Jump to content

Breaking the Wheel


Moiraine Sedai

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Pandean said:

What's interesting in the ADwD is that fAgeon is described as someone who knows ruling is a duty not a right, but even he has a similar "I'm a Targaryen it's my right" mindset as Dany despite that. I think Dany's heart is ultimately in the right place but currently she's very conflicted about those things. And I mean, I don't blame her. Meereen isn't the easiest place to rule, especially for someone new to ruling.

Yeah, the fun thing about fAegon is that Illyrio and Varys (assuming neither of them have some sinister plot) tried to create the perfect king by training him from birth, and then convince him that his duty is to take his birthright, as if that would avoid the tension. I'm pretty sure he's not going to rule very long, but I would love to see how GRRM thinks he would rule if he had the chance.

I think his take would be that a great king needs to learn some lessons the hard way, not just from an instructor. A teenage boy who gets drilled on the right way to handle judgments just says, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, is this on the test?"; a teenage girl who was forced to make near-impossible judgments for a hostile population, she's learned a lot more, even if she got some of them wrong. (The people of Westeros should be very grateful to the people of Slaver's Bay that they get the benefit of what Dany learned without the cost of her learning it.)

2 minutes ago, Pandean said:

Ohhh, that WOULD be fun. Writing high fantasy and epic fantasy in general allows you to explore so many things that other types of fantasy and fiction don't allow you to explore. Whether Divine Right, the history involved in whatever your society is, the mythos and creating systems of economics and castes and laws and ruling, geography, the ways that morals are so blurred and the things we take as truth are not known or believed in, the entirety of different mindsets depending on the social group....I could talk for hours about it.

Yeah. And really, almost every question GRRM brings up in interviews—what policies made Aragorn's good and wise, how does adding dragons change military strategy, why don't we still have fantasies like the Iliad where both sides are written as heroic, etc.—seems like enough to build a whole series around, and he had a ton of them. I wish other epic fantasy writers would borrow some of the ones he didn't get deep enough into, but it seems like people who are inspired by him only take the "grimdark" setting and the "anyone can die" twists and miss everything else. Although I suppose the same thing happened with people inspired by Leiber and Tolkien and Howard and so on…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, falcotron said:

Yeah, the fun thing about fAegon is that Illyrio and Varys (assuming neither of them have some sinister plot) tried to create the perfect king by training him from birth, and then convince him that his duty is to take his birthright, as if that would avoid the tension. I'm pretty sure he's not going to rule very long, but I would love to see how GRRM thinks he would rule if he had the chance.

I think his take would be that a great king needs to learn some lessons the hard way, not just from an instructor. A teenage boy who gets drilled on the right way to handle judgments just says, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, is this on the test?"; a teenage girl who was forced to make near-impossible judgments for a hostile population, she's learned a lot more, even if she got some of them wrong. (The people of Westeros should be very grateful to the people of Slaver's Bay that they get the benefit of what Dany learned without the cost of her learning it.)

Yeah. And really, almost every question GRRM brings up in interviews—what policies made Aragorn's good and wise, how does adding dragons change military strategy, why don't we still have fantasies like the Iliad where both sides are written as heroic, etc.—seems like enough to build a whole series around, and he had a ton of them. I wish other epic fantasy writers would borrow some of the ones he didn't get deep enough into, but it seems like people who are inspired by him only take the "grimdark" setting and the "anyone can die" twists and miss everything else. Although I suppose the same thing happened with people inspired by Leiber and Tolkien and Howard and so on…

Yeah, I think in the end Dany's trial by fire rule of Meereen will make her a lot better candidate for the IT than fAegon can. There's a difference between theoretical ruling and actually going out.

Not to mention fAegon seemed like an entitled brat anyway, despite Varys and Illyrio's scheming.

 

I love exploring the grey areas in fantasy and in people in fantasy series. The decisions that people are forced to make in what's good or bad, how the things you need to do might not always be the ones that are right or noble, teaming up with the person you originally believe is evil, finding out the reasons behind the actions of those evil people and how they might not be evil after all, those areas that aren't touched. I can't stand when things are cut and dry. 

 

Sorry I could talk about this forever but I think I already derailed it enough oops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Dany has a good record when it comes to helping people.  Destroying the slave trade was an epic achievement.  

Did she destroy the slave trade? Last we saw of slaves Dany agreed to let them sell themselves back into slavery if they wished. Surely this is one of those moral decisions she shouldnt have compromised on in your book?

I guess we are sticking to the series but in the book slavery is still rife in astapor & yunkai albeit under a different guise. Westeros peasants are in a form of slavery with serfdom. 

There is no way any ruler could change the system in westeros. Dany will need the lords more than ever in peacetime. If you look at the North you see the local lords will resist any who arent their traditional lords. Dany will have a rebellion on her hands pretty quickly & I dont think the dragons will survive to peacetime. 

I agree the show will have a different ending to the series. I think the show will end the series after all unite and win the battle for the dawn but the books will continue. I think tho the books will end with new factions being created, new claiments & the game of thrones starting again. The moral being people wont stay united for long before they start fighting to be on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

There is no way any ruler could change the system in westeros.

I think that's going a bit too far.

There's certainly no way any ruler could change the system overnight, as the rabid Dany fanboys seem to think she's going to. But there are ways a patient ruler could set things in motion to gradually change the system over the course of more than their own lifetime, as Dany's actual council in the show seems to think she should. (Whether Dany is patient enough is one of the big questions, of course, but at least now Tyrion is forcing her to think about that question.)

Of course there's always the risk that it will go about as well for her as it did for, say, Louis XVI. But that doesn't mean Dany has no chance, or that she shouldn't try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A conqueror doesn't conquer to open themselves up to be voted out. Dany relies on 'the wheel' for any sort of claim to her position. This is her key hypocrisy, she's going to break the wheel but everyone must acknowledge her 'birthright'.  Doing away with the 1% means doing away with her too. But of course, she doesn't plan on that. More likely she plans to finish what Aegon probably dreamed of, getting rid of the Lords and having everyone answerable to himself. With no real opposition. If she does split land to give to people she breaks the system of Westeros, she takes away the Lords economic and power leverage. She has no challenges unless there is peasants revolt. That would sort of be like what happened in Ireland when they introduced the anti-catholic laws in a way. To break the old catholic families there were different inheritance rules between Catholics and Protestants. A Protestant could pass an estate complete to his eldest son, thereby maintaining their power. But old Catholic families had to split up their estates between all their sons. So no longer is it one powerful family who could challenge protestant rule but 2 or 3 smaller ones who would have to band together to give opposition. In 3-4 generations that one powerful family would be split into nothing. Only Danaerys would be diffusing power of every family except her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Of course there's always the risk that it will go about as well for her as it did for, say, Louis XVI. But that doesn't mean Dany has no chance, or that she shouldn't try.

The conditions have to be right. One of the main reasons the french revolution happenned was the military power of the nobility was already destroyed. One thing the war of the 5 kings has shown is all the military power is with the lords. They could crush any change & Dany must rely on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1215 King John of England implemented the Magna Carta, promising protection of church rights (do you remember what happened to the High Spawn under Cersei?) and protection for the nobles from illegal imprisonment (see Jon approach on punishment of the heirs of “traitors”). They can take it and make it bigger as in the myth of a Magna Carta protecting individual freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daenerys and the Westerosi in general are hypocritical when it comes to slavery.

The noble Lord Janos Slynt, leal servant of the Crown, was sent to the Wall with no choice in the matter. Once there he had to renounce his family, his title and his home. He had to give his life to the Night's Watch, and as Jon Snow proved, the alternative was death. What was he, if not a slave?

The respectable Lord Randyll Tarly and his brave son, Dickon Tarly, were given the choice to submit to the authority of a master they neither knew nor chose, or burn. How were they better off than slaves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

Daenerys and the Westerosi in general are hypocritical when it comes to slavery.

The noble Lord Janos Slynt, leal servant of the Crown, was sent to the Wall with no choice in the matter. Once there he had to renounce his family, his title and his home. He had to give his life to the Night's Watch, and as Jon Snow proved, the alternative was death. What was he, if not a slave?

The respectable Lord Randyll Tarly and his brave son, Dickon Tarly, were given the choice to submit to the authority of a master they neither knew nor chose, or burn. How were they better off than slaves?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

I'm saying the basic facts are the same as those for all slaves: do what you're told, or die. Of course some slaves are treated worse than others. In Essos, the unluckiest people are probably slaves, but so are some of the most pampered and powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

I'm saying the basic facts are the same as those for all slaves: do what you're told, or die. Of course some slaves are treated worse than others. In Essos, the unluckiest people are probably slaves, but so are some of the most pampered and powerful.

What you're saying is against all definitions we have in our books of history.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that although "breaking the wheel" means democracy, equality and freedom to be a pervert to our modern ears; "breaking the wheel" means doing away with the arbitrary local power and petty squabbling of feudal lords in favour of an enlightened monarchy such as Frederick the Great, Peter the Great or Louis XVI. Not something we would like, but an appropriate and feasible step for Planetos in its stage of historical evolution. Since this is fantasy, we can anachronistically include the abolition of slavery in this: perhaps the actual historical parallel is the abolition of serfdom by the autocratic monarchy of czarist Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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

Slavery doesnt begin & end with the atlantic slave trade. Slavery as an institution functioned for a lot longer than that. The atlantic slave trade was abhorant as it tied slavery to race. The slavery in Essos looks more closely related to classical slavery and so not hugely unrelated to serfdom & fealty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon said:

Slavery doesnt begin & end with the atlantic slave trade. Slavery as an institution functioned for a lot longer than that. The atlantic slave trade was abhorant as it tied slavery to race. The slavery in Essos looks more closely related to classical slavery and so not hugely unrelated to serfdom & fealty.

It was just an example.

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. 

http://wikidiff.com/vassal/slave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

Daenerys and the Westerosi in general are hypocritical when it comes to slavery.

The noble Lord Janos Slynt, leal servant of the Crown, was sent to the Wall with no choice in the matter. Once there he had to renounce his family, his title and his home. He had to give his life to the Night's Watch, and as Jon Snow proved, the alternative was death. What was he, if not a slave?

The respectable Lord Randyll Tarly and his brave son, Dickon Tarly, were given the choice to submit to the authority of a master they neither knew nor chose, or burn. How were they better off than slaves?

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.  The wall was actually a generous option that he refused to take.  Slynt is an unusual case.  He disrespected his lord commander in public and punishment was coming.  No leader in those pre-modern times can allow what Randyll and Janos did go unpunished.  Perhaps Jon should have sent Janos to the ice cells to freeze his nuts off.  We need to see the rule book for the Night Watch and see what the prescribed punishment is for disrespecting a superior officer.  Mance disrespected his commanding officer and deserted.  I'd love to know the circumstances.  Dickon made his choice and he will be a future threat if allowed to live.  The boy had to die.  Dany is both shrewd and calculating.  She knew an example would have to be made to convince the stubborn Tarly soldiers to kneel.  Better to execute two who chose to remain her enemies than to execute the entire remains of the Tarly army.It worked.  People didn't bend the knee to Aegon because they liked him.  The use and exercise of power is sometimes terrible but greatly necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, falcotron said:

This is dangerously oversimplified. Even without going Godwin, surely things like Pol Pot rounding up and shooting everyone with too much education are pretty great sins. And honestly, I think I'd rather live in Rome or Carthage than Germania Major, and I'd certainly rather live in Myr than post-Dany book!Astapor. And I think you would too. Focusing on slavery as the only evil that matters makes sense when you're living in, say, 18th century England, and many of the other great evils have been eradicated (or not yet invented). But doing the same thing in medieval times is how you get people in Westeros patting themselves on the back for not having slavery while living on the backs of serfs and not even seeing the problem with that.

I have to disagree with you.  There are a lot of evils in the world but slavery isn't just about taking people's freedoms away.  The Ghiscari masters were murdering and torturing and have been doing it for thousands of years.  The fact that Dany put an end to the slave trade is the single greatest good ever done by an individual in their world.  What I find ridiculous are the efforts of Dany haters to somehow over complicate the issue, attempt to make excuses for slavery, etc.  It just doesn't work.

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?

You should direct this comment to the Arya fans and the Jon fans.  It more accurately describes them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

The Iron Throne is the Wheel. Dismantle it.

Well, St. Tyrion did mention that Aegon (the Conqueror) built this so called wheel, and it's not like the showmakers would come up with something as ridiculous as Aegon being the one who is responsible for the creation of the feudal system in Westeros, right? RIGHT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Well, St. Tyrion did mention that Aegon (the Conqueror) built this so called wheel, and it's not like the showmakers would come up with something as ridiculous as Aegon being the one who is responsible for the creation of the feudal system in Westeros, right? RIGHT?

There were wars before the Targs and there sure were wars after the Targs and mainly because of them. The show wants the people to believe that the Targ Dynasty was wonderful until the mad King. Not so but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

The show wants the people to believe that the Targ Dynasty was wonderful until the mad King. Not so but whatever.

I dunno. On one hand we have Dany going on about how Targ rule was the best period in Westerosi history (and I agree with you that this is a debatable claim), but then in this episode, we find out that it was apparently Aegon who was behind this terrible wheel she's now trying to break, which seems to suggest that it wasn't so swell and dandy after all...Or are we're supposed to believe that pre-Targ show!Westeros was such a shithole that even the feudal system was an improvement on what they had before...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...