Jon faction VS Daenerys faction

[Tyrion1991]

On 4/25/2019 at 12:01 AM, princess brittany said:

there will likely be no throne at the end.

 

Feudalism and the lack of a centralised nation state is the problem with Westeros. If Westeros had an absolute monarch who could centralise power, abolish the private armies of the lords and induct the nobility into state service then that would go a long way to ending the endless petty violence. 

[darmody]

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Feudalism and the lack of a centralised nation state is the problem with Westeros. If Westeros had an absolute monarch who could centralise power, abolish the private armies of the lords and induct the nobility into state service then that would go a long way to ending the endless petty violence. 

Well, the rise of the nation-state does involve centralization of power. But it doesn't have to be all seven kingdoms. There are discrete ethnic groups in Westeros, and they could form their own nations. 

In any case, it's a long process. No one ruler can get you from medieval times to modernity. All sorts of conditions have to change, not just political but social, cultural, religious, economic, etc. 

[darmody]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:06 AM, Haskelltier said:

 

Well, I think thats more or less because of bad writing. At the beginning of session 7 Daenerys was sailing with a big army and three dragons to Westeros. Cersei on the other hand had blown up the sept of Baelor, should never be queen (because she has literally no claim to the throne) and here military is small compared to what Daenerys had (Dorne, Tyrell, Unsullied, Dothraki and dragons). Under normal circumstances, she should have directly sieged Kingslanding and claimed the throne. But that wouldn't be an exciting story. Therefore Daenerys had to lose her advantage and therefore Tyrion couldn't give her good counsel.

They really should have mitigated the need for the invasion not to be an immediate success with the need not to make Tyrion suddenly an idiot whose every bit of advice is bad. I mean, he even came up with the Wight Hunt. Couldn't our favorite dunderhead Jon have brought that up?

[darmody]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:20 AM, Haskelltier said:

Well, they could have easily ommitted these problems. Instead of killing Tommen and giving the support of Dorne and Tyrell to Dany, they could have left Tommen in place with support of at least the Tyrells. Then Daenerys would only have her dragons and the Unsullied + Dothraki and she would have to convince other lords (in the North, Vale, Riverlands) to support her and to finally overthrow Tommen and Cersei. That would be far more plausible. Instead we got stupid mistakes, a suicide mission north of the Wal, where everyone should have died, and so on.

They'd have to spare Queen Marge (as well as Loras and Daddy Tyrell), in that case. Because the Tyrells would never support the family that murdered her. And we're back to the same power dynamic that bored is after Tywin's demise. 

[Tyrion1991]

5 minutes ago, darmody said:

Well, the rise of the nation-state does involve centralization of power. But it doesn't have to be all seven kingdoms. There are discrete ethnic groups in Westeros, and they could form their own nations. 

In any case, it's a long process. No one ruler can get you from medieval times to modernity. All sorts of conditions have to change, not just political but social, cultural, religious, economic, etc. 

 

Ethnicity isn’t the main fault line though. The southern realms all have the same language, religion and are all Andals. The North has bound itself to the Vale and to the Riverlands. 

Much of the variations in culture are down to the over mighty lords and the lack of a centralised national culture. Three hundred years ago a Bavarian and a Prussian might have said they were just as different; not Germans.

[darmody]

2 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Ethnicity isn’t the main fault line though. The southern realms all have the same language, religion and are all Andals. The North has bound itself to the Vale and to the Riverlands. 

Much of the variations in culture are down to the over mighty lords and the lack of a centralised national culture. Three hundred years ago a Bavarian and a Prussian might have said they were just as different; not Germans.

Yes, ethnicity is one amongst many factors. Geography, history, culture, language, religion, and so forth all matter. I'm not saying there should be seven nations for seven kingdoms. But it appears to me as though Northmen and Dornish, at least, have very distinct ways of life. 

How nations form themselves and how exact boundaries form themselves are a matter of historical chance. Germany in fact it has changed drastically since its foundation. Especially after WWII, when a third of it was separated from the rest.

[Tyrion1991]

10 minutes ago, darmody said:

Yes, ethnicity is one amongst many factors. Geography, history, culture, language, religion, and so forth all matter. I'm not saying there should be seven nations for seven kingdoms. But it appears to me as though Northmen and Dornish, at least, have very distinct ways of life. 

