Justification for Dany’s Invasion of Westeros

[Nolan Clegane]

The overriding point here is that Dany is no more fit to rule than Jofferey was. She thinks far too highly of herself, when she has done nothing to earn that right... Speaking of earning the right to rule, now we're wavering on a slippery slope of democratic justice. Her ancestors only claim to that throne was power, might, and force, oh yeah and 3 dragons. Which in a monarchical society, power is the almighty pendulum that can and often will swing the masses in your favor. Never mind whether you are actually "fit" to rule. Of course she is not concerned with the countless lives that will be lost in her forthcoming invasion. She cares not for the deaths of thousands when 1) her claim is challenged 2) her pride is offended 3) and vengeance is still at hand...

Which is why I am baffled when I see So many people get behind her. Supposedly she is to bring down the mighty doom onto the Others, but in fact she has no idea how to even get across the narrow sea. She has zero control of her strongest weapons (her Dragons), she has failed miserably in Mereen, she does not make good decisions, constantly letting her temper and selfish desires get the better of her.

Make no mistake, I believe she will eventually go to Westeros, and wreak havoc on the entire continent, but that doesn't mean she is just or prepared to do so.

[Hodor's Dragon]

She and Stannis are exactly the same in this regard, a sense of righteouness, a belief they would be good at it, a sense of duty which is a cover up for their ambition. Difference is, Stannis so far seems to be quite good at what he does, Dany is falling apart. Unfortunately Dany has those WMDs to paper over those cracks in leadership with fear. Stannis meanwhile is under resourced. I think right now with Cersei, Stannis and Dany we are seeing leadership in action, the strengths and weaknesses compared and contrasted. None of the 3 will end the series as the main leader.

Are you talking about the same Stannis who lost one army at the Blackwater, bought another, and now has led it into the depths of the North with winter coming on, without the slightest hope in hell of ever extracting it?

[Hodor's Dragon]

Robert overthrew Aerys in self-defense, but he had no legal or moral right to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty, much less to slaughter its children. His only claim was the claim of might.

Daenerys has at least that same right. There is almost certainly no clear law in Westeros governing what happens to an overthrown royal dynasty.

In point of fact, she might actually be the legal heir by the law, even if you concede that Robert was sovereign. If Robert ever issued a decree outlawing and attainting the Targaryen dynasty, the books are entirely silent about it. In fact, there is considerable doubt that he did. His MO as king was to conciliate and bring his enemies into the fold. Since he was king anyway, as the senior surviving Targaryen descendant in Westeros, why should he alienate the remaining Targaryen followers by taking the very public step of outlawing the dynasty when he could just stay quiet about it and be king anyway? He might well prefer to avoid that public step, hold the throne, and secretly assassinate the surviving Targaryens. I think that solution was very much in Robert's character and since, again, the books don't tell us whether he did or didn't attaint the Targaryens, I think there's considerable reason to suspect that he did not.

[Anath]

Dany is obsessed with making things right. In her mind, taking Westeros is right, so she should just do it. I actually get the feeling that she guards herself heavily against any information that might change her perception of her family's recent history (the real one) because it will mean a clash between her feelings of right and wrong and deprive her of her moral justification for retaking "her" realm.

Too bad she isn't too good at making things right. And behind her genuinely noble feelings (which are one of the reasons, but not the most important one, why she's one of my favourite characters), there's the usual variety of greed, ambition, desire to shine and so on. And, of course, there's the small matter that the bloody war she's setting in motion is too harsh a recompensation for the harsh life she's had to endure.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1) We do not know much about Robert's tax policies but it can be expected with good reason that the Reach was punished by being forced to pay more taxes

Lesser tracts were granted to Lord Rowan, and set aside for Lord Tarly, Lady Oakheart, Lord Hightower, and other worthies not present. Lord Redwyne asked only for thirty years’ remission of the taxes that Littlefinger and his wine factors had levied on certain of the Arbor’s finest vintages.

This special tax should be issued during Robert's reign because it was Littlefinger who was behind it.

