Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moiraine Sedai

The Rebels. Targets of divine retribution.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Muffin King said:

The only incorrect thing Robert did was not actively trying to kill Viserys and Daenerys when they were young. That would have saved a lot of lives down the line.

Well, not really. Since the war of the 5 kings would still happen regardless, no dragons and no anti slavery movements tho.

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Eddard Stark loathes Tywin and Jaime because of what they pulled during the Sack, and he loathes Robert himself for the fact that he did not punish them.

Sure but a strained relationship is not a broken one, else Ned would not have put down Balon's Rebellion alongside Tywin and Robert.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is basically a main motivating factor of the War of the Five Kings

No, it isn't. Since at no point Cersei cuckolds Robert out of revenge.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And Ned is in a very real sense destroyed by this murder because Robert not punishing the Lannisters for their crimes is what causes him to fear that Robert might also murder Cersei's children - and that's what triggers his decision to tell Cersei about the twincest.

Cersei had already arranged the hail mary murder by then. Ned's actions had little to do with it. And he's destroyed by Petyr, not Ceresi, not the children.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

the Baratheon regime wouldn't have to fear that the Reach and the Riverlords and whoever else might side with an invading Viserys III.

Why not?? Viserys is a pretender, that doesn't change if the murders are punished.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Robert had done that, he may have been cast down.

By whom??  The reason why Robert was king was not particularly because he was a nice person but because he commanded the greatest coalition in Westeros.

Tywin killed Elia and her children and Robert pardoned him, that didn't change the fact that by the time Eddard met Mace, he and his followers were ready to submit and Doran saw outright confrontation as a lost cause and this decided to wait for a sign in the sky to strike.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If you look at things what causes people to turn against tyrannical monarchs in this world it is most often if they are seen to be moving against innocent women and children. Maegor's reputation got really bad after he had his wife Ceryse alleged murdered, Queen Rhaenyra was hounded out of KL after she allegedly had Queen Helaena murdered.

Sure but as to present pretenders, as, there are still people fighting for said pretenders. Not exiles.

People are mad when you murder a pretender you still care about, hence the fighting, people are less prone to act out against exiles, the very fact they are rotting in exiles without help proves that you either don't care much about them or you are too afraid to protest. 

I would be surprised if we didn't have a lighter version of this.

 

Quote

"Prince Doran comes at my son's invitation," Lord Tywin said calmly, "not only to join in our celebration, but to claim his seat on this council, and the justice Robert denied him for the murder of his sister Elia and her children."
Tyrion watched the faces of the Lords Tyrell, Redwyne, and Rowan, wondering if any of the three would be bold enough to say, "But Lord Tywin, wasn't it you who presented the bodies to Robert, all wrapped up in Lannister cloaks?" None of them did, but it was there on their faces all the same.

 

 

36 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There’s a clear understanding among most contenders for power that adult males are risking their heads - but women and infants are off-limits.  It’s like the old school mafia.  Adhering to this rule protects your dependants, as well as those of your enemies.  Breach it, and your own bloodline faces extermination.

As much as i want this to be true i don't know how true this is. Tywin was regarded as a big balls tough guy after he exterminated both Reynes and Tarbecks and ditto with Aegon 1. We have a very mixed context of this, from houses getting a very heated backlash to others greatly profiting from it.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I light of all that Robert's plan to murder Viserys III and, especially, Daenerys is a very disgusting thing. And it shows how corrupt Robert's court is that basically only Ned and Barristan dare to point that out.

Sure it is disgusting but it doesn't negate the fact that both Viserys and Dany were conspiring to invade Westeros and that Pycelle was right that they would not try to seize the crown by popular vote. 

 

 

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Well, not really. Since the war of the 5 kings would still happen regardless, no dragons and no anti slavery movements tho.

 

Sure but a strained relationship is not a broken one, else Ned would not have put down Balon's Rebellion alongside Tywin and Robert.

 

 

No, it isn't. Since at no point Cersei cuckolds Robert out of revenge.

 

 

Cersei had already arranged the hail mary murder by then. Ned's actions had little to do with it. And he's destroyed by Petyr, not Ceresi, not the children.

 

 

Why not?? Viserys is a pretender, that doesn't change if the murders are punished.

 

 

By whom??  The reason why Robert was king was not particularly because he was a nice person but because he commanded the greatest coalition in Westeros.

