Iron Throne and the Targs

[Spilledguts]

Hello forum dwellers!

I learned of this site about a month ago whilst I had nothing good to read and then went on to read all the different sections a far back as I could. First thought is WOW! You guys have a great community and some very cool ideas wrapped with tinfoil! I read between 50-60 books a year, mainly fantasy, and some of you should think about writing a series! BTW my first post in any forum ever, and the autocorrect on this PC is french only, enjoy!

The greatest aspect of ASOIAF to me has always been the different perspectives one can have while reading this book. You can argue with someone about loving or hating a character, a family or a place and the argument will never end. The other person does not simply have a different opinion, he <<perceives>> the story in a totally different way. You argue about them all here and that is amazing! However, one thing that has surprised me is the level of intense discussion regarding politics and legitimacy. You all seem so <<invested>>. I thought this was high fantasy, not historical fiction?

The biggest question I have for you, and I truly apoligize if it was discussed before, is this: What is the point of the Iron Throne and how are the Targs useful in any way?

The Targs: Conquered the Seven Kingdoms within a few years (Save Dorne). Aegon created a cool throne and a city was built around it. He changed his religion and basically became the king of kings. During their 300 year reign, they built the Red Keep. What else have they accomplished?

Every single character's opinion about Kings Landing seems to be the same, overcrowded, corrupt and smells as horrible as the city itself actually is. The city seems poorly orgnanized, no militia other than the Goldcloacks, lots of crime and corruption and at the top, the royals live isolated. 

The Kings Road, even when close to the city, is terrible and muddy. Not patrolled by anyone, no waystations on ANY of it?

No standing army, fleet or even military order of any sorts - see Huscarl, Knights of the Garter, Praetorian Guard, Varangian Guard.... Just 7 knights sworn to celibacy? lol

From what we can tell, there is no central policy for the Seven Kingsdoms. The North lives the same way they always have, so does Dorne and the Reach. Even the Iron Born are still reaving. No external politics except the Ninepenny war?

Their capital is not known for anything except smelling. No center of knowledge, no culture to speak of, no military training buildings and does not even seem to be a center for commerce in the Kingdom? (Oh yeah, the Sept of Baelor)

Even with dragons, they accomplished nothing of note except conquering the Seven Kingdoms and Dorne. They did not really bring any sort of lasting peace except for the 50 year reign of the Conciliator. Quite a few civil wars, seems Lords still fought Lords at the same frequency. (See Dunk and Egg, Rains of Castamere). The World of Ice and Fire talks about some great warriors or leaders, not sure if I remember any scholars other than maester Ameon - unless you count Baelor the Blessed?

We read that Egg has some ideas for change, but lamented the fact he did not have dragons to accomplish them. They had dragons, they did nothing. We hear about the Mad King's plans, they made fun of him for wanting to build another wall - quite ironic. Seems most Hands have been from the outside, and pretty much rule (except a few?) and that most Kings were actually like Robert. 

Seems the only difference to the realm, is that all the Lords and High Lords have a big arena where they can meet up and play the Game of Thrones. Was the point to make a King similar to the real world medieval Pope - except with dragons and cooler names and stories and battles and sweeett looks?! 

And please, I love the Dragons. This is not a hate thread. I am just trying to see if anyone perceives them in a different way. 

 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

The Targaryens accomplished a lot and gave the realm the stability that the common folk needed for three hundred years.  While not perfect, they were a vast improvement over the Starks, Durrandons, Hoares, Gardeners, and Lannisters. 

