Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SunfyreTheGolden

Who was the best Targaryen King?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm aware. But he was king for a year, that's it, and we're talking about the best king, not best substitute king or best Hand.

We also don't really know the full extent of what he achieved during the reigns of his nephews. Tyrion opines he ran the realm while Daeron warred and Baelor prayed, but what does that mean, exactly? The histories of Daeron and Baelor that we have are largely about what they did, not what Viserys was doing behind the scenes.

Well he was keeping the realm paid for and run properly despite a king who spent a ton of money on war, and another who gave it all away.  That suggests a level of financial/administrative competence that far exceeds nearly anyone else we encounter.  He also managed to soothe the frictions resulting from the Dance, which may sound minor, but when you look at what happened after the many Blackfyre Rebellions (to this day, in story), and contrast how much more vicious the Dance was, it seems like a more impressive feat.

But it's an interesting question, whether it matters if he's responsible for what was accomplished under his predecessors.  If he had never been king, I'd grant it to you.  But if we presume that underlying royal administration under Aegon III, Daeron I, and Baelor I is entirely his doing (which seems safe to say), then I think you have to give him credit for all that.  Otherwise, you can't really give Daeron credit for the Dornish invasions, or Baelor credit for his piety - they wouldn't have been able to do any of that without Viserys running the show from behind the scenes.  When you have a monarch who is said to be at least partially interested in administration, then I think nyou give them the benefit of the doubt, but for these instances, we are explicitly told that Daeron I had no interest, and did nothing, except for war, and ditto Baelor for praying and "good works".  For Aegon III you could plausibly argue that Viserys was merely carrying out a royal policy, and we should give Aegon credit, but it is not possible to make that case with the other two.

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

And how favorable were the terms, really? They kept their style. They had a bit more autonomy.  They got a Targaryen bride. And in return, they accepted being ruled by the Iron Throne. 

That is a truly enormous amount of favor.  Basically, that's as much favor/privilege as you can give in feudal society, especially on top of the fact that Daeron was already married to a Martell.

Quote

Being the only kingdom not to be militarily defeated by the Targaryens for centuries obviously earned some perks.

I mean, this isn't true, though.  If your a Westerosi, you absolutely defeated the Dornish.  They then betrayed you.  And it's not a totally unconvincing argument.

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

A rebellion that seems to have happened only because of the poisoned pill his father left him, as you agree later on. If Daemon Blackfyre had not been a credible rival to the throne, who's to say a rebellion would have happened at all?

It seems likely, to be honest.  There is every reason to think Daemon wouldn't have much support if there weren't broader issues at play.  My point is that Daeron could easily have marginalized Daemon as a pretender by stripping him of legitimacy and influence, and worked to assuage discontented constituencies among the nobility.  I agree with you that he got dealt a tough hand by his father, but it's absurd to handwave away the many failures in his reign, merely because he was in a tough spot.  So was Jaehaerys I, and Aegon I, and Aegon III/Viserys.  Great kings are made by rising above circumstance, not by succumbing to it.  Hindsight is 20/20, yes, but we know that Daeron II handled Daemon and the entire Dornish Question poorly and it bedeviled his successors for several generations.  You can't chalk up all the negatives to Aegon IV and then absolve Daeron of responsibility - he's the king, once he's on the throne it's his job to deal with this shit.  I think his attempt to mollify Daemon Blackfyre was done out of good intentions and isn't an example of awful kingship (except for not taking back Blackfyre, which is inexcusable), but as part of a larger picture, he precipitated the Blackfyre Rebellions and then handled the aftermath poorly enough that it caused generations of subsequent rebellions.

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

The fact that there's no evidence Baelor had any trouble with his peace with Dorne suggests to me that 50,000 dead later, many in the Seven Kingdoms were no longer in love with the idea of the Young Dragon's conquest and were willing to be done with it.

Except that a significant portion of the realm goes to war to support the obviously frivolous claim of a legitimized bastard (a major undermining of the social order) for the Throne.  But more than that, we know that Baelor made his lords uneasy and some of his decisions provoked intense resistance, and my headcanon is that the avoidance of outright hostility was thanks to Viserys II's adroit management of the situation as Hand.