Tywin killed Elia and her children and Robert pardoned him, that didn't change the fact that by the time Eddard met Mace, he and his followers were ready to submit and Doran saw outright confrontation as a lost cause and this decided to wait for a sign in the sky to strike.

 

 

Sure but as to present pretenders, as, there are still people fighting for said pretenders. Not exiles.

People are mad when you murder a pretender you still care about, hence the fighting, people are less prone to act out against exiles, the very fact they are rotting in exiles without help proves that you either don't care much about them or you are too afraid to protest. 

 

 

As much as i want this to be true i don't know how true this is. Tywin was regarded as a big balls tough guy after he exterminated both Reynes and Tarbecks and ditto with Aegon 1. We have a very mixed context of this, from houses getting a very heated backlash to others greatly profiting from it.

 

 

Sure it is disgusting but it doesn't negate the fact that both Viserys and Dany were conspiring to invade Westeros and that Pycelle was right that they would not try to seize the crown by popular vote. 

 

 

 

I think it was optimistic for Robert to assume that putting out a hit on Daenerys would save his hide.  It could just as easily precipitate an invasion as avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Peaceful? I have to disagree. For a dynasty that ruled for such a small amount of time they have created more than enough wars. The majority of them were created because of their own mistakes in their family and yet, it was Westeros and the Westerosi who had to pay the price because of the Targaryens thought that they didn’t had to answer to anyone and they had a right to rule because they had blood of the dragon.  There were wars before them but not the entire of Westeros had paid the price because of one family.

Yes peaceful.. How many wars took place during their 300 year reign?  I don't know the number off the top of my head but I am sure someone around here does but I am pretty sure it is not that high.  I'd like to say around 10-15 maybe? So 1 war every 20-25 years.  And I hate to break it to you but all noble families think they ahve a right to rule because of their noble blood.  This is not unique to the Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I authored an original topic in 2016 about the very real possibility of Craster being a Stark.  I've no wish to hijack this topic with a link.  Here is what I wrote:

Quote

There is something special about Craster's bloodline because the Others accepted his boys.  Many wildlings would gladly make that sacrifice to satisfy the Others and keep them away and yet the Others do not accept their sacrifice.  There would be no need for the wildlings to flee if they can keep the Others happy with the gift of an occasional baby boy.  So the baby's bloodline is clearly important.  The Others do not want just any male baby.

The Night's King was a Stark.  The female Other sought him out.  Why him in particular?  Because of his bloodline.  If the first white walkers were created from Stark stock, it would help explain why.  Only a Stark can be converted to a white walker.  The blood has to be compatible. 

 

I think we all agree on Aerys being mad.  But even given his madness, there were still many other non-Targaryen lords who were much more harmful and cruel.  Black Harren has already been mentioned.  Theon Stark was a cruel dick.  Being nuts is no excuse to remove a lord or a king from power.  Nowhere does it say the person need to be nice and moral to have the right to rule in their laws.  Joffrey was a terror and yet nobody questioned his right to rule on that basis.  Brandon Stark was a hot headed prick but he would have inherited Winterfell.  Balon is in many ways more harmful than Aerys and nobody stood in his way on that basis.  Their rights and privileges come from the luck of being born in a ruling family.  Rebelling against Aerys has done more harm than good.  Robert and Ned could have gone into exile and saved thousands of lives. 

I am glad things happened the way they did.  We would have no dragons otherwise and Dany would not blossom into the fine leader she is becoming.  But the reason behind the rebellion was thin.  Rebellion was not justified.  Aerys was not doing enough harm to justify a rebellion which killed thousands.  

Edited by The Lord of the Crossing

Share this post


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

I think it was optimistic for Robert to assume that putting out a hit on Daenerys would save his hide.  It could just as easily precipitate an invasion as avoid it.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes 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.

Your personal interpretation of politics isn't the issue - the point is that the story is structured in such a way that has characters being punished for heinous crimes, especially the murder of women and children. The end of the Rebellion is the starting point for this - the Rains of Castamere might be another, and in the series itself we get the attempts on Bran, Renly's murder, the murder of the miller boys, the Red Wedding, Joffrey's murder, the murder of Lysa, etc.

And we see characters being punished for their crimes, too. Tywin dies for the way he treated Tysha, Theon is mutilated and castrated, Jaime's crippled, etc.

And again - the crucial murders of the royal family provide the background for the motivation of various factions ... as does the treatment of the Starks by the Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons for the Northmen and Riverlanders sharpening their knives.

