Jump to content

The last generation of Targs


Mihai Brasoveanu

Recommended Posts

If this question has been asked, please delete the topic, I just wasn't able to find it.

So, if R+L=J is true, and Aegon is actually a Blackfyre, that leaves Jon and Danny the only known Targaryens in the world.

1) We know Mirri Maz Dur's warning, that Dany will have kids only when the sun rises in the west. So pretty much never, unless it's a figure of speech for the Others coming.

2) Jon will most likely be brought back from the dead with a kiss of life. We saw that Dondarrion and Cat were never the same after that. They're still a little bit dead on the inside. Can he have kids after that? I really doubt it.

1) I don't think Dany is sterile. Dany asks Mirri when she will be reunited with Drogo and I think by the end of the series, all of the parameters Mirri laid out will be fulfilled and Dany will be reunited with Drogo in the afterlife:

- When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east - Quentyn Martell (the sun) is born/rises in Dorne/west and dies/sets in Meereen/east

- When the seas go dry - The Dothraki sea is drying up because it is fall. Dany notes this in Dance

- When the mountains blow in the wind like leaves - I think this will have something to do with UnGregor's death. Perhaps in the Eyrie to fulfill the Ghost of Highheart's prophecy of Sansa slaying the giant in the castle made of snow and the mountain is thrown from the castle and blows in the wind.

- When your womb quickens and you bear a living child - I think Dany will give birth to the Targaryen heir before she dies. Mirri says that she will be reunited with Drogo after she bears a living child so I think she will die in childbirth and be reunited with Drogo to fulfill the prophecy but the dynasty will live on through that child (who could be Jon's/not that I want them to hook up)

2) Jon is not dead and I don't think he will rise to be like Cat and Beric. Mel sees Jon's face then Ghost's face then Jon's face in a vision in Dance. I, like many others, believe that Jon will warg Ghost and then be brought back to his body. Since his consciousness goes into Ghost, it will be preserved. I like the idea of Jon walking out of his funeral pyre because when the Watch burns a member, they say, "And now his watch has ended." Once this is said, Jon would technically be freed from his vows as a Brother of the Night's Watch and could lead his Wildling army to Winterfell. There are other options to him living than Mel and it could even be intervention of the Old Gods/Bran/Bloodraven. I don't know if Jon will ever want to sit the Iron Throne, but if he is Rhaegar's son and he does accept that, I don't see why he wouldn't have an heir.

All in all, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't care much either way, I just really hope Jon won't be the father of Dany's child.

I hope that too. I feel if anyone deserves some measure of happiness, it's Jon. I think Val would be a better match for him than Val.

For the record, I don't hate the Targs because I like the Starks. I hate the Targs because they're aggressive invaders, squatters who exploited Westeros without contributing anything to better it, who think they can do whatever they want and get away with it, who view others as beneath them, who think they can act without consequences, who drag petty family arguments into all-out civil war multiple times and who produce brats who say things like, "Don't presume to teach me lessons, I'm the blood of the dragon."

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to root for these people and feel sad that they might go extinct?

Would you make an exception for Baelor Breakspear or Jon?

Other than the civil wars, the Targs did create the roads connecting the capitals of the Seven Kingdoms and bring some periods of peace to the realm. I'm not saying the Targs were the best thing to ever happen to Westeros, but their attitudes and personalities are diverse as was demonstarted with Daeron's progeny in D&E with extremes of Baelor and Aerion, and in the main series with Jon and Dany and Viserys as well as Aerys and Rhaegar. Don't paint everyone with the same brush is what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the Targs were the best thing to ever happen to Westeros, but their attitudes and personalities are diverse as was demonstarted with Daeron's progney in D&E with extremes of Baelor and Aerion, and in the main series with Jon and Dany and Viserys as well as Aerys and Rhaegar. Don't paint everyone with the same brush is what I'm saying.

Meh, their offshoots - the Blackfyres and the Baratheons - are much cooler IMO (I may be biased).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people get the idea you can't like the Targs if you like the Starks. I totally disagree. I think they are the two most supernatural and powerful families. There is huge potential for them to work together and create a world that is far better than what the books have shown us so far.

