Did the Targaryens colonize Westeros?

[Alester Florent]

40 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Cruel - How? Like literally how? We see him ruling very little, but in what little we see he does not seem cruel. 

Narrow minded - How? He put a woman in Rainbow Guard, ...which makes him more open minded than ...any other King that we see in these books? Also, you might not like it, but ignoring rules of inheritance could be seen as open minded. Open minded means being able to be open to new ideas/new opinions. Of the 5 Kings, I would argue Renly might be easily the most open minded from the limited sample size we saw. 

Craven - Directly contradicted by the text. What because he didn't allow Cersei to murder him? He directly tried to go against Cersei while teaming up with Eddard and Eddard refused him. Being intelligent and not stupidly falling into your enemies traps is not craven. If this was a reasoning to calling someone a craven, then Tywin is a craven, Stannis is a craven, Jon Snow is a craven, etc. etc. Like you could literally call most of the characters in the book a craven with this logic. 

Loser - Ah yes, his loss. By a magic no one had ever heard of before nor predicted. Much like JFK lost the presidency right? No, he didn't. He was a winner and then an ACTUAL craven assassinated him. Stannis is the craven. 

I knew you'd come round to Team Renly. All right- thinking people do.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Alester Florent

[SaffronLady]

41 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I knew you'd come round to Team Renly. All right- thinking people do.

I must say though I think the Summer King would perform poorly against the winter. He lacks the context required for such a tale.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

20 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I knew you'd come round to Team Renly. All right- thinking people do.

I've always thought he would be the best King, and I think.....second read through I first got frustrated by Eddard not seeing him as a potential ally in AGoT. I'd say...if there was more Renly, I'd probably just like him more. It's lack of presence that is why I don't talk about him as much, but other than that...I basically like him. Also, even from the first read through I thought he was clearly the hero and Stannis the villain in their interactions. I don't know when I decided Robb should have just allied with him (and bowed down to him)...but I definitely started thinking that at t some point (and still think it). Granted that would make a Stannis-Robb coalition unlikely...but that was unlikely anyways because....Stannis. 

[Alester Florent]

33 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I've always thought he would be the best King, and I think.....second read through I first got frustrated by Eddard not seeing him as a potential ally in AGoT. I'd say...if there was more Renly, I'd probably just like him more. It's lack of presence that is why I don't talk about him as much, but other than that...I basically like him. Also, even from the first read through I thought he was clearly the hero and Stannis the villain in their interactions. I don't know when I decided Robb should have just allied with him (and bowed down to him)...but I definitely started thinking that at t some point (and still think it). Granted that would make a Stannis-Robb coalition unlikely...but that was unlikely anyways because....Stannis. 

I think Renly was by far the most credible of the three contenders for the Iron Throne during ACoK, and also the only one who Robb could really have worked with - and narratively, of course, that's why he had to die.

Ned's refusal to work with him in AGoT does become increasingly frustrating in retrospect, especially turning down his offer of support while Robert is already dying. There were no conditions attached to Renly's support: he was just offering to help Ned enforce the terms of Robert's will while he still could. Ned's refusal on the grounds that he "didn't want to seize frightened children from their beds" when he was still planning on strolling into the throne room the next day and damning them all as incest bastards and handing them over to Stannis who would kill them anyway, seems pretty silly when we take a step back.

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Proof?

Proof? He's actually quite progressive in relation to people like Stannis. He allows Brienne to serve on his Kingsguard, treats commoners well, doesn't refuse to compromise with Catelyn just because Robb is a separatist (unlike Stannis).

Where is the evidence for this? Because there's plenty to the contrary.

In what way? I find it hard to judge someone who only loses because of undefeatable, never-before-seen, near Deus ex Machina magic a loser.

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Cruel - How? Like literally how? We see him ruling very little, but in what little we see he does not seem cruel. 

Narrow minded - How? He put a woman in Rainbow Guard, ...which makes him more open minded than ...any other King that we see in these books? Also, you might not like it, but ignoring rules of inheritance could be seen as open minded. Open minded means being able to be open to new ideas/new opinions. Of the 5 Kings, I would argue Renly might be easily the most open minded from the limited sample size we saw. 

