Dorne is awful but the Fandom is totally biased

[KingAerys_II]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

First, no, not the same. I think it’s arguable that conquest of any kind isn’t much distinct from imperialism in moral terms, but it’s still distinguishable in practice. Short, imperfect illustration: imperialist Nymeria would not have stopped at the Red Mountains, as Nymeria did. (And Aegon did not.) 
 

Second, when did I say Nymeria was good? Third, last time with feeling, invaders who start wars do not get to excuse their actions under the ‘sad realities of warfare’. At least not with any legitimacy. 

Aegon didn't stop because he had the force to do so, then there is the dream thing that made the Conquest a necessity, Nymeria did it for wealth and power

[James Arryn]

Just now, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon didn't stop because he had the force to do so, then there is the dream thing that made the Conquest a necessity, Nymeria did it for wealth and power

I am not going to bother to look it up, in part because I just post waaay too much to make it realistic, so I’ll ask you to take me at my word that I have, many times on this forum, talked about the resident mindset of certain kinds of folk…either because they are resident/complicit or because they have been exposed to way too much wargaming in their developmental years…re: imperialism/expansionism/acquisitiveness. Namely the assumption that the only thing that distinguishes those kinds of states from others is the capacity, that any state which has the power to consume or subsume another does so. Studies have been done which show that the more imperialist/jingoistic your state the more likely you are to believe this crap, and overlook or handwave all contrary evidence.
 

But if you want it put more starkly, think of it this way; that’s how serial killers think of themselves too, overwhelmingly so. They think they just possess or lack qualities that enable them to do what everyone else would do if they could get away with it. But others are too weak, too constrained by convention, too unwilling to admit the truth of existence, etc. and so that’s (in part, according to many serial killers) why the public has such a need to punish them, for doing what we all want to do but can’t. 

That’s what they believe is true about people, just like expansionist states tend to be populated by people who hold similar views on humanity. If that’s your bag, I guess that’s up to you. 

[csuszka1948]

To be honest, the Targaryens aren't really good example of imperialists. Dragonstone wasn't an 'expansionist state', Aegon united six kingdoms into one relatively peacefully and took up their customs.

The war with Dorne is different, because there was widespread opposition from the natives. GRRM wrote it as an analogy for the Vietnam war - however little sense it makes in the medieval context - so the Targaryens actions are clearly in the wrong (and resembling imperialism) there.

[James Arryn]

15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

To be honest, the Targaryens aren't really good example of imperialists. Dragonstone wasn't an 'expansionist state', Aegon united six kingdoms into one relatively peacefully and took up their customs.

The war with Dorne is different, because there was widespread opposition from the natives. GRRM wrote it as an analogy for the Vietnam war - however little sense it makes in the medieval context - so the Targaryens actions are clearly in the wrong (and resembling imperialism) there.

I’d disagree on the first. ‘Uniting’ previously non-united states into one by force is pretty much par for the course, and empires come in all kinds of flavours; the Persians and Romans were far more culturally/religiously inclusive than many modern empires, for example. The Athenian empire was a different animal altogether; they enforced their brand of politics, specifically with an eye to furthering Athenian trade, left garrisons in case of ‘unrest’ and, provided you paid your taxes, supplied your levies and didn’t become ‘restless’ in your own land, left you to ~ wither on the vine in ‘peace’. But to any of their subjects it was clear imperialism, and called as such. In part because it came about by virtue of the Athenians turning a ~ defensive coalition formed for common interests against common enemies into an institution for the maintenance and expansion of Athenian interests over all others. Ie, imperialism. 
 

edit: agree that Dragonstone wasn’t an expansionist state before, er, it literally advertised itself as same. But it was a last outpost of arguably the most expansionist state in the known universe and it’s relatively brief pause in such behaviour is the (admittedly ~ inexplicable for their way of thinking) exception, not the rule. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by James Arryn

[Craving Peaches]

34 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

then there is the dream thing that made the Conquest a necessity,

Not in the books there isn't.

[KingAerys_II]

The Riverlands were happy to get rid of House Hoare, Starks, Arryns yielded peacefully, the Dundarrons survived through Argella, the Lannisters became Wardens of the West after the field of fire, the only one, that died, were the Gardeners. 

However I prefer the patriarchal Starks that don't torture captive women than the matriarchal Martells. 

Like or not, dornishmen did Bolton things in their history, if Euron summons a Kraken that eats Sunspear, I won't be sad

[SeanF]

The conquest of the Six Kingdoms doesn't bother me much, since this was a fight between rival imperialists, and their armies.  The Targaryens were simply the imperialists who won out.  Civilian casualties were pretty limited.

The failed attempt to conquer Dorne is different, in that civilians were repeatedly and deliberately targeted, and they died in big numbers.  The Yellow Toad was not a saint - she had offered assistance to Aegon and his sisters, in return for being given border territories - but the smallfolk of Dorne had done nothing to justify their own suffering.

None of that means that Dorne was always in the right.  Both, pre- and post-Aegon I, Dorne occasionally waged wars of aggression, and they got everything they deserved when the lords of the Reach hunted them down, or the Targaryens burned them.  

