Daeron the Young Dragon

[Valens]

What are your opinions on him? Was he all good or did he also have flaws? Was he bad? Gimme your take on him. I think he was awesome, one of my favorite kings. And Targaryens. But he should have not gone back to Dorne, he should have not trusted them, even under a peace banner. That was really a dirty and low move by the Dornish. Should he have started the invasion of Dorne? Considering how much trouble it brought him and his people, especially Dragonknight and his brother Baelor, I guess not. But in doing that, he proved himself and that ironically became his legacy in that short reign.

[The Grey Wolf]

Warning: Long Post

I like Daeron I and find him to be much more complex than the common view of him that I think dominates the forums and believe that his murder in Dorne as well as the way it was handled by both Baelor I and Daeron II did the most to contribute to the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

For one, its a double standard to praise Aegon I and bash Daeron I simply because his conquest was undone, which we can't really blame him for. How many kings in real life have been murdered through perfidy? Probably very few to none. Why? Because that's something considered somewhat of a war crime even in antiquity because perfidy, like false testimony, theft, and murder tears at the very pillars of any society in any time period anywhere. Seriously, Dorne only survived that stunt because Baelor was the one person in Planetos history probably who would have let them get away with that, which as far as I'm concerned (along with Daeron II's ridiculously unbalanced treaty and over representation of Dorne in his court) did more to help bring about the First Blackfyre Rebellion than what Aegon IV did, which was provide a figurehead for all the simmering discontent to channel itself through.

Second, he had many admirable qualities. He was brave, smart, energetic and charismatic (to the point a town was renamed to the reaction of the people living there!). He not only managed to convince his small council (at 14!) that Dorne could be conquered even without dragons but he was also able to sell that idea to the whole realm judging by the fact that his coalition, which must have been absolutely enormous considering he lost 60,000 in 4 years, included men from at least the North, the Crownlands, the Stormlands, and the Reach, which helps further explain how the Blackfyre faction developed and why, which I'll lay out some thoughts on below:

The Stormlands and even more the Reach contributed heavily, probably the most. Thus they in particular had the most to gain from conquering Dorne and conversely the most to lose, on top of which both have a healthy hatred of Dorne borne from countless generations of war, particularly the Reach. Even in the present time in Old Oak and Fawnton the Wyl of Wyl's actions are remembered and I doubt any Reachman has forgotten (or forgiven) that Dornishmen murdered Garth X in his bed, sacked Highgarden, and chopped the Oakenseat, the f****** throne, to pieces. Just look at the Sistermen, Bear Island with regards to the Ironborn, or the Blackwoods and the Brackens if you want to see how enduring hate fueled by blood feuds can last. So, when 60000 men die, your beloved warrior-king is murdered, and the new king makes peace with nothing to show for it as well as making a walk of penance, implying that those 60000 and his own brother were sinners, that is going to hurt and people are going to remember, especially when a new king with the name of said beloved warrior-king comes along and gives positions of note to the very people who murdered his namesake at the expense of the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, particularly the Reach, which it seems was left out in the cold completely and explains why most of the Reach supported the Blackfyres. After all, at the time of the First Blackfyre Rebellion there were plenty of people old enough to have fought in the Conquest of Dorne still around and they would definitely have passed on their grievances to the younger generation.

Third, Daeron wrote a book about his conquest that even the Maesters consider to be the best account of the war, which no other Targaryen king is noted to have done (write a book specifically).

Fourth, Daeron did not neglect his other duties. He left most of the running of the realm to his uncle Viserys (judging by Yandel's use of the term "benign neglect") which, considering Viserys's talent, he should be applauded for respecting and keeping since people praise Robert Baratheon for much the same. Moreover, with regards to Dorne we see in the TWOIAF that Daeron wasn't a come-and-go king. He had some kind of plan for Dorne, otherwise he wouldn't have been trying to negotiate an alliance with Braavos to clear the Stepstones of pirates hampering trade. On the issue of succession, he had an heir in the form of his brother Baelor and any children Baelor would have (maybe assuming Baelor would "do the deed" if his king (and older brother) had ordered him to, after all Aegon III refused to allow him to become a Septon and Baelor didn't press the issue) as well as in the form of his uncle and cousin (Daeron couldn't know at that time how awful a king Aegon would be). Also, he was eighteen when he died. Eighteen! He couldn't possibly know he was going to die that young. Maybe he was betrothed to a noblewoman who wasn't of age yet or maybe he wanted to dangle his bachelor status as a prize to the lords of Westeros in exchange for their support or as a reward for service.

Fifth, Daeron I, like his historical counterpart Alexander the Great, did NOT intend to change the laws, customs, and traditions of Dorne. Seriously, I hear this crap banded about so much when there is NOTHING in any of the material we have (ASOIAF, D& E, TWOIAF, the MUSH) that suggests Daeron was involved in any act or extended campaign of cultural destruction. NONE. And conquest does NOT equal cultural destruction btw.

