I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[bb1180]

what is your argument anyway??? obviously the point of this bit of dialogue, well-written or not, was Dany saying that, if she is in charge, if she invades and wins, instead of playing this game of which noble family is on top at any given moment, she wants to change the game, change the system, to something not dominated so completely by this millennia old aristocracy. you don't disagree that's what this was about do you?

Maybe. I think the key is that we don't know what Dany specifically has in mind. It may simply mean that she intends to 'break the wheel' by so crushing the other great houses of Westeros that they can no longer challenge her authority once she sits the IT. And honestly, I think that's much more likely given how Dany views herself, her right to rule Westeros, and based on her actual time as queen in Mereen.

She may end up as a benevolent ruler, and she may make life easier for the commoners in some respects, but I don't see much evidence to suggest that she actually wants to fundamentally reform the feudal systems that she herself is deeply involved in.

[OldGimletEye]

what's absolutism?

It's the central ideological tenet of The Khaleesi National Party.

But, more seriously, in simplified terms, it is the idea that a monarch should be above all laws and should have unrestricted political power.

[Brother Seamus]

:drunk:

Yes. Instead of the last half hour being about Hardhome it should have been Dany giving a speech detailing every thing she plans to do from that white paper

:drunk:. that would certainly have been scintillating tv.

[Mithras]

House Waynwood has a broken wheel as their sigil. Dany should love them.

[Brother Seamus]

Maybe. I think the key is that we don't know what Dany specifically has in mind. It may simply mean that she intends to 'break the wheel' by so crushing the other great houses of Westeros that they can no longer challenge her authority once she sits the IT. And honestly, I think that's much more likely given how Dany views herself, her right to rule Westeros, and based on her actual time as queen in Mereen.

She may end up as a benevolent ruler, and she may make life easier for the commoners in some respects, but I don't see much evidence to suggest that she actually wants to fundamentally reform the feudal systems that she herself is deeply involved in.

I concede this is a subtle distinction, but moving from a fragmented feudalism, to absolutism with a benevolent dictator and greater rights for common folk is significant change. again, I don't predict a modern liberal democracy, but who knows. I suspect GRRM has not yet worked out all the features of the end-game socio-political system, and I doubt we'll ever get it in great detail.

what does this kind of change mean on the ground? Number one is the elimination of private/noble armies, and the dependency of the monarch on the nobility's "calling its banners" in ASOIAF jargon, in favor of the creation of a national/royal army. We see this foreshadowed in the 1st/2d/3rd episode of season one (and I think it's in the books too), where Cersei and Joffrey are talking whether the Starks are their enemies and how Joffrey wants to kill them, and Cersei basically explains he can't go around attacking the nobles because he needs their armies etc., and Joffrey responds by saying he should have a royal army answerable only to the crown.

[JonisHenryTudor]

why do the details matter? she's saying she wants to destroy the current system. she doesn't say much about what replaces it, but the clear implication is something more favorable to the small folk. what do you want, a 723-page white paper?

And absolutism in real history didn't work out that well for the masses. And absolutism is not a necessary precondition either for bringing about a better state of affairs.

Charles II's government is generally agreed upon by most contemporary scholars to be anything but absolutists. Obviously it had elements, especially during Charles II's personal rule. The point is, as OGE stated, absolutism did not bring relief to peasants in France nor England. Life was still incredibly difficult.

I just finished reading Lake and Questier's latest on the trial of Margaret Clitherowe and while an earlier time (Tudor Eng), we have an individual who suffered for having the wrong confessional beliefs. What happens to the SF if they refuse to bend to Dany but remain loyal to the north? The Wildlings? Just as Lancashire became targeted under Henry VIII and Lizzy I, I think the SF holding different standards/beliefs would also be targeted. If she replaces the current system with an absolutist one, that means that the Warden of the North is essentially abolished and she makes the decisions regarding the north. How is the north going to respond?

[JonisHenryTudor]

House Waynwood has a broken wheel as their sigil. Dany should love them.

And out of nowhere you come with this bit :cheers:

[Brother Seamus]

It's the central ideological tenet of The Khaleesi National Party.

But, more seriously, in simplified terms, it is the idea that a monarch should be above all laws and should have unrestricted political power.

As summed up by Louis XIV, "l'etat, c'est moi:" "I am the state"

[Brother Seamus]

Charles II's government is generally agreed upon by most contemporary scholars to be anything but absolutists. Obviously it had elements, especially during Charles II's personal rule. The point is, as OGE stated, absolutism did not bring relief to peasants in France nor England. Life was still incredibly difficult.

I just finished reading Lake and Questier's latest on the trial of Margaret Clitherowe and while an earlier time (Tudor Eng), we have an individual who suffered for having the wrong confessional beliefs. What happens to the SF if they refuse to bend to Dany but remain loyal to the north? The Wildlings? Just as Lancashire became targeted under Henry VIII and Lizzy I, I think the SF holding different standards/beliefs would also be targeted. If she replaces the current system with an absolutist one, that means that the Warden of the North is essentially abolished and she makes the decisions regarding the north. How is the north going to respond?

true. in the real world the peasantry are often the most resistant to change, and the lower levels often cling to what they know. GRRM may write this into the books or not.

[Brother Seamus]

Charles II's government is generally agreed upon by most contemporary scholars to be anything but absolutists. Obviously it had elements, especially during Charles II's personal rule. The point is, as OGE stated, absolutism did not bring relief to peasants in France nor England. Life was still incredibly difficult.

I just finished reading Lake and Questier's latest on the trial of Margaret Clitherowe and while an earlier time (Tudor Eng), we have an individual who suffered for having the wrong confessional beliefs. What happens to the SF if they refuse to bend to Dany but remain loyal to the north? The Wildlings? Just as Lancashire became targeted under Henry VIII and Lizzy I, I think the SF holding different standards/beliefs would also be targeted. If she replaces the current system with an absolutist one, that means that the Warden of the North is essentially abolished and she makes the decisions regarding the north. How is the north going to respond?

no doubt. there's no iron law of political science that says a centralization of power at the expense of regional hegemons benefits the lower rungs of society. but I think there's a decent argument to be made that such centralization is a precondition to the development of liberal democracy. maybe not though. over my head to be frank.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I concede this is a subtle distinction, but moving from a fragmented feudalism, to absolutism with a benevolent dictator and greater rights for common folk is significant change. again, I don't predict a modern liberal democracy, but who knows. I suspect GRRM has not yet worked out all the features of the end-game socio-political system, and I doubt we'll ever get it in great detail.

what does this kind of change mean on the ground? Number one is the elimination of private/noble armies, and the dependency of the monarch on the nobility's "calling its banners" in ASOIAF jargon, in favor of the creation of a national/royal army. We see this foreshadowed in the 1st/2d/3rd episode of season one (and I think it's in the books too), where Cersei and Joffrey are talking whether the Starks are their enemies and how Joffrey wants to kill them, and Cersei basically explains he can't go around attacking the nobles because he needs their armies etc., and Joffrey responds by saying he should have a royal army answerable only to the crown.

Sorry you will have to excuse me for leaning on history here. But. Bare with me for a moment. Let's say Dany establishes a benevolent dictatorship. How many of those are you aware of? To be sure there would good kings. But it is not just about what Dany wants to do, it is about getting everyone on board. These things took several centuries to work out because of deep rooted rivalries. For example, the immediate aftermath of the Protestant Ref., no king was going to immediately accept open practice of the opposite confession. There are a few cities that were more tolerant, but they were massive trade centers and necessity overruled desire. Sort of... Catholics in England needed to practice subtly and remain "hidden". It took a long time for the animosity between confessions to smooth out before Catholics and Protestants could openly practice without recourse. Here is my point. Taking westeros from what it is to what you are suggesting seems to be a really far jump. Obviously it is fantasy and Martin can make it happen as he wishes. So I will give you that. It just seems to quick to function properly.

[JonisHenryTudor]

no doubt. there's no iron law of political science that says a centralization of power at the expense of regional hegemons benefits the lower rungs of society. but I think there's a decent argument to be made that such centralization is a precondition to the development of liberal democracy. maybe not though. over my head to be frank.

No this is probably spot on. Centralization allowed for a number of things to develop. I am not going to go into it here, but this is a fair assessment in a nutshell. Centralization does allow for these things to develop.

But it all took a very long time. In context of the book, I can't see Martin rushing such a development for Dany's New Model Politics :cool4:.

As I said in my last post, he can do whatever he likes, it is fantasy and his story. But it would seemed too rushed. IMO.

[Lord Friendzone]

Yes. Instead of the last half hour being about Hardhome it should have been Dany giving a speech detailing every thing she plans to do from that white paper

That would have been a thrilling episode of Game of Thrones.

[nastydream]

It's the central ideological tenet of The Khaleesi National Party.

But, more seriously, in simplified terms, it is the idea that a monarch should be above all laws and should have unrestricted political power.

khaleesi national party ayy lmao

[PatrickStormborn]

Here we go again, everything is SM when you don't like the argument. It is cute how people just label things...... But conveniently as she removes the wheel she is going to still remain in power? Which sort of goes back to my initial point... that Dany intends to crush the existing structure and reign supreme, or as an absolutists. Unless of course you are arguing that Dany plans on sitting aside and electing one of the SF?

I am done with this petty argument. Again, I get that you worship Dany, go worship her. I don't see the scene the same way as do many, many other people.

No, you are strawmanning. This isn't about worshipping Dany - it's about me thinking a scene is badly written, regardless of what the intention is.

I get that you hate Daenerys and I really could not care any less, considering that she's one of the main protagonists of the series and will be significant to the endgame, which is all a fan can really ask for in a character. But that doesn't make your interpretation right, when it actively goes against what the scene portrays and what the writers themselves say in their Inside the Episode.

[JonisHenryTudor]

That would have been a thrilling episode of Game of Thrones.

TBH, I would rather watch that than corpse bathing or Cersei "look at me face". Or Dorne....

Not trying to antagonize, but:

I plan to deliver 100 pounds of grain to each family monthly. If you do not concede, I will burn you.

I will allow SF to obtain high ranking jobs, and voter fraud will be brought before the council of Drogon....rather you will stand before Drogon

I will set very low taxes and if you fail to send them I will torch you.

The II are hereby abolished and will be set to flames.

and so on...

Just poking fun, let's not get feisty. At any rate, this would be much more interesting than the aforesaid scenes....

[bb1180]

I concede this is a subtle distinction, but moving from a fragmented feudalism, to absolutism with a benevolent dictator and greater rights for common folk is significant change. again, I don't predict a modern liberal democracy, but who knows. I suspect GRRM has not yet worked out all the features of the end-game socio-political system, and I doubt we'll ever get it in great detail.

I agree. As a matter of political theory, over time, centralization of power in such a way can lead to a greater positive change for the commoners (never mind for now the Tarygaren family history and odds that sooner or later, a descendant of hers is going to be bat-crap crazy). But in the context of this story, and the timeframe we're working with, it seems exceedingly unlikely that it can happen without feeling forced.

Regardless, I think there's a bigger problem. With the way GRRM has written the story, we're very heavily invested in the fates of the other great houses and the political maneuvering that has taken place in Westeros. I'm not saying it can't happen or that it won't happen, but seeing those houses stripped of power in favor of an absolute monarch runs a great risk of alienating the fanbase, because if not done extremely carefully, it could leave the impression that all of the political machinations of Westeros we've seen so far between the other great houses are pointless and that only House Targaryen matters in the end. Again, I'm not saying it won't happen, but it could easily go very, very wrong if not handled perfectly.

That being said, I do think Dany's speech does, in fact, suggest an intent to centralize power at the expense of the other great houses. But whether she'll be successful, and more specifically, whether she actually can be successful in the context of how the story has been constructed and still be a satisfying ending for the fanbase, I'm at least somewhat skeptical.

[Brother Seamus]

khaleesi national party ayy lmao

KNP. love it.

[Ser Lepus]

How do you interpret Daenerys's comment to Tyrion? Is she going to go to Westeros and slaughter every leading noble family? And then perhaps elevate smaller houses that bend to her into their places?

How else do you break the wheel?

I don't think she has a plan. She will do the same as in Meereen, try to conquer Westeros by force, impose her will, and improvise as she goes.

Daenerys doesn't know much about Westeros, only that it's supposed to be her home and (she believes) that her ancestors were worshipped like gods. She may think that the people will unanimously support her against their lords.

She will have a rude awakening when she finds the High Sparrow at KL, backed by a fanatized popular army.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I agree. As a matter of political theory, over time, centralization of power in such a way can lead to a greater positive change for the commoners (never mind for now the Tarygaren family history and odds that sooner or later, a descendant of hers is going to be bat-crap crazy). But in the context of this story, and the timeframe we're working with, it seems exceedingly unlikely that it can happen without feeling forced.

Regardless, I think there's a bigger problem. With the way GRRM has written the story, we're very heavily invested in the fates of the other great houses and the political maneuvering that has taken place in Westeros. I'm not saying it can't happen or that it won't happen, but seeing those houses stripped of power in favor of an absolute monarch runs a great risk of alienating the fanbase, because if not done extremely carefully, it could leave the impression that all of the political machinations of Westeros we've seen so far between the other great houses are pointless and that only House Targaryen matters in the end. Again, I'm not saying it won't happen, but it could easily go very, very wrong if not handled perfectly.

That being said, I do think Dany's speech does, in fact, suggest an intent to centralize power at the expense of the other great houses. But whether she'll be successful, and more specifically, whether she actually can be successful in the context of how the story has been constructed and still be a satisfying ending for the fanbase, I'm at least somewhat skeptical.

Which is why I think some people have suggested the fragmentation of Westeros. Or something similar to the HRE. Each kingdom with a direct king-figure, but with one overlord or emperor who sits above.

I am not suggesting that happens, but that seems to be what some people think.