A Storm of Swords - Samwell IV

"That's only Ser Alliser," said Sam. "Everyone knows the sort of man he is." With his noble birth, his knighthood, and his long years in the Watch, Ser Alliser Thorne might have been a strong challenger for the Lord Commander's title, but almost all the men he'd trained during his years as master-at-arms despised him. His name had been offered, of course, but after running a weak sixth on the first day and actually losing votes on the second, Thorne had withdrawn to support Lord Janos Slynt.

"What everyone knows is that Ser Alliser is a knight from a noble line, and trueborn, while I'm the bastard who killed Qhorin Halfhand and bedded with a spearwife. The warg, I've heard them call me. How can I be a warg without a wolf, I ask you?" His mouth twisted. "I don't even dream of Ghost anymore. All my dreams are of the crypts, of the stone kings on their thrones. Sometimes I hear Robb's voice, and my father's, as if they were at a feast. But there's a wall between us, and I know that no place has been set for me."

The living have no place at the feasts of the dead. It tore the heart from Sam to hold his silence then. Bran's not dead, Jon, he wanted to stay. He's with friends, and they're going north on a giant elk to find a three-eyed crow in the depths of the haunted forest. It sounded so mad that there were times Sam Tarly thought he must have dreamt it all, conjured it whole from fever and fear and hunger . . . but he would have blurted it out anyway, if he had not given his word.

I mean Cat is not my favorite character but the way GRRM writes her. She's my Top 3 POVs. As an adult male, who can never be a mother, I literally feel like a mother.

And Cat says so much questionable things at time. Like once she said she will cut off head of all horses if it meant to revive Bran, that line is like so weird, but at the same time, it makes me love her character more. You can also feel where she's coming from.

Jon is my favorite character but weirdly I don't hate Cat for treating him so miserably. Cat chapters especially feels so engrossed in the head of the character that you start feeling what the character feels. Something like this I feel missing in Dany's chapters. While reading Dany's chapters, I feel we are watching her from outside but Cat's chapter feels we are watching the world from her head.

It's truly brilliant

Colossal size, bizarre tragedies, and I assume costly maintenance, apart from it's strategic location and status why would you want Harrenhal?

Does it yield large sums of income?

Wouldn't another castle satisfy in terms of status?

Makes sense for the crown to hold it and use it for military and ceremonious purposes.

I mean every frey who is in the riverlands is ready to go to civil war I mean everyone from black walder to lady jenna's husband (whatever his name is) are plotting to kill each other for their title.

And after the whole civil war the house would be so weakened that blackfish can once again rally the other houses to revolt against the freys

The only way this is prevented is through to royal intervention but i wouldn't count on it given cercei's stupidly.

And the ones in the north face certain death unless they go back south and if stannis falls many freys might still die in the battle and those that are left will probably be killed by the northern lords such as manderly.

And if stannis wins I don't expect him to let any of them live either.

If you think about it, there is an ironic similarity between frey and Lannister. Both became dominant via treachery, both had like 3 people who were competent and all of them either died or are going to die or were sent off and those that remain are going to run their house into the ground

I have noticed that many seems to agree that the Peace Dany achieved at first was enough and that her deciding to fight the Slavers and stopping Compromising is a slippery slop and "Violance is a cycle first it's start with Evil people then it's moves to the innocents"

The argument is that "George is a liberal" and follow the philosophy that "extremism no matter how just it is is a vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is a virtue". Wanting to make the world a better place actually makes you just as bad as the actively malicious people maintaining slavery.With Tywin and Dany and the Starks representing it well,The Books are a critique of both Tywin's short sighted pramatism and Daenerys' unbending idealism. The Starks would then fall somewhere in the middle, the message being that while ideals such as honor, equality, and justice are worth pursuing, one has to be realistic and sensible about it.

The point of the "Slaver's Bay conflict" then isn't that Dany is violent towards the slavers, therefore she's going to be violent against the Westerosi.Daenerys according to that argument serves as a warning of how easy it to miss that someone is a tyrant when their brutality is being used against people who actually deserve it(Like Frank Herbert did with Paul Atreides in Dune and his comparison to him and JFK). The issue is that once a tyrant has taken power, the people who put him there have no control over who he chooses to go against then.

