The North: a proto-democracy?

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Most of the news laws enforced on the lords of Westeros were made by dragonriding Targaryens (abolishing the right of the first night for example). Likewise, most remade Lords of castles and even entire regions happened during or after the conquering, or having lords relinquish lands when they did not wish it (New Gift). You may consider these "minor" things, but I see them as examples on lawmaking with plenty of lords not liking it, but barely resisting this apart from a letter here or there, and the Targaryens completely ignoring those ill feelings, because they could ignore their wishes.

As for rebellions. Absolute monarchs in the 16th century also experienced plenty  of rebellions. The fact that people or lords rebel against an abolute monarch is not evidence that they're not absolute monarchs. Absolute monarchs are absolute, because they have the might to squash a rebellion. My own city rebelled against Emperor Charles of Spain as well as the church, in the hopes to be free to be protestant and join the Netherlands. But the Emperor would not have any of it, and sent general Alva to Antwerp and blockaded the city. Antwerp had to capitulate and therefore was not part of the Netherlands, though it wanted to be so. Two earls lost their head because of it. I used to live in a street named after one of those earls (Egmont). Emperior Charles retained the rebelious region of Brabant and Flanders, whether people liked it or not. His power was indeed absolute. Despite the fact that at the time most citizens here were protestants, the squashing of the rebellion made the region predominantly Catholics again.

Being an absolute monarch has nothing to do with being more popular. Bloody Mary wasn't popular. She still was an absolute monarch, like her father before her and her sister after her. Hence, it doesn't matter whether the Young Dragon or Baelor the Blessed were popular. What matters is that they did not set out to make laws that inconvenienced the lords or took any other action to take land, titles or castles away from their lords. Instead they shifted the focus onto Dorne - an outsider kingdom. Neither of them succeeded in that in any significant way that lasted. Aegon the Unworthy attempted to keep the focus on Dorne, and otherwise was mostly focused on his mistresses, instead of making laws. Daeron the Good managed to bring Dorne into the fold of the 7K through a marriage and leaving the Martells the right to call themselves Princes or Princess. Then the Blackfyre Rebellions keep the focus away from the Targs not having the might anymore to enforce being absolute monarchs, but the Blackfyre Rebellions do show that plenty of lords (not people) believed they might deny Daeron from being king, not through trying to gain independence, but attempting to get rid of him. Once all that rebellion dust has settled, Egg wants to make many reforms, legal reforms, for the benefit of the smallfolk, and he is frustrated that he cannot, as he meets with opposition of the Lords, and he wishes he had real dragons. Egg was not an absolute monarch anymore, nor was Daeron. And neither Baelor and the Young Dragon and the Unworthy ever acted as one, but simply shifted the focus on outside borders, or played only absolute monarch over their sisters.

But sure, dismiss all that as "minor stuff".

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

As for rebellions. Absolute monarchs in the 16th century also experienced plenty  of rebellions. The fact that people or lords rebel against an abolute monarch is not evidence that they're not absolute monarchs. Absolute monarchs are absolute, because they have the might to squash a rebellion.

Would you say that the North seems to be in a better position to recognize that the king/executive is a public servant rather than a dictator, then? The North does not seem absolutist because it's not easy for them to enforce their will. The Starks have to struggle and work harder, and I think it's beneficial on the whole.

Another reason I like the North is that they seem like a more evolved version of First Men/Scottish Highland clans. The way that the Lords attach themselves to the Starks is similar to the attachment to a clan leader, since their loyalty isn't paid for (like the Lannisters *ahem*) but stems from something much deeper in the mind of the clansman/Northman. I see similarities between the FF and the North, while recognizing their differences too (the FF wouldn't have so easily dismissed Catelyn, aka "the clansmother's" views)

Right now I'm reading about the differences between rule by mass dictatorship and rule by tyranny. In contrast to tyranny which maneuvers from above, mass dictatorships operate from below. It has the appearance of being "grassroots," and active participation and cooperation of the people (manipulated through propaganda) helps create a mass dictatorship. Reading all of these horrific forms of government probably make me impartial to the North - I'm not seeing any of this in their style of governing. 

Interesting fact: hegemony is from the greek "egemonia" meaning, “leader, ruler, often in the sense of a state other than his own." Who is hegemonic, who isn't?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

But sure, dismiss all that as "minor stuff".

The issue is how you measure the relative degree of absolutism between the dragonriders and the non-dragonriders. Political power is not measured in dragons but in institutions, real means how a ruler can exert his power over his subjects. And on that level there simply is no difference between the Targaryens before and after the Dance. The institutions remained the same, and that means no meaningful difference. Philip the Fair, one of the medieval monarchs getting pretty close to the absolutism of Louis XIV, did not rule like a feudal monarch. But the dragonriding Targaryen kings were exactly the same feudal monarchs as their successors.

And, frankly, the claim that absolute monarchs are absolute because they crush rebellions is wrong. Any form of government, if powerful enough, can crush a rebellion. That happens all the time. Even a liberal democracy can crush a rebellion. A feudal monarch can also crush a rebellion.

