ASoIAF/Game of Thrones general Discussion Thread

[Tarsonis]

Like seriously what the actual fck? did Tyrion's political senses died when he killed his father and what's up with Cersei dying just because of a fcking stone brick.

well in any case Tyrion's political senses and his character, in general, was just thrown out of the window, he didn't even get to be on the strategy meeting during the battle of Winterfell even though he's clearly the most versed in war tactics.

More he was hamstringed by sensibilities where before that he wasn't. Tyrion was a decent machiavellian politician, but then he grew a conscience.

So the main point is you can't talk something about the Medieval time period or some medievalish setting and with politics without talking about Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince since it's literally the foundation of modern politics and since politics is literally the soul of the show itself then we should expect some clever political strategy in the show and that we got it in the earlier season with House Lannister with their politics and war needs gold strategy especially Tywin, Tyrion and overall Cersie then we got the House Tyrell with Margery and Lady Olena are just brilliant when it comes to scheming and manipulation and then the failure in medieval politics which is discussed in The Prince that is clearly shown to us by Ned Stark's idiotic approach of things in which got himself killed in the end.

You look at the "The Prince" as if it's a positive outlook on politicians.

And so here we are at the last season where the whole political system of Absolute Monarchy in the continent of Westeros was literally replaced in one day with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system without any sort of retaliation like, what the fck seriously?! you can't just replace a 500yrs.old government system that has been in existence since the beginning of time in one day especially when the whole continent just finished a 5year war against each other and a great war against the undead.

Sure they can. The peasants don't give two shits, and so long as the Lords agree with each other, who the fuck is gonna stop them?

[Egalhorne]

Like seriously what the actual fck? did Tyrion's political senses died when he killed his father and what's up with

Cersei dying just because of a fcking stone brick.

Well in any case Tyrion's political senses and his character, in general, was just thrown out of the window, he didn't even get to be on the strategy meeting during the battle of Winterfell even though he's clearly the most versed in war tactics.

So the main point is you can't talk something about the Medieval time period or some medievalish setting and with politics without talking about Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince since it's literally the foundation of modern politics and since politics is literally the soul of the show itself then we should expect some clever political strategy in the show and that we got it in the earlier season with House Lannister with their politics and war needs gold strategy especially Tywin, Tyrion and overall Cersie then we got the House Tyrell with Margery and Lady Olena are just brilliant when it comes to scheming and manipulation and then the failure in medieval politics which is discussed in The Prince that is clearly shown to us by Ned Stark's idiotic approach of things in which got himself killed in the end.

And so here we are at the last season where the whole political system of Absolute Monarchy in the continent of Westeros was literally replaced in one day with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system without any sort of retaliation like, what the fck seriously?! you can't just replace a 500yrs.old government system that has been in existence since the beginning of time in just one day

especially when the whole continent just finished a 5year war against each other and a great war against the undead.

[Atholl]

Like seriously what the actual fck? did Tyrion's political senses died when he killed his father and what's up with Cersei dying just because of a fcking stone brick.

well in any case Tyrion's political senses and his character, in general, was just thrown out of the window, he didn't even get to be on the strategy meeting during the battle of Winterfell even though he's clearly the most versed in war tactics.

So the main point is you can't talk something about the Medieval time period or some medievalish setting and with politics without talking about Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince since it's literally the foundation of modern politics and since politics is literally the soul of the show itself then we should expect some clever political strategy in the show and that we got it in the earlier season with House Lannister with their politics and war needs gold strategy especially Tywin, Tyrion and overall Cersie then we got the House Tyrell with Margery and Lady Olena are just brilliant when it comes to scheming and manipulation and then the failure in medieval politics which is discussed in The Prince that is clearly shown to us by Ned Stark's idiotic approach of things in which got himself killed in the end.

And so here we are at the last season where the whole political system of Absolute Monarchy in the continent of Westeros was literally replaced in one day with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system without any sort of retaliation like, what the fck seriously?! you can't just replace a 500yrs.old government system that has been in existence since the beginning of time in one day especially when the whole continent just finished a 5year war against each other and a great war against the undead.

I think you misunderstood.

Sam PROPOSED a democracy, which the attending Lords laughed off.

What they decided on was an elected Monarchy where the highborn Lords and Ladies choose the next monarch. This has historical precedent in places like the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Really it changed from an absolute Monarchy to an oligarchy, which is not a huge jump.

[Baltenstein]

Like seriously what the actual fck? did Tyrion's political senses died when he killed his father and what's up with Cersei dying just because of a fcking stone brick.

well in any case Tyrion's political senses and his character, in general, was just thrown out of the window, he didn't even get to be on the strategy meeting during the battle of Winterfell even though he's clearly the most versed in war tactics.

So the main point is you can't talk something about the Medieval time period or some medievalish setting and with politics without talking about Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince since it's literally the foundation of modern politics and since politics is literally the soul of the show itself then we should expect some clever political strategy in the show and that we got it in the earlier season with House Lannister with their politics and war needs gold strategy especially Tywin, Tyrion and overall Cersie then we got the House Tyrell with Margery and Lady Olena are just brilliant when it comes to scheming and manipulation and then the failure in medieval politics which is discussed in The Prince that is clearly shown to us by Ned Stark's idiotic approach of things in which got himself killed in the end.

And so here we are at the last season where the whole political system of Absolute Monarchy in the continent of Westeros was literally replaced in one day with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system without any sort of retaliation like, what the fck seriously?! you can't just replace a 500yrs.old government system that has been in existence since the beginning of time in one day especially when the whole continent just finished a 5year war against each other and a great war against the undead.

For starters:

1.) The Seven Kingdoms were not, and never have been, an absolute monarchy, they were feudalistic. It's the reason why all those political and military power struggles between the various houses were possible in the first place. What Dany tried to establish would have been an absolute monarchy, but hers was a short reign.
2.) They did not introduce democracy either - that's what the joke with everybody laughing about Sam was about. The new system is an elective monarchy akin to the Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuania, a system that IRL evolved out of medieval feudalism too. It's not that far-fetched an idea.

EDIT:

Interestingly, waaay back in Season 1, Joffrey of all people proposed some surprisingly sound ideas on absolutist reforms.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

What caused them to attack Daenyarus?

The dragons enhanced their magical power and they wanted them for themselves.

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for answering.

[Egalhorne]

Sure they can. The peasants don't give two shits, and so long as the Lords agree with each other, who the fuck is gonna stop them?

I don't give a shit or two about the peasants since

there are none in Kings Landing anyway

what I'm confused is why the heck do all of these lords agreeing, don't they know that by replacing the method of selecting the head of the continent means that they are also endangering their own to substantial revolts of the peasants and common people in their territories asking for the same way of selecting their own leader

[Egalhorne]

Like seriously what the actual fck? did Tyrion's political senses died when he killed his father and what's up with Cersei dying just because of a fcking stone brick.

well in any case Tyrion's political senses and his character, in general, was just thrown out of the window, he didn't even get to be on the strategy meeting during the battle of Winterfell even though he's clearly the most versed in war tactics.

So the main point is you can't talk something about the Medieval time period or some medievalish setting and with politics without talking about Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince since it's literally the foundation of modern politics and since politics is literally the soul of the show itself then we should expect some clever political strategy in the show and that we got it in the earlier season with House Lannister with their politics and war needs gold strategy especially Tywin, Tyrion and overall Cersie then we got the House Tyrell with Margery and Lady Olena are just brilliant when it comes to scheming and manipulation and then the failure in medieval politics which is discussed in The Prince that is clearly shown to us by Ned Stark's idiotic approach of things in which got himself killed in the end.

And so here we are at the last season where the whole political system of Absolute Monarchy in the continent of Westeros was literally replaced in one day with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system without any sort of retaliation like, what the fck seriously?! you can't just replace a 500yrs.old government system that has been in existence since the beginning of time in one day especially when the whole continent just finished a 5year war against each other and a great war against the undead.

For starters:

1.) The Seven Kingdoms were not, and never have been, an absolute monarchy, they were feudalistic. It's the reason why all those political and military power struggles between the various houses were possible in the first place. What Dany tried to establish would have been an absolute monarchy, but hers was a short reign.
2.) They did not introduce democracy either - that's what the joke with everybody laughing about Sam was about. The new system is an elective monarchy akin to the Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuania, a system that IRL evolved out of medieval feudalism too. It's not that far-fetched an idea.

EDIT:

Interestingly, waaay back in Season 1, Joffrey of all people proposed some surprisingly sound ideas on absolutist reforms.

I did forget that the political system in Westeros was Feudalism rather than an absolute monarchy and confused the both of them because of playing too much Shogun 2 total war and EU3.

I don't know what did they call that emperor and election system in HRE but I am somewhat familiar with it but still how can they all agree to it like I won't affect their current position, like hell it was a new system of government in Westeros and not only it's the first in its wold and is a never been seen system of which also it just came on a whim from Tyrion. I know that there's no way for a continuation of rule by bloodline but still, did Tyrion forget about the Regency or you know making Jon stay for a bit to be the regent and install a transitional government before replacing it all in just one day.

[Tarsonis]

I don't give a shit or two about the peasants since

there are none in Kings Landing anyway

what I'm confused is why the heck do all of these lords agreeing, don't they know that by replacing the method of selecting the head of the continent means that they are also endangering their own to substantial revolts of the peasants and common people in their territories asking for the same way of selecting their own leader

What are they gonna do, devolve into civil war again after 5 years of bloodshed?

[Baltenstein]

It's actually not that revolutionary a concept in Westerosi history. The Ironborn Kingsmoot works in much the same way - the heads of the various Ironborn Great Houses gather and elect the most promising candidate amongst them as new king (leaving aside the fact that in the TV series it was simplified into being just a contest between Yara and Euron). The decision to name a King in the North also has elements of an elective monarchy - in both Robb's and Jon's case, the Northern nobles actually made the decision for them rather than the other way around.
Mind that in all of these cases, everyone is in universal agreement that the commoners get zero say in who will govern them.

[Egalhorne]

I don't give a shit or two about the peasants since

there are none in Kings Landing anyway

what I'm confused is why the heck do all of these lords agreeing, don't they know that by replacing the method of selecting the head of the continent means that they are also endangering their own to substantial revolts of the peasants and common people in their territories asking for the same way of selecting their own leader

What are they gonna do, devolve into civil war again after 5 years of bloodshed?

Install a transitional government and a regency council on it with Jon and Tyrion as heads

[Tarsonis]

What are they gonna do, devolve into civil war again after 5 years of bloodshed?

Install a transitional government and a regency council on it with Jon and Tyrion as heads

And the unsullied, who have no problem fighting to the last man, would have caused a war.

[Egalhorne]

Install a transitional government and a regency council on it with Jon and Tyrion as heads

And the unsullied, who have no problem fighting to the last man, would have caused a war.

that's why it's a transitional government and a regency and with Tyrion on top of it, knowing Jon he would likely end up as a decoration but still, it would give the people more peace and give them a chance to cope up with the changes if they know that someone with a noble blood that follows the common succession rule is still on the government, like do they still plan to keep the people ignorant of the world and its rules?

[Egalhorne]

It's actually not that revolutionary a concept in Westerosi history. The Ironborn Kingsmoot works in much the same way - the heads of the various Ironborn Great Houses gather and elect the most promising candidate amongst them as new king (leaving aside the fact that in the TV series it was simplified into being just a contest between Yara and Euron). The decision to name a King in the North also has elements of an elective monarchy - in both Robb's and Jon's case, the Northern nobles actually made the decision for them rather than the other way around.
Mind that in all of these cases, everyone is in universal agreement that the commoners get zero say in who will govern them.

I haven't read the books but I know that it's a lot better than the TV series and they did a lot of twist in the series that gave us this rushed shit of an ending, also the books aren't finished yet, right?

I would like to give the books a try if I got the time and money to buy them.

[Tarsonis]

And the unsullied, who have no problem fighting to the last man, would have caused a war.

that's why it's a transitional government and a regency and with Tyrion on top of it, knowing Jon he would likely end up as a decoration but still, it would give the people more peace and give them a chance to cope up with the changes if they know that someone with a noble blood that follows the common succession rule is still on the government, like do they still plan to keep the people ignorant of the world and its rules?

No you don't get it. John either gets the Axe, or he gets the Black. Any other way, the Unsullied start stabbing people.

[Baltenstein]

And the unsullied, who have no problem fighting to the last man, would have caused a war.

that's why it's a transitional government and a regency and with Tyrion on top of it, knowing Jon he would likely end up as a decoration but still, it would give the people more peace and give them a chance to cope up with the changes if they know that someone with a noble blood that follows the common succession rule is still on the government, like do they still plan to keep the people ignorant of the world and its rules?

Half the Westerosi nobles present at the gathering wanted to see Jon punished too for murdering the rightful Queen. What makes you think the Iron Islands and Dorne would have agreed to naming Jon as head of state?

You seem to make this weird connection that just because the nobles elect a new king amongst themselves this would give the rest of the population the general idea that they get to vote too. This was not at all the case in IRL and we haven't seen any signs that it's the case in Westeros either. The last succesful popular participation movement were the Sparrows, and they were wiped out by Cersei.

[Baltenstein]

It's actually not that revolutionary a concept in Westerosi history. The Ironborn Kingsmoot works in much the same way - the heads of the various Ironborn Great Houses gather and elect the most promising candidate amongst them as new king (leaving aside the fact that in the TV series it was simplified into being just a contest between Yara and Euron). The decision to name a King in the North also has elements of an elective monarchy - in both Robb's and Jon's case, the Northern nobles actually made the decision for them rather than the other way around.
Mind that in all of these cases, everyone is in universal agreement that the commoners get zero say in who will govern them.

I haven't read the books but I know that it's a lot better than the TV series and they did a lot of twist in the series that gave us this rushed shit of an ending, also the books aren't finished yet, right?

I would like to give the books a try if I got the time and money to buy them.

They're not finished and unfortunately, it's unlikely they ever will be finished.

[Tarsonis]

I haven't read the books but I know that it's a lot better than the TV series and they did a lot of twist in the series that gave us this rushed shit of an ending, also the books aren't finished yet, right?

I would like to give the books a try if I got the time and money to buy them.

They're not finished and unfortunately, it's unlikely they ever will be finished.

Not with Martin's diet plan, that's for sure.

[Egalhorne]

that's why it's a transitional government and a regency and with Tyrion on top of it, knowing Jon he would likely end up as a decoration but still, it would give the people more peace and give them a chance to cope up with the changes if they know that someone with a noble blood that follows the common succession rule is still on the government, like do they still plan to keep the people ignorant of the world and its rules?

Half the Westerosi nobles present at the gathering wanted to see Jon punished too for murdering the rightful Queen. What makes you think the Iron Islands and Dorne would have agreed to naming Jon as head of state?

You seem to make this weird connection that just because the nobles elect a new king amongst themselves this would give the rest of the population the general idea that they get to vote too. This was not at all the case in IRL and we haven't seen any signs that it's the case in Westeros either. The last succesful popular participation movement were the Sparrows, and they were wiped out by Cersei.

that's the thing I'm afraid is that people would rebel in each of the lord's territory but meh, that argument for the people of Kings Landing is now invalid since there are literally no living citizens in Kings Landing atm.

Also, he's not the head of state, just a decoration since he is literally the rightful heir to the throne so why wouldn't they acknowledge it but elect a useless crippled boy who calls himself a bird to the highest position in Westeros

[Baltenstein]

that's the thing I'm afraid is that people would rebel in each of the lord's territory

Why though?

Also, he's not the head of state, just a decoration since he is literally the rightful heir to the throne so why wouldn't they acknowledge it but elect a useless crippled boy who calls himself a bird to the highest position in Westeros

Dorne and the Iron Islands had already pledged themselves to Dany. To them, she is the rightful ruler. Many people correctly predicted that Jon pressing his claim would inevitably lead to a Targaryen civil war, so it's really best for everyone involved that he didn't.

Btw, the nobles have a huuuuge interest in having a detached, absent-minded and crippled boy on the throne. It's the best guarantee that he won't involve himself in their domestic affairs too much, if at all. Which high lord wouldn't prefer such a solution over a more decisive and authoritarian ruler?

[Atholl]

Half the Westerosi nobles present at the gathering wanted to see Jon punished too for murdering the rightful Queen. What makes you think the Iron Islands and Dorne would have agreed to naming Jon as head of state?

You seem to make this weird connection that just because the nobles elect a new king amongst themselves this would give the rest of the population the general idea that they get to vote too. This was not at all the case in IRL and we haven't seen any signs that it's the case in Westeros either. The last succesful popular participation movement were the Sparrows, and they were wiped out by Cersei.

that's the thing I'm afraid is that people would rebel in each of the lord's territory but meh, that argument for the people of Kings Landing is now invalid since there are literally no living citizens in Kings Landing atm.

Also, he's not the head of state, just a decoration since he is literally the rightful heir to the throne so why wouldn't they acknowledge it but elect a useless crippled boy who calls himself a bird to the highest position in Westeros

Because Jon is in the same position as Tyrion but even worse. If he takes power in an way, the Unsullied and Dothraki go on a rampage, which means more war and death. He murdered Dany, and even if she deserved it, Grey Worm is not about to just let him go free.

Grey Worm basically gave three options.

Execute Jon and the Unsullied go home.
Banish Jon to the Nights Watch, and we go home.
Keep him around, and we start killing fools.

[Fedel]

Really don't see why the Westerosi lords feel the need to honor the agreement after

Dany's forces go back to Essos.

[Atholl]

Really don't see why the Westerosi lords feel the need to honor the agreement after [spolier]Dany's forces go back to Essos.[/spoiler]

Because there are still those in Westeros who hate Jon.

The Iron Islands for one appear to be still loyal to Dany, even after everything. And rather than get back into a massive fight/war, why not stick with the agreement who actually could keep the peace?

[Baltenstein]

Really don't see why the Westerosi lords feel the need to honor the agreement after [spoier]Dany's forces go back to Essos.[/spoiler]

Actually, they're not really honoring it. Jon's "banishment to the Wall" in reality means that he can go and live with the Wildlings as a free man, which is what he actually wants for himself.

What matters to everybody, including Jon himself, is that he is out of the picture.

[Egalhorne]

that's the thing I'm afraid is that people would rebel in each of the lord's territory

Why though?

Also, he's not the head of state, just a decoration since he is literally the rightful heir to the throne so why wouldn't they acknowledge it but elect a useless crippled boy who calls himself a bird to the highest position in Westeros

Dorne and the Iron Islands had already pledged themselves to Dany. To them, she is the rightful ruler. Many people correctly predicted that Jon pressing his claim would inevitably lead to a Targaryen civil war, so it's really best for everyone involved that he didn't.

Um, Dorne has literally in a civil dispute of their own since there's actually no one left to rule and I don't remember Oberyn and Ellaria having a son. and with the Iron Isle, if Theon if he has any remorse to atone for his sins which he hadn't fully atoned for then surely he would convince his sister right but I know his sister won't budge but hey the Irol Isle already lost all of their fighting powers

Btw, the nobles have a huuuuge interest in having a detached, absent-minded and crippled boy on the throne. It's the best guarantee that he won't involve himself in their domestic affairs too much, if at all. Which high lord wouldn't prefer such a solution over a more decisive and authoritarian ruler?

SURE THEY DO, THAT'S AFTER ALL ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MACHIAVELLIAN POLITICS

[Fedel]

Really don't see why the Westerosi lords feel the need to honor the agreement after

Dany's forces go back to Essos.

Because there are still those in Westeros who hate Jon.

The Iron Islands for one appear to be still loyal to Dany, even after everything. And rather than get back into a massive fight/war, why not stick with the agreement who actually could keep the peace?

The Iron Islands are made up of Yara and a dozen pirates at this point ( joking exaggeration but you get my point ). Sansa rules in the North and Bran rules the West. The other Westerosi lords have no interaction with the Iron islands outside of defending their coastlines from their raids in the past. Yara couldn't do anything even if she wanted to.

Once Grey Worm and the rest went back to Essos they never had a chance at taking Westeros ( or even doing significant damage to it ). The Dothraki have no reason to follow him other then to get back to Essos and it's not as if Grey Worm has the resources necessary to build a fleet and sail back. Not one that could defend itself from a rebuilt Westerosi fleet.