used and so poorly matched with Daemon AND both Alysanne and Viserys' refusal to have this marriage annulled emphasizes the pattern of shallowly-described/de-personed women (like Ceryse Hightower, Alys Harroway, Jeyne Westerling____Yandel of AWoIaF--Barbra Bracken and Bethany Blackwood, Serenei of Lys, etc) are all because their authors--and those who related the tales to various people for the author to write into their histories--are uninterested in them bc they were women made into wombs. Rhea had no other political purpose but to tie Daemon down. That's Jaehaerys, Alysanne, and whoever was responsible for Rhea's faults. And again, it's meant to show us that Andal patriarchy-Targ monarchy paradigm that vicitmizes and suboridnates women.

Similar can be said of Laena, but because she cam from a much more important, wealthier family and was a dragonrider where she's allowed to express herself AND was best friends with Rhaenyra...there was no way she wouldn't have had soem more relative attention than the other women OP listed (except Rhaenyra). Laena was another supporting character, not a main one. And she also dies so Rhaneyra and Daemon will have Aegon III, from which we will have Dany, ASoIaF's savior. Just as Laenor and Harwin had to be removed somehow (Laenor through death bc there was no such thing as divorce) so Rhaenyra will marry Daemon and give us Dany.

Not to say that Laena's death was morally justified nor that it wasn't in a gendered manner...it's that it has a specific purpose in terms of ASoIaF's themes and structure. It's part of a larger commentary than what we just see in front of our eyes in this moment of HotD being the present ASoIaF project everyone's watching now. Basically, I'm saying: yeah, that's the whole point.

Should GRRM have reduced the number of women dying by childbirth? Maybe. Idk, there's a theory out there that I like where the maesters are the ones who stopped the Targ women, including Laena, from having more children or surviving childbirth. Not Alysanne because Jaehaerys was clearly the "dominant" of the two and they both more or less were pretty integrated into Andal patriarchy and supported the Faith, who the maesters have shared interests with. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Let's put it this way: if we say that if you impose childbirthing on 15-17 year olds (Rhaenys and Jocelyn Baratheon were both 16 at marriage; Rhaenyra 17; Alyssa Velaryon 14; Alyssa Targaryen 15; Helaena 13; *Laena 23) AND we see that on average Westerosi noblewomen marry at around 16-19 and start getting pregnant not long after, then why is it that the Targ women (except Alysanne) keep having under 3 kids and/or dying of childirth? But, again, I'll say this is a theory. It could very well be this AND the Westerosi practice of marrying noble girls off & having kids too young. Which is part of the allure of ASoIaF, but that's another thing.

Narratively, the Greens suffer the most from this. All of them are caricatures meant to oppose the Blacks rather than individual characters in their own right

Easy; bc they started the war, their goals were simple, this is a book written by a guy who wasn't there, Alicent and Otto clearly raised their kids to see the blacks as their enemy bc they said the throne was their patriarchal birthright.

...Daemon compared to his nephew, Aemond Targaryen. Both of them are clearly meant to be narrative parallels: second sons, dangerous swordsmen, the heavy-hitting wildcards of the war, one of them claiming Visenya’s dragon and the other one possessing Visenya’s sword. Both of them committed heinous atrocities on equal proportion, the only difference being that Daemon lived longer and thus had the time to commit more. Yet the way they are portrayed could not be more different: Aemond is rightfully depicted as war criminal and a murderer, and is both one-dimensional and over-the-top in his awfulness; Daemon, on the other hand, has far more pagetime, is explored in far more detail, and has all his crimes contextualized as part of his glorified and non-existent “grey morality”. (And while this is not a direct criticism, it’s also a little weird that while Aemond is justifiably called Kinslayer, Daemon is not, despite the fact that he was responsible the death of his young grand-nephew, a suspect for the death of his good-brother, and the eventual killer of Aemond himself.) The narrative rightfully condemns one while painting the other as someone who was “made of light and darkness in equal parts”. The bias is very, very evident.

That's because Daemon is older and grows out of that fighting for glory's sake that Aemond is still in BUT unlike Daemon, Aemond--bc again he was raised by the ambitious greens who are basing their cause on reinforcing patriarchal privilege, Aemond was...unlikely to get where Daemon was bc he was still in that place of "proving himself" a "true" Targaryen warrior. Because he was raised to think a lot less of his own sister and see her as a threat to his own masculinity and power (similar to how Jaehaerys I will see Rhaena), he is that sexist and misogynist. IDK, I rather think he's very much like many men even today.

