Jump to content

Were things really that bad before the Targaryens arrived?


Craving Peaches

Recommended Posts

I see this claim made all the time to justify Targaryen rule but I am not sure how true it is.

One of the claims that is made is that the continent was in a constant state of war all the time. If there were full scale wars going on all the time you would expect the continent to have been more depopulated. I think it's more likely that some of these 'wars' were just border raids vis-à-vis the border reavers in Scotland and England. I get the impression that the Targaryens came there were more frequent but smaller scale conflicts, and after they came there were less frequent larger scale conflicts.

Sone people also act like Westeros was a complete dump before the Targaryens came. If this were really the case I think more people would have just submitted to the Targaryen rule rather than resist or need to be coerced. The only people who straight up accept the Targaryens (aside from some crownlands houses (?)) with no sort of 'show of force' are the Riverlands, and that was to kick the Ironborn out, and the North, but we don't know exactly what happened there.

I'm not saying it was great, I just don't think it was quite as bad before as some people paint it. I think each 'era' had advantages and disadvantages. The Targaryens improved some things but brought their own issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

One of the claims that is made is that the continent was in a constant state of war all the time. If there were full scale wars going on all the time you would expect the continent to have been more depopulated. I think it's more likely that some of these 'wars' were just border raids vis-à-vis the border reavers in Scotland and England. I get the impression that the Targaryens came there were more frequent but smaller scale conflicts, and after they came there were less frequent larger scale conflicts.

Our sources tell us that prior to the Conquest there was both constant warfare in the continent - not everywhere, of course, but somewhere some kingdom was at war with its neighbor or more than one neighbor. In addition, there was apparently no precursor to Aegon's King's Peace (at least not one that was strongly enforced as Aegon's was). Prior to the Conquest the lords also constantly had feuds and smaller scale conflicts with their neighbors, and their overlords and kings either lacked the power or didn't bother stopping them.

This means the common people suffered much more greatly in this society than they did later when this all stopped.

Also, look at the map - even smaller wars would affect huge parts of the smaller kingdoms. Eustace Osgrey's stories give you a good inclination how the entire Reach was affected when the Gardeners had to fight the Stormlanders and the Westermen at the same time. Vice versa, the Riverlands could be attacked by the North, the Vale, etc. at the same time, or the Westerlands by the Ironborn, the Riverlanders, and the Reach.

Even later you see how strongly affected the Reach and the Stormlands can be during a war with Dorne.

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Sone people also act like Westeros was a complete dump before the Targaryens came. If this were really the case I think more people would have just submitted to the Targaryen rule rather than resist or need to be coerced. The only people who straight up accept the Targaryens (aside from some crownlands houses (?)) with no sort of 'show of force' are the Riverlands, and that was to kick the Ironborn out, and the North, but we don't know exactly what happened there.

These people submitted in just two years. There was not much coercion going on there, especially not where the smallfolk was concerned. They were Targaryen fanboys from the start - presumably because they immediately figured how great just one king would be for them. And how well protected they would be under the shadow of Aegon's dragon.

The Boltons certainly offered more resistance to Stark rule, similarly the Riverlords to Durrandon and Hoare rule.

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I just don't think it was as bad before as some people paint it. I think each 'era' had advantages and disadvantages. The Targaryens improved some things but brought their own issues.

It is not so much about the Targaryens, but simply a power strong enough to enforce a lasting peace encompassing nearly an entire continent. That was obviously a much better situation then before.

Whatever issues the Targaryen brought were also part of the earlier kingdoms - which did had succession wars, too (e.g. the Reach after the long reign of Garth X).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

and Harren the Black was poised to control the Riverlands for awhile. Possibly destroy the Storm Kings.

See I think there was some sort of balance of power thing going on, and if Harren had tried to go any further other kingdoms would have stepped in to cut him down to size again. I mean for thousands of years no single one of the kingdoms had ever been able to dominate all the others and so I think there was some sort of equilibrium to be had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

See I think there was some sort of balance of power thing going on, and if Harren had tried to go any further other kingdoms would have stepped in to cut him down to size again. I mean for thousands of years no single one of the kingdoms had ever been able to dominate all the others and so I think there was some sort of equilibrium to be had.

That is a wrong impression. The Stormlands were much larger in the past and continuously lost territory since they lost the Riverlands. None of those kingdoms were ever stable. Some of them had natural borders in the sense that their kings kind of decided to operate largely within those frameworks - Red Mountains for Dorne (although the Dornish Marches could certainly owe their names to the fact that this was Dornish territory once upon a time), the Neck for the North, the Mountains of the Moon for the Vale. But even they didn't limit themselves to those borders - the North tried to conquer territory in the Riverlands, the Vale in the North and the Riverlands, Dorne in the Reach and the Stormlands, the others in Dorne, etc.