A special tax on certain Arbor vintages is a punishment? Um I think just about anyone would take that. However that's not really germane since LF wasn't appointed master of coin until well after RR (he was only 15 at the end of the war). It seems more likely that LF himself just levied the tax to raise money for the IT from luxury goods. Frankly if Robert knew about that tax I'd be surprised.

2) That is my point. The IB and probably the Tyrosh cartells too can be expected to retaliate severely if the IT does not repay the debts. But that is not an option for the Tyrells and the Lannisters. That is why they will never get that gold back.

The IB didn't give two shits as long as the interest was getting paid, which it was. They do, however, not like not being paid back. We know *nothing* of the Tyroshi cartels and I'm loathe to give them any kind of badass reputation for repayment. If the Faith, whom you skipped completely, Tyrells and Lannisters are not expecting to get that money back, it's hardly a punishment for RR. The Lannisters "finished" the war for Robert and are related through marriage. Unless you seriously think that Robert is punishing the Tyrells for RR and then doling out much more punishment/disregard to his inlaws and the powerful lord in the 7K, that thought doesn't hold up.

[RoamingRonin]

Joffrey was showing the signs of Aerys too. Cersei is not the only one who gets all the Aerysian features. So, Dany might have some of her own.

The Dany you wish for is the wet dream of the lunatic Rhlorr worshippers.

List some of those "Aerysian" features. Please. I wonder if you'll find any similarities as close as two people with a penchant for wildfire wanting to build new castles in the exact same spot.

I feel like you mean for your last statement to be an insult but it's not my wish... it's pretty much what's happening in the books. The R'hllorist are rising up and going nuts because they view Dany as the savior. And all signs say yeah, she is.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Robert overthrew Aerys in self-defense, but he had no legal or moral right to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty, much less to slaughter its children. His only claim was the claim of might.

That was Aegon the conqueror's only claim too.

First you conquer by might. With time eventually enough people come to believe you are the rightful ruler which grants you added legitimacy. But somewhere down the line you grow soft and someone stronger kills you and takes your stuff just like you or your ancestors did in the first place. Then you get to act all outraged in an impressive display of hypocrisy that essentially means that you believe only you should ever be allowed to take stuff by strenght of arms. That's the medieval political circle of life.

In point of fact, she might actually be the legal heir by the law, even if you concede that Robert was sovereign. If Robert ever issued a decree outlawing and attainting the Targaryen dynasty, the books are entirely silent about it. In fact, there is considerable doubt that he did. His MO as king was to conciliate and bring his enemies into the fold. Since he was king anyway, as the senior surviving Targaryen descendant in Westeros, why should he alienate the remaining Targaryen followers by taking the very public step of outlawing the dynasty when he could just stay quiet about it and be king anyway? He might well prefer to avoid that public step, hold the throne, and secretly assassinate the surviving Targaryens. I think that solution was very much in Robert's character and since, again, the books don't tell us whether he did or didn't attaint the Targaryens, I think there's considerable reason to suspect that he did not.

You are making a great legal argument. Quick, present it to the Westerosi Supreme Court! They'll make Tommen hand back the throne. Wait...

You can argue whether or not the Targaryen were attainted but right or wrong this yields exactly a 0% increase in chance that Dany manages to grab and hold to the throne.

But for the sake of argument, I'll say that if your family has gotten nearly exterminated, that all their stuff was confiscated and someone else is now holding your hereditary office, then you've been attainted all right. What happens to the Targaryens hits all the points of what an attainder is. If you want to argue that it was not an official attainder in the same way that the the Viet-Nam war was not an official war, fine, but I don't see a meaningful distinction for anyone concerned, now or in the future.

[Hodor the Articulate]

You cannot pretend like Dany was sitting and doing nothing. Her marriage was about the invasion of Westeros. Even if we absolve her up to the death of Viserys, after that she did her best to persuade Drogo to the invasion of Westeros. And there was no assassin sent during this time.

If she was married to a merchant, she would not be a threat. No one would care her or her descendants, just like no one cares the Gulltown Arryns.

But no. She was married to a khal with a big army and part of the deal was to give her brother a Dorhraki army to invade Westeros.

