Who was the best Targaryen King?

[Lion of the West]

Quote

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. 

Perhaps, but more likely it was a snowball effect and that it finally came to a call when Daeron ordered Daemon captured for treason.

Quote

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. 

The same is true for every rebel and traitor under the sun. No one is a rebel or traitor until they are. Just like the Greens were not rebels until Viserys died and Aegon was crowned.

Quote

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.

I know to little about feudal Japan to comment but the Roman Republic is entirely different. The Roman Republic wasn't a feudal system and the soldiers are already more loyal to their commanders than the king in the best of times in a feudal world, unlike the earlier Roman Republic. And nothing say that Daemon and Bittersteel must be sent together or that they must be in command of the venture. To means would be to give their supporters a focus away from plotting at home, not make Daemon a war hero.

Quote

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.

To start with the king of Westeros is aboslute. There is no such thing as extrajudicial means in regards to the king as far as I know. Whatever he does is judicially correct. Thus naturally the king is always correct whatever he does unless he loses his throne or he dies and is condemned by a similarly absolute king who is alive. I don't like this kind of thing but for all intents that's how Westeros seems to work. If Daeron didn't like to become a kinslayer he could have sent them off to the Wall or cut of their hands and so disabled them as warriors or something else where they didn't die. Keeping them as hostages in the cells beneath the Red Keep would for example work as well.

On another issue I do think that there are signs that Daeron did try to show equality between old servants and new ones. No one have mentioned it but I'm pretty certain that Prince Baelor's marriage into a Marcher Lord's House shows that Daeron wanted to tell his non-Dornish subjects that he valued them as much as before Dorne joined the realm.

And to state clearly. I don't think that Daeron was a bad person or king. But I do think that he isn't a saint nor that he was a wonderman who dealt with everything perfectly or could do no wrong.

EDITED: And now were into the derailment I deleted parts of my first post to avoid.

[Ran]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Perhaps, but more likely it was a snowball effect and that it finally came to a call when Daeron ordered Daemon captured for treason.

You'd have to provide evidence of that statement of snowballing, because there's precious little that we can actually see. There's a pretty lengthy section of TWoIaF that deals with the question of why it took so long, and largely it just comes down to the fact that people had been suggesting it to Blackfyre for years, especially Bittersteel, and that this eventually turned his head. I guess you could call that a "snowball", but it's not really one of Daeron's making from the evidence. I suppose one might also say that it's a "snowball" in the sense that Daemon as an alternative power center led people with even thin grievances against Daeron to let that fester by turning to Daemon and pushing him as a means to redress their grievances (like Eustace Osgrey's hope to recover Coldmoat, nice and old and well outside his lifetime and yet...), but again, you're talking about a situation where there was no substantial injustice done to anyone, least of all Daemon, and yet Daemon alone dictated when the rebellion happened.

 

Quote

The same is true for every rebel and traitor under the sun. No one is a rebel or traitor until they are. Just like the Greens were not rebels until Viserys died and Aegon was crowned.

I know to little about feudal Japan to comment but the Roman Republic is entirely different. The Roman Republic wasn't a feudal system and the soldiers are already more loyal to their commanders than the king in the best of times in a feudal world, unlike the earlier Roman Republic. And nothing say that Daemon and Bittersteel must be sent together or that they must be in command of the venture. To means would be to give their supporters a focus away from plotting at home, not make Daemon a war hero.

Lets say instead that men like Bittersteel and Blackfyre would very likely excel and perform heroics on the martial field, ensuring that there'd be men willing to follow them into hell... men who now were battle-hardened. And the problem with this is that we circle back to Aegon IV having undermined Daeron by making Blackfyre seem not just a rival, but potentially the _true_ king of Westeros whom Daeron had usurped. Increasing Daemon's martial repute and his associations with battle-hardened warriors was not a recipe for reducing tensions.

The Roman Empire also had the same issues, even after the post-Republic reforms that helped solidify the loyalty of legions towards the Empire rather than their generals... except when who was rightful emperor came into question, which then again led to the legionnaires deciding to go with the person they thought should be emperor, who strangely enough often turned out to be their general. The issue is that Aegon IV _baked in_ this very situation into Westeros. Eustace treats Daemon as Daeron as two "great princes" who decided to quarrel over a throne that each had equal right to, and this would not have happened had Aegon not decided to wreak merry havoc with the realm from beyond the grave.

Quote

To start with the king of Westeros is aboslute.

If he were absolute, trial by combat would not exist. The gods are above him. However, if you mean the king is the absolute temporal power, this is true, but the king is "first among equals" because just as his vassals swear to him, he returns that with promises of justice, with generally-agreed upon ideas of what justice is. This is the feudal contract. The violation of it -- but rewriting the rules, or throwing them aside entirely -- runs risks. There is no higher "court" (besides the gods, I suppose, who aren't likely to speak up) to judge him, and he can get away with all sorts of inequities if he plays his cards right, but this doesn't change the fact of what is understood and what is understood as wrong.

The fact that the kings provide codes of law certainly shows there is a shared framework of understanding within Westeros of what is legal and what is not. When Aegon the Conqueror ruled, he was exactingly careful in administering the traditional laws of each region of Westeros as justly as he could, bringing learned maesters familiar with all the details to advise him of the particulars. Jaehaerys unified the law code, Viserys II revised it, and the small council has a seat for the Master of Laws. We even see kings on occasion consulting their councillors about the laws and customs on certain points.

So, all together, whether you want to define them as "extrajudicial" or not, Daeron deciding to quietly poison Daemon or what have you to remove him from the stage is certainly not _justice_. One might say Daeron could choose to dispense with the law whenever he wanted to, but the point is that he seems to have started his reign by being very attentive to it. One notices that Daeron is said to have made no attempt to delegitimize the bastards his father legitimized not only because he didn't want to do that, but it's noted that he "could" not do it either. Given that writs of legitimization are a king's perogative, undoing them is a king's as well... but Daeron made a clear show that he was going to allow himself to be limited by law and precedent. His father's decree made them law, and Daeron would not undo it, however much trouble and heartache it may have caused him.

 

Quote

 

Quote

On another issue I do think that there are signs that Daeron did try to show equality between old servants and new ones. No one have mentioned it but I'm pretty certain that Prince Baelor's marriage into a Marcher Lord's House shows that Daeron wanted to tell his non-Dornish subjects that he valued them as much as before Dorne joined the realm.

This is a good point. I think we circle back to the idea that the problem for those complaining about the Dornish was that they had a seat at the table with the rest of the houses, as it were. It's notable that the Houses most directly affected by this particular aspect of the union -- the Great Houses -- were largely on the side of Daeron or uninvolved, so the argument that the influence thing was such a big deal falls flat for me. You get a sense of a lot of petty lords and younger sons bitching that they don't have a seat on the small council because of the damned Dornish, as if they ever had a chance anyways. The Dornish were an excuse, not a cause, in the end.

Quote

And to state clearly. I don't think that Daeron was a bad person or king. But I do think that he isn't a saint nor that he was a wonderman who dealt with everything perfectly or could do no wrong.

EDITED: And now were into the derailment I deleted parts of my first post to avoid.

I definitely don't think he was a saint, but surely that's not necessary for being a great king. I do wish he had been just slightly more merciful toward Eustace Osgrey. His foolishness lost him all of his sons, and taking his only remaining child was harsh indeed. When they learned his wife killed herself, it would have been a great kindness to have perhaps reconsidered. But then again, to what degree Daeron was involved in the administration of this, we don't know. Perhaps he had Bloodraven oversee it, and he was more cold-blooded. And then again, if he returned a hostage over a tragedy, I'm sure some would have just taken it as weakness, or even as insult to injury, so...

In the end, Daeron's reputation rests on his having attempted to rule justly and well, and in integrating Dorne successfully into the realm. The poisoned pill his father left him might have been dealt with in manners underhanded or by choosing to limit his own actions so as to try and keep Daemon from finding too many supporters, but given that minor conflicts with Dorne had been issues ever since the founding of the Seven Kingdoms, and he had a unique position to bring about a peaceful submission, it's hard to blame him for taking the chance rather than deciding to give it another 20 years.

 

[AlaskanSandman]

52 minutes ago, Ran said:

Eustace Osgrey

I have a working theory on why House Targaryen might be so harsh to House Osgrey with their four castles. One of which has a black stone base with mazes underneath. Funny old sigil of a checkered Lion, yellow and green. 

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - Ancient History: The Long Night

Archmaester Fomas's Lies of the Ancients—though little regarded these days for its erroneous claims regarding the founding of Valyria and certain lineal claims in the Reach and westerlands—

 

 

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The Bones and Beyond: Yi Ti

and the Lion of Night came forth in all his wroth to punish the wickedness of men.

 

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Bran II

There were more side passages after that, more chambers, and Bran heard dripping water somewhere to his right. When he looked off that way, he saw eyes looking back at them, slitted eyes that glowed bright, reflecting back the torchlight. More children, he told himself, the girl is not the only one, but Old Nan's tale of Gendel's children came back to him as well.

 

So im not so sure i blame Daeron

[A Ghost of Someone]

The Old King. What he did for women, first night rights of lords to rape their underling's brides was thrown out. That is huge and he made peace with the Faith and traveled around Westeros, especially North where so many rulers from the Iron Throne ignored them. He is the best I think.

[Lord Varys]

The general question depends on the criteria as to how you actually judge kings. And the criteria I'd use is not whether they had to face rebellions (who they ended up crushing) but also whether they bettered the lives of their people to a significant and measurable the degree (or at least tried to do that).

In that sense, Jaehaerys I ranks at the top, followed by Daeron II, and then by Aegon I.

The first because he gave his people 55 years of peace and plenty (as far as we know) to the degree that even the Dornish allegedly mourned his passing (indicating that Sunspear and the Iron Throne worked amicably and closely together during the later years of the Old King's reign), the second because brought Dorne into the Realm and ended thousands of years of warfare between Dorne and the Stormlands/Reach while also giving his people his people the security and peace they deserved (minus the year 196 AC, which was, in the end, just a year of war). We notice that things are markedly different between the reign of the Good King Daeron and the Sorcerer King Aerys. The roads during the latter's reign are noted to be less safer than they were during Daeron's reign - which is a very important criteria if you judge the rule of a king. The most important thing a monarch in such a society is supposed to guarantee it is peace and order in his kingdom. If there is unrest, disorder, banditry, etc. then this is a sign that the king and his administration are not doing their job.

Aegon I might not have been as impressive a guy as history and legend portray him, but he still gave most of the Realm a long period of peace and prosperity, especially the thousands of commoners who settled in his new capital. Even his original conquest made a war that could have been a very cruel affair remarkably bloodless. Even the way he ended the First Dornish War shows some strength of character - if you assume that peace in itself is a virtue (which it actually is, you know).

Vice versa, a weak king by the standards of the historians and people of Westeros usually seems to be a king who doesn't appear to be strong and decisive and martial in public. The best example for such a king that's perceived as 'weak' is Jaehaerys II. The man had a lot of health issues - included his freakish left arm - but he lacked neither courage nor determination. And that's in the end what's important in a king. You don't have to command your armies personally, you just have to be willing to act decisively if the situation calls for it. Jaehaerys II had that, and Daeron II - although no martial man, either - had that, too. Aenys didn't have that quality - although even this weak-willed king had the power to exile Maegor and confine Visenya to her quarters (which puts 'royal weakness' into perspective).

@Ran could comment on it, but we have ample evidence that Aegon and Visenya did avenge their sister Rhaenys. The days of the Dragon's Wroth most likely weren't exactly a pleasant period in Westerosi history.

As to the payback mentality, etc. revolving around the end of the Young Dragon, we have to consider the fact that Daeron I's war was essentially a boy's war of aggression against another country which could have been brought into the Realm by other means. The Young Dragon died a bachelor, you know, and Baelor didn't have to marry his sister Daena. Both sons of Aegon III were free to marry a Dornish princess, pulling off the feature that was on the table of Viserys I back when Rhaenyra's marriage was discussed.

I know that Princess Aliandra was less interested in peace than her immediate predecessors but since Ran is here right now, he could address the question to what degree the MUSH family of the Martells is of the period is accurate. If it is, then it is implied that Princess Aliandra died childless in 140 AC, and was actually succeeded by her sister Princess Coryanne (d. 147 AC), followed by Prince Marence Nymeros Martell, who ruled throughout the Young Dragon's war, the father of both Mariah and Maron Martell.

If we go by that kind of setting, then the Young Dragon's conquest was basically an unprovoked and uncalled for war of aggression, and in the end all means are justified to protect yourself and your people against such an aggressor. Especially if the other side - as they did - eventually degraded to the level of savagery as the Tyrell government of Dorne amply proves. My pity for Daeron I is very limited in this regard. 

That triggers another question, actually:

@Ran can you comment on Mariah's status as heiress to Dorne? She is listed as former heiress to Dorne in the MUSH appendix. If that reflects George's view - when did that change? When the Targaryen betrothal was made? Or only when it became clear that King Baelor would never have heirs of his own body. It could have been the original plan to make young Prince Daeron the prince consort at the Ruling Princess Mariah's side, no?

