Jon and Dany's similarities in ADWD, and why they're some of the few potentially good rulers

[dbergkvist]

I agree with OP that Jon and Dany are very similar:

• Jon uniquely (at least in the night watch) sees the threat that the Others pose, and that the night watch has irrationally fought against the wildlings instead of this real threat, and decides to ally with the wildlings, and is stabbed by his stupid subordinates for it.
• Dany uniquely understands that slavery is wrong but that peace requires that she make concessions to the slavers, and that idiot Skahaz (or maybe the slavers) attempt to assassinate her for it.

But does this make them "good rulers"? Well, before we can answer that, George has some explaining to do: why is it that these two characters are so once in a lifetime unique in that they alone have a shred of reason and morality in them? Why is it that the entire rest of the whole world are so completely immoral and stupid? (For example, it is established that the city of Braavos are vehemently against slavery, and have powerful magical abilities on their side, and yet they do nothing to help Dany. Sure, they are also against dragons, but if they had opened up a dialog with Dany, they would have learned that she herself is also concerned about the destruction her dragons can cause).

But I suspect that this is simply how George sees the real world. So why should his fictional world be any different?

[Aldarion]

23 hours ago, HerblYY said:

And my point was that why would the prophecy of Azor Ahai have any effect on Westerosi society, and trough it, on Daenerys.

 

It already did have, through Stannis and Melisandre. And it will have effect on Daenerys not through Westeros, but through Moqorro and through the slaves - and note that many of the slaves who are about to join her are rather devoted followers of the Red God, and see Daenerys as a saviour figure.

23 hours ago, HerblYY said:

And my point was that why would the prophecy of Azor Ahai have any effect on Westerosi society, and trough it, on Daenerys.

 

Yes, it prevented some wars. But it also appears to have calcified the political and social structures - which would not be bad if those structures worked, but - they don't, or at least not that well.

23 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Peace is what brang development to Westeros. And such kings as Aegon I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Viserys II. Mostly during the time dragons still lived.

 

What development? Westeros less developed than 15th century Europe, which was constantly at war - both from without and from within. And considering how politically and socially undeveloped Westeros is - cities appear to be political nonentities, everything is done by nobility, there appear to be abolutely no politically significant factors beyond nobility - I think that little war would be a good thing for Westeros. But instead you get long peace periods and titanic conflicts on occasion - titanic conflicts which aren't even that rare (about a dozen major wars in 280 years, or one every 23 years - more than twice the rate of 17th - 20th centuries Europe). Basically, Westeros is not Medieval Europe, but rather Imperial China. And China was by far the worse place of the two if you wanted to avoid getting killed in war - yes, it was overall more peaceful. But when civil wars did happen, they wrecked everything, and set back society for decades at a time. Europe? You had hundreds if not thousands of independent and semi-independent states, statelets and personal possessions, and constant warfare - but constant warfare that was low-level, and largely flew above the heads of the common people. If you were a peasant, you might live in a war zone and not even know war was going on - unless war happened to be one of rare wars between the kings who did have larger armies (not large; just larger).

Westeros meanwhile has the worst of the two worlds - all the disadvantages of a large-scale centralized system, with all the disadvantages of a feudal system, but none of the advantages of either. Its centralization at every level means that conflicts are rare (and even that is only a maybe) but massive, and there is little in terms of spontaneous developments and freedoms. Yet the feudal elements of its organization mean that even centralized government is not efficient enough to actually do anything useful, but merely wastes money and serves as a bait for lords to murderize each other over.

People constantly harp on how Pax Targaryena helped Westeros develop... but not only do we have no evidence whatsoever of so-called development, but period itself wasn't even particularly peaceful.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:11 PM, HerblYY said:

No, war is not. Inner wars are, however, at least never good.

Dictatorship and absolutism are two different things. Yes you mainly are right. A dragonrider king was able to be countered by the sake of peace. Remember that Westeros only had 5 dragonlord kings. And the two bad ones weren't even reigning for more than 10 years. Of what happened later, can not be compared to what happened before.

