Jump to content

Anyone else dislike Valyrians/Targaryens?


KarlDanski

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Do any of you hate the Targaryens?

I hate the Targ family but I like some of their members. Like Jon, Breakspear, BloodRaven, Daemon T, Rhaenyra, Baela, Aegon III, the Queen who never was. 

Just like I have said before I believe that the Targs were bullies who had used their reptiles WMD as an excuse to oppress people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. So much hate for the Valyrians. I don't know why since they are the most advanced culture we have had so far in the entire series. I know Valyria was burned, but that was not because of anything besides evil magic used against them. They were more civilized than most of the world at the time and they are overdue for a return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

I think I need to rephrase my question since I'm wrong about the Valyrians as a whole. Do any of you hate the Targaryens? I dislike Griff, Viserys, and Daenerys, but I like some Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Aegor Rivers, Brynden Rivers, Egg etc. I feel like arrogance is a trait in Targaryens with people like Daenerys, Viserys, Aerion, Aerys etc. I know that in this type of government that a good majority of the Lords of Westeros are arrogant, but it seems pointed out even more so with the Targaryens, maybe because their main characters or so, but that's just how I feel. 

To be more precise about the Targaryens I like them much more than I dislike them. And I kind of like Daenerys and don't get why she gets so much flak. Pretty much everything she does that's cruel is in answer to someone else and she shows, in my mind, more maturity than many other people who contend for great power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

To be more precise about the Targaryens I like them much more than I dislike them. And I kind of like Daenerys and don't get why she gets so much flak. Pretty much everything she does that's cruel is in answer to someone else and she shows, in my mind, more maturity than many other people who contend for great power.

Wow. This is how I feel too. She responds with something harsh to people who have done her wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Wow. So much hate for the Valyrians. I don't know why since they are the most advanced culture we have had so far in the entire series. I know Valyria was burned, but that was not because of anything besides evil magic used against them. They were more civilized than most of the world at the time and they are overdue for a return. 

And how is that going to change anything? Being more civilized make them more human, give them more right or what? If an alien race lands on earth with a superrior weapon and technology does it give them right to rule and enslave us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Gravepisser said:

And how is that going to change anything? Being more civilized make them more human, give them more right or what? If an alien race lands on earth with a superrior weapon and technology does it give them right to rule and enslave us?

They are smart and they can rebuild what has been damaged. That seems like the point to Daenerys anyway. I have not read all of the extra world books and stuff, but I think these books are what matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, no, Robert and his brothers are actually more Targaryen than Durrandon because due to the Targaryen incest there Targaryen ancestors simply have a larger impact on their ancestry than the Durrandons. The Durrandons did not marry their sisters and cousins on a regular basis but the Targaryens did.

I don't think that is accurate. They had one recent Targ ancestor, and the last incest in that line was what, Aegon/Naery? I imagine they and their incest impacted the Baratheon line, but not to the extent you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Gravepisser said:

They are different concepts. The First Men and the Andals migrated to Westeros. Mass migration is a bloody business but a natural one and there are countless of this example in the real world. The change of climate, growth of population and the push of other tribes forced nomads to seek for new lands. It's rather different from the push of a foreign elite minority with supperior weaponary to rule over a vast majority.

To the bolded this is exactly what the Andals and First Men did. 

The First Men came and murdered the COTF plus killed their gods and took their land. The Andals came and finished the job that the First Men started and then proceeded to kill multiple First Men all because of their superior weapondry and their greed. 

The Targaryens/Valyrians came from Valyria because a Targaryen daughter saw their destruction so they too were migrating and they were in Westeros a few years before they conquered it. 

The only differences between the Valyrians, First Men, and Andals is that the Andals and First Men have spent thousands of years being arrogant and prideful, the Valyrians have spent 300 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targaryen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

And how exactly did Stark end up ruling the vast piece of land now called the North, or Lannister the Westerlands, or Durrendon the Stormlands? How did they acquire their "rightful" domains? By being the nicest, sweetest, most reasonable chap around, do you reckon?

Nope. By beating the shit out of every single neighbor in sight that didn't submit willingly, with occasional diplomacy if nothing else worked. Just like the Targs did later. So what rationale supports despising Targaryen without despising Stark, Lannister, or Nymeros-Martell?

And as for their alleged superiority complex - leaf through the books and listen to Tywin Lannister, his sweet daughter, any of the three Baratheon bros, or even Tarly dad. Not exactly humble, them.

4 hours ago, The Gravepisser said:

They are different concepts. The First Men and the Andals migrated to Westeros. Mass migration is a bloody business but a natural one and there are countless of this example in the real world. The change of climate, growth of population and the push of other tribes forced nomads to seek for new lands. It's rather different from the push of a foreign elite minority with supperior weaponary to rule over a vast majority.

When you're a subject of the Barrow King, the Red King, or the Marsh King, the King of Winter is "foreign elite", too, until he thoroughly beats the shit of your king, and a couple generations pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not the only one most likely, but I don't really like House Targaryen, Velaryon, or Celigar, or any houses/groups affiliated with the Valyrians. Whether they be Essosi descendants or Targaryen/Celtigar/Velaryon descendant, they seem to be a very arrogant, and pompous group who moans about their rights, and just say "Fire and Blood" to any opposition. They had no "rights" to rule Westeros as they were a smaller, poorer Valyrian family who owned less dragons, and reproduced with their family members, while houses like Durrandon, Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Hoare, or Gardener has ruled for thousands of years.

A very big reason though is probably Viserys, and Daenerys Targaryen, because while they did grow up in hiding, and such, their belief that their family was without flaw, and that every other house who rebelled against them are usurpers makes me dislike them. So it may not be a Valyrian thing, but more of a modern Targaryen thing that I dislike. I enjoy Targaryens like Daemon Blackfyre, Daena the Defiant, Maekar Targaryen, Baelor Breakspear etc, and even Velaryons like Addam or Aurane, but the modern Targaryens irk me, doesn't help that Daenerys plans to invade Westeros with a bunch of savages = Dothraki/Ironborn, a bunch of paid swords = Second Sons/Windblown, and gelded "freed" slaves = Unsullied.

Well, I'm with you on this one for the most part. I think Targaryen's bother me more than anything else. Aegon's Conuest was never really given any rationalization except "hey, I can so I will." So they force the submission of six (eventually seven) kingdoms and rule over people that they have nothing culturally in common with. Then, instead of trying to assimilate themselves, they proceed to further alienate the new kingdom's people by primarily interbreeding in their family. This bares the connotation that they believe the people they rule have inferior blood to their own.

Now, fast forward 300 years or so later to Robert's rebellion where Targaryens are all but wiped out. Their claim to power was very much intertwined with their command of dragons, which they systematically wiped out themselves during the Dance of Dragons. This, however, did not serve to humble most of them. The very pompous, superior attitude they had about their Valyrian heritage was expressed most detrimentally by Aerys II. The Mad King even had enough gall to insult Tywin Lannister (who had already gained his reputation as a man not be crossed) by saying he would never allow Rhaegar to marry a mere servant (Cersei).

While I enjoy Daenerys' story in the first novel, the second she turns her eye to the Iron Throne for her own is when my like for the character really begins to deteriorate. We get to read extensively across the novels how Daenerys calls them usurpers and traitors, but Robert won his throne through the same means that they created it: conquering. Your family set the precedent, so don't act surprised when the same thing happens to you. Despite this, she has a "it is mine and I will take it" attitude that really gets under my skin.

To further your point, not only does Daenerys find her family without flaw (even at times mentally forming some revisionist history about Viserys), she silences Ser Barristan while he is trying to tell her the truth (ASOS, Ch. 71). Even if she did learn about the truth, I don't believe it will make a difference. She has shown in Slaver's Bay that she sees herself as special and above the normal rules, stealing an army of unsullied through treachery. She justifies her actions by saying slavery is bad and systematically conquers and liberate the slaves of three cities whose only source of economy was slave trade. To further the irony, Valyrians were infamous slavers (just ask the Braavosi), and the Westerosi Targaryens did not shed this racially superior attitude during their dynastic reign. Daenerys essentially establishes her own identity by picking and choosing the nicer things about her family and Valyrian heritage to suit her ego and needs.

I just cross my fingers it will bite her in the ass in a satisfying way because up until this point she has had ridiculous plot armor that annoys the hell out of me. This thread has helped me realize it's not necessarily Daenerys that I don't like but Targaryens in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After they had conquered Westeros the Targaryens had any right to rule over it, that's how feudal warfare works.

And there's enough Andals and First Men who are entitled beyond belief and basically walking balls of slime and self-righteousness: Rickard Karstark, for example.

In fact even the protagonist frequently act entitled and dismissive of commoners, like Catelyn thinking Edmure to be foolish for sheltering smallfolk in his castle during a terror campaign she casued, Arya expecting everyone to live by her personal idea of right and wrong regardles of their personal circumstances while also expecting society's norms to bend over for her, or Sansa being a vacuum of empathy even for lesser nobles like Ser Hugh or Jeyne Poole. Robb caused untold suffering for something as illusory as revenge and Stannis is causing untold suffering because he feels entitled to an uncomfortable chair. Tyrion acts like he's the poorest, most wronged person in the whole of Planetos, when really he has lived a life of luxury and comfort and the second he loses it he devolves into a whiny (well...even whinier), obnoxious mess. The Tyrells come into King's Landing acting like saviours by bringing food to a city they themselves had purposefully starved mere days before....

I wouldn't say the Targaryens come off as any worse than the various Andal and First Men houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Targaryens are great.  I say the best family to have ruled Westeros.  They weren't perfect and you had the occasional poor ruler.  But I would say that any other family would be much worse over the course of 300 years.  Speaking of arrogance, well, Argillac didn't get his nickname for being humble did he?  Was Harren Hoare humble?  The nobles do not lack for arrogance and when you consider all that the Targaryens achieved, if there is any family that has the right to be arrogant, it is them.  The family has had its share of bad people like Aerion and Aerys but it also has its share of greats and heroes like Aegon I and Daenerys the Stormborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Traverys said:

Well, I'm with you on this one for the most part. I think Targaryen's bother me more than anything else. Aegon's Conuest was never really given any rationalization except "hey, I can so I will." So they force the submission of six (eventually seven) kingdoms and rule over people that they have nothing culturally in common with. Then, instead of trying to assimilate themselves, they proceed to further alienate the new kingdom's people by primarily interbreeding in their family. This bares the connotation that they believe the people they rule have inferior blood to their own.

Now, fast forward 300 years or so later to Robert's rebellion where Targaryens are all but wiped out. Their claim to power was very much intertwined with their command of dragons, which they systematically wiped out themselves during the Dance of Dragons. This, however, did not serve to humble most of them. The very pompous, superior attitude they had about their Valyrian heritage was expressed most detrimentally by Aerys II. The Mad King even had enough gall to insult Tywin Lannister (who had already gained his reputation as a man not be crossed) by saying he would never allow Rhaegar to marry a mere servant (Cersei).

While I enjoy Daenerys' story in the first novel, the second she turns her eye to the Iron Throne for her own is when my like for the character really begins to deteriorate. We get to read extensively across the novels how Daenerys calls them usurpers and traitors, but Robert won his throne through the same means that they created it: conquering. Your family set the precedent, so don't act surprised when the same thing happens to you. Despite this, she has a "it is mine and I will take it" attitude that really gets under my skin.

To further your point, not only does Daenerys find her family without flaw (even at times mentally forming some revisionist history about Viserys), she silences Ser Barristan while he is trying to tell her the truth (ASOS, Ch. 71). Even if she did learn about the truth, I don't believe it will make a difference. She has shown in Slaver's Bay that she sees herself as special and above the normal rules, stealing an army of unsullied through treachery. She justifies her actions by saying slavery is bad and systematically conquers and liberate the slaves of three cities whose only source of economy was slave trade. To further the irony, Valyrians were infamous slavers (just ask the Braavosi), and the Westerosi Targaryens did not shed this racially superior attitude during their dynastic reign. Daenerys essentially establishes her own identity by picking and choosing the nicer things about her family and Valyrian heritage to suit her ego and needs.

I just cross my fingers it will bite her in the ass in a satisfying way because up until this point she has had ridiculous plot armor that annoys the hell out of me. This thread has helped me realize it's not necessarily Daenerys that I don't like but Targaryens in gener

Do you hate Stannis, Cersei, Renly, Tywin too? They have a much stronger "It is mine, I will take it" attitude. 

It's funny that you fault her for not being a slaving Valyrian and acting nicer. It's always damn funny to read such type of hate posts. 

Daenerys didn't liberate Slaver's bay because she felt racially superior. Her being Valyrian or Targaryen didn't matter. She did because she could. If 'Slavery is bad' is a bad justification then I can't see what might be better. Your justification of Slavers by saying slavery is the only option they had is ridiculous. If they depend only on Slavery it's not Dany's fault. In fact Dany was way too generous trying to repair Meereen's economy and fix the damage she made. 

It's always funny to see people fault her for something but they are okay with the same when others characters do it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Occasional poor ruler" Almost every other ruler was terrible. Aerys, Maegor, Baelor, Viserys, Aegon IV, Daeron etc. That's just the kings, not counting other family members or princes like Rhaegar, Aerion, Viserys, Aemond etc. I'm not saying that the First Men or Andal houses were any better in their conquests or such, but the self-righteous Targaryens/Dany/Viserys/Griff are horrible. Blood purity, threats that end with "fire and blood", moaning about rights to rule when they came into power from conquest, practice of incest etc, fans of slavery, their worse than the First Men and Andals. More "civilized" and "advanced"? Sure, only to WMDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dany is the Queen of Titles, that really irks me, and gives off a sense of arrogance that she possesses.

Daenerys Stormborn[1]
Dany[2]
The Unburnt[1]
Mhysa[3]
The silver queen[4]
Silver Lady[5]
Dragonmother[6]
The dragon queen[7]
Breaker of Chains[8]
Other Titles Queen of Meereen[1]
Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men[1](claimant)
Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea[9](formerly)
Queen of the Seven Kingdoms[10](claimant)
Princess of Dragonstone[11](claimant)

 

The only way she's going to be queen of Westeros or for Griff to become king of Westeros is conquest. No one, but maybe the Martells or TV Tyrells will rise up for them. All of the houses that stayed loyal to them like Connington, Grafton, Darry etc are either dust or loyal to another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

"Occasional poor ruler" Almost every other ruler was terrible. Aerys, Maegor, Baelor, Viserys, Aegon IV, Daeron etc. That's just the kings, not counting other family members or princes like Rhaegar, Aerion, Viserys, Aemond etc. I'm not saying that the First Men or Andal houses were any better in their conquests or such, but the self-righteous Targaryens/Dany/Viserys/Griff are horrible. Blood purity, threats that end with "fire and blood", moaning about rights to rule when they came into power from conquest, practice of incest etc, fans of slavery, their worse than the First Men and Andals. More "civilized" and "advanced"? Sure, only to WMDs.

What about Stannis? He can't stop moaning about his rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever said I liked Stannis? He moans about his rights to rule just as much as Dany, and just as annoying when he gets angry at people for not wanting to follow him. I support Robb Stark, the only King in the WOT5K who was crowned by his bannermen instead of him crowning himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balon crowned himself as King despite being a follower of tradition, and doing a Kingsmoot. Joffrey was crowned by Cersei, Stannis declared himself King, and Renly was crowned by the Tyrells. Robb was the only one who was crowned by his own men for his deeds in saving Riverrun, and capturing Jaime Lannister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Who ever said I liked Stannis? He moans about his rights to rule just as much as Dany, and just as annoying when he gets angry at people for not wanting to follow him. I support Robb Stark, the only King in the WOT5K who was crowned by his bannermen instead of him crowning himself. 

He pillaged Westerlands the same way Lannisters did in the riverlands. That makes him the same kind of self righteous nobility as others in your list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...