1. Uniform Law, or at least more uniform than before.  Good Queen Allysanne stopped the Northern barbaric practice of the Lord's right to the first night.  Youtuber Preston Jacobs theorized that those northern savages were practicing baby donations to the Others.  Highly likely, since we know that was how Mr. Craster bought his life from the WW.  We also know that the Starks were giving blood offerings to the trees.
2. More peace and stability than was possible than before.  When you have constant quarreling between the tiny kingdoms the small folk are never given peace. 
3. United the kingdom together.  A united kingdom is stronger than a divided kingdom.  Only someone coming in from the outside can rule effectively.  That family will have to be seen as possessing superiority, which makes it easier for the nobility to accept their right to rule.  The Targaryens were the blood of Old Valyria, the greatest empire that has ever existed.  The Targaryens are beautiful and physical perfection.  They were athletic.  They rode dragons.  They were different and so it was easier for the nobles to accept the Targaryens' right to rule over them.  Anyone else and that person is just one of them.  An Arryn is no better than a Lannister, so why would a lion accept the bird to rule over him.  A dragon is far superior to a lion, a direwolf, and to a damned trout, for the love of god!  An outside force coming in is more likely to rule without bias.
4. The Targaryens checked Volantene ambition to bring back a new empire.  Who knows what could have happened if Volantis had gone on unchecked to become powerful.  Volantis is a slaving state.  They could have set their eyes on Westeros to expand their business. 

[Big P]

We had an interesting discussion about the Targaryens months ago and I think you might find it interesting.  Here is the link -

The post above mine is right.  The Targaryens were not perfect but they were a lot better than the families that were ruling their petty kingdoms before Aegon came along.  The Targaryens centralized the government and for the first time, the Great Lords were held accountable. 

 

[The Fattest Leech]

About the throne itself, this is the version George says is most like the one he has envisioned in his head Iron Throne

And if anyone thinks that this is meant to be a good thing, well, they are in for a shock. This is what George has to say about the throne:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/03/george-r-r-martin-interview

But in the real one, the one in the books, there really are a thousand swords! Maybe two thousand swords! You have to climb a steep set of steps, and it’s ugly, and it’s asymmetric. This one, it looks dangerous, with the spikes, but it has a certain beauty and a symmetry to it. The throne in the books, there’s a point made that it was hammered together by blacksmiths, not by furniture designers. It was meant to be a symbol of conquest and triumph, and, you know: “Look. I took the swords form these people and hammered them in. Now I park my ass on top of them.” It has a message there.

Also remember that is cuts and kills those who do not rest easily upon its cold, hard seat.

It is a sign of oppression and tyranny and it will probably be melted down by the end of the series, even if a few arses pass over it first.

3 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

Hello forum dwellers!

I learned of this site about a month ago whilst I had nothing good to read and then went on to read all the different sections a far back as I could. First thought is WOW! You guys have a great community and some very cool ideas wrapped with tinfoil! I read between 50-60 books a year, mainly fantasy, and some of you should think about writing a series! BTW my first post in any forum ever, and the autocorrect on this PC is french only, enjoy!

Welcome to the thread

3 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

And please, I love the Dragons. This is not a hate thread. I am just trying to see if anyone perceives them in a different way.

Plenty of different opinions to be had here. Just remember that the author is a good ol'hippy that has said his views make their way into his books (rather than the other "super fans" you may come across on the forum.)

[falcotron]

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

Every single character's opinion about Kings Landing seems to be the same, overcrowded, corrupt and smells as horrible as the city itself actually is. The city seems poorly orgnanized, no militia other than the Goldcloacks, lots of crime and corruption and at the top, the royals live isolated. 

Well, you can see people saying the same thing about London from the days when it was approaching 50000 people up to the 21st century. As the old joke goes, nobody wants to live in cities because too many damn people want to live there.

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

The Kings Road, even when close to the city, is terrible and muddy. Not patrolled by anyone, no waystations on ANY of it?

But a muddy road that's only free of bandits during the 90% of the time the realm is at peace is still a lot better than no road at all. We don't know exactly how much effect that's had on trade and travel between the realms, but it's surely pretty substantial.

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

No standing army, fleet or even military order of any sorts - see Huscarl, Knights of the Garter, Praetorian Guard, Varangian Guard.... Just 7 knights sworn to celibacy?

This one has been a problem, as Aegon V discovered to his dismay.

The reasons are obvious: when you have a dozen dragons, what else do you need? But of course that doesn't excuse the fact that they had generations to adapt to having no dragons and never came up with a solution.

