The Targaryens were terrible monarchs

[John Doe]

I am aware this sounds like a hate thread, but I was just wondering about that. What are the duties of a medieval king? To protect his subjects, to uphold the law, to generally take care of the wealth and stability of his kingdom. And I realize the actual medieval age wasn't close to being like King Arthur or Lord of the Rings, and things like infighting and abuse of power wasn't so uncommon, but in my opinion the Targaryens did a terrible job during their nearly three century long rule.

Keep in mind that, for a long time, they had a lot more potential power over their lords than real medieval kings since they had dragons. Yet after Aegon they didn't do anything to centralize the power even a bit. The power of the Crownlands is a joke compared to that of the actual kingdoms.

They also didn't take care of a decent judical system. Basically, a lord can rule his subject without any checks by the king. Compare that for example to medieval England where they at least appointed Sheriffs. Courts of any kind seem to be nonexistent too.

They also didn't have any building projects outside of the the capital, except for the Kingsroad at the beginning of their 300 years of rule. 

And what about stability? Sure, the unification was a of course a hudge improvement over the petty kingdoms, but (off the top of my head) they had two (?) Dornish Wars, five Blackfyre rebellions, the Dance of the Dragons, the Faith Militant Uprising, at least one Greyjoy rebellion I can think of, and, of course, Robert's Rebellion. So that's at least one hudge war every twenty-something years.

Do you agree? Or would you say the Targs did a good job? If so, why?

 

 

[Lord Varys]

Well, I'd say that a lot of the actual criticisms you cite are shortcomings of George's writing. His world isn't very realistic insofar as technological and societal advancement is concerned. The Targaryens are just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, they are a primitive weirdo pseudo-medieval monarchy but so were the monarchs that ruled the Seven Kingdoms for millennia prior to the Conquest. The lack of development there is actually a much larger problem than how the relatively short rule of the Targaryens is portrayed. 

However, the idea clearly is that wars occurred less often after the Conquest than before. There could be multiple wars at the same time with Seven Kingdoms than with just one kingdom. And aside from the Dance there was actually never a full-scale involving pretty much everybody. The Blackfyre Rebellions and Dornish Wars are more or less local or regional affairs.

As to the centralism of power there are hints that the dragonriding Targaryen kings had a lot more direct power than the dragonless kings. There are no hints indicating that, say, Jaehaerys I was building a royal bureaucracy but it is quite clear that the Hands and the other members of the Small Councils/advisers at court had a lot of power and were mostly chosen from the ranks of lesser houses who were closely allied with or connected to House Targaryen (i.e. Velaryon, Baratheon, Celtigar, Tully, Stokeworth, etc.). In addition you have to keep in mind that a dragonriding Targaryen king could most likely treat a great lord pretty much as he might treat a mere royal official he could hire and fire at will. Aegon the Conqueror made all the great lords of his Realm and he sure as hell could have unmade them on a whim.

In that sense we can, perhaps, assume that the lords mere much acting as royal officials than they did in later days. Aegon V faced opposition from lords babbling about their 'gods given rights and privileges'. I'm pretty sure nobody would have talked to the Conqueror, Aenys I, Maegor the Cruel, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, and Rhaenyra/Aegon II in such a fashion.

But your idea that a medieval king had to protect his subjects is more or less nonsense. A medieval king didn't give shit about the overwhelming majority of his people. You could go perhaps go to complain to the king that you were mistreated by your lord and stuff but the king was under no obligation to care about your complaints. Kings had to the deal with the complaints and issues/demand their noble subjects had if they had the power to make their voices heard. But the overwhelming majority of the people simply didn't have any power so the kings, nobles, and clergy could happily (and quite effectively) exploit them. And that they did.

In that sense I'd not say that it is problem that the Targaryens mostly cared about themselves and their power first before they thought about the lords, the Faith, or the smallfolk.

[The Grey Wolf]

There were quite a few terrible kings, some controversial ones, and a few undeniably good ones. I think therefore it would be more accurate to say that the Targaryens are unrealistically underachieving. In nigh three centuries of rule over a continent the size of South America and the resources of pre-modern Europe they barely do anything.

