Jump to content

The Targaryens are no worse than any other great house in Westeros.


The Wolves

Recommended Posts

The Targaryens are no worse than the great houses who spent thousands of years murdering, enslaving, torturing, etc.. their bannerman, Smallfolk and people. 
 

The only difference between a Targaryen king and a great lord from a great house is their physical features and dragons. The murdering, plotting, abuse of power, and terrorizing the Smallfolk is something every house has in common with each other. 
 

So if the Targaryens deserved to fall from power so does the Lannisters, Starks, Tullys, Arryns, Martells, Baratheons, Greyjoys, and Tyrells. I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really been engaging in all these ‘deserved to fall’ threads, but this one imo seems on point. Readers and viewers have fallen into romanticizing ideas like ‘true’, ‘faithful’ etc. re: subjects to lords/kings, somehow overlooking that feudal politics was more or less run along the lines of mafia protection rackets. Give us X each month or we’ll kill you/burn you out/rape your wives and daughters. One of the confusions is that with the very much later onset of nationalism, there emerged a concept of patriotism where loyalty was automatically owed in some respects, that you were by birth given certain advantages and obligations.

 

Modern readers think in those terms. But that was not a concept alive in feudal times, nor would it have made much sense given the fluidity of borders/states/leaders, etc. Really, the best way to think of the Starks and Arryns is like the Carnegies and Gambinos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not. Proportion matters, and the Targs did more negatives than any other house in far less time. 

We are told in Fire and Blood, that no other place suffer from the first night, as much as Dragonstone, and that the rest of Westeros loated the pratice. On the other hand we see the Starks help their smallfolk during winter, taking them into Wintertown. 

We don't hear about any civil war for sucession in the Westerlands, North, Dorne, Stormlands or the Reach whe it was under the House Garderner... Targs messed up so badly that there is one at every 17 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

They are not. Proportion matters, and the Targs did more negatives than any other house in far less time. 

We are told in Fire and Blood, that no other place suffer from the first night, as much as Dragonstone, and that the rest of Westeros loated the pratice. On the other hand we see the Starks help their smallfolk during winter, taking them into Wintertown. 

We don't hear about any civil war for sucession in the Westerlands, North, Dorne, Stormlands or the Reach whe it was under the House Garderner... Targs messed up so badly that there is one at every 17 years.

The first night thing is not quite accurate. It says that on Dragonstone the difference was that getting pregnant with a Dragonseed actually was seen as a blessing by the prospective adoptive parents, in part because your child would potentially have those much ballyhooed silver hair and purple eyes. There’s nothing about it being more forced. Now that might well be spin…in some cases at least it must be, and to add to that side of the argument the worst individual offender we know of was a Valyrian, Garson the Guest.

 

BUT…the practice started with the First Men and is always talked about as being less practiced south of the Neck. It says specifically that by the time of the Conciliator it was pretty much only done in the North, but there fairly heavily. Fast forward to ASoIaF and only three peoples are named as still practicing it; the Boston’s, the Umbers, and the Skagosi. The only reference to it in the South after J&A is Aerys joking that he wished it wasn’t abolished re: Joanna. 
 

So on balance I think it’s much more accurate to say that neither the Targs nor anyone other than the infamous Guest were practicing it any more, and very probably less, than Northmen do, and that even by as early as Jaehaerys it was pretty much exclusive to the North, where it began and where it is still being practiced somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Targaryen Conquest was a fairly bloodless affair, with most so-called kings bending their knees and sucking Aegon's cock as if they were wanting to be conquered.

Compared to that, the conquest of the old Seven Kingdoms - which originally were the Hundred Kingdoms - would have been a much more bloody affairs.

Subsequent Targaryen civil wars and such were a joke compared to the never-ending wars between the Seven Kingdoms before the Conquest and the constant blood feuds and small wars between various lords within those kingdoms.

I mean, the Dance lasted two years, Robert's Rebellion, and the Blackfyre Rebellions all only one. Sure enough, there were some brutal Dornish Wars, but all that cannot have caused much damage compared to a state of nearly perpetual warfare. Even during the Dance not many regions of the Seven Kingdoms were seriously affected.

How shitty the kind of thing you get in Westeros without the Targaryens you see on a smaller scale with the continuous perpetual state of war between the Vale and the clansmen and, of course, in the perpetual war between the folks beyond the Wall. They, too, only behave when a powerful leader beats them into submission. Without that, it is constant suffering for the people who cannot/will not fight back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

The Field of Fire was quite a show of force, so I can't really blame the Westerosi rulers for bending the knee.

It was a show of force, to be sure. But not everybody saw that and it was just one battle - a battle that could and should have generated a lot of Targaryen hatred among the elite of the Reach. And, I mean, the way the Starks and the Arryns bend the knee is kind of a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It was a show of force, to be sure. But not everybody saw that and it was just one battle - a battle that could and should have generated a lot of Targaryen hatred among the elite of the Reach. And, I mean, the way the Starks and the Arryns bend the knee is kind of a joke.

Don’t see what you expected Sharra Arryn to do in that circumstance. Remember that the Field of Fire might not even be the most famed dragon attack in Aegon’s Conquest, but rather Harrenhal. Harrenhal changed how Argilac fought the Targs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Not really been engaging in all these ‘deserved to fall’ threads, but this one imo seems on point. Readers and viewers have fallen into romanticizing ideas like ‘true’, ‘faithful’ etc. re: subjects to lords/kings, somehow overlooking that feudal politics was more or less run along the lines of mafia protection rackets. Give us X each month or we’ll kill you/burn you out/rape your wives and daughters. One of the confusions is that with the very much later onset of nationalism, there emerged a concept of patriotism where loyalty was automatically owed in some respects, that you were by birth given certain advantages and obligations.

