Would you like a Targ back on the Throne?

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1627496' date='Dec 21 2008, 19.44']The Targaryens were indeed a source of stability for the Seven Kingdoms - just look at the huge demographic increase the kingdom has had since the Conquest. At the Field of Fire, the Kings of Reach and Rock [i]combined[/i] only fielded 50k men. Nowadays, the Tyrells can by themselves field 80k, and raise some 10-20k more if necessary.

The key factor here is that Targaryen rule brought an end to the numerous wars, small and great, that the Seven Kingdoms fought with each other. IIRC, there's a mention somewhere that every generation, 3-4 of the Seven Kingdoms were at war.[/quote]

Is there any evidence though that, now that the Targaryens have fallen, that no other leader could set up a dynasty capable of this?

Certainly now, with Danaerys in charge (she's formidable), I don't think the Targaryens have what it takes. (Her reign could be even less stable if she's sterile, and madness may crop up again if she's not!) Mind you, I don't think there's any current dynasty [b]better[/b] than the Targaryens. My favorites (the Starks, Dorne and Stannis) all have problems (scattered, defensive and weak). *Sigh*

I think GRRM did that deliberately though :)

[Krafus]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1627538' date='Dec 21 2008, 20.10']Is there any evidence though that, now that the Targaryens have fallen, that no other leader could set up a dynasty capable of this?

Certainly now, with Danaerys in charge (she's formidable), I don't think the Targaryens have what it takes. (Her reign could be even less stable if she's sterile, and madness may crop up again if she's not!) Mind you, I don't think there's any current dynasty [b]better[/b] than the Targaryens. My favorites (the Starks, Dorne and Stannis) all have problems (scattered, defensive and weak). *Sigh*

I think GRRM did that deliberately though :)[/quote]

I don't think any of the other Great Houses could have performed the Conquest, since they lacked the dragons as an overwhelming battlefield advantage. It's telling that the Seven Kingdoms remained seven independent kingdoms up until Aegon - obviously they balanced each other and none was able to dominate all the others, or at least enough to claim all the realm.

But now, three hundred years later... Well, as you point out, as of the end of AFfC, several of the dynasties have major problems, and those that have avoided major losses so far (Tyrells, Martells, Arryns) have weaknesses of their own (Mace is an oaf, Doran is dying while Dorne is agitated, Robert Arryn is a cowardly weakling). At this point, I'd pick Dany over any of them.

As to the Targaryens themselves, with Dany sterile, the House's hypothetical rule would only last as long as she lives unless she finds a way to repopulate the House. This is why, if R+L=J is true, I believe she'll do whatever it takes to get Jon into House Targaryen - once he's cleansed of bastardy, the line could continue through him and his children even if Dany dies.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1627576' date='Dec 21 2008, 22.20']I don't think any of the other Great Houses could have performed the Conquest, since they lacked the dragons as an overwhelming battlefield advantage. It's telling that the Seven Kingdoms remained seven independent kingdoms up until Aegon - obviously they balanced each other and none was able to dominate all the others, or at least enough to claim all the realm.

But now, three hundred years later... Well, as you point out, as of the end of AFfC, several of the dynasties have major problems, and those that have avoided major losses so far (Tyrells, Martells, Arryns) have weaknesses of their own (Mace is an oaf, Doran is dying while Dorne is agitated, Robert Arryn is a cowardly weakling). At this point, I'd pick Dany over any of them.[/quote]

I don't see any good reason why. She's just as weak as them. She does have three half-grown dragons, that's it. By itself, that's not enough to beat any of the stronger Houses.

[quote]As to the Targaryens themselves, with Dany sterile, the House's hypothetical rule would only last as long as she lives unless she finds a way to repopulate the House.[/quote]

A good reason [b]not[/b] to pick her.

[quote]This is why, if R+L=J is true, I believe she'll do whatever it takes to get Jon into House Targaryen - once he's cleansed of bastardy, the line could continue through him and his children even if Dany dies.[/quote]

Turning ice into fire. That would be ironic. But one wonders whether Jon would go for that - I suppose yes, if the Others are destroyed.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1627773' date='Dec 22 2008, 07.56']I don't see any good reason why. She's just as weak as them. She does have three half-grown dragons, that's it. By itself, that's not enough to beat any of the stronger Houses.[/quote]

I thought we were speaking of who was more fit to rule, not of who had the greater chance of claiming the throne.

[quote]A good reason [b]not[/b] to pick her.[/quote]

I did add unless she finds a way to repopulate the House - and I believe she will. Let's not forget that the Golden Company, created by Bittersteel and sons of Daemon Blackfyre, is apparently headed towards her. It could well be that their descendants are members/leaders of the Company, complete with Targaryen exotic good looks. And if that fails, there's likely Jon.

