Interesting video, but the missing piece here is Arthurian Legend. King Arthur was arguably the primary inspiration for Tolkien and the Western fantasy tradition as a whole, and bloodlines and divine right are major themes in Arthurian legend.
Nah, the main inspiration for Tolkien was romanticism, and especially wagner, the whole Idea of a magic ring that corrupts everyone's souls and the whole aesthetic of exaggerated epicness is almost plagiarism of wagners ring cycle.
@@cyrene3682 However, most fantasy worlds don't make use of an antique theme. They are usually inspired by the middle ages. This does not glorify anything nor does it criticise democracy in any way. It's just the type of setting most people prefer for a fantasy story.
Also, it's easier to wrap stories of political intrigue around a single point of power, than to have a narrative web telling you about the political and interpersonal relationships of dozens/hundreds of different politicians in order to make you understand the importance of an action. The easiest way to streamline a story is to just focus on 'important' people, and monarchs are usually the most 'important' person in their respective kingdom, whereas a single senator or MP is no less replacable any any other senator or MP. Evil king kills good king, then good king's son kills evil king to take back throne is much simpler than evil MP assassinates good MP severing the bonds and alleigences they've grown over their time in power which in turn destabilises alliances while in the mad scramble for MPs to secure their position and lives against the threat of assassination, they allow several minor acts of legistlation to pass which snowballs into greater governmental powers (at the cost of diminishing civil liberties) as well as discrediting some of the 'good' MPs in the eyes of their people (due to betraying campaign promises) - further swinging the balance of power towards a rising political party that's now able to... Yeah you get the point.
Reddit’s problem with the ending isn’t that Dany killed the wrong people, it’s that the writers tried to prove she was a Mad Queen because of her previous actions, like killing prisoners, starting wars for her birthright, and being okay with her enemies’ deaths, but they simultaneously reward Jon and Sansa for doing the same thing. The show goes against the divine right principle but also endorses it. Sansa is another monarch, the North will not become a democracy, it’s just a smaller monarchy, but it’s depicted as a positive.
This is definitely my perspective on it. Also I really enjoy what Lindsay Ellis said about Danny, that with her previous actions it would make perfect sense for her to go Mad Queen if the people of Westeros didn't immediately accept and love her, but they created a situation where logically the common people and nobles of Westeros alike should have vastly favored Danny over Cersei. I think the ending could have worked, but they needed more time to build to it, so it didn't come out of nowhere.
Honestly, (and spoilers to the ASOIAF series) G.G.R.M sets up the mad Dany plot a lot better by pointing out that Dany is finding the crucifixion of the masters extremely pleasurable, not the feeling of bringing justice but the act *itself* pleasurable. Though I dont remember any points similar thats the one that sticks out.
Dan Judex That’s not really what happened. ”She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood . . . Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.”
Yes I like James' breakdowns but I think here he took what a few people were saying and applied it broadly. I love the idea of a character we've followed for years and loved turning evil, it was just done extremely poorly. Not enough time was given to show that change. And I'm deeply against his characterization that she was always bad. Just because a soldier goes into war and shoots and enemy doesn't mean he can suddenly start murdering babies in their crib. Dany killed her enemies, for her to suddenly turn on innocent women and children... actions speak louder than words and her actions always were justified. Nothing justified her actions in the 8th season. Doesn't help that they were following the book storyline and in the books as has been pointed out here, she is a lot more vicious. They cleaned her and Tyrion up for the show. They were much more gray characters in the book.
@@Scortch-lo3xy I remember Raymond Chandler writing (of murderers whose plans depended on several contingent events occurring as predicted) that anyone who depended on so much assistance from God should probably rethink their approach.
I was not angry that Daenerys became the villain in the final season of Game of Thrones I am angry that it was done in such a rushed and horribly written way and if the show was allowed to have some more seasons to slowly turn Daenerys into the villain it would have been way better
@@gnosticgalass4696 There is still a big difference between a villain with motivations that while misguided can be understood, and a villain that mercilessly slaughters a civilian population that probably would have supported her. It's the difference between a good and a bad character/villain. They didn't have to say 50% of Targaryens are insane, then have her do something horrible for no reason. That was the lazy way out. They could have given her character development that would have given her motivation the audience would not accept. Then have her justify her horrible actions with that motivation. This is what a lot of people complain about.
@@gnosticgalass4696: It was totally out of character for her. Book Daenerys had a pity even for slave masters she killed, doubted her ways, even trying to marry one of the slavers nobility to make peace. She considered all (slavers and freed slaves) as her people and deeply cared for their well-being, she was even willing to make personal sacrifices for it. Swe was no villain. No more than Americans, when they destroyed nazi Germany and killed many Germans in the process. Freeing people from brutal oppression and destroying murderous evil regime does not make you a villain, even if you kill someone because of it. Daenerys was no villain. It is absurd. It would be great to see her slowly become one, succumb to craziness but i would have to be well executed. But making it suddenly without any reason and character development is just stupid bad writing. And suggest she was evil all along and we just did not see it, because she did no evil deeds is really absurd and very poor excuse.
@@b0tias Yeah, and? Actually she tried to make peace with them and strived for saving so many people as she can. Saying something that is standard and totally expected from a leader/ruler during war does not make you a villain.
Why are most fantasies pro-monarchy? Well, I can think of some possible explanations 1. It's happened often throughout history (even before the Middle Ages) 2. It's usually simpler, or at the very least simplistic in terms of storytelling. 3. People love underdog stories, and sometimes this trope coincides with that 4. This trope is often used to make us think of the lesser of two evils 5. People like continuity as much as possible and dynasties have some degree of continuity 6. To quote Varys from Game of Thornes, "Power resides where men believe it resides."
Yeah, but just because it's historical doesn't mean its not strange or morally weird. A lot of monarchies happened, but so did a lot of colonialism, misogyny, systemic racial hierarchies, raping, slavery. Also, a lot of populations tried to rise up against their kings for very justifiable reasons and were brutally stomped out as a result. It'd be pretty weird to read a fantasy series where the world must be set right by returning the lesser races to their proper station in life. We're just accustomed to the tropes of the Royal Blood and the Rightful King Returns.
@@emexdizzy Democracy have lost their innocence in the 21st century. I mean who would go around today and claim that democracies are morally superior? Only a fool ignoring all the violence and injustice in the world commited by democracies. I find it easier to believe one powerful person could behave good despite the people than people behaving good because of their inherent goodness.
If I may, there are some other possible ideas I can think of as well 7. Absolute and Feudal Monarchy is an exotic form of government due to how rare it is in the modern world, and modern audiences read fantasy stories to see things that are different. Reading about a modern liberal democratic republic, but with gnomes, isn't very interesting because it's too similar to the mundane real world. 8. The monarchs that still exist in the western world are, by and large, still benevolent. The Queen of Britain and the Emperor of Japan are both seen by their respective countries not as relics of the past but as respected and admired figures. This is, ironically, likely do to their lack of political power; since figurehead monarchs legally can't do unpopular political actions (like declaring wars or assassinating dissidents) they can remain "above the fog" while the elected representative gets the flack. 9. There is some wish-fulfillment in the idea of a benevolent King or an enlightened despot. In the modern world democratically elected representatives are rarely heroes; they're expected to be corrupt or to have scandals (usually involving money or sex), or at the very least to be bogged down by partisan squabbling. As such people like to imagine that if they had the Crown then they could fix society.
@@sualtam9509 The difference is that in democracies, you have a peaceful change of government that doesn't depend on who your parents were or who has the biggest stick. Then there's the inherent issues with tying up so much power in one person. It's VERY easy to get corrupt/bad leaders and civil wars of succession (such as the Wars of the Roses). Monarchies the world over have either gone or been reduced to a ceremonial role for that very reason. Democracies are messy, complicated and difficult to make work properly, but when they do, they work pretty well. When one leader defeats his rivals, his rivals just retire. There's no bloodshed or prison. It's not perfect, but when you look at the alternatives...yeah, it works. Not perfectly, but it works.
"It's usually simpler, or at the very least simplistic in terms of storytelling." I disagree, things are simple because many writers either dumb things down or make internal politics completely unrealistic and inconsistent. Electoral Politics are much, MUCH more simpler than the fuckton of succession crises, rebellions, back door noble alliances, overthrowing, and wars that your average monarchy experiences. (and that REALLY says something tbh)
eh, people were actually pretty hype for Dany going crazy and then dying, they just hated how abrupt it felt. She was the perfect material for the big bad, but they didn't let her turn into one in an entertaining way. That's what people are really pissed about. They wanted Dany's head on a stake to look good not rushed.
The ending of GoT was still “happy ending because good kings,” all of the rulers in the end are nobles, all from the same family for that matter. I’m pretty sure most fans knew the ending was supposed to be Daenerys going full mad Targaryen, and for me at least the issue with the final season is that this point was very rushed. Yes, she has been conquering the whole way, but there is still a fundamental difference between killing slavers and inciting a slave revolt, and burning a city of mostly civilians to the ground. There should have been more escalation. Moreover the story isn’t saying anything profound with “now that the crazy fire lady is dead the good rulers from the good aristocratic family can rule. Hooray!”
yeah, he pointed it out at the beginning that there wasn't that much of a difference between the noble families (aside from our fondness of them) and then said that at the end the proper rules were put in place, there was no fairytale ending and it broke the trope somehow
It was still a change of the system, a step in the right direction, but there’s still an uncertainty on how the future will go with bran’s future rule. And then there’s the hidden sense of the three eyed raven’s morality, or rather, amorality.
From what I've heard about the GoT ending, it's reviled because it makes no sense. Every single character arc is forced entirely of shape to "subvert expectations" or "maintain suspense," and their conclusions run entirely against the previously established narrative logic.
What's wrong with fulfilling the expectations? I mean, if you manage to create an interesting character and portray their personality so well that that audience can understand why they do stuff and based on this guess what they'll do, isn't it a mark of good work? And by "understanding" I don't mean agreeing with them, just knowing their personality and motivations and deduce from that. What's wrong with giving people what they want?
Don't listen to it. It's akin to whining how it 'doesn't make sense' that Bruce Willis was a ghost in the 6th sense. There is the surface level to the show, but also a very subtle subtext going throughout the entire show. People really were expecting a Hollywood ending and GOT refused to give it to them. That is why they are pissed off, however much they protest to the contrary.
@@Ivytheherbert so your argument is unless you you know really obscure historical details from our own world and use that to analyze s8 your somehow stupid.
I think GOT was just hated way before the ending. Season 7 and Dorne plot had a lot of horrible elements in them and then season 8 overall was just pure trash regardless of ending.
@@iriya3227 those things could have been forgivable if they wrapped up the show neatly. Season 8 was not forgivable, which made the previous mistakes worse
@@hope2dust S8 is probably the biggest letdown in television history. Even series finales like Dexter, How I met your mother and Lost weren't as bad as this one. GOT was the biggest show ever and not only that, the showrunners knew where the story was gonna go since they have source material from the ASOIAF books that are published at the moment and George basically told them the ending and how to get there. HBO even gave them multiple seasons more to work on a satisfying conclusion. Well, look at where that brought us.
I'm pretty sure Danny going "bad" is the direction the books will take, i'm also sure the books will execute it a million times better. (TBH I think she's already bad where we've left her, but most fans would disagree for reasons I can't fathom)
I am a Human, therefore I'm speaking as a Human with a Human POV. Tolkien writes mostly from the POV of Humans, Elves and Hobbits, who are opposed to Orcs. Therefore "better" is a term relative to the POV. Obviously what is good for a race might not be good for another, but taking into account that the Orcs clearly have a goal to exterminate or enslave all other forms of life above cited, what is "better" for Humans, Elves and Hobbits seems to be what's better for most.
@@Talking_Ed Melkor, the first Dark Lord, who did not posess the power to create, only to corrupt, possibly corrupted Men and Elves in order to mock the creation of Erú Ilúvatar. He tortured and twisted the Elves probably as soon as they awoke, transforming them into Orcs.
I have the same stance as you when it comes to divine right of kings, but I am also not a fan when the story ends with "oh, the evil king is dead, let's now make a republic and live happily ever after". It took the French several lapses into dictatorships until they figured out how to do the whole republic and democracy thing right. Also, Ned Stark was a fucking saint considering the culture and environment he was brought up in. You showing him personally executing a deserter (which is more than most other nobles would've done) is a strawman. And with your knowledge of history you should know that when you introduce elective monarchy in feudalism, it usually ends in anarchy (PLC, HRE).
I agree. Also, at least in fantasy works that have Magic in them, the Divine right of Kings can at least have some substance or justified reasoning to them. Maybe the royal bloodline has a super special magical ability that flows through the bloodline. Or that they're born with lots of magical energy, which makes them a cut above everyone else. These are common ideas I've read about through manga and anime. And it has some justification to it at least for the establishment and presence of a monarchy and nobility in a fantasy work. Otherwise, if magical ability is random and/or anyone can use it, then fantasy works should more likely be anarchist in nature. I mean, here's a simple story idea. In a fantasy world, the nobility are born with Magic while the commoners are not. With this advantage, it makes sense as to how the monarchy and nobility can establish authority over commoners in a world of magic. There's so many different routes that you can go with, in such a simple but effective premise.
@@quma2590 Exactly. They also use Magic through Grimoires. There's so many different ways you can have magic play a role in establishing a monarchy and nobility in a fantasy work.
@@ajiththomas2465The book you want to read is called "Red Queen", it's about a world were silver blooded people are the nobility and have special powers, and red blooded people are the commoners and live beneath their feet. The series (Yes, the book is only the first part in a series) is quit good, despite the annoying and uninspired love plots and I think you should check it out. I have to warn you though that this book series is from the young adult genre, and also combines a YA dystopian vibes into it, inculding the fact it takes place in the remnants of the US of A for some reason.
Not really anarchy, just massive decentralization and neutralization of the monarch's power that ends when either a strong, centralized fragment unites the empire (HRE) or they get killed by other, stronger kingdoms (PLC).
You’re reading on why people disliked the ending of Game of Thrones is way off. The ending was rushed and the characterization went downhill and that was most people’s problems. From a Dany standpoint, no one expected her to be the blessed ruler they all needed but her “madness” was like a switch instead of a gradual decline that should’ve mirrored what happened with her father and based on what she’s been through not what family she was born to. Also, There are far greater implications that the show itself made her seem different or her actions more dark or sinister than the actions of Starks and the Lannister’s is because she’s technically a foreigner. People’s dissatisfaction with Danny’s ending had nothing to do with wanting her to rule. Also Bran was chosen has King because he has powers, that is definitely upholding a divine right to rule and technically pre-destined because Bran knew it was coming, so not sure how Bran being chosen as King is any different than them wanting Jon as King and the only reason they couldn’t was because he killed Dany
Yeah I could have gone for making Dany a commentary on the "enlightened depot" idea, but the series was much more critical of her being a foreigner born of incest than fleshing out why she might not be a good choice for the throne.
@@imygurl08 implying being the 3 eyed raven *doesnt* give you the most knowledge in the entire world, thus demonstrating enough merit to be a solid leader?
Danielle B Just to point this out GOT has been rushed and had lack of characterization from season 5. This is the one thing I don't understand how come only now people notice that.
Yeah, he kinda lost me there. Tbh tweets don't exactly lend themselves to nuanced criticism but i watched those videos and it's completely unfair to put her in with the crowd of Deny stans
@@Peasham it was a social contract, no one cared about being sinful, they cared about their own well being, a ruler tax too much? You have the right of rebellion, and this happened quite a lot even in Europe
the Mandate of Heaven was less loss due to being corrupt/sinful/immoral and more because bad shit would happen and that was blamed on the ruler not having the mandate anymore. Such bad things included; invasions, floods, disease, droughts, and blight.
14:11 I'm not sure why you're showing a tweet made by Lindsay Ellis here while talking about people who sent death threats to the writers. Especially since that tweet isn't saying that at all. Unless you're trying to say she was one of the good ones?
Yeah... I was like "wtf is he showing Lindsay Ellis tweets?" And even then, her video essay about the season 8 was not about "Dany bad so ending bad" but it was about the season was poorly handled.
GoT has a lot of problems, but talking bad about Jon for punishing the people that murdered him after he was voted in as commander is a really stupid take.
@@nd9814 who helped murder the Lord Commander. Not only is that child a murderer, he's a traitor since he technically joined the Night's Watch after his family was killed.
@@corruptangel6793 he was a child dude. He was lead astray by bad men. I think the death penalty was extreme. I do like Jon Snow btw. It was a horrific mistake on the part of Snow honestly.
@@nd9814 he was old enough to be a capable archer, train with the brothers and help fight the Wildlings. He was not just some "child" Plus, led astray? Did you not see the rage as his stabbed Jon? Did you not notice his growing anger as Jon was forming a friendship/alliance with the people that brutally murdered and ate his parents? There was no manipulation needed to turn him against Jon. He was on the verge of doing so already.
@@nd9814 it was also clear that the boy did not regret his actions at all. You can see this as he stays with Thorne after the murder and as he glares hatefully at Jon right before he's hung. He was fully aware of his actions and suffered the just consequences.
The rightful king didn't *just happen* to come along - Gondor was once much larger and split between a northern and southern half. The Northern half fell into decline faster, but the race of men there still maintained the old bloodlines and re-founded the house as a part of a plan that was guided at least partly by the Elrond - who is basically Aragorn's great^nth Uncle - as Elrond is half elven himself and his brother chose to become human. It is from Elrond's brother that Aragorn is a direct descendant and Arwen his distant cousin - but separated by literally a thousand years or so and many generations - so no biggie. Point being - it's a lot more complex than "it just happened". What the films do not show is that ARagorn was not the only Dunedain, but there were many of them known as Rangers who were the surviving nobles of that splintered kingdom that had survived the collapse of Arthedain as the King of the Ringwraiths had been secretly mustering forces and raiding and pillaging until the kingdom could no longer stand - forcing the last remnants of the Numenoreans into a nomadic life style to maintain their culture/bloodlines and survive. The idea of a Good Philosopher King is an old ideal. The idea of the Great Man somewhat overlaps. Remembering that Tolkien wrote all of this as a creation myth for the Norman peoples should help make sense of it all.
Yeah that and you get to see a bit of how Aragorn rule as well. While you might of not known what sort of taxes policy he had in place. WHich the game of throne author has gone on record saying. Which does not sound like a fair or should i say legit ssue to take with lord of the rings books, while ignoring Aragorn actions as well. Since Aragorn did give the people time to rest. Saved Faramir, who would be possibly one of the biggest political threats to his rule over to his side by saving them, making the Prince of Ithilien. Allowing them to deal with the remains of the orc wondering around, creatinga nice buffer against any remaining orcish threat. Letting peace happen for awhile and not just be pure war war war like the steward before him. Giving the land time to grow and rebuild. That and yeah. Aragorn was not only connect to royal blood, he had fought wars in gondor and rohan under a false name. The rangers were rally and came to the aid of gondor, driving off the pirate raid along the coast line of gondor. With the aid of some ghost. Allowing a force of man to flank the dark lord forces and save the white city. Since if we are judging lord of the rings base on the movies. Well since games of throne has a tv show. Well fair fair to judge it by media that is not the original if we go down that path. Since game of thrones last season alone, did way worst than lack of information the lord of the ring films had. Since you have the case of giving a lot of land to some random person,who is not known at all in the land and has no real knowledge of. They did it so quickly as well, there might of forgetten about any existing rulers in said, so the former rightful lords might be a issue as well. Taking awhile before he could be a useful ally due to having no local ties to the land, if his rule doesn't fall apart at all and if i recall correctly. That part of the kingdom they gave away, was full of farm lands. Being the main source of food for the kingdom. That or it was someone else they just gave the main source of the kingdom food supply, while also creating a voting system. Where now you have just set up one person who can black mail others by denying them food, if they don't support or vote for them. Creating a system that is massively flawed and not well planned out from the very start. Which also just granting one person control over all the farm land by it's self, sounds like a rather bad idea. Since it gives someone a bit two much control over a important resource like food, that is needed to march armies or do anything else really. That and also to go back to that guy they just gave alot of land to. There is also another reason why that might be bad. Since now they might feel eager to rebel. Such what greater gifts are you going to be able to grand them than a massive pile of land to rule over? It could lead to them rebelling, thinking they would be better off on their own and no longer have anything to gain from remaining loyal to their leader. Oh yeah idea of voting for a leader is whoever has the best story, rather than you know experience ruling or anything of that sort. Just who has the best story is use as reasoning to make wheel chair dude the king. Not to forget dragon queen was told, oh yeah if the bells ring that means the city has given up, they have raise the white flag. Yet for some reason she just snaps out of the blue, with no real build up towards it and just start building everything. Which just makes her lost populaity with the people for no real reason and the battle was already over. Building the city she desire to capture to the ground, just makes no sense. Her own people were still in the city as well That and her enemy was in the keep, she just seem to ignore the one perosn you think she would logically go after if she wanted to start burning something. Since just bringing that keep, while it would possibly kill some innocent people. The damage would at least be limited while also getting rid of a major threat to her rule. Since game of thrones season tv show, is by far guilty of a lot worst than the lord of the ring movies are. By a fair degree. Not just by having thing suddenly happen out of the blue, like the dragon queen going mad by learning her enemies just gave up. ALong with making many questionable choices that sound more like they are not for any real benefit, be it short term or long term gain. That or just sound plain old stupid and doom to failure. That or these horse barbarian guys, who were mostly out during the Night king attacked but than respawned somehow out of the blue after a battle where the majority of them die off screen to the night walker hordes happen.
Arnor and Gondor were never part of the same kingdom until Aragorn reunited them in the Fourth Age. As well, he is also descended from the line of Anarion when his ancestor King Arvedui married King Ondoher's daughter Firiel.
The rightful king is also a story whose morality is that power and competence can be found by looking within. Aragon is the rightful king of his kingdom because he has royal blood. That story can be a metaphor for anyone of us. Everyone of us is the rightful ruler of our kingdom(life) and by looking inward we can find a long unbroken line of ancestors from a single celled organism to us who managed to survive and carry their genes. Therefore inside us we have the competence and power we need to take control and rule our kingdom. However we have to overcome evil in order to do that. That's why the rightful king story is so popular. It speaks to us.
An oligarchy being set up at the end of GOT isn’t breaking the wheel, it’s pretty damn similar to the wheel and is highly unstable. What’s to stop people from bribing people to elect people they want into power? It’s highly likely Lords will start fighting for power again and we’ll end with another absolute monarchy or dictatorship being set up again to stop the chaos. That’s what was so weird about the ending: the Iron Throne is destroyed at the end, but the themes it represents aren’t exactly gotten rid of. And no, I didn’t want Daenerys to rule and have a happy ever after ending. That was to predictable and I think wouldn’t fit with the overall themes of the show. I like the idea of her becoming a brutal tyrant, I just think it was far to rushed and executed poorly in the show.
Laurie The one’s who elect the monarch are the noble lords and ladies (not counting Sansa as the new monarch of an independent Northern Kingdom), not the people or citizens of Westeros. Sounds like an oligarchy to me.
@@CosmicFaust No, it's an elective monarchy in the same way as the Holy Roman Emperor. Limiting the franchise to a series of electors went on for much longer than modern universal suffrage democracy has existed.
Laurie That type of elective monarchy though is essentially an oligarchy (rule by the few) with a lifelong elected leader only voted on by the noble class. And from the final scenes of the finale episode, it’s clear that Tyrion will, in fact, be the person ruling the Six Kingdoms with the rest of the small council. The literal only new freedoms granted is for the people of the highest class to choose which of them gets to boss the others around for the next four decades tops (unless Bran is immortal or has a long lifespan). This type of this system greatly increases the likelihood of civil war when the monarch dies, if there is any disagreement over the election of the next ruler (you better hope Bran is like a God-Emperor with a very long life span). I wouldn’t be surprised if it dissolves back to regular dynastic succession in a generation or two. One example of this possibly happening is because Bronn has control of the Reach, and therefore he has control over most of the food supply in Westeros, and therefore he can use this (as well as all the extra wealth) to take control of a voting bloc that can elect his house in perpetuity to the throne 🤔. Oh and once the Habsburg’s came to power, in the HRE, in the 15th century, it pretty much became a de-facto hereditary monarchy until the end when the legend, Napoleon Bonaparte, road in on a great stead and went all Austerlitz on the HRE.
@@CosmicFaust doesn't change the fact that an elective monarchy is a monarchy and not an oligarchy. For example Canada or Japan might as well be republics with how little power their monarchs have (Emperor of Japan isn't even the nominal commander-in-chief of Japan, atleast Elizabeth II has that) but that doesn't change that they are constitutional monarchies.
Damn, I thought you had a good take at the start, then you defended the final season of GoT. Then you projected your personal views on an "extreme" on anyone who disagrees.
Issue is, the good guys are also all of the above. Which makes it good war/feudalism/monarchy vs bad war/feudalism/monarchy. Now if the peaceful, equal, democracy was the thing admired/emulated by the main characters then the anti-stance would translate better I think
@@redblueproductions9739 But there are no good examples of anything, but deliberately likeable characters. So all the 'good' people, all the characters we want to win are making all theose systems win and there is no juxtaposition or self awareness to show these characters separate to their systems, or good despite their systems
A few notes: Sauron is not coming back. He has been back for 50 years or more, openly waging war against other countries and backing puppet governments in others. Frodo is not immune to the Ring; he falls to its temptation and fails to destroy it. Edit: Aragorn is noteably not the rightful king of Gondor, but of Arnor which he is already the de facto ruler of (the rangers). He is of the line of Isildur, a dynasty repeatedly rejected by the people of Gondor, who still held out hope for a return of the line of Anarion. He wins them over by fulfilling the prophecy of the Dead Men of Dunharrow, saving the cities of Dol Amroth, Pelagir, and Minas Tirith, and then winning his greatest potential political rival, the steward Faramir, to his side by healing him of mortal wounds. Edit 2: Are you saying Aragorn was not qualified to be king? I mean, he has spend 80 years learning skills of leadership. He was tutored by Elrond, a 6000 year old loremaster and prince in how to rule, then studied under both the king of Rohan and steward of Gondor. He journeyed in the lands of his ancestral enemies, Harad and Rhun, to learn their ways and customs. And he has led the Dunedain for decades. As king, he gave up considerable power by granting autonomy to the Shire, the Forest of Fangorn and the Forest of the Woses, and Nurnen. He rebuilt and repopulated cities. He subdued the men of the South and east when they continued to threaten him, but thereafter made peace with them. Edit 3: Bran became king by mind controlling the surviving feudal leaders. He is not a good person.
Aragorn will undoubtedly be a good king but will his children be? what about their children? here in lies are problems with monarchies (among various other things).
@@greenjacketguy3759 We know the answer to this question. Look at the line of Aragorn's distant ancestors, the rulers of Numenor. There is no claim to infinite prosperity, only prosperity for a fairly long time. Some corrupting influence will eventually happen, but it's better to have qualified, long lived rulers with elven advisors and limited power (Aragorn is NOT an absolute monarch) for several generations than any alternative known to Gondorians.
"Are you saying Aragorn was not qualified to be king?" - This sentence single-handedly proves that you did not come even close to understanding the point of this video. It doesn't matter if a dictator is benevolent or skilled enough to rule over all things living, what matter is that no one should have such power in the first place. People should rule themselves and not be ruled by others.
"Let's talk about the Divine Right of Kings." [shows the cover of _Leviathan_ by Thomas Hobbes, a book that argues _Social Contract Theory_ as the basis of an Absolute Monarchy's Legitimacy]
@@jshadowhunter yeah from what I've noticed in some of his videos he barely does any research into what hes trying to tear down while at other times he is blatantly anti (insert thing here) when he says hes trying to be nuanced. I'd be okay if he just said I'm against this if he also called out the problems of other things he was talking about in his vids but he rarely if ever does.
@@V2011F Colour me shocked, an 'anarcho Communist' who inherantly hates the idea of heirarchy and can't possibly understand anyone finding it to be useful, based on a lack of research. A lot of this stuff makes a lot more sense once you understand the point of view a critic is coming from, as I just discovered recently.
@@VanityEvolved I am not pro inheritance of power if that was what you were getting at, also I know the guy is entitled to his opinion, however when it comes to fantasy tropes, characters ie kings, follow the old trope of right to rule via some mystical artifact or god(s). I understand he doesn't like monarchies in the real life yeah me too, even the best ruler is still just doing that, ruling over tour life. This is where fantasy comes in and makes it a fantastical king who is just, cares for him people, does not act cruel, is a great warrior, has many children who love him, you get the idea. And he is often against the evil king who is a coward, cruel, is hated by the people but still maintains control through fear. These are fine in fantasy but in real life, yeah they suck, collateral damage is a thing and it effects everyone.
@@V2011F I wasn't specifically aiming any comments at you, just found the mention of lack of research stood out. I only found the channel recently, and something about his opinions on certain parts of his reviews suddenly seemed to lack and real research,-very- bad faith sounding assumptions or emotional pleas. Feels strange to me when a self-proclaimed 'pedant' is either completely missing, or misrepresenting characters like Ned executing a Night's Watch deserter in some way to knowingly or unknowingly frame Ned as immoral/proof of something.
Popularity of monarchy in fantasy probably has a fairly shallow and simple reason: it fits the medieval flavor, is easy to convey and is a thing of a distant enough past to loose relevance, and thus, loose most of the nuance/controversy. Also "That good guy you closely know is now in charge, and their descendants will surely be good people too" is a psychological equivalent of your very best friend becoming a president/billionaire/whatever - and who wouldn't want that. The lack of nuance is core, though. There's a fair share of "revolution literature" with the premise similar to that of The Powder Mage, hence, the "The Revolution Will Not Be Vilified"; but it takes a skip-through of a wikipedia article to know all the... nuance that follows any successful rebellion, the Great French Revolution in particular. In both cases the writer is just trying to say "Happily Ever After" in way that is fitting for the setting and the genre. Conflict is resolved and the resolution is final, because idealism.
This is part of why I like Joe Abercrombie's new book "A Little Hatred" so much. He shows us a world very much in need of Revolution, but also shows us a very "warts-and-all" look at an attempt of bringing that Revolution.
There's a difference between monarchy as setting dressing, though, and monarchy as intrinsic and valued plot point. A story about a knight in a war issued by his king and the knight's adventures is monarchy as set dressing. A story about a kingdom in ruin because a non-royal-blooded individual sits upon the throne and we need to kill them and replace them with this royal child is a very different beast, though.
@@ShadowPa1adin in The Witcher books, one of the main antagonist groups are actually wannabe democratic/elective monarchic revolutionaries who stop at nothing to reach their goal, coup d'etat
I am disappointed that there was little effort to explain why these authors depict Monarchy somewhat favorably. We can't even hope to begin to address literary themes without considering who authored the work and why he made various literary decisions. It's fairly obvious why LoTR reflects absolutism favorably and depicts the "middle ages" sort of romantically once you consider that Tolkien witnessed the human toll of World War I first hand--the culmination of decades of technological and political advancement that left multiple millions dead. His battalion was nearly wiped out to the last man by constant shelling, and if he hadn't fallen ill during his deployment in France, he likely would have died along with them. His experience living during the course of back-to-back world wars caused him to become resentful of technology and industrialism--two harbingers of death and destruction in his eyes. His attitude is illustrated well in a 1945 letter to his son, in which he criticized the actions of the Allied forces in their campaign of total war against Germany and Japan: "We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well,-you and I can do nothing about it. And that [should] be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter-leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines." Describing WW2 as the "first War of Machines" is a pretty serious condemnation of the course modernity has taken, and that democracy proved itself incapable of preventing such a catastrophe without leaving piles of bodies in its wake. It wouldn't have been apparent from the ground that democracy was in any way superior to absolutism in terms of the pure human peril either have caused, and to be sure, there's plenty of peril which can be attributed to both systems. The French revolution, American civil war, and the involvement of democratic nations in World War 2 constitute a staggering bodycount under the modern, democratic flag while the Thirty Years' war, first and second Punic wars, Mongolian Conquests, Crusades, and other wars constitute Monarchy's casualties. It's hard to say whether one system or the other is clearly less bloody or less warlike, especially given that modern democracy is relatively young so we don't have a great "sample size" if you will, and our wars comparatively shorter but nevertheless still quite deadly. Even then, our only sizable window through which we might view a war of modern monarchies against monarchies doesn't show us clearly that there is something exclusively terrible about the system's war toll vis-a-vis democracy. Ultimately James is being unfair to literary Monarchy not only where it has soft advocates (Tolkien,) but also where it isn't depicted in a wholly puerile, contemptuous manner in order to serve some allegorical liberal presupposition about absolute power that he holds. It's foolish to judge all literature according to one's personal political standards, and especially when the matter is a historical claim for which evidence has been substituted with vague feelings. If monarchy is so exclusively grim, surely there is some evidence that can prove you right? The Thirty Years' war was quite terrible and saw lords laying waste to civilian population centers; but then again, the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki make that look like child's play.
This is a great comment, which is in opposition to this channel. Every time I got recommended a video from this guy, it's quite poorly researched, and that's what I see with my not so great knowledge.
Is democracy itself the cause for the wars and atrocities you listed though? The revolutionary wars striving for democracy were to an extent, of course. Yet the injustice caused by absolutist governments could easily be seen as the catalyst for the conflict to begin with. Democratically elected governments have been responsible for war crimes and all kinds of corrupt behaviour since their first inception. Arguably those wrong-doings were not caused or condoned by the values written into their constitutions though. Citizens of democratic countries elect terrible leaders to this day yet as long as the possibility for a legal regime change exists there remains the chance to grow from mistakes. Is democracy in its current forms perfect? Far from it! Still in my opinion it can provide peace, stability and justice better than any form of government currently available. By the way, I apologise for the lack of paragraphs. I‘m writing this on my phone and I haven‘t quite figured out the technology yet.
Just an observation. The punic wars there was no monarchy it was republican rome and oligarchic carthage. As far as I'm aware none of those had kings. Rome had the position of dictator, but most resigned after the term was over and wasn't until the late republic that the position of dictator would be abused. Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
@@MrDarkoiV well while this is true and one must definitely not fault tolking for writing the way he did, I think you are missing the point here. He is not saying that democracy is the holy grail of politics with no better alternatives, he says that just because someone was „chosen“ for whatever reason or is the rightful ruler, because he has the bloodline of the king doesn’t mean he is a good king or ruler or whatever, a bloodline doesn’t mean he is smart, maybe good but not nessesary smart or talented. Also we see in history time and time again that well the ruler is not everything let’s look at Rome fore example you need good strategies, a good Organisation of the military and economy usw. and a loot of people with professions are required to work behind the scenes just because the right guy is on the throne the world isn’t gonna fix itself.
True. Not to mention that democracies were just as responsible for the wars as the dictators were. The elected head of Germany fought against the democracies of France and Britain, while the dictator of Russia was in bed with FDR during midpoint phase of the war. Japan was the only true autocracy with the leader being the Emperor, and even then he was being manipulated by military advisors until the nukes dropped. WW1 was even worse, as democracies called out for blood and intervened in a local monarchical conflict, turning it into a true world war. Tolkien had every reason to resent Democracy after they caused the kind of death and destruction that made the Thirty Years' War look like a backyard brawl.
