Why did the Tully's betray the Tagaryen?

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

10 hours ago, Dofs said:

"Often" is relative. TWoIaF tells us about history of many thousands of years, for such period of time even once in a hundred years is "often". The Kingdoms did not always war with each other. Even going back to a time when Aegon came, the only troublemakers were Ironborn, all other Kingdoms were in relative peace with each other with Reach and Westerlands even uniting to face a common invading threat. And Ironborn were not always a serious threat either.

TWoIaF always tells us there was hardly a time when 2 or 3 of these kingdoms were not at war with one another.  Wars between the westerlands and ironborn erupted every generation. Compare the 300 years prior to the Targ's conquest and the 300 yrs of Targ's ruling the 7k. I bet there was longer times of peace under the Targ's rule, then prior their rule. 

[BalerionTheCat]

I agree that after Brandon voided his marriage by getting himself and his father killed, Hoster had little obligation to the Starks. But I don't think he felt he owed much to the Tagaryens either. Even if they got more than they lost in the conquest. Aerys was mad, his kingdom falling apart. The dragons were gone. Hoster must have thought the Tagaryens were done and it was time to join the new winning side.

IMO, whether the Tagaryens had been a gift or a curse for the commoners of Westeros was not in Hoster mind.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Well we hear about the borders of Kingdoms changing often in TWoIaF. You tend to only win or lose territory through wars. What's the most dragons killed in battle at onetime? 4,000 out of 50,000 at TFoF? How many times were dragons used or alive in the Targs wars, 3 or 4 wars?   

You tend to win or lose terrotory through wars is a span of thousands of years, you don't lose people and power in 12 wars in less than 300 years solely because of one house. That is the difference.

13 hours ago, The Hoare said:

It wasn't a peaceful time

I don't think that anyone claimed that it was a peaceful time, just that the Targ peace is an exaggerate  and never really happened.

[cpg2016]

On 6/23/2017 at 9:50 PM, Dofs said:

"Often" is relative. TWoIaF tells us about history of many thousands of years, for such period of time even once in a hundred years is "often". The Kingdoms did not always war with each other. Even going back to a time when Aegon came, the only troublemakers were Ironborn, all other Kingdoms were in relative peace with each other with Reach and Westerlands even uniting to face a common invading threat. And Ironborn were not always a serious threat either.

The Wiki is pretty clear that there was endemic small scale raiding (like... on an annual basis) and that larger wars were fought often as well.  besides, out of the 12 supposed Targaryen wars, many of those were extremely minor. Most of the Blackfrye Rebellions were marginal affairs. 

We just don't hear about every war.  Halleck Hoare (Harren's father) waged at least six MAJOR campaigns (they would have to be, to assault another Kingdom), being routed at the Bloody Pass three times, and was defeated by the Kingdoms of the Rock and Storm, separately, at least one each.  He also conquered Duskendale, a very large town at the time, and Rosby.  Counting those as one campaign.... that's a LOT of campaigning, and that assumes he didn't fight elsewhere or at home at any other time.  And that is the actions of ONE Kingdom.  We know the Dornish used to raid, at least annually, with some larger chevauchees being massive enough to breach Highgarden or Oldtown.

[Lord Wraith]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:12 AM, The Doctor's Consort said:

That is hilarious! The Targs have created more chaos than any other house in less than 300 years. They had created one civil war because the brother hated the sister, Dance of the Dragons, five Blackfyre Rebellions because the siblings hated each other, two wars with Dorne and a conquest because they felt that they had the right to attack and take other people houses and freedom, one war with the Faith because even if they were pretending to follow the Seven they were only lying and keep committing their incestuous abomination marriages and children, one war that the Stepstones because they wanted more money and one war because the Crown prince thought that it was ok to elope with his cousin’s betrothed and abandon his wife and children at the hands of his lunatic father.  They have created 12 wars in less than 300 years. No the Targs had not kept the peace.

There was no reason why the Tully of any other house should have supported them. The Targs have never paid the price for the support of the majority of the Great Houses and the houses that have supported them, Baratheons and Martells, have only been lose out.

They certainly had a negative effect on the watch for sure. I guess all the constant war means less men on the Wall. There were 10,000 men on the Wall when Aegon landed. At the start of our story there is what maybe 1,000.

