Best king to rule westeros instead of mad king/Robert Baratheon/Joffrey

[saltedmalted]

31 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

In the end, Aegon V accomplished nothing.

We know he couldn't pass his greatest wish, not that he failed at everything.

31 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

but that doesn't change the fact that he accomplished nothing at the end of the day, and is also remembered as a tyrant for trying to force his lords to accept his reforms.

What did Daeron II accomplish? Or Viserys? Egg's distinction is his willingness to break from the mould.

32 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It likely never crossed his mind.

This is why he is meh.

The dragonriders could have done a lot more but they did not. Aegon was happy to sit on the IT and fight in Dorne while the 7K continued to have a primitive system of laws and governance. The same is true for Jaeherys. 

 

Egg could have ruled easily like Daeron or Viserys did, but he wanted to do more. Aegon is great precisely because he was willing to look at the greater picture. 

37 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It's what people did for centuries, and what Alysanne and Jaehaerys did before him too. They arranged marriages between The North and the Vale (the two kingdoms had a pretty bad relationship before conquest), and between the Stromlands and the Reach too, along with the Riverlands.

The Vale and the North were not fighting each other when Aegon started conquering the place. 

They accepted because Jaeherys and Alysanne had dragons, Daeron doesn't. 

39 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Also, it did seem like you said that Daeron II was offensive against Dorne, but he never was, and by his time the dornishmen even forgot about Daeron I, because of Aegon IV's acts

Daeron II wasn't offensive and I never implied it. I said marcher lords have fought and suffered against the Dornish in recent history, nevermind that heir past is full of fighting Dornish aggressors.

The Dornish were happy to "forget" because Baelor handed them victory on a plate.

42 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

In fact, Jaehaerys even had to influence the Most Devout not to elect someone who opposes them and will stir up the smallfolk against them. You might not know, but Alysanne almost was murdered for this, and they blame that for the death of Jaehaerys' firstborn son.

I know all of this. The sticking point is this: issues that dogged his predecessors got finished off so cleanly. 

Him "influencing" the Most Devout is another feature of his Gary-Stu nature. Incest is abhorrent to the faith, yet it folded to Jaeherys despite resisting furiously in the past.

I do not think rebellion against Maegor was realistic but if we assume it is possible then the same rules should apply to Jaeherys' rule.

45 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Yet, for some reason, he's called the greatest person to ever sit on the Iron Throne, after 200 years of his death.

Westeros is full of mediocre kings. The maesters won't praise Egg.

46 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Also he pretty much solved the problem of his age.

He had dragons.

47 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I'm not saying he wanted to give the smallfolk any more rights he did, tho. Aegon V and him are pretty different.

Which is why Aegon V > Jaeherys I (or II).

47 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

One can imagine he didn't just sit on his ass when he was apart somewhere for years. 

Banning First Night was one of the few laws mentioned by name, and even that didn't come from his mind.

F&B tries to portray Jaeherys as a very wise king but the proof is thin and it left me completely unimpressed.

[Daeron the Daring]

14 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

We know he couldn't pass his greatest wish, not that he failed at everything.

What did Daeron II accomplish? Or Viserys? Egg's distinction is his willingness to break from the mould.

This is why he is meh.

The dragonriders could have done a lot more but they did not. Aegon was happy to sit on the IT and fight in Dorne while the 7K continued to have a primitive system of laws and governance. The same is true for Jaeherys. 

 

Egg could have ruled easily like Daeron or Viserys did, but he wanted to do more. Aegon is great precisely because he was willing to look at the greater picture. 

The Vale and the North were not fighting each other when Aegon started conquering the place. 

They accepted because Jaeherys and Alysanne had dragons, Daeron doesn't. 

Daeron II wasn't offensive and I never implied it. I said marcher lords have fought and suffered against the Dornish in recent history, nevermind that heir past is full of fighting Dornish aggressors.

The Dornish were happy to "forget" because Baelor handed them victory on a plate.

I know all of this. The sticking point is this: issues that dogged his predecessors got finished off so cleanly. 

Him "influencing" the Most Devout is another feature of his Gary-Stu nature. Incest is abhorrent to the faith, yet it folded to Jaeherys despite resisting furiously in the past.

I do not think rebellion against Maegor was realistic but if we assume it is possible then the same rules should apply to Jaeherys' rule.

Westeros is full of mediocre kings. The maesters won't praise Egg.

He had dragons.

Which is why Aegon V > Jaeherys I (or II).

Banning First Night was one of the few laws mentioned by name, and even that didn't come from his mind.

F&B tries to portray Jaeherys as a very wise king but the proof is thin and it left me completely unimpressed.

Aegon V failed at everything regarding his reforms you praise him for.

