How do you centralize the 7 kingdoms

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

While I agree that the ability to tax and finance is important, I claim a necessary step is to weaken the power of the feudal lords, in particular the ability to raise personal armies. Simply supporting the merchants won´t be enough to weaken the nobles by itself since they own vast lands and fortunes and have the ability to maintain a feudal grip simply by being there (and as pointed out above, they wont sit idle). No government can exist without supreme force of arms.

Another problem is that there rarely is a consent about collecting taxes from someone. Just look on the society today and the lack of willingness to provide for extra security and better courts. After all - everyone always think they pay "too much already" and that this should already be included. In fact, I would argue that it is far easier for a complete monster to collect taxes - after all, everyone knows what will happen if you don´t pay.

What the crown needs to do is rather to increase the land it controls directly (Dany or Aegon taking direct control over Stormlands is an excellent idea since this time they can get away with it if they win) and gain access to the means of production rather than assist a economical group without the same military muscle to do the work for them. Not that a trade-state can´t work, but if you work that way you will at best have merchant families instead of nobles, no more centralization and still be in pretty much the same boat,

 

Ok, you don't get the ability to have a standing professional army until you can pay for them. And you must be able to pay for them for a long time.

Sure nobody likes to pay taxes. But, some may be more palatable than others. You are a merchant in KL. The monarch says  "I would like you to pay taxes so I can build a cathedral to myself, so people may be reminded that I was TPTWP, AA, and just downright  the bestus Khaleesi ever, for generations to come". Or the monarch says, "I would like you to pay more taxes because I would like to build a better navy and to provide better royal courts".  I think most rational people would be more likely to consent to number two as those are public goods that would be hard for a private actor to provide for themselves. And of course, if the monarch says he would like to tax you to pay for better courts and a navy, his statements have to be credible. If the monarch is free to do as he pleases, his statements may not be as credible.

And a monster might be able to collect taxes. But, there is no guarentee how that monster might spend the funds. Or how is progeny may act. So tax evasion is more likely. And you wouldn't want to lend to a monster who is likely to fuck you over.

And trying to manage land holdings directly probably would require a centralized bureaucracy which would probably cost money and be hard to manage. A big reason feudalism even started in the first place was because the inability of governments to raise funds to pay for things.

[Protagoras]

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Ok, you don't get the ability to have a standing professional army until you can pay for them. And you must be able to pay for them for a long time.

Sure nobody likes to pay taxes. But, some may be more palatable than others. You are a merchant in KL. The monarch says I would like you to pay taxes so I can build a cathedral to myself, so people may be reminded that I was TPTWP, AA, and just downright  the bestus Khaleesi ever, for generations to come. Or you the monarch says I would like you to pay more taxes because I would like to build a better navy and to provide better royal courts.  I think most rational people would be more likely to consent to number two as those are public goods that would be hard for a private actor to provide for themselves. And of course, if the monarch says he would like to tax you to pay for better courts and a navy, his statements have to be credible. If the monarch is free to do as he pleases, his statements may not be credible as credible.

And a monster might be able to collect taxes. But, there is no guarentee how that monster might spend the funds. Or how is progeny may act. So tax evasion is more likely. And you wouldn't want to lend to a monster who is likely to fuck you over.

And trying to manage land holdings directly probably would require a centralized bureaucracy which would probably cost money and be hard to manage. A big reason feudalism even started in the first place was because the inability of governments to raise funds to pay for things.

Sure, but the nobles can pay for them for a long time or, at the bare minimum, support it with food from the vast estates as well as plundering your enemies.

While rational people surely would pay more taxes for suggestion 2 than 1 I bet my ass on that most of them would prefer to pay taxes for neither. 

I for certain would as an individual in Westeros risk tax evasion much more if my leader was benevolent and kind. I wont get punished as hard if he/she find out, but if Ramsay Bolton shows up at my door I wouldn't try to avoid paying a single coin. 

While holding many areas is tough, my knowledge of history is that the soldiers are the big thing to avoid feudalism. I live in Sweden and we avoided feudalism much as I understand it because one farmer was also one soldier and made it hard for nobles to take control over large areas and swear too many people to you. In theory - no King gave any land to any nobleman, but instead they had to prove that they could gather soldiers to get tax benefits. In many cases, the nobility grew from wealthier or more powerful members of the peasantry, those who were capable of assigning work or wealth to provide the requisite cavalrymen but even those could not create own laws because they werent powerful enough. 

Look, I think I know what you are trying to say, but what your model seems to do is giving trade families the same power nobles in Westeros have today. I see no centralization but only another group having the means to create their own laws exactly the same way. An absolute government migth be wasteful, but we were talking about centralization - not efficiency.  Maybe I am missing something and maybe monarchy can give sufficient centralization without absolutism, but I fail to see how your counter suggestion can work in a feudalistic time setting without creating something similar but merchants instead of nobles wielding the exact same power as nobles to in Westeros. 

 

[Myself656]

I don't think you can centralize Westeros, because what you're trying to create is a wholly artificial construct.

If centralizing everything actually worked we'd have been living in a one-world government mono-culture already because people have been trying to build such a thing since the dawn of history... and it always, ALWAYS, collapses under its own weight inside of a couple of centuries.