In the first book, Drogo enslaves the Lhazareen to fund his invasion plan. Dany doesn't have a choice in the matter, but she does justify it. In her mind, this is worth it. And that not implying that that she's a hypocrite for later taking a stance against slavery, but It's considered clue she thinks the people who stole her throne are at least as bad as the slavers and is used as proof on her entiltement issues that will show when she will face FAegon(That along with prophecy obsession)

Daenerys also doesn't really operate within any legal framework. Her power stems from dragons, unsullied, and eventually a horde of Dothraki and possibly Ironborne and Fire Priests, all devoted to her personally. This is different from the Starks or any Westerosi lord, who rule within certain constraints.

Moreover, Daenerys is just a far more selfish righteous person than Jon is for exemple. She is less interested in achieving results, and more interested in achieving a kind of poetic justice. Consider the time she crucified the same number of slave masters as children in ASOS. It's an arbitrary number, and for all we know more slave masters could have been involved than those punished.

And it's not just that Dany is more violent. There are cases where It could be argued she should have been more ruthless. In ADWD, she inexplicably tells the Green Grace that she would never harm the hostages, leading to the SOTH murders starting all over again. Compare that to Jon, who makes a threat to Tormund and IMO, intends on keeping it. This seems more cruel on the surface, but it actually succeeds in keeping the peace.

The point is Daenerys is naive, idealistic, self-righteous to a fault, and more interested in exterminating her enemies than actually helping the people they're oppressing. In a lot of ways she is a villain on the other extreme of Tywin who represent absolute Pragmatism

Ned,Robb and Jon on the other hand represent the middle ground Jon for exemple is a lot more pragmatic. At times he is even ruthless, but it's always as a means to an end. But he's also progressive, and he's willing to enact social change. The difference is that when he does it he takes the proper time to plan it and prepare for it (not perfectly, but more so than Dany). Dany on the other hand had no plan for the freed slaves, so much so that some of them begged her to sell themselves back to slavery, while half of them died on the walls outside Meereen because she hadn't prepared any way to feed, house, or tend to them.

So A girl with good ideals worth pursuing, but a terrible Queen. A ruler who can conquer cities, but has zero interest in ruling during peace time. Her character is a warning against the worship of Messiah figures.compared to Tywin Lannister who again represent absolute pragmatism,And the system is perfect because he thrive in it and is a way he could assure his legacy,Then comes the Starks as a middle ground

When GRRM talked about Aragon \[here\](https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/), his tax policy, and his "genocide" against orcs, another barbaric civilization,the argument is that he wrote Dany as foil for this type of hero, a realistic look at how Messiah figures would fare in a less fantastical setting.

Another side even argue that George's message that it was best she just ignored the whole slavery thing.It's all so we can tell ourselves that doing nothing is not only smart and intelligent, it's also the kindest thing we could do. Our apathy is virtue.

So it's ends with a sort of appeal to a general sense of complexity as to why we must keep the status quo:We have Tywin's Conservativism which leans to world "The world is unfair, and it's great because it benefits me, and if it doesn't then it should do." Against Dany's "The World is unfair and something must be done with it,With Fire and Blood" and finally the Starks "The world is unfair, and that's bad, but also there's the chance doing anything about it might just make it worse, But with compromise and being noble in the Long Term things will fix themselves" or "The world is unfair, and that's bad, but also there's the chance doing anything about it might just make it worse,just wring our hands about bad it is. Anyone who thinks they *can* change it is just a naive idiot. We're smart, because we *know* it's all unfixable."

Do you agree that was really GRRM's message to the Essos arc?That the solution that Dany must have taken was compromising even more?and by stopping Compromising and taking the "Fire and Blood" she just locked herself in the Bad Ending and took the wrong lesson?

and how do you think the Starks would have handled "The Slaver's Bay conflict" if they were in Dany's place?Would Jon,Robb,Ned,Bran,Sansa,Catelyn and Arya really either ignore it or take "The moderate route"?

Knowing what we know about Danny bringing the dragons back, Egg at Summerhall and other blood magic rituals. Is there any info about the Mad King attempting to do that as a spell? Or did he just want the world to burn

In GRRM's original outline,Jon Snow and Bran Stark end up becoming Arch-enemies,a conflict between Half-siblings(Well cousins when we take R+L=J into acount but you know what I mean)does that remind you of a certain conflict in the lore?

