Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Varysblackfyre321

Was Robert right about Dany?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've seen some fans posit that Robert was right to have the last remnants of the Targaryians(Viserys and Daenarys), assasainated to prevent the Dothraki from coming over once Dany was confirmed pregnant with Drogo's seed. What do you think? He's acting completely irrational and letting his hatred/fear of the Targaryians cloud his reason, or is there at least some justified reason for his worry?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've seen some fans posit that Robert was right to have the last remnants of the Targaryians(Viserys and Daenarys), assasainated to prevent the Dothraki from coming over once Dany was confirmed pregnant with Drogo's seed. What do you think? He's acting completely irrational and letting his hatred/fear of the Targaryians cloud his reason, or is there at least some justified reason for his worry?

I'll have to give the same vague answer I gave on your other post about Joffrey being a good or bad king: it depends on what you mean by "right."

Is it right to murder children? No.

It is right to defend your realm against existential threats? Yes

Can a decision be both right and wrong given the parameters through which you view it? Yes.

Life's kind of funny that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've seen some fans posit that Robert was right to have the last remnants of the Targaryians(Viserys and Daenarys), assasainated to prevent the Dothraki from coming over once Dany was confirmed pregnant with Drogo's seed. What do you think? He's acting completely irrational and letting his hatred/fear of the Targaryians cloud his reason, or is there at least some justified reason for his worry?

His fleet would destroy dothraki at see so he was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

It is right to defend your realm against existential threats? Yes

Well remember, Robert would not have been defending the realm - just his comfy seat on the Iron Throne. Viserys, later Daenerys had the goal of freeing the realm from the drunken and careless misrule of the usurper, Robert. Robert's goal was to keep his cushy seat and pass it on to the incest-born bastards that he assumed were his own offspring. As part of this goal, Robert wanted to make sure there were no more Targaryens - who many people would have actually preferred having rule. Also, the whole Rhaegar/Lyanna thing.

This thing about "existential" threats - surely you mean "mortal"? - is also bogus, unless you're talking about the Others, who as far as we know, want to kill all humans (and giants, and probably children of the forest - not to mention the forest animals). Mere conquest by another rival lord would kill a certain number of troops and civilians, but the goal would not be genocide nor extermination, just establishing the right to rule.

That said, Robert was correct in assuming Viserys or Daenerys would be back, and with the Dothraki Horde. He was wrong, apparently, in figuring they were The Last of the Targaryens. There was still Young Griff/Aegon - and most likely some Blackfyres as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His fleet would destroy just about any fleet across the Narrow Sea, with the exception of Braavos (who absolutely wouldn't help the Dothraki cross to Westeros) so no, he had no reason to worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a pragmatic standpoint, of course he was right. If you were the last member of the royal house and your entire family was destroyed, wouldn't you want to take back the throne when you grew up?

But from a position based on honor and integrity, no he was not right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

His fleet would destroy dothraki at see so he was wrong.

10 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

His fleet would destroy just about any fleet across the Narrow Sea, with the exception of Braavos (who absolutely wouldn't help the Dothraki cross to Westeros) so no, he had no reason to worry.

You know, the ocean is quite big. They could land their hypothetical fleet anywhere along Westeros's sizable shoreline. And 40000 savages wreaking havoc until a reasonable punitive force of, say, 15000 reaches them is not exactly something you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

His fleet would destroy just about any fleet across the Narrow Sea, with the exception of Braavos (who absolutely wouldn't help the Dothraki cross to Westeros) so no, he had no reason to worry.

By this logic, of course, you place a greater value on the life of one girl than on that of the thousands, or tens of thousands, of fatalities that such a naval engagement would incur.  Robert's intent was to eliminate the threat at its source before it had a chance to metastasize.  Of course, one can debate endlessly who the "rightful" ruler of the seven kingdoms is, but the reality was that Robert sat on the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have much of an opinion about this since I don't consider Robert to be the legitimate King and believe that Viserys/Dany have a better claim/right solidified by 300 years of rule. However, speaking from the point of view of Robert, it's definitely better for his rule, claim and his successors to have Dany killed, so to him it would be right to kill Dany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zandru said:

Well remember, Robert would not have been defending the realm - just his comfy seat on the Iron Throne. Viserys, later Daenerys had the goal of freeing the realm from the drunken and careless misrule of the usurper, Robert. Robert's goal was to keep his cushy seat and pass it on to the incest-born bastards that he assumed were his own offspring. As part of this goal, Robert wanted to make sure there were no more Targaryens - who many people would have actually preferred having rule. Also, the whole Rhaegar/Lyanna thing.