For example, people today like to think of Egypt as some vast continuous rule of the Pharaohs for millennia, but it was actually 31 separate dynasties that lasted, on average, about a century each (mean of just 103 years... roughly four generations before being overthrown or replaced) and there were periods of hundreds of years where the region was fractured (usually upper vs. lower Egypt), periods where the Pharaoh was extremely weak and even periods where they were ruled by external conquerors.

Similarly, the actual Roman Empire reached its peak after only 130 years (around A.D. 117), went through a whole series of unrelated imperial dynasties and had to be split in two just to try and manage it all. It could only maintain loyalty of the people via services paid for by its ever expanding conquests; as soon as those stalled it was all downhill from there.

Even with relatively modern technology the Soviet Union collapsed in less than a century and China is going through radical internal transformations that would make it practically unrecognizable to Mao. Heck, the United States can barely hold itself together with the disparity between the cultural values of the Coasts, Midwest, South and Mountain states and is facing ballooning debt and cultural crises even as its never had a stronger centralized government. The United States reach its maximum landmass size within 150 years of its founding.

Human beings just don't organize well beyond a certain point and not at all without some common cultural element to rally around (a religion, shared ancestry or what have you). The reason feudalism (and similar systems) actually worked so well is because it works in accord with that reality.

A common man pledges himself to a warrior they know personally who in turn promises to protect them. That warrior then pledges to a lord whom they know personally to follow him, in exchange for the lord providing protection beyond what the warrior can provide on his own... and on up the chain it goes. The result is very decentralized, with each high lord, lord and warrior delegating authority and allowing each region to mostly manage its own affairs in accord with its own local customs.

Medieval Europe was relatively politically stable for nearly a thousand years under feudalism with very weak kings... only once it started to centralize again (kings seizing more power at the expense of the local lords) the respective nations peaked and then collapsed into some other form of government.

Feudalism is basically a slightly more formal version of the band/clan/tribe system of many pre-agrarian societies... which worked for most of human history to keep us from wiping each other out.

* * * *

Basically, trying to centralize the government always fails and leads to no end of misery for those who aren't at the top of the heap (and they're usually only at the top for a couple hundred years before someone takes them out). Westeros was better off divided into seven distinct kingdoms along socio-cultural lines. Then the Targaryans frakked it all up with vastly superior firepower they were unable to sustain and now everyone has delusions of trying to rule it all instead of letting the inevitable natural fracturing occur.

You know what would have saved Westeros all the endless grief of the War of Five Kings? If instead of declaring himself King, Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn had instead disbanded the union forced on them by the Targaryans and let the Seven Kingdoms go their separate ways.

With no Kingsguard Jaime would have had to return to Casterly Rock to become its Lord in waiting and Robert would have returned to Storm's End with Cersei, putting an end to the twincest and the succession crisis it caused (and even if there was such a crisis it would have been a regional affair involving just the Stormlands).

Jon Arryn would have returned to the Vale as its king and Lyssa would be kept out of proximity to Littlefinger, who'd have been stuck as a minor lord on the Fingers well away from any chance for schemes involving Lyssa, Cat or Sansa.

Finally, without the cultural stresses of the forced union under the Iron Throne creating unrest, the prospect of somehow returning a Targaryan to the rule of all Seven Kingdoms would have been stillborn and all the schemes and backstabbing and chaos induced would not have come to pass.

Of course, then we wouldn't have the epic conflict we do in the story, but in terms of final resolutions I think some sort of decentralizing of Westeros is going to be the healthiest outcome.

Perhaps that's even what the prophecy "The Dragon Must Have Three Heads" means? Perhaps it means that one ruler cannot control all of Westeros and it needs to be split into three separate kingdoms (much like Rome was split into the Eastern and Western Roman Empire) in order to survive and prosper.

[OldGimletEye]

On 1/25/2016 at 9:44 AM, Protagoras said:

Sure, but the nobles can pay for them for a long time or, at the bare minimum, support it with food from the vast estates as well as plundering your enemies.

While rational people surely would pay more taxes for suggestion 2 than 1 I bet my ass on that most of them would prefer to pay taxes for neither. 

I for certain would as an individual in Westeros risk tax evasion much more if my leader was benevolent and kind. I wont get punished as hard if he/she find out, but if Ramsay Bolton shows up at my door I wouldn't try to avoid paying a single coin. 

While holding many areas is tough, my knowledge of history is that the soldiers are the big thing to avoid feudalism. I live in Sweden and we avoided feudalism much as I understand it because one farmer was also one soldier and made it hard for nobles to take control over large areas and swear too many people to you. In theory - no King gave any land to any nobleman, but instead they had to prove that they could gather soldiers to get tax benefits. In many cases, the nobility grew from wealthier or more powerful members of the peasantry, those who were capable of assigning work or wealth to provide the requisite cavalrymen but even those could not create own laws because they werent powerful enough. 

Look, I think I know what you are trying to say, but what your model seems to do is giving trade families the same power nobles in Westeros have today. I see no centralization but only another group having the means to create their own laws exactly the same way. An absolute government migth be wasteful, but we were talking about centralization - not efficiency.  Maybe I am missing something and maybe monarchy can give sufficient centralization without absolutism, but I fail to see how your counter suggestion can work in a feudalistic time setting without creating something similar but merchants instead of nobles wielding the exact same power as nobles to in Westeros. 