I theorize that the Original outline were Jon and Bran fight ended up becoming the basis for the Blackfyre rebellions with Jon in that outline Serving as the basis for both Daemon Blackfyre and Aegor "Bittersteel" Rivers while Bran serving as the basis for Daeron "The Good" Targaryen and Brynden "Bloodraven" Rivers

And another Theory of mine I think that both that outline and the Blackfyre rebellions would also be the basis on a potential conflict between Jon Snow and Young Griff,When we think about it Young Griff have a lot of reasons to hate Jon and a conflict between the two would have a lot of irony and would be a subversion of the Classic "Bastard vs Trueborn" conflicts which are repeated in stories.Especially if it's Aegon who start the conflict,And especially if FAegon is a Blackfyre pretender making the conflict double ironic

Mother of John Snow and Ned Stark

I can't believe this boring slander has made me defend someone like Tywin but here we go.

Since people have started using that one terrible video instead of their own opinions...

The usual ones.

1. Tywin was too cruel not like Cesare Borgia.

Borgia was governing a highly localized, urbanized population of city dwellers. He needed the civilians to stop rioting so he could tax them efficiently.

Tywin however is operating in a continent sized feudal empire. His primary threats are not street riots but military insurrections by rival Great Houses.

In a feudal society, your power is entirely dependent on your military reputation (prestige). If Tywin sacrifices Ser Gregor Clegane to appease the Martells of Dorne or the smallfolk of the Riverlands, he signals to the entire realm that Lannister power can be pressured by moral outrage or political demands.

Machiavelli explicitly addresses this in The Prince (Chapter 17), noting that a ruler cannot care about a reputation for cruelty if it keeps his subjects united and loyal:

\*A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise.\*

Machiavelli, The Prince

By keeping the Mountain on a leash, Tywin is trying to use a psychological deterrent and while horrific it is a coherent Machiavellian strategy aimed at preventing future wars through absolute intimidation.

2. Tyrells.

Tywin did not give the Tyrells pieces of the realm out of foolish generosity.

He gave them what they had already earned with their spears.

The Tyrells possessed the largest army on the continent and completely controlled the food supply of a starving capital.

If Tywin was stupid enough to try and cheat them hem on rewards at the victory council, he would have triggered an immediate palace coup or a secondary civil war that the Lannisters, deeply in debt and militarily exhausted, could not possibly win.

Machiavelli notes in The Prince that a prince must never make common cause with a more powerful party unless necessity forces him to do so.

\*A prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others, unless necessity compels him... because if you conquer, you are at his discretion.\*

Tywin didn't, because no one can create a perfect, risk free world. He had to navigate a massive political crisis the best way he could.

The moment the immediate military threat was neutralized, Tywin instantly began implementing counter measures to box the Tyrells.

He forcibly married Tyrion to Sansa Stark to steal the North out from under a Tyrell plot.

He arranged a marriage between Cersei and Willas Tyrell to infiltrate Highgarden's internal succession.

He systematically delayed filling key positions on the Small Council to prevent Mace Tyrell from stacking the court.

Tywin was actively playing the Machiavellian game of containment; he simply ran out of time because he was assassinated.

3. RW

There's no such thing as a plot that eliminates 100% of your rivals or doesn't create malcontent.

It's an absolutely impossible standard and it's a baffling one.

No single political act eliminates 100% of all future threats.

The objective of the Red Wedding was to smash the structural cohesion of the Northern rebellion, and in that, it was perfectly successful.

By breaking guest right and destroying the Stark leadership in a single night, Tywin:

Ended a continental war with minimal Lannister casualties.

Reclaimed the Riverlands without a single siege.

Placed his own proxy, House Bolton, in control of the North.

Machiavelli’s advice on handling conquered territories that are used to living under their own laws is brutal: you either have to ruin them, go live there in person, or permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing an oligarchy that will keep them friendly to you (The Prince, Chapter 5). Tywin chose the third option by empowering Roose Bolton and Walder Frey.

The fact that the North remains bitter doesn't mean the strategy was wrong, it means the Lannisters were dealing with the natural friction of governance.

Machiavelli never promised that power would be easy or clean, something many people act like he did, he promised that absolute, decisive strokes would buy you the time and space to consolidate.

4. Tywin ded.

The video bafflingly confuses and conflates domestic, psychological tragedy with a systemic political failure.

Tywin did not die because his tax policies failed, or because his armies were beaten, or because the smallfolk rose up in a revolution of hatred. He died because he was a dick to his son all his life.

Tyrion shooting his daddy has little to do with Machiavellian theory, it's just your run of the mill drama tragedy.

When Tywin died, the treasury was being stabilized, the Tyrells were being managed, the Starks were broken, and the Iron Throne held total de facto control over the continent.

Tywin didn't fail because he was a bad Machiavellian; he succeeded so completely as a Machiavellian that he left behind a system dependent on competency but his heirs began infighting.

Normally his brother would have taken cared of things but he was taken care of because of that.

No Tywin's not a good person. Yes, Tywin's a dick to his son and that's why he dies. No, Tywin being an evil man has little to do with Tywin being an incredibly competent leader. He's acknowledged as such by everyone in the series, even his biggest haters. He's acknowledged as such by the author.

You can be competent and evil. They are not mutually exclusive.

Picture this scenario.

After the end of Robert's Rebellion, Varys is executed.

Littlefinger's affair with Lysa is exposed and he is executed (privately as Jon wouldn't want to compromise the marriage pact), Illyrio dies of a heart attack and Daenarys and Viserys are forced to fend for themselves.

Robert dies naturally with Joffrey ascending the throne as his legal, unchallenged heir (though some would still have suspicions).

Tywin is appointed hand and Stannis and Renly are forced out with Lannister dominance asserted in the small council. This is effectively the Lannister best case scenario.

Despite their POVs, it's very obvious they are effectively the villains of the first third - half of the story and most readers root against them and want Tywin and Joffrey to face justice for all they have done, especially to the Starks.

However this scenario avoids the WOTFK and leaves behind a stable Westeros that has a much higher chance of surviving the Long Night. With Ned being in Winterfell too, he could send additional ranging parties to the Wall to find Benjen and uncover the threat much earlier.

For the small folk (95%+ of the population), this scenario is a no brainer option. Tywin isn't going to advance their rights but no other claimant in the original timeline wishes to either.

Even for the nobility, pretty much only Stannis and Renly would be aggrieved, they could chill out at Dragonstone and Storm's End in luxury.

While Joffrey is a piece of shit, I think he would be a hedonistic ruler like Robert and Tywin would be the defacto King and could set Kevan up as his successor to keep Joffrey in check, potentially he could even educate him to be a proper king. Joffrey's illegitimacy doesn't matter. Critique of feudal succession is a major part of the story as well as noble entitlement. It isn't possible to fully prove Joffrey is illegitimate, there is no DNA testing in Westeros.

This scenario really ties back into George's point about the pettiness of the nobles playing their games while the smallfolk suffer. Would you prefer it?

Extinction of noble houses is supposed to be bad.

Of course Clubfoot didn't take the black etc but was there a workaround to continue House Strong? Like have an heir or two then perform the execution?

From what I can tell there are plenty of eras in the history where the Starks and the north did have fleets but were lost

The oldest possibly being Brandon the Shipwright of course who most likely lost all of it in the sunset sea and whatever remained was burned by his son, Brandon the Burner

There are a few more cases as well.

Theon Stark “the Hungry Wolf” (also the coolest stark king like ever for me) sailed to Andalos during the Andalusia invasion and practically destroyed them, this surely must’ve required a fleet not only to land troops but also to show the strength of the north and why it, of all other regions of Westeros, can and will resist any future Andal invasions that are launched

I also don’t believe the andal invasion was a single event, there likely multiple and were stopped by other stark kings in the north like Jon Stark who is said to have fought raiders. Maybe in a naval battle?

