Is political/social reform in Westeros possible without relying on enforcement by dragon?

[The Romulan Republic]

So, we all know that Westeros is a shit hole. Its a pseudo-medieval feudal society where women are treated at little more than breeding stock, pre-teen girls are married off to old men for political advantage, the concept of "consent" in general is vague at best and frequently ignored by those in power, homophobia is rampant, and the King (or his Hand, in the case of a King who doesn't give a fuck) basically rules as a tyrant. Its been this way for centuries if not millennia, and any attempts at reform are at best seemingly two steps forward, one step back. The whole mess was pretty much only held together as a single nation by the threat of dragons and then tradition, and all that went out the window when the dragons died off (temporarily) and Aerys pushed the nobility to the point of open revolt. Now, basically the only real authority is "I have an army". And there's a combination ice-age/zombie apocalypse (except the zombies are actually smart) on its way that the whole impoverished, divided, war-torn realm is utterly unprepared to deal with.

That said, Westeros also has some surprisingly progressive traditions, most notably the prohibition on slavery (loophole for the slavery in all but name of the Ironborn aside) and the tolerance of a wide variety of religions. The success of the Faith Militant also indicates a potential appetite for political reform and accountability among the populace, although the Faith Militant's theocratic brand of government was merely trading one evil for another.

The question is, would meaningful social and political reforms at any point during the decades leading up to the White Walker invasion be practicable? I believe the answer is yes, and I believe that the ideal time would have been during the resolution of Robert's Rebellion. At that moment, you had pressure build until a majority of the nobility were ready to back a new king, you had a highly charismatic, skilled military leader (Robert) who managed to rally the realm (mostly) behind him, with able and honest deputies to advise and assist him (Jon Arryn and Ned Stark). And you had a golden opportunity to establish precedents limiting the authority of the Crown to abuse its power, and removing some of the worst players, while still retaining and even strengthening the fundamental traditions on which the system's stability relied.

I believe I've commented before on how I feel that Tywin's actions during the Sack of King's Landing, the murder of the Targaryen children and Elia, and Robert's decision to make himself King and sanction Tywin's crimes, represented a wasted opportunity to the massive detriment of the realm. But to elaborate:

Westeros is not a united realm. It is, rather a union of seven realms (give or take) held together initially by threat of dragon fire. With the dragons gone, the only things holding the realm together were law and tradition. The destruction of the Targaryen dynasty destroyed all of that.

Aerys absolutely needed to go. He was a raving pyromaniac homocidal lunatic who had violated the social contract on which Westrosi society is built- that while lords owe their loyalty to their King, their King also has responsibilities to his vassals, who have rights he is bound to respect (such as the right to trial by combat). But, despite my distaste for hereditary monarchy (and particularly one that favours males for succession), the subsequent destruction of the Targaryen dynasty pretty much ensured the subsequent instability of the realm. Firstly, because the crime antagonized Dorne (leading to future hostility on their part), secondly because it alienated Robert from his closest and most loyal subordinate (Ned) and cast a cloud over the start of his reign, and finally, and most crucially, because it left Robert with an arguably fairly weak claim to the throne. Robert based his claim on his distant relationship to the Targaryens, implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of Targaryen succession- but the only reason Robert could take the throne was because he or his allies killed or drove into exile everyone ahead of him in the succession. With the tradition of succession overthrown, the only remaining legitimacy was "I have an army"- IIRC exactly the point Renly made in rebelling against Stannis's claim. Thus, it was virtually guaranteed that with Robert taking power under such divisive circumstance, and the line of succession destroyed, a free for all for the throne would swiftly ensue, if not during Robert's life then upon his death.

What should have happened is that Aerys should have been deposed (and Rhaegar would have had to be as well, due to how closely his actions were tied to the origin of the conflict). Viserys should then have ascended to the throne, with one of the rebel leaders serving as his regent until he came of age. This would have ensured that the institution of the Crown was preserved, while establishing that there were lines the Crown could not cross. Jaime's killing of Aerys to prevent him from torching King's Landing should likewise have been celebrated, and used to establish a tradition that the King's Guard owes loyalty not to the current monarch first, but to the institution of the Crown. Perhaps the situation might even have been used to establish the foundations of an eventual parliamentary system/constitutional monarchy. Granted, Viserys in canon turned out to be perhaps the worst possible person to rule, but it is debatable how much of that was due to circumstances, and in any case, in this scenario a precedent of being able to remove an unfit monarch could have been established. Moreover, the fundamental goal here is not to advance or block any particular candidate, but to preserve the overall stability of the realm.

Another golden opportunity to implement reform was lost during the Ironborn Rebellion. Ironborn slavery is a blight upon Westeros, and Robert should have taken the pretext offered by the Ironborn Rebellion (an idiotic rebellion by a vastly outmatched, impoverished province with no allies to call upon) to wipe out slavery from Westeros for good and for all. But again, the opportunity was wasted.

In short, Robert's and Tywin's egos and desire for vengeance destroyed a golden opportunity for real, substantive political and social reform.

Other possible avenues for reform would include tightening laws against rape (the concept of rape as a Bad Thing at least exists in Westeros, and I feel that the Rhaegar/Lyanna incident, or rather the public misinterpretation of it, could have been used as fuel for such reforms), and increased use of sending people to the Wall over use of the death penalty (which would allow the new King/Regent to appear merciful without appearing weak, would make good use of the numerous prisoners from Robert's Rebellion and the Ironborn revolt, and would also beef up the forces on the Wall in preparation for the Wildlings and the White Walkers, though this is with the benefit of hindsight). Another avenue to explore might have been increased openness to women in combat- the North and Dorne are already somewhat open to it IIRC, and the desperate need for manpower to deal with the White Walkers will provide further incentive (in the show, Jon talks about arming women to fight in the North).

Thoughts.

[FaxModem1]

Well, the Reach seems almost to be paradise in comparison to everywhere else aside from Dorne. Maybe it's a question of integrating Southern cultures with Northern ones? Or really funding the Maesters to start educating people while also getting them to accept female members?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the Reach seems almost to be paradise in comparison to everywhere else aside from Dorne. Maybe it's a question of integrating Southern cultures with Northern ones? Or really funding the Maesters to start educating people while also getting them to accept female members?

How much of the Reach do we see though, outside of the nobility? Is there any reason to believe that it is substantively better for the common folk?

I'll say that yes, the Dornish and the North appeal to me most, though I wonder how much of that in the North's case is just that I like Ned Stark and Jon Snow.

I think that the fundamental underlying political challenge with Westeros is how to strengthen the institution of the Crown while holding individual monarchs accountable. Or, in reverse, how to hold individual monarchs accountable without strengthening the warring feudal lords at the expense of the central government.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Westeros is the way it is because of communications. Decentralized government was a thing for much of humanity's time on earth because centralization is based on how fast one can communicate. Egypt -for example- became the ancient world's version of a superpower because the vast majority of it was literally centered around the Nile. The Nile was the equivalent of a super highway, allowing messages to and from the central government far faster than just by walking or horse.

Rome became a superpower because -outside of it's willingness to allow anyone to become a citizen via military service and it's willingness to say 'fuck you' and keep fighting despite loosing immense amounts of men and material that would stop cold every other power at the time- is the fact that they built one of the most sophisticated road networks of their time, a road network (with a standardized fort that can be located everywhere within the Republic and later the Empire) that is still used today either quite literally or as the basis of modern roads.

You'll need things like railroad and telegraph networks to start improving things in Westeros as a whole when it comes to who has power over whom.

[The Romulan Republic]

Westeros is the way it is because of communications. Decentralized government was a thing for much of humanity's time on earth because centralization is based on how fast one can communicate. Egypt -for example- became the ancient world's version of a superpower because the vast majority of it was literally centered around the Nile. The Nile was the equivalent of a super highway, allowing messages to and from the central government far faster than just by walking or horse.

Rome became a superpower because -outside of it's willingness to allow anyone to become a citizen via military service and it's willingness to say 'fuck you' and keep fighting despite loosing immense amounts of men and material that would stop cold every other power at the time- is the fact that they built one of the most sophisticated road networks of their time, a road network (with a standardized fort that can be located everywhere within the Republic and later the Empire) that is still used today either quite literally or as the basis of modern roads.

You'll need things like railroad and telegraph networks to start improving things in Westeros as a whole when it comes to who has power over whom.

There's some truth to this, although I'd say that its more complicated than just improving infrastructure. I'd say that a telegraph network or (probably*) a railroad is quite beyond their capability, but the use of courier birds seems to give them fairly fast communications, and I see no reason that the road network couldn't be improved substantially if Robert had decided to put the money into that that he instead put into tournaments, feasting, and whoring.

*I only say probably because IIRC the Romans did some experimenting with steam power, and the materials needed probably aren't beyond their ability to manufacture if anyone took the huge leap of actually thinking of the idea.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

There's some truth to this, although I'd say that its more complicated than just improving infrastructure. I'd say that a telegraph network or (probably*) a railroad is quite beyond their capability, but the use of courier birds seems to give them fairly fast communications, and I see no reason that the road network couldn't be improved substantially if Robert had decided to put the money into that that he instead put into tournaments, feasting, and whoring.

*I only say probably because IIRC the Romans did some experimenting with steam power, and the materials needed probably aren't beyond their ability to manufacture if anyone took the huge leap of actually thinking of the idea.

Given the situation in Westeros, that won't be for centuries yet. Also, bird-based couriers are -historically- not as effective as things like telegraphs and radios and messages via train and later aircraft. Information flow is heavily influenced by how fast a message can go and that is influenced by the infrastructure (including setting up pony express style routes) and technology available.

Even then that puts hard limits on how centralized a pre-industrial state can be.

[The Romulan Republic]

Keep in mind that while its a tiny fraction of the population, territory-wise like half of Westeros is the North. And Dorne to the South is mostly desert I believe, while the Iron Islands are relatively small, isolated, and impoverished. So most of the realm's population and wealth are much more centralized: in the Crownlands, Stormlands, Westerlands, Reach, and Riverlands.

Edit: I wonder if, as a pragmatic matter, it might be best to just let the North go, if not for it being key to the first line of defence against the White Walkers. But I suppose that might embolden others to try to break off and form their own realm, as well.

[Vendetta]

Rome became a superpower because -outside of it's willingness to allow anyone to become a citizen via military service and it's willingness to say 'fuck you' and keep fighting despite loosing immense amounts of men and material that would stop cold every other power at the time- is the fact that they built one of the most sophisticated road networks of their time, a road network (with a standardized fort that can be located everywhere within the Republic and later the Empire) that is still used today either quite literally or as the basis of modern roads.

It should also be noted that the Roman empire was largely places they could reach by sea in sight of a coastline. Because that's where they could project power. Roads helped, but it was a maritime empire as much as anything.

By realistic standards of power projection, lacking a magical means of transport* Westeros should not even exist as a unified country. It's far too vast, supposedly about the size of South America. Westeros should be as much a patchwork of independent competing kingdoms as Europe was because there's no way to meaningfully project power around it when you have to make sure your army goes home in time for harvest to avoid starving out your kingdom. That limits your campaign range somewhat.

And I'm not even sure dragons do the job, because they'd require a nightmare of a logistical support chain to keep them fed and flying over long distances. Especially when you've only got about three of them.


* Like the causeways in Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Alera is largely based on Rome anyway, but their North America style continent is united by explicitly magical roads which allow people to march much further and faster than an unaided human can manage.

[K. A. Pital]

Dude, the whole books are just a retelling of the civil wars in England, it is obvious the dragon is just a metaphor.

Is reform possible? Yes. Why it did not happen? Author fiat. The books are not about reform but feudal disunity, a period which many nations underwent in their own way.

[madd0ct0r]

The crown tegargaryns were irredeemable. Generations of incest and madness.

Better to have had the hand gone shogun, and kept the crown busy in their forbidden city. Set the hand as elected from the nobles. Set the nobles as subject to rules and at risk of censure and then model yourself on the indian king who built roads and hospitals.

[Elheru Aran]

It depends on what exactly you want to reform, the cooperativeness of the lords and the faith of the Seven, and whether you can afford it without burdening either the commons or the lords unduly.

The maesters probably have all kinds of fascinating toys, but they're not very likely to really implement production; they're basically a whole order of Greek philosophers, happy to theorize, record, and tinker with stuff but when it comes to actual application of knowledge they're pretty short. Their role at most courts is basically 'house nerd/historian/tutor'.

The faith of the Seven, particularly the Septons, is something you have to consider; historically they were capable of motivating the commoners to an extraordinary degree. Their influence is less than it used to be (and it was never that strong in the North) but certainly in the center of Westeros their religion is powerful. If you can get the High Septon and the upper tiers of the Faith on your side, life may suddenly be easier.

As for the lords... while the earlier generations of Targaeryens reformed the laws to some degree, the lords are still, for the most part, a powerful feudal class in absolute control of their fiefs. Without sufficient of them on your side, you cannot have reform. Assembling a general council might take years, but would be your best bet of presenting reforms. If you want representation (and assuming the protagonist of this scenario is the King or the Hand) send your own men to collect peasant representatives from the various fiefs as well... but let's be honest that's probably unlikely.

[The Romulan Republic]

The crown tegargaryns were irredeemable. Generations of incest and madness.

Contrary to fanon, Targaryens aren't all born raving nut jobs. There have actually been some pretty good Targaryens, although Aerys and Viserys may well have been the bottom of the barrel.

Better to have had the hand gone shogun, and kept the crown busy in their forbidden city. Set the hand as elected from the nobles. Set the nobles as subject to rules and at risk of censure and then model yourself on the indian king who built roads and hospitals.

A strong Hand and Small Council with a purely symbolic monarch would be interesting. But hoo boy was Ned Stark (much as I love him) the wrong person for that role.

[The Romulan Republic]

It depends on what exactly you want to reform, the cooperativeness of the lords and the faith of the Seven, and whether you can afford it without burdening either the commons or the lords unduly.

The maesters probably have all kinds of fascinating toys, but they're not very likely to really implement production; they're basically a whole order of Greek philosophers, happy to theorize, record, and tinker with stuff but when it comes to actual application of knowledge they're pretty short. Their role at most courts is basically 'house nerd/historian/tutor'.

The faith of the Seven, particularly the Septons, is something you have to consider; historically they were capable of motivating the commoners to an extraordinary degree. Their influence is less than it used to be (and it was never that strong in the North) but certainly in the center of Westeros their religion is powerful. If you can get the High Septon and the upper tiers of the Faith on your side, life may suddenly be easier.

As for the lords... while the earlier generations of Targaeryens reformed the laws to some degree, the lords are still, for the most part, a powerful feudal class in absolute control of their fiefs. Without sufficient of them on your side, you cannot have reform. Assembling a general council might take years, but would be your best bet of presenting reforms. If you want representation (and assuming the protagonist of this scenario is the King or the Hand) send your own men to collect peasant representatives from the various fiefs as well... but let's be honest that's probably unlikely.

That all sounds about right.

I've toyed with the idea of trying to expand/formalize the Small Council into a sort of proto-Parliament (and/or move toward more regular meetings of a general council or somesuch). Perhaps stipulate that each of the Lords Paramount must be represented (either in person or by one of their vassals) on the Council, along with an obligatory representative from the Small Folk of the Crownlands.

[FaxModem1]

Well, the Reach seems almost to be paradise in comparison to everywhere else aside from Dorne. Maybe it's a question of integrating Southern cultures with Northern ones? Or really funding the Maesters to start educating people while also getting them to accept female members?

How much of the Reach do we see though, outside of the nobility? Is there any reason to believe that it is substantively better for the common folk?

I'll say that yes, the Dornish and the North appeal to me most, though I wonder how much of that in the North's case is just that I like Ned Stark and Jon Snow.

I think that the fundamental underlying political challenge with Westeros is how to strengthen the institution of the Crown while holding individual monarchs accountable. Or, in reverse, how to hold individual monarchs accountable without strengthening the warring feudal lords at the expense of the central government.

I'll remind you that the Karstarks wanted to behead some Lannister children in retaliation for their own losses. And we see through Brienne's encounter with Stark soldiers that they aren't that pleasant to civilians.

Arya's encounter with Lannister soldiers is much more pleasant in comparison.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. The Stark family are likeable (mostly), but I suspect that down the ladder, the North is just as shitty as everywhere else, except with fewer people and more snow.

[FaxModem1]

Yeah. The Stark family are likeable (mostly), but I suspect that down the ladder, the North is just as shitty as everywhere else, except with fewer people and more snow.

While the Reach isn't perfect, High Garden apparently doesn't get wrapped around a bit of buggery. Dorne doesn't seem to care about bastards being bastards, just treats them like family, to the point that they can be Klingon about it and murder their own family to take over.(the Sand Snake plotline is really stupid)

[The Romulan Republic]

Dorne quite appeals to me on some levels, yeah. Shame its a desert and the ruling family has a dangerously self-destructive obsession with revenge (then again, Tywin is ultimately to blame for that grudge).

[Lord Revan]

While I suspect that reforms are possible in westeros, I suspect what ever form they'll take it will take a long time for them truly seem effective to an outside observer.

There's also the fact that you want to have it so that both the lord and the lower classes want to change the status quo.


For example in England the War of the Roses was a reason for such desire for change (that granted ultimately lead to the civil war and excesses of Oliver Cromwell but that's not relevant this time)

[Elheru Aran]

For example in England the War of the Roses was a reason for such desire for change (that granted ultimately lead to the civil war and excesses of Oliver Cromwell but that's not relevant this time)

I mean, if you're playing a long game and have the lifespan for it, the English Civil War and the Protectorate basically set a very solid foundation for Parliament's strength over the Crown, setting in place vital building blocks for the (more or less) semi-democratic nation we have in modern GB. Arguably Elizabeth I was the last really autocratic ruler of England, James I dealing with a lot of Parliament crap, Charles I being a wannabe and Charles II coming into a transformed government structure where the monarch was no longer the true power in the nation.

But that's ~300ish (200?) years of history from the Wars of the Roses to the mid-late 1600s, so... yeah. Not going to be encompassed within the lifespans of most humans, particularly in a medieval world, and there are far too many variables to count on it going the way one wants.

[Lord Revan]

For example in England the War of the Roses was a reason for such desire for change (that granted ultimately lead to the civil war and excesses of Oliver Cromwell but that's not relevant this time)

I mean, if you're playing a long game and have the lifespan for it, the English Civil War and the Protectorate basically set a very solid foundation for Parliament's strength over the Crown, setting in place vital building blocks for the (more or less) semi-democratic nation we have in modern GB. Arguably Elizabeth I was the last really autocratic ruler of England, James I dealing with a lot of Parliament crap, Charles I being a wannabe and Charles II coming into a transformed government structure where the monarch was no longer the true power in the nation.

But that's ~300ish (200?) years of history from the Wars of the Roses to the mid-late 1600s, so... yeah. Not going to be encompassed within the lifespans of most humans, particularly in a medieval world, and there are far too many variables to count on it going the way one wants.

War of the Roses was from 1455 to 1487 and Charles II was crowned in 1660 so 205 to 173 years between those events (still greater then even the record lifespan for humans today but not quite 300). So it's long term project, basically the war of the roses was the event that made the nobles and king say "we need a change" and that slowly evolved into the system we got today in the UK.

Queen Victoria was the last Monarch to have any real political power (IIRC) and Elisabeth II is just a powerless figurehead with all the true political power being with the elected goverment.

Personally I think that the dragons might actually delay this change in GoT since the new social order would be "obey these rules or the dragon will eat you", rather then nobles saying "I might not like that peasants have rights and a say in politics but it's sure as hell better then the alternative".