Daemon never burned down "civilians" just because he was angry and wanted to draw out an enemy. Nor did he have a sex slave. Mysaria, though a sex worker, was not a slave. Alys Rivers was a war prize, thus a sex slave. One that was made into a war prize by Aemond's own doing. Just bc the line seems thin, doesn't mean it's not there nor substantial. Aemond abandoned Alicent & Helaena and refused to go down south with Criston Cole because ("Rhaenyra Triumphant"):

If he had taken Cole's advice, they could have rejoined Aegon and gotten rid of the Winter Wolves...oh well.

Returning to harming civilians yeah, Daemon swept through KL castrating and cutting people's hands off. In terms of sheer scale, no, this still isn't "equal" to Aemond's burning down the Riverlands, killing all the Strongs, etc.

Finally, just as Aegon serves as Rhaneyra's literary foil to emphasize her being the morally & politically better of the two, Daemon's foil is Aemond. As Robert Baratheon was Rhaegar's.

(I’d also like to point out that a 50-year old man challenging his barely 20-year old nephew and winning against him is nowhere near as glorious or awe-inspiring as the book or its fans make it out to seem, but is in fact one of the most pathetically embarrassing things I've ever read about. I also don’t think it was realistic at all, and would have made more symbolic and literal sense for both of them to mutually kill the other. But that would result in GRRM’s favourite character getting the equal end of the stick for once, which is probably why it didn't happen)

...Aemond wanted that battle? He hungered for it?!

Most of All, and before anything else: the reasons why Daemon is considered the winner of his battle with Aemond despite both dying is that:

of the two, it is Daemon who succeeds in his intentions for this battle: to keep Aemond from being a threat to Rhaenrya & their family....Aemond went into battle believing he had a sliver of chance at survival AND winning--he risked it all for his own personal sense of glory and power...and he didn't get what he wanted

Daemon, unlike Aemond, never faltered or hesitates in his plans or intent or the trajectory before nor during the actual battle and its' pretty clear how in sync he was with Caraxes (written and explained below)---it belies a level of self control that we do not see in Aemond

Yes, absolutely this uncle & nephew trying to destroy each other in is terrible by their relations; their battle was one of the conflicts within the war that represented an element of one of the overall tragedies, which was the Targaryens splitting into competing factions and not only losing most of those they loved but also destroying several communities while they were at i for power. However, this doesn't erase the fact that once again, even when we make Aemond and any green more "complicated" and not caricatures...the fact of the matter is that the greens were in the wrong for beginning the war with their insistence on male primogeniture...bc the principles behind their reasons So Daemon is the more admired party precisely because he's defending the person the wrong has bene done to AND destroying the very person who triggered this war in the first place. That's the first layer to the excitement of this scene that dude-bros would probably never appreciate, and I think that because some people do not really think about the implications of many stories about F&B and discrimination even against noblewomen in Westeros (because they take it from granted), many of them end up being so neutral or taking the anti-Rhaenyra/black tone of the narrative as it is instead of examining how and why it's written, section by section. So they also miss the point about how the Targs assimilated into Andal patriarchy and sexism and women losing more and more power and agency and it becoming more and justified, leading to the Dance. And it's bc people do not look at the Dance nor the entire book feministly or at least with a woman-centered lens, they ended up not really engaging with the stories. Putting it all off as "unreliable" on time when they are questioned as to why they think certain things happened despite yada, yada....and then going on to make arguments about characters as if they understand them, read them, and/or have lived in that world alongside them. Again, issue d they claim that we can't understand the characters or th0ier true motives and don't bother to understand how Gyldayn wrote the book for a particular purpose...and then go on the claim that he/the book is telling all truths.

