Was Daeron I right in invading Dorne?

[Ran]

People make too much of the idea that Dorne has deserts. Yeah, it has deserts, but it's not all deserts. The best wood for bows is Dornish yew, after all. The coastal, river, and mountain regions, and probably areas on the fringes of those, are more hospitable.

And no one has said that Dorne has enormous amounts of cavalry. Surely part of the high value placed on sand steeds is the fact that their numbers are limited. They've enough for themselves, not everyone else.

George has taken something of the Arab irregulars during WWI running circles around the might of the Ottoman military machine -- hundreds, sometimes thousands of men, appearing from the desert to strike and destroy isolated columns/garrisons/supply trains, and then off again before there's an effective response, and combined it with a persistent, low-level insurgency that the Dornish seem apt to do when outsiders try to take over.

 

 

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Wars of aggression are never justified.

[The Grey Wolf]

7 hours ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

Wars of aggression are never justified.

That's most wars in history.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

People make too much of the idea that Dorne has deserts. Yeah, it has deserts, but it's not all deserts. The best wood for bows is Dornish yew, after all. The coastal, river, and mountain regions, and probably areas on the fringes of those, are more hospitable.

And no one has said that Dorne has enormous amounts of cavalry. Surely part of the high value placed on sand steeds is the fact that their numbers are limited. They've enough for themselves, not everyone else.

George has taken something of the Arab irregulars during WWI running circles around the might of the Ottoman military machine -- hundreds, sometimes thousands of men, appearing from the desert to strike and destroy isolated columns/garrisons/supply trains, and then off again before there's an effective response, and combined it with a persistent, low-level insurgency that the Dornish seem apt to do when outsiders try to take over.

The thing with that analogy is that the Ottoman Empire at the time of the Arab Revolt during WW1 had been in decline for generations, unlike Westeros, and didn't have a commander anywhere near Daeron I's caliber. 

Also, it isn't just the deserts. Its the fact that Dorne is supposed to be relatively poor (its infrastructure for instance is highly underdeveloped) and have the least population but somehow it can fend off the strength of six other kingdoms each more populous. That the garrisons Aegon I put in place get all overthrown the moment he leaves without explanation. That they can live off the land when their castles are taken even after they use scorched earth tactics and leave their women, elderly, and children at the mercy of the Targaryens, who could easily order them killed in order to force the men to come home and defend them. That Aegon with his dragons can't spot them riding around an open desert or doesn't bother having maps depicting wells and other important resources. That Dorne is supposed to be a feudal kingdom where feuds between noble families are common (like in the rest of Westeros) yet when Aegon I comes and later Daeron I none of the Dornish side against the Martells even though they know they'll suffer and that Aegon at least is generous, not even the freaking Yronwoods who rode in three Blackfyre Rebellions! And after Daeron's conquest the Dornish smallfolk decide they don't like Daeron, I mean I know George has said the Dornish have a proto-sense of nationalism but that right there sounds more like Vietnam than what is supposed to be a feudal kingdom plus they somehow manage to inflict 50,000 casualties! How Daeron I left a occupation force that big and how the Dornish were able to inflict such severe numbers without apparently suffering severe long-term population damage is baffling considering that only a generation later they supplied royalist troops during the First Blackfyre Rebellion.   

[Lord Varys]

@Ran

I guess TWoIaF made it pretty clear that the regions around Starfall in the very west of Dorne as well as the mountainous regions and those near the Greenblood where there once was that First Man kingdom with elected monarchs are non-desert regions which are pretty fertile.

And Quentyn's memories of Yronwood suggest a pretty mild climate, too. The association I got from that was the huge climatic difference between Darjeeling and the flatland India.