Craven - Directly contradicted by the text. What because he didn't allow Cersei to murder him? He directly tried to go against Cersei while teaming up with Eddard and Eddard refused him. Being intelligent and not stupidly falling into your enemies traps is not craven. If this was a reasoning to calling someone a craven, then Tywin is a craven, Stannis is a craven, Jon Snow is a craven, etc. etc. Like you could literally call most of the characters in the book a craven with this logic. 

Loser - Ah yes, his loss. By a magic no one had ever heard of before nor predicted. Much like JFK lost the presidency right? No, he didn't. He was a winner and then an ACTUAL craven assassinated him. Stannis is the craven. 

Yould think I set off an alarm. 
I thought the way he talked to his nieces and nephews was disgusting and his plan to arrest them in their mothers arms while their father was warm as close to evil as possible. And foolish of course, I could go on for days about why I dislike one of the most unlikable characters but tbh, I didn't mean to pull the alarm, was more of a cheap shot at Florent which I did feel kinda funny about after posting. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Even the proponents of the "longest Renaissance" model put its end no later than the 17th century. The Renaissance doesn't just mean "being inventive and rich": indeed arguably the defining feature of the Renaissance was that it was based on a rediscovery and readeption of classical texts, knowledge, culture, etc. rather than being highly original. Hence the name

(sry) Thats how the humanists thought, I dont see what thats got to do with them.
And if you wanna go down that road then the classics were taught in school until like the 1960s.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Most historians would separate out the Reformation period, at least the later stages thereof, from the Renaissance. All of them would separate the Enlightenment.

Different things happen at different times that look roughly the same. Dont be such a stickler. From Donatello microwaving his first piece of pizza to Napoleons campaign in Italy, things were innovative and rich. 
Besides, the Reformation was mostly a Germaic thing while the Romance kept it largely cruising.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Saying the Renaissance was long over by Napoleon's heyday isn't any kind of judgement on the culture of the 18th century: it's just that the historical period defined as the Renaissance had ended.

Its in between the middle ages and the duel revs where money and free thinking became rampant, it ridiculous to separate it based on what they thought at the time. 

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

It's a form of nationalism and one of the more obvious forms of it, especially when discussing pre-modern polities where political unification is questionable. But yeah, I was slinging that term around carelessly.

Well it seems based on that ulr you supplied and your stance on America just being some united states, which is what like the conservative party in Jacksonian times thought, Ive arrived at the conclusion that you only think ethnonationalism is the only way of creating a nationalist state. Which to me is just bonkers.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Nevertheless I wonder whether this is a similar confusion to the one earlier about the difference between "nation" and "polity/state". Hungary was indeed founded as a kingdom in roughly its present location in the 10th century (not earlier, the Magyars had yet to settle by the mid-10th century, and didn't yet identify as Hungarian) but that doesn't mean it was a nation or has remained a nation ever since. There were a lot of Germans in medieval Hungary and probably a lot of Slavs too, and Hungary itself was happy to expand its borders into neighbouring, very non-Hungarian areas (modern Romania, Slovakia, Croatia), becoming an empire in all but name rather than a nation, to say nothing of the long period of partition.

Yea of course. The idea of pure Magyar blood is ridiculous since inception to victories to defeats, plus with Vienna down the block, Hungarian blood is diverse. But what do you mean they didn't identify as Hungarians? Obviously there was no flag and not everyone spoke Hungarian, but there were semi autonomous lords who had an invested interest in what they considered Hungary. 
I mean I really dismiss the fact that there were other cultures there as irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

That people wrote in Latin and were Catholic didn't and doesn't make them Roman any more than writing in English and following the episcopalian tradition makes you English now. 

I dont think your right about that. 
If the Pope said jump, Christendom had a crusade. Charlamagne was crowned Augustus, there is a continuum that existed in the early middle ages, only for it to morph into another continuum. 

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Some legends of Arthur do have him going to Rome and being crowned emperor, but it's clear that that is something he did on top of his existing, British, identity, and he wasn't considered Roman from the start.

