Jump to content

Who was the best Targaryen King?


SunfyreTheGolden

Recommended Posts

@Ran

The reason no one brings it up is because of two keys reasons imho:

1. Familiarity has made it somewhat less of an issue than other more immediate concerns by the time we get to D & E and ASOIAF.

2. Daeron II benefits the most from posterity/hindsight bias and Daeron I suffers the most from it.

Anyway, I'll try my best to lay out why Daeron II's peace treaty and appointments were lopsided as well as what he could have done to make it more balanced:

1. The Martells got three royal marriages: The hand of Daeron II (The crown-prince-turned king), the hand of Daenerys (The only royal princess of her time, which is something usually given to either a loyal vassal of proven worth or to a victorious conqueror*, neither of which Dorne was), and the hand of Maekar I (a prince, which after the aforementioned two is gilding the lily given the fact no other noble family/region at any point in Targaryen history had that many royal marriages in the same lifetime).

2. Allowing Dorne to keep its titles, its own laws, AND gather/assess taxation with only irregular oversight from the capital is too much. At the very least the Martells should NOT have been allowed to keep calling themselves Prince/Princess, as that implies that they are somewhat higher than the other Lords Paramount. Furthermore, one or two of the other concessions granted to Dorne (not the ones related to law or taxation necessarily but one of the other ones that goes unmentioned) should have been given to the rest of the 7Ks, to show that everyone was benefiting from this union and NOT just Daeron. Beyond that, Daeron II requesting blood-money for those murdered at the parley would have gone a long way to mollifying anyone still hurt by that disreputable stunt considering that it was within living memory at the time. Finally, he could have arranged marriages between Dorne and the Stormlands/Reach, which would have been a much more potent symbol of unity than Summerhall.

3. Every mention of Daeron II's court emphasizes the presence of the Dornish and TWOIAF even flat-out says that they were given "offices of note". Add to that the fact that no Reacherman is mentioned to be in any court position under him (with the exception of Fireball, a holdover) and one can make the argument that his court was unfairly stacked with Dornishmen, who up until Daeron II had not only been the enemy but a treacherous one at that. What's more, the non-Dornish in his court seem to be made up almost entirely of those regions where Daeron II's support was strong (Crownlands, Stormlands, Dorne, Vale, for the most part with a bit, with a bit of the Riverlands and Westerlands), which was him effectively giving Daemon a counter-constituency (Most of the Reach, decent amounts of the Riverlands, Westerlands, and Dorne plus a bit of the Stormlands) for free!

*Dorne survived the First Dornish War by the skin of its teeth and got trounced twice by Daeron I, who the Dornish couldn't get rid of short of going the Frey-Bolton route, which says a lot about Dorne's military standing from 161 AC onwards.

@LionoftheWest

Out of curiosity, who are your three most-overrated and worst kings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Grey Wolf

The worst kings would be, in order, Aegon IV, Aerys II, Viserys I, Aenys I.

Most overrated (as far as fandom goes and this won't be popular): Daeron II and Aegon V. I don't doubt that both of them were very good people, and both seemed to have raised their children to be worthy princes and kings of the Iron Throne, they still didn't, in my opinion, rule all that well even if they didn't misrule like Aegon IV and Aerys II. If you get over a decade or so with a rebellion brewing and it still breaks out with full force you obviously isn't very skilled at dealing with it and if you can't make your radical policies stick with your successors, its all really in vain and pointless to try to force them on the realm. I'd like to have both of them as relatives or friends but I'd rather have Breakspear or Bloodraven as king. But I'll cut Aegon V some slack however as his heir died a bit fast after taking the throne and that it might have been that Jaehaerys didn't get time to properly tutor Aerys II into what it means to be a king, and that Aegon V may have worked harder to anchor his political ideas in his son if he'd lived longer.

@Adam Yozza

You're welcome. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eustace Osgrey litigates the rebellion every chance he gets. He brings up issues decades in the past. He doesn't bring up the Young Dragon because it isn't relevant as a causus belli for the Blackfyre loyalists.  George never brings it up in his extensive notes, not did he in any relevant conversations, and so Yandel makes no reference to it in his book. It goes unmentioned in the novellas. Why keep belaboring your conviction against the available evidence? I'm going to focus on more fruitful ground from here on out, because the absolute lack of evidence that this was any kind of factor just makes it feel like a waste of time.