[cpg2016]

13 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

They certainly had a negative effect on the watch for sure. I guess all the constant war means less men on the Wall. There were 10,000 men on the Wall when Aegon landed. At the start of our story there is what maybe 1,000.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic?  Because the opposite is true.  The constant war during the period of seven different Kingdoms meant there were lots of knights/lords who took the black after being defeated in battle.  This is clearly one of the few ways the highborn join the Watch, especially for Southerners.  Of the few knights we know of in the Watch, at least two (Jaremy Rykker and Alliser Thorne) join because it's that or face beheading in the aftermath of Robert's Rebellion.  Aside from that, every single noble/knightly member of the Watch we know of is either a Northerner, who still respect the Watch and think it a worthy and honorable career, or Waymar Royce.

The fact that there is such widespread peace has meant fewer nobles join the Watch, as fewer are captured in a defeat and offered the choice of death or service.  And this has in turn caused the prestige of the Watch to dwindle, causing a vicious cycle.

[Dofs]

On 24/06/2017 at 3:23 AM, The Hoare said:

And the Stormlands, Reach and Dorne.

Argilac the Arrogant killed a King of the Reach some time before Aegon, the Martells tried to unite with Aegon to beat the Stormlands.

It wasn't a peaceful time

Ok, fair enough about your examples. Still, you have to consider that individual kingdoms all had different peaceful time and war times. Argilacs' and the Reach's battle that you mentioned wasn't of any concern to the Vale or to the North. To them, everything was fine. I would also imagine that the majority of the wars that Westeros had were no more than little border skirmishes that did not touches the majority of the kingdoms involved. 

On 24/06/2017 at 1:28 PM, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

TWoIaF always tells us there was hardly a time when 2 or 3 of these kingdoms were not at war with one another.  Wars between the westerlands and ironborn erupted every generation. Compare the 300 years prior to the Targ's conquest and the 300 yrs of Targ's ruling the 7k. I bet there was longer times of peace under the Targ's rule, then prior their rule. 

There was a time where Ironborn didn't touch anyone for ages so the wars between westerlands and ironborn definitely didn't erupt every generation for the entirety of pre-conquest history.

[cpg2016]

Just now, Dofs said:

Ok, fair enough about your examples. Still, you have to consider that individual kingdoms all had different peaceful time and war times. Argilacs' and the Reach's battle that you mentioned wasn't of any concern to the Vale or to the North. To them, everything was fine. I would also imagine that the majority of the wars that Westeros had were no more than little border skirmishes that did not touches the majority of the kingdoms involved. 

There was a time where Ironborn didn't touch anyone for ages so the wars between westerlands and ironborn definitely didn't erupt every generation for the entirety of pre-conquest history.

Well, no.  The Wiki's chronology of the Iron Islands is notoriously unreliable, but it's pretty clear that the "Old Way" dominates for much of the pre-Targaryen history of Westeros.  Which means raiding on a small scale would have been endemic all along the Sunset Sea.  An open war?  Maybe not.  Half a dozen or a dozen longboats raiding Kayce, or Bear Island?  Probably pretty common.

 

2 minutes ago, Dofs said:

I would also imagine that the majority of the wars that Westeros had were no more than little border skirmishes that did not touches the majority of the kingdoms involved. 

Yes but the only Targaryen wars which truly involved massive mobilization are the Dance, the First Blackfyre Rebellion (which, mind you, the Martells and Starks play no part in), and Roberts Rebellion.  The subsequent Blackfyre Rebellions are minor affairs, and the War of the Ninepenny Kings is implied to be an engagement that only drew on a fraction of the Seven Kingdoms.  Many lords went looking for glory in battle, but didn't fully mobilize.  The Lannisters bring about a quarter of their strength, for example (11,000 of 40-45,000 total levies).  It is implied that was a large part of the total force (along with 100 longships from the Greyjoys, which similarly is a small portion of their total force), but even so, that's not a huge mobilization.

[Dofs]

37 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Well, no.  The Wiki's chronology of the Iron Islands is notoriously unreliable, but it's pretty clear that the "Old Way" dominates for much of the pre-Targaryen history of Westeros.  Which means raiding on a small scale would have been endemic all along the Sunset Sea.  An open war?  Maybe not.  Half a dozen or a dozen longboats raiding Kayce, or Bear Island?  Probably pretty common.

Not after the war with Lannisters and later famine decimated them so much, they recovered only after centuries had passed. During this time there were no wars between Lannsiters and Ironborn, and no information about even small raids. The Ironborn at this time only traded and raided far away in Essos, being too weak to attack other Westerosi kingdoms, except for the North when Hungry Wolf ruled it.

