Jump to content

Daeron the Young Dragon


Valens

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

That is honestly the worst argument ever. Why would they just live on Dragonstone forever? They had the most powerful weapon in the world.

So because someone has a powerful weapon he is entitled to be the ruler and has the right to enslave the others? That imnsho is bordeline evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The figure of his uncle Viserys II should not be dismissed. As his uncle and Hand of the King, he would have been perfectly entitled to declare himself Regent and Protector of the Realm until the young Aegon reached adulthood. The Young Dragon only became king because Viserys allowed it.

Considering that the attack against Dorne started the very same year Aegon was enthroned, I would doubt that such an initiative would have succeeded without his full backing, and it is even possible that it was Viserys himself that put the notion on Aegon's head. Which brings me to...

As you say Viserys was the one who should have been pressing Daeron to produce a heir. The problem is that it was Viserys who benefited from Aegon not having a heir.

If Viserys had been a plotter wishing to become king (or put his own offspring in the throne), he would have tried to send young and fearless Aegon to lead a war from the front lines, then promote Baelor's piety and influence him to become a septon, and finally discredit Daena the Defiant picturing her as unreliable. And this is precisely what happened...

 

Thats actually really interesting and I hadn't given it much thought. We know Viserys II was really loyal to his brother and ruled for him in effect. But was he loyal to his children? Maybe he got a taste for power and didn't want to relinquish it, we really know much about their relationship. He certainly did have a lot to benefit from Daeron and Baelor dying, I don't think anyone would have allowed Daena to inherit after the Dance of Dragons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So because someone has a powerful weapon he is entitled to be the ruler and has the right to enslave the others? That imnsho is bordeline evil. 

Please, please tell me who he enslaved? Its medieval fantasy, the strong are obviously going to rule the weak. If anything, you could say that Aegon's conquest saved hundreds of thousands of lives as the Seven Kingdoms would have kept at war without someone to unite them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Did I said that the others were any better? However the Targs had a history of attacking the others for no reason. Why Aegon attacked Westeros? Why Daemon attacked Dorne? Why they had to attack the Essossi?

At least in Nymeria's case she didn't had a house, because of the Valyrians, and she had to find a new one. After her marriage she helped her husband. The Targs attacked Westros for their own glory, Nymeria attacked Dorne in order to survive.

Why did the Westerlands, the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Reach attack the Riverlands? Why did the Stormlands attack the Crownlands? Why did Dorne attack the Reach and the Stormlands? And so on. Most wars don't follow our "just war" theory because our views of war are only about two-thirds of a century old.

As for Aegon conquering Westeros, would it have been any different if a Gardner or Lannister have done the same? No. If anyone it would have been bloodier because they would lack dragons.

Also, no Daemon ever attacked Dorne and if you're referring to Daemon Blackfyre considering he had the Yronwoods with all their attendant vassals I doubt it was a "us vs them" kind of thing.

And you're kidding about the Essosi right? Please tell me you are. The Three Daughters were charging outrageous tolls and even going so far as to seize Westerosi as slaves, including noblewomen, which is also a heinous crime before the Seven. Sure, Daemon and Corlys had more material reasons (the Three Daughters hampering Velaryon trade and Daemon wanting a crown) but the Essosi in this case were far more in the wrong.

As for the bolded I call BS. Nymeria did not need to attack and conquer the other Dornish kings to survive. As far as we know they weren't interested in the Rhoynar until they and the Martells started trying to conquer them and force them to submit to House Nymeros-Martell, which the other Dornish kings could easily have then seen as the Martells having intermarried with foreigners possessing a queer language and foreign gods to produce half-breeds that have no place in Westeros the same way you view the Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Please, please tell me who he enslaved? Its medieval fantasy, the strong are obviously going to rule the weak. If anything, you could say that Aegon's conquest saved hundreds of thousands of lives as the Seven Kingdoms would have kept at war without someone to unite them. 

Utter :bs:. They took away the freedom of millions of people just because of their Targaryen madness, megalomania and WMD. It is simply evil to believe that someone has the right to do that to people who have never harmed him just because they had the bigger and more powerful weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Why did the Westerlands, the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Reach attack the Riverlands? Why did the Stormlands attack the Crownlands? Why did Dorne attack the Reach and the Stormlands? And so on. Most wars don't follow our "just war" theory because our views of war are only about two-thirds of a century old.