Fortunately, if the Targs reclaim the throne, they should have an answer. fAegon surely can't count on keeping the entire Golden Company, but a thousand or so who don't have ancestral lands to rejoin and don't want to go back to being sellswords could be the nucleus of a strong royal army. And if Dany takes the throne, her Unsullied will stay until they reach mandatory retirement age, which gives her an even better base to build on.

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

Their capital is not known for anything except smelling. No center of knowledge, no culture to speak of, no military training buildings and does not even seem to be a center for commerce in the Kingdom?

It's definitely a major center of commerce. Maybe no more so than you'd expect for any other port city of half a million people, but… that's still huge.

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

They did not really bring any sort of lasting peace except for the 50 year reign of the Conciliator. Quite a few civil wars, seems Lords still fought Lords at the same frequency.

England had a lot more rebellions and wars in the first 300 years post-William than Westeros had in the first 300 years post-Aegon. And Westeros has around 10 times the population to control. And meanwhile, their most devastating war, the Dance of the Dragons, is almost a children's game compared to the real-life English war it was based on, the Anarchy.

8 hours ago, Spilledguts said:

Seems the only difference to the realm, is that all the Lords and High Lords have a big arena where they can meet up and play the Game of Thrones.

It took almost 300 years for the Targs to weaken enough that anyone seriously thought about playing the Game of Thrones against them. That's a pretty impressive record. It may not look quite as impressive when you're looking at the story from almost 20 years after the Rebellion, but look at things during Dunk and Egg—nobody is even thinking about wresting power by war except for the kings' half-brothers and cousins; everyone else is instead just trying to play games of marriage and diplomacy with the Targaryens. Which is exactly what you want medieval lords to be doing; it's the only way to keep them off the streets so nobody gets hurt.

Not that the Targaryens are all sweetness and light. But they're also not an unmitigated disaster for Westeros. It's pretty clear that we're expected to take them as being akin to the Normans who conquered England, who brought both good and bad in large measure, while also leaving some major problems completely unchanged. Westeros is still a crapsack world, because it parallels medieval England, which mostly sucked compared to the modern era, even for the privileged few that most of the story focuses on. GRRM doesn't want to romanticize it, he wants to show what it's really like, so he can show how human beings deal with it.

[Pearly]

I sort of agree with you that the Targaryens not being all that great. While they did unite Westeros and they did build some roads. I don't see that Westeros is that much better off. So they united the Kingdom, and now we have wars between houses instead of wars between kings though even that, in the times of ASOIF has degenerated into wars between Kings again.

 

7 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Targaryens accomplished a lot and gave the realm the stability that the common folk needed for three hundred years.  While not perfect, they were a vast improvement over the Starks, Durrandons, Hoares, Gardeners, and Lannisters. 

1. Uniform Law, or at least more uniform than before.  Good Queen Allysanne stopped the Northern barbaric practice of the Lord's right to the first night.  Youtuber Preston Jacobs theorized that those northern savages were practicing baby donations to the Others.  Highly likely, since we know that was how Mr. Craster bought his life from the WW.  We also know that the Starks were giving blood offerings to the trees.

 

Lor's right was not just a Northern custom - it was all over Westeros. And yes, I agree, that goes in the pros column. As to the Starks giving blood sacrifices, and if you're referring to Bran's vision, then that one dates back many many centuries (if not millennia) before the conquest. To the best of our knowledge (from books and AWOIAF), the Starks had ceased that practice a long time before the conquest. The same can be said of the baby offerings to the Others (though I don't think that Caster was the only wildling making that offering beyond the wall).

In any case, Beyond the Wall was never really part of the 7 kingdoms so we can't include it in any Targaryen accomplishment - or lack of.

7 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

More peace and stability than was possible than before.  When you have constant quarreling between the tiny kingdoms the small folk are never given peace. 

1

Yes and no. They held a relative peace (there were some wars) as long as they had Dragons. Once the dragons died, all hell broke loose.

7 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

United the kingdom together.  A united kingdom is stronger than a divided kingdom.  Only someone coming in from the outside can rule effectively.  That family will have to be seen as possessing superiority, which makes it easier for the nobility to accept their right to rule.  The Targaryens were the blood of Old Valyria, the greatest empire that has ever existed.  The Targaryens are beautiful and physical perfection.  They were athletic.  They rode dragons.  They were different and so it was easier for the nobles to accept the Targaryens' right to rule over them.  Anyone else and that person is just one of them.  An Arryn is no better than a Lannister, so why would a lion accept the bird to rule over him.  A dragon is far superior to a lion, a direwolf, and to a damned trout, for the love of god!  An outside force coming in is more likely to rule without bias.

1

I'm not sure I would call Valyria the 'greatest empire that ever existed' - that honor may very well go to the Empire of the Dawn. I do agree with you, however, that an outsider was more likely to succeed in uniting Westeros provided they had superior weapons - i.e. dragons.

7 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Targaryens checked Volantene ambition to bring back a new empire.  Who knows what could have happened if Volantis had gone on unchecked to become powerful.  Volantis is a slaving state.  They could have set their eyes on Westeros to expand their business. 

1

Valyria itself was built with slaves, so the Valyrians were not that much better than the Volantese in that respect. It's possible that the Targaryens did not bring their 'slave' culture with them to Westeros because of Westerosi traditions and not because the Targaryens opposed the idea of slavery.

[Ser Petyr Parker]

10 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Targaryens accomplished a lot and gave the realm the stability that the common folk needed for three hundred years.  While not perfect, they were a vast improvement over the Starks, Durrandons, Hoares, Gardeners, and Lannisters. 

1. Uniform Law, or at least more uniform than before.  Good Queen Allysanne stopped the Northern barbaric practice of the Lord's right to the first night.  Youtuber Preston Jacobs theorized that those northern savages were practicing baby donations to the Others.  Highly likely, since we know that was how Mr. Craster bought his life from the WW.  We also know that the Starks were giving blood offerings to the trees.
2. More peace and stability than was possible than before.  When you have constant quarreling between the tiny kingdoms the small folk are never given peace. 
3. United the kingdom together.  A united kingdom is stronger than a divided kingdom.  Only someone coming in from the outside can rule effectively.  That family will have to be seen as possessing superiority, which makes it easier for the nobility to accept their right to rule.  The Targaryens were the blood of Old Valyria, the greatest empire that has ever existed.  The Targaryens are beautiful and physical perfection.  They were athletic.  They rode dragons.  They were different and so it was easier for the nobles to accept the Targaryens' right to rule over them.  Anyone else and that person is just one of them.  An Arryn is no better than a Lannister, so why would a lion accept the bird to rule over him.  A dragon is far superior to a lion, a direwolf, and to a damned trout, for the love of god!  An outside force coming in is more likely to rule without bias.
4. The Targaryens checked Volantene ambition to bring back a new empire.  Who knows what could have happened if Volantis had gone on unchecked to become powerful.  Volantis is a slaving state.  They could have set their eyes on Westeros to expand their business. 

"Sorry guys, you can't rule yourselves, you need a superior outsider. I know you want independence but you were a bit backward. We'll fix it for you. You know we come from the greatest empire that ever existed, right? And frankly, we just look better than you."

Some of these are probably fair points in Westeros, but there's something kind of hilarious/a bit evil about them. Very similar to real world justification for empires.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Welcome, welcome, welcome! Glad to have you with us.

Since others have already answered some of your questions I just want to point out a few things.

1. The Iron Throne. Aegon I had that ugly thing made because he felt a king should never sit easily upon the throne--a pretty awesome outlook for a man in a medieval culture with living dragons. He could have just done whatever the heck he wanted, but instead he had integrity and a sense of responsibility to the people he ruled.

2. Uniting Westeros was important in part because the Others were going to return. No one knew when it was going to happen, but the prophecy of The Dragon that was Promised has to do with a Targaryen saving the world during a second Long Night...at least that's what we think based on the little info we've been given. This is an original Valyrian prophecy, possibly from Daenys "the Dreamer" Targaryen. Aegon I was not TDtwP but he knew the time would come and that Westeros needed to be unified to face the threat, and the Targaryen family in a position to lead. At least, he thought that was the case. Could Westeros have united without the Targaryens coming in 300 years before? Sure. But maybe Aegon didn't think it was safe to chance it. And like it or not, at least one Targaryen will be heavily involved in leading the next War for the Dawn.

