[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)?

[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.

[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...