This thing about "existential" threats - surely you mean "mortal"? - is also bogus, unless you're talking about the Others, who as far as we know, want to kill all humans (and giants, and probably children of the forest - not to mention the forest animals). Mere conquest by another rival lord would kill a certain number of troops and civilians, but the goal would not be genocide nor extermination, just establishing the right to rule.

That said, Robert was correct in assuming Viserys or Daenerys would be back, and with the Dothraki Horde. He was wrong, apparently, in figuring they were The Last of the Targaryens. There was still Young Griff/Aegon - and most likely some Blackfyres as well.

Well, I doubt that the people being slaughtered by a horde of invading Dothraki would see it as anything but a foreign invasion of the realm, which has been largely at peace since Robert donned the crown. I can't see any of the major houses aligning with a Targaryen who is responsible for the kind of brutality that the Dothraki showed to the Lhazareen, so they would have to be conquered one by one before they had a chance to unite -- and it seems to me that they would unite pretty quickly under Robert's banner.

I suppose "existential threat" is the wrong term, at least when we are talking about the impact on the entire realm. Certainly, the people whose homes and families are being destroyed see it as the end of their existence. What I meant was a threat that is not yet imminent but should be dealt with now because it is certain to become imminent at a later time. It is the same calculation that Mirri uses to justify killing Rhaego and it is what Tyrion does not use with Symon Silver-Tongue -- killing him only after he becomes an imminent threat. Was one killing right and the other wrong?

And I'm not sure, but I think the OP was questioning whether Robert was right in ordering the assassinations based on what he knew at the time, not whether they proved to be correct based on new information revealed in hindsight. Utlimately, yes, it would have been a wasted effort because the real plan, apparently, was to put fAegon on the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s a king with rival claimants, both of whom have a stronger claim than him. From his point of view he is perfectly justified to try to secure his throne. It would of course be dishonourable to have these children assassinated, but for Robert it would be worth it if it meant that his throne is secure.

Plus rival claimants lead to war, even if the Dothraki crossing the Narrow Sea is unlikely, any attempt by Viserys and/or Daenerys would make the realm bleed. Perhaps two deaths are worth it to prevent hundreds or even thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Fencer said:

By this logic, of course, you place a greater value on the life of one girl than on that of the thousands, or tens of thousands, of fatalities that such a naval engagement would incur.  Robert's intent was to eliminate the threat at its source before it had a chance to metastasize.  Of course, one can debate endlessly who the "rightful" ruler of the seven kingdoms is, but the reality was that Robert sat on the throne.

Because in one scenario its two armies on opposite sides of a battle (And it would most likely be a very one sided battle, so most of the casualties would occur on the side that essentially chose their own fate; the Dothraki and those who agreed to sail them). The other is killing a little girl who's done nothing wrong. You want to assasinate Viserys, a full grown man who is actively plotting to retake the throne. Go for it; I don't like the method but fine, understandable. You want to assasinate Drogo, to break up his army before it can invade; sure whatever, I'd call it dishonorable but he's a raper and raider and murderer so I don't much care. You want to assasinate a thirteen year old girl because her brother and husband have a military alliance? Now we're going to have to disagree.

Also, no I'm not debating who the 'rightful' ruler is. Robert won. The Targaryen's were exiled. Robert is the King. I agree with you. I'm not taking this stance because I'm a Targaryen lover or a Dany fanboy (I actually prefer (f)Aegon actually) but because assasinating Dany at that stage just doesn't seem right.

Edited by Adam Yozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've seen some fans posit that Robert was right to have the last remnants of the Targaryians(Viserys and Daenarys), assasainated to prevent the Dothraki from coming over once Dany was confirmed pregnant with Drogo's seed. What do you think? He's acting completely irrational and letting his hatred/fear of the Targaryians cloud his reason, or is there at least some justified reason for his worry?

Robert is a usurper.  He planted his ass on a throne that he had no right to.  They were always a threat to his rule.

What Robert thought doesn't matter.  In the end, he agreed to send an assassin after Queen Daenerys.  Daenerys has a legitimate reason to hate Robert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Well, I doubt that the people being slaughtered by a horde of invading Dothraki would see it as anything but a foreign invasion of the realm,

I've got to agree with you there. Even the old loyalists who would have gladly gone back to Targaryen rule would be dismayed by the foreign savages, assuming they behaved in their traditional manner. This would have greatly decreased Viserys's or Daenerys's popularity - if that even mattered.

