Breaking the Wheel

[watcher of the night]

20 hours ago, ERRI8013 said:

Are you saying that a vassal surrendering himself to the lord (by kneeling and giving his joined hands to the lord) is similar to gleba servant or to slaves like the African bought to America?

I think that there is a big difference between requesting your fealty (even if under threaten) and making slaves.

Tarly was not a vassal of Dany in any way. "Bend the knee or be roasted alive" is not a choice, just like a robber pushing a gun to your head telling you "money or your life" is not a choice either.

[watcher of the night]

On 2017. 08. 23. at 6:03 AM, falcotron said:

Meanwhile, I don't get why so many people think they're supposed to pick a character in these books to become rabid fans of, blind themselves to any way in which their character is less than perfect, and then spend their lives spouting propaganda for that character instead of discussing the story. I don't see how you can even enjoy this series—books or show—if you try to see it that way. Dany is a deeply flawed character despite having a lot of admirable qualities and a lot of potential, and her actions have hurt many people along with helping many people, and there's a lot of risk in what she wants to do—including the risk that she may lose her internal struggles, not just the risk that she may be beaten. That's the whole reason her story is interesting in the first place. If you just want to see a good guy beat a bad guy so everyone lives happily ever after, what's wrong with Lord of the Rings?

So much this. Keep up the good job.

[ERRI8013]

5 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

Tarly was not a vassal of Dany in any way. "Bend the knee or be roasted alive" is not a choice, just like a robber pushing a gun to your head telling you "money or your life" is not a choice either.

Tarly was not yet a vassal.

His decision was being a vassal or die. No be a slave or die.

We are not talking about killing enemies in war, but about slavery.

1 hour ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

If it's so different you could explain the difference then. (...)

I already did: "As nouns the difference between vassal and slave is that vassal is (historical) the grantee of a fief, feud, or fee; one who keeps land of a superior, and who vows fidelity and homage to him, normally a lord of a manor; a feudatory; a feudal tenant while slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition."

11 hours ago, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

It depends on the era of slavery. In the late Roman Empire there were laws that protected slaves from abuse & murder.

Also in bastard feudalism as westeros seems to have the lords run the law courts so a serfs life is subject to their master. Tywin Lannister can murder an entire family (Reynes) if he wants. Ramsey can kill peasants with inpunity. 

Slavery is a loose term we fit to a whole host of situations that aren't related & it's very artificial which situations we decide to use it for. The atlantic slave trade & roman slavery are nothing alike but we use the same term. Serfdom is closer to roman slavery but we dont call it slavery even though the word serf is a derivitive of servus the latin for slave and the system was designed by diocletian to fill the gap of the old slavery system. I repeat as well that Essos slavery is more like Roman slavery than the atlantic slave trade & so closer to serfdom in westeros than that slave trade.

I think the problem is our use of the word slave for these different systems & the connotations the word brings up in the modern age when half those dont fit this model.

I agree on the issue concerning the possible equivocation related to the word slave.

I do not agree on the "alignment" between Roman Empire slavery and the one in Essos.

It looks to me that the situation of slaves in Essos, in terms of rights, is more similar to the one of the Atlantic slave trade.

Still, I'm very interested in understanding why you think that it is more similar to the Roman one.

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

I'm not sure the Magna Carta is best model for Dany. Mostly because it was something forced on John by the barons, not something he instituted from above, and it doesn't really work the other way around. But also, it took a century and a half to get from there to a real House of Commons giving the well-off commoners any power, and I don't think Dany has that much patience. And its importance as a myth, to reassure people that the ideas of constitutional monarchy and individual freedom are fundamental to England, only comes in centuries later.

Also, the one direct, practical thing the Magna Carta did was establish the council of barons as an official thing, which could eventually evolve into a parliament. But Westeros already has something that can evolve into a parliament—the Great Council tradition. There have only been a few Great Councils, and only in special circumstances, but the Great Council of 233 set a pretty nice precedent that everyone follows what the Council decides even if they don't like it.

So: call a Great Council as soon as she takes the throne to settle all the remaining issues (who's LP of the Riverlands, that kind of thing), and proclaim that she's going to call one at least every 4 years to discuss key issues of state, and that any question that she puts before them, she will be bound to their decision. And then, 4 years later, call not only the nobles, but also a Council of Smallfolk akin to the original English Commons. It'll still take decades to shift much of the balance of power from the nobles to the smallfolk, but the mechanism for doing so will be there.

Wow, man, I like this group because of answers like your one.

It is so interesting to discuss at this level! Great answer...

(Also if I still believe that there is a way to "fantasyze" the Magna Carta as they made with the Hadrian's Wall...)

[watcher of the night]

10 minutes ago, ERRI8013 said:

Tarly was not yet a vassal.

His decision was being a vassal or die. No be a slave or die.

 

 

It was  a forced choice or more precisely an illusion of choice (do X or die; who wants to die?). It is an excuse for the aggressor "oh, I gave them a choice".

Also some slaves had good lives, they were well-fed, lived in safety, but they were still slaves because they did not have a say in the most important thing in their life, just like Tarly did not have a true choice whether he wanted to be a vassal of Dany or not.