 

Modern readers think in those terms. But that was not a concept alive in feudal times, nor would it have made much sense given the fluidity of borders/states/leaders, etc. Really, the best way to think of the Starks and Arryns is like the Carnegies and Gambinos. 

Yes, protection by the overlord, in return for fealty by the vassal, is the very essence of feudalism.  What you want is to get something in return for your protection money.

My view is that it’s better to pay protection money to a powerful king, who keeps the barons in check (if only because he does not want to have them interrupting his source of income) than be forced to pay protection money to multiple lords vying for control and extra land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Don’t see what you expected Sharra Arryn to do in that circumstance. Remember that the Field of Fire might not even be the most famed dragon attack in Aegon’s Conquest, but rather Harrenhal. Harrenhal changed how Argilac fought the Targs. 

Oh, I certainly admit that Sharra had no other choice - and perhaps Torrhen, too. In that particular situation. But they could have just feigned submission only to figure out ways how to put down those dragons.

Balon feigned submission, too, only to rise again, harder and stronger.

True enough, Aegon had issue with assassins, etc. but we have no reports of people trying to slay the dragons during one of the king's many progresses, say.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

My view is that it’s better to pay protection money to a powerful king, who keeps the barons in check (if only because he does not want to have them interrupting his source of income) than be forced to pay protection money to multiple lords vying for control and extra land.

Yes, pre-Conquest feudalism would have had nominal kings at best, especially in the larger realm of the North. The kingship in the Riverlands was effectively always little more than nominal, aside from the iron rule of the Hoares.

So the people back then they had to suffer the abuses of their lords and their kings, had to fight both in the petty wars of their king as well as fight, suffer, and die in the petty feuds of their lords.

Under the Targaryens they could even sit back and relax during the rare civil wars they had. Nobody was actually forced to support Maegor or the Faith in their war, or turn Green/Black during the Dance, or bother with the mad dreams of the Blackfyre loonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can already tell the op is baiting for anti-Targaryen comments.  He or she will get no such from me.  

The Targaryens were better in every way compared to the "Great" Houses of Westeros.  They had a vision to unite the realm and during their dynastic rule, made and passed laws which improved the lives of the commoners.  The commoners and the majority of Houses below the "Great" Houses benefitted tremendously from Targaryen rule.  The only losers were the "Great" Houses who could no longer do as they pleased.  But since there are only seven of them now, it is right to say the majority of the people were better under the central rule of the Targaryens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worse or better is a question that can only be answered by who you are?  For the powerful families who were kings of their large holdings it was a demotion.  The powerful Lannisters would see it as a demotion.  The families living beneath them would see it as a breath of relief from the squabbles they are always asked to sacrifice their people to.  For the farmer who just wants to plow his fields, bring in the harvest, and feed his family, the Targaryens were a godsend.  Targaryen rule was a demotion for the Stark who wants to style himself King of the North who lives by his own rules and screws all the lovely peasant brides in his domain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Worse or better is a question that can only be answered by who you are?  For the powerful families who were kings of their large holdings it was a demotion.  The powerful Lannisters would see it as a demotion.  The families living beneath them would see it as a breath of relief from the squabbles they are always asked to sacrifice their people to.  For the farmer who just wants to plow his fields, bring in the harvest, and feed his family, the Targaryens were a godsend.  Targaryen rule was a demotion for the Stark who wants to style himself King of the North who lives by his own rules and screws all the lovely peasant brides in his domain.  

Instead now they can March all the way to Dorne to die even further away for a King they’ve no chance of ever actually seeing. Or further south to die in a family feud for said family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 5:10 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryen Conquest was a fairly bloodless affair, with most so-called kings bending their knees and sucking Aegon's cock as if they were wanting to be conquered.

I don't think this is fair. Three kings died defying the Conquest, and two more fought against it (one successfully), with only the Starks and Arryns bowing without a fight (after witnessing what happened to the Gardeners and Hoares, one notes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James West said:

I can already tell the op is baiting for anti-Targaryen comments.  He or she will get no such from me.  

The Targaryens were better in every way compared to the "Great" Houses of Westeros.  They had a vision to unite the realm and during their dynastic rule, made and passed laws which improved the lives of the commoners.  The commoners and the majority of Houses below the "Great" Houses benefitted tremendously from Targaryen rule.  The only losers were the "Great" Houses who could no longer do as they pleased.  But since there are only seven of them now, it is right to say the majority of the people were better under the central rule of the Targaryens.  

Eight, and arguably nine: there are great houses in the North, the Iron Islands, the Vale, the Riverlands, the Westerlands, the Reach, the Stormlands and Dorne, and Dragonstone acts functionally as the seat of another. Not counting the mainland Crownlands. 

"Seven kingdoms" was always a bit of a fiction. Before the Conquest, you could count seven, if you excluded the non-self-governing Riverlands, but Aegon didn't conquer all seven so he empowered the Riverlands and called it "the seven kingdoms" because seven is a nice Faith-y number.

It's like the Heptarchy in English history. It's nice to say there were seven kingdoms in England prior to unification and call this the Heptarchy, but the period when there were actually seven independent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was rather short: in reality it was a shifting group of kingdoms of various numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James West said:

I can already tell the op is baiting for anti-Targaryen comments.  He or she will get no such from me.

How are they baiting for anti-Targaryen comments when the entire premise of the thread is about how the Targaryens aren't any worse than anyone else? That seems the opposite of anti-Targaryen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

How are they baiting for anti-Targaryen comments when the entire premise of the thread is about how the Targaryens aren't any worse than anyone else? That seems the opposite of anti-Targaryen...

They're playing defense on an empty field :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...