Did the Targaryens colonize Westeros?

[KingAerys_II]

13 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

And when exactly did Greek become the official language? If your answer is Heraclius or Constans II, then well it shows you're not up to date with progess in Roman studies.

It happened after Justinian, in Constantinople people used to speak Greek before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the provinces kept speaking vulgar Latin 

[SaffronLady]

4 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

It happened after Justinian, in Constantinople people used to speak Greek before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the provinces kept speaking vulgar Latin 

I expected a wrong answer, but I didn't expect Hell's Kitchen-tier fiascos. You truly are filled with funny surprises.

Don't get me wrong, I still hate you for getting a permanent warning, but hating you doesn't stop me from thinking you funny.

[KingAerys_II]

11 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

I expected a wrong answer, but I didn't expect Hell's Kitchen-tier fiascos. You truly are filled with funny surprises.

Don't get me wrong, I still hate you for getting a permanent warning, but hating you doesn't stop me from thinking you funny.

The hellenization of Eastern Roman Empire began in 330, the adoption of Greek as official language happened in 610

Edited December 3, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[SaffronLady]

Just now, KingAerys_II said:

The hellenization of Byzantine Empire began in 330, the adoption of Greek as official language happened in 610

Great, still wrong answer. Keep trying Aerys, I'm sure you'll get it by page 11.

[KingAerys_II]

5 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Great, still wrong answer. Keep trying Aerys, I'm sure you'll get it by page 11.

People, that have an hell kitchen degree as you, have the correct answer

[SaffronLady]

1 minute ago, KingAerys_II said:

People, that have an hell kitchen degree as you, have the correct answer

Nah, I don't have a Hell's Kitchen degree, I'm only in for the memes.

Did you know? Emperor Leo (457-474) was already issuing laws in Greek. Looks like Greek was official quite a long time before 610, right?

[KingAerys_II]

12 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Nah, I don't have a Hell's Kitchen degree, I'm only in for the memes.

Did you know? Emperor Leo (457-474) was already issuing laws in Greek. Looks like Greek was official quite a long time before 610, right?

I don't know, but the thread is not "who wants to be a millionaire", it's not a quiz, lol

[SaffronLady]

Just now, KingAerys_II said:

I don't know, but the thread is not "who wants to be a millionaire", it's not a quiz, lol

Yes, but there is a million-dollar question though.

We do know the Targs didn't colonize Westeros, they just conquered it, killling give or take hundreds of thousands of people. Why is defending them not colonizing Westeros a big deal when what they should be defended against is Geneva Convention bans on flame weapons?

[Aldarion]

10 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Nah, I don't have a Hell's Kitchen degree, I'm only in for the memes.

Did you know? Emperor Leo (457-474) was already issuing laws in Greek. Looks like Greek was official quite a long time before 610, right?

Making Greek official language of the Empire some two centuries after it had actually replaced Latin in administrative service sounds just stereotypically bureaucratic enough to be actually realistic. While Leo did begin to issue laws in Greek, laws were still being issued in Latin as well. Justinian's own laws were issued in Greek and Latin both.

First major law document issued in Greek (or at least, solely Greek) rather than Latin was Ecloga by Leo III, issued in 726. So there appears to have been a long period of nearly three centuries where Latin and Greek were used simultaneously.

What I don't recall is if there was an official law making Greek an official language of administration, or things just... happened.

[KingAerys_II]

Despite being part of the Roman Empire, the Greek population kept speaking  greek, Latin was the official language used in bureaucracy.
Ulfilas invented the Gothic alphabet to integrate the Gothic population in the Eastern Roman Empire, the Gothic alphabet has a Greek based script.
In Greece the population always spoke Greek, the emperors allowed them to keep their language, because there was a process of hellenization in the Eastern Roman Empire.

[SaffronLady]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

What I don't recall is if there was an official law making Greek an official language of administration, or things just... happened.

Correct. In law and administration, there was never a clean-cut moment where Latin was "displaced" by Greek. In fact, the ERE kept the title Augustus as Augoustos for basically all the way up to the end - 1453. One of many examples where Roman identity clearly survives.

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

Despite being part of the Roman Empire, the Greek population kept speaking  greek, Latin was the official language used in bureaucracy.

Greek was also official bureaucratic language. See Theodosius' (401-450) edicts regarding the source material of his Codex.

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

Ulfilas invented the Gothic alphabet to integrate the Gothic population in the Eastern Roman Empire, the Gothic alphabet has a Greek based script.

Ulfilas invented the Gothic alphabet to translate the Bible, we have no idea what he wanted for the Gothic population.

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

there was a process of hellenization in the Eastern Roman Empire.

There was a process of Hellenization in the High Roman Empire too, and you have a more important question to answer. How would you defend the Targs killing hundreds of thousands - possibly millions of people in their conquest?

[KingAerys_II]

Aegon Conquest made less casualties than the war of the Five Kings, look at numbers

[Craving Peaches]

15 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon Conquest made less casualties than the war of the Five Kings, look at numbers

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.

[SaffronLady]

45 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon Conquest made less casualties than the war of the Five Kings, look at numbers

Really? We have feet on the ground for W5K, none for the Conquest.

[Northern Sword]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:41 PM, Hugorfonics said:

I agree Aegons not a colonizer, but his great granddad was. I explained above. 

So Caesar conquered Rome, and Italy, maybe Egypt, probably Greece but I'd say he colonized Gaul. 

Likewise Napoleon robbed em blind,  for all extensive purposes the Renaissance ended when he showed up. Spain, Germany, all of em were just run by king brother.

That was the whole thing like in Beligum and such they expected liberal liberation and was treated like occupied territory. (Not all em of course, don't wanna come across as too much of a Napoleon basher, just the Ridley Scott movie lol, so boring! Should be called Josephine)

His great grand dad would be considered a colonizer. I agree, but not of Westeros. Only of Dragonstone, as it was a colony of Valyria 

Caesar conquered, killed and pillaged Gaul, starting off because of the migration(colonization) of Gallic and Germanic peoples into the area, and it was rich. 

The Greeks are a good example of Colonizers. Starting colonies all over the place.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Northern Sword

[Hugorfonics]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

Uh, do you mean the Enlightenment? The Renaissance had been over for centuries by the time Napoleon was born.

Meh. Not really. Italy was nice and inventive and rich. 

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

America isn't really a nation, in the sense that matters. Indeed, I'd query even the extent to which it "existed" in 1776

lol. Ridiculous

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

, but I have learned from bitter experience that discussing American history with Americans on the internet is entirely pointless.

So what are you doing?
I found discussing asoiaf as often pointless like when large parts of the internet support Renly despite him being cruel, narrow minded, a craven and a loser, but it still passes the time.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

The nation-state existed up to a point before the Enlightenment, but ethnonationalism as a meanintgful movement and political identity-basis only really took off afterwards.

Ethnonationalism is not nationalism. Thats just some racist gobbledygook brought to you by the nazis and proto nazis. 

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

Its ethnonationalist identity as Hungary developed largely in the 19th century.

Quote

The Hungarians have been "ethnonationalist" since Stephen, more like the 9th cent. (obviously it was conquered here and there.) 
And, again, ethnonationalism isnt nationalism.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

But at this point they seem to have identified principally as British, not Roman.

Spoke and wrote in latin? Believed in Jesus and his roman bishops? 
Bede called himself British, English or Roman? I thought it was Roman.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

Spain was absolutely not a nation state by 1500. I would argue it isn't a nation state now. France wasn't either at that stage.

Also ridiculous. 

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

I understand what you mean by Rome/Vienna but the way you talk about it suggests, with all due respect, you don't really know what you're takling about.

Classy.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Alester Florent said:

And no, it wasn't just Germany. You only need to look as far as Italy to see that

They didnt win the war either lol.

 

 

On 12/2/2023 at 2:39 PM, Hippocras said:

Who grows and harvests the olives? Used to be slaves. Now the way it is done needs to change.
Togas are very complicated garments to move around in, and not very easy to put on. Slaves used to carry those wearing them around and probably helped their master to get dressed. Everything about the process now needs to change.
Who raises and then slaughters the dogs? Who builds the pyramids?

I am not being dramatic, you are being overly superficial in your idea of how culture works. When the underlying social structure changes, the culture does too. Some things become no longer viable and die out. Other things get more creative from new energy.

Why do we no longer build build buildings covererd in sculptures and complicated stone masonry? Because we actually need to pay for people's labour, and the cost of labour on such buildings is too expensive. So everything about the way we build has changed because the economics behind it have changed.

I hope that clarifies. Abolishing slavery in a culture built on slavery absolutely changes every aspect of culture, in some ways small, in others, much much more.

 

Now theyll be smallfolk, and as Tyrion noted its awfully similar. Theyll raise the dogs and pyramids. 
The culture will change, sure. It wont turn into something unrecognizable though, Ghiscari culture is still strong. Theres more to a culture then its vice.
I dont understand the building part, we still do construction, and still take pride in our architecture.

 

1 hour ago, Northern Sword said:

His great grand dad would be considered a colonizer. I agree, but not of Westeros. Only of Dragonstone, as it was a colony of Valyria 

Caesar conquered, killed and pillaged Gaul, starting off because of the migration(colonization) of Gallic and Germanic peoples into the area, and it was rich. 

The Greeks are a good example of Colonizers. Starting colonies all over the place.

Well, idk. The Pilgrams colonized America or Massachusetts? Obviously just the tiny bit, but I don't think its really wrong to say the other. Dragonstone is part of Westeros.

Yea, Id say with Gaul it has to be colonization.

The Greeks were weird though, while they did fight off the indigenous their colonies really don't seem to work for the mothership. At least in classic terms, nation states were not a thing there and the colony was kind of its own being. Which really isnt the case for the rest of history. Honestly I think the term immigrant may even hit closer to the mark.
Post Alexander, and that all really changes though. 

[Craving Peaches]

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Renly despite him being cruel,

Proof?

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

narrow minded

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).

37 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

a craven

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

38 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

loser

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.

[SaffronLady]

44 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Deus ex Machina

Deus sex machina

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I found discussing asoiaf as often pointless like when large parts of the internet support Renly despite him being cruel, narrow minded, a craven and a loser, but it still passes the time.

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. 

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Meh. Not really. Italy was nice and inventive and rich. 

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.

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

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.

Quote

 

Ethnonationalism is not nationalism. Thats just some racist gobbledygook brought to you by the nazis and proto nazis. 

The Hungarians have been "ethnonationalist" since Stephen, more like the 9th cent. (obviously it was conquered here and there.) 
And, again, ethnonationalism isnt nationalism.

 

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.

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.

Quote

Spoke and wrote in latin? Believed in Jesus and his roman bishops? 
Bede called himself British, English or Roman? I thought it was Roman.

Bede was English, but he lived after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. To the extent he called himself Roman, this would have been as a statement of affiliation with the Pope in Rome, as opposed to other, local churches - Bede was after all a churchman.

Latin was the universal language of learning across western Europe, and Catholic Christianity was also near-universal. 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. 

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

Also ridiculous. 

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.

Quote

They didnt win the war either lol.

I don't know what war you're talking about or why it's relevant.