That could have given House Targaryen a very important voice and unprecedented influence in Sunspear.

Prince Viserys' decision to arrest the hostages and prepare for their execution seems to be the standard procedure after such a heinous betrayal as the murder of King Daeron. That's what you do when you have hostages of the other side. Whether the powerful and influential people of Westeros - let alone a majority of the population - were prepared to continue the war and avenge the Young Dragon in the field is completely unknown. Killing hostages is not necessarily a renewed declaration of war.

We do know how many people Daeron I got killed in his war - 10,000 died conquering Dorne, and 40,000 more during the futile attempts to hold it. If we assume that the bulk of Daeron's armies and occupying forces came from the Stormlands, the Reach, and the Crownlands (with the Vale, the West, the Riverlands, and the North sending smaller contingents or even only token forces) those regions closest to Dorne - where the hatred of the Dornishmen would have burned the strongest - would have been also pretty much spent in 161 AC.

The Young Dragon's Conquest could have been a greater bloodletting than the Dance for all we know (I don't think it was, but we have no numbers on the people dying during the Dance as of yet).

And the idea that the people in the Vale, the West, the Riverlands, or the North really burn with desire to see Dorne crushed beneath the heels of the dragon doesn't really sound convincing to me. Lord Cregan may have been displeased with the fact that his son and heir died in Dorne, causing a rather unpleasant situation regarding the succession of Winterfell, but one assumes he would have rather blamed the boy king and his stupid war for that development than burning with desire to continue the Dornish War and avenging his son.

Eventually, people tire of war, never mind the fact that part of them might still long for revenge. If they hadn't, King Baelor would most likely have not been able to forge the peace he did. The man was charismatic and headstrong and all, but his walk to Dorne took him a long time. Causing or continuing a war - or rather: forcing your head of state/government to do so - is rather easy if you command a significant portion of the troops. If the Marcher Lords or other Stormlanders/Reach lords - or even the Hand himself - had wanted to continue the hostilities they could have commanded/arranged attacks on the Dorne while the foolish king was still on his walk to the Red Mountains. Ravens fly and horses race much quicker than barefoot feet can hope to walk.

In that sense, it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of Baelor's subjects accepted his plans of peace - most likely because they were weary of war, too, and were secretly glad that their new king had the greatness and nobility to forgive the murderers of his royal brother. If the king can do that, who are his subjects to cry for war and vengeance?

During the reign of Aegon IV and Daeron II quite a few Stormlanders were in rather high positions at court. The Penroses got two royal marriages, Ronnel Penrose was (technically) Daeron II's Master of Coin, and Jena Dondarrion the wife of the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. This all happened prior to the Blackfyre Rebellion.

@Ran:

You have commented on that once already, I think, but can you confirm again that both Ronnel Penrose, Elaena's second husband, and Aelinor Penrose, Aerys I's wife and queen, were Targaryen cousins? You have that obscure line in TWoIaF:

Quote

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

It is pretty clear who Daeron's most powerful supporters are in this sentence - the Martells of Sunspear, most notably Mariah's brother Prince Maron. But the men only referred to as 'some of Daeron's allies' must refer to some of the lords and knights living in the Marches, the Stormlands, and the Reach, and the way I always interpreted this is that the Penroses and Dondarrions were among those men.

If they were both Targaryens cousins, descended from one of the daughters of Rhaena Targaryen and Garmund Hightower, they could have been raised at court alongside young Prince Daeron, growing close to him. So Aegon IV would have tried to use the anti-Dornish resentment in the other Marcher/Stormland/Reach houses to drive a wedge between Daeron and the Dondarrions/Penroses (who also happened to be Targaryen cousins, an important fact during a time when the royal family was down to only one male branch) by means of this Dornish War idea, which would have forced the Dondarrions and Penroses to fight against the Dornishmen, possibly resulting in estranging them from Daeron and Mariah.

In that sense, I think, the idea that Baelor Breakspear's wife Jena Dondarrion was also of Targaryen descent would make a lot of sense. If Daeron II actually married the Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne to a simple Dondarrion then he could just as well have shot himself. I mean, Egg's marriage to Betha Blackwood (one of the more powerful Riverlord houses, a relation of the Hand of the King, Lord Rivers, of most ancient First Men royalty, etc.) supposedly would have been more controversial than it actually was if Egg had been at the top of the line of succession at that time. But Baelor was when he married Jena Dondarrion. He was the Heir Apparent. And he did marry Jena prior to the Blackfyre Rebellion, or else Valarr could not be as old as he is in THK.

If the marriage of Daenerys and Maron provoked some opposition among the Blackfyre partisans (or at least provided them with a pretext when the rebellion finally began) then this insane marriage (and the betrothal leading up to it) of the Prince of Dragonstone would have been a much better pretext. Unless, of course, Jena Dondarrion had Targaryen blood. Then this would have been part of the Targaryen marriage practice of marrying cousin to cousin when no closer relations are around. A custom, that would have no longer been questioned by the lords at that time.

And if we assume that Daeron II had quite a few cousins to turn to for brides for his sons - say, Velaryons or even Hightowers - then him choosing those Stormlander buddies of his strongly indicates he wanted to use those ties strengthen his ties in that regions, to get more support for his Dornish plans there. And this worked in the end. The majority of the Stormlanders answered Baelor's call and helped crush the Blackfyres on the Redgrass Field.

In general, the speculation about a broad anti-Dorne/anti-Daeron movement in the Marches and the Realm is pretty moot. At least by the time the Blackfyre Rebellion actually took place. Anti-Dornish resentment would have played a small role, but the larger part would have been Daemon's growing popularity and the personal ambitions of the men who felt they were slighted by the new regime. Daeron II wasn't his corrupt father. He must have removed quite a few people from positions of power who now felt they were treated badly. And then there is the story about Daeron II not really being the son of the king, etc.

In relation to Daemon Blackfyre as a person we really have to wait and see how many influential men ended up supporting him for what reason. The way I see it - and the way it is presented as of yet - no major house supported Daemon Blackfyre wholeheartedly. No great house came out of the woodworks and stood at Daemon's side on the Redgrass Field. That doesn't mean that some great lords didn't stand back the Frey way, waiting who would keep the other hand, or that they didn't lent the Blackfyres support behind the scenes (by giving them money, provisions, or effectively allowing them to raise troops in their lands without interfering).