As I said (hope you'll se why I wtite it down), dragons were rather tools for deterrence, not destruction. And even when they destructed, mostly themselves.

And wrong again. If government is dangerous to its subjects, government has to go. Armed rebellion is often far more preferable to suffering a truly corrupt government.

Yes, dragons were tools of deterrence. They also ensured that political power was concentrated in Targaryen hands - which also meant less influence not just of lords, but also of cities and minor nobility. Which is not a good thing.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:11 PM, HerblYY said:

First of all, Hungary only had elected monarchy because House Árpád died out. Back in the day, when Hungarians still lived in their half-nomadic, and prepared for the conquest of Pannonia, the 7 major tribes made a blood contract. They elected Álmos as Grand Prince, leader of the entire nation, and with the bloodcontract they vowed to follow his son, Árpád in the conquest, and after him all of his descendants. When the last male member of House Árpád died, chaos came up on Hungary, and this led the realm to always overthrow their leaders. 

Now, as long as dragonlord kings ruled, there was no balance. Yet it was good. As you can see, later, dragonlords began to spread. House Velaryon became a dragonlord house. If Laenor had the right to have a dragon, why wouldn't his son had it? Or his grandchildren? Or his great-grandchildren? And the Dance literally was an attempt to overthrow the ruler/each other. The Dance was a balance, sad that it led to the dragon's extinction (or not, we don't know that). If dragons would have been lived when Blackfyres became a thing, I'm sure they would've become a dragonlord house. A dragon can only be balanced by another one. Or two. Or by the sake of peace, as it happened during the dragonlords' reign.

Decentralized power has always been the enemy of every monarch.

And who the hell wants elective-type monarchy in Westeros? Likely noone.

Every dynasty dies out.

House Velaryon was from Valyria. And dragons are precisely the problem: when power lies between the jaws of a firebreathing reptile, system is automatically unbalanced, even if it might be stable.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:11 PM, HerblYY said:

Imagine Joffrey growing up. It would been bad, without dragons. If Joffrey had dragons, noone would have been rebelled against him, because the dragon would've been a tool of deterrence. If he had had a dragon, he wouldn't have to take vengeange on anyone, since noone would have harmed him. King's Landing probably would've been standing the same, since the people wouldn't have given him reason to fuck with him.

 

So basically, dragons are good because dragonrider will, somehow, always turn out a reasonable / sane person.

Sorry, that is just wishful thinking to extreme.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:11 PM, HerblYY said:

No, you don't, and you can't. You don't know what will happen in the future well enough. That means you can't judge someone by something that probably won't happen. 

Again, a dragonlord ruler is so dreadful that it stops the people from making the dragonlord using its dragon. That's deterrence.

And again, deterrence depends on both sides having it, because otherwise there is nothing preventing one side from using it willy-nilly. 

Before you start throwing terms around, you might want to learn what they mean in political sciences specifically.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:11 PM, HerblYY said:

The question is, why would anyone assumes that they know how dragonriders will work out? I don't know how they will, I'd like to see it. But according to what we've seen, it shouldn't been worse than how it was. Of course, there is always worse. We have only seen a few bad dragonlords (Maegor, Aemond), and now I don't talk about Ulf and Hugh (that was a major mistake).

We have also only seen a few bad Lords Patamount, yet many (justifiably) want a limit on their powers.

21 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I partially agree. I do believe she will go for the full Louis XIV absolutist ruler, but I don't think she'd go evil mad or anything like that. More like a harder, more powerful and less likable version of ACOK Stannis.

However this has been talked a lot about recently, so could we please keep it to the conversation at hand, about the similarities in Jon and Dany' arks in ADWD and especially how they deal with compromising?

Well it is partly on topic, because I see both Jon and Daenerys becoming rather hard - and even cruel. Jon due to his experiences with... well, death and betrayal; and Daenerys due to Mereen. But tools each of them has on hand will also determine their responses.