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not in the books there isn't.

I’ll admit this is getting into tricky territory, because if, as he has apparently stated, that idea originated or at least met with approval from GRRM, it is ~ canon. I have never been part of another fan base like this, I have no idea how these canon/not canon things are decided, but in this case I think we have to at least consider it. 
 

But…’they make a desert and call it peace’…’conquered the world in self-defence’, bringing ‘civilization/freedom to savages’, etc. Empires often have their own press, often frame (and sincerely believe) their conquests have other, more noble motivations. But it always comes with a side of conquest and acquisition, it always comes to the material benefit of the noble conquerors and the material disadvantage of their subjected peoples. And to continue down the anthropomorphic tone, do you know what kind of relationship has one party persist in framing a pattern of similar behaviour as isolated incidents and regrets but does not change the tendency to getting their way with violence or the threat of same? Right, abusive. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by James Arryn

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The conquest of the Six Kingdoms doesn't bother me much, since this was a fight between rival imperialists, and their armies.  The Targaryens were simply the imperialists who won out.  Civilian casualties were pretty limited.

The failed attempt to conquer Dorne is different, in that civilians were repeatedly and deliberately targeted, and they died in big numbers.  The Yellow Toad was not a saint - she had offered assistance to Aegon and his sisters, in return for being given border territories - but the smallfolk of Dorne had done nothing to justify their own suffering.

None of that means that Dorne was always in the right.  Both, pre- and post-Aegon I, Dorne occasionally waged wars of aggression, and they got everything they deserved when the lords of the Reach hunted them down, or the Targaryens burned them.  

On the grounds that none of the resident powers were anymore virtuous, absolutely. But who pays the price for their games? The bill should still be sent to the invading party. 

[KingAerys_II]

Dorne tried to invade the Seven Kingdoms during the second, third and fourth dornish wars. 

The second dornish war ended when Sam the Savage defeated the Vulture King and Orys mutilated the limbs of Walter Wyl. 

During the third dornish war some dornishmen started to raid the sorrounding kingdom to sack villages and rape women, they were defeated by king Jaehaerys. 

In the fourth dornish war Morion Martell tried to invade the Stormlands with a fleet of Myrish pirates, Vermithor, Vhagar and Caraxes burned them all. 

After the Dance of the Dragons Aliandra Martell encouraged dornish lords to raid the dornish marches territories, the next king Daeron I invaded them and the dornish nobles submitted to him. 

[KingAerys_II]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’ll admit this is getting into tricky territory, because if, as he has apparently stated, that idea originated or at least met with approval from GRRM, it is ~ canon. I have never been part of another fan base like this, I have no idea how these canon/not canon things are decided, but in this case I think we have to at least consider it. 
 

But…’they make a desert and call it peace’…’conquered the world in self-defence’, bringing ‘civilization/freedom to savages’, etc. Empires often have their own press, often frame (and sincerely believe) their conquests have other, more noble motivations. But it always comes with a side of conquest and acquisition, it always comes to the material benefit of the noble conquerors and the material disadvantage of their subjected peoples. And to continue down the anthropomorphic tone, do you know what kind of relationship has one party persist in framing a pattern of similar behaviour as isolated incidents and regrets but does not change the tendency to getting their way with violence or the threat of same? Right, abusive. 

This detail will be in the next book, the dream thing in hotd is not invented, but the author is not going to finish that book and prefers to watch the Barbie movie

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

On the grounds that none of the resident powers were anymore virtuous, absolutely. But who pays the price for their games? The bill should still be sent to the invading party. 

In the case of the Riverlands, I view the overthrow of Harren Hoare as entirely legitimate.  The guy was loathed by his people, who were happy to see the back of him.  

As to the rest, well they were all invading parties, who waged campaigns of aggression to expand their frontiers.  It would be like asking, was the Kingdom of Wessex more aggressive than the Kingdom of Mercia, or East Anglia, or Northumbria?  Bascially, they were all predators, who struck when they scented weakness.

Edited July 31, 2023 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

This detail will be in the next book, the dream thing in hotd is not invented

The dream as it stands does not exist in the books.

5 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

but the author is not going to finish that book

Then it will never exist.

5 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

prefers to watch the Barbie movie

Lol.

[KingAerys_II]

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The dream as it stands does not exist in the books.

Then it will never exist.

Lol.

He told it is 75 percent complete, I don't know, 12 years are lot of time for the release 

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

Look, I don't care about Targaryens, my name is King Aerys II, but this doesn't mean I am a fan of this character, who is comparable to Ramsay Snow, but claims of Targaryen imperialism during Aegon Conquest are ridicolous, I don't think the Riverlands regret the domination of House Hoare, the ironborns used to steal women throughout Westeros, the abolition of the first night right, the law of thumbs, the law of six, the population that doubled during Jaehaerys reign, then Robert came and won the Throne by using his hammer and that is right, the dinasty ended after the Conquest of Robert, it is impossible to tell facts against Dorne, because the ultras of the kingdom start insulting

The Targaryens conquered six kingdoms, four of them through violence, and made their rulers submit to them as overlord. How is that not imperialist?

