The Rebels. Targets of divine retribution.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, King17 said:

I mean Dany is planning to eventually invade 7 kingdoms which will cause millions to die all of which could've been avoided if she had been butchered as a baby. The killing of children is terrible but I don't think it's as black and white as some think.

Of course, one can keep on murdering any child who has a potential claim to the Iron Throne - and tell yourself you’re saving lives, if it helps you sleep at night.  If you find out about Jon Snow, then of course, you kill him too, because he’s a threat.  Kill young Griff too, if you find out about him, as well. The better course of action is to to punish child murderers and offer your enemies’ children their lives, in the first place. 

Once you’ve started off down the path of condoning child murder, and rewarding the murderer, and threatening the lives of women and children, you don’t have any right to claim this is something you’re doing for the good of the Realm.

If one looks at things in purely consequential terms, then killing Dany as a baby would mean that the Seven Kingdoms would eventually end up buried in ice, not that Robert would know that.  But evil acts frequently have evil consequences. 

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

The Targaryens had the Tyrells and they were extorting the Martells. How is that half the Realm?

Rickon isn't making any plans and yet Wyman helps him.  Why? Because the Starks have earned the loyalty of the majority of their people. 

They might be all that but right now no one actually have come forward. When on the other hand we have Lyanna Mormont, the Wull, Manderley to have proclamed their loyalty

.The people didn't have any other choice. While the Targaryens had the dragons they would have committed suicide if they did not answer to the King's call, Harrenhall is a proof of what the dragons do. When it comes to Dorne for example, why the Starks had to die in Dorne? The only reason is because the King ordered them to die for his own vanity.

I don’t agree. If one Lord with an army of 10 people fights with another with 30 people army in a very small area the worst case scenario is that 40 people will die in a small area. When the King orders 500 Northmen to go and fight at the South both the casualties will be greater because there are bigger armies and the area that is affected by the war is much greater. Small wars little destruction, Westeros wide war, greater casualties severe destruction. 

The Reach is by far the most populous part of the Seven Kingdoms, half as big again as medieval France.   Ser Kevan comments internally that Mace fought for the Targaryens to the bitter end and beyond. They had the Martells, a bunch of River Lords, and the Crownlands, even under a lunatic like Aerys II.  Robert’s justification to Ned for killing Dany is that half the lords would rise against him, if Viserys turned up with the Dothraki. Robert knows he can’t count on widespread loyalty.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Reach is by far the most populous part of the Seven Kingdoms, half as big again as medieval France.   Ser Kevan comments internally that Mace fought for the Targaryens to the bitter end and beyond. They had the Martells, a bunch of River Lords, and the Crownlands, even under a lunatic like Aerys II.  Robert’s justification to Ned for killing Dany is that half the lords would rise against him, if Viserys turned up with the Dothraki. Robert knows he can’t count on widespread loyalty.

They had the Reach, they ere extorting the Martells, Crownlands were Targaryen lands and they had Darrys, Goodbrooks, Mootons, and Rygers from Riverlands. Still it isn't half of the realm. If the Targaryens had the loyalty of their people they wouldn't need the Dothraki they would had their loyal people as their army.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Well. no Dany no invasion, it's not like Robert could know that the Khal was not interested or that Jorah would be tip off by Varys.

Viewed coldly, the hit was amateurish in the extreme, and came far closer to success than it had any right to.  

One always has to consider what happens if (a) one’s involvement in a murder plot is discovered (b) if it misses the target.  If you aim for the khaleesi, you’d better not miss.  Even if Dany had been poisoned, but Drogo learned Robert was behind it, I don’t doubt he would have been coming for him. This would have suited Varys, Illyrio & co. very well.

Robert got lucky, in that Viserys got himself killed, and Drogo got a poisoned wound.  Had neither happened, his murder attempt would have precipitated what he was seeking to avoid.

 

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

The Targaryens had the Tyrells and they were extorting the Martells. How is that half the Realm?

They had the Reach and Dorne and the Crownlands ... and half the Riverlands, the Graftons of the Vale, and three Stormlords.

And at the Trident Rhaegar had more men than Robert.

25 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Rickon isn't making any plans and yet Wyman helps him.  Why? Because the Starks have earned the loyalty of the majority of their people. 

No, because Wyman tries to use Rickon as a pawn against Roose's 'Arya'. And he is actually a traitor in doing this, since technically Brandon Stark would be Robb's rightful heir and successor, not Rickon. And Wyman knows that both Stark boys are still alive. By installing Rickon as new Lord of Winterfell, Wyman could put House Stark against themselves.