But overall the impression we get is that Daemon was somewhat a Renly-like figure. A man popular enough to win the heart and soul of the young knights and marshal the considerable power of the second and third sons. If you can do that, you can marshal a strong enough army to challenge the establishment, and if you win some decisive victories more and more people will flock to your banners. But that doesn't mean all the houses of the famous men who gathered around Daemon - like the Reynes, say - actually stood with him. 

The very fact that Daemon Blackfyre - and two later Blackfyre pretenders - were supported by the Yronwoods of all people indicates that anti-Dornish resentment played a very small part in all that. Nowhere is it indicated that Daemon Blackfyre (or any of his descendants) ever intended to grant Dorne independence again. The Yronwoods may have dreamed of supplanting the Martells as the rulers of Dorne, but they would have ruled Dorne then under the aegis of the kings of House Blackfyre.

As to the Osgrey situation discussed by @Ran and @LionoftheWest:

Has anybody ever considered the fact that the terms of Daeron's decree punishing Eustace Osgrey and rewarding the Webbers already included the way how things could get better again? Unless these two houses united they would both suffer (the Webbers would lose some privileges they had in Wat's Wood, I think, and the Osgreys would completely disappear). We do not know how that was the intention of Daeron II, of course, but it is pretty interesting that the terms of that decree actually figure in the way how to resolve this crisis in the end (in addition to the terms of the testament of Rohanne's father, of course).

[Adam Yozza]

11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

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

Aegon may have spent most of the war incapacitated but he was the one who started it (after some strongarming from Alicent, Criston and Aemond IIRC). Why do you blame Viserys? Genuine interest not a dig.

[Lion of the West]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

You'd have to provide evidence of that statement of snowballing, because there's precious little that we can actually see. There's a pretty lengthy section of TWoIaF that deals with the question of why it took so long, and largely it just comes down to the fact that people had been suggesting it to Blackfyre for years, especially Bittersteel, and that this eventually turned his head. I guess you could call that a "snowball", but it's not really one of Daeron's making from the evidence. I suppose one might also say that it's a "snowball" in the sense that Daemon as an alternative power center led people with even thin grievances against Daeron to let that fester by turning to Daemon and pushing him as a means to redress their grievances (like Eustace Osgrey's hope to recover Coldmoat, nice and old and well outside his lifetime and yet...), but again, you're talking about a situation where there was no substantial injustice done to anyone, least of all Daemon, and yet Daemon alone dictated when the rebellion happened.

I don't profess to have hard evidence that can't be refuted but that's what I take away from the text about how people would come to Daemon and speak to him and slowly sell him on the idea that he could, and should, be king. That the wide spread but separate grumblers comes together and finds a focus to make their grumbling become more focused and formulated into a political agenda with Blackfyre as the figurehead. So pretty much as you suggested in the quoted text.

Quote

Lets say instead that men like Bittersteel and Blackfyre would very likely excel and perform heroics on the martial field, ensuring that there'd be men willing to follow them into hell... men who now were battle-hardened. And the problem with this is that we circle back to Aegon IV having undermined Daeron by making Blackfyre seem not just a rival, but potentially the _true_ king of Westeros whom Daeron had usurped. Increasing Daemon's martial repute and his associations with battle-hardened warriors was not a recipe for reducing tensions.

Again it depends on who is sent and so. If the Kingsguard adds some victories to their reputation that's unlikely to have aided the Blacks of that age. Just like the Stepstones didn't to my knowledge directly increase tensions in the realm, even if I know that's a theory about the STAB's origin, and war was conducted under the leadership of first Lord Baratheon and then the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

Quote

The Roman Empire also had the same issues, even after the post-Republic reforms that helped solidify the loyalty of legions towards the Empire rather than their generals... except when who was rightful emperor came into question, which then again led to the legionnaires deciding to go with the person they thought should be emperor, who strangely enough often turned out to be their general. The issue is that Aegon IV _baked in_ this very situation into Westeros. Eustace treats Daemon as Daeron as two "great princes" who decided to quarrel over a throne that each had equal right to, and this would not have happened had Aegon not decided to wreak merry havoc with the realm from beyond the grave.

Well, I think that you sell the Romans a bit high here and that its a fairly complicated mixture of different influences and reasons which ended up with the Roman legions being, well, dishonorable and illoyal scum for large parts of the empire. I haven't specialized in the ancient Rome, Greece is more of a favorite for me, so I won't try to make a deep explaination for something which I don't know enough about. 

Quote

If he were absolute, trial by combat would not exist. The gods are above him. However, if you mean the king is the absolute temporal power, this is true, but the king is "first among equals" because just as his vassals swear to him, he returns that with promises of justice, with generally-agreed upon ideas of what justice is. This is the feudal contract. The violation of it -- but rewriting the rules, or throwing them aside entirely -- runs risks. There is no higher "court" (besides the gods, I suppose, who aren't likely to speak up) to judge him, and he can get away with all sorts of inequities if he plays his cards right, but this doesn't change the fact of what is understood and what is understood as wrong.

Well, I wasn't convinced that the king of Westeros was absolute either but Lord Varys digged up a link where GRRM stated that it was a absolutist monarchy the Targaryens created. So I'd love to agree with you in that the king isn't the highest thing and a walking god in determining what's right and wrong. I've looked around a little for the link but couldn't find it though.

Quote

The fact that the kings provide codes of law certainly shows there is a shared framework of understanding within Westeros of what is legal and what is not. When Aegon the Conqueror ruled, he was exactingly careful in administering the traditional laws of each region of Westeros as justly as he could, bringing learned maesters familiar with all the details to advise him of the particulars. Jaehaerys unified the law code, Viserys II revised it, and the small council has a seat for the Master of Laws. We even see kings on occasion consulting their councillors about the laws and customs on certain points.

I'd love to agree with this.

Quote

So, all together, whether you want to define them as "extrajudicial" or not, Daeron deciding to quietly poison Daemon or what have you to remove him from the stage is certainly not _justice_. One might say Daeron could choose to dispense with the law whenever he wanted to, but the point is that he seems to have started his reign by being very attentive to it. One notices that Daeron is said to have made no attempt to delegitimize the bastards his father legitimized not only because he didn't want to do that, but it's noted that he "could" not do it either. Given that writs of legitimization are a king's perogative, undoing them is a king's as well... but Daeron made a clear show that he was going to allow himself to be limited by law and precedent. His father's decree made them law, and Daeron would not undo it, however much trouble and heartache it may have caused him.

Makes sense.

Quote

This is a good point. I think we circle back to the idea that the problem for those complaining about the Dornish was that they had a seat at the table with the rest of the houses, as it were. It's notable that the Houses most directly affected by this particular aspect of the union -- the Great Houses -- were largely on the side of Daeron or uninvolved, so the argument that the influence thing was such a big deal falls flat for me. You get a sense of a lot of petty lords and younger sons bitching that they don't have a seat on the small council because of the damned Dornish, as if they ever had a chance anyways. The Dornish were an excuse, not a cause, in the end.

