Pod The Impaler Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Westeros isn't absolutism though. It's feudalism. No, it is not Bourbon-style absolutism, but in the sense of absolute power, it is that. There is literally no law that can stop a ruler from doing as he likes, except for that enforced by 1) peers of equal rank, or 2) those of superior rank. And a king has none of either. As Saddam once is believed to have said "The law is whatever I write on a piece of paper". Unlike the feudal real-world, church is not much of a separate power in its own right; there is no Westerosi Vatican to which any king must appeal for official approval of his crown. (The High Sparrow may be seeking to change this, since he he clearly not a rubber-stamper.) As well, the knowledge-holding aspect of the church is not there - in ASOIAF this function falls to a separate order, the Maesters. Thus removing another element which can restrain the powr of a king or lord. Since the king has no moral and/or legal rival, his power is absolute and the only recourse to challenge him is force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 No, it is not Bourbon-style absolutism, but in the sense of absolute power, it is that. There is literally no law that can stop a ruler from doing as he likes, except for that enforced by 1) peers of equal rank, or 2) those of superior rank. And a king has none of either. As Saddam once is believed to have said "The law is whatever I write on a piece of paper". There is 3) an alliance of his vassals. That's the definition of feudalism: A contract between the king and his vassals. One side breaking it voids the entire contract and legitimizes the other side to oppose him even with bare steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minstral Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 While its attractive to say "whoever sits on the throne make the laws" or "might makes right" in terms of power, I can't fully accept the idea of it> don't get me wrong, I do believe there is a certain degree of truth to it, but Lords that would rebell against their liege do use some form casus bill in their rebellions. While it may seem a flimsy attempt to justify their rebellion, it does in many ways define how the rebels will form their opposition to the king, or how a king will combat them. Take Robb being crowned as an example and we see how this plays out. By the time Jaime is in chains and Riverrun relieved the North and Riverlands go about hammering out the details on how they will continue to oppose the Lannister regime on the throne. They could declare for Stannis or Renly, which they don't, because they have the diplomatic ability to choose a side that appeals to them. Crowned a king he is less able to appeal to the other factions that want to sit the Iron throne as the coronation limits his diplomatic capacity. Robert and Daemon both serve us another example on how the discontented will crowd around claimants to further their own political gain and/or change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salafi Stannis Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 No, it is not Bourbon-style absolutism, but in the sense of absolute power, it is that. There is literally no law that can stop a ruler from doing as he likes, except for that enforced by 1) peers of equal rank, or 2) those of superior rank. And a king has none of either. As Saddam once is believed to have said "The law is whatever I write on a piece of paper". I prefer Whiskey-style absolutism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod The Impaler Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 There is 3) an alliance of his vassals. That's the definition of feudalism: A contract between the king and his vassals. One side breaking it voids the entire contract and legitimizes the other side to oppose him even with bare steel. And de-legitimizes it if the vassals rebel and lose - they will be dead. On the other hand, the same applies to the king who causes a rebellion and fails to put it down - failure usually means death. Once again, it comes down to this: laws are only worth something when enforced by sharp steel. Powers will do what they feel they can get away with. The wise ruler must not appear like someone whom any of his vassals can disobey without serious consequences, but he also must not act with reckless disregard to the vassals who collectively have the power to depose him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb_Warged Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Winner takes it all. Well, as soon as every Lord of Westeros has sworn fealty to him. Everybody swore fealty to Robert, deal done, Stannis is his heir, Targs can gtfo. Exactly this is why I hate the notion that Dany and Aegon really feel they have claim to anything. Until the Baratheon's are overthrown (which Dany and Aegon are welcome to do) they are the house in charge of Westeros Stannis is the rightful heir to the throne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb2518 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Rebellion has one rule: win or suffer the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 And de-legitimizes it if the vassals rebel and lose - they will be dead. On the other hand, the same applies to the king who causes a rebellion and fails to put it down - failure usually means death. Once again, it comes down to this: laws are only worth something when enforced by sharp steel. Powers will do what they feel they can get away with. The wise ruler must not appear like someone whom any of his vassals can disobey without serious consequences, but he also must not act with reckless disregard to the vassals who collectively have the power to depose him. Don't forget the most important party of all: everybody else. Their interpretation of who is right will cause (some of) them to choose that side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 "Mr. Dickinson, I'm surprised at you! A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as 'our rebellion.' It is only in the third person, 'their rebellion,' that it is illegal." ~Benjamin Franklin, 1776 The laws regarding rebellion are quite simple: if the rebels win, it's legal; if the rebels lose, it's treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 And thus best summed up by Sir John Harington's: Treason never doth prosper, what's the reason? For if it doth prosper, then none dare call it treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.