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

[dbergkvist]

12 hours 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 

So George's point of the story is that if you want to make the world a better place, you need to abuse and neglect your children and make sure they become second class citizens? Then they will grow up to be harmonious and good leaders who care about the world? So Craster deserves credit for raising his daughters to be the optimal rulers? That doesn't sound right.

It also doesn't explain why other characters don't care about the world when it's their stated goal: Braavos are against slavery and forced Pentos to ban slavery as a peace agreement, but they completely ignore Dany and her work to get rid of a critical component of the slave trade. I don't see why you would need some special upbringing to be able to say "My goals are X. Dany is also working towards goal X. Therefore, I should meet up with her and start an alliance."

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, dbergkvist said:

So George's point of the story is that if you want to make the world a better place, you need to abuse and neglect your children and make sure they become second class citizens? Then they will grow up to be harmonious and good leaders who care about the world? So Craster deserves credit for raising his daughters to be the optimal rulers? That doesn't sound right.

It also doesn't explain why other characters don't care about the world when it's their stated goal: Braavos are against slavery and forced Pentos to ban slavery as a peace agreement, but they completely ignore Dany and her work to get rid of a critical component of the slave trade. I don't see why you would need some special upbringing to be able to say "My goals are X. Dany is also working towards goal X. Therefore, I should meet up with her and start an alliance."

No, I would say that George's point of the story is that the people who are best suited for solving societal or global problems are people who know how to butter both sides of the bread. People who know how to bridge the gaps and "reach across the aisle." Sometimes, living a privileged, "easy" life is not a good thing...sometimes, it is more beneficial to be an outcast or to have had to continuously deal with hardship.

The issue with Braavos has already been explained. Daenerys is anti-slavery but she is also pro-dragon. Plus, I'm sure that Braavosi politics is enough to keep them occupied and Meereen is not Pentos. It's much further and much more massive. Braavos obviously can handle Pentos but I don't think they'd be able to handle Volantis and the cities of Slaver's Bay. I get the feeling that Arya is going to be very busy in Braavos which seems to be undergoing a political shift.

 

[dbergkvist]

4 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

No, I would say that George's point of the story is that the people who are best suited for solving societal or global problems are people who know how to butter both sides of the bread. People who know how to bridge the gaps and "reach across the aisle." Sometimes, living a privileged, "easy" life is not a good thing...sometimes, it is more beneficial to be an outcast or to have had to continuously deal with hardship

But having seen both sides and living an easy live are two completely unrelated things. Ned was fostered in The Eyrie, so he got to see both The North and The Eyrie. He didn't need to be abused by his father for that.

Quote

The issue with Braavos has already been explained. Daenerys is anti-slavery but she is also pro-dragon. Plus, I'm sure that Braavosi politics is enough to keep them occupied and Meereen is not Pentos. It's much further and much more massive. Braavos obviously can handle Pentos but I don't think they'd be able to handle Volantis and the cities of Slaver's Bay. I get the feeling that Arya is going to be very busy in Braavos which seems to be undergoing a political shift.

If they had went to Dany to talk to her, they would have found out that she too doesn't like having dragons flying around and killing people. And they could have planned to assassinate her dragons after they had served their purpose in ending the slave trade.

They are sending faceless men to Westeros to recruit children with warging abilities, and then proceed to Oldtown to steal keys to obtain books for some unknown purpose. And the iron bank is constantly getting involved in the affairs of Westeros. And they took out the Valyrian empire. So it doesn't exactly seem like they like focusing on their internal affairs.

[BlackLightning]

9 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

They are sending faceless men to Westeros to recruit children with warging abilities, and then proceed to Oldtown to steal keys to obtain books for some unknown purpose. And the iron bank is constantly getting involved in the affairs of Westeros. And they took out the Valyrian empire. So it doesn't exactly seem like they like focusing on their internal affairs.

I think that they are truthfully all in for Stannis Baratheon and that they are preparing to make some very big moves against both Daenerys and the Lannister-Tyrell regime.

I'm sure we'll see how that dovetails in Oldtown with Sam Tarly and Euron Greyjoy there.

11 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

They are sending faceless men to Westeros to recruit children with warging abilities, and then proceed to Oldtown to steal keys to obtain books for some unknown purpose. And the iron bank is constantly getting involved in the affairs of Westeros. And they took out the Valyrian empire. So it doesn't exactly seem like they like focusing on their internal affairs.