[Ser Petyr Parker]

18 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Janos Slynt, Randyll Tarly, and Dickon Tarly were the losers in the Game they chose to play for personal gain.  Randyll Tarly betrayed the Tyrells and sacked their castle.  Many Tyrell soldiers, perhaps many thousands, died because he chose to side with Jaime and Cersei.

I know I already replied to you, but this isn't fair. Cersei is the closest thing to a rightful queen they have. They were forced to pick a side, and had to betray someone no matter what they chose, so they chose to follow the monarch. Then another would-be monarch turned up and said actually they must now do what she says or die.

[Ser Petyr Parker]

50 minutes ago, ERRI8013 said:

I already did: "As nouns the difference between vassal and slave is that vassal is (historical) the grantee of a fief, feud, or fee; one who keeps land of a superior, and who vows fidelity and homage to him, normally a lord of a manor; a feudatory; a feudal tenant while slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition."

That's not what I asked, though.

This is what you said:

Quote

Being requested to swear fidelity or die is historically completely different from "be a slave or die".

So what do you think the difference is between these two situations is? You could try this question I asked before:

Quote

Imagine you're running the Night's Watch. A group of new recruits ask you how they're better off than slaves. What do you tell them?

Or what if you were offering slaves the chance for "freedom" if they join the Night's Watch? How would you sell that to them? How will you tell them they'll be better off, or more free?

[Morgana Lannister]

15 hours ago, falcotron said:

I'm not sure the Magna Carta is best model for Dany. Mostly because it was something forced on John by the barons, not something he instituted from above, and it doesn't really work the other way around. But also, it took a century and a half to get from there to a real House of Commons giving the well-off commoners any power, and I don't think Dany has that much patience. And its importance as a myth, to reassure people that the ideas of constitutional monarchy and individual freedom are fundamental to England, only comes in centuries later.

Also, the one direct, practical thing the Magna Carta did was establish the council of barons as an official thing, which could eventually evolve into a parliament. But Westeros already has something that can evolve into a parliament—the Great Council tradition. There have only been a few Great Councils, and only in special circumstances, but the Great Council of 233 set a pretty nice precedent that everyone follows what the Council decides even if they don't like it.

So: call a Great Council as soon as she takes the throne to settle all the remaining issues (who's LP of the Riverlands, that kind of thing), and proclaim that she's going to call one at least every 4 years to discuss key issues of state, and that any question that she puts before them, she will be bound to their decision. And then, 4 years later, call not only the nobles, but also a Council of Smallfolk akin to the original English Commons. It'll still take decades to shift much of the balance of power from the nobles to the smallfolk, but the mechanism for doing so will be there.

Actually, I have talked about my predictions for the final system in other posts but yours describes it in fact much better.

I actually think that either Dany, if she actually gets to rule or someone after her decides to continue with some major reforms, either will agree to or will be almost coerced by her advisors, Lords of major house into this kind of situation when the monarch cannot rule without at least some level of consensus from the major Lords.  Personally I can really see various important players here; Jon, Tyrion especially and whoever rules elsewhere, probably going for maybe Gendry in the Stormlands (after being somehow legitimised), and the rulers of major regions such as the Vale etc  

I also think something on the lines of the Great Council you mention would be the way to go but meeting a lot more frequently than every 4 years. To me having some kind of checks on the monarch would be an improvement albeit a slow one.  I don't expect a fully Parliamentary society straight away but some progress, like the possibility for people of modest birth to progress (as we see with Davos, although granted this was Stannis doing and not a right or anything) but I think they could try to work towards allowing a certain mobility.

Of course yes an emerging middle class would help but at present it seems that this is more common in Essos (despite all the problems in Essos), people like Illyrio etc seem to have that sort of status but as someone else pointed out, yes more commerce is needed for that.  I think in the reconstruction part in the books this is what I think will happen.  As for the show I think some indication in this direction of a monarchy under strong checks from powerful Lords at least will be hinted at, or so I hope.

Some small folk representation would be nice but I think this will indeed take time and may not happen in the duration of the books.

Yes, Dany has good intentions but conflicting desires in terms of her entitlement to rule and sometimes unwillingness to compromise and what I believe is a genuine desire to make things better for the common people.  This is why I think that the decision will not be 100% hers.  Even if she wins the throne I can see proud Lords all around unwilling to recognise her unless she makes concessions; the North springs to mind as certainly do the Ironborn and I think pretty much everyone will follow.  I think Tyrion will be quite influential here too and will advise her to allow these concessions if she is serious about ensuring that future monarchs cannot do as they wish and also in order to avoid rebellions right, left and centre.

[ERRI8013]

1 hour ago, watcher of the night said:

It was  a forced choice or more precisely an illusion of choice (do X or die; who wants to die?). It is an excuse for the aggressor "oh, I gave them a choice".

Also some slaves had good lives, they were well-fed, lived in safety, but they were still slaves because they did not have a say in the most important thing in their life, just like Tarly did not have a true choice whether he wanted to be a vassal of Dany or not.

Yes, but they were still the property of somebody else.

56 minutes ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

That's not what I asked, though.

You asked for a definition and I provided you a definition.

The difference between the two situations is being the property of another person or not.

