The Targaryens were terrible monarchs

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

Hard to evaluate with no equivalent comparison, the Baratheon dynasty had every tool to be a good match or surpass the dragon rulers (despite being half-targs aswell) but some over-the-top conjunction of bad luck and evil ploting prevented it.

Robert instiled more respect on the other lords than many targ kings with dragons, after RR and GR he cemented his rule at "aegon with balerion level"

So, i canot compare the targ rule with reality since it's fantasy conected (expecially the targs), and before there weren't any with the same territory power so...

50/50 for me

 

[John Doe]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, Robert Baratheon was one of the weakest kings ever to sit the Iron Throne because he made no attempt to actually rule his kingdom. He liked being king for the status that came with the job (which seems to be the same reason why Donald Trump wants to be President of the United States) but he made no attempt to participate in his own government. Nor did he make any attempts to keep the schemers at court in line. His own wife (and her brother and father) was plotting against Robert, as were Robert's own brother(s), not to forget the likes of Littlefinger, Varys, and Pycelle.

Such an amount of misrule would have been unthinkable under many of the better Targaryen kings (Jaehaerys I, Daeron II, Aegon I, Aegon V, Aegon III, and so on).

The fact that Robert was a charismatic warlord doesn't mean he was a strong king. And in fact, Robert's charisma was completely gone in 298 AC since he had become a fat drunkard. He was still funny and all, and certainly able to have a good laugh with some old comrades. But the younger generation (like Sansa and Jon Snow) was very much appalled by Robert. And Robert himself knows all of that more or less. It is no coincidence that he calls Ned his last friend.

Not at all. He may have been disinterested in politics, but that doesn't make him weak, just apaphetic. He was still pretty respected among his subjects and was powerful enough to quench any rebellion, which is more than you can say about many Targaryen kings, and definitely more than you can say about Aegon V. and Aegon III.

He didn't want the crwon because of the status that came with it, but because Jon Arryn suggested it. Robert had the best claim, was the best warlord, and, at the time, the most charismatic of the bunch, so Robert seemed like the obvious choice for the rebells. 

[Maxxine]

I think in the context of the real world them no they wouldn't be considered good kings. But in context of in-book overall they did a decent job. Compared to the constant state of war Westeros was in before the Conquest Targ rule was relatively peaceful. And some of the uprising were necessary & idk how much blame can be on the Monarchs for others. For instance, getting rid of the Faith Militant was necessary IMO. Would have been better to let a rogue entity continue dispensing its own brand of justice unchecked? We see how that turns out in Dance. I really don't know how much could've been about the Blackfyre rebellions once they started. But I guess you could argue if Aegon had not legitimized it could've been avoided. The war with Dorne & the Dance could've have been avoided with the Dance being probably the worst but I don't count those as being meaning Targs as a whole were bad just some bad eggs. I agree there are some things that could've been done better such as created a centralized army. Sorry to bring in the show but show Joffrey suggests this & it's actually not a bad idea. Probably would've helped during some of the rebellions. Some of the other stuff though such as roads and other infrastructure, as others have said I think that is just a symptom of what GRRM wanted to write about. Overall, during the almost 300 years of Targ rule Westeros did well and was probably a lot further along than Westeros would've been without Targs.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

Not at all. He may have been disinterested in politics, but that doesn't make him weak, just apaphetic. He was still pretty respected among his subjects and was powerful enough to quench any rebellion, which is more than you can say about many Targaryen kings, and definitely more than you can say about Aegon V. and Aegon III.

We have no hint that 'the Usurper' was all that respected among his subjects. He was a fat guy who talked a lot when we meet him in AGoT. The people at his court did not respect him, his wife and father-in-law didn't respect him, and his brothers didn't get along with him, either. Stannis outright says he did not love him (which essentially means he loathed him, presumably).

Robert was strong enough to quench the Greyjoy Rebellion nine years before the War of the Five Kings broke out. But there are strong signs that nobody would have rallied to his side had he been facing another such rebellion. Remember what he does when the Lannisters and Tullys are basically beginning a civil war in his kingdom? He goes hunting.