Quote

Right... That sounds kinda familiar, He didnt conquer Rome?
But now, with the anglo saxons, Im very sus to not group them into some sort of greater Viking world.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Spain wasn't politically unified until the early 18th century. Before that it was a collection of independent or autonomous kingdoms in personal union (most of the time after 1500). But, even if we discount the disputed succession to Charles II (where different Spanish kingdoms recognised different kings) "Spain" as we now recognise it wasn't personally unified until 1516. And from 1580 to 1665, the Spanish possessions included (in addition to the extensive colonies) Portugal, which was exactly as much part of "Spain" as was, say, Navarre or Catalonia, legally speaking, but which nobody in their right mind would call part of Spain now.

There are multiple nations in Spain. Some of them have quite strong feelings on the subject.

That Navarre, the Balearics, Catalonia, Valencia, etc. now fall within the borders of a country called "Spain" is essentially an accident of history and has nothing to do with actual national identity. The country doesn't even really have a common language, and its government is the least centralised in western Europe (except Switzerland). In another timeline, Catalonia established complete independence in 1640 or 1713 (or, heck, 2017) and is now recognised as a country in its own right; Menorca remained under British rule and became a kind of insular Gibraltar; the Spanish kings retained possession of Portugal, or the Netherlands, or Sicily. Etc.

Whether Spain is a nation is a highly contentious topic. I have my opinion (indeed, I am a member of a relevant organisation); I accept that some people disagree. But the idea that Spain is not a nation is far from ridiculous.

And by any definition of "nation", it was, at best, just getting started on the road to nationhood in 1500.

You sound like a Maester. There is the perception of the law and norms and there is reality.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

I thought the way he talked to his nieces and nephews

What did he say to Myrcella, Tommen and Joffrey?

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

arrest them in their mothers arms while their father was warm as close to evil as possible.

As opposed to Stannis who just wants them put to death?

All Renly proposed to do was separate them from Cersei in order to ensure Robert's will was enforced. No suggestion that they were going to be hurt or killed.

[SaffronLady]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its in between the middle ages and the duel revs where money and free thinking became rampant, it ridiculous to separate it based on what they thought at the time. 

Tides of thought have and do mark historical periods. Separating the Rebirth, the Reformation and the Enlightenment makes more sense than...

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Charlamagne was crowned Augustus, there is a continuum that existed in the early middle ages, only for it to morph into another continuum.

Calling Karl the Great "Roman". Just go catch with Roman studies. 

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Besides, the Reformation was mostly a Germaic thing while the Romance kept it largely cruising.

Counter-Reformation is a thing though. Rather notable for Spain's efforts to turn its colonies into Catholic realms.

[Alester Florent]

4 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

(sry) Thats how the humanists thought, I dont see what thats got to do with them.
And if you wanna go down that road then the classics were taught in school until like the 1960s.

Different things happen at different times that look roughly the same. Dont be such a stickler. From Donatello microwaving his first piece of pizza to Napoleons campaign in Italy, things were innovative and rich. 
Besides, the Reformation was mostly a Germaic thing while the Romance kept it largely cruising.

You're right, there was no reformation in France, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary... Oh wait.

If you want to use a definition of "Renaissance" that nobody else uses or has ever used, then feel free, but don't expect anyone to understand or agree with you.

Quote

You sound like a Maester. There is the perception of the law and norms and there is reality.

The reality is that national identity crosses legal boundaries. You going to say that "Irish" isn't a nationality? Scottish? Kurdish?

Go to Vic and tell them (in Spanish) that "Catalan" isn't a nationality. Or, rather, don't.

I'm not going to relitigate the definition of "nation". I've linked the article. Read it, or not. Laterz.

[Hugorfonics]

2 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Tides of thought have and do mark historical periods. Separating the Rebirth, the Reformation and the Enlightenment makes more sense than...

Morse sense of course, but more accurate? 

2 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Calling Karl the Great "Roman". Just go catch with Roman studies. 

Lol, so true story. My cousin asked "whos your fav emeperor?" without thinking I said Palpatine, I thought hed like it, he likes him more then me, but he didnt, he said "real emperor", again without thinking, Napoleon, cuz duh. Still mad, idk why, "roman emperor" he stressed, i did think, and with a big ass smile I said Charles V. Lol, its complicated stuff.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

The reality is that national identity crosses legal boundaries. You going to say that "Irish" isn't a nationality? Scottish? Kurdish?

Its also complicated stuff.

