Who do you think would be the better ruler, Jon or Dany?

[The Young Maester]

35 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Neither? They both have issues that I wouldnt trust them on. Mainly its abruptly changing course toward violence/war because it feels good to them. Authoritarians in training.

Monarchism and feudalism is the product of authoritarianism.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

21 minutes ago, broken one said:

Were there any non authoritarian Westerosi Kings? Pacifism in medieval scenery, Id like to see it.

You know it's weird, Jaehaerys was by far the most absolutist monarch there was, with incredible control over everyone, but he was also the most peaceful monarch. Goes to show the advantages of enlightened despotism

[broken one]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know it's weird, Jaehaerys was by far the most absolutist monarch there was, with incredible control over everyone, but he was also the most peaceful monarch. Goes to show the advantages of enlightened despotism

Sure, but Jaehaerys also spilled blood and burned hundreds men alive when it was necessary to protect the realm. I can't see any basis for claims that Jon is warlike beast. Or even Dany.  Actually the're humane in a very modern manner.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, broken one said:

Were there any non authoritarian Westerosi Kings? Pacifism in medieval scenery, Id like to see it.

Authoritarianism is necessary in a medieval/early modern society.  So is skill at waging war.  The idea that military success is undesirable in a ruler would be viewed very strangely in this world.  No one would want to see Westeros go the way of the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth,

 

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know it's weird, Jaehaerys was by far the most absolutist monarch there was, with incredible control over everyone, but he was also the most peaceful monarch. Goes to show the advantages of enlightened despotism

Jaehaerys pulled peoples' guts out, when he needed to.

People knew that the cost of defying him would be terrible.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

No one would want to see Westeros go the way of the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth,

Well if the story ends like the abomination did, it will as the main problem with the PLC was the contract each king had to sign as part of his election, a contract that limited his power more and more with each passing King eventually resulting in a disorganized mess that could barely stop the Deluge and even then they didn't reform themselves. Cause that's what elective monarchy does and that's why D&D are so stupid

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

12 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know it's weird, Jaehaerys was by far the most absolutist monarch there was, with incredible control over everyone, but he was also the most peaceful monarch. Goes to show the advantages of enlightened despotism

Jaehaerys pulled peoples' guts out, when he needed to.

People knew that the cost of defying him would be terrible.

Yeah, that's clear, but it was also a good thing in that nobody did anythign stupid.

[SeanF]

Just now, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well if the story ends like the abomination did, it will as the main problem with the PLC was the contract each king had to sign as part of his election, a contract that limited his power more and more with each passing King eventually resulting in a disorganized mess that could barely stop the Deluge and even then they didn't reform themselves. Cause that's what elective monarchy does and that's why D&D are so stupid

 

I don't know what they were trying to achieve in the show.  If the king is an omniscient being who can spy on his subjects 24/7 and lives for hundreds of years, there will never be another election.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I don't know what they were trying to achieve in the show.  If the king is an omniscient being who can spy on his subjects 24/7 and lives for hundreds of years, there will never be another election.

Ah yes, Big Brother. Immoral and always watching you

[broken one]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 No one would want to see Westeros go the way of the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth,

 

do you mean as for anti authoritarianism or relative non-aggressiveness? or the sad end?

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, broken one said:

do you mean as for anti authoritarianism or relative non-aggressiveness? or the sad end?

Extreme noble factionalism, lack of central direction, and finally dissolution and absorption by other powers.

[Daeron the Daring]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Extreme noble factionalism, lack of central direction, and finally dissolution and absorption by other powers.

Well, uniting the 7K doubled the population of Westeros for a reason. After all, it was good.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

16 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Well, uniting the 7K doubled the population of Westeros for a reason. After all, it was good.

Nah, an elective monarchy, especially with the huge power of the nobility would fuck Westeros up. Organization would go tits up, and eventually foreign invaders would be able to conquer Westeros. Just like the PLC.

[CamiloRP]

They both lack what the other has (I'm not saying they should rule together) but Dany is too concerned with pleasing everyone, that turns her into one of my favorite Spanish expressions: 'tibia' literally meaning warm, figuratively meaning a person without strong convictions. Dany starts a revolution of sorts, an anti slavery revolution, then after that she becomes preoccupied with pleasing the former slavers, the well being of her freemen is no longer her top priority, she's not extremist enough and therefore her rule is mostly following other people's wishes, this isn't bad when you listen to the people, but if you follow the wishes of the people and the people's enemies, you will achieve little. Side note: this would make her a good ruler in a democracy, as pleasing both sides guarantees reelection, but she has all the power, she can do anything she wants, there's no need to try to please the slavers.

