[TWOIAF Spoilers] Ranking the Targaryen Kings

[Bironic]

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.

The US had a larger population more production and more soldiers than vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

How do you feed 60000 men in the middle of a desert, what do you make with all this boats when the coast is rocky and has just few natural harbors? It's like invading namibia.

[The silver dragon]

The US had a larger population more production and more soldiers than vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

How do you feed 60000 men in the middle of a desert, what do you make with all this boats when the coast is rocky and has just few natural harbors? It's like invading namibia.

the only reason the u.s lost against Vietnam was public support was against it. the lords opinion was firmly against dorne due to infamous assassinations at the time.

the only reason u.s lost in afghan is because there wasn't and actually drawn up army to fight there, and the insurgents had the support of the entire nation.

(money,supplies)

the lords of dorne could not support the martell's due to being hostages.

without it's Rocky mountains dorne is just another dessert, and desserts have been conquered before, Alexander III of Macedon conquered a dessert region.

(Persian empire)

[Bironic]

the only reason the u.s lost against Vietnam was public support was against it. the lords opinion was firmly against dorne due to infamous assassinations at the time.

the only reason u.s lost in afghan is because there wasn't and actually drawn up army to fight there, and the insurgents had the support of the entire nation.

(money,supplies)

the lords of dorne could not support the martell's due to being hostages.

without it's Rocky mountains dorne is just another dessert, and desserts have been conquered before, Alexander III of Macedon conquered a dessert region.

(Persian empire)

IIRC it was not only the Lords fighting, but also the smallfolk. And you can't take the entire population hostage.

The "insurgents" in Dorne had also the support of the entire nation.

Guerilla wars can't be won without winning the hearts of the people, like Arthur Dayne did with the Kingswood brotherhood.

And I love conquering desserts :drool: ;)

[Annara Snow]

It was is only option simply because if he nominate Jaehaera he would lose his own claim..Aegon is the only choice possible

Not true.

If Aegon were the rightful heir to Viserys I as he claimed, Jaehaera would be his rightful heir by the Andal rules of succession.

Aegon II was no suggesting that no women should inherit the throne, merely that his claim was better than Rhaenyra's, his sister.

By Andal rules of succession: Aegon > Aemond > Daeron > Rhaenyra > Haelena

and if Aegon has children, they would be Aegon's heirs.

So, by Andal rules of succession: Aegon II => Jaehaera > Aegon (Rhaenyra's son) - because daughter comes before uncle, aunt or cousin.

What happened was that Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir instead of her younger brother, bypassing the rules of succession - just like his grandfather Jaehaerys had done when he named Baelon his heir instead of Rhaenys.

So, if Rhaenyra is the rightful queen, as per the late king's wishes, [Rhaenyra (dead)] => Aegon III => his future children, if any > [Viserys, considered dead at the time] > Aegon ("Aegon II") > Jaehaera

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that both sides, no doubt, proclaimed each other traitors and removed the other from the line of succession.

1. Jaehaerys I - everyone seems to agree this guy was the best. Bound up the wounds left by his uncle and made lasting, highly positive reforms, disarming the Faith, regularizing the law, and abolishing the First Night. Kept the realm at peace for decades.

2. Aegon I - united almost all Westeros under one crown, no easy feat, and held it together. That achievement puts him above all save Jaehaerys.

3. Daeron II - He's not called "the Good" for nothing, but still managed to piss enough people off to get the Blackfyre Rebellion started, so I rank him a bit lower than most people on this thread.

4. Viserys II - his reign was short but he ruled well as Hand for many years, and the few things he did in his reign were good ones.

5. Baelor - his follies were legion but fairly benign in the grand scheme of things, and making peace with Dorne was a superb achievement.

6. Maekar - what others said.

7. Jaehaerys II - things went well during his short rule.

8. Aegon III - held things together reasonably well, but was hobbled by his depression.

9. Aegon V - good ideas for reforms but was unable to implement them effectively, and his failure to control his children severely compromised him.