And we know for a fact that Baelor had some issues with the peace, because Aegon IV comes to the Throne with an anti-Dornish stance.  Also, we know there was "outcry" over his decision to pardon his Dornish hostages.  And if there was a ton of resentment in Daeron's reign, and a ton of resentment in Aegon's, it stands to reason it existed in the decade between as well.  What it suggests to me is that Baelor is a caricature of a king who is meant to be known for being stupidly pious, and that we don't have nearly enough information about the political situation during his reign to gauge the popular mood among the nobility.  We do have that Daeron's later reign was marked by hostility to the Dornish, and that all of Aegon IV's and Daeron II's were as well.  That's a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

TWOIAF disagrees:

From Baelor I's section:

"The outrage that followed was swiftly directed at the Dornish hostages. At the command of the King’s Hand, Prince Viserys, they were thrown into the dungeons to await hanging. The Hand’s eldest son, Prince Aegon, even delivered the Dornish girl he had made his paramour to his father to await execution."

"Even as his lords and council cried for vengeance, Baelor publicly forgave his brother’s killers and declared that he meant to “bind up the wounds” of his brother’s war and make peace with Dorne.

I know. I wrote the section.

What followed Baelor "binding up the wounds", however? Nothing. No one rebelled over this. The immediate lashing out gave way to acceptance, and I'm going to have to suppose there was a great deal of fatigue behind this. 50,000 dead is a _lot_ of people, and for what?

 

Quote



From Aegon IV's section:

"Perhaps it was for this reason that Aegon turned his attention to Dorne, using the hatred for the Dornishmen that still burned in the marches, the stormlands, and the Reach to suborn some of Daeron’s allies and use them against his most powerful supporters."

Wrote that bit too! That's the ancestral hatred, not one specific to the killing of Daeron I. This is a fine example of Aegon IV's misrule, and more of the poisoned pill that he left his successors. Maybe if he hadn't used the feelings of his lords to try and lash out against his son, they wouldn't have felt quite so wound up when Daeron II tried to make sure that conflict between the Iron Throne and Dorne would no longer drive unnecessary and unuseful bloodshed.

Quote

Daeron II's section:

"However, Prince Maron had won a few concessions in the accord, and the lords of Dorne held significant rights and privileges that the other great houses did not—the right to keep their royal title first among them, but also the autonomy to maintain their own laws, the right to assess and gather the taxes due to the Iron Throne with only irregular oversight from the Red Keep, and other such matters. Dissatisfaction at these concessions was one of the seeds from which the first Blackfyre Rebellion sprang, as was the belief that Dorne held too much influence over the king—for Daeron II brought many Dornishmen to his court, some of whom were granted offices of note."

"He was widely seen as just and good-hearted, even if some questioned the influence of his Dornish wife."

"Knights and lords of the Dornish Marches came to mistrust Daeron"

"Many famed warriors who looked with dismay on the peace in the realm and the Dornish in the king’s court"

Think I wrote all that as well. This is exactly what I said, re: one of many factors. It was a seed for some, but obviously not for others. And you might bear in mind that a lot of those famed warriors were noted as being upset by the fact that there was peace, meaning that they were warmongers. You've got a lot of people acting out of bad faith on Daemon Blackfyre's side. I'm not sure why this is an indictment against Daeron II.

It's also worth pointing out that at the Red Grass Field, Dornishmen and stormlords fought side-by-side against Daemon. So there's something to the idea that not everyone had retained quite the same animosity, presumably through Daeron's efforts to generate peace. You had hardliners and ambitious people rebelling, not necessarily people who were realists or were more moderate.

@cpg2016

They go to war over 30 years later because of the Young Dragon's death? Don't think so. Is the death of the Young Dragon even mentioned once in the Dunk & Egg stories? Pretty sure not.

There's lots of reasons that various people wanted to rebel. The Dornish becoming part of the larger realm was a factor for some, but not so much a factor as people make out when you consider it broadly. Eustace Osgrey gives a very Dornish-centric, but not entirely: he complains about the fact that women had too much influence, as well,  that Daeron II was too peaceable and too scholarly, and alleges that Daeron was not Aegon IV's trueborn son. These are some different claims. Whereas Lady Webber tells us that above all she thinks Eustace was looking for gain, to regain Coldmoat. You look back at someone like Peake, on the other hand, and you see someone who definitely was primarily motivated by ambition. Or you look at Fireball, another person who felt slighted because he didn't get something Aegon IV promised him.

The murder of the Young Dragon naturally led to immediate outrage (the case of Viserys sending the hostages to cells, OTOH, just seems to be his dutifully following up with what  happens when hostages fail to act as a surety), but there's simply no evidence that this specific event was a long-term factor.

I don't really do the headcanon thing. The evidence we have shows that the events of Daeron's conquest, his death, and Baelor's peace go basically unmentioned by Blackfyre's partisans or the histories as a reason for why the rebellion happened. Aegon IV's poison pill, Daemon Blackfyre's ambition, the ambitions of various hanger ons, distaste for Daeron II's manners and intellect, distaste for Daeron II's court, distaste for his union with Dorne are _all_ explicitly cited factors, on the other hand. Without Aegon IV's misrule, both in stirring anti-Dornish feeling simply to undercut his son and in legitimizing his bastards to also undercut his son, I suspect the union with Dorne would have gone more smoothly.

But this doesn't mean that Daeron was wrong to finalize the union with Dorne.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

 

@cpg2016

They go to war over 30 years later because of the Young Dragon's death? Don't think so. Is the death of Young Dragon even mentioned once in the Dunk & Egg stories? Pretty sure not.

There's lots of reasons that various people wanted to rebel. The Dornish becoming part of the larger realm was a factor for some, but not so much a factor as people make out when you consider it broadly. Eustace Osgrey gives a very Dornish-centric, but not entirely: he complains about the fact that women had too much influence, as well,  that Daeron II was too peaceable and too scholarly, and alleges that Daeron was not Aegon IV's trueborn son. These are some different claims. Whereas Lady Webber tells us that above all she thinks Eustace was looking for gain, to regain Coldmoat. You look back at someone like Peake, on the other hand, and you see someone who definitely was primarily motivated by ambition. Or you look at Fireball, another person who felt slighted because he didn't get something Aegon IV promised him.

The murder of the Young Dragon naturally led to immediate outrage, but there's simply no evidence that this specific event was a long-term factor.

They go to war 13 years later, actually - in 174 AC, at the behest of Aegon IV.  And again a few years later, though both attempts are failures upon launch.

Perhaps it was for this reason that Aegon turned his attention to Dorne, using the hatred for the Dornishmen that still burned in the marches, the stormlands, and the Reach to suborn some of Daeron's allies and use them against his most powerful supporters.

I mean, I suppose you can handwave this away as being the "traditional" hate of Dorne, but it doesn't come off that way, in light of later events.  We see that anti-Dornish sentiment is a political factor in a way it never has been; while the Marcher lords have always feuded and fought with Dorne, there has never been an indication that this was used to counterbalance internal politics in the Seven Kingdoms.  By which I mean to say, the Marcher Lords hate the Dornish, right?  It's a standard of Westerosi politics.  So why is it suddenly useful, if not because there is a legacy of resentment and/or a perception that the Dornish have too much influence?

And I don't deny that all the lords who are fighting for Daemon are doing so in order to gain something.  But he brings together an extremely varied coalition of very powerful Houses, with very little to unite them.  As we see time and again, these kinds of coalitions are extremely difficult to build.  Aegon V has trouble getting buy-in from his lords without marriage ties.  The Southron Ambitions bloc needs multiple marriages and fosterings in order to work.  The Blackfyres have none of that, and their rebellion is predicated on a MUCH shakier foundation than the opposing sides in the Dance, or Robert's Rebellion, so something is tying these Houses together besides just mutual gain, as this is the only example of a serious outright rebellion against Targaryen rule in well over a century.  So what is the major dividing question of the day that might inspire this kind of passionate response?  Dorne, and Dornish influence at court, obviously.