Sixth, (and I think this is the one that people disagree with me strongly) Dorne is not innocent. Yes, they were attacked by a foreign power seeking to conquer them. So has every other civilization in Planetos and our own RW history. That doesn't mean they should get special treatment from us. As far as I can see the Dornish torturing captives for fun, cutting off their hands after ransoming them, killing someone in a bed of scorpions, and using a peace conference to lure someone where you can murder them are all just as bad as anything Aegon I or Daeron I did. Furthermore, we are told explicitly in TWOIAF that "there were other Dornish Wars, to be sure, and even during times of peace, raiders out of Dorne continued to descend from the Red Mountains in search of plunder in the richer, greener lands to the north and west", which means not only was Aegon's treaty long-broken before Daeron's time but that the Dornish themselves engaged in direct acts of aggression (with the Vulture Kings acting additionally as proxies). Further proof of this can be found in the section of TWOIAF on Dorne: "Prince Qoren’s daughter would be of a different mind. Princess Aliandra came young to her seat and thought herself a new Nymeria. A fiery young woman, she encouraged her lords and knights to prove themselves worthy of her favors by raiding in the marches." Yeah, Dorne is not innocent.

Seventh, he wasn't perfect and did have his flaws, namely a big ego but then again he did conquer Dorne at 14 so it was sort of justified. Sort of.

As to whether the Conquest of Dorne was a good thing? At the time hell yeah (and if he had succeeded no one would care about the costs, which is telling). It gave the dragonless monarchy a nationalist project to get the realm behind while also showing everyone that even without dragons the Targaryens were strong and here to stay. Furthermore, in addition to avoiding border raids, incorporating Dorne means having a much freer hand in the Stepstones (no more Dorne supporting the Free Cities against the mainland like in the War for the Stepstones), eliminating the possibility of foreign enemies landing in an allied Dorne as a prelude to an invasion of the mainland, and having total control of the western coast of the Narrow Sea. Beyond that, while Dorne doesn’t have much arable soil, what it does have is arable in all seasons, which is handy. Moreover, Dorne has a lot of high-value export-friendly commodities, from citrus fruits to wine to silks. So while Dorne is overall less productive than many of the other Seven Kingdoms, its per-capita productivity is quite substantial.

All in all, I think Daeron I is a complex character caricatured by the fandom as well as a deeply flawed but in many respects great king dead before his time, the circumstances of which planted the seeds for the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

[1000th Lord Commander]

I personally always wondered why the pressure wasn't put on him to marry and have a heir. Given that Baelor didn't seem that way inclined, yet was married, (even if he did put his wife aside after the wedding), why wasn't Daeron married? he was the older brother, and might have been more inclined to have it off with his sister than Baelor. Instead Viserys and the small council seemed happy to let him play at war to the detriment of the realm

[Valens]

15 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Warning: Long Post

I like Daeron I and find him to be much more complex than the common view of him that I think dominates the forums and believe that his murder in Dorne as well as the way it was handled by both Baelor I and Daeron II did the most to contribute to the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

For one, its a double standard to praise Aegon I and bash Daeron I simply because his conquest was undone, which we can't really blame him for. How many kings in real life have been murdered through perfidy? Probably very few to none. Why? Because that's something considered somewhat of a war crime even in antiquity because perfidy, like false testimony, theft, and murder tears at the very pillars of any society in any time period anywhere. Seriously, Dorne only survived that stunt because Baelor was the one person in Planetos history probably who would have let them get away with that, which as far as I'm concerned (along with Daeron II's ridiculously unbalanced treaty and over representation of Dorne in his court) did more to help bring about the First Blackfyre Rebellion than what Aegon IV did, which was provide a figurehead for all the simmering discontent to channel itself through.

Second, he had many admirable qualities. He was brave, smart, energetic and charismatic (to the point a town was renamed to the reaction of the people living there!). He not only managed to convince his small council (at 14!) that Dorne could be conquered even without dragons but he was also able to sell that idea to the whole realm judging by the fact that his coalition, which must have been absolutely enormous considering he lost 60,000 in 4 years, included men from at least the North, the Crownlands, the Stormlands, and the Reach, which helps further explain how the Blackfyre faction developed and why, which I'll lay out some thoughts on below:

