Quellon

Viserys should have been the king instead of Baelor the Blessed

47 posts in this topic

He would have surely avenged his nephew's death. I think it was just weak of Baelor to forgive the Dornish the cowardly murder of his brother and just make peace with them. Viserys would have at least sought revenge and then he would have made peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quellon said:

He would have surely avenged his nephew's death. I think it was just weak of Baelor to forgive the Dornish the cowardly murder of his brother and just make peace with them. Viserys would have at least sought revenge and then he would have made peace.

Baelor saved his cousin's life by making peace. And it led to Daeron II making true peace with the Dornish rather than near constant warfare and hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quellon said:

He would have surely avenged his nephew's death. I think it was just weak of Baelor to forgive the Dornish the cowardly murder of his brother and just make peace with them. Viserys would have at least sought revenge and then he would have made peace.

Yeah it would have, we hear that Viserys would have killed the Dornish hostages. And he would have also resumed the war with Dorne. An important thing to remember here is that the Dornish hadn't won the war, which is why the Dornish resulted to breaking the peace banner to kill Daeron I (think red wedding). If Viserys is as smart and capable as he's portrayed, he'll offer the Stony (Andal and First Men) Dornish Lords the lands of the other Dornish lords, if they help they help him in the war. For example he could offer the Yronwoods to be Lord Paramount's of Dorne. This would also stop the Blackfyre rebellions from happening since a major part of that was that the Dornish seemed to win the war, because when they sweared fealty to Daeron II, they ha significantly more power than any other lords. Also Valyrian blood will be less dilute in the Targaryens since Daeron II would not have married Mariah Martell and probably would have married his father's first cousin Elaena Targaryen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aadam13 said:

Yeah it would have, we hear that Viserys would have killed the Dornish hostages. And he would have also resumed the war with Dorne. An important thing to remember here is that the Dornish hadn't won the war, which is why the Dornish resulted to breaking the peace banner to kill Daeron I (think red wedding). If Viserys is as smart and capable as he's portrayed, he'll offer the Stony (Andal and First Men) Dornish Lords the lands of the other Dornish lords, if they help they help him in the war. For example he could offer the Yronwoods to be Lord Paramount's of Dorne. This would also stop the Blackfyre rebellions from happening since a major part of that was that the Dornish seemed to win the war, because when they sweared fealty to Daeron II, they ha significantly more power than any other lords. Also Valyrian blood will be less dilute in the Targaryens since Daeron II would not have married Mariah Martell and probably would have married his father's first cousin Elaena Targaryen. 

The intermarrying with Targaryens was part of the reason so many Targaryens wound up crazy. Aegon V was smart to try and avoid that. Silver hair and purple eyes are cool and all, but not at the cost they came with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

The intermarrying with Targaryens was part of the reason so many Targaryens wound up crazy. Aegon V was smart to try and avoid that. Silver hair and purple eyes are cool and all, but not at the cost they came with. 

Agreed. It's a pity his sons had to go and screw things up so badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to leave this here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

The intermarrying with Targaryens was part of the reason so many Targaryens wound up crazy. Aegon V was smart to try and avoid that. Silver hair and purple eyes are cool and all, but not at the cost they came with. 

There were also Velaryons and Celtigars, they didn't have to marry other Targaryens always...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather say Viserys II should have been king instead of Daeron I. Then there would have been no stupid war with the Dornish in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd rather say Viserys II should have been king instead of Daeron I. Then there would have been no stupid war with the Dornish in the first place.