[Springwatch]

Azor Ahai was not a king, but a champion, a warrior for humanity (according to legend anyway). Likely Dany will be the same. Jon too.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

5 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Azor Ahai was not a king, but a champion, a warrior for humanity (according to legend anyway). Likely Dany will be the same. Jon too.

Even more likely it's a red herring with no real answers

[Van Gogh]

On 12/3/2020 at 4:43 PM, TedBear said:

Many people talk about the parallels between Dany and Jon, is it just me who think I see many parallels between Dany and Bran?

Including good reasons to want Jaime Lannister dead.  Those two are more strongly paralleled. 

[Van Gogh]

5 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Azor Ahai was not a king, but a champion, a warrior for humanity (according to legend anyway). Likely Dany will be the same. Jon too.

 

16 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Even more likely it's a red herring with no real answers

She is the Azor Ahai of the prophecies.  There will be other people who will rise to the occasion and do their bit though.  By that, I meant they will have to make a big personal sacrifice.  That is really the main idea behind the story of Azor Ahai.  The personal sacrifice.  The loss of her husband, brother, and son paid for the dragons.  Gendry or Jon will be asked to sacrifice Arya to obtain their own weapon against the Others.  I think Jon will refuse but Gendry would sacrifice Arya in order to do what's best for the people.  Jaime is the valonquar and his sacrifice of Cersei will earn him his own lightbringer type of weapon. 

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, Van Gogh said:

 

She is the Azor Ahai of the prophecies.  There will be other people who will rise to the occasion and do their bit though.  By that, I meant they will have to make a big personal sacrifice.  That is really the main idea behind the story of Azor Ahai.  The personal sacrifice.  The loss of her husband, brother, and son paid for the dragons.  Gendry or Jon will be asked to sacrifice Arya to obtain their own weapon against the Others.  I think Jon will refuse but Gendry would sacrifice Arya in order to do what's best for the people.  Jaime is the valonquar and his sacrifice of Cersei will earn him his own lightbringer type of weapon. 

The problem is that both in those examples and in the prophecy, AA is not the one doing the sacrifice. Nissa Nissa, Arya and Cersei are. But most important of all, the biggest problem is that the series repeatedly questions the nature of prophecy and visions, who sends them? why? do they mean well? and the series (and GRRM's stories in general) spend a long time criticizing religious zealots. So why do you place so much trust not only in visions, but those mostly told by the most disgusting religion in the story?

[Aldarion]

12 hours ago, Van Gogh said:

 

She is the Azor Ahai of the prophecies.  There will be other people who will rise to the occasion and do their bit though.  By that, I meant they will have to make a big personal sacrifice.  That is really the main idea behind the story of Azor Ahai.  The personal sacrifice.  The loss of her husband, brother, and son paid for the dragons.  Gendry or Jon will be asked to sacrifice Arya to obtain their own weapon against the Others.  I think Jon will refuse but Gendry would sacrifice Arya in order to do what's best for the people.  Jaime is the valonquar and his sacrifice of Cersei will earn him his own lightbringer type of weapon. 

What @CamiloRP said. She may be Azor Ahai, but that may not necessarily be a good thing. And it might well be that Azor Ahai will turn out to just be a myth without meaning, or even something that will help the Others.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 12/6/2020 at 1:16 AM, Aldarion said:

What @CamiloRP said. She may be Azor Ahai, but that may not necessarily be a good thing. And it might well be that Azor Ahai will turn out to just be a myth without meaning, or even something that will help the Others.

As a Tolkien fan you probably remember how there was a prophecy in the Hobbit about the rivers running with gold when the Mountain King returns. It was really Smaug setting everything on fire, but the land did eventually prosper after Smaug's death. So this two-part conclusion where there is positive and a negative conclusion and you dont know with certainty who fulfilled the prophecy might be something similar.