25 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

They might be all that but right now no one actually have come forward. When on the other hand we have Lyanna Mormont, the Wull, Manderley to have proclamed their loyalty

Why should anyone come forward, when no Targaryens have shown up so far?

The Northmen want to prevent the rise of the Boltons in the North, that's something the Targaryen loyalists no longer could do in regards to the Iron Throne after the Sack.

And to be sure - Manderly hasn't publicly declared himself yet, Lyanna Mormont is basically no one, and the clansmen stand with Stannis, not the Starks.

25 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

.The people didn't have any other choice. While the Targaryens had the dragons they would have committed suicide if they did not answer to the King's call, Harrenhall is a proof of what the dragons do. When it comes to Dorne for example, why the Starks had to die in Dorne? The only reason is because the King ordered them to die for his own vanity.

That's just nonsense. We don't know why Cregan Stark's heir died in Dorne, but chances are not that bad that the guy wanted to fight in this war. Daeron I would not have been dependent on support from the North to conquer Dorne. But the idea that they were forced to give such support is based on ... nothing.

Just as they weren't forced to fight for Rhaenyra during the Dance.

Also, if you check Maegor's campaign - the first guy to declare for him - with Balerion and Vhagar being right there - wasn't some lord or knight afraid for his castle and stuff ... but the humble Kingslander Dick Bean, a man who had been a king's man all his life and wanted to die a king's man.

That's the basis of the Targaryen power. These people are loved by their subjects, especially the commoners. They are very much their champions, especially in more recent years when you think about Aegon V and his son Duncan who even married a commoner. No Stark or other great lord ever did that.

Also, the great lords were also fine with no supporting the Targaryens. No great lord aside from the Lord Tully ever fought for Maegor, for instance, during the Dance some great lords took to the field, but their bannermen also acted on their own accord, depending which pretender they preferred. And it was the same with the Blackfyre Rebellions were no great lord openly supported a Blackfyre pretender ... but their bannermen did.

25 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I don’t agree. If one Lord with an army of 10 people fights with another with 30 people army in a very small area the worst case scenario is that 40 people will die in a small area. When the King orders 500 Northmen to go and fight at the South both the casualties will be greater because there are bigger armies and the area that is affected by the war is much greater. Small wars little destruction, Westeros wide war, greater casualties severe destruction. 

But even the big Targaryen wars didn't really affect much of Westeros. In fact, it seems the War of the Five Kings is the most devastating war so far, involving battle fields in all the regions of the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne and the Vale so far.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Targaryen wars were all very short, especially the civil wars.

Whereas before the Conquest there was constant war pretty much everywhere ... and no central authority properly enforcing peace.

If you have perpetual civil war of the type the Osgreys and Webbers had in TSS (or basically the eternal Bracken-Blackwood feud) then you will have constant raids, skirmishes, attacks, etc. And that will meet constant suffering for the people involved.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

They had the Reach, they ere extorting the Martells, Crownlands were Targaryen lands and they had Darrys, Goodbrooks, Mootons, and Rygers from Riverlands. Still it isn't half of the realm. If the Targaryens had the loyalty of their people they wouldn't need the Dothraki they would had their loyal people as their army.

The Martells might hate Rhaegar, but they had every reason to fight Robert on behalf of Elia’s children.

And if Robert thinks half the lords would rise against him, who am I to disagree?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

Just now, SeanF said:

The Martells might hate Rhaegar, but they had every reason to fight Robert on behalf of Elia’s children.

I don't remember them hating Robert. They were hating Tywin not Robert.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They had the Reach and Dorne and the Crownlands ... and half the Riverlands, the Graftons of the Vale, and three Stormlords.

Four houses and not even four of the most powerful are not half the Riverlands,

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, because Wyman tries to use Rickon as a pawn against Roose's 'Arya'. And he is actually a traitor in doing this, since technically Brandon Stark would be Robb's rightful heir and successor, not Rickon. And Wyman knows that both Stark boys are still alive. By installing Rickon as new Lord of Winterfell, Wyman could put House Stark against themselves.

 

Rickon is still a most valuable heir than Bran who no one knows where he is. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should anyone come forward, when no Targaryens have shown up so far?

They all knew were the Targaryen were for the last 16 years and no one cared.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Northmen want to prevent the rise of the Boltons in the North, that's something the Targaryen loyalists no longer could do in regards to the Iron Throne after the Sack.

