Best Kings/Queens in Westerosi History?

[theblackdragonI]

6 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Saying that someone shouldn't try to be free and fight for it proves what I said.

Sure. Use name calling and personal attacks because someone thinks that is evil to believe that someone has the divine right to be the King because he has the bigger weapon. 

You just said that Artos Cold would support Hitler, is that not a bit personal no? 

There is no comparison between Hitler and Aegon, none. Aegon didn't have a divine right to rule, he saw an opportunity to expand and did so in an honourable way. He treated his subjects fairly and didn't enslave any of them. Hitler brutally murdered millions of innocent people because he was insane, not because he had a bigger weapon? 

[TheSovereignGrave]

44 minutes ago, Artos Cold said:

They fought and they died for....... What? Those incestous abominations proved themselves to be good rulers, and none of the other kingdoms were ever enslaved, Aegon respected their laws and customs. They didn't want to lose their independence and they fought to keep it, that's admirable and understandable, but in the end, had the dornish bent the knee, they would not have lost much apart from their pride. My opinion is of course formed with the advantage of hindsight, so the dornish decision to fight Aegon was totally understandable. 

I wouldn't bother arguing with them. I've tried, and they're just completely set in their opinion that Aegon was a horrific monster with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They'll never change their mind.

[dornishdragon]

I don't know much about the pre-Targaryen era but during the Targaryen era the best kings were Aegon I, conquered 6 kingdoms while respecting their cultures and religions and giving them prosperity, Jaehaerys I and Queen Alysanne, ensured prosperity after one weak king and one cruel king, construction of the Kingsroad, the creation of a common code of law and many improvements in Kingslanding including sewers and drains and finally Daeron II united the 7 kingdoms, replaced that corrupt small council and won the war against Daemon Blackfyre, although the true fighters were, Baelor, Maekar and Bloodraven, while still being forgiving to the rebel lords. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

7 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

You just said that Artos Cold would support Hitler, is that not a bit personal no? 

No. It is the logical result when someone say that there is no reason for someone to fight for their freedom.

8 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

he saw an opportunity to expand and did so in an honourable way.

Using WMD isn't a honourable way. Honourable would had been to merge into the Westerosi society not start killing them.

10 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

He treated his subjects fairly and didn't enslave any of them.

He killed his subjects, made them bend the knee to someone who insulted their culture and religion and stole their land and freedom. You are right fairly.

[theblackdragonI]

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No. It is the logical result when someone say that there is no reason for someone to fight for their freedom.

Using WMD isn't a honourable way. Honourable would had been to merge into the Westerosi society not start killing them.

He killed his subjects, made them bend the knee to someone who insulted their culture and religion and stole their land and freedom. You are right fairly.

Ah yes, because the lords of Westeros would have been content to swear fealty to Aegon if he came in peace? You're blaming him for using his biggest asset? Why would he not, there's nothing evil about dragons. There is something evil about cutting off the hands of prisoners, poisoning enemies and carrying out assassinations. Surely the Dornishmen's tactics would be considered evil? 

He did not kill his subjects and steal their land that is just wrong. He killed those who didn't bend the knee (not subjects) and rewarded those who did. He didn't steal any land, as he built the Aegonfort/King's Landing where there was no settlement. He didn't kill any prisoners, allowed them to keep their lands and religion, or commit any atrocities, how is that not a fair and honourable conquest? 

[redtree]

It's not like people of Dorne wanted to join the Targs, if they wanted to they would've but they didn't. Sunspear's area is not even that big and Planky town is just a town, which means Martell's army from its own domain is not that big so Martell had no leverage at all to bully and or force their underlords and smallfolks to stick with the Martell but they did. It was their choice too to fight Aegon, Meria the blind granny had no capacity to force them.

