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

[Forfax]

The kingdoms were frequently at war with each other before the Targaryens came. I would argue there's been greater peace with the Targaryens than without.

Targaryens brought peace to a warring realm and united all the lords under them, Westeros has been more peaceful but it still has wars but it also has the kings peace in between those wars.

[Veltigar]

I wouldn't call possibly the worst war Westeros have ever had as "a brief civil war" and the Targayens have ruled a really small amount compared to the rest of Westeros great Houses, besides Tyrell, Tully and Baratheon, I'm sure they have created many generations of instability when looking at their thousands of years of history and ruling.

Imo the single worst war in Westerosi history was the war for the Dawn. After that I think the First Blackfyre Rebellion and the Wot5K's take the cake.

[Ingelheim]

The kingdoms were frequently at war with each other before the Targaryens came. I would argue there's been greater peace with the Targaryens than without.

The Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest. Afterwards the conflicts were far rarer and between them there were long periods of peace (Jaeherys I - Viserys I, Tywin's time as hand, the reign of Aegon IV and the early reign of Daeron II, etc.), which was unprecedented in Westerosi history. Of course when conflicts did break out they were on a larger scale, but even that is not enough to mae Westeros as unsafe as it was before the Targs.

I disagree. 1. How do we know the Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest? That is quite impossible

2. Of course there were long periods of peace. The fact that we know nearly nothing about the Kingdoms before Aegon doesn't mean that there were not long periods of peace then too.

3. We've seen hundreds of thousands of deads in these Targaryen wars, I doubt any war before them could have been as large as the Dance, for example.

[Ser Eric]

I disagree. There was definitely instability within the families and the political means of Westeros. Though I have acknowledged a few threads back that it didn't lead to war it did result in a huge power vacuum that we see through Robert's reign until now. Without condemning or condoning this notion of fear, it was fear that kept Westeros in peace. But the way I see it is that there was an obvious internal despairity that was eventually going to leak out. This notion of the Targaryen family becoming more and more alienated was not a realistic path to keep following. It was essentially acknowledging the future and continuing on the same path.

How is that any different from the storm kings or kings of the rivers? They were cruel, arrogant and ruled by fear. The wars before the Targaryens came and after they were gone have been if anything worse.

[Stormland's Fury]

I disagree. 1. How do we know the Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest? That is quite impossible

2. Of course there were long periods of peace. The fact that we know nearly nothing about the Kingdoms before Aegon doesn't mean that there were not long periods of peace before.

For one there were no set borders under a centralized government. That's a recipe for disaster.

[Kiporman]

The Faith Uprising, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Dorne Conquest, Bob's rebellion (caused by a Targaryen)...

Yep. Sorry to say, but the Targaryen's certainly upped the scale of wars. What was once minor wars over a piece of territory between two regions became large wars over eight (and latter, nine) regions.

And besides, they suffered from a great failure; they play favorite way too much. Just look; Targaryens married minor houses sword to Dragonstone like the Velaryon... but yet, I for one can't recall one time that they married a Tully, Lannister, Tyrell, Greyjoy or Stark. The only major houses that we know they married are Arryn and Martell, and while one was a one-time only thing (as far as I recall, only Viserys I married a Arryn), the Martells were obviously their favorites (Daeron married a Martell, Daenerys married a Martell, Baelor married a Martell [if I recall], Rhaegar married a Martell). You can't say that they did not try to integrate... but frankly, what they did was simply saying that everyone should bow to them and then go ruling their piece of land.

And as far as madness... I think madness is often a excuse for the Targaryens, but that does not change the fact that they had plenty of cruelty and instability in their family. Maegor, Aegon II, Baelor the Blessed, Aegon IV, Aerys II are the rulers, but there's many examples other than those; Aemond, Daeron (dance of dragons), Rhaegel and Aerion are some, to name a few.

[PrimeRhaegar]

Why do fans think that the targs uniting the kingdoms was a bad thing? I always imagined that the 7 kingdoms were much like the 7 warring states in China when it was separated and we all know how much bloodshed and wars were waged during that time. Look at what unification did for china (yes there was still war but what you expect it's the human condition).

[CorporalHicks]

Under the Targaryens Westeros was more or less peaceful, at least as peaceful as it was before they showed up. Dorne, the Stormlands, and the Reach warred all the time, the Vale and the North fought over the Three Sisters, the North conquered the Neck, the Iron Islands raided the entire west coast of Westeros non stop, Wildlings invaded a couple times. The Targaryens had the Blackfyre rebellion, the Dance of Dragons, the conquering of Dorne and Robert's Rebellion I guess all over 280ish years. And to the people saying they were arrogant, uhh yeah of course they were, their ancestors brought a continent to its knees. They carved a kingdom out of a bunch of independent fighting nations and brought relative peace to places that had been tumultuous for thousands of years. That would give anyone a big head.

[ChaosImprisonateMe]

The Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest. Afterwards the conflicts were far rarer and between them there were long periods of peace (Jaeherys I - Viserys I, Tywin's time as hand, the reign of Aegon IV and the early reign of Daeron II, etc.), which was unprecedented in Westerosi history. Of course when conflicts did break out they were on a larger scale, but even that is not enough to mae Westeros as unsafe as it was before the Targs.

Thats definitely something the individual has to really think about. Border disputes vs peace and then huge scale war that threaten the institutions of Westeros. The fall of entire families in my view is more dangerous to Westeros than families acknowledging differences but fighting over disputed pieces of lands. Its kind of how Greece existed before Sparta took over Athens.

