The North: a proto-democracy?

[The Young Maester]

That war council was just a war council really. Not any different to the ones other kingdoms hold. Listening and choosing the course of action that some of your lords thought was best dosent make it that different to the other kingdoms. The whole point of councils its so that other lords can have their say and possibly come up with a good idea that might interest the leader of the council. 

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

There's no shortage of blood, but it stands in contrast to the Targaryens who were never chosen freely; people had to kneel because they were too afraid to resist them. 

That's just nonsense and you should know that. There were two instances when a Great Council of lords actually decided who should be king. Chosen from Targaryen descendants, of course, but that's just as 'democratic' as Robb's little coronation - which was just the anointing of a victorious general who was either the liege lord of the people who made him king or closely related to said liege lord and did them a great favor.

18 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And the Night's Watch.

They aren't really another people. The Warrior's Sons also elected their Grand Captain, just as the High Septon is elected by the Most Devout.

18 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Some would argue the Middle Ages are an example of progress going backwards, from Athens. I've seen scholars point to Athens-->Middle Ages an example of historical progress not going in a straight line. 

Well, the medieval monarchies were less democratic than Athens - I merely wanted to point out that the electorate in Athens wasn't exactly that great, excluding women, slaves, foreigners, etc. (although I really do like those elections by lot).

By the way - the wildlings do not choose their leaders as such in a democratic process of some kind. Their kings sort of win the allegiance of others. Mance charmed some, bribed some, convinced some, threatened some, and killed some to become acknowledged as leader of all. That isn't a democratic process, it is the rule of the strong at its finest. Mance rules by charisma, he is basically an Alexander the Great.

[Rose of Red Lake]

19 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

That war council was just a war council really. Not any different to the ones other kingdoms hold. Listening and choosing the course of action that some of your lords thought was best dosent make it that different to the other kingdoms. The whole point of councils its so that other lords can have their say and possibly come up with a good idea that might interest the leader of the council. 

This one turned into an impromptu election though, which was why I thought it conveyed an expression of popular will at a town assembly, in contrast to other councils that we see. Even though Cat has a sense of doom about it all and her concerns are dismissed, I'm inspired whenever people can say whatever the hell they want, then choose whomever they want to lead them. 

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This one turned into an impromptu election though, which was why I thought it conveyed an expression of popular will at a town assembly, in contrast to other councils that we see. Even though Cat has a sense of doom about it all and her concerns are dismissed, I'm inspired whenever people can say whatever the hell they want, then choose whomever they want to lead them. 

Not an election, a proclamation. Nobody was elected at that war council.

If you want to compare proclamations to proclamations you can compare Robb's proclamation to that of Aegon the Conqueror. There were many cheering people there, expressing 'the popular will'.

It makes no sense to complain that the average war council doesn't result in the proclamation of a king.

[Rose of Red Lake]

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just nonsense and you should know that. There were two instances when a Great Council of lords actually decided who should be king.

To decide matters of succession to a line that already existed. Targaryens don't want kingdoms to be autonomous or for people to decide a sovereign who isn't them. Targaryens freely chosen in a post Aerys era will be difficult.

Quote

 

Chosen from Targaryen descendants, of course, but that's just as 'democratic' as Robb's little coronation - which was just the anointing of a victorious general who was either the liege lord of the people who made him king or closely related to said liege lord and did them a great favor.

 

These don't happen in real time which is why I think the one I mentioned, adds a lot of hopefulness to the novels. It's more than just, here let me declare myself king and if you don't agree, you can die. At least three elections happen on the page in Westeros (two in the North) and they're all very different but also...promising for Westeros' future. I'm sorry that you're having such a miserable time reading about it. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

To decide matters of succession to a line that already existed. Targaryens don't want kingdoms to be autonomous or for people to decide a sovereign who isn't them. Targaryens freely chosen in a post Aerys era will be difficult.

Yeah, and the Northmen made a Stark their king in some sort of spantenous acclamation. That's not democracy, that's a joke. Just like it was a joke that the Kingsmoot on the Iron Islands only seriously considered Greyjoy claimants.

Aside from the spontaneity (which is a very bad sign) there is pretty much no difference between the Great Council of 101 AC and Robb's proclamation - aside from the representation. Because, you know, nearly the entire Realm was at Harrenhal and offered their opinion on the succession of Jaehaerys I. Whereas most of the North had no voice in the question whether they even wanted a king - nor whether said king should be Robb.

