Which king was the least traditionally Valyrian?

[The Bard of Banefort]

I thought it would be fun to do another thought experiment. There were seventeen Targaryen kings, all of whom shared the Valyrian silver-blond hair and purple eyes. But ever since Aegon the Conqueror landed in Westeros, the Targs have wavered between Valyrian and Westerosi culture. Which brings us to the question: which king was the least traditionally Valyrian and most Westerosi? Let's begin with the Conqueror, who largely set the precedent for what a Targaryen king should be.

Aegon the Conqueror

• Dragonrider: Yes, rode Balerion the Black Dread
• Warrior: Yes, wielded Blackfyre
• Polygamous: Yes, two wives
• Incest: Married both of his sisters; was unable to arrange sibling marriages for his children due to not having any daughters
• Faith of the Seven: A convert, but not devout (the most Westerosi trait about him)
• Magic (apart from dragons): May have had prophetic dreams

Aenys

• Dragonrider: Yes, rode Quicksilver
• Warrior: Adequate but undistinguished fighter; inherited Blackfyre
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No, but he betrothed his eldest son and daughter
• Faith of the Seven: Devout
• Magic: None known

Maegor

• Dragonrider: Yes, rode Balerion
• Warrior: Yes, wielded Blackfyre
• Polygamous: Yes, six wives (four simultaneously)
• Incest: Wed niece, had no children to betroth
• Faith of the Seven: Enemies
• Magic: Wed a sorceress

Jaehaerys I

• Dragonrider: Yes, rode Vermithor
• Warrior: Yes, inherited (and possibly wielded?) Blackfyre
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Wed sister, betrothed one pair of children and tried to betroth others
• Faith of the Seven: Devout
• Magic: None, although BFF Septon Barth studied it

Viserys I

• Dragonrider: Yes, briefly rode Balerion
• Warrior: No; inherited Blackfyre
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No (no sisters), but betrothed a pair of his children
• Faith of the Seven: Follower
• Magic: None in the book universe

Aegon II

• Dragonrider: Yes, rode Sunfyre
• Warrior: No; inherited Blackfyre
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Married sister
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, not said to be devout
• Magic: No

Aegon III

• Dragonrider: Briefly rode Stormcloud, then developed an intense phobia of dragons
• Warrior: No; inherited Blackfyre
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Yes, very reluctantly
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No, but betrothed his second son and daughter
• Faith of the Seven: Follower
• Magic: No

Daeron I

• Dragonrider: No; the first king not to ride a dragon
• Warrior: Yes, wielded Blackfyre
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Unknown
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No, despite having three sisters
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, level of devotion unknown
• Magic: None that we know of

Baelor 

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: No; inherited Blackfyre 
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Yes, through prayer
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Briefly and against his wishes; it's implied that he was disturbed by his attraction to his sisters
• Faith of the Seven: Extremely devout
• Magic: Yes, but all through the prism of religion

Viserys II

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: Moderate; inherited Blackfyre
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Probably
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No, but betrothed two of his children
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, but not opposed to other faiths
• Magic: None known

Aegon IV

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: In youth; last king to inherit Blackfyre
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Hired alchemists to "build me dragons," probably more
• Polygamous: Not officially; wed at least one mistress in a pretend ceremony
• Incest: Married his sister, bedded two of his cousins and possibly his illegitimate daughter
• Faith of the Seven: Christened in the Faith, but not pious
• Magic: Enlisted alchemists and had an alleged sorceress as a mistress

Daeron II

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: No; first king not to inherit Blackfyre
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Unknown
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: None; even thwarted a marriage between his sister and half-brother
• Faith of the Seven: Devout
• Magic: Unknown, but was aligned with two half-siblings who dabbled in it (Brynden and Shiera)

Aerys I

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: No
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Yes
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: None
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, level of devotion unknown
• Magic: Studied alchemy and other mystical arts

Maekar

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: Yes
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Unknown
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: No (no sisters); tried to betroth two of his children but was thwarted
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, often sought council from septons
• Magic: Unlikely, although he eventually allied with Bloodraven

Aegon V

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: Yes
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Yes
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Explicitly anti-incest, broke his own incestuous betrothal and tried to prevent others
• Faith of the Seven: Follower, possibly devout
• Magic: Probably

