Who would you have supported?

[Lucia Targaryen]

Let's pretend that you were the head of a great noble family during some of the major events in Westerosi history (Aegon's Conquest, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre rebellions, Robert's Rebellion, War of the Five Kings, etc).

Who would you have supported and why.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Aegon's Conquest - Presuming I didn't have to chose very early on, ie afer seeing what the dragon can do, the answer is obvious.

Dance of the Dragons - The Blacks given their dragon numbers

Blackfyre rebellions - First one, depens on who I was, 2,3,4 and 5, obviously loyalists, while in the 6th (Faegon's invasion) I probably would side with whoever wins the battle in the Stormlands (probably Faegon after Westerosi Agincourt)

War of the Five Kings - Again depends on where I was, though probably if I could I would side with the Mannis (my knee would bend on it's own, do I have to explain why?)

[Arthur Peres]

Aegon conquest - support the weird allien with the demon that flyies, breath fires and melt armies like nothing... oposing him is a weird way to commit suicide.

Dance- Sit that one out... both monarchys were awful, then bend the knee to who ever shows up at your door demanding fealty, try to give any excuse to not be dragged into that mess.

Blackfyre Rebellion - If forced to pick a side then, probably with the Blackfyres in the first one, all the other ones I would support the targs... the writting was in the wall after all.

Robert's Rebellion - Robert, if the Royal family is nuts and dumb enough to do that to 4 of the biggest and most powerfull families in the realm what can they do with me? they must go and quickly.

War of the Five kings - From what region am I? if I from north, riverlands or vale I would support Robb. If I from the reach, or Stormlands than Renly, if I from the Crowlands or Dorne, than try to stay neutral,Iron Islands? try to kill Balon before he doomed us all again...

[Eternally_Theirs]

Robert's Rebellion - Rhaegar, for the sake of the Starks. Robert fell into decline after becoming King and this allowed the Lannisters to seize control, crippling Bran and costing Ned, Robb and Catelyn their lives in the process. Plus, if Rhaegar won, then Jon wouldn't have ended up in the Nights Watch and thus he wouldn't have died there either.

War of the Five Kings - Robb, because he is an innocent man who was murdered because he dared to marry for love, and the romantic in me finds that unacceptable, and I realized that I am still not over his death. Me support the Young Woooolfff, yo.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

IMO, there is no legitimate reason to support the Targaryens at any point throughout history. Aegon took power by overthrowing local Westerosi rulers, so he isn't any more of a "rightful" king than anyone of the claimants that came later. I mean the Blackfyres, Robert, Renly, Stannis, Euron... etc. Not his direct Targaryen descendants.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

Aegon's conquest - Aegon, if for no other reason than what would be the point in opposing him? 

Dance - I don't even know. What a mess. Probably the Blacks because they had more dragons.

Blackfyre Rebellion - I haven't read enough about it to make an informed decision tbh. 

RR - Robert if our only two choices were Robert & Aerys. If Rhaegar is a choice I probably would have supported him, which wouldn't have turned out so well for me. 

Wot5K - here's where it gets harder I think. If I knew the Starks on a personal or semi personal level &/or was a northerner & privvy to some of the inner workings of what was going on I would support Robb. If not but I did somehow know about the incest & that Joffrey is not Robert's then I would support Stannis. If I didn't know about Joff I would support him. Making a decision knowing everything we know from the books, assuming though that I'm making this decision at the beginning of the war & don't know how it would turn out I would support Stannis. He is the rightful heir & while I understand why Robb rebelled & sympathize with him the line of succession says Stannis is the rightful King. 

[Pontius Pilate]

On 1/15/2020 at 5:07 PM, EvanSol919 said:

Let's pretend that you were the head of a great noble family during some of the major events in Westerosi history (Aegon's Conquest, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre rebellions, Robert's Rebellion, War of the Five Kings, etc).

Who would you have supported and why.

Aegon's Conquest - the Targaryens

Dance of the Dragons - Queen Rhaenyra

Blackfyre Rebellion - the Targaryens

Robert's Rebellion - Aerys Targaryen

War of the Five Kings - It's all good and makes it easy to restore the Targaryens.

[The Jingo]

• Aegon's Conquest I think is obvious for most people. The Targaryens.
• Daeron's Conquest of Dorne would side with the Targs. In fact, I'd side with the Targs in pretty much any war of expansion.
• Dance of the Dragons? The Greens. I know a lot of people tend to see it as solely a gendered issue, but my opinion is that the Great Council should be adhered to. Jaehaerys invited the lords to decide the succession and they did so.
  
  You can think of it as kind of a proto Magna Carta. The first time a Targaryen king explicitly submitted to will of the lords of the realm. The Blacks might have a better ruler (though that's questionable since we later saw Rhaenyra as a proto-Cersei during Fire and Blood), but a victory for the Blacks is a victory for royal absolutism.
• Blackfyre Rebellion is easy again. Daemon might be an amazing guy but Daeron has the accomplishment of finally adding Dorne to the realm.
• Robert's Rebellion I'd side with the rebels.
• Greyjoy's Rebellion is an obvious loyalist case.
• War of Five Kings would be Stannis unless I was a Northern or Riverlands lord, in which case first Robb Stark and then Stannis.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I would have a naked mudwrestling match with the leaders of all of the conflicts, any of those who could defeat me would secure my allegiance. Allegiance is earned, damnit!

[The hairy bear]

I'd always work to avoid war, and work towards finding peaceful solutions. Once the war was unavoidable, probably the most prudent course of action is siding with your immediate liege lord.

4 hours ago, The Jingo said:

• Dance of the Dragons? The Greens. I know a lot of people tend to see it as solely a gendered issue, but my opinion is that the Great Council should be adhered to. Jaehaerys invited the lords to decide the succession and they did so.
  
  You can think of it as kind of a proto Magna Carta. The first time a Targaryen king explicitly submitted to will of the lords of the realm. The Blacks might have a better ruler (though that's questionable since we later saw Rhaenyra as a proto-Cersei during Fire and Blood), but a victory for the Blacks is a victory for royal absolutism.

IMHO, if the Great Council settled any precedent, it's that unclear successions should have been voted in a Great Council. This is what the Greens should have done after Viserys I's death. In the Great Councils people vote between particular candidates, not general succession principles or amendments to inheritance laws.

[frenin]

Aegon's Conquest - I'd fight for Argilac the arrogant, which would've meant my end but c'mon, people sometimes got to libe by principles.

 

Dance of Dragons . - I'm a Black through and through.

 

Daeron's Conquest. - Tho i believe the Dornish restistance just,  i'd side with the Young Dragon.

 

Blackfyre Rebellion. - Tho i think i'll like Daemon and some of his followers, their cause's roots areracism, envy, jealosy, entitlement and sexism. Their cause is not very endearing.

 

Robellion. - I'm a Baratheon man. 

 

Greyjoy madness. - Loyalist.

 

War of the 5 Kings. - I'd like to say Stannisbut i dind him inssuferable, so Renly and after his death i pull out the fight.

[Adam Yozza]

Aegon's Conquest- Immediately swear to Aegon. To do otherwise is to gamble unneccisarilly.

Maegor's Rebellions- Hate to admit it but would pay lip service to Maegor while undermining him until Jahaerys was ready. Aegon was doomed, the Faith is really no better and I'm not giving that psycho a reason to come to my doorstep.

The Dance- Black, through and through. They had far more likeable than the Green's, a better claim than the Green's, more dragons and a better ruler (kinda). Plus they pretty much won in the end.

Daeron's Conquest- Assuming I'm not living in Dorne, the answer should be obvious

The Blackfyre Rebellion- Tough one. I like both claimants, but dislike both of the 'power-behind-the-throne' types, Bittersteel and Bloodraven.

The 2nd, 4th and 5th Blackfyre Rebellions- Loyalist, because they had no chance.

3rd Blackfyre Rebellion- Don't know. Seems like they might have had a decent shot, and Aerys/Bloodraven combo was an awful situation. But then Haegon might be no better.

Ninepenny- Targ.

Roberts Rebellion- Rebels all the way.

War of the Five Kings- Robb because his is the cause I'm most sympathetic to and his misfortunes are the easiest to correct or Stannis because he's the one with an actual strong claim.

[Adam Yozza]

13 hours ago, The Jingo said:

• Dance of the Dragons? The Greens. I know a lot of people tend to see it as solely a gendered issue, but my opinion is that the Great Council should be adhered to. Jaehaerys invited the lords to decide the succession and they did so.
  
  You can think of it as kind of a proto Magna Carta. The first time a Targaryen king explicitly submitted to will of the lords of the realm. The Blacks might have a better ruler (though that's questionable since we later saw Rhaenyra as a proto-Cersei during Fire and Blood), but a victory for the Blacks is a victory for royal absolutism.

Except for a few problems.