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

These don't happen in real time which is why I think the one I mentioned, adds a lot of hopefulness to the novels. It's more than just, here let me declare myself king and if you don't agree, you can die. At least three elections happen on the page in Westeros (two in the North) and they're all very different but also...promising for Westeros' future. I'm sorry that you're having such a miserable time reading about it. 

So now it is a promising future, i.e. baseless speculation? What's with your case about 'proto-democracy' in the North? We actually do see how Northmen not doing what His Grace King Robb says get beheaded by His Grace King Robb.

[Bernie Mac]

On 1/17/2020 at 3:37 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

This one turned into an impromptu election though,

Not really a fair one though. Robb and a handful of Northern nobles decided he should be King. The North in general was not consulted, the vast majority of the Northern Lords were not consulted.

All we get is a scene of Riverland and Northern nobles, who had been drinking and could not decide what to do proclaim Robb as King as he rejected every other proposal they came up with.

Quote

 

which was why I thought it conveyed an expression of popular will at a town assembly, in contrast to other councils that we see.

Not really. The Great Councils were far more democratic, with all the Lords of the Land getting a say. The Kingsmoot more democratic with all the Ironborn ship captains having a say and actual other candidates that were turned down by the people present.

Robb, with his army backing him, rejected some ideas and accpeted one that he was okay with, him being King.

Quote

Even though Cat has a sense of doom about it all and her concerns are dismissed, I'm inspired whenever people can say whatever the hell they want, then choose whomever they want to lead them. 

They can't say whatever they want, that had been proven by Robb at Winterfell when the Greatjon lost a few fingers and was told he would be hung should he not obey Robb's orders.

We have little idea if the few Northern nobles present there did feel like they could say and do what they wanted. His army was with him at Riverrun.

[Bernie Mac]

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't recall any of the northern lords being fearful of Robb

Lady Dustin only sent people out of fear.

"Barrowton sent men with the Young Wolf as well. I gave him as few men as I dared, but I knew that I must needs give him some or risk the wroth of Winterfell."

We also see the Frey nobles with Roose trying to get him to talk Robb out of war, rather than themselves

"Someone must have the courage to say it," Ser Hosteen said. "The war is lost. King Robb must be made to see that."

Robb is a ruler commanding a large army, obviously he has lords who only do what he says due to fear, same goes for Ned, same would go for the majority of Stark rulers and the Westerland equivalents.

This need to portray the Starks as somehow better, more egalitarian than their Southern neighbours just does not hold up to scrutiny. It is something that exists because everyone recognizes that the Middle Ages was unfair and some people just want to say the nobles they like are marginally better than the nobles they don't like.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

but I assume you are recalling something I do not. I think it's safe to assume there are plenty who fear Tywin Lannister. 

Yeah, no one has denied that. Though we do have more evidence for Northern Lords being fearful of Robb than we do of Westerland nobles being fearful of Tywin.

But I'd say it is roughly the same region to region, with some variables in each case. In general older Lord, more established Lord will have more lords fearful of him than a younger one, or a battle tested Lord will have also have more lords fearful of him than a inexperienced one.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Fair enough & possibly. It stands to reason though if this is based on my character bias then the claim that they would both love to hear good advice would be based on your character bias. 

You have misread what I said, I pointed out that neither are a POV, we have no idea what they 'wanted' to hear. You are the one making that unsubstantiated claim, not me.

What I did say is that both, like anyone, would like to hear good advice. People with a modicum of intelligence value good advice, I am crediting them both with having that.

I have seen nothing in the books that suggests one favours good council more than the other.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Lady Dustin only sent people out of fear.

"Barrowton sent men with the Young Wolf as well. I gave him as few men as I dared, but I knew that I must needs give him some or risk the wroth of Winterfell."

We also see the Frey nobles with Roose trying to get him to talk Robb out of war, rather than themselves

"Someone must have the courage to say it," Ser Hosteen said. "The war is lost. King Robb must be made to see that."

Robb is a ruler commanding a large army, obviously he has lords who only do what he says due to fear, same goes for Ned, same would go for the majority of Stark rulers and the Westerland equivalents.