Aegon tried to make them like him and hate the Martells by burning all of their castles at least twice but not Sunspear and that failed fantastically and resulted in Rhaenys's death. Does that mean that he was a bad guy ? Well, in my view, in that particular subject, he was. Clearly the Dornish wanted nothing to do with him and comfortable enough with Sunspear's rulling over them but Aegon kept pushing and pushing, not even his wife's death stopped him. Lives fell from both side, not just Dornish, most notable Harlen Tyrell who suddenly disappeared in the middle of desert. If Meria had pride problem, clearly Aegon's was bigger

It'd be interesting to know what was in Nymor's letter to him

[redtree]

And for best king and queen,

King: probably Jaehaerys 1
Queen: Visenya, saved Aegon's life and formed KG

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

There is something evil about cutting off the hands of prisoners, poisoning enemies and carrying out assassinations. Surely the Dornishmen's tactics would be considered evil? 

I disagree they were attacked and they had the right to protect themselves.

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

He did not kill his subjects and steal their land that is just wrong.

He didn't killed people at the Field of fire and didn't took the North, Vale, Riverland and the rest of Westeros.

2 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

how is that not a fair and honourable conquest? 

He attacked people weaker than he was with WMD and took away their freedom driven only by personal gain.

[theblackdragonI]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I disagree they were attacked and they had the right to protect themselves.

He didn't killed people at the Field of fire and didn't took the North, Vale, Riverland and the rest of Westeros.

He attacked people weaker than he was with WMD and took away their freedom driven only by personal gain.

They did I'm not denying that, but how do you see using dragons as evil when not seeing maiming thousands of defenceless men as evil? 

He did kill his enemies at the Field of Fire, but they weren't his subjects were they? There are no reports of Aegon or his sisters killing or attacking any subjects after the Conquest. He didn't take any regions bar the land around King's Landing, what are you talking about? He allowed all the existing rulers to keep their lands, customs and religions.

So because they were weaker than him, he shouldn't have attacked them? So why did Nymeria attack the rest of the Dornish kings, why couldn't she be content with the Martell lands? Why did the Stormkings and the Ironborn invade the riverlands? Why does anyone in history go to war with another country? Of course it was for personal gain, its survival of the fittest in a medieval society. As for the Conquest, it was a lot less bloody, barbaric and cruel than most wars in Westeros history, as well as real world history.

[Summer Islander Prince]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I disagree they were attacked and they had the right to protect themselves.

He didn't killed people at the Field of fire and didn't took the North, Vale, Riverland and the rest of Westeros.

He attacked people weaker than he was with WMD and took away their freedom driven only by personal gain.

 

2 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

They did I'm not denying that, but how do you see using dragons as evil when not seeing maiming thousands of defenceless men as evil? 

He did kill his enemies at the Field of Fire, but they weren't his subjects were they? There are no reports of Aegon or his sisters killing or attacking any subjects after the Conquest. He didn't take any regions bar the land around King's Landing, what are you talking about? He allowed all the existing rulers to keep their lands, customs and religions.

So because they were weaker than him, he shouldn't have attacked them? So why did Nymeria attack the rest of the Dornish kings, why couldn't she be content with the Martell lands? Why did the Stormkings and the Ironborn invade the riverlands? Why does anyone in history go to war with another country? Of course it was for personal gain, its survival of the fittest in a medieval society. As for the Conquest, it was a lot less bloody, barbaric and cruel than most wars in Westeros history, as well as real world history.

As the OP of this thread, I'm starting to feel this is starting to get a bit off topic so I request you two carry this out somewhere else.

[Jasta11]

It's hard to argue against Jaehaerys I when pretty much every single source gushes about him in every possible way.

Nymeria is also pretty impressive. Started with a ragged band of refugees, and used both force and diplomacy to forge a kingdom that has proven more resilient than most.

[Hodor the Articulate]

16 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What, is the title supposed to be ironic or something?

11 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No.

Ok...so why was Good Queen Alysanne not good, then?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Ok...so why was Good Queen Alysanne not good, then?

Cersei was called Light of the West, Joff was called the most noble child the Gods ever put on this good earth, Tyrion was called Giant of Lannister, Betha was called Black Betha, Aly was called Black Aly. Does the fact that they have those nicknames or titles prove that they are what their title claims?

[Summer Islander Prince]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Cersei was called Light of the West, Joff was called the most noble child the Gods ever put on this good earth, Tyrion was called Giant of Lannister, Betha was called Black Betha, Aly was called Black Aly. Does the fact that they have those nicknames or titles prove that they are what their title claims?

