Jump to content
Cron

Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

To be a Lord and a Warden, Bronn would have to swear some oaths.  Any move against Tyrion would be a move agaisnt the King and likely cost Bronn Highgarden and the Wardenship of the Reach.  To say nothing of his seat on the council and his knightly title.  And maybe his life.  That would have be some serious gold to cause Bronn to risk all of that.

Well considering bronn was sellsword, he is not risk averse.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I'm not denying that bronn is capable of changing. But I have serious doubts about it. Cheers!

no cheers to yourself for clearing few things up, sometimes you remember what you want to remember and not what actually took place lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 7:17 AM, Chris is my name said:

Honestly I think the potential merits of Bran's rule are completely moot: it is based on the knowledge and bias that we have as viewers.

Are we expected to believe that everyone just plainly accepts that this boy is a benevolent and omniscient being? They spent no time whatsoever establishing why this claim should be taken at all seriously by the characters in the show.

They had ONE GUY get suggested--by a Lannister who was hand to the deposed tyrant, brought to the meeting as a prisoner--and everybody just says "oh yeah, cool, whatever, no need to talk about it or think about it, just do it." 

In reality, it would take months to elect a king because there has to be time for some heavy politics. I guess doing it so quickly is the only way to slip in the nonsense about the independent north but everybody else getting behind a stark for king. <rollseyes>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bronn is a little deeper than that.  After previous promises were not met he did not continue to follow Jaime around Westeros just because.  He did not risk the fire of a dragon to save him just because.  He did not risk Cersei's ire by giving Tyrion a chance to double the offer.  Did he believe he was getting something out of the deal?  Yeh I do but I also think he had some loyalty to Tyrion and more to Jaime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break the wheel? He is the wheel on wheels. The male stark heir that ended up winning all wars and having the last standing army (dorne is non existing and apparently does not care).

He is not Bran, he is a bot, the 3er, an entity. Are you sure you do not want a human with emotions in charge? Pretty crazy things can happen when an artificial intelligence or someone hyper-rational rules (theme of many books and movies).

No charisma so not loved by the people. What is left to rule? Fear.

Use his powers? Hello tyrant, big brother. Not use his powers? A weak puppet which means fighting between the realms.

He is the most evil of them all. Remember what he did to Hodor? Unforgivable. All that died protecting him? How he let the NK brand him?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bran is a horrible choice to be king.  Ever since he became the 3ER his only response to anything is that it was essentially pre-ordained.  The fact that he knows whats going to happen, but doesn't do anything to try and change it makes him useless.  He allowed 1000s of King's Landing innocents to die, knowing the whole time that it would end up leading to his being king and Jon being banished.

He will never make an actual decision, because he already knows what's going to happen.  Tyrion choosing to nominate him was baffling, given what has actually happened in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assertion that Brann was the best possible choice requires positive defense.  For instance what has Brann done that has actually helped to this point?  

He was marked by the Nights King and then crossed the wall - which if there was any magic in the wall undid it the same as the sanctuary of the previous three eyed raven.  

He was not able to stop the Night King's dragon.  

He was not able to stop Danaerys dragon.

He put into motion one of the final factors that unhinged Danaerys.  

For all his supposed knowledge he has been an absent observer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ruler who knows everyone's secrets and can spy on them at any time. Sure, sounds great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ruler who knows everyone's secrets and can spy on them at any time. Sure, sounds great.

But does not use that power to prevent the entire destruction of the capital city.  In fact, one could easily argue, he used his knowledge to set the events in motion.  Had Jon never been told his true heritage it might have prevented the entire destruction of Kings Landing.  What purpose was there in Brann telling him?  To keep the events in motion that ended with Brann being king.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Actually, the bolded is not true, and we know it.  Bran has the memories of Bloodraven, who was Hand of the King for 2 Kings and who fought in Blackfyre rebellions and who was Lord Commander of the Nights Watch.

That's book only. Max von Sydow clearly isn't Bloodraven. He mentions waiting in the cave for a thousand years which means he well predates Bloodraven. Also not an albino with a prominent birthmark or missing an eye. 

