In the short-term, the Vale. They have more soldiers, a far superior defensive position, a port city on the same coast as White Harbor, a navy that could potentially allow for a strike on King’s Landing itself or prevent a royalist landing on the North’s eastern shores. 

In the long-term, the Riverlands. They have a larger population, their farmland is larger in terms of acreage, solid interior lines of communication (and defense, if used correctly), and they provide the North with a substantial buffer against any land-based attack and a central position to launch land-based attacks against the Starks’ enemies. Because of that population and farmland, the Riverlands has a huge untapped potential for growth: if you can project political authority and kickstart some economic development, you should be able to raise 15,000 more soldiers than the Vale could provide, and resolve most of the Riverlands’ downsides. 

Ok, now I understand what you’re saying. In terms of what is going to happen in the books, I’m still pretty sure about that. I don’t think Benioff and Weiss care as much about feudal politics as GRRM does – hence their complete excision of The North Remembers plot from ADWD in favor of a more straightforward underdog hero narrative. 

So I think the books are going to be quite different, especially since it’s quite likely that Sansa will be married to the Lord of the Vale Harrold Arryn (and it’s quite possible that he’ll be King of the Vale and the Mountains, given the way that the Vale is gradually sliding into separation from King’s Landing, see the Winged Knights) when the Vale arrives in the North, the Manderlys will be supporting Rickon (who they will probably marry off to a Manderly), and Stannis will likely be holding Winterfell. 

Well, sacks of cities were very hard to prevent, because loot was the main reward of soldiers much more than their actual pay. In terms of a purpose, it was all part of Tywin’s plan to make sure that “no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever.”

Ned, on the other hand, had no such plan because he had no such need. Now, if Ned beats Tywin to King’s Landing, chances are the gates are not going to be opened to him, because Pycelle is only Tywin’s bbf. So there’s going to be a fight for the gates, and that’s what historically led to sacks. Historically, it was understood that a city that fought rather than surrendered would be sacked, because of the high mortality rates for assaulting armies. 

However, the odds weren’t 100% for a sack – a good commander with good subordinates could keep their men in check, and Ned was pretty good. My guess is that he would have emphasized the need to take the Red Keep once they had gotten inside the walls, offering great rewards for the men who took the keep and threatening harsh punishment for anyone who deserted to loot before the Keep was taken, making sure that (rather than sending the common soldiers into the breach as cannon-fodder) officers were in the front lines to guide the men through the breach and towards the castle, etc. 

There would probably still have been violence in the city, there’s no way to avoid that, but on a much smaller scale compared to the destruction of OTL. Certainly, I think Ned would have kept Elia and her children alive, probably to try to get an exchange of prisoners for his sister. 

Well, I’m generally not in favor of the totalitarian rule of philosopher-kings, so there’s that. Although it’s noticeable that Plato shifted his ideas on politics where he didn’t on other philosophical topics – the Laws, for example, recognized that the philospher-king state was not compatible with human nature, argued that lawgivers should persuade rather than dictate, that education was what separated law from coercion, and called for a far more democratic form of government, as rule by a single magistrate risked the abuse of power. 

More importantly, I’ve always thought that it’s vital to understand the historical and political background of the individual, rather than treating philosophers as as sui generis. Plato was an aristocrat in a democratic city, he was related to some of the Thirty Tyrants who had overthrown democratic rule at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and given his relationship with Socrates, was probably rather embittered against Athenian politics. 

So when in the Republic or the Statesman, he argues against democracy and for the rule of “the best” who have been properly educated by philosophers (to agree with Plato), I’m less inclined to take it as pure philosophy and irrefutable logic and more inclined to see class bias, self-interest, and the settling of old scores. 

No, I was skeptical that the North would join the Kingdom of the North while Lysa Arryn was the Regent and Littlefinger was calling her shots. 

warsofasoiaf:

Plato actually seems to be the man to really buy into Varys’s ideology of “a perfect prince.” The notion of the wise and just philosopher-king ruling as a literal “best” aristocrat aligns with Varys designing a ruler from birth to be that thing, and that Aegon’s experiences will render him the least susceptible to corruption.

If anything, Aegon VI and the series at large is a rebuttal to the idealistic notions of the Republic (as it is to Chosen Ones in general) because in reality, imperfection exists at all levels which separates it from Plato’s dreamed Kallipolis.

Thanks for the question, Bombshell.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

Interesting little historical tidbit: the one time Plato tried out his whole philosopher-king idea in practice, while advising the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse, he so infuriated the man that he was sold into slavery as the lenient alternative to the death penalty. 

So Varys’ scheme doesn’t exactly have a great historical track record, and Platonists make very bad political advisers. 

As long as there is money to be made raiding by Houses whose mountain lands are too poor to earn much in the way of being farmed, there will be border raids. 

Yeah, this retcon is among my least favorite – it really doesn’t fit with “Mystery Knight” at all, and it only really happens so that Bloodraven can kill Aenys Blackfyre during the Great Council of 233, which I feel could have been done some other way.