Jump to content

Did the Targaryens colonize Westeros?


KingAerys_II
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did the thread because House Targaryen is one of the most hated houses in the Fandom, most people hate them because they forced into submission their favorite house during Aegon Conquest, and the favorite house is often an house that reigned for more than 8000 years in Westeros, House Targaryen for 300 years, if Daenerys dies, it means Targaryens established laws for the smallfolk and saved the world from the Others to have extinction in change, so Aegon Conquest was actually convenient to Westeros people. 

Lots of members of House Targaryen suffered a tragic ending 

Edited by KingAerys_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM wrote F&B to create a biography about House Targaryen, his inspiration was the history of the Plantegenets by Thomas Constain.
The Plantegenets reigned for over 300 and they are described as the kings that made England.
Actually House Targaryen has lots of similarities with House of Ptolemy, the inbreeding traditions and the fact that Cleopatra was the last member of the House make the Egyptian rulers the historical figure that share more characteristics with the Targaryens.
Then there is the influence of Elric of Melnibon, but it's more related to the dragonlords in general, the Melniboneans learned magic spells when they were sleeping and they considered the dragons as brothers and the most powerful weapons, so clearly the series had a certain  influence on the creation of the Freehold, but there are not mentions of inbreeding, that's why I believe it's more something related to the Pharaohs and to the facts the Pharaohs believed to be godly men.
Then some Targaryen kings are based on some historical figures as Alexander the Great and Jesus, that have nothing to do with Great Britain history.
It's wrong to believe Asoiaf and House Targaryen are entirely based on the Conquest of England by the Normans led by William.
The thought to consider Targaryens as colonizers of Westeros is due to poor knowledge of history especially the concept of colonization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Then some Targaryen kings are based on some historical figures as Alexander the Great and Jesus, that have nothing to do with Great Britain history.

I don't think Baelor is based on Jesus. He's more of a highly-religious, unworldly king who commands respect for his piety but is ultimately ineffective, an exaggerated Edward the Confessor or Henry VI, or Tewdric in his later years. Jesus is a very different character, really.

There is obviously a comparison to be made between Daeron and Alexander but I think we can also look at people like Sebastian of Portugal, Wladyslaw III of Poland, even Cambyses II (the army that goes missing is a clear nod to the Lost Army of Cambyses).

 

Quote

It's wrong to believe Asoiaf and House Targaryen are entirely based on the Conquest of England by the Normans led by William.

I don't think anyone does.

Quote

The thought to consider Targaryens as colonizers of Westeros is due to poor knowledge of history especially the concept of colonization.

I'm not sure this adequately follows from the above, though, and I'm not sure the definition and concept of colonisation has been queried sufficiently in this thread for this disparaging statement to carry any weight. But in any case, I shall repeat my earlier implied question: why does it matter? Is colonisation the ultimate evil somehow? Is violent conquest - something the Targs inarguably did - not bad enough? Why are you so anxious to defend them from the charge of "colonisation"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Why are you so anxious to defend them from the charge of "colonisation"?

I don't think Aerys is anxious to do anything except show the board he has chosen to die on an irrefutably correct hill. I did see how it went when he touched a topic that could actually be debated about, after all.

Suffice to say he got stuck on repeat mode like to broken record. And that's being generous, honestly. Who debates by saying "You all got it wrong, only I am correct" anyway?

Edited by SaffronLady
And I went so insane I got the "Abusive behavior" tag before I actually did anything abusive, but that is a relatively minor point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I don't think Baelor is based on Jesus. He's more of a highly-religious, unworldly king who commands respect for his piety but is ultimately ineffective, an exaggerated Edward the Confessor or Henry VI, or Tewdric in his later years. Jesus is a very different character, really.

There is obviously a comparison to be made between Daeron and Alexander but I think we can also look at people like Sebastian of Portugal, Wladyslaw III of Poland, even Cambyses II (the army that goes missing is a clear nod to the Lost Army of Cambyses).

 

I don't think anyone does.

I'm not sure this adequately follows from the above, though, and I'm not sure the definition and concept of colonisation has been queried sufficiently in this thread for this disparaging statement to carry any weight. But in any case, I shall repeat my earlier implied question: why does it matter? Is colonisation the ultimate evil somehow? Is violent conquest - something the Targs inarguably did - not bad enough? Why are you so anxious to defend them from the charge of "colonisation"?

Daeron I wrote "the Conquest of Dorne" as well as Julius Caesar wrote the "De Bello Gallico", it's very difficult to find an analogy between Gaul and Dorne, both the regions were divided in three parts, but in Dorne Rhoynar influence is predominant, there was no tribe that was able to give so much influence at the time of Caesar, lots of tribes were germanic, the Franks took control of the region after the Roman Empire collapse, and they defended the region from the invasions of Vandals, Burgundians and Visigoths, there were already fusions among  Gaelic and Germanic tribes.
Dorne is different, the Rhoynar population established a central government and Rhoynar laws.
Then another Targaryen king, related to history,is Maegor the Cruel, his obsession to have a heir was similar to that of Henry VIII.

