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

[Nictarion]

I never said the Targs did not belong in Westeros, but their reign was never a peaceful age. They survived not by being great rulers, but being the top dog in all the dog fights.

Jaehaerys I had a 50 year peace. I'd be willing to bet Westeros never went that long without some kind of fighting back when they were separate kingdoms.

[Wmarshal]

Jaehaerys I had a 50 year peace. I'd be willing to bet Westeros never went that long without some kind of fighting back when they were separate kingdoms.

I doubt the Stormlords , Reach and Dornish did not have skirmishes in that time, what Targs called peace, was just them not being involved in the wars of their bannermens.

[Uldra I]

Mad Danelle Lothston

Actually I think GRRM modeled a lady after Bathory that Jaime mentioned as holding Harrenhall at one point. Jaime said he use to hear stories when he was a child about how she use to bathe in blood to stay youthful.

EEK! that's my profile name :uhoh: hee hee..only picked Lothston for the bat sigil, as I can be a little batty at times... But I NEVER get that batty. promise! 0:->

[Nictarion]

I doubt the Stormlords , Reach and Dornish did not have skirmishes in that time, what Targs called peace, was just them not being involved in the wars of their bannermens.

His name was Jaehaerys the Concilitator, that sounds like peace to me.

[Rill Redthorn]

I don't think you're going to get a medieval period "without war" for long no matter what you do, going by our current definition of "war." There are always skirmishes, border squabbles, ongoing territorial disputes that occasionally turn hot, and so on. I think the way to judge the Targaryen reign from the point of view of Westeros as a whole is to look at the popular perceptions of the Targaryen rulers. The only Targs who are remembered with disdain/loathing are Aegon the Unworthy and, of course, Aerys II. That's two out of eighteen in almost nearly 300 years. Most of the rest are regarded as decent, and some are regarded very highly.

Now, public regard isn't necessarily accurate: the Young Dragon was foolish but is seen as gallant, and Baelor the Blessed was delusional but is regarded as saintly. But we are talking about whether or not the Targaryens were accepted by the Westerosi as rulers, and the evidence seems to be heavily weighted in the direction of "Yes", to the point where several of their lesser rulers like the Young Dragon and Baelor have what amount to fan followings despite their failings.

The Targs were far from perfect, but a 300 year unbroken chain is not too shabby for a medieval dynasty. They must have been doing something right. Particularly since they lost their ability to impose their will unilaterally when they lost their dragons less than halfway through that period.

[Wmarshal]

His name was Jaehaerys the Concilitator, that sounds like peace to me.

Baelor was known as the blessed, yet in reality he was a cruel brother.

[Ser Eric]

Jahaerys brought peace between brackens and blackwoods. That's some genius right there

[Ziggy Targdust]

Baelor was known as the blessed, yet in reality he was a cruel brother.

He was known as blessed due to his extreme religious piety, which was reality

[Jon's Queen Consort]

imnsho, when someone brings *peace* with threating the others with WMD is not a real peace at all.

[Ziggy Targdust]

imnsho, when someone brings *peace* with threating the others with WMD is not a real peace at all.

Is it better when done with just swords and catapults?

[Rill Redthorn]

imnsho, when someone brings *peace* with threating the others with WMD is not a real peace at all.

Two Kingdoms are at war with each other. Peasant levies are getting slaughtered on both sides.

Targ on dragonback shows up. "You two Kings KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF OR ELSE! Peasants, go home and get back to your fields and families."

Peasants cheer.

That's peace for the people on the ground, and the best they're going to get in this setting. They're the grass under the feet of fighting elephants when their Lords go to war. Anything that stops their Lords from going to war -- including, yes, the threat of annihilation from a greater power -- is good for them.

[the conquoring bastard25]

not mention that with the intermarriages between the different families isn't uncommon. Look at this generations lords and ladies of the Reach. There all intermarried. The Redwynes are intermarried into the Tyrell family, into the Hightower family, into... you get my point. And that's just this generation, Garlan has a Flossaway for a bride, another Reach lord house. So if this continues and I have no reason or text to suggest that it won't these family members are marrying shock beyond shock their cousins.

This is no different that in Royal families of Europe.

Mary I of England at one point was suppose to marry her mother's nephew and her first cousin, instead she married his son whom was her first cousin once removed.

Scotland and England became a single throne because James was Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed as Mary Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's first cousin once removed.

Um let's see, I've mentioned before that Henry Tudor married his cousin Elizabeth of York. This was because he was trying to consolidate the bloodlines as his royal blood came to him from the wrong side of the blanket. The Beaufort house while they were a royal house it was deemed by the pope and king that they would be legitimate but they could not inherit the throne of England on the grounds that their father John Gaunt was not married to them at their birth but long after they were born. Not to mention that on his other side of the family tree Katherine Valois may or may not have been married at the time of the birth of her two children. Now while Henry VI legitimized them and found a proper Lancaster bride for his brother not to mention throwing the title's Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Richmond(both semi-royal titles). When the York's were back in power they were disinherited and declared bastards even though they didn't revoke the titles.

The Hasburgs were so interbreed theres actually a name for their very distinctive chin(the Hasburg Chin)classic example Jay Leno. Charles V of the Holy Roman Emperor and King of an United Spain, has a chin that was so large and malformed that it made eating difficult and he drooled.

My point the Targaryen's are no different from any other royal house real or imagined. The only difference is that instead of it being first cousins(and genetically speaking I think that's like sleeping with a half brother or sister) it's actual brothers and sisters. Did you know that Cleopatra was so interbred than in the 300 years that the Ptolemy's ruled she only had one non relative ancestor, a great grandmother that was from Syria.

[Fat Mac]

Regarding Jaehaerys' peace, while I don't doubt the overall realm had peace, stopping all types of conflicts had to be near impossible. Especially since Dorne was a separate country, I agree with Aegon's Bannermen that the Reach/Stormlands/Dorne border likely always saw conflict, and that probably wouldn't have stopped during Jaehaerys' reign.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Two Kingdoms are at war with each other. Peasant levies are getting slaughtered on both sides.

Targ on dragonback shows up. "You two Kings KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF OR ELSE! Peasants, go home and get back to your fields and families."

Peasants cheer.

That's peace for the people on the ground, and the best they're going to get in this setting. They're the grass under the feet of fighting elephants when their Lords go to war. Anything that stops their Lords from going to war -- including, yes, the threat of annihilation from a greater power -- is good for them.

Absolutely!! Well said :)

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Is it better when done with just swords and catapults?

Yes because it's fair. It's not like a stranger say to you "You will do what I want or you will be detroyed".

Two Kingdoms are at war with each other. Peasant levies are getting slaughtered on both sides.

Targ on dragonback shows up. "You two Kings KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF OR ELSE! Peasants, go home and get back to your fields and families."

Peasants cheer.

That's peace for the people on the ground, and the best they're going to get in this setting. They're the grass under the feet of fighting elephants when their Lords go to war. Anything that stops their Lords from going to war -- including, yes, the threat of annihilation from a greater power -- is good for them.

I am sure that the 5000 people who died during the Field of Fire, the people who died during all the civil wars that Targs created adore them.

[Ziggy Targdust]

Yes because it's fair. It's not like a stranger say to you "You will do what I want or you will be detroyed".

Why not? If someone has a great advantage in military might they can say do what I want or else.

If it's dragons or swords, if you can crush an opponent easily the ends are the same.

[C0bR]

In the end, anyone who believes that you create more peaceful country by adding another layer of power into the feudal scheme should read some history. The old conflicts remain ongoing, but you add even a bigger fish to fry for everyone.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Why not? If someone has a great advantage in military might they can say do what I want or else.

If it's dragons or swords, if you can crush an opponent easily the ends are the same.

Right, someones come to your home and take it because he has the bigger gun and you are not allowed to do what you want. You are correct!

[Ziggy Targdust]

Right, someones come to your home and take it because he has the bigger gun and you are not allowed to do what you want. You are correct!

So peace is just an illusion, whether under Targaryen rule or the former Kings.

[Rill Redthorn]

In the end, anyone who believes that you create more peaceful country by adding another layer of power into the feudal scheme should read some history. The old conflicts remain ongoing, but you add even a bigger fish to fry for everyone.

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.