Jump to content

Archived

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

Moiraine Sedai

Dyanastic Rule. Khal Drogo and Mance Rayder

Recommended Posts

They lead people who follow the strong.  But what if these men wanted to change the culture?  Both were revolutionary in his own way.

We are given clues of many among the Dothraki desiring a unification of all the khalasars.  They waited for The Stallion Who Will Mount The World to bind all the khalasars together.  Do all khaleesi receive the same reception during their pregnancy?  I think no.  The Dothraki were purposeful in trying to birth their future leader.  Drogo was working to set up a system of dynastic rule with his own children. 

Is it possible Mance had the same goals for the Wildlings?  It would mean peace and less conflict.  Who doesn't want his own children to inherit after him.  It's human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

They lead people who follow the strong.  But what if these men wanted to change the culture?  Both were revolutionary in his own way.

We are given clues of many among the Dothraki desiring a unification of all the khalasars.  They waited for The Stallion Who Will Mount The World to bind all the khalasars together.  Do all khaleesi receive the same reception during their pregnancy?  I think no.  The Dothraki were purposeful in trying to birth their future leader.  Drogo was working to set up a system of dynastic rule with his own children. 

Is it possible Mance had the same goals for the Wildlings?  It would mean peace and less conflict.  Who doesn't want his own children to inherit after him.  It's human nature.

I agree 100% on Drogo.

I think that even if Mance had wanted to started a House Rayder, or a Rayder dynasty, that the nature of the Free Folk would make it very difficult to do. They seem to pride themselves on not kneeling. Uniting them took Mance years, and that is in the face of a truly existential threat. The wildlings have only been united a handful of times and I don't think anyone has been successful in establishing a dynasty (maybe a son to follow but never more than that - although I may be wrong).

Mance may well have wanted to establish a dynasty but I think it would be especially difficult to do beyond the wall. Now had he been successful in coming south with his army intact? That would have been a different story as he would be setting a precedent that no other before him had managed to achieve, not for lack of trying.

Very cool topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drogo was 100% going to install his and Dannys son as the next Khal of Khals as long as the gods willed it.

Mance on the other hand had a lot more to worry about with the WW threat then trying to change thousands of years of tradition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were others besides Drogo who wanted a united Dothraki people.  Just look the guest list on Dany's wedding day.  There were many members of the ruling classes of Essos among the wedding guests.  They were eager to create this bonding between the Targaryens and the Khalasars.  A strong Dothraki leader can better keep the tribes organized which make them an interesting people to do business with.  It's like desiring a stable government in a foreign country before investing billions in said country.  Doing business with one man instead of negotiating separate deals with each khalasar is a better climate for trade as well making the Dothraki better neighbors.  The Free Cities wanted this and the DK wanted it to happen.  We can even extend this interests across the ocean to Westeros.  What if there were many merchants in the Free Cities who were unhappy with Robert Baratheon?  The man drove the economy to destruction and borrowed too heavily.  That would worry a lot of his business partners.  

The DK pretty much anointed Rhaego.  Unusual for the Dothraki but a clear sign that old customs are about to be broken.  The child carried the blood of a Valyrian dragonlord and a Dothraki khal.  Which made him a good person from which to build a royal dynasty because you can't get more royal than that.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we know Drogo was.

The Wildings? Well, they are keeping track of Raymun Redbeards line. "Kissed by Fire"..... Bael having a Valyrian name.... I would bank on yes. 

 

Edit- Mance imo is banking on something else having to do with Val, tying back to Queen Alysanne. Come on, Mance's best friend Tormund just happens to have a possible daughter with Maege (Spelled Valyrian) whose name is, Alysane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

They lead people who follow the strong.  But what if these men wanted to change the culture?  Both were revolutionary in his own way.

We are given clues of many among the Dothraki desiring a unification of all the khalasars.  They waited for The Stallion Who Will Mount The World to bind all the khalasars together.  Do all khaleesi receive the same reception during their pregnancy?  I think no.  The Dothraki were purposeful in trying to birth their future leader.  Drogo was working to set up a system of dynastic rule with his own children. 

Is it possible Mance had the same goals for the Wildlings?  It would mean peace and less conflict.  Who doesn't want his own children to inherit after him.  It's human nature.

