A Few Good Words for the Dothraki

[Parwan]

Systemic Problems III:

A Few Good Words for the Dothraki

Or perhaps a few more bad ones for the seven kingdoms. I think the original title is catchier though. So, let's look at the issue.

A khal who cannot ride is no khal.

That's a basic principle for the Dothraki. It is commonly stated; everyone understands it; it is practiced. The leader actually is required to do something. There is a deal and he has to live up to it. One should certainly not admire the "something" that the khalasars do to other people (or to each other for that matter). Still, we should give the devil his due. We can say that the nomads have a certain basic honesty. They have a rule that binds even the mightiest among them. A man who cannot do the job is not the man for the job. No one will follow him. There is no blather about magic swords, justice belonging to the throne, or any such nonsense.

The situation is quite different in the seven kingdoms. Lots of blather there. What is actually required of a monarch? Nothing. There are all sorts of vows, all sorts of ceremonies, all sorts of rigamarole. When it comes right down to it, though, is there anything truly worthy of being called a contract between the leaders and the followers? Apparently not, and almost certainly not between a monarch and his (her) subjects. The subjects have all kinds of rules and responsibilities. If they violate said rules or fail such responsibilities, the consequences can be dire. If the king screws things up horribly. well then people just might say bad things about him after he is dead.

Robert's Rebellion is not an exception.* No one maintains that it set any sort of precedent. Certainly no one proposes that there is any method of deposing a monarch, even a totally incompetent one, except for armed rebellion. Actually, method be damned, is there even any theory that such a thing is possible? Is the term "depose" ever mentioned in ASoIaF? At best, RR represents a "King comes straight at you with an ax" concept. In this case, maybe, I think, well perhaps you might have some shadow of a right to defend yourself. You might also defend your wards, as Jon Arryn did. If you did so successfully, then everyone would wring their hands**, condemn the person who killed the king, and try to make sure that such a thing never happens again.

We have many characters saying all kinds of things about justice, legitimacy, honor, and so on. What does any of this have to do with competent governance? One might say, "little and less," but I'm not even willing to go that far. These words are only that--words. As readers of ASoIaF, we all know what words are, don't we?

*I would argue that the rather hazy idea that Rhaegar could have had a plan to call some sort of council someday is also not an exception. I don't want to go into that right now. I want to keep the OP to a reasonable length.

**More accurately, the majority of people would wring their hands. Stannis would grind his teeth.

[Nictarion]

I also have always admired how the Dothraki and Wildlings choose their leaders, I like that they earn their roles as kings by action. And people choose to follow them because of their strength and leadership.

[SerStinger]

Where are the previous problems? I enjoyed reading this one

[The Mountain That Flies]

The sole problem with the "only the fittest lead" approach that the Dothraki use is that it causes renewed bloodshed every time a new leader has to be chosen. Now, the obvious strike against this argument is that succession disputes have been known to cause a war or two in Westeros, and so having a chosen "line" doesn't really solve the problem, it just changes it, which is fair. However, the Dothraki system is far from perfect itself.

Basically, it comes down to whether you want a large scale society or not. The Dothraki can never really form cohesive and consistent forms of government, and if you're ok living like that, they are by far the better (and more honest) option.

[King Aerys the Just]

I also have always admired how the Dothraki and Wildlings choose their leaders, I like that they earn their roles as kings by action. And people choose to follow them because of their strength and leadership.

At least in the Dothraki case I don't think that's really true. A Khal who has come to power would probably try to kill those who didn't want to follow him.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

At least in the Dothraki case I don't think that's really true. A Khal who has come to power would probably try to kill those who didn't want to follow him.

This. The Dothraki system of leadership is basically biggest bully wins and kills those who don't want to bow to him.

[Nictarion]

This. The Dothraki system of leadership is basically biggest bully wins and kills those who don't want to bow to him.

Its the same in Westeros. If you refuse to bend the knee to the king, you can be killed as a traitor. I just like that the Khals have to actually continue to earn their spot like the OP pointed out.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Robert "earned" his Crown on the Trident. Then he had to "continue to earn" it in the Greyjoy rebellion. Would the realm have been off any better if instead of every 7 years, he'd have to "earn" it even more often?

Earning is a nice word, but if all that's meant is being capable of organising a great big slaughter, than I'd rather have a king that earns nothing.