It is irrelevant whether pretenders are around or not - if push comes to shove you just butcher the people you want to butcher and then choose a new king or lord from a different family. Or you invent pretenders like people did with Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, various fake Daerons, or - 'Aegon Targaryen' as presented by Varys.

And, of course, it is factually incorrect that Dany plots anything when she is married to Drogo. Her brother and Illyrio are plotting, she just does as she is told ... and yet Robert decides to murder her, specifically, with Viserys III more being an afterthought.

Also, it is ridiculous to assume that 'millions' would die in a Targaryen invasion. Millions also didn't die in the War of the Five Kings. Thousands, perhaps, at the worst tens of thousands and that only if there was a famine or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And we see characters being punished for their crimes, too. Tywin dies for the way he treated Tysha, Theon is mutilated and castrated, Jaime's crippled, etc.

Tywin dies for being unable to shut his mouth, Theon is mutilated and castrated by Ramsay, who doesn't give a damn about what happened in Winterfell and ditto for Jaime and Hoat.

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is irrelevant whether pretenders are around or not - if push comes to shove you just butcher the people you want to butcher and then choose a new king or lord from a different family. Or you invent pretenders like people did with Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, various fake Daerons, or - 'Aegon Targaryen' as presented by Varys.

Do you see that those fake pretenders... are around right?? Aegon Targaryen needs to be in Westreos for people to recognize him and support him, no one's gonna care and support him from Essos.

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And, of course, it is factually incorrect that Dany plots anything when she is married to Drogo. Her brother and Illyrio are plotting, she just does as she is told ... and yet Robert decides to murder her, specifically, with Viserys III more being an afterthought.

 

You may want to reread the books again.

 

Quote

The khal’s mouth twisted in a frown beneath the droop of his long mustachio. “The stallion who mounts the world has no need of iron chairs.” [...] “It was prophesied that the stallion will ride to the ends of the earth,” she said. “The earth ends at the black salt sea,” Drogo answered at once. He wet a cloth in a basin of warm water to wipe the sweat and oil from his skin. “No horse can cross the poison water.” “In the Free Cities, there are ships by the thousand,” Dany told him, as she had told him before. “Wooden horses with a hundred legs, that fly across the sea on wings full of wind.” Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day, I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze. “Yes, my sun-and-stars,” Dany said. Drogo would take his bloodriders and ride in search of hrakkar, the great white lion of the plains. If they returned triumphant, her lord husband’s joy would be fierce, and he might be willing to hear her out. Savage beasts he did not fear, nor any man who had ever drawn breath, but the sea was a different matter. To the Dothraki, water that a horse could not drink was something foul; the heaving grey-green plains of the ocean filled them with superstitious loathing. Drogo was a bolder man than the other horselords in half a hundred ways, she had found … but not in this. If only she could get him onto a ship …

 

Quote

“You must talk to my lord husband,” Dany said. “Drogo says the stallion who mounts the world will have all the lands of the earth to rule, and no need to cross the poison water. He talks of leading his khalasar east after Rhaego is born, to plunder the lands around the Jade Sea.” The knight looked thoughtful. “The khal has never seen the Seven Kingdoms,” he said. “They are nothing to him. If he thinks of them at all, no doubt he thinks of islands, a few small cities clinging to rocks in the manner of Lorath or Lys, surrounded by stormy seas. The riches of the east must seem a more tempting prospect.” “But he must ride west,” Dany said, despairing. “Please, help me make him understand.” She had never seen the Seven Kingdoms either, no more than Drogo, yet she felt as though she knew them from all the tales her brother had told her. Viserys had promised her a thousand times that he would take her back one day, but he was dead now and his promises had died with him.

Ofc Robert targets her specifically. It's through her, and the children she may have, that the alliance is mantained.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Your personal interpretation of politics isn't the issue - the point is that the story is structured in such a way that has characters being punished for heinous crimes, especially the murder of women and children. The end of the Rebellion is the starting point for this - the Rains of Castamere might be another, and in the series itself we get the attempts on Bran, Renly's murder, the murder of the miller boys, the Red Wedding, Joffrey's murder, the murder of Lysa, etc.

And we see characters being punished for their crimes, too. Tywin dies for the way he treated Tysha, Theon is mutilated and castrated, Jaime's crippled, etc.