Furthermore, they were offered also the possibility to go to the wall (remember that they are in war time), but they refused. So, it was:

1.       become my vassal,

2.       maybe I could accept to send you to the Wall

3.       or die.

So, if you believe that the above is similar to become my slave or die, I think that it is useless to keep discussing.

Regards

[Ser Petyr Parker]

8 minutes ago, ERRI8013 said:

Yes, but they were still the property of somebody else.

You asked for a definition and I provided you a definition.

The difference between the two situations is being the property of another person or not.

Furthermore, they were offered also the possibility to go to the wall (remember that they are in war time), but they refused. So, it was:

1.       become my vassal,

2.       maybe I could accept to send you to the Wall

3.       or die.

So, if you believe that the above is similar to become my slave or die, I think that it is useless to keep discussing.

Regards

But it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the key part of my argument. I've given the Night's Watch scenario, but you haven't addressed it. Even if the Tarlys went to the Wall their situation would have been, in practice, the same as slavery. Yes, men of the NW can say they're not slaves because no one technically owns them, but in practice there's no difference.

[ERRI8013]

I provided historical scenarios.

Read any book of history and the difference could you clear.

[SeanF]

Breaking the Wheel means giving obedience to Daenerys.

[KingMudd]

She's "Breaking the Wheel" with one hand and reinforcing it with the other. Sounds like she wants an absolute monarchy to me.

[falcotron]

12 hours ago, ERRI8013 said:

Also if I still believe that there is a way to "fantasyze" the Magna Carta as they made with the Hadrian's Wall...

Sure, but fantasyzing the Magna Carta puts them centuries away from democracy, instead of just a couple lifetimes away, and it sets them down a path of the crown being the enemy of democracy rather than on its side.

I can see that, for story-external reasons, it might be worth doing anyway because of the mythological status the Magna Carta has for Anglo-American democracy. But for story-internal reasons, it doesn't do much, so you'd want to combine it with something that works better.

11 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

I actually think that either Dany, if she actually gets to rule or someone after her decides to continue with some major reforms, either will agree to or will be almost coerced by her advisors, Lords of major house into this kind of situation when the monarch cannot rule without at least some level of consensus from the major Lords.  Personally I can really see various important players here; Jon, Tyrion especially and whoever rules elsewhere, probably going for maybe Gendry in the Stormlands (after being somehow legitimised), and the rulers of major regions such as the Vale etc  

This is why I think the Great Council thing is important. We don't really know how GCs work, but we do know that they do work, and they involve lower-level Lords as well as the Great Houses, and even the Faith is included in some way, and there's a vote involved, and everyone seems to always accept the results as binding. That's a great foundation to build a proto-Parliament on, compared to trying to build something from scratch.

Of course it still does nothing to get the smallfolk involved, but that's step two. And historically, it seems to work better to add on a separate House of Commons than to integrate commoners into a House of Lords.

And I realize that every 4 years doesn't do much; it's just a first step. And I think the next step could just be Dany getting in the habit of calling a special assembly whenever something really important comes up and the next scheduled GC is 3 years off. Eventually, you start getting special assemblies almost every year, and someone has a good reason to suggest they just schedule it for every year without having to be prescient about how democracy works in our world, and nobody has a reason to object.

11 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Yes, Dany has good intentions but conflicting desires in terms of her entitlement to rule and sometimes unwillingness to compromise and what I believe is a genuine desire to make things better for the common people.  This is why I think that the decision will not be 100% hers.  Even if she wins the throne I can see proud Lords all around unwilling to recognise her unless she makes concessions

Definitely. And that's a problem—in-universe, this is exactly why Egg's attempts to reform the system failed. If you push back to hard, the weak Lords can no longer keep order (like Tytos Lannister) and the strong ones threaten to rebel. But if you don't push back hard enough, they erode all your reforms into meaningless platitudes with no force.

I think using the Great Council right off the bat means you can give them less, because there's a firm promise they can get more later without having to rebel or wait for the next King, and it also sets up a structure for everyone agreeing on trading up those concessions.

But it's still not going to be easy. (If it were easy, Egg was a good guy, and pretty smart, so he would have already pulled it off.)

12 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Of course yes an emerging middle class would help but at present it seems that this is more common in Essos (despite all the problems in Essos), people like Illyrio etc seem to have that sort of status but as someone else pointed out, yes more commerce is needed for that.

Yeah, I suggested that Westeros is big enough for mostly internal trade, but now that I think about it, trade with Essos has the huge added advantage that Essos already has much more of a middle class than Westeros.

(Meanwhile, I'm not totally convinced that bourgeois capitalism is the only way forward from feudalism. The only real argument anyone's ever given for this (other than "America! Capitalism! Fuck yeah!") is Marx's, and even if you accept his whole framework of historical determinism, he still never really shows how capitalism is the synthesis for this step. But, that being said, it obviously can work, because we have multiple examples where it did.)

[Morgana Lannister]

On 8/25/2017 at 0:00 AM, falcotron said:

Sure, but fantasyzing the Magna Carta puts them centuries away from democracy, instead of just a couple lifetimes away, and it sets them down a path of the crown being the enemy of democracy rather than on its side.

I can see that, for story-external reasons, it might be worth doing anyway because of the mythological status the Magna Carta has for Anglo-American democracy. But for story-internal reasons, it doesn't do much, so you'd want to combine it with something that works better.

