Does anyone feel that the Targaryens don't belong in Westeros?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

So basically all sorts of monstrosities are fine as long as you don't pack WMD's?

Threatening to kill kids with swords is fine and fair

Threatening to kill kids with dragons is unfair and disgusting.

I can see how that makes sense.

When someone have no way of fighting back then is unfair and disgusting. When Visenya threatened Sharra with either losing her freedom or her son because she had a dragon then it was not fair. Now because the Targs were like this they killed each other and they died.

[Jasta11]

I've read a lot of history. There's a problem of human perception operating with that -- it's why people consider the 20th century the "most violent in human history" due to the total numbers of dead people, when actually, in terms of percentages of people dying violently, it was the least violent in human history. (See Steven Pinker, "The Better Angels of Our Nature," if you want citations and references on that.) The constant tribal warfare that takes place between hunter-gatherer societies seems less damaging than our WMD affairs because fewer people total die, but in terms of the percentage of the population killed they're worse. Larger geopolitcal organizations promote peace and growth overall, even if the conflicts between the bigger organizations kill more people when they happen, which is why the history of human civilization is a history of consolidating into larger structures, not smaller ones.

In other words, if forming up into villages and then cities and then city-states and then nations wasn't helpful, people wouldn't have done that and we'd still be living in small 100-150 person communities.

It's the same reason some people view flying on a plane as more frightening than driving a car. WAY more people are killed in cars, but it's a constant slow trickle of deaths that we tend not to be aware of because they're so common, rather than one big eye-catching explosion. The fighting between smaller geopolitical units is like that -- a constant, unending slow trickle of death that mostly goes unnoticed, but nevertheless adds up to a horrendous cost over time.

Not sure that applies to Westeros since the It doesn't stop wars within individual kingdoms (such as the rebellions against Tywin). Those continue on since they're not the business of the central power. It does stop wars between kingdoms, until a civil war comes around and then you got a continent-wide mess on your hands, which is far more devastating to infrastructure than constant skirmishes. Just look at the Riverlands in Brienne's chapters, then consider a years-long winter is coming fairly shortly. It would be a wonder if the place is even habitable by then, and the wars aren't even over yet.

The problem with the IT is that, unless the one who sits on it has a force multiplier like dragons, it's a giant civil war magnet because the throne, in itself, has little real power but a shitton of prestige. The power lies in the Great Lords and who they support, period, and the IT gives them a big juicy chair to fight about, and none of the existing Kings have managed to consolidate the power of the throne like the monarchs of Europe did starting from the 15th century. Not yet at least.

And of course, while a good king can do a lot of good, a bad king can do a lot of harm too. And so far we've had more bad kings than good, and the only way to remove the former if required? Big ol' civil warfare.

[Ser Eric]

When someone have no way of fighting back then is unfair and disgusting. When Visenya threatened Sharra with either losing her freedom or her son because she had a dragon then it was not fair. Now because the Targs were like this they killed each other and they died.

Well I for one think it's completely unfair on the rest of Westeros that the Eyrie is impregnable from below. The Vale can attack the other kingdoms and castles but it's impossible to attack the Eyrie. Scandalous in my view. The Arryns should be stripped of their titles and the Eyrie destroyed.

It's also unfair on the rest of Westeros that Greywater Watch moves. How can you attack a place when you don't know where it is? Disgusting from the Reeds.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Well I for one think it's completely unfair on the rest of Westeros that the Eyrie is impregnable from below. The Vale can attack the other kingdoms and castles but it's impossible to attack the Eyrie. Scandalous in my view. The Arryns should be stripped of their titles and the Eyrie destroyed.

It's also unfair on the rest of Westeros that Greywater Watch moves. How can you attack a place when you don't know where it is? Disgusting from the Reeds.

This and :bs:

[Ser Eric]

This and :bs:

http://media1.giphy.com/media/CMRWlA55AYLpS/giphy.gif

[Jon's Queen Consort]

http://media1.giphy.com/media/CMRWlA55AYLpS/giphy.gif

:bs: !

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

What do you mean fought fairly? Was their a referee that made sure everybody was playing by non existent rules?

Nobody fights fair, except for - sometimes - sports events. As Prince Corwin explained succinctly to Lord Borel, and Indiana Jones showed that mean scary swordsman in "Raiders...". Of all weird arguments thrown in this thread, this one probably takes the cake.

[the conquoring bastard25]

life isn't fair suck it up and get over it.

[Kiporman]

life isn't fair suck it up and get over it.

Say this to Stark fans.

The Targaryens were not playing fair; that much is obvious. It's like playing Age of Empires, but while one player begins in the Dark Age with two farmers and one militia, the other one begins with castles and population capped in military units.

