The Blackfyre Rebellion - A Game of Thrones RP (OOC)

[Laurel]

A town/city is a significant source of income to the lord paramount in whose region it resides, in the form of beings hubs for trade, and there’s a lot of money to be made from import duties, port fees, warehousing fees, and other taxes. The Iron Throne gets its piece, of course. Maidenpool or Stony Sept would be good options for growth, if House Tully had more influence/power over their lords.

We don't really know much about city governance and economics work in Westeros. We know that city charters are a thing (because The World of Ice and Fire mentions that Fairmarket, Lord Harroway's Town and Saltpans where denied them), but what would be in such charters is not, to my knowledge, ever specified. We also know that Aerys II apparently raised and lowered tariffs on Oldtown, Lannisport and King's Landing according to his fancy, suggesting to me quite significant royal authority over chartered cities (if indeed these places have charters).

Going by medieval European customs from England and the HRE it was however the crown more so than the local nobles who benefitted from city developments. Chartered cities got some liberties to do their own things outside of the feudal system, replacing a local lord (or bishop) with their own, usually guild based, semi-democratic and meritocratic governance. The local lord might of course benefit from the growth that having a market and some industry might bring to his region but since he wouldn't directly benefit from tax and tariffs of the city (which would go directly to the crown), I would say the English and HRE case seem to suggest that the crown is (apart from the city itself of course) the principal beneficiary from the wealth of cities.

In the Westerosi case the mention of Aerys II's tariff policy also seem to suggest to me that the Iron Throne exercise quite a lot of influence over the cities. Though again it is highly speculative, since GRRM devotes little attention to the affairs of cities and Westeros appears to have no equivalent to the European medieval commune movement to temper its feudal nature.

For a realm the size of England or the HRE, I would agree. Given that Westeros is the size of South America, each kingdom is effectively England or the HRE to itself (several times over). Granted we don't know much about the function of cities, but we do know they are different in many ways (such as lords ruling over them rather than the limited self-government cities of England and the HRE had), and we know that feudalism has been stronger in Westeros (possibly due to its size) than in real life kingdoms for a longer period of time. Hence the existence of offices that are deputy-kings unto themselves (the Hands) and kings unto themselves (Wardens).

So while the crown would get its tithe, the clear beneficiary to any city that exists is the kingdom it resides in and its Lord Paramount. It's probably why no new cities arose under the Targaryens save for King's Landing; a riverlands with Maidenpool as a rival to the capital would divert more trade to the Trident and away from the Blackwater Rush, strengthening the Tullys at the expense of the Iron Throne.

As with Duskendale, the Targaryens weren’t interested in letting other cities “vie for trade with King’s Landing,” (WOIAF, p. 118) as the Iron Throne gets 100% of the income from King’s Landing trade and would get a smaller cut from any other lord’s port. In fact, if you look at Targaryen development policy - most noticeably the royal highways built by Jaehaerys I - the whole point is to route traffic through the capitol. Thus, the River Road abruptly turns south at Lord Harroway’s Town straight to King’s Landing, rather than continuing along the bank of the Trident to Maidenpool; Maidenpool in turn is on the Rosby road, so that you have to travel to King’s Landing before taking your goods anywhere important via roads.

So I think the story here is the weakness of the post-Draconic monarchy driving policy to favor the King’s personal income and thus the capitol. If the Targaryen monarchy was more of a genuine nation-state, you might well see the Kings doing more to promote economic development more widely. 

[Dragos Bee]

We don't really know much about city governance and economics work in Westeros. We know that city charters are a thing (because The World of Ice and Fire mentions that Fairmarket, Lord Harroway's Town and Saltpans where denied them), but what would be in such charters is not, to my knowledge, ever specified. We also know that Aerys II apparently raised and lowered tariffs on Oldtown, Lannisport and King's Landing according to his fancy, suggesting to me quite significant royal authority over chartered cities (if indeed these places have charters).