1) The Great Council didn't set any iron law, only a precedent, and precedents can be ignored. The oldest son inheriting was a precedent held by all of Westeros but Maegor ignored it and they still consider him a legitimate king. If they wanted their decision binding they should have insisted on it being made a law.

2) The Great Council didn't actually decide who should be the heir. Not so directly anyway. They were asked their opinion that Jahaerys then took into consideration. He chose based on the council's decision, but it was still his choice to follow or disregard. If the Lords had overwhelmingly voted for one of Saera's bastards, he would have ignored them I'm sure. Which leads me to

3) The Great Council were voting for whether a Kings granddaughter by his deceased first son should be heir, or the Kings second son. They chose the second son. Otto Hightower; a mastermind of the Green conspiracy; undermined the precedent set by this decision when he actively moved to have Rhaneyra sworn in as heir over Daemon, who; by two separate precedents; should have been Viserys heir. So for the Green's to use the Great Council as a justification is the height of hypocrasy.

4) Whether you like it or not, the Iron Throne is an absolute monarchy, at least at this point in time (they had dragons, thats as absolute as it gets). No one below them has any legal authority to challenge the King. Maegor was an evil and cruel tyrant, but until he died all those who fought against him were traitors because as long as he was alive, everything he said and did was legal. Therefore, Viserys was well within his rights to choose Rhaenyra as heir over Aegon.

If that wasn't lawful, then Aerys disinheriting Aegon for Viserys isn't either, and that's an argument I see people using in favour of Dany all the time (not as often on this site)

[Adam Yozza]

On 1/16/2020 at 12:07 AM, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

IMO, there is no legitimate reason to support the Targaryens at any point throughout history. Aegon took power by overthrowing local Westerosi rulers, so he isn't any more of a "rightful" king than anyone of the claimants that came later. I mean the Blackfyres, Robert, Renly, Stannis, Euron... etc. Not his direct Targaryen descendants.

No but its suicide by dragon to oppose him...to me thats a very legit reason.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

4 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

No but its suicide by dragon to oppose him...to me that's a very legit reason.

I mean that I wouldn't support Dany just because the Targaryens have a "legitimate" claim to the Iron Throne, for example.

[Rose of Red Lake]

No one, best trust your own judgement and always, always be skeptical. 

[Adam Yozza]

18 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I mean that I wouldn't support Dany just because the Targaryens have a "legitimate" claim to the Iron Throne, for example.

Feel like you're picking the worst examples here tbh. Nah, I agree. I wouldn't support her because of her 'claim' to the throne. However, given the positions of the other candidates at the end of Dance and the fact that Dany has three dragons, I'd be inclined to support her for that reason.

[The Jingo]

14 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

IMHO, if the Great Council settled any precedent, it's that unclear successions should have been voted in a Great Council. This is what the Greens should have done after Viserys I's death. In the Great Councils people vote between particular candidates, not general succession principles or amendments to inheritance laws.

There is a point is asserting that the original Great Council set the precedent of deciding the succession when it's unclear, but I'd argue that the succession to the Iron Throne never was unclear at the time of the Dance.

The entire realm north of Dorne operates on the principle that a son (even if younger) inherits before a daughter, and the Great Council decided that they would rather see a younger brother inherit the crown than a daughter. Aegon was the heir both by the customs of the Andals and First Men (though not the Rhoynar), and he was also the heir based on the reasoning used at the first Great Council.

If we treat this as merely a 'suggestion' rather than a lega precedent then it raises the possibility of all other lines of inheritance just being suggestions. Why privilege a son over a daughter? Why privilege older siblings over younger ones? Why privilege close relatives over distant ones? Every single lord can just pick whoever he wants as heir then, and damn the consequences for stability.

Unless you assert the crown is special in this regard and can pick its own heir while other lower lords can't? Which is fine, but which circles back around to my original point that then we're comparing constitutionalism and absolutism. Can the king be expected to follow the expectations of those beneath him, or can he just do whatever he likes?

6 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Except for a few problems.

1) The Great Council didn't set any iron law, only a precedent, and precedents can be ignored. The oldest son inheriting was a precedent held by all of Westeros but Maegor ignored it and they still consider him a legitimate king. If they wanted their decision binding they should have insisted on it being made a law.

Maegor was a usurper, but then he won a Trial by Seven. This makes things murky because while Aegon the Uncrowned was the legitimate heir by law, the Targaryen dynasty as a whole claims divine right. And since Trials by Seven are taken as an example of divine right, then that supersedes the law of men. I suppose the idea is that the laws of men matter, but the laws of the gods matter more.

