TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The Baratheons only got on the throne in the first place because the targs were incompetent enough to piss of a 4th of their most powerful vassals (Rhaegar) it would have happened earlier if the targs didnt have dragons. By the way I wasnt arguing infavour of of Robert.The Targaryens did not have dragons for about 150 years. How come no one revolted against them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Wat Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The Baratheons only got on the throne in the first place because the targs were incompetent enough to piss of a 4th off their most powerful vassals (Rhaegar) it would have happened earlier if the targs didnt have dragons. By the way I wasnt arguing infavour of of Robert.If you weren't arguing in favour of Robert, who were you arguing in favour of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danm_999 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Sporadic events. Better than constant wars for territory.Westeros under the Targaryens was constant warring for territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dovakhiin Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 All the targs manged to accomplish was to amplifiy the scale of warfare experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Westeros under the Targaryens was constant warring for territory.It wasn't constant, there were periods of war, but it wasn't constant. And there were not conflicts that lasted for hundreds of years like there were before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dovakhiin Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 She's still a teenage girl, remember, and has made idealistic, teenage girl mistakes for sure. But you must keep in mind that if she ever did actually come to sit the Iron Throne, it will not just be her in power but she'll bring a whole team with her. Whatever faults one could find in her particularly, one has to admit she has surrounded herself with great counsel. She will probably have Barristan Selmy, Jorah Mormont. Tyrion Lannister, Daario Naharis, Grey Worm and maybe even Victarion Greyjoy at her side.Barristan will give her the legitimacy and honor that she needs. Jorah will give her the solid and sound advice. Tyrion will be her master tactician, Daario will be her lover/consort, Grey Worm her loyal sword and, if he decides, Victarion will be her Master of Ships.So for any deficits and inexperience Dany has, her potential team could make up for that.Yes I see what you mean. Trators, kinslayers, slavers and slaves sounds like a great, great administration to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dovakhiin Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The Targaryens did not have dragons for about 150 years. How come no one revolted against them then?They were to busy fighting each other (blackfryes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Dev Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It's so funny all of these Targ supporters saying oh there was war but only for short periods of time. Hah under tywin the realm would prosper under stannis the realm would prosper. A teenage girl has nothing to offer and a knight that changes sides will not back up any claim. Face the reality.and realize daenarys is the worst choice for the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dovakhiin Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It's so funny all of these Targ supporters saying oh there was war but only for short periods of time. Hah under tywin the realm would prosper under stannis the realm would prosper. A teenage girl has nothing to offer and a knight that changes sides will not back up any claim. Face the reality.and realize daenarys is the worst choice for the realm.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Wat Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 They were to busy fighting each other (blackfryes)The first Blackfyre rebellion lasted one year and the second even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 They were to busy fighting each other (blackfryes)LOL at this answer. That would have been the perfect time to revolt against House Targaryen, yet many Houses in the first Blackfyre Rebellion remained loyal to the Targaryens and others to the Blackfyres (who are basically still Targaryens). And claiming that they fought the Blackfyres for about 150 years is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dovakhiin Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 If you weren't arguing in favour of Robert, who were you arguing in favour of?No one I think their all terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It's so funny all of these Targ supporters saying oh there was war but only for short periods of time. Hah under tywin the realm would prosper under stannis the realm would prosper. A teenage girl has nothing to offer and a knight that changes sides will not back up any claim. Face the reality.and realize daenarys is the worst choice for the realm.You think that under Tywin the realm would prosper? Tywin was a monster. And under Stannis, I'm pretty sure the same things that happened under Robert's reign would happen under his because so many do not want him for king. (I'm not saying that Stannis is not the rightful king). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Dev Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Robert was a drunken fool in the end but stannis or tywin were in postion to save the realm. The only bad egg in the line of stags was the fool renly of course. Opposed to every targ being mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danm_999 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It wasn't constant, there were periods of war, but it wasn't constant.Constant in the sense that a generation wouldn't pass without a war. Not constant in the sense that there was a war every year. War under the Targaryens wasn't 'sporadic'.And there were not conflicts that lasted for hundreds of years like there were before.What war is this? The Andal invasions? They too were punctuated by periods of war, not constant every-year-war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Dev Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 You think that under Tywin the realm would prosper? Tywin was a monster. And under Stannis, I'm pretty sure the same things that happened under Robert's reign would happen under his because so many do not want him for king. (I'm not saying that Stannis is not the rightful king). tywin is not a monster he would do what needs to be done. Stannis is great in that way becayse he is humble, great or small we must do our duty. On the other hand the targs say well I'm the blood of the dragon hur hur the throne is mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Robert was a drunken fool in the end but stannis or tywin were in postion to save the realm. The only bad egg in the line of stags was the fool renly of course. Opposed to every targ being mad.You have it backwards, Renly would have been the best of the three, Renly had Stannis pegged, nobody in Westeros wants him for their king. I can imagine how his no brothels, and required religious conversions would go over. And Dany, and Maester Aemon are not mad. Neither was Baleor Breakspear, Aegon V, Maekar, Daeron II, and the list goes on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 What war is this? The Andal invasions? They too were punctuated by periods of war, not constant every-year-war.Conflicts such as the one between the North and the Vale over the Three Sisters. (I'm aware that it's unlikely that there was actual fighting over this every year, but the conflict was still technically ongoing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 tywin is not a monster he would do what needs to be done. Stannis is great in that way becayse he is humble, great or small we must do our duty. On the other hand the targs say well I'm the blood of the dragon hur hur the throne is mine!Yes, Stannis is very humble (which is why he constantly states that the throne is his by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms). Tywin was a monster, look at what he did to the Riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Robert was a drunken fool in the end but stannis or tywin were in postion to save the realm. The only bad egg in the line of stags was the fool renly of course. Opposed to every targ being mad.NOT EVERY TARGARYEN WAS MAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.