Now another case comes from the ASOIAF wiki where Balon Greyjoy, a different one from the one we know, did invade the north and destroyed the northern fleet as said below

“King Balon V Greyjoy, called Coldwind, a king chosen by a kingsmoot, who destroyed the fleet of the King in the North”

My theory or rather understanding of it all is that the North can have a fleet, it just can’t sustain it for long, maybe it’d a resource issue? (Tho they have slot of wood) or just a Ironborn issue where whenever they even try to build a fleet, someone invades them to make sure they remain isolated and weak naval wise

Maybe a fleet would simply make the north too strong so the remaining houses of Westeros who live nearby like the Ironborn invade it to stop it. The Andals continued this politicos tradition maybe, making sure the north could never keep a fleet even if they make it

This is just me throwing my thoughts out there based on ASOIAF history, maybe it’s wrong but I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts regardless

Edit: I forgot to take the arryns into account too ya, the three sisters are said to have ships of their own so maybe they were a bigger threat pre-conquest and prevented the eastern coast of the north from hosting a fleet for long. The war across the water definitely crippled any northern fleet

Edit 2: During the war across the water, house stark raided gulltown which they definitely couldn’t have been done without ships so that’s another example of the north having a fleet and losing it, the war across the water prolly played a big role in the north’s lack of a fleet

We all know the standard Valonqar Theory where Jaime strangles Cersei. But what if George R.R. Martin is setting up something far more poetically horrific and entirely aligned with Jaime's dark Tywin-like progression?

Consider the deeper meaning of the "golden hand" and the Kingslayer's vow. Instead of mercifully ending Cersei's life, Jaime's redemption will be the ultimate subversion: taking Cersei's life not by the throat, but systematically stripping her of everything she used to manipulate the realm.

To break her forever, he will physically dismember her:

• Legs & Hands: To permanently strip her of her mobility and ability to rule or wield power.
• Eyes, Ears & Tongue: To blind her to her pride, deafen her to her sycophants, and rip out her voice so she can never scheme again.
• Breasts: To destroy her physical beauty and weaponized femininity.
• Scalp & Hair: Surgically removing the skin cells of her scalp to ensure no hair ever grows back, leaving permanent scars.
• Teeth: Pulling them out so she cannot poison anyone with her words or bite.

This is the ultimate ASOIAF subversion of redemption. The "little brother" removes every physical attribute of the sister he once loved, leaving her alive, broken, and helpless—a monstrous monument to Jaime's final, ruthless descent into realpolitik and justice.

We all know sometime George's math can be... flexible. But if we only look at the primary sources, what is the largest single battle in Westerosi history?

As best I can tell, here are the contenders that have the strongest backing in the text.

Field of Fire
Fire and Blood explicitly states King Mern and King Loren fielded a combined host of 55,000 men. Aegon met them with a host of 10,000 men (and, you know, three extra helpers).

Battle of the Trident
Rhaegar marched with 40,000 men. Robert's rebels had about 35,000. This beats the Field of Fire.

Battle of the Blackwater
Stannis assaulted King's Landing with 20,000 men. Tywin arrived with about 20,000 men, and the Tyrell host had Renly's 80,000 footmen, which I think we have to assume most of followed Mace.

Battle of the Redgrass Field
I don't think we know how many men fought here, just the casualties... 10,000 men. With typcial rates from other battles, the actual forces involved must have been staggering.

Are there any other major clashes I’m overlooking? Fishfeed and Tumbleton both seem smaller than any of these, given what we know in the text. Which actually "takes the crown" for the highest number of combatants?

Or does it not matter? Martin is writing fantasy disguised as medieval history. The focus is on the human conflict not the quartermaster's ledger, and we should just go with the flow.

Sure Balon surrendered and 'bent the knee' but screw them, the armies were at the gates, surrender doesn't really mean anything at that point.

Were they of service to the realm or crown? If not, off with the Greyjoy brothers heads.

Am I right?

What was Tywin's thoughts on the outcome?

Revisiting the Battle of the Seven Stars, it strikes me that House Tollett were an Andal house who were staunchly opposed to the First Men, and that they produced one of the mightiest warriors on the Andals' side in the war. Torgold the Grim slew two of the main leaders of the First Men before King Robar Royce slew him in turn. Then, the battle ended in disaster for the First Men, but despite it leading to fourteen major First Men houses being wiped off the map, House Royce somehow survived the subsequent purge. And somehow, House Tollett went on to become sworn bannermen to House Royce.

How did that come about? You'd think it'd be the other way around after House Royce lost the war against House Arryn. Instead, the Royces continued to thrive, to the point that they're the second strongest house in the Vale, while House Tollett are considered a minor house.

> "He is only a foolish boy, but I have loved him like a brother. It would grieve me to see him die." And her betrothed looked at her with the cool grey eyes of a Stark and promised to spare the boy who loved her.