Ned might have been at his side no matter what until the business with Arya and Lady. Thereafter Robert most certainly could no longer count on the full support of Eddard Stark in all things.

In my opinion, weak kings (or leaders in general) are those who fail to lead and take charge/responsibility in their own government. People who allow their advisers and ministers to run the government in their names without taking responsibility themselves. It is not wrong to listen to advice but if you are a monarch (or a head of state with a lot of direct authority) you have to be interested in the job and actually try to do your best.

Robert Baratheon was light years away from any of that. Even Aerys the Mad was a better king than he was at least insofar as personal responsibility and accountability are concerned. Aerys did attend his own council meetings. Robert whored or hunted while his (corrupt) advisers were ruling in his name. That is deplorable. Even more so as Robert actually knew his own flaws as well as the flaws of his corrupt advisers - yet he did nothing at all to rectify the situation. He could have (tried to) quit drinking and do his best to be a good king. He could have fired the likes of Slynt, Littlefinger, Varys, Renly, etc. to appoint competent men who would not embezzle the Crown and scheme behind his back. He flat out tells that his advisers are 'flatterers and fools'. Whose fault is that?

Quote

He didn't want the crwon because of the status that came with it, but because Jon Arryn suggested it. Robert had the best claim, was the best warlord, and, at the time, the most charismatic of the bunch, so Robert seemed like the obvious choice for the rebells. 

Robert_283 wasn't the same guy as Robert_298. The young Robert looked like a king and had a lot of charisma but even he wasn't kingly material. He was too disinterested in the whole ruling thing. Robert Baratheon wasn't even a good lord let alone a good king.

He sure was a great warrior and general but that isn't the same was being a good king.

Oh, and no idea why Aegon III and Aegon V weren't as good as Robert. As far as we know they also quenched all the rebellions they faced just as Robert did. And neither of them was murdered as far as we know (Aegon V might have been murdered indirectly if it turns out that the fire at Summerhall was the result of sabotage/betrayal). On the other hand, an apparently strong king like warlike Maegar was actually brought down by the rebels standing up against him. Does this mean Maegor the Cruel was a weak king?

@Maxxine

Succession squabbles are inevitable if the royal family grows too large and the surrounding political circumstances support them.

Jaehaerys I mediated them, Viserys I sucked at doing so, Aegon IV deliberately caused them with his legitimation decree, and Robert Baratheon inadvertently caused the War of the Five Kings by showering his ingrate brothers with titles, status, wealth, and power and treating his queen like crap. Robert motivated Cersei to cuckold him and gave his brothers great seats which gave them a power base to stand up against his own children - regardless whether they were his trueborn children or not.

[John Doe]

Robert says he didn't want the crown, but Arryn planted the idea into his head. There is no reason not to believe him. Stannis not loving him isn't really a strong point, as he also complimented him on different occasions. He also said that Robert could piss into a cup and people would drink it, so he does seem to have been reasonably popular. 

Quote

Robert is slain, but his realm remains. And we defend her.

And there are many nobles in the Vale and Stormlands who like him too. Indications that the realm wouldn't follow him are basically non existent. Robert goes hunting to clear his head, he had made clear by then that he ordered both factions to stop (commanding Ned to release Tyrion and telling Cersei to shut up). In fact, Ned thinks Robert is more than capable of putting down rebellions. 

Quote

"Lord Tywin is greatly wroth about the men you sent after Ser Gregor  Clegane," the maester confided. "I feared he would be. You will recall, I said as much in council."
"Let him be wroth," Ned said. Every time his leg throbbed, he remembered Jaime  Lannister's smile, and Jory dead in his arms. "Let him write all the letters to the queen he likes. Lord Beric rides beneath the king's own banner. If Lord Tywin attempts to interfere with the king's justice, he will have Robert to answer to. The only thing His Grace enjoys more than hunting is making war on lords who defy him."

 

[Light a wight tonight]

I don't really agree with the assessment of what a monarch's duties are, so we'd be in disagreement over the whole basis of the post. Some Targs were good kings and some were horrid, just as in the real world of medieval rulers. 