The West, the Reach, and the Riverlands clearly have no natural borders, so the territories of those kingdoms would have been even more in flux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

See I think there was some sort of balance of power thing going on, and if Harren had tried to go any further other kingdoms would have stepped in to cut him down to size again. I mean for thousands of years no single one of the kingdoms had ever been able to dominate all the others and so I think there was some sort of equilibrium to be had.

The failure of the Reach to conquer everyone else can only be explained by other kingdoms ganging up on them since the reach is three times the size of any of the other kingdoms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

None of those kingdoms were ever stable.

I'm not saying they were stable or had static borders, I'm saying that a point was never reached where one kingdom was able to dominate all the others, which would mean that if one king conquered too much territory then the other kingdoms would attack to cut them down to size again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I see this claim made all the time to justify Targaryen rule but I am not sure how true it is.

One of the claims that is made is that the continent was in a constant state of war all the time. If there were full scale wars going on all the time you would expect the continent to have been more depopulated. I think it's more likely that some of these 'wars' were just border raids vis-à-vis the border reavers in Scotland and England. I get the impression that the Targaryens came there were more frequent but smaller scale conflicts, and after they came there were less frequent larger scale conflicts.

Sone people also act like Westeros was a complete dump before the Targaryens came. If this were really the case I think more people would have just submitted to the Targaryen rule rather than resist or need to be coerced. The only people who straight up accept the Targaryens (aside from some crownlands houses (?)) with no sort of 'show of force' are the Riverlands, and that was to kick the Ironborn out, and the North, but we don't know exactly what happened there.

I'm not saying it was great, I just don't think it was quite as bad before as some people paint it. I think each 'era' had advantages and disadvantages. The Targaryens improved some things but brought their own issues.

Endless border skirmishing can be devastating for the locals.  Redesdale and Tynedale, and the borderlands of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, were almost depopulated by such fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was very bad for the commoners.  The "Great" Houses and their vassals were in a never ending fight with each other.  The commoners were always the losers.  Rules and laws were arbitrary and based on the religions as well as whims of the person in the ruling seat of each regions.  For those reasons and many more, the commoners cheered when the Targaryens conquered the little kingdoms, forced the little lords to bend their knees, and built the realm we know today as Westeros.  The Targaryens slowly made laws which benefitted the commoners and improved their lives.  For example, they ended the lord's right to rape brides on their wedding day, a savage custom but a cherished tradition in the North.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to depend on when you take your measure and where in the Seven Kingdoms you are. Around the time of the Conquest, we know of a major war involving the Stormlands and the Iron Islands, fought mostly in the Riverlands. One would also expect conflict in the Dornish Marches to decrease following the Conquest - although in reality this doesn't seem to have been borne out. 

It is also likely of course that the coast of Westeros became more secure as the conquest of the Iron Islands reduced their raiding. But the Iron Islands remain something of a weird anomaly anyhow. 

But some of the kingdoms may have defined their borders sufficiently well and firmly, and been sufficiently prosperous internally, that the Conquest made little difference to them: the Reach or the North might not have noticed much of a difference during Aegon's rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

See I think there was some sort of balance of power thing going on, and if Harren had tried to go any further other kingdoms would have stepped in to cut him down to size again. I mean for thousands of years no single one of the kingdoms had ever been able to dominate all the others and so I think there was some sort of equilibrium to be had.

That equilibrium is not necessarily for the good. It led to non-stop competition among the nobles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Endless border skirmishing can be devastating for the locals.  Redesdale and Tynedale, and the borderlands of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, were almost depopulated by such fighting.

Of course, but I think the overall damage would be less than endless wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. it was absolutely worse to be a peasant or even a minor noble in the Pre-Targ era.

In basic terms, if you were a peasant affected by war under Targ rule, you had more options for escape. Say, you were a Riverlander during the Dance, which was the worst war under the Targaryens, you had the chance to run to North (which is not affected by war but awaits winter) or Vale(which is ideal if you can run past the clans) or you could run to certain parts of the Reach, anywhere in Dorne, Stormlands or some parts of Crownlands. Now, imagine you were a Riverlander in Hoar wars and want to run. You must check if Starks and Boltons are not fighting in the North, check the situation in Dornish marches, check if there's some succession war in the Reach, or make sure you can run past the mountain clans... unfortunately due to lack of WiFi, you have to rely on your luck, close your eyes and RUN. 

