GoT[Spoilers] - The government of westeros after the end

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

That was a nice read. Also really enjoyed your first couple Lord of the Rings posts (and will check back for more).

I haven't watched Game of Thrones and only read a bit of the books. So going only by what I've heard, the impression I've gotten from die-hards is that the show really lost its attention to detail a few seasons ago. Whether to attribute this to no more books to adapt, the show becoming popular enough to "go Hollywood," or if the issues can be attributed to Martin himself, as a non-viewer/reader I certainly couldn't say. Maybe some of the context/build-up necessary to make sense of things would have been included by Martin, but Benoiff and Weiss are simply incapable of it.

Again, I can't really judge, but fan reactions the last few days don't raise my hopes for their new Star Wars trilogy.

[Actarus]

Interesting. However, I believe that the new system might actually work. Bran is young. He still has all the time needed to bring in some reforms. Plus, his own sister rules the North. There's not much chance to have a war in that direction. Right now, the Great Lords have never been so weak. House Lannister is broke. Edmure Tully will have to rebuild the Riverlands (and his credibility) which have suffered the most. He will need help. House Arryn is lead by a simpleton. The Reach is lead by a new lord, who probably won't be loved much by his bannermen. Some of these barely supported the Tyrells already, so Bronn of the Blackwater? The Stormlands are lead by a Baratheon bastard with no experience whatsoever. Both Bronn and Gendry will need the Crown to assert their power. As for Dorne, Prince Whatshisname is probably in a similar situation.

The time has never been so ripe for a centralization of power, a modernization of the State, so to speak. The War of the Roses had a crippling effect on most English noble houses which benefited the monarchy in the end. One sign of the centralization in Westeros: when Bran visited the Small Council, he noticed that it still lacked a Master of Whispers, a Master of Laws and... a Master of War. This is a new thing. There was no Master of War before, because there was no army of Westeros. Each Great Lord was able to levy an army and had to defend his part of Westeros. If there is an Army of Westeros, it would be far more difficult for a Great Lord to wage a war of succession. His own bannermen may even value their loyalty to the Crown higher than their loyalty toward their liege lord. And if each and every lord, great and small, can vote in the Great Council to elect a new King, the influence of the Great Lords will be even weaker.

[Robovski]

Sansa has actively demonstrated that she will do what she thinks best even if family is asking. The North will not be able to resist meddling in the affairs of the 6 Kingdoms.

[Artabax]

Article cites Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) and Bohemia as elective monarchies which only lasted 2 centuries as proof that Holy Westerosi Empire is unstable.

Article does not cite other elective monarchies which only lasted 2 centuries, such as Jerusalem, Dutch Republic, Latin Empire, USA.

Holy Roman Empire (HRE) did indeed achieve the 1,000 year Reich (kyR) target and the squabbles Prussia v Habsburg are a good analogy for the predicted squabbles of Starkshire v Crownland.

Article does not cite other elective monarchies which were stabler: Venice, 1,000 year Reich; Switzerland, 800 year Reich; Papacy 600 year Reich.

Article asserts I am a professional Historian elective monarchies only last 200 years and HRE don't count because Habsburg v Prussia squabbles. Prussia nevah tried to abolish HRE. Napoleon abolished HRE and Prussia loathed Napoleon.

2 centuries is better than 0 centuries. Don't damn a solution which is only temporary.

[Naldiin]

Article cites Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) and Bohemia as elective monarchies which only lasted 2 centuries as proof that Holy Westerosi Empire is unstable.

Article does not cite other elective monarchies which only lasted 2 centuries, such as Jerusalem, Dutch Republic, Latin Empire, USA.

I actually do mention the Dutch Republic. This wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list of elective monarchies, but a series of case studies illustrating problems with Westerosi elective monarchy as constructed in the show.

The Dutch Republic was, especially, a far more effective elective system and much more stable (but also more a Republic than an elective monarchy). But - as I note - this is part attributable to an advantage Bran does not enjoy: a longstanding tradition of local democratic and republican institutions. The same is, of course, also true of Venice, which is (like the United States) better understood as a Republic than an elective monarchy (the same can, of course, be said of the Dutch Republic).