5 hours ago, Fencer said:

By this logic, of course, you place a greater value on the life of one girl than on that of the thousands, or tens of thousands, of fatalities that such a naval engagement would incur. 

Good use of numbers! In fact, in Westeros's feudal society, a greater value is placed on one man(almost exclusively)'s desire to hold power than tens of thousands of smallfolk and soldiers desire to live. To the lords, it's a "game of thrones." To the other 99.99%, it's life and death. Mostly death. Theirs.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And I'm not sure, but I think the OP was questioning whether Robert was right in ordering the assassinations based on what he knew at the time,

I agree. The question also expands (as others have noted) into whether a potential future threat by a child should be treated as harshly as a clear and present danger from a warlord. Ned didn't think so. But the very fact that Robert's assassination attempts were discovered made that child into a more dangerous enemy when she matured.

In short, I don't see an easy answer, and part of it is an unwillingness to embrace the feudal mores, another part based on Robert's attempts to have Viserys and Daenerys killed while they were still small children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on if Drogo would have excepted a challenge of singe's combat. Two handed Jaime Lannister would have slayed him with his right hand while pinching Cersei's bum with his left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The botched assassination set in train a series of events that turned Dany from being an ineffectual opponent, to being a very dangerous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

You know, the ocean is quite big. They could land their hypothetical fleet anywhere along Westeros's sizable shoreline. And 40000 savages wreaking havoc until a reasonable punitive force of, say, 15000 reaches them is not exactly something you want.

It would be a giant slow fleet Robert's fleet would patrol seas and scout their fleet before it would land. Of course there is a chance fleet would be able to land without getting engaged (unlikely though). Even if 40000 Dothraki land they are overrated. They have no armor and no way of penetrating armor. Their only strength would be their light cav (horse archers). But again arrows cannot penetrate knight's armor. Dothraki also cannot siege so Robert would order to collect all food and store it in castles and Dothraki would need to rely on supplies from Essos but that supply line could never be established since Robert had naval supremacy and even on land Westerosi knew their land and would ambush supply wagons on land. We can conclude Dothraki are no threat to Westeros if they have no supporters in Westeros.

Share this post


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

It would be a giant slow fleet Robert's fleet would patrol seas and scout their fleet before it would land. Of course there is a chance fleet would be able to land without getting engaged (unlikely though).

???

Ships aren't caravans. Their speed isn't influenced by their amount. And even if a scouting ship managed to spot them, how long do you think it would take for that message, even if by raven, to reach the capital? On a good day, medieval ships ought to sail at around 100 km/h, or around 62 m/h. A raven can fly around the 50 m/h range. 

So, you are expecting the following chain of events to happen before the Dothraki attack:

1) A ship spots the attacking fleet

2) A raven is sent out in time

3) The King's Landing fleet is prepared in record time (crew, provisions, etc)

4) The fleet sails out to the attacking fleet

5) And proceeds to attack them

You jest! 

. . .

You are kidding, aren't you? 

Quote

Even if 40000 Dothraki land they are overrated. They have no armor and no way of penetrating armor. Their only strength would be their light cav (horse archers). But again arrows cannot penetrate knight's armor. Dothraki also cannot siege so Robert would order to collect all food and store it in castles and Dothraki would need to rely on supplies from Essos but that supply line could never be established since Robert had naval supremacy and even on land Westerosi knew their land and would ambush supply wagons on land. We can conclude Dothraki are no threat to Westeros if they have no supporters in Westeros.

Please note that I never insinuated that the Dothraki would be a threat against a Westerosi army, hence me referring to a 'punitive' force. The problem is that 40000 rapists and pillagers are now loose in whatever region they landed in... pillaging and raping. Causing disorder. Burning fields? Looting? Whatever. It's not good. It's bad. You don't want bad things to occur. 

Edited by Seeeyeare
Repeated myself

Share this post


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

Please note that I never insinuated that the Dothraki would be a threat against a Westerosi army, hence me referring to a 'punitive' force. The problem is that 40000 rapists and pillagers are now loose in whatever region they landed in... pillaging and raping. Causing disorder. Burning fields? Looting? Whatever. It's not good. It's bad. You don't want bad things to occur. 

In fact, I think Robert warned Ned against exactly this scenario: he and his lords holed up safe and cozy in their castles while the Dothraki ravaged the countryside and smallfolk. Even Robert thought this would be a losing scenario for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×