SeanF Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 17 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said: Its better not to be a sham. Discovering a moral crusade on the way to destroy people, for one's own benefit, is suspect, and I don't think its just about Dany being right, the purpose seems to be to give her scenarios to make her believe she is righteous. Savior complexes never end well. To give a real life example, there would have been people in the early 19th century who thought slavery was evil, but who saw no problem with sending children up chimneys. The wrongness of the latter view doesn't invalidate the correctness of the former view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said: Its better not to be a sham. Discovering a moral crusade on the way to destroy people, for one's own benefit, is suspect, and I don't think its just about Dany being right, the purpose seems to be to give her scenarios to make her believe she is righteous. Savior complexes never end well. While I agree that savior complexes never end well & that Dany has showed some harsh judgment I don't think it's fair to say she has a moral crusad to destroy people for her own benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Westeros has gone downhill since the death of King Aerys II. The kingdom had a full treasury when Aerys died. The Baratheons and Jon Arryn drove the kingdom into debt. Tywin's kids and the Starks started a war that lasted longer than Robert's Rebellion and most likely killed more people. Balon rebelled again and took the north. Lord Commander Jon Snow started a fight with the warden of the north over a sister and let the wildlings through the wall. The Martells are plotting to take down the Lannisters. Manderly is plotting to rebel against Roose. It never got this bad when the Targaryens were in power. Daenerys ruling Westeros would be the best thing that can happen to that kingdom. The Starks, Baratheons, and Lannisters have proven, they are not up to the task. Wanting to take back the kingdom that is hers by right is no different at all from the Starks wanting to take back Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Westeros has gone downhill since the death of King Aerys II. The kingdom had a full treasury when Aerys died. I don't think a full treasury is the only way to measure whether a kingdom is better than before, not even the most important way but I'll agree Robert put the realm in debt. 4 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: The Baratheons and Jon Arryn drove the kingdom into debt. I'm not sure Jon Arryn had much to do with it. We've seen Robert doesn't listen much to his hand so Jon may have tried to reign him in & failed. 4 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Tywin's kids and the Starks started a war that lasted longer than Robert's Rebellion and most likely killed more people. Right but according to your own measurements the realm was in a terrible predicament so maybe the war was justified? 5 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Balon rebelled again and took the north. Yes but not for long. People are rebelling, yes. I think that is some proof to the fact that the realm is in a bad place although considering they rebelled against Aerys too I don't know if it's fair to say it's in a worse place than before. 6 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Lord Commander Jon Snow started a fight with the warden of the north over a sister and let the wildlings through the wall. Lord Commander Jon Snow did not start a fight with the warden of the north over a sister, or over any other matter. The fight was brought to him by the warden of the North - who is only warden due to treachery btw. As far as letting the wildlings through the wall he absolutely did & with good reason. Anyone with a lick of sense would have done the same thing. 8 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: The Martells are plotting to take down the Lannisters. Manderly is plotting to rebel against Roose. Yep, this is happening while the Lannisters are in power though, not the Baratheons. Not that it makes much difference. 8 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Daenerys ruling Westeros would be the best thing that can happen to that kingdom. Maybe, but if her ruling of Meereen is any indication as to how her ruling of Westeros would/will be it's not looking so hot. Dany has a lot of learning to do before she would be the best thing that can happen to Westeros. It remains to be seen if she will learn or not. 10 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: It never got this bad when the Targaryens were in power. Um, yeah it did? The Targaryens were overthrown & the King murdered by a member of his own King's guard - that's how bad it got. Not to mention the dance. Further more to think that because one Targaryen King/Queen was good or put the realm in a good place means that all Targaryens will do the same is a very narrow-minded opinion. How well or poorly Aerys reigned has no weight on how well or poorly Daenerys would reign. Different people = Different outcomes. 12 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: The Starks, Baratheons, and Lannisters have proven, they are not up to the task. Well other than the realm being in debt the Baratheon wasn't so bad. The Lannisters haven't really proven they aren't up to the task but Joffrey & Cersei have proven to make a mess of things. The Starks haven't been in the position to rule the realm so we can't really say they aren't up to it, but since there are only children left of the Starks I imagine it wouldn't go so well presently. 15 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Wanting to take back the kingdom that is hers by right is no different at all from the Starks wanting to take back Winterfell. It's a little different - she isn't just wanting to take back her home, as is the case with WF, she wants to take a whole kingdom. That being said I don't fault her for wanting to take, what she believes, is her rightful place. I just can't say with any certainty that she will rule any better or worse than anyone else. She has an opportunity that the others weren't given; she can take what she learns from Meereen & apply it to Westeros to do a better job there. But whether or not she does that will be up to Grrm. She could just as easily turn into Aerys. It's just too early to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I don't think a full treasury is the only way to measure whether a kingdom is better than before, not even the most important way but I'll agree Robert put the realm in debt. I'm not sure Jon Arryn had much to do with it. We've seen Robert doesn't listen much to his hand so Jon may have tried to reign him in & failed. Jon was part of the king's administration and thus shares part of the blame. But it is quite clear that Robert shares most of the blame here. And, no, a full treasury is a sign of good ruling, especially in a medieval society. Money is needed for the government to properly function. There are certainly different ways to acquire money, but at this point Aerys II is not described as a man who squeezed money out of his people. The common people and the Kingslanders had no issues with the Mad King. 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Right but according to your own measurements the realm was in a terrible predicament so maybe the war was justified? There is no justification for the War of the Five Kings. From a feudal perspective there is justification - up to a point - for Robb's rebellion but not his coronation. And, frankly, Ned and Cat should have not allowed their suspicions and hatred of the Lannisters allow them to fester as much as they did - they should have gone to the king to settle the death of Jon Arryn and the attempt on Bran in a civilized manner. That way a war may have been prevented. Stannis, Renly, and Balon basically have no justification whatsoever. Neither does Robb after he crowns himself. Neither of those people care about the common good (until Stannis changes his mind). 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: People are rebelling, yes. I think that is some proof to the fact that the realm is in a bad place although considering they rebelled against Aerys too I don't know if it's fair to say it's in a worse place than before. The Rebellion against Aerys II seems to be a tidbit more justified insofar as the Starks are concerned. Ned's father and brother were executed, after all. Robert has some motivation after his head is demanded, too, but his core motivation - the Lyanna thing - is the petty pride and presumption of a noble prick. 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Lord Commander Jon Snow did not start a fight with the warden of the north over a sister, or over any other matter. The fight was brought to him by the warden of the North - who is only warden due to treachery btw. As far as letting the wildlings through the wall he absolutely did & with good reason. Anyone with a lick of sense would have done the same thing. Jon failed as a communicator about the threat the common enemy poses. Instead of trying to convince the Realm that they are all in danger he sides with those factions who suit his (short-time) goals while antagonizing others, like the Boltons. He understands the danger the people are in, but is judgment is flawed - and since he has firsthand knowledge of the real danger his failure weighs much more heavy than, say, Robb's or that of the Lannisters who have a lot of things on their plate and receive (at best) second or third hand reports on what's going on beyond the Wall. If you don't understand things properly we can cut you some slack. If you know things pretty well and still allow yourself to become embroiled in petty squabbles you have no excuse. 