Daeron II made Dorne part of the kingdom, which lasts up until today. On the other hand, we barely know anything about him, but I doubt someone's entire life can be written down on 2 pages. And he's called the Good, one has to earn such a name.

Then you just completely jumped over my whole point about Jaehaerys. If one doesn't want to give more rights to the smallfolk, it's not a mistake. Altough Jaehaerys was a beloved king (the most beloved, as written down), his main goal has always been keeping his dinasty in charge, not weakening his own vassals or giving rights to the smallfolk (altough he did that too). Not to mention that back when dragons still lived, Targaryens relied on them pretty heavily, and they did not need any reforms to weaken their vassals. If the goal was a stable realm, reforms might not have helped back then.

Then you completely miss the point that Viserys II ruled only for a year, yet, he began process of many things, and accomplished more than (for example) Viserys I did. If you want someone who really reigned over the realm without developing anything, that's Viserys I. Sadly Viserys II likely was poisoned by his own son.

Altough Maegor had Balerion, remember that burning down everything does not solve problems. Even Maegor knew this. And he dealt with the Faith the way he had to. I mean, they were threatening his and his house's position. Maegor played a significant part in the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

It's not me who's claiming these things, it's history and the people of Westeros. These men are called wise and good long after their death too. And as I said above, Aegon V was a great and smart person (I personally like his character too), he had te potentional of being one of the greatest kings, but in the end he failed on the part of his plan he couldn't control, and died without accomplishing anything significant.

And also, if you're building your answers up on slipping over my arguments and important parts of my replies, our discussion has no point. Nor do I feel like I can say anything more, your answers can be found on this thread, that means I won't continue this conversation.

[saltedmalted]

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Aegon V failed at everything regarding his reforms you praise him for.

The OP says: "Best king to rule", that is Egg. He did everything right and on top of it was the first one to even bother with altering the law of the land.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Daeron II made Dorne part of the kingdom, which lasts up until today. On the other hand, we barely know anything about him, but I doubt someone's entire life can be written down on 2 pages. And he's called the Good, one has to earn such a name.

Daeron II didn't, Baelor did. Daeron just accepted the status quo. 

Easy to be "the Good" when your predecessor is Aegon the Unworthy.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

If one doesn't want to give more rights to the smallfolk, it's not a mistake.

Why would one not want that?

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Altough Jaehaerys was a beloved king (the most beloved, as written down), his main goal has always been keeping his dinasty in charge

Nobody conducted an opinion poll asking the man in the villlage. 

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

not weakening his own vassals or giving rights to the smallfolk (altough he did that too).

Which rights did he give ?

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Not to mention that back when dragons still lived, Targaryens relied on them pretty heavily, and they did not need any reforms to weaken their vassals. If the goal was a stable realm, reforms might not have helped back then.

This is a very poor excuse. I doubt Mern or Harren hated reforms more than getting burnt.

Aegon and his descendants were willling to burn down Westeros to sit on the throne but never even bothered to change the laws. 

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Then you completely miss the point that Viserys II ruled only for a year, yet, he began process of many things, and accomplished more than (for example) Viserys I did. If you want someone who really reigned over the realm without developing anything, that's Viserys I.

Which things did Viserys II even develop? He ran around handling the shit created by his relatives.

Improving trade and other stuff is not special at all. Do you think Egg did not do the same?

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Altough Maegor had Balerion, remember that burning down everything does not solve problems.

It does but for the sake of plot I can accept this discrepancy.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It's not me who's claiming these things, it's history and the people of Westeros. These men are called wise and good long after their death too.

The maesters do but their opinion isn't relevant, only their observations (if factual) matter. You keep arguing like a Targaryen bannerman. 

It doesn't matter what Viserys or Jaeherys did to strengthen themselves and their families.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

he had te potentional of being one of the greatest kings, but in the end he failed on the part of his plan he couldn't control, and died without accomplishing anything significant.

He couldn't revolutionize Westeros but that doesn't mean he did not do anything. To gain further insight we will have to wait for F&B II.

Egg failed because he did not have dragons, that is all. Jaeherys did not even try despite having them.

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

And also, if you're building your answers up on slipping over my arguments and important parts of my replies, our discussion has no point.

I cannot help a poster who argues like the bannerman of fictional kings.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Daeron II didn't, Baelor did. Daeron just accepted the status quo. 

Again wrong. Baelor made peace with Dorne, with the marriage of Daeron and Myriah Martell. It was later Daeron who made Dorne part of the realm, by giving The Prince of Dorne Daenerys's hand. Again you don't even know who xou are comparing Aegon V to.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Easy to be "the Good" when your predecessor is Aegon the Unworthy.

