Do you think Roose Bolton would be a good king?

[the trees have eyes]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Of course providing the people of the realm particularly the major houses is important.  There is a real case for why Roose wouldn't be a good king but what you're pointing to isn't really evidence of that but just showing Roose to be despicable human being. 

Of course providing adequate care for the vast majority of subjects is key for a good ruler else he or she will find himself or herself more easily disposed.

The concept of Kingship atleast nominally rests on divine right. But truthfully kings in a feudal society rule at the consent of the major houses who back him. So long as he shows his rule isn't detrimental to them they fall in line and so the king is king. It doesn't matter if Roose mistreats his servants or just one randomn peasant  if the country is stable and secure enough for serfs to safely work the land to which they make their living and to fill their lords pocket;which is the primary objective of the ruling monarch. 

And if examining whether or not Stalin was a good ruler it's probably best to look at how his policies transformed his country, what was he able to do as leader not look at he emotionally tormented his own son and let him be murdered by Nazis. 

Yeah, the engineered famines in Ukraine, the millions killed in forced collectivisations, dekulakisation, the cosntant purges and the gulag, the artificial command economy that constructed towns, even cities in the arctic and Siberia that are being abandoned once the slave labour and the captive economy are removed.

I think you misunderstand what a good king or ruler is.  Roose has alienated pretty much the entire Northern nobility and that's not down to policy choices it's down to mass murder creating blood feuds.  His personal style makes it quite clear he is in the Cersei camp of making the people fear him rather than love him.  To say this could still be effective is amoral: you may as well ask if Vargo Hoat would make a good king.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yeah, the engineered famines in Ukraine, the millions killed in forced collectivisations, dekulakisation, the cosntant purges and the gulag, the artificial command economy that constructed towns, even cities in the arctic and Siberia that are being abandoned once the slave labour and the captive economy are remove

Exactly! That is what you'd point when discussing when debating whether or not Stalin was good leader. Not that he constantly beat his son or some other irrelevant thing that shows him to do be a bad guy. Stalin could have beaten his wife to death for fun that wouldn't factor into the conversation. I'm glad you understand

 

6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I think  you misunderstand what a good king or ruler is.  Roose has alienated pretty much the entire Northern nobility and that's not down to policy choices it's down to mass murder creating blood feuds. 

Ok what  exactly is wrong with the qualifications on what I think makes a good king in feudal society?

 

17 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

His personal style makes it quite clear he is in the Cersei camp of making the people fear him rather than love him.  To say this could still be effective is amoral: you may as well ask if Vargo Hoat would make a good king.

His personal style makes it quite clear its to adapt to the situation. So far he's tried to coax back favor with the north or at least exasperated the already sensitive situation. He understands trying to cull people particularly lords into doing what he wants isn't always the way to go. An invitation rather than a demand if an invitation has the same effect.!

[the trees have eyes]

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Exactly! That is what you'd point when discussing when debating whether or not Stalin was good leader. Not that he constantly beat his son or some other irrelevant thing that shows him to do be a bad guy. Stalin could have beaten his wife to death for fun that wouldn't factor into the conversation. I'm glad you understand

 

WTF are you talking about.  A king would have virtually unlimited power to act with impunity towards the people they have under their control.  The point about Stalin (or Saddam) was that the rule of law was absent, a mockery more like, when he was in power and his quiet people suffered horrendously for it.  Roose has done nothing to show that he should be entrusted with any sort of power over anyone, his actions speak for themsleves.  It also seems you hold the view that individuals don't matter and that any amount of lives can be lost or brutalised if the nation / state / kingdom or some other abstract concept "benefits" from it.  I think history has enough warnings about the consequences of that to wonder if you really don't get this.

And as for the bolded: the question you want to ask is would you want to risk being under this person's authority?  The rule of law and oaths of loyalty or sacred guest right all disappear when it suits Roose.  You seem to think these kinds of acts amount to tactical skill on his part and that there are no long term consequences for either him or the fabric of the state and society because of them.  I think the story is showing us quite the opposite.

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ok what  exactly is wrong with the qualifications on what I think makes a good king in feudal society?

The qualifications are the definition I presume, rather than caveats on it?

Quote

The concept of Kingship atleast nominally rests on divine right. But truthfully kings in a feudal society rule at the consent of the major houses who back him. So long as he shows his rule isn't detrimental to them they fall in line and so the king is king. It doesn't matter if Roose mistreats his servants or just one randomn peasant  if the country is stable and secure enough for serfs to safely work the land to which they make their living and to fill their lords pocket;which is the primary objective of the ruling monarch

Yeah, that works pretty well up to a point.  Why you would post that without any consideration of how the sack of Winterfell and the Red Wedding have turned the Northern Nobility agasint the Boltons and are itching for Roose's downfall is the question.  Roose is like Richard II here, he has broken the compact between himself and his lords.  And it's also a bit too cynical, the divine right of kings was not a carte blanche to do as they pleased because they were god kings like the Egyptian Pharaohs, it rested on the fundamental belief that the king was a protector of the nation / realm and that he had a duty to enforce the laws and dispense justice.  If the royal famliy start hunting, raping and flaying women for sport no one is going to consider them good rulers.  They might not have the power to do anything about it but that's not the point.

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

His personal style makes it quite clear its to adapt to the situation. So far he's tried to coax back favor with the north or at least exasperated the already sensitive situation. He understands trying to cull people particularly lords into doing what he wants isn't always the way to go. An invitation rather than a demand if an invitation has the same effect.!

This is astonishing.  I get you like the character and as moustache-twirling villains go he's a good one but he's made himself a target of the most powerful Houses in the North who want vengeance for their murdered kin.  The bolded parts attempt to make him look reasonable but you can't forget the actions that preceded it .  Talk about trying to close the stable door after the horses have bolted, oh, and you burned the stable down...

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

22 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It doesn't make a person better. Else Joffery would've been a great one. But, when counting whether or a not a person is a good ruler his personal moral character is of little issue. 

 

It depends. I certainly agree that a degree of moral flexibility, and even ruthlessness, may be necessary. But to what ends? If someone is ruthless for the benefit of the realm, that's one thing. Roose is ruthless purely for his own benefit. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

WTF are you talking about.  A king would have virtually unlimited power to act with impunity towards the people they have under their control.  The point about Stalin (or Saddam) was that the rule of law was absent, a mockery more like, when he was in power and his quiet people suffered horrendously for it.  Roose has done nothing to show that he should be entrusted with any sort of power over anyone, his actions speak for themsleves.  It also seems you hold the view that individuals don't matter and that any amount of lives can be lost or brutalised if the nation / state / kingdom or some other abstract concept "benefits" from it.  I think history has enough warnings about the consequences of that to wonder if you really don't get this.

Just when I complimented you for finally getting it. If you want to discuss whether or not a person is a good ruler or king simply don't point to things that show him to be a bad person in general. Pointing to The tangible consequences for his actions as ruler for the place he rules.   Roose allowing Ramsey to have his hobbies or engaging in his own cruelties with his servents isn't evidence for why Roose would be a terrible king in a feudal society.

And no, kings in feudal societies  have limits, they can't do whatever they want without the majority of the major houses support. 

Indivuals do matter. I not saying whatever abuse a monarch enacts upon one is something just or not horrible I'm saying in terms of whether or not the sitting monarch does hurt or son hurts some peasants doesn't factor in to whether or not he's a good king.

There are plenty of examples in history that show just that.

There have been many fine men who were terrible kings and adequate or even great kings who had cruel hobbies Roose or Ramsey.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yeah, that works pretty well up to a point.  Why you would post that without any consideration of how the sack of Winterfell and the Red Wedding have turned the Northern Nobility agasint the Boltons and are itching for Roose's downfall is the question. 

I did. And Roose's recognizion and response to this delicate situation shows he's far from just trying to use fear to gain what he wants from the people under him if the situation calls for it.

 

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Roose is like Richard II here, he has broken the compact between himself and his lords. 

They weren't his lords at the time of the RW.

Now that they're under his authority he is trying to honor the compact between the warden and lords of the region he's been assigned.   

Yeah, Pharos  have raped, killed and genuily humiliated people on the lower end of society(mostly slaves), and no one took as really being other than no bigger a deal than if they had crushed s fly. But divine right isn't why they rule, they rule because they've the backing of the powerful to do so.  

This is astonishing.  I get you like the character and as moustache-twirling villains go he's a good one but he's made himself a target of the most powerful Houses in the North who want vengeance for their murdered kin.   The bolded parts attempt to make him look reasonable but you can't forget the actions that preceded it .  Talk about trying to close the stable door after the horses have bolted, oh, and you burned the stable down...

Yeah, the way he got his current position to rule the north by the authority of warden has made him very unpopular. I'm looking at how he's acting after he gets the authority.   And it shows s man willing and has tried to work with these houses.  He would do the same thing if he was ever in the position of king; try to work with the forces that govern the realm and deescalate any sort of tensions that may cause rebellion. I get that you like the idea of good rulers having to have some moral virtue but they don't. 

•  

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, the way he got his current position to rule the north by the authority of warden has made him very unpopular. I'm looking at how he's acting after he gets the authority.   And it shows s man willing and has tried to work with these houses.  He would do the same thing if he was ever in the position of king; try to work with the forces that govern the realm and deescalate any sort of tensions that may cause rebellion. I get that you like the idea of good rulers having to have some moral virtue but they don't. 

As you have pointed out, that is the only way he can hope to remain as warden. That doesn't prove he would make a good ruler/king, only that he's not stupid. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

It depends. I certainly agree that a degree of moral flexibility, and even ruthlessness, may be necessary. But to what ends? If someone is ruthless for the benefit of the realm, that's one thing. Roose is ruthless purely for his own benefit. 

And how is that really much worse than monarchies currently work?

Again, the king will place his house(though he shouldn't), first and foremost. That doesn't mean however they will not try to make the realm well because doing so secures their position more.

Roose will do what is best for the realm so long as it secures his position. Not very altruistic, I know but kings sadly aren't the selfless paragons they tout themselves out to the common people, they've a buisness relationship, the king does a good enough job ruling in turn the major houses allow him to remain king. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

As you have pointed out, that is the only way he can hope to remain as warden. That doesn't prove he would make a good ruler/king, only that he's not stupid. 

But that is a major part towards it. The reason why people like Joffery or Viserys would/were terrible kings because they don't understand how arbitrary their rule really is. Truth be told I honestly don't know if Roose would be a good king. Not for any of his hobbies of course but because of what other posters have mentioned of him not having any real political charisma, he looks like a villain, his voice sounds whispery he just puts people off and I don't think he could make them feel comfortable (which is key when diplomaticing), if he wanted to.  I imagine he'd fit far better in as a high level  than king  quite frankly or even hand.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 28, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Sourjapes said:

I generally agree with this, however, despite Roose Bolton being my favorite character, I don't think there is any justification for his toleration of Ramsay. The taking of the Lord's Right was not justified either, but I'll ascribe that to the passion of youth and presume that as an older man he has come to realize how unwise that little indulgence was. I want to say that Roose could be a good king if only because he'd be interested in avoiding wars, but again, his toleration of Ramsay undermines his own motto.

In terms of managing people I think he can do fine. What must be understood about the Manderly/Frey situation is that the Manderly's are taking advantage of the Stannis' invasion. If it weren't for Stannis invading from up north, offering an alternative to the Boltons via' having the additional men to form an army that could topple them, few northern lords would dare act so brazenly against Roose. They CAN take bold moves against him now because if he tried to bring his men down to White Harbor and siege them out he'd be exposed to Stannis.

 

Roose's takeover of the North would have probably gone off without a hitch if it weren't for two things:

 

Stannis invading

&

His bastard son

 

Nobody wants Ramsay for their liege and if Roose dies before raising another child to manhood then Ramsay will almost certainly assume his father's titles. If so then either the North has to suffer his abuse and tyranny or else fight another bloody civil war to oust him.

 

 

So again, I just don't get why Roose tolerates Ramsay so much. I suppose with the marriage to "Arya" he has to keep him, but you'd still think he'd have him under great control. As Lady Dustin says ever scream from "Ned's little girl" plants another seed of rebellion.

Maybe for the reason you just said? No one Ramsey to rule Roose by comparison looks much better so people are less likely to take him out. Though he does seem to be planning on outliving his son since he shows he has no intention of Ramsey to be the one to suceed him.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And how is that really much worse than monarchies currently work?

Again, the king will place his house(though he shouldn't), first and foremost. That doesn't mean however they will not try to make the realm well because doing so secures their position more.

Roose will do what is best for the realm so long as it secures his position. Not very altruistic, I know but kings sadly aren't the selfless paragons they tout themselves out to the common people, they've a buisness relationship, the king does a good enough job ruling in turn the major houses allow him to remain king. 

All kings may ultimately be self-interested. But Rooses entire approach is based on force, manipulation and terror. And everyone knows it. Such a regime is bound to be unstable.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

All kings may ultimately be self-interested. But Rooses entire approach is based on force, manipulation and terror. And everyone knows it. Such a regime is bound to be unstable.

Well manipulation isn't in of itself a negative way for a ruler to get his way.  And force and fear are tools he'd use but they're not the only ones in his arsenal; diplomacy, gifts to garner endearment and showing respect (even if fake), to lords is what he's shown he's willing to do. He's not Ramsey who will try to terrorize his allies into following him if there is a more viable alternative.

[Sourjapes]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Maybe for the reason you just said? No one Ramsey to rule Roose by comparison looks much better so people are less likely to take him out. Though he does seem to be planning on outliving his son since he shows he has no intention of Ramsey to be the one to suceed him.

No, I don't think that works because everybody knows Roose won't live forever and he is, naturally, at least some 20-ish (give or take) years older than Ramsay. I think even Lord Glover says himself that he can stomach bending knee to Roose because he can reason with Roose. He even tells a Manderly that "We've all known worse" so in living memory in the North there have been lords more feared or despised than Roose. In that same sentence though he says, "But this bastard of his... he's an animal in human skin", or something to that effect. Even Lady Hornwood once said that Ramsay's cruelty was something she could scare believe even a Bolton was capable. So again, it seems that fear of inevitable Ramsay rule is what drives a fair deal of the coming rebellion.

 

Imagine if you will if there was no Ramsay for one reason or another. Roose could tell the Northern lords that he was spared at the Red Wedding because he was married to a Frey. He could say that his army was intact because they arrived late to the festivities, due to having to march from Harrenhal and being harried by the Mountain, and as such made camp away from the tents set-up by the Freys. A lot of lords would believe this was bullshit but they wouldn't KNOW. Just a tiny inkling of doubt, the acceptance that Roose's account is at least a possibility, would go a long way towards getting lords to accept his rule. That's in addition to their forces having already been spent in a war that they lost and winter upon them. War would seem like a very unappealing prospect. Which would then make it easy for Roose to rally the Northern lords to him when Stannis invades. He's just another southern pretender to the throne who is only going to drag the North into another hopeless war right after they just fought a war and as winter is burying them in snow.

 

It's why I say Roose should just lock-up Ramsay in his chambers to keep him from harming "Arya". Creative means can be used to get an heir out of him, including just siring it himself. All that matter is that the lords of the north think she might be legitimate and she's not being tortured by a monster, a monster who will someday rule them.

[LordImp]

OP: Yes

[the trees have eyes]

On 30/12/2017 at 0:30 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Just when I complimented you for finally getting it. If you want to discuss whether or not a person is a good ruler or king simply don't point to things that show him to be a bad person in general. Pointing to The tangible consequences for his actions as ruler for the place he rules.   Roose allowing Ramsey to have his hobbies or engaging in his own cruelties with his servents isn't evidence for why Roose would be a terrible king in a feudal society.

 

It's like saying a policeman is a good policeman apart from the protection racket he runs and the odd bit of extra-judicial killing here and there whenever he felt like it.  It's not that often and it can't be proven easily though there are rumours but if we hold our noses and look the other way we can pretend he's a model policeman and it sucks for his victims but we can hope we won't be among them.

Or saying a a doctor is a good doctor apart from the odd bit of organ harvesting but hey it was only now and then and most of his patients survived so what's the big deal, we can allow him the occasional indulgence in his "hobbies", he's really a good doctor.

We have seen Roose's behaviour we know he is not a "good lord".  He is effective as his people fear him or avoid him or imitate him (Ramsasy's boys are no different to the Mountain's Men but they are all Roose's men first and foremost) and the last thing we need is this sort of person scaling up.  His ambitions and both the political consequences for the North and the personal consequences for the anyone who just happens to get in the way are dire.

You have yet to make any case for Roose being a good king that I can see.  Maybe he's good at cyvasse and strategy games.  So what?  As has been repeated time and again being smart, calculating and ruthless are not things to be admired in isolation and can make someone very dangerous in power because they have no limits and no frame of moral reference, simply the desire to do what they want and maintain their power at any price.

It's pretty clear you are a "the end justifies the means" kind of guy but ask what that meant at Winterfell, The Red Wedding and the consequences that are flowing from those actions.  Roose was meant to go beyond the pale and secure a temporary victory but the point was he tore up so many rules or sacred principles that no one will ever trust him again.  Now how effective that might make him when he is always watching his back, taking out rivals or potential rivals and managing the blood feuds he has started is questionable (I would say he can't, so would Manderly & co) but it is beyond belief that he could ever manage to be seen as a good king by his subjects, great and small.

This seems to be the part you "don't get" as the below shows quite neatly

On 30/12/2017 at 0:30 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They weren't his lords at the time of the RW.

Now that they're under his authority he is trying to honor the compact between the warden and lords of the region he's been assigned.  

Do you really think murdering their relatives before he was Warden of the North makes it irrelevant to them?  I'm pretty speechless at the idea that they would forget about their sons (and daughter) and fathers and brothers and uncles and say, "yeah Roose, that stuff didn't count, we owe you our fealty now and you have done nothing to make us squestion your fitness to rule us and you are such a good lord we are all gonna love working for you.....".  They want his head and for good reason.

He has shown he is not trustworthy and will murder those who worked with him and trusted him.  He did this with no compunction and would do it again without a second thought.  They know this and he has, ipso facto, shown himself unsuitable to be a ruler.

On 30/12/2017 at 0:30 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There are plenty of examples in history that show just that.

There have been many fine men who were terrible kings and adequate or even great kings who had cruel hobbies Roose or Ramsey.

Well we remember Vlad the Impaler as, well, "the impaler", don't we?  Not as Good King Vlad with the unfortunate personal hobby that should not detract us from the (general) awesomeness of his rule.

On 30/12/2017 at 0:30 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, Pharos  have raped, killed and genuily humiliated people on the lower end of society(mostly slaves), and no one took as really being other than no bigger a deal than if they had crushed s fly. But divine right isn't why they rule, they rule because they've the backing of the powerful to do so.  

Don't confuse the divine right of kings to rule with God's blessing with the claim to be a God-King and thus a God itself, or Medieval Europe with Ancient Egypt.  Kings could be and were excommunicated by Popes - Henry II of England and the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV as two exampes - but the Pharaoh's faced no such sanctions or limitations on their power.  And your use of the word slave is pretty relevant: there awere no slaves in Medieval Europe and there are none in Westeros but there were in Egypt.  Roose might have made a good Pharaoh as there were no limitations on their power (save assassination and warfare ofc) but no one is claiming he is a God-King apart from the "Roose the Vampire" meme crowd.

On 30/12/2017 at 0:30 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, the way he got his current position to rule the north by the authority of warden has made him very unpopular. I'm looking at how he's acting after he gets the authority.   And it shows s man willing and has tried to work with these houses.  He would do the same thing if he was ever in the position of king; try to work with the forces that govern the realm and deescalate any sort of tensions that may cause rebellion. I get that you like the idea of good rulers having to have some moral virtue but they don't. 

•  

Why?  Why ignore everything that happened before AFFC & ADWD.  It's deliberately ignoring hugely germane information!  He is trying to work with those Houses you say.  Yeah, he's taking hostages as he knows without the hostages they'll take him down.  You can't ignore what we know (because you dislike it) because you can't explain what is hapening without it.  Why you would try to is the puzzle, it's a rather pointless question if we just try and analyse a new ruler trying to establish himself without any of the context to the situation, like we're operating in a vacuum.

Good rulers do not need moral virute, no but they need some idea of the responsibilities of a ruler towards their people.  A virtuous ruler with no skill or understanding of what to do, say Baelor the Blessed, makes a poor ruler while a ruthless yet not immoral or amoral character might make a good King, say Aegon the Conqueror, but a ruthless, cruel and amoral character like Roose would make a terrible ruler. 

The only way you get to make a case for Roose - and I only see this now you say you are interested in assessing him after he becomes Warden of the North - is by ignoring a huge part of who he is and how he operates.  That's a pointless exercise, surely, as first, we know a lot more about him and second, he hasn't done anything since gaining power except take hostages and try and pretend he didn't betray all the peole he now presumes to rule over (and that you don't want us to remember ).

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's like saying a policeman is a good policeman apart from the protection racket he runs and the odd bit of extra-judicial killing here and there whenever he felt like it.  It's not that often and it can't be proven easily though there are rumours but if we hold our noses and look the other way we can pretend he's a model policeman and it sucks for his victims but we can hope we won't be among them.

 

A police officer is supposed execute the law first and foremost. Him violating it makes him a bad one since he's failed his purpose.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Or saying a a doctor is a good doctor apart from the odd bit of organ harvesting but hey it was only now and then and most of his patients survived so what's the big deal, we can allow him the occasional indulgence in his "hobbies", he's really a good doctor.

He like the policeman would be failing in his primary purpose to heal and do no harm to his patients.

The primary function of a king in a feudal society is to make the country stable and secure enough for the serfs and peasants  of the land to work thus make their lord reek benifits as payment for carrying  out his own duties and give tribute.

If you want to point to why Roose would fail at the position's function, pointing to how his apathy to the pain his son causes to a few peasants isn't really solid proof of that.

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Why?  Why ignore everything that happened before AFFC & ADWD.  It's deliberately ignoring hugely germane information!  He is trying to work with those Houses you say.  Yeah, he's taking hostages as he knows without the hostages they'll take him down.  You can't ignore what we know (because you dislike it) because you can't explain what is hapening without it.  Why you would try to is the puzzle, it's a rather pointless question if we just try and analyse a new ruler trying to establish himself without any of the context to the situation, like we're operating in a vacuum.

Yeah, he's pretty unpopular at the moment and if not for the fact he's the backing of the IT who took some important hostages he'd probably been disposed for his part in the red wedding. And? It 

 

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

rulers do not need moral virute, no but they need some idea of the responsibilities of a ruler towards their people.  A virtuous ruler with no skill or understanding of what to do, say Baelor the Blessed, makes a poor ruler while a ruthless yet not immoral or amoral character might make a good King, say Aegon the Conqueror, but a ruthless, cruel and amoral character like Roose would make a terrible ruler. 

And what has Roose done to show he doesn't understand  he must do certain things and can't rely upon pure attempts at intimidatation to get his way.

 

 

4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

On December 30, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Don't confuse the divine right of kings to rule with God's blessing with the claim to be a God-King and thus a God itself, or Medieval Europe with Ancient Egypt.  Kings could be and were excommunicated by Popes - Henry II of England and the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV as two exampes - but the Pharaoh's faced no such sanctions or limitations on their power.  And your use of the word slave is pretty relevant: there awere no slaves in Medieval Europe and there are none in Westeros but there were in Egypt.  Roose might have made a good Pharaoh as there were no limitations on their power (save assassination and warfare ofc) but no one is claiming he is a God-King apart from the "Roose the Vampire" meme crowd.

There were plenty of slaves in medeval Europe. 

Westeroes no, but the rights of a peasant are practically none existent and wouldn't be expected to have any justice for when a lord abused him(except for the north).

[the trees have eyes]

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A police officer is supposed execute the law first and foremost. Him violating it makes him a bad one since he's failed his purpose.

 

But he hasn't has he?  He has upheld the law for most people, it's a perfect analogy for Roose maintaining a quiet land for most people.

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He like the policeman would be failing in his primary purpose to heal and do no harm to his patients.

Same as above.

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The primary function of a king in a feudal society is to make the country stable and secure enough for the serfs and peasants  of the land to work thus make their lord reek benifits as payment for carrying  out his own duties and give tribute.

I take it you mean reap?  Ironic given your argumets about the odd bit of rape and murder here and there being ok.

You seem to take the view that the purpose of a ruler is to maintain themselves in power and anything else they do, from keeping the nobility happy or dispensing justice are just tactics.  That is amoral.  Medieval kingship was legitimised on the idea that a king looked afer his people and the people owed their fealty to their liege but their liege had responsibilities towards them too - most notably upholding the law. 

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If you want to point to why Roose would fail at the position's function, pointing to how his apathy to the pain his son causes to a few peasants isn't really solid proof of that.

How does brutalising your peasants and murdering your fellow noblemen fit into that?  Whether he is good at cyvasse or not is irrelevant, he is a destabilising force based on personal ambition and lack of scruple.  The Mountain engaged in a bit of rape and murder and brutalised his peasants too but we can assume he maintained a peaceful land with a quiet people and most of them would farm and provide tithes and the system would work fine.  So is that it, your idea of medieval monarchy: Roose or the Mountain would make your ideal king?

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, he's pretty unpopular at the moment and if not for the fact he's the backing of the IT who took some important hostages he'd probably been disposed for his part in the red wedding. And? It 

And what has Roose done to show he doesn't understand  he must do certain things and can't rely upon pure attempts at intimidatation to get his way.

Let me try and break it down for you.  If I were a powerful nobleman / noblewoman and you murdered my son / brother / father / daughter and then tried to act like it never happened and to be reasonable it would not matter.  I would want your head not to give you a chance to be a "good ruler".   I don't know why you overlook this.  He broke every oath, sacred trust, personal relationship when he orchestrated the Red Wedding - and we can assume Ramsay took Lady Hornwood and sacked Winterfell at his command not off his own bat - and whether he would pass an entrance exam on kingship studies is irrelevant.  He has shown he doesn't get that ruling is about people: those who count will never trust him again and want him dead, those who don't count fear him and won't mourn his passing.

On 31/12/2017 at 6:27 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There were plenty of slaves in medeval Europe. 

Westeroes no, but the rights of a peasant are practically none existent and wouldn't be expected to have any justice for when a lord abused him(except for the north).

At the start of the medieval period there were slaves but this practice was gradually suppressed by the Church.  There were no slaves in the feudal system that GRRM has based Westeros on, there were serfs.  The lot of the serf was not a particularly easy one as they were tied to the land but there is a huge distinction between being property that can be disposed of by a God-King and being in a client relationship with a Lord who is bound by customary, legal and religious restraints to act in a certain way.

[The Sunland Lord]

Someone should've told him that grabbing power is not the same as keeping it. He is a poor ruler as a warden, let alone being a king? No. A good thing he has no claim to the IT whatsoever. 

[Nowy Tends]

Roose in not even able to control his bastard son; we see him overwhelmed by the events at Winterfell… talk about a leader!

You don't make a good king with a VERY bad person…

[The Wolves]

He’s very chaotic. Like he knows the risk that Ramsey brings(his very public displays of cruelty, killing Roose’s children, his impulsiveness, etc...)yet he keeps him around. He also does evil just to do evil. He’s loyal to no one and very untrustworthy. He’s a liar, greedy, and evil. Roose would make a horrible king. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

But he hasn't has he?  He has upheld the law for most people, it's a perfect analogy for Roose maintaining a quiet land for most people.

Not for most people altogether.

Same as above.

Wrong as well.

The examination of whether or not a king is good looks at the effects of his actions as monarch of the entire country. Not indivual cases alone. 

I take it you mean reap?  Ironic given your argumets about the odd bit of rape and murder here and there being ok.

Never argued it was ok I argued it wasn't a detraction in terms of examine whether or not a person is or could be a good king.

You seem to take the view that the purpose of a ruler is to maintain themselves in power and anything else they do, from keeping the nobility happy or dispensing justice are just tactics. 

The purpose of king in feudal society is as followed: provide enough to where the day to day workings of the country goes smoothly as possible. You know, making sure the country isn't being invaded, if so it has been prepared adequately to deal with it, make sure the roads are safe for subjects to travel and trade, ect In return for living up to their purpose kings are allowed to keep the privellage of their rule. If they fufill their obligation they can be considered a good king. Good kings  are good kings usually because they realize they must be else they are going to be replaced.

 A person can legitimately be a sociopath and a good king so long as he understands and fulfills his purpose. And Roose while lacking any real intrinsic moral sense of right and wrong recognizes he must fufill specific responsibilities towards others if he wants to keep or get what he wants.

That is amoral.  Medieval kingship was legitimised on the idea that a king looked afer his people and the people owed their fealty to their liege but their liege had responsibilities towards them too - most notably upholding the law. 

How does brutalising your peasants and murdering your fellow noblemen fit into that?   Whether he is good at cyvasse or not is irrelevant he is a destabilising force based on personal ambition and lack of scruple.

 

  The Mountain engaged in a bit of rape and murder and brutalised his peasants too but we can assume he maintained a peaceful land with a quiet people and most of them would farm and provide tithes and the system would work fine.  So is that it, your idea of medieval monarchy: Roose or the Mountain would make your ideal king?

The mountain like Ramsey or Joffery would take a hammer in every sort of situation even those that need a softer touch because he likes to destroy things-never mind the actual consequence I said I don't know if Roose would even make a good king-I'm arguing against your reasons for why not however because I find them unreaonble. Honestly tell me where exactly does it end with you? Would you call a king brought prosperity to the realm, make the economy boom, the roads safer than ever before a bad king by virtue of him being cruel to hand full of servents in his castle? How about one? Is it really all or nothing? You know Tywin ordered his own son to participate in the gangrape of his son's wife, exterminated and entire families and betrayed a man who had swore fealty to-under his handship the realm was prosperous and I dare say no one would call Tywin a bad king.

Let me try and break it down for you.  If I were a powerful nobleman / noblewoman and you murdered my son / brother / father / daughter and then tried to act like it never happened and to be reasonable it would not matter.  I would want your head not to give you a chance to be a "good ruler".

Depends on your situation no? If you cannot see any plausible way to harm without destroying yourself or at least obstruct the new authority and resistance could only add to your house's suffering you may get in line. Aegon was unpopular when he took Westeroes. Plenty of nobles lost their kin to this foreighn sister-fucker.If it wasn't for his dragons and Kings guard he would've lost his head. Yet we would look his actions as ruler to see how effective he was rather than the way he got his rule in the first place which did come at the expense of most of the people he sought to rule.

  I don't know why you overlook this.

 

  He broke every oath, sacred trust, personal relationship when he orchestrated the Red Wedding - and we can assume Ramsay took Lady Hornwood and sacked Winterfell at his command not off his own bat - and whether he would pass an entrance exam on kingship studies is irrelevant.

He'd break any oath he'd swore to any god he swore if it was shown to be in his interest and he'd commit any foul act if he thoght so too. He's an oath breaker liar, rapist, murderer: none of these things are detraction for whether or not he'd be a good king in it of themselves.

He has shown he doesn't get that ruling is about people: those who count will never trust him again and want him dead, those who don't count fear him and won't mourn his passing.

He's shown he's an utter sociopath true. A monster maybe even grander than his son. But he has shown repeatdly to get ruling is about people. He shows it with his irritation time and time again at Ramsey not understanding that he cannot simply treat the lords of the north as though they are his literal pets, that there are still repercussions for being so openly evil.

At the start of the medieval period there were slaves but this practice was gradually suppressed by the Church.  There were no slaves in the feudal system that GRRM has based Westeros on, there were serfs.  The lot of the serf was not a particularly easy one as they were tied to the land but there is a huge distinction between being property that can be disposed of by a God-King and being in a client relationship with a Lord who is bound by customary, legal and religious restraints to act in a certain way. Though both will not really be given justice if their master ever transgress's upon them. Any sort of stated protection was just that: stated. No one is going to go war with a noble house because it's lord had killed a peasant woman in a drunken stupor-they'll shake their head at the indignity of it. You know the little altercation with Arya and Joffery really highlight this. You notice Mycach's behavior to Joffery's bullying is of a whipped dog afraid his master is about to strike him-because he recognizes Joffery as a social superior who can literally do with he wants with a butcher's boy like Mycach and face no consequence. Hell after he's run down by the hound trying to get away, no one besides Ned and Arya really care.