That's a good point. Ned Stark has a lot in common with Daenerys and Jon not only in terms of policies but in terms of temperment. However, Ned chickened out of making some truly revolutionary decisions because of "honor" and "mercy" and he lost his head. Dany and Jon were much bold than Ned because they, unlike Ned, had nothing to lose. They had less responsibilities and higher stakes.

[Aldarion]

14 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

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.

 

To me, dictatorship and tyranny are the same thing: absolute rule, not constrained by either law or custom or political balance. The only difference I make is that dictatorship is necessarily one-man rule, whereas even democratic government can be tyrannical. Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant - both can have both good and bad results, but I would say that they are equally bad in principle. Maybe I should use "authoritharian" instead of "tyrannical" to be more clear, though, seeing how I do sometimes use "tyrannical" in a more "mainstream" sense.

14 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

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.

See above. Not all tyrants are dictators, but all dictators are tyrants. Or at least that is under how I usually use those terms; sometimes I do use more "mainstream" definitions, as much as I dislike them.

And yes, a dynasty of dragonlords will automatically be a tyrannical one. Now, some of the kings in the dynasty may be benevolent, but majority will not be: with no external restraints, they will not feel a need for internal restraints either. Absolute power is a good way to reveal the very worst in man: and very worst can be ugly indeed. And even if there are multiple dragonriders, that will merely end up with a bunch of tyrants instead of a few of them.

7 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

They had less responsibilities

Fewer. Less responsibility but fewer responsibilities.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And yes, a dynasty of dragonlords will automatically be a tyrannical one. Now, some of the kings in the dynasty may be benevolent, but majority will not be: with no external restraints, they will not feel a need for internal restraints either. Absolute power is a good way to reveal the very worst in man: and very worst can be ugly indeed. And even if there are multiple dragonriders, that will merely end up with a bunch of tyrants instead of a few of them.

Creating a kingdom highly dependent on one family ruling with nukes is a bad idea all around. Main one being, it prevents development. I even think GRRM called this the Targaryen's "flaw" because they didn't leave Westeros with any meaningful public institutions or checks on power. Lannisters and Baratheons just continued the ruling traditions laid down by the Targaryens. No Magna Carta, no checks, no rule of law, no way to gain support without forcing people in the bluntest way possible.

In what way did this continent advance? It ended the same as it began, in fire and blood and chaos. Tyrion says that this is what happened in Valyria. We see it happening a 2nd time with Westeros. I'm sure we'll see it a third time with Dany in Essos. Even if a ruler has a good cause in mind, relying on nukes to solve it will end in spectacular failure.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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?

Am I the one not thinking about what he's replying to? Alright then.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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

What kind of vision or dream made you believe that Daenerys will be obsessed with the prophecy so much (or even at any stage) that he will burn people or anything else? 

I've read the books twice, Fire & Blood too. You are the one who acts like you haven't realised what is written down in FnB.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

I do know what development means. I also know what to be developed means.

You doesn't seem to know what development means.

On the other hand, noone compared Westeros to 15th century Europe, except you. Neither did anyone said that Westeros is as developed technically and governally as 15th century Europe.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

Noone said you're not right. Noone talked about technological development, at least I did not. Instead, I said that Westeros became centralized, the crown having the maximum authority. I said that Westeros gained worldwide influence due to their dragonrider kings. What I said was that peacetime OBVIOUSLY helped the population growing. That means that living conditions became better over the years, due to peacetime. It OBVIOUSLY means that simple peasants had better conditions to live. They weren't looted regularly after 2-3 years. Their cottages/houses weren't burned down thst regularly, etc... 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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!

No, it does not have. The technological development you clearly want simply does not come because GRRM does not want it. That has nothing to do with our conversation, again. I am not the one to blame for the mistakes of this fantasy world. 

I'll write down one last time, as simple as I can: Westeros had the technological equipment/development to double its population. Peacetime is what brought it to use. And also trading with Essos, which became an essential of Westeros with KL, as there was no big city on the eastern coast of Westeros before.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

Centralized government is always dangerous

Noone said the opposite.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

Not being dangerous to its vassals is one thing. Not being dangerous to its common folk is something entirely different. When I said subject, I meant common folk, not fellow or not-that-fellow vassals. 

Not being dangerous to its vassals also puts its commonfolk into danger.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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?

First: It does not change internal influence, between vassals of the same liege. It does, however change a lord's external influence, outside the realm. Just think about it. Who did give a fuck about a westerosi lordling in Essos back before the Targaryen era?

Also, marrying into a dragonlord house made the vassal increase its own influence. The same goes with council titles, good relationships, etc...

