Why Targaryen?

[Gnivil]

The Baratheons are only kings because they took it from the Targaryens (by force)

The Targaryens were only kings because they took it from the old Andal (and one first-man) kings (by force)

The Andal kings were only kings because they took it from the old First men kings (by force)

The First Men kings were only kings because they took it from the COTF (by force)

And who the hell knows where the COTF came from.

I rest my case.

[Pharnavaziani]

We don't know that. We have little Westerosi history before Aegon's conquest, but the fact that both borders and ruling Houses seemed quite static suggests that it really wasn't a war-torn wasteland. We know the Riverlands suffered from frequent Ironborn attacks, but these guys have been more or less defanged over time. Other than that? Yeah, some conflicts and internal rebellions because that's the lot of a pseudo-feudal system, but those also happened under ''stable'' Iron Throne rule (Tarbecks and Reynes, Balon's first rebellion, Blackfyre rebellion, Dance of the Dragons).

Contrast with the fact that, in 15 years, no less than two massive, continent-spanning wars for the IT have happened, and Dany and her dragons haven't even landed in Westeros. Nor has Young Griff's campaign begun in earnest. And Stannis certainly won't stop at taking Winterfell, if he even manages it. Lots of blood has been shed for that silly uncomfortable chair, and the series is still far from over.

So I doubt that the IT existing really means less wars. It arguably lead to more, in fact.

Or it means that the IT must be occupied by a family like the Targaryens, who have some distance from the ancient bickering of the 7 kingdoms.

[Jasta11]

Or it means that the IT must be occupied by a family like the Targaryens, who have some distance from the ancient bickering of the 7 kingdoms.

... King Bob's Rebellion happened under Targaryen rule. So did the Blackfyre rebellion, and the Dance of the Dragons. There was also the very bloody conquest of Dorne. The Targs are harly above any sort of bickering, hell their presence/dynasty created new wars of succession.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

The presence of the IT provokes larger scale wars than individual kingdoms.

The borders aren't ever-shifting and ever-changing, save for the Riverlands, from what we can tell from the maps of pre-Targ Westeros. This implies that minor skirmishes and miniwars were more common, probably losing 1000 or so men before settling for a treaty and a holdfast or two.

[danm_999]

Most of what we're saying here is speculation, I don't pretend otherwise. :D I'm just sharing my point of view with you.

Sure, the Targaryens are in a bad spot, too, but they still have a huge role to play in the plot, whereas the Baratheons are almost done, IMO.

And you have to admit, the possibility that Dany may still be fertile is bigger than Stannis having another heir or Shireen surviving the series. Which leaves you with Edric Storm, who cannot hold the title, unless legitimized by a king.

Given we have no way of knowing the probability of any of this, I cannot admit that. All I know atm is that the Targaryens have fewer surviving members than the Baratheons.

[danm_999]

In the 300 years the realm was united as one there was only what, 3 or 4 wars? Compared to before when there were constant wars that I wouldn't consider small skirmishes. Yes I still say one kingdom is a far better option.

Way more than that. There was Aegon's Conquest itself, there was the Faith Militant Uprising, there was the Dance of Dragons, there was Raymund Redbeard's invasion of the North, there was the Blackfyre Rebellion, there was the War of the Ninepenny Kings, Dagon Greyjoy's reavings in the North and the South, and finally, Robert's Rebellion. Those are the ones we know of. Granted we don't know exactly who participated in some (Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion), but we have anecdotal evidence the conflict was widespread, at least in the south.

Now, if we apply Maester Aemon's '3 or 4 kingdoms at war' standard, we see that's probably under par for the amount of wars fought in the Targaryen era. In the Targaryen era, it was common for even all Seven Kingdoms to be involved in multiple wars in a single generation, because a centralised authority compelled them to become involved. No longer did the King in the Reach have the luxury of sitting back and watching the Vale and the North duke it out. Because he was vassal to a King, he had to become involved when asked. Robert's Rebellion or the Blackfyre Rebellion are good examples of this; lords from all other Westeros break out in internicine conflicts when there's a general continental issue.

And on the 'peace' side of things, the Targaryens appear to have done little. The North was still expected to deal with Wildlings alone, and despite Queen Alysanne's affection, the Night's Watch declined under the Targaryen's stewardship, meaning greater instability. The Ironborn appear to have been given free run of the place during Dagon's day. In fact, the Targaryens opened up another source of conflict Westeros had to deal with; Essos. At least once, a sizeable portion of Westeros was forced to deal with something that threatened the Targaryens in Essos.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

Way more than that. There was Aegon's Conquest itself, there was the Faith Militant Uprising, there was the Dance of Dragons, there was Raymund Redbeard's invasion of the North, there was the Blackfyre Rebellion, there was the War of the Ninepenny Kings, Dagon Greyjoy's reavings in the North and the South, and finally, Robert's Rebellion. Those are the ones we know of. Granted we don't know exactly who participated in some (Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion), but we have anecdotal evidence the conflict was widespread, at least in the south.

Now, if we apply Maester Aemon's '3 or 4 kingdoms at war' standard, we see that's probably under par for the amount of wars fought in the Targaryen era. In the Targaryen era, it was common for even all Seven Kingdoms to be involved in multiple wars in a single generation, because a centralised authority compelled them to become involved. No longer did the King in the Reach have the luxury of sitting back and watching the Vale and the North duke it out. Because he was vassal to a King, he had to become involved when asked. Robert's Rebellion or the Blackfyre Rebellion are good examples of this; lords from all other Westeros break out in internicine conflicts when there's a general continental issue.

