Was the Targaryen Rule abusive? (Will have spoilers. I'm sure of it)

[Kipor]

The title says it all. I want to see how you people respond to that.

As far as we know – and as far as many say – it seems to me that the Targaryen rule was, at the very least, abusive to Westeros. In fact, the westerosi had to turn a blind eye to most of the things Targaeryen kings did, and at least to me, this seems kinda hypocrite… especially when we reach the fact that, after the death of the last dragon, the Targaryens true power was pretty much in league with all the other Lord Paramounts; in fact, they were actually weaker than many of them, like the lords of the North, Westerlands and Reach.

If we go for all the crimes that dynasty already commited, we can find many things: incest (a good part of them, really), polygamy (Aegon I), cruelty (Maegor I), disregard for laws (Aegon IV), kinslaying (Viserys II/Maekar I), usurping (Aegon II), madness (Aerys II), disproportionate retribution (the classic law of “those who touch a Targaryen will lose that hand). Now, some may say “oh, but other houses did so too!”… but I didn’t see as of those sins from any other house, and even those who commit they to some degree are judged much harsher than the Targaryens for it (for example, Jaime and Cersei’s incest, Robert’s rise to the throne and basically every character in the story who is named “kinslayer”).

I, personally, think that they rule was very abusive to westeros, and I’m actually relieved that they are gone, at least for now. But, what do you guys think? They were abusive? They were just kings? Or does the good that they’ve done pays for their abuses?

[Matoro]

Absolute monarchy is usually abusive. Not just Targaryens. There are good kings and bad kings, and bad times making good kings bad. Probably pre-Conquest -kingdoms didn't have any better monarchs. Absolute power just makes people dicks.

[Shadrich]

I'd say they were more abusive than Kings pre-conquest. They considered themselves gods, and that they are much better than all rest of the people. I think that trait is seen among all Targaryens.

[lamna]

They were feudal monarchs, that makes them inherently abusive.

But I see nothing that marks them out as especially bad. Incest, well most royals were vaguely related to each other and there were plenty of dynasties that took it to the extreme like the Targaryans (Hapsburgs,Ptolemy's, etc)

And polygamy? Really? They have two wives at best. There have been plenty of real world monarchs with dozens of wives and hundreds of concubines.

[Hutch]

Yes I think they were abusive, and overall a detriment to Westeros.

@iamna agreed that there is historical precedent for incest, but in only my personal opinion, that doesn't make it any less weird. As far as your second point, having more than one spouse is polygamy. You can white wash it all you want with historical and present day examples of worse offenders, but a spade is a spade. Furthermore their respective sexual appetites I don't believe is the point being called into question.

[Slender Aimry Hill]

Absolute monarchy is usually abusive.

They were feudal monarchs, that makes them inherently abusive.

Feudal monarchs were not absolute and not 'inherently abusive', except in the Shelleyan ideal sense that any hierarchy degrades the honour of mankind!

It could perhaps be argued that some Targaryens (eg Maegor) enjoyed something closer to absolute than feudal power - and did abuse that power.

Then again, they all seemed more stable than the 'bastard feudal', purely right-is-might Baratheon-Lannister regime.

[Shadrich]

They were feudal monarchs, that makes them inherently abusive.

But I see nothing that marks them out as especially bad. Incest, well most royals were vaguely related to each other and there were plenty of dynasties that took it to the extreme like the Targaryans (Hapsburgs,Ptolemy's, etc)

And polygamy? Really? They have two wives at best. There have been plenty of real world monarchs with dozens of wives and hundreds of concubines.

Maegor had like nine wives

[Cruella]

Not more abusive than northerners who used to have First Night priviledges or Harren the Black.

[tommystinker]

Before the targs the seven kindoms were in constant wars for power between them especially in the south. They were the only people who could unite them.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Before the targs the seven kindoms were in constant wars for power between them especially in the south. They were the only people who could unite them.

That's a myth. Sure, there were some conflicts, but we don't know anything of their intensity and frequency. On the other hand, incidents like Ramsay kidnapping Lady Hornwood and usurping her lands, or the Karstarks conspiring among themselves, seem to happen regardless of who sits on the Iron Throne.

Also important, the only feud we know of that the Targaryens actively stopped was the one between Bracken and Blackwood. And this seemed a pretty exceptional case.

[Guillotine]

of course it was. Just like at the way Rhaegar treated Elia and Robert by sauntering in and saying "yeah, I'm gonna have that northern chick"

[SeanF]

I can't see that their rule was particularly abusive, by local standards. There were good kings, bad kings, and indifferent kings.

[Knight Of Winter]

No, not particularly. Sure there were awful kings whose rule brought little good to Westeros, but on the other hand there were many awesome kings who are fondly remembered for their rule (Jahaerys I, Aegon V...). And I don't even think that Targ kings were worse then pre-Aegon's conquest kings. I bet Baratheons, Lannisters, Gardeners and Starks had their fair share of vicious or stupid kings comparable to e.g. Aerys II or Aegon IV.

And just to note, Westeros is not an absolute monarchy, but a feudal one. Absolute monarchy means king's power is unlimited (e.g. 17th or 18th century France), while in feudal monarchy it's kept in check by powerful nobles (as e.g. Aerys learned to his sorrow).

[Annara Snow]

of course it was. Just like at the way Rhaegar treated Elia and Robert by sauntering in and saying "yeah, I'm gonna have that northern chick"

So, Lyanna had no say in this? Or do you just see her as some sort of object to be thrown around by guys?

[Djinn]

Under Maegor, Aegon II, Daeron I, Baelor, Aegon IV, Aerys I, Aerys II, yes it was clearly abusive. Other maybe yes or no.

[Annara Snow]

No, not particularly. Sure there were awful kings .whose rule brought little good to Westeros, but on the other hand there were many awesome kings who are fondly remembered for their rule (Jahaerys I, Aegon V...). And I don't even think that Targ kings were worse then pre-Aegon's conquest kings. I bet Baratheons, Lannisters, Gardeners and Starks had their fair share of vicious or stupid kings comparable to e.g. Aerys II or Aegon IV.

This.

Targaryens were probably no better or worse than the rest of the noble houses would've been. The hereditary monarchy is the problem - you never know what kind of ruler you're going to get.

[Iona]

Hmm, some Targs were crueler than other, that's the way life is.

But I'm not sure if I'd call the classic law of “those who touch a Targaryen will lose that hand" disproportionate retribution. We are talking about assaulting a blood royal, and that is a pretty serious crime. If you end up one-handed for striking a prince of blood, that's pretty mild, I'd say, if we consider that Randyll Tarly is prone to taking fingers for mere thievery.

Joffrey again was a story of his own, as seen in early days of his reign in AGOT:

A thief was brought before him and he had Ser Ilyn chop his hand off, right there in court. Two knights came to him with a dispute about some land, and he decreed that they should duel for it on the morrow. “To the death,” he added.

[Nictarion]

That's a myth. Sure, there were some conflicts, but we don't know anything of their intensity and frequency.

Its said several times in the story that not a generation went by that one kingdom wasn't at war with another kingdom before Aegon united the realm. One example is the Vale and the North fighting over the Fingers for hundreds of years.

[Guillotine]

So, Lyanna had no say in this? Or do you just see her as some sort of object to be thrown around by guys?

clearly thats how Rhaegar viewed Elia, as something to be used until he fancied something different

[Sansa_Stark]

clearly thats how Rhaegar viewed Elia, as something to be used until he fancied something different

p much. Rhaegar could always just get a younger, 'fresher" woman anytime he wanted.