And again - the crucial murders of the royal family provide the background for the motivation of various factions ... as does the treatment of the Starks by the Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons for the Northmen and Riverlanders sharpening their knives.

It is irrelevant whether pretenders are around or not - if push comes to shove you just butcher the people you want to butcher and then choose a new king or lord from a different family. Or you invent pretenders like people did with Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, various fake Daerons, or - 'Aegon Targaryen' as presented by Varys.

And, of course, it is factually incorrect that Dany plots anything when she is married to Drogo. Her brother and Illyrio are plotting, she just does as she is told ... and yet Robert decides to murder her, specifically, with Viserys III more being an afterthought.

Also, it is ridiculous to assume that 'millions' would die in a Targaryen invasion. Millions also didn't die in the War of the Five Kings. Thousands, perhaps, at the worst tens of thousands and that only if there was a famine or something like that.

Even the golden company admits most of the realm would scoff at Aegon and view him as a pretender dany wouldn't have that problem so legitimacy is a concern. As for Dany not plotting during her marriage to drogo of course not she wasn't the heir Viserys  was who was wait for plotting to take back the throne and start a war where thousands would die . Which wouldn't happen if both he and Viserys were dead.

Edited by King17
More info added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, King17 said:

Even the golden company admits most of the realm would scoff at Aegon and view him as a pretender dany wouldn't have that problem so legitimacy is a concern. As for Dany not plotting during her marriage to drogo of course not she wasn't the heir Viserys  was who was wait for plotting to take back the throne and start a war where thousands would die . Which wouldn't happen if both he and Viserys were dead.

My point was that Robert actually going through with the murder of the Targaryen children - especially before Dany was even married to Drogo - would have been viewed as a horrible crime in Westeros which could have triggered/contributed to an uprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

My point was that Robert actually going through with the murder of the Targaryen children - especially before Dany was even married to Drogo - would have been viewed as a horrible crime in Westeros which could have triggered/contributed to an uprising.

A nobody rebelled after Tywin killed the two targ babes 

B who would the rebellion rally around after Viserys and danys death who wasn't a joke ? No one because nobody else had a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As an original sin the whole Targaryen murder thing (Aerys II included, who was an anointed monarch which is apparently a pretty big deal for the Westerosi) isn't just fueling things when a Targaryen restoration is a realistic option on the table, but it is also the big motivator for the Dornish revenge plot and, what people seem to be overlooking, the main reason for the animosity between the Starks and the Lannisters.

Eddard Stark loathes Tywin and Jaime because of what they pulled during the Sack, and he loathes Robert himself for the fact that he did not punish them.

It is basically a main motivating factor of the War of the Five Kings. And Ned is in a very real sense destroyed by this murder because Robert not punishing the Lannisters for their crimes is what causes him to fear that Robert might also murder Cersei's children - and that's what triggers his decision to tell Cersei about the twincest.

Robert would still be lazy, shitty king had he punished the murderers ... but his reign wouldn't have been as rotten as it was. The Martells wouldn't sharpen their knives and prepare for a war, the Baratheon regime wouldn't have to fear that the Reach and the Riverlords and whoever else might side with an invading Viserys III. The Lannisters wouldn't be as loathed in the Realm as they are at the time of Robert's death - which means the potential for civil war among various Baratheon pretenders and certain great houses would be very much diminished.

If Robert had done that, he may have been cast down. If you look at things what causes people to turn against tyrannical monarchs in this world it is most often if they are seen to be moving against innocent women and children. Maegor's reputation got really bad after he had his wife Ceryse alleged murdered, Queen Rhaenyra was hounded out of KL after she allegedly had Queen Helaena murdered.

If somebody had delivered the heads of Viserys III and Daenerys to Robert, people would have been abhorred.

Think how a tough girl like Asha views Theon after he apparently murdered Bran and Rickon Stark. She is disgusted by that, despite the fact that she also killed a lot of Northmen and they were their enemies.

Do you know how to end all this worrying? Simply have Viserys killed or force him to take the black, it saves a lot of issues later on down the line, as there is literally no other candidate to threaten the Baratheon regime. If Viserys had children, this issue would have haunted house Baratheon for decades like the Blackfyres. Dany could have been wed to Joffrey to unite the claims of both houses like the house of York and Lancaster did. I'm surprised nobody mentioned this option in the small council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King17 said:

A nobody rebelled after Tywin killed the two targ babes 

B who would the rebellion rally around after Viserys and danys death who wasn't a joke ? No one because nobody else had a claim.