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Yep, this is happening while the Lannisters are in power though, not the Baratheons. Not that it makes much difference. Joffrey and Tommen are technically Baratheons and rule as kings of that dynasty. The difference between the Targaryens and the Baratheons or any other dynasty that might lay claim to the Iron Throne is that the former are accepted as the rulers of them all. They are seen as legitimate rulers. The Baratheons, Lannisters, etc. are upstarts, men who rose above their peers and presume to rule Seven Kingdoms to who their ancestors didn't really have a claim to. It is no surprise that Balon and Robb crowned themselves under a Baratheon regime - or that the Riverlands were willing to secede from the Iron Throne in those days, too. That kind of thing didn't happen (often) before. Bottom line is that the Starks are nice people and all - but their politics (especially those from Ned, Cat, and Robb) are harming the Seven Kingdoms to their core. In that sense they are not better than Stannis, Renly, and the Lannisters (who all are less nice people, but whose politics are not worse than those of the Starks). The War of the Five Kings was a pointless war - the fact that it happened shows the incompetence, unwillingness, and pettiness of the people involved. They were either not willing or unable to keep the peace (and in most cases both). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Jon was part of the king's administration and thus shares part of the blame. But it is quite clear that Robert shares most of the blame here. And, no, a full treasury is a sign of good ruling, especially in a medieval society. Money is needed for the government to properly function. There are certainly different ways to acquire money, but at this point Aerys II is not described as a man who squeezed money out of his people. The common people and the Kingslanders had no issues with the Mad King. A full treasury is good, a working treasury is better. Jon did the best thing for the crowns economy, he hired Petyr Quote Within three years of his coming to court, he was master of coin and a member of the small council, and today the crown's revenues were ten times what they had been under his beleaguered predecessor . . . though the crown's debts had grown vast as well. A master juggler was Petyr Baelish. Oh, he was clever. He did not simply collect the gold and lock it in a treasure vault, no. He paid the king's debts in promises, and put the king's gold to work. He bought wagons, shops, ships, houses. He bought grain when it was plentiful and sold bread when it was scarce. He bought wool from the north and linen from the south and lace from Lys, stored it, moved it, dyed it, sold it. The golden dragons bred and multiplied, and Littlefinger lent them out and brought them home with hatchlings. Roberts not a man whos described as squeezing money out of smallfolk either, only Joff did that. "The dwarfs penny" 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: There is no justification for the War of the Five Kings. From a feudal perspective there is justification - up to a point - for Robb's rebellion but not his coronation. And, frankly, Ned and Cat should have not allowed their suspicions and hatred of the Lannisters allow them to fester as much as they did - they should have gone to the king to settle the death of Jon Arryn and the attempt on Bran in a civilized manner. That way a war may have been prevented. Stannis, Renly, and Balon basically have no justification whatsoever. Neither does Robb after he crowns himself. Neither of those people care about the common good (until Stannis changes his mind). Idk, Greatjon justified it pretty well Quote He reached back over his shoulder and drew his immense two-handed greatsword. "Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!" The damage that Aegon and his descendants caused to the realm can never (Till Dany shows up lol) be reciprocated. So, why not? Thats an immense sword lol And I'm not sure how good of a person Stannis became, he saw Others at the Fist of Firstmen. Azor Ahai reborns honor demands it, and then went south to fight Bolton lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redriver Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 55 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said: A full treasury is good, a working treasury is better. Jon did the best thing for the crowns economy, he hired Petyr Roberts not a man whos described as squeezing money out of smallfolk either, only Joff did that. "The dwarfs penny" Idk, Greatjon justified it pretty well The damage that Aegon and his descendants caused to the realm can never (Till Dany shows up lol) be reciprocated. So, why not? Thats an immense sword lol And I'm not sure how good of a person Stannis became, he saw Others at the Fist of Firstmen. Azor Ahai reborns honor demands it, and then went south to fight Bolton lol Was Stannis at the Fist of the First men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Jon was part of the king's administration and thus shares part of the blame. But it is quite clear that Robert shares most of the blame here. And, no, a full treasury is a sign of good ruling, especially in a medieval society. Money is needed for the government to properly function. There are certainly different ways to acquire money, but at this point Aerys II is not described as a man who squeezed money out of his people. The common people and the Kingslanders had no issues with the Mad King I agree Jon holds part of the blame I just feel like he was probably fighting an uphill battle with Robert. Also, I'm not saying a full treasury is not a sign of good ruling I'm saying that isn't the only way to measure whether or not someone is a good ruler. You know much more about the history of Westeros than I will ever but it would seem to me that someone with a nickname of "The Mad King", who was murdered by a member of his kings guard because he was going to "burn them all", who killed a Lord & his heir in a horrific manner, was probably not a King in which the Kingslanders had no issues with. If they did not then I suppose that what the common folk have issues with is not a good indicator of a good ruler, because while Aerys II is not described as a man who squeezed money out of his people he was not a good King either. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: There is no justification for the War of the Five Kings. From a feudal perspective there is justification - up to a point - for Robb's rebellion but not his coronation. And, frankly, Ned and Cat should have not allowed their suspicions and hatred of the Lannisters allow them to fester as much as they did - they should have gone to the king to settle the death of Jon Arryn and the attempt on Bran in a civilized manner. That way a war may have been prevented. Stannis, Renly, and Balon basically have no justification whatsoever. Neither does Robb after he crowns himself. Neither of those people care about the common good (until Stannis changes his mind). I disagree that there is no justification for the Wot5K. I agree that Renly & Balon had no justification but as you stated Robb's rebellion was feudally justified. I'll agree Robb's coronation was not necessarily justified - not feudally anyway, although it could be argued that his coronation was necessary to keep his people safe. He didn't not crown his self though. Stannis was Robert's rightful heir so how is his rebellion not justified? Ned & Cat definitely should have attempted to resolve their issues with the King rather than in secrecy. In Ned's defense, the last person that attempted to debunk the Lannisters died for it, but still he should have come to Robert with his suspicions & at least attempted to solve them that way. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The Rebellion against Aerys II seems to be a tidbit more justified insofar as the Starks are concerned. Ned's father and brother were executed, after all. Robert has some motivation after his head is demanded, too, but his core motivation - the Lyanna thing - is the petty pride and presumption of a noble prick. I agree. But isn't that some indicator that the realm wasn't all peachy before Robert? That was my point that the realm is in a bad place right now but it wasn't in a great place then either. Maybe it was better off financially but not in many other ways. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Jon failed as a communicator about the threat the common enemy poses. Instead of trying to convince the Realm that they are all in danger he sides with those factions who suit his (short-time) goals while antagonizing others, like the Boltons. He did fail in communicating the threat but it wasn't for lack of trying. I would be hard pressed to know what else to do to succeed in communicating the threat other than what he did do. I disagree that he sided with those factions who suit his goals INSTEAD of trying to convince the realm. He did try to convince the realm. He sent letters, he sent a man to KL to show them proof, what more could he do? At any rate that is trying to communicate the threat. That whole sentence is false IMO. "Instead of trying to convince the realm that they are all in danger" - we know he did try to convince the realm they are all in danger so that's not true. "he sides with those factions who suit his (short-time) goals" he sides with the ONLY factions willing to listen & help. It isn't as if he has relief knocking down his door & can be picky about who he sides with. He sides with the living against the threat of the unliving. "while antagonizing others, like the Boltons" I'm not sure what you believe he did to antagnize the Boltons or anyone else but any antagonation, purposeful or otherwise, was not done in lieu of trying to warn the realm. This sentence makes it seem as if Jon cared not about the threat from the others & did not put any effort into receiving help against them or into preparing to defend against them because he wanted to spend his time antagonizing people instead. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: He understands the danger the people are in, but is judgment is flawed - and since he has firsthand knowledge of the real danger his failure weighs much more heavy than, say, Robb's or that of the Lannisters who have a lot of things on their plate and receive (at best) second or third hand reports on what's going on beyond the Wall. Judgment is abosolutely flawed but again I don't see what more he could have done to warn people. I feel like you are condemning him for not succeeding in conveying the threat to the realm while at the same time condemning him for the things he did to defend against the threat to the realm. I don't see how NOT letting the wildlings through the wall would have done any good for anyone. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: If you don't understand things properly we can cut you some slack. If you know things pretty well and still allow yourself to become embroiled in petty squabbles you have no excuse. I'm not sure what this means, or rather, i'm not sure why you said it. I know things better than some & not as well as others but I certainly haven't intended to become embroiled in a petty squabble, nor have I noticed I was in one. I see & read your posts often & respect your opinion. I believe you are knowledgable & do your best to express your opinion with logic & without trying to bait other posters. If I have been less than respectful to you, I sincerely apologize. I was under the impression we were having a civil conversation on matters, some of which we agree & some of which we don't. If this isn't the case - again, I'm sorry. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Joffrey and Tommen are technically Baratheons and rule as kings of that dynasty. The difference between the Targaryens and the Baratheons or any other dynasty that might lay claim to the Iron Throne is that the former are accepted as the rulers of them all. They are seen as legitimate rulers. The Baratheons, Lannisters, etc. are upstarts, men who rose above their peers and presume to rule Seven Kingdoms to who their ancestors didn't really have a claim to. For sure. But not all people accept the Targaryens as rulers of them all. I do understand what you are saying though. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: It is no surprise that Balon and Robb crowned themselves under a Baratheon regime - or that the Riverlands were willing to secede from the Iron Throne in those days, too. That kind of thing didn't happen (often) before. Absolutely. My only point was, regardless if you see Aerys II as a good ruler or not that doesn't mean Daenerys will be the same. There are plenty of good & bad rulers throughout the Targ reign & Dany could fall anywhere in that mix. Being a Targaryen doesn't mean you are going to be a great ruler. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Bottom line is that the Starks are nice people and all - but their politics (especially those from Ned, Cat, and Robb) are harming the Seven Kingdoms to their core. In that sense they are not better than Stannis, Renly, and the Lannisters (who all are less nice people, but whose politics are not worse than those of the Starks). I agree the Starks are lacking in the political area. They appear to be fairly naive in the ways of politics & often make decisions, either without thinking them through or without caring what the consequences are. I don't know that the politics of the Starks are harming the realm more than the politics of Renly or Cersei though. Cersei has no interest in the people &/or their well being & is content to let them starve in the streets. Renly gathered an army with the intent to rebel agains the crown for no other reason than that he had the opportunity. Stannis is doing what he believes is his duty as Robert's rightful heir so I don't agree he is harming the realm, even though I don't agree with all his practices. I think Robb had every right to gather an army to have his father & sisters freed & every right to attack when his father was killed. Of course, as a reader, I know Ned wasn't guilty of the treason he admitted to so that persuades my opinion. If I did not know that I would probably feel differently. 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The War of the Five Kings was a pointless war - the fact that it happened shows the incompetence, unwillingness, and pettiness of the people involved. They were either not willing or unable to keep the peace (and in most cases both). Well, yeah. It's a collective effort & the blame doesn't lie with one person or one family. A lot of effort from many places went into this war. Question for you though: If things had turned out differently & the Wot5K DID bring peace to the realm would you still have issues with the politics involved? Do the ends justify the means? I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely curious to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 13 minutes ago, redriver said: Was Stannis at the Fist of the First men? No, but he saw the battle with the others in Mel's flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redriver Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 32 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: No, but he saw the battle with the others in Mel's flames. Ah,thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said: A full treasury is good, a working treasury is better. Jon did the best thing for the crowns economy, he hired Petyr What a great pick. The man did a great job stabilizing the Baratheon dynasty... 3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said: Roberts not a man whos described as squeezing money out of smallfolk either, only Joff did that. "The dwarfs penny" Correct. I wanted to illustrate that Aerys II's full treasury apparently had nothing to do with Aerys II being a tyrant squeezing money out of his lords and smallfolk. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I agree Jon holds part of the blame I just feel like he was probably fighting an uphill battle with Robert. Also, I'm not saying a full treasury is not a sign of good ruling I'm saying that isn't the only way to measure whether or not someone is a good ruler. That is correct. The thing is that FaB greatly illustrated how crippled and ineffective a royal administration can be without coin. Maegor did not only wage wars against his people he also emptied the treasury, causing the Queen Regent Alyssa Velaryon to sign off on not exactly popular taxes during the minority of Jaehaerys I. And later still, during the Dance, it is established that, in the end, Rhaenyra Targaryen lost her throne because Tyland Lannister stole Viserys I's full treasury, causing her to introduce taxes and tariffs that made her very unpopular. A king with a full treasury, on the other hand, can afford to be generous. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: You know much more about the history of Westeros than I will ever but it would seem to me that someone with a nickname of "The Mad King", who was murdered by a member of his kings guard because he was going to "burn them all", who killed a Lord & his heir in a horrific manner, was probably not a King in which the Kingslanders had no issues with. If they did not then I suppose that what the common folk have issues with is not a good indicator of a good ruler, because while Aerys II is not described as a man who squeezed money out of his people he was not a good King either. You have differentiate here between the common people and the nobility. Nowhere is it said at this point that King Aerys II arbitrarily targeted or killed smallfolk. Yes, some commoners seem to have been tortured and killed back when he had his lapses after the deaths of the children who died in the cradle (midwives and nursemaids, and such) but those were, in essence, privileged people living and serving at court. The average baker or stonemason or blacksmith living in KL, the Crownlands, or anywhere else in the Seven Kingdoms would have never felt the wrath of a king who - in his maddest hours - lived like a prisoner in his own castle. The men Aerys II seems to have targeted for the most part were nobility who crossed him - the Darklyns and Hollards, later the Starks, various Hands, etc. This would have been a problem for the noble class, but the average Kingslander wouldn't have cared that the king burned some lord from half a world away. It would have been similar to the reign of Aegon the Unworthy who, despite being described as the worst king ever on the Iron Throne, was only really dangerous for the people who entered into his inner circle. And that would have been - for the most part - highborn people. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I disagree that there is no justification for the Wot5K. I agree that Renly & Balon had no justification but as you stated Robb's rebellion was feudally justified. I'll agree Robb's coronation was not necessarily justified - not feudally anyway, although it could be argued that his coronation was necessary to keep his people safe. He didn't not crown his self though. I'd say that something that's feudally justified doesn't make for an overall good reason. Robb could have swallowed his pride. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Stannis was Robert's rightful heir so how is his rebellion not justified? Because he doesn't actually have proof. He cannot know that Cersei's children are not Robert's, yet he tries to steal the birthright of his nephews and niece, anyway. Since he failed to tell Robert while he was still alive - so that there could have been a proper investigation of the matter - he devolves to resolve a legal issue not legally but militarily. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Ned & Cat definitely should have attempted to resolve their issues with the King rather than in secrecy. In Ned's defense, the last person that attempted to debunk the Lannisters died for it, but still he should have come to Robert with his suspicions & at least attempted to solve them that way. He should also have not allowed his hatred of the Lannisters influence him so much. He is manipulated by Littlefinger, too, but it his view of Jaime and Cersei and Tywin that causes him to take Lysa's letter at face value and also to not immediately go to Robert with that letter. After all, the king likely should known (and would have wanted to know) that his foster father and Hand may have been killed by the Lannisters. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I agree. But isn't that some indicator that the realm wasn't all peachy before Robert? That was my point that the realm is in a bad place right now but it wasn't in a great place then either. Maybe it was better off financially but not in many other ways. The Realm is really fraying at the end of Robert's reign. Almost all the great houses are willing to fight each other, and House Baratheon itself is going to rip itself to pieces. That's the worst state the Realm has been insofar. Even during the Dance there were only two factions (aside from a couple of would-be kings who died as quickly as they appeared). 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: He did fail in communicating the threat but it wasn't for lack of trying. I would be hard pressed to know what else to do to succeed in communicating the threat other than what he did do. I disagree that he sided with those factions who suit his goals INSTEAD of trying to convince the realm. He did try to convince the realm. He sent letters, he sent a man to KL to show them proof, what more could he do? At any rate that is trying to communicate the threat. Jon never sent a man anywhere. Mormont did. After Mance's defeat both Stannis but especially Jon as Lord Commander should have done anything in his power to inform the Realm about what's going on. Instead he involves himself in a war in the North before he has made any attempt to negotiate or reason with Roose Bolton. I mean, at Winterfell there are about 5,000+ men on each side, men they could need in the fight against the Others, yet it seems they prefer to kill each other rather than work together - and that's not because the Boltons and Freys decided to reject or ridicule truce proposals, it is because nobody ever offered them any. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: That whole sentence is false IMO. "Instead of trying to convince the realm that they are all in danger" - we know he did try to convince the realm they are all in danger so that's not true. "he sides with those factions who suit his (short-time) goals" he sides with the ONLY factions willing to listen & help. It isn't as if he has relief knocking down his door & can be picky about who he sides with. He sides with the living against the threat of the unliving. "while antagonizing others, like the Boltons" I'm not sure what you believe he did to antagnize the Boltons or anyone else but any antagonation, purposeful or otherwise, was not done in lieu of trying to warn the realm. This sentence makes it seem as if Jon cared not about the threat from the others & did not put any effort into receiving help against them or into preparing to defend against them because he wanted to spend his time antagonizing people instead. Sending Mance to Winterfell did antagonize the Boltons, as did sending Stannis to Deepwood instead of the Dreadfort. And as it turned out Jon decided to use the wildlings in a war against the Boltons at the end of ADwD - he isn't offering them refuge, he intends to use them in another pointless war. That is a short-term gain. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Judgment is abosolutely flawed but again I don't see what more he could have done to warn people. I feel like you are condemning him for not succeeding in conveying the threat to the realm while at the same time condemning him for the things he did to defend against the threat to the realm. He could have sent envoys to all the great houses of the Realm. He could have written letters that actually tell people what's going on, letters that are not sent to a boy king of eight but to men who might actually care what's going on. Has Jon sent so much as a single envoy or letter talking about the Others to any Northern house? I'm not aware of that. In fact, not even Davos - who is sent as envoy to White Harbor - tells the Manderlys about the threat the Others pose. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I don't see how NOT letting the wildlings through the wall would have done any good for anyone. I'm not arguing against that. That was, overall, a good call. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I'm not sure what this means, or rather, i'm not sure why you said it. I know things better than some & not as well as others but I certainly haven't intended to become embroiled in a petty squabble, nor have I noticed I was in one. I see & read your posts often & respect your opinion. I believe you are knowledgable & do your best to express your opinion with logic & without trying to bait other posters. If I have been less than respectful to you, I sincerely apologize. I was under the impression we were having a civil conversation on matters, some of which we agree & some of which we don't. If this isn't the case - again, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry, I was talking about Jon there, not you. Jon knows what's at stake - or at least he knows better what might be at stake (neither he nor the other black brothers ever seem to think the Wall itself could fall) - and that's why his interest to get Arya back and see the Lannisters and Boltons and Freys destroyed is much more difficult to excuse than Robb's desire - who didn't really have firsthand knowledge what was going on nor any means to get at the bottom of the garbled reports and stories that may have reached him. But it is still clear that his decision to march south instead of north as Osha told him is one of his key mistakes. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: For sure. But not all people accept the Targaryens as rulers of them all. I do understand what you are saying though. They did, back when they were still there. And in Robb's war council the fact that the Targaryens are (apparently) gone is one of the reasons the Greatjon cites why they should govern themselves again. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Absolutely. My only point was, regardless if you see Aerys II as a good ruler or not that doesn't mean Daenerys will be the same. There are plenty of good & bad rulers throughout the Targ reign & Dany could fall anywhere in that mix. Being a Targaryen doesn't mean you are going to be a great ruler. Sure. My point was more that the Targaryens - who of course have as many shitty as great rulers - as a dynasty have more legitimacy than the Baratheons or any other (the Greyjoys, say, if Euron ever claimed the Iron Throne) could ever hope to have. They were outsiders who came in as neutral conquerors. They did not favor one region over another - if the Lannisters, Tyrells, Greyjoys, etc. ever seized the Iron Throne they would have much more trouble. It already began with the Baratheons, despite the fact that they are effectively Targaryens themselves (at least Steffon and his sons are). 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I agree the Starks are lacking in the political area. They appear to be fairly naive in the ways of politics & often make decisions, either without thinking them through or without caring what the consequences are. Well, their crucial politicians (Ned and Robb) are too inflexible and to set in their rather haughty noble pride. Ned condemns crucial allies of Robert's in Jaime and Tywin - yes, we understand why he didn't like the Sack and what happened there, but there is hypocrisy there. And Robb basically burns all bridges when he allows his men to make him king. It isolates him so much that he cannot make common cause with either Stannis or Renly against the Lannisters 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I don't know that the politics of the Starks are harming the realm more than the politics of Renly or Cersei though. Cersei has no interest in the people &/or their well being & is content to let them starve in the streets. Renly gathered an army with the intent to rebel agains the crown for no other reason than that he had the opportunity. All Robb ever gave his people was a war and the destruction of a decent junk of Northern soil thanks to the Greyjoy invasion - not to mention the overall weakening of his lands now that winter has come and the Others are knocking at the door. His legacy is actually poison. Nothing good came out of his campaign at all. And the Red Wedding has now everybody focused on vengeance which is also not going to help them work together against the common enemy. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Stannis is doing what he believes is his duty as Robert's rightful heir so I don't agree he is harming the realm, even though I don't agree with all his practices. As I said, he has no proof that what he believes is true. If we as readers had not the truth from Cersei's lips would you think his actions are justified? 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: I think Robb had every right to gather an army to have his father & sisters freed & every right to attack when his father was killed. Of course, as a reader, I know Ned wasn't guilty of the treason he admitted to so that persuades my opinion. If I did not know that I would probably feel differently. Robb also doesn't really know that Ned didn't commit treason. He believes that, yes, and he has to do something but he could have been more cautious, especially after he won his first battles. Immediately sending word that he would be willing to offer his assistance in the fight against Stannis/Renly and that he would cease hostilities if they were to free Ned could have been a good start. Not to mention writing similar letters to both Renly and Stannis. 