Jump to content
Three-Fingered Pete

Statistically, It Seems That The Targaryens Were Due For A Fall

Recommended Posts

The lifespans of the civilizations included in the article include many dynasties. Most of them has at least two or three dynasties and then usually a bunch of non dynastic rulers.

If we calculated the average length of a dynasty, then the Targaryens would have stayed in power for a considerably lengthy span of time.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The lifespans of the civilizations included in the article include many dynasties. Most of them has at least two or three dynasties and then usually a bunch of non dynastic rulers.

If we calculated the average length of a dynasty, then the Targaryens would have stayed in power for a considerably lengthy span of time.

 

Did you read the attached longer article from the first link? He gets into that. More or less he is talking about the character of rule when he speaks of civilizations that continue under another visionary direction or correct for one perceived as abhorrent. In this way, the author would conclude that the end of the average length Targaryen reign was followed by the very short Baratheon, and now possibly Lannister, reigns if and when Dany reestablishes her family claim on Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Three-Fingered Pete said:

While I don't agree with his definition of a civilization, it does work within his defined study to give a solid sample size to draw his conclusions:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-the-lifespans-of-ancient-civilisations-compared

I think the selections are a bit odd.

I see certain Indian dynasties such as the Kanva dynasty - but I notice certain omissions too. For example, the longest lasting dynasty in history, the Ningthouja Dynasty.

Same with China - mentions Han and Shang. No Zhou? No House of Yuchi (Kingdom of Khotan)?

I wonder if it makes a difference? Selections just seem a bit arbitrary. Like the author only chose dynasties with the word dynasty in their wikipedia title....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Legitimate_Bastard said:

I think the selections are a bit odd.

I see certain Indian dynasties such as the Kanva dynasty - but I notice certain omissions too. For example, the longest lasting dynasty in history, the Ningthouja Dynasty.

Same with China - mentions Han and Shang. No Zhou? No House of Yuchi (Kingdom of Khotan)?

I wonder if it makes a difference? Selections just seem a bit arbitrary. Like the author only chose dynasties with the word dynasty in their wikipedia title....

 

Yeah, I noticed that too. He also stops at 1000 AD/CE for some odd reason. It's possible that neither article gives a full picture of his data sample. News articles are usually watered down on specifics. Like I said, I don't have a problem with his methodology, just his terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Three-Fingered Pete said:

While I don't agree with his definition of a civilization, it does work within his defined study to give a solid sample size to draw his conclusions:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-the-lifespans-of-ancient-civilisations-compared

Except that the Targaryens were a ruling dynasty rather than a civilization.  There are dynasties that are over a thousand years old in the real world.  

It might be more accurate to say the Valyrian freehold was going to eventually fall rather than choose one specific family.  The Targaryens are special in this multi-volume tale.  They are the light in this world of darkness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't check his other numbers, but his claim that "Kingdom of Israel and Judah [298]" is incorrect. The Kingdom of Israel/Samaria only lasted 209 years (931-722 BCE), while the Kingdom of Judah lasted 345 years (931-586 BCE) not counting David and Solomon, and 424 counting David and Solomon (1010-586 BCE).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They lasted too long , Dance of the Dragons should have been their end. Valyrians managed to wreck one empire, I don't doubt they would destroy Westeros too if left to their own devices.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

They lasted too long , Dance of the Dragons should have been their end. Valyrians managed to wreck one empire, I don't doubt they would destroy Westeros too if left to their own devices.

Uh no.  The Targaryens built Westeros into a kingdom that was stable for a feudal system.  If you want to put the blame on the decline of Westeros, point your finger at the Baratheons, Starks, Arryn, and Tully.  The awful state of the kingdom is the result of their incompetence.  The Targaryens are the best thing to ever happen to Westeros and its smallfolk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gabbie Roxas said:

Uh no.  The Targaryens built Westeros into a kingdom that was stable for a feudal system.  If you want to put the blame on the decline of Westeros, point your finger at the Baratheons, Starks, Arryn, and Tully.  The awful state of the kingdom is the result of their incompetence.  The Targaryens are the best thing to ever happen to Westeros and its smallfolk.  

More like stable for their dragons. People who can't control their own base urges shouldn't have weapons of mass of destruction and presume to rule over realm.

They disregard good of the people they rule for their own whims. Most of Targaryen kings brought more suffering than good, it is evident in how little the realm advanced from the Aegon's conquest. 

If you need dragons to keep realm together there is something hugely wrong with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Romanovs ruled Imperial Russia 1613-1917 so they lasted almost as long as Targs were in power.

The Japanese emperor is descended from a family line that can trace itself back to over many, many centuries.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2019 at 7:21 AM, Eltharion21 said:

If you need dragons to keep realm together there is something hugely wrong with it.

I agree! What kind of message is this series sending if we're supposed to conclude that nuclear weapons are fantastic, that they are the best way to rule, and that only the pure bloods can do it (this just happens to be what Targaryens think about themselves too so lets support their backwards thinking even more).

