Did Targaryens really "bring peace" to Westeros?

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

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.

I got lost with the quotes :(

[Mad Monkey]

That happens to me too buddy!

Have you ever had that thing happen when you are quoting someone and then trying to type below the quote box but then the quote box suddenly absorbs your own text so that when you post it it looks like whole thing is a quote? That drives me nuts and there's no way to get rid of it when it happens!

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

That happens to me too buddy!

Have you ever had that thing happen when you are quoting someone and then trying to type below the quote box but then the quote box suddenly absorbs your own text so that when you post it it looks like whole thing is a quote? That drives me nuts and there's no way to get rid of it when it happens!

Sometimes my cell doesnt allow me to go down the quote...It drives me as nuts as everytime I read Ned warning Cersei

[Ser Lepus]

That happens to me too buddy!

Have you ever had that thing happen when you are quoting someone and then trying to type below the quote box but then the quote box suddenly absorbs your own text so that when you post it it looks like whole thing is a quote? That drives me nuts and there's no way to get rid of it when it happens!

Sometimes my cell doesnt allow me to go down the quote...It drives me as nuts as everytime I read Ned warning Cersei

Have you tried clicking the switch at the upper left corner of the Reply box? the "BBC Code Mode" switch?

[PrimeRhaegar]

A medieval world with peace LOLOl man who ever can say something like that. There was relative peace but not even the Targs (best thing to happen to westeros) can stop the human condition. I would like someone to name me one empire or united set of kingdoms that don't have major wars with each other. Thats my point if anyone expects they targ dynatsy to be peace then your looking for a retarded reason to hate the targs. I trust no one believe that the starks had the north at peace for 8000 years, because yea i am sure that is possible.

No no split kingdoms again we all know it will lead to wars to try and unite it again.

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

As I said, if you are a major house and get vanished of westeros in 250 years, you have done pretty bad.

This is a place were houses last for houndreds or thousends of years.

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

Edited

[RoamingRonin]

As I said, if you are a major house and get vanished of westeros in 250 years, you have done pretty bad.

This is a place were houses last for houndreds or thousends of years.

Well, yeah, if you don't count the time they existed in Valyria and ignore how they started with only 4 members, 1 bastard and 3 dragons.

[Colonel Green]

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.

Quite a few of the things you already cite are not wars. The Kingswood Brotherhood certainly wasn't a war, it was banditry. Others like the Reynes, the Lothstons, or the Darklyns are minor incidents involving one or two houses, with very few casualties, and highly localized; those hardly rise to the level of war either, war defined as a major conflict between state-level actors (the Dance of the Dragons, the Conquest of Dorne, and the First Blackfyre Rebellion would be the main examples of those). I don't know what the point of bringing Raymun Redbeard or the Ninepenny Kings into the question are, since those were external conflicts, not internal ones, and the former was resolved quite quickly, again involving only a few houses.

Your conclusion that the Seven Kingdoms previously didn't fight real wars is pretty baseless. It's quite clear that there were major wars, particularly in the Riverlands area and the Dornish Marches. The former knitted itself together into a united kingdom, was then conquered by the Storm Kings, who in turn were forced out by the Ironborn. The latter was the site of constant fighting between Dorne, the Reach, and the Stormlands for hundreds of years. The Arryns and the Starks fought several wars over the Three Sisters, one of which involved sacking what is now White Harbour. All of that involves major territory changing hands.

[Antler's Fury]

One thing I love about all the pre AGOT westeros material we are getting is that it shows Targaryens are not that almost godly race of wise rulers, "dragon lords" who brought peace and development to Westeros....Insted they are more of a selfish, proud family, who came with war and fire to westeros, rule poorely, and ended being a blink in westeros history. Because its a fact, to rise and fall in 250 years is nothing in westeros, were houses can track their beginings for thousands of years.

Some Targs were awful. Some were brilliant. And most were just okay. And yes though their family only lasted less than 300 years, which is short by Westeros' ridiculously long recorded histories, the institutions they set up (Hand, small council, Kingguard, Iron Throne, Kingsroad, etc.) have clearly outlasted them. The Targs have therefore permanently changed Westeros' political landscape more than any other house has ever done. The idea that Westeros was one political realm was first clearly articulated by Aegon, who is probably the single most well known Westerosi noble ever. He will be remembered just as vividly as Bran the Builder or any other ancient Westerosi hero.

So, there we got unlist 11 major conflicts under their paceful rule. Probably we are talking about dozens or perhaps even a million people gone by arms, under "peace".

As opposed to what, exactly? According to Maester Aemon,

In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war.