Edited by KingAerys_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that some characters personalities are based on negative traits of Alexander the Great.
Alexander killed one of his friends because of an outburst of rage and he was fond of wine, there are some Asoiaf characters that share these traits: Maekar and his son Daeron.
Baelor and Maekar are called the "Hammer and the Anvil", the military tactics they used against the Blackfyre forces and Alexander the Great used in his battles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm not sure this adequately follows from the above, though, and I'm not sure the definition and concept of colonisation has been queried sufficiently in this thread for this disparaging statement to carry any weight. But in any case, I shall repeat my earlier implied question: why does it matter? Is colonisation the ultimate evil somehow? Is violent conquest - something the Targs inarguably did - not bad enough?

So for the sake if, whatever, I'd say colonies can fall into two parts, both kinda the same. So one, would be like Leopold II, just straight takeover bloodsucking and murderous. 

The other, would be like ancients or like the pilgrims. Still working for the mothership but less severe and still murderous but less. Also though, there's integration and mixing of cultures, which you don't really find in the 19th/20th century. 

Aegon did not work for the mothership. However Aegons ancestor probably did. So did the Targaryens colonize Westeros? Of course they did, they settled on Dragonstone. Since this is just one part of the greater land, England to Brittania or Massachusetts to America, we can safely put Targs in the not 19th cent which implies, you know some sort of like Thanksgiving like meeting, which did end in blood but maybe leftovers. I mean even after subduing and integrating with Dragonstonians its at the heart of Westeros so I think we can safely assume there was some type of integration.

Fastforward like a hundred years with Aegon and his floorboard, Targaryens are Westerosi. Can't colonize yourself, plus there was no mothership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targaryens colonized Dragonstone, where there was volcanic activity for the dragons, Vhagar and Meraxes hatched on Dragonstone, so there is magical reason why Targaryens chose Dragonstone, that is a poor land, Stannis had difficulty on Dragonstone because it's an island without resources, it's useless without dragons. 

Dragonlords used to worship gods different from the 7, they had a different culture

Edited by KingAerys_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daenerys is trying to colonize Slavers' Bay. It is very different in context from what Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys did.

Dany is training Meereenese to be knights. She is imposing laws that come from her beliefs not theirs (even if theirs are wrong and evil, hers are still foreign). Yes, she has been trying unsuccessfully to bend a bit and let their culture in, but ultimately she wants them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally. That is colonialism. 

The conquerors imposed vassalhood, but that is about it. They required various families to inter-marry, who were unlikely to have done so previously. Beyond that, they did not chance much, culturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Daenerys is trying to colonize Slavers' Bay. It is very different in context from what Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys did.

Dany is training Meereenese to be knights. She is imposing laws that come from her beliefs not theirs (even if theirs are wrong and evil, hers are still foreign). Yes, she has been trying unsuccessfully to bend a bit and let their culture in, but ultimately she wants them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally. That is colonialism. 

The conquerors imposed vassalhood, but that is about it. They required various families to inter-marry, who were unlikely to have done so previously. Beyond that, they did not chance much, culturally.

Good she is trying, slavers deserve that

Edited by KingAerys_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hippocras said:

Dany is training Meereenese to be knights.

Selmy is to a few, Idk what that's got to do with it tho 

14 hours ago, Hippocras said:

She is imposing laws that come from her beliefs

She outlawed a few laws, like slavery and involuntary gladiator fights but I don't remember her making new laws.

14 hours ago, Hippocras said:

even if theirs are wrong and evil, hers are still foreign). Yes, she has been trying unsuccessfully to bend a bit and let their culture in, but ultimately she wants them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally. That is colonialism

I don't think it is.

I also don't think that's what she's doing, she wears the damn floppy ears. Yes she outlawed slavery and tore down their patron the harpy but their culture goes beyond Harpy.

14 hours ago, Hippocras said:

The conquerors imposed vassalhood, but that is about it. They required various families to inter-marry, who were unlikely to have done so previously. Beyond that, they did not chance much, culturally.

You don't think the dragon left a mark? KG for example is a Targaryen invention, and every boyhood dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I don't think it is.