This need to portray the Starks as somehow better, more egalitarian than their Southern neighbours just does not hold up to scrutiny. It is something that exists because everyone recognizes that the Middle Ages was unfair and some people just want to say the nobles they like are marginally better than the nobles they don't like.

Sure, I don't disagree. I think I was just reading too far into things. It's easy for me to think of Robb & Tywin & automatically think Robb is the "nicer" more "fair" of the two given their personalities but when you look at their actions that just doesn't hold up. 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, no one has denied that. Though we do have more evidence for Northern Lords being fearful of Robb than we do of Westerland nobles being fearful of Tywin.

But I'd say it is roughly the same region to region, with some variables in each case. In general older Lord, more established Lord will have more lords fearful of him than a younger one, or a battle tested Lord will have also have more lords fearful of him than a inexperienced one.

Right, I know you didn't deny it I was agreeing. 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

 

[Adam Yozza]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So now it is a promising future, i.e. baseless speculation? What's with your case about 'proto-democracy' in the North? We actually do see how Northmen not doing what His Grace King Robb says get beheaded by His Grace King Robb.

Extreme example.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Extreme example.

But still an example, right? Also an example for royal presumption and hypocrisy - I'm not in favor of murdering prisoners and children, but Robb declared war on the Lannister to free and then avenge his father. Rickard's motive was exactly the same and he couldn't exact his vengeance the proper way by killing Jaime (the actual killer of his sons who died saving Robb's life) because of Stark meddling.

Robb doesn't treat his loyal bannermen well. He makes solitary and arbitrary decisions - his mother gets a slap on the wrist, Karstark gets executed. That's not justice. Karstark deserved punishment, of course, but execution was too harsh and too stupid a sentence. I understand why Cat wasn't punished - she is his mother - but if he is lenient there, he should also be lenient with one of his most crucial bannermen who was nothing but loyal throughout his war and that at great personal expense.

[sweetsunray]

I like the North. I liked Robb. But just an elected king (and dynasty) by war council is not something I would consider much argument for a proto-democracy.

Elections do not necessarily make for a democracy. They elect and confirm the great leader of North Korea, China, Cuba, and the Pope by council as well.

This argument sounds like some of the most notorious dictators use elections with 98%-100% votes for them (as they are the sole candidate against a straw man) to claim they're "democractically elected" and that's a total farce.

Hell, there can be forms of democracy that don't require elections, but instead rely on citizen participation on any communal decision.

The most crucial elements of a democracy are the separation of powers: lawmaking, judging and enforcing/executing the law must be independent bodies of power from one another. When these are all embodied by the one and the same man, we cannot consider it (proto-)democratic whatsoever.  Election just means that you elect someone to have one of those powers. In most modern democracies we elect someone or someones to hand over lawmaking powers. And in some democracies elections are also held to hand over law enforcing and judging power to certain people who are independent from the law maker: electing a sherrif or a judge. But that's not a given. In Belgium we don't elect the chief of police nor a judge, nor head of the DA. And though a democracy can be corrupted with judges, police chiefs being in the pocket of an elected mayor/senator/etc, the lawmaker power does not have the legal power to dismiss them (or chop their head off) if they start making independent decisions.

What we have during Robb's war council are lords electing to hand all the power to Robb: law maker, judge and executioner. In the 7k a warden (and lord) has the judging and execution powers. Robb's war council decides that they don't want the Iron Throne to be their lawmaking power, and add  the lawmaking power to the same judge and executioner they already have. They "elected" Robb to have the power to decide what is legal and what isn't, the power to judge them and eventually execute them. But that power only lasts as long as he manages to keep them.

What you're looking at is not proto-democratic but typically feudal, where lords have all three powers over their domain, but surrender or choose to hand it all over to a king, and they become both the enforcers and judges in service of the king, while the king has the ethical obligation to protect them, and they the ethical obligation to protect the powerless. This is accomplished by the king not having a personal professional standing army that only answers to him. In this system, everyone is dependent on each other. If the king wants a war or enforce either his legal, judging or executing power over a rebel, he needs his vassal lords to agree with it, because they're the ones who will raise the peasant sons into armies. It all comes down to might makes right. Prince John and the Magna Carta are an example of this. Feudal kings were forced to listen or reckon with their vassal lords, but it has nothing to do with (proto)democracy.

