Someone has probably talked about this before, and done it better than me, but I want to do a thread on the false dichotomy of “madness” in House Targaryen. Strap in folks, it’s a long one.
“King Jaehaerys (II) once told me that madness and greatness were two sides of the same coin. Every time a new Targaryen is born, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land.” - Ser Barristan Selmy
Often Barristan is an unreliable narrator, with his memory failing him or being rose-tinged. But while it’s likely Jaehaerys II did say this, I do think we’re supposed to take the truth of this statement with a pinch of salt
Yes, members of House Targaryen do exhibit “madness” in various different ways. Yes, they often exhibit greatness too.
But what is “madness”? It’s an incredibly vague term. The mind works in all kind of various ways. Even the “mad” Targaryens show these traits very differently. Baelor the Blessed was pious to the point of zealotry and even insanity. Maegor was sadistic and cruel.
But was Daeron the Young Dragon mad to invade Dorne, or great to almost achieve it? Was Aegon the Conqueror mad, despite all he achieved? One can be competent and “mad.”
Because that’s the thing. Madness and greatness blur more than you’d think. It’s a matter of degree, and people contain multitudes. No one is simply “great” or “mad.”
The world isn’t binary. We’re meant to doubt these assertions in the books as in real life, as when Mel put forward her dualistic outlook, as @PoorQuentyn said in his recent Euron essay. “If ice can burn, then love and hate can mate”. Distinctions blur.
Or to put it another way: “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”
Furthermore, “madness” in Targ terms is often conflated with the morally repugnant ones. But that’s not always the case, and rather stigmatising towards people with mental health.
The people in Westeros live in a medieval-esque world with a limited understanding and vocabulary of such things but that’s no reason our real life understanding or vocabulary should be limited too
So Maegor, Baelor I, and Aerys II are the Targ kings classified as mad (not as many as you might think, and only two are overtly tyrannical).
If you extend to non kings, Rhaegel was “simple” but not apparently cruel, and his daughter Aelora apparently went “mad with grief” at her brother’s death and later commit suicide
Here we see that “madness” refers to all sorts of conditions, mental and neurological, poorly understood by the people of Westeros, which manifest themselves in many kinds of ways
Gael the Winter Child was also “simple”, as was Jaehaera, who seemed emotionless. Many others, like Maelor, died too young for their personalities to become clear.
Aerion Brightflame was cruel and capricious and thought he could become a dragon, and ended up drinking wildfire, which killed him. Aemond was also certainly cruel and sadistic enough to be considered mad.
Helaena descended into deep depressive “madness” after the death of her son. Her half-sister, Queen Rhaenyra could also have been said to have gone mad from all that befell her. Or perhaps she was always mad and it just emerged.
Or perhaps Rhaenyra was never mad, and although corrupted by her experiences to some degree, and capable of some morally questionable acts, she was still sane. One can do bad things and not be mad, something the Targaryen discourse sometimes loses sight of.
(Fwiw I prefer Rhaenyra and the blacks in the Dance to the greens, who were much worse, but I don’t think it’s too controversial to say Rhaenyra and her side were far from innocent)
Often the madness in the Targs is put down to incest and genetic abnormalities, or is a result of the prophetic powers many of them possess (largely unique among Valyrian dragonlords). Or both. But sometimes circumstance and trauma causes it, or at least brings it to the surface
Like with Baelor, who was much worse after his largely self-inflicted experiences in Dorne
Viserys III, Daenerys’s brother, was certainly worsened by his traumatic childhood, but that does not excuse his abuse of Dany, and also, it’s suggested he showed signs even as a child in the Red Keep, perhaps because paranoid Aerys kept him so close
Rhaena, the Queen in the West, was hardened by circumstance. Mad? Not necessarily. Her daughter Aerea was troubled, but so are many children, and this of course is magnified when that child is a royal with access to dragons
Aegon III suffered from severe depression largely as a result of childhood trauma. Is this “madness” by Westerosi standards?
What about the “great” Targs then? Leaving aside personal faves, the ones generally regarded as such (though often by no means perfect) include Aegon I, Jaehaerys I the Conciliator, Good Queen Alysanne, Daeron I, Aemon the Dragonknight, Daeron II, and Baelor Breakspear
There are other competent ones, but not necessarily "great". Daeron the Daring was certainly competent and by the standards of his brothers, a semi-decent person (apart from, um, the war crimes). But he was made to follow orders, not give them.
Aegon V, the Egg who became a king, certainly tried to be great, and he was definitely good, but he was ultimately frustrated, and like his brothers, he died consumed by his dreams of dragons
Rhaena of Pentos, Baela, Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was, and the Velaryon/Strongs were all decent enough people and certainly able.
Maekar was Stannis before Stannis. He could never step out of his brother's shadow, and he tried to be great, but ultimately was hamstrung by his own insecurities.
The Great Bastards could also maybe fit into the category of "great", but they all had their own eccentricities.
Certainly "greatness" seems to include many of the more charismatic members of the House. Though an abundance of charisma can also be seen as "mad" in it's own light. There's dramatic, charismatic Daena the Defiant, for example, or arts-loving Queen Rhaenys, who loved to fly.
A character I would describe as "great", but he himself would deny it, is Maester Aemon. And that humility is part of what makes him, in my mind, great.
Evidently, "greatness" is also a subjective concept, and just as vague as "madness"
Daemon Targaryen was described as both the "wonder and terror of his age". So in-universe and out, there's debate about where he lies. He seems to straddle the subtle distinction between madness and greatness, giving lie to the idea that a Targ is one or the other.
The coin seemed to land on it's side when it came to Daemon. And, as we've seen, it seems to do that quite often, doesn't it? Quite a lot of Targs, as with most people, fall into a middle ground.
Even Baelor, who I previously described as mad, is regarded as great by many in Westeros, particularly the clergy, and the poor, whom he helped with charitable acts.
What about the famously controversial Rhaegar? He was charismatic and capable, but also obsessed with prophecy, perhaps to a dangerous degree.
Aerys I was the same: bookish, and obsessed, perhaps too much, with prophecy. He was clever, but was obsession madness? Likely not, but it straddles a line in some cases.
Was Visenya mad? She could definitely be cruel and cold and dabbled in sorcery. But that isn't proof, so it's far from definite. Perhaps because defining what madness is, is so nebulous and arbitrary.
There's the various problem-children of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne, but were any of them any less sane than any other troubled youths? Sure, their family's position of power and ownership of dragons makes the problem bigger, but it doesn't mean they were mad necessarily.
Was Duncan Targaryen's impulsive marriage to a commoner, Jenny of Oldstones, madness or love? Or both? Sometimes love can be a form of madness, which is not a bad thing. But it was definitely impractical.
Certain actions can be perceived as "mad" or "great", but what about when you tried and weigh them up with regards the person doing them?
What about Jaehaerys II himself? The man who said the quote that launched this thread. He was clever, and stronger than many gave him credit for. But he was sickly, the genetic problems of his house manifesting in other ways.
Furthermore, he too had been obsessed with prophecy and Targaryen tradition at a younger age, when he and his sister Shaera defied his parents to marry, because he was told the Prince Who Was Promised would be born of their line.
But, strangely, my favourite category of Targs that disprove the greatness/madness dichotomy are the average ones. The mediocre ones. And there's surprisingly quite a few of them! And I like them because they're relatable, they're human, just like you and me.
There's Daeron the Drunken for one. The only thing special about him is his aforementioned Targ trait of prophecy (like Daenys the Dreamer and others before and after him), which he drowns out with drink. Otherwise the poor man does not distinguish himself.
I suppose those in Westeros might call Daeron's alcoholism a form of "madness", which his precognition drove him to, which again brings us back to how that vague term is used to insensitively describe all matter of ailments by those who don't know any better.
Furthermore, Daeron's condition is brought only not only by his dreams of prophecy, but his feelings of inadequacy and failure to live up to his father's high expectations. It's what GRRM is good at: grounding a fantastical story in human emotion and drama.
Daeron's cousins Valarr and Matarys might have been competent enough, but Duncan the Tall notes that Valarr isn't quite as skilled as his father, Baelor Breakspear, whom he is a pale shadow of. They were princes of spring, and they died in the spring.
The most notable mediocre Targ, perhaps, is King Aenys I, who failed to live up to his father's towering legacy, and was a generally weak king. Not great, but nor was he mad. Simply inefficient.
On the other side of the scale is Aegon II. Now, he was a grasping, cruel, greedy king. But his foibles seem very...mundane. He doesn't seem mad to me, or even as sadistic as his brother Aemond. He was simply a not very nice man, but in a very plain, banal way.
Arguably, however, Aegon II grew worse after receiving severe, disfiguring injuries during the Dance.
Viserys I was amiable, but he didn't particularly distinguish himself. He was, generally, a rather mediocre man, with his reign being notable more for it's lead up to the Dance of Dragons than anything about the man himself.
Viserys II was a shrewd, able man, charismatic in his youth, but rather more bitter as he got older. Was he mad? I doubt it. Perhaps great, but since his reign was rather short, and his tenure as Hand was a thankless, background task, it's hard to tell.
Then we come to Aegon IV, the Unworthy. He was mean, greedy, lusty, and capricious. But again, I'm not sure he was mad, per se. He was just a foul man. I suppose you could say his insatiable sexual appetite went beyond normal bounds. Again, he's not quite one thing or another.
Admittedly, yes, as Selmy also puts it, "Every child knows that the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness."
But the characters, at the end of the day, are merely human beings, with a wide range of complex personalities, that cannot be easily separated into two or three different categories.
So, I guess my point is (TL;DR): there's a false dichotomy when it comes being mad or great, particularly when it comes to the Targaryens. The evidence doesn't really back it up. I think we're meant to critique it, and out-of-universe, not apply it to characters, or one another.
*brought on
This of course should say mental illnesses or something to that effect