I bet you can figure out what I'm thinking, stop playing dumb, cause you're not.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

Dragons are balanced. If they weren't, they would not extinct. Same goes for the case of present Westeros, look beyond the Wall.

 

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

I understand what you're trying to explain, but you're wrong. Dragons put a minor lordling (or even a major one) into the same case as does a great army/military force.

Also, tyranny is relative, depends on liege authority, and that is at the maximum in Westeros. Absolutism was a thing in our world too, noone needed dragons to create such a case.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

Absolutism is just an expression for the level/quality of crown authority. The two do not necesarilly exclude each other. 

Not to mention that the case is the same without dragons too. Just look at the Lord Paramounts and their relation wih their vassals.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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.

Dude, the same goes with nukes of the 21st century. But when electing someone, noone does think about "uhm, I'll vote for him, he wouldn't kill us with nukes, I'm sure, trust me." (Or something like that)

Noone does worry about the most extreme case that could happen. That's not how it works. 

Also, the fact that Westeros did not fall apart when dragons died out proves that it's not the case you're worrying about.

I wrote down several factors before that countered dragons. You can also do this, just don't play the dumb and stop being ignorant.

Just remember what the Sealord said to Septon Barth when he ordered the eggs back. He said that people can't kill dragons, but they can kill a few that matters. That was the point Jaehaerys realised he also has his own limits.

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 PM, Aldarion said:

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

They do. The same goes with several other things too. 

I don't know if you've ever played strategical videogames related to middleages and early modern ages (Ck2, Ck3, Eu4, etc...), but it could help you understand several things related to balance of power. 

The thing is, the moment your vassals feel that they can put you forward, they will try it. 

(ALSO sorry for the 2 separated replies, I misclicked and unintentionally send the first half before finishing.)

[Rose of Red Lake]

31 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Also, the fact that Westeros did not fall apart when dragons died out proves that it's not the case you're worrying about.

What is your interpretation of this quote? 

33 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

But when electing someone, noone does think about "uhm, I'll vote for him, he wouldn't kill us with nukes, I'm sure, trust me." (Or something like that)

Noone does worry about the most extreme case that could happen. That's not how it works. 

Have you been paying attention to American politics lately?

[Daeron the Daring]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

What is your interpretation of this quote? 

This qoute does say that the small council is not capable of balancing the king (I never said the opposite). Instead, it is for advising the king and taking the duty of it, if it needs to be taken.

Do you know what ended Aegon II? Listening to Larys Clubfoot, his Master of Whisperers.

8 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Have you been paying attention to American politics lately?

Not really. Neither I would call american society the perfect example for this case, as it mainly seems to me (an external observer) that people sometimes don't relate to a case with the amount of sanitiy they should. 

If it's the case, then it's rather sad than debatable.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Do you know what ended Aegon II? Listening to Larys Clubfoot, his Master of Whisperers.

Actually it wasn't listening to Larys, but being poisoned by Larys.

[Daeron the Daring]

18 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Actually it wasn't listening to Larys, but being poisoned by Larys.

If he does not listen to him and executes Aegon III, then he wouldn't been poisoned, since he would've been the last Targaryen male alive.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, HerblYY said:

If he does not listen to him and executes Aegon III, then he wouldn't been poisoned, since he would've been the last Targaryen male alive.

At least the last known Male Targaryen alive.

But even if he did kill Aegon, while it may have stopped the Lads in their tracks, it wouldn't have done anything for Cregan who would have been coming for his blood.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, HerblYY said:

This qoute does say that the small council is not capable of balancing the king (I never said the opposite). Instead, it is for advising the king and taking the duty of it, if it needs to be taken.

Do you know what ended Aegon II? Listening to Larys Clubfoot, his Master of Whisperers.

Thats interesting, we read that completely differently. I interpreted him as saying that dragons made Targaryens lazy about building any kind of meaningful structure of governance, and that they are partly responsible for leaving the realm in chaos. The Targaryens relied on a system that wasn't going to work for the long-term.

1 hour ago, HerblYY said:

Not really. Neither I would call american society the perfect example for this case, as it mainly seems to me (an external observer) that people sometimes don't relate to a case with the amount of sanitiy they should. 

If it's the case, then it's rather sad than debatable.

I was just wondering where you were going with the idea that no one was worried about their leaders using weapons (or police with weapons) on them - when that is very much a concern in American politics right now.

Like this terrifying headline which is straight out of the Targs-with-pyrokenisis-timeline.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

At least the last known Male Targaryen alive.