And on the 'peace' side of things, the Targaryens appear to have done little. The North was still expected to deal with Wildlings alone, and despite Queen Alysanne's affection, the Night's Watch declined under the Targaryen's stewardship, meaning greater instability. The Ironborn appear to have been given free run of the place during Dagon's day. In fact, the Targaryens opened up another source of conflict Westeros had to deal with; Essos. At least once, a sizeable portion of Westeros was forced to deal with something that threatened the Targaryens in Essos.

Lets not forget that there was up to about five Blackfyre wars. Also that the Faith Militant uprising lasted for about eleven years. Maekar Targaryen was killed in battle with a rogue lord, so that was either Balckfyre war or just a whole different war which would then be added to the list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it said some where that Aegon IV also attempted to launch an unprovoked invasion against Dorne? Other than Jaehaerys and Viserys rule, the Targ era was most certainly not peaceful.

[Dr. Pepper]

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.

Nothing great about the Targaryens? Are you serious? You're being ubsurd. They built a castle and a sharp chair! And, most importantly, a dirt road!

[mcb]

Lets not forget that there was up to about five Blackfyre wars.

Five? I counted one and a half: the first Blackfyre Rebellion, and the War of the Ninepenny Kings (which happened mostly in Essos). Where's the other three (and a half)?

[Sleazy vagabond]

The targa were rulers by right of conquest. Then the baratheons also by right of conquest. And if Dany or Aegon sit the iron throne it to will be by right of conquest. No one thinks the Lannisters will give up the throne do they.

[mindchap]

Five? I counted one and a half: the first Blackfyre Rebellion, and the War of the Ninepenny Kings (which happened mostly in Essos). Where's the other three (and a half)?

Yeah the second Blackfyre "Rebellion" ended with the brown dragon face down in the mud to the Knight of the Pussywillows.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

Five? I counted one and a half: the first Blackfyre Rebellion, and the War of the Ninepenny Kings (which happened mostly in Essos). Where's the other three (and a half)?

It says on the wiki for House Blackfyre that as many as five rebellions have been mentioned. Assuming that's true and not just unreliable info, then there may have been three wars after the original one, including the one on the Stepstones. Not including the second "rebellion" though.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Other than Jaehaerys and Viserys rule, the Targ era was most certainly not peaceful.

It's the other way around, actually. There was far more peace than war under the Targaryen dynasty.

Yeah the second Blackfyre "Rebellion" ended with the brown dragon face down in the mud to the Knight of the Pussywillows.

That's one of the best sentences I've read on the board. :D

It says on the wiki for House Blackfyre that as many as five rebellions have been mentioned. Assuming that's true and not just unreliable info, then there may have been three wars after the original one, including the one on the Stepstones. Not including the second "rebellion" though.

The wiki is not completely reliable. There were two wars, one of which didn't even reach mainland Westeros.

[Nictarion]

A fantastic question.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the two biggest winners without an Iron Throne are the North and Dorne, two of the most sympathetic and frequently-depicted factions....

If you're the Westerlands, the Reach, the Crownlands, or especially the Riverlands, you would probably hate the idea of no IT. These regions are profoundly vulnerable and have a history of both being invaded and squabbling over territory. Dorne and the North have some of the most formidable natural defenses and distinct local cultures - but the rest of Westeros would probably suffer without an Iron Throne.

Excellent point. The North probably has the most fans on this forum, so of course they would be all for it. Like you stated, it wouldn't work out to well for most of the other regions. Think about how fighting there would be over the more valuable regions like the Reach and the West.

[vivatforx]

To blame it solely on the Targs no longer being on the throne is simplistic IMO.

I was speaking from the perspective of the smallfolk. They would have been pretty simplistic. Consider how most people on the low end of the food chain remember former leaders from "better" times. "Things were better when Reagan/JFK/Eisenhower/Roosevelt was in office." This is how smallfolk think.

[vivatforx]

The Baratheons are only kings because they took it from the Targaryens (by force)

The Targaryens were only kings because they took it from the old Andal (and one first-man) kings (by force)

The Andal kings were only kings because they took it from the old First men kings (by force)

The First Men kings were only kings because they took it from the COTF (by force)

And who the hell knows where the COTF came from.

I rest my case.

While this is factually true, it means nothing politically. You cannot have a viable political system if the right of conquest is freely recognized. The realm would be in constant turmoil. This is why regicide was the ultimate crime in a monarchy. Wars are bad for business.

Also, a lot of you guy look at this from a very modern perspective, when GRRM has gone to massive lengths to make his characters, and the various cultures we meet, extraordinarily medieval. Try to look at some of these problems from that perspective. It's tough sometimes for people raised under a democratic republic of one sort or another to put themselves in the head space of people living in a feudal world. But, to get why some of these characters and cultures behave the way they do, walking in their shoes might help.

If you guys want real insight to the political mindset GRRM is tapping into, read a bit about the Wars of the Roses. If you get in deep enough, you will discover many familiar characters and situations.

[The Dovakhiin]

In a society where grown men can be compeled to fall on each others swords by a teenaged boy with a thousand year old name, where a madman can order the deaths of many while ''honorable'' men stand and watch and where songs glorify the deeds of the wicked no claim is illegitimate as long as you have the means to support it and can convince people to kill for it.

Arguing who has the right to the throne is pointless, no King is legitimate. If you want the throne take it.

[vivatforx]

It's sad that the very next person paid no attention. Oh well. But, for the last time, literally no one thought like you in the medieval period, Dragonborn.

[The Dovakhiin]

It's sad that the very next person paid no attention. Oh well. But, for the last time, literally no one thought like you in the medieval period, Dragonborn.

The point I was making was that your king for as long as nobody can successfully challenge your rule. If Ned Stark didn't turn into an idiot over night starting an unnecessary war by challenging JL's legitimacy the realm would be at peace. Its all Ned's fault. :)

[The Dovakhiin]

I mean just think what could KJL really do in a peaceful world that his hand and grandfather would allow?