I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[Brother Seamus]

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.

good point about the bigger problem, number one of course being the starks. suffice it to say we don't know the end yet, and I for one am in suspense, which I why I continue wasting the precious moments of my finite existence on this absurd forum. lol.

[JonisHenryTudor]

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.

Hmm interesting point about HS. There is also the Wildlings to consider as well. Depending on how that pans out, it seems to me (especially in the show) that they are going to see Jon as their savior from the north and indirectly Stannis for allowing his ships to be used. I am not sure how widespread the knowledge of Jon's "father" is, but it seems the Wildlings would if at all stay loyal to Jon and his party.

The Mountain Clans? They could probably be persuaded with gold, land, etc. But how would the wildlings, whom are opposed to overlords, suddenly welcome an absolutist?

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Really what's your point here? No matter how you try to slice it, Dany's speech shows that she knows little about Westeros. Details matter. They matter a lot. Dany may find that the people of the North may not back her intended people's revolution as they seem to be pretty damn loyal to the Starks.

Also, same with Dorne, where the people there seem to be very loyal to the Martells. Dany may think she is the originator of the people's war, but you know, in reality the first people's war occurred in Dorne, when the people of Dorne fought against the aggression of Dany's ancestors.

The whole concept is vague on her part. What is 'the system'? The wealthy? The landed? The titled? Is she going to take the houses out back to be shot like the Romonovs? That didn't go well. Will she forfeit power? Or will she be supreme overlord to maintain such perfection of equality? At best its Cromwell, at worst its Lenin. She needs to get beyond the idea she can rescue people. Sweeping social change doesn't succeed from the top of a pyramid.

Maybe Dany bringing up about the 'common people' wanting her back, when we see the common people rallying for the Starks or behind the faith is setting something up. How does Dany react when the desires of the people go against her ambition? Does she respect them enough to leave them be? Or will she become 'Mother' and believe she knows what is best for the poor souls?

I still get the impression she needs a devoted populace to justify getting what she wants. What conviction is there? Its clear she doesn't actually know the will of the people so how can she claim to be doing anything for them? She needs to believe its for a cause. Just like Stannis. Stannis uses duty as an shield for his ambition. In reality he wants the throne because he believes its due him and he wants to get out of his big brother's shadow. Nothing dutiful about that. I have not got the impression Dany would leave Westeros alone were she not wanted, in the end its the same as Stannis. She believes its due to her. They both dress it up but its still ambition. Its the same thing that made Aegon and his sisters attack and murder Westerosi for the seven kingdoms. They didn't reign fire on innocent men and wage war against Dorne to 'save' them.

[bb1180]

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.

In many ways, I think dissolution of at least part of the kingdom back into their own independent states is probably the best possible outcome. But at this point, all we're doing is speculating. Hopefully we'll have a better idea where this is all leading next year when season 6 is over and if/when TWOW has finally hit the market.

[JonisHenryTudor]

good point about the bigger problem, number one of course being the starks. suffice it to say we don't know the end yet, and I for one am in suspense, which I why I continue wasting the precious moments of my finite existence on this absurd forum. lol.

I am almost certain Martin will end the series with some ambiguities so that this forum continues into eternity.....

But even then the following threads will never die:

Who fought the WW the best?

Who was the best swordsman in the second Dance?

Did so and so take the throne properly?

Would Robert have survived the second long night?

Would the Bolton's flay a captured WW?

And so on....

[bb1180]

I am almost certain Martin will end the series with some ambiguities so that this forum continues into eternity.....

Agreed and to that extent, I don't think we'll ever get a clear victor in this so-called 'Game of Thrones' being played politically in Westeros. Some will fare better in the end, some worse, but I doubt any side will dominate.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The whole concept is vague on her part. What is 'the system'? The wealthy? The landed? The titled? Is she going to take the houses out back to be shot like the Romonovs? That didn't go well. Will she forfeit power? Or will she be supreme overlord to maintain such perfection of equality? At best its Cromwell, at worst its Lenin. She needs to get beyond the idea she can rescue people. Sweeping social change doesn't succeed from the top of a pyramid.