The difference between a feudal monarchy and a (more) absolutist monarchy would be measured in institutions, legal powers, military might, etc.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Hence, it doesn't matter whether the Young Dragon or Baelor the Blessed were popular.

Sure, it does. It is the reason why these two were very powerful feudal monarchies within the Targaryen system. They were more powerful than, say, King Aenys or their own father.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

What matters is that they did not set out to make laws that inconvenienced the lords or took any other action to take land, titles or castles away from their lords.

That's nothing the dragonriding Targaryens did more often than the others. The Conqueror essentially took only the lands of the dead, like every king would. Maegor extinguished a couple of houses, and that was it, basically. The Targaryens after the Dance continued as their ancestors, taking lands from many a lord and destroying a considerable number of them (Lothstons, Butterwells, Balls, Stricklands, if they were ever a thing, etc.).

Making laws is something every king did, having dragons or not. Even the dragonless kings before the Conquest did make laws.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Neither of them succeeded in that in any significant way that lasted.

And how is this relevant to the amount of power they wielded while they were alive?

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Aegon the Unworthy attempted to keep the focus on Dorne, and otherwise was mostly focused on his mistresses, instead of making laws. Daeron the Good managed to bring Dorne into the fold of the 7K through a marriage and leaving the Martells the right to call themselves Princes or Princess. Then the Blackfyre Rebellions keep the focus away from the Targs not having the might anymore to enforce being absolute monarchs, but the Blackfyre Rebellions do show that plenty of lords (not people) believed they might deny Daeron from being king, not through trying to gain independence, but attempting to get rid of him.

Aegon IV arbitrarily took land from this lord and gave it to another (stuff like you think didn't happen after the dragons were gone), took the wealth of childless lords about their deaths, etc., with no consideration for the law or precedents or good taste. Nobody complained to the degree that there would be a rebellion against him. Not to mention all the other misrule he could do which make him, apparently, the worst king ever.

The Blackfyre Rebellion is a struggle between two princes of the blood, basically the same as the Dance. It went exactly the same way it would have if Daeron II and Daemon Blackfyre had been dragonriders (which they both would have been if there had still been dragons around).

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Once all that rebellion dust has settled, Egg wants to make many reforms, legal reforms, for the benefit of the smallfolk, and he is frustrated that he cannot, as he meets with opposition of the Lords, and he wishes he had real dragons. Egg was not an absolute monarch anymore, nor was Daeron. And neither Baelor and the Young Dragon and the Unworthy ever acted as one, but simply shifted the focus on outside borders, or played only absolute monarch over their sisters.

Baelor the Blessed enforced ridiculous reforms on his people, reforms that any sane populace would have rejected out of hand - but they could not. They had to go through with those. Which shows what kind of power he had.

I'd say that Aegon V would have faced exactly the same kind of issues he did face had he had dragons. Dragons do not change the minds of people, nor do they create a royal army or bureaucracy. Had he build up such things, he could have enforced his changes replaced his lords with royal officials one by one. But we don't even know whether he wanted to do things like that. While we have no idea what exactly his reforms were and why his lords rejected them and how exactly they opposed the reforms we cannot really assess this case properly.

The most powerful Targaryen king was Viserys I - and he wasn't even a dragonrider nor did he have a loyal dragonrider at his command during the first, well, twenty years of his rule or so. The Velaryons who controlled three dragons had been his rivals at the Great Council. They could not be counted upon in a crisis - they could have easily become the crisis that would topple him from the Iron Throne to place Laenor Velaryon there with fire and blood. And Daemon was a constant thorn in the king's side, not an asset, and an exile somewhere in Essos for most of the time. The Heir Apparent was a woman who would never be allowed to lead an army into battle much less use her dragon in actual combat. In the 120s his sons by Alicent might have been able to fly dragons into war for their royal father, just as his grandsons by Rhaenyra might have done if Viserys I had lived into the 130s.

Yet for all those shortcomings in the number of dragons the man actually controlled, we do know that Viserys I was the most powerful king to have ever sat the Iron Throne.

26 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Would you say that the North seems to be in a better position to recognize that the king/executive is a public servant rather than a dictator, then? The North does not seem absolutist because it's not easy for them to enforce their will. The Starks have to struggle and work harder, and I think it's beneficial on the whole.

Like all noble houses the Starks serve themselves and their own (house) interest first. That's how it is for all nobility. The common good doesn't interest anyone there (aside from the understanding that made all the people of the Seven Kingdoms support and honor the NW).

26 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Another reason I like the North is that they seem like a more evolved version of First Men/Scottish Highland clans. The way that the Lords attach themselves to the Starks is similar to the attachment to a clan leader, since their loyalty isn't paid for (like the Lannisters *ahem*) but stems from something much deeper in the mind of the clansman/Northman. I see similarities between the FF and the North, while recognizing their differences too (I don't think the FF wouldn't have so easily dismissed Catelyn, aka "the clansmother's" views)

The loyalty of any bannermen, retainer, and vassal in Westeros is of exactly the same nature. Men-at-arms and household knights (and freeriders and sellswords obviously) may be paid, but men who hold land in the name of their overlord all share the same bond. And that's the same from Dorne to the Wall. The bannermen of the Lannisters are not loyal to the Lannisters because they are paid. They are loyal because they hold land in their name and because the Lannisters of old used to be their kings just like the Starks used to be Kings in the North. The bond the Starks have with their people is of the same deeper nature as the bond the Lannisters and Arryns have with their people (and the Baratheons, too, to a point) because they once were kings over them.