3. Dorne as part of Westeros. The last time the Others attacked, Dorne as a region/kingdom/principality did not exist. There were petty kings with petty kingdoms, who agreed to work together rather than being slaughtered. None of those men had to ask someone for permission. Cue the Andals and Nymeria. Now we have a nation where every formerly royal house is subject to the rule of House Martell. If Prince says stay home, they stay home. If the Prince says go to war, they go to war. Only the Targaryens were capable of bring Dorne into a united Westeros. But I think it's a fun point that they did it with blood, not with fire. If Aegon and his sisters hadn't conquered the rest of Westeros, there would have been no Prince Daeron to marry Princess Mariah, or Princess Daenerys to marry Prince Maron.

4. The Targaryens actually participated in other wars to help support allies and stop the spread of tyranny in other places. Daemon's stint as King of the Stepstones was good for everyone engaged in maritime trade because he got rid of the pirates who were making it impossible to do business. 

[falcotron]

On 9/7/2017 at 3:48 AM, Ser Petyr Parker said:

Some of these are probably fair points in Westeros, but there's something kind of hilarious/a bit evil about them. Very similar to real world justification for empires.

Well, most pre-modern rulers' motives are pretty evil, and giving Aegon Victorian motives hardly makes him worse. I'm not saying it's not evil, but which one of these people would you rather have invading you:

• We must bring civilization to those savages whether they want it or not, because it's the silver-haired man's burden
• That land looks rich, let's kill the leaders and take it.
• God told me we have to move over there, and kill every man, woman, child, and animal who's living there now.

 

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

@Spilledguts The status of King's Landing you see in the books happens under King Robert. The kingdom is seriously in debt and is practically bankrupt because the king does not care for little things like economics. That's why major infrastructure like the king's road is in shambles. Even though Westeros is called a "kingdom," it follows a sort of decentralized federal system. The kings of the old kingdoms are now "wards," and they act like provincial governors who all pay taxes to the king. The king in turn, keeps peace, builds infrastructure, maintains trade routes, and possibly distributes food to needy areas. 

The Targs you are talking about ruled for some 300 years. So there were good Targ kings and bad ones, so you cannot really make generalization about all Targs. The main thing they accomplished is uniting the kingdom. It eliminated most feudal wars and allowed the different areas to trade. Then a Targ Civil War happened, and after Rober's Rebellion. The old feudal wars are back now until someone else comes along and unites everyone. It's important for the kingdom to be united because the Others are coming. Remember the Stark motto "when the Long Winter comes, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Westeros would easily fall if all the feudal provinces are not united. 

[falcotron]

8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Then a Targ Civil War happened

Are you talking about the Dance, or one of the four-ish Blackfyre Rebellions?

I think the realm was more peaceful under the Targaryens than before them, or than it would have been without them, but it wasn't exactly 300 years of peace marred by only one exception.

[Ghost+Nymeria4Eva]

14 hours ago, falcotron said:

Are you talking about the Dance, or one of the four-ish Blackfyre Rebellions?

I think the realm was more peaceful under the Targaryens than before them, or than it would have been without them, but it wasn't exactly 300 years of peace marred by only one exception.

Dance as the main one because it was really destructive. It was definitely not 300 years of uninterrupted peace. We know there were squabbles here and there throughout, obviously. 

[Spilledguts]

On 9/6/2017 at 8:14 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Targaryens accomplished a lot and gave the realm the stability that the common folk needed for three hundred years.  While not perfect, they were a vast improvement over the Starks, Durrandons, Hoares, Gardeners, and Lannisters. 

