Jump to content

Would an absolute monarchy work in Westeros?


Panos Targaryen

Recommended Posts

Forget the Seven Kingdoms and the nine provinces that are ruled loosely and indirectly by the Iron Throne through the Lords Paramount. Imagine if a king tried to weaken the nobility immensely, centralized everything, greatly extended the royal demesne, created a strong, standing royal army (like Joffrey wanted in the TV series), reduced the lords' men-at-arms, etc.



This also includes extending the government at the Red Keep and making it more bureaucratic, switching to a more modern-like tax system etc. to manage the whole kingdom directly, instead of merely the relations between the kingdoms of Westeros.



Not only would this give true power to the king in the Iron Throne, as opposed to the current system, where he has to be careful with displeasing the Lords all the time, and relying on them for military strength, it would also reduce rebellions, as no lord would be able to rebel. The king would be able to truly rule, enforce a common law throughout the land, and keep the nobles under better control, reducing corruption.



Of course, there are two barriers to this. Firstly, Westeros is huge. Running an entire continent directly, with weak local power would be extremely difficult, and would require a huge and very bureaucratic government, which would paradoxically weaken the king instead of making him "absolute". How can an absolute monarch rule the North, when it is 1 month away by horse? This, of course, could be solved by the Targs and their dragons.


The second is that a truly powerful and well-trained royal army would cost a lot of money, for their training, equipment etc, as Louis XIV found out, to his sorrow. This also isn't insurmountable, though.



Lots of people talk about the Seven Kingdoms splitting up in the end, but I think it would be pretty ironic if they became truly a single kingdom. With all the wars, rebellions and lords doing whatever the hell they want to do feudalism seems pretty dangerous. I suppose Westeros under the dragon-riding Targaryens could be considered an almost absolute monarchy, as they had the greatest military power over their subjects with their dragons, but they still allowed the lords a lot of independence and self-rule.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegon the Conqueror was an absolute monarch for the most part. The standing army he had was made up of Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes. If the GC joins Dany or Jon in the end, combined with the Unsullied and the dragons, the reigning monarch would have a standing army loyal only to the crown. They could also continue those traditions of the Unsullied (minus the castration, killing of puppies and infants) and GC as professional soldiers to ensure the monarchy has a professional, trained army at the ready.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I agree that the unsullied could continue but the Golden Company I'm not so sure about that, beyond this generation who's to replace those that fall in war or in times of peace once the wars are done to replace those that fell?

If they are to be professional soldiers and loyal only to the crown, who's going to pay them? well the crown of course but that's still an expenise that the realm can't afford and when time comes to recruit more soldiers you still would have to pick from those men from the different parts of the kingdom, unless you made it like a draft.

That when your number comes up you have to serve, or make it mandatory that one has to serve at least a certain amount of time. Yet that offers up more problems, training, feeding, clothing, weapons and horses. Those are expensive unless you have a deal with some of the regions that make the good steel, breed horses for war and regions that are known to be fertile. Such as the north could supply the horses for this standing army in for some favor or monetary fee to be agreed upon. Have the Iron Islands craft the war ships but use the Redwynes, Manderlys and uncouth Arryns to crew the ships. It's still a game of thrones only instead of war, its a war of wits and who is better at negation and getting the better deal.

It's still a balancing act of getting the nobles to embrace the new change but also trying to get something out of the deal, since they would be losing a considerable amount of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegon the Conqueror was an absolute monarch for the most part. The standing army he had was made up of Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes. If the GC joins Dany or Jon in the end, combined with the Unsullied and the dragons, the reigning monarch would have a standing army loyal only to the crown. They could also continue those traditions of the Unsullied (minus the castration, killing of puppies and infants) and GC as professional soldiers to ensure the monarchy has a professional, trained army at the ready.

My guess is that what he means is a monarchy more along the lines of Bourbon ("colonial-era") France, under Louis XIV and so on, as opposed to the feudal model. More modern, but not like the sort of parliamentary sort that England had developed.

Look at it this way - I think it is possible, with a few more developments. The system of control would have to be expanded, and a proper royal army and navy would have to be created. The great houses would have to be reduced in power too. There may also need to be a formal royal bureaucracy, and so on. Communications and transportation would have to be greatly improved. The maesters may grow more powerful, but less independent.

I'm not sure if this would be in any way different than an empire (such as imperial China) though. To rule an entire continent? Difficult is an understatement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it can be done with their technology and overall level of education. The war will weaken the Lords greatly and both Stannis and Daennerys strike me as leaders who can see themselves as absolute monarchs. But there are several issues:



Raven mail is a bonus, as it allows rapid communications, but it's not currently controlled by the monarchy.