How nations form themselves and how exact boundaries form themselves are a matter of historical chance. Germany in fact it has changed drastically since its foundation. Especially after WWII, when a third of it was separated from the rest.

 

The North isn’t that culturally distinct from the South. It’s still depicted as essentially another feudal realm. You have Maesters. You have Lords. You have sigils. You have house words. The army fights in the Andal manner with heavily armoured shock cavalry. These all suggest heavy cultural integration; especially compared to the Wildlings who are closer to the original First Men. The North is just a poorer version of the South and it’s really considered such in most of the seasons. Also there is intermarriage between Northern and Southern houses, Ned and Cat being the obvious example. Also, twice, the North has declared independence and just happens to take a few chunks of the South with it? It’s not Northern independence if you form a multi ethnic Kingdom with various bits of Westeros.

 

The Dornish have remained part of the realm for centuries and married into the royal family. They’re really intensely loyal to the institution of the monarchy and Westeros.

[MinscS2]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Joffrey was right all along?
He (sort of) wanted to abolish feudalism and centralize the army, which would've been a large first step to a centralized government. 
 

 

[darmody]

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The North isn’t that culturally distinct from the South. It’s still depicted as essentially another feudal realm. You have Maesters. You have Lords. You have sigils. You have house words. The army fights in the Andal manner with heavily armoured shock cavalry. These all suggest heavy cultural integration; especially compared to the Wildlings who are closer to the original First Men. The North is just a poorer version of the South and it’s really considered such in most of the seasons. Also there is intermarriage between Northern and Southern houses, Ned and Cat being the obvious example. Also, twice, the North has declared independence and just happens to take a few chunks of the South with it? It’s not Northern independence if you form a multi ethnic Kingdom with various bits of Westeros.

 

The Dornish have remained part of the realm for centuries and married into the royal family. They’re really intensely loyal to the institution of the monarchy and Westeros.

Intermarriage between noble houses isn't that important as regards nationalism. The nations of Europe were very often ruled by foreigners. Who sits on the throne of England now? The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Something like that. Queen Elizabeth II isn't very many generations away from kings who didn't even speak English. 

Northmen are a whole different race from Andals, aren't they? And they worship different gods. The fact that they've been integrated into the same governing system as the Southern kingdom may mean they could be brought under a common post-feudal central government. Or maybe they could make their own nation. 

[MinscS2]

8 minutes ago, darmody said:

Intermarriage between noble houses isn't that important as regards nationalism. The nations of Europe were very often ruled by foreigners. Who sits on the throne of England now? The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Something like that. Queen Elizabeth II isn't very many generations away from kings who didn't even speak English. 

+1 to this.
The house of Bernadotte has sat on the throne of Sweden for 201 years.
Jean Bernadotte who became King of Sweden in 1818 wasn't even a nobleman. 

[Haskelltier]

17 hours ago, darmody said:

They'd have to spare Queen Marge (as well as Loras and Daddy Tyrell), in that case. Because the Tyrells would never support the family that murdered her. And we're back to the same power dynamic that bored is after Tywin's demise.

I didn't think that was boring. If I have to pick "same power dynamic" or "inconsistent, illogical and stupid stories, decisions", I clearly pick the first one.

[loverofcats]

On 4/22/2019 at 2:42 AM, Euron III Greyjoy said:

When the truth about Jon's parentage comes out, do you think there will be two different factions, one who want Daenerys to be the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, and one that wants Jon to be the ruler of the Seven Kingdoms? I know that out dear old unambitious Jon doesn't want to be King, but Sam made it pretty clear that he would rather Jon be the ruler then Daenerys. 

Of course there is always the chance that with the battle against the Others looming over them, and then having to deal with Cersei afterwards, that this just won't be a thing, but I feel like this type of drama is just too juicy not to include.  xD

So if you do think there will be two factions, who do you think will be in each faction? 

 

They're not going to be two factions. Daenerys will give up. Her first desire was to have a house. She told that to Ser Jorah in the first season. She wanted the Iron Throne because she thought she's the last Targaryen. On the other hand Jon has never wanted the power. The two are getting back together. Maybe the words of Ser Davos were a foreshadow for the end.

"What if the Seven Kingdoms, for once in their whole shit history, would be ruled  by a just woman and an honorable man." - I love Davos, but there was another couple.

