Did the Targaryens colonize Westeros?

[Craving Peaches]

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

English mercenaries were always welcome additions to the Byzantine imperial (Varangian) guard, so much so that Constantinople was a popular destination for discontented huscarls after the Conquest. 

Have you heard of 'New England'?

New England (medieval) - Wikipedia

[KingAerys_II]

I wonder if the author took inspiration from Liz Taylor Cleopatra to create Daenerys and the purple eyes for the dragonlords

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

I wonder if the author took inspiration from Liz Taylor Cleopatra to create Daenerys and the purple eyes for the dragonlords

Cleopatra, Maria Theresa, Boudicca, are to varying degrees, inspirations, IMHO.

[KingAerys_II]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Cleopatra, Maria Theresa, Boudicca, are to varying degrees, inspirations, IMHO.

Griffith from Berserk

[Alester Florent]

13 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Have you heard of 'New England'?

New England (medieval) - Wikipedia

Funnily enough, I heard about it for the first time just the other day, while doing some research into the history of the Goths.

White hair and purple eyes are something of a fantasy staple. Most obviously, Elric had white hair and deep crimson eyes. I haven't read any GRRM apart from ASoIaF and associated works, but i'm sure I've heard that characters with similar features appeared in his earlier work too.

[Hugorfonics]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Cleopatra, Maria Theresa, Boudicca, are to varying degrees, inspirations, IMHO.

There are records of Cleo and Boudicca's eye color? How?

Idk I think Maria Theresa had blue eyes, tbh the only times I've actually heard of purple eyes aside from asoiaf is Liz Taylor,  I'm sure the inspiration to GRRM

[Alester Florent]

10 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

There are records of Cleo and Boudicca's eye color? How?

Idk I think Maria Theresa had blue eyes, tbh the only times I've actually heard of purple eyes aside from asoiaf is Liz Taylor,  I'm sure the inspiration to GRRM

Chroniclers do sometimes talk about people's appearance. But they're not always reliable, especially since they rarely saw their subjects in person. Comments on hair colour are more common than eyes, in my experience.

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Chroniclers do sometimes talk about people's appearance. But they're not always reliable, especially since they rarely saw their subjects in person. Comments on hair colour are more common than eyes, in my experience.

Yea of course. But also cleopatara and boudicca were losers, and probably debeautified by the haters that history has come to call the Roman's.

Maria Theresa is almost modern tho and not a complete loser either, but I never heard of her having purple eyes

[Alester Florent]

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea of course. But also cleopatara and boudicca were losers, and probably debeautified by the haters that history has come to call the Roman's.

Maria Theresa is almost modern tho and not a complete loser either, but I never heard of her having purple eyes

I think the Romans admired Boudicca in a way. Roman historians can be surprisingly sympathetic to barbarian opponents. Tacitus writes as if he thinks she had a point (ditto Caratacus), she was fighting for freedom, a cause the Romans valued, and she chose death over submission, which they would respect. 

Cleopatra is a bit different. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Alester Florent

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Tacitus writes as if he thinks she had a point

To be fair, didn't Tacitus have a vested interest in portraying the 'barbarians' as virtuous because he thought that contemporary Roman society had gone soft?

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

There are records of Cleo and Boudicca's eye color? How?

Idk I think Maria Theresa had blue eyes, tbh the only times I've actually heard of purple eyes aside from asoiaf is Liz Taylor,  I'm sure the inspiration to GRRM

I was thinking more in terms of history and personality than appearance.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

To be fair, didn't Tacitus have a vested interest in portraying the 'barbarians' as virtuous because he thought that contemporary Roman society had gone soft?

It was certainly a trope that the Romans had gone soft, whereas “barbarians”, either outside the empire, or else living in rough provinces, like those on the Danube or Eastern Anatolia, had tough, manly virtues, similar to those of the early Romans.

These were rough, shaggy, men of antique virtue, whereas many Romans were either useless slum-dwellers, or else upper class degenerates, who shaved their legs and grew goatee beards, and enjoyed poetry about molesting small boys.

Tacitus, however, seems to have had a rare degree of sympathy for those who Rome conquered.

[KingAerys_II]

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I think the Romans admired Boudicca in a way. Roman historians can be surprisingly sympathetic to barbarian opponents. Tacitus writes as if he thinks she had a point (ditto Caratacus), she was fighting for freedom, a cause the Romans valued, and she chose death over submission, which they would respect. 

Cleopatra is a bit different. 

Augustus made propaganda against Cleopatra, Marcus Antonius was his rival, so the Senate had no respect for her, she was considered exotic, Augustus accused him to be not faithful to his wife, Augustus sister, he insisted on this fact, even if Augustus was known for having more than one lovers, some of them were chosen by Augustus wife.... 