4 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm not going to relitigate the definition of "nation". I've linked the article. Read it, or not. Laterz.

Peace

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its also complicated stuff.

It's quite obvious that Scottish is a nationality. I don't see what is complicated about that.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SaffronLady]

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Morse sense of course, but more accurate?

? And why would killing off the Reformation and Enlightenment as historical periods be a more accurate way to present history

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's quite obvious that Scottish is a nationality today. I don't see what is complicated about that.

Never said it wasnt! In fact I said things implying Scotland was a nationality like a thousand years ago, with its occasional ups and down.

[Hugorfonics]

1 minute ago, SaffronLady said:

? And why would killing off the Reformation and Enlightenment as historical periods be a more accurate way to present history

It was kinda a joke. And if you need to label some chapter a b and c then these fit the mark. All I said that got us into this was, also in a joking way, that Italy was booming financially for centuries until Napoleon pulled up and drained em, which is why I labeled him a colonist over a conqueror. Which is also just some label to fit a b or c.

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Never said it wasnt! In fact I said things implying Scotland was a nationality like a thousand years ago, with its occasional ups and down.

Good. I was all ready to start quoting the Declaration of Arbroath and stuff.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yould think I set off an alarm. 
I thought the way he talked to his nieces and nephews was disgusting and his plan to arrest them in their mothers arms while their father was warm as close to evil as possible. And foolish of course, I could go on for days about why I dislike one of the most unlikable characters but tbh, I didn't mean to pull the alarm, was more of a cheap shot at Florent which I did feel kinda funny about after posting. 

As close to evil as possible. 

Ah yes, unlike Cersei’s plan …which was to murder Renly and probably all of his people as well. That is what she did to the Starks. 

Like what did you expect him to do? You are calling him a craven (for running) and then evil (for planning to arrest Cersei), so I guess…you wanted him to jsut die like Eddard. Either you die by Cersei’s hand or you are evil/craven? Good lord man. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I think Renly was by far the most credible of the three contenders for the Iron Throne during ACoK, and also the only one who Robb could really have worked with - and narratively, of course, that's why he had to die.

Ned's refusal to work with him in AGoT does become increasingly frustrating in retrospect, especially turning down his offer of support while Robert is already dying. There were no conditions attached to Renly's support: he was just offering to help Ned enforce the terms of Robert's will while he still could. Ned's refusal on the grounds that he "didn't want to seize frightened children from their beds" when he was still planning on strolling into the throne room the next day and damning them all as incest bastards and handing them over to Stannis who would kill them anyway, seems pretty silly when we take a step back.

Eddard literally regrets it. Like two paragraphs later. I think that is what drives me the most crazy. Send…well Jory was dead at this point. Send someone to ask for Renly’s support. Immidietely upon your regret! 

[KingAerys_II]

21 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

That doesn't make it right or justified. Also, more people died in the War of the Five Kings because of many factors other than direct fighting, plus the population of Westeros had increased compared to when Aegon came. Aegon has a cheat code weapon which has nothing to do with how right or justified he is. If he'd had to invade by conventional means, casualties may well have approached the proportion in the WotFK. Aegon killed ~10,000 men in a single battle and probably thousands at once in Harrenhal, a feat matched by none of the combatants in the WotFK except maybe Stannis when loads of his men burned to death. If you factor in the number the Targaryens killed in the Dance, proportionally I would expect it to be similar to the War of the Five Kings. We also don't know how many Aegon killed in Dorne, but based on descriptions it probably numbered in the tens of thousands.

With that said, I want to pre-emptively strike down some ridiculous claims for 'justifications' of the Conquest I see being made here.

• Aegon invaded to end the fighting between various kingdoms - no evidence for this. If he wanted to do this he could have invaded much sooner.
• Aegon invaded to improve the lives of the smallfolk - b*llocks claim - zero evidence for it, plus if he wanted to do this he could have invaded sooner, not massacred the Dornish, bothered to stabilise his succession, not just left it to his wives to start improving the lives of the smallfolk, actually taken any sort of steps towards this goal

Aegon invaded to unite Westeros to fight the Others because he knew they were coming: slim/no evidence of this in the books, conflicts with what we actually see Aegon do: why does he kill tons of Dornish? Why does he not bother to secure the succession when it is clear the threat isn't coming in his lifetime? Why does the Watch get progressively weaker under Targaryen rule? Why is Alysanne the first Targaryen who travels to the Wall that we know of? 

