Was Daeron I right in invading Dorne?

[Ser Creighton]

19 hours ago, Dorian Martell said:

He can't turn Left? That's terrible 

 

He's a no left turner.

18 hours ago, redtree said:

You mean Dorne used actual Gorilla ? 

Armed with laser beams on their heads, solar powered laser beams, they only work during the day when the sun is out, but they are big on renewable energy. You can turn off auto correct but why would you ever want too, when it can improve a story this much?

[OldGimletEye]

7 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

When is an unprovoked invasion simply to expand your own empire ever 'right'?

Damned right.

4 hours ago, Valens said:

Get real! When the rest of Westeros could get invaded like that, why not Dorne? Why would DORNE be special? Who are they??

No you get real. What gave the Targs the right to invade everyone else in the first? The people Dorne had every to defend against Targaryen aggression. Fortunately, they were able to kick that Targaryen ass twice.

[Lord Wraith]

5 hours ago, Valens said:

Get real! When the rest of Westeros could get invaded like that, why not Dorne? Why would DORNE be special? Who are they??

The descendants of the Rhoynar, the group that fought the Valyrians in the past. Maybe they knew a few tricks the rest of Westeros didn't. Dorne did get invaded by Aegon the Conquerer and his sister wives. They lost to the Dornish, plain and simple.

[Valens]

14 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

What made the invasion of Westeros 'right' either? Nothing. Aegon wanted to rule the place, plain and simple. When an invader wants to invade a place simply to expand their own power base, we generally give the 'moral high ground' to the invaded.

You misunderstand the whole point of this topic. When I wrote was he right, I meant was it a good move of Daeron to conquer Dorne. Capisce?

[TimJames]

"I want it and I have the bigger army!" is not a morally right reason for invading. There are only two reasons that would make Daeron justified in invading Dorne: 

1. Dorne is a danger to the rest of the world. If Dorne was a realm of reavers or a realm of slavers, then invading them would be necessary to ensure they reform their ways OR ELSE. If Dorne supported an international terror syndicate such as The Faceless Men, then they would need to be conquered to ensure they can no longer support the horrible group they are invading.
2. Conquering Dorne is necessary for national consolidation of The Seven Kingdoms.
3. Daeron had plans to improve Dorne so that they would benefit from foreign rule (such as building new infrastructure, introducing new technologies, or encouraging cultural reforms that improve the lives of everyone).

In any case, Daeron should have tried peaceful negotiations BEFORE marching in gung-ho. One of his descendants managed to peacefully add Dorne to The Seven Kingdoms, so even if Daeron succeeded in holding Dorne he still caused unnecessary loss of life.

[yomi]

58 minutes ago, Valens said:

You misunderstand the whole point of this topic. When I wrote was he right, I meant was it a good move of Daeron to conquer Dorne. Capisce?

Well, you shouldn't say "good", that's still very misunderstandable as "good" often means "morally good".

 

But let's wonder if conquering Dorne would have been a clever move, an action benefitting Daeron I's realm, if it had actually worked for more than a few years and didn't end with Daeron's death through betrayal due to Dornish desperation.

I don't think so, at least not in the way he tried. He needed a big army and lost many men conquering Dorne, and he still needed that big army to stop the Dornish from rising up for independence. That seems to be a quiet high cost to me. What did Daeron's realm get in return? A few fruit yards, but mostly only worthless desert. A few lemon and blood orange plantages hardly justify the bloodshed and manpower needed to conquer and keep Dorne, do they?

[WSmith84]

3 hours ago, Valens said:

You misunderstand the whole point of this topic. When I wrote was he right, I meant was it a good move of Daeron to conquer Dorne. Capisce?

That really wasn't clear in the OP.

As for the answer; honestly, what does Dorne offer? Wine and citrus fruits, I suppose, but not much else. They don't offer much military support, they don't have a navy, they're mostly desert... It seems more trouble than it's worth, to be honest.

[Lord Wraith]

14 hours ago, Valens said:

You misunderstand the whole point of this topic. When I wrote was he right, I meant was it a good move of Daeron to conquer Dorne. Capisce?

Well judging by how it turned out for him it was a terrible decision. Granted it did help in a roundabout way to Dorne joining the Seven Kingdoms peacefully a few decades later.

