House of the Dragon premiering August 21

So, one thing that I hadn't noticed at first but that make the throne room scene that and others were discussing last night potentially more important than I thought it was:

The blacksmith had a name: Hugh Hammer, as in the future Dragonseed. This means Aegon's seemingly minor decision might very well have an important role in the defection of the Two Betrayers, and probably on having the war end in a very pyrrhic Black victory and the dragons on the way to extinction rather than on a clear-cut Black victory.

If this is where things end up going I'd rather like it: it would make Hugh and Ulf way more three-dimensional than in the books and while I expect them to still be very vile and have ambitions and greed still play a role in their defection they may also be thinking they are genuinely doing the right thing by supporting a king who they believe would do better for the smallfolks then Rhaenyra.

From the books on Hugh and Ulf:
''As neither man could read nor write, we shall never know what drove the Two Betrayers (as history has named them) to do what they did''

Maybe we just learned part of it...

I am honestly really interested in how the show is fleshing out the Dragonseeds - smallfolk characters. It's a great treat and I look forward to seeing more of this angle.

The Hugh and his family scenes were well done and added some spicy implications as to why future actions might be taken. The byplay of Hugh's wife pointing out how bad food shortages are getting, Hugh relaying that King Aegon has promised relief and Hugh's wife firing back the question of when, was great.

I wouldn't be surprised if the twist is going to be that either Aegon is too caught up in his grief over his son's death to remember to honour that promise or Rooks Rest happens and Aemmond in power simply doesn't care causing a desperate Hugh to try and find succour on Dragonstone, after all surely Rhaenyrya's desperate cause would take a blacksmith, setting the stage for him to arrive in time for the Sowing of Seeds and chance his luck trying for a Dragon.

Gods, the funniest-most tragic possibility that occurs to me is it coming out that Hugh is a bastard of Viserys who was born before Rhaenyra. Think about it, Daemon confirms in season 1 that he and Viserys frequented the Street of Silk in their youth and the utter irony-tragedy of the Old King trying again and again for a male heir until the pursuit kills his wife when he unknowingly already had a male son out in the wild would be hysterical.

Make Hugh a dark parallel to Gendry by way of Walter White, sympathetic intentions at the start who wants to protect his family, allies with an unlikely down on his luck bottom feeder (Ulf) then gets into a position of power via claiming Dragons and things steadily get darker as ego takes root. Rhaenyra and Aegon's actions slowly turn the two small-folk ascended riders against both sides and Hugh starts thinking "I have the Old Kings blood in my veins and one of the largest dragons, why shouldn't I rule instead?"

The mental image of Hugh and Ulf as the Walter White and Jessie Pinkman of Westeros is sending me.
 
Last edited:

lol he's not wrong

Honestly insanely funny S1 was all about Otto and Alicent playing like 9-D chess to get Aegon on the throne only to immediately realize he's a dipshit who didn't want the job, will never be good at it, and all of their machinations were pointless and will only get (a lot) people killed

*EDIT* In retrospect it really does seem like all of this could have been avoided if the Great Council had just bit the bullet and made Rhaenys Queen instead of Viserys, and then immediately pledged Rhaenyra to Laenor in order to unite the claims, probably with the same deal as they worked out anyway - Laenor rules as a Targaryaen, all his kids are Targs, and Driftmark going to Corlys' brother. Daemon would've been pissed but never having come close to the throne (as opposed to being Visery's heir apparent) might've tempered it.

You're still going to run headfirst into, you know, the whole double ticking time bomb of Laenor-being-gay/Rhaenyra-being-reckless thing, but it'd probably work out better than what happened.
 
Last edited:

He's only wrong in the sense that I don't think either the Greens or the Blacks are technically genocidal. Genocide as a term has a specific meaning that should not be diluted, it means "violence with specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, religious, ethnic or racial group". The Dance is a nasty civil war over succession and both sides commit a lot of war crimes by 21st century standards but I don't think either has a specific intent to destroy one of the above mentioned groups. The closest you could probably come is the Greens pushing the faith of the seven an trying to kill the old Valyria culture of the Targaryens but that's kinda pushing it.
 
He's only wrong in the sense that I don't think either the Greens or the Blacks are technically genocidal. Genocide as a term has a specific meaning that should not be diluted, it means "violence with specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, religious, ethnic or racial group". The Dance is a nasty civil war over succession and both sides commit a lot of war crimes by 21st century standards but I don't think either has a specific intent to destroy one of the above mentioned groups. The closest you could probably come is the Greens pushing the faith of the seven an trying to kill the old Valyria culture of the Targaryens but that's kinda pushing it.
I thought the same initially, but don't both sides wipe out multiple noble families? Doesn't purposefully killing off all the members of a family count as Genocide?
 
