What House would be the most fit to rule the Seven Kingdoms?

[Wolfgirly]

On 10/06/2017 at 6:19 PM, PCK said:

The Tyrells would be good in their own right as rulers. 

Yes I agree and was going to suggest that

The Tyrells have a really kind diplomatic way of things.

[Lion of the West]

9 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

First I never said compassion is the only trait required to rule well. Its not. Far from it.

i said its impossible to be a good ruler without compassion, and that holds true. Tywin didnt have compassion, so if he was in power himself as King, there was never any remote chance he would make a good one.

Robert had compassion, but he lacked other skills necessary for a good ruler.

Tywin had many other traits that rulers need to have, but not the one that separates a ruler from a tyrant.

Now, having compassion doesnt mean you will be remembered as a sweetheart or arent capable of reprehensible and vile actions. Good rulers and bad rulers alike can be ruthless.

Robert had compassion, but could still be a total asshole at times and was a horrible peacetime king.

Tyrion has compassion, and likewise can also be ruthless, but I think he would make a good ruler were he given the chance, but he will never because he doesnt inspire most people. The revile him and many think of him as a freak. People arent going to follow or accept someone astheir ruler if they repulse them.

Tywin was a perfectly capable Hand to rule in place of Aerys and kept the Westerlands in order after Tytos had royally fucked things up. Also the prospect of Tywin being a tyrant seems preposterous to me. He is hard but far from a Maegor given how for some reason, no matter how hard the situation he is on, there are no Houses jumping over to his enemies. Even when more or less alone against the realm, Westerland Houses don't open negotiations with Robb in the West or try to get out of the Lannister ship. They stay put and even Harrys Swyft dares to call Jamie a fool before Tywin without any reaction from Tywin. If Tywin was a tyrant the Westerland lords, or at least some of them, should be happy to see him gone but there are no such things going on.

But I mostly agree with you in regards to the bad sides of Robert and Tyrion in regards to rule.

[Graydon Hicks]

12 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Tywin was a perfectly capable Hand to rule in place of Aerys and kept the Westerlands in order after Tytos had royally fucked things up. Also the prospect of Tywin being a tyrant seems preposterous to me. He is hard but far from a Maegor given how for some reason, no matter how hard the situation he is on, there are no Houses jumping over to his enemies. Even when more or less alone against the realm, Westerland Houses don't open negotiations with Robb in the West or try to get out of the Lannister ship. They stay put and even Harrys Swyft dares to call Jamie a fool before Tywin without any reaction from Tywin. If Tywin was a tyrant the Westerland lords, or at least some of them, should be happy to see him gone but there are no such things going on.

But I mostly agree with you in regards to the bad sides of Robert and Tyrion in regards to rule.

actually, you could call tywin a "benign tyrant". it is an actual thing. he takes care of his people, and is highly competent, but he also has very little restraint when dealing with dissent, protests, and discontent. he is more likely to take punitive action by burning villages and towns to "discourage" others from questioning him. but once order is restored, he very good about keeping the gears of government running smoothly.

the tyrells are very well liked, very amiable, especially among the small folk, but i get the impression that the rest of the realm resents the properity and wealth of the rech. unlike the lannisters and westerlands, whose wealth is based solely out of the hard currency in gold and silver they mine, the reach wealth has grown from taxation on the very large population, and the sheer trade in and out oldtown. i bet the reach is also the home of the majority of skilled craftsmen, so they likely produce the bulk of what passes for processed and manufactured goods for a middle ages culture. so i think that would to much of the realm seeing the tyrells as over entitled for what was once a bunch of lowly stewards.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

Everyone is saying one of the great houses, but I think there preference toward their own regions would always bring resentment from the other Kingdoms. I actually think the Targaryens could have been decent rulers. The inbreeding probably was their downfall. My vote I guess though is for House Blackwood, or another similarly noble house. If they were able to become the leaders by conquest, they could be respected while evening the playing field a little could get then support outside the great houses and help change the entire culture of westeros to one of greater equality.

[Lion of the West]

2 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

actually, you could call tywin a "benign tyrant". it is an actual thing. he takes care of his people, and is highly competent, but he also has very little restraint when dealing with dissent, protests, and discontent. he is more likely to take punitive action by burning villages and towns to "discourage" others from questioning him. but once order is restored, he very good about keeping the gears of government running smoothly.

the tyrells are very well liked, very amiable, especially among the small folk, but i get the impression that the rest of the realm resents the properity and wealth of the rech. unlike the lannisters and westerlands, whose wealth is based solely out of the hard currency in gold and silver they mine, the reach wealth has grown from taxation on the very large population, and the sheer trade in and out oldtown. i bet the reach is also the home of the majority of skilled craftsmen, so they likely produce the bulk of what passes for processed and manufactured goods for a middle ages culture. so i think that would to much of the realm seeing the tyrells as over entitled for what was once a bunch of lowly stewards.