Idk why you implied that Lindsay Ellis tweets are in any way similar to salty childish outraged fans who sent death threats to D n D. Lindsay has only criticized them through their writing. She hasn’t resorted to petty insults, she hasn’t attacked them personally. The gripes she had with the ending are more varied and complex than just “I liked dany so I’m mad they didn’t give me my happy monarchist dany ending”
Yeah he does seem to come off like funny enough, a fan boy. With the way he goes about defending rather poorly how game of thrones season eight turned out. By linking two things together, that are far apart from each other and are not even close to being the same thing.
Men can’t handle women having any opinions which even slightly differ from their own and are quick to belittle their interpretations of media because fantasy is still seen as a men’s thing and women in geek spaces aren’t constantly demeaned let alone women of colour 👀
@@nymphetteevangeline2637 Even if it is somewhat of an overgeneralization, we have to remember that stuff like this doesn't exist in a vacuum. James's comments are part of a much larger trend of men taking thoughtful opinions from women and portraying them as childish whines.
I'm gonna disagree about era 1 mistborn, the text is a nuanced take on democracy, which has it's own pitfalls, the story looks at people who were enslaved for a 1000 years and are now unable to overcome their differences to face the threats facing them, this is something that is entirely realistic and the story does make it a point to go into all the reasons democracy failed in that situation.. it is ok to question the practicality of democracy, treating them as infallible is just as ridiculous as treating kings as divinely chosen!
@Warenarin Stormlight archive is rife with criticizing monarchy and nobility though, Yes as with a lot of fantasy they end up with one guy ruling who isn't chosen by the people, but the way the King is portrayed just showcases how bad monarchy can be because you can end up with an incompetent king , I think people want fantasy to just preach ideals about democracy while I feel these subtle showcases of pitfalls of all kinds or ruling systems is far more intellectually engaging.
@Warenarin Also, why are we bringing other author's works and his religion into this? I don't like assigning intent to authors based on their collective works, every book should stand on it's own.
@Najawin The thing is that because Kings are not God and all too fallible you need to switch to a representative Democracy. The Book of Mormon makes this quite clear. Yes, if Kings were always Righteous it'd be great, the problem is they aren't and so Monarchy is not the best.
Najawin You should seriously watch the classic anime legend of the Galactic heroes, it’s about 100 hour long OVAs but dear God is it worth it, it deeply explores the whole idea of whether or not a dysfunctional democracy is still superior to a competent dictatorship.
Najawin I actually just finished season two of the remake witch dropped a few months ago, and I must say the new thesis is pretty good. I just hope they have the money and wherewithal to redo the whole series.
A medieval setting having a plot that does medieval stuff isn't odd. It acts as a convenient way to put your MC above scrubs and bloodlines have been in the common consciousness for ages.
Medieval stuff? Where Is My bishopry going against a merchant repubblic because a free city of a constitiutional empire was conquered by a count who disobeyed the orders of the emperor? While a confederacy of cantons supplies merchenarys? Absolute monarchys and nobles being at court for most of their time Is not medival.
I agree on most points made, but still will insert my five cents here: 1. Aragorn saved many lives during Minas Tirith siege by bringing a ghost army with him. Then he lead united forces of good into what essentially was a Ragnarok of that world and won it. Point be - I doubt he'd get his crown by just showing up and demanding it, I believe most would react like Boromir did. That's not as much of a "promised king" as a "dictator who saved us". 2. People didn't follow Rand because they weren't sure he was THE Dragon Reborn. In which case they weren't "bad" or "wrong" guys of the series, just the skeptical ones, as False Dragons were a real thing in this universe. This is one point of the series I really liked - author doesn't antagonize them for being against a main hero, in fact, one of the scariest antagonist is a mad prophet OF the main hero. 3. I can get behind a reasoning about likable/unlikable nobles and how it affects our view of their actions, but the series is yet to provide a better alternative in this particular world. Ironborn have one of the most democratic system in Westeros, but they are as nearly far from the "good side" as possible. Still, a really great analysis! You are doing a good work picking these themes and addressing them from modern perceptive.
You know, the only reason Aragorn could lead that ghost army is because he was given the reforged Anduril, which belonged to the line of Isildur. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he weren't of that royal blood.
@@a.morphous66 Aragorn would been "king" even if he wasn't preordained to be king based on everything he did throughout the story, him becoming king is just part of the ending, the resolution of the story is killing Sauron which is a different oversimplification.
When you're talking about whether or not a guy is a good king or a bad king, or deserves the role, what you're not talking about is why there needs to be a king at all. In LOTR, the notion of the nobility of the soul, from Orcs to Elves, is so baked in (for good or ill) nothing makes sense without it. But maybe subsequent imitators have erred a little too much on the side of form over substance?
K Francis What i meant by “king” is that even if they were to pick some one it would be Aragorn after all he did, being a proven leader and fairly worldly person. It’s fairly baked into the lord of the rings world with Aragorn being literally the perfect man, a monarchy is very much the least of the problems in LotR
Aragon didn't lead a ghost army to save Gondor. The force that arrived in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was made of the Grey Company, who were rangers from Arnor. Arnor itself was one of the two Kingdoms formed after the Numenoreans came over, but the Kingdom fell apart due to succession crisis and the rangers came about to protect those West of the Misty Mountains from those in the uninhabited lands to the North.
My thoughts: Fantasy tends to be in medieval (inspired) settings. Medieval times had kings. Ergo fantasy stories have Kings. Having good people in the position of a King can be interesting regardless of historical precedent. Why would writers universally make Kings evil to criticize monarchy as a concept? A good person having that much power and them using it to society’s benefit is appealing. It’s like Superman, he could be a monster and no one could stop yet he chooses not to. It probably also have something to do with King Arthur being a household name.
the whole point of Enlightened Absolutism was to create a more egalitarian state around the personage of the King. An oligarchy sucks since for most of Europe it was ineffective and not egalitarian since it was skewed only in favor of the interests of the Elite. The King or Emperor whether out of genuine compassion/idealism or pure pragmatism often gave power to merchants/middle class men and the lower classes. This allowed those of talent to rise to a higher station. This way the King is less beholden to special interests, and he can reduce the power of his nobles by building a more loyal and more competent (advancement based on merit rather than merely by blood) governmental apparatus. With his own loyal and effective government in place, the King can now actually enforce laws and ensure peace in the land. This allows him to collect taxes without answering to the nobles this means standing armies can be created. Standing armies allow for the enforcement of laws and an end to private warfare among the nobles. King Charles I and Louis the Great of Hungary were absolute monarchs and they managed to create a strong and stable Kingdom.
Yes, but also no, although most medieval states had monarchies, that was not a universal thing, Venice, Genoa, Florence, San Marino, Novgorod, Ragusa, Pisa, Switzerland and the Qarmatians are all examples of medieval republics.
@@caiawlodarski5339 These republics were also highly aristocratic and weren't suited for such large polities in terms of government structure. The also evolved from the fragmentation of Italy during the middle ages into various communes and city states.
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Dany was everyone's choice for monarchy given that monarchy was the only choice. Rooting for the best person to sit the throne doesn't equate to rooting for the throne.
Seiban that’s a different argument nor is it what I’m arguing for. The point is that he’s denigrating people as being sheepish for supporting Dany instead of supporting more democratic rule, ignoring that they’re simply operating within the paradigm of the story.
@@chrisfine6013 Yes, and that was the Author's point in writing Game of Thrones. People are easily suckered in by a facade of their leader being a liberator or being kind and just, even while that leader lets hundreds be killed. It suckered the audience of the show in.
I would argue that most common folks just want stability and safety Most lords want that plus power and money None of the people actually acted like normal medieval people. Nobody after the first King in the show would of lasted long especially if you start a war. It's why dragon lady conquests keeping going bad like the slaver's bay. Cersi should of been dragged out by the people after her kid jumped. Replaced by someone who saw opportunity. Honestly the more I think about it the more I realize James is right.
Seiban I know GRRMs inspiration and themes like the back of my hand. It’s not a secret that the whole series is a criticism of power. But this take is conflating two different things. It doesn’t mean that if you support a more altruistic monarch over an evil one that you wouldn’t support democracy- it means that you prefer a over b if there is no c
You mentioned at 4.53: "The European, christian concept of divine right of kings didn´t gain popularity until the late middle ages..." Do you have ever heard of pharaohs? The mediator between god and men?
Since when are pharaohs European and Christian? He means that the european, christian version of the divine right of kings didn't gain popularity until the late middle ages, not that the concept as a whole gained popularity until the late middle ages.
@@BOINKHeadshot "until the late middle ages" somebody better tell Charlemagne, Constantine (mostly the very end of his reign and his successors), and the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England their systems of government (or at least the basis of their rule) weren't popular until circa the 1300s lmaoooo I think what James is meaning to say is that Absolutism in the sense of being a King of a Nation-State, didn't start gaining traction until the late middle ages to Early Modern Period (based off of James VI of Scotland's brand of Divine Right theory) but it is entirely laughable to say that the Christian divine right of kings didn't become popular either when the late Roman Empire was quite literally, a Christian, divine right government. Hell even the New Testament Romans 13:1-7 talks about divine right in a Christian sense, which predates the entire Medieval period. The medieval period in Europe was also a time when the prevailing theory was the "Doctrine of Two Swords" where God gave power to political rulers over issues of politics and state (secular power) while God gave power to the church to oversee issues of spirituality and be the spiritual power. Both of those are rooted in Christian divine right no matter what way you try and slice it!
@@BOINKHeadshot Uhm Ancient Greek Kings often claimed to have been fathered by a God, most commonly Zeus They literally claimed they had the divine right to rule, via their relation to the Gods So the original poster was correct - James was wrong when he stated that the concept of the divine right to rule was not popularized until the middle ages Sure, you may argue that James was referring to Christian kings, but then that's because Christianity itself wasn't overwhelmingly popular until the middle ages So the divine right of kings to rule has always been a thing ever since recorded history - the Christian version simply emerged after Christianity itself became the majority religion of the people
I love overly pedantic arguments like this. I'm only half kidding, as pedantic as all this was, it was informative and interesting, so take my upvotes.
Oh yeah, things like this is why I unsubscribed from you. Your content is very hit and miss for me personally, because sometimes I find you insightful, other times very, very close minded only looking at things in a way that supports your own point of view. Not hating on you, just... You're a person, just not one that puts out content I consider good or valuable all the time. I prefer more objective content.
I'm just not sure why you find that fantasy being ideologically monarchistic is "weird". It seems quite natural to me, the mythological element that it quite often has to it. It's rooted in actual mythology of kings, perpetuated by "fantasy" tales and songs that them and cemented in modern times by J.R.R. Tolkien. While feudalism may have kept the divine right of kings at bay, it certainly existed before it - Rome's Emporers became literal gods after they deceased and Egyptian Pharaos were also very heavily connected with their religion and gods (I forget the specifics). I do agree, however, that fantasy has potential for so, so much more than what is so heavily influenced by LOTR. Having one guy saving the day is also simply an easy fantasy for many to have - "What is happiness? The feeling that power increases (could be interpreted as a centralized state lead by a good guy) and that resistance is overcome (the baddies are defeated)".
Yes, Pharaohs were usually protrayed as an incarnation of Ra or Horus, who was the god of the sun, which is how they justified their rule. (It was usually the sun god because the sun was an important part of Egyptian life, on account of it being the reason why crops grow)
Roman citizens became literal gods after they deceased -they were called LARES and PENATES, familiar gods. What Octavianus have done new is telling the Romans that Caesar as Larus was watching not only over his family but over all Rome.
@@tfmihancea That's limited in scope tho. They weren't literal gods, they were that "familiar gods", spirits that watched over your back, more akin to guardian angels than gods.
@@Hyperversum3 Well we don't take guardian angels as serious as they took Lares et Penates. We don't have altars tot the guardian angels, don't buy and own things in the name of the guardian angels don't consider ourselves priests of our personal guardian angels. Also the whole idea of angels in abrahamic religions is to avoid being polytheistic that was not the case for a polytheist society.
Across all of human history, monarchy is overwhelmingly more common than anything else. Why? It’s simple. The one guy is in charge of organizing war, religion, diplomacy, trade, and everyone else can go about their own business. The reason monarchy is common in fantasy is because fantasy usually has a main hero person. Making that person the monarch is a satisfying conclusion for the audience.
Nah, across all of human history the overwhelmingly most common form of social organisation is egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes. Unless you mean "human history" in the sense of "recorded history" as opposed to "everything that has happened to humans", I guess. But then your argument for _why_ monarchy was common doesn't work. Did people not want to go about their own business before the advent of agriculture? So anatomically modern humans have been around for, what, 300,000 years? Whereas monarchy probably goes back to the advent of agriculture, only a little over 10,000 years ago. And even for most of those 10,000 years the great majority of societies were still hunter-gatherers.
@Tristan of Númenor There's kind of a difference between chieftains and monarchs that's why they weren't just called tribal monarchy. Monarchy is more of a "my bloodline has power" and a one-sided kind of system whereas egalitarian hunter-gatherer works in a "their group is our group" basis and sustenance is not dependable on those with higher power. Chieftains are merely like a judge of some sort, or one who handles negotiations with other group. Monarchs and nobles call the shots for everything.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Ah yes but the vast majority of Fantasy takes place after the advent of Civilization. When someone writes "The Adventures of Grog and the advent of Flame" then they'll get back to you on the "egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes" until then the point stands throughout human history for as much as it begins with civilization and not mere society. Humans have organized themselves with Monarchy. With the few cases of Democracy in the ancient world (Athens) crumbling in on themselves and leading to conquest by or reestablishment of Monarchy.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Monarchies are a product of families and the fact that some families do well and some don't. When one family does well the patriarchs or matriarchs want their offspring to succeed so they stake the decks in favor of their children. As long as their kids don't majorly screw up they're going to come out ahead. Wealth also has a magnetic effect, once you have more than enough wealth to satisfy your hierarchy of needs you can then use that wealth to accumulate more wealth. So once a single family in a tribe gets the largest most prosperous herd of cattle they're going to have the largest say in setting policy for their tribe and naturally they will use to further advance themselves and their family. This is why as we transition from hunter-gatherer societies to more structured, sedentary societies we always see monarchies or oligarchies form: without a system of checks and balances wealth and power is going to naturally collect around a handful of families who just got lucky.
Republican forms of government were a lot more common than people give them credit for, especially outside of Europe. It's just that a lot of the time their various offices and leaders are lumped together as Chieftains and their diverse governmental forms as "Tribal". Contemporary accounts of ancient Gaul described them as having the same sort of political diversity as Greece, filled with monarchies, oligarchies and democracies. In West Africa various different cities and confederations operated on a variety of political forms and several successor states of the Fulani Jihad were actually classed as republics by the French. The Rashidun Caliphate was essentially a republic with authority being derived from elected office and the Shura council whilst at least one of the successor Taifas of the Caliphate of Cordoba was an oligarchic republic. Historical accounts of ancient India describe cities being ruled by councils rather than kings. In Mesoamerica the City State of Tlaxcallan was ruled by a Senate and archaeological evidence suggests that there had been many older cities that were governed collectively by its population rather than through a royal family.
Now I want to write a book where a orphaned heir to the throne slowly builds an army of rebels while getting progressively more cruel and bloodthirsty until he deposes the old king only for the side characters to realise he had become just like the old king and for them to be killed for that knowledge. Its probably been written before but it sounds fun
I feel like you didn't really pay attention to Warbreaker. The God King isn't "revealed to be a figure head" he's always seen as a figurehead. The Court of the Gods is the always described as the real power. It's their vote that determines whether or not the war begins. The book never implies that the Court of the Gods is being shut down.
"I don't know about the rest of you, but if my head of state seized absolute power by killing his rivals and then said he would give up power at some unspecified point in the future, I would be a tad worried." The Roman republic did a pretty good job of this until Caesar.
The Roman Republic was a bunch of Oligarchs, wasn't it? Even when the people clawed back some power, the oligarchs managed to subvert it. I mean, really, being a consul for a year was just one tiny moment in a life of extreme privilege and power, no? Throwing people off farms to create giant plantations, etc, etc.
Well there were two consuls and they each had different days that they ruled and they never had complete authority. I do agree it was an oligarchy but compared to today's plutocracy is it actually that different in terms of the actual freedom of the people?
Caesar (and Augustus) ended a lot of the Optimates' abuses of power and so was a good thing to a lot of regular people, but the lesson I choose to take is that abuse of power is a bad idea (even if it occurs in a nominal Republic), not that a military dictatorship is a good idea.
Not a huge fan of the Lindsay Ellis hit here - she's been very articulate about her dislike of the GoT ending and the series as a whole and I think it's dishonest and honestly kind of an asshole move to lump her in with "woke performing feminists" and showing an image of her tweets where she mentions being disappointing by the showrunners while you're talking about people sending death threats. Not cool, man. If you haven't watched her videos on why she finds the GoT ending unsatisfactory from a narrative standpoint, I'd reccomend doing so. If you have and still decided this was the best thing to do instead of, you know, actually showing death threats to the people involved... Yikes. That said, I do like the reading of GoT's subversion with the fantasy tropes of the "rightful ruler," and I'm sure the book ending will be similar in the plot points way of doing things. But the way the show handled it was just not well done. The show managed to do an arc where there was an unsatisfactory outcome to a character we the audience liked due to their poor and selfish decisions w/ the Red Wedding, and it was acclaimed by audiences and critics for doing so. The ending not so much.
Lindsay Ellis is like the queen of woke performative feminists. She endlessly virtue signals and then gets "canceled" after saying something they don't like, cries about it, "quits twitter," comes back, rinse and repeat.
I agree with the rightful heir problem and your distaste of it. However about the GoT part of this video, I have problems. "wrote characters as likeable and charismatic to draw 'us' in" This is a very outside-in approach to looking at Game of Thrones. I don't really like this approach. It is as if though the author just writes characters and then they go bad and Aha! Gotcha! or writes a charismatic character to get audience approval and then to make the audience reflect on some moral the author is trying to convey. The characters in Game of Thrones and Daenerys especially is quite morally grey to me (part of the reason I hated GoT last season is how moral nuance is thrown aside for the "We Made you root for a dictator! Lol" when it is never really 'shown' how her idealism got the better of her. I mean was she mad? But she says it was necessary, why? Is it all genetic determinism? If she just used three dragons from the start, couldn't all this be averted? The show never really answers anything, just throws this moral monologue at you and exits), the characters themselves have many sides to them and boiling them down to just good/evil in a very modern moralistic sense disregarding the context of their world is too simplistic to me. "The exact same way she always was..." And yet she had different sides to her. She is the kind of person who would punish the 'perceived' bully to save a 'perceived' underdog. In the end she just lays waste to everything. Why kill the thousands of innocents when she could just kill Cersei? She now sees even the civilians to be the bully? But why? This is the person who locked up her dragons once when she thought they were a threat to her civilians (I want to see how that idealism died), so as much as she can burn, she can also show restraint, ponder over her failures. The show never showed me how one side eventually won over the other. It just shows that one side did and she says about saving only the future, but why? Put another way, what if GRRM is showing that the idea of cartoonishly good and evil is just a wrong way to look at the world and even Daenerys? That people are complex and ruling is a delicate balancing act (not so when people go evil in the show! Cersei never gets a rebellion, but when Dany tries to control slavers bay it's a house of cards. When Dany goes apeshit, she wants to liberate the world, with what? Broken treasury and ashes? She couldn't properly march an army because of morale and provisions issues and now all ready to liberate the world...ahh the show!). "A large portion of the fan base lost their minds, our benevolent dictator wouldn't do ..." So you think this is why a large portion of the fan base lost their minds? That they were all Daenerys fans who were stupidly rooting for a tyrant that the show was smart enough to portray and now they are too 'stupid' to 'realize' that? 'A large portion'? Really? It just sounds like a straw man of /r/freefolk now. There are a lot of 'factions' within that subreddit. "...not because he was born into it...best fit for the job" Must I point out how ridiculous all that was? That is definitely not how power or systems of governments work. There must be means to ensure that if such a system is put in place, it would stay in place. The whole thing about Dany's uphill battle after levelling the master class in Astapor was that there wasn't a system in place to ensure the government (she placed a council just like this and it was overthrown by Cleo the Butcher)! There is no such checks and measures there. Why does Davos even get a vote, what happened to the rest of the lords of Westeros that have the same standing as Davos? The North is independent because it doesn't want a southern leader? But Bran is Northern! Why is Iron Islands and Dorne not leaving? How will the North survive another Winter without food from the Reach? Will it now be like in old times when Winter comes, the North men go reaving south so that there's less mouth to feed? One must only look at the fact that Bran wasn't the rightful ruler and nothing else? Also how did Sansa 'prove' herself a capable leader? It's never shown, it's only just implied. Infact it could be argued that she manipulated everything to the point that caused most of this in the first place. Why does Sansa have a claim on Northern Independence? She wasn't 'chosen' by the North, Jon Snow was, and her taking of control is outright treason, much of Medieval ways are thrown out to the side by the show, and characters behave as though modern morality and ways of thinking are in place. Even if Sansa is just mary sue ishly good at learning politics and fielding armies in just 2 seasons, it just makes her another 'benevolent dictator', but that isn't a problem? Bran is a thought controlling tree god voted in by a puppet council of nobles - what does that say about the rightful king stuff, about who gets to be in power? To me, replacing the rightful ruler by a tree demi god is just worse (unless explained somehow). "aggressively miss the point" Hmm...the points you think the show was 'meant' to portray? For me there was too much 'bullshit' last two seasons for it to even suppose it had something coherent to say. "remake the last season to better suit..." People who voted for that wanted an ending with Khaleesi as the king of the world? I don't know about the stats of how many people voted on that with that particular agenda, but a lot of people on r/freefolk just wanted 'competent writers' going by the posts at freefolk that comes up whenever that remake petition is 'misinterpreted'.
I'm glad someone else said it because I wasn't looking forward to typing out that comment. Also just an aside, but I was hoping Dany would die in the battle of Winter hold, and Jon/Tyrion would be forced to go to Kings Landing where they would spend most of the season trying to properly convince Cerci to help fix this problem (sense winter and the walkers are an obvious analogy for climate change, this message that we all have to unite to fight it would be the driving theme of the season). Eventually the battle would happen and somehow both Jon and Cerci would die leaving nobody with a claim to the Iron throne after the victory. In the end the Lord's of westeros would settle on a system where they serve as a national legislator and leave the governing of the individual Kingdoms to governors they pick, likewise the office of Hand of The Kings persists as a sort of weakened Prime-Minister. Tyrion would have invented this system of course, as well as served on it as the King of the Westerlands.
@@johnsphpaulin1162 Personally, it was kind of almost a guarantee that some kind of theocracy would come about by the Red Woman in the books, in one way or another, displacing the Seven and the Old gods in the South and North, respectively. Fire will always win against ice as long as you five it the kindling, its just the way chemical reactions work.
I agree entirely!! People who try to defend or apply logic to the last season have no credibility to me. Their arguments all fall flat when you analyze the story and the lore a little deeper. They try to sound smart and act like Geroge created this entire universe, and especially Daenerys, to make a study on society and tyranny or whatever, but that's just..... not true. The guy wrote the Army of the Dead as a metaphor for global warming. The books are about these characters coming together to fight the real threat and realizing that the Iron Throne doesn't matter. I wish people would just stop trying to defend that crap season. It doesn't make sense. The end.
For your last point, I'd say the answer to that question is yes. r/freefolk is chock-full of Dany/Jon stans. There's also a very popular youtube video called "How Game of Thrones should have ended" which would turn Dany into some disney princess, having her kill the Night King and end all nefarious magic in the world, and bear forth Jon's heir as she becomes queen. It's ridiculous. And that video was well received, so I think it's a good indication of what people want. As if the story would end with a return to tyranny by dragons and legitimate birthrights. (That's to say nothing of the writing in episodes 3 and 4, no one can defend that.)
I wish I could like half of your video. First half genuinely made me question why fantasy is so stuck on monarchy. Second half is a violent wrestling match with a strawman. Nobody disliked the heel turn. Everyone disliked the stupid way it happened. There were plenty of better places for Dany to go mad with power, but the showrunners chose to make her evil immediately after her victory. Not when her friend lost her head. Not when her dragon died. Not even in the prior season when people refused to kneel. It was absolutely cartoonish how she went from idealism to genocide at such an illogical point in the story and so quickly. I agree GRRM is ultimately anti monarchy, but D&D botched the execution.
Also D&D just straight up lied about her characterization, saying early on that she wasn't insane and then in S8 interviews saying she clearly was. The best tell is perhaps Emilia Clarke and how blindsided and distraught she was by the whole thing. She'd been playing a character one way her whole adult life and then BAM, totally different person. She HAD been learning how bad the system was and that she was learning to work within it. She's not free from the idea of bloodlines and things but even if she was, she couldn't do anything BUT use her blood. Part of her storyline is her learning things like the fact that the average person doesn't give a damn about who is on the throne. THAT'S what the show tossed out. He's also leaving out that much of the backlash was on the season as a whole - including when the MAIN THREAT OF THE WHOLE SERIES FROM THE FIRST SCENE was killed in a second no problem at the very start of the season by a person who absolutely shouldn't have killed him (pretending the character even should ever have existed lol)
@@Boraheartsss yes, I'm sure that GRRM who is explicitly setting up the White Walkers as a force of nature is going to give them a load-bearing figurehead. Because climate change can be solved by stabbing it.
@Абдульзефир king of elfland's daughter came out in 1924 worm ouroboros came out in 1922. Tolkien's The hobbit came out in 1937. However these other two don't really have the same feel. With the worm ouroboros feeling more like a documentary type of book than a fantasy but still both are good reads.
Sansa never “earned” her right to be queen of the North. Maybe if they followed her book plot but once S5+ came and went, she did nothing, everything was handed to her or someone gave it to her
@Burnt Orange She actually did something at the Battle of the Bastards. All Bran did was choose to sit in the Gods Wood while being used as bait and give Arya a knife...while thousands of other people were killed long before the Night King ever came close to him. Thanks Bran. You did just about nothing. Here's a crown for all your troubles.
@Burnt Orange Sansa sentenced many loyal northmen to death due to her moronic decision of not telling anyone about her reinforcements from the vale, that info would be quite handy at planning that battle. How did she made sure the north wouldnt starve during winter? and wahtever she did wasnt that some simple common sense winter preperation every leader would had done in her position?
@Burnt Orange Sansa fucked up badly when it came to the battle of the bastards. She could've told Jon reinforcements were on the way, which would probably get Jon to stall the battle until they arrived. Coutnless people had to die as the result of that. Even if we don't consider this a mistake, what did she personally accomplish exactly? Peter baelish was the one who brought the army there. He was the one in charge. Sansa did nothing but stand in one place, talk nonsense and look pretty. That's it. Then, for some reason, these barbaric, conservative northmen seem to connect more to her than to Jon or Bran IMMEDIATELY. I mean, I'd get that the lords eventually view her as a more competent leader, but there's two big problems with her just taking charge of everything: 1. It happens too fast. The lords just all happen to agree with her views and wish for her to be the Stark of Winterfell in the span of 2 episodes. 2. The commonfolk all just accept this for no reason, even though they have Brandon Stark and The White Wolf as candidates. I get that the lords have met these people personally and as such can judge them, but the commonfolk would have no reason to assume Sansa is more competent than Jon or Bran as a ruler and she's certainly under them succession-wise.
@@filipferencak2717 There is a possibility that they believed as a woman, Sansa would be more willing to take a man from the North as her husband, and then one of the Northern families would think of themselves as being "in power" as being the man of the house. Therefore, it's kind of logical for the Northern nobles to do that. However that wasn't really explained in either the books (yet) or the show at all. But that's just my idea on their thought process in supporting Sansa.
I mean...yeah, we accept Robb Stark starting a war for independence that kills a lot of people as a good thing. We also generally accept George Washington starting a war for independence that kills a lot of people as a good thing too. How agreeable the ends are is a big factor in how justifiable we think the means are. Yeah, we have a problem with Tywin massacring his political rivals because they're trying to secede and we agree with their reason for seceding but no problem when Dani kills her political rivals who are particularly brutal slave lords. Did you watch Django Unchained and think, "Wow, you need to calm down and look at this from Calvin Candie's point of view, maybe he has a worthwhile contribution." The why matters when it comes to justifying violence. It's not about the characters being likeable or unlikable, it's about whether we agree with their broader goals. Using violence to institute oppression is very different than using violence to end oppression. And, yeah, you can say that "well everyone thinks they're the ones being oppressed," but I think at this point we recognize why a slave's right to be free trumps a slave owner's right to own slaves.
@@francescomiele6601 The argument I've heard is "they were enemy combatants who refused to surrender" rather than "muh waifu". I don't agree with it, of course - even if you argue that other lords an generals of the time might do the same, you can't show you're better than the others by doing the same shit they do.
well, Robb's rebellion went way too far, Robb become so drunk in victory and was so much rooting for power that he forgot why he was fighting, when he started the war I had support for him but by the middle of book 2 he was simply doing it for fun and getting more power which eventually killed him
@@rajarshighoshal6256 Citation needed. Robb was not rooting for power or "getting more power" and he was not fighting for fun. Actually, there are almost no scenes of Robb having fun in the series. Robb was fighting a war that his enemies started, and he was fighting to defend his lands and those of his allies. Then he was chosen as king by the people he needed to protect his family and dependents. If he refuses the crown, they have to knuckle under to their enemies, and kneel to a throne with a long history of abuses particularly against them. The crown was the price of his follower's support - they wanted their own king, not the one they were fighting. "By the middle of book 2 he was simply doing it for fun." - No, he wasn't. The enemy was still in the field! Until the END of book 2, they were still invading his kingdom! He was STILL trying to achieve the original aims for which he assembled the army and marched to war, with no thought of becoming a king.
@@Gunleaver as far as I remember he was still trying to win Westlands even after the fall of winterfel by the mid of book2! Even if he hadn't achieve the goals he wasn't really thinking about any ways on how to achieve it. His way is he will go on to win more and more battles which is ridiculous and well really sounds funny from logical pov. Also catelyn was a pain in the ass, he freed mindlessly the single most valuable prisoner really for nothing. But anyways whenever I read those areas I find more and more that Robb really has no plan and he is kinda lost and even also he doesn't need to step down as a king he need to defend winterfel if he can't defend it he is no king and he clearly could not do that
@@rajarshighoshal6256 Robb was not trying to win the Westlands, he was trying to lure Tywin out from behind the walls of Harrenhal, and to get him out of Robb's territory where he was brutalizing the people with a systematic program of terror. It was not about fun or power tripping. He WAS thinking about ways to achieve "it", which was by defeating the Lannisters in battle. There is no other way to get something from them. They don't respect anything but naked force. Robb's goal is to force Tywin to give up by defeating his armies, capturing or killing him or by stripping him of his power. He is doing the last by riding around Tywin's own turf, taking supplies in recompense for what Tywin took from the Riverlands, and showing all Tywin's vassals and subjects that the Lannisters can't stop him. If Tywin doesn't do something about that, his lords will eventually have to make a choice to keep following Tywin and letting their homes be threatened, or desert his cause. Tywin goes after Robb, just as Robb planned, in order to prevent the latter from happening and only Edmure's interference prevents it from working. If he captures or kills Tywin, that's it. Game over. The Lannisters are dead, no one is going to follow them anywhere. Cersei and Tyrion have no army and no one is going to follow them or trust that they can succeed where Tywin failed. If Tywin and his children are removed from the picture, Robb might be able to negotiate a return to the Seven Kingdoms with Stannis although that isn't likely given Stannis' attitude before he is humbled by his defeat on the Blackwater. But you can make peace with Stannis. You can't with the Lannisters, who lie & betray without thinking twice. And Winterfell is not a magic talisman. Robb has to retake it and punish the Greyjoys so no one thinks he's a pushover, but the circumstances of its loss don't reflect badly on him, so long as he follows through, which he is doing. He turned his army around when he got word and marched home to begin preparing to retake it. He's not lost. There are times when he's railing against all the bad luck and weighed down by the burdens of the job, but he has a plan to beat the Lannisters until Edmure screws it up, and then he has a plan to beat the Greyjoys. Beyond that would depend a lot on what the political situation looked like when he was ready to make his next move.
8:56 Can i point out that that image you use to show Ned Stark caring of his people is somewhat of a misrepresentation. The man kneeling over the chopping block is a deserter of the Night's Watch, a group of men oathbound to stand guard at the wall in the north for the arrival and attack of the white walkers. That man broke his oath and fled which is a crime punishable by death and since Ned is the Warden of the North it's his duty to carry out the sentence. As for the man being one of Ned's people is technically untrue since although the wall is in the North, the Night's Watch are not bound to any kingdom and as for that man in question, I don't think its ever stated from which of the 7 Kingdoms he is from so you can't easily claim that he is one of Ned's people.
Not to mention that he gives as the explicit reason for the death penalty that the man was running loose in his lands, and would not shy away from any crime to save or protect himself.
Lindsay Ellis sent death threats? I know the kuleshov effect when I see it buddy her not liking how that dumb show ended is not the same as sending the producers death threats. That was pretty bad faith my dude.
@@malalalalala2985 Every person who defends a woman for something isn't a simp. - signed, a woman who youtubes on another account and knows very well the difference between fans/defenders/actually nice people and simps. Also, someone who is only mildly familiar with Lindsay Ellis but agrees that the clip was bad to include.