[Aldarion]

56 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

As a Tolkien fan you probably remember how there was a prophecy in the Hobbit about the rivers running with gold when the Mountain King returns. It was really Smaug setting everything on fire, but the land did eventually prosper after Smaug's death. So this two-part conclusion where there is positive and a negative conclusion and you dont know with certainty who fulfilled the prophecy might be something similar.

Indeed. Both Tolkien and Martin have a chock-full of examples where (prophecy or not) a course of action has a both positive and negative conclusion. So it would not surprise me if, for example, Daenerys does save Westeros, but leaves it a flaming ruin. Let's not forget that the fact that fire is opposed to ice does not necessarily mean that fire itself is a good thing.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Indeed. Both Tolkien and Martin have a chock-full of examples where (prophecy or not) a course of action has a both positive and negative conclusion. So it would not surprise me if, for example, Daenerys does save Westeros, but leaves it a flaming ruin. Let's not forget that the fact that fire is opposed to ice does not necessarily mean that fire itself is a good thing.

Tbf, I don't see exactly how Dany could do lasting damage on Westeros, with the exception of King's Landing that has the conveniently placed wildfire. Otherwise, she'd have to pull inspiration from Aemond, Aegon and Visenya, all of whom had much larger dragons and way more time.

[Aldarion]

25 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Tbf, I don't see exactly how Dany could do lasting damage on Westeros, with the exception of King's Landing that has the conveniently placed wildfire. Otherwise, she'd have to pull inspiration from Aemond, Aegon and Visenya, all of whom had much larger dragons and way more time.

She doesn't need to do so directly; it is enough if she manages to reignite large-scale war. Granted, Aegon (YG) is kinda-sorta doing that already... but he has such a small army that if he does succeed, it will mean that Lannister regime was unstable enough that it would have collapsed into civil war anyway. But Daenerys will be coming with some tens of thousands if not 100k+ troops - enough to conquer Seven Kingdoms even with major local opposition.

[Rose of Red Lake]

29 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Tbf, I don't see exactly how Dany could do lasting damage on Westeros, with the exception of King's Landing that has the conveniently placed wildfire. Otherwise, she'd have to pull inspiration from Aemond, Aegon and Visenya, all of whom had much larger dragons and way more time.

If Dany is in conquering mode and no one stops her it could get very bad. It took a while for the Dothraki to destroy Sarnor but they did it, and this time in Westeros, they would have help.

Dothraki destroy cities and even have a religious opposition to farming. So Highgarden would be renamed something like, The Place of Wailing Children. 

Theon bringing up the Dothraki out of the blue, during his coup at Winterfell, makes me think they'll do something similar there as well.

[Tucu]

Westeros is facing famine even without the new invaders from Essos. The horselords will be eating their horses a couple of months after landing. This is from Jamie in AFFC

Quote

Snow in the riverlands. If it was snowing here, it could well be snowing on Lannisport as well, and on King's Landing. Winter is marching south, and half our granaries are empty. Any crops still in the fields were doomed. There would be no more plantings, no more hopes of one last harvest. He found himself wondering what his father would do to feed the realm, before he remembered that Tywin Lannister was dead.

 

[Daeron the Daring]

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

And it will have effect on Daenerys not through Westeros, but through Moqorro and through the slaves - and note that many of the slaves who are about to join her are rather devoted followers of the Red God, and see Daenerys as a saviour figure.

How do you know that? Have you read anything that foreshadows anything like this? This is a simple assumption coming from nowhere.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

Yes, it prevented some wars. But it also appears to have calcified the political and social structures - which would not be bad if those structures worked, but - they don't, or at least not that well.

It wasn't the faith of the Red God that made Stannis push his claims. Read the books.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

What development? Westeros less developed than 15th century Europe, which was constantly at war -

Do you know what developing means? Starting from 1, and reaching 2. It is not development unless it does not reach 3? It is. Don't talk bullshit.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

Oopsie.