@The Grey Wolf

I think the bigger problem from a realistic point of view is that Westeros bent the knee to Aegon and his sister-wives after just two years of war. The history of the Conquest realistically depicts how the Conqueror defeated the armies and castles he took on but the one wonders why the hell nobody tried to rebel against him at the first opportunity. Not just the great lords (among which the Arryns and the Starks would have had the best opportunities considering that they did not clash all that much with the dragons) but also many ambitious smaller houses and such. Especially while/when the Dornishmen were exposing how weak and vulnerable the Targaryens actually were one would expect uprisings all over the place with the rebels mimicking the Dornish tactics.

I think the climatic and geographical situation in Dorne really makes it difficult to conquer and hold the place conventionally. We lack the details how Aegon tried to keep the land under control but presumably he did not want to appear like a tyrant which means dick moves like poisoning all the wells in Dorne or randomly slaughtering the smallfolk wasn't an option.

Ran and Linda stress the fact that the First Dornish War (and the Dance, too, in some capacities) was much worse a war than what we have seen as of yet in the books but it would have escalated overtime and it really seems as if the Targaryens originally did not understand that Dorne would not submit as easily as the other kings and lords had done - none of them declared themselves independent again as soon as the dragons had disappeared, after all. But Dorne did.

Whether the way the dragons were utilized in the war makes much sense from a strategic point of view is difficult to say with our limited knowledge. The loss of Meraxes and Rhaenys most likely made the Targaryens very wary in using the dragons to attack fortified castles (I think Aenys I's reluctance to use Quicksilver to attack Harrenhal and Oldtown was in part caused by the fact that he had lost his mother at Hellholt). Technically dragonriders should have been able to work as scouts and stuff but Aegon and his sisters had a kingdom to rule - they could (presumably) not spent months or years tracking the Dornishmen through their mountains and deserts.

The impression I get is that a cruel and ruthless approach in the beginning could have ensured a Targaryen victory in the beginning of the First Dornish War but that was not what Aegon wanted. After the Defenestration of Sunspear the Targaryens lost what control they had had over the land, and subsequently there were attacks and counterattacks. Dorne was actually not occupied all that long - neither during the First Dornish War nor after Daeron's Conquest.

I also assume Aegon predominantly used Marcher Lords and other Stormlanders/Reach men for his attack on Dorne. There is little reason to assume that the other kingdoms involved themselves all that much in this war - just as they might have not participated all that much in Daeron's war later on.

The main reason as to why Dorne remained united against the Targaryen occupation would be Princess Meria Martell, of course. That woman had ruled over Dorne for sixty years by the time of the Conquest (and about seventy when the First Dornish War began). The way she is depicted there is little doubt that she commanded the hearts, minds, and hands of all her subjects, noble and lowborn alike. We don't know what made the Yronwoods later on ally with the Blackfyres, but presumably this had nothing to do with Dornish independence (which Daemon Blackfyre most likely would not have been willing to grant to Dorne) and more with the Yronwoods wanting to replace the Martells as the ruling house of Dorne.

I'm pretty sure the 50,000 men Daeron I lost were not all occupation force but partially also men he later sent to Dorne to try crush the rebels. Say, he let 30,000 men there under the command of Lyonel Tyrell some of whom were part of Tyrell's party traveling around keeping the peace, and others stationed in various castles and/or settlements. They would still be a lot to kill, of course, but if the Targaryens suffered a few very crushing defeats and there were mass uprisings/surprise attacks immediately after the murders of Tyrell and Daeron I then such a devastating losses might make sense. Especially if we combine all that with men fleeing into the desert and disappearing there or not making it back through the Boneway.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That's most wars in history.

 

Most wars in history have been unjustified.  At least for the people starting them.

 

[The Grey Wolf]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

When you put it that way it makes more sense. I'm still baffled however at the lack of any mentioning of how bad Dorne suffered. The Dragon's Wroth alone and if Daeron I lost 60,000 men shouldn't Dorne have suffered heavy damage to its population as well as possibly its infrastructure like the American South in the American Civil War?

Also, on the whole everyone else not rebelling, I can think of a few reasons why that would happen. The geography is ill-suited for guerrilla warfare, which includes the Crownlands, the Reach, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands (because of the dragons, otherwise the forests in the Riverlands, as we with the BBB, would work splendidly). Two, is culture. I think a lot of the men would have a hard time swallowing the idea that they have to hit and run and abandon their families to the mercy of their enemy as the campaign norm, in particular when the culture is one (in the south) steeped in seeking glory with chivalry and honor (certainly in the Vale and the Reach) or (as in the North) one steeped in bravery and personal strength as exemplified by leading from the front. Three, is fear. The Westerlands, the Reach, the Riverlands, the Crownlands, and the Iron Isles all witnessed first-hand what dragons can do on the battlefield and to castles. That might make them wary of rebelling for fear of what will happen if they lose, which is always a possibility. Furthermore, in the case of the Riverlands and the Crownlands, they were grateful for the Targaryens kicking out the hated Ironborn and the Reachmen and Stormlanders were probably preoccupied with doing most of the heavy lifting fighting the Dornish (and consequently receving the brunt of the retaliation, such as half the Rainwood being set aflame)). 

Furthermore, how Meraxes was slain needs to be elaborated on. Wouldn't a scorpion bolt through the eye have to be fairly close-range with the dragon close to the castle? In that case maybe it wasn't just a lucky shot (why would they even be trying to shoot a dragon in the first place? And why was Rhaenys (the least martial and the mother of Aegon's only child at that point) there instead of him or Visenya?) but the Dornish pulled something similar to what they did with Daeron I, they gave some indication they wanted to treat and as Meraxes was landing in front of the Helholt they fired a scorpion (by accident or intentionally are both possibilities). At that range it would have been easy and point-blank.

Finally, I find your notion that had Aegon taken a ruthless approach at the beginning of the First Dornish War he might have won very interesting (reminds me of my occasional obsession with the what-if of Maegor actually having a child (which would change in terms of its effects depending on when and with who obviously)). What do you think the aftermath and perception of that would be assuming he ruled for the same period of time and had only Aenys and Maegor (in this alternate scenario he could theoretically have more since Rhaenys is alive but I want to keep things relatively simple.)

1 hour ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

Most wars in history have been unjustified.  At least for the people starting them.

Most wars in history would be unjustified by our standards. Their standards, probably not. Not to mention our ideas of aggressive warfare are born of the aftermath of colonialism, two world wars, and the rise of nationalism, none of which exist in Westeros (Dorne to a certain extent notwithstanding) so our ideas of borders being kind of sacred and every people have a right to rule themselves among other things doesn't really exist either so you can expect people to behave accordingly. History needs to be viewed and judged contextually to a large degree as simple making blanket-statement judgments using our modern-day notions of morality is, in addition to not contributing to any meaningful discussion, hindsight bias and a result of those less advanced times. For instance we like to talk about how "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" failing to take into account that the Code of Hammurabi, in its lifetime, was probably welcomed because it made "an eye for an eye" a law. Yes, to us it seems barbaric and disproportionate as a code of law but for its time period it brought stability to society by giving people rules and punishments to live by and enforce. Warfare needs to be seen through that kind of a perspective, not hand-waved as bad or good or a part of human nature. (Sorry for the length.)  

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Nope, not a moral relativist.  Evil is evil, regardless of how it's considered by the people of it's time.

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

Nope, not a moral relativist.  Evil is evil, regardless of how it's considered by the people of it's time.

Since evil is a subjective term basically what you're saying is regardless of how it was considered by the people of it's time, you apply modern morality. Which isn't the best thing to do.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Just now, John Doe said:

Since evil is a subjective term basically what you're saying is regardless of how it was considered by the people of it's time, you apply modern morality. Which isn't the best thing to do.

Why is it not the best thing to do to apply modern morality to moral questions?

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

Why is it not the best thing to do to apply modern morality to moral questions?

Modern morality to past actions? Because the people of that time never heard of modern morality, thus can't be held accountable for failing to live up to it. Context is important.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

3 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Modern morality to past actions? Because the people of that time never heard of modern morality, thus can't be held accountable for failing to live up to it. Context is important.

What harm is there in holding people in the past, or in different cultures, accountable for their moral failings?  Throughout history, there have been people who would be considered moral by modern standards, so it's not like you are going to find 100% of people in the past immoral - just a larger percentage than there are today.  To do anything less is to have a double standard of morality.

Example:  The majority of Americans in the early 19th century felt that racism was not immoral, and that keeping slaves and practicing genocide on the natives was not wrong.  If you say that those actions were not immoral because of the standards of the time, what are you saying about the people who DID find those actions immoral?  Were they somehow deviant because their morality was more advanced than the people of the time?

It seems that most of the arguments against moral absolutism is that it judges certain people as immoral who are venerated by people in the present, and thus upsets them.  I say that people should not venerate immoral people, regardless of when they lived.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

There's also the fact that moral relativism of this sort implies that it is incorrect to judge the morality of the majority when a minority differs.  For instance, I got in a debate on Facebook about whether forced birth was immoral.  The other side tried to shut it down by saying that the majority of Americans believe that forced birth is acceptable under certain circumstances, and so my position that it was wrong was invalid.

If we were all moral relativists, we'd have far less moral progress.  Almost all things we consider immoral, and rightfully so, were at one point considered moral by the majority.  We must always reserve the right to make moral judgements on the majority opinion.

 

[Valens]

13 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That's most wars in history.

The thing with that analogy is that the Ottoman Empire at the time of the Arab Revolt during WW1 had been in decline for generations, unlike Westeros, and didn't have a commander anywhere near Daeron I's caliber. 

Also, it isn't just the deserts. Its the fact that Dorne is supposed to be relatively poor (its infrastructure for instance is highly underdeveloped) and have the least population but somehow it can fend off the strength of six other kingdoms each more populous. That the garrisons Aegon I put in place get all overthrown the moment he leaves without explanation. That they can live off the land when their castles are taken even after they use scorched earth tactics and leave their women, elderly, and children at the mercy of the Targaryens, who could easily order them killed in order to force the men to come home and defend them. That Aegon with his dragons can't spot them riding around an open desert or doesn't bother having maps depicting wells and other important resources. That Dorne is supposed to be a feudal kingdom where feuds between noble families are common (like in the rest of Westeros) yet when Aegon I comes and later Daeron I none of the Dornish side against the Martells even though they know they'll suffer and that Aegon at least is generous, not even the freaking Yronwoods who rode in three Blackfyre Rebellions! And after Daeron's conquest the Dornish smallfolk decide they don't like Daeron, I mean I know George has said the Dornish have a proto-sense of nationalism but that right there sounds more like Vietnam than what is supposed to be a feudal kingdom plus they somehow manage to inflict 50,000 casualties! How Daeron I left a occupation force that big and how the Dornish were able to inflict such severe numbers without apparently suffering severe long-term population damage is baffling considering that only a generation later they supplied royalist troops during the First Blackfyre Rebellion.   

I think a major factor in Dorne being so hard to take is the extreme heat and scorpions, snakes and other vermin that lives there. Also, Dornishmen are cunning and use poisons, they know how to put someone out of commission, so to speak. And how to defend themselves. They were used to being hunted, as you surely know. Before they came to Westeros. The other kingdoms don't have that kind of heat or scorpions or snakes, nor are they used to fighting men who dip their weapons points in poison. That's why they get thrown off their game, Stormlanders, Reachmen and Crownlanders. As well as other Westeros people.

[John Doe]

14 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, it isn't just the deserts. Its the fact that Dorne is supposed to be relatively poor (its infrastructure for instance is highly underdeveloped) and have the least population but somehow it can fend off the strength of six other kingdoms each more populous.

That the garrisons Aegon I put in place get all overthrown the moment he leaves without explanation.

That Aegon with his dragons can't spot them riding around an open desert or doesn't bother having maps depicting wells and other important resources.

That Dorne is supposed to be a feudal kingdom where feuds between noble families are common (like in the rest of Westeros) yet when Aegon I comes and later Daeron I none of the Dornish side against the Martells even though they know they'll suffer and that Aegon at least is generous, not even the freaking Yronwoods who rode in three Blackfyre Rebellions! 

Women in Dorne fight too, that should give them more numbers. 

That's a bit weird, but we don't know how strong the garrision for each castle was and if the servants turn on them I could see it happen.

Dorne is large, he can't just fly around and spot an army, that would take days. 

You have to buy into the nationalism part. 

 

 

[Thersites]

Sorry for the long post, had some things I wanted to include for consideration.
 If, at any point in your life, you have to introduce a person to the concept “just because you can doesn't mean you should”, have them sit down somewhere comfortable, brew a nice cup of tea, and open TWOIAF right at the beginning of Daeron I.Conceiving and implementing his plan took immense skill and talent, it was remembered for generations to come, and screwed up every single thing for every single one of the parties involved, while an infinitely better course of action was right around the corner.
  It has been mentioned that Dorne would itself benefit from unification. It must be stressed that it strongly depends on the conditions of said unification. However, the existence of such a possible outcome is why Dorne was brought into the realm in the first place when Daeron II did it.
  Let us examine both propositions, concerning their economic, military and political consequences.

Daeron II (Proposition A)
 

 

Economically: “You get brought into the realm, trade starts to really get going. You pay taxes, but concerning your newfound incomes, it's a net gain. And if you're part of the realm we'll take it upon us to help improve infrastructure in Dorne as well.”

Militarily: “Well, your northern borders get raided by assholes from this side. If you swore fealty it would be an attack upon the realm, and anyone doing it would get each of their parts cut off from all of their other parts. Also, we've noticed you're near the Stepstones, and we know the piracy and raiding that goes on over there, also that you don't have the power at sea to repel an invasion of particularly militant codfish. No worries, we got your back”

Politically: “All the laws that protect our interests are already in place. Taxes are paid, our merchants are offered protection, outlaws and bandits are dealt with. We don't give half a groat what the set of genitals of the heir to this or that dornish house are, we think it's weird but hey, if you're cool with it. We don't care what you call that guy at Sunspear either. As long as we're clear on aforementioned points, do your thing.”

Daeron I (Proposition B )

 

Economically: “Hey. We're taking your stuff, yo. Also we're taking your other stuff to feed the guys who came to take your stuff. Also, we're leaving guys here who fought to conquer you and now will want their share, so they'll be taking the rest of your stuff. And none of us particularly care about the economic growth or quality of life here. So no stuff going your way in the foreseeable future.”

Militarily: “You're boned. You'll be boned for as long as we conquer you, and as long as the occupation lasts. Also, we don't much care for the lives of (insert preferred racial slur here)s, so our soldiers will be having a bit of fun. And if we need to fight an invasion by someone else here later, read the above about what will happen to you and further above about what will happen to your stuff.”

Politcally: “We don't give a damn about your customs, and we don't give a damn about YOU.”

 

  Proposition B is bad for the nobles. It is bad for the craftsmen. It is bad for the peasants. It is bad for the fruit flies circling fallen blood oranges. And the people who will benefit from it in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms are the Bronns and the Gregor Cleganes.
Whereas Proposition A was accepted after the best efforts of Daeron I and Baelor to turn Westeros into a postapocalyptic wasteland (props to Viserys II for the seven kingdoms being still able to sustain life, and both him and Aegon III for getting them in a position to endure all of that).

  Which means that if Daeron had kept his plan to himself and went with A at the time of his coronation, every house in Dorne would be offering him a daughter for a bedwarmer.
  And if the Prince of Dorne was too thick to understand the implications, the Powers that Be would collectively give him a series of savage beatings until he personally went to King's Landing with the biggest fruit basket Westeros had ever seen in one hand and a quill to sign wherever he had to in the other.

  As for needing to consolidate power, if anyone wanted to rebel, withhold taxes, call his banners, or fart in the general direction he estimated contained most things Targaryen, the next best thing to implementing Proposition B is Daeron I going in person to his doorstep and laying his head on a conveniently placed chopping block (again props to Aegon III for giving everyone who engaged in shehanigans during the regency a serving of what happens when a Targaryen king has neither the time nor the inclination to endure your shit)

  There exists a notion that the measure of a person's worth is the sum of his ability as a fighter, his ability as a commander, and the amount of magic swords in his posession. GRRM has taken a baseball bat to this notion in so brutal a manner it is sometimes painful to watch. Daeron I's achievements in those fields, while achnowledged by everyone in the books who uses him as an example of what not to do, don't make his decision to invade Dorne any less wrong from any standpoint you care to name.

 

[The Grey Wolf]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

Women in Dorne fight too, that should give them more numbers. 

That's a bit weird, but we don't know how strong the garrision for each castle was and if the servants turn on them I could see it happen.

Dorne is large, he can't just fly around and spot an army, that would take days. 

You have to buy into the nationalism part. 

 

 

Sorry but women do NOT fight in Dorne, at least not as active combatants in battles, raids, or ambushes.

As for the second part, yeah, if that was included in the description, I'd buy it but it isn't. We're just told Aegon left and bam all the garrisons are seemingly overwhelmed.

As for the third part, are you sure it would take that long? I remember reading in TRP about Rhaenyra and Daemon racing on dragonback and they traveled quite a distance multiple times in the course of a single day.

2 hours ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

What harm is there in holding people in the past, or in different cultures, accountable for their moral failings?   To do anything less is to have a double standard of morality.

It seems that most of the arguments against moral absolutism is that it judges certain people as immoral who are venerated by people in the present, and thus upsets them.  I say that people should not venerate immoral people, regardless of when they lived.

The harm is failing to understand history as it is and setting too far a bar for what constitutes good in a moral sense historically speaking. Taking context and the views of the time period into consideration is not a double standard nor does it hand-wave what happened. Certain things, have been universally condemned since the dawn of civilization. Rape, adultery, murder, stealing, giving false testimony, perfidy, killing messengers, and harming guests for instance, but that doesn't mean we can judge people living in Ancient Assyria by what we think today, especially not when what is evil is subjective and we ourselves can't agree on a universal code of morality, and probably never will. I mean those ancient Assyrians for instance probably thought their king going around conquering and kicking ass was really good, it meant the kingdom was safe, that the ruler was competent, that the gods were pleased with them, and men won glory, which then reflected back on the women as well. Who are you then to tell them and millennial more of humans that they were wrong simply because they don't meet your moral standards when you came after them in a completely different world and have the benefit of millenniums of accumulated knowledge which they did not possess? Further, by your definition practically every ruler in history should be considered an immoral war criminal for aggressive warmongering alone rather than an actual living, breathing person who is a product of their time acting within the bounds and norms of the era and society in which they live in, reducing the complexity of history to blanket statements like the ones you make that furthermore stifle any meaningful discussion.

 

31 minutes ago, Thersites said:

Text

 While I agree that Daeron II's proposal is by and large better for Dorne I do have a few quibbles.

How do we know if that Daeron I's conquest hadn't initially succeeded and taxed Dorne that they would have been amendable to his offer? After all, without the conquest you don't get Baelor's peace nor do you get Daeron II's marriage, which means the good publicity he got by opposing his father's (disappointingly pathetic) attempts to go to war with them don't happen. Seriously, if all it took House Targaryen to bring Dorne into the fold was say "how about we have a double-marriage" instead of "kneel or burn" I've had too much milk of the poppy. 

Two, yes Daeron II did bring Dorne into the fold but the treaty terms were ridiculously one-sided and Daeron didn't afterward do anything to please everyone else left out in the cold. Seriously, I can practically hear the rest of the realm, particular the Reach and the Stormlands, shouting "What did WE get out of this?" and "Why do THEY get to keep their own laws and have their taxes not assessed by the crown but not us?"

Three, I really don't get where this idea that Daeron I was destroying Dornish culture is coming from. Seriously, nothing in the texts suggests that Daeron I tried to change Dorne culturally, most certainly not by force, which furthermore wouldn't fit with GRRM's description of him as the Targaryen Alexander the Great when you consider that Alexander the Great was a man ahead of his time in terms of tolerance and appreciation of other cultures (look up the Susa Weddings if you want an example).  

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

6 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The harm is failing to understand history as it is and setting too a bar for what constitutes good in a moral sense historically speaking. Taking context and the views of the time period into consideration is not a double standard nor does it hand-wave what happened. Certain things, have been universally condemned since the dawn of civilization. Rape, adultery, murder, stealing, giving false testimony, perfidy, killing messengers, and harming guests for instance, but that doesn't mean we can judge people living in Ancient Assyria by what we think today, especially not when what is evil is subjective and we ourselves can't agree on a universal code of morality, and probably never will. I mean those ancient Assyrians for instance probably thought their king going around conquering and kicking ass was really good, it meant the kingdom was safe, that the ruler was competent, that the gods were pleased with them, and men won glory, which then reflected back on the women as well. Who are you then to tell them and millennial more of humans that they were wrong simply because they don't meet your moral standards when you came after them in a completely different world and have the benefit of millenniums of accumulated knowledge which they did not possess. Further, by your definition practically every ruler in history should be considered an immoral war criminal for aggressive warmongering alone rather than an actual living, breathing person who is a product of their time acting within the bounds and norms of the era and society in which they live in, reducing the complexity of history to blanket statements like yours that furthermore stifle any meaningful discussion.

 

 

I'm not too worried about hurting the feelings of the ancient Assyrians by saying they condoned a lot of evil practices.  BTW, rape, adultery, murder, stealing, giving false testimony, perfidy, killing messengers, and harming guests have all been considered A-OK under certain circumstances throughout history by some people…and some people thought they were wrong at the time, as well.

I don't think it's misunderstanding history to say that people in the past condoned a lot of things that we know are wrong today.  If we start excusing them for their behavior, what's stopping us from excusing people today for the same thing?  Honor killing is considered a moral thing to do in large parts of the world.  That doesn't mean it's wrong to say it's morally incorrect.  Likewise, capital punishment is considered wrong in large parts of the world…should we excuse it because a majority of people in one culture thing it's not immoral?

[The Grey Wolf]

15 minutes ago, Melisandre's White Pubes said:

I'm not too worried about hurting the feelings of the ancient Assyrians by saying they condoned a lot of evil practices.  BTW, rape, adultery, murder, stealing, giving false testimony, perfidy, killing messengers, and harming guests have all been considered A-OK under certain circumstances throughout history by some people…and some people thought they were wrong at the time, as well.

I don't think it's misunderstanding history to say that people in the past condoned a lot of things that we know are wrong today.  If we start excusing them for their behavior, what's stopping us from excusing people today for the same thing?  Honor killing is considered a moral thing to do in large parts of the world.  That doesn't mean it's wrong to say it's morally incorrect.  Likewise, capital punishment is considered wrong in large parts of the world…should we excuse it because a majority of people in one culture thing it's not immoral?

I didn't say excusing them and anyway, if we did, it would be because they're past and dead. There's a significant difference between cutting the Ancient Assyrians some slack and cutting say Britain or France some slack. Also, your example (capital punishment) doesn't work since that only proves moral absolutism is inherently flawed since no one agrees on everything and therefore what is universal to one person isn't to another and therefore any system of moral universalism would be inherently biased. Furthermore, your claim that BTW such and such was accepted, that is not usually the case or never. Outside of sacks for instance rape wasn't part of the norm, stuff like murder, giving false testimony, adultery, and the like probably have never been considered ok because those crimes tear at the basic pillars of society, and you can bet your life that perfidy and killing messengers was NOT ok ever. If you want proof look up the Khwarazmian Empire or Alexander the Great's response to the city of Tyre murdering the man he sent to negotiate with them.

