Jump to content

Why Targaryen?


Aethermancer

Recommended Posts

A lot of folks seem to make a big deal about the rightful rule of the Targaryens, but I must be missing something. As far as rightful ruling, don't the Targaryens only trace back some 300 years to a point in which Aegon forcefully took over Westeros and proclaimed himself king? I just don't get the zeal people seem to have about seeing the Targaryen line restored as 'rightful rulers of Westeros' given that the claim of a Right to rule seems pretty dubious to me.

I just strikes me as odd as people getting excited over some family from England making plans to retake the Indian Subcontinent.

Can anyone clue me in as to what was so great about the Targaryens other than the fact that they were the first house to successfully acquire air superiority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people on here don't argue that the Targaryens are the rightful rulers. They lost their right to the Iron Throne and the Baratheons are now the ruling dynasty of the Seven Kingdoms.

Personally, I mainly like the Targaryens because I find the history of House Targaryen very interesting, their names are pretty cool, they had dragons and they were the first family to rule over all of the Seven Kingdoms. However, the whole 'blood of the dragon' thing gets very annoying, and some Targaryens had over-inflated egos and felt superior to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike all other Great Houses who were Kings or Lords in their respective regions, Targaryens managed to unite Seven Kingdoms into one. Their claim or right is for entire Kingdom, and that is what separates them from Starks, Greyjoys who want independence for their own Kingdoms. Also, with Stannis` chances growing slimmer, Tommen being puppet, Targaryen rule is perhaps the best for the realm. The problem is what happens when you have 3 Targaryens and only one Throne.

But, as anyone here can tell you, Targaryens have no right anymore. They lost all rights and claims when Baratheons became Ruling Dinasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of folks seem to make a big deal about the rightful rule of the Targaryens, but I must be missing something. As far as rightful ruling, don't the Targaryens only trace back some 300 years to a point in which Aegon forcefully took over Westeros and proclaimed himself king? I just don't get the zeal people seem to have about seeing the Targaryen line restored as 'rightful rulers of Westeros' given that the claim of a Right to rule seems pretty dubious to me.

I just strikes me as odd as people getting excited over some family from England making plans to retake the Indian Subcontinent.

Can anyone clue me in as to what was so great about the Targaryens other than the fact that they were the first house to successfully acquire air superiority?

I'm pro-Targ because I'm pro-Dany. I'll make the argument that the Targaryens built the Iron Throne, but in truth I want the dragons back 'cause I want Dany on that throne. If I liked Stannis, I'd claim Robert Baratheon was a rightful king and Stannis is his rightful heir. Arguments of right to rule are thinly veiled justifications in favor of our preferred claimants. No more, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Yeah, the Targs ruled only for 300 hundred years, but then again, the Kingdom has only existed, for three hundred years. Aegon conquered and forged the seven kingdoms into one. Turning the old kingdoms into mere provinces. While the Stan Stans can go on about how the current rightful holder of the Iron Throne is the Baratheons, which is true, no one can deny that the Targaryens have a historical claim to the Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pro-Targ because I'm pro-Dany. I'll make the argument that the Targaryens built the Iron Throne, but in truth I want the dragons back 'cause I want Dany on that throne. If I liked Stannis, I'd claim Robert Baratheon was a rightful king and Stannis is his rightful heir. Arguments of right to rule are thinly veiled justifications in favor of our preferred claimants. No more, no less.

For you maybe. But we others have problems denying facts. Robert baratheon became King by the right of conquest, just like Aegon I. You can`t tell that one is the right King and another isn`t. Simple facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kept the peace better than the petty kingdoms that existed before. And by intermarrying they didn't have every other family trying to marry in just for a piece of the power. There's a topic on this about every two days or so but since none of my functions work I can't send you a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the Targaryens are technically one rung above the Great Houses (Stark, Lannister, Arryn, etc) on the social ladder of Westeros.

Only a small portion of Westeros is sworn directly to House Targaryen (the Crownlands) - the rest of it is governed by Lords who are sworn to the Crown. What Aegon did was to create the institution of the Iron Throne, to which the former kings of the respective regions swore their fealty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pro-Targ because I'm pro-Dany. I'll make the argument that the Targaryens built the Iron Throne, but in truth I want the dragons back 'cause I want Dany on that throne. If I liked Stannis, I'd claim Robert Baratheon was a rightful king and Stannis is his rightful heir. Arguments of right to rule are thinly veiled justifications in favor of our preferred claimants. No more, no less.

Was going to say something like this but you expressed it perfect. Wonderfully done! Except for one exception to the Dany thing she needs a Stark as her King most likely Jon if the R+L=J is true to complete the union of Ice and Fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you maybe. But we others have problems denying facts. Robert baratheon became King by the right of conquest, just like Aegon I. You can`t tell that one is the right King and another isn`t. Simple facts.

I agree with Mladen. I am pro-Dany, but I cannot deny that she is not the rightful ruler of Westeros, she only has a claim to the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of folks seem to make a big deal about the rightful rule of the Targaryens, but I must be missing something. As far as rightful ruling, don't the Targaryens only trace back some 300 years to a point in which Aegon forcefully took over Westeros and proclaimed himself king? I just don't get the zeal people seem to have about seeing the Targaryen line restored as 'rightful rulers of Westeros' given that the claim of a Right to rule seems pretty dubious to me.

I just strikes me as odd as people getting excited over some family from England making plans to retake the Indian Subcontinent.

Can anyone clue me in as to what was so great about the Targaryens other than the fact that they were the first house to successfully acquire air superiority?

If 300 years is nothing, what is 1300 years? The first men supposedly go back 12000 years, yet the Starks subjugated the Boltons and the Marsh kings only 1000 years before Aegon's landing. The Children of the Forest are said to go back many millenia before that

300 years is a big deal to your average person. It's something like 15 generations. What were your family doing 300 years ago? Is it so crazy that the idea of Targaryen dominance would have seeped into the greater Westerosi consiousness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was going to say something like this but you expressed it perfect. Wonderfully done! Except for one exception to the Dany thing she needs a Stark as her King most likely Jon if the R+L=J is true to complete the union of Ice and Fire.

If RLJ theory is right, and I believe so, then Jon himself is union of Ice and Fire.

I agree with Mladen. I am pro-Dany, but I cannot deny that she is not the rightful ruler of Westeros, she only has a claim to the throne.

And even that claim will be under question, when Aegon, fake or not, and Jon step forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone clue me in as to what was so great about the Targaryens other than the fact that they were the first house to successfully acquire air superiority?

They have shiny hair?

In all seriousness, I don't think there was anything particularly great about the Targaryens at all; even their dragons were not unique to them among Valyrians. In fact, given what we've been told about their history, they seem to have a proclivity towards madness, sadism, violence and infra-familial conflict. While there have been one or two almost unimpeachable Targs, such as Jaehaerys I, for the most part they don't seem to be anything particularly praiseworthy. If the current generation is any indication of what they have to offer, then the world is better off without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have shiny hair?

In all seriousness, I don't think there was anything particularly great about the Targaryens at all; even their dragons were not unique to them among Valyrians. In fact, given what we've been told about their history, they seem to have a proclivity towards madness, sadism, violence and infra-familial conflict. While there have been one or two almost unimpeachable Targs, such as Jaehaerys I, for the most part they don't seem to be anything particularly praiseworthy. If the current generation is any indication of what they have to offer, then the world is better off without them.

I'd even go as far to say the world is better off without dragons themselves. After all, while they may be simple creatures fulfilling their role as an alpha predator, they can too easily be turned into Westerosi WMD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd even go as far to say the world is better off without dragons themselves. After all, while they may be simple creatures fulfilling their role as an alpha predator, they can too easily be turned into Westerosi WMD's.

Without the dragons you have the Others. You really believe that's better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the dragons you have the Others. You really believe that's better?

We don't even know for sure that dragons would be even marginally effective against the Others. It may seem like an obvious solution, but keep in mind that G.R.R. Martin is not a simple solutions type of author, so i doubt dragons will act as a cure-all for the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...