And it's not a given that Targ rule was to be preferred to the separate kingdoms. Fewer but bigger wars seems like a wash to me. The major good of the consolidation to me is removing the Hoares from their position of power, as they seem to be a pretty nasty bunch.

[the conquering bastard 25]

On 10/27/2016 at 10:13 AM, 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. 

I'd like to add to this list

William

Henry I ( yes even if he did possibly probably kill his older brother)

Henry V

Edward IV (much better politician and his personal exploits eclipse this fact)

[The Grey Wolf]

1 hour ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

I'd like to add to this list

William

Henry I ( yes even if he did possibly probably kill his older brother)

Henry V

Edward IV (much better politician and his personal exploits eclipse this fact)

Out of curiosity why Henry V and Edward IV? So far as I know both were mainly known for their military exploits and left behind child heirs that promptly dragged England back into civil war. And which William? William I was pretty unpopular and William II is pretty grey to say the least if you ignore the monks.

[PCK]

1 hour ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

I'd like to add to this list

William

Henry I ( yes even if he did possibly probably kill his older brother)

Henry V

Edward IV (much better politician and his personal exploits eclipse this fact)

Henry V and Edward IV were Lancasters and Yorks respectively. Many consider Richard II to be the end of the Plantangenets. As far as those two go, Henry IV is considered a mediocre king, and Henry VI was weak and insane (probably partial inspiration for Aerys.) And many are very split on Richard III. Point stands, great kings are few and far between. GRRM nailed that point. 

[bent branch]

While many people are pointing out the Targaryen lack of achievements, I would like to point out that Aerys II, had some plans for major works. For his troubles he was represented as being "crazy" by Pycelle and the Citadel. Most readers seem to agree with this assessment, but it does make you wonder if the Targaryens lack of achievement is at least partially to blame on the kingdom's most "learned" body.

[John Doe]

8 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

I don't really agree with the assessment of what a monarch's duties are, so we'd be in disagreement over the whole basis of the post. 

What is yours?

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have no hint that 'the Usurper' was all that respected among his subjects. He was a fat guy who talked a lot when we meet him in AGoT. The people at his court did not respect him, his wife and father-in-law didn't respect him, and his brothers didn't get along with him, either. Stannis outright says he did not love him (which essentially means he loathed him, presumably).

Robert was strong enough to quench the Greyjoy Rebellion nine years before the War of the Five Kings broke out. But there are strong signs that nobody would have rallied to his side had he been facing another such rebellion. Remember what he does when the Lannisters and Tullys are basically beginning a civil war in his kingdom? He goes hunting.

Ned might have been at his side no matter what until the business with Arya and Lady. Thereafter Robert most certainly could no longer count on the full support of Eddard Stark in all things.

In my opinion, weak kings (or leaders in general) are those who fail to lead and take charge/responsibility in their own government. People who allow their advisers and ministers to run the government in their names without taking responsibility themselves. It is not wrong to listen to advice but if you are a monarch (or a head of state with a lot of direct authority) you have to be interested in the job and actually try to do your best.

Robert Baratheon was light years away from any of that. Even Aerys the Mad was a better king than he was at least insofar as personal responsibility and accountability are concerned. Aerys did attend his own council meetings. Robert whored or hunted while his (corrupt) advisers were ruling in his name. That is deplorable. Even more so as Robert actually knew his own flaws as well as the flaws of his corrupt advisers - yet he did nothing at all to rectify the situation. He could have (tried to) quit drinking and do his best to be a good king. He could have fired the likes of Slynt, Littlefinger, Varys, Renly, etc. to appoint competent men who would not embezzle the Crown and scheme behind his back. He flat out tells that his advisers are 'flatterers and fools'. Whose fault is that?

Robert_283 wasn't the same guy as Robert_298. The young Robert looked like a king and had a lot of charisma but even he wasn't kingly material. He was too disinterested in the whole ruling thing. Robert Baratheon wasn't even a good lord let alone a good king.

He sure was a great warrior and general but that isn't the same was being a good king.