I never get the sense that they felt they personally were left out. I always got a sense that they felt that the kind of virtues they had been living for and with was not honored by the king. It wasn't long-term loyalty to House Targaryen that could earn you honors from the king. It was being resilient enemies of House Targaryen that allowed you to get honors from the king. The sight, or "sight", of the enemy that so many had died fighting, people they would have been related to or known the descendents of, getting to walk in first was probably more irking than any feelings that "they" personally should have been given those honors.

Quote

I definitely don't think he was a saint, but surely that's not necessary for being a great king. I do wish he had been just slightly more merciful toward Eustace Osgrey. His foolishness lost him all of his sons, and taking his only remaining child was harsh indeed. When they learned his wife killed herself, it would have been a great kindness to have perhaps reconsidered. But then again, to what degree Daeron was involved in the administration of this, we don't know. Perhaps he had Bloodraven oversee it, and he was more cold-blooded. And then again, if he returned a hostage over a tragedy, I'm sure some would have just taken it as weakness, or even as insult to injury, so...

Now, I don't think that you can be a saint if you're given so much power and responsibility.

Quote

In the end, Daeron's reputation rests on his having attempted to rule justly and well, and in integrating Dorne successfully into the realm. The poisoned pill his father left him might have been dealt with in manners underhanded or by choosing to limit his own actions so as to try and keep Daemon from finding too many supporters, but given that minor conflicts with Dorne had been issues ever since the founding of the Seven Kingdoms, and he had a unique position to bring about a peaceful submission, it's hard to blame him for taking the chance rather than deciding to give it another 20 years.

To a degree I agree that trying to do well should be looked upon favorably and briging in Dorne was a great thing he did in building on what Baelor had already created. But to me a guy dead since over a decade can't be the sole scapegoat when half the realm goes up in arms against the king. I've seen the argument that the dead are the ones responsible before and I still reject it. Its the living that decides to do something that makes things happen and that's responsiblity can never be passed onto the dead. At all times the living can do something else instead of what the dead may have intended them to do.

As for Osgrey I kind of felt sorry for him and was sympathic to his suffering until I noticed that he was supposedly a good friend of Lord Wyman Webber, and that kind of soured me on him. If he had pressed his claim, through Blackfyre, on Coldmoat against a Lord Webber who he had no special friendly relation to I would be on his side and even consider his cause to have a just nature to a degree. But to betray and take arms against a friend, especially for the sake of material benefits, speaks ill of him and that's something that I won't forgive him. As for getting his daughter back. I would imagine that many other Blacks suffered as badly as Osgrey and like you mentioned, it would more than likely have been considered a sign of weakness by many if hostages were returned without  some kind of effort to win royal favor.

[Bael's Bastard]

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

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.

@The Grey Wolf

That the marriage of Maekar and Dyanna produced four sons and two daughters could have contributed as well to Maekar not marrying again. But I definitely think there is a chance it was a marriage of love.

I am sure there were those who thought the marriages and appointment to offices of note were going overboard, but I imagine those were mostly people who would have been opposed no matter how few marriages or offices the Dornish received. The marriage of Daeron to Mariah alone was probably going overboard to such lords.

But objectively, the marriages, particularly the two Martell marriages, were each made by two different Targaryen kings, and each marriage agreement had very major aims, which those marriages succeeded in accomplishing.

There is no family or region in Westeros comparable to the Martells and Dorne. They remained independent of the Targaryen kingdom for most of one hundred and eighty seven years, and while the Targaryens were able to conquer Dorne for short periods at times, it was always very costly, and they weren't able to hold it and maintain peace.

And while the two Martell betrothals might have occurred in the same lifetime, they still occurred almost two decades apart, with three Targaryen kings dying between them, though Daeron was technically involved in both (one as the spouse, the other as a negotiator).

Daeron and Daenerys might have been siblings, but there was a gap in age of nearly two decades between them, to the extent that Daeron already had at least one son of his own by the time his sister Daenerys was born, and he could have plausibly been a grandfather by the time he betrothed his sister Daenerys to Maron Martell.

Unfortunately, bringing Dorne into the kingdom in and of itself was always going to have opposition from certain lords after almost two centuries, just as peace with Dorne without their submission had opposition after only thirteen years of Targaryen rule.

And there appears to have been at least three Targaryen marriages to Storm Land houses during the reign of Daeron II: his two eldest sons Baelor and Aerys to a Dondarrion and Penrose, and his aunt Elaena to a Penrose.

[Lord Varys]

As to succession issues:

Jaehaerys I actually succeeded at securing his own peaceful succession despite the considerable difficulties he faced. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. He was much more foresighted than, say, Viserys I (who could have made Rhaenyra's peaceful succession much more easier/likely by making her the Hand, and/or removing Aegon and Aemond from the equation by sending them to the Wall or the Citadel/Faith, or even by making them Rhaenyra's wards) or Robert Baratheon (who essentially ignored the four quarrelsome factions as his court - his queen, his Hand, and his two brothers).

In that sense, Jaehaerys I is to be applauded to actually take the time and effort to ensure a peaceful succession rather than taking the easy route of naming some successor, and not caring whether that person will actually have the strength or support to take the crown after his death.

With hindsight, it may have been the wiser decision to name Princess Rhaenys the heiress in 92 AC, but one assumes Jaehaerys - already a pretty old man at the time - wanted the succession to be secure should he die the next day. It is true, that Rhaenys and Corlys could have sons of their own, but if they were not yet around by the time the Old King died somebody would have to succeed him. And it would then have been Rhaenys, then, considering that Laena and Laenor were only born in 93 and 94 AC, respectively.

And we don't know whether Rhaenys was good royal material. The hints on her character we get is that she was passionate and hot-headed, perhaps some sort of a female Daemon (I'm going by Corlys Velaryon's reluctance to even acknowledge his bastards while his wife still lived). That is not the kind of person Jaehaerys I may have wanted to sit on his throne.

We also don't know whether Aemon and Baelon/Alyssa got along very well, how competent a king Aemon could have been. Baelon was called 'the Brave' and was apparently a capable and well-liked guy. If Aemon was more like his grandfather Aenys (or his granduncle Maegor) then Jaehaerys may have actually been happy that this guy predeceased him, not trusting that the daughter from that union would be much better.

If you rule as long and as competently as Jaehaerys did - and if your foremost interest is actually the common good and the welfare of your subjects - then the continuation of that policy is more important to you than that some principles of succession (which aren't exactly written in stone) are observed. Jaehaerys' important criteria to settle the succession issue would have been whether his successor was up to the task and whether he was willing to continue his policy. Baelon apparently was. Rhaenys perhaps not.

When it came to Viserys vs. Rhaenys, Rhaenys may have actually been the better choice. Viserys I wasn't that bad a king - he kept his grandfather's peace throughout his entire reign - but perhaps Rhaenys would have been better than him. But her succession would have been another major crisis. A King Laenor would have never fathered an heir of his own body, and if he had been king he wouldn't have even pretended he did. As a consort to Rhaenyra he made sense because the succession went through him but if Laenor the heir or king had another man impregnate his wife things could have exploded either upon the death of his mother or during his reign. Especially if Baelon's sons had added more and more male branches to House Targaryen.

But in any case, the succession is usually only something that's partially in the control of a king. He can set the stage for that - and Jaehaerys I did that - but there is no guarantee that things work the way he envisioned them. In that sense, the quality of a king or reign should be judged more by the aspects a king can control - which are the policies he enacted during his reign.

[Ran]

This  is the link. I'm cautious about this in the sense that we have it second hand from someone who may be substituting "absolute monarchy" for something else GRRM said, and that what is described doesn't really strike me as suggesting GRRM is denying the existence of the king's feudal obligations to his vassals.  "Absolute monarchy" often seems to have the meaning that lords have no rightful recourse against an unjust king -- because the concept of "justice" is solely the property of the king to define! -- but in fact there are agreed upon concepts of what is just and what is unjust, and what a vassal owes and what the suzerain owes. The recourse may be violent (rebellion) or less so (negotiation or capitulation), and the escalation to violence may lead to defeat or destruction, but still, these are legitimate things and we see in the text the sense that a king can indeed by just or unjust.

But if we simply mean by absolute only the sense that there is no formal means of putting a king to trial by law, then sure, I suppose he's absolute. But the actual relation between the king and his vassals is the feudal contract, and if contracts are broken, well, stuff can happen.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Aegon may have spent most of the war incapacitated but he was the one who started it (after some strongarming from Alicent, Criston and Aemond IIRC). Why do you blame Viserys? Genuine interest not a dig.

Viserys I is to blame only partially. He could have acted differently, but then - people pretended to have put the conflicts they once had behind them when he was around. If you put yourself in his shoes for a moment - and assume he loved all of those people to various degrees - then what on earth should he have done? Sure, he could have ensured Rhaenyra's succession by sending Aegon and Aemond away to the Wall, Faith, Citadel - or by making them Rhaenyra's wards (or the wards of the Velaryons) - but that would have made Alicent - whom he also loved very much - unhappy and pissed. 

Vice versa, changing the succession in favor of Aegon would have not greatly hurt Rhaenyra but also angered and provoked the Velaryons - more so while Laenor was still alive and the future prince/king consort and Rhaenyra's side, but even afterwards due to the fact that Laenor's sons (betrothed to Laena's daughters) would then not succeed Viserys.

If you have as shitty a family as Viserys I you are pretty much fucked regardless how you treat them. The only way to settle the issue would have been the favor one side and crush or exterminate the other. But that wouldn't have worked without spilling quite a little bit of royal blood. And it isn't the way a loving husband, father, brother, uncle, grandfather wants to treat his family, no?

In the end, the people who are to blame are the ones who began the war. And those were Otto/Alicent and their cabal at court with their coup. Alicent's children share the blame, but are less guilty than Alicent, Otto, Cole, and the members of the Small Council who sided with them.

If there is a war, a conflict, or even a family struggle then the people to blame are not the ones who don't prevent this by royal or parental authority. The people to blame are the ones who actually do the deeds.

In that sense, Rhaenyra, Daemon, and the Velaryons are also to blame for the war up to a point. After all, they could have accepted the fait accompli, being content with Dragonstone and Driftmark. But then, the chances are not that good that Alicent/Otto and Aegon II had allowed them to live out their lives in peace and quiet on the islands. They would have come for them, sooner or later. In that sense, the whole thing was a fight for survival on the side of Rhaenyra's family. For Alicent's children and grandchildren it became the same, too, but only at a later point in time, and only due to their original treasonous actions (i.e. the coup).

But both sides are most definitely to blame for being unwilling to try to make a peace when the chances arose. Rhaenyra could have stretched out her hands to Aemond and Daeron, at least, and vice versa Aegon II could have made a peace with Rhaenyra when he took her prisoner on Dragonstone. If they had entered into a political marriage there, marrying their remaining children to each other, too, they could have not only prevented the decline of Targaryen power but could also have gained some personal greatness in the process of it.

27 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

@The Grey Wolf

That the marriage of Maekar and Dyanna produced four sons and two daughters could have contributed as well to Maekar not marrying again. But I definitely think there is a chance it was a marriage of love.

We actually don't know whether Maekar never remarried or not. It doesn't look like that right now, but there is still the chance that he married one of the many Targaryen widows - who may have been beyond child-bearing age at that point, anyway - to have a queen at his side after he took the throne.

Viserys II most likely would have been pressured to remarry, too, after he finally took the throne. The Realm needs a mother, too, a father isn't enough. One really wonders whether there were talks about Daena (or one of her sisters) marrying Viserys II around the time the man suddenly died. It could have been a way to sweeten the fact that Baelor's sisters were passed over.

Kiera of Tyrosh could also have played the role of the queen during Maekar's reign, I guess - like Ellyn Reyne effectively was Lady of Casterly Rock in all but name - but Maekar could just as well have taken Alys Arryn or Aelinor Penrose as a wife after his brothers had both died.

[The Grey Wolf]

@Ran

The reason the Great Houses didn't support Daemon is obvious. Daemon's greatest supporters were generally the second-most powerful family in their regions or historically troublesome ones:

Reyne-Westerlands
Bracken, Lothston-Riverlands
Yronwood-Dorne
Sunderland-Vale
Peake-Reach

When you're at the top change is bad and Daemon clearly intended to shake things up if he became king given the above supporters, all of whom would deserve (and expect) rewards for their loyal service.

Speaking just of House Tyrell:

The fact that the majority of the Reach supported Daemon and Leo Longthorn couldn't get his men to the Redgrass Field in time implies the Tyrells stayed neutral (or gave Daemon lip service allegiance) before then pivoting to attack the stragglers/men returning home after the Redgrass Field, which explains how Longthorn won victories against the Black Dragon.

@Lord Varys

How do you or anyone else know that Dorne would have been amenable to a union in 157 AC?

For all we know there may have been peaceful attempts to do that during the reign of Aenys I or Jaehaerys I but if so they fell through.

Also, look at it from Dorne's perspective:

They defied Aegon and his sisters atop their three great dragons. Now, the dragons were gone because the Targaryens ripped themselves to pieces and the new king on the Iron Throne was an untested fourteen year-old.
Even if Coryanne (to use the MUSH for argument's sake) wasn't the same type of person as Aliandra, Daeron I attempting to bring Dorne into the fold through marriage rather than through war could have dismissed by her pretty easily.
The Dornish were clearly happy being independent and without dragons what threat could this boy king pose?
In that sense Daeron I's war not only revitalized the monarchy but also forced the Dornish to see that even if the Targaryens could no longer ran fire down from on high they were still a potent threat to Dorne, which made marriage and union much more palatable than before.

@Adam Yozza

Viserys I was the one who decided to remarry and have trueborn sons even after declaring his daughter his heir in defiance of the two precedents that won him the throne in the first place. That's why. He set up the Dance. And to be clear, I don't blame Alicent for what she did. It would take an extraordinarily meek woman to not fight tooth and nail for her child's rights when said child is the king's oldest surviving son.

@Bael's Bastard

I don't agree that the lords complaining about Dorne were all hard-liners objecting to any amount of Dornish influence at court.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

 I never get the sense that they felt they personally were left out. I always got a sense that they felt that the kind of virtues they had been living for and with was not honored by the king. It wasn't long-term loyalty to House Targaryen that could earn you honors from the king. It was being resilient enemies of House Targaryen that allowed you to get honors from the king. The sight, or "sight", of the enemy that so many had died fighting, people they would have been related to or known the descendents of, getting to walk in first was probably more irking than any feelings that "they" personally should have been given those honors.

But to me a guy dead since over a decade can't be the sole scapegoat when half the realm goes up in arms against the king.

[Adam Yozza]

45 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Viserys I was the one who decided to remarry and have trueborn sons even after declaring his daughter his heir in defiance of the two precedents that won him the throne in the first place. That's why. He set up the Dance. And to be clear, I don't blame Alicent for what she did. It would take an extraordinarily meek woman to not fight tooth and nail for her child's rights when said child is the king's oldest surviving son.

Yeah he decided to remarry. That was smart. He had only a single child to follow him with no guarantee she would live to inherit. Aemon and Baelon showed that this was a very real concern. So he remarried and had more children to ensure his family's survival. And yes, by precedent Aegon should have been his heir.

However succession in Westeros is not set in stone, there is no definitive law on the matter. Precedent is the only guidance you get. But the King's word supercede's all else, so Viserys was well within his rights to keep Rhaenyra as heir. Not only that, but Rhaenyra as heir and married to Laenor also removed the threat of a strong claimant.

Also a quick note; Viserys' actions do not go against any of the precedents set during the Great Council's. Those councils established that a King's second son comes before the King's granddaughter by his first son and that a Kings grandson by his second son comes before the King's granddaughter by his first son. The two precedents Viserys does go against are those set by Maegor (which would have Daemon as Viserys heir no matter how many children he had), Jaeherys (which would have Daemon ahead of Rhaenyra but not Aegon) and the traditional eldest son inherits everything. So no, he didn't defy the precedent's that made him King. And even if he did, his word is law. If he says Rhaenyra is his heir then she is his heir.

I fully blame Alicent for what she did. Fighting for her sons rights, fair enough. But once Viserys died, Rhaenyra was rightfully Queen. So Aegon had no rights to the throne.

[Ran]

@The Grey Wolf

Well, yes. Meaning Daemon's leading supporters were largely driven by warmongery or by ambition rather than by a sense of injustice or misrule.

Which underscores that Dorne was an excuse for most of the rebels, not a cause.

[Bael's Bastard]

Viserys I was in a tough spot. He made Rhaenyra his heir after his infant son and wife died and left him with only the one child. If he had later gone back on that once he had sons by Alicent, there is no guarantee there wouldn't have been violent repercussions, just as there were after he stuck to his original decision. Remarrying was pretty much unavoidable with only one child and an ambitious brother. And marrying Rhaenyra to Aegon wouldn't have solved the issue of them both believing they should be the ruler.

[Bael's Bastard]

I forgot to mention earlier that the Vale also got three Targaryen marriages during the span of under two decades, all during the reign of Jaehaerys I:

- Rodrik Arryn married Jaehaerys I's daughter Daella in 80 AC
- Their daughter Aemma Arryn had married Jaehaerys I's grandson Viserys by 97 AC
- Rhea Royce married Jaehaerys I's grandson Viserys in 97 AC

So while rare, two Targaryen marriages to the same house, three to the same region, in the span of twenty years wasn't unprecedented when Baelor wed Daeron to Mariah and Daeron wed Daenerys to Maron.

And the fact that one of the marriages made peace with Dorne after the war of Daeron I and failed conquest of Aegon IV, and the other peacefully brought them into the kingdom shows that both were essential.

[Ran]

Yeah, but the injustice of that led to the great Anti-Vale Rebellion that would haunt the Targaryens for five generations!

[cpg2016]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ran said:

That's not the Blackfyre Rebellion, which is what I'm talking about, re: Daeron II's fitness as king.

Sorry for the late response, your post didn't show up as a response to mine.

And I wasn't making a point about the Blackfyre Rebellions specifically.  I was saying that there was widespread anti-Dornish sentiment in the Kingdom before Daeron's accession, which isn't his fault obviously.  What IS his fault is that he handled the resulting politics poorly by not understanding that in tying the Dornish closer to his court (for good reasons) he was alienating other powerful interests.

On 11/27/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ran said:

The reason Dorne becoming part of the realm changes things has a lot to do with influence: if you treat it as a zero-sum game (and you shouldn't, really, but it's easy to see why so many people tend to do so), you see influence at court as being, in very broad and generalized terms, a pie divided up into pieces for each Great House. The Starks have some influence, the Tyrells, etc. They're all fighting over a piece of pie, and some will at some times have more influence and some will have less influence, but they've generally had a similar amount of the pie.Now the Martells are integrated into the realm. Suddenly you've got to divide the pie not between Tully, Arryn, Tyrell, Lannister, Baratheon, and Stark (Greyjoys really never did much matter at court), but now you've got to give the Martells a slice. Everyone else's slice irrevocably diminishes a little. There's a bit more competition now. And yet this is inevitable if you expand your realm 

It isn't quite a zero sum game, no.  But Daeron does a lot to make it one, because he obviously favors the Dornish courtiers of his wife, marries his sister off to a Martell, allows his (cousin once removed, I think?) Elaena to marry a Dornishman... all in all, the early years of his reign are marked by a TON of favor being shown to Dorne.  It's only as the Blackfyre Rebellion draws near that there seems to be any interest in balancing this out: if we believe that Daemon began plotting his rebellion in 188 after being denied Daenerys' hand in marriage, then the politics begin to fall into place.  He and Aegor and Fireball begin assembling a coalition of disaffected nobles, and it's only once he realizes his mistake that Daeron (and Bloodraven) begin trying to placate the Marcher Lords, with the marriages of Baelor and Aerys into Houses Dondarrion and Penrose taking place (it seems like that Valarr Targaryen was born in the early 190s, and Aerys I would also have been in his late teens in that time as well).

