I resent how the last season ends. Some people praised that there are some changes at last, as kings will no longer be born but will be elected by the elite few. As far as I can see, this means that the current peace is nothing more than a truce. And wars will return to Westeros, as memories of disasters fade fast, suggested in this article in the Economist.
There are some interesting precedents in history that give a tantalizing clue what may happen next, especially on how things will go wrong and the Westeros ends up in wars or repression again. Here I list a couple of possibilities with historical precedents.
- Bran (or his successor) rules as an absolute monarch, like the Targaryens. The real historical precedent of this possibility is from 17th-century Russian empire when Empress Anna tore apart the condition and ruled as an absolute monarch.
- Bran is succeeded by another Three-eye Raven. I guess both Tibet in the early 20th-century (1911-1951) and the Papal States in the Medieval World are good examples. I thank my friend, Chen Li, for suggesting this possibility. One obvious problem of this outcome is succession. Putting Tibet aside (which is too controversial for me to write about), many of the conclaves that selected the next pope were accompanied by riots in the Roma city, because of the lack of authorities on the top. Another obvious issue is that the new ruler may seek to enrich or empower his or her family. I guess the most notorious examples was the Borgias. Yet this is extremely common in late medieval Italy. After all, this is where the word "nepotism" originated from.
- When barons of Westeros cannot agree on the king elected. Yet this option still may lead to civil war. Think about the Wars of Roses. It started with the rival Lancastrian and York supporters' disagreement on who sits on the throne, or who should be the next king. This leads to bloody civil wars, with Warwick, the Kingmaker, who started with supporting the House of York, then fell out with the York king, Edward IV of England, supported his brother, George of Clarence, and then supported Edward of Westminster, the Lancastrian heir. These bloody wars didn't end until Henry Tudor defeated Richard of Gloucester in the battle of Bosworth. It is estimated more than 1100 people died in this single battle.
- The King of the Six Kingdoms tries to re-claim The Kingdom of North. It is striking how little people can resist the temptation of reunification or "re-claim lost lands". This drove Edward III and V of England to invade France, causing some of the most bloody episodes in the Hundred Years' War. Also ever since the Qin Dynasty established a central government to rule China, I have not seen any dynasty did not try to conquer the whole country.
- Sansa's heir tries to conquer Westeros. A similar thing happened when Edward III tried to claim the French throne for himself through his mother, Isabella of France, the last of the Capet, despite the French practiced Salic law for the succession. This gave an excuse for Edward III to wage war on France, and eventually moved to become the Hundred Years' War between England and France. In one of the battles, the Battle of Agincourt, a "brilliant English victory", at least 4400 people were dead, and more than 300 French soldiers were taken as prisoners.
Before Empress Anna could ascend the Russian throne, the Supreme Privy Council, the body that ruled Russia during the reign of Anna's predecessor, asked her to sign a list of conditions before her accession. The list includes conditions that she cannot declare wars, sign treaties, impose new taxes, and spend public revenues. All these matters would be decided by the Supreme Privy Council. This is the condition effectively replacing Russian autocracy with oligarchy. Empress Anna, then Duchess of Cortland, signed the condition. Yet upon arriving the capital, with the support from other nobles that opposed the Supreme Privy Council, she abrogated the conditions. She dissolved the Supreme Privy Council, exiled or executed most of the members and their supporters, and confiscated their possessions. Later she ruled like an autocrat.
How things ended in Westeros, or how things started in Westeros, is effectively an oligarchy. Yet there is no power to stop the current ruler (in this case, Bran Stark), from making a move like Anna of Russia, without entering into another civil war. It may not be a bad thing to have enlightened absolutism, yet no one can be sure there won't be another Mad King on the throne.
Some people may argue that Bran does not have the intention to do so because he saw the brutality of wars, or he is good-natured. This argument, however, underestimates how time and power could change people. I guess no one could tell that Ivan the Terrible of Russia would be a tyrant when he was a baby. Certainly, no one thought Catherine II of Russia could lead a nation to glory when she was brought up as a German princess.
None of the Papal successions directly lead to war, even though bribery scandals were common. However, it is worth noticing that attempts to depose Pope Alexander VI (the notorious Borgia pope), did lead a French invasion, and thousands of lives of civilians and soldiers were claimed.
Even though I could never understand why the Plantagenets were so obsessed with their continental inheritance, I guess I can think of a couple potential rationales for this to happen.
To begin with, it could serve as a distraction. Wars are expensive. Wars are also financial stimulus from the government. If there were a financial crisis in the Six Kingdoms, waging a war against the Kingdom of North can be a distraction for public opinion, a convenient tool to suppress domestic unrest, and maybe a way to save the economy. The great depression that happened in 1929 contributed a lot to the initiation of World War II.
Secondly, it can be used as a tool to elevate the status or prestige of a new king. Edward II waged wars against Scotland because he wanted to show that he was as good as his father, Edward I of England. Many of the Roman Emperors went on campaigns to establish prestige and army loyalty. In the ancient Roman empire, glory from the battlefield is almost a necessity for an emperor to rule. I don't see why this would be different if a new king is elected in the Six Kingdom and is desperately in need to make him distinguishable from other nobles from great houses.
Thirdly, it could be to secure an election, or fend off a contender, or consolidate power. A victorious war always boosts the popularity of a leader domestically. The most recent example would be the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. It is believed that all the foreign wars waged by Loius XIV of France helped him to consolidate power and made his court at Versailles the center of France. Either a baron who wants to be the next king of the Six Kingdom or a king who wants more power could make this move, with some sort of justification.
I am not disputing that I am very disappointed by the ending of the Game of Thrones. I am especially dismayed by the proposal from Samwell that "everyone should have a say" in who should rule. I wonder whether whoever wrote the script is living in a sag, completely ignorant to the troubles in democracies, from Thailand to India, Hungary to the U.S. The proposal of democracy without any mechanism to counter populism is ludicrous. I would probably feel better if the directors of this season were taking money from some fractions to make this naked propaganda.
Had I got to choose, I would probably end the series with Daenerys on the throne and rule with violence and blood. It fits my idea that life is a cycle and no one can escape. In Chinese, it is said "天道好轮回，苍天饶过谁". I think this ending would be a more chilling revelation of life, as things started with people hoping to get rid of the tyranny from the House of Targaryen, yet end up with it. It may be a dark sense of humor, yet it would be a better ending. Or maybe end the series with the Night King ruling. If everyone were dead, there will be no more wars and death.