That doesn't really matter. Look at the reign of Maegor. That guy did a lot of crazy things and in the end people rebelled because he had his first wife allegedly murdered and because they concluded the guy was cursed by gods which they drew from the fact that his wives only gave birth to monstrosities.

Of course this thing wouldn't necessarily have started an uprising in and of itself, but it would have provided people who were already preparing to rebel with another good pretext.

Nobody has to rally around anyone. You can just want to end a king, you don't have to know with whom he is going to be replaced. That's also what happened with Maegor to a very large degree. Jaehaerys I eventually became a pretender everybody could agree upon, but the Faith Militant remnants and their supporters among the common people and the lords didn't rebel against Maegor because Jaehaerys existed and eventually made a claim.

5 minutes ago, Muffin King said:

Do you know how to end all this worrying? Simply have Viserys killed or force him to take the black, it saves a lot of issues later on down the line, as there is literally no other candidate to threaten the Baratheon regime. If Viserys had children, this issue would have haunted house Baratheon for decades like the Blackfyres. Dany could have been wed to Joffrey to unite the claims of both houses like the house of York and Lancaster did. I'm surprised nobody mentioned this option in the small council.

Well, this isn't the issue at hand. Of course the Baratheon regime could have worked much better if they had married Dany or Rhaenys to Robert's heir - and perhaps even Viserys or Aegon to Myrcella - but they didn't do that.

And what I try to show here is that eradicating the bloodline still doesn't necessarily resolve the problems. They could just invent pretenders - like Varys does with Aegon right now. Who is to say somebody could not pull a bastard of Rhaegar's or Aerys II's out of his sleeve? Or put forth a Targaryen descendant through the female line as a pretender - a Tarth, a Penrose, a Plumm, or even a Martell?

Just because a bloodline is extinguished doesn't mean the people are willing to accept that.

The thing we are discussing is how people - even people within Robert's party - viewed the murder of Elia and the children (and the Kingslayer) and how they would have viewed the murder of thirteen-year-old girl and her unborn child.

And the conclusion is that this wouldn't have made Robert more popular.

It is a delusion of the certain people in the fandom that the Targaryens are widely hated or that the way Robert stole the throne is viewed as more or less okay.

In a very real sense Robert and his people aren't that different from the Freys and Boltons. At least if you consider the Sack.

And like the Red Wedding, this kind of thing will always come and bite them in the ass. Roose and Walder can do what they want ... nobody will forgive them for what they did.

The Manderlys and Riverlords and possibly others plotting their destruction is the same as the Martells sharpening their knives to get payback for Elia and the children. It just happens somewhat swifter, it seems.

There is also the parallel there that the Dornishmen and Reach lords grudgingly went with Robert and his ilk as long as they had to - like the Northmen and Riverlords do with the Freys and Boltons. But as soon as their hands are untied or an opportunity presents itself they will turn on them. We just don't really get that because our original Westerosi POVs are basically all (very much) a part of team Robert.

And once a Targaryen finally shows up in Westeros and announces that he or she comes to demand justice for Aerys II and Elia and Rhaenys and Aegon (or whoever died in his place) then we are going to see how many people are going to say: 'Well, we don't give a damn about any of that.'

My gut feeling is that not many will take such a cynical view on things. Because that's like saying the Northmen don't care what happened to Ned and Robb and Bran and Rickon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't really matter. Look at the reign of Maegor. That guy did a lot of crazy things and in the end people rebelled because he had his first wife allegedly murdered and because they concluded the guy was cursed by gods which they drew from the fact that his wives only gave birth to monstrosities.

Of course this thing wouldn't necessarily have started an uprising in and of itself, but it would have provided people who were already preparing to rebel with another good pretext.

Nobody has to rally around anyone. You can just want to end a king, you don't have to know with whom he is going to be replaced. That's also what happened with Maegor to a very large degree. Jaehaerys I eventually became a pretender everybody could agree upon, but the Faith Militant remnants and their supporters among the common people and the lords didn't rebel against Maegor because Jaehaerys existed and eventually made a claim.

Well, this isn't the issue at hand. Of course the Baratheon regime could have worked much better if they had married Dany or Rhaenys to Robert's heir - and perhaps even Viserys or Aegon to Myrcella - but they didn't do that.

