
Left to his own devices as king of Mereen, does Hizdahr reinstate slavery?

Just a backup in advance of the detumblring

Yeah, I think @racefortheironthrone is right that it’s hard to interpret the Crow’s Eye tying the priests to the prows of the Ironborn ships in any other way, especially given the ramp-up of “thousands” of blood sacrifices committed by his men in the area, Euron’s history of turning on those who serve him and handing out “poisoned” rewards, and the visions (from Moqorro and Melisandre as well as Damphair) of Euron’s “black and bloody tide.”
For the record, though, I don’t think he’s doing it just to destroy the Redwynes. I think he’s doing it to attain something resembling godhood:
“The bleeding star bespoke the end,” he said to Aeron. “These are the last days, when the world shall be broken and remade. A new god shall be born from the graves and charnel pits.”
“One most of all. A tall and twisted thing with one black eye and ten long arms, sailing on a sea of blood.”
As for who follows him to Oldtown after that, I have two guesses, judging from the tone and imagery we’ve seen so far. One is that Euron (whose ultimate role I think is as the story’s Night’s King/Bloodstone Emperor figure, responsible for unleashing the Long Night) reanimates the dead sailors wight-style, which may be what the true prophet of the Drowned God saw at the end of ADWD:
Patchface jumped up. “I will lead it!” His bells rang merrily. “We will march into the sea and out again. Under the waves we will ride seahorses, and mermaids will blow seashells to announce our coming, oh, oh, oh.”
The other is that Euron wakes something up below the waves with this mass magic-enhanced blood sacrifice on the open water. The Deep Ones history in the area is well-established, both Varys and the Tolands have mentioned krakens stirring (the latter specifically saying it’s in response to blood), it’d be a hideously perfect close to Damphair’s story to face undeniable proof that the humanoid god around whom he rebuilt his life was a projection and the real thing is a monster summoned by Big Brother, and there’s a ton of worldbuilding (Patchface, the squishers, the kraken horn on Claw Isle, the imagery in “The Forsaken,” the relevant material in WOIAF) that could be paving the way.
In other words, think a mix of this:

And this:

Riverrun has only been the “capital” of the Riverlands for the last three hundred years – previously, there have been “capitals” at Oldstones, the Misty Isle, Raventree Hall, Stone Hedge, somewhere near those spots where the Justmans ruled, and indeed at Maidenpool – so the political center of gravity has shifted quite a bit.
But as to why Maidenpool is part of the Riverlands:
More of Cersei’s Lannister favoratism, I suppose.
Quite right. Scutage was supposed to be a sometimes food, and abusing scutage by both raising the rates and imposing it in peace-time was a direct cause of the First Baron’s War and the creation of the Magna Carta.
And while we’re on the topic, let me answer this ask from @kuvirametalbender:
Tagging @racefortheironthrone on this in case I missed something, to add something, or just to dunk all over this question because this is something he understands very well.
Scutage itself evolved in the High Middle Ages where kings would levy the tax in lieu of feudal service, so during peace time, the military wasn’t much different from the levy model, in peace time the scutage wouldn’t be collected any more than the levies would be called. King Richard I would exercise a royal prerogative, deciding whether a tenant would be liable for levies or for the scutage. However, increasingly, the scutage became levied in peacetime, King John the Softsword often levied a two-mark scutage every year, this was one of the big bones of contention with him that led to the First Baron’s War when he levied an unprecedented three-mark scutage in 1214. The Magna Carta forbade scutage save by “the common counsel,” which was the Great Council, a council of barons, bishops, earls, essentially the tenants-in-chief which gradually evolved into the Parliament of England. In 1217, Henry III would often levy the scutage but usually after formal buy-in from the barons. This method of taxation lasted until the early 13th century, when royal taxation became more standardized and better enforced under King Edward II.
Typically in the time period, kings and nobles would have a small retainer who would be in their direct employ, men that they paid to help keep the peace, enforce edicts. This was an obligation, hence why the knight’s fee was the actual level of income needed to provide equipment for the retinue to fulfill the feudal obligation of military service. Depending on the king in question, they would often mandate a certain level of military readiness among the population, such as equipment and drill days, which were enforced to varying degrees of success and set by property holdings and wealth. Key to this was the yeoman class, who ranked below knights, squires, and other landed gentry but above pages. Yeoman, a distinct medieval middle class, were professional or semi-professional warriors often serving as bailiffs and constables, as well as the franklins, who were freemen and often served as aldermen or mayors, and usually required by different royal edicts to maintain a certain degree of equipment. As such, there was a very distinct hierarchy of class that factored into military readiness. The first full-time professional army in the medieval era in western Europe is typically identified as being in France, the army of King Charles VII of France, in 1445.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
Once scutage was more commonly practiced, what did Nobles did with their time, not having to go to wars? Also in the case of an invasion, of a noble’s land was the King expected to use the tax money collected from other nobles to defend the area under attack? Are nobels not expected to raise their own banners anymore since they’re paying a military tax?
Well, some nobles still went to war – after all, war was still for the elite a way to gain royal favor, land, money, and fame, whereas scutage was primarily useful for small landholders who couldn’t afford the costs of campaigns (and who would be unlikely to gain royal attention and favor in battle, given their lowly standing) – but it was now more at their discretion.
But in the most part, the nobility occupied their time by managing their estates, entertaining themselves, socializing and gossiping, or engaging in local, regional, and national politics, just as they had always done.
Finally, yes, the king was supposed to defend any part of their kingdoms from invasion – it’s not really the case that they would refrain from doing so because someone hadn’t paid their taxes because it was still a huge loss of prestige and invasions are rarely that discrete.
Do we know this for sure? At the time Stannis burned “Mance,” the king’s plan was to march on the Dreadfort, not Winterfell. Moreover, when Mel dispatched Mance, her plan was for him to meet Arya by Long Lake, since Mel thought she was the girl on the horse fleeing her marriage (of course, that turned out to be Alys Karstark). It came off to me like Mance came up with the “infiltrate Winterfell” plan all on his own.
This is one of the few things I’m proud to have caught in my first read (and I missed tons) because most people seem to be unaware that Stannis knew about the switch.
My suspicion awakened when I saw Rattleshirt in Stannis war council. WTF was he doing there? Unlike Sigorn, Rattleshirt is a nobody whom his own fellow raiders balk at him. Stannis would have never invited someone like him, ruby or not.
There is also Val, who tried to escape a few times and even kill her guards, at the same time begging Stannis to spare Mance’s life and promising to marry a kneeler if he does so. Next scene, Val stands besides Stannis during the burning and behaves meekly afterwards.
And if Val knows… maybe Tormund does too, adding extra trust to his deal with Jon and explaining what I see as feigned surprise during the reading of the Pink Letter’s Mance tidings.
That still leaves me curious as to what Stannis’ plan for Mance actually was, especially given the timing. What did Stannis get out of this, exactly? How is it worth the risk? The Boltons aren’t occupying Winterfell at this point, so there’s nothing to infiltrate, and anyway, Stannis doesn’t send him on a mission, but instead leaves him with Jon at the Wall while planning to march on the Dreadfort. Mel wonders to herself regarding Mance “was I wrong to spare this one?” with no mention of Stannis’ involvement, and it would hardly be the first time she manipulated events beyond his knowledge.
My guess it had nothing to to with Winterfell at that point but this interaction with Jon might have convinced Stannis
Even if she (Val) accepts her husband, that does not mean the wildlings will
follow him, or you. The only man who can bind them to your cause is Mance Rayder.“I know that,” Stannis said, unhappily. "I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I’ll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the
man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you
encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of
pudding. Mance Rayder’s life is forfeit by every law of the Seven
Kingdoms.““The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance.”
So, any original plan was likely seeking the allegiance of the Free Folk to his cause.
Edit: And Mel mentions Stannis but she is unclear who took the decision
Yes. Mance was supposed to be his advance man in Winterfell destabilizing the Boltons ahead of the Battle of Ice.
“Our false king has a prickly manner,” Melisandre told Jon Snow, “but he
will not betray you. We hold his son, remember. And he owes you his
very life.”“Me?” Snow sounded startled.
“Who else, my lord? Only his life’s blood could pay for his crimes,
your laws said, and Stannis Baratheon is not a man to go against the law
… but as you said so sagely, the laws of men end at the Wall.
I love when my intuitions are validated by people who remember ADWD better than I do!
I don’t think regicide is quite the issue – after all, Kingsguard have defended queens accused of adultery and therefore treason – as much as who Tyrion is. Yes, he is related to the royal family, but he is not of the immediate royal family and is on the queen’s side of the family to boot.
Hence, Tyrion isn’t covered by the oath of the Kingsguard to serve as bodyguards for the royal family so can’t call upon them to serve as champions in a trial by combat.
(Throwing two title related questions together for avoidance of repetition.)
I wasn’t able to find GRRM lamenting that – indeed, I think he finds the simplicity of the titles one less thing he has to worry about, like the gender of horses and the width of hips.
But if we were going to start over from scratch, I think I would avoid copying historical systems too closely – baron, count, duke, earl, etc. all have specific cultural meanings that don’t necessarily work in Westerosi contexts.
Rather, I think I’d like to build on existing Westerosi terms and just use them more systematically – so no referring to Ned Stark as “Lord of Winterfell” or “Lord Stark” but rather “Lord Paramount” or “my lord paramount” being the correct form of address – so you’d have Lords Paramount, Lords Principal, Lords Ordinary, and then landed knights and masterly houses (which I would also clear up a bit – if the title of “master” is going to be a recognizably northern thing, there should probably be more than two examples in the series, and I feel like they could have sprinkled in some more masters among the ranks of Robb’s bannermen).
What is the correct use of the honorific “my lord”? We see it used as a general term to refer to anyone socially superior, used uncontroversially to refer to Tyrion and Jaime, but apparently controversial when applied to Edmure before Hoster’s death. What is the correct usage?
The controversy shouldn’t be over Edmure being called “my lord” – that is right and proper as befitting the heir and immiment next Lord Paramount of the Riverlands – but over him being referred to as “Lord Edmure” before the death of Hoster Tully in ASOS.
As you say, “my lord” is used to refer to social superiors as a matter of courtesy, but it’s not a title with legal rights and privileges in the same way that “Lord” is.
Well, possession is 9/10ths of the law, so I would imagine as they’d be in the process of collecting them, they’d have a good deal of say in how much to pass on.
As for troops, it was pretty clear from the hop that LF wouldn’t be the main force in subduing the Riverlands – hence why the Freys were given Riverrun, Darry, and (de facto if not de jure) Seagard. Mostly, LF was given the title to keep the Freys in check by denying them the Lord Paramouncy.
Maybe maybe his plan is to bank shot off that to try to get a rising in the Riverlands in Sansa Stark’s name, but no LF has stayed away because A. he doesn’t have the manpower to subdue it, B. he’s a known Lannister loyalist so gaining their loyalty would be extremely difficult, and C. even he can’t be in two places at once and the Vale is more important.