 

If time were not a variable, then somebody like Ramsay Bolton might be an optimal revenue maximizer.

But time is a variable, and unless your from Astapor, you'd likely think about your future. If you knew that an unchecked Ramsay Bolton was in your future, you would probably less likely to loan money to the monarchy. If you knew that an unchecked Ramsay Bolton might be in your future be cautious in your future plans. There would be little point in doing a whole bunch of work, just to have Ramsay take it all the way.

And then of course, there is the fact that Ramsay would probably spend all the money on buying new dogs to terrorize peasant girls. Not exactly an efficient use of tax funds. People like Ramsay would waste resources on bullshit making the country poorer in the long run.

People like Joffrey, Ramsay, and Aerys make planning and investment a more risky endeavor. They make lending to the monarchy more risky. That's probably the reason Tywin just decided to pay the IB off, rather than going with Aerys cuckoo plan to start a war with Braavos. Aerys might have been the dragon, but nobody likes lending to a deadbeat dragon.

The point is that people like Ramsay do not help to strengthen the centralized state in the long run. They in fact damage it. And, again, there is empirical evidence in the real world that absolutist states do not tax as well or finance as well as non absolutist states. Because in absolutist states, the Ramsay's of the world, impose much greater risk on people.

And I think you are missing a key point. The intended spending plans of an absolutist ruler are not as credible as one whose spending decisions are constrained. If a ruler's intended spending plans are made credible because there is a body to monitor his spending, then people are more likely to grant tax revenues to the ruler. If a ruler says "pay me so I can build roads" and he is an absolutist ruler, there is less reason to trust that he will in fact use the funds to build roads.

And then of course, there is the plain old fact that you might decide that you are better off fighting Ramsay than paying him.

I think you are under the impression that absolutism is a necessary pre-condition to centralization. I do not think this necessarily correct. It's true that in some countries absolutism came first, then more limited forms of government came later.

But, I do not think this proves what you think it does. The rise of absolutism is just as likely to arise because monarchs would prefer to maximize their own political power, rather than to work with any institution that might help to coordinate decision making.

So for, instance, the monarchs of France, rarely called the estates general, even though the estates general could help them raise revenues because making use of the estates general might limit the monarch's political power and because the estates general might impose conditions upon how the funds are spent. Accordingly, from the French monarch's perspective it just better to raise funds where he can, and not call the estates general, and spend on what he pleases, which might have little benefit for France.

Because monarchs are probably like to try to maximize their own political power, at the expense of institutions that could make the centralizing easier and stronger, I think it's a bit silly to blame Westeros' lack of centralization on those bad old Starks or those bad old Martells, because heaven forbid somebody not being too keen on some dragon ridin freakshow coming to their country and telling them how things are going to be done.

In GRRM's Westeros, the Targaryen's rarely made use of the Great Council. This historical fact in Westeros is probably due to GRRM's knowledge of how monarchs operated. And once you start to kind of understand a monarch's incentive structure, it makes sense they wouldn't want to call something like the Great Council often.

Finally, I think it's a bit odd that you mention Sweden in order to make the case for absolutist rule. I'm no expert on the development of the Swedish state, but it's my general understanding that absolutism, in Sweden, mainly appeared during the rule of Charles XI and then was promptly done away with after the death of Charles XII. Absolutism seemingly didn't last long in Sweden.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

You don't.

But you can centralize Dorne (that might be the easiest), the North (more difficult due to its size), the Vale... and yes, you'll need bureaucracy as well as grant much more freedom to operate (and the security to do so, ie proper laws) to the merchant and manufacturer class, as these are the ones who would need and want a centralized state.

[Jaak]

On 25.1.2016 at 6:08 AM, OldGimletEye said:

 If you believe that main impediment to centralization lay in fiscal constraints, upon the central government, then there is both empirical and theoretical considerations that seems to indicate that representative governments do better in raising revenue than absolutist ones. The simple explanation would seem to be that absolutist monarchs are simply not trusted to spend their funds wisely. Accordingly, nobody is eager to give them money.

16th century empirical observation was that the rulers who did not call representatives at all (France 1484-1560) or who allowed them little actual control over policy (Henry VII and VIII of England, Isabel, Carlos and Felipe of Castile) did better at raising taxes than German emperor or Polish king, constrained by strong parliaments.

[TimJames]

On 12/12/2015 at 1:41 PM, Orphalesion said:

But that's the thing. The aristocracy did nothing, because they were completely absorbed into their fantasy world at Versailles. A noble's land was not his land and people anymore, but just some resource that paid for his lifestyle in Versailles. It's easier to starve your peasants to death if you don't see them.

Not that feudal lords always cared about their peasants, but that's a whole other topic.

On enlightenment...yeah that's true, its very unlikely to happen in Westeros anytime soon, especially with the way the Citadel works.

I already explained how I (as King) would implement Bread and Circuses. If the peasants are distracted and fed, then they won't be desperate enough to revolt. 

Even if Bread and Circuses don't work, I'll supplement them with a secret police that will bump off anyone who looks like a rabble-rouser. 

[Cinderblocks]

When I was a teenager playing Civ and Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings ruling vast kingdoms seemed pretty straightforward to me.

Since then I've considered designing a game where your designs are limited by travel time, untrustworthy agents, and enemies that will actually end your game if you overstep and get yourself assassinated.  Then I realized I wouldn't even want to play that.

Point being, it would require a gamer's audacity and disregard for self preservation to make the series of gambles necessary to form an empire or to centralize it.  And its not enough for you to do it, your successors have to too. 

[Protagoras]

On 2016-01-26 at 5:43 PM, OldGimletEye said:

If time were not a variable, then somebody like Ramsay Bolton might be an optimal revenue maximizer.

But time is a variable, and unless your from Astapor, you'd likely think about your future. If you knew that an unchecked Ramsay Bolton was in your future, you would probably less likely to loan money to the monarchy. If you knew that an unchecked Ramsay Bolton might be in your future be cautious in your future plans. There would be little point in doing a whole bunch of work, just to have Ramsay take it all the way.

And then of course, there is the fact that Ramsay would probably spend all the money on buying new dogs to terrorize peasant girls. Not exactly an efficient use of tax funds. People like Ramsay would waste resources on bullshit making the country poorer in the long run.

People like Joffrey, Ramsay, and Aerys make planning and investment a more risky endeavor. They make lending to the monarchy more risky. That's probably the reason Tywin just decided to pay the IB off, rather than going with Aerys cuckoo plan to start a war with Braavos. Aerys might have been the dragon, but nobody likes lending to a deadbeat dragon.

The point is that people like Ramsay do not help to strengthen the centralized state in the long run. They in fact damage it. And, again, there is empirical evidence in the real world that absolutist states do not tax as well or finance as well as non absolutist states. Because in absolutist states, the Ramsay's of the world, impose much greater risk on people.

And I think you are missing a key point. The intended spending plans of an absolutist ruler are not as credible as one whose spending decisions are constrained. If a ruler's intended spending plans are made credible because there is a body to monitor his spending, then people are more likely to grant tax revenues to the ruler. If a ruler says "pay me so I can build roads" and he is an absolutist ruler, there is less reason to trust that he will in fact use the funds to build roads.

And then of course, there is the plain old fact that you might decide that you are better off fighting Ramsay than paying him.

I think you are under the impression that absolutism is a necessary pre-condition to centralization. I do not think this necessarily correct. It's true that in some countries absolutism came first, then more limited forms of government came later.

But, I do not think this proves what you think it does. The rise of absolutism is just as likely to arise because monarchs would prefer to maximize their own political power, rather than to work with any institution that might help to coordinate decision making.

So for, instance, the monarchs of France, rarely called the estates general, even though the estates general could help them raise revenues because making use of the estates general might limit the monarch's political power and because the estates general might impose conditions upon how the funds are spent. Accordingly, from the French monarch's perspective it just better to raise funds where he can, and not call the estates general, and spend on what he pleases, which might have little benefit for France.

Because monarchs are probably like to try to maximize their own political power, at the expense of institutions that could make the centralizing easier and stronger, I think it's a bit silly to blame Westeros' lack of centralization on those bad old Starks or those bad old Martells, because heaven forbid somebody not being too keen on some dragon ridin freakshow coming to their country and telling them how things are going to be done.

In GRRM's Westeros, the Targaryen's rarely made use of the Great Council. This historical fact in Westeros is probably due to GRRM's knowledge of how monarchs operated. And once you start to kind of understand a monarch's incentive structure, it makes sense they wouldn't want to call something like the Great Council often.

Finally, I think it's a bit odd that you mention Sweden in order to make the case for absolutist rule. I'm no expert on the development of the Swedish state, but it's my general understanding that absolutism, in Sweden, mainly appeared during the rule of Charles XI and then was promptly done away with after the death of Charles XII. Absolutism seemingly didn't last long in Sweden.

I think we are talking past eachother here and I also think that you and I (again) simply are to much apart to gain some kind of intersubjectivity.

First, I am sceptical on your claim that absolutist governments get less money. Jaak made an excellent counterpoint to this.

But one of my two points here is that while I agree that absolute governments are wasteful (But the advantage is that you have some efficiency from the fact that in a monarchy, the ruler has more time to apply his policy because he will not be replaced unless he dies or is forced to resign) they are also very centralized. The OP was after all "How do you make westeros centralized as posible for a medival kingdom?". I define centralization as a concentration of power so yeah, those "bad old families" are by refusing to bow down to a central authorithy working against centralization (You might think that centralization is morally wrong, but that is not the topic in the first place). It also doesnt matter if the monarch use institutions or not - concentrated power regardless of method means more centralization. You said it yourself - monarchs like to maximize their own political power. Sounds like centralization to me since the power gets concentrated.

Secondly, while not my subject, I believe that in order to evolve a feudalistic society towards a modern democracy you need to follow the same steps (roughly) as Europe have done - that is Feudalism - Monarchy - Absolute monarchy - Critizism of said monarch - Protoliberalism - Socialism - Socialism/liberalism mixture. Now, I am more of a philosopher than a political analysist/historian but your counter-suggestion in supporting the merchants don´t hold for me since as I recall it many Italian states did this and ended up with no more centralization nor freedom compared to an monarch. I also see less risk of war and other harmful processes - the king is legitimate because the royal state and his ancestors managed to build the country compared to merchants who only have money as basis for their rule. I am willing to discuss the amount of absolutism needed, but a strong Monarchy I see as a must.