So she could have waltzed into Westeros, without any trouble, had she just married a merchant instead of Drogo? No matter what Dany does (or doesn't do), she will always be a threat to the Baratheon rule because of her claim. Even Robert worried that disgruntled Targ supporters would start popping up once Viserys stepped into Westeros (and he was right - Dorne was going to fight to reinstate Targ rule). That's why she and her brother were exiled, and why her niece and nephew were murdered. You'd have to be incredibly naive, if you were in her position, to not ever consider that Robert & co might try to kill you at some point. So if you accept Robert's justification for deposing the ruling house, you have to accept Dany's, too. Otherwise, condemn them both.

[The Mighty Dragonzzilla]

Something I figured out: The Targs don't have any more "right" to the throne than Robert did. They weren't elected or chosen by a divine prophecy; they kicked everyone else's asses. Robert did that. Anyone could really.

[khal drogon]

The overriding point here is that Dany is no more fit to rule than Jofferey was. She thinks far too highly of herself, when she has done nothing to earn that right... Speaking of earning the right to rule, now we're wavering on a slippery slope of democratic justice. Her ancestors only claim to that throne was power, might, and force, oh yeah and 3 dragons. Which in a monarchical society, power is the almighty pendulum that can and often will swing the masses in your favor. Never mind whether you are actually "fit" to rule. Of course she is not concerned with the countless lives that will be lost in her forthcoming invasion. She cares not for the deaths of thousands when 1) her claim is challenged 2) her pride is offended 3) and vengeance is still at hand...

Which is why I am baffled when I see So many people get behind her. Supposedly she is to bring down the mighty doom onto the Others, but in fact she has no idea how to even get across the narrow sea. She has zero control of her strongest weapons (her Dragons), she has failed miserably in Mereen, she does not make good decisions, constantly letting her temper and selfish desires get the better of her.

Make no mistake, I believe she will eventually go to Westeros, and wreak havoc on the entire continent, but that doesn't mean she is just or prepared to do so.

1) I can't understand how she has done nothing to earn the "right". If she did not earn the "right" then I don't know who earned that "right". All her power now comes from people following her and her people give her the "right".

2) Because Dany is the only one who brings war to a peaceful Westeros. Because when other houses start wars small folk do not die.

3) Selfish desires get the better of her? Care to explain?

4) Absolutely no proof and wishful thinking.

[LordPathera]

Dany's right to sit on the throne is only as strong as the might and power that she has at her disposal.

That's how Aegon united the 7 Kingdoms; that's how Robert overthrew Rhaegar; and that's how the Lannisters have incest-born bastards on the throne.

If (f)Aegon, Dany or Stannis want to change that then it can only be done through might. For in Westeros, Might makes Right.

[Mithras]

List some of those "Aerysian" features. Please.

Both ascended to the crown relatively young, both were promising in the beginning of their reigns and both ended up as failures.

Aerys had lapses of violent outbursts even at young age. Dany had the same lapses when she crucified 163 Great Masters and ordered the torture of the wineseller’s daughters.

I feel like you mean for your last statement to be an insult but it's not my wish... it's pretty much what's happening in the books. The R'hllorist are rising up and going nuts because they view Dany as the savior. And all signs say yeah, she is.

The Rhlorrist are not going nuts. They are already nuts. Benerro's endgame is entirely political. He wants to wipe out all the other religions and Dany is the perfect tool for this purpose.

Robert overthrew Aerys in self-defense, but he had no legal or moral right to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty, much less to slaughter its children. His only claim was the claim of might.

He had every right to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty. His claim was not only might. He also had the support of the half of the Realm. And he had the survival reflex against a lunatic who wanted to wipe out his House.

In point of fact, she might actually be the legal heir by the law, even if you concede that Robert was sovereign. If Robert ever issued a decree outlawing and attainting the Targaryen dynasty, the books are entirely silent about it. In fact, there is considerable doubt that he did. His MO as king was to conciliate and bring his enemies into the fold. Since he was king anyway, as the senior surviving Targaryen descendant in Westeros, why should he alienate the remaining Targaryen followers by taking the very public step of outlawing the dynasty when he could just stay quiet about it and be king anyway? He might well prefer to avoid that public step, hold the throne, and secretly assassinate the surviving Targaryens. I think that solution was very much in Robert's character and since, again, the books don't tell us whether he did or didn't attaint the Targaryens, I think there's considerable reason to suspect that he did not.