1. They built only ONE city (King's Landing) and never bothered to give any towns like Maidenpool or Duskendale charters to become cities

2. They never built any schools

3. They built only ONE castle (Summerhall)

4. They built only a few Septs (so far as we know that included Aegon I and Baelor I)

5. They didn't establish any Chivalric Orders (the Kingsguard doesn't count because it only has seven members and is celibate)

6. They never established a proper system of courts, judges, and sheriffs (except with the possibility of Aegon V)

7. They never built any canals or bridges

8. All the roads they built were DIRT even though they came from freaking Valyria and thus knew that roads could be better made in STONE

9. The laws after Jaehaerys I and Viserys II revised were not revised again so far as we know

10. Apart from Viserys II no other Targaryen king is mentioned to have attempted to improve trade, coin a new mint, or revise the royal household and its functions

11. They never built a bank or a playhouse even though they know such institutions exist (in Braavos at least) and in the case of the former actually rely on one (that's foreign to boot (talking about the Iron Bank here to be clear))

12. Despite holding to the Faith of the Seven you don't see any evangelizing from any of them

13.They never tried to conquer anything apart from the 7K, which is weird in the sense that there should have been an ambitious king or two who tried to permanently conquer the Stepstones and some of the Free Cities such as Tyrosh but that brings up the world-building problem that Westeros and Essos ridiculously never get into wars with one another.

On top of this you have reigns like Viserys I and Daeron II where there is more than a generation of peace and prosperity yet MOST of the above is NOT mentioned to have occurred.

[The Grey Wolf]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

But wouldn't an effective king be one who actually cared about his subjects?

Also, historically speaking the masses were actually a useful ally for the king vis-a-vis the nobility and the church as by building a royal justice system the king made himself popular with them by being a relatively unbiased source of law and order that could protect them and deliver justice on their behalf against their nobles (which they didn't have the power to do themselves).

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

There were quite a few terrible kings, some controversial ones, and a few undeniably good ones. I think therefore it would be more accurate to say that the Targaryens are unrealistically underachieving. In nigh three centuries of rule over a continent the size of South America and the resources of pre-modern Europe they barely do anything.

1. They built only ONE city (King's Landing) and never bothered to give any towns like Maidenpool or Duskendale charters to become cities

2. They never built any schools

3. They built only ONE castle (Summerhall)

4. They built only a few Septs (so far as we know that included Aegon I and Baelor I)

5. They didn't establish any Chivalric Orders (the Kingsguard doesn't count because it only has seven members and is celibate)

6. They never established a proper system of courts, judges, and sheriffs (except with the possibility of Aegon V)

7. They never built any canals or bridges

8. All the roads they built were DIRT even though they came from freaking Valyria and thus knew that roads could be better made in STONE

9. The laws after Jaehaerys I and Viserys II revised were not revised again so far as we know

10. Apart from Viserys II no other Targaryen king is mentioned to have attempted to improve trade, coin a new mint, or revise the royal household and its functions

11. They never built a bank or a playhouse even though they know such institutions exist (in Braavos at least) and in the case of the former actually rely on one (that's foreign to boot (talking about the Iron Bank here to be clear))

12. Despite holding to the Faith of the Seven you don't see any evangelizing from any of them

13.They never tried to conquer anything apart from the 7K, which is weird in the sense that there should have been an ambitious king or two who tried to permanently conquer the Stepstones and some of the Free Cities such as Tyrosh but that brings up the world-building problem that Westeros and Essos ridiculously never get into wars with one another.

On top of this you have reigns like Viserys I and Daeron II where there is more than a generation of peace and prosperity yet MOST of the above is NOT mentioned to have occurred.

Broadly speaking, people would only have expected the King to defend the realm from internal and external enemies. 

[The Grey Wolf]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Broadly speaking, people would only have expected the King to defend the realm from internal and external enemies. 

My points still stand though.

And the king also had other duties beyond the military such as dispensing justice and siring an heir.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

And what about stability?

Sure in 280 years they had provided some kind of stability but in those years they had created 6 wars within their family and 2 wars for their own gain and I don’t even mention RR. Which means that when we see they had basically created all of the wars that affect the whole Westeros.

[PCK]

Great kings are actually the exception, not the norm. How many of the Plantangenet kings could actually be considered great, or even good? Probably only just Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III. 