Maybe Dany bringing up about the 'common people' wanting her back, when we see the common people rallying for the Starks or behind the faith is setting something up. How does Dany react when the desires of the people go against her ambition? Does she respect them enough to leave them be? Or will she become 'Mother' and believe she knows what is best for the poor souls?

I still get the impression she needs a devoted populace to justify getting what she wants. What conviction is there? Its clear she doesn't actually know the will of the people so how can she claim to be doing anything for them? She needs to believe its for a cause. Just like Stannis. Stannis uses duty as an shield for his ambition. In reality he wants the throne because he believes its due him and he wants to get out of his big brother's shadow. Nothing dutiful about that. I have not got the impression Dany would leave Westeros alone were she not wanted, in the end its the same as Stannis. She believes its due to her. They both dress it up but its still ambition. Its the same thing that made Aegon and his sisters attack and murder Westerosi for the seven kingdoms. They didn't reign fire on innocent men and wage war against Dorne to 'save' them.

Even Cromwell acknowledged that ruling with Parliament was too much of a pain. The Protectorate collapsed after he died, and Charlie II was welcomed back.

Oh the horror... Dany rules for 10, dies, and then they welcome Stannis in as the rightful king. Actually that might be kind of nifty. Stannis reopens brothels, tourneys, etc. Then Martin proceeds to write a Glorious Song of Westeros, where UnRenly marries a Master from Slaver's Bay...... way too much caffeine today.....

[Hodor's Dragon]

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.

No, we don't know specifically what Dany has in mind, but it's not "fundamental feudal reform." The concept of "reforming" a "feudal" society is essentially a modern concept that gives meaning to words like "feudal" and "reform" that couldn't have been in the minds of someone living in "feudal" times. According to the Wiki, the word "feodal," which basically means "fee-based," was first used in a French treatise in 1614: really after the main period of feudalism in France. Even then, it was just an intellectual's word with limited usage, and the terms "feudal government" and "feudal system" were effectively coined by Adam Smith in his 1776 Wealth of Nations.

In other words, people who actually lived in feudal societies didn't label them as "feudal," and probably didn't have any concept of a "feudal system," or what some other kind of "reformed" system would look like. To imagine what Dany might be thinking of doing, you have to find her mindstate, or the minds of her advisors. What would they conceive, bearing in mind that there is virtually no such thing as "political theory" in their world?

Based on that reality, I would think it would be very, very difficult for us to predict exactly what sort of change Dany will or would implement, so difficult that I for one won't even bother, although I would be interested in the informed speculation of others. All I will say is that it would likely be similar to forms of governance she knows about, probably with a couple of important changes that change its overall flavor.

But getting away from predictions as to the exact form, I think there are numerous indications in the books that Dany wants to govern the smallfolk in a way that promotes their happiness, and we know full well she's not above experimenting with different ways to achieve the best results she can get. An example I've already mentioned in this thread that seems to me very significant is Dany's formation of a small council at Meereen. This is the only government she has formed, and it included a representative of the freed slaves. That's a concrete "power to the people" move the likes of which has not been seen in Westeros.

[ErasmusF]

double post

[ErasmusF]

I see. So since you apparently have read the next two books is there any other spoilers you'd like to share?

She doesn't KNOW that she has a good shot of being able to win militarily. She can't count on a single house to support her to her knowledge.

I don't think she has a good shot at establishing a regime through diplomacy because all she has right now is Dorne. The Vale led the last uprising - they would not plausibly support her. Forget Stannis. Her only hope with the Stormlands is to hope that Shireen becomes queen. Lannisters - no. Tyrells, maybe. Ironborn, not in the show apparently. Riverlands are in the same boat as the Vale.

Ironically her best shot is with Sansa Stark, assuming am grand northern conspiracy.

