Did Targaryens really "bring peace" to Westeros?

[Brienne The Wolf]

Yeah, 7K split into 7 again could be better, but I'm not sure if what will happen in the end will be the best for everybody... I don't think the 7 kingdoms will be 7 again. Mayhaps the iron throne will contiue rulling everything or something new will happen.

[RoamingRonin]

I don't think we were ever told that the Targaryens were 'almost godly', etc.

I also don't think we have any evidence that the times of their reign were more prone to martial disturbance than the time before: we simply know more about the Targaryen reign (and naturally, what we know is mostly about the bits we want to read about and GRRM wants to write - the conflicts!)

It's an unwise person who draws conclusions on the basis of a sample they know to be skewed.

Not much more to say than this.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Just because Robert was a terrible king doesn't mean the Targaryens were good ones. If anything it just shores up the idea that each kingdom should be left to its own devices -- why should anyone have to live under a Robert, or an Aegon IV, or a Maegor, or a Baelor, or ...

And what makes you think that there wasn't a Stark equivalent of Maegor, or Baelor, or Robert? We know almost nothing of their history. A lot can happen in 8000 years.

What we do know is that even after the Targaryen source of power and legitimacy died, the Realm kept following them.

[mediterraneo]

...

Let's also forget how the Lannisters basically controlled Robert through their gold.

...

Mmmm.... My Jaime Lannister fanboy's status impose me to note that being financed by Lannisters is not a breach to peace.

But as a clear loather of the most hipocritical Baratheon pretender I must respect the post...

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Mmmm.... My Jaime Lannister fanboy's status impose me to note that being financed by Lannisters is not a breach to peace.

But as a clear loather of the most hipocritical Baratheon pretender I must respect the post...

And who is that? Renly?

[lamna]

The wars we know about are:

Year 1 - The conquest.

Year 37 to 48 - Faith's Uprising.

Year 129-131 - Dance of Dragons.

Year 157-161 - Conquest of Dorne.

Year 195-196 - Blackfyre Rebellion.

Year 200 - Raymund Redbeard's Invasion.

Year 211 - Dagon Greyjoy's Rebellion.

Year 255-260 - War of the Ninepenny Kings.

Year 282-283 - War of the Usurper.

That's a total of 24 to 32 years of war out of a period of 293 years...that's not too bad for a medieval feudal society.

Also, it has been said that the armies deployed during the Dance of Dragons were much smaller than the ones deployed during Robert's Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings because while the Targayren had dragons there were less wars and the lords kept smaller armies.

Compared to the Kingdom of England between 1066 and 1359

1066 - 1075 Norman Conquest

1096 -1099 First Crusade

1135 - 1154 The Anarchy

1145 -1149 Second Crusade

1189 - 1192 Third Crusade

1215 - 1217 First Baron's War

1242 Saintonge War

1264 -1267 Second Barons' War

1271 - 1272 Ninth Crusade

1296 - 1328 First War of Scottish Independence

1321 - 1322 Despenser War

1324 War of Saint-Sardos

1332 - 1357 Second War of Scottish Independence

1337 - 1360 Edwardian War (Hundred Years' War)

Just the Anarchy, Baronal Wars and dealing with the Despensers adds up to 25 years of war.

Also for some reason all the wars with Wales and Ireland are missing. Guess I'll be editing Wikipedia tomorrow.

The fact of the matter is, feudalism is messy no matter how good a monarch you have, there will still be wars.

Succession is also something of a lucky dip. You can do everything right and end up with a terrible heir, or you can do everything wrong and end up with a great one.

Look at the three first Edwards, you go from the Hammer of the Scots, to a man who died with a red hot poker up his arse, who's son went on to conquer half of France and rule for 50 years.

You can't really talk about a dynasty as though is has some special inherent qualities. Every new member is a new role of the dice.

[complexphoenix]

I think it's pretty clear that Targaryen rule was more peaceful than the situation that prevailed pre-Conquest, not that that's saying very much. There's a quote from Maester Aemon, I don't recall it precisely, but something like "in the days when the Seven Kingdoms were Seven Kingdoms, hardly a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war." Under the Targaryens you still had wars, but they were fewer and farther between.

This is why I don't want the 7K to break up, and why I believe the cause of Northern independence to be a terrible idea even though I love Robb and his supporters. Because even a lousy central government run by a dynasty of occasional madmen is better than having no central government at all.

