SeanF

In this case, it would have to be that there was a more attractive alternative to monarchy in the tale, which the bad guys in the tale were trying to prevent from coming into existence. I don't doubt that Martin is not a monarchist in real life. But within this world's parameters, I find monarchy preferable to aristocratic anarchy or slaver oligarchy.

I thought it was very much a case of "Caedite eos, novit enim Dominus qui sunt!" but I shall reread.

We've still got Bitterbridge to come, where Prince Daeron locks hundreds of people in a Sept and sets fire to it.

That’s true. It’s also why stories about the Vikings and Mongols are so popular. “I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed such sins, he would not have sent such a punishment as I!” Or, “man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies, to crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of their women.” Fantasy and historical fiction, with protagonists who leave burning cities and pyramids of human heads in their wake, will never not be popular.

I agree. A good ruler would be someone who does things like ending first night and giving rights to widows, or guaranteeing compensation for tenants who make improvements to their land, or restricting the use of capital punishment to murder and treason, and using royal judges to try such cases, or giving Kings Landing a borough council. Those are reforms that are achievable, rather than expecting a ruler to introduce liberal democracy.

I don’t think that a good ruler is one who rigidly upholds the status quo, either. It’s more that any sort of reform starts from the basis that these are the things that people believe.

One has to distinguish between two questions? What is the best type of government? What is the best type of government/ best ruler, within the parameters of this world? Those parameters are that anyone who matters politically thinks capital punishment and torture are legitimate; war is an acceptable means of settling disputes; sacking cities that fail to surrender timely is fair; pillaging enemies is standard operating practice; the world ought to be governed by people with the right bloodlines and:or wealth; same sex marriage is an absurdity; women are inferior to men; but, opinions do vary on slavery. You want a ruler who is both a lion and a fox.

I think the clear parallel in real life (although not one for one) is the way that the House of Wessex conquered Seven kingdoms, in order to create England. Only a handful of eccentrics would want to reinstate the heptarchy.

Braavos is actually more benign than medieval Venice, which was more like a parasite, that gradually converted allies into colonies, that ruled its colonies brutally, and traded in slaves. I agree that it’s model would not work for the seven kingdoms.

The Meereenese Blot essays come quite close to slavery apologism, IMHO (as did Benioff and Weiss). I far prefer the analysis of Steven Attwell’s Laboratory of Politics. Dany’s big mistake was not to start an uprising. It was trying to abort it that nearly sank free Meereen.

I think that even Bismarck would have struggled in Slavers Bay. Daenerys is better than average in this world. But the average standard is not high.

If we rule out 21st century liberal democracy as an anachronism in this world, the question is which system is the least bad? Probably, the mixed constitution of Braavos, combining elements of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy. Below that, ranks the feudal system of Westeros. Below that, the Ironborn, system of reaving and thraldom. Currently, the leader of the Ironborn is a serial rapist and black magician, who raped his own brothers. Below that, the free folk system, where the hardest bastards grab the possessions and women they desire. And at the bottom of the ocean, deep among the whaleshit, are the Eastern slaver oligarchs, who feed children and dwarves to wild beasts for fun, and force boys to strangle babies and puppies.

Do you think Martin is really endorsing chattel slavery, or the cultures of the free folk or Ironborn, as preferable to Westeros?

The Ironborn live by rape and pillage. The free folk live by rape and murder. Essos practices chattel slavery for 80% of the population. The Nights Watch is moribund. Given the alternatives, I’d take monarchy.

The paradox of Dany, as Stephen Attwell points out, is that she’s a bad conqueror, rather than a good one. She leaves people alive and in positions of power, who mean nothing but harm to her and the freedmen. A good ruler, in this world, does not shrink from violence. Jaehaerys I burned an invasion fleet to the waterline and cut the bloody cross in traitors. Dany’s failure (in ADWD) was to be insufficiently ruthless.

Likewise, Arya discovering that her own grandfather, not the Lannisters, burned a village to the ground and slaughtered the population.

The best that Westeros can realistically hope for is a Henry Tudor or Maria Theresa.

The system is undoubtedly shitty in Westeros, worse in most of Essos, and Slavers Bay is like Mordor. That said, I don’t read the protagonists of the tale as all being evil people trying to outwit each other (unlike, say, The First Law). And, someone has to be king or queen and/or exercise power. The world won’t transform into a liberal democracy overnight. It will only get better gradually, as a result of there being being in power people who are more enlightened than the norm of their times. It’s better to have a ruler who thinks that women are inferior to men, but still abolishes First Night, than one who adheres to the status quo. I reject totally the idea, that the show tried to peddle, that those who seek power do not merit it. That just entrenches hereditary privilege, where power is bestowed on the basis of bloodline.

Harming civilians is *the point* of the Western chevauchee. You seize the the livestock of the enemy, burn what you can’t carry off, with their homes, and kill any who resist. That enriches you, and leaves your enemies starving. However, the Lannisters were unquestionably worse, as well as aggressors.

Being condescending about the smallfolk is no great sin among her class (Sansa is no different, for example). The brutes are those who enjoy inflicting suffering on them, or are indifferent to their sufferings.

Yes, but even with absolute rulers, one can’t say that every sexual relationship they had with servants or minor nobility was exploitative. Even tyrants and genocidaires can be kind and loving to those they care about. It why war criminals are perfectly capable of fitting into peacetime society.

I’d add that the Stark soldiers *did* carry out plenty of atrocities in The War of the Five Kings (at least as we would define such things). They murdered civilians, they raped, and they pillaged. That’s simply the way of war, in this world. But, Robb and Catelyn remain much more attractive characters than their enemies.

Plenty of employers and employees have married/ had sex with each other, including myself and my wife. Again, it’s daft to call such relationships exploitative. They may be, but there’s no reason to believe that most are. Beria was a monster who raped and murdered women and girls of all ages, threatened their loved ones, and led an apparatus of terror. Rhaenyra is no such person.

Agreed, and I would add that it’s stupid to condemn sexual relationships merely because one party is richer/more powerful than the other. Billions of people have married up or down, since humans invented marriage.

Renaissance Italy seems to have been fairly relaxed about prominent noblewomen having extramarital affairs. The large number of children that were fathered by prominent clergy were actually valuable marriage partners for the natural children of the nobility.