 

[Lion of the West]

One should not forget however that conquering Dorne would have left it, at least, more peaceful in the Marches when they in at least theory would have had the same king and been part of the same realm. Also we know that the Dornish have for many years tried to destabilized the Iron Throne's realm, such as with the Vulture King and taking part in the war against Daemon on the Stepstones. And to my knowledge we don't really know how severe the skirmishing and raids were in the Marches. So from that perspective pacifying Dorne could have made sense in the same way that conquering the Iron Islands to prevent them from reaving would have made sense.

But until we get more information for how much trouble the Dornish created with their raids it will be hard to say if an outright invasion was necessary or not. But given that the Dornish needed to resort to murdering Daeron during a parley I'm pretty sure that Daeron could have succeeded in the long run if he had survived.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

How is right or ethical for someone to attack innocent people who had never provoked him? Daeron was an idiot and he thought that he for some reason was entitled and was right to attack Dorne. This is why he died and why he deserved to die.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

How is right or ethical for someone to attack innocent people who had never provoked him? Daeron was an idiot and he thought that he for some reason was entitled and was right to attack Dorne. This is why he died and why he deserved to die.

The bolded is simply not true.

Both in-verse and the way GRRM describes him ("the "Alexander the Great" of Westeros") paints Daeron as an unusually gifted youth, which can be seen in the fact that the plans he and Oakenfist came up with improved on Aegon I's own (that's straight from TWOIAF), he actually succeeded (however briefly), and finally the fact that the book he wrote on his conquest is considered the best work on the event (similar to Julius Caesar in that regard).

Furthermore, the only reason Daeron died was because the Dornish (long known at this point for their own aggression (raiding the Marches (sometimes with open endorsement (Aliandra Martel)), secretly supporting the First Vulture King) as well as murder, torture, and maiming (First Dornish War, the death of Lord Lyonel Tyrell)) sunk so low as to commit a war crime so heinous that even medieval Westeros considers it abhorrent (almost on par with guest right probably) and the next king was Baelor, who is probably one of, if not the only man, in history who wouldn't burn Dorne to the ground in retaliation and could convince the realm from doing that anyway.

As for when is it right or ethical for someone to attack innocent people who had never given provocation...Daeron I was the ruler of a almost-completely unified continent in a medieval setting. I'm not saying give him a blank slate but we have to take into consideration that for most of our own history, up until the 1900s aggressive warfare and conquest were not seen as anything outside the ordinary and this informs the characters and their actions in the setting both before and during ASOIAF.

Furthermore, Daeron I's conquest had several potential benefits had he lived longer. In the short-term it would have given a dragonless Westerosi monarchy a direction and purpose it could rally the realm behind (which it did, Daeron's forces are known to have included Reachmen, Stormlanders, Northmen, and Crownlanders at least) as well as put a stop to raiding in the marches. In the long-term it would have led to  two key things. One, increased prosperity for Dorne, the Reach. and the Stormlands because they no longer are always skirmishing even during times of "peace" amongst other things like say the king being able to use his immense wealth to bring improvements to the regions that they would have on their own be unable to achieve and we see the beginnings of this in Daeron I's attempts at a military alliance with Braavos in order to clear the Stepstones of pirates hampering trade with newly-conquered Dorne. Two, the consolidation of all Westeros, which was inevitable. Dorne remaining independent was never going to stick with anyone but them without GRRM giving the rest of the SK and the Targaryens our 21st century ideas of war, borders, and sovereignty.

All in all, there's way more to Daeron I and his conquest than "omg aggressive warfare! Evil tyrant! You deserve to die!" Our own history is a testament to that.    

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Both in-verse and the way GRRM describes him ("the "Alexander the Great" of Westeros") paints Daeron as an unusually gifted youth

Being military gifted and being an ethical human being isn't the same.

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Furthermore, the only reason Daeron died was because the Dornish (long known at this point for their own aggression (raiding the Marches (sometimes with open endorsement (Aliandra Martel)), secretly supporting the First Vulture King) as well as murder, torture, and maiming (First Dornish War, the death of Lord Lyonel Tyrell)) sunk so low as to commit a war crime so heinous that even medieval Westeros considers it abhorrent (almost on par with guest right probably) and the next king was Baelor, who is probably one of, if not the only man, in history who wouldn't burn Dorne to the ground in retaliation and could convince the realm from doing that anyway.

