Why people defend the Targaryans

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I think that we can separate the Targaryen Dynasty that was from the possible new one Dany/(f)Aegon want to establish. The Targaryen rule itself has become a part of the fabric of the consciousness of Westeros. No one can really imagine how people would think/act if the 7 Kingdoms had never been united. But, as for a new invasion, I'm actually very much against it. Westeros has already been ravaged by the war of the 5 Kings and winter has come so everyone is running out of food (since so many fields were burned and farmers killed). If Dany were to launch an attack on Westeros with her armies, what would be left to rule over? Especially if some of the troops under her care start pillaging and raping? I know the Unsullied can't, but if she gets the Dothraki on her side again (as I think might happen after ADWD) who she can't control, well... The only good Dany can really bring to Westeros, to make the lives of her subject better rather than more miserable, are her dragons to fight the Others.

There is absolutely no way Dany is going to 'launch an attack on Westeros'. She wants to rule Westeros, not destroy it, and with the way things have been going for the past 20 years, I would think any change would be welcome. And BTW every marching army that already exists in Westeros has been pillaging and raping already, it would be nothing new if the Dothraki did that (not to mention the 1000's and 1000's of Wildlings Mr. Snow just casually let into the North, you think those guys are suddenly planning on turning over a new leaf?), even though I think Dany will be able to control them. 1993 outline "Dany will be able to bend the Dothraki to her will."

[JonStargaryan]

Strange hearing that from someone with Stargaryan as nickname... :bang:

Welcome to the forum btw...

Hahaha true i guess some of the targs are all right but alot of them were crazed incestuous arseholes. With Dany i guess i just dislike her sense of entitlement.

Also thank you (and it took me weirdly long to get back at this lol)

[sleath56]

.double

[yzq]

Hahaha true i guess some of the targs are all right but alot of them were crazed incestuous arseholes. With Dany i guess i just dislike her sense of entitlement.

Also thank you (and it took me weirdly long to get back at this lol)

Well, you can get entitled once your dragons get bigger and are better controlled. You know what they say about counting chickens before they're hatched...

[The Dragon has three heads]

..because they're cool.

[Red Tiger]

Who said that? Jaeherys, a Targaryen who was neither insane or brilliant :dunno:

....I never stood still to think about this little fact, probably because of how average and forgettable Jahaerys II was :lol:

[Lord Varys]

Aenys I and Jaehaerys II may have been rather weak kings but they made two of the most lasting/important decision in Targaryen history. Aenys I established incest marriage as the Targaryen norm, and Jaehaerys II ensured it's continuation against the wishes of his father, Aegon V, by first marrying his own sister and later enforcing the marriage between Aerys and Rhaella.

[shockwave]

incest was already long established by the targs before they became kings

Aenys was the first king who ordered his kids to marry

[Lord Varys]

Yes, of course, but Aegon I decided against the family tradition of incest marriages after the High Septon objected (when Visenya suggested that Maegor should marry Aenys' daughter, Princess Rhaena). If Aenys had not decided to continue the incest then Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys may very well have been the last incestuous Targaryens. Without Aenys' decision there the Faith would never have rebelled, and thus the order of the Faith Militant would never have been disbanded.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

I personally do not attack the Targaryens as a house, madness and cruelty is everywhere everytime, in my mind the Baratheons are the greatest in the sense they have larger-than-life characters both in asoiaf history and reader-goods but without the Targs they wouldn´t exist so ( of course Durrandon god´s blood helps) :bowdown:

There´s a reason baratheons don´t have POV´s... the reader would get mind-blown with too much badassery

Argella would have just married someone else and popped out fierce black haired, blue eyed babies with suspiciously stormy personalities. Only they would have the right name in that instance.

I like Egg (even if he did go loopy as I suspect), Aemon, Baby Dunc (because he has to be a hell of a guy to give up his throne for love), Visenya (who was likely Maleficent-y) and Jon is fine. The rest were either dull, stupid, mad, power hungry or all four. Westeros is good to be shut of them.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

^^ I dont think anyone could claim that Westeros, as a whole (meaning the common folk), is doing better without them. Even in the 10 years or so prior to Aerys' death, the country was kept in line, Aerys was a nut, but with Tywin as his hand and stability in place, there was not nearly as much death and destruction as there is now (since the Baratheons/Lannisters took over). It's not like Robert rebelled because half of the country was impoverished or starving or being sold into slavery or something, it was all because of personal matters amongst the lords of the kingdoms.

[JonStargaryan]

^^ I dont think anyone could claim that Westeros, as a whole (meaning the common folk), is doing better without them. Even in the 10 years or so prior to Aerys' death, the country was kept in line, Aerys was a nut, but with Tywin as his hand and stability in place, there was not nearly as much death and destruction as there is now (since the Baratheons/Lannisters took over). It's not like Robert rebelled because half of the country was impoverished or starving or being sold into slavery or something, it was all because of personal matters amongst the lords of the kingdoms.

Yeah but who cares about those inconsequential peasants they are but mere pions compared to the Lords,

[Olligarchy]

I've found that people defend the Targaryens out of some misplaced thought of them being 'better' than the other ethnic groups.

The almost Aryan line of thinking gets creepy at times.

[The Wolves]

I've found that people defend the Targaryens out of some misplaced thought of them being 'better' than the other ethnic groups.

The almost Aryan line of thinking gets creepy at times.

I certainly don't think that when defending the Targaryens.

I defend them because people try to make them out more worse than the other houses. The only difference between the Targaryens and the other noboes is that they didn't have dragons and some incest.

Arrogance, greed, madness, violence and a God complex can be applied to every single noble house in Westeros especially the great houses. The Targaryens have only been kings for 200 plus years and yeah they have done some horrible stuff but compared to the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns and other houses that have existed for thousands of years and done evil things in order to gain control over their regions the Targaryens look innocent compared to them.