The Stormlands and even more the Reach contributed heavily, probably the most. Thus they in particular had the most to gain from conquering Dorne and conversely the most to lose, on top of which both have a healthy hatred of Dorne borne from countless generations of war, particularly the Reach. Even in the present time in Old Oak and Fawnton the Wyl of Wyl's actions are remembered and I doubt any Reachman has forgotten (or forgiven) that Dornishmen murdered Garth X in his bed, sacked Highgarden, and chopped the Oakenseat, the f****** throne, to pieces. Just look at the Sistermen, Bear Island with regards to the Ironborn, or the Blackwoods and the Brackens if you want to see how enduring hate fueled by blood feuds can last. So, when 60000 men die, your beloved warrior-king is murdered, and the new king makes peace with nothing to show for it as well as making a walk of penance, implying that those 60000 and his own brother were sinners, that is going to hurt and people are going to remember, especially when a new king with the name of said beloved warrior-king comes along and gives positions of note to the very people who murdered his namesake at the expense of the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, particularly the Reach, which it seems was left out in the cold completely and explains why most of the Reach supported the Blackfyres. After all, at the time of the First Blackfyre Rebellion there were plenty of people old enough to have fought in the Conquest of Dorne still around and they would definitely have passed on their grievances to the younger generation.

Third, Daeron wrote a book about his conquest that even the Maesters consider to be the best account of the war, which no other Targaryen king is noted to have done (write a book specifically).

Fourth, Daeron did not neglect his other duties. He left most of the running of the realm to his uncle Viserys (judging by Yandel's use of the term "benign neglect") which, considering Viserys's talent, he should be applauded for respecting and keeping since people praise Robert Baratheon for much the same. Moreover, with regards to Dorne we see in the TWOIAF that Daeron wasn't a come-and-go king. He had some kind of plan for Dorne, otherwise he wouldn't have been trying to negotiate an alliance with Braavos to clear the Stepstones of pirates hampering trade. On the issue of succession, he had an heir in the form of his brother Baelor and any children Baelor would have (maybe assuming Baelor would "do the deed" if his king (and older brother) had ordered him to, after all Aegon III refused to allow him to become a Septon and Baelor didn't press the issue) as well as in the form of his uncle and cousin (Daeron couldn't know at that time how awful a king Aegon would be). Also, he was eighteen when he died. Eighteen! He couldn't possibly know he was going to die that young. Maybe he was betrothed to a noblewoman who wasn't of age yet or maybe he wanted to dangle his bachelor status as a prize to the lords of Westeros in exchange for their support or as a reward for service.

Fifth, Daeron I, like his historical counterpart Alexander the Great, did NOT intend to change the laws, customs, and traditions of Dorne. Seriously, I hear this crap banded about so much when there is NOTHING in any of the material we have (ASOIAF, D& E, TWOIAF, the MUSH) that suggests Daeron was involved in any act or extended campaign of cultural destruction. NONE. And conquest does NOT equal cultural destruction btw.

Sixth, (and I think this is the one that people disagree with me strongly) Dorne is not innocent. Yes, they were attacked by a foreign power seeking to conquer them. So has every other civilization in Planetos and our own RW history. That doesn't mean they should get special treatment from us. As far as I can see the Dornish torturing captives for fun, cutting off their hands after ransoming them, killing someone in a bed of scorpions, and using a peace conference to lure someone where you can murder them are all just as bad as anything Aegon I or Daeron I did. Furthermore, we are told explicitly in TWOIAF that "there were other Dornish Wars, to be sure, and even during times of peace, raiders out of Dorne continued to descend from the Red Mountains in search of plunder in the richer, greener lands to the north and west", which means not only was Aegon's treaty long-broken before Daeron's time but that the Dornish themselves engaged in direct acts of aggression (with the Vulture Kings acting additionally as proxies). Further proof of this can be found in the section of TWOIAF on Dorne: "Prince Qoren’s daughter would be of a different mind. Princess Aliandra came young to her seat and thought herself a new Nymeria. A fiery young woman, she encouraged her lords and knights to prove themselves worthy of her favors by raiding in the marches." Yeah, Dorne is not innocent.

Seventh, he wasn't perfect and did have his flaws, namely a big ego but then again he did conquer Dorne at 14 so it was sort of justified. Sort of.

As to whether the Conquest of Dorne was a good thing? At the time hell yeah (and if he had succeeded no one would care about the costs, which is telling). It gave the dragonless monarchy a nationalist project to get the realm behind while also showing everyone that even without dragons the Targaryens were strong and here to stay. Furthermore, in addition to avoiding border raids, incorporating Dorne means having a much freer hand in the Stepstones (no more Dorne supporting the Free Cities against the mainland like in the War for the Stepstones), eliminating the possibility of foreign enemies landing in an allied Dorne as a prelude to an invasion of the mainland, and having total control of the western coast of the Narrow Sea. Beyond that, while Dorne doesn’t have much arable soil, what it does have is arable in all seasons, which is handy. Moreover, Dorne has a lot of high-value export-friendly commodities, from citrus fruits to wine to silks. So while Dorne is overall less productive than many of the other Seven Kingdoms, its per-capita productivity is quite substantial.