Going by medieval European customs from England and the HRE it was however the crown more so than the local nobles who benefitted from city developments. Chartered cities got some liberties to do their own things outside of the feudal system, replacing a local lord (or bishop) with their own, usually guild based, semi-democratic and meritocratic governance. The local lord might of course benefit from the growth that having a market and some industry might bring to his region but since he wouldn't directly benefit from tax and tariffs of the city (which would go directly to the crown), I would say the English and HRE case seem to suggest that the crown is (apart from the city itself of course) the principal beneficiary from the wealth of cities.

In the Westerosi case the mention of Aerys II's tariff policy also seem to suggest to me that the Iron Throne exercise quite a lot of influence over the cities. Though again it is highly speculative, since GRRM devotes little attention to the affairs of cities and Westeros appears to have no equivalent to the European medieval commune movement to temper its feudal nature.

For a realm the size of England or the HRE, I would agree. Given that Westeros is the size of South America, each kingdom is effectively England or the HRE to itself (several times over). Granted we don't know much about the function of cities, but we do know they are different in many ways (such as lords ruling over them rather than the limited self-government cities of England and the HRE had), and we know that feudalism has been stronger in Westeros (possibly due to its size) than in real life kingdoms for a longer period of time. Hence the existence of offices that are deputy-kings unto themselves (the Hands) and kings unto themselves (Wardens).

So while the crown would get its tithe, the clear beneficiary to any city that exists is the kingdom it resides in and its Lord Paramount. It's probably why no new cities arose under the Targaryens save for King's Landing; a riverlands with Maidenpool as a rival to the capital would divert more trade to the Trident and away from the Blackwater Rush, strengthening the Tullys at the expense of the Iron Throne.

As with Duskendale, the Targaryens weren’t interested in letting other cities “vie for trade with King’s Landing,” (WOIAF, p. 118) as the Iron Throne gets 100% of the income from King’s Landing trade and would get a smaller cut from any other lord’s port. In fact, if you look at Targaryen development policy - most noticeably the royal highways built by Jaehaerys I - the whole point is to route traffic through the capitol. Thus, the River Road abruptly turns south at Lord Harroway’s Town straight to King’s Landing, rather than continuing along the bank of the Trident to Maidenpool; Maidenpool in turn is on the Rosby road, so that you have to travel to King’s Landing before taking your goods anywhere important via roads.

So I think the story here is the weakness of the post-Draconic monarchy driving policy to favor the King’s personal income and thus the capitol. If the Targaryen monarchy was more of a genuine nation-state, you might well see the Kings doing more to promote economic development more widely. 

This makes sense, yes. So a Tully trying to get City Charters for his Market Towns would also be seen as 'wanting independence'.

[Lunas Legion]

IIRC given the Starks in this RP also asked for a city charter for White Harbour, one could also see asking for charters as a way to probe Targaryen power relatively subtly?

[Dragos Bee]

IIRC given the Starks in this RP also asked for a city charter for White Harbour, one could also see asking for charters as a way to probe Targaryen power relatively subtly?

Understood.

Honestly, though, I've been thinking and perhaps this RP isn't the best for me.

[Laurel]

IIRC given the Starks in this RP also asked for a city charter for White Harbour, one could also see asking for charters as a way to probe Targaryen power relatively subtly?

That is a good way of putting it, you are correct. Though not for White Harbor, it's already a city.

[Of the Quendi]

For a realm the size of England or the HRE, I would agree. Given that Westeros is the size of South America, each kingdom is effectively England or the HRE to itself (several times over). Granted we don't know much about the function of cities, but we do know they are different in many ways (such as lords ruling over them rather than the limited self-government cities of England and the HRE had), and we know that feudalism has been stronger in Westeros (possibly due to its size) than in real life kingdoms for a longer period of time. Hence the existence of offices that are deputy-kings unto themselves (the Hands) and kings unto themselves (Wardens).