When Cat reminisces on the Brandon and Petyr duel, she describes the Stark look in terms of cool grey eyes

We see a description with Benjen

> His uncle was sharp-featured and gaunt as a mountain-crag, but there was always a hint of laughter in his blue-grey eyes.

When Bran is noticing his father

> Bran's father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years. He had a grim cast to his grey eyes this day

...it is immediately followed up by Jon, who has eyes so dark they appear Black

> Jon's eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black but there was little they did not see. 

Now we never get any mention of Lyanna’s eyes in the books, nor any indication that Jon would inherit distinctly darker grey than Lyanna’s siblings from her.

It's possible GRRM is pulling with Jon a similar trick he's done with Egg, and Jon has actually had purple eyes this whole time

While Egg is hiding his identity, his eyes, despite being purple, can appear black depending on lighting

> Egg had big eyes, and somehow his shaven head made them look even larger. In the dimness of the lamplit cellar they looked black, but in better light their true color could be seen: deep and dark and purple.

We see a similar effect with Darkstar, where purple eyes are initially perceived as black

> His eyes seemed black as he sat outlined against the dying sun, sharpening his steel, but she had looked at them from a closer vantage and she knew that they were purple

This establishes a precedent in that very dark purple eyes can easily read as black or near black by others

Another notable point is how rarely Jon’s eye color is mentioned at all. Across the entire series, his eyes are described only a few times. All but one of those references come from other POV characters. Despite Jon having 42 POV chapters, his eye color is mentioned only ONCE in his own chapters. His eyes are virtually always described by others

There are as more references to Jon’s eyes in Mel's single chapter as there are in all of Jon’s POV chapters combined. This is a big contrast with characters like Tyrion and Dany, whose eye colors are mentioned more repeatedly in their chapters

The relevant mentions;

Arya

> Arya's eyes went wide. Dark eyes, like his.

Melisandre (x2)

> Jon Snow's grey eyes grew wider. "Mance?"

Sam

> Jon, he'd said, but Jon was gone. It was Lord Snow who faced him now, grey eyes as hard as ice.

The only description in Jon’s own POV comes in a passage focused on his appearance in Night’s Watch attire

> All in black, he was a shadow among shadows, dark of hair, long of face, grey of eye.

The context matters here. The description is explicitly tied to how Jon appears dressed entirely in black, which could influence how his features are perceived

We see a similar perceptual effect with Young Griff. Tyrion notes that altered hair color changes how eye color is perceived

> The dwarf ignored him. "The blue hair makes your eyes seem blue, that's good."

Since its established blue hair can shift perception to eyes looking blue, then it follows that Jon’s dark hair (combined with his black Night’s Watch clothing) could make very dark indigo appear dark grey or nearly black

This becomes especially interesting when considering Rhaegar’s eye color, which is described as darker than Viserys or Dany

> The man had her brother's hair, but he was taller, and his eyes were a dark indigo rather than lilac.

Dark indigo is a shade that could reasonably be interpreted as dark grey or nearly black

This also aligns with the longstanding rumor that Ashara Dayne was Jon’s mother. Ashara’s defining physical trait is consistently her violet eyes

> The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

If Ned had returned from the war with a child possessing purple eyes, it is easy to see why the household at Winterfell might connect Jon to Ashara.

Finally, Jon’s appearance at Winterfell is implied to evolved over time. Early on, he may not have resembled a Stark so greatly

> Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him

While it's a commonly held belief that Baelor would have been the greatest king since the conciliator had he been able to sit the Iron Throne, however, what would have actually done policy wise that would have made him a Great King.

We know he is a competent military mind seeing as he helped the Royal Army win the Battle of the Redgrass field, and that he was a lot more charismatic than Maekar, but as seen with Robert Baratheon, Charisma and Martial skill aren't the be-all, end all.

In terms of policy the closest we get is that he wanted to pardon the Blackfyre rebels, which while a sign of mercy is also a point against him as it means he is unlikely to actively try to expand royal power and centralize the realm, which the 7 Kingdoms sorely needs.

Maybe he could build some roads or help fix up Kings Landing, but to be one of the greatest Targaryen King, as people often claim he could have been, you need something more grandiose as a legacy.