What we have is a complete polarity over who thinks deserves to take over the Iron Throne, and I don't really think any family truly believes they would gain the support of Westeros at large. Instead there seems to be a never ending thread of claims to it. The Targaryen rule may have seemed peaceful at times, but what is going on is the complete result of it. Which, I may add, there seems to be no real answer to. Do you let the Targaryens come back? If not which family is more well suited? There are many opinions but not a clear answer.

[Pib_Juju]

In some ways it seems like Aegon is an analogue for William the Conqueror, but without the capacity for causing the sort of social upheaval that William caused. I mean, Aegon couldn't dispossess the nobility and replace them with his own lords, he couldn't substitute his own legal system for that of the natives and toss the old staff out on the street, etc., etc.

Or could he? Who made up Aegon's army? Were they just mercenaries or other Valyrians?

If his invasion really just boiled down to some bamf rolling in and unifying all the kingdoms under one banner, then it would be a pretty damned benevolent piece of conquering.

[ChaosImprisonateMe]

Yep. Sorry to say, but the Targaryen's certainly upped the scale of wars. What was once minor wars over a piece of territory between two regions became large wars over eight (and latter, nine) regions.

And besides, they suffered from a great failure; they play favorite way too much. Just look; Targaryens married minor houses sword to Dragonstone like the Velaryon... but yet, I for one can't recall one time that they married a Tully, Lannister, Tyrell, Greyjoy or Stark. The only major houses that we know they married are Arryn and Martell, and while one was a one-time only thing (as far as I recall, only Viserys I married a Arryn), the Martells were obviously their favorites (Daeron married a Martell, Daenerys married a Martell, Baelor married a Martell [if I recall], Rhaegar married a Martell). You can't say that they did not try to integrate... but frankly, what they did was simply saying that everyone should bow to them and then go ruling their piece of land.

And as far as madness... I think madness is often a excuse for the Targaryens, but that does not change the fact that they had plenty of cruelty and instability in their family. Maegor, Aegon II, Baelor the Blessed, Aegon IV, Aerys II are the rulers, but there's many examples other than those; Aemond, Daeron (dance of dragons), Rhaegel and Aerion are some, to name a few.

I think this is the best way to state that, so many words combined in one post.

[C0bR]

Of course they don't belong, that's why the entire Westeros hated them and still does.

They brought only a war and misery to a relatively peaceful continent and turned it into their colony, basically declaring themselves gods of men. Once their lizards dropped dead, it did not take long for them to get completly owned.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I disagree. 1. How do we know the Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest? That is quite impossible

2. Of course there were long periods of peace. The fact that we know nearly nothing about the Kingdoms before Aegon doesn't mean that there were not long periods of peace then too.

3. We've seen hundreds of thousands of deads in these Targaryen wars, I doubt any war before them could have been as large as the Dance, for example.

I imagine something like this (the Wikipedia's compilation of military conflicts in history of Europe). There were lots of them, and yes, a generation that didn't witness one should consider itself happy. And without a doubt the list is far from complete, our knowledge of, let's say, 10th century certainly has holes.

Why. exactly, do you say it's impossible?

[Ziggy Targdust]

Yeh, Westeros was all holding hands and singing songs until those Targs came.

[Ser Eric]

Poor Westros.

A lovely peaceful continent destroyed by Targaryen savagery.

[Veltigar]

I disagree. 1. How do we know the Kingdoms were at war every freaking generation before the Targaryen conquest? That is quite impossible

2. Of course there were long periods of peace. The fact that we know nearly nothing about the Kingdoms before Aegon doesn't mean that there were not long periods of peace then too.

3. We've seen hundreds of thousands of deads in these Targaryen wars, I doubt any war before them could have been as large as the Dance, for example.

The answer to 1 and 2 is quite simple: logic (and really if you look at the history of Argilac the Arrogant you should already conclude the same). Such large periods of peace were incredibly rare in real feudal history, yet the Targaryen reigns had a lot of those.

And 3) Have you read tPatQ? Because the armies are far smaller than those in tWot5K.

And hundreds of thousands of deaths is just pure hyperbole.

[Ingelheim]

I imagine something like this (the Wikipedia's compilation of military conflicts in history of Europe). There were lots of them, and yes, a generation that didn't witness one should consider itself happy. And without a doubt the list is far from complete, our knowledge of, let's say, 10th century certainly has holes.

Why. exactly, do you say it's impossible?

Basically for resources. We know of battles BETWEEN houses of the same kingdom ( Yronwood vs Martell, Stark vs Bolton, probably Manderly vs Gardener, etc.) and also MINOR wars between kingdoms (North vs the Vale, Dorne and the Reach, all of them wars fought in the border, etc...) but none of them ever had the number of deads that the Conquest, the Dance, etc had.

And you forget something. We are talking about 280 years.

EDIT:

The answer to 1 and 2 is quite simple: logic (and really if you look at the history of Argilac the Arrogant you should already conclude the same). Such large periods of peace were incredibly rare in real feudal history, yet the Targaryen reigns had a lot of those.

And 3) Have you read tPatQ? Because the armies are far smaller than those in tWot5K.

And hundreds of thousands of deaths is just pure hyperbole.

The Conquest of Dorne, alone, had 60,000 TARGARYEN soldiers dead. Not counting Dornish soldiers or civil deads.

[Stormland's Fury]

It still can be argued that the kingdoms lost their independence had to give up some of local customs and political decisions.

[Uldra I]

Dude, don't, just don't.

OK I'll shut up now. ps. Just so you know, I'm white too. :-X

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Of course they don't belong, that's why the entire Westeros hated them and still does.

I don't think Tywin Lannister hated them. Actually, I think he would have loved to be a Targaryen. Marrying his own cousin sounds very Targaryenish. And he wanted to marry his daughter to the prince.