:rolleyes:

So she could have waltzed into Westeros, without any trouble, had she just married a merchant instead of Drogo? No matter what Dany does (or doesn't do), she will always be a threat to the Baratheon rule because of her claim. Even Robert worried that disgruntled Targ supporters would start popping up once Viserys stepped into Westeros (and he was right - Dorne was going to fight to reinstate Targ rule). That's why she and her brother were exiled, and why her niece and nephew were murdered. You'd have to be incredibly naive, if you were in her position, to not ever consider that Robert & co might try to kill you at some point. So if you accept Robert's justification for deposing the ruling house, you have to accept Dany's, too. Otherwise, condemn them both.

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.

[khal drogon]

So the rebels had the right to destroy her family because they had a self defense excuse? If I killed a mad man in self defense,but I take away his home and I kill some of his family members and throw some of them into streets because I fear revenge. Does that make me justified?

[SayGen]

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.

[joluoto2]

She's riding a big black dragon. The last person who conquered Westeros also rode a big black dragon. So it's totally justified.

[Mithras]

So the rebels had the right to destroy her family because they had a self defense excuse? If I killed a mad man in self defense,but I take away his home and I kill some of his family members and throw some of them into streets because I fear revenge. Does that make me justified?

Apples vs. oranges.

We are not talking about individuals and individual crimes. We have dynasties that can summon armies. Aerys is the person who endangered the lives of all of his family by his atrocities. Robert had to overthrow the Targaryens completely.

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

Robert overthrew Aerys in self-defense, but he had no legal or moral right to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty, much less to slaughter its children. His only claim was the claim of might.

Daenerys has at least that same right. There is almost certainly no clear law in Westeros governing what happens to an overthrown royal dynasty.

In point of fact, she might actually be the legal heir by the law, even if you concede that Robert was sovereign. If Robert ever issued a decree outlawing and attainting the Targaryen dynasty, the books are entirely silent about it. In fact, there is considerable doubt that he did. His MO as king was to conciliate and bring his enemies into the fold. Since he was king anyway, as the senior surviving Targaryen descendant in Westeros, why should he alienate the remaining Targaryen followers by taking the very public step of outlawing the dynasty when he could just stay quiet about it and be king anyway? He might well prefer to avoid that public step, hold the throne, and secretly assassinate the surviving Targaryens. I think that solution was very much in Robert's character and since, again, the books don't tell us whether he did or didn't attaint the Targaryens, I think there's considerable reason to suspect that he did not.

:agree: I also make this point every time. "You had the better claim" (AGoT) means that Robert usurped the IT by conquest and that he also had a blood claim as the descendant of a Targaryen. For all his bleating about "dragonspawn," he was 1/4 dragon himself, and perhaps a bit more through the Baratheon line.

I like Robert as a character, but make no mistake, he was a kinslayer.

So she could have waltzed into Westeros, without any trouble, had she just married a merchant instead of Drogo? No matter what Dany does (or doesn't do), she will always be a threat to the Baratheon rule because of her claim. Even Robert worried that disgruntled Targ supporters would start popping up once Viserys stepped into Westeros (and he was right - Dorne was going to fight to reinstate Targ rule). That's why she and her brother were exiled, and why her niece and nephew were murdered. You'd have to be incredibly naive, if you were in her position, to not ever consider that Robert & co might try to kill you at some point. So if you accept Robert's justification for deposing the ruling house, you have to accept Dany's, too. Otherwise, condemn them both.

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.

[khal drogon]

Apples vs. oranges.

We are not talking about individuals and individual crimes. We have dynasties that can summon armies. Aerys is the person who endangered the lives of all of his family by his atrocities. Robert had to overthrow the Targaryens completely.

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?

[Trigger Warning]

She has a claim to a throne not currently occupied by her House, as good a justification as a feudal society needs.

[Mithras]

dp