The Targaryens Deserved to Fall

[Craving Peaches]

22 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

My point is, those fears are wholly unfounded.  Unlike the Andals, the targaryens didn't force their religion on everyone else.

Peoples dislike of foreigners doesn't have to be rational. They don't need a reason to dislike others aside from that they're different.

And people have religious reasons to dislike the Targaryens. Incest is a sin and I doubt everyone subscribes to the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

And people have religious reasons to dislike the Targaryens. Incest is a sin and I doubt everyone subscribes to the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

Yeah exactly. The Faith of the Seven was such a huge influence in the Seven Kingdoms even before Aegon I's Conquest. They weren't just the predominant religion in Westeros, they also carried out acts of justice, trials, and judgements. They were powerful and also wealthy, which is why Aegon I chose to tread lightly with them. Aegon converting to the Seven while simultaneously continuing in Targaryen practices of incest and polygamy was a disaster waiting to happen. 

[SeanF]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:11 PM, Craving Peaches said:

You can't really compare today to Westeros though, Westeros is meant to be in a late mediaeval-ish state. And it depends on what you define as 'better off'. We think centralised kingdoms are better off but people in the story might think they would be better off if their region is independent because they can rule themselves, aren't subject to 'foreigners' and so on.

I doubt if there’s a very strong sense of nationhood outside of Dorne.  Nationalism was not really an issue in a time where loyalty to family, clan, and religion was more important.

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I doubt if there’s a very strong sense of nationhood outside of Dorne.  Nationalism was not really an issue in a time where loyalty to family, clan, and religion was more important.

Yes but that doesn't mean people will like/tolerate foreigners. Especially foreigners who sin.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't care but the people in the story might.

It'd be the first time they do.

24 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes but that doesn't mean people will like/tolerate foreigners. Especially foreigners who sin.

They did last time. Even when the Goats brave companions were sacking Harrenhal and chopping of hands nobody took issue with the foreign element. They were thought of on par with Lannister and Stark men.

 

They all sin. Just ask the Lannisters 

[Vaegon the dragonless]

12 hours ago, kingDaemonI said:

Sure but I'm not advocating for a return to the wars of religion, I'm talking about a world where the Western empire remains united.  

Sure, but your premise of a single united kingdom is more stable and better, to me just doesnt hold up, a centralized kingdom for most of history just makes the violence even more potent.

[Craving Peaches]

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It'd be the first time they do.

But I don't think it would. People don't like the Dornish because they're Dornish, part of the Greatjon's speech to Robb is based on how the foreign rulers don't know about their ways, and Lady Serala of Lys gets all the blame for the defiance of Duskendale (though that could also be because she's a woman).

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They did last time. Even when the Goats brave companions were sacking Harrenhal and chopping of hands nobody took issue with the foreign element.

We can't say for sure though, because we never have a POV from one of the Smallfolk in the area.

[sweetsunray]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:08 PM, kingDaemonI said:

Regardless then my point still stands--no nation today that used to be split into 7 or a few separate warring kingdoms is better off going back to the fractured state.  The same is true for Westeros. 

 

Still disagree. Centuries ago my country was part of the Spanish Empire. Good riddance to that monstrosity. EU proves that one can have a thriving economy without the dissolution of nations. 

[Hugorfonics]

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

But I don't think it would. People don't like the Dornish because they're Dornish

I don't think that's true. What people? Anguy made some jokes about liars from the Marches but it seemed way more jovial then xenophobic 

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

part of the Greatjon's speech to Robb is based on how the foreign rulers don't know about their ways

Word. Southrons are ignorant alot and there religion is funky. But I think homerule was such an issue because southeon can be straight tyrannical 

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

and Lady Serala of Lys gets all the blame for the defiance of Duskendale (though that could also be because she's a woman).

That's true.

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

We can't say for sure though, because we never have a POV from one of the Smallfolk in the area.

Word, so we should assume ambivalence until we know more

[Maegor_the_Cool]

Targaryens couldn’t adapt to not having dragons. So yes they deserved to fall because they couldn’t defend their power. With someone like Aerys on the throne it was inevitable. And as much as I like Egg, he walked a very fine line between the nobility and small folk. He pissed off his nobles enough that I’m sure it started mumbling amongst the great lords, not just the more minor ones that rebelled. 

