Archived

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

Rhaegarsjoy

Restoration Rights?

369 posts in this topic

He didn't take their Thrones, he merely controlled their lands. They still had their thrones, they just had to pay him taxes and bow to him.

He didn't take their thrones literally, but he most certainly did take their thrones figuratively.

They were the final say in their kingdoms, Aegon came, and he was the final say from that point on.

That is a clear case of usurping.

Robert usurped as well, but his movement was justified.

Aegon had the edge of fire breathing bootskins, so he did.

There was an inherent nobility in Robert's Rebellion, that was wholly absent from Aegon's Conquest.

That Tywin's actions stained it is terrible, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She can make allies the same way Aegon the conqueror did, with dragons.

I don't know if you could use the word "ally" in that context. More likely it's "people that agree with you out of fear for their lives".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a grave they dug themselves In attempting to keep the bloodlines pure, they isolated themselves from the rest of Westeros and failed to cement their loyalty in the oldest traditional manner of the nobility of Westeros

In other words, the Targaryens never managed to bind the Lords Paramount of each region to them in anything but name.

:agree:

Dany has no real claim to the throne, nor does she have strong ties to any region except Dorne.

Contrast that to the Starks who have cemented the loyalty of the North years ago and have strong ties to the Riverlands and Vale.

You can't say they're on the same level because they're not. The Starks are fighting for a claim they earned over the years and people who actually want them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dany is to stay in Mereen and get everything straightened out then she leaves Aegon enough time in Westeros to get a few more people to accept him and Rhaegars son and heir, and bend the knee without the threat of more war. Now getting the Lannisters out of KL will require a bit more bloodshed on Aegons part but that could be the end of it until Dany gets there. As for the North, lets just assume they are trying to get on with their GNC in trying to get rid of the Boltons and place Rickon or Jon as KitN, so they don't factor in right away. If and when Dany comes she will be very highly upset to see another ass sitting on her throne. She will not marry Aegon or join forces with him to keep the current peace. She will tell him to bend the knee to her and her dragons. Aegon will not bend the knee, and the people will have had enough of war. They will tell Dany and her dragons (that could cause uber amounts of even more damage than the kingdom has already seen). Dany is not going to go away peacefully, she will unleash her dragons on the people of Westeros for not accepting her. If they do not want her there as their ruler, after Aegon has brought them a bit of peace, is it not wrong of Dany to enforce her will on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't take their Thrones. He controlled their lands, they paid him taxes and bowed to him but he never took their thrones, they kept them. They were then known as seats of course, but they were still Great Lords.

He didn't the Chairs if you mean that,I'm pretty sure they are fixed to the ground.

But he unmade them as kings extinguished a few families made new lords the owners of the lands,So he did in fact usurp 6 kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you could use the word "ally" in that context. More likely it's "people that agree with you out of fear for their lives".

If they end up fighting for you, they are allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany has no real claim to the throne, nor does she have strong ties to any region except Dorne.

Contrast that to the Starks who have cemented the loyalty of the North years ago and have strong ties to the Riverlands and Vale.

You can't say they're on the same level because they're not. The Starks are fighting for a claim they earned over the years and people who actually want them

You either have a claim or you don't, does stannis have a claim to the throne as It was Roberts thru conquest? Dany as the daughter of the userped king has a claim that's not something that goes away, whether ppl except her as their rightful queen is another.

As with the Starks by that viewpoint you can also say the first men and the Starks have no right to winterfel or the north as they took the land from CoTF, everything has a beginning and someone who lost something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You either have a claim or you don't, does stannis have a claim to the throne as It was Roberts thru conquest? Dany as the daughter of the userped king has a claim that's not something that goes away, whether ppl except her as their rightful queen is another.

As with the Starks by that viewpoint you can also say the first men and the Starks have no right to winterfel or the north as they took the land from CoTF, everything has a beginning and someone who lost something.

The First Men usurped the CoTF,The Andals the First Men and the Valyrians the Andals and the First Men,Seems to me that the Races of Men have absolutely no claim to Westeros at all,Unless the CoTF all died out somehow then the First Men would have the most claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let me start this post by making several clarifications.

First, people often times take Aerys II poor job as a king and extrapolate that to apply it to the entirety of the 300 years of Targaryen rule, portraying it as 300 years of tyranny. This is inaccurate. As another poster mentioned, the dragons will be remembered fondly by many, and the Targaryens had great kings, very much loved by the lords and the common folk alike (Jaeherys I, Baelor I, Daeron I, to name a few). Targaryen rule brought peace and stability to the realm never before seen, and never seen since. The dance and the Blackfyre rebellions were hickups in a mostly stable 300 years of rule (this is relative to the constant petty wars between the kingdoms prior to Aegon's conquest).

Second, some portray Robert's Rebellion as an uprising of the people, the good guys finally overthrowing the yoke of Targaryen tyranny. Of course, this wasn't the case. Sure four lords paramount rebelled, but despite Aerys II's abysmal rule, more than half the realm wanted nothing to do with deposing the Targaryens. The reach, Dorne, and the Crownlands remained completely loyal. In fact to this day we have reason to believe that these regions would welcome a Targaryen restoration. Half the Stormlands refused to join Robert, he had to fight his own bannermen. Half the riverlands refused to rebel, and at the very least, in the Vale, Gulltown (the largest population center) stayed true to the Targaryens. The Lannisters didn't care who won, they would side with the winners.

Third, Aegon's conquest was extremely merciful. The Tyrells, Tullys, and Baratheons owe everything they are to the Targaryens. The Lannisters were allowed to keep their seat, their wealth, and their lands, despite fighting Aegon. Torrhen Stark bent the knee and continued to rule in the north, same with with Arryns of the vale, who soon married into the royal family. Look let me be perfectly blunt, Aegon didn't need these lords, he didn't need to be merciful. He could have wiped them out, but he didn't.

Fourth, comparing Aegon and Robert as usurpers just doesn't fly. First off, three families were actually elevated (Tyrells, Tullys, Baratheons). Second, the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns kept their lands, they kept their castles, and they kept their bannermen. They just now owed allegiance to King's Landing. What Robert did was literally take the Targaryen throne, their castle, their city, their lands, and their bannermen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let me start this post by making several clarifications.

First, people often times take Aerys II poor job as a king and extrapolate that to apply it to the entirety of the 300 years of Targaryen rule, portraying it as 300 years of tyranny. This is inaccurate. As another poster mentioned, the dragons will be remembered fondly by many, and the Targaryens had great kings, very much loved by the lords and the common folk alike (Jaeherys I, Baelor I, Daeron I, to name a few). Targaryen rule brought peace and stability to the realm never before seen, and never seen since. The dance and the Blackfyre rebellions were hickups in a mostly stable 300 years of rule (this is relative to the constant petty wars between the kingdoms prior to Aegon's conquest).

Second, some portray Robert's Rebellion as an uprising of the people, the good guys finally overthrowing the yoke of Targaryen tyranny. Of course, this wasn't the case. Sure four lords paramount rebelled, but despite Aerys II's abysmal rule, more than half the realm wanted nothing to do with deposing the Targaryens. The reach, Dorne, and the Crownlands remained completely loyal. In fact to this day we have reason to believe that these regions would welcome a Targaryen restoration. Half the Stormlands refused to join Robert, he had to fight his own bannermen. Half the riverlands refused to rebel, and at the very least, in the Vale, Gulltown (the largest population center) stayed true to the Targaryens. The Lannisters didn't care who won, they would side with the winners.

Third, Aegon's conquest was extremely merciful. The Tyrells, Tullys, and Baratheons owe everything they are to the Targaryens. The Lannisters were allowed to keep their seat, their wealth, and their lands, despite fighting Aegon. Torrhen Stark bent the knee and continued to rule in the north, same with with Arryns of the vale, who soon married into the royal family. Look let me be perfectly blunt, Aegon didn't need these lords, he didn't need to be merciful. He could have wiped them out, but he didn't.

Fourth, comparing Aegon and Robert as usurpers just doesn't fly. First off, three families were actually elevated (Tyrells, Tullys, Baratheons). Second, the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns kept their lands, they kept their castles, and they kept their bannermen. They just now owed allegiance to King's Landing. What Robert did was literally take the Targaryen throne, their castle, their city, their lands, and their bannermen.