The only difference with the clansmen is that they are too primitive to be counted as proper lords - but the bonds they have with the Starks are the same as the Crackclaw Point folk have with the Targaryens, say.

26 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Right now I'm reading about the differences between rule by mass dictatorship and rule by tyranny. In contrast to tyranny which maneuvers from above, mass dictatorships operate from below. They have the appearance of being "grassroots," and active participation and cooperation of the people (manipulated through propaganda) helps create a mass dictatorship. Reading all of these horrific forms of government probably make me impartial to the North - I'm not seeing any of this in their style of governing.

Those are far too modern concepts for a fantasy world being so derivative of medieval stuff as Westeros.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Would you say that the North seems to be in a better position to recognize that the king/executive is a public servant rather than a dictator, then? The North does not seem absolutist because it's not easy for them to enforce their will.

I would say that Ned Stark at least regards it as a responsibility to have all powers (who as Hand with a king who wants him to rule also has all three) and that it is a responsibility towards lords and smallfolk. Cat's thoughts and reflections when she meets Robb again at Moat Cailin reflect a similar take, and seems to think Robb sees it as Ned does. Her brother Edmure also regards it that way. They are the most powerful, but they take their feudal responsibilities seriously.

Again that doesn't mean it isn't didactorial or in certain cases couldn't be absolutist. A didactorship is where the three powers are not independent anymore. You simply cannot ignore the fact that Ned as warden or Robb as king have the obligation to sit as judges on disputes and literally are also the acting executioner.

But yes, they do regard their feudal role as a public responsibility. (I wouldn't use the word 'service').

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

But yes, they do regard their feudal role as a public responsibility. (I wouldn't use the word 'service').

I'm just using GRRM's words for popular audiences, a king is like a public service position. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

 Again that doesn't mean it isn't didactorial or in certain cases couldn't be absolutist. 

I'm more concerned about a vicious cycle of power for the sake of power, inability to admit wrongdoing, suppression of speech, obtaining power through force or deceit, inflicting people with mass famine or mass murder, not being able to keep your buildings standing, excessive personal desires. . . .to name a few. 

In the Dionysian sense if the KitN position was like a Roman dictatorship, the North would be in a slow and painful decline into disorder and corruption. I don't think its going to end so nihilistically. We'll have the Starks back in power, being stewards of the land. After Ramsay and the Boltons, the lords could take a step toward democracy like Athens - making it illegal for a tyrant to rule and for such a king to be removed if a trial finds him guilty. Or assassinated - at least that would get them close to Braavos. Or the Starks could formalize their war councils and turn them into a parliament with an ability to elect a new king under certain conditions. However, I just don't see all Lords in the North kicking out the Starks like the Romans kicked out the Tarquinians . 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

A didactorship is where the three powers are not independent anymore. You simply cannot ignore the fact that Ned as warden or Robb as king have the obligation to sit as judges on disputes and literally are also the acting executioner.

Yes, pit and gallows - a custom also for lords, not just kings. But even Robb's most controversial act as a judiciary - beheading Karstark - is brushed aside by his daughter? Robb faced personal consequences for his decisions but the story has been forgiving of them, too, in weird ways.

There is a point being made with Ned's philosophy toward execution, I'll reserve judgement on the separation of powers thing, until it plays out. 

[SeanF]

On 1/18/2020 at 1:37 AM, Lord Varys said:

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.

I think the offences were different, though.  Catelyn plainly committed treason, by freeing a prisoner. She was to be punished for it.  She was to be sent to Seagard, for the duration of the war, effectively placed under house arrest.  She herself thought Robb's lords might demand her execution for it, but she was protected both by being his mother, and by being a woman (a rare case where sexism works in favour of women in this world).

Karstark went further.  He murdered fellow soldiers, in order to get at the two prisoners.  That is a very grave offence.  And, by murdering the prisoners to whom Robb had given protection, he made his king a liar in the eyes of the world, and left prisoners in the hands of the Lannisters vulnerable to similar retaliation.

 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes, pit and gallows - a custom also for lords, not just kings. But even Robb's most controversial act as a judiciary - beheading Karstark - is brushed aside by his daughter? Robb faced personal consequences for his decisions but the story has been forgiving of them, too, in weird ways.

There is a point being made with Ned's philosophy toward execution, I'll reserve judgement on the separation of powers thing, until it plays out.  

I never claimed it was just a king's right, but the word is king's justice. The lords do it in the name of a king - his laws, his judgment, his execution - because the king can't be everywhere. It still remains a king's power, until he upsets his lords too much that they deny him any power, and bestow it to another king.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm more concerned about a vicious cycle of power for the sake of power, inability to admit wrongdoing, suppression of speech, obtaining power through force or deceit, inflicting people with mass famine or mass murder, not being able to keep your buildings standing, excessive personal desires. . . .to name a few. 