This is why I think the Great Council thing is important. We don't really know how GCs work, but we do know that they do work, and they involve lower-level Lords as well as the Great Houses, and even the Faith is included in some way, and there's a vote involved, and everyone seems to always accept the results as binding. That's a great foundation to build a proto-Parliament on, compared to trying to build something from scratch.

Of course it still does nothing to get the smallfolk involved, but that's step two. And historically, it seems to work better to add on a separate House of Commons than to integrate commoners into a House of Lords.

And I realize that every 4 years doesn't do much; it's just a first step. And I think the next step could just be Dany getting in the habit of calling a special assembly whenever something really important comes up and the next scheduled GC is 3 years off. Eventually, you start getting special assemblies almost every year, and someone has a good reason to suggest they just schedule it for every year without having to be prescient about how democracy works in our world, and nobody has a reason to object.

Definitely. And that's a problem—in-universe, this is exactly why Egg's attempts to reform the system failed. If you push back to hard, the weak Lords can no longer keep order (like Tytos Lannister) and the strong ones threaten to rebel. But if you don't push back hard enough, they erode all your reforms into meaningless platitudes with no force.

I think using the Great Council right off the bat means you can give them less, because there's a firm promise they can get more later without having to rebel or wait for the next King, and it also sets up a structure for everyone agreeing on trading up those concessions.

But it's still not going to be easy. (If it were easy, Egg was a good guy, and pretty smart, so he would have already pulled it off.)

Yeah, I suggested that Westeros is big enough for mostly internal trade, but now that I think about it, trade with Essos has the huge added advantage that Essos already has much more of a middle class than Westeros.

(Meanwhile, I'm not totally convinced that bourgeois capitalism is the only way forward from feudalism. The only real argument anyone's ever given for this (other than "America! Capitalism! Fuck yeah!") is Marx's, and even if you accept his whole framework of historical determinism, he still never really shows how capitalism is the synthesis for this step. But, that being said, it obviously can work, because we have multiple examples where it did.)

Oh, I find this topic absolutely fascinating and your analysis really deep.  So many possibilities, so many things that could go wrong or right... Makes me long for a sequel already! 

Personally I don't think anything remotely like a constitutional monarchy is going to happen in 2 or even 4 lifetimes here, certainly no universal suffrage.  (not that you ever said it would lol)

For one thing, but maybe I am slightly digressing, some noble houses and, I am sure many of their common folk,  seem to have sincere loyalty ties towards certain houses and almost a sense of nationalism (thinking of the Northern Lords in particular but not exclusively.  Randyll Tarly - despite having switched allegiance in the past re monarchs - expressed this view quite openly).  I think for now, baring drought, natural disaster or extreme tyranny they would probably be contented to serve the Lords they already did serve to begin with.  If a lot of power was to be given to the uneducated, not wealthy common folk (unfair as this may sound to us) we could end up with what we saw in Astapor (pretty sure it was Astapor) where the slaves replaced the masters, or they could bluntly refuse to pay taxes or serving in war time and so on, especially if there was a famine or something even if not the nobility's fault but say due to weather, for instance.  Still I think the High Sparrow was written into the plot for a reason and it proves that the masses could really get to rally behind a charismatic leader of the poor (not a bad thing per se but then they could find themselves under another tyrant from a different social background).  IMHO some balance has to be struck and the process must be slow to set firm foundations instead of a short lived wonder.

As I stated before I love your idea of bringing back the Great Council (yes, also with some more minor Lords not just the Lords Paramount) meeting infrequently but more frequently than in the past.  Also, I would be inclined to grant (by persuasion or unspoken coercion) more power to individuals on the Small Council, so that if say, Dany went all Mad Queen, the 6 or so others could together overpower her on the negotiating table rather than by conspiring to have her killed, say (ironically very much in line with what Dany made Varys swear).  In essence to give each member a vote and making it binding if they are in absolute majority, for instance... Of course nothing on this fantasy world or our own will totally prevent people from plotting but could potentially ensure that a Cersei or Mad King situation wouldn't escalate to quite the levels.  The monarch would have to agree I guess to begin with to be bounded but this decision which I think it ought to include the right for the Council (but for that a majority in the Great Council) to step down and the Council's right to chose a successor.  This would actually be almost on the lines of what Tyrion was suggesting...  

Personally I wouldn't be awfully opposed to a hereditary monarchy provided the successor didn't make the Great Council so unhappy that they had to depose him/her.  Baby steps, fair enough, but I think over time this system could gain some solidity.

I agree that the different Faiths should also be represented.  In the story there appears to be pretty much freedom of religion and more often than not people have the beliefs of their ancestors which seem to be quite geographically based, of course with the exception of conversions.  The NW for instance allows people to take their vows under whatever gods and some joined R'hollor later so good start! (banning the fire sacrifices of course lol).