[kingDaemonI]

23 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Peoples dislike of foreigners doesn't have to be rational. They don't need a reason to dislike others aside from that they're different.

And people have religious reasons to dislike the Targaryens. Incest is a sin and I doubt everyone subscribes to the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

Well then it's the people that are in the wrong here.  Also the doctrine of exceptionalism does make sense if you subscribe to the idea that dragon riding is linked to the X chromosome.  

[kingDaemonI]

11 hours ago, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Sure, but your premise of a single united kingdom is more stable and better, to me just doesnt hold up, a centralized kingdom for most of history just makes the violence even more potent.

In a case where there is a shared language, (mostly) shared religion, and lots of shared culture when has that happened?  As for religion, wars of religion may have plagued Europe but Westeros has seemed to have very few religious conflicts. 

[kingDaemonI]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Still disagree. Centuries ago my country was part of the Spanish Empire. Good riddance to that monstrosity. EU proves that one can have a thriving economy without the dissolution of nations. 

And yet there are many people who advocate for greater integration among EU nations, some who even call for a united European nation.  EU member states also don't have one single common language and shared history like Westeros does.  Spanish holdings in Europe also faced similar religious and linguistic divisions. EU has been beneficial because of the introduction of tariff free trade and common currency.  Without Aegon's conquest, that would not have happened to the 7 kingdoms for a long time. 

[Craving Peaches]

23 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

Well then it's the people that are in the wrong here. 

Yes they are, I am confused what point you are trying to make.

23 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

Also the doctrine of exceptionalism does make sense if you subscribe to the idea that dragon riding is linked to the X chromosome.  

Maybe, but it's the way the Doctrine is phrased, like the Targaryens are superior to everyone else, that means I don't like it. Also I think the name 'Doctrine of Exceptionalism' was not a great choice as it sounds like a facist manifesto to my ears.

[sweetsunray]

25 minutes ago, kingDaemonI said:

 EU has been beneficial because of the introduction of tariff free trade and common currency.  Without Aegon's conquest, that would not have happened to the 7 kingdoms for a long time. 

Agreed, but it also shows that the 7 kingdoms can also work as independent regions with their own cultural differences, where some central power of representatives of all the regions have a say in the trade and basic human rights agreements, but without some head of state who vies for autocratic rule over such a large empire (the size of South America). It's pretty pointless anyway, if you don't have a standing army as head of such a large state. They have at best a royal fleet, and even that Cersei managed to chase off.

ETA: Without dragons and without a standing army, anyone can basically try to levy soldiers and make a go for it. Hence RR, a war of 5 kings, and Aegon, and Euron, and Dany , ...

[Hugorfonics]

20 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Without dragons and without a standing army

That's the scariest thing about Dany. Her dragons are small and her standing army is foreign and not used to Westeros battle conditions.

Still. 2 for 2.

[sweetsunray]

10 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's the scariest thing about Dany. Her dragons are small and her standing army is foreign and not used to Westeros battle conditions.

Still. 2 for 2.

Agreed that George writes Dany as the sole one having both dragons and a personal army that would be the size she can send it punitively against anyone who protests. The Dothraki and Unsullied wouldn't just be a conquering army, but very much a very mobile standing army as well as excellent defensive army, and large enough for a continent the size of Westeros. Add a potential queen's fleet and theoretically she has it all to become an autocratic single ruler the likes of the Spanish Emperor.

None of the others, like Stannis or Aegon (let alone Cersei) are working to create such an army. Sure Aegon has the Golden Company, but the men of the GC expect to be rewarded with land and castles. The same is true for the Queen's Men of Stannis. And it does not look like Aegon VI or Stannis refuse them. After all Stannis demanded most of the Wall's forts be turned over to him to reward his landless nobles with. 

