Restoration Rights?

[direwienerdog]

The Starks were brutally betrayed at the Red Wedding. Similarly, The Targaryens were also betrayed at the sacking of KL. However the distinction between these two events is that the Targaryens started a war because they believed they were infallible (the whole "fire is our champion" thing stinks of this, as does demanding eddard/robert's execution) The Starks were taken out while they were trying to fight a war to free themselves from the Lannisters, which, in their cold views on duty and justice, is justifiable. I guess what I am getting at is that the Starks try to justify their actions, while the Targaryens believe all they need to do is shout "fire and blood". Because of this, I think that they sort of deserved what was coming to them. The sacking of KL was terrible, but the Targaryens also shouldn't have the right to rule after so many stupid decisions. However, I am actually going to agree with you. Dany deserves a home, but maybe not (at least in my mind) a queenship.

When you say the Targs you mean the Mad King Aerys,you aren't saying all the Targs as in Elia and her baby boy and young daughter had it coming I hope.

[C0bR]

That may be the theory, but if we look at how a divided Westeros worked it was pretty much constant war between the kingdoms. Just because they don't have a common throne to fight for don't mean that they won't fight, they'll just fight for the seven lesser thrones, for lands, titles and glory.

From where is everyone bringing up a constant war?

The North was largely happy with what they had, controlling their lands. Their only expanson in 8000 years have been taking of the Neck.

There is not a single conflict with the Vale attending.

Dorne and the Reach are peaceful, except for an occasional squabble on the boards.

The only one fighting were Stormkings, Ironborn and Westerlanders and those conflicts were divided by hundreds of years without anyone ever getting a major advantage.

[Rhaegarsjoy]

People like to ignore this fact.

Edit

[Nictarion]

There were from what we know a few Bolton rebellions in the north and the Iron Born invasions and the Storm King invasions in the south it wasn't as if everyone was fighting everyone and even these invasions and rebellions happen once a few generations and hence are far more desirable than the 300 years of bloodshed that followed the unification.

There was not 300 years of constant bloodshed. Jaehaerys I reign alone was like 50 years of paece.

[Nictarion]

From where is everyone bringing up a constant war?

The North was largely happy with what they had, controlling their lands. Their only expanson in 8000 years have been taking of the Neck.

There is not a single conflict with the Vale attending.

Dorne and the Reach are peaceful, except for an occasional squabble on the boards.

The only one fighting were Stormkings, Ironborn and Westerlanders and those conflicts were divided by hundreds of years without anyone ever getting a major advantage.

Didn't the North and the Vale war with each other over the Fingers for genetations?

[C0bR]

Didn't the North and the Vale war with each other over the Fingers for genetations?

I don't recall that. Any source?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I don't recall that. Any source?

ADWD in the Davos chapters.

[Nyrhex]

Okay let me start this post by making several clarifications.

First, people often times take Aerys II poor job as a king and extrapolate that to apply it to the entirety of the 300 years of Targaryen rule, portraying it as 300 years of tyranny. This is inaccurate. As another poster mentioned, the dragons will be remembered fondly by many, and the Targaryens had great kings, very much loved by the lords and the common folk alike (Jaeherys I, Baelor I, Daeron I, to name a few). Targaryen rule brought peace and stability to the realm never before seen, and never seen since. The dance and the Blackfyre rebellions were hickups in a mostly stable 300 years of rule (this is relative to the constant petty wars between the kingdoms prior to Aegon's conquest).

Second, some portray Robert's Rebellion as an uprising of the people, the good guys finally overthrowing the yoke of Targaryen tyranny. Of course, this wasn't the case. Sure four lords paramount rebelled, but despite Aerys II's abysmal rule, more than half the realm wanted nothing to do with deposing the Targaryens. The reach, Dorne, and the Crownlands remained completely loyal. In fact to this day we have reason to believe that these regions would welcome a Targaryen restoration. Half the Stormlands refused to join Robert, he had to fight his own bannermen. Half the riverlands refused to rebel, and at the very least, in the Vale, Gulltown (the largest population center) stayed true to the Targaryens. The Lannisters didn't care who won, they would side with the winners.

Third, Aegon's conquest was extremely merciful. The Tyrells, Tullys, and Baratheons owe everything they are to the Targaryens. The Lannisters were allowed to keep their seat, their wealth, and their lands, despite fighting Aegon. Torrhen Stark bent the knee and continued to rule in the north, same with with Arryns of the vale, who soon married into the royal family. Look let me be perfectly blunt, Aegon didn't need these lords, he didn't need to be merciful. He could have wiped them out, but he didn't.

Fourth, comparing Aegon and Robert as usurpers just doesn't fly. First off, three families were actually elevated (Tyrells, Tullys, Baratheons). Second, the Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns kept their lands, they kept their castles, and they kept their bannermen. They just now owed allegiance to King's Landing. What Robert did was literally take the Targaryen throne, their castle, their city, their lands, and their bannermen.