What could Baelor Breakspear accomplish that neither his brother Maekar nor his nephew Egg when they sat the throne?

*I want to preface this by saying that I think that the Three Eyed Crow is Brynden Rivers, the man Bran met in Dance. It would just be stupid to have someone else come out of the woodwork and say "Psych! Actually, I'M the Three Eyed Crow". Whether you agree with that or not,  I'm going to be assuming that they're the same person for the entire post to avoid constantly repeating it

When I say main villain  I mean actually either behind or a significant player in both the mystical side of things and the geopolitical side. Also, I guess by villain I really mean schemer, everything I say below could be true and Bloodraven could be the hero. But the series and his actions would still be morally grey enough to call him a villain, so I’ll leave the post as is.  I would be OK with several other characters being extremely significant threats and causing mass devastation, and I would for sure be OK with there being no real villain scheming away behind the scenes and everyone just being swept up in a tragic combination of the forces of history and their own natures.

But for example, even though I have come around a lot on Euron after reading that WOW sample chapter a few years ago, I just couldn't deal with him actually having significant control over dark forces. It would be too much like when DC comics tries to have the Joker both dangerous because he's crazy and willing to do things everyone else is too sane to do and also the most meticulous schemer ever. Now, Euron as a crazy puppet who THINKS that he's in control until it's his turn to burn would be awesome. But on his own, not only does he not work for me, but he was introduced too late to be a satisfying main villain.

Really that's one of the biggest factors for me. Who was introduced early enough not to feel like a cheap copout? I think it comes down to Varys and the Three Eyed Crow, and only one of them makes a satisfying mystical threat.

Without any retconning or cheap handwaves, Bloodraven can be behind everything we've seen the Others do. 

All tinfoil hats off, we know that he was behind the Three Eyed Crow dreams. We know Jojen was getting some dreams related to him that could easily be from him. It seems like he could have the same connection with Howland, and that could go back his whole life.  It wouldn't be a stretch to have him be behind any prophetic dream that's influenced the characters.

Most of us think that he was behind a lot of the things Mormont's Raven says, and a lot of the suspicious things we've seen animals in general do. 

He's in with the Children of the Forest, which gives the potential for him to be part of insanely long lasting plans stretching back even before he was born. 

Most of us think that he contacted Euron as a child. I've mostly seen the theory that he's a failed apprentice bandied about, but when I thought about it I didn't feel like it made sense. We know Bloodraven has a stupid amount of power, especially for this setting, there's no way he wouldn't be able to kill Euron one way or another, and no way he wouldn't see what a big threat he was becoming. He's gotta be one of his tools. It's even in the name. Crow's Eye. George likes ironic stuff like that. 

If you think that the Faceless Men are significant players, you can easily fit them in under him. If it's not satisfying for you to have Arya's Faceless Man currently in Oldtown ultimately serving Varys, then the Three Eyed Crow is really the only good option I can think of. The only way having someone transported across the continent chained in a cage for a mission makes sense is if you can predict the future and/or influence things through warging.

You can even fit him with the Red Priests, including Thoros and by extent Beric and Caitlyn if you really need to. At first I thought it would be cool if there was some sinister force or entity like R'hller in conflict with the Great Other, but at this point it's just too late in the story to be satisfying for me. It's gotta be a game of solitaire.

I recognize that this is almost entirely based on vibes and my own taste. I think that the most unambiguous foreshadowing for this is obviously when Melisandre sees Bloodraven and Bran in her fire and wonders if it's the Great Other. There's also the part at the end of one of Tyrion's chapters in Dance, when Moqoro says one of the most prominent things he sees is "A tall and twisted thing with one black eye and ten long arms  sailing on a sea of blood". While this obviously fits Euron, it also would fit Bloodraven really well, and the very next chapter switches to Bran, who's apprenticing in the cave with Bloodraven. It reminds me of a similar cut in Dance, when Jorah has captured Tyrion and tells him that he'll deliver him "to the queen". That's the last line, and then we get a Dany chapter. Because of the way the chapters are named, the next word in the book is Daenerys. Obviously that's not something that the readers needed hinted at, but it's still a fun use of dramatic irony and casts Dany and Cersei as parallels. I think George could have been doing a similar thing with Moqoro’s line.