He attacked them and they had the right to do whatever they could to save themselves, their children and their county and stay free.

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Daeron I was the ruler of a almost-completely unified continent in a medieval setting

And?

 

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

several potential benefits

Benefits for the Targs not for the enslaved Dornishmen.

[The Grey Wolf]

37 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Being military gifted and being an ethical human being isn't the same.

He attacked them and they had the right to do whatever they could to save themselves, their children and their county and stay free.

And?

 

Benefits for the Targs not for the enslaved Dornishmen.

I'll respond to each of these separately.

The first part was me pointing out how you claiming he was stupid is baseless. Plus, I never said anything about how ethical he was in that statement.

Two, getting attacked does not give you the right to commit war crimes (like perfidy in the case of Daeron I and maiming hostages after ransom in the case of Orys during the First Dornish War to give another example) and Dorne isn't a country, its a feudal kingdom.

Three was my response to people throwing around that whole thing about "unprovoked, aggressive warfare is evil"="everyone who does that is evil", which doesn't hold up well when you consider our own history or the unfortunate implications that applying such notions retroactively would have in our own world. 

Four, the Dornish were most definitely not enslaved and they would benefit from it in the long-term as I outlined in my first post, just as many civilizations have after being overrun. Seriously, not all conquests turned out to be bad and not all conquerors were hated. Some, like Alexander the Great, were actually liked, and some, in some cases, were even welcomed. 

Honestly, Dorne remaining independent was only better for one group only: House Martell. If you don't believe me look at Torhen Stark and then ask yourself what did any common Dornishman really get out of the Martel's defiance.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

3 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The first part was me pointing out how you claiming he was stupid is baseless. Plus, I never said anything about how ethical he was in that statement.

Attacking a Region who had killed one dragon and a dragonrider and was able to survive the attacks of two more dragons when he didn't had dragons prove that he was stupid.

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Two, getting attacked does not give you the right to commit war crimes (like perfidy in the case of Daeron I and maiming hostages after ransom in the case of Orys during the First Dornish War to give another example) and Dorne isn't a country, its a feudal kingdom.

It depends. Who is to say what is a war crime and what isn't? Who is to say how the Dornishmen should had protected themselves?  Who makes the rules about how people should fight in order to stay safe? After all it was Daeron who broke their agreement. So basically he attacked them and they had the freedom to protect themselves.

7 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Three was my response to people throwing around that whole thing about "unprovoked, aggressive warfare is evil"="everyone who does that is evil", which doesn't hold up well when you consider our own history or the unfortunate implications that applying such notions retroactively would have in our own world. 

I am calling is . The Dornish hadn't attacked the Westerosi but it was the other way around.

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Four, the Dornish were most definitely not enslaved and they would benefit from it in the long-term as I outlined in my first post, just as many civilizations have after being overrun. Seriously, not all conquests turned out to be bad and not all conquerors were hated. Some, like Alexander the Great, were actually liked, and some, in some cases, were even welcomed. 

Enslaved is also used in a figurative way, so since the Dornish would had lost their freedom and their right to rule themselves they were enslaved. And the fact that they would had any benefit is your own assumption. And how do you know how Alexander the Great was considered by those he enslaved?

11 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Honestly, Dorne remaining independent was only better for one group only: House Martell. If you don't believe me look at Torhen Stark and then ask yourself what did any common Dornishman really get out of the Martel's defiance.

Also . The independence would only profit the Targs. Also bs is your comparison with the Starks, who btw lost a part of their lands because the Targs felt like this, they only bend because of the dragons when the Dornishmen fought the dragons and killed one of them with the Queen. Daeron had no dragons so there was no reason for them to bend.

[The Grey Wolf]

24 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Attacking a Region who had killed one dragon and a dragonrider and was able to survive the attacks of two more dragons when he didn't had dragons prove that he was stupid.

It depends. Who is to say what is a war crime and what isn't? Who is to say how the Dornishmen should had protected themselves?  Who makes the rules about how people should fight in order to stay safe? After all it was Daeron who broke their agreement. So basically he attacked them and they had the freedom to protect themselves.