All in all, I think Daeron I is a complex character caricatured by the fandom as well as a deeply flawed but in many respects great king dead before his time, the circumstances of which planted the seeds for the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

I agree with everything you wrote. It was disgraceful of a man bearing the name of Daeron to let the Dornishmen into his court, after what they did to Daeron I. Thats why I think The World of Ice and Fire is full of SHIT, pardon my French, for taking the pro-Daeron II stance and claiming he was bloody perfect and that he chose the right thing by crawling up the Dornishmen's ass. I think Dorne deserved to be invaded and punished for all their wrongdoings against the Andals. And of course, a Valyrian had to do it, to get it right. So it seems anyway. And he did, he got them under his foot. But the dirty scoundrels played a dirty trick to kill him and get rid of his forces, whom they knew would pretty much collapse without his leadership. I mean, come on, The Young Dragon was THE ONLY Westeros king to subjugate and conquer Dorne, how much does that speak for his abilities? And not least heart and courage.

[The Grey Wolf]

Warning: Long Post Again

1000th Lord Commander

I answered Daeron I's bachelor status in my first post. Suffice to say maybe Daeron thought he had enough heirs for the time being (Baelor, Viserys, Aegon, Aegon's son) that he didn't feel the pressing need to sire an heir of his own yet, particularly because I don't think he would have let Baelor get away with not consummating the marriage forever. If Aegon III could tell Baelor "no, you can't be a septon" and Baelor took it, then there is reason to believe if Daeron said "as your older brother and king I command you to bed your wife and sire a child on her" Baelor would shut up and done just that. Another possibility (which I personally believe) is that Daeron deliberately avoided marrying so that he could use his hand as either an incentive for the lords of Westeros to support his conquest or as a reward for a vassal who served him particularly well in that regard. A third option is that he was betrothed but his wife-to-be was still too young for him to wed and bed but that is less likely in my opinion since Daeron was the one who arranged marriages for his younger brother and the elder two of his younger sisters, implying that, possibly because of their youth and maybe their mother being dead, Aegon III hadn't gotten around to making betrothals yet. Also, he was eighteen, cut him some slack. He couldn't have known he was going to die so young so there was no pressing need why specifically needed to get a wife.

Valens

I don't mind that Daeron used the pen instead of the sword to bring Dorne into the fold and do consider him one of the better kings because he was hard-working, dedicated, and willing to learn from his mistakes. What I have a beef with is that he brought Dorne into the fold in the worst way possible by being a cronyist who gave them too much for too little in return (for Westeros, not himself) and then left the rest of Westeros out in the cold, particularly the Reach (the biggest population in the 7K!), callously salting the wounds Baelor had already made worse by making peace with nothing to show for it while also implying that the Dornish were in the right and had won. That plus he had a decade to convince people pissed off by the treaty of his position and policies and well he didn't, which could have made certain lords fearful of the possibility that if, for example, a marcher lord sought justice from the king against a Dornishman the king would support the Dornishman always. Plus, he wasn't always just. He honored certain aspects of his father's will for example when he desired it (making sure Daemon followed through with his Tyroshi marriage) but was perfectly willing to ignore it when it suited him otherwise (like the case of Fireball, which if the promise was genuine, in the sense that the language Aegon used wasn't nebulous, and wasn't made in private, really is a stain on Daeron's record).

Honestly, if he hadn't married his oldest two sons to Marcher Lords I have no doubt the Stormlands would have joined the Blackfyres in mass and Daeron would have kissed his throne goodbye. That or Rickon Stark hadn't died outside Sunspear. Without that sudden succession crisis I could see the Starks in mass supporting the Blackfyres in Daeron I's name as well, no doubt even more offended by his death than the Reach due to northern sensibilities about guest right, which the sanctity of the peace banner is partially based on.

I wouldn't say though that Dorne deserved to be invaded simply because of what they did to the Andals since they are partly Andal themselves nor do I think a Valyrian particularly had to do it except that's how GRRM wrote the history. After Daeron's murder though I definitely wouldn't have had a problem with the Westerosi retaliating, which today's Geneva Conventions supports in the case of perfidy (though not the way Westeors would have but Westeros is medieval so tough luck for the Dornish).

Also, the fact that most of Westeros was up and ready to continue the war, even more zealously than before, if their intention was to deprive 7K of leadership by murdering Daeron, well they made the monumental mistake of forgetting that one, every noble is trained to lead armies, and two, Daeron had capable subordinates, because no great leader, especially in military matters, doesn't have those but of course Baelor came along and we know the result. He delayed the storm by making it bigger and Daeron II made it explode over his own head.

