386 replies to this topic

[E-Ro]

There are two types of people on this board, those who follow right of conquest and those who dont. Either way the targs have no right to westeros. If you follow right of conquest the baratheons are the ruling house. If you dont the targs have no right to rule westeros and should live on dragonstone, and if you go farther back then that I am sure those islands were taken from someone and the targs should go back to valyria to live in a wasteland. I am tired of people saying the targs are rightful kings and the baratheons are usurpurs, house baratheon usurped one king, aegon stole the crowns of seven. But, but robert stole the throne! it is danys! No, it is not you either follow right of conquest or you dont, either way targs dont belong. You cant have it both ways.

[Hukthagz]

You realize that right of conquest is an oxymoron? You basically make your own right with might. So it is entirely based on victors be it Targaryen or Baratheon. If Dany conquers Westeros, so be it.

[E-Ro]

Yes, but at the moment she has not conquered westeros, ergo she has no right to it. What your point?

[Stanmore]

The problem i have with right of conquest is people claiming it automatically trumps all other claims. If De facto rule trumps de jure then why have dejure inheritence rules at all. Why worry about first sons and eldest brothers etc when anyone can just come along and take what ever title they want and strip all the holders claims from it?

The Starks have supposedly  held Winterfell for thousands of years, but if anyone comes along and takes it from them they lose all claims on it beacuse of "right of conquest"? That makes no sense to me.

[Hukthagz]

So you agree that once she conquers Westeros, she is rightful queen right? If so there is nothing to argue about.

[theguyfromtheVale]

You only think there are two positions on the right of conquest? This really isn't a binary decision. I, personally, don't believe in the right of conquest all that much - but I believe in the right of custom; the Targaryens might not have had a right to take the seven kingoms, but they established their legitimacy via largely peaceful rule over three centuries and the fact that many of the institutions of Westeros go back to them (King's Landing; the Iron Throne; the road and currency systems; the King's Guard, just to name a few). The Baratheons, so far, have failed to shape the continent in many ways. They had much less time, agreed, but nevertheless they have largely sticked to the Targaryen institutions.

That said, even then there are differences in the conquests of Aegon and Robert. Aegon I was indeed conquering the kingdoms from outside; Robert had to depose of his liege Lord, basically committing treason. Yes, Aerys had basically forced him to do so,but the rebellion might just as well have deposed Aerys and replaced him with Aegon VI, with one of the rebel leaders (probably Jon Arryn) as his regent. Aegon I had no such conflict of duty and honor.

Edit: Added numbers for both Aegons to make clear which is meant at any time.

Edited by theguyfromtheVale, 28 July 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Karelian]

Aegon's conquest doesn't give the Targs a magical legal right to reclaim the throne, but it does give them some legitimacy and claim to the throne even though they are overthrown at the moment. Their previous reign will make them become accepted among the people and nobility much easier than any other family that takes the throne in case they succeed in reconquering Westeros.

[E-Ro]

Stanmore, on 28 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The problem i have with right of conquest is people claiming it automatically trumps all other claims. If De facto rule trumps de jure then why have dejure inheritence rules at all. Why worry about first sons and eldest brothers etc when anyone can just come along and take what ever title they want and strip all the holders claims from it?

The Starks have supposedly  held Winterfell for thousands of years, but if anyone comes along and takes it from them they lose all claims on it beacuse of "right of conquest"? That makes no sense to me.

It does trump everything. Might makes right, if bolton can hold winterfell, it is his.

theguyfromtheVale, on 28 July 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

You only think there are two positions on the right of conquest? This really isn't a binary decision. I, personally, don't believe in the right of conquest all that much - but I believe in the right of custom; the Targaryens might not have had a right to take the seven kingoms, but they established their legitimacy via largely peaceful rule over three centuries and the fact that many of the institutions of Westeros go back to them (King's Landing; the Iron Throne; the road and currency systems; the King's Guard, just to name a few). The Baratheons, so far, have failed to shape the continent in many ways. They had much less time, agreed, but nevertheless they have largely sticked to the Targaryen institutions.