10. Aerys I - pretty much what the OP said.

11. Daeron I - Superb military commander but it ended in a very costly failure.

12. Aenys - Too weak to rule effectively.

13. Aegon II - Hard to blame him really, he had good cause to believe he'd be assassinated if he stood aside, but hoo boy. Results say it all - his entire branch of House Targaryen was wiped out, and the realm bled hard under his rule.

14. Viserys I - inherited a great situation and completely squandered it. Failed to resolve conflicts, swept shit under the rug, allowed problems to fester and accumulate, relying solely on his own authority to keep it all from exploding. Jaw-dropping hubris in ignoring customary succession law out of nothing more than petty favoritism. Should have realized what was going to happen after he died and didn't.

I agree that Viserys messed up. However, let's not forget that the first king who showed "jaw-dropping hubris in ignoring customary succession law out of nothing more than petty favoritism" was Jaehaerys I, the one that most people consider the best king ever, when he named Baelon his heir instead of Rhaenys. That this didn't have such bad consequences, since Rhaenys and the Velaryons didn't start a civil war, doesn't change the fact that he basically did the same thing that Viserys I did later. One may say that it was Jaehaerys who opened the door, and Viserys I was merely following the precendent set by his grandfather: the king has the right to name his heir among his progeny, even if he bypasses the inheritance rules. And the lords of Westeros accepted his decision while he was alive.

The Truly GOOD

- Jaehaerys I

- Daeron II

- Aegon V

The Truly AWFUL

- Maegor

- Aegon IV

- Aerys II

The GREAT and TERRIBLE (indisputably "great" [not to be confused with good] kings, whose moral status is up for debate)

- Aegon I

- Daeron I

- Baelor

The Quietly Competent

- Viscerys II

- Maekar

- Jaehaerys II

The Quietly Inept

- Aenys

- Aegon III

- Aerys I

The Shared Catastrophe

- Viscerys I

- Aegon II

- Rhaenyra

That more or less sums it up.

[Mithras]

I agree that Viserys messed up. However, let's not forget that the first king who showed "jaw-dropping hubris in ignoring customary succession law out of nothing more than petty favoritism" was Jaehaerys I, the one that most people consider the best king ever, when he named Baelon his heir instead of Rhaenys. That this didn't have such bad consequences, since Rhaenys and the Velaryons didn't start a civil war, doesn't change the fact that he basically did the same thing that Viserys I did later. One may say that it was Jaehaerys who opened the door, and Viserys I was merely following the precendent set by his grandfather: the king has the right to name his heir among his progeny, even if he bypasses the inheritance rules. And the lords of Westeros accepted his decision while he was alive.

If you want to throw shit on Jaehaerys for this decision, you should do it for not choosing Alyssa (his second eldest child) over Aemon (his third eldest child, father of Rhaenys) in the first place.

[Lord Varys]

Annara Snow,

the outbreak of the Dance is a lot more complicated than usually thought.

The assumption many people seem to have - that Otto/Alicent and their family were advocating against female rule in general - is clearly wrong. There may have been some partisans in the Green party who ended up supporting Aegon II over Rhaenyra because they honestly believed women should not/cannot rule (people like Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde), but this would certainly not have extended to the Hightower-Targaryens themselves.

Apparently there were some scholars/maester/lords/men who interpreted the outcome of the Great Council as a general invalidation of the claims of females (Rhaenys, Laena) and the female line in general (Laenor), but this was clearly not the case. A powerful faction at Viserys' court (Otto, first and foremost) supported him in naming Rhaenyra his heir over Daemon.

Strictly speaking, Viserys I was the progressive guy who decided to introduce a Dornish-like succession of the eldest child for the Iron Throne, rather than the old 'males come first' rule. However, it is really difficult to say whether he actually wanted that - it may be that he simply wanted to choose his own successor (and I'm fine with that).

The assumption that Aegon II would actually have cared about gender issues at the end of the Dance when he had only a female heir of his own body and had thus passed over Jaehaera in favor of Rhaenyra's get is ridiculous.