Daeron I wasn't breaking the treaty when he attacked Dorne, since the Dornish borke the treaty by raiding, meaning he was justified to take Dorne to stop his people being attacked. Not that I'm saying that was the main reason he attacked Dorne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why the Targaryens never tried to conquer Dorne earlier when they had 20+ dragons at their disposal (before the dance), it would have been incredibly easy. Instead the stupid Daeron I tried to conquer it right after the last dragon died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

32 minutes ago, The Hammer of Justice said:

What I don't understand is why the Targaryens never tried to conquer Dorne earlier when they had 20+ dragons at their disposal (before the dance), it would have been incredibly easy. Instead the stupid Daeron I tried to conquer it right after the last dragon died

I would imagine that after the reign of Maegor there wasn't much of a taste for war in the realm, then they had internal issues to fight over, and after the Dance the Targaryens looked for something to motviate obedience to the Iron Throne and to keep the realm united, Daeron I tried with the old trick of leadership in war and unification against a common enemy. In fact this is kind of what kept the Targaryens in power later when the Blackfyres were the external threat. And after the Blackfyres were gone, the Targaryens's didn't last all that long.

Edited by LionoftheWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2017 at 6:07 AM, Quellon said:

He would have surely avenged his nephew's death. I think it was just weak of Baelor to forgive the Dornish the cowardly murder of his brother and just make peace with them. Viserys would have at least sought revenge and then he would have made peace.

Says who? Because the Author didn't 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daeron I had no reason to invade Dorne. They had every right to kick his ass. And this war killed 50,000 men on the Targaryen side. It was a huge failure in the end. Viserys II might have killed the hostages but he would have scarcely have the strength left to continue his nephew's pointless war and actually win a victory in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Daeron I had no reason to invade Dorne. They had every right to kick his ass. And this war killed 50,000 men on the Targaryen side. It was a huge failure in the end. Viserys II might have killed the hostages but he would have scarcely have the strength left to continue his nephew's pointless war and actually win a victory in the end.

I don't think Viserys would have continued the war, but he would have found a way to avenge his nephew. Maybe offered a Stony Dornish family to kill those responsible in exchange for something. You know, the stealth way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daeron I had no reason to invade Dorne. They had every right to kick his ass. And this war killed 50,000 men on the Targaryen side. It was a huge failure in the end. Viserys II might have killed the hostages but he would have scarcely have the strength left to continue his nephew's pointless war and actually win a victory in the end.

Practically none of the wars in Planetos's history would be justifiable by our standards so I don't think that line of reasoning adds much to the discussion or even really means anything.

As for the Dornish there is a huge difference between kicking ass and perfidy. If Viserys II had taken the throne after that instead of Baelor you bet the war would have continued and that it would gotten Dragon's Wroth nasty real quick. Seriously, the Conquest of Dorne is pointless only in hindsight, particularly given that when the Dornish murdered Lord Tyrell Daeron and Oakenfist promptly returned to kicking their asses to such a degree that the only way out they could see was to pull a stunt no one could have seen coming because perfidy is tantamount to declaring a total war of annihilation.

Plus, TWOIAF explicitly shows us that no one apart from Baelor was in favor of peace, not to mention the idea that Dorne wasn't the one crippled and at the end of its rope does not make sense one bit.

To conclude, I find your assertion that the war wouldn't have continued and that the 7K north of the Red Mountains were broken by the loss of 50000 men such that they couldn't win total BS.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textual Proof:

"NEWS SOON REACHED King’s Landing of King Daeron’s death and the rout of his remaining forces. The outrage that followed was swiftly directed at the Dornish hostages. At the command of the King’s Hand, Prince Viserys, they were thrown into the dungeons to await hanging. The Hand’s eldest son, Prince Aegon, even delivered the Dornish girl he had made his paramour to his father to await execution." (Baelor I)

"Even as his lords and council cried for vengeance, Baelor publicly forgave his brother’s killers and declared that he meant to “bind up the wounds” of his brother’s war and make peace with Dorne." (Baelor I)

"Perhaps it was for this reason that Aegon turned his attention to Dorne, using the hatred for the Dornishmen that still burned in the marches, the stormlands, and the Reach to suborn some of Daeron’s allies and use them against his most powerful supporters." (Aegon IV)

"A thriving port and market, the Weeping Town (as it came to be known because it was where the body of the slain hero King Daeron I Targaryen returned to his kingdom after his murder in Dorne), stands here, and much of the region’s trade passes through its harbor." (Stormlands)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Practically none of the wars in Planetos's history would be justifiable by our standards so I don't think that line of reasoning adds much to the discussion or even really means anything.