I would not characterize the Latin Empire as elective - it was elective in the event that a dynastic heir was unavailable. The same was true of the Kingdom of Jerusalem - or for that matter, the Roman Empire. These are not considered elective monarchies. It was, for instance, well understood in the Kingdom of France that, should the line of kings fail, it would fall to the Estates General to choose a new king in line with ancient Frankish customs (this never, in the event, happened). That kind of 'king by acclamation in the absence of a dynastic heir' is not the same as a regular elective monarchy.

Tyrion is quite clear that the virtue of his new system is the removal of the dynastic principle, so this is also not the system he is creating. The one clear advantage he notes of Bran is that he will have no children and so further elections will be necessary, setting an elective precedent. I think this is good thinking on Tyrion's part, but I sincerely and deeply doubt Bran's rule will survive that long.

Article does not cite other elective monarchies which were stabler: Venice, 1,000 year Reich; Switzerland, 800 year Reich; Papacy 600 year Reich.

Venice and the Swiss confederacy, as noted above, are best understood as Republics, not elective monarchies.

I think the Papacy is a fascinating example to draw on, because, as you note, it is quite successful. But it is not hard to see how the advantages the Papacy enjoyed to establish legitimacy are not available to Bran - whereas the Pope was the recognized head of the dominant religion in his region, Bran is a strange mystic of a foreign religion almost entirely unknown in the South.

Article asserts I am a professional Historian elective monarchies only last 200 years and HRE don't count because Habsburg v Prussia squabbles. Prussia nevah tried to abolish HRE. Napoleon abolished HRE and Prussia loathed Napoleon.

I assert nothing of the kind (save that, I suppose, I am a professional historian...). I specifically cite the HRE as an example of elective monarchy being successful, but then note that Bran's new elective monarchy shares none of those strengths. Namely:
Election is not confined to key powerful princes.
Bran (the 'emperor') lacks his own power-base to assert his rule
The system is not based on ancient precedent or deep sustaining cultural legitimacy
The system does not have religious sanction
Outsider election has occurred

Prussia is not my example of the failure of the HRE - but rather of the PLC. Prussia is the smaller, less populous - but better organized and administered - rival that was able to chip away at and undermine the Commonwealth's elective system until it was possible (with Russia and Austria) to abolish Poland-Lithuania in its entirety.

[PerrySimm]

Late to the party, but the entire season just makes no sense.

[Karha of Honor]

Interesting. However, I believe that the new system might actually work. Bran is young. He still has all the time needed to bring in some reforms. Plus, his own sister rules the North. There's not much chance to have a war in that direction. Right now, the Great Lords have never been so weak. House Lannister is broke. Edmure Tully will have to rebuild the Riverlands (and his credibility) which have suffered the most. He will need help. House Arryn is lead by a simpleton. The Reach is lead by a new lord, who probably won't be loved much by his bannermen. Some of these barely supported the Tyrells already, so Bronn of the Blackwater? The Stormlands are lead by a Baratheon bastard with no experience whatsoever. Both Bronn and Gendry will need the Crown to assert their power. As for Dorne, Prince Whatshisname is probably in a similar situation.

The time has never been so ripe for a centralization of power, a modernization of the State, so to speak. The War of the Roses had a crippling effect on most English noble houses which benefited the monarchy in the end. One sign of the centralization in Westeros: when Bran visited the Small Council, he noticed that it still lacked a Master of Whispers, a Master of Laws and... a Master of War. This is a new thing. There was no Master of War before, because there was no army of Westeros. Each Great Lord was able to levy an army and had to defend his part of Westeros. If there is an Army of Westeros, it would be far more difficult for a Great Lord to wage a war of succession. His own bannermen may even value their loyalty to the Crown higher than their loyalty toward their liege lord. And if each and every lord, great and small, can vote in the Great Council to elect a new King, the influence of the Great Lords will be even weaker.

I don't see any institution preventing a totalitarian dictatorship.

[pilight]

It can be a long and difficult path from adjunct to full time professor. Are you a union member?

https://splinternews.com/the-revenge-of ... 1835381061

[Karha of Honor]

It can be a long and difficult path from adjunct to full time professor. Are you a union member?

https://splinternews.com/the-revenge-of ... 1835381061

Wrong thread?

[Mecha82]

Considering that there has already been some talk with Naldiin about his career as professional historian it's not out of place for pilight to ask that from him.