Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Elective Monarchies are a recipe for disaster though. The next few decades will see lords conspiring and blackmailing each other to get votes and to put who they want on the throne. If there isn't a civil war in the next few years I'm called bs.

Its just not a viable long term system of government, and most Elective Monarchies end up becoming hereditary, as all it takes is for one family to gain enough power to ensure that they always get elected. See: The Habsburgs

Tyrion should know this, he's seen how nobles will conspire and plot with one another to gain power, and that giving them a choice is a bad idea. Especially since one house, Highgarden, is the source of most of the food in the Kingdom. Which means whoever controls Highgarden controls the votes. All hail King Bronn's dynasty.

They should have formed a republic, split the kingdom (is there a point in having a Seven Kingdoms anymore? There's no central army and King's Landing is in ruins), or forced Jon to become king after Grey Worm left.
It seems the writers wanted to think that a Elective Monarchy is a form of progress, but its actually an unstable form of government that was usually used by early civilizations, until they got it all together and came up with more long term solutions.

All true, but maybe Tyrion can be excused for not knowing better. We know based on our historical examples that elective monarchies aren't very workable, but in Westeros such system had never been in place before. Free Cities maybe had something similar going, perhaps Tyrion had or should have read about them.
Hereditary monarchy of Westeros had provided some spectacularly bad examples in recent memory, so Tyrion surely reasoned that any change would be an improvement.

Backfire wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Bran pushed Sam to do it before the battle, to begin the break of burgeoning alliance betwen Dany and Jon at a dangerous time, if it had happend later, say when they were in the South, would it have had the same impact.....it works if if he is the bad guy and looking to destroy threats to his ascension, knowing Arya will kill his only other enemy.

The council electing him is just horrible - Tyrions speech just makes no sense - "Yeah we should ignore bloodlines but Bran is a Stark so qualifies"... he tells stories (well he doesn;t but we are told he does, whatever happened to show don;t tell) - so does Tyrion and lots of others - in fact pretty much everyone but Bron Why is Tyron and Jon even still alive. Why does Dorne (like the most powerful nation left) nod it through, we donlt want a king but a queen in the north is fine. Where are the Librarian people.

Think Sam represents them?
Yea it's weird they let North to have independence and not Dorne, which had much stronger tradition of independence, they actually had special privileges even under Targaryen rule. It feels like feelgood moment cooked up for Starks. Like they needed any.

I think Tyrion's case for Bran is good one, though it was not very well presented. First, they likely want new monarch to be from one of the major families so he'll have authority and continuity. Problem is, most of the major families are gone. Jon and Tyrion are unacceptable for Dany's old army. Gendry is too unknown, same for Edmure, Arya and Yara, and whoever they had from Dorne and Vale (is Robin still alive?). There doesn't seem to be Tyrrells left. So it is basically just Bran and Sansa. From those, Bran is preferable as he is male, was not involved in any of the nastiness and comes across as less power hungry than Sansa. And most importantly, he (allegedly) can't produce a heir, which fits right into Tyrion's system where monarchs would be elected. Other candidates would likely produce heirs and would be tempted to arrange them as their successor, thus defeating Tyrions vision right away.

Sam is House Tully at that point isn't he? - although again why his family is there and none of the others is just cos Sam, gotta have Sam. Guess he contonues to get super special treatment and stays Head of House hold and head of the library etc etc.

Bran is a dangerously thin plaster even the (far better) way you present it and yeah it just another Starks Win moment. Civil war number 2 round the corner as soon as anoyone can rebuild enough to fight.

Dorne - does it still have an army as lots came with the Sand Sankes? If not expansion from them coming up and liekly meet to fight it out with Sansa advancing South in a year or two whilst Bran wanders aroud the pastand Tyrion still fails to make the hard descisions and the small council falls apart.

Iron bank might even pay Dorne to get its money back.

Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.

I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.

Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Elective Monarchies are a recipe for disaster though. The next few decades will see lords conspiring and blackmailing each other to get votes and to put who they want on the throne. If there isn't a civil war in the next few years I'm called bs.

Its just not a viable long term system of government, and most Elective Monarchies end up becoming hereditary, as all it takes is for one family to gain enough power to ensure that they always get elected. See: The Habsburgs

Tyrion should know this, he's seen how nobles will conspire and plot with one another to gain power, and that giving them a choice is a bad idea. Especially since one house, Highgarden, is the source of most of the food in the Kingdom. Which means whoever controls Highgarden controls the votes. All hail King Bronn's dynasty.

They should have formed a republic, split the kingdom (is there a point in having a Seven Kingdoms anymore? There's no central army and King's Landing is in ruins), or forced Jon to become king after Grey Worm left.
It seems the writers wanted to think that a Elective Monarchy is a form of progress, but its actually an unstable form of government that was usually used by early civilizations, until they got it all together and came up with more long term solutions.
The wheel wasn't broken, just tilted a little.
True "progress" and "wheel breaking" would have taken the form of a republic, with the major houses ruling the nation together and making sure that no house is more powerful than another. Its a much more viable solution than an Elective Monarchy, which is more "winner takes all"

The writers injected their own politics into the story and it crashed and burned because of it.

 Kroem wrote:
Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.

I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.

Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.

Yep, there is now nothing to stop the Dothraki rampaging around exactly as they do on Esos - and now as they are all Dany's Bloodriders they have her to avenge......another element ignored in the stampede to give a happy ending to Tyrion, Sam and the Starks.

The Knights of the Vale are I think the only standing army still in the five kingdoms? Disregard the northerners as they are efectively militia and need to return home - whats left of them.

Dorne - no idea - I thought they lost a fair bit with Eurons teleporting stealth fleet but I imagine they did nto nring their entire army over.

Mr Morden wrote:Sam is House Tully at that point isn't he?

Tarly. House Tarly are based in the Reach, near Highgarden, which puts Sam lower in perceived status than Bronn. House Tully are the dominant house of the Riverlands, represented by Edmure.

although again why his family is there and none of the others is just cos Sam, gotta have Sam. Guess he contonues to get super special treatment and stays Head of House hold and head of the library etc etc.

Probably because he's earned it. He's a qualified Maester, the head of a noble family, a member of the Night's Watch (now disbanded), and was one the defenders of Winterfell. He has as much right to be there as anyone else, even more than some (Edmure, Robin, Yohn Royce).

As for why he gets to be both (and maybe not even both - perhaps Gilly is acting as the lord of Horn Hill (Tarly seat of power)), he has the support of the King. King makes the rules. Besides, I don't really think I've seen anywhere that a person can't be both. I mean, we clearly have cases of people being both Hand of the King and the head of their houses, and the same with other Small Council positions.

Bran is a dangerously thin plaster even the (far better) way you present it and yeah it just another Starks Win moment. Civil war number 2 round the corner as soon as anoyone can rebuild enough to fight.

Bran's a decent choice. Young, psychic abilities, strong house - he's a better candidate than most Westerosi rulers. I do agree that Tyrion's line of "he's got a great story to tell" is badly written though.

I was surprised that no-one even questioned the North seceding. I don't have an issue with the North leaving, it was probably for the better (the North wouldn't have rejoined, not after their "independence"), but I am surprised that kingdoms like Dorne and the Iron Islands didn't also ask or demand the same. Dorne, as far as I gather, actually got shafted by the Iron Fleet, and lost nearly all of their military power, which is why we don't see any Dornish actually fighting against Cersei in the sack of King's Landing.

Same with the Greyjoys, although I think they had more troops. Regardless, both of those sides should have tried for independence. I can see the Dornish getting nowhere (no army, and with Bronn commanding the Reach, I imagine he'd be rather callous with any Dornish coming over the Red Mountains), but the Greyjoys probably should have had their freedoms. Sansa should have supported their claim (what with her opinions of Theon before his death), as well as Grey Worm (if he even cared), due to it being what Daenerys promised them.