Feudal society began to change towards the absolute kingship because of the centuries of crusades and the rising of cities. Because of the first, more and more men were turned into a lifetime professional soldier, who gained independency from the lord they used to be serfs to. And even knights began to gain independence from their lords, in the form of Templar Knights. So, they became knights and soldiers that answered directly to the Pope or King. Meanwhile, cities erode the lords from having the necessary source of peasants to levy into soldiers. That lord's income had become dependent on skilled labourers, so, much that those skilled labourers managed to extract rights from their lords or kings into guilds. On top of that cities are vulnerable to an attack, and thus their lord is put into a position where he requires the protection of the king's armies and only has obedience to give in return. This process took centuries, but by the end of it, you end up with absolute kings and emperors who can appoint this man or that man to be lord over a land at a whim, and the sole threat to a king's all powerful rule was another such king/empreror or the papal army. And it took once again several centuries for that absolute kingship to become that of the enlightened kingship (which is also absolute and didactorial), which abolished the last remnant of serfdom, since even the unskilled peasants could be turned into necessary labour in factories.

Too many readers confuse the different types of historical kingships with the one portrayed in the series. They think of an absolute or enlightened king who's benevolent enough to listen to his lords and wants to do good by his people. Which is understandable, since most historical kings that are generally known to readers are those who belong to those types. It's true that most if not all feudal kings "wished" to have absolute power like an absolute king, and even acted like they had, but if they did it usually went bad for them.

This is what we see in Robb's arc. He ends up made king by his vassals in a kingdom (North and Riverlands) that is feudal (the two regions combined have only two "cities" - White harbour and Maidenpool). But then he acts as if he is an absolute king and fails at upending his end of the feudal contract: first Ramsay manages to run foul in the homeland, and then it gets invaded by Ironborn. Maidenpool is sacked thrice by the "enemy", their "allies" and scum. In response, his mightiest vassals (in terms of soldier numbers) begin to act as if he has no legal rule over them anymore. Karstark kills child hostages and denies quite vocally that Robb has any legal power over him. Robb might have the might to behead Karstark, but not the right to Karstark men anymore. Freys withdraw their forces. Roose starts to make a secret play for wardenship and betrays Robb. Both the Freys and Roose end up electing to follow king Joffrey. 

The Targaryens are the closest to absolute kings in the series, but only as long as they have dragons. Instead of standing armies, the Targs have dragons loyal to the Targ riding them. Once those dragons are dead and gone though, you end up occasionally with kings who believe themselves to be absolute kings, while they don't have the might to actually enforce it. King Aerys II was such a one. His ability to enforce rule depended on having Tywin on his side and the Tyrell numbers. But he made Tywin into a personal enemy of his, while Tyrell is the opposite of a military genius.

And then finally, Varys basically wants to install an enlightened king onto the throne through fAegon. His tactic to make that happen is to bleed the armies of the lords through civil war and in-fighting and provide fAegon with a professional army that is solely loyal to him. We see something similar in the set-up for Dany: her war in Meereen has enlightened ideas behind it; she has WMDs in the form of dragons; she has a standing enforcing army that is loyal to her personally, and no doubt it will grow. It is also in this phase of the series that George shifts the focus more to the cities: Manderly becomes a far more important power, Euron wants to take down Oldtown, Braavos is heavily featured, LF's power derives from Gulltown., Cersei is disgraced in front of the Kingslanders, Dany learns to rule a city.

The sole people who actually have the proto-democratic set-up are the Free Folk and the Mountain Clans of the Vale, not through elections where people choose to surrender and hand over the three powers to someone else, but by having participation councils debating issues, which works well on a small scale, but is a serious hassle when it comes to ruling a large region, let alone a nation. Anyhow, theirs is a participation democracy. But George has weaned them away from it. The Free Folk did elect a King Beyond the Wall, and then surrendered to Stannis or through negotiation to Jon. The exchange of these powers by the Free Folk were prompted by the need of protection. So, some wildlings were ushered by George into the feudal system through Stannis, while a significant number of wildlings went through the gates into a far more worship-like following with Jon. The Mountain Clans are imo voluntarily going the same way with the Red Hand as their "King of the Mountains". Timett was an attentive student on the workings of the 7 kingdoms, especially KL, and took that home with him.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Elections do not necessarily make for a democracy. They elect and confirm the great leader of North Korea, China, Cuba, and the Pope by council as well.