1. Uniform Law, or at least more uniform than before.  Good Queen Allysanne stopped the Northern barbaric practice of the Lord's right to the first night.  Youtuber Preston Jacobs theorized that those northern savages were practicing baby donations to the Others.  Highly likely, since we know that was how Mr. Craster bought his life from the WW.  We also know that the Starks were giving blood offerings to the trees.
2. More peace and stability than was possible than before.  When you have constant quarreling between the tiny kingdoms the small folk are never given peace. 
3. United the kingdom together.  A united kingdom is stronger than a divided kingdom.  Only someone coming in from the outside can rule effectively.  That family will have to be seen as possessing superiority, which makes it easier for the nobility to accept their right to rule.  The Targaryens were the blood of Old Valyria, the greatest empire that has ever existed.  The Targaryens are beautiful and physical perfection.  They were athletic.  They rode dragons.  They were different and so it was easier for the nobles to accept the Targaryens' right to rule over them.  Anyone else and that person is just one of them.  An Arryn is no better than a Lannister, so why would a lion accept the bird to rule over him.  A dragon is far superior to a lion, a direwolf, and to a damned trout, for the love of god!  An outside force coming in is more likely to rule without bias.
4. The Targaryens checked Volantene ambition to bring back a new empire.  Who knows what could have happened if Volantis had gone on unchecked to become powerful.  Volantis is a slaving state.  They could have set their eyes on Westeros to expand their business. 

1- Uniform Law? Seems to me the laws are the same as pre-Conquest, there is no specific mention to any different law. Glad you mention Lord's first night, as it seems to be the textual reference. It is the only law mentionned to have changed, and many still practice it. (Umber, Bolton actually mentionned)

2- This is simply not true. Not sure why anyone still says this especially after reading the Tales of Dunk and Egg and seeing how two minor Lordlings can get some killing done for no other reason than ''That is my river''. Also, Rains of Castamere? The petty Lords/High Lords play the game same as before and the Targs do not stop them. 

3- No one wants to be ruled by someone from the outside that thinks they are superior and is quite different. Colonialism, imperialism and even the fall of the Roman Empire will show you this. 

4- I reared a World of Ice and Fire and the wikis of each Targ and do not see this at all except for one event?

In regards to Kings Landing, Robert rebuilt after the sack I guess but changed nohing from the city - not sure why he would be blamed for 300 years of bad city planning?

Am I missing something? The description of the Valyryians is that they were the most powerful, terrible and evil empire that the world has known. They brought fire and destruction, enslaved your people and sent a dragonrider to rule you. Every single nation resisted or ran way. What we can gather from the description of the capital is that slaves died in uncountable numbers for either greed or for spells. There is no sense of advancement or progress from them, just death, destruction and the salting of cities. Aegaon the conqueror wanted to restart this unholy empire.... Why anyone would think this is good or why many people on this site compare them to the Roman Empire still baffles me?

[OberynBlackfyre]

First off, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!! 


Anyway, I just want to say that I understand your questioning about the Targaryens and this is something that actually man people have done.  Some people outright dislike them, and I am sure you will get someone with a heavy Targ bias that even tells you this IS a "hate thread".  

The Targaryens whether we like it or not are definitely the "chosen family" trope of Fire just like the Starks are the chosen family trope about Ice.  They both have plot armour and deus ex machinas to a CERTAIN EXTENT.  George is still very subtle in what having "blood of the dragon" means, or what "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell" has to do with anything.  

 

I honestly think Dany's whole dragon hatching event could possibly be how Targaryens/Valyrians were made, as it has many times been described as a communion, or wedding of Dany to "fire".  The dragons really DO respond better to Valyrian blood as is proved many times.  Except for Nettles, who honestly I think just understood dragons.  But much like the Starks are SUPER SUPER strong wargs, the Targaryens seem to have an affinity for dragons--even able to magically hatch them when they are thought to be extinct.  So there is something there obviously.

I think their reign in Westeros was important because it pushed the country passed the whole idea of having numerous petty kingdoms and really solidified it into one realm.  This automatically gives more security to those of the realm because you then cant have something like the Andal invasion where you had numerous Kings siding with the Andals just to one up the other King.  A unified realm can repel invaders very harshly