Jaehaerys II

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: No, but still willing to lead his men into battle
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Probably
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Married his sister, betrothed both of his children
• Faith of the Seven: Probably a follower, may have also followed the Old Gods thanks to his mother
• Magic: Huge believer in prophecies and premonitions

Aerys II

• Dragonrider: No
• Warrior: In youth
• Attempted Dragon Resurrection: Yes
• Polygamous: No
• Incest: Married his sister, though not by choice
• Faith of the Seven: Probably a follower, at least when he was young
• Magic: Believed in all sorts of crazy stuff

 

Based on these characteristics, Daeron II was arguably the least traditionally Valyrian king, which makes sense for the man who married a Dornish woman and was nearly overthrown by his alpha male half-brother. Despite being a warrior king, Maekar is also comparatively more Westerosi compared to the other kings. The one who surprised me the most though is probably Daeron I. He sought to fulfill the Conqueror's vision and nearly succeeded, yet he's missing several of the other trademarks of a Targaryen king (didn't practice polygamy or incest, does not appear to have cared much about magic or resurrecting dragons). Egg also defied much of the Targaryen conventions. . . until Summerhall. While the Conqueror is the proverbial Targaryen king, in some ways he was outshone by his son Maegor, who rejected the Faith of the Seven, unlike his father.

Edited July 23, 2023 by The Bard of Banefort

[James Arryn]

I don’t think the warrior aspect is a Valyrian distinction in and of itself. Medieval kings mostly had to be warriors, and we see this RL reflection in Westeros with or without Valyrian influence. There were many RL medieval realms where for example blinding or maiming kings or contenders was standard form specifically because a king had to be able to lead armies and disqualification from that was equivalent to disqualification from ruling.

Great idea for a thread/breakdown, just disagree on the viability (not interest, I like it as a just chatting category of discussion) of that one category. With the possible exception of some of the Gardeners…and that I think is George using absolute rule France as a model rather than any comment on their martial tendencies…the vast majority of pre-7K kings that we hear about were warriors. As have been the majority of post-Targ Westerosi kings, excepting some of the children, and that was probably just a matter of time and opportunity. I hate Joff as much as anyone, but contrary to the show in the books he was itching to get into the fight at the BW. He was a complete shit of a person but I have little doubt that he’d have happily lead armies once out of Cersei’s control. 
 

I think Joff’s model is pretty clearly Edward of Westminster*, at least the Yorkist understanding of same. And though Tommen is much nicer, he also seemed to enjoy the, er, sport of war, so I think he’d have been a pretty orthodox ruler in this regard, but of course these are speculation. But all the rest, Robert, Stannis, Renly, Robb, even buckethead Balon were as much warrior kings as your typical Targ, if not more so. 
 

The idea of Aegon or arguably Maegor as an archetype is a fun way to do this, and I’m looking forward to where this discussion goes, but an archetype doesn’t monopolize every trait it demonstrates, and in this case it’s not much more distinct than being bipedal or w/e.

 

* with seasonings of Caligula like most despotic young rulers in western history/fiction since. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by James Arryn

[The Bard of Banefort]

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I don’t think the warrior aspect is a Valyrian distinction in and of itself. Medieval kings mostly had to be warriors, and we see this RL reflection in Westeros with or without Valyrian influence. There were many RL medieval realms where for example blinding or maiming kings or contenders was standard form specifically because a king had to be able to lead armies and disqualification from that was equivalent to disqualification from ruling.

Great idea for a thread/breakdown, just disagree on the viability (not interest, I like it as a just chatting category of discussion). But, with the possible exception of some of the Gardeners…and that I think is George using absolute rule France as a model rather than any comment on their martial tendencies…the vast majority of pre-7K kings that we hear about were warriors. As have been the majority of post-Targ Westerosi kings, excepting some of the children. I hate Joff as much as anyone, but contrary to the show in the books he was itching to get into the fight at the BW. He was a complete shit of a person but I have little doubt that he’d have happily lead armies once out of Cersei’s control. 
 

I think Joff’s model is pretty clearly Edward of Westminster*, at least the Yorkist understanding of same. And though Tommen is much nicer, he also seemed to enjoy the, er, sport of war, so I think he’d have been a pretty orthodox ruler in this regard, but of course these are speculation. But all the rest, Robert, Stannis, Renly, Robb, even buckethead Balon were as much warrior kings as your typical Targ, if not more so. 
 

