Targs - less than 300 years?

[red_temple]

This has been bugging me for a while. The Seven Kingdoms of Westeros were united under the Targaryen rule for a whopping 300 years. When you consider the long history of the continent - dating back 12,000 years - this is hardly a drop in the bucket.

I can certainly understand the minds and mentalities of the inhabitants of Westeros - to the ones currently living, 300 years is a long time, and the Targaryens are certainly sufficiently planted into the consciousness of all people to seem incredibly awe-inspiring.

However, what about the continent of Westeros, itself? The people speak as if the Targaryens are the all-time rightful rulers, when, truly, they hardly qualify as squatters. Is there something that we are overlooking here? Are we over-valuing the worth of the Targaryens, especially when it concerns the Seven Kingdoms?

 

[Brian G Turner]

300 years is a pretty long time, politically, though. Think about the British Empire, and the impact that had on the world.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Are you asking why great houses may or may not unite under the Dany's banner if/when she comes across the water? Why they may treat her as the rightful heir?

I think the answer is a complex one.

The Targaryens made a pretty big impression on the continent with the dragons and their Valyrian background. They were dynamic, powerful, charismatic, driven. Didnt they unite the continent? If Im not mistaken, Westeros was simply divided into all the little kingdoms prior to the Targaryen rule. Dragonfire had a way of turning those who were inclined to oppose their rule into ash.

So, I guess you could look at it from the perspective that since they created the kingdom, they were the rightful heirs. The Baratheons never united Westeros, nor did the Lannisters, the Starks, Dorne. Even the great houses of Tyrell never dared ask the north to bend the knee to them. Heck, Riverrun could barely control their own bannerman. When the Frey army showed up late on the winning side, Hoster should have put him to the sword right there for disobedience. No one but the Targaryens had the force or wherewithall necessary to rule.

The fact that they reigned after they had lost the power that had put them on the Iron Throne to begin with had been lost (the dragons), speaks to the fact that the populace of Westeros most have, for the most part, thrived under Targaryen rule, or at least, no one kingdom in particular suffered to the point of challenging their rule.

In addition, for a house like the Starks, the Targaryan rule had little effect on their lives or power. They still rule effectively as "kings of the north". What happened at King's Landing concerned them little if at all, (right up until the time Eddards father and brother were killed...)

I think you could get into a heavy philosophical discussion here too concerning whether or not people desire strong leadership and the silver haired, violet eyed dragon riders seem so....royal..... I sense from the reading that there may have been some sort of romantic - mythological- otherworldly air about the Targaryens that other houses felt. You could as well ask, why wouldnt some of the houses rally round Dany's banner? Which is an interesting discussion also.

ok, Im tired and hungry. Theres more I can write and Im not sure I made my point clearly but....Ill return to it later if there's any questions.

 

[Koopa]

The thing that makes the Targaryens special is that they united the 7 Kingdoms and made it 1 whole kingdom. Before westeros where divided countries, with many a king squabling. Wth the targs their was just one king, one law, one justice.

 

[Boaz]

The fact that they reigned after they had lost the power that had put them on the Iron Throne to begin with had been lost (the dragons), speaks to the fact that the populace of Westeros most have, for the most part, thrived under Targaryen rule, or at least, no one kingdom in particular suffered to the point of challenging their rule.

In addition, for a house like the Starks, the Targaryan rule had little effect on their lives or power. They still rule effectively as "kings of the north". What happened at King's Landing concerned them little if at all, (right up until the time Eddards father and brother were killed...)

I agree with the Targaryen prosperity idea. The financial gains that Westeros saw from a unified government might have been tremendous. The King's Peace allowed for farmers and tradespeople to work uninhibited. Because of the cessation of constant fighting, roads must have been maintained better which leads to swifter travel of goods. The King's Peace also allowed safer travel by sea on the western side of the continent.

no one kingdom in particular suffered to the point of challenging their rule.

Well, there were some rebellions, but these were not by the common people. It seems the wars of the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyres and the Ninepenny Kings were waged by disgruntled men who wanted power... and none were representing a former kingdom. Dorne rebelled within a year of being conquered. But it seems to me that none of these rebellions occured when the Targaryens still possessed mature battle dragons.

I think you could get into a heavy philosophical discussion here too concerning whether or not people desire strong leadership and the silver haired, violet eyed dragon riders seem so....royal..... I sense from the reading that there may have been some sort of romantic - mythological- otherworldly air about the Targaryens that other houses felt.