For sure. At that point noone knew about Viserys.

 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

But even if he did kill Aegon, while it may have stopped the Lads in their tracks, it wouldn't have done anything for Cregan who would have been coming for his blood.

It would've saved his life. You know, escaping, just how he did earlier.

 

36 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Thats interesting, we read that completely differently. I interpreted him as saying that dragons made Targaryens lazy about building any kind of meaningful structure of governance, and that they are partly responsible for leaving the realm in chaos. The Targaryens relied on a system that wasn't going to work for the long-term.

Yes, they did. But this seems to be the maximum Westeros potencially can do.

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

What kind of vision or dream made you believe that Daenerys will be obsessed with the prophecy so much (or even at any stage) that he will burn people or anything else? 

 

The one in her last book? One where she is in desert, with Quaithe basically telling her she has no place being a peacemaker?

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

You doesn't seem to know what development means.

On the other hand, noone compared Westeros to 15th century Europe, except you. Neither did anyone said that Westeros is as developed technically and governally as 15th century Europe.

I do. Development is a process. One which Westeros is clearly not undergoing, seeing how sociopolitical and economic structures have apparently not changed since Andals came to Westeros until modern day. Not even with dragons.

I compared Westeros to 15th century Europe because all major Westerosi armies are taken straight from 15th century Europe. Even Northern army is organizationally more similar to 15th century Europe than anything else, and Lannister army is basically 15th century English army. Westeros has 15th century military organization but 11th century social organization.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

You doesn't seem to know what development means.

On the other hand, noone compared Westeros to 15th century Europe, except you. Neither did anyone said that Westeros is as developed technically and governally as 15th century Europe.

All of which is wrong. What evidence is there of Westeros having any influence in Essos, much less worldwide? Even Valyria didn't have worldwide influence, considering how their influence didn't even reach Westeros itself until after the Doom. And centralization of authority in crown merely meant that when civil wars happened, entire continent was affected.

Also, peacetime =/= improved living conditions. In Europe, general improvement of living conditions was not achieved until relatively recently. And in fact, long peace could lead to worse living conditions since external security concerns weren't there to require rulers to consider needs of their peasants...

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

No, it does not have. The technological development you clearly want simply does not come because GRRM does not want it. That has nothing to do with our conversation, again. I am not the one to blame for the mistakes of this fantasy world. 

I'll write down one last time, as simple as I can: Westeros had the technological equipment/development to double its population. Peacetime is what brought it to use. And also trading with Essos, which became an essential of Westeros with KL, as there was no big city on the eastern coast of Westeros before.

There has been no evidence of either sociological, economic or any other development, something you are completely ignoring. Where are free royal cities? Where are cities as political actors? Where is the middle class? Greatest traders we meet in Westeros are Essosi. Where are the roads, banks? Westeros doesn't have its own bank, they go to the Iron Bank. You talk about how peace brought "development" to Westeros, yet there is no evidence of such development in social structure of Westeros. At best, few land sharks got richer, and that's it for "development". King's Landing is a political centre established by Targaryens. You would have more point if you used White Harbour as an example.

Doubling population is not development. Population of Africa doubled between 1970 and 2000., yet continent is hardly more developed than it was.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Not being dangerous to its vassals is one thing. Not being dangerous to its common folk is something entirely different. When I said subject, I meant common folk, not fellow or not-that-fellow vassals. 

Not being dangerous to its vassals also puts its commonfolk into danger.

Vassals in a proper feudal society would also include free cities. And in some societies, vassals would include free cities only (that was essentially the system of the Roman Republic). But a central government which is dangerous to its vassals is also dangerous to the common folk, unless common folk have some form of protection (such as free cities of Roman Republic or Holy Roman Empire). And if they do have such protection, then even those vassals will not necessarily be a danger.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

First: It does not change internal influence, between vassals of the same liege. It does, however change a lord's external influence, outside the realm. Just think about it. Who did give a fuck about a westerosi lordling in Essos back before the Targaryen era?

Also, marrying into a dragonlord house made the vassal increase its own influence. The same goes with council titles, good relationships, etc...

I bet you can figure out what I'm thinking, stop playing dumb, cause you're not.

How can it not change internal influence? The entire point of feudalism is that vassals are as dangerous to their liege lord as liege lord is to them. Such system works on honor because there is no alternative: without cannons, besieging a castle or a fortified city is an extremely drawn-out and difficult process, which basically allows vassals bargaining power against the liege lord. But the moment effective siege train got introduced, feudalism started to disappear. And dragons are the siege train here, except far more dangerous, far more mobile, and far less diffusive.