Another layer/reason why it is as glorified as it was was because, as this OP mentions, it was expected for Daemon to lose since Aemond had Vhagar. He new he'd lose his life...but he went in anyway with no backup bc Aemond was one of Rhaenrya's--again, Rhaenyra at center--biggest opps and she had a better chance of winning without him in the picture. Plus, this is the same guy who killed a 14 year old Daemon raised as his own for more than 10 years in the book and 6 in the show. Once again, unprovoked. Does it matter that he was 20 to Daemon's 49 when he killed Luke when he was 19 and Luke was 14? When Aemond pushes a 3 year old Joffrey when he was 10 in his way to get to Vhagar? that he beats up his younger nephews and cousins. Yet somehow many fans say "he had to" or they say he was "cool" and praise him for it?!

And this is not as criticized as much as people saying Daemon "unrealistically" kills his nephew....

Also, I already wrote a post comparing Jaehaerys I v Braxton Beesbury to Daemon v Aemond HERE. It goes into the "realism" of an older dude against a younger one. Excerpt:

Caraxes also making sure he stays connected to Vhagar so Daemon can do his thing

We have to pay attention to the language of the battle. there is a synchronicity b/t Caraxes and Daemon that Aemond lacked with Vhagar AND may clue us in on the Targs and how they view/interact/bond with their dragons ("Rhaenyra Triumphant"):

Caraxes dove down upon Vhagar with a piercing shriek that was heard a dozen miles away, cloaked by the glare of the setting sun on Prince Aemond’s blind side. The Blood Wyrm slammed into the older dragon with terrible force. [...] Locked together, the dragons tumbled toward the lake. The Blood Wyrm’s jaws closed about Vhagar’s neck, her black teeth sinking deep into the flesh of the larger dragon. Even as Vhagar’s claws raked her belly open and Vhagar’s own teeth ripped away a wing, Caraxes bit deeper, worrying at the wound as the lake rushed up below them with terrible speed. And it was then, the tales tell us, that Prince Daemon Targaryen swung a leg over his saddle and leapt from one dragon to the other.

Despite them both falling, Caraxes remains gripping Vhagar and having to know of the danger, Caraxes still holds Vhagar. Daemon won't let Aemond go; Caraxes won't let Vhagar go. Vhagar is trying to get Caraxes off her; Aemond is trying to get his chains off him to escape Daemon. Caraxes is holding onto Vhagar so Aemond cannot escape from Daemon and Daemon has a stable edge over Aemond to plunge Dark sister into Aemond's head. They see to work together and take their final turns to eliminate this threat. These are all why this passage--for all the stuff about how we nor even the few witnesses there (Alys Rivers and some fisherman) can't possibly know it definitely happened this way--is so important, impresses people. It also needed to be there bc the alternative--a mere summary of Daemon killing Aemond and people finding the sword/bodies--is comparatively more boring. (Daemon at Harrenhal, waiting for Aemond, as set up for the narrative value of their deaths)

Why didn't GRRM treat Luke's death the same, with as much detail? Luke had no substantial degree of advantage over Aemond as Daemon did. They were not even close to being on any "equal" or footing? Luke had no chance; the moment was meat to highlight how little chance he had, how much of a victim he was. It wasn't a battle--it was just ordinary murder and served to make Aemond one of the critical the instigator of the war. What would it add/reveal?

Even if he "accidentally" killed Luke, he still decided to fly after him and "teach him a lesson", provoked into killing for glory or proving a point alone even at the cost of endangering his folks at home. It doesn't matter, really, whether he meant to murder him or not. It began the war--the end. What would a details of a victim's murder (in the context of a historical text) do for the story that the murder itself doesn't already? Or corresponding advantages vs disadvantages that Aemond and Daemon had?

Whereas Daemon's killing Aemond has many layers about:

him

dragon bonds

Rhaenyra

the sides' motives and deterioration into the state they were in, of which I already described

I'll say this about HotD!Aemond "accidentally" killing Luke; it may provide a a layer of Aemond deciding at every turn to dig more into his heels about destroying the blacks because then he won't have to justify his errors and wrongs if he just wins. thus his stupidity during the war, esp the one with Cole going south and him staying behind...perhaps he will think he's "making up" for that mistake...idk.

And we know that Daemon managed to get Aemond through the eye bc the text explicitly states that people found said sword in Aemon's eye when he was left there, still tied to Vhagar at the bottom of the lake at the Gods Eye ("Rhaenyra Triumphant"):

Sometimes, in fiction, what seem to be smaller concessions of logic are simply fun and/or have a larger purpose and/or supply basis for something bigger and have ther own valid "logic" that is critical to other themes. This is one of those times.