So, in order to create a "Better Westeros tomorrow" we need to destroy feudalism in its roots, centralize and have some absolutism that later can be torn down for more liberalism. This requires more than just financial reforms and according to me the main obstacle is the soldiers every feudal ruler can muster that needs to be under direct control. You want to do the protoliberalistic step now, without a strong foundation for the Westerosi kingdom and I am sceptical it will work. My example with Sweden is to point out a successful way of curb feudalism before it even started with monarchy and then later to remove the absolutism when feudalism is dead (otherwise it just reverts back to a decentralized structure I think) and gone for certain and then open up to some liberalism. Sure, there might be possible to do this without absolutism and just a strong monarchy, but then again - the question was "How do you make westeros centralized as posible". However, I very much admit that this is not my area of expertise.

And Yes, this is one of the (many) reasons I cheer for a Targaryen. The current structure is harmful and will make Westeros the bitch of Essos in the longer future. Hell, Braavos have the Arsenal - time to start working like immediately.

[Jaak]

10 hours ago, Protagoras said:

First, I am sceptical on your claim that absolutist governments get less money. Jaak made an excellent counterpoint to this.

To expand on this: a classical example of representative taxing body was Parliament of England. But look at 18th century Europe. There were three "free" kingdoms with strong Parliaments. Great Britain was heavily taxed and strong state. Poland, an anarchy. Sweden of Age of Liberties, 1718-1772, was in between, but rather on the weak side. English Parliament was the exception, not the rule.

10 hours ago, Protagoras said:

But one of my two points here is that while I agree that absolute governments are wasteful (But the advantage is that you have some efficiency from the fact that in a monarchy, the ruler has more time to apply his policy because he will not be replaced unless he dies or is forced to resign)

There are alternatives to this advantage...

10 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I define centralization as a concentration of power so yeah, those "bad old families" are by refusing to bow down to a central authorithy working against centralization (You might think that centralization is morally wrong, but that is not the topic in the first place).

Compare Germany. First Reich did not centralize because of strong princes resisting the Emperor. But those princes themselves centralized quite well - Kingdom of Prussia became a strong centralized state.

So, could Casterly Rock build up centralized Westerlands inside decentralized Westeros?

10 hours ago, Protagoras said:

It also doesnt matter if the monarch use institutions or not - concentrated power regardless of method means more centralization.

Institutions as such are vital. Not necessarily representative institutions. Rather, permanently standing government. Look at the previous arguments about a monarch having time to carry out policies. Institutions have even more time.

Compare Sunspear against Winterfell.

At Sunspear, Arianne makes a roll call of her government. Castellan Manfrey Martell. Seneschal Ricasso. Treasurer Alyse Ladybright, to whom bailiffs (plural) report. Justiciars (plural, unnamed).

Winterfell is a power vacuum the moment a Stark departs on business. Eddard rides? Steward Vayon Poole and Captain of Guard Jory Cassel leave with him and have no replacement. Then Robb rides? Hallis Mollen again leaves with him - leaving Winterfell with no known castellan (Ser Rodrik Cassel is not yet back!) and no captain of guards this time. Ironborn raid? Ser Rodrik leaves his post and again leaves no castellan.

So, to centralize Westeros: create permanent offices. Castellan of Winterfell who stays put until replaced. Captain of Guards, ditto.

AND make offices that are actually relevant to North outside Winterfell. Like a treasurer who sits in Winterfell receiving taxes and account irrespective of where the Lord with his personal retinue and its steward may go. Court of Common pleas who will hear and determine complaints no matter where (or who) the Lord may be. That sort of stuff.

 

[Protagoras]

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Compare Germany. First Reich did not centralize because of strong princes resisting the Emperor. But those princes themselves centralized quite well - Kingdom of Prussia became a strong centralized state.

 

Now I am confused (do we use the word centralization different?). Are we in agreement that Centralization = concentration of power?

Centralization occurs in the transfer of power to a typically sovereign nation state. Since these princes resisted said nation state, no centralisation took place but instead an almost feudal concentration happened, with many semi-strong power nodes instead of one very strong. How can you claim the kingdom gets centralized when the bare existance of alternative power centras work in counter to a centralization effort? Alternatives are anti-centralization per default. 

I am a bit confused after your post on what we are actually discussing. I suppose using institutions is beneficial for centralization since it gives the monarch a framework to better use his power, but I fail to see why not using those institutions would make a country less centralized by default as well as failing to see the creating of institutions/offices but no strong central authorithy as centralizing. 

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Now I am confused (do we use the word centralization different?). Are we in agreement that Centralization = concentration of power?

I agree with that. Concentration of power over sizable units (in terms of territory).

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Centralization occurs in the transfer of power to a typically sovereign nation state. Since these princes resisted said nation state, no centralisation took place

Austria is not a nation state, because Austrians are as German as people of Federal Republic of Germany. Does not make Austria any less sovereign. Neither is Switzerland a nation state, because it is settled by Germans, French and Italians - no less sovereign for that.

While 19th century Austria was not a nation state, it was sovereign and centralized, just like Prussia, Bavaria or Hanover.

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

but instead an almost feudal concentration happened, with many semi-strong power nodes instead of one very strong. How can you claim the kingdom gets centralized when the bare existance of alternative power centras work in counter to a centralization effort? Alternatives are anti-centralization per default. 