I have figured out what you are thinking. But you are ignoring literally half the picture.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Dragons are balanced. If they weren't, they would not extinct. Same goes for the case of present Westeros, look beyond the Wall.

 

Ruling dynasty with flying WMDs that allows feudalism to continue because... reasons. And lords not rebelling the moment dragons died out.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

I understand what you're trying to explain, but you're wrong. Dragons put a minor lordling (or even a major one) into the same case as does a great army/military force.

 

Yes, they do. But I have not seen evidence of proliferation of dragons beyond Targaryens and other Valyrian nobility. And without such proliferation, you still end up with a caste of dragonriders running the show.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

I understand what you're trying to explain, but you're wrong. Dragons put a minor lordling (or even a major one) into the same case as does a great army/military force.

 

Absolutism in our world happened due to introduction of effective gunpowder artillery, which made castles obsolete.

Dragons made castles obsolete.

Seeing the pattern?

Granted, I am oversimplifying things here to an extent, but that was the "tipping point" so to speak. Thing which might prevent absolutism in Westeros even if dragons return is their outright ridiculous level of illiteracy compared to real life, but that still wouldn't stop centralization as such.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Absolutism is just an expression for the level/quality of crown authority. The two do not necesarilly exclude each other. 

Not to mention that the case is the same without dragons too. Just look at the Lord Paramounts and their relation wih their vassals.

Absolutism and feudalism cannot coexist.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Dude, the same goes with nukes of the 21st century. But when electing someone, noone does think about "uhm, I'll vote for him, he wouldn't kill us with nukes, I'm sure, trust me." (Or something like that)

Noone does worry about the most extreme case that could happen. That's not how it works. 

Also, the fact that Westeros did not fall apart when dragons died out proves that it's not the case you're worrying about.

I wrote down several factors before that countered dragons. You can also do this, just don't play the dumb and stop being ignorant.

Just remember what the Sealord said to Septon Barth when he ordered the eggs back. He said that people can't kill dragons, but they can kill a few that matters. That was the point Jaehaerys realised he also has his own limits.

Nukes are too indiscriminate, and too dangerous. Also, politicians are parasites who live off their people; no good parasite will kill his host.

Dragons are different. They are much less destructive, can have much greater level of fine control, and Westeros is much less densely populated. And only Targaryens have them. Which means that they can easily afford to fly to a castle and murder a rebellious vassal - like Tywin did with Reynes and Tarbecks, but much more quickly and efficiently. How is feudalism supposed to survive then?

Fact that Westeros did not fall apart when dragons died out merely means that Martin has no clue about the sociopolitical processes. Which kinda makes our discussion a moot point, you can't discuss logic behind something illogical, but well...

Your factors are worthless. I already explained why.

3 hours ago, HerblYY said:

They do. The same goes with several other things too. 

I don't know if you've ever played strategical videogames related to middleages and early modern ages (Ck2, Ck3, Eu4, etc...), but it could help you understand several things related to balance of power. 

The thing is, the moment your vassals feel that they can put you forward, they will try it. 

(ALSO sorry for the 2 separated replies, I misclicked and unintentionally send the first half before finishing.)

I have. But I found that actually reading history helps a lot more.

And what you described is basically why absolutism couldn't develop until gunpowder...

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, HerblYY said:

It would've saved his life. You know, escaping, just how he did earlier.

 

That would have required Larys's help, and I doubt he would have given it with the last functional army in Westeros coming down on King's Landing

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Aldarion said:

I compared Westeros to 15th century Europe because all major Westerosi armies are taken straight from 15th century Europe. Even Northern army is organizationally more similar to 15th century Europe than anything else, and Lannister army is basically 15th century English army. Westeros has 15th century military organization but 11th century social organization.

Not really. By the 15th century most European armies had some semblance of professionalism, while the English army was basically a standing army. Westeros however is still relying on peasant levies that you'd find more in the 9th to 11th century.

[Daeron the Daring]

11 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

The one in her last book? One where she is in desert, with Quaithe basically telling her she has no place being a peacemaker?

I do. Development is a process. One which Westeros is clearly not undergoing, seeing how sociopolitical and economic structures have apparently not changed since Andals came to Westeros until modern day. Not even with dragons.

I compared Westeros to 15th century Europe because all major Westerosi armies are taken straight from 15th century Europe. Even Northern army is organizationally more similar to 15th century Europe than anything else, and Lannister army is basically 15th century English army. Westeros has 15th century military organization but 11th century social organization.