Quote

2) The Great Council didn't actually decide who should be the heir. Not so directly anyway. They were asked their opinion that Jahaerys then took into consideration. He chose based on the council's decision, but it was still his choice to follow or disregard. If the Lords had overwhelmingly voted for one of Saera's bastards, he would have ignored them I'm sure. Which leads me to

Actually, while I haven't read Fire and Blood myself I'm under the impression that Jaehaerys claimed he would uphold whatever decision that Great Council decided. It is perhaps true that he would have resisted if they chose a bastard heir, but that didn't happen. What happened was he called them together and gave them the list of heirs and then promised to make whomever they chose his successor and then he did so.

And I think there's a leap in logic if we look at this series of events and go "well ACTUALLY Jaehaerys was just gonna do whatever he wanted and only made a rubber stamp to keep people happy" when we have no indication of such motivates.

Quote

3) The Great Council were voting for whether a Kings granddaughter by his deceased first son should be heir, or the Kings second son. They chose the second son. Otto Hightower; a mastermind of the Green conspiracy; undermined the precedent set by this decision when he actively moved to have Rhaneyra sworn in as heir over Daemon, who; by two separate precedents; should have been Viserys heir. So for the Green's to use the Great Council as a justification is the height of hypocrasy.

That wasn't quite the thought process. With Aegon it was either because 'hey this guy is the heir by all the precedents so it's easy let's crown him'. But prior to Aegon's birth there was a legitimate fear that Daemon would inherit the throne and ruin the realm.

Otto's decisions don't represent hypocrisy so much as pragmatism in the face of adversity. Yes, it's important to uphold the decisions of the lords and the crown shouldn't be so far above the people it rules. But if the cost of that following that ideal is that the realm suffers another Maegor, then perhaps it's best to support a more absolutist crown in the hopes of preventing that.

People talk about Ned Stark's honor, but I think Ned himself has an overly restrictive view of what is honourable and what isn't. Ned values keeping his word, but I don't think it's important to keep your word at the cost of thousands dead. As a peer of the realm it's important that Otto value stability in succession and the division of power between lords and kings, but not if the cost of that is the realm itself.

Quote

4) Whether you like it or not, the Iron Throne is an absolute monarchy, at least at this point in time (they had dragons, thats as absolute as it gets). No one below them has any legal authority to challenge the King. Maegor was an evil and cruel tyrant, but until he died all those who fought against him were traitors because as long as he was alive, everything he said and did was legal. Therefore, Viserys was well within his rights to choose Rhaenyra as heir over Aegon.

If that wasn't lawful, then Aerys disinheriting Aegon for Viserys isn't either, and that's an argument I see people using in favour of Dany all the time (not as often on this site)

- Westeros was never an absolute monarchy. It was always a feudal one, though the kings held different amounts of power throughout the dynasty. The king has power over the lords, but also has a responsibility towards them. He can't just do whatever he likes.

- Maegor as stated earlier was a special case. The legality of his succession is questionable due to the intersection of inheritance custom, divine right, and his victories in supposedly divinely sanction trials of combat.

- It was unlawful for Aerys to disinherit Rhaegar/Aegon in favour of Viserys. Aerys' decisions in general are of dubious weight since we know he was delusional and mentally incompetent, but beyond that Aegon still had the right by the laws and customs of the realm. As I said, the king can't just do whatever he likes. Allowing that is privileging absolutism over constitutionalism, which can be done admittedly, but I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the monarch has absolute authority to do anything he likes all the time.

If that were the case there was nothing wrong with Aerys simply murdering the Starks and anyone that protests this is a reprehensible traitor.

I also feel that the case of Aegon v. Daenerys is unique. We don't know if Young Griff is legitimate or not, and if he is that still doesn't mean Daenerys can't take the throne. She can claim it simply by right of conquest, and there's also possibility her dragons serve as proof of divine favour in the way that Maegar's victories in the Trial of Seven serves as that kind of proof.

[frenin]

11 hours ago, The Jingo said:

There is a point is asserting that the original Great Council set the precedent of deciding the succession when it's unclear, but I'd argue that the succession to the Iron Throne never was unclear at the time of the Dance.

The entire realm north of Dorne operates on the principle that a son (even if younger) inherits before a daughter, and the Great Council decided that they would rather see a younger brother inherit the crown than a daughter. Aegon was the heir both by the customs of the Andals and First Men (though not the Rhoynar), and he was also the heir based on the reasoning used at the first Great Council.