I also like this argument. The Targaryens were not Children of the Forest, First Men, Andals, nor Rhoynar... they were Valyrian. They were descended from a race that was culturally, technologically (including magic), financially, and militarily superior to any race in history. The Targaryens appearance only increased this difference. The main ruling families in Westeros were of Andalish origins, ie. they had fair hair and fair skin... in my opinion, the Andals highly prized fair hair and fair skin (this is just my opinion, I don't have any facts to bolster this... I'll just say that Cersei seems to epitomize Andalish beauty) and the Targaryens had even fairer hair and fairer skin than the most well bred Andals... thus, by virtue of genetics the Targaryens were the most royal. And just throw in the small matter of Dragons and the Targaryens start to appear in almost superhuman terms.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

It's not as if they were completely new either. The books don't say how long the Targaryens held Dragonstone before they invaded Westoros, but it was most likely a fairly long time. Being the western-most point of Valyria, they would most likely have been the trading post for Westoros as well, perhaps they were the source of The Seven Kingdoms' Valyrian steel? If so, they would have been important to the noble houses long before they conquered them. This is all pure conjecture but seems logical to me.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

The fact that they reigned after they had lost the power that had put them on the Iron Throne to begin with had been lost (the dragons),

I always shudder and cringe when going back and re-reading what I have written..only to find hastily contrived sentences with horrible grammar and poor spelling....do I dare dream that one day we may have full edit control over our posts????

Likely not. Whats left to me is only my plea to judge me not by how poorly my sentences are formed but by the meaning Im attempting to convey.....

 

[Koopa]

It's not as if they were completely new either. The books don't say how long the Targaryens held Dragonstone before they invaded Westoros, but it was most likely a fairly long time. Being the western-most point of Valyria, they would most likely have been the trading post for Westoros as well, perhaps they were the source of The Seven Kingdoms' Valyrian steel? If so, they would have been important to the noble houses long before they conquered them. This is all pure conjecture but seems logical to me.

The targaryens sold the swords, to finance their expanses in the years before their conquest

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

Just more fuel for my "Dany is a foreign invader not liberator" stance....

Thanks R.T.

 

[TK-421]

I don't see how Dany could be seen as a foreign invader when most people in Westeros have only known Targaryen rule and probably fondly remember it compared to the mess the Baratheons and Lannisters are leaving behind. When you are starving and destitute and are looking for a real leader to lift you out of the misery of war, a Targaryen with 3 dragons is a saviour, regardless if she's lived her whole life so far across the Narrow Sea. The Faith will likely rally to her cause and the new armed Faith will have ALOT of sway over the common people. Heck, it's already swaying lords to their cause.

If you want to use how many years one dynasty lasted over another as the measuring stick for determining who is the rightful heir to the throne, I say bring back the Children of the Forest (with Bran at their lead) or the First Men. But, if you did that, there would be no throne would there.

 

[Werthead]

It's not as if they were completely new either. The books don't say how long the Targaryens held Dragonstone before they invaded Westoros, but it was most likely a fairly long time. Being the western-most point of Valyria, they would most likely have been the trading post for Westoros as well, perhaps they were the source of The Seven Kingdoms' Valyrian steel? If so, they would have been important to the noble houses long before they conquered them. This is all pure conjecture but seems logical to me.

They don't, but GRRM does. The Targaryens were on Dragonstone for 100 years before the Doom, then 100 years after before invading Westeros. They were likely in charge of trade between the Freehold and Westeros.

Many Valyrian steel blades found their way into Westeros, mostly through representatives of the noble houses actually just going to Valyria and buying them. The Targaryens may have actually had the secret of forging them themselves and sold some to finance the invasions. Naturally, the Targs kept at least two of these blades for themselves (Blackfyre and Dark Sister).

 

[Koopa]

What happened to these blades?

Those he golden company hold darksister?

 

[the smiling weirwood]

Where did you learn this? I must go there....

 

[Werthead]

The timeline is specified in both the AGoT RPG rulebook (which is canon, since it was approved by GRRM) and GRRM's introduction to The Sworn Sword (in which he says that the Doom took place 400 years before A Game of Thrones).

Check Wikipedia. Look for the entries: "A Song of Ice and Fire", "Westeros" (which contains a timeline by, erm, me, based on the RPG and the novels), the individual book names, the individual house names (House Lannister, House Targaryen etc) and "Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire".

As for the swords: Blackfyre was given by King Aegon IV to his ******* son Daemon when he became warrior, and Daemon took the name Blackfyre as his own. When Daemon Blackfyre died at the Battle of Redgrass Field in 196 AL after leading a failed rebellion against King Daeron II, his half-brother Aegor 'Bittersteel' Rivers picked up the sword and fled to the Free Cities with Daemon's surviving sons and founded the Golden Company. It is likely that the sword is still with them (we will be meeting them later in the series, so I'm guessing we'll find out for sure). It's also possible that Daemon's sons took possession of the sword, in which case his grandson or great-grandon Maelys probably still had it when Ser Barristan Selmy killed him during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. The subsequent fate of the sword in that case is unknown.

