[veddox]

Here's the tax policy quote in context: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-ar...

> being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king

I disagree with Martin here. Of course, not every good person also makes a good king, and not every good (i.e. politically effective) king was a good (i.e. morally upright) person. But the thing to realise is that the political power of feudal kings was much more limited than we often assume, and was based to a large part on the continued loyalty and goodwill of their vassals. In other words, a king's power rests on the relationships he has; it is both personal and relational.

This means, of course, that a king who is perceived by his vassals as being a bad person is unlikely to keep their support and allegiance for long. He might be able to cow individual vassals by force, but the more his relationships degrade, the more precarious his position will be. (For example, King John's scandalous behaviour and personal conflicts with his barons were one of the main causes for the Baron's Revolt and the Magna Carta.)

With that in mind, it is little surprise that medieval handbooks for rulers heavily emphasise a good character, loyal relationships, and morally upstanding behaviour as key to being a successful aristocrat. Tolkien understands this, and so his depiction of kings and aristocrats focusses strongly on the relational ties between them: the fealty and oaths they have sworn, the ancient friendships and marriages that connect them, the personal admiration and sympathy they have for each other. Put differently, medieval aristocrats would readily recognise Aragorn, Theoden, Eomer and Imrahil as model princes.

(For a more detailed discussion of medieval aristocratic values, see here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-.... For a discussion of personal kingship - based on Crusader Kings III - see here: https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-c...)

[pdonis]

> Here's the tax policy quote in context

The context gives further support to the article's statement that George Martin didn't think things through very well before posing his questions. Or even read the books very carefully, for that matter. For example, Martin's questions about the orcs are answered, by implication, in Book VI, Chapter 5:

"[T]he King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Nurnen to be their own."

So as long as whatever orcs were left didn't take up arms against other peoples, they would be left alone in their own lands to make their own way. No genocide.

(In fact, it's not even clear that Martin understands what actually happened to the orcs and other creatures that Sauron had bred. He seems to think they were "in the mountains"--but that's what happened at the end of the Second Age, not the Third--the orcs that survived the War of the Last Alliance hid in various places in the mountains, and remained threats to travelers in the mountains during the Third Age. But it's made clear that that was because at the end of the Second Age, the Ring was not destroyed and Sauron's power was not forever taken away. At the end of the Third Age, it was. Big difference.)

So I also disagree with Martin's take on Tolkien.

[vkou]

Were the slaves just the orcs, or the various people (including orcs, but not all of the orcs) enslaved by Sauron (largely in the East, beyond Mordor)?

[pdonis]

The slaves were probably a mixture of orcs and other races. There might not have been many orcs left at all; in Book VI, Chapter 4, it is said that many of the orcs after Sauron's fall slew themselves or fled away to hide, with the implication that they would not have survived for very long without Sauron's direction.

[justanotherjoe]

It's not an attack of LotR realism I think. But more a meta analysis. The story does end with aragorn's coronation. Millitary general getting popular after winning a war is nothing if not realistic.

Heck, i think it's consistent at least in LotR, that Aragorn must be a good king. A world where it's literally the music of a good god. You literally can't miss by just doing the wholesome thing, as no good deed will go unrewarded.

[jhbadger]

> Millitary general getting popular after winning a war is nothing if not realistic

Exactly. It even works in democracies; Dwight Eisenhower became US president from 1953 to 1961 largely because of his success as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in WWII. And Grant and Washington too, of course.

[adolph]

I took a peek since 53 was 8 years after WWII. What a weird time it must have been. Truman telling Eisenhower that Truman would run as VP is Eisenhower ran as president.

  12 April     1945 Truman assumes presidency after Roosevelt's death
  2  September 1945 WWII ends
  2  November  1948 Truman elected president
  2  November  1952 Eisenhower elected president

[In 1947] As a result of Truman's low standing in the polls, several Democratic party bosses began working to "dump" Truman and nominate a more popular candidate. . . . On July 10, Eisenhower officially refused to be a candidate.

For both Republicans and Democrats, there were movements of support for General Dwight D. Eisenhower . . . . Unlike the latter movement within the Democratic Party, however, the Republican draft movement came largely from the grassroots of the party. By January 23, 1948, the grassroots movement had successfully entered Eisenhower's name into every state . . . . Stating that soldiers should keep out of politics, Eisenhower declined to run . . . . [0]

In July 1947, President Harry S. Truman considered him an ideal candidate for the Democratic Party, and wanted to "groom the general to follow him". That month, Truman even secretly offered to be the vice-presidential candidate if the general would run for president as a Democrat.

Hoping that Eisenhower would run for the Democratic Party, Truman wrote to him in December 1951, saying: "I wish you would let me know what you intend to do." Eisenhower responded: "I do not feel that I have any duty to seek a political nomination."

Although Eisenhower believed he would win the presidency more easily and with a larger congressional majority as a Democrat, he felt the Truman administration had become corrupt and that the next president would have to reform the government without having to defend past policies. The internationalist wing of the Republican Party saw Eisenhower as an alternative to the more isolationist candidate—Senator Robert A. Taft, the son of former president and chief justice William Howard Taft. Before the primaries, Taft was widely referred to as "Mr. Republican" [1]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_presidentia...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Eisenhower_movement

[wbl]

Hurin would be the most famous counterexample.

[donkeybeer]

I think what is written in books vs what is practiced is a bit dubious. It is still true today as it would have been back then, what books profess as good and how people behave in real life is quite different.

[zeekaran]

How does any of GRRM's ASOIAF make realistic sense then?

[Karrot_Kream]

It often doesn't and a lot of historians are very aware of this. The wars of ASOIAF are brutal affairs which make no sense. The idea of total war didn't become a thing until much later on. This is just one example. Bret Devereaux talks about this on his blog [1] and other historians have stuff to say also.

P.S. The comments on this thread are a tire fire. I feel like I'm reading random Twitter drive-by comments oh boy.

[1]: https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-wa...

[gamblor956]

The ACOUP blog post only deals with the Middle Ages, and only on the European Middle Ages. (And a brief reference to the pre-Middle Age eras notes that the Romans were very much proponents of total war.)

The idea of total war didn't become a thing until much later on.

Troy, Assyria, Babylon, Macedonia, Carthage, and Mesopotamia would like to have a word with you on that point. Or they would, if they hadn't been completely wiped out. The Mongol Hordes were known for total warfare. It was their whole spiel: join us, or be completely destroyed.

The very concept of not targeting civilian populations during warfare is so recent that there are people still alive today who were around when the idea was first proposed.

[Attrecomet]

ASOIAF however portrays a very clearly medieval society -- vassalage (badly used in the story, but obviously meant to be quite feudal), the general tech level with castles (not palaces!) and the language used are all meant to evoke a late medieval feeling. What Rome did with Carthage is pretty immaterial in this context, because no medieval European ruler would have either the inclination or the ability to enact such destruction.

I'd also point out that destroying an entire city is not total war. Brutality in war and targeting civilians isn't enough to be total war in itself, especially if it's limited to exceptional circumstances -- in general, Rome was extremely happy to conquer new populations to increase their ability to extract wealth.

[Karrot_Kream]

Sigh okay you got me, I was referring to the European Middle Ages, the implicit background for this thread, for LoTR, and for ASOIAF. I thought the context would be obvious but you win this pedantry.

[lupusreal]

> "Troy, Assyria, Babylon, Macedonia, Carthage, and Mesopotamia would like to have a word with you on that point. Or they would, if they hadn't been completely wiped out."

Rasczak, that you?