 

37 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes but the only Targaryen wars which truly involved massive mobilization are the Dance, the First Blackfyre Rebellion (which, mind you, the Martells and Starks play no part in), and Roberts Rebellion.  The subsequent Blackfyre Rebellions are minor affairs, and the War of the Ninepenny Kings is implied to be an engagement that only drew on a fraction of the Seven Kingdoms.  Many lords went looking for glory in battle, but didn't fully mobilize.  The Lannisters bring about a quarter of their strength, for example (11,000 of 40-45,000 total levies).  It is implied that was a large part of the total force (along with 100 longships from the Greyjoys, which similarly is a small portion of their total force), but even so, that's not a huge mobilization.

But how many people died during the Aegon's Conquest, Dance, First Blackfyre Rebellion and then during Robert's Rebellion? These 4 events are on par or even bigger than anything Westeros had seen before in its many thousand of year history. And it's all in mere 300 years, caused by one family. On average these 300 years probably caused more deaths and suffering than any almost other 300 years time period before the conquest. The current Wot5K, which is also one of the bloodiest events in Westerosi history, is also really a consequence of Targaryens conquering and uniting the realm. And then there is an imminent Dany's invasion coming.

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, Dofs said:

Not after the war with Lannisters and later famine decimated them so much, they recovered only after centuries had passed. During this time there were no wars between Lannsiters and Ironborn, and no information about even small raids. The Ironborn at this time only traded and raided far away in Essos, being too weak to attack other Westerosi kingdoms, except for the North when Hungry Wolf ruled it.

Again, you are confusing "no wars" with "no violence".  Raiding the greenlands is crucial to the ironborn's way of life.  Even if the King of the Iron Islands wasn't sponsoring widespread piracy, its common sense that at least some of his vassals were raiding the mainland.

 

2 hours ago, Dofs said:

But how many people died during the Aegon's Conquest, Dance, First Blackfyre Rebellion and then during Robert's Rebellion? These 4 events are on par or even bigger than anything Westeros had seen before in its many thousand of year history. And it's all in mere 300 years, caused by one family. On average these 300 years probably caused more deaths and suffering than any almost other 300 years time period before the conquest. The current Wot5K, which is also one of the bloodiest events in Westerosi history, is also really a consequence of Targaryens conquering and uniting the realm. And then there is an imminent Dany's invasion coming.

The Dance is undeniably bloody, but that is because of the dragons.  The later conflicts are almost certainly no more or less bloody than any other campaigns.  Given the constant warfare and enslavement of their own subjects, I'd argue the Hoare kingdom in the Riverlands was the bloodiest hundred years in Westerosi history.

All we know is that warfare was absolutely constant during the rival kingdoms period, and intermittent during the Targaryen reign.  We just hear a LOT more detail about post-Conquest Westeros than even all the other time periods from all the other Kingdoms combined.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 29/6/2017 at 7:07 AM, Lord Wraith said:

They certainly had a negative effect on the watch for sure. I guess all the constant war means less men on the Wall. There were 10,000 men on the Wall when Aegon landed. At the start of our story there is what maybe 1,000.

I am not sure about that.

22 hours ago, Dofs said:

But how many people died during the Aegon's Conquest, Dance, First Blackfyre Rebellion and then during Robert's Rebellion? These 4 events are on par or even bigger than anything Westeros had seen before in its many thousand of year history. And it's all in mere 300 years, caused by one family. On average these 300 years probably caused more deaths and suffering than any almost other 300 years time period before the conquest. The current Wot5K, which is also one of the bloodiest events in Westerosi history, is also really a consequence of Targaryens conquering and uniting the realm. And then there is an imminent Dany's invasion coming.

 That is my point. In less than 300 years all or the majority of the wars in Westeros , except two5k and Balon's rebellion, were caused by the Targs.

[cpg2016]

On 6/30/2017 at 2:43 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

I am not sure about that.

 That is my point. In less than 300 years all or the majority of the wars in Westeros , except two5k and Balon's rebellion, were caused by the Targs.

But it isn't that much bloodshed.  And Daemon Blackfyre isn't a Targaryen... hence "Blackfyre".  And mind you, you're forgetting the Red Kraken, and whole bunch of other minor violence.

And you can believe what you will, but the text is explicit.  During Aegon's conquest the Watch could muster 10,000 swords.  Now it is somewhat under 1,000.  It's also explicit that there were 3-4 kingdoms were at war with each other at LEAST once a generation.

[Kaibaman]

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

But it isn't that much bloodshed.  And Daemon Blackfyre isn't a Targaryen... hence "Blackfyre".  And mind you, you're forgetting the Red Kraken, and whole bunch of other minor violence.

