Justification for Dany’s Invasion of Westeros

[Mithras]

From the pace the first thread ended, I think we need Part 2.

UnmaskedLurker posted:

I don't actually spend that much time trying to figure out the motivations of fictional characters. But to the extent I have given this issue any thought (and it does modestly interest me), it seems clear to me that Dany has always believed that the Targ dynasty was unjustly overthrown, and she has the right, duty and obligation to retake the throne and reinstate the Targ dynasty. Whether you find that reasoning to be "justification" is irrelevant. Such "justification" has been used in the real world historically time and again (sometimes with success and sometimes without success). She also has dragons which gives her reason to believe she will succeed at her mission (not that the dragons are part of the justification--just basis for it not to be a complete fool's errand).

And I am not a Dany fan or foe. I don't think any monarch really has the "right" to rule, as they have not really been given the consent of a majority of the governed (the only legitimate basis I believe there is to rule--not that we can always live up to that ideal). But Dany has just as much a justification to "invade" as Stannis has to attack KL or as Tommen has to continue to assert that he is king. Ultimately, realpolitik prevails. Each believes he or she is the "true" ruler for his or her own personal reasons -- and then acts on that belief.

Mithras posted:

Of course it is relevant because as the readers, we know that the Targaryens are not overthrown unjustly. Robert’s Rebellion was completely justified and legal. So, if Dany rejects the chances to learn the truth time and again while using the bolded as her justification, she deserves all the bashing about it.

UnmaskedLurker posted:

I disagree with your premise. As the reader, while I think that Robert had a right to defend his life, he did not have any inherent right to put himself as King. I don't accept that moral rationale. Even if he had the right to overthrow Aerys, perhaps the "moral" choice would be to have put Viserys in power (Viserys committed no crime and would be "next in line" as far as anyone knew at the time).

I try not to live in world of "black and white" where every moral dilemma has a clear answer (some do, many do not). So as I don't accept your premise that it is 100% clear that Robert had a right to overthrow the entire Targ dynasty and put himself in place as king -- and certainly every reader is free to make this choice for himself or herself -- I don't think it will be universally accepted that Dany's rationale is completely unsupportable. And with Robert dead -- and multiple potential claimants vying for the throne -- Dany's claim becomes even more defensible.

Mithras posts :)

There are some serious problems with your line of thought:

1. First of all, Viserys was showing the signs of being Aerys the Third, as Barristan told Dany. I am sure that Pycelle and Varys could see that too. So, deposing off Aerys the Second only to replace him with Aerys the Third does not sound like the brightest idea.

2. It does not make sense to rebel against a mad king and then put his son or his grandson on the IT. Once that child king grows and takes the power into his own hands, there is no guarantee that he will not take his vengeance from the rebels and their descendants.

3. During the regency of Aegon III, the Realm had a bad experience of having a child monarch. The King should be a strong figure on his own, especially after grand rebellions or destructive civil wars. That is why Maegor Targaryen was passed over by the Great Council of 233 in favor of Egg.

Therefore, keeping the Targaryens as the royal dynasty was not an option. The moral choice would be to send the Targaryen children to silent sisters or the Wall, or keep the girls as hostages and marry them to Robert’s future sons.

[Cladinator]

Her justification seems obvious enough:

She feels entitled to it.

As her story progresses her list gets longer.

She will be just.

She will be merciful.

She will be fierce.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[Petyr's Little Finger]

Dany will see Westeros as being her birthright because her father was king. Robert took the IT from the Targs by right of conquest. He is the legitimate king and every lord of Westeros has acknowledged Robert as king. So Dany has no claim to the throne, unless she takes it, it is not hers.

I agree with the OP. There was no point putting any Targ let alone Viserys on the throne. Viserys would have been as bad as Aerys and you don't ally against the ruling family just to put another member of the family on the throne.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Might makes right

The blood of Aegon I

Kin of Robert Baratheon

Return of the True Dragon

It can be spun anyway she likes or one land one king or queen .

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Well if Aegon had the right to conquer the 7K, then Robert has the Right to take it away.. And Dany to reconquer it..

i would say The justification is truly might makes right. But in her mind, she will see it as a rightful restoration.

Of course she needs to denounce (f)Aegon as a fake targaryen, otherwise her argument falls short.

[The Mountain That Flies]

1. First of all, Viserys was showing the signs of being Aerys the Third, as Barristan told Dany. I am sure that Pycelle and Varys could see that too. So, deposing off Aerys the Second only to replace him with Aerys the Third does not sound like the brightest idea.