And what I try to show here is that eradicating the bloodline still doesn't necessarily resolve the problems. They could just invent pretenders - like Varys does with Aegon right now. Who is to say somebody could not pull a bastard of Rhaegar's or Aerys II's out of his sleeve? Or put forth a Targaryen descendant through the female line as a pretender - a Tarth, a Penrose, a Plumm, or even a Martell?

Just because a bloodline is extinguished doesn't mean the people are willing to accept that.

The thing we are discussing is how people - even people within Robert's party - viewed the murder of Elia and the children (and the Kingslayer) and how they would have viewed the murder of thirteen-year-old girl and her unborn child.

And the conclusion is that this wouldn't have made Robert more popular.

It is a delusion of the certain people in the fandom that the Targaryens are widely hated or that the way Robert stole the throne is viewed as more or less okay.

In a very real sense Robert and his people aren't that different from the Freys and Boltons. At least if you consider the Sack.

And like the Red Wedding, this kind of thing will always come and bite them in the ass. Roose and Walder can do what they want ... nobody will forgive them for what they did.

The Manderlys and Riverlords and possibly others plotting their destruction is the same as the Martells sharpening their knives to get payback for Elia and the children. It just happens somewhat swifter, it seems.

There is also the parallel there that the Dornishmen and Reach lords grudgingly went with Robert and his ilk as long as they had to - like the Northmen and Riverlords do with the Freys and Boltons. But as soon as their hands are untied or an opportunity presents itself they will turn on them. We just don't really get that because our original Westerosi POVs are basically all (very much) a part of team Robert.

And once a Targaryen finally shows up in Westeros and announces that he or she comes to demand justice for Aerys II and Elia and Rhaenys and Aegon (or whoever died in his place) then we are going to see how many people are going to say: 'Well, we don't give a damn about any of that.'

My gut feeling is that not many will take such a cynical view on things. Because that's like saying the Northmen don't care what happened to Ned and Robb and Bran and Rickon.

Will agree on the marriage idea honestly out of all the options Robert had the one he picked was probably the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Guapo said:

Yes peaceful.. How many wars took place during their 300 year reign?  I don't know the number off the top of my head but I am sure someone around here does but I am pretty sure it is not that high.  I'd like to say around 10-15 maybe? So 1 war every 20-25 years. 

Its 20 wars in 283 years, I have counted them, which equals to one war per 14 years and 2 wars per generation.  If you think that this is peace and prosperity then ok.

4 hours ago, El Guapo said:

And I hate to break it to you but all noble families think they ahve a right to rule because of their noble blood.  This is not unique to the Targaryens.

I have to agree with that one. However the disdain the Westerosi had for the Targaryens is evident when you see how many have endangered themselves in order to support and restore them, none. Unlike for example the Starks, who are loved by their people and have bannermen who put themselves in danger in order to help them. If the Targaryens were so good for Westeros why no one cared about them? Even the Dornish were going to support them only when they would have some personal gain in order to take their revenge against the Lannisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Its 20 wars in 283 years, I have counted them, which equals to one war per 14 years and 2 wars per generation.  If you think that this is peace and prosperity then ok.

It is a gigantic improvement to the pre-Conquest scenario where you had pompous, self-involved kings who basically fought a never-ending war in different alliances ... and even in 'peace times' neither of these kings was powerful enough to enforce a King's Peace equivalent, which means you had private wars among the lords to settle disputes - not to mention the whimsical justice those very lords enforced on their smallfolk.

Most Targaryen wars were local affairs, especially the Dornish wars. Even a big civil war like the Dance wasn't fought everywhere in the Seven Kingdoms. The Blackfyre Rebellions were similar smaller affairs - especially the second and the fourth.

6 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

I have to agree with that one. However the disdain the Westerosi had for the Targaryens is evident when you see how many have endangered themselves in order to support and restore them, none. Unlike for example the Starks, who are loved by their people and have bannermen who put themselves in danger in order to help them. If the Targaryens were so good for Westeros why no one cared about them? Even the Dornish were going to support them only when they would have some personal gain in order to take their revenge against the Lannisters.

The Targaryens went into exile. They do have to come back for their to be a proper rebellion. And that has yet to happen. But their loyalists do plot the same way the Blackfyre supporters did plot after the death of Daemon I on the Redgrass Field.