I missed when House Dayne was actually part of House Martell... and in any case, that marriage had rather more to do with bloodlines than it did with Dorne. Notably, however, no one ever seems to complain about Maekar's Dornish marriage,  so much ado about nothing?

The other time you get marriages between royal houses, which you leave out, is as a means of sealing an alliance or initiating a union. You're aware of the long history of intermarriage among royalty in our world , but for those who are not there's a good article at Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage

So in this sense, that marriage isn't a gift to Dorne. Instead, it's about ensuring lasting peace by reaffirming that the Dornish had a stake in the Seven Kingdoms.  One marriage, giving the Seven Kingdoms future rulers with Dornish blood restored peace after Daeron I's folly; a second marriage, giving the Dornish rulers with Targaryens blood, would secure the great project of permanently bringing Dorne into the realm.  Which it did do, successfully, and to the profit of the realm.

As to offices, if Dorne is a part of the realm, then it follows that they would be eligible to hold offices. For the warmongers and absurd hardliners, even 1 office to a Dornishman would be one too many, but that is not how a king would or should govern. Integration would require giving Dornishman the same opportunities at honors and influence and offices. 

We don't know the full details of Daeron's court. There's a lot of offices which we know nothing about. I would not draw the conclusion that Daeron shut out other regions, and indeed no one actually makes that claim. The only claim they make is that the Dornishman had "too much" influence, which could in some cases be equivalent to any influence in the eyes of some. We have no objective information on what the reality is.

To say that the only people who would benefit from Dorne joining the realm are the Dornishman is absurd. The whole realm would benefit. The cessation of intermittent hostilities would improve trade, would open up greater possibilities for intermarriages among nobles of both regions, would have opened new opportunities for movement between the regions, would allow lords to focus more of their resources on useful projects that would increase their prosperity rather than devote intense efforts to defending their lands (indeed, the marcher lords arguably would profit most from peace, as they had sunk enormous resources in defense of the border), would permit property disputes on the borders to be settled within legal, bloodshed-free processes rather than a cause for private war by default, would enrich the treasury through the taxes gained (the Martell's won the right to administer taxes, not to withhold them) for use in projects that could benefit the realm, and so on and so forth.

Dorne conceeded its independence for eternity. Sunspear bent the knee after a history of defiance, with all the duties and responsibilities that entailed. It's no surprise there received some concessions. The importance of these concessions as a primary factor in the Blackfyre Rebellion seems smaller than the fact that Dorne now had a seat at the table and that Dorne was now at peace with the realm, and that in turns pales against the undermining of Daeron's reign by Aegon the Unworthy. Without him using Dorne to stack his son and without his giving his bastards grand illusions, it seems doubtful that any substantial rebellion would have coalesced. Daemon Blackfyre's ambition, seeded by his father, were instrumental to the rebellion that actually happened. 

Against that, lords lost a certain amount of notional influence, and some lords lost their traditional enemies which is a very dubious "loss" indeed. 

The only argument that I think could be really provocative, IMO, is that Daeron might have left union with Dorne as a project of the next generation, rather than his own, given that he had his father's poison pill to deal with and he must have realized at some point that good efforts to win over his more belligerent half-brothers were seeing little success. Decades of peace with Dorne could have left his presumptive heir Baelor in position to push it through.

But I expect he imagined that there was never a better time than after decades of personal friendship and alliance with the Princes of Dorne, and that the future is always uncertain.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ran

We didn't even know the Young Dragon was murdered under a peace banner until TWOIAF came out so your claim that the fallout isn't in the notes ergo there wasn't any (except immediately after with the Dornish hostages) rings hollow to me. If the Dance/Regency is any indication GRRM comes up with a lot of stuff as he actually writes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George knew some 18 years ago, and we have had the relevant notes for about the same amount of time.  We had Daeron murdered under a truce banner on our game 7 years ago. :)

We've also remarked that the places where George invented the most were the areas where he had no notes beforehand. The places where he changed his ideas least were those where he had come up with extensive notes. Aegon's mistresses, for example, are almost exactly the same in TWoIaF as they were in those notes 18 years ago (the only detail that changed were an adjustment to the Black Pearl's parentage).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LionoftheWest

Actually kinda agree on the overrated ones. While I have no doubt they were decent Kings, they weren't the best even if they had the best of intentions. Somewhat disagree on your list of worst Kings though. George has yet to convince me that Aegon IV was the worst King ever, but his word is law so I'll roll with it. With that in mind, to me the worst Kings were Aegon IV, Aegon II, Aenys I and Baelor I.

