Blacks vs. Greens #2 [TWoIaF spoilers]

[Red Tiger]

and if you give in to other people demands timidly?

you are seen as a weakling. like aerys 1. (Cue dumb and proud people* rebelling against you) one by one people are gonna try to take advantage of you like they did with tytos, no matter how kind you are to them.

no those war's happened because of bad decision making.

1.)(maegor not being a little bit merciful)

2.) aegon deciding that he want's to try and take a kingdom, from the only person in the world with enough dragon's to defy him.

3.) Daeron letting the martell's keep dorne. and not reading enough history to tell him that they have no honer.

4.) cause aegon 4 the asshole was an asshole.

5.) cause aerys was unwilling to compromise with Rickard.

* dumb and proud people make up 78% of the nobility of westeros.

You mean after Aegon I made a peace treaty with them and Daeron attacked anyway?

Relax, Marshal, im not gonna revive the debate, just pointing something out

[The silver dragon]

You mean after Aegon I made a peace treaty with them and Daeron attacked anyway?

Relax, Marshal, im not gonna revive the debate, just pointing something out

that was more than 100 year's ago.

i am sorry but most peace treaty's usually don't apply one hundred year's later.

and the martell's no doubt forced the peace treaty out of aegon via black mail.

do you disagree that what they did was dishonorable, and back handed? do you disagree that it was pointless? (as they were assimilated into the realm regardless.)

(the dorneish rebellion befitted no one.)

if i was i was him i would have given the lord paramount title, to the iron wood's the minute i took over dorne. and in one fell swoop insured that dorne would never be united against me in rebellion. as the iron wood's now have a vested interest in staying in the realm.

[Red Tiger]

do you disagree that what they did was dishonorable, and back handed? do you disagree that it was pointless? (as they were assimilated into the realm regardless.)

(the dorneish rebellion befitted no one.)

I find it utterly ridiculous to use 'dishonorable' in the context of war (im not gonna go further into this, the last time I did WMarshal and I argued for 4 days). Plus it wasn't pointless, yes Dorne joined the seven kingdoms but they were given full autonomy, they weren't just allowed to keep their royal title, which is one of the reasons Dorne can easily stay out of every war without there being consequences (Dorne fought the Blackfyre because Daeron's wife was DOrnish and fought Robert because Aerys held Elia hostage, but those are exceptions).

[Winterfell is Burning]

and if you give in to other people demands timidly?

you are seen as a weakling. like aerys 1.

Yeah, because the only two choices are give in too other people's demands timidly every time or do whatever you want when you want it regardless of consequence :rolleyes:

[Red Tiger]

Honestly, I think that was the real key to Jahaerys I and Daeron II's awesome rule, they both understood that rationality and careful diplomacy could be way more decisive than brutality and terror. Obvious, yeah, but in a feudal context, not as common. No extremes of weak or domineering, just calculated political maneuvering.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Honestly, I think that was the real key to Jahaerys I and Daeron II's awesome rule, they both understood that rationality and careful diplomacy could be way more decisive than brutality and terror. Obvious, yeah, but in a feudal context, not as common. No extremes of weak or domineering, just calculated political maneuvering.

Yes, and the latter one had no dragons.

[Red Tiger]

Yes, and the latter one had no dragons.

True, his main thing was keeping the right people around him and giving them the right roles. Bloodraven as a Master of Whisperers, Baelor as his main general, his Dornish wife who no doubt explained to him how and why to approach Dorne the way he did.

Kept a bastard around in a very important role, didn't try to play a role he wasn't born for (warrior) and listened to a woman. Talk about progressive.