Westeros' problems, apart from The Others, are the kind that not even magic can solve. All their magic can not even bring Westeros back to the way it was when we first see it, before the War made large parts of it a wasteland, let alone solve its many social injustices. If they were to make Westeros better, it would have little to do with magic and dragons and a lot to do with planting trees and other hard work, Dany has not merely proven to be bad at but has actively rejected.

Westeros needs gardeners not dragons. (The Tyrells are surprising useless in this regard though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really understanding why you care about lineage/family going extinct or not if you say that.

Huh? The sins of the father(s) shouldn't be used as evidence that the last children of that house should be extinguished. I don't think you understood what I was saying. It's like a single father/mother treating their child like utter crap after their significant other broke their hearts or did something that hurt them dearly as if the child is actually at fault. Aptini used a quote about to the effect of "I am blood....don't deem to lecture...." or whatever. I think Dany may have said that, but she is still a teenager and chalk that up to raging hormones and adolescence and call it a day. It's not like Dany is in her mid to late 20s still acting like a spoiled, entitled brat. Give her a break and don't write her off already and the whole entire house. It's shortsighted really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you make an exception for Baelor Breakspear or Jon?

Exceptions that prove the rule. Given that Jon doesn't even know he's a Targ, I'm not sure he can even count.

Other than the civil wars, the Targs did create the roads connecting the capitals of the Seven Kingdoms and bring some periods of peace to the realm. I'm not saying the Targs were the best thing to ever happen to Westeros, but their attitudes and personalities are diverse as was demonstarted with Daeron's progney in D&E with extremes of Baelor and Aerion, and in the main series with Jon and Dany and Viserys as well as Aerys and Rhaegar. Don't paint everyone with the same brush is what I'm saying.

Prove that Westeros was better with them than without them. That's all I'm asking. I don't see it. You're going to have to do better than the ditch they call the Kingsroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Jon is not dead and I don't think he will rise to be like Cat and Beric. Mel sees Jon's face then Ghost's face then Jon's face in a vision in Dance. I, like many others, believe that Jon will warg Ghost and then be brought back to his body. Since his consciousness goes into Ghost, it will be preserved. I like the idea of Jon walking out of his funeral pyre because when the Watch burns a member, they say, "And now his watch has ended." Once this is said, Jon would technically be freed from his vows as a Brother of the Night's Watch and could lead his Wildling army to Winterfell. There are other options to him living than Mel and it could even be intervention of the Old Gods/Bran/Bloodraven. I don't know if Jon will ever want to sit the Iron Throne, but if he is Rhaegar's son and he does accept that, I don't see why he wouldn't have an heir.

I agree with every word of this. Please let it (or something like it) come to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westeros' problems, apart from The Others, are the kind that not even magic can solve. All their magic can not even bring Westeros back to the way it was when we first see it, before the War made large parts of it a wasteland, let alone solve its many social injustices. If they were to make Westeros better, it would have little to do with magic and dragons and a lot to do with planting trees and other hard work, Dany has not merely proven to be bad at but has actively rejected.

Westeros needs gardeners not dragons. (The Tyrells are surprising useless in this regard though.)

I think once the all of the dust settles the series will end with the beginnings of peace and better times. A lot of destruction is going to have to take place first though. The dragons are going to play a big role in achieving the things most people desire in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heroes kill dragons. I don't think it's as simple as "Others bad, dragons good." Even putting it in terms of "good and evil" is oversimplifying it.

Good intentions pave the road to hell.

Heroes rode the dragons. :)

Actually, didn't most of the dragons kill each other in the Dance? So dragons = heroes? I can live with this compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exceptions that prove the rule. Given that Jon doesn't even know he's a Targ, I'm not sure he can even count.

Prove that Westeros was better with them than without them. That's all I'm asking. I don't see it. You're going to have to do better than the ditch they call the Kingsroad.