 If we treat this as merely a 'suggestion' rather than a lega precedent then it raises the possibility of all other lines of inheritance just being suggestions. Why privilege a son over a daughter? Why privilege older siblings over younger ones? Why privilege close relatives over distant ones? Every single lord can just pick whoever he wants as heir then, and damn the consequences for stability.

Unless you assert the crown is special in this regard and can pick its own heir while other lower lords can't? Which is fine, but which circles back around to my original point that then we're comparing constitutionalism and absolutism. Can the king be expected to follow the expectations of those beneath him, or can he just do whatever he likes?

Maegor was a usurper, but then he won a Trial by Seven. This makes things murky because while Aegon the Uncrowned was the legitimate heir by law, the Targaryen dynasty as a whole claims divine right. And since Trials by Seven are taken as an example of divine right, then that supersedes the law of men. I suppose the idea is that the laws of men matter, but the laws of the gods matter more.

Actually, while I haven't read Fire and Blood myself I'm under the impression that Jaehaerys claimed he would uphold whatever decision that Great Council decided. It is perhaps true that he would have resisted if they chose a bastard heir, but that didn't happen. What happened was he called them together and gave them the list of heirs and then promised to make whomever they chose his successor and then he did so.

And I think there's a leap in logic if we look at this series of events and go "well ACTUALLY Jaehaerys was just gonna do whatever he wanted and only made a rubber stamp to keep people happy" when we have no indication of such motivates.

That wasn't quite the thought process. With Aegon it was either because 'hey this guy is the heir by all the precedents so it's easy let's crown him'. But prior to Aegon's birth there was a legitimate fear that Daemon would inherit the throne and ruin the realm.

Otto's decisions don't represent hypocrisy so much as pragmatism in the face of adversity. Yes, it's important to uphold the decisions of the lords and the crown shouldn't be so far above the people it rules. But if the cost of that following that ideal is that the realm suffers another Maegor, then perhaps it's best to support a more absolutist crown in the hopes of preventing that.

People talk about Ned Stark's honor, but I think Ned himself has an overly restrictive view of what is honourable and what isn't. Ned values keeping his word, but I don't think it's important to keep your word at the cost of thousands dead. As a peer of the realm it's important that Otto value stability in succession and the division of power between lords and kings, but not if the cost of that is the realm itself.

- Westeros was never an absolute monarchy. It was always a feudal one, though the kings held different amounts of power throughout the dynasty. The king has power over the lords, but also has a responsibility towards them. He can't just do whatever he likes.

 - Maegor as stated earlier was a special case. The legality of his succession is questionable due to the intersection of inheritance custom, divine right, and his victories in supposedly divinely sanction trials of combat.

- It was unlawful for Aerys to disinherit Rhaegar/Aegon in favour of Viserys. Aerys' decisions in general are of dubious weight since we know he was delusional and mentally incompetent, but beyond that Aegon still had the right by the laws and customs of the realm. As I said, the king can't just do whatever he likes. Allowing that is privileging absolutism over constitutionalism, which can be done admittedly, but I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the monarch has absolute authority to do anything he likes all the time.

If that were the case there was nothing wrong with Aerys simply murdering the Starks and anyone that protests this is a reprehensible traitor.

I also feel that the case of Aegon v. Daenerys is unique. We don't know if Young Griff is legitimate or not, and if he is that still doesn't mean Daenerys can't take the throne. She can claim it simply by right of conquest, and there's also possibility her dragons serve as proof of divine favour in the way that Maegar's victories in the Trial of Seven serves as that kind of proof.

Hard disagree about practically everything, but i think there are threads to discuss the Dance.

[OberynBlackfyre]

Considering I always consider myself a Dornisher/Marcher Lord that would legitimately have ties to both the Reach and Red Mountain Dornish Lords, I think I would take a page from the Hightower’s and wait out many things. 
 

for Aegons Conquest- id send a token force along with the Gardener King but keep back much of my bannermen to see how it plays out. After Field of Fire I’d be staunch Targaryen supporter and try to spread that influence within my realm, maybe even send envoy to my liege lord Hightower. 
 

Dance of the Dragons- it would really depend on what either side offered me. I’d gladly support the Blacks to give them a base close to Oldtown, but I would want a dragon support 24/7 and the power to gain at least double of my current land. After the Battle of the Gods Eye I think I would go to Hightower and sue for peace as long as all lands and titles remained intact....since there’s no one left to give them to.  
 

Roberts Rebellion- Honestly much of my forces would probably be hanging out with the Tyrells at Storms End.