Justification for Dany’s Invasion of Westeros

[Mithras]

The murder of Elia and her kids and exile of Viserys & Dany happened after Aerys death. So I hold the rebels responsible because they clearly had the power at that time. Also no reason for Robert to take the throne if he acted out of self defense.

If Robert gets self defense excuse,why not madness excuse for Aerys?

That changes nothing. Aerys and Rhaegar share the primary guilt of starting the Rebellion.

And for the millionth time, Robert had to overthrow the Targaryens. Do you honestly believe that he should have crowned a Targaryen after slaying most of his family? I don't think anyone is that stupid to believe this, so you are obviously playing dishonest.

Lol, you again resorted to Aerys apologism. Madness excuse. Really? Will Rhaegar get prophecy excuse?

[Amris]

I get why she feels justified (and others IRL who think her fictional claim is 'right'.)

I personally don't. Her family had an obligation to the realm. Those in power have responsibility....

Yep here it comes--- With great power comes great reasonability. They failed to handle the mad king while thousands potentially millions died/would die.

Once the 'usurper' came into power, that line became the 'true' line and linage for the realm imho. Had Robert B invaded without the full scope of the MK in play I may have been willing ot change my view.

:agree:

The Targaryen dynasty has come to an end due to Aerys' behavior. He left Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn no choice but to dethrone him.

Whether their rebellion was 'legal' (it probably was not but one could actually argue the point if one felt so inclined) does not come into this at all. In the end the only thing that counts is that Aerys had to be stopped and that they had the power to do the job and did it.

After that (Aerys death) all was up for grabs.

The issue wasn't primarily a legal issue even then. It would be naive to assume the 7Kindom constitution has rules for the case that a mad king has to be dethroned, does not go willingly, has to be stopped by civil war - and what now? So: Trying to make this a legal case may be interesting intellectually. But that's all it is.

In practice Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn faced a very different and much more important question: how to stop the bloodletting fast and get the realm going again. And that without starting the next civil war.

There were no optimal solutions available. The whole country was a mess.

One thing was clear though: The Targaryen dynasty could not continue to rule - if nothing else then because of the bad blood and all the deaths thay lay between them (the Targaryens) and the rebels now.

Legal dynasty or no - there is no way anyone could have assumed Viserys - even if he had been a better person than he actually was - could just overlook the murder of Elia and her children, the deaths of Aerys and Rhaegar and the rebellion in the first place. That's just too much to ask of a human being.

And someone with at least a modicum of responsibility simply can not hinge the peace and stability of a realm on the vague hope that Viserys will turn out to be superhumanly forgiving and insightful, forget all deaths and slights and become a good king regardless.

So the Targs were out as a dynasty. There simply was no other practical way. Sad or no - that's the reality. Legality does not come into it.

So there we are with Robert on the throne and a new dynasty started.

However one may criticize Robert: The country accepted the new status quo. Peace returned.

Sad for Dany and Viserys maybe but there it is: The Targ dynasty was history. A new dynasty had come. Life went on.

Now Viserys' claim 'but my father sat the IT so I am the rightful' king is a legal argument. And again: It's nothing more than that. Just pure theory and intellectually interesting - at best.

The reality is that if Viserys wants the throne back he has to start an invasion of the 7Kingdoms, conduct a huge war. Have heaps of people killed, most of them innocents most likely.

Maybe someone thinks that's justified because Aerys once sat on the IT. But I personally don't think so. I think it would be utterly irresponsible.

The Targs lost their throne because of Aerys' mad behavior. They had one shot to continue their dynasty: By Rhaegar taking action and dethroning Aerys. But for reasons we do not fully know yet Rhaegar missed that opportunity. So someone else had to take action. And that meant automatically that the Targ dynasty was history.

That GRRM manages to give Viserys and Dany a somewhat understandable reasoning to want the throne back nevertheless is one of the strengths of the series and one of the cornerstones that holds the story together. One (or I at least) can understand what's going on in Dany's head and although I do not share her conviction I love following her story. To me she is running in the wrong direction but - damn is she doing it in an awesome way!

And I think it yet possible that she will come to realize that she does not have a right to the throne just because of her name. I hope she'll come to see that.

It's also quite possible she will turn out to save Westeros (from the Others for example) even though she gets there for the totally wrong reasons.

All very interesting to me. Not to everyone I know. But I love it.

[khal drogon]

That changes nothing. Aerys and Rhaegar share the primary guilt of starting the Rebellion.

And for the millionth time, Robert had to overthrow the Targaryens. Do you honestly believe that he should have crowned a Targaryen after slaying most of his family? I don't think anyone is that stupid to believe this, so you are obviously playing dishonest.

Lol, you again resorted to Aerys apologism. Madness excuse. Really? Will Rhaegar get prophecy excuse?

Your self defense excuse is as ridiculous as that.

That is the reason why your self defense argument don't hold water. Slaying innocent members of the Targ family is not an act of self defense and its a crime he is guilty of. In the eyes of the last member of that family,it is unforgivable.

And do you honestly believe Dany should forgive the rebels for those crimes,because her father started the war?

[Mithras]

Your self defense excuse is as ridiculous as that.

That is the reason why your self defense argument don't hold water. Slaying innocent members of the Targ family is not an act of self defense and its a crime he is guilty of. In the eyes of the last member of that family,it is unforgivable.

And do you honestly believe Dany should forgive the rebels for those crimes,because her father started the war?

Robert didnot slay the innocent members of the Targ family. The Lannisters did that.

Dany has the right to demand justice for Elia and her kids. Beyond that, Dany has no right to define a crime.

And Tyrion will tell her that all the people responsible for the murders are dead.

[Sparklehorse]

Robert didnot slay the innocent members of the Targ family. The Lannisters did that.

Dany has the right to demand justice for Elia and her kids. Beyond that, Dany has no right to define a crime.

And Tyrion will tell her that all the people responsible for the murders are dead.

He may not of slayed them, but he didn't care.

“Prince Rhaegar had two children,” Ser Barristan told him. “Rhaenys was a little girl, Aegon a babe in arms. When Tywin Lannister took King’s Landing, his men killed both of them. He served the bloody bodies up in crimson cloaks, a gift for the new king.” And what did Robert say when he saw them? Did he smile? Barristan Selmy had been badly wounded on the Trident, so he had been spared the sight of Lord Tywin’s gift, but oft he wondered. If I had seen him smile over the red ruins of Rhaegar’s children, no army on this earth could have stopped me from killing him.

In fact, he's not even horrified at the prospects of two children and their mother being brutally killed.

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him. He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn."

If Daenerys has no right to define a crime, seriously, what politican does? Definitely not Robert Baratheon. Daenerys has done some heinous stuff such as torturing the wineseller's daughter, yet I do not see her doing anything as bad as what Robert and Tywin did.

All the people may be dead who are responsible for the downfall of Targaryen, yet considering such event made Dany flee into exile in fear for her life, she has absolutely every reason to be pissed.

Also, remember: Robert tried to kill Dany in AGOT. Even though Daenerys had done absolutely nothing to her, the Iron Throne had made enemies with a thirteen year old girl.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

Robert not punishing Gregor, Lorch or Tywin (despite being far from a good moral act) isn´t worse than ordering the torture of people in my view... it´s just like the president of the US or the EU commision not punishing murderous dictators because of political and collateral damage...

Robert made mistakes, Dany made mistakes... to awnser the OP, Dany's justification to me is pure conquest, she wants, she can, she takes... and it´s valid

Not some righteous vengeance, because i don´t see any

Dany has 3 dragons, an army, and ambition... that's enough IMO

[Nolan Clegane]

Here's the thing... Dany stole an entire army, had another army fall into her lap because the captain of said army wanted her, just happened to run into one of the greatest fighters westeros has ever known (Selmy) because he was pushed out of his position and suddenly decides to track her down and support her... She then banished her wisest counselor because he made her mad (sure, I know he betrayed her, but this was before he knew her, before he began to have faith in her, removing Jorah was foolish and a move made by an immature girl). She lets one Dragon loose on Essos and chains the other two up, day and night! You ever chain up a pit-bull 24/7? They don't like that... And you don't let your third pit-bull loose on the neighborhood. Irresponsible.

She invades city after city, attempts to implement change to a culture(s) that has practiced one way of life for thousands of years, then she abandons each city she fails. She acts as if she seeks justice for "her" people, but all she is after is the broken dreams of a mad brother who filled her head with the idea that the Targs have the right to rule Westeros... Let's not forget, they were the usurpers once upon a time as well.