Apple Apple Apple, when you remove the Targaryens from power shit like the war of five kings breaks out, everyone wants the throne for them selves. The Targs are impartial as they did not invade weteros before, the only true westerosi are the first men, so all the Barratheons, and Lannisters, are just as much guilty as the Targaryens, but unlike the Targs they did not have dragons. There were many Targaryen Kings who brought harmony and peace to the land.Yes some were nutters and ass holes, but that my lady happens in every family,you cant just stereotype them, dragons are our guns, they can protect many people ,they can kill our food, but they can also kill us, everything in the world has its downsides, you just fail to see the good. You said that the first battle was won with out dragons...yes, yes it was, however it was a battle and now we are fighting a war,if you were a free folk or the nights watch, the sight of a dragon in the sky riding to burn an army of weights, will give you joy. I am not going to start a huge fight with you about Daenerys, the fact is that she had every right to say that Jorah should not try to teach her lessons,he had a cushy and sheltered life, she on the other hand had otherwise, you can you be "spoiled or a brat" when you have nothing to be spoiled by or to be a brat about, after having nothing all her life, and having to experience horrible, physical and psychological pain , having to lose her husband,son,and brother, she finally gets dealt a friking present and every one calls her a brat. I am happy that I get to see her for what she is a brave,strong,smart,good woman who will flourish into an amazing Queen one day soon. I wonder where you would be if God dealt you the same card,probably dead somewhere on the road to Vas Dothrak, becuase you would not be able to bare the pain of having to ride a horse all day after braking your hymen. Now I have ranted, and I am done. Write back your babble about the horrible Daenerys and her family, who are worse then the offspring of the Moutain and Varo Hoath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove that Westeros was better with them than without them. That's all I'm asking. I don't see it. You're going to have to do better than the ditch they call the Kingsroad.

The Targs ruled for 282 years, here is a list of the wars fought during their reign (not counting the conquest itself):

1.)Faith Militant uprising (37-48)- this was the longest and the nastiest of conflicts during their reign.

81 years later...

2.) Dance of the Dragons (129-131)

3.) Dareon conquers Dorne (157-161)

4.) Blackfyre Rebellion (195-196)

5.) War of the Ninepenny Kings (259-260?)- The dates are a little ambiguous, but the war was not fought in Westeros itself. I'll count it nonetheless.

6.) Robert's Rebellion (282-283)

That's 6 wars lasting approximately 23 years total in a 282 year span, not too bad I'd say. Compare this to the Aemon quote about not a generation passing when 2 or 3 of the seven kingdoms was not at war with eachother before the Conquest. I suppose a case could be made that this is propaganda Aemon was fed as a child, but the info gleaned from other sources on Westerosi history seems to confim his assessment. We have been told of countless wars between the North and the Vale, between the Iron Born and everyone, between the Dornish and the Reach/Stormlands (raids still occured during Targ rule, but not open war), etc..

Many of these conflicts lasted thousands of years, yet most of them seemed to either stop or at least abate considerably once the Targs stepped in. The Targs, for all their faults, played a signifigant and valuable role in keeping the Great Lords Westeros in check imo. I think there is something to be said for a having a central authority to bring some order to the chaos that is feudal Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

That list misses

- the Greyjoy-Stark-Lannister war

- Raymund Redbeards invasion

- the Skagosi rebellion

- three Blackfyre rebellions out of five

- the Vulture King

- a bunch of smaller feuds like the one in The Sworn Sword

- Lannister-Reyne-Tarbeck

- Defiance of Duskendale

And that is still an incomplete list, only the one that influenced the present in a big way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- the Greyjoy-Stark-Lannister war

Which the Targs stepped in and ended. The Iron Born were war mongering raiders long before the Targs showed up, the dragons were an effective check against the Kraken like I said. Look at what the Iron Born have been up to since the Targs were overthrown.

- Raymund Redbeards invasion

- the Skagosi rebellion

Skagos rebelled against WInterfell, not the Targs. And it was the Starks who handled that situation. The WIldlings weren't exactly much of a threat to the realm, the Starks stepped in and crushed them easily. If they had not, I'm sure the Targs would have did something about them.