[Nictarion]

Robert "earned" his Crown on the Trident. Then he had to "continue to earn" it in the Greyjoy rebellion. Would the realm have been off any better if instead of every 7 years, he'd have to "earn" it even more often?

Earning is a nice word, but if all that's meant is being capable of organising a great big slaughter, than I'd rather have a king that earns nothing.

Valid points.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Their carbon footprint is minimal I guess.

[HopeForSpring]

The advantage of the Dothraki system is that it involves a demonstration of the consent of the governed and introduces the concept of a meritocracy.

The disadvantages are in how they define merit (best killer) and that there is no peaceful legal structures by which governed get to choose.

I think I'll spend this entire thread thinking "

"

[HopeForSpring]

The sole problem with the "only the fittest lead" approach that the Dothraki use is that it causes renewed bloodshed every time a new leader has to be chosen. Now, the obvious strike against this argument is that succession disputes have been known to cause a war or two in Westeros, and so having a chosen "line" doesn't really solve the problem, it just changes it, which is fair. However, the Dothraki system is far from perfect itself.

Basically, it comes down to whether you want a large scale society or not. The Dothraki can never really form cohesive and consistent forms of government, and if you're ok living like that, they are by far the better (and more honest) option.

There being a "line" isn't what keeps the Westrosi in line as much as a legal acknowledgement of that line. As soon as that line got to be crazy and not in the best interest of the supporting Lords, the Lords attacked it. It wasn't the monarchy that kept things stable, it was the rule of law around the monarchy that kept things stable.

[Frey Pentos]

Earning is a nice word, but if all that's meant is being capable of organising a great big slaughter, than I'd rather have a king that earns nothing.

Often it's a great big slaughter but that's how the Khal provides for his people and those who are the best at it get the biggest Khalasar.

[Tommens Cat]

The sole problem with the "only the fittest lead" approach that the Dothraki use is that it causes renewed bloodshed every time a new leader has to be chosen. Now, the obvious strike against this argument is that succession disputes have been known to cause a war or two in Westeros, and so having a chosen "line" doesn't really solve the problem, it just changes it, which is fair. However, the Dothraki system is far from perfect itself.

Basically, it comes down to whether you want a large scale society or not. The Dothraki can never really form cohesive and consistent forms of government, and if you're ok living like that, they are by far the better (and more honest) option.

I agree. To shorten..

Freedom or progression

[Parwan]

Robert "earned" his Crown on the Trident. Then he had to "continue to earn" it in the Greyjoy rebellion. Would the realm have been off any better if instead of every 7 years, he'd have to "earn" it even more often?

Earning is a nice word, but if all that's meant is being capable of organising a great big slaughter, than I'd rather have a king that earns nothing.

Basically, I go with what I believe is the standard view of Robert: He was a good warrior but a bad king. He won the throne, but he had no interest in ruling. A main point I've been pressing for a while in these threads: Westeros has had a great deal of poor leadership, especially in recent decades. This is not due just to bad luck. There is a more general problem. See below.

Where are the previous problems? I enjoyed reading this one

Thanks for your interest. These are the relevant threads:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/85950-systemic-problems/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/87579-systemic-problems-ii/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/84076-barristan-the-barometer/

The idea of the first two is, "If one is confronted by a deep systemic problem, it will do no good to look at it as a series of single-point failures… It's not good enough to say that Dany is a bitch, Stannis is a hypocrite, Eddard was too dumb to live, etc. Some of these things may be true..." However true they are, they do not constitute the main deal.

The third thread is related. It says, "If Ser Barristan Selmy is considered a bad man, who in Westeros can be considered good? My answer is, 'essentially no one who has any significant power.'" I don't say that Selmy is a great man, but he is at least a pretty good one. More importantly, he is seen as a great hero by virtually everyone in the seven kingdoms. The more scorn you pour upon him, the more scorn you pour on western society generally, and this emphatically does include House Stark.

[FuriousGeorge]

Their carbon footprint is minimal I guess.

lol

[SerStinger]

Basically, I go with what I believe is the standard view of Robert: He was a good warrior but a bad king. He won the throne, but he had no interest in ruling. A main point I've been pressing for a while in these threads: Westeros has had a great deal of poor leadership, especially in recent decades. This is not due just to bad luck. There is a more general problem. See below.