In theory I could agree that Tywin would be a benign tyrant, but the word "tyrant" carries so much luggage with it that it seems to me that it should be reserved for people like Maegor and Aerys II. But I will agree that Tywin is a hard man rather than a good one.

[Graydon Hicks]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

In theory I could agree that Tywin would be a benign tyrant, but the word "tyrant" carries so much luggage with it that it seems to me that it should be reserved for people like Maegor and Aerys II. But I will agree that Tywin is a hard man rather than a good one.

well, i just read a book by david weber, from his safehold series, where one of the characters, a a prince of an island nation, was described as a benign tyrant. his people admired, respected him, even loved him, but it was a love that was tinged with fear. he was the kind of man cared more for dissuading possible repeat offenses, rather than justice, when he punished criminals, and he was often excessively harsh on traitors, or even possible traitors, those he knew, but couldnt prove, for the same reason. he was ruthless with his foreign policy, often very into the black ops kind of tactics when dealing with his fellow monarchs. like assassinate a capable heir for a rival nation, before that heir took the throne and threaten his own interests. yet he was actually very fair to the common folk of his princedom, and did a good job looking out for their interests, as they pertained to the realm.

now, i see tywin, not quite so kindly to his common born constituents, but thats more along the lines of he not really seeing them as people, a trait we definitely see in both cersei and joffrey. tywins actions concerning the small folk has more to do with practicality than care, but he did still did avoid the kind of oppressive cruelity  of a true tyrant. so maybe less a benign tryant, but not a cruel one?

[Graydon Hicks]

because one of the main definitions of a tyrant is one that rules through fear. and that is certainly how tywin ruled.

[The Wolves]

On 6/12/2017 at 2:36 AM, Nocturne said:

Best choice, they seem like the most sane of the lot. On top of that, they have a very progressive view of things, and always invest in the future and now just the now like many short sighted Westeros Lords.

 

 

How do they have a very progressive view? 

The Tyrells have a very "us vs them" mentality where it's Tyrells over everyone just like all the great houses. They starved KL just to benefit themselves. They joined a war just to get control of the the iron throne not caring about the innocents that would suffer and die just so they could have access of that ugly chair. 

The Tyrells are no different than any other great house or noble house it's a "pick your poison" type of situation. 

[Lion of the West]

6 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

well, i just read a book by david weber, from his safehold series, where one of the characters, a a prince of an island nation, was described as a benign tyrant. his people admired, respected him, even loved him, but it was a love that was tinged with fear. he was the kind of man cared more for dissuading possible repeat offenses, rather than justice, when he punished criminals, and he was often excessively harsh on traitors, or even possible traitors, those he knew, but couldnt prove, for the same reason. he was ruthless with his foreign policy, often very into the black ops kind of tactics when dealing with his fellow monarchs. like assassinate a capable heir for a rival nation, before that heir took the throne and threaten his own interests. yet he was actually very fair to the common folk of his princedom, and did a good job looking out for their interests, as they pertained to the realm.

now, i see tywin, not quite so kindly to his common born constituents, but thats more along the lines of he not really seeing them as people, a trait we definitely see in both cersei and joffrey. tywins actions concerning the small folk has more to do with practicality than care, but he did still did avoid the kind of oppressive cruelity  of a true tyrant. so maybe less a benign tryant, but not a cruel one?

Well, that prince from the island sounds similar to Tywin. Except the whole black ops thing and such. And you are right in that Tywin don't care much for the common born. The benefits he gives the smallfolk is that they can live their lives without Ironmen or feuding lords trampling over their fields, raping their daughters and drafting their sons to die in a distant ditch for a cause they have no knowledge of or interest in.

6 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

because one of the main definitions of a tyrant is one that rules through fear. and that is certainly how tywin ruled.

I have to disagree. Tywin uses fear, yes, but if fear was the thing he ruled through then there really should be some examples of when he uses that fear to keep the Westerlands in line in the main series. I just have a hard time to think that any person can be so fearsome to his bannermen that no matter how poorly something is going no one, absolutely no one, dares to even think of treason or rebellion against this feared liege.

[Gaz0680]

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Well, that prince from the island sounds similar to Tywin. Except the whole black ops thing and such. And you are right in that Tywin don't care much for the common born. The benefits he gives the smallfolk is that they can live their lives without Ironmen or feuding lords trampling over their fields, raping their daughters and drafting their sons to die in a distant ditch for a cause they have no knowledge of or interest in.

I have to disagree. Tywin uses fear, yes, but if fear was the thing he ruled through then there really should be some examples of when he uses that fear to keep the Westerlands in line in the main series. I just have a hard time to think that any person can be so fearsome to his bannermen that no matter how poorly something is going no one, absolutely no one, dares to even think of treason or rebellion against this feared liege.

Fearing something or someone doesn't mean you won't fight them or will just accept everything they do. And of course people would have thought of treason against Tywin. Probably many many times, his bannermen included. Tywin wasn't a man that inspired loyalty. You cannot gain true loyalty through fear.

Fear was a very powerful weapon for a Tywin. His ruthlessness kept people in line and helped stem some of the impulses they may have otherwise acted on had that fear of Tywin not been there.

[SecretWeapon]

Currently (Others invasion aside) it'd be House Tyrell. They have good ruling skills, they'll continue to be rich as long as people eat, they're ruthless enough to play the game and they're also smart enough to know POSITIVE PR helps a lot.

[Helikzhan]

If the series has proven anything no one family is fit to rule all seven kingdoms. The machine grows to such a degree that it suffers structural weaknesses and those weaknesses are abused. Baelish is a great character to illustrate this. 

If Kings Landing didn't exist how difficult would it be for a guy like Baelish to manipulate the kingdom? I'm thinking very difficult. 

[LordScattergood10]

Clearly the lannisters would be a good choice. As someone said before you don't see any of his lords jumping ship to betray him when Robb is taking all the western castles(he even took ashemark). 

The baratheons clearly are capable. The storm lords are extremely Marshall in nature and the baratheons themselves are very competent warriors.

obviously the Starks are capable. Robb carried the extreme loyalty of the entire north including roose until things went really against him and then it was only roose and Frey who betrayed him and frey was coaxed after Robb dishonored him. But regardless Robb had the extreme loyalties of the north, riverlands, and the vale was dying to join him and you can imagine would've bent the knee to him if they had half the chance considering they were dying to fight with him and would have if Lysa wasn't betraying her family for little finger. Also if theon had accomplished his task of getting the iron islands to fight the lannisters and they had the chance to fight a couple battles with Robb I bet they would have liked Robb and joined him like it seems everyone else did.

i don't believe the tyrells could considering it doesn't seem they have the absolute loyalties of their own bannermen at all. The florents want to supplant them and the rest of the reach seem to just be biding their time for a chance(the peakes in the golden company say as much)

the Martells do not have a grasp on Dorne. All of Dorne is too different and it seems every house in Dorne feels they should rule Dorne.

no one but the iron islands would ever follow the greyjoys willingly let alone any iron borne house.

the Arryns could possibly do it. They have a history of being extremely competent lords and the vale lords are loyal enough that even now with a very weak lord and the misrule of Lysa instead of trying to supplant them they just want the next heir in line to take over.

[devilish]

If I was appointed King-maker then I would go for House Tyrell. The Tyrells have grievances with nobody, they have the biggest army in Westeros, they are rich, loyal, mentally stable and they hold the tabs to Westeros food basket. Id marry King Willas Tyrell to Danny Targeryan giving him legitimacy. Tommen will be pardoned and allowed to be appointed Tywin’s heir, which will bring the Lannisters back to the fold (Tommen’s wife is the king’s brother).

This would is exactly what I would do.

- Willas Tyrell is appointed King, Danny will be his queen giving the Tyrells legitimacy. The Reach and the crownlands will combine with Highgarden becoming the new capital city of Westeros

- If Danny has a soft spot for Tyrion then she'll need to be persuaded to appoint him as LP of Meereen were he can live comfortably and away from Westerosi jurisdiction as things can get a bit hairy once the dust had settled.

- All LPs/Wardens/people who are willing to bend the knee will be given pardons and sent home.  However crimes against kings and their royal family will never be forgiven and must be put to justice else there’s a risk of a repeat. The crown will pass judgement on Aerys’s,  Robb Stark’s, Elia’s and her children’s murder, Renly’s murder and Joffrey’s murder.

- If the Lannisters stand down, bend the knee and accept that Cersei’s children are the fruit of incenst then they will be able to keep their lands, titles and heads. The crown will be willing to consider Aerys mental state which means that Jamie will be sent to the wall instead of being killed. As Jamie’s son, Tommen will inherit CR and the Westerlands were he will live the rest of his life in luxury alongside the king’s sister Margaery Tyrell.  Meanwhile Cersei will go to Highgarden as guest.

- If Aegon bends the knee then he will be legitimised as Targeryan and treated as the king’s nephew. He will be given the Stormlands and Storm’s end. The Gold cloaks will be disbanded and the Unsullied/GC will take their place.

The trial will go as following. Tyrion and Sansa will be liberated as there's no way they can be implicated to Joffrey's death in a fair trial. Kinslaying is a big thing in Westeros but Tyrion had just managed to escape back to Meereen. He will not be taken to trial on that unless he sets foot to Westeros again. Regarding the rest. Well, House Clegane, House Frey and House Bolton will be stripped of all their lands and titles. The remaining Cleganes/Freys/Boltons will be executed, sent to the wall or exiled (depending on their crime).

