Do you think Roose Bolton would be a good king?

[Varysblackfyre321]

Look, I know he's a sadistic fucker, but he seems the sort to keep the kingdom stable, he's shown political savvy, isn't bogged down by any moral scruple that can keep him doing what needs to be done, and has major-self displine. Note I said good king: not good person those are to woefully different things.

[Lucius Lovejoy]

Interesting question @Varysblackfyre321.  Roose's inability to control Ramsay and his struggles with managing the Freys and the Manderlys speaks poorly for his potential to maintain order and discipline - I imagine he would struggle when dealing with various strong willed personalities under him on the small council or as Lord's.  His soft voice and appearance may not inspire the confidence of his underlings or of the people which he would need in order to maintain a firm grasp on the kingdom.  While his personal sense of self-restraint and lack of qualms about carrying out morally ambiguous orders are good traits for ruling, I mostly imagine him as a strong #2, but not necessarily a good #1.

[Daenerys Targaryen's slave]

He'd make a good hand.

[Curled Finger]

In a cemetery in Transylvania, maybe.  

[Makk]

Quote

"Smitten?" Bolton laughed. "Did he use that word? Why, the boy has a singer's soul … though if you believe that song, you may well be dimmer than the first Reek. Even the riding part is wrong. I was hunting a fox along the Weeping Water when I chanced upon a mill and saw a young woman washing clothes in the stream. The old miller had gotten himself a new young wife, a girl not half his age. She was a tall, willowy creature, very healthy-looking. Long legs and small firm breasts, like two ripe plums. Pretty, in a common sort of way. The moment that I set eyes on her I wanted her. Such was my due. The maesters will tell you that King Jaehaerys abolished the lord's right to the first night to appease his shrewish queen, but where the old gods rule, old customs linger. The Umbers keep the first night too, deny it as they may. Certain of the mountain clans as well, and on Skagos … well, only heart trees ever see half of what they do on Skagos.

"This miller's marriage had been performed without my leave or knowledge. The man had cheated me. So I had him hanged, and claimed my rights beneath the tree where he was swaying. If truth be told, the wench was hardly worth the rope. The fox escaped as well, and on our way back to the Dreadfort my favorite courser came up lame, so all in all it was a dismal day.

No.

[300 H&H Magnum]

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Look, I know he's a sadistic fucker, but he seems the sort to keep the kingdom stable, he's shown political savvy, isn't bogged down by any moral scruple that can keep him doing what needs to be done, and has major-self displine. Note I said good king: not good person those are to woefully different things.

Your thinking is in line with George Martin's.  George is a smart man and he made a comment during an interview that it takes more than a good person to rule.  He used the American president Carter to illustrate the idea.  Carter was a good man but lacked as a president.  Here are my thoughts on Roose Bolton:

Roose Bolton cannot be a good king because he doesn't have the political charisma.  It takes a lot more to function as a king of the seven kingdoms than it does to manage the north.  Roose Bolton can be an awesome Warden of the North.  The king makes the laws and the warden enforces those laws.  Roose is not good as a lawmaker but he can be competent enforcing those laws.  There is one mark against Roose and that is he is known to have broken the king's law at least once.  When he used the ancient but outlawed custom of the Lord's first night to bed the wife of another man and produced Ramsay.   He's not the perfect choice for Warden of the North but neither are any of the Starks.  What he does have going for him over Robb and Jon are the qualities you mentioned:  self-discipline, cool temper, smart, and battlefield experience.  Robb was very good on the battlefield but shit at everything else.  Jon was okay on the battlefield but also shit on everything else.  Roose is shit on the moral scruples department but he is smart, controlled, and clever.  The truth is, there are no better choices right now for the post of Warden of the North.  Starkists might put Manderly on their list but the man broke the taboo of cannibalism, so can you really say he has more moral scruples than Roose?  Manderly is just as bad as Roose, Walder, Jon, and Robb.  Manderly is cunning but cunning alone won't make up for poor battlefield performance and Manderly will lack in that department.  Plus Manderly doesn't have the respect to bring discipline to the north.  Roose is the best man to force the wildlings to kneel and obey the laws of the land.  Wipe that smugness from Mance Rayder and Tormund and they either kneel or hang.  Mance won't be able to play Roose like he can others.

[Nowy Tends]

He would've been a "good" ruler in Auschwitz, Treblinka or Sobibor…

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

Interesting question @Varysblackfyre321.  Roose's inability to control Ramsay and his struggles with managing the Freys and the Manderlys speaks poorly for his potential to maintain order and discipline - I imagine he would struggle when dealing with various strong willed personalities under him on the small council or as Lord's.  His soft voice and appearance may not inspire the confidence of his underlings or of the people which he would need in order to maintain a firm grasp on the kingdom.  While his personal sense of self-restraint and lack of qualms about carrying out morally ambiguous orders are good traits for ruling, I mostly imagine him as a strong #2, but not necessarily a good #1.

You're kinda being a little harsh no? I mean what exactly could he have done differently with Manderly or Ramsey? He's aware Manderly is up to something but can't really move against him without having an idea as to what or evidence. And for Ramsey I think Roose has had as firm a lease on a creature such as Ramsey. He's surrounded Ramsey entirely with people who'd slit his throat on Roose's snap of the fingers.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

Maybe a good Master of Laws

[Foot_Of_The_King]

"A peaceful land, a quiet people." 

I think he would do well. But I'm a guy that thinks Tywin would be the most capable ruler we've seen. Shitty people but good kings. The truth is, most "great men" of history were bad people. 

[Dorian Martell's son]

26 minutes ago, Foot_Of_The_King said:

"A peaceful land, a quiet people." 

this

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

I agree that being a good person doesn't necessarily mean being a good ruler, and I agree that pragmatism and a certain degree of ruthlessness is useful. However, I think there is, actually a pragmatic argument for morality.

I'm reminded of Jon Connington getting the run-down from Haldon Halfmaester about the state if the 7K in Dance. He refers to one of the weaknesses of the Lannister regime being their reliance on the Freys and the Boltons, two houses with a "reputation for treachery and cruelty". That's a problem. If you have a reputation (earned or unfair) for being cruel and treacherous, good people (who actually want a good person in charge) will dislike you, maybe hate you. Others will not trust your word. One of the Manderlys does suggest Roose has a reputation for someone who can be dealt with, but others might disagree.

Having a reputation for being a straight-shooter, but shrewd, and not to be crossed, can be very valuable (Bismark had that reputation). 

Generally, I would rather have a ruler who actually cared about doing the right thing, and weighed moral judgements in making a decision. Pragmatic considerations should be taken into account when deciding how to do the best, or the least worst, thing. Ruthlessness has its place, in attempting to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Doing the right thing isn't easy, but at least trying to do it is important.

The problem with Roose is that he couldn't care less what the right thing is. He's ruthless for his own interests, not for others'. He's not being hard and callous for the benefit of the realm, he's being hard and callous for the benefit of Roose Bolton.

6 hours ago, Foot_Of_The_King said:

I'm a guy that thinks Tywin would be the most capable ruler we've seen

I agree with that. Tywin had a bit of a PR problem, but most recognised he would treat you fairly so long as you didn't cross him. I think that's the kind of guy you want as Hand. 

I agree with Bronn (whose political acumen is underestimated in my view), that the best kind of king is Tommen, who does as he's told like a good king should. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

7 hours ago, Foot_Of_The_King said:

A peaceful land, a quiet people." 

I always thought this was a very sinister idea, kind of like if you go to a house and all the children are talking in hushed tones. 

I'd rather a vibrant land and a merry people. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

53 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I'm reminded of Jon Connington getting the run-down from Haldon Halfmaester about the state if the 7K in Dance. He refers to one of the weaknesses of the Lannister regime being their reliance on the Freys and the Boltons, two houses with a "reputation for treachery and cruelty". That's a problem. If you have a reputation (earned or unfair) for being cruel and treacherous, good people (who actually want a good person in charge) will dislike you, maybe hate you. Others will not trust your word. One of the Manderlys does suggest Roose has a reputation for someone who can be dealt with, but others might disagree.

Meh, that assumes the major players are particularly good people which more often than not isn't the case. But everyone wants to work with someone whose reliable if they to work with someone.  And Roose did. To a degree. 

 

56 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The problem with Roose is that he couldn't care less what the right thing is. He's ruthless for his own interests, not for others'. He's not being hard and callous for the benefit of the realm, he's being

Meh, but is he even that? Yes he's a definite sadist whose most likely made boots out of people but his...peculiarities  didn't  seem to be extravagantly wide spread in his land. And he's in it for himself. Is that really much worse than how current monarchies give priority? The ruling monarch will almost always prioritize his house above that of the realm. That isn't to say a lot of them don't realize their house is more secure if the realm is doing fine. Roose, wants order and security first and foremost. He will do his best to make Westeroes well off enough to where there's constant threat of rebellion and one lead by the majority of lords.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I always thought this was a very sinister idea, kind of like if you go to a house and all the children are talking in hushed tones. 

I'd rather a vibrant land and a merry people. 

Meh, not much you can do here. I mean these people are serfs the range of what could possibly make them particularly merry is pretty limited no? A peaceful land is the best thing a feudal lord could/would be give his subjects mostly. 

I kinda think it's more benighn than your interpretation. His rule works off the basis of making it so that he tries to not give that many people to complain and provide stability to secure his place. 