Another development after the Conquest is the fact that you only have to worry about one person going asshole and irresponsible instead of 7, and even then, Dragon Trio made a Small Council to somewhat moderate the King's decisions, something that I doubt was the case with any of the Pre-Targ kingdoms. Sure, the council could be corrupted, but that's progress from nothing at all.

Then there's the excellent deal that kingdoms like the North, Reach, Westerlands, and Riverlands got out of the united kingdom right from the start: aid with the Winter situation, stability, less trouble from Ironborn, and protection from the rest of the realms. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

Dragon Trio made a Small Council to somewhat moderate the King's decisions

The Small Council doesn't really moderate the King's Decisions at all though. They can give him advice, but they can't stop him from doing whatever and the King can ignore them and do whatever he wants and fire them any time.

29 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

Say, you were a Riverlander during the Dance, which was the worst war under the Targaryens, you had the chance to run

You had a chance to run back then too. And all regions aside from the North and Dorne (I think) were affected by the Dance. Parts of Reach were burned as well, everyone in Bitterbridge got slaughtered. And running to the North and Dorne is going to be just as difficult as it was because you will still have to run through a warzone and then get through the Neck or desert.

30 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

check the situation in Dornish marches

If you were running in the Dance you'd still have to check the situation there as Dorne wasn't part of the Seven Kingdoms yet. And the situation in the marches is always precarious.

32 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

Another development after the Conquest is the fact that you only have to worry about one person going asshole and irresponsible instead of 7

Yes, but this one person is in a far stronger position than those seven, and if they go asshole then everyone suffers. Not just people in one or two kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Small Council doesn't really moderate the King's Decisions at all though. They can give him advice, but they can't stop him from doing whatever and the King can ignore them and do whatever he wants and fire them any time.

still better than nothing which was the case with Pre-Targ kingdoms.

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You had a chance to run back then too. And all regions aside from the North and Dorne (I think) were affected by the Dance. Parts of Reach were burned as well, everyone in Bitterbridge got slaughtered. And running to the North and Dorne is going to be just as difficult as it was because you will still have to run through a warzone and then get through the Neck or desert.

like I said there were more options after the Conquest . not ideal, but better.

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If you were running in the Dance you'd still have to check the situation there as Dorne wasn't part of the Seven Kingdoms yet. And the situation in the marches is always precarious.

that one's actually true. my bad. 

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, but this one person is in a far stronger position than those seven, and if they go asshole then everyone suffers. Not just people in one or two kingdoms.

well, is he? do you really think a Gardner King going asshole wasn't as bad as a Targaryen king going asshole? at least with the Targaryen several great houses could face the asshole instead of one Florent or Hightower against the Gardner. and even that is only when the asshole's small council and Hand couldn't send him off to his privy business and take the matters into their own hands, which was hardly the case for the Gardner or Stark or Durrendan or the rest. 

despite its flaws , the Targaryen rule was better than that of the 7 kingdoms(save for Dorne) . much like North is better off with Starks or Dorne was better off with Nymerya and Mors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EggBlue said:

well, is he? do you really think a Gardner King going asshole wasn't as bad as a Targaryen king going asshole? at least with the Targaryen several great houses could face the asshole

Yes but if the King of the Reach was really being an asshole then the neighbouring kings would probably step in. Or that King's vassals could go seek the support of another king.

1 minute ago, EggBlue said:

still better than nothing which was the case with Pre-Targ kingdoms.

But we don't know that the old kings didn't have advisors similar to the small council anyway. And when you get down to it the small council are just advisors, they don't limit the king's power in any way, so any king with advisors would have the same 'limits', so unless no pre-Conquest king had advisors I don't really see the difference in terms of their power being 'limited'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes but if the King of the Reach was really being an asshole then the neighbouring kings would probably step in. Or that King's vassals could go seek the support of another king.

and when a Targaryen king is being really an asshole his heirs or his lords step in. cases in point: Rhaegar attempting to depose Aerys. Laughing Storm rising against Aegon V (rightfully or otherwise). Aegon II's council killing him, Daemon Blackfyre rising against Daeron (rightfully or otherwise) , Jaeherys and lords rising against Maegor. not much difference there you see. 

28 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But we don't know that the old kings didn't have advisors similar to the small council anyway. And when you get down to it the small council are just advisors, they don't limit the king's power in any way, so any king with advisors would have the same 'limits', so unless no pre-Conquest king had advisors I don't really see the difference in terms of their power being 'limited'.

that's pretty much implied. the world book states Aegon's affairs and novel ideas in governance by the examples of giving his Queens exceptional power, appointing a person as Hand , Small Council, the Kingsgaurd and the King's Peace. it's pretty much implied that like position of the Hand , the Small Council was something new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...