And to be sure - Manderly hasn't publicly declared himself yet, Lyanna Mormont is basically no one, and the clansmen stand with Stannis, not the Starks.

 

Being basically no one but still a noble House is still better than who exactly for the Targaryens? 

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just nonsense. We don't know why Cregan Stark's heir died in Dorne, but chances are not that bad that the guy wanted to fight in this war. Daeron I would not have been dependent on support from the North to conquer Dorne. But the idea that they were forced to give such support is based on ... nothing.

Just as they weren't forced to fight for Rhaenyra during the Dance.

Also, if you check Maegor's campaign - the first guy to declare for him - with Balerion and Vhagar being right there - wasn't some lord or knight afraid for his castle and stuff ... but the humble Kingslander Dick Bean, a man who had been a king's man all his life and wanted to die a king's man.

That's the basis of the Targaryen power. These people are loved by their subjects, especially the commoners. They are very much their champions, especially in more recent years when you think about Aegon V and his son Duncan who even married a commoner. No Stark or other great lord ever did that.

Also, the great lords were also fine with no supporting the Targaryens. No great lord aside from the Lord Tully ever fought for Maegor, for instance, during the Dance some great lords took to the field, but their bannermen also acted on their own accord, depending which pretender they preferred. And it was the same with the Blackfyre Rebellions were no great lord openly supported a Blackfyre pretender ... but their bannermen did.

They never had the choice of not fighting because if they didn’t that would mean that they were committing insubordination and treason. Even lady Dustin said that she had to send help to Robb who didn’t had dragons.  People died for Daeron’s vanity, for Daemon’s and Aegon’s ambitions, for Rhaegar’s hormones, for Maegor’s evilness, for Aegon’s depravity, for Aerys’ madness. People all around Westeros died because the Targaryen as a family couldn't put their family's affairs in order.

Also people died exactly because Duncan broke his betrothal.

Quote

The Prince of Dragonflies loved Jenny of Oldstones so much he cast aside a crown, and Westeros paid the price in corpses.

The Targaryens are like every foreigner power with a top notch assault weapon system that attack a country with medieval weapons and conquered that country. They place themselves as the despot of the country, create bloodbath and insult everything that the native people keep sacret. Then they drag the country to war because of their vanity, madness and depravity. They never integrate in the Westerosi society, they never wanted to and they never even tried. The result was to alienate themselves from the same people they should have earn for their favour and that is why they ended up losing. If they were loved they wouldn’t’ had declined in power once their dragons died. If they had their loyalty the other houses wouldn’t had answered to the call of their Lords for rebellion.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

There is a longing on the part of the people for the return of the dragons.  It has been many years since the exile of King Viserys III and his sister, Princess Daenerys.  KVIII is dead and succeeded by the princess.  People are still plotting to return them to Westeros.  That is a lot of loyalty.  Let's compare this to the Stark restoration plot.  I doubt if anybody outside of the remaining Starks would care about their restoration after 17 years.  The North would have moved on and accepted Roose Bolton. 

 

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

8 hours ago, Jay21 said:

Maybe Robert's Rebellion and it's consequent ruin of the kingdoms is the divine retribution upon Westeros for kneeling to the Dragon in the first place.

It's hard to look at the mess of Westeros and suss out how things should be. Having a Targ on the throne didn't fix the seasons though, so whatever 'god' was watching wasn't visibly impressed by the Conquest.

 

 

 

The ruin of the kingdom happened because the Baratheons and the Starks are not up to the job of ruling seven kingdoms.  Divine had nothing to do with it.  Kneeling to the Dragon was the smartest thing ever done by a Stark.  It led to prosperity. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Four houses and not even four of the most powerful are not half the Riverlands,

Oh, the Mootons and Whents and Darrys were pretty powerful, all things considered.

But half the Realm is also based on the fact that the Reach is the most populous region, and the Tyrells ensured that the Stormlands effectively stayed out of the war after Robert had to flee after the Battle of Ashford.

Quote

Rickon is still a most valuable heir than Bran who no one knows where he is.

That is irrelevant. He Robb's eldest living brother and the rightful heir and Manderly knows he is alive. Making Rickon a lord without figuring out where Bran is is simply treason, and could cause another civil war further down the road.

Quote

They all knew were the Targaryen were for the last 16 years and no one cared.