That could very well be one of the reasons behind the Daenerys-Drogo wedding.  It won't be long before a Targaryen is ruling the khalasars and a Targaryen is ruling the seven kingdoms.  A Targaryen-ruled world in effect.  The masterminds behind the curtains want more than the restoration of the Targaryens on the iron throne.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drogo was the son of a khal, the sea was basically his birthright.

The dothraki follow the strong to a certain degree, but so do Westerosi. (Think Randylls excuse for disowning Sam). Being a son of a khal, Drogo probably had access to the best trainers and horses his father's khallisar had to offer. So Drogo was the strongest, but so was Robert and Robb and them.

Mance and the freefolks also follow somewhat of a hereditary title though not as much as Dothraki. If Mance led a successful kingdom, I have little doubt that Maester would be his heir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hereditary rulership has its issues but it can avoid bloodshed with each transition.  Every reign will end but it doesn't have to automatically result in a war for succession.  This is where hereditary rulership helps.

What Drogo ultimately had in mind is anybody's guess.  Mance Rayder perhaps wanted to claim the north for the wildlings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 1:19 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Drogo was the son of a khal, the sea was basically his birthright.

The dothraki follow the strong to a certain degree, but so do Westerosi. (Think Randylls excuse for disowning Sam). Being a son of a khal, Drogo probably had access to the best trainers and horses his father's khallisar had to offer. So Drogo was the strongest, but so was Robert and Robb and them.

Mance and the freefolks also follow somewhat of a hereditary title though not as much as Dothraki. If Mance led a successful kingdom, I have little doubt that Maester would be his heir

Perhaps so.  Though custom among the Dothraki dictate that his successor should be the strongest.  Rhaego can't be guaranteed to lead unless this custom is amended to make room for hereditary rule.

The wildling situation can benefit from the same type of system.  Mance would do well to consider a plan of succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Silver Bullet 1985 said:

Perhaps so.  Though custom among the Dothraki dictate that his successor should be the strongest.  Rhaego can't be guaranteed to lead unless this custom is amended to make room for hereditary rule.

The wildling situation can benefit from the same type of system.  Mance would do well to consider a plan of succession.

The reason Rhaego died was because of who his father was. The rules may say strongest, but baby Rhaego was still a threat to Pono and them.

In fact the whole Vaes Dothrak seems to be an anti hereditary institute of dead Khals, kinda like Jaime forbidding Jeyne from having relations for the next couple of years.

 

Freefolk are confusing. They claim to be anti feudal but Dalla and her kid certainly have a nicer life then the rest, plus Val has an aura about her. 

Thing is too, freefolk shouldnt have kings, where as Dothraki need Khals. Its not that Dallas the exception, Mance is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2018 at 12:03 PM, Legitimate_Bastard said:

I agree 100% on Drogo.

I think that even if Mance had wanted to started a House Rayder, or a Rayder dynasty, that the nature of the Free Folk would make it very difficult to do. They seem to pride themselves on not kneeling. Uniting them took Mance years, and that is in the face of a truly existential threat. The wildlings have only been united a handful of times and I don't think anyone has been successful in establishing a dynasty (maybe a son to follow but never more than that - although I may be wrong).

Mance may well have wanted to establish a dynasty but I think it would be especially difficult to do beyond the wall. Now had he been successful in coming south with his army intact? That would have been a different story as he would be setting a precedent that no other before him had managed to achieve, not for lack of trying.

Very cool topic.

I agree on the difficulty.  Mance is human though.  The power got to his head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I agree on the difficulty.  Mance is human though.  The power got to his head. 

That makes me think about this

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't doubt what those two had planned.  What I'm more interested in is the comparison between dynastic rule versus democratic rule.  Knee jerk reaction says voting the leader is better but I say that is not always the case.  George gave us several examples that contradict this.  The election of Jon Snow gave the Nights Watch it's worst lord commander in history.  It was a democratic process but the result was a complete disaster for the N/W.   Aegon Targaryen taking the kingdoms of the west by force and forging a united kingdom brought positive results for the common folk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wm Portnoy said:

I won't doubt what those two had planned.  What I'm more interested in is the comparison between dynastic rule versus democratic rule.  Knee jerk reaction says voting the leader is better but I say that is not always the case.  George gave us several examples that contradict this.  The election of Jon Snow gave the Nights Watch it's worst lord commander in history.  It was a democratic process but the result was a complete disaster for the N/W.   Aegon Targaryen taking the kingdoms of the west by force and forging a united kingdom brought positive results for the common folk.  