The Royal bureaucracy requires educated men. Is there any sort of formal education system for rich commoners in Westeros? Littlefinger laid the base for a bureaucracy of commoners during his tenure as Master of Coin, so there is a certain amount of somewhat educated commoners, but we don't know if they are enough.


Military technology favors the defender, and only dragons or gunpowder will change that. If several major Lords rebel at once, execute the royal bureaucrats in their lands and withhold taxes and the Crown relies solely in the Royal Army, the Royal Army will be hard pressed to put down the revolt.


Money. All these things cost money, which requires higher (or new) taxes, better taxation or improving the productivity of the economy. Most likely, a combination of the three. None of the Westerosi High Lords or contenders of the Throne know nearly enough of this... except Littlefinger.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegon the Conqueror was an absolute monarch for the most part. The standing army he had was made up of Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes. If the GC joins Dany or Jon in the end, combined with the Unsullied and the dragons, the reigning monarch would have a standing army loyal only to the crown. They could also continue those traditions of the Unsullied (minus the castration, killing of puppies and infants) and GC as professional soldiers to ensure the monarchy has a professional, trained army at the ready.

They wouldnt be Unsullied then just regular soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest I can think of to an absolute monarchy, or the attempt at one on a scale approaching the size of Westeros would be Imperial Russia - that didn't work so well.

Also, absolute monarchy replaces lords with bureaucracy. There's just as much, if not more, opportunity for corruption and in-fighting. When I think about who would be most successful under such a system, Littlefinger immediately comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the history, geography and society precludes an absolute monarchy in Westeros. Even the Targaryens with their dragons couldn't pull it off.



I think they are more likely to take the English parliamentary route than anything else.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like having the English Parliament didn't cause troubles for the English monarchs?

Ever heard of when Parliament and the religious leaders of the country cut of the reigning monarchs head? I don't think Charles I of England has forgotten or his son Charles II whom spent a lot of his time wondering Europe to find someone to back him to reclaim his throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Westeros has the problem that unlike Early Modern Europe it's... really, really big.



Even at their height the European empires were mostly focused in a relatively tiny area of the globe, with most of their landmass being overseas and under some sort of colonial rule... such as a Viceroy. This in essence meant that even the most stereotypical Absolute Monarchs in France had direct rule over a relatively tiny area of their empire, with the colonies and protectorates not truly toeing the line so to speak. The only real empire we know of that had a comparable landmass was Imperial Russia, and even that analogy falls over rather quickly.



Imperial Russia was formed by the Rus peoples centered around modern day North-Western Russia. After the defeat and subjugation of the Steppe hordes (Tartars), the Russians swooped all the way to the Black Sea and then headed east, claiming practically empty lands and bringing what few tribal peoples existed there under their rule. The fact that Siberia was then... as it is now, practically a wasteland ensured that the Russians could settle there as they wished with relatively little opposition.



However Westeros is a truly ANCIENT land with already large and stretched kingdoms existing before Aegon's conquest. People have their customs and traditions, and royal lineages such as the Starks and Lannisters that have reigned for thousands of years. Even with Aegon having subjugated the entire continent, he simply does not have the power or authority to dismantle the age old customs that are already in place. A good example is how he converted to the Faith rather than attempting to enforce Valyrian faith on his new subjects. Any such attempt by Aegon would more than likely have resulted in hundreds of smaller scale rebellions and a land torn apart once more...



Aegon really did the only smart thing he could: Created a new higher title atop the already existing structure. It might not be the ideal model, but he (or the later Targaryens) really have no choice. Without faster transportation or communications ruling over a continental sized Empire is simply impossible.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM said only Aegon, Maegor, Aenys and Jaehaerys were absolute monarchs however from then on it was more autonomous (I may have spelled it wrong) amongst the lords and ladies

Sources? I don't think Jaehaerys was an absolute monarch, he had to call a Great Council of lords to decide who would succeed him, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would, Aegon left them divided, without really giving purpose to the Crown. A circuit court and a professional royal army should have been establish. Also keep the gold mines, seriously just letting the Lannisters keep all that gold made no form of sense.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep the gold mines, seriously just letting the Lannisters keep all that gold made no form of sense.

That one made never any sense to me either. I mean they had to bend to him in any case and the Crownlands just came to be because of him so why no take the mines? He's was clearly not above taking lands for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its much too big. The bureaucracy itself would have to be even larger than the ancient Chinese model.