[ErasmusF]

You know, I would find it to be a somewhat interesting GOT episode if she said, "Hey, Tyrion, who can I get to form a small council and reach out to some of the houses in Westeros to figure out what how we're going to pull this off." And then maybe at the end of the episode see someone from House Martell, some of the Riverlands houses who still owe you a debt for freeing them from Harren the Black, some of the Stormlands houses that are without a clear allegiance (Connington, Dondarrion, Swann, Selmy), whatever we can piece together of the Grand Northern Conspiracy (like the MANDERLYS), and maybe some houses from the Westerlands who realize I am going to be the Lord of Casterly Rock in due time and don't want to get Castamered.

Then they could talk a bit of strategy and geography. That would not be a bad episode.

[Hodor's Dragon]

She doesn't KNOW that she has a good shot of being able to win militarily. She can't count on a single house to support her to her knowledge.

I don't think she has a good shot at establishing a regime through diplomacy because all she has right now is Dorne. The Vale led the last uprising - they would not plausibly support her. Forget Stannis. Her only hope with the Stormlands is to hope that Shireen becomes queen. Lannisters - no. Tyrells, maybe. Ironborn, not in the show apparently. Riverlands are in the same boat as the Vale.

Ironically her best shot is with Sansa Stark, assuming am grand northern conspiracy.

You know Euron has apparently been cast for Season Six. Or EurVictarion or something. Here's the casting description:

Pirate, man in his 40’s to late 50’s. He’s “an infamous pirate who has terrorized seas all around the world. Cunning, ruthless, with a touch of madness.”

He’s a dangerous-looking man. A very good part this season.

[Ser Lepus]

Except absolutism doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to helping the common people. By the time you roll around to Louis IX, the commoners were paying something like 90% of the taxes. Also, just doing a rough comparison, by the 18th century or so, common workers in England and Holland, places where the doctrine of absolutism got rejected, enjoyed higher wages than places like France and Spain, where absolutism as an ideogoly was embraced.

The problem with absolutism is that while monarchs may pronounce that their power is unlimited, they often know they must give some concessions to the ruling elites. In France, the concesssions were that the nobles were required to pay little in taxes, in exchange for them giving up some political power.

You might start of with a self-styled absolutist monarch, like Henry IV, who seemingly did care about the commers and tried to help them. The trouble is though that there is no guarenteee that a Henry IV will be followed by a similary progressive minded monarch. Aegon V might have been able to do more for the smallfolk if he had dragons. But what one absolutist monarch can give, another can take away. Under Aerys, it seems that many of Aegon's policies were repealed by Twyin because Aerys simply did not give a shit.

Don't get me wrong, I think the power in Westeros needs to be centralized a bit. But that is not as easy, without some institutions in place. A major one is that a state needs a fairly well developed system of finance. Another is that the state needs to have the ability to maintain a fairly well developed bureaucracy.

England and Holland weren't absolutist, but they weren't feudal either. They were already walking the path of Parlamentarism, and their higher wages were due to a better, more developed economy.

Westeros is a purer feudal system than anything Europe has known. The church has not political power, there aren't strong independent cities pushing their weight, there isn't a budding bourgoise pushing for their share of power, there isn't a Medieval Parliament where all the classes discuss laws and taxes. There is only the aristocracy and little more.

[JonisHenryTudor]

England and Holland weren't absolutist, but they weren't feudal either. They were already walking the path of Parlamentarism, and their higher wages were due to a better, more developed economy.

Westeros is a purer feudal system than anything Europe has known. The church has not political power, there aren't strong independent cities pushing their weight, there isn't a budding bourgoise pushing for their share of power, there isn't a Medieval Parliament where all the classes discuss laws and taxes. There is only the aristocracy and little more.

The new argument in 15th century English politics centers around the concept of bastard-feudalism. I believe the idea was tossed around in the 70s, maybe 80s, but now seems to have picked up more steam in the past 10 years.