Besides, letting that aside, the fact that the Targaryen presented themselves as superior to other people to the point that even Targaryens didn't abide by their own rules makes them pretty unlikeable. Pride and arrogance and cruelty is something that is well seem in the family, be it in previous generations (Maegor from Aegon I generation, Aegon II from Viserys I generation, Aegon IV from his own generation, Aerion the monstrous from Daeron the Good generation), and despite some exceptions, this is one of the few houses were most of the members are show to be "evil"; heck, even the Greyjoys seems to have more moral than Targaryens - they don't kill kin, for example, something that was considerably normal for the dragons.

And futhermore, they let civil wars happen in their rule when it didn't affect them. Examples include the Skagoosi rebellion, the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion against Lannisters, the raids of Dagon Greyjoy... so, they didn't give peace to the seven kingdoms.

Besides, come on. How much would you like someone who barges into your house with a gun and say "hey, you can either give me your house, or I kill you and your family"... only to then proceed to bring his family over, commit what in your eyes are horrible sins all over your house, all this while demanding you to bow to them and give them your money. That's, basically, what the Targaryens did to Westeros.

Targaryens are not good guys. Hell, even the Andals are better than them! At least the Andals went to the trouble of taking the land from the First Men - something that, as much as I hate, is not even near as bad as conquering them, humiliating them, and then forcing them to bend the knee and serve you. The only people who truly belong to Westeros are the Children of the Forest (the natural inhabitants) and both the First Men and the Rhoynar, who made a peace with the natives and lived alongside them, helping each other.

[Nittanian]

Even then, they let the (surviving) Houses continue to rule the lands they ruled before, only they call them Lords Paramount instead of kings now.

That seems to be fan usage at this point. The only usage of "Lord Paramount" so far is the specific title "Lord Paramount of the Trident" (not Lord Paramount of the Riverlands, Lord Paramount of the North, etc.). George instead usually refers to Great Houses.

Nobody fights fair, except for - sometimes - sports events. As Prince Corwin explained succinctly to Lord Borel, and Indiana Jones showed that mean scary swordsman in "Raiders...". Of all weird arguments thrown in this thread, this one probably takes the cake.

Nice reference!

[the conquoring bastard25]

By that logic that the only people that belong in Westeros, the every White, Black, Hispanic and Asian in America don't belong and as one that belongs to two of those groups and the Native Americans your crazy.

My ancestors didn't ask to come over here and for the most part didn't have a say in the matter, yet that doesn't make me any less American, then say someone that is full blooded Native American as the same blood that flows through their veins flows though mine.

With that being said as a person that has a messy heritage, my Great Grandfather was the son of the Master of the house, who when on to marry a full blood Native American woman. My last name is Gross. Which is German, my other grandmother's last name before she married was Crouch which is jewish, talk about confusing bloodlines, one tried to kill, experiments, and ....

So what was that about the COFT being the only ones that have a right to Westeros?

[Rhaegars Heir]

Say this to Stark fans.

The Targaryens were not playing fair; that much is obvious. It's like playing Age of Empires, but while one player begins in the Dark Age with two farmers and one militia, the other one begins with castles and population capped in military units.

Besides, letting that aside, the fact that the Targaryen presented themselves as superior to other people to the point that even Targaryens didn't abide by their own rules makes them pretty unlikeable. Pride and arrogance and cruelty is something that is well seem in the family, be it in previous generations (Maegor from Aegon I generation, Aegon II from Viserys I generation, Aegon IV from his own generation, Aerion the monstrous from Daeron the Good generation), and despite some exceptions, this is one of the few houses were most of the members are show to be "evil"; heck, even the Greyjoys seems to have more moral than Targaryens - they don't kill kin, for example, something that was considerably normal for the dragons.

And futhermore, they let civil wars happen in their rule when it didn't affect them. Examples include the Skagoosi rebellion, the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion against Lannisters, the raids of Dagon Greyjoy... so, they didn't give peace to the seven kingdoms.

Besides, come on. How much would you like someone who barges into your house with a gun and say "hey, you can either give me your house, or I kill you and your family"... only to then proceed to bring his family over, commit what in your eyes are horrible sins all over your house, all this while demanding you to bow to them and give them your money. That's, basically, what the Targaryens did to Westeros.

Targaryens are not good guys. Hell, even the Andals are better than them! At least the Andals went to the trouble of taking the land from the First Men - something that, as much as I hate, is not even near as bad as conquering them, humiliating them, and then forcing them to bend the knee and serve you. The only people who truly belong to Westeros are the Children of the Forest (the natural inhabitants) and both the First Men and the Rhoynar, who made a peace with the natives and lived alongside them, helping each other.

how about you ask house mudd or any of the other houses wiped out by the andels how they feel about their invasion or the children of the forest how they feel about the andels cutting down any weir wood they could get their hands on

[Kiporman]

By that logic that the only people that belong in Westeros, the every White, Black, Hispanic and Asian in America don't belong and as one that belongs to two of those groups and the Native Americans your crazy.

My ancestors didn't ask to come over here and for the most part didn't have a say in the matter, yet that doesn't make me any less American, then say someone that is full blooded Native American as the same blood that flows through their veins flows though mine.

With that being said as a person that has a messy heritage, my Great Grandfather was the son of the Master of the house, who when on to marry a full blood Native American woman. My last name is Gross. Which is German, my other grandmother's last name before she married was Crouch which is jewish, talk about confusing bloodlines, one tried to kill, experiments, and ....

So what was that about the COFT being the only ones that have a right to Westeros?

No offense buddy, but the past of your family is irrelevant.

The Andals erradicated the First Men wherever the could. They didn't try to live alongside them. That is not a good thing, obviously, but is still better that the Targaryens in my opinion, since they replaced First Men culture and religion with they own and made the First Men lands into Andal lands. Point.

The First Men and the Rhoynar initially fought the natives. However, eventually the war ended with both sides still on foot, and they lived alongside each other. They integrated; the First Men, for example, took the Children's Gods as they own and lived alongside them. Similarly, a part of the Rhoynar lifestyle was incorporated into the Dornish people, which is why woman can inherit normally in Dorne. Point.

The Targaryens killed many of the natives, but not all. They didn't replace the native culture and religion; they declared themselves superior to it. They supossedly took the Seven - the major religion of the natives - but when they kept commiting what the religion points out as the greatest sin, declaring themselves a exception to the rule, superior to others, it is hard not to see this as some kind of mockery. Besides, it is not like they had to commit incest to keep their blood pure; there was at least three other valyrian families (Qoherys, Velaryon and Celtigar), and until today, only one of those went extinct. They simply choose to do so. Point.

The COTF are the original natives, so they have a right. First Men and Rhoynar made peace and lived alongside natives, so they have a right. Andal took the lands of the natives, and as much as this is a bad thing, they didn't try to make themselves superior to the natives, simply taking the First Men lands to themselves, so they have a right (as much as I dislike it, personally). The Targaryens and Valyrians, however, both didn't take the land nor did they really try to adapt; they declared themselves superior, burned a major part of the natives and declared that the remaining should either serve them or die, and by so, they do not have a right.

I'm not saying that exterminating people is better than subjugating them. What I'm saying is that you only have a right to a land when you either make peace with the original owners or drive them off. Targaryens did neither. They simply declared superiority and forced everyone else to bow to their will.

[Veltigar]

Nobody fights fair, except for - sometimes - sports events. As Prince Corwin explained succinctly to Lord Borel, and Indiana Jones showed that mean scary swordsman in "Raiders...". Of all weird arguments thrown in this thread, this one probably takes the cake.

You have to admit, it was hilariously funny (and deeply saddening at the same time). It was one of the most impressive Non sequiturs I have ever encountered on these boards :laugh:

[the conquoring bastard25]

Not to mention that by that logic then the Normandy have no right to England, we have no right to use the English language, the current ruling family of England have no right to the Throne as they are German by decent, but are related to Margerte Tudor whom was James V wife and the father of Mary Queen of Scots who's son later because he was the cousin of Elizabeth took over after her death. Yet the current ruling family is German and changed there name to Windsor to sound more English and not seem as forgein. George I spoke with a thick German accent all of his life and his heir whom was raised in Germany was the same and even took up with two ugly german woman as his mistresses.

By that logic the Fraks have no right to France as the Gaul were there first, but they were over thrown by the Romans for along time and before that they were over taken at some point of time by the Greeks. By that logic the Romans and Greeks that took over Egypt have no right to be there either, and the Ptolmy family whom are relations of Alexander the Great and in no way Egyptian (nor do they have a single drop of Egyptian blood) had no right to the Egyptian Throne and they rule Egypt for the same amount of time that the Targs ruled Westeros. They were even said to be more Egytian in their pratices than the Pharos of old.

Not to mention that where ever the Roman Eagle standard flew beyond Rome had no place being their besides in Rome as that was their natural territory.

Do you know any thing about to history to make such a crazed comment?

[David Selig]

No offense buddy, but the past of your family is irrelevant.

The Andals erradicated the First Men wherever the could. They didn't try to live alongside them. That is not a good thing, obviously, but is still better that the Targaryens in my opinion, since they replaced First Men culture and religion with they own and made the First Men lands into Andal lands. Point.

Wait, so total extermination is better than a conquest and giving large autonomy to the conquered people?