We were talking about the source of legitimacy for rule. Aegon conquered Westeros by using his dragons. He userped the kings of thier Sovereignty. It matters not how many people died here or there, who was lord paramount and who stayed (BTW, Robert left everyone but the Targs in thier place, even the small council). The kings were now lords to another king, and were denyed thier independence, and were forced to provide service and tax to another. The quality of the dynasty is irrelevent. Arryn, Baratheon and Stark were justified in rebeling against Aerys. Tully as well, and that is a point that I rarely see here; Once Aerys accepted Rhaegar's kidnapping and killed all those lords, that was an act against all the lords who swore him fielty. He created a precedent that the king can do as he likes, regardless of the contract agreed upon by him and his lords. Rhaegar can kidnap even the daughter of a lord paramount, and Aerys can kill lords without trial.

Every. Single. Loyalist. Was short sighted to the level of only caring who wins. Not a single one of them stopped to think what if they won? Why did they accept Aerys and Rhaegar's actions? Did they not see the problems that allowing the continuation of either's riegn would creat? No. The Tyrells were confident they would win, and thought to themselves that it's all just a matter of the rebels. They weren't offended, so why should they care? Tywin thought the same, and did not like any of tthe sides involved more then the other. Doran only cares about keeping te power of having a marriage alliance with the royal family provides (this is the only explenation for why he keeps two army groups ready for any "dragon" that crosses the Narrow Sea, even when there is no way for him to get his vengence, as all the targets are dead).

Dany and Aegon are part of a family who was deposed from rule over Westeros for legitimate reasons, and by the majority of the realm (the ones who rebelled, and the ones who did'nt care who wins and joined them at the end). They have zero legitimacy to return to Westeros and take the throne, and certinally no moral right.

[Nictarion]

Nevermind. Poster above mentioned source.

[C0bR]

Can't remember, might have seen someone say it on here. I'm pretty sure there was some kind of beef between the Starks snd Arryns. I will hsve to look into it.

They fought over Three Sisters. Interesting, a thousand year conflict over such a worthless piece of land. Does not really seem like a major conflict though. More like a minor ego standoff, which caused causalities only to the Sistermen.

[C0bR]

double post, stupid quote/edit button placement... :D

[thelittledragonthatcould]

They have zero legitimacy to return to Westeros and take the throne, and certinally no moral right.

This applies to everyone who rules through power, be they Stark, Lannister or Targyren.

[Nictarion]

They fought over Three Sisters. Interesting, a thousand year conflict over such a worthless piece of land. Does not really seem like a major conflict though.

A war that lasted a thousand years doesn't sound like a major conflict?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

They fought over Three Sisters. Interesting, a thousand year conflict over such a worthless piece of land. Does not really seem like a major conflict though.

I think it shows the complexity of Westeros history. We had no idea about this conflict because we had not had a POV from Sisterton or White Harbour, chances are many places in Westeros have this type of city which is far too vast too be told about in the Novels and being more than 300 years old not known to everyone.

[C0bR]

A war that lasted a thousand years doesn't sound like a major conflict?

To me it sounds more like they were trading the islands between themselves every 50-100 or so years with minor causalities on both sides, since you couldn't keep a large garrison the islands. The only ones suffering were actually the Sistermen.

Minor, local conflict that simply lasted a long time.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

A war that lasted a thousand years doesn't sound like a major conflict?

What is more interesting is that the people of these Islands had their own Gods, they purposefully choose to join the Vale(Andals) rather than the North. Clearly in the past the Stark Lords were very different to the most recent one's.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

To me it sounds more like they were trading the islands between themselves every 50-100 or so years with minor causalities on both sides, since you couldn't keep a large garrison the islands. The only ones suffering were actually the Sistermen.

Minor, local conflict that simply lasted a long time.

No offense mate, but five minutes ago you were not aware that it even happened. I'm not sure you are in an opinion to comment on the seriousness of it.

[Nictarion]

What is more interesting is that the people of these Islands had their own Gods, they purposefully choose to join the Vale(Andals) rather than the North. Clearly in the past the Stark Lords were very different to the most recent one's.

Yeah, the sheer odds of all the Starks being decent rulers over 8000 years are not good.

[Nyrhex]

This applies to everyone who rules through power, be they Stark, Lannister or Targyren.

But the Starks in the North did not rule by power. The lords of the North are actively trying to restore them, and only do so in secret becauee the Boltons are ruling the North by force of arms. Once the lords of the North have enough power they will try and restore the Starks, as they give them legitimacy to rule over them. The Lannisters are also accepted in the Westerlands, and as far as I can tell, there are few who wish to depose them there. The Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion was the closest thing to indicate dissatisfaction with the Lannisters, but the way Tywin was able ot gather the full might of the Westerlands to crush that rebellion suggests that the Lannisters still enjoy the legitimacy as rulers of the West.

[C0bR]

Yeah, the sheer odds of all the Statks being decent rulers over 8000 years are no good.

There were undoubtely bad or agressive Stark rulers. The wild, agressive Stark is actually the most probable Stark archetype in my opinion.

No offense mate, but five minutes ago you were not aware that it even happened. I'm not sure you are in an opinion to comment on the seriousness of it.

I am simply saying what that conflict looks like to me. Or do you thing that they were locked in a major war over a worthless pile of stone for a thousand years straight with thousands dying on both sides every year?