The idea of Aegon or arguably Maegor as an archetype is a fun way to do this, and I’m looking forward to where this discussion goes, but an archetype doesn’t monopolize every trait it demonstrates, and in this case it’s not much more distinct than being bipedal or w/e.

 

* with seasonings of Caligula like most despotic young rulers in western history/fiction since. 

I included the warrior bit because it’s part of the image of the godlike Valyrian king that Aegon I helped cultivate. By presenting themselves as gods among men, the Targs were able to get away with a lot more. Aenys wasn’t a warrior and faced much more backlash for betrothing his children than his father did for marrying two of his sisters. Daeron II’s lack of martial prowess played a big role in turning many the lords to Daemon instead. So while most kings were martial to some degree, I think it’s still worth including here.

One takeaway of mine while writing this was that Maegor in some ways was more of a traditional Valyrian than his father was. Whatever Aegon thought privately, he publicly submitted himself to the Faith, unlike Maegor, who continued the practice of asserting his own superiority over religion. Jaehaerys’ genius was that he learned from both his father and uncle: he openly embraced the Faith (and sincerely, by all accounts) while also training relentlessly as a warrior.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I included the warrior bit because it’s part of the image of the godlike Valyrian king that Aegon I helped cultivate. By presenting themselves as gods among men, the Targs were able to get away with a lot more. Aenys wasn’t a warrior and faced much more backlash for betrothing his children than his father did for marrying two of his sisters. Daeron II’s lack of martial prowess played a big role in turning many the lords to Daemon instead. So while most kings were martial to some degree, I think it’s still worth including here.

One takeaway of mine while writing this was that Maegor in some ways was more of a traditional Valyrian than his father was. Whatever Aegon thought privately, he publicly submitted himself to the Faith, unlike Maegor, who continued the practice of asserting his own superiority over religion. Jaehaerys’ genius was that he learned from both his father and uncle: he openly embraced the Faith (and sincerely, by all accounts) while also training relentlessly as a warrior.

Oh, I completely agree that not being a warrior king leaves you much more open to criticism/disloyalty, I just don’t think that’s especially true for Targs more than anyone else. Arguably less so, as generally speaking the Conquest was a series of engagements where Aegon et al were out-general’d/outfought only to see that made irrelevant by dragons, and given that game changer, the presence of a ~ nuclear power that just sat there for a century is inexplicable for a martial culture. 
 

Agree on Maegor, though to be honest, while I agree that faithfulness to their old religion/custom’s definitely makes them more Valyrian, ie imo unlike the martial aspect, this is a specific distinction, when it comes to the piety/strength of faith as opposed to form, I don’t feel I have much grasp on how pious Valyrians tended to be when compared with Westerosi. George and religion, it’s the soap in the bath, no single line of reasoning works for every scenario/character. Many characters have remarkably modern attitudes towards religion for a medieval model…it’s hard to overstate how atypical that would be for the models he’s using…but at the same time magic is real and often religiously based, so…really hard to evaluate. Sorry, this isn’t a point of disagreement, hope that’s clear, just that this reductionist approach is making me ponder the various aspects themselves and reminding me how slippery GRRM is about religion.
 

But yes, Maegor being more ‘Valyrian’, I can see that. Imo he’s more Visenya than anyone, and the whole Caligula-like personality-intensifying medical episode is an interesting what if. Certainly he’d never have been a good person, but it’s possible that, as some did with Bootsy, George was leaving open the idea that he might have been en route to being a very effective, if unpleasant, medieval ruler before his head injury. It’s even possible that he was heading towards making the IT an absolute monarchy in a way that Jaehaerys sometimes angled for, other times away from, but ultimately did not really evolve, yet. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by James Arryn

[Lord Varys]

Don't think this makes any sense as a topic. The Targaryens we know may be of Valyrian descent, but they are not Valyrian in culture. They are as Greek as the German noblemen who claim descent from heroes from Troy or as Roman as English morons who claimed descent from Brutus.