[quote]Turning ice into fire. That would be ironic. But one wonders whether Jon would go for that - I suppose yes, if the Others are destroyed.[/quote]

If Dany does indeed want Jon in her House, she's got a lot of possibilities for a trade for him. Robb believed he could get the Watch to release Jon from his vows in exchange for a hundred men. Dany could offer, say, five hundred Unsullied, and/or material support for the Watch.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1627835' date='Dec 22 2008, 10.45']I thought we were speaking of who was more fit to rule, not of who had the greater chance of claiming the throne.[/quote]

Well in that case, I think there are plenty of rulers or ruler-wannabes who would make good rulers too. So while Dany's rulership might not be poor, I don't think her being a Targaryen does anything to buttress this side of the argument.

And yes, I hold my perennial favorite Stannis high up there, but also people like Doran Martell and Asha Greyjoy. (Too bad sexism will keep Asha down; Asha doesn't have mythical creatures to back up her claim.)

[quote]I did add unless she finds a way to repopulate the House - and I believe she will. Let's not forget that the Golden Company, created by Bittersteel and sons of Daemon Blackfyre, is apparently headed towards her. It could well be that their descendants are members/leaders of the Company, complete with Targaryen exotic good looks. And if that fails, there's likely Jon.[/quote]

Jon, I think, is the only one who could count. While there are plenty of people with a "drop of the dragon" in them, that includes Stannis. It would also be hard to prove (even -- especially in Jon's case!).

[quote]If Dany does indeed want Jon in her House, she's got a lot of possibilities for a trade for him. Robb believed he could get the Watch to release Jon from his vows in exchange for a hundred men. Dany could offer, say, five hundred Unsullied, and/or material support for the Watch.[/quote]

I don't think he'll leave the Wall until the Others are destroyed. The North was worth a lot to him before, and we've seen no hint of him trying to take up that claim in AFFC.

[automne]

I wouldn't mind [b]one[/b] Targ back on the throne. One not two.
A lot of supporters of the R+L=J theory dream of a Jon-Dany match. I don't.
If the theory turns to be true the last thing I want to read about is another incest.
Why would you want Westeros to go back to square one and wait for the next mad King?

[Krafus]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1628299' date='Dec 22 2008, 19.05']Well in that case, I think there are plenty of rulers or ruler-wannabes who would make good rulers too. So while Dany's rulership might not be poor, I don't think her being a Targaryen does anything to buttress this side of the argument.[/quote]

No, but her Targaryen heritage, along with her current material situation, does nothing to make her unfit, which I thought was what you were arguing.

[quote]And yes, I hold my perennial favorite Stannis high up there, but also people like Doran Martell and Asha Greyjoy. (Too bad sexism will keep Asha down; Asha doesn't have mythical creatures to back up her claim.)[/quote]

Stannis is IMO much too inflexible to make a good king. Asha... Yes, she might well make a good ruling queen. Unfortunately, as you point out, her gender (and the unfortunate recent example of Cersei) would work against her, as it certainly did at the Kingsmoot. Mathis Rowan, Bronze Yohn Royce and *grumblegrumble* Kevan Lannister would almost IMO make pretty decent rulers.

[quote]Jon, I think, is the only one who could count. While there are plenty of people with a "drop of the dragon" in them, that includes Stannis. It would also be hard to prove (even -- especially in Jon's case!).[/quote]

Appearances can count for a lot in Westeros. If the Blackfyre descendants in the Golden Company have inherited the Targaryen looks, they might try to stack that up against Jon's Stark-ishness. Both sides would likely have to contend against bastardy, so IMO neither would have a decisive advantage there.

[quote]I don't think he'll leave the Wall until the Others are destroyed. The North was worth a lot to him before, and we've seen no hint of him trying to take up that claim in AFFC.[/quote]

IMO Jon is facing an escalating series of temptation. The first time, he renounced becoming a deserter to go join Robb, even knowing he'd have no friends and would be hanged if caught. The second time, he renounced becoming a wildling in truth, even with Ygritte's love thrown in the mix. The third time, he renounced betraying his gods and becoming lord of Winterfell, even though he knew the north needs a leader. What could top that? The obvious answer IMO is being offered to become crown prince of the kingdom and maybe even consort to the Queen.

This is where I believe he'll give in. Jon could extract from Dany pledges for material support for the Night's Watch and that she won't try for the Iron Throne until the Others have been dealt with in exchange for agreeing to leave the Watch and enter her House.

[palaeologos]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1608707' date='Dec 4 2008, 04.45']So, at the threat of starting a gigiantic apacolyptic thread of doom, I'm here to ask you guys would you like a Targ (every theory included) back on the Iron Throne at the end?

Personally I really wouldn't like it. Sure, Dany has a lot of good qualities as a regent, but think about it; The Targs have a baaaaad reputation for madness, so it's only a matter of time before any of the potential Targ heirs would crack up and history would repeat itself. Besides, I really can't take them and all their "Usurper" curses seriously, seing that they themselves were usurpers in the beginning. Seems awfully whiny to me. I know, a very bad augument, but I thought I would mention it.

But what would you guys prefer? And by all means feel free to explain why you would be for/against a Targ regent.[/quote]

Well, the Baratheons didn't really do such a bang-up job, either. Robert is a bit like Richard I of England; good warleader, but not much shakes as a monarch. He could have been more politically savvy, and put his own amusements (the hunt, drinking, women) ahead of the good of the kingdom. And Stannis, as others have said, is a political disaster just waiting to happen.