As for Aegon conquering Westeros, would it have been any different if a Gardner or Lannister have done the same? No. If anyone it would have been bloodier because they would lack dragons.

Also, no Daemon ever attacked Dorne and if you're referring to Daemon Blackfyre considering he had the Yronwoods with all their attendant vassals I doubt it was a "us vs them" kind of thing.

And you're kidding about the Essosi right? Please tell me you are. The Three Daughters were charging outrageous tolls and even going so far as to seize Westerosi as slaves, including noblewomen, which is also a heinous crime before the Seven. Sure, Daemon and Corlys had more material reasons (the Three Daughters hampering Velaryon trade and Daemon wanting a crown) but the Essosi in this case were far more in the wrong.

As for the bolded I call BS. Nymeria did not need to attack and conquer the other Dornish kings to survive. As far as we know they weren't interested in the Rhoynar until they and the Martells started trying to conquer them and force them to submit to House Nymeros-Martell, which the other Dornish kings could easily have then seen as the Martells having intermarried with foreigners possessing a queer language and foreign gods to produce half-breeds that have no place in Westeros the same way you view the Targaryens.

I completely and utterly agree, however our friend here is stubbornly biased against the Targs I think.

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Utter :bs:. They took away the freedom of millions of people just because of their Targaryen megalomania and WMD. It is simply evil to believe that someone has the right to do that to people who have never harmed him just because they had the bigger and more powerful weapons.

 

What freedom did they take away? No religion or cultural changes were forced upon them. The only thing that changed was that 6 men and the lords of the Crownlands had to swear an oath of loyalty to Aegon. That's it. He essentially left the Lord Paramounts to their own devices and rarely intervened in their lands unless they were breaking the laws of the kingdoms. 

So its okay for Nymeria to  conquer the Dornish lords when she was unprovoked (with more men than any of they had = bigger weapons) and force them to change the succession laws to accommodate Her. But when Aegon conquered the kingdoms and changes next to nothing its evil? Your logic seems a bit inconsistent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Why did the Westerlands, the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Reach attack the Riverlands? Why did the Stormlands attack the Crownlands? Why did Dorne attack the Reach and the Stormlands? And so on. Most wars don't follow our "just war" theory because our views of war are only about two-thirds of a century old.

You seem to believe that I have said that only the Targs were wrong trying to conquer Dorne. I never said that. 

27 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for Aegon conquering Westeros, would it have been any different if a Gardner or Lannister have done the same? No. If anyone it would have been bloodier because they would lack dragons.

It's not only about the WMD, the dragons, but the fact that the Targs were abominations born of incest which is a mortal sin to all of the Westerosi religions and cultures. They enslaved the rest of Westeros and force them to accept their family as their royal family when on the same time were an insult to everything the Westerosi believed to.

27 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

And you're kidding about the Essosi right? Please tell me you are. The Three Daughters were charging outrageous tolls and even going so far as to seize Westerosi as slaves, including noblewomen, which is also a heinous crime before the Seven. Sure, Daemon and Corlys had more material reasons (the Three Daughters hampering Velaryon trade and Daemon wanting a crown) but the Essosi in this case were far more in the wrong.

You seem to believe that the Dornish had to ally themselves with the Targs. Even if they were right the Dornish had the right to ally themselves with whoever they wanted.

27 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the bolded I call BS. Nymeria did not need to attack and conquer the other Dornish kings to survive. As far as we know they weren't interested in the Rhoynar until they and the Martells started trying to conquer them and force them to submit to House Nymeros-Martell, which the other Dornish kings could easily have then seen as the Martells having intermarried with foreigners possessing a queer language and foreign gods to produce half-breeds that have no place in Westeros the same way you view the Targaryens.

The Valyrians had destroyed Nymeria's land because of their megalomania, just like how what the Targs did to Westeros. Nymeria,  unlike the Targs, became a part of the Dornish society and never insulted their beliefs and religion.

19 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

What freedom did they take away?

The freedom to rule themselves and handle their lands, like when the Targs forced the Starks to give up part of their land, and their marriages, like what happened when Torrhen's daughter was forced to marry the Arryn Lord.