The point is... war is ugly, it's dirty, horrible things will happen, good will become evil and the evil may find a shred of humanity within themselves from time to time. For this story to play out, she will become dark and do Dar and horrible things. She is no one's saviour, but her own... Give me a list of how she resembles anything remotely close to a saviour figure.

[Hodor the Articulate]

Not true. There is Selwyn Tarth who has Targaryen blood, hence a claim to the IT. But no one considers him a threat because he does not have that objective, nor the power to threaten the king. There are many other Houses with Targaryen blood just like him.

The Blackfyres were threat to the IT because they had a strong standing army in the form of the Golden Company for the whole time. It is possible that some merchants in the Free Cities might have Blackfyre blood in the female line but no one considers them as a threat to the IT because they are not interested in the IT and they are not likely to have a military power to threaten the IT.

You'd have to be incredibly ignorant to not see that fact that Robert could have Dany/Vis killed easily if he really wanted but he didnot need to do that, not until Dany was sold to a man with a mighty host in return of an army to invade his kingdom.

Viserys was mocked as the Beggar King. He was selling family heirlooms to survive. Why should Robert kill him at such a condition? He would just let him to die if he didnot agree to the Dothraki marriage.

There is no self defense and survival condition in Dany's invasion of Westeros similar to Robert's case, no matter how hard you try to argue that way.

Again, I ask you: do you think Dany and Viserys could have popped into Westeros, for whatever reason, without consequence? Why do you think she was driven from her homelands?

[Mithras]

He may not of slayed them, but he didn't care.

In fact, he's not even horrified at the prospects of two children and their mother being brutally killed.

If Daenerys has no right to define a crime, seriously, what politican does? Definitely not Robert Baratheon. Daenerys has done some heinous stuff such as torturing the wineseller's daughter, yet I do not see her doing anything as bad as what Robert and Tywin did.

All the people may be dead who are responsible for the downfall of Targaryen, yet considering such event made Dany flee into exile in fear for her life, she has absolutely every reason to be pissed.

Also, remember: Robert tried to kill Dany in AGOT. Even though Daenerys had done absolutely nothing to her, the Iron Throne had made enemies with a thirteen year old girl.

Absolutely disgusting.

So, what is Robert's crime here?

Dany was a threat to Robert's kingdom as soon as she was married to Drogo in return of a Dothraki Horde to invade Westeros and even before any assassin appeared, she was urging Drogo to invade Westeros.

[Mithras]

Again, I ask you: do you think Dany and Viserys could have popped into Westeros, for whatever reason, without consequence?

I don't understand this question. Could you please elaborate?

Why do you think she was driven from her homelands?

Because her mad father and delusional brother caused a continent-wide rebellion.

[Nolan Clegane]

So, what is Robert's crime here?

Dany was a threat to Robert's kingdom as soon as she was married to Drogo in return of a Dothraki Horde to invade Westeros and even before any assassin appeared, she was urging Drogo to invade Westeros.

Oh, but it's ok for her to urge Drogo to invade westeros... People like her, and want to see her kick some ass. So, RB should have pulled out the red carpet for the 40,000 dothraki horselords and let them rape and murder not just 2 children but tens of thousands... Oh, wait, Dany wouldn't have let him rape anyone or kill any children at all. Only what, 12 and up, maybe 11... Ok, ok 9 and up or 8. 8 and up do all the killing and raping you "need" to do, that way Westeros and everyone who has ever affronted her will know not to mess with a Targaryen!

[JonSnow4President]

He may not of slayed them, but he didn't care.

In fact, he's not even horrified at the prospects of two children and their mother being brutally killed.

You realize that's not actually a quote of what happened? That's someone projecting what they view of a character onto a situation where he wasn't in witness. This is stated in your very quote.

IIRC, he was uncomfortable seeing them, with maybe a hint of gratitude that he didn't have to deal with the Targ heir problem at that moment. Don't have the books on me (at work, but not assigned to a client, so just free to poke around and be available), and I can't pretend to remember where I get that impression from (want to say a Ned chapter, but I'm far from sure).

Regardless, your quote is literally the worst possible type of quote to pull from the text to support your work, not counting an unrelated quote and adding your own speculation behind it (Some of the Sparrows wield axes, the Mormont's are like the only one's that use axes. OMG, the Mormont's are following HR posing as the HS!!!)

