The Targaryens Deserved to Fall

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Please show me where Aegon I said he was invading to improve the living conditions of Westeros. Because it looks like he never said this at all, and invaded because he could, just like everyone else.

I view Aegon I as an imperialist, who was simply more successful than his rival imperialists.  The overthrow of Harren was undoubtedly a good thing, and I think he and his sisters were good rulers.

But, I doubt if there was any high-minded motive for his actions.

[TheLastWolf]

My righteous rants against those ________ won't seem so righteous any more 

[astarkchoice]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Actually, Ser Jorah is wrong.  The smallfolk are prepared to resist nobles who are grossly unjust (eg the BWB and Sparrows), and to support those they see as fair.

Both Nimble Dick and one of Arya’s fellow captives speak well of the Targaryens.

The Lannisters, however, have made themselves widely hated.

Grossly unjust yes bit for the most part they want left out of their b.s to enjoy their lives.

Im sure every region has a few that speak well of every faction 

 

Are they? We havent had a pov from a  westerlands  commoner yet etc 

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

6 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Ah yes, the Renly Justification, heh.

What sets Renly apart from the Targaryens in my opinion is that his motivation seems to be at least partially based on him thinking he would be a good ruler, as opposed to Aegon etc. who think they should be king because ?

[James Steller]

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

What sets Renly apart from the Targaryens in my opinion is that his motivation seems to be at least partially based on him thinking he would be a good ruler, as opposed to Aegon etc. who think they should be king because ?

I'm sure Aegon would have given plenty of reasons why he thought he should be king of Westeros. I don't see much of a difference between them, frankly. The same kind of high-minded arrogance which makes them feel like they can waltz in and take what they want so long as they're powerful enough. At least Stannis learned to be a better ruler thanks to Davos and Jon's advice.

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, James Steller said:

I'm sure Aegon would have given plenty of reasons why he thought he should be king of Westeros.

But he never does. Whereas we can see Renly's reasons. If it is revealed Aegon said something about invading because he thought he'd be a good ruler I would think more of him. Right now as it stands Aegon I (in the book series) has no justification or reason for his invasion other than that he could.

[James Steller]

51 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But he never does. Whereas we can see Renly's reasons. If it is revealed Aegon said something about invading because he thought he'd be a good ruler I would think more of him. Right now as it stands Aegon I (in the book series) has no justification or reason for his invasion other than that he could.

You really have a strange way of rating leaders. You think someone would be a good ruler just because they SAY they'll be a good ruler? Do you also believe everything that politicians say BEFORE they get elected? Words are wind. Renly talked a big game but we never ever saw him actually doing anything meaningful. In fact, what does a Master of Laws even do?? Renly just swanned around spending money. It's not like he ever administers justice, Eddard Stark does more of that than Renly.

Also, what does Renly do to prove his worthiness as a king? Aegon proved his efficiency by molding the Seven Kingdoms together and establishing a dynasty, for better or worse. Meanwhile, Stannis talks the same arrogant talk as Renly does at first, but he has a change of heart and now actively tries to protect the realm. First he neutralises the Free Folk's invading forces, then he prepares to fight the Others, who are the real bad guys we need to be worrying about, last I checked. He's also got a diverse army full of people who worship all sorts of faiths, and he refuses to antagonise any of them. He is an efficient military leader, he is earning his bid for kingship in a way that none of the other wannabe kings did. Stannis is so compelling because he has an arc. Renly never had one, and the personality he got saddled with is shallow at best, toxic at worst.

In fact, that's the biggest problem I have with this question of Renly. It's pointless. Renly exists as pure potential which was never tapped, so that we can constantly argue whether or not he would have been any good or not. We can have that conversation for the rest of time and we'll never come close to resolving it. And since it doesn't matter, I'm not going to bother defending Renly based on what he MIGHT have done.

[Oana_Mika]

The show’s primary characters are the fifth king of Westeros, Viserys I (Paddy Considine), and his daughter, Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen (Milly Alcock), who would inherit the throne without question if only she were a man. Something passes between them that is stirring discussion. Can you explain?