So while the crown would get its tithe, the clear beneficiary to any city that exists is the kingdom it resides in and its Lord Paramount. It's probably why no new cities arose under the Targaryens save for King's Landing; a riverlands with Maidenpool as a rival to the capital would divert more trade to the Trident and away from the Blackwater Rush, strengthening the Tullys at the expense of the Iron Throne.

As with Duskendale, the Targaryens weren’t interested in letting other cities “vie for trade with King’s Landing,” (WOIAF, p. 118) as the Iron Throne gets 100% of the income from King’s Landing trade and would get a smaller cut from any other lord’s port. In fact, if you look at Targaryen development policy - most noticeably the royal highways built by Jaehaerys I - the whole point is to route traffic through the capitol. Thus, the River Road abruptly turns south at Lord Harroway’s Town straight to King’s Landing, rather than continuing along the bank of the Trident to Maidenpool; Maidenpool in turn is on the Rosby road, so that you have to travel to King’s Landing before taking your goods anywhere important via roads.

So I think the story here is the weakness of the post-Draconic monarchy driving policy to favor the King’s personal income and thus the capitol. If the Targaryen monarchy was more of a genuine nation-state, you might well see the Kings doing more to promote economic development more widely. 

I agree with you that a kingdom benefits from any city it might possess. Obviously. The lord ruling a city would presumably also benefit from any industry and commerce taking place within it. And places like Duskendale and Maidenpool could definitely divert trade away from King's Landing to the detriment of the Iron Throne which must surely receive a greater share of the trade income of its own city than more far away places run by intermediaries and underlings. But I doubt the Lord Paramounts would have much to gain. They after all would probably not receive taxes from the city, the one of their vassals owning it would. And the Iron Throne would as well. I don't think we can read Aerys' tariff policies any other way then that the Iron Throne is the primary, maybe even exclusive, tariff collecting authority in the Seven Kingdoms. The only thing I really see the Lord Paramount gain is that whichever of their vassal lords rules the city becomes richer and might therefore provide them with more troops. But that's hardly a risk free endeavor for the Lord Paramount.

[Lunas Legion]

For a realm the size of England or the HRE, I would agree. Given that Westeros is the size of South America, each kingdom is effectively England or the HRE to itself (several times over). Granted we don't know much about the function of cities, but we do know they are different in many ways (such as lords ruling over them rather than the limited self-government cities of England and the HRE had), and we know that feudalism has been stronger in Westeros (possibly due to its size) than in real life kingdoms for a longer period of time. Hence the existence of offices that are deputy-kings unto themselves (the Hands) and kings unto themselves (Wardens).

So while the crown would get its tithe, the clear beneficiary to any city that exists is the kingdom it resides in and its Lord Paramount. It's probably why no new cities arose under the Targaryens save for King's Landing; a riverlands with Maidenpool as a rival to the capital would divert more trade to the Trident and away from the Blackwater Rush, strengthening the Tullys at the expense of the Iron Throne.

As with Duskendale, the Targaryens weren’t interested in letting other cities “vie for trade with King’s Landing,” (WOIAF, p. 118) as the Iron Throne gets 100% of the income from King’s Landing trade and would get a smaller cut from any other lord’s port. In fact, if you look at Targaryen development policy - most noticeably the royal highways built by Jaehaerys I - the whole point is to route traffic through the capitol. Thus, the River Road abruptly turns south at Lord Harroway’s Town straight to King’s Landing, rather than continuing along the bank of the Trident to Maidenpool; Maidenpool in turn is on the Rosby road, so that you have to travel to King’s Landing before taking your goods anywhere important via roads.

So I think the story here is the weakness of the post-Draconic monarchy driving policy to favor the King’s personal income and thus the capitol. If the Targaryen monarchy was more of a genuine nation-state, you might well see the Kings doing more to promote economic development more widely. 

