Targaryens vs Baratheons, which house do you want to be the royal house?

[The Commentator]

Obviously it would depend on which member of the family would rule.  I trust Dany to rule but not Aegon.  And I can't think of a single Baratheon that I would trust to rule.  I'd give Gendry to the flames just to see what color of sparks he'd make. 

I'm voting for team dragon. 

[the Scorpion Knight]

It depends on who and who. 

Aerys versus renly? 

Then baratheon. 

Jaehaerys I versus Robert? 

Then targ. 

which aerys there were two on the throne and i prefer both over renly

Targaryen, they are the one who invented the Iron Throne

I'm not sure if the Baratheon are cursed or something, everything went to hell for them only after 1 king and now the Baratheon on the IT is actually Lannister incest bastard

my opinion

Merrett Frey, RIP.

I just realized thats his wife saying it. 

Baratheons. No batshit crazy fools running the Seven Kingdoms. 

no but instead we have/had 2.5 at the same time 

yes but also there was the issue of Aegons heir dying (who was king at the time) and a Brother succeeded him instead of his own son (or it was Aegons son..... when reading the TWOIAF one seems to get a jumbled brain full of repetitive Targ names)

you mean maegor cthe cruel? that was 60-70 years AFTER aegons conquest

[Endymion I Targaryen]

Targaryens!I still hope for a Dany-Jon wedding.

[Dolorous22]

Stannis! Stannis! Stannis!

[The Wolves]

Keep Jon out of this people he doesn't deserve that hell and neither does any Targ but I prefer them to rule Westeros than any other house. 

[7-KG]

Nvm.

[Wavey Sauce]

Hanged, you mean. Dany is not a tapestry.

Forgot I was back in school in english class my bad

[khal drogon]

So Aerys would have been fine if he had a dragon? What a bunch of fucking nonsense. An idiot with a dragon is still an idiot.

And the fact that RR was followed by turmoil is still no defense to absolutist bullshit.

Aerys' problems stem from him being overshadowed by Tywin. Yes,I think so. If you don't think so doesn't mean it is nonsense. 

And I prefer an idiot with a dragon over dozen greedy lords fighting over the throne bringing only war and destruction to the common folk. The dragons ruled just fine other than few bad apples. I prefer stability over increased power of Lords.I prefer this till the small folk choose to rule themselves. 

[khal drogon]

The Game existed long before RR. And will continue to exist after it. You think the Game wasn't played whilst Aerys and his forebearers were Kings?

By Game of thrones I didn't mean the court politics and backstabbings. I am talking about Great Lords fighting to taste the real power which never existed before Aerys.

[The Wolves]

By Game of thrones I didn't mean the court politics and backstabbings. I am talking about Great Lords fighting to taste the real power which never existed before Aerys.

This is true. 

The Baratheons, Lannisters, Arryns, Starks, and Tullys have created chaos with putting another dynasty on the throne which Westeros will feel for a very long time and will cause lots of civil wars. 

[WSmith84]

By Game of thrones I didn't mean the court politics and backstabbings. I am talking about Great Lords fighting to taste the real power which never existed before Aerys.

Right. Before that it was simply Targaryen vs Targaryen, with the Great Houses picking sides. Much better.

Aerys' problems stem from him being overshadowed by Tywin. Yes,I think so. If you don't think so doesn't mean it is nonsense. 

And I prefer an idiot with a dragon over dozen greedy lords fighting over the throne bringing only war and destruction to the common folk. The dragons ruled just fine other than few bad apples. I prefer stability over increased power of Lords.I prefer this till the small folk choose to rule themselves. 

The smallfolk are much more likely to rule themselves when the ruling elite have dragons I guess. And things are only stable as long as the people with dragons agree with eachother. When they don't, the dragons dance. And people die.

Robert's Rebellion created a very powerful precedent, an idea, even if it's unspoken: that a King's power has limits. And if a King's power has limits, why not a Lord's?

[Crippledtank]

 

you mean maegor cthe cruel? that was 60-70 years AFTER aegons conquest

yes Maegor the 1st who was crowned king at the death of his brother instead of his brothers son. This happened in 42 ac (after conquest)

 

Now if we go back to king Aenys (the conquerers heir) who assumed the crown in 37 AC,

It says on page 52 on TWOIAF

"After the conquerers death, it did not take long before challengers to the targaryen rule emerged." With rebels in the vale and RL oh and the faith turned on him.