- three Blackfyre rebellions out of five

What other three rebellions do you mean? I can't find anything about them on the wiki. I know BR stopped the 2nd one before it even got started, so that doesn't count. I included the Ninepenny kings war, even though it wasn't on Westerosi soil. I'm not sure which other two you are referring to.

- the Vulture King

- a bunch of smaller feuds like the one in The Sworn Sword

- Lannister-Reyne-Tarbeck

- Defiance of Duskendale

These are all very minor outbreaks of violence. The Targs didn't seem to interfere with how the Great Lords dealt with their own subjects (like the Tywin thing, or the Skagos rebellion), but they did seem to influence positively how the Seven Kingdoms dealt with each other. Except for Dagon Greyjoy's attempt at conquest, the only time the Kingdoms went to war with each other during this period was when the Targs initiated the war themselves.

There were only 4 instances of this in that 282 year period: The Dance of the Dragons (2 years), Dareon's conquest of Dorne (4 years), The 1st Blackfyre Rebellion (2 years), and Robert's Rebellion (2 years) which I'll go ahead and blame on the Targs.

So there you have it, 10 years out of 282 when the Seven Kingdoms were all out at war with each other during Targ rule. 11-12 if you count Dagon Greyjoy's attempt at conquest. That's not bad at all imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That list misses

- the Greyjoy-Stark-Lannister war

- Raymund Redbeards invasion

- the Skagosi rebellion

- three Blackfyre rebellions out of five

- the Vulture King

- a bunch of smaller feuds like the one in The Sworn Sword

- Lannister-Reyne-Tarbeck

- Defiance of Duskendale

And that is still an incomplete list, only the one that influenced the present in a big way.

Unless the Targaryen dynasty is being directly compared to a reasonably similar dynasty, I see no reason to place a value judgement on how peaceful their reign was. Their record doesn't look bad to me, but I'm not sure what 'bad' is, since I haven't seen a comparison by which I could judge it. I see a number of short outbreaks of violence. How do we know if that is more, or less than should be expected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't hate the Targs because I like the Starks. I hate the Targs because they're aggressive invaders, squatters who exploited Westeros without contributing anything to better it, who think they can do whatever they want and get away with it, who view others as beneath them, who think they can act without consequences, who drag petty family arguments into all-out civil war multiple times and who produce brats who say things like, "Don't presume to teach me lessons, I'm the blood of the dragon."

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to root for these people and feel sad that they might go extinct?

Welcome to the concept of nobility!

Some people have already talked about the wars above me so I'll just add that the Targs also got rid of the Right of First Night. And I really don't think that it's that useful to hold Dany against them. I also don't know of any petty arguments that they've turned into civil wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exceptions that prove the rule. Given that Jon doesn't even know he's a Targ, I'm not sure he can even count.

Prove that Westeros was better with them than without them. That's all I'm asking. I don't see it. You're going to have to do better than the ditch they call the Kingsroad.

End of the First Night law?

Less wars (the reduction of the NW numbers/importance seems to be correlated to to Targ ascendance)?

First attempt at having a woman rule of the other kingdoms?

Destroying the power of the religious fanatics?

And dont forget that the First Men and the Andals were also invaders who destroyed the native culture. The Targ invasion is the least bloody exemple in the history of the continent, and they didnt attempt to exterminate the native population or force them to convert to another faith (like that Starks/First Men and the Andals did)

Imo the Targs were a civilizing influence on westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targeryans are mad they marry their childs with each other which is incest and half of their ancestors were mad even one of the kings said "when a targeryan is born gods flip a coin" this was about the sanity of the child.As i se Dany is no different she sees dragons as her children and she accepted the fact that both she and her dragons are monsters.I mean those dragons eat children for gods sake.I don't say dragons are evil or good i say they are like any other predator they will devour anything they can.As for Jon i see him as a Stark even R+L=j is true he won't welcome that as easly after all he knows only Ned as his father and learning Ned was his uncle won't change anything.Starks are the only family he knows.After Robb's will he will be Stark ı hope.For me Targs are mad and Jon is only Stark not Targ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...