For me, the best were Jahaerys I, Daeron I (overrated but still, in my opinion, good enough to take second, simply for lack of contenders really) and Viserys II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LionoftheWest

I agree with your assessment almost entirely.

@Adam Yozza

I personally wouldn't  put the Young Dragon in my top five but I do agree that he gets shat on way more than he deserves. I also agree that Aegon IV pales in comparison to the likes of Maegor I. On the other hand, I'd say Aerys I was a worse king than Aegon II. At least the later cared enough to risk his own life (which is more than we can say for Rhaenyra).

@Ran

I'll just wait for Fire & Blood: Volume 2 before continuing this discussion any further. That being said I don't approve of smiley faces being used to describe perfidy. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

 

@Adam Yozza

I personally wouldn't  put the Young Dragon in my top five but I do agree that he gets shat on way more than he deserves. I also agree that Aegon IV pales in comparison to the likes of Maegor I. On the other hand, I'd say Aerys I was a worse king than Aegon II. At least the later cared enough to risk his own life (which is more than we can say for Rhaenyra).

Ah, that would be because I meant to say Daeron II. While I am a fan of the Young Dragon and think he gets more flak than he deserves, I also don't think he's top five material.

I have very little respect for Aerys I but I find him to at least be more competent than Aegon. Aegon may have been braver than Aerys I, but at least Aerys wasn't the cause of a massive civil war that wiped out 90% of the family tree and nearly all the dragons in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

 

@Ran

I'll just wait for Fire & Blood: Volume 2 before continuing this discussion any further. That being said I don't approve of smiley faces being used to describe perfidy. :angry:

It's fiction, you know. And in that case, a game too. It was a fun scene!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

I have very little respect for Aerys I but I find him to at least be more competent than Aegon. Aegon may have been braver than Aerys I, but at least Aerys wasn't the cause of a massive civil war that wiped out 90% of the family tree and nearly all the dragons in Westeros.

True, but Aerys was also not really responsible for anything, since Brynden Rivers seems to have done most of the actual governing. Or is that what you mean when you say you don't really respect him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

True, but Aerys was also not really responsible for anything, since Brynden Rivers seems to have done most of the actual governing. Or is that what you mean when you say you don't really respect him?

Yeah that's part of what I mean. Beyond the fact that he did very little ruling himself, there's also the fact that during his reign very little positive growth/change was seen as a result of Bloodraven's policies. In contrast, Bloodraven's rule directly led to the raids on the North and West by Dagon Greyjoy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah that's part of what I mean. Beyond the fact that he did very little ruling himself, there's also the fact that during his reign very little positive growth/change was seen as a result of Bloodraven's policies. In contrast, Bloodraven's rule directly led to the raids on the North and West by Dagon Greyjoy.

 

Hmm... the civil wars weren't Bloodraven's fault, nor was the plague and nor was the drought. He was dealt a really difficult hand and it's kind of hard to know what anyone else would've done differently.

For instance, banning travel was draconian, but it was an effective means of stopping plague spreading. And yes, he did not intervene promptly when the Iron Islands began raiding but it's also worth pointing out that, for one thing, it is implied that he eventually did quash their fleet. For another, preserving his army was a prudent move as it turns out and the Blackfyres did make more plays for the throne.

Look at his bloodless victory at Whitehall - that was a masterstroke. Botching that and having another war breakout would have been worse than allowing the Iron Islands to raid in the meantime. He wasn't perfect, but he really did well with what he had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Hmm... the civil wars weren't Bloodraven's fault, nor was the plague and nor was the drought. He was dealt a really difficult hand and it's kind of hard to know what anyone else would've done differently.

For instance, banning travel was draconian, but it was an effective means of stopping plague spreading. And yes, he did not intervene promptly when the Iron Islands began raiding but it's also worth pointing out that, for one thing, it is implied that he eventually did quash their fleet. For another, preserving his army was a prudent move as it turns out and the Blackfyres did make more plays for the throne.