That's not how it works, especially not when you compare the two 100 years later.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Why would one not want that?

Decentralization of power. I mean, we don't know if Aegon V wanted to apply those reforms and rights to the smallfolk because he cared so much for the people, or he just simply saw how powerless the IT is without thee support of Lords Paramount. We just don't know. We are also told that the marriages he arranged for his children had other reasons too than just gaining support for his reforms (we know he tried to stop the incestuous tradition). We just can't be sure, and even if his intentions were pure, he clearly saw its benefits on the other side.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Which things did Viserys II even develop? He ran around handling the shit created by his relatives.

See? This is what makes me mad enough to consider not replying you, and that's why this'll be my last one. For some reason you're narrowed down to Aegon V and don't even think what we've been discussed before.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

You keep arguing like a Targaryen bannerman. 

We are both defending and arguing beside a Targaryen(s) here. But for some reason, you're alone with your opinion of Aegon V being the most capable ruler of all time.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

The maesters do but their opinion isn't relevant, only their observations (if factual) matter.

But these are factual observations, dude.

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

He couldn't revolutionize Westeros but that doesn't mean he did not do anything. To gain further insight we will have to wait for F&B II.

So, unless we get FnB 2, we can say he failed accomplishing anything significant (sadly). 

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Egg failed because he did not have dragons, that is all. Jaeherys did not even try despite having them

This is why the comparison is unfair. Jaehaerys I still accomplished things he is remembered for 200 years after his death. He worked with what he had, and he had dragons. I also csn't give you anything more than what FnB gives us, and that's what it gave us. I wrote it down. I also wrote down that FnB never orientated on such matters. It's a storytelling book, not getting into details. How many times do you expect people to write you down things?

 

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

cannot help a poster who argues like the bannerman of fictional kings.

Dude, it's not me who's that devoted to a fictional character, but you.

 

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

The OP says: "Best king to rule", that is Egg. He did everything right and on top of it was the first one to even bother with altering the law of the land.

We've never discussed the OP. What did he do right? Again, as much as I like him, he left behind nothing worth mentioning we know of.

 

1 hour ago, saltedmalted said:

Nobody conducted an opinion poll asking the man in the villlage. 

Aegon V wasn't different on this matter. He just grow up squireing along Dunk, and had known common lifestyle somewhat better than others. Noone ever asked the villager what he wants, not even him.

On the other hand, you're claiming that he's most worthy of getting a 2nd chance in the Aerys-Present era, but we have no guarantee that he could do anything more than what he did before, and wouldn't his plan (anything it is) collapse again. I stood beside the character, claiming that he was a great person, but pretty much failed as a king, it wasn't entirely his fault, but this is not the place of second chances.

The people I mentioned above are praised and some of them detailed too. Aegon V, however, when it comes to his reign, is not praised, nor is detailed enough to claim he was the greatest king.

[Jay21]

On 3/2/2021 at 1:34 PM, Groo said:

Jaehaerys I and Good Queen Alysanne were responsible for the New Gift and the only Targaryen visit to the Wall. I'm guessing they would have actually cared and tried to do something about the Others.

I have it on good authority that Queen Alysanne was a shrew.

I think you're right about them being the kind of rulers that would have taken the situation north of the Wall seriously instead of just seeing political opportunity. OP's disqualified Robert but I think he would have been the proverbial pig in shit if he could have survived his family long enough to have been on the throne when Thorne showed up with a wiggling severed arm.   

 

[CamiloRP]

33 minutes ago, Jay21 said:

I have it on good authority that Queen Alysanne was a shrew.

I think you're right about them being the kind of rulers that would have taken the situation north of the Wall seriously instead of just seeing political opportunity. OP's disqualified Robert but I think he would have been the proverbial pig in shit if he could have survived his family long enough to have been on the throne when Thorne showed up with a wiggling severed arm.   

 

Maybe, Robert was able to unite the kingdom and he loved war, so he might have been able to send TSKs forces against the Others, the thing is he likely would've wanted to fight the Freefolk too, and that would've been a big problem.

[Jay21]

2 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Maybe, Robert was able to unite the kingdom and he loved war, so he might have been able to send TSKs forces against the Others, the thing is he likely would've wanted to fight the Freefolk too, and that would've been a big problem.

Possibly. I think it would depend on Mance. If he made the effort to come to Robert before too much blood had been shed they may have been able to parlay. I don't remember what he said to Jon about his measure of Robert when he saw him in Winterfell, but that might give a clue as to whether or not Mance would have felt talking with Robert would have been worthwhile. It would have been in his interest as Robert would likely have gone north a lot stronger than Stannis did. (until Robert recognized Mance as Rhaegar and started swinging his hammer around) 

The watch didn't encounter many wildlings on their ranging as they were all collecting in the north.  This may have helped a hypothetical Robert ranging keep from getting too wrapped up in killing wildlings to hear the truth and the wildings from being too enraged at the invaders to still want peace.