Real history tends to entail long strings of small improvements that add up. Saying that the Targaryen dynasty was an utter failure because the improvements they brought were too small for your liking is silly.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I think it's pretty clear that Targaryen rule was more peaceful than the situation that prevailed pre-Conquest, not that that's saying very much. There's a quote from Maester Aemon, I don't recall it precisely, but something like "in the days when the Seven Kingdoms were Seven Kingdoms, hardly a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war." Under the Targaryens you still had wars, but they were fewer and farther between.

I mentioned in my post above, and i will mention it here again. Being at war, doesn't mean at full-blown war. North-South Korea's are in a state of war, and we don't see them fighting full-blown wars. Many few skirmishes, but not more than that. I believe the same would have been for the 7K prior to the conquest. They were in a state of war, not in actual confrontation. And the quote is partially wrong, because if you are at war at every generation end, you will be out of manpower, resources at one point. Hence i don't believe that they were consistently at war.

[complexphoenix]

To the posters who are suggesting that before there were Wars between seven kingdoms, is an inaccurate conclusion. There would have been constant Skirmishes but not a full blown war. North-South Korea are still as of today are in a state of War. I think it would have been like this, the kingdoms were at war but not at a full blown war, just a few skirmishes.

Sorry, but this doesn't stack up at all with what you see in real history. It's been well documented that the less centralization of government you have, the more you have people killing each other. Westeros' history from the Age of Heroes to the Targaryen Conquest clearly shows a long-term trend towards ever fewer Kings. They started out with hundreds, and gradually worked their way down to Seven, and then Aegon came along and made it One. The gradual work-down from hundreds to seven surely must have entailed a lot of full-blown wars, and even during the time not long before the Targaryen Conquest, the regions that are now the Riverlands and Crownlands were heavily contested. I do not believe for a minute that it was all just skirmishes. They were real warriors fighting real wars.

Also, you had the ironmen constantly raiding the coast, and the Targaryens put an end to that.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The wars we know about are:

Year 1 - The conquest.

Year 37 to 48 - Faith's Uprising.

Year 129-131 - Dance of Dragons.

Year 157-161 - Conquest of Dorne.

Year 195-196 - Blackfyre Rebellion.

Year 200 - Raymund Redbeard's Invasion.

Year 211 - Dagon Greyjoy's Rebellion.

Year 255-260 - War of the Ninepenny Kings.

Year 282-283 - War of the Usurper.

That's a total of 24 to 32 years of war out of a period of 293 years...that's not too bad for a medieval feudal society.

Also, it has been said that the armies deployed during the Dance of Dragons were much smaller than the ones deployed during Robert's Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings because while the Targayren had dragons there were less wars and the lords kept smaller armies.

Where are Blackfyre Rebellions number two to five? The Vulture King? The Kingswood Brotherhood? The Defiance of Duskendale? The Skagosi Rebellion? The First War against Dorne? The Reynes of Castamere? The Lothstones?

You are missing a lot, and that's just the noted wars. Webber/Osgrey and their ilk are still below the radar.

Otherwise it would look way worse.

I think it's pretty clear that Targaryen rule was more peaceful than the situation that prevailed pre-Conquest, not that that's saying very much. There's a quote from Maester Aemon, I don't recall it precisely, but something like "in the days when the Seven Kingdoms were Seven Kingdoms, hardly a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war." Under the Targaryens you still had wars, but they were fewer and farther between.

This is why I don't want the 7K to break up, and why I believe the cause of Northern independence to be a terrible idea even though I love Robb and his supporters. Because even a lousy central government run by a dynasty of occasional madmen is better than having no central government at all.

Real history tends to entail long strings of small improvements that add up. Saying that the Targaryen dynasty was an utter failure because the improvements they brought were too small for your liking is silly.

Like twenty wars in twelve generations? Half of them continentwide, the rest still wiping out entire Houses?

Don't forget what Maester Aemon's last name was. He is hardly unbiased.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I don't think we were ever told that the Targaryens were 'almost godly', etc.

I also don't think we have any evidence that the times of their reign were more prone to martial disturbance than the time before: we simply know more about the Targaryen reign (and naturally, what we know is mostly about the bits we want to read about and GRRM wants to write - the conflicts!)

It's an unwise person who draws conclusions on the basis of a sample they know to be skewed.

Pretty much this

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

I don't think we were ever told that the Targaryens were 'almost godly', etc.

What about all "Blood if Dragons" stuff, its implied they ruled as special godly people, that for example didnt wedd outsiders to keep the blood.

Up to very recent times, many people here belived they were fireproof and that only them could ride Dragons...All the three heads of the dragons, and that only Targ or Secret Targ could be dragonriders has been disscused here not so far ago. Now, since last material we do know theres nothing special about riding a Dragon, and that anybody could....a secret probably kept until DOD to give strenght to that "godly" imagine they wanted to show.

[Darth Visenya]

What about all "Blood if Dragons" stuff, its implied they ruled as special godly people, that for example didnt wedd outsiders to keep the blood.

Up to very recent times, many people here belived they were fireproof and that only them could ride Dragons...All the three heads of the dragons, and that only Targ or Secret Targ has been disscused here not so far ago. Now, since last material we do know theres nothing special about riding a Dragon, and that anybody could....a secret probably kept until DOD to give strenght to that "godly" imagine they wanted to show.

Everyone who rode Dragons had Valyrian blood in The Princess and the Queen.

[Mad Monkey]

What about all "Blood if Dragons" stuff, its implied they ruled as special godly people, that for example didnt wedd outsiders to keep the blood.

Up to very recent times, many people here belived they were fireproof and that only them could ride Dragons...All the three heads of the dragons, and that only Targ or Secret Targ could be dragonriders has been disscused here not so far ago. Now, since last material we do know theres nothing special about riding a Dragon, and that anybody could....a secret probably kept until DOD to give strenght to that "godly" imagine they wanted to show.

Targaryens wed outsiders sometimes -- Hightowers, Velaryons, Arryns, Martells... , and the reason they probably didn't do it more often probably has to do with political reasons, to retain and solidify their control over the IT. That and the Valyrian customer of incestuous marriage. They weren't better than other people who married via incest (like Tywin and Joanna).

As far as them being fireproof or that only they could be dragonriders -- that might be a misconception on the Internet but you can't really blame the Targs for that, right? And if people didn't know about how easy it is to ride a dragon, it might be because House Targaryen was the only surviving Valyrian freeholder so they were the only ones who HAD dragons. It doesn't have to be a secret; no one would know because no one else had dragons to begin with.

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

Everyone who rode Dragons had Valyrian blood in The Princess and the Queen.

That is just not probed. All those bastards could be...you know...just normal bastards. Anyway, Dragons were rode by non Targaryens, and I personaly think this is what Martin tryed to show us with this book. Either Tyron, Bran or whoever might ride a Dragon without the Valyrian blood.

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

Targaryens wed outsiders sometimes -- Hightowers, Velaryons, Arryns, Martells... , and the reason they probably didn't do it more often probably has to do with political reasons, to retain and solidify their control over the IT. That and the Valyrian customer of incestuous marriage. They weren't better than other people who married via incest (like Tywin and Joanna).

As far as them being fireproof or that only they could be dragonriders -- that might be a misconception on the Internet but you can't really blame the Targs for that, right? And if people didn't know about how easy it is to ride a dragon, it might be because House Targaryen was the only surviving Valyrian freeholder so they were the only ones who HAD dragons. It doesn't have to be a secret; no one would know because no one else had dragons to begin with.

So all those thoughts of "you must do as I say because Im blood of the Dragon" just popped out in people as Vyseris, Arys or Daenerys?...

[Dead Wolf]

You left out three Blackfyre Rebellions, the Reyne/Tarbeck rebellion, and the Kingswood Brotherhood

[Sam Huxley]

Didn't Jaehaerys give the realm sixty years of peace when he had a septon as his hand?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Didn't Jaehaerys give the realm sixty years of peace when he had a septon as his hand?

Fourty years.

[Mad Monkey]

So all those thoughts of "you must do as I say because Im blood of the Dragon" just popped out in people as Vyseris, Arys or Daenerys?...

What does this have to do with what you quoted? I never denied that the Targaryens are arrogant assholes -- every nobleman in Westeros is an arrogant asshole. It comes with the territory, and their dragon fetish is not that much different than the Starks shapechanging into direwolves or the Lannisters building literal lion dens in their castle. Let's face it -- anyone who thinks that they deserve to have absolute power over an entire continent is probably a little stuck-up. There's no such thing as a humble emperor.