That said, even then there are differences in the conquests of Aegon and Robert. Aegon was indeed conquering the kingdoms from outside; Robert had to depose of his liege Lord, basically committing treason. Yes, Aerys had basically forced him to do so,but the rebellion might just as well have deposed Aerys and replaced him with Aegon, with one of the rebel leaders (probably Jon Arryn) as his regent. Aegon had no such conflict of duty and honor.

Right of custom ok. Targs ruled for 280 years westeros had seven kings for 8,000. Way more custome there, and the kinsguard iirc is a traditoin of the andals I ams ure the targs did not start this. Regarding your second point when the targs do it its conquest when anyone else does it its usurping? Yes, robert rebelled but he won, his house are is in charge now.

[E-Ro]

Hukthagz, on 28 July 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

So you agree that once she conquers Westeros, she is rightful queen right? If so there is nothing to argue about.

If she can yes, doesnt look like she will though her only allies in westeros are the weakest house who everyone hates, best of luck to her though.

[Naathi Prince]

E-Ro, on 28 July 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

There are two types of people on this board, those who follow right of conquest and those who dont. Either way the targs have no right to westeros. If you follow right of conquest the baratheons are the ruling house. If you dont the targs have no right to rule westeros and should live on dragonstone, and if you go farther back then that I am sure those islands were taken from someone and the targs should go back to valyria to live in a wasteland. I am tired of people saying the targs are rightful kings and the baratheons are usurpurs, house baratheon usurped one king, aegon stole the crowns of seven. But, but robert stole the throne! it is danys! No, it is not you either follow right of conquest or you dont, either way targs dont belong. You cant have it both ways.

Ok, so this doesn't make any sense. Aegon didn't "usurp" anyone's throne, he conquered them (and got fealty given from some). He's a conquerer, not a Usurper.

Robert is a usurper. He stole the throne from the rightful King and kept it for himself. The Iron Throne is the Targaryen throne. Viserys, Daenerys, and Aegon all rightfully claim the throne because they are descendants from the deposed rightful King.

[a13506]

Claim is the bait to lure the fish(crown), but you still need to have bite the hook(gather support), pull in out and finish him(be acknowledged as monarch by all your subjects).

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The fact that someone conquered a Realm and rulled it for 300 illegal and brutally doesn't mean that he has any actual legal claim. After all there was a Rebellion where Rebels won so (by the Trags loyalists way of thinking) the Baratheons are the new conquers. Baratheons only have claim to the throne.

[E-Ro]

Naathi Prince, on 28 July 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Ok, so this doesn't make any sense. Aegon didn't "usurp" anyone's throne, he conquered them (and got fealty given from some). He's a conquerer, not a Usurper.

Robert is a usurper. He stole the throne from the rightful King and kept it for himself. The Iron Throne is the Targaryen throne. Viserys, Daenerys, and Aegon all rightfully claim the throne because they are descendants from the deposed rightful King.

I dont see how what robert did is any different, he warred against the targs and won. Aegon warred against all seven kings and won, so robert is king. He became king the minut the lords of westeros swore fealty to him the only difference is robert did it with allies, aegon did it with dragons.

[theguyfromtheVale]

E-Ro, on 28 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

It does trump everything. Might makes right, if bolton can hold winterfell, it is his.

Right of custom ok. Targs ruled for 280 years westeros had seven kings for 8,000. Way more custome there, and the kinsguard iirc is a traditoin of the andals I ams ure the targs did not start this. Regarding your second point when the targs do it its conquest when anyone else does it its usurping? Yes, robert rebelled but he won, his house are is in charge now.

And most of these seven royal families still rule over their ancestral lands, with the sole exception of the extinguished Gardener Kings (the Baratheons are female line descendants of the Storm Kings). They have the right of custom to their lands, and they still rule over them. They just aren't kings any more. The Targaryens went out of their way to establish that fact.

And yes, it matters whether you commit treason while conquering or not. I don't claim it's the sole deciding factor; far from it. But it does leave a stain o your legitimacy.