That they have unusual marriage practices and pets doesn't mean they have a different culture or different values. Incest or polygamy doesn't (necessarily) reflect how the given king is invested in his Valyrian heritage as he is, often enough, not in the position to choose his own spouse nor does the absence of an incestuous match he actually decided against it if he was consulted on his own marriage (Daeron II and his four sons simply didn't have sisters to marry when they matches were made). Polygamy is about as much a Valyrian tradition as it is a First Men or wildlings tradition.

There are no Valyrian Targaryen kings. If the kings from Aegon I to Aegon III, say, had all spoken Valyrian at court, refusing to bother with the language of the conquered (like the Norman and Plantagenet kings did until the reign of Richard II).

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't think this makes any sense as a topic. The Targaryens we know may be of Valyrian descent, but they are not Valyrian in culture. They are as Greek as the German noblemen who claim descent from heroes from Troy or as Roman as English morons who claimed descent from Brutus.

That they have unusual marriage practices and pets doesn't mean they have a different culture or different values. Incest or polygamy doesn't (necessarily) reflect how the given king is invested in his Valyrian heritage as he is, often enough, not in the position to choose his own spouse nor does the absence of an incestuous match he actually decided against it if he was consulted on his own marriage (Daeron II and his four sons simply didn't have sisters to marry when they matches were made). Polygamy is about as much a Valyrian tradition as it is a First Men or wildlings tradition.

There are no Valyrian Targaryen kings. If the kings from Aegon I to Aegon III, say, had all spoken Valyrian at court, refusing to bother with the language of the conquered (like the Norman and Plantagenet kings did until the reign of Richard II).

We’re told over and over again that the Targaryens were considered closer to gods than men, which was why they were allowed to do things like marry their sister and have multiple wives. That is the Valyrian tradition.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

We’re told over and over again that the Targaryens were considered closer to gods than men, which was why they were allowed to do things like marry their sister and have multiple wives. That is the Valyrian tradition.

The incest is a family tradition of a certain noble class in Valyria (dragonlords, sorcerers, other nobility). It is about as representative of Valyrian culture as the family traditions of the Rockefellers or Kennedys are representative of US culture.

The Targaryens are Westerosi nobility by the time of the Conquest. They speak their language, follow their gods, ride in silly tourneys, add silly Sers to their names, walk around with silly animals on their clothes, exploit peasants like the next feudal lord, etc. They even wear crowns and sit on thrones - something the elite of the Valyrian Freehold may have never done. They had no kings, were not feudal worlds, shared the rule in an aristocratic republic of landowners, elected officials of state, practiced religious tolerance, etc.

We have no clue what Valyrian culture was in detail ... but the Targaryens have lost it all. Valyrian culture is more like the things we see in Volantis, hear about the Lyseni do. They are closer to what Valyrian culture was ... but the Targaryens went native completely long before Aegon's time.

Also, by the way - the Conqueror is no convert to the Faith. He and his sisters were brought up in the Faith. They might not have been particularly pious, but they already had a sept and septons and they even had idols of the Seven from the wood of the ships which brought Aenar and the others to Dragonstone. They converted to the Faith decades before Aegon's time, l'd imagine like fifty years before the Conquest or so, in the generation of Aegon's great-grandparents.

And as I said - incest matches hinge on there being siblings to marry and, for the most part, of parents arranging them. Jaehaerys and Alysanne, despite being the prototypical Targaryen sibling couple, don't strike one as particularly Valyrian. They live in Westeros and embody and represent the values of the people they rule. They do carry a legacy from the past, but that is their special dragonlord blood, not Valyrian culture, values, morals, policies, philosophy, religion, etc.

Daeron II's sons seem to be more like King Aenys in the sense that their parents married them to the closest kin available in absence of a sister, aunt, or first cousin. It also feels kind of silly to assume that Aerys-Rhaella or Jaehaerys-Shaera were particularly Valyrian for entering into an incest match when Aerys and Rhaella were forced and Jaehaerys and Shaera apparently simply loved each other ... and were so much removed from living Valyrian culture that at best they could have been as close to it as I'd be the ancien regime when I started wearing powdered wigs.

[SaffronLady]

Interesting to see a "which king is the most similar to Aegon I" thread, too bad it has a misleading title.

[The Bard of Banefort]

17 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Interesting to see a "which king is the most similar to Aegon I" thread, too bad it has a misleading title.