The issue for Dany's standing army and fleet that I can foresee is that while they would be immensely loyal to her person, that personal loyalty also almost ensures that unless she has a child and can reinsttall a dynasty, it will scatter in all wind directions, leaving the next autocratic ruler with nothing, and you'll end up with a wo5k all over again.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's the scariest thing about Dany. Her dragons are small and her standing army is foreign and not used to Westeros battle conditions.

Still. 2 for 2.

It's gonna be interesting to see how they adjust for the coming winter. Especially if they go North (which they probably will eventually.) Even Stannis' army was ill equipped.

[Hugorfonics]

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Agreed that George writes Dany as the sole one having both dragons and a personal army that would be the size she can send it punitively against anyone who protests. The Dothraki and Unsullied wouldn't just be a conquering army, but very much a very mobile standing army as well as excellent defensive army, and large enough for a continent the size of Westeros. Add a potential queen's fleet and theoretically she has it all to become an autocratic single ruler the likes of the Spanish Emperor.

My thoughts as well. She would still rely on her lords to do the bulk of everything but her unsullied and friends would add a bit more muscle then what her ancestors had. Which was solely the KG. (Sometimes the gold cloaks)

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

None of the others, like Stannis or Aegon (let alone Cersei) are working to create such an army.

Stannis' core are in too deep. They're all essentially landless and Stannis is there only ticket to seeing their home again. But yea, the rest are regular lords with the regular peasants with spears they usually have. (Well, some have skis)

Cersei is kinda testing the waters with the Faith. It all blew up in her face but she may actually be able to regrasp her standing army. (Which would be a challenge. Stannis' men see him as Gods answer. Danys see her as a near God herself. But Cersei must convince her army to fight for God under her... Because she's so god damn godly lol)

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Sure Aegon has the Golden Company

Sellswords from essos. They're practically the brave companions with elephants lol. Besides Dany got some sellswords companies as well

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

expect to be rewarded with land and castles. The same is true for the Queen's Men of Stannis. And it does not look like Aegon VI or Stannis refuse them. After all Stannis demanded most of the Wall's forts be turned over to him to reward his landless nobles with. 

So like Daarios men will get paid, I'm sure.

Unsullied clearly won't. That's good, for like 20 years tops. How will the next generation replace the Unsullied in not just strength but in slave like commitment as well?

The Dothraki? Who the hell knows. They want to graze and enslave but thats not really a thing anymore. Certainly not out west. I think Danys resettlement of the Dothraki is a huge issue that will have to be beneficiary for Essos at large, the Dothraki specifically and of course Danys state itself.

16 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

It's gonna be interesting to see how they adjust for the coming winter. Especially if they go North (which they probably will eventually.) Even Stannis' army was ill equipped.

They're a hardy bunch. I don't think it gets too cold in the Dothraki Sea but probably a little. But for sure, winter is coming and specifically in the north. Their horses may starve if they try to traverse that land 

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Stannis' core are in too deep. They're all essentially landless and Stannis is there only ticket to seeing their home again. But yea, the rest are regular lords with the regular peasants with spears they usually have. (Well, some have skis)

They are landless now, but they expect land and castles or brides for it at the end of it all. Say that Stannis were to win the IT (no chance, but let's imagine) and he were to say, "you're my standing army from now on, no castles, no land, no noble brides, but I'll pay you," they'll likely join another claimant in an instant to fight for that one instead.

Selyse certainly is not helping in that regard, intending to wed Stannis' glue between the North and the Free Folk to one of her oafs that Stannis doesn't even want to take on campaign to hold a sword. Now that woman is STUPID!

11 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sellswords from essos. They're practically the brave companions with elephants lol. Besides Dany got some sellswords companies as well

But they are expecting castles and lands. They want a "home". And Aegon so far is giving it to them with every castle he takes.

13 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

They're a hardy bunch. I don't think it gets too cold in the Dothraki Sea but probably a little. But for sure, winter is coming and specifically in the north. Their horses may starve if they try to traverse that land 

The North would be immensely difficult to keep in line or to conquer. Only the dragons can. But Moat Cailin? A fleet? At best White Harbor. Most everything else is inland. The Ironborn only managed, because Robb was in the South with the major forces and because Ramsay was not going to intervene until it was to the advantage of the Boltons to do so.