Thanks for your interest. These are the relevant threads:

http://asoiaf.wester...temic-problems/

http://asoiaf.wester...ic-problems-ii/

http://asoiaf.wester...-the-barometer/

The idea of the first two is, "If one is confronted by a deep systemic problem, it will do no good to look at it as a series of single-point failures… It's not good enough to say that Dany is a bitch, Stannis is a hypocrite, Eddard was too dumb to live, etc. Some of these things may be true..." However true they are, they do not constitute the main deal.

The third thread is related. It says, "If Ser Barristan Selmy is considered a bad man, who in Westeros can be considered good? My answer is, 'essentially no one who has any significant power.'" I don't say that Selmy is a great man, but he is at least a pretty good one. More importantly, he is seen as a great hero by virtually everyone in the seven kingdoms. The more scorn you pour upon him, the more scorn you pour on western society generally, and this emphatically does include House Stark.

I like your posts, keep up the good work!

[Parwan]

I like your posts, keep up the good work!

Thank you. I intend to keep working on these ideas.

There being a "line" isn't what keeps the Westrosi in line as much as a legal acknowledgement of that line. As soon as that line got to be crazy and not in the best interest of the supporting Lords, the Lords attacked it. It wasn't the monarchy that kept things stable, it was the rule of law around the monarchy that kept things stable.

I do not have a high opinion of the rule of law and legal acknowledgments of the rules in the seven kingdoms. I'm not convinced that the high lords have ever acted as you say. As I indicated in the OP, I do not acknowledge Robert's Rebellion as an example of the lords so acting. John Arryn did not say, "Aerys is crazy and unfit to rule. We must do something." In another thread, I put the matter this way:

In A Storm of Swords, Stannis is challenged by Davos concerning treason. Why wasn't the Lord of Dragonstone a traitor to the Targaryens? Lord Stannis says, "…that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king." Thus, Aerys was still "my king." It's clear, isn't it? If the man who talks about duty more than anyone else in ASoIaF had had a different last name, then the choosing would have been easy--fight for the lunatic.

I'm not sure what situation would cause the lords of the kingdoms to say, "Okay, this king has just gone too far. We have to unite and get rid of him." I'm not sure there is any such situation. My understanding of many of the vows--Night's Watch, maesters, Kingsguard--reinforces this feeling. They are not what I think of as even halfway decent contracts. They are pledges of slavish devotion. It's not the case that the leader and the followers are both bound, though the followers more so and more tightly. The followers have to do all kinds of shit. The leader isn't actually required to do anything.

Nictarion, on Yesterday, 03:53 PM, said:

I also have always admired how the Dothraki and Wildlings choose their leaders, I like that they earn their roles as kings by action. And people choose to follow them because of their strength and leadership.

At least in the Dothraki case I don't think that's really true. A Khal who has come to power would probably try to kill those who didn't want to follow him.

This. The Dothraki system of leadership is basically biggest bully wins and kills those who don't want to bow to him.

I don't think that it is a simple matter of continued brutality within the khalasar. When a khal dies, there will be a power struggle, but this does not mean a free-for-all. For one thing, there is a limited tradition of male succession. An adult son (and presumably a teenaged son) can inherit from his father if he is strong enough. Even if there is no son, or if the son is challenged, it appears to me that the fighting is brutal but brief. Once a new khal is determined, the rest of the tribe will follow him. If he is successful and brings wealth to his khalasar, I don't think he will face a situation where he has to fight all the time to stay on top. There is also a definite tradition of warrior brotherhood--the bloodriders, Khal Drogo's insistence that his warriors' wounds be treated before him, etc.

A more important point, however, is not to give wide-rainging praise to the Dothraki. I just say that their system (as well as some other systems in Essos) has some advantages over what we see in Westeros. The Westerosi could learn a few things by studying how other people do things. For the most part, the Westerosi aren't interested in doing so. There are some worthwhile exceptions to this rule, and I plan on continuing to explore them.

[PrimeRhaegar]

this all come down to that great philosophical question which would you choose freedom or peace.

[Parwan]

this all come down to that great philosophical question which would you choose freedom or peace.

Well, that's part of the deal. I wouldn't say it's all of it.