Now, as for beginning to have a more "organised," possibly accountable and more entitled (in the sense of having more rights) middle class I would suggest guilds for the different trades to start with; which are in essence the precursors of trade unions in our world.  There are plenty of skilled workers in Westeros; armourers, smiths, jewellers, taylors, even bankers ... (and it just dawned on me: why on Earth they do not have their own bankers in Westeros???)  The only ones that currently seem to have a strong guild as it were are maesters but allowing others to assembly themselves to share knowledge and train youngsters etc would be good too "me thinks."  Alright to every positive there is a negative and maybe we could start striking or something but if the perception of their status changed over time and they were deemed worthy enough to say marry daughters of small houses or something there could be incentive there for them in keeping the peace instead of rebelling against the nobility and/or Crown...

Of course in a non-industrialised society the vast majority will still have to be crofters and that is fine provided they can keep enough of the crop to feed their families satisfactorily etc and, say, maybe not so far in the future, a chance to train in trades etc if they so wish.

Now in terms of women's rights, they are still way, way behind but so far we have two Queens:  Cersei and Dany and Dornish laws... some progress is being made already and this could stick.  Sure, again, seems to only apply to ruling classes but, as I said before, this process cannot be a quick one or it won't have a chance to last.

lol you are making me brainstorm with myself  Now, as for the Wildlings I think Jon got it right.  If they stick to the Gift or wherever they are placed and cause not trouble, cool.  I would not make them "bend the knee" as it is plainly fruitless, now if they want to come and live with the "kneelers" then if settled say as crofters or sellswords or whatever the same rules would have to apply to them as to my other common folk and Lords...  Marriages amongs both populations would start happening sooner or later and although I know that some people would feel like they are betraying their roots IMHO the truth is that when different cultures meet they will eventually inter-mingle and become a bit of both...  Same goes for the Dothraki but I fear the Dothraki would be harder to bring to the fold long term.  Some might inter-mingle and get to like it in Westeros but I guess a lot of them would return to their Grass Sea, which is absolutely fair enough.

lol I would love if the book at least could come up with at least, even if utopia, a theory that is neither capitalism or Marxism.  All ears if it does!!!  In fact it may be easier to theorise from the point we are at in Planetos that from our own history and we are all conditioned and we know the ending... so far... lol

Now that point you made, made me realise one thing, Dany is actually acting a bit a la "dictatorship of the proletariat" in fact like to the text book! (never thought of it before).  "She has to be in power to empower the poor... in a position of strength... and she is supposed to allow criticism but she is not remotely comfy with it..."  Maybe this explains some, although not the "birth right" thing but yes she believes that in order to un-slave (if there such a word lol?) the people she has to be an absolute ruler!  Of course Marx thought that was only a necessary phase for implementation of his better world but not something meant to last  Of course we all know what happened and what was done with his ideas.  There is a huge parallel here I have never thought of before but I think could be crucial.

Now she has Tyrion and others who may moderate her.  Now, Tyrion in my mind is certainly a liberal (middle off the road truly between right and left, slightly to the left perhaps but very marginally, for all his deeds and passions in life very much a moderate...) Tyrion as I see him has to survive because he could be the mastermind of what we are kind of proposing here... or its foundations.  Not going too much into Varys because I think show Varys is different to books Varys by a lot! (not just a case of white-washing like with Tyrion but the essence of his motivations...) but for another post as I could be here forever and out of topic lol.

To me the problem with the Russian revolution is that they went too quickly from servitude in a feudal way to communism; that is way too fast IMHO!!!

Okay, was going to say my two cents but more like my 2 million golden dragons if I were to be paid per word lol   Sorry if this response was way, way too long and off track or something... 

By the way, sorry for the super long post but I am having great, great fun trying to visualise what the reconstruction period could look like; thanks for inspiring me to do so

 

[Morgana Lannister]

16 hours ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

But it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the key part of my argument. I've given the Night's Watch scenario, but you haven't addressed it. Even if the Tarlys went to the Wall their situation would have been, in practice, the same as slavery. Yes, men of the NW can say they're not slaves because no one technically owns them, but in practice there's no difference.

In reality we are all to a point "slaves" even in our modern society.  If I don't go to work I get fired and get no money to pay for my house, bills, food or entertainment... say... If I have a bully for a boss I can leave (and yes this is an improvement) and I can find work elsewhere.  Still there are areas where unemployment is ripe and people fear it.  Social Security in most countries does not suffice even for the minimum if you have to pay bills or, Gods; forgive if one has a credit card or something!!!  In essence, you plod along for fear of what? losing your home??? going bankrupt??  Even in relatively high paid jobs the pressure is super present!  I'm a lawyer okay and I kind of freelance at the moment, doing contract (locum) work because I am very free spirited and it suits me most of the time but hey, we all have financial commitments and, although our standards of living are in general way, way, better, still doing what we feel is right or want could have dire consequences!  Not death, granted lol but like what if I had a few kids and say a few step ones on top (to make it more dramatic) could I quit my job (even as a lawyer) because my (imaginary) boss is a dick???

Is this the same as slavery???

Okay, I could chose to be self-employed in some capacity; then I have even less rights when it comes to other stuff like health insurance blah and hey, if my customers are dicks I guess I just have to suck too because other ways I go out of business.