Condal: I think the Game of Thrones nerds were very interested and intrigued and compelled by the secret that Viserys tells Rhaenyra, connecting Aegon [the first king of the family and the original Westeros conqueror] with the prophecies that we know about the Long Night and the Others [a.k.a. the White Walkers] and the Night King coming out of the North—and how maybe the Targaryen dynasty was aware of it long before we think they were.

These are prophecies that ultimately played out as the climax of the original series. This show suggests that not only are they known by the Targaryens 200 years before, but they’ve been known for about a century.

 

Condal: I think they were very intrigued by that. A lot of them said I committed A Song of Ice and Fire heresy, but I did tell them: “That came from George.” I reassured everybody.

What is the significance of these prophecies, George? Unless I’ve missed it, is this something you wrote in one of the books, or is that an invention of the show?

Martin: It’s mentioned here and there—in connection with Prince Rhaegar, for example [the brother of Daenerys, played on Game of Thrones by Wilf Scolding]. I mean, it’s such a sprawling thing now. In the Dunk and Egg stories [about a future king, “Egg,” a.k.a. Aegon V], there’s one of Egg’s brothers who has these prophetic dreams, which of course he can’t handle. He had become a drunkard because they freaked him out. If you go all the way back to Daenys the Dreamer, why did she leave? She saw the Doom of Valyria coming. All of this is part of it, but I’m still two books away from the ending, so I haven’t fully explained it all yet.

[Note: The Doom of Valyria was an Atlantis-like cataclysm that demolished the old world roughly a century before Aegon I, the first king of Westeros. Martin has previously noted that “the Targaryens were the only nobles with dragons who escaped the destruction of Valyria.” Having advance notice of history is one of the keys to their power.]

 

Is one of the implications of this series that the Targaryens might’ve been better prepared for the doomsday prophecy if not for this Dance of Dragons civil war that decimated their family and stripped them of these powerful beasts?

Martin: I don’t want to give too much away, because some of this is going to be in the later books, but this is 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones. There was no sell-by date on that prophecy. That’s the issue. The Targaryens that know about it are all thinking, Okay, this is going to happen in my lifetime, I have to be prepared! Or, It’s going to happen in my son’s lifetime. Nobody said it’s going to happen 200 years from now. If the Dance of the Dragons had not happened, what would’ve happened to the next generation? What would’ve happened in the generation after that? Yeah, there’s a lot to be unwound there.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20220815184501/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/08/house-of-the-dragon-george-r-r-martin

[Craving Peaches]

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

You really have a strange way of rating leaders. You think someone would be a good ruler just because they SAY they'll be a good ruler?

I thought we were talking about how justified/right people were in trying to claim the throne, not how good a leader they would be. I was saying that I found Renly's attempt to claim the throne slightly more sympathetic than Aegon's because Renly seemed to be doing it partially because he believed he'd be a good leader, whereas we are given no such indication for Aegon.

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

Words are wind. Renly talked a big game but we never ever saw him actually doing anything meaningful.

He dies halfway into the second book at a young age. What exactly was he supposed to do that is 'meaningful' before that? There were no wars for him to fight in before, and as for corruption on the council, Robert is at fault because he stops councillors replacing corrupt persons. 

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

In fact, what does a Master of Laws even do??

I would like to know because I have no idea. The role seems very under-developed.

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

Stannis is so compelling because he has an arc. Renly never had one

Because he died halfway through the second book! Stannis has had five books to develop this arc.

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

In fact, that's the biggest problem I have with this question of Renly. It's pointless. Renly exists as pure potential which was never tapped, so that we can constantly argue whether or not he would have been any good or not. We can have that conversation for the rest of time and we'll never come close to resolving it. And since it doesn't matter, I'm not going to bother defending Renly based on what he MIGHT have done.

Fair enough. Perhaps someday there may be an official ASoIaF 'what if' to resolve these questions.

[maesternewton]

On 12/23/2022 at 8:14 AM, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Given everything the family has done, they quite frankly deserved to fall as a royal family, 75% of them were utterly terrible people. The majority of the Kings ranged from incompetent to utter monsters. While they did almost completely end petty wars fought between Kingdoms, the wars that were fought were on a much larger scale and caused a lot more harm. 
 