Oh, and no idea why Aegon III and Aegon V weren't as good as Robert. As far as we know they also quenched all the rebellions they faced just as Robert did. And neither of them was murdered as far as we know (Aegon V might have been murdered indirectly if it turns out that the fire at Summerhall was the result of sabotage/betrayal). On the other hand, an apparently strong king like warlike Maegar was actually brought down by the rebels standing up against him. Does this mean Maegor the Cruel was a weak king?

@Maxxine

Succession squabbles are inevitable if the royal family grows too large and the surrounding political circumstances support them.

Jaehaerys I mediated them, Viserys I sucked at doing so, Aegon IV deliberately caused them with his legitimation decree, and Robert Baratheon inadvertently caused the War of the Five Kings by showering his ingrate brothers with titles, status, wealth, and power and treating his queen like crap. Robert motivated Cersei to cuckold him and gave his brothers great seats which gave them a power base to stand up against his own children - regardless whether they were his trueborn children or not.

Robert 298 was not THE star like his prime self but i would say no one would dare direct a war against him even in agot, the guy had less charisma but was still by far the most respected (fear wise) around in a war scenario, even more than tywin, who knew even in agot that provoking robert to the max would be suicidal because not a thing would hold him (ned says it best, he would bring CR to it's knees), sure it takes a lot to provoke him to fight but once tywin crossed the line it was over, tywin fears stannis so he sure as heck feared robert in war-mode, but in court and in bed we agree, he was an easy target for the old lion imo

[The Wolves]

17 hours ago, John Doe said:

Robert says he didn't want the crown, but Arryn planted the idea into his head. There is no reason not to believe him. Stannis not loving him isn't really a strong point, as he also complimented him on different occasions. He also said that Robert could piss into a cup and people would drink it, so he does seem to have been reasonably popular. 

And there are many nobles in the Vale and Stormlands who like him too. Indications that the realm wouldn't follow him are basically non existent. Robert goes hunting to clear his head, he had made clear by then that he ordered both factions to stop (commanding Ned to release Tyrion and telling Cersei to shut up). In fact, Ned thinks Robert is more than capable of putting down rebellions. 

 

To the first bolded part there is reason not to believe Robert when he says that, being that Robert refuses to take responsibility for his actions. It's very easy years later when he tasted the crown how he can put the blame of that crown on his head on Arryn. Robert being a grown ass man and knows his limits in life jumped at the chance to be king it's no ones fault but his. 

And nothing Ned says about Robert should be taken seriously. Ned is a man who refuses to see the useless weak man and king that his best friend has grown into over the years. 

[Kaibaman]

On 10/28/2016 at 9:52 PM, theblackdragonI said:

Well you can't really blame them for not making any significant advancements, that's due to George's timeline. I mean the Starks have been in power for what, 8000 years? Yet there is no really memorable reform, construction or advancement in the North bar the Wall and White Harbour. This is a world where they have obviously reached the highest level of advancement? Except Valyria of course, so I guess it's like pre-Renaissance Europe. Thinking on it now, why did the Targs not build the same way the Valyrians did? They had dragons, they were one of the dragonlord families of Valyria and so would have had the knowledge. Was the knowledge not passed down and then forgotten in the 100 i or so years they were on Dragonstone?

I wouldn't call them terrible monarchs. Every dynasty in the history of the world has produced both terrible and great monarchs. The Targs just produced more incompetent ones than most due to their incest I suppose. But even still there has been some great kings:

(i) Aegon I, united the realm and kept it peaceful. His sisters pushed through some fair and just reforms. Created something of a bureaucracy (King --> Hand --> Council) and included the only real institutions in Westeros in governing (Grand Maester + HIgh Septon).

(ii) Jaehaerys I, reconciled the land and introduced many reforms. Brought peace and prosperity for close to 50 years.

(iii) Viserys I, much of the same but did allow tensions to get too bad and so caused the Dance really, tough call.

(iv) VIserys II, had it in him to be next Jaehaerys. Actually increased the Iron Throne's economy and trade links with Essos.

(v) Daeron II, peacefully brought Dorne into the fold, that's remarkable considering how much bad blood was between the two, also quashed the biggest threat to his family since the Dance.

(vi) Aegon V, tried to make life better for the common folk.

Not really much after that but I still think those are all great kings. We shouldn't compare them to medieval kings too much because medieval kings were expected to really to take an active role in governing. Whether improving the economy and society, or going to war, the king was expected to lead the people in advancing. There was no expectations on the Targs because they were other worldly, foreigners who had their own customs etc. Also Aegon I set a precedent in delegating tasks and having a hands off approach to ruling, similar to how all presidents after Washington only served maximum of two terms because he did.

I agree the Starks really haven't done much beyond conquering and unifying their own territory compared to the Targs. In fact the North has been in stasis for god knows how many millenniums. It was only when the Targs came onto the scene and subjugated the Starks that things actually started getting done up there. It was the Targaryens who ended the first night over the objection of the Starks themselves, they provided Land to the Night’s Watch (the Gift) which Jon Snow can use to settle the Wildlings, they provided some form of unified legal codes (which we admittedly know little about), and they built the Kingsroad. Aegon V used royal authority to send food supplies during a winter, preventing their men from going on suicide trips outside the realm. The Targaryens also ended regular Ironborn raids and protected the coasts of the North. One has to wonder if the Targaryens were such terrible monarchs for not making a lot of progress, then how good exactly were the kings that ruled before them? The Targaryens are half-and-half, some being worse than what came before, others being better. And no monarch is as beloved by the people as Baelor the Blessed or respected like Jaehaerys I.

[WSmith84]

39 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

It was the Targaryens who ended the first night over the objection of the Starks themselves, they provided Land to the Night’s Watch (the Gift) which Jon Snow can use to settle the Wildlings,

Just to say, that turned out to be a mistake, as the Starks pointed out at the time. Good intentions or no, the Starks predicted that the lands wouldn't be adequately defended and thus abandoned, and so they were.Thus, the Targaryens weakened the NW and the Starks, who were the NW's principal supporters. Also, by providing funds for a new castle the Targaryens actually took the NW away from the Night Fort, which has the magical door (a helpful reminder of their true purpose).

And can I get a quote on the Starks objecting to ending the First Night? All I can find is that 'many lords jealously guarded it.'

[Aegon VII]

I think overall the Targs ended up being mediocre rulers, some were good, some were bad. There's the expression about how every time a targ is born, the god's flip a coin. That's pretty awful odds when it comes to birthing kings. Furthermore, it's really not fair comparing their rule to other rulers because they had dragons. The dragons were pretty much the only reason the targs came into power in westeros. They never had to earn the right to rule.

Think of Mance and him earning everything out of the dirt. Long enough ago, that's how the rulers still came into power. I think through the wildlings GRRM gives us a glimpse of societies somewhat pre-medieval. Eventually these did evolve into monarchy's with rule passed down to the first born son. The best monarchies are ones in which the rulers care about the people and stay in touch with them. There's talk in previous posts about how great rulers at the time didn't care about their subjects. A lot of them might not have cared on an emotional level but for a ruler to stay in power the masses have to be at least content.

So whether its altruistic or functional, good leaders usually strive to provide for their subjects' basic needs, like food, shelter and freedom from random violence.  GRRM gives us a great example of a well functioning monarchy in the starks. They passed their morals and practices down from the first men and kings of the north and we can see them in Ned and what he teaches to his kids. He's super honorable, honest, listens to his people and tries to do what's best for them. A testimony to the starks being good rulers if that they've held power in the north continuously for so long, and that everyone in the north loves the so much they're really going above and beyond what most would do for their liege lord now that the family is in trouble. 