2. It does not make sense to rebel against a mad king and then put his son or his grandson on the IT. Once that child king grows and takes the power into his own hands, there is no guarantee that he will not take his vengeance from the rebels and their descendants.

3. During the regency of Aegon III, the Realm had a bad experience of having a child monarch. The King should be a strong figure on his own, especially after grand rebellions or destructive civil wars. That is why Maegor Targaryen was passed over by the Great Council of 233 in favor of Egg.

Therefore, keeping the Targaryens as the royal dynasty was not an option. The moral choice would be to send the Targaryen children to silent sisters or the Wall, or keep the girls as hostages and marry them to Robert’s future sons.

Counter-points;

1. Viserys was showing signs of that almost two decades later, after he'd spent most of his life on the run and having to beg to get by. The child Viserys was at the end of the Rebellion showed none of that.

2. True, but then again there's no way to know Robert's son wouldn't decide to punsih the Tyrells or Martells for siding with the crown. You can't predict the future, only do what's right in the moment.

3. Aegon III's regency was problematic because there were multiple people vying for control, many of whom had just fought each other in the Dance. If one person was in charge (Hoster Tully would have been the best choice) it could have avoided that, or a small council of the rebels who had been allies.

I agree that sending the Targ kids to the Wall and Silent Sistsers would have been moral, but it was not inherently a bad idea to put one of them on the throne.

[wefollowthecomet]

Everything Dany knows of Westeros comes from what her brother Viserys taught her. Viserys was obsessed with Westeros, reclaiming the iron throne, restoring the targaryen dynasty and avenging his family.

When he died, it became her duty to restore the dynasty, to take back what they lost with fire and blood. Her giving birth to her dragons just reinforced her idea that it is her destiny to do so. The dragons are the justification.

"if I look back im lost"

Im too tired to form coherent thoughts right now, as it 6am and I haven't slept since yesterday, but the above quote is probably the reason we are debating so much over the justification dany has for invading westeros

apologies if this post didn't make any sense,

im off to bed now

goodnight morning

[Durran Durrandon]

Daenerys has believed so far that she has the right to rule, because she has been told since childhood that here father and brother were wrongfully deposed and murdered by usurpers. She has been raised to believe in the idea of a right to ruler ship. She has been told that the people loved her family and would greet them as liberator, raising their banners to follow her. Prior to her marriage, she did not have enough real world experience to challenge any of this.

We meet her in survival mode. She doesn't want to be queen, she just want to go home to be normal to be a child playing. She is married to a barbarian horse lord and is just trying to survive the experience. She is still terrified of Viserys and wants to please him. When Drogo kills Viserys she masters the situation, she is comfortable for some time, but the reality of the Dothraki and what it will mean to conquer begins to become clear to her, and she realizes that the Dothraki, her husband who she still loves, and her future child will bring rape and pillage to Westeros just as they do in Essos. She recoils and acts, but before she can put too much thought into, tragedy occurs Drogo is injured, betrayal and dark magic are wielded, she hatches dragons, and her and her followers go into survival mode again.

The next true moral dilemma she faces is in acquiring the Unsullied. Jorah tells her the Unsullied will reduce the rape and pillage, Barristan tells her that slavery is wrong and that the people of Westeros will not rise up to back a ruler with a slave army. Neither one of these men ever tell her that she should reconsider conquest, and that the conquest might be wrong. Seriously, Barriston Selmy is standing there like Obi-wan Kenobi, saying slavery is wrong, but he never says, "I know you are just a teenager, so let me tell you, with my age, experience, and wisdom, that I think conquering Westeros might be wrong."

She frees the Unsullied and kills the slavers, which was awesome. She attempt to free the cities of Slaver Bay. It doesn't go well, but freeing slaves is a pretty decent motive. She tries to to it with minimal bloodshed. Yes, oh gods, yes, she crucifies some of the masters of Meeren. I am not big on capital punishment in general, but they had crucified children. She refuses to kill hostages, she refuses suggestions to slaughter all the the noble houses of Meeren. I am not sure where everyone is getting that she is a monster.

I think she will question her invasion of Westeros, and won't do it unless the plot pushes it, Like say hypothetically there was an army of ice zombies pouring down fromt he North and Westeros needed dragons or something.

[wefollowthecomet]

Daenerys has believed so far that she has the right to rule, because she has been told since childhood that here father and brother were wrongfully deposed and murdered by usurpers. She has been raised to believe in the idea of a right to ruler ship. She has been told that the people loved her family and would greet them as liberator, raising their banners to follow her. Prior to her marriage, she did not have enough real world experience to challenge any of this.