Iron bank might even pay Dorne to get its money back.

Didn't the Iron Bank get all their money back? The attack on the baggage train was to disrupt further supplies and extra money, not the actual debt money, wasn't it?

Yes they mentioned that the loot they got from Highgarden was already in the city when Daenerys attacked.

I thought they had to take out a whole new loan to get the Golden Company?

On Super Special Sam: (sorry got wrong House name!) its really just because he is the authors avatar
He broke his vows and ran away from the Library
Its a minor House - Edmure is a Major House and doesn;t he also have an intact military.
Defenders of Winterfell - amusing way to describe his actions
Night Watch- true but was allowed to run away from that as well.
Without Jon his constant protector who thre even knows who he is
I guess he does fit the role of court jester/fool.

Bran (as a Stark) tips the power balance heavily to the North - he immedately showed that by nodding through his sisters power grab which will have been noted for what it was by everyone.
No heir means trouble - no matter what they say about electors.

The Ironborn are now very weak - Yara had what three ships she stole from Euron and their crews. There might be some surivivors from Dany's ship BBQ as well.
Dorne lost whatever the Sand Snakes brought with them but I was never clear if that was even a large part of their military or was in charge of what over there?

However if both had just said - fine - we are also independant - who could have stopped them - Bran could have said some fortune cookie crap but thats about it. He has no army, his powers seem to consist of looking smug and turning into a flock of ravens

Sam having a seat is because he did nominally ‘bad’ things, but for beneficial reasons.

He didn’t leave Oldtown because Hard Work Is Hard. He stole the books and legged it because he found crucial information which gave Jon, The North and therefore Westeros as a whole (possibly the entire world?) at least a glimmer of a fighting chance. And because those teaching him were clearly hidebound. So used to learning from the past, they forgot to look to the future.

Dunno how it’s portrayed in the books, as I’ve not read them. I’m pretty much convinced GRRM is either not inclined or not particularly interesting in wrapping up now. But in the show, that’s Samwell’s arc.

He is a genuinely Good Man, sentenced to the Night’s Watch by his Dad because he wasn’t some butch manlyman. Jon could see he was there for pathetic reasons. Maester Aemon and Lord Commander Mormont saw the same, and that he was best suited supporting and learning from the former.

Perhaps he is GRRM’s Five Tissue Fantasy. But he still serves a purpose, and his character arc works.

Not much has happened in the books, but it seems to be building up to Sam becoming an apprentice for a maester who rediscovered magic.

In the books a return to magic and myth is a bit of a theme.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Isn't the Iron Islands an elective monarchy? Like people said Tyrion doesn't have our historical examples.

I think an expectation that the series was going to propose a solution to civil wars in general is a bit much, we haven't worked that one out in real life!
The story had to end the War of Five Kings with all sides bloody, exhausted and desperate for peace.

Unfortunately they don't really explain why Dorn, The Vale or the Dolthraki would want to end the fighting since they haven't really suffered in the war to the extent of the others.

Yep, there is now nothing to stop the Dothraki rampaging around exactly as they do on Esos - and now as they are all Dany's Bloodriders they have her to avenge......another element ignored in the stampede to give a happy ending to Tyrion, Sam and the Starks.

The Knights of the Vale are I think the only standing army still in the five kingdoms? Disregard the northerners as they are efectively militia and need to return home - whats left of them.

Dorne - no idea - I thought they lost a fair bit with Eurons teleporting stealth fleet but I imagine they did nto nring their entire army over.

Yea exactly, the North seemed to fight endless battles against the Lanisters, the Barathions, the Freys, the Greyjoys and the living dead (along with internal conflicts) and still have an army at the end of it so I'm sure Dorne can scrape an army together!