I agree with you that a kingdom benefits from any city it might possess. Obviously. The lord ruling a city would presumably also benefit from any industry and commerce taking place within it. And places like Duskendale and Maidenpool could definitely divert trade away from King's Landing to the detriment of the Iron Throne which must surely receive a greater share of the trade income of its own city than more far away places run by intermediaries and underlings. But I doubt the Lord Paramounts would have much to gain. They after all would probably not receive taxes from the city, the one of their vassals owning it would. And the Iron Throne would as well. I don't think we can read Aerys' tariff policies any other way then that the Iron Throne is the primary, maybe even exclusive, tariff collecting authority in the Seven Kingdoms. The only thing I really see the Lord Paramount gain is that whichever of their vassal lords rules the city becomes richer and might therefore provide them with more troops. But that's hardly a risk free endeavor for the Lord Paramount.

The hope would probably be that since the vassal's contract likely remains the same and they pay taxes to their liege lord to some degree, more wealth from city = vassal collects more taxes from city = vassal pays more tax to the liege lord, but ofc as one goes further up the chain of tax collecting benefits diminish and the risk that vassal grows too powerful becomes a major issue.

[Of the Quendi]

The hope would probably be that since the vassal's contract likely remains the same and they pay taxes to their liege lord to some degree, more wealth from city = vassal collects more taxes from city = vassal pays more tax to the liege lord, but ofc as one goes further up the chain of tax collecting benefits diminish and the risk that vassal grows too powerful becomes a major issue.

But do lords pay taxes to their overlords in the Seven Kingdoms? I am not so sure. I don't recall a single mention of any lord paying a more senior lord (or the Iron Throne) anything. During the series numerous people has rebelled against their overlords for all sorts of reasons, good or bad, but "the taxes are too high" is not a reason I recall having ever been offered by any rebel, which seems odd since if there is one thing nobles doesn't like its paying taxes. Surely then one of these rebels would have whined about it. Given the super-feudal nature of Westeros and an absence of any mention of taxation of lords I am inclined to think that if the lord's pay taxes its a minimal amount, maybe something like scutage where a lord only pays a tax if he doesn't want to go to war.

But Aerys apparently could, and did, get a lot out of his tariffs from the cities, and apparently did so without any middlemen (or at least none are mentioned), even though the cities in question was ruled by the vassals of his vassals.

[Lunas Legion]

The hope would probably be that since the vassal's contract likely remains the same and they pay taxes to their liege lord to some degree, more wealth from city = vassal collects more taxes from city = vassal pays more tax to the liege lord, but ofc as one goes further up the chain of tax collecting benefits diminish and the risk that vassal grows too powerful becomes a major issue.

But do lords pay taxes to their overlords in the Seven Kingdoms? I am not so sure. I don't recall a single mention of any lord paying a more senior lord (or the Iron Throne) anything. During the series numerous people has rebelled against their overlords for all sorts of reasons, good or bad, but "the taxes are too high" is not a reason I recall having ever been offered by any rebel, which seems odd since if there is one thing nobles doesn't like its paying taxes. Surely then one of these rebels would have whined about it. Given the super-feudal nature of Westeros and an absence of any mention of taxation of lords I am inclined to think that if the lord's pay taxes its a minimal amount, maybe something like scutage where a lord only pays a tax if he doesn't want to go to war.

But Aerys apparently could, and did, get a lot out of his tariffs from the cities, and apparently did so without any middlemen (or at least none are mentioned), even though the cities in question was ruled by the vassals of his vassals.

Fair enough.

Also after double-checking, given Baelish was able to appoint people loyal to him as harbourmasters and toll collectors across the realm directly, I'd say that it's almost certain that the Crown collects tarriffs directly and appoints the officials that do so.

[Yaruqo]

So it sounds like House Reyne controls the Master of Coin portfolio and they get to appoint the harbormasters and toll collectors…well, damn.