We meet her in survival mode. She doesn't want to be queen, she just want to go home to be normal to be a child playing. She is married to a barbarian horse lord and is just trying to survive the experience. She is still terrified of Viserys and wants to please him. When Drogo kills Viserys she masters the situation, she is comfortable for some time, but the reality of the Dothraki and what it will mean to conquer begins to become clear to her, and she realizes that the Dothraki, her husband who she still loves, and her future child will bring rape and pillage to Westeros just as they do in Essos. She recoils and acts, but before she can put too much thought into, tragedy occurs Drogo is injured, betrayal and dark magic are wielded, she hatches dragons, and her and her followers go into survival mode again.

The next true moral dilemma she faces is in acquiring the Unsullied. Jorah tells her the Unsullied will reduce the rape and pillage, Barristan tells her that slavery is wrong and that the people of Westeros will not rise up to back a ruler with a slave army. Neither one of these men ever tell her that she should reconsider conquest, and that the conquest might be wrong. Seriously, Barriston Selmy is standing there like Obi-wan Kenobi, saying slavery is wrong, but he never says, "I know you are just a teenager, so let me tell you, with my age, experience, and wisdom, that I think conquering Westeros might be wrong."

She frees the Unsullied and kills the slavers, which was awesome. She attempt to free the cities of Slaver Bay. It doesn't go well, but freeing slaves is a pretty decent motive. She tries to to it with minimal bloodshed. Yes, oh gods, yes, she crucifies some of the masters of Meeren. I am not big on capital punishment in general, but they had crucified children. She refuses to kill hostages, she refuses suggestions to slaughter all the the noble houses of Meeren. I am not sure where everyone is getting that she is a monster.

I think she will question her invasion of Westeros, and won't do it unless the plot pushes it, Like say hypothetically there was an army of ice zombies pouring down fromt he North and Westeros needed dragons or something.

This is everything my sleep deprived brain wanted to say. Thankyou for writing it out all so eloquently.

[Ser Taeser Celtigar]

She doesn't need to justify it.

She has dragons.

She has Unsullied.

She probably has Dothraki.

She wants the Iron Throne.

Do you want to say No, or do you bend the knee?

[Make Shadowbabies Not War]

Well if Aegon had the right to conquer the 7K, then Robert has the Right to take it away.. And Dany to reconquer it..

i would say The justification is truly might makes right. But in her mind, she will see it as a rightful restoration.

Of course she needs to denounce (f)Aegon as a fake targaryen, otherwise her argument falls short.

This basically sums it up. Whoever has the throne (as well as force large enough to keep it) has the right to sit on it.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Daenerys has believed so far that she has the right to rule, because she has been told since childhood that here father and brother were wrongfully deposed and murdered by usurpers. She has been raised to believe in the idea of a right to ruler ship. She has been told that the people loved her family and would greet them as liberator, raising their banners to follow her. Prior to her marriage, she did not have enough real world experience to challenge any of this.

We meet her in survival mode. She doesn't want to be queen, she just want to go home to be normal to be a child playing. She is married to a barbarian horse lord and is just trying to survive the experience. She is still terrified of Viserys and wants to please him. When Drogo kills Viserys she masters the situation, she is comfortable for some time, but the reality of the Dothraki and what it will mean to conquer begins to become clear to her, and she realizes that the Dothraki, her husband who she still loves, and her future child will bring rape and pillage to Westeros just as they do in Essos. She recoils and acts, but before she can put too much thought into, tragedy occurs Drogo is injured, betrayal and dark magic are wielded, she hatches dragons, and her and her followers go into survival mode again.

The next true moral dilemma she faces is in acquiring the Unsullied. Jorah tells her the Unsullied will reduce the rape and pillage, Barristan tells her that slavery is wrong and that the people of Westeros will not rise up to back a ruler with a slave army. Neither one of these men ever tell her that she should reconsider conquest, and that the conquest might be wrong. Seriously, Barriston Selmy is standing there like Obi-wan Kenobi, saying slavery is wrong, but he never says, "I know you are just a teenager, so let me tell you, with my age, experience, and wisdom, that I think conquering Westeros might be wrong."

She frees the Unsullied and kills the slavers, which was awesome. She attempt to free the cities of Slaver Bay. It doesn't go well, but freeing slaves is a pretty decent motive. She tries to to it with minimal bloodshed. Yes, oh gods, yes, she crucifies some of the masters of Meeren. I am not big on capital punishment in general, but they had crucified children. She refuses to kill hostages, she refuses suggestions to slaughter all the the noble houses of Meeren. I am not sure where everyone is getting that she is a monster.

I think she will question her invasion of Westeros, and won't do it unless the plot pushes it, Like say hypothetically there was an army of ice zombies pouring down fromt he North and Westeros needed dragons or something.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120129224213/glee/images/e/e9/Outstanding.gif

[OldGimletEye]

I agree with the OP. There was no point putting any Targ let alone Viserys on the throne. Viserys would have been as bad as Aerys and you don't ally against the ruling family just to put another member of the family on the throne.

You must not be from around here. Around these parts, we're Dragon King fearin good ol' boys. We don't take too kindly to these kind of subversive notions. You will respect the Dragon Queen's author-eye-tie.

[Mithras]

Counter-points;

1. Viserys was showing signs of that almost two decades later, after he'd spent most of his life on the run and having to beg to get by. The child Viserys was at the end of the Rebellion showed none of that.

2. True, but then again there's no way to know Robert's son wouldn't decide to punsih the Tyrells or Martells for siding with the crown. You can't predict the future, only do what's right in the moment.

3. Aegon III's regency was problematic because there were multiple people vying for control, many of whom had just fought each other in the Dance. If one person was in charge (Hoster Tully would have been the best choice) it could have avoided that, or a small council of the rebels who had been allies.

I agree that sending the Targ kids to the Wall and Silent Sistsers would have been moral, but it was not inherently a bad idea to put one of them on the throne.

1. Wrong. Barristan knew Aerys since he was young and he observed his descent into madness closely. He also watched Viserys as a boy and saw that he showed similar characteristics with young Aerys. He was not wrong.

2. Robert himself punished the Tyrells and the Martells for siding with the crown, in case you have not noticed.

3. And what makes you say that multiple people will not vye for control if Aegon or Viserys was made the king? Tywin and Jon Arryn would definitely do that. Martells and Tyrells too.

[RoamingRonin]

Her goal for invading Westeros will not be to "drink the wine of vengeance from the skull of the Usurper" like it once was. She will not be driven by revenge. Her invasion of Westeros will have little to do with the fall of House Targaryen.

Daenerys Targaryen is here to cleanse the world in fire.

[Mithras]

Daenerys Targaryen is here to cleanse the world in fire.

And you get mad when people say Dany is the daughter of her pyromaniac father.

[RoamingRonin]

And you get mad when people say Dany is the daughter of her pyromaniac father.

Only lies offend me, never honest council. She is the daughter of a pyromaniac, I don't deny it. But she's not mad like him as some might wish.

[Mithras]

Only lies offend me, never honest council. She is the daughter of a pyromaniac, I don't deny it. But she's not mad like him as some might wish.

Aerys complained from the filth of the KL so much as to wish for a new city across the Blackwater Bay. In the end, he decided to cleanse the city with wildfire.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Justification? Depends, a justification to whom? A justification is an explanation you put forward to explain your actions to a specific audience and hopefully make them palatable. It might have nothing whatsoever with why you actually committed these actions. 'Restoring her birthright' for example is sufficient justification, whether the reader approves or not. Such a justification would not be for our benefit but for those who are asked to submit.

Now reasons why she would invade... There is no escaping ambition and vanity as a motivation, same as in every invaders in history and a boat load of the other nobles we've seen in the serie. In her specific case there is an added element of identity quest. Like every young person trying to find their place in the world, she's trying to figure out who she is and she happens to have a very peculiar heritage to live up to. Finally, she has the means to do it.

So; why invade? Ambition, vanity, orphan issues and dragons.

[The Mother of The Others]

this tranfers nicely from the last topic I just posted to. Hmmm, by the year 2020 the goal is to cut down on new posts by at least 80% by quoting myself fulltime.

I don't know where Meereen is headed but probably nowhere good. So if things keep going like they are, Danny's "learning how to rule" experiment should have taught her not to try ruling again in the West...... that's why I suspect the rest of the East will change their mind soon and help make Danny look like she's learned something about how power really works, etc. This will justify her attack on Westeros now that she's older and wiser and can apply all the many lessons she's learned when ruling the East. :dunno:

There's also the chance that she's more important than a dynasty. If she's a world changer, she'll be remembered for doing the kind of thing a dynasty can't do. Because dynasties are about keeping the world the same, under the same crown. Maybe the world needs a good kick in the testes and "winning" won't be what Daenerys is remembered for so much as giving the world the shove it needed to get humanity in shape to survive. (both our own madness and the madness of the elements need to be survived here. If she manages to kill down our own species' madness to the point where we can unite and focus on the other threat, maybe that's the main hero accomplishment of AA.)