As for the depicition of Daeron in TWOIAF, since he won and gained the throne following Aegon IV, it makes sense, being written by a Maester ostensibly. Nonetheless, there is material there that shows the Blackfyres were NOT just a bunch of misogynistic, racist, jock warmongerers and that they did have legitimate grievances (as well as some illegitimate but come on, every side in any conflict has those). Oh, and on the racist note, considering that the Yronwoods were diehard Blackfyre loyalists...Well, I'll let people dwell on that.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-09-27 at 9:47 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Daeron I

 

On 2016-09-28 at 4:46 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Daeron II

I'd like to thank you for some excellent posts. While I myself like Daeron II and think he's the second greatest of the Targaryen kings, I think that some critcal views of his reign can only add to our understanding of him and I'm sure he'll remain a popular figure even if everything is not written as so much, essentially, hero-worship. Same with Daeron I. He gets flak for daring to attack the old enemies of his House but there's no reason he should get more flak for that than any other conqueror who sought to expand his realm.

[The Sleeper]

@The Grey Wolf Interesting and well-thought out posts.

A few observations

Daeron's I murder is equivalent to the Red Wedding. I think that Baelor made such an impact, because keeping everything from exploding into a second war while keeping Targaryen monarchy intact was nothing short of a miracle. The sixty thousand men Daeron I had raised would have been a huge strain on the kingdom.

While you are correct in saying that there is no specific mention that Daeron sought to change the laws and customsof Dorne by force, he did appoint as their overlord the lord of Highgarden and as you mentioned blood feuds, this suggests that he sought to subjugate them whether intentionally or not. It further seems unlikely that their archrival would have been well received or that he would rule with tolerance and peace in mind. A better option would have been to appoint a Dornish house to rule in his name. The Yronwoods would have jumped at the opportunity, as they have been the Martells historical rivals, which is why they joined the Blackfyres later on.

Regarding Daeron II and his court. I think he deliberately chose to gather many of them to him and for two reasons. One would be to showcase the geeat achievement of his reign. The second would be to remove from power those who were attached to his father. I don't think that Aegon IV left behind a healthy court, nor one that was friendly to him. Dornishmen would have no attachments to any previous figures and furthermore they would be reliant to him and him alone.

[Valens]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

I'd like to thank you for some excellent posts. While I myself like Daeron II and think he's the second greatest of the Targaryen kings, I think that some critcal views of his reign can only add to our understanding of him and I'm sure he'll remain a popular figure even if everything is not written as so much, essentially, hero-worship. Same with Daeron I. He gets flak for daring to attack the old enemies of his House but there's no reason he should get more flak for that than any other conqueror who sought to expand his realm.

Precisely. He only did what his predecessor did and he did it better-even if that success was short-lived, it was still a great success, just conquering Dorne.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

People who attack innocent people in order to take away their freedom for their own personal glory are evil. The Targs have a history of attacking others for their personal glory. Daeron isn’t an nothing more than a egomaniac evil tyrant.

[Lion of the West]

40 minutes ago, Valens said:

Precisely. He only did what his predecessor did and he did it better-even if that success was short-lived, it was still a great success, just conquering Dorne.

We can argue if it was a great success or not, but I try not to base my conception of right and wrong on success or failure. That leads down a nasty path. And as such it was no more wrong than any other conquest, successful or not.

30 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

People who attack innocent people in order to take away their freedom for their own personal glory are evil. The Targs have a history of attacking others for their personal glory. Daeron isn’t an nothing more than a egomaniac evil tyrant.

Every realm in Westeros exists because the people currently in charge had a history of attacking innocents for power and glory. There's a very good quote I'd like to share with you.

"The only people who obtains power are those who do whatever they need to take it. And the only people who maintains power are those who do whatever they need to keep it." And consider for how many thousands of years the Lannisters, the Starks and the Arryns have been in power, while the Martells have kept power for centuries. No House has clean hands.

To this consider that the only people who got less freedom after the Targaryens moved in where the kings personally. Everyone else, from serf to royal heir had exactly as much or little power after the Targaryens moved into town as before the Dragons came. And when considering how well both Dornish, Northmen and Ironmen have kept their cultural distinctions I'd say that the Targaryens were never more of a threat to anyone's freedom than any local feudal lord.

So in essence, it makes no sense to pain the Targaryens has taking away anyone's freedom, because its an extreme hyperbole if very technically true.

[The Grey Wolf]

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

People who attack innocent people in order to take away their freedom for their own personal glory are evil. The Targs have a history of attacking others for their personal glory. Daeron isn’t an nothing more than a egomaniac evil tyrant.