Well, I guess I have some thoughts on this, so let me divide them up and put them out there. A) Maybe they don't talk about this because their story isn't about the political failings of the monarchial system? That discussion doesn't fit the tone of every series nor can everyone write that and keep it interesting. I mean wouldn't it be weird if a light-hearted action-adventure romp suddenly stopped to have its leads talk about why their fictional government is bad and needs to be replaced? As far as I'm concerned, if the series itself does not bring up the flaws of a system or do something that brings attention to those said flaws, then it's just not relevant to the story being told. If the issue is just that they aren't telling the story you want to read, then why don't you write the story you want to read? Or at least draw enough interest to the idea of such a story that authors are incentivized to write it instead of criticizing them for not having done so yet. B) They're going to have to develop the idea of democracy in-universe first before anyone logically tries to implement it. Like if the characters have only known of monarchy as a system of governing, then it's unreasonable to expect them to institute any other form of rule. It took us a lot of time to develop a democratic system that works, so it makes sense that the same would apply in a fantasy world. We are simply seeing the era prior to the development of democracy, wherein there are a wide range of rule from what we'd consider good to bad. Sure, the story doesn't have to be set in that era, but the author wanted to write a story in that era and it's a little reductive to tell authors they shouldn't write things in specific settings. C) Semi-continuing the last point, magic existing is going to affect systems of rule in a fantasy world. Especially, when in those worlds there are divine beings that look over humanity. You don't necessarily have as great a need to keep the king in check when the gods are going to send someone to kick his ass if he tries to abuse his position anyway. I'm not going to say it eliminates the possibility entirely but would lessen the immediate need for a balanced system when you have god looking out for you anyways. And again, they have to develop first before they'd reasonably instate a whole new system of governing. Also, this doesn't necessarily apply to all fantasy series, but it does seem to apply to a few you are criticizing. D) I don't like Game of Thrones, but what are you even saying here? First off, the motto of the story is essentially "good people do bad things," so yeah, the "good" guys are going to do morally dubious things. Not because they necessarily want to, but because they believe they have to. Second off, of course people are rooting for them despite them doing bad things because they are the protagonist, we are supposed to like them. Most people don't like reading stories where the characters aren't likable, so wouldn't it be weird if people were upset with the protagonist succeeding in something? Again, not every story has to have a likable protagonist, but with GOT you seem to be criticizing basic human nature at this point. P.S. Oh also, even though I haven't seen the show, but I'm pretty sure there's a scene where one of the slavers children directly criticizes Dany in person for killing their father because he was a good person who fought for the slaves' rights or something like that. So it'd be weird for the audience to not be aware of the fact that she probably should not have blindly killed a large group of people for partaking in an act she found morally reprehensible when there's a scene in the show itself dedicated to that purpose. E) Having just rewatched the video, I feel the need to add this as another point. Are you intentionally dismissing all the criticism of GOT's final season, cause it certainly seems like it? I'm sure some of the people criticizing the show are [whatever negative category you want to put here), but like, there are far too many people upset for that to be a reasonable answer. You should be attacking their actual points instead of just putting motivations into question because if they have valid points they are valid regardless of how terrible the person saying them is. Especially in this case where the criticism is mostly that the story doesn't make sense, which runs counter to GOT's mission statement of being what would realistically happen in a medieval fantasy world. I don't want to confrontational, but it genuinely feels like you've chosen to ignore the other side's arguments for the benefit of your own. G) (This is more pointed towards the comments, but I'm including it anyway) I find the assumption that fantasy stories that criticize monarchies don't already exist to be strange, how do you know that exactly? There's a lot of fantasy books out there, more than anyone could hope to read in a lifetime, how do you know that none of them delve into these topics? I'm sure if you looked for them, you'd find at least a few dozen, and let's be real, what are the odds that it's even that low. Is your problem that those that do look into those topics aren't popular enough? Then why not find them and direct more people towards them, instead of criticizing other more popular fantasy stories for not being about the same things?
I mean, GoT heavily criticizes aristocracy and society in general. There's two basic points GRR Martin is trying to get across: 1. Let's stop killing each other over bullshit and stop the greater issues we'll all be facing together soon (White Walkers = Global warming). 2. War sucks and it's the product of aristocratic assholes. In wars, the rich prosper while the poor die. That's the whole fucking point of the entire saga ffs...
@@filipferencak2717 somehow the showrunners managed to mess up even the basic message of the original story, still waiting to be completed, but the seeds are obvious. George Martin writes like a professor, and D&D write like his students, who can hardly get a D.
@@vladboch D&D write like they don't really care about the project itself or the fans attached to it. It's obvious they were only in it for the money and fame. I hope they're happy with the backlash and I hope they never get a big project again.
@@filipferencak2717 they pretty much admitted recently, that they never really understood the books and it showed throughout production from the very beginning. It's a miracle, we even got first 4 seasons, that were great, but even then, there were some unnecessary character changes, that damaged the story in the long run. So, D&D have already been dumped off their supposed Star Wars trilogy, now they are doing some unimportant irrelevant stuff for Netflix. I think, in the end justice prevails.
"The fantasy genre was created by Tolkien." Nope. Fantasy genre existed way before tolkien. Dunsany and King of elflands Daughter. Eddison The Worm Ouroboros. ect . Don't mention The Broken Sword that was released in the same year as LoTR. Tolkien made it extremely popular, that is true but did not invented it, hell my copy of the Worm Ouroboros comes with a quote from Tolkien himself, praising the work for its world building
Agreed. Tolkien was the one who pioneered modern fantasy, with him taking inspirations from other fantasies, folklore, mythologies and religious stories from the past.
And even before then, you had both the genre of "Planetary Romance" which featured new worlds with various different races (see, for instance, "A Princess of Mars"), and the entire motif of being in "the deep ancient past" was also charted out before Tolkien (see: Conan). Tolkien was highly influential, but one REALLY shouldn't underestimate the importance of Howard on the foundation of the genre.
lol I had to pause the video 30 seconds in to look for this comment. Well said. And even beyond that stuff, the sword & sorcery genre had been riding high for a good decade or so before LotR was published. Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Fritz Lieber and a bunch of other guys were all creating fantasy stories before and after LotR. Tolkien was hugely influential on the genre obviously, but he didn't create it by a long shot.
I'd raise the obvious objection here that having fantasy lands represented as modern liberal democracies would ruin the medieval realism a bit. My impression is that in the middle ages for any polity much larger than a city state, or an alliance of cities, a relatively benevolent monarch was the best they could hope for. One could mix it up by having some republics but even they had a tendency to become oligarchies. Indeed one of the arguments for a King is that they are meant to be above sectional interests so present a balance to, say, the merchant class or "the mob" taking control.
A lot of medieval fantasy tend to really oversimplify and romanticize medieval monarchies. For instance, for most of the middle ages, the king of France had a rather small territory, when compared to other lords, and when compared to what we see as France today. Alliances were fluctuating, and the feudal system was such that his power wasn't very centralized anyways : lords fought one another on a regular basis. As for medieval democracies, it all depends on execution. Sure, a whole country being run by an elected president sounds weird in that context, but cities having elected city councils, villages relying on direct democracy, it could work. If you add magic to the mix, you can also imagine that spell casting could allow for quick communications, or even secure ballot casting, and all manner of things that would facilitate maintaining a democracy in a seemingly medieval context. But the fact that the middle ages are more explored than any other period is quite weird as well. What about the late 18th century and the political revolutions, for instance?
More than that, a liberal democracy as we understand it today wouldve been almost impossible in medieval times, especially in larger kingdoms. Farmers dont make for good rulers, since theyre more concerned about whether or not their crops will fail and theyll all starve to death than about educating themselves. Modern democracies only became a thing once the masses became educated enough to participate in it. Yes, there were republics, but they mainly existed in italian city-states.
@@mordador2702 Some records about the life of peasants suggests that in normal times peasants spent quite some time socializing and planning parties, celebrations. disasters, famines and epidemics were a concern of course, and more so than today, but we might oversimplify things by implying that it would prevent people from being politically engaged, and somewhat informed (even if it's by oral tradition rather than books) But i agree that portrayals of democracy in a medieval settings makes the most sense at a village to city state level. But then again, even kingdoms were decentralized, and few fantasy authors take that into consideration.
Oh yeah a "balance" hmmm... Why are we taking all fantasies as medieval by the way? I feel like everyone here just accepted that like it wasn't a loaded assumption.
@@futurestoryteller Yeah, balance with no check and balances whatsoever, like if the king would be an impartial broker and not a massive egotist most of the time :) I think it's fair to say that fantasy having its roots in european folklore, and having been formalized by Howard and Tolkien, a medieval setting is a valid default assumption. urban and science fantasy, weird fiction are kind of their own thing. That said, Rome, Athens and Carthage were a thing long before the middle ages, and had extended periods of time during which they weren't monarchies. And greek mythology is also a huge influence on fantasy. Scandinavians, whose myths also have influenced fantasy a great deal, also had democratic councils called "things"
Man, this guy does not even understand how socities in the middle ages worked, and he wants to judge fantasy books based on medieval Europe? Your videos on world building are good, but this one is ignorant and self-centered on a 21th century american bourgeoisie view point.
Hmm you lost me when you tried to defend what D&D did to the final season of GoT. You say that Bran became king "not because he was born into it but because those who chose him felt he was the best fit for the job " and that's laughable. Tyrion says he would make a good king because history keeps people together and "who has a best story than Bran". That's literally IT. We NEVER see Bran ruling anything, so we can't know if he's going to be a good or fair ruler. He isn't even a person anymore at this point, so the whole thing was very vague. Not to mention that the people who decided he would make a good king (based on..... absolutely nothing, because let's be honest here, those people don't even KNOW him), but anyway the people who voted for him were all... nobles. Sam brings up the idea of some democracy, and everybody LAUGHS, because, oh silly Sam, trying to imply the people who are going to be ruled should have say in this! If Bran had done something, anything, for the smallfolk, or for anybody, and proved himself to be a good ruler, maybe, and that's a huge maybe, things would have made somewhat sense. But the way it was executed.... it's simply ridiculous. You also say Sansa was chosen as queen of the North because "she proved herself a capable leader" and I'm just-- WHAT? JON was chosen as king in the North because people believed in HIM, and HE proved himself to be a competent leader. Sansa was not "chosen for the job". Sansa had the North handed over to her by her brothers. She literally asks her little brother for independence and he grants it to her. The end. She never did anything, never fought a day in her life for her subjects. She wanted to take back Winterfell because it belonged to her family, not because she cared for the Northerns. Name one (1) thing she did for her people that may have proved she would be a good leader. The only thing she did was say Jon and everyone else was wrong and be really close to murdering her own sister. God, I would have trusted Arya better with that crown tbh. In the end, the wheel wasn't broken at all and absolutely NOTHING changed. It's still a monarchy where the rich gets richer and the poor gets wrecked. Sansa putting on a crown and having the whole North bending the knee was the cherry on top. It's even more ridiculous when you think about what GRRM has said about the true message of his books. That the "real enemy is the ICE". He wrote this entire thing just to prove how stupid these people are to be fighting for an ugly chair while the world is literally about to end. The whole point of the books is that, hopefully, these characters will understand that the iron throne means nothing, and will come together to fight the real threat: the Others. But the show ignored that plot because D&D can't write and they never understood the series. And people who try to argue that George was trying to make this huge analogy abou tyranny should just read one or two interviews with the author and see what he has to say about his art, because this ain't it. This ain't it at all. Also, Benioff and Weiss literally said that Jon killing Daenerys and Daenerys burning KL was THEIR idea, not George's, and that they came up with it "around season 3", same as Arya killing the night king. So no, they didn't write a masterpiece, they wrote a Disney ending for the Starks, and GRRM/ASOIAF have nothing to do with it. edited: I forgot to mention one king... when you say that Bran became king without violence.... LMAO of course he did! Daenerys cleaned the path for him and his family! She defeated Cersei so that they could comfortably sit on their thrones and pat themselves on the back for not shedding a drop of blood. Well, that's because someone else fought their war FOR them. I really wanted Daenerys to have died in episode 3, just to see how the Starks would have defeated Cersei. In the words of Olenna Tyrell: "How do mean to take the Iron Throne? By asking nicely?"
All of your arguments are hilarious because they take the things he said at face value, when the actual point of the show was not that monarchy is bad, it was that making decisions about people's lives are a complicated task that have to be undertaken by _people_ and those people are flawed. That there are no easy answers, and it would be completely stupid for people to come out of the show certain that everything will fall apart, or that everything will be "okay." The last significant thought expressed by Jon and Tyrion, the two leads of the story was *DOUBT* Also, nice joke about D&D making up the ending of Game of Thrones. This is obviously them covering for Martin. They took heat for the thing about Stannis burning his daughter, and the "Hodor" incident too, the fallout from that was eventually the reveal that the show really was spoiling the books, which bothered some people. GRRM himself called the show "The same story told differently." It's the same as when at some kind of panel not too long ago, some people asked D&D if they had a plan going into Season 8, and they said they didn't, so people ran with that. These guys write in-jokes into their teleplays. Do you _really_ think you're not being trolled here? You really don't understand this show at all
@@futurestoryteller Stannis literally cannot burn his daughter in the books since they are kilometers apart. Stannis himself in the books said "if I die you must keep fighting to put my daughter on the throne". It is quite impossible for GRRM to write Stannis burning Shireen. Stannis's Wife and Mel (the Red Priestess) might burn his daughter thought.
@@futurestoryteller yeah I don't understand the show at all, only 20% of the audience who liked the final season understand the show, the other 80% who HATED the finale and have read the books many times are all dumb brainless people who can't put 2 and 2 together. You got me! Have a good life!
I don’t know bro. I think the GOT ending was just bad writing. Everyone has a right to be mad. Also you can accuse any fans of specific characters of being butt hurt as Dany fans because nobody got a satisfying well written ending. Lol. I’m just a fan of the story and not any specific character and I’m still sitting here wondering why on so many things. To many.
Yeah I was fine with her quote unquote going mad but a lot of both the character writing and the bigger picture stuff was pretty bad in season 8. At least we got cleganebowl
P Vel101 Yeah it’s not like the writers of the show omit any important details or rushed things to reach a certain event, oh wait that’s exactly what they did.
I'd agree but he does make a point that GRRM wrote the series as a subversion of the usual tropes of the fantasy genre especially in terms of the fight for the throne. But the while the novels (from what I understand, personally I haven't read them) have that nuance, the show doesn't since it pretty much does portray Dany up until the very end where they pull the rug from under us out of nowhere. The show has bad writing in terms of actually setting up that ending. But that doesn't mean that the idea GRRM had for the ending is actually bad given the story HE was writing.
Christian Of course there was a that now infamous interview where Martin flat out said they had enough material to make 10 seasons. Plus apparently the book community has actually predicted the show would have ended this badly because they notice how certain things were change for the show just seeming for the sake of it.
I liked the first half of the video, it's interesting to think about. The chosen hero trope is over used but I believe it's because it makes a compelling adventure for a hero to over come and rise to the top. People like the aesthetic of medieval era, ergo fantasy is set in there. I don't believe fantasy having good kings is propaganda per say, the idea of a good leader or ruler is appealing and good ending for characters. Dystopia fiction often portrays governments as evil and fantasy, typically, has an evil ruler as you mention. Ergo it shows the other side, how much depends on the writer. The later half of the video was rather condescending and off putting. There was a lot of emotion and not in a good way. It sounded like you wanted to vent your frustration, and you did point out that there was some people that weren't like this, but that was brief and went right back to talking down to people. Fans who wanted Daenerys to gain the throne, people can like a character and root for them and not wholly agree with their actions. The sudden moral debate based on what happens in fiction is not needed. Fiction is fiction. People use fantasy to escape from reality, wherein reality our leadership may not be the best. The sudden morality argument was unneeded. Getting heated over people being upset about their favorite not getting a happy ending is kinda butthurt. Chill out. Death threats are never okay, no argument.
You are not thinking through the political implications of what choosing Bran does. Bran is actually worse. Having a long-lived posthuman entity with no care for normal NOR great human beings control the world with the ability to see everyone and their past at the same time is worse than a monarch. A monarch needs at least Soviet 1920s+ level technology for something approaching such levels of knowledge and reaches over each person's lives, plans, ambitions, and thoughts. And even then you need 1960s+ to really reach approach Bran can do. Westeros went from a King to someone that, if they so wish, can recreate 1984. Were Bran only slightly more... lively and even a touch eviler, his rule would be so ironclad and despotic, no king or queen in the history of the ASOIAF world would ever be able to equalize with him. NO matter how hard they may try. Also, you are simplifying the fan bases and its issues on the execution aspect, confusing memes and mocking incompetent writing with liking evil deeds.
Yeah, since hey. Everyone wants good writing. There might be some disagreements over if this is bad or not. Since sometimes people simply can't agree and other times it spot on with everyone agreeing about the most basic issues.
>Divine right is the precursor to fuhrerprinzip That's totally wrong. "Totalitarianism takes into account this rupture accomplished by the democratic invention; the total- itarian master fully accepts the logic, "I am master only insofar as you treat me as one"; that is, his position involves no reference to some tran- scendent ground. On the contrary, he emphatically tells his followers, "In myself I am nothing; my whole strength derives from you. I am only the embodiment of your deepest strivings; the moment I lose my roots in you, I am lost." His entire legitimacy derives from his position as a pure servant of the people."- Slavoj Zizek is talking about communist totalitarianism here but he might as well be talking about Cola de Rienzi or Mussolini. Pretty much every modern despot has to play lip service to some kind of democratic legitimacy. Even Hitler said his mandate to rule came from the German Volk.
@@Sinewmire You likely only say that because you've never actually read any Fascist ideological works. Fascism's focus is about raising the idea of the state or nation into a being into itself, independent of its rulers, essentially creating a "cult of the state" which is then used to justify the system. One can argue that most ancient Democracies and Republics actually fall into the mould described by fascism, as in Early Rome or Athens the commitment to supporting the state also extended to this spiritual level.
So did monarchs. Outside of the absolute monarchs of the late Renaissance, most monarchs sided with the 3rd Estate and publicly stated they were on the side of the people. Even Divine Right and Mandate from Heaven implies you will rule with the masses' interests at heart.
@@HolyknightVader999 Yes but in theory absolute monarchs were still only accountable to God. There was a PR shift born out of the rising power of the 3rd estate but trad monarchs like Nicholas II or Franz Joseph persisted in this belief.
It actually comes from Shakespeare. In Macbeth, the kingdom begins to have climatic anomalies because Macbeth usurped the throne, in contrast with England in the same play. It is a recurring theme in his plays
Rodrigo Valencia Except the historical Macbeth *didn’t* His historical predecessor was more the tyrant, & Macbeth killed him honourably in battle- not secretly assassinated him. Macbeth also had a largely peaceful reign, *twice* as long as Duncan- & he was successfully able to pass the throne to his stepson (oh, & ‘Lady Macbeth’- Lady Gruoch, historically- was not some monstrous power-hungry biatch; she was the granddaughter & great granddaughter of kings, but she herself could not succeed to the throne- & Duncan likely had one of her husbands killed) - the child didn’t die in infancy. He had a short reign because Duncan’s sons returned & overthrew him.
@@OcarinaSapphr- fair enough, but im refering to Macbeth from Shakespeare´s play, not his real life counterpart. Historical figures, or people for that matter, are complex. The tropes from fantasy, as any literary work, follow either characters, who can be more straightforward, or an imagined version of a real life person
@@OcarinaSapphr- you missed the point, I think. Your fact about historical Macbeth is irrelevant to what Rodrigo was talking about. When people talk about Macbeth they mean the play. The point is that the play implies that killing a king upsets nature.
Or the early Watch books, before the powers that be kinda gave up on the whole business. Like the part in Men at Arms when one of the characters (can't remember who but it was probably Vimes) goes on about how while it is possible to have a good king, it is not guaranteed that his successor or even subordinates are good people and you need all of them to be good for the whole system to work.
Yes... I like that they have a "true heir to the throne" (Captain Carrot) who decides not to make that claim because someone he respects (Commander Vimes) successfully argued for why hereditary monarchy is bad.
@@merrittanimation7721 I get the feeling James was mostly talking about High Fantasy, but, yeah. Not a lot of Urban Fantasy has great things to say about hierarchies either.
Except that Ankh-Morpork is still ruled by a literal tyrant and that's portrayed as the best or at least least bad of all the options, as long as it's specifically Vetinari ruling the city. And it's okay for Vimes to have a ton of power as the commander of the watch AND a duke and it's okay if he abuses that power every now and then because we like him and we know he's eventually going to do the right thing. And democracy is always portrayed as silly, naive and dysfunctional.
11:00 dude what the hell? one either accepts there's a fundamental moral difference to the violence of the oppressors vs the violence of the oppressed ... or they're just taking the side of the oppressors. Treating fascim and slavery as moral "unknowables" is beyond silly and pedantic.
@@alexsmith2910 I don't think WII was fought on moral grounds, the very "moral" Europeans wouldn't just accept that what they did to colonized nations be done to *them* . Later, they promised to de-Nazify but wouldn't bother in reality and also they kept colonizing. Then there's the Americans, who only dropped by when the Nazi army was largely destroyed by the USSR and victory was certain. They do congratulate and glorify themselves on that a lot actually, it's really funny. (After refusing to let Jewish refugees in and immediately after took former Nazis in bulk)
@@tesso.6193 Have you realised your comments contradict themselves? First you insist that there's a moral difference between the violence of the oppressor vs the oppressed, then you imply WW2 was immoral because Europeans only fought because they would not accept their oppression. Do you believe that the history of a country should dictate whether or not it is 'moral' for them to protect that same country and it's people later? If we worked on that principle, the free world would be utterly chaotic and your view on morality would have come full circle to being on the side of oppression - since every country has been guilty of oppression, no country has the right to defend against would be oppressors. Circular logic must be so much fun, you can make anything work, even when it doesn't.
While I generally agree with this, I do take issue with how you talk about Ned Stark. Your statement of how Ned Stark isn't all that different from the Lannisters is, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. The Lannisters exploit the feudal system for political gain and have no problems committing horrific warcrimes (Rains of Castamere, sacking of King's Landing, and the Red Wedding) to increase their power. The Lannisters do not care about casualties and have no problem going back on promises they have made when it suits them. Ned Stark, on the other hand, does not commit warcrimes, and is the opposite of power hungry. In fact, he is willing to sacrifice his own personal reputation to protect the lives of innocent children on multiple occasions (with Jon, Daenerys and Sansa). Ned is a good man trying to do his best within the broken system of feudal society. While the Lannisters (at least Tywin and Cersei) actively exploit the feudal system with no remorse and have no problem lying, cheating, and torturing to get what they want.
With all due respect, war crimes is a fairly modern notion. The rain of castamere was a feudal lord punishing his vassals for mocking him and undermining their authority, which would have been pretty common if any vassal dared to incurred in it in the first place. Tywin scheme was unique for his ruthleness and sadistic manners plus his devious cunning. The usual would have been to leave the progeny alive, he set them as an example instead and killed them in a way everyone and their mothers heard them suffer. The red wedding was basically a political double cross+ an ambush, lorewise uncalled only due to the housing custom, aside that it was a 100% textbook play. Of course, with this I am not saying they werent evil or dishonorable, because they were... just that they wouldnt be war criminals.
I don't think the point is that he's as bad as Cersei, just that he could be, at any time, and that means that he's not a better person than them because he still wants to retain all the power for himself. The point never was to say that based on their actions those two characters are equally bad, it's to say that the idea of monarchy is bad. As a concept. Not that characters are bad.
I believe that his point was more over the fact that the stark, just like the Lannister, don't shy to use the lives of thousands of their countryman for personal reasons. While from our point of view their reasoning, being of honour and justice, is better and more in line with our morality than the one of the Lannister, from the point of view of those soldiers this don't change a single thing, so the suffering of so many people feels not right.
Nope, Lanister is way better than Starks. Tywin focus on killing the politicians instead of common soldier., and all his assassinations save the common people from a long last war.
@@MrKhoinguyen1990 Bull. Tywin makes bloody war especially on commoners. He does not do surgical strikes against the enemy leaders as you seem to be implying, rather he spreads the destruction around. Tywin reacts to his son being taken prisoner, not by the smarter move of going to the king to complain about his family's rights being violated, he ravages the common folk who live nearest to his domai. He is seen to have murdered an innkeeper, just because a bunch of armed men took his son prisoner in her establishment, which she had no way to prevent. He describes "burning out" one enemy family, which means destroying the homes and crops of that family's subjects, making their lands an unproductive waste. He later gives orders to burn and destroy the whole country he is fighting against, and has his thugs enslave random commoners and drag them to his headquarters to work in abusive conditions. He deliberately makes use of units and commanders notorious for their excessive destruction and brutality, especially toward commoners. He needlessly sacked the city of Kings Landing, so the common people of the city still hate him 17 years later. He perpetuated sexual violence against common women who slept with his son and his father, specifically because they were commoners who reached above themselves, instead of keeping to their place. You say Tywin focus on killing politicians "instead of common soldier" but he drowns common soldiers in Castamere, who were only following their lords, he leaves his own wounded soldiers to die on his forced march to try to get to Riverrun after he learns Robb Stark has outsmarted him, and he takes advantage of inside information on his enemies' troop movements to have his allies massacre Robb's soldiers at Duskendale and the Red Wedding (bear in mind that the northern army was not led by great politicians, but a landed knight and the younger brother of a landowner who was not even a lord). He LIED about killing only a dozen men at dinner! They keep saying in the books that Lannisters lie, but every shallow reader seems to accept their claims at face value. You can't even say this is par for the course. Stannis Baratheon, whom no one would claim is super nice, benevolent or kindly toward commoners, calls a plan to attack the civilians and subjects of a treacherous lord cowardice and folly, but it is exactly the way Tywin makes war.
Maybe the idea of absolute monarchy being prevalent in fantasy is because that was the ideal of the time period most fantasy is based upon. I will be shocked if somebody wrote a fantasy (complete with mirroring the Dark Ages) that has a democratic government. And the thing with putting the "right" people on the throne ties with the subconscious need of the people to have someone to look up to. Sometimes it comes to a point that the people want a king that would solve all of their problems rather than solving it themselves. They just forget that other people are human, too. No matter how good they seem to be.
There were no such thing as Dark Ages, and absolute monarchies originated later, in 17th century. As for democracies, probably the closest thing in medieval times was Republic of Venice but most power was in hands of patricians anyway.
Yeah... t is not so weird to tell the truth ... Politics is complicated by nature, fantasy, for many it serves as a simplified exploration of reality with a shadow of escapism. A idealization of the "Benevolent Administrator" archetype or "The Good Monarch" It only responds to two human political needs, stability and diligence. The static aspect of a monarch (being generally lifelong), responds to the reality of how fluctuating politics really is. That is why idealizations of a democratic system are so rare. Democratic systems are not static, they do not appeal to this need for diligence stability and benevolence. This says nothing about personal considerations regarding democracy / monarchies. They are only subconscious assessments of political needs. It is also the reason why we see the archetype of corrupt politicians dominate the narrative environments of a modern political system. Its fluctuating and ideological nature, based on negotiations and ideology, creates an inert disbelief, easier to examine through fiction. Anyway, that is that. The perfect monarchs exist for that ... Politics is a disaster by nature full of ambitions, negotiations, compromises and simple dirty hands ... That the idea of a savior, who descending down from a valley of sunflowers will come to simplify it by giving his life to the perpetuation of prosperity and benevolence, is a cake that anyone in escapism would devour (and others not only in fiction, hence the power of populism). In short, it is a subject, in fact, studied in political science, if you are interested in the subject you can get a good bibliography on this phenomenon. The video for that reason seems to me to lack depth in the subject, since it seems that it arose already with an opinion formed and not as an essay.
So I guess the question is: why does fantasy have to be a fictional Middle-Ages with mythical elements thrown into it? Because that's what Tolkien did? Tolkien was trying to create a mythic history for the Anglo-Saxons, like what the Irish or the Norse have. Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age was meant to be a mythic lost age that was destroyed 11,000 years ago with the last glaciation period. In both of these circumstances the authors were creating fake histories, not fake worlds.
I would like to point out that there are other reasons to dislike GoT season 8 than Daenerys and her end... like, for instance, degrading the White Walkers to a support villain role, instead of handling them as the horrible things that are not taken care of by the leaders while they are busy struggling for power. Or the outright silly battle tactics and just implausible chain of events.
With all do respect James, this is a result of fantasy being born from fairy tales and myths. The divine rights of kings is the european equivalent of the mandate of heaven, but it's also the direct succesor to the Japanese style monarchs of ancient Europe who claimed to be direct descendants from divinity. Hell, I think the royal house of Sweden(1) still technically claims to be descendant from Odin. When Caesar was declared god that(2) was aping the Egyptian Pharos who had done the same thing for thousands of years. The ancient indo-european religion and all daughter religions had a king of all the gods as the head of their respective pantheons. Unlike modern superheroes ancient heroes were usually descendant from one god or another. From ancient religions we got modern fairy tales, from ancient heroes and kings the divine right of kings. Fantasy is a continuation of that tradition, of course it's going to be pro monarchy. Hell, the trope of the land suffering under an unjust ruler but prospering under a right one is the pinnacle of divine rule; green pastures and meadows under the right king; blight, plague and famine under the wrong king. EDITS: 1 - I heard this online and now I can't seem to find a source for it so take it with a grain of slat. Wikipedia seems to indicate fantasy genealogy are indeed a thing but the example they give is that of Eleizabeth II: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genealogy#Elizabeth_II They do say that: "chroniclers of Germanic peoples traced the ancestry of their kings back to the god Wōden (Odin)" but I don't know how trustworthy their resource is. I have no idea where I got the Sweden bit though. 2 - the original statement read: When Caesar was declared god *he* was aping the Egyptian Pharos who had done the same thing for thousands of years. Wile I correctly pointed out that Caesar was declared god the usage of *he* was ambiguous and gave the impression he had himself declared god.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, Caesar wasn't deified during his own lifetime. After he died, his "son" Octavian had him declared a god in order to be able to call himself the son of one, therefore solidifying his own position. As for the Swedish monarchy being descended from Odin, I only know that the current house comes from Jean Bernadotte, Napoleon's ex-marshal and the son of a French lawyer, who later became Charles XIV John of Sweden, so I don't know how they can claim that.
@@TLOK1918 Edited to corect the Caesar concern. I did say he was declared a god, but I really shouldn't have used "he" in that sentence. As for the Swedish royal house, I frankly have no idea where I got it. I have and idea were I might have gotten the idea itself (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genealogy#Elizabeth_II) but not the Sweden part. EDIT. Thanks for pointing these thing out.
Okay, but while that is correct, it is not necessarily a great explanation for why modern authors still mostly stick to all of these. I mean, if you look at modern fairy tales, you will find that they are very capable of subverting expectations and finding new morals and principles. There is no reason a genre based on fairy tales would not be able to do the same, while still using some of the same imagery and tropes.
@@samiraansari5686 Modern fairy tales? what modern fairy tales? The last author to actually innovate in the field was Andersen. The rest have only been curated and censored collections of folk tales. Not one other individual has succeed in breaking into the fairy tale genre with new works - not to the point were their work became part of the public zeitgeist. We have fiction, and fantasy novellas, and novels now, fairy tales are deemed pase. If you want to read a fairy tale you'll most likely read one that's 120 years old or older, even if it was only collected over the past 50 years. Copyright has made sure folk tales are dead and fairy tales were just folk tales. The most you can get are subversion of old fairy tales - that are usually no were near successful enough to replace the originals - and short stories written in a fairy tale manner. With all do respect, the only modern fairy tales are ghost stories and the stories about "that old house/building/mall" at the edge of the street/town/city. Modern fairy tales? there are no modern fairy tales. There's a reason everybody remembers Andersen, Grimm and Perrault. They're no longer protected by copyright and have been in print for close to two centuries now - depending on book of course. The genre isn't based on "modern" fairy tales. It's based on those fairy tales that survived the test on time. It's based on those myths that were still studied in school 150 years ago. It's based on those fairy tales that survived the movement from folk tale to copyrighted folk tale collection. Creappy pasta's, SCP wiki's and the like are the modern folk tales. The latest Gaiman short isn't, not any more then the Wizard of OZ was when it was published. Lovecraft made a name for himself after he died because he didn't protect his "universe" with copyright. His works might have been protected but he not only gave permission to others to use his characters and worlds but outright motivated and challenged them to do so. Lovecraft survived because he made sure others could play in his sandbox. Who here has read Dunsany? Who here has read Chambers? and who here has read Lovecraft. Even if you've never ready any of them you will know the name of Lovecraft but not the other two. I like Gregory Maguire books a lot, but let's be frank, his stories won't become part of the public zeitgeist anytime soon, if ever. There are a hundred different retelling of a fairy tale, but it's the old one, the ones that were folk tales when they were collected that will be the ones referenced by most people because those are the ones everybody had access to when they grew up. Only a small minority had access to a certain retelling of any one fairy tales that changed the morality. Even if you've never read Grimm, Perrault or Andersen, you'll have heard of them and many of the tales they collected or wrote. Maguire, not so much. That's why fantasy has not moved on. We don't study modern myths in school. We study old myths, old greek, egyption, roman, norse, celtic myths. We grow up wit tellings and retelling of old fairy tales. Modern fantasy is a product of the myths and fairy tales the authors grew up with and those are about gods and kings, not taxes and parliaments. Plus, it's the truth at the core of some of those myths that attract the attention of people. Even if gods aren't real and the royal family of Japan isn't descendant from Amaterasu they still exists, as does the myth. Even if kings aren't magically linked to the land they govern, you only need to look at what sparked revolutionary France and what happened in Ukraine and Zimbabwe under Stalin and Mugabe to see the results of bad decision that can be attributed to just one person. There might not be any magic involved but a bad decision can easily cause a famine. Similarly, being the right person at the right time in the right place might mean you suddenly become "Hitler, the autobahn builder" - despite the fact he wasn't the one responsible for their creation any more then Napoleon was the writer of the Napoleonic codes that shaped the legislation of large swaths of continental Europe. *TL;DR* 'Modern' fairy tales are copyright protected and have a limited audience. Most myths have a kernel of truth, like the fact that the bad decisions of just one individual can indeed cause famine and starvation in a country - google holodomor for more details.
The fantasy genre was not "created by tolkien." Also you spend like 10 minutes literally insulting and throwing words in the faces of people you disagree with, some of which are arguments I have never seen anyone make, and then proceed to generalize all the people who disliked the ending into a group of people nobody agrees with and then you call them children and butt hurt? Yeah, those are the children.. Real mature. Thanks for letting me know you're not any sort of person worth listening to. We could have a huge cordial discussion about why people actually disliked the ending and skip over your strawman arguments, but you've already made up a story and a way to dismiss any other opinions so I don't see much point in it. You're clearly arguing in bad faith so why should anyone care. Other people have explained it already here anyway so I won't waste my breath.
In defense of Mistborn expecting people who lived for centuries under one system and dramatically changing it to another one is bound to run into some problems, no matter how terrible it was. On one hand you have the elites who don't want things to change and the lower classes who have no context having so much power in their hands, some following the old rules out of a vague sense of familiarity. It's a contributing factor to why China is the way it is today for a real life example. But I see your point on a more general level.
2 cents: authors are usually not well versed in law, and thus for the sake of writing need to have a legal system in place where bending the law to suit the plot can be done without making the audience go "wait, what?" Nobility is good answer to this because kings/nobles have broad power to advance the plot and now you only need to know a handful of guys to "know" the power system. In other words, part of this is probably writer convenience.
I feel like this is more too far to "ideological" talk than writing talks. Monarchy sucks, trope sucks but I find the tone to be more "fantasy fans are facists and they stoopid". The constant comparison between Facism and Monarchy feel like you don't know what either of them are. One is Form of government, the other is Ideology. It's like comparing socialism to communism, they are just different. I agree on the opinion that one person shouldn't have all the power. "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely" but I feel like the tone of the video is way too one-sided, full of assumption, too villainazing the other side, etc. Other than that, especially for Tolkien. Not every story need an absolute grey area. Sometimes there is just that one dark lord trying his best to ask D&D to "revert the expectation". Also we hate DnD because they rush things like stupid. We know Daenerys will be the mad queen eventually just not D&D style. We ain't "facist" as compared.
@@crazydragy4233 yeap, I've seen my share. People who starts political talk need to know politics. For this even worse, Facism as pictured with Nazi Germany is a Unitary (Facist) State. It has no correlation with Monarchy whatsoever. Adolf Hitler is not a king, he is a "leader" / fuhrer as he claim himself to be.
@@toxicdermyillunary4103 I guess this slip up was caused because he went into authoritarianism territory. It's not that hard to get there when you're complaining about power structures.
@@crazydragy4233 true, but I feel like it is still not proper to do that, slip or not. I mean Monarchy of the United Kingdom still exists up until now. Are they authoritarian, right? they are not, they are more symbolic than political. I am not saying there is no autocratic monarchy, there is, but it can also be in a form of a union, unitary, or even Federation. I don't even say they can't be fascist, it just so happen that fascism is "founded" in the 20th century and back then (middle ages) no one really care about race because most commonly caucasian rule another caucasian, chinese to chinese, japanese to japanese, etc. But to immediately think monarchy must be autocratic and then correlate that to facism just ain't it for me. Politic is complicated and thinking like that is just way too simplistic and he uses that to basically set a tone of "fantasy fans are fascists and we must change every fantasy to democracy or something". Even worse again, to think that simplistic he shows hypocrisy, he keeps talking about there is no black and white, Monarchy can't work just because the "correct" king sit on the throne, period. He wants things not to be simplistic while being simplistic himself. Idk, it's just wrong imo.
Even with Monarchy it generally isn't one guy with all the power, and more one guy trying to keep all the various power brokers ok with him ie the peasants, the army, the rich and the clergy.
The issue with the Dany's story arc wasn't that she didn't become queen. It's that it didn't make any sense for that character to do those things. Conquering a city by killing it's leaders is not the same as conquering a city by mass murder of its inhabitants. GOT has a strong theme of ambiguous morality. Most (if not all) of the main characters have their own moral justifications for their actions. Even the "evil" ones. I think a character arc where Dany becomes progressively more radical in her actions could have been pulled off in a satisfying way. She could have continued justifying her actions on a moral basis as the audience begins to question where to draw the line. Eventually her actions would become indefensible, and something has to be done about it. But it wasn't done that way. There was no development of her character. She made a hard 180° turn. I can see that the writers were going for what I described (or something similar) but they executed it so poorly it made the last season seem like the characters had all forgotten who they were and what their motivations were.
If the season hadn't been so rushed, her descent into 'I will kill you because it is my right' could have been spelled out more. Yes there are hints of willingness to slaughter innocents in earlier seasons but they were largely abandoned to make her more likable. I think for most people who have not read the books, the apparent 180 came out of the blue.
I think the logic runs pretty much as follows: 1) People regard full democracy at a scale larger than a city-state to be impractical under medieval conditions (what does the average peasant know about issues on the national level, really?). 2) Putting too much power in the hands of the nobles, or any other oligarchy of educated individuals, tends to result in disaster. Having one Supreme Leader means there's someone who at least has a chance of caring about the nation as a whole rather than his (or her) piece of turf. 3) An inherited position, where the heir has been brought up from birth in the responsibilities of rulership and where there's been a family history of responsible rulership, presents a better chance (not a guarantee, far from it, but a better chance) of becoming a responsible ruler in turn who sees the good of the kingdom as a matter of family duty, rather than simply wanting the position out of ambition. And there's possibly a degree of truth to point 3 - as bad as monarchies can be, they do seem to have a better track record than... well, pretty much anything apart from democracies with at least close to full suffrage, and even that's spotty. So if democracy is the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried, monarchy (particularly a monarchy constrained by a parliament, even if the parliament represents an oligarchy rather than truly representing the population as a whole) might be the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried in situations where true democracy is, for one reason or another, impractical. (It's worth noting that in the Game of Thrones ending, what's actually likely to happen in the long run is a Holy Roman Empire situation and there's a good chance that in the long run Sansa's descendents will take over by playing the houses against one another.)
@@albusnightspring8057 But a single person at the helm wouldn’t work at all. We see this with wealthy offspring who tend to do more harm to economics and climate change.
I think the overall point of the video is valid, and I just want to say I enjoy your content, but I have a couple of nitpicks with some of the things you said in the video. First of all, I disagree with the characterization of monarchy as some form of proto-fascism. Evey fascist dictator rose to power from a democracy, either by coup or more often than not my election. Secondly, I think it's important to make a distinction between ruling by divine right and absolutism. The medieval king was not only checked by the other nobles but also by the church and was not above ex-communication. Absolutism was really an enlightenment concept and a product of secularization.
I agree and the nobles were basically at the mercy of their peasants because your territory could only be profitable if your subjects were happy and healthy with their lot. I find the most ridiculous fantasy worlds are the ones where the lower class is abused and neglected, it's simply not sustainable because then that lays the foundations for revolution as many monarchies have discovered.
Democracy is nothing more that the lie of liberty and free of choice plato,Sócrates could See behind all of that and conclude that "democracy will always lead to a tyrany of the rich and idiots". after all democracy was invented and impulse by the rich mercantyl élite of the past to create this new world. No matter how pretty a lie will remaine a lie.
While I agree that having some variation is nice, I think that the main reason this idea is so popular is precisely because its completely unrealistic. The same way so many romance stories would never happen the way they do, there's no such thing as a "benevolent monarch". For real life monarchies, the only division between good and bad rulers is whether he's good enough at keeping the nation itself alive and sovereign. Bad rulers aren't the tyrants, bad rulers are the ones who lose battles and suck at administration. This fantasy version of "the right ruler" is really nothing more than a romantic or dramatic, unrealistic portrayal, and that's kind of why it became so popular. As to why this idea remains perpetuated, I can only assume that its precisely because it is so popular.
Yeah, the same way the fact that I do not believe in "real love" in real world does not prevent me from reading romance novels, the fact that I do not believe in "benevolent rulers" in real world does not prevent me from enjoying fantasy series with such characters...
A benevolent dictatorship/absolute monarchy is actually the ideal form of government. The problem is that benevolence is not very easy to find making this a very unrealistic form of government. Representative Democracies (whether Republics or Constitutional Monarchies) are basically just the form of government that is least bad/most likely to have positive results most of the time.
Ah, first video I disagree with. The point you made was spot on. But GoT season 8 had terrible writing, not because the ending wasn’t a “fairytale” ending, but because it was a bad ending that was badly written. The show runners themselves admitted to not knowing what they were doing or why GRRM trusted them with his life’s work. “A billion dollar show with 20$ writing.”
14:40 ....it's FICTION based on HISTORY. why on Earth should it take a 'Modern Stance' on anything?? ........why dont you apply this 'rule' to Science Fiction (set in the future) instead??
Ah yes. History. Which, as we know, had no Democracry until the 18th century. Well, except Athens. Also Rome, which was a Republic before it was an Empire. If we want to get more medieval, however, there was also the Magna Carta, signed in 1215, which while not causing democracy at the time was an effort to limit the rights of the king of England and preserve the rights of his baron subjects. None of these compare to modern democracy, but the idea of a country not ruled by a king is not new. Hardly. Even if we were to base fantastical fiction purely on time periods when kings were in power, to pretend that there was not seething hatred directed at many rulers by their subjects would be to deny things like the 1381 Peasants' Revolt and the 1470 Lincolnshire Rebellion. The historical "stance" of kinghood was one imposed and championed by kings, a handful of people ruling over the majority of historical people. To assert that a desire for a rule by the people is a purely modern matter is to drink the Kool-Aid of a history written down by the tyrants in charge at the time.
@@emexdizzy And? How does that make using monarchies in stories a bad thing or even a pro-monarchy story? It's still just as historical as the democracies you mentioned and the focus of the story doesn't have to be (and usually isn't) how great the monarchy in question is.
@@emexdizzy that is representing history as it is, and thats fine. im talking people who try and put a 21st century spin on a clearly medieval based story... whats even the point of that?
Exactly! I'm kind of getting tired of fantasy stories trying to apply a massive allegory faction building that is better suited for science fiction. The Dothraki are just alternate Huns, and Westeros is basically some sort of mash-up of Britain and North America. The Wildings look like some sort of allegory for indigenous people. I kind of feel like Fantasy is just screwing up science fiction in the long run too. If we are going to be a species that explores the galaxy? We can't have people like "Fire and Blood" at the helm of a space ship. That's how wars like the ones in Babylon 5 get started.
Agreed. Personally, I disliked how he takes it that monarchies and other forms of autocratic rule are just assumed to be bad because they don't allow the people to rule. It's this modernistic standpoint on history that's a tad-bit of a pet peeve with me when not handled well.
Ned was ordered to take Theon by Robert. he couldnt have refused. and theon's better off under their roof than the Lannisters or Baratheons Catelyn taking Tyrion escalated the situation but ultimately the war planned out by Baelish had already begun. Tywin had his men ready waayy too fast to be a reaction to Catelyn. Robb did not declare independence. his lords and loyalists did. Robb beheaded Lord Karstark because Karstark was a child murderer and traitor. Starks never wanted any war and anything they ddi to escalate it, just sped up what was already inevitable i think its safe to say that had the Starks not been around, peopel worse, such as Boltons would rule so Starks saved far far more lives than they took. Robb never wanted to escalate the war but his father was in prison so what would you have done? beg and grovel Joffrey for mercy? shut the fuck up about it being different because we liked Ned. its different because Ned genuinely tried to do what was right. Kraznak was a smug, sleazy, sadistic asshat slaver who tortured and mutilated his slaves. so yes theres a difference. same difference if you killed a doctor vs killing a taliban chieftan or cartel drug lord. and Kraznac was not just Dany's political opponent. he would have happily tossed her to the dogs or had her raped if he got the chance or if she refused to offer payment for the army. we lost our minds because as much as Daenerys hated slavers she NEVER ONCE harmed an innocent intentionally. and was horrifird when it did happen accidently. the plotline was rushed, and given the barest of justifications "ah well she feels she isnt loved in Westeros. and even though shes won already and they surrendered, she burns them all anyway". we are meant to see her as the villain now because up until now she was grey at worst and never harmed innocent people. her crusade was to end the enslavement of people and owning them as property. so why burn down a city to furhter that goal? it was clearly out of character to get her out of the way for Bran becoming king.
Catelyn could have brought Tyrion to the capital. With Ned as hand of the king Robert would have been forced to issue a trial, so that Tywin wouldn't have the opportunity to move his forces. Robb did one mistake after the other: killed Karstark rather than imprisoning him, keeping his plans to himself, marring Jayne... And declaring himself king in the north. He could've refused, but he accepted and brought thousands to their deaths. Dany was turned into a villain in s8 without any build up, that's true, but it is also true that she previously harmed innocents without a care in the world. Kraznis deserved to be burned, but she also crucified 163 slavers from Mereen: while most of those scum surely deserved it, it's also true that some were kind to their slaves, and she didn't listen to any of them. No trial, no judgment, only executions because they had slaves. That's why she's at least morally grey.
@@justthunderbolt40 The slavers were guilty by association, a flawed concept, but one often borne of ignorance not malice. She was pre-emptive in her judgement, but I wouldn't say she "harmed innocents without a care in the world", because she did seem to care when informed of her mistake. Compare that to someone malicious. If informed on the situation, would they work to avoid the action (killing the kind) or the consequence (people being upset)? I find the ignorant more favorable than the malicious, I'd paint it white in comparison.
@@happydemon3038 on that I agree, she cares for her people far more than any Westerosi lord(with the exception of Doran). Sadly, good intentions alone aren't a solid basis to get the peace she needs, and many suffered due to her mercy.
Did he literally miss the fact that stories are about characters and their journeys? That fantasy often thematically grounds itself in reality and/or legend which the fact that his list includes a anti monarchy angle which, surprise, is set in a setting that involves that conflict? Aside from the MANY mistakes that people are pointing out in the comments, with his motivation becoming clear in the GoT rant that misses the point completely and is basically fuelled by his reading of the critics and a dozend comments on Reddit.
@@ironmaster6496 And it's implied when the Senate becomes an empire it's evil right? We have the rebels you know. I mean if you say it's a democracy I'll point you to Russia, which is as much of a democracy as it is
A few points. In the books for Lord of the Rings, I wouldn't classify it as a treatise on why monarchy is good. While there is a monarchy, that's more because it's based off of a period in history where that was just how they did things. The only reason Aragorn had to restore the line of kings is because the last king was a moron who face planted after he tried to charge the Witch King of Angmar, and then years later agreed to face the Witch King in a duel in his lair. I also recall that in the appendices, Aragorn's descendants kinda screwed things up. It's kinda like how everyone always imagines that fantasy elves are overly perfect and wise, but that's only true to the extent that the dumber elves got themselves and a lot of other people killed centuries before the series started.
Elves learned from their mistakes and never forgot because they didn't ever truly have even a single change of generations since Feanor left Valinor. Galadriel observed pretty much the entire history of Middle-Earth from that point and is still around to participate. Humans just don't have the lifespan to have their societies not act stupid constantly.
Caiã Wlodarski yeah, he was molded by the same Burkean-traditionalist conservatism that created G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis (obviously), T. S. Eliot, etc. People often forget that Tolkien was a conservative Catholic living in England. Of COURSE he was a based monarchist. He had both religious and culturally ideological reasons for being such. His works are practically oozing with anti-liberal and anti-enlightenment sentiments/attitudes.
Wow a generally medieval inspired setting has monarchies, crazy… next you’ll make a video on how fantasy is pro-sword and that’s weird when guns exist in the real world
@@Peasham just because an author includes something in a story doesn’t mean they endorse it. “Oh yeah in my epic high fantasy adventure where they go to save a princess - oh wait I can’t have a monarchy in my story, that might actually be cool better have them rescue a bureaucrat and when they get back to the castle they can do paperwork and get a permit for adventuring.”
@@Peasham in what way thou, they have been good monarchs and bad monarchs why is it so hard to conceive the possibility that an author can create a good monarch (wich there have been in history) without it meaning he or she endorse it
@@kaiser4883 Because Monarchy is inherently bad and evil. This is unironically like saying "well the author can write a good Fascist", no, they can't, it is an inherently bad system.
Listen, James, no one is saying that different endings might have been the cause of dissent. The point of the series was to stand out and be a parralel to our grey world. But unlike masterpieces like the red wedding, danys maddening and brans Ascension had no and I mean no development. If bran was meant to be a ruler/leader because of his abilities show them!!! If Dany is becoming mad because of complex reasons, show that!!! We are not against new stories we just want them told. Right. So instead of insulting the fanbase that dislikes the end can u try and understand our point of view. Otherwise I feel your analysis here and other wise was and is great.
"If bran was meant to be a ruler/leader because of his abilities show them!!!" You mean his ability to shed his personality/personhood and have no personal interest in having power, thus being able to hold power without becoming corrupted? Or his ability to see into the past and prevent repeating past mistakes? Or his ability of having visions of the future? Or his ability to warg into a creature anywhere on the continent to see how the people are doing? We see the process of him gaining these abilities and he has gained these abilities by season 5 and him using them throughout 3 seasons. How is that not enough development? Dany's descent into madness was rushed, I'll agree with that.
BOINKHeadshot I think he is suggesting that Bran’s abilities should have been used to demonstrate how they would help him in being a good king. Bran seems pretty cold and indifferent to everyone after his transformation. He could have been a huge help in the battle with the white walkers, but he didn’t help at all. He could have warned people about Dany’s attack on King’s Landing but he didn’t. He basically made no attempts at saving anyone other than John.
Dude is over complicating fantasy. Fantasy is just a 20th century version of mythology. And Mythology is as simple as it gets. Mythology has been handed down for thousands of years with the same basic outlines updated for the audience of the time. Tolkin wrote LOTR for the purpose of it being Mythology and therefore hold the same parables that mythology before it held.
Well, this one was pretty disappointing, I'll try to put my feelings on it down in a way that's not an utter mess and hope something useful comes out of it: For starters monarchies just make sense from a typical "trope-ism" perspective in more light, high fantasy worlds. Divine right monarchies, what is usually depicted in fantasy, basically run on the "chosen one" concept and thus are pretty much the go to default government for any universe where those are actually a thing. If your country could actually get a god sent all benevolent, all capable ruler that will defend the land from evil and bring prosperity then why wouldn't you? Idealized depictions of monarchies are just better than their equivalent for democracies, mostly because democracy was born out of the failure to attain said ideals. Why would you have an electoral system with well defined terms and political restrictions and balances when you have a prophecy/bloodline that you know will lead you to greatness. Now I'm not a huge fan of the "chosen one" myself but I can't deny that for that level of fantasy, specially as it tends to be more superficial in it's world building. But what about darker, more low fantasy universes then? Fantasy worlds where either there is no god sent ruler or the gods are spiteful shits? Well those tend to be much closer approximations of the mainstream understanding of the middle ages and democracy is just not a thing in those. In fact, not only are democracies not there but the building blocks that lead to them won't be there for hundreds of years. Having a random representative democracy would look exceedingly out of place in a more down to earth fantasy setting. Thing is democracy isn't really a thing nor is it something people think of outside of ancient greece (and that's not really the kind of democracy we think of when using the word) and the very late modern era onward, since neither of those two time periods are usually depicted in fantasy then you just don't get authors taking inspiration in periods where democracy as a concept or government is relevant. Lastly I am completely surprised by your analysis of the alternative governments to "traditional" monarchy, sure the constitutional monarchy of Mistborn is a step along the historical english route (even if the legislature's composition is an almost textual ripoff of the estates general) but to defend the electoral monarchy at the end of GoT is just weird. Electoral monarchies aren't "more democratic" than divine right ones, they just have a weaker central state and stronger nobility. On top of that they have an appalling historical record, it's two biggest examples (the Holy Roman Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) failed so spectacularly they ceased existing as entities altogether and those that didn't like the monarchies of northern Europe just transitioned into more "traditional" monarchies. I'm not going to comment on GoT's ending in general as it is only tangentially related to the central point of the video anyway and it has already been done to death. Sorry for the wall of text and sorry to those of you who actually bothered to read the thing to this point.
Although I disagree with the video, in Tullos' defense, he believed that many modern fantasies advocate for a divine right to rule or a monarchical system in place, which isn't great because of the modern climate. I disagree with this because he also includes his bias is some portions of the video, and seems to act like democracy is the best option as if it's an absolute truth. Also, just a pointer, that ideas of democracy the Athenians practiced(if we're talking about Pericles' Athens) and the version we know today weren't practiced during the Medieval Period, the idea of a body of people electing on a leader was practiced throughout antiquity and, depending where such as the Italian city-states, the Medieval Period in Europe. But I might've misread what you've meant there. Also, I feel that the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were "destroyed" for other reasons than solely their forms of government. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was being threatened by the Tsardom of Russia, the Kingdom of Sweden, Austria and the Prussians who were more powerful than themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have been carved up as easily as they were. For the Holy Roman Empire, it existed(assuming it started with Otto I) for roughly 1000 years. And depending on the ruler it was fairly centralized such as with Otto I and Frederick Barbarossa. However when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, the HRE was no longer seen as a state in its own right, and more emphasis was put on the states within it.
@@flynn659 Well that's the issue isn't it? Assuming that your run of the mill YA fantasy book is somehow advocating for absolute monarchy is weird to say the least. And that's even for people who agree with the idea that democracy is the better option, he is wailing about a problem that doesn't exist. About pre-modern democracies, yes they existed but very few people would consider them good systems from a modern perspective. Athens itself had a relatively small amount of citizens compared to it's slave and non-citizen (foreigners, women, etc) population. As for the middle ages while you have some republics with electoral systems like Venice but no real democracies. And sure, the electoral system never stood up and shot a country but said system tends to either disappear (like in northern Europe), become de facto hereditary (like the HRE) or allow factions like the nobility/neighbors to make a mess (like the commonwealth and bohemia/HRE). In the case of the HRE this is most exemplified by the Bohemians deciding to not elect the next Habsburg in 1619 and instead go with the elector Frederick V of the Palatinate, a protestant. This royally fucked everything up because the guy they were meant to vote for, Ferdinand II got elected emperor of the HRE 2 days later on his vote as king of Bohemia because news just didn't travel that fast. Suddenly not only was the HRE heading towards religious civil war at speed but the legitimacy of the emperor was up to wether you thought he prayed in the right language. As for the commonwealth the case of Henry III of France is the most comical. Already elected king of Poland-Lithuania he legged it the moment he learned of his brother the king of France's death, leaving the poles with an empty throne.
@@flynn659 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was destroyed BECAUSE of its government. You see the PLC reached its height in the 1600s. This was the time when it was the most populated country and its forces were fear across Europe (the Winged Hussars) yet not even a hundred years after it was partitioned. It was because first off the country became easy to control with puppet rulers due to its elective monarchy. Monarchies such as Russia, Prussia, or Austria could influence the election and put on either a puppet ruler or just a incompetent one. The PLC's own nobility, the sejm, also got too much power because of the elective style government into their hands and grew more and more corrupt which of-course led to elections being even easier to influence. Pretty much all of the countries problems stem from its elective style government. The same of-course can be said for the HRE but the problem wasn't that its elections were easy to manipulate by foreign powers and more because the country was so decentralized that it really wasn't a country. It also became easy for a single house (the von Hapsburgs) to influence elections so that they were the only emperors for centuries.
Itzhak H It’s not that the authors of Fantasy sat down and thought “hmm yess monarchy is the best form of government, and I shall now propagandize for it,” it’s more that fantasy is so filled with benevolent king narratives that it makes monarchy look amazing, which it isn’t. Anyways, the chosen one trope is the reason for this, but the real question is why is this trope still so common? Like come on, give us something new. Something new could also lend itself to a different form of governing. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get communalist utopia stories next.
8:50 the guy he is about to execute in this picture is literally a deserter from what is a penal legion. So he is basically an escaped convict and a deserter. Not sure about what would happen to a guy with generally same crimes irl but I think it would be life sentence in prison at the very least. Edit: Later: "how Jon killed a child" The word is executed not killed. There is literal proof that that child is a murderer since he stabbed Jon and Jon died (he came back but that is besides the point). He was also a traitor since Jon was the elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (voted by basically everyone in Castle Black [not voted for, voted by]) making him his superior officer and head of state (since the Watch is like the Teutonic Order and Knights of Malta, a military order which administers land).
@@futurestoryteller look, I am willing to accept arguments supporting the deserter and being against Ned but What Jon did was not murder it was an execution. I didn't even truly watch the show (book person, also some reviews on RUclips) and Jon is definitely not my favourite character. That kid was quite literally a murderer and traitor who assassinated his elected head of state. That is not an opinion that is a fact. You may have whatever opinion you wish about himself killing Jon but he deserves execution for it. Even if someone before/during WW2 killed Hitler that would still be murder/assassination and that person would deserve to be punished for their crime, even though they might have done a net good.
@@futurestoryteller well excuse me for not believing that assassins should go Scott free. They should be tried and held responsible for their murders. If you want to get rid of your head of state find a way that does not include murder.
The comments on this are just that Ben wyatt quote "I don't even have time to tell you how wrong you are... actually it will annoy me if I don't" and it's hilarious (WHY is the cover of leviathan smack in the middle of a segment about divine kingship, WHY)
My impression of Mistborn was that Elend was on the track to becoming a tyrant. I took it as deliberate moral ambiguity. I think they did a good job making it seem necessary, given the insanity of everything, while also bringing up comparisons to Lord Ruler.
Definitely. Elend became a tyrant out of necessity, and he did things he wouldn’t have done if the world wasn’t ending. His actions shouldn’t be seen as unquestionably good, because he’s compromising his values to achieve his goals. We see how the Lord Ruler and Elend aren’t too different in the last book, but we know that Elend is trying to do the right thing.
I will like to see a story where the king of a constitutional monarchy is trying to take absolute power by starting a coup because he is the "rightful ruler".
I'm hoping to write something like this down the road. In the meantime there's the stories of Charles XI of Sweden and to a certain extent Carol I of Austria Hungary (postwar mainly) and King Alexander of Yugoslavia
Ben Cox Honestly, the way the GoT show ended, it sets up perfectly for that kind of story. With an elected monarchy, where the nobility are the electorate, the state has effectively been decentralized without the power structure being decentralized. What will inevitably happen is the nobility will use their position to force future kings to offer them favours in return for their support. Eventually, such a system would be so overcome by corruption, you're definitely going to see unrest that is most likely going to take the form of two major political movements: a progressive force that seeks to undo the monarchy and the nobility, and decentralize the owner structure along with the state, to push society forward in its social evolution, and a reactionary one, rallying around tales of long, lost, royal bloodline somewhere north of the Wall, with the idea being to return the "true" bloodline to throne, curtailing the nobility's power and privileges, and centralizing the state and power structure around the One True Monarch.
Charles I of England (who afaik was very much into absolutism and divine right of kings) and the English Civil War in general? The Parliament did win that war but then their Republic had a dictator come and rule for life so they had "the Glorious Revolution" to restore constitutional monarchy.
Well most of fantasy is quite anarchronistic, even Tolkien. I mean most of Middle-Earth is semi-mediaeval, but the Shire is more 19th century rural England than anything else, and we never see much of feudalism either
Depends on what you call "anachronistic". Democracy and republicanism are old as balls, they go back as far as ancient Greece and Rome (at least), and even during the Middle Ages a lot of Italian city-states and Hanseatic towns had republican systems of government.
Yes, and having monarchy in a time with FAR LESS INFORMATION being communicated📜 -- that "inefficient" "archaic" [[quotations are from the video]] system is a cultured / family structure which hopefully brings stability (it is WAY more reliable than random manipulative government officials in a miss-information age)
Mostly agree, just the bit where you seem to fall into a moral relativism seemed off. I think it's silly to characterize slaves killing their masters as "killing people *just* for having different political opinions". There's a difference between people thinking they know something is moral ("Fascists 'knowing' they're doing good") and actually knowing something is moral (slaves killing their masters). Referring to such things as mere disagreement between 2 political opinions is obviously false. Otherwise good content. Subbing.
What is actually the difference between those two though, other than that you agree with one and not the other? Where is the root morality of the line you draw between them? Is it just that you believe God has ordained one to be right?
@@GonnaDieNever James Tullios argued that it's wrong to kill people you disagree with, and that Dany killing slave masters is the same as Fascists killing their enemies. He is likely arguing that people should have freedom of opinion and control over their lives. It's inconsistent because both the slave-masters and Fascists kill and imprison people they disagree with. Dany killed people who refused to stop enslaving unless threatened to - not because they disagreed in opinion. In Astapor she said "kill every man holding a whip" - slavers can choose to drop their whips and live, even if they still believe in slavery. In Yunkai and Mereen she doesn't kill the slave-masters (since she'd gathered a large enough army to simply take over), she just forbids slavery. Even if you're a moral relativist, you can see Tullios' argument doesn't make sense by its own standards.
@@GonnaDieNever The difference is one is morally correct and the other isn't. Slavery is such a grave, factual immorality that one can plausibly argue for slaves killing their masters. Fascists have no moral facts backing up their insane belief in racial superiority, it's just a claim they state without evidence. The fact people disagree is irrelevant. I disagree with flat earthers about the shape of the earth, but one of us is correct: Me (it's spherical). Morality is not a matter of opinion, disagreement doesn't mean there's no fact of the matter.
Well there's a big difference in every day rule and in wartime, even more so in situations where surrender is not really a option, and "losing" will have fatal consequences world/civilisation ending, death/enslavement for all. In situations like that is where you want the most capable person possible in absolute control, and not the time you want someone to go for a personal power-grab. In situations like that one might have to make terrible decisions like having some of your population starve to ensure that the soldiers fighting on the wall have enough food. It is terrible, some will starve to death but it is arguably better than the city falling and everyone dying, but one thing is for sure Joe peasant is not going to to vote for his children to starve to death..
Great point. Reminds me of Ender's Game, where a very capable kid is given absolute control of the military strategy in a war, and he thinks he's just doing a practice run simulation, so he sacrifices many lives without giving it a second thought, his only objective is to win at all cost.
I feel like you are dimissing anyone who makes valid complaints about the show sure there are the pepole who threaten to kill the showrunners but thoses are just the crazies not everbody a lot of crtics have valid complaints about season 8 we are not all morons that did not understand it just becuease the show did something unexpeted does not mean it was good or it was executed properly there are many many issues with not ony seaon 8 but also season 7 as well the showrunners are hacks and there is proof of this in the dvd commenteries one channel in perticuler highlights this and he does a good job of proving the showrunners were inexperinced in tv writing i dont really like when someone is like here are the crazies look how ureasonble there being and not look at valid points thats all i have to say have a nice day
Exactly. D&D are on record saying that they weren't experienced, didn't really know what they were doing, just kinda winging it the whole time. Also that they were growing tired of the show and wanted to end it as soon as possible. This isn't a conspiracy theory, they literally said all that, and it was very evident when they ran out of Martin's material and had to write their own.
Just going to put it out there.... your opinion has more validity if you use proper grammar. Not really an insult, more of an advice so people can read what you post clearly next time.
Heck someone made a video showing i believe it was the final or second to last episode was just mostly walking. 40 plus minutes of walking and no dialogue. Which well does seem like a writing issue, where you could cut out a majority of the issues and it would greatly improve the pacing and get to the point quicker.
so basically, in fiction, people do things that aren't real things. can we use fiction to teach moral values and represent the real world? yes does fiction NEED to be a representation of the real world or provide instructions on how to behave in real life? no.
Yeah but like if like the sudden and violent death of a protagonist's beloved father was treated as anything but a horrible childhood trauma in a fantasy book, I'd have a hard time having it justified with "well its a fantasy, sometimes unrealistic things happen." For a lot of us, the idea of a monarchy being an inherent good is just too unrealistic because it deals with the soft, squishy bits of human greed and need. Sciencier bits are easier for me to handwave. Dragons? Sure I can suspend my belief that dragons exist. Hard sciences of our world like gravity and aerodynamics aren't important enough that I can't enjoy enjoy dragons, but the idea that people with emotions and temptations and weaknesses like our own can build a monarchal system that's an unquestionable good, especially one where a certain family is never immoral in leadership, is kind of a stretch and often too much of a stretch.
Interesting video, but the missing piece here is Arthurian Legend.
King Arthur was arguably the primary inspiration for Tolkien and the Western fantasy tradition as a whole, and bloodlines and divine right are major themes in Arthurian legend.
Yeah. All the relevant knights of Arthur were descendents of kings or lords, including Lancelot and Gawain.
What's up dude I love your videos.
I liked By Force Alone, which applied a darker view on power to the legend
And Beowulf. Early fantasy.
Nah, the main inspiration for Tolkien was romanticism, and especially wagner, the whole Idea of a magic ring that corrupts everyone's souls and the whole aesthetic of exaggerated epicness is almost plagiarism of wagners ring cycle.
“Strange women in lakes, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”
"If went around calling myself an emperor just because some watery tart threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"
Bloody peasant! Will you shut up?!
@@MagusMarquillin
"Oh now we see the violence inherent in the system!"
Strange hot women in lakes, disturbing sex and a sword is the best basis for government
Yeah, it should be strange men pointing people towards swords in stones that our system of government is based on!
I always felt like monarchy was common in fantasy simply because it was a medieval system
Well democracy existed in Greece way before medieval times
@@cyrene3682 However, most fantasy worlds don't make use of an antique theme. They are usually inspired by the middle ages.
This does not glorify anything nor does it criticise democracy in any way. It's just the type of setting most people prefer for a fantasy story.
@@lay7180 oh I get it. I mean the monarchy has been a huge part of our history and mythology. It’s not absurd.
@@cyrene3682 Oh, then I misunderstood you. My fault.
Also, it's easier to wrap stories of political intrigue around a single point of power, than to have a narrative web telling you about the political and interpersonal relationships of dozens/hundreds of different politicians in order to make you understand the importance of an action. The easiest way to streamline a story is to just focus on 'important' people, and monarchs are usually the most 'important' person in their respective kingdom, whereas a single senator or MP is no less replacable any any other senator or MP.
Evil king kills good king, then good king's son kills evil king to take back throne is much simpler than evil MP assassinates good MP severing the bonds and alleigences they've grown over their time in power which in turn destabilises alliances while in the mad scramble for MPs to secure their position and lives against the threat of assassination, they allow several minor acts of legistlation to pass which snowballs into greater governmental powers (at the cost of diminishing civil liberties) as well as discrediting some of the 'good' MPs in the eyes of their people (due to betraying campaign promises) - further swinging the balance of power towards a rising political party that's now able to... Yeah you get the point.
Reddit’s problem with the ending isn’t that Dany killed the wrong people, it’s that the writers tried to prove she was a Mad Queen because of her previous actions, like killing prisoners, starting wars for her birthright, and being okay with her enemies’ deaths, but they simultaneously reward Jon and Sansa for doing the same thing. The show goes against the divine right principle but also endorses it.
Sansa is another monarch, the North will not become a democracy, it’s just a smaller monarchy, but it’s depicted as a positive.
This is definitely my perspective on it. Also I really enjoy what Lindsay Ellis said about Danny, that with her previous actions it would make perfect sense for her to go Mad Queen if the people of Westeros didn't immediately accept and love her, but they created a situation where logically the common people and nobles of Westeros alike should have vastly favored Danny over Cersei. I think the ending could have worked, but they needed more time to build to it, so it didn't come out of nowhere.
Honestly, (and spoilers to the ASOIAF series) G.G.R.M sets up the mad Dany plot a lot better by pointing out that Dany is finding the crucifixion of the masters extremely pleasurable, not the feeling of bringing justice but the act *itself* pleasurable. Though I dont remember any points similar thats the one that sticks out.
Dan Judex That’s not really what happened.
”She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood . . .
Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.”
Yes I like James' breakdowns but I think here he took what a few people were saying and applied it broadly. I love the idea of a character we've followed for years and loved turning evil, it was just done extremely poorly. Not enough time was given to show that change. And I'm deeply against his characterization that she was always bad. Just because a soldier goes into war and shoots and enemy doesn't mean he can suddenly start murdering babies in their crib. Dany killed her enemies, for her to suddenly turn on innocent women and children... actions speak louder than words and her actions always were justified. Nothing justified her actions in the 8th season. Doesn't help that they were following the book storyline and in the books as has been pointed out here, she is a lot more vicious. They cleaned her and Tyrion up for the show. They were much more gray characters in the book.
I thought the lords of the north voted for the king of the north
Hey isn’t it a *huge* point in lotr that Frodo very explicitly isn’t immune to the ring?
You're absolutely correct. While he is resistant, he is NOT immune. At the mouth of Mount Doom, Frodo falls to the Ring at last.
@@MrInitialMan
Gandalf's plan was in fact insane, and Denethor was right to point that out.
@@alanpennie8013 you sent the ring of power into MORDOR! IN THE HANDS OF A WITLESS HALFLING!
Sounds pretty bad I know, but hear me out...
@@Scortch-lo3xy
I remember Raymond Chandler writing (of murderers whose plans depended on several contingent events occurring as predicted) that anyone who depended on so much assistance from God should probably rethink their approach.
He resists it a lot better than anyone else at least
I was not angry that Daenerys became the villain in the final season of Game of Thrones I am angry that it was done in such a rushed and horribly written way and if the show was allowed to have some more seasons to slowly turn Daenerys into the villain it would have been way better
one of the points of the video was that she already was a villain.
@@gnosticgalass4696 There is still a big difference between a villain with motivations that while misguided can be understood, and a villain that mercilessly slaughters a civilian population that probably would have supported her.
It's the difference between a good and a bad character/villain.
They didn't have to say 50% of Targaryens are insane, then have her do something horrible for no reason. That was the lazy way out.
They could have given her character development that would have given her motivation the audience would not accept. Then have her justify her horrible actions with that motivation.
This is what a lot of people complain about.
