Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Malgoth

Why Aegon is a better ruler and leader than Daenerys and Jon combine

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I doubt even if Aegon V was a revolutionary.  He simply saw the need for reform more clearly than many lords did.  It's always better to reform to preserve, rather than resist change to the point where you are violently overthrown.

Aegon V was not revolutionary. He tried to be revolutionary, tho.

What he tried is reforming the society in a way. With him, Westerosi professions had a chance to build out guild systems. With this, major cities would have had a chance to gain more influence. Because when it comes to Westerosi major cities, and what they are built around is always "a bit of trading, yknow". Straight-up trading is going good for Oldtown the way it goes for Braavos or Lys. But not for the other cities.

Look closely, and you can find around the world everywhere something that upkeeps the given location: Slavery, trading, shipbuilding, smithing, or Myr having great carpets, and being advanced on teaching almost every profession. 

That is what Westeros needs. Specialization. Aegon V gave a chance to this, but he was refused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the OP. I do not think there is enough known about Aegon to say he would even be an average ruler, let alone a better ruler then Jon , who I believe will become a truly amazing King.

The majority of you belief that he would be a good ruler is from this.

Quote

Aegon has been shaped for rule before he could walk. He has been trained in arms, as befits a knight to be, but that was not the end of his education. He reads and writes, he speaks several tongues, he has studied history and law and poetry. A septa has instructed him in the mysteries of the Faith since he was old enough to understand them. He has lived with fisherfolk, worked with his hands, swum in rivers and mended nets and learned to wash his own clothes at need. He can fish and cook and bind up a wound, he knows what it is like to be hungry, to be hunted, to be afraid. Tommen has been taught that kingship is his right. Aegon knows kingship is his duty, that a king must put his people first, and live and rule for them.

First off, education and being shaped to rule does not necessarily mean you will be a good ruler. Some of the worst rulers ever were highly educated and shaped to rule from birth.

Secondly, Almost everything on this list Jon has and honestly the things on this list or at least  what they are trying to imply that were gained by them , Jon has more experience with than Aegon. Jon was given the exact same education as Rob. He might not speak several tongues or know poetry but that just means Jons education was much more specific. Spending time with regular Folk. Jon spent a great deal of time with commoners on the wall and also the Wildlings. As for working with his hands. I promise Jon has worked harder with his hands in a few years then Aegon has in his entire life. He also brings up hardship which again Jon has had way more hardship in his life than Aegon.

Jon has had more actual practical leadership experience that would translate to ruling a kingdom then Aegon has. He also spent his childhood watching his father rule in person. Something Aegon did not have. Some things cannot be learned in a book. For example how Ned spoke and treated other high lords, How he spoke and treated commoners. Things like that. The quote you posted is like a resume for a job to rule. If you were comparing Jon's and Aegon's resume . You would realize Jon has hands down the better of the two resumes.

The one thing of any importance on the list Jon doesn't have and you pointed it out is that he does not follow the faith of The Seven. I admit this could be a potential Struggle for Jon. That being said he does no oppose the faith and could easily embrace the customs enough to satisfy those of the faith. Assuming Stannis dies, Jon would more then likely have strong support from 4 of the 7 kingdoms right off the bat. The others are not beyond convincing to come to his side as well. Considering the current state of the 7 kingdoms. Having 4 of 7 more then likely to strongly support your claim is pretty impressive at this point.

Thirdly, you say that Jon would not be a good ruler because of his Assassination. People always get this wrong. The plot to Assassinate Jon was already in the works before Jon announced his plans to march on Winterfell.  Also we Do not know Jons reasoning for marching,  so we cannot say his reasoning was bad, when we do not know what it was. I personally believe getting involved in retaking the North is the right decision for Jon. As for Jons performance leading the nights watch. He was put in a difficult position as commander from the start. He is forced to make  a lot hard choices and I personally thinks he makes all the right decisions throughout except two of them. The decision to send all those most loyal to him away to different locations. You can understand his perspective as he sees them as people he can trust to handle those jobs. But in doing so  he left himself very vulnerable.  The second is his decision not to have any bodyguards protecting him. There was no excuse for this one, It was a bad decision. That being said for a 17 year old to only make those mistakes IMO, out of the many difficult decisions, proves to me Jon would be an Amazing king. As for Aegon, I just don't think at this point we have enough information to determine what type of ruler he would be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Slavery is still economically viable, which is why it persists in this world.  Next to drug trafficking, it’s the second most profitable illicit activity. 

But there were and are alternative economic models.  So, for example, it had mainly gone from Western Europe by 1150 or so.  (Even countries that subsequently engaged in slave-trading like England and France never re-legalised it on their own soil).

In-universe, the Reach and Braavos show that it’s quite possible for places to flourish without slavery.  Slavery redistributes wealth upwards, rather than creating wealth.  Xaro’s spiel about the need for slavery is so much BS.  Even in Slavers Bay, an economy without slavery is quite viable, based upon a Mediterranean-type agriculture, and trade in commodities.

My point is that ending slavery cannot be done by merely freeing the slaves. What needs to be done is removing whatever it is that is keeping it so viable. This means economic reform, replacement of slave-owning society by colonate or feudalism based one, and possibly several other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

My point is that ending slavery cannot be done by merely freeing the slaves. What needs to be done is removing whatever it is that is keeping it so viable. This means economic reform, replacement of slave-owning society by colonate or feudalism based one, and possibly several other things.

There's the ease of obtaining the raw material, thanks to piracy, and the incessant warfare and raiding of the Dothraki.  It seems that free people who can't pay their debts also get sold into slavery.  Then, there's the intense level of internal repression in slave-owning societies, in order to hold down the slave majority.  I think that if the source of supply is severely disrupted, and  the slavers' monopoly on violence is broken, then that will go a long way towards eliminating the practice.  