As to Andal law:

Andal law does not seem to be 'Andal law'. On the royal level, the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' rule was apparently only practiced in the Reach - we don't know of a Queen Regnant in the Vale, the Riverlands, the Stormlands, and the West. Aenys' ascension aside, no Targaryen king came into power without a fight/some uncertainty as who should succeed, and thus things clearly would not have been all that easy or obvious when Jaehaerys had to choose between Baelon and Rhaenys. An grandchild is not son or a daughter, and we are talking about Jaehaerys' succession there, not Aemon's. Had Aemon ascended the Iron Throne, Rhaenys would have ruled after him.

[The Prince of Magpies]

The Truly GOOD

- Jaehaerys I

- Daeron II

- Aegon V

The Truly AWFUL

- Maegor

- Aegon IV

- Aerys II

The GREAT and TERRIBLE (indisputably "great" [not to be confused with good] kings, whose moral status is up for debate)

- Aegon I

- Daeron I

- Baelor

The Quietly Competent

- Viscerys II

- Maekar

- Jaehaerys II

The Quietly Inept

- Aenys

- Aegon III

- Aerys I

The Shared Catastrophe

- Viscerys I

- Aegon II

- Rhaenyra

Neatly put together, and I'd generally agree, but for the 'Quietly Inept' category. Aenys' indecision led to 4 large scale rebellions against the Targaryens (admittedly, they may have started regardless of who succeeded Aegon, but it seems clear from TWOIAF that had Aenys been more aggressive he could have ended them before they posed a genuine threat to the realm). He made continuous gaffes (marrying Rhaena to Aegon, despite not having neutralised the Faith's power or courted their consent; repeatedly refusing to employ his dragons in battle despite the example of his father) which almost contributed to the downfall of the dynasty. While part of that chaos is down to a context he couldn't help (the Targaryens weren't yet 'established' in Westeros, the Faith still occupied a nebulous power position), his missteps in addressing it were spectacular rather than quiet.

Also, Aegon III's status seems up for debate; Yandel obviously doesn't think much of him, but could that be down to him relieving the Maesters of power when he ended the regency? He helped steady the ship post-Dance after all, sired heirs despite his personal reservations, stood his ground when a conspiracy threatened his sister-in-law and seemed to have a healthy regard for the welfare of the small folk. Given the trauma he had been through and the chaos and uncertainty he had to deal with, I think he done a decent job. Given that a dragon-less Daeron I could convince the lords to invade Dorne says a lot for his personal charisma, but also for how stable and strong the realm seemed only a generation after devastating civil war, which must owe something to Aegon's 'sober rule.'

[Annara Snow]

If you want to throw shit on Jaehaerys for this decision, you should do it for not choosing Alyssa (his second eldest child) over Aemon (his third eldest child, father of Rhaenys) in the first place.

Why not? The point is, if we're going to criticize Viserys' decision on principle of 'bypassing customary laws of succession because of favoritism' (as opposed to not seeing the dangers and seeds of possible conflict over succession), there's as much reason to criticize Jaehaerys I on the same grounds as it is to criticize Viserys'. I'm not the one who introduced this line of criticism.

Annara Snow,

the outbreak of the Dance is a lot more complicated than usually thought.

The assumption many people seem to have - that Otto/Alicent and their family were advocating against female rule in general - is clearly wrong. There may have been some partisans in the Green party who ended up supporting Aegon II over Rhaenyra because they honestly believed women should not/cannot rule (people like Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde), but this would certainly not have extended to the Hightower-Targaryens themselves.

Apparently there were some scholars/maester/lords/men who interpreted the outcome of the Great Council as a general invalidation of the claims of females (Rhaenys, Laena) and the female line in general (Laenor), but this was clearly not the case. A powerful faction at Viserys' court (Otto, first and foremost) supported him in naming Rhaenyra his heir over Daemon.

Strictly speaking, Viserys I was the progressive guy who decided to introduce a Dornish-like succession of the eldest child for the Iron Throne, rather than the old 'males come first' rule. However, it is really difficult to say whether he actually wanted that - it may be that he simply wanted to choose his own successor (and I'm fine with that).

The assumption that Aegon II would actually have cared about gender issues at the end of the Dance when he had only a female heir of his own body and had thus passed over Jaehaera in favor of Rhaenyra's get is ridiculous.