 

Yep

 

[Orphalesion]

 

"After the conquerers death, it did not take long before challengers to the targaryen rule emerged." With rebels in the vale and RL oh and the faith turned on him.

 

Yep

 

Which is exactly why I don't buy the "ooooh Robert's Rbellion set this awesome precedent that Kings can be challanged!"

No. The Targaryens were challenged and only remained victorious because of their dragons and later there was generally peace and prosperity, so not many people had anything to gain froma  rebellion.

And if Kings in Westeros were so easily challanged and desposed of since Robert's Rebellion we wouldn't have the clusterbuck that was the War of the Five Kings....or is a bloody, inhumane civil war that "wonderful advancement" those people advertize?

[OldGimletEye]

Aerys' problems stem from him being overshadowed by Tywin. Yes,I think so. If you don't think so doesn't mean it is nonsense. 

And I prefer an idiot with a dragon over dozen greedy lords fighting over the throne bringing only war and destruction to the common folk. The dragons ruled just fine other than few bad apples. I prefer stability over increased power of Lords.I prefer this till the small folk choose to rule themselves. 

Aerys though showed he was an idiot from almost the beggining.  And idiot with great power can do a great deal of damage. Particularly an ambitious idiot.

And when you say "The Dragons ruled just fine" the question is compared to what? I am sure the first answer from you will be but, but Robert did a bad job. Well, ok. But seriously you really think the Targs are going to be that much better than some other family, over the long term? And if yes, your reasoning is what exactly? Are the Targs superior beings?

Fact is the Targs have had their share of good kings, nitwits, and mediocre ones. About what you would probably expect from any dynasty.

I agree that stability is important. But, why is it according to you, this stability can be achieved only by dragons? Also, I don't think I need to remind you that a terrible civil war did in fact break out when the Targs had dragons. Also, I would even go so far to argue that dragons if anything probably undermine stability in the long run. Because, why one earth should a monarch ever go about building the sort of institutions that might bring stability to a kingdom, when he has dragons to enforce his will? The answer is that such monarchs don't.  

Finally, it's good to know that you are really concerned with the welfare of the little guy. I hope you know though that, at least in our world, absolutism ended up being a raw deal for many of them. And why on Earth would you expect a dragon backed absolutist state ever to evolve into something that would let the small folk rule themselves?

[OldGimletEye]

Right. Before that it was simply Targaryen vs Targaryen, with the Great Houses picking sides. Much better.

The smallfolk are much more likely to rule themselves when the ruling elite have dragons I guess. And things are only stable as long as the people with dragons agree with eachother. When they don't, the dragons dance. And people die.

Robert's Rebellion created a very powerful precedent, an idea, even if it's unspoken: that a King's power has limits. And if a King's power has limits, why not a Lord's?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Khaleesi National Party is a very reactionary party. And like all reactionaries one of their favorite arguments is: "See what happens when you change things??? We told you it was going to be disaster?? We should have maintaned the status quo! Let's go back doing things the old way!"

[OldGimletEye]

Which is exactly why I don't buy the "ooooh Robert's Rbellion set this awesome precedent that Kings can be challanged!"

No. The Targaryens were challenged and only remained victorious because of their dragons and later there was generally peace and prosperity, so not many people had anything to gain froma  rebellion.

And if Kings in Westeros were so easily challanged and desposed of since Robert's Rebellion we wouldn't have the clusterbuck that was the War of the Five Kings....or is a bloody, inhumane civil war that "wonderful advancement" those people advertize?

So basically you just believe that RR was not justified and that kings should be able to do what ever in the hell they want. Because why? Is it because "The Targs have purple eyes, silvery blond hair, and I really really like them!!!". Or do you actually have a principled defense of absolutism?

ETA:

Also, fact is that RR does potentially set an important precedent. The fact that you "don't buy it" doesn't change that one iota.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Lannisters have the better hair/eyes combo by far. So Lannisters.