Look at his bloodless victory at Whitehall - that was a masterstroke. Botching that and having another war breakout would have been worse than allowing the Iron Islands to raid in the meantime. He wasn't perfect, but he really did well with what he had.

No question that he was dealt a bad hand. My big issue is really his response to the Greyjoy threat. Clearly his idea of using his fleet to defend against the Blackfyre's didn't work at all considering Blackfyre rebellion's 3 & 4 both involve land battles. It fell to the Stark's and Lannister's to defeat the Greyjoy's IIRC. One of Vic's chapters does suggest the Targ's eventually got involved but I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in a throwaway line from Vic.

And while Bloodraven couldn't really do anything about the plague or drought, he also did nothing else at all during his tenure as Hand. As far as I can remember there is no notable growth or development of the seven kingdoms during Aerys' reign or Maekar's. Brynden focussed his attention solely on the Blackfyre's. Not a bad thing mind, but too narrowly focusses. He might have served better as Master of Whispers with someone more interested/talented at administration as Hand. But I may be biased; I've never agreed with Bloodraven's actions in regard to Aenys Blackfyre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2017 at 2:21 PM, LionoftheWest said:

If you get over a decade or so with a rebellion brewing and it still breaks out with full force you obviously isn't very skilled at dealing with it

Doesn't that shift all the onus onto Daeron and assume there was something he could have done that would have nullified rebel sentiment while still pursuing his key policy goal?  It's like when people used to blame Obama for not being able to get the Republicans to agree on deals when the latter transparently had no interest in being conciliated; it assumes a deal would have been possible.  Daeron's Dornish reconciliation policy was the core problem, and there's no indication that he'd have substantially succeeded at ameliorating the opposition short of abandoning it entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Grey Wolf

I'm not sure we can assume that Daeron II's betrothal to Mariah Martell was made with the explicit understanding that he would be king one day, even if Baelor I's celibacy made that a likely inevitability. At the time of his betrothal he was the grandson of the Hand, and I don't think we know much about Baelor's explicit succession plans.

Both sides paid prices in the agreement to bring Dorne into the kingdom, but the Daenerys marriage was essential and unavoidable in bringing Dorne into the kingdom at that time.

Maekar was Daeron II's fourth son, and not expected to come anywhere near the throne when he married Dyanna. As a fourth son with no sisters, for all we know the marriage could be one Maekar chose, as his own fourth son chose Betha Blackwood without causing concern.

Perhaps Dyanna Dayne came to court in the service of Mariah Martell, as Ashara Dayne did with Elia Martell, and perhaps she and Maekar fell for each other as Ashara and Ned, who was similarly never expected to become lord, are speculated to have. 

I suppose it can be argued that the Targaryens conceded too much, not that I think that's the case, but I don't think these three marriages are a valid example of conceding too much. One of the marriages brought peace with Dorne, which Aegon IV did his best to sabotage. One of the marriages brought Dorne into the kingdom. And the other marriage you mention is a fourth son to a Dayne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Ah, that would be because I meant to say Daeron II. While I am a fan of the Young Dragon and think he gets more flak than he deserves, I also don't think he's top five material.

I have very little respect for Aerys I but I find him to at least be more competent than Aegon. Aegon may have been braver than Aerys I, but at least Aerys wasn't the cause of a massive civil war that wiped out 90% of the family tree and nearly all the dragons in Westeros.

I personally wouldn't put Daeron II in my top five either but to each his own.

Re the Dance: I blame Viserys I way more than Aegon II, who spent half the war incapacitated.

7 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Text

I agree it wasn't possible to please everyone but Daeron II could have done a lot more to weaken support for Daemon Blackfyre as I laid out in one of my previous posts.

5 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Text

Your argument has merit and to be honest I do think the Maekar-Dyanna match was for love because that explains why Proto-Stannis never remarried. However, my larger point still stands. No other family in Targaryen history got three royal marriages within the same lifetime and to a lot of people in-setting that might have been seen as going overboard, particularly given the fact that Daeron II gave "offices of note" to Dornishmen as well.

20 hours ago, Ran said:

It's fiction, you know. And in that case, a game too. It was a fun scene!