In the Dionysian sense if the KitN position was like a Roman dictatorship, the North would be in a slow and painful decline into disorder and corruption. I don't think its going to end so nihilistically. We'll have the Starks back in power, being stewards of the land. After Ramsay and the Boltons, the lords could take a step toward democracy like Athens - making it illegal for a tyrant to rule and for such a king to be removed if a trial finds him guilty. Or assassinated - at least that would get them close to Braavos. Or the Starks could formalize their war councils and turn them into a parliament with an ability to elect a new king under certain conditions. However, I just don't see all Lords in the North kicking out the Starks like the Romans kicked out the Tarquinians . 

I'm concerned about the cycle too, and I am sure so is George.

It isn't a roman dictatorship. It are feudal monarchies (also dictatorship) which has the feudal contract value as checks and balances that fail when a lord or king doesn't care about the smallfolk. Westeros leaned over to an absolute monarchy for little over a hundred years when the Targaryens had dragons, but returned to a feudal one afterwards. Robert's Rebellion made sure of that when they deposed Mad Aerys. Varys wants to install an absolute enlightened monarch. Dany wants to be an absolute enlightened monarch. Dany's ultimate chances to etch a path and conquer the IT to try and establish an absolute enlightened monarchy are the best: she has personal standing armies and it will get largers and she has WMDs (dragons).

But ultimately the same issues that feudal monarchy has remain: how benevolent it truly is, depends on the person actually sitting on a throne, because it still relies on "might makes right". This isn't just true for kings or queens, but also for the lords and ladies. 

Imo, George will want to use the best elements of each type of monarchy and mix it up. For example, the dragons will go the way of the dodo in the end imo. They're the sole weapon that can fly from one side of the continent to the other side in a matter of days. That's just too much. If you have a Maegor-like dragonrider after Dany then Westeros is in deep shit again. But the ruler would have a personal standing army. Even if he or she has, the continent is just too big and too populated to be controlled by a king's standing army of say 10000. The standing army is rather required more to help defend the ruler from any psychopathic lord or lady to attempt a coup. But if the absolute enlightened king (and yes historically "enlightened" kings did abuse their powers) abuses his powers, then an alliance of lords can overwhelm him. That is a more evened checks and balances of the feudal system. The standing army would lean far more towards freedom of speech and the ability to refuse a king's command, than a Praetorian guard.

In order to ensure justice is done right, George has to use magic - that of knowledge. Even those who have the best judging intentions make mistakes. Ned beheads a man who either required asylum care or should have been returned to the NW to inform Jeor about what he witnessed. Dany has conquered slavers crucified without knowing they are actually the slavers who crucified the children. Chances are high that the culprits pointed out slavers who disagreed with that or were not involved. And torture is also not the method to get to a reliable truth, and often involves hurting a potential innocent witness. George has an answer to this: there are people who can see back in time and see for themselves what someone did or didn't do, namely greenseers. With a greenseer such as Bran as a ruler, you end up with "knowledge makes right" rather than "might makes right". And most of his "standing" army would be trees. On top of that, a greenseer has the advantage to live up to a very ripe old age and therefore ensure a stability that lasts at least a century.

Finally, George wants to move towards an elective monarchy imo, where the next ruler is not based on dynastic heirs, but on picking the right man or woman for the job in a peaceful manner. The best way to make it a tradition in the future is by having an infertile ruler. There are potentially three such candidates, but two of them would acquire the throne based on dynastic claims - Dany or Jon. Nor is it certain that Dany is infertile, for she miscarried a child on the green sea after eating green berries. Nor is it certain that Jon is dead and will end up resurrected. Anyway, it would be a bad start to have a ruler of the continent based on dynastic claims to then switch to an elective one. Moving towards an elective monarchy is far easier when the ruler was elected him or herself.

So, my bet is on Bran being elected the ruler of Westeros, either as a transition figure, or as a precursor of elected greenseer rulers, not based on dynasty, but abilities.

 

 

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I never claimed it was just a king's right, but the word is king's justice. The lords do it in the name of a king - his laws, his judgment, his execution - because the king can't be everywhere. It still remains a king's power, until he upsets his lords too much that they deny him any power, and bestow it to another king.

I'm concerned about the cycle too, and I am sure so is George.

It isn't a roman dictatorship. It are feudal monarchies (also dictatorship) which has the feudal contract value as checks and balances that fail when a lord or king doesn't care about the smallfolk. Westeros leaned over to an absolute monarchy for little over a hundred years when the Targaryens had dragons, but returned to a feudal one afterwards. Robert's Rebellion made sure of that when they deposed Mad Aerys. Varys wants to install an absolute enlightened monarch. Dany wants to be an absolute enlightened monarch. Dany's ultimate chances to etch a path and conquer the IT to try and establish an absolute enlightened monarchy are the best: she has personal standing armies and it will get largers and she has WMDs (dragons).