[Hodor the Articulate]

I don't understand this question. Could you please elaborate?

Your position is that it's so obvious Dany wouldn't be a considered a threat, if she had no intention of taking the throne. Well, suppose she and Viserys decided to abandon their goal of taking back the IT. Would they have been allowed to go back to Westeros for a visit, then? No, because she would still be seen as a threat. Their lives would be in danger the moment they step in Westeros on the ship to Westeros.

Because her mad father and delusional brother caused a continent-wide rebellion.

Oh, what a noble justification for forcing two innocent children to flee from their country.

[Hodor the Articulate]

Didn't you know? Holding Daenerys to the same standard as the other leaders in canon is somehow unacceptable. I love what Tyrion said about her, taking the measure of her character even before meeting her... and this in her most controversial book, ADwD.

Bah! You're just an irrational Khaleesi worshiper! There are no double standards for Dany on this forum. Everybody is always completely accurate in what they say about her. They never tell outright lies about the events in the book, just to villainise the character!

[Mithras]

Your position is that it's so obvious Dany wouldn't be a considered a threat, if she had no intention of taking the throne. Well, suppose she and Viserys decided to abandon their goal of taking back the IT. Would they have been allowed to go back to Westeros for a visit, then? No, because she would still be seen as a threat. Their lives would be in danger the moment they step in Westeros on the ship to Westeros.

If they married to merchants, denounced their claims to the IT openly and asked for a permission to pay a visit in person, I don't think it would be a problem as long as they explained the purpose of their visit well (such as trade etc.)

Oh, what a noble justification for forcing two innocent children to flee from their country.

This is the price of being nobility. Many people here are arguing that Dany is entitled as any noble but being nobility has this side effect too. Even as an innocent child, the blood flowing in her veins is a political entity. And being royal blood, it is extremely important, even dangerous.

If it were Ned's way (i.e. the most moral choices were made), Viserys would be sent to the Wall or the Citadel or the Faith because of his blood. Would you then cry for the innocent boy who is forced to a life of not his choosing?

[JonSnow4President]

Bah! You're just an irrational Khaleesi worshiper! There are no double standards for Dany on this forum. Everybody is always completely accurate in what they say about her. They never tell outright lies about the events in the book, just to villainise the character!

Lies/mistakes. Opinion or questionably relevant example. Pretty damn true. Me

Here's the thing... Dany stole an entire army, had another army fall into her lap because the captain of said army wanted her, just happened to run into one of the greatest fighters westeros has ever known (Selmy) because he was pushed out of his position and suddenly decides to track her down and support her... She then banished her wisest counselor because he made her mad (sure, I know he betrayed her, but this was before he knew her, before he began to have faith in her, removing Jorah was foolish and a move made by an immature girl). She lets one Dragon loose on Essos and chains the other two up, day and night! You ever chain up a pit-bull 24/7? They don't like that... And you don't let your third pit-bull loose on the neighborhood. Irresponsible.

She invades city after city [slight exaggeration], attempts to implement change to a culture(s) that has practiced one way of life for thousands of years [This is true, but since spun to be negative, I'm calling it false, because in isolation, I would agree getting rid of slavery is a good thing. The other changes she makes that I wouldn't agree with are largely inconsequential compared to this], then she abandons each city she fails [slight exaggeration]. She acts as if she seeks justice for "her" people, but all she is after is the broken dreams of a mad brother who filled her head with the idea that the Targs have the right to rule Westeros... Let's not forget, they were the usurpers once upon a time as well.

The point is... war is ugly, it's dirty, horrible things will happen, good will become evil and the evil may find a shred of humanity within themselves from time to time. For this story to play out, she will become dark and do Dar and horrible things. She is no one's saviour, but her own... Give me a list of how she resembles anything remotely close to a saviour figure.

I've seen a lot less factual posts with more inaccuracies than that which I wouldn't call "outright lies."

[khal drogon]

Dany's motives to take back the throne was

1) She grew up hearing her brother say how her family was wrongfully deposed with the murders of her kin.She wants revenge for them.

2) Everything the usurper has now is what should be hers by right. She was not only denied the throne but also her ancestral home.She was forced to flee for life and never had a permanent home.They have to lose all they had and they have to beg and rely on others for a living. She saw her own brother descend into madness.For her the IT represent "home" and all that she had lost.