This argument sounds like some of the most notorious dictators use elections with 98%-100% votes for them (as they are the sole candidate against a straw man) to claim they're "democractically elected" and that's a total farce.

That's why I said proto-democracy. I never said they have the structure for what you're describing, that would be much too high of a bar. But debating whom to follow and speaking about it openly, without repression, is an Enlightenment value. They seriously debated choosing Stannis and Renly over Robb. Robb adds his two cents, says that Stannis has more right by succession. When they ask if they should follow Stannis, Robb says - he doesn't know, opening the door for them to choose Stannis if they wanted. 

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

What you're looking at is not proto-democratic but typically feudal, where lords have all three powers over their domain, but surrender or choose to hand it all over to a king, and they become both the enforcers and judges in service of the king, while the king has the ethical obligation to protect them, and they the ethical obligation to protect the powerless.

I don't really get that vibe in the North. It seems like the lords hold their king accountable. They aren't slavish yes men or servants. The Northern lords are so characteristically prickly that a king has to work harder to meet their needs. So I'm asking if the Northern kings valued rule by consent of the governed, at least in a lord/king relationship?

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

What we have during Robb's war council are lords electing to hand all the power to Robb: law maker, judge and executioner. In the 7k a warden (and lord) has the judging and execution powers. Robb's war council decides that they don't want the Iron Throne to be their lawmaking power, and add  the lawmaking power to the same judge and executioner they already have. They "elected" Robb to have the power to decide what is legal and what isn't, the power to judge them and eventually execute them. But that power only lasts as long as he manages to keep them.

Again, since I said proto-democratic, all they have to go on is one executive. But this still sounds like the governed giving consent to a representative for their interests. Whatever Robb did with that afterward is irrelevant because the remaining NL could just repeat what they did in the council, reject their Iron Throne, and "elect" someone else. 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The Free Folk did elect a King Beyond the Wall

Sort of...I mean they had a bunch of mud wrestling matches, and whomever could pummel a person's face in better or burn out their own eye, was declared their king. 

[sweetsunray]

15 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's why I said proto-democracy. I never said they have the structure for what you're describing, that would be much too high of a bar. But debating whom to follow and speaking about it openly, without repression, is an Enlightenment value. They seriously debated choosing Stannis and Renly over Robb. Robb adds his two cents, says that Stannis has more right by succession. When they ask if they should follow Stannis, Robb says - he doesn't know, opening the door for them to choose Stannis if they wanted. 

It depends to what you compare it to. First of all, these were lords, not peasants. Secondly, my point is that this free speaking behviour at a "council" is not surprising whatsoever in a feudal context. Unless you're willing to argue that feudalism is proto-democracy, because the lords tend to have a voice in such a society.

 

15 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

don't really get that vibe in the North. It seems like the lords hold their king accountable. They aren't slavish yes men or servants.

You have the wrong understanding of feudalism. Lords aren't slavish yes men or servants in such a society, and yes they can hold their king accountable, even after they relinquished the supreme three powers to a king.

Just because it's feudalism, that doesn't mean it doesn't have values or positive aspects that with a king and lords who both uphold the feudal contract to one another and the common folk can be something admirable at times.

15 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Whatever Robb did with that afterward is irrelevant because the remaining NL could just repeat what they did in the council, reject their Iron Throne, and "elect" someone else. 

Indeed, they can if they have the might for it.

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Sort of...I mean they had a bunch of mud wrestling matches, and whomever could pummel a person's face in better or burn out their own eye, was declared their king. 

Sure, there were one-on-one power and strength competitions, but if the Free Folk didn't want to follow Mance, no amount of wrestling in the mud would suffice. Many free folk outmatch Mance any day.

[Rose of Red Lake]

12 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It depends to what you compare it to. First of all, these were lords, not peasants. Secondly, my point is that this free speaking behviour at a "council" is not surprising whatsoever in a feudal context. Unless you're willing to argue that feudalism is proto-democracy, because the lords tend to have a voice in such a society.

I'm saying that it's surprising in the context of the other councils we see in the story, unless I missed one that we can dissect. I showed how Tywin's wasn't even close to that in tone/climate. 

15 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

You have the wrong understanding of feudalism. Lords aren't slavish yes men or servants in such a society, and yes they can hold their king accountable, even after they relinquished the supreme three powers to a king.