Eustace Osgrey tells us:

"In his day there were still seven kings in the Seven Kingdoms, and Highgarden and the Rock were oft at war. The green kings ruled us then, the Gardeners. They were of the blood of old Garth Greenhand, and a green hand upon a white field was their kingly banner. Gyles the Third took his banners east, to war against the Storm King, and Wilbert’s brothers all went with him, for in those days the chequy lion always flew beside the green hand when the King of the Reach went forth to battle."

So it seems reasonable to assume that the kingdoms suffered from constant border warfare that was essentially unending as all kings were constantly looking for the others to give them openings and weaknesses to exploit. In fact, even after the Targ conquest, we know that there were border wars with Dorne for precisely the same reason.The Targs eventually reduced this to small fights over water like the one Osgrey initiated, with the occasional civil war like the Blackfyre Rebellion or internal insurrection, like the Reynes or Duskendale.

Nevertheless, its absolutly clear PAX TARGARYA is just a mith.

I vehemently disagree. The biggest indicator of the efficacy of the King's Peace is the decline of the Night's Watch. Before Aegon's Conquest, the NW apparantly had enough noble losers from the various wars between the kingdoms to easily staff 19 castles along the entire wall. In the 300 years since, however, it barely has the men to staff three, despite the various Blackfyre Rebellions, Dance of Dragons, Robert's Rebellion, etc. So, whatever civil wars over the Iron Throne that Westeros did suffer under the Targaryens, as bloody as they were, were clearly several orders of magnitude more violent than anything after Aegon's Conquest.

The decline of the NW was clearly not only because memory of the Others and the Watch's original purpose has been forgotten, as the books might lead one to believe. Even after the invasion of the Andals, who would have even less reason to believe in the Others than the First Men, who already stopped believing in them by that point, the NW was still well staffed. Most people would not join willingly, yet we know that they were not always staffed by assorted criminals, since one man in ten was a knight during the Watch's golden years. It makes no sense for Westerosi nobility to maintain the Watch unless they use it as a dump for the losers of wars, and the fact that it was staffed with many knights suggests that there was enough war to keep it well manned before the Conquest.

We also know that even under the reign of Jaehaerys I, his Queen donated land and money to the NW, paying for Deep Lake, indicating that it was still an honorable, well staffed institution at that time. However, we also know that the NW could not afford to maintain its oldest and biggest castle, the Nightfort, by this point, indicating that its decline was beginning. It can't be a coincidence that this occurred during the end of the reign of Jaehaerys, whose long and peaceful rule would have deprived the Watch of new recruits in the form of war losers, especially since at the time of the Conquest, the Watch apparantly had ten thousand men. The only explanation for the Watch's numbers dropping from ten thousand to around one thousand 300 years later is that barely anyone joined wilingly as no one believes in the Others any more, and that the relative absence of war meant that fewer and fewer people were forced into it. The King's Peace was so effective that it brought the NW, once adequately staffed due to constant warfare, to its knees.

EDIT: Stefan Sasse's essay on the subject fleshes out this idea more thoroughly.

Totally agree, it's one reason why I want the 7 kingdoms to be 7 kingdoms again. And your list is all the major confrontations, as we know there are PLENTY of petty squabbles, even between high lords, that are not documented thoroughly. The 7K are not better off under single rule.

Why? So they can constantly fight again? The petty squabbles under the Targs are clearly smaller and less significant than they were before the Targs arrived. And why only seven kingdoms? Why not seven hundred? We know that there used to be many more than seven kings in places like the Crownlands, Riverlands, and Sisters, among others. If it was okay for seven kings to unite their respective areas of the continent and crush the smaller kings, why was it wrong for Aegon to take it one step further?

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.

Oh there most certainly was. Remember that Godric Borrell is very bitter about both the "honorable" Starks and "honorable" Arryns whose constant warfare impoverished the Sisters. Their family included guys like Talon who burned White Harbor to the ground and Brandon "Ice Eyes" Stark who sacrificed pirates to the old gods. And these are supposed to be the most decent houses. We also know about Gyles Gardener, Lancel Lannister, and some Durrendon king who were constantly fighting. And let's not forget the Ironborn raiding. They went from taking advantage of the internal disputes of Westeros and carving out a nice kingdom to being shipped back to their shit stained rocks thanks to the King's Peace, and could only attack on the occasions that the Iron Throne was weak, as in the case of Dagon and Balon. And we have't even considered pre-Targ internal rebels within kingdoms like the Boltons.

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

The only continent wide wars were the Faith Militant, the first Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion (EDIT: And the Dance of Dragons). The second Blackfyre Rebellion was quashed immediately with zero casualties, and the War of Ninepenny kings was limited to the Stepstones. Most of the other conflicts you mentioned are not wars, but either overblown banditry or localized revolts against a Lord Paramount that would have occurred even if that kingdom was independent.

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

If anything the man was the most rational Targ of his generation, perhaps ever. He personally saw the lunacy of Aerion as well as the competence of Aegon V. He clearly was under no delusions of his house's supposed godliness, yet also knew what they were capable of. And how does this comment prove him biased? Everything we do know about the pre-Targ era suggests he was right, and that there was indeed constant warfare every generations. Though they obviously coudn't eliminate it entirely, the Targs clearly lessened this.

As I said, if you are a major house and get vanished of westeros in 250 years, you have done pretty bad. This is a place were houses last for houndreds or thousends of years

That's not fair. Presumably, the Targs also existed for thousands of years, only in Valyria, not Westeros. And we can see that the higher you rise in Westeros, the harder you fall. The Lothsons were once a great house who ruled Harrenhall. Now they are extinct. The Targs ruled from the Red Keep and now are on the verge of extinction. The Baratheons succeeded them and similarly are down to two members. The Targs are not uniquely transient.

[Colonel Green]

The only continent wide wars were the Faith Militant, the first Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion.

And the Dance. Otherwise I agree.

[Rhaegars Heir]

I love everyone on this thread is only focusing on the wars during the Targs reign and not the countless one before just river lands fir example were constantly at war with them selfs they were conquered by the storm lands and the iron islands, the storm lands the reach and dorne were in a constants state of war, the vale invaded the north and killed a king in the north and let not forget the andel invasion which killed a lot of people.

[Lady of Dragonstone]

snip

:bowdown:

May the Mother bless you.

[Sansa_Stark]

50000 men died holding dorne and 10000 died to take it in the Young Dragon's conquest.

Benjen's comment were "Your Boy King lost ten thousand men taking the place, and another fifty trying to hold it."

So those 60000 dead should be all Daeron's losses.

Think about how many more Dornish must have died.

[aceluby]

Why would I like 7 individual kingdoms again?

I'll answer with a question.

If you had to have a war, which one would you think would be better for the people, the US-Mexican war, or World War 2?

Targaryans have only escalated the wars and casualties so that the entire continent is involved in their major wars. Not only that, there is nothing to indicate that the local skirmishes have diminished.

[Antler's Fury]

Why would I like 7 individual kingdoms again?

I'll answer with a question.

If you had to have a war, which one would you think would be better for the people, the US-Mexican war, or World War 2?

Targaryans have only escalated the wars and casualties so that the entire continent is involved in their major wars. Not only that, there is nothing to indicate that the local skirmishes have diminished.

The comparison isn't valid because neither of those wars was a civil war. The situation is more akin to the Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica that brutally pacified large areas formerly ruled by independent kingdoms by bringing them under one administration.

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

The comparison isn't valid because neither of those wars was a civil war. The situation is more akin to the Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica that brutally pacified large areas formerly ruled by independent kingdoms by bringing them under one administration.

Im almost sure more people died in civil wars in rome in late republic, and from military upraisings and fights for power, in later empire, than in wars with foreign states.

[Antler's Fury]

Im almost sure more people died in civil wars in rome in late republic, and from military upraisings and fights for power, in later empire, than in wars with foreign states.

Before their unification under Rome, each individual kingdom would have these problems internally as well. Stephen Attewell put it best:

Augustus was able to sweep away the Republic and found an Empire largely because the public was terrified of the wars, assassinations, and purges that marked the period between the death of Julius Caesar and the end of the Antonian-Octavian civil war. Likewise, as much as the paranoia, tyranny, and outright madness of the Julio-Claudian dynasty was seen afterwards as preferable to the chaos of the "Year of Four Emperors," which saw legionary uprisings, inter-legionary, Galba's purges, more rebellions, the assassination of Galba at Otho's instigation, Otho's defeat at the hands of Vitellius, Vitellius' turn to murder and confiscation as a solution to imperial bankruptcy, and so on and so forth. Likewise, the death of Commodus in AD 192 gave the Romans the "Year of Five Emperors," where Pertinax was assassinated by the Praetorian Guard and the imperial title auctioned by the Praetorian Guard, and three rival emperors emerging in Syria, Britain, and Pannonia.

And don't even get me started on the "Year of Six Emperors"...

[Señor de la Tormenta 2]

Before their unification under Rome, each individual kingdom would have these problems internally as well.

They might, I really dont know.

[complexphoenix]

Im almost sure more people died in civil wars in rome in late republic, and from military upraisings and fights for power, in later empire, than in wars with foreign states.

Don't conflate the late empire with the Pax Romana. Those are two different things. In the Pax Romana the empire was strong, in the late period the empire was falling apart. One thing is very clear to me: Roman rule greatly increased security and trade all around the empire, and when Rome fell there was a huge and rapid economic decline as travel became too unsafe to allow for easy trade. Cities and towns collapsed and fell into ruin all over the former empire, not to revive until the High Middle Ages when governments finally re-obtained the necessary level of centralization and sophistication to ensure the safety of travelers again.