Daeron was far more than just that. In fact, if one analyzes the political aspects of his reign as well as the reigns of his brother, Baelor I, and his uncle, Viserys II, we see a common trend. That each of those kings tried to find different ways to both reinvigorate and redefine the monarchy in the face of not only the loss of the dragons but also Aegon III's sober but visionless rule. Baelor through religion, Viserys through bureaucratic excellence, and Daeron through martial glory, which considering Westeros is a MEDIEVAL setting we cannot blame him for.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Text

I agree. Treating military conquest so arbitrarily just doesn't make sense. Also, as you pointed out no one really lost their freedom or rights to the Tagraryens and the Dornish certainly wouldn't have under Daeron I most likely, if the North and the Iron Islands are any indication. Furthermore, bashing Daeron I but not bashing for example the likes of Theon Stark (for the Three Sisters), Arlan III Durrandon (for the Riverlands), Nymeria (for conquering the other six Dornish kings' realms), and Tommen I Lannister (for Fair Isle) to me just seems to be hypocritical and indicative of undeserved bias.  

[theblackdragonI]

All in all I think he was a great man, but not a great king.

As a leader of men and a soldier, he is equal to Aegon I and if he had dragons could maybe have surpassed him. Both very similar.

My main problem with Daeron is that he seems a bit too hungry for glory, and that is most likely just down to being so young. I mean his first act as king was to declare war? Surely he should have set about getting married and having a heir, but as The Grey Wolf said he might have remained a bachelor for political reasons. I always found it to be kind of naive on his part to believe the Dornish would just remain docile once conquered, when they have been one of the biggest enemies of the Targs since Aegon took the throne. Still Valens and the Grey Wolf are both right in that the Dornish should have been punished much, much more severely and the leniency showed by Baelor and Daeron II was shameful. They murdered the king for crying out loud! I can kind of understand putting the good of the realm ahead of vengeance, but for Baelor to bend to all their wishes and come meekly to Dorne, and Daeron to fill his court with Dornishmen seems like a huge dishonour to the memory of their brother/cousin. 

It's hard to say, he's definitely one of my favourite Targs but maybe that's cause he died young? I would imagine that if Robert had fallen in the last days of his rebellion he would be revered by all and I guess that's kind of how it is with Daeron, to die young and in such a shameful way would really help history remember him well.

[Valens]

12 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

All in all I think he was a great man, but not a great king.

As a leader of men and a soldier, he is equal to Aegon I and if he had dragons could maybe have surpassed him. Both very similar.

My main problem with Daeron is that he seems a bit too hungry for glory, and that is most likely just down to being so young. I mean his first act as king was to declare war? Surely he should have set about getting married and having a heir, but as The Grey Wolf said he might have remained a bachelor for political reasons. I always found it to be kind of naive on his part to believe the Dornish would just remain docile once conquered, when they have been one of the biggest enemies of the Targs since Aegon took the throne. Still Valens and the Grey Wolf are both right in that the Dornish should have been punished much, much more severely and the leniency showed by Baelor and Daeron II was shameful. They murdered the king for crying out loud! I can kind of understand putting the good of the realm ahead of vengeance, but for Baelor to bend to all their wishes and come meekly to Dorne, and Daeron to fill his court with Dornishmen seems like a huge dishonour to the memory of their brother/cousin. 

It's hard to say, he's definitely one of my favourite Targs but maybe that's cause he died young? I would imagine that if Robert had fallen in the last days of his rebellion he would be revered by all and I guess that's kind of how it is with Daeron, to die young and in such a shameful way would really help history remember him well.

Don't forget who his grandfather was. Daemon was always hungry for glory but also had the courage and the ability to achieve it. His son was something else, but had he not experienced such a numbing tragedy at such early age, who knows how he would have been? Vigorous, surely, as he was said to be more robust than his brother Viserys. I still love them, that is my favorite line of Targaryens, Daemon, Aegon III and Daeron. And yes, you are right on the spot with Baelor and Daeron II's mistakes. Baelor was just not fit to be a king...that religious freak! He did save Aemon the Dragonknight but then nearly died and Aemon then had to carry his ass out of Dorne.

And don't pay attention to the Queen Consort, she always seems to be on the wrong side and it seems like she exists here just to annoy people like us.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

18 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

snip

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.

15 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Daeron was far more than just that. In fact, if one analyzes the political aspects of his reign as well as the reigns of his brother, Baelor I, and his uncle, Viserys II, we see a common trend. That each of those kings tried to find different ways to both reinvigorate and redefine the monarchy in the face of not only the loss of the dragons but also Aegon III's sober but visionless rule. Baelor through religion, Viserys through bureaucratic excellence, and Daeron through martial glory, which considering Westeros is a MEDIEVAL setting we cannot blame him for.

I don't agree. Daeron instead of trying being a good king for his subjects attacked innocent people in order to take away their freedom. He was a power hungry brute and died accordingly to his crimes.

[Adam Yozza]

9 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't agree. Daeron instead of trying being a good king for his subjects attacked innocent people in order to take away their freedom. He was a power hungry brute and died accordingly to his crimes.

Innocent people? The Dornish? Really? Dorne was not innocent in all this, or did you you conveniently skip over the passage in awoiaf where it states that "even during times of peace, raiders out of Dorne continued to descend from the Red Mountains in search of plunder in the richer, greener lands to the north and west"? How about the part where the Dornish fought against Daeron's grandfather in the War of the Stepstones? If you think that Dorne had done nothing to deserve the invasion then you are wrong. Hell, Daeron was likely seen as a hero by the Reach and Stormlands houses because his conquering of Dorne would stop those border raids, so in actuality he was being a good King for his subjects. If they didn't like what they he was doing, why then were they raring to continue the war after Daeron's death despite the 60,000 dead.

As to taking away their freedom, I don't really see where you are getting this idea from. Look at Aegon I. When he conquered Westeros, did he try and force them to change their religion? Their culture? No. The North remained free to worship the Old Gods, the Ironborn were allowed to continue praying to the drowned God and Aegon actually began worshiping the Seven. Their cultures were no different after the conquest than they were before. The only difference was that the Lord's Paramount's now had to pay taxes and answer to a higher authority. The rest of the realm (the peasants and the vassal's of each region) lived pretty much the same as they always had.

There is no evidence to suggest that Dorne was any different. Was Daeron looking to force them to abandon the idea that women could inherit before men? Considering that he came from Rhaenyra's line that's pretty doubtful. They already worshipped the seven, I believe (although correct me if I'm wrong on that). The only ones who would lose any sort of freedom is the Martell's themselves. The rest of Dorne would continue as it always had.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Innocent people? The Dornish? Really? Dorne was not innocent in all this, or did you you conveniently skip over the passage in awoiaf where it states that "even during times of peace, raiders out of Dorne continued to descend from the Red Mountains in search of plunder in the richer, greener lands to the north and west"?

I also remember the part of how the Targs attacked Dorne during Aegon's Conquest.

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

How about the part where the Dornish fought against Daeron's grandfather in the War of the Stepstones?

They had no reason to fight with Daemon either.

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

As to taking away their freedom, I don't really see where you are getting this idea

It comes from the fact that the Dornish would had lost their freedom of ruling over themselves and they would had bend the knee to the incestuous abominations. Why the Dornish should be willing to be under the Targ's control and lose their freedom?

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Look at Aegon I. When he conquered Westeros, did he try and force them to change their religion? Their culture? No.

BS. His whole life was an insult to the Gods and the cultures of Westeros and he forced the Westerosi to accept his rule which was an insult for their Gods and their culture. 

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

They already worshipped the seven, I believe

By name only, but not in reality. For the Seven incest is a mortal sin and they kept practising it hence they never worshipped the Seven.

[theblackdragonI]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I also remember the part of how the Targs attacked Dorne during Aegon's Conquest.

They had no reason to fight with Daemon either.

It comes from the fact that the Dornish would had lost their freedom of ruling over themselves and they would had bend the knee to the incestious abominations. Why the Dornish should be willing to be under the Targ's control and lose their freedom?

BS. His whole life was an insult to the Gods and the cultures of Westeros and he forced the Westerosi to accept his rule which was an insult for their Gods and their culture. 

By name only, but not in reality. For the Seven incest is a mortal sin and they kept practising it hence they never worshipped the Seven.

First of all, you realise you're condemning the Targs for conquering those weaker then them and establishing a mighty, united kingdom. Literally every region in Planetos has at one time gone to war with its neighbours. Do you expect the Targs, the last of the greatest empire in history, with the last dragons to sit on Dragonstone forever? The Stormlands and Ironborn invaded the Riverlands, the North and Vale fought over the Sisters, the Reach and Dorne have fought forever, war is just a part of this world. Its medieval fantasy, obviously war will happen. As far as the Targs conquests go, they were if anything, very generous to the people who surrendered (bar Maegor). 

The Dornish were not innocent in anyway. They continually sent raids into the other kingdoms, openly opposed the Iron Throne, allied with the Three Daughters to fight Daemon in the Stepstones, and acted cruelly to Orys Baratheons host in the First Dornish War. The Dornish knew they could never defeat the Iron Throne but decided to wage a long and costly war using dirty tactics because they got cocky after killing Rhaenys and Aegon decided to let them live. Who is more of the monster, the honorable conqueror or the defenders willing to act in such a cruel and barbaric manner just to delay the inevitable and out of spite?

How was Aegons life an insult to the Gods and culture of Westeros? He was anointed by the High Septon and converted to the Faith of the Seven? He allowed the existing Lords to remain in power and really changed nothing of the feudal structure. Made no attempt to convert the North or Iron Isles. His marriage to his sisters was the only thing that went against the Faith and there was no need for him to divorce them as he was on good terms with the Faith and all the lord. His rule was long, prosperous and peaceful.