Alternatives are centralizations around other centres. Kingdom of Prussia was sizable and centralized - to Berlin, not Vienna.

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

I am a bit confused after your post on what we are actually discussing. I suppose using institutions is beneficial for centralization since it gives the monarch a framework to better use his power, but I fail to see why not using those institutions would make a country less centralized by default as well as failing to see the creating of institutions/offices but no strong central authorithy as centralizing. 

My point is that some institutions are indispensable for centralization.

[Protagoras]

14 hours ago, Jaak said:

I agree with that. Concentration of power over sizable units (in terms of territory).

Austria is not a nation state, because Austrians are as German as people of Federal Republic of Germany. Does not make Austria any less sovereign. Neither is Switzerland a nation state, because it is settled by Germans, French and Italians - no less sovereign for that.

While 19th century Austria was not a nation state, it was sovereign and centralized, just like Prussia, Bavaria or Hanover.

Alternatives are centralizations around other centres. Kingdom of Prussia was sizable and centralized - to Berlin, not Vienna.

My point is that some institutions are indispensable for centralization.

But in that case you are not really centralizing the seven kingdoms, you are splitting Westeros up.

I thought that the entire idea with this thread was to centralize the entire Westeros as a whole. Sure, you can very much indeed create a centralization to Winterfell, to Casterly Rock etc (and in some ways this has already happened) but then you destroy the nationstate of Westeros in favor of smaller nationstates. Indeed, many of your examples are independent states today.

For the whole of Westeros I find this idea disasterous.

[Tijgy]

Why would you want to centralize Westeros? 

I totally don't believe it is smart to have person X on the throne creating a national navy, army, take the rights away from the lords and say: "today we are one nation, you are not longer people living in Dorne, the North, ..." That will be fun. So don't people care about who the hell is the king on the iron throne. Who else than Benjen went to Wintefell if the King of the 7 Kingdoms visited the North for once in how many years? Were the Cerwyns even named? And at the same time the Stark of Winterfell is an important symbol during the harvest feast. 

You cannot just decide to centralize the 7 kingdoms by taking the powers away from the lords and by centralizing it from the top. 

That is why I believe this the only way possible: 

On 11-12-2015 at 7:12 PM, Fat Mac said:

I'd say make a lordly Parliament first. What that does is it gets all the Lord Paramounts to care what is happening all over the kingdom. The LP of each region handpick 2 representatives, independent of the King's selection, to represent their interests in the capital. That way everyone is present in the politics of the kingdom, and it's not just 8 regions practically ruling themselves.

You have 7 cultures, 7 people, ... You cannot destroy those feelings by oppress them by deciding everything. Create a council with representatives of the 7 lords of the 7 kingdoms with an equal voice (next to your Small Council which has the executive powers). Try to find a consensus between those voices, base your decision on those consensus and the lords of the 7 kingdoms have to execute those decisions. By listening those voices you give your decisions a legitimacy. In return of these voices the Lords have to execute those decisions which would harmonize the 7 kingdoms little by little. 

If you are smart you can make a national army, a national flee, ... maybe possible with agreement by those lords in return of protection of the kingdom. I will agree it might indeed smart to create some similar functions in the different functions of the 7 kingdoms but making them only listening to the central government in the KL or other place is not smart. You will gave then a sign of oppression and it would even be more ridiculous to name an outsider. He will just be hated and you will be hated for doing this. They have to be chosen by the Lords Paramount and have to listen to him. I think this probably already exists de facto but you should also ensure the Lords Paramount have similar councils on their level; the Lords Paramount should also listen to them, make decisions on their voices and sent the result to their representatives. (And it might probably too progressive there should also be councils on even lower levers where also the smalfolk can be heard).

The national army, national fleet, ... is a good idea because in this place you can let come the different people from the different kingdoms together. Here it would be possible that your people of the different kingdoms come together. You should ensure that the men stationed in the North should not consist alone of the northmen but also of people from the westerlands, the vale, ... Still the military leadership should in the end still belong to the Lord Paramount of that part of the Kingdom (which can be changed in time if people would trust this army is not there to oppress but to protect them). 

And try to convince your lords paramount and the rest of the nobles to intermingle and to marry with nobility of other kingdoms. 

To conclude, you should not try a revolution but an evolution! Step by step, otherwise the only possible result would be rebellions.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

59 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

But in that case you are not really centralizing the seven kingdoms, you are splitting Westeros up.

I thought that the entire idea with this thread was to centralize the entire Westeros as a whole. Sure, you can very much indeed create a centralization to Winterfell, to Casterly Rock etc (and in some ways this has already happened) but then you destroy the nationstate of Westeros in favor of smaller nationstates. Indeed, many of your examples are independent states today.

For the whole of Westeros I find this idea disasterous.

There is no nationstate of Westeros. Not only because the concept of nation state dies not exist in the context of discussion (and in real world it occured later in history, along with the rise of bourgeoisie class) but mainly because Westeros is the home of more than one ethnic groups - nations, three or four at least, as it is very well evident in the series. The examble of Dorne as a distinct ethnic group transitioning to proto-nation and developing the corresponding concepts in the sphere of ideology is very prominent, but there are also the Iron Islands and the North that are distinct to the rest of, lets call it 'more andal' for lack of a better expression, Westeros. Still, within this 'more andal' area there are differentiations though maybe not as defining as to the aforementioned kingdoms.

