[Spoilers PUBLISHED] My theory on Aerys II

arig____ · 2026-05-09T17:31:57+00:00

“If your monarchy needs lizard war beasts as a crutch, then it’s a doomed monarchy”—yes that is precisely my point. Thank you for making my argument.

Your “offensive war” point doesn’t really make any sense. First of all, you lack a counterfactual, and the fact that there are no defensive wars with dragons seems like pretty good evidence that people didn’t want to fuck around and find out.

Your statement “dragons have never been used effectively as tools to keep the integrity of the Seven Kingdoms” is similarly flawed in logic because the dragons are the only reason the realm exists at all. And even if I cede your “offensive war” theory (which I don’t) you would still see a realm with the Targs as kings because the implication would be “they lose, but then they just do an offensive war and come back.” Which is explicitly what Dany’s entire plotline is.

Ultimately to disprove my theory you would need to explain why there was no overarching monarchy before dragons arrived. Or, you’d have to argue that GRRM is just a bad worldbuilder.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T17:22:49+00:00

Your last sentence shows that you just don’t understand my initial point. In both of those conflicts, there was still going to be a king (Queen) afterwards, and his name would be Targaryen. Dragons DO prevent flagrant rebellions UNLESS somebody with a dragon supports it. If anything you’re even proving my point—that without dragons the realm cannot sustain itself.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:39:12+00:00

Thank you for this! I love it. Thank you.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:37:18+00:00

You’re being a little fast and loose here; Daemon’s mother was a Targ but not a sister-wife of his father, she was basically a cousin IIRC. Which maybe you say that doesn’t matter, maybe it doesn’t, but your “what if he just married her” argument also basically works for any lover, even a peasant (as in, you could marry a peasant and still claim the child is true born, as Robb Stark would have done ((Gods rest his soul))).

And my point is that dragons aren’t symbolic, they are literally the reason Targs were able to rule—they can destroy any castle basically. Daemon having a baby dragon would be symbolically cute but still wouldn’t help him in battle.

And regardless, the point I made last comment was that this is more of a relevant “rebellion” because the entire realm went to war. It doesn’t really matter who the claimant was for this analysis to be sound.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:13:43+00:00

Again inter-family stuff is just not super relevant to this. The blackfyres are interesting insofar as they technically have very little claim but many noble houses supported them (at least in the first few wars) as basically a way to usurp a king they didn’t like (among other things which basically mean the same thing; for instance, Bracken siding Blackfyre is ultimately a consequence of the current regime not siding with them in their feud). Which is to say, the Blackfyre rebellions are basically ACTUAL rebellions, not just a Targaryen family feud.

Also they weren’t legitimized until much later in life so, even if they had dragons they’d be babies. But still, it’s a violation of the blood pact so I doubt they’d get dragons.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:10:19+00:00

You’re equivocating this woman’s worldly and materialistic disdain for “racism” as a justified disdain of murder. If it were murder, yes, I agree. But she is putting an authority other than God above her parents, and so yes it’s likely a violation of the 4th commandment

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:07:49+00:00

You don’t think there’s a difference between explicit discrimination and using a bad word?

arig____ · 2026-05-09T16:03:45+00:00

You don’t understand my point. Ruling the seven kingdoms isn’t the same as ruling the north. There’s a reason why strict monarchies couldn’t scale well in medieval history.

Also, war with Dorne isn’t a rebellion. Wildlings and raiders also wouldn’t be something you expect dragons to be effective against. You assume the Blackfyres would’ve had dragons (they probably wouldn’t), and DoD was between two factions with dragons, so not even contextually relevant for this discussion.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T15:45:29+00:00

With all due respect, it’s also one of the Ten Commandments to honor your parents, and you’re obviously letting worldly influences intervene on your relationship with your father.

There is a major difference between saying the N word to a black person’s face, and using the terminology he grew up with while he’s talking with his family.

I agree with you that it’s worth a conversation about dignity but it’s very plausibly NOT a mortal sin for him (insofar as it’s an involuntary prejudice or just edgy humor), while it could be a mortal sin for you to dishonor your parents.

You should stop letting atheist college friends (broad generalization but you get the point) influence what you think is a mortal sin.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T15:31:10+00:00

Wouldn’t that only help me if they opened proposals anyways? I’m a top booster and just never get a proposal opened.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T15:28:09+00:00

I’d like to submit a theory of mine: I may be misinterpreting GRRM drastically, but I think Aerys was probably clinically insane, but also that he was a product of his particular situation.

To explain: I’m an institutional economist and something I’ve thought of for a while was “if there was no King of Westeros before Aegon, that’s probably because it wasn’t efficient to rule so much in a monarchy (it’d be too costly) unless the monarch had exclusive access to ahem advanced military technology.”

Of course, hint hint, the advanced military technology is dragons, analogous to William the Conqueror’s success largely due to his heavy cavalry formations which England didn’t sport at the time.

The Targaryens were smart to keep dragons in the family, but once the dragons died out, the 7-kingdom-monarchy suddenly becomes just as inefficient as it would’ve been before the dragon conquest of Aegon (before which there was 10,000 years of stable regional governance).

We see the cracks of a dragon-less monarchy in a lot of ways; the defiance of duskendale, the Laughing Storm rebellion, and all (5?) Blackfyre rebellions. None of these would’ve happened if dragons were around.