But ultimately the same issues that feudal monarchy has remain: how benevolent it truly is, depends on the person actually sitting on a throne, because it still relies on "might makes right". This isn't just true for kings or queens, but also for the lords and ladies. 

Imo, George will want to use the best elements of each type of monarchy and mix it up. For example, the dragons will go the way of the dodo in the end imo. They're the sole weapon that can fly from one side of the continent to the other side in a matter of days. That's just too much. If you have a Maegor-like dragonrider after Dany then Westeros is in deep shit again. But the ruler would have a personal standing army. Even if he or she has, the continent is just too big and too populated to be controlled by a king's standing army of say 10000. The standing army is rather required more to help defend the ruler from any psychopathic lord or lady to attempt a coup. But if the absolute enlightened king (and yes historically "enlightened" kings did abuse their powers) abuses his powers, then an alliance of lords can overwhelm him. That is a more evened checks and balances of the feudal system. The standing army would lean far more towards freedom of speech and the ability to refuse a king's command, than a Praetorian guard.

In order to ensure justice is done right, George has to use magic - that of knowledge. Even those who have the best judging intentions make mistakes. Ned beheads a man who either required asylum care or should have been returned to the NW to inform Jeor about what he witnessed. Dany has conquered slavers crucified without knowing they are actually the slavers who crucified the children. Chances are high that the culprits pointed out slavers who disagreed with that or were not involved. And torture is also not the method to get to a reliable truth, and often involves hurting a potential innocent witness. George has an answer to this: there are people who can see back in time and see for themselves what someone did or didn't do, namely greenseers. With a greenseer such as Bran as a ruler, you end up with "knowledge makes right" rather than "might makes right". And most of his "standing" army would be trees. On top of that, a greenseer has the advantage to live up to a very ripe old age and therefore ensure a stability that lasts at least a century.

Finally, George wants to move towards an elective monarchy imo, where the next ruler is not based on dynastic heirs, but on picking the right man or woman for the job in a peaceful manner. The best way to make it a tradition in the future is by having an infertile ruler. There are potentially three such candidates, but two of them would acquire the throne based on dynastic claims - Dany or Jon. Nor is it certain that Dany is infertile, for she miscarried a child on the green sea after eating green berries. Nor is it certain that Jon is dead and will end up resurrected. Anyway, it would be a bad start to have a ruler of the continent based on dynastic claims to then switch to an elective one. Moving towards an elective monarchy is far easier when the ruler was elected him or herself.

So, my bet is on Bran being elected the ruler of Westeros, either as a transition figure, or as a precursor of elected greenseer rulers, not based on dynasty, but abilities.

 

 

I think that justice is a lordly, as well as royal prerogative.  So far as I can tell there is very little that we would call jurisprudence, and the lords can just inflict such punishments as they see fit.  The usual punishment for theft is loss of a finger, but Tarly increased it to the loss of seven fingers, in Maidenpool.  Rohanne Webber drowned a notorious poacher in a sack;  another lord might have imposed a different penalty.

Elective monarchy is probably the worst form of monarchy.  It either becomes hereditary in practice, like the Holy Roman Empire, or the king is just a figurehead, with real power belonging to the nobility, like Poland.  The person who gets elected king is usually the person with the deepest pockets.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue is how you measure the relative degree of absolutism between the dragonriders and the non-dragonriders. Political power is not measured in dragons but in institutions, real means how a ruler can exert his power over his subjects. And on that level there simply is no difference between the Targaryens before and after the Dance. The institutions remained the same, and that means no meaningful difference. Philip the Fair, one of the medieval monarchs getting pretty close to the absolutism of Louis XIV, did not rule like a feudal monarch. But the dragonriding Targaryen kings were exactly the same feudal monarchs as their successors.

How else would you call a man who writes letters to all kings of westeros telling them that from now he'll be king, they will be lords, and if they refuse to accept that, he'll destroy them. That's the action of an absolute monarch.

Quote

That's nothing the dragonriding Targaryens did more often than the others. The Conqueror essentially took only the lands of the dead, like every king would.

The dead he killed, because they did not accept his decision that from now on he'd be king over everybody else.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Making laws is something every king did, having dragons or not. Even the dragonless kings before the Conquest did make laws.

Silly straw man argument. I never claimed that a feudal king doesn't make laws. In fact, I did mention to Rose that feudal kings have all three powers, and that includes lawmaking. But feudal kings rarely manage to make something a law that their lords disagree with. Absolute monarchs will and can do so. And thus we have examples of such laws coming into being under the Targaryen rulers with dragons. They had the means and power to completely ignore their lords' wishes and grievances, which they did on several points. Meanwhile none of the dragonless Targaryens either did not try or failed at it. You call them minor, because they inconvenience your opinion. That's not how arguments work. They are significant, because they are unprecedented.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon IV arbitrarily took land from this lord and gave it to another (stuff like you think didn't happen after the dragons were gone), took the wealth of childless lords about their deaths, etc., with no consideration for the law or precedents or good taste. Nobody complained to the degree that there would be a rebellion against him.