[Dragos Bee]

The hope would probably be that since the vassal's contract likely remains the same and they pay taxes to their liege lord to some degree, more wealth from city = vassal collects more taxes from city = vassal pays more tax to the liege lord, but ofc as one goes further up the chain of tax collecting benefits diminish and the risk that vassal grows too powerful becomes a major issue.

But do lords pay taxes to their overlords in the Seven Kingdoms? I am not so sure. I don't recall a single mention of any lord paying a more senior lord (or the Iron Throne) anything. During the series numerous people has rebelled against their overlords for all sorts of reasons, good or bad, but "the taxes are too high" is not a reason I recall having ever been offered by any rebel, which seems odd since if there is one thing nobles doesn't like its paying taxes. Surely then one of these rebels would have whined about it. Given the super-feudal nature of Westeros and an absence of any mention of taxation of lords I am inclined to think that if the lord's pay taxes its a minimal amount, maybe something like scutage where a lord only pays a tax if he doesn't want to go to war.

But Aerys apparently could, and did, get a lot out of his tariffs from the cities, and apparently did so without any middlemen (or at least none are mentioned), even though the cities in question was ruled by the vassals of his vassals.

Actually, in Fire and Blood, King Jaheareys I did tax luxury goods and the building + expansion of new castles.

[Laurel]

For a realm the size of England or the HRE, I would agree. Given that Westeros is the size of South America, each kingdom is effectively England or the HRE to itself (several times over). Granted we don't know much about the function of cities, but we do know they are different in many ways (such as lords ruling over them rather than the limited self-government cities of England and the HRE had), and we know that feudalism has been stronger in Westeros (possibly due to its size) than in real life kingdoms for a longer period of time. Hence the existence of offices that are deputy-kings unto themselves (the Hands) and kings unto themselves (Wardens).

So while the crown would get its tithe, the clear beneficiary to any city that exists is the kingdom it resides in and its Lord Paramount. It's probably why no new cities arose under the Targaryens save for King's Landing; a riverlands with Maidenpool as a rival to the capital would divert more trade to the Trident and away from the Blackwater Rush, strengthening the Tullys at the expense of the Iron Throne.

As with Duskendale, the Targaryens weren’t interested in letting other cities “vie for trade with King’s Landing,” (WOIAF, p. 118) as the Iron Throne gets 100% of the income from King’s Landing trade and would get a smaller cut from any other lord’s port. In fact, if you look at Targaryen development policy - most noticeably the royal highways built by Jaehaerys I - the whole point is to route traffic through the capitol. Thus, the River Road abruptly turns south at Lord Harroway’s Town straight to King’s Landing, rather than continuing along the bank of the Trident to Maidenpool; Maidenpool in turn is on the Rosby road, so that you have to travel to King’s Landing before taking your goods anywhere important via roads.

So I think the story here is the weakness of the post-Draconic monarchy driving policy to favor the King’s personal income and thus the capitol. If the Targaryen monarchy was more of a genuine nation-state, you might well see the Kings doing more to promote economic development more widely. 

I agree with you that a kingdom benefits from any city it might possess. Obviously. The lord ruling a city would presumably also benefit from any industry and commerce taking place within it. And places like Duskendale and Maidenpool could definitely divert trade away from King's Landing to the detriment of the Iron Throne which must surely receive a greater share of the trade income of its own city than more far away places run by intermediaries and underlings. But I doubt the Lord Paramounts would have much to gain. They after all would probably not receive taxes from the city, the one of their vassals owning it would. And the Iron Throne would as well. I don't think we can read Aerys' tariff policies any other way then that the Iron Throne is the primary, maybe even exclusive, tariff collecting authority in the Seven Kingdoms. The only thing I really see the Lord Paramount gain is that whichever of their vassal lords rules the city becomes richer and might therefore provide them with more troops. But that's hardly a risk free endeavor for the Lord Paramount.