That's just a baseless statement. Nobody went to Essos and nobody brought them back ... but what's your basis for 'no one cared'?

Quote

Being basically no one but still a noble House is still better than who exactly for the Targaryens? 

Lyanna Mormont doesn rule House Mormont, Maege Mormont is still alive and her eldest living daughter Alysane - who is with Stannis, not some fantasy 'King Stark' - directs House Mormont in the North. Lyanna expresses the same feelings as Wylla Manderly does - but neither is a ruling lady.

Quote

They never had the choice of not fighting because if they didn’t that would mean that they were committing insubordination and treason. Even lady Dustin said that she had to send help to Robb who didn’t had dragons.  People died for Daeron’s vanity, for Daemon’s and Aegon’s ambitions, for Rhaegar’s hormones, for Maegor’s evilness, for Aegon’s depravity, for Aerys’ madness. People all around Westeros died because the Targaryen as a family couldn't put their family's affairs in order.

Robb called upon Dustin men, so, yes, Lady Dustin had to look supportive. But the Targaryens mostly didn't bother calling on their great lords. Their loyal subjects just answered their call regardless. Just look at the Second Blackfyre Rebellion. Bloodraven crushes it without calling on the Tullys. And you see that throughout the entirety of the Targaryen era. Sometimes they ask the great houses to do something - and they do - but they don't have to.

Quote

Also people died exactly because Duncan broke his betrothal.

Sure, but they loved and adored him and Jenny either way. The people of Westeros aren't a certain group of the fanbase who loathe the Targaryens for some strange reason - they loved them, because they made things better for all. It is really that simple.

Even the great lords were happy with how things turned out - or else they would have taken up their crowns again when the dragons were gone. The Lannisters and Arryns with their impregnable castles - and the Starks with their gigantic domain - could certainly have tried. But nobody had an interest in ripping the Targaryen Realm apart.

It took Robert's usurpation, the implosion of the Baratheon dynasty, and grasping, overreaching Lannisters committing a series of very heinous acts to reach that point.

And that's because the Baratheons do not represent the same kind of unity as the Targaryens. They lack their gravitas, they don't have the same prestige. Robert is pretty much a Targaryen himself, but he doesn't look the part, and he goes by a different name.

Quote

The Targaryens are like every foreigner power with a top notch assault weapon system that attack a country with medieval weapons and conquered that country. They place themselves as the despot of the country, create bloodbath and insult everything that the native people keep sacret. Then they drag the country to war because of their vanity, madness and depravity. They never integrate in the Westerosi society, they never wanted to and they never even tried. The result was to alienate themselves from the same people they should have earn for their favour and that is why they ended up losing. If they were loved they wouldn’t’ had declined in power once their dragons died. If they had their loyalty the other houses wouldn’t had answered to the call of their Lords for rebellion.

That's just completely wrong.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

 

I don't remember them hating Robert. They were hating Tywin not Robert.

 

Four houses and not even four of the most powerful are not half the Riverlands,

 

Rickon is still a most valuable heir than Bran who no one knows where he is. 

 

They all knew were the Targaryen were for the last 16 years and no one cared.

 

Being basically no one but still a noble House is still better than who exactly for the Targaryens? 

They never had the choice of not fighting because if they didn’t that would mean that they were committing insubordination and treason. Even lady Dustin said that she had to send help to Robb who didn’t had dragons.  People died for Daeron’s vanity, for Daemon’s and Aegon’s ambitions, for Rhaegar’s hormones, for Maegor’s evilness, for Aegon’s depravity, for Aerys’ madness. People all around Westeros died because the Targaryen as a family couldn't put their family's affairs in order.

Also people died exactly because Duncan broke his betrothal.

The Targaryens are like every foreigner power with a top notch assault weapon system that attack a country with medieval weapons and conquered that country. They place themselves as the despot of the country, create bloodbath and insult everything that the native people keep sacret. Then they drag the country to war because of their vanity, madness and depravity. They never integrate in the Westerosi society, they never wanted to and they never even tried. The result was to alienate themselves from the same people they should have earn for their favour and that is why they ended up losing. If they were loved they wouldn’t’ had declined in power once their dragons died. If they had their loyalty the other houses wouldn’t had answered to the call of their Lords for rebellion.

Robert was fighting to deprive Elia’s children of their inheritance.  Of course the Martells viewed him as an enemy, during the war.  They had plenty of reason to dislike both Aerys and Rhaegar, but they had every reason to fight the rebels.