[Orphalesion]

So basically you just believe that RR was not justified and that kings should be able to do what ever in the hell they want. Because why? Is it because "The Targs have purple eyes, silvery blond hair, and I really really like them!!!". Or do you actually have a principled defense of absolutism?

ETA:

Also, fact is that RR does potentially set an important precedent. The fact that you "don't buy it" doesn't change that one iota.

Uhm no. You are putting words into my mouth. Please quote were I wa saying that I found RR unjustified, that I fanboy the Targs because of their silver blonde hair, that I think they should be allowed to do anything they please or that I am a fan of absolutism.

I just say I don't think that it created a never before seen idea that "kings don't have absolute power". Stannis and Joffrey sure don't think so (and both have a giant hard-on for absolutism, btw, as had Robert, who simnply didn't understand why people wouldn't do whatever he wants and Renly who thought he should be king because he was pretty and popular), no character expresses the mindset that kings can now be challanged and the Targaryens were rarely unchallanged for their 300 year reign.

If you look at their history it seems like much of their time was spent placating the other Great Houses in ordert to avoid rebellions and uprisings. And if the lords or even the smalklfolk weanted something badly enough the Targaryens were sometimes helpless to stop them, as ther storming of the Dragonvault showed. And during the great Councils it was the Lords of the Realm, not  the Targaryens who chose the next King.

RR rebellion is no different from the other uprisings during the Targ reign, why don't we look at Lyonel Baratheon's rebellion for a precedent that "kings don't have absolute power"? He didn't like what Aegon V did so he rebelled and got compensation in the end. Sounds pretty successfull to me. All that was unique about Robert's Rebellion is that they made they replaced the Targaryen dynasty and even that is debatable, since part of the "justification" the Baratheons used for crowning themselves kings was that they had tgargaryen blood from their grandmother. 

Even so the only reason they crowned Robert instead of getting Viserys was because John Arryn and Tywin lanbnister thought they had more to gain from making Robert king, not tpo prove anything about absolutism. 

Westeros was never not an abosolute monarchy, RR just changed what sigil the current king flies.

And again, where is the evidence in current-day Westeros that RR changed one single thing about Absolutism? Robert, Joffrey and Tommen are absolute monarchs. There is nothing that challanges or mediates their power in any way. Nothing but a bloody, costly, horrifying civil war that has killed thousands and completely destroyed the Riverlands. Countless more deaths will follow because of starvation and the winter (and the Others, but that's another story)

Is that the legacy of Robert's Rebellion? A civil war, thousands of deaths and destabilization of the Realm each time a Baratheon croaks? *slow clap*

[OldGimletEye]

 

Uhm no. You are putting words into my mouth. Please quote were I wa saying that I found RR unjustified, that I fanboy the Targs because of their silver blonde hair, that I think they should be allowed to do anything they please or that I am a fan of absolutism.

 

See, I am not sure that I was. Because, I have no idea what your point was exactly.
I mean seriously what do you think Jon Arryn should have done would faced with order to murder two young men who hadn't done anything.

 

I just say I don't think that it created a never before seen idea that "kings don't have absolute power". Stannis and Joffrey sure don't think so (and both have a giant hard-on for absolutism, btw, as had Robert, who simnply didn't understand why people wouldn't do whatever he wants and Renly who thought he should be king because he was pretty and popular), no character expresses the mindset that kings can now be challanged and the Targaryens were rarely unchallanged for their 300 year reign.

It doesn't frickin matter what Joffrey or Stannis think. Because neither of them can hold their throne without recognizing the legitimacy of RR. And RR is only legit if..., well, you draw the logical implication here.

 

If you look at their history it seems like much of their time was spent placating the other Great Houses in ordert to avoid rebellions and uprisings. And if the lords or even the smalklfolk weanted something badly enough the Targaryens were sometimes helpless to stop them, as ther storming of the Dragonvault showed. And during the great Councils it was the Lords of the Realm, not  the Targaryens who chose the next King.

Which just goes to show that Westeros was never an absolutist state, the contrary opinions of Targ fanboys/fangirls notwithstanding. RR just solidifies the point in everyone mind, both within ASOIAF and outside of.