[John Doe]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I'd say that a lot of the actual criticisms you cite are shortcomings of George's writing. His world isn't very realistic insofar as technological and societal advancement is concerned. The Targaryens are just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, they are a primitive weirdo pseudo-medieval monarchy but so were the monarchs that ruled the Seven Kingdoms for millennia prior to the Conquest. The lack of development there is actually a much larger problem than how the relatively short rule of the Targaryens is portrayed. 

However, the idea clearly is that wars occurred less often after the Conquest than before. There could be multiple wars at the same time with Seven Kingdoms than with just one kingdom. And aside from the Dance there was actually never a full-scale involving pretty much everybody. The Blackfyre Rebellions and Dornish Wars are more or less local or regional affairs.

As to the centralism of power there are hints that the dragonriding Targaryen kings had a lot more direct power than the dragonless kings. There are no hints indicating that, say, Jaehaerys I was building a royal bureaucracy but it is quite clear that the Hands and the other members of the Small Councils/advisers at court had a lot of power and were mostly chosen from the ranks of lesser houses who were closely allied with or connected to House Targaryen (i.e. Velaryon, Baratheon, Celtigar, Tully, Stokeworth, etc.). In addition you have to keep in mind that a dragonriding Targaryen king could most likely treat a great lord pretty much as he might treat a mere royal official he could hire and fire at will. Aegon the Conqueror made all the great lords of his Realm and he sure as hell could have unmade them on a whim.

In that sense we can, perhaps, assume that the lords mere much acting as royal officials than they did in later days. Aegon V faced opposition from lords babbling about their 'gods given rights and privileges'. I'm pretty sure nobody would have talked to the Conqueror, Aenys I, Maegor the Cruel, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, and Rhaenyra/Aegon II in such a fashion.

But your idea that a medieval king had to protect his subjects is more or less nonsense. A medieval king didn't give shit about the overwhelming majority of his people. You could go perhaps go to complain to the king that you were mistreated by your lord and stuff but the king was under no obligation to care about your complaints. Kings had to the deal with the complaints and issues/demand their noble subjects had if they had the power to make their voices heard. But the overwhelming majority of the people simply didn't have any power so the kings, nobles, and clergy could happily (and quite effectively) exploit them. And that they did.

In that sense I'd not say that it is problem that the Targaryens mostly cared about themselves and their power first before they thought about the lords, the Faith, or the smallfolk.

But that's exactly my point. They had the opportunity to concentrate so much power in their hands, yet failed to make any administrative reforms. So when the dragons disappeared, they lost most of their power too. That was pretty stupid. My point about the role of a king isn't nonsense at all. Of course the expectation of a medieval king was to uphold laws and justice in his kingdom (such ideals being heavily influenced by christian virtues, of course). That reality often doesn't quite match the ideal is obvious, but not the point. Real monarchs never had the kind of power over their lords dragons provided. Yet the Targaryens never made any efforts to formally concentrate more power to themselves, which is what bit them in the ass once their dragons were gone.

Those wars weren't exactly local. For example Dareon had 50000 men drafted and killed in the process of fighting his dornish war. And deathtoll aside, the hudge costs of such endeavours have to be considered too. Of course the unification reduces the number of wars drastically, but having so many major wars in your dominion (not just little feuds like between the Brackens and Blackwoods) isn't exactly being good at your job as protector of the realm. 

8 minutes ago, PCK said:

Great kings are actually the exception, not the norm. How many of the Plantangenet kings could actually be considered great, or even good? Probably only just Henry II, Edward I, and Edward III. 

Sure, but at least they had some sort of reforms, territorial gains, etc. every now and then (I'm by no means an expert on this topic though). The Targaryen reign had very little of that. 

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

But wouldn't an effective king be one who actually cared about his subjects?

That depends. What about kings who stayed in power, exploited their subjects, and greatly enriched themselves, their family, and their cronies over a period of decades? Usually that's the main criteria for a great monarch.

The interest of the monarch and 'the people' sort of coincide when there is some foreign invasion done with the intention to conquer the kingdom and depose the ruling king (usually the people don't like foreign invaders raiding their lands and destroying their crops) but aside from that the king usually is fighting as much against foreign as he is against his own subjects considering that many other people would like to be king (or at least have a portion of the monarch's vast wealth).