And considering how politically and socially undeveloped Westeros is - cities appear to be political nonentities, everything is done by nobility, there appear to be abolutely no politically significant factors beyond nobility - I think that little war would be a good thing for Westeros. But instead you get long peace periods and titanic conflicts on occasion - titanic conflicts which aren't even that rare (about a dozen major wars in 280 years, or one every 23 years - more than twice the rate of 17th - 20th centuries Europe). Basically, Westeros is not Medieval Europe, but rather Imperial China. And China was by far the worse place of the two if you wanted to avoid getting killed in war - yes, it was overall more peaceful. But when civil wars did happen, they wrecked everything, and set back society for decades at a time. Europe? You had hundreds if not thousands of independent and semi-independent states, statelets and personal possessions, and constant warfare - but constant warfare that was low-level, and largely flew above the heads of the common people. If you were a peasant, you might live in a war zone and not even know war was going on - unless war happened to be one of rare wars between the kings who did have larger armies (not large; just larger).

Westeros meanwhile has the worst of the two worlds - all the disadvantages of a large-scale centralized system, with all the disadvantages of a feudal system, but none of the advantages of either. Its centralization at every level means that conflicts are rare (and even that is only a maybe) but massive, and there is little in terms of spontaneous developments and freedoms. Yet the feudal elements of its organization mean that even centralized government is not efficient enough to actually do anything useful, but merely wastes money and serves as a bait for lords to murderize each other.

This entirely has nothing to do with our conversation. I am not the one who created this world.

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

And wrong again. If government is dangerous to its subjects, government has to go. Armed rebellion is often far more preferable to suffering a truly corrupt government

It is dangerous to its subjects because its monarchy. Dragons may make it more dangerous, but it is still. 

What was better after dragons died out? Did it change anything? Was anything better? Entirely not. What positive effect had the extiction of dragons? It gave less influence to the IT? Was that good? 

What kind of COREUPTED government have you seen between 1-130 AC? Did any armed rebellion affected it positively? You are creating a case that never happened. It may happen though, just as it may happen without dragons to. 

What kind of monarchy is not dangerous to its subjects? Have you seen any?

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

Yes, dragons were tools of deterrence. They also ensured that political power was concentrated in Targaryen hands - which also meant less influence not just of lords, but also of cities and minor nobility. Which is not a good thing.

Entirely wrong. Dragons gave more influence for the entire continent of Westeros. For kings and lords too. And for cities too.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

House Velaryon was from Valyria. And dragons are precisely the problem: when power lies between the jaws of a firebreathing reptile, system is automatically unbalanced, even if it might be stable

Welcome to fantasy, because this is it. A world with dragons and magic. Do you hate everyone with magical power? Just because they have it? It does unbalance the system. Look at Bloodraven as Hand. 

Also, it is only a theory yet, but a likely one: That maesters are a balance to magic and dragons. And they are also an object of unbalance. Just look at then: Maester Pycelle. The maesters who poisoned the dragons. The ones that schemed against Aerys, etc... And they are not fantasy elements.

You seem to have problem with fantasy elements of this novel, and you're not the first one. Because they always unbalance the system. But they could also balance it. With this problem of you I can't help. This is a fantasy novel, it will remain one. You have to accept it this way.

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

So basically, dragons are good because dragonrider will, somehow, always turn out a reasonable / sane person.

Sorry, that is just wishful thinking to extreme.

Noone said that. Instead you should nof ignore already that dragons are not the only tool of destruction, neither fantasy elements are. Look at Cersei, and Joffrey. And you might say that "what if they had dragons?", but this is no place for what-ifs. They had none, and still managed to do worse than what dragons did.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

And again, deterrence depends on both sides having it, because otherwise there is nothing preventing one side from using it willy-nilly. 

Before you start throwing terms around, you might want to learn what they mean in political sciences specifically.

Both sides had it. That's why dragons never burned down Westeros. Just realise already. For example, the faith was deterrex the IT from using dragons on his own people, the need of control also. Open your eyes.

 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, Aldarion said:

We have also only seen a few bad Lords Patamount, yet many (justifiably) want a limit on their powers.

Everyone wants limited authority for their own liege, for their own good. Dragons do not change this.

I don't know if you're ignoring actual and obvious facts, or you really do not see them.

[Aldarion]

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

How do you know that? Have you read anything that foreshadows anything like this? This is a simple assumption coming from nowhere.

 

Moqorro, and Daenerys' own dreams and visions. Have you even read the books?

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

It wasn't the faith of the Red God that made Stannis push his claims. Read the books.

 

I have. Unlike you, apparently. And you didn't even bother reading through my reply enough to notice that it was a misquote due to forum's interface being garbage. Why would I discuss anything with someone who doesn't even bother to think about what he's replying to?

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Do you know what developing means? Starting from 1, and reaching 2. It is not development unless it does not reach 3? It is. Don't talk bullshit.

 

I do know what development means. I also know what to be developed means. Westeros is way, way behind 15th century Europe in both. It is less developed, and unlike Europe it also does not show any signs of developing either. It is backwards and calcified both.

Again, if you are not even going to even think a little about what you are writing, there is no point in us having a discussion.

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Do you know what developing means? Starting from 1, and reaching 2. It is not development unless it does not reach 3? It is. Don't talk bullshit.

 

It has everything to do with out conversation. You said that "peace was what brought development to Westeros". That is blatantly false, seeing how there was no development to be had, at all. How can it have "brought development" when development clearly isn't there? You can't bring something that doesn't exist!

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

It is dangerous to its subjects because its monarchy. Dragons may make it more dangerous, but it is still. 

What was better after dragons died out? Did it change anything? Was anything better? Entirely not. What positive effect had the extiction of dragons? It gave less influence to the IT? Was that good? 

What kind of COREUPTED government have you seen between 1-130 AC? Did any armed rebellion affected it positively? You are creating a case that never happened. It may happen though, just as it may happen without dragons to. 

What kind of monarchy is not dangerous to its subjects? Have you seen any?

Centralized government is always dangerous, regardless of whether it is a monarchy, a republic, or something else entirely. It is a function of centralization.

If we are talking about history, yes, I have seen plenty of monarchies that are not dangerous to their subjects. I have not, however, seen a centralized state - regardless of the type of government - that is not dangerous to its subjects.

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Entirely wrong. Dragons gave more influence for the entire continent of Westeros. For kings and lords too. And for cities too.

 

How? Did every city have its own dragon? Did every lord have its own dragon? How does possession of weapons of mass destruction by a ruling dynasty and its relatives increase influence of a free city or a minor lord?

 

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Welcome to fantasy, because this is it. A world with dragons and magic. Do you hate everyone with magical power? Just because they have it? It does unbalance the system. Look at Bloodraven as Hand. 

Also, it is only a theory yet, but a likely one: That maesters are a balance to magic and dragons. And they are also an object of unbalance. Just look at then: Maester Pycelle. The maesters who poisoned the dragons. The ones that schemed against Aerys, etc... And they are not fantasy elements.

You seem to have problem with fantasy elements of this novel, and you're not the first one. Because they always unbalance the system. But they could also balance it. With this problem of you I can't help. This is a fantasy novel, it will remain one. You have to accept it this way.

I have no problem with it being fantasy, or with fantasy elements as such. The reason I do have a problem with fantasy elements of the novel is because they are not well balanced, nor are their implications thought through. A dynasty with fire-breathing dragons could easily afford to assign governors instead of hereditary Lords Paramount. A dynasty with sole control of dragons will be tyrannical, because nobody will be able to stand up to it. That does not mean that existence of dragons has to unbalance the system: but to avoid tyranny, dragons have to be owned by all major, and even middling, lords - as well as independent cities. If that requirement is not fulfilled, you will end up with tyranny. That is just how it works, in any kind of even remotely realistic system. Martin just slapped dragons onto feudalism and called it a day. But between the Maesters and the dragons, there is no reason for feudalism to still exist.

