Why people defend the Targaryans

[The Wolves]

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?

Someone already answered this part of your post by pointing out that of course there was more damaged because they were ruling a country not small kingdoms and the wars were bigger.

And I was also pointing out that any house or dynasty who are ruling a country can and will cause a lot of damage obviously ex: Lannister/Baratheon reign.

[Olligarchy]

Someone already answered this part of your post by pointing out that of course there was more damaged because they were ruling a country not small kingdoms and the wars were bigger.

And I was also pointing out that any house or dynasty who are ruling a country can and will cause a lot of damage obviously ex: Lannister/Baratheon reign.

Way to shift the goalpost! So the point of your conversation was not to make the Targaryens look innocent when compared to the others, but to prove that everyone else can do bad things too?

I've never denied that the Targaryens are special in their capacity to evil, simply that during their reign they were simply MORE capable of doing so. Mathematically speaking they are hence worse. Of course if your entire point (a bland one at that) rests on 'oh, but everyone does it'... what are we talking about? Especially when I quote:

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.

You've still to prove the bolded. How exactly are the Starks, Lannisters and others worse than the Targaryens who set the entire continent aflame?

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

Way to shift the goalpost! So the point of your conversation was not to make the Targaryens look innocent when compared to the others, but to prove that everyone else can do bad things too?

I've never denied that the Targaryens are special in their capacity to evil, simply that during their reign they were simply MORE capable of doing so. Mathematically speaking they are hence worse. Of course if your entire point (a bland one at that) rests on 'oh, but everyone does it'... what are we talking about? Especially when I quote:

You've still to prove the bolded. How exactly are the Starks, Lannisters and others worse than the Targaryens who set the entire continent aflame?

Just to give my two cents, it does seem as though the Iron Throne has somewhat fallen into disrepair without the dragons both literal and personwise to hold it together. that does has to say something no?

[The Wolves]

Way to shift the goalpost! So the point of your conversation was not to make the Targaryens look innocent when compared to the others, but to prove that everyone else can do bad things too?

I've never denied that the Targaryens are special in their capacity to evil, simply that during their reign they were simply MORE capable of doing so.Mathematically speaking they are hence worse. Of course if your entire point (a bland one at that) rests on 'oh, but everyone does it'... what are we talking about? Especially when I quote:

You've still to prove the bolded. How exactly are the Starks, Lannisters and others worse than the Targaryens who set the entire continent aflame?

Again of course they would be more capable of being bad they are the ruling dynasty of a country who have a lot of power.

And when the Targs have gone through the country and caused the near extinction of several races(like the COTF and giants) and gave Westeros it's worst war ever(TWot5Ks) than you can point out to me how the other great houses are better than the Targs.

But you're annoying me so let's end this conversation.

[Olligarchy]

Again of course they would be more capable of being bad they are the ruling dynasty of a country who have a lot of power.

And when the Targs have gone through the country and caused the near extinction of several races(like the COTF and giants) and gave Westeros it's worst war ever(TWot5Ks) than you can point out to me how the other great houses are better than the Targs.

But you're annoying me so let's end this conversation.

You can obviously prove your claim that the other great houses were directly responsible for the supposed extinction of the children and giants...right?

And I'm "annoying you"? Frankly I was quite enjoying the thought exercise and thought you might've had a real point about morality hidden somewhere in your posts!

However I will acknowledge that you cannot prove your claims and lack the guts to actually represent your side of the argument in a meaningful capacity and agree to end the conversation so your feelings won't be hurt.

Good day!

[Olligarchy]

Just to give my two cents, it does seem as though the Iron Throne has somewhat fallen into disrepair without the dragons both literal and personwise to hold it together. that does has to say something no?

First off apologies for the slow response, I'm on my phone and have yet to master the art of multiquoting on it!

The failure of the iron throne actually is something I've always believed was inevitable Targaryens or no. The seat was forged with the power of the dragons backing it out of seven culturally distinct nations with wildly differing goals. Quite frankly right from the start it's apparent that it will last only so long as the monarch on it has the means to completely destroy any rivals that may emerge.

So long as the Targs had dragons they had said power, but once the dragons were gone the only thing keeping their empire together was the memory of said dragons and a series of above average rulers that began to give concessions to their banner men to stay in power (note the time when more and more Targs begin to marry outside the family.. It corresponds with death of the dragons quite well I think), but realistically the Targs were already running out of mileage by then.

So when the dragons are a myth and the house that based their rule on them are both gone, it's to be expected that said empire will crumble.

In my opinion? Good riddance.

The Seven Kingdoms are better off without the accursed thing.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

First off apologies for the slow response, I'm on my phone and have yet to master the art of multiquoting on it!

The failure of the iron throne actually is something I've always believed was inevitable Targaryens or no. The seat was forged with the power of the dragons backing it out of seven culturally distinct nations with wildly differing goals. Quite frankly right from the start it's apparent that it will last only so long as the monarch on it has the means to completely destroy any rivals that may emerge.

So long as the Targs had dragons they had said power, but once the dragons were gone the only thing keeping their empire together was the memory of said dragons and a series of above average rulers that began to give concessions to their banner men to stay in power (note the time when more and more Targs begin to marry outside the family.. It corresponds with death of the dragons quite well I think), but realistically the Targs were already running out of mileage by then.

So when the dragons are a myth and the house that based their rule on them are both gone, it's to be expected that said empire will crumble.

In my opinion? Good riddance.

The Seven Kingdoms are better off without the accursed thing.

Hmm that is true, but there were some very good rulers after the dragons died, someone such as Viserys II, who was said to almost as good if not better than the Wise himself. Daeron The Good was quite a good king as was Maekar who had a whole decade of peace.

Furthermore, seven seperate kingdoms, surely that just means more war and more frequently? It might even break into petty Kingdoms again.

[Olligarchy]

Hmm that is true, but there were some very good rulers after the dragons died, someone such as Viserys II, who was said to almost as good if not better than the Wise himself. Daeron The Good was quite a good king as was Maekar who had a whole decade of peace.

Furthermore, seven seperate kingdoms, surely that just means more war and more frequently? It might even break into petty Kingdoms again.

Exactly on the rulers.

Well, that depends on how you looked at it. Had the rebels right after RR convened and agreed on dismantling of the Iron Throne, there might well have been a generation consisting largely of peace. Most of northern Westeros was already allied and had little reason for squabbling amongst themselves. The Northerners could stop paying taxes that were crippling their economic growth and so forth. Of course there's eventually going to be war, most likely between the obvious candidates in the Stormlands, Reach and Dorne axis... but well in my opinion it's far better to have a dozen small low intensity wars over some borders than a huge showdown once or twice a generation on who gets to warm that uncomfortable Iron seat.

I mean by this point in history we've seen the Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion(s), Ninepenny Kings, Roberts Rebellion and War of Five kings as conflicts that involve most of Westeros, result in huge casualties and for what? To decide which of the previous rulers family can be King.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

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.

Hey Hey now!

This is uncalled for and insulting. I have been defending the Targs since day 1 on the forum and have never once thought of race. I also have not seen even one other poster bring up the fact that 'Only Valyrians should be left alive while we cleanse the world of all other races', which of course is the main teaching in Mein Kamph.

Feel free to quote any certain post that you feel reflects this Aryan race agenda, but please refrain from grouping all us 'people' into such a terrible category.

[Aemond's Eye]

Why do I need to "defend the Targaryens," exactly? Do I need to justify every character - fictional or historical - of whom I am a fan?

Do I need to defend my own historical relatives too? As I find some of them interesting too.

[ummester]

I don't dislike Targs because they go cray cray, or screw their siblings. I dislike them because they are supremacist assholes who wouldn't have been able to conquer shit without magical flying flamethrowers. I would prefer to see them return to herding sheep :D

[The silver dragon]

I don't dislike Targs because they go cray cray, or screw their siblings. I dislike them because they are supremacist assholes who wouldn't have been able to conquer shit without magical flying flamethrowers. I would prefer to see them return to herding sheep :D

let's be honest with ourselves here.

if you were born with the ability to ride a magical super powered flamethrower.

how "humble" would you be? :dunno:

[ummester]

let's be honest with ourselves here.

if you were born with the ability to ride a magical super powered flamethrower.

how "humble" would you be? :dunno:

Probably not very but I'm also sure I'd feel guilty about it inside. How come there are no Targs that feel guilty about being Targs?