Most of the slaves have marketable skills.  The best thing would be to break up the estates of the masters and redistribute them among the freedmen.  If the Slaver coalition is defeated outside Meereen, and Volantis erupts in revolt, I think that would be achievable.  Daenerys taking control of at least a proportion of the Dothraki would help disrupt the supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

My point is that ending slavery cannot be done by merely freeing the slaves. What needs to be done is removing whatever it is that is keeping it so viable. This means economic reform, replacement of slave-owning society by colonate or feudalism based one, and possibly several other things.

You mean industrialization? Don't thinks world of asoiaf can have one. They seems to be stuck in medieval times for the last 10k years and unlikely advance any further, just like the most fantasy worlds.

Still, even considering the level of technology and economic development we have today, there are more then 40 millions of slaves in the our word right now [source].  So, nothing really can change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Malgoth said:

You mean industrialization? Don't thinks world of asoiaf can have one. They seems to be stuck in medieval times for the last 10k years and unlikely advance any further, just like the most fantasy worlds.

Still, even considering the level of technology and economic development we have today, there are more then 40 millions of slaves in the our word right now [source].  So, nothing really can change.

 

Not industrialization. What I was thinking of was Roman colonate, which significantly reduced if not almost completely replaced slavery in the late Roman Empire. It was essentially feudalism: rich landowner gave land to a personally free landless person, and person in question gave back a share of produce and also did some work personally for the landowner; later, that share was fixed at 1/10 (or tithe). In exchange, landowner gave them protection and also paid all the taxes. But whatever was not given as a tithe, colonus could spend however he wished. In fact, many coloni were not even tied to the land (those that were were known as coloni adscriptii).

Of course, slavery never did, and never will, completely disappear. But above system could relatively easily replace it as a basis of economy. One would need to study how colonate came to replace slavery in Roman Empire.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

There's the ease of obtaining the raw material, thanks to piracy, and the incessant warfare and raiding of the Dothraki.  It seems that free people who can't pay their debts also get sold into slavery.  Then, there's the intense level of internal repression in slave-owning societies, in order to hold down the slave majority.  I think that if the source of supply is severely disrupted, and  the slavers' monopoly on violence is broken, then that will go a long way towards eliminating the practice.  

Most of the slaves have marketable skills.  The best thing would be to break up the estates of the masters and redistribute them among the freedmen.  If the Slaver coalition is defeated outside Meereen, and Volantis erupts in revolt, I think that would be achievable.  Daenerys taking control of at least a proportion of the Dothraki would help disrupt the supply.

Agreed; that, I think, would work (and is basically what I proposed in one of earlier threads - give land to slaves and either completely remove Masters or reduce them to essentially nobility).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SeanF said:

I doubt even if Aegon V was a revolutionary.  He simply saw the need for reform more clearly than many lords did.  It's always better to reform to preserve, rather than resist change to the point where you are violently overthrown.

Agreed. I'm not really advocating violent revolution but I think for change to be meaningful it has to address systemic inequalities, as I think Egg was trying to do. It's not enough to just be a good lord in a bad system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Malgoth said:

Still, even considering the level of technology and economic development we have today, there are more then 40 millions of slaves in the our word right now [source].  So, nothing really can change

I'm surprised the number is as low as 40 million, there are more, many times more, in my country alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my rank of the leaders.

  1. Daenerys Targaryen - her development from child bride to Khaleesi/Queen/Mhysa make her the best of the leaders.
  2. Mance Rayder - you don't have to like him to acknowledge his ability.
  3. Barristan Selmy - best speech ever given, the Pre-battle speech in Meereen.
  4. Stannis Baratheon
  5. Jon Snow - would be fine as long he leads a single culture, single ethnic people. 
  6. Aegon - has potential but his impulsivity is of great concern.
Edited by Rosetta Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 5:23 AM, SeanF said:

 I think that if the source of supply is severely disrupted, and  the slavers' monopoly on violence is broken, then that will go a long way towards eliminating the practice.  

 

Quote

"When a wolf descends upon your flocks, all you gain by killing him is a short respite, for other wolves will come," King Garth IX said famously. "If instead you feed the wolf and tame him and turn his pups into your guard dogs, they will protect the flocks when the pack comes ravening." 

Idk this is so clear to me ^^^

- You have to find a way to change behavior in innovative ways, rather than just killing people and running away.

- We need social scientists, students of people, i.e. learning what motivates people to change them because hard power is limited in its ability to change society.

On 1/11/2021 at 1:02 AM, Daeron the Daring said:

Aegon V was not revolutionary. He tried to be revolutionary, tho.

What he tried is reforming the society in a way. With him, Westerosi professions had a chance to build out guild systems. With this, major cities would have had a chance to gain more influence. Because when it comes to Westerosi major cities, and what they are built around is always "a bit of trading, yknow". Straight-up trading is going good for Oldtown the way it goes for Braavos or Lys. But not for the other cities.

Look closely, and you can find around the world everywhere something that upkeeps the given location: Slavery, trading, shipbuilding, smithing, or Myr having great carpets, and being advanced on teaching almost every profession. 

That is what Westeros needs. Specialization. Aegon V gave a chance to this, but he was refused.

Quote

His Grace found himself forced to bow to the recalcitrant lords more often than he wished. A student of history and lover of books, Aegon V was oft heard to say that had he only had dragons, as the first Aegon had, he could have remade the realm anew, with peace and prosperity and justice for all.

The irony is dripping off the page ^^^. Aegon was an idealist, but for nukes. Right idea, wrong method. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...