Maesters are an opponent to magic, yes, but I am not certain I would call them a "balance". You cannot have balance if one part of it has to destroy the other.

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Noone said that. Instead you should nof ignore already that dragons are not the only tool of destruction, neither fantasy elements are. Look at Cersei, and Joffrey. And you might say that "what if they had dragons?", but this is no place for what-ifs. They had none, and still managed to do worse than what dragons did.

 

Dragons are not only a tool of destruction. My point was however that dragons completely destroy the balance of power on which every premodern monarchy relied, especially feudal ones. 

Westeros should have been an absolute monarchy, not feudal one. But Martin wanted dragons, so Martin threw in the dragons and called it a day. From storytelling perspective, that is fine; but with my obsession with systems and processes which control the society, it is a fist into the eye.

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Both sides had it. That's why dragons never burned down Westeros. Just realise already. For example, the faith was deterrex the IT from using dragons on his own people, the need of control also. Open your eyes.

 

What use is faith against a flamethrowing dragon? Also, vast majority of people in any society have no political agency. With sole control over dragons, Targaryens would have been able to just burn the lords and install their own puppets - or, if people truly are so attached to dynasties as implied, merely take the children of lords to their care and then burn any disobedient ones. Which would have led to the system being extremely centralized - and then falling apart as soon as dragons died out. Westeros is simply too large for a feudal kingdom, and maybe even a centralized one, to maintain itself without dragons.

On 12/15/2020 at 11:33 AM, HerblYY said:

Everyone wants limited authority for their own liege, for their own good. Dragons do not change this.

I don't know if you're ignoring actual and obvious facts, or you really do not see them.

Facts are actual and obvious, yes. But you are just stating a bunch of half-truths and acting as if they are all there is.

Dragons do not change the fact that everyone wants to limit authority of their own lieges. They do however change balance of power.

[BlackLightning]

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

The reason I do have a problem with fantasy elements of the novel is because they are not well balanced, nor are their implications thought through. A dynasty with fire-breathing dragons could easily afford to assign governors instead of hereditary Lords Paramount. A dynasty with sole control of dragons will be tyrannical, because nobody will be able to stand up to it. That does not mean that existence of dragons has to unbalance the system: but to avoid tyranny, dragons have to be owned by all major, and even middling, lords - as well as independent cities. If that requirement is not fulfilled, you will end up with tyranny. That is just how it works, in any kind of even remotely realistic system. Martin just slapped dragons onto feudalism and called it a day. But between the Maesters and the dragons, there is no reason for feudalism to still exist.

Maesters are an opponent to magic, yes, but I am not certain I would call them a "balance". You cannot have balance if one part of it has to destroy the other.

This is a VERY good point.

But I do want to caution you about one major thing. You seem to conflating tyranny and dictatorship as the same thing when there is a big difference. Tyranny is always bad but a dictatorship can be good. I say that because there is no such thing as a benevolent tyranny but benevolent dictatorships are not only common but expected.

Look at it this way: ideally, children who live under their parents' roofs live in what's functionally a benevolent dictatorship. When martial law is declared, it is the time when a benevolent dictatorship is activated. The hierarchal relationship in our modern worlds of business and academia is a benevolent dictatorship.

That's why the adage of "an iron fist in a velvet glove" exists.

To bring it back to A Song of Ice and Fire, a tyrant is a dictator but a dictator is not necessarily a tyrant. A dynasty of dragonlords is a dictatorial dynasty but it will not automatically be a tyrannical one. You can have tyrannical kings (or vacillating and facilitative kings for that matter) within that same dynasty without the dynasty becoming tyrannical. The whole of something is greater than the sum of its parts.

Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Unworthy were awful but the Targaryen dynasty is not a tyrannical one. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is a truly tyrannical dynasty in this series, it would be the current Lannister dynasty which had hijacked the Baratheon one.