[Aemond's Eye]

Do you feel guilty about being born into a better station than millions of people worldwide? I mean, sure, you'll post "yes," but what are you doing about it rather than posting on a forum dedicated to a series of fantasy novels?

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

Exactly on the rulers.

Well, that depends on how you looked at it. Had the rebels right after RR convened and agreed on dismantling of the Iron Throne, there might well have been a generation consisting largely of peace. Most of northern Westeros was already allied and had little reason for squabbling amongst themselves. The Northerners could stop paying taxes that were crippling their economic growth and so forth. Of course there's eventually going to be war, most likely between the obvious candidates in the Stormlands, Reach and Dorne axis... but well in my opinion it's far better to have a dozen small low intensity wars over some borders than a huge showdown once or twice a generation on who gets to warm that uncomfortable Iron seat.

I mean by this point in history we've seen the Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion(s), Ninepenny Kings, Roberts Rebellion and War of Five kings as conflicts that involve most of Westeros, result in huge casualties and for what? To decide which of the previous rulers family can be King.

The north's economic growth being crippled by paying taxes to an outside source? You are aware that the north is the way it is because GRRM wrote it that way right? It does not seem as if there has been all that much change in the north over 8,000 years. Under the throne surely that could be improved and changed?

[Olligarchy]

The north's economic growth being crippled by paying taxes to an outside source? You are aware that the north is the way it is because GRRM wrote it that way right? It does not seem as if there has been all that much change in the north over 8,000 years. Under the throne surely that could be improved and changed?

I believe it was noted a few years ago how coincidentally after declaring independence the North could suddenly afford to build a fleet. It might just be because they had no need for one before, but well... I tend to favour the idea that they simply couldn't afford the construction and upkeep of a fleet.

And isn't everything the way it is because GRRM wrote it that way? So why are we discussing any of this stuff?

And how would a King that has never even visited the North from his flowery seat even know how to begin improving the North? Economy isn't just something you 'improve', it's a thing that must be understood as being dependant on the region in question... its resources, the skills of its people and so forth. A Stark King not paying taxes to the South has a much better idea on how to improve the North I'd warrant, than the Kings of the South.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

I believe it was noted a few years ago how coincidentally after declaring independence the North could suddenly afford to build a fleet. It might just be because they had no need for one before, but well... I tend to favour the idea that they simply couldn't afford the construction and upkeep of a fleet.

And isn't everything the way it is because GRRM wrote it that way? So why are we discussing any of this stuff?

And how would a King that has never even visited the North from his flowery seat even know how to begin improving the North? Economy isn't just something you 'improve', it's a thing that must be understood as being dependant on the region in question... its resources, the skills of its people and so forth. A Stark King not paying taxes to the South has a much better idea on how to improve the North I'd warrant, than the Kings of the South.

Hmm your last point does make sense, as for the first point, whilst yes it might be the fact that the north could not afford a fleet paying taxes to the south, but furthermore, could it not also be because they did not need a fleet as reaslitically who was going to start attacking their coasts apart from Ironborn? And even then they did not build a fleet on the western coast, something that could have been of great help.

[Olligarchy]

Hmm your last point does make sense, as for the first point, whilst yes it might be the fact that the north could not afford a fleet paying taxes to the south, but furthermore, could it not also be because they did not need a fleet as reaslitically who was going to start attacking their coasts apart from Ironborn? And even then they did not build a fleet on the western coast, something that could have been of great help.

Well the western coast can be explained pretty easily: They lack the infastructure there to build things. Even on the eastern half they are doing it mostly in White Harbor which is a city unto itself.

[VVSINGOFTHECROSS]

Well the western coast can be explained pretty easily: They lack the infastructure there to build things. Even on the eastern half they are doing it mostly in White Harbor which is a city unto itself.

True I have often wondered why there was no infrastructure there, seems a glaring hole in defence of the north

[ummester]

Do you feel guilty about being born into a better station than millions of people worldwide? I mean, sure, you'll post "yes," but what are you doing about it rather than posting on a forum dedicated to a series of fantasy novels?

Good point.

Re posting about a fantasy series - probably coz I have nothing better to do :D

Re not doing anything about it, it makes me wonder if taking wellbeing for granted, or a certain level of apathy is normal.