 

But Alysanne was well-loved throughout Westeros and was known to be very charitable. How is she not good?

[Hodor the Articulate]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Cersei was called Light of the West, Joff was called the most noble child the Gods ever put on this good earth, Tyrion was called Giant of Lannister, Betha was called Black Betha, Aly was called Black Aly. Does the fact that they have those nicknames or titles prove that they are what their title claims?

I can't tell if you're misinterpreting my question on purpose or not. You don't think Alyssane is good - so list the reasons.

5 minutes ago, Summer Islander Prince said:

But Alysanne was well-loved throughout Westeros and was known to be very charitable. How is she not good?

Yeah, I feel like I'm being trolled. Is there another Alysanne that's kicking direwolf puppies or something?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, Summer Islander Prince said:

But Alysanne was well-loved throughout Westeros and was known to be very charitable. How is she not good?

She was charitable yes but that doesn’t make her good, look at the Tyrells. They had given money and food to the people and the people loved them but they were those who caused the famine in the first place. For example; she made or told Jaehaerys to take a land that belonged to the Starks and gave it to the Night's Watch when the Starks had already helped the NW for thousands of year. She made First night illegal, which was a great decision, but only for the non Targaryens.  She basically had been charitable when it was easy for her to be. It’s easy for someone to give money when he has money. What is difficult and is really good is to do the hard thing, like forcing your family and your husband to follow the laws of the land, First Night, incest, laws of succession and so on.

54 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I can't tell if you're misinterpreting my question on purpose or not. You don't think Alyssane is good - so list the reasons.

Watch your language. I am not obligated to do anything at all. You said that because she was called Good she was good. I proved you that nicknames or titles don't always reflect the truth.

[Summer Islander Prince]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She was charitable yes but that doesn’t make her good, look at the Tyrells. They had given money and food to the people and the people loved them but they were those who caused the famine in the first place. For example; she made or told Jaehaerys to take a land that belonged to the Starks and gave it to the Night's Watch when the Starks had already helped the NW for thousands of year. She made First night illegal, which was a great decision, but only for the non Targaryens.  She basically had been charitable when it was easy for her to be. It’s easy for someone to give money when he has money. What is difficult and is really good is to do the hard thing, like forcing your family and your husband to follow the laws of the land, First Night, incest, laws of succession and so on.

Watch your language. I am not obligated to do anything at all. You said that because she was called Good she was good. I proved you that nicknames or titles don't always reflect the truth.

So....How is she not good? Everything you have said makes me think of her as a good person.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 minutes ago, Summer Islander Prince said:

So....How is she not good? Everything you have said makes me think of her as a good person.

I am not saying that she was bad or evil but she has done nothing for her to be called Good. How taking the land of the Starks is a good thing? How making laws for everyone except her family is good? Like I said she was charitable when it was easy to be charitable, that doesn't make her good. A good person makes hard choices she hadn't made hard choices so she wasn't an exceptionally good person she was just average.

[TheSovereignGrave]

21 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I am not saying that she was bad or evil but she has done nothing for her to be called Good. How taking the land of the Starks is a good thing? How making laws for everyone except her family is good? Like I said she was charitable when it was easy to be charitable, that doesn't make her good. A good person makes hard choices she hadn't made hard choices so she wasn't an exceptionally good person she was just average.

How did she make laws for everyone but her family? First Night was a tradition among the Targaryens as well; a good number of Dragonseeds were born of it. And the Targaryens weren't exempted from the ban on the First Night, either.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, TheSovereignGrave said:

How did she make laws for everyone but her family? First Night was a tradition among the Targaryens as well; a good number of Dragonseeds were born of it. And the Targaryens weren't exempted from the ban on the First Night, either.

TPATQ proves you wrong. There it was clearly stated that the custom were present at DS, it never said that it stopped after Jaehaerys' laws and seeing the age of the dragonseeds points to the fact that the law hadn't stopped the Targs, which isn't the first time that the Targs are above the laws.