I am calling is . The Dornish hadn't attacked the Westerosi but it was the other way around.

Enslaved is also used in a figurative way, so since the Dornish would had lost their freedom and their right to rule themselves they were enslaved. And the fact that they would had any benefit is your own assumption. And how do you know how Alexander the Great was considered by those he enslaved?

Also . The independence would only profit the Targs. Also bs is your comparison with the Starks, who btw lost a part of their lands because the Targs felt like this, they only bend because of the dragons when the Dornishmen fought the dragons and killed one of them with the Queen. Daeron had no dragons so there was no reason for them to bend.

By that definition no one would have tried conquering anyone else because "it was too difficult". Seriously, tougher places in our world have been conquered without dragons so calling him stupid for that is bs and a clear instance of hindsight bias.

Second, what the Dornish did (maiming after ransoming and perfidy to continue using those two specific examples) have been considered war crimes since antiquity in our world and probably in Westeros as well so there isn't a depends on who's talking there. Just look at how Aegon I was able to use Arglia's execution of a messenger (also a big no-no since the dawn of civilization) as a caseu belli for more proof. 

The Dornish most certainly were not innocent victims. Its stated in TWOIAF that one, raids from both sides would continue after the First Dornish War and we know that Princess Aliandra, fancying herself a new Nymeria, openly encouraged her lords to prove themselves in the Marches and that they may have secretly supported the First Vulture King during Aenys I's reign. Furthermore, we're told in TWOIAf that more Dornish Wars followed Aegon's during the reigns of Aenys I and Maegor I (though the circumstances aren't elaborated) so the peace treaty between Aegon I and Dorne was long-dead before Daeron was even conceived. 

Conflating conquest with metaphorical enslavement is a ridiculous notion in a pre-modern civilization and since when did the people of Dorne ever rule themselves? Last I checked it was the few in their castles making the shots just like in the rest of the SK. As for the whole benefits thing I laid out reasons why they would come long-term, just as conquest and unification have done many times in our own world. You haven't brought up a reason why there wouldn't be any benefits. Because taxes would go to King's Landing instead of Sunspear?

As for my comparison to the Starks your claim is simply not true. Jahaerys I took the Gift and gave it to the Night's Watch yes but one, the North wasn't doing anything much with it apparently from what we know, two, taking and giving land is a ruler's right, and three, that was still no where close to what the smallfolk of Dorne suffered during, say, the Dragon's Wroth for the sake of the Martel's crown.

 

[RainGhost]

On the surface, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people (both your own and those you want to rule) just so that you can expand your own power base is not a good idea and certainly not ethical but medieval politics is more complicated than that.

Aegon I conquered Westeros with dragons but when the dragons all died, the Targs were vulnerable (as Robert's Rebellion proved). The only thing keeping them in power was tradition and the person of the king. By proving his skills in combat, Daeron I made himself very popular amongst the nobility. He gave young noblemen the chance for glory and advancement and gave the storm lords and reach lords the chance to get revenge on the Dornish for the centuries of fighting. He also proved that he was (probably) the best general in Westeros and was therefore not to be messed with.

In short, it was less about expanding his kingdom and more about consolidating his power over his existing kingdom, which was very important. And, despite the best efforts and Baelor the Blessed and Aegon the Unworthy, it seems to have worked until Aerys II came along.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

By that definition no one would have tried conquering anyone else because "it was too difficult". Seriously, tougher places in our world have been conquered without dragons so calling him stupid for that is bs and a clear instance of hindsight bias.

What you say could be true if Daeron's foolishness didn't cost him tens of thousands people, his own life and losing at the end. If someone was able to not only successfully resist and three dragons and actually killing one of then is by definition an enemy you don't want to have.

7 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Second, what the Dornish did (maiming after ransoming and perfidy to continue using those two specific examples) have been considered war crimes since antiquity in our world and probably in Westeros as well so there isn't a depends on who's talking there. Just look at how Aegon I was able to use Arglia's execution of a messenger (also a big no-no since the dawn of civilization) as a caseu belli for more proof. 

In our world yes, in Westeros who is the one who creates the rules? Who is to say what is a god way of self defence and what isn't?

