I asked the Q regarding the Free Cities: Oligarchy vs Aristocracy/Monarchy…(1) Was it a real world trend where the former evolved into the latter as Europe moved from the Late Medieval period, through the Renaissance into the Early Modern era? (2) Would you see any of the Free Cities moving in this direction given their geographic separation from the Westerosi monarchies vs the RL proximity of the Italian states to their European neighbours (assuming this evolution happened at all)? – RSAFan.

1. In Renaissance Italy especially. While most of the Italian communes were republics in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, by the beginning of the 14th most had become principalities, with the notable exceptions of Venice, Florence, Lucca, and a few others. (And even then, Florence and Lucca became Dukedoms by the mid-16th century).

2. They’re not that separated. The Narrow Sea is a narrow one, after all.

What is the jurisdiction of any Lord’s right to Pit and Gallows? Example: When Catelyn took Tyrion to the Eyrie instead of Winterfell, was it 100% legal, seeing as she arrested him using her husbands authority and title as the Lord Paramount of the North? Thank you.

It’s an odd case, because Lysa doesn’t actually put Tyrion on trial for his supposed involvement in the attempt to assassinate Bran Stark, but rather for the assassination of Jon Arryn.

But I suppose it could be seen as a case of extradition.

If Jaime had found Arya before Ned Stark’s men, and either killed or severely wounded her, would his status as a kingsguard knight (doing the Queen’s bidding) or as Warden of the East (passing judgment on someone who assaulted a prince) have insulated him from Ned Stark’s ability to seek justice legally?

No and no. Ned’s the Hand, he outranks the Queen, and Wardens are purely military titles with no judicial authority whatsoever.

If anything, Jaime’s Kingsguard status works against him – he’s not supposed to kill the Hand of the King’s children.

What did you think of the watchmen film?

A rather remarkable film that nailed the visuals of the comic almost exactly, but completely misunderstood the themes and meta-textual argument being made.

You write so wonderfully about politics in comics, but a lot of the stuff you touch on is older material. If you don’t mind me asking, are there any current comics you read every month? I’m guessing this current “Cap Is A Nazi Now” run isn’t one of them :P

Thanks! I read quite a bit of modern comics, I just don’t write about them that much because I’m overstretched. At the moment, my current pull list is:

Waid’s Archie.
Autumnlands.
Black Magick.
Black Panther.
Goddamned and Southern Bastards.
Gotham Academy.
Paper Girls.
Saga.
Velvet.
Injection.
Ms. Marvel.
WicDiv.

But I also read a bunch of other stuff when it pops up on Marvel Unlimited or I can get my hands on a review copy.

In your opinion, what were the maneuvres of Daemon and Quentyn in the First Blackfyre Rebellion? I’ve always thought that upon escaping from the Red Keep that they fled to the Riverlands and amassed loyal forces there (Brackens, Lothstons, Butterwells etc.); before swinging through the Westerlands and into the Reach (Fireball at Lannisport then fighting on the Mander). Subsequently they were angling for the capital when met on the Redgrass field. Thoughts?

I explain my theory here and here.

If instead of an oligarchy, the Free Cities (3 daughters and Pentos especially) were governed by an aristocracy/monarchy, would there be a relative increase in Westeros – Essos political intervention, or is the main reason for the canon “lack” of this prescribed to authorial intent or maybe cultural (slavery, language, etc) otherness between these Narrow Sea neighbours? By my count, only about 5 intercontinental marriages of any real prominence in recorded canon

This is actually a really good question. If the Free Cities were monarchies, I think you’d get more interaction because you’d get cases of Westerosi and Essosi getting a dynastic claim on territory leading to war, a la the Hundred Years War. With their oligarchic republics, all it takes is an election and now there’s a new ruling family of whatever Free City, no more claim.

How do you think the Ghiscari were able to wage five wars against Valyria when the Rhoynar, even with their water wizards, got curbstomped pretty quickly? Sorry if this has been asked before.

I think it ultimately comes down to that Valyria was weaker. Smaller territory, fewer soldiers, etc. With the Rhoynar, Valyria could hit them with an entire empire, such overwhelming force that it wasn’t a defeat with a peace treaty and some loss of territory, but a total civilizational collapse.

Shouldn’t Gregor be fighting with a Warhammer or another weapon that requires more blunt strength than skill? I have trouble picturing him as a warrior that uses utilises his intellect when fighting (actually we know that to be true) Or do you think he was compelled to use the sword to emphasis the family’s new founded nobility?

Because if you’re strong enough to wield a greatsword one-handed, you might as well.

Why is Barbrey Dustin the Lady of Barrowton when she was born a Ryswell and the title came with her husband? He must have had an heir, even if they didn’t have children? A cousin mabye, or someone with a claim? Just like before Jon Arryn had a child, there were some possible heirs. And if his marriage to Lysa would have been childless, Lysa would not be the Lady of the Vale, Harry the heir would have become Lord of the Vale, right?

To quote myself:

First, there probably aren’t any Dustins. She and Willam never had any children, and there’s no mention of brothers or cousins or nephews or the like. So I’m guessing there’s no close claim to Barrowton.

Second, Lady Dustin’s kin are powerful. The Ryswells have a lot of horses, which means they have a lot of heavy cavalry compared to other houses. And the Rills are a pretty large territory. There are also a lot of Ryswells, relatively speaking, as Lord Ryswell has three sons and a number of nephews besides. Chances are, one of those Ryswell sons is Lady Dustin’s heir, so challenging Lady Dustin means you challenge Lord Ryswell too.

Third, never discount personality. Lady Dustin is hard as nails, she’s been ruling Barrowton for a long time, and she’s got the support of her own people and the vassal houses of Houses Dustin and Ryswell. So dislodging her is going to mean a fight.

My guess is, Lord Eddard preferred to keep the status quo. If Lady Dustin is a good ruler, and a Ryswell is going to inherit, why alienate two powerful families on behalf of some claimant who doesn’t have what it takes to take Barrowton from her?

Also, given the proximity of the Rills to the Barrowlands, and my own theory that Barrowton is a large livestock market and the Rills are a major center of horse-breeding, I think there are very long-standing relationship between the Ryswells and the Dustins indeed.

So it may well be that the Ryswells are the closest kin to the Dustins.