 

[HaeSuse]

Baelish. Your question was "most fit to rule". Not, "best ruler for the people". Assuming LF can put a child on some noble woman or another to have heirs, he's the most capable ruler. Again, his rule might not be the best for each realm, each house, each kingdom.... But he'd keep it running, and keep money flowing, and hold his enemies at bay. Baelish, I say. (not A LF apologist, just being for real, here).

 

If the question was "which house would rule the best for the smallfolk", I'd go with Tyrell. 

If the question was "which house would rule the best for the noble houses", I'd go with Lannister.

If the question was "which house would rule with the most justice and fairness all around", I'd go with Stark. 

If the question was "which house would guarantee ruin and pain and destruction for all", I'd go with Targaryen.

[Lion of the West]

On 2017-06-14 at 0:45 AM, Gaz0680 said:

Fearing something or someone doesn't mean you won't fight them or will just accept everything they do. And of course people would have thought of treason against Tywin. Probably many many times, his bannermen included. Tywin wasn't a man that inspired loyalty. You cannot gain true loyalty through fear.

Fear was a very powerful weapon for a Tywin. His ruthlessness kept people in line and helped stem some of the impulses they may have otherwise acted on had that fear of Tywin not been there.

I agree but the I think the main difference is that you see fear as Tywin's primary tool, I see it as one of his many tools. Largesse, actual violence and not just the threat of it are all tools of Tywin which I think are as important as fear for him.

Some time ago there was someone who said something to the effect of "The Lannisters are skilled at making use of dishonorable men" and I think that this is very much true of Tywin. Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei all make excellent use of men with little honor to advance their agendas.

[Graydon Hicks]

On 6/15/2017 at 11:43 AM, LionoftheWest said:

I agree but the I think the main difference is that you see fear as Tywin's primary tool, I see it as one of his many tools. Largesse, actual violence and not just the threat of it are all tools of Tywin which I think are as important as fear for him.

Some time ago there was someone who said something to the effect of "The Lannisters are skilled at making use of dishonorable men" and I think that this is very much true of Tywin. Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei all make excellent use of men with little honor to advance their agendas.

i think they choose those kinds of men, both because they can be sure of their loyalty, maybe through something like blackmail, ect, and that those men can be used as scapegoats as a last measure. and i mean very last measure. tywin is not one to throw away tools just because they get a little dirty.

[Annalee]

We should first define what "most fit" means in this context.  There is no such person as the perfect ruler.  No house is a perfect ruler.  Every house produces good leaders and they also produce bad leaders.  Take Roose as our example.   Roose Bolton could rule efficiently and competently.  He will also flay people for the slightest of offenses.  You have a government that runs smooth like a machine and functions but his brand of justice will be too harsh in my opinion. 

[Graydon Hicks]

id say the starks would fit the ideal, but you cant run a nation on honor alone.

the lannisters might be the most effective, but would likely engender a great deal of discontent amongst the rest of the realm, maybe not so much with tywin in charge, but definitely with his children. none of them can meet the standards he set,

the tyrells, might be along the lines of lannister, but only if olenna ran it from behind the scenes, and would still engender discontent, mainly from the nobles, if for different reason.

the martells, that major cultural difference would anger everyone of the faith. sure the dornish follow the seven, but they dont hold to the same morality concerning things like bastards, sexuality, and extramarital affairs.

the baratheons, we have seen robert. with the other brothers, their are so different from each other i cant judge. renly would be likable, but i dont think he would be very attentive to the duties of a king, including making heirs. he didnt seem all that attentive to his duty as master of laws from what i saw. stannis would be a better ruling king, but would not be very loved, so not a lot of loyalty thown at him from those who dont know him, which would be opposite of renly.

the tullys and arryns? im not sure. i havent had a chance to really look at the tullys beyond brynden, and the actual ruling arryn died before we could get to know him.

the targaryens have a strong tendency to erratic in successing rulers. one time fair, the next crasy, the next great, the next negligent. but they are regionally neutral, so no issue of lords crying favoritism.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

For me it's not about a House it's about the person who rules. That said the fact that the Starks had been able to stay the head of the North for thousands of years and when people are still willing to endanger their lives in order to support them when the Targs lost their power basically when they lost their dragons and almost no one in Westeros give a damn about them after less than 300 years proves to me that at least between the Starks and the Targs, the Starks are far better.

 

On 11/6/2017 at 7:43 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

all the other houses still identify themselves by the region they are from.

And the Targs identify themselves by the region they were from; Valyria. They were never fully integrated in the Westerosi society and cultures and they never followed the laws and customs of the Westerosi or the Faith.