So you are right, it isn't a zero sum game.  But in feudal politics, the two most important factors for favor and influence are physical proximity to the person of the monarch, and family ties.  Daeron begins his reign in a Dornish-dominated court, with all of his marriagable relatives going to Dornish husbands.  He makes it a zero sum game, by denying influence to non-Dornish.  It's only after discontent begins, and Daemon Blackfyre starts becoming a center of disaffection, that he makes an attempt to remedy this.

On 11/27/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ran said:

If they're going to be part of the realm, he has to give them access at court. And if he's trying to convince people who are independent to join peacefully, concessions need to be made (funny about the concessions bit: the detail about controlling taxation and such was something I convinced George of, as I felt that without things of that sort the Dornish would not have been able to sustain the notion that their forces were substantially greater than they actually were!). You look at the realm after Daeron, and the Dornish issue practically disappears. It's not brought up as a factor in "The Mystery Knight", it's not explicitly a factor in any of the following rebellions, etc.

It's one or the other.  The Martells come into the realm as having explicitly more prestige, honor, and privilege than their counterparts.  And THEN they're given a ton of additional favors, these at the expense of the existing Lords, who have just seen fathers and brothers and sons die in wars against the Dornish, seen their king betrayed under flag of truce, etc.  They're right to be upset about all that, and then this new king not only upholds Baelor I's pardon of that conduct, not only repudiates Aegon's anti-Dornish position, but seems to be actively rewarding them with not only favors and honors, but also marriage ties!

The concessions can either be the royal access (marriages to Daeron, Daenerys, Elaena) or the honors and privileges bestowed on Dorne (right to call themselves Prince/Princess, less royal oversight).  It's the combination of both, simultaneously, that is so egregious.  It disappears after his reign, because after his reign (a) the Blackfyre partisans are weakened considerably, and (b) the Crown reverts to a policy in which not every available royal family member gets married to a Dornish person.

On 11/27/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ran said:

Daeron's project succeeded, so that when decades later his descendant Aerys is looking for a bride for his heir, the only person particularly upset by the choice of Elia Martell is Tywin Lannister, and that's purely because he had wanted his own daughter to marry Rhaegar. And we see no evidence in present-day Westeros that anyone feels very strongly about the Dornish having some unique privileges. And before that, his heirs are half-Dornish, his grandson Egg is more or less half Dornish, and yet this isn't ever explained as being any kind of a factor in the turmoil in his own reign, or that of his father. The subsequent Blackfyre rebellions are increasingly driven by exiles  in Essos.

This neatly glosses over FIVE major rebellions (or... three major wars and two lesser ones) and the major discontent arising from and during the reign of Daeron and his successors.

I am not arguing that bringing Dorne into the realm was a bad idea, or that anti-Dornish sentiment is still as virulent.  Besides, there are now 100 years for people to get used to the idea that the Dornish have unique privileges.  But all of it coming at once, without 100 years of acclimation, PLUS the fact that the Dornish dominate the court, PLUS the fact that the Dornish are getting multiple choice marriages when the rest of the realm gets zilch, is a major issue.  It's the ONLY thing that explains the level of support the Blackfyres get.  There is, literally, no other reason for it.

On 11/27/2017 at 5:27 PM, Ran said:

To me, focusing on the Blackfyre Rebellion as a failure on Daeron's part is sort of like blaming Lincoln for the Civil War. It happened because of his great achievement which permanently changed the landscape of the Seven Kingdoms, and while I can see the argument that he should have been more ruthless to Daemon -- as I said, maybe without Daemon the rebellion wouldn't have happened at all -- it's hard to penalize a guy for trying to treat his half-brother justly.

This is an awful analogy.  

I agree that he deserves credit for trying to treat Daemon Blackfyre justly, but that is what leads to the rebellion.  That's Daeron's fault!  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Without a legitimized bastard Targaryen, bearing many of the emblems of royal authority, the Blackfyre Rebellion would have been FAR easier to deal with, as indeed is the case in all subsequent risings.  

If you think that Daeron did the absolute minimum required to bring Dorne into the realm, then sure, you can excuse literally anything.  But his "great achievement" caused an ocean of blood to be spilled, so we have to temper our assessment.  Had he been more considerate of his vassals who had just loyally spilled a ton of their own blood on behalf of the Crown's invasion of Dorne, had he better understood that in not only forgiving Dorne by placing it in a position of supreme power in the kingdom, both de jure and de facto, and overall if he had understood the threat that his half-brothers posed, he could easily have mitigated the problem he had.  Absorbing Dorne was always going to cause problems; I just happen to think that in every way he could have, Daeron II exacerbated those problems by not considering the opinions of his non-Dornish vassals.  And his actions in the immediate run-up to the Blackfyre Rebellion, and it's aftermath, make it abundantly clear that he knew he fucked up.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yeah, but the injustice of that led to the great Anti-Vale Rebellion that would haunt the Targaryens for five generations!

[Bael's Bastard]

The idea that Daeron II disproportionately married people off to Dorne is without basis. Aside from his own marriage, which was made when he was just a child by Baelor I almost two decades earlier, the only marriage to Dorne we know he is directly responsible for negotiating is the marriage of Daenerys to Maron Martell, which was carried out in 187 AC.

Since we don't know when Baelor and Aerys married their Storm Lands wives, and since Baelor was at least a couple years older than Daenerys, it is entirely possible that one or both of these Storm Lands marriages were negotiated before the marriage of Daenerys to Maron was. And while Daenerys was a Targaryen princess, Baelor and Aerys were heir #1 and #2 to be king.

Even if the marriages of Baelor and Aerys occurred after the Daenerys marriage, they all would have been done within a handful of years of each other, not trying to "balance things out" long after the fact. And again, those daughters of the Storm Lands were in line to be queens, to be wives and mothers of queens. Daenerys, Maron, and their children were not.