 

RR rebellion is no different from the other uprisings during the Targ reign, why don't we look at Lyonel Baratheon's rebellion for a precedent that "kings don't have absolute power"? He didn't like what Aegon V did so he rebelled and got compensation in the end. Sounds pretty successfull to me. All that was unique about Robert's Rebellion is that they made they replaced the Targaryen dynasty and even that is debatable, since part of the "justification" the Baratheons used for crowning themselves kings was that they had tgargaryen blood from their grandmother. 

No it's complete horseshit that Robert wore his crown solely because of his Targaryen heritage. This point is something that has been completely made up by Targ fanboys/fangirls. Why in the hell would Robert proclaim the descendants of Aerys had more right to the throne than he did? The answer is he wouldn't. That makes no sense. At best Robert held the throne, in part, because of his Targaryen heritage. It's complete nonsense to suggest he held the crown solely because of his Targaryen heritage.

Also, RR was a pretty clear case of a "justified rebellion" (unless you thin Arryn should have murdered Ned and Robert and if you think Aerys shouldn't have been replaced). Not every rebellion is justified. 

 

Westeros was never not an abosolute monarchy, RR just changed what sigil the current king flies.

Agree. But, a good portion of the KNP seems to think otherwise. But, anyway, see here is the thing. Things might have turned out differently had it been possible to worked out a negotiated peace with Aerys, but it wasn't.  So the war had to be fought to the bitter end. And that's what led to Aerys downfall. I see no reason why the rebels had any obligation to keep the Targs in power, after having been forced to fight to the bitter end. In the end though, the idea that a king can be replaced for his abuse of power is important. As far as I know, nothing like that has ever happened in Westeros. Ever.

And again, where is the evidence in current-day Westeros that RR changed one single thing about Absolutism? Robert, Joffrey and Tommen are absolute monarchs. There is nothing that challanges or mediates their power in any way. Nothing but a bloody, costly, horrifying civil war that has killed thousands and completely destroyed the Riverlands. Countless more deaths will follow because of starvation and the winter (and the Others, but that's another story)

 

No none of them are absolute monarchs. The only people that think that are members of the Khaleesi National Party and Joffrey. It's interesting that Joffrey and many Targaryen fans share the same political ideology.

But the fact is that no Baratheon can hold the throne without acknowledging the legitimacy of removing kings from power. That's significant.

Is that the legacy of Robert's Rebellion? A civil war, thousands of deaths and destabilization of the Realm each time a Baratheon croaks? *slow clap*

This is complete crap. And it's a sorry ass defense of a tyrant.

Of course, nobody thinks the WOFK is a good thing. Still, you act is if no destructive wars of succession ever happened under the Targaryen watch. They did. Also, RR itself and the problems that followed it were very much a result of the Targaryen state. It's the Targs who ran Westeros for 300 years. It was the Targaryens who never put in a mechanism to prevent succession crises. It  was the Targaryens who failed to put in a mechanism to deal with crazy and incompetent kings. So, lets not put all the blame here on the rebels. MMkay?

And its pretty much an ass pull to say that Westeros would be in great shape if only a Targ was sitting the throne. We really have no idea how Viserys or Aegon might have turned out. Or what fights might have developed during the regency while they were minors.

 

Despite all your protest to the contrary, it still seems to me that our fundamental differences between you and I are:

You:
Well,if only, if only the right "special people" were in power, then everything would be just great!!! Particularly, if they have dragunz!!!! Dragunz!! Dragunz!!!

Me:
I don't really give a fuck which family holds the IT. Because, that doesn't really matter. It's the institutions  around the IT that really matter. And RR, while having it's problems, potentially solidifies the idea that a monarch may not be able to do as he pleases. And that's important.

[khal drogon]

Right. Before that it was simply Targaryen vs Targaryen, with the Great Houses picking sides. Much better.

The smallfolk are much more likely to rule themselves when the ruling elite have dragons I guess. And things are only stable as long as the people with dragons agree with eachother. When they don't, the dragons dance. And people die.

Robert's Rebellion created a very powerful precedent, an idea, even if it's unspoken: that a King's power has limits. And if a King's power has limits, why not a Lord's?

RR simply showed the Great Lords has become more powerful and they could ally to bring down a King. Yes it is a check in the power kings but not for the Great Lords.

After RR the real benefactors were the Great  Lords and I don't care about them.