There were some interests, Augustus had no intention to give up Egypt to Marcus

[Lord Varys]

On 11/24/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

Like the multiple rebellions that broke out almost immediately on Aegon's death? Arguably, the Targs only achieved the conquest and then survived those first 50 years thanks to their dragons and their apparent willingness to use them - an advantage no medieval conqueror IRL has had.

Those were small affairs, the most dangerous was effectively a Dornish invasion, and no great(er) house actually declared for or supported a rebel. Those rebellions were also directed against Aegon's son(s), not Aegon himself. His rule was accepted for 37 years - unlike that of William the Conqueror.

The later uprising of the Faith wasn't directed against central rule or the unified Realm - politically, it was an attempt to replace the Targaryen king with the High Septon as supreme ruler of Westeros.

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It was certainly a trope that the Romans had gone soft, whereas “barbarians”, either outside the empire, or else living in rough provinces, like those on the Danube or Eastern Anatolia, had tough, manly virtues, similar to those of the early Romans.

These were rough, shaggy, men of antique virtue, whereas many Romans were either useless slum-dwellers, or else upper class degenerates, who shaved their legs and grew goatee beards, and enjoyed poetry about molesting small boys.

Tacitus, however, seems to have had a rare degree of sympathy for those who Rome conquered.

These Romans are crazy.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

To be fair, didn't Tacitus have a vested interest in portraying the 'barbarians' as virtuous because he thought that contemporary Roman society had gone soft?

Up to a point, yeah. But then, that only goes to prove the point that Roman historians weren't one-eyed propagandists who had no interest in barbarians and portrayed them as ugly idiots rightfully squashed, as suggested above.

59 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Augustus made propaganda against Cleopatra, Marcus Antonius was his rival, so the Senate had no respect for her, she was considered exotic, Augustus accused him to be not faithful to his wife, Augustus sister, he insisted on this fact, even if Augustus was known for having more than one lovers, some of them were chosen by Augustus wife.... 

There were some interests, Augustus had no intention to give up Egypt to Marcus

Well yes, Cleopatra was definitely the victim of propaganda, for obvious reasons. But she was also the sort of person the Romans were never really going to like: she didn't embody many, if any, of the virtues they valued. She was a Hellenistic despot rather than an easily-idealised barbarian; she governed through intrigue rather than honest violence; she was not a chaste matron. And the one battle she can reliably be placed at, she did a runner at the first opportunity, arguably ruining any prospect of victory for her side both immediately and long-term.

And most of our Roman historians are writing well after Augustus's death, so they're free to re-examine Cleopatra if they so choose (Tacitus, for instance, certainly doesn't hold back in his criticisms of earlier emperors, albeit he doesn't cover the Augustan period in any detail). I think Cleopatra was the victim of culture clash as much as anything.

Even then, though, the one thing the Romans could agree on was that Cleopatra had seduced two of the great Romans of the era and must surely have conceded that she had physical charms whatever her other defects. Calling her an ugly old troll would just make those Roman heroes look even more foolish than they already appear. Ironically, of course, more recently examined coinage portraiture suggests that Cleo wasn't actually all that to look at (notwithstanding that profile isn't always flattering, and beauty standards change) so it may well have been her winning personality that did it for Antony and Caesar after all.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Alester Florent

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

There is nothing to indicate A major presence of the Targaryen in Westeros before 314 BC .

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Up to a point, yeah. But then, that only goes to prove the point that Roman historians weren't one-eyed propagandists who had no interest in barbarians and portrayed them as ugly idiots rightfully squashed, as suggested above.

Of course they do

"The natives enjoyed plundering and thought of nothing else. By-passing forts and garrisons, they made for where loot was richest and protection weakest. Roman and provincial deaths at the places mentioned are estimated at seventy thousand. For the British did not take or sell prisoners, or practice war-time exchanges. They could not wait to cut throats, hang, burn, and crucify—as though avenging, in advance, the retribution that was on its way." [Dio is even more graphic in his description of atrocities.]

Dio describes the battle.

"Thereupon the armies approached each other, the barbarians with much shouting mingled with menacing battle-songs, but the Romans silently and in order until they came within a javelin's throw of the enemy. Then, while their foes were still advancing against them at a walk, the Romans rushed forward at a signal and charged them at full speed, and when the clash came, easily broke through the opposing ranks..."

.

What makes you think the Romans didn't see the barbarians as ugly idiots?

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Ironically, of course, more recently examined coinage portraiture suggests that Cleo wasn't actually all that to look at (notwithstanding that profile isn't always flattering, and beauty standards change) so it may well have been her winning personality that did it for Antony and Caesar after all.

Or that it's not all about looks?

I think it's pretty obvious that Cleos blood and kingdom did it for Antony and Caeser

[SaffronLady]

52 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Or that it's not all about looks?

I think it's pretty obvious that Cleos blood and kingdom did it for Antony and Caeser

Fat Walda, but ancient Egypt version?

[KingAerys_II]

Jaehaerys seems very similar to Caesar Augustus (Octavio), extremely competent rulers that were not able to understand their own daughters