@@gnosticgalass4696: It was totally out of character for her. Book Daenerys had a pity even for slave masters she killed, doubted her ways, even trying to marry one of the slavers nobility to make peace. She considered all (slavers and freed slaves) as her people and deeply cared for their well-being, she was even willing to make personal sacrifices for it. Swe was no villain. No more than Americans, when they destroyed nazi Germany and killed many Germans in the process. Freeing people from brutal oppression and destroying murderous evil regime does not make you a villain, even if you kill someone because of it. Daenerys was no villain. It is absurd. It would be great to see her slowly become one, succumb to craziness but i would have to be well executed. But making it suddenly without any reason and character development is just stupid bad writing. And suggest she was evil all along and we just did not see it, because she did no evil deeds is really absurd and very poor excuse.
If you listen to her speeches, she was all along saying that she was going to destroy her enemies. Fire, blood, death, rah, rah.
@@b0tias Yeah, and? Actually she tried to make peace with them and strived for saving so many people as she can. Saying something that is standard and totally expected from a leader/ruler during war does not make you a villain.
Why are most fantasies pro-monarchy? Well, I can think of some possible explanations
1. It's happened often throughout history (even before the Middle Ages)
2. It's usually simpler, or at the very least simplistic in terms of storytelling.
3. People love underdog stories, and sometimes this trope coincides with that
4. This trope is often used to make us think of the lesser of two evils
5. People like continuity as much as possible and dynasties have some degree of continuity
6. To quote Varys from Game of Thornes, "Power resides where men believe it resides."
Yeah, but just because it's historical doesn't mean its not strange or morally weird. A lot of monarchies happened, but so did a lot of colonialism, misogyny, systemic racial hierarchies, raping, slavery. Also, a lot of populations tried to rise up against their kings for very justifiable reasons and were brutally stomped out as a result. It'd be pretty weird to read a fantasy series where the world must be set right by returning the lesser races to their proper station in life. We're just accustomed to the tropes of the Royal Blood and the Rightful King Returns.
@@emexdizzy Democracy have lost their innocence in the 21st century. I mean who would go around today and claim that democracies are morally superior?
Only a fool ignoring all the violence and injustice in the world commited by democracies.
I find it easier to believe one powerful person could behave good despite the people than people behaving good because of their inherent goodness.
If I may, there are some other possible ideas I can think of as well
7. Absolute and Feudal Monarchy is an exotic form of government due to how rare it is in the modern world, and modern audiences read fantasy stories to see things that are different. Reading about a modern liberal democratic republic, but with gnomes, isn't very interesting because it's too similar to the mundane real world.
8. The monarchs that still exist in the western world are, by and large, still benevolent. The Queen of Britain and the Emperor of Japan are both seen by their respective countries not as relics of the past but as respected and admired figures. This is, ironically, likely do to their lack of political power; since figurehead monarchs legally can't do unpopular political actions (like declaring wars or assassinating dissidents) they can remain "above the fog" while the elected representative gets the flack.
9. There is some wish-fulfillment in the idea of a benevolent King or an enlightened despot. In the modern world democratically elected representatives are rarely heroes; they're expected to be corrupt or to have scandals (usually involving money or sex), or at the very least to be bogged down by partisan squabbling. As such people like to imagine that if they had the Crown then they could fix society.
@@sualtam9509 The difference is that in democracies, you have a peaceful change of government that doesn't depend on who your parents were or who has the biggest stick.
Then there's the inherent issues with tying up so much power in one person. It's VERY easy to get corrupt/bad leaders and civil wars of succession (such as the Wars of the Roses). Monarchies the world over have either gone or been reduced to a ceremonial role for that very reason.
Democracies are messy, complicated and difficult to make work properly, but when they do, they work pretty well. When one leader defeats his rivals, his rivals just retire. There's no bloodshed or prison. It's not perfect, but when you look at the alternatives...yeah, it works. Not perfectly, but it works.
"It's usually simpler, or at the very least simplistic in terms of storytelling." I disagree, things are simple because many writers either dumb things down or make internal politics completely unrealistic and inconsistent. Electoral Politics are much, MUCH more simpler than the fuckton of succession crises, rebellions, back door noble alliances, overthrowing, and wars that your average monarchy experiences. (and that REALLY says something tbh)
eh, people were actually pretty hype for Dany going crazy and then dying, they just hated how abrupt it felt. She was the perfect material for the big bad, but they didn't let her turn into one in an entertaining way. That's what people are really pissed about. They wanted Dany's head on a stake to look good not rushed.
The ending of GoT was still “happy ending because good kings,” all of the rulers in the end are nobles, all from the same family for that matter. I’m pretty sure most fans knew the ending was supposed to be Daenerys going full mad Targaryen, and for me at least the issue with the final season is that this point was very rushed. Yes, she has been conquering the whole way, but there is still a fundamental difference between killing slavers and inciting a slave revolt, and burning a city of mostly civilians to the ground. There should have been more escalation. Moreover the story isn’t saying anything profound with “now that the crazy fire lady is dead the good rulers from the good aristocratic family can rule. Hooray!”
yeah, he pointed it out at the beginning that there wasn't that much of a difference between the noble families (aside from our fondness of them) and then said that at the end the proper rules were put in place, there was no fairytale ending and it broke the trope somehow
It was still a change of the system, a step in the right direction, but there’s still an uncertainty on how the future will go with bran’s future rule. And then there’s the hidden sense of the three eyed raven’s morality, or rather, amorality.
From what I've heard about the GoT ending, it's reviled because it makes no sense. Every single character arc is forced entirely of shape to "subvert expectations" or "maintain suspense," and their conclusions run entirely against the previously established narrative logic.
medieval period had republics. but only people from the landowning merchant class could be voted in
What's wrong with fulfilling the expectations?
I mean, if you manage to create an interesting character and portray their personality so well that that audience can understand why they do stuff and based on this guess what they'll do, isn't it a mark of good work? And by "understanding" I don't mean agreeing with them, just knowing their personality and motivations and deduce from that.
What's wrong with giving people what they want?
Don't listen to it. It's akin to whining how it 'doesn't make sense' that Bruce Willis was a ghost in the 6th sense. There is the surface level to the show, but also a very subtle subtext going throughout the entire show. People really were expecting a Hollywood ending and GOT refused to give it to them. That is why they are pissed off, however much they protest to the contrary.
@@Ivytheherbert so your argument is unless you you know really obscure historical details from our own world and use that to analyze s8 your somehow stupid.
@@SerbAtheist Huh? That is NOT why people hated the ending. People who “wanted the hollywood ending” seem to be inclined to actually liking it
Problem with GoT ending wasn't the fact that Damy went bad, it's how she went bad. Execution was just aweful / 10
I think GOT was just hated way before the ending. Season 7 and Dorne plot had a lot of horrible elements in them and then season 8 overall was just pure trash regardless of ending.
@@iriya3227 those things could have been forgivable if they wrapped up the show neatly. Season 8 was not forgivable, which made the previous mistakes worse
@@hope2dust S8 is probably the biggest letdown in television history. Even series finales like Dexter, How I met your mother and Lost weren't as bad as this one. GOT was the biggest show ever and not only that, the showrunners knew where the story was gonna go since they have source material from the ASOIAF books that are published at the moment and George basically told them the ending and how to get there. HBO even gave them multiple seasons more to work on a satisfying conclusion. Well, look at where that brought us.
Season 8 was a rushed mess and there was so many dumb stuff
I'm pretty sure Danny going "bad" is the direction the books will take, i'm also sure the books will execute it a million times better. (TBH I think she's already bad where we've left her, but most fans would disagree for reasons I can't fathom)
Well, in Tokien's defense, having a human king unifying the human kingdoms is arguably better then having orcs ruling Middle Earth...
But it's not better for orcs!
What about the orcs tho? They are just as capable to feel pain as humans end elfs
I am a Human, therefore I'm speaking as a Human with a Human POV. Tolkien writes mostly from the POV of Humans, Elves and Hobbits, who are opposed to Orcs. Therefore "better" is a term relative to the POV. Obviously what is good for a race might not be good for another, but taking into account that the Orcs clearly have a goal to exterminate or enslave all other forms of life above cited, what is "better" for Humans, Elves and Hobbits seems to be what's better for most.
@@rodri_merli27 Orcs are not made from elves and humans too by Saruman?
I don't remember because I'm absolutely not an expert.
@@Talking_Ed Melkor, the first Dark Lord, who did not posess the power to create, only to corrupt, possibly corrupted Men and Elves in order to mock the creation of Erú Ilúvatar. He tortured and twisted the Elves probably as soon as they awoke, transforming them into Orcs.
I have the same stance as you when it comes to divine right of kings, but I am also not a fan when the story ends with "oh, the evil king is dead, let's now make a republic and live happily ever after". It took the French several lapses into dictatorships until they figured out how to do the whole republic and democracy thing right.
Also, Ned Stark was a fucking saint considering the culture and environment he was brought up in. You showing him personally executing a deserter (which is more than most other nobles would've done) is a strawman.
And with your knowledge of history you should know that when you introduce elective monarchy in feudalism, it usually ends in anarchy (PLC, HRE).
I agree.
Also, at least in fantasy works that have Magic in them, the Divine right of Kings can at least have some substance or justified reasoning to them. Maybe the royal bloodline has a super special magical ability that flows through the bloodline. Or that they're born with lots of magical energy, which makes them a cut above everyone else. These are common ideas I've read about through manga and anime. And it has some justification to it at least for the establishment and presence of a monarchy and nobility in a fantasy work. Otherwise, if magical ability is random and/or anyone can use it, then fantasy works should more likely be anarchist in nature.
I mean, here's a simple story idea. In a fantasy world, the nobility are born with Magic while the commoners are not. With this advantage, it makes sense as to how the monarchy and nobility can establish authority over commoners in a world of magic. There's so many different routes that you can go with, in such a simple but effective premise.
@@ajiththomas2465
This reminds me of Black Clover.
In that world, your class and social status is determined by how much magical power you have.
@@quma2590
Exactly. They also use Magic through Grimoires. There's so many different ways you can have magic play a role in establishing a monarchy and nobility in a fantasy work.
@@ajiththomas2465The book you want to read is called "Red Queen", it's about a world were silver blooded people are the nobility and have special powers, and red blooded people are the commoners and live beneath their feet. The series (Yes, the book is only the first part in a series) is quit good, despite the annoying and uninspired love plots and I think you should check it out.
I have to warn you though that this book series is from the young adult genre, and also combines a YA dystopian vibes into it, inculding the fact it takes place in the remnants of the US of A for some reason.
Not really anarchy, just massive decentralization and neutralization of the monarch's power that ends when either a strong, centralized fragment unites the empire (HRE) or they get killed by other, stronger kingdoms (PLC).
You’re reading on why people disliked the ending of Game of Thrones is way off. The ending was rushed and the characterization went downhill and that was most people’s problems. From a Dany standpoint, no one expected her to be the blessed ruler they all needed but her “madness” was like a switch instead of a gradual decline that should’ve mirrored what happened with her father and based on what she’s been through not what family she was born to. Also, There are far greater implications that the show itself made her seem different or her actions more dark or sinister than the actions of Starks and the Lannister’s is because she’s technically a foreigner. People’s dissatisfaction with Danny’s ending had nothing to do with wanting her to rule. Also Bran was chosen has King because he has powers, that is definitely upholding a divine right to rule and technically pre-destined because Bran knew it was coming, so not sure how Bran being chosen as King is any different than them wanting Jon as King and the only reason they couldn’t was because he killed Dany
right, Bran was chosen because he was the three eyed raven and sterile. Neither of which happened by his own merit. This video is odd...
Thanks for adding this comment so that I don't have to comment the same thing and I can just upvote yours
Yeah I could have gone for making Dany a commentary on the "enlightened depot" idea, but the series was much more critical of her being a foreigner born of incest than fleshing out why she might not be a good choice for the throne.
@@imygurl08 implying being the 3 eyed raven *doesnt* give you the most knowledge in the entire world, thus demonstrating enough merit to be a solid leader?
Danielle B Just to point this out GOT has been rushed and had lack of characterization from season 5.
This is the one thing I don't understand how come only now people notice that.
14:05 Lindsay makes almost 2 hours of content exposing hers arguments for why the final sucks and is tagged as a Twitter hater
The way it's framed even makes it look like she is one of the people who supposedly sent D&D deaththreats lmao.
Yeah, he kinda lost me there. Tbh tweets don't exactly lend themselves to nuanced criticism but i watched those videos and it's completely unfair to put her in with the crowd of Deny stans
Imagine getting made at e celebs
5:15 the Mandate of Heaven is actually a bit different since an Emperor can lose the Mandate by being corrupt/sinful/immoral
You can’t expect this troglodyte to understand anything.
Do you...
Do you think a totalitarian ruler would let people know they're corrupt sinful or immoral?
@@Peasham it was a social contract, no one cared about being sinful, they cared about their own well being, a ruler tax too much? You have the right of rebellion, and this happened quite a lot even in Europe
@@stylesheetra9411 I'll be honest, I don't understand your point.
the Mandate of Heaven was less loss due to being corrupt/sinful/immoral and more because bad shit would happen and that was blamed on the ruler not having the mandate anymore. Such bad things included; invasions, floods, disease, droughts, and blight.
14:11 I'm not sure why you're showing a tweet made by Lindsay Ellis here while talking about people who sent death threats to the writers. Especially since that tweet isn't saying that at all. Unless you're trying to say she was one of the good ones?
Yeah... I was like "wtf is he showing Lindsay Ellis tweets?" And even then, her video essay about the season 8 was not about "Dany bad so ending bad" but it was about the season was poorly handled.
GoT has a lot of problems, but talking bad about Jon for punishing the people that murdered him after he was voted in as commander is a really stupid take.
One of them was a child
@@nd9814 who helped murder the Lord Commander. Not only is that child a murderer, he's a traitor since he technically joined the Night's Watch after his family was killed.
@@corruptangel6793 he was a child dude. He was lead astray by bad men. I think the death penalty was extreme. I do like Jon Snow btw. It was a horrific mistake on the part of Snow honestly.
@@nd9814 he was old enough to be a capable archer, train with the brothers and help fight the Wildlings. He was not just some "child"
Plus, led astray? Did you not see the rage as his stabbed Jon? Did you not notice his growing anger as Jon was forming a friendship/alliance with the people that brutally murdered and ate his parents? There was no manipulation needed to turn him against Jon. He was on the verge of doing so already.
@@nd9814 it was also clear that the boy did not regret his actions at all. You can see this as he stays with Thorne after the murder and as he glares hatefully at Jon right before he's hung.
He was fully aware of his actions and suffered the just consequences.
The rightful king didn't *just happen* to come along - Gondor was once much larger and split between a northern and southern half. The Northern half fell into decline faster, but the race of men there still maintained the old bloodlines and re-founded the house as a part of a plan that was guided at least partly by the Elrond - who is basically Aragorn's great^nth Uncle - as Elrond is half elven himself and his brother chose to become human. It is from Elrond's brother that Aragorn is a direct descendant and Arwen his distant cousin - but separated by literally a thousand years or so and many generations - so no biggie.
Point being - it's a lot more complex than "it just happened". What the films do not show is that ARagorn was not the only Dunedain, but there were many of them known as Rangers who were the surviving nobles of that splintered kingdom that had survived the collapse of Arthedain as the King of the Ringwraiths had been secretly mustering forces and raiding and pillaging until the kingdom could no longer stand - forcing the last remnants of the Numenoreans into a nomadic life style to maintain their culture/bloodlines and survive.
The idea of a Good Philosopher King is an old ideal. The idea of the Great Man somewhat overlaps. Remembering that Tolkien wrote all of this as a creation myth for the Norman peoples should help make sense of it all.
Yeah that and you get to see a bit of how Aragorn rule as well. While you might of not known what sort of taxes policy he had in place. WHich the game of throne author has gone on record saying. Which does not sound like a fair or should i say legit ssue to take with lord of the rings books, while ignoring Aragorn actions as well. Since Aragorn did give the people time to rest. Saved Faramir, who would be possibly one of the biggest political threats to his rule over to his side by saving them, making the Prince of Ithilien. Allowing them to deal with the remains of the orc wondering around, creatinga nice buffer against any remaining orcish threat. Letting peace happen for awhile and not just be pure war war war like the steward before him. Giving the land time to grow and rebuild.
That and yeah. Aragorn was not only connect to royal blood, he had fought wars in gondor and rohan under a false name. The rangers were rally and came to the aid of gondor, driving off the pirate raid along the coast line of gondor. With the aid of some ghost. Allowing a force of man to flank the dark lord forces and save the white city.
Since if we are judging lord of the rings base on the movies. Well since games of throne has a tv show. Well fair fair to judge it by media that is not the original if we go down that path. Since game of thrones last season alone, did way worst than lack of information the lord of the ring films had. Since you have the case of giving a lot of land to some random person,who is not known at all in the land and has no real knowledge of. They did it so quickly as well, there might of forgetten about any existing rulers in said, so the former rightful lords might be a issue as well. Taking awhile before he could be a useful ally due to having no local ties to the land, if his rule doesn't fall apart at all and if i recall correctly. That part of the kingdom they gave away, was full of farm lands. Being the main source of food for the kingdom. That or it was someone else they just gave the main source of the kingdom food supply, while also creating a voting system. Where now you have just set up one person who can black mail others by denying them food, if they don't support or vote for them. Creating a system that is massively flawed and not well planned out from the very start. Which also just granting one person control over all the farm land by it's self, sounds like a rather bad idea. Since it gives someone a bit two much control over a important resource like food, that is needed to march armies or do anything else really. That and also to go back to that guy they just gave alot of land to. There is also another reason why that might be bad. Since now they might feel eager to rebel. Such what greater gifts are you going to be able to grand them than a massive pile of land to rule over? It could lead to them rebelling, thinking they would be better off on their own and no longer have anything to gain from remaining loyal to their leader.
Oh yeah idea of voting for a leader is whoever has the best story, rather than you know experience ruling or anything of that sort. Just who has the best story is use as reasoning to make wheel chair dude the king. Not to forget dragon queen was told, oh yeah if the bells ring that means the city has given up, they have raise the white flag. Yet for some reason she just snaps out of the blue, with no real build up towards it and just start building everything. Which just makes her lost populaity with the people for no real reason and the battle was already over. Building the city she desire to capture to the ground, just makes no sense. Her own people were still in the city as well That and her enemy was in the keep, she just seem to ignore the one perosn you think she would logically go after if she wanted to start burning something. Since just bringing that keep, while it would possibly kill some innocent people. The damage would at least be limited while also getting rid of a major threat to her rule. Since game of thrones season tv show, is by far guilty of a lot worst than the lord of the ring movies are. By a fair degree. Not just by having thing suddenly happen out of the blue, like the dragon queen going mad by learning her enemies just gave up. ALong with making many questionable choices that sound more like they are not for any real benefit, be it short term or long term gain. That or just sound plain old stupid and doom to failure. That or these horse barbarian guys, who were mostly out during the Night king attacked but than respawned somehow out of the blue after a battle where the majority of them die off screen to the night walker hordes happen.
Arnor and Gondor were never part of the same kingdom until Aragorn reunited them in the Fourth Age. As well, he is also descended from the line of Anarion when his ancestor King Arvedui married King Ondoher's daughter Firiel.
The rightful king is also a story whose morality is that power and competence can be found by looking within. Aragon is the rightful king of his kingdom because he has royal blood. That story can be a metaphor for anyone of us.
Everyone of us is the rightful ruler of our kingdom(life) and by looking inward we can find a long unbroken line of ancestors from a single celled organism to us who managed to survive and carry their genes. Therefore inside us we have the competence and power we need to take control and rule our kingdom. However we have to overcome evil in order to do that.
That's why the rightful king story is so popular. It speaks to us.
An oligarchy being set up at the end of GOT isn’t breaking the wheel, it’s pretty damn similar to the wheel and is highly unstable. What’s to stop people from bribing people to elect people they want into power? It’s highly likely Lords will start fighting for power again and we’ll end with another absolute monarchy or dictatorship being set up again to stop the chaos. That’s what was so weird about the ending: the Iron Throne is destroyed at the end, but the themes it represents aren’t exactly gotten rid of.
And no, I didn’t want Daenerys to rule and have a happy ever after ending. That was to predictable and I think wouldn’t fit with the overall themes of the show. I like the idea of her becoming a brutal tyrant, I just think it was far to rushed and executed poorly in the show.
They don't create an oligarchy. They create an elective monarchy.
Laurie The one’s who elect the monarch are the noble lords and ladies (not counting Sansa as the new monarch of an independent Northern Kingdom), not the people or citizens of Westeros. Sounds like an oligarchy to me.
@@CosmicFaust No, it's an elective monarchy in the same way as the Holy Roman Emperor. Limiting the franchise to a series of electors went on for much longer than modern universal suffrage democracy has existed.
Laurie That type of elective monarchy though is essentially an oligarchy (rule by the few) with a lifelong elected leader only voted on by the noble class. And from the final scenes of the finale episode, it’s clear that Tyrion will, in fact, be the person ruling the Six Kingdoms with the rest of the small council. The literal only new freedoms granted is for the people of the highest class to choose which of them gets to boss the others around for the next four decades tops (unless Bran is immortal or has a long lifespan).
This type of this system greatly increases the likelihood of civil war when the monarch dies, if there is any disagreement over the election of the next ruler (you better hope Bran is like a God-Emperor with a very long life span). I wouldn’t be surprised if it dissolves back to regular dynastic succession in a generation or two. One example of this possibly happening is because Bronn has control of the Reach, and therefore he has control over most of the food supply in Westeros, and therefore he can use this (as well as all the extra wealth) to take control of a voting bloc that can elect his house in perpetuity to the throne 🤔.
Oh and once the Habsburg’s came to power, in the HRE, in the 15th century, it pretty much became a de-facto hereditary monarchy until the end when the legend, Napoleon Bonaparte, road in on a great stead and went all Austerlitz on the HRE.
@@CosmicFaust doesn't change the fact that an elective monarchy is a monarchy and not an oligarchy. For example Canada or Japan might as well be republics with how little power their monarchs have (Emperor of Japan isn't even the nominal commander-in-chief of Japan, atleast Elizabeth II has that) but that doesn't change that they are constitutional monarchies.
Damn, I thought you had a good take at the start, then you defended the final season of GoT. Then you projected your personal views on an "extreme" on anyone who disagrees.
GRRM is very anti-war/anti-feudalism/anti-monarchy writer.
Issue is, the good guys are also all of the above. Which makes it good war/feudalism/monarchy vs bad war/feudalism/monarchy.
Now if the peaceful, equal, democracy was the thing admired/emulated by the main characters then the anti-stance would translate better I think
@@Rynewulf There is no good feudalism, war or monarchy in the books, you don't seem to get it.
@@redblueproductions9739 But there are no good examples of anything, but deliberately likeable characters. So all the 'good' people, all the characters we want to win are making all theose systems win and there is no juxtaposition or self awareness to show these characters separate to their systems, or good despite their systems
@@Rynewulf That may be so, but when they do that, you see people suffer.
@@Rynewulf Democracy is a stupid system and it doesn't work.
A few notes: Sauron is not coming back. He has been back for 50 years or more, openly waging war against other countries and backing puppet governments in others. Frodo is not immune to the Ring; he falls to its temptation and fails to destroy it.
Edit: Aragorn is noteably not the rightful king of Gondor, but of Arnor which he is already the de facto ruler of (the rangers). He is of the line of Isildur, a dynasty repeatedly rejected by the people of Gondor, who still held out hope for a return of the line of Anarion. He wins them over by fulfilling the prophecy of the Dead Men of Dunharrow, saving the cities of Dol Amroth, Pelagir, and Minas Tirith, and then winning his greatest potential political rival, the steward Faramir, to his side by healing him of mortal wounds.
Edit 2: Are you saying Aragorn was not qualified to be king? I mean, he has spend 80 years learning skills of leadership. He was tutored by Elrond, a 6000 year old loremaster and prince in how to rule, then studied under both the king of Rohan and steward of Gondor. He journeyed in the lands of his ancestral enemies, Harad and Rhun, to learn their ways and customs. And he has led the Dunedain for decades. As king, he gave up considerable power by granting autonomy to the Shire, the Forest of Fangorn and the Forest of the Woses, and Nurnen. He rebuilt and repopulated cities. He subdued the men of the South and east when they continued to threaten him, but thereafter made peace with them.
Edit 3: Bran became king by mind controlling the surviving feudal leaders. He is not a good person.
I don’t think he’s actually aware of the backstory of Aragorn.
Aragorn will undoubtedly be a good king but will his children be? what about their children? here in lies are problems with monarchies (among various other things).
@@greenjacketguy3759 Given ME is supposed to be our ancient past-we must assume the line of Elendil came to an end at some point or another.
@@greenjacketguy3759 We know the answer to this question. Look at the line of Aragorn's distant ancestors, the rulers of Numenor. There is no claim to infinite prosperity, only prosperity for a fairly long time. Some corrupting influence will eventually happen, but it's better to have qualified, long lived rulers with elven advisors and limited power (Aragorn is NOT an absolute monarch) for several generations than any alternative known to Gondorians.
"Are you saying Aragorn was not qualified to be king?" - This sentence single-handedly proves that you did not come even close to understanding the point of this video. It doesn't matter if a dictator is benevolent or skilled enough to rule over all things living, what matter is that no one should have such power in the first place. People should rule themselves and not be ruled by others.
"Let's talk about the Divine Right of Kings."
[shows the cover of _Leviathan_ by Thomas Hobbes, a book that argues _Social Contract Theory_ as the basis of an Absolute Monarchy's Legitimacy]
He probably didn't read it then.
@@jshadowhunter yeah from what I've noticed in some of his videos he barely does any research into what hes trying to tear down while at other times he is blatantly anti (insert thing here) when he says hes trying to be nuanced. I'd be okay if he just said I'm against this if he also called out the problems of other things he was talking about in his vids but he rarely if ever does.
@@V2011F Colour me shocked, an 'anarcho Communist' who inherantly hates the idea of heirarchy and can't possibly understand anyone finding it to be useful, based on a lack of research. A lot of this stuff makes a lot more sense once you understand the point of view a critic is coming from, as I just discovered recently.
@@VanityEvolved I am not pro inheritance of power if that was what you were getting at, also I know the guy is entitled to his opinion, however when it comes to fantasy tropes, characters ie kings, follow the old trope of right to rule via some mystical artifact or god(s). I understand he doesn't like monarchies in the real life yeah me too, even the best ruler is still just doing that, ruling over tour life.
This is where fantasy comes in and makes it a fantastical king who is just, cares for him people, does not act cruel, is a great warrior, has many children who love him, you get the idea. And he is often against the evil king who is a coward, cruel, is hated by the people but still maintains control through fear.
These are fine in fantasy but in real life, yeah they suck, collateral damage is a thing and it effects everyone.
@@V2011F I wasn't specifically aiming any comments at you, just found the mention of lack of research stood out. I only found the channel recently, and something about his opinions on certain parts of his reviews suddenly seemed to lack and real research,-very- bad faith sounding assumptions or emotional pleas. Feels strange to me when a self-proclaimed 'pedant' is either completely missing, or misrepresenting characters like Ned executing a Night's Watch deserter in some way to knowingly or unknowingly frame Ned as immoral/proof of something.
So Dany is evil because of her believe in succession by blood?
Doesn`t every person in the seven kingdoms believe in succession by blood?
I mean all nobles are kinda evil bc they run an unjust system to benefit themselves, so yeah.
@@kinmersha Lucky right now we don't have to live in a unjust system and we live where there is no class distinction.
Isn't it because she's evil because she got out of hand? Now that I think about it, it's very easy to fall into double standards in GOT.
@@kinmersha But all the other nobles in GoT like Sansa or Brien are still good?
@@PhilipKunze All the nobles are all bad, yes. Or at least, it is bad that nobility exists.
Popularity of monarchy in fantasy probably has a fairly shallow and simple reason: it fits the medieval flavor, is easy to convey and is a thing of a distant enough past to loose relevance, and thus, loose most of the nuance/controversy. Also "That good guy you closely know is now in charge, and their descendants will surely be good people too" is a psychological equivalent of your very best friend becoming a president/billionaire/whatever - and who wouldn't want that.
The lack of nuance is core, though. There's a fair share of "revolution literature" with the premise similar to that of The Powder Mage, hence, the "The Revolution Will Not Be Vilified"; but it takes a skip-through of a wikipedia article to know all the... nuance that follows any successful rebellion, the Great French Revolution in particular. In both cases the writer is just trying to say "Happily Ever After" in way that is fitting for the setting and the genre. Conflict is resolved and the resolution is final, because idealism.
This is part of why I like Joe Abercrombie's new book "A Little Hatred" so much. He shows us a world very much in need of Revolution, but also shows us a very "warts-and-all" look at an attempt of bringing that Revolution.
Monarchy is a elegant answer to a problem with story telling. It keep from needed to add muck that can slow the story down.
There's a difference between monarchy as setting dressing, though, and monarchy as intrinsic and valued plot point. A story about a knight in a war issued by his king and the knight's adventures is monarchy as set dressing. A story about a kingdom in ruin because a non-royal-blooded individual sits upon the throne and we need to kill them and replace them with this royal child is a very different beast, though.
@@ShadowPa1adin in The Witcher books, one of the main antagonist groups are actually wannabe democratic/elective monarchic revolutionaries who stop at nothing to reach their goal, coup d'etat
@@emexdizzy i mean if you listen to Academic Agent that is his stance on Cromwell.
I am disappointed that there was little effort to explain why these authors depict Monarchy somewhat favorably. We can't even hope to begin to address literary themes without considering who authored the work and why he made various literary decisions. It's fairly obvious why LoTR reflects absolutism favorably and depicts the "middle ages" sort of romantically once you consider that Tolkien witnessed the human toll of World War I first hand--the culmination of decades of technological and political advancement that left multiple millions dead. His battalion was nearly wiped out to the last man by constant shelling, and if he hadn't fallen ill during his deployment in France, he likely would have died along with them.
His experience living during the course of back-to-back world wars caused him to become resentful of technology and industrialism--two harbingers of death and destruction in his eyes. His attitude is illustrated well in a 1945 letter to his son, in which he criticized the actions of the Allied forces in their campaign of total war against Germany and Japan:
"We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well,-you and I can do nothing about it. And that [should] be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter-leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines."
Describing WW2 as the "first War of Machines" is a pretty serious condemnation of the course modernity has taken, and that democracy proved itself incapable of preventing such a catastrophe without leaving piles of bodies in its wake. It wouldn't have been apparent from the ground that democracy was in any way superior to absolutism in terms of the pure human peril either have caused, and to be sure, there's plenty of peril which can be attributed to both systems. The French revolution, American civil war, and the involvement of democratic nations in World War 2 constitute a staggering bodycount under the modern, democratic flag while the Thirty Years' war, first and second Punic wars, Mongolian Conquests, Crusades, and other wars constitute Monarchy's casualties. It's hard to say whether one system or the other is clearly less bloody or less warlike, especially given that modern democracy is relatively young so we don't have a great "sample size" if you will, and our wars comparatively shorter but nevertheless still quite deadly. Even then, our only sizable window through which we might view a war of modern monarchies against monarchies doesn't show us clearly that there is something exclusively terrible about the system's war toll vis-a-vis democracy.
Ultimately James is being unfair to literary Monarchy not only where it has soft advocates (Tolkien,) but also where it isn't depicted in a wholly puerile, contemptuous manner in order to serve some allegorical liberal presupposition about absolute power that he holds. It's foolish to judge all literature according to one's personal political standards, and especially when the matter is a historical claim for which evidence has been substituted with vague feelings. If monarchy is so exclusively grim, surely there is some evidence that can prove you right? The Thirty Years' war was quite terrible and saw lords laying waste to civilian population centers; but then again, the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki make that look like child's play.
This is a great comment, which is in opposition to this channel.
Every time I got recommended a video from this guy, it's quite poorly researched, and that's what I see with my not so great knowledge.
Is democracy itself the cause for the wars and atrocities you listed though? The revolutionary wars striving for democracy were to an extent, of course. Yet the injustice caused by absolutist governments could easily be seen as the catalyst for the conflict to begin with. Democratically elected governments have been responsible for war crimes and all kinds of corrupt behaviour since their first inception. Arguably those wrong-doings were not caused or condoned by the values written into their constitutions though. Citizens of democratic countries elect terrible leaders to this day yet as long as the possibility for a legal regime change exists there remains the chance to grow from mistakes. Is democracy in its current forms perfect? Far from it! Still in my opinion it can provide peace, stability and justice better than any form of government currently available. By the way, I apologise for the lack of paragraphs. I‘m writing this on my phone and I haven‘t quite figured out the technology yet.
Just an observation. The punic wars there was no monarchy it was republican rome and oligarchic carthage. As far as I'm aware none of those had kings. Rome had the position of dictator, but most resigned after the term was over and wasn't until the late republic that the position of dictator would be abused. Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
@@MrDarkoiV well while this is true and one must definitely not fault tolking for writing the way he did, I think you are missing the point here.
He is not saying that democracy is the holy grail of politics with no better alternatives, he says that just because someone was „chosen“ for whatever reason or is the rightful ruler, because he has the bloodline of the king doesn’t mean he is a good king or ruler or whatever, a bloodline doesn’t mean he is smart, maybe good but not nessesary smart or talented.
Also we see in history time and time again that well the ruler is not everything let’s look at Rome fore example you need good strategies, a good Organisation of the military and economy usw. and a loot of people with professions are required to work behind the scenes just because the right guy is on the throne the world isn’t gonna fix itself.
True. Not to mention that democracies were just as responsible for the wars as the dictators were. The elected head of Germany fought against the democracies of France and Britain, while the dictator of Russia was in bed with FDR during midpoint phase of the war. Japan was the only true autocracy with the leader being the Emperor, and even then he was being manipulated by military advisors until the nukes dropped. WW1 was even worse, as democracies called out for blood and intervened in a local monarchical conflict, turning it into a true world war. Tolkien had every reason to resent Democracy after they caused the kind of death and destruction that made the Thirty Years' War look like a backyard brawl.
Idk why you implied that Lindsay Ellis tweets are in any way similar to salty childish outraged fans who sent death threats to D n D. Lindsay has only criticized them through their writing. She hasn’t resorted to petty insults, she hasn’t attacked them personally. The gripes she had with the ending are more varied and complex than just “I liked dany so I’m mad they didn’t give me my happy monarchist dany ending”
Yeah he does seem to come off like funny enough, a fan boy. With the way he goes about defending rather poorly how game of thrones season eight turned out. By linking two things together, that are far apart from each other and are not even close to being the same thing.
Men can’t handle women having any opinions which even slightly differ from their own and are quick to belittle their interpretations of media because fantasy is still seen as a men’s thing and women in geek spaces aren’t constantly demeaned let alone women of colour 👀
Ebony O'Brien this has nothing to do with anything of that
@@ebonyobrien5895 That's a gross overgeneralisation.
@@nymphetteevangeline2637 Even if it is somewhat of an overgeneralization, we have to remember that stuff like this doesn't exist in a vacuum. James's comments are part of a much larger trend of men taking thoughtful opinions from women and portraying them as childish whines.