1) Daeron I. was fool, that threw away lives of 50 thousand men just because of being overconfident, spoiled kid, not a great king loved by commonfolk.

There have been more conflicts in the 300 years of Targaryens than in the thousand years before.

2) Houses and regions stayed loyal, because of fear and uncertainty, not because they loved their kings. Even "the biggest Targaryen loyalists" in Dorne sent men only and only because Elia Martell was held a hostage. Same with the Tyrells, their entire campaign in the Rebellion was a masquerade and waiting for the results.

3) Who cares? Conquest is a conquest. Who gave him right to do it? Unlike Robert and his guys, he had none. His conquest also caused more death than Robert's Rebellion.

Or are you trying to say that Robert was not merciful? Guy made friends of enemies ten minutes after bashing them in a head with his hammer.

4) Aegon usurped kings, Robert usurped king. Aegon let Lords keep their lands, Robert did the same. I don't see difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let me start this post by making several clarifications.

First, people often times take Aerys II poor job as a king and extrapolate that to apply it to the entirety of the 300 years of Targaryen rule, portraying it as 300 years of tyranny. This is inaccurate. As another poster mentioned, the dragons will be remembered fondly by many, and the Targaryens had great kings, very much loved by the lords and the common folk alike (Jaeherys I, Baelor I, Daeron I, to name a few). Targaryen rule brought peace and stability to the realm never before seen, and never seen since. The dance and the Blackfyre rebellions were hickups in a mostly stable 300 years of rule (this is relative to the constant petty wars between the kingdoms prior to Aegon's conquest).

Second, some portray Robert's Rebellion as an uprising of the people, the good guys finally overthrowing the yoke of Targaryen tyranny. Of course, this wasn't the case. Sure four lords paramount rebelled, but despite Aerys II's abysmal rule, more than half the realm wanted nothing to do with deposing the Targaryens. The reach, Dorne, and the Crownlands remained completely loyal. In fact to this day we have reason to believe that these regions would welcome a Targaryen restoration. Half the Stormlands refused to join Robert, he had to fight his own bannermen. Half the riverlands refused to rebel, and at the very least, in the Vale, Gulltown (the largest population center) stayed true to the Targaryens. The Lannisters didn't care who won, they would side with the winners.

Third, Aegon's conquest was extremely merciful. The Tyrells, Tullys, and Baratheons owe everything they are to the Targaryens. The Lannisters were allowed to keep their seat, their wealth, and their lands, despite fighting Aegon. Torrhen Stark bent the knee and continued to rule in the north, same with with Arryns of the vale, who soon married into the royal family. Look let me be perfectly blunt, Aegon didn't need these lords, he didn't need to be merciful. He could have wiped them out, but he didn't.

Fourth, comparing Aegon and Robert as usurpers just doesn't fly. First off, three families were actually elevated (Tyrells, Tullys, Baratheons). Second, the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns kept their lands, they kept their castles, and they kept their bannermen. They just now owed allegiance to King's Landing. What Robert did was literally take the Targaryen throne, their castle, their city, their lands, and their bannermen.

I completely agree with all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Daeron I. was fool, that threw away lives of 50 thousand men just because of being overconfident, spoiled kid, not a great king loved by commonfolk.

There have been more conflicts in the 300 years of Targaryens than in the thousand years before.

I think you need to check your resources if you think thousand of years of wars between 7kingdoms is less then the last 300 years. Even if they fought everyday for 300 yrs it will be no where near 7700 years of war.

2) Houses and regions stayed loyal, because of fear and uncertainty, not because they loved their kings. Even "the biggest Targaryen loyalists" in Dorne sent men only and only because Elia Martell was held a hostage. Same with the Tyrells, their entire campaign in the Rebellion was a masquerade and waiting for the results.

If that was true why not rebel as soon as the last dragon dies 150 years ago? One family against the whole of westeros?

3) Who cares? Conquest is a conquest. Who gave him right to do it? Unlike Robert and his guys, he had none. Or are you trying to say that Robert was not merciful? Guy made friends of enemies ten minutes after bashing them in a head with his hammer.

4) Aegon usurped kings, Robert usurped king. Aegon let Lords keep their lands, Robert did the same. I don't see difference.