[Protagoras]

5 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

There is no nationstate of Westeros. Not only because the concept of nation state dies not exist in the context of discussion (and in real world it occured later in history, along with the rise of bourgeoisie class) but mainly because Westeros is the home of more than one ethnic groups - nations, three or four at least, as it is very well evident in the series. The examble of Dorne as a distinct ethnic group transitioning to proto-nation and developing the corresponding concepts in the sphere of ideology is very prominent, but there are also the Iron Islands and the North that are distinct to the rest of, lets call it 'more andal' for lack of a better expression, Westeros. Still, within this 'more andal' area there are differentiations though maybe not as defining as to the aforementioned kingdoms.

I am more and more starting to feel that the response to the OP is "We don´t want to centralize", "Centralization is impossible" etc.

Maybe I completely misunderstand you and other posters, but it seems to me that people in this thread are not trying to actually centralize or give suggestions how to centralize but rather motivate why centralizing is impossible, which runs counter to the originial OP.

There are problems, cultural ones, that you will run into if you try to start the process. Is that really a good reason not to make the attempt?

However, I will not accuse people to argue in bad faith so I think its best I leave this discussion.

 

[CryptofCthulhu]

I'd rather split Westeros in half, one ruler for the north, one for the south.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 minute ago, Protagoras said:

I am more and more starting to feel that the response to the OP is "We don´t want to centralize", "Centralization is impossible" etc.

Maybe I completely misunderstand you and other posters, but it seems to me that people in this thread are not trying to actually centralize or give suggestions how to centralize but rather motivate why centralizing is impossible, which runs counter to the originial OP.

There are problems, cultural ones, that you will run into if you try to start the process. Is that really a good reason not to make the attempt?

However, I will not accuse people to argue in bad faith so I think its best I leave this discussion.

 

Yes indeed, this is my point, but I differ in that I consider it a valid answer to the OP. And yes, I believe that such differences are good reasons to not make the attempt. Because I believe that such reforms will only last if they come to fix existing problems, without creating new ones in trying to address the prerequisites of the proposed solution.

[Ruhail]

I think Westeros needs to be broken back up into 7 sovereign nations, it lasted for thousands of years this way and seemed alot easier for each king and their subjects to govern themselves.

[OldGimletEye]

On 1/27/2016 at 9:51 AM, Jaak said:

16th century empirical observation was that the rulers who did not call representatives at all (France 1484-1560) or who allowed them little actual control over policy (Henry VII and VIII of England, Isabel, Carlos and Felipe of Castile) did better at raising taxes than German emperor or Polish king, constrained by strong parliaments.

 

On 1/27/2016 at 5:06 PM, Protagoras said:

I think we are talking past eachother here and I also think that you and I (again) simply are to much apart to gain some kind of intersubjectivity.

First, I am sceptical on your claim that absolutist governments get less money. Jaak made an excellent counterpoint to this.

But one of my two points here is that while I agree that absolute governments are wasteful (But the advantage is that you have some efficiency from the fact that in a monarchy, the ruler has more time to apply his policy because he will not be replaced unless he dies or is forced to resign) they are also very centralized. The OP was after all "How do you make westeros centralized as posible for a medival kingdom?". I define centralization as a concentration of power so yeah, those "bad old families" are by refusing to bow down to a central authorithy working against centralization (You might think that centralization is morally wrong, but that is not the topic in the first place). It also doesnt matter if the monarch use institutions or not - concentrated power regardless of method means more centralization. You said it yourself - monarchs like to maximize their own political power. Sounds like centralization to me since the power gets concentrated.

Secondly, while not my subject, I believe that in order to evolve a feudalistic society towards a modern democracy you need to follow the same steps (roughly) as Europe have done - that is Feudalism - Monarchy - Absolute monarchy - Critizism of said monarch - Protoliberalism - Socialism - Socialism/liberalism mixture. Now, I am more of a philosopher than a political analysist/historian but your counter-suggestion in supporting the merchants don´t hold for me since as I recall it many Italian states did this and ended up with no more centralization nor freedom compared to an monarch. I also see less risk of war and other harmful processes - the king is legitimate because the royal state and his ancestors managed to build the country compared to merchants who only have money as basis for their rule. I am willing to discuss the amount of absolutism needed, but a strong Monarchy I see as a must.

So, in order to create a "Better Westeros tomorrow" we need to destroy feudalism in its roots, centralize and have some absolutism that later can be torn down for more liberalism. This requires more than just financial reforms and according to me the main obstacle is the soldiers every feudal ruler can muster that needs to be under direct control. You want to do the protoliberalistic step now, without a strong foundation for the Westerosi kingdom and I am sceptical it will work. My example with Sweden is to point out a successful way of curb feudalism before it even started with monarchy and then later to remove the absolutism when feudalism is dead (otherwise it just reverts back to a decentralized structure I think) and gone for certain and then open up to some liberalism. Sure, there might be possible to do this without absolutism and just a strong monarchy, but then again - the question was "How do you make westeros centralized as posible". However, I very much admit that this is not my area of expertise.

 

There was once called a country called NonExistia. NonExistia was made up of France, England, Prussia, Holland, and Poland, and Russia around the 1600s. Some guy in Flanders called called himself the "rightful and true" king of NonExistia.