However, Prince Maron had won a few concessions in the accord, and the lords of Dorne held significant rights and privileges that the other great houses did not—the right to keep their royal title first among them, but also the autonomy to maintain their own laws, the right to assess and gather the taxes due to the Iron Throne with only irregular oversight from the Red Keep, and other such matters. Dissatisfaction at these concessions was one of the seeds from which the first Blackfyre Rebellion sprang, as was the belief that Dorne held too much influence over the king—for Daeron II brought many Dornishmen to his court, some of whom were granted offices of note.

Again, here we have proof positive that Daeron II's mishandling of feudal politics was a direct cause of the Blackfyre Rebellions.  It doesn't take a genius to link this to smoldering resentment at the way the Young Dragon had met his end, paired with the traditional enmity towards the Dornish outsiders, and draw the obvious conclusion.

So no, I don't hold Daeron II totally responsible for the state of the realm at the start of his reign, but he clearly was a more-competent Viserys I.  Viserys inherited a strong hand and pissed it away because his political instincts were awful,  Daeron II inherited a shitty hand, but didn't play it well, because he failed to understand that in feudal politics, literal and figurative proximity to the King is a sign of favor and a route to power, and by surrounding himself with the Dornish, who are traditional enemies anyway, and giving away nearly all his dynastic bargaining chips to the Dornish, he was alienating important and powerful lords who he should have been mollifying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They go to war 13 years later, actually - in 174 AC, at the behest of Aegon IV.  And again a few years later, though both attempts are failures upon launch.

That's not the Blackfyre Rebellion, which is what I'm talking about, re: Daeron II's fitness as king.

And the reason Aegon is said to turn his attention to Dorne is specifically laid out in the sentence before: because the Prince of Dorne, as Daeron's ally, would defend his rights if Aegon ever tried to disinherit Daeron. Aegon would launch an entire war just to try and get one over on his son, essentially. And as he's king, well, if he says we're going to war, what are people going to do? Especially if they like the idea of martial feats, or beating up the Dornish that their ancestors have fought for centuries, or are looking for a chance to ingratiate themselves with the king, or hope to carve out lands for a younger son... I mean, if he said, "Lets go attack the riverlands!", that might lead to some pause, since it's part of the realm. But Dorne? Dorne's a foreign country. Why not fight them, all things considered? But this thing about killing Daeron under the truce banner -- I know some readers focus on this a lot, but the actual _evidence_ is lacking that this specific event is much of a factor in the events that follow in the years after.

The reason Dorne becoming part of the realm changes things has a lot to do with influence: if you treat it as a zero-sum game (and you shouldn't, really, but it's easy to see why so many people tend to do so), you see influence at court as being, in very broad and generalized terms, a pie divided up into pieces for each Great House. The Starks have some influence, the Tyrells, etc. They're all fighting over a piece of pie, and some will at some times have more influence and some will have less influence, but they've generally had a similar amount of the pie.Now the Martells are integrated into the realm. Suddenly you've got to divide the pie not between Tully, Arryn, Tyrell, Lannister, Baratheon, and Stark (Greyjoys really never did much matter at court), but now you've got to give the Martells a slice. Everyone else's slice irrevocably diminishes a little. There's a bit more competition now. And yet this is inevitable if you expand your realm 

If they're going to be part of the realm, he has to give them access at court. And if he's trying to convince people who are independent to join peacefully, concessions need to be made (funny about the concessions bit: the detail about controlling taxation and such was something I convinced George of, as I felt that without things of that sort the Dornish would not have been able to sustain the notion that their forces were substantially greater than they actually were!). You look at the realm after Daeron, and the Dornish issue practically disappears. It's not brought up as a factor in "The Mystery Knight", it's not explicitly a factor in any of the following rebellions, etc.

Daeron's project succeeded, so that when decades later his descendant Aerys is looking for a bride for his heir, the only person particularly upset by the choice of Elia Martell is Tywin Lannister, and that's purely because he had wanted his own daughter to marry Rhaegar. And we see no evidence in present-day Westeros that anyone feels very strongly about the Dornish having some unique privileges. And before that, his heirs are half-Dornish, his grandson Egg is more or less half Dornish, and yet this isn't ever explained as being any kind of a factor in the turmoil in his own reign, or that of his father. The subsequent Blackfyre rebellions are increasingly driven by exiles  in Essos.

There. Feeling like we're getting very off-topic, but in any case, I think I've laid out why I regard Daeron II so highly. Union with Dorne was a success. It was no great surprise that there was some kind of immediate turmoil due to it, but the fact that  Dorne increasingly seems to recede as as a factor in subsequent Blackfyre Rebellions seems to support the idea that Daeron succeeded in making a permanent and positive change.

To me, focusing on the Blackfyre Rebellion as a failure on Daeron's part is sort of like blaming Lincoln for the Civil War. It happened because of his great achievement which permanently changed the landscape of the Seven Kingdoms, and while I can see the argument that he should have been more ruthless to Daemon -- as I said, maybe without Daemon the rebellion wouldn't have happened at all -- it's hard to penalize a guy for trying to treat his half-brother justly.

 

ETA: I should add that I agree that the losses suffered from Daeron's conquest would certainly spark individual hatreds. These too would be a factor. But in the broader picture, when we look at what is actually said by characters who were partisans of the Blackfyres, it wasn't that much of a factor in comparison to (for some) centuries of violent border conflicts. Even Tyrion remarks that the enmities still exist, although from Anguy we're getting the sense that some marchers at least are starting to see it more as less of a serious thing than it was in the bad old days when Dorne was a separate realm.

And I should clarify that too: the losses suffered from the Conquest, aka tens of thousands who died trying and failing to hold Dorne. Daeron's death itself seems to spark nothing in particular from anyone in the years after, outside the initial shock. I suspect this is because the person who you'd expect most to care -- Baelor, his own brother -- didn't seek vengeance and instead forgave the killers. Against that saint like behavior, it would be at best churlish and at worst treasonous to suggest that Dorne deserved to be destroyed or invaded again or whatever for Daeron's death.

I think the personal loss of brothers, fathers, friends, etc. would have weighed much more on an individual level than Daeron's specific death. And even so, again, there's no actual evidence that this was a major factor in any of the events later on like Aegon IV's botched attack or the Blackfyre Rebellions. What people talk about is much more contemporary and much more personal than the death of a boy-king decades earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ran said:

Text

I never said that Daeron II was wrong to bring Dorne into the fold. However, I do believe his treaty and appointments were lopsided.

Also, Dornishmen (House Yronwood) and Stormlanders (Marcher Lords) fought for the Black Dragon as well.

Furthermore, Daeron I's Conquest and murder is part of the history of enmity between the Stormlands/Reach and Dorne.

As for the lack of any mention of Daeron I's murder being a catalyst for the FBR:

We honestly have a lot less material on everything post-regency so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the full fallout of the Young Dragon's murder isn't something that only gets revealed in Fire & Blood Volume 2. Particularly given the fact that D & E starts at the tail end of Daeron II's reign and the Young Dragon is described by GRRM himself as the "Alexander the Great of Westeros". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don’t understand the lopsidedness argument, since a hundred years on it’s no bone of contention for anyone to speak of. Yes, nearer too it, _some_ were bothered, but others clearly were not -- even others, like the stormlords, who had ancestral enmity with the Dornish. Osgrey doesn’t complain about the priveleges Dorne received, for example. So again, was it a factor? For some, but it wasn’t at all a primary factor. The primary factor was really Aegon IV’s undermining of his son, both in his lifetime and from beyond the grave. Just about every lord whose motives we know directly have their root in this. The accommodation of the Dornish, giving them a seat at the table and reducing everyone’s piece of pie, is a lesser factor. The death of the Young Dragon is a distant factor, if at all, for a, pretty limited group. Should the fact that Aegon had tried to poison the well have lead Daeron to put off an obviously good policy (union with Dorne)? It seems a very strange argument to me, that bad policy should dictate and not good policy.

Finally, while this era has not been written about as extensively by George as those which he wrote up for TWoIaF, this was in part because the era from Daeron’s conquest of Dorne through to the First Blackfyre Rebellion  was the most extensively outlined period in history that George had. I’m guessing only his notes for Dunk & Egg stories are more extensive at this point.