Robert might not have wanted to hear all of that though, He might have just wanted to get on a horse and spill some blood, that is an undeniable possibility.

[Willam Stark]

Viserys II or Aegon V, they are the best dragonless kings imo.

[Quoth the raven,]

The rubble needed to clear.  Westeros has to go through a purge of Aerys, Rhaegar, Robert, Eddard, Jon Snow, Robb, Renly, Balon, and Roose to make way for the its future ruler, Daenerys Targaryen.  The story had to take the path it did to prepare her to rule.

[saltedmalted]

On 3/3/2021 at 11:44 PM, Daeron the Daring said:

It was later Daeron who made Dorne part of the realm, by giving The Prince of Dorne Daenerys's hand.

 Some achievement. The realm was already at peace, how is marrying one of your sisters a great feat?

Jaeherys automatically gets disqualified because there are no more dragons. Viserys II also had no lasting achievements, and on top of it he had no plans either.

[Willam Stark]

15 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

The rubble needed to clear.  Westeros has to go through a purge of Aerys, Rhaegar, Robert, Eddard, Jon Snow, Robb, Renly, Balon, and Roose to make way for the its future ruler, Daenerys Targaryen.  The story had to take the path it did to prepare her to rule.

Without dragons, Dany wouldn't be able to ensure her reign since she is a woman and women were excluded from the Throne's succession before Robert's rebellion. Basically the end of Targaryen's dynasty.

[Ephraim'sFruit]

10 minutes ago, Willam Stark said:

Without dragons, Dany wouldn't be able to ensure her reign since she is a woman and women were excluded from the Throne's succession before Robert's rebellion.

debatable, Robert was excluded from the throne before the rebellion too but his ass made it into the chair anyway.

Dany was Queen for a long time while her dragons were small and more of a miraculous event than a powerful weapon of war.

[Willam Stark]

31 minutes ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

debatable, Robert was excluded from the throne before the rebellion too but his ass made it into the chair anyway.

He took the throne by conquest, not succession and the period we are talking about on this topic begins in 262, so way before the rebellion. There were no dragons and women were excluded back in that time, nobody would follow her under those conditions.

37 minutes ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

Dany was Queen for a long time while her dragons were small and more of a miraculous event than a powerful weapon of war.

One year at best, more likely months, in a foreign land that's not enough.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

50 minutes ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

debatable, Robert was excluded from the throne before the rebellion too but his ass made it into the chair anyway.

Robert conquered the Throne he didn't inherited it.

[Ephraim'sFruit]

4 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Robert conquered the Throne he didn't inherited it.

In theory, Dany could also conquer.

Or conquer and claim Roberts rule as illegimate and then inherit. Several ways it could play out.

The point is Robert became king even though the crown and many nobles did not support him.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

Just now, Ephraim'sFruit said:

In theory, Dany could also conquer.

Or conquer and claim Roberts rule as illegimate and then inherit. Several ways it could play out.

The point is Robert became king even though the crown and many nobles did not support him.

Usually the King doesn't support the Rebel and in general a conqueror doesn't need universal acceptance to be legitimate and even then Robert had more lords supporting him than Aerys. Aegon the Conqueror never had universal acceptance but this never stopped him.

Other than that, of course Dany could conquer the Throne but even she cannot declare a whole dynasty illegitimate. I don’t know if it works like that.

[Ephraim'sFruit]

17 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Usually the King doesn't support the Rebel and in general a conqueror doesn't need universal acceptance to be legitimate and even then Robert had more lords supporting him than Aerys. Aegon the Conqueror never had universal acceptance but this never stopped him.

Other than that, of course Dany could conquer the Throne but even she cannot declare a whole dynasty illegitimate. I don’t know if it works like that.

I think anytime there is a brand new administration they can pretty much kill off any traditions they want. Its not always successful but it often is.

Stannis would most likely change the state religion if he won and I doubt anybody could stop him from doing it 

 

[Willam Stark]

41 minutes ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

In theory, Dany could also conquer.

Yep but who would back her up? Robert had 4 kingdoms with him: The North, The Vale, The Riverlands and his Stormlands, the other kingdoms joined him after the Rebellion and he was himself a Chad back then, Dany have none. 

[Ephraim'sFruit]

5 minutes ago, Willam Stark said:

Yep but who would back her up? 

Depends on the situation.

We are talking about putting Dany into a different timeline than the one she exists in. I dont know what the specifics of what would be her situation then.

 

not different timeline, a different point on the timeline i meant