[tPatQ Spoilers] Anyone else likes the Targaryens less now after reading the novella?

[The Great Walrus]

Yes, yes he was. But I forgave him when he jumped off a falling dragon and stabbed Aemond in the eye.

I'm sorry, i just can't forgive someone for having an innocent six year old decapitated. I hate Cersei for ordering children killed, and i hate Daemon for the same.

[Florina Laufeyson]

After reading it, I concluded that Daemon was fucking awesome.

Yes. His ultimately saying "FUCK THIS NOISE" but still Dark Sistering the fuck out of Aemond was the best thing ever.

I like Aemond as well but for different reasons. I liked how he was so unscrupulous. Hes a dick and he knows it and doesnt give a fuck.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I'm sorry, i just can't forgive someone for having an innocent six year old decapitated. I hate Cersei for ordering children killed, and i hate Daemon for the same.

To each his own I guess. It was an appalling crime, but Aemond had just murdered his son.

I'm also willing to forgive Theon (mayhaps), despite the fact that he murdered innocent children.

Yes. His ultimately saying "FUCK THIS NOISE" but still Dark Sistering the fuck out of Aemond was the best thing ever.

I like Aemond as well but for different reasons. I liked how he was so unscrupulous. Hes a dick and he knows it and doesnt give a fuck.

:thumbsup: Though I hated Aemond, which made me like Daemon all the more.

[King Hammer]

Daemon was a very charismatic character, especially for the condensed nature of the story. He's a terrible guy willing to murder children, but he's interesting to read about because of his impressive covert network in King's Landing, his rogue streak, and his penchant for dragon-hopping.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

For me just reinforcered the point that their rule didnt mean a 280 years of peace, love and progress as many in this forums still say. Probably the body count was higher in their rule than when there were 7 kingdoms.

[AdelinaZ]

It's the opposite for me. I was not a fan of the Targaryens when reading the main series: I never bought into the whole "special supreme people" thing, on the contrary, I found it rather cliched and off-putting. I first started being interested in them when reading the Dunk and Egg stories, because in those they came across as relatively normal.(Btw, Baelor Breakspear and Bloodraven are my favourite characters as well). The Princess and the Queen reinforced this idea and I think I like them even more now.

I also agree with what Senor de la Tormenta said.

[Lady of Dragonstone]

I don't think it's a romantic idea. And I don't think of them as killing machines. I think of them as animals. Like a bigger, fire-breathing, more dangerous, not-actually-existing-in-real-life versions of horses, wolves or dogs. That's how they're portrayed in the story. They have personality traits (think of the difference between Cannibal, Grey Ghost and Sheepstealer), they have motives that aren't entirely clear to the maester who's writing the story ("Who can know the heart of a dragon?) - which can be either emotions for their riders (Sunfyre feeling Aegon II's presence and crossing miles and miles to find him), or emotions for each other - whether based on the connection of their former riders, or maybe their past together (Silverwing and Vermithor), or maybe completely unrelated to the humans (the Blue Queen and Sunsmoke seemed to be involved in a mating dance rather than a fight, and when she involved herself in the fight between Sunsmoke and Vermithor, the maester says nobody was sure why, and if she was following her late rider's feelings,but even in that case it would be unclear who would be the friend and who the enemy - both Hugh and Addam would've been Daeron's enemies... but he doesn't mention the possibility that the Blue Queen got involved in the fight to protect Sunsmoke). We also see dragons getting traumatized and losing it, both with Syrax's last attack on the people of KL, and with Sunfyre.

Great summary!

TP&TQ didn't change my opinions of the Targaryens. They are still my favorite family in the series. Every family has a generation or two of bad eggs if the family has been around for long enough, and this story pretty much highlighted one of the Targaryens', although as another poster pointed out, a lot of the bad in this story actually came from the Hightower family (Alicent and Otto) and snowballed because hey... you shouldn't piss off a Targaryen.

America has had quite a few major wars in its existence. Comparing how many wars the Targaryens had, I would not think to say there was much bloodshed during their reign compared to the length vs. time spent warring of other monarchs (Baratheon, Lannister).

[Morienthar]

For me just reinforcered the point that their rule didnt mean a 280 years of peace, love and progress as many in this forums still say. Probably the body count was higher in their rule than when there were 7 kingdoms.

I've been saying that for the better part of the year,I've been on the forums,Nobody seemed to believe me then.

To the OP....I've never really like the Targs as rulers,Though I do like several individual Targs and I'm one of those people who think Daemon would have been a better ruler than the other Targs with the exception of Jaehaerys.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I've been saying that for the better part of the year,I've been on the forums,Nobody seemed to believe me then.

To the OP....I've never really like the Targs as rulers,Though I do like several individual Targs and I'm one of those people who think Daemon would have been a better ruler than the other Targs with the exception of Jaehaerys.

Don't say that, I'm been tooting the same horn for two years and we aren't the only ones.

[Morienthar]

Don't say that, I'm been tooting the same horn for two years and we aren't the only ones.

:cheers: ,It was a bit of a Gross Generalization,There's you,Apple and a few others who have been saying the same thing too yeah.

[Panos Targaryen]

For me just reinforcered the point that their rule didnt mean a 280 years of peace, love and progress as many in this forums still say. Probably the body count was higher in their rule than when there were 7 kingdoms.