Yes, exactly.

There was no reason whatsoever for Aegon II to favour his nephew Aegon as heir over his own daughter, and there's absolutely no indication that he ever did.

Andal law does not seem to be 'Andal law'. On the royal level, the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' rule was apparently only practiced in the Reach - we don't know of a Queen Regnant in the Vale, the Riverlands, the Stormlands, and the West. Aenys' ascension aside, no Targaryen king came into power without a fight/some uncertainty as who should succeed, and thus things clearly would not have been all that easy or obvious when Jaehaerys had to choose between Baelon and Rhaenys. An grandchild is not son or a daughter, and we are talking about Jaehaerys' succession there, not Aemon's. Had Aemon ascended the Iron Throne, Rhaenys would have ruled after him.

I was calling it that because it's usually called "Andal law" - I don't know why, it's not a most accurate moniker. Anyway, the point is that these are the customary rules of succession in most of Westeros, minus Dorne, and a lot of people in Westeros would think this is how the succession is supposed to go, even if in practice the rules get bypassed often. For instance: Yandel admits that quite a few people believed Daena should have been queen instead of Viserys II; when Damphair and the Ironborn lord whose name I can't remember discuss the succession of Seastone Chair, the maester interrupts and states that the line of succession is Theon, then Asha, then Euron, even though Damphair is irritated and dismissively calls it "greenlander law". Therefore, the Greens could have, and no doubt did, use this belief that the succession should go to the eldest son instead of the eldest daughter, as one of the things to support Aegon's claim in people's eyes; and there's no reason why Aegon would feel that having his daughter, his only surviving child, as his heir, would in any way invalidate that claim, when it was within the exact same rules of succession (without even bringing up the fact that Aegon II no doubt had removed Rhaenyra and her progeny from the line of succession as attained traitors).

[Lord Varys]

Andal law:

Well, my take on that would be that daughters had some chance - at least in the South - to inherit lordships and castles, but crowns seem to have been a different matter. Men in Westeros apparently do not like to be ruled by a woman, whereas pretty much every lord would agree that it is another whether his own daughter or some distant cousin inherits his own seat. Peasants have no say in the matter, anyway.

Thus it may very well be that there were many Ruling Ladies in the Andal kingdoms, and this is where the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' rule comes from. A rule that was only imported North, I think, after the Targaryen Conquest when Jaehaerys unified the laws.

But as far as we know there were only Queen Regnants in the Reach, and this would suggests that 'Andal law' did not exactly favor a woman inheriting a crown.

On the other hand, on petty king level there may have been some queens. We see that Marla Sunderland is proclaimed Queen of the Three Sisters during the Conquest, suggesting that a charismatic woman could seize a crown even among the Andals.

Targaryen succession:

TWoIaF illustrates that succession law was formed by precedents. When Prince Aemon died in 92 AC, we have the following precedents:

1. Aegon and his sister-wives conquer Westeros. Rhaenys and Visenya are both Aegon's co-rulers, and should Aegon I die without issue, the throne would definitely go to them (greatly resembling the situation in Dorne when Nymeria and Mors Martell made their alliance).

2. Aegon raised and recognized Rhaenys' only son, Aenys, as his heir. Aenys' sons by Alyssa Velaryon are considered to be next in the line. There is some confusion where exactly Maegor is in the line of succession, but definitely behind Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys - but he could also have been behind Rhaena, Alysanne, and Vaella. Upon Aegon's death, Aenys succeeds as he should have - a precedent for the inheritance of the eldest son of the king, although by the younger/secondary sister-wife.

3. Upon Aenys' death, Maegor usurps the Iron Throne in the place of Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys. He eventually recognizes his grand-niece Aerea - Aegon's eldest daughter by his sister-wife Rhaena - as his heir, making a precedent for female inheritance.

4. Upon Maegor's death, Jaehaerys ascends the Iron Throne instead of Aerea, despite the fact that Aerea would also have been Aegon's heir had he ascended the Iron Throne instead of Maegor. This set the first precedent against female inheritance.