Especially as Daenerys had an agreement with Yara about the ironborn being independent.
But I guess Dumb and Dumber "kinda forgot about this" too...
And Tyrion was super against that, but didn't tell word when Sansa took her independance. And for what now her brother is king ?
Why do the wildwings, after thousands of years of trying to get in, now they are finally in and have good lands, just go back North ?
Are they implying ice and snow is melting during this close up on the grass Noth of the wall ?
Why is there still a Night Watch ?
Why does everyone keeps obeying the unsullied once they left for their butterfly island instead of getting John back ?
Why is Sam a maester when he didn't even finish his formation ?
What was the point of the whole Bran arc and story and why is he such a nemesis to the Night King ? Do we really need a prequel to know that...
Why did they destroyed Jaime's arc ?
Etc
Etc
Still, it's over after almost a decade, it's weird !
Farewells, Game of Thrones !

Well, Sam could have returned and finished his training.

Its certainly possible that the North is experiencing some warming with the Night King gone, and the Wildlings were only coming down to escape the Night King. So without that threat they are free to return home.

but yeah, very little else makes sense.

Bran could always hang out inside of a tree and become effectively immortal like the last 3 eyed raven. His reign might be perpetual.

It'll probably be quite long. He's quite young even without considering the bonus to longevity for being the 3 Eyed Raven.

Which does not bode well for his successor actually. Nobody alive will actually be present when they have to elect the next king. There will have been no tradition of elections to uphold, so you'll probably have wars over the succession anyway. Except unlike the past, in the future the wars will happen every time there is a new monarch rather than just when a dynasty is overthrown. At least with hereditary monarchs you can end up with long periods of stability. Elective monarchies will have massive instability every time the king croaks.

Just look at the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps the most cutthroat politics that ever existed, and all over a title that often carried no real power in and of itself because of the fractured nature of the empire. Imagine the discord over a title that would hold real power.

Is he immune to poison or blades?

You can only see the future if you are looking for it and if you spend all your time "in the past" and the future how do you get anything done in the present.

Its fine if you are going to just sit in a tree for centuries but a King does normally have to do something even if just for ceremony.

Bron has risen from mere mercenary to Master of Coin and Highgarden - why would he not go for the throne.

Bron is too lazy to want to be king.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its a minor House - Edmure is a Major House and doesn;t he also have an intact military.

From what I understood over the seasons Edmure's house and land is also pretty devastated. There seems to be constant fighting in the Riverlands since season 1-2 and their army gets severely beaten(?) the first time(when Robb was still alive they had this conversation that Edmure had very few soldiers left to help Robb). Then Edmure gets whatever soldiers he brings probably massacred at his Red Wedding. Then his uncle(?) rebels or has already rebelled and seems to be leading a reasonably successful band/army that fight the Lannisters, who are all taken captive and who knows what happened with them after that. Must be quite depleted by the time Edmure finally gets control over the Riverlands.

Of course they might suffer from the same case of respawn-itis as the Lannisters, the North and the Unsullied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
Are they implying ice and snow is melting during this close up on the grass Noth of the wall ?

Yeah, I guess its supposed to mean that "winter is over'' sort of thing, which is horrible when you think it through. Is winter over because the night king died? Didn't winter just start before? They build up and hyped winter for years and then its over and done in what, 4 months or so? Are they implying that now there won't be a winter, does Westeros not have seasons without a night king?

 godardc wrote:
Why is there still a Night Watch ?

I felt like this was more of a agreement to get Jon off and away to the North, placate Grey Worm with all basically understanding there would be no Night's Watch. Or the guy bound by duty and honor to be a total moron all 8 seasons suddenly says feth it to duty and honor to hang out with Tormund (understandable )

 godardc wrote:
Why does everyone keeps obeying the unsullied once they left for their butterfly island instead of getting John back ?

I thought they aren't interested in getting him back. He is basically a threat to both Bran and Sansa on their thrones and related to the person who just a few weeks ago burned a ton of people to death. Better have him stay up north where he can do no damage.

Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.

 Lance845 wrote:
Bran could always hang out inside of a tree and become effectively immortal like the last 3 eyed raven. His reign might be perpetual.

Nah, with this bunch, he's dead in a year, tops. They are as bad as the Russian boyars of Ivan's time. This will continue until the Revolution comes.
Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.

So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.

 Frazzled wrote:

Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!

Peace, Land and Bread!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.

So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.

Just because the wildlings are currently peaceful doesn't mean they always will be.

Remember that all of the tribes only came together under Mance out of necessity to not die. There is no reason to think that they won't fragment again without that existential pressure and that some of them will look to the south as a possible opportunity.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!

Peace, Land and Bread!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, exiling Jon back to the Night’s Watch helps maintain some small sliver of stability, as the standard ‘well, what are we going to do with you’, when Death seems a bit much? Send them to The Wall.

So send the criminals to the north to their own fortress where they are armed and trained..........and have no actual purpose - yeah that will end well.

Just because the wildlings are currently peaceful doesn't mean they always will be.

Remember that all of the tribes only came together under Mance out of necessity to not die. There is no reason to think that they won't fragment again without that existential pressure and that some of them will look to the south as a possible opportunity.

Good way to make them hostile is to have armed criminals as border guards......wasn;t that one of the problems before the show started, and now there is no great mythical threat, no tradition or command structure to give them any purpose or temper them.

The North is supposed to be severely depopulated as well, they might need some giant blooded settlers. Although didn't they only come south because of the dead and the Walkers - although is their anything left alive to hunt north of the wall?

I imagine any criminals in the next few years would be sold as slaves or more likely put to work rebuilding - although Kings Landing and the Red Keep seem to regenerate as quikcly as Northerners, Unsullied and Dothraki.

But seeing as the North is now independent its a two birds, one stone scenario. The threat of a brawl with whatever criminals they ship up there and the Wildlings will keep the North in check in regard to southern expansion and the south gets rid of their problematic elements.

As for the north of the wall, I doubt the walkers put in enough effort to wipe everything out, maybe even some human survivors up there. Wouldn't be worth it to run down every animal or even person. Even after they break down the wall they don't sweep west or east, just south it seems.

Fair point but then why would Sansa allow them to ship armed criminals to her lands - does the Night Watch now answer to her and if not she will quickly demand it will.

I could see Sansa offering any Wildling raiders free passage down south as well, maybe a small tax on their loot.

The walkers did spend months wondering around up north doing nothing so maybe they were killing everything!

I see Nights Watch becoming more like a police force, somewhat equivalent to Canadian Rangers, rather than a defence force. Of course the quality of the personnel is somewhat counterproductive to that role.

In the books, Night's King was not the first Other, so who knows if the White Walker threat is truly over.

I think the south might be a bit too far for wildlings to walk to pillage. The neck between the north and south might be easily patrolled for raids anyway.

I think the walkers were killing everything in the years up to breaching the wall. But honestly how many people would be able to live up north anyway? As wights are slower I doubt they would catch faster animals. Unless they link arms across the continent people and animals can get away. Between the season 1 opening and the fall of the wall there were still significant groups of people up north surviving for years.

As for the walker threat being over, it seems to be the TV show is going that way. The NK was the first one and like some vampire pyramid all his 'kids' exploded. Maybe the books will just have them as a periodic threat.

So... What's the deal with the kids the Night Walkers take? I guess they subverted our expectations about expecting subplots to be wrapped up!

I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.

The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.

 Kroem wrote:
I can see the night's watch still being necessary to combat wildling raids, especially now there is a massive great hole in Hadrians wall! It saves the Northmen the men and coin necessary to maintain a permanent garrison there at least.

The Whitewalkers ending was really weird, I was expecting something more involved than one episode to defeat them after all that buildup.

What raids? Jon literally invited the Wildlings to live south of wall.