Given the Targaryen lack of interest in developing cities, and the Lords Paramount acting as effective kings of their own kingdoms, I'll just have to agree to disagree. We don't see enough (or much of any) of things like Aerys' tariff policies for cities other than King's Landing, and instead see a focus to direct all possible trade through that city at the expense of other ports. As Lords Paramount collect taxes from their own feudal lords who do them services, such as those who control the cities, it's rather baseless to assume they don't gain taxes from them as well. Manderlys pay to the Starks, Hightowers to the Tyrells, Lannisters to the Lannisters, Graftons to the Arryns, and their overlords pay to the Iron Throne. One reason that feudalism developed was that there were not enough educated men to form an effective bureaucracy to collect taxes and implement the monarchs decrees. Since the King had no money but lots of land that was divided up among his vassals (who could then divide it further among their vassals) for them to control directly. It's strange that in a feudal system that entrusts the Wardens Cardinal with military control of vast territories, enforcing the king's peace across a continent, and features subinfeudation (vassals paying taxes and owing military services to their Lords Paramount), you think that taxes skip part of said feudal system. It's more likely goods are subject to royal customs and tariffs while the ruling house of a city pays taxes to its overlord.

Again, it's a continent sized union of several kingdoms with a rather weak feudal monarchy. We're not RPing another civil war for nothing.

[Yaruqo]

Hey OP, do you have an ETA on an IC? Nothing to stress about, just curious

[Acroticus]

Hey OP, do you have an ETA on an IC? Nothing to stress about, just curious

Well I've been trying to get the attention of our Martell player to do a joint opening post, but it appears we may have lost them. Our Baratheon app appears to be no longer incoming as well, so it may make sense to open both of those two up again.

[Laurel]

While we wait... I wonder who be the narrator for the Winds of Winter audiobook. Roy Dotrice was great, it was a shame to lose him. Liked Harry Lloyd's reading of the Hedge Knight, too.

[Dragos Bee]

Hey OP, do you have an ETA on an IC? Nothing to stress about, just curious

Well I've been trying to get the attention of our Martell player to do a joint opening post, but it appears we may have lost them. Our Baratheon app appears to be no longer incoming as well, so it may make sense to open both of those two up again.

Martells are open? Cool!

Dorne is one of my favorite parts of the setting!

[Acroticus]

Well I've been trying to get the attention of our Martell player to do a joint opening post, but it appears we may have lost them. Our Baratheon app appears to be no longer incoming as well, so it may make sense to open both of those two up again.

Martells are open? Cool!

Dorne is one of my favorite parts of the setting!

Well I've just opened Dorne back up, so you are free to apply if you want!

[Dragos Bee]

Martells are open? Cool!

Dorne is one of my favorite parts of the setting!

Well I've just opened Dorne back up, so you are free to apply if you want!

Thanks; note that I am still not sure.

[Of the Quendi]

Fair enough.

Also after double-checking, given Baelish was able to appoint people loyal to him as harbourmasters and toll collectors across the realm directly, I'd say that it's almost certain that the Crown collects tarriffs directly and appoints the officials that do so.

I didn't know that Baelish appointed people like that. Thats very interesting.

Actually, in Fire and Blood, King Jaheareys I did tax luxury goods and the building + expansion of new castles.

Right I forgot about those. These are however indirect taxes only, and at least the luxury taxes, if they are anything like RL medieval sumptuary laws, might actually serve the interests of the nobility. Direct taxation of the nobility is I think unheard of in the Seven Kingdoms with the exception of Maegor demanding tribute.

Given the Targaryen lack of interest in developing cities, and the Lords Paramount acting as effective kings of their own kingdoms, I'll just have to agree to disagree. We don't see enough (or much of any) of things like Aerys' tariff policies for cities other than King's Landing, and instead see a focus to direct all possible trade through that city at the expense of other ports. As Lords Paramount collect taxes from their own feudal lords who do them services, such as those who control the cities, it's rather baseless to assume they don't gain taxes from them as well. Manderlys pay to the Starks, Hightowers to the Tyrells, Lannisters to the Lannisters, Graftons to the Arryns, and their overlords pay to the Iron Throne. One reason that feudalism developed was that there were not enough educated men to form an effective bureaucracy to collect taxes and implement the monarchs decrees. Since the King had no money but lots of land that was divided up among his vassals (who could then divide it further among their vassals) for them to control directly. It's strange that in a feudal system that entrusts the Wardens Cardinal with military control of vast territories, enforcing the king's peace across a continent, and features subinfeudation (vassals paying taxes and owing military services to their Lords Paramount), you think that taxes skip part of said feudal system. It's more likely goods are subject to royal customs and tariffs while the ruling house of a city pays taxes to its overlord.

Again, it's a continent sized union of several kingdoms with a rather weak feudal monarchy. We're not RPing another civil war for nothing.

You seem very certain that the lords pay taxes to the lords paramounts, what are you basing that on? I don't recall any mention of that being the case and I have some trouble imagining it being the case given how independent most of these people seem to be of any higher authority. I have great trouble imagining someone like Walder Frey forking over significant sums to the Tully's. Especially without complaining about it.

By contrast we do see the Iron Throne raising taxes on people outside their own domain. The tariff is one, but the luxury and castle taxes Dragos Bee mentions is another. The efficacy of these might be limited outside of King's Landing. Edwell Celtigar's port fees were apparently ignored in Lannisport and Oldtown. But they are still there, we can't just ignore that fact.

[Laurel]

You seem very certain that the lords pay taxes to the lords paramounts, what are you basing that on?

Stuff from the books. Actually just listened to this chapter, and for example the implication is that lords pay taxes to their overlords. I don't understand why you would find that hard to believe, especially with the sheer scale we're discussing. Do you believe this is another level of Westeros' bastard feudal system that is being skipped?

His lord father had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said. "Even the promise of land will not lure men north with a winter coming on."

- A Storm of Swords, Jon V

By contrast we do see the Iron Throne raising taxes on people outside their own domain. The tariff is one, but the luxury and castle taxes Dragos Bee mentions is another. The efficacy of these might be limited outside of King's Landing. Edwell Celtigar's port fees were apparently ignored in Lannisport and Oldtown. But they are still there, we can't just ignore that fact.

We do, probably because it's something that is easier to control than trying to individually levy the taxes for every petty lordship across a continent. From what I can see, House Targaryen seemed to rely almost exclusively on indirect taxation: port and entry fees, luxury imposts on items like silk, fine armor, taxes to crenellate or fortify, etc. There's virtually no mentions of actual direct taxation on property or income, and those references I did find seemed tied only to urban dwellings.

So it could be size and cultural clashes that prevent the Targaryens from applying direct taxes. What about their royal lands? Well, there aren't any occasions in the books that talk about income from royal estates. And the Targaryens didn't seem interested in building up their landed based, just keeping the Crownlands instead of annexing rich areas like Harrenhal for their own incomes. Even within said Crownlands, it's not certain how much of those lands are actually royal lands as there are vassal lords controlling their own territories. Outside of a handful of places (Dragonstone, Summerhall, Pennytree) there are next to no royal holdings providing income.

In light of difficulties suggested in the Targaryens managing direct incomes, it makes sense they'd rely on their Lords Paramount (in whom they invest powers rarely given to lords historically) to act as another level in taxation as they do in providing military service. And of course, rely on an easier to maintain bureaucracy of port officials for those taxes and tariffs to otherwise bolster their incomes. I mean this is a realm lacking in royal courts and handing out the right of pits and gallows to its meanest lords, when historically kings sought to implement royal courts to bolster their authority/power through the extension of royal justice. The point was to diminish the power of lords and provide a connection from subjects to sovereign.

Anyway, tl;dr it's a weak monarchy working to hold together several kingdoms. It couldn't even stop the Celtigars from trying to wrest taxes out of the lords of Crackclaw Point. So yeah, I would say given the supplied quote it's reasonable that taxes are tiered like military service.