5. Jaehaerys marries his eldest surviving son, Aemon, to his half-sister Jocelyn Baratheon rather than his eldest child, Princess Alyssa, most likely due to the influence his mother Alyssa Velaryon and his step-father Robar Baratheon had at court. When Baelon was married to Alyssa, a purer-blooded rival Targaryen branch was effectively created.

[Jon Fossoway]

Maegor rocks. He was a necessary villain.

[shockwave]

Maegor rocks. He was a necessary villain.

maybe not if Aenys was smarter and stronger

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

without it's Rocky mountains dorne is just another dessert, and desserts have been conquered before, Alexander III of Macedon conquered a dessert region.

(Persian empire)

The Persian Empire was not a desert; it contained deserts, certainly, but its strength and populace was based in its agricultural heartlands (Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Egypt and the Levant). Moreover, the Persians fought Alexander in pitched battles, not through guerrilla campaigning. Also, a lot of Alexander's success can be put down to the fact that the Achaemenid Dynasty was divided by in-house squabbling (Darius III was murdered by his cousin, not the Greeks) and was not universally popular (Darius III had made many enemies in his efforts to re-exert royal power, which had been weakened by a succession of inept rulers), as well as the fact that Alexander and his generals made quick alliances with many of the powerful aristocratic families in the Empire through intermarriage.

Note that when Alexander actually campaigned in the desert (crossing the Makran) it was nearly a complete disaster despite the lack of significant opposition.

[shockwave]

this queen regnant from the Reach, who is this? I can't find her in the list of Gardener kings on the awoiaf wiki. I read the reach chapter of the book and didn't see it either

[Mrs.Grumpy]

It's kinda sad how Rohanne's grandson ruined her friend's efforts...

[Mrs.Grumpy]

this queen regnant from the Reach, who is this? I can't find her in the list of Gardener kings on the awoiaf wiki. I read the reach chapter of the book and didn't see it either

Yandel mentioned a Gardener queen but he didn't give a name. We just know that a female Gardener ruled as her own once.

Check Andals in the Reach section.

[Alester Florent]

I'm also in the camp with sympathy for Viserys I. His reign is remarked as being the apogee of Targ power, so he wasn't bad on the whole. Were it not for the succession problem he would probably rank as one of the very best kings, perhaps only behind Jahaerys. Of course the one black mark on his record is a big one. But the question for me is what more he could have done about it. He did pretty much everything in his power to ensure the succession went smoothly, making it clear Rhaenyra was his heir, getting the lords to swear allegiance to her before he died, and it almost worked.

He could be blamed for trying to get round the law. But then kings also make the law, and precedents were at this time woolly, after all. If Viserys wished to change the law to pure agnatic primogeniture, that was his prerogative. Rhaenyra was clearly who he wanted to succeed him, and he did everything he could to make that happen.

Something he didn't try, and in retrospect probably should have done, was to leave the throne not to Rhaenyra, but to Daemon, especially since they married some time before his death. This is basically what happened anyway, with Daemon being Protector of the Realm, so the king's backing it up with Leaving the throne to Daemon would completely obviates any argument about female succession - not so much over primogeniture, but it could be argued that the precedent at this point in practice was for brothers to succeed brothers where available anyway*. He could even have tried leaving it jointly to the two of them. It seems like he missed a trick there, although it's the sort of thing that only really becomes apparent in hindsight and at the time was turned down for good reason.

The real cause of the Dance had relatively little to do with an unclear succession, though, and were more over personal rivalries and ambitions both in court and the rest of the kingdom. Without a strong king to keep the lid on things, there were always going to be problems and Viserys deserves credit I think for holding it together as long as he was alive. I don't believe Aegon would have done any better a job at restraining things as the recognised heir than happened anyway. Daemon, potentially, but due to the way things went he was kind of off to one side by the end.

*Maegor was regarded as usurping the throne, but is still recognised in histories as a legitimate king. Recognition of Daemon as heir by Viserys would have confirmed this as the norm. Neither Maegor nor Jahaerys had had any surviving brothers to inherit, so it had not otherwise been tested.