Basically the argument suggests some of what you stated.

[OldGimletEye]

While thinking about Dany's "breaking the wheel speech" something occurred to me about Tyrion's political advice. Mainly that it was probably stupid. Tyrion asserts that no noble houses will back Dany. But, really, why should this be so? It's true that the Vale, the Riverlands, and the North have some legitimate grievances against House Targaryen. But, it's also true that those regions have some real grievances against the current Lannister/Tyrell regime.

If Dany were to approach those regions and acknowledge the failures of her father's rule and was willing to make some assurances to guard against any future Aerys, it is not clear to me why it would be absolutely impossible for her to win those regions over. Furthermore, Dany in her negotiations with those regions might be able to get the lords there to make some concessions that might help the small folk.

So why did Tyrion give such premature and perhaps very stupid advice to Dany? Is it because according to D & D Dany is a queen and not a "politician". If that is D & D's take then it is in my view extremely dumb. Just for instance, you might think that LBJ was a scoundrel, but he did get some very important pieces of legislation through like the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills and Medicare in large part because he was a fantastic politician.

I'm not really getting St. Tyrion's advice here. Seems a bit dumb. And please, keep this post on the downlow as I don't want to be married off to the Boltons.

[OldGimletEye]

England and Holland weren't absolutist, but they weren't feudal either. They were already walking the path of Parlamentarism, and their higher wages were due to a better, more developed economy.

Yes, I know. And they were who I had in mind when thinking about an alternative to absolutism.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I'm not really getting St. Tyrion's advice here. Seems a bit dumb. And please, keep this post on the downlow as I don't want to be married off to the Boltons.

You earned yourself the right to do the Sansa Stark strategy and be married off to Dany lovers to win your argument. That's how we won WWI. True Story.

[Sultan of Westeros]

Good luck breaking the wheel Dany. Without a political structure (even as dysfunctional as this one) Westeros will descend into further chaos to the point of anarchy!

[OldGimletEye]

You earned yourself the right to do the Sansa Stark strategy and be married off to Dany lovers to win your argument. That's how we won WWI. True Story.

Yeah, if I recall correctly the Schlieffen Plan was stopped at the Marne because Sansa was married off to General von Kluck.

[Scorpion92]

I really don't understand how fragmenting Westeros into separate 7 kingdoms will help the realm. I would argue that whenever one kingdom gets stronger than the other it would AUTOMATICALLY will try to put it under its own influence or try to conquer it,it is just human nature.

I really think the show and the books hint us that great houses will not matter in the end game and all houses of Westeros will swear allegiance to one centralized monarch. There won't be any regions of Westeros and Lord Paramounts. House Targaryens started the process of centralization,but even after 300 years there are regional lords who have more power than the crown (example Tywin Lannister). The new king will have absolute power with his own army which is going to include knights from all over Westeros,which will benefit the political,economical and military situation in Westeros.

To further this thought, I think there are lots of foreshadowing for Harrenhal becoming the "seat of kings",which is located in the center of Westeros. And the importance and proximity of God's Eye and Greenmen could not be underestimated. I also think that Jon is indeed the final king when it is all said and done,and he will establish House Stark as the royal family and his children will bear the name of Starks. But all future Stark heirs will have dragon blood through Jon and possibly Dany as Queen (I expect her to die in childbirth giving Jon at least one heir). Or maybe House Stark and House Targaryen will combine to create a new royal house and have new sigil like Joffrey had both a stag and a lion on his banner.

With all this centralization talk,I kinda see Casterly Rock,Highgarden,Storm's End and even Winterfell being destroyed by the end of the series,so all regional lords will swear fealty directly to Harrenhal. I don't know,maybe I am reaching.

I would actually love to read about some conflict between Jon Stark united Westeros invading Essos,maybe having a conflict with Braavos. It just always fascinated me how War of Ninepenny Kings united all Westerosi lords under one banner to fight external threat.