I'm gonna disagree about era 1 mistborn, the text is a nuanced take on democracy, which has it's own pitfalls, the story looks at people who were enslaved for a 1000 years and are now unable to overcome their differences to face the threats facing them, this is something that is entirely realistic and the story does make it a point to go into all the reasons democracy failed in that situation.. it is ok to question the practicality of democracy, treating them as infallible is just as ridiculous as treating kings as divinely chosen!
@Warenarin Stormlight archive is rife with criticizing monarchy and nobility though, Yes as with a lot of fantasy they end up with one guy ruling who isn't chosen by the people, but the way the King is portrayed just showcases how bad monarchy can be because you can end up with an incompetent king , I think people want fantasy to just preach ideals about democracy while I feel these subtle showcases of pitfalls of all kinds or ruling systems is far more intellectually engaging.
@Warenarin Also, why are we bringing other author's works and his religion into this? I don't like assigning intent to authors based on their collective works, every book should stand on it's own.
@Najawin The thing is that because Kings are not God and all too fallible you need to switch to a representative Democracy. The Book of Mormon makes this quite clear. Yes, if Kings were always Righteous it'd be great, the problem is they aren't and so Monarchy is not the best.
Najawin
You should seriously watch the classic anime legend of the Galactic heroes, it’s about 100 hour long OVAs but dear God is it worth it, it deeply explores the whole idea of whether or not a dysfunctional democracy is still superior to a competent dictatorship.
Najawin
I actually just finished season two of the remake witch dropped a few months ago, and I must say the new thesis is pretty good.
I just hope they have the money and wherewithal to redo the whole series.
A medieval setting having a plot that does medieval stuff isn't odd. It acts as a convenient way to put your MC above scrubs and bloodlines have been in the common consciousness for ages.
Medieval stuff? Where Is My bishopry going against a merchant repubblic because a free city of a constitiutional empire was conquered by a count who disobeyed the orders of the emperor?
While a confederacy of cantons supplies merchenarys? Absolute monarchys and nobles being at court for most of their time Is not medival.
I agree on most points made, but still will insert my five cents here:
1. Aragorn saved many lives during Minas Tirith siege by bringing a ghost army with him. Then he lead united forces of good into what essentially was a Ragnarok of that world and won it. Point be - I doubt he'd get his crown by just showing up and demanding it, I believe most would react like Boromir did. That's not as much of a "promised king" as a "dictator who saved us".
2. People didn't follow Rand because they weren't sure he was THE Dragon Reborn. In which case they weren't "bad" or "wrong" guys of the series, just the skeptical ones, as False Dragons were a real thing in this universe. This is one point of the series I really liked - author doesn't antagonize them for being against a main hero, in fact, one of the scariest antagonist is a mad prophet OF the main hero.
3. I can get behind a reasoning about likable/unlikable nobles and how it affects our view of their actions, but the series is yet to provide a better alternative in this particular world. Ironborn have one of the most democratic system in Westeros, but they are as nearly far from the "good side" as possible.
Still, a really great analysis! You are doing a good work picking these themes and addressing them from modern perceptive.
You know, the only reason Aragorn could lead that ghost army is because he was given the reforged Anduril, which belonged to the line of Isildur. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he weren't of that royal blood.
@@a.morphous66 Aragorn would been "king" even if he wasn't preordained to be king based on everything he did throughout the story, him becoming king is just part of the ending, the resolution of the story is killing Sauron which is a different oversimplification.
When you're talking about whether or not a guy is a good king or a bad king, or deserves the role, what you're not talking about is why there needs to be a king at all. In LOTR, the notion of the nobility of the soul, from Orcs to Elves, is so baked in (for good or ill) nothing makes sense without it. But maybe subsequent imitators have erred a little too much on the side of form over substance?
K Francis What i meant by “king” is that even if they were to pick some one it would be Aragorn after all he did, being a proven leader and fairly worldly person. It’s fairly baked into the lord of the rings world with Aragorn being literally the perfect man, a monarchy is very much the least of the problems in LotR
Aragon didn't lead a ghost army to save Gondor. The force that arrived in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was made of the Grey Company, who were rangers from Arnor. Arnor itself was one of the two Kingdoms formed after the Numenoreans came over, but the Kingdom fell apart due to succession crisis and the rangers came about to protect those West of the Misty Mountains from those in the uninhabited lands to the North.
My thoughts:
Fantasy tends to be in medieval (inspired) settings. Medieval times had kings. Ergo fantasy stories have Kings. Having good people in the position of a King can be interesting regardless of historical precedent.
Why would writers universally make Kings evil to criticize monarchy as a concept? A good person having that much power and them using it to society’s benefit is appealing. It’s like Superman, he could be a monster and no one could stop yet he chooses not to. It probably also have something to do with King Arthur being a household name.
the whole point of Enlightened Absolutism was to create a more egalitarian state around the personage of the King. An oligarchy sucks since for most of Europe it was ineffective and not egalitarian since it was skewed only in favor of the interests of the Elite. The King or Emperor whether out of genuine compassion/idealism or pure pragmatism often gave power to merchants/middle class men and the lower classes. This allowed those of talent to rise to a higher station. This way the King is less beholden to special interests, and he can reduce the power of his nobles by building a more loyal and more competent (advancement based on merit rather than merely by blood) governmental apparatus.
With his own loyal and effective government in place, the King can now actually enforce laws and ensure peace in the land. This allows him to collect taxes without answering to the nobles this means standing armies can be created. Standing armies allow for the enforcement of laws and an end to private warfare among the nobles. King Charles I and Louis the Great of Hungary were absolute monarchs and they managed to create a strong and stable Kingdom.
@@justinpachi3707 >King charles I
>Stable
Is that why he started a civil war and got his head cut off ?
Yes, but also no, although most medieval states had monarchies, that was not a universal thing, Venice, Genoa, Florence, San Marino, Novgorod, Ragusa, Pisa, Switzerland and the Qarmatians are all examples of medieval republics.
@@caiawlodarski5339
Wrong Charles I. I'm talking about Charles I of Hungary. He was of the House of Anjou not Stuart.
@@caiawlodarski5339
These republics were also highly aristocratic and weren't suited for such large polities in terms of government structure. The also evolved from the fragmentation of Italy during the middle ages into various communes and city states.
5:00 Hobbes didn’t argue for the divine right of kings. His theory of Monarch was secular and the Catholic Church denounced him for this.
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Dany was everyone's choice for monarchy given that monarchy was the only choice. Rooting for the best person to sit the throne doesn't equate to rooting for the throne.
Yes, but why was Dany best choice for the throne?
Seiban that’s a different argument nor is it what I’m arguing for. The point is that he’s denigrating people as being sheepish for supporting Dany instead of supporting more democratic rule, ignoring that they’re simply operating within the paradigm of the story.
@@chrisfine6013 Yes, and that was the Author's point in writing Game of Thrones. People are easily suckered in by a facade of their leader being a liberator or being kind and just, even while that leader lets hundreds be killed. It suckered the audience of the show in.
I would argue that most common folks just want stability and safety
Most lords want that plus power and money
None of the people actually acted like normal medieval people.
Nobody after the first King in the show would of lasted long especially if you start a war.
It's why dragon lady conquests keeping going bad like the slaver's bay.
Cersi should of been dragged out by the people after her kid jumped.
Replaced by someone who saw opportunity.
Honestly the more I think about it the more I realize James is right.
Seiban I know GRRMs inspiration and themes like the back of my hand. It’s not a secret that the whole series is a criticism of power. But this take is conflating two different things. It doesn’t mean that if you support a more altruistic monarch over an evil one that you wouldn’t support democracy- it means that you prefer a over b if there is no c
You mentioned at 4.53: "The European, christian concept of divine right of kings didn´t gain popularity until the late middle ages..." Do you have ever heard of pharaohs? The mediator between god and men?
Since when are pharaohs European and Christian? He means that the european, christian version of the divine right of kings didn't gain popularity until the late middle ages, not that the concept as a whole gained popularity until the late middle ages.
@@BOINKHeadshot "until the late middle ages" somebody better tell Charlemagne, Constantine (mostly the very end of his reign and his successors), and the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England their systems of government (or at least the basis of their rule) weren't popular until circa the 1300s lmaoooo I think what James is meaning to say is that Absolutism in the sense of being a King of a Nation-State, didn't start gaining traction until the late middle ages to Early Modern Period (based off of James VI of Scotland's brand of Divine Right theory) but it is entirely laughable to say that the Christian divine right of kings didn't become popular either when the late Roman Empire was quite literally, a Christian, divine right government. Hell even the New Testament Romans 13:1-7 talks about divine right in a Christian sense, which predates the entire Medieval period. The medieval period in Europe was also a time when the prevailing theory was the "Doctrine of Two Swords" where God gave power to political rulers over issues of politics and state (secular power) while God gave power to the church to oversee issues of spirituality and be the spiritual power. Both of those are rooted in Christian divine right no matter what way you try and slice it!
@@Jbum26
It was a neat example of a self - refuting post.
@@BOINKHeadshot Uhm
Ancient Greek Kings often claimed to have been fathered by a God, most commonly Zeus
They literally claimed they had the divine right to rule, via their relation to the Gods
So the original poster was correct - James was wrong when he stated that the concept of the divine right to rule was not popularized until the middle ages
Sure, you may argue that James was referring to Christian kings, but then that's because Christianity itself wasn't overwhelmingly popular until the middle ages
So the divine right of kings to rule has always been a thing ever since recorded history - the Christian version simply emerged after Christianity itself became the majority religion of the people
I love overly pedantic arguments like this.
I'm only half kidding, as pedantic as all this was, it was informative and interesting, so take my upvotes.
Oh yeah, things like this is why I unsubscribed from you. Your content is very hit and miss for me personally, because sometimes I find you insightful, other times very, very close minded only looking at things in a way that supports your own point of view.
Not hating on you, just... You're a person, just not one that puts out content I consider good or valuable all the time. I prefer more objective content.
I'm just not sure why you find that fantasy being ideologically monarchistic is "weird". It seems quite natural to me, the mythological element that it quite often has to it. It's rooted in actual mythology of kings, perpetuated by "fantasy" tales and songs that them and cemented in modern times by J.R.R. Tolkien. While feudalism may have kept the divine right of kings at bay, it certainly existed before it - Rome's Emporers became literal gods after they deceased and Egyptian Pharaos were also very heavily connected with their religion and gods (I forget the specifics). I do agree, however, that fantasy has potential for so, so much more than what is so heavily influenced by LOTR.
Having one guy saving the day is also simply an easy fantasy for many to have - "What is happiness? The feeling that power increases (could be interpreted as a centralized state lead by a good guy) and that resistance is overcome (the baddies are defeated)".
Yes, Pharaohs were usually protrayed as an incarnation of Ra or Horus, who was the god of the sun, which is how they justified their rule. (It was usually the sun god because the sun was an important part of Egyptian life, on account of it being the reason why crops grow)
Roman citizens became literal gods after they deceased -they were called LARES and PENATES, familiar gods. What Octavianus have done new is telling the Romans that Caesar as Larus was watching not only over his family but over all Rome.
@@tfmihancea That's limited in scope tho.
They weren't literal gods, they were that "familiar gods", spirits that watched over your back, more akin to guardian angels than gods.
@@Hyperversum3 Well we don't take guardian angels as serious as they took Lares et Penates. We don't have altars tot the guardian angels, don't buy and own things in the name of the guardian angels don't consider ourselves priests of our personal guardian angels. Also the whole idea of angels in abrahamic religions is to avoid being polytheistic that was not the case for a polytheist society.
Across all of human history, monarchy is overwhelmingly more common than anything else. Why? It’s simple. The one guy is in charge of organizing war, religion, diplomacy, trade, and everyone else can go about their own business.
The reason monarchy is common in fantasy is because fantasy usually has a main hero person. Making that person the monarch is a satisfying conclusion for the audience.
Nah, across all of human history the overwhelmingly most common form of social organisation is egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes. Unless you mean "human history" in the sense of "recorded history" as opposed to "everything that has happened to humans", I guess. But then your argument for _why_ monarchy was common doesn't work. Did people not want to go about their own business before the advent of agriculture?
So anatomically modern humans have been around for, what, 300,000 years? Whereas monarchy probably goes back to the advent of agriculture, only a little over 10,000 years ago. And even for most of those 10,000 years the great majority of societies were still hunter-gatherers.
@Tristan of Númenor There's kind of a difference between chieftains and monarchs that's why they weren't just called tribal monarchy. Monarchy is more of a "my bloodline has power" and a one-sided kind of system whereas egalitarian hunter-gatherer works in a "their group is our group" basis and sustenance is not dependable on those with higher power. Chieftains are merely like a judge of some sort, or one who handles negotiations with other group. Monarchs and nobles call the shots for everything.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Ah yes but the vast majority of Fantasy takes place after the advent of Civilization. When someone writes "The Adventures of Grog and the advent of Flame" then they'll get back to you on the "egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes" until then the point stands throughout human history for as much as it begins with civilization and not mere society. Humans have organized themselves with Monarchy. With the few cases of Democracy in the ancient world (Athens) crumbling in on themselves and leading to conquest by or reestablishment of Monarchy.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Monarchies are a product of families and the fact that some families do well and some don't. When one family does well the patriarchs or matriarchs want their offspring to succeed so they stake the decks in favor of their children. As long as their kids don't majorly screw up they're going to come out ahead. Wealth also has a magnetic effect, once you have more than enough wealth to satisfy your hierarchy of needs you can then use that wealth to accumulate more wealth. So once a single family in a tribe gets the largest most prosperous herd of cattle they're going to have the largest say in setting policy for their tribe and naturally they will use to further advance themselves and their family. This is why as we transition from hunter-gatherer societies to more structured, sedentary societies we always see monarchies or oligarchies form: without a system of checks and balances wealth and power is going to naturally collect around a handful of families who just got lucky.
Republican forms of government were a lot more common than people give them credit for, especially outside of Europe. It's just that a lot of the time their various offices and leaders are lumped together as Chieftains and their diverse governmental forms as "Tribal". Contemporary accounts of ancient Gaul described them as having the same sort of political diversity as Greece, filled with monarchies, oligarchies and democracies. In West Africa various different cities and confederations operated on a variety of political forms and several successor states of the Fulani Jihad were actually classed as republics by the French. The Rashidun Caliphate was essentially a republic with authority being derived from elected office and the Shura council whilst at least one of the successor Taifas of the Caliphate of Cordoba was an oligarchic republic. Historical accounts of ancient India describe cities being ruled by councils rather than kings. In Mesoamerica the City State of Tlaxcallan was ruled by a Senate and archaeological evidence suggests that there had been many older cities that were governed collectively by its population rather than through a royal family.
Now I want to write a book where a orphaned heir to the throne slowly builds an army of rebels while getting progressively more cruel and bloodthirsty until he deposes the old king only for the side characters to realise he had become just like the old king and for them to be killed for that knowledge.
Its probably been written before but it sounds fun
that’s probably how A Song of Ice and Fire will end
@@imnotpaulavery7608 IF it ever ends, that is.
@@Notfallkaramell2 y more still no book
@@Snp2024 I know...
I feel like you didn't really pay attention to Warbreaker. The God King isn't "revealed to be a figure head" he's always seen as a figurehead. The Court of the Gods is the always described as the real power. It's their vote that determines whether or not the war begins. The book never implies that the Court of the Gods is being shut down.
"I don't know about the rest of you, but if my head of state seized absolute power by killing his rivals and then said he would give up power at some unspecified point in the future, I would be a tad worried."
The Roman republic did a pretty good job of this until Caesar.
The Roman Republic was a bunch of Oligarchs, wasn't it? Even when the people clawed back some power, the oligarchs managed to subvert it. I mean, really, being a consul for a year was just one tiny moment in a life of extreme privilege and power, no? Throwing people off farms to create giant plantations, etc, etc.
Well there were two consuls and they each had different days that they ruled and they never had complete authority. I do agree it was an oligarchy but compared to today's plutocracy is it actually that different in terms of the actual freedom of the people?
They also had the Tribune of the plebs which sole purpose was to protect the rights of the plebeians
I will only say one thing to this: Hail Caesar! Roma Invicta!...and thus the Western Civilization you take for granted was born.
Caesar (and Augustus) ended a lot of the Optimates' abuses of power and so was a good thing to a lot of regular people, but the lesson I choose to take is that abuse of power is a bad idea (even if it occurs in a nominal Republic), not that a military dictatorship is a good idea.
Not a huge fan of the Lindsay Ellis hit here - she's been very articulate about her dislike of the GoT ending and the series as a whole and I think it's dishonest and honestly kind of an asshole move to lump her in with "woke performing feminists" and showing an image of her tweets where she mentions being disappointing by the showrunners while you're talking about people sending death threats. Not cool, man. If you haven't watched her videos on why she finds the GoT ending unsatisfactory from a narrative standpoint, I'd reccomend doing so. If you have and still decided this was the best thing to do instead of, you know, actually showing death threats to the people involved... Yikes.
That said, I do like the reading of GoT's subversion with the fantasy tropes of the "rightful ruler," and I'm sure the book ending will be similar in the plot points way of doing things. But the way the show handled it was just not well done. The show managed to do an arc where there was an unsatisfactory outcome to a character we the audience liked due to their poor and selfish decisions w/ the Red Wedding, and it was acclaimed by audiences and critics for doing so. The ending not so much.
Lindsay Ellis is like the queen of woke performative feminists. She endlessly virtue signals and then gets "canceled" after saying something they don't like, cries about it, "quits twitter," comes back, rinse and repeat.
@@orirune3079 I hope you get to grow up some day
@@CPSPD thank you, I will do my best
I agree with the rightful heir problem and your distaste of it. However about the GoT part of this video, I have problems.
"wrote characters as likeable and charismatic to draw 'us' in"
This is a very outside-in approach to looking at Game of Thrones. I don't really like this approach. It is as if though the author just writes characters and then they go bad and Aha! Gotcha! or writes a charismatic character to get audience approval and then to make the audience reflect on some moral the author is trying to convey. The characters in Game of Thrones and Daenerys especially is quite morally grey to me (part of the reason I hated GoT last season is how moral nuance is thrown aside for the "We Made you root for a dictator! Lol" when it is never really 'shown' how her idealism got the better of her. I mean was she mad? But she says it was necessary, why? Is it all genetic determinism? If she just used three dragons from the start, couldn't all this be averted? The show never really answers anything, just throws this moral monologue at you and exits), the characters themselves have many sides to them and boiling them down to just good/evil in a very modern moralistic sense disregarding the context of their world is too simplistic to me.
"The exact same way she always was..."
And yet she had different sides to her. She is the kind of person who would punish the 'perceived' bully to save a 'perceived' underdog. In the end she just lays waste to everything. Why kill the thousands of innocents when she could just kill Cersei? She now sees even the civilians to be the bully? But why? This is the person who locked up her dragons once when she thought they were a threat to her civilians (I want to see how that idealism died), so as much as she can burn, she can also show restraint, ponder over her failures. The show never showed me how one side eventually won over the other. It just shows that one side did and she says about saving only the future, but why? Put another way, what if GRRM is showing that the idea of cartoonishly good and evil is just a wrong way to look at the world and even Daenerys? That people are complex and ruling is a delicate balancing act (not so when people go evil in the show! Cersei never gets a rebellion, but when Dany tries to control slavers bay it's a house of cards. When Dany goes apeshit, she wants to liberate the world, with what? Broken treasury and ashes? She couldn't properly march an army because of morale and provisions issues and now all ready to liberate the world...ahh the show!).
"A large portion of the fan base lost their minds, our benevolent dictator wouldn't do ..."
So you think this is why a large portion of the fan base lost their minds? That they were all Daenerys fans who were stupidly rooting for a tyrant that the show was smart enough to portray and now they are too 'stupid' to 'realize' that? 'A large portion'? Really?
It just sounds like a straw man of /r/freefolk now. There are a lot of 'factions' within that subreddit.
"...not because he was born into it...best fit for the job"
Must I point out how ridiculous all that was? That is definitely not how power or systems of governments work. There must be means to ensure that if such a system is put in place, it would stay in place. The whole thing about Dany's uphill battle after levelling the master class in Astapor was that there wasn't a system in place to ensure the government (she placed a council just like this and it was overthrown by Cleo the Butcher)! There is no such checks and measures there. Why does Davos even get a vote, what happened to the rest of the lords of Westeros that have the same standing as Davos? The North is independent because it doesn't want a southern leader? But Bran is Northern! Why is Iron Islands and Dorne not leaving? How will the North survive another Winter without food from the Reach? Will it now be like in old times when Winter comes, the North men go reaving south so that there's less mouth to feed? One must only look at the fact that Bran wasn't the rightful ruler and nothing else? Also how did Sansa 'prove' herself a capable leader? It's never shown, it's only just implied. Infact it could be argued that she manipulated everything to the point that caused most of this in the first place. Why does Sansa have a claim on Northern Independence? She wasn't 'chosen' by the North, Jon Snow was, and her taking of control is outright treason, much of Medieval ways are thrown out to the side by the show, and characters behave as though modern morality and ways of thinking are in place. Even if Sansa is just mary sue ishly good at learning politics and fielding armies in just 2 seasons, it just makes her another 'benevolent dictator', but that isn't a problem? Bran is a thought controlling tree god voted in by a puppet council of nobles - what does that say about the rightful king stuff, about who gets to be in power? To me, replacing the rightful ruler by a tree demi god is just worse (unless explained somehow).
"aggressively miss the point"
Hmm...the points you think the show was 'meant' to portray? For me there was too much 'bullshit' last two seasons for it to even suppose it had something coherent to say.
"remake the last season to better suit..."
People who voted for that wanted an ending with Khaleesi as the king of the world? I don't know about the stats of how many people voted on that with that particular agenda, but a lot of people on r/freefolk just wanted 'competent writers' going by the posts at freefolk that comes up whenever that remake petition is 'misinterpreted'.
I'm glad someone else said it because I wasn't looking forward to typing out that comment.
Also just an aside, but I was hoping Dany would die in the battle of Winter hold, and Jon/Tyrion would be forced to go to Kings Landing where they would spend most of the season trying to properly convince Cerci to help fix this problem (sense winter and the walkers are an obvious analogy for climate change, this message that we all have to unite to fight it would be the driving theme of the season). Eventually the battle would happen and somehow both Jon and Cerci would die leaving nobody with a claim to the Iron throne after the victory. In the end the Lord's of westeros would settle on a system where they serve as a national legislator and leave the governing of the individual Kingdoms to governors they pick, likewise the office of Hand of The Kings persists as a sort of weakened Prime-Minister. Tyrion would have invented this system of course, as well as served on it as the King of the Westerlands.
@@johnsphpaulin1162 Personally, it was kind of almost a guarantee that some kind of theocracy would come about by the Red Woman in the books, in one way or another, displacing the Seven and the Old gods in the South and North, respectively. Fire will always win against ice as long as you five it the kindling, its just the way chemical reactions work.
I agree entirely!! People who try to defend or apply logic to the last season have no credibility to me. Their arguments all fall flat when you analyze the story and the lore a little deeper. They try to sound smart and act like Geroge created this entire universe, and especially Daenerys, to make a study on society and tyranny or whatever, but that's just..... not true. The guy wrote the Army of the Dead as a metaphor for global warming. The books are about these characters coming together to fight the real threat and realizing that the Iron Throne doesn't matter. I wish people would just stop trying to defend that crap season. It doesn't make sense. The end.
Amen
For your last point, I'd say the answer to that question is yes. r/freefolk is chock-full of Dany/Jon stans. There's also a very popular youtube video called "How Game of Thrones should have ended" which would turn Dany into some disney princess, having her kill the Night King and end all nefarious magic in the world, and bear forth Jon's heir as she becomes queen. It's ridiculous. And that video was well received, so I think it's a good indication of what people want. As if the story would end with a return to tyranny by dragons and legitimate birthrights.
(That's to say nothing of the writing in episodes 3 and 4, no one can defend that.)
I wish I could like half of your video. First half genuinely made me question why fantasy is so stuck on monarchy.
Second half is a violent wrestling match with a strawman. Nobody disliked the heel turn. Everyone disliked the stupid way it happened. There were plenty of better places for Dany to go mad with power, but the showrunners chose to make her evil immediately after her victory. Not when her friend lost her head. Not when her dragon died. Not even in the prior season when people refused to kneel.
It was absolutely cartoonish how she went from idealism to genocide at such an illogical point in the story and so quickly. I agree GRRM is ultimately anti monarchy, but D&D botched the execution.
Also D&D just straight up lied about her characterization, saying early on that she wasn't insane and then in S8 interviews saying she clearly was. The best tell is perhaps Emilia Clarke and how blindsided and distraught she was by the whole thing. She'd been playing a character one way her whole adult life and then BAM, totally different person.
She HAD been learning how bad the system was and that she was learning to work within it. She's not free from the idea of bloodlines and things but even if she was, she couldn't do anything BUT use her blood. Part of her storyline is her learning things like the fact that the average person doesn't give a damn about who is on the throne. THAT'S what the show tossed out.
He's also leaving out that much of the backlash was on the season as a whole - including when the MAIN THREAT OF THE WHOLE SERIES FROM THE FIRST SCENE was killed in a second no problem at the very start of the season by a person who absolutely shouldn't have killed him (pretending the character even should ever have existed lol)
@@rhi-y8d Arya shouldn’t have existed? Now you’re an Arya hater?
@@Boraheartsss the night king shouldn't have been a character. He's not a book character in a form at all that that
@@rhi-y8d he will be. Just haven’t gotten to that park yet
@@Boraheartsss yes, I'm sure that GRRM who is explicitly setting up the White Walkers as a force of nature is going to give them a load-bearing figurehead. Because climate change can be solved by stabbing it.
"Tolkien started the fantasy genre" is not a fact...
@Абдульзефир king of elfland's daughter came out in 1924 worm ouroboros came out in 1922. Tolkien's The hobbit came out in 1937.
However these other two don't really have the same feel. With the worm ouroboros feeling more like a documentary type of book than a fantasy but still both are good reads.
Sansa never “earned” her right to be queen of the North. Maybe if they followed her book plot but once S5+ came and went, she did nothing, everything was handed to her or someone gave it to her
@Burnt Orange She actually did something at the Battle of the Bastards. All Bran did was choose to sit in the Gods Wood while being used as bait and give Arya a knife...while thousands of other people were killed long before the Night King ever came close to him. Thanks Bran. You did just about nothing. Here's a crown for all your troubles.
@Burnt Orange Sansa sentenced many loyal northmen to death due to her moronic decision of not telling anyone about her reinforcements from the vale, that info would be quite handy at planning that battle.
How did she made sure the north wouldnt starve during winter? and wahtever she did wasnt that some simple common sense winter preperation every leader would had done in her position?
@Burnt Orange Sansa fucked up badly when it came to the battle of the bastards. She could've told Jon reinforcements were on the way, which would probably get Jon to stall the battle until they arrived. Coutnless people had to die as the result of that. Even if we don't consider this a mistake, what did she personally accomplish exactly? Peter baelish was the one who brought the army there. He was the one in charge. Sansa did nothing but stand in one place, talk nonsense and look pretty. That's it.
Then, for some reason, these barbaric, conservative northmen seem to connect more to her than to Jon or Bran IMMEDIATELY. I mean, I'd get that the lords eventually view her as a more competent leader, but there's two big problems with her just taking charge of everything:
1. It happens too fast. The lords just all happen to agree with her views and wish for her to be the Stark of Winterfell in the span of 2 episodes.
2. The commonfolk all just accept this for no reason, even though they have Brandon Stark and The White Wolf as candidates. I get that the lords have met these people personally and as such can judge them, but the commonfolk would have no reason to assume Sansa is more competent than Jon or Bran as a ruler and she's certainly under them succession-wise.
@@filipferencak2717 There is a possibility that they believed as a woman, Sansa would be more willing to take a man from the North as her husband, and then one of the Northern families would think of themselves as being "in power" as being the man of the house. Therefore, it's kind of logical for the Northern nobles to do that.
However that wasn't really explained in either the books (yet) or the show at all. But that's just my idea on their thought process in supporting Sansa.
Wow, what an asshole.
I mean...yeah, we accept Robb Stark starting a war for independence that kills a lot of people as a good thing. We also generally accept George Washington starting a war for independence that kills a lot of people as a good thing too. How agreeable the ends are is a big factor in how justifiable we think the means are. Yeah, we have a problem with Tywin massacring his political rivals because they're trying to secede and we agree with their reason for seceding but no problem when Dani kills her political rivals who are particularly brutal slave lords. Did you watch Django Unchained and think, "Wow, you need to calm down and look at this from Calvin Candie's point of view, maybe he has a worthwhile contribution." The why matters when it comes to justifying violence. It's not about the characters being likeable or unlikable, it's about whether we agree with their broader goals. Using violence to institute oppression is very different than using violence to end oppression. And, yeah, you can say that "well everyone thinks they're the ones being oppressed," but I think at this point we recognize why a slave's right to be free trumps a slave owner's right to own slaves.
@@francescomiele6601 The argument I've heard is "they were enemy combatants who refused to surrender" rather than "muh waifu". I don't agree with it, of course - even if you argue that other lords an generals of the time might do the same, you can't show you're better than the others by doing the same shit they do.
well, Robb's rebellion went way too far, Robb become so drunk in victory and was so much rooting for power that he forgot why he was fighting, when he started the war I had support for him but by the middle of book 2 he was simply doing it for fun and getting more power which eventually killed him
@@rajarshighoshal6256 Citation needed.
Robb was not rooting for power or "getting more power" and he was not fighting for fun. Actually, there are almost no scenes of Robb having fun in the series. Robb was fighting a war that his enemies started, and he was fighting to defend his lands and those of his allies. Then he was chosen as king by the people he needed to protect his family and dependents. If he refuses the crown, they have to knuckle under to their enemies, and kneel to a throne with a long history of abuses particularly against them. The crown was the price of his follower's support - they wanted their own king, not the one they were fighting.
"By the middle of book 2 he was simply doing it for fun." - No, he wasn't. The enemy was still in the field! Until the END of book 2, they were still invading his kingdom! He was STILL trying to achieve the original aims for which he assembled the army and marched to war, with no thought of becoming a king.
@@Gunleaver as far as I remember he was still trying to win Westlands even after the fall of winterfel by the mid of book2! Even if he hadn't achieve the goals he wasn't really thinking about any ways on how to achieve it. His way is he will go on to win more and more battles which is ridiculous and well really sounds funny from logical pov. Also catelyn was a pain in the ass, he freed mindlessly the single most valuable prisoner really for nothing. But anyways whenever I read those areas I find more and more that Robb really has no plan and he is kinda lost and even also he doesn't need to step down as a king he need to defend winterfel if he can't defend it he is no king and he clearly could not do that
@@rajarshighoshal6256
Robb was not trying to win the Westlands, he was trying to lure Tywin out from behind the walls of Harrenhal, and to get him out of Robb's territory where he was brutalizing the people with a systematic program of terror. It was not about fun or power tripping. He WAS thinking about ways to achieve "it", which was by defeating the Lannisters in battle. There is no other way to get something from them. They don't respect anything but naked force.
Robb's goal is to force Tywin to give up by defeating his armies, capturing or killing him or by stripping him of his power. He is doing the last by riding around Tywin's own turf, taking supplies in recompense for what Tywin took from the Riverlands, and showing all Tywin's vassals and subjects that the Lannisters can't stop him. If Tywin doesn't do something about that, his lords will eventually have to make a choice to keep following Tywin and letting their homes be threatened, or desert his cause. Tywin goes after Robb, just as Robb planned, in order to prevent the latter from happening and only Edmure's interference prevents it from working. If he captures or kills Tywin, that's it. Game over. The Lannisters are dead, no one is going to follow them anywhere. Cersei and Tyrion have no army and no one is going to follow them or trust that they can succeed where Tywin failed.
If Tywin and his children are removed from the picture, Robb might be able to negotiate a return to the Seven Kingdoms with Stannis although that isn't likely given Stannis' attitude before he is humbled by his defeat on the Blackwater. But you can make peace with Stannis. You can't with the Lannisters, who lie & betray without thinking twice.
And Winterfell is not a magic talisman. Robb has to retake it and punish the Greyjoys so no one thinks he's a pushover, but the circumstances of its loss don't reflect badly on him, so long as he follows through, which he is doing. He turned his army around when he got word and marched home to begin preparing to retake it. He's not lost. There are times when he's railing against all the bad luck and weighed down by the burdens of the job, but he has a plan to beat the Lannisters until Edmure screws it up, and then he has a plan to beat the Greyjoys. Beyond that would depend a lot on what the political situation looked like when he was ready to make his next move.
8:56 Can i point out that that image you use to show Ned Stark caring of his people is somewhat of a misrepresentation. The man kneeling over the chopping block is a deserter of the Night's Watch, a group of men oathbound to stand guard at the wall in the north for the arrival and attack of the white walkers. That man broke his oath and fled which is a crime punishable by death and since Ned is the Warden of the North it's his duty to carry out the sentence. As for the man being one of Ned's people is technically untrue since although the wall is in the North, the Night's Watch are not bound to any kingdom and as for that man in question, I don't think its ever stated from which of the 7 Kingdoms he is from so you can't easily claim that he is one of Ned's people.
Not to mention that he gives as the explicit reason for the death penalty that the man was running loose in his lands, and would not shy away from any crime to save or protect himself.
Lindsay Ellis sent death threats? I know the kuleshov effect when I see it buddy her not liking how that dumb show ended is not the same as sending the producers death threats. That was pretty bad faith my dude.
You’re a SIMP, my dude
@@malalalalala2985 Every person who defends a woman for something isn't a simp.
- signed, a woman who youtubes on another account and knows very well the difference between fans/defenders/actually nice people and simps. Also, someone who is only mildly familiar with Lindsay Ellis but agrees that the clip was bad to include.
@@rhi-y8d Of course not every one is. But those who defend that vile woman are
@@malalalalala2985 Okay I'm defending the person you're responding to's statement. I'm a simp. For a person I'm not even a huge fan of.
@@rhi-y8d You lover her
Well, I guess I have some thoughts on this, so let me divide them up and put them out there.
A) Maybe they don't talk about this because their story isn't about the political failings of the monarchial system? That discussion doesn't fit the tone of every series nor can everyone write that and keep it interesting. I mean wouldn't it be weird if a light-hearted action-adventure romp suddenly stopped to have its leads talk about why their fictional government is bad and needs to be replaced? As far as I'm concerned, if the series itself does not bring up the flaws of a system or do something that brings attention to those said flaws, then it's just not relevant to the story being told. If the issue is just that they aren't telling the story you want to read, then why don't you write the story you want to read? Or at least draw enough interest to the idea of such a story that authors are incentivized to write it instead of criticizing them for not having done so yet.
B) They're going to have to develop the idea of democracy in-universe first before anyone logically tries to implement it. Like if the characters have only known of monarchy as a system of governing, then it's unreasonable to expect them to institute any other form of rule. It took us a lot of time to develop a democratic system that works, so it makes sense that the same would apply in a fantasy world. We are simply seeing the era prior to the development of democracy, wherein there are a wide range of rule from what we'd consider good to bad. Sure, the story doesn't have to be set in that era, but the author wanted to write a story in that era and it's a little reductive to tell authors they shouldn't write things in specific settings.