The Targaryens in general, and Daenerys in particular, haven't done so poorly. Unfortunately, hereditary monarchy means that when the next in line is an idiot, you get an idiot king (and the nobility's power grows). A glance at the British succession from Henry II through Henry VII should prove instructive when considering this question.

[Branfangd]

I would only want a Targ back if there are some measure's to limit their ability is cast

Like a Magna carte (sp) or a promise to stop the inbreeding

[Rinso]

Actually, about Dany, for now she has shown that she is able conqueror (a bit dubious, given the fact that she was always surrounded by seasoned men who were responsible for the details in her battle successes, but still), but nothing more.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1629106' date='Dec 23 2008, 16.46']Well, the Baratheons didn't really do such a bang-up job, either.[/quote]

True (but just one real Baratheon was given a chance). However, this doesn't give credence to the Targaryen claim, as their own recent screw-ups are still common knowledge.

[quote]The Targaryens in general, and Daenerys in particular, haven't done so poorly.[/quote]

The heck? There were a lot of screw ups amongst them.

[quote]Unfortunately, hereditary monarchy means that when the next in line is an idiot, you get an idiot king (and the nobility's power grows). A glance at the British succession from Henry II through Henry VII should prove instructive when considering this question.[/quote]

True. I would vote put the small council in charge, but ... they're selected, and often they're corrupt, insane or incompetent.

[Winter Crow]

Yeah, someone like LF or Varys would run the show if the small council took over. Wouldn't be to bad an idea though.

And I also say that the Targs have several screwups in their time. Of course we can't compare the Baratheons and the Targaryens, since the Targs have several regents in their line and the Baratheons only 1. If only Martin would give some more info about the time before Aegon the Conqueror, you know, the time where the Baratheons were kings over the Stormlands.

And why Asha? She is arguably the smartest and most politically corect of all those bloody Greyjoys, but I really can't see an Iron (wo)Man on the Throne. I think the rest of the realm would protest, the Lannisters in particular. But then again, Robert (who was a usurper) did get the respect of the realm, so maybe she might convince them. Still, her Iron Man genes disturb me...

[the silent speaker]

The Baratheons were never kings over the Stormlands. The first Baratheon was raised to that lordship paramount by Aegon I.

Asha wants to be a man but seems to think telling dirty jokes will grow her a penis. She also wants to be a queen. This makes me worry about what she thinks will make her a ruler.

[Rinso]

Asha is the smartest of the Greyjoys, but despite that I think that she overestimates herself, like all Ironborn do.

[Winter Crow]

Really? I thought that the Baratheons had ruled them since before Aegon. Well, no comparision available then.

[the silent speaker]

"Smartest of the Greyjoys" is like "most charitable Frey".

[Ser Bruce the Hound KG]

Aegon Bastard Brother took the old Kings name IIRC

[StarkMyrmidon]

My fervent but unlikely hope is that back when Rhaegar was a kid and read whatever it was (prophecy? fortune cookie?) that made him put down the books and take up the sword, this "prophecy" (for lack of a better word) also forewarned him to replace himself with the Westerosi equivalent of a stunt double rather than fight Robert on the Trident. Since then, Rhaegar's been off somewhere accomplishing something important, and will return sometime before the series ends. Now [b][i]that's[/i][/b] a Targ on the throne I would support wholeheartedly. Plus, if you've read the prequel novellas, wouldn't you agree that the Targs have the absolute coolest barding, heraldry, etc.? And if fashion isn't a valid criterion upon which to choose a ruling dynasty, I don't know what is. :)

[Cruella_Da_Oz]

[quote]Asha wants to be a man but seems to think telling dirty jokes will grow her a penis.[/quote]
I don't think she wants to be a man, although I guess she wouldn't turn it down if it was possible, for convenience purposes. Asha seems to own her sexuality and use it to her advantages even. She just doesn't fit Westeros gender models, doesn't mean she wants to be a guy.

[Maia]

Baratheons are descended from the Storm Kings in the female line. It is unclear whether the surname of the Storm Kings has been taken over by Orys, but the Words and the coat-of-arms certainly were. The only Storm King we have heard about by name wore moniker "The Arrogant", which doesn't suggest a good ruler to me.

Re: dangers of inbreeding, while in fact quite real, they do depend on how many problematic recessives one carries. Theoretically, if one had no bad recessives, inbreeding wouldn't be a great deal. This may have been the case with Valyrians, when one considers their mysterious magic and technology and the likelyhood that they changed themselves in some way.

Also, it is well to remember that many/most historical mad tyrants weren't inbred in the least... The real danger was producing a feeble ruler, not a bloodthirsty oppressor. Looking at the biographies of Byzantine Emperors is very instructive in this regard. Although nearly all of them rose through the ranks in one way or another and didn't even belong to aristocracy (i.e. no inbreeding in them _or_ their children, but robust commoner stock), they had their share of cruel madmen and of disappointing offspring.

Personally, I strongly suspect that venerial diseases caught by the father had as much or more to do with the ailements of royal offspring as inbreeding. Vis: the last Valois.