Lands that were already considered to be the Targs to give away: Harrenhal. He didn't try to install another family in Highgarden for example.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And how is this relevant to the amount of power they wielded while they were alive?

Because the power was a) not directed to their vassals b) they failed at conquering.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Baelor the Blessed enforced ridiculous reforms on his people, reforms that any sane populace would have rejected out of hand - but they could not. They had to go through with those. Which shows what kind of power he had.

Well his "reforms" did not affect the rights of lords (much).

1. Dissolves his marriage and locks up his sisters. While this may cause dynastic issues, but it doesn't infringe on the rights of the lords.
2. The forbidding of prostitution in KL. He only makes that decree within the city he has indeed direct might. He does not however make prostitution illegal in all of Westeros. I imagine some lords in the Crownlands nearest to KL laughed in their cups over it, imagining more revenue coming their way.
3. He tried to have the Citadel use doves instead of ravens and failed.
4. He decrees a tax exemption for the lords who put chastity belts on their daughters. Lords would see that as doubly positive: they're sure their daughters remain virgins and they get a tax exemption.
5. He burned books. Based on what Tyrion discovered in the Stark library, Baelor's book burning was unlikely to be successful beyond the Red Keep and KL.

So, basically he was mostly king over his sisters and KL and decreed a law the lords would consider more to their benefit than that of the royal chest. If a king wants to exempt you of paying taxes, I doubt you will protest or say no to that.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The most powerful Targaryen king was Viserys I - and he wasn't even a dragonrider nor did he have a loyal dragonrider at his command during the first, well, twenty years of his rule or so. The Velaryons who controlled three dragons had been his rivals at the Great Council. They could not be counted upon in a crisis - they could have easily become the crisis that would topple him from the Iron Throne to place Laenor Velaryon there with fire and blood. And Daemon was a constant thorn in the king's side, not an asset, and an exile somewhere in Essos for most of the time. The Heir Apparent was a woman who would never be allowed to lead an army into battle much less use her dragon in actual combat. In the 120s his sons by Alicent might have been able to fly dragons into war for their royal father, just as his grandsons by Rhaenyra might have done if Viserys I had lived into the 130s.

Sure, but there were a lot of dragons, and a lot of dragonriders, and Viserys I never behaved like an absolute monarch, except on the choice of his successor, to which all the lords agreed, but many of them renounced it as soon as he was dead in the face of his son(s) who were dragonriders.

[sweetsunray]

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Elective monarchy is probably the worst form of monarchy.  It either becomes hereditary in practice, like the Holy Roman Empire, or the king is just a figurehead, with real power belonging to the nobility, like Poland.  The person who gets elected king is usually the person with the deepest pockets.

Depends on how the electing is done. Bran who gets to live up to a ripe old age of 120 makes for people who haven't known anythign else all their much shorter life. We do know that greenseer kings were the norm for millenia until the Andals arrived.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

How else would you call a man who writes letters to all kings of westeros telling them that from now he'll be king, they will be lords, and if they refuse to accept that, he'll destroy them. That's the action of an absolute monarch.

No, it is not. It is the action of a feudal monarch who wants to be the overlord of this land he intends to conquer. Aegon the Conqueror was in no way an absolutist king by our standards because absolutism simply isn't feudalism and neither he nor his descendants established any legal institutions that were different from those of the dragonless kings. That is just a fact. You don't measure institutional power by number of fighter pilots.

The one thing Aegon I did accomplish is to enforce the King's Peace - which, not existing before, shows how weak the feudal kings of the Seven Kingdoms were compared to many of their lords who simply ignored them and did as they pleased. That changed after the Conquest - and it is clear why because open violence and private war is something a king can actually do something about with a dragon. However, Aegon I had essentially no real power over the little day-to-day things in his kingdoms - whereas the royal authority via a proper royal bureaucracy and military in an actual absolutist monarchy dominated the day-to-day lives of everybody.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The dead he killed, because they did not accept his decision that from now on he'd be king over everybody else.

Which isn't different from what the Starks did when they destroyed dozens of rival houses during their conquest of the North, nor is it different from the Andal conquest of the Vale or any other conquest in the history of Westeros - none of which made any of those kings in any way properly 'absolutist'.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Silly straw man argument. I never claimed that a feudal king doesn't make laws. In fact, I did mention to Rose that feudal kings have all three powers, and that includes lawmaking. But feudal kings rarely manage to make something a law that their lords disagree with. Absolute monarchs will and can do so. And thus we have examples of such laws coming into being under the Targaryen rulers with dragons. They had the means and power to completely ignore their lords' wishes and grievances, which they did on several points. Meanwhile none of the dragonless Targaryens either did not try or failed at it. You call them minor, because they inconvenience your opinion. That's not how arguments work. They are significant, because they are unprecedented.

You just have no evidence that the dragonless Targaryens weren't able to enforce laws against the wishes of their lords. Aegon V, for instance, could force his lords to accept all his reforms, but he did push through some reforms, laws that survived his death and had to be abolished by both his son Jaehaerys II and his grandson Aerys II (and the latter's Hand, Lord Tywin).