C) Semi-continuing the last point, magic existing is going to affect systems of rule in a fantasy world. Especially, when in those worlds there are divine beings that look over humanity. You don't necessarily have as great a need to keep the king in check when the gods are going to send someone to kick his ass if he tries to abuse his position anyway. I'm not going to say it eliminates the possibility entirely but would lessen the immediate need for a balanced system when you have god looking out for you anyways. And again, they have to develop first before they'd reasonably instate a whole new system of governing. Also, this doesn't necessarily apply to all fantasy series, but it does seem to apply to a few you are criticizing.
D) I don't like Game of Thrones, but what are you even saying here? First off, the motto of the story is essentially "good people do bad things," so yeah, the "good" guys are going to do morally dubious things. Not because they necessarily want to, but because they believe they have to. Second off, of course people are rooting for them despite them doing bad things because they are the protagonist, we are supposed to like them. Most people don't like reading stories where the characters aren't likable, so wouldn't it be weird if people were upset with the protagonist succeeding in something? Again, not every story has to have a likable protagonist, but with GOT you seem to be criticizing basic human nature at this point.
P.S. Oh also, even though I haven't seen the show, but I'm pretty sure there's a scene where one of the slavers children directly criticizes Dany in person for killing their father because he was a good person who fought for the slaves' rights or something like that. So it'd be weird for the audience to not be aware of the fact that she probably should not have blindly killed a large group of people for partaking in an act she found morally reprehensible when there's a scene in the show itself dedicated to that purpose.
E) Having just rewatched the video, I feel the need to add this as another point. Are you intentionally dismissing all the criticism of GOT's final season, cause it certainly seems like it? I'm sure some of the people criticizing the show are [whatever negative category you want to put here), but like, there are far too many people upset for that to be a reasonable answer. You should be attacking their actual points instead of just putting motivations into question because if they have valid points they are valid regardless of how terrible the person saying them is. Especially in this case where the criticism is mostly that the story doesn't make sense, which runs counter to GOT's mission statement of being what would realistically happen in a medieval fantasy world. I don't want to confrontational, but it genuinely feels like you've chosen to ignore the other side's arguments for the benefit of your own.
G) (This is more pointed towards the comments, but I'm including it anyway) I find the assumption that fantasy stories that criticize monarchies don't already exist to be strange, how do you know that exactly? There's a lot of fantasy books out there, more than anyone could hope to read in a lifetime, how do you know that none of them delve into these topics? I'm sure if you looked for them, you'd find at least a few dozen, and let's be real, what are the odds that it's even that low. Is your problem that those that do look into those topics aren't popular enough? Then why not find them and direct more people towards them, instead of criticizing other more popular fantasy stories for not being about the same things?
Amen
I mean, GoT heavily criticizes aristocracy and society in general. There's two basic points GRR Martin is trying to get across:
1. Let's stop killing each other over bullshit and stop the greater issues we'll all be facing together soon (White Walkers = Global warming).
2. War sucks and it's the product of aristocratic assholes. In wars, the rich prosper while the poor die.
That's the whole fucking point of the entire saga ffs...
@@filipferencak2717 somehow the showrunners managed to mess up even the basic message of the original story, still waiting to be completed, but the seeds are obvious. George Martin writes like a professor, and D&D write like his students, who can hardly get a D.
@@vladboch D&D write like they don't really care about the project itself or the fans attached to it. It's obvious they were only in it for the money and fame. I hope they're happy with the backlash and I hope they never get a big project again.
@@filipferencak2717 they pretty much admitted recently, that they never really understood the books and it showed throughout production from the very beginning. It's a miracle, we even got first 4 seasons, that were great, but even then, there were some unnecessary character changes, that damaged the story in the long run. So, D&D have already been dumped off their supposed Star Wars trilogy, now they are doing some unimportant irrelevant stuff for Netflix. I think, in the end justice prevails.
taking issue with the slaughter of slave owners seems odd to me
personally I'm cool with slavers dying
"The fantasy genre was created by Tolkien."
Nope. Fantasy genre existed way before tolkien. Dunsany and King of elflands Daughter. Eddison The Worm Ouroboros. ect . Don't mention The Broken Sword that was released in the same year as LoTR. Tolkien made it extremely popular, that is true but did not invented it, hell my copy of the Worm Ouroboros comes with a quote from Tolkien himself, praising the work for its world building
This was the comment I was looking for
@@salmantitas Well you found it.
Agreed. Tolkien was the one who pioneered modern fantasy, with him taking inspirations from other fantasies, folklore, mythologies and religious stories from the past.
And even before then, you had both the genre of "Planetary Romance" which featured new worlds with various different races (see, for instance, "A Princess of Mars"), and the entire motif of being in "the deep ancient past" was also charted out before Tolkien (see: Conan).
Tolkien was highly influential, but one REALLY shouldn't underestimate the importance of Howard on the foundation of the genre.
lol I had to pause the video 30 seconds in to look for this comment. Well said. And even beyond that stuff, the sword & sorcery genre had been riding high for a good decade or so before LotR was published. Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Fritz Lieber and a bunch of other guys were all creating fantasy stories before and after LotR.
Tolkien was hugely influential on the genre obviously, but he didn't create it by a long shot.
I'd raise the obvious objection here that having fantasy lands represented as modern liberal democracies would ruin the medieval realism a bit. My impression is that in the middle ages for any polity much larger than a city state, or an alliance of cities, a relatively benevolent monarch was the best they could hope for. One could mix it up by having some republics but even they had a tendency to become oligarchies. Indeed one of the arguments for a King is that they are meant to be above sectional interests so present a balance to, say, the merchant class or "the mob" taking control.
A lot of medieval fantasy tend to really oversimplify and romanticize medieval monarchies.
For instance, for most of the middle ages, the king of France had a rather small territory, when compared to other lords, and when compared to what we see as France today. Alliances were fluctuating, and the feudal system was such that his power wasn't very centralized anyways : lords fought one another on a regular basis.
As for medieval democracies, it all depends on execution. Sure, a whole country being run by an elected president sounds weird in that context, but cities having elected city councils, villages relying on direct democracy, it could work.
If you add magic to the mix, you can also imagine that spell casting could allow for quick communications, or even secure ballot casting, and all manner of things that would facilitate maintaining a democracy in a seemingly medieval context.
But the fact that the middle ages are more explored than any other period is quite weird as well. What about the late 18th century and the political revolutions, for instance?
More than that, a liberal democracy as we understand it today wouldve been almost impossible in medieval times, especially in larger kingdoms. Farmers dont make for good rulers, since theyre more concerned about whether or not their crops will fail and theyll all starve to death than about educating themselves. Modern democracies only became a thing once the masses became educated enough to participate in it. Yes, there were republics, but they mainly existed in italian city-states.
@@mordador2702 Some records about the life of peasants suggests that in normal times peasants spent quite some time socializing and planning parties, celebrations.
disasters, famines and epidemics were a concern of course, and more so than today, but we might oversimplify things by implying that it would prevent people from being politically engaged, and somewhat informed (even if it's by oral tradition rather than books)
But i agree that portrayals of democracy in a medieval settings makes the most sense at a village to city state level. But then again, even kingdoms were decentralized, and few fantasy authors take that into consideration.
Oh yeah a "balance" hmmm...
Why are we taking all fantasies as medieval by the way? I feel like everyone here just accepted that like it wasn't a loaded assumption.
@@futurestoryteller Yeah, balance with no check and balances whatsoever, like if the king would be an impartial broker and not a massive egotist most of the time :)
I think it's fair to say that fantasy having its roots in european folklore, and having been formalized by Howard and Tolkien, a medieval setting is a valid default assumption. urban and science fantasy, weird fiction are kind of their own thing.
That said, Rome, Athens and Carthage were a thing long before the middle ages, and had extended periods of time during which they weren't monarchies.
And greek mythology is also a huge influence on fantasy.
Scandinavians, whose myths also have influenced fantasy a great deal, also had democratic councils called "things"
Man, this guy does not even understand how socities in the middle ages worked, and he wants to judge fantasy books based on medieval Europe? Your videos on world building are good, but this one is ignorant and self-centered on a 21th century american bourgeoisie view point.
There were anti monarchists in the middle ages tho
@@SomeRandomDude000000 Yes, and you can find a lot of them in fantasy novels.
American bourgeoisie. How sad they control they narrative
Hmm you lost me when you tried to defend what D&D did to the final season of GoT.
You say that Bran became king "not because he was born into it but because those who chose him felt he was the best fit for the job " and that's laughable. Tyrion says he would make a good king because history keeps people together and "who has a best story than Bran". That's literally IT. We NEVER see Bran ruling anything, so we can't know if he's going to be a good or fair ruler. He isn't even a person anymore at this point, so the whole thing was very vague. Not to mention that the people who decided he would make a good king (based on..... absolutely nothing, because let's be honest here, those people don't even KNOW him), but anyway the people who voted for him were all... nobles. Sam brings up the idea of some democracy, and everybody LAUGHS, because, oh silly Sam, trying to imply the people who are going to be ruled should have say in this! If Bran had done something, anything, for the smallfolk, or for anybody, and proved himself to be a good ruler, maybe, and that's a huge maybe, things would have made somewhat sense. But the way it was executed.... it's simply ridiculous.
You also say Sansa was chosen as queen of the North because "she proved herself a capable leader" and I'm just-- WHAT? JON was chosen as king in the North because people believed in HIM, and HE proved himself to be a competent leader. Sansa was not "chosen for the job". Sansa had the North handed over to her by her brothers. She literally asks her little brother for independence and he grants it to her. The end. She never did anything, never fought a day in her life for her subjects. She wanted to take back Winterfell because it belonged to her family, not because she cared for the Northerns. Name one (1) thing she did for her people that may have proved she would be a good leader. The only thing she did was say Jon and everyone else was wrong and be really close to murdering her own sister. God, I would have trusted Arya better with that crown tbh.
In the end, the wheel wasn't broken at all and absolutely NOTHING changed. It's still a monarchy where the rich gets richer and the poor gets wrecked. Sansa putting on a crown and having the whole North bending the knee was the cherry on top. It's even more ridiculous when you think about what GRRM has said about the true message of his books. That the "real enemy is the ICE". He wrote this entire thing just to prove how stupid these people are to be fighting for an ugly chair while the world is literally about to end. The whole point of the books is that, hopefully, these characters will understand that the iron throne means nothing, and will come together to fight the real threat: the Others. But the show ignored that plot because D&D can't write and they never understood the series. And people who try to argue that George was trying to make this huge analogy abou tyranny should just read one or two interviews with the author and see what he has to say about his art, because this ain't it. This ain't it at all.
Also, Benioff and Weiss literally said that Jon killing Daenerys and Daenerys burning KL was THEIR idea, not George's, and that they came up with it "around season 3", same as Arya killing the night king. So no, they didn't write a masterpiece, they wrote a Disney ending for the Starks, and GRRM/ASOIAF have nothing to do with it.
edited: I forgot to mention one king... when you say that Bran became king without violence.... LMAO of course he did! Daenerys cleaned the path for him and his family! She defeated Cersei so that they could comfortably sit on their thrones and pat themselves on the back for not shedding a drop of blood. Well, that's because someone else fought their war FOR them. I really wanted Daenerys to have died in episode 3, just to see how the Starks would have defeated Cersei. In the words of Olenna Tyrell: "How do mean to take the Iron Throne? By asking nicely?"
All of your arguments are hilarious because they take the things he said at face value, when the actual point of the show was not that monarchy is bad, it was that making decisions about people's lives are a complicated task that have to be undertaken by _people_ and those people are flawed. That there are no easy answers, and it would be completely stupid for people to come out of the show certain that everything will fall apart, or that everything will be "okay." The last significant thought expressed by Jon and Tyrion, the two leads of the story was *DOUBT*
Also, nice joke about D&D making up the ending of Game of Thrones. This is obviously them covering for Martin. They took heat for the thing about Stannis burning his daughter, and the "Hodor" incident too, the fallout from that was eventually the reveal that the show really was spoiling the books, which bothered some people. GRRM himself called the show "The same story told differently." It's the same as when at some kind of panel not too long ago, some people asked D&D if they had a plan going into Season 8, and they said they didn't, so people ran with that. These guys write in-jokes into their teleplays. Do you _really_ think you're not being trolled here?
You really don't understand this show at all
@@futurestoryteller Stannis literally cannot burn his daughter in the books since they are kilometers apart. Stannis himself in the books said "if I die you must keep fighting to put my daughter on the throne". It is quite impossible for GRRM to write Stannis burning Shireen. Stannis's Wife and Mel (the Red Priestess) might burn his daughter thought.
LOL
@@futurestoryteller yeah I don't understand the show at all, only 20% of the audience who liked the final season understand the show, the other 80% who HATED the finale and have read the books many times are all dumb brainless people who can't put 2 and 2 together. You got me! Have a good life!
"My opinion is popular, I must be right!"
And the judges gave her 10/10
I don’t know bro. I think the GOT ending was just bad writing. Everyone has a right to be mad. Also you can accuse any fans of specific characters of being butt hurt as Dany fans because nobody got a satisfying well written ending. Lol. I’m just a fan of the story and not any specific character and I’m still sitting here wondering why on so many things. To many.
What.com come out
Yeah I was fine with her quote unquote going mad but a lot of both the character writing and the bigger picture stuff was pretty bad in season 8.
At least we got cleganebowl
P Vel101 Yeah it’s not like the writers of the show omit any important details or rushed things to reach a certain event, oh wait that’s exactly what they did.
I'd agree but he does make a point that GRRM wrote the series as a subversion of the usual tropes of the fantasy genre especially in terms of the fight for the throne. But the while the novels (from what I understand, personally I haven't read them) have that nuance, the show doesn't since it pretty much does portray Dany up until the very end where they pull the rug from under us out of nowhere. The show has bad writing in terms of actually setting up that ending. But that doesn't mean that the idea GRRM had for the ending is actually bad given the story HE was writing.
Christian Of course there was a that now infamous interview where Martin flat out said they had enough material to make 10 seasons.
Plus apparently the book community has actually predicted the show would have ended this badly because they notice how certain things were change for the show just seeming for the sake of it.
I liked the first half of the video, it's interesting to think about. The chosen hero trope is over used but I believe it's because it makes a compelling adventure for a hero to over come and rise to the top. People like the aesthetic of medieval era, ergo fantasy is set in there. I don't believe fantasy having good kings is propaganda per say, the idea of a good leader or ruler is appealing and good ending for characters. Dystopia fiction often portrays governments as evil and fantasy, typically, has an evil ruler as you mention. Ergo it shows the other side, how much depends on the writer.
The later half of the video was rather condescending and off putting. There was a lot of emotion and not in a good way. It sounded like you wanted to vent your frustration, and you did point out that there was some people that weren't like this, but that was brief and went right back to talking down to people. Fans who wanted Daenerys to gain the throne, people can like a character and root for them and not wholly agree with their actions. The sudden moral debate based on what happens in fiction is not needed. Fiction is fiction. People use fantasy to escape from reality, wherein reality our leadership may not be the best. The sudden morality argument was unneeded. Getting heated over people being upset about their favorite not getting a happy ending is kinda butthurt. Chill out.
Death threats are never okay, no argument.
yep
You are not thinking through the political implications of what choosing Bran does. Bran is actually worse. Having a long-lived posthuman entity with no care for normal NOR great human beings control the world with the ability to see everyone and their past at the same time is worse than a monarch. A monarch needs at least Soviet 1920s+ level technology for something approaching such levels of knowledge and reaches over each person's lives, plans, ambitions, and thoughts. And even then you need 1960s+ to really reach approach Bran can do. Westeros went from a King to someone that, if they so wish, can recreate 1984. Were Bran only slightly more... lively and even a touch eviler, his rule would be so ironclad and despotic, no king or queen in the history of the ASOIAF world would ever be able to equalize with him. NO matter how hard they may try.
Also, you are simplifying the fan bases and its issues on the execution aspect, confusing memes and mocking incompetent writing with liking evil deeds.
Yeah pepole just dont like shitty writing and shitty excution if it was done better no body would be complianing
Yeah, since hey. Everyone wants good writing. There might be some disagreements over if this is bad or not. Since sometimes people simply can't agree and other times it spot on with everyone agreeing about the most basic issues.
>Divine right is the precursor to fuhrerprinzip
That's totally wrong. "Totalitarianism takes into account this rupture accomplished by the democratic invention; the total- itarian master fully accepts the logic, "I am master only insofar as you treat me as one"; that is, his position involves no reference to some tran- scendent ground. On the contrary, he emphatically tells his followers, "In myself I am nothing; my whole strength derives from you. I am only the embodiment of your deepest strivings; the moment I lose my roots in you, I am lost." His entire legitimacy derives from his position as a pure servant of the people."-
Slavoj Zizek is talking about communist totalitarianism here but he might as well be talking about Cola de Rienzi or Mussolini. Pretty much every modern despot has to play lip service to some kind of democratic legitimacy. Even Hitler said his mandate to rule came from the German Volk.
True. Populist Dictatorship is definitely different from Divine Right Absolutism.
Absolutely. Fascists have no real ideology other than it's own power, like The Party in 1984.
@@Sinewmire You likely only say that because you've never actually read any Fascist ideological works.
Fascism's focus is about raising the idea of the state or nation into a being into itself, independent of its rulers, essentially creating a "cult of the state" which is then used to justify the system.
One can argue that most ancient Democracies and Republics actually fall into the mould described by fascism, as in Early Rome or Athens the commitment to supporting the state also extended to this spiritual level.
So did monarchs. Outside of the absolute monarchs of the late Renaissance, most monarchs sided with the 3rd Estate and publicly stated they were on the side of the people. Even Divine Right and Mandate from Heaven implies you will rule with the masses' interests at heart.
@@HolyknightVader999 Yes but in theory absolute monarchs were still only accountable to God. There was a PR shift born out of the rising power of the 3rd estate but trad monarchs like Nicholas II or Franz Joseph persisted in this belief.
Tolkien literally lived in a monarchy for all his life??
It actually comes from Shakespeare. In Macbeth, the kingdom begins to have climatic anomalies because Macbeth usurped the throne, in contrast with England in the same play. It is a recurring theme in his plays
Rodrigo Valencia
Except the historical Macbeth *didn’t*
His historical predecessor was more the tyrant, & Macbeth killed him honourably in battle- not secretly assassinated him.
Macbeth also had a largely peaceful reign, *twice* as long as Duncan- & he was successfully able to pass the throne to his stepson (oh, & ‘Lady Macbeth’- Lady Gruoch, historically- was not some monstrous power-hungry biatch; she was the granddaughter & great granddaughter of kings, but she herself could not succeed to the throne- & Duncan likely had one of her husbands killed) - the child didn’t die in infancy.
He had a short reign because Duncan’s sons returned & overthrew him.
@@OcarinaSapphr- fair enough, but im refering to Macbeth from Shakespeare´s play, not his real life counterpart.
Historical figures, or people for that matter, are complex. The tropes from fantasy, as any literary work, follow either characters, who can be more straightforward, or an imagined version of a real life person
Rodrigo Valencia
I get that, but so few people know historical Macbeth was not the same as Shakespeare’s characterisation.
@@OcarinaSapphr- you missed the point, I think. Your fact about historical Macbeth is irrelevant to what Rodrigo was talking about. When people talk about Macbeth they mean the play. The point is that the play implies that killing a king upsets nature.
@@Mozric When I think of Macbeth I think of the version from Gargoyles, who was mostly based on the real guy.
I dunno, Discworld isn't much for monarchy as it is regularly mocked throughout the books. Especially in Wyrd Sisters and The Discworld games.
Or the early Watch books, before the powers that be kinda gave up on the whole business. Like the part in Men at Arms when one of the characters (can't remember who but it was probably Vimes) goes on about how while it is possible to have a good king, it is not guaranteed that his successor or even subordinates are good people and you need all of them to be good for the whole system to work.
Yes... I like that they have a "true heir to the throne" (Captain Carrot) who decides not to make that claim because someone he respects (Commander Vimes) successfully argued for why hereditary monarchy is bad.
@@merrittanimation7721 I get the feeling James was mostly talking about High Fantasy, but, yeah. Not a lot of Urban Fantasy has great things to say about hierarchies either.
Except that Ankh-Morpork is still ruled by a literal tyrant and that's portrayed as the best or at least least bad of all the options, as long as it's specifically Vetinari ruling the city. And it's okay for Vimes to have a ton of power as the commander of the watch AND a duke and it's okay if he abuses that power every now and then because we like him and we know he's eventually going to do the right thing. And democracy is always portrayed as silly, naive and dysfunctional.
@@syystomu democracy is literally that. Representative Republics are slightly more functional and less naive but they still aren't perfect.
11:00 dude what the hell? one either accepts there's a fundamental moral difference to the violence of the oppressors vs the violence of the oppressed ... or they're just taking the side of the oppressors. Treating fascim and slavery as moral "unknowables" is beyond silly and pedantic.
Agreed. People like this youtuber would cause us to lose wwii. Morality isn't arbitrary.
@@alexsmith2910 I don't think WII was fought on moral grounds, the very "moral" Europeans wouldn't just accept that what they did to colonized nations be done to *them* . Later, they promised to de-Nazify but wouldn't bother in reality and also they kept colonizing.
Then there's the Americans, who only dropped by when the Nazi army was largely destroyed by the USSR and victory was certain.
They do congratulate and glorify themselves on that a lot actually, it's really funny. (After refusing to let Jewish refugees in and immediately after took former Nazis in bulk)
@@tesso.6193 don’t claim to know a damn thing about history when you managed to confuse the entrance into WW1 by the United States with WW2.
@@tesso.6193 Have you realised your comments contradict themselves?
First you insist that there's a moral difference between the violence of the oppressor vs the oppressed, then you imply WW2 was immoral because Europeans only fought because they would not accept their oppression.
Do you believe that the history of a country should dictate whether or not it is 'moral' for them to protect that same country and it's people later?
If we worked on that principle, the free world would be utterly chaotic and your view on morality would have come full circle to being on the side of oppression - since every country has been guilty of oppression, no country has the right to defend against would be oppressors. Circular logic must be so much fun, you can make anything work, even when it doesn't.
While I generally agree with this, I do take issue with how you talk about Ned Stark. Your statement of how Ned Stark isn't all that different from the Lannisters is, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. The Lannisters exploit the feudal system for political gain and have no problems committing horrific warcrimes (Rains of Castamere, sacking of King's Landing, and the Red Wedding) to increase their power. The Lannisters do not care about casualties and have no problem going back on promises they have made when it suits them. Ned Stark, on the other hand, does not commit warcrimes, and is the opposite of power hungry. In fact, he is willing to sacrifice his own personal reputation to protect the lives of innocent children on multiple occasions (with Jon, Daenerys and Sansa). Ned is a good man trying to do his best within the broken system of feudal society. While the Lannisters (at least Tywin and Cersei) actively exploit the feudal system with no remorse and have no problem lying, cheating, and torturing to get what they want.
With all due respect, war crimes is a fairly modern notion. The rain of castamere was a feudal lord punishing his vassals for mocking him and undermining their authority, which would have been pretty common if any vassal dared to incurred in it in the first place. Tywin scheme was unique for his ruthleness and sadistic manners plus his devious cunning. The usual would have been to leave the progeny alive, he set them as an example instead and killed them in a way everyone and their mothers heard them suffer.
The red wedding was basically a political double cross+ an ambush, lorewise uncalled only due to the housing custom, aside that it was a 100% textbook play.
Of course, with this I am not saying they werent evil or dishonorable, because they were... just that they wouldnt be war criminals.
I don't think the point is that he's as bad as Cersei, just that he could be, at any time, and that means that he's not a better person than them because he still wants to retain all the power for himself. The point never was to say that based on their actions those two characters are equally bad, it's to say that the idea of monarchy is bad. As a concept. Not that characters are bad.
I believe that his point was more over the fact that the stark, just like the Lannister, don't shy to use the lives of thousands of their countryman for personal reasons. While from our point of view their reasoning, being of honour and justice, is better and more in line with our morality than the one of the Lannister, from the point of view of those soldiers this don't change a single thing, so the suffering of so many people feels not right.
Nope, Lanister is way better than Starks. Tywin focus on killing the politicians instead of common soldier., and all his assassinations save the common people from a long last war.
@@MrKhoinguyen1990 Bull. Tywin makes bloody war especially on commoners. He does not do surgical strikes against the enemy leaders as you seem to be implying, rather he spreads the destruction around. Tywin reacts to his son being taken prisoner, not by the smarter move of going to the king to complain about his family's rights being violated, he ravages the common folk who live nearest to his domai. He is seen to have murdered an innkeeper, just because a bunch of armed men took his son prisoner in her establishment, which she had no way to prevent. He describes "burning out" one enemy family, which means destroying the homes and crops of that family's subjects, making their lands an unproductive waste. He later gives orders to burn and destroy the whole country he is fighting against, and has his thugs enslave random commoners and drag them to his headquarters to work in abusive conditions. He deliberately makes use of units and commanders notorious for their excessive destruction and brutality, especially toward commoners. He needlessly sacked the city of Kings Landing, so the common people of the city still hate him 17 years later. He perpetuated sexual violence against common women who slept with his son and his father, specifically because they were commoners who reached above themselves, instead of keeping to their place.
You say Tywin focus on killing politicians "instead of common soldier" but he drowns common soldiers in Castamere, who were only following their lords, he leaves his own wounded soldiers to die on his forced march to try to get to Riverrun after he learns Robb Stark has outsmarted him, and he takes advantage of inside information on his enemies' troop movements to have his allies massacre Robb's soldiers at Duskendale and the Red Wedding (bear in mind that the northern army was not led by great politicians, but a landed knight and the younger brother of a landowner who was not even a lord). He LIED about killing only a dozen men at dinner! They keep saying in the books that Lannisters lie, but every shallow reader seems to accept their claims at face value.
You can't even say this is par for the course. Stannis Baratheon, whom no one would claim is super nice, benevolent or kindly toward commoners, calls a plan to attack the civilians and subjects of a treacherous lord cowardice and folly, but it is exactly the way Tywin makes war.
Maybe the idea of absolute monarchy being prevalent in fantasy is because that was the ideal of the time period most fantasy is based upon. I will be shocked if somebody wrote a fantasy (complete with mirroring the Dark Ages) that has a democratic government.
And the thing with putting the "right" people on the throne ties with the subconscious need of the people to have someone to look up to. Sometimes it comes to a point that the people want a king that would solve all of their problems rather than solving it themselves.
They just forget that other people are human, too. No matter how good they seem to be.
Absolute monarchy is from the early modern period(17th century onwards) not from the middle ages/renaissance.
@@alexmag342 Yeah, let's not forget all the nobles who wanted all the rights to be free from the king, but still ruled ruthlessly over their vassals.
There were no such thing as Dark Ages, and absolute monarchies originated later, in 17th century. As for democracies, probably the closest thing in medieval times was Republic of Venice but most power was in hands of patricians anyway.
Yeah... t is not so weird to tell the truth ... Politics is complicated by nature, fantasy, for many it serves as a simplified exploration of reality with a shadow of escapism. A idealization of the "Benevolent Administrator" archetype or "The Good Monarch" It only responds to two human political needs, stability and diligence. The static aspect of a monarch (being generally lifelong), responds to the reality of how fluctuating politics really is.
That is why idealizations of a democratic system are so rare. Democratic systems are not static, they do not appeal to this need for diligence stability and benevolence. This says nothing about personal considerations regarding democracy / monarchies. They are only subconscious assessments of political needs.
It is also the reason why we see the archetype of corrupt politicians dominate the narrative environments of a modern political system. Its fluctuating and ideological nature, based on negotiations and ideology, creates an inert disbelief, easier to examine through fiction.
Anyway, that is that. The perfect monarchs exist for that ... Politics is a disaster by nature full of ambitions, negotiations, compromises and simple dirty hands ... That the idea of a savior, who descending down from a valley of sunflowers will come to simplify it by giving his life to the perpetuation of prosperity and benevolence, is a cake that anyone in escapism would devour (and others not only in fiction, hence the power of populism). In short, it is a subject, in fact, studied in political science, if you are interested in the subject you can get a good bibliography on this phenomenon.
The video for that reason seems to me to lack depth in the subject, since it seems that it arose already with an opinion formed and not as an essay.
So I guess the question is: why does fantasy have to be a fictional Middle-Ages with mythical elements thrown into it? Because that's what Tolkien did? Tolkien was trying to create a mythic history for the Anglo-Saxons, like what the Irish or the Norse have. Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age was meant to be a mythic lost age that was destroyed 11,000 years ago with the last glaciation period. In both of these circumstances the authors were creating fake histories, not fake worlds.
I would like to point out that there are other reasons to dislike GoT season 8 than Daenerys and her end... like, for instance, degrading the White Walkers to a support villain role, instead of handling them as the horrible things that are not taken care of by the leaders while they are busy struggling for power. Or the outright silly battle tactics and just implausible chain of events.
The biggest reason:JAMIE
But what if the ruler literally is the Senate?
I see what you did there.
Ján Ďuriník then I suggest you find something stronger then unlimited power
With all do respect James, this is a result of fantasy being born from fairy tales and myths.
The divine rights of kings is the european equivalent of the mandate of heaven, but it's also the direct succesor to the Japanese style monarchs of ancient Europe who claimed to be direct descendants from divinity. Hell, I think the royal house of Sweden(1) still technically claims to be descendant from Odin. When Caesar was declared god that(2) was aping the Egyptian Pharos who had done the same thing for thousands of years.
The ancient indo-european religion and all daughter religions had a king of all the gods as the head of their respective pantheons. Unlike modern superheroes ancient heroes were usually descendant from one god or another. From ancient religions we got modern fairy tales, from ancient heroes and kings the divine right of kings. Fantasy is a continuation of that tradition, of course it's going to be pro monarchy. Hell, the trope of the land suffering under an unjust ruler but prospering under a right one is the pinnacle of divine rule; green pastures and meadows under the right king; blight, plague and famine under the wrong king.
EDITS:
1 - I heard this online and now I can't seem to find a source for it so take it with a grain of slat. Wikipedia seems to indicate fantasy genealogy are indeed a thing but the example they give is that of Eleizabeth II: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genealogy#Elizabeth_II
They do say that: "chroniclers of Germanic peoples traced the ancestry of their kings back to the god Wōden (Odin)" but I don't know how trustworthy their resource is. I have no idea where I got the Sweden bit though.
2 - the original statement read: When Caesar was declared god *he* was aping the Egyptian Pharos who had done the same thing for thousands of years.
Wile I correctly pointed out that Caesar was declared god the usage of *he* was ambiguous and gave the impression he had himself declared god.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, Caesar wasn't deified during his own lifetime. After he died, his "son" Octavian had him declared a god in order to be able to call himself the son of one, therefore solidifying his own position. As for the Swedish monarchy being descended from Odin, I only know that the current house comes from Jean Bernadotte, Napoleon's ex-marshal and the son of a French lawyer, who later became Charles XIV John of Sweden, so I don't know how they can claim that.
@@TLOK1918 Edited to corect the Caesar concern. I did say he was declared a god, but I really shouldn't have used "he" in that sentence.
As for the Swedish royal house, I frankly have no idea where I got it. I have and idea were I might have gotten the idea itself (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_genealogy#Elizabeth_II) but not the Sweden part.
EDIT. Thanks for pointing these thing out.
Contractualism (Hobbes, Russeau, Locke) was the big change in the idea of kings legitimacy, at least in the west.
Okay, but while that is correct, it is not necessarily a great explanation for why modern authors still mostly stick to all of these. I mean, if you look at modern fairy tales, you will find that they are very capable of subverting expectations and finding new morals and principles. There is no reason a genre based on fairy tales would not be able to do the same, while still using some of the same imagery and tropes.
@@samiraansari5686 Modern fairy tales? what modern fairy tales? The last author to actually innovate in the field was Andersen. The rest have only been curated and censored collections of folk tales. Not one other individual has succeed in breaking into the fairy tale genre with new works - not to the point were their work became part of the public zeitgeist. We have fiction, and fantasy novellas, and novels now, fairy tales are deemed pase. If you want to read a fairy tale you'll most likely read one that's 120 years old or older, even if it was only collected over the past 50 years.
Copyright has made sure folk tales are dead and fairy tales were just folk tales. The most you can get are subversion of old fairy tales - that are usually no were near successful enough to replace the originals - and short stories written in a fairy tale manner. With all do respect, the only modern fairy tales are ghost stories and the stories about "that old house/building/mall" at the edge of the street/town/city. Modern fairy tales? there are no modern fairy tales. There's a reason everybody remembers Andersen, Grimm and Perrault. They're no longer protected by copyright and have been in print for close to two centuries now - depending on book of course.
The genre isn't based on "modern" fairy tales. It's based on those fairy tales that survived the test on time. It's based on those myths that were still studied in school 150 years ago. It's based on those fairy tales that survived the movement from folk tale to copyrighted folk tale collection.
Creappy pasta's, SCP wiki's and the like are the modern folk tales. The latest Gaiman short isn't, not any more then the Wizard of OZ was when it was published.
Lovecraft made a name for himself after he died because he didn't protect his "universe" with copyright. His works might have been protected but he not only gave permission to others to use his characters and worlds but outright motivated and challenged them to do so. Lovecraft survived because he made sure others could play in his sandbox. Who here has read Dunsany? Who here has read Chambers? and who here has read Lovecraft. Even if you've never ready any of them you will know the name of Lovecraft but not the other two.
I like Gregory Maguire books a lot, but let's be frank, his stories won't become part of the public zeitgeist anytime soon, if ever. There are a hundred different retelling of a fairy tale, but it's the old one, the ones that were folk tales when they were collected that will be the ones referenced by most people because those are the ones everybody had access to when they grew up. Only a small minority had access to a certain retelling of any one fairy tales that changed the morality. Even if you've never read Grimm, Perrault or Andersen, you'll have heard of them and many of the tales they collected or wrote. Maguire, not so much.
That's why fantasy has not moved on. We don't study modern myths in school. We study old myths, old greek, egyption, roman, norse, celtic myths. We grow up wit tellings and retelling of old fairy tales. Modern fantasy is a product of the myths and fairy tales the authors grew up with and those are about gods and kings, not taxes and parliaments.
Plus, it's the truth at the core of some of those myths that attract the attention of people. Even if gods aren't real and the royal family of Japan isn't descendant from Amaterasu they still exists, as does the myth. Even if kings aren't magically linked to the land they govern, you only need to look at what sparked revolutionary France and what happened in Ukraine and Zimbabwe under Stalin and Mugabe to see the results of bad decision that can be attributed to just one person. There might not be any magic involved but a bad decision can easily cause a famine. Similarly, being the right person at the right time in the right place might mean you suddenly become "Hitler, the autobahn builder" - despite the fact he wasn't the one responsible for their creation any more then Napoleon was the writer of the Napoleonic codes that shaped the legislation of large swaths of continental Europe.
*TL;DR* 'Modern' fairy tales are copyright protected and have a limited audience. Most myths have a kernel of truth, like the fact that the bad decisions of just one individual can indeed cause famine and starvation in a country - google holodomor for more details.
The fantasy genre was not "created by tolkien."