Those notes, in any case, are pretty detailed, sometimes to the year-by-year state... but the death of the Young Dragon and the defeat in Dorne are never mentioned there as significant causes of the Blackfyre Rebellion, whereas Aegon’s muddying the waters and various individuals being very ambitious are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ran said:

Not counting Aegon I, who is too sui generis as the founder of the dynasty, Jaehaerys I seems an obvious choice, followed by Daeron II. Viserys II had great potential as an able administrator, but his reign was too short to really compare.

"Too much favor" to Dorne seems strange, given that he seems to have given them exactly enough favor to unify the realms and bring lasting peace with the Dornish. As to the Blackfyre situation, that was a poison pill that his father left him. It seems clear he attempted -- and failed -- to win Daemon over by treating him with honor and respect, but this fed into the narrative of his being weak rather than a narrative of his being just. Which is a shame, really, but how much responsibility should be given for the choices made by others?

See i wanted to say Jaehaerys, but as Jaehaery's choices on inheritance kind of set the stage for the Dance of the Dragons if im not mistaken, so i kind of felt like he was a little neglectful. Though we dont know much about Jaehaerys really. Will we get to learn more about him and perhaps his relation to Alyssane and the Watch? Or you think his story his that simple and plain? It does seem like a time of peace though to be sure.

Also, i wonder about Daeron's achievements in bringing Dorne into the fold in the context of the bigger picture. Is a unified Westeros really what the CotF really want? Something about this makes me think about the Curse on the First King, the Grey King, and the concept of a High King of Westeros. Though, i suppose there is still technically a kingdom missing no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

See i wanted to say Jaehaerys, but as Jaehaery's choices on inheritance kind of set the stage for the Dance of the Dragons if im not mistaken, so i kind of felt like he was a little neglectful.

Not so much neglect as compounding a mistake (naming Baelon over Rhaenys or Rhaenys's unborn son as heir) with a decision that left his succesor's hands bound in a way that he couldn't resolve. Once he did that, it gave force to the argument of the Great Council of 101 AC against female-line descendants, despite the tradition of primogeniture.

But it was just the seed, and it was Viserys who ultimately made a hash of things by failing to properly manage the ambitions of various sides of his family. Imagine if Viserys never re-wed and had no other children besides Rhaenyra, for example? But he did wed, and have more children, and failed to address the tensions that developed over his decision to stick by Rhaenys as heir despite the precedents Jaehaerys and the Great Council had set.

The argument can be made that in 92 AC, Jaehaerys made the wrong choice -- he should have backed Rhaenys or at least her unborn son, Laenor -- and if that had happened, the council of 101 AC would not have been needed. If one supposes Baelon would have been fine with that, you'd have had a decade of the popular Hand of the King and uncle/great-uncle to the heir apparent going along with it, which surely would have swayed opinion and there would have been a smooth transfer of power with Laenor (probably) as king, with some combination of Rhaenys and/or Corlys as Hand and regent.  And then when Baelon dies (assuming he still dies in 101), it would seem likely that Jaehaerys would have named Corlys as Hand, not Otto Hightower, to prepare the way for a continuity of rule.

 

The greatest danger then would have been Daemon Targaryen chafing and perhaps scheming on his brother's behalf, but it's not clear to me that Viserys would have agreed with him on the matter. If he didn't, Daemon would have been rather isolated, and in any case perhaps his head would have been turned if Corlys and Rhaenys made the Laena match with him. Then the next big problem, of course, would have been whether Laenor could wed and convincingly propagate his line, but now the ball has been kicked quite down the road... 

In any case, Jaehaerys gave the realm so much peace and plenty and did so many manifestly good things that his not perfectly navigating a situation that would years later have a grave impact doesn't seem a major flaw to me, but I can see why others might see it differently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ran said:

The argument can be made that in 92 AC, Jaehaerys made the wrong choice -- he should have backed Rhaenys or at least her unborn son, Laenor -- and if that had happened, the council of 101 AC would not have been needed. If one supposes Baelon would have been fine with that, you'd have had a decade of the popular Hand of the King and uncle/great-uncle to the heir apparent going along with it, which surely would have swayed opinion and there would have been a smooth transfer of power with Laenor (probably) as king, with some combination of Rhaenys and/or Corlys as Hand and regent.  And then when Baelon dies (assuming he still dies in 101), it would seem likely that Jaehaerys would have named Corlys as Hand, not Otto Hightower, to prepare the way for a continuity of rule.