And, yes, the monarchies of Westeros also are not proper feudal monarchies, either, in the sense that the nobility do not have any legal institutions formally limiting or rivaling the powers of the king. For instance, the great peers of England and France had a formal right to be part of the government of the Realm, sit on the king's council or in other powerful institutions as per right of birth - something that's not the case in Westeros. Jaehaerys I sort of acknowledges the prominence of the great lords by always considering them when filling an empty seat on the Small Council, but the king chooses his advisers himself, no lord can demand to sit on the Small Council. But this doesn't change after the dragons are gone, no? Aerys II and even Robert Baratheon still choose their own advisers - none of the great lords were able to face the Crown to give them mandatory participation in the governance of the Realm. There is no Parliament or other assembly of lords in Westeros, and lords do hold judicial power only in the name of the king - even their own bannermen and vassals are sworn both to the their lordly liege and the king (as Walder Frey points out back in AGoT).

The only way a lord could force a king to do his bidding/stop doing what he didn't want him to do is open rebellion - which is both illegal and a very extreme measure. Rebellion is something anyone can start in any form of government - the fact that the lords can do that in the Westerosi setting doesn't tell us anything about the legal power of the monarchs in comparison to the great lords.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Lands that were already considered to be the Targs to give away: Harrenhal. He didn't try to install another family in Highgarden for example.

Aegon IV didn't name a new lord of Harrenhal. He took the wealth of the Plumms for himself and he took the teats from the Brackens and gave them to the Blackwoods. And we are told that he did this kind of thing more than once.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Because the power was a) not directed to their vassals b) they failed at conquering.

I did list the Young Dragon there because he was successful at conquering. I listed him because he got his people to follow him in his mad conquest idea in the first place, apparently drawing more people into this armies than any Targaryen king before (Aegon I did not include men from the North in his armies to conquer Dorne, for instance).

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Well his "reforms" did not affect the rights of lords (much).

1. Dissolves his marriage and locks up his sisters. While this may cause dynastic issues, but it doesn't infringe on the rights of the lords.
2. The forbidding of prostitution in KL. He only makes that decree within the city he has indeed direct might. He does not however make prostitution illegal in all of Westeros. I imagine some lords in the Crownlands nearest to KL laughed in their cups over it, imagining more revenue coming their way.
3. He tried to have the Citadel use doves instead of ravens and failed.
4. He decrees a tax exemption for the lords who put chastity belts on their daughters. Lords would see that as doubly positive: they're sure their daughters remain virgins and they get a tax exemption.
5. He burned books. Based on what Tyrion discovered in the Stark library, Baelor's book burning was unlikely to be successful beyond the Red Keep and KL.

The question to ask here is simply whether things would have been different if Baelor had been a dragonrider - and there you see that things would have been exactly the same.

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Sure, but there were a lot of dragons, and a lot of dragonriders, and Viserys I never behaved like an absolute monarch, except on the choice of his successor, to which all the lords agreed, but many of them renounced it as soon as he was dead in the face of his son(s) who were dragonriders.

But Viserys I is called the most powerful Targaryen king ever in no uncertain terms in FaB. Power that was clearly not based on the control he, personally, had over dragonriders or dragons. Dragon-wise Viserys I was the weakest of the Targaryen kings.

[Rose of Red Lake]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

In order to ensure justice is done right, George has to use magic - that of knowledge. Even those who have the best judging intentions make mistakes. Ned beheads a man who either required asylum care or should have been returned to the NW to inform Jeor about what he witnessed. Dany has conquered slavers crucified without knowing they are actually the slavers who crucified the children. Chances are high that the culprits pointed out slavers who disagreed with that or were not involved. And torture is also not the method to get to a reliable truth, and often involves hurting a potential innocent witness. George has an answer to this: there are people who can see back in time and see for themselves what someone did or didn't do, namely greenseers. With a greenseer such as Bran as a ruler, you end up with "knowledge makes right" rather than "might makes right". And most of his "standing" army would be trees. On top of that, a greenseer has the advantage to live up to a very ripe old age and therefore ensure a stability that lasts at least a century.

I get the message, completely, but it is going to flop for the vast majority of readers because they want realism. Facing a crisis? Just find yourself an all knowing, all seeing wizard king. Or invent a time machine and study the past so you won't make future mistakes. That solution is going to make readers go ???? and make readers beg for a typical Aragorn who was unable to rule through magic. How could Tolkien end with more realpolitik than Martin? The same message can be achieved in a more realistic way by making someone like Sam king, at least he has to act like the rest of us plebs and actually read a book. 

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I get the message, completely, but it is going to flop for the vast majority of readers because they want realism. Facing a crisis? Just find yourself an all knowing, all seeing wizard king. Or invent a time machine and study the past so you won't make future mistakes. That solution is going to make readers go ???? and make readers beg for a typical Aragorn who was unable to rule through magic. How could Tolkien end with more realpolitik than Martin? The same message can be achieved in a more realistic way by making someone like Sam king, at least he has to act like the rest of us plebs and actually read a book. 