Also you spend like 10 minutes literally insulting and throwing words in the faces of people you disagree with, some of which are arguments I have never seen anyone make, and then proceed to generalize all the people who disliked the ending into a group of people nobody agrees with and then you call them children and butt hurt? Yeah, those are the children.. Real mature.
Thanks for letting me know you're not any sort of person worth listening to. We could have a huge cordial discussion about why people actually disliked the ending and skip over your strawman arguments, but you've already made up a story and a way to dismiss any other opinions so I don't see much point in it. You're clearly arguing in bad faith so why should anyone care. Other people have explained it already here anyway so I won't waste my breath.
In defense of Mistborn expecting people who lived for centuries under one system and dramatically changing it to another one is bound to run into some problems, no matter how terrible it was. On one hand you have the elites who don't want things to change and the lower classes who have no context having so much power in their hands, some following the old rules out of a vague sense of familiarity. It's a contributing factor to why China is the way it is today for a real life example. But I see your point on a more general level.
Exactly, the whole point is to show that interplay in that setting.
Merritt Animation It is basically as said in the video inspired by French Revolution which was pretty much that.
2 cents: authors are usually not well versed in law, and thus for the sake of writing need to have a legal system in place where bending the law to suit the plot can be done without making the audience go "wait, what?" Nobility is good answer to this because kings/nobles have broad power to advance the plot and now you only need to know a handful of guys to "know" the power system. In other words, part of this is probably writer convenience.
I feel like this is more too far to "ideological" talk than writing talks. Monarchy sucks, trope sucks but I find the tone to be more "fantasy fans are facists and they stoopid". The constant comparison between Facism and Monarchy feel like you don't know what either of them are. One is Form of government, the other is Ideology. It's like comparing socialism to communism, they are just different.
I agree on the opinion that one person shouldn't have all the power. "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely" but I feel like the tone of the video is way too one-sided, full of assumption, too villainazing the other side, etc.
Other than that, especially for Tolkien. Not every story need an absolute grey area. Sometimes there is just that one dark lord trying his best to ask D&D to "revert the expectation". Also we hate DnD because they rush things like stupid. We know Daenerys will be the mad queen eventually just not D&D style. We ain't "facist" as compared.
To be fair you won't run short of people comparing socialism and communism/ treating them as the same thing :)
@@crazydragy4233 yeap, I've seen my share. People who starts political talk need to know politics.
For this even worse, Facism as pictured with Nazi Germany is a Unitary (Facist) State. It has no correlation with Monarchy whatsoever. Adolf Hitler is not a king, he is a "leader" / fuhrer as he claim himself to be.
@@toxicdermyillunary4103 I guess this slip up was caused because he went into authoritarianism territory. It's not that hard to get there when you're complaining about power structures.
@@crazydragy4233 true, but I feel like it is still not proper to do that, slip or not. I mean Monarchy of the United Kingdom still exists up until now. Are they authoritarian, right? they are not, they are more symbolic than political.
I am not saying there is no autocratic monarchy, there is, but it can also be in a form of a union, unitary, or even Federation. I don't even say they can't be fascist, it just so happen that fascism is "founded" in the 20th century and back then (middle ages) no one really care about race because most commonly caucasian rule another caucasian, chinese to chinese, japanese to japanese, etc. But to immediately think monarchy must be autocratic and then correlate that to facism just ain't it for me.
Politic is complicated and thinking like that is just way too simplistic and he uses that to basically set a tone of "fantasy fans are fascists and we must change every fantasy to democracy or something". Even worse again, to think that simplistic he shows hypocrisy, he keeps talking about there is no black and white, Monarchy can't work just because the "correct" king sit on the throne, period. He wants things not to be simplistic while being simplistic himself. Idk, it's just wrong imo.
Even with Monarchy it generally isn't one guy with all the power, and more one guy trying to keep all the various power brokers ok with him ie the peasants, the army, the rich and the clergy.
The issue with the Dany's story arc wasn't that she didn't become queen. It's that it didn't make any sense for that character to do those things. Conquering a city by killing it's leaders is not the same as conquering a city by mass murder of its inhabitants.
GOT has a strong theme of ambiguous morality. Most (if not all) of the main characters have their own moral justifications for their actions. Even the "evil" ones. I think a character arc where Dany becomes progressively more radical in her actions could have been pulled off in a satisfying way. She could have continued justifying her actions on a moral basis as the audience begins to question where to draw the line. Eventually her actions would become indefensible, and something has to be done about it.
But it wasn't done that way. There was no development of her character. She made a hard 180° turn. I can see that the writers were going for what I described (or something similar) but they executed it so poorly it made the last season seem like the characters had all forgotten who they were and what their motivations were.
If the season hadn't been so rushed, her descent into 'I will kill you because it is my right' could have been spelled out more. Yes there are hints of willingness to slaughter innocents in earlier seasons but they were largely abandoned to make her more likable. I think for most people who have not read the books, the apparent 180 came out of the blue.
I think the logic runs pretty much as follows:
1) People regard full democracy at a scale larger than a city-state to be impractical under medieval conditions (what does the average peasant know about issues on the national level, really?).
2) Putting too much power in the hands of the nobles, or any other oligarchy of educated individuals, tends to result in disaster. Having one Supreme Leader means there's someone who at least has a chance of caring about the nation as a whole rather than his (or her) piece of turf.
3) An inherited position, where the heir has been brought up from birth in the responsibilities of rulership and where there's been a family history of responsible rulership, presents a better chance (not a guarantee, far from it, but a better chance) of becoming a responsible ruler in turn who sees the good of the kingdom as a matter of family duty, rather than simply wanting the position out of ambition.
And there's possibly a degree of truth to point 3 - as bad as monarchies can be, they do seem to have a better track record than... well, pretty much anything apart from democracies with at least close to full suffrage, and even that's spotty. So if democracy is the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried, monarchy (particularly a monarchy constrained by a parliament, even if the parliament represents an oligarchy rather than truly representing the population as a whole) might be the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried in situations where true democracy is, for one reason or another, impractical.
(It's worth noting that in the Game of Thrones ending, what's actually likely to happen in the long run is a Holy Roman Empire situation and there's a good chance that in the long run Sansa's descendents will take over by playing the houses against one another.)
So what you're saying is the Starks become the Habsburgs? I'm oddly ok with this.
Full democracy doesn't work even in modern world
@@albusnightspring8057 But a single person at the helm wouldn’t work at all. We see this with wealthy offspring who tend to do more harm to economics and climate change.
The “believing in anything too strongly is the problem” take is not a great one fam, sorry but your GOT opinions are wack.
I think the overall point of the video is valid, and I just want to say I enjoy your content, but I have a couple of nitpicks with some of the things you said in the video.
First of all, I disagree with the characterization of monarchy as some form of proto-fascism. Evey fascist dictator rose to power from a democracy, either by coup or more often than not my election.
Secondly, I think it's important to make a distinction between ruling by divine right and absolutism. The medieval king was not only checked by the other nobles but also by the church and was not above ex-communication. Absolutism was really an enlightenment concept and a product of secularization.
I agree and the nobles were basically at the mercy of their peasants because your territory could only be profitable if your subjects were happy and healthy with their lot. I find the most ridiculous fantasy worlds are the ones where the lower class is abused and neglected, it's simply not sustainable because then that lays the foundations for revolution as many monarchies have discovered.
I was hoping someone would say that
@@Zergonapal the teutonic knight crush the peasants though.
Democracy is nothing more that the lie of liberty and free of choice plato,Sócrates could See behind all of that and conclude that "democracy will always lead to a tyrany of the rich and idiots". after all democracy was invented and impulse by the rich mercantyl élite of the past to create this new world. No matter how pretty a lie will remaine a lie.
When did a single Fascist dictator rise through being elected?
While I agree that having some variation is nice, I think that the main reason this idea is so popular is precisely because its completely unrealistic. The same way so many romance stories would never happen the way they do, there's no such thing as a "benevolent monarch". For real life monarchies, the only division between good and bad rulers is whether he's good enough at keeping the nation itself alive and sovereign. Bad rulers aren't the tyrants, bad rulers are the ones who lose battles and suck at administration.
This fantasy version of "the right ruler" is really nothing more than a romantic or dramatic, unrealistic portrayal, and that's kind of why it became so popular.
As to why this idea remains perpetuated, I can only assume that its precisely because it is so popular.
Yeah, the same way the fact that I do not believe in "real love" in real world does not prevent me from reading romance novels, the fact that I do not believe in "benevolent rulers" in real world does not prevent me from enjoying fantasy series with such characters...
People seem keen to forget that you can enjoy things while not agreeing with/ believing those things.
@@Silburific Exactly.
I love Power Metal, but in real life I advocate against militarism.
A benevolent dictatorship/absolute monarchy is actually the ideal form of government. The problem is that benevolence is not very easy to find making this a very unrealistic form of government. Representative Democracies (whether Republics or Constitutional Monarchies) are basically just the form of government that is least bad/most likely to have positive results most of the time.
@macsporan funny how half of those nations are monarchies and France has only remained a republic since 1871.
Ah, first video I disagree with.
The point you made was spot on.
But GoT season 8 had terrible writing, not because the ending wasn’t a “fairytale” ending, but because it was a bad ending that was badly written.
The show runners themselves admitted to not knowing what they were doing or why GRRM trusted them with his life’s work.
“A billion dollar show with 20$ writing.”
14:40 ....it's FICTION based on HISTORY. why on Earth should it take a 'Modern Stance' on anything?? ........why dont you apply this 'rule' to Science Fiction (set in the future) instead??
Ah yes. History. Which, as we know, had no Democracry until the 18th century. Well, except Athens. Also Rome, which was a Republic before it was an Empire. If we want to get more medieval, however, there was also the Magna Carta, signed in 1215, which while not causing democracy at the time was an effort to limit the rights of the king of England and preserve the rights of his baron subjects.
None of these compare to modern democracy, but the idea of a country not ruled by a king is not new. Hardly. Even if we were to base fantastical fiction purely on time periods when kings were in power, to pretend that there was not seething hatred directed at many rulers by their subjects would be to deny things like the 1381 Peasants' Revolt and the 1470 Lincolnshire Rebellion.
The historical "stance" of kinghood was one imposed and championed by kings, a handful of people ruling over the majority of historical people. To assert that a desire for a rule by the people is a purely modern matter is to drink the Kool-Aid of a history written down by the tyrants in charge at the time.
@@emexdizzy And? How does that make using monarchies in stories a bad thing or even a pro-monarchy story? It's still just as historical as the democracies you mentioned and the focus of the story doesn't have to be (and usually isn't) how great the monarchy in question is.
@@emexdizzy that is representing history as it is, and thats fine. im talking people who try and put a 21st century spin on a clearly medieval based story... whats even the point of that?
Exactly! I'm kind of getting tired of fantasy stories trying to apply a massive allegory faction building that is better suited for science fiction. The Dothraki are just alternate Huns, and Westeros is basically some sort of mash-up of Britain and North America. The Wildings look like some sort of allegory for indigenous people. I kind of feel like Fantasy is just screwing up science fiction in the long run too. If we are going to be a species that explores the galaxy? We can't have people like "Fire and Blood" at the helm of a space ship. That's how wars like the ones in Babylon 5 get started.
Agreed. Personally, I disliked how he takes it that monarchies and other forms of autocratic rule are just assumed to be bad because they don't allow the people to rule. It's this modernistic standpoint on history that's a tad-bit of a pet peeve with me when not handled well.
Ned was ordered to take Theon by Robert. he couldnt have refused. and theon's better off under their roof than the Lannisters or Baratheons
Catelyn taking Tyrion escalated the situation but ultimately the war planned out by Baelish had already begun. Tywin had his men ready waayy too fast to be a reaction to Catelyn.
Robb did not declare independence. his lords and loyalists did.
Robb beheaded Lord Karstark because Karstark was a child murderer and traitor.
Starks never wanted any war and anything they ddi to escalate it, just sped up what was already inevitable
i think its safe to say that had the Starks not been around, peopel worse, such as Boltons would rule so Starks saved far far more lives than they took. Robb never wanted to escalate the war but his father was in prison so what would you have done? beg and grovel Joffrey for mercy?
shut the fuck up about it being different because we liked Ned. its different because Ned genuinely tried to do what was right. Kraznak was a smug, sleazy, sadistic asshat slaver who tortured and mutilated his slaves. so yes theres a difference. same difference if you killed a doctor vs killing a taliban chieftan or cartel drug lord.
and Kraznac was not just Dany's political opponent. he would have happily tossed her to the dogs or had her raped if he got the chance or if she refused to offer payment for the army.
we lost our minds because as much as Daenerys hated slavers she NEVER ONCE harmed an innocent intentionally. and was horrifird when it did happen accidently. the plotline was rushed, and given the barest of justifications "ah well she feels she isnt loved in Westeros. and even though shes won already and they surrendered, she burns them all anyway". we are meant to see her as the villain now because up until now she was grey at worst and never harmed innocent people. her crusade was to end the enslavement of people and owning them as property. so why burn down a city to furhter that goal? it was clearly out of character to get her out of the way for Bran becoming king.
Catelyn could have brought Tyrion to the capital. With Ned as hand of the king Robert would have been forced to issue a trial, so that Tywin wouldn't have the opportunity to move his forces. Robb did one mistake after the other: killed Karstark rather than imprisoning him, keeping his plans to himself, marring Jayne... And declaring himself king in the north. He could've refused, but he accepted and brought thousands to their deaths.
Dany was turned into a villain in s8 without any build up, that's true, but it is also true that she previously harmed innocents without a care in the world. Kraznis deserved to be burned, but she also crucified 163 slavers from Mereen: while most of those scum surely deserved it, it's also true that some were kind to their slaves, and she didn't listen to any of them. No trial, no judgment, only executions because they had slaves. That's why she's at least morally grey.
@@justthunderbolt40 The slavers were guilty by association, a flawed concept, but one often borne of ignorance not malice. She was pre-emptive in her judgement, but I wouldn't say she "harmed innocents without a care in the world", because she did seem to care when informed of her mistake.
Compare that to someone malicious. If informed on the situation, would they work to avoid the action (killing the kind) or the consequence (people being upset)?
I find the ignorant more favorable than the malicious, I'd paint it white in comparison.
@@happydemon3038 on that I agree, she cares for her people far more than any Westerosi lord(with the exception of Doran). Sadly, good intentions alone aren't a solid basis to get the peace she needs, and many suffered due to her mercy.
Did he literally miss the fact that stories are about characters and their journeys? That fantasy often thematically grounds itself in reality and/or legend which the fact that his list includes a anti monarchy angle which, surprise, is set in a setting that involves that conflict?
Aside from the MANY mistakes that people are pointing out in the comments, with his motivation becoming clear in the GoT rant that misses the point completely and is basically fuelled by his reading of the critics and a dozend comments on Reddit.
Sci-fi is very pro-democracy (and that's weird)... Coming up...
*Pro-empire
PrimalTheEmperor (primal9000) and that’s a good thing
@@etowahwillis902 Not for the Star Wars universe just ask THE SENATE
Amarok sci-fi going beastmode
@@ironmaster6496 And it's implied when the Senate becomes an empire it's evil right? We have the rebels you know. I mean if you say it's a democracy I'll point you to Russia, which is as much of a democracy as it is
A few points. In the books for Lord of the Rings, I wouldn't classify it as a treatise on why monarchy is good. While there is a monarchy, that's more because it's based off of a period in history where that was just how they did things. The only reason Aragorn had to restore the line of kings is because the last king was a moron who face planted after he tried to charge the Witch King of Angmar, and then years later agreed to face the Witch King in a duel in his lair. I also recall that in the appendices, Aragorn's descendants kinda screwed things up. It's kinda like how everyone always imagines that fantasy elves are overly perfect and wise, but that's only true to the extent that the dumber elves got themselves and a lot of other people killed centuries before the series started.
Elves learned from their mistakes and never forgot because they didn't ever truly have even a single change of generations since Feanor left Valinor. Galadriel observed pretty much the entire history of Middle-Earth from that point and is still around to participate. Humans just don't have the lifespan to have their societies not act stupid constantly.
Tolkien was a monarchist tho
@@caiawlodarski5339 That's absolutely based.
Caiã Wlodarski yeah, he was molded by the same Burkean-traditionalist conservatism that created G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis (obviously), T. S. Eliot, etc.
People often forget that Tolkien was a conservative Catholic living in England. Of COURSE he was a based monarchist. He had both religious and culturally ideological reasons for being such.
His works are practically oozing with anti-liberal and anti-enlightenment sentiments/attitudes.
@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty Not when the person influences the art (almost always the case)
Wow a generally medieval inspired setting has monarchies, crazy… next you’ll make a video on how fantasy is pro-sword and that’s weird when guns exist in the real world
Yeah, it's almost like you can write medieval settings while not worshipping a system of government that is abhorrent or something
@@Peasham just because an author includes something in a story doesn’t mean they endorse it. “Oh yeah in my epic high fantasy adventure where they go to save a princess - oh wait I can’t have a monarchy in my story, that might actually be cool better have them rescue a bureaucrat and when they get back to the castle they can do paperwork and get a permit for adventuring.”
@@papaaeon7210 I know, the problem is that often times the work does endorse it.
@@Peasham in what way thou, they have been good monarchs and bad monarchs why is it so hard to conceive the possibility that an author can create a good monarch (wich there have been in history) without it meaning he or she endorse it
@@kaiser4883 Because Monarchy is inherently bad and evil.
This is unironically like saying "well the author can write a good Fascist", no, they can't, it is an inherently bad system.
Listen, James, no one is saying that different endings might have been the cause of dissent. The point of the series was to stand out and be a parralel to our grey world. But unlike masterpieces like the red wedding, danys maddening and brans Ascension had no and I mean no development.
If bran was meant to be a ruler/leader because of his abilities show them!!! If Dany is becoming mad because of complex reasons, show that!!! We are not against new stories we just want them told. Right. So instead of insulting the fanbase that dislikes the end can u try and understand our point of view.
Otherwise I feel your analysis here and other wise was and is great.
"If bran was meant to be a ruler/leader because of his abilities show them!!!"
You mean his ability to shed his personality/personhood and have no personal interest in having power, thus being able to hold power without becoming corrupted?
Or his ability to see into the past and prevent repeating past mistakes?
Or his ability of having visions of the future?
Or his ability to warg into a creature anywhere on the continent to see how the people are doing?
We see the process of him gaining these abilities and he has gained these abilities by season 5 and him using them throughout 3 seasons. How is that not enough development?
Dany's descent into madness was rushed, I'll agree with that.
BOINKHeadshot I think he is suggesting that Bran’s abilities should have been used to demonstrate how they would help him in being a good king. Bran seems pretty cold and indifferent to everyone after his transformation. He could have been a huge help in the battle with the white walkers, but he didn’t help at all. He could have warned people about Dany’s attack on King’s Landing but he didn’t. He basically made no attempts at saving anyone other than John.
No one deserves to be King, but the person who can see everything and know everything is probably going to be better at the job than most.
Hmm yes an oligarchy is much better than a monarchy yes indeed.
@@gonk534 ...Except for the numerous examples where he clearly cites historical examples.
@@Hawkatana he might cite them but just because you cite a historical example doesnt mean he fully understands said historical example
@@ldblokland463 Except for the all the instances where he clearly does (i.e. *all* of them).
@@Hawkatana He really doesn't aside from the surface level implications of random historical facts
@@bagrat6085 ^See above comment^
Dude is over complicating fantasy. Fantasy is just a 20th century version of mythology. And Mythology is as simple as it gets. Mythology has been handed down for thousands of years with the same basic outlines updated for the audience of the time. Tolkin wrote LOTR for the purpose of it being Mythology and therefore hold the same parables that mythology before it held.
Well, this one was pretty disappointing, I'll try to put my feelings on it down in a way that's not an utter mess and hope something useful comes out of it:
For starters monarchies just make sense from a typical "trope-ism" perspective in more light, high fantasy worlds. Divine right monarchies, what is usually depicted in fantasy, basically run on the "chosen one" concept and thus are pretty much the go to default government for any universe where those are actually a thing. If your country could actually get a god sent all benevolent, all capable ruler that will defend the land from evil and bring prosperity then why wouldn't you? Idealized depictions of monarchies are just better than their equivalent for democracies, mostly because democracy was born out of the failure to attain said ideals. Why would you have an electoral system with well defined terms and political restrictions and balances when you have a prophecy/bloodline that you know will lead you to greatness. Now I'm not a huge fan of the "chosen one" myself but I can't deny that for that level of fantasy, specially as it tends to be more superficial in it's world building.
But what about darker, more low fantasy universes then? Fantasy worlds where either there is no god sent ruler or the gods are spiteful shits? Well those tend to be much closer approximations of the mainstream understanding of the middle ages and democracy is just not a thing in those. In fact, not only are democracies not there but the building blocks that lead to them won't be there for hundreds of years. Having a random representative democracy would look exceedingly out of place in a more down to earth fantasy setting. Thing is democracy isn't really a thing nor is it something people think of outside of ancient greece (and that's not really the kind of democracy we think of when using the word) and the very late modern era onward, since neither of those two time periods are usually depicted in fantasy then you just don't get authors taking inspiration in periods where democracy as a concept or government is relevant.
Lastly I am completely surprised by your analysis of the alternative governments to "traditional" monarchy, sure the constitutional monarchy of Mistborn is a step along the historical english route (even if the legislature's composition is an almost textual ripoff of the estates general) but to defend the electoral monarchy at the end of GoT is just weird. Electoral monarchies aren't "more democratic" than divine right ones, they just have a weaker central state and stronger nobility. On top of that they have an appalling historical record, it's two biggest examples (the Holy Roman Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) failed so spectacularly they ceased existing as entities altogether and those that didn't like the monarchies of northern Europe just transitioned into more "traditional" monarchies.
I'm not going to comment on GoT's ending in general as it is only tangentially related to the central point of the video anyway and it has already been done to death.
Sorry for the wall of text and sorry to those of you who actually bothered to read the thing to this point.
Although I disagree with the video, in Tullos' defense, he believed that many modern fantasies advocate for a divine right to rule or a monarchical system in place, which isn't great because of the modern climate. I disagree with this because he also includes his bias is some portions of the video, and seems to act like democracy is the best option as if it's an absolute truth.
Also, just a pointer, that ideas of democracy the Athenians practiced(if we're talking about Pericles' Athens) and the version we know today weren't practiced during the Medieval Period, the idea of a body of people electing on a leader was practiced throughout antiquity and, depending where such as the Italian city-states, the Medieval Period in Europe. But I might've misread what you've meant there.
Also, I feel that the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were "destroyed" for other reasons than solely their forms of government. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was being threatened by the Tsardom of Russia, the Kingdom of Sweden, Austria and the Prussians who were more powerful than themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have been carved up as easily as they were. For the Holy Roman Empire, it existed(assuming it started with Otto I) for roughly 1000 years. And depending on the ruler it was fairly centralized such as with Otto I and Frederick Barbarossa. However when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, the HRE was no longer seen as a state in its own right, and more emphasis was put on the states within it.
@@flynn659 Well that's the issue isn't it? Assuming that your run of the mill YA fantasy book is somehow advocating for absolute monarchy is weird to say the least. And that's even for people who agree with the idea that democracy is the better option, he is wailing about a problem that doesn't exist.
About pre-modern democracies, yes they existed but very few people would consider them good systems from a modern perspective. Athens itself had a relatively small amount of citizens compared to it's slave and non-citizen (foreigners, women, etc) population. As for the middle ages while you have some republics with electoral systems like Venice but no real democracies.
And sure, the electoral system never stood up and shot a country but said system tends to either disappear (like in northern Europe), become de facto hereditary (like the HRE) or allow factions like the nobility/neighbors to make a mess (like the commonwealth and bohemia/HRE).
In the case of the HRE this is most exemplified by the Bohemians deciding to not elect the next Habsburg in 1619 and instead go with the elector Frederick V of the Palatinate, a protestant. This royally fucked everything up because the guy they were meant to vote for, Ferdinand II got elected emperor of the HRE 2 days later on his vote as king of Bohemia because news just didn't travel that fast. Suddenly not only was the HRE heading towards religious civil war at speed but the legitimacy of the emperor was up to wether you thought he prayed in the right language.
As for the commonwealth the case of Henry III of France is the most comical. Already elected king of Poland-Lithuania he legged it the moment he learned of his brother the king of France's death, leaving the poles with an empty throne.
@@flynn659 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was destroyed BECAUSE of its government. You see the PLC reached its height in the 1600s. This was the time when it was the most populated country and its forces were fear across Europe (the Winged Hussars) yet not even a hundred years after it was partitioned. It was because first off the country became easy to control with puppet rulers due to its elective monarchy. Monarchies such as Russia, Prussia, or Austria could influence the election and put on either a puppet ruler or just a incompetent one. The PLC's own nobility, the sejm, also got too much power because of the elective style government into their hands and grew more and more corrupt which of-course led to elections being even easier to influence. Pretty much all of the countries problems stem from its elective style government.
The same of-course can be said for the HRE but the problem wasn't that its elections were easy to manipulate by foreign powers and more because the country was so decentralized that it really wasn't a country. It also became easy for a single house (the von Hapsburgs) to influence elections so that they were the only emperors for centuries.
@@a-drewg1716 Thanks for the info on the PLC, it's political situation and its history 1500 and on are not well known to me.
Itzhak H
It’s not that the authors of Fantasy sat down and thought “hmm yess monarchy is the best form of government, and I shall now propagandize for it,” it’s more that fantasy is so filled with benevolent king narratives that it makes monarchy look amazing, which it isn’t.
Anyways, the chosen one trope is the reason for this, but the real question is why is this trope still so common? Like come on, give us something new. Something new could also lend itself to a different form of governing. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get communalist utopia stories next.
8:50 the guy he is about to execute in this picture is literally a deserter from what is a penal legion. So he is basically an escaped convict and a deserter. Not sure about what would happen to a guy with generally same crimes irl but I think it would be life sentence in prison at the very least.
Edit: Later: "how Jon killed a child"
The word is executed not killed. There is literal proof that that child is a murderer since he stabbed Jon and Jon died (he came back but that is besides the point). He was also a traitor since Jon was the elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch (voted by basically everyone in Castle Black [not voted for, voted by]) making him his superior officer and head of state (since the Watch is like the Teutonic Order and Knights of Malta, a military order which administers land).
I get the feeling he's playing with words so he can describe these scenes with negative connotations and not go further into context on the situation.
LMFAO you're making excuses, just like he said in the video
@@futurestoryteller look, I am willing to accept arguments supporting the deserter and being against Ned but What Jon did was not murder it was an execution. I didn't even truly watch the show (book person, also some reviews on RUclips) and Jon is definitely not my favourite character. That kid was quite literally a murderer and traitor who assassinated his elected head of state. That is not an opinion that is a fact. You may have whatever opinion you wish about himself killing Jon but he deserves execution for it. Even if someone before/during WW2 killed Hitler that would still be murder/assassination and that person would deserve to be punished for their crime, even though they might have done a net good.
Well that's just idiotic.
@@futurestoryteller well excuse me for not believing that assassins should go Scott free. They should be tried and held responsible for their murders. If you want to get rid of your head of state find a way that does not include murder.
The comments on this are just that Ben wyatt quote "I don't even have time to tell you how wrong you are... actually it will annoy me if I don't" and it's hilarious
(WHY is the cover of leviathan smack in the middle of a segment about divine kingship, WHY)
That's not why most people hate the final season of Game of Thrones !!
Please let me know you know this !!
My impression of Mistborn was that Elend was on the track to becoming a tyrant. I took it as deliberate moral ambiguity. I think they did a good job making it seem necessary, given the insanity of everything, while also bringing up comparisons to Lord Ruler.
His name is "Elend"? Lol. That means "misery" or "squalor" in German.
Oh ja stimmt wie habe ich das nie gesehen 👍
Definitely. Elend became a tyrant out of necessity, and he did things he wouldn’t have done if the world wasn’t ending. His actions shouldn’t be seen as unquestionably good, because he’s compromising his values to achieve his goals. We see how the Lord Ruler and Elend aren’t too different in the last book, but we know that Elend is trying to do the right thing.
Random Villager: "Are you the Lord Ruler?"
Elend: "Close enough."
Monarchies fundamentally are inspired by the family model, which makes it good for story writing
I will like to see a story where the king of a constitutional monarchy is trying to take absolute power by starting a coup because he is the "rightful ruler".
That would be intersting
I'm hoping to write something like this down the road. In the meantime there's the stories of Charles XI of Sweden and to a certain extent Carol I of Austria Hungary (postwar mainly) and King Alexander of Yugoslavia
Star wars prequels similarly
Ben Cox Honestly, the way the GoT show ended, it sets up perfectly for that kind of story. With an elected monarchy, where the nobility are the electorate, the state has effectively been decentralized without the power structure being decentralized. What will inevitably happen is the nobility will use their position to force future kings to offer them favours in return for their support. Eventually, such a system would be so overcome by corruption, you're definitely going to see unrest that is most likely going to take the form of two major political movements: a progressive force that seeks to undo the monarchy and the nobility, and decentralize the owner structure along with the state, to push society forward in its social evolution, and a reactionary one, rallying around tales of long, lost, royal bloodline somewhere north of the Wall, with the idea being to return the "true" bloodline to throne, curtailing the nobility's power and privileges, and centralizing the state and power structure around the One True Monarch.
Charles I of England (who afaik was very much into absolutism and divine right of kings) and the English Civil War in general? The Parliament did win that war but then their Republic had a dictator come and rule for life so they had "the Glorious Revolution" to restore constitutional monarchy.
Is it weird? I mean, isn't it weirder to insert anachronistic political systems in Medieval storylines?
Well most of fantasy is quite anarchronistic, even Tolkien. I mean most of Middle-Earth is semi-mediaeval, but the Shire is more 19th century rural England than anything else, and we never see much of feudalism either
Depends on what you call "anachronistic". Democracy and republicanism are old as balls, they go back as far as ancient Greece and Rome (at least), and even during the Middle Ages a lot of Italian city-states and Hanseatic towns had republican systems of government.
@@ArkadiBolschek right and those aren't democracies and they exist throughout fantasy.
Yes, and having monarchy in a time with FAR LESS INFORMATION being communicated📜 -- that "inefficient" "archaic" [[quotations are from the video]] system is a cultured / family structure which hopefully brings stability (it is WAY more reliable than random manipulative government officials in a miss-information age)
Mostly agree, just the bit where you seem to fall into a moral relativism seemed off. I think it's silly to characterize slaves killing their masters as "killing people *just* for having different political opinions". There's a difference between people thinking they know something is moral ("Fascists 'knowing' they're doing good") and actually knowing something is moral (slaves killing their masters). Referring to such things as mere disagreement between 2 political opinions is obviously false.
Otherwise good content. Subbing.
What is actually the difference between those two though, other than that you agree with one and not the other?
Where is the root morality of the line you draw between them? Is it just that you believe God has ordained one to be right?
@@GonnaDieNever If you're asking whether or not it's subjective, yeah, it is.
But so is everything else stated in this video.
@@GonnaDieNever James Tullios argued that it's wrong to kill people you disagree with, and that Dany killing slave masters is the same as Fascists killing their enemies. He is likely arguing that people should have freedom of opinion and control over their lives.
It's inconsistent because both the slave-masters and Fascists kill and imprison people they disagree with. Dany killed people who refused to stop enslaving unless threatened to - not because they disagreed in opinion. In Astapor she said "kill every man holding a whip" - slavers can choose to drop their whips and live, even if they still believe in slavery. In Yunkai and Mereen she doesn't kill the slave-masters (since she'd gathered a large enough army to simply take over), she just forbids slavery.
Even if you're a moral relativist, you can see Tullios' argument doesn't make sense by its own standards.
@@GonnaDieNever The difference is one is morally correct and the other isn't. Slavery is such a grave, factual immorality that one can plausibly argue for slaves killing their masters. Fascists have no moral facts backing up their insane belief in racial superiority, it's just a claim they state without evidence.
The fact people disagree is irrelevant. I disagree with flat earthers about the shape of the earth, but one of us is correct: Me (it's spherical). Morality is not a matter of opinion, disagreement doesn't mean there's no fact of the matter.
@@LowestofheDead Well said.
Well there's a big difference in every day rule and in wartime, even more so in situations where surrender is not really a option, and "losing" will have fatal consequences world/civilisation ending, death/enslavement for all.
In situations like that is where you want the most capable person possible in absolute control, and not the time you want someone to go for a personal power-grab.
In situations like that one might have to make terrible decisions like having some of your population starve to ensure that the soldiers fighting on the wall have enough food. It is terrible, some will starve to death but it is arguably better than the city falling and everyone dying, but one thing is for sure Joe peasant is not going to to vote for his children to starve to death..
Great point. Reminds me of Ender's Game, where a very capable kid is given absolute control of the military strategy in a war, and he thinks he's just doing a practice run simulation, so he sacrifices many lives without giving it a second thought, his only objective is to win at all cost.
I feel like you are dimissing anyone who makes valid complaints about the show sure there are the pepole who threaten to kill the showrunners but thoses are just the crazies not everbody a lot of crtics have valid complaints about season 8 we are not all morons that did not understand it just becuease the show did something unexpeted does not mean it was good or it was executed properly there are many many issues with not ony seaon 8 but also season 7 as well the showrunners are hacks and there is proof of this in the dvd commenteries one channel in perticuler highlights this and he does a good job of proving the showrunners were inexperinced in tv writing i dont really like when someone is like here are the crazies look how ureasonble there being and not look at valid points thats all i have to say have a nice day
Exactly. D&D are on record saying that they weren't experienced, didn't really know what they were doing, just kinda winging it the whole time. Also that they were growing tired of the show and wanted to end it as soon as possible. This isn't a conspiracy theory, they literally said all that, and it was very evident when they ran out of Martin's material and had to write their own.
Just going to put it out there.... your opinion has more validity if you use proper grammar. Not really an insult, more of an advice so people can read what you post clearly next time.
Heck someone made a video showing i believe it was the final or second to last episode was just mostly walking. 40 plus minutes of walking and no dialogue. Which well does seem like a writing issue, where you could cut out a majority of the issues and it would greatly improve the pacing and get to the point quicker.
In Jon Snow defense, Olly did just commit murder.
so basically, in fiction, people do things that aren't real things.
can we use fiction to teach moral values and represent the real world? yes
does fiction NEED to be a representation of the real world or provide instructions on how to behave in real life? no.
Yeah but like if like the sudden and violent death of a protagonist's beloved father was treated as anything but a horrible childhood trauma in a fantasy book, I'd have a hard time having it justified with "well its a fantasy, sometimes unrealistic things happen."
For a lot of us, the idea of a monarchy being an inherent good is just too unrealistic because it deals with the soft, squishy bits of human greed and need. Sciencier bits are easier for me to handwave. Dragons? Sure I can suspend my belief that dragons exist. Hard sciences of our world like gravity and aerodynamics aren't important enough that I can't enjoy enjoy dragons, but the idea that people with emotions and temptations and weaknesses like our own can build a monarchal system that's an unquestionable good, especially one where a certain family is never immoral in leadership, is kind of a stretch and often too much of a stretch.