 

[BlackLightning]

On 12/5/2020 at 12:55 AM, dbergkvist said:

Well, before we can answer that, George has some explaining to do: why is it that these two characters are so once in a lifetime unique in that they alone have a shred of reason and morality in them? Why is it that the entire rest of the whole world are so completely immoral and stupid?

That's a really good question.

I believe the answer has something to do with the fact that:

• both of them are outcasts that either had no future or were supposed to have no future
• both were subject to emotional abuse and neglect by close family
• their upbringing made both of them develop a keen insight into how the world works and why people do what they do as a survival mechanism
• both were made to live with "savages" at such a impressionable but still intelligible age (mid-teens) only to find that said "thugs" and "savages" weren't so savage after all but sensible
• both of them, despite their circumstances, are both individuals with great power as political entities and as magical beings
• both of them have personality types that make them determined to not only succeed but to have a home and family...because they both have difficult family situations, they seek to make their own family 

For example, neither Daenerys nor Jon would've made the mistakes that Theon, the Baratheons, the Starks or the Lannisters (aka people who grew up in the status quo) made in the first three books. Dany had Illyrio Mopatis halfway figured out before the story even started and would've N-E-V-E-R broken her betrothal to the Freys. Jon - as he says - doesn't miss much of anything and has a good memory: he would've ran circles around everyone in King's Landing save for Varys and Littlefinger and he wouldn't have been so proud/entitled as Stannis was in refusing to make common cause with the Martells and the Starks. And neither of them would've sunk to the level of stupidity of Theon Greyjoy in A Clash for Kings.

[CamiloRP]

55 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

That's a really good question.

I believe the answer has something to do with the fact that:

• both of them are outcasts that either had no future or were supposed to have no future
• both were subject to emotional abuse and neglect by close family
• their upbringing made both of them develop a keen insight into how the world works and why people do what they do as a survival mechanism
• both were made to live with "savages" at such a impressionable but still intelligible age (mid-teens) only to find that said "thugs" and "savages" weren't so savage after all but sensible
• both of them, despite their circumstances, are both individuals with great power as political entities and as magical beings
• both of them have personality types that make them determined to not only succeed but to have a home and family...because they both have difficult family situations, they seek to make their own family 

For example, neither Daenerys nor Jon would've made the mistakes that Theon, the Baratheons, the Starks or the Lannisters (aka people who grew up in the status quo) made in the first three books. Dany had Illyrio Mopatis halfway figured out before the story even started and would've N-E-V-E-R broken her betrothal to the Freys. Jon - as he says - doesn't miss much of anything and has a good memory: he would've ran circles around everyone in King's Landing save for Varys and Littlefinger and he wouldn't have been so proud/entitled as Stannis was in refusing to make common cause with the Martells and the Starks. And neither of them would've sunk to the level of stupidity of Theon Greyjoy in A Clash for Kings.

They both have it better than most people tho, Jon specially. Yeah, he's a bastard, but he still has a rich father, a quality education and a bunch of possibilities. His family even opens up a bunch of doors for him in the supposedly egalitarian Night's Watch. He might even have it better than Theon, I mean, it's up for debate, as Theon was the heir of a powerful lord, but he was also a hostage for half his life and abused for the other half.

[BlackLightning]

25 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

They both have it better than most people tho, Jon specially. Yeah, he's a bastard, but he still has a rich father, a quality education and a bunch of possibilities. His family even opens up a bunch of doors for him in the supposedly egalitarian Night's Watch. He might even have it better than Theon, I mean, it's up for debate, as Theon was the heir of a powerful lord, but he was also a hostage for half his life and abused for the other half.

The point is that they don't have it better than other highborn people...aka people who have the power to actually make lasting changes.

Jon and Daenerys -- and Arya too to a lesser extent -- are tucked in to that in-between pocket. They sit in that middle region between highborn and lowborn, "civilized" and "wildling," gameplayer and gamechanger, etc.