In contrast to Mance and the stark family, who've earned their right to rule through a natural social contract, we have the Targs, who were able to assume power through the Cheat Mode that is dragons. For the entire time they had dragons, they could do whatever they wanted and not have to fear losing power. This meant that they never had to learn all the traits that make a good king. Many targs did choose to be great/good/decent kings, but it was not required like it was for other rulers. Normally if a ruling family has a few generations of screw ups in a row, they will lose power, either at the peoples' hand or another house's. As long as the Targs had dragons, both the commoners and the nobles feared them too much to ever rebel. Once they lost the dragons, it was only a matter of time before a screw up took the throne and the people decided they'd rather rebel than continue being ruled by targs.

So to sum up, I believe the dragons gave the Targs too much leverage in the social contract. This allowed them to pretty mediocre rulers without fearing being overthrown. Once the dragons were gone, the targs were doomed to fail. Until that is, they lose their power and are forced to learn what it means to be a good ruler from the ground up i.e. Dany and Jon.

 

 

[theblackdragonI]

1 hour ago, Kaibaman said:

I agree the Starks really haven't done much beyond conquering and unifying their own territory compared to the Targs. In fact the North has been in stasis for god knows how many millenniums. It was only when the Targs came onto the scene and subjugated the Starks that things actually started getting done up there. It was the Targaryens who ended the first night over the objection of the Starks themselves, they provided Land to the Night’s Watch (the Gift) which Jon Snow can use to settle the Wildlings, they provided some form of unified legal codes (which we admittedly know little about), and they built the Kingsroad. Aegon V used royal authority to send food supplies during a winter, preventing their men from going on suicide trips outside the realm. The Targaryens also ended regular Ironborn raids and protected the coasts of the North. One has to wonder if the Targaryens were such terrible monarchs for not making a lot of progress, then how good exactly were the kings that ruled before them? The Targaryens are half-and-half, some being worse than what came before, others being better. And no monarch is as beloved by the people as Baelor the Blessed or respected like Jaehaerys I.

Yea I've always felt like the 8,000 year rule of one family is a bit mad but I guess its to show how much a part of the North the Starks are. The Targs certainly enacted some reforms, the majority of which were done when they had dragons though such as all the ones you named above, abolishing the Faith Militant and the law about only hitting your wife seven times. I guess once they lost the dragons they realised they couldn't push the lords too far. Baelor was a horrible king though. Holy and good person, but horrible king. 

9 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

 

So whether its altruistic or functional, good leaders usually strive to provide for their subjects' basic needs, like food, shelter and freedom from random violence.  GRRM gives us a great example of a well functioning monarchy in the starks. They passed their morals and practices down from the first men and kings of the north and we can see them in Ned and what he teaches to his kids. He's super honorable, honest, listens to his people and tries to do what's best for them. A testimony to the starks being good rulers if that they've held power in the north continuously for so long, and that everyone in the north loves the so much they're really going above and beyond what most would do for their liege lord now that the family is in trouble. 

In contrast to Mance and the stark family, who've earned their right to rule through a natural social contract, we have the Targs, who were able to assume power through the Cheat Mode that is dragons. For the entire time they had dragons, they could do whatever they wanted and not have to fear losing power. This meant that they never had to learn all the traits that make a good king. Many targs did choose to be great/good/decent kings, but it was not required like it was for other rulers. Normally if a ruling family has a few generations of screw ups in a row, they will lose power, either at the peoples' hand or another house's. As long as the Targs had dragons, both the commoners and the nobles feared them too much to ever rebel. Once they lost the dragons, it was only a matter of time before a screw up took the throne and the people decided they'd rather rebel than continue being ruled by targs.

So to sum up, I believe the dragons gave the Targs too much leverage in the social contract. This allowed them to pretty mediocre rulers without fearing being overthrown. Once the dragons were gone, the targs were doomed to fail. Until that is, they lose their power and are forced to learn what it means to be a good ruler from the ground up i.e. Dany and Jon.

 

 

The Starks really are an institution. They are the North and the North is them. I agree, they must be doing something right if the only rebellions they have are few and far between and usually caused by one family. 