You may not like GRRM's writing of Daemon and you may hate Daemon no matter what...but to make interpretation errors because of that dislike and allowing that dislike to color how you see what's actually written doesn't make for a sound literary critique. There are fair critiques of how GRRM writes his female vs male characters, especially Tyrion, Shea, the constant childbirth death...Daemon being, say, the "center" of the Dance is certainly not one of them. You have rather bought into some of the propaganda and rumor mongering prevalent that is meant to degrade Rhaenyra. Which I guess make F&B so good; it accomplished what it set out to do.

#asoiaf asks to me #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #hotd characterization #hotd fandom #fandom critical #vhagar claim #fire and blood characters

4 notes · View notes

richmond-rex · 1 year

Note

Regarding the "when did the Wars of the Roses end" poll - this got too long for the comments so I figured I'd send an ask, I hope it's okay! ( - wishesofeternity)

Ultimately, I think the answer depends on de-facto beliefs and more importantly (like the tags mentioned) an acknowledgement of hindsight.

Vergil was massively useful for defining, narrativizing and creating the concept of the Wars of the Roses, so using his approach as a general overview of the period makes sense and is respectful towards his contributions. On the other hand, I think ONLY using his approach to study individual conflicts, which is what general histories an descriptions of the period tend to do, is biased at best and detrimental at worst. Hindsight can be helpful, but I think it should be recognized and sometimes actively countered when trying to study different conflicts in the WotR, especially considering the fact that they were intergenerational conflicts.

For instance, like the tags mentioned, the direct York VS Lancaster feud ended in 1471. Edward IV was the undoubted "winner" of the conflict that began in the 1450s, ruling relatively peacefully for 12 years and dying in his bed. Obviously we know NOW that Richard III would pull a Richard III, but there's contemporary proof that most people expected a relatively peaceful succession and were baffled and horrified by the resurgence of conflict and/or Richard's actions. Nor is Richard's usurption (which is what prompted the resumption of conflict rather than Henry Tudor aiming for kingship) directly connected to the conflict and main players of 1471 beyond the overarching goal of wanting the throne. I also think that Edward IV's reign often gets absorbed into general histories of the WotR, which results in people not recognizing its significance in its own right, and denies him credit for restoring peace and lots of his other important accomplishments which were continued (and sometimes expanded) by the Tudors.

The idea that "The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts which Henry VII ended by establishing peace" is supported by the de-facto idea that Henry VII's victory at Bosworth is what ended the Wars (which is why I think it's the most popular in the poll). And, knowing what we now know, it's definitely not wrong: Henry VII undoubtedly won over Richard III and his dynasty was ultimately successful. But that view is also so much more complicated: for one, Edward IV ruled for 12 peaceful years in between which shouldn't go unacknowledged, and for another, Henry VII himself faced several potentially devastating challenges during his reign. We know NOW that his son succeeded him, but Henry VII himself was deeply worried about his succession during his lifetime, presumably with the context of 1483 in mind. (sidenote: I read that Henry's death was concealed for a few days, is that true?) Further, while "the Tudors overthrew the Yorkists" is true in name, it gets more confusing in theory and practise because Henry wasn't necessarily overthrowing a dynasty (as, for example, Edward did in 1471) as much as overthrowing one faction of the dynasty for another. He married the heir of the Yorkist faction he was allied with, and he emphasized the merging of two families rather than the overthrow of one in favor of another. In my opinion, there's also arguably more continuity between his and Edward IV's kingships than any other pair of kings in the 14th and 15th century which, along with increasing the credit Edward IV receives, can also help reduce the condemnation Henry VII receives (particularly from Ricardian circles)

So I think it's complicated! Ultimately, if we acknowledge hindsight and Vergil's narrative (which IS the de-facto and established view of the conflict, I don't think that will ever change), I think the "end" of the WotR is Henry VII victory at Bosworth or (imo, more valid considering this was probably Henry VII's own primary goal) the ascension of Henry VIII. BUT I think we should also complexify the definition of the Wars beyond Vergil's broader narrative and acknowledge the individual, different conflicts that are often grouped together and regarded as mere parts of a grand sequence rather than fully realized conflicts in their own right. Imo, I've always looked at the Wars in terms of "phases", which would acknowledge the different intergenerational conflicts as well as the overarching end result (a Yorkist + Tudor/Lancastrian heir on the throne). I tend to view Henry VII victory/road to victory at Bosworth up till Henry VIII's ascension as the "final" phase.