And you can believe what you will, but the text is explicit.  During Aegon's conquest the Watch could muster 10,000 swords.  Now it is somewhat under 1,000.  It's also explicit that there were 3-4 kingdoms were at war with each other at LEAST once a generation.

My thoughts exactly. Though the Targaryens may not have been perfect in ensuring peace, they sure had a far better track record at it keep the realms from fighting one another than anyone else. If you look at the Riverlands, that place was in a state of total war for 99% of its history and the Targs despite a few major conflicts helped that region flourish under their rule. But what's more importantly is look what's happened to that place since the Targs were booted out of Westeros? It has gone to hell mostly thanks to the Tullys provoking the Lannisters over petty issues. I bet if the Targs return the Riverlanders especially would welcome them back with open arms and throw their ungrateful overlords under the bus.

[cpg2016]

12 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

My thoughts exactly. Though the Targaryens may not have been perfect in ensuring peace, they sure had a far better track record at it keep the realms from fighting one another than anyone else. If you look at the Riverlands, that place was in a state of total war for 99% of its history and the Targs despite a few major conflicts helped that region flourish under their rule. But what's more importantly is look what's happened to that place since the Targs were booted out of Westeros? It has gone to hell mostly thanks to the Tullys provoking the Lannisters over petty issues. I bet if the Targs return the Riverlanders especially would welcome them back with open arms and throw their ungrateful overlords under the bus.

Right.

It also can't be forgotten that the aristocracy of Westeros is explicitly martial in nature - war and skill at arms are considered the most important qualifications for nobles, despite that there are more valuable traits in a leader.  The nobility of Westeros aren't shy about this either; the notion of the lord as what we would call a fighting officer is integral to both their self-perception and their self-justification for their exalted place in society.  If they don't fight, what makes them different, or justifies the difference from a rich merchant or a peasant?

I've read some compelling theories that the First Blackfyre Rebellion was motivated in large part as a revolt against the pacifist, pro-Dornish policies that followed Daeron I's assassination and Baelor's ascension to the throne.  Which makes sense; the marcher lords in the Reach and Stormlands, some of the most martial and powerful houses in the Realm, are having their entire way of life threatened.  Sometimes it seems like wars are entered into because it's expected of them.  Or at least that minor rebellions, or succession disputes, flare into larger conflicts as Westerosi nobility resolve their differences, or plot for political advancement, through the only way they really know how.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 5/7/2017 at 8:49 PM, cpg2016 said:

And Daemon Blackfyre isn't a Targaryen... hence "Blackfyre".

Black or Red, a dragon is still a dragon. If you cannot see how the Targs are those to blame for the Blackfyre Rebellions then ok.

On 5/7/2017 at 8:49 PM, cpg2016 said:

And mind you, you're forgetting the Red Kraken, and whole bunch of other minor violence.

That doesn't mean the the whole Westeros had bled because of the Targs.

On 5/7/2017 at 8:49 PM, cpg2016 said:

And you can believe what you will, but the text is explicit.  During Aegon's conquest the Watch could muster 10,000 swords.  Now it is somewhat under 1,000.  It's also explicit that there were 3-4 kingdoms were at war with each other at LEAST once a generation.

Show me where exactly I said anything about the Watch.

[cpg2016]

53 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Black or Red, a dragon is still a dragon. If you cannot see how the Targs are those to blame for the Blackfyre Rebellions then ok.

This is not true.  Daemon Blackfyre considers himself a Blackfyre, not a Targaryen, which is why all his descendants call themselves Blackfrye.  He's even miniting his own coins and whatnot.  If a dragon is a dragon, as you say, then I suppose Robert Baratheon is a dragon?  And Stannis and Renly?  The Starks have been around for 8,000 years - it is nearly impossible that there isn't Stark blood in every single noble house in Westeros.  But they aren't all "Starks".

 

55 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That doesn't mean the the whole Westeros had bled because of the Targs.

Whoa.... the question is not "did the Targaryens cause violence" but "did they cause more violence than would have otherwise occurred".  The answer is obviously, categorically, no.  The Targaryens reigned for about 300 years, which is about 10-12 generations in-universe.  So that is one war per generation, by whoever's count that was.  There were, at minimum, three or four large-scale wars per generation (inter-Kingdom, that is, not minor raiding) prior to the Targaryens.  So it seems as though the Targs cut violence by a factor of three or four, according to Martin.