Yes I completely agree, bar Aegon, the Targs never had to work for the right to rule (except against each other). They are all so entitled. I always got the feeling (can't wait for Fire and Blood to expand on it) that the Targs really and truly did believe that they were above the Westerosi. It faded a bit after the dragons died and they were no longer the embodiment of Valyria, but its still evident in a good few of them, e.g. Aegon IV, V, Aerion Brightflame, Viserys, Daenerys, Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar. Even Rhaegar, he was so obsessed with his family and a prophecy he knowingly plunged the realm into chaos after a period of peace and prosperity. 

That's why I've always like Aegon VI. Even if he is a Blackfyre, he's lived like a commoner his whole life. He actually is qualified to be king and has been trained for the role since he was young. Maybe he's a foil for Dany or something.

[Aegon VII]

1 hour ago, theblackdragonI said:

They are all so entitled. I always got the feeling (can't wait for Fire and Blood to expand on it) that the Targs really and truly did believe that they were above the Westerosi. It faded a bit after the dragons died and they were no longer the embodiment of Valyria, but its still evident in a good few of them, e.g. Aegon IV, V, Aerion Brightflame, Viserys, Daenerys, Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar. Even Rhaegar, he was so obsessed with his family and a prophecy he knowingly plunged the realm into chaos after a period of peace and prosperity.

I like your point here and agree. Multiple times I've found myself justifying a targs actions by viewing them as an ubermench, Bloodraven being the biggest example that comes to mind. Often times, targs believe they know better than conventional wisdom / honor / laws. Their practice of incest is a great example. Even wildlings know you steal a woman from a different tribe for a strong gene pool. It's like the Targs are saying they are above the laws of nature and incest won't affect them like others. Then we have them taking multiple wives, saying the are above the laws of men and marriage. (as a side note, marriage seems to be one of the most sacred laws/rituals. We have edmund tully saying not even a king can force a man to wed). So I believe their actions definitely support them viewing themselves as superior to common people, and above the constraints that normal men must deal with.

I think GRRM uses the animals in the kingdoms to illustrate this in the text. Though I can't remember exactly when, there are a few examples of dragons being spoken about as categorically different than wolves, lions, etc. I really wish I could remember the quote I'm trying to think of, I'm pretty sure it's a tywin quote, I'll think some more on it.

I think their willingness to believe they are the subjects of prophecy also supports this. Targ after targ thinks they're special and are the fulfillment of prophecy. What if in reality they were all just normal ass people, not special at all, who happened to get lucky (their connection with dragons). Rather than accepting that most of the reason they are in power is external random forces, they instead ascribe their position to their own superiority.

[Kaibaman]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Just to say, that turned out to be a mistake, as the Starks pointed out at the time. Good intentions or no, the Starks predicted that the lands wouldn't be adequately defended and thus abandoned, and so they were.Thus, the Targaryens weakened the NW and the Starks, who were the NW's principal supporters. Also, by providing funds for a new castle the Targaryens actually took the NW away from the Night Fort, which has the magical door (a helpful reminder of their true purpose).

And can I get a quote on the Starks objecting to ending the First Night? All I can find is that 'many lords jealously guarded it.'

Unless you're talking about ending the wars between the kingdoms, I can't say its fair to blame the Targaryens for bringing the Night's Watch into decline. The Night's Watch along with the Faith benefited from the wars that came before Aegon's war of unification because wars mean POWs who are then dumped at the Wall. The fact is without there being anymore wars and without any perceived threats beyond the Wall aside from the Wildlings, the Watch had become redundant. Jaehaerys and Alysanne tried to help by giving them enough farmland because back then at least they still had enough men to tend to these lands that would provide enough income to sustain the Watch for a lot longer. From hindsight maybe this wasn't the best course of action as I doubt even the Starks could have predicted the Watch would have its manpower cut so short in just a couple of centuries. But for all we know if Alysanne didn't grant them the Gift, maybe the Watch would be in even worse shape at the start of the Books or declined to the point of no longer being active.

[Protagoras]

I agree with Lion of the West in this. GRRM wanted to tell a story about politics, not economical developments (personally I wouldn´t have minded more of those in the book, but its not what GRRM wants to tell). I am pretty sure the Targaryens did a lot of things very few are interested about that was omitted from the book, like building less fancy buildings.