1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: Question for you though: If things had turned out differently & the Wot5K DID bring peace to the realm would you still have issues with the politics involved? Do the ends justify the means? As the war stands I have difficulty imagining that a lasting peace could have grown out of that. And to justify the war would mean that one of the parties waging it would have to prevail, eventually win it and create the lasting peace. If that were the case I guess one could defend it that way. But if the person fought the war for the wrong reasons then it would still be a difficult to do. If you compare it to the Dance (where both the major claimants died) then it is quite clear that the Dance was not necessary to make Aegon III a decent king. Instead, it was an utterly pointless war which prevented the rise of a queen who could have been pretty decent, I'd say, and the rise of her oldest son who could actually have been a great king (Jacaerys Velaryon shows a lot of promise in FaB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: What a great pick. The man did a great job stabilizing the Baratheon dynasty... Lmao, yea, Jon Arryn was the worst. Like the only things I know he did was help Petyr rise and convince Robert to marry Cersei. But LF schemes aside, the economy in Roberts administration saw "the crowns revenue was ten times what they had been before" 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Correct. I wanted to illustrate that Aerys II's full treasury apparently had nothing to do with Aerys II being a tyrant squeezing money out of his lords and smallfolk. Sure. My point was more that the Targaryens - who of course have as many shitty as great rulers - as a dynasty have more legitimacy than the Baratheons or any other (the Greyjoys, say, if Euron ever claimed the Iron Throne) could ever hope to have. They were outsiders who came in as neutral conquerors. They did not favor one region over another - if the Lannisters, Tyrells, Greyjoys, etc. ever seized the Iron Throne they would have much more trouble. It already began with the Baratheons, despite the fact that they are effectively Targaryens themselves (at least Steffon and his sons are). Word, as far as asoiaf kings go, Aerys definitely isnt the worst. Hes no Joff. But even when Joff executes someone its done with regularity (sometimes lol), hes not mocking gods like Euron or praising gods like Stannis. But then, at least Stannis is burning them for some reason. Fire. Weird. Targaryens are weird, being an outsider is fine from a certain point if view but their strange culture can sometimes rattle the natives. Aerys wasnt the only one with fire or the thin line of insanity, not even close to the first Targ king to rape his sister in the next room. But he probably did a good job of flaunting it. Aerys ruled 8 kingdoms and showed them all he could almost be defeated by the town of Duskendale. The Targaryen days started to dwindle when the last dragon died, and later Robert and his family were just clinching at straws. 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: But it is still clear that his decision to march south instead of north as Osha told him is one of his key mistakes. All Robb ever gave his people was a war and the destruction of a decent junk of Northern soil thanks to the Greyjoy invasion - not to mention the overall weakening of his lands now that winter has come and the Others are knocking at the door. Tell that to Edmure. What would have happened if Robb marched north? The Old Bear lost big when he went, how much of Robbs cavalry would have blue eyes on their journey back south? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foot_Of_The_King Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 8/21/2019 at 7:39 PM, Sire de Maletroit said: I agree. People conveniently overlook how many southern children died during the Civil War and no one in their right mind would say it was not worth it. The southern states could have chosen to act morally and end slavery. They chose to fight and they are responsible for the suffering of their people. The slave masters have a choice. Act morally and free their slaves. They chose to fight instead and they are responsible for the suffering of all the people involved. This isn’t a fair comparison. The Civil War was a prolonged conflict. In the case of Dany, we are talking about the sack of a city. It would have been pretty horrific if a Union general ordered all white people killed in a particular city, especially since the children dying in the Civil War were almost completely poor people with no hand in the slave trade. I’m not faulting Dany on the decision or anything, but the comparison is apples and oranges as far as it being “worth it”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 There is a very weird take with the Targs... Even when i do think that only Targ blood can win the IT, i think that people vive Targ blood some miraculous effects. 20 hours ago, Lord Varys said: There is no justification for the War of the Five Kings. From a feudal perspective there is justification - up to a point - for Robb's rebellion but not his coronation. And, frankly, Ned and Cat should have not allowed their suspicions and hatred of the Lannisters allow them to fester as much as they did - they should have gone to the king to settle the death of Jon Arryn and the attempt on Bran in a civilized manner. That way a war may have been prevented. Stannis, Renly, and Balon basically have no justification whatsoever. Neither does Robb after he crowns himself. Neither of those people care about the common good (until Stannis changes his mind). Five dudes wanted to be Kings, there is no good justification, or rather a justification that satisfies all for usurpation, conquest and secesion. The Northeners and the Riverlords wanted to get out and that's what they did?? Why is Aegon conquest more justified than a secesion?? Renly and Balon wanted to be Kings ,the Realm would've been better had Renly took the Throne. Stannis was the legit heir, not only he believed he was the legit heir, we know he is. 20 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The Rebellion against Aerys II seems to be a tidbit more justified insofar as the Starks are concerned. Ned's father and brother were executed, after all. Robert has some motivation after his head is demanded, too, but his core motivation - the Lyanna thing - is the petty pride and presumption of a noble prick. Do you think so?! If Robert don't have a reason to believe his feelings weren't reciprocate and he does believe Lyanna was kidnapped and raped, something we have yet to find out is a lie, i can hardly can call him a prideful, entaitled prick. People work with the info they have. 20 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The difference between the Targaryens and the Baratheons or any other dynasty that might lay claim to the Iron Throne is that the former are accepted as the rulers of them all. They are seen as legitimate rulers. The Baratheons, Lannisters, etc. are upstarts, men who rose above their peers and presume to rule Seven Kingdoms to who their ancestors didn't really have a claim to. You think?? People make razionalizations but the truth is that, no one would've put Robert in the Throne if people didn't think he could usurped the Targs. The Starks, with Greatjon among them, hailed Robert as King, and the Baratheons as the ruling dynasty. 20 hours ago, Lord Varys said: It is no surprise that Balon and Robb crowned themselves under a Baratheon regime - or that the Riverlands were willing to secede from the Iron Throne in those days, too. That kind of thing didn't happen (often) before. People defy the Throne when they sense weakness, the rebellions Aenys faced, Dalton and Dagon Greyjoy and the Laughing Storm, they all rebelled or commited treason against the Targ dynasty... Because they sensed weakness, Lyonel is still up to decide. With the Baratheons happens exactly the same, people sense weakness and they took their chance, they sense strenght and they are quiet, Balon rebelled, just like Dagon Greyjoy did before him, and when he was defeated, he only raises again when Westeros is a chaos, Robb crowned himself but his father had already deposed his King, with no biggies. The Riverlands already had betrayed Aerys, so where is the difference?? 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: The Realm is really fraying at the end of Robert's reign. Almost all the great houses are willing to fight each other, and House Baratheon itself is going to rip itself to pieces. That's the worst state the Realm has been insofar. Even during the Dance there were only two factions (aside from a couple of would-be kings who died as quickly as they appeared Because both Robert and Ned dies and madness and stupidity takes everybody, there was no war going on, while Robert and Ned were alive and in power. And the Realm is broken because there are multiple pretenders with armies. 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: They did, back when they were still there. And in Robb's war council the fact that the Targaryens are (apparently) gone is one of the reasons the Greatjon cites why they should govern themselves again. Yet, that didn't stop him from crowning the Stag and ousting the dragon did he?? Greatjon using razionalizations to convince the Northmen to secede, doesn't mean he gives a crap about them and in the Robellion, the only Kingdom that was fully commited to the Targ side was the Reach. The Riverlands was split and the other Kingdoms... 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Sure. My point was more that the Targaryens - who of course have as many shitty as great rulers - as a dynasty have more legitimacy than the Baratheons or any other (the Greyjoys, say, if Euron ever claimed the Iron Throne) could ever hope to have. They were outsiders who came in as neutral conquerors. They did not favor one region over another - if the Lannisters, Tyrells, Greyjoys, etc. ever seized the Iron Throne they would have much more trouble. It already began with the Baratheons, despite the fact that they are effectively Targaryens themselves (at least Steffon and his sons are). The Targs ruled for 283 years, ofc they would have more legitimacy than the Stags, the Baratheons faced problems because they themselves went to each others throats and they were more effective at that the Targs ever were. Every dynasty has its tests before it's settled, Aenys and Maegor were the Targs ones, the Martells suffered many uprisings before his hold over Dorne was tight, the Greyiron, the Hoares, the Starks and the Tyrells, it's not because there is something especial with the Targs rather that it takes time for people to get used to a new dynasty, in 50 no one would care much about the Targs, let alone after 100 years, after Robert's peaceful, yet very bad reign, mostly, his succesors had to settle the dynasty, just like Jaeharys did for the Targs, but Renly, Stannis and Joffrey were perharps too eager for the task. 