Think of them like the Concert of Europe.  Before Napoleon, you had endemic warfare in Europe, on constant scale.  The 18th century, there is barely any peace.  Something like 70 years where at least 2 of the Great Powers were at war.  After Napoleon's fall and the decision by Europe's statesmen to preserve the peace at any cost, there are something like 18 months of war.  The Targaryens are the same - they don't end violence; the nature of Westerosi noble society means they can't.  But they contain it, channel it outwards in some cases, and generally use their position to smother anything more than small scale war.

On 6/30/2017 at 2:43 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

On 6/29/2017 at 0:07 AM, Lord Wraith said:

They certainly had a negative effect on the watch for sure. I guess all the constant war means less men on the Wall. There were 10,000 men on the Wall when Aegon landed. At the start of our story there is what maybe 1,000.

I am not sure about that.

This is where you said something about the Watch.  And you were wrong, so I guess its to your credit that you pushed it from your mind.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

6 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This is not true.  Daemon Blackfyre considers himself a Blackfyre, not a Targaryen, which is why all his descendants call themselves Blackfrye.  He's even miniting his own coins and whatnot.  If a dragon is a dragon, as you say, then I suppose Robert Baratheon is a dragon?  And Stannis and Renly?  The Starks have been around for 8,000 years - it is nearly impossible that there isn't Stark blood in every single noble house in Westeros.  But they aren't all "Starks".

The Baratheons are stags and had a dragon for their grandmother. Daemon's both parents were Targaryens. he was a *pure blood* Targaryen bastard. That is not the same.

6 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Whoa.... the question is not "did the Targaryens cause violence" but "did they cause more violence than would have otherwise occurred".  The answer is obviously, categorically, no.  The Targaryens reigned for about 300 years, which is about 10-12 generations in-universe.  So that is one war per generation, by whoever's count that was.  There were, at minimum, three or four large-scale wars per generation (inter-Kingdom, that is, not minor raiding) prior to the Targaryens.  So it seems as though the Targs cut violence by a factor of three or four, according to Martin.

Again, the Targs caused all those wars in less than 300 years, the other houses had thousands of years to do it. They were the solely reason that all those wars had started. Do we have an example when a single house caused the same amount of wars in less than 300 years?

 

6 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This is where you said something about the Watch.  And you were wrong, so I guess its to your credit that you pushed it from your mind.

To quote myself;  I am not sure about that.

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again, the Targs caused all those wars in less than 300 years, the other houses had thousands of years to do it. They were the solely reason that all those wars had started. Do we have an example when a single house caused the same amount of wars in less than 300 years?

It has nothing to do with it.  We are told in-text that not a generation passed that three or four Kingdoms were at war with each other.  That would be, to my count, at least 2 or 3 major wars per generation.  The Targaryens.  It's easy math.

 

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

To quote myself;  I am not sure about that.

To repeat myself; it doesn't matte if you're sure or not, we are given that information, so whether or not you're sure, you're wrong.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

To repeat myself; it doesn't matte if you're sure or not, we are given that information, so whether or not you're sure, you're wrong.

BS. Not remembering is just not remebering.

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

It has nothing to do with it.  We are told in-text that not a generation passed that three or four Kingdoms were at war with each other.  That would be, to my count, at least 2 or 3 major wars per generation.  The Targaryens.  It's easy math.

You are right a battle or two between two regions in the same with bloodbath in the whole Westeros. 

[cpg2016]

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

BS. Not remembering is just not remebering.

You are right a battle or two between two regions in the same with bloodbath in the whole Westeros. 

Whether you remembered or not, you're questioning someone who does.  If you don't remember, don't comment and accept that someone who does remember, remembers correctly.  Or go look up the relevant text  https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You are right a battle or two between two regions in the same with bloodbath in the whole Westeros. 

Well, actually, yeah, in terms of army sizes, we can be pretty sure.  It's extraordinarily rare for entire potential to be levies to be raised during the Targaryen conquest.  For example, during the Dance, only 2,000 Northerners participate.  The Butchers Ball involved approximately 9,000 total troops, inclusive of those Northmen.  The point being, when you speak of "all of Westeros" you also have to point out that in these continental wars, full levies are rarely raised.  When the Kingdoms are fighting independently, they raise vastly larger forces.  55,000 men come from the Reach and the Westerlands for the Field of Fire, which is the largest battle we know of until Redgrass Field.

So your "whole of Westeros" bloodbaths rarely actually include the whole of Westeros.  At the Trident, the Dornish commit about 40% of their strength.  The rebels field an army significantly under strength at the Trident (or significantly under potential strength).   As we've seen, the North rarely commits its whole strength - even Robb only takes about half his possible strength with him.  The War of the Ninepenny Kings is fought mostly with troops from the Westerlands - a whopping 25% of their potential levies.