53 replies to this topic

[jlk7e]

This was inspired by Apple Martini's discussion of Summerhall and the Targaryens, but does it seem to everyone else that there's rather too many generations of Targaryens for the time available?

First, let's start with known information:

Rhaegar was born in 259.  Aegon V was born in 199.  That means Aegon becomes a great-grandfather at 60.  If Aerys is 18 at Rhaegar's birth, he was born in 241 - so Jaehaerys is born in 220 or 221, and he's the second son.  That's really tight already.  Why make everyone have kids at 20, which is unusual (average generation length is usually more like 25)?  It seems like there's an extra, and unnecessary, generation here, since Jaehaerys is basically useless, anyway and only reigns for three years.

Then, looking backwards, it gets even more jammed.  Aegon V is a fourth son - he's born in 199.  Apparently Maekar was born around 174 - so he was basically popping out a kid of year from his marriage until Aegon's birth.  His eldest brother Baelor Breakspear was born in 169.



But then Baelor Breakspear's great-grandfather's elder brother Aegon III was still a child in 129 - so he has to be born in, say, 118, and Viserys II has to be born no earlier than the next year - 119 or so.

So, this time we have to get three generations in 50 years - Aegon IV has to be born around 136 or 137, and Daeron II in 152 or 153, to accommodate Breakspear's birth in 169.  That's crazy short generations.

All in all, we have Viserys I born around 119 and Rhaegar in 259 - that's 140 years for 7 generations - 20 years per generation, including two people who were fourth sons and one second son.  That's really short.  The whole Targaryen dynasty, from the birth of Aenys I to that of Aegon "VI" encompasses some 270 years (assuming Aenys was about 25 when he succeeded to the throne in 37) - 13 generations, or, again, about 21 years per generation, which is really low.

If you look, for example, at the Plantagenet dynasty from Henry II to Richard II, you have 234 years between the birth of Henry and that of Richard - and only 7 generations!  That's an average generation length of 33.  The Capetian dynasty in France from the birth of Hugh Capet to that of John I is 377 years and 12 generations - 31 years per generation.  The Valois from Philip VI to Charles VIII represent 176 years and 6 generations  - 29 years per generation.  The Habsburgs from Rudolf I to Charles V are 282 years and 8 generations - 35 years per generation.  I suspect any string of actual medieval European rulers you put together will have an average generation length closer to 30 than to 20.

Why do you think we have these really low generation lengths in ASOIAF, particularly for the Targaryens?

[Winterfell is Burning]

Yeah, I agree, surely they are supposed to marry young, but they are getting married and having children too young. The TV show basically eliminated one generation, making Egg' Aerys father (although partially to make Aemon a little younger), and I they were right in doing so

[etu]

Martin can't count? In fairness, until I actually went and looked, I'd always assumed generations between medieval kings were shorter.

[Apple Martini]

It does seem like a tight timeline, but if you figure that they're probably marrying young and many of the wives were pregnant just about every year or every other year (look how many kids Catelyn and Ned have had in 14 years), I think it works. A lot of royal women, such as Maria Theresa of Austria, were pregnant or getting over a pregnancy virtually their entire young-to-mid-adult lives.

There were 17 Targ kings total, over a span of 283 years. The reign of the 17th English king, the boy king Edward V, ended (more or less; he was murdered) in 1483, 417 years after the Normans landed. It took the English 150% longer to get through the same number of kings as the Targs. And there's a "skipped" generation in there, too, (Edward the Black Prince never reigned), as there is between Jaehaerys I and Viserys I. Looking at it in those terms, it does look like the Targ dynasty is a bit crunched. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[jlk7e]

It's not impossible, it's just rather unlikely.  While women might marry at 16 or so, men generally wouldn't marry until later.  Look at the post-conquest kings of England - only Edward I, Edward III, and Richard II married at such a young age - and only Edward III produced an heir while still a teenager.

As far as pumping out a series of children - this certainly happened, but usually many of those children would die in infancy.  The idea that Daeron II and Maekar I both produced four sons who would survive to adulthood by the time they were 20 or so, which is required by the chronology, is just really hard to sustain, and basically never happens.