The election of Jon Snow as LC probably saved the entire realm. With the Wildlings Jon can take Winterfell and unite the North against the Dead therein saving the entire realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Starkz said:

The election of Jon Snow as LC probably saved the entire realm. With the Wildlings Jon can take Winterfell and unite the North against the Dead therein saving the entire realm.

This is a little much. Jon would be an oathbreaking bastard, whose let in all the savages” who’ve been raping their women and pillaging their lands for centuries, should he actually venture from being Lord commander to try to control the north. Why shouldn’t they try for power some likely for ask? Why give oaths to a man who won’t even honor his gods? Stannis is the man to which could unite the north. He is the one that must take winterfel. Without him, the north would still be fragmented even if the Boltons were removed from power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is a little much. Jon would be an oathbreaking bastard, whose let in all the savages” who’ve been raping their women and pillaging their lands for centuries, should he actually venture from being Lord commander to try to control the north. Why shouldn’t they try for power some likely for ask? Why give oaths to a man who won’t even honor his gods? Stannis is the man to which could unite the north. He is the one that must take winterfel. Without him, the north would still be fragmented even if the Boltons were removed from power.

The only time Jon broke his vows was when he said he was going South to stop Ramsay, who threatened the NW. Even calling that oathbreaking is ambiguous as the NW is under threat and Jon is going to eliminate that threat. You’re classifying all of the Wildlings as savages and rapists which is completely false and misleading. The North will never be united without a Stark leading them and Stannis campaign would have ended before it even started if Jon hadn’t given him advice. Jon is the only eligible person that the North could unite behind and follow. The NW is hardly a respected institution anymore I highly doubt anyone is going to have any problem with him leaving the NW especially when Jon is still serving the realm and it’s people in a greater more powerful capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Starkz said:

The only time Jon broke his vows was when he said he was going South to stop Ramsay, who threatened the NW. Even calling that oathbreaking is ambiguous as the NW is under threat and Jon is going to eliminate that threat.

Laying claim to rule/administrator the entire north would not be ambiguous; it would be a clear violation of his oaths.

6 hours ago, Starkz said:

You’re classifying all of the Wildlings as savages and rapists which is completely false and misleading. 

Yeah I’m not really classifying them as much as I’m simply saying what I find the north’s view of the wildlings to be. It seems what the northern province of the seven Kingdoms think of the wildlings as mere savages who’ve been raping their women and plundering their lands for centuries. Are you going to argue the north in fact sees the wildlings  as anything better? Please, tell me true, does the north have a more enlightened view of the free men?  Would letting all the wildlings in your opinion something that wouldn’t be horrifying to a lot of noblemen would?  

6 hours ago, Starkz said:

The North will never be united without a Stark leading them and Stannis campaign would have ended before it even started if Jon hadn’t given him advice. Jon is the only eligible person that the North could unite behind and follow. 

Jon isn’t a Stark and the claim they would never be united by a non-Stark leading them is absurd. The north’s lords didn’t all run to protect Robb’s wife and see if she was in fact pregnant to protect Robb’s heir; most ran to to the Ironthrone to beg forgiveness. The Stark dynasty being out of power does not mean no one else could unite the north anymore than House Gardner being destroyed meant no one could fill their position in the reach; someone did; the Tyrells, and so far as we’ve seen the the bannerman under House Tyrelll aren’t any less loyal to their feudal overlord than anyone else.

Hell, Martin actually lists the frequent revolts against House Stark as a one of the reasons why there actually are so few Starks.

Again, why shouldn’t they try for power is something that could be asked be some; it’s entirely in the realm of possibility of many of them looking up old claims to justify encroaching on each other’s territory for resources during what is going to be a long Winter and some even going as far as to lay claim to ruling the north. 

6 hours ago, Starkz said:

The NW is hardly a respected institution anymore I highly doubt anyone is going to have any problem with him leaving the NW especially when Jon is still serving the realm and it’s people in a greater more powerful capacity.