Directly leading to RR, Aerys was so far gone and cruel that I believe it is only by narrative necessity that ruled as long as he did before being overthrown. And the so called “prodigy” Rhaegar, while seemingly working on overthrowing his father, did something mind numbing Lu stupid that what it triggered can rightly be attributed to him as well as his father. 
 

What happened to Elia and her children is terrible, but the Targs and the Lannisters are fully responsible for it. 

Where are you getting this figure of 75%? The only terrible Targaryen Kings were Maegor and Aerys, everyone else was mediocre.

The only brutal war was the Dance of the Dragons, mainly because of their dragons. Every other was on the same scale as the wars before the conquest. The only difference being that these wars took time to occur.

On 12/23/2022 at 10:14 AM, Craving Peaches said:

They deserved to fall because they never deserved to rise in the first place. They had no right to Westeros other than might. To be honest I don't understand why they weren't overthrown after the dragons died.

I don't get this? Did any of the lords ever have a right to Westeros to begin with? The Starks who became Kings in the North through conquest. The Andals who formed the Kingship of the Vale throught conquest. Did any of them have a right?

[kingDaemonI]

On 12/23/2022 at 3:11 AM, SeanF said:

The country was at peace for just over 250 years, during the 283 years of the dynasty. That’s a pretty good record.  Overall, I’d say their rule was a good thing.

1.  Like the House of Wessex, they united seven kingdoms into one.  Only a handful of eccentrics would want to revive the heptarchy.

2.  They ended the First Night, and instituted laws against domestic violence and to protect widows.

3.  They created a Royal Navy.  This gave protection from pirates.  

4.  They established a common currency, and reduced barriers to trade between the Seven Kingdoms.

5.  The North, in particular, suffers from periodic famine.  Aegon V sent them food aid.

6.  They largely ended Ironborn raids on the mainland.

7.  They created a successful new capital, from nothing.

Aerys was certainly a jerk, but his crimes affected relatively small numbers of people.  A return to all out war between the barons (as in the WO5K) causes suffering on a much wider scale.  Lordly absolutism is not preferable to royal absolutism.  The reverse, as the lords vie for power.

 

There is a good reason why we see old peasants yearning for the days of King Aerys in Brienne's feast chapters.  If I'm a peasant, I don't care how many lords have to be roasted alive if the peasants have safe roads and open trade. 

[kingDaemonI]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:14 AM, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Given everything the family has done, they quite frankly deserved to fall as a royal family, 75% of them were utterly terrible people. The majority of the Kings ranged from incompetent to utter monsters. While they did almost completely end petty wars fought between Kingdoms, the wars that were fought were on a much larger scale and caused a lot more harm. 
 

Directly leading to RR, Aerys was so far gone and cruel that I believe it is only by narrative necessity that ruled as long as he did before being overthrown. And the so called “prodigy” Rhaegar, while seemingly working on overthrowing his father, did something mind numbing Lu stupid that what it triggered can rightly be attributed to him as well as his father. 
 

What happened to Elia and her children is terrible, but the Targs and the Lannisters are fully responsible for it. 

Where did you get the idea that there was more war under targ rule?  The maesters (hardly biased in their favor) acknowledge that there were 2-3 wars happening at any given time pre conquest.  There was constant warfare. There was no constant warfare under targ rule.  The people of the sisters saw their lives improve dramatically with the targs.  Since the conquest there were 0 wars between the North and vale over the sisters.  The time period in which China is split into 7 kingdoms is called the warring states period, which ended with unification.  Aegon is Emperor Qin minus the forced labor camps and book burning so basically the ideal ruler.  That being said, even when chinese emperors turned bad, periods between dynasties where the country was split into many pieces were infinitely worse. 

[sweetsunray]

13 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

Where did you get the idea that there was more war under targ rule?  The maesters (hardly biased in their favor) acknowledge that there were 2-3 wars happening at any given time pre conquest.  There was constant warfare. There was no constant warfare under targ rule.  The people of the sisters saw their lives improve dramatically with the targs.  Since the conquest there were 0 wars between the North and vale over the sisters.  The time period in which China is split into 7 kingdoms is called the warring states period, which ended with unification.  Aegon is Emperor Qin minus the forced labor camps and book burning so basically the ideal ruler.  That being said, even when chinese emperors turned bad, periods between dynasties where the country was split into many pieces were infinitely worse. 

Euhm Dornish Wars (several times)

Stepstones

The Dance

The Blackfyre rebellions (several spaced out across generations)

And instead of between 2-3 regions fighting one another, any of these conflicts included warriors from all over Westeros, and can be argued to have been partially responsible for the decline of the NW at the Wall. Apart from tourneys, there was a conflict every generation for every son to gain glory against the Dornish enemy, the triad, Greens or Blacks, and Blackfyres. There aren't any less wars or even less armies involved. But the locations where these wars and battles were actually fought was more restricted to the Crownlands, Stormlands, part of the Reach and part of the Riverlands, close to the Crownlands, and territory that was outside the 7 kingdoms - Dorne and Stepstones.

This tale of "peace" seems a false impression to me

[James West]

On 12/23/2022 at 4:11 AM, SeanF said:

The country was at peace for just over 250 years, during the 283 years of the dynasty. That’s a pretty good record.  Overall, I’d say their rule was a good thing.

1.  Like the House of Wessex, they united seven kingdoms into one.  Only a handful of eccentrics would want to revive the heptarchy.

2.  They ended the First Night, and instituted laws against domestic violence and to protect widows.

3.  They created a Royal Navy.  This gave protection from pirates.  

4.  They established a common currency, and reduced barriers to trade between the Seven Kingdoms.

5.  The North, in particular, suffers from periodic famine.  Aegon V sent them food aid.

6.  They largely ended Ironborn raids on the mainland.

7.  They created a successful new capital, from nothing.

Aerys was certainly a jerk, but his crimes affected relatively small numbers of people.  A return to all out war between the barons (as in the WO5K) causes suffering on a much wider scale.  Lordly absolutism is not preferable to royal absolutism.  The reverse, as the lords vie for power.

 

That is a fair assessment.  I would go further and disagree with the original posts.  The Targaryen Dynasty deserved to continue their rule.  Robert was a better man but Aerys was the better ruler.  Aerys was smart enough to hire capable people to put on his Small Council.  He had an awesome Kingsguards while Robert had political appointees.  And what a disgrace and a dishonor to allow Jaime to remain.  

If the Starks and Robert were innocent of any plotting.  And only if that condition is met, they have legitimate grievance against Aerys.  However, if they were ordered by Aerys to choose other grooms and brides for the sons of the houses and they refused then their motives were suspect.  A means to impeach the king should have been in place but the lords will never go for that solution because it will also put their right to rule in jeopardy.  Rebellion was the only way and it is treason.  

Westeros belonged to Prince Viserys Targaryen.  His death passed the ownership of Westeros to his young sister, Princess Daenerys Targaryen.  

[kingDaemonI]

22 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Euhm Dornish Wars (several times)

Stepstones

The Dance

The Blackfyre rebellions (several spaced out across generations)

And instead of between 2-3 regions fighting one another, any of these conflicts included warriors from all over Westeros, and can be argued to have been partially responsible for the decline of the NW at the Wall. Apart from tourneys, there was a conflict every generation for every son to gain glory against the Dornish enemy, the triad, Greens or Blacks, and Blackfyres. There aren't any less wars or even less armies involved. But the locations where these wars and battles were actually fought was more restricted to the Crownlands, Stormlands, part of the Reach and part of the Riverlands, close to the Crownlands, and territory that was outside the 7 kingdoms - Dorne and Stepstones.

This tale of "peace" seems a false impression to me

my point is, there were some interluding periods of peace, such as the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I.  Pre conquest there was never a period of time with peace.   I would say that each smaller inter kingdom war has less death, but it probably did not have less than 1/3 the deaths of a continent wide war.  The stepstones war and later the war of the ninepenny kings is actually evidence of why the targs were so good--collective defense against foreign foes.  Targs also managed to neutralize the threat posed by the ironborn for 130 years in the period that they had dragons. The bottom line is, there is almost always more war when a nation is divided into 7 separate kingdoms.  It was true in China, true in England, and true in Westeros.  