8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The Dornish most certainly were not innocent victims. Its stated in TWOIAF that one, raids from both sides would continue after the First Dornish War and we know that Princess Aliandra, fancying herself a new Nymeria, openly encouraged her lords to prove themselves in the Marches and that they may have secretly supported the First Vulture King during Aenys I's reign. Furthermore, we're told in TWOIAf that more Dornish Wars followed Aegon's during the reigns of Aenys I and Maegor I (though the circumstances aren't elaborated) so the peace treaty between Aegon I and Dorne was long-dead before Daeron was even conceived. 

TWOIAF also states that Elia could had killed her children so I wouldn't believe everything that is there. What we know is that Daeron attacked Dorne and not the other way around. So by definition in that case the Dornishmen were the innocent part.

9 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Conflating conquest with metaphorical enslavement is a ridiculous notion in a pre-modern civilization and since when did the people of Dorne ever rule themselves? Last I checked it was the few in their castles making the shots just like in the rest of the SK. As for the whole benefits thing I laid out reasons why they would come long-term, just as conquest and unification have done many times in our own world. You haven't brought up a reason why there wouldn't be any benefits. Because taxes would go to King's Landing instead of Sunspear?

That is your opinion which doesn't make it true. Do we actually have seen someone who doesn't like the Martells so far? No. We know that the Yronwoods had a conflict with them yet we haven't seen anyone who has told that they prefer the IT over the Martells. Your *reasons* why they would had a profit for losing their freedom is just that your opinion and I believe that they are bs. So basically the fact that you had an idea doesn't mean anything for me.

13 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for my comparison to the Starks your claim is simply not true. Jahaerys I took the Gift and gave it to the Night's Watch yes but one, the North wasn't doing anything much with it apparently from what we know, two, taking and giving land is a ruler's right, and three, that was still no where close to what the smallfolk of Dorne suffered during, say, the Dragon's Wroth for the sake of the Martel's crown.

They took lands and the Northmen were not happy with that. Which means that they hadn't the freedom to rule their lands. So they were enslaved by the Targs.

[The Grey Wolf]

18 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

What you say could be true if Daeron's foolishness didn't cost him tens of thousands people, his own life and losing at the end. If someone was able to not only successfully resist and three dragons and actually killing one of then is by definition an enemy you don't want to have.

In our world yes, in Westeros who is the one who creates the rules? Who is to say what is a god way of self defence and what isn't?

TWOIAF also states that Elia could had killed her children so I wouldn't believe everything that is there. What we know is that Daeron attacked Dorne and not the other way around. So by definition in that case the Dornishmen were the innocent part.

That is your opinion which doesn't make it true. Do we actually have seen someone who doesn't like the Martells so far? No. We know that the Yronwoods had a conflict with them yet we haven't seen anyone who has told that they prefer the IT over the Martells. Your *reasons* why they would had a profit for losing their freedom is just that your opinion and I believe that they are bs. So basically the fact that you had an idea doesn't mean anything for me.

They took lands and the Northmen were not happy with that. Which means that they hadn't the freedom to rule their lands. So they were enslaved by the Targs.

Perfidy and killing messengers are clearly war crimes even in Westeros. TWOIAF at least clearly implies that plus you can't have a functional society without those to begin with.

As for TWOIAF, you're deliberately cherry-picking there. The section you're referring to is the most "politically-correct" because it deals with issues relevant to the series and Yandel is an in-verse character who values his head. However, that doesn't mean what he wrote about other Dornish Wars after Aegons and before Daeron's isn't true. Same with Dornish aggression. Seriously, why would he make that up? The Lannisters are not from the Reach or the Stormlands, which would make more sense nor does he give any indication that he shares the common animosity for Dorne.

And honestly, I'm getting tired of your "any benefits are just what you think". Why don't you present me with actual reasons why military consolidation wouldn't eventually lead to more prosperity instead of just saying that's my opinion.