[Olligarchy]

I certainly don't think that when defending the Targaryens.

I defend them because people try to make them out more worse than the other houses. The only difference between the Targaryens and the other noboes is that they didn't have dragons and some incest.

Arrogance, greed, madness, violence and a God complex can be applied to every single noble house in Westeros especially the great houses. The Targaryens have only been kings for 200 plus years and yeah they have done some horrible stuff but compared to the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns and other houses that have existed for thousands of years and done evil things in order to gain control over their regions the Targaryens look innocent compared to them.

Good for you. Have a cookie!

I think that the whole incest bit and dragons are a pretty big difference since it allowed them to run roughshod over an entire continent, where as even at their height the largest of the Seven Kingdoms rarely exceeded their acknowledged geographical boundaries. Certainly, if you count the eight thousand year reigns of Starks, Lannisters and such and put the dead created by their actions against the 200 years by Targaryens the 8,000 years will be the bigger number, but what about 200 years from each of those houses against the 200 years by Targaryens?

We may not have accurate information to put such things into perspective, but I'd be willing to bet that things like the Conquest, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Ninepenny Kings and Roberts Rebellion would outweigh by a far margin two centuries under the other Houses. It's not so much the difference in morals, but the fact that the Targaryens could and would cause havoc on such scale... willingly or not.

And I wouldn't exactly go throwing around words like 'innocent' when there's names like Maegor the Cruel, Aerys the Mad and Aerion the Monstrous on the Targaryen family tree.

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

If you're asking why people like the Targaryens when so many of them have a tendency to be violent and destructive in nature, I guess I would venture to say that they're interesting. And really, all the major houses have dirt. The Targs weren't the only ones to do heinous things, and they didn't have dragon super weapons after 153 AC, so it's not like they relied upon them the whole time. Idk, I think they're pretty cool.

I will agree with you that when it comes to Robert's rebellion, I'm totally on the rebels side. Aerys II was a sick psychopath that deserved the sword in his back.

[The silver dragon]

Good for you. Have a cookie!

I think that the whole incest bit and dragons are a pretty big difference since it allowed them to run roughshod over an entire continent, where as even at their height the largest of the Seven Kingdoms rarely exceeded their acknowledged geographical boundaries. Certainly, if you count the eight thousand year reigns of Starks, Lannisters and such and put the dead created by their actions against the 200 years by Targaryens the 8,000 years will be the bigger number, but what about 200 years from each of those houses against the 200 years by Targaryens?

We may not have accurate information to put such things into perspective, but I'd be willing to bet that things like the Conquest, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Ninepenny Kings and Roberts Rebellion would outweigh by a far margin two centuries under the other Houses. It's not so much the difference in morals, but the fact that the Targaryens could and would cause havoc on such scale... willingly or not.

And I wouldn't exactly go throwing around words like 'innocent' when there's names like Maegor the Cruel, Aerys the Mad and Aerion the Monstrous on the Targaryen family tree.

:dunno: .

of course the conflicts were bigger.

because the kingdom was bigger.

that like saying the conflicts under the roman empire were bigger (they were) then the conflicts during the dark ages of Europe.

and then going on to imply that life was more peaceful/better during the dark ages. (any historian will tell it wasn't)

[Olligarchy]

:dunno: .

of course the conflicts were bigger.

because the kingdom was bigger.

that like saying the conflicts under the roman empire were bigger (they were) then the conflicts during the dark ages of Europe.

and then going on to imply that life was more peaceful/better during the dark ages. (any historian will tell it wasn't)

Before I go on to answer your well put and spelled post, I would ask... are you answering my entire post or just the underlined part.

Would like to know which part of the conversation to elaborate on. :p

[The Wolves]

Good for you. Have a cookie!

I think that the whole incest bit and dragons are a pretty big difference since it allowed them to run roughshod over an entire continent, where as even at their height the largest of the Seven Kingdoms rarely exceeded their acknowledged geographical boundaries. Certainly, if you count the eight thousand year reigns of Starks, Lannisters and such and put the dead created by their actions against the 200 years by Targaryens the 8,000 years will be the bigger number, but what about 200 years from each of those houses against the 200 years by Targaryens?

We may not have accurate information to put such things into perspective, but I'd be willing to bet that things like the Conquest, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Ninepenny Kings and Roberts Rebellion would outweigh by a far margin two centuries under the other Houses. It's not so much the difference in morals, but the fact that the Targaryens could and would cause havoc on such scale... willingly or not.

And I wouldn't exactly go throwing around words like 'innocent' when there's names like Maegor the Cruel, Aerys the Mad and Aerion the Monstrous on the Targaryen family tree.

To the bolded the Targaryens are not the only ones who are capable of causing "havoc on such scale willingly or not".

TWot5Ks is probably the worst war Westeros has ever seen, and have weakened the realm for a ice zombie invasion let's not forget that no Targaryen has had a hand in that war it was all from its ruling family the Baratheons/Lannister. Everybody keeps talking about how bad the Targs did it remind me again how did the Baratheon/Lannister reign do?

[Olligarchy]

To the bolded the Targaryens are not the only ones who are capable of causing "havoc on such scale willingly or not".

TWot5Ks is probably the worst war Westeros has ever seen, and have weakened the realm for a ice zombie invasion let's not forget that no Targaryen has had a hand in that war it was all from its ruling family the Baratheons/Lannister. Everybody keeps talking about how bad the Targs did it remind me again how did the Baratheon/Lannister reign do?

See now you're just ignoring most of my post. Are you going to deny that the Targaryens during their 200 years in power likely caused far more damage than any of the other house during 200 years of their reign?

Or are we just going to pay attention to any of that?