ByzantineCaesar
Tribune of the Plebs
- Location
- São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Bloody hell, what is it about this game that is making everyone such a pain in the backside?
Now we're arguing about who has a special legal status because you don't have swords in the Iron Throne? Really?
What the actual fuck, dudes. Just because GRMM didn't post a comprehensive list of every sword that makes up the throne doesn't mean it's a "thing". Surrender and regrant is a thing, and works the same as conquest from a legal aspect.
As I said, it's pretty clear to me that the nature of the Starks' surrender was a different one. To draw a gross parallel, when the Spanish in general conquered the New World, they claimed rights of Empire (as in exercise of political power, drawn from Tordesillas and thus God), but not rights of Dominion (property), unless those were taken in a just war. That is, the relationship between the Spanish Crown and the indigenous peoples was one of a consensual social contract, borne out of the natives' willingness to swear fealty to the Crown, and they thus preserved their rights of property. The agency lies with the natives here. On the other hand, when the indigenous people refused to acknowledge Spain's imperial rights over their territory, then they passed from the condition of consensual subjects under tutelage to conquered people under tutelage, which permitted the Spanish to, for example, enslave them in just wars. That's why indian slavery was outlawed by the Leyes Nuevas, for instance. The ideological difference is huge, though in practice it was often meaningless well into the late 16th century.
This is an interpretation I am adopting to explain the North's view of all this Seven Kingdoms BS. They are not a conquered people, but willing subjects who swore their fealty to the Iron Throne out of the goodness of their hearts, or as Aerys puts it, wisdom (unlike all the other kingdoms, which were militarily defeated and effectively conquered). This comes together with an abstract set of rights and privileges that have never been elaborated upon. The line is ultimately quite meaningless - it doesn't change the feudal contract between the North and the Iron Throne, and neither does it alter the political hierarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. It's only a big issue if Aerys wants to make a big issue of it, since it's a resistance mechanism against the enforcement of royal authority in the North, which has been historically autonomous in all but name. I would even presume that this ideology was developed after Jaehaerys' tyrannical Northern progress, which was much worse than Aerys', and far less rewarding. Note that it only came up now, after Aerys did his Northern adventure and now directly meddles with Stark vassals while bypassing Winterfell entirely.
Of course, there will be different interpretations of the nature of the feudal contract between Stark and Targaryen, just as there were at least three main ideological branches in conflict during the early period of the Spanish Empire. I'm not saying that's the Targaryen view of things, I'm saying it's the Stark view that justifies, in their own eyes, their integration into the wider Seven Kingdoms when they have pushed back foreign invaders and preserved their independence historically (wildlings, Ironborn, Andals). And I think such a difference is great as it breeds potential conflict (of the good, non-destructive kind), especially in the ideological sphere, of which we see so little in these games when compared to more material concerns.
This is an interpretation I am adopting to explain the North's view of all this Seven Kingdoms BS. They are not a conquered people, but willing subjects who swore their fealty to the Iron Throne out of the goodness of their hearts, or as Aerys puts it, wisdom (unlike all the other kingdoms, which were militarily defeated and effectively conquered). This comes together with an abstract set of rights and privileges that have never been elaborated upon. The line is ultimately quite meaningless - it doesn't change the feudal contract between the North and the Iron Throne, and neither does it alter the political hierarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. It's only a big issue if Aerys wants to make a big issue of it, since it's a resistance mechanism against the enforcement of royal authority in the North, which has been historically autonomous in all but name. I would even presume that this ideology was developed after Jaehaerys' tyrannical Northern progress, which was much worse than Aerys', and far less rewarding. Note that it only came up now, after Aerys did his Northern adventure and now directly meddles with Stark vassals while bypassing Winterfell entirely.
Of course, there will be different interpretations of the nature of the feudal contract between Stark and Targaryen, just as there were at least three main ideological branches in conflict during the early period of the Spanish Empire. I'm not saying that's the Targaryen view of things, I'm saying it's the Stark view that justifies, in their own eyes, their integration into the wider Seven Kingdoms when they have pushed back foreign invaders and preserved their independence historically (wildlings, Ironborn, Andals). And I think such a difference is great as it breeds potential conflict (of the good, non-destructive kind), especially in the ideological sphere, of which we see so little in these games when compared to more material concerns.
Last edited: