Jump to content

Anyone else dislike Valyrians/Targaryens?


KarlDanski

Recommended Posts

I'm not arguing what he did was right either. The Northmen/Rivermen did just as horrible things that the Westermen did. He's not self-righteous though.

Self-righteousness (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, and holier-than-thou attitudes[1][2]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority

The "where are muh dragons" mentality that Daenerys has, and that her family is perfect, and infallible would be considered self righteousness. You could say Robb was just as brutal as Tywin when he pillaged the Riverlands, but self righteous is a no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sea Dragon said:

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. 

Well, I hope you've read these books better than me, so you can correct me if I'm wrong since I don't remember any Targaryens attempt to rebuild what has been damaged (restablishing Valyria). But I do remember that Volantenes tried just that and Aegon stood against them.

2 hours ago, The Wolves said:

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. 

I said it's a bloody business, didn't I? The First Men and the Andals migrated to take the land and make a new home. You can compare it with the Saxon invasion of Britain in migration period. They didn't do it to win some thrones, they went to take the land and make it their own. Of course the local settlers didn't like this foreigners taking their land and many of them put a ressistance and there was many large scale wars and lots of bloodshed.

As for Aegon's conquest; you can compare it with Norman conquest. William the Conqueror didn't risk his neck so his men could've better farmlands when he landed in England five centuries later. He marched to win a throne he had a claim on.

I'm not not arguing whether this is better or that; I'm merely implying that they are different matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Aegon had no such claim that William did. He decided to conquer an entire different people with no plan on integration simply for the ability to do so. I don't doubt that Andal or First Men houses might of done the same, but the Andals and First Men integrated themselves into Westeros. The First Men adopted the OGOTF faith, and the Andals mixed with First Men, but the only attempt to truly integrate into the Westerosi culture that the Targaryens tried were when Egg attempted to marry his children to Lord Tully, Lord Baratheon, Lord Tyrell, and Lord Redwyne. That didn't work out due to family incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Gravepisser said:

As for Aegon's conquest; you can compare it with Norman conquest. William the Conqueror didn't risk his neck so his men could've better farmlands when he landed in England five centuries later. He marched to win a throne he had a claim on.

6 minutes ago, KarlDanski said:

Except Aegon had no such claim that William did. He decided to conquer an entire different people with no plan on integration simply for the ability to do so. I don't doubt that Andal or First Men houses might of done the same, but the Andals and First Men integrated themselves into Westeros. The First Men adopted the OGOTF faith, and the Andals mixed with First Men, but the only attempt to truly integrate into the Westerosi culture that the Targaryens tried were when Egg attempted to marry his children to Lord Tully, Lord Baratheon, Lord Tyrell, and Lord Redwyne. That didn't work out due to family incest.

This. What Aegon did was bringing bloodbath to Westeros because he felt like it, he basically usurped 7 Kingdoms.

1 minute ago, KarlDanski said:

The only thing that could be said that the Valyrians integrated themself in was accepting the Faith of the Seven, even then the only pious Targs were Baelor and Daeron II.

That was their excuse but they never really did it. If they had they wouldn't had continued their incest tradition. They only used the Faith but never really followed the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarlDanski said:

Except Aegon had no such claim that William did. He decided to conquer an entire different people with no plan on integration simply for the ability to do so. I don't doubt that Andal or First Men houses might of done the same, but the Andals and First Men integrated themselves into Westeros. The First Men adopted the OGOTF faith, and the Andals mixed with First Men, but the only attempt to truly integrate into the Westerosi culture that the Targaryens tried were when Egg attempted to marry his children to Lord Tully, Lord Baratheon, Lord Tyrell, and Lord Redwyne. That didn't work out due to family incest.

Excellent example, the religions!

So, the First Men adopted, sorta, the local religion. The Andals didn't, they brought their own with them. The Targs, just like the First Men, adopted again the established faith (which, by that time, the Faith of the Seven became). One would think that's point for the FM and the Targs, and a deduction for the Andals. How do you score it, however? Points for the FM, no points for the Targs, and no penalty points for the Andals.

Seems a little heap biased to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

Self-righteousness (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, and holier-than-thou attitudes[1][2]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority

The "where are muh dragons" mentality that Daenerys has, and that her family is perfect, and infallible would be considered self righteousness. You could say Robb was just as brutal as Tywin when he pillaged the Riverlands, but self righteous is a no.

Karstark was self-righteous.

"No, Robb, you can't speak justice over me and execute me! I might have just committed a heinous war crime by butchering two unarmed children who also were our POVs, which pretty much throws out any safety for any of our people who are POVs with the Lannisters.

You can't punish me for all that. Because we are related! That makes me better than any other people you might execute for similar crimes! I'm above justice! Except when it's revenge for my sons, then I demand my 'rights'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Karstark was self-righteous.

"No, Robb, you can't speak justice over me and execute me! I might have just committed a heinous war crime by butchering two unarmed children who also were our POVs, which pretty much throws out any safety for any of our people who are POVs with the Lannisters.

You can't punish me for all that. Because we are related! That makes me better than any other people you might execute for similar crimes! I'm above justice! Except when it's revenge for my sons, then I demand my 'rights'"

I don't think the taboo with kinslaying has anything to do with "self-righteousness". The NW brothers complain that Craster is a kinslayer, but I doubt it's because they think his sons are superior to other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joy Hill said:

I don't think the taboo with kinslaying has anything to do with "self-righteousness". The NW brothers complain that Craster is a kinslayer, but I doubt it's because they think his sons are superior to other people.

Except Rickard Karstark and Robb Stark aren't even remotely kin (unless you accept pretty much the whole North as Robb's kin). Still he thinks that his special status as a Karstark exempts him from justice and punishment, like he demanded for himself. And killing POVs is also a taboo.

He's self-righteous. Also fairly stupid and a warmonger, but mostl self-righteous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karstark isn't Robb though is it. We were arguing that Robb was self-righteous not Karstark. Self-righteous and the feel of entitlement go together so well. Dany feels entitled to rule Westeros, a continent her people conquered without a claim through the use of WMDs for the kick of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Except Rickard Karstark and Robb Stark aren't even remotely kin (unless you accept pretty much the whole North as Robb's kin). Still he thinks that his special status as a Karstark exempts him from justice and punishment, like he demanded for himself. And killing POVs is also a taboo.

He's self-righteous. Also fairly stupid and a warmonger, but mostl self-righteous.

 

I dont think highly of Karstark, but I don't see how that makes him self-righteous. What he's doing is akin to someone trying to argue he's a guest even if he hasn't eaten bread and salt in a desperate attempt to save his own life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

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.

I was talking about the really big picture there. Thanks to their Targaryen ancestors (through Orys, if he was Lord Aerion's son, Alyssa Velaryon's Targaryen ancestors, and the entire Targaryen ancestry of Aegon V) the Targaryen element would always be stronger among the Baratheon family tree than the Durrandon element. The Targaryens practiced incests for thousands of years while the Durrandon would have most married women they were not exactly closely related (there would have been cousin marriages such as the Starks had).

That just makes the Targaryen element just much more powerful in the family of any person who is descended from a recent Targaryen. And that's not just true for the Baratheons (although it is more true for then than some of the others houses) but also for the Penroses, the Plumms, the Tarths, the Martells, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if its fair to cast judgement on an entire race of people squarely on how a few of them have been represented. I don't know about you but I find the Lannisters to be extremely insufferable. Those yellow haired shits have proven themselves to be just as arrogant, pompous and self entitled as the Targaryens, does that mean I should despise all Andals or even all Lannisters? I mean for sure the Targaryens we have been exposed to have not all been great people. Viserys for one was a huge prick, Dany well she is still young and is a work in progress while others like their great uncle Aemon and his brother Aegon V were among some of the most decent people in the story. I don't think its a fair argument that because some members of a particular family or nationality have proven to be very awful therefore all everyone belonging to their family/race are just as bad as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not arguing what he did was right either. The Northmen/Rivermen did just as horrible things that the Westermen did. He's not self-righteous though.

Self-righteousness (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, and holier-than-thou attitudes[1][2]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority

The "where are muh dragons" mentality that Daenerys has, and that her family is perfect, and infallible would be considered self righteousness. You could say Robb was just as brutal as Tywin when he pillaged the Riverlands, but self righteous is a no.

Robb Stark is one of the biggest hypocrites in the story.  He, Sansa, and Jon are the reasons why I hate the Starks.  Look at Robb closely.  He talks that talk of honor but doesn't walk.  He called his banners and they followed him south to defend a man that for all he knew actually committed treason.  He agreed to marry a daughter of a valuable ally.  He sees Jeyne, sleeps with her, falls in love and breaks his oath.  A loyal man breaks his rule and loses his head.  Mom breaks a more crucial rule and gets off the hook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can dislike the Targaryen family.  The current family representative is at Slaver's Bay and she's fighting to bring freedom to millions of the enslaved.  Viserys was a dick but he never killed anybody.  Whatever sins Viserys is guilty of, it is far less than Jaime's, Bronn's, and Theon's.  For a family that had complete power when they had dragons, the Targaryens were pretty generous and very reasonable in general.  Can you imagine what the hungry wolf (Theon Stark) would do if he had a dragon?  How much of his enemies' blood would flow is beyond comprehension.  And the Night's King who was a Stark?  Don't forget about him.  Brandon Stark and his hothead would have been a monster if he had a dragon.  Little Bran is already abusing his power.   I can only imagine the atrocities that boy would cause if he had control of a dragon.  And Arya?  She would kill all of her father Ned's enemies and level their castles to the ground if she had a dragon.  When you do a fair comparison of the Targaryens against their subjects like the Starks, Lannisters, Greyjoys, and Baratheon's they look like a very nice family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Ormund Baratheon married Rhaelle Targaryen making Steffon Baratheon around 50% Valyrian, 25% Stormlander, and 25% Westerlander if we can assume that Lyonel was the son of Tya Lannister and Gowen Baratheon. Steffon married an Estermont making Robert, Stannis, and Renly around 50% Stormlander, 25% Valyrian, and 25% unknown. I'm not an expert about genealogy, but this is a basic estimate. So Robert, Stannis, and Renly are not more Targ than Durran for the simple fact that in 300 years, they only had two known Valyrian influences along with the unknown that Orys is a Targ bastard or not.

2. It is fair considering the modern Targaryens were self-entitled pricks just like most of the other Targs, and other incest bred royals like Joffrey. They practiced slavery until coming to Westeros not because it was the moral decision, but because it made them more appealing just like accepting the FOT7.

3. Robb was a hypocrite, he talks about honor, but broke an oath to Walder Frey. However, he is the most morally appealing king considering he wasn't a tyrant, he wasn't a rapist, he wasn't a guy who wanted to burn people, and he wasn't a guy who had no right to rule in the first place. You can make the case that Robb is just as unqualified as Renly, but his bannermen crowned him, because they believed in him, not because he wanted it.

4. I can dislike the Targaryens considering that while Dany freed slaves, it most likely wasn't a moral decision considering her ancestors freely owned slaves, but because it was a easy way to gain followers in Essos considering the Westerosi already are anti-slavery. Sure, you have individual characters who would of used dragons for bad, Theon Stark, Euron Greyjoy, Harren Hoare, Ronard Durrandon, Jonos Arryn, Tywin Lannister etc but the Valyrians before the conquest were slavers with a superiority complex, and after were a bunch of exceptionally cruel and incompetent people, no doubt from the incest, but still. They had no much of a right to rule the 7Kingdoms as much as Robert did. Sure the original First Men, and Andals won Kingdom by Conquest, but while they did it for necessity, the Targs did it for simply the ability to do so. We don't know if the Nights King is a Stark BTW, the only person to say that the Nights King was a Stark was Old Nan, the NK is also said to be a Bolton, a Magnar of Skagos, a Umber, a Flint, a Norrey, or a Woodfoot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KarlDanski said:

I'm not arguing what he did was right either. The Northmen/Rivermen did just as horrible things that the Westermen did. He's not self-righteous though.

Self-righteousness (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, and holier-than-thou attitudes[1][2]) is a feeling or display of (usually smug) moral superiority

The "where are muh dragons" mentality that Daenerys has, and that her family is perfect, and infallible would be considered self righteousness. You could say Robb was just as brutal as Tywin when he pillaged the Riverlands, but self righteous is a no.

I just think readers who object to the Targs having 'attitude' are reading the wrong genre. She's an exiled princess with vaguely supernatural powers and instincts (instinctive egg waking/dragon riding) in a fantasy novel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's an exiled prince with no experience at ruling, and her attempt to learn has led to thousands of deaths, and former slaves dying, because she assumed that the situation would work itself out when former slaves are now free, and don't know what to do other than be a slave.

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...