19 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

No religion or cultural changes were forced upon them.

BS. They were forced to accept the Targ incest which was an insult to everything they believed in.

19 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

So its okay for Nymeria to  conquer the Dornish lords when she was unprovoked (with more men than any of they had = bigger weapons) 

She had became a part of the Dornish society after she was forced to leave her land. The Targs made themselves the Royal family, hadn't made themselves a part of the Westerosi society and did it for personal glory and gain.

19 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

and force them to change the succession laws to accommodate Her.

Utter bs. She had no personal gain from making the females equal to the males. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Text

This is an interesting theory, particularly if you believe in the resulting irony that Viserys II was poisoned by Aegon IV after only a year on the throne because he too was tired of waiting for it.

Personally, I've always seen Viserys II as utterly loyal to his brother and nephews, doing his best to mitigate their excesses, particularly when it came to spending, and as one of the most tragic of the Targaryen kings because all the possibilities a lengthy rule under him, (imagine a second golden age like Jaehaerys I after the Dance!), utterly destroyed by his sudden death (possibly another thing to add to Aegon IV's list of utterly shitty deeds).

Also, its noted in TWOIAF that the rumors about Viserys started only after Baelor died and he ascended, started probably by Lady Maia Stokeworth (though we don't know why as of now, maybe something to do with Falena?) so it could just have been tongues wagging or people being but-hurt that popular Baelor was gone since he was loved by the smallfolk, the Faith, and probably the more pious of lords and ladies.

29 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Text

This isn't the first time I've had this discussion with JQC. I would just leave her to her devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You seem to believe that I have said that only the Targs were wrong trying to conquer Dorne. I never said that. 

It's not only about the WMD, the dragons, but the fact that the Targs were abominations born of incest which is a mortal sin to all of the Westerosi religions and cultures. They enslaved the rest of Westeros and force them to accept their family as their royal family when on the same time were an insult to everything the Westerosi believed to.

You seem to believe that the Dornish had to ally themselves with the Targs. Even if they were right the Dornish had the right to ally themselves with whoever they wanted.

The Valyrians had destroyed Nymeria's land because of their megalomania, just like how what the Targs did to Westeros. Nymeria,  unlike the Targs, became a part of the Dornish society and never insulted their beliefs and religion.

The freedom to rule themselves and handle their lands, like when the Targs forced the Starks to give up part of their land, and their marriages, like what happened when Torrhen's daughter was forced to marry the Arryn Lord.

BS. They were forced to accept the Targ incest which was an insult to everything they believed in.

She had became a part of the Dornish society after she was forced to leave her land.

Utter bs. She had no personal gain from making the females equal to the males. 

"BS" is your reply to any reasoned argument instead of offering one yourself. You keep repeating and contradicting yourself.

You seem to be under the impression that every lord in Westeros was horrified and furious by the Targs intermarrying when really there was no opposition after Jaehaerys rule. So it took three kings for the Westerosi to forget this "insult to everything" they believed. 

Don't get me wrong the Valyrians were cruel and thought themselves to be gods. The Targs didn't, they were the last of a once mighty civilization and wanted to keep their heritage. If Nymeria invaded Dorne to survive, why didn't she choose somewhere closer? Why did she invade a fractured land? Because she could? Because she had more men? 

The Lord Paramounts did rule their own lands. All they had to do was pay taxes and follow the king's laws like no slavery or the First Night. Oh how barbaric and cruel of the Targs to not allow these great and cultured Westerosi lords to rape and enslave their subjects. There is no evidence to say that the marriage between the Starks and the Arryns was forced. Rhaenys was attempting to heal old wounds and further bind the realm together. As for the issue of the land I assume you're talking about the Gift? The tiny, sparsely populated insignificant piece of land that the Starks had to give to the Night's Watch, the organisation of which they are the biggest patrons yet left to neglect?

Wow. Just wow. A female ruler had nothing to gain by forcing the lords she had just conquered to accept females as heirs. Do you even read what you post or just immediately type BS? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

You seem to be under the impression that every lord in Westeros was horrified and furious by the Targs intermarrying when really there was no opposition after Jaehaerys rule. So it took three kings for the Westerosi to forget this "insult to everything" they believed. 