This is like calling the House of Windsor  a foreign power because George I  was a German.   The Targaryens were lords or kings in Westeros for 400 years.  You might just as  well call any lord descended from the Andals a foreign power.

The idea they created a bloodbath, or suppressed what the locals thought sacred, or failed to integrate is nowhere supported in the histories.  Even without dragons, they ruled for 150 years, until Aerys screwed the pooch.  The Targaryens were like Alfred the Great and his successors, who created one kingdom out of seven.

I think one can assume that fAegon will attract a lot of support, at least to begin with, precisely because people think he’s a Targaryen.

[frenin]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

 But evil acts frequently have evil consequences. 

That's hard to believe in a saga that tries really hard to be realpolitik and you're good=fool.

 

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Viewed coldly, the hit was amateurish in the extreme, and came far closer to success than it had any right to.  

One always has to consider what happens if (a) one’s involvement in a murder plot is discovered (b) if it misses the target.  If you aim for the khaleesi, you’d better not miss.  Even if Dany had been poisoned, but Drogo learned Robert was behind it, I don’t doubt he would have been coming for him. This would have suited Varys, Illyrio & co. very well.

Robert got lucky, in that Viserys got himself killed, and Drogo got a poisoned wound.  Had neither happened, his murder attempt would have precipitated what he was seeking to avoid.

 

I find it hard to believe, the only reason the hit failed and blew up so spectacularly was because Jorah was warned beforehanded. Finally giving Varys and Illyrio the war they were hoping for.

If Dany gets killed and the preparations for war are tedious, Dony finds a new toy... There are many ifs in between. I'd say that the assasination plan was risky, yet nothing comes without a price. And for the council it was either avoid a war that was coming or try to avoid the war that was coming but fail.

They could not know that Drogo was not about to honor his word.

 

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But even the big Targaryen wars didn't really affect much of Westeros. In fact, it seems the War of the Five Kings is the most devastating war so far, involving battle fields in all the regions of the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne and the Vale so far.

Even when the rest of your comments are half true, at best. The most devastating war in Westeros is stated to have been the Dance of the Dragons...And the First Dornish war.

 

 

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

And if Robert thinks half the lords would rise against him, who am I to disagree?

Well, someone who had read the books might disagree with you, Robert never thinks or says that half the lords would rise against him. 

Especially because that's pretty much impossible by the beginning of AGOT.

The rebels had consolidated their power in their domains and purge or make amends with the loyalists, Darrys or Goodbroks for example,united the Realm against a common foe like the Ironborn and slowly but firmly started to erode the loyalist base in the Reach, the Florents married into the Baratheons and Loras was squire and constant companion, pretty good hostage if needed be, of Renly's, Mace's favourite son grew up in a world in which anti Targ was the norm and so did his sons,  Renly was fairly beloved by powerful Reach lords etc... And Robert still, nominally,  commanded the greatest coalition by far.

Even after that coalition breaks after Robert's and Eddard's death, there's no way the Targlings can have a say since the new men in power had no reason for longing for the return of the dragons. The only reason why the Golden Company decided to attack was because Tywin is dead,  and with him gone there are more likely to find supporters... And even with Tyrion's divine intervertion, Varys has to kill the last competent Lannister leader... because Kevan would have united his coalition, which was half the Realm mind you, to destroy the Golden Company

Without dragons, since dragons trump them all, it takes the complete destruction of Robert's coalition, the destruction of their lands, the deaths of the old guard and the deaths of the new guard, Cersei and a toddler in power for any loyalist to show his face.  If you don't have several people swearing to god that they were always loyal, it'd be confusing to say the least. 

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

I find it hard to believe, the only reason the hit failed and blew up so spectacularly was because Jorah was warned beforehanded. Finally giving Varys and Illyrio the war they were hoping for.

If Dany gets killed and the preparations for war are tedious, Dony finds a new toy... There are many ifs in between. I'd say that the assasination plan was risky, yet nothing comes without a price. And for the council it was either avoid a war that was coming or try to avoid the war that was coming but fail.

They could not know that Drogo was not about to honor his word.

 

Goodness and evil get punished in different ways in this tale.  Both Tywin and Robert face the complete extinction of their bloodlines, as a result of their own decisions.  The paradox is that Robert's failure to punish the murderers of Elia and her children, or to offer to spare Viserys and Rhaella, was not just wrong.  It was also very stupid.  It created problems for him quite needlessly.