As for his motivations, there's only a few I could come up with:

1. Culling or eliminating humanity. This would actually make the Children of the Forest the greater scope villains and Bloodraven their tool. It would make sense for them to either want revenge or make a comeback  and Bran's thought that men wouldn't quietly resign themselves to fading and being replaced by their conquerors would be dramatic irony and dark foreshadowing, which I think George does really well in this series

2. Countering the threat of Dany and her dragons. At first I kind of liked this idea, but honestly it seems really clear that something is driving Dany as well, and again I just think it's too late in the series for a R'hller like being to be revealed as behind half of the stuff that's happened so far. 

3. Balancing mystical forces in some esoteric way. This could overlap with countering Dany and her dragons. I would be OK with it, but honestly I kind of hope we get something more concrete

4. Using a mass sacrifice to accomplish some mystical feat. This would overlap with all 3 other goals. I know people have theorized that Euron wants to become a god, maybe Bloodraven is using him to do that instead. Maybe the Children of the Forest are trying to somehow revitalize their race, not just eliminate their rival. Maybe the war between the Children and humanity caused shit to get out of whack and it needs to be fixed, otherwise even worse things will happen.

TLDR: I don't think that anyone but Bloodraven was introduced early enough in the books  has been alive long enough, and has sufficient means and knowledge to serve as an overarching villain or schemer if the series is going to have one, which it doesn't have to

What do you guys think? Is there anyone else you would be satisfied with as a main villain/schemer? Would you even want the series to have one? And whether or not you think he can be called a villain, do you think that Bloodraven will end up having as much power, scope and foresight as I'm assigning to him?

i feel like both fans and westerosi historians see aegon the conqueror as one of if not the greatest targaryen king to ever live, but i personally think that's not really the case.
first of all i'm not trying to say that he was a terrible of incompetent king, but he wasn't the genius mastermind as everyone makes him out to be.

-First of all the conquest: tbh it was only possible due to the dragons, at least he knew how to use the properly, i guess. But on the other hand, his enemies had no idea how to deal with them and their strategies were kinda stupid. Like harren Hoare hiding in harrenhal, which caused aegon to turn it into a litteral stone oven. or how about house lannister and house gardener, marching out in a huge dry field, they might as well have put a sign above their heads which read "here we are, please burn us."
argillac was luky a storm came in and was actually winning, until he got arrogant and kept attacking, which caused rhaenys to burn him and his army to fall appart.
aegon was pretty much playing the game on ultra easy diffculty which made people think he was somehow a tactical genius. but once an enemy knows how to deal with dragons (eg dorne), that's it, aegon doesn't know what to do, and thus failed to conqueror dorne. (meaning he is slightly competent at best)
-second, the supposed consilidation, according to the books after his conquest he "consolidated" his reign. yet the nanosecond he died rebellions appeared everywhere, yes his useless son aenys is to blame, but to me the quick rebellions to me shows that the realm was only united out of fear for aegon, rather than by any centralizing policies. the consoldiation came only during jaehaerys reign as is said by maester Umbert 'Aegon the Dragon and his sisters conquered the Seven Kingdoms (six of them, at least), but it was Jaehaerys the Conciliator who truly made them one.'
so aegon wasn't a great politician either, just a average one.
people also praise him for allowing the nobles much autonomy, thus making them loyal, but as said before, it was probably their fear of balerion which kept them in line.
which brings me to my final point. This isn't just aegon's mistake but the mistake of every targaryen king, which is the absolute lack of centralisation of the kingdom. Aegon has direct control over the aegonfort (later kings landing) and dragonstone... that's it. what he should have done is turn huge and importants lands into crown domain, under his own rule rather than that of a lord.
"but the nobles will never accept this" Who cares, aegon can just burn them, et voila they will hand over their lands. heck he doesn't even need to revoke them just turn the reach (which has conviently falen without a rule because the gardeners went extinct) into crown domains, making the king the ruler of the biggest of the seven kingdoms plus makes him control a big part of the food supply.
does aegon or any targaryen try this? nope...
not a single piece of centralisation, no royal courts, barely any royal laws etc.

So conclusion, aegon targaryen is an average competent ruler but not the genius mastermand tactician/politician as everyone makes him out to be.
do you agree with me? please let me know i would love to hear your opinions.
also if i made mistakes, sorry english isn't my mother tongue