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Well, their crucial politicians (Ned and Robb) are too inflexible and to set in their rather haughty noble pride. Ned condemns crucial allies of Robert's in Jaime and Tywin - yes, we understand why he didn't like the Sack and what happened there, but there is hypocrisy there. And Robb basically burns all bridges when he allows his men to make him king. It isolates him so much that he cannot make common cause with either Stannis or Renly against the Lannisters Where is the hypocrisy on Ned's part?? He thought Robert's reign was born poisoned because of that and he was quite right and Jaime is no ally either. Not that the boy had toó much of a choice there actually. 14 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Robb also doesn't really know that Ned didn't commit treason. He believes that, yes, and he has to do something but he could have been more cautious, especially after he won his first battles. Immediately sending word that he would be willing to offer his assistance in the fight against Stannis/Renly and that he would cease hostilities if they were to free Ned could have been a good start. Not to mention writing similar letters to both Renly and Stannis. Robb's army is telling him, they are not fighting for the Lannisters, he himself sees Renly as a usuper and Stannis in his eyes also don't have the right. In fact before he can do shit, his father is murdered. The Targs supposed umparallaled super legitimacy didn't come out of a blue either, it's just the result of time and acceptance, we knew how it went after their founder died tho. Quote "Yet even as Aenys was receiving the blessing of the Father of the Faithful, others were casting doubt on his fitness to sit the Iron Throne. Westeros required a warrior, they whispered to one another, and Maegor was plainly the stronger of the Dragon’s two sons. Foremost amongst the whisperers was the Dowager Queen Visenya Targaryen. “The truth is plain enough,” she is reported to have said. “Even Aenys sees it. Why else would he have given Blackfyre to my son? He knows that only Maegor has the strength to rule.” The new king’s mettle would be tested sooner than anyone could have imagined. The Wars of Conquest had left scars throughout the realm. Sons now come of age dreamed of avenging long-dead fathers. Knights remembered the days when a man with a sword and a horse and a suit of armor could slash his way to riches and glory. Lords recalled a time when they did not need a king’s leave to tax their smallfolk or kill their enemies. “The chains the Dragon forged can yet be broken,” the discontented told one another. “We can win our freedoms back, but now is the time to strike, for this new king is weak." So, if that happened to the super Targs, why Robert's dynasty should be any different?? The only thing the Baratheon needed to achieve that legitimacy was time, they were too Baratheon to achieve that tho, the dragons had 283 years of Kings both awesome and terrible to create a very cool mythos that hold the continent, most of it at least, i don't really see the North and especially Dorne and the Iron Island being too much into the fold, and people are comparing that to Robert's 15 years rule to say, it's impossible, when Aegon the Dragon reigned for more than 30 years, was a much better king Robert ever cared to be and rode the greatest dragon Westeros ever saw and still his succesors had to fight to "legitimize" the dynasty, why the Baratheons, or any new made dynasty are compared to the whole legacy of the former ruling dynasty and not to the beginnings of those dynasties?? After two hundred years people would've forget the Targs, just as they forgot the Gardeners and the Hoares and the times when the Martells weren't the greatest House in Dorne and they couldn't remind a time where a Baratheon didn't sit in that ugly chair, after two hundred years the Baratheons/Lannisters/Greyjoys/ Baelish, would have the same legitimacy as the Targs "have" now, because if 5 Kingdoms ousted them was for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said: Lmao, yea, Jon Arryn was the worst. Like the only things I know he did was help Petyr rise and convince Robert to marry Cersei. But LF schemes aside, the economy in Roberts administration saw "the crowns revenue was ten times what they had been before" Which doesn't mean anything if the increased revenue cannot keep up with the increased spending for nonsense. Robert is not investing money, he is wasting it in stupid tourneys. 8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said: What would have happened if Robb marched north? The Old Bear lost big when he went, how much of Robbs cavalry would have blue eyes on their journey back south? The entire Mance situation wouldn't have happened and a Stark knowing about and believing in the Others could have helped resolve the wildling crisis peacefully. Then the North would have been prepared for what's coming now. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Five dudes wanted to be Kings, there is no good justification, or rather a justification that satisfies all for usurpation, conquest and secesion. The Northeners and the Riverlords wanted to get out and that's what they did?? Why is Aegon conquest more justified than a secesion?? Renly and Balon wanted to be Kings ,the Realm would've been better had Renly took the Throne. Stannis was the legit heir, not only he believed he was the legit heir, we know he is. I think the War of the Five Kings is pointless because I actually don't give a damn about who rules the Seven Kingdoms. People died so noble and royal pricks could satisfy their egos. It was the same in the Dance. It is disgusting. But the War of the Five Kings is especially bad because a common enemy of all mankind is marshalling their armies while the people are killing each other. I don't think Aegon the Conqueror has a good justification for his conquest, either - however, not all that many people died in his war (prior to the First Dornish War, of course) and especially the burning of Harrenhal can be considered a pretty good thing considering it ended Harren's tyranny and freed the Riverlands from the yoke of the Ironborn. Also there is the fact to consider that the state of continuous warfare in the Seven Kingdoms ended (for the most part) after the Conquest, which benefited all, especially the smallfolk. But again - this doesn't mean Aegon had a good reason for his war. Or that it was justified. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Do you think so?! If Robert don't have a reason to believe his feelings weren't reciprocate and he does believe Lyanna was kidnapped and raped, something we have yet to find out is a lie, i can hardly can call him a prideful, entaitled prick. People work with the info they have. We'll have to wait and see what Robert actually knew. However, developing a hatred for your own cousin because your betrothed might actually be in love with him rather than you is not a positive thing. This seems to have had more to do with Robert's frail male ego than justice. 6 hours ago, frenin said: You think?? People make razionalizations but the truth is that, no one would've put Robert in the Throne if people didn't think he could usurped the Targs. The Starks, with Greatjon among them, hailed Robert as King, and the Baratheons as the ruling dynasty. If the Baratheons had been as accepted or stable a dynasty as the Targaryens there wouldn't have been a Greyjoy Rebellion nor would the Realm have not essentially at exploded the moment Robert died. This not comparable to the situation after the Conqueror died - where there was essentially no serious rebel pretender. An Ironborn madman, an ambitious younger brother, a craven outlaw, and a Dornish rogue - none of those men was truly dangerous. And none of the great houses as such rebelled. Jonos Arryn had to kill his lordly brother and no support from any house in the Vale as far as we know. 6 hours ago, frenin said: People defy the Throne when they sense weakness, the rebellions Aenys faced, Dalton and Dagon Greyjoy and the Laughing Storm, they all rebelled or commited treason against the Targ dynasty... Because they sensed weakness, Lyonel is still up to decide. Sure, but nobody truly wanted to secede or supplant the Targaryen dynasty. No younger brother ever tried to steal the crown of his older brother back in the Targaryen days - there was no Renly back then. How serious the Lyonel business was remains to be seen. At this point Dunk, Egg, and Lyonel are close friends. And since they could resolve that issue with a trial-by-combat we can assume that the wounded pride of Lord Baratheon had more to do with the whole thing than a desire to break ties with the Iron Throne. Later the man actually married his heir to Egg's daughter. 6 hours ago, frenin said: With the Baratheons happens exactly the same, people sense weakness and they took their chance, they sense strenght and they are quiet, Balon rebelled, just like Dagon Greyjoy did before him, and when he was defeated, he only raises again when Westeros is a chaos, Robb crowned himself but his father had already deposed his King, with no biggies. Dagon Greyjoy raided portions of Westeros, yes. But he never crowned himself. 6 hours ago, frenin said: The Riverlands already had betrayed Aerys, so where is the difference?? The Riverlands are the heartland of the united Westeros. Them trying to break away from the Iron Throne is a serious issue. That would have never happened in the Targaryen days. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Because both Robert and Ned dies and madness and stupidity takes everybody, there was no war going on, while Robert and Ned were alive and in power. And the Realm is broken because there are multiple pretenders with armies. Ned was already plotting against Robert's wife and his in-laws while the man was still alive - just as they were against him. Robert's administration was fucked-up because the man suffered discord and strife at his court and did nothing to resolve the issues between the people closest to him. Not his brothers, not his wife, his in-laws or his best friend. The fact that men were willing to do all that shows how fucked-up everything was. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Yet, that didn't stop him from crowning the Stag and ousting the dragon did he?? Greatjon using razionalizations to convince the Northmen to secede, doesn't mean he gives a crap about them and in the Robellion, the only Kingdom that was fully commited to the Targ side was the Reach. The Riverlands was split and the other Kingdoms... Robert's Rebellion wasn't about secession. The idea never came up. 6 hours ago, frenin said: The Targs ruled for 283 years, ofc they would have more legitimacy than the Stags, the Baratheons faced problems because they themselves went to each others throats and they were more effective at that the Targs ever were. The Targaryens certainly have time on their side, too. But also the fact that they are outsiders. The Baratheons are, in the end, just the descendants of the Storm Kings - and no Storm King ever ruled over the North or the Vale or the West - and that's even more true for the Lannisters. Accepting a powerful king from some place else as overlord is one thing - but doing the same for somebody who has a tenuous claim and who is essentially your own peer is a different thing altogether. That's where noble pride comes in. You don't want to be ruled by somebody who essentially is and should be your equal. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Every dynasty has its tests before it's settled, Aenys and Maegor were the Targs ones, the Martells suffered many uprisings before his hold over Dorne was tight, the Greyiron, the Hoares, the Starks and the Tyrells, it's not because there is something especial with the Targs rather that it takes time for people to get used to a new dynasty, in 50 no one would care much about the Targs, let alone after 100 years, after Robert's peaceful, yet very bad reign, mostly, his succesors had to settle the dynasty, just like Jaeharys did for the Targs, but Renly, Stannis and Joffrey were perharps too eager for the task. I'd doubt that since a lot of the acceptance for the Targaryens had to do with their dragons - which the Baratheons and any other dynasty would lack. Westeros might be too large to be properly ruled by a dynasty which cannot inspire awe in their subjects. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Where is the hypocrisy on Ned's part?? He thought Robert's reign was born poisoned because of that and he was quite right and Jaime is no ally either. Not that the boy had toó much of a choice there actually. The issue is that Ned is angry Jaime killed Aerys II when they all know that he would (and likely wanted to) do the same thing. It is like Cregan Stark being pissed that somebody else killed Aegon II. 6 hours ago, frenin said: Robb's army is telling him, they are not fighting for the Lannisters, he himself sees Renly as a usuper and Stannis in his eyes also don't have the right. In fact before he can do shit, his father is murdered. He doesn't do anything productive nor anything for the good of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. He fights a pointless war for a kingdom that he could not keep together, especially not when the Others make their move. 6 hours ago, frenin said: So, if that happened to the super Targs, why Robert's dynasty should be any different?? The only thing the Baratheon needed to achieve that legitimacy was time, they were too Baratheon to achieve it, the dragons had 283 years of Kings both awesome and terrible to create a very cool mythos that hold the continent, most of it at least, i don't really see the North and especially Dorne and the Iron Island being too much into the fold, and people are comparing that to Robert's 15 years rule to say, it's impossible, when Aegon the Dragon reigned for more than 30 years, was a much better king Robert ever cared to be and rode the greatest dragon Westeros ever saw and still his succesors had to fight to "legitimize" the dynasty, why the Baratheons, or any dynasty new made dynasty are compared to the whole legacy of the former ruling dynasty and not to the beginnings of those dynasties?? After two hundred years people would've forget the Targs, just as they forgot the Gardeners and the Hoares and the times when the Martells weren't the greatest House in Dorne and they couldn't remind a time where a Baratheon didn't sit in that ugly chair, after two hundred years the Baratheons/Lannisters/Greyjoys/ Baelish, would have the same legitimacy as the Targs "have" now, because if 5 Kingdoms ousted them was for something. See above. And keep in mind that starting a dynasty as a traitor and usurper is much more baggage than, you know, starting it as a conqueror. Conquerors are great, rebels and traitors are scum, and the stains of dishonor and treason don't disappear quickly even if you win. Aegon the Conqueror started a war among fellow sovereigns. Robert Baratheon was just Jon Arryn's propped up pretender to oust his rightful liege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: I think the War of the Five Kings is pointless because I actually don't give a damn about who rules the Seven Kingdoms. People died so noble and royal pricks could satisfy their egos. It was the same in the Dance. It is disgusting. But the War of the Five Kings is especially bad because a common enemy of all mankind is marshalling their armies while the people are killing each other. I don't think Aegon the Conqueror has a good justification for his conquest, either - however, not all that many people died in his war (prior to the First Dornish War, of course) and especially the burning of Harrenhal can be considered a pretty good thing considering it ended Harren's tyranny and freed the Riverlands from the yoke of the Ironborn. Also there is the fact to consider that the state of continuous warfare in the Seven Kingdoms ended (for the most part) after the Conquest, which benefited all, especially the smallfolk. But again - this doesn't mean Aegon had a good reason for his war. Or that it was justified. Fair enough, I do agree that with the Dance, it's the pointless war of all but it's not like Targs wars were very well grounded right?? But for the Vultures Kings, they are all a succesion of noble and royal pricks and their egos, so i don't really see a difference there, the Wof5k just happened to be the cruelest since the Dornish wars. Well i do think that make a Rains of Harrenhal and killing thousands of innocents so to kill there guys is not something to cheer but ido understand it, that's not to say that his conquest was bad, there is no good excuse for the idiocy him and Meria pulled off tho. I do think that using hindsight is some sort of cheating tho. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: We'll have to wait and see what Robert actually knew. However, developing a hatred for your own cousin because your betrothed might actually be in love with him rather than you is not a positive thing. This seems to have had more to do with Robert's frail male ego than justice. I mean sure, if Robert just made that up to not face the truth he's not just an asshole but until this point the notion that Rhaegar abducted and raped, "loved" as Dany and Barri B would say perharps without noticing that it takes two to love without being rape, is uncontested within the Planetos, so chances are high Robert went to his grave firmly believing Lyanna loved him, since i don't care about the love two people might feel for each other as a valid excuse, Robert or Rhaegar being in love or not add them layers, not excuse in my eyes. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: If the Baratheons had been as accepted or stable a dynasty as the Targaryens there wouldn't have been a Greyjoy Rebellion nor would the Realm have not essentially at exploded the moment Robert died. This not comparable to the situation after the Conqueror died - where there was essentially no serious rebel pretender. An Ironborn madman, an ambitious younger brother, a craven outlaw, and a Dornish rogue - none of those men was truly dangerous. And none of the great houses as such rebelled. Jonos Arryn had to kill his lordly brother and no support from any house in the Vale as far as we know. Why not?? The difference is degree, not crime, we know that in the Iron Islands, many revolted and the reason why the Greyjoys didn't join were the dragons, not loyalty. Every new dynasty faces tests until they are settled, someone they are lesser ones, sometimes they are bigger ones. An ambitious younger brother is as guilty as a fool nostalgic and the war against the Targs incited by the HS was to put them down, Maegor and Aenys kids killing each others is just as harmful, Maegor just happened to have a trump card, very difficult to beat in Vhagar and Balerion. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: Sure, but nobody truly wanted to secede or supplant the Targaryen dynasty. No younger brother ever tried to steal the crown of his older brother back in the Targaryen days - there was no Renly back then. How serious the Lyonel business was remains to be seen. At this point Dunk, Egg, and Lyonel are close friends. And since they could resolve that issue with a trial-by-combat we can assume that the wounded pride of Lord Baratheon had more to do with the whole thing than a desire to break ties with the Iron Throne. Later the man actually married his heir to Egg's daughter. Well, no dynasty ever suffered Cersei the great Lannisters either. And honestly, Maegor usurped the Throne, Aegon II usurped and killed his sister, Daemon Blackfyre almost did it and when he failed his line tried to for 50 years. Actually, Egg's daughter marrying his heir was to appease his wounded pride. Barrí B said that Westeros paid the dowry in corpses and TWOIAF says it was a short but bloody rebellion. But again, the difference is degree, not crime... Up until the Targs were toppled due to the idiocy of father and son. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: Dagon Greyjoy raided portions of Westeros, yes. But he never crowned himself. Because he didn't want it apparently, not because he couldn't, he did commit treason, so there is no reason to believe he had issues with becoming King. Quote The Riverlands are the heartland of the united Westeros. Them trying to break away from the Iron Throne is a serious issue. That would have never happened in the Targaryen days Yeah, that's why Hoster Tully broke from the IT right?? That would never happened in the Targs days... How do you know?? If the Riverlands were fucked as they were by another Kingdom and had family ties with two other Great Houses, sure that would've happened, why would it not?? On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: Robert's Rebellion wasn't about secession. The idea never came up. Until the Trident, where Robert and the rebels made him King. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: The Targaryens certainly have time on their side, too. But also the fact that they are outsiders. The Baratheons are, in the end, just the descendants of the Storm Kings - and no Storm King ever ruled over the North or the Vale or the West - and that's even more true for the Lannisters. Accepting a powerful king from some place else as overlord is one thing - but doing the same for somebody who has a tenuous claim and who is essentially your own peer is a different thing altogether. That's where noble pride comes in. You don't want to be ruled by somebody who essentially is and should be your equal. That certainly played a part for sure, but that's not something time can heal, in Dorne, only the Yronwoods are still salty for the Nymeria thing, in the Reach, only the the Florents still whine about the Tyrells, the Hoares submitted the old ways, in their way, and forced the IB to follow them and in time they just did it and so on. Certainly the beginnings would be far more difficult but given time, no one would care. Quote Ned was already plotting against Robert's wife and his in-laws while the man was still alive - just as they were against him. Robert's administration was fucked-up because the man suffered discord and strife at his court and did nothing to resolve the issues between the people closest to him. Not his brothers, not his wife, his in-laws or his best friend. The fact that men were willing to do all that shows how fucked-up everything was. He was trying to prove they were commiting treason... Which they were, Robert's administration is the result of negligence, nothing difference that what happened under the Unworthy and the outcome was the same eventually, that doesn't mean Robert and Ned, especially the latter, couldn't fix the sitch, but their deaths ruined that and for all Robert's faults, he's certainly not at fault of his brothers idiocy. Robert and Ned would make amends after everything but the Targs and Tywin and Tyrion weren't too much of a problem, Cersei and Jaime were a very diferent thing. Yet Robert and Ned had to fall, so everything fell apart. Are you saying that the Targs aren't capable of that self destruction?? You're right when you say that the Baratheon hit the jackpot, an alcoholic depressed King who is unable of facing his problems and vides behind a mask of completely destructive hedonism and negligence, an overly ambitious/treacherous family-tied to the crown and an overly ambitious Queen, capable of being completely blind by pride and ambition to the point of self destruction, a mad heir/King, a Kingsguard too fond of the King, a overly ambitious younger brothers who are capable of kinslaying and betrayal to get the Throne etc. It's true that the Targs never had them all in a single rule but the Targs had all those members in their ranks and more, I'd say that it was a matter of luck that that didn't happen to them and of time that it eventually will. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: I'd doubt that since a lot of the acceptance for the Targaryens had to do with their dragons - which the Baratheons and any other dynasty would lack. Westeros might be too large to be properly ruled by a dynasty which cannot inspire awe in their subjects. And when they lost them, Westeros remained loyal anyway, because they already accepted the Targs as their natural leaders. And awe and fear are not quite the same thing, the North was "loyal" during the dragons time and they weren't really in the fold either. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: The issue is that Ned is angry Jaime killed Aerys II when they all know that he would (and likely wanted to) do the same thing. It is like Cregan Stark being pissed that somebody else killed Aegon II. Well, Ned didn't swore a holy oath to protect him did he?? 6 On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: He doesn't do anything productive nor anything for the good of the people of the Seven Kingdoms. He fights a pointless war for a kingdom that he could not keep together, especially not when the Others make their move. He tries to do something productive for the good of his Realm, he fails, and since few are aware of the others making a move, that's hardly on him. Him adding the Riverlands to his dominion was craziness but the Targs tried to conquer Dorne twice didn't they?? And tbf, with the winter at the doors, the South could never take the North and in summer they couldn't hold it either. On 10/5/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lord Varys said: See above. And keep in mind that starting a dynasty as a traitor and usurper is much more baggage than, you know, starting it as a conqueror. Conquerors are great, rebels and traitors are scum, and the stains of dishonor and treason don't disappear quickly even if you win. Aegon the Conqueror started a war among fellow sovereigns. Robert Baratheon was just Jon Arryn's propped up pretender to oust his rightful liege. You're exaggerating there, Robert was seen in his youth as a succesful conqueror and a glorious rebel leader and in two hundreds years, Robert would be the man who toppled a dynasty of mad inbreeds and saved Westeros. Conquerors are great... But for the people conquered and rebels who toppled mad kings are hardly seen as scum or dishonorable and even in years no one would care or even knew what happened there, Mace the Ace and Redwyne as an example, especially if most of the Kingdoms actually "dishonored" themselves or weren't too bothered about keeping their rightful liege ruling. Conquerors are great... Because their line get to write history, nothing more. Sure, the losers would certainly brood for a while, but just as the conquered, their sons or grandkids would certainly ignored, the rightful kings nonsense. Robert Baratheon would've never tried to oust his rightful liege, if you know, said lieges didn't fuck with him so hard, neither would Jon Arryn nor Ned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Newman Posted October 5, 2019 Share Posted October 5, 2019 23 hours ago, redriver said: Ah,thanks. Stannis had access to good information to make a responsible decision. He had the words of the wildlings and the men of the watch. The war with the Boltons is a foolish thing. It is a waste of human capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis-something-Rose Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Without entering the whole debate because I really don't want to, I think the answer why Dany chooses the age of 12 can be found in a Jon chapter when he tries to recruit wildlings for the Wall. Down in the Seven Kingdoms boys of twelve were often pages or squires; many had been training at arms for years. (Jon V, ADwD 21) Squires follow the knights they serve into war. Devan Seaworth (12) and Podrick Payne (12) were both at the Battle of the Blackwater. Edric Dayne was 11 or 12 at the Mummer's Ford. Addam Osgrey (12 or 13) died at the Redgrass Field. It's possible that Dany is thinking in terms of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Here's Looking At You, Kid Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 On 10/5/2019 at 1:38 AM, frenin said: The Northeners and the Riverlords wanted to get out and that's what they did?? Why is Aegon conquest more justified than a secesion?? Well, Aegon was not subject to any laws but his own. He never bowed to any of the minor kings of land nor did he swear fealty to any of them. The North and the Riverlands swore an oath. They are already subjects of the kingdom. They broke laws that they already agreed to support and live by. Aegon cannot be accused of oath breaking. The Starks and the Tullys can be accused of oath breaking. At least insofar as the people knew. They failed to prove Joffrey's true parentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said: Well, Aegon was not subject to any laws but his own. He never bowed to any of the minor kings of land nor did he swear fealty to any of them. The North and the Riverlands swore an oath. They are already subjects of the kingdom. They broke laws that they already agreed to support and live by. Aegon cannot be accused of oath breaking. The Starks and the Tullys can be accused of oath breaking. At least insofar as the people knew. They failed to prove Joffrey's true parentage. And the Lannisters were ravaging the Riverlands and had killed Ned, the reasons why the Robellion was justified also applied here, the Starks and Tully didn't swear to be treated like garbage and neither Robb nor Edmure swore an oath to Joffrey either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.