Yes, the Hoares were jerks and the Riverlanders were probably glad to see the back of them. That argument doesn't hold for the other five. Indeed, in four of the other five, the Targs basically left the same ruling dynasty in charge, but forced them to bend the knee to the Iron Throne. A throne which they made out of the weapons of the soldiers who opposed them and got burned for it.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Sacks do happen though. It may have been more acceptable in the past. We have Theon's little 'adventure' in Andalos and no one holds it against him (possibly because the Andals struck first?).

I agree that sacks are a thing, and I did hesitate about putting it on the list for that reason. But there's something about the Highgarden one that seems particularly... pointed? Like the Dornish (the Yronwoods, was it?) made a point of desecrating an important cultural site as thoroughly as possible. Capturing Highgarden and ransacking it in the process is one thing, but looting the place, destroying the treasures you can't move, and then just abandoning it seems a bit more unpleasant even than the "standard" sack. By Westerosi standards, anyway. The Dothraki wouldn't think twice.

It'd be like if when Ramsay sacked Winterfell he didn't just cart the population off to the Dreadfort but also made a point of going down into the crypts and defacing all the tombs down there.

[csuszka1948]

 

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon didn't stop because he had the force to do so, then there is the dream thing that made the Conquest a necessity, Nymeria did it for wealth and power

 

I don't think it did. Aegon's dream was (probably) about a three-headed dragon fighting a darkness coming from the North, not a literal commandment that 'Westeros must be ruled by the Targaryens or it will cease to exist', that was just his interpretation. It's pretty clear that there won't be a united Westeros ruled by Targaryens by the time the Long Night comes.

[KingAerys_II]

36 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

 

I don't think it did. Aegon's dream was (probably) about a three-headed dragon fighting a darkness coming from the North, not a literal commandment that 'Westeros must be ruled by the Targaryens or it will cease to exist', that was just his interpretation. It's pretty clear that there won't be a united Westeros ruled by Targaryens by the time the Long Night comes.

He didn't for wealth and power as Nymeria did, however Dorne tried to invade the six kingdoms in the next wars and Targaryens never used dragons as a retaliation, so the thesis "Targaryens cruel imperialists" is almost bullsh*t, Jaehaerys built streets in Dorne even though he was not king of that kingdom

Details on the dream are hard to imagine till the release of TWOW

Edited July 31, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I am not going to bother to look it up, in part because I just post waaay too much to make it realistic, so I’ll ask you to take me at my word that I have, many times on this forum, talked about the resident mindset of certain kinds of folk…either because they are resident/complicit or because they have been exposed to way too much wargaming in their developmental years…re: imperialism/expansionism/acquisitiveness. Namely the assumption that the only thing that distinguishes those kinds of states from others is the capacity, that any state which has the power to consume or subsume another does so. Studies have been done which show that the more imperialist/jingoistic your state the more likely you are to believe this crap, and overlook or handwave all contrary evidence.
 

But if you want it put more starkly, think of it this way; that’s how serial killers think of themselves too, overwhelmingly so. They think they just possess or lack qualities that enable them to do what everyone else would do if they could get away with it. But others are too weak, too constrained by convention, too unwilling to admit the truth of existence, etc. and so that’s (in part, according to many serial killers) why the public has such a need to punish them, for doing what we all want to do but can’t. 

That’s what they believe is true about people, just like expansionist states tend to be populated by people who hold similar views on humanity. If that’s your bag, I guess that’s up to you. 

I do think that for much of human history that was in fact the case.  The rulers of States pounced on weakness, when they spotted it in neighbouring States.  Frederick the Great spotted the chance to grab Silesia.  Catherine II spotted the chance to grab Crimea, and parts of Lithuania.  Louis XIV spotted the chance to grab Franche Comte and parts of the Spanish Netherlands.

What has changed is that now the balance of risk and reward works against conquest, as Putin is finding.  Military technology favours the defender.  Conquerors usually face insurgents.  Nationalism is far more potent these days, whereas 250 years ago, the masses just shrugged when their rulers changed.

And, why bother going to the trouble of conquering weaker States, when you can buy what you need off them, more cheaply, and/or bribe their politicians.

 

[KingAerys_II]

I don't think Aegon and the sisters were so happy to leave Dragonstone, it is clear they did the Conquest and everything for the dream as Aenar escaped before the Doom, dragonlords don't belong to Westeros, they come from the Shadowlands and they are not humans, stillborn children with dragon features prove they were the output of experiments Valyrian sorcerers used to do to crossbreed humans with beasts

Edited July 31, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[Alester Florent]

45 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

He didn't for wealth and power as Nymeria did, however Dorne tried to invade the six kingdoms in the next wars and Targaryens never used dragons as a retaliation, so the thesis "Targaryens cruel imperialists" is almost bullsh*t, Jaehaerys built streets in Dorne even though he was not king of that kingdom

Details on the dream are hard to imagine till the release of TWOW

Details on the dream are nonexistent until the release of TWoW and possibly thereafter.

Aegon's actions cannot be justified on the basis of any dream or prophecy, because there is no such dream or prophecy in the books. It remains no more valid than that time Arya was cupbearer for Tywin Lannister.