[Kiporman]

Not to mention that by that logic then the Normandy have no right to England, we have no right to use the English language, the current ruling family of England have no right to the Throne as they are German by decent, but are related to Margerte Tudor whom was James V wife and the father of Mary Queen of Scots who's son later because he was the cousin of Elizabeth took over after her death. Yet the current ruling family is German and changed there name to Windsor to sound more English and not seem as forgein. George I spoke with a thick German accent all of his life and his heir whom was raised in Germany was the same and even took up with two ugly german woman as his mistresses.

By that logic the Fraks have no right to France as the Gaul were there first, but they were over thrown by the Romans for along time and before that they were over taken at some point of time by the Greeks. By that logic the Romans and Greeks that took over Egypt have no right to be there either, and the Ptolmy family whom are relations of Alexander the Great and in no way Egyptian (nor do they have a single drop of Egyptian blood) had no right to the Egyptian Throne and they rule Egypt for the same amount of time that the Targs ruled Westeros. They were even said to be more Egytian in their pratices than the Pharos of old.

Not to mention that where ever the Roman Eagle standard flew beyond Rome had no place being their besides in Rome as that was their natural territory.

Do you know any thing about to history to make such a crazed comment?

No. I'm not interested in that. Even if I were, I live in the other side of the world; these things don't matter to me.

However, I know people, and I know rights. I explained my reasoning. If you can point me a ocurrence in our world where someone declares superiority to a foreign culture and religion and force those with different beliefs and lifestyle to serve them that you think that have a right to the land and the peope, then please, tell me.

And... you do remember that I made a difference between driving people out and declaring superiority, right? The Targaryens did the latter, not the first. I'm not sure about all, but many of the things you said seems to be the first.

Wait, so total extermination is better than a conquest and giving large autonomy to the conquered people?

...

You... you guys do read all of my posts, right?

I'm not saying that exterminating people is better than subjugating them. What I'm saying is that you only have a right to a land when you either make peace with the original owners or drive them off. Targaryens did neither. They simply declared superiority and forced everyone else to bow to their will.

I'm... fairly conviced until now that you are either passing by or outright ignoring parts of my posts when you answer. No offense, but if that is the case, I won't even try to argue. It would just be a waste, both of my time and yours.

[Rill Redthorn]

Nice reference!

Ohmigod, Amber is officially in ASOIAF? Hah, this thread has managed to become worthwhile despite all the f*ckwittery because now I know this. :bowdown:

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Say this to Stark fans.

The Targaryens were not playing fair; that much is obvious. It's like playing Age of Empires, but while one player begins in the Dark Age with two farmers and one militia, the other one begins with castles and population capped in military units.

Besides, letting that aside, the fact that the Targaryen presented themselves as superior to other people to the point that even Targaryens didn't abide by their own rules makes them pretty unlikeable. Pride and arrogance and cruelty is something that is well seem in the family, be it in previous generations (Maegor from Aegon I generation, Aegon II from Viserys I generation, Aegon IV from his own generation, Aerion the monstrous from Daeron the Good generation), and despite some exceptions, this is one of the few houses were most of the members are show to be "evil"; heck, even the Greyjoys seems to have more moral than Targaryens - they don't kill kin, for example, something that was considerably normal for the dragons.

And futhermore, they let civil wars happen in their rule when it didn't affect them. Examples include the Skagoosi rebellion, the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion against Lannisters, the raids of Dagon Greyjoy... so, they didn't give peace to the seven kingdoms.

Besides, come on. How much would you like someone who barges into your house with a gun and say "hey, you can either give me your house, or I kill you and your family"... only to then proceed to bring his family over, commit what in your eyes are horrible sins all over your house, all this while demanding you to bow to them and give them your money. That's, basically, what the Targaryens did to Westeros.

Targaryens are not good guys. Hell, even the Andals are better than them! At least the Andals went to the trouble of taking the land from the First Men - something that, as much as I hate, is not even near as bad as conquering them, humiliating them, and then forcing them to bend the knee and serve you. The only people who truly belong to Westeros are the Children of the Forest (the natural inhabitants) and both the First Men and the Rhoynar, who made a peace with the natives and lived alongside them, helping each other.

This! Bless you!

[Nittanian]

The Andals erradicated the First Men wherever the could. They didn't try to live alongside them. That is not a good thing, obviously, but is still better that the Targaryens in my opinion, since they replaced First Men culture and religion with they own and made the First Men lands into Andal lands.

Ravenkingsamurai theorizes that rather than the Andals exterminating the First Men, they instead conquered and intermarried with them.

Also from a GRRM interview I recently found:

Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man.

Off-topic, but the interview also indicates that Tyrek Lannister's fate will eventually be revealed.