King Gendry Baratheon Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Let's discuss how you think things would have gone if Baelor Targaryen had survived the trial by seven. He really seemed like a good rare person, standing for an hedge knight against his brothers son because he thought Dunk did right. This makes me think that he would have been a better king than 95% But the sad truth might be that some relative would had killed him later, but somehow I think that Targaryens would still rule if Baelor had been king, he was so young that he still had time to get more children. What do u think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I think that for plot-related reasons GRRM could not allow him to live, because the Targaryen dynasty would have taken a very different turn had he been king. Aegon V planned to make the Targs fully Westerosi by marrying all his kids off to non-targs, I think Baelor would have actually succeeded. I also think that the Blackfyre Rebellions would not have gone on as long with a strong warrior-king sitting the throne (instead of Aerys I, who simply wasn't fit to rule), one who was both personable (which Maekar apparently wasn't), understanding of diplomacy (wanted his dad to show leniency to the rebels) and skilled at arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syphon the Sanitator Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I agree with the Tiger. Had Baelor lived, the Blackfyres would have found a competent and fair king sitting on the Iron Throne. It would have probably been a very different world. Perhaps Aerys II would not even have been batshit insane had he been half a Darry (Darry mentioned as an example) and his house might not have fallen to the depths it found itself at the end of Robert's Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arataniello Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 If he had survived the trial by seven, then he may very well have died in the Great Spring Sickness that killed his sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackmont Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Had Baelor lived we wouldn't have the same history. As Tiger stated, many events could not have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 With Baelor as king, two things would have happened, IMO: 1) He would have been a great king to a great Westeros after which anything could have happened. Hint: Jaehaerys I and the Dance of Dragons. Hell, even Daeron II and Baelor's own death; 2) Something would have shaken him out of his unattainable perfection and he would have fallen hard, taking Westeros along for the ride. The way Baelor was presented, I can see why GRRM had to kill him: perfection isn't something to last for long. He was way too perfect. Either way, not the same history at all, that's what we'd have. But it could have easily been equally bad if not worse. After all, Baelor wasn't going to live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic G Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 If Baelor hadn't died Maekor wouldn't have been "sulking" in summer hall and survived the spring sickness and Baelor would have died with his sons. Putting westeros in the hands of Daeron or Brightflame. I have a feeling they would have welcomed the Blackfyres after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ McLannister Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The middle ages are littered with warrior kings (and heirs) who died young. They also had a strong tendency to be bad with money, preferring war to administration. Baelor might have been a righteous man, but that's not always the right skill-set for ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The middle ages are littered with warrior kings (and heirs) who died young. They also had a strong tendency to be bad with money, preferring war to administration. Baelor might have been a righteous man, but that's not always the right skill-set for ruling. He already was Hand of the King for his dad and apparently a good one, I think he would have been the exception. A guy who can fight and handle the paper work as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Stark-Targaryen Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 GRRM generally kills off heroes like Baelor Breakspear though. He wasn't grey enough. Besides, all the generations after him would have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triceratops Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The middle ages are littered with warrior kings (and heirs) who died young. They also had a strong tendency to be bad with money, preferring war to administration. Baelor might have been a righteous man, but that's not always the right skill-set for ruling. As already mentioned, Baelor was Hand of the King for (12?) years. He was even named Protector of the Realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 As already mentioned, Baelor was Hand of the King for (12?) years. He was even named Protector of the Realm. That's a military title, lets leave that out of the argument :lol:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 If he had survived the trial by seven, then he may very well have died in the Great Spring Sickness that killed his sons. If he survived that as well as the trial by seven, here's what Steven Atwell said would happen To begin with, part of the question is whether his sons live or die, and/or whether Baelor lives to sire more heirs with Jenna Dondarrion. A well-secured succession would avoid the problems of Aerys I’s lack of an heir and the Great Council of 233, and would almost certainly have meant that Aerys II would never have become King. No matter who becomes King in 209 AC, they’re going to have a hell of a time of it given the Sickness, the Drought, Dagon’s reaving, the migrations, and the death of the hostages. Few people would have been better equipped to handle it than Baelor, one of the few people to combine military skill, intelligence and cunning, and morality. Certainly, I think he would have mobilized Dorne and the Vale to quell the chaos in the west while keeping the rest of his forces mobilized in the east to prevent a crossing. I think he would have responded with more compassion to the smallfolk and would not have been blamed like Bloodraven. Also, he probably would have insisted on new hostages to replace the ones who died in order to prevent new risings. And he definitely wouldn’t have created a police state. So the reputation of the monarchy as protector of the realm would not have been so badly damaged, leading to the kind of resistance Aegon V experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Dagoghlor Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 How different would things have been for the Plantagenet dynasty if Edward the Black Prince had survived? Baelor probably would have would have been a very good king, and alot of the issues of Daeron II's successors could have been avoided. I'll defer to Fire Eater's link for a detailed analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Let's discuss how you think things would have gone if Baelor Targaryen had survived the trial by seven. He really seemed like a good rare person, standing for an hedge knight against his brothers son because he thought Dunk did right. This makes me think that he would have been a better king than 95% But the sad truth might be that some relative would had killed him later, but somehow I think that Targaryens would still rule if Baelor had been king, he was so young that he still had time to get more children. What do u think? It's hard to predict the future when it comes to this sort of thing. Just because he appears to be a good warrior, an honorable warrior, and just man doesn't mean he would have made a good king. Tywin Lannister was none of the above and yet, he ruled very capably as Hand of the King. Like George Martin said, if being a good man is all that it takes to rule, then Jimmy Carter would have been the best president in history. You have to get slimy to play the game of thrones sometimes and you have to get your hands dirty. Knowing how close he was to the throne, was it smart of Baelor to participate in a trial just to get justice for a nobody? Yeah, I know it tugs at the heartstrings and it was a noble thing to do, but it was not the correct thing to do. It showed bad judgment on his part. We give Baelor props for standing up for Dunk, because we like Dunk. But liking someone doesn't mean they will make a good ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triceratops Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 It's hard to predict the future when it comes to this sort of thing. Just because he appears to be a good warrior, an honorable warrior, and just man doesn't mean he would have made a good king. Tywin Lannister was none of the above and yet, he ruled very capably as Hand of the King. Like George Martin said, if being a good man is all that it takes to rule, then Jimmy Carter would have been the best president in history. You have to get slimy to play the game of thrones sometimes and you have to get your hands dirty. Knowing how close he was to the throne, was it smart of Baelor to participate in a trial just to get justice for a nobody? Yeah, I know it tugs at the heartstrings and it was a noble thing to do, but it was not the correct thing to do. It showed bad judgment on his part. Baelor was already serving as Hand of the King for years, and he was apparently good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ McLannister Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 How different would things have been for the Plantagenet dynasty if Edward the Black Prince had survived? He was the first example to come to my mind as a historical counterpart. Obviously we don't know how things would have played out, and Richard would still eventually inherit, but there's a good chance the war of the roses would not have happened. Though I would argue that Henry V's young death was more of a disaster. Had he lived to see his son into adulthood, France might not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 it was not the correct thing to do. It showed bad judgment on his part. In hindsight, had Baelor not done this, there's a strong possibility the throne would have fallen to Aerion instead of Aegon V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.