Who gave the first men the right to take the land from the CoTF or the andals after them, it's human nature. If Robert had so many friends where are they? They weren't in his KG, or small counsel, when he died who missed him?

The seven kingdoms could never have allowed one among them to rule them all, it took an outsider with no connection to any to unite them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was true why not rebel as soon as the last dragon dies 150 years ago? One family against the whole of westeros?

People like to ignore this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to check your resources if you think thousand of years of wars between 7kingdoms is less then the last 300 years. Even if they fought everyday for 300 yrs it will be no where near 7700 years of war.

If that was true why not rebel as soon as the last dragon dies 150 years ago? One family against the whole of westeros?

Who gave the first men the right to take the land from the CoTF or the andals after them, it's human nature. If Robert had so many friends where are they? They weren't in his KG, or small counsel, when he died who missed him?

The seven kingdoms could never have allowed one among them to rule them all, it took an outsider with no connection to any to unite them.

I said thousand, not thousands. And in the thousand years before Aegon, there have truly been a lesser amount of conflicts. I would say that the 7700 years before Aegon had lesser rate of major conflicts than Targ dynasty. Check your resources.

There was no reason at the time. The regions did not used to be allied, so any alliance would be uncertain at best. Additionaly, the institution of the Iron Throne would have driven those allies away.

When the reason presented itself, Targs went down as fast as stone thrown from an aircraft, without any of their "loyalists and friends" actually giving a flying fuck. And still nobody wanted that damned chair, because it caused more harm than good.

Where were Robert's friends? Let me see:

1) One died a year, while trying to ensure that Robert's had a true heir

2) One was thrown into the Black Cells and later murdered while doing the same after Robert's death.

Loyalty of Robert's friends actually goes beyond the death, unlike the Targs, where loyalty is not present even in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Houses and regions stayed loyal, because of fear and uncertainty, not because they loved their kings. Even "the biggest Targaryen loyalists" in Dorne sent men only and only because Elia Martell was held a hostage. Same with the Tyrells, their entire campaign in the Rebellion was a masquerade and waiting for the results.

There were some good Targ kings,actually a large portion were passable.

The seven kingdoms could never have allowed one among them to rule them all, it took an outsider with no connection to any to unite them.

I don't see why unity is better though it's already collapsing after just 300 years,It has collapsed several times in the 300 years too.

The 7700 odd years before all this there was war sure but no more than there is now and quite frankly less people died,I'd take a divided Westeros over one united by force and fear any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why unity is better though it's already collapsing after just 300 years,It has collapsed several times in the 300 years too.

The 7700 odd years before all this there was war sure but no more than there is now and quite frankly less people died,I'd take a divided Westeros over one united by force and fear any day.

As I said before, divided Westeros actually creates balance. You can never attack anyone, because anyone can attack you, therefore you stay home, happy with your lands.

Unlike the united Kingdom, where the Iron Throne alures everyone south of the Neck and every major House wants a piece of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, divided Westeros actually creates balance. You can never attack anyone, because anyone can attack you, therefore you stay home, happy with your lands.

Unlike the united Kingdom, where the Iron Throne alures everyone south of the Neck and every major House wants a piece of it.

I've always thought the nobility of westeros will come to a point where they will say,Fuck the Spiky Chair it's brought nothing but trouble and melt it down and make seven crowns from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, divided Westeros actually creates balance. You can never attack anyone, because anyone can attack you, therefore you stay home, happy with your lands.

Unlike the united Kingdom, where the Iron Throne alures everyone south of the Neck and every major House wants a piece of it.

That may be the theory, but if we look at how a divided Westeros worked it was pretty much constant war between the kingdoms. Just because they don't have a common throne to fight for don't mean that they won't fight, they'll just fight for the seven lesser thrones, for lands, titles and glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be the theory, but if we look at how a divided Westeros worked it was pretty much constant war between the kingdoms. Just because they don't have a common throne to fight for don't mean that they won't fight, they'll just fight for the seven lesser thrones, for lands, titles and glory.

There were from what we know a few Bolton rebellions in the north and the Iron Born invasions and the Storm King invasions in the south it wasn't as if everyone was fighting everyone and even these invasions and rebellions happen once a few generations and hence are far more desirable than the 300 years of bloodshed that followed the unification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites