Why Targaryen?

[YouSnowNothing]

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.

True facts. Power resides where men decide it resides and all that.

[TheMysteriousOne]

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.

I think they balance each other out.

[Mladen]

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

Is that true? I see that without Others there wouldn`t be dragons, which means that nature itself fix these things by balancing them.

[Frey Pentos]

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?

It's their connection with Dragons that I like. That and Dany using her growing power to free the slaves.

[Chaircat Meow]

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?

Dany has a good claim to the throne but I don't see people supporting her with 'zeal' for that reason. Although it is not like the monarchs since the fall of her father have been superior to the kind of Queen she would be..

[mindchap]

Is that true? I see that without Others there wouldn`t be dragons, which means that nature itself fix these things by balancing them.

When the last Targ dragons died out the winters started getting longer and harsher. Meaning that when it's all said and done they will either have to both exist to balance each other out or they will both have to be extinguished.

[Mladen]

When the last Targ dragons died out the winters started getting longer and harsher. Meaning that when it's all said and done they will either have to both exist to balance each other out or they will both have to be extinguished.

Yes, and when Others reappeared, the three dragons hatched, which means basically, that one without another is doomed.

[mindchap]

Yes, and when Others reappeared, the three dragons hatched, which means basically, that one without another is doomed.

I think the reason it's the Song and not the War, is because over the years the occasional smarter than average person comes along and realizes that neither can exist without the other. When the last Targ dragon died the winters started getting longer and harsher. You remove the fire element and you have what we have now, ice beings plunging the land into eternal night and cold. You take away the Ice element and the fire burns and consumes everything. So in essence they both have to exist to keep the other in check. Or, what could end up being the "bittersweet" part, is that they must both be extinguished. Personally I would prefer the former, I would rather see the two exist peacefully but most likely we'll end up with the latter and will have neither one when it's all said and done. Maybe that's what Rhaegar realized and that's why he tried to merge the two, in order to save them both, but with the way these books go I hate to admit it will most likely end badly for the Ice and the Fire.

[vivatforx]

For the record, 300 years is long enough to convince people that you are meant to rule. And while the "Aegon won the throne by conquest" idea sounds good, the truth is there was no Iron Throne before them. It's their throne. There was no unified kingdom before them, the kingdom is theirs as well.

If you read the Shakespeare English history plays, you will come across a very common concept from the middle ages: If you take out the rightful king, the kingdom falls to ruins, because of course the king is divinely ordained. Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Targs were chosen by God to be King of the Westerosi, but, as I said before, they forged the kingdom out of nothing. It's theirs by right. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

[Chaircat Meow]

For the record, 300 years is long enough to convince people that you are meant to rule. And while the "Aegon won the throne by conquest" idea sounds good, the truth is there was no Iron Throne before them. It's their throne. There was no unified kingdom before them, the kingdom is theirs as well.

If you read the Shakespeare English history plays, you will come across a very common concept from the middle ages: If you take out the rightful king, the kingdom falls to ruins, because of course the king is divinely ordained. Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Targs were chosen by God to be King of the Westerosi, but, as I said before, they forged the kingdom out of nothing. It's theirs by right. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

I like your post vivatforx, well said. I'd just point out that Cat does indeed refer to the idea gods make kings (not men) once in CoK.

[Jasta11]

For the record, 300 years is long enough to convince people that you are meant to rule. And while the "Aegon won the throne by conquest" idea sounds good, the truth is there was no Iron Throne before them. It's their throne. There was no unified kingdom before them, the kingdom is theirs as well.

If you read the Shakespeare English history plays, you will come across a very common concept from the middle ages: If you take out the rightful king, the kingdom falls to ruins, because of course the king is divinely ordained. Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Targs were chosen by God to be King of the Westerosi, but, as I said before, they forged the kingdom out of nothing. It's theirs by right. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

Things fell apart because of a complicated combination of events (Bob being an incompetent king, the twincest, Joffrey being a little shit, the machinations of Varys and Littlefinger, the personnal agendas of several would-be kings such as Balon and Renly). To blame it solely on the Targs no longer being on the throne is simplistic IMO. It's also not more ''their'' throne than it's Robert's, who also united Westeros by the sword, without dragons even. Because that's the main Targaryen claim to rule; dragons, local equivalent of WMDs. After that, as soon as the Westerosi lords felt that the King was inedequate, he was ousted.

The whole concept of right to rule seems pretty moot in Westeros, anyway. Whoever has the most soldiers (or dragons) backing up his claim is King. Right doesn't even enter the picture.

[Yukle]

Most people in Westeros probably couldn't care less who sits on the Iron Throne, or even if there is one. To them, words and banners are pretty fancies of the nobility.

They want a long summer, a good harvest, healthy children and a house that stays warm at night.

[mrunderhill]

Is that true? I see that without Others there wouldn`t be dragons, which means that nature itself fix these things by balancing them.

I have always thought either someone comes along, who can control both to balance things out, or they are both destroyed. The eternal summer and the long night are both bad ideas. We need a winter and a summer, we need natural seasons.

For the record, 300 years is long enough to convince people that you are meant to rule. And while the "Aegon won the throne by conquest" idea sounds good, the truth is there was no Iron Throne before them. It's their throne. There was no unified kingdom before them, the kingdom is theirs as well.

If you read the Shakespeare English history plays, you will come across a very common concept from the middle ages: If you take out the rightful king, the kingdom falls to ruins, because of course the king is divinely ordained. Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Targs were chosen by God to be King of the Westerosi, but, as I said before, they forged the kingdom out of nothing. It's theirs by right. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

It's possible quite a few in Westeros might be thinking that messing with the divine order of things led to this mess. In Macbeth we see what happens when a usurper sits on the throne.

The problem is the current kings are still depending on the Targaryen dynasty. Part of their claim was based on their descent from the Targaryens, they sit on the Iron Throne, they rule from the Red Keep and they use the same titles as the Targaryen kings. As long as they do this, they cannot stop people longing for the Targaryens back. Either Dany, Aegon or possibly Jon sit on the throne or Westers has a clean break away from Aegon's legacy. Whether that means Westeros breaking apart or a new dynasty being formed on their own merit.

[The Idiots Lantern]

The Targaryans are the reason the "Seven Kingdoms" exist as we know it. Before they arrived, Westeros was full of rival kings who waged war against each other for petty glories.

Everyone remembers how crazy the Targaryans went and how awful the Mad King was. They forget that the Targaryans presided over centuries of peace and prosperity....more or less.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Also, people really exaggerate the so-called Targaryen madness.

[Pharnavaziani]

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?

Hi! I really like Dany and I think that the Targaryens have had several truly great monarchs (Jahaerys I, Aerys I, Aegon V) which counts for a bit in my book. Even Aegon IV - "the Unworthy" seems to have a not wholly bad legacy in the form of Bloodraven. I think the Targaryen madness is massively overexaggerated as well.

This isn't really an answer, though. To me, the answer comes in two parts. The first is personal. When I read AGoT for the first time, I got a sense of great sadness and tragedy from Eddard about Robert's Rebellion. The heavy foreshadowing about R+L=J, and the fact that Eddard never seemed all that happy or content with his King - even though Bob was his BFF - spoke volumes to me. The horrible things that happened to Elia and Rheanys and (probably) Aegon VI are heart-wrenching, and quite literally everyone except Robert seems to think that Rhaegar would have been a truly magnificent king. As things go from bad to worse in King's Landing for the heroic Eddard - impacted by the petty politics of the Andal great houses playing the game of thrones - we realize that with the destruction of the Targaryen line changed the rules of the game. Now the great houses don't just squabble over bits of territory, marriages into the royal family, or which claimant to back during the 2 previous Targaryen civil wars; but actively try to capture the throne itself. They work to to undermine the Iron Throne as an institution instead of merely picking the right claimant, because, for the first time, it's been clear that any house can have a King.

And thus my personal sympathies to characters such as Eddard or Dany give way to a broader conviction: that the alien quality of the Targaryens is an essential part of the Westerosi monarchy. It gave them a degree of distance from the old feuds, and meant that the easiest way for their subjects to play the game was to ingratiate themselves with the monarchy. It's telling that even after the dragons died, the people of the 7 Kingdoms - who seem to viscerally revile incest - completely tolerate the continued rule of the Targaryens. In fact, Dorne was only added to the 7 Kingdoms for good after the dragons died. I think that the fall of the Targaryens has been much more disruptive than is immediately obvious, and that's without the assortment of plots to return them to power.

It's their connection with Dragons that I like. That and Dany using her growing power to free the slaves.

The dragons are unbelievably cool. Dany's Meereenese arc has some problems, but I think she's still the royal to pay the most mind to the 'smallfolk' in the entire series, and I really like that.

For the record, 300 years is long enough to convince people that you are meant to rule. And while the "Aegon won the throne by conquest" idea sounds good, the truth is there was no Iron Throne before them. It's their throne. There was no unified kingdom before them, the kingdom is theirs as well.

If you read the Shakespeare English history plays, you will come across a very common concept from the middle ages: If you take out the rightful king, the kingdom falls to ruins, because of course the king is divinely ordained. Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Targs were chosen by God to be King of the Westerosi, but, as I said before, they forged the kingdom out of nothing. It's theirs by right. If these novels carry any sort of historical accuracy (and they do), most of the people in Westeros would agree. And, the realm has fallen to pieces in just 15 years since the rebellion. Not a reach that some small folk yearn for the Pax Targaryan.

Frankly I don't trust any of the timelines older the Doom of Valyria. The books themselves make it clear that the Andals doubt a lot of First Men chronology, and their own chronologies are disputed as well. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the 7 kingdoms were technologically and linguistically stagnant for the unbelievably vast spans of time they say they were. Even if you halved the arrival dates of the Andals and First Men, you still end up with several thousand years of history. That's not really relevant, other than that I think the Targaryen period is a bigger relative portion of Westerosi history than they like to believe.

The Targaryen dynasty did indeed unify and ultimately pacify Westeros, and yes, it's falling apart largely due to internal pressures right after. Aegon I embodied the best qualities in a conqueror - an Alexandrian or Ceasar-like figure who saw that Westeros for what it could be, and used a number of tools (not merely violence) to spread his vision. Add in a list of colorful characters (men and women) associated with their family, and the Targaryens become a much more interesting bunch than the Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, etc., - and none of those families are immune to the problems the Targaryens have.

I guess I'm just a sap who wishes Rhaegar and Lyanna could have had a happy ending; and who wants to see their families succeed.

[Batman]

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.

They were a ring above them. Past tense.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

It depends on which claimant you like most. I personally think the Targaryens were fairly overthrown, as Aerys and Rhaegar overstepped themselves. I can see why fans would want the Targs back, as they've had great kings like Jaehaerys, Daeron II, and Aegon V. But they've also had their share of terrible kings, they aren't by any means perfect. The Baratheon Dynasty in contrast, has so far been ineffective. While Robert wasn't an awful king, he was by no means good one, as his reign was somewhat peaceful but he bankrupted the realm. The Baratheons also have the misfortune of Joffrey being passed of as a son of Robert, and I don't need to say how unpopular he was. To be fair though, the Targaryen dynasty was off to a shaky start as well, with Aenys being weak, and Maegor failing to end a long rebellion.

In reality though, the person who rules is the person with the military might to support his/her claim. In Aegon's case, it was his century old dragons that solidified his rule. In Robert's case, it was his victory over Rhaegar that made him the accepted ruler of Westeros.

[Rheagar Prime]

well because they are the ones that established the modern westeros the baratheon's didn't change anything about it and used their targ anscestry to sit on the throne a (guess what a targ made). Still as many have said no one is arguing that they have a right to it often, but the fact is modern westeros is their creation. Still all they have to do is conquer back the throne no bigge and its theirs again. Hell we all know how the small folk miss them they were toasting to aerys II for godsake aerys, that tells ya the big impact this family has.

[Lord Damian]

It had more to do about the dragons, they united the kingdoms because no one/no combination of forces could defeat the dragons at that time. The dragons were the ones that forged the 6 kingdoms (Dorne resisted the Dragons and never succumbed to them) just as they foged the Iron Throne itself.