Okay, painting a very bleak picture here but trying to exemplify that no-one is not truly a slave in some way... even top politicians cannot afford to annoy the electorate or even the media!  Still there is a difference between this and being "owned as in Essos" totally but my point was that comparing people who have been under some form of duress and slavery is not correct in my book, since I believe to a point we are all under some sort of duress...  Even in love situations, if you are besotted with your partner and he/she not so much, he/she could threaten to leave at any time.  Okay, you could say "good riddance" but if one is in love or besotted one won't...  It is not so black and white in my book...

[Not saying my imaginary boss because I have made this up but because yes I do not have a boss who is a tyrant or anything right now lol; this was just an example; pretty obvious and patronising but hey don't want to get sued ;)]

[The Gizzard of Oz]

Daenerys has an enviable track record of success.  It has been said many times over that millions of people now enjoy their freedom because of Daenerys.  That is an undeniable success story.  Nobody has done more to better the lives of people in the whole story, book and show.  I will pick her over anybody to rule over Westeros and improve the lives of the many.  Ending slavery that had been in practice for thousands of years was a big challenge.  Ending feudalism will be easier.  Dany now has the experience to break the wheel.  No one else has any experience.  

 

[falcotron]

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Still I think the High Sparrow was written into the plot for a reason and it proves that the masses could really get to rally behind a charismatic leader of the poor (not a bad thing per se but then they could find themselves under another tyrant from a different social background).  IMHO some balance has to be struck and the process must be slow to set firm foundations instead of a short lived wonder.

Good point about the High Sparrow. There are a lot of religiously-fueled peasant uprisings in European history—more after the Reformation, but plenty in the medieval era too. Most of them went nowhere, because the peasants generally don't really know what they want beyond the immediate stuff—stop starving us, taxes are too high, Count X is a jerk, etc. (until you get to the American and French revolutions), but sometimes there were leaders who could make something out of them.

Anyway, I think the English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 may have been a specific influence on GRRM here. It's not identical by any means, but it's worth reading about.

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Personally I wouldn't be awfully opposed to a hereditary monarchy provided the successor didn't make the Great Council so unhappy that they had to depose him/her.

Actually, the Great Council having to depose a monarch somewhere down the line and replace him with his heir might actually help the transition. Once that's happened, you've given up the notion of divine right and established that the monarch's power ultimately comes from the people, without having to go through something like Cromwell and force all the issues at once.

And meanwhile, I don't really see any reason to ever eliminate hereditary monarchy. I think the only medieval republic that's survived to this day is San Marino, and the (post-)Enlightenment republics like the US, Ireland, and France aren't any more democratic than the UK, the Netherlands, and Denmark. 

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

I agree that the different Faiths should also be represented.  In the story there appears to be pretty much freedom of religion and more often than not people have the beliefs of their ancestors which seem to be quite geographically based, of course with the exception of conversions.  The NW for instance allows people to take their vows under whatever gods and some joined R'hollor later so good start! (banning the fire sacrifices of course lol).

Yeah, from what I can tell, the Great Councils have only involved the Faith of the Seven even though there's a lot of freedom of religion for a medieval country, and, as you say, they accept oaths to the Old Gods and even R'hllor as binding. Maybe that's just because the religion of the Old Gods doesn't really have representatives to send, nobody cares about the Iron Islands, and no foreign faiths had more than tiny minorities until the last few years. But still, that would be something to work on. 

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Now, as for beginning to have a more "organised," possibly accountable and more entitled (in the sense of having more rights) middle class I would suggest guilds

Yeah, it's a little odd to me that they've apparently developed guild-style apprenticeships and journeymanships without actually having guilds. I don't really know how the trades work in Westeros, which makes it hard to suggest changes… But the fact that they aren't creating a proto-middle-class despite apparently many centuries with all the precursors implies that you're right, and something needs to change.

With banks, things start getting even more anachronistic—the Iron Bank is clearly modeled after 17th century Dutch banking, and I have no idea how that works in a world without 17th century commerce, manufacturing (although they do seem to have 17th century textiles…), exploration, etc. But yeah, however it works, they almost certainly need their own banks in Westeros.

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Now in terms of women's rights, they are still way, way behind but so far we have two Queens:  Cersei and Dany and Dornish laws... some progress is being made already and this could stick.  Sure, again, seems to only apply to ruling classes but, as I said before, this process cannot be a quick one or it won't have a chance to last.

Yeah, that's always a fun one. There are problems we've only started to tackle in the last century or so that it seems like should have been solvable a lot earlier without the world being that much different, but there's a lot less to go on. Elizabeth and Mary didn't do much for women's equality in England.

But it seems like they do have one thing going for them: the current and still ongoing wars are wiping out men on a scale rarely seen in our world until WWI. And we've seen the effects—at the start, women ruling as ladies was very rare (much rarer than in the books), but by S7 it's something like 50/50. And I'd assume we're seeing women take on men's jobs farther down the chain too, because they're regularly killing off entire armies, not just breaking the army and letting everyone but the nobles flee, and not to mention calling the banners for years on end.

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Now, as for the Wildlings I think Jon got it right.

Yeah, for the WIldlings, just make the GIft and the lands beyond a protectorate that Dany promises to defend against foreign invaders but doesn't rule, and they can automatically emigrate if they agree to become subjects, and that's about as good as you can do. Some of them are going to raid the settled lands, but they've already got that problem in the Mountains of the Moon, the Flints, etc., so it's not a new issue. I don't think they're enough of a problem that you'd need to rebuild the Wall or anything crazy like that.

The Dothraki are more of a problem. Hopefully they mostly want to go home; if not, it's a lot harder to deal with 100K well-organized horse lords who like to raid the settled lands to the point of turning them into a vast wasteland…

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Now, as for the Wildlings I think Jon got it right.

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

I'm not sure I want the books to turn into a C4SS treatise or anything.

And honestly, every time a fantasy or alt-history book leads me to believe it's going to have some interesting political development and it actually follows through, the result is pretty ridiculous. Charles Stross even gave himself easy mode in the Merchant Princes series, because his feudal world had some contact with ours, and his reformer was actually from our world, and she still never figured out what she really wanted to do before the series spiraled off in other directions.

I'd be happy with GRRM just laying out some sensible precursors that could plausibly lead to the evolution of something better than they have now and leaving us to imagine that they've got a tough struggle ahead of them but they may make it work.

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Now that point you made, made me realise one thing, Dany is actually acting a bit a la "dictatorship of the proletariat" in fact like to the text book! (never thought of it before).

Lenin's dictatorship was supposed to be led by a vanguard committee, not a single person, and even that collapsed into de facto just him and Trotsky, then just him, then Stalin, so starting with Stalin as the goal seems like an even worse idea…

39 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

To me the problem with the Russian revolution is that they went too quickly from servitude in a feudal way to communism; that is way too fast IMHO!!!

Especially since Marx's theory said that was impossible. Maybe Marx was wrong about that, but if so, trying to run their entire revolution as if Marxist theory was infallible dogma was probably not such a good idea. (If you've read Trotsky's books, it's really frustrating how he identifies everything he and Lenin got wrong—except for the mistakes they made right at the start, which were actually the most important ones.)

[The Prince who was not pro]

Hace 1 hora, The Gizzard of Oz dijo:

Daenerys tiene un historial de éxito envidiable. Se ha dicho muchas veces que millones de personas ahora disfrutan de su libertad una causa de Daenerys. Esa es una historia de éxito innegable. Nadie ha hecho más para mejorar las vidas de las personas en toda la historia, el libro y el espectáculo. La recogeré sobre cualquiera para gobernar sobre Westeros y mejorar las vidas de muchos. Terminar la esclavitud que había estado en la práctica durante millas de años fue un gran desafío. Acabar con el feudalismo será más fácil. Dany ahora tiene la experiencia de romper la rueda. Nadie más tiene experiencia.  

 

Daenerys did not end with slavery, she only did it in the slaves' bay, and that to break the wheel is a stupidity of the show, if of course "breaks the wheel", but she, Targaryen continues to rule over all inhabitants as her subjects .

[Morgana Lannister]

1 hour ago, The Gizzard of Oz said:

Daenerys has an enviable track record of success.  It has been said many times over that millions of people now enjoy their freedom because of Daenerys.  That is an undeniable success story.  Nobody has done more to better the lives of people in the whole story, book and show.  I will pick her over anybody to rule over Westeros and improve the lives of the many.  Ending slavery that had been in practice for thousands of years was a big challenge.  Ending feudalism will be easier.  Dany now has the experience to break the wheel.  No one else has any experience.  

 

Yes, she does and although I have already stated that I believe she means well for her people there have also been disasters like slaves turning former masters into slaves, her city plagued by murders... You cannot just end feudalism because you "wish it away" or say a few harsh words, even with dragons...

I am on your side and I want her to change the system but slowly and in a way that it endures and several of us have posted hypothetical ways in which it could perhaps could be done; now saying slavery is evil, sure, but that it is easy to end it... how???  She certainly tried and made a start but by no means conquered that one, much as I like Dany!

[Morgana Lannister]

3 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Oh, I find this topic absolutely fascinating and your analysis really deep.  So many possibilities, so many things that could go wrong or right... Makes me long for a sequel already! 

Personally I don't think anything remotely like a constitutional monarchy is going to happen in 2 or even 4 lifetimes here, certainly no universal suffrage.  (not that you ever said it would lol)

For one thing, but maybe I am slightly digressing, some noble houses and, I am sure many of their common folk,  seem to have sincere loyalty ties towards certain houses and almost a sense of nationalism (thinking of the Northern Lords in particular but not exclusively.  Randyll Tarly - despite having switched allegiance in the past re monarchs - expressed this view quite openly).  I think for now, baring drought, natural disaster or extreme tyranny they would probably be contented to serve the Lords they already did serve to begin with.  If a lot of power was to be given to the uneducated, not wealthy common folk (unfair as this may sound to us) we could end up with what we saw in Astapor (pretty sure it was Astapor) where the slaves replaced the masters, or they could bluntly refuse to pay taxes or serving in war time and so on, especially if there was a famine or something even if not the nobility's fault but say due to weather, for instance.  Still I think the High Sparrow was written into the plot for a reason and it proves that the masses could really get to rally behind a charismatic leader of the poor (not a bad thing per se but then they could find themselves under another tyrant from a different social background).  IMHO some balance has to be struck and the process must be slow to set firm foundations instead of a short lived wonder.