... Does this make sense? This ask got way longer than I originally thought it would and is probably very meandering, I'm sorry about that.

Hi! What you said makes sense, don't worry! Personally, I think it depends on what you consider to be the Wars of the Roses and what you consider to be a successful resolution to the conflict. If you consider the Wars of the Roses to be exclusively a conflict between the Lancastrian dynasty versus the Yorkist dynasty, then the wars ended in 1471. If you consider the Wars of the Roses to be a period of overall dynastic conflict and instability involving different claimants to the same crown backed by national or international forces, then they also involve the Tudors, as you said, Henry VII had a fairly amount of challenges himself, including foreign-backed armies and secret assassination attempts. According to A. J. Pollard:

The phrase 'The Wars of the Roses' is one of those historical terms like 'The Agricultural Revolution' or 'The Glorious Revolution' which some historians would like to see thrown in the dustbin, but which nevertheless survives if only as a matter of convenience and common currency. By tradition the Wars of the Roses signify a period of total anarchy brought on by a dynastic conflict which divided England before the coming of the Tudors. Whether they are considered to have started in 1399 (as was originally the case [A/N: Polydore Vergil's original idea]) or in 1455 (as has been the case for the last 100 years), in common discourse they serve as a type for the worst possible civil strife and discord which has ever occurred in England and which must never be allowed to occur again.

McFarlane suggested the Wars of the Roses involved three wars: 1450-64; 1464-71; 1483-87; Ross suggested 1460-64; 1469-71 and 1483-87, with the added caveat that there were only two wars between Lancaster and York that ended in 1471. Pollard adopts the same line, saying 'the wars of 1483-87 were separate in cause, and different in issue: they were wars between York and Tudor'. Now, I have the same reservations as you: there was a complete splitting of the Yorkist establishment that led to half or more of it supporting Tudor, so I wouldn't say it was simply a Yorkist vs Tudor conflict.

There's also, imo, the issue of what we consider to be a successful resolution to the conflict. If we're thinking of resolution via battle exclusively (as those traditional academics did) then the Wars of the Roses truly ended in 1487 at Stokefield, which was much larger than Bosworth, resulted in much more casualties, and in nature intended to topple the current king from his throne (so it wasn't simply a popular armed rebellion). There were other claimants and even other enemy armies in England after this date but no occasion where the conflict actually was resolved via battle between the enemy army and the royalist forces.

If we think the end of the Wars of the Roses only happened once there was no real dynastic opposition to the reigning dynasty then it only happened with Richard de la Pole's death in 1525. If we consider the end to be marked by a successful transition between monarchs from the same dynasty, then the Wars of the Roses ended with Henry VIII's peaceful ascension in 1509 (and yes, indeed Henry VII's death was kept a secret for two days). Only four years before, in 1504, Henry VII discovered a conspiracy that involved a debate about whether to crown the Duke of Buckingham or Edmund de la Pole after his death, none considering his own son to be his successor, according to the reports he got. Henry VII really had to work for the success of his dynasty till the very end. (P.S. As soon as Henry VIII became king, Ferdinand of Aragon was very quick to offer him his armies to crush any opposition to his ascension, and I wonder how much of his willingness to help didn't influence Henry VIII's decision to take Catherine of Aragon as his wife. So, you see, the legacy of years of dynastic conflict was still so strong it profoundly affected the character of his reign from the very beginning).

To sum up: personally, I think the Wars of the Roses involved more than just York and Lancaster — especially when you consider the 'Roses' that named this conflict. If the White Rose was Edward IV and his descendants (Elizabeth of York did adopt his badge as her own), the Red Rose was none other than Henry VII, regardless of how Lancaster was identified throughout the conflict. I like the Croyland Chronicle's concept where the continuator characterised the Red Rose as 'the avenger of the white', so personally, I don't see the Wars of the Roses as a conflict between the White and the Red Rose, but a conflict involving the White and the Red Rose.

#ask #wars of the roses #henry vii #henry viii #edward iv #historian: a. j. pollard #historian: charles ross

10 notes · View notes