 

All of which is wrong. What evidence is there of Westeros having any influence in Essos, much less worldwide? Even Valyria didn't have worldwide influence, considering how their influence didn't even reach Westeros itself until after the Doom. And centralization of authority in crown merely meant that when civil wars happened, entire continent was affected.

Also, peacetime =/= improved living conditions. In Europe, general improvement of living conditions was not achieved until relatively recently. And in fact, long peace could lead to worse living conditions since external security concerns weren't there to require rulers to consider needs of their peasants...

There has been no evidence of either sociological, economic or any other development, something you are completely ignoring. Where are free royal cities? Where are cities as political actors? Where is the middle class? Greatest traders we meet in Westeros are Essosi. Where are the roads, banks? Westeros doesn't have its own bank, they go to the Iron Bank. You talk about how peace brought "development" to Westeros, yet there is no evidence of such development in social structure of Westeros. At best, few land sharks got richer, and that's it for "development". King's Landing is a political centre established by Targaryens. You would have more point if you used White Harbour as an example.

Doubling population is not development. Population of Africa doubled between 1970 and 2000., yet continent is hardly more developed than it was.

Vassals in a proper feudal society would also include free cities. And in some societies, vassals would include free cities only (that was essentially the system of the Roman Republic). But a central government which is dangerous to its vassals is also dangerous to the common folk, unless common folk have some form of protection (such as free cities of Roman Republic or Holy Roman Empire). And if they do have such protection, then even those vassals will not necessarily be a danger.

How can it not change internal influence? The entire point of feudalism is that vassals are as dangerous to their liege lord as liege lord is to them. Such system works on honor because there is no alternative: without cannons, besieging a castle or a fortified city is an extremely drawn-out and difficult process, which basically allows vassals bargaining power against the liege lord. But the moment effective siege train got introduced, feudalism started to disappear. And dragons are the siege train here, except far more dangerous, far more mobile, and far less diffusive.

I have figured out what you are thinking. But you are ignoring literally half the picture.

Ruling dynasty with flying WMDs that allows feudalism to continue because... reasons. And lords not rebelling the moment dragons died out.

Yes, they do. But I have not seen evidence of proliferation of dragons beyond Targaryens and other Valyrian nobility. And without such proliferation, you still end up with a caste of dragonriders running the show.

 

Absolutism in our world happened due to introduction of effective gunpowder artillery, which made castles obsolete.

Dragons made castles obsolete.

Seeing the pattern?

Granted, I am oversimplifying things here to an extent, but that was the "tipping point" so to speak. Thing which might prevent absolutism in Westeros even if dragons return is their outright ridiculous level of illiteracy compared to real life, but that still wouldn't stop centralization as such.

Absolutism and feudalism cannot coexist.

Nukes are too indiscriminate, and too dangerous. Also, politicians are parasites who live off their people; no good parasite will kill his host.

Dragons are different. They are much less destructive, can have much greater level of fine control, and Westeros is much less densely populated. And only Targaryens have them. Which means that they can easily afford to fly to a castle and murder a rebellious vassal - like Tywin did with Reynes and Tarbecks, but much more quickly and efficiently. How is feudalism supposed to survive then?

Fact that Westeros did not fall apart when dragons died out merely means that Martin has no clue about the sociopolitical processes. Which kinda makes our discussion a moot point, you can't discuss logic behind something illogical, but well...

Your factors are worthless. I already explained why.

I have. But I found that actually reading history helps a lot more.

And what you described is basically why absolutism couldn't develop until gunpowder...

So you've chosen ignorance and playing dumb. This conversation ends here, I think.

[Aldarion]

14 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not really. By the 15th century most European armies had some semblance of professionalism, while the English army was basically a standing army. Westeros however is still relying on peasant levies that you'd find more in the 9th to 11th century.

That is a misconception, on two levels. First, even in 9th to 11th century, soldiers were not "peasant levies" but rather smallholders. Yes, they were socially peasants, but they were still well-equipped and well-trained compared to literally any kind of peasant "insurrection". They were not nobility, but they were still professional soldiers. Anglo-Saxon fyrd, where idea of "peasant soldiers" possibly originates from, had been conclusively proven to not have actually consisted of conscripted peasants. Second, Westeros is absolutely not relying on peasant levies:

4 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

So you've chosen ignorance and playing dumb. This conversation ends here, I think.

Indeed it does. I for my part have no intent of debating with someone who relies on name-calling when contradicted.