Basically what I'm stating is that your position that we should judge the past through the lenses of the present is inherently flawed. Anyway, whether moral absolutism is the right way to view history is a digression from the topic of the thread so I think we should stop it here.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Just now, The Grey Wolf said:

I didn't say excusing them and anyway, if we did, it would be because they're the past and dead. There's a significant difference between cutting the Ancient Assyrians some slack and cutting say Britain or France some slack. Also, your example (capital punishment) doesn't work since that only proves moral absolutism is inherently flawed since one, no one agrees on everything and therefore what is universal to one person isn't to another. Furthermore, your claim that BTW such and such was accepted, that is not usually the case or never. Outside of sacks for instance rape wasn't part of the norm, stuff like murder, giving false testimony, adultery, and the like probably have never been considered ok because those crimes tear at the basic pillars of society, and you can bet your life that perfidy and killing messengers was NOT ok ever. If you want proof look up the Khwarazmian Empire or Alexander the Great's response to the city of Tyre murdering the man he sent to negotiate with them.

Basically what I'm stating is that your position that we should judge the past through the lenses of the present is inherently flawed. Anyway, whether moral absolutism is the right way to view history is a digression from the topic of the thread so I think we should stop it here.

And I'll hold that the definition of morality is unchanging, and that it is the only way to view the past.  And I'll stop here because you will never get moral relativists and moral universalists to agree.

[Lord Varys]

@The Grey Wolf

Well, I guess Dorne did not suffer all that much during Daeron's Conquest. If they mostly did the killing and meekly surrendered when they had no other choice a lot of men might have survived. Things only got really worse in that war later on when the commoners stood up against Daeron I. But Dorne clearly did suffer a lot during the First Dornish War and this really was a close thing.

I guess guerrilla warfare could have worked in a few regions of Westeros (the Rainwood, the West, possibly the Vale) but not everywhere. But it is still odd that no big fish seemed to have rebelled during the reign of Aegon I. The situation in the Vale and the Stormlands is clear (Ronnel Arryn lived throughout the reign of the Conqueror and the Baratheon-Durrandon marriage secured the allegiance of the Stormlords). The Tullys owed the Targaryens their rule over the Riverlands, and the Tyrells owed them a lot for Highgarden. But Lord Torrhen Stark and Lord Loren Lannister did not seem to outlive the Conqueror, so it is odd that their successors never tried to proclaim themselves kings again.

I'm expert on dragon-warfare, but what we know suggests that Meraxes was killed in the air, coming crushing down on the castle and destroying a Hellholt tower in the process. That really indicates that this was a lucky shot. Or not so lucky considering that the Targaryens were bathing the Dornish castles in dragonfire repeatedly. One assumes that all the dragons were somewhat/superficially injured in the previous attacks, and if there were any Dornish survivors from any previous attacks a few courageous/mad people might have figured out the attack pattern of Meraxes and the other dragons. Hitting Meraxes in the eye would still be a lucky shot, though. One assumes the main target were always the dragonriders.

If the destruction of Harrenhal is any indication then the dragon would be very likely to land to destroy a castle. Aegon took Balerion into Harrenhal's yard and torched the castle from within. One imagines the dragons also landed within the Dornish castles or at least perched on the the walls, towers, and battlements if/when they were actually melting down a castle. But we don't know if they did something like that with the Dornish castles. They might have just bathed them in flames until all the wooden structures were gone.

Oh, and Rhaenys was perhaps the best dragonrider of these three. She certainly was the one who enjoyed riding her dragon the most, just as Prince Aenys' favorite mount later was Quicksilver. Aegon and Visenya didn't seem to enjoy dragonriding all that much. And you don't have to be a warrior to use your dragon to bathe your enemies in fire.

I'm not sure what would have happened had Aegon actually crushed Dorne. Never thought about that, actually.