Also - years of reign is probably not the best way to do it, because there can be multiple kings of the same generation, and skipped generations.  You're right that there's one skipped generation in both the Plantagenet and Targaryen lines, but there's only two shared generations for the Normans and Plantagenets (William II & Henry I; Richard I & John), while there's many more for the Targaryens (Aenys & Maegor; Aegon III & Viserys II; Daeron I, Baelor, & Aegon IV; Aerys I & Maekar) But Robert Baratheon is a member of the 13th generation after Aegon the Conqueror (as are Rhaegar and Viserys), and comes to the throne 246 years after Aegon's death (and 283 years after the conquest).

The 13th generation after William the Conqueror was that of Henry VI - he came to the throne 335 years after William's death (and 356 years after the conquest), and did so as a baby.  So there's probably about 75 to 100 fewer years than there should be since the Conquest, given the number of generations.

[Apple Martini]

I know that the Wiki isn't 100% reliable, but have you thought about doing a timeline of births and deaths? I notice you did that for a lot of them in the OP, but it might help you to figure out when these guys would've started reproducing.

[Ran]

Not seeing a problem. Westeros, and the Targaryens in particular perhaps, marries noblemen and women quite young. Marriages at 16-20 are common. Not a lot of reason to look to English or French history.

Edited by Ran, 12 May 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[Aarick]

well the women in westeros get knocked up early. sansa was terrfied of getting her period since that meant should be getting married to joffrey and then depending how good he was in bed knocked up. that happened when she was 13-15 (not sure on her exact age) this means she could realistically be 15 when she has her first child. if that continued on for a few generations you could easily be great-grandparent at 60.

Edited by Aarick, 12 May 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[The hairy bear]

Apple Martini, on 12 May 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

I know that the Wiki isn't 100% reliable, but have you thought about doing a timeline of births and deaths?

Rhaegar: 259 - 283 (at 24). Married Elia of Dorne at 20.
His father, Aerys II: 243 - 283 (at 40). His firstborn was born at 259 (when he was 16).
His father, Jaehaerys II: 227* - 262 (at 35). His firstborn was born at 243 (when he was 16).
His father, Aegon V: 201 -259 (at 58). Jaehaerys, born at 227 (when he was 26), was his second son.
His father, Maekar I: 173 - 233 (at 60). His firstborn Daeron the Drunk was born at 190 (when he was 17).
His father, Daeron II: 154* - 209 (at 55). His firstborn Baelor was born at 169 (when he was 15)
His father, Aegon IV:  137* - 184 (at 47). His firstborn Daeron was born at 154 (when he was 17)
His father, Viserys II: 121* - 172 (at 51). His firstborn Aegon was born at 137 (when he was 16)

Before that comes Rhaenyra, who is much harder to predict. But in any case I think it's clear that Targaryen have their children very young. I suppose that sleeping at the room next to your bride's next room since you are a kid does help to speed up the process...

[Melisande]

The hairy bear, on 12 May 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

Rhaegar: 259 - 283 (at 24). Married Elia of Dorne at 20.
His father, Aerys II: 243 - 283 (at 40). His firstborn was born at 259 (when he was 16).
His father, Jaehaerys II: 227* - 262 (at 35). His firstborn was born at 243 (when he was 16).
His father, Aegon V: 201 -259 (at 58). Jaehaerys, born at 227 (when he was 26), was his second son.
His father, Maekar I: 173 - 233 (at 60). His firstborn Daeron the Drunk was born at 190 (when he was 17).
His father, Daeron II: 154* - 209 (at 55). His firstborn Baelor was born at 169 (when he was 15)
His father, Aegon IV:  137* - 184 (at 47). His firstborn Daeron was born at 154 (when he was 17)
His father, Viserys II: 121* - 172 (at 51). His firstborn Aegon was born at 137 (when he was 16)

Before that comes Rhaenyra, who is much harder to predict. But in any case I think it's clear that Targaryen have their children very young. I suppose that sleeping at the room next to your bride's next room since you are a kid does help to speed up the process...

Wow. It seams Rhaegar was first one to wait to marry.

[Evamitchelle]

jlk7e, on 12 May 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

It's not impossible, it's just rather unlikely.  While women might marry at 16 or so, men generally wouldn't marry until later.  Look at the post-conquest kings of England - only Edward I, Edward III, and Richard II married at such a young age - and only Edward III produced an heir while still a teenager.

The thing is that Targaryens usually practiced brother to sister incest. As siblings, most of them would be in a relatively close age range, which means that if the wife married young, well so did the husband.

[Stannis' sense of humour]

Teenagers are at it like rabbits if they get a chance, which the Targaryens obviously get being married so early. Hence, having lots of babies really young.

[Melisande]

Evamitchelle, on 12 May 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

The thing is that Targaryens usually practiced brother to sister incest. As siblings, most of them would be in a relatively close age range, which means that if the wife married young, well so did the husband.

Plus, as Dany's parents, as teenagers, they need to listen they father if he say "Commit an incest".

[jlk7e]

Ran, on 12 May 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

Not seeing a problem. Westeros, and the Targaryens in particular perhaps, marries noblemen and women quite young. Marriages at 16-20 are common. Not a lot of reason to look to English or French history.

Westeros is based on medieval Europe, which is why I brought in the historical comparison - the Targaryens have children much, much younger than basically any example from medieval European history you can find.  I'd add that in medieval Europe, marriages between teenagers were not terribly uncommon, but *surviving sons* between teenagers were.  For example, Edward I and Eleanor of Castile married in 1254, when he was 15 and she was 13.  But she didn't produce an heir until long after that - she had a stillborn daughter in 1255, but then did not have another children until 1264 - when she had two daughters who died as babies, then two sons who died as small children, before finally producing a healthy daughter in 1269.  Her only son who survived to adulthood was born in 1284, when she was 43!

Even if you have customs of marrying as teenagers, given medieval infant mortality rates you're not going to get generation after generation producing not just children, but a surviving heir, as teenagers.  It's highly unlikely.

I'd also add that the Targaryens only sometimes practiced brother sister incest.  Viserys I definitely did not, for example.  And the sisters can actually make it worse - if they are younger sisters, then they are having children even younger (and remember that, for example, for Daeron II's birth, we need for Viserys II to have three children old enough to have children, since Aegon IV plausibly claimed that Daeron was his brother's son).  If they are older sisters, then the father is having children even younger.

It just seems like a bit of a flub by Martin to me.  Pushing in a few more years, or getting rid of a generation or two of Targaryens, or both, would make for a more realistic chronology.

[Ran]

Inspired by, not slavishly following.

The maesters are far more capable than medieval doctors and midwives, too.

And the Targaryens are not, in the end, exactly human. Blood of the dragon, etc.

[Melisande]

Ran, on 12 May 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

Inspired by, not slavishly following.

The maesters are far more capable than medieval doctors and midwives, too.

And the Targaryens are not, in the end, exactly human. Blood of the dragon, etc.

Plus... If father waits his children to grown up, they might rejects marriage offer. If father marries children to each other while underage, they can't reject marriage.

[jlk7e]

Saying that I'm demanding that Martin "slavishly follow" real history is unfair.  I demand no such thing.  But if he's going to be changing things, there should be a rhyme or reason to it.  There's absolutely no storytelling reason to have such short generations - Jaehaerys II, for instance, doesn't serve any purpose, nor does the unnamed son of Jaehaerys I who dies in his father's life time.  If you get rid of that son and just make Viserys I Jaehaerys's son, and then push the Dance of the Dragons a decade or a decade and a half earlier, that gives you significantly more time to work with for all the other 2nd century kings.  Getting rid of Jaeherys II gives you some breathing room in the third century at no expense to the story.  The timeline Martin presents is barely possible.  If there were good storytelling reasons for it, that would be fine.  But, so far as I can tell, there aren't.

I will say that that's a good point about the Maesters - they would significantly reduce infant mortality among the nobility.  But, even so, the chronology Martin presents is unrealistically compressed.

[jlk7e]

Lady of the Dawn Beauty, on 12 May 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

Plus... If father waits his children to grown up, they might rejects marriage offer. If father marries children to each other while underage, they can't reject marriage.

Having them marry while still children is totally plausible.  Having them consistently produce heirs while still teenagers is not.

[Melisande]

jlk7e, on 12 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Having them marry while still children is totally plausible.  Having them consistently produce heirs while still teenagers is not.

They are teenagers.

[the Scorpion Knight]

youa lso have to keep in mind that serveral reigns lasted only a couple of years:
Maegor the cruel(6y)
Aenys I. (6y)
Aegon II. (3y)
Bareon I. (4y)
Baelor the blessed(10y)
ViserysII. (1y)
Jaehaerys II.(3y)

Edited by the Scorpion Knight, 12 May 2012 - 09:27 AM.