As for your whole idea of freedom we're not talking about some 21st century nation-state with democratic and republican elements, we're talking about a feudal medieval kingdom where rule by the few is the norm so I don't see how your opinion holds any merit because there is no difference between paying taxes and giving lip service to whoever sits on the Iron Throne and paying taxes and giving lip service to someone in Sunspear. Honestly, its not like the Martels were doing anything to improve Dorne themselves. Seriously, where are the canals, the irrigation systems, the cities? Deserts are known because of their economic liabilities to be highly urbanized but Dorne isn't. Plus, they share the same language and religion as most of Westeros so there isn't much to distinguish them from everyone else. I mean what makes them different? They have darker skin, spicy food, and have looser sexual mores...That isn't a whole lot.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Perfidy and killing messengers are clearly war crimes even in Westeros. The text clearly implies that.

Yet it'a a way to say "STFU and GTFO we don't care about what you say." But yet again I don't believe what the twoiaf say.

3 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for TWOIAF, you're deliberately cherry-picking there. The section you're referring to is the most "politically-correct" because it deals with issues relevant to the series and Yandel is an in-verse character who values his head. However, that doesn't mean what he wrote about other Dornish Wars after Aegons and before Daeron's isn't true. Same with Dornish aggression. Seriously, why would he make that up? The Lannisters are not from the Reach or the Stormlands, which would make more sense nor does he give any indication that he shares the common animosity for Dorne.

The history is written by the winners. The one who wrote twoiaf had to make excuses about the attack and make the Dornishmen the "evil" side.

4 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

And honestly, I'm getting tired of your "any benefits are just what you think". Why don't you present me with actual reasons why military consolidation wouldn't eventually lead to more prosperity instead of just saying that's my opinion.

Why should I? I believe that someone's reason is the only reason a person needs in order to fight the tyrant.

5 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for your whole idea of freedom we're not talking about some 21st century nation-state with democratic and republican elements, we're talking about a feudal medieval kingdom where rule by the few is the norm so I don't see how your opinion holds any merit because there is no difference between paying taxes and giving lip service to whoever sits on the Iron Throne and paying taxes and giving lip service to someone in Sunspear. Honestly, its not like the Martels were doing anything to improve Dorne themselves. Seriously, where are the canals, the irrigation systems, the cities? Deserts are known because of their economic liabilities to be highly urbanized but Dorne isn't.

It's a huge deference between being ruled about one of their own and someone who has no connection with them. We don't know what kind of rulers Martells were and seeing how only the Yronwoods have mentioned as their "enemies" I don't believe that the majority of the Dornishmen had a problem with them.

[The Grey Wolf]

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet it'a a way to say "STFU and GTFO we don't care about what you say." But yet again I don't believe what the twoiaf say.

The history is written by the winners. The one who wrote twoiaf had to make excuses about the attack and make the Dornishmen the "evil" side.

Why should I? I believe that someone's reason is the only reason a person needs in order to fight the tyrant.

It's a huge deference between being ruled about one of their own and someone who has no connection with them. We don't know what kind of rulers Martells were and seeing how only the Yronwoods have mentioned as their "enemies" I don't believe that the majority of the Dornishmen had a problem with them.

In that case you're being deliberately obtuse, biased, and cherry-picking since you obviously believe the part where Jahaerys I forced the Starks to give away the New Gift (which conveniently for you makes the Targs look bad) plus as I said no society can exist and function without rules protecting peace banners and messengers so yeah.

Second, I asked you to give me reasons why there would be no benefits in the future, which you keep avoiding. I didn't ask you for rationalizations about opposing tyrants, which Daeron I wasn't really, I mean he conquered the place sure but that was it, he didn't try to change the laws or ban any foods or holidays or burn records or anything else as far as we know, and if your definition of a tyrant is anyone that conquers or tries to conquer someone else then you must really hate most of humanity historically speaking.

As for native rulers vs. indigenous rulers, it matters a whole lot less than you think because quite frankly, most people would probably never see their ruler, in fact I'd be surprised if they cared in peacetime at all, plus it wasn't like Daeron was getting rid of all the indigenous Dornish nobility and replacing them, he was simply placing himself at the top, which means all those old indigenous leaders are still there and the ones the people would be interacting with on a day-to-day basis

Finally, about Yronwood, considering they rode in three out of five Blackfyre Rebellions the Martels either got really lucky they stayed loyal during the Dornish Wars or there are some details that won't be revealed until we get Fire & Blood as to why all of Dorne stayed so loyal even though we know the Yronwoods are not only the second-most powerful but also like the Reynes in the Westerlands during Tywin's youth, eager to gain the ascendancy.