Yeah, and Aerys was hardly respected by the nobility when Jaimie broke his oaths and stabbed the old man  in the back like a coward-didn’t stop people seeing him(rightfully), as an oath-breaker. People tend to care about things like men giving oaths to the gods and breaking them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Laying claim to rule/administrator the entire north would not be ambiguous; it would be a clear violation of his oaths.

Yeah I’m not really classifying them as much as I’m simply saying what I find the north’s view of the wildlings to be. It seems what the northern province of the seven Kingdoms think of the wildlings as mere savages who’ve been raping their women and plundering their lands for centuries. Are you going to argue the north in fact sees the wildlings  as anything better? Please, tell me true, does the north have a more enlightened view of the free men?  Would letting all the wildlings in your opinion something that wouldn’t be horrifying to a lot of noblemen would?  

Jon isn’t a Stark and the claim they would never be united by a non-Stark leading them is absurd. The north’s lords didn’t all run to protect Robb’s wife and see if she was in fact pregnant to protect Robb’s heir; most ran to to the Ironthrone to beg forgiveness. The Stark dynasty being out of power does not mean no one else could unite the north anymore than House Gardner being destroyed meant no one could fill their position in the reach; someone did; the Tyrells, and so far as we’ve seen the the bannerman under House Tyrelll aren’t any less loyal to their feudal overlord than anyone else.

Hell, Martin actually lists the frequent revolts against House Stark as a one of the reasons why there actually are so few Starks.

Again, why shouldn’t they try for power is something that could be asked be some; it’s entirely in the realm of possibility of many of them looking up old claims to justify encroaching on each other’s territory for resources during what is going to be a long Winter and some even going as far as to lay claim to ruling the north. 

Yeah, and Aerys was hardly respected by the nobility when Jaimie broke his oaths and stabbed the old man  in the back like a coward-didn’t stop people seeing him(rightfully), as an oath-breaker. People tend to care about things like men giving oaths to the gods and breaking them. 

After getting stabbed and betrayed by the NW Jon owes them absolutely nothing. Alys married a Wildling, and Stannis who was also for letting the Wildlings through the Wall has thousands of Northerns fighting for him. Stark blood flows through Jon, and as a last resort Jon is the man to take charge of the North for the Starks, not to mention Robb’s will is probably lying around somewhere naming Jon his heir. The saying is a Stark must always be in Winterfell, the Starks are the ones who united the North originally and have been it’s rulers for thousands of years leading the North in every war and through every Winter.  You’re comparing Jamie stabbing the King in the back, to Jon uniting the North for the greater good, with the goal of saving the Realm after getting betrayed by the NW to Jamie stabbing the King? Really? I doubt any Northern is going to have a problem with Jon uniting them to save them all. Jamie hardly faced any repercussions for what he did. Jamie still remained as a Kingsguard and was relished as one of the most talented swordsman ever. If Jamie has actually told the truth about why he stabbed Aerys no one who have cared, but for some ludicrous reason Jamie never points out to people that Aerys was planning on blowing up Kingslanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Starkz said:

After getting stabbed and betrayed by the NW Jon owes them absolutely nothing.

So every brother whose unjustifiablely attacked by one of his brothers gets to forswear his vows lol? Seriously, he was also saved by his brothers on multiple occasions, fed, taught by them for years, given purpose, he’d be immature to think now that some of his brothers did something bad to him that gives him the right to break his oaths with his honor intact. 

 

3 hours ago, Starkz said:

Alys married a Wildling, and Stannis who was also for letting the Wildlings through the Wall has thousands of Northerns fighting for him

Alys married a Thenn. They are not the same. And besides, it was either that or probably dying,letting her brother die, and letting her uncle usurp her and her brother. And Stannis is also burning Weretrees; clearly they are willing to suffer the man doing bad things. The moutain clan’s leaders came down and warned that any wildling found on their land would be killed; it’s clear they’re tolerating their existence, but not enjoying it. Seriously, are you really arguing that the north in general sees the wildlings as anything better than savages who rape their women and plunder their land? 

3 hours ago, Starkz said:

Stark blood flows through Jon, and as a last resort Jon is the man to take charge of the North for the Starks, not to mention Robb’s will is probably lying around somewhere naming Jon his heir. The saying is a Stark must always be in Winterfell, the Starks are the ones who united the North originally and have been it’s rulers for thousands of years leading the North in every war and through ever

Stark blood rolls through at least half north house’s veins if you look far enough. Jon makes clear to Stannis half the north  has as much Stark blood in them as the Karstarks(who routinely mark themselves as Kim to the Starks).

A Dance with Dragons - Jon IV

"A northman." Better a Karstark than a Bolton or a Greyjoy, Jon told himself, but the thought gave him little solace. "The Karstarks abandoned my brother amongst his enemies."
"After your brother took off Lord Rickard's head. Arnolf was a thousand leagues away. He has Stark blood in him. The blood of Winterfell."
"No more than half the other Houses of the north."
 

 And again most of the northern houses did not rush to Robb’s wife to see if she was pregnant with his heir-they rushed to KL to beg forgiveness. The Starks are long-standing dynastysure but, that does not mean only a Stark could ever the unite the north. It certainly helps a lot, but it’s not necessity. House Gardner led their people for thousands of years through winter; did not stop the Tyrells from being able to replace them. 

 You’re comparing Jamie stabbing the King in the back, to Jon uniting the North for the greater good, with the goal of saving the Realm after getting betrayed by the NW to Jamie stabbing the King? Really? I doubt any Northern is going to have a problem with Jon uniting them to save them all.

Betrayed by the watch? Did Malister and Pyke stab Jon? Did all the brothers in the brotherhood line up to stab him? Don’t be absurd. Marsh and his followers attacking  Jon after his declaration of war doesn’t automatically mean Jon gets to break his vows and leave his honor intact. And to be clear most houses would have little to no idea what Jon is trying to prep for—the wights are but a forgone myth, Jon would just be putting himself in a position of greater power in disregard for his oaths for no reason pertinent to some greater good. And even if they did in times of war, it’s entirely possible they would choose to priories their own immediate survival than the common good or think they are better suited to actually lead the fight.

3 hours ago, Starkz said:

 

3 hours ago, Starkz said:

Jamie hardly faced any repercussions for what he did. Jamie still remained as a Kingsguard and was relished as one of the most talented swordsman ever. If Jamie has actually told the truth about why he stabbed Aerys no one who have cared, but for some ludicrous reason Jamie never points out to people that Aerys was planning on blowing up Kingslanding. 

The man was still loathed and thought a traitor who should have head off for his dishonor. Rightfully so. Despite Aerys not being respected it didn’t actually get people to see Jaimie’s oathbreaking to be less of a sin to which he need feel ashamed as having committed.  Again his society does tend to care about men keeping their oaths. And Yeah, the man did not murder Aerys to save KL. Literally he stabbed this decrepit old man in the back because he wanted to-it’s ridiculous to suppose the near 6ft athletic Jaimie would find it that difficult to knock out or tie up the utter husk Aerys had become. The reason he probably never told anyone is because the man is a complete Narcissist who literally doesn’t think he needs to justify his actions to anyone  and knows deep down if actually tells his story some one would point out how things he could have done short of killing Aerys and would very much like to keep his story of him being a misunderstood , margainlized hero. He does a similar thing with Bran-pretend as if he was helpless but to try to murder a child to cover up his crimes, absolving himself of any responsibility by putting the blame on Cersei(because ultimately he did it for her-nevermind he’s the one who pressured into having sex at WF in the first place and put them in the situation to which they could/were easily caught),  and Bran(for“spying”). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 10:11 AM, Hugorfonics said:

The reason Rhaego died was because of who his father was. The rules may say strongest, but baby Rhaego was still a threat to Pono and them.

In fact the whole Vaes Dothrak seems to be an anti hereditary institute of dead Khals, kinda like Jaime forbidding Jeyne from having relations for the next couple of years.

 

Freefolk are confusing. They claim to be anti feudal but Dalla and her kid certainly have a nicer life then the rest, plus Val has an aura about her. 

Thing is too, freefolk shouldnt have kings, where as Dothraki need Khals. Its not that Dallas the exception, Mance is

Vaes Dothrak is a retirement home for the khaleesi of a dead khal.   Which happened a lot because they are a warring people.  These older women have something to contribute:  knowledge and wisdom.  Necessary to balance the testosterone of the young khals.  Regarding the wildlings, Mance was born one and he has the personality of one.  But he got a taste of the civilized life and the bastard wants to have it both ways.  He wants to enjoy the luxuries and securities of civilized life but still have the freedom to do as he pleased.  Those are incompatible goals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×