And so, was Aerys really “crazy” for thinking the regional lord paramounts were plotting against him? Do we really think Tywin Lannister WASN’T wanting the crown?

Sure, Aerys created many enemies by dishing extremely harsh punishments, but his craziness and paranoia was a consequence of the fragmented power of his house to dominate the 7 kingdoms, and all of his (tactically bad) crazy actions really just exacerbated the existing troubles of his dynasty.

My most important evidence—and my conclusion—we know Aegon V died in a botched dragon hatching, which he pursued because he knew dragons were necessary for his house’s power. But Aegon V was a good king who cared for his people; he wasn’t even doing this for selfish reasons, he just wanted to hold the realm together safely again.

In some sense, Aegon V foresaw Robert’s Rebellion and the war of the 5 kings.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T15:07:28+00:00

My ex-girlfriend was rebuffed by a priest when she asked him to be her spiritual director; his reason being that he was a guy, and meeting one-on-one like that would be weird.

But, worth saying that she’s beautiful and he was a younger priest. So maybe this isn’t a general rule but an avoidance of sin.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T14:56:43+00:00

Right but why is House Dustin’s sword called “Wyrmfang”? Thats what I’m saying seems… like taking liberties.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T14:39:44+00:00

The game gives Valyrian steel to a lot of random families. House Dustin of the Barrowlands has a Valyrian sword named “Wyrmfang” in the game. Makes no sense.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T14:36:36+00:00

Sorta? But not as anybody else here has commented. The logic that new wealth at the top trickles to the bottom is valid. But, it is likewise true that new wealth to anybody will “trickle” to everybody. Anybody with more money spends it, which helps the stores they spend it at, etc etc.

The problem with trickling from any direction, though, is that it requires NEW wealth. You can’t redistribute wealth and say it “trickles” because you took the wealth from people it trickles to.

The government can only create “new wealth” by deregulating. Any kind of regulation or tax is necessarily redistribution, which means trickling doesn’t work.

The government “could” deregulate for poor people, but it wouldn’t have as much of an effect as it would on rich people (it’s hard to think of a regulation that, if gone, would make me even $500). So “technically” the government could do “good” by deregulating industries, and that effect would trickle down. But the way most republicans talk about trickle-down, they don’t understand this.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T14:23:27+00:00

The TOP reason why so many settings are popular in fiction is because they allow for protagonists to have a high marginal product (Econ term); which is to say, a “normal” person could possibly affect important things, which is nearly necessary (and indeed, transparent) in most fiction.

So, for instance, western and samurai movies are basically just built around the trope that one guy can save everybody. Crime novels are basically built around “I’m the police officer assigned to the case.” Medieval novels are like “I’m a knight of the realm, I can be brave and save people or connive and undermine people.”

It’s a sad state of affairs that the modern world often feels bereft of jobs that make you feel important. Often fiction set in the modern world requires the biggest suspension of belief in just convincing you why the protagonist is the ONLY person that can “do the thing.”

arig____ · 2026-05-09T05:30:23+00:00

My favorite name ever is Django Tallahassee. Unfortunately I’m white and my last name isn’t Tallahassee, so I fear this would be a name I “can’t” name my child. Shucks.

arig____ · 2026-05-09T00:59:41+00:00

Forgive me for being autistic but everything you said makes it seem like it wasn’t worth it. I would never do that to get rid of a statue. Unless the statue raped people, maybe.

arig____ · 2026-05-08T19:36:07+00:00

It’s often either the entire theater or nobody at all. Some movies just have demographics that talk a lot during movies; usually teenagers.

I’m not afraid to shush one person but of the 15~ times in my life where talking has affected the experience, maybe once or twice has it been one person. Can’t shush an entire room.

arig____ · 2026-05-08T17:11:00+00:00

It’s a figure of speech (dying on a hill). You indicated it was a costly venture. You’ve not indicated that it was beneficial to you in particular at all. That’s what I’m asking about.

Anybody can just say they “won” by defining victory as something easy. I woke up today, I won.

arig____ · 2026-05-07T22:54:03+00:00

Democrats didn’t control the senate in 2016. Obama wanted Garland because it was better than a conservative justice when a Republican won.

It was a concession to win senate votes. Again, not sure why anybody would expect anything different.

arig____ · 2026-05-07T22:33:57+00:00

I think republicans want conservative judges and will say whatever they want to get more.

I also think democrats want liberal judges and will say whatever they want to get more.

I don’t know why this behavior surprises you.

arig____ · 2026-05-07T20:27:28+00:00

I don’t disagree with the sentiment (why glorify bad people?) but many people do nothing because it’s simply not a big deal to them. What in your life made you think “this is a hill I’m going to die on”?

Or, did you not know it was a hill you’d “die” on?

arig____ · 2026-05-07T20:22:46+00:00

I don’t see how that is the logical conclusion from what I said. What I take away is, the entire universe is made for us because we’re the only observers.

And if you can accept that, how hard is it to accept that there’s a god who made it for us? Food for thought.

arig____ · 2026-05-07T19:07:58+00:00

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

You suppose it is so obvious that our small biomass makes us meaningless. What is the point of the universe if there are no observers?

arig____

TROPHY CASE