I know one of them must to die because (fans want this)..., GRRM said this and that  and it's not his style... it will not be bittersweet (by the way, the end of the LoTR was great).
Why people think that only if Jon or Daenerys will die will be bitter? Well, I think that they will live, but they will not want to rule Westeros. Unfortunately
Jon is Aegon Targaryen and that must have a meaning for Westeros.

[MinscS2]

It might also be a clever callback from S7E6 when she told Tyrion that Jon was "too little for her", talking about his status as a bastard-king and not his stature.

Well, he's hardly too little for her now. From her own PoV, a marriage makes more sense than ever.

 

[BlackLightning]

On 4/26/2019 at 11:20 PM, MinscS2 said:

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Joffrey was right all along?
He (sort of) wanted to abolish feudalism and centralize the army, which would've been a large first step to a centralized government. 
 

 

It's not just Joffrey.

Daenerys wants to break the wheel too. The wheel being feudalism, constant war, slavery and the games of thrones that come with them all.

"They can live in my new world or die in their old one."

Since that is what breaking the wheel entails, it makes sense for Daenerys to return to Westeros and approach things like an 16th century autocrat would. If the Seven Kingdoms are stuck in the mud of the 14th and early 15th centuries, then yeah, there are going to be some problems.

Frankly, I'm not mad at Daenerys because it's a noble goal.

The only people who don't benefit from a change from feudalism to centralized autocracy are the people who are the very top and use the feudal system for their own betterment....aka the high lords, the maesters and the Faith of the Seven which is starting to look more and more like the medieval Papacy. They are going to resist her with everything they have and many will be successful in convincing/manipulating lesser lords, smallfolk and knights into joining them.

[King Jon Snow Stark]

3 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

It's not just Joffrey.

Daenerys wants to break the wheel too. The wheel being feudalism, constant war, slavery and the games of thrones that come with them all.

"They can live in my new world or die in their old one."

Since that is what breaking the wheel entails, it makes sense for Daenerys to return to Westeros and approach things like an 16th century autocrat would. If the Seven Kingdoms are stuck in the mud of the 14th and early 15th centuries, then yeah, there are going to be some problems.

Frankly, I'm not mad at Daenerys because it's a noble goal.

The only people who don't benefit from a change from feudalism to centralized autocracy are the people who are the very top and use the feudal system for their own betterment....aka the high lords, the maesters and the Faith of the Seven which is starting to look more and more like the medieval Papacy. They are going to resist her with everything they have and many will be successful in convincing/manipulating lesser lords, smallfolk and knights into joining them.

What’s the end result? A monarchy with a parliament/house of lords instead of a small council?

[Cas Stark]

4 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

It's not just Joffrey.

Daenerys wants to break the wheel too. The wheel being feudalism, constant war, slavery and the games of thrones that come with them all.

"They can live in my new world or die in their old one."

Since that is what breaking the wheel entails, it makes sense for Daenerys to return to Westeros and approach things like an 16th century autocrat would. If the Seven Kingdoms are stuck in the mud of the 14th and early 15th centuries, then yeah, there are going to be some problems.

Frankly, I'm not mad at Daenerys because it's a noble goal.

The only people who don't benefit from a change from feudalism to centralized autocracy are the people who are the very top and use the feudal system for their own betterment....aka the high lords, the maesters and the Faith of the Seven which is starting to look more and more like the medieval Papacy. They are going to resist her with everything they have and many will be successful in convincing/manipulating lesser lords, smallfolk and knights into joining them.

An autocratic dictatorship, I'm sorry, is not better than feudalism.  Dany and you apparently have fallen prey to the idea of the benevolent dictatorship, the problem there, is once the benevolent dictator is dead, how do things more forward?  You started with Augustus but you got Caligula.  Installing yourself as dictator isn't breaking the wheel in any meaningful way unless you then establish a constitutional monarchy or some other great council type of rulership and step aside.        

[BlackLightning]

10 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

• An autocratic dictatorship, I'm sorry, is not better than feudalism.  Dany and you apparently have fallen prey to the idea of the benevolent dictatorship, the problem there, is once the benevolent dictator is dead, how do things more forward?  You started with Augustus but you got Caligula.  Installing yourself as dictator isn't breaking the wheel in any meaningful way unless you then establish a constitutional monarchy or some other great council type of rulership and step aside.