9 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, historically speaking the masses were actually a useful ally for the king vis-a-vis the nobility and the church as by building a royal justice system the king made himself popular with them by being a relatively unbiased source of law and order that could protect them and deliver justice on their behalf against their nobles (which they didn't have the power to do themselves).

That is true but usually only takes effect in the Early Modern Period when most European monarchies became absolutist monarchies and the power of the nobility was broken with the help of the bourgeoisie.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Here's a thing: the infrastructure really isn't that interesting to write about in an epic fantasy series. That's why the Targ kings didn't build shit, and the kings before them didn't build shit, either.

What noteworthy structures were erected between the Age of Heroes Long Night and Aegon's Landing? Harrenhal, right? For a period of eight thousand years, that's kind of underwhelming.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

But that's exactly my point. They had the opportunity to concentrate so much power, yet failed to make any administrative reforms. So when the dragons disappeared, they lost most of their power too. That was pretty stupid.

Sure, but again that applies to the Stark, Lannister, Arryn, Gardener, etc. kings just as well. They ruled as much through their lords as the Targaryens later did and the Baratheon kings still do. That is a conceptual problem of the world George has created. He didn't want it to be as complex as the real medieval societies were.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

My point about the role of a king isn't nonsense at all. Of course the expectation of a medieval king was to uphold laws and justice in his kingdom (such ideals being heavily influenced by christian virtues, of course). That reality often doesn't quite much the ideal is obvious, but not the point.

Well, the medieval ideal of king was that he was sacrosanct, appointed by god, and the supreme ruler of the land. A king also should be just but no subject of a king actually had the right to openly criticize him and call him unjust or evil. Thus a king isn't really considered to be bad if he committed some crimes or exploited his subjects. Usually historians see kings as bad if they lost wars or were deposed by their (treasonous) subjects. If Edward II or Richard II had prevailed they might today be considered to be as great as, say, Edward I and Edward III or Elizabeth I.

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Real monarchs never had the kind of power over their lords dragons provided. Yet the Targaryens never made any efforts to formally concentrate more power to themselves, which is what bit them in the ass once their dragons were gone.

Well, perhaps Westerosi society lacks the resources to establish a standing army or a royal bureaucracy independent from the lords?

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Those wars weren't exactly local. Dareon had 50000 men drafted and killed in the process of fighting his dornish war. And deathtoll aside, the hudge costs of such an endaveuor have to be considered too. Of course the unification reduces the number of wars drastically, but having a major war in your dominion (not just little feuds like between the Brackens and Blackwoods) isn't exactly being good at your job as protector of the realm.

50,000 dead aren't that much if you think about it. How many people lived in the Seven Kingdoms at that point? Millions and millions, most likely. All the regions outside Dorne would miss, perhaps, some people but their lands wouldn't have been felt any effects from that war.

The only war we know of that included the entire Seven Kingdoms (minus Dorne) was the Dance. The Faith Militant Uprising the Dornish Wars, the Blackfyre Rebellions were limited affairs (for instance, we know that there were fights in the Reach, the West, and the Riverlands during the Faith Militant Uprising. We can be reasonably sure there was no war in the North and on the Iron Islands about that, and we have no proof for fighting in the Stormlands and the Vale over this issue).

[John Doe]

The idea of a divine right to kingship wasn't fully fleshed out in medieval times though. Nobles rebelled as they saw fit, the pope banned kings at will, and so on. The king wasn't the untouchable figure Loius XIV. made him out to be.

If Westeros society has the resources to establish armies in the range of tens of thousands, they should be able to establish a bureaucracy on par with medieval europe too. 

Speaking of tens of thousands of soldiers, those are terrible losses in medieval terms I'm not even sure if any armies even reached those kinds of numbers in medieval europe. 

You are correct, most wars didn't involve all regions, but most involved several kingdoms at once, which is still a large scale. 

 

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, John Doe said:

But that's exactly my point. They had the opportunity to concentrate so much power in their hands, yet failed to make any administrative reforms. So when the dragons disappeared, they lost most of their power too. That was pretty stupid. My point about the role of a king isn't nonsense at all. Of course the expectation of a medieval king was to uphold laws and justice in his kingdom (such ideals being heavily influenced by christian virtues, of course). That reality often doesn't quite match the ideal is obvious, but not the point. Real monarchs never had the kind of power over their lords dragons provided. Yet the Targaryens never made any efforts to formally concentrate more power to themselves, which is what bit them in the ass once their dragons were gone.

Those wars weren't exactly local. For example Dareon had 50000 men drafted and killed in the process of fighting his dornish war. And deathtoll aside, the hudge costs of such endeavours have to be considered too. Of course the unification reduces the number of wars drastically, but having so many major wars in your dominion (not just little feuds like between the Brackens and Blackwoods) isn't exactly being good at your job as protector of the realm. 

Sure, but at least they had some sort of reforms, territorial gains, etc. every now and then (I'm by no means an expert on this topic though). The Targaryen reign had very little of that. 

The only real models for centralised control of such a vast realm, in a pre-16th century setting, are Imperial China and the Later Roman Empire.  And, the establishment of a large civil service and a big standing army, didn't necessarily make the Emperors more powerful.  Weak Emperors were the creatures of generals, ministers, and civil servants, and sections of the army and bureaucracy frequently backed rival Emperors.

[John Doe]

Just now, SeanF said:

The only real models for centralised control of such a vast realm, in a pre-16th century setting, are Imperial China and the Later Roman Empire.  And, the establishment of a large civil service and a big standing army, didn't necessarily make the Emperors more powerful.  Weak Emperors were the creatures of generals, ministers, and civil servants, and sections of the army and bureaucracy frequently backed rival Emperors.

It's not about having a 100% centralized country, but the Targaryens made pretty much no reforms at all. Apart fromt the offices created in the first few years of their rule and Jahaerys reforms, they accomplished basically nothing. 

[WSmith84]

Yeah, I think we have to take the lack of any infrastructure as just a thing about this world. No one seems to have advanced in terms of technology or social structure in thousands of years, more or less, and that's not because there weren't any peaceful periods or clever, ambitios people; George didn't want it, so he didn't write it. Robert's reign is no different; almost 20 years of peace (barring a short rebellion) and the longest summer on record, and diddly-squat got built, really. If LF's accounts were somewhat accurate, LF invested in KL's structure somewhat and seemed to be bolstering the middle-classes (or the lower nobility, anyway).

Perhaps the Targaryens post-Jaeherys never bothered centralising much because it was impossible for them (or anyone, really) to imagine a Westeros without dragons. Indeed, before the Dance, there were more dragons than ever before.

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The idea of a divine right to kingship wasn't fully fleshed out in medieval times though. Nobles rebelled as they saw fit, the pope banned kings at will, and so on. The king wasn't the untouchable figure Loius XIV. made him out to be.

If Westeros society has the resources to establish armies in the range of tens of thousands, they should be able to establish a bureaucracy on par with medieval europe too. 

Speaking of tens of thousands of soldiers, those are terrible losses in medieval terms I'm not even sure if any armies even reached those kinds of numbers in medieval europe. 

You are correct, most wars didn't involve all regions, but most involved several kingdoms at once, which is still a large scale. 

 

There's no reason per se, why a very decentralised form of government should be worse than a bureaucratic form of government.

But, I tend to agree with Lord Varys that some of the fault lies with George Martin's worldbuilding. I would expect to see a State that is economically as advanced as Westeros (roughly England or France c.1400)  establishing borough councils and Estates;  the Kings would need to have some kinds of fairly permanent representative bodies in place in order to find out what the more important of their subjects were concerned about;  the the volume of trade would require law courts to regulate commercial and property disputes.

Even at the level of the Lords Paramount, the ability of the Tyrells to field vast armies, or the North to field an expeditionary force of 18,000 men in a few weeks (a big task even for a modern government) would require an impressive degree of bureaucratic organisation.

[John Doe]

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There's no reason per se, why a very decentralised form of government should be worse than a bureaucratic form of government.

Sure, but in such a setting, it generally is. A strong king could reduce the abuse of power by nobles (Roose Bolton couldn't go around illegally raping peasants as easily if there were something similiar to a bailiff or sheriff. It would also potentially reduce the number of civil wars.

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The idea of a divine right to kingship wasn't fully fleshed out in medieval times though. Nobles rebelled as they saw fit, the pope banned kings at will, and so on. The king wasn't the untouchable figure Loius XIV. made him out to be.

It wasn't established the way it later was until Louis XIV but kings were always special and apart from other men. That goes back to the Merovingians in France/Germany as well as the coronation/anointment ritual of the English kings that set them apart from normal people.

In addition, the Church's presumption that the Pope was the Lord of the Earth granted the authority to appoint and depose lesser monarchs also strengthened the power of those monarchs. If you rebelled against a king appointed by god via the Church then you were not only warring against that king but also against god and his church.

41 minutes ago, John Doe said:

If Westeros society has the resources to establish armies in the range of tens of thousands, they should be able to establish a bureaucracy on par with medieval europe too. 

Could be. But then, they don't have schools aside from the Citadel. Who is going to train the thousands of clerks the Crown would be needing to establish a bureaucracy? To establish such a society would take centuries in this world. And it actually seems as if Jaehaerys I/Barth and Viserys I did begin something of that sort. The Dance would have ended of that, of course.

Hygiene and quality of living in KL seem to have been much better under Jaehaerys I than, say, under Robert Baratheon.

41 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Speaking of tens of thousands of soldiers, those are terrible losses in medieval terms I'm not even sure if any armies even reached those kinds of numbers in medieval europe.

I'm not so sure 50,000 people are such a great loss. Much more people must have died during the Great Spring Sickness alone in KL. It was 50-70 % of the population in a city that has hundreds of thousands of citizens.

I'm pretty sure much more people died during the War of the Five Kings, perhaps in the Riverlands alone.

Another aspect would be that standing armies and the like later on made use of more modern weaponry (i.e. cannons and guns and the like). But Westeros even lacks the power of the English archers that were utilized so effectively during the Hundred Years War. After all, there are still armored knights in Westeros and they are clearly in control of things and likely to be destroyed by the man who controls the most archers.

[The Grey Wolf]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, perhaps Westerosi society lacks the resources to establish a standing army or a royal bureaucracy independent from the lords?

50,000 dead aren't that much if you think about it. How many people lived in the Seven Kingdoms at that point? Millions and millions, most likely. All the regions outside Dorne would miss, perhaps, some people but their lands wouldn't have been felt any effects from that war.

The only war we know of that included the entire Seven Kingdoms (minus Dorne) was the Dance. The Faith Militant Uprising the Dornish Wars, the Blackfyre Rebellions were limited affairs (for instance, we know that there were fights in the Reach, the West, and the Riverlands during the Faith Militant Uprising. We can be reasonably sure there was no war in the North and on the Iron Islands about that, and we have no proof for fighting in the Stormlands and the Vale over this issue).

I agree the problem is with GRRM's world-building. Anyway, if the 7K can field armies in the tens of thousands they most certainly could form a proper bureaucracy and maybe a standing army of an admittedly smaller size but first they'd need to break the Citadel's monopoly on knowledge and teaching, which is no small task.

On casualties and length of wars post-conquest: I think its very interesting to note that prior to the conquest wars were more low-scale on account of being localized but far longer and more frequent. The war over the Three Sisters, the war between the Hoares and the Lannisters over the mutilation of Lelia Lannister, the civil war between the Peakes and the Manderlys, the first Lannister king's war with Morgon Banefort, the campaigns of the Storm Kings and the Hungry Wolf, the civil wars and thrall rebellions of the Ironborn following the ascension of the Greyirons are just some examples.

This probably means the conflicts under the Targaryens were no more ruinous than the pr-conquest ones on the whole except in the short term since wars became shorter (one to two years) but on the other hand expanded in scope and armies in number.

On that note one undeniable benefit of the Targaryen's rule is that the years of peace they did bring by unifying the continent was a massive increase in population. At the time of the conquest the Host of the Two Kings (which consisted of the two most fertile and wealthy kingdoms) was 55000 and noted to be the largest yet seen in Westeros but by the time of ASOIAF the Lannisters can field 45000 and the Reach alone more than 55000!