Jon on the other hand, isn't preoccupied at all about what his people think of his measures, he just does what he thinks is right and that turns people against him.

I just weirdly realized that if they have both swap how they where ruling things would have gone much better:

Dany, not caring about the slavers, would have rule for the slaves, and likely take the slavers money to help the slaves, getting rid of her opposition by taking their power. And Jon would have been more 'tibio' and managed to please Marsh's crew enough that they didn't kill him (giving them small wins, like sealing some of the gates, but not all, or not naming Satin his squire).

[Daeron the Daring]

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Nah, an elective monarchy, especially with the huge power of the nobility would fuck Westeros up. Organization would go tits up, and eventually foreign invaders would be able to conquer Westeros. Just like the PLC.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. Elections only create more problem and war, for sure.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, HerblYY said:

3 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Nah, an elective monarchy, especially with the huge power of the nobility would fuck Westeros up. Organization would go tits up, and eventually foreign invaders would be able to conquer Westeros. Just like the PLC.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. Elections only create more problem and war, for sure.

Not necessarily elections. Elective feudal monarchies. What that means is that by the nobles electing the King they gain all the power, with the state becoming weak and the nobles with the real power squabbling due to the lack of any framework, resulting in a clusterfucks

[Daeron the Daring]

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not necessarily elections. Elective feudal monarchies. What that means is that by the nobles electing the King they gain all the power, with the state becoming weak and the nobles with the real power squabbling due to the lack of any framework, resulting in a clusterfucks

And again. When I said "elections" I didn't mean to give everyone the right to vote. In the ancient Athen, around 2000 men! had the right to vote, and they called it democracy. 

This is the reason why house Targaryen needs to claim the IT again. Because the 7 great houses are considered equal, and only between equals we can talk about elections, and that does not solve the problem. Something above them does.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Monarchism and feudalism is the product of authoritarianism.

Dany and Jon personify authoritarianism mixed with capriciousness and unchecked emotions. This is not good.

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You know it's weird, Jaehaerys was by far the most absolutist monarch there was, with incredible control over everyone, but he was also the most peaceful monarch. Goes to show the advantages of enlightened despotism

Jaehaerys had a stable mental character, and was in control of his emotions. Especially important when you can destroy cities.

Dany oscillates wildly and you don't know what they will do next. Authoritarianism mixed with unpredictability and whims is a terrible combination. Jon is about the same. Both can fly off the handle.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Authoritarianism is necessary in a medieval/early modern society.  So is skill at waging war.  The idea that military success is undesirable in a ruler would be viewed very strangely in this world.  No one would want to see Westeros go the way of the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth,

I think we're using a different definition of authoritarianism. I'm talking about the kind that is about the mentality of the people, and the rulers' abilities to exploit that. Under this definition it is about the populace submitting too much to the authorities in their lives. The North and the free folk do not have this mind-set at all; thus the rulers can't use authoritarian tactics in kind.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany oscillates wildly and you don't know what they will do next. Authoritarianism mixed with unpredictability and whims is a terrible combination. Jon is about the same. Both can fly off the handle.

I mean yes they both can fly off the handle, but in different ways. Jon often let's his more honorable foolish instincts get the better of him, as can be seen with the Pink letter, while Dany does let her anger and wroth get to her, as can best be seen with the 163 masters. Of the 2 I think Jon is better as Jon is less likely to commit something that would permanently damage his reputation, but more likely to get himself killed

[Rose of Red Lake]

15 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean yes they both can fly off the handle, but in different ways. Jon often let's his more honorable foolish instincts get the better of him, as can be seen with the Pink letter, while Dany does let her anger and wroth get to her, as can best be seen with the 163 masters. Of the 2 I think Jon is better as Jon is less likely to commit something that would permanently damage his reputation, but more likely to get himself killed

Yeah I can agree with that. 

Both got a taste of power that they can use at the end of Dance - Dany was able to ride dragons and Jon got a willing army. And look what they wanted to do with it, immediately - Go to war because they like it and it feels like they're "in their element." I don't even care who they are planning to attack. Eventually they could mark anyone as the opposition. I know this will just get worse. I don't see Jon doing this as much; he will probably enable Dany and try to force others to submit to her if he thinks its for "the best." He was already doing this with Pip and what he was allowed to say about Mel, I imagine post-death it's going to be a downward slide.