As I explained at the beginning, Aegon I set the precedent for what a Targaryen king should be. But even still, Maegor was arguably more Valyrian due to his rejection of key parts of Westerosi/Andal culture (i.e. the Faith of the Seven).

After the Conqueror, Daeron I and Maekar best fit the role of a warrior king, yet they were significantly more assimilated than Aegon was.

[SaffronLady]

5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Aegon I set the precedent for what a Targaryen king should be.

This I agree with.

6 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Maegor was arguably more Valyrian

And this I don't. Maegor was certainly less Westerosi, but I find it weird to call what he is "Valyrian". I think the text implies polygamy wasn't a very Valyrian thing.

[The Bard of Banefort]

16 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

This I agree with.

And this I don't. Maegor was certainly less Westerosi, but I find it weird to call what he is "Valyrian". I think the text implies polygamy wasn't a very Valyrian thing.

The only reason polygamy was tolerated was because Targaryens were considered “closer to gods than men.” And that deification was based in dragon-taming, which, as far as we know, was practiced exclusively by Valyrians.

[SaffronLady]

50 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The only reason polygamy was tolerated was because Targaryens were considered “closer to gods than men.” And that deification was based in dragon-taming, which, as far as we know, was practiced exclusively by Valyrians.

I would like to point out dragon-taming is taken quite out of its Valyrian context in the post-Conquest era. Yes, the dragons are an undeniable symbol of the Valyrians, but asides from the language of High Valyrian (which even the Targs themselves learn from maesters), no cultural thing especially Valyrian is associated with the act of dragon-taming and dragon-riding. What you are describing is cultural alienation and hybridization, not some perseverance of Valyrian polygamous heritage, which is implied not to exist.

As an extended bonus, neither King's Landing nor the Red Keep share the castle of Dragonstone's architectural style. You'd think the Targs would gargoyle the towers of the Red Keep at least if they shared some affinity with their Valyrian ancestors, but they built a rather standard Westerosi castle instead.

[Alester Florent]

Without delving too deeply into the specifics, I'd say the least traditionally Targaryen king was Baelor, and that's because he eschewed the role of king more than because of anything uniquely Targaryen.

Indeed the Targaryens are pretty Westeros-ised from the outset and behave essentially like any other Westerosi kings in every respect except that they have dragons and practise incest. After Aegon II, dragonriding is no longer on the menu for Targaryen kings so it's just the incest that differentiates them. A discussion of who the least traditional Targ king is then has to focus largely on the question of who was the least traditional king, with their Targaryen credentials being largely secondary.

We could conceivably divide the dynasty into halves: the "old monarchy" down to Daeron I and the "new monarchy" from Baelor onwards. The old monarchs derive power principally from their martial and military authority, in some cases explicitly from their control of dragons, but in general their ability to command military force. There is more to be said on this topic, particulary as regards Aenys and Viserys I, but I think in general it holds.

Baelor represents a massive shift in another direction, with the king trying to derive authority from a religious source and abandon warfare altogether. This is essentially impractical, because as a result of his excessive piety he fails in his key duty of securing the succession, but nevertheless sets the stage for a more compromising monarchy which seeks to rule and lead through diplomacy and statecraft as least as much as it does through violence, and a period during which the majority of kings were not warriors (of all the kings following Viserys II, only Maekar was really a warrior).

We might say that Jaehaerys was the exemplar for the "old kingship" model and Daeron II for the "new kingship" model.

[The Bard of Banefort]

For what it’s worth, I was originally going to title this thread “Which king was the least traditionally Targaryen,” but I thought people would find more ways to nitpick that lol. 

[SaffronLady]

8 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Baelor represents a massive shift in another direction, with the king trying to derive authority from a religious source and abandon warfare altogether. This is essentially impractical, because as a result of his excessive piety he fails in his key duty of securing the succession, but nevertheless sets the stage for a more compromising monarchy which seeks to rule and lead through diplomacy and statecraft as least as much as it does through violence, and a period during which the majority of kings were not warriors

So like, Theodosius II?

[Jon Fossoway]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

So like, Theodosius II?

Theodosius abandoned war altogether?

[SaffronLady]

7 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Theodosius abandoned war altogether?

Theodosius II didn't ride out to war ever, and rarely launched invasions at anyone. There was that war in 425 to install Valentinian III, but that's Theodosius II's only offensive war I could think of.