[sweetsunray]

40 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

my point is, there were some interluding periods of peace, such as the reigns of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I.  Pre conquest there was never a period of time with peace.   I would say that each smaller inter kingdom war has less death, but it probably did not have less than 1/3 the deaths of a continent wide war.  The stepstones war and later the war of the ninepenny kings is actually evidence of why the targs were so good--collective defense against foreign foes.  Targs also managed to neutralize the threat posed by the ironborn for 130 years in the period that they had dragons. The bottom line is, there is almost always more war when a nation is divided into 7 separate kingdoms.  It was true in China, true in England, and true in Westeros.  

Are you really saying that basically a continental war per generation is better than as many variable regional wars?

LOL at "the collective defense" argument, when the Blackfyre rebellions actually are Westerosi fighting Westerosi, or "the collective defensive" actually means "let's all invade Dorne once again".

I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to having a centralized and united ruling, but the whole "it was more peaceful" is not something you can maintain under closer inspection, especially when I've ignored several of the violent local "rebellions" or "feuds" that Targaryen rule barely halted, or the violence that followed between the Faith and the Targs, or Maegor versus his nephews.

Yeah, sure, good thing the Ironborn were kicked out of the Riverlands, but a generation later you end up with religious warfare and Maegor the Cruel.

[kingDaemonI]

23 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Are you really saying that basically a continental war per generation is better than as many variable regional wars?

LOL at "the collective defense" argument, when the Blackfyre rebellions actually are Westerosi fighting Westerosi, or "the collective defensive" actually means "let's all invade Dorne once again".

I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to having a centralized and united ruling, but the whole "it was more peaceful" is not something you can maintain under closer inspection, especially when I've ignored several of the violent local "rebellions" or "feuds" that Targaryen rule barely halted, or the violence that followed between the Faith and the Targs, or Maegor versus his nephews.

Yeah, sure, good thing the Ironborn were kicked out of the Riverlands, but a generation later you end up with religious warfare and Maegor the Cruel.

Yes I am saying that a war every generation is better than 2-3 wars constantly happening.  Because you need to prove that the continent wide (and sometimes not continent wide--the dornish wars for example) wars kill over 3x the number of each individual war. The 2-3 wars happen way more often, so the casualty count for the 2-3 would have to be way lower.  Also the problem with high frequency of war isn't just more casualties--even if the casualties were the same, smaller more constant wars are more disruptive to trade.  During the decades of interluding peace, trade managed to flourish in all 7 kingdoms.  Take Dorne for example.  For the first 150 years even before Dorne joined, I highly doubt there was much change on the border with Dorne.  There was just as much if not more conflict with Dorne against Stormlanders and the reach.  The ironborn being neutralized for 130 years is a far longer term thing.  

In the real world, every nation that has unified from 7 kingdoms has indeed been more peaceful and overall better off.  England is better off unified than under the heptarchy.  There is a really good reason Alfred the Great is the only English king to have that title.  China is better off under Emperor Qin than under the warring states. 

[sweetsunray]

11 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

In the real world, every nation that has unified from 7 kingdoms has indeed been more peaceful and overall better off.  England is better off unified than under the heptarchy.  There is a really good reason Alfred the Great is the only English king to have that title.  China is better off under Emperor Qin than under the warring states. 

In the real world, imperialistic 2 world wars beg to differ, or De Bruce. Let's nor mention the Potato Famine or the conflict in Northern Ireland. That's not "peace".

[SeanF]

45 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

In the real world, imperialistic 2 world wars beg to differ, or De Bruce. Let's nor mention the Potato Famine or the conflict in Northern Ireland. That's not "peace".

I don’t think any of us would want to revert to the heptarchy.

Dark Age England was like the world of Mad Max.

[sweetsunray]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think any of us would want to revert to the heptarchy.

Dark Age England was like the world of Mad Max.

Dark Age England was worse than Mad Max, but the world wars and imperialistic genocides still made more victims.