With the information we have at present, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Aegon invaded because he could and because he felt slighted by Argilac. There could be an ulterior motive but so far there is nothing in the Main Series or in Fire and Blood that suggests this. The evidence I see presented for the idea that Aegon invaded to unify Westeros to fight the others is, in my view, weak; and there is no good explanation presented for why he takes multiple actions contrary to this goal. If it wasn't a part of the new TV series I don't think most people would be suggesting it.

So no, I don't see how the Targaryen invasion was right or justified. Did it make things better off for people in the long run? Maybe. But that is never presented as a reason why Aegon invaded in the first place and it is silly to try and justify it in this manner when Aegon himself never attempts to do so.

"Jaehaerys had been influenced by a woods witch brought to court by Jenny of Oldstones. The woods witch prophesied that the prince that was promised would be born from Aerys's and Rhaella's line,making Jaehaerys determined to marry his daughter to his son"

"However, apparently by something he had read, Rhaegar became motivated to become a warrior"

"Maester Aemon, whom Rhaegar corresponded with via raven messages, remembers that Rhaegar believed his child Aegon to be the prince that was promised."

" In one of her visions within the House of the Undying, Daenerys Targaryen sees a newborn Aegon nursing from the breast of Elia Martell, who is seated in a great wooden bed. Rhaegar names the child "Aegon", stating the name is fit for a king. When Elia asks whether Rhaegar will make a song for their son, he replies that Aegon, the prince that was promised, already has the song of ice and fire. "

"Septon Barth's claim that the Valyrians came to Westeros because their priests prophesied that the Doom of Man would come out of the land beyond the narrow sea. "

[Craving Peaches]

53 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

"Jaehaerys had been influenced by a woods witch brought to court by Jenny of Oldstones. The woods witch prophesied that the prince that was promised would be born from Aerys's and Rhaella's line,making Jaehaerys determined to marry his daughter to his son"

Related to Aegon I how?

54 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

"However, apparently by something he had read, Rhaegar became motivated to become a warrior"

Relation to Aegon I?

54 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

"Maester Aemon, whom Rhaegar corresponded with via raven messages, remembers that Rhaegar believed his child Aegon to be the prince that was promised."

Again, nothing suggests that Aegon I was aware of this.

54 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

In one of her visions within the House of the Undying, Daenerys Targaryen sees a newborn Aegon nursing from the breast of Elia Martell, who is seated in a great wooden bed. Rhaegar names the child "Aegon", stating the name is fit for a king. When Elia asks whether Rhaegar will make a song for their son, he replies that Aegon, the prince that was promised, already has the song of ice and fire. "

That is about Rhaegar and his son, not Aegon I.

55 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

"Septon Barth's claim that the Valyrians came to Westeros because their priests prophesied that the Doom of Man would come out of the land beyond the narrow sea. "

Valyrians avoided Westeros. Targaryens went to Dragonstone to escape the Doom, not to fight the Others.

Those quotes are not evidence at all. Most of them are not about Aegon I at all. No one is disputing Rhaegal had some prophetic motivation. There is nothing in those quotes that suggests Aegon I had a prophetic motivation.

[KingAerys_II]

46 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Rhaegar names the child "Aegon", stating the name is fit for a king. When Elia asks whether Rhaegar will make a song for their son, he replies that Aegon, the prince that was promised, already has the song of ice and fire. "

So according to you it's remote the possibility Aegon dreamed about the long night, his sister composed the song about it, Targaryens kings wrote the secrets in the scrolls

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

So according to you it's remote the possibility Aegon dreamed about the long night, his sister composed the song about it, Targaryens kings wrote the secrets in the scrolls

Why have you quoted me as saying what you said? You seem to have inserted what you said into a quote from me which is really confusing.

Did you mean to just quote my response to what you said?

And yes, I do think the possibility that Aegon dreamed about the Long Night and invaded Westeros because of it 'remote', for the reasons I have described at length before, which is a lack of evidence and it conflicting with what we see him do.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Craving Peaches