 

The greatest danger then would have been Daemon Targaryen chafing and perhaps scheming on his brother's behalf, but it's not clear to me that Viserys would have agreed with him on the matter. If he didn't, Daemon would have been rather isolated, and in any case perhaps his head would have been turned if Corlys and Rhaenys made the Laena match with him. Then the next big problem, of course, would have been whether Laenor could wed and convincingly propagate his line, but now the ball has been kicked quite down the road... 

Kind of my point

 

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

In any case, Jaehaerys gave the realm so much peace and plenty and did so many manifestly good things that his not perfectly navigating a situation that would years later have a grave impact doesn't seem a major flaw to me, but I can see why others might see it differently.

This is true. I favor Aegon the V though as a man of the people, though little loved by the lords for those same efforts. Though this is the problem i think in having a good king, a king can not be both good to his people and his lords, with out an outside war. Though this is not peace, it puts money in the right hands to keep the lords happy, while still allowing you to treat your people right and give them the needed tax breaks or such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose Aegon the V could've started up a war over seas. I do wonder why the Westerosi never used war with nations over sea as a method of bringing in gold? A common foreign threat to unify Westeros and increase the coffers? Sounds legit to me

Edit- Stage a Braavosi attack on the King via faceless men, then boom. War with Braavos and take that stinkin bank! Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jahaerys I, with Daeron II to follow. It's a pity that Viserys II ruled for only a year, he had potential to be on par with them.

 

18 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I suppose Aegon the V could've started up a war over seas. I do wonder why the Westerosi never used war with nations over sea as a method of bringing in gold? A common foreign threat to unify Westeros and increase the coffers? Sounds legit to me

Edit- Stage a Braavosi attack on the King via faceless men, then boom. War with Braavos and take that stinkin bank! Just a thought

Because maintaining a navy large enough to even battle (not even defeat) Braavos would be lavishly expensive. Because fighting a war so far away from home would be a logistical nightmare. Because Titan is quite powerful defensive structure. Because any kind of siege would have to involve combined land and water blockade - making logistics and expenses even higher or harder. Because other Free Cities might not like an idea of being threatened by Westeros king and would maybe help Braavosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Jahaerys I, with Daeron II to follow. It's a pity that Viserys II ruled for only a year, he had potential to be on par with them.

 

Because maintaining a navy large enough to even battle (not even defeat) Braavos would be lavishly expensive. Because fighting a war so far away from home would be a logistical nightmare. Because Titan is quite powerful defensive structure. Because any kind of siege would have to involve combined land and water blockade - making logistics and expenses even higher or harder. Because other Free Cities might not like an idea of being threatened by Westeros king and would maybe help Braavosi.

While all of this sounds logistical. I would point out that European powers used war for exactly this same purpose. The idea that war is bad for business, is ludicrous  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it like this, yes, war cost money, you have to pay smiths, your have to pay shipwrights, etc, yet, this also puts people to work, this puts money in peoples pockets who in turn, spend it. 

Braavos is more than a pretty prize, especially with that bank and trade network you could take over. Increasing revenues back home, more than justifying your war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greatest (ranked with Jaehaerys I being the greatest of them all, followed by Aegon I and then Aegon III)

1. Jaehaerys I

2. Aegon I

3. Aegon III

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

While all of this sounds logistical. I would point out that European powers used war for exactly this same purpose. The idea that war is bad for business, is ludicrous  

Yes, I know all of that. Especially in early medieval ages, war and plunder were the main source of income for many, if not most, European states.

But this particular war you're proposing is simply not viable. Launching continent-wide maritime expeditions with the purpose of conquest was way way way beyond economic and logistic capabilities of medieval European countries that Westeros is based on. You're talking about Braavos - the city with hundreds of thousands inhabitants (if not million and more) and probably a single largest maritime power in the world. Who literally can't be conquered without superior navy and whose arsenal can make a warship per day if need arises. You'd need a thousand, and probably few thousands ships to do that, each with trained crew. You'd need to secure a food for all of them for the duration of journey and siege. You'd need to establish hundreds of kilometers supply line for your soldiers and sailors, at least until they establish a permanent foothold in Essos. All of that is way beyond capabilities of medieval European states.