I thought the same initially, but don't both sides wipe out multiple noble families? Doesn't purposefully killing off all the members of a family count as Genocide?
That's a familicide. Or a mass slaughter.

By that metric, we could argue the Red Wedding was a genocide, and that's silly.
The closest you could probably come is the Greens pushing the faith of the seven an trying to kill the old Valyria culture of the Targaryens but that's kinda pushing it.
Pretty much, since it was closer to neopagan revivalism by contrarians.
 
*EDIT* In retrospect it really does seem like all of this could have been avoided if the Great Council had just bit the bullet and made Rhaenys Queen instead of Viserys, and then immediately pledged Rhaenyra to Laenor in order to unite the claims, probably with the same deal as they worked out anyway - Laenor rules as a Targaryaen, all his kids are Targs, and Driftmark going to Corlys' brother. Daemon would've been pissed but never having come close to the throne (as opposed to being Visery's heir apparent) might've tempered it.

You're still going to run headfirst into, you know, the whole double ticking time bomb of Laenor-being-gay/Rhaenyra-being-reckless thing, but it'd probably work out better than what happened.

HotD story spoilers might be sprinkled in the below, not too sure because it's book stuff:

The entire Dance traces all the way back to Maegor, essentially. Aegon I has two kids: Aenys and Maegor. Aenys has a bunch of kids, the eldest of whom is Aegon the uncrowned, this Aegon himself has twin daughters. Aenys' next eldest son who matters (there's one more in between but he dies) is Jaehaerys I. Maegor usurps his nephew Aegon and is proclaimed king. Considering the histories treat him as a King and he did rule the lands for six years, for all intents and purposes he does appear to be King. Maegor has no issue himself, so he 'correctly' names as his heir the eldest of Aegon the uncrowned's two daughters. Whether Maegor is an usurper or not actually doesn't matter here, Aerea is her father's heir anyway so even if you say that Maegor was an illegitimate King, his designated heir is the person who should have originally inherited anyway.

Jaehaerys I, in the process of 'overthrowing' Maegor, 'incidentally' usurps his own niece's claim as well. Andal succession has therefore already been broken twice when Jaehaerys I is crowned. Jaehaerys I has a vested interest in defanging the idea of female succession for this reason, which is why he tries everything he reasonably can to disinherit Rhaenys when his own succession gets called into question. If Rhaenys is the rightful heir (and she is), then so was Aerea over himself back in the day. Jaehaerys I is subtextually a massive sexist, he becomes estranged from his wife multiple times for years because of it in various permutations.

Jaehaerys I therefore disinherits Rhaenys in favour of Baelon (her uncle) in an exact replication of how Jaehaerys I came by the throne. Unfortunately for him, Baelon then dies, leaving a situation where there are no surviving children of Jaehaerys (who can inherit, there is one but he's a Maester so he's sworn against inheritance). The choice is thus between two grandchildren; the female child of the eldest son (Rhaenys) or the male child of the second son (Viserys).

The question between Rhaenys and Viserys I basically just is a proto-Dance all of its own. Jaehaerys I wants to pass over Rhaenys again but Corlys Velaryon (Rhaenys' husband) got as far as calling banners and marching before the council was called to pause hostilities. The histories gloss over this as if it's a minor matter but it definitely wasn't, Corlys was mustering forces outright against the Throne. The outcome of this great council is famously shrouded in all sorts of nonsense but the end result is that the Maesters declare Viserys I has won the vote and Jaehaerys names Viserys I heir, which he had wanted to do anyway.

There wasn't really a bullet to be bitten here, there was the correct choice to avoid war for the foreseeable future (Rhaenys) and the choice that Jaehaerys repeatedly made (first Baelon then Viserys I under the guise of the Great Council).
 