[Stanmore]

Jon, on 28 July 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

The fact that someone conquered a Realm and rulled it for 300 illegal and brutally doesn't mean that he has any actual legal claim. After all there was a Rebellion where Rebels won so (by the Trags loyalists way of thinking) the Baratheons are the new conquers. Baratheons only have claim to the throne.

I'm pretty sure all the lords of Westeros derive their titles from conquest at one point or another. The First men took land from the children and the Andals took land from the first men. Conquest is a valid way to start a dynasty, it just doesn't remove any pre existing claims from those who were conqured.

Torrhen stark knelt to the Targaryens and Ned Stark knelt to Robert, but that didn't stop Robb proclaiming himself king of the north based on a centuries old claim did it?

[theguyfromtheVale]

Jon, on 28 July 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

The fact that someone conquered a Realm and rulled it for 300 illegal and brutally doesn't mean that he has any actual legal claim. After all there was a Rebellion where Rebels won so (by the Trags loyalists way of thinking) the Baratheons are the new conquers. Baratheons only have claim to the throne.

So you're a Jacobite (as for illegal rule of the Tudors and Windsors...)?

300 years is, in my opinion, enough to establish legitimacy. 300 years ago, most nation states we live in today weren't even founded. The USA, Germany, Italy - they all didn't exist back then.

As for brutally: really? From what we know, the 17 years of Baratheon rule over Westeros have been far more bloody and brutal than Westeros was under the Targaryens.

[Stanmore]

E-Ro, on 28 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

It does trump everything. Might makes right, if bolton can hold winterfell, it is his.

Nonsense. If might makes right, why have any inheritance laws at all?  If robert had the might to give Storm's end to Renly, and Renly had the might to hold it then why did Stannis feel that it should have been his?

[Flig]

Are we going to establish a difference between a conquest and a revolution here? I always assumed that an outside force that invades, defeats, and retains control of an enemy is a conqueror (see: William the Conqueror, The Roman Empire, etc.), while a civil war or any sort of internal conflict that results in a change of government or leadership is a revolution (see: French Revolution, American Revolution, etc.).

If we do differentiate between these two, then Robert's rule seems to be a completely legitimate revolution in which the majority of the powers of the realm sided with Robert (The North, The Vale, The Riverlands, The Stormlands, and, in the end, The Westerlands vs. The Crownlands, Dorne, and The Reach).

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Stanmore, on 28 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure all the lords of Westeros derive their titles from conquest at one point or another. The First men took land from the children and the Andals took land from the first men. Conquest is a valid way to start a dynasty, it just doesn't remove any pre existing claims from those who were conqured.

Torrhen stark knelt to the Targaryens and Ned Stark knelt to Robert, but that didn't stop Robb proclaiming himself king of the north based on a centuries old claim did it?

Once again First men and Children had a deal.So? This means that I should accept that a strong guy have the right over other countries because he has dragon? No way.

theguyfromtheVale, on 28 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

So you're a Jacobite (as for illegal rule of the Tudors and Windsors...)?
300 years is, in my opinion, enough to establish legitimacy. 300 years ago, most nation states we live in today weren't even founded. The USA, Germany, Italy - they all didn't exist back then.
As for brutally: really? From what we know, the 17 years of Baratheon rule over Westeros have been far more bloody and brutal than Westeros was under the Targaryens.

I have no idea and I don't care about what a Jacobite situation, since I beleive that people should be free. And no 300 years are not long enough, in real world countries have rebelled after being conquered for 400 years and they gain their freedom. There wasn't establised as the countries they conquered them.
far more bloody and brutal-> I think that this is a joke.

[Hukthagz]

Jon, on 28 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Once again First men and Children had a deal.So? This means that I should accept that a strong guy have the right over other countries because he has dragon? No way.

Children accepted that. They capitulated vastly from their lands and people to buy their survival and appease the strong guy.

Edited by Hukthagz, 28 July 2012 - 10:12 AM.