[the trees have eyes]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, not much you can do here. I mean these people are serfs the range of what could possibly make them particularly merry is pretty limited no? A peaceful land is the best thing a feudal lord could/would be give his subjects mostly. 

I kinda think it's more benighn than your interpretation. His rule works off the basis of making it so that he tries to not give that many people to complain and provide stability to secure his place. 

We have the example of the miller and his wife to understand that Roose is not "benign" and does not give a damn about anyone.  He knows perfectly well that Ramsay hunts, rapes, tortures and murders women but he doesn't care and does nothing to curtail his son's "leisure activities".  People who complained to Roose would have their tongues cut out for disturbing his peace and to help them to be "quiet".

No, he would not make a good king.  Being a tyrant people live in fear of is not the definition of being good ruler.

[Varysblackfyre321]

33 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

We have the example of the miller and his wife to understand that Roose is not "benign" and does not give a damn about anyone.  He knows perfectly well that Ramsay hunts, rapes, tortures and murders women but he doesn't care and does nothing to curtail his son's "leisure activities".  People who complained to Roose would have their tongues cut out for disturbing his peace and to help them to be "quiet".

No, he would not make a good king.  Being a tyrant people live in fear of is not the definition of being good ruler.  He does wants Ramsey to to tone it down a bit-for its bad PR. He would try to stop Ramsey altogether if was a good manBut, likes what been stated before good men don't always make good rulers and vice-versa Although he engages in sever acts of cruelty he doesn't seem to make it wide spread. An occasional rape of a miler's wife here or there, but if it was really that frequent there'd certainly be tales that would spread to even Lord Rickard. I mean even the tongue thing we have only one account of. For as a sociopath Roose is, he's not so entrailed with giving pain he'd jump to that of a situation said a more "humane" approach is best option.  

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

55 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, that assumes the major players are particularly good people which more often than not isn't the case. But everyone wants to work with someone whose reliable if they to work with someone.  And Roose did. To a degree. 

Roose isn't exactly reliable is he? He betrayed pretty much everyone else on his side in the WO5K. Even if you thought your interests were aligned with his, you'd have keep an eye on him!

57 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, but is he even that? Yes he's a definite sadist whose most likely made boots out of people but his...peculiarities  didn't  seem to be extravagantly wide spread in his land.

Just a little bit of skinning people? Not going crazy with it. That's a relief. 

54 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, not much you can do here. I mean these people are serfs the range of what could possibly make them particularly merry is pretty limited no? A peaceful land is the best thing a feudal lord could/would be give his subjects mostly.

My point was that I think Roose's idea of "peaceful" is everyone cowering in terror, not rocking the boat. That may be tolerable, if you're the sort that doesn't step out of line or say the wrong thing; but is not exactly ideal. That's the kind of "peace" that's imposed by terror. 

 

57 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I kinda think it's more benighn than your interpretation. His rule works off the basis of making it so that he tries to not give that many people to complain and provide stability to secure his place. 

Roose first uses that "a peaceful land, a quiet people" line while recounting an anecdote of rape and murder of one of his population. The whole point is that Roose's idea of peace and quiet isn't one that is exactly beneficial to his smallfolk. Not being able to get married for fear of being murdered and raped is not most people's idea of "stability". It's stability for the rulers not the population as a whole. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, that assumes the major players are particularly good people which more often than not isn't the case. But everyone wants to work with someone whose reliable if they to work with someone.  And Roose did. To a degree. 

Roose isn't exactly reliable is he? He betrayed pretty much everyone else on his side in the WO5K. Even if you thought your interests were aligned with his, you'd have keep an eye on him!

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, but is he even that? Yes he's a definite sadist whose most likely made boots out of people but his...peculiarities  didn't  seem to be extravagantly wide spread in his land.

Just a little bit of skinning people? Not going crazy with it. That's a relief. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, not much you can do here. I mean these people are serfs the range of what could possibly make them particularly merry is pretty limited no? A peaceful land is the best thing a feudal lord could/would be give his subjects mostly.

My point was that I think Roose's idea of "peaceful" is everyone cowering in terror, not rocking the boat. That may be tolerable, if you're the sort that doesn't step out of line or say the wrong thing; but is not exactly ideal. That's the kind of "peace" that's imposed by terror. 

 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I kinda think it's more benighn than your interpretation. His rule works off the basis of making it so that he tries to not give that many people to complain and provide stability to secure his place. 

Roose first uses that "a peaceful land, a quiet people" line while recounting an anecdote of rape and murder of one of his population. The whole point is that Roose's idea of peace and quiet isn't one that is exactly beneficial to his smallfolk. Not being able to get married for fear of being murdered and raped is not most people's idea of "stability". It's stability for the rulers not the population as a whole. 

[Corvo the Crow]

I think it would be a peaceful land with quiet people... but I'm not sure whether the quiet people will have their tongues.