He's only wrong in the sense that I don't think either the Greens or the Blacks are technically genocidal. Genocide as a term has a specific meaning that should not be diluted, it means "violence with specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, religious, ethnic or racial group". The Dance is a nasty civil war over succession and both sides commit a lot of war crimes by 21st century standards but I don't think either has a specific intent to destroy one of the above mentioned groups. The closest you could probably come is the Greens pushing the faith of the seven an trying to kill the old Valyria culture of the Targaryens but that's kinda pushing it.
I can see a potential case for Aemond's campaign of burnings in the Riverlands. It was seemingly designed to inflict pain on the Riverlands as the end goal in and of itself, to punish them for their good military performance for the Black cause. We would have to get more details on it in the show but if there was genuinely no actual tactical or strategic thoughts behind it, or really any objective pursued behind just making this particular kingdom bleed, then it could very cross the line from war crime to out and out genocide.
 
This show got the fuckin juice, that was a good episode.

Idiot Blackwoods and Brackens at it again, I love them

Harrenhal being a fucking Dark Souls level, cooler in this one ep than the entirety of GoT

Alicent's face when she heard about the Song of Ice and Fire

The slow buildup of tension with troop movements and skirmishes happening off screen and the seemingly unimportant peripheral characters

Cole looking like he wants to go "It's my first day" like Homer Simpson

Aegon's gradual descent into madness with every little taste of absolute power

Larys being a wormy little fuck pretending to be so humble and honored by the King's favor
 
Last edited:
I hate that they cut the Jace/Cregan plotline short and brought Jace south early only to have him stand around in the background doing nothing.
 
Why do all of these people claim to hate each other so much, swear that no possibility of negotiation exists, and then not press any advantage when they have one another at their mercy?
There are definitely definitions of genocide that are controversial for being "overly broad" and "diluting the concept" and yet are still held by some.
I don't see the point of entertaining the alternate definitions of people not in the thread.
There wasn't really a bullet to be bitten here, there was the correct choice to avoid war for the foreseeable future (Rhaenys) and the choice that Jaehaerys repeatedly made (first Baelon then Viserys I under the guise of the Great Council).
It's interesting how there seems to have been two different conclusions drawn from the Great Council: many decided that it meant a woman could never be on the throne, while Viserys seems to have derived from it that the king's will is what decides the heir, hence his choosing of Rhaenyra. And both interpretations clash after his death and cause a war.

There's also something ironic in the candidate with no dragon being chosen leading to the civil war where the number of dragons is an important factor.
 
It's interesting how there seems to have been two different conclusions drawn from the Great Council: many decided that it meant a woman could never be on the throne, while Viserys seems to have derived from it that the king's will is what decides the heir, hence his choosing of Rhaenyra. And both interpretations clash after his death and cause a war.

There's also something ironic in the candidate with no dragon being chosen leading to the civil war where the number of dragons is an important factor.
It's also interesting that almost literally every time the King dies there's at least a minor succession crisis during the early Targaryen Dynasty period.
 
Am I the only who, after this episode, would love a horror short story/movie set in Harrenhal? Maybe during its time under the Lothstons?

Daemon's vision of young Rhaenyra sowing her nephew's head back to his body was one of the most unsettling scenes I have seen in visual medium, and I mean it as a compliment.
 
I mean the Valyrian Freehold lasted a long time before the Doom with hundreds of dragons and riders. Maybe the Targ are just really shit Dragonlords?
 
Enjoyed that epsiode greatly, especially the Small Council scenes. Like watching Imperial meetings in Andor.

Harrenhal in particular was a standout.

Aegon II having Aegon I's Valyrian Steel armor was interesting - pretty sure that's an invention of the show, the only suit of VS armor we've ever heard of is Euron Greyjoy's set, in The Winds of Winter preview chapter.

EDIT: note Harrenhal was dark and at night but you could still see clearly. It must've been Miguel Sapochnik responsible for the impenetrably dark 'natural' lighting of late GOT and S1 HOTD, and the show is better off without him.
 
Last edited:
I mean the Valyrian Freehold lasted a long time before the Doom with hundreds of dragons and riders. Maybe the Targ are just really shit Dragonlords?

Well, the Freehold appears to have been an aristocratic republic similar to the Roman Republic, with a balance between the 40 families of Lords Freeholder, rather than the situation in post-Conquest Westeros, with a single family attempting to maintain control by emulating the local First Men/Andal monarchical tradition, while also retaining the Valyrian tradition of endogamy.
 
I've been re-reading the First Law trilogy and I can't help but wonder what Bayaz would think of Rhaenyra's actions these past few episodes.
 
I just love how increasingly shallow and biased the show gets with them adding scenes to make Greens look bad and Rhaenyra look like the 'Good One' with her infiltrating King's Landing in disguise just to talk to Alicent about how she was mistaken about what Viserys meant.
 
Back
Top