14 hours ago, SansaJonRule said:

Sure, cuz there are no real world or "Westerosi world" precedents for an inexperienced teenager to become king. And why are you so hung up on the fact that he is crippled? I've already stated what unique qualifications Bran has, so I won't repeat that here. And again, the old way wasn't working, so they're trying a new way.

To say feudal monarchy has been totally thrown out the window when they've only changed one aspect of it is ludicrous. There is much more to feudal monarchy than just how kings are chosen, and that is all still intact. Plus, although this is inspired by medieval Europe, it's not. It's a fictional world of Jordan's making so to expect everything to follow medieval European feudalism exactly limits the creativity of the author.

I was not comparing Dany to Cersei. Of course Cersei was an evil tyrant who needed to be overthrown and executed. I was evaluating Dany based mainly on her own merits, but also that of her ancestors. It was not all good times when the Targaryens ruled. Have you forgotten their civil war? How many of them were crazy? There's a reason for the saying "every time a Targaryen is born the gods flip a coin". Her father burned people alive! And now that's Dany's method of execution. Just because I wouldn't want Cersei as queen doesn't mean I'd want Dany either. And she was a foreign invader in the eyes of the Westerosi. She never lived there; they didn't know her from Eve. And talk about inspiring loyalty? You don't inspire loyalty by demanding people bend the knee or die. That's inspiring fear.

No, I can't say his reign would immediately be a disaster. That's just your opinion. He's inexperienced, but he has knowledge no one else has, and he has advisors. Every good king has good advisors and listens to them. Only time can tell what his reign would be.

Realism? You mean with the dragons, a woman who can't be harmed by fire, priestesses who raise people from the dead, malevolent ice monsters and zombies, assassins who can wear other people's faces, etc. You mean that level of realism. It's a fantasy series. If it's not realistic enough for you, I would suggest you give up on fantasy.

You and I are clearly gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

Because the Westerosi would be hung up on the fact that he is crippled just like they're hung up on Tyrion being a dwarf, Sam being a fat nerd or Cersei being a woman. That's certainly not the biggest reason they wouldn't elect Bran as King or respect his rule but it's a significant one. The prejudices of the setting used to matter. An elective monarchy is fine. Electing Bran, and having that be anything other than a disaster, was not fine because it made no sense within the setting. 

No I'm saying the considerations that used to guide politics and sentiments within a feudal monarchy have been thrown out the window. The vast majority of nobles would never look at Bran, however qualified (and Bran has not proven himself qualified as a ruler in any way shape or form) and see a man they could elect as King. 

You may not be but the lords and commoners of Westeros would be which is why Daenerys being unloved as she fights to overthrow Cersei is completely ridiculous. 

There are fantasy elements in a fantasy series so it's okay when humans stop acting like humans suddenly? This is a show that was literally named after the struggle for the Iron Throne and you're telling me it's okay for the nobility to suddenly view emotionless foreigner weirdos in wheelchairs as viable King material because there's magic? Yeah again this is a complete insult to what this show used to be about and the books it was based on. 

12 hours ago, Haskelltier said:

He has no experience in governing or war, but he has the ability to look into the past and learn from literally all the people living the last 8000 years. In addition to that, if he chooses his adivisors (Hand, Master of ... and so on) wisely, he don't have to be competent in all that right away. That may come with time. And who is better at choosing advisors then an quasi-omniscient person, who can take a look at someones life to get a very good picture of his strengths, weaknesses, loyalty and so on?

And concerning the loyalties: He has the support of the North (I know, the North is independent, but they won't trouble him and will live peacefully together),the Westlands, the Vale and the Riverlands. He has the loyalty of Bronn by promoting him to Lord of the Reach and making him Master of Coin. So only Dorne ist left, but I think the new Lord of Dorne (not a Martell) might have other problems than rebelling against Bran. And we shouldn't left out that Westeros has seen a long time of constant wars. The War of the Five Kings, The War Against the White Walkers, the War Against Cersei and Daenerys, maybe the Lords of Westeros have learnt a thing or two and will be peaceful for a time (at least to replenish the decimated armies, rebuild destoryed castles, restore devastated areas and so on).

To be fair, the Targaryen rule wasn't as peaceful as you pictured it. Yes, the Targaryens had good kings, but they also had bad ones, cruel ones, mad ones. They took the Iron Throne by force (or conquest) and they had Dragons to suppress everyone, who was against them. And when there wasn't any they started a civil war called Dance of Dragons with a massive use of dragons. Not to mention the Blackfyre Rebellions.

I think you're getting hung up on arguing that I'm saying Bran couldn't be a good ruler. It's possible he could be (that has never been established and I would argue it doesn't make much sense to believe so but it's possible). I'm saying that regardless of whether or not Bran could be a good ruler his nature would prevent anyone from ever recognizing that and it wouldn't really matter much in terms of how he was perceived by his subjects and vassals. Stannis was a good ruler. But the nobility and smallfolk simply didn't like him because he was a harsh, prudish, socially awkward man and this was a serious problem that let Renly steal away most of his support. Sam Tarly might've been a great lord in the abstract (he's smart could pick good advisers, knows tons of history etc.) but he would still be a fat nerd who couldn't command respect or inspire loyalty or perform the martial functions expected of a Westerosi ruler and this would cripple his attempts to rule. This very season Daenerys was "unloved" in Westeros and this was viewed as an issue that made her less fit to rule than popular Jon. 

Again he just has the support of those regions because the writer said so. Is Tyrion even in charge of the Westerlands? And if so why? There's no dragons to put him in Casterly Rock why wouldn't some Lannister cousin (or vassal) make a play for it? Why would the Vale not want independence? Do they just do what Sansa says now? Edmure Tully wanted to be King before getting shot down. Is he just going to resign himself to serving King Bran? How would Bronn get to be Lord of the Reach? He's an upjumped sellsword. All his vassals should hate him and want to replace him. Why wouldn't Dorne want independence? Why are Yara and the Iron Islands going to respect the rule of a teenaged cripple? Why wouldn't they want to be independent? Everything about King Bran and the post-war settlement is a joke.

Sure the Targaryens had good kings and bad ones good periods and bad periods. That doesn't answer why this Targaryen is apparently viewed as a hated foreign invader when she's coming to fight Queen Cersei. She should've been welcomed by a great many within Westeros.

Edited by The One Who Kneels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

They had ONE GUY get suggested--by a Lannister who was hand to the deposed tyrant, brought to the meeting as a prisoner--and everybody just says "oh yeah, cool, whatever, no need to talk about it or think about it, just do it." 

In reality, it would take months to elect a king because there has to be time for some heavy politics. I guess doing it so quickly is the only way to slip in the nonsense about the independent north but everybody else getting behind a stark for king. <rollseyes>

Not only that, but I don't even think the original purpose of the dragon pit council was to select a king/queen.  It was apparently just to decide the fate of Tyrion and Jon (who they had also requested be brought there).  It was only when Tyrion said 'the king (or queen) should decide' that the hasty discussion/decision occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

That's book only. Max von Sydow clearly isn't Bloodraven. He mentions waiting in the cave for a thousand years which means he well predates Bloodraven. Also not an albino with a prominent birthmark or missing an eye. 

That could just be the 3ER talking in a general sense, not Bloodraven personally.  The 3ER definitely predates Bloodraven.  The birthmark and eye I write off as the show deciding not to alter Sydow's appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RFL said:

 

But does not use that power to prevent the entire destruction of the capital city.  In fact, one could easily argue, he used his knowledge to set the events in motion.  Had Jon never been told his true heritage it might have prevented the entire destruction of Kings Landing.  What purpose was there in Brann telling him?  To keep the events in motion that ended with Brann being king.  

The purpose was to destroy Fire, just as Ice had been destroyed at Winterfell.  After that, rebuilding could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

T This very season Daenerys was "unloved" in Westeros and this was viewed as an issue that made her less fit to rule than popular Jon. 

Being "unloved" wasn't the issue that made here less 'fit'.

 

9 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Sure the Targaryens had good kings and bad ones good periods and bad periods. That doesn't answer why this Targaryen is apparently viewed as a hated foreign invader when she's coming to fight Queen Cersei. She should've been welcomed by a great many within Westeros.

The Targaryens were always 'foreign invaders'.  Dany was raised in Essos and returned at the head of 2 armies comprised of Essosi.  Dany's 'revolutionary rhetoric' would have alienated most of the Westerosi nobility.  As would (and did) her hardline stance re. bending the knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 12:08 AM, Daemos said:

Pre-S8 Dany and Jon together were the best choice. 

That was never the story that GRRM was writing. That was the Disney fairytale ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

That was never the story that GRRM was writing. That was the Disney fairytale ending. 

Yeah cuz the ending we got does not reek of Disney bullshit.

 

Besides this is about who is the best ruler not best ending. Learn to read.

Edited by Daemos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 5:17 AM, Cron said:

For many years, near-endless debates have been had about (1) who would be the best ruler (in theory, out of all possible candidates), and (2) who would be the actual ruler (or "winner") in the end.

Turns out both questions have the same answer, I think:  Bran Stark.

Incredibly wise and knowledgeable, consummate good (I can't recall ever seeing or reading even the faintest hint of darkness or badness in him; he was always clearly one of the most "pure good" characters in the story), and since he doesn't "want" anymore, he is, presumably, incapable of being corrupted.

Also, he's very young (which means there's a great chance he can rule for a long time and they won't have to worry about replacing him for an equally long time; indeed, as I recall, the 3 Eyed Ravens live incredibly long lives, right?  As I recall, Bran's predecessor was well over 100 years old), and the people who named Bran king seem to think it's good that he can't have children. 

Add all of that up, and no other candidate is even remotely close to being as well qualified as Bran.

And as an added bonus, they are set up perfectly for a sequel one day, with a very young actor/character as one of the centerpieces (along with Arya, Gendry, and Ser Podrick).

Bottom line:  If I lived in Westeros, there is no character we have seen that I would rather have as king or queen than Bran, and I'm glad that was the judgment of the characters who actually made the decision, too. 

Cron sounds suspiciously like Crow though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

I think you're getting hung up on arguing that I'm saying Bran couldn't be a good ruler. It's possible he could be (that has never been established and I would argue it doesn't make much sense to believe so but it's possible). I'm saying that regardless of whether or not Bran could be a good ruler his nature would prevent anyone from ever recognizing that and it wouldn't really matter much in terms of how he was perceived by his subjects and vassals. Stannis was a good ruler. But the nobility and smallfolk simply didn't like him because he was a harsh, prudish, socially awkward man and this was a serious problem that let Renly steal away most of his support. Sam Tarly might've been a great lord in the abstract (he's smart could pick good advisers, knows tons of history etc.) but he would still be a fat nerd who couldn't command respect or inspire loyalty or perform the martial functions expected of a Westerosi ruler and this would cripple his attempts to rule. This very season Daenerys was "unloved" in Westeros and this was viewed as an issue that made her less fit to rule than popular Jon. 

Weateros had seen mad and cruel kings who reigned relatively long. Bran and his small council seemed to me to do a good job, so at least the smallfolk will be contempt living their lives. And yes, Stannis was not loved by smallfolk and other lords, thats why almost all lords went to his charismatic brother, who's claim wasn't much weaker than Stannis and who's situation was much better (he had married Margaery, and therefore had the support of Stormlands and the Reach). But he could have been king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ending just inverted the things thematically. The show until season 6 was about how greed and corruption can blinds us for the real evil or the real problems that will affect and destroy humanity. When they end the show putting someone in the throne that was elected by literal who's and powerless lords they just left a place that really has no future. You see, now the lords have more reason to conspire and collude so they elect a king that will favor some lords over others. That's why the elected king in medieval times were replaced with hereditary kingship, because people would often scheme to put bad people in power. 

The real wheel breaker would have a constitution or some sort of "magna carta". So the power of the king and lords get reduced and people can consistently have the power of the law over tyrants. But the show prefered going BACKWARDS history-wise. But yeah, Bran being a overpower being who can see everything was the "best" choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×