Jump to content

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Ranking the Targaryen Kings


Colonel Green

Recommended Posts

Prince viserys while pro peace from the outset couldn't support peace after daeron it projects weakness and submission to dorne plus rewarding the dornish for breaking the ultimate taboo of war. Peace at that time period was the wrong move completely the fact that baelor actually succeeded in it proves he isncharismaticnand forceful but also has no business being king

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or those Lords were actually wary of Daeron's war which costed so many lives.

Daeron's war was quite popular; indeed, we see that many people continue to prefer warring with the Dornish to making peace with them into the reign of Daeron II, a quarter-century later.

Prince viserys while pro peace from the outset couldn't support peace after daeron it projects weakness and submission to dorne plus rewarding the dornish for breaking the ultimate taboo of war. Peace at that time period was the wrong move completely the fact that baelor actually succeeded in it proves he isncharismaticnand forceful but also has no business being king

Baelor's peace was absolutely not the wrong move. He ended a war that was ruinous in its cost of blood and treasure and laid the groundwork for the peaceful admission of Dorne into the Seven Kingdoms within a generation of the ceasefire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KingBlackfyre,



yes, but I imagine Viserys could have quietly calculated that a continuation of the war would cost the Iron Throne much more than a peace treaty. And thus he could have secretly supported Baelor while openly arguing against a peace.



The fact that Viserys held up Baelor's peace after Baelor went into his coma strongly suggests that Viserys was not exactly eager to continue the war. Or he feared Baelor's repercussions should he regain consciousness and realize that his uncle had defied his will...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daeron's war was quite popular; indeed, we see that many people continue to prefer warring with the Dornish to making peace with them into the reign of Daeron II, a quarter-century later.

Baelor's peace was absolutely not the wrong move. He ended a war that was ruinous in its cost of blood and treasure and laid the groundwork for the peaceful admission of Dorne into the Seven Kingdoms within a generation of the ceasefire.

I'll give you a modern example if you prefer if in the Iraq war George bush traveled their to negotiate peace and during this meeting the Iraqi delegates were suicide bombers and killed him do you think it would be the right move for America to go for peace because it was a destructive and costly war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they had started the war, and it wasn't going well, the strong and wise thing to do is to write off a losing cause, which the Dornish war clearly was. That Baelor was able to forgive and move past Dorne's own war crimes is a gesture of amazing magnanimity and statesmanship.



The only real counter is the potential political cost at home, but Baelor faced no internal rebellion from his action (even when his immediate incapacity presented a golden opportunity to do so), so it was a big win all around.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer the question if the beloved leader of your country was killed through treachery even after a destructive war( but one were you still have the advantage) would you surrender. And sure very magnanimous but weakens your own state and projects weakness plus the breaking of a taboo that could cause war in general to become a lot worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, I did answer the question.



And "where you still have the advantage" is a pretty dubious assertion, given that the Dornish have (somehow) inflicted upwards of 50,000 casualties on an army that had successfully occupied the entire country, which is greater than the military strength of any of the individual seven kingdoms, and probably about twice the size of Dorne's own army. Anyone planning another invasion would have to reckon on as many casualties again, at least.



The state wasn't weakened, in any event, as Baelor reigned unchallenged for another ten years.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strictly disagree with this. He was just a puppet of the Faith, which in turn has strong association with the Hightowers just like the Citadel.

Three successive High Septons were chosen by Baelor. He had as much influence over the Faith as it had over him, and he did not rearm the Faith either, which is something you'd expect to see if he were indeed a puppet. He was following his own interpretation of his religion, by his own mind and will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer the question if the beloved leader of your country was killed through treachery even after a destructive war( but one were you still have the advantage) would you surrender. And sure very magnanimous but weakens your own state and projects weakness plus the breaking of a taboo that could cause war in general to become a lot worse

You might think it would weaken the state, but the objective outcome was that it didn't. Why? Because Baelor's great walk of penance was a show of a different kind of strength - spiritual strength. What he did had immense emotional power, the kind that makes people think differently, shelve their aggression, and forgive each other. No one could feel contempt for him after what he'd done, and that's the crucial difference between this kind of peace and the kind that projects weakness.

And as it happened, Baelor's peace led in a generation to both sides getting what they wanted: Dorne bent the knee to House Targaryen while retaining all their rights and freedoms. A truly great achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daeron's war was quite popular; indeed, we see that many people continue to prefer warring with the Dornish to making peace with them into the reign of Daeron II, a quarter-century later.

Baelor's peace was absolutely not the wrong move. He ended a war that was ruinous in its cost of blood and treasure and laid the groundwork for the peaceful admission of Dorne into the Seven Kingdoms within a generation of the ceasefire.

You might think it would weaken the state, but the objective outcome was that it didn't. Why? Because Baelor's great walk of penance was a show of a different kind of strength - spiritual strength. What he did had immense emotional power, the kind that makes people think differently, shelve their aggression, and forgive each other. No one could feel contempt for him after what he'd done, and that's the crucial difference between this kind of peace and the kind that projects weakness.

And as it happened, Baelor's peace led in a generation to both sides getting what they wanted: Dorne bent the knee to House Targaryen while retaining all their rights and freedoms. A truly great achievement.

I agree with both of the above posts. This is the kind of posts and discussions I wanted to see after the release of TWOIAF :)

I'll give you a modern example if you prefer if in the Iraq war George bush traveled their to negotiate peace and during this meeting the Iraqi delegates were suicide bombers and killed him do you think it would be the right move for America to go for peace because it was a destructive and costly war.