No way. The 7 Kingdoms existed for probably thousands of years. There were constant wars between them, ironborn raiding (and conquering the Riverlands), the Starks were much more savage (see The Hungry Wolf) etc. They may be flawed, but the Targaryens did change Westeros for the better.

[AdelinaZ]

No way. The 7 Kingdoms existed for probably thousands of years. There were constant wars between them, ironborn raiding (and conquering the Riverlands), the Starks were much more savage (see The Hungry Wolf) etc. They may be flawed, but the Targaryens did change Westeros for the better.

But the scale of those wars must have been very different. Also, constant wars -if it was the case- does not mean eg that the North or the Reach were at war continuously with another kingdom. I think that you would have to look at the frequency in which the same kingdom was at war with another. You could have a state of constant war when you look at the 7 kingdoms as a whole but the same independent kingdom could theoretically have peace for quite a long time.

Also the Ironborn kept raiding under the Targaryens as well, as we learn from the Dunk and Egg stories.

[Nictarion]

But the scale of those wars must have been very different. Also, constant wars -if it was the case- does not mean eg that the North or the Reach were at war continuously with another kingdom. I think that you would have to look at the frequency in which the same kingdom was at war with another. You could have a state of constant war when you look at the 7 kingdoms as a whole but the same independent kingdom could theoretically have peace for quite a long time.

Also the Ironborn kept raiding under the Targaryens as well, as we learn from the Dunk and Egg stories.

We know for a fact that the Vale and the North fought for hundreds of years. And the Reach and Dorne has a longstanding fued as well, just to name a few. I remember reading that not a generation went by one kingdom wasn't at war with another.

[Panos Targaryen]

But the scale of those wars must have been very different. Also, constant wars -if it was the case- does not mean eg that the North or the Reach were at war continuously with another kingdom. I think that you would have to look at the frequency in which the same kingdom was at war with another. You could have a state of constant war when you look at the 7 kingdoms as a whole but the same independent kingdom could theoretically have peace for quite a long time.

Also the Ironborn kept raiding under the Targaryens as well, as we learn from the Dunk and Egg stories.

C'mon, 5-6 major wars in 300 years is better than many simultaneous wars, always popping up for thousands of years, even if they're smaller. And the ironborn only raided when there was a weak king on the IT, the Targaryens kept them in check generally. Compare it to real-life, modern standards. How many wars have there been from 1700-2000? Way more than 5-6. And in the modern era wars are supposed to be rarer.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

We know for a fact that the Vale and the North fought for hundreds of years. And the Reach and Dorne has a longstanding fued as well, just to name a few. I remember reading that not a generation went by one kingdom wasn't at war with another.

So did Germany and France. Didn't mean we fought every generation.

C'mon, 5-6 major wars in 300 years is better than many simultaneous wars, always popping up for thousands of years, even if they're smaller. And the ironborn only raided when there was a weak king on the IT, the Targaryens kept them in check generally. Compare it to real-life, modern standards. How many wars have there been from 1700-2000? Way more than 5-6. And in the modern era wars are supposed to be rarer.

Twelve major wars, involving at least three regions. And a whole bunch of minor ones, with only one or two involved. The minor ones being the very same ones as the ones fought before.

[Nictarion]

So did Germany and France. Didn't mean we fought every generation.

Not sure the relevance here? So that means Westeros didn't either?

[Panos Targaryen]

So did Germany and France. Didn't mean we fought every generation.

Twelve major wars, involving at least three regions. And a whole bunch of minor ones, with only one or two involved. The minor ones being the very same ones as the ones fought before.

You're right, I forgot about the Blackfyre rebellions.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Not sure the relevance here? So that means Westeros didn't either?

The enmity between the North and the Vale resembles the history between Germany and France between ~900 and 1945. Even the Sisters resemble Alsace-Lorraine. Didn't mean the countries were at war the entire time.

[Cloud]

Funnily enough TC, after reading the novella I actually came to love the Targaryens for the same reasons you despise them.

Previously I always thought that Targaryens were the shining knights on dragons, full of nobillity and valour, which is why I was indifferent to them and bored by them.

After reading tpatq, I found them fascinating, although I don't agree with your view that they are thugs with powerful animals". They seem to come in both the good and the bad, unlike certain other houses that only seem to come in only good (Stark) or only bad (Boltons/Freys). Nevertheless, I now find myself growing more and more interested in this house than before.

[Panos Targaryen]

Funnily enough TC, after reading the novella I actually came to love the Targaryens for the same reasons you despise them.

Previously I always thought that Targaryens were the shining knights on dragons, full of nobillity and valour, which is why I was indifferent to them and bored by them.

After reading tpatq, I found them fascinating, although I don't agree with your view that they are thugs with powerful animals". They seem to come in both the good and the bad, unlike certain other houses that only seem to come in only good (Stark) or only bad (Boltons/Freys). Nevertheless, I now find myself growing more and more interested in this house than before.

I don't despise the Targs, no way. I just don't see them in an idealized and magical way anymore, like you said, there's good and bad Targs. They're still among my favorite Houses. And when I said they're thugs with powerful animals I was exaggerating a bit, I still find the dragons awesome creatures, just more brutish now.