Depends on how George gets there. It's not as if there weren't greenseer kings in the past. Garth the green, the Grey king of the IB, whomever originally sat the weirwood throne that the Arryns acquired and set up in the Eyrie. 

And an all-seeing wizard who is physically disabled and not having any other magic beyond seeing still will have to negotiate, sit through petitions, pay off loans, etc. 

If you wanted to read something without magic, then Ken Follet is perhaps a recommended read.

[Rose of Red Lake]

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

If you wanted to read something without magic, then Ken Follet is perhaps a recommended read.

Eh I dont really care myself. Bran can negotiate a lower interest rate on a loan while replaying home movies in his head, great. Rule by Hari Seldon's psychohistory. I'm just explaining why it won't go over well with audiences because they see magic as a cheat. GRRM talking about Aragorn's tax policy and how a ruling is hard, doesn't help because he's making it more confusing, for people to get what he's trying to do. 

[sweetsunray]

33 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Eh I dont really care myself. Bran can negotiate a lower interest rate on a loan while replaying home movies in his head, great. Rule by Hari Seldon's psychohistory. I'm just explaining why it won't go over well with audiences because they see magic as a cheat. GRRM talking about Aragorn's tax policy and how a ruling is hard, doesn't help because he's making it more confusing, for people to get what he's trying to do. 

George's own opinion about magic is that it's a cheat if it's something a wizard can use without consequence and when there are little to no restrictions on the type of magic used: that is the stuff you can see in the Witcher. Greenseeing clearly is not that. Bran isn't a wizard with a wand that twirls and goes poof to make something happen. Reading or seeing are the magical abilities that George is the most fond of in most of his work: a song for Lya, the psionic cats of Tuff, .... I doubt he cares whether the audience will see it as a "cheat", or even that you can speak for the audience in general. I tend to love George's endings, but they can be anti-climatic, not what you expected, sad, strange, confusing or weird. They usually require some time to ponder about it.

Sure, Bran comes out of the leftfield, but there is a set-up for it, especially given the fact that Bran's first chapter includes the witnessing of justice seeing done by a good man who knows nothing. And in the past plenty of readers have argued for Bran in some ruling capacity over the years. So, please don't speak for the "audience".

Is it something that could happen in the real world? No, it cannot. So, what. Maybe that's partially the point, that sadly no real world justice system can ever be without its drawbacks and flaws. Even DNA tests can be flawed.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

I doubt he cares whether the audience will see it as a "cheat", or even that you can speak for the audience in general.

I'm on multiple platforms, tumblr, twitter, reddit, discord - and nobody gets the thing with Bran. I've explained it and people still have adverse reactions. What's the point of writing, if it just leaves people confused or angry. He obviously wants a message to be conveyed. GRRM will need to step up his game and not just assume that his particular quirks about what is/is not "Realistic magic" are understood or shared by everyone. 

 

 

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

What's the point of writing, if it just leaves people confused or angry.

Read George's old stories. If you do, then you know your complaint about "that's not what the audience wants" would be pointless.

I'm also on multiple platforms. So, what. A lot of people arguing on any of the platforms know or understand less than Jon does. On multiple platforms there are a lot of opinionated nitwits is my conclusion.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Read George's old stories. If you do, then you know your complaint would be pointless.

I've read his past work, and I've also read CRITICISMS of those stories, which talked about how they were....confused by the ending and the message. It could be a pattern. Not everyone should have to be a GRRMologist to get what's going on. 

[sweetsunray]

Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

I've read his past work, and I've also read CRITICISMS of those stories, which talked about how they were....confused by the ending and the message. It could be a pattern. Not everyone should have to be a GRRMologist to get what's going on. 

That's not what I said. So, straw man. My point was that yes, his endings tend to confuse a lot of readers or is not what they expected out of it.

And if you read his past work and the criticisms then you know "but the audience won't like it" is a non-argument. So, why are you bringing it up?

[The Fattest Leech]

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

That's not what I said. So, straw man. My point was that yes, his endings tend to confuse a lot of readers or is not what they expected out of it.

Yes, this. I'd say that in some of GRRM's past stories there can be a few things that are left open (even though a conclusion is right there), and then there are some stories that people complain are confusing because it isn't the ending they wanted. How many times has GRRM said that he writes the story HE wants to read. This isn't typical fanatsy here, but we have to shed typical ideas and get into Martinworld to see his vision. We are in his world, not the other way around.

Quote

And if you read his past work and the criticisms then you know "but the audience won't like it" is a non-argument. So, why are you bringing it up?

Bran becoming a leader/main watcher/whatever is ASOIAF fits EXACTLY with the way Martin writes. People are gonna complain no matter what, unfortunately.

+: I really want to emphasize that Bran becoming the head tree in town (not a literal tree) is THE LEAST shocking thing GRRM is working towards. There are several societal changes coming by the end of the story, changes that show a near-future progression in a way that is opposite and better for more people than the completely F'd up Planetos that we see. GRRM included all of the terror so readers will cheer when it changes (or we see the seeds of change).