LF ruled out a faceless man, but there were other professional assassins.  Instead, they offered a lordship to anyone who tried to kill a target thousands of miles away.  That's amateur hour. Varys obviously wanted a botched plot.  My suspicion is that LF did as well.  Civil war suits him just fine.

Re the Lords, I misremembered slightly, thinking of what he said in the show, but what he says in the book is not that different:

    "I tell  you,  Ned,  I do  not  like  this  marriage. There  are  still those in the Seven  Kingdoms  who  call  me Usurper.  Do you      forget  how    many    houses    fought    for Targaryen    in    the    war?    They    bide    their    time    for    now,    but    give    them    half    a    chance,    they    will murder    me    in    my    bed,    and    my    sons    with    me.    If    the    beggar    king    crosses    with    a    Dothraki horde    at    his    back,    the    traitors    will    join    him.” 

[frenin]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Goodness and evil get punished in different ways in this tale.

And rewarded in different ways in this tale. Almost all the Great Houses are full of child murderers, genocides and etc. And most of them survived because it's portrayed as big balls tough guy in action. Evil gets you Thrones and lasting dynasties just as much as it ends your line.

 

 

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Both Tywin and Robert face the complete extinction of their bloodlines, as a result of their own decisions. 

Well not really, the Baratheons are dying as a result of the cuckolding and Stannis's and Renly's decisions and there are tons of Lannisters, just as Robert left bastards to spare. 

I'm curious, if at the end of the day the Lannisters make it and the Baratheons survive via Robert's now legitimized bastard just as the show did... Would you consider them vindicated??

I find it a very absurd and resultadist take, when arguing morality we should not look for whether it pays off or not.

 

 

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The paradox is that Robert's failure to punish the murderers of Elia and her children, or to offer to spare Viserys and Rhaella, was not just wrong.  It was also very stupid.  It created problems for him quite needlessly.

I partially agree with the former, i find it needlessly cruel not even punishing Gregor and the other, the Martells would always want the Lannisters head however, which the rebels could not give, out of pragmatism, the Lannisters were ready to swear allegiance and offered much more in terms of manpower and resources whereas no one could tell whether the Dornish would be commited with the new regime even if the Baratheons did everything in their power to appease them and even if they did, the Lannisters still offered them more. I do find the marroage with Cersei bad.

 

I very much disagree with the former, the rebels could not spare Viserys and Rhaella, since they were not in their power, and Robert did concede to Jon Arryn and decided not to kill the Targlings when it was easy, and honestly convenient, to do so.

 

 

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Instead, they offered a lordship to anyone who tried to kill a target thousands of miles away. 

Did they?? I believe that the lordship bit is only mentioned by Jorah. Which is a better excuse than "my spymaster told me assasins were coming".

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Robert was fighting to deprive Elia’s children of their inheritance.  Of course the Martells viewed him as an enemy, during the war.  They had plenty of reason to dislike both Aerys and Rhaegar, but they had every reason to fight the rebels.

This is like calling the House of Windsor  a foreign power because George I  was a German.   The Targaryens were lords or kings in Westeros for 400 years.  You might just as  well call any lord descended from the Andals a foreign power.

The idea they created a bloodbath, or suppressed what the locals thought sacred, or failed to integrate is nowhere supported in the histories.  Even without dragons, they ruled for 150 years, until Aerys screwed the pooch.  The Targaryens were like Alfred the Great and his successors, who created one kingdom out of seven.

I think one can assume that fAegon will attract a lot of support, at least to begin with, precisely because people think he’s a Targaryen.

I haven’t seen them to claim that Robert was their enemy.  I guess that is because it wasn’t Robert who killed Elia and her children but Tywin. The only man they have moved against.

George I tried to be a part of the local society and from what I have read he hadn’t occupied Britain with nukes against villagers with sticks.

They created one from seven with Fire and Blood. Once the dragons died they starting losing their reputation and if not for people like Bloodraven they would had lost the Throne long before.

I think that fAegon will have supporters because he will appear as the saviour and he will have the Martells to support him. He will have at least some Westerosi support.

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I haven’t seen them to claim that Robert was their enemy.  I guess that is because it wasn’t Robert who killed Elia and her children but Tywin. The only man they have moved against.

George I tried to be a part of the local society and from what I have read he hadn’t occupied Britain with nukes against villagers with sticks.

They created one from seven with Fire and Blood. Once the dragons died they starting losing their reputation and if not for people like Bloodraven they would had lost the Throne long before.