3) She was the last member of a proud,powerful family which ruled their kingdom for 300 years.So obviously she would be entitled.

4) She knew that she survived so far was because of her family name.If her family name fades away her life would be even more miserable.So she wants to make her family name live on.

5) The usurper sent assassins to kill her while she was pregnant which fueled her hatred for the usurper.

6) She is compassionate and she wants to make the people of her homeland happy.

7) She has dragons and a powerful army and she has the might.

Now honestly compare it with Robert's motives when he took the throne.

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

Dany's motives to take back the throne was

1) She grew up hearing her brother say how her family was wrongfully deposed with the murders of her kin.She wants revenge for them.

2) Everything the usurper has now is what should be hers by right. She was not only denied the throne but also her ancestral home.She was forced to flee for life and never had a permanent home.They have to lose all they had and they have to beg and rely on others for a living. She saw her own brother descend into madness.For her the IT represent "home" and all that she had lost.

3) She was the last member of a proud,powerful family which ruled their kingdom for 300 years.So obviously she would be entitled.

4) She knew that she survived so far was because of her family name.If her family name fades away her life would be even more miserable.So she wants to make her family name live on.

5) The usurper sent assassins to kill her while she was pregnant which fueled her hatred for the usurper.

6) She is compassionate and she wants to make the people of her homeland happy.

7) She has dragons and a powerful army and she has the might.

Now honestly compare it with Robert's motives when he took the throne.

For Robert it was life or death..

[Amris]

Dany's motives to take back the throne was

1) She grew up hearing her brother say how her family was wrongfully deposed with the murders of her kin.She wants revenge for them.

2) Everything the usurper has now is what should be hers by right. She was not only denied the throne but also her ancestral home.She was forced to flee for life and never had a permanent home.They have to lose all they had and they have to beg and rely on others for a living. She saw her own brother descend into madness.For her the IT represent "home" and all that she had lost.

3) She was the last member of a proud,powerful family which ruled their kingdom for 300 years.So obviously she would be entitled.

4) She knew that she survived so far was because of her family name.If her family name fades away her life would be even more miserable.So she wants to make her family name live on.

5) The usurper sent assassins to kill her while she was pregnant which fueled her hatred for the usurper.

6) She is compassionate and she wants to make the people of her homeland happy.

7) She has dragons and a powerful army and she has the might.

Now honestly compare it with Robert's motives when he took the throne.

You aren't wrong, Khal Drogon :)

On the contrary: I think you have pretty much nailed the reasons Dany has for wanting to take the IT. I would even go so far and say that your reason no 6 which may be the most noble of her motives actually seems to have been getting more and more traction with her. I expressly add that I find her reasons humanly understandable and that I much enjoy GRRM's presenting us these reasons and the moral question and dilemma whether these reasons give Dany the right to invade Westeros or not.

That we are having this discussion is a testament to GRRM's ability to present us with complex ethical questions and make us think about them.

Now comes the 'however' - part.

Sorry :P

What I disagree with is the notion (which you may have but if I misunderstand you there then please excuse me) that these reasons can excuse the huge war and slaughter that would follow if Dany really did go through with her invasion plan.

In my opinion all those reasons together can not excuse the mass killing of innocents that would follow if she went to war with Westeros in the situation as it exists in the books right now.

This may change if the situation changes. I can imagine developments in Westeros which might make me say: 'Woah - hopefully Dany will come to the rescue!'

But the situation as it exists right now is not (maybe not yet) like that. Especially her notion to take the throne 'because its hers by right' does not hold water for me. Yes - there are arguments in her favor. Good ones even. But all of them combined do not make it right to start a huge slaughter.

Now - if she came back because her help was needed - against the Others for instance - or because some Ironborn Dumbass steals a dragon and threatens to lay waste to the 7Kingdoms - now that would be something else. And then I would of course say: 'Got to Westeros already, girl!'

[Nolan Clegane]

Lies/mistakes. Opinion or questionably relevant example. Pretty damn true. Me

I've seen a lot less factual posts with more inaccuracies than that which I wouldn't call "outright lies."

In short...

She has no control on the situation

She cannot control her emotions

She doesn't know how to rule

She makes poor decisions

She is unraveling

All my OPINION but I'd say you can pretty much highlight it in BLUE!