You kind of contradict yourself there about the incest. Baelor married his sisters and was more pious than nearly anyone in the history of the kingdoms? Fair enough he never consummated the marriage but it happened nonetheless. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

23 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Do you expect the Targs, the last of the greatest empire in history, with the last dragons to sit on Dragonstone forever?

I don't see why they couldn't do it.

23 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

As far as the Targs conquests go, they were if anything, very generous to the people who surrendered (bar Maegor).

I am sure that all those people who died at the Field of Fire or during the civils wars the Targaryens caused much had felt blessed.

23 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

The Dornish were not innocent in anyway. They continually sent raids into the other kingdoms, openly opposed the Iron Throne, allied with the Three Daughters to fight Daemon in the Stepstones, and acted cruelly to Orys Baratheons host in the First Dornish War. The Dornish knew they could never defeat the Iron Throne but decided to wage a long and costly war using dirty tactics because they got cocky after killing Rhaenys and Aegon decided to let them live. Who is more of the monster, the honorable conqueror or the defenders willing to act in such a cruel and barbaric manner just to delay the inevitable and out of spite?

Why the Dornish should respect the Targs when the Targs had attacked them at the beginning? Why they hadn't had the right to fight against Daemon?

23 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

How was Aegons life an insult to the Gods and culture of Westeros? He was anointed by the High Septon and converted to the Faith of the Seven? He allowed the existing Lords to remain in power and really changed nothing of the feudal structure. Made no attempt to convert the North or Iron Isles. His marriage to his sisters was the only thing that went against the Faith and there was no need for him to divorce them as he was on good terms with the Faith and all the lord. His rule was long, prosperous and peaceful.

 He enslaved people, took their freedom and made himself and his abominations, for his own personal glory. 

23 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

You kind of contradict yourself there about the incest. Baelor married his sisters and was more pious than nearly anyone in the history of the kingdoms? Fair enough he never consummated the marriage but it happened nonetheless. 

Baelor was mad and incest is a mortal sin for all the religions and cultures in Westeros. The fact that they were never consummated the marriage doesn't mean that it never happened.

[The hairy bear]

On 27/9/2016 at 9:47 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

He not only managed to convince his small council (at 14!) that Dorne could be conquered even without dragons but he was also able to sell that idea to the whole realm

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...

On 28/9/2016 at 7:11 AM, 1000th Lord Commander said:

I personally always wondered why the pressure wasn't put on him to marry and have a heir. Given that Baelor didn't seem that way inclined, yet was married, (even if he did put his wife aside after the wedding), why wasn't Daeron married? he was the older brother, and might have been more inclined to have it off with his sister than Baelor. Instead Viserys and the small council seemed happy to let him play at war to the detriment of the realm

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...

 

[theblackdragonI]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't see why they couldn't do it.

Utter bs. 

Why the Dornish should respect the Targs when the Targs had attacked them at the beginning? Why they hadn't had the right to fight against Daemon?

 

 

 

 

 He enslaved people, took their freedom and made himself and his abominations, for his own personal glory. 

Baelor was mad and incest is a mortal sin for all the religions and cultures in Westeros. The fact that they were never consummated the marriage doesn't mean that it never happened.

 

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

Okay lets break down the Aegons Conquest:

He literally changed nothing in the North bar make Torrhen Stark swear fealty to him, same with the Vale and Crownlands, like changed nothing else. He allowed the Lannisters to retain all their lands and powers even after they fought him on the Field of Fire. Gave the Tyrells the Reach when he could have taken it for himself or given it to someone else. Allowed the last Durrandon to remain somewhat in power and carry on the line when he could have executed her. Didn't execute anybody who surrendered to him, the only somewhat barbaric thing he did was end the Hoares at Harrenhal but even then, the Hoares openly mocked and defied him. How did he not act generous and honourably, please enlighten me. 

What do you mean he enslaved people? He along with his sisters created a lawful and fair realm. There was no slavery or thralls from the Ironborn. He managed to bind together, and keep a region that had been at continuous war with itself for thousands of years in peace. Aegon was not hated by his vassals, quite the opposite in fact. He toured the kingdoms and didn't push the Faith too far. He was a great king and a greater man. 

Well you just changed your argument, earlier you said the Targs never worshipped the Seven, when clearly many of them did, one of Jaehaerys I's daughters became a septa for crying out loud. There was very little protest to the Targs carrying on incest after Jaeharys reign, and its not like every one did it. Viserys I married an Arynn and a Hightower, Aegon V married a Blackwood, there are many marriages between Targs and other families, especially the Velaryons.