I think that fAegon will have supporters because he will appear as the saviour and he will have the Martells to support him. He will have at least some Westerosi support.

They fought against Robert.  He was trying to dispossess Aegon and Rhaenys, remember?

George I never even bothered to learn English.  He and his son spent thirty two years fighting to hold the English throne.  He relied heavily on German soldiers to hold on to his kingdom.

The soldiers of Westeros are not villagers armed with sticks.  The Targaryens needed boots on the ground, to hold the country.  That meant they had to win over the people.  Which they did, by intermarriage with local lords, (plenty of lordly Houses have Targaryen ancestry) visiting the lords, adopting the local religion, creating a common currency and system of weights and measures, abolishing the first night etc. 

Likewise, Alfred, Edward, Athelstan, Edgar created one kingdom from seven through fire and blood.

[Quoth the raven,]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Of course, one can keep on murdering any child who has a potential claim to the Iron Throne - and tell yourself you’re saving lives, if it helps you sleep at night.  If you find out about Jon Snow, then of course, you kill him too, because he’s a threat.  Kill young Griff too, if you find out about him, as well. The better course of action is to to punish child murderers and offer your enemies’ children their lives, in the first place. 

Once you’ve started off down the path of condoning child murder, and rewarding the murderer, and threatening the lives of women and children, you don’t have any right to claim this is something you’re doing for the good of the Realm.

If one looks at things in purely consequential terms, then killing Dany as a baby would mean that the Seven Kingdoms would eventually end up buried in ice, not that Robert would know that.  But evil acts frequently have evil consequences. 

Evil acts frequently have negative consequences for the guilty.  But you know, selfish acts and bad decisions do too. 

 

[Lord Varys]

Overall, 'English king' is pretty much an oxymoron since1066 - and even before that all England was rarely ruled by an English king. But starting with William I English kings were first Norman French, then Angevin French (and from 1066 on Norman French was the official court and government language which only changed at the end of the 14th century ... and modern English still is somewhat of a pigeon French), then Welsh, them Scot, then briefly sort of Dutch, then German, and eventually even more German, and German again (with the Battenbergs taking over when the Windsor line ends with Elizabeth II).

The entire irrational fear of the English to be overrun by 'the Hun' is completely baseless considering they are ruled by them since the early 18th century. Name changes do not change who those people actually are.

They might become English when a new female monarch ends up marrying an actual Englishman ... but I'm not holding my breath that that ever happens ;-).

The Targaryens were successful because they were foreigners - they stood above the petty squabbles of the great houses, which enabled them to be accepted by all. A fellow Westerosi king conquering another kingdom - like Hoares and Durrandons did - was never really accepted because it was a humiliation to be bested by one of your traditional enemies/allies. But to the Targaryens the kings could all bow to without losing face. And that continued after the dragons were gone ... to the point that even the Greatjon admits that it is the absence of the Targaryens that makes the secession nonsense a promising idea. And it was the same with Balon Greyjoy earlier.

Robert Baratheon isn't worthy or prestigious enough to sit the Iron Throne - because he isn't viewed as a Targaryen despite his royal blood, he is more a peer of the great lords than a guy they expected and wanted to be king.

You also have that kind of thing in England when Henry of Bolingbroke deposed Richard II and usurped the throne. Yes, the guy had royal blood and was the grandson of a king, but he was still just a peer of the kingdom, not a royal prince expected to inherit. Coming to a throne from such relative humble roots makes you and your dynasty look less royal than if you follow your father on the throne (which is why there is a great difference between the deposition of Edward II and Richard II - the former was succeeded by his rightful heir, whereas the latter wasn't - just as Aerys II).

Even if the succession goes peaceful - you look bad if you are just a king's cousin which happened when the French crown passed from the Capets to the Valois and later to the Bourbons.

But the Targaryens are never viewed or attacked as 'foreigners' in the books by their subjects. That's just a weird, baseless concept certain parts of the fandom seem to want to read into the story. It isn't there. And despite the fact that the Targaryens are pretty much based on the Norman/Platagenet kings of England - they went much, much more native than the English kings ever did. They already spoke the Common Tongue and followed the majority religion at the time of the Conquest, they made themselves a silly banner, they sponsored chivalry and Westerosi arts, etc.

They didn't force their language or religion on the conquered, they didn't force them to change to their system of feudalism (like William the Conqueror did), they didn't dispossess the old aristocracy and pushed only their own people into high offices, etc.