Dark Sister is much more problematic. Visenya wielded the sword and it passed down through the Targaryens until King Aegon IV gave it to his ******* son Brynden 'Bloodraven' Rivers. Bloodraven used Dark Sister at the Redgrass Field in his duel with Bittersteel. After the battle it is likely Bloodraven retained the sword. We know that Bloodraven was later stripped of his titles and sent to the Wall, in which case the sword was either confiscated by the Targaryens or Aegon V allowed him to keep it, in which case the sword was either buried with Bloodraven, is still with him if he's still alive (which is possible only if Bloodraven = Coldhands, which is a popular theory), or forgotten in some store room in Castle Black somewhere.

Otherwise the Targs took back the sword. It's eventual fate in that case would be unknown. It could have been lost in the Tragedy of Summerhall, Rhaegar could have had it and it could have been lost in the Trident, or it could have been sent across the sea with Daenerys and Viserys (in which case Ilyrio Moptais may have it).

 

[Koopa]

i thought that daemon sons both died after him by bloodraven? or whatever name that hand took who later became LC by arrows

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

I don't see how Dany could be seen as a foreign invader when most people in Westeros have only known Targaryen rule and probably fondly remember it compared to the mess the Baratheons and Lannisters are leaving behind. When you are starving and destitute and are looking for a real leader to lift you out of the misery of war, a Targaryen with 3 dragons is a saviour, regardless if she's lived her whole life so far across the Narrow Sea. The Faith will likely rally to her cause and the new armed Faith will have ALOT of sway over the common people. Heck, it's already swaying lords to their cause.

Ive argued this so many times Im starting to hate typing it...but I will not cut and paste because that seems silly....listen lets not confuse the issue about common people and the Houses, the common people want food...so yes they would welcome anyone at this point that put bread on the table (re Margaery and the lifting of the siege of Kings Landing)...yer referring to the Houses that are going to support a change in government, theyre not starving. Two issues there....but thats a whole nother topic


Everything Dany has done has been completely understandable, even laudable up to this point....but if she comes to Westeros she will be making war for the sake of making war...she would then be a conqueor. Her grandfather was deposed by the same people that you say are going to depose the current rulership. But some are going to fight her right? So they have no right to self determination because theyre in a minority?

Danys not coming for revenge because if she is that wont last when she gets there (the principals are all dead...Robert Ned Jon Arryn even Tywin)unless she means to make war on the children of those Houses, but that doesnt sit right with me either ....she cant be coming to reclaim her rights, because its the self same people that deposed her grandfather that she means to rule. In other words, extinguishing those rights....nope if shes comes it will be as a conqueror....there will be bloodshed and she will selfishly be the cause.

Two options exist to mitigate the circumstances of her invasion....universal proclamation or to liberate from the others....Im going with the latter....

 

[the smiling weirwood]

So if a strong ruler could unite the fractured and bleeding Westeros, saving it from its current state by way of a short period of bloodshed(I'm assuming it would be short, because she does have dragons) it wouldn't be worth it?

 

[Werthead]

i thought that daemon sons both died after him by bloodraven? or whatever name that hand took who later became LC by arrows

Daemon had more than two sons. His two eldest, Aegon and Aemon, were twins, probably about 13-15 years old and serving as his squires. Bloodraven killed them with arrows on Redgrass Field. Bittersteel took the younger sons across the Narrow Sea. Three or four generations later, their descendent Maelys was the last survivor of the Blackfyre line and he died on the Stepstones. By this time Bittersteel's Golden Company had parted ways with the Blackfyres and continue to survive 'today' in the east.

 

[Aegon the Unworthy]

So if a strong ruler could unite the fractured and bleeding Westeros, saving it from its current state by way of a short period of bloodshed(I'm assuming it would be short, because she does have dragons) it wouldn't be worth it?

The cheap answer of course is how much is a little bit of bloodshed? or It depends on which side of the flaming dragons breath you're looking from whether its worth it or not....

Now realize Dany is at the head of a foreign host, and while I trust the Unsullied do you really think anyone else in the army is someone you want as an occupational force? If recent history has taught us nothing its that when you lead a foreign army into a country to straighten out their government issues, you will not be as well received as you would hope. Of course thats a reference to recent US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (excuse me that Coalition involvement in Afghanistan). Peoples loyalties go odd places when faced with foreign soldiers on their soil regardless of said soldiers intentions.

I can think of two houses who will violently opposed Danys presence...Lannisters and Baratheon.....so theyll have to humbled....thats not going to be quick or painless. Stannis will not surrender so all his men will have to die or turn on him....

I dont know...how many lives lost is a small amount? I really dont have an answer.

 

[Koopa]

Not entirely the same, little to nobody in those two countries wanted the us there (some minorities), In Westeros we know that different great houses and many of the folk would not mind a targaryen on the throne, it can be said that a lot of people wanted to get rid of Hussein, but i doubt they wanted to VS to come, as for Afghanstan they where almost completely hostile