If you want a medieval parallel, take a look at Venice, which, during all its history as independent republic was not conquered until.... 19th century, when Napoleon came. It was simply not possible to conquered a city situated in a lagune which orientated entirely towards sea. In fact, the only ones who ever came close were Genovese in 14th century -. an equally powerful maritime city-state. Others could take Venice's land territories, win a naval battle or two, but taking Venice itself was out of question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Yes, I know all of that. Especially in early medieval ages, war and plunder were the main source of income for many, if not most, European states.

But this particular war you're proposing is simply not viable. Launching continent-wide maritime expeditions with the purpose of conquest was way way way beyond economic and logistic capabilities of medieval European countries that Westeros is based on. You're talking about Braavos - the city with hundreds of thousands inhabitants (if not million and more) and probably a single largest maritime power in the world. Who literally can't be conquered without superior navy and whose arsenal can make a warship per day if need arises. You'd need a thousand, and probably few thousands ships to do that, each with trained crew. You'd need to secure a food for all of them for the duration of journey and siege. You'd need to establish hundreds of kilometers supply line for your soldiers and sailors, at least until they establish a permanent foothold in Essos. All of that is way beyond capabilities of medieval European states.

If you want a medieval parallel, take a look at Venice, which, during all its history as independent republic was not conquered until.... 19th century, when Napoleon came. It was simply not possible to conquered a city situated in a lagune which orientated entirely towards sea. In fact, the only ones who ever came close were Genovese in 14th century -. an equally powerful maritime city-state. Others could take Venice's land territories, win a naval battle or two, but taking Venice itself was out of question.

Well throwing out Braavos was a little random and whimsical based on the principal of the idea and they were a close target with a rich prize, comparable with that of House Lannister. 

It could have been any other city honestly. 

Also, your comparing Braavos to all of Westeros?? Im pretty sure if the full might of Westeros came down on Braavos, i think they could do it. Not with out a fight, but still. The Ironborn? Manderly's? Celitgars? Velaryons? Hightowers? Arryn fleets? Storm Land Fleets plus Royal Naval fleets? Let alone the ground troops they could launch???

Your forgetting, this is something to unify Westeros, so all take part for a part in the prize. Even stake in the new holdings. The Bank and their trade system. 

Their best bet is if the Free cities united, but would they? or enough of them? What if some of them sided with us? War can be a funny thing when people have things to gain of their own. 

Or start else where. Take the Step Stones. 

We use war to this day (America and the middle east?) to unite and make rich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

in my opinion the three greatest, worst and most overrated Targaryen kings are:

Greatest

Jaehaerys I

Aegon I

Aegon III

 

To clarify: Are you saying that all three of them are simultaneously great, awful and overrated? Or that one of them is the greatest, one is the worst and one is overrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen Lion's post before the edit, he listed two additional groups corresponding to worst and over-rated. Not sure what happened to that section in the edit, but in any case, that list you're quoting is simply his greatest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

To clarify: Are you saying that all three of them are simultaneously great, awful and overrated? Or that one of them is the greatest, one is the worst and one is overrated?

I think I've cleaned up the post now. Like Ran, post is quoted below, mentioned I originally also mentioned the Targaryens king I find to have been bad and overrated as well. But then I figured that the thread was only for the Targaryen kings were considered to be great and I didn't want to potentially go OT but stick to what the thread is supposed to be about.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Having seen Lion's post before the edit, he listed two additional groups corresponding to worst and over-rated. Not sure what happened to that section in the edit, but in any case, that list you're quoting is simply his greatest.

Very much true. Originally I thought to write the three greatest, three worst and three (turned out to be two) more overrated Targaryen kings. But as I mentioned above I changed my mind due to it being OT and I didn't want to risk to derail the thread with a discussion about what kings I find to be overrated. So I made a sloppy edit but I think the edited post has been cleaned up enough now that it should hopefully be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×