The only thing they did is marry within the own family - which is basically a private thing. It had nothing to do with their subjects' daily lives.

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Overall, 'English king' is pretty much an oxymoron since1066 - and even before that all England was rarely ruled by an English king. But starting with William I English kings were first Norman French, then Angevin French (and from 1066 on Norman French was the official court and government language which only changed at the end of the 14th century ... and modern English still is somewhat of a pigeon French), then Welsh, them Scot, then briefly sort of Dutch, then German, and eventually even more German, and German again (with the Battenbergs taking over when the Windsor line ends with Elizabeth II).

The entire irrational fear of the English to be overrun by 'the Hun' is completely baseless considering they are ruled by them since the early 18th century. Name changes do not change who those people actually are.

They might become English when a new female monarch ends up marrying an actual Englishman ... but I'm not holding my breath that that ever happens ;-).

The Targaryens were successful because they were foreigners - they stood above the petty squabbles of the great houses, which enabled them to be accepted by all. A fellow Westerosi king conquering another kingdom - like Hoares and Durrandons did - was never really accepted because it was a humiliation to be bested by one of your traditional enemies/allies. But to the Targaryens the kings could all bow to without losing face. And that continued after the dragons were gone ... to the point that even the Greatjon admits that it is the absence of the Targaryens that makes the secession nonsense a promising idea. And it was the same with Balon Greyjoy earlier.

Robert Baratheon isn't worthy or prestigious enough to sit the Iron Throne - because he isn't viewed as a Targaryen despite his royal blood, he is more a peer of the great lords than a guy they expected and wanted to be king.

You also have that kind of thing in England when Henry of Bolingbroke deposed Richard II and usurped the throne. Yes, the guy had royal blood and was the grandson of a king, but he was still just a peer of the kingdom, not a royal prince expected to inherit. Coming to a throne from such relative humble roots makes you and your dynasty look less royal than if you follow your father on the throne (which is why there is a great difference between the deposition of Edward II and Richard II - the former was succeeded by his rightful heir, whereas the latter wasn't - just as Aerys II).

Even if the succession goes peaceful - you look bad if you are just a king's cousin which happened when the French crown passed from the Capets to the Valois and later to the Bourbons.

But the Targaryens are never viewed or attacked as 'foreigners' in the books by their subjects. That's just a weird, baseless concept certain parts of the fandom seem to want to read into the story. It isn't there. And despite the fact that the Targaryens are pretty much based on the Norman/Platagenet kings of England - they went much, much more native than the English kings ever did. They already spoke the Common Tongue and followed the majority religion at the time of the Conquest, they made themselves a silly banner, they sponsored chivalry and Westerosi arts, etc.

They didn't force their language or religion on the conquered, they didn't force them to change to their system of feudalism (like William the Conqueror did), they didn't dispossess the old aristocracy and pushed only their own people into high offices, etc.

The only thing they did is marry within the own family - which is basically a private thing. It had nothing to do with their subjects' daily lives.

Well, the House of Hanover/Guelph/Saxe-Coburg Gotha/Windsor has *become* English, even if it did not start that way.

It’s striking the extent to which England has been ruled by foreigners, even while insisting it isn’t, along with our willingness to invite in foreigners to solve our internal disputes.

But, yes, the Targaryens integrated with their subjects far more than many English monarchs.

[The Young Maester]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

then Welsh, them Scot, then briefly sort of Dutch, then German, and eventually even more German, and German again (with the Battenbergs taking over when the Windsor line ends with Elizabeth II).

Been a while since a proper Englishman/women sat on the throne. Ive met people that claim descent from Harold godwinson. Which kinda gives them a better claim than the current monarchs. Unless the windsors have godwinson blood.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert Baratheon isn't worthy or prestigious enough to sit the Iron Throne - because he isn't viewed as a Targaryen despite his royal blood, he is more a peer of the great lords than a guy they expected and wanted to be king.

You could treat the Baratheons as a cadet branch of the targaryens. However they obviously don’t have a unique status that makes them higher than the rest of the great lords. The York’s were royal dukes and technically considered 2nd to the king himself. However if they baratheons had a royal status like prince of dragonstone, and were clear favourites for small council positions, it would make it easier for people to accept a Baratheon king.

Only problem with the baratheons is that they would set a precedent in which any great house can usurp the current monarchs. Give it a couple decades and youll see a Lannister, or an Arryn sat on the iron throne.