It makes sense especially in the context of the OP because it would have been objectively better if that war hadn't happened and if Daeron I had never been king. Viserys II (or Baelor I) could then have continued the approach of Viserys I to bring Dorne into the Realm via marriage. Aegon III had had three daughters, after all.

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

As for the Dornish there is a huge difference between kicking ass and perfidy. If Viserys II had taken the throne after that instead of Baelor you bet the war would have continued and that it would gotten Dragon's Wroth nasty real quick. Seriously, the Conquest of Dorne is pointless only in hindsight, particularly given that when the Dornish murdered Lord Tyrell Daeron and Oakenfist promptly returned to kicking their asses to such a degree that the only way out they could see was to pull a stunt no one could have seen coming because perfidy is tantamount to declaring a total war of annihilation.

Such are the ways of warfare.

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Plus, TWOIAF explicitly shows us that no one apart from Baelor was in favor of peace, not to mention the idea that Dorne wasn't the one crippled and at the end of its rope does not make sense one bit.

To conclude, I find your assertion that the war wouldn't have continued and that the 7K north of the Red Mountains were broken by the loss of 50000 men such that they couldn't win total BS.

People certainly were outraged about the murder of Daeron I but 50,000 men dead is a huge loss. Usually only a fraction of the men who fight on the losing side in a pitched battle actually die. It wasn't this way in that war, though.

Most of the men fighting in Daeron's armies would have been from the Reach and the Stormlands. Do you really think the men from the West, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the North cared all that much that the Targaryen king wanted to rule Dorne? I don't think so. They would have sent men to fight in Daeron's war when he began his adventure, of course, but after he fucked things up and lost so many men the chances are not very high that they were keen to sacrifice more men in another pointless war.

Viserys II could have continued the war but I don't think they would have been able to reconquer Dorne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daeron I had no reason to invade Dorne. They had every right to kick his ass. And this war killed 50,000 men on the Targaryen side. It was a huge failure in the end. Viserys II might have killed the hostages but he would have scarcely have the strength left to continue his nephew's pointless war and actually win a victory in the end.

Except that the invasion of Dorne was driven by the exact same idea as the Conquest. Are you really arguing that the unprovoced Targaryen aggression which created the realm of the Iron Throne was in fact something which deserved to blow up in the face of Aegon and his sisters? Because that would make the logical thing to support the Faith Militant and similar rebels against the Targaryens during the reigns of Aenys and Maegor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Except that the invasion of Dorne was driven by the exact same idea as the Conquest. Are you really arguing that the unprovoced Targaryen aggression which created the realm of the Iron Throne was in fact something which deserved to blow up in the face of Aegon and his sisters? Because that would make the logical thing to support the Faith Militant and similar rebels against the Targaryens during the reigns of Aenys and Maegor.

Aegon the Conqueror agreed to an Eternal Peace between Sunspear and the Iron Throne. A contract the most powerful kings on the Iron Throne kept despite the fact that they controlled dozens of dragons. Daeron I broke that contract and chose war over peace for no good reason.

Peace is always preferable to war. Aegon's conquest (excluding his stupid Dornish war) was a relatively bloodless affair. It did not cost the lives of 50,000 men only on Aegon's side. In fact, even the Field of Fire was no holocaust. Aegon used his dragons with great skill and almost surgical precision.

The only large battles where a lot of people died seem to have been the naval battle with the Arryn fleet and the battles in the Stormlands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes sense especially in the context of the OP because it would have been objectively better if that war hadn't happened and if Daeron I had never been king. Viserys II (or Baelor I) could then have continued the approach of Viserys I to bring Dorne into the Realm via marriage. Aegon III had had three daughters, after all.

Such are the ways of warfare.