I glanced at the article, but an average of about 300 years for his sample size makes sense, which would mean that the Targaryens have reigned pretty long for an incest dynasty, considering that the Inca kings practiced incest and it only lasted ~100 years. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Great Oshiro said:

The Japanese emperor is descended from a family line that can trace itself back to over many, many centuries.  

 

Major reason that Japanese imperial bloodline has survived so long is that they lost their real power to warlords sometimes during (12th?) century and they became some kind of priests and trophies  instead of political players and any real game of thrones were fought among samurai clans until samurai themselves became obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 10:21 AM, Eltharion21 said:

More like stable for their dragons. People who can't control their own base urges shouldn't have weapons of mass of destruction and presume to rule over realm.

They disregard good of the people they rule for their own whims. Most of Targaryen kings brought more suffering than good, it is evident in how little the realm advanced from the Aegon's conquest. 

If you need dragons to keep realm together there is something hugely wrong with it.

Do you think the Starks could have maintained their hold on the north if they were not the most powerful?  Surely not.  This is a feudal world.  Being nice is not enough.  The Targaryens were better than the petty "kings" that they replaced.  They actually improved the lives of the smallfolk.  Something the Kings of Winter, Kings of Vale, etc didn't care too much to do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Great Oshiro said:

Do you think the Starks could have maintained their hold on the north if they were not the most powerful?  Surely not.  This is a feudal world.  Being nice is not enough.  The Targaryens were better than the petty "kings" that they replaced.  They actually improved the lives of the smallfolk.  Something the Kings of Winter, Kings of Vale, etc didn't care too much to do.  

What concrete improvements You think they implemented? Do You think constant wars and destruction on greater scale than previously is worth of those improvements? There were certainly some good Targaryen rulers but when the next one destroys  the same rules the previous had made , it becomes kinda pointless, they lacked consistency in their reign in my opinion.

Starks as lord  biggest issue is people surviving the Winter through their policies, and they are really hampered by odd seasons, unlike South, considering their long reign and lot of autonomy I feel they have done pretty good work unlike the Taragaryen.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the Starks oscillated wildly in this destroy-build-destroy doom loop. You can see this loop playing out with Valyria, they built their empire on fire and blood and they were served that in the end. For Dany, Valyria and Robert's Rebellion are two doom loops are that right there, waiting to repeat. The Kings in the North stayed afloat for - what is it? 8,000 years, compared to the Targaryens' 300? They must have done something right. 

I also don't think the Starks are known for being "madmen with nuclear weapons." Or even better, "some of them will be mad...some will be good...you just don't know which ones!" What a fun game to play with the people.

The Starks are normal. Normal is good. Edgelords think its cool to be critical of the Starks which means being critical of Targaryens is actually saying something radical and different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is ridiculous and betrays a complete lack of understanding of ancient civilizations.  For example, he divides the Assyrian Empire into three phases, which is a modern conceit - Assyria existed as an actual state throughout the entirety of that period, we merely divide it up to make clear when the Assyrian polity was in its ascendancy or when it was on the retreat.

That being said, you would expect the Targaryens to last longer, because they have magical dragons.  If you gave me a handful of Blackhawk helicopters with unlimited ammunition and fuel, you can bet your bippy I'd be ruling most ancient states in no time flat as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

That article is ridiculous and betrays a complete lack of understanding of ancient civilizations.  For example, he divides the Assyrian Empire into three phases, which is a modern conceit - Assyria existed as an actual state throughout the entirety of that period, we merely divide it up to make clear when the Assyrian polity was in its ascendancy or when it was on the retreat.

That being said, you would expect the Targaryens to last longer, because they have magical dragons.  If you gave me a handful of Blackhawk helicopters with unlimited ammunition and fuel, you can bet your bippy I'd be ruling most ancient states in no time flat as well.

Similar things could be said for the article's treatment of Egypt. Ancient Egypt saw itself as one continuous country, and the last time I talked about it with an Egyptology friend she told me that there was some debate on how chaotic the intermediate periods actually were as opposed to just periods of decentralized power and diminished monumental building activity.
There always was a ruling dynasty of Egypt, for example, just the amount of power they had over local governors varied.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Similar things could be said for the article's treatment of Egypt. Ancient Egypt saw itself as one continuous country, and the last time I talked about it with an Egyptology friend she told me that there was some debate on how chaotic the intermediate periods actually were as opposed to just periods of decentralized power and diminished monumental building activity.
There always was a ruling dynasty of Egypt, for example, just the amount of power they had over local governors varied.  

I'm not sure.  I mean, we have Manetho, and he makes it clear that ancient Egyptians had a real sense of discontinuity in terms of their civilization.  Egypt was eternal, but the ruling dynasties were not.  The intermediate periods weren't "chaotic" necessarily, but they often featured rule by an outside group (Hyksos, Nubians) or a breakdown in central authority, as you say.  And that is sort of what matters - obviously people have been living in some kind of community near the Nile for thousands of years.  It's kind of silly to claim that that is one continuous political entity.  And for all its other faults, this article does make some effort to organize around ruling dynasties.  That being said, I agree with you in principle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×