[Wmarshal]

While I believe only the might and power and the ability to win a war if it comes to it, gives him/her the 'rightful claim' to anything he/she wants, Jaehaerys did call upon the great council to create some sort of unviersal succession laws. In Westerosi rulership tradition, a woman can only inherit if there are no males left (including cousins, uncles etc.) So being wise as he was, Jaehaerys understood that the realm would be more stable and there would be a better relationship between the ruling Targaryens and the nobles if the they adopted their new realm's ways and traditions, in addition to not causing future problems when there is potentially a complex succession crisis. And so my point is that Viserys in a sense 'betrayed' the realm and his grandfather when he named Rhaenyra his heir. A king can do as he wishes though but as I said earlier might is everything. So there is no 'rightful' ruler or usurper in my view. The side which proves to be more powerful will be the 'rightful' ruler (in this case it turned out to be the blacks in the end).

On the topic of Daemon, I believe his main goal was to claim the throne. Plotting during Viserys's rule and causing problems but he proved unsuccessful in gaining his main prize, it is quite obvious what he wanted. With the Dance of the Dragons he did accomplish his goal in a sense by putting his seed 'Aegon III' on the throne.

Do not forget jaeherys own claim exited by taking the crown with zero precedent over his nieces.

[Wmarshal]

You mean after Aegon I made a peace treaty with them and Daeron attacked anyway?

Relax, Marshal, im not gonna revive the debate, just pointing something out

I am not going to bring up this debate again, I just advice looking into the Dornish history sect again before bringing up who hit who first.

[The silver dragon]

Yeah, because the only two choices are give in too other people's demands timidly every time or do whatever you want when you want it regardless of consequence :rolleyes:

a king cannot afford to do what he want's whenever if he want's to keep his throne.

you must temper sternness and punishment with justice and sound pragmatic rational.

but you made it sound like the reason's for all of westeros problem's were because.

king's made decision's. while i said it was because they did not make very good decision's some times.

[The silver dragon]

I find it utterly ridiculous to use 'dishonorable' in the context of war (im not gonna go further into this, the last time I did WMarshal and I argued for 4 days). Plus it wasn't pointless, yes Dorne joined the seven kingdoms but they were given full autonomy, they weren't just allowed to keep their royal title, which is one of the reasons Dorne can easily stay out of every war without there being consequences (Dorne fought the Blackfyre because Daeron's wife was DOrnish and fought Robert because Aerys held Elia hostage, but those are exceptions).

1.) it was a peace banner so no it was not in the context of war. when one side in a war extend's it and the other accepts it. it marks a cease-fire until the conclusion of negation's.(they offered it and then proceed to kill them, without warning) what is and is not dishonorable is a matter of opinion, i find their action's dishonorable, you don't :dunno: .

2.) if you don't want to go further you don't have to comment. Saying " (im not gonna go further into this)" comes across as one trying to get in the last word, in a rather petty fashion.

3.) nope the dorneish participated in tourney's, and went to war on the king's command. they only got full autonomy when jon negotiated peace with them.

4.) and want penalty is that? if a lord stay's out of a war it is not death penalty. as it stand's they have participated in about as may war's as the north or iron islands.

(fought in the war of 9 penny king's even though they weren't any blood connections.)

[Red Tiger]

1.) it was a peace banner so no it was not in the context of war. when one side in a war extend's it and the other accepts it. it marks a cease-fire until the conclusion of negation's.(they offered it and then proceed to kill them, without warning) what is and is not dishonorable is a matter of opinion, i find their action's dishonorable, you don't :dunno: . Yes, I realize this, like I said before I don't agree with you

2.) if you don't want to go further you don't have to comment. Saying " (im not gonna go further into this)" comes across as one trying to get in the last word, in a rather petty fashion.

3.) nope the dorneish participated in tourney's, and went to war on the king's command. they only got full autonomy when jon negotiated peace with them.

4.) and want penalty is that? if a lord stay's out of a war it is not death penalty. as it stand's they have participated in about as may war's as the north or iron islands.

(fought in the war of 9 penny king's even though they weren't any blood connections.)

There's a thread where I discussed this with Marshal, seek it out, I don't remember what it was called, but i've discussed this shit to death. I figured you would understand that was the real reason I said 'im not gonna go further into this'. The World of Ice and Fire literally says that Daeron II gave Dorne full autonomy.