People certainly were outraged about the murder of Daeron I but 50,000 men dead is a huge loss. Usually only a fraction of the men who fight on the losing side in a pitched battle actually die. It wasn't this way in that war, though.

Most of the men fighting in Daeron's armies would have been from the Reach and the Stormlands. Do you really think the men from the West, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the North cared all that much that the Targaryen king wanted to rule Dorne? I don't think so. They would have sent men to fight in Daeron's war when he began his adventure, of course, but after he fucked things up and lost so many men the chances are not very high that they were keen to sacrifice more men in another pointless war.

Viserys II could have continued the war but I don't think they would have been able to reconquer Dorne.

In that case why is Daeron's war the only one called out then? Furthermore, we have no proof whatsoever that Viserys II or Baelor I intended to unite Dorne peacefully through marriage. In all of Baelor's reign he did nothing to that end nor was Viserys II mentioned to have such designs, which we would expect would have been mentioned in TWOIAF given that the details of his reforms were included. Beyond that, Daeron's war was justifiable. One of Daeron's titles was Protector of the Realm and you know who wasn't part of his realm and had a habit of attacking it? Dorne. Daeron had every right to end violence against the Marches by permanently incorporating Dorne not to mention the Conquest was also an attempt by him to unite Westeros behind a nationalist project that would demonstrate Targaryen potency even after the death of the last dragon. Not pointless or not-justified at all.

No, that is NOT the way of warfare. Ask the Khwarazmian Empire how Genghis Khan responded to his messenger being murdered or Alexander the Great to the people of Tyre doing the same. Even in ancient times there were specific actions people would have considered a crime and perfidy is one of them.

What's more, how do YOU know that the West, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the North did not care much? How do You know that they thought it was pointless? How do YOU know that Daeron wasn't popular enough that they would want to avenge him?

As for being unable to reconquer Dorne: Bullshit. Daeron and Oakenfist absolutely thrashed Dorne, which was also where the whole damn war was fought. You're telling me that the might of the West, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the Iron Isles would not be more than a match for an already-depleted Dorne? Again bullshit. Particularly when we include the fact that not all the fighting men of the North or the Crownlands would have been committed.

Also, while we are on the subject of the North you can bet apart from the Reach and the Stormlands they would have been the most vocal in continuing the war. Rickon Stark, the freaking heir, died there! Making peace would literally be spitting on his sacrifice along with that of all the other men who had died already not to mention given northern sensibilities regarding guest right you can further bet they would be even more outraged than the south at the murder of the Young Dragon under a peace banner.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon the Conqueror agreed to an Eternal Peace between Sunspear and the Iron Throne. A contract the most powerful kings on the Iron Throne kept despite the fact that they controlled dozens of dragons. Daeron I broke that contract and chose war over peace for no good reason.

Peace is always preferable to war. Aegon's conquest (excluding his stupid Dornish war) was a relatively bloodless affair. It did not cost the lives of 50,000 men only on Aegon's side. In fact, even the Field of Fire was no holocaust. Aegon used his dragons with great skill and almost surgical precision.

The only large battles where a lot of people died seem to have been the naval battle with the Arryn fleet and the battles in the Stormlands.

As for Aegon's eternal peace: TWOIAF explicitly mentions that there were other Dornish Wars AND that even in times of peace the Dornish raided the Reach and the Stormlands. Seriously, Daeron DID NOT break Aegon's treaty. It was broken by both sides long before he was born.

Aegon's Conquest involved dragons. Daeron's didn't. It isn't that hard to see why the level of casualties are so different.

As for peace being always superior to war. No that's not true. A PRODUCTIVE peace is always superior to war but not peace for its own sake.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Except that the invasion of Dorne was driven by the exact same idea as the Conquest. Are you really arguing that the unprovoced Targaryen aggression which created the realm of the Iron Throne was in fact something which deserved to blow up in the face of Aegon and his sisters? Because that would make the logical thing to support the Faith Militant and similar rebels against the Targaryens during the reigns of Aenys and Maegor.

Exactly.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.