To me desecrating the peace banner is on par with the Red Wedding in terms of heinousness but that's obviously just my opinion. And one can have strong feelings about fiction you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Doesn't that shift all the onus onto Daeron and assume there was something he could have done that would have nullified rebel sentiment while still pursuing his key policy goal?  It's like when people used to blame Obama for not being able to get the Republicans to agree on deals when the latter transparently had no interest in being conciliated; it assumes a deal would have been possible.  Daeron's Dornish reconciliation policy was the core problem, and there's no indication that he'd have substantially succeeded at ameliorating the opposition short of abandoning it entirely.

The rebels are naturally responsible for their own actions just like Daeron is for his. But while Obama was limited by a democratic system, and I know for to little about American political history in recent years to say "this or that" about the Republicans and Democrats today or yesterday, Daeron was not. If Daeron got the Blackfyre plague to emit from pursuing a key goal of his, then he's obviously guilty since prioritised this key goal over peace in the realm at large or take actions, even strict actions, to ensure that Daemon couldn't break it out. And do note that when Bloodraven spoke to Daeron, the king did send for Daemon to be arrested. I don't claim that I sit on some magical answer nor do I think that I would be even a ok king of Westeros, but I do think that if Daeron was so briliant as it sometimes sound, then he would have found a way to deal with Daemon's Blacks.

But in regards to make the opposition go away entirely, that's not the problem. We see from the Second Blackfyre Rebellion that all the opposition don't need to go away. It just needs to be weakened enough so that the loyalists can deal with it without a war raging for years and dragging almost the entire South into the flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

 

To me desecrating the peace banner is on par with the Red Wedding in terms of heinousness but that's obviously just my opinion. And one can have strong feelings about fiction you know.

Ah. You do have to appreciate the irony of a Dornish prince shoving the butt-spike of the peace banner through Daeron's throat as he was trapped under his horse, though. Powerful image.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If Daeron got the Blackfyre plague to emit from pursuing a key goal of his, then he's obviously guilty since prioritised this key goal over peace in the realm at large or take actions, even strict actions, to ensure that Daemon couldn't break it out. And do note that when Bloodraven spoke to Daeron, the king did send for Daemon to be arrested. I don't claim that I sit on some magical answer nor do I think that I would be even a ok king of Westeros, but I do think that if Daeron was so briliant as it sometimes sound, then he would have found a way to deal with Daemon's Blacks.

Given the fact that it took so long for Daemon to rebel, perhaps the reason that was the case was that Daeron _had_ indeed done much to batten down feelings to the point where it seemed that with time the most vocal critics would largely get used to the idea. 

The problem, however, really lies in the fact of Daemon's existence, and to a lesser extent Bittersteel's. No amount of respect and honors appear to have won them over, and yet Daemon's existence as a singularly potent rival to Daeron's crown seems to have been the absolutely necessary thing to collaesce a rebellion. There were no rebels before Daemon determined to put on a crown, merely unhappy people. 

I have seen two notions about how to deal with them:

1) Distract them and their most warmongering likely supporters with foreign misadventures, which I believe Atwell favors. I've seen this compared to the (alleged) tactic the Japanese daimoyo Toyotomi Hideyoshi was supposed to have used to bleed the rivals who were most likely to cause him trouble, by sending them to fruitless campaigns against Korea. The problem with that analogy, just historically, is that mostly Hideyoshi actually sent his most reliable supporters to the campaigns while leaving his enemies close at hand... But even so, the problem _I_ have with it is sort of the problem you got in the Roman Republic (to make another analogy) where you sent out ambitious men to the provinces to get them out of Rome, and they come back with hardened, veteran soldiers who have strong bonds of loyalty to them rather than to the Republic. Sending Daemon and Bittersteel to go attack the Stepstones or whatever is a policy that would have bound their supporters even more tightly together... and if these campaigns become a debacle? If there's _any_ hint that it's a debacle because of Daeron not providing sufficient support, this would quickly turn into "Daeron tried to get Daemon killed, and he didn't care how many people went with him!" Nevermind the risks of potentially embroiling the Seven Kingdoms in a war with one or more of the Free Cities.

2)  Daeron should use extrajudicial means to rid himself of Daemon (and probably Bittersteel). Besides the fact that this is kinslaying of his half-brothers, I think it's reasonable to say that Daeron appears to have been very devoted to law and order, and worked within the framework of laws. This may have given would-be rebels an advantage in that they were allowed to make the first move towards treason, but to me it means legally and morally Daeron the Good was absolutely in the right and the rebels were legally and morally absolutely in the wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...