Between 1600 and 1620, the guy in Flanders declared the Kingdom of NonExistia and absolutist state. The guy tried to demand taxes from France, England, Prussia, Holland, and Poland. But, nobody paid. The guy tried to switch tactics and then declared NonExistia a parliamentary monarchy. He asked for taxes from all the countries in his "kingdom". Still nobody paid.

The moral of the story is that a government can be 1)absolutist and fiscally fragmented, 2) absolutist and fiscally centralized, 3) limited and fiscally centralized, and 4) limited and fiscally fragmented.

An absolutist and fiscally centralized government would be better at raising taxes and revenue than a limited and decentralized one. But, a limited and centralized government is generally better at raising revenues than a centralized and absolutist one. (See Dincecco for example. See also Hoffman&Norberg:

"Representative institutions, not absolute monarchy, proved superior in revenue extraction. Where representative bodies held the ultimate authority, as in the Netherlands and or eighteenth-century England, they facilitated taxing. Absolutist regimes, despite their pretentsions, were not able to borrow or tax at will."

England was the classic case of being limited and fiscally centralized. Nobody in Europe could tax and borrow the way England could, at least after 1688. And in England, parliament definitely asserted it's primacy over the monarch. France might have been able to raise more tax revenue because it was a much larger country, but it terms of tax/per capita it could not. And absolutist France could not borrow as cheaply as England could. Neither could absolutist Spain.

Certainly Poland provides a case of a non-absolutist state not working well. And it provides a good case of what can happen when there is too much local yokelaism. Although before 1791, when Poland, attempted to make reforms, you might describe Poland as a collection of little absolutist bound together nominally in a parliament that wasn't able to much, largely because of the LiberumVeto. Had it not been for foreign interference and Poland's partitioning, the reforms might have worked.

One of the problems with absolutist regimes is that it likely slows down or harms the growth of urbanization (See for instance Delong and Shleifer). And that's a problem. Because Urban centers often are key for trade and economic development. In empirical work, urbanization growth is often used as a proxy for growing wealth where actual income figures are not available. Also, it's the Urban centers that are likely to provide you the sorts of people that might lend to you if you are a monarch, so you don't have to take the crown jewels to a pawn shop in order to get funds (and yes this seemingly did happen). And it's the Urban centers that might provide you the sorts of people that you would want in your state bureaucracy. And it's urban centers where you might find the sorts of people that would help you counter the power of the nobility.

To a large extent, the whole "divine right of kings" thing and the whole notion of an absolutist ruler, at least in Europe, was largely political propaganda. Louis XIV might have talked a big game about being the "Sun King", or whatever, but he had nowhere near the ability to actually raise revenues in the manner that the British Parliament could. Louis XIV might have proclaimed an absolute right to rule, but he knew damn well that in reality he would have to make deals with certain groups in order to stay in power. And the result often was a tax system that was often a mess, mind numbling confusing, inefficient and not nearly as uniform as what the British obtained. Absolutist, in order to maintain the pretense of absolute power often had to resort to handing out special privileges to particular groups. This is seemingly less of a problem in more representative governments, meaning it ends up having a broader tax base.

Outside of Western Europe, absolutism was more reality than rhetoric. You'd think that such regimes might produce more stability, which is kind one of points of doing centralization, but there is evidence that the rule of Muslim sultans was less durable than that of their feudal counterparts after about 1000 AD (See Blaydes & Chaney).

The very essence of a centralized state is the ability to directly collect and manage resources and then to expend those resources. As Burke put it, "The revenue of the state is the state". People can suggest that a monarch should gain more land in order to start the process of centralization, but at the end of the day, that is really about getting control over more resources. Even if a monarch were to gain more direct control of the land, the monarch is still faced with the problem of how to harvest resources from it in the most efficient manner possible.

Also, I disagree that absolutism need to necessarily precede a more liberal order. England, seemingly, provides the evidence against that notion. And in the areas where absolutism took hold, the monarchs there never really had the ability to harvest resources the way England did. Also, I don't think its a given that an absolutist state will transform into a more liberal order, particularly when there may not be any example in Westeros showing that more liberal orders are generally superior at extracting resources and spending them. 

On 1/27/2016 at 5:06 PM, Protagoras said:

And Yes, this is one of the (many) reasons I cheer for a Targaryen. The current structure is harmful and will make Westeros the bitch of Essos in the longer future. Hell, Braavos have the Arsenal - time to start working like immediately.

You know though, if we are going to be a bit realistic about this, a case can be made that Targaryens might actually have hurt the ability of states to centralize. A lot of this depends on how the cost and benefits of a more centralized state works. If the cost of each additional piece of territory is increasing on margin and the benefits provided by each piece of additional territory are decreasing on the margin, then it's quite possible that Westeros is not optimal from that perspective. Of course how cost and benefits might work would depend upon a whole bunch of parameters like the state of transportation, communication, and cultural heterogeneity and so forth. Given the state of technology, it's possible to think the size of Westeros is not optimal. A smaller state might be able to more efficiently tax and spend from the perspective of the inhabitants.

And, then of course, the dragons might actually hurt the cause of centralization. If you think that good deal of European political development was the result of monarchs requesting a greater amount of resources, but agreeing to cede political power, in order to obtain those resources, the Targaryens with dragons might in fact have less of an incentive to seek a greater amount of resources in order to stay in power.