[Bironic]

I'm also in the camp with sympathy for Viserys I. His reign is remarked as being the apogee of Targ power, so he wasn't bad on the whole. Were it not for the succession problem he would probably rank as one of the very best kings, perhaps only behind Jahaerys. Of course the one black mark on his record is a big one. But the question for me is what more he could have done about it. He did pretty much everything in his power to ensure the succession went smoothly, making it clear Rhaenyra was his heir, getting the lords to swear allegiance to her before he died, and it almost worked.

He could be blamed for trying to get round the law. But then kings also make the law, and precedents were at this time woolly, after all. If Viserys wished to change the law to pure agnatic primogeniture, that was his prerogative. Rhaenyra was clearly who he wanted to succeed him, and he did everything he could to make that happen.

Something he didn't try, and in retrospect probably should have done, was to leave the throne not to Rhaenyra, but to Daemon, especially since they married some time before his death. This is basically what happened anyway, with Daemon being Protector of the Realm, so the king's backing it up with Leaving the throne to Daemon would completely obviates any argument about female succession - not so much over primogeniture, but it could be argued that the precedent at this point in practice was for brothers to succeed brothers where available anyway*. He could even have tried leaving it jointly to the two of them. It seems like he missed a trick there, although it's the sort of thing that only really becomes apparent in hindsight and at the time was turned down for good reason.

The real cause of the Dance had relatively little to do with an unclear succession, though, and were more over personal rivalries and ambitions both in court and the rest of the kingdom. Without a strong king to keep the lid on things, there were always going to be problems and Viserys deserves credit I think for holding it together as long as he was alive. I don't believe Aegon would have done any better a job at restraining things as the recognised heir than happened anyway. Daemon, potentially, but due to the way things went he was kind of off to one side by the end.

*Maegor was regarded as usurping the throne, but is still recognised in histories as a legitimate king. Recognition of Daemon as heir by Viserys would have confirmed this as the norm. Neither Maegor nor Jahaerys had had any surviving brothers to inherit, so it had not otherwise been tested.

No he didn't make pretty much everything. He never got around well with Daemon(who saw himself as Viserys' heir). He never ended the strifes and intrigues and personal rivalries within his family and court. He even fuled them with his second marriage and his appointment of Otto Hightower as Hand.

If you want that Rhaenyra succeeds you, you don't make another heir. If you really want that to happen without bloodshed you marry her to your brother. The same as the Starks did, marrying daughter to uncle.

[Lord Varys]

Reappointing Otto was a grievous mistake. Remarrying and fathering spares wasn't wrong. Rhaenyra could have predeceased her father without issue of her own, and then the Realm would have been stuck with Daemon as Heir Presumptive - again.

Nymeria succeeded in forcing the Dornishmen to accept her eldest daughter as successor rather than her younger son. Viserys I could have done the same had he reined in Alicent, Otto, and the whole Green faction. That wouldn't have been all that difficult had he actually seen and grasped what his family was up to. But I don't think he did. The man was nice and forgiving guy most of the time and could most likely not believe that his children and kin would kill each other upon his death. He would have been aware of the general tension between Rhaenyra and Alicent, but not necessarily understand the full scale of the whole thing.

[Colonel Green]

Reappointing Otto was a grievous mistake.

The proper thing to do in that instance, in my view, was to name Lord Corlys as Hand (there were good reasons for not naming Rhaenyra or Daemon).

[Lord Varys]

I imagine that Viserys I and Corlys Velaryon never got along. Corlys most likely expected to become Prince Consort at the side of Queen Rhaenys when he married Rhaenys before 92 AC, and I imagine there was no friendship between Jaehaerys I/Baelon/Viserys after 92 AC, leading to the retreat of the Velaryons to Driftmark and the end of them being Master of Ships - which eventually enabled Tyland Lannister to rise to that office at one point during Viserys' reign.

And it does not seem as if this really changed after Rhaenyra married Laenor. Laenor was not called to KL to rise to high office, nor was Laenor the leader of the Black party - Ser Harwin Strong was. The marriage closed the rift between the Targaryens and the Velaryons but it did not make them good/great friends. At least not Corlys/Rhaenys and Viserys.