I have a pretty good grasp of colonialism, having an advanced degree on the subject. I don't think you want to get into a lengthy debate about this. It would probably be a lot like a lecture and we are not here for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targaryens built King's Landing, the King's road the Red Keep, culturally they become people of the Reach, the Reach lords filled the highest positions at Jaehaerys and Viserys court, Reach influence decreased when Daeron II married Myriah Martell.
The architecture of Dragonstone Castle seems very different from the Red Keep, dragons were used to shape rocks.
That's why Targaryens rule is completely different from the Freehold, they lost the knowledge that made the Freehold the most advanced empire, that's probably related to the fact some techniques involved blood magic sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

If leaving a mark equals colonization, the category would be virtually useless.

Word.

6 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I have a pretty good grasp of colonialism, having an advanced degree on the subject. I don't think you want to get into a lengthy debate about this. It would probably be a lot like a lecture and we are not here for that.

Threads been nothing but lectures.

https://www.thoughtco.com/colonialism-definition-and-examples-5112779

This was pretty good I think, but didn't say that like cultural genocide or whatever is a requisite for colonialism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because there are 'good' elements to colonisation, doesn't mean it's not colonisation. The British stopped the practice of Sati (Sati (practice) - Wikipedia) when India was under their control, and introduced legislation to try and stop other forms of violence against widows. This doesn't mean they didn't colonise India...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2023 at 10:59 AM, Hippocras said:

Daenerys is trying to colonize Slavers' Bay. It is very different in context from what Visenya, Aegon and Rhaenys did.

Dany is training Meereenese to be knights. She is imposing laws that come from her beliefs not theirs (even if theirs are wrong and evil, hers are still foreign). Yes, she has been trying unsuccessfully to bend a bit and let their culture in, but ultimately she wants them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally. That is colonialism. 

The conquerors imposed vassalhood, but that is about it. They required various families to inter-marry, who were unlikely to have done so previously. Beyond that, they did not chance much, culturally.

IMHO, it's the Meereenese elite who are trying to impose their cultural values (ie that slavery is a positive good), upon an unwilling majority, people who have been kidnapped from across the world.

Most Meereenese do not wish to be slaves, so from their point of view, Daenerys is a liberator.  It's a pretty central belief of theirs that they should not be slaves.

The outlook of the Meereenese elite (that Daenerys is an interloper who is ignorant of their ways) is much the same as that of the planters in the ante-bellum South.

Nor is Meereen's political sovereignty in any way compromised by Daenerys' rule.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Just because there are 'good' elements to colonisation, doesn't mean it's not colonisation. The British stopped the practice of Sati (Sati (practice) - Wikipedia) when India was under their control, and introduced legislation to try and stop other forms of violence against widows. This doesn't mean they didn't colonise India...

Yea, no one's defending colonialism here, what I'm saying is just because UK outlawed Sati doesn't mean they

"ultimately want them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally."

Right, like Indians were still Indian, but of course colonized. 

 

58 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, it's the Meereenese elite who are trying to impose their cultural values (ie that slavery is a positive good), upon an unwilling majority, people who have been kidnapped from across the world.

Most Meereenese do not wish to be slaves, so from their point of view, Daenerys is a liberator.  It's a pretty central belief of theirs that they should not be slaves.

The outlook of the Meereenese elite (that Daenerys is an interloper who is ignorant of their ways) is much the same as that of the planters in the ante-bellum South.

Nor is Meereen's political sovereignty in any way compromised by Daenerys' rule.

Right but there is a thing that's southern culture, and it's not a slavery thing, especially now a days. The shavepets aren't adopting a new culture, like they still wear togas and eat sus food on a stick 

It is interesting that the confederate flag can often be seen as cultural and heritage or whatever which is a lie brought to you by like the daughters of the confederacy and them. And I do wonder about the parallels with the sons of the harpy and their perceived logo, which is really just a symbol of hate and a corrupt regime and the champions of the lost cause, the daughters of the confederacy and the klan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea, no one's defending colonialism here, what I'm saying is just because UK outlawed Sati doesn't mean they

"ultimately want them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally."

Right, like Indians were still Indian, but of course colonized. 

 

Right but there is a thing that's southern culture, and it's not a slavery thing, especially now a days. The shavepets aren't adopting a new culture, like they still wear togas and eat sus food on a stick 

It is interesting that the confederate flag can often be seen as cultural and heritage or whatever which is a lie brought to you by like the daughters of the confederacy and them. And I do wonder about the parallels with the sons of the harpy and their perceived logo, which is really just a symbol of hate and a corrupt regime and the champions of the lost cause, the daughters of the confederacy and the klan.

The Harpies are, IMHO, meant to parallel the original KKK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

UK outlawed Sati doesn't mean they

"ultimately want them to be distinctly different than they currently are, culturally."

Of course the UK wanted the Indians to act less Indian and more like the British?! It was the 'civilising mission' and so on.

Edit: They didn't outlaw it when they first came despite being aware of the practice. So I don't think their only motivation was to help the ladies. Or they could have outlawed it much sooner.

Edited by Craving Peaches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...