The Stark loyalists do care more about revenge for the Red Wedding - which, to a very high degree, also resulted in the murder and humiliation of family members. There are parallels there, but there are also differences. One crucial difference is that the death of Robb Stark at the Twins did not immediately result in Roose Bolton taking possession of the North. That has yet to be done - whereas Robert took possession of the Iron Throne when the Mad King and his family were slaughtered.

Also, the point of the Targaryens is the central monarchy they established - Robert could continue what they did ... but he failed at that. At his death the Realm exploded and his dynasty pretty much imploded. Chances are still pretty good that the Targaryens and their loyalists won't even have to put down the remaining Baratheons. They themselves - and their 'allies' - might do that for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens went into exile. They do have to come back for their to be a proper rebellion. And that has yet to happen. But their loyalists do plot the same way the Blackfyre supporters did plot after the death of Daemon I on the Redgrass Field.

I only seem to remember just the Martells after the Targaryen could give them something in return.  Who else do we see to activelly endanger themselves to help the Targaryens?

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Stark loyalists do care more about revenge for the Red Wedding - which, to a very high degree, also resulted in the murder and humiliation of family members. There are parallels there, but there are also differences. One crucial difference is that the death of Robb Stark at the Twins did not immediately result in Roose Bolton taking possession of the North. That has yet to be done - whereas Robert took possession of the Iron Throne when the Mad King and his family were slaughtered.

Also, the point of the Targaryens is the central monarchy they established - Robert could continue what they did ... but he failed at that. At his death the Realm exploded and his dynasty pretty much imploded. Chances are still pretty good that the Targaryens and their loyalists won't even have to put down the remaining Baratheons. They themselves - and their 'allies' - might do that for them.

While I agree with that I believe that you missed my point. Which is really simplistic and yet primordial. The Starks bannermen fight for their restoration, while endangering themselves, because the Starks were loved by their people. On the same time no one fought for the Targaryens because they hadn’t earned the loyalty of their people, they came to Westeros they conquered the land  they followed no laws and regulations they kept their own customs one of them was a grave sin even after a huge war and they had alienated themselves. If the Targaryens were beneficial for their people and loved by them they would had their loyalty and their support.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a gigantic improvement to the pre-Conquest scenario where you had pompous, self-involved kings who basically fought a never-ending war in different alliances ... and even in 'peace times' neither of these kings was powerful enough to enforce a King's Peace equivalent, which means you had private wars among the lords to settle disputes - not to mention the whimsical justice those very lords enforced on their smallfolk.

Most Targaryen wars were local affairs, especially the Dornish wars. Even a big civil war like the Dance wasn't fought everywhere in the Seven Kingdoms. The Blackfyre Rebellions were similar smaller affairs - especially the second and the fourth.

 

Local wars or not Westeros paid the price for the actions of the Targaryens who were never members of their society to begin with, Why did the Targaryens had to attack Dorne? Because they wanted. People from all around Westeros had to die because either the Targaryen were insulting everything that was sacred for the Westerosi or because the Targaryens wanted Dorne or because a Targaryen couldn’t keep a line of succession or because a Targaryen had to legitimise all of his bastards or because a Targaryen couldn’t control his hormones or because a Targaryen gave one son the sword instead of the other and so on and so forth. Can you see the common denominator in all those things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:
I only seem to remember just the Martells after the Targaryen could give them something in return.  Who else do we see to activelly endanger themselves to help the Targaryens?

While I agree with that I believe that you missed my point. Which is really simplistic and yet primordial. The Starks bannermen fight for their restoration, while endangering themselves, because the Starks were loved by their people. On the same time no one fought for the Targaryens because they hadn’t earned the loyalty of their people, they came to Westeros they conquered the land  they followed no laws and regulations they kept their own customs one of them was a grave sin even after a huge war and they had alienated themselves. If the Targaryens were beneficial for their people and loved by them they would had their loyalty and their support.

That is a false dichotomy - the only Northman plotting a Stark restoration of any sort is Wyman Manderly. The others have sided either with Stannis or Roose - and because they do have to show their colors. It is no option doing nothing.

And Manderly only plots because he has an opportunity and his hands are no longer tied thanks to Lannister folly. If Tommen still had Wylis Manderly his father wouldn't do anything.

The Starks are also not loved by their people - a crucial portion of them betrayed them (notably Karstark and Bolton men, in addition to the Dustins and Ryswells now leaning towards the Boltons to the degree that they might go down with them rather than join with Stannis or a pre-teen Stark boy should they be pushed).

There are some Stark loyalists among the Northmen, to be sure, but I'd not go as far as say that they are a majority. And none of them are keen to install a pre-teen boy or a girl as their new lord. The Northmen want the lord of Winterfell to be strong. How the men treated Robb when he called his banners shows this. And if Roose Bolton would turn out to be this strong man they would accept it until an alternative presents itself.

The Targaryens had half the Realm and more on their side during the Rebellion - and that when a mad lunatic was the king and a lovestruck prince did one stupidity after another. And they are still loved all across the Seven Kingdoms by various people. That they didn't rise for a Targaryen pretender is because nobody showed up so far.

It makes no sense to plot in favor of a restoration if Viserys III isn't making any concrete plans yet. Had he come with the Dothraki, people would have shown their colors.

The Kingslanders are Targaryen folk, Crackclaw Point, too. Half the Riverlands are Targaryen territory, most likely more now that the Tullys are nearly extinct. The Graftons of Gulltown were Targaryen men back during the Rebellion, and might be again. The Reach and Dorne stood with them, too. There are Targaryen descendants in the Westerlands and on Tarth and in the Stormlands. And even in the North the White Harbor folk like to believe Prince Aegon might still be alive.

We should see more than half of Westeros - people from all over the Seven Kingdoms, from Dorne to the Wall - to rejoice that the dragons are back. In part, because of the fucked-up situation of the Seven Kingdoms in general, in part because they know they are their rightful rulers (even in the Citadel they toast Daenerys Targaryen) and because no Baratheon pretender left looks even remotely promising.

2 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Local wars or not Westeros paid the price for the actions of the Targaryens who were never members of their society to begin with, Why did the Targaryens had to attack Dorne? Because they wanted. People from all around Westeros had to die because either the Targaryen were insulting everything that was sacred for the Westerosi or because the Targaryens wanted Dorne or because a Targaryen couldn’t keep a line of succession or because a Targaryen had to legitimise all of his bastards or because a Targaryen couldn’t control his hormones or because a Targaryen gave one son the sword instead of the other and so on and so forth. Can you see the common denominator in all those things?

The people wanted to participate in those wars. More people stood with the Targaryens against the Faith than opposed them, and the Stormlanders and Reach lords were all for the conquest of Dorne, their ancient enemy. And, of course, the people siding with Rhaenyra or Aegon II or a Blackfyre pretender were the ones who wanted war as much as the pretenders themselves. This wasn't forced on them.

A succession war can only take place when people are divided about the question who should rule. If they know it, then nobody in the royal family has a chance to challenge 'the rightful heir/king'.

Whatever 'price' you think they paid is an infinite improvement on the shitty pre-Conquest setting. Really easy things like the population increase during the reign of Jaehaerys I shows that - double for all the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne, and quadrupled for the big cities. That only can happen when peace and prosperity ensure people live longer and have a chance to see more children grow to adulthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens had half the Realm and more on their side during the Rebellion - and that when a mad lunatic was the king and a lovestruck prince did one stupidity after another. And they are still loved all across the Seven Kingdoms by various people. That they didn't rise for a Targaryen pretender is because nobody showed up so far.

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

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It makes no sense to plot in favor of a restoration if Viserys III isn't making any concrete plans yet. Had he come with the Dothraki, people would have shown their colors.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Kingslanders are Targaryen folk, Crackclaw Point, too. Half the Riverlands are Targaryen territory, most likely more now that the Tullys are nearly extinct. The Graftons of Gulltown were Targaryen men back during the Rebellion, and might be again. The Reach and Dorne stood with them, too. There are Targaryen descendants in the Westerlands and on Tarth and in the Stormlands. And even in the North the White Harbor folk like to believe Prince Aegon might still be alive.

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

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The people wanted to participate in those wars. More people stood with the Targaryens against the Faith than opposed them, and the Stormlanders and Reach lords were all for the conquest of Dorne, their ancient enemy. And, of course, the people siding with Rhaenyra or Aegon II or a Blackfyre pretender were the ones who wanted war as much as the pretenders themselves. This wasn't forced on them.

.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.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever 'price' you think they paid is an infinite improvement on the shitty pre-Conquest setting. Really easy things like the population increase during the reign of Jaehaerys I shows that - double for all the Seven Kingdoms save Dorne, and quadrupled for the big cities. That only can happen when peace and prosperity ensure people live longer and have a chance to see more children grow to adulthood.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...