If George W. Bush got blown up in Iraq? I'd probably advise the new American President to send a giftbasket to Al-Qaida. An expensive one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I tend to agree. I previously wondered why Aegon didn't just start torching everything, but per TWOIAF he actually did that. I'm highly skeptical that a populace in a prenationalist age would keep on in the face of something like that (to the extent of continuing to fight even after the feudal lords themselves had surrendered).

I agree with you 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

You have Viserys I way too high

1. Jahaerys I

2. Daeron II

3. Viserys II (yes he was 'king' for a short time, but he did all the ruling for Baelor and Daeron I, the book makes it quite obvious that Aegon IV being absolute scum was hardly his fault)

These are the big 3 IMO, afterwards it becomes a little more complicated for me

4. Aegon I (Yes he conquered Westeros, but he also had all the dragons at his side and he loses points for moronically trying to take Dorne again, instead of ruling and building up what he already had)

5. Aegon V (would have been higher had he told his kids "listen kids, I wasn't bethrothed, you were now do your job!")

6. Jahaerys II

7. Maekar I

8. Aegon III (would be higher if he had raised either of his sons better)

The rest is basically garbage if you ask me. Coming back to Viserys I, he could have easily ended a lot of heartache with Daemon (who IMO was the smarter brother as he actually seemed to be aware of what the hell was going on) by betrothing him to someone in Dorne (he would have fit right in there, plus it would help make peace relations between them), The Reach (would have liked chilling with the Knights) and...well basically ANYWHERE except the Vale. He should have disinherited Rhaenyra the minute he saw that all of her first 3 kids looked nothing like Targs and made Aegon II the heir. Making Rhaenyra the heir and making Daemon hate him are what truly caused Westeros to plunge into hell.

Now don't get me wrong, Viserys I is not Aegon IV, but no way in hell would I call him a good king.

From what I gather Rhaenyra would have been a better ruler than Aegon that's why he didn't disinherit her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with you list (though I would rank them a little differently), but I think you are to hard on Aegon III sons. Before the release of TWOIAF, I would have completely agreed, but I think TWOIAF has corrected some of our misconceptions about the Young Dragon and his pious brother. We knew that Daeron was a brilliant commander at a terribly young age, but I have gotten a lot more respect for him now. In the end he only made one mistake and that was trying to make a mariage alliance with Braavos. If he hadn't done that, the Free Cities wouldn't have supported the Dornish resistance and he probably would have won.

If the Dornish hadn't pulled an act of almost Freyish treason, Daeron would have become the King who united the Realm. And that at such a tender age, he had a lifetime left to do great things. The court at the time would have greatly helped him to achieve his goals. His uncle Viserys was a great administrator and he would have helped Daeron to succeed as a peace time ruler. His brother Baelor would have made a great High Septon. His sisters would have been prime material to make alliances with Great Houses and the Free Cities. In Aemon the Dragonknight he had a formidable champion. Even Aegon might have proven usefull if he was controlled. And through his aunts, Daeron had close connections to the Hightowers and the Velaryons.

Victory in the war against the Dornish would also have greatly benefitted his reign. The Reach and the Stormlands (particularly the Marcher lords and those bordering the Red Mountains) would have followed him everywhere after that. And just like the Wot9PK, Daeron's conquest would have been a great way to strengthen the internal bonds between the Realms. The heir to the North was fighting there, alongside Targaryen Princes, Lords from the Reach, Crownlands and Stormlands. I'm sure the other great houses (with the exception of the Greyjoys probably) would have been present as well. I'm also sure the conquest of Dorne would have been positive for trade. Their goods would be transported all over the realm and it would be easier for merchants to strike up bargains with their Dornish counterparts.

As to Baelor. In the end he was a religious nutter, but he didn't start that way imo. Before TWOIAF, I always thought he was crazy from the start, but the image that emerges from TWOIAF is a lot more nuanced. Baelor was certainly a pious man, well versed in the matters of the Faith. I have no doubt that young Baelor desired to become High Septon, a powerful position for a second son. When his elder brother died, he needed to become King. The first act of his reign is still the most brilliant PR-stunt in Westerosi history. Aside from choosing peace over a war that had become impossible to win after Daeron's death, he came up with a brilliant plan to foster peace between the two countries. He laid the first stone for the Dornish integration in the realm there. I think he would have made a fine king, especially with Viserys II to guide him, if it weren't for the Dornish Boltons (the Wylls). The poison seems to have messed up his mind and made him crazy. Such a shame.

Was it impossible to win though?

if you read the mush you would know that daeron did not use the iron born in his war.

the iron born have hundreds of ships for transport and 20,000 estimated men, that were untouched by the war and no doubt itching to get involved.

and there is the fact that 60,000 men is not the full force of a united seven kingdom's indeed renly army is lager then that and it only had the tyrells and storm lands.

the iron throne has a larger population, more production, and more soldiers.

and there is the fact that house martell can't defend their lands as well any more, because the lords of the pass can't aid them due to the hostage situation.

(as evidenced by the fact that daeron doesn't have to bother with his goat track when sending soldiers down to deal with the rebellion.)

all in all daeron had the martells by the ball's at the end of the war,

hence the need to assassinate him with a fake peace offer.

i think baelor indeed could have won that war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the Iron Throne had tried to avenge Daeron with force, it would have went poorly for them.

I don't understand why people have Aegon III as just an average or bad king.

how?

most of dorne's levy was devastated.

and the lords who did have soldiers couldn't help the martells due to the hostage situation.

the only way dorne wins that war is if the lords opinion turns against it's continuation. which is unlikely after the assassination of the king and his lord paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how?

most of dorne's levy was devastated.

and the lords who did have soldiers couldn't help the martells due to the hostage situation.

the only way dorne wins that war is if the lords opinion turns against it's continuation. which is unlikely after the assassination of the king and his lord paramount.

Dude, replying to something from almost 4 months ago, really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...