As I stated before I love your idea of bringing back the Great Council (yes, also with some more minor Lords not just the Lords Paramount) meeting infrequently but more frequently than in the past.  Also, I would be inclined to grant (by persuasion or unspoken coercion) more power to individuals on the Small Council, so that if say, Dany went all Mad Queen, the 6 or so others could together overpower her on the negotiating table rather than by conspiring to have her killed, say (ironically very much in line with what Dany made Varys swear).  In essence to give each member a vote and making it binding if they are in absolute majority, for instance... Of course nothing on this fantasy world or our own will totally prevent people from plotting but could potentially ensure that a Cersei or Mad King situation wouldn't escalate to quite the levels.  The monarch would have to agree I guess to begin with to be bounded but this decision which I think it ought to include the right for the Council (but for that a majority in the Great Council) to step down and the Council's right to chose a successor.  This would actually be almost on the lines of what Tyrion was suggesting...  

Personally I wouldn't be awfully opposed to a hereditary monarchy provided the successor didn't make the Great Council so unhappy that they had to depose him/her.  Baby steps, fair enough, but I think over time this system could gain some solidity.

I agree that the different Faiths should also be represented.  In the story there appears to be pretty much freedom of religion and more often than not people have the beliefs of their ancestors which seem to be quite geographically based, of course with the exception of conversions.  The NW for instance allows people to take their vows under whatever gods and some joined R'hollor later so good start! (banning the fire sacrifices of course lol).

Now, as for beginning to have a more "organised," possibly accountable and more entitled (in the sense of having more rights) middle class I would suggest guilds for the different trades to start with; which are in essence the precursors of trade unions in our world.  There are plenty of skilled workers in Westeros; armourers, smiths, jewellers, taylors, even bankers ... (and it just dawned on me: why on Earth they do not have their own bankers in Westeros???)  The only ones that currently seem to have a strong guild as it were are maesters but allowing others to assembly themselves to share knowledge and train youngsters etc would be good too "me thinks."  Alright to every positive there is a negative and maybe we could start striking or something but if the perception of their status changed over time and they were deemed worthy enough to say marry daughters of small houses or something there could be incentive there for them in keeping the peace instead of rebelling against the nobility and/or Crown...

Of course in a non-industrialised society the vast majority will still have to be crofters and that is fine provided they can keep enough of the crop to feed their families satisfactorily etc and, say, maybe not so far in the future, a chance to train in trades etc if they so wish.

Now in terms of women's rights, they are still way, way behind but so far we have two Queens:  Cersei and Dany and Dornish laws... some progress is being made already and this could stick.  Sure, again, seems to only apply to ruling classes but, as I said before, this process cannot be a quick one or it won't have a chance to last.

lol you are making me brainstorm with myself  Now, as for the Wildlings I think Jon got it right.  If they stick to the Gift or wherever they are placed and cause not trouble, cool.  I would not make them "bend the knee" as it is plainly fruitless, now if they want to come and live with the "kneelers" then if settled say as crofters or sellswords or whatever the same rules would have to apply to them as to my other common folk and Lords...  Marriages amongs both populations would start happening sooner or later and although I know that some people would feel like they are betraying their roots IMHO the truth is that when different cultures meet they will eventually inter-mingle and become a bit of both...  Same goes for the Dothraki but I fear the Dothraki would be harder to bring to the fold long term.  Some might inter-mingle and get to like it in Westeros but I guess a lot of them would return to their Grass Sea, which is absolutely fair enough.

lol I would love if the book at least could come up with at least, even if utopia, a theory that is neither capitalism or Marxism.  All ears if it does!!!  In fact it may be easier to theorise from the point we are at in Planetos that from our own history and we are all conditioned and we know the ending... so far... lol

Now that point you made, made me realise one thing, Dany is actually acting a bit a la "dictatorship of the proletariat" in fact like to the text book! (never thought of it before).  "She has to be in power to empower the poor... in a position of strength... and she is supposed to allow criticism but she is not remotely comfy with it..."  Maybe this explains some, although not the "birth right" thing but yes she believes that in order to un-slave (if there such a word lol?) the people she has to be an absolute ruler!  Of course Marx thought that was only a necessary phase for implementation of his better world but not something meant to last  Of course we all know what happened and what was done with his ideas.  There is a huge parallel here I have never thought of before but I think could be crucial.

Now she has Tyrion and others who may moderate her.  Now, Tyrion in my mind is certainly a liberal (middle off the road truly between right and left, slightly to the left perhaps but very marginally, for all his deeds and passions in life very much a moderate...) Tyrion as I see him has to survive because he could be the mastermind of what we are kind of proposing here... or its foundations.  Not going too much into Varys because I think show Varys is different to books Varys by a lot! (not just a case of white-washing like with Tyrion but the essence of his motivations...) but for another post as I could be here forever and out of topic lol.

To me the problem with the Russian revolution is that they went too quickly from servitude in a feudal way to communism; that is way too fast IMHO!!!

Okay, was going to say my two cents but more like my 2 million golden dragons if I were to be paid per work lol   Sorry if this response was way, way too long and off track or something... 

By the way, sorry for the super long post but I am having great, great fun trying to visualise what the reconstruction period could look like; thanks for inspiring me to do so

 

lol I almost replied to my own post in error, will reply to yours shortly