 Just because it's feudalism, that doesn't mean it doesn't have values or positive aspects that with a king and lords who both uphold the feudal contract to one another and the common folk can be something admirable at times.

I never said this wasn't feudalism, I'm saying that the North has a healthier basis in feudalism to transition to other forms of government or at least build powers in an environment of accountability and trust, later on if they wish. And with that, do they have the climate to expand popular will to someone who isn't of their class or family, and then from there, if the small folk would even care (in a democracy, voters have a responsibility to actually you know...participate).

[sweetsunray]

26 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm saying that it's surprising in the context of the other councils we see in the story, unless I missed one that we can dissect. I showed how Tywin's wasn't even close to that in tone/climate. 

The other one you referred to was Tywin's, yes? Tywin goes through the motions of a feudal war council, but he leans very much to believing in absolute monarchy and doesn't care a twat about the feudal contract (hence his tactics in the Riverlands, his crimes against women and children since before he was Lord of CR even). He's the example of how feudalism can be very bad when you've got a heartless, cruel man as a lord or king or hand. He has the might and the amoral personality to do the stuff a ruler isn't supposed to do. And his vassals in the Westerlands aren't strong enough to stand up against him (anymore) even if they wanted to. Of course, in his case, Robb never took CR and the Ironborn didn't invade and take away his people, while he has no naval force to speak of anymore at the Westerlands, and the people he's raiding and hurting are in another region. Let's see how Cersei fares, now that Kevan is gone and no doubt plenty of the Lannister soldiers will get slaughtered in the RL by outlaws, while the rest is about to face off with Euron.

But the tone of councils prior to Tywin may have been quite different. So, it depends on the man. Robb rode out to war partly to help out the Riverlands, showing he believes in the feudal values of protection of working with the lords, after his father's example. Tywin invades the Riverlands, sending the Mountain and a company of the worst scumbag sellswords to burn lands, kill and rape people who never did anything to him or his son. He wipes his gold shitting ass on the non physical feudal contract.

Put both men in a modern context or a proto context such as the Free Folk, and you'd have a philantropistic CEO versus Gordon Gekko, or Tormund versus the Weeper. Horrible men are horrible in whatever society you drop them in. Empathic people who want to do good, will make mistakes, but still try to pursue values that we also see in the enlightenment, no matter what society you drop them into.

[Bernie Mac]

50 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm saying that it's surprising in the context of the other councils we see in the story, unless I missed one that we can dissect. I showed how Tywin's wasn't even close to that in tone/climate. 

How did you show that? In both councils, with the Westland lords and the Small Council, everyone was free to talk, give advice.

Tyrion's inside information lets the reader know that Tywin is doing this for show, that he and Kevan decide between themselves what will and Kevan shapes the conversation, but allows his vassals/fellow council members the illusion that they are contributing.

This is littler different between Robb. Robb decides, like Tywin does. His lords are free to agree and disagree with him.

"How could this happen?" Ser Harys Swyft moaned. "How? Even after the Whispering Wood, you had Riverrun ringed in iron, surrounded by a great host … what madness made Ser Jaime decide to split his men into three separate camps? Surely he knew how vulnerable that would leave them?"

 

Swyft is not even a Lord, and yet he is free to shit talk Tywin's favoured son. He suffers no consequences for doing so.

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The Targaryens are the closest to absolute kings in the series, but only as long as they have dragons. Instead of standing armies, the Targs have dragons loyal to the Targ riding them. Once those dragons are dead and gone though, you end up occasionally with kings who believe themselves to be absolute kings, while they don't have the might to actually enforce it. King Aerys II was such a one. His ability to enforce rule depended on having Tywin on his side and the Tyrell numbers. But he made Tywin into a personal enemy of his, while Tyrell is the opposite of a military genius.

Institutionally the dragonriding Targaryens were no different from the dragonless Targaryens. We have no indication that the Targaryens with dragons had more direct/immediate power over the subjects or faced less unrest and rebellion against their rule. As much sense as it would make to believe things changed after the death of the last dragon there seems to have been not much actual change.

The only thing we can, perhaps, assume is that things like the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or the abolishment of the First Night may have not been possible if Jaehaerys I hadn't had any dragons. But this are relatively minor things, if you look at it. I'd say that both the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed had more power over their people than quite a few of the dragon era Targaryen kings, both due to the popularity that came with their charisma and, in Baelor's case, their piety.