A standing royal army would be a huge drain on resources. Especially if it was recruited, armed, and trained independent of the feudal lords(which it would almost have to, to remain neutrality).



It would all be worth it if we could see a French-style revolution followed by the rise of a Westerosi Napoléon though.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would, Aegon left them divided, without really giving purpose to the Crown. A circuit court and a professional royal army should have been establish. Also keep the gold mines, seriously just letting the Lannisters keep all that gold made no form of sense.

Why would the Targaryens create a professional army? They already had the dragons and those dragons will destroy pretty much any levies and household troops that are mustered against them unless the entire realm rises.

Also I would recon that the Targaryens opted for stability above everything else and with the sole possession of dragons there was little need for extra resources. Taxes from across the wealth would pay for what they wanted and the dragons would take care of any martial business. Also remember that starting to dismantle the feudal structure will turn all the lords against you, thus creating a massive series of rebellions that even the dragons - for once - might not be able to take down.

And once the dragons were gone, well, then the Targaryens didn't have power to start and re-arrange the political structure of Westeros without causing a civil war that they would be unable to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westeros is the size of South America.



The whole length of South America WAS ruled by an absolute monarchy. Without the benefit of raven mail. The writ of Madrid ran all the way to Chiloe, Buenos Aires and Manila.



How did Castile and Leon run all that?



Castile between 1300 and 1474 was very weak. Constant rebellions, civil wars, at least two usurpations.



Well, one usurper managed to increase the tax revenues of Castile almost 30 times in 30 years! Shows Littlefinger who increased revenues just 10 times... but he worked just 5 years for that. Specifically from 900 000 reales to 26 000 000 reales. What exactly is the rate of a dragon to a real? To a maravedi?



She, and her grandson and great-grandson, also recruited a judiciary. Audiencias were founded, along the length of South America, in:


Panama


Santa fe de Bogota


Quito


Lima


Charcas


Santiago de Chile



And a viceroy at Lima. The lower level, below audiencias, was corregidors.



Peninsular Castile had 5 audiencias - Valladolid, Granada, Seville, Galicia and also included in "mainland" was Canaries. The population of peninsular Castile was about 7 millions, and on the lower level there were about 70 corregidors.



Where did they come from? Well, while many corregidors were cloak and dagger nobility, later on most in peninsula were letrados. And all oidors were required to be letrados.



Catholic Kings did sometimes appoint people of peasant origin to letrado offices, and bourgeois too. A few higher nobles attended universities, too - but most of the personnel appointed by Spanish monarchy were hidalgos. For example Hernando Cortez was sent to Valladolid university, but dropped out in a couple of years - yet when he went to Haiti, he was appointed a notary of a city because these two years (and the education to get there) did set him above uneducated common soldiers. Well, the people sent after the conquistadors to try them were people who had stayed in university for 10+ years.



Some inconvenient features of the Citadel for Iron Throne are the celibacy requirement and the lack of Crown control over maester appointment. Well, Baelor managed to move High Septon from Oldtown to King´s Landing (the Septon was still at Starry Sept as of Dance). Maybe the next King can move te Citadel. Or open a competing university... Now that magic works better, pyromancers feel the effects and claim they used to be counsellors of kings before maesters.



What would be the effect of younger sons of lords and landed knights attending an university, and then being sent (like maesters) but by King not Citadel, to govern and try cases? Especially if they are NOT moving to be alone at mercy and service of some Lord, but have a Royal castle and guard/carrison of their own?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the Targaryens create a professional army? They already had the dragons and those dragons will destroy pretty much any levies and household troops that are mustered against them unless the entire realm rises.

Also I would recon that the Targaryens opted for stability above everything else and with the sole possession of dragons there was little need for extra resources. Taxes from across the wealth would pay for what they wanted and the dragons would take care of any martial business. Also remember that starting to dismantle the feudal structure will turn all the lords against you, thus creating a massive series of rebellions that even the dragons - for once - might not be able to take down.

And once the dragons were gone, well, then the Targaryens didn't have power to start and re-arrange the political structure of Westeros without causing a civil war that they would be unable to win.

To not making everything about their dragons. The Targs were going for the long run, a professional would have served very well in ending the Civil Wars sooner then later be it they would be trained and power would theirs. It would also make the Targs less dependent on Dragons and more options in dealing with resistance.

The Targs a established a new government and as such having the most money would have gone along way in dealing with foes. Keeps the land divided as it was weakened them when it came to power, the lords were considered to bare more loyalty then their kings. At best the Targs were no more then figure heads to the lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...