Who said that they forgot about it? They most likely remembered what Maegor did and they were afraid to do anything.

2 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Don't get me wrong the Valyrians were cruel and thought themselves to be gods. The Targs didn't, they were the last of a once mighty civilization and wanted to keep their heritage. If Nymeria invaded Dorne to survive, why didn't she choose somewhere closer? Why did she invade a fractured land? Because she could? Because she had more men? 

Do you remember Nymeria's trip to find a new home? Nymeria became a part of Dornish society in order to survive, Targs had a home and they were not threatened but invaded Westeros for their own gain.

4 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

The Lord Paramounts did rule their own lands.

The fact that the Targs took part of the Starks' land prove you wrong.

5 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

or the First Night

Funny how the Targs never followed the law they made, they just forced the others to follow the law but never themselves.

5 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

There is no evidence to say that the marriage between the Starks and the Arryns was forced.

There is no evidence that either the Starks or the Arryns wanted that marriage.

7 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

The tiny, sparsely populated insignificant piece of land that the Starks had to give to the Night's Watch, the organisation of which they are the biggest patrons yet left to neglect?

Tiny or not the Gift was part of the Starks' realm. NW was thousands years old and they didn't seemed to have a problem yet in just 300 years they had lost not only their glory but also most of their power.

7 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Wow. Just wow. A female ruler had nothing to gain by forcing the lords she had just conquered to accept females as heirs. Do you even read what you post or just immediately type BS? 

She had nothing to gain. She was the Queen and that wasn't going to change and she had both daughters and sons so in any case her child would had been the next King. Now, unlike the Targs, who had eliminated the girls from the line of succession against the Andal and First men custom, she actually did something to make their life better and made them equal. How she dared! Also if you haven't noticed some of the Dornish houses were allowed to continue their old line of succession and the Martells never forced them to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Did I said that the others were any better? However the Targs had a history of attacking the others for no reason. Why Aegon attacked Westeros? Why Daemon attacked Dorne? Why they had to attack the Essossi?

No, but you launched a barrage at how evil the Targaryens were and for that I tried to give you some perspective that you seem to miss, or that you are applying different standards to the Targaryens as opposed to, say, the Martells.

Quote

At least in Nymeria's case she didn't had a house, because of the Valyrians, and she had to find a new one. After her marriage she helped her husband. The Targs attacked Westros for their own glory, Nymeria attacked Dorne in order to survive.

Nymeria had plenty of choice. She could have sailed to Dorne and come in peace, she could have sailed further north and perhaps bring her people to some other land and so on. No one forced Nymeria to go to Dorne and carve out a realm of her own. No one. She did it because she wanted to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LionoftheWest said:

No, but you launched a barrage at how evil the Targaryens were and for that I tried to give you some perspective that you seem to miss, or that you are applying different standards to the Targaryens as opposed to, say, the Martells.

The Martells afair never used WMD in order to attack a foreign land.

1 minute ago, LionoftheWest said:

Nymeria had plenty of choice. She could have sailed to Dorne and come in peace, she could have sailed further north and perhaps bring her people to some other land and so on. No one forced Nymeria to go to Dorne and carve out a realm of her own. No one. She did it because she wanted to do it.

I don't agree. No one would had accepted the Rhoynar, just like no one will accept the Essossi Dany will bring in Westeros. But unlike Nymeria Aegon had a home, was safe there and never became a part of the Westerosi society.

3 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

In a feudal society being a successful warrior is being a good king.

Tell me more about how Robert was a great King.

3 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

With his invasion Daeron made an effort to end the constant raids and conflicts between the Dornish and their northern neighbors, and so by exentions making the lives of the people of that region more peaceful, if you're looking for that angle of a good king.

I don't see why I should believe that he did it for anything else than his personal gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Who said that they forgot about it? They most likely remembered what Maegor did and they were afraid to do anything.

Do you remember Nymeria's trip to find a new home? Nymeria became a part of Dornish society in order to survive, Targs had a home and they were not threatened but invaded Westeros for their own gain.

 

The fact that the Targs took part of the Starks' land prove you wrong.

Funny how the Targs never followed the law they made, they just forced the others to follow the law but never themselves.

There is no evidence that either the Starks or the Arryns wanted that marriage.

Tiny or not the Gift was part of the Starks' realm. NW was thousands years old and they didn't seemed to have a problem yet in just 300 years they had lost not only their glory but also most of their power.

She had nothing to gain. She was the Queen and that wasn't going to change and she had both daughters and sons so in any case her child would had been the next King. Now, unlike the Targs, who had eliminated the girls from the line of succession against the Andal and First men custom, she actually did something to make their life better and made them equal. How she dared! Also if you haven't noticed some of the Dornish houses were allowed to continue their old line of succession and the Martells never forced them to change it.

 

Well if they were so afraid of Maegor, why didn't they oppose it after the last dragon had died? 

Nymeria did not peacefully become a part of Dornish society, she conquered it. Thats the simple truth, she killed those who opposed her just like the Targs. 

They didn't take part of their lands, they gifted them to the organisation that protects the realm. The Watch was in bad repair and always needed more land but the Kings of Winter were obviously not bothered to give them it. 

How do you mean they didn't follow it? Aerys the maddest of them all followed it? 

Yes but she didn't want to be the last queen did she? She forced them to accept the succession laws of her homeland, which is something the Targs never did. The succession law of the Iron Throne was only changed to exclude females after the Dance of the Dragons on the advice of the lords of the realm. It is referred to on multiple occasions that in Dorne females can inherit, that goes for all houses in Dorne so yes they did have to change their succession laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

Well if they were so afraid of Maegor, why didn't they oppose it after the last dragon had died? 

Actually after the dragon died the Targs had started to lose their power.

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

Nymeria did not peacefully become a part of Dornish society, she conquered it. Thats the simple truth, she killed those who opposed her just like the Targs. 

She and her people married into the Dornish society. Hence she became a part of the Dornish society.

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

They didn't take part of their lands, they gifted them to the organisation that protects the realm. The Watch was in bad repair and always needed more land but the Kings of Winter were obviously not bothered to give them it. 

Yet those were Starks' land. They took away from the Starks their land for no good reason.

3 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

How do you mean they didn't follow it? Aerys the maddest of them all followed it? 

The Targs never followed the law about the First Night as we learn in TPATQ.

6 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Yes but she didn't want to be the last queen did she?

What would she had to gain from being either the first or the last of the Queens? A daughter comes after a son, from what we know Maron Martell had only daughters so they would had taken the Throne anyway.

7 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

It is referred to on multiple occasions that in Dorne females can inherit, that goes for all houses in Dorne so yes they did have to change their succession laws.

She had made males and females equals. Hence she had helped them. But yet again we know that not all the Dornishmen were forced into following that law and they could kept their laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I weigh in with my own thoughts, I must say well done to @The Grey Wolf for some really terrific and thought-provoking posts on Daeron I and his contemporaries. The point about he, Baelor and Viserys II all trying to re-define the monarchy post-Dance is a particularly interesting one. I've often thought that the death of the dragons leads to a major identity crisis in the Targaryen dynasty which we see reflected particularly sharply in the first post-Dance generation. They tend toward extremes of piety/sobriety (Baelor, Rhaena, Aemon, Naerys) or prideful extrovertism (Daena, Daeron I, Aegon IV). The latter sort seem to want to flaunt their greatness as Targaryens and thus implicitly undercut any notion that they might be any less special for their lack of dragons. Personally, I think a lot of Aegon IV's bitterness and spite stems from the fact that he had the personality of the latter group without ever truly being remarkable enough to back it up, and - on some level - he knew that. Being surrounding by so many paragons (Aemon, Daeron I, Baelor) who were so widely celebrated for their piety and/or prowess must have compounded that.

As for Daerons I & II, I think Daeron I suffered a bit reputation-wise, because Daeron II essentially achieved the assimilation of Dorne into the 7 Kingdoms bloodlessly and thus made his uncle's conquest seem more about the foolhardy visions of glory of a young man than a serious political plan. However, Daeron II's peaceful plan may not have been possible without Daeron I proving to the Dornish that the Targaryens could best them militarily. With the Targaryen monarchy - and the realm as a whole - still finding its feet after the Dance, a proposal for Dorne to peacefully join the 7 Kingdoms via marriage from Daeron I may have been rejected. After all, what did Dorne have to fear from this dragon-less boy king? Why join a realm that had so recently tore itself apart? Daeron I's invasion not only gave the Dornish pause for thought about the threat of the Targaryens, but also spoke to their ability to unite the realm (and the strength of this united realm).

As for Daeron II's supposed lax treatment of the Dornish. I admit that allowing them to keep their own laws may have been a bad political move, but given that many of those laws square with my own morals (equal rights for men and women, less stigma for children born out of wedlock), I find it difficult to denounce him for doing so. Perhaps Daeron was a particularly progressive man who agreed with those laws and hoped through allowing Dorne to keep them, he could eventually persuade the rest of the realm to adopt them? The strategic marriages of his sons certainly speaks to a political nous and awareness of the sensitivity around the Dornish issue on his part. Also, it's possible - though not hugely likely, I admit - that some of the Dornish 'war criminals' were punished in some way as part of the deal that united the realm, but we haven't heard of it. Perhaps those punishments were deemed insufficiently severe by the eventual Blackfyre supporters, or perhaps - as a gesture of goodwill to his brother in law - he didn't publicise them much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Actually after the dragon died the Targs had started to lose their power.

She and her people married into the Dornish society. Hence she became a part of the Dornish society.

Yet those were Starks' land. They took away from the Starks their land for no good reason.

The Targs never followed the law about the First Night as we learn in TPATQ.

What would she had to gain from being either the first or the last of the Queens? A daughter comes after a son, from what we know Maron Martell had only daughters so they would had taken the Throne anyway.

She had made males and females equals. Hence she had helped them. But yet again we know that not all the Dornishmen were forced into following that law and they could kept their laws.

They started to lose power because Aerys was mad. Daeron conquered Dorne without dragons, so I wouldn't say they lost that much power. But regardless, there was no objections to marrying within the family from the Faith or the lords after the dragons died, they seemed to have forgotten this unforgivable, huge affront to their faith. 

Yes they did marry into Dornish society, but they also conquered it. It wasn't a peaceful, idyllic union was it? 

They gave the lands to the Watch to expand and return to its former glory, surely that was a good reason? 

Can you give some evidence for that? I know the Boltons and some of the other families in the North never stopped but I always thought the First Night ended with Jaehaerys south of the Neck. I know Aegon II, Aegon IV and Aerys II had numerous affairs but I don't recall any situations of them claiming the First Night? 

Because it was her homelands custom, not Dornes thats how she benefitted. She must have wanted her descendants to have the same opportunity she did. Don't get me wrong it's great the she did. But she did force it upon the Dornish and did benefit from it. 

Which houses weren't forced into following the law? Just curious as there seem to be a great many female rulers from many houses in Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

She must have wanted her descendants to have the same opportunity she did.

Her descendants would had the same opportunity in any way. She had daughters and sons and by marriage her blood would had been spread all around Dorne.

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

Which houses weren't forced into following the law? Just curious as there seem to be a great many female rulers from many houses in Dorne.

You seem to believe that the females couldn't inherit at all. That is wrong a female could inherit. Anyway, in WOIAF we have been told that the Houses at the North Dorne were following the Andal law.

5 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Can you give some evidence for that? I know the Boltons and some of the other families in the North never stopped but I always thought the First Night ended with Jaehaerys south of the Neck. I know Aegon II, Aegon IV and Aerys II had numerous affairs but I don't recall any situations of them claiming the First Night? 

It doesn't name the Targs but is at tpatq when it is written about the dragonseeds.

6 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Yes they did marry into Dornish society, but they also conquered it. It wasn't a peaceful, idyllic union was it? 

Yet is much more that the Targs ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Her descendants would had the same opportunity in any way. She had daughters and sons and by marriage her blood would had been spread all around Dorne.

You seem to believe that the females couldn't inherit at all. That is wrong a female could inherit. Anyway, in WOIAF we have been told that the Houses at the North Dorne were following the Andal law.

It doesn't name the Targs but is at tpatq when it is written about the dragonseeds.

Yet is much more that the Targs ever did.

Yes but sons would have come before daughters, something which I'm sure as a female ruler would have annoyed her. 

I don't believe that, but I'm sure male heirs came first as they did in the rest of Westeros. 

The dragonseeds was a purely Dragonstone thing though. I admit it did happen but there was no kings who practiced it, and it wasn't widely done. 

The Targs intermarried with other houses, they didn't always intermarry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It doesn't name the Targs but is at tpatq when it is written about the dragonseeds.

tPatQ is set in a period one generation removed from Jaehaerys/Alyssane's outlawing of the 'Right of the First Night,' so it's likely most of the seeds were descended from Targaryens who 'had their way' with peasants' wives before it was outlawed. It's difficult to be precisely sure because we don't know when in Jaehaerys' long reign he outlawed the First Night, but we're presented with Silver Denys who claims to be a bastard of Maegor (pre-outlawing), Alyn and Addam who are likely consensual sons of Corlys, Nettles who - judging by her non-Targaryen looks - presumably has a Targaryen further up her family tree than a parent, and Ulf and Hugh who may have Targaryen parents, or may not - it's particularly unclear since we don't even know their ages so we can't guess whether they would have been conceived before or after the First Night being outlawed.

From all of that, I got the impression that the Targaryens practising the First Night on Dragonstone was a practise from many years before the story is set (though they still probably continue to father bastards through affairs after the outlawing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Prince of Magpies said:

Text

Thanks. To be honest, most of the thoughts I've laid out come from reading Steven Atwell's Blacks & Reds essays (at Race for the Iron Throne or Tower of the Hand) and the political analyses of the Targaryen kings at Wars & Politics of Ice & Fire.

On Aegon IV I totally agree, he had real self-esteem issues and drowned them out with sex because no one could get women in their bed more than him and that was what he could be the "best" at at.

On Daeron I's conquest enabling Daeron II I agree that's a distinct possibility. Some people tend to forget that even if Daeron I had offered what Daeron II did from the beginning (peaceful intermarriage) the Dornish could have still have said "no, f*** off", particularly in Daeron I's time, when the dragons were gone, the king fourteen, and Dorne (possibly disastrously) with Princess Aliandra at the helm (we don't know when she died or how long she ruled but given her personality I wouldn't put my hopes on her being an enlightened, thoughtful princess eager for long-term peace). Also, if Daeron I had offered peace first there exists the possibility that his lords wouldn't take it well and he would be facing the rebellion his namesake later did.

On Daeron II, again there was a need for moderation, which his policies well-beyond and directly into outright favoritism, which ties in with the time GRRM compared him to Edward II of England.

He could have given one or two of the concessions he gave to Dorne to the other kingdoms, to make them feel like they were part of the deal and had gained something too and that it was not a total victory for Dorne.

He could have not filled his court with mostly Dornishmen, who are noted to have been given "offices of note", and instead included men from all the Seven Kingdoms, particularly since one of the most important aspects of a medieval king is martial, (Protector of the Realm), which Daeron II wasn't, and by extension, was basically telling all the sons of lords there wasn't any place for them, with their military training, in his court.

Furthermore, when he cleaned his father's court many of those who lost their positions probably not only allowed Aegon IV's misrule but more importantly shared his aggressive views on Dorne, and kicking them out only to then invite the enemies they had been given positions in KL to fight to take their place really must have infuriating. Honestly, we need to pay very close attention when it says in TWOIAF that from the beginning Marcher Lords specifically sought out Daemon Blackfyre and make the connection between that and the fact that Baelor Breakspear and Aerys I both married Marcher families from the Stormlands.

All of which ties into my main beef with Daeron II, who, despite his shortcomings, remains a great king (though not in my top three, which are reserved for Jaehaerys I, Aegon I, and Viserys II). The First Blackfyre Rebellion happened a decade into his rule. He had TEN years to stop the discontent in the realm and knew that part of it was because of his Dornish policies but with the information at hand all we know is that he did nothing to reconcile those who would become Blackfyre partisans. He didn't get people on board with his treaty, the regions he left out in the cold (again the Reach) he didn't bring back to court, the wounds left behind by the 60000 men who had died in Dorne alongside Daeron I were still not answered. And so on.

On the Dragonseeds. They are clearly descended from practice of the First Night before Jaehaerys I's